INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia,
Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, January 20,
1998, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, and KRUSE 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 5, 1998, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the Consent Agenda,
was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and
a second by Mr. Campbell.
SPECIAL ITEMS
1. Tree Line USA Award - Water & Light Department.
Mayor Hindman, Mr. Beck, and Mr.
Malon were joined at the podium by Lisa Allen, the Urban Forestry Program
Coordinator with the Missouri Department of Conservation. Ms. Allen
explained that she would be presenting the Tree Line USA award, which is
sponsored in conjunction with the Missouri Department of Conservation, the
National Association of State Foresters, and the National Arbor Day Foundation. She
pointed out that the award recognizes communities who have provided outstanding
tree care, which includes an ongoing tree planting and replacement program,
workers who are trained on how to care for trees, and the availability of
educational programs for the community. The City was presented with
a flag and a prism in recognition of national leadership in caring for trees
while meeting service objectives. Ms. Allen noted that Columbia is
the second community in the state to be recognized for this award.
Mayor Hindman said it is nice to know
that the Water and Light Department is following good practices in connection
with tree trimming. He congratulated the Department on a job well done.
Mayor Hindman introduced two groups that
were present for the council meeting; a fifth grade class from Grant Elementary
School, and a journalism class from the University.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Urban Wussler - Columbia's Can Deposit Ordinance.
Urban Wussler, 2226 Bluff Boulevard, Chairman
of the Committee to Repeal Columbia's Deposit Ordinance, said this group
wants to replace the current ordinance with a mandatory recycling law. Mr.
Wussler explained how the deposit ordinance began. He said there are
only nine states with deposit laws, and it had been over ten years since
any of those had been enacted. He asked the Council to consider repealing
the ordinance at the work session scheduled next Monday, and replace it with
a sensible mandatory recycling law.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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 east side of Rock Quarry, approval
of PUD Development Plan for Cambridge Place.
The bill was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this bill had
been tabled from the December 15 meeting. It was his understanding
that the private streets and the gates had been removed from the proposal. He
said there was also some concern expressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission
level that the density was higher than what is felt to be desirable. A
layout of the plan for the area was displayed on the overhead.
Mr. Janku asked about the turnaround point
the Fire Department was concerned about. Mr. Hancock said that issue
related to the parking lots, and had been resolved prior to the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendation. He said the Fire Department
did not have a strong objection to the turnaround.
Mr. Campbell asked if the submitted plan
met all City standards regarding development and storm water management. In
so far as submittal requirements at the PUD level when platted, Mr. Hancock
said this plan would suffice as a preliminary plat. Mr. Hancock indicated
that at the time of the final plat, more detailed storm water management
data and street construction plans will have to be provided.
Mayor Hindman asked about the inadequacy
of the streets connecting to the south and east. Mr. Hancock responded
staff would like to see the streets extend to nearby property. He displayed
an overhead of vacant county ground to the east and to the south. Mr.
Hancock noted that the trash compactor shown was somewhat of an issue, but
he said the developer may no longer choose to include it since the streets
are no longer private.
Mr. Campbell asked if the turnaround at
the end of the long street met all City standards for such designs. Mr.
Hancock said it did. He said when the streets are designed, they are
done so to meet public street standards.
Mr. Janku asked about the amount of frontage
on Rock Quarry Road. Mr. Hancock said it was approximately 735 feet.
Mayor Hindman said one of the concerns
of the residents pertained to the amount of traffic that would be created
on Rock Quarry. He thought it would generate two kinds of traffic --
automobile and pedestrian. He asked if there was a provision for pedestrian
traffic on Rock Quarry from the Phase I road. Mr. Hancock said off-site
improvements had been indicated in one of the earlier reports, and Rock Quarry
Road should be accommodated in any plan that is approved. Given the
conversation regarding the density and the private streets, Mr. Hancock did
not know if that ever really got addressed at the Commission level. If
the development is approved, there should be a condition that off-site improvements
be included on the final plat -- that there be sidewalks and some responsibility
to provide improvements to Rock Quarry Road at an appropriate time. Mr.
Hancock did not see a sidewalk designated on the plan map, but the subdividers
may be able to do that. There are sidewalks on the interior streets
shown, but not on Rock Quarry.
Mayor Hindman asked if the Council should
amend the bill to incorporate that condition. Mr. Boeckmann said that
would be appropriate.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Hancock if he was
suggesting at some point, similar with other planned developments, the Council
could require a certain contribution to the infrastructure. Mr. Hancock
said that was correct.
In terms of road planning in the area
for connections between Rock Quarry and Bearfield, Mr. Janku asked if the
CATSO group had given any thought about future connections. Mr. Hancock
said several amendments had been considered in the vicinity. He did
not think a collector street to Bearfield was shown on this property. Mr.
Janku asked if Mr. Hancock was saying it would be further south. Mr.
Hancock said the current plan simply shows Gans Road. Mr. Janku commented
that Gans Road is about a mile to Nifong, so there really needs to be one
or two connections. Mr. Hancock said some connection is necessary,
although it may not need to be a full width collector street -- just a connection
between the two.
Mayor Hindman noted that there was a prepared
amendment sheet which is a technicality changing the date of the plan from
November 13, 1997, to December 10, 1997.
Mr Janku made the motion that B342-97
be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Richard Royer, 1515 Woodrail Avenue, explained
a senior citizens residential community to be classified as PUD-8 is proposed
in southern Columbia. He said the purpose of the development is to
offer older adults a unique living opportunity -- one that is not available
elsewhere in mid-Missouri. He said it is intended that this development
will be approved under the auspices of the Federal Fair Housing Authority
as an age qualified community. To do so, Mr. Royer said specific federal
regulations for senior citizens must be adhered to. In essence, not
just another R-1 or R-2 development is being proposed -- this is a special
type of development.
Mr. Royer reported the development is
located on a 31 acre tract on Rock Quarry Road, about 1,000 feet south of
Nifong. He further explained that it is bordered by the Juniper Ridge
development to the north and undeveloped land to the south and east. The
new Hunt Manor development is northwest across Rock Quarry.
Mr. Royer explained the intention is to
build 222 units in a combination of patio homes and condominiums, some built
with walkouts. These units would range from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet,
and would be priced in the $100,000 to $150,000 range. All units will
be for sale, none will be rental. Mr. Royer said an important feature
will be an amenity package that is part of the development, a true selling
feature to the retirement market. In addition, a centralized complex
is planned that will contain recreation and meeting rooms, a community center,
a gymnasium, as well as an outdoor swimming pool, tennis courts, and a one
mile walking trail throughout the development. Mr. Royer explained
how the 200 plus units will be phased in over a ten year period of time.
Regarding the traffic and density concerns,
Mr. Royer said traffic is an important issue in the area because of rampant
development during the last ten years. He said this project will not
be a significant traffic generator because figures supplied by the City's
Planning Department indicate 3.5 trips per unit could be expected daily,
compared to 10 trips per day in an average R-1 development. He said
this project will create the least amount of traffic of any conceivable development
of either a residential or commercial variety. Mr. Royer pointed out
that the project is expected to be phased in over a ten year period, which
would give ample time for improvements to Rock Quarry and the relocation
of Route AC. Mr. Royer reported on the development's population patterns
for the next 10 years, which ranged from 90 people three years from now,
to 306 people in 2006. This computes to less than 50 additional cars
on the road in three years. Even fully developed, these vehicles will
not create large amounts of traffic. Mr. Royer said the project would
add significantly to the tax base to allow for necessary road improvements. Regarding
density, Mr. Royer said the plan calls for 7.9 units per acre, less than
all adjacent neighbors. At that density, he contended that the project
will provide a logical transition from the more dense R-2 and R-3 to the
north, to the less dense R-1 to the south. Mr. Royer reported the density
of the project is only 1.7 units per acre greater than an R-1 development.
Mr. Royer pointed out that this project
had been developed in concert with the 2000 project sponsored by the City
and the Chamber of Commerce. He said they tend to actively market within
a 120 mile radius of Columbia. It is anticipated that more than half
of the residents of this development will be people who do not currently
reside in Boone County.
Mr. Janku asked how the number of trips
per day in an R-1 zoning district had been computed using the 173 figure. Mr.
Royer said he had used 6.2 for the R-1. Mr. Janku asked how control
of rental units would be achieved. Mr. Royer said all of the units
would be for sale and would be on an individual ownership basis. He
said individuals who own a unit will have the opportunity to resell that
back to the development, which will control marketing after the fact. However,
seasonal residents will own their property, just as occurs in condos or homes
in other parts of town. Mr. Janku said the owner could in fact rent
the unit to someone else. Mr. Royer said this could occur, provided
that the development is a party to it to ensure the continued qualification
under the federal fair housing designation. He said it is very important
that this project be earmarked for senior citizens. Residents over
55 would not be able to rent their unit to people under the age of 55. Mr.
Royer said any part-time rentals would have to be handled through their company
to enable screening of potential occupants.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Royer how he felt
about the question regarding a contribution to infrastructure. Mr.
Royer said financial participation in any mandated improvements to Rock Quarry
Road required by the Council had been agreed to openly at the Commission
meeting. He said it had also been indicated that they are willing to
construct a sidewalk along Rock Quarry Road if the Council so desired.
Theoretically, Mr. Kruse said there could
be a lot of rentals in this development. Mr. Royer said theoretically,
this could be allowed. It is not a federal requirement that the units
be owner occupied, but it is the intent to sell each unit.
Mr. Coffman said he had heard several
objections to the project, but none associated with it being a retirement
community. He asked if the plan is approved, what guarantees are there
that the development would remain a senior citizen community. Mr. Royer
said he gathered to the extent the law would allow the City to put that language
in an ordinance. He said he would look to the Council for placement
of requirements. Once Mr. Royer begins the federal designation, it
would not be his intent to stop it. Mr. Royer said if someone were
to assume the project for some reason, he could not speak to what their intentions
might be.
Mr. Coffman asked about the walking trail
and whether it would be private or donated to the public. Mr. Royer
said it would be private to the community, but since the streets would be
public, he assumed anyone could walk into the development and onto the trail. Mr.
Coffman asked if other designs had been examined that would allow for more
green space. Mr. Royer said the reason this plan had been chosen was
to maximize the use of available green space. He pointed out that at
least 4 1/2 acres of green space is required in the development, but they
have actually established nine acres. The requirement had been doubled
by using the clustering affect. Mr. Royer reported 60% of the property
would remain natural or landscaped.
Mr. Coffman noted that the Council had
received a letter from Mr. Bendbeutel mentioning several things Mr. Royer
had agreed to do. He asked if these were issues Mr. Royer would still
be committed to doing. Mr. Royer asked if Mr. Coffman was referring
to storm water management and that sort of thing. Mr. Coffman said
it was largely storm water. Mr. Royer said a commitment had been made
to a group of neighbors to the south that certain things will be done to
protect the integrity of the water that flows through this property, which
is mostly drainage. He said it is not a running creek. Mr. Royer
reported they would certainly commit to those items already agreed to, although
there is no signed contract.
Mr. Campbell asked about the trash compactor. Mr.
Royer said it should have been taken off the plat. He said it served
no purpose as there would be regular methods of trash collection.
Dave Bennett, project engineer for the
project, offices at 1113 Fay Street, offered to address infrastructure concerns. He
reported if one were to take the actual amount of water coming off of the
development and compare it to what is currently discharging at the south
end, it is approximately 16 times the amount of water the project has created. This
project will create a 6% increase in the water that will be coming to that
point, and Mr. Royer has agreed that whatever is needed will be addressed
at the final plat stage. If the City deems it necessary to detain the
peak of the storm water before it is passed to the southern end of the development,
that will be done. Mr. Royer has agreed to comply with any conditions
required by the Public Works Department regarding storm water management. Mr.
Bennett asked the Council to consider this proposal favorably.
Mr. Campbell asked how the 6% increase
in storm water would be handled. Mr. Bennett said if there is a requirement
to detain the storm water, a wet weather impoundment would be used to allow
the water to be collected and released slowly so that ultimately the peak
discharge would be no more than what it is currently on the property. Mr.
Campbell asked who would make the decision as to whether or not the water
needed to be detained. Mr. Patterson said staff would review what the
consultant brought in for it, but the ultimate approval on whether or not
detention would be required or permitted would come under the Land Disturbance
Act and the review of the Public Works Department. Mr. Campbell asked
if storm water management is likely to be a requirement. Mr. Patterson
said at this point, he did not know that anything had been submitted as far
as the hydraulics on the development. He said when that report is reviewed,
staff would then make a determination. He said this concerns not just
run-off, but also how the site will be developed. Mr. Patterson reported
there are a lot of things that could be done in developing a site that will
mitigate or reduce the peak run-off in a series of containments. Mr.
Campbell said he had raised the question because of calls he received regarding
this issue.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Bennett to briefly
describe the phasing. Mr. Bennett said there were six phases on the
plan, and development would begin along Rock Quarry Road. He said the
first phases would be low density. Mr. Bennett noted that compliance
has been achieved with the latest revision on the scenic road overlay district
-- the 50 foot vegetative buffer and a 100 foot buffer with building height
restrictions. He said there would be a large area in the front of the
development that would simply be green space along Rock Quarry Road. Mr.
Bennett said they would get the roadway structure in connecting Juniper and
Rock Quarry, and basically begin construction from the west to the east. He
said the common buildings would be built at a later date.
Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices
at 1103 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained
that the development would be governed by a covenant, and the idea that this
property would be developed initially as a retirement community and then
renege on that promise would generate as many lawsuits as units sold. The
units will be marketed to those people who rely upon this being a retirement
community, and to renege would be foolish on their part. Mr. VanMatre
said he had not specifically discussed with Mr. Royer the possibility of
rental investors, but just the economics of it would make it absurd. The
covenants would require that the development consist of retired inhabitants.
Regarding the traffic, Mr. VanMatre described
the law of unattended consequences. If one did not approve any type
of development until the road is improved and the turkey and deer are gone,
nobody anywhere around the boundaries of this town are going to want the
roads improved for fear it will lead to development. Roads would
then remain unimproved and dangerous. Mr. VanMatre did not think that
was the intention of the responsible members of this community. He
said if the focus of the development changed, it would have to be approved
by the Council, in addition to notifying all of the people that had purchased
a unit in the meantime. Mr. VanMatre thought this is more than enough
protection for any imaginary horribles that might conceivably occur, but
which in all likelihood and reasonableness will not. He said they are
anxious for the Council to build anything into the ordinance that is felt
to be reasonable, and has been discussed tonight.
Mr. Campbell said it seemed to him that
even though there may be a larger number of units, the end result might be
a lower density of people in this area than in a regular A-1 development. He
asked if anyone had computed that. Mr. VanMatre said they felt the
typical household would be two people -- a retired husband and wife. He
said the important thing about the traffic is that those people are not going
to be out at peak traffic times. Mr. VanMatre explained in a typical
rental unit, there are four or five inhabitants. In addition, Mr. VanMatre
reported the proposal for a gated community had been withdrawn to ensure
this development is compatible with what the Council perceived to be the
message of the City of Columbia.
Mr. VanMatre stated the message the Council
would send by denying this request is that no matter how well-designed and
well-thought out a subdivision of this type can be, and no matter how much
someone is willing to compromise, a stage has been reached in this town where
perhaps growth will not be permitted. He did not think that was the
message the City wants to send to the outside world, or anyone inside Columbia.
Mr. Campbell said he believed the average
size of a household for people 65 years and older was something like 1.5
or 1.7.
Regarding the interconnection between
the property and there being approximately a mile between Gans Road and Nifong,
Mr. Janku said there would have to be a connection between Bearfield and
Rock Quarry as the area develops. He asked how this connection would
be obtained if the developer is not willing to at least pay part of the cost. He
was not just referring to dollars, but right-of-way dedication. Mr.
VanMatre said he did not have an answer for that, but having connecting streets
would end the deal for them. The development could not be marketed
if through streets were required, in addition to those that already have
been identified. Mr. Janku said perhaps the answer is not in putting
the streets through, but he wanted to point out that it is a legitimate concern.
Carolyn Matthews, 4200 Rock Quarry, said
she had sent a letter to the Council stating her opposition to the development. She
said she was probably the single most impacted neighbor adjoining the proposed
retirement development as her property is bordered both on the north and
east by this tract. She spoke about the present traffic and the potential
risk to the watershed and the protected streams nearby. She was appreciative
of the developer's efforts to save some of the trees and green space areas,
but she did not think it went far enough for an area as special as this one. Ms.
Matthews asked that a scenic road be planned before making a decision on
this issue.
Mr. Campbell said the Council could not
prohibit R-1 development at this site, which would roughly translate to four
units per acre, with a total of 167 units on that tract. He asked if
she thought it would be better to have a retirement community with a higher
density or units, or to have an R-1 development with many more people and
much more traffic generated. Ms. Matthews was not sure she accepted
all of the figures that had been submitted by Mr. Royer, and she felt they
were based on a lot of assumptions. She was concerned about the
change in density and said she would not assume that a developer coming forward
with an R-1 plan would not also get a lot of input about retaining green
space. Ms. Matthews applauded Mr. Royer's efforts on the green space,
but felt it did not go far enough.
John Blakemore, 4807 Bearfield, said he
would also like to address Public Hearing C at the same time he addresses
this issue. He passed out copies of a petition signed by 72 neighbors
and friends in the Rock Quarry, Bearfield, Gans corridor and the Rock Bridge
State Park opposing the Cambridge Development. Mr. Blakemore noted
that he was speaking on behalf of the Clear Creek, Gans Creek, Little Bonne
Femme Association -- not the Rock Quarry Association. He said that
some of the neighbors had not opposed Mr. Royer's original plan contingent
upon certain conditions being met. Mr. Blakemore reported that Mr.
Royer had made a good faith pledge to meet the requests, and that they seemed
to be making some progress until something came up that no one expected. This
had been the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission that a gated
community was not wanted in Columbia. Residents felt the private roads
would help assure the development would be what it was intended to be. He
said the gate decision posed a big problem because now a development would
be created that loses one of its main selling points -- perceived safety. Mr.
Blakemore spoke about the density issue along Nifong, Rock Quarry, and Bearfield. He
said the characteristics of the developments in this area are very high density,
have no green spaces or neighborhood pocket parks, have no regard for environmental
sensitivity, and have created major traffic problems. Mr. Blakemore
distributed a recent report detailing what the Bonne Femme water sheds provide
for Columbia and Boone County, and what the residents in the water shed have
committed to in terms of maintaining it. He said everyone agreed that
the area needs to be treated differently for the sake of all Columbians and
Boone Countians.
Mr. Blakemore said residents would like
the City and County to create a task force with neighborhood input to begin
discussions in jointly creating an overlay plan of the area, bounded by Nifong
on the north, Laurie Farm on the west, the park on the south, and Highway
63 on the east. He wanted the Council to look into retaining a land
planning organization, similar to the firm used to develop Benton-Stephens
urban conservation overlay district, and to create a comprehensive Columbia/Boone
County master plan for the area. Mr. Blakemore said residents also
want the City and County to create some zoning that does not subsidize and
encourage urban grid development, and to encourage development of larger
acreages.
Mr. Janku asked about the early discussions
with the developer regarding water quality. Mr. Blakemore said the
Association presented some items to the developer, and had also sent a letter
to the County asking that Frank Arnold from the USDA work with their engineers
in the development of a storm water run-off plan. He said a letter
had been received stating this could be done and, in a phone conversation
with Mr. VanMatre, he had been told the developer/owner would sign a contract
with the neighborhood association to bind them to the seven points. Mr.
Blakemore said it was understood it was a civil suit issue. Mr. Janku
asked if that was still possible. Mr. Blakemore said it was. Residents
are looking for a guarantee that this would be a senior citizen retirement
area.
Mr. Boeckmann said in PUD's, the uses
are specified in the ordinance granting the zoning. He said this is
included in an attachment pertaining to this ordinance, Exhibit A, and it
is specified a unit must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years
of age or older. This is a requirement true of the entire development. Mr.
Boeckmann noted this is not included as a contractual agreement, but part
of the zoning ordinance itself.
Mr. Blakemore said they had tried to answer
one of Mr. Campbell's questions -- is this development preferable to an R-1
development. He said the residents are asking for a zoning designation
that would allow larger lot development and country style living on larger
lots.
Fred VonSol, 4679 S. Bearfield, said the
high density would not be associated with high traffic if this is a retirement
community. He said during Mr. Royer's presentation at the Planning
and Zoning meeting, it had been emphasized that the gates and the private
roads were one of the major marketing tools with regard to establishing this
development as a retirement community. Mr. VonSol said now that this
has been withdrawn, this is not the plan that had been presented to residents
or to Planning and Zoning. He said if this project does not become
or stay a retirement community, with regard to the question as to whether
this plan is better than R-1, there is the potential of almost twice the
density and traffic compared to what had been initially predicted. He
knew of no way that someone could say that this development would remain
a retirement community. Mr. VonSol felt the Council was making an assumption
that Planning and Zoning would vote positively on this proposal if it went
back without the gates and the private roads. He was not convinced
that was true. He urged the Council to send the issue back to the Commission
so they could go through the density and infrastructure issues. In
the context of doing that, Mr. VonSol explained then the wider issue of the
use of all of the properties could be examined.
Mr. Campbell agreed that anything was
possible, but said the proposal would have to come back to the Council if
the plan did not work out.
Mr. Janku said this application was one
of the first requests the Council has received since adopting the new PUD
ordinance. He said some of the procedures are relatively new to everyone. He
asked whether the applicant would have to amend their plan of intent (to
delete the age restriction) if Mr. Boeckmann said a rezoning would have to
occur at that point. Mr. Boeckmann explained that most of the different
zoning districts will list permitted uses and list conditional uses. In
the planned districts now when land is placed in a particular zoning district,
the Council designates what uses are allowed at that time. Mr. Boeckmann
reported the use that would be designated in this ordinance was basically
for retirement. Mr. Janku said to change that then, the applicant would
have to conceivably lower the density. Mayor Hindman said that is not
possible if the buildings were already there. Mr. Campbell said constructing
this development in phases would be a protection because if the first one
or two phases went forward, it would pretty well set the pattern for the
area. Mr. Campbell asked if the applicant would have to come back between
phases. Mr. Hancock thought the phases would be outlined on the plan
as shown, and platting and building would proceed according to that. Mrs.
Crockett asked if all the phases would be PUD-8 at this time. Mr. Hancock
said that was correct. Mr. Beck said it would remain that way unless
otherwise submitted to the Council.
Mr. VonSol said if the development were
to proceed substantially then fail as a retirement community, he could not
imagine the Council would not agree to let it be modified to a duplex or
eight-plex development for financial reasons, rather than have the economic
consequences of total failure. He said that is the concern of residents
-- if the major marketing tool (private streets and gating) has been lost,
would the development likely end up as a retirement community.
Laura Walter, 208 Anderson, explained
that her family had purchased a 20 acre plot of woodlands and grasslands
located at 4600 Rock Quarry Road. She said the land was in the valley
just north of Clear Creek. She and her family were in agreement with
the Little Bonne Femme Neighborhood Association in opposing the request. Ms.
Walter said their property was one which was protected and designed to remain
a green area -- a low density area with the restriction of one dwelling per
10 acre area. She said they had three concerns, with the first being
that this planned development far exceeds the ideal capacity for the rural
wooded area involved, and is a dramatically higher density than the 200 acres
around it. The second concern is that they felt the development would
endanger one of the most beautiful green areas in the community, that includes
the Clear Creek valley and the water shed area. Ms. Walter explained
the last concern is the outstanding opportunity as a community to preserve
and protect this scenic walkway, bikeway, and roadway linking downtown Columbia
to Rock Bridge State Park. She said it also links the University campus
to the park. Ms. Walter noted that the proposed development property
has a large drainage ditch along the entire front of the property on Rock
Quarry that carries storm water run-off. She said that run-off is at
capacity in the spring, and she did not think it could take an additional
6% in this area.
Tony Davis, 4655 Rock Quarry, said he
thought the project was a good one and also thought it could work in Columbia. He
saw the question as being what would happen if it did not work out. Mr.
Davis wanted the City to seriously look at the area that goes directly to
the park. There is an opportunity to construct new bike paths/trails
at the park's entrance on Old 63, at the end of Bearfield Road. He
said this issue is very important in terms of the transition that is going
to take place. Mr. Davis explained that the R-1 tract south of the
proposed development belongs to the Gregory brothers, and they are interested
in pursuing different types of zoning in this particular area.
Alyce Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield Subdivision,
explained that her property is just south and west of the proposed development. She
said there are 27 homes on this block that are adjacent to Rock Bridge State
Park, and this is the most dense development in the area -- unless this request
is approved. Ms. Turner pointed out that the area being proposed for
development was currently designated for low density residential development
in the City's own comprehensive plan.
Joe Bendbeutel, 1701 E. Gans Road, said
his property is approximately one-half mile south and west of the proposed
development. He said the core of the objections to the group that Mr.
Blakemore represents pertains to the density of the project, and the resulting
stress it puts on infrastructure and the environment. Mr. Bendbeutel
said he had come before the Council several months ago to talk about the
proposal for the property immediately east of this one, in the southwest
corner of the Nifong/Rock Quarry corner. The applicant did not prevail
in that case because the Council had decided there is so much dense development
in the area, and it was inappropriate to allow more. Mr. Bendbeutel
said he is hearing the same arguments from the current developers. Mr.
Blakemore's numbers had been extremely persuasive representing the burden
this area has borne in terms of duplexes and very dense housing. He
said Mr. VanMatre indicated that certain legal covenants can be established
on this property that would keep the developer from being able to change
the character of the development. Mr. Bendbeutel said land use by litigation
is not the goal, and that would not deter someone from coming in and changing
the designation. He said area residents would never have the resources
to fight any sort of litigation over a change in land use. He said
the park was an underutilized asset, and the students to the north need a
way to get to it. He felt that the suggested task force would be an
appropriate way to plan some green space and to get trails. He said
a trail could be developed from the University, through the new park on the
south side of Grindstone, and almost through this property to the trail head
at Rock Bridge. He suggested looking at those kinds of planning items
before "willy nilly" allowing this sort of spot zoning. Regarding the
units being rental, Mr. Bendbeutel thought they would make perfect rental
units.
Regarding Mr. Bendbeutel's letter to Mr.
Royer, dated November 20, 1997, setting forth seven proposals, Mayor Hindman
asked if Mr. Bendbeutel had heard the developer agree to them. Mr.
Bendbeutel said he had heard that representation, although he has had no
communication from them since then. He took them at their word that
some type of agreement would be entered into on the proposals. Assuming
the developer would meet the seven concerns, Mayor Hindman asked if that
would pretty well take care of the problems that is foreseen for the water
shed. Mr. Bendbeutel said it would not.
Mr. Coffman asked how close this area
was to the Rock Bridge State Park. Mr Bendbeutel said he was not sure
about the planned expansion of the Park, of which he knew there were several,
but he thought it was approximately one mile. He said the vast majority
of the property between this tract, all except for one ten-acre piece and
the park, is encumbered with restrictions. He said the transition is
a clear issue.
Mr. Kruse said there is another national
forest on the east side of 163, which is even closer than the one mile. Hydrologically,
with the sink holes and the way the storm water moves through the area, Mr.
Bendbeutel said there is a surface connection with the water that runs off
of the south end of Nifong immediately into the park. He said some
ditching had been done at the time the County improved the road, and it was
at full capacity right now. He said there needed to be a task force
appointed to look at these things in a broader perspective.
Mr. Campbell said his concern regarding
the 200 protected acres (for either five-acre or R-1 development) was that
in harsh topography, five-acre tracts are very difficult to sewer which would
lead to either a septic tank or some type of on-site tank. He
said there may be as much or more damage being done to the park due to the
low density, but widely spaced development. He asked if their group
had considered that. Mr. Bendbeutel said they had, and he thought the
state law had tremendously raised the standards on on-site septics. He
said the soil geology had also been changed that increased the performance
standards of those units. He said the point raised was a very good
one, but quite honestly, the City's main sewer extends almost to Clear Creek. Mr.
Bendbeutel said when he built his home, he made the connection to the City
sewers -- which is located probably 700 or 800 feet from his property. He
thought many of the neighbors were of that same disposition. There
is also an expansion project from the Bearfield Subdivision, and that sewer
line would run through quite a bit of that property.
Jim Gatz, 3009 Lynnwood, explained that
he works at Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. He said the area Mr. Kruse
referenced earlier is also part of the park, and is called the Gans Creek
wild area. He said many people think the 750 acre area is a separate
entity, but it is not. He said it was about a mile to the upper northern
boundary of the park from where the tract in question is located.
Greg Pfeiffer, 2274 Bearfield, said he
had a different perspective from some of the neighbors. He said the
area is unique and quite different from all of Columbia. He said all
things need to be considered, and there is no reason to rush into anything.
Donna Kestle, 715 Lyon Street, said she
appreciated having a place like the area in question to go to when she felt
like getting out of town. She said it is nice not to have to drive
20 miles to the river.
Mary Lamar Jolly, 5251 S. Bearfield, is
concerned about the safety of the people who will move into this facility. She
thought it sounded like a wonderful development and would like it if her
mother would consider moving into something similar. Ms. Jolly said
the thought of those elderly people coming out of one access onto Rock Quarry
Road, then trying to get out onto Nifong is scary. She thought the
roads needed to be made safe before anything else went in, and the time and
place is wrong for this type of development.
Mr. Royer said if it would help his neighbors
to feel better about his project, he would be happy to reinstall the gates
and private streets. He said there seems to be some confusion about
long-term guarantees and the ability of the project to remain a retirement
community. Mr. Royer reported were they to fall out of the federal
qualification and allow people younger than the federally designated age
to start relocating there in any sizable numbers, that would be a violation
of the ordinance. More importantly, from the day this development is
marketed as a federally age qualified community, there would be enormous
liabilities that would accrue if it does not occur. Mr. Royer stated
that is the most powerful guarantee he could give anyone as to the intent
and security in maintaining the project as such.
Mr. Janku asked how Mr. Royer and his
organization would contribute to the cost of the improvements on Rock Quarry
Road. He said at some point they would have to come up with some numbers. Mr.
Janku said another question is how the Council could be certain, as the project
moves forward from phase to phase, it would remain as had been originally
approved. Mr. Royer said in order to modify the project in any substantive
way, he would have to come back to the Council and ask for permission to
do so. He said the phasing was designed deliberately on a "pay as you
go" basis. He said as one section is sold out, that debt could be paid
off and the next phase would be constructed. Mr. Royer did not know
how to answer the first question. Mr. Janku said that is part of the
problem because he did not know what the numbers are for improvements on
Rock Quarry. He did not want to throw out just any number and ask for
a contribution of that amount. Mr. Janku thought those figures need
to be obtained from the staff, and it is reasonable to expect people to contribute
to the infrastructure. Mr. Royer said this had been agreed to at the
Planning and Zoning meeting. Because there are other developments in
the vicinity, Mr. Royer said they would certainly agree to whatever formula
the City came up with that would be fair to all those using Rock Quarry Road.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kruse noted that the staff recommendation
at the Planning level had been denial for a number of reasons. He said
the Commission's recommendation was also for denial. Once again, Mr.
Kruse noted the Council is faced with a proposal that, by the time it gets
to this level, it is substantively different than what was recommended. He
asked the staff's feeling about the project given the fact that it was no
longer a gated community proposal. Mr. Hancock said the development
did not meet the Land Use Plan recommendations for low density in the area. He
said staff had no guidance for land use because the property is located in
the County. Mr. Hancock said his department also based their recommendation
on more technical issues such as street connections, off-site improvements,
etc. Mr. Kruse asked if staff's recommendation is still for denial. Mr.
Hancock said yes, staff would stand by the recommendation in the report.
In the past, Mr. Janku said the Council
has seen situations (like Southampton) where people have dedicated right-of-way
on the boundary of their development. Addressing his concern about
how the applicant could obtain the connection between Bearfield and Rock
Quarry, Mr. Janku said getting some of the right-of-way in place is the key. He
said as construction moves south, much of the land becomes dedicated for
other purposes, and he doubted the City would be getting the type of development
for which people could dedicate right-of-way.
Mr. Campbell said the City has always
used the formula of one-half mile for a collector between arterial or urban
highways. He said the proposed development is not a half-mile south
of Rock Quarry Road. Mr. Beck is not sure that is the reason. He
said if that is the question as to the need for a collector street in the
area, he would ask if that had been addressed with the developers.
Mr. Hancock said there is no collector
street shown on the plan, so staff is trying to address where a connection
would occur between Bearfield and Rock Quarry -- a suggestion still proposed
for this development. Mr. Hancock said it is difficult for Planning
to request that a private street be stubbed into the development, but it
is felt a connection would be desirable in the vicinity. Mr. Beck said
he was addressing the cul-de-sac extending southward, and understood Mr.
Janku was addressing the east/west collector. Mr. Janku said that was
correct. He said he is not necessarily quarreling with the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Janku said there could still be a cul-de-sac, with a collector located to
the south of it. However, the next property owner down the road would
bear the complete burden of the traffic in the area if it is not expected
that this development would contribute to part of the cost of a collector
street. Mr. Janku said there is a precedent for it considering the
Southampton issue. Mr. Janku said his understanding of PUD's is that
there is a possibility of increased density, but as a trade-off, there would
be more open space with potential contributions to other improvements. He
thought that was what had been done with other planned developments -- the
Council requested contributions to the infrastructure and many times, street
improvements. Mr. Janku felt the issue needed to be addressed in this
situation, but did not know what the process would be because there is not
a dollar amount that could be used to determine the cost for the Rock Quarry
Road improvements -- at least up to the entryway or along the property line
of the proposed development. He thought the Council needed to come
up with some sort of figure and discuss what would be a reasonable contribution.
Assuming this becomes the point to worry
about, Mayor Hindman asked if it would be appropriate to spell out the improvements
the City would expect to be paid for. He said there have already been
discussions about a sidewalk or walkway, whichever would be appropriate for
the area. Mayor Hindman understood Mr. Royer to say that he agreed
to pay that cost. He said when it comes to the street improvements,
perhaps the ordinance could stipulate this would be a substantial portion
of the cost of the street, roughly equal to the cost of a residential street. The
Council could make it clear that if they were to adopt this ordinance, that
they would expect this to be part of the final plan.
Mr. Janku said this issue needs to be
addressed, and if the applicant is going to be allowed increased density,
they would be expected to contribute to the infrastructure needed in the
area.
Mr. Coffman thought it is a good idea
to establish a task force to look at the Rock Quarry/Grindstone/Rock Bridge
State Park area. He said there is talk about a joint City/County meeting
soon, and he hoped to bring this issue up regardless of what happens tonight. Mr.
Coffman doubted any recommendations would be made to make this area more
dense than it already is. The Land Use Plan as it stands now exceeds
the current density recommendations and, on that level, he planned to oppose
this request. Mr. Coffman realized the Planning and Zoning Commission
had opposed the development on a 7-3 vote, and said he was not willing to
assume denial was based solely on gates. He stated there are other
concerns, including density and storm water, that were uppermost in some
of their minds. If this proposal is not rejected, he would recommend
that it go back to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Coffman said the idea that
this is somewhat less dense than the duplex to the north is not too compelling
to him. He said now that it is expected that AC will be moved further
north to Grindstone, perhaps the level of growth that would be allowed in
this area is more than what is really desired in the future. Overall,
as this is such a sensitive area because of the project's proximity to Rock
Bridge State Park and the storm water concerns, Mr. Coffman is not ready
to approve the request until a broader vision for the area has been outlined.
Mr. Campbell spoke in support of having
a much more detailed and an extensive overall plan for the area. He
said this is needed in the entire City because there are other sensitive
areas that may not be currently on the front burner. Mr. Campbell explained
that the City's zones are set for houses, but plans should be set for people. He
said those are two very different things, and current density assumes that
a family consists of a husband and a wife, and one boy and one girl. Mr.
Campbell said the typical household does not apply in this instance because
this request is for a retirement community. He said from what he is
hearing, the Council is receiving about the tightest guarantee they could
get. He said current plans do not really consider what or where a retirement
community should be located, and they are struggling to find this out. Mr.
Campbell noted the difference in behavior between someone looking for a retirement
community and someone with a family containing teenagers. He said that
would make a very different impact on the traffic flow and anything else
that occurs in the area. In addition, there is no question that the
City needs more retirement areas. He pointed out that the established
retirement areas have been successful, and now the Council is looking at
the possibility of another one. The question is where it should be
located. He noted traffic problems on Route B and Route PP, and added
that there is no area in Columbia where traffic problems do not exist. Mr.
Campbell firmly believed this development would not have the same impact
as an R-1 development.
Mr. Kruse said he could not support this
request, although he felt it was a very interesting development. He
liked the idea of high density as Columbia continues to grow, but is uncomfortable
with the high density in this particular location. He thought that
spoke to the fact that the City does not have a good comprehensive plan for
the metropolitan area. Mr. Kruse reported the Council will be meeting
with the County again soon, and the topic of discussion would be planning
issues in the greater metropolitan area. He said this would be a great
example to put before the group to figure out how to better handle these
types of situations. Mr. Kruse said he was not comfortable voting on
this issue unless it were to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for further review given the fact the development has changed substantially
since it was last voted on. He supported the idea of taking a little
more time to develop a master plan for the area, and thought the Council
should give it some consideration. Assuming this development is something
that should be executed at some point, Mr. Kruse said at a minimum there
ought to be a connection to the east. He said if the area is going
to develop, there should be good street connections established in the area. Mr.
Kruse's vision for all of Columbia is to have a very dense urban core and
establish countryside beyond that. This particular part of the city,
in his view, is where the dense urban core stops and the countryside begins. He
said if this were the last development to ever occur in this part of Columbia,
he would probably feel differently about it. Given what was before
him tonight, Mr. Kruse said he could not support the request.
Mrs. Crockett said she was in support
of the plan and thought it was a good one. She felt this would create
less traffic than any other kind of zoning. Regarding the storm water
management, she had all the confidence in the ability of the Public Works
Department to handle it appropriately. Mrs. Crockett explained that
Leisurely Way, off of Oakland Road, is a retirement community. She
drives by the area many times a week and, in a week's time, she may see one
car coming in or out of that development. She does see the residents
walking often. Mrs. Crockett thought the proposed project would be
quiet. She agreed that sidewalks and off-site improvements are needed,
but other than that, she thought it was a great plan and intended to support
it.
Mr. Janku reported there are positive
things about the plan. He said in wondering about transition and the
future of the area, he thought the fact that it is a planned development
should be a precedent for any future development in the area. The
proposed development has some protection of green space, where regular R-1
is exempt from the City's tree preservation ordinance. He felt there
were protections built into the plan for green space and protection of the
environment that do not exist under R-1 development. Although this
density is greater than R-1, Mr. Janku said he agreed with Mr. Campbell's
statement about traffic patterns. However, he had some concerns and
thought they should be resolved before voting. He did not think the
Council could rely on the general statements made this evening. He
thought the Council needed to get some commitments in terms of dollar amounts
or ranges of dollar amounts for street improvements along Rock Quarry. Mr.
Janku also thought the developer could expect from the City that improvements
will occur in a more timely manner than might ordinarily be the case
if the applicant commits to paying part of the cost. He said this is
a reasonable quid pro quo. Mr. Janku said the street connection is
another important concern, and if this does not happen at this location,
he was not sure there would be a good cross connection between the roads
-- Bearfield and Rock Quarry. He also thought the Council needed a
commitment on the sidewalk issue and, if possible, he would like to see further
agreements on the water shed issue. Mr. Janku said he would like to
see the issue tabled to the next meeting to see what could be worked out.
Ms. Coble said more and more the Council
is sending a message to the community that they are looking for planned development,
the preservation of open space, and plans similar to this one. She
felt this is much more likely now than in the past. Just because the
Council is appreciative to see the trend continuing, she did not think development
should be approved in areas where it is inappropriate. She pointed
out that clearly the Land Use Plan indicates this is an inappropriate development
for this location. Ms. Coble said the Council has discussed the lack
of infrastructure in the area, everyone knows there is a very sensitive water
shed in Rock Bridge State Park that is a source of pride in the community
and is one of the gems of the County, there is no clear transition from the
point of this development to the Park, there are no clear agreements in place,
nor can the track records of other phased developments be used as a comparison
for this project. Ms. Coble said there are numerous developments in
the community that are completely different than had ever been approved when
originally submitted to the Council. She pointed out that there is
some motley architecture throughout the City to testify that good intentions
can somehow change. Ms. Coble did not accept the premise that a retirement
community has people who do not drive at 8:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m. She
was disturbed by the fact that the project could end up being a rental community. Considering
all factors, she said it did not seem like a very wise decision. Ms.
Coble did not believe this to be an appropriate location for the project,
and thought there are significant negative impacts that will occur should
the Council approve this plan in such a very sensitive area.
Mayor Hindman thought this is one of the
best plans he has seen since being on the Council, and the kind of plan that
has been sought. He thought the trade-off of more green space for a
little more density was acceptable. Mayor Hindman said there are many
actual incentives for the project to be what Mr. Royer represents it to be. Mayor
Hindman agreed the Council should pin down what infrastructure contributions
should be before finally approving the plan. He thought the infrastructure
would be taken care of if a significant commitment is obtained from the developer. Mayor
Hindman reported if the Council wanted to table this issue to negotiate these
things, that would be agreeable to him. Mayor Hindman supported that
more comprehensive planning is necessary.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that the entire
Council had been urging planned developments. He thought this is such
a development where there is some degree of sensitivity. He said the
Council would not find developers willing to go to the difficulty in areas
suitable for routine R-1. Regarding the connection to other areas,
Mr. Campbell thought the developer had a point that in a retirement community,
there is a desire for some degree of shelter or closure. He said if
the Council requires a connection, he thought it would be difficult for it
to be a retirement community.
Mr. Janku said that was not what he was
suggesting. Mayor Hindman said he was making the suggestion that there
should be an east/west connector street.
Regarding the program being a federal
one for retired individuals, Ms. Coble understood that there is a federal
allowance that one could restrict those who can live in a certain area if
these persons are retired. She said there are two restrictions; one
for the disabled and one for the elderly, but it is not in any way a guaranteed
program.
Mr. VanMatre explained that there is a
federal statute that allows these requirements without being discriminatory. He
said if they did not meet that test, the federal Civil Rights laws would
be violated. Mr. VanMatre said no federal funds are being received,
but they do intend to comply with the law to restrict the development in
that fashion.
Ms. Coble said her point is that the project
continued to be discussed as some type of federal program and it is not.
Mr. Kruse said he is not comfortable voting
on the issue without further Planning and Zoning Commission review. He
asked if the Council sent the proposal back to the Commission, whether that
would require another public hearing. Mr. Boeckmann said the City had
already met all of the public hearing requirements as long as the application
is substantially in the same form. Mr. Kruse said he would like to
have the Commission's recommendation for the plan as it is now.
Mr. Kruse made the motion that B342-97,
as amended, be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and defeated by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said he would like to see the
issue tabled to the next meeting in order for the agreements to be worked
out regarding infrastructure concerns, including the east/west connector
element. He said the primary issues would be the cost of the Rock Quarry
Road improvements and the matters related to the sidewalk and storm water.
Mr. Beck asked if Mr. Janku was referring
to east/west along the south boundary. Mr. Janku said that was correct. He
did not know that it would even be practical, but wanted to see it addressed.
Mr. Janku made the motion that B342-97,
as amended, be tabled to the February 2, 1998, meeting. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved by voice vote.
B4-98 Authorizing payment of differential costs between the construction of a 12-inch and an 8-inch main serving Richland Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a fairly
routine request in accordance with City policy.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.
B4-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B5-98 Authorizing payment of differential costs
between the construction of an 8-inch and a 6-inch main serving Richland
Heights, Phase 1 & 2.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this item is similar to
the previous bill and it amounts to a $991.00 cost differential out of the
Water and Light fund.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.
B5-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B9-98 Amending Chapter 29 of the Code of ordinances relating to the S-R District. (Scenic Roadway Area Overlay)
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that there had been at
least two public hearings and two work sessions by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on this issue. The Council had also had a work session. This
ordinance was drafted as a result of the Council's work session, and had
been sent back to the Commission for their review. The Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation differed slightly from the Council's as
it relates to Section (d) (5) -- contiguous roadway sections containing readily
identifiable termini such as creeks, bridges, arterial streets or other prominent
physical landmarks. Mr. Beck explained an amendment sheet had been
prepared that would retain this requirement in the ordinance.
Mr. Kruse made the motion to amend B9-98
per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. Campbell asked what was meant by "readily
identifiable". He asked if that meant a creek or a roadway. Mayor
Hindman recalled it being a creek or a street, some type of land mark.
The motion to amend B9-98, made by Mr.
Kruse and seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock Quarry Road,
Chairman of the Scenic Road Committee for the Grindstone/Rock Quarry Neighborhood
Association, thanked the Planning and Zoning staff for keeping the Association
apprised of the ongoing issues. She said it has been about six years
since the process was started. Ms. Pritchard said residents are very
much in favor of the ordinance, and saw no reason for having the building
height requirement as long as there is the 50-foot buffer. The Association
also believed there should be a contiguous roadway of some length with identifiable
termini. She said a corridor should be preserved with not too much
worry associated with what is past the 50-foot buffer. If the Council
approves the ordinance tonight, Ms. Pritchard requested that the Council
direct the Planning and Zoning Department to submit the Rock Quarry Road
application for designation as a scenic road. She said if the Sinclair
Station is excluded from the designation, that is fine, but if the property
on Rock Quarry Road is annexed, the station should be included because it
will become the southern terminus on the east side of the road. Ms.
Pritchard thanked everyone for their efforts.
Matt Harline, 301 McNab, said there are
some areas in the City where a scenic road ordinance could help define those
neighborhoods. He said the Rock Quarry/Grindstone neighborhood is one
of those. He said residents have worked six years to convince the Council
that this is how they want to define their neighborhood.
Mariel Stephenson 2111 Rock Quarry Road,
recalled one of her first topics before the Council was to explain the definition
of a scenic road. She said the scenic road ordinance is already serving
as a selling point in real estate. Ms. Stephenson thanked everyone
for their hard work and urged passage of the ordinance. Mayor
Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kruse thanked the neighborhood residents
and other citizens across the City and County that have worked on the scenic
roadway concept.
B9-98, as amended, was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN,
COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B10-98 Rezoning property located on the north side of I-70 Drive NW and west of Garden Drive from A-1 to R-1.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the Planning and
Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the R-1 request (Tract A),
and denial of the C-3 request (Tract B). This had also been the recommendation
of the Planning staff.
Mayor Hindman understood that the applicant
had asked for R-1 and C-3 zoning. Because the recommendation had been
for denial of the C-3, the ordinance was prepared per that recommendation
- approval of the R-1 zoning only. Since this was different than what
was requested by the developer, an amendment sheet had been prepared. He
said the amendment would be put on the table and public comment would be
asked for. There was a discussion as to whether or not the tracts should
be voted on separately.
Mr. Boeckmann suggested that the Council
invite anyone wishing to speak to address both the proposed R-1 and C-3 zoning
request. After hearing comments, the Council could decide whether or
not to amend the ordinance to include the C-3 request.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing
on both Tracts A and B.
Tim Capehaart, an employee of Marshall
Engineering with offices at 300 St. James Street, explained that Mr. and
Mrs. Moosmann had asked him to speak on their behalf. Regarding the
amendment, he thought it would be beneficial if the Council could address
the issue as two different tracts. That had been the original intention
when Mr. Moosmann's rezoning request was filed. Mr. Capehaart reported
the R-1 zoning would be an extension of the current platting, which is already
a part of the Moosmann property. He said Mr. Moosmann felt the C-3
request is appropriate because this tract is located next to the Interstate. Mr.
Capehaart explained there are some large drainage areas in the area that
still need to be addressed.
Jay Edam, 1604 Apple Valley Court, said
his property is approximately two lots removed from the C-3 request. He
had no opposition to Tract A (the R-1 zoning) but he did have very strong
feelings of opposition to the C-3 request on Tract B.
Mr. Kruse asked Mr. Edam if he could see
Tract B from his home. Mr. Edam said he could see it from his rear
deck.
Rob Emerson, 1600 Apple Valley Court,
explained that his lot adjoins Mr. Moosmann's property. He had two
strong objections. His first was that C-3 zoning butting up against
an R-1 tract is not compatible. He wanted to see buffer space between
the properties. His second objection was that there was no plan for
any buffering to occur.
Gary Dunkerly, 1910 Garden Drive, spoke
about what had occurred in Valley View Garden West during its development. This
subdivision is located north of the present tract being considered. There
have been approximately 70 homes built in this development and, as a neighborhood,
they had opposed the construction until the necessary infrastructure was
manufactured to serve the additional homes that were going to be built. The
Planning Commission had agreed that the infrastructure was much less than
what it should be, and the Council had also discussed it and realized there
were major problems with this area. Mr. Dunkerly said an agreement
had been brought forward because of the existing problems. The agreement
outlined that only a portion of the development would be allowed for the
first two years in order for improvements to the infrastructure to occur. Mr.
Dunkerly said the development is now completed, and the infrastructure residents
had received from the City consisted of two stop signs. Mr. Dunkerly
is very concerned about any more development being approved until the City
gets serious about the promises made to the neighborhood addressing the infrastructure. He
said they are talking about essentially everything coming out of the west
development, through the old neighborhood to get out. He said there
are not any collector streets, and presently all of that traffic is coming
through this neighborhood. Mr. Dunkerly said a south entrance is needed
for any new development, and now there is a chance to complete this entrance
with the request before the Council now. That is why he has a problem
with approving the R-1 and letting the other tract sit there. Mr. Dunkerly
stated that would mean another 20 or 30 houses coming through the old neighborhood. Residents
are opposed to any rezoning in the area until the infrastructure needs are
addressed.
Mr. Kruse said it appeared the only way
to get to Tract A would be to construct a road from I-70 Drive NW and, in
order to develop it, a road would have to be built. Mr. Janku said
there was another way, but it could not be seen on the map.
Mr. Dunkerly said any development of the
two tracts should be a through street to I-70 Drive NW.
Mr. Campbell asked if the Council could
require that a street be built before there are any occupancy permits issued. Mr.
Hancock did not think so. He asked if Mr. Campbell was referring to
allowing the R-1 development, with the provision that the length of the street
be constructed before any permits are issued. Mr. Campbell said that
was what he was asking. Mr. Hancock said he did not think that had
ever been done, but that did not mean that it could not be done. He
said there was no special zoning for off-site improvements. Mr. Campbell
said Mr. Dunkerly had brought up a good point and that he remembered all
too well the discussion he was referencing.
Mr. Dunkerly said he was also in support
of the other two speakers regarding the commercial abutting the residential,
even the proposed R-1. He said it probably needed to be planned commercial
down by I-70 Drive. Mr. Dunkerly referred to the first public hearing
this evening and the fact that the Council seemed to be happy about the fact
that the developer was willing to contribute to the cost of the infrastructure. He
said the developer for the West development said he would contribute to the
infrastructure, but because there was no agreement that could be reached
between the City and this individual, that deal fell through. Mr. Dunkerly
reported residents got nothing.
Ivan Neiburg, 2507 Lilac, lives in the
older section as well, and wanted to echo what Mr. Dunkerly had said. He
is definitely opposed to the C-3, and based upon what Mr. Dunkerly had just
said, he thought the whole application should be reconsidered.
Gus Moosmann, the developer, said he would
like to put a road through to I-70 Drive. He said that is not the problem,
the problem is that he can not afford to do so if there are not any lots
to sell off to help pay for the road. He said it would cost $100 per
foot to put a street in, and he would have to come up with the money in order
to do it. Mr. Moosmann said some type of commercial was the only logical
thing to do on Tract B. He added that he did not like the C-P he got
dealt on the storage units, and did not think it would work in this case. Mr.
Moosmann said the noise from the highway would not work for R-1 or even duplexes.
Mr. Janku asked if Mr. Moosmann had explored
the possibility of duplexes. Mr. Moosmann said just because someone
lives in rental property, did not mean that they cannot hear. Mr. Janku
agreed, but said there is a lot of development that surprisingly goes in
adjacent to Highways 63 and 70. Mr. Janku asked about the length of
Tract B, and how many feet there was from I-70 Drive to Tract A. Mr.
Moosmann said it was approximately 800 feet.
Mayor Hindman said it was hard for him
to see how the Council could allow new houses to be built at this location,
in addition to what already exists. Mr. Moosmann said he could see
their point, but hoped they could see his. He said he had to make money
off the ground before he could put the road in.
John Parfet, 1810 Garden Drive, said this
area had received a lot of development over the years from the asphalt plant
constructed to the north, the expansion of the concrete plant, and construction
of Valley View West. Discussions have included the infrastructure that
has not occurred. He could understand the situation as far as the R-1
zoning and would reluctantly agree with it, contingent that it would give
Mr. Moosmann the opportunity to develop the southern outlet that has been
discussed many times. Mr. Parfet said the Commission questioned why
there was a need for so much of the C-3. He said maybe there could
be a compromise as far as a different type of zoning for a buffer and still
allow Mr. Moosmann the opportunity to develop the property. Mr. Parfet
said he did not have a clear answer and basically opposes the whole thing
in view of the problems created with the development of Valley View West.
Mayor Hindman asked if he understood that
Mr. Parfet would be reluctant but would agree to the idea of the R-1 zoning
even though there is no assurance that there would be an outlet onto Business
Loop 70. Mr. Parfet said it was the chicken or the egg, but yes, he
would agree to the R-1 zoning. He said residents have been down this
path before when the development of Valley View West was allowed, and at
that time there had been some assurances the infrastructure would be put
in place. Mr. Parfet reported the development occurred and there is
still no infrastructure.
Mr. Beck said in this sector of the community
there has been a lot of infrastructure completed. He said the City
was able to get the Highway Department to make a high priority of Route E,
and had brought another road into the outer roadway down across the creek
to establish two entrances into the subdivision. There would soon be
three entrances counting the road that will be improved to the north. The
City and State Highway Department are both investing a lot of money on roadway. Mr.
Beck would be the first to agree that a connection to the south is needed. He
suggested that Tracts A and B be considered together, by the developer, to
create a planned layout for the area that would properly buffer the R-1. Mr.
Beck reported a compatible use to the R-1 was needed to off-set the street
cost. He said if the City were to force the street, we would have to
buy the right-of-way and everything else. As a resident of the community,
Mr. Beck said he would not be too excited about doing that.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
The Council decided not to vote on the
amendment sheet on Tract B which Mr. Boeckmann indicated would, in effect,
deny that rezoning request.
Mr. Campbell said he would vote against
the rezoning on Tract A because current infrastructure does not allow traffic
to move freely to the south. He wanted to see an overall plan on how
the R-1 tract would be buffered.
Mr. Janku said when a person lives in
an R-1 zoning district, there is a hope to have some idea of what is going
to be next to you. He said if the Council approved this as R-1, they
would not know what was going to come in next. He said it was going
to be difficult for the developer to come up with something that would satisfy
an R-1 home owner. Mr. Janku thought the best thing to do was to ask
the developer to come back with a plan to include R-1. He said then
those people who are buying R-1 will know what is going to be next to them
and they can make up their own minds.
Mayor Hindman said he was not going to
support this request with the hope that the developer would come back with
a planned development.
B10-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, CROCKETT. VOTING
NO: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. Bill defeated.
B11-98 Approval of revised PUD Plan for the
Highlands, Phase 8, and variance to the subdivision regulations relating
to maximum cul-de-sac length, and street closure.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman noted that a request had
been received to table this item. Mayor Hindman opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Kruse made the motion that B11-98
be tabled to the February 16, 1998, meeting. The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman noted that the public hearing
would be continued to the second meeting in February.
(A) Voluntary annexation of property located on the southwest corner of Vawter School Road and Old Mill Creek Road.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a 20.5
acre tract of land located in southwest Columbia. He said a single
family residential structure is currently being planned. This request
had been reviewed by various City departments as well as by the County agencies. Approval
is recommended.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.
(B) Voluntary annexation of property located south of Thompson Road, east of and adjacent to Garden City Subdivision.
Item B was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this is a 19.6 acre
tract of land adjacent to the Garden City Subdivision. He said the
preliminary plat for this had been recommended for approval by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The request had been for 57 single family lots.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.
(C) Voluntary annexation of property located west of Bearfield Road and south of Nifong Boulevard.
Item C was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained this is a 35 acre tract
located in southeast Columbia and presently zoned A-2 by the County. The
proposed subdivision contained 114 duplex lots, not yet approved or recommended
by the City.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.
(D) Street construction on Brown Station Road.
Item D was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that this project
would be financed partially by tax bills against abutting property owners. For
that reason, he asked Mr. Patterson to make a presentation of the project
for the record.
Mr. Patterson explained that this public
hearing is for determining the necessity for reconstruction of Brown Station
Road from its southern termini with Route B north to Stark Avenue. He
said this segment of road is classified as an arterial street in the Major
Thoroughfare Plan, and had been constructed as a highway many years ago as
a link between Columbia and Hallsville. He said the road is shown in
the current Bicycle Plan as a Class II Bicycle Lane and is on the current
Master Sidewalk Plan. The existing roadway is approximately a 20-foot
wide asphalt pavement with road side ditches and no sidewalks, with the right-of-way
varying from about 65 feet to 75 feet in width. The overall project
length will be about 7,500 feet. Current traffic volumes were calculated
in 1996 and showed about 4,270 vehicles per day near Blue Ridge Road, 3,250
vehicles per day near Elm Grove Drive, and 3,280 vehicles per day at Starke
Avenue.
Mr. Patterson said it is proposed that
Brown Station Road be constructed to a 38 foot wide collector street standard. Additional
widening will be necessary for turn lanes at the Blue Ridge Road intersection
where a left turn bay is proposed. Sidewalks will be constructed along
the entire east side of the project, and along the west side, from the south
end, north to Gene Drive. Mr. Patterson reported this is a distance
of about 3,200 feet on the west side. He pointed out that sidewalks
are not proposed as part of the project north of that location, on the west
side, as this is primarily undeveloped land. Sidewalk construction
could be anticipated in conjunction with development as it occurs. Any
gaps that occur could be filled in with the tax billing process at a later
date.
Mr. Patterson said a crosswalk and a short
segment of sidewalk will have to be constructed along the north side of Leeway
in order to complete the sidewalk network for the school system. At
the time the project comes back, staff would make a determination and recommendation
to the Council whether to do that by tax billing abutting property owners. He
said a determination would have to made as to how it would fit in with the
City's sidewalk policy. Staff felt it was important to have the work
done in conjunction with the project.
Since Brown Station Road is classified
as a Class II Bike Lane, Mr. Patterson said it is proposed that parking be
removed from the street and bicycle lanes be striped and signed to conform
to the Class II requirements. He mentioned that the COLT Railroad crossing
near the south end of the project is being planned for improvement by the
Water and Light Department. The two departments would coordinate that
improvement project so it ties in with the reconstruction of Brown Station
Road. Tree removal along the project is primarily limited to fence
row trees, and the 36-inch oak trees along the Old Keene School House will
be preserved. During development of the final construction plan and
during negotiation for right-of-way, Mr. Patterson said individual property
owners will be consulted with regard to any replacement trees that might
be necessary as a result of the project. He said staff would certainly
try to accommodate their wishes in order to assure that the replanting is
at least equal to the trees being taken out as a result of the project. A
neighborhood meeting was held in January of last year in order to acquaint
the property owners with the intent of the project, and 11 out of the 50
property owners were in attendance.
Mr. Patterson explained that the resolution
estimate for the project is $1,684,700 with funding for the project being
proposed as having $105,700 coming from tax bills against abutting properties,
approximately $718,000 from County rebate funds, and the remaining $861,000
from the quarter percent sales tax. Since it is an arterial street,
he explained that the abutting property owners are subject to a tax bill
up to the amount of the curb and guttering or an equivalent cost. That
amount has been defined in this project as a maximum of $12.10 per lineal
foot. He said that would be for a maximum of 500 feet per parcel. Mr.
Patterson pointed out that there were some properties that may receive additional
relief from tax bills by being residential R-1 lots that are through lots
with limited or no access on Brown Station Road.
Prior to levying the special assessments,
Mr. Patterson pointed out that another public hearing would be held at which
time the Council will determine the special benefits to any abutting properties,
and also address at that time any relief for through lots that do not benefit
from direct access to the street. At that time, he suggested some benefits
the Council may wish to consider as follows: the curb and guttering
will improve the appearance and maintainability of the lots along the street,
better storm water run-off control will be provided, reconstruction will
allow new driveway approaches to be built improving access to the properties,
sidewalk construction will provide enhanced pedestrian safety along the corridor,
and the new street surface will provide for more efficient snow removal and
street cleaning. The staff recommendation is to proceed with the project.
Mrs. Crockett asked about the sidewalks
and how far they would extend. Mr. Patterson said the sidewalk on the
east side would run the entire length of the street, and approximately 3,200
feet on the west side from the south end up to Gene Drive.
Mayor Hindman understood this to be basically
a two-lane road with a left-turn lane. Mr. Patterson said it would
be one lane in each direction with bicycle lanes on both sides, and a turn
lane at Blue Ridge road is anticipated. Mayor Hindman said he would
be curious to see what was being planned for pedestrians crossing the street
where there are three lanes. He asked if the Council would be able
to look at the plans as they are developed. Mr. Patterson said it would
be back for public hearing, and that the bid call would approve final plans. He
said efforts would be to concentrate pedestrian traffic on Leeway because
it seems to be more commonly used due to the school. Staff hopes to
encourage most of the pedestrian crossing at that location. Mayor Hindman
said he would like to see the plans before they are in the final stages.
Mrs. Crockett asked how long it would
be before construction occurs from Starke Lane to Route B. Mr. Patterson
said that was not funded in the CIP at this point. He noted that staff
does not anticipate the construction of this portion to begin until 1999. Mr.
Patterson explained they did not want to have any interruption while Route
B is still under construction. Mrs. Crockett asked if it would be done
in one phase. Mr. Patterson said it is anticipated the work be done
using one contract, but it is necessary to phase and stage the work in order
to maintain traffic access. He said there would be financial benefits
in approving a single contract, even though the work would have to be phased.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dale Johnson, a Gene Drive resident, understood
that the sidewalk would not extend north of Gene Drive. Mr. Janku said
it would extend on the east side of the street, not on the west side. Mr.
Johnson asked if there would be a need for him to build a sidewalk at his
expense on his side of the street. Mr. Patterson said that would be
a decision the Council could and certainly would make at some point as development
occurs. He said there would be no assessment as part of this project,
except for the street.
Tom McNab, 104 Clinkscales, spoke in support
of the project and said it has been needed for some time. On the east
side of the street, south of Blue Ridge, he understood the sidewalk would
run along some industrial zoned property he owns. Mr. Patterson said
that was correct. Mr. McNab said he did not necessarily have a problem
with it, but he knew a sidewalk was needed on the west side of the street
because of the school and the day care center. He wondered, in essence,
if the money would be better spent installing a sidewalk on the west side
and eliminating one on the east side. He did not know that there was
that much foot traffic that would warrant both sides of the street having
sidewalks. Mr. McNab said he would support the work whatever the decision.
Brian Snarr, spoke on behalf of the Boone
County Farm Bureau. He explained that this property is located at the
COLT Railroad Line, on the south side of Brown Station Road. He said
they were supportive of the street work, but pointed out that there is a
steep embankment next to their property and were concerned about the location
of the sidewalk. He said they would like to be involved in the planning
of it. Mr. Snarr noted that paying for improvements out of their budget
would keep them from participating in other projects, such as books they
donate to the schools.
Steve Tubesing, 4916 Brown Station Road,
was in favor of the overdue improvement to Brown Station Road. He said
the immediate extension did not really affect him because he lives just past
Starke Lane; however, he has a problem with abutting property owners having
to pay the $12.10 per foot assessment on the improvement. He understood
their properties would be improved, but said they are not the only people
using the road or the sidewalks. He asked why these residents are the
only people being taxed.
Mr. Janku explained that the entire City
was paying for the work. Mayor Hindman said the City tries to proportion
the curb and gutter costs by what is felt to be a fair amount to assess the
property owners. He said the rest of the cost is paid by the City. Mr.
Campbell asked what the current estimated cost per foot was. Mr. Patterson
said collector streets are running from $180 to $200 a running foot. He
said on this project, assessments against property owners are only 6.2% of
the estimated construction cost. He said the other 93.8% is from sales
tax and other monies. Mr. Janku noted that $1.5 million was coming
from the general fund. Mr. Tubesing said the property owners on Brown
Station Road are tax payers also. He said they help pay for the curbs
and gutters in other neighborhoods. Mr. Janku indicated he paid for
these costs also when he purchased his home. Mr. Beck pointed out that
over 60 miles of streets have been tax billed to abutting property owners,
most of them in the area of $8 per foot. He said now it is $30 per
foot in residential areas. His point is that streets like Worley, have
had a big percentage of the construction costs paid for by the property owners
living on them. He said it had just been in recent years where the
cost has been reduced to the curb and gutter cost.
Diana Leach, 2908 Shingle Court, explained
that she built her home in this area last summer. She is a single parent
and it took every dime she had to build her home, and now the City is wanting
to tax bill another $500. She did not have the money to pay for this. She
agreed the road needed to be improved.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that there is
a special provision for through lots. Mr. Patterson said Ms. Leach's
lot is one of those that would be subject to up to 50% relief because it
backs up on Brown Station Road and is a residential R-1 lot. Mr. Patterson
noted that the tax bill amount could be paid over a period of ten years.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku noted that there is minimal
landscaping planned for the project. He suggested that the City look
at some adopt-a-spots at the intersection of Brown Station and Route B as
both projects move forward. Mr. Patterson pointed out that any additional
right-of-way would be an additional expense. Mr. Janku said he was
not suggesting that, but rather noting it. He said there is a new development
going in at Brown Station and Route B. He said it would be an opportune
time to work with those property owners to develop some adopt-a-spots.
Mr. Kruse pointed out that there is also
nine feet between the curb and the sidewalk in most of the area. He
said there is room for street trees.
Mrs. Crockett made the motion that the
staff be directed to proceed with final plans and specifications. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
B1-98 Authorizing construction of a skateboard
facility in Cosmo Recreation Area.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that public hearings
had already been held on this issue. He said this bill will authorize
the staff to proceed with purchasing some of the items for the skateboard
facility. The estimated cost is $39,000, and the facility will be built
in the Cosmo Park Recreation Area.
Mr. Janku said he is in support of moving
ahead with the project. Although there was an agreement by the neighborhood
association to defer some improvements at Oakland Park, he expected questions
regarding improvements. At the next meeting, Mr. Janku said there is
an ordinance up for approval dealing with the Oakland improvements. He
thought it would be appropriate for a third of this cost to be borne by the
general fund as opposed to delaying some of those improvements. He
said there had been a lot of testimony about the superiority of Cosmo Park
as opposed to Oakland Park. He thought there may be a better way to
appropriate funding rather than to delay the tennis courts so significantly.
B1-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B3-98 Authorizing land acquisition for a roadway corridor for the Southampton Drive/Green Meadows loop connection.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that City staff met
with the Department of Transportation Department regarding the design of
AC. He said a proposed intersection would be located where Southampton
ties into Route AC. He said the State was looking for a commitment
from the City as to a location. Mr. Beck explained that this ordinance
would authorize the staff to purchase approximately five acres of land on
the south side of AC. This will be the first step toward making the
connection between Southampton and AC. Mr. Beck noted in the last budget,
there was a section in the CIP regarding the purchase of a corridor in advance
of development.
B3-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B6-98 Approving engineer's report and authorizing payment of differential costs for an 8-inch water main serving Bedford Walk, Plat 6.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, pointed
out that before an expense can be incurred, an appropriation must be made. He
said there had been none made for this particular payment. The bill
which authorized the work, B317-96, provided for no appropriation.
Mr. Malon explained that the account this
work is being charged to is an account that is used for an annual level of
expenditures for these projects. At the time the ordinance was passed,
there was an amount left in that account from the previous fiscal year that
had been carried over. He said Finance had checked this information
and verified that the funds were in fact there and could be encumbered. Mr.
Malon pointed out that in December of 1996, the Finance Department brought
forward an ordinance that appropriated one-half of the year's CIP for all
of the accounts. He said the Council also, at that time, passed a resolution
authorizing that if a bond issue election was passed and bonds were sold,
those amounts could be refunded by the bond issue. Mr. Malon reported
that issue passed in April, and in late April or early May another appropriation
ordinance had been brought forward that reappropriated the rest of the funds
for the balance of the CIP for that fiscal year. He said funds were
already appropriated for that entire fiscal year, and the funds were actually
available at the time the ordinance was passed. Mr. Malon said it did
not appear there is any need to do another appropriation.
B6-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B16-98 Authorizing acquisition of the Boone House located at 10 N. Fourth Street; authorizing assistance to raise funds for restoration.
The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that earlier public
hearings had been held on this particular project as part of budget discussions. He
said the Council had allocated CDBG funds toward the project and the application
has been made to HUD. HUD has recently certified that grant money could
be used for the acquisition and preservation of the property. Mr. Beck
reported intentions are not to rehabilitate the building or do any reconstruction
work. This ordinance would authorize the staff to begin negotiations
for the purchase of the property from the Warren's. He pointed out
that all HUD guidelines would have to be followed regarding appraisals and
how the property is negotiated.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, said he
did not feel that the purchase of this house is an essential service to the
citizens of Columbia. He said even though this project involves grant
money, it is still tax payer money. He suggested that the City work
within its means and spend the $2,000 the group collected for a plaque to
be put somewhere on the property.
Ms. Coble said she did not agree with
Mr. Lane.
Mr. Campbell said there was a large number
of people in his Ward who felt that the preservation of historical structures
is important.
Mayor Hindman noted that CDBG monies were
designed to be used for community development. He saw it as being a
sound community development investment and something that will mean a lot
to a great many people in Columbia. Mayor Hindman stated the home would
be developed as a part of a significant attraction to the City.
Mr. Janku said the reason acquisition
of the property is appropriate is because this is an area the City
is attempting to redevelop. He said the downtown area is an important
central part of the community, and the project has been strongly supported
by the Convention and Visitors Bureau because of the potential for tourism.
B16-98 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
R10-98 Requiring removal of elevated walkway adjacent to Eighth and Cherry parking facility.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that the attorney for
the owner had sent a letter regarding the elevated walkway, and it had been
indicated that the owner no longer wants to be involved in the project due
to the cost.
Mayor Hindman said the letter had made
it sound very expensive and negative. He said this bothered him as
did the Glenn's entrance. He asked what would happen with it. Mr.
Patterson said that case is different as the City built the garage up to
Glenn's entrance. He said the plans do not show that entrance being
taken out or blocked up. With regard to the letter from Ms. Menser's
attorney, Mr. Patterson said the City's architect had looked at the walkway
and realized there would be quite an expense in rebuilding it due to significant
problems with the walkway itself and the deck that it ties into. It
had been determined it would be very expensive to rebuild the walkway to
be both safe and accessible.
Mr. Janku asked if there had been any
other discussions with various property owners along Broadway. Mr.
Patterson said the Special Business District Board discussed it at their
last meeting. He said they forwarded a letter saying that in its present
condition and based on the fact that it is understood to be required for
an exit, the Board would support reconstruction of the walkway provided that
the building and design costs would be covered by the building owner. That
decision was ascertained on the perceived hardship that would be placed on
the downtown building owner if there was no rear exit to the building and
the apartment became unusable. The Board had gone on to say that the
permit requirements for an upstairs apartment offered other solutions such
as a rear exit by way of a fire escape and other means. He said the
Board favored those kinds of options over a raised walkway. Mr. Patterson
said it had been later determined that the walkway is not a required exit.
Mr. Janku asked about the dumpster in
the alley. Mr. Patterson said some decision still needs to be made
on it. He said the architect had tried to find alternatives, but none
of them will be inexpensive.
The vote on R10-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
PR20-98 Establishing policy on spending City funds for playground equipment on public school property.
The policy resolution was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this bill would
establish Council policy as to how to prioritize the use of City money for
playground equipment on school property. He noted that any future decision
on this would require a follow-up agreement with the School Board. Mr.
Beck reported the policy emphasizes the availability of funds.
The vote on PR20-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Policy resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second
reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B2-98 Authorizing land acquisition to construct
sidewalk along north side of West Broadway.
B7-98 Calling for bids for construction of a flood intake structure at Wetland Treatment Cell No. 3 in the McBaine bottoms.
B8-98 Approval of final plat of Hyde Park Planned Commercial Subdivision, Block 1, a major subdivision.
B12-98 Approval of Replat of Lot 83 of Country
Club Villas III.
B13-98 Approval of Replat of Lot 73 of Country
Club Villas III.
B14-98 Assessing special tax for weed nuisance
at 2016 S. Deerborn Circle.
B15-98 Calling an election to be held April
7, 1998, to elect Mayor and Council members for Wards 3 and 4.
R21-98 Setting a public hearing regarding improvements
at Oakland Park.
R22-98 Setting a public hearing regarding Westwinds
Neighborhood Park Development Project.
R23-98 Setting a public hearing regarding special assessments against property benefitting from improvements made to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to William Street.
R24-98 Setting a public hearing regarding construction of an 8-inch water main on Chapel Hill Road.
R25-98 Setting a public hearing regarding construction of a 12-inch water main on Fairview Road and Ash Street.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R26-98 Authorizing agreement with Curators of
the University of Missouri for Lee School Mural project.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said in the Cultural Affairs
budget this year, there was a provision made for smaller projects that would
be recommended by the Committee. He said this was one of two on the
agenda this evening.
The vote on R26-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R27-98 Authorizing agreement with Curators of the University of Missouri for Artificial Eye concert.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Comments were called for with none received.
The vote on R27-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R28-98 Authorizing agreement with Memorial Day Weekend-Salute to Veterans Corporation for use of Columbia Regional Airport.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this agreement is
a continuation of an event that has taken place at the airport over the Memorial
Day weekend for several years now. He said this group would have to
comply with FAA requirements.
The vote on R28-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R29-98 Assignment of lease agreement from Central Missouri Aviation to AKRW, Inc.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this is somewhat of
a technical change in the lease agreement to keep the ownership current.
The vote on R29-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R30-98 Authorizing staff to proceed with the preliminary action of issuing and refinancing Water and Electric Bonds.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this is a follow-up
of the ballot issue approved by the voters. He said the Water and Light
Director and the Finance Director have been meeting with some of the advisors
on the issuance of the bonds. He said this would begin the process
of developing the bond issue itself. Mr. Beck reported a presentation
will be made to the Water and Light Advisory Board later this week. He
said there would be recommendations and additional paper work coming back
to the Council before actually moving forward with the sale of the revenue
bonds.
The vote on R30-98 was recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE. 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:
B17-98 Approving final plat of The Terebinths,
Plat 111, a major subdivision.
B18-98 Approving replat of portions of Mataora
and Charity Baptist Church Subdivisions.
B19-98 Rezoning property located at 127 S. Fifth Street and 415 Locust Street from M-1 to C-2.
B20-98 Rezoning property located at 209 and 213 Third Avenue from R-2 and O-1 to C-P.
B21-98 Approving engineer's final report; authorizing
payment of differential costs for an 8-inch water main serving Avalon Subdivision.
B22-98 Authorizing construction of an 8-inch
water main on Chapel Hill Road.
B23-98 Authorizing construction of a 12-inch water main on Fairview Road and Ash Street.
B24-98 Accepting conveyances for water and
utility purposes.
B25-98 Authorizing construction of improvements
at Oakland Park.
B26-98 Authorizing construction of Westwinds
Neighborhood Park.
B27-98 Authorizing agreement with Markey and
Associates for engineering and design services for the renovation of the
Oakland Park swimming pool.
B28-98 Approving the engineer's final report, levying and assessing special assessments for improvements to Richardson Street from Ripley Street to William Street.
B29-98 Accepting the bid of C.L. Richardson Construction Company for construction of Sanitary Sewer District No. 138 and appropriating funds.
B30-98 Amending Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances to allow the assessment of the cost of construction of local non-residential streets.
B31-98 Amending Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances as it relates to storage of unlicensed motor vehicles.
B32-98 Amending FY 98 Pay Plan.
B33-98 Authorizing appropriation of $50,000
for a Comprehensive Community Child Care System.
B34-98 Authorizing acceptance of a domestic
violence enforcement grant and appropriating funds.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Public Notification of Pending Subdivision
Plats.
Mr. Beck noted that this report had been
requested by the Council. He said Mr. Hancock had checked with some
other cities to see how they handled the situation.
Mr. Campbell asked that the issue be put
on the work session schedule. He thought an extensive discussion would
be required. Mr. Janku asked that it be moved up quickly.
(B) Oakland Park Pond Improvements.
Mr. Beck said the School wanted to apply
for some grants to conduct studies of the pond as a class project. He
said the staff did not anticipate any problems with this request.
(C) Oakland Gravel Road Street Lights.
Mr. Beck noted that this report had been
requested by the Council and it had been prepared by the Water and Light
Director. Mr. Beck said he had written a few notes on the bottom of
the report as to whether or not the Council wanted to proceed prior to the
major Oakland improvement project.
Mr. Janku said it was an important project
and asked if he understood that the project would not begin until 1999.
Mr. Campbell said he had a similar request,
although the street had already been built. He was referring to Smith
Drive. He asked for a staff report to go along with this one. He
said the Council had previous discussions regarding a street light policy
-- when lights should be installed and the magnitude of that lighting.
Mrs. Crockett thought it made sense to
put the street lighting in when the road is worked on, but she wanted to
see the road put in as soon as possible since there are no sidewalks or street
lights.
Mayor Hindman asked about the less expensive
100 watt fixtures. He wondered if that was a temporary measure. Mr.
Beck said it was. Mr. Janku thought it would help, and that the north
end of the street is particularly bad. Mrs. Crockett said a lot of
that property is located in the County (the east side). Mr. Janku thought
the poles were all on the west side of the street.
Mr. Janku said the poles are set back
and thought it would not be necessary to move them as part of the construction. He
asked why it would cost more to install the lighting now if the poles would
not be moved at the time of construction. Mr. Malon said it would depend
on what kind of lighting levels that is wanted on the street. He said
if it was going to be improved to collector street standards, there would
be more lights of higher intensity to provide uniform lighting down the street. He
said staff would install more and different kinds of lights in order to get
the uniformity down the pavement. He said the question was what standard
did the Council want to use. Mr. Janku thought the Council should delay
a decision until it can be discussed at a work session.
Mr. Campbell asked about Smith Drive and
whether or not it was located in the City or County. Mr. Malon said
it was in the Hamlet, which he thought was in the City. Mr. Campbell
said when street lighting comes up for discussion, he would like Smith Drive
included.
Mr. Kruse said he would like to see the
standards addressed.
(D) Golden Knights Parachute Team.
Ms. Coble made the motion that the request
be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously
by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Upon receiving the majority vote of the
Council the following individuals were appointed to the following boards:
BOARD OF MECHANICAL EXAMINERS
Lane, Henry, G.,k 1816 E. Broadway, Ward 6 -
term to expire 6/17/98
HEALTH INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD
Allen, Ronald D., 600 W. Covered Bridge Road,
County, term to expire 2/16/01
COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL, STAFF, AND PUBLIC
With regard to street lights, Mr. Kruse
said he had written a memo to Mr. Beck about the replacement of the lights
on Forum. He was hopeful that this work would be done after the work
session, and asked if it had been scheduled yet. Mr. Beck said if it
had, staff could put it on hold until after the work session.
Mr. Campbell asked for a report regarding
the scheduling of soccer practice fields, particularly those at Fairview. He
said the residents in the neighborhood feel that young people are drag racing
down the street to get first access to the fields. Mr. Janku said the
problem is that the City removes all the goal posts at Cosmo and there are
no fields available in the winter. He said the only fields available
are the ones like Fairview. Mr. Janku reported it was a problem of
maintenance of the fields. Mr. Campbell said he would like the report
to take into consideration Mr. Janku's comments.
Mr. Coffman made the motion that the staff
be directed to resubmit the application for the designation of Rock Quarry
Road as a scenic road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Coffman understood the City had received
support from MoDOT regarding the intersection of Stadium, East Pointe, and
Audubon. He was hopeful this project could move swiftly. He understood
they were waiting now for Hollywood Theatres to put together an engineering
plan. Mr. Coffman asked about the possibility of putting in a crosswalk,
and understood that was not what the Theatre had originally planned. He
asked if the Theatre would not agree to install the crosswalk, whether the
Council could enhance the project to some degree to get this completed. Mr.
Janku said street lighting should be addressed also. He said part of
the problem is that people cannot be seen when they cross the street. Mr.
Campbell thought it should be a policy that when lights are installed, walk
lights should also be put in.
Mr. Coffman made the motion per his above
crosswalk request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
Regarding budget billing, Mr. Coffman
said he was hopeful the City would have the ability to offer budget billing
before much longer. Mr. Janku said they had all been hoping that for
a long time.
Mr. Campbell asked if there was anything
the Council needed to do in order to get the playground equipment taken care
of at Grant School. Mr. Beck thought it could be taken care of without
further Council action.
Mr. Janku said Mr. Malon had told him
a while back that there was a plan being developed to landscape their building
on the Business Loop across from the Power Plant. He was hopeful the
project would be brought forward with the spring planting that would soon
be occurring.
Mr. Janku said he would like staff to
look into a policy about sidewalks being tied to building permits rather
than when the plat plans are submitted. He was referring to when streets
are improved after the plat is in place.
Ms. Coble had a letter she would pass
along to the staff. The letter referenced removal of parking, or prohibition
of truck traffic, on south Fourth Street and Conley. She said something
needed to be done to avoid truck traffic going through the residents' yards.
Ms. Coble asked that at the next meeting
when the Council hears the measure on authorizing the Domestic Violence Enforcement
Grant, they receive a full report on the process for hiring personnel.
Mayor Hindman asked about the street cleaning
policy. He said it has been his observation that the streets presently
look like a coal mining town. He realizes the City saves money by using
the cinders that would otherwise have to be hauled to the dump. He
thought the City should be obligated to clean them up also. Mr. Patterson
said that the street sweepers are out just as soon as the weather permits. He
said they have been out already, but it takes almost a month to go around
the entire City. Mrs. Crockett said the problem was made worse where
the sweepers have to go around cars parked on the streets. She wondered
if there was any way to post signs the day before sweeping. Mr. Kruse
asked that, if possible, the streets that get the heaviest application of
cinders be the first to be cleaned.
Mr. Janku commended the Public Works Department
for sweeping the streets before bicycle events. He said both the Columbia
Bicycle Club and the Columbia Track Club received notices requesting that
the City be advised when these groups schedule events so the streets could
be swept to ensure the safety of the routes. He said both groups were
very appreciative of this service, and had published it in their newsletters.
Mr. Beck reminded everyone that there
is an alternative to cinders. He added that he had been told the City
had done an outstanding job of getting traffic moving during very difficult
conditions last week. He said this person had expressed their thanks
for the City using the materials they did. Mr. Beck stated the Public
Works Department had done a great job. The Council agreed. Mr.
Beck thought the material being used was appreciated during icy weather,
but it is a question of how fast it can be cleaned up.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny St. Romaine
City Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia