DECEMBER 15, 2003


The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 15, 2003, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS and JOHN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.


The minutes of the regular meeting of December 1, 2003 were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Hutton.


Mayor Hindman noted that R257-03 and R264-03 would be taken from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business.

Upon his request, Mr. Janku made the motion that Mr. John be allowed to abstain from voting on B394-03. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

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


R268-03 Authorizing contracts with various human rights enhancements.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that $5100 was included in the FY 04 budget to enhance the human rights activities in our community.

Preston Bass, 3806 Bedford, Chair of the Human Rights Commission, explained that community education and outreach is one of the main functions of the Commission. In addition to "Let's Talk Columbia Community Studies Circle Program", the Commission also provides funding and support to local organizations conducting human rights educational activities and programs through the Human Rights Enhancement Program. The purpose of the funding is to provide financial support for local organizations engaged in programming that promotes cultural understanding, human rights education, and the reduction and elimination of discriminatory practices in the community. Mr. Bass noted that the program is also intended to encourage collaboration between organizations and individuals concerned with human rights issues and to assist them with leveraging other monies in the support of human rights issues. This year they received twelve funding proposals and are recommending funding for eight. Two agencies withdrew their proposals and two proposals were not recommended for funding as they did not fall within the scope of the Commission's funding priorities. Mr. Bass thanked the Council for their ongoing support and offered to answer any questions. He also thanked Mr. Steinhaus and his staff for the outstanding job they do in lending technical support and guidance.

On behalf of the Council, Mayor Hindman conveyed appreciation for the work done by the Commission.

The vote on R268-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:


B371-03 Changing the designation of PUD zoned property bounded by Brown School Road, Derby Ridge Drive, Citadel Drive and Edenton Boulevard from PUD-12 to PUD-13; approving the Auburn Hills 8 PUD site plan.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this 7.2 acre tract is located in north Columbia. It would allow for a residential development of up to 88 townhouses. Both the staff and Commission recommend approval.

Mayor Hindman noted they had talked about connecting the internal sidewalks to the external sidewalks. He asked if anything had happened regarding that issue.

Mr. Loveless pointed out that he had asked about drainage and whether or not it should be moved to an open ditch or contained in a culvert.

Mayor Hindman reopened the public hearing.

Rob Wolverton, 2106 Clemmons, a partner in WWB Development which is the development company for the entire 200 acre tract known as Auburn Hills stated that he is also a partner in the group purchasing this particular piece of property from WWB Development. The objective with this piece of property is to be able to provide an affordable housing option for people in the area. They want to build single family attached units and sell them in the mid-sixty thousand dollar range. He indicated that they chose the single family designation for many reasons - more options as far as selling the units because if they do not sell they would have the option of keeping them and renting them and the flexibility needed to produce this type of project. When beginning the project, Mr. Wolverton explained, they designated a 30-acre piece that would be a dedicated green space and a 12-acre parkland that the City subsequently purchased. In regards to the open ditches, he indicated, they left them as they did in order to retain the aesthetic quality of the property since they are natural creeks with mature trees.

Regarding sidewalks, Mr. Wolverton said the idea of having internal sidewalks never crossed their minds for a couple of reasons. For the single family attached housing designation, the ordinance calls for sidewalks that lead to the parking lot and the parking lot then leading to the city sidewalk. He noted two other projects within Auburn Hills that are single family attached units, townhouses, which are very similar to what they are planning. Those have been approved and one is under construction with nearly 30 units built on it now. This is the same type of configuration they are planning.

Mr. Loveless reiterated his concerns about the ditches and numerous house floodings. He questioned the flow line.

Jay Gebhardt, a civil engineer with A Civil Group, 1010 Fay, stated that from the beginning the developers indicated they wanted all of the pipes designed for a 100 year storm instead of a 10 year storm, which is the requirement for residential. The pipes underneath Citadel are sized to carry the 100 year storm by themselves. If the pipe were to clog, because the units are well above the street elevation, the water would back up and overflow the street before entering into any of the units. He explained, across the street, where the duplexes are, the pipe is designed for a 100 year storm with a swale on top of the pipes to handle water around the duplex units and through the property.

Ms. Crayton asked if anyone downhill would be impacted by the runoff. Mr. Gebhardt explained the pipe continues through the Auburn Hills Subdivision and opens up in the Boone Industrial Park area where there is a large, defined creek/ditch that can handle the water.

Mr. Janku understood these would be sold off as single family units with the applicant retaining control of the property itself. Mr. Gebhardt said it would be condominium sale. Because the applicant would be controlling all of that, Mr. Janku felt the grading and heights established would be maintained, eliminating the creation of drainage problems.

Mr. Wolverton explained his partner in this project, Pate Jones Construction is also the owner of all the duplexes south of this project and he obviously does not want to flood his own property.

Mayor Hindman asked if there were topographical reasons sidewalks could not be built from the front door to the public sidewalks. Mr. Gebhardt explained that this falls under the International Residential Code (IRC). He said they treat this as any other single family home where there is no sidewalk required from a front door to the public way. Topographically, they could have a sidewalk with steps because they are building based on the single family code. The issue is cost and trying to build these units in an affordable fashion.

Mr. Ash mentioned that the report had made it seem to be an ADA problem. Mr. Gebhardt replied that was true. He said if this was built under the International Building Code (IBC) as an apartment complex, the requirement is that there be an accessible route from building to building and from building to public street.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mayor Hindman indicated that the Council was grateful for the explanation, even though he was disappointed about the sidewalk situation. Mr. Janku agreed sidewalks would be a benefit, particularly to the Brown School Road side of the property.

Mr. John noted that there would probably be paths worn if they do not connect the parking lots to the Brown School Road side. He thought some of the parking lots should be connected.

Mr. Janku was glad to see this type of development being brought forward and was hopeful the market would buy into it.

B371-03 was read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B391-03 Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of St. Charles Road, approximately 120 feet east of Elderbrook Drive; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck showed three tracts of ground on the overhead containing approximately 9.5 acres. The staff and the Commission both recommend approval.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

Mr. John commented that it was good to see these people taking advantage of City services.

B391-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B392-03 Voluntary annexation of property located on the north side of Thompson Road, between Cotton Wood Drive and Spring Cress Drive (5513 Thompson Road); establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that this one and one-half acre tract is located in northeast Columbia. Both staff and the Commission recommend approval.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B392-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B393-03 Rezoning property located on the east side of Scott Boulevard, approximately 140 feet north of Bethany Drive from R-1 and R-2 to PUD-9.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck pointed out that this request had not been recommended for approval by the staff or the Commission.

Mr. Dudark explained this tract to involve about four and one-half acres with the request being for PUD-9 with 14-two unit structures. These could be duplex type structures, but there is no plan before the Council. Recommendation for denial is based on two reasons. The Commission felt the request to be too dense for the area and thought there should have been a plan submitted with the rezoning request so there would be more assurances as to what would actually occur on the property in conjunction with the zoning action. The staff initially recommended a connection from Scott Boulevard into the subdivision, but that was rejected by the Homeowners Association and residents of the single family area. The request by the applicant has been modified to delete it, but may include a pedestrian way if resubmitted. They previously asked for a PUD-12, but have now reduced it to PUD-9 - a reduction from 36 units to 28 units total.

Mr. Janku asked if the lot shown in white was part of Katy Lake Estates. Mr. Dudark said it was not platted as part of the subdivision as it was not owned by the subdivider. They platted around it, and at this time, it is a tract, not a platted lot.

Mr. John noted that an access road had been removed in the past from Katy Lake Estates to Scott Boulevard. He questioned if there had been any notice or demand of some sort at that time - saying when that was done that another access would have to be cut to the south or another access to Scott Boulevard would have to be made. Mr. Janku reported there had been a lot of discussion, but said there had been no quid pro quo. Basically, he indicated, the developer wanted to regain the access point as a lot and had enlisted the support of the subdivision to cut off access because it would decrease cut through traffic. He stated there was no mention of increased access.

Regarding density, Mr. Ash asked, how many units could be put in at its present zoning of R-1 and R-2. Mr. Dudark replied they had not calculated that.

Mr. Hutton asked if the recommendation for denial had been based on the PUD-12 request. Mr. Dudark stated that was correct. Mr. Hutton asked if he would support it if it got down to10. Mr. Dudark replied yes - they were supportive of the 10. He added that they had been supportive of the connection at that time. Mr. Hutton noted that the connection has nothing to do with the zoning, other than the fact that the public road would affect the density. Mr. Dudark agreed and added the effect would change the buildable area.

Mr. John asked how many units they were expecting with a PUD-10. Mr. Dudark replied they were expecting about 10% less than they are proposing - - maybe 25 instead of 28.

Mr. Loveless inquired as to the ownership of the unplatted piece of ground. Mr. Dudark explained that the applicant owns the ground.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay, provided the Council a drawing depicting the property and how it is zoned today. He explained that the part of the tract that is not included in the request is currently zoned R-1. The applicant owned a good portion of the southern part of Weston Drive and the developers of Katy Lake purchased a great deal of his land from him, but he retained this land which abuts Weston Drive. He pointed out that whether this development was called PUD-7 or PUD-9, it consists of 28 units. The confusion comes from the way they have to use the PUD defined density. He has to call it a PUD-9 because he does not know how the road issue will affect things at this time. If the right of way is subtracted out for a future road, it would be a PUD-9. If it is not, it would be a PUD-7. He explained that Mr. Kochtanek and his wife want to do this themselves and not cut it up and sell lots or tracts where you have multiple owners. If approved it would be platted as one lot and maintained by one person. He noted that in the statement of intent they provided, every unit would have, as a minimum, a two-car garage. They did this to ensure the cars were out of sight, and thought it would help attract the type of tenant they wanted. He also pointed out that section H had recently been added to the statement of intent, as requested by the Homeowners Association.

Mayor Hindman asked if the addition of item H would preclude a street. Mr. Gebhardt replied that if a house was built on the lot, it would preclude a public street. Mayor Hindman asked if it would preclude a walkway of some sort. Mr. Gebhardt replied, not necessarily.

Mr. Ash asked why a plan was not presented with the rezoning. Mr. Gebhardt explained that it would be hard to come up with a plan and justify a client having to spend $7,000 to $8,000 for a plan when it is uncertain what will have to be done about the road. If they do not get the requested rezoning, he indicated they would probably deal with the existing zoning. He remarked that he has a layout of 24 units, but could probably get 25 or 26. He indicated if a road was put through, they would have about 3.19 acres left. A PUD-10 would have allowed him 31 units, a reduction from 36.

Mr. John noted that if this was not a public street, but a private road, the calculations would be based on a 4.07.

Mr. Janku asked if they would have the right to stub in a street through the property if they went back to the original zoning. Mr. Gebhardt indicated they would because Mr. Kochtanek owns the property. If they remain at the R-1 and R-2 zoning, he said it would make more sense to have a street go through for access.

Tom Kochtanek explained that he and his wife have owned this property for almost 20 years and that they bought it as an investment. He stated that he has worked with his neighbors and feels as though they have come up with a good plan. He said he is working with them to create a planned environment, which he thought would be better for all involved.

Keith McLaughlin, 4109 Big Sur, President of the Katy Lake Homeowners Association, presented a petition signed by approximately 21 landowners in Katy Lake. He noted that they have met three or four times with Mr. Kochtanek in trying to arrive at an agreement. Mr. McLaughlin felt Mr. Kochtanek agreed with them until he was asked to put it in writing. He stated Mr. Kochtanek told them he did not want to put the street in, but wanted PUD-9 with 28 units. Mr. McLaughlin stated that the Homeowners did not want the street built either. He said they presented a response to Mr. Kochtanek with a plan and asked him to incorporate it into his statement of intent, but he chose not to as late as yesterday. He spoke in opposition to a PUD-9.

Mr. Loveless indicated he thought that if a street was included, it would be used by people in Katy Lake, going through Mr. Kochtanek's development, to get onto Scott Boulevard as opposed to people from Mr. Kochtanek's development going through Katy Lake. Mr. McLaughlin did not know, but said he would be surprised to see that.

Mayor Hindman asked how the neighborhood would like the letter of intent to read. Mr. McLaughlin said he had written the paragraph, but Mr. Kochtanek left out the last sentence saying there would be no vehicular or pedestrian connection between his property and Katy Lake Estates.

Mr. Loveless commented that what they had been given by Mr. Gebhardt indicated they would take that lot and guarantee it would be available for a house to be built on it. Mr. McLaughlin said that had not been guaranteed to them. By putting it in his statement of intent, Mr. Loveless thought he had done that.

Mr. Ash asked if the neighbors would rather have a street without as much density or if they would rather have the PUD which might have more density, but no street. Mr. McLaughlin said they felt density was an important issue to address. Without a plan and knowing exactly what the developer would commit to do, he felt that all they could do is oppose the PUD-9 rezoning.

Mayor Hindman commented that in regards to what the neighbors want, there would not be room for a pedestrian access either. Mr. McLaughlin indicated that as a home lot, there would be a home on it with a home on either side, and there would not be adequate space for a pedestrian way through there. He also pointed out Katy Lake was a private community with private amenities such as the lake.

Brett Burri, 3406 Whitney, questioned a zoning change without a formal plan. He said they purchased their homes knowing what the zoning around them was. He was concerned that the development would have a negative impact on their properties. If the proposed development is required to have a street that would feed into Weston, he thought it would enhance the storm drainage problems they are experiencing. Mr. Loveless stated that he thought it would take some of the water off of Weston before getting to Whitney. Mr. Loveless asked if there would be any interest from the Katy Lake residents, such as bicyclists, to come through Mr. Kochtanek's area and then out to Scott Boulevard to access the Trail. Mr. Burri stated that he did not because they just spent $14,000 and have their own access to the Trail.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Burri if he would be more in favor of keeping the existing zoning with a street or having PUD-9 without a street. Mr. Burri said he would rather not have the street.

Mr. Hutton asked who would use such a road except the people living in Katy Lake because he did not think anyone would use it as a cut-through. Mr. Burri agreed, but said it would give others access to their private amenities. He explained that they pay association dues to maintain the amenities for private use.

Dave Thompson, 3406 Whitney, was concerned that the road, if built, would be the only way through when work was done on Scott Boulevard.

Mr. John saw two choices - R-1 with a street in their neighborhood going out to Scott and R-2 to the front with 22 units or 28 duplexes with no road going through their neighborhood. Janice Finley, 4103 Weston, explained that her home is directly across from the lot in question. When moving into the neighborhood six years ago it had been her understanding that the lot was a single family lot and a home would be built on it. She asked that her neighborhood remain quiet and family oriented.

Kevin Smith, 4106 Weston, noted that his property would become a corner lot if a road were put through. He opposed the road and supported the PUD, however, he wanted to see a density of seven or eight. Mr. Smith felt that with a PUD, the residents would be allowed input.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku asked why a stub had not been put in if this was not a lot. Mr. Dudark stated that he had not been around at that time and did not know the history of this area. Mr. Janku understood from talking to Mr. Patterson that this would not be part of the stretch that has a median and restricted access. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. He showed the section planned for an ultimate four-lane section, but said it is south where they are looking at the median design concept.

Regarding the statement of intent given out this evening, Section G in particular - Mr. John asked if the rear yard setback and the 25 foot perimeter required around a PUD would overlap or if it would be required to be 43 feet from a building rear to the property line. Mr. Dudark replied they could overlap.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Dudark's feelings about the street going in if this remained at its current zoning. If the applicant submitted a plat, Mr. Dudark said he was not sure what grounds one would have for turning down the plat with a street going from Weston Drive to Scott Boulevard. It would be R-1 development to the east and R-2 development along the street to the west. If it is done as a PUD, Mr. Ash thought statement H sounded adamant about not allowing the street to go through. He asked if they could be fairly restrictive to approve the PUD, but not have the street go through and whether they could do it as an amendment or as a statement of intent. Mr. Janku explained the Council could not amend it. Mr. Boeckmann commented that the statement of intent is used primarily for changes in the PUD plan after the initial plan is approved. He stated that the Council could make it a condition of the rezoning - that there will not be a connection. It would have the benefit of telling a developer up front whether or not the Council wanted a road put through. Mr. Boeckmann indicated that the Council has more leeway when dealing with a plan as opposed to a plat. Mr. Ash thought they should approve the plan, but make it specific with a condition of approval - the street could not go through.

Mr. Janku asked about the width of the unplatted lot. Mr. Hutton replied that it is 120 x 140.

Mr. John asked why the developer did not add the sentence requested to H on the statement of intent. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the way it was written, in his opinion, prohibited pedestrian and vehicular access. The Kochtanek's thought if someone on the Council felt strongly about pedestrian access, that person might vote against the whole zoning request. It was the exact wording that was troublesome. Mr. John asked the developer's opinion about a private drive versus a city street within the development with the access cut off. Mr. Gebhardt said they would rather have a private drive access off of Scott than a public street. He commented that he would like to do something more unique than what he could do, designwise, with a public street. Mr. John noted that would put the number back up to 4.07 acres. Mr. Gebhardt interjected that it would limit them strictly to 28 units maximum. In looking at the layout, especially on the very east edge, Mr. John asked if the setback could be backed up a bit because of the R-1 area. Mr. Gebhardt felt the terrain would take care of that. He explained that he had told the neighbors he would work closely with them and told Mr. Kochtanek that they needed to keep it as far west, toward Scott Boulevard, as possible. Mr. Ash asked if it could be changed to PUD-7 if there was going to be a private drive and still have 28 units. Mr. Gebhardt replied the density would be 6.88 so a PUD-7 would be required. Mr. Ash felt that would make the neighbors happy and still provide the developer with 28 units. Mr. Gebhardt indicated that would be the case, if a street were prohibited.

Mr. John asked the developer to propose some changes, such as stating access off of Scott Boulevard would be a private drive and no vehicular access would be allowed from the PUD to Weston Drive. Mr. Gebhardt asked Mr. Kochtanek if he was okay with that. Mr. Kochtanek indicated he was.

There was discussion regarding private streets at this point. Mr. John indicated that he was not looking at this as a private street, but as a unified development where by having it on one lot, they would keep unified ownership. This would help ensure the issue of having a bunch of duplexes broken up with two or three owners not maintaining them ten years from now. He said this would be a driveway into 28 units and would have to meet the fire code for engines to turn around and so forth. The only difference is that it was the owner that would have to maintain it, not the city. Mayor Hindman asked about the length of the driveway. Mr. Gebhardt explained the property to be about 800 feet wide, east to west. He anticipated 600 to 700 feet to be the longest.

Mr. Beck questioned whether or not standards could be enforced on a private drive. Mr. Patterson said on apartment complexes under single ownership they do not have many problems. They have problems when there are condominium complexes with different owners of zero lot line developments because the City cannot guarantee the maintenance. He said if the drives are not maintained, the City could force it in order to provide trash collection. Mr. Beck asked if this could become a zero lot line some day. Mr. Patterson thought it would have to be platted. Mr. John said he was not suggesting this to change the PUD number, but to allow a less intensive street to be put in - a driveway instead of a wide street. He said that way they could cluster closer to the street and would not have to worry as much about the setbacks. It would give the perimeter some advantage and would force it to remain under single ownership.

Mr. Loveless could not see a disadvantage to a private drive in this particular development. He remarked that it would give more design flexibility and the Council would have to approve the plan.

Mayor Hindman liked the idea of the statement of intent covering the issues people are concerned about without having a detailed plan at this point in time. Because the road was taken out by the Council, he remarked, the residents had every reason to trust there would not be another one put in its place. Mayor Hindman suggested a sidewalk coming down through the lot providing non-vehicular connectivity to the subdivision. Mr. Loveless did not think they could do that because that particular piece of property is not part of what it is being considered. Mr. Janku asked if they could require it as an off-site condition. Mr. Boeckmann felt it would be easier to prevent him from connecting by saying he cannot stub out a street in that direction. Mr. Loveless asked about building a pedway from Weston down to the proposed development. Mr. Janku wondered if it would require a public easement. Mayor Hindman did not think the developer would mind that.

Mr. John asked about Council thoughts on public street versus a private drive off Scott Boulevard. Mayor Hindman was willing to experiment with the private drive.

Mr. Loveless thought it was clear to the owner, his engineer, and the neighborhood as to what the Council is interested in seeing. He reiterated their interests in seeing 28 units in a PUD, no road connection to Weston, and some type of roadway into the development.

After taking a short break, the developer presented an amended statement of intent which added the following sections: Section I, no public or private street shall connect from Scott Boulevard to Weston Drive through the subject tract; Section J, a ten foot wide public sidewalk easement shall connect the subject tract to Weston Drive; and Section K, access to this property shall be by a private driveway from Scott Boulevard.

Mr. Ash made the motion that B393-03 be amended by changing PUD-9 to PUD-7 in the title and body of the ordinance and by substituting the amended statement of intent for the statement of intent attached to the original bill. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B393-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B399-03 Authorizing construction of water main serving Deer Ridge, Plat 2; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that per City policy, Water and Light funds are used to pay the differential cost. The cost between the eight and twelve inch line, in this case, is estimated to be $7,000.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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

B399-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Voluntary annexation of city owned property located at the western terminus of Manhasset Drive, south of Smith Drive.

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that an ordinance would be introduced tonight related to this public hearing. He explained this to be a 9.4 acre tract being recommended for annexation.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

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


B394-03 Vacating street right of way southeast of the Old 63/Chinaberry Drive/Bearfield Road traffic circle.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark pointed out that this request is from the abutting property owner to vacate part of the Old 63 right of way. The new Grindstone Parkway/Route AC has terminated old AC and reclassified it from an arterial to a local, non-residential street. The right of way for a non-residential street is 66 feet wide. The request would leave a 33 foot half width right of way on the east side. He noted that none of the pavement on the existing roadway is in the right of way that would be vacated. All of it would be in the right of way remaining in place. Mr. Dudark remarked they expect to receive similar requests in this area to provide additional property still served by a 66 foot non-residential, local street.

Mr. Loveless asked if the City or State had paid for access at one time or another. Mr. Dudark replied that if the State owns it in fee simple title, they would not get title to it unless they paid for it. The City is merely saying as a right of way, we are vacating it. Mr. Patterson understood the State had acquired easements, not fee title, but had never conveyed those rights to the City. The bottom line is that the City has no money invested in it.

Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay, offered to answer any questions.

Mr. Ash asked if the reason they wanted it was to be able to build a little closer to the road way and have a bigger lot. Mr. Gebhardt replied that was correct.

B394-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: JOHN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B395-03 Amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to remove parking on the north side of Campusview Drive from UMC Drive west to its terminus at Carter Lane.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Patterson explained that a request had been received from the Seven Oaks Homeowners Association relating to traffic concerns. He said they evaluated them to see which ones they could assist with. One was a stop sign at the intersection of Carter Lane and Campusview Drive, a MoDOT controlled intersection. MoDOT has since agreed to create a three-way stop at that intersection. There were other four-way stops and signs requested that did not meet the warrants. Mr. Patterson felt the biggest concern to them was the parking along Campusview Drive. Their request was that parking be taken away from one side. After evaluating the situation, it was decided that the north side would be the most appropriate location.

B395-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B400-03 Authorizing a Right of Use Permit with the Curators of the University of Missouri for the construction, operation and maintenance of a pedestrian/bicycle trail.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that staff has been talking with the University for a period of time in regards to obtaining this right of use along the property so they can get to the underpass at Providence Road and Stewart Road. He felt that an agreement has been worked out that will satisfy both parties. The next step would be obtaining MoDOT approval for the actual underpass.

Mr. Hood added that the permit would authorize the City to construct, operate and maintain a trail. We would be responsible for the cost of the trail and any costs associated with damage to the University fence adjacent to the trail corridor. He noted a clause relating to utilities. If any utility work has to be done in the corridor, the City will be responsible for repairing any damage to the trail.

On behalf of the Council, Mayor Hindman thanked the University for its cooperation all the way through the trail project.

Mr. John asked if the other trail on University property will remain as an active section. Mayor Hindman stated it would.

B400-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B401-03 Authorizing an agreement with Lake of the Woods South, LLC to accept the donation of land in Lake of the Woods South Subdivision for park purposes.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that two lots are involved with one lot being 10.88 acres, located on the southern edge of the subdivision. Access to the site is provided from three different points within the subdivision and also from Richland Road. Most of the site is currently an open field that lies in the flood plain of the north fork of Grindstone Creek. Staff believes this to be a suitable site for development of a neighborhood park. The second lot, lot 328, approximately one-half acre in size is located at the northwest entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Beck explained that this property would primarily be maintained as public open space. It has the potential as a site for a mini-park should the need arise.

Mr. Janku asked if the City would be responsible for maintaining lot 328. Mr. Hutton asked if the City really wants that lot. Mr. Hood explained it had been presented to the staff as a package deal and they evaluated it as such.

Mr. Beck asked about the street fronting the property. Mr. Hood explained that it is a newly constructed street.

Mr. John noted the shades of black on the map and asked if in the future the Council could get a color version.

Mr. Beck noted the substantial donation made by the property owners. Mayor Hindman added Council appreciation.

Mr. Janku asked if naming the park would be referred to the Commission. Mr. Hood said they have been calling the park Boonslick Park, but he did not believe that was a condition of the agreement.

B401-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B403-03 Allowing a building permit to be issued to Landrum Company for structures in a utility easement along the east side of Stadium Boulevard north of Ash Street; approving a waiver of claim and indemnity agreement.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would allow First National Bank and Trust Company to construct a driveway, landscaping wall, landscaping, flagpole, and lighting in a utility easement along Stadium Boulevard at Ash Street. He understood from questioning the staff that this will not interfere with any future plans for the intersection.

Mr. Patterson pointed out that they are dealing with a utility easement adjacent to State right of way. He felt any expansion of state right of way would have a much bigger impact than the City's utility relocation. He noted they would not be encroaching on any right of way.

Mr. Boeckmann noted an amendment sheet had been prepared changing the Landrum Company to First National Bank and Trust Company. He explained that the Landrum Company is the holding company, but the property owner is the bank. He also noted an error in the memo regarding the sewer line. It is actually outside the easement and in the right of way of Stadium Boulevard.

Mr. Janku asked if there would be ample room to widen Stadium if it were to be widened to six lanes and a sidewalk was added. Mr. Patterson replied right now the City does not know what will be done in that corridor in regards to any widening on the site. He indicated that they were not looking at a right of way here as much as an easement and the rights to impose a restriction. He said it would not interfere with City utilities if they do what the Water and Light Department has asked.

Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices on Cherry Street, spoke on behalf of First National Bank and the Landrum Company. He explained the bank has drive up lanes on the west side with the outside existing drive up being an ATM drive up. They would like to make the ATM a full service drive up and move the ATM south and build a by-pass lane around the existing outside drive-up lane. The additional by-pass lane would encroach about one and one-half feet into the City's utility easement. Also impacting the utility easement area is a concrete, decorative wall with flagpoles, lighting for the flagpoles, and landscaping behind the wall, on gravel footing, not permanent footing, backfilled with dirt. He explained it was something that could easily be removed. The bank has agreed to encase the water line that lies under the landscaping wall by surrounding it in a tube where the line could be pulled and replaced and inserted back. The indemnity agreement and waiver states they waive any claims against the City for any damage that might occur to the bank's property and that they would protect the City from any claims against them that might arise out of the placement of the improvements within the easement. They have also agreed to place the overhead telephone line underground as part of the facility upgrade.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that B403-03 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B403-03, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B404-03 Opting out of the 2004 state sales tax holiday.

The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that at the last legislative session a bill was passed providing for a three day sales tax holiday, beginning the second Friday in August. During the City Council's joint work session with the County Commission, the issue was discussed. The Commission felt many counties would act upon this during the week of December 15 and asked that the City do the same. He was told by the Missouri Municipal League that 39 cities and 4 counties have opted out, including Cole County. He understood Jefferson City had not yet acted on it. Mr. Beck was concerned about the effect a sales tax holiday would have on the City's overall budget. Earlier this evening, he noted that the Council received a memo from the Chamber of Commerce indicating that they had discussed the issue with their Government Affairs Committee and also with their board. They have decided to remain neutral on the issue because feelings were expressed both ways.

Mr. Janku noted that when the State passed the holiday bill, they also passed an accompanying revenue enhancement. He thought it was because they did not anticipate the holiday creating more revenue. The MML was hopeful, if the legislature were to extend this to cities, they would also extend the revenue protection, but they elected not to do that. He said that puts cities in a most difficult position - - having to vote to get out of something while the State themselves were protected from loss of revenue.

Katie Essing, General Growth Properties, spoke on behalf of the Columbia Mall retailers. Ms. Essing recapped an earlier letter she sent to the Council stating their reasons for favoring the holiday. Because the Mall attracts from a very large market area, they are concerned that if Kansas City and St. Louis have the sales tax holiday that their customers will leave the area during that time. That would not only hurt their back to school season, but also hurt the City's tax revenue. Additionally, it was felt it would be very difficult for the retailers at the point of sales terminals to reprogram a register to recognize there is no state tax, but a city and possibly a county tax. She said they also have to go through a more difficult tax filing procedure, which would create additional work. Because the retailers are in the middle of the holiday season, she asked that the decision wait until more retailers would have time to address the issue.

Mayor Hindman commented that he received a call today from the President of Famous-Barr who had said very much the same thing as the last speaker. He also suggested tabling the issue in order to obtain additional input.

Mr. Janku favored opting out and said it was unfortunate that the State has put everyone in this situation. If we think this is going to be an ongoing thing, he thought we would need to adjust our property tax or some other tax to cover it. Regarding the issue as to whether or not it would create more sales during the holiday, Mr. Janku commented that while that may be true, it could take away from buying activity that might normally be spread throughout the rest of the year. Mr. Janku explained the City is mandated to maintain a balanced budget, has limited revenue sources, and does not have the State's flexibility in levying taxes. He pointed out that the State has made some very bad decisions over the past few years in terms of their revenue structure and are finding it almost impossible to go back and correct what they have done. He thought the last thing the City needed was follow the State's lead in regards to budget issues. He wanted to send a message that the current mechanism presented is not acceptable and stated he would not support it.

Mr. Ash remarked that he would support holding off on a decision, but was certainly not in favor of opting out. He explained that because the tax holiday is limited to clothing, computers, and school supplies, he thought it would have less of an impact than what some expected and were worried about. He thought the concern was legitimate in regards to people shopping elsewhere. Mr. Ash felt that if people did go elsewhere, they would not shop for only those three exempted items, but for a lot of things. He compared it to a coupon where people would spend more than they would normally - because it was limited. He thought waiting for the tax holiday might be enough of a factor to someone who was debating about purchasing something, but most people would continue to purchase as they normally do. He agreed that the State Legislature has put the City is a rough spot, but feels it would be bad in regard to public relations to opt out of the holiday.

Ms. Crayton wanted to see the issue postponed. She felt people would travel with their money if they thought they would get a bargain. She wanted to see what everyone else in the area was going to do before making a decision.

Ms. Crayton made the motion that B404-03 be tabled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless.

Mr. John felt the issue got started as a reaction to Illinois having a tax holiday and people from St. Louis driving across the line. He did not see people buying a lot more because of a tax free holiday, although he thought they may buy somewhere else on some other date. He pointed out that there is not an economic analysis that would give us the answer as to whether or not Columbia would gain or lose. He felt it would be a zero sum gain within the state because the same purchases would be made somewhere within the state. He agreed we should not follow the State's lead on fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Hutton agreed with Mr. John and voiced concern about tabling the issue. He thought many communities that were going to act on the issue this week were waiting to see what Columbia would do before acting upon it. Mr. Hutton felt the City may be sending the message that we may not opt out if the issue were to be tabled. Mr. Janku agreed and suggested the City take a leadership role. Mayor Hindman agreed and indicated he would vote yes.

The motion made by Ms. Crayton, seconded by Mr. Loveless, was defeated by voice vote.

B404-03 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: ASH, CRAYTON. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows: CONSENT AGENDA

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

B396-03 Calling for bids relating to the construction of the sanitary sewer extension project at Columbia Regional Airport.

B397-03 Vacating a sanitary sewer easement; accepting conveyance for sewer purposes.

B398-03 Accepting conveyances for drainage, sewer, sidewalk, street, temporary construction and utility purposes.

B402-03 Appropriating SEMA FY 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program funds for the purchase of personal protective and rescue equipment for the Police Department.

R258-03 Expressing support for First Night; authorizing support services.

R259-03 Authorizing renewal of an agreement with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the issuance of birth and death certificates.

R260-03 Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for additional funding for the Regional Public Health Emergency Planning and Preparedness contract.

R261-03 Authorizing an Adopt A Spot beautification agreement.

R262-03 Authorizing the University of Missouri to temporarily close a portion of Rollins Street.

R263-03 Appointing Federated Investors Trust Co. as trustee to City Money Purchase Plan; authorizing administration of plan.

R265-03 Amending Resolution 200-03 which established the Cable Television Task Force.

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


R257-03 Authorizing contracts with various social service agencies.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained these to be the social service agencies discussed during budget hearings. This will authorize the City Manager to sign the agreements.

Mr. John explained that he had asked to have it pulled off the Consent Agenda because some people do not understand how much the City spends on social service issues. He noted that not many cities have this kind of program, and often people do not realize how much money and effort the City puts into these programs.

The vote on R257-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R264-03 Establishing "Homes for Computers" program; authorizing conveyance of computers.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Lori Fleming explained that the City has difficulty each year disposing of surplus computers. After the Information Services staff removes reusable parts that can potentially be utilized, most of the City's surplus goods are sent to the University for auction. She noted that very little monies are recognized for the computers. The City's Purchasing Agent, Tony St. Romaine, has been working very hard to develop this program which he has been coordinating with the Voluntary Action Center. While the computers are no longer adequate to serve on the City's network, she indicated they would work fine as stand alone computers in an individual's home. Ms. Fleming remarked that this would be a way to get computers into the homes of many of our disadvantaged youth and the computers would not end up being auctioned or in the landfill.

Mr. Ash asked to have this taken off the Consent Agenda because he wanted to commend the staff for their efforts. He thought it was a great idea and wondered if there were other areas into which this idea could be expanded.

The vote on R264-03 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:

R266-03 Approving preliminary plat, Mill Creek Manor plat no. 1, granting variances.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark explained that this property had been before the Council recently for rezoning and is now zoned R-1, single family. He displayed the plat, just shy of 100 acres, on the overhead. He felt the most challenging issue regarding this plat to be the street connection. The regulations stipulate that no more than 200 single family lots can be final platted with at least two access points. To plat more than that, a third access point is required or one of the two must be a collector or arterial street. One option is to run a neighborhood collector through the subdivision, but there is concern about that in terms of the ability to sell lots along the street due to traffic volume and speed. Another option is to make a third connection out to Route KK, but because of severe terrain it would be difficult to do. The extension of Crabapple Lane to the second street connection was another option which would open an additional 62 lots. At the Planning and Zoning Hearing, the engineer indicated that option would probably be the one they would look at doing. Mr. Dudark thought their plan was to extend Crabapple which would mean there would not be one single street baring the traffic volume coming in and out in front of the homes that might be near the entry point of the development. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision, but wanted to make the 200 lot limit a part of the ordinance so it is not overlooked. They also recommended a variance to the right of way width and street width for Crabapple Lane so it could be constructed as a 30 foot wide street in a 60 foot right of way because it would not have any lots that would front on that street, or driveways that would front on it. It would simply carry traffic to and from Route KK and the local residential streets.

Mr. Janku understood that Crabapple extends to the west of the development. Mr. Dudark replied that it does and added that it is a gravel, one lane drive and a county road. Mr. Janku asked if it went over to Scott Boulevard. Mr. Dudark responded that it did not go all of the way to Scott, but is on the plan to be built at that location. Mr. Janku asked if the road would be extended to the east if the University property to the east is developed. Mr. Dudark thought that was correct and that some of the subdivision streets would also be extended. Mr. Janku asked how the extension past the second entrance would be built. Mr. Dudark replied that has to be determined - whether it is done by the City, the developer on the north side, or even this developer in cooperation with the City. He said it would have to be worked out at a later date. Mr. Janku saw no reason for the developer to participate because they would have their access. Mr. Dudark stated they would not have any other streets that would access it. Mr. Janku suggested tax billing against the lots for a certain amount the cost. He asked if the road width and right of way would be sufficient to handle the traffic if the road eventually extends from Sinclair all the way to Scott. Mr. Dudark noted that this was an R-1 development and would not be the only street coming in and off of Route K. Some homes will use local streets to get to Route K. Mr. Dudark stated that one of the options under the proposed street standards is to have a 30 foot street without driveways or parking. Mr. Janku questioned if the street would serve that role if it is the only street that runs between Scott Boulevard west of Scott and Brushwood Lake and east to Sinclair. It may be the only thing between Nifong and Route K. Mr. Dudark replied that it was the only thing on the Roadway Plan at this stage. He pointed out that there would be a lot of local streets connecting to both of the streets. Mr. Janku commented that he was looking at the long term and what could potentially happen.

Mr. Ash asked if Mr. Janku was concerned about granting the variance because it might be a busy road in the future. Mr. Janku replied that he was looking at the long term and the fact that there are not a lot of possibilities in the area because of the developed subdivisions. Mr. Ash asked if a bigger right of way could be required so there would be room to grow in the future, if needed. Mr. Janku replied that would conceivably be one possibility.

Mr. Hutton understood the 30 foot street and 60 foot right of way to be in the new standards for neighborhood collectors that have not been approved as of yet. Mr. Dudark responded that was correct - without driveways or parking. Mr. Hutton asked what standard was being proposed for a collector. Mr. Dudark replied that is was 38 feet, but it was still a two lane road with 66 feet of right of way.

Mr. John pointed out that Nifong right now is a two lane road out through the area which carries a lot of traffic. He did not think this would ever get beyond the level of Nifong. He saw the question as whether or not we really need 38 feet for a two lane street, or can we get by with 30 feet. Mr. Hutton agreed.

Mr. Dudark interjected that one of the things that will affect future development of this area is the fact that there are a lot of large estate lots. He felt some could be replatted and subdivided, but thought many of them would not. To the north is a rugged area with a creek running through it. It would be a difficult property to develop. He thought the easiest to develop would be the University property east of the subject site.

Mr. Janku asked how the stubbing issue was resolved, in terms of the neighboring property. Mr. Dudark explained that there is a cul-de-sac that physically connects the southern property line and an easement which connects in the middle in a location not in line with a house. A road could go between the homes presently there. He said there is a covenant in place which could be changed by action of all the property owners, but there is no intention to do that.

Fred Overton, one of the contract purchasers, offered to answer any questions.

Mr. John understood the concern, but pointed out that this is a new property being platted. It begs the question as to why the last cul-de-sac is there because it is on grade, but does not come down and connect to it. He thought it might be to keep them from having to build the street. He was torn and did not want to see the City have to build that street some day. Mr. Janku commented that he did not think there would be much public support for any connection after the subdivision was developed.

Mr. John proposed the plat require them to build Crabapple Lane as a 30 foot neighborhood collector all of the way through the development. Mr. Janku made the suggestion that the road would have to be built when Hodgsdon Mill (the last cul-de-sac) is platted. Mr. John agreed.

Mr. John made a motion to amend R266-03 - the final portion from Funderburg Mill to the eastern terminus on the property would need to be built at the time that Hodgsdon Mill Drive is built. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.

Chris Sander, an engineer with Crockett Engineering, stated the developer would like to have a couple of weeks to look things over. He felt the items discussed this evening were quite a bit different from what is contained in the current ordinances.

Mr. John withdrew his motion to amend and Mr. Janku withdrew his second.

Mr. John made the motion that R266-03 be tabled to the January 20, 2004 Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R267-03 Approving Preliminary Plat, Forest Ridge.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Dudark explained the location of this plat to be Brown School Road, west of 763. He described it as the companion piece to the PUD plan of Timber Creek being introduced tonight. This will have 151 R-1 lots with access off of Brown School Road and Providence Road extended. There are roads coming off of Providence into the development. They are requesting a variance to the requirement that Providence have a cul-de-sac. Staff did not see that as a problem because there is a connecting street fairly close to where Providence would end. One of the issues that came up in the review is that there is 2600 feet from Brown School Road to the north end of the development. They do have one stub street which is a connecting street to an existing subdivision in the County that is developed with single family homes. There will be a connection. The plat originally submitted did not have any other connecting streets between it and Brown School Road, but after talking to the applicant's engineer, Mr. Dudark explained that suggestions were made as to where another street could go. The suggestion is that it be in the middle, that it be an easement with a note on the plat saying if the street is not built and dedicated to the City within five years, the easement would expire. He noted a large tract in the area having one house on it with a platted street into the lot. Should that lot be replatted, he said it is possible that the street would be connected, making a second connection to the subject subdivision.

Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Dudark if he was happy with the five year proposal. Mr. Dudark thought the time might be a little short and added that he did not think anything was going to happen that quick out there. Once the subdivision is built, he thought it would change the dynamics of the surrounding property and people would begin thinking about what they can do with their property.

Mr. John inquired as to the length between the stubs. Mr. Dudark thought it was 2100 feet from Brown School to a point he showed on the overhead.

Bruce Beckett, an attorney with offices on Cherry Street, spoke on behalf of the developer, PGS. He explained that much concern had been expressed by their neighbors to the west about the interconnections and this had been the applicant's primary reason for opposition during the Planning and Zoning public hearing. Mr. Beckett felt the connection may never be needed which was the reason they proposed a street easement for a period of time. If the street is never installed by a developer to the west, he said the easement would expire and the lot could be sold. He indicated it would be in the area of lot 51, but stated they were not stuck on five years. If ten years would seem more reasonable, he thought the developer would be happy with it. They saw no reason to build a street that may never be used. Mr. Beckett pointed out the land lying immediately to the west of lot 51 and explained it to be a platted lot in Crestwood Hills Subdivision, a five acre lot. He noted it has good access to Monterey Drive. The engineer had told him that the five acres could be platted into approximately 13 lots. He pointed out that two connections are not required for a 13 lot development as they could be served with cul-de-sacs of reasonable lengths.

Mr. John stated that there are a lot of 10 and 15 acre lots with houses on them on Oakland Gravel Road. He noted that they are all being platted off as subdivisions and added that connectivity is a big issue. He thought they needed to have a connection every 1200 feet. If they want to plat that lot off into 13 houses, it would make it easier for them to connect through and make it easier for people to get around and not be forced on to one or two streets. Mr. John was not comfortable with just having the easement.

Mr. John made the motion that the easement remain permanent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The vote on R267-03, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

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

B405-03 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B406-03 Calling for bids relating to the construction of sewers in Sanitary Sewer District No. 157 (Rollins Street and Burnam Avenue).

B407-03 Voluntary annexation of City owned property located at the western terminus of Manhasset Drive, south of Smith Drive; establishing permanent R-1 zoning.

B408-03 Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to allow usage of smaller zoning notification signs.

B409-03 Amending Chapter 14 of the City as it relates to rocks and other material falling from trucks and trailers.

B410-03 Approval of PUD site plan of Forest Ridge, granting a variance.

B411-03 Approval of PUD site plan of Timber Creek, granting a variance.

B412-03 Approving Final Plat, Thornbrook Plat No. 11.

B413-03 Rezoning property on the north side of Blue Ridge Road, and both sides of North Providence Road from A-1 to R-1.


(A) Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission Report: Improved Pedestrian Crossings on Broadway between Providence and Clinkscales.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that the report be referred to the staff and the Broadway Sidewalk Committee with direction to report back with their findings. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B) Russell Property Master Plan and Cunningham Road Extension.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the Council have a work session on the issue before having the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Although it is a very important matter, Mr. Janku noted that there is no funding in the present budget for the park. In addition, funding is not currently available for Cunningham Road . He thought this should be addressed in the near future, but was not priority in regards to timing due to the lack of funding.

(C) Sustainable Farms and Communities Report to the City of Columbia.

Mr. Beck commented that this report is required annually. Mr. Hood added that the report does not require Council action. The report was accepted.

(D) Transit Route Changes.

Mr. Beck explained the goal to be route changes by March of 2004. He asked if the Council would like to have a presentation made to them at a work session before setting a public hearing on the issue.

Ms. Crayton suggested having the public hearing on a day when the buses are on extended hours so bus riders can attend and provide input. Her suggestion was having the hearing on a Thursday.

Mr. Ash thought there were some good ideas in the report and asked how input is solicited. Mr. Patterson explained their primary source of information to be the user/rider surveys. He remarked that they also have identified locations where they know there are group interests, such as Paquin Towers, and will have informational sessions. He said they actively and aggressively try to get input from the users. Mr. Patterson noted that monitoring of the system shows them where they are not picking up or delivering passengers.

Mr. Janku suggested televising the work session so those impacted that cannot attend can still hear the discussion during the work session.


Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following Boards, Commission and Committee.


Haak, Karla L., 406 Melbourne, Ward 3 - term to expire 12/31/06

Wagner, Becky M., 3210 Gazelle, Ward 2 - term to expire 12/31/06


Dykhouse, Charles J., P.O. 145, Ward 6 - term to expire 12/31/05


Dunscombe, Terry A., 3428 Woodrail Terrace, Ward 5

Haak, Karla L., 406 Melbourne, Ward 3

McWilliams, Susan M., 2102 Potomac, Ward 5


Fayette, Michael J., 3801 Gallant Fox, Ward 2 - term to expire 9/30/06


Ott, John E., 212 Bingham, Ward 5 - term to expire 1/1/07

Walther, Skip, H., 2209 Yuma, Ward 4 - term to expire 1/1/07

Wilkerson, Mary C., 1404 Fir Place, Ward 1 - term to expire 1/1/07


Stone, Phyllis A., 3009 Wind River, Ward 5 - term to expire 10/31/06


Mr. Loveless complimented the Public Works staff for the manner in which they handled the snow last Saturday. He said they had done a terrific job keeping the streets open.

Ms. Crayton commented that she had brought back information regarding affordable housing from the National League of Cities meeting she attended recently. She also had information regarding predatory lending institutions of which she said there were many in her Ward.

Mr. Janku read from an article regarding the Kansas City Airport and an agreement they have with Sprint to offer wireless Internet. It was felt the technology would give people another reason to fly out of the Airport.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the Airport Advisory Board be directed to explore the possibility of this at the Columbia Regional Airport. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku explained that Jefferson City produced a new book for a historic walking tour of area neighborhoods. The book was published with local funding.

Mr. Janku made the motion that this be referred to both the Convention & Visitors Bureau and the Historic Preservation Commission to see if they would want to explore doing something similar for Columbia. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku asked for a staff report in regards to limiting parking on the south side of Leslie in the area of George Court.

Mr. Janku reported that Jefferson City is beginning to name their alleys. He asked about checking into the possibility for downtown.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the issue be referred to the Special Business District and the staff for a report back. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman noted discussions beginning about the proposed model street standards with one of the issues being whether or not they would add to the cost of streets. The people who worked on the standards believe they will not add to the cost of the streets, but there are others who think they will. He suggested, as a way of settlement, an unbiased report. He was certain the staff could do it.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the staff be directed to look into the issue, promptly, and report back. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Because of the interest in Russell Park and the articles written about it, Mr. Beck noted that comments have been made about staff and how the City is not honoring Mr. Russell's request as to how the property is to be used. He assured the public that the City is appreciative of Mr. Russell's donation and that we would honor everything included in his directive. He explained there are two deeds, one for each tract. It was Mr. Russell, Sr.'s, will that provided the land to Garland Russell, Jr., who in turn gave the land to the City. In all of the documents, Mr. Beck explained, it is indicated the land would be used for a nature preserve and park purposes, except that portions of the land that may be used for public streets, roads, or for utilities. What the staff has been looking at is the comprehensive plan, not just the park plan. He assured the neighbors that the City is not trying circumvent the intent of what the ground is to be used for.

Mr. Beck wished everyone a happy, safe holiday.

The meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheela Amin
City Clerk