INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
November 18, 1996, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, and HINDMAN were present. The City
Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were also
present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular
meeting of November 4, 1996, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a
motion made by Mr. Kruse and a second by Mr. Campbell.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
The agenda, including the
Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made by
Mr. Harline and a second by Ms. Coble.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B299-96 ESTABLISHING
PERMANENT ZONING ON RECENTLY ANNEXED PROPERTY SOUTH
OF
WEST BROADWAY.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
this bill had been tabled from the October 7 meeting. The 2.2 acre
tract was displayed on the overhead. He said there was no recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission in that there had been a tie vote
on the recommendation that it be zoned R-1. He said the property owner
had requested R-3 zoning. He said the property had been developed with
duplexes and there was one structure being used for R-3 multi-family use. He
explained that a protest petition had been received against R-2 or R-3 zoning;
however, there was not an adequate number of signatures to make it legitimate. He
said the staff had suggested, if everyone seemed to be uncomfortable with
the R-3 zoning that perhaps R-2 might be a possibility.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Frank Day, 4414 W. Broadway,
spoke on behalf of his mother, owner of the property. He said he wanted
to speak in favor of R-3 or C-1. He said Mr. Prato, President of the
King's Meadow Association, had called him and asked what the Day's were planning. Mr.
Day said he had told him the only thing they wanted to do was to get hooked
on to the sewer. He said they have already done that and now they wanted
to put the property in compliance. He said there was a tri-plex on
the property and his thinking was that if there was a casualty loss like
a fire this income producing property would be able to continue to operate. Mr.
Day said Mr. Prato had told him he could understand his request and it was
fine with him because they also had four-plexes and tri-plexes in their subdivision. He
had said he didn't think there would be a problem. He said at the Planning
and Zoning Commission about 15 or 20 people showed up demanding R-1. He
said at the Planning meeting Mr. John recognized that the property was on
West Broadway. Mr. Day noted that West Broadway was a main arterial
street even though it was gravel in front of his house. He said
it would be extended and a by-pass would be built from West 70 to South 63
and Broadway would intersect with it. He said the Council would hear
that this was a predominantly R-1 neighborhood, but he said it was not. He
said if they squared the property and put his mother's property, the Smith
property on Scott and W. Broadway, and King's Meadow, there would be 37 R-2
lots and 34 R-1 lots. He said that would be 74 units in multi-family
and 34 in R-1.
Mr. Janku asked about the
property owners to the west and north, in the County. Mr. Day said
Tommy Howard, Bill McBain, and one other person he didn't know were the owners. He
said the property across from them was owned by the McMickles and he was
sure it would be coming into the City soon in some type of planned arrangement. He
was also sure that the Todd Farm would be coming into the City shortly.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Day
if he had met with any of the neighbors to try to work out something that
would be compatible. At Mr. Campbell's suggestion, Mr. Day said he had called
Mr. Prato and told him that R-2 would be fine. He said Mr. Prato told
him they wanted R-1 and nothing else.
Scott Boyd, 102 Dayspring,
explained that he lives on the property directly south of the Day property. He
said he was also speaking for their association as Tony Prato was out of
the country at this point. He asked the people living within King's
Meadow to stand. Approximately 30 to 36 people stood in favor of R-1. He
said they favored R-1 for several reasons. The first reason was that
they felt R-1 most closely resembles the development of the surrounding property. He
said there was no R-3 closer than Crossroads West and they didn't feel it
would blend with any of the development that has gone on. He said R-1
would be consistent with the zoning that the property currently has. He
said they didn't have a problem with what the Day's were doing on their property
now. He said the building referred to as a tri-plex actually had only
two people living in it. He said there were two apartments on the first
floor and thought there was potential for a third apartment in the basement. He
said it hadn't been leased in the four years that he had lived in his home
there. He said he guessed Mrs. Day's house had an upstairs apartment,
but he was not aware that anyone had leased that apartment in his four years
there either. Mr. Boyd said the area was not a transient type neighborhood. In
the King's Meadow Subdivision, he explained there were 38 single family houses
built and 17 duplexes. Out of the 17 duplexes, Mr. Boyd said 15 of
them are condominiums, 12 of which are owner occupied and two leased with
purchase agreements. Regarding their petition, he said they were not
aware they hadn't reached the criteria of having enough adjacent land owners
for the petition to be accepted as proper. He said the reason was that
it included County property owners in addition to City property owners. He
said when they looked at it they thought it was only City property owners
that could sign the petition. He said they had made some calls today
and they would be able to get enough signatures on it so they would have
30%. He requested that if the Council couldn't recommend R-1 for this
piece of property that they table the issue to allow the resubmission of
the petition. Mr. Boyd said Mr. Day was his neighbor and the only way
he had found out about this was through a letter in the mail. He said
he had called Mr. Day the day before the Planning & Zoning meeting and
they had not had a very pleasant conversation. He said since that time
Mr. Day had not talked to him. Mr. Boyd said if the property were to
be zoned R-3 and the Day's didn't own it anymore, it could be bulldozed and
apartments could be put in.
Mr. Harline asked why the
King's Meadow Association was opposed to R-2. Mr. Boyd said they would
be opposed because their neighborhood has a covenant and to grant an R-2
zoning would permit a much higher density than what they have currently in
the surrounding area and potentially have a development that would be substantially
different than what is there.
Mr. Kruse said if one were
to drive by the homes they look like single family homes, not duplexes.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Boyd
if the property owners of the R-1 structures on R-2 zoned property had ever
thought about down zoning. Mr. Boyd said he thought they would now.
Jim Crone, 105 Bright Star,
said he had lived there about a month when someone pointed out to him that
their home was not the only duplex. Because of how the homes are built
and the covenants are such that everything resembles a single family development. He
said even though they are duplexes they don't look like it. He said
the same was true with the opponent's property. He said they are single
family homes and they had been well done.
Mr. Harline said there was
still the possibility of the R-2 area being redeveloped as a standard duplex. Mr.
Crone said the covenants would severely restrict the unrestricted R-2 language
that would allow so much more than what is currently allowed there.
Terry Briedenstein, 100 Dayspring,
explained that her back yard was adjacent to Mr. Day's property. To
her knowledge, she said there were no tri-plexes and no four-plexes there. She
said that her house could be called a duplex because they finished space
in their basement for her parents to live with them. She said they
have separate living quarters so she assumed it could qualify as a duplex,
but she would never want her house to be called a duplex. She said
they had not had any problems with Mr. Day and they didn't want any. She
said their goal was to protect the long term use of the land, the neighborhood,
the character, the property values in the neighborhood, and to keep it a
owner occupied area for the majority versus having a lot of tenants come
in. She said Mr. Day had told her husband that he planned to build
on the area that is a garden multiple units that would be used for rental. She
said that would put him within five to ten feet of their property line and
about 60 feet from their back door. She said she would be opposed to
having rental units put up approximately 50 feet from their door. She
encouraged the Council to go with R-1 because it was the feel of the existing
neighborhood.
Scott Woodruff, 300 Bright
Star Court, reiterated that there were no tri-plexes or four-plexes in the
King's Meadow neighborhood. He said he had lived there 10 years. He
said while Mr. Day was interested in protecting his income producing property
he was interested in protecting his life producing property, his three children. He
said he had brought his children home from the hospital to an R-1 neighborhood. He
asked the Council to let his children grow up in the R-1 neighborhood to
which he brought them home.
Mr. Day said the tri-plex
had always been occupied as three units for 35 years. He said there
were three people there now.
Mr. Harline asked how long
Mr. Day's property had been in the City. Mr. Day said it had been in
since July 9 of this year. He said it was a voluntary annexation and
there were lots of pieces of property like this one and the Council would
have to deal with them. He didn't believe the zoning laws would allow
the City to bring in the pockets that are left. He said this piece
of property would not be in the City if they were to start over again. He
said King's Meadow was probably the best duplex development in town, but
that couldn't change the fact that it is R-2. He said tonight wasn't
about this piece of property, but about Columbia and what was going to happen
to the periphery with bringing it in and integrating it. He said the
big pieces would come in, but the small one's would not.
Regarding the smaller parcels
coming into the City, Ms. Coble asked why he thought voluntary annexations
would be less appealing. Mr. Day said people didn't want to put up
with the hassle.
Mr. Harline asked Mr. Day
how many units he had rental certificates for. Mr. Day said he realized
they were in violation, but they hadn't applied for any certificates yet.
Mayor Hindman asked if they
had been zoned R-S in the county. Mr. Day said they didn't know it
because people in the county don't know what kind of zoning they are living
in. Mayor Hindman's point was that had they tried to get rezoning being
R-S they would have faced the same issues. Mr. Day said he would rather
take his chances with the county. Mayor Hindman closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Campbell asked what the
permitted number of units would be if they rezoned the property R-3. Mr.
Hancock said the ordinance would allow up to 17 units per acre on R-3, but
he said he doubted that was what would occur on the site. He said the
ordinance would allow it, but he said it didn't actually reflect what gets
built. Mr. Campbell asked what would be built. Mr. Hancock said
he thought apartments and those they have seen were 12 to 13 or 14 per acre,
high density apartments. Mr. Campbell asked what they would see in
R-2. Mr. Hancock said they would see right around six duplex units
per acre. Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Boeckmann about their options if they
wanted to change the zoning classification. Since it had been advertised
as R-3, Mr. Boeckmann said he didn't think they could go up to C-1 or anything
more intense. He said their options were to vote on the ordinance as
it is or amend it to R-1 or R-2 and hold it over. Mr. Campbell asked
what would happen if they simply rejected R-3 zoning. Mr. Boeckmann
said they would have to start the process over. He said when this property
came in it was automatically placed in R-1 and it would remain that way for
six months until permanent zoning is placed on it. He said if they
didn't want to go with R-3 he thought they should amend the ordinance before
them.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B299-96 be amended to permanent zoning as R-1 and that Section 2 be
amended to read low density instead of medium density residential. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett.
Mr. Campbell said this was
a difficult decision to make because he could see some logic in what both
sides were saying. He said he was going to go with R-1 for several
reasons. He said the Day's would be grandfathered so they could use
the property as it is now being used. He said if the property burned
or was otherwise destroyed to more than 60% they would not be able to maintain
its use. He said Mrs. Day was income protected. He thought it
would be spot zoning to go to R-3 and couldn't see it as C-1 at all. In
view of what the neighborhood had said and what was developing in the area,
Mr. Campbell said he thought most of the area would eventually develop into
R-1 with some R-2 scattered along some of the major thoroughfares.
Mr. Janku said he would support
the amendment because the property had been single family zoning in the county
for a long time. He said there was really no change coming into the
City. He said if West Broadway was to develop he thought how it developed
should be determined by our Land Use Plan and not necessarily by a decision
here tonight.
Mr. Harline said he thought
a 2.2 acre tract of R-3 by itself a difficult piece of land to develop. He
said if adjoining land were annexed and there was a larger tract of ground
there would be a much more usable lot in R-3. He said putting higher
density residential along streets that are more likely to become collector
or arterials was a pretty well established plan. He said trying to
get a better, overall plan out there might be a better approach.
Mrs. Crockett said she would
like to see the area remain R-1 for the neighborhood's sake.
The motion to amend B299-96
made by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mrs. Crockett, was approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B299-96, as amended, be tabled to the December 2, 1996, meeting. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B332-96 REZONING
FROM A-1 TO M-1 PROPERTY BETWEEN BROWN STATION ROAD AND THE
COLT
RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
was an almost 36 acre tract of ground currently zoned A-1. The Planning
and Zoning Commission and the staff were recommending rezoning to M-1.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Dan Simon, an attorney with
offices at 601 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and
Mrs. Scavone and Lillian Keene, Mrs. Scavone's mother. He said the
property had been in the City since 1968 and Mrs. Keene's family had owned
the property since 1910. He said the family had now found that they
were in the way of progress and that all of their neighbors were industrial
concerns. He said they didn't know who would buy the property or what
they would use it for, but they had been advised that to derive the best
price for their property they should have in placed into the proper zoning
classification because industrial users will not wait. He said none
of their neighbors were in opposition.
Mr. Janku asked Mr. Simon
if he had gotten any comments from the M-C property owners to the east. Mr.
Simon said he had. He said he had written letters to all of the people
along Route B, Waco Road, Mr. Heller, and Jeffrey Smith. He said they
had received a number of responses, all either stated that they were not
opposed to the request or that they supported the request. He said
Mr. Heller's lawyer had appeared on his behalf in support of the request.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mrs. Crockett said this would
give the City another piece of land zoned for industrial if a company were
to come in and need it. She was in favor of the request.
B332-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B333-96 REZONING
FROM A-1, R-1 AND M-C TO R-2 PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF
HANOVER
BOULEVARD.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the request
on this three acre tract of ground had been recommended for approval.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Ron Shy, 5600 S. Hwy. KK,
offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Hindman said the things
that caused them the most concern were the driveways that would go onto Hanover
Boulevard. He said in reading the minutes the feeling was that there
was no alternative. Mr. Shy said with the lay of the land there probably
wasn't. He said it wasn't one of the designated roads preventing driveways
to be brought out onto Hanover Boulevard.
Mr. Campbell asked if any
of the adjacent tract was under common ownership. Mr. Shy said all
of the land on the north side shown as A-1 and R-1 was under common ownership
presently. Mr. Campbell asked if the use of it had been determined. Mr.
Shy said it hadn't been decided yet. He said there would be some R-1
in the area shown as R-1, but the rest of the area on the preliminary plat
was shown as a PUD area. He said there had been some discussions only about
possibly making a good portion of the area into a City park. Mr. Campbell
said his concern was not with this particular tract, but with how this whole
package would fit together. He said he was concerned about piecemeal
kind of planning and development. Mr. Shy said if the area north of
it came in it would be all at one time as a PUD. Mr. Campbell asked
if it had been possible to see the whole plan if it would have been possible
to reverse some of the lots or to have them access from some other way to
avoid some of the concerns with driveways. Mr. Hancock said the land
was fairly rough in the back and probably could not be developed. He
said they were talking about an area in the back where the Council had indicated
they wanted a park. He said they were trying to deal with the topography,
the desire for a park and their desire to just get some lots and access the
sewer without having to come from another direction. He said they couldn't
make people preliminary plat an entire tract of ground.
Mr. Janku said he had looked
at the property and had noticed a drop off also. He said if they would
have put the restriction on Hanover the area could have been developed differently
so there would be enough space. He said with Olympic intersecting there
they would probably see some sort of stop sign at the intersection that would
make traffic slow down making it easier for cars to back out of their driveways.
Mrs. Crockett said she thought
the engineers had done the best job they could in this situation.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B333-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B336-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 29 OF THE CITY CODE RE: O-P AND C-P DISTRICTS.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that B336-96 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded
by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku said Mr. Wade of
the Planning and Zoning Commission raised the question as to whether or not
there should be a seventh parameter dealing specifically with landscaping. He
thought that would be an appropriate parameter to include. Mr. Kruse
asked if that was set out in the ordinance. Mr. Janku said his thought
was that if a plan contains so much landscaping and then it goes to Mr. Hancock
for a change it would be up to him to determine if it is a minor change. He
thought part of the reason for this was to give the staff some guidance so
they felt comfortable making these decisions. He thought landscaping
was probably one of the most sensitive.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Hancock
if he had seen such instances. Mr. Hancock said probably when they
have been combined with other changes the landscaping plan had to change. He
didn't know that they had only the landscaping plan change come to them. He
said if it did it would go to the arborist and they would ask if it met the
requirements of the ordinance, yes or no, and if it did then they would approve
it.
Mr. Harline asked Mr. Hancock
if he felt comfortable with the language here. Mr. Hancock said he
wouldn't mind adding something if the Council wanted to add something about
landscaping. He said he thought they expressed to the Commission that
they felt pretty comfortable with the way it was.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that B336-96 be amended by adding parameter (g): the minimum percentage
of the site to be maintained in landscaping to both O-P and C-P. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman asked if there
would be a letter stating what the maximum or minimum of these different
things would be. Mr. Hancock said there would be the plan and then
there would be minimums and general parameters that would be attached to
it. He said it wouldn't necessarily be at the time of zoning because
one can get C-P zoning now with a list of uses right now without a plan. He
said they wouldn't do it then, but at the time the plan came in. He
said that way everyone would know what they were looking for when they wanted
a revision. He said they would know what would be allowed and would
not be allowed when a revision was to be made. Mr. Hancock said the
big issue they wanted in the ordinance related to square footage.
B336-96, as amended, was
given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B337-96 ACCEPTING
ENGINEER'S FINAL REPORT AND TAX BILLING FOR IMPROVEMENT
TO
WEST WORLEY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT 140.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that this
was a small sewer district off West Worley Street and because it is a tax
bill district, he asked Mr. Patterson to report on it.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Patterson explained that
the public hearing was for the purpose of levying special assessments against
three properties on West Worley where new sewer lines were recently constructed
to replace an existing private common collector. He said that collector
had a history of stoppages at these locations resulting in environmental
problems and maintenance expenses for the property owners so they petitioned
the Council to replace it with a public sewer line. He further explained
that the project consisted of approximately 150 feet of eight inch sanitary
sewer line, two manholes and a clean out, plus the reconnection of the houses
to the public sewer. The total cost of the project was $16,181.55 with
the property owners being liable for assessment up to one-half of the maximum
per square foot cost. He said that would result in approximately $6,505
to be paid by tax assessments and the remainder to be paid out of the sewer
utility fund. He said benefits should be considered as follows: the
long history of stoppages, the elimination of the maintenance cost and the
liability for those stoppages, the elimination of potential health hazards,
and the traditional increase in property value which results from connection
to a public sewer line.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B337-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B338-96 AUTHORIZING
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FINAL REPORT,
AND
TAX
BILLING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CIRCUS AVENUE.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Patterson explained that
this was a street reconstruction project in a Community Development Block
Grant area. Prior to its reconstruction the street had been an asphalt
pavement street, approximately 20 feet in width, and a 40 foot right of way
with a sidewalk along one side. He said the improvements consisted
of building a 28 foot wide asphaltic concrete street with concrete curb and
gutters and sidewalks on both sides. In addition to that, he said there
had been some minor rehabilitation work on a public sewer line and storm
drainage work had been performed in order to eliminate a known drainage problem
at the parking lot on the south end of Lyon Street. The total project
cost was $100,392 with $2,400 being paid from the sewer utility for that
portion of sewer rehabilatation work, and the balance coming from CDBG funds
and tax bills against adjacent properties. He said properties would
be subject to one-half of the normal cost of construction of a local residential
street. That amount had been set at $12.50. Mr. Patterson said
the tax bills, if approved, would provide $12,675. He pointed out that
property owners adjacent to the street were eligible for Community Development
Block Grants if they meet the criteria for low and moderate income families. He
said that grant would pay the entire cost of the tax bill. In order
to levy the special assessments, he said it was necessary for the Council
to determine that there have been benefits accrued to the properties as a
result of the reconstruction. He suggested that they consider that
the curb and gutters have improved the appearance and maintainability of
the properties as well as contributing to improved storm water control, the
new street and sidewalks provide for increased safety, the new street surface
provides for better maintenance, particularly in the form of street cleaning
and snow removal, and property owners would no longer be liable for tax bill
maintenance which he said could be as much as $2.00 per foot per year.
Ms. Coble asked about the
normal process for informing residents about the CDBG grants. Mr. Patterson
said that was done by letter along with the notice for the tax bill hearing. He
said they are advised at that time to contact the Planning Department because
they process the applications.
Richard Winjum, owner of
properties at 606 and 700 Lyons explained that his properties abut the access
road into the low income housing parking lot. He said he was being
tax billed $3,868.75 when the main beneficiary of the project was the Housing
Authority. He wanted to know what percentage the Housing Authority
was being billed. He said the street's main use was as access into
the projects and goes no place else.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Winjum
if his properties opened to the street. Mr. Winjum said he had a garage
that has access to the street. He said he had built the garage about
10 years ago for about half the cost of this assessment. He said he
probably used that street twice a month.
Mr. Beck explained that the
basis of charging for the cost of constructing a street was not necessarily
on the usage, but on who abuts the property. He pointed out that every
property owner abuts some public property and it was just a matter of how
much they have. He said everyone pays toward a street improvement project. Mr.
Winjum reiterated that this street was strictly for the use of the Housing
Authority.
Regarding the beneficiaries
of the street construction, Mr. Patterson pointed out that they were only
assessing the properties $12.50 per lineal foot with all of the rest of the
money coming from the federal government. He said they couldn't use
that money if it wasn't for the purpose of benefitting low and moderate income
persons. He said generally those are the inhabitants of the housing
area.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Harline asked why there
was not an assessment to the Housing Authority. Mr. Patterson said
the Housing Authority does not abut the street and, therefore, wouldn't be
adjacent to the street improvement.
Putting things into perspective,
Mayor Hindman pointed out that the total project cost was $100,000 with $85,000
being paid for by CDBG funds. He said that meant only roughly 12% of
the total cost was being paid for out of tax billing. Mr. Campbell
reminded everyone that Mr. Winjum has two lots so they were talking about
$1,500 per lot. Mayor Hindman said while the Housing Authority was
maybe getting a good deal out of it, he didn't think Mr. Winjum was getting
an unfair deal.
Mr. Janku said they had heard
from other people that property values are rising in some of these neighborhoods,
in part because of the street improvements and CDBG Home Loan programs. He
expected there had been a benefit in this case.
Mr. Harline pointed out that
the owners have a ten year period of time over which to pay the tax bill.
B338-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B341-96 AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL COSTS FOR A 12-INCH WATER MAIN
SERVING
ARCADIA SUBDIVISION, PLAT 2.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
project had been constructed in accordance with City policy wherein the City
pays for the extra width of the pipe required for making water lines larger
than what is necessary for a subdivision.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B341-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
OLD BUSINESS
B330-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 26 OF THE CITY CODE RE: CIGARETTE LICENSE TAX.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Missouri Department of Revenue had changed its procedure for using metering
machines and a new procedure had been worked out. He said this was
an attempt to adopt that procedure. He pointed out that the City collects
approximately $630,000 from cigarette tax per year which goes into the general
revenue fund.
B330-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B340-96 AUTHORIZING
CONTRACTS WITH VARIOUS CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AGENCIES.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that there
were proposals for 18 contracts with 16 art agencies. He noted that
they had been recommended to the Council during the budgeting process with
a few exceptions of those the Council added following the budget work sessions. The
amount budgeted for this purpose was $64,695.
B340-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B342-96 AUTHORIZING
ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 16-INCH AND
12-INCH
WATER MAINS ACROSS I-70.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that easements
were needed on Seventh Street, Commerce Court, and Vandiver Drive.
B342-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B345-96 ADOPTING
MONEY PURCHASE PLAN (DEC. 1, 1996, RESTATEMENT).
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
would implement recommendations made by the attorney working with IRS regulations
and our 401(a) plan. He said the changes would bring us current with
IRS regulations and also with the proposed changes the IRS is planning in
1997, 1998, and 1999.
B345-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B346-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY CODE RE: CITY'S 401(A) PLAN (A CITY
EMPLOYEE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION RETIREMENT PLAN).
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this would
amend our plan so that when per cent changes are made they wouldn't have
to amend the plan each time.
B346-96 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B347-96 CREATING
A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A CITY WIDE TREE PLAN.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said the staff had
been asked to look into what it would take for our City to be designated
a Tree City USA. The criteria was pretty well met already, except we
needed to have an ordinance that provides for a tree task force. In
an earlier report sent to the Council it had been thought that the Parks
and Recreation Commission could fulfill that role. It was his understanding
that the Council wanted to start this off with a special task force appointed
by the Council.
Referring to the existing
ordinances referred to in paragraph three of Section three, Mr. Janku said
it was referring to what they passed a few years ago dealing with entryways. He
said they had developed a priority list of entranceways for the community.
Mayor Hindman said he was
also curious about that paragraph. He asked if it had to do with the
size of a tree that could be planted in a particular width area. Mr.
Kruse explained that there was an ordinance that sets out parameters for
planting in the right of way, depending on how wide the street yard is and
whether the utilities are above ground or below ground. Mayor Hindman
said he would like to get some input from the task force as to some ideas
about whether or not some of those things should be changed after they take
a look at places. He said perhaps planting trees should have some priority
over whether or not it may have an affect on a sidewalk in particular areas. He
said he would hate to see the task force limited too much by present ordinances. Ms.
Coble pointed out that in the first delineation of duties it says they are
charged with an overall plan. She said that wouldn't necessarily restrict
them to adding to what is in existence, but perhaps making recommendations
for any changes or improvements to what does exist. Mayor Hindman read
that it shall be guided in its deliberations by those. He was afraid
that could be taken as a restriction on their deliberations.
Mr. Campbell said he read
it as meaning they should at least meet the minimums and that this was establishing
some base lines for them. He said he thought they certainly should
make recommendations; however, he said he thought they should have guidelines
like the City ordinances that they should work from.
Referring to paragraph one
of Section three, Mr. Janku said it refers to within City-owned rights of
way and easements. He said tonight they would be considering proposals
on public property like the schools and they could consider proposals that
might include private property. He wondered if they wanted to limit
it to read City-owned. Mr. Campbell said he was a little reluctant
to suggest that they would make plans for private property. Mr. Kruse
said he assumed that would mean in consultation with the property owner. Mr.
Campbell said they weren't saying that. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
to amend B347-96 by amending Section 3, paragraph 1 by adding a last sentence
reading Suggestions for planting and maintaining on private property adjacent
to public rights of way may be made after consultation with the private property
owner involved, and by deleting the words be guided in its deliberations
by in paragraph 3 and inserting in lieu thereof the words consider and review. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku asked if advertising
would be done like any other openings on Boards and Commissions. It
was decided it would be advertised in the normal manner.
B347-96, as amended, was
given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were
given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B331-96 ASSESSING
A SPECIAL TAX TO ABATE A WEED NUISANCE.
B334-96 APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT OF HANOVER ESTATES, PLAT 1, A REPLAT OF LOT 3A
OF
HANOVER PLAZA, PLAT 3.
B335-96 APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT OF AVALON, PLAT 1.
B339-96 CALLING
FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RICHARDSON STREET FROM RIPLEY
STREET
TO WILLIAM STREET.
B343-96 ACCEPTING
CONVEYANCES FOR UTILITY PURPOSES.
B344-96 ADOPTING
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP. REVISED PROTOTYPE MONEY PURCHASE PLAN
AND
TERMINATING CERTAIN ACCOUNTS.
R162-96 SETTING
A PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONSTRUCTION OF A 12-INCH WATER MAIN TO
SERVE
MEADOWLANDS, PLAT 12.
R163-96 SETTING
A PUBLIC HEARING RE: STORM WATER DRAINAGE, SIDEWALK AND
SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE GARTH AVENUE AND SEXTON ROAD
AREA.
R164-96 SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING RE: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
MADE
TO AZTEC BOULEVARD AND CHEROKEE LANE.
R165-96 AUTHORIZING
A CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR MATERNAL
AND
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES.
The bills were given third
reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted,
reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R166-96 AUTHORIZING
AN AGREEMENT WITH GROWING WITH COLUMBIA, INC., FOR
PLACEMENT
OF SIGNS ON CITY RIGHTS OF WAY.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this was a
revised plan and that at first they talked about reducing the number of signs
substantially. Being proposed now was the installation of 89 three
foot by four foot signs and 32 eighteen inch by 3 foot directional signs. He
said about half of them would be on state right of way and about half on
City right of way. He said they were dealing with the approval of those
that would be on City right of way. It was his understanding that the
signs had been funded and would be installed by others, and the City would
not be doing installation. He said part of our agreement with this
newly formed corporation would be that they would be maintaining the signs
also.
Regarding the directional
signs toward the parks, Mr. Harline said it seemed the general idea was signs
for the major parks, but not the neighborhood parks. He thought that
was sensible.
Mrs. Crockett asked if the
signs would be put on individual posts or if they would be put on existing
posts. Mr. Watkins said for the most part the corporation would be
putting in new posts, but in a few instances where we could share, an attempt
would be made to do that. Mr. Campbell asked what kind
of signs they would put along the Interstate besides Welcome to Columbia. Mr.
Watkins said there were no signs in this directional program along the Interstate. He
said there would be no duplication along the Interstate.
Mr. Kruse said he heard from
people concerned about this because of a lot of signs. He said he had
been to a number of cities where these are used and he thought they were
an attractive enhancement as well as helpful. He thought it would be
a good program.
Mr. Janku agreed. He
said he has occasions to direct people to Columbia and felt these signs would
be a tremendous help.
Mr. Campbell pointed out
that Columbia has a lot of visitors and for that reason he thought it was
important to have good signage.
Mr. Beck pointed out that
Mr. Wright and the Growing with Columbia, Inc. had done a fantastic job of
getting the necessary approvals from the Highway Department and actually
raising the funds to do the project. He said the question had come
up as to when installation would begin and it was his understanding they
were ready to begin upon receiving Council approval.
Mrs. Crockett said she thought
this was a great project even though she was concerned about the number of
signs.
The vote on R166-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R167-96 AUTHORIZING
STREET BEAUTIFICATION ADOPTION AGREEMENTS.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said when they submitted
the report to the Council they thought the species of plants and so forth
would be approved by the Highway Department. He said there had been
a change in that and the Council had been given a list of what would be able
to be planted, for example, along North Providence on the state right of
way. He pointed out that what was being proposed on North Providence
was in accordance with the plan the staff developed a few years ago when
we applied for enhancement money. He said this would implement a part
of that overall plan for Providence Road. He said this would deal with
Stadium Boulevard by the shopping center and two schools for the City. He
assumed this was the first of several plans which would be brought to the
Council. He noted this would provide for a three year agreement plan
to get the plants growing.
Regarding Grant School, Mr.
Campbell noted the planting would be on the east side of the building. He
said it was really not in the street right of way or the City right of way. He
asked what guidelines were used in determining what projects would be acceptable
for funding. Mr. Watkins said there were two schools involved
in the four different pilot projects. He explained that the Grant School
project calls for a line of trees along one property line plus some plantings
on the opposite side of the school. He said that project had been assembled
by PTA and folks from Grant School. He said Mr. Wright suggested, as
a pilot project, they ought to look at an urban school and he felt this one
was most appropriate. In terms of Hickman, he said they were continuing
the tree line that was started by Hickman students last year around the ballfield.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
Grant School program would have been approved if only plantings would have
been done on the east side of the building. He wanted to know what
criteria was used. Mr. Watkins said he couldn't speak for Mr. Wright,
but he thought this was simply what the school had proposed to do to beautify
its particular area. Mr. Campbell said he was planning on voting in
favor, but he wanted to see guidelines drawn up so they would have some criteria
on which to evaluate these projects.
Mr. Beck said there was a
guideline as to what our participation from the City's standpoint should
be on public right of way. He said he understood Mr. Campbell's question
and thought they needed to see how it fits in the overall master planning
for beautification/landscaping projects.
Mrs. Crockett asked if we
would be using City funds for this. Mr. Watkins said the City would
be buying just the materials. He said the schools had arranged volunteers
to plant them and had also agreed to provide maintenance funds. Mrs.
Crockett noted that fiscal impact had not been marked either way on the memo. Mr.
Watkins said there would be a one time purchase of materials. Mrs.
Crockett commented that it was helpful when the appropriate boxes were marked
as to any fiscal impact. Mr. Campbell said he was still
concerned about where City funds should be spent. He said part of this
was to be spent on an internal courtyard of a school. Mr. Beck agreed
and said it wasn't in accordance with the policy.
In terms of the fiscal impact,
Mr. Janku noted this was coming out of the money approved for landscaping
during the ballot issue of $200,000.
Mr. Beck suggested that they
proceed with the projects on street right of way and take another look at
the off street right of ways and determine whether or not to address them
after receiving Council guidance. He thought they should have some
kind of policy if they were going to do them.
Mr. Watkins asked if they
were to proceed with three of the projects and hold on Grant School. Mr.
Campbell said he would like to see them proceed with the trees. His
question was with the area against the building. He said he was quite
comfortable with beautification as long as it was beautification for the
public. He said an internal planting should be the responsibility of
the organization benefitting it.
There was a discussion about
amending the ordinance or possibly tabling it. Mr. Watkins suggested
that they revisit the Grant School people and for right now eliminate that
part of the project (courtyard). He said they could clarify it and
bring it back to the next meeting.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that they amend R167-96 by omitting the language which establishes a beautification
agreement with Grant Elementary School by deleting Exhibit B.
Mr. Campbell asked if she
would add to her motion that it be brought back at the next meeting. Ms.
Coble agreed.
The motion made by Ms. Coble,
amended by Mr. Campbell, and seconded by Mr. Harline was approved unanimously
by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said he thought
it was an excellent program and pointed out that the adjoining property owners
were actually going to be undertaking the maintenance. He said the
City would really be benefitting by these agreements. He suggested
that the staff contact the Highway Department to see if they would be willing
to modify their three year restriction so that our agreements could be longer
with the adjoining property owners.
The vote on R167-97, as amended,
was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:
R168-96 AUTHORIZING
A BEAUTIFICATION COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH GROWING WITH
COLUMBIA,
INC.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
would provide for the adoption of the landscaped areas.
Mayor Hindman noted that
these last three resolutions were the result of the hard work of Growing
with Columbia, Inc.
The vote on R168-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
HARLINE, HINDMAN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R169-96 AUTHORIZING
AN AGREEMENT WITH BOONE COUNTY RE: IMPROVEMENTS TO A
SECTION
OF SCOTT BOULEVARD.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this was an
agreement Public Works had been working on with the County Road engineers. He
said it had been approved by the County Commission.
Mr. Patterson explained that
this was a follow up of the report and Council direction of June 3rd of this
year. He said this agreement would allow them to enter into joint engineering
studies to determine feasibility and cost. At that point they would
determine whether or not they want to proceed with any type of construction
project. He said this first phase only obligates the City to doing
the joint engineering study on the project.
Mr. Campbell asked if money
had been allocated for the construction. Mr. Patterson said there was
slightly over $700,000 in the last ballot issue for joint City/County projects. He
said at the Retreat they were talking about a Gillespie Bridge/Scott Boulevard
project. He said they broadened that to allow more latitude in entering
into joint agreements with the County if the Council should so desire. Mr.
Campbell asked if he had any feeling for what the magnitude of this project
would be. Mr. Patterson said if it is built to City collector standards,
excluding any relocation costs of utilities, construction cost was estimated
to be about $450,000. He said if the responsibilities remain the same
as they were now, that would be about 40% City and 60% County. Mr.
Campbell said that would be about $165,000 if we proceeded.
Mr. Janku noted that sidewalks
would be a part of the study. He was hopeful that the eventual plan
would include them. He asked if this would connect with the ongoing
project at the bridge currently. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. Mr.
Janku asked if there were any sidewalks as part of that. Mr. Patterson
said he was not able to answer that at this point, but it would certainly
be a consideration in the study.
The vote on R169-96 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
HARLINE, HINDMAN. 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:
B348-96 APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GOLF CART PATHS.
B349-96 AUTHORIZING
A CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR FAMILY
PLANNING
SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS.
B350-96 AUTHORIZING
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR NURSING
CONSULTATION
SERVICES AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS.
B351-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE RE: EXOTIC ANIMALS AND REPTILES.
B352-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE RE: CONFINEMENT OF DOGS.
B353-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE RE: VICIOUS ANIMALS.
B354-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY CODE RE: PENSIONS FOR POLICE OFFICERS.
B355-96 AMENDING
CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A POLICY TO ACCEPT
GIFTS
OF ART.
B356-96 AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL COSTS FOR A 12-INCH WATER MAIN TO
SERVE
MEADOWLANDS, PLAT 12.
B357-96 ACCEPTING
CONVEYANCES FOR UTILITY PURPOSES.
B358-96 APPROVING
THE 1996 COLUMBIA SIDEWALK PLAN.
B359-96 AUTHORIZING
LAND ACQUISITION FOR THE AIRPORT WATER MAIN EXTENSION
PROJECT.
B360-96 AUTHORIZING
THE ACQUISITION OF A PIECE OF LAND BEHIND THE DANIEL BOONE
BUILDING.
B361-96 CALLING
FOR BIDS FOR STREET CONSTRUCTION ON SEVENTH STREET FROM
WILKES
BOULEVARD TO HICKMAN AVENUE.
B362-96 CALLING
FOR BIDS ON THE SIXTH AND CHERRY PARKING STRUCTURE.
B363-96 CONFIRMING
THE CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EASTWOOD DRIVE FROM
SYLVAN
LANE TO CLARK LANE.
B364-96 CONFIRMING
THE CONTRACT FOR THE COATS STREET AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
B365-96 APPROVING
ENGINEER'S FINAL REPORT AND LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE
AZTEC BOULEVARD AND CHEROKEE LANE PROJECT.
B366-96 ACCEPTING
ENGINEER'S FINAL REPORT FOR THE AIR CARRIER APRON EXTENSION,
PHASE
2, PROJECT AT THE AIRPORT.
B367-96 ACCEPTING
VARIOUS EASEMENTS AND QUIT CLAIM DEEDS.
B368-96 AUTHORIZING
AN AGREEMENT WITH LARKIN ASSOCIATES FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES
RE: SCOTT BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
B369-96 AUTHORIZING
A RIGHT OF USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER
LINE
AT LAKE OF THE WOODS RECREATION AREA.
B370-96 GRANTING
A VARIANCE ALLOWING A STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH ON SEWER AND
UTILITY
EASEMENTS.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) PROPOSED
REVISION TO CH. 29 RE: SHELTERS FOR THE HOMELESS.
Mr. Beck noted that this
report had come from the Planning and Zoning Commission who was recommending
approval of their proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Beck
said the Council needed to decide if they wanted an ordinance prepared with
the proposed amendments before or after having a work session on the issue.
Mayor Hindman said there
were a number of people present who were interested in this issue. He
explained the normal procedure for reports and said they didn't normally
have public participation at the time. He said public comments would
be heard following the reports. He also pointed out that before any
action was taken on this matter there would be public hearings as the matter
develops.
It was decided the matter
would be discussed at a work session.
Ms. Coble said her first
take on the report was that it was a disingenuous attempt to achieve what
the stated goal was. She said there were those who complained about
current situations in different facilities in the city that served people
who were without a home at that point. She said what came from the
Planning and Zoning Commission would not apply to those facilities that are
in existence now. By the definitions that were suggested for proposed
ordinances dealing with homeless shelters, she said there are other services
which receive funding that is federal funding for homeless services that
would not be included by this. She felt the report went a long way
toward nothing. She thought it was discriminatory and said a lot of
the debate she found to not have much credibility. She said the people
who were speaking had no experience with what they were talking about, they
didn't know how programs are operated, and they didn't know that the state
has no requirements on square footage requirements to receive any state monies
if one provides services to the homeless. She said the feds don't have
those federal regulations to receive federal funds that flow through the
state. Ms. Coble said she had found that the highest amount of funding
per bed space per bed night in this city and in this state was about $30. She
said that wouldn't afford the opportunity to do a lot of the things that
are required in the proposal in terms of space requirements. She didn't
think they were necessary to meet health and safety requirements in providing
residential services. She was concerned that the proposals could all
be passed in ordinance form and not change a single thing that people were
complaining about. She said if they wanted to adopt several of these
measures we have to decide as a community if we are willing to up the amount
of funding we provide to make these changes so in terms of square footage
requirements or anything else. She said what the state decided was
that it could not afford to price these services out of the market and by
putting in these requirements they couldn't staff them, fund them, or do
anything. She said the state opted out of several of the suggestions
about square footage requirements because they didn't have enough money to
pay for them. She said nobody has the funding to operate shelters with
that large of square footage requirements. She said if we thought homeless
people were "yucky" and didn't want them around our places we should say
so instead of saying it only makes sense to have these facilities in R-3
and certainly not in R-1 and R-2. She didn't think we could have it
both ways and she didn't find the report to be an honest piece of work.
Mr. Hancock asked the Council
to understand that when they sent this to the Planning and Zoning Commission
it would be addressed from a zoning standpoint. He said they wouldn't
address it from operations, square footage, or any of that kind of thing. He
said they would look at it from area, height, and placement of buildings
and uses in those buildings. He said because it was in the zoning ordinance
those uses that are already in place are grandfathered. He said they
tried to make that clear during the process. He said that was what
one gets when addressing things in a zoning fashion and perhaps some other
board or group needed to take up the other issues. He said they tried
to address it from the neighbors standpoint who wanted a review of these
shelters before new ones open up.
Ms. Coble said she found
it ironic that we were concerned about what might open up at the same time
this City's allocation of the Stuart McKinney Act funds, which are the state's
homeless grants from the federal as well as the state's emergency shelter
grants, both had significant decreases. She didn't know how all these
new programs were able to open up and somehow threaten the R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
She said what they have found in this community was a willingness to support
services solely from community dollars and not with federal, state or city
grants. She said that was what was going on at the St. Francis House
and also at Lois Bryant. She said that showed the community was in
support of those services, not trying to do things to make them go away.
(B) FORFEITURE
OF PROPERTY CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
Ms. Coble said the intention
on the request for this report was to deal with some of the issues involving
repeat criminal activity in rental property in the City. She said she
had heard a lot from landlords throughout the City who agree there ought
to be a better way to go about some of these issues and they often feel they
can't effectively screen to find out all of the information that is needed. She
said what she had talked to some of the folks in different neighborhood organizations
about was that perhaps they could take advantage of the planning time between
now and the proposed February summit of the Neighborhood Alliance. She
was hopeful there would be an opportunity at that meeting to bring neighborhood
organizations and organizations representing landlords and property managers
together to see if there is a way in which they could come up with some type
of tenant screening or some other forms of communication to alert landlords
if they are unaware of activities that are occurring in their properties
before it gets to the stage where the Police Department is sending out notices.
Mr. Campbell said he found that the report
did answer the questions he thought had been raised. He said the concern
had been about certain activities in our community, like the abuse of certain
properties by certain people, and all he received in response was the message
that all is well and there is such a system already working. He said,
from what they hear, it is not working. He asked why there was a difference
in their perception and what was reported. Mr. Boeckmann said he thought
the existing statutes have everything he thought a City ordinance would have
if the statutes did not exist. He said he thought the Criminal Code
of the State of Missouri was adequate too in that it has criminalized the
things that ought to be criminalized. He said that didn't mean that
there aren't problems out there. Mr. Campbell asked if those statutes
were too difficult to use or too time consuming to use. He asked why
they weren't being used. Mr. Boeckmann said he thought they were being
used. He said notices do go out from the Police and from the Prosecutor. He
said they were probably difficult to enforce because what they were dealing
with was taking property away from a landlord or telling him that he can't
use it for a year. He said that was a rather drastic remedy and meant
that they had to give due process. He said a requirement of the statute
was that the landlord know that this is going on. He said that was
the purpose of the notice from the Police and Prosecutor by informing the
landlord that criminal activities are occurring on his property. If
he fails to take any action then his property can be subject to forfeiture
or subject to not being able to be used as rental property for up to a year.
Chief Barbee gave an example
of a recent case where a search warrant had been served on a house in the
neighborhood in question. He said it had been the third search warrant
in six weeks that had been served and each warrant was at a different address
because they had moved to three different addresses in six weeks. He
said the only time the existing statutes can be called into play is in the
case where a landlord, once they have been notified of the problem, refuses
to take action in the form of an eviction or other actions to remove the
renter from the property. He said what most of them do, based on the
fact that the search warrant was served and drugs were found or someone there
was arrested for selling drugs, they have a basis for eviction so they get
them out of the property. He said the offenders just move to a different
property. Mr. Campbell said the question that was in some of their
minds, and probably legally impossible to do, was about a landlord who knowingly
rents a property and gets a high rent but says he didn't know. Chief
Barbee said he thought the big abuse was that there wasn't very good screening
going on by the private landlords. He thought that was where the improvements
could be made. He said they had been discussing some ideas in the Department
and he and the City Manager had talked. He thought there were some
things they could do through education of the landlords and some tools we
could provide them that they haven't had access to in the past to do some
more screening.
Mr. Janku said from what
he had read in the memo, the same tenants are causing the problem that gave
the Police probable cause. He asked about a situation where tenants
turn over basically and a property is continually being used for a drug house
with different tenants in it. He asked if that was something our statutes
deal with when there is a turnover in tenants and the property continues
to be used for illegal activities. Chief Barbee said that kind of thing
wasn't typically seen here. Ms. Coble said it was on her block. Mr.
Janku said he had heard of cases in different cities where private actions
had been initiated by neighborhood groups. He said that was another
remedy that might be available.
Mr. Harline said almost uniformly
the places being used for drug sales and the like were run down buildings. He
thought some of this could be addressed under our present rental conservation
law and looking at ways to get at landlords who are just not taking care
of their properties and have repeat offenses under that law as well. He
thought there was a general problem with just a few landlords who don't care
what goes on in their properties as long as they collect their rent.
Ms. Coble said she thought
part of the problem being experienced in a lot of the first and second ward
was the result of very successful community policing and work done by the
fourth squad. She said when you couple that type of community policing
with changes in who gets to remain in public housing and the one strike you're
out rule, we are seeing that a lot of drug trafficking and other related
activities are moving out, and yet our resources to have that same intensive
type of policing is not large.
Chief Barbee said one of
the things they were doing within the department was looking at a new program
to divert some of the resources they used in public housing to the very neighborhoods
Ms. Coble was talking about because of the displacement.
Mayor Hindman suggested that
they schedule this topic for a work session.
(C) PROPOSED
LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR POWER PLANT.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the staff be directed to proceed with the project. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harline and approved unanimously by voice vote.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
After receiving the majority
vote of the Council the following individuals were appointed to the following
Boards and Commissions:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
John, Martha K., 3301 Greenridge Rd., Ward 3
- term to expire 11/1/01
Scroggs, Stuart S., 1008 Maplewood Dr., Ward
4 - term to expire 11/1/01
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Lackey, Alvin S., 608 Old 63 S., Ward 6 - term
to expire 11/1/99
Smith, Jeffrey E., 3316 Woodrail Terrace, Ward
5 - term to expire 11/1/99
CONVENTION & VISITORS ADVISORY BOARD
Baker, Edward L., 1804 Katy Lane, Ward 4 - term
to expire 9/30/98
HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
Wiehagen, Katherine M., 206 Hitt St., #304,
Ward 1 - no term
SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION
Hutton, Laura E., 2252 Country Lane, Ward 3
- term to expire 10/31/99
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Campbell reminded the
Council that they had not revisited and brought back up the Charter changes
regarding gender neutrality. He asked Mr. Beck, as he was looking at
ballot dates, to keep that issue in mind.
Sixth Street, where the Post
Office has drop boxes, and particularly the traffic going out onto Ash Street,
Mr. Campbell said he had received several complaints concerning the danger
of moving into that traffic, especially during rush hour. He said it
was a dangerous intersection and he questioned whether a stop sign was warranted
or some other type of traffic protection in that location.
Mr. Campbell, referring to
the neighborhood commercial zone, said at one time we had a C-1 zone which
was supposed to be a neighborhood commercial zone, but over the years it
had pretty much disappeared and now Mr. Hancock says there is not very much
difference between C-1 and C-3. Recently, he said he had been involved
in some attempt to develop neighborhood commercial areas and it had run into
a lot of opposition. He thought one of the reasons was that we simply
don't have a zone that is applicable. He said when people hear the
word "commercial" they see visions of the Broadway Shopping Center and the
Mall.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the Planning and Zoning Commission make recommendations to the Council
(report form or ordinance form) concerning the establishment of a neighborhood
commercial zone. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Campbell commented that
he had been in several meetings lately where the impacts of the Welfare Reform
Act had been discussed. He thought it would have a major impact on
all cities in the country. He said the first impacts would hit January
15 when people would be terminated from the food stamp program. He
said it would hit people on both welfare programs and those amongst the working
poor in Columbia. The statewide estimate was that 8,000 people would
be removed from food stamps during the first wave with 25% of them being
homeless. He pointed out that the recently completed Columbia and Boone
County social needs survey did not include any changes that will occur from
welfare reform. He said many decisions remain to be made in Missouri,
but one thing for certain was that local levels of government would be asked
to do more with less. Mr. Campbell said after the program is
fully implemented we were likely to see more homeless and/or more hungry
people, both among permanent Columbia residents and migrants from other smaller
surrounding communities who will come here looking for support. He
said the impacts would increase significantly during the next fiscal year
and now was the time to begin planning and developing innovative programs
to address these vital human needs. He suggested that they begin by
establishing a community wide task force to begin developing coordinated
programs to address the coming needs. A copy of Mr. Campbell's paper
was made a part of the record (attached to reports).
Mr. Campbell asked that the
staff be asked to obtain information about the implications for Columbia
of the Welfare Reform Act and bring back a report on their findings as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Janku said he read a
story the other day where the Mayor of St. Louis had appointed a task force
for basically the same purpose and was keyed to the fact that the upcoming
legislative session in Jefferson City could have strong impacts for the City
of St. Louis. He said he also thought we needed to be prepared in terms
of what we pay attention to in Jefferson City for the potential impact of
legislation on the City of Columbia and our residents. He was supportive
of the idea of a task force and added that he thought we needed representatives
from the business and education communities in addition to what Mr. Campbell
suggested groups Mr. Campbell listed in his paper. Ms. Coble also suggested
that someone who deals directly with individuals, on a daily basis, be added
to the list.
Mayor Hindman asked if the
staff was in a position to get information like this. He said there
was going to be a change in the welfare law, but there was a wide range of
predictions as to what the outcome was going to be. He said Mr. Campbell's
prediction was making the assumption that there would be some rather dramatic,
negative impacts while others feel it may not be all bad. Mr. Campbell
said some of his statements were not assumptions. Mr. Janku pointed
out that there were things going on around the country either in anticipation
of or in reaction to. He thought we needed to start developing information. Ms.
Coble agreed, but said nobody was in a position to get all of the information
right now but we could convey our concerns about the impact in Columbia. She
said Columbia would always be a center for social services and other types
of assistance. It was agreed that we needed to begin gathering information.
Mr. Janku said Mr. Hancock,
from time to time, had basically invited the Council to take some sort of
action with respect to preliminary plats and how they affect the entire area
to be developed.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku said they had put
money in the budget to provide cable channel 13 to Capital Cable. He
asked where we were and if it was being monitored.
Mr. Harline said they had
received a report regarding bus ridership and that he wanted to recognize
the staff's work and the excellent results we were getting back on increased
ridership. He said from this month last year there was a 36% increase. He
thanked the staff for their efforts and wanted them to know they were paying
off.
Mr. Kruse said he had heard
comments from restaurant owners who are having difficulty with the smoking
ordinance. He said there was a situation where after 9:00 p.m. and
live music was provided they were functioning as a night club. He said
they were having difficulty having to enforce the ordinance as it is written.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
that the smoking ordinance be amended so that restaurants could elect to
suspend the smoking ordinance after nine p.m., if there is live music on
the premises. The motion was seconded by Ms. Coble.
Mr. Kruse wondered about
referring the issue to the Board of Health. Mayor Hindman said he saw
little point to it. Mr. Kruse agreed. He said he had talked to
a few of the members and they seemed comfortable with it. It was decided
the staff could take care of it.
The motion made by Mr. Kruse,
seconded by Ms. Coble, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Kruse said he had suggested
that there be some kind of community group or committee appointed to work
with the Department of Transportation on the design of the AC realignment
and improvement project. He said he knew that Mr. Beck had met with
the MoDot staff. He said one idea he had was to direct the staff to
draw up the proper legislation to appoint some people to serve on a committee
and then have that committee request a meeting with the appropriate people
with the department. He felt they needed to move on it because he said
they would be well into their planning process within the next couple of
months.
Mr. Janku agreed and suggested
that we, as a City, look at ways to facilitate what we hoped the road would
become. He said there was funding in the ballot issue for the Grindstone
improvement and thought perhaps they could allocate some of those funds for
some of the planning funds for this. He said the Highway Department
obviously has a tremendous funding crunch.
Mr. Kruse said he had talked
to all of the property owners involved and there was a strong interest in
sitting down with the Highway Department and the City to talk about the design
issues.
Mr. Beck said he had talked
with the Highway Engineer about the process they were intending to follow. He
said they were appointing an internal committee and had agreed to allow a
representative from the City to attend their planning committee meetings. He
said that wasn't really what Mr. Kruse was talking about. Mr. Kruse
said it wasn't.
Mr. Patterson explained that
the project team had not met yet. He said they were finishing up the
archeological walk through surveys on all three alignments before they get
their recommendation back to the commission. He said they were hoping
to go to the commission in January to get approval of the alternative alignment. He
said he asked more about the process and they were very definitely going
to have citizens committee appointments. He said the actual format
would be developed probably in the next three or four weeks, but they were
very sincere about having citizen input into the planning and design of it
in the way of a formal committee.
Mr. Kruse was skeptical and
was afraid we would find ourselves in the same boat of responding to their
plan which has already been designed. He said he wanted us to be involved
in the design process.
Mr. Harline agreed and said
we would have less trouble with the end product. He thought the sooner
the process involved citizens the better it would be.
Mr. Janku said he thought
we should take them on good faith, that they are willing to work with us,
but thought we needed to figure out what resources we could bring to the
table because of their limited funding.
Mr. Kruse said step one was
to sit down and talk about it and that was all he was saying.
Mr. Kruse made the motion
that the staff be directed to send a letter to the appropriate Highway Department
people formally requesting that the project design team meet with a Columbia
citizens committee prior to any design taking place. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Kruse said he would put
a committee together.
Captain Max Grindle, Commanding
Officer of the Salvation Army in Columbia, was concerned about any revisions
to the ordinance on shelters for the homeless. He said the people that
live at Harbor House have no place to go and no resources to get themselves
back on their feet. He said it used to be that the Salvation Army could
barter with people, but because of laws, ordinances, codes and insurance
risks they couldn't do that any more. He wondered if the same thing
would happen with our shelters because of insurance risks, codes, and ordinances
that are made they would be no longer be in the service of helping the homeless. He
said thus we would have more people sleeping out all over town. With
welfare reform and all of the other things that are happening in our community,
he asked if we were going to make it harder for the Salvation Army Harbor
House, the St. Francis House, and others who need their help. He asked
the Council to remember they were talking about people, not trees or flowers.
Mr. Janku asked Captain Grindle
what he would suggest the City do. Captain Grindle said they were working
out of a house that was built for four people and they have 40 or 50 people
staying there. Mr. Janku asked if they had every applied for capital
improvement type funding. Captain Grindle said they were looking into
that at the present time. He said they just went through a program
study and talked to some of the people with the City. He said they
were looking at improving their home and building where they are, but with
the cold coming people may have to find another shelter. He said when
it rains the single men in the basement get flooded out at times. Mr.
Janku encouraged the Captain to look into options. Captain Grindle
said by 1998 they hoped to have their funding ready to go.
Mrs. Crockett asked if they
housed individuals on Ash Street. Captain Grindle said there was only an
apartment for the assistant officer at that location. He said
it was used as their administrative offices, day care, social services, community
room, chapel and classrooms. Mrs. Crockett asked if all of that space
was utilized. Captain Grindle said it was. He invited everyone
out to see their operation.
Tim Rich, Director of Harbor
House, said he hadn't been contacted while the report was being put together. He
said he didn't have any problem with them having to meet the inspections
that are required, making sure they are safe in terms of fire hazards and
making sure they are meeting space requirements, but he said he thought 50
square feet per person was very excessive. He said that was something
they could not afford. He explained that they run a shelter right now
with 44 people in it tonight. He said it cost them last year on average
$10.78 per night to house those people. He said it was the cheapest
place in town and included three square meals, a shower and a bed. It
was for anybody that comes off the street that needs their services. He
said if they had to go to that kind of square footage they would be in a
tremendous pinch. He said one of their goals was to build a new shelter
in the next two years. He said the other issue he had with the report
was that if there is a conditional use put on the land they understood it
could be revoked. He said they are talking about investing $1 million
of the community's money to build a facility that would house and provide
programming and support services to change the lives of the people they serve
and if the permit could be taken away that would cause real problems for
them and the trust the donors put in them in order to run the shelter. He
said their budget only takes about 2% of federal money and the rest is from
donations from people in the community. He said they have seen their
MESG money split in half this year while they have seen their night load
rise by about 15 people per night. He said he appreciated the fact
that they have a good working relationship with the Police and Fire Departments. He
asked that they be given the opportunity to be involved in the process.
Mrs. Crockett asked Mr. Rich,
if space allows, if they would take in anyone off the streets. He responded
that they take anyone that is homeless who is not under the influence of
drugs or alcohol at the time of entering. He explained that they do
a nightly breathalizer on everyone that comes in and anyone that is under
the influence is turned away. Hopefully, he said those people can be
referred to the St. Francis House or some other shelter in town. He
noted that the paper had reported that there are nine shelters. He
said he didn't know what they would be because he only knew of three emergency
shelters -- Salvation Army, St. Francis House, and the Lois Bryant House.
Mayor Hindman asked if it
was true that they require a police check. Mr. Rich said that they
do and further stated that they began that ten years ago at the request of
the Police Department. He said they didn't want to be harboring anyone
who was running away from the law.
Mr. Rich said Columbia's
Consolidated Plan indicates that homelessness is rising here, but the resources
are disappearing. He felt they needed a shelter that would house at
least 75 people per night, if not more. He said if they were going
to plan for what happens with welfare reform they would have to increase
it and work together with the other agencies.
Other than the problem with
the 50 square feet, Mr. Janku asked if they had any problem with the Fire
Department regarding the Health/safety codes. Mr. Rich said part of
the problem the Fire Department has is that they don't fit any of the categories. He
added that they had been exempt from the codes because they are a church,
but if they build a new building the new zoning and other codes would apply
to them. He said that would cause some problems. He explained
that the Salvation Army has standards for residential centers that are nationwide
that they would have to meet and he had been assured that if they meet those
standards they would far exceed both state and city standards for the building
codes. He said he wasn't worried about that like he was about the conditional
use permit. He said right now they were not accessible for people with
disabilities and they have to put them in a hotel that costs $30 per night
and provide transportation back and forth in order to feed them and receive
case work services. He said it creates a problem for them with ADA.
Regarding their reliance
on other services, Ms. Coble asked if it was true that they had the luxury
in a way of meeting their national standards in their own operating code
of saying "If you aren't willing to go to the Police Station and get a record
check, I am not going to help you". She asked if they depended every
day on another place that doesn't have those same rules to refer those people
to. Mr. Rich responded, absolutely, no question about it.
Mr. Janku asked if Salvation
Army organizations around the country were eligible for CDBG monies. Mr.
Rich said it depended upon the project and what it was going to be used for. He
said Senator Ashcroft was working on the Charitable Choice clause presently
and part of their hope was that it would free them up to partake of a lot
more of those funds that they have not be able to in the past because of
the religious affiliation.
Andy Trible, a worker for
the St. Francis House, was concerned about the many untruths in the report. He
said it was reported that they make money from their guests and that they
are a money making agency. He said they have never taken money from
their guests and never would. He said both the St. Francis House and
the Lois Bryant House were funded by private donations from churches, individuals,
and groups that believe in what they do. He said all of the workers
were volunteer and if they had to pay someone to do something they couldn't
because that money would come out of the donations people contribute in order
for them to continue their work. Regarding the harboring of criminals,
he said they don't do that. If they know someone is having trouble
with the law he said they don't let them stay there until they deal with
their problem. Mr. Trible noted that the report made reference to the
Police being at their house often. He said that may be, but often it
was because they themselves have called the Police because they have told
someone they can't stay because of their behavior and the Police have to
be called because they won't leave. He said most often when their address
appears in the paper under arrests it is because that address is used when
the individual doesn't actually live there. He said they were never
contacted to find out if the person was actually living there at the present
time. He said the reason there were two shelters for homeless people
so close together was because the same group of people run both the St. Francis
House and the Lois Bryant House, one for men and one for women and children. He
said it would make it difficult to move away from each other. He said
they wanted nothing from the City, but only to be left to go about their
work of caring about their brothers and sisters in need.
Mr. Harline pointed out that
the Council had merely accepted the report. He said that didn't mean
they agreed with the conclusions.
Mrs. Crockett asked how many
people they would have on a night like this. Mr. Trible said they had
between 25 and 30 last night. She asked if they ever had to turn anyone
away. He said they hadn't had to because of space, but have because
of their behavior. Mrs. Crockett asked if the time came when they would
have to turn them away because of certain restrictions on space where those
individuals would go. Mr. Trible said he would have no idea where they
might go and because of that it would be very hard for him to turn anybody
away. Mrs. Crockett asked if some of the people that stay there are
employed. Mr. Trible said some of them are. He said they tried
to fit what they do to each person's needs. He said if people are capable
of working they expect them to do that and to save their money and get themselves
back on their feet. He said not everyone that stays with them is in
that situation. He said they have a lot of people with chronic physical
illnesses and they have ended up doing hospice care for folks with aids and
cancer. He said they have people with chronic mental illnesses who
aren't dangerous, but are just unable to function in society.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
suggested that the St. Francis House go by the same rules as the Salvation
Army.
Steve Jacobs, one of the
founders of the St. Francis House, said there was a reason why they didn't
send people downtown to the Police Station. He said that was because
there are a lot of homeless people who are schizophrenics and a lot that
have learning disabilities. He said they also have a lot of guys who
seem pretty normal, but they just don't have a lot of common sense and they
end up losing things. He said some of these people go from place to
place and are too disorganized mentally or they are not smart enough to figure
out how to get an ID once they have lost it. He said these people that
show up at his house could be criminals, but he doesn't make that assumption. He
said he invites them in, talks to them, finds out their situation, and then
tries to figure out what their needs are. He said they work something
out with each individual that shows up at St. Francis House so they can find
out whether or not they have any major problems that need to be dealt with. He
said they live with these people so it becomes clear very quickly as to what
their needs are. Mr. Jacobs said they were a religious community and
they tried to act out their faith by sharing their lives and property with
poor people. He said acting out the gospel was part of their faith.
Sylvia Trible, a staff member
for nine years, said they wanted to be available to clarify any misinformation
that had been included in the report. She explained that they run on
an extremely low budget, approximately $65,000 for both houses. She
said they work with the Salvation Army and if they have someone they know
has a drug or alcohol problem they are not equipped to handle that. She
said the Salvation Army was more equipped to handle people with those kinds
of problems. She said they do end up with a lot of people who were
drinking and driving when they were younger and now have head injuries. She
said they would be brain damaged the rest of their lives and were not able
to have jobs. She said they spend a lot of time directing people into
services that they need.
Lana Jacobs explained that
she lives at the Lois Bryant House. She said all of the vendetta against
the shelters was against them, but she said it would affect their friends
at the Salvation Army. She said these changes would affect them and
the services to people, not the St. Francis House or the Lois Bryant House.
Michael MacNamara, a resident
of the St. Francis House, explained that he lives in a home, not a shelter. He
said he was proud to be there and proud to work with the people that run
the facility. He said those people were his family.
The meeting adjourned at
11:35 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Launa
H. Daniel
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia