INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,
March 3, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council Members JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, and COBLE 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 February 17, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on
a motion made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the Council adjourn into a closed meeting following the regular meeting
to discuss litigation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harline with
the vote recorded as follows; VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Motion
passed.
Mayor Hindman noted that
B74-97 would be added to Introduction and First Reading.
Mr. Janku stated that the
Council received information regarding Amtrak service and bicycles. He
asked that the issue be added under Reports and Petitions.
Upon their request, Mr. Campbell
made the motion that Mr. Kruse and Mayor Hindman be allowed to abstain from
voting on B24-97. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved
unanimously by voice vote.
The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voce vote on a motion made
by Mr. Harline and a second by Ms. Coble.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Dan Ruether -
Proposed Mountain Bike Park.
Dan Ruether, 811 Sycamore
Lane, said that he and Nick Peckham, an architect, were prepared to answer
any questions regarding Rhett's Run. Mr. Ruether stated a committee
was formed to develop a memorial to Rhett Walters, a friend who had been
killed in a motorcycle accident. He explained that this group wanted
to create a mountain bike park or trails within Cosmo Park's north end. The
park is currently being utilized for trails to an extent, but they wanted
to enhance that ability. The area is referred to as the Bear Creek
Nature Area and has been used for the Show-Me State Games mountain bike racing
in the past. This group has been working with City staff and appeared
before the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission had given
them the initial go ahead to proceed with the planning and also suggested
that they obtain Council approval.
Mr. Campbell said he would
be interested in seeing an environmental impact statement that would address
wildlife and erosion control for the area. Mr. Ruether said this group
intended to keep working with City staff in order to address all of the issues.
Mr. Janku asked about the
size of the area. Mr. Ruether explained that it is approximately 134
acres and is located behind Antimi Field.
Mayor Hindman noted that
there was a report regarding this issue to be discussed at the end of the
meeting.
2. Aasim Inshirah
- Planned Community Awareness for Public Pride Program.
Aasim Inshirah, 407 Hickman,
submitted to the Council written comments, an incident report filed by his
son, a response to the report, and a newspaper article. Mr. Inshirah
reported his home was in a neighborhood included in the recently expanded
boundaries of the Community Awareness for Public Pride Program (CAPP). He
relayed an incident that was observed by his son and said he was concerned
about what appeared to be the lack of good judgment on the part of a Columbia
Police Officer. He thought it also showed the officer's lack of sensitivity
toward African Americans.
Mayor Hindman said the Council
would look over the materials submitted and consider Mr. Inshirah's comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B24-97 Amending
Chapter 23 regarding Billboards.
The bill was read by the
Clerk.
Mayor pro-tem Janku noted
that the public hearing had been continued from the February 3, 1997, meeting.
Mr. Beck reported that an
additional memo had been prepared. The amendment to the ordinance would
restrict the size and number of billboards that could be placed in the City.
William Mays, 3001 Shoreside
Drive, explained that he is the developer and president of the company that
owns the property located at 105 Keene Street, which fronts Highway 63 on
the west side and Keene Street on the east side. This building houses
the Missouri Cancer Associates. There are two proposed billboard sites
on the property directly to the south of this building, between the Interchange
of Broadway and Highway 63, and another immediately to the north at the base
of the dam. Mr. Mays understood that there had been a lot of litigation
concerning this issue. He thought there might be one aspect of the
State statutes that had been overlooked. He reported that the State
statute specifically declares the Highway Department may issue permits in
areas that are zoned commercial, industrial, or the like. He said this
property was zoned office, not like industrial and not like commercial. He
said zoning in this area would not allow a convenience store, a multi-plex
theater, or a grocery store. Mr. Mays passed around an artist's rendering
of the next building to be constructed on this particular stretch of ground. The
land directly to the south of this property is owned by a group of heart
doctors and they plan to build a medical office/treatment center.
Mr. Mays said the permit
issued by the State had either been supplied as a result of a misunderstanding
of the zoning, or perhaps was misrepresented. He said someone could
have indicated the property was commercial on the application. Mr.
Mays thought the City had the right to impose and expect that its standards
be followed with regard to the appropriate use of land. He felt it
was inappropriate to have giant billboards on this property, as it would
be to have them on residential property. As a legal issue, Mr. Mays
felt he would have just cause to challenge the City's issuance of a permit
because it does not comply with the State Statute.
Mr. Janku said that Mr. Mays
obviously felt this would have a detrimental impact on his property. Mr.
Mays said there is an old billboard at this location that will be removed. He
reported it was nowhere near the size of the two in question. He said
the billboards would not only be a detriment, but a horrible eyesore that
could greatly detract from the development of the property along this stretch
of road.
Mr. Campbell asked Mr. Mays
if he had examined the applications. Mr. Mays said he had just read
about this situation in the paper and did not know the status of the matter.
Mr. Harline said the present
building at this location was an asset and he would be unhappy if the billboards
had to be allowed. He asked Mr. Mays if he purchased the property with
the permits in place. Mr. Mays said there were easements, but he did
not own the land where one of the signs was scheduled to be constructed on
the northwest corner of the property. There is a surface easement in
the corner by the dam and it was in place when he bought the land. Mr.
Mays said the other sign would be to the south. Mr. Harline asked if
it would also be on such an easement. Mr. Mays said that was apparently
correct. He said the sign company does not own the land, they are just
leasing it. Additionally, they have no access to it over his property.
Mrs. Crockett said that Mr.
Kruse checked with the State and their wording, the like, also includes office
zoning. Mr. Mays said that would be similar to saying convenience stores
would be allowed in residentially zoned areas because it is almost like residential. He
asked how office zoning, a separate category which does not permit commercial
uses, could be interpreted to be commercial or industrial. He said
most zoning ordinances are restrictive and then open up as they go down. Mr.
Campbell thought the City needed additional information concerning its zoning
in relationship to the State's law, and how it is likely to be interpreted.
Jane Addison, 2407 Shepard,
a member of the Greenbelt Coalition and the Shepard Boulevard Neighborhood
Association, said this would be a terrible step backward for everyone in
Columbia and Missouri. She said every billboard that goes up affects
the view and detracts from some of the horizon.
Mr. Campbell asked if the
City had copies of the billboard applications. Mr. Boeckmann said the
City probably did and that they had been issued over two years ago. He
said as part of the litigation, which is being handled by outside Counsel,
he thought there were copies of the applications filed with the state. Mr.
Campbell asked Mr. Boeckmann how he felt about the question of office zoning
being defined as the like. Mr. Boeckmann said his initial reaction
was that cities have been losing better arguments than this in the area of
billboards. He thought the State had determined that office zoning
is commercial or the like. Mr. Boeckmann said the courts usually give
deference to the interpretation of the statute given by the agency in charge
of enforcing it.
By passing this ordinance,
Mr. Janku understood that the Council would be setting the standards for
what could be done under Columbia's ordinance. He said it would not
have anything to do with the State's law being valid or not. Mr. Janku
stated whatever decision the Council makes tonight, it would not be validating
the state's law. He would like to see staff make the argument to the
state that they are misinterpreting the statute. He thought possibly
the City's legal counsel should review the statute again. He suggested
that Mr. Mays argue the interpretation with the state also.
Mayor pro-tem Janku closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Harline said it was obvious
in Columbia that office zoning and commercial zoning were different. He
thought pursuing a legal statement from the Highway Department, before acting
on the issue, would be risky. Mr. Harline asked if there was staff
recommendation for approval of this ordinance as opposed to the suggested
Council action for approving the permits. Mr. Boeckmann said there
was not. He said if the Lake St. Louis case holds up, it really did
not matter if the Council passed the ordinance or not. He said the
Legislature may get somewhat involved in this area. There were indications
the State was reviewing the roads that were added to the National Highway
System, restoring the City's ability to control signs.
Mr. Janku said his point
was that the Council could pass the ordinance tonight and then raise, if
necessary, the issue of the zoning question. Regardless of what the
Council does, there would still be a question of validity of the state statute
and how it is being applied by the Highway Department.
Mr. Campbell did not think
the Council had much choice in this matter. He thought the Council
had to go ahead and act in the best interest of the City in view of the severe
restriction placed on them by the state statutes.
B24-97 was read with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL,
HARLINE. VOTING NO: COBLE. ABSTAINING: KRUSE, HINDMAN. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
Regarding the separate
issue of whether or not to authorize the issuance of the sign permits, Mr.
Janku said that addressed the question as to whether or not it was permissible
under state law. He said the Council would be making an assumption
in issuing them.
Mr. Harline said there was
certainly a question as to whether or not the applicants listed commercial
as the zoning on the applications. He said the applicant may have accidentally
mislead the State Department of Transportation as to the zoning.
Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the Council authorize the issuance of sign permits to Robinson Displays,
Inc. and Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Crockett
and approved by voice vote.
B36-97 Voluntary
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church
property
(Tract
D) and establishing O-1 zoning.
B37-97 Voluntary
annexation of National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church
property
(Tracts
A and B) and establishing C-1 and O-1 zoning.
Both bills were given second
reading by the Clerk.
The Mayor reported that the
bills would be discussed together, but voted on separately.
Mr. Beck explained that there
was an amendment sheet for each bill that would change the month of extension
from February to March. He explained that Tract D was an 18.5 acre
tract of land that the applicant has requested O-1 zoning. The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval on a 7-0 vote. Mr. Beck
explained that C-1 zoning was requested for Tract A. This tract is
approximately 9.5 acres. Tract B is approximately 60 acres with a request
for O-1 zoning. On tracts A and B, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval on a split vote of 4-3.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that B36-97 and B37-97 both be amended per the amendment sheets. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing on both bills as amended.
Bruce Beckett, an attorney
with offices at 901 E. Broadway, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The
purpose for splitting the tracts was twofold. There had been a change
in the philosophy of caring for the clients served by Woodhaven, which has
operated as a residential care facility on this property for the past 30
years. The philosophy was to move the people Woodhaven cares for out
into the community rather than to centralize their care at a campus facility
such as Woodhaven. In connection with that change in philosophy, Mr.
Beckett said there had been agreements reached in conjunction with a law
suit that was instituted by family members of some of the residents. He
explained that the agreement involves Woodhaven constructing a new facility
on Tract D, the O-1 zoning request. The new facility would serve about
10 clients and would be a residential care facility. The only zoning
district that allows this type of facility is O-1.
The purpose for the request
for Tracts A and B is to annex the land, rezone it, and liquidate the property. He
noted that Woodhaven also owns the A-1 tract to the north of Tracts A and
D, which is already within the corporate City limits. He said the purpose
was to maximize the return from the investment on this property so it could
be used to continue Woodhaven's activities in caring for people with physical
and developmental disabilities. Mr. Beckett felt the rezoning request
for Tracts A and B was in line with what historically has been done on this
property. Specifically, the main campus has been located for many years
on Tract B. Mr. Beckett reiterated that the only open zoning district
that allows residential care facilities was O-1, thus the request for O-1
zoning districts. He said the applicant was hopeful that the person
or entity that might acquire Tract B would make use of the rather valuable
improvements that are now located on the tract. Mr. Beckett did not
believe, even if it is assumed all of the existing buildings would be torn
down and apartments would be put up, that would necessarily be an inappropriate
use for the tract. Mr. Beckett said that was not anticipated to happen. The
applicant wanted to sell the property as a whole and hoped that a purchaser
could make use of the improvements that are already in place.
Mr. Beckett reported that
the main entrance to this property was off of Nifong Boulevard, not off Bearfield. He
anticipated that Bearfield would become a more important street in the future,
but added that there were two ways out of the property.
With respect to Tract A,
the C-1 zoning request, Mr. Beckett said there had been a golf driving range
in this area, which is a commercial use. This type of business would
normally fall within a C-3 zoning district. He said the driving range
was not operating right now and felt there was plenty of C-3 in the area
up toward the intersection of Old Highway 63 and new Highway 63. Mr.
Beckett stated there was not a need for the general commercial district where
the tract in question is located since the need is already taken care of
in the area. Also located on Tract A, in the southwest corner, is a
waterworks facility, a well house and pumping facilities which have been
used to service the improvements owned by Woodhaven in this area. He
said an agreement had been reached with the Consolidated Water Supply District
as to their acquisition of that piece of ground. He noted that public
utility service facilities was an allowed use in a C-1 zoning district.
Mr. Beckett reported there
is a small island of land at the southeast corner of Tract A which is owned
by Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises. Mr. Beckett said this organization
has worked closely over the years with Woodhaven in carrying out their particular
mission. Woodhaven has entered into a contract to sell one and one-quarter
acre to Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises for their use to further corporate
objectives in helping disabled people. Mr. Beckett explained that the
building is about 2100 square feet and Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises
intends to operate a commercial envelope stuffing activity. He said
commercial zoning is needed for this one and one-quarter acre.
Mr. Beckett displayed a color-coded
copy of a portion of Columbia's zoning district map. Mr. Beckett reported
that this request for zoning is similar to a pattern of zoning that surrounds
the new and old Highway 63 area of southeast Columbia. Also affecting
the rezoning request was the fact that Grindstone is now the preferred route
for the AC realignment.
Among the considerations
that are being looked at in connection with the Grindstone improvement to
Route AC, there are three recommendations in the area that Mr. Beckett felt
would affect this property. There had been discussion about cul-de-sacking
Nifong between Ponderosa and the intersection of new and old Highway 63. Mr.
Beckett said this would eliminate traffic that goes up to the highway. There
were discussions about the possibility of rerouting old Highway 63 to line
up with Bearfield Road to make a better north/south thoroughfare in the area. Also
discussed, with favor, was extending Ponderosa to become part of Bluff Creek
Drive. Mr. Beckett reported a traffic engineer had been employed to
study these options and the impact would take a substantial amount of traffic
off of Nifong in front of Woodhaven, it would divert more traffic north and
south on Bearfield and Ponderosa with a greater amount of traffic along Grindstone. Mr.
Beckett said the traffic engineer had advised that traffic along Nifong would
diminish substantially and ultimately increase substantially along Bearfield.
As part of the law suit settlement,
Mr. Beckett said Woodhaven would have to impose a restriction on all of the
property sold to ensure that there would not be pornography operations of
any kind, or bars, saloons, and liquor stores. Restaurants would be
permitted whose gross sales are more than 50% of alcohol sales. Mr.
Beckett also pointed out that if this property is annexed into the City,
potential owners would be subject to the stormwater management ordinance,
tree preservation ordinance, and land disturbance requirements.
Although there is not a rezoning
proposal for the A-1 tract to the north, Mr. Janku asked if the Council could
assume at some point that most of it would be rezoned for commercial development. Mr.
Beckett did not know if that would be a safe assumption. There was
a heavily wooded area on the east end of the A-1 tract and this area would
be subject to tree preservation requirements. Mr. Beckett thought it
would depend upon what develops in the area as far as traffic is concerned. If
traffic is reduced, the demographics of the situation may dictate that it
will not all be commercial property. Mr. Beckett could foresee that
the corner would be commercial, but was not sure about the whole 16 acres. Mr.
Janku asked about the southwest corner of Tract B. Mr. Beckett said
he believed there were some maintenance sheds in that area. This property
is adjacent to the large mobile home park that wraps around Blue Acres Grocery.
Mr. Harline asked whether
there was a contingency plan if the rezoning request was not granted for
Tracts A and B. Mr. Beckett said the applicant did not feel the property
could be annexed without zoning.
Betty McMillen, Executive
Director of Woodhaven, 2317 Shepard Boulevard, explained that she had been
the Director for the last six years. Ms. McMillen explained that the
National Benevolent Association was their parent organization with headquarters
in St. Louis. This organization actually own the property, but any
funds realized from the sale of this property would accrue to Woodhaven. It
is intended to use those funds to form an endowment that would guarantee
income to serve the future needs of the residents. Currently, Woodhaven
is serving about 110 in residence and another 25 in a supported employment
program. Ms. McMillen said it was very important to realize as much
as possible from the sale of the property, and hoped that any restrictions
that might be placed, in terms of zoning, would not reduce the amount of
return.
Mr. Harline asked if Woodhaven
discussed their plans with the neighborhood association or any of the home
owners in the area. Ms. McMillen said there had been one meeting recently
requested by some of the neighbors. Mr. Harline inquired about the
outcome. Ms. McMillen said no particular conclusion had been reached
after listening to concerns from both sides.
Mr. Janku asked how many
residences would be on Tract D and how long-term that might be. Ms.
McMillen explained that the settlement agreement stipulates that so long
as any one of the plaintiff's in the suit live, Woodhaven is obligated to
care for them at that location. There would be an exception if the
plaintiff's choose to move somewhere else, or if they become disabled in
such a way that Woodhaven can no longer care for them. Ms. McMillen
said it was anticipated this would be a great many years as some of the people
were in their 30's. This involves about eight to ten people and Woodhaven
plans to build a one story building with apartments for each of the individuals. She
reported that was currently in the planning stages. Mr. Janku asked
if that would take up the entire tract. Ms. McMillen said it would
not, but Woodhaven is obligated to maintain the tract for that purpose.
Jim Craigmile, 810 Forest
Hill Court, noted that he had been serving as President of the Board of Directors
for Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises for the past two years. He
said this organization is the nearest neighbors to the property under consideration
for rezoning. Central Missouri Sheltered Enterprises serves 90 developmentally
handicapped adults, providing them with employment in light industrial situations
appropriate to developmental levels. These employees are residents
of Columbia and Boone County. Mr. Craigmile said they found the facility
to be very adequate and added that they have approximately 13,000 square
feet in the building located at the southeast corner of Tract A. He
spoke in support of the C-1 zoning for Tract A and believed it would represent
no negative affect of any kind on the operation and service that is provided
for clients in this location. He said this organization intended to
stay and, assuming the annexation goes through, would probably file for annexation
as well. He said they were currently zoned in the County as light manufacturing
and, upon annexation, they would apply for light industrial with the City.
David Rogers, an attorney
with offices at 813 E. Walnut, spoke on behalf of a group of residents that
live down Bearfield Road to the south, which is not one of the organized
neighborhood associations. This is not the group that met with the
Woodhaven folks.
Mr. Rogers said the request
for rezoning had been put together cleverly. Tract D, which was almost
certain to be approved, does not do very much for the City. An 18 acre
piece of ground would be annexed that does not pay any taxes while still
provided with City benefits. However, to further the City's objective
of being able to annex ground to the south by voluntary annexation, the City
would be forced to buy off the applicant by granting both a commercial zoning
and an O-1 zoning. He did not think either to be very appropriate for
the area. Mr. Rogers said O-2 zoning would permit office uses, but
does not include the lesser uses of apartments. From the point of view
of his clients, Mr. Rogers stated the apartment usage would be much more
detrimental to the area as it would cause greater amounts of traffic and
noise. The summer theater would also be impacted by heavy apartment
usage in the area because it borders the Nifong Park area. Mr. Rogers
suggested that the appropriate zoning for Tract A would be O-1 because it
is next to an area that is O-1. If there was going to be any commercial
development, it should be on Nifong where it would have to stand on its own
merits and would not be zoned through an annexation scheme. Tract B
should be R-1 residential zoning because it would be appropriate for the
neighborhood, and certainly appropriate for the infrastructure that is in
place. Mr. Rogers said it might not allow as great a return, however,
zoning should not be extorted by the desire to have land annexed into the
City.
Fred VanSol, 4679 S. Bearfield,
noted that all of the people living along Bearfield contributed to Mr. Rogers
making his presentation this evening. He said residents were concerned
about a spot zone in the middle of their community. The road situation
was in a state of flux and it was not known what the traffic patterns were
going to be in the area. As hundreds of acres will be developed south
of the property in the future, C-1 zoning at this location could serve as
a precedent for the type of zoning that would be requested at a later date. He
said home owners are living in the area because of its residential nature,
and they did not want to see it become a commercial area.
Jan Pritchard, 3505 Rock
Quarry, said she had not talked with the people from the Rock Quarry/Grindstone
Neighborhood Association, with the exception of a few. Ms. Pritchard
was speaking on her own behalf tonight as a resident of the area. One
issue Mr. Beckett would have everyone believe was that Sheltered Enterprises
would not be able to function if this area was not granted C-1 zoning. She
said this is not correct because if the organization continues their operation,
they would probably be grandfathered in. Ms. Pritchard said the property
was not near an intersection. She noted the point made by Mr. Beckett
about any future buyers having to conform to certain uses. It had always
been her understanding that once someone sells their land, they could not
control what the buyer does with it. Mrs. Pritchard believed that any
development in this area should be planned. She felt commercial was
too intensive of a use for the proposed location. Ms. Pritchard stated
there was already enough commercial property within a mile of the property
and more was not necessary.
Jeff Barrow, 1007 Coats,
President of the Greenbelt Coalition, explained that their mission was to
protect the streams and riparian areas in Mid-Missouri. This group
was particularly concerned about Clear Creek, which runs through this property. He
said they wanted to make sure the creek and forest were protected at the
highest standards possible. Mr. Barrow suggested planned zoning so
the City could have some input.
Alyce Turner, 2194 E. Bearfield,
said the residents in her neighborhood were probably the largest pocket of
people along Bearfield Road. Home owners had recently gone through
the Neighborhood Improvement Act process and received support from the County
to pave area roads. This had made a lot of difference to the neighborhood
and people were investing in their homes. Ms. Turner said the neighbors she
spoke to felt strongly about maintaining the residential integrity of the
neighborhood and did not support commercial zoning. Ms. Turner said
Bearfield Road was not in good shape and a commercial development on it would
not be desirable. She asked the Council to consider the interests of
her neighborhood.
In rebuttal, Attorney Beckett
said the applicant considered O-2 zoning at Mr. Rogers request. If
tract B was zoned O-2, a purchaser could not use the existing buildings for
a residential care facility of any kind. It would not be possible to
establish a medical lab, dental lab, clinic, or counseling center. There
are a number of uses these improvements might be suited to which are allowed
in an O-1 zoning district that are not allowed in an O-2 zoning district. Mr.
Beckett had gone through every page of the zoning district map and, in the
City of Columbia, found that there was less than two acres of land approved
for O-2 zoning. He said it was not an appropriate zoning district for
this property. Regarding planned district zoning, he said there was
not one area shown on the map he displayed earlier with this type of zoning. If
the tract was placed in a planned district, it would not be possible to compete
in the sale of the property with all of the other open districts in the same
area.
Regarding Tract A, Mr. Campbell
understood that it would be put on the market as commercial. He asked
if part of the A-1 property would also be sold as commercial. Mr. Beckett
said the entire property was presently on the market as A-1. Mr. Campbell
asked if a commercial rezoning request would be submitted. Mr. Beckett
said there were no plans to do that presently. Mr. Campbell stated
then all of the commercial property would be south of the A-1 zoning. Mr.
Beckett believed the appropriate time to get zoning was at the time of annexation. Regarding
the 16 acres of A-1 already on the market, he said they were anticipating
that a purchaser would ultimately come to the Council and ask for the zoning
they desire on the tract. He said the applicant was not planning to
come back to the Council with a commercial zoning request following annexation
of the other land. Mr. Campbell stated he understood then that this
property would be sold as agricultural land. Mr. Beckett said they
were offering it for sale anticipating that a purchaser would sign a contract
with them contingent upon getting the zoning desired from the City. As
a council person, Mr. Campbell said he would like to see the plan for the
area, not for just segments of the area. He said it was very important
to see how the various pieces fit together.
Mr. Harline pointed out that
down Nifong, to the west, there was a planned commercial district about a
mile away. Mr. Beckett agreed there was a spattering of planned commercial
in the area. Mr. Harline asked Mr. Beckett if it was his feeling that
this land could not be sold as residential. Mr. Beckett said he did
not think residential was appropriate for any part of the property. Mr.
Harline asked if that included R-3. Mr. Beckett said he thought R-3
would be fine, but did not think the property was suitable for single family
residential as it was between two mobile home parks. Mr. Harline asked
if he was saying that high intensity residential was a better neighbor for
a residential care facility than R-1. Mr. Beckett said he did not have
an opinion on that. Mr. Harline asked if the applicant needed O-1 zoning
for a residential care facility on Tract B. Mr. Beckett said it was
not required and every building on Tract B was designed for a residential
care facility.
Mr. Kruse asked why the tract
that was presently in the City was not being considered for rezoning. Mr.
Beckett said the applicant was not confronted with a situation where they
felt they had to.
Mr. Campbell said the A-1
land is on the plan for planned office. He asked if the applicant would
be willing to consider planned office or office zoning on the present Tract
A. Mr. Beckett said he was not in a position to make that decision as
he did not have that authority.
Mr. Harline said it was obvious
that all of the differences had not been worked out with the neighboring
groups. He asked if tabling was an acceptable option. Mr. Beckett
said they met with the people who requested a meeting and thought it had
gone well. The next thing they heard was that Mr. Rogers was going
to be appearing on behalf of the residents in opposition. Mr. Beckett
said this was not a good sign and he did not think tabling would help.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
Regarding Tract D, Mr. Harline
said granting the applicant the O-1 zoning was fair because of the law suit.
In reviewing Tracts A and B, Mr. Harline said he could see the logic in requesting
the O-1 zoning. There was no guarantee that there would not be R-3
and he was not sure it would be appropriate zoning for the residential care
facility. Mr. Harline said he could not accept the argument that the
applicant could not sell planned commercial or planned office land in the
area. He said there was planned commercial just down the street. Mr.
Harline stated it did not make any sense to annex for the reason of getting
better control over planning if, in the act of annexing, the City gives away
any planning ability by granting zoning which may not be appropriate. There
is a good chance that there may be some commercial zoning on the Phillips
property and that would open up a new corridor which would be a high traffic
route. It seemed to him that this part of the puzzle was making less
and less sense for high intensity use. He said the Council also needed
to keep in mind the lack of infrastructure in the area. Mr. Harline
thought the various arguments made by the opponents necessitated declining
the O-1 and C-1 zoning on Tracts A and B.
Mr. Campbell said his concern
was with the lack of an overall plan in the area. He said if the Council
approved this zoning request, a strong commitment would be made for some
of the area to the north. Since it could not be determined that this
would be the most optimum use, Mr. Campbell could not support the request.
Mr. Kruse said the City wants
this property to be annexed for many reasons, but many good points had been
made and he was not comfortable with the zoning. He hoped this was
not a lost opportunity and that the applicants would rethink it and come
back with a different proposal.
Mrs. Crockett said if this
area gets developed it needs to be annexed in the City, and this may be the
only way for it to ever get there. Regarding the infrastructure of
the roads, she said the Council has seen many times that improvements do
not come until the traffic dictates them. She agreed that to market
the property under a C-P plan it would be hard to sell when it is not known
what would be built.
Mr. Janku said he thought
the intersection was appropriate for some commercial development. There
was a lot of residential development in the area and there would need to
be some convenient commercial development. Mr. Janku could not see
the zoning on Tract B and, if he wanted to scare people, Mr. Hancock could
be questioned on the possible density of an R-2 or R-3 development with a
tract this size. The property labeled A-1, at the intersection of Bearfield
and Nifong, would have all of the demands transferred to it for off-site
improvements. Mr. Janku thought that would make it almost unmarketable
because the City would expect the prospective buyer to handle the cost of
the intersection improvements which would be necessary because of the other
property.
Mayor Hindman agreed that
the property should be annexed into the City, but because of the reasons
expressed, he did not think the Council should approve this particular application. Mr.
Campbell agreed.
Ms. Coble said her opposition
was out of concern for those that still cling to the hope that the Phillips
property could be preserved in its present state. She was hopeful the
Council could welcome the tracts into the City at a later date with different
zoning. She said if that was not possible, it would truly be a great
loss for the City.
B36-97, as amended, was given
third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU,
CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO
ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B37-97, as amended, was given
third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO
ONE. VOTING NO: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN,
COBLE. Bill defeated.
Mr. Beckett requested that
the annexation for Tracts A and B be withdrawn. He said they would
regroup and see what they could come back with. He thanked the Council
for their consideration.
B51-97 Authorizing
payment for a 6-inch water main in Morris Subdivision, and appropriating
funds.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
was in accordance with City policy and staff was recommending approval.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B51-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B52-97 Rezoning
from C-3 to A-1 property on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast,
east of
Woodridge
Drive.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that the
zoning was recommended on a 6-0 vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He
said no one had spoken in opposition.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
David Rogers, an attorney
with offices at 813 E. Walnut Street, explained this plat was approved by
the Council on the preliminary Richland Heights Plan. He said it would
provide the road to the new section of the trailer park. He said the
strip of land was unbuildable and was left zoned C-3. Mr. Rogers thought
it was in the public interest to have all of the land zoned the same to avoid
the possibility of it being used for other purposes that would not be desirable.
Mr. Janku asked if he remembered
correctly that when the street was constructed, a sidewalk would go in also. Mr.
Rogers said this was correct.
Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing.
B52-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
B54-97 Amending
Chapter 25 of the City Code regarding administrative plats and minimum
widths
for
non-residential lots.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that this
had been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
a 5-1 vote. He said the intent was to provide more control over tier
lots in a non-residential setting. The City has approved lots where
there was a long stem, which created a narrow public frontage to accommodate;
for example, a billboard on Route PP.
Mr. Janku understood that
the sign ordinance had not been amended to impose a restriction on width
requirements for billboards. He thought it would be cleaner to address
the problem in this manner. Mr. Janku did not know that the Council
would have any discretion to deny a replat if it were to be requested. Mr.
Kruse said the problem that came up on PP was for a sign, not a billboard.
Mr. Beck thought there were
other issues that had also been discussed. Mr. Hancock said when the
minutes had been reviewed, it seemed the Council was definitely interested
in doing something about lots with odd configurations, but were also concerned
about the signs. He said when this assignment had been received, the
Chamber organized a group that was working on sign ordinance changes. Mr.
Hancock stated staff was not inclined to take the issue on as long as the
Chamber was involved. He said if the Council wanted him to do something
different, he would be happy to. Mr. Hancock explained the lot issue
was one that was worth trying to fix because the configuration was not desirable,
regardless of whether or not there was a sign on it. Mr. Janku said
if the Chamber was still coming forward with recommendations, it was appropriate
to wait.
Mr. Harline said if these
lots could no longer be approved as an administrative plat and had to be
replatted, could the Council deny the plat because of an odd shape. Mr.
Boeckmann said it was a question of what the standards are in the ordinance. He
saw it as a problem if the code were to have a provision saying one could
not have any odd shapes. He said that was definite enough to figure
out what that means. He said it was difficult trying to draft a solution
to the problem. Mr. Boeckmann stated the proposed language was definite
enough and staff would not have a problem dealing with it.
Mr. Kruse asked whether the
thought was that if a lot had to be more than 30 feet in width, it would
not be economically feasible to have a protrusion, stem, or extension. Mr.
Hancock said staff was still trying to allow flexibility in the commercial
lots and were attempting to determine the width that would be required for
a driveway. He said staff went with the protrusion, extension, and
stem language so, for example, a pie shaped lot would be permitted.
Mr. Janku said the City was
trying to encourage access to property by pedestrian ways. He asked
if this would be imposing a burden that would make it almost impossible for
a pedestrian path to be put in as part of a plat. He said the sign
was a problem, but thought it should be dealt with separately.
Mr. Campbell said he had
pushed for the amendment because he has concerns about oddly configured lots;
however, he felt a 30 foot strip would allow for a driveway and possibly
the need for a sign if it is a drive-thru or something of that sort. He
thought by requiring a 30 foot minimum on a protrusion, stem, or extension,
there was some logic to the amendment. Mr. Campbell thought the Council
should pass this bill and address the sign question at a later time.
By requiring the 30 foot
minimum, Mr. Janku said his concern was that it would serve as a detriment
in providing pedestrian access to commercial property. Mr. Hancock
said typically what happens in commercial areas is people have cross easements
along commercial lots to provide access in a private manner. He said
if it was a requirement to have a sidewalk or pedestrian access easement
on a lot, he supposed it could be a deterrent, but it depended upon whether
or not the City wanted rational looking lot arrangements.
Mr. Campbell said staff should
consider looking at the whole package and attempt to get people to work together
rather than having little strips running here and there.
Mr. Kruse pointed out that
the City was in the process of working on a pedestrian circulation plan,
in addition to the sidewalk plan. These concerns could be addressed
when revising the sign ordinance. He hoped those plans would be forwarded
to the Council within a month or two.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B54-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:
R32-97 Approving
an amendment to the Consolidated Plan.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
In order for the City to
obtain funding for HOME funds and HUD/CDBG money, Mr. Beck explained that
a public hearing was required to discuss the Consolidated Plan and an amendment
needed to be made. He said the City was proposing to get an additional
$420,000 in HOME money and an additional $311,000 in CDBG money. He
said that would make the total CDBG funds over $1 million.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
The vote on R32-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
(A) Annexing
City-owned property south of the MKT Parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
was a 101.5 acre tract of land the City purchased several years ago from
the L. D. Baurichter family. He said annexation of this property would
extend the City limits to Scott Boulevard and clarify the area of responsibility
for the Trail. He said the City's responsibility would end at Scott
Boulevard.
Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing.
There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
OLD BUSINESS
B55-97 Appropriating
funds to purchase playground equipment for Cosmo Park.
The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that the
Columbia Cosmopolitan Luncheon Club had been a great supporter of Cosmo Park. He
said they have provided an additional $9,734 for playground equipment at
the recreation area being constructed.
Mayor Hindman thanked the
group for their generous contribution.
B55-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT,
CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. 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.
B46-97 Approving
Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the airport fencing
and
automatic
gates project.
B47-97 Approving
Change Order No. 1 and the engineer's report for the Little Bonne Femme force
main
project.
B48-97 Accepting
sanitary sewer and drainage utility conveyances.
B49-97 Accepting
streets that were privately constructed, in 1996, for public use and maintenance.
B50-97 Accepting
water utility conveyances.
B53-97 Approving
the final plat of EDI Subdivision, Plat 1.
R25-97 Setting
a public hearing on construction of sanitary sewers in Sewer District No.
136 (Olive
Street
area).
R26-97 Setting
a public hearing on repair and restoration of University Avenue from William
Street
to
College Avenue.
R27-97 Authorizing
an agreement with the Department of Health for issuance of birth and death
certificates.
R28-97 Authorizing
application for a Missouri Arts Council grant.
R29-97 Amending
the Sikeston Power Sales Contract appointing a new alternate designated
representative.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE, HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R30-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Time Savers, Inc., for baggage delivery at the airport.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck said this agreement
would authorize this particular firm to enter airport property to handle
luggage at the request of the City's air carrier. He said the City
would receive 1% of the gross revenues, which is anticipated to be less than
$1,000 per year.
The vote on R30-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:
R31-97 Authorizing
funding agreements with HUD for FY '97 HOME and CDBG funds.
The resolution was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained that this
agreement would authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary papers
to obtain funding from HUD for CDBG money.
The vote on R31-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: JANKU, CROCKETT, CAMPBELL, KRUSE, HARLINE,
HINDMAN, COBLE. 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:
B56-97 Approving
Change Order No. 1 to the contract for the Downtown Fire Station Project.
B57-97 Calling
for bids for storm drainage and sanitary sewer construction on William Street
and
Anthony
Street.
B58-97 Authorizing
a contract with the Federal Transit Administration for FY '95-96 transit
operating
assistance.
B59-97 Authorizing
City staff to repair and restore University Avenue from William Street to
College
Avenue. Introduced
by Harline.
B60-97 Accepting
water utility conveyances.
B61-97 Authorizing
a utility maintenance agreement with the Department of Transportation for
the
Route
B water main relocation.
B62-97 Authorizing
an amendment to the territorial agreement with the Boone County Fire
Protection
District.
B63-97 Granting
a variance allowing First Christian Church to build a canopy in a public
alley
right-of-way,
and authorizing a right-of-use permit.
B64-97 Appropriating
funds for the Cosmo Park Playground and Shelter Project.
B65-97 Approving
the final plat of Country Club Fairways, Plat 1-B, a replat of Lot 1, Country
Club
Fairways,
Plat 1.
B66-97 Approving
the final plat of Dwight Bingham Subdivision, a replat of Lot 56 of Mikel
Subdivision.
B67-97 Approving
the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 13.
B68-97 Approving
the final plat of the Meadowlands, Plat 14.
B69-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code to establish regulations pertaining to scenic
roadways. Introduced
by Harline.
B70-97 Vacating
a sanitary sewer easement in the Meadowlands.
B71-97 Amending
the Major Thoroughfare Plan by adding the Ballenger Lane extension.
B72-97 Annexing
City-owned property south of the MKT Parkway and east of Scott Boulevard.
B73-97 Rezoning
from O-1 to C-2 property on the southwest corner of Elm Street and Watson
Place.
B74-97 Rezoning
from R-1 PUD and C-1 to C-P (Tract A) and R-1 PUD and C-1 to O-P (Tract B)
on
property
located at the southwest corner of Forum Blvd. and Chapel Hill Road and
approving
an O-P/C-P development plan to be known as Forum Chapel Plaza. Introduced
by
Campbell.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Status of the
Land Use Plan Update.
According to a policy resolution,
Mr. Beck reported that this year the Land Use Plan had to be updated. There
was a report as to the status of the Planning and Zoning Commission after
four work sessions on the subject. Mr. Hancock added that the Commission
would begin holding public hearings in the Council Chamber highlighting some
proposed changes to the Plan. Citizens are invited to provide input
either in writing or in person. Mr. Hancock stated the Commission would
take those comments into consideration and report back to the Council during
the summer.
Mr. Janku noted that the
Commission would be considering issues related to duplexes. He had
concerns regarding the potential problems resulting from absentee ownership. He
said it was not similar to rental property in R-1 zoning districts where
there are usually neighboring home owners that lend some degree of stability. He
said there could be a number of individual properties owned by people in
a variety of areas and, if one or two properties start deteriorating, he
thought some of the developments could become run-down and would be difficult
to deal with. He suggested looking at developments of a certain size
being required to stay under common ownership. He said that might facilitate
some type of parking development, similar to the one at Ash and West Boulevard,
where there is considerable off-street parking between the properties. Mr.
Janku said these developments would, in effect, become more like an apartment
complex where there is common ownership and investments are much more significant
on the part of an individual, thus the owner is more committed to maintaining
the property. Mr. Janku asked that his concerns be included in the
study by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Campbell requested the
study also include ownership or management of such property. Mr. Janku
agreed to some degree of commonality. He would like to see any options
for tying together ownership and management.
Mr. Harline thought it was
an interesting concept, but wondered if another option might be to revise
R-2 zoning to meet the more stringent requirements that R-3 zoning, etc.,
have to comply with after having a certain number of units. Mr. Janku
agreed with the idea that as the duplex development becomes larger, it tends
to become more like an apartment development. If the zoning was strengthened,
it would resolve the issue of off-street parking requirements. He said
Mr. Harline was suggesting that the Commission look at how there might be
some degree of open space. Mr. Janku agreed with this suggestion because
the City does not have much functional open space when the developments are
so dense.
When going through this next
Land Use update, Mr. Harline asked if the Council wanted the Commission to
look at some of the more innovative or radical types of zoning, such as the
information that had been sent by the Planning Department on performance
zoning. He asked if the Commission should examine an area based zoning
concept, rather than a parcel by parcel zoning concept. During the
hearing process, Mr. Harline would like the general theory of zoning explored. Mr.
Kruse agreed and said neighborhood oriented zoning needed to be discussed. Mr.
Harline suggested that there be specific discussion about the issue, as opposed
to running down a list of 16 or 17 limited items.
(B) Telecommunications
Towers.
Mr. Janku said these towers
would probably become more prevalent in the community, and was not trying
to discourage them because improved communications would be a benefit to
the community. He reported around the country there had been a lot
of controversy regarding these towers, and he hoped that by addressing issues
in advance the City might be able to eliminate potential problems. Mr.
Janku stated staff mentioned that the zoning ordinance does not specifically
address telecommunications towers, but other language is used. He suggested
making the ordinance more explicit in order to dispose of some concerns about
issues in the future. Mr. Janku said he would like to move to some
of the suggestions that were made about the sharing of towers. He said
many communities were requiring, if possible, that towers are shared so numbers
are minimized. He said there were some issues about landscaping that
could be addressed also. He was concerned about the fact that M-1 zoning
has no height limit and thought there should be a procedure in place that
would automatically regulate a tower's height, possibly 100 feet in M-C zoning. Any
height above that would require some type of permission. Related to
the issue, Mr. Janku said as a community the City may well need to address
to what extent public facilities could be used for private use. He
thought that would be a potential to generate some revenue for the City if
facilities were rented for this type of antenna. Mr. Janku stated it
would also minimize the development of other antenna sites throughout the
community.
Mr. Kruse agreed that the
City needed to have some type of regulation and added that he attended the
workshop that was referenced in the memo. He said there were all kinds
of options available and a couple of suggestions were made. He said
Chesterfield and Wildwood were certainly doing some pretty progressive things.
Mayor Hindman felt it was
the Council's consensus that there was interest in some form of regulation. He
asked if the Council would be asking the staff to draw up a tower control
ordinance. Mr. Janku said the staff report outlined a lot of the issues. Mr.
Kruse said the staff was suggesting two options; amend the zoning ordinance
or create a new ordinance, either way using the Chesterfield or Wildwood
ordinances as a model. It was agreed that these ordinances will be
sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a request for their recommendation.
Mr. Janku said he had enumerated
some of the issues he would like to see addressed in the ordinance, although
he was not certain if the use of public facilities should be in the ordinance,
or something the Council needed to address by resolution.
Mr. Janku made the motion
that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for development
of an ordinance reflecting some of the issues just mentioned. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(C) Street Closure
Requests.
Ms. Coble made the motion
that the requests be approved as submitted. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(D) City Internet
Presence.
During budget discussions,
Mr. Beck said staff discussed with the Council previous work that had been
done on an Internet program. He said this report had been prepared
as a follow-up.
Mayor Hindman asked if this
was similar to a home page. Mr. Pope said the City would have a home
page on their Internet site. Mayor Hindman understood it would be used
by the City staff. Mr. Pope said that was correct. Mayor Hindman
asked if this was something that would be made available to the public as
well. Mr. Pope explained that information would be put on the City's
home page and web site, which will be accessible by the public. He said ordinances,
meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and a variety of different items will be
available. Mayor Hindman asked who would be designing the home page. Mr.
Pope said that had not been resolved yet and staff was currently working
internally on it with assistance from a graphic artist in the Water and Light
Department. Mayor Hindman asked if there was any citizen input in the
design of the home page. Mr. Pope said there was not. Mayor Hindman
said several people expressed to him an interest in the development. Mr.
Pope was agreeable to the suggestion.
Mr. Janku said part of the
recommendation was to refer the report to the Computer Advisory Committee. Mayor
Hindman said he would talk to the City Manager about the people that had
approached him and how they could be involved. He acknowledged there
are very creative people on the City staff, but thought it would be appropriate
to have citizen involvement.
Mr. Janku asked if the system
would provide access in terms of citizens being able to file documents or
obtain forms off the system. He said earlier they had discussed registration
for Parks and Recreation activities. Mr. Pope said that would be down
the road. He said the first priority was to get the home page and the
information available, and then proceed to on-line requests for information
or registration. He said the City had to be cautious about it because
it involves credit card transactions. Mr. Janku asked about permits. Mr.
Pope said that would be possible, although the HTE system has an ability
to do so by telephone.
Mayor Hindman asked how long
it might be before the City has a home page. Mr. Pope said it would
depend somewhat on how long it takes to get it out of the committee, but
probably 60 days from approval.
Mr. Campbell said he did
not think the issue needed to go to the Computer Advisory Committee because
this was a group of technicians, not artists. He thought it would be
better to just have the creative people involved now so they could move ahead
with the project. Mayor Hindman did not agree.
Ms. Coble asked if the County
had been involved. She said they had people that were looking at some
of the same issues, services, and postings. Mr. Pope said they had
not talked to the County about cooperating on a home page, although they
could. Mr. Campbell said it would be a very simple thing to put linkage
between the two entities.
Mr. Campbell said a complete
E-mail directory of all major City employees should be installed for access
to citizens. He said this is something that is routinely done in most
cities.
(E) Parks & Recreation
Items: Mountain Bike Facility, Youth Scholarships, Business Loop
70
Realignment.
Mayor Hindman made the motion
that directed staff to work with the volunteer committee and study the potential
for the mountain bike facility. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku
and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Janku wanted to see the
question addressed about the possible environmental impact to this sensitive
area. He reported about one-quarter of the park would be dedicated
to the bike trail, although he was not certain the entire area would be utilized. Mr.
Janku cautioned that not too much space should be allocated to one activity.
Mr. Campbell agreed with
Mr. Janku and asked that the staff be directed to think about alternative
uses as part of the process.
Mr. Harline said he hoped
this would not pre-empt the skate park project. Mayor Hindman asked
where the City stood on the skate park. Mr. Green said he owed the
Council a report. He said there was no budget for the skate park and
it was not in the CIP. He said staff talked to a lot of people, and
received as many ideas as people they have talked to. He said the skaters
want the park downtown, but there was no property downtown. Staff looked
at property by Columbia College, but it was pricey. In addition, they
had been told to be very careful with what is built because in three months
it would not be used. Mr. Green said he would get a report to the Council
within the next month.
Mayor Hindman said he thought
the youth scholarship was very important and that a committee needed to be
appointed. He said publicity is needed that these scholarships are
available.
Mr. Beck said if the Council
agreed with the concept, he would get them a report. Mr. Janku thought
it might be appropriate if it was done by an outside group, external to City
structure, perhaps a group similar to the Cosmo's.
Regarding the Business Loop
70 realignment, Mayor Hindman said opposition was expressed and he did not
think the Council could act on it based on what occurred earlier. Mr.
Beck suggested the Council adopt a motion directing staff to review the roadway
needs in the area, regardless of any requests about the use of the ground. The
City's future infrastructure needs should be determined while working in
conjunction with the Highway Department. It needs to be established
that the City has enough right-of-way in place and what the ultimate design
should be. Mr. Beck thought that needed to be decided before finishing
the construction of the new park facility. Mr. Campbell agreed with
the exception that the last paragraph "opposition to any kind of realignment
that would cause disruption.." was kept squarely in front of whomever was
doing the planning. Mr. Beck thought the City needed to attempt to
work from a standpoint of staying in the right-of-way and, if that did not
work, then determine what is additionally needed to make the intersection
safer than what it is right now.
Mayor Hindman thought the
report should include what could be done within the right-of-way. Mr.
Beck agreed. Mayor Hindman did not want to see a conclusion indicating
it would be better to realign the road in such a way that would remove it
from the right-of-way.
Mr. Campbell made a motion
that staff be directed to proceed with a report. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
(F) Bicycles being
carried on Amtrak.
Mr. Janku explained that
a memo had been received from the City Clerk with an attached proclamation
that was adopted by the Bicycle Commission. The purpose of the proclamation
is to encourage Amtrak to permit unboxed bicycles to travel on its routes
in Missouri, in essence, accommodating people accessing the Katy Trail. He
was supportive of the proclamation, but thought it would be appropriate to
do so through the Council as opposed to the Commission taking that kind of
action.
Mayor Hindman asked at what
point the Council should take positions on issues such as this. He
said the issue did not have any direct impact on Columbia as such. He
thought it was a good suggestion and he was in favor of the unboxed bicycles
being carried on trains, but Amtrak does not come to Columbia. He
asked if there was a policy in place for a situation such as this.
Mr. Janku thought it would
have an impact on the City because we would conceivably benefit from the
tourism and, to an extent, it would encourage people to use the Katy Trail.
Mayor Hindman understood
Mr. Janku's point, but said widening 63 up to Iowa, would also impact tourism
here. He said he had not been on the Council long enough to know what
the policies are. Mr. Campbell said there was no formal policy on this
to his knowledge. He thought this was relatively innocuous, but whether
or not the Council wanted to start advocating that light rail go through
Jefferson City because it might benefit tourism in Columbia, might be stretching
their prerogative a bit.
Mr. Beck suggested that the
Council receive an impact report associated to situations such as this, but
did not know if it was necessary for this particular item. He said
there were usually two sides to an issue and without having all the facts,
it could conceivably weaken whatever cause they were hoping to strengthen.
Mr. Harline did not see a
problem with it, but also thought it should be done by resolution. Mr.
Kruse suggested that a resolution be drafted along with a report so the Council
could consider it.
It was decided that staff would prepare
a resolution for Council consideration at the next meeting.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Campbell reported on
the continuous parking problems around certain parts of the University. He
talked to Mr. Boeckmann about whether or not the fine structure was working
and whether there needed to be "no standing" language included in the ordinance. Mr.
Campbell said many students have come to the conclusion that the risk of
a $5 parking fine might be cheap on a rainy day. The students park
in these areas, put on their flashers and go off to class. He said
it was creating major traffic problems around some parts of the University. He
reported the University Police were issuing tickets heavily. Mr. Campbell
asked for a staff report concerning fines and the possibility of adding the
language "no standing" to City ordinances.
Mr. Harline noted that the
day was fast approaching when all dogs must be leashed. He asked about
the free run areas and said he understood that would be addressed. Mr.
Harline said there had recently been a building permit approved on William
and Wilson in the East Campus area. He asked for a staff report on
some options to deal with existing problems in that there is not adequate
parking and additional developments are being allowed. Mr. Harline
stated the East Campus area was not the only location where this was an issue,
but was probably worse than in other parts of town.
Mr. Kruse said one of his
constituents had been carrying on a lengthy written communication with himself
and the Public Works Department regarding the fact that his yard is washing
away. The man feels that the City has an obligation to help with the
expense of designing some kind of stormwater system. Mr. Kruse received
a report from staff and asked that the issue be put on their list of things
to discuss at work sessions.
Mr. Janku hoped when the
Council discussed Phase II of the stormwater plan, the issue of management
of the water would also be addressed. After the rains last week, Mr.
Janku said one of his constituents had a similar problem as to what had been
previously described by Mr. Kruse. He said a lot of the problems are
caused by the way the City designs stormwater systems to run into certain
creeks and, to some extent, the City had to be responsible for this. The
other issue is related to the greenbelt policy because this particular individual
was told that if a tree fell in the creek, it was the responsibility of the
landowner to take care of it. The problem he saw was that people might
remove trees to relieve themselves of the risk.
Mr. Campbell said he too
looked at several properties after the rains. He thought it was fair
to anticipate that the City would have groups of citizens coming to the Council
because there is a stormwater plan which they are paying taxes on. He
said many of those people feel they have the right to have situations taken
care of now, and should not have to wait until the third or fourth phases. He
thought the City would need to take a look at how to prioritize problems
citizens are experiencing, not just in numbers, but perhaps in terms of the
extent of damage to the property.
Mr. Janku commented that
standards were being put in place at 763 and Blue Ridge. He expressed
thanks to the staff for all of the work they had done as well as everyone
else involved.
Regarding the EDI Subdivision
Plat approved under the Consent Agenda this evening, Mr. Janku noted that
the owner had dedicated a trail easement on this property. He expressed
his appreciation for it. He asked that staff, whenever a trail easement
or conservation easement is given, formally thank the donors by a letter
from the Mayor or City Manager.
Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
talked about the southeast corner of Broadway and Providence.
Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
had a concern about the manner in which Council Bills are signed by the Mayor
with a signature stamp. Mr. Boeckmann assured the Council that the
validity of the ordinances was not a concern.
The meeting adjourned at
10:50 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Penny
St. Romaine
City
Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia