M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
JULY 6, 2004
INTRODUCTORY
Mr. Lee described a situation he encountered involving Animal Control. He was concerned with the procedures followed by Animal Control when receiving a noise complaint and the sensitive and personal information he was required to provide as a result of the complaint.
Mayor Hindman explained they would address this issue at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGSMr. Beck explained this request was recommended for approval.
Mr. Bondra noted the request included two tracts, one small tract and one large tract, which were not contiguous, but owned by the same person and adjacent to City property in different places.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B192-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B193-04 Voluntary annexation of property located on the west side of U.S. Highway 63, approximately 1,000 feet north of Brown School Road; establishing permanent M-1 zoning.Mr. Beck noted this request was from the Boone County Commission and was related to a development agreement previously authorized by the Council. He explained this was a 197 acre tract of land located in north Columbia and that the property was zoned light industrial and single family. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend M-P, planned industrial, rather than the M-1 requested by the County Commission.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Keith Schnarre, Presiding Commissioner of Boone County, explained they had been working with the City on this issue for almost a year. He noted the agreement would allow the City a connection on US Highway 63 North, while allowing the County additional sewer capacity.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ash understood the County was not bound by City zoning, but if the property were sold, the new owners would be bound by City zoning. Mr. Boeckmann replied that was correct, and added, if they were to lease part of the property, the lessee would also be subject to City zoning.
Mr. John was swayed by the fact that 65 to 70 percent of the people who voted for the County Commissioners were also Columbia residents and he did not think the Commission would let anything happen to the property that would offend their constituents.
Mr. Janku pointed out the City's Airport was located in the County and the City was largely free of County zoning control. He explained the City had the flexibility to act and use the property for the benefit of the community and that was what the County was hoping would be allowed here.
Mr. Hutton noted that since Highway 63 was along the east side, R-1 zoning was on the west side, and commercial zoning was on the south side, this was not exactly an inappropriate zoning district for the property.
Mr. Beck pointed out that this was the only category that covered what the current County zoning allowed. He did not think the intent was to ask them to do anything different from what they were doing now.
B193-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B194-04 Rezoning property located on the west side of Maryland Avenue, between Rollins Street and Kentucky Boulevard from R-3 to C-P; approving the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity C-P development plan; granting a variance relating to perimeter screening.Mr. Beck explained the Fraternity wanted to upgrade their parking lot and utilize 29 spaces for public use. Approval was recommended by the Commission subject to some controls on lighting and restricting rental space for automobiles and light trucks.
Mr. Hutton noted that two of the four conditions had not been met at the time the council memo was written. Mr. Bondra stated all those conditions had now been met.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Jim Lowery, an attorney with offices at 111 S. Ninth, felt calling this a rezoning to commercial was a bit of a misnomer because the uses pursuant to their request would be limited to only uses allowed in an R-3 zoning district with the exception of being able to rent excess parking spaces. He explained they were doing this because they wanted to substantially upgrade and remodel their existing home. In order to do that, they needed rental income from the excess parking spaces. He noted they would be doing a substantial amount of landscaping, spending several hundred thousands of dollars remodeling the existing house, and would end up with less impervious surface than they had today. He commented that they currently had a parking area that was designed for more people than they typically house and need. He pointed out they had been renting parking spaces for many years and that only this commercial zoning would legally allow them to continue to do so. Mr. Lowery noted that they were also asking the Council to approve slightly less stringent screening requirements. He pointed out pedways on the drawing and explained that the City Arborist suggested spacing between some of the bushes since people would be walking in between the parking lots and would probably be knocking down any bushes put there. Also, there were parking lots across from a parking lots on two corners of the property. He asked that they not be required to screen a parking lot from a parking lot and stated the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to grant them the less stringent screening requirements. Mr. Lowery noted, at the Planning and Zoning meeting, they had new opposition to their request from the East Campus Neighborhood Association. He explained they were concerned that this would create a precedent and parking lots would start springing up all over East Campus. He did not believe the other fraternity and sorority houses had excess parking and felt this rezoning would not open the flood gates to any kind of commercial use.
Janet Hammen, 1416 Wilson, spoke on behalf of the East Campus Neighborhood Association and stated they felt this could set a precedent which could affect the Grasslands neighborhood as well as the Stewart Road neighborhood. She remarked there were fraternities on College Avenue that owned quite a bit of property all of the way back to Lee Street. Although, it was not used for parking at this time, she asked what would keep another City Council, in ten years, from granting expansion of the parking rights. Ms. Hammen noted landlords in East Campus had already gone to the Board of Adjustment asking for permission to allow parking, specifically rental parking. She stated this was not something they only thought could happen, but something they had already seen requested. She noted there were six to eight living groups that could possibly come forward and ask for this same thing. Ms. Hammen commented that they already had a huge parking problem in the East Campus neighborhood and asked why they would want to encourage something that would allow more parking in the area. In addition, she asked that landscaping be required even between the parking lots.
Clyde Wilson, 1719 University, stated that once a precedent was established, it would become more difficult to deny other requests. He did not understand why they would allow this zoning based upon being able to make more money out of the property.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ash asked if Mr. Bondra had received information regarding the possibility of this being handled through the conditional use process or by requesting a PUD with parking instead of going the C-P route. Mr. Bondra replied that he had not, and that it was his understanding, the only way they could do this was through the C-P district. Other options were looked at a year or so ago by the Council and the Commission, but no decision was ever made. With this being a C-P limited to commercial parking, Mr. Ash asked if there was some way such as using an asterisk, with the passage of time, for people to remember it was a limited C-P. Mr. Bondra explained that each C-P district was tied to an ordnance approving the zoning and the ordinance would have the allowed uses attached to it.
Mr. John felt the R-3 conditional used parking should have been allowed because it only made sense for there to be multiple uses of parking facilities where organizations, such as churches, who only use their lots on Saturdays and Sundays would be allowed to rent them out. He stated these people had to jump through a lot of hoops just to get to this point where they could continue to rent out the parking spaces they had been renting out for 20 years. He did not know if they charged for football weekend parking in the East Campus neighborhood, but did know the ones on the west side of town did. Mr. John felt it was part of being in a college town.
Mr. Janku felt it was an existing use, not an expansion of an existing use, and with the controls and limits imposed, he did not see it as a potential precedent setting problem. He noted the Council was hoping a lot of the entities doing this around the City would come forward and obtain proper zoning.
Mayor Hindman did not want to encourage rental uses and was concerned about doing something that might encourage people to say they had excess parking for the purpose of renting it out.
B194-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: HINDMAN. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B195-04 Amending Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish new criteria for surface commercial parking lots in the Central Business District.Mr. Beck explained that the Council referred to the Planning Commission the idea of reviewing some type of control regarding where surface parking lots would be constructed in the downtown area. He noted concerns about buildings being removed for the purpose of constructing surface parking lots on street fronts. The Commission and Staff submitted a report to the Council which looked at two alternatives. One tried to determine whether there could be regulations written that would control the demolition of buildings and the other tried to provide controls as to where surface lots would be allowed in C-2 zoning. Working with the Special Business District Board, the Commission provided the proposed ordinance dealing with controlling the placement of surface parking lots. He noted some concerns had been raised, particularly by members of the Methodist Church.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Jack Waters, 712 Westridge, President of the Special Business District Board, explained that in considering the alternatives, they have worked primarily toward a goal of encouraging development activities that would enhance the vitality and health of The District and discouraging development activities that worked contrary to that. Through simple observations over time, they came to the conclusion that large expanses of unconstructed asphalt or vacant lots were not very attractive and did not add anything to the community or the people that lived and worked in the area. What they suggested was an infill development strategy. He pointed out that C-2 zoning was the only zoning provision that allowed for building to the lot lines with no on-site parking requirements. Clearly, he felt, the intent of that zoning structure was to allow for dense construction projects and use. He also pointed out the Metro 2020 Land Use Plan called for this kind of activity downtown for consideration in the future. He asked everyone to keep in mind that we had a functioning parking utility. By virtue of that, he noted, we had on-street parking meters and a fund to allow for the construction and provision of multi-level parking facilities. That working in parallel with their infill development plan, would provide win-win solutions that would allow them to optimize the highest and best use of every square inch they had downtown.
Mr. Ash was concerned about impacted property owners. He asked if letters had been sent out in order to obtain input. Mr. Waters replied he was not sure and that Ms. Gartner could address that question.
Mr. John asked Mr. Waters how much surface parking he had at his downtown business. Mr. Waters replied that he had a good deal of parking. Mr. John asked if he would be able to conduct his business and if his employees would eat and shop downtown, if he did not have parking. Mr. Waters stated it was something they presently used, but added that he was not sure it was how he would like to see that particular piece of real estate left for the long term.
Mayor Hindman agreed with the objectives and the proposed outcome, but asked if they had thought about an overlay district where they could look at the individual pieces of property. Mr. Waters said they discussed it, but they were up against the time constraints of the moratorium. He noted they were interested in ordinance modifications or whatever it was that might work better over time.
Carrie Gartner, 11 S. Tenth, Director of the Special Business District, listed the organizations that supported their recommendation. In regards to the C-2 property west of the Special Business District (SBD) and the concern about Providence Road not being appropriate for this type of ordinance, she stated that the SBD Board would have no objections to either limiting the ordinance to the SBD or excluding Providence. She thought that would address the concerns of Mr. Van Matre and Mr. Land. Ms. Gartner noted that she had spoken with a number of members of the Methodist Church regarding their plans for a new addition and thought this addition would help the church, but also pointed out that this was not the forum where decisions were made about one particular project or property owner. She felt the Board of Adjustment was the appropriate forum for that. She thought it would be a shame to scuttle a very good plan that would help the entire downtown simply because it did not fit the needs of one property owner.
In response to the question regarding whether letters were sent out to all impacted property owners, Ms. Gartner stated that letters were not sent and explained that the Board was appointed to make decisions for the overall health of downtown. She added that since the Planning and Zoning hearing, there had been considerable press on the issue.
Mr. Ash was concerned because they were already seeing a "real world" example of problems this ordinance might create. He pointed out that he was not against this because it would affect his church, only because it had already illustrated a potential problem.
Ms. Gartner commented that they were advocating this ordinance so things would change. She stated that they expected plans to change as a result of this ordinance and expected downtown to change for the better as a result of the ordinance. She added that there was already a system for appeals.
Mr. Janku asked if the SBD Board would support a variance if one were requested by the Church. Ms. Gartner replied that she had not had the chance to discuss the issue with her Board. She stated that she had invited church representatives to their board meeting to present the plans and discuss the possibility.
Ms. Crayton asked if other churches would be affected. Ms. Gartner responded only those within the Special Business District would be affected and added that it was never their intent to pit the retail and restaurant owners against the churches. She noted they were a contributing factor to downtown. She also pointed out that this would not affect any existing surface parking lots because they would be grandfathered in.
Jim Bryan, Senior Pastor of Missouri United Methodist Church, explained that their property was bounded by 9th and 10th Streets with Locust Street on the north and Elm Street on the south. He noted they had been a part of downtown Columbia for 150 years, being in their present Sanctuary for almost 70 years. Pastor Bryan explained they were limited in program space and were currently using the old Wendy's building for additional space. He noted that the Wendy's building needed a lot of work and they did not want to put more money into it because it did not serve their needs very well. They made a deliberate decision to stay downtown and develop what land they could. He explained they had been working on this plan for three years. They would remove the old Wendy's building and that corner would be their parking lot. The addition, which was expected to be a four-story, 35,000 square foot building, would be close to the existing sanctuary. Pastor Bryan was concerned that the Board of Adjustment might turn them down after all the time and money put into this plan.
Mr. Ash pointed out the expansion would be built on the existing surface parking lot. Mr. Ash asked if they would have more or less surface parking once they built the expansion and razed the Wendy's building to replace what was built. Pastor Bryan replied they would have less.
Mr. Loveless asked the Pastor if the idea of utilization of the space downtown for buildings and facilities, as opposed to surface parking, was an idea that appealed to him. He replied, absolutely.
If the parking lot were allowed, Mayor Hindman asked if the church would mind having a substantially wide area between the sidewalk and where the parking would begin that could be made into a garden or landscaped area. Pastor Bryan replied that the few parking spaces they would have left were more and more precious due to their elderly and handicapped members. All of those spaces were reserved in their site plan for those people. He pointed out there was a buffer and that there would also be islands and plantings. He asked all church members present to stand. Approximately 30 people stood.
Mr. Hutton asked where the new addition would be. Pastor Bryan replied that it would fill the southeast quarter of the block and the hallways that run north and south would run all of the way to Elm Street.
Clyde Wilson, 1719 University spoke in favor of the concept. If the business district was not protected, they would not protect the churches which surrounded it. He suggested doing everything that could be done to enhance the area so people would go there. He was glad the downtown businesses were in favor of this type of ordinance.
Peter Davis, 700 S. Greenwood, a church member asked several questions.
He asked which frontage would have to be preserved, if a property had more than one frontage. He noted the church had four frontages. He asked if there were any provisions dealing with mitigation and if it was possible for a business owner or any property owner to provide something in substitute for the replacement of the building on its existing footprint. He said his church was proposing a building five to ten times larger than what was going to be demolished. He also asked if the ordinance was tied to individual tracts. He noted that his church owned more than one tract and asked if the ordinance would be applied on a tract by tract basis or if the project could be looked at as a unitary project, regardless of property lines.
Tom Atkins, member of the Methodist Church and owner of four pieces of property in the downtown business area, pointed out that there would be exceptions to this ordinance and if the exceptions became the rule, we should not have the rule in the first place. He suggested the issue be looked at as either commercial or non-commercial. Mr. Atkins pointed out that banks, a huge benefit to downtown, needed parking. He noted banks were probably the ones that had created the most surface parking lots, but felt that was the right thing to do because we were all benefitting from it. He noted that practically every bank in town had to tear down property to get their own parking lot.
Dave Babel, 1909 County Club Drive, a church member and realtor, said he did not believe in over-regulating. Knowing the property values downtown, he felt letting downtown set its own scheme had certainly worked to this point, if property values mean anything. Mr. Babel thought there were people not present tonight that would be affected by this change, which he saw as a problem. He suggested they visit with more businesses downtown.
Mary Wilkerson, member of the Special Business District Board of Directors and Chair of the Avenues of the Columns, explained that she worked at Boone County National Bank. She saw this ordinance as a chance to do something really important for downtown Columbia. One of the best ways to revitalize a downtown was to create infill and opportunities for retail space and activity. Ms. Wilkerson said she would like to make it more difficult for people to have surface parking lots and see them compromise and think more creatively about the best uses of the space they have. Realizing there was a perception that parking was lacking downtown, she stated there was not a shortage.
Lynn Hostettler, 1204 Hulen, a church member, spoke in support of the goals of the proposed ordinance. Improving and strengthening the downtown area, he felt, should be a priority because it was the heart of our community. His primary concern was about maintaining a certain flexibility when it came to the application of the ordinance. He was sure there would be instances when one size would not fit all.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hutton asked if the Church could take their project as it was designed, if it was outside the guidelines, and get a permit to do it. Under the proposed ordinance, Mr. Boeckmann explained they would have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get a conditional use permit, not a variance. The conditional use permit would set out the criteria and the Board would have to decide whether or not those criteria were met, and if they were, the permit could be granted. He explained that the Board of Adjustment was given authority for area variances, not use variances. He said the question was whether this was a use variance or an area variance. Because they were talking about the use of the land as a surface parking lot, he felt it would be a use variance as opposed to an area variance, which had more to do with setbacks. Under the City's zoning code, Mr. Boeckmann explained the Board of Adjustment did not have the authority to grant use variances. Assuming it was a use variance, he noted the standards for getting a use variance were extremely difficult to meet. He explained that the Board consisted of five members and that four positive votes were required to get a variance or a conditional use permit. If they were to go to the Board of Adjustment and received a three to two vote in favor, it would be denied and, he thought it would be very difficult to have that overturned in the circuit court. Mr. Hutton asked if it would be legal to simply write an ordinance saying you could not tear down a building in the Special Business District without City Council approval after review of the plans. Mr. Ash thought they could make the moratorium permanent, but call it something else. Mr. Boeckmann thought it would be legal if there were restrictions in the ordinance and standards that had to be met. Mr. Ash noted that the moratorium had four conditions by which demolition could be permitted.
Mr. Janku asked if the Council, as opposed to the Board of Adjustment, could have the authority to grant variances with standards. Mr. Boeckmann was not sure, but said there was a provision in the Missouri Constitution dealing with charter cities that basically stated the legislature could not assign duties to specific city officials. He said that had been interpreted inconsistently by the Supreme Court. He argued the City Council could assign itself the duty of granting variances. If just looking at the zoning enabling statute, it set up a Board of Adjustment and they have the power to grant variances.
Mr. Hutton asked if they just did a moratorium, if it would be a variance. Mr. Boeckmann stated that would be a different situation and would not necessarily have to be in the zoning ordinance. It was decided it would be more like a hybrid overlay district. Mr. Hutton noted there were properties in the SBD that were not C-2. Mr. Boeckmann said the conditional use would not apply to them, but it would apply to a number of properties outside the SBD.
Mr. John pointed out that the church's plan as presented would not qualify for this conditional use because of the frontage issues.
Mr. Loveless thought everyone was in agreement with the intent here, but said this ordinance would not get them there. He suggested they find another way to go about getting this done.
Mr. John felt this would not solve problems, but would only move people out of the downtown area and squelch the existing creativity
Mayor Hindman felt the goal, to eliminate surface parking next to the sidewalk to allow a dense building complex, was a proper one.
Mr. Ash agreed it was too easy to take a building down right now, but added a hard and fast rule sounded simple on the surface, but might create unintended snafues. He was in favor of handling the issue on a case by case basis.
Mr. Hutton believed strongly that something needed to be done to protect the buildings downtown, but felt equally as strong that this ordinance was not the answer. He pointed out it only applied to C-2 property and not to the M-1, O-1, R-3 and C-1 properties that existed downtown. If everything in the SBD was not included, he saw no point to it. He noted that it also protected a lot of C-2 property not in the SBD, which he felt it should not. He stated he would support an ordinance giving the Council authority to make the decision.
Mr. Janku agreed the ordinance would not work well and thought the Council would be a better place than the Board of Adjustment for making decisions on the issue. He also agreed that it should apply to everything in the SBD, not just C-2. Mr. Janku had concerns about how they would decide on the areas west of Providence. He did not know why those areas were in C-2 zoning now if there were certain standards that did not apply to them in terms of landscaping and setbacks. Mr. Janku commented that they could table the ordinance, try to amend it by limiting it to the areas it covered now, and then come back and amend it afterwards as suggested. If creating a new ordinance, he thought they would have to go through Planning and Zoning, essentially starting from scratch. Mr. Boeckmann thought it would be a good idea to start over. Mr. Janku asked if they did that if they could extend the moratorium, and build in some flexibility so if the church wanted to apply to the Council for a variance, they could. Mr. Ash thought the church could pass on the current moratorium. He said they could make their case by saying they would not be affecting the density downtown because they would have a net surface parking loss.
There was discussion at this point regarding whether to table the issue or start over. Mr. Ash suggested defeating this bill, having a first reading of extending the moratorium at the next meeting, and then going through Planning & Zoning again to come up with a better long term solution.
Mayor Hindman felt they were confusing two different ideas, one being razing buildings and the other surface parking. He pointed out this bill was for making sure buildings were not torn down for the purpose of surface parking.
B195-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HINDMAN. VOTING NO: JOHN, ASH, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. Bill defeated.
B200-04 Calling for bids for the construction of storm drainage improvements at 4609 Oakview Drive.Mr. Beck pointed out that this project had been on the priority list for a number of years.
Mr. Patterson explained this to be a continuation of a project they started about two years ago. The purpose of the project was to relieve structural flooding on Oakview Drive. They were able to complete the upstream work, but had to discontinue work after they put the new pipe under the street because they were unable to get easements downstream. They had now acquired the necessary easements and would be replacing a 12 inch pipe with a 36 inch pipe to allow for the full utilization of the pipe capacity put in upstream. In Staff's opinion, this would also solve the basement flooding problems in the neighborhood. The project began with force account labor, but because they were getting so far behind, they brought in temporary engineering help. The cost was $17,500 and would be paid out of capital improvement program funds from the stormwater utility fund.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B200-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B201-04 Calling for bids for the construction of storm drainage improvements at 201 West Ash Street.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.Mr. Patterson explained this to be another of the neighborhood type drainage problems that had been encountered. This was basically a basement flooding situation. They would replace approximately 185 feet of 13 inch by 22 inch arched pipe, which would allow the connection of roof and floor drains, currently connected to the City sewer, into the storm sewer. Flooding was first reported about four years ago as the result of improvements on Ash Street in the 1980's when the street inhibited drainage from the lower level of the apartments. The apartment owner made an effort to eliminate the problem, but the storm drainage project was required to completely correct the problem. The project would also include a catch basin in the yard to provide an inlet to the public drainage system. The cost was expected to be approximately $36,000, which would be funded out of the annual CIP funds set aside to address this type of neighborhood project.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B201-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B206-04 Authorizing replacement of water main along Melbourne Street.Mr. Beck explained this would replace a four inch cast iron water main at an estimated cost of $134,000 to be paid from Water and Light funds.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B206-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B209-04 Calling for bids for the construction of sideboards at the roller hockey court in Cosmopolitan Recreation Area; accepting grant funds; appropriating funds.Mr. Hood explained that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources had recently given final approval of and released funds for a Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant the City applied for about one year ago. The grant was to add dasher boards to the roller hockey court, which was located in Cosmo Park immediately north of the skate park. The estimated cost of the project was $32,727 and the amount of the grant was $14,727. The City's match would be $18,000 and would come from the annual park improvement fund. The recommendation was to bid the acquisition of the boards through the City's Purchasing Division. Staff would be used to install the boards. Mr. Hood was hopeful installation could be done this fall or during the winter months so they would be available next spring.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B209-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B210-04 Authorizing the transfer of a cable television franchise from Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.L.C. to Falcon Telecable, a California limited partnership.Mayor Hindman asked if the City was legally required to authorize the transfer. Mr. Boeckmann stated they were if they met certain requirements, which included the legal, financial, and technical ability to do the work. He said Staff had never received any financial information in regards to this particular LLC. He noted two representatives from the cable company were present and suggested they could address the issue.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Paul Berra, Regional Director of Government Affairs and Franchise Relations for Charter Communications Midwest Division, explained it was simply an internal transfer of one legal entity to another. He stated it would not have any impact or change in their operational management, staffing in Columbia, or their operational budget with regards to their cable system in Columbia.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ash noted that we found out about this three years after it happened and asked if that was cause for concern or if this sort of thing happened in big corporations. Mr. Boeckmann did not know whether it was common, but felt it should not happen. He believed it was a matter of concern.
Mr. Ash addressed his question to Mr. Berra. Mr. Berra replied he was not with the company during the time the transfer was made. He said the company apologized and added they should have submitted a 394 at that time, based on city ordinance. He assured the Council it was not common practice to forget and that it was not common practice for cities to have that language in their agreements. He thought about 99% of the communities actually stated in their franchise agreements that if it was an internal transfer it did not need approval. Mr. Berra said Columbia was a little unusual, but it was certainly their fault for overlooking it.
Mr. Ash asked if this would have any impact on the franchise renewal issues they are working on. Mr. Boeckmann stated it would not.
B210-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
(A) Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Range Line Street (State Route 763) and south of Prathersville Road.Mr. Beck described this as a small one and one-half acre tract owned by the Regional Sewer District. They asked that this island be annexed and zoned M-1.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comment, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
OLD BUSINESS
B196-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Plat 1-A; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance relating to C-P development plan approval.Mr. Bondra explained the variance to the subdivision regulations would allow final plat approval prior to C-P plan approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
B196-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B197-04 Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Plat 1-B; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance relating to C-P development plan approval.Mr. Beck described this as a 27 acre tract that would create three C-P zoned lots. The variance related to platting.
B197-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B198-04 Approving the Final Plat of Woodland Springs Plat 2; authorizing a performance contract; granting a variance relating to C-P development plan approval.Mr. Beck described this as a ten acre tract.
B198-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B199-04 Approving the Final Plat of Forest Ridge Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract; authorizing a development agreement.Mr. Beck noted that this tract contained 31.7 acres and would create 72 PUD-7 zoned lots. A development agreement was involved because of Brown School Road and Providence Road.
Mr. Ash asked if the new street standards affected how this development agreement had to be done. Mr. Patterson replied that they were referring to the ordinance, not specifying a street width. Prior to the change, the local residential was 32 feet in width and now it was 28. This would decrease the amount of local surface that was required to be paid for by the developer for the extra wide and thicker streets.
Mr. Janku noted a gap being created in the sidewalks for all of the cross streets and stated they would be there until Providence Road was improved. It would really be prevalent on Blue Ridge. Mr. Patterson stated he did not think it would be a problem because they would be tying that in themselves. He understood the concern regarding cross streets, but felt there was no way to solve that. He stated they could look at putting in a temporary type crossing since the developer was required to make the street connections, but not the sidewalk connections.
B199-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDAB202-04 Calling for bids for the Green Meadows Road improvement project.
B203-04 Calling for bids for the Rollins and Rothwell drainage improvement project.Mr. Beck explained that recently HUD approved an amendment to our FY 2004 Plan, which allowed us to enter into an agreement with Boone County Group Homes to provide some incentives for housing rehab work, particularly for the disabled. It was suggested that $75,000 of HOME money be made available for this housing rehab work.
The vote on R126-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R127-04 Approving the Final Plat of Settlers Ridge Plat 1.Mr. Beck stated this property at the corner of HH and Route B, north of Columbia, consisted of about 26 acres. The plat would create 58 lots with the area being under joint jurisdiction in that they would be utilizing City sewers. Under that arrangement, the Council and County Commission would need to approve the plat. The plat meets all City requirements. The variance request was for sidewalks along State Route B, HH, and North Brown Station Road.
Mr. Janku asked if there was a schematic available for the entire development. Mr. Bondra only had the plat in question with him.
Jeff McCann, Allstate Consultants, 3312 LeMone Industrial, displayed a schematic of the development on the east side of Route B. He noted there was also property on the west side that was final platted. He showed the sidewalk plan for this plat and the future plat and stated there would be good internal circulation. Given the constraints of constructing sidewalks along unimproved roads, he explained they were asking for sidewalk variances along Route B, HH, and northern Brown Station Road.
Mr. Ash asked if topographically there would be any major hurdles to overcome in regards constructing sidewalks along those roads. Mr. McCann replied that they had concerns and their biggest concern was along HH. He pointed out a major drainageway crossing Route HH and an area about 20 feet below the road elevation. He explained that there was a small, narrow shoulder, a steep embankment down, and a steep embankment back up again to the right-of-way line. Another problem was created by a 12 inch water main that ran in and out of the right-of-way along two areas. It caused problems because they would not be able to lower the grade along the right-of-way without having to lower the water main. The open ditches were also problems because there was no where for the water to go, whiling trying to maintain a safe place for pedestrian traffic.
Because this was the start of development in this area, Mr. Janku felt sidewalks should be required.
Mr. Janku made the motion that R127-04 be amended by deleting Section 2. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman.
Mr. Ash commented that the internal sidewalks might be needed less because people could walk on the quiet roads, but areas with the unimproved roads and ditches were where they needed to get people off of the streets.
Mayor Hindman understood the challenges to be faced in building the sidewalks, but felt it would not be a safe place to walk without sidewalks. He thought it was the right thing to do.
Mr. John said part of the reason they had variances was for topographically challenged areas and because it might be a road that would be modified. He thought they decided a good reason for not building a sidewalk was because they knew it would be torn out shortly. To try to build a sidewalk in a hole like there was on HH would be a mess. He could not support the amendment.
Mr. Hutton asked Mr. Patterson if the City would be inspecting the sidewalks prior to pouring. Mr. Patterson said Staff would need to verify that improvements were being put in per City standards and that it was part of the agreement. Mr. Hutton asked, if there were topographical issues, how the inspectors could approve a sidewalk that did not meet City standards. Generally, Mr. Patterson replied, they would require plans for the sidewalk in order to determine if they could feasibly be constructed to City standards and then determine if they were built to the plans. Mr. Patterson noted this was a unique situation where the developer would be held to County and City standards. When talking about specifications, Mr. Patterson said they talked about the structural elements of the sidewalk. The standards, with regard to location and grade, were things that the City would have administrative authority to approve, disapprove, or determine if there was a need for variation. He added they did not have to follow a straight centerline elevation, so many feet from the curb. Mr. Patterson stated Staff would work with them. If there was a 20 foot ravine, Mr. Hutton asked how they would put a sidewalk across it. Mr. Patterson replied that if they did that, they would be forced to put in a drainage structure, which could involve Corps permits. Mr. Hutton stated that he fully supported the sidewalk concept, but thought it was somewhat ludicrous to force someone to build a sidewalk that was going to get torn out when the road was improved. He also had a problem with having sidewalks built when it was not practical to build them.
Mayor Hindman agreed and felt that none of them wanted to build something that would be impractical to build. He asked if the developer ran into such a problem, if there was anything that could be done. Mr. Patterson replied, if that was shown to be the case they could always come back to the City Council for reconsideration and get approval for elimination of that portion of sidewalk or any part of it that appeared to be unrealistic. Staff could provide a report based on the developers plans.
Mr. Janku doubted that any of the roads involved were likely to be improved any time soon. He reminded everyone of a similar situation across from Mill Creek School where there was no sidewalk required on the north side of Nifong. He suggested granting a variance for that portion that was part of that drainage ditch at a later date, if it was proven to be unreasonably difficult. He pointed out that the City would be picking up a portion of the cost and said he would not have a problem with that if it was inside the City limits.
The motion made by Mr. Janku, seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved by voice vote.
The vote on R127-04, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first reading:
It was decided they would discuss the
issue at a work session.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
None.
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC:
Mr. Janku commented that they had received correspondence from the CDBG Commission about reprogramming and said he would like to see the Commission, to the extent they could, be involved in the process. If it was not possible for them to have a meeting in time, he felt they should at least be advised of the reasons that led to a particular change. In this case, he noted it was a street they were concerned about. He assured them Hope Street was still on the list for improvements. Mr. Janku suggested the Commission be sent a letter explaining the issue and that in the future they be brought into the process, if possible.
Mr. Hutton mentioned an article in the newspaper that had indicated there were funds left over in excess of the budgeted amount. The Commission suggested that money be used to pay part of the expenses for which we were using CDBG money, thus freeing up the CDBG money for CDBG purposes. He said the health center was a CDBG eligible project.
Mr. John pointed out this happened every year. He agreed with Mr. Janku in that it would be a good idea to keep the Commission informed on the reallocations so they understood the Council did not do these things on a whim. He stated there was some logic behind it and added that none of the projects had been dropped off the list. Sometimes they would be pushed back behind another because of project timing or spend down requirements.
Regarding the health facility, Mr. Patterson explained there was a difference between unused and unexpended. He said they did not have all the improvements in place at this time, but were hopeful there would be some money left over in the project. At this point they could not say for certain how much that would be. He noted it would be partially County money, if it was going to be from the interior areas.
Mr. John commented on the report they received regarding a potential connection for Scott Boulevard and Route K and a joint City-County development agreement.
Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to bring back a development agreement for Council review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. John also commented on a letter the Council received about the Twilight Festival and how dangerous it was because of overcrowding on the sidewalks and people being pushed out into the street. Mr. John felt the organizers either needed to back off the number of vendors and entertainers set up on the sidewalks, or block off areas to traffic. His suggestion was Ninth Street, from Walnut to Cherry. Mayor Hindman agreed they should close a block or two for at least one of the festivals just to see if it would work. If they did that, he felt they should be able to extend their outside eating areas into the street. Mr. John agreed. Mr. Ash suggested that the SBD report back to the Council with input on the issue. Mr. Hutton assumed they were not talking about closing Broadway. They agreed they were not. Mr. John commented that he would keep the intersection open around whatever streets were closed off to traffic.
Chief Boehm commented that the concept was good, but pointed out an issue that had been a stumbling block in the past. He stated that typically, for a no parking area, they had to give 24 hours notice and the notice would be posted on all of the meters. The downtown business district did not want to have no parking during daylight hours on Thursday, so the issue at five or six that evening was that there was no parking, yet there were vehicles parked there. He said they could not be towed because they had not given notice. Chief Boehm said it was not an insurmountable issue and that they could figure out a way to deal with it, but it was something that would have to be addressed as they considered the options.
Mr. John made the motion that the SBD/CCA report back with suggested solutions to the safety problems with people on the streets during the Twilight Festival in time to implement the plan for the September Twilight Festivals. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff report back on street closure requests summarizing the procedure, how applicants would be informed as to the outcome of their request, and any ideas the Staff had on additional burdens that could be placed on the applicants to better inform the public. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash noted the Council had received an e-mail addressing the questions raised by the gentlemen who spoke under scheduled public comments this evening. He asked that Staff contact Mr. Lee and provide him with the information the Council had been sent.
Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be directed to contact Mr. Lee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman asked if it would be possible to put an asterisk on the zoning map to indicate restrictions on property. Mr. Hutton pointed out that on many C-P designations there were restrictions. Mr. Ash disagreed and said, in this case, the C-P was really R-3 with parking. He thought C-P to be a misnomer. Mr. Hutton felt that anyone knowing enough about zoning to go to a zoning map, knew that a "P" had restrictions. Mr. John commented that "P" was the asterisk. Mr. Hutton thought it would be very difficult to keep up with. Once a "P" was placed on it, you knew there were restrictions because it was a planned development and may have restricted uses on height, parking, or landscaping. He said the question would become, how many restrictions did it need to have before putting an asterisk by the "P"? Mr. Beck pointed out it would be a big job for Staff to keep it current and added, if they missed one, there would be problems. Mr. Ash gave, as an example, parking at a fraternity. He said nothing about it was commercial and everything was restricted except commercial parking. He thought that was a pretty unusual circumstance. He was worried about someone looking at a zoning map seeing C-P and wondering why they could not have the same zoning. He was concerned that a future Council might make that mistake as well as other nearby property owners.
Anna Coulibaly, 902 Hope, asked that any money left over after the completion of the health facility be used for the improvement of Hope Street. She was also concerned about the added bus routes going to the theaters, but not to cultural events or recreational facilities and the time constraints of the new bus times and routes.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheela Amin
City Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia