APRIL 5, 1999

    The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 5, 1999, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.  The roll was taken with the following results: Council members COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, and HINDMAN were present.  The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also present.

    The minutes of the regular meeting of March 15, 1999, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Mrs. Crockett.

    Mayor Hindman noted that R70-99 and B104-99 would be added under New Business.
    Upon her request, Mr. Campbell made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on B74-99, B75-99, B76-99, B77-99, B79-99, and B80-99.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Kruse.


1.  Deb Sheals, Charlotte Overby, Janet Hammen - Destruction of Homes by Stephens College.
    Charlotte Overby, 113 Willis, on behalf of The Friends of Historic Willis Avenue, noted that Ms. Hammen would not be speaking this evening.  Ms. Overby outlined the intentions of Stephens College to demolish six homes on Willis Avenue and their plans to replace them with parking lots.  She explained that she owns and lives in one of four privately owned homes on Willis that will be left surrounded by pavement if Stephens proceeds with their plan.  Ms. Overby said residents are totally exasperated and angry with Stephens College for their refusal to follow a master plan, and also for the way they have been mislead and badly treated as neighbors.  She gave the background on the situation and added that several times last year residents had been assured by Stephens administrators that the Willis houses were secure and that there was no need for additional parking on campus.  Ms. Overby reported as a result of statements and representations made by people at the highest level of the Stephens administration that the Willis houses were not in eminent danger, the residents decided not to formally oppose their application for a variance on parking and setbacks on the new athletic building.
    Ms. Overby explained that Section 29-6 of the Zoning Code requires that a development map of the campus be filed with the City, and that it must show existing and future buildings, parking areas, streets and drives, athletic facilities, and other features which may affect surrounding property or the public interest.  Residents feel Stephens is in violation of this section for several reasons:  The master plan fails to show these future parking lots (although the College has finally acknowledged they are going to build them), and it fails to show the historic homes they intend to raze and how it would affect the remaining owner occupied homes.  Ms. Overby noted the plan does not show or mention the Columbia Independent School, which is a separate operation from Stephens under separate administration, and the plan also fails to explain why they once sold then repurchased the home at 103 Willis.  In addition, the plan fails to recognize the sale of the Marion Henley Building and the refocusing of the campus to the east side of College Avenue.  Ms. Overby reported residents have learned the College has a 1995 strategic plan, and she said if it contains as many shifts in land use policies as it appears, it should be the official record kept and enforced by the City.
    Ms. Overby said the group is asking, in the short-term, that the City withhold demolition permits until Stephens is in conformance with Chapter 29-6.  In the long-term, she explained that the residents intend to ask Stephens to become partners in preservation and not demolish the beautiful, old central Columbia homes.  Ms. Overby stated Willis Avenue is in Columbia's only neighborhood that is a federally and locally recognized national historic district.
    Deb Sheals, 406 W. Broadway, spoke as a concerned citizen and as Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission.  She explained the history of preservation in Columbia, which began in the East Campus area.  In 1996, the neighborhood was listed in the National Register, and it is the largest registered district of any kind, as well as the only residential neighborhood.
    Ms. Sheals reported the Historic Preservation Commission was formed in 1998, and part of their designated task is to testify to the Council on preservation issues.  She observed there are federally and locally recognized historic resources that are part of the Stephens College plan that has come into question.  She noted that a plan filed in 1980, in pieces, did not seem to be much of a plan.
    Regarding the houses being torn down because they are in such ill repair, Ms. Sheals reported the properties are completely viable.  As a National Register District, she explained there are tax credits available (home ownership tax credits) that could be used to repair the properties.  She pointed out that currently, there is a shortage in the Home Ownership Assistance Program in Columbia for properties that would be eligible for such funding.  Ms. Sheals reported the homes on Willis Street are perfect candidates for the program.  She felt the ideal solution would be for Stephens to make the houses local landmarks so that any rehabilitation work would have to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, which would essentially make the Commission their watchdog.
    Ms. Sheals reported if the College were to sell the homes for $50,000 each, that would give Stephens $300,000 which could fund a lot of work on their campus.  She said a moratorium would give the Commission time to talk to Stephens and explore these possibilities.
    Regarding logistics, Ms. Sheals noted the conceptual drawing the College has for the parking lots to replace the six buildings would provide about 26 parking spaces.  She did not think that was an efficient use of space.  Ms. Sheals stated it is realized that they do not have the right to tell Stephens what to do, nor the ability to manage their property for them, but thought this is a special situation.  She explained that Stephens is an organization that has not been as forthcoming with its neighbors as it should, and is working on a piecemeal plan that is almost 20 years old.  She said a lot of things have changed since then, and she felt it was worth giving the neighborhood association and the Friends of Willis Avenue some time to talk to Stephens and examine the situation.
    Mr. Coffman asked if the group has talked to Stephens about the federal tax credits and other state and federal assistance that is available.  Ms. Sheals said she had not, but as a Commissioner, she sent a letter to Stephens asking that they reconsider their plans as rehabilitation of the homes would help to stabilize the neighborhood.  Currently, there is a lot of movement with universities all over the country discovering that preservation of surrounding neighborhoods is good business.  Ms. Sheals commented that Stephens would not be eligible for the tax credits, but if the homes came under private ownership, the incentive to rehabilitate them would exist.  Mr. Coffman asked how dilapidated the homes are.  Ms. Sheals replied the interior portion of the homes have some problems, but part of the tax credits are based on what is called substantial rehabilitation.  She said it is not for just slapping a coat of paint on the exterior, and is almost always predicated on spending a good chunk of money.  Ms. Sheals reported the Homeowner Assistance Program also works that way.  In addition, there are federal FHA loans that can be tied to rehabilitation.  Ms. Sheals felt the houses are perfect candidates for the program, and she has seen structures rehabilitated that have been in much worse condition.
    Ms. Sheals commented there are quite a few people present this evening in support of this cause and asked them to stand.  Approximately two dozen people stood in support.
    Mr. Coffman said he had received many phone calls, from both alumnae and concerned people from all over the City, that related to historic preservation and neighborhood issues.

B391-98     Rezoning property located at the northwest corner of Nifong Boulevard and Forum
                    Boulevard from R-1 and R-3 to PUD-5 and C-P.
    The bill was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this item had been tabled several times and a substantial number of changes have been made to the plan, which was forwarded to the Planning and Public Works Departments.  He commented that Mr. Hancock had prepared a report after conferring with the Public Works Department last week.  Since that time, he explained that additional information has been received.  Mr. Beck asked Mr. Hancock to update the Council.
    Mr. Hancock said staff prepared a memo which described some of the changes that occurred on the plan between March 1st, 1999, and last week.  He felt most were intimately familiar with the site plan and the C-P and PUD plan.  He explained that there is a proposed amendment sheet that would zone some of the land O-P (planned office).  Mr. Hancock said a landscape plan had been submitted, which has been reviewed by the staff and he believed it was acceptable.  He noted that the storm water management and erosion control plans have also been reviewed and approved.  In addition, information regarding signage has been provided that contained adequate information about the signs, their location, and height and area.
    Mr. Hancock reported it has been estimated that the development will consist of approximately 58,000 square feet of retail, 17,800 square feet of office space, and 29 apartments in the C-P portion of the project.  He said there are still 20 dwelling units in the PUD portion to the west.  Any indication about encroachment into the 25 foot perimeter setback has been removed and the issue regarding the privacy fence has been resolved.  Mr. Hancock noted that building heights are now shown on the plan, information about exterior building materials has been shown (no more than 33% of all buildings on the site would be stucco or dryvit), and they have also shown quite a bit of information about lighting (building and site).  As noted, there is also a lot of sidewalk information shown on the plan.  He believed they planned to go beyond the City standards for sidewalk width as well.  Mr. Hancock reported all of the form and content concerns the staff had has been addressed.
    Mr. Patterson added the caveat that there are still some issues with the detail of design, but said they felt those were issues that can be worked out with construction plans when they are presented.  He explained the landscaping plan and the storm water management plan are the ones staff spent the most time on, and they felt any design issues could be resolved.
    Mr. Kruse asked Mr. Patterson if he was saying he thought the storm water problems could be adequately handled.  Mr. Patterson said staff felt they could be.  He said what they have presented indicates the system will work.  He said there may be some modifications in the construction plans, but the capacity is there and the general premise of the plan is acceptable.  Mr. Kruse asked if staff has had experience with storm water plans on other developments that are in any way similar with this one.  Mr. Patterson said this will be a first, but the procedure is standard enough in other locations that the research indicates it is an acceptable methodology.
    Mr.  Janku asked how the storm water plan would be implemented.  Mr. Patterson replied the improvements associated with any particular building area has to be in place prior to occupancy of the building.  He said it was conceivable there could be some phasing of it.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Craig VanMatre, an attorney with offices at 1101 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicants.  He mentioned the proponents that would be speaking to the issue.  Mr. VanMatre stated it is intended that the Council, either directly or indirectly, will have architectural review over the buildings to be constructed in this development.   He said before any building permits are issued, the City will have the opportunity to ensure that plans are consistent with the representations made tonight.
    Mr. VanMatre explained that he had prepared two addendums; one of which dealt with Protective Inspection exercising its oversight, and the second dealt with the City Council exercising that oversight until an architectural control commission or architectural review commission is created at some point in the future by ordinance.   This is to assure the Council that what is seen tonight, is what they would see five years from now when the last building is constructed.  Attached to the addendum, when adopted, would be a depiction of the project, as well as a picture of the Walgreen's building, so it would be clear as to what is intended.
    Mr. VanMatre explained that a lengthy agreement had been developed with the neighbors to the north, who are represented by the Villas II Homeowners Association (90 homeowners).   He said there are many, many protections for those people living immediately to the north of this development.  Mr. VanMatre noted it is realized that reimbursement will need to be made to the City for the right-in/right-out access that is shown adjacent to the Walgreen's lot.  He said they have not seen the appraisal, although they are willing to pay the fair market value of it.  Mr. VanMatre asked the Council to take into account that in the context of this plan, the owners are donating 1.3 acres of right-of-way.  He explained if this had been a residential development, they would not be compelled to donate this property.
    Mr. VanMatre asked the people in favor of the project and those not in favor to stand.  Those in favor numbered approximately three dozen, and those opposed approximately four dozen.
    Ruth Jurgensmeyer, 2712 Surfside Court, explained that she and her husband, Bob, have lived in Columbia for 35 years and have raised five children here.  She explained that when they purchased this property in 1995, it was with the intention that a church be built on the tract; however, the church administration determined the time was not right for establishing another parish in Columbia.  Ms. Jurgensmeyer said they tried to decide what the best use would be for this property -- something that would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and something everyone could be proud of.  She said many local people had encouraged them to pursue the concept of mixed use development, so they visited many such projects throughout the state.  She reported they sorted out the best ideas and tried to incorporate them in their plan.  Ms. Jurgensmeyer felt this mix of shops, offices, and residences would be welcome in a neighborhood.   She said it is their intention to do this tastefully and with the highest quality.  Ms. Jurgensmeyer thanked the Council for all of the time they have devoted to this matter.  She and her husband especially appreciate all of the input the Council has given them.
    Doug Chateau, Vice-President of Crawford, Bunche, Braymeyer, a traffic and transportation engineering firm based out of St. Louis, said his company has spent almost two years on this project conducting a number of studies and interacting with the City staff.  He said their findings boiled down to three basic conclusions.  The first relates to access.  With the modified site plan before the Council this evening, he said there are three proposed access points -- one on Forum and two on Nifong, including the right-in/right-out just west of the intersection.  He said they have concluded there is no detrimental impact associated with that access point.  Mr. Chateau reported they are more than satisfied with the separation of that location from the intersection itself.   The second conclusion is the impact of the development itself.  Mr. Chateau stated there would obviously be quite a bit of traffic generated in this area, but they concluded there is no negative impact associated with the development.  Mr. Chateau said that is based on the fact that the adjacent intersection of Forum and Nifong will have the ability to operate at very favorable levels of service even after this project is completed, and on the contingency that the intersection is signalized as is currently proposed by the City.  In addition, he said there is a number of improvements being proposed in conjunction with the development that would further mitigate the impact of trips traveling in and out of the site, namely the addition of right and left turn lanes at each of the access points to prevent any impact on through movements on the adjacent roads.
    Lastly was the implications of alternative land uses at this location.  Mr. Chateau explained if this were to be developed as a residential project (which is the current zoning), there is the possibility there would be cross connections with other adjacent residential streets -- Club Meadows would be an example.  He said residential uses would generate traffic in the peak directional flow for this area, and it would be adding to the commuter peak patterns seen there now.  He said this type of development, neighborhood commercial, tends to draw heavily from the surrounding residential area.  Mr. Chateau noted a shift from some of the retail space to office would further lower the impact the site would have by reducing the number of trips that might be generated.
    Mr. Kruse asked if they had looked at the number of vehicle trips per day for what the proposed development would generate, compared to the vehicle trips in and out per day if it was developed under the existing zoning.  Mr. Chateau said they did not specifically evaluate that because of the uncertainty of whether there would be connections to the adjacent neighborhoods if this were a residential development, which would have had an implication upon the analysis.  He said it would have provided the potential for additional through chips that would not be there if it was just serving this site alone.  Mr. Kruse asked if he had any idea of how many through trips are going through the intersection.  He was thinking of the people who live to the south and to the west who currently drive through the intersection on their way to avail themselves of retail opportunities either on Providence Road or at Forum Shopping Center, who might, if this is developed, continue to drive in that direction, but then stop because they would have the retail opportunity here rather than a mile or two down the road.   Mr. Chateau said they had taken that into account in their studies.  He said they have conservatively estimated that about 25% of the traffic from this site would be truly pass-by trips.  He said that was probably conservative because this development would be neighborhood retail in nature with a lot of convenience oriented uses.  Mr. Kruse asked if it was true that the free standing proposed use at the corner would be a destination which would draw traffic from other parts of the community.  Mr. Chateau said that was not necessarily so, it is a destination, but on a neighborhood basis.
    Mr. Janku asked about the traffic and the street that would be constructed as part of the development.  Mr. Chateau said they had looked at the individual access points and the driveways and how they would operate at the intersections with Nifong and Forum.  It was concluded there would be acceptable operating or grades at each location.  Mr. Janku noted the original staff report indicated there would be enough level service during peak times for left turns going north on Forum.  Mr.  Chateau thought that pertained to an analysis they looked at with additional growth in the area -- taking into consideration the amount of development that might still occur along Nifong and how traffic levels might increase as a result -- the possibility of added delays for people trying to exit out of a site like this.  Under those conditions, perhaps by the year 2017, there might be a poor level of service for someone trying to exit out of the site directly onto that street.  He said they may be forced to endure a longer delay or alternatively shift over to Forum and take advantage of the signal at that location.  Mr. Chateau gave as an example someone coming out of this site and turning left onto Nifong going east.  As traffic continues to grow along Nifong, residents will encounter longer delays in the future.  Mr. Janku asked about someone wanting to go north on Forum.  Mr. Chateau said that was probably the one movement that will be subject to longer delays without much of an alternative.
    Jay Gebhardt, a civil engineer with Allstate Consultants, spoke about storm water detention.  He said they have modified the detention to a series of 14 destinations for underground storage.  He said these were selected to minimize the safety concerns that the large, open detention presented on the previous plan.  He said they are still able to meet all of the City's criteria for the two, ten, and twenty-five year storms, so that no increase in runoff would occur.  He noted that most of the residents present in opposition to the proposal are upstream of where this area drains into the Mill Creek Basin.  Mr. Gebhardt did not see where storm water would have any great impact on their day to day lives.
    Regarding sidewalks, Mr. Gebhardt explained that Mr. Jurgensmeyer has agreed to install five foot sidewalks within the O-P and C-P development, interior and to the exterior of the development.  He said another request heard was that each building have at least one bike rack, which they have also agreed to.
    Mr. Janku asked how they were planning to construct the street, and if the detention would be put in at that time.  Mr. Gebhardt reported because the tract consists of 13 acres and will contain 14 detention sites, and as the public street actually has its own detention site, he said the site would have to be developed in conjunction with Sedonna Villas.  He added that most of the grading on the O-P and C-P portion of the project would have to be done at once to get the dirt to balance out.  At that point, they would go ahead and install the street and all of the utilities.  As each lot develops, Mr. Gebhardt explained some lots have one detention unit and some have two, and as the hard surface goes in and the increase in runoff occurs, they will have to install the detention facility for the building and parking lot.  He said it would take care of itself as the development proceeds.
    Linda Phillips, an architect with offices at 1007 N. College, reported she had been working on this project since 1996.  She said the amenities they tried to work into this development were ones that would be pleasant enough to attract and maintain a good residential population in order to maintain a true mixed development unit.  She said they felt open space is very critical and the plan had in excess of the minimum, running around 34 to 39% depending upon the areas.  Ms. Phillips displayed several renderings of the buildings. She noted that there are architectural features on all four sides of the buildings as these structures are on separate lots and are visible from many different angles from the surrounding streets.  Ms. Phillips described the exterior of the buildings.
    Leon Schneider, 2400 Ridgemont Drive, landscape architect, explained the landscaping to the interior and exterior of the development.
    Jack Daugherty, 1103 Doral, reported that he would be building and developing the Sedonna area.  He explained the project consists of two unit buildings, zero lot lines, architectural control, landscaping sod with a sprinkler system, and mowing will be provided.  In addition, there will be covenant restrictions.  Mr. Daugherty pointed out that he has worked on the Villas I, II, and III.
    Steve Riekland, 4208 Fall River Drive, distributed a document that he had seen inviting residents to attend tonight's meeting to voice their opposition.  He said since he has lived in the Bedford Walk Subdivision, he has seen his property values increase.  In reading the Metro 2020 plan, he is looking forward to being able to get a quart of milk without having to use a quart of gas.  Mr. Riekland stated this project would enable him to walk and pick up whatever it is he needs.
    Connie Fennewald, 1316 Willowcreek Lane, thanked the Council for all of the time they have spent on this project.  She noted that this property has been zoned residential for more than 20 years, and the people who purchased property adjacent to the site have put their trust in the Land Use Plan.  To rezone more than 13 acres and allow more than 75,000 plus square feet of commercial space would be a violation of that trust.  She said it would drastically change the character of the neighborhood and reduce the investment value the property owners have in their homes and community.  Ms. Fennewald noted that the intent of the Land Use Plan was to prevent pocket zoning, and residents thought their property was being protected by this Land Use Plan.  She pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended against supporting this rezoning request.  Ms. Fennewald read a list of reasons for denying this request that had been presented by the residents at the Commission meeting, and asked that the Council remember these issues when making their decision.
    Ms. Coble pointed out that the plan before the Council is significantly different than what was heard at the Commission meeting.  Ms. Fennewald said some of the later presentations would address that.
    Barbara Balling, a Willowcreek Lane resident, said commercial development at every major intersection in Columbia is not necessary.  She said a great majority of homeowners living in every direction from the site oppose the proposal.  She reported these residents live on Glen Eagle, Willowcreek, LaVerde Court, Forum Lucerne, Barrington, Bedford Walk, Wakefield, Woodkirk, Scottson Way, Vintage Drive, Club Meadows Drive and Green Meadows.  Ms. Balling quoted Mr. Jurgensmeyer as saying "people do not want to drive all over town to shop".  She noted that soon there will be six pharmacies/convenience stores within a two mile radius.  Ms. Balling wondered if the neighborhood really needed a seventh.
    Mike Kerr, 1307 LaVerde Court, said the current plan depicts nine buildings and over 500 parking spaces.  He believed this project would completely change the character of the existing surrounding neighborhoods.  Mr. Kerr reported existing developments are not completely full and some tenants would have their businesses duplicated, i.e., the pharmacies.  Mr. Kerr noted that Woodrail Centre has 40,000 square feet of retail space currently available.  He asked the Council to realize that overdevelopment has tendencies to make developers bargain for tenants, which reduces rental income and usually results in less than an acceptable upkeep of the buildings and landscaping.
    Rich Eppendorfer, 1113 Willowcreek, said if the City continues to let these types of developments destroy area neighborhoods, Columbia would lose its image of one of the finest places to live.  He said this type of development should be on the Business Loop, not in a residential neighborhood.  Mr. Eppendorfer explained that the major thoroughfare in this area is between Mill Creek Elementary and Gentry Middle School.  He said the students deserve safe streets.  Mr. Eppendorfer asked the Council to do what is best for its residents.
    Clifford Rea, 1326 Willowcreek, compared the plan to the Metro 2020 criteria.  He noted that it failed to meet the criteria in six of the ten requirements for this type of complex.
    Gary Fennewald, 1316 Willowcreek Lane, explained that he drives through the intersection of Forum and Nifong a minimum of two times a day.  He continued the comparison of Village Square with the Metro 2020 Plan that Mr. Rea previously referred to.  Mr. Fennewald noted that the plan was the City's draft document for standards of mixed use.  He reported that one of the classifications in 2020 is referred to as a neighborhood center.  He outlined how this plan conforms with the definition of a neighborhood center.  Mr. Fennewald then spoke about commercial districts and how this plan would compare to that classification.  He observed there is insufficient buffering, the residences are not high density, the lots have too little arterial frontage, and there are also deficiencies with regard to the driveway proximity to the intersection and with the street to a signalized intersection.  Mr. Fennewald then compared this project to the designation of a community marketplace.  With regard to the street proximity to the signalized intersection, the Metro 2020 plan would require that to be at an 800 feet minimum, while the Village Square development is 460 feet; and the Metro 2020 plan recommends that the driveway proximity to a signalized intersection be at 450 feet, with the driveway in this request being 360 feet.
    Ernie Gaeth, 1106 Willowcreek, explained that the Metro 2020 plan suggests a total arterial corner use at 140,000 square feet for a community marketplace, with a single development not exceeding more than 75,000 square feet.  He noted there is 186,000 square feet of retail/office space at Woodrail Centre -- which alone exceeds the so-called corner arterial vision of a village square.  Mr. Gaeth reported it is not known what will happen to the property that is owned by Boone Hospital (located adjacent to the proposed project), and he thought serious consideration should be given to what will occur at that corner as it could have approximately 119,000 square feet of office and retail space.  Mr. Gaeth observed that would establish approximately 305,000 square feet for the entire area , which is not even close to what is recommended in the Metro 2020 plan for a community marketplace.
    Marilyn Gaeth, 1106 Willowcreek, said her subdivision is different than to the neighborhoods to the north and those residents who support this project.  She noted she would also be in support of the project if she lived where they do because they will not have the traffic problems. She said the fact they are on different sides does not mean they are opposed to each other in principle, just protecting different interests.  Ms. Gaeth understood this mixed commercial use is the trend, and she knew there are trends in zoning just like there are in all kinds of things, i.e., new math and the high protein diet.  She said the long-term affects of a shopping center on a neighborhood involves residents being subjected to the resulting traffic noise and safety issues long after the Council goes out of office and new trends come and the situation changes.  She reported the area homeowners would be stuck with the decision and the negative affects on their neighborhood.  Ms. Gaeth noted the Woodrail Centre is their village marketplace, and while the buildings look very nice from the front, from her home they look terrible.
    Bruce Peringer, 1000 Willowcreek, said this is a hearing to appeal a zoning change request that was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  He thought the project would be judged on those merits, and did not realize the plan would continue to evolve.  He suggested that this proposal be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission because this is a new plan and has not been reviewed properly by staff.  Mr. Peringer said classifying this development as a village does not make it one, and what they are hearing is a concept and an illusion.  He said wide sidewalks do not make it a pedestrian destination.  Mr. Peringer believed this to be the wrong development for the area, not consistent with the Land Use Plans and the goals of Metro 2020, as well as being inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.  He asked the Council to deny the request.
    Henry Balling 1005 Willowcreek, said at the last meeting the Council directed the developers to forward, within nine days, any changes to their original proposal.  As of 4:30 today, changes were still being submitted.  Mr. Balling's point was that the developers did not meet their commitment.
    Gordon Toland, 3705 Scottson Way, spoke against the proposal.  His objection was to the traffic that would be created by such a development.
    Jim Carl, 3509 Scottson Way, said most of the people supporting the project do not live in the immediate area and will not be subjected to the problems the residents will be faced with if this request is granted.  Mr. Carl said the Jurgensmeyer's bought property in this area knowing the surrounding area was zoned R-1.  He asked the Council to protect the best interest of the neighborhood and of the City of Columbia.
    Marian Peterson, 3705 Forum Boulevard, explained that she currently lives in the Country Club Apartments north of the proposed "mini mall" project.  She commented her family moved to Columbia and bought a home on Willowcreek, where they lived until 1996.  They moved from that location because the Orscheln project was initiated, which resulted in a great deal of dust and construction noise.  She noted yet again, there might be another commercial development just 500 feet away from her front door.  Ms. Peterson reported the intrusion of this facility would affect thousands of people.
    Don Northway, 1209 Torrey Pines, Past President of the Villas II Homeowners Association, explained that residents had not been originally in favor of the project, but knew that some day the corner would be developed.  He said a committee was appointed and an attorney was hired to work out an agreement with the developer.  Mr. Northway noted that the Council was sent a copy of the lengthy agreement.  He pointed out that the agreement contains many covenants which would control a lot of what the developer can do on the site.  Although many changes have been made to the plan since that time, Mr. Northway said residents are still unanimously in favor of the project.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Kruse asked Mr. Hancock to comment about the statements made by the opponents in comparing this development with the Metro 2020 guidelines.
    Mr. Hancock said he appreciated the work the Willowcreek residents have done.  He said the guidelines they referred to will be reviewed even further by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hancock reported several comments have been received about the guidelines being just a bit too rigid.  He explained the Commission would be reviewing the plan within the next few weeks, and would be looking at the guidelines very carefully.
    Mr. Hancock pointed out the memo he prepared on March 1st, 1999, indicated that he thought this intersection was a possible location for a community marketplace as defined in the plan, regardless of what kind of development might already occur within Woodrail Centre.  He believed the question is how much square footage should be contained in a community marketplace.  Mr. Hancock commented the current plan simply recommends about 140,000 square feet.  He explained that figure comes from how much parking is needed and typical development sizes that are seen in other communities.  Going back to 1990, Mr. Hancock pointed out that the staff had proposed, in a plan update, that this corner be designated as commercial to generate some discussion about it.  He said the Commission and the Council chose not to designate it as such at that time.  In 1997, staff suggested to the Commission that it probably was not a residential corner, and that some kind of mixed use (neighborhood oriented development) be considered instead.  Once again, Mr. Hancock related that was not included in the proposed changes.  He still felt it is probably a good location for a community marketplace as defined by the current plan, although the size and location are not perfect according to the guidelines that have been drafted.  Mr. Hancock reported it certainly was not a location for a neighborhood center or anything like that.
    Referring to the proposed amendment, Mr. Janku asked about the traffic and the original evaluation, and whether or not it has been impacted by the change in acreage of office designation.  Mr. Patterson replied staff has not seen any revised traffic studies based on the rather major amendments and changes that have been made.  He said they do think and appreciate the effort that has been made with regard to the safety issues the staff raised with the right-in/right-out on Nifong.  Mr. Patterson did not think there has been anything that would significantly decrease the traffic problems that will be generated in this location, and believed it is recognized that it will be very difficult for traffic to exit out of this development.  Mr. Patterson said staff would legitimately have some disagreement with the contention that there is no negative impact on Forum, but they felt they have at least addressed the safety issues that have been raised.  He commented there was not enough time to conduct another traffic study to compare any diminishing impact due to the partial change in zoning because of the changes that were proposed very recently.
    Mr. Janku asked if there was some middle area zoning that would be acceptable in terms of traffic, or whether any type of zoning would be problematic based on the projected traffic volumes.  Mr. Patterson believed a lesser intensity would obviously diminish the traffic generated.  He said one of the things to look at with regards to a development of this nature relates to what is a neighborhood generator, and what is a regional generator.  Mr. Patterson thought in this case it would be more of a regional generator.  He said if something was done that would be a neighborhood generator (neighborhood commercial, neighborhood activity), it would certainly lessen the impact on the arterial streets surrounding the development.
    Mr. Coffman asked Mr. Boeckmann his opinion regarding how much a plan could be substantially changed before it would be more appropriate for Planning and Zoning to review it again.  Mr. Boeckmann thought that was a judgment best left to the Council.  He said when there are substantial changes over a period of time, the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission loses a lot -- unless the meeting minutes are read carefully and it is clear that the Commission would have voted the same way regardless of the changes made.  Mr. Boeckmann did not think it particularly useful to send issues back to the Commission because sometimes it is clear as to what they find objectionable, and many times, developers address those issues before Council consideration.  Mr. Boeckmann believed this case to be an extreme example.  Because of the numerous changes, he thought it would be difficult for anyone in the public to keep up with all of the changes.
    Referring to the two proposed amendments supplied by Mr. VanMatre, Mr. Janku asked if staff has had a chance to review them.  Mr. Boeckmann explained that Mr. Janku is referring to an addendum to the Village Square ordinance and C-P plan.  He said two versions were submitted, which basically addresses architectural review.  Mr. Boeckmann commented Mr. Campbell has had the opportunity to discuss these amendments with Mr. VanMatre.  He explained that both versions provide some architectural review for the City.  In one version the review would be by the Protective Inspection Division, with an appeal of that decision to the Council if it was found not in compliance; the second version would have architectural review by the Council, or by some body appointed by the Council.
    At this point there was much discussion about how to amend the ordinance dealing with the architectural review and the compensation for the right-of-way.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that B391-99 be amended per the amendment sheet with an addition to Section 8 as follows:  "The architectural review addendum marked "Exhibit D" is attached to and made a part of this ordinance."  The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mrs. Crockett made the motion to further amend B391-99 by adding to Section 8 the following language:  "No building permits shall be issued for any buildings on the property described in Sections 4 and 6 until the developer has compensated the City for right-of-way access to Nifong Boulevard based on current appraisal."  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
    Mr. Kruse thanked Mr. and Mrs. Jurgensmeyer and their various representatives for the professional way they have approached this proposal, and for being so responsive to the concerns of the staff, Council, and to the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods.  He thanked the homeowners from all of the neighborhoods, both pro and con, for their hard work on this issue.  His sense is that the City is in a transition phase in terms of how to plan for growth and development in Columbia.  Mr. Kruse commented the preliminary Metro 2020 plan recommends more integrated land uses instead of the segregated land uses that in the past have contributed so much to sprawl.  He observed this development is a model of where mixed use areas would be clustered within reasonable distances from each other, with neighborhood residential areas in between.  He said the old examples would be that of Route B or the Business Loop.  Mr. Kruse felt those are the wrong models and that they contribute to traffic congestion, pollution, and ugliness.  He believed this project was a creative attempt to try to meet that new concept.
    Mr. Kruse listed five primary issues associated with this development which related to traffic and safety, aesthetics, greenspace and landscaping, access rights, as well as neighborhood compatibility and the scale of the development as compared to the neighborhood.  His main problem was with the neighborhood compatibility and scale, which has to be reviewed in the context of what is around the development.  Mr. Kruse observed currently to the south, there is a large tract of C-P which is mostly office space right now, but could contain more commercial activity.  On the adjacent corner is the Boone Hospital lot, which is a fairly good-sized piece of O-P that could be intensely developed with a lot of traffic.  He believed this project did not seem to fit in terms of the Metro 2020 guidelines -- being bigger than what would be recommended in that plan.  Mr. Kruse liked the part of the project where the four buildings would have residential upstairs, and thought it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood.  However, he is still troubled by the large retail destination at the corner.  If it were not for that, Mr. Kruse would feel comfortable voting in favor of the request, but it seemed to be bigger than he felt appropriate for this corner.  He said great arguments have been made on both sides of the issue, but he could not support this project.  Mr. Kruse said if this request did not pass, he hoped to see it come back in an amended form without the large scale destination oriented business.
    Mr. Campbell reported he drove around the area over the weekend trying to figure how who would be most impacted by this development.  Visually, he thought The Villas would be more impacted by this development than the Willowcreek neighborhood.  Mr. Campbell observed that Willowcreek is buffered by Woodrail Centre, and residents exiting out of the subdivision onto Nifong would do so where the proposed duplexes are located.  He noted residents living in The Villas would be looking down at the development, and because they are closer, the project would visually affect them more.  Mr. Campbell also pointed out that every building, except two, will have residential and/or offices along with the other uses.  He really did not know how much was retail because there was a mixture of uses.
    Mr. Campbell thought this was probably the best development plan he has seen since being elected to the Council 10 years ago, and has provided much more detail than they have seen on many others.  He related the Council has had discussions about allowing more intense development, and this, indeed, represents that.  Because of the City's storm water and landscaping requirements, as well as other stringent requirements, Mr. Campbell did not think it was feasible to have a purely village development.  He reported somebody has to pay a good chunk for the development, and it would probably continue to be either a drug or grocery store, or some other type of fairly sizable development.  Mr. Campbell is prepared to support this request.
    Mr. Janku was concerned about the absolute scale of the development in terms of the amount of commercial and office space dedicated at this corner.  He factored in the adjoining corners that have, in one case, over 180 square feet of commercial, and another O-P tract that could request a mixed use of commercial and office.  Mr. Janku did not think the Council is faced with the situation of having to introduce commercial into an area.  He noted there is already a lot of commercial at this location, and any commercial that would be introduced into the area would not need to look at serving the entire area.  He felt some commercial at the corner would be appropriate, and thought something could be developed that would have less of an impact.  Mr. Janku commented he is still troubled by the comments about traffic and its impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.  He felt office developments tend to hit peak traffic periods, and has the most impact when people are traveling to and from work.  He believed the reduction in the amount of commercial zoning may actually worsen the traffic for those trying to enter and leave the shopping center.  Mr. Janku reported for those reasons, he could not support the plan.
    Mayor Hindman commented that he appreciated all of the study put into this issue by the neighbors, and felt it had been very instructive and interesting.  He said it obviously represented a lot of hard work.  His instinct was that this particular corner is one that calls for some commercial development.  Mayor Hindman understood that Woodrail Centre is zoned C-P, but it is currently used as office, with a little commercial at the very back of it.  He believed the toughest question was whether or not the potential could exist for too much commercial development at this corner.  Mayor Hindman said he had concluded that was not the case.  He felt this would be a significantly different kind of development than the Council has considered in the past, and it would actually be a mixed development with people living there, shopping there, and would serve the surrounding neighborhoods.  He said it would attract a certain number of people, but would also permit more clusters of commercial development, which means each of the buildings will draw from their immediate surroundings more and more.  Mayor Hindman explained there would be less success in drawing from large segments of the community for this type of development.  He pointed out that with the current R-1 zoning, there could be 180 units or households constructed on the property, and with an average of two cars per household, that translates into approximately 360 cars traveling in and out of the area -- mostly at rush hour.  Mayor Hindman said the corner would get a tremendous amount of increased traffic from the development that occurs further out, both south and west.  He felt the other commercial areas nearby would cut down, to a certain extent, on the amount of traffic impact for this corner.  Mayor Hindman noted that this plan contains most of the things the Council has been talking about; it is connected to the neighborhoods, it is well-landscaped, the City will have architectural control, there will be mixed uses and limited parking, there will be controls over the signage, and it will be very walkable and aesthetically pleasing.  Mayor Hindman intended to vote in favor of the request.
    Mr. Coffman said he agreed with comments made by Mr. Kruse and Mr. Janku.  He will vote against the request, even though he thought it was a beautiful plan with a lot of great elements.  He was hopeful the mixed use idea would continue to be considered an option, but he felt the scale of this particular project was over the top.  Mr. Coffman believed the information supplied by Mr. Rea and the other neighbors confirmed that fact.
    Ms. Coble understood that a lot of the neighbors had a problem with the plan being changed so many times, but when one complains about the way something has been presented and seek to have it changed, one cannot then complain about the changes.  She said the plan has changed a lot in response to everyone's request.  Ms. Coble intends to support the request, and she did not see how the Council could continually say they want mixed use, more landscaping, etc., and then deny this request.  She agreed with Mr. Campbell in that the concept of a community marketplace something of a smaller scale, would still have to have an anchor (retail or commercial), that would pay for the rest of the development .
    Mrs. Crockett said her main concern had been the right-in/right-out access.   She had believed because the City had spent $65,000 on the access rights, the developer should not be provided access at that location.  However, Mr. Beck had recently informed her that when the City purchases access rights, it is not to prohibit access -- but to limit it.  She said an appraisal will be done and a price will be negotiated with the developer.  If the price is not reasonable, then he will not buy it and the development will not proceed.  Mrs. Crockett said this had been a very difficult decision, but she is going to vote in favor of the project.
    B391-99, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: COBLE, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: JANKU, KRUSE, COFFMAN.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B68-99     Accepting and approving the street maintenance work; approving the engineer's report;
                  levying and assessing special assessments.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained the City's policy on unimproved streets -- those without curbs and gutters and a good base.  He reported the City can tax bill up to $2.00 per abutting property foot for the cost of maintenance work.  In this case, there are 40 parcels that were completed last year, with the total amount of $9,556.86 to be tax billed.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B68-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B69-99     Authorizing construction of southward extension of air carrier apron; lead-out to Taxiway
                  A and modification to Gate #9 at Columbia Regional Airport and calling for bids.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck described the proposed site for this work as being immediately south of the U. S. Postal Service Building.  He noted that this is part of the Ozark plan to construct a full-size apron (extending southward 450 feet) as well as a taxiway lead out.  The width will be consistent with what currently exists - 300 feet.  The plan is to phase the work in, with the first phase consisting of half the apron for the Ozark building itself.  The estimated cost for the project is $426,058, with 90% being paid for by federal monies (based on the amount of users at the airport) and 10% would come from City funding.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B69-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B70-99     Authorizing renovations to the Armory building and calling for bids.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the purpose of the project is to remodel the Armory building for the purpose of improving efficiency.  He noted the structure is primarily used for recreational programs.  The project will include the installation of an elevator, the renovation and remodeling of the restrooms, some remodeling of office areas, remediation of lead paint and asbestos, and a new roof.  The plan will include an add-on bid for a new gym floor.  The project will be funded by Community Development Block Grant money, with a resolution estimate of $650,000.
    Mr. Janku asked about the timing of the landscaping that is to be done in the parking lot area.  Mr. Beck thought there had been a separate report on that issue, and reported it was not intended to be part of this project.  Mr. Janku asked if that project was on track.  Mr. Patterson said the design is complete.  In addition, staff had also been instructed to review the potential of landscaping other parking lots, and all this information will be sent to the Council in one final report.  Mr. Patterson reported the next step on this particular parking lot would be to have a public hearing on it and call for bids if funding is available.
    Mayor Hindman commented that one of the improvements will be a women's locker room.  He commented that would be a major step forward.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B70-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B74-99     Voluntary annexation of property located on the southeast corner of Sinclair Street and
                  Southampton Drive; establishing permanent zoning.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this is about a 40.3 acre tract of land.  At the February 15, 1999, meeting, he reported the Council had defeated a bill primarily because of a request for C-P zoning on Tract A.  In this proposal for reconsideration by the City Council, the owner is not pursuing the C-P zoning as a part of the request.  Mr. Beck further explained that PUD-8 zoning is being requested for Tract B, and R-1 zoning for Tract C.  The zoning requests on those two tracts had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Mr. Beck related if the annexation and zoning requests are approved on Tracts B and C, annexation would also automatically occur for Tract A, however, permanent zoning for this tract would be considered in six months.
    Referring to Tract A, Mr. Campbell was concerned about the possibility of private drives opening onto a collector street.  He asked if Tract A is wide enough to have some kind of access road or other type of service road on it.  Mr. Hancock reported if Mr. Campbell is referring to a parallel road that the driveways would have direct access to, there would not be enough room for a road and development occurring behind it.  He estimated the area may be 150 feet deep.  Mr. Campbell asked if the City would be creating a problem in which driveway access would have to be established onto this road if the tract is annexed with an R-1 zone.  Mr. Hancock said that was the question - what would be the permanent zoning that should be pursued on this tract.  One of the Commission's concerns was the likelihood of a strip of commercial driveways and commercial developments along Tract A.  Regardless of whether this tract is zoned C-P or not, Mr. Hancock said once the lots are divided, it would be really hard to limit the driveways in a large tract like that.  He commented there is obviously an opportunity for some neighborhood commercial in the area, and staff has never had a problem with that.  He thought perhaps the configuration could be focused more so there is access on both Sinclair and Southampton, which would allow for dual access on both collector streets for a commercial development rather than just running it along the Southampton collector frontage.  In terms of what to do with it in its present configuration, that would be something that Mr. Rogers would have to determine.
    Mr. Campbell asked if the Council approved this request tonight, whether that would preclude any future actions.  Mr. Hancock replied Tract A would be temporarily zoned R-1 for three months, and then the staff will have to come back with a recommended permanent zoning at some point.  He did not know that R-1 was what the Council would want to recommend as permanent zoning.  Mr. Hancock did not feel the Council would be precluding any options by approving temporary R-1 zoning this evening.  He noted even if it is zoned R-1 in six months, it could be rezoned to something else at a later time.
    Mr. Boeckmann said permanent zoning has to be established, and if it is not, arguably the owner could do whatever he wants on it.  He said that is not an issue as long as some type of permanent zoning is instituted within six months.
    Mr. Hancock said typically, staff determines what the owner wants, and it is almost always R-1 and occasionally A-1.  He thought something could be worked out.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing
    Roy Rogers, 1614 Whitburn, property owner along with his brother, said the R-1 portion has already been platted.  A preliminary plat is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission this Thursday, provided the annexation/rezoning requests are approved this evening.  Mr. Rogers reported he has already explained why the road was moved, and indicated it could be moved back.  He related that only about 150 feet of it has been poured, and they plan to pour the other 1,580 feet of it away from the trees.  Mr. Rogers maintained that they never intended for the tract to be a strip mall, and are aware that there should not be multiple driveways on a collector street.  He reported he has 20 acres and 38 lots of R-1 that people want, and to get the ball rolling again, he was requesting temporary R-1 zoning for Tract A.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell was very concerned that when the final plan comes in for this particular area, that they not see a bunch of driveways opening onto the area.  He noted that Mr. Rogers had addressed that concern.
    Mr. Janku suggested looking into some kind of temporary designation, such as the letter "T", so someone cannot say they thought it was going to be R-1.
    B74-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  ABSTAINING CROCKETT.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B78-99     Rezoning property located on the north side of East Ash Street, west of First Street from
                  R-3 to O-1.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the request on this one-third acre tract of land was recommended for approval on a 4-2 vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  He noted a representative from the Douglass neighborhood had spoken against the request.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    Truman Allen, 2501 W. Ash, explained that he is the applicant in this zoning matter.  He explained that his intention was to build himself an office for his law practice.  Mr. Allen indicated he is a solo practitioner with two employees.  He said the area is mixed use with non-residential and half residential.  Within the notice area, he said there are five single family residences that are occupied by owners, and one is a temporary arrangement.  Across the street from the subject site the zoning is in place for a day care center, and diagonally across the street is where Warren Funeral Services will be building their facility.  Mr. Allen reported one block west of this property is the Anderson Kline Law Office, and they have rehabilitated a residence for their law office.
    Mr. Allen explained his office would not be an expansion into a residential neighborhood because the expansion has already occurred.  He said there are offices on the corner of Garth and Ash, as well as the Anderson Kline office.  Mr. Allen noted that he would not need any variances for his law office if this request is granted, and he had no interest in a free standing sign.
    Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Allen why he had not requested C-P zoning.  Mr. Allen said he had been told that would increase the cost of the project, and he saw very little difference between the two in this particular setting.  Mayor Hindman felt it was important in areas like this, where there are transitions, to construct the buildings closer to the sidewalk with the parking in the rear.  He noted that Mr. Allen's plan was just reverse of that.  Mayor Hindman asked Mr. Allen to take that into consideration if his request was approved.  Mr. Allen reported that issue had been discussed previously, and he had no strong feelings either way.  He commented the reason for placement of the parking in front was to address a security issue.  Mr. Allen explained that his employees had expressed concern about the parking in the rear.  He said if the consensus of the Council was for parking in the rear, he would not have a problem with putting it there.  Ms. Coble pointed out that there is on-street parking available that Mr. Allen's employees could use if they are concerned about coming and going.   Mr. Kruse suggested that another option might be placing the building in an L-shape to the street.
    Mr. Beck asked if Mayor Hindman was talking about moving the building closer to the street.  He pointed out that could be problematic because of the 25 foot setback requirement.  Mr. Allen said the 25 feet would probably save a very nice, older tree.
    Jeff Smale, 200 N. Garth, explained that his property is at the corner of Garth and Ash, and he is one of Mr. Allen's neighbors.  He had spoken with Mr. Allen over the phone and had found him to be very amenable to anything neighbors might voice concerns over.  He is very strongly in favor of the plans, and added the proposed law office would certainly fit in the neighborhood.  Mr. Smale is confident Mr. Allen would be a good neighbor.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Campbell was bothered by the fact that this would be open zoning and that any of the above options could be carried out.
    Mayor Hindman pointed out that the proposed office building would be replacing a residence.  He observed the area looks like mixed use right now, but it probably will be a trend.  Mr.  Campbell said he was concerned about that also.  Ms. Coble said that trend started before this request.
    B78-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.   Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B79-99     Rezoning property located west of Range Line Street and south of Smiley Lane from M-1
                  and M-C to C-3.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this property consists of 230 acres that has been divided into five tracts; this ordinance pertaining to Tract A, and the next ordinance relates to the remaining four tracts.
    Mr. Beck reported that Tract A consists of 39.74 acres and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request.  Mr. Beck outlined the request for the remaining four tracts:  Tract B consists of 24.43 acres with a request to rezone from M-C to R-3, Tract C consists of 95.6 acres with a request to rezone from M-C and M-1 to R-1, Tract D is 63.87 acres with a request to rezone from A-1 to R-1, and Tract E consisting of 5.86 acres with a request to rezone from M-1 to R-3.  Mr. Beck noted the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on the last four tracts.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing and noted that any speakers could fee free to discuss both ordinances.
    Larry Moore, President of the Harold Johnson Companies, explained that they are in the process of working out a development of this tract with Steve Herigon.  He said Mr. Herigon has built a number of the housing developments just east of 763, with the major focus in this project being to provide as many as five different housing products across the 350 acres.  Mr. Moore noted that the rezoning request is actually for approximately 250 acres as the remainder of the property is already zoned R-1.
    Mr. Moore explained that the zoning is a little complicated because of some main features.  He noted that U.S. 763 carries approximately 20,000 cars per day and, therefore, needs some buffering from the R-1 areas.  They are proposing to build, in a joint effort between the City and the land owner to the north, another section of Smiley Lane to line up with Obermiller Road, which the County has recently developed into a thoroughfare.  Mr. Moore commented they are hopeful that Blackfoot Road will also be improved -- thus creating a loop in the area.  If that is done, they felt there would be a lot of traffic coming from the north that could use that road as a shortcut to the Mall or I-70, thereby relieving a lot of traffic from Highway 63 and the I-70 Interchange.  Mr. Moore felt it would be a very busy road once it is built and tied together, and that is why they are proposing some commercial buffering along that tract to protect the R-1 from that heavily traveled street.
    Mr. Moore pointed out the line running along Tract B is the proposed extension of Providence Road.  He noted it bisects the tract.  Mr. Moore assumed it will be a residential collector, but at some point it is bound to be larger as the City is making them dedicate a 100-foot right-of-way.  He said those are some of the features they are working around, so Tract B would actually be a denser use R-1 along the proposed Providence.  Mr. Moore explained they were thinking in terms of townhouses and that sort of thing for sale.  He said the development would be more dense than R-1, but they do not like R-2, and that is why they are looking at R-3.  Mr. Moore reported the same kind of thing is planned for Tract E, keeping in mind Mr. Herigon's primary focus is on the development of R-1, and he wants to provide the best environment he can for the R-1 he has to sell.  Mr. Moore noted that on Thursday evening they will be presenting to the Planning Commission a preliminary plan on almost all of Tract C, which provides for 93 acres containing a three acre pocket park for the area.
    Mr. Campbell noted that one of the comments made when Tract A was rejected was about the need for a planned area.  Mr. Moore said they do not have a plan at this point, and were willing to let it sit as is and come back with a plan.  He said that was why they requested that the City Council vote on the two issues separately.  He commented they are primarily focused on getting the R-1 going.  Mr. Moore stated it is realized that they will need to plan something there that will be amenable to the individual homeowners, but they cannot do everything at once.
    Mr. Campbell noted that Tract B does not appear to come over to where Providence Road will go through.  Mr. Moore said the A-line was not exactly in the right place, but noted that is where the 100-foot right-of-way is.  He reported Tract B actually borders the proposed extension of Providence Road.
    In thinking about Tracts A, B, and C, Mr. Campbell asked if they had thought about an integrated development in which they would have some mixture of residential, office, and commercial -- at least on the northern portion of the property.  Mr. Moore replied they had not discussed that, and added that he is not comfortable with mixed use developments because he does not understand the concept very well yet.  He noted that they recognize Tract C needs to be used primarily for single family residential homes.
    Mr. Janku asked about Tract D.  Mr. Moore explained they are working on a rough preliminary for the entire area.  Mr. Moore reported they are looking at the rest of the project in different types of uses, and reiterated that Mr. Herigon is looking at as many as five different types of housing products -- ranging from some larger lots on Tract D where the terrain is pretty rugged, to smaller lots on Tract C, similar to those in Belmont Village.  He outlined that on Tracts B and E, there will possibly be some different types of more dense usage.  He said one of the things they had not noticed until they met with Mr. Janku the other day was the close proximity to the Trail on the southwest corner.  He said it actually provides the possibility of creating an extension of the Trail through the subdivision along the sewer line.  He said it could make a very nice amenity.  Mr. Moore stated they are looking into how they could accommodate that in Tract D, and also in the white map area.
    Audrie Sabel, 3800 Mint Julep, said she did not have many problems with the request.  Her concern was with the commercial being only one mile from Derby Ridge School and a couple of miles from Lange Middle School.  She said another concern was that Derby Ridge is already crowded, and wondered what this development would do to it as well as Lange Middle School.  She said Parkade School could also be affected.  Ms. Sabel indicated she was very much in favor of some sort of plan for the north end of town.
    Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    Mr. Janku noted that he spoke to someone from the school district and was told this development would be in the Parkade School district, not Derby Ridge.  However, he was not certain which middle school might be affected.  Mr. Janku reported that Parkade does not have the demands on it that Derby Ridge does at this point.
    Regarding of the challenges and opportunities Mr. Moore mentioned, Mr. Janku felt the applicants are trying to deal with those issues.  He is in support of planned development, including planned commercial in all parts of the community.  He said it was pointed out to him that under the present zoning of M-1, the developer could do almost all of the commercial development they would like, but the one thing they could not put in would be a day care center.  He said it would be rather ironic if there was this large residential area, and one of the uses which would be prohibited could be one of the most needed things.  Mr. Janku had urged Mr. Moore and Mr. Herigon to pursue planned commercial, but they had said they were not ready to do that at this point.  He said they offered to withdraw the Tract A request at this time, but Mr. Janku thought it better to establish the controls for commercial C-3.  He said there would be beneficial protections in place in terms of commercial development that might not be in place if it remained M-1.  Mr. Janku said he could support the request, but wished it would be brought in as C-P.  Given the fact the applicants have the present ability to use the property for most of the commercial uses, Mr. Janku noted they would really be down zoning their property.
    Mr. Campbell asked what could be done in a C-3 district that could not be done in an M-1 zone.  Mr. Hancock said that conditional uses are much greater.  He read that all permitted uses in District M-1 are M-R, M-C, and C-3.  In addition, one could have auto repair facilities, wrecking and junk yards, blacksmith shops, bottling plants, bus barns, canning and preserving factories, chick hatcheries, ice plants, etc.  He stated there is a long list of uses.  Mr. Campbell thought the Council would be missing a good change here.  He said this will be a very major development and Mr. Moore has indicated that he is willing to hold off and perhaps come back with a plan at an appropriate time.  Since this will probably be one of the largest developments the Council would see in this section of town, Mr. Campbell thought they would be missing an opportunity.  He noted this is a developer who has been very responsible in the past, and he was sure would continue to be in the future.  Mr. Campbell thought this request should be denied and wait for the applicants to come back with additional plans.
    Mr. Janku said he had gotten the distinct impression in his discussions with the applicants that they would not be coming back with a C-P request.  Although, he would be glad if they did.  Mr. Campbell said he doubted they would put a junk yard in considering what it would do to their housing market.
    Mayor Hindman asked if there would be any differences in signage or landscaping requirements between the two zoning designations.  Mr. Hancock said in M-C there are no typical C-3 uses allowed (M-C is more restrictive than C-3).  He thought if the applicants wanted commercial on the M-C zoned portion of this tract, that they would request C-3 zoning.  Regarding signage, Mr. Hancock said that Smiley Lane is not on the list of collector streets that is permitted arterial street signage, so they are only allowed collector street signage, which is more restrictive than some other locations.  In terms of landscaping, parking lot landscaping is just that, regardless of the zoning.  With C-P zoning, the applicants would be required to have landscaping adjacent to any residential development.  Mr. Hancock related the parking lot size requirements are the same -- based on use.
    B79-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: CAMPBELL, KRUSE.  ABSTAINING: CROCKETT.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B80-99     Rezoning four parcels of land located west of Range Line Street and south of Smiley Lane:
                  Tract B from M-C to R-3, Tract C from M-C and M-1 to R-1, Tract D from A-1 to R-1, and Tract
                  E from M-1 to R-3.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.  (Comments were made under B79-99 above)
    B80-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  ABSTAINING: CROCKETT.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B81-99     Authorizing the relocation of water mains along Route B from Business Loop 70 to
                  Highway 63; calling for bids.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Malon explained that this project involves the highway relocation work required for the Route B project, and involves all of the water mains along this particular highway.  Mr. Malon displayed a sketch showing the area involved.  He explained that the initial estimate had been made about five years ago, and that revisions had to be made as the actual plans were developed by the Missouri Highway Department.  As a result, an additional appropriation is required to advertise the bid and for the actual work.
    Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
    There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
    B81-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B72-99     Authorizing the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Nifong and Bethel and
                  calling for bids.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the public hearing has already been held on this project.  This would provide for traffic signals with pedestrian heads and a landscaped island at an estimated cost of $148,000.  It is hoped work will be completed this summer.
    Mayor Hindman said he would like to see the crosswalks marked with large black and white markings, in addition to the two lines.
    B72-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B73-99     Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Smith Drive, west of Stone
                  Valley Parkway.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this six acre tract of land, if annexed, will be used for R-1 purposes.
    B73-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:   COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B75-99     Approving the final plat of Rockbridge Subdivision, Plat No. 13; granting a variance to the
                  subdivision regulations; authorizing a performance contract.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that the plat was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on a 5-0 vote, but the variance had received a recommendation for denial on a 4-1 vote.  He reported this plat would create two C-1 lots.
    Ms. Coble asked about the Commission's recommendation regarding a system whereby an escrow account for sidewalks could be established.  She saw this as another glitch in the zoning ordinance.  Ms. Coble noted a need for sidewalks once a street is brought up to proper standards, but nobody wants to build a sidewalk along a ditch.  Mr. Kruse said he could not see requiring a sidewalk in this particular instance at this time.  Ms. Coble responded that is why some type of system should be established so there is payment toward the sidewalk in the future to allow the development to proceed, while the full opportunity for the sidewalk would not be lost.  Mr. Hancock noted this issue had been discussed during the retreat, and staff would agree with Ms. Coble's assessment.  He explained there is a policy in place where the City would not require a sidewalk along unimproved streets, but the Council has been inclined in the last year or two to require sidewalks along unimproved streets.  Mr. Hancock reported staff would be desirous of having a method to collect the amount and having it kept in escrow.
    Mr. Campbell thought they would all like to take into account whether or not putting in sidewalks would create a financial hardship.  Since this is a commercial venture, he said it should be viewed as highly valuable land.  In this case, it is a bank requesting the variance, and he did not think it would qualify as a financial hardship.
    There was discussion as to whether or not the variance was part of the ordinance.  Mr. Boeckmann said the ordinance was written to include the variance.  He pointed out that the attorney representing the applicant had requested that the plat not be approved unless a sidewalk variance for both adjacent streets is approved.  He suggested that the Council vote on the ordinance as written opposed to amending it to take the variance out.
    B75-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, KRUSE.  VOTING NO: JANKU, CAMPBELL, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  ABSTAINING: CROCKETT.  Bill defeated.

B76-99     Vacating various easements within The Oaks Subdivision, Plat 1 and a street right-of-way
                  for Pine View Drive.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this request is in conjunction with The Oaks Subdivision and would provide for the connection of Yoko Court with Pine View Drive.  He said new easements have been provided to replace those being vacated.  Mr. Beck noted that the next ordinance deals with the final plat.
    Mr. Janku asked about a space shown on the overhead map.  Mr. Hancock explained that there is a creek at that location.  Mr. Janku asked if this was part of the greenbelt.  Mr. Hancock replied it is part of the lots.  Mr. Janku wondered about a connection to the greenbelt.
    Bill Crockett, 2608 Pine Drive, explained that the property immediately to the north of these lots is the greenbelt area approved by the Springdale Estates Plat 5, and is a replat of The Oaks Plat No. 2.  He said it created a long, slender greenbelt lot and is under common ownership to all of the lot owners in Springdale Estates.  Mr. Crockett explained there is access to the north and easements that come to the south.  He noted there is no direct access needed to the lot.  Mr. Janku asked if there was already pedestrian access to the lot.  Mr. Crockett believed that was correct.  He commented this ordinance would eliminate excess street right-of-way, a dead end street, and a lot that could not be built on because it is about 90% flood plain.
    B76-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  ABSTAINING: CROCKETT.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B77-99     Approving the final plat of The Oaks, Plat 3, a Replat of a portion of The Oaks, Plat 1;
                  granting a variance to the subdivision regulations.
    The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this calls for a variance relating to the maximum degree of the centerline curvature for a local residential street.  He said Planning and Zoning voted 6-0 in favor of the variance.  He noted that it would eliminate a dead end section on Pine View Drive.
    B77-99 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  ABSTAINING: CROCKETT.  Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B71-99     Authorizing acquisition of easements to construct the Nifong and Bethel intersection
B82-99     Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B83-99     Amending Chapter 19 of the Code relating to personnel policies, procedures, rules and
B84-99     Renewing an agreement with Boone County to provide clerical services in connection with
                  the enhanced 911 system.
B85-99     Vacate water line easement - Nowell's Store.
R54-99     Setting a public hearing: special assessments for Sewer District No. 137 project.
R55-99     Setting a public hearing: voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Rock
                  Quarry Road; south of City limits.
R56-99     Setting a public hearing: water main relocation and replacement along Scott Boulevard at
                  Current Road due to street upgrade.
R57-99     Setting a public hearing: construction of a biking and hiking trail at Columbia
                  Cosmopolitan Recreation Area.
R58-99     Authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents relating to the State Revolving Loan
                  Fund Program for construction of the Wetland Treatment Unit No. 4 project.
R59-99     Renewing an agreement with the Curators of the University of Missouri to allow School of
                  Nursing instructors and students to work in the Health Department.
R60-99     Extending the time for filing a final plat for Columbia Mall West.
R61-99     Authorizing an agreement with Buck Consultants to perform the annual review of the City
                  medical and dental plans.

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

R62-99     Authorizing an agreement with Consumer Credit Counseling Service to provide housing
                  counseling services using CDBG funds.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this is a continuing agreement and would pay for the salary, office overhead, and housing counseling services.  He noted that the staff and lenders have been satisfied with the previous service provided by this agency.  The estimated cost is $15,000 to be paid from CDBG funds.  Mr. Beck noted the agency has been paid $10,672 prior to the agreement.
    Mayor Hindman commented about this being a valuable service to people who do not know how to get into home ownership.  He said it was also a bargain in that a good deal of the professional advice is given by volunteers.
    The vote on R62-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R63-99     Approving the preliminary plat of Arcadia Phase 5.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this will create 122 R-1 lots, two lots for private open space, and one lot for an existing cemetery.  He said the plat had been recommended for approval on a 9-0 vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
    Mr. Janku noted the Council had received a copy of a letter requesting tax bill construction of Brown School Road.  He asked if the tax bills would go against the individual lots, or if the developer had agreed to pay the costs.  Mr. Beck said it would go against the abutting property, unless there was some type of development agreement.   Mr. Patterson explained that after the project is completed, the assessments are made against the property, regardless of who owns it at that point.  He said whoever holds the property will carry the lien on the property until it is paid off.  Mr. Janku was concerned that someone might purchase a lot and not be expecting the tax bill.   Mrs. Crockett said she thought the developer had agreed to pay for Brown School Road at one time.  Mr. Patterson said that was his recollection at the time of plat approval.  He remembered several promises that were made, but he did not think there was anything that was binding.  Mr. Janku responded that was his point.  Mr. Beck explained the only way the City could be assured the tax bills would be paid, unless there is a bond against an agreement, is through these tax bills.  He said the person buying the property should check to see if there are any outstanding tax bills.  Mr. Beck noted, however, not everyone may do that, which is unfortunate.  Mr. Janku was concerned that the tax bills would not be assessed until the work is done, and he would be more comfortable with something in writing stipulating the developer would be responsible for the tax bills.
    Jay Gebhardt, an engineer with Allstate Consultants, said he could not promise a written agreement, but he spoke to the developer about the situation, who confirmed there would be full disclosure (as the lots are sold) that a tax bill would be due for the road improvements.  He said if the Council is worried about someone buying a lot and not knowing about the tax bill, the lot prices are adjusted so the developer ends up paying for the tax bill.  In other words, these lots would be cheaper than the lots across the street.  Mr. Gebhardt noted the price of the lots would be adjusted downward, by the amount of the tax bill, in order to pay for the cost the homeowner would incur in the future.
    For clarification, regarding the petition for tax bill construction of Brown School Road, Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Gebhardt whether his client recognizes this is an interior collector street in a developing subdivision where the tax bill request is for the City to pay only the extra width and thickness and, further, that the developer is responsible for  bringing it up to grade and doing the other required preparatory work for an interior street.  Mr. Gebhardt said that was correct, that is his understanding.  He pointed out that the property to the north is owned by Drew Properties, and even though it is leased to the soccer people, they also fully understand the situation.
    Mayor Hindman asked about recording the ordinance so that it would be known that the properties will be tax billed.  Mr. Campbell said since the Council has been assured there will be full disclosure, he felt they should move ahead.
    Mr. Janku asked if the question of the tax bill will come back to the Council at a future date.  Mr. Patterson said it would have to come back to the Council at a public hearing to authorize the project, and then again for assessment at the time of completion.  He said two public hearings are required for tax bill projects.  Mr. Janku felt this issue could be dealt with at that time.
    The vote on R63-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R64-99     Approving the preliminary plat of Stoneridge Estates, Phase 3.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would create 32 R-1 lots on a 23 acre tract of land.  Six of those acres were approved for voluntary annexation earlier this evening.
    The vote on R64-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R65-99     Approving the preliminary plat of Park View Center, Phase 1.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck noted that this is a 69 acre tract that was recommended for approval by the Commission on a 6-2 vote, and staff also recommended approval.  It would create six lots, which are now zoned A-1.
    Mrs. Crockett asked who would be paying for the sewer line being installed under Highway 63.  Mr. Patterson said the city would be paying for the construction of the sewer line up to the 80-acre point, with a contribution from the developer for a portion of the cost.  Mr. Patterson reported payment for the project would come out of the sewer utility funds.  He explained that the City has the responsibility for public sewer to the 80-acre point in the drainage basin.
    The vote on R65-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R66-99     Providing that City shall pay advertising cost in connection with the designation of
                  landmarks and historic districts.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck said this issue had been discussed with the Council at a work session.  The typical advertising fee would be about $150.00.
    The vote on R66-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R67-99     Authorizing an agreement with Carolyn Mathews for the Human Rights Day for Native
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this would provide funding in the amount of $595 for two speakers at the Human Rights Day for Native Americans event.
    Mayor Hindman asked if this would be an annual request, or whether it was a one time request.  Mr. Steinhaus responded it is a one time request.
    Ms. Coble asked if the agreement was with Carolyn Mathews because the Human Rights Day for Native Americans Coalition does not have 501C3 status.  Mr. Steinhaus said that was correct, and also because of the timing of the events.
    Carolyn Mathews, 4200 Rock Quarry Road, passed out flyers regarding the event.  She invited everyone to attend.
    The vote on R67-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R68-99     Authorizing an agreement with Midwest Environmental Consultants for sanitary landfill
                  consultant work.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Beck explained that this $19,830 agreement pertains to the closure plan for 16 acres of the landfill, and also with the plans and specifications for additional gas collection wells at the landfill.  The funds will come from solid waste fees.
    The vote on R68-99 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R69-99     Authorizing a settlement agreement with Michael R. Kelly and Cheryl Lynn Kelly.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Boeckmann explained that this agreement relates to the property at Forum and Highridge.
    The vote on R69-99 was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: NO ONE.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R70-99     Urging Stephens College to abandon its plans to demolish homes on Willis and College
                  Avenues, Dorsey and Walnut Streets and Broadway.
    The resolution was read by the Clerk.
    Mr. Coffman said at the beginning of the meeting, the Council had heard about numerous defects in the Stephens Master Plan.  He admitted that it contains some vague statements and a lot of inaccuracies.  Mr. Coffman felt it was appropriate for the Council to address the situation considering what had been relayed to them one year ago.  At that time, Stephens College had been before the Council seeking approval for a hastily put together plan to build a maintenance/gymnasium facility across the street from the homes planned for demolition.  The Council was told that Stephens had no plans to raze the homes on Willis after that very concern had been communicated to them.  In fact, the Council had been told that if the homes were ever demolished for parking lots, it would be many, many years from now.  In addition, the Council had been told the rental properties would be maintained as long as possible.  The reason Stephens gave for not ruling out demolition altogether was that they did not want to tie the hand of future presidents and boards of the College.  It had also been ascertained that before the College did anything, they would meet with the East Campus Neighborhood Association and try to take their concerns into consideration.  Mr. Coffman reported Stephens said they would also come back before the Council.
    Mr. Coffman felt the Council had been mislead and he is disappointed the College did not meet with the neighborhood association or the Historic Preservation Commission before making their decision.  He noted that the neighbors were told about the demolition plans for the homes on Willis after a decision had already been made, which caught a lot of people off guard.  Mr. Coffman had been under the impression that Stephens would be back before the Council with a new master plan before doing anything else.
    Mr. Coffman is hopeful that passage of this resolution would provide a compromise and encourage Stephens College to obtain more information about federal, state, and CDBG funds that may be available to allow at least some of homes to remain in their historic state.  He reported the destruction of the Willis homes would not be in the best interest of Stephens because the residents living along this strip helps to maintain security and safety in the area -- something very important for a women's college.  He noted the Council has had previous discussions relating to the detrimental affects of parking lots, and many members would like to prohibit surface parking in downtown and congested areas.  Mr. Coffman related the Council also has a strong interest in preserving historic homes as well as affordable housing wherever possible.  He noted that these are nice homes within a very affordable range.
    Mr. Kruse understood that the College also plans to demolish homes on streets other than Willis.  He suggested that all of the streets containing residential homes owned by Stephens College be added to the resolution.
    Charlotte Overby, a Willis Avenue resident, said in general, they agree with Mr. Kruse regarding the viability of all of the houses.  However, they chose to focus on the houses on Willis Avenue because it was believed since these structures are located in the National Historic District, they had a better chance of saving those homes.
    Ben Orzeske, 507 High Street, said his address is also within the Historic District.  He explained that he is both a landlord and resident of that address.  He pointed out that Stephens has repeatedly given the excuse that these homes are in disrepair.  As a landlord for many years, Mr. Orzeske felt the College is ultimately responsible for any disrepair they may be in.  He thought it set a very unfortunate precedent for structures within this Historic District, and added that he was sure there are other absentee landlords who feel there is some other best, most profitable use of the property they own, and could attain such by letting a structure decay to the point that it is no longer viable and would have to be torn down.
    Matt Harline 301 McNab, felt the Council had the authority to direct the staff not to issue permits because he did not think Stephens is in conformance with their plan.  Referring to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 29, Section 6 (11) he read that, "institutions of higher learning shall have a development plan......the development plan shall show existing and future buildings, parking areas, streets and drives, athletic facilities, and other features which may affect property or the public interest".  Mr. Harline felt this language is well-defined in that the College is supposed to show where the parking lots may go.  He reported that in Area B, where the Willis Avenue houses are on their plan, this encompasses a great deal of property, with some of it being single family homes that has nothing to do with Stephens College.  He commented that is not clearly shown on their plan.  Mr. Harline noted there is no physical description one could make any judgment on in any of the College's plans.
    Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Hancock what the Stephen's plan does show.  Mr. Hancock said it has a little locator map for the buildings and some text that goes along with it.  Apparently, he said it had been acceptable in 1980.  Mr. Coffman commented the plan is divided into lettered sections, it does not show any specifics, and as far as the Willis Avenue area is concerned, there is one clause saying it shall be reserved for possible parking in the future.
    Mr. Campbell said if this had been a private developer wanting to demolish homes, he would have given them a bad time for not maintaining their property, and for trying to take a substantial amount of low income property out of the housing market.  Mr. Campbell acknowledged that perhaps the College may need the parking, but he would like to see systematic planning in order to minimize this type of situation whenever possible.
 Ms. Coble said there already is an example of how to work well with a College (Columbia College) in terms of being a part of the neighborhood and part of the community.  She felt the Council has a lot of say in what private institutions do with land.  Ms. Coble stated that Stephens College is a profoundly important part of Columbia, and it was not as if they are a newcomer to the community and do not know any better.
    Mr. Coffman said he would like to see the College put together a comprehensive plan.  He reported a year ago Stephen College appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a parking variance because they did not need to have that many spaces for the new multipurpose facility, but now they are saying additional parking is needed.
    Ms. Coble agreed with Mr. Harline, and said a development plan seems to be a very factual basis to get the information the Council needs to make decisions to review the impact on private property, especially in such a sensitive area as the Historic District.  She felt that was a reasonable way in accordance with existing ordinances to approach the issue.  Ms. Coble asked Mr. Boeckmann if it was his interpretation that a development plan is needed -- something different than the 1981 plan.
    Mr. Boeckmann said he did not know if the standards were any different when the Council approved the plan years ago.  He suggested that the staff look into it and report back to the Council.
    Mr. Campbell noted that since the 1980 plan, there has been a major shift in the plan.  He said the College's intentions have been published in newspapers and widely discussed, and as far as he knows, there has been no change in the actual plan filed with the City.  The fact that Stephens is shifting everything east of College Avenue, would obviously change their parking, as well as many other, requirements.  However, these plans are not available to the Council for review and consideration.
    Ms. Coble thought the whole tone would be different if the leadership of the College had not stood before the Council a short time ago and lied to them.  She said that is not how one acts when they are part of a community.
    Mayor Hindman said he understood the issues being raised as having to do with the plan and the feeling that the College did not consult with the neighborhood.  It is also questionable whether they are following the original plan and the need for a new one.  He suggested the resolution be more along those lines as opposed to outright demanding that Stephens College abandon their plans to demolish the homes under all circumstances, and the stipulation that they either preserve the structures or sell them.   Mr. Coffman asked what Mayor Hindman would think about the resolution being amended to say, "abandon the plans to demolish the homes until a comprehensive development plan has been submitted and approved".  Mr. Kruse said he would like to include the other streets as well.
    Mr. Kruse made the motion that the heading of R70-99 be amended as follows: "urging Stephens College to abandon its plans to demolish homes on Willis Avenue, Broadway, Dorsey Street, College Avenue and Walnut Street".  Further, that the second whereas clause read as follows: "some of these homes are located in an area included on the National Register of Historic Places"; and Section 1 to read as follows: "The City Council urges Stephens College to abandon its plans to demolish the homes on Willis Avenue, Broadway, Dorsey Street, College Avenue, and Walnut Street and to either preserve the structures itself, sell them to individuals willing to maintain them as residences, or until a revised Development Plan is submitted and approved pursuant to Chapter 29-6."  The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved by voice vote.
    The vote on R70-99, as amended, was recorded as follows:  VOTING YES:  COBLE, JANKU, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN.  VOTING NO: CROCKETT.  Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

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

B86-99         Accepting a conveyance for electric utility purposes from Lou Fusz Properties, L.L.C.
B87-99         Accepting a conveyance; approving the engineer's report and authorizing payment of
                      differential costs for an 8-inch water main serving Heritage Meadows, Plat 4.
B88-99         Authorizing relocation and replacement of water mains along Scott Boulevard at Current
                      Road; appropriating funds.
B89-99         Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B90-99         Rezoning four parcels of land located north and east of the northeast corner of Ballenger
                      Lane and Clark Lane: Tract A from A-1 to C-P, Tract B from R-1 to C-P, Tract C from C-P
                      to PUD-8, Tract D from R-1 to PUD-8.
B91-99         Approving the final plat of The Highlands, Plat 12-B; authorizing a performance contract.
B92-99         Vacating a drainage easement within Heritage Meadows, Plat 4.
B93-99         Approving the Final Plat of the Village of Cherry Hill, Plat 1; granting a variance from the
                      subdivision regulations regarding street width; authorizing a performance contract.
B94-99         Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code as it relates to the employee classification plan.
B95-99         Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code as it relates to the license tax on hotels and
B96-99         Authorizing the construction of a biking and hiking trail at Columbia Cosmopolitan
                      Recreation Area.
B97-99         Authorizing acquisition of easements to construct the Grant Lane improvement project.
B98-99         Authorizing acquisition of easements to construct a recreational trail along Bear Creek.
B99-99         Confirming the contract for the construction of Wetlands Treatment Unit #4.
B100-99       Accepting conveyances for street, utility and sewer purposes.
B101-99       Authorizing an agreement with Boone County concerning road improvements to Grant
B102-99       Authorizing a quit claim in favor of the Missouri Department of Transportation in
                       connection with the construction of the Route AC improvement project.
B103-99       Authorizing change orders to the contract with APAC-MO for the Forum Boulevard and
                       Sewer District No. 137 project; approving engineer's report; levying special
                       assessments; appropriating funds.
B104-99       Establishing a moratorium on demolition of structures owned by Stephens College
                       included on the National Register of Historic Places.  Introduced by Coffman

A)     Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.
    Report accepted.

B)     Energy & Environment Commission Report on Street Lighting.
    Mayor Hindman noted that a report had been presented by the Commission at the pre-Council dinner.
 Mr. Kruse made the motion that staff be directed to draft an ordinance based on the recommendation of the Commission.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.

C)     Community Improvement Districts (CIDS).
    Mr. Campbell suggested this issue was something the Council should probably discuss at a work session or pre-Council dinner meeting.  Mayor Hindman commented that he thought the report was very interesting, and that it was something they should encourage people to become familiar with.

D)     Request for Street Name Change.
    Mr. Campbell made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Coffman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

E)     Regional Planning (Mid-MO Council of Governments)
    Mr. Janku said to some extent, he thought the City should maintain relations with these communities and exchange information.  At the same time, we do not want to become impacted in our ability to obtain grants or restrict decision making.  Mr. Janku hoped there was a limited way in which information could be shared.
    Mr. Campbell explained that he has worked with these groups in the past and, basically, these are agencies that are established to facilitate planning amongst small and rural communities.  He agreed that the City needed to maintain a liaison, but not necessarily a membership.  Mr. Campbell suggested that the staff work something out.  Mr. Coffman concurred.  Mr. Janku said he did not want to get bound by this group's decisions.  He was concerned that could happen if the City was not aware of what is going on, or what laws may be empowering these groups.  Mr. Janku thought we need to make sure that did not happen.


    Mayor Hindman noted that this was the last regular meeting for Ms. Coble and Mr. Kruse.  He complimented them both on the great job they have done.
    Mr. Kruse reminded the Council that they had removed the prohibited parking on Clarkson.  He reported now some of the residents are concerned that it is creating problems.  Mr. Kruse passed a letter to Mr. Beck and asked him to take care of it.
    Ms. Coble had received a letter asking what it would take, as long as the deposit ordinance continues to exist, to expand it further by including beverage containers that were not predominant when the ordinance was originally passed, i.e., juices and carbonated water.
    Ms. Coble made the motion that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance regarding the expansion of the deposit ordinance to cover the additional beverage containers.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse.
    Mayor Hindman said he had a feeling the issue relating to the deposit ordinance was going to come up one of these days before too long.  Mrs. Crockett said she knew it would.  Mayor Hindman suggested it might be better to wait until the Council is ready to review the whole issue because there is additional information they may want to review in connection with the deposit ordinance.
    The vote on the motion, made by Ms. Coble, seconded by Mr. Kruse, was defeated.
    Regarding the mowing at Pennant and Hunt Court, Ms. Coble said the staff's opinion was that it is a public responsibility for the property to be mowed.  She said adjacent landowners had been told they needed to mow it.  Ms. Coble did not know that it was appropriate to introduce it into the volunteer program given that the property owners have significantly high fences between them and the property to be mowed.  Mr. Patterson said the only issue in that regard is that the staff does not have the capability to mow it as a lawn.  Mr. Patterson said the area would be kept below 12 inches, but it would not be pretty.
    Ms. Coble said she had been disturbed to get the communication from the Missouri Development Finance Board apprising the City Manager of the fact that the request for tax credit applications to support the MKT Market Square Park had been turned down.  She noted the Council had not been informed that someone representing the City's interest had gone to a government body seeking funds for a City project.  Her assumption was that the Trailhead Park Committee, of their own initiative, went to a government body without informing the City, without getting direction as a group of volunteers, for how they might present things to yet another government body.  Ms. Coble reported the letter also gave a summation of what the group had told the state body.  Basically, they testified that they needed funds for the MKT project so that the City could move around funds that had already been budgeted.  Ms. Coble stated that was an inappropriate role for this group to take, and she thought perhaps the Council needed to make their communication pretty clear about, when they have appointed ad hoc committees or groups, what their roles are, what their limits are, to what extent they represent the City, and what actions would be considered inappropriate.  Ms. Coble felt in this instance, the group went way over the line.
    Mayor Hindman said he was familiar with the situation and there was no use of public funds involved in the request.  It involved a request for tax credits for private donations.  Ms. Coble said the commitment in the testimony was that they needed the money so they could rearrange already committed public funds.  Mayor Hindman said he was there when the testimony took place.  Ms. Coble asked then if that was an inaccurate statement by the Executive Director.  Mayor Hindman said he would say it was.  He was aware this group was going to ask for tax credits.  Ms. Coble commented she wished the information had been communicated.  Mayor Hindman said the group had been asking for private donations and tax credits against private donations, and that was why he did not think it necessary to communicate that information.  He felt it was appropriate.  Ms. Coble did not agree and said she was not satisfied.
    Mr. Janku said he had received a request to have the staff look into what could be done to reduce the flooding on Blackfoot Road.  Mr. Patterson explained that it had been taken care of -- the drainage work had been finished last week.
    Mr. Janku reported there had been a vicious dog attack in his ward, and it raised questions about what type of restraints are necessary before releasing the dog back to the care of the owner before any legal procedure had taken place.  He observed there is apparently a gap in the ordinance and he asked for a staff report on what protections are available after an animal has attacked someone.
    Mr. Janku reported that many of the overhead lines on the Business Loop connect to the City's street lights.  He noticed that a lot of them cross the street instead of running parallel.  Assuming there is a technical reason for that alignment, Mr. Janku thought there might be alternatives that could be explored which would not be extremely expensive.  He asked for a staff report.
    Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway, reminded everyone to get out and vote.
    The meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m.

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                          Penny St. Romaine
                                                                                          City Clerk