DECEMBER 1, 1997

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 1, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results:  Council Members CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, and JANKU were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mr. Janku.

    Mayor Hindman noted that R192-97 would be added under New Business.
    There was a discussion as to whether or not the public hearing would be held on B329-97 because of a request received for withdrawal of the issue.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that B329-97 be removed from the agenda.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved by voice vote.
    Upon her request, Ms. Coble made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on B316-97.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Upon his request, Mr. Kruse made the motion that Mr. Coffman be allowed to abstain on R191-97.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mayor Hindman and a second by Ms. Coble.



B315-97     Rezoning 2305 Oakland Gravel Road from R-1 (One-Family Residential) to O-P (Planned
                    Office District).
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this less than one acre tract of land is located in northeast Columbia.  He noted that it had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, subject to conditions which included allowed uses shall be limited to all uses permitted in district R-1 pertaining to a child advocacy center as described in a letter labeled "Exhibit A", and that no modifications be made to the site, including parking and driveway expansions, until an O-P development plan has been approved by the City Council.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Philip Douce, Executive Director of Rainbow House, explained the process that children go through after having been abused or after having witnessed a crime.  He said the current process can re-victimize the child because of the multiple interviews that are conducted, often at different locations and different times.  Mr. Douce reported that the Child Advocacy Center would provide a single location for these children to go through the entire process.  It has also been proposed that the Center could be used for parenting classes and therapy.
    Ms. Coble noted that federal legislation was pending, which passed at the state level, that provided a broader definition of a child advocacy center.  She asked if the Center would consider expanding services to include supervised visitation at the center.  Mr. Douce said that was possible, and added that representatives had already been attending meetings held by other advocacy centers in the state.  He said it was a good idea and that option is being explored.
    Detective Andy Anderson, spoke on behalf of the Interagency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (ICAN).  This is an organization of about 28 agencies in Boone County, made up of both governmental and private enterprise, with the concern focusing on children in the community -- child abuse in particular.  Mr. Anderson said ICAN had been working on this project for two years and totally supported it.  He urged the Council to approve the request.  ICAN has received a commitment from every law enforcement agency in Boone County to work with the Child Advocacy Center.  It is hoped that such an agreement can be obtained from every county surrounding Boone County after the program is initiated.
    Kevin Crane, Boone County Prosecutor, pointed out that in addition to conducting and reducing interviews at this site, medical examinations could also be conducted on-site, eliminating yet another trip for the child.  It is also hoped the Center could be utilized as a community resource center where information could be disseminated on child abuse prevention.  Mr. Crane stated his support for the Advocacy Center.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku commented that this is a worthwhile program.  He also stated that although the location of the site is in a poor traffic area in terms of the road's visibility, he felt the O-P zoning is appropriate as opposed to R-1, particularly with the C-3 zoning across the street.
    B315-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B316-97     Rezoning property located on the south side of Barberry Avenue, east of the west city
                    limit line from R-1 and A-1 to R-2.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this involves a 17 acre tract of land that had been recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. Hancock reported that while the Commission had recommended denial, the Planning staff had recommended approval.  The staff report recognized the road system in the area is inadequate for development in the vicinity, but pointed out that Sunflower, Barberry, and all the roads in the vicinity are scheduled for improvement within the capital improvement program.  Mr. Hancock noted that the proposal meets the intent of the Land Use Plan in terms of low density -- zero to six units.
    Mr. Campbell asked which streets in the area were scheduled for improvement.  Mr. Hancock said Sunflower was shown as a priority need in fiscal year 2000 to 2002, and Barberry as beyond 2002.  Mr. Patterson indicated Sunflower is scheduled for construction in 1999 (the portion from Route E south to where it ties into the new subdivision).  He said it was anticipated that this stretch would connect to Barberry at a 90 degree angle with the extension of Sunflower as it comes south.
    Mr. Janku understood that there were no plans for the street improvements in terms of City funding for the southward extension from Grayson Drive.  Mr. Patterson said that was correct.  He said it was one of the locations that staff anticipates would be constructed through the development of the area.  Mr. Patterson added that there has been considerable discussion in the past few years about the possible development of the road; however, there is no funding source or program for it at this time.
    Mr. Campbell referred to the intersection between Westwinds Drive and the outer roadway as unique.  He asked if anyone had examined the possibility of restructuring it in the near future.  Mr. Patterson said that had not been done as part of this process.  He said staff could determine what options might be available.
    Mayor Hindman understood there was no plan to improve Barberry Avenue.  Mr. Patterson asked if the Mayor was referring to the stretch west of where the extension of Sunflower is shown.  Mayor Hindman said that was correct.  Mr. Patterson said that was not identified in the CIP.  If this request were to be approved, Mayor Hindman asked if the developer had any responsibility for the road improvements.  Mr. Patterson said the developer was only responsible for the internal streets and, with Barberry being an exterior street to the subdivision, there would not be any developmental responsibility according to City policy.  As a collector street, the City could tax bill curb and gutter costs to the property at such time it is developed.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Glen Strothman, President of Homeview Development, said he had included in a packet to the Council some maps, photos, and a letter.  Also in the packet was an agreement that outlined as a condition to the property being rezoned R-2, the density of the development would be reduced by about 35%.  He said the intent is not to create a maximum density situation, but to keep the development comparable to that could occur in R-1 zoning.  By doing so, Mr. Strothman said this would allow for more open green space and, hopefully, would not adversely impact the traffic any more than R-1 would.  Mr. Strothman indicated his willingness to incorporate covenants and restrictions for landscaping, and agreed that if this property was sold prior to the platting process, a deed restriction would be placed upon the property so it could not be further subdivided.
    Mr. Campbell said he had driven around the Westwinds intersection and, although he realized it was not technically part of the request, he wondered if Mr. Strothman would be willing to work with the City on restructuring the intersection somehow.  Mr. Strothman said that would depend on what the City might require.  He would be agreeable to visit with the City and try to make it viable.  Mr. Strothman reported that was one of the reasons the project's density was reduced -- they did not want to impact the area any more than what an R-1 zoning would normally allow for.  In addition, Mr. Strothman indicated a large tree line could be preserved to provide screening along Barberry as opposed to removing the trees and building single family homes.
    Mr. Kruse asked about the density if the property remained R-1.  Mr. Strothman said R-1 zoning would allow a development of 70 plus houses.  With R-2 zoning, approximately 51 or 52 units could be constructed, but only 38 are being proposed.  As far as the number of families, Mr. Strothman reported it would be about the same as R-1.  Mr. Kruse saw the potential for more people.  Mr. Strothman said if 37 duplexes were built, that would constitute approximately 74 families as opposed to roughly the same number with R-1.  Mr. Kruse said in his ward, duplexes often tend to be three or four people living in a three bedroom unit, with each resident having a car.  Mr. Strothman thought there were probably a lot more students in Mr. Kruse's ward.  He anticipated more of a family-oriented occupancy.
    Mr. Strothman displayed a drawing of the area on the overhead.  Mr. Janku asked about the area to the east of the site.  Mr. Strothman said there were two small structures, an existing home with a pond behind it.  At the very most, a short cul-de-sac is proposed essentially across from the cul-de-sac that is shown.  He said the street would be a very short bulb having 25 lots on it.  Mr. Strothman reported the reason this cul-de-sac had not been shown on the drawing was because someone is possibly interested in purchasing a corner of the property which contains the existing homestead and pond.  If this occurred, the number of lots would be reduced by seven or eight.
    Ms. Coble stated all she could see was an awful lot of people on what are already congested and substandard roads for those who currently live there.  Mr. Strothman felt with the development of the property, the streets would be built out to it.  He conceded that this would probably not happen as fast as people would like.  Mr. Strothman pointed out that this would also remove some of the property from the sewer district.
    Mayor Hindman asked if part of the development would include installing sewer.  Mr. Strothman said the development will be gravity sewered.
    Ms. Coble asked if previous construction traffic on Barberry had caused broken water mains.  Mr. Strothman said there was a previous developer in the area, and he had heard about a problem with the lines.  Someone may have possibly cut through the water lines.
    Regarding the landscaping covenant, Mr. Kruse asked what was planned.  Mr. Strothman said covenants would be prepared and could be reviewed by the Council prior to the platting process.  Mr. Kruse asked if it would a covenant for anyone who bought a lot to build a duplex.  Mr. Strothman said that was correct.  Mr. Kruse said there could still be investment related ownership.  Mr. Strothman agreed.  Mr. Kruse asked if each individual owner would have responsibility for the maintenance of the landscaping, or if it would be similar to a condo association where the maintenance is done by one company.  After the initial landscaping is installed, Mr. Strothman said a homeowners association would be established that would allow for professional maintenance of landscaping.  This would provide proof that the development would be professionally maintained.
    Geoff Preckshot, 3507 Barberry, expressed his opposition to the rezoning request.  He said there would be 17 acres of duplexes in what has been developed as a single family residential area.  He pointed out that there are a number of established subdivisions very close to the subject tract, with the majority of dwellings being single family.  This development would be a major departure from the character of the entire area.  Mr. Preckshot was concerned that the project would drive down the value of the homes in the area.  He had lived on Barberry during the construction of the other subdivisions, and to say that Barberry was substandard was to give it more credit than it deserves.  He explained the road varies from about 14 feet wide to 16 feet wide, with no shoulders and open ditches.  In addition, the water lines run underneath the roadway, between the road bed and the rock ridge.  When heavy trucks travel this road, the lines break.  Mr. Preckshot reported another concern is the limited access or egress from this particular subdivision.  He asked that the Council accept the Commission's recommendation for denial.
    Mr. Campbell said according to normal R-1 standards, there could be approximately 68 lots that could have access onto Barberry.  He asked if that would be Mr. Preckshot's preference.  Mr. Preckshot said until residents get some relief from the problems with access, he thought it was irresponsible to zone the land for any kind of development.  He understood the necessity of the Council to try to fund street improvements and how the chicken and egg problem related to this, but he did not think either type of development would make any difference with regard to access.  As far as the character of the community, Mr. Preckshot said he thought it made a lot of difference.  He said 68 R-1 homes would encourage R-1 development in a westerly direction, across the City limits into the Gibbs Road area.
    Rita Preckshot, 3507 Barberry, lives directly across from the proposed subdivision.  She did not understand how a homeowners association could be established with rental properties.  Mrs. Preckshot displayed enlarged photos of cars in ditches along Barberry to illustrate the conditions that exist during construction in the area.  Since construction has stopped, there have been only two or three cars in the ditch during a one month period.
    Larry Hine, 2505 Primrose, has seen the subdivision change from one entrance/exit to Valleyview, to what currently exists now.  He commented that even with the improvements on Sunflower, residents found themselves being neighbors to three cement plants, one asphalt plant, and a conditional use permit for another asphalt plant.  He thought it was unreal to try to siphon a lot of traffic out north on Route E to that type of industrial traffic.  Regarding Westwinds Drive, Mr. Hine said there is still not a good exit from Valleyview West onto I-70 Drive NW.  He pointed out that 80 new homes have been built in Valleyview West without an improvement to the southern exit or to Sunflower.  Mr. Hine asked that the rezoning request be denied.
    Mr. Strothman noted that the construction vehicles shown earlier on the overhead were not his, nor was he the developer of record on that particular project.
    Suzanne Gebhardt, 1909 E. Walnut, explained that she was currently building a home at 1505 Grayson in Valleyview South, which abuts the subject site.  She said if the area were to be rezoned R-2, she felt the traffic created would be very dangerous.  She said both Barberry and I-70 NW were very narrow and hilly with no shoulders.  Ms. Gebhardt felt R-1 zoning would also be too dangerous at this point.  Regarding the tree buffer spoken of earlier, Ms. Gebhardt said it was not as dense as people had been led to believe.  She said it was really a single line of trees -- primarily brush.  Ms. Gebhardt asked the Council to oppose the rezoning.
    Mr. Janku asked Mrs. Gebhardt if she had been contacted about the development.  Ms. Gebhardt said her builder had been contacted.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Boeckmann if he had read Mr. Strothman's letter regarding the restriction on the use, and whether he had any feelings regarding the effectiveness of it.  Mr. Boeckmann said he had read the one page letter and the attachment referred to as an agreement.  He said the agreement would not be legally binding and, if the Council granted R-2 zoning, Mr. Strothman could build the maximum number structures allowed in R-2 zoning.  Mr. Boeckmann was not suggesting that this would occur, but stated that the agreement is not a restriction.
    Mayor Hindman asked if there was a way the Council could adopt the ordinance with a restriction as to the density of the subdivision by a planned unit development.  Mr. Boeckmann said that was the purpose of a planned unit development.  Mr. Janku agreed.
    Mr. Janku said the developer had made some good efforts.  He said bringing in sewer would be an excellent benefit to the area.  To some extent, capital improvements do follow development; unfortunately, Mr. Janku thought the original comments by the Planning Commission regarding this project altering the character of the area were true.  There is a lot of vacant land in this area to the north and west, and for this significant amount of R-2 zoning to be granted, it would set the precedent for that potential development.  Mr. Janku said there was already quite a bit of R-2 in the area -- primarily as a buffer rather than a big interior development like this one.  To this extent, Mr. Janku felt the development is just too large and, because of its R-2 nature, it is driving other decisions which are inappropriate.  The suggestion has been made to cul-de-sac the eastern development to maintain the buffer from the existing R-1 to keep traffic flow to a minimum.  This would mean no street access, no true pedestrian sidewalk access, no traffic other than through Barberry -- which is completely undeveloped.  Mr. Janku stated the idea is eventually to have Grayson Drive bend back in a southerly direction.  If this connection occurs, then the property could flow out in this direction rather than through Westwinds Drive.  Mr. Janku noted that if the connection with R-2 is mandated, the Council could expect an outcry from the subdivision to the east.  The other problem encountered is there are no plans to improve Westwinds Drive.  Mr. Janku did not think widening the road would necessarily make it safer because of the sight distance.  Until there is more concrete information available as to what could be done, Mr. Janku did not think an abstract promise to possibly assist the City in road improvements is sufficient.  He thought the area should be zoned primarily R-1, with some possible R-2.
    Mr. Campbell said the roads are very bad in the area, and the line of sight going onto the access road was also very bad.  The question of R-2 zoning versus R-1 was not nearly as troubling.  Good, well-developed R-2 zoning was preferable to some of the R-1 that exists.  Because of all the possible openings onto Barberry, Mr. Campbell said there were some advantages for having a cul-de-sac development with relatively large R-2 lots.  Mr. Campbell thought the market should determine the need for R-2, and felt it should be distributed around the City.  He said a properly planned R-2 development could be a good neighbor.  On the other hand, Mr. Campbell was troubled by the lack of connection.  Mr. Campbell did not think he could vote in favor of this request because he would like to see the entire plan submitted with some alternatives for correcting the traffic problems.
    Mayor Hindman said he was concerned about the situation with respect to infrastructure.  The City has a policy in which infrastructure is allowed to occur after development, but that would not work in this case.  He appreciated the concessions made by the developer, but infrastructure has been pushed just about as far as it possibly can at this location.
    Mr. Campbell indicated he would support a plan for development of this particular area, but would like to see something incorporated that would alleviate some of the traffic  -- at least one moderately good entrance into the area.
    Mr. Janku said traffic was the controlling issue that has bottled up the area.  He thought perhaps it needed to be forced at some point as opposed to waiting for it to happen.  Mr. Janku reported that this has been done in other areas of the City and, if that was the sense of the Council, he would push for that.  He was certain the neighborhood would be supportive.
    Mr. Kruse agreed with everything that had been stated, and also that the developer had offered some pretty good concessions.  However, he noted that there is no legal guarantee that those concessions would occur.  Mr. Kruse said he could not vote for this particular request, but would be hard-pressed to vote against it if it had been a PUD.  Mr. Janku said that would offer the guarantees the Council was seeking.
    B316-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  NO ONE.  VOTING NO:  CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  ABSTAINING:  CROCKETT.  Bill defeated.

B318-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to allow limited warehousing/distribution uses in
                    the C-P District and limited retail uses in the M-C District.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this amendment had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. Hancock explained that Mr. Land had sent a letter to the Council some months ago asking that the C-3 District be opened to some warehousing and distribution facilities.  He said the proposal was to allow these facilities within planned commercial, not open C-3, provided they are ancillary or accessory to other uses allowed in the C-P District.  Mr. Hancock reported the Commission also wanted to open up the M-C District at the same time by allowing retail establishments (after a conditional use permit has been issued), provided that they are ancillary to the manufacturing, warehousing, or distribution activity on the site.  He said there was not much comment from the public either way.
    Mayor Hindman noted there was an amendment sheet that would correct a typographical error in the original bill.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B318-97 be amended per the amendment sheet.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B318-97, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B323-97     Authorizing construction of Bear Creek Trail, Phase II, using City forces.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    The following opening statement was read by the Mayor:

    Mr. Patterson explained that the Bear Creek Trail Phase II public hearing is for determining the necessity and the desirability of proceeding with the project.  He said the project would be an extension of Phase I and would extend the trail approximately one mile from Creasy Springs Road into Cosmo Park.  The trail for this section commences just east of Creasy Springs Road along the south side of Bear Creek, and connects to Bear Creek Trail Phase I.  The trail will extend beneath the bridge over Bear Creek on Creasy Springs Road and extend westerly along the south side of Bear Creek, a distance of approximately one mile.
    The trail will consist of a ten-foot wide crushed aggregate surfaced path across land owned by the City, Medusa Aggregates and the City, subject to a mining lease to Medusa Aggregates.  The trail will be restricted to pedestrian and bicycle activities.  At the east end of the trail, a 30-space parking lot will be constructed.  The parking lot will derive its access directly from Creasy Springs Road and provide parking for and access to the trail.  It is proposed that the project be constructed with City crews at an estimated cost of $94,000.  Mr. Patterson reported this trail is in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Open Space Study, dated September 1994.
    Mr. Patterson explained the Bear Creek Trail Phase II project, when combined with Phase I and other phases east of Garth Avenue, will provide linkage between the Cosmo Recreation area and Albert Oakland Park.  The western end section of the trail, located on City-owned park property, crosses a wetlands area and appropriate measures will be taken to protect the wetlands from the trail construction.  The proper federal and state permitting process will be followed in conjunction with this project in order to permit the trail construction across and along the regulated wetlands area.
    Mr. Patterson stated because of the trail's location on the south side of Bear Creek Trail Phase I (immediately east of Creasy springs Road), and the location of the City-owned Cosmo Park property along the south side of Bear Creek, it was not considered practical to cross Bear Creek at this section of the trail.  Therefore, Mr. Patterson said the alignment was narrowed on the south side of Bear Creek, and minor adjustments were made to avoid physical features and to protect, insofar as possible, existing trees, slopes, drainage, and the existing wetland area.  There will be no bridges constructed as part of this project.
    Mr. Patterson commented the trail will provide alternate transportation opportunities in northern Columbia, and provide urban recreation alternatives that are not currently available to citizens of northern Columbia.  A Phase I archeological study was performed for this project and no problem sites were identified within the projected construction corridor.
    Mr. Patterson reported the parking lot along the west side of Creasy Springs Road will be constructed on property currently owned by Medusa Aggregates.  He said the City will be negotiating the purchase of part, or all, of the property owned by Medusa Aggregates.  Further west, Mr. Patterson said the trail extends onto City-owned property also know as the Cosmo Park Recreation Area.
    Mr. Patterson stated affected property owners have been advised of the public hearing tonight.  There will be no businesses or persons displaced by this project, and no relocations will be necessary.  All federal guidelines will be followed in conjunction with the acquisition of the necessary easements, or fee simple rights, acquired as part of this project.
    Mr. Patterson said staff will prepare a verbatim transcript of tonight's proceedings, and will accept written comments for a period of ten days following the public hearing.  The MoDot District Engineer will receive a copy of the transcript and the City will request approval of the project from MoDot.
    If Council wishes to proceed with the project after receiving public comments, Mr. Patterson said a motion should be made directing staff to proceed, and the ordinance authorizing construction by force account labor should be approved.
    Mr. Beck noted that in the 70's, there was a vision for the MKT Trail.  He said this trail was successfully accomplished in phases over a number of years.  After which, attention was given to the north side of the City.  The Bear Creek area had been found to be the most logical place for a trail system.  Mr. Beck said it was felt that the trail should be developed in phases -- this project being Phase II of the overall plan.  He pointed out that various departments have been working on this overall project, particularly the Parks and Recreation Department, with Mr. Green and his staff walking the potential trail area with the Public Works Department.  It had been a team effort in determining the best location for the trail.  Mr. Beck said the project is being partially funded with federal funds and that the local share is coming from the public improvement fund that was set aside specifically for greenbelt/trail development.
    Mayor Hindman asked about a construction timetable.  Mr. Patterson replied with the necessity of getting the plan specification approval by MoDot, plus the potential for some extended negotiations and acquisition, the City would be fortunate to get the trail constructed by next summer.
    Mary Sapp, 3405 Creasy Springs Road, noted that she has lived to the north of the creek for many years.  She was not opposed to the trail, and was looking forward to using it.  She was concerned about the choice of the location for the parking lot.  Ms. Sapp pointed out that the area routinely flooded with as much as four feet of water.  She distributed pictures of the area.  In the nine years she has lived in this location, she has seen the area heavily flooded at least five times.  It is flooding worse since Creasy Springs was improved because there is a low spot in the road with a storm sewer and, as the creek makes the bend, the storm sewer acts like a funnel when the creek is flooding.  The sewer draws the water up and over Creasy Springs Road and directly across the parking lot area.  She did not think a berm along the area would keep that from happening because the water is coming from behind and then across the road.  She was hopeful when planning documents are contemplated, this problem area will be taken into consideration.  Mrs. Sapp was also concerned about the trail going under the bridge.  She said when flooding occurs, the water is usually within about two feet of the base of the bridge.  Mrs. Sapp said it would be well over any trail that would be constructed at this location.
    Mr. Janku asked how frequently the area floods.  Mrs. Sapp replied some years it does not flood at all, and some years it floods two or three times.
    Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock Quarry Road, agreed that the northern greenbelt should be used for recreational purposes, as well as to preserve and protect the creek bed.  Her concern was what kind of damage was being done to the greenbelt by including a ten foot wide trail within the greenbelt.  She said Mr. Patterson had said that would be kept to a minimum.  Ms. Stephenson assumed the level of the trail, since there is no elevation, had been elevated above flood level.  Mr. Patterson said the final design had not been completed, but he pointed out that there are limitations in what could occur in regards to elevating within a flood plain, both for the parking lot or trail.  He said any fill within a floodway would be prohibited.  In a flood plain, development would have to be done in such a manner that it did not affect the level of the floodway.  Ms. Stephenson agreed that an overpass, or at least a pedestrian crossing, might be much safer in the event of any heavy rain.  She said big yellow warning signs would also be helpful.  Ms. Stephenson thanked Mr. Green for all his work on the greenbelt.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku asked where this phase would terminate in relation to the existing trail, whether it would come in to the hillside east of the sled hills.  Mr. Green said that was correct.
    Mr. Kruse asked if Phase I had been funded.  Mr. Beck said it had.  Mr. Kruse wondered if the Council had approved the construction of it.  Mr. Beck said it had been approved.  Mr. Kruse inquired if all phases had been funded.  The reply was that three of the four phases have been funded.
    Mayor Hindman said this was an exciting development for the northern portion of Columbia and, when the trail is eventually completed, it will be recognized as an outstanding recreational feature in the community.  He realized there were concerns about the flooding, but many a trail had been built very successfully in conditions where flooding has to be factored in.  Mayor Hindman was confident the planners would take all of that information into consideration.
    Mr. Janku thought it was an excellent project and realized this area has particular problems because of the terrain.  He was appreciative of the time taken to work out the engineering.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to proceed.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    B323-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  

B336-97     Approving Engineer's final report for sidewalk construction on Arbor Drive and Arbor
                    Court; levying and assessing special assessments for properties benefiting from
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Patterson explained that the Council conducted a public hearing and authorized the construction of sidewalks in this area on June 5, 1995.  He said Council may recall this was part of the ongoing effort to fill-in gaps in Columbia's sidewalk system.
    As a result of the public hearing, Mr. Patterson said a number of letters had been sent to property owners in the Woodridge Subdivision requesting that they voluntarily construct sidewalks along the lots where sidewalks were missing, and had been required as part of the subdivision development requirements.  Several sidewalks were constructed by private contract, and those being discussed this evening, for whatever reason, were not constructed by the property owners.  Mr. Patterson reported this past year the City combined these walks with the annual sidewalk contract for construction.
    Mr. Patterson reported walks were constructed along ten lots on Arbor Court and Arbor Drive.  The resolution estimate for construction was $5.45 per square foot, but staff was fortunate in getting lower bids and the work was done for an actual cost of $4.34 per square foot.  That is the amount being recommended for assessment.  Mr. Patterson said staff proposes this cost should be paid for entirely by tax bills since these properties are within the subdivision regulations that required sidewalks to be constructed.  If the ordinance is approved, the assessment would amount to $17,835.32, with the tax bills ranging from $333.99 to $2,761.53.
    The identifiable benefits Council may wish to consider include the improved appearance of properties with the continuity of the sidewalks, improved pedestrian access and circulation, and the presence of sidewalks are typically considered an enhancement to the value of the property.  Mr. Patterson said if the Council determines that the properties have benefitted by at least the amounts proposed for assessment, the ordinance should be approved.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku understood there were no assessments on the Providence Road walks other than the agreement with the University.  Mr. Patterson said that was correct.  He said it was not an assessment, but an agreement between the City and the University that a certain portion of the cost would be paid, and that has been done.  Mr. Patterson explained that project was on the Master Sidewalk Plan, which is not subject to the assessment.
    Donald Schoengarth, 3612 Arbor Court, said he had asked that a sidewalk be put on the north side of Woodridge Park, where most of the pedestrian traffic is concentrated.  He said that had not been done and the road is very dangerous.  He did not understand why he had to have walks in a location where nobody uses them, and why the lot behind Roger Wilson's house (on Cedar Lane) did not have to have a sidewalk put in.  Mr. Schoengarth asked why the City put a sidewalk on the south side of Woodridge Park where there is no pedestrian traffic.
    Mr. Patterson said the only thing he could answer to this evening were the sidewalks up for public hearing.  He indicated he would be happy to respond to the above items in a report to the Council.
    Mrs. Crockett remembered that the lot on Cedar Lane had a natural spring and that the Council had debated whether or not there should be a sidewalk.  She said the Council had decided that it would not be required to have a sidewalk.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Speaking to the Providence Road area, Mr. Campbell said the sidewalks are greatly appreciated and heavily used.  He said it was a very good addition to the area.
    Mr. Janku thought this project was a model, and perhaps the City could work out a cooperative agreement with the University for the stretch along Stadium next to the campus athletic facilities.
    B336-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A)     Voluntary annexation of property located east of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard.
    Item A was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprise requested annexation of 2 1/2 acres of land east of Bearfield and south of Nifong.  The applicant had also requested controlled industrial permanent zoning as a condition of the annexation.  The property contains the existing sheltered workshop and was currently zoned in Boone County as M-L (Light Industrial), and A-1 (Agricultural).  Mr. Beck said an ordinance could be introduced tonight if the Council chose to proceed with the annexation.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Glen Ehrhardt, an attorney with offices at 401 E. Locust, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  At the Planning and Zoning level a few week ago, Mr. Ehrhardt said there had been some confusion as to ownership of the property.  He explained that all of the surrounding property owned by Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises is currently owned by Woodhaven, the National Benevolent Association.  Mr. Ehrhardt reported some of the property owned by the NBA was annexed into the City earlier this year and was currently zoned O-1.  He explained that Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises is an entirely distinct and separate organization/corporation from NBA.  He said there was no relationship between the two organizations, although they serve many of the same individuals with developmental disabilities.  Mr. Ehrhardt noted that the Sheltered Workshop has been in existence at this location in Boone County since 1969.  He said there has been no neighborhood opposition, in fact, several neighbors had submitted letters in support of both requests -- the annexation and rezoning.  Mr. Ehrhardt pointed out that approximately 100 employees of the 110 are residents of the City of Columbia.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Beck noted that the ordinance would be introduced later this evening.

B327-97     Authorizing an agreement with Mo Department of Health for inspections of day care
                    facilities; appropriating funds.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Sanford explained that this would be a new program involving the Health Department.  He further explained that for many years in the State of Missouri, the day care centers were regulated by the Missouri Department of Social Services.  He said a few years ago it had been transferred to the State Health Department, and now they are offering contracts to local health departments to do the work.  Mr. Sanford pointed out that he would need to hire a one-half time environmental health specialist and a part-time clerk.  He had a high level of confidence that the revenue will offset the expenses, or might even possibly exceed them.  Mr. Sanford reported there was the option of declining this opportunity and allow the state to make the inspections, but staff thought local inspectors would probably be more responsive to area day care centers than somebody from out of town would be.
    B327-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B328-97     Variance to the subdivision regulations regarding the requirement for sidewalk
                    construction - Dwight Bingham Subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this property is located in the Mikel and Jackson Streets area where Habitat for Humanity is building two homes.  He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was for denial of the request.
    Elda Kurzejeski, 4651 S. Scott Boulevard, spoke on behalf of Show Me Central Habitat for Humanity.  She explained the three reasons for their request for a variance included the $3,000 expense that would be incurred for the sidewalks; there are no other sidewalks in the area; and lastly, Habitat had recently been informed by a plumber that if the area for the sidewalks is shaved down to street level, there would only be 16 to 18 inches of soil covering some very old, delicate lines.  In addition, these water lines would not be below the frost line if the sidewalks are constructed.  Ms. Kurzejeski said they had not been aware of the water line situation until after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
    Mr. Campbell asked if Habitat's policy was to sell these homes to people with children.  Ms. Kurzejeski said that was not their policy -- there were three criteria evaluated to determine eligibility.  She said of the two families that will be living in these two homes one has no children, and the other family has a child who is approximately 14 years old.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if Habitat has ever built homes in which sidewalks had to be constructed.  Ms. Kurzejeski said they have not.  She said most of the sites already had sidewalks, and she thought a sidewalk variance had been received on Aztec.
    Mayor Hindman said he was convinced that sidewalks in the area would be a good thing because of safety issues.  Although there were no sidewalks on Mikel, he said this would result in getting the process started.  If sidewalks are not constructed, the next person that comes along could use the same excuse.  He did not see anything excessive about the price.  Mayor Hindman asked if staff could comment on the sewer lines.
    Mr. Hancock said tonight was the first time he had heard about the water line's proximity to the surface.  Mayor Hindman asked if that could be taken into consideration at the time of construction, and wondered whether there was a rule that requires that sidewalks be reduced to street level.  Mr. Patterson said sidewalks do not have to be exactly at the top of the curb or at street level; however, he said care would have to be taken to prevent excessive sloping that might become dangerous.  He said that would be part of the design for the planning of the sidewalk.  Mr. Patterson stated it appears that the Water and Light Department is familiar with the location.
    Mr. Campbell asked about the width of the streets in the area.  Mr. Patterson said he was not sure about the widths, but knew there were 50 foot right-of-ways.  Mr. Campbell said it appeared there was not the normal street allowance, which he felt made it more important for a sidewalk network in the area.
    Mr. Kruse wondered because this is a CDBG eligible area, whether 100% of the cost of the sidewalks would be paid for with CDBG money.  Mr. Patterson said when sidewalks are being replaced, they are paid for with CDBG funding.  But in this case, the policy would apply that if sidewalks are part of the development requirement or part of the platting process, it is the property owner's responsibility to install them unless the area is targeted on the Master Sidewalk Plan as a priority sidewalk.  Mr. Kruse asked if it was on the Master Plan.  Mr. Janku responded that it was a priority B.
    Mr. Janku said the phone and power poles are on the side the sidewalks are required.  He said it would probably be cheaper to put the sidewalks on the other side of the street.
    Mr. Campbell said one of his classes had worked on a Habitat house on Saturday morning, and he had gone out to the site as well.  He said there were a lot of neighborhood children out in the streets.  He felt there was a need for sidewalks in the area.
    Mr. Janku said in the future when the Council grants funding to Habitat for Humanity, perhaps the cost of the sidewalks should be included in the grant amount.  Mayor Hindman pointed out that Habitat for Humanity received a $50,000 grant this year.  Mr. Janku said it was requested for other uses, but perhaps the agreement could be amended.
    Ms. Coble said she would be more inclined to go for a variance at this time when there are no other sidewalks in the neighborhood.  She said there have always been a lot of kids in the area, and there will continue to be a lot of kids.  She was concerned about what it would mean to the households should resident's water lines be affected.  Ms. Coble did not think it was worth it to have water lines affected in order to have sidewalks in front of two homes that do not connect anywhere.  She did not think sidewalks would fix the problems created by a very awkward intersection.  Mayor Hindman agreed that the sidewalks would not fix the street situation in and of itself.
    B328-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  KRUSE, COFFMAN, COBLE.  VOTING NO:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HINDMAN, JANKU.  Bill defeated.

B330-97     Final plat of Forum Chapel Plaza, a major subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this 13.89 acre tract of land on the southwest corner of Forum Boulevard and Chapel Hill would create ten lots with a combination of O-P and C-P zoning.  He pointed out that this plat had not required Planning and Zoning Commission review, but had been reviewed by the staff and was considered to be in conformance with the preliminary plat and the Council's conditions.
    Mr. Campbell noted that this was the formalization of an agreement that had been worked out several months ago with the neighborhood and the developer.
    B330-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B331-97     Replat of Lot B of Taylor's Subdivision.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this replat would create three R-1 lots.  The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial regarding the request for a sidewalk variance on Lindell.
    Charles Tomka, 716 W. Broadway, owner of the property, noted that the area was designated as a "none planned" area for sidewalks.  He said if a variance is not granted, again a sidewalk would be created that goes nowhere.  In addition, some trees and brush will have to be removed to accommodate a sidewalk.  Mr. Tomka said the expense of the sidewalk was not as big an issue as the aesthetics.  He said it was a beautiful area and a sidewalk would be a detriment.
    Mr. Campbell noted that the proposal was for two 8,000 square foot lots.  He said that was just barely above the minimum and asked what the average lot sizes were in the area.  Mr. Tomka said some of the lots are barely the 7,000 square foot minimum.  He said the two lots are over one-third of an acre.  The lots on Lindell are smaller than what he is proposing.  Mr. Tomka said the configuration was a little odd, but he was trying to save trees.  Mr. Campbell asked whether he could put in just one lot.  Mr. Tomka said he could, and he had given some thought to that.  Mr. Campbell said it would fit into the neighborhood better.  Mr. Tomka agreed, but said some people are looking for less yard to maintain.
    Mr. Campbell said this was one of the older homes along Broadway, and breaking the lot down into smaller areas was probably something that would affect the historical nature of the neighborhood.  He said there had been several discussions about trying to maintain the relatively large lots along Broadway and, before he was on the Council, he knew there were several attempts to subdivide the lots along the north side.  He said changes were made in the ordinance to preserve the large lots and to maintain the historical context of those houses.  Mr. Campbell explained that this particular lot opens up to the back, and is the only one along this particular street with that access.  If the replat had been for one lot and maintained a larger portion of the other lot, Mr. Campbell guessed he would have been supportive of the request.  But in the present context, he could not.  Mr. Campbell indicated he could not support the variance either.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if the Council would be voting on the replat or the sidewalk variance.  Mr. Boeckmann said in drafting the ordinance, he had followed the recommendation of the Commission and did not include the language regarding the variance.  This language will have to be added if the Council approves the variance.
    Mr. Kruse asked if the house on Broadway would remain as is.  Mr. Tomka said that was his home and it would remain.  He said for the last several years, the church has been trying to buy the property in the rear to put a parking lot in.  He thought a black top parking lot would be objectionable to the neighbors.
    Mr. Janku asked Mr. Tomka how he was going to market the lots.  Mr. Tomka said he was dealing with a contractor who would like to build two homes.  There had also been discussions about the contractor putting his personal home on the property and having it as only one lot.
    Mr. Campbell did not think there were any restrictions at the present time as to the kind of home which could be built at this location.  Mr. Tomka said that was correct.  Mr. Campbell's point was that any type of home could be built that might not be in character with the neighborhood.  Mr. Tomka assumed a person who would want to live in the area would not build anything out of character.
    Mr. Kruse asked if lot number one would be accessed off of Broadway.  Mr. Tomka said that was correct.  He said there is a main driveway coming into the front of his house.  Behind the house is a large parking circle.
    Mr. Campbell said he would be much more supportive of the replat if Mr. Tomka would come back with one lot, and with some guarantees that it would fit within the neighborhood.  Mr. Tomka said he would have no problem with it being approved on that basis.  He said his reasoning for two lots had been the thought that it would be more in character with the neighborhood.  He said value-wise, it made no difference to him.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if something would have to be approved by the Council in order to put a parking lot in the back.  Mr. Patterson said a parking lot for the church would be an off-site parking lot, and that requires Council approval because the property would have to be combined.
    Mayor Hindman said if the Council approved this replat as two lots and the contractor wanted to put his house in the middle, another replat would be required.  Mr. Tomka said the contractor had indicated if the property could be replatted for  two lots, he would build two homes; however, if it was only going to be one lot, the contractor would buy the property and put his personal home on it.
    Mr. Campbell said he would be happy to sit down with Mr. Tomka and work on the replat.  Mr. Tomka said he had no objection.  Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Boeckmann if this request were to come back as one lot, whether it would have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission before being taken care of at the Council level.  Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could do it.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the Council table B331-97.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B334-97     Amending Chapter 13 of the City Code to occupations licenses; eliminating requirement
                    for the issuance of a license insignia.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this would eliminate the stickers that are now displayed in windows of businesses that are licensed.  He said the Finance Director was present to answer any questions.
    Lori Fleming said her staff had surveyed other cities and it was felt this would help the Business License Office operate more efficiently.  She said the current policy has been a duplication of effort.  The businesses will still be required to display their license in a prominent place.
    B334-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B337-97     Amending Chapter 24 regarding defining management of trees within the City.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
     Mr. Beck explained that the Council had requested that the staff find out what was needed to be eligible for a Tree City USA designation.  One item lacking was an ordinance specifying certain issues that are not currently contained in the City's ordinances.  He said the Parks and Recreation Department and Public Works Department have been working together with the Missouri Department of Conservation to obtain the Tree City USA designation for the City.
    Mr. Janku noted that becoming a Tree City USA meant the City could receive larger amounts of grant funds from the Department of Conservation.  He said some of their programs provides a bonus to cities that meet that standard.
    B337-97 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

    The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B332-97     Final plat of Ewing Industrial Park, a minor subdivision.
B333-97     Accepting conveyances from Hulett, Ferellgas, JJS Partnership, Jeffrey E. Smith
                    Partnership, and Godas Development.
B335-97     Authorizing right of use permit which allows the University to install chilled water lines
                    underneath Rollins Road.
R187-97     Authorizing City Manager to apply for grants from the Missouri Arts Council and the
                    Heartland Arts Fund.
R188-97     Setting public hearing on skateboard park.

    The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

R189-97     Approving preliminary plat of Smithton Ridge, a major subdivision, and granting
                    variances to subdivision regulations.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this 29 acre tract of land is located in west central Columbia and the plat will create 66 R-1 lots.  The staff had recommended that the plat be denied based on several items listed in the report; however, the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval on a 7-3 vote, subject to one street being renamed.
    Mr. Hancock explained that the staff's main concern was the three lots in the corner with proposed driveway access to Strawn Road.  He noted that the subdivision regulations prohibit direct driveway access onto collectors and arterials.  He said staff suggested that Deer Berry be extended to connect with Strawn Road to eliminate the possibility of direct driveway connections.  He said it would also provide more circulation.  Another possible solution suggested at the Commission meeting was to extend the cul-de-sac a bit and have double frontage lots.  Another option was establishing one driveway serving three lots.  He believed the proponents had no problem with changing Deer Berry's street name to meet the needs of the Joint Communications Office.
    Mr. Beck noted that a letter had been received from the attorney representing the developer, which responded to several issues discussed at the Commission meeting.
    Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices at 901 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of Scott Atkins.  He said Scott and his family have lived on the property for 20 years, and his parents still reside there.  Mr. Beckett said the primary interest in requesting the variance for the three lots along Strawn Road served a singular purpose -- to preserve tree cover on the northwest corner of the site.  He said if Deer Berry is extended any further than where it is shown on the plat -- whether it ends in a cul-de-sac a little further to the west to serve the three lots from the east, or travels all the way to Strawn Road -- it would take out a substantial amount of tree cover in the area.  In addition, it is not just the roadbed itself that would have to be excavated.  The terrain is hilly and the street would be going down a ravine requiring substantial cut and fill on both sides of the road, as well as grading along the lots that would be served by the road.
    Mr. Beckett reported when West Broadway was constructed, it took out about six or seven acres of trees along the front south end of this property.  He said if Deer Berry were extended through to Strawn Road, it would actually increase the development by approximately four lots, and the applicant would probably make a little more money than with the present configuration.  He pointed out that at the Commission meeting, Mr. Atkins agreed to, and the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, a variance to allow driveway access for the three lots on Strawn Road through one common driveway entrance serving the lots.  The configuration for the single driveway to serve the three lots had been shown in the letter sent to the Council.
    Mr. Beckett said he could not emphasize enough the applicant's position, and the belief that the subdivision regulations encourage exactly what is requested for this development.  He read from Section 25-39 regarding the preservation of trees when designing subdivisions containing any such features.  He also read about the arrangement of streets from Section 25-42 (2) (a).  He said Mr. Atkins felt the original preliminary plat was a far more desirable layout than the alternate configuration which had been attached to the letter sent to the Council.  He said it was better looking and it contained a lot better features.  He said Mr. Atkins' development could not access Broadway because it is a major street.  Mr. Beckett said a preliminary plat had been submitted some time ago that had been rejected because of the major access onto Broadway.  Now Strawn Road had been made a major street by not allowing driveway access onto it.  He thought both streets could be classified as major streets, and the exception to the block distance requirements in the subdivision regulations applies.  Mr. Beckett said it was very important for Mr. Atkins to have his plat approved and, if the Council was not inclined to grant the variance requested for the driveway entrance onto Strawn, they would ask that the plat be approved conditionally by allowing Deer Berry to connect to Strawn.
    Mr. Janku asked about the property to the north.  Mr. Beckett said one property was owned by the Silvey family and the other was owned by Mr. Soren.  He said there was a deep ravine just to the north of this property line and that was why the stub street was moved back to the east.
    Mayor Hindman said the question was where would the next east/west through street be if the Council allowed the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Beckett said the next street, that he is aware of, would be Worley.  He said there is quite a bit of distance between the northern boundary of this property and Worley Street.  He suggested that perhaps one of the engineers from Allstate could comment better on that.
    Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with Allstate Consultants, said the Soren property was directly north and to the west of this site.  This is a relatively open field -- what he would call a valley.  He said the ridge where the cul-de-sac is located continues northward down and goes into a subdivision (Green Valley), and extends back up.  There is a little barn and a pond contained on the property.  Mr. Gebhardt reported there is no tree cover and it is an ideal spot for a street to come down to Silvey Lane.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the staff had made any indication on the Master Plan as to where the next street should be located in this area.  Mr. Patterson said the only thing currently on the plan was the possible extension of Worley.  He said the City did not have the local streets designated.  Mr. Patterson reported it had been thought that Deer Berry would be an appropriate location for a parallel street to Broadway to allow for interconnection between neighborhoods.
    Mr. Gebhardt pointed out that a road could be built in either place, but said the Soren property would be an easier location to build a street.  Mr. Janku inquired about the development of that property.  Mr. Gebhardt replied there is not a home on the property, but there is a small barn.  He said the land is basically a pasture.  Mr. Gebhardt noted that Mr. Atkins is asking for one entrance onto Strawn to serve three lots, and if the street was extended to Strawn, there would be one entrance.  In essence, a private driveway entrance is being requested, instead of a public street entrance, to serve just the three lots rather than the whole subdivision.  Mr. Gebhardt stated with this configuration, cars would be pulling out rather than backing onto the street.
    Mayor Hindman asked about Shadow Brook Lane.  Mr. Gebhardt explained that it was platted, but not developed.  He said there was one owner with a family living in the existing house.  He said there had been plans to build another house, but it never materialized because there is no City water and this person did not want to carry the burden of bringing a water line to the site.  Referring to the Soren property, Mayor Hindman asked if there would be room to plat lots on either side of a street.  Mr. Gebhardt said there would be room.
    Mr. Janku said some sort of stub street into the property to the north might allow future development to take the traffic out to Strawn Road, as opposed to extending a street directly to Strawn.  He guessed it would have to be somewhere to the west of the cul-de-sac area.  Mr. Gebhardt said he placed the stub where he did for two reasons:  Because of the topography, and to position the stub street in such a way so that it would parallel Silvey to allow the houses to be backed up.  He thought the stub would act as an outer road for Silvey to bring traffic northward to enable residents to travel east or west on a future street to get to Strawn or Silvey.  Mr. Janku said that was not a problem, it was whether or not there needed to be one stub further west that would allow people to get out to Strawn going through the Soren property -- if it eventually develops into a residential area.  Mr. Gebhardt said the terrain is awfully steep through this area, but he thought that would be preferable than to extend the street to Strawn.
    Mrs. Crockett asked if Strawn was a City street.  Mr. Beck replied that it is a state road.  Mrs. Crockett said she was aware that it flooded from time to time.  Mr. Beck said it floods north of this location.
    Mr. Janku asked if the option of going north into the adjoining property was something that would be at all feasible or practical given the topography.  Mr. Patterson thought the comments made about the terrain to the north had some validity.  He felt it would be desirable to move the stub further west, but it does start encroaching on some pretty severe topography.  He said what staff hoped to see was for the road to start coming back to the west up on the point.  He assumed Mr. Janku was referring to Paw Paw Way.  Mr. Janku said he was talking about where the cul-de-sac ends.  He thought it seemed to be relatively flat.  Mr. Patterson said if Mr. Janku was asking about stubbing the area around Lot 42 to the north, a stub could be created to the north, but did not know whether the road could go directly north very far.  He thought it looked like it could come back to the west of Strawn Road.
    Mr. Kruse asked if Deer Berry were to come through to Strawn, whether that would eliminate some of the lots.  Mr. Beckett said it would result in about four additional lots.  He said money-wise, the Atkins would come out about the same;  however, a lot of trees would be lost.  Mr. Kruse asked what would happen if the street was extended, but by doing so, the number of lots were not increased.  Mr. Beckett said if the street extends to Strawn Road, it would be going down into a ravine.  He said not only would the street have to be graded, but so would the lots to bring them to the grade of the street.  Mr. Beckett explained the impact was far greater than just the street right-of-way itself.
    Mr. Campbell said he understood what Mr. Beckett was saying, but most of the lots appeared to be about 12,000 square feet.  Based on that footage, Mr. Campbell thought by the time driveways and houses are constructed, most of the trees would be taken out anyway.  He asked if that was a fair statement.  Mr. Beckett said he did not think it would be fair to say this would occur if the Council allowed the subdivision to be built as presented tonight because there are very large lots situated at the end of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Campbell said that was true, but trees would still have to be taken out on the other lots.  Mr. Gebhardt replied the goal is to leave as many trees as possible on the lots.  He said some trees would have to be cut down to build the houses, but many trees would remain.
    Mayor Hindman said as it is not known when a second exit will be provided, this plat could establish a subdivision with one exit for the time being.  On the other hand, he thought there was a lot to be said for what it is the applicant is wanting to do.
    Mr. Beckett pointed out that the ordinances specifically allow 100 lots to be served by one entrance.
    At some point, Mr. Janku said there would be a connection to Strawn Road.  He thought it would be unfair for another subdivision that may develop to the north to bear the burden of this subdivision's traffic.  He said if the traffic has to travel all the way through to another subdivision, some design should be in place to discourage this.  Mr. Janku stated if there was some way to stub the subdivision to the northwest, that might alleviate some of the concern.
    Regarding Lot 42, the last lot on the north side, Mr. Campbell concluded it would be relatively flat with a ten foot drop between the front and back of the lot.  Mr. Gebhardt said construction of stub would be relatively inexpensive at this site, but a burden would be placed on the next owner because of the steep topography.  Mr. Gebhardt wanted the Council to understand a stub could certainly be established at this location, but it would create a burden to the owner of that lot.
    Mr. Campbell asked what was necessary if the Council chose the option of having one private drive serving the three lots.  Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could amend the resolution by adding the statement provided that access shall be by one private driveway.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion to amend R189-97 by adding language at the end of Section 4 as follows: provided that access shall be by one private driveway.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble.
    Mr. Janku felt there still needed to be some type of access to Strawn Road.  He felt some sort of long-term connection is necessary.  Mr. Janku thought where the access is currently located, it is so far to the east that it seems to be not very effective.
    Mr. Campbell said the photographs were very clear and if a stub was constructed at this location, a large number of trees would have to be cut down.  He said this is a choice the Council has to make -- either a large number of trees will be cut down, or allowing one private drive for three lots plus a cul-de-sac.
    Mayor Hindman asked if the topography was too steep to go west from Daylily or Damson.  Mr. Gebhardt said it was much more severe at the two southern ridges.  He said the staff was correct in that if any street is extended, it would have to be Deer Berry.  He reminded the Council that the street referred to as Deer Berry will be renamed per the request of Joint Communications.
    Ms. Coble said if Deer Berry was extended through to Strawn Road, this would have more of an environmental impact in terms of changing the existing landscape.  She said it seemed if the Council permitted the single drive access for the three lots, along with what has been planned for the Paw Paw stub to the north, it would also allow for some other options in the future.  Ms. Coble said she would be willing to go with the present design if the terrain is too steep to the west.
    The motion to amend, made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Ms. Coble, was approved by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku asked if the driveway would meet all standards.  Mr. Gebhardt said they would go on record indicating all of the requirements will be met for a driveway on a stem street, which is 18 feet in width and six inches thick.  In addition, addresses will be posted out by the street.
    Mr. Hancock asked if they would also agree to obtain the necessary appropriate easements.  Mr. Gebhardt said particular attention would be given in providing proper ingress and egress easements for the drive so as to alleviate any confusion to future homeowners.
    Mr. Kruse asked about pedestrian access from the cul-de-sacs to Strawn Road.  Mr. Gebhardt said there are pedestrian accesses from the cul-de-sacs to Strawn Road.  He said these are in the form of private pedestrian accesses.  All pedestrian accesses will be identified on the final plat.
    The vote on R189-97, as amended, was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R190-97     Expressing opposition to HR 1534, the proposed Private Property Rights Implementation
                    Act of 1997.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said it was felt the City should oppose this particular federal legislation.  He said if the Council adopts the resolution, it will formalize their opposition to HR 1534.  Copies of the resolution will be forwarded to the City's Congressmen.  It is felt that HR 1534 would encourage landowners to bring legal actions in federal court against local government, before a complete record of appropriate land use is established.  Currently, any legal action goes through state court if it cannot be worked out locally.
    Mr. Boeckmann explained that the federal legislation would eliminate a lot of current procedural road blocks to getting into federal court.  At the present time before one can file a law suit in federal court, it has be to be shown that the applicant has gone through all of the local channels, and the local government has been given the opportunity to have a full review of the situation before a law suit is filed in federal court.  He said it also dealt with the concept of abstention.  In certain circumstances, federal courts will refuse to hear a case, even if they have jurisdiction, when they feel it is more appropriate for the state courts to deal with the state law issues first.  He said this would limit the ability of federal courts to abstain in certain land use cases.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the federal courts were normally more lenient.  Mr. Boeckmann said it would depend on the jurisdiction and on the particular judge who tries the case.  For the most part, he thought the City would be better off having land uses decided at the local level to the greatest extent possible.  It is not only a question of being in federal court as opposed to state court, but a question of allowing the issues to be fully developed at the City government level before it gets into the court system.  Mr. Boeckmann said an individual could submit a request to rezone their property from A-1 to C-1, and the Council could think that was an inappropriate land use and deny it.  Under this proposed legislation, the applicant could proceed to federal court.
    Mr. Beck said this could be very costly and the City could potentially be in court more often.
    Mr. Boeckmann said it would be expensive for developers to rush into court also.  He did think it would lead to more litigation.
    The vote on R190-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R191-97     Authorizing addition of a Market Based Rate Power Sales Tariff to the Union Electric
                    Interconnection Agreement.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that approval of this agreement is being recommended by staff and by the Water and Light Advisory Board.  He said staff did not feel the proposed changes would affect the price or conditions of current transactions with Union Electric.  Mr. Beck reported the agreement would satisfy federal regulations.
    The vote on R191-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  ABSTAINING:  COFFMAN.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R192-97     Authorizing an agreement with the American Audio Prose Library.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this cultural affairs agreement had been inadvertently omitted at the last meeting.
    The vote on R192-97 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU.  VOTING NO:  NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

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

B338-97     Authorizing agreement with MO Department of Public Safety to provide materials and
                    instruction for a Columbia Police Youth Academy.
B339-97     Authorizing agreement with the Columbia School District for use of a portion of the City's
                    fiber optic cable system.
B340-97     Accepting bid of Slates Construction and confirming the contract for construction of Cell
                    No. 2 at Columbia's landfill.
B341-97     Accepting conveyances for sanitary sewer, utility, street and drainage purposes.
B342-97     Voluntary annexation of property located east of Rock Quarry and south of Nifong
                    Boulevard; establishing permanent PUD-8 zoning, rezoning property located on ease side
                    of Rock Quarry, and approval of PUD Development Plan for Cambridge Place.
B343-97     Voluntary annexation of property owned by Central MO Sheltered Enterprises, Inc.,
                    located east of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard and establishing permanent
B344-97     Approving final plat of Heritage Meadows, Plat 3, a major subdivision.
B345-97     Rezoning property owned by McAlester located on the west side of south Fifth Street,
                    between East Broadway and Cherry Street from M-1 to C-2.
B346-97     Rezoning property owned by Godas Development, Inc. located on the east side of
                    Ballenger Lane, north of Clark Lane from R-1 to C-P.
B347-97     Amending the Major Thoroughfare Plan to extend Vandiver Drive across from US Hwy. 63
                    between I-70 and the Mexico Gravel Road Bridge and provide direct access to US Hwy. 63
                    from Vandiver Dr.
B348-97     Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of Ordinances to establish new regulations for
                    communications antennas and towers.
B349-97     Amending the FY 1998 Pay Plan to reclassify one Printer I position to Printer II, reclassify
                     Assistant Public Communications Officer to Public Communications Assistant.
B350-97     Declaring the necessity to proceed with land acquisition for recreational trail along Bear
B351-97     Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract for sale of Jenkins' property relating to
                    pedestrian access at Stadium Boulevard and Westwinds Drive.
B352-97     Amending Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances as it relates to warrants.
B353-97     Authorizing city staff to secure an unsafe structure located at 601 Jackson Street.

(A)     Emergency Interpreter Services.
    Mr. Beck said staff felt there was no identifiable situation that pressed the need for interpreter services at this time.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the hospitals routinely maintain this kind of service in their emergency rooms.  Mr. Sanford did not know the answer to that question.
    Ms. Coble said there were concerns from some consumers that even though there may be those on City staff who have the ability to do some limited interpreting or signing during a crisis situation, these individuals generally are not certified.  She said the concern was that formal training is necessary in terms of obtaining certification, and that is of great importance to those who utilize interpreter services.  Ms. Coble reported it is important to know that someone has a certain code of ethical standards and have obtained a certain level of training.  This was the comment that had been forwarded to her.  Ms. Coble said the cost would not be that significant given that there are some emergency responders already capable, there would just need to be some extra incentive to obtain certification.  She said that makes a big difference to those in the deaf community.  Ms. Coble proposed that the City Manager consult staff members to determine if there are individuals at JCIC, the Police Department, and the Fire Department who might be willing to go through a certification process.
    Mr. Beck said on some occasions it is difficult to get interpreters scheduled for meetings.  He said it might be a good idea from that standpoint as well.

(B)     Snow Removal on Sidewalks.
    Mr. Beck said during the winter months last year, people had contacted the City with regard to the establishment of some type of snow removal operations.  He said the Council had asked for a report at that time.  Mr. Beck said the Public Works Department prepared a report after surveying other cities.  The staff recommendation is that efforts be increased to achieve voluntary compliance, and to develop a volunteer program to assist those persons unable to remove snow from their sidewalk.  Mr. Beck would also like to have a list maintained of potential contractors who would be willing to provide that service to area residents.
    Ms. Coble asked if the list would be in addition to establishing some type of volunteer system.  Mr. Beck said that was his thinking -- that this proposal be added to the suggested Council action.
    Mayor Hindman thought it might be helpful to look into the pattern instituted in Boulder, Colorado.
    Mr. Campbell suggested that reminder notices might also be helpful.  He said there are a row of fraternity houses along Stewart Road that do not do a very good job of keeping walks cleaned.
    Mr. Coffman made the motion that staff be directed to increase the efforts to achieve voluntary compliance, and to develop volunteer programs to include possibly a listing of people who could provide snow removal services.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)     All-Way Warrant Study - Oakland Gravel and Smiley Lane/Springdale Drive.
    Mr. Janku said he appreciated the staff's efforts, even though an all-way stop is not warranted at this point.  He thought it would be required in the future.

(D)     Tree Trimming Policy for Utilities in Kansas City Area.
    Mr. Malon said Kansas City's tree trimming policy is very similar to Columbia's.  He said the staff had been following through with all of the requirements for the Tree Line USA award, and had filed all of the activities, including the City's specifications.  DNR had accepted the City's application, and Mr. Malon said it appeared Columbia would be receiving that award.

(E)     Assistance League's Request to Use Downtown Parking Spaces.
    Mr. Beck explained that the initial request had been to place the playhouse fund raiser on Broadway.  He said staff spoke with the Central Columbia Association and the adjacent property owner about the request.  He said the suggestion had been to authorize the placement of the playhouse on Eighth Street, rather than on Broadway, for this particular event.  Mr. Beck said the staff saw no problem with this suggestion.
    Mayor Hindman made the motion that the request be granted.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.


    Mr. Janku commented that he had received a call about debris near the intersection of Providence and the south side of I-70.  He asked that the situation be taken care of.
    Mr. Janku noted that earlier this evening the Council had heard a great deal of discussion regarding street access from Valley View Subdivision.  In previous conversations with Mr. Beck, Mr. Janku suggested staff look into the Primrose exit/entrance for alternatives at this location.  As the Council moves forward with the budget for upcoming years, more thought should be given to the southern extension where there is one piece of property remaining and will undergo possible development at some point.  He thought rather than waiting for that to happen, the City should examine what could be done to improve the access.  If quality access is not established at I-70 Drive, it could have a major impact on the development at this location.
    Mr. Janku made the motion that the staff be directed to look at the intersection to see what could be done to improve the exit from Primrose onto Stadium heading south.  He said that seemed to be the primary concern in this area.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Janku asked for a staff report on the accidents at Stadium and I-70 Drive Southeast.  This is the location where traffic from Cosmo Park comes out.
    Mrs. Crockett asked about the time frame for trash out early.  Mr. Patterson said the policy had been changed from 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on the evening before trash pick-up.  He said it had been changed a few years ago so that residents could get their trash out before dark.  Mrs. Crockett said she travels Oakland Road frequently, and it seemed as though there are black trash bags out all of the time.
    Mr. Campbell said he had made a motion at the last meeting directing the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider reviewing the Planning and Zoning ordinances, as it had been 15 years since this last occurred.  He had recently found out that the County Commission will also be reviewing their ordinances.  He asked if there was some way this could be made a joint activity, which would encourage the joint planning that has been quite frequently discussed.  Mr. Campbell asked what could be done to facilitate and coordinate the joint review of Planning and Zoning ordinances.  Mayor Hindman said the Council would need to talk to the County Commission about it.  Mr. Campbell said the Commission has plans to travel to all of the townships, and the County thought it would be beneficial to work on the revisions with the City before holding their public hearings.
    Mr. Campbell noted that the Council had received a letter from Mr. Beck regarding the appearance of the lobby in the Daniel Boone Building.  He noted that the County had successfully used art as a way of lightening up their lobby.  He suggested that the City do the same thing.  Mr. Beck said he had spoken with some people about bringing in artwork.  The question is just how the Council wanted the lobby to look.  Mr. Beck stated art could be part of it.  Mr. Campbell said one of the things that keeps the County's display interesting is that the art is constantly rotated, which adds freshness to the displays.
    Mr. Campbell commented that some time ago the Council had discussions about restricting parking on Fairview, from Broadway south.  He asked for a staff report regarding the establishment of no parking, probably on the west side of the street from Broadway to Highland, but would like the staff to comment on how far it should extend.
    Referring to the tree trimming report, Mr. Coffman said he had received many complaints regarding the way this is handled, and knew the issue had been discussed on numerous occasions in the past.  Mr. Coffman said he was very aware of the dilemma between the cost associated with frequent trimming, and how this determines how much trimming has to occur.  He asked if the Council had ever discussed the manner in which people are notified.  He felt that part of the frustration and anguish about having trees trimmed is that people are not aware it is to occur until the crew begins cutting.  Mr. Malon said the City actually does attempt to contact people in advance.  He said door hangers are posted several days before crews are scheduled to trim in the area.  When possible, staff attempts to speak directly with the homeowners before the trimming process.  Mr. Malon said it becomes difficult because there are many, many instances where nobody is home during the day.  Mrs. Crockett noted that often the trees are on easements.  Mayor Hindman noted that there is an economic and aesthetic trade-off where overhead lines are placed.  He said if the trimming techniques are ever changed, it would increase the cost.  He said if it was decided that overhead lines should be buried, it would increase the cost.  Mayor Hindman said everyone demands good electrical service, and that would be required no matter what the Council decided to do.  He thought there might be a solution in the situations where overhead lines run down both sides of the street.  In these cases, the lines possibly could be combined.
    Mayor Hindman noted that the Walkable Communities program would be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 11th.  The Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator from the state of Florida would be present to discuss what could be done to make Columbia a safer, more pedestrian friendly city.  Mayor Hindman urged parents, school officials, builders, and other interested persons to come to the program.
    The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

                                                                                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                 Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                                 City Clerk