M I N U T E S

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI

FEBRUARY 2, 2004

INTRODUCTORY

The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 2, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN and CRAYTON 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 20, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Mr. Loveless.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Hindman noted that a report would be added under Reports and Petitions. Resolution 27-04 was introduced by Mr. Loveless and placed under New Business.

Upon his request, Mr. Loveless made the motion to allow Mr. John to abstain from B20-04. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Hutton and a second by Mr. Ash.

SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B19-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of Clearview Drive, north of the present city limits; establishing permanent PUD-6 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this to be a 3.87 acre tract located in north central Columbia. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial by a 5 to 3 vote due to density issues.

Mr. Dudark pointed out the surrounding zoning to be R-1, single family in the City and R-S, single family in the County. The majority of the Commission felt the requested density, which included buildings from two to eight units, was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding zoning.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with A Civil Group, 711 W. Ash, introduced the property owner, John Payne, and handed out a sketch of the project. Using a large drawing, which displayed the area, he pointed out the Forest Ridge Subdivision in order to illustrate how the street would connect to the Clearview Subdivision. Mr. Gebhardt also used the drawing to point out a new development, Cross Creek, and how Providence would continue to be extended with further access out to 763 through the Shalimar Subdivision. He noted that part of the Forest Ridge discussion was about access off of Brown School and stated this project would help relieve that situation. The connection to Clearview would be the second connection. The site plan showed ten buildings, ten duplexes or 20 units. The statement of intent stated it was 20 units in 10 buildings. At the Planning and Zoning meeting, Mr. Gebhardt explained that he had talked about it being a good idea to have a diversity of housing types. He noted that the Clearview Subdivision already had quite a bit of diversity. Although the Staff Report noted the Subdivision as R-1, he commented that there were duplexes and four-plexes in the Clearview neighborhood. Since this was an in-fill development, he felt the density to be appropriate. The intention of the sketch was to show one lot with nine buildings on it and another lot, created by the extension of the road, with one building on it. These buildings would be served by internal drives and have external parking - - similar to a condominium development. That was done to alleviate any fears about the property not being under one ownership and management. Mr. Gebhardt felt the parking issue had been addressed by providing exterior parking coupled with garages in each unit. They had not had the opportunity to see if there was any interest in a two-car garage per unit as they had at Forest Ridge, but noted that they would be willing to discuss it.

John Payne explained that he and his wife were sole owners of Payne Enterprises and that they had owned the property in question since 1986. Because the property was small, the PUD numbers sometimes looked larger. He noted that Clearview residents had wanted a second outlet for many years for emergency uses. The way the area has been laid out, they would be able to provide that second outlet and would also be able to provide the City with an access to loop the existing water system to Forest Ridge. Mr. Payne also pointed out that the project conformed with the Metro 2020 Plan.

Jay Wilson, 5300 Tessa Way, explained that he was raising his family in a duplex. He noted that he owned a piece of rental property in Clearview and was having problems with access and stormwater. He was sure the City could do a much better job and thought this would put them one step closer to annexation.

Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing to the February 16, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Janku commented about an e-mail he received in opposition to this development. He also stated that he agreed with the recommendation of the Commission and thought it should be turned down. When Forest Ridge came in, the developers had been very careful and willing to make sure the duplex development was buffered from that Subdivision by their own R-1 development. He felt this site should be developed, but as R-1.

Because this property was surrounded by single family, Mr. Ash did not think they would have to worry about duplex zoning spreading. Any downside from having this property developed more dense would be offset by getting the additional access. Other than the e-mail received from Ms. Fowler, Mr. Ash noted there was not an outpouring of people against it at either the Planning and Zoning meeting or at tonight's meeting. In addition, there was someone living in the neighborhood who commented on the good things that could happen because of it. Regarding single family in the immediate area, he noted a PUD-7 existed on the other side of Forest Ridge. Mr. Ash felt it only fair that if they were going to extract some off-site improvements or try to address storm water problems, the developer should be allowed to recoup some of the extractments by developing at a slightly higher density. He liked the fact the project was under single ownership, the fact that it was planned, and the fact it was a small area. He did not have a problem with it.

Mayor Hindman asked about the length of the private driveway. Mr. Gebhardt replied it would be 700 feet. Mayor Hindman asked about the entrance and exit. Mr. John said it would tie into both Clearview and Forest Ridge. Mayor Hindman agreed it was a good development because it was infill development, it did not dramatically change in density from what surrounded it, and it would not have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood it would go through. He agreed it would impact the neighborhood it would back up to, but questioned if that meant they could not have duplexes next to single family anywhere. Mr. Janku noted that in many cases, the duplex developer would be expected to provide some buffering.

Mr. Janku asked if this would be a private drive and if there would technically be public access. Mr. John explained the connecting piece to be a public street and the private drive was just an east/west running street.

Mayor Hindman asked if there would be sidewalks along the private drive. He was told they would have to submit a PUD plan. Mr. Janku suggested adding it to the statement of intent if they wanted to ensure it would be in the plan. Mr. Ash asked if they could also address screening requirements as part of the plan. Mr. Janku thought that too would have to be in the statement of intent. He explained that the statement spells out the minimum requirements that need to be met in the plan. If it was not in the statement, they could try to add things at the plan stage, but it would be difficult. He indicated they needed to spell out, clearly, what they wanted in the statement of intent.

Mr. John asked what kind of screening the developer was talking about. Mr. Gebhardt said he did not show screening on the drawing because he thought it was obvious that it would be necessary. He assured the Council that when the plan was brought forward it would have screening on it. He was amenable to landscape screening rather than fencing, or both.

Mr. John asked about screening requirements on a PUD to residential neighborhoods. On two units per building, Mr. Dudark replied, there was not much in the way of a screening requirement, but when that number was exceeded, the screening requirements were applicable - eight percent opacity. Mr. John asked about the sidewalks along the private driveway. Mr. Gebhardt responded he would show it on the plan if that was what the Council wanted. Mr. Loveless noted he would be required to build sidewalks along the connecting public street on both sides. Mr. Gebhardt agreed, and added they would be four-foot sidewalks.

Mr. John asked about the garage capacity. Mr. Gebhardt replied that usually was an issue, but they had not received any feedback on it. He noted a school of thought about two-car garages attracting a different type of tenant than a one-car garage. If they were to do that, he thought they would probably eliminate some of the outside parking. He indicated they could put it in the statement of intent or put it on the plan. Mr. Gebhardt said he could come back with a plan having two-car garages, landscape screening, fencing, or both, sidewalks for the private street, and all of the other sidewalks that would be required.

Mr. Boeckmann pointed out the Council would not be voting on this issue until the next Council Meeting.

B20-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 63 and on the north side of Gans Road; establishing permanent PUD-1, PUD-3, PUD-4, O-P, C-P and C-3 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark showed the subject property on the overhead. This property totaled 528 acres. When excluding the Highway 63 right-of-way, it totaled 489 acres. He explained the request as follows: Tract 1 (29 acres) PUD-1 for single family use, a total of 20 units; Tract 2 (74 acres) PUD-3 for medium density residential, a total of 220 dwelling units; Tract 3 (130 acres including Philips Lake) PUD-4 for higher density residential including multi-family apartments, a total of 519 dwelling units; Tract 4 (62 acres) planned office with 425 square feet of floor area; Tract 5 (76 acres) planned commercial for retail commercial development with a total of 700,000 square feet; Tract 6 (44 acres) planned office with 250,000 square feet; Tract 7 (28 acres) planned commercial in the amount of 100,000 square feet of floor area; Tract 8 (22 acres) C-3 commercial zoning with an estimated 200,000 square feet; and Tract 9 (23 acres) planned commercial with 250,000 square feet. The application contained a list of permitted uses for each tract and other limitations and restrictions including height limits and setbacks from the Lake, Gans Creek, and Clear Creek. The surrounding zoning was R-M, multi-family, to the north, which included a mobile home park and general commercial, which included a convenience store. To the east, south, and, west, the zoning was A-1 and R-S. The University was across 63 to the east. There were homes to the south, but mostly vacant farm, and pasture land to the south and west. The Metro 2020 Plan showed the area as a combination of commercial employment and neighborhood land use. The proposed zoning plan, Mr. Dudark reported, was substantially in conformance with the Metro 2020 Plan.

In regards to traffic, Mr. Dudark explained, the existing roads serving the development to be Ponderosa (a frontage road going along the east side next to Highway 63), Gans Road on the south and Bearfield Road on the west. He noted all were two-lane, asphalt roads maintained by the County and MoDOT. Under the proposal, up to 350 dwelling units could be built on the property, primarily on the PUD portions, Tracts 1, 2, and 3. Some of the other tracts would allow residential use, but the zoning for 1, 2, and 3 would be exclusively residential. Up to 350 dwelling units could be built without completing a traffic study or making any road improvements. He explained this was based on a finding that the traffic would be distributed from the 350 dwelling units such that the existing roads would be able to handle traffic from that level of development. Traffic was expected to increase about 1,000 trips per day once the 350 dwelling units were completed. A traffic impact study would be required before construction of more than 350 units or before approval of any plans for any office or commercial development on any of the property. The feasibility of a new intersection was mentioned early on which was shown on the Major Roadway Plan. The approximate location was shown on the overhead. Mr. Dudark noted that a traffic study was completed which showed it would be feasible to build a diamond interchange about 1.3 miles south of Route AC, without interfering with the operation of Highway 63 or the interchange at Route AC. MoDOT reviewed the study and provided conceptual approval to the diamond interchange. The applicant proposed providing one-half of the cost of the interchange, to be recovered under a TDD, and absorbing the ordinary cost of constructing arterial and collector streets serving the development, such as the relocation of Gans Road to the new interchange.

Mr. Dudark explained a conceptual water quality protection plan was prepared for the applicant by consulting firms in regards to stormwater. The plan consisted of measures to intercept surface runoff and remove contaminants before the runoff left the site and entered into receiving streams. The City hired CH2M Hill to review the plan which they found sufficient for the project to proceed, while offering a number of recommendations for addressing various issues uncovered by the review. A specific stormwater management plan would be prepared for each individual tract prior to development. The application before the Council limited the impervious surface to a specific percentage for each tract and ranges from 15 to 85 percent depending upon the tract and zoning. The total impervious surface on the entire development, without any parkland, would not exceed 35.5 percent.

In regards to public services, Mr. Dudark noted, this was in the City's water service area with a City water line being located about 1500 feet north of the site. This would be extended to the site by the developer. The City had electrical service north of the property and the City's Water and Light Department would extend lines to the site. A City sanitary sewer line was located in Clear Creek, about 600 feet away, and would need to be extended to the site by the City or the developer. He indicated the Clear Creek Pump Station sewerage basin might need to be expanded, but no other improvements were needed. Fire protection would be provided by City Fire Station No. 8, located at Bearfield and Nifong.

The applicant was requesting C-3 open zoning on Tract 8. Mr. Dudark explained the City could provide conditional approval of C-3 zoning on the completion of a traffic study and stormwater management plan before any development was allowed. However, the City could not exclude any uses permitted in the C-3 district or restrict the number, height, or size of any free-standing sign. Under open zoning, City approval of a site development plan was not required and it was questionable whether the City could restrict the type or height of any outdoor lighting or the location of access driveways. Mr. Dudark stated that Staff recommended the use of low impact development techniques to minimize the amount of runoff and improve the quality of water leaving the site. With almost 2,000,000 square feet of office and retail commercial floor space proposed, about 10,000 parking spaces would be needed. Staff suggested that only the minimum number of parking spaces be provided, some spaces be delayed until shown to be actually needed, and the feasibility of shared parking, even multi-level parking, be considered.

The recommendation was for Council approval on the requested zoning on Tracts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and disapproval on the zoning requests for Tracts 3, 8 and 9. The recommendation on Tracts 3 and 9 was due primarily to the uncertainty as to whether or not the parkland would be involved. Those were the two tracts the applicant proposed for possible City acquisition. On Tract 8, the recommendation dealt with the nature of the C-3 zoning request. The recommendation for approval included the statements of intent and the proposed restrictions provided by the applicant. Recommendation was also subject to three conditions. The first was to provide a stormwater management plan for each tract, using low impact development techniques to the maximum extent practical. The next was to provide a traffic impact study before the construction of more than 350 dwelling units or any office or commercial development. The study must show the planned street improvements can adequately handle the development. MoDOT must approve the construction of the interchange and the necessary financing must be made available. The last was that they incorporate the use of parking space efficiency techniques to the maximum extent feasible. He noted that the recommendation before the Planning and Zoning Commission included a condition regarding the possible downzoning of property in the future if adequate progress was not made toward implementing the street improvements. It had been excluded from the ordinance before the Council due to objections from the applicant.

At a the public work session last Thursday evening, Mr. Beck pointed out that they had been updated as far as City park financing, both short and long term. The Council then had a closed session to discuss whether or not the City should pursue a regional park in accordance with the City's Master Plan. That Plan called for a regional park in south or southeast Columbia. He explained a regional park could be of varying sizes, with or without a golf course. During the meeting, the Council directed Staff to see if the City could develop a regional park in the subject area. Mr. Beck commented that Staff would be discussing, not only the Philips property area, but also the Crane property as they relate to a regional park. He pointed out discussions with other state agencies as to how they might work together. Mr. Beck noted that he and Staff met with the Presiding Commissioner last week, along with some of the County's Public Works Staff, to discuss traffic in this area on a short and long term basis. In the short term, they discussed the need for some upgrade to Bearfield Road and how that might be accomplished. Longer term, if the plan was implemented, the interchange would be constructed at Gans Road. He noted that would alleviate the overcrowding condition occurring presently at AC.

Regarding the 350 homes that could be built, Mr. Janku asked, if those same tracts would allow schools or a church. He asked if there had been any thought about "what if" they wanted to substitute something. Mr. Dudark replied that had not been determined, but he thought some sort of equivalent traffic generation rate could be calculated to take part of the capacity.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at 203 Executive Building, spoke on behalf of the Philips Family, and the applicant, Elvin Sapp. He reiterated that this was a packaged proposal with annexation and zoning in nine different zoning districts. He said they were going to let the facts and science state their argument. Mr. Simon felt that what Mr. Sapp had done was a testimony to the commitment he had to make this project work and to do it right. The commitments already made and required to be fulfilled before he could use any part of the property with respect to the water quality plans, the comprehensive traffic impact study, the break in access, and the development agreements were further testimony to his commitment to make this project work. Additional testimony was the people Mr. Sapp had hired. He introduced Ron Shy, a local engineer; Julie Nolfo, a traffic engineer with Crawford, Bunte, Brammeier; Jonathan Jones, a water quality protection engineer; Trent Stober, MEC Water Resources of Columbia; and Mark Farnen, public relations, Woodruff Communications. Mr. Simon noted than Mr. Paul Mehrle of Columbia could not attend the meeting due to a family emergency. He was going to speak on the design of BMPs and how BMPs work because his firm had designed BMPs for heavy industrial concerns where the quality of runoff was essentially sludge. He passed around a letter from Mr. Mehrle, to be made part of the record and asked the Council to read it. He also had letters from some immediate neighbors in support of the project which he entered into the record.

Ron Shy, 5600 S. Highway KK, pointed out the Gans Creek watershed on the overhead and explained it consisted of about 9,150 acres. The Philips tract, which drained into the Creek, consisted of about one percent. When evaluating the potential impacts with regards to the property, he felt that to be significant. Because of the array and redundancies of the BMPs that would be used on this tract, Mr. Shy believed it would be a model for other communities interested in this sort of thing.

Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Shy if he had similar figures for Clear Creek or if he was counting it as part of the Gans Creek Watershed. Mr. Shy stated it was not part of the Gans Creek Watershed and he thought it was about 14 percent of the Clear Creek watershed.

Julie Nolfo, a professional traffic operations engineer with Crawford, Bunte, Brammeier, St. Louis, Missouri, explained they were asked to evaluate feasibility and the possible configuration of a future interchange at Route 63 and Gans Road. The proposed location was chosen primarily due to two reasons: it provided them some distance from Gans Creek so that the ramps to and from 63 and Gans Road would not need to be built via bridge and it reduced any impacts upon the watershed associated with putting vehicles close to the creek. They chose a conventional diamond interchange for four reasons: it was the most common interchange configuration and met drivers expectations; it was highly adaptable to a range of traffic volumes; it had a relatively low construction cost and need for right-of-ways; and the Major Roadway Plan loosely indicated a diamond interchange was what was initially conceived at this location. When they looked at how the ramp terminals would work at the new interchange with Gans Road, they looked at how they would work on Route 63 with traffic entering and exiting the highway. They also looked at the impacts on the adjacent interchange at Route AC. They found this location provided for very acceptable operating conditions and level of service - C. Ms. Nolfo stated that in most cases level C was exceeded. They made recommendations for appropriate acceleration lane lengths, deceleration lane lengths, and spacing of the ramp terminals at Gans Road. In all situations tested, they found this interchange was feasible. She also reiterated the fact that MoDOT had already granted conceptual approval of the plan.

Jonathon Jones, Wright Water Engineers, Denver, Colorado, spoke on behalf of their full consulting team, All State Consultants and MEC Water Resources, both of Columbia, Dr. Robert Pavlowski of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, and Dr. Edwin Herricks of the University of Illinois, Champaign, Urbana. He displayed a slide of Gans Creek under wet weather conditions just down stream from the subject property. Their intent with the stormwater management plan was to "wear the water out" - to subject the water to one BMP after another until it finally left the site. He noted certain commitments that applied to Philips Lake, also known as Bristol Lake. He indicated that Philips Lake provided exceptional protection for Clear Creek, but the intent was to remove the pollutants from the stormwater runoff before they got into the lake. The lake would be an extremely effective failsafe mechanism even though that was not the intent. CH2M Hill, Entrix (retained by current property owners), and their team have concluded it would be feasible to reduce the nutrient loading to the lake relative to its current condition and to actually improve the appearance of the lake. That was their intent. They were committed to preparing a lake management plan and working closely with the City and the lake quality water experts of the City.

Regarding stream channel stability, Mr. Jones stated their commitment to be the reduction of all storms from the two year down to less than the current rates of discharge. In greater than the two year event, they would match the historic peak discharge rates. A 300-foot wide buffer would be provided along Gans Creek. On every major drainageway that was coming into Philips Lake, there would be devices known as forebays, which promote sedimentation of pollutants and wetlands. During the construction phase, the team suggested that a ten-year frequency design storm or whatever frequency was specified by the City, be utilized to ensure they have a conservative program in place.

Mr. Jones stated that BMPs really do work provided they are properly planned, designed, constructed, implemented, monitored, and maintained. He showed slides of different BMPs that would be utilizing and facilities where they have been used. Mr. Jones explained that they know they work because the American Society of Civil Engineers and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency maintain a national stormwater BMP performance database that they were privileged to serve as the clearinghouse for. He displayed and explained the graphs on the overhead . Based on the evidence available, they could say if properly designed, maintained, and monitored BMPs were effective at organic compound removal. He reminded everyone they were suggesting that one layer after another, after another of treatment be used. He explained that would be how one compensated for certain measures that were not up at a high 80 or 90 percent level. Following one up with another would eventually get you to the level of attainment needed. CH2M Hill's review letter, prepared on the City's behalf, of the team's work cited five examples around the United States of low impact development projects that were currently being monitored and were working with exceptional effectiveness. Mr. Jones thought CH2M Hill's summary statement regarding BMPs was very important. The report the five-member consortium prepared proposed a suite of BMP options ranging from conventional to innovative, which combined and properly designed would provide an adequate level of quantity and quality protection for the streams.

From day one, Mr. Jones noted their charge had been to protect the streams. They would be well protected at either the 30 or 36 level. From their standpoint, as drainage design engineers, he stated that 36 percent was a moderate level of development as they frequently worked with residential developments at 40 to 50 percent impervious area. They frequently worked with hospitals, schools, libraries, churches, sports complexes, and etc., that had greater than 50 percent impervious area. At 36 percent impervious area, it would still leave 64 percent that was undeveloped which was more than adequate to intensively manage the stormwater. The net effect of going from 30 to 36 percent was that the low impact development practices needed to be modestly larger. The CH2M Hill report stated the limit on imperviousness was mostly dictated by practicality and the cost of the mitigation measures.

Mr. Jones suggested careful reading of the work by the Center for Watershed Protection regarding the impervious cover model. They noted studies of that model had not been performed in karst settings and that studies had not been performed in this region. Their writing strongly emphasized the importance of disconnecting impervious areas and using low impact development practices, which the team was strongly endorsing, as did CH2M Hill. He also noted the impervious area limits they advocate apply to an entire watershed, not an individual development site. Mr. Jones said that the vast majority of studies have not addressed sites with this level of BMPs. He noted they were not talking about two watersheds that were pristine and completely undisturbed, where a 10 percent level of urbanization was being imposed. They were talking about streams that have already been impacted by man's activities. On impervious area limitations, CH2M Hill's report quoted that development usually increases runoff, but the main issue was not so much to reduce the imperviousness, but to allow the space to properly manage it. CH2M Hill agreed that imperviousness could be mitigated with a judicious combination of site planning and engineering techniques. Mr. Jones commented that the impacts were highly site specific - they depended upon the characteristics of the site that was proposed for development and the receiving stream. If you were discharging into a channel stream that was bedrock, logic would tell you there was going to be a significantly different influence than if you were discharging into a stream that had a sandy channel.

Mr. Ash commented he had been told stormwater quantity and quality could actually be quantified and measured as opposed to just discussing the tools that would be used to improve them. He asked if such measures existed. Mr. Jones replied that stormwater regulation nationally was still fundamentally a BMP based program without, in 99.9 percent cases, numeric modeling and monitoring being done, however, the technology existed to monitor BMP performance. Mr. Ash commented that he was somewhat swayed by the argument that it was not just necessarily the impervious surface that mattered, but the stormwater quality and quantity. If they would not be making things worse, but making them as good, if not better, he thought it made sense. He asked Mr. Jones if he felt they could hold to that promise at even a higher level of impervious surface than what was being proposed. Mr. Jones quoted the CH2M Hill report and said it was not so much the magnitude of imperviousness, but rather one's ability to deal with it. He indicated if they were at 50 percent, that would be more runoff to manage in less space and that proper site planning was fundamentally related to the BMPs being used. Mr. Jones noted there were some parts of the site that would just not be developed because they would not be suitable for development, an added constraint. On this particular site, they would get beyond a certain level and it would not be feasible. Mr. Ash asked if Mr. Jones felt they were close to that point at current levels. Mr. Jones replied no. Mr. Ash asked Mr. Jones if he was confident they could maintain, if not make better, the stormwater quantity and quality as opposed to pre-development. Mr. Jones responded that he had been asked that at the Planning hearing - if total runoff volume would increase as a consequence of development. He explained that he had answered yes. He noted they had roughly calculated the increase over the course of the year would be in the two creeks. Total volume of flow in streams would undoubtedly increase due to the development, but the increases would be modest. Key to the situation was that they were proposing that the peak rates of discharge, not total volume of stormwater, would be metered so slowly back into the streams that stream channels would not be eroded and there would not be unsightly deposits of sediment in the streams. He said the physical characteristics of the streams would not change.

Mr. Ash understood that more would come in, rather than soak into the ground, but the BMPs would prevent them from coming in too quickly and would also remove the pollutants before they came in. He said still more may seep into the creek than would soak into the ground, pre-development. Mr. Jones agreed. By quantity, Mr. Ash understood it would not rush in and cause erosion. Mr. Jones replied their sincere intent was to mitigate each and every one of the problems.

Mayor Hindman asked about the impact to the lake with respect to BMPs and LIDs. He asked if it would be usable without further dredging and whether or not it would be suitable for swimming. With the up gradiant treatment measures like low-impact development, Mr. Jones replied, they believe it likely, as does CH2M Hill, that the existing nutrient load to the lake would actually be reduced relative to current levels. Mr. Janku asked if there were things upstream coming in from other properties. Mr. Jones replied yes. He explained there were 22 acres of land not associated with this development that also drain into the Philips Lake. That area had sources of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen. In regards to dredging the lake and removing existing weeds, Mr. Jones indicated it needed work irrespective of what kinds of BMPs go on up gradient. The lotus problem was one that would need to be dealt with as the area urbanized. Regarding the lake being suitable for swimming, Mr. Jones stated it would not be suitable during and after rainfall runoff events because data showed elevated levels of coliform and other pathogens during runoff events and following them. Mr. Ash asked if the lake was currently suitable for swimming after a rain. Mr. Jones replied that it was not. He added that predominantly agricultural land drained into the lake and bacteria levels, based on available data, were high in the lake. He noted the tremendous water fowl population at the lake.

Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Jones to address the long term maintenance needs of the lake. He assumed, with the BMPs, they should not anticipate the lake filling up with silt. He understood the silt would be removed, for the most part, before it got to the lake. Mr. Jones replied that was true and that one of the most important long term maintenance needs of the lake would be to assure that the up gradiant BMPs were working well to protect the lake. All of the major drainage ways that come into the lake would have pollutant removal BMPs incorporated into them. The forebays would need to be cleaned out periodically. There would be wetlands immediately down gradiant from the forebays that may occasionally need some wetland plant harvesting. For the lake itself, provided the lake was dredged or drawn down, the sediment was removed, and the weed problem was dealt with fairly aggressively, the primary long term maintenance requirements would focus on managing the quality of the water coming in to the lake. Mr. Hutton understood that to mean they did not anticipate expensive, long term maintenance of the lake itself, as long as the BMPs upstream were maintained. Mr. Jones replied that was certainly his hope and added that was his expectation. He stated that one of their many commitments was that a lake water quality management plan be developed, working collaboratively with the City and faculty members in town who were experts on lake water quality. The plan would have to be prepared to definitively answer the question.

Trent Stover, MEC Water Resources, 1000 N. College, described the different water studies he and his firm had conducted. He remarked that they have conducted a relatively extensive amount of water quality monitoring to assess the potential impact from the Philips tract. Significant impacts to the lake have been noted from land uses, both on and off-site of the Philips tract. On-site, there were influences from the agricultural activities and off-site by some of the uncontrolled urban land uses. He noted about 50% of the lake was covered by lily pads, causing an aesthetics issue as well as a water quality issue. Based on the reservoirs looked at within the state, Mr. Stover felt Philips Lake had the best capabilities for returning water quality. He noted his firm had also assessed water quality in Gans and Clear Creeks, both up and down stream of the proposed development, done during base flow and storm flow conditions. During all conditions, Clear Creek had had better water quality than Gans Creek. During base flow conditions Clear Creek was dominated by the discharge from the USGS Fisheries Laboratory. The Gans Creek was probably points worse predominantly due to discharges of wastewater from the few developments in the area. During storm flows, he noted a marked difference between the two streams, with Clear Creek again being the better in water quality, even though it had a higher percentage of urban land uses. The review of data collected within Boone County streams had shown, with respect to nutrients and sediments, no correlation between urban land use and measures of water quality.

Based on his findings, Mr. Stover stated that ground water quality should not be impacted by development of this site. There were deep layers of clay materials that would limit infiltration into the underlying ground water. Also, the flow from the stream would go into Gans and Clear Creeks exclusively. Regarding concerns over the Devil's Ice Box, several studies had conclusively shown that the water derived within Devil's Ice Box came from the Bonne Femme Creek and infiltration into the Pierpont sink hole plain around Pierpont. He noted household chemicals being found within the Devil's Ice Box, likely from septic systems in the Pierpont sink hole plain.

Mr. Loveless asked if the current water quality had anything to do with the extensive coverage of lotus on the lake. He asked if it was simply a function a lack of competition by emergent vegetation and the aggressiveness of the lotus. Mr. Stover felt it had to do with the depths of the reservoir in those locations as well as the fact they had out competed any other aquatic vegetation. He thought the populations could also be attributed to increased nutrient levels. Mr. Stover suspected it was more of a function of the shape of the reservoir than anything. He noted one of their recommendations, during reconstruction of the dam, was to draw down the water level to that area, remove the plants, and dredge out some of the materials so the problem would not occur again. They also planned to aggressively remove, both, on and off-site, sources of nutrients with BMPs.

Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Stover if he recalled the percentage of the Clear Creek Watershed that was represented by this particular tract. Mr. Stover believed it to be 13 percent.

Regarding swimming and pathogens, Mr. Stover noted they had one isolated sample, in March, out of six that exceeded the current Missouri Department of Natural Resources criteria for recreational, with respect to fecal coliform. He explained that the State has limits to various pollutant levels for the designated uses, and in this case swimming would be impaired. The highest sample, from March, following a rain storm was at 250 based on a limit of 200. The majority of the samples were below 100 during the summer. However, on their sampling of the inlet into the lake from the existing agricultural land uses, some of the levels of fecal coliform exceeded 60,000 colonies per 100 milliliters. He noted animals grazing near the inlet and assumed they were drinking from it as well. Currently, he said, he would not want his children swimming in it after a storm, but thought the recovery they saw from the influent was remarkable. Mr. Janku asked about recovery time. Mr. Stover replied that it was largely a function of the organisms dying. Within a lake, they were also impacted from ultra-violent light, so at the top of the lake they could be exposed to those rays and die off.

Mark Farnen, Woodruff Communications, 515 Cherry, stated that substantial impacts would occur with this development that were economic in nature. He explained his significant background in economic development. He showed specific benefits that could accrue in terms of tax revenues by the different taxing jurisdictions in the area as well as the potential for job creation. There would be an increase in sales tax, primarily to the City of Columbia, if the development were to be developed to its full extent as requested. The total estimated amount, on an annual basis, was $3,800,000. Also, there would be an increase in property tax revenues to the City, County, and the Schools. The total property tax increase was expected to be $5,453,000, primarily going to Schools. The total on average, annually, would be $9,200,000. Mr. Farnen explained how he arrived at the figures and why they jumped from March of last year. In March, they assumed the City might want to take 235 acres for park purposes so they took that portion out of the equation. When it became unclear what size parcel of land would be considered or even purchased by the City, all of the land was put back in. They estimated approximately 600 full-time equivalents created in the retail section of the development and about 2700 full-time equivalents in the office arena with most coming from this area. He also noted that hundreds of construction jobs would be created over the life of the project.

Jan Weaver, 412 ½ West Walnut, explained that she directed the Environmental Studies Program at MU, taught Environmental Science and Public Policy courses, and researched the community ecology of insects as part of the Missouri Ozark Forest Eco System Project for the Department of Conservation. Ms. Weaver was also President of the Friends of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. She spoke on behalf of the park as well as the people of the State of Missouri who have assumed stewardship of the park for present and future generations. She noted that the park was located one-half mile from the proposed development. The park generated $4,000,000 in tourism, recreational benefits, educational benefits, and eco-system benefits annually. She noted that Gans Creek runs through the northeastern section of the park and joins Clear Creek in the middle of the park to form the Little Bonne Femme. As an outstanding state resource, she stated any development that led to degredation of the creek would violate Missouri State Codes protecting water quality. She explained the Gans was also designated as safe for whole body contact and that the Little Bonne Femme was home to a number of threatened and endangered plants and animals. Ms. Weaver commented they had always expected some kind of development would take place in the watershed surrounding the park. However, they were very concerned that the City had set a level of acceptable impervious surface at 30 percent in these watersheds. This developer, she stated, would like to increase that number to around 35 percent. She noted that they had already worked successfully with the County and a local developer to limit impervious surface in Little Bonne Femme to less than 20 percent. Given the published research showing the lack of effectiveness of BMPs at these levels of development, the lack of any specific examples where this amount of development in a sensitive watershed had used BMPs to prevent degradation, and a substantial amount of expert opinion holding that BMPs would not effectively control stormwater at this level of impervious surface, they believe it would negatively affect both the Clear and Gans Creeks. Given these circumstances, she said, having surrounding development take place under County supervision appears to be much more desirable than having the City manage it. She commented that they were not asking that the developer not be permitted to develop, however, U.S. Law recognizes a higher principle than an owners right to develop - the right of neighbors not to have the use and enjoyment of their property damaged by somebody else's development. They believed there was some use between a cow pasture and the largest commercial development in Columbia's history that would satisfy the developer's need to make a profit and the rights of the citizens of Missouri to use and enjoy Rock Bridge Memorial State Park in its current condition. Ms. Weaver urged the Council to work with the developer to see that use of the property was limited or to provide enforceable safeguards including clear and unambiguous water protection standards to preserve all of the streams flowing into the park.

Randall Clark, 2147 Bearfield Road, explained that he was an environmental scientist with a degree in chemistry and biology. For the past several months Mr. Clark had been reviewing much of the Scientific Ledger Data on the affect of stormwater. These were scientific reports and manuscripts done by scientists, engineers, and biologists that actually go out into the field and measure, on a nationwide basis, the affects. Most of these papers came to the same conclusion, that the greater the amount of the urbanization along a stream, the greater the decline of stream health. The decline was due to the fact that increased volumes of polluted storm water draining from an urban area was far greater than that from undeveloped land. It was found that the impact of urbanization on sensitive watersheds, such as Gans and Clear Creek, started at a very low level, around 5 percent, and then rapidly increases. As development began in the watershed, the increased amounts of water in the stream caused erosion of the stream channel and most of the sediments that smothered the population of aquatic organisms that came from the stream itself. Loss of both lives and property also occurred due to the increased amount of water in the streams. The chemical pollutant levels and stormwater runoff rivaled or exceeded that of raw sewage effluent making it toxic for aquatic organisms and unsafe for human contact. Mr. Clark noted that the BMPs being proposed by Mr. Jones were used to try to lessen the impact of urbanization, but that science was very clear - they could not stop all of the negative impact of stormwater runoff. The typical reduction of pollutants by BMPs had been found to be in the range of 30 to 90 percent, depending upon the pollutant. The BMPs did not remove all of the toxic pollutants. Therefore, the release of pollutants and the volume of water from the BMPs still had a potential to cause severe damage to the streams. He stated that one must look at the biological data also in order to understand how well BMPs work to protect the streams. There were a number of scientific studies that looked at the biological data on watersheds with and without BMPs. The results showed that BMPs did not protect the biology of the stream from stormwater. In watersheds with BMPs, the health of the stream continued to go down as urbanization increased. BMPs were most beneficial in watersheds with medium to higher levels of urbanization. In low urbanized areas, such as that currently in Clear and Gans Creeks, preservation of upland forests, stream side forests, and wetlands proved more valuable than traditional BMPs at upholding aquatic species, birds, reptiles and amphibian diversity. Low impact development, a new BMP practice, which focused on minimizing urbanization, clustering development, conserving natural areas, and distributing the stormwater treatment across the development, has only been used during the last five years or so, and in just a few low density, residential developments. It appeared to be a very effective method, but worked best in the one to twenty-five percent urbanization range. Mr. Clark said that while low impact development might be a good practice to use on all the residential areas in the watershed, there was no scientific evidence noting it would work in large commercial areas of the Philips property due to the amount of space it needed and the level of polluted stormwater from commercial areas. He stated that science clearly tells us that even with BMPs, we need to limit the level of urbanization in sensitive watersheds, such as Clear and Gans Creeks in order to fully protect the stream. According to the Center for Watershed Protection, despite massive investments, no community had demonstrated they were able to achieve water quality standards in an urban watershed that exceeded 25 percent developed. At present, he pointed out scientific data did not support the idea that the Philips Farm, or the Clear and Gans Creeks, at 30 to 40 percent or more impervious cover would still be fully able to protect the streams and Rock Bridge Memorial State Park from all of the damage of stormwater pollution. They were asking for a level of development at the Philips Farm area that did not result in increased stormwater peaks, increased volume of water, increased level of pollutants, or increased impact the biological communities of the stream and the watershed. They also felt that if the development went forward, there would need to be chemical and biological monitoring during and after completion of the development.

Regarding the list of 19 places where BMPs have been used, Mr. Clark noted the list ranged from names of specific developments to just naming communities. He also noted that no supportive evidence was given in regards to what BMPs were used or how successful they were. After a brief investigation of the list, Mr. Clark said that none of the listed areas appeared to have the same mix of commercial areas, residential areas, and a sensitive watershed that was being protected with the range of BMPs proposed for this development. He felt the list seemingly indicated that on this development many of the new methods of stormwater management practices would be tested together for the first time. If they did not work, Gans and Clear Creeks would be damaged forever.

Mr. Loveless understood that single BMPs could not remove all pollutants. He asked Mr. Clark to comment on the affect of several BMPs being used in a series and that affect on the removal of pollutants. Mr. Clark replied there were a number of pollutants in stormwater, like pesticides and herbicides, and that the removal efficiencies of the BMPs were typically in the area of 30 to 40 percent for a lot of those compounds. The compounds were some of the most highly toxic known to humans and if they were diluted out, they would still be at a toxic levels for the organisms. He agreed the levels would be reduced, but did not see how they could get them down to a level that would not be toxic to humans. Mr. Loveless asked if we were seeing some of those levels already in the lake from the runoff of Highway 63. Mr. Clark replied yes. Mayor Hindman asked about Gans Creek and where the pollutants would be coming from. Mr. Clark imagined the pollutants were coming from agricultural sources. In doing research, Mr. Clark said he had found that urban runoff was much worse than agricultural runoff. He said there were probably some of those compounds, Ph's and the likes, coming from Highway 63, but because it was a smaller area, they would probably not have the amount they would from a large area with large parking lots and commercial uses. Some "hot spots" in urban areas were parking lots and car maintenance areas.

Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Clark if his studies were based on the entire watershed or this particular piece of property which was a small fraction of the watershed. Mr. Clark replied some of the studies cited were site specific, but the majority of them were looking at the watershed level of development.

Fred VomSaal, 4679 S. Bearfield Road, a professor of Biology at the University of Missouri, who had done research on the affects of pollutants on health, commented that BMPs were not designed to remove pollutants that were dissolved in water, such as pesticides, components of gasolines like MTBE, chemicals that leach out of asphalt, and building materials that were flame retardant. He explained that he had served on a panel that had written a report for Congress in 1999 which identified the known health hazards of these pollutants. He noted that these pollutants would be in the water that ran out of this development and into the Philips Lake, Clear Creek, and Gans Creek in amounts that would pose a threat to wildlife and human health. A critical aspect of these dissolved organic pollutants was that exposure to a number of them could cause harm at and below the low concentration of one part per billion. Affects documented in the panel's report included brain damage in human babies whose mothers ate a few lake fish containing these pollutants during pregnancy. The issue of using the lake as a stormwater and pollution control system, he said was addressed in the CH2M Hill report, had not been provided to the Planning Commission before they voted on this issue. He read from the Hill report that one issue needed clarification in the water quality management plan. There was ambiguousness about whether protection of the lake was a priority. The principles stated that the lake would provide substantial pollution removal and flow attenuation, and followed with a statement that the lake would be protected from runoff from the development by water quality features upstream. In some cases the lake was characterized as a polishing feature, yet in most places, it was clear that the lake was a cornerstone stormwater treatment facility. This observation was reinforced by efforts placed in quantifying the removal capacity of the lake and its ability to handle runoff from the development. Mr. VomSall commented that none of the control measures that had been proposed by the developer really applied to the kinds of organic pollutants that could be dissolved in water. He noted in a slide presentation made by Mr. John indicating the lake was the key and that it was twice the size needed to remove pollutants above the 95 percent level. Mr. VomSaal was told the real effective removal level was possibly as low as 30 to 40 percent and optimistically as high as 60 to 80 percent of removal of these pollutants by BMPs. He said gas additives, pesticides, and other organic pollutants required very special kinds of filtration to be removed from water. Even if 95 percent of the pollutants were to be removed from the water, the remaining levels would still still be toxic. Mr. VomSaal explained that he had water with him from the Wal-Mart parking lot that was nothing compared to the 12,000 parking spaces proposed in this 125 acres of commercial developments but that it was the kind of water that would flow into the lake. He suggested Mr. John, nor anyone else, drink the water.

He noted the Council was being asked to approve a plan which involved the purchase of the Philips Lake by the taxpayers of Columbia. He felt that would place the taxpayers of Columbia in a position of responsibility for maintaining the developer's stormwater treatment facility. He stated that the lake could not serve as a recreation area and a stormwater treatment facility, as the two uses were absolutely incompatible. He felt that had been clearly stated in the Hill report. He did not think the lake should be purchased as part of a City park at the same time the development plan was approved with the lake as a stormwater treatment facility. Mr. VomSaal ended his comments with a quote from the Hill report - "Management of the lake water quality seems to be an issue that would have to be addressed in the end. Rather than an amenity for the community, the lake could become an eyesore."

Mr. Loveless understood how petroleum based pollutants might get into the stormwater stream, but wondered about the other extremely toxic compounds to which Mr. VomSaal referred. Mr. VomSaal replied that the critical components of building materials were flame retardant and were showing up in the waterways. They have the side effect of blocking the ability of the thyroid hormone to function normally. He explained it was a critical hormone for brain development. These compounds at extremely low levels could result in disruption of thyroid hormone which would cause brain damage. He said they leached out of materials because they were soluble. They became leachates that would flow out of buildings. MTBE was a highly soluble additive in gasoline and if there were parked cars, MTBE would be a pollution issue. Mr. Loveless asked if it was also highly toxic to aquatic life. Mr. VomSaal replied that it was a suspected carcinogen and that there was enough concern to cause a vote for it to be removed from gasoline in the State of California. Mr. Loveless guessed from the points made that virtually every bit of stormwater coming out of the City of Columbia was probably doing the same thing to the streams that flow through the City. He noted those streams were commonly used for recreational purposes and fished regularly. Mr. VomSaal agreed that streams were fished, but said there was tremendous concern in the public health community over eating fish from the streams that contain these chemicals. Mr. Loveless asked if these were primarily compounds that were concentrated in the fatty tissue of fish. Mr. VomSaal replied that was correct and added that was why they were so hard to remove. He added that the only way to get rid of some of these things was through carbon filtration. Mayor Hindman asked if some of these things came out in gaseous form. Mr. VomSaal explained that some were volatile, but many of them were primarily of concern as they dissolved into water. Mayor Hindman asked if people were in danger from building materials with which their home was built when it rained. Mr. VomSaal replied there were standard building materials that were now being recognized as having the potential to be toxic, particularly for babies who were down on the materials, essentially consuming leachates from them in a way no adult would. He said the problem here was with a very intensive development, a lot of runoff, and the concentration of these pollutants. They could get to levels where they really do pose a health threat, not only to babies, but everybody.

Ms. Crayton noted traffic and septic tanks that have been in the area for a long time. She asked what was not in the water already that this project would be adding. Mr. VomSaal replied that if you had a very low density of houses and cars, the amount of those materials were going to be a lot less than the 125 acres with 12,000 parking spaces and cars and the acres of commercial buildings being proposed. Ms. Crayton noted that there were no safeguards in place currently and said with this project there would be. Mr. VomSaal replied that the important element was that there was going to be a huge additional load of a whole new class of polluting chemicals. Clearly, everybody should be concerned about leakage out of septic systems. He was trying to raise awareness with the Council. The lake that was being proposed to be purchased by the City as part of a recreation area was actually proposed as a collection area for this new kind of pollutant that was not there now, but would be there in extremely high levels due to of the development because the BMPs could not be designed to remove chemicals that dissolved in water. He said they were primarily designed to remove solids and other kinds of sediment materials.

Chris Cady, 2108 Smiley, a member of the City/County Stormwater Task Force, said he was not speaking on their behalf this evening, but as a member of the Bear Creek Watershed Partnership and Chair of the Citizens Watershed Committee. He was concerned about the amount of vacant commercial space already in Columbia, some of it in very large chunks, and the amount of space and impervious surface that development takes today compared to decades past. Professionally, Mr. Cady worked with the Brownfield Redevelopment program, whose sole purpose was to redevelop previously used property. He thought Columbia was beginning to have some big city problems.

He commented that the City had no plan in place to protect these particular waterways on a watershed basis. Mr. Cady noted the knowledge and technology was available in Columbia to come up with a plan and said if ever there was a watershed where one was needed, he thought this was it. This would be a plan based on what the environment could handle. The City and County, through the Stormwater Task Force and their respective Phase II permits, were seeking to improve stormwater management and stream protection. Based on his experience and the schedule that had been laid out, he thought it would be one to three years before improved ordinances were in place for land disturbance and stream protection. Even then, he said there was no guarantee the final product would include watershed planning. If this development was allowed at this time, Mr. Cady thought it would make it more difficult to do such planning in the future. He commented that he was glad to see someone proposing parking lots without curbs and gutters and with grass swails and various other techniques. He reminded everyone that this was all in the form of promises, and plans and obviously not part of the rezoning. Should the development change hands or the current developer's goals or ability to pay for the considerable BMPs change in the future, these protections could be lost. Because standards were yet to be developed, Mr. Cady thought the City might not be ready for such a large development in such a sensitive watershed. He asked that the City/County process take its course and let the people decide how their watershed would be managed.

Barbara Hoppe, 607 Bluff Dale, Co-Chair of the Boone County Smart Growth Coalition, said that the people of Columbia and Boone County would look to our Mayor and Council to guarantee this development did not negatively impact Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. As a condition of zoning, she remarked, they would like to see clear, bottom line stormwater standards on what the developer would have to meet for the total area. Regarding no negative impact, they would like to see no changes in hydrology or geomorphology and no loss of biological quality. Presently in the zoning ordinance, the only thing that addressed the stormwater was a statement saying the developer would present some stormwater plan after zoning was approved. It stated the development plan would incorporate the use of low impact development techniques to the maximum extent deemed practical and feasible by the design engineer. She said the design engineer was the developer's and the plan would be done after consultation with the Department of Public Works. She read that to mean the bottom line for stormwater control was what the developer's engineer saw as practical and feasible. Ms. Hoppe noted that Mr. Jones had said these standards would be limited by practicality and cost. They did not know what that meant in terms of how this was going to negatively affect the waters that flow into Rock Bridge State Park. She read and passed out what they felt would be good performance criteria to add to the zoning ordinance. She stated that they believe these to be appropriate and conservative standards. Ms. Hoppe pointed out that they were still waiting for an example of where a project of this size had been done in a sensitive watershed, using BMPs, and where the water quality had not been negatively impacted. The list they were given had nothing comparable to this situation. As far as they were concerned this would be an experiment, which could be a very good thing or a very horrible thing. Referring to the Hill report, she reiterated concerns regarding problems and challenges with maintaining and enforcing both structural and non-structural BMPs. She pointed out that the report repeatedly stated it was up to the City to establish criteria, not the developer.

Mr. Ash agreed with the idea of holding the developer to standards and maintaining the status quo, but asked how they would be able to determine if there was degradation, whether it was from the Philips tract or from something else off-site. Ms. Hoppe replied that could be determined if the studies were done before development. Mr. Ash did not necessarily agree because things would not only change at the tract, but things would change up stream and around it as well. Ms. Hoppe said they would have to do something that was reasonable and if they had some base line testing right now, they would know what was there right now. She said they should be doing this with hydrologic models. Referring to absolutely no impacts, Mr. Ash wondered if anyone could guarantee that. He suggested using the words negligible impact. Ms. Hoppe indicated she would want "negligible" to be defined. Since they had been told that not only would there be no negative impact, but that it would improve, Ms. Hoppe felt it would not be hard to maintain. Mr. Ash asked about the conditions being a part of the rezoning. He asked if that was truly a function of the rezoning or if it would be more of a function of the development plan when they presented stormwater plans. Ms. Hoppe referred to the Hill report. She said Hill did not say that this amount of impervious surface could be put on this property, but that there should be a reasonable amount of development that would give a return and protect the area. That would not be known until the proper hydrologic models were created. She was concerned with the Council allowing zoning for a certain impervious surfaces before the models were done. Once the studies were done, if they were done fairly and impartially, they might find that there was not enough space to do all the BMPs that were needed to handle the stormwater. As a result, the development would have to be scaled back or go up. If zoning was allowed now, down the road the developer could change his mind. Mr. Ash understood there to be maximum amounts that could be developed and believed if the stormwater management plan was developed and later it was found they could not meet the standards set up, they would have to scale back. Ms. Hoppe replied that was why they would like some standard for stormwater in the zoning request, so the zoning and the impervious surface allowed were conditioned on meeting that stormwater standard and creating enough space for the BMPs needed. Mr. Loveless noted that the developer would still have to get a stormwater plan approved before he could obtain building permits. Ms. Hoppe asked about the standards for the stormwater plan. Mr. Loveless replied that they had not yet been established. Ms. Hoppe said they were guaranteeing a certain amount of impervious surface. Mr. Ash replied that they would be allowing a maximum. He asked what if a plan was created and it turned out that not only would they allow "x" amount of impervious surface, but it turned out you could actually go up to "y" and "z" and still maintain the standards - if Ms. Hoppe would say that was fine as long as they maintained the standards. His point was that it worked both ways with the argument. Ms. Hoppe said she was not worried about that possibility and that they would still like to know what the bottom line was going to be. What was in the zoning ordinance, she felt, was no standard at all because what was feasible and practical was up to the developer in terms of cost. Mr. Loveless disagreed and explained that the feasible and practical recommendation by the developer's design engineer was done in concert with the City Staff and whatever experts the Staff might hire to assist them in the plans. Until the stormwater plan was approved by the Council, no building permits would be issued. Right now, Ms. Hoppe noted the Staff did not have a standard to go by, so the public would not know what the standard was. She said they just wanted a guarantee of what the standard was. Mr. Hutton stated there would be no standard as part of the zoning because it just could not physically happen. Ms. Hoppe asked why there was an alleged standard, if that was the case. Mr. Hutton pointed out the problem the City would face with setting standards just for this development revolved around the other 9,000 acres in the Gans Creek watershed and when it was developed. Ms. Hoppe was hopeful there would be a stormwater ordinance by that time. She noted the condition in the present ordinance looked like no condition at all. Ms. Hoppe was also hopeful the City would have a watershed plan in place by that time. Mr. Ash thought standards were needed but said because this was a developing science and because some of this would not happen for so many years, it was hard to get as specific as she would like at this stage, when some things may not actually be determined until the time of development. They could say it would not get any worse than it was today. Ms. Hoppe said that was something more of a standard than there was now. Mr. Hutton noted that the developer had been stating that all along. Ms. Hoppe replied that they wanted to have the standard in the legal document. As far as she knew, Mr. Jones was not contracted to build this. She referred to a lot of unknowns down the road and said that was why the public would like to have some guarantees. Mr. Hutton explained that he felt that was the purpose of the planning process. Ms. Hoppe asked if he was saying the City would set the standard later. Mr. Hutton said there would certainly be a standard, but right now the question was zoning. She asked if it (the reference to the design engineer) could be totally taken out. In the City of Columbia, in most cases, Mr. Hutton noted that was true, the design engineer designed the stormwater plans. The Public Works Department then reviewed that plan and either approved it or disapproved it. If it was not approved, it had to be redone to the point it could get approved. In this case, the City was pretty much committed to probably bringing CH2M Hill or another firm in to help Staff evaluate the stormwater management plan for this development, if it gets that far.

Tony Davis, 4655 Rock Quarry Road, talked about the area involved in this particular watershed. The majority of this development was in Clear Creek Watershed and in the neighborhood of 2500 to 3000 acres or about 13 percent. Mr. Davis pointed out that would leave approximately 2000 acres or 10.5 percent undeveloped. He thought everyone could accept the fact that there would be other developments proposed for this area involving the same questions since all would be located in the same watershed. He noted that in the last four years there had been three sizable developments - Bearfield Meadows, the Lutheran Development, and Cambridge Place - making up about 100 acres or one-fifth of the Philips development. Mr. Davis recalled that "the 30 percent" came up when the group was looking for standards four years ago. Those developments had to adhere to that figure, even to the point of buying other property or setting some property aside for easements. His point was that there had been past developments with standards. He noted development potential in the area beyond the Philips tract, which would likely come before the Council sooner than later. He felt it would only get more sensitive as it moved back to the west and suggested the Council look at fairness from the past to fairness in the future in regards to the development. Mr. Davis commented that there were basically two parts to this development: Tracts 1 through 3 being residential and approximately 20% impervious and Tracts 4 through 9 being almost 50% impervious. Tracts 4 through 9 would drain into the lake and Tracts 1 through 3 would drain into Clear Creek. He saw this as two different management styles in terms of how they were going to deal with the stormwater runoff. The one with the highest density, by far, was the area that would run into the lake. Mr. Davis felt that the discussion between Mr. Ash and Mr. Jones regarding the amount of runoff that would flow into the lake was not quite accurate. He asked the Council to look at it as one large development, but in distinctively different ways in regards to where the stormwater would go. Referring to Ms. Crayton's question regarding the septic tanks and properly handling stormwater in these areas, he indicated that they were just now getting storm water into the area. Mr. Davis stated that it had not been the groups goal to never see this area developed, but to be developed with infrastructure, sewers, and good quality management. He thought those were the goals of most people on the Council, if not all, and that they were parallel goals of the people raising the questions in this group tonight. Mr. Davis felt the way everyone wanted to see this area managed was not in conflict with putting good criteria in place. This would allow trust and belief that in 15 to 20 years, this developer, or whoever takes over any aspects of this development in years to come, would do a job and make us all proud.

Ms. Crayton was concerned that people would not be able to use their property. Mr. Davis replied that if the standards were known, it would provide some indication of what a developer or a landowner that lived in the area and wanted to develop would be getting involved with. We would not have to repeat what we were doing tonight, again and again. He wanted some kind of standard and proposed that it be an expansion of the Policy Resolution the Council adopted in 1999 calling for careful growth and development in this particular area.

Joe Bindbeutel, 1701 E. Gans Road, explained that he lived approximately one mile downstream of Philips Lake and approximately one-half mile due west of Tract 1. Referring to a question about how one would monitor a site such as this, he stated that the outfall from Philips Lake would come conveniently down a stream channel at the edge of the property at the west end of Tract 3. On Tracts 1 and 2, streams flowing north and west could be very easily be monitored at the property line with no suggestion that any other development would have a sizable impact on water quality or geomorphology. He agreed there were about 122 acres of agricultural land upstream of the 500 acre development, but thought if inflow monitoring was done, it could be evaluated. He stated that there was a need and a basis for standards. With Phase II and everything else, there had been an explosion of science of which Mr. Jones had been a very big part. That science did not end with doing what was practicable, but with objective engineering standards which were published widely on the Internet. Regarding infrastructure, when talking about projects, he saw three core questions: what infrastructure would be necessary (sewer, road, etc.); how much was it going to cost; and who was going to pay for it? Mr. Bindbeutel commented that there had not been an exact number and there had not been a review by City Staff of what the road infrastructure on this development was going to cost the people of this community. He thought it would be in the tens of millions of dollars to upgrade Bearfield, Gans, Ponderosa and Rock Quarry Roads only to serve the minimal development of the 350 houses. He noted that a funding mechanism had not been identified. Before a major zoning issue such as this was addressed, he thought other things needed to be publicly discussed and known. Just having a meeting with the County was not enough and was something that would not bring comfort to the neighborhood. With BMPs, as Mr. Jones suggested earlier, a critical component was management. The BMPs would have to be taken care of by removing solids and contaminants that were caught. He felt the report by Mr. Jones suggested the City of Columbia was going to take care of that and bear that financial cost. Sitting on the Stormwater Task Force, Mr. Bindbeutel said it was very clear that the City did not have the infrastructure, financial or otherwise, to take care of the BMPs for this development or any other development. He felt that to be a cost component that really needed to be looked at. He noted that years ago this Council suggested a strong preference for planned development in this watershed. He pointed out that Tract 8 was an unplanned development with 85 percent impervious surface. He stated that he wanted to see the standard that allowed 85 percent impervious surface while still maintaining water quality. As this annexation goes forward, each tract would have to have a stormwater plan that met the overall standard. Regarding the lake and its swimability, Mr. Bindbeutel was surprised to learn Mr. Jones suggested that after development it would not be swimable. To suggest we might be spending City resources to acquire this piece of property and not be able to swim in it afterward was an untenable situation in his opinion. Referring to earlier statements regarding zoning - whether there would be significant changes in density, whether it would provide additional access or infrastructure improvements, and whether it would match of the surrounding area - he was glad to know the Council looked for those items. In his opinion, this development fell far short of assuring the community that we would have a continuous, pleasant, compact, and contiguous community that was sustainable and remotely affordable, either from the financial or environmental perspective.

Mr. Simon commented that there was not sufficient time to rebut everything that needed rebutting. With respect to the fact that the BMPs did not remove dissolved pollutants, he referred to the letter from Mr. Mehrle of Imtrex. The people that design these things for a living, that do it nationwide, that do it for municipalities nationwide, that do it for industrial concerns nationwide, that have won awards for doing this nationwide did not agree with that statement. Mr. Mehrle's letter discussed the effectiveness of BMPs in removing dissolved pollutants from stormwater. He noted that Mr. Jones showed the dissolved pollutants that would be removed from stormwater and that in this particular instance, the proposal was to run the BMPs in sequence and series so that what was not removed by one would be removed by another. With respect to the idea of standards, Mr. Simon stated that the idea that the ordinance before the Council set no standard was not correct. In fact, the ordinance had an exhibit 25, section 8, which specifically stated that the standards would be set at the time the stormwater plans were submitted to the City's engineer in consultation with the City's consultants. Standards would be set and they would be set for each individual plan. The Council would be entitled to ask whether they were there, what they were, who set them, and be able to discuss their adequacy and whether they suited everyone. All of that would occur in at least two public meetings, one before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the other before the City Council.

With respect to the cost of the infrastructure, the statement that this plan and this ordinance provided nothing about how it would be done was simply not correct. Any part of the infrastructure, to include the BMPs, that was not to be publicly maintained, and it was the Council's decision as to what would and would not be publicly maintained, would be individually owned, operated, maintained, and repaired by the individual property owner associations. They would have the obligation to the City with the City being a third party beneficiary of the covenants and having the ability to enforce the covenants. If the property owners did not do that, the City would be able to step in to take care of it and charge the property owners. With respect to while it was being developed, the obligation would be with the developer. Regarding the lake and its swimability, Mr. Simon stated that Mr. Jones did not say it would not be swimable. He said, like any lake, during certain periods of time, it would not be swimable. It would happen at Stephens Lake and already happens at Lake Woodrail and Hulen Lake. It happens during certain times of the year and after certain events. Mr. Simon admitted that there might be situations where this lake, like any other lake in the State of Missouri under certain conditions, would not be swimable. He said they believed the BMPs would convert it so that it would be swimable. Mr. Simon stated that we had to be able to accommodate people if we want to continue to grow in this community. We have to provide homes for them, places for them to work, places for them to recreate, and enjoy themselves. In his opinion that meant there would have to be some compromises, which did not mean raping and pillaging the environment. He felt it meant accommodating people and the environment.

Mr. Loveless asked Mr. Jones to address Mr. VomSaal's statement about dissolved organic compounds which would not taken care of by BMPs, particularly relative to Mr. Mehrle's letter. Mr. Jones stated the BMPs they were calling for did, in fact, address dissolved organic compounds. He noted that Mr. Mehrle made the point relative to industrial site runoff that would typically have high concentrations of organic compounds. Mentioned in the letter were oil refineries, paper and pulp mills, chemical manufacturing plants, and coal fired power plants. Mr. Jones said these would typically be sources of dissolved and particulate organic compounds. Mr. Mehrle noted his experience with Intrex had been positive in terms of its ability to remove those. Mr. Jones reported that to also be their experience. Referring to databases mentioned earlier for BMP efficiency, he said they did, in fact, see dissolved constituent removal as well.

In regards to exposure to polyuromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other compounds that were brought up, Mr. Stover indicated they were organics formed from the incomplete combustion and ranged from vehicle emissions to wood burning stoves. In the studies he had seen in Missouri, he noted that there was rarely measurable quantities of these compounds in the most heavily urbanized, metropolitan areas. Some of the highest values he had seen were in the range of a single parts per billion. From this site, there would probably be no discharge of the compounds during basic flow conditions. He reiterated the compounds, prevalent in many areas, would just be associated with stormwater flows. In the grand scheme of things they were very short in duration out of a course of a year. He thought this was one thing that needed to be discussed - the exposure as well as the duration of the exposure was not necessarily as extensive as what we have heard. Regarding the PAH's, Mr. Jones explained they were ubiquitous in the environment because they resulted from combustion processes and generally had high molecular weights, low solubility, strongly absorb to particulate matter. That would facilitate the removal from stormwater.

Ms. Crayton asked about the toxins coming out of building material. Mr. Stover commented that if it was a big issue, we would have exposure everywhere we lived and worked. Mr. Jones admitted that building materials were a source of pollutants, however, there were non-structural controls and steps that could be taken to minimize the likelihood for the pollution source to come into contact with rainfall or stormwater in the first place. He noted that this provided an excellent example of the need to manage building materials on-site such that they would not come into contact with stormwater and rainfall while they were stock piled.

Mr. Janku pointed out that Mr. Mehrle's last comment was that BMPs could actually improve current water quality conditions in the Gans and Clear Creeks watersheds. He felt that went back to what was said about the lake currently having drainage from outside the property area, particularly from some of the urban developments upstream. Conceivably, this lake, with the BMPs that would be put in place by the developer or the City, could serve as a regional stormwater management tool that could help clean up some of the existing pollution. Mr. Jones replied that was correct, and not only the lake, but facilities that would be constructed in the major drainage ways that fed into it. He referred to them as forebays and wetlands, a series of impoundments on the drainages coming into the lake. Those facilities, in conjunction with the lake, would serve as a regional facility.

Chris Ingersoll, spoke on behalf of his daughter who had done a study in 8^th grade on the toxicity of sediments to small invertebrates in and around the lakes of Columbia. She found a lot of toxicity in and around a culvert as it washed into a small lake. She did a follow up study where she actually collected debris in and around the stormwater drains and put them to the same type of a test and found, at seven different locations, to include residential streets, parking lots, a ditch along the Interstate, and a ditch along the highway, that these materials, before they were washed into the stormwater drains, were highly toxic to the amphipods. The material had an additional characteristic would become more toxic when the animals that survived were exposed to sunlight. The key was that the material that might come out of the solution in these sediments were not necessarily going away, it was a reservoir that often times could be re-suspended. The effects of the ultra-violent radiation strongly implied that concentrations of PAH's were being taken up from the solid material by organisms, getting back into solution, and being directly toxic to the organisms. This meant that when there were impervious surfaces, where there was going to be either residential or commercial development, you would get toxic materials, not just in the water but in the sediment, and that material and sediment could then be a reservoir to further redistribute those contaminants back to the organisms.

Mayor Hindman asked about it going through BMPs and being cleaned out. Mr. Ingersoll replied that BMPs were not his area of expertise, but that in his opinion, the removal was not necessarily cleaning. He added that the contaminated sediments nationwide were tied to a lot of materials that were originally in the water column that was pulled down into the sediment. He stated that the problem was re-suspension of the sediment. There were organisms that lived in the sediment that would feed on that material and made it available to organisms that might consume the organisms that were inhabiting the sediment. Rather than using the word "clean" he thought we should be thinking about the particulate materials, the sediments, as a reservoir. He said it might be reduced with retention type ponds, but that it was still in the system and had the potential of being moved through the system.

Robin Remmington, 503 Taylor, talked about stormwater and the erosion of Rockhill Park to the point that people of any level of disability could not use it. Her point was that the City does not manage current stormwater problems in an appropriate way. Ms. Remmington believed people working on the Philips project to be well intentioned people with a lot of expert consultation. Her concern was that this was an all or nothing deal and experimental at that. She thought what was being said was that we would buy the package and conduct the experiment based on a level of knowledge that the Council and Staff did not have. Ms. Remmington pointed out that knowledge had a shelf life and said the national knowledge of a lot of what were talking about it was not there yet. What was being suggested was that we take a great leap forward that might wind up putting us two great leaps backwards.

John Ikerd, 5121 S. Brock Rogers Road, commented that he had become aware of the Philips proposal about five years ago, although this was a different developer. He said they had been told by the attorney at that time that the project was going to be built, regardless of whether or not they liked it. At that time he began to educate himself regarding zoning issues and had found that on issues of land use that the Council did not represent the people. Mr. Ikerd reported that on every occasion the development community had supported the Philips proposal and the people of Columbia had been against it. He felt the voice of the people had been ignored. He remarked that approval of this proposal would lead ultimately to the ecological destruction, not only of Rock Bridge State Park, but to the entire Highway 63 corridor between Columbia and Ashland. He felt we would be held accountable by our children and grandchildren.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, remarked he was convinced the City should not include the lake as part of the park and should not spend a dime on it. He stated that it would be a health hazard that would come under the City and would be financially irresponsible. Regarding standards and the Staff, he stated the City engineers did not have real standards because the Council had never set any. He said it was not acceptable to say the Staff was going to make these decisions in consultation with the applicants. He felt the standards set forth by Ms. Hoppe could be enforceable and asked the Council to consider them. Regarding the tax projections, Mr. Clark agreed development would produce sales tax, maybe new sales tax and property tax, but noted that very little of that money would be available to meet any of the City's responsibilities. He said most of the money would go to the School District. He suggested asking the development to pay 90 percent of all of the external infrastructure costs.

Johann Holt, spoke on behalf of the O'Sage group Sierra Club and reminded everyone that last week DNR placed a moratorium on new development in the Hinkson Creek Watershed, stopping 23 developments in various stages of construction. That had occurred because the Hinkson was polluted beyond levels allowed by the EPA and because it had been placed on a federal listing of impaired water bodies of the Federal Clean Water Act. The pollution had come about over many years due to poor stormwater planning by developers and a willingness by the City of Columbia to approve development with little to no restrictions on impervious surface runoff. He noted that blame had been placed on DNR for enforcing federal law, but that the City had known for years that Hinkson was becoming impaired and did little to stop it. While the City had done a wonderful job with removing sewage from the Hinkson, Mr. Holt felt the City did a poor job in preventing oil, gas, anti-freeze, and other products that ran off of concrete from entering the watershed. Thus, the City of Columbia would be forced to spend millions of dollars to clean up a stream that could have been kept clean with foresight and planning. He pointed out Columbia would also lose money in delayed development costs and that the taxpayers would foot that bill through higher costs of product or through taxes and subsidies. In addition, the cleanup would only be partially successful. If the Council approved the proposed Philips development, Mr. Holt stated that the exact same scenario would occur with Gans Creek, a whole body contact stream, and the Clear Creek watersheds. As Randall Clark and Fred VomSaal have testified, the proposed BMPs would not keep these watersheds clean even if they worked exactly as designed. If they fail, there would be a disaster. He reiterated that Gans Creek was already partially impacted with elevated levels of fecal coliform and because it was a full body contact stream Columbia would have to develop a plan for cleaning it up. The key to cleaning up a stream is to keep it clean from further pollution. Don Laird, President of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, reminded the Council there were proponents of the project. The Chamber's Board of Directors recommended the Council approve the application. After hearing from both sides at a Government Affairs Committee meeting of the Chamber, they unanimously recommended to the Chamber Board that they support the proposal. He stated they have found that the developer had gone above and beyond what was expected in planning the development and had taken great strides in addressing the concerns of those in opposition. He said this was not an experiment as environmental concerns had been identified and examined by a number of experts. The experts had found this area to be well suited for a better sewer system and improved water quality. The community would benefit greatly from the managed growth that comes from projects such as this one. Mr. Laird remarked that the proposed development of this property would provide Columbia citizens with new jobs, places to live, and places to do business. The development of this land in southeast Columbia would not only improve our quality of life, but it would also provide the City with more tax revenues for future projects. In addition, Mr. Laird said, the Chamber would fully support the City and County getting together in a collaborative effort to address traffic concerns and issues to adjacent roads.

Larry Magliola, 4403 S. Pinebrook Lane, explained that he was a volunteer with the Missouri Stream Team Program and had been conducting both chemical and biological water quality monitoring in Gans Creek. His monitoring site was located a short distance below the Ponderosa Street bridge, just south of the Philips tract. Quarterly sampling from 1998 to present indicated that roughly 60 percent of all aquatic invertebrates collected were pollution sensitive according to widely accepted scientific criteria. He listed the organisms and said the continuous presence of pollution sensitive aquatic organisms indicated the conditions in the stream during the life span of these organisms were sufficient to support survival and reproduction. His data demonstrated that the same types of pollution sensitive organisms were consistently found and that this stretch of Gans Creek contained stable populations of pollution sensitive aquatic invertebrates. The data also suggested that current levels of development and types of human activity in areas upstream had not adversely affected the biological health at his monitoring site. The current proposal for the development of the Philips tract requested over 30 percent impervious cover for residential, commercial, retail, and office use. The introduction of a new set of urban chemicals into stormwater runoff from such an intense mixed use development would likely have an inverse affect on the biological health of the receiving streams. Many of these urban chemicals could not be effectively removed from stormwater, even with state of the art BMPs. The higher the level of development, the greater the pollutant load and runoff from the development. The greater the pollutant load, the less effective BMPs were at removing those pollutants from stormwater before discharging into a stream. Mr. Magliola thought the solution was to reduce pollution at its source by limiting the level of development, thereby reducing pollutant loads and runoff. He felt is was the only way to guarantee that Gans and Clear Creeks, and Rock Bridge, would not be degraded.

Amia Malaya, 211 Alexander, noted that neither social issues or transportation issues had been addressed. Planning, in the long term, had not been addressed as to what Columbia was going to look like in the future. As a city, Ms. Malaya pointed out, we have the ability to distinguish between good and bad growth. She felt citizens to be an important part of that process. She thought Columbia was at a perfect size to take on a comprehensive planned growth plan for the future. Ms. Malaya presumed everyone had seen the Brookings Institution Report, Growth in the Heartland, which had been done in the last couple of years, which talked about growth in Missouri. The report contained a lot of information about Columbia. Regarding the social issues, she explained that fringe development caused a disinvestment at the core of the City which had social affects. It tended to adversely affect the poor and minorities in the community. On transportation, she noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recently approved the Model Street Standards, part of a larger plan that citizens in Columbia had been working on to provide Columbia a higher quality of life. She indicated that fringe development did not fit into that model, if the City grew bigger and bigger and moved out and away from the core. She thought that would work against the alternative transportation plans they had been working so hard to integrate.

Peter Yronwode, 203 Orchard Court, thought the entire process to be the crux of matter. This was not a corner lot in some neighborhood and this was not a typical rezoning decision because there was a lot more at stake. They were talking about the entire watershed and the impact on a jewel, Rock Bridge State Park and the stream, that made Columbia what it is. Mr. Yronwode felt the current process was simply not amenable to dealing with those kinds of issues on that scale. He suggested it was incumbent upon the Council to acknowledge that. It had been proposed that we address the core issue, the water quality in these streams. He thought in good conscience the Council could not address the problem without speaking specifically to those matters. He pointed out that proposals had been offered for addressing that, which were performance standards or baselines and very easy to determine. He reiterated that they were talking about no degradation.

Rob Wolverton, 2106 Clemmons Drive, spoke in favor of the proposal saying he believed it would help sustain solid, long term growth in the community. That type of growth that would help provide jobs, with those jobs putting millions upon millions of dollars into the economy in the form of wages, sales tax, and property tax. He felt the developers were being responsible and that they had done their homework. He noted that the Planning Department likes "big picture" planning and commented that was what these people were providing. He said the plan fit into the overall plan of this city and the CATSO Plan. He called it responsible development and the type of development that would help sustain long term growth in the city, which was what a great deal of the economy was based on. Referring to the people that worked at lumber yards, concrete plants and were framers and drywallers, he stated that those people had to have growth in order to have jobs and in order to feed their families. He urged the Council to approve the proposal.

Al Buchanan, 1001 S. Johnmeyer Lane, explained that living on the edge of the City and off of Gillespie Bridge Road he has seen the affects of some not so good developments. He was concerned about what was coming his way and what would protect them if they allow themselves to be annexed. He noted the contamination of Meredith Branch and Hinkson Creek along with development along Silvey Lane, which did not meet stormwater standards and BMPs. He mentioned several other projects with which he had issues. Mr. Buchanan felt the concern was that assurances and stormwater regulations were currently not being enforced and would not be enforced when this project got going. He asked what was to prevent this development from becoming like the ones he drives by daily.

Sue Tuforte, 627 Bluff Dale, remarked that she did not understand why bigger was better. She was hopeful everyone would keep an open mind while talking about this issue.

David Bedan, 2001 Chapel Wood Road, spoke as a Board Member of the Missouri Parks Association. He reminded the Council that the organization saw Rock Bridge State Park as a jewel of Missouri, not just of Columbia. He noted that people come from all over to visit the park. He explained that they were concerned about threats to state parks from things that happen outside of the state parks. He indicated that they often deal with something happening on the margin of the park affecting the park. This was a prime example of that, and they were very concerned about the water quality in Gans and Clear Creeks. He cautioned the Council, if they choose to go ahead with the project, to have some kind of clear, enforceable standards in regards to monitoring.

Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing until February 16, 2004 and pointed out that the only people they would expect to hear from at the next hearing would be people who had not spoken tonight.

Mr. Janku noted the conditions and language regarding the stormwater management plan in section 17 of the ordinance. He asked if the stormwater management plan would be approved in conjunction with the development plan, or if it would be approved separately and independently by the Staff. Mr. Dudark explained that a stormwater management plan must be approved before the Council had the opportunity to approve a development plan. Mr. Janku understood that Staff would agree to the plan, which would be prior to any vote the Council would have to approve the plan. Mr. Dudark explained that if a development plan was submitted for a tract, the report to the Council would indicate whether a stormwater management plan had been approved for that tract by Public Works prior to it coming before the Council for vote.

Mr. Janku asked if a plan would still be required for approval by Public Works prior to issuing a building permit on the tract that may potentially have open zoning. Mr. Patterson replied that a land disturbance permit would be required on every tract over one acre in size. Those conditions for a land disturbance permit would include the stormwater management plan for that parcel. Further, each individual tract's plan would have to be reviewed in context of the entire project's conceptual plan to be certain that each area properly coincides with the intent of the overall stormwater management plan. As part of the approval process, a report, including the anticipated results of the planned activities in comparison to how that matches with what had been said at the conceptual project review and approval stage, would be provided to the Council. This would ensure there was a complete understanding. Mr. Patterson pointed out that the Staff felt it very important that there was a full and complete understanding, by all parties, as to what would be put in place and what the expectations of the end result would be. For the tract not in planned development, Mr. Janku understood there would be no decision by the Council following that approval. Mr. Boeckmann stated, per ordinance, it was tied to the platting process before any plat was approved or building permit was issued.

Mayor Hindman asked how Staff was going to know what to approve and what the expectations were. Mr. Patterson replied that the expectation from the beginning of this was that there would not be degradation in the water quality of the receiving stream, that there would not be increased flow from the project that would cause damage from downstream, or that there would be any activity that would destroy the required function and the classification of the streams purpose. That was what the original plan called for and that was what their review would be. Mayor Hindman asked where he could find that language. Mr. Patterson replied it was in the original application with the stormwater conceptual plan. At this state of the process, they were dealing with a narrative description of an approach to stormwater management based on the conditions at the site and what the technical resources and techniques available were. The review by Staff, which he admitted, did not have the background that some of the professional experts have, determined that based on the conceptual presentation and current technology available, there would be the ability to achieve the goal of lack of degradation of the receiving water stream. The details would be where they would be able to ascertain with certainty the exact thing they were proposing and what that would accomplish. Mr. Patterson said the detail and the wording the Mayor was looking for would be part of the plan the Council approved. Mayor Hindman felt there was a point being made that the Council should be able to give early instructions as to what they expect to see. He was interested in finding a way to provide some assurance up front. Mr. Patterson responded that he thought that was why they had gone to this extensive level - to try to provide that information. Mayor Hindman stated that he would like to see what it was going to be measured by and make sure everyone was aware of the intent. Mr. Patterson felt the ordinance stated the goal, but did not get into the details of the design parameters.

Mr. Loveless appreciated the fact that the developer and his staff would come to the City Staff with designs in place for the stormwater management. He thought it worked in the City's favor. Their staff would using their time to evaluate whether or not the plans put forth met the goals of the developer, no downstream degradation of water quality or stream morphology. He asked what measurable parameters the City Staff (or consultants hired to assist them) would use to assess the plans and when the baseline data of what exists now in various storm events would be collected, or if it already existed to everybody's satisfaction. Mr. Patterson explained that the baseline data was what they had presented at this point. He thought CH2M Hill was pretty well satisfied with the baseline data. Mr. Loveless wanted to make sure the data would be forthcoming if they approved the project. He asked if everything was squared away. Mr. Patterson replied it was.

Mr. Janku asked about the term "no degradation", and assumed it did not necessarily mean "no change". He thought it meant no negative impact. Mr. Patterson felt there would probably be disagreement as to what the word "degradation" would mean as far as the stream. To Mr. Patterson it meant that the changes would not be to a point that would cause an inability of that stream to support the aquatic life it was currently supporting and that it would not impair the ability of the stream to support any existing conditions. Mr. Loveless said there had been a reference made earlier about no change in the stream bed configuration, which he in his opinion would not happen. Mr. Patterson agreed. Mr. Loveless stated that to impose an artificial limit that this creek would always be configured exactly like it was today was unrealistic.

Mr. Ash indicated he was generally supportive of the overall request, but that he had a problem with the tract proposed to have open zoning. He thought it would be a shame to have to turn the whole thing down because of the one tract, but indicated he currently felt that strongly about it. He understood it was an economic decision and that a project had to make economic sense. As long as they could guarantee, be specific, measure it, have standards, and be able to say there would not be degradation of water quality, he was not tied to the impervious surface numbers. Rather than open zoning and trying to stick to the impervious surface restrictions, he stated he could, personally, be more supportive if they agreed to planned zoning, while perhaps allowing a slightly higher density, but still providing enough green space to allow the protection needed.

Regarding the issue of open zoning versus planned zoning and because there were so many restrictions, Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Dudark to address the differences between the two categories. Under planned zoning, Mr. Dudark explained, the Council would have the ability to exclude uses that were listed in the C-3 district. That had been done in the other C-P tracts before the Council. For the C-3 tract, the Council would not be able to strike those uses. Also, under planned zoning, the Council could limit the number, height, and square footage of signs. They would not be able to do that with a C-3 zoning of that tract. Mr. Hutton noted there were certain requirements within C-3 they would have to be met. Mr. Dudark replied that was correct, but that every lot would be allowed a free-standing sign. He said they would still have to have an approved stormwater plan and traffic study before plat approval or a building permit would be issued. That was no different than the other C-P tracts. Mr. Hutton asked if he had read some place that the developer had talked about excluding uses himselt. Mr. Dudark stated that he had discussed it, but that it would not be enforceable by the City. Mr. Janku pointed out that if the City became one of the purchasers of part of the property, the Council might be able to enforce restrictive covenants. He asked if it was correct that in order to enforce restrictive covenants, one would have to have some link to the property. Mr. Boeckmann thought the City probably could, but was not sure that would be a good enforcement mechanism. Mr. Ash commented that one would logically think that the developer would not make this kind of investment and then erect a bunch of billboards and/or put in lumber yards, but there was still a certain comfort that came with planned zoning. Rather than trying to make open zoning more restrictive, he asked if there could be planned zoning that was less restrictive. He indicated he would be more comfortable with that. Mayor Hindman stated they would have to come up with a plan, go through Planning and Zoning, and then come to the Council for every lot, unless they platted it all at once. The whole process was the problem from the developer's point of view because it slowed him down. The developer had made the point to note that we have allowed some open zoning in areas he would consider to be competitive. He felt it had to do with the ability to react to the market in a timely fashion.

Mr. Janku agreed with Mr. Ash in his preference for planned zoning. He felt that the process could go along while some of the other things were going on so things would not have to be slowed down as much. If this tract, because of its sensitivity was not appropriate for planned zoning, he asked where else they would be able to say they should have planned zoning. They had talked about entry corridors, which this was, and it was environmentally sensitive. In the future, he thought they would have difficulty requesting planned zoning if they did not require it here. Regarding the competitive issue, Mr. Janku noted cases where they had approved open zoning. However, in the most recent cases, they have gone with planned commercial. He thought the most direct competitor, and the one that was still in the development process, was the tract north on 63, CenterState. He pointed out that there was still a lot of land that was open would still need a decision as to how it was going to be used. Mayor Hindman pointed out that it had been suggested that the Council make a policy and that everything be planned from here on out due partly to the equity issues. He thought they needed to be thinking about that, but indicated that right now they were dealing with this particular request. Mayor Hindman stated, he too, feels strongly about planned zoning.

Mr. Ash thought that open zoning did need to be available, but was not convinced it needed to happen here.

Mayor Hindman thanked everyone for their presentations this evening.

B21-04 Rezoning property located on the southeast corner of Ballenger Lane and Mexico Gravel Road (State Route PP) from A-1 to R-1.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out the Planning and Development Staff recommended approval of this request, but the Commission had no recommendation because of a tie vote. Their concern was the density which they felt was too high for Route PP.

Mr. Dudark explained the major change from A-1 and R-1 to be the side yard setback. A-1 would be a little less dense than R-1. The density on this particular development would be two units per acre so it was not particularly a high density development for single family.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jeff McCann, AllState Consultants, 3312 LeMone Industrial, spoke on behalf of the owner and the developer. He pointed out that the preliminary plat was also on the agenda. The proposal was for 139 building lots on roughly 67 acres. He pointed out an area was being preserved as green space, roughly 19 acres or about 28% of the area along the streams. The tree cover would also be preserved. He noted they would be using a cluster type development to preserve the area and the curvilinear street design would slow down traffic in the residential areas.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Referring to the agenda report, Mr. Loveless noted discussion about an additional 67 dwelling units and the creation of an additional 670 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Dudark replied that they use the figure of 10 vehicle trips per residence on single family.

Mr. Ash thought they always voted in favor of R-1. He was planning to support it unless he could be convinced otherwise. Mayor Hindman stated the difference between the two was very insignificant, except it allowed smaller side yards.

B21-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:

JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B22-04 Approving the Woodland Springs C-P Development Plan.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that being proposed was an 80 room hotel on property located on the south side of Clark Lane. Approval was recommended by both Staff and the Commission with conditions.

Mr. Dudark commented that the light poles had been changed to 25 feet.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, offered to answer any questions.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B22-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B28-04 Approving the Engineer's Final Report; levying special assessments; appropriating funds for Sewer District No. 144 (Mexico Gravel Road) project.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained the purpose of this public hearing was to levy special assessments for Sewer District 144, one of the Districts established on Mexico Gravel Road. A public hearing was held on February 2, 2002 for this project consisting of 1410 feet of sanitary sewer line for the purpose of eliminating on-site treatment facilities on eight separate parcels of property. At the time of the public hearing, Mr. Patterson noted, the resolution estimate was about $121,000.00, but the final cost totaled $80,374.70. The project would be funded entirely from tax bills assessed to the affected properties. $49,232.44 of which would be deferred and collected at the time the properties were developed. The balance would be assessed against the property owners in accordance with City policy. He noted a cap of $5,000 per parcel until the property was further subdivided or additional development occurred. The benefits that accrued to the property owners were as follows: the elimination of potential health hazards that resulted from on-site treatment facilities; the elimination of maintenance costs in the upkeep of private facilities; and the addition of public sewer to properties traditionally increased property value.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B28-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B34-04 Calling for bids through the Purchasing Division for construction of improvements at Flat Branch Park Phase II; appropriating funds (clean up Columbia).

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out the estimated cost of the clean up was $240,000 with $200,000 being Brownfield grant funds and the remainder coming from City funds. The location was between Locust and Elm Street.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B34-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Voluntary annexation of property located on the northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Bethany Drive.

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 0.3 acre tract containing four parcels with single family, attached structures on them. The property was in the Boone Electric territory, Boone County Fire District territory. City water and sewer was available to the tract.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

No further action was required.

OLD BUSINESS

B23-04 Granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to sidewalk construction along the east side of Carter Lane adjacent to College Park South Subdivision Plat 1.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that the request had been compared with the Council's adopted policy relating to sidewalk construction for a waiver. The Staff was recommending that request be approved, except the portion between Campusview Drive and the west entrance into the apartment complex, where the applicant had indicated he would be willing to construct a sidewalk.

Mr. Ash agreed it made no sense right now to build a sidewalk on a gravel road, but asked if after granting a variance they had waived that requirement forever. Mr. Dudark explained the variance would be approved at this point for the plat, but the Council could, by tax bill, require the construction of a sidewalk in the future. Mr. Ash understood it could be put on the annual sidewalk list. Mr. Dudark stated they could also require the construction of the sidewalk on the west side of the street because it had not yet been platted, north of this location.

B23-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B24-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eagle Park Plat 9-A, a replat of Lots 1 and 2 of Eagle Park Subdivision Block No. 9; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to sidewalk construction.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out that approval was recommended by Staff as well as by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

B24-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B25-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Gardens Plat 2; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance to the Subdivision Regulations relating to C-P development plan approval.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 2.4 acre tract of ground creating one C-P lot, planned commercial. Approval was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

B25-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B27-04 Vacating street right-of-way for Meadowlark Court.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this was a short cul-de-sac where a street had never been built. The property owners got together and requested a replat which had been recommended for approval by the Commission.

B27-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B31-04 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to prohibit parking along sections of Ashley Street.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained the VFW was located on the north side of this street with the Water and Light facility being on the south side of this unimproved street. Because of Bingo games held at the VFW Hall, there was apparently traffic congestion on this 28-foot wide street. The request was to have parking removed from one side of the street. After reviewing the request, the Staff recommended removal of parking from the south side.

Mr. John noted a commercial business in the area and asked if anyone had talked to them about the request. Mr. Patterson noted that typically everyone along the street was contacted.

B31-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B35-04 Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code relating to alcoholic beverage licenses.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

After receiving a staff report, Mr. Beck explained that the Council had asked that an ordinance be drafted. He indicated he had received a call today raising concerns about the ordinance itself as to whether or not it has been adequately discussed by people in the industry. Mayor Hindman asked if there was any reason why the issue should not be tabled. Mr. Beck was not aware of any urgency.

Mr. Ash explained that when they first discussed the issue he had brought things up from his perspective, but since that time he had passed it along to others who were more knowledgeable and they had raised many other concerns. Some people felt as if they were caught off guard and that they be able to have their concerns addressed. Mr. Beck said the Staff could contact those people and continue to work with the State Liquor License. Mr. Ash replied that he would provide Mr. Beck with names. He stated that he would like to see the Missouri Restaurant Association on the list.

Mr. Janku noted that there was no right of appeal to the licenses being granted. He was concerned there could be interested parties that might want to see the license denied.

Mr. Janku made the motion that B35-04 be tabled to the March 1, 2004 Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B36-04 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating to false identifications.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Boeckmann explained that last March the Council adopted an ordinance mirroring the state law. He said problems had been found with it because it did not specifically address the issue of a minor using, for example, a siblings identification. He said this was not tied directly to the previous ordinance.

B36-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. 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.

B26-04 Approving the Final Plat of Valley View Park.

B29-04 Approving the Engineer's Final Report relating to the Business Loop 70 from Route B to Old 63 Sidewalk Project.

B30-04 Authorizing the acquisition of easements necessary to construct H-21 Relief Sewer Project (Hominy Branch Watershed from Moon Valley Road to U.S. 63).

B32-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B33-04 Appropriating funds for fencing at the Rail Terminal Site.

B37-04 Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the West Nile Virus Public Outreach program; appropriating funds.

B38-04 Appropriating FY 2003 Part I and Part II Homeland Security - Office of Domestic Preparedness funds for the purchase of equipment for the Fire Department.

R23-04 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest corner of Old Mill Creek Road and Old Field Road.

R24-03 Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Old Field Road, east of Vineyard Way.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESS

R25-04 Approving Preliminary Plat No. 7 of Vanderveen; granting variances to the Subdivision Regulations.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a major subdivision located on the east side of Creasy Springs Road, north of Bearfield, containing about 98 acres. Three variances were involved: street width; pedway and sidewalk; and street grade. During staff discussions, it was felt that the one street that would connect to the existing subdivision would be one of the last to be opened. Traffic calming would be put in place on the collector street by the subdivider.

Bill Crockett, 2608 N. Stadium, urged the Council to approve the plat as well as the variances.

Although Mr. Janku was supportive of the issue, he indicated that it would have been nice to have a more southerly route in terms of getting traffic to Creasy Springs Road.

The vote on R25-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R26-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Dakota Ridge.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a 67 acre tract which was rezoned from A-1 to R-1.

Mr. Ash noted a letter to the School District from Mr. Dudark asking very specific questions. He asked if it was a new version of the letter or if it had always been that specific. Mr. Dudark replied it was a new version. Mr. Ash noted that it did not seem to have any effect on the responses received. Mr. Dudark agreed. Mr. Ash suggested that might be a topic for their joint meeting with the School Board. Mr. Janku thought they appreciated getting the notice in terms of their enrollment planning, but did not think the City should expect them to make comments one way or another about development.

Jeff McCann, AllState Consultants, 3312 LeMone Industrial, offered to answer any questions.

The vote on R26-04 was recorded as follows; VOTING YES: JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R27-04 Urging the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to take quick action regarding applications for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Upon his request, Mayor Hindman made the motion that Mr. Hutton be allowed to abstain from voting on this issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman thought they should make it clear that the City did have an interest in the quality of Hinkson Creek, but indicated that it seemed as though things were in limbo through some kind of situation that did not necessarily relate to the construction or the impact it might have on the creek. He stated that if they would set their standards and tell us what they were, we would be all for it, however, if they were going to hold things up while they scratched their heads, we were against it.

Mayor Hindman made the motion to amend R27-04 to add, after the second Whereas, the following language: "and the City of Columbia supports construction that does not injure or degrade any creek; and". The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved by voice vote (Hutton abstaining).

The vote on R27-04, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: HUTTON. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor pro tem unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:

B39-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Bethany Drive; establishing permanent R-3 zoning.

B40-04 Rezoning property located on both sides of Wren Wood Drive, extended, from R-2 ro R-1.

B41-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Gray Oak Drive and Buttonwood Drive from O-1 to C-P.

B42-04 Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction with the proposed Final Plat of Eastport Village Plat 3-A.

B43-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Village Plat 3-A, a Replat of Lots 310, 311, and 312 of Eastport Village Plat 3.

B44-04 Approving the Final Plat of Woodland Springs Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B45-04 Approving the Final Plat of Greystone Subdivision - Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B46-04 Authorizing an annexation agreement with Nichols Properties, L.L.C.

B47-04 Calling for bids for the construction of Garth Avenue from Bear Creek to Blueridge Road.

B48-04 Calling for bids for the construction of Garth Avenue from Thurman Street to Bear Creek and the reconstruction of the Garth Avenue bridge over Bear Creek.

B49-04 Confirming the contract with Ken Kauffman & Sons Excavating, Inc. for sanitary sewer improvements at Columbia Regional Airport.

B50-04 Accepting easements for drainage, sewer, sidewalk, street and utility purposes.

B51-04 Authorizing Amendment No. 3 to the contract with Jacobs Civil Inc. relating to engineering services for water system improvements.

B52-04 Authorizing an agreement with Boone County for JCIC clerical services.

B53-04 Amending Ordinance No. 016011 in connection with certain outstanding bonds of the City.

B54-04 Amending Ordinance No. 016262 in connection with certain outstanding bonds of the City.

B55-04 Amending Ordinance No. 016647 in connection with certain outstanding bonds of the City.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

(A) Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B) Street Closure Requests.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Percent for Art at Stephens Lake Park.

Mr. Beck noted that the one percent policy would apply to the Stephens Lake Park. He noted that the standing committee was ready to begin the process to take proposals from Missouri artists. The budget was $18,500 after a maintenance fund was established and a small amount for administration was set aside.

Mr. Janku asked if they had talked about multiple pieces of art in Stephens Park, like sculptures placed in separate locations. Ms. Hunter replied that the prospectus always stated there may be multiples. If the committee looked at two finalists or a finalist with two ideas, and it was doable in regards to the budget, it would be a possibility. She said the concept of a sculpture park was something that came up in the meeting, but not formally. Mr. Janku said he would like to see that considered in the future.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Proposed Street Design Standards.

Mr. Beck noted that this issue was scheduled to be discussed at a work session on February 19.

(E) City of Columbia Volunteer Hours.

Report accepted with gratitude.

(F) East Broadway - Supplemental Report.

Mr. Beck noted that the report was prepared by both the Public Works Department and the Parks and Recreation Department, and had to do with the final design of Old 63, East Broadway and access into Stephens Park. The other major issue was the stormwater pipe running under Broadway, along Old 63. As soon as decisions were made on these issues, they would be able to finalize the development plan for the park.

Mr. Ash was pleased with the results of the design change of the entrance being moved back. Regarding the question as to who should pay for the stormwater pipe in the shopping plaza, he felt both the City and the private property owners had a very valid case. He noted proposals in their mail boxes this evening suggesting the City look at drainage maps and try to come up with some way to share the cost. He asked how they would go about assessing the costs fairly. Mr. Patterson thought that both parties were interested in working out something equitable. He said the staff had talked to the property owners. The main reason for bringing this forward to the Council tonight was so the design consultant could go ahead with the other issues of the project the Council previously had questions about. They could proceed with that while they try to develop an agreement on the stormwater project. He thought their suggestion of a proportionate share may have some merit, but said it was a question of which one was most proportionate. He felt they would be able to come up with something and said they would bring it to the Council for consideration. Mr. Ash did not think the stormwater issue needed to hold up anything.

Mr. Janku commented that he was generally pleased with the park plan, but asked if there was some way to combine the parking with the shelter and the things along Walnut. He suggesting running this by the Parks and Recreation Commission since they were involved in the original plan.

Mr. Beck said they would have to get it on the Commission's next agenda so decisions could be made on both the road and the park. Mr. Hood interjected that they would like to move it forward as rapidly as possible, yet go through the proper process. He pointed out that the spring construction on the roads and parking areas was contingent upon some of these decisions being made.

Mr. Hutton asked if they could discuss this at an upcoming work session. Mr. Beck asked if in the meantime they would like it to be referred to the Commission. Mr. Janku thought that was appropriate. Mr. Hutton asked how soon they would be meeting. Mr. Hood replied they would be meeting on the 19^th. It was decided it should be referred to them.

Mr. Janku suggested the issue be brought up at a work session and further, that it be referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their review and report back. It was also suggested that the staff work with Mr. Smith and Mr. Blaylock to see if they could determine a proper way to allocate costs.

For clarification, Mr. Patterson asked if the issues regarding the entrances on Broadway, the pedway, and the other issues were satisfactory. If so, they could direct the consultant to proceed.

Mr. Beck asked if the driveway was tied to the interior roadway. Mr. Patterson relied that it was not. It would be brought back at the request of the property owners on the other side to line up with it. Regardless of whether the others were changed,this would be their preferred location for the driveway. Mr. Hutton understood they determined they did not want to run the drive over to Old 63. Mr. Patterson said it would still be like it was before.

It was decided that the Council was okay with the pedway, the connection under the bridge, and the left in and left outs. The decision was made to discuss this at Thursday's work session.

(G) Possible pre-annexation Agreement - a Portion of Rock Bridge State Park (RBSP).

Mr. Beck explained that the Staff met with some of the officials from the Department of Natural Resources last week and this item, to further discuss issues related to providing sewers in the park, had been on the agenda. After reviewing the area map, part of the land around the south end of the park, almost all of the way around the park, was already in tracts and lots. Quite a bit of it, was already developed. After discussion, they agreed to having 200 acres annexed. He noted that some land between Route K and the park had not been platted. He thought that may be the best arrangement they could get worked out. He said they could further discuss it or, if the Council wanted to move ahead, legislation could be prepared.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the Staff be directed to move forward with the proposal. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(H) Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Boeckmann commented that the Commission intended to discuss this issue further at their next meeting and would then report to the Council prior to holding a public hearing.

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC

With the approval of Woodland Springs this evening, Mr. Janku thought it was time to start on the sidewalks on the south side of Clark Lane.

Mr. Janku asked if it was time to revisit use of the vacant lot on Fourth Street new Locust and Flat Brach due to the loss of spaces with the redevelopment of Flat Branch Park. When discussed earlier, it was thought it would not be economically viable.

Mr. Ash asked about neighborhood improvement districts. Mayor Hindman said we had some in the City, as did the County. Mr. John noted that they had only been used a few times, both in the City and in the County. Referring to the Philips tract, Mr. Beck said it was felt that would not be a viable alternative. Mr. John explained they had mainly been used in redevelopment situations where streets and/or sewer lines were built substandard in a neighborhood. What we did with our sewer utility, was like a neighborhood improvement district. He was referring to sewer districts. Mr. John said there were different types of districts.

Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be directed to report back on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman reported a complaint about boats on a lawn and asked if there was an ordinance that would take care of the situation.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Staff report back on what could be done about people parking boats in their yards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman also reported a complaint about speeding on Providence Road, especially between Stewart Road and Stadium. Part of the problem, according to the caller, was due to the lack of posted signed on Providence. He noted that southbound, between Broadway and Stadium, there was no speed limit sign. Mayor Hindman noted signage on the other side of Stadium also needed work.

Regarding signage issues and speed limits, Mayor Hindman mentioned problems on Broadway, in the 20 mph zone from Providence Road to Garth, and east on Broadway from College. Another problem area was Stadium, as the limits change.

Mayor Hindman had received a complaint about the sidewalks along Providence in front of Douglass Park. It was reported that a wheel chair user had gotten stuck in the mud on the sidewalk where it was sunken. He asked Staff to look into the situation. Mayor Hindman felt they were going to have to look into strategies for financing improvements. While we have been able to keep up in the past, he felt it did not look like we were going to be able to handle the cash flow with all of the major infrastructure improvements that were coming up. He noted that the developers had hired Ed Rob to do a study with respect to the benefits of growth, cost wise and otherwise, and how financing of these roads might be dealt with. He noted that The Smart Growth Coalition had a lot of figures they have presented to the Council. He felt we would be getting conflicts with respect to theories and numbers and thought the Council should consider getting somebody to help them with these issues, who could calculate what these new subdivision were costing the City, how they were benefitting the City, and what would be a fair way of allocating those costs - development fees, impact fees, raising property taxes, etc.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to look into the issue of possibly hiring a consultant to help the Council or the possibility of Staff working on the issue.

Mr. Loveless suggested letting Mr. Rob finish his study and providing both, Mr. Rob's study and the information from the Smart Growth group, to the staff.

Mr. Ash felt it seemed that a lot of these problems were on fringe areas and said that any ideas should be able can cross the City/County lines that some times get in the way. He gave as an example, a City/County neighborhood improvement district. Mayor Hindman agreed this should be coordinated with the County.

Mr. John suggested they pass the motion asking the Staff to look into it, but thought it may behoove the Council to have them look into it after they receive both sets of numbers. He said the Staff could be coming up with other thoughts as it comes together.

Mr. Janku suggested they discuss the issue at the work session on the 19^th.

Mr. Ash commented that he did not have a problem with hiring consultants if Staff was overloaded or if it was beyond their expertise, but did not want anyone to think that we had to hire a consultant to get an unbiased opinion. He thought the Council and/or the Staff could provide an unbiased opinion. Mr. Hutton said the unbiased opinion was also a matter of public perception. Mr. Ash was worried that if they buy into that public perception that we would have to have a consultant for everything.

Mayor Hindman reworded his motion to direct Staff to start thinking about the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The meeting adjourned at 1:10 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin

City Clerk