M I N U T E S
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - COLUMBIA, MISSOURI
JULY 19, 2004
INTRODUCTORY
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, July 19, 2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was taken with the following results: Council Members ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS and JOHN were present. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of July 6, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Ash and a second by Ms. Crayton.
APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hindman explained that the applicant requested R136-04 be continued to the next meeting.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that R136-04 be moved from New Business to the top of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Upon his request, Mr. Janku made the motion that Mr. John be allowed to abstain from voting on B226-04. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote. Mr. John stated he was the listing agent for the owner of the property involved with B226-04.
The agenda, as amended, including the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. Janku.
R136-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Trail Ridge Subdivision Block 3.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. John pointed out that if they tabled this issue to the next meeting, it would be discussed along with the PUD requests for this area.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that R136-04 be tabled to the August 2, 2004 Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
SPECIAL ITEMS
None.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS
Rhonda Garland - Support for Moonlight Hoops and New Youth Job Training Program.
Ms. Garland thanked Ms. Crayton for attending a Partnership Conference this past weekend. In regards to the Moonlight Hoops program, she felt this was a good program and asked for more City support of this program. In regards to the Youth Job Training Program, Ms. Garland stated that she thought all youth, not just at-risk and poor youth, needed to have a job ethic. She asked that a new job training program be developed through collaborative efforts by the City, Boone County, and different non-profit organizations within the community. Ms. Garland also stated she was happy to see the Convention and Visitor's Bureau was looking into bringing more attractions and fun to Columbia.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B221-04 Rezoning property located southeast of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Sussex Drive from A-1 to R-1.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck stated the rezoning of 13 acres between Scott Boulevard and Sussex Drive was recommended for approval by both the Commission and Staff.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Dave Oldham, an engineer with A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, spoke on behalf of Westlawn Properties and the Russell family and offered to answer any questions.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ash asked if corridor preservation was needed since this was where expansion to Scott Boulevard might begin. Mr. Hutton stated that would be dealt with when the plat was discussed.
B221-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B222-04 Approving the Boone Prairie M-R Development Plan and PUD Site Plan.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Beck described this as a major development on a 35 acre tract in north central Columbia.
Mr. Bondra explained this would create 80 two unit structures and an office development over 170,000 square feet. He noted the Commission recommended approval, subject to some conditions.
Mr. John asked if it would be 40 structures with a total of 80 units. Mr. Bondra replied yes.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
Brian Harrington, an engineer with Allstate Consultants, pointed out they had met with the neighbors over a year ago. He explained that they developed the pod system because one of the neighbors' main concerns was facing the rear of a straight line of duplexes. He pointed out that they ended up with less pavement and more green space, per duplex, as a result. He also stated that they conducted a traffic study and that stormwater detention would be on the north end of the site.
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku was hopeful that similar designs might be emulated in the future.
B222-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B228-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Forest Ridge, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained the City's policy for increasing the size of water mains due to City requirements. The proposed project included 2,525 feet of 12-inch water main instead of 8-inch and 865 feet of 8-inch line rather than 6-inch. The estimated cost was $23,962.25 and would be paid from the Water and Light utility fund.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B228-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B229-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Mill Creek Manor, Plat 1; providing for payment of differential costs.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the same policy applied to this ordinance as the previous one. The project would consist of 2,050 feet of 8-inch line with the developer being required to pay for the equivalent of a 6-inch line. The estimated cost was $8,528 and would be paid for with Water and Light funds.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
B229-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted reading as follows:
(A) Establishing a policy for funding attractions and projects through the Tourism Development Fund - Attraction Development Program.
Item A was read by the Clerk.
Lorah Steiner introduced Linda Baumgartner, from the Attraction and Development Committee, a sub-committee of their Master Plan Update Committee. Ms. Baumgartner explained the committee, which met weekly from November 2003 - April 2004, reviewed attraction development as it related to tourism and destination marketing. They discussed what influenced attraction development in the community and assessed what was already in place within the community. She pointed out they met with Peter Herschend, owner of Silver Dollar City, Branson Bell, and Celebration City in Branson, who provided them with some very valuable information. Mr. Herschend felt an attraction needed to be unique, charming, repeatable, and marketable. He noted an attraction should also be appealing to moms, stand out from other attractions in the area or State, and would persuade someone to drive a distance and stay over night. He also felt it was important to establish an attraction base, an attraction that would be supported by other, smaller attractions in the market. Mr. Herschend suggested they consider hiring an attraction development consultant to determine the type of attractions would be best suited for Columbia and to assist the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the City in creating a proposal that might interest those attraction developers.
Ms. Baumgartner stated they believed their mission was to create near and long term vision ideas. Those included using 75% of the Attraction Development funds available to support local attractions currently in the area, emphasizing the requirement for a detailed attraction marketing plan in the Attraction Development funding guidelines, requiring all funded attractions to participate in an attraction marketing group to develop cross-promotion programs, requiring all funded attractions to participate in two joint marketing programs per year, recommending the CVB support the funded attractions and joint marketing efforts through advertising and promotion, and using 25% of the Attraction Development funds for research and attracting a destination level attraction, which would include retaining the services of a consultant to determine the most suitable attraction for Columbia. Ms. Baumgartner pointed out the cost of a consultant would actually be closer to 5% and would have a cap of $40,000.
Mr. Ash asked if the Attraction Development Fund already existed or if it was something new. Ms. Baumgartner explained the Fund was created by the Bed Tax and the money had been accruing for several years. She noted the money had been held because they were told that major attractions would cost millions of dollars to create.
Mr. Ash asked what they would do with the remaining 95%. Ms. Baumgartner felt that was the next level of discussion for the Convention and Visitors Advisory Board and stated their current recommendation was that they use 75% to assist local attractions. She saw putting aside the $40,000 and having someone come in and help them realize what attraction they might want to pursue as the second step.
Mr. Ash asked if this was the same fund that provided money for festivals and if it would be a better than average year for those that had vied for funds in the past. Ms. Steiner stated that was funded from the Festival and Event Fund. Mr. Janku pointed out that both the Festival and Event Fund and the Attraction Development Fund came from the same source, the Bed Tax. Ms. Steiner explained that annually, there was approximately $335,000 available in the Tourism Development Fund. Of that, $150,000 - $175,000 was available to fund Festival and Event applications. The remaining funds were not spent and were accruing in the Attraction Development Fund. Because the Attraction Development Fund would be used for a brick and mortar project, they wanted to build up that fund. This would be the first year they would be accepting applications for the Attraction Development part of the fund.
Ms. Crayton felt there needed to be more ethnic type activities and asked if ethnic groups were eligible to apply for either fund. Ms. Steiner replied that they tell people they are not creators, but funders, and noted that they have encouraged Juneteenth to look at expanding that celebration. She pointed out that they could encourage applicants, but could not be the applicants. She stated the applications had to come out of the community and encouraged Ms. Crayton or anyone else wanting to see those types of events to motivate someone to develop one. She noted they would be judged on the same merit as any other application that came in.
Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Janku suggested that where the recommendations say "develop Columbia's existing attractions" that they should also say "as well as future attractions" or something to that affect. He thought the word "existing" was limiting. He pointed out that the eight groups listed were not exclusive and that anyone could apply.
Mr. John requested that the guideline of not exceeding $40,000 be included in the motion or legislation developed.
Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff be directed to prepare the proper legislation incorporating the recommendations for Council review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
OLD BUSINESS
B204-04 Granting a waiver from the requirements for sidewalk construction along the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast and the west side of Woodridge Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that the policy resolution had been provided in regards to what would qualify for a sidewalk waiver. He further noted that five out of the seven criteria had been met and that Staff recommended approval.
Tom Schneider, attorney with offices at 11 N. Seventh, spoke on behalf of George Ousley and Wayne Sells, the applicants. He stated that there was not a sidewalk along I-70 Drive Southeast for about a mile in either direction. He felt it would be a sidewalk to nowhere, would cost up to $13,700, and noted the ordinance specifically reserved the right for Council to later install sidewalks and tax bill as the sidewalks were developed in the area.
Mr. Ash pointed out that even though there was not a park or school nearby, the IGA store was nearby. He understood that they previously granted a waiver just to the east of this site, but noted industrial was behind that site. This site had residential behind it. He felt that they should pay particular attention to the type of road in front of a site, in regards to whether or not it was safe enough to use, in the event that there was no sidewalk.
Mayor Hindman agreed with Mr. Ash. He did not agree with the applicant regarding the number of criteria met that would justify a waiver. He pointed out that the road did not have shoulders for bicyclists and the roadway was not safe to walk on. He did not think the waiver should be granted.
Mr. Janku felt there would be pedestrian activity in the area due to the residential developments and thought it was worthy of starting a network, even if it would take the tax billing method to complete the network in the area.
B204-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: JOHN. VOTING NO: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS. Bill defeated.
B215-04 Amending Chapter 12A relating to tree preservation and land disturbance permits.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Patterson explained the ordinance was the result of recommendations and suggestions made by the Energy & Environment Commission, as well as other parties. The feeling was that the ordinance could be improved by the eliminating the ability of someone going out and logging timber without having a permit. This was essentially due to the fact that the definitions for clear cutting and mechanized clearing did not fully address the removal of trees with things such as chain saws and logging practices. It was recommended that the ordinance be amended to define logging, provide a clearer definition for clear cutting, define forest, and establish the requirement of a permit prior to the removal of any more than three trees on a parcel of property for commercial purposes. The logging permit would be required in the form of a land disturbance permit, which would also address the requirements for tree preservation. He explained a piece of property would never be allowed to have more than 75% of what was defined as a climax forest removed at the time of the first permit being issued, regardless of how many times the owner came back for additional permits.
Mr. Ash asked about the definition of logging and how "for commercial purposes" would be defined. Mr. Patterson thought it would be a determination of whether they were taking it for the sale of the property. The idea was to try to come up with some type of reasonable differentiation for someone wishing to remove a dead or diseased tree in their back yard and a reasonable number. He noted the number and definition were arbitrary and was sure that someone, if they really wanted, could find a way to circumvent it.
Tom Kramer, 8831 E. St. Charles, commented that he had friends who cut trees on their land to sell for firewood. He suggested the ordinance stipulate the time period for cutting the trees. Mr. Patterson noted that it was one year.
Don Stamper, 1304 Sedona Villas Drive, spoke on behalf of the Central Missouri Development Council. He thanked the Arborist for meeting with the development community and clarifying the changes and proposals in the document. While there were wording suggestions made by his group, they found no fault with the revisions as they had been drafted. Mr. Stamper stated that they supported the changes brought forward.
Johan Holt, spoke on behalf of the Osage Group Sierra Club, in support of the amendment. They viewed this as a good first step, but wanted to see enforcement mechanisms put in place. He felt that one City Arborist could not oversee the entire City of Columbia. He suggested forming a panel of experts that could provide oversight and added that he looked forward to seeing better ways to improve the tree ordinance in the future.
Mr. John noted that after the plats were completed, there would be two and three acre lots with some forests on them that might or might not be worth truly preserving. He felt a mechanism was needed for the Arborist to allow the City to take a fee and take the trees to Parks and Recreation to find a forest to replant them in. This would allow a flexibility mode in the ordinance. He thought that was something that needed to be sent back through the Energy & Environment Commission.
Mr. Loveless asked how the definition of a tree was determined to have a four inch diameter designation and four and one-half feet above the ground designation. Mr. Patterson replied that it was what the Arborist advised them to be standard. He recommended that it be something easily discernable and something large enough that would have some meaning in size as far as the tree itself. Mr. Loveless noted the penalties in Section C referred to every 1,000 square feet of climax forest removed. He presumed that meant 1,000 square feet of land. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct. Mr. Loveless understood that in every acre there could be 43 violations if it were to be completely cleared off. Mr. Patterson replied that was also correct. He said it was simply an effective way to administer the regulations and added it would be easy to measure area. Mr. Loveless felt a four inch tree was too small of a plant to be standing as a class. In professional forestry, he said, there were specific sizes of trees that were referred to as regeneration sapling pole. The four inch size was considered sapling. His thought by the time they got to a six or eight inch diameter, you would be talking about a forest. Up until that time, he felt they were just talking about a stand of regenerating saplings. Mr. Ash thought that was what it had been before because they crossed out caliper and replaced it with diameter. Mr. Loveless pointed out that before they never talked about the commercial uses of trees. He stated he could not image selling four inch "stuff" unless they were going to cut it off and sell it for firewood. Mr. Janku thought the four inch standard applied to the 1,000 foot issue. He noted that logging people probably would not log a four inch tree, but when they started clearing a climax forest that would be what constituted a tree. Mr. Loveless liked the spirit of the ordinance, but said he was curious as to where the definition came from.
Mayor Hindman agreed with Mr. John in that there should be more review of the tree ordinance. He commented there were fairly large tracts of land that were totally cleared. He thought they should make sure they were adequately addressing the public's concern regarding this. He stated this could all be part of the same review package.
Mr. John pointed out this only involved land in the City limits and was afraid if we tightened the ordinance too tight, people would not annex or they would clear their land before annexing into the City.
B215-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B216-04 Authorizing acquisition of property located at the east terminus of Big Bear Boulevard for a snow and ice control facility; appropriating funds.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck commented that they had discussed implementing a chemical approach for snow and ice control at the Retreat. To start the process, the Public Works Department looked for land on which to place a facility. Six acres were located in the Big Bear Boulevard area. The land was appraised and Staff was recommending the purchase of the tract for $300,000. Clean up work would have to be done and had been taken into account. The next step would be to fund the facility itself.
B216-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B223-04 Granting a variance relating to water main extension to Lot 2 of Limerick Lakes East Subdivision.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that approval was being recommended by both the Water and Light Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B223-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
B224-04 Granting a variance relating to sidewalk construction along the south side of Northland Drive.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that approval had been recommended by both Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Jeff Hemme, Hemme Construction, 2300 N. Whitewater, explained that he built the two duplexes. He noted a very large tree would have to be removed if the sidewalk was required and added that there were no sidewalks on that side of Northland. Going up the heavily wooded hill to the east, he pointed out a very steep grade, which, he felt, would make it difficult to construct a sidewalk.
Mr. Ash asked if a sidewalk could be built around the large tree. Mr. Hemme thought it could be done. He assumed he would need a variance for that as well. Mr. Patterson stated they could vary the alignment and grade on the sidewalk design to accommodate it. The builder would simply need to get a permit from Protective Inspection to build if it was on any part of the public right-of-way. If it was on private right-of-way, Staff would have to approve the plans, but there would be no reason why that could not be done expeditiously. Mr. Hutton asked if the applicant would have to dedicate right-of-way. Mr. Patterson replied he would have to give an easement for a public sidewalk, but that would not prevent Staff from approving plans for construction. Mr. Hemme was still concerned about the steep grade.
Mr. Ash noted they had a similar case at the last meeting and it had been pointed out that the Public Works Director could determine that it was not feasible to construct it the way the Council directed. If that was the case, he could still come back to the Council and ask for the permission.
Mayor Hindman noted that if they continued the issue, Mr. Hemme could deal with Staff, go ahead and build the sidewalk, and the Council would not hear from him on this issue again. Only if he was not able to build the sidewalk, would he come in for a variance.
Mary Von Schoenborn, 3308 Crawford, commented that she had contacted the University recently regarding a hickory tree she was trying to save. She learned that building a sidewalk could possibly kill a tree, even if it was build around it, because the roots would be disturbed.
Mr. Janku commented that the Bear Creek Trail was literally adjacent to this property. He felt it was a pedestrian generator and people in the area would want to access the trail. He talked about a letter he received regarding a plan for a 17 acre tract on Northland and an interest in connecting to the Bear Creek Trail. He stated they were definitely planning to put a sidewalk/pedestrian way along the length of their property. This two lot property in question would connect that property to the Bear Creek Trail. He thought it was important, for connectivity, that this sidewalk be put in. He did not think there was anything extraordinary on the property that would warrant a waiver.
B224-04 was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: NO ONE. VOTING NO: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. Bill defeated.
B225-04 Granting a variance relating to sidewalk construction along the south side of Proctor Drive, just east of Creasy Springs Road.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck noted that approval was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Rhonda Carlson, 1110 Willowcreek, a developer of Parkade North, passed around exhibits for those who had not had time to go out to the site. She explained that Plat 12 had been proposed to be built as one plat, but that there was one portion of Parkade North that was unserviceable for sewer. That was why they had to separate it into 12A and 12B. As it was initially proposed to the City Council and approved as a preliminary plat, there was going to be a pump station located behind Thames Court at the bottom where there was a draw, what would be Sandy Court, and where the two cul-de-sacs came together. In the planning stages, Staff changed their position and recommended they go ahead and try to access the sewer because they no longer wanted to deal with the maintenance of pump stations. She noted that they had to go through three property owners and were at the point where they would have to condemn the salvage yard to get the last access. The first phase was approved in 1994 and it took the rest of that time to get the remaining phase approved because they had no access to sewer. Had they been able to get that done, she would not be here now. The first three lots of Plat 12 were not accessed by sidewalk. The sidewalk they would like to have installed would be in an area that went to an undeveloped tract. When they originally proposed the subdivision, Bentley was not a court, but a drive that was to go directly out to Proctor Drive. They came before the Council to get a variance and were allowed to cul-de-sac it so it did not go out there. She also noted a stand of trees there and said the owners were aware that at some point the street would be developed and improved, but that there would be ample time, based on the time lines that she saw in the Staff Report, for them to get a nice stand of trees.
Mr. Loveless understood Thames Court, Bentley Court, and Sandy Court to have sidewalks all of the way around except for the few undeveloped lots. Ms. Carlson replied that was correct, and added that as they have been building houses, they have been filling in the walks. She noted this was a unique situation with this particular plat in this particular area. She did not think a salvage yard was where most people would want to walk. Looking at the photographs, she noted that none of the connections to it were anything but gravel.
Mr. Janku recognized the value of the trees to buffer the property, but also felt that if development occurred on the other side of the street, they would want that developer to put in sidewalks. He felt they would, realistically, not be able to tax bill the back side of these properties when they were ready to put in a sidewalk because the precedent had been set. Once the property was turned over to the homeowner, he pointed out, the City could not go back to the developer. Mr. John pointed out that when they worked on the resolution, they specifically put in Section 9 saying the granting of a variance to the subdivision regulations requirement for construction of a sidewalk shall not affect the power of the City Council to later install a sidewalk adjacent to the property and levy a special assessment against the property for construction of the sidewalk. He said they made that a condition of granting the variance. Mr. Boeckmann pointed out that when tax billing, there had to be a special benefit to the property. Section 9 made it clear that the City could come back later and tax bill, but it did not necessarily mean they could legally. If the Council found a special benefit by the sidewalk that was put in, then the City could tax bill. In the past, he thought they had difficulty finding special benefit when the sidewalk was on the back and really did not help the property.
Mr. Ash noted that a Planning Commissioner had mentioned a lot of heavy truck traffic in the area making it a bad place for a sidewalk. He thought just the opposite. If there was a lot of heavy truck traffic in an area, that was not a place for people to be walking on the street, but on a sidewalk. He also thought it was less important to have internal sidewalks on quiet internal streets where someone could walk on the streets and still be safe. He did, however, like the idea of the trees providing a visual buffer for what was across the street.
Mr. Loveless agreed the street was not safe for walking, but wondered where they would be walking to. He pointed out that Proctor Park was a long way away from this stretch of property, not to mention the hills. He also noted that the students that went to Parkade were picked up by the bus, which went to the north and then down Texas.
Mr. Ash recalled testimony of speakers of a past proposal saying they walked along this road and that they were worried about creating density on the opposite side of Proctor. He thought they needed to think of the sidewalks as links in a chain, not necessarily long, connected pieces.
Mr. Janku wondered about putting in a sidewalk on the inside of the tree line. He suggested asking Staff for an evaluation of the idea before voting on the issue. He noted it could be some sort of temporary sidewalk that would preserve the tree line to the extent possible and provide continuity. Mayor Hindman and Mr. Ash thought the idea was worth considering. Mr. Patterson stated Staff could look into it.
Mayor Hindman agreed in principle that it would be the beginning of the chain because it went over to Creasy Springs, which had a sidewalk system, but felt there were enough equities involved that it would be worth tabling and having Mr. Janku's idea looked into.
Mr. Loveless understood that if the developer were to build the sidewalk and the City were to come in at a later date to rebuild Proctor, destroying the sidewalk in the process, the City would then rebuild the sidewalk at City cost. Mr. Beck replied that was correct and added that the City would also have to pay to remove the first one. Mr. Loveless did not think we were that far away from the area being developed and the street having to be rebuilt. He pointed out that the same thing was going to happen with the other two variances they denied this evening.
Mr. Janku thought there would be a lot of unimproved streets in the community because the list was long. He felt they needed to put in these sidewalks that did not look very good, but would be functional until the money finally came. He thought Proctor Drive would be improved, but thought it was long way off.
Even though it would be built twice, Mr. Ash pointed out, it would not be the same person paying for it both times.
Mayor Hindman agreed with Mr. Janku and Mr. Ash and then pointed out the safety factor on streets with traffic and no shoulders. He thought a lot of streets that needed to be rebuilt would not have to be rebuilt so soon if there were adequate sidewalks.
Mr. Janku made the motion that B225-04 be tabled to the September 7, 2004 meeting and that a Staff Report on the feasibility of a temporary sidewalk be provided. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B231-04 Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code as it relates to the purchasing division.
The bill was given second reading by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck pointed out an amendment sheet had been prepared. He explained that a Staff Committee had been looking at other public agencies relating to purchasing procedures and had come back with these recommendations for amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Beck noted the Purchasing Division was an important part of City operations and thought it was handled in a very professional manner.
Ms. Fleming felt the major changes were rasing the purchasing threshold from $5,000 to $15,000 and allowing for the Purchasing Division to bid certain public improvements. She noted an issue with the definition of a public improvement in that some times there were gray areas. She thought this would help in those areas of defining what was maintenance and what was public improvement. By setting certain dollar limits, it would allow the department to go ahead and handle some of the projects outlined in the memo.
Mr. Ash asked why the City Manager being authorized to lease farm land owned by the City without Council approval had specifically been spelled out. Mr. John explained it had to do with the Airport and sewer plant sites. Mr. Beck noted it was a timing situation. Mr. Ash also asked for examples of when the City Manager would be entering into contracts for professional and other services without following the competitive bidding process or RFP's when certain factors were involved. Mr. Boeckmann replied it was similar to existing language and gave, as an example, hiring an outside attorney. He noted professional type services were typically not bid, but they were done by RFP's and usually involved a committee.
Mr. Hutton made the motion that B231-04 be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.
B231-04, as amended, was given third reading with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.
B217-04 Authorizing acquisition of easements for the East Broadway (Route WW) from Old 63 to U. S. Highway 63 improvement project.
B218-04 Calling for bids for the Cow Branch Outfall Sewer Extension Project.
B219-04 Accepting certain streets for public use and maintenance.
B220-04 Authorizing application for FY 2005 transit operating and capital assistance grants.
B226-04 Approving the Final Plat of J. R. Keene Subdivision Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.
B227-04 Approving the Final Plat of Centerstate Plat 3; authorizing a performance contract.
B230-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
R128-04 Setting a public hearing: repair of runways and taxiways at Columbia Regional Airport.
R129-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of water main serving Stonecrest, Plat 6.
R130-04 Setting a public hearing: construction of improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial at Battle Garden.
R131-04 Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the contract with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for Maternal and Child Health Services.
R132-04 Accepting an FAA grant for repair of runways and taxiways at Columbia Regional Airport.
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN (except B226-04, on which he abstained). VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:
NEW BUSINESS
R133-04 Authorizing an agreement with Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. for reliability coordination services.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Dasho explained this contract would provide the City reliability services that it used to take under an organization called Mid-American Integrated Network. With the changes in the wholesale electric market, they moved to Midwest Independent Transmission to provide these services. He listed the kinds of services they would provide and noted that he felt they were able to take on the responsibility. In discussions with them, Mr. Dasho stated they would bill the City approximately $3,200 for this service for the months of May, June and July. Once the City was fully integrated into the network, there would be no cost associated with this arrangement.
The vote on R133-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R134-04 Establishing a Nuisance Party Task Force.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck explained the Council had the nuisance party issue, particularly in neighborhoods around the University and Colleges, and the chronic nuisance property issue before them for a long time. As a result, the Council requested a task force be appointed to deal with both issues. He noted that a substantial amount of information had been gathered from other cities and added that he had personally communicated with Managers and Administrators of other cities that encountered similar problems.
Mr. Ash suggested naming the task force the Nuisance Party and Property Task Force since it would deal with both parties and properties. The Mayor liked the idea.
Mr. Ash made the motion that the task force be named The Nuisance Party and Property Task Force. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.
John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, a member of the Citizens Chronic Nuisance Property Abatement Ordinance Planning Group, spoke in favor of the establishment of a task force. He thought it was a good way to move the issues forward and stated he was looking forward to participating on the Task Force.
The vote on R134-04, as amended, was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:
R135-04 Approving the Preliminary Plat of Vanderveen Crossing, Plat No. 9; granting variances from the subdivision regulations.
The resolution was read by the Clerk.
Mr. Beck described this as an approximate 70 acre tract located in northern Columbia and noted variances were involved.
Mr. Bondra explained this would create 188 R-1 zoned lots on this recently annexed property. The variances had to do with the width of the right-of-way, pavement, the degree of curvature, and the separation between curves of Blue Ridge Road. They were identical variances to those granted on a plat immediately to the southeast of this property. Mr. Bondra noted that the Commission recommended approval of the plat as well as the three variance requests.
Mr. Ash noted the Commission minutes reflected praise of the School District's report and pointed out it had not been included in their packets. He said he would like to see them in the future.
Mr. Janku asked if a pedway would be a part of this. Mr. Hutton noted that a cross section on the plat showed an eight foot sidewalk/pedway.
The vote on R135-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN. 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:
B232-04 Voluntary annexation of property located south of Prathersville Road and east of State Route 763; establishing permanent M-1 zoning.
B233-04 Rezoning property located on the northeast side of U.S. Highway 63 and at the southeast terminus of Jenne Lane from A-1 to O-P; approving the A.H.J. O-P Development Plan; approving less stringent screening requirements.
B234-04 Rezoning property located on the northeast corner of Green Meadows Road and Green Meadows Circle from R-1 to PUD-10.
B235-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Green Meadows Road and Green Meadows Circle from R-1 to PUD-10.
B236-04 Rezoning property located on the north side of Green Meadows Road, approximately 100 feet east of Skylark Drive, from R-1 to PUD-3.
B237-04 Calling for bids for the repair of runways and taxiways at Columbia Regional Airport; appropriating funds.
B238-04 Appropriating and transferring funds for the purchase of a yard waste grinder for the Solid Waste Division.
B239-04 Authorizing a utility easement agreement with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission to allow for the construction of a water main serving Timber Creek Subdivision.
B240-04 Authorizing construction of water main serving Stonecrest, Plat 6; providing for payment of differential costs.
B241-04 Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.
B242-04 Authorizing the construction of improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial at Battle Garden; appropriating funds, authorizing a grant agreement with the National Park Service.
B243-04 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating to medical marijuana and paraphernalia cases in the Municipal Court.
B244-04 Calling a special election to be held on November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to establish medical marijuana policy.
B245-04 Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating to the prosecution of marijuana and paraphernalia cases in the Municipal Court.
B246-04 Calling a special election to be held on November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to establish marijuana law enforcement policy.
REPORTS AND PETITIONS
(A) Twilight Festival.
Mr. Beck explained the Council asked for information on this item and a report was provided by the Central Columbia Association (CCA), which he forwarded to the Council.
Mr. Ash noted that he was hesitant in closing the streets and added that he agreed with Ms. Gartner's reasoning and that they should try to solve the problem by spreading the activities throughout downtown to ease congestion. Ms. Gartner pointed out they could not regulate where people set up since the sidewalks were public sidewalks. Some people had not been authorized to set up, they just chose to set up in a bad spot. Mr. Ash asked if people could be told where to set up. If the Council was uncomfortable giving that much authority to the CCA, he thought the CCA could communicate with the Police Department to have people moved along in the case of a bottleneck. Mr. Janku asked if the Council would have the authority to regulate that sort of conduct. Mr. Boeckmann said there would be some problems involved. He said if someone wanted to protest on a public street or sidewalk, they had a right to do so, with the limitation that they could not block pedestrian or vehicular traffic. If people were going to be allowed to conduct business on sidewalks, there would be some trouble drawing lines and saying who could do what and where they could do it. Mr. Ash commented that they would not be told no, but would be steered to a safer area for public safety. If it was an issue of pedestrians being able to get through, Mr. Boeckmann did not think that would be a problem.
Mr. Janku asked about people who set up and basically operated businesses in the public street, using the street for placement of temporary structures. He asked if that could be regulated. Mr. Boeckmann replied that there were reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on people doing that.
Ms. Crayton was concerned about the vehicular traffic driving through and people not paying attention. Mr. Ash felt if they could spread out the people more equally throughout downtown, as opposed to just Ninth and Broadway, it would help that situation. Ms. Crayton suggested using buses to get people from the parking garages to the Festival.
Mr. John did not agree with the problems identified and felt the group was putting a blind eye to a problem that was growing. He stated, not only were there people gawking from cars because there was so much to look at, but there were also people darting and walking back and forth across the street. He thought they needed to look at the issue responsibly instead of just saying, no, it's a bad idea. Mr. John guaranteed, if they closed a section of Ninth Street, from Broadway to Walnut, the businesses along there, would have just as much business as they did currently. Some of the retail stores on Broadway might have a problem if Broadway were to be closed, but that was not being discussed.
Mr. Ash did not think the opposition to closing off a block was the fear of loss of business traffic on that block. He thought it was the opposite, everyone would want to be on the block where the street was closed, and the businesses that were not located on that street would suffer.
Mr. Janku pointed out the Council could amend ordinances, such as the no parking notice being given 24 hours in advance of a closing. There were things that could be done to open up space and help out incrementally. He noted there were areas that were particularly bad and others that were tolerable. Mr. Janku suggested they try to figure out some of the incremental changes that could be made. Perhaps closing one street or part of a street so people could funnel up and down.
Before receiving the memo, Mayor Hindman commented he was sure the right thing to do was to close off the street. He felt the memo made fairly cogent arguments against closing off streets. He thought they could deal with the no parking and the sale of wine on sidewalks issues. He also thought there might be a better chance of getting people downtown if things were scattered around and if Ninth Street were to be blocked off. He suggested experimenting to see what would happen. He reminded everyone that it was the downtown merchants that put this together and that they did not want to pull the rug out from under them.
Mr. John interjected that the other alternative would be nothing on Ninth and Broadway, making it a traffic corridor so people could get up and down. Mr. Ash suggested that businesses be allowed to be there, but not the musicians and other attractions. Mr. Janku did not think the vendors and attractions out of the area would necessarily help because people would still be moving through. Mr. Ash asked them to consider that this was funded by the downtown merchants and that they did not want to close the streets. Mr. John understood that, but felt, at some point, the Council needed to say the safety of the citizens was more important. Mr. Ash noted he was not asking to keep the status quo, but asking to have things spread out.
There was a discussion as to where to go from here and whether or not they should have something ready for the September Twilight Festival. Mr. Janku pointed out that the September events were not as crowded as the June events. To close a September festival, he felt, would not be a true evaluation of the impact.
Mr. Ash asked what they thought about giving more authority to attempt the spreading out of things, and if that did not work, to then look at closing streets. Mayor Hindman asked about closing just one block. Mr. Ash said he would never be convinced that closing a street would be a good idea. He suggested minimizing or prohibiting any musicians or tables on Broadway or Ninth because that would create a dramatic decrease in the overloaded streets. He thought that maybe those streets were so popular that people would be on them anyway. All the attractions could be put on the other streets. He felt that would not overwhelm Staff or create traffic problems and it could easily be tried.
Mr. Ash pointed out that Ms. Gartner had specifically said, regarding the issue of spreading things out and telling people where to go, that she brought it up in 2000 and the Council and Staff told her she was not allowed to ask people to move. Mr. Boeckmann asked if that was the issue. He thought there were a number of people who participated and assigned places to do things. Mr. Ash said that was true, but he was suggesting she be given a little more authority. Mr. Boeckmann said the Council could not delegate authority to a private corporation. Because it was a public safety issue, Mr. Ash suggested the Police Department could be involved.
There was a question as to the difference between closing streets off for this purpose and the Soap Box Derby. Mr. Boeckmann reminded them that there was no problem with shutting the streets off to vehicular traffic.
Mr. Ash suggested asking for another report from the CCA honing in more on the concept of attacking the problem by spreading it out.
Mr. John did not think the CCA felt there was a problem and that they were seeing exactly what they wanted to see happen - people being drawn downtown. He felt they were drawing people downtown, but to a dangerous situation that was going to get out of hand.
Mr. John made the motion that, for the first two Twilight Festivals in September, Ninth Street be closed to vehicular traffic between Walnut and Broadway.
If they were going to vote to close the streets, Mr. Janku felt they should take the responsibility of doing the work. Mr. John noted he was assuming the City would take on the responsibility with his motion and stated he would accept that as a friendly amendment. Mr. Janku understood the motion would cause proper legislation to come back to the Council for introduction. Mr. John agreed.
The motion made by Mr. John, amended by Mr. Janku, was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved by voice vote.
(B) Deer Hunting on City Property.
Mr. Beck noted that a committee had worked on this issue with the Department of Conservation. The idea was that some City property would be made available for bow hunting under the same restrictions imposed by the Conservation Department in other areas. The report listed the areas.
Mr. Loveless mentioned there was already bow hunting in Hinkson Woods and in the Waters area on the hillside behind US Rents It at 63 and Stadium. His point was that there was a precedent for having bow hunting within the City limits, and, by the mere fact, that so few even knew about it, it was obviously not a problem.
Mr. John stated it would be controversial and there would be people who believed this to be the world's worst idea. He commented that deer were dangerous and destructive and noted an article he read regarding deer in Wisconsin. He stated that in Wisconsin where the deer population exploded, much like here, they were actually losing species of plants and animals because of over grazing by the deer. In one place in Wisconsin, the deer population actually reduced the species of plants and animals by almost 50% because they grazed it down to nothing.
Mr. John made the motion that Staff be directed to prepare the required legislation for Council review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton.
Mr. Loveless did not think anyone who had dealt with a deer problem was under the impression that bow hunting would solve a deer population problem. It was one tool that could be used and the City would, at least, be showing a commitment in trying to address what they understood was going to be an even greater problem, if they chose to do nothing.
The motion made by Mr. John, seconded by Mr. Hutton, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to the following boards and commissions:
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Beach, Rebecca C., 2302 Memorial Ct., Ward 6 - term to expire 7/31/07
Heise, David A., 1707 Hinkson, Apt. #2, Ward 3 - term to expire 7/31/06
Slaughter, Betsy A., 509 Vieux Carre Ct., Ward 2 - term to expire 7/31/06
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODES COMMISSION
Baldwin, James W., 2010 Ivy Way, Ward 4 - term to expire 8/1/07
Glass, Mike, 128 N. Cedar Lake Dr., Ward 5 - term to expire 8/1/07
Londeree, Ben R., 2601 Chapel Wood Terrace, Ward 4 - term to expire 8/1/07
Westerfield, Jim, 101 S. Glenwood, Ward 4 - term to expire 8/1/07
BOARD OF ELECTRICAL EXAMINERS
Erickson, Richard C., 1305 Woodrail Ave., Ward 5 - term to expire 8/1/07
Shanker, Richard A., P.O. Box 10202, Ward 3 - term to expire 8/1/07
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Cole, Randall, L., 505 Clinkscales, Ward 2 - term to expire 3/1/06
RAILROAD ADVISORY BOARD
Blaylock, Teddy J., 1861 N. Boothe Lane, County - term to expire 7/15/08
Groshong, Kee W., 201 West Blvd. South, Ward 4 - term to expire 7/15/08
COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC
Mr. Loveless asked where they stood on the lighting standards and intersection design issues. Mr. Hutton thought they were waiting on a work session for lighting and that intersection design was in the hands of Planning and Zoning. Mayor Hindman thought they were waiting for a report back in regards to whether or not Staff had the time and expertise to look at the intersection issue or by telling the Council how they should look at them. He thought there was a question as to whether or not outside consultation was needed. Mayor Hindman stated that they wanted to know what needed to be done to make sure that, from here on out, all intersection design, new and old, would be state of the art when it came to bicycle and pedestrian considerations.
Due to confusion regarding what was previously requested, Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff report back on the issue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
In regards to the tree ordinance, Mr. John made the motion that Staff look into some sort of land swap or buy out where, if approved by the City Arborist, a payment could be made or some other piece of ground could be substituted in an area where it did not make sense to keep a small, isolated patch of trees that might just happen to meet the definition.
Mayor Hindman asked if the motion could include looking at the tree ordinance in connection with the extensive clearing of whole strips of land. He was also concerned about a subdivision when it met the land disturbance when it was approved, but then individual owners clear cut their property. Mayor Hindman asked for a report on how the ordinance was working out, particularly in residential areas.
Mr. John agreed to accept the Mayor's comments as a friendly amendment. He felt a problem might be that they were just now modifying the ordinance, so a review of how it was working would not take into account the new modifications.
The motion made by Mr. John, amended by Mayor Hindman, was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Ash made the motion that the Staff report back on the review of the streets that had driveway access prohibitions, so they would have it available when the Trail Ridge issue came up.
Instead of designating it street by street, Mr. John suggested they involve some sort of standard.
Mr. Ash did not care how they looked at the issue, just so it was examined. Mr. Hutton asked if they could do that on an existing street or if they would have to buy those rights. Mr. Boeckmann thought it would depend on the situation, but noted they would have to have a variance procedure. They could not deny total access to someone, but if there were large tracts, he thought it could be worked out to where they could come in on a side street.
The motion made by Mr. Ash, amended and seconded by Mr. John, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Regarding sidewalk variances, Mr. Ash felt it was time to revisit policy resolution 171-01. He felt five of the eight criteria listed to be irrelevant and that they were getting people's hopes up. He agreed with number six, the cost of constructing the sidewalk, however, he noted it was not the cost of constructing the sidewalk so much as it was the cost of constructing it relative to the expense of the project in general. He also agreed with number seven and stated he would be willing to let the Public Works Director or his designee determine that. He did not have a problem with number eight, and added that he would add a number nine, regarding whether or not it was infill development surrounded by areas that did not have sidewalks on quiet, internal streets. He suggested limiting it to three criteria -- was it physically feasible to build a sidewalk, what was the cost of the sidewalk relative to the project, and was it infill development surrounded by existing areas without sidewalks on quite, internal streets. He thought that would cut down on a lot of people getting their hopes up and the Council having to turn them down.
Mr. Ash made the motion that the issue be revisited and reported on by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Ms. Crayton brought up the Moonlight Hoops program and job training for youths. She asked why Columbia was not getting any money for the youth of the community. She asked that someone work with her on a long term plan in order to find some funding for jobs before next summer.
Regarding Moonlight Hoops, Mr. Ash thought they recently expanded the program to two nights and provided City funding. Mayor Hindman agreed. Mr. Hood explained that the program was expanded to two nights and that it was a combination of City funds and private donations that were used to fund the entire program. He added that there were fees, a minor amount compared to other sports leagues, charged to the teams that participated and that the revenue helped fund the program. He said they solicited donations, particularly to assist with the purchase of shirts and trophies.
Ms. Crayton commented that she would like to know what portion of the cost was paid by the City and what portion was being donated. Mr. Beck noted that the Council would have the opportunity to place emphasis on whatever program they wanted in the next budget beginning October 1. He stated flex money would be available for the Council to deal with such things.
Mayor Hindman suggested that Ms. Crayton visit with Mr. Beck in regard to what she would like to get done and what kind of help she would need.
Mr. Janku asked that the Council receive a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Moonlight Hoops program and the additional funding issue. Mr. Hood noted that the report contained recommendations about how the program could be improved if additional funding was available.
Mr. Janku stated Brown School Road, between 763 and Oakland Gravel/US 63 was about to be completed, which would be a welcomed improvement, but noted that there was now a concern about what the speed limit would be. Because it was bordered by residential areas, he was hopeful to come up with a reasonable speed limit that would be enforceable and enforced.
Mr. Janku asked that Staff be directed to report back on what the speed limit would be and on the issue of thru-truck traffic in the area.
Because the street was built largely by developer agreements, as opposed to City contract, Mr. Janku pointed out it had no landscaping. He thought there was an area between the sidewalk and the street that would accommodate landscaping. He asked for a report on what could be done about landscaping, particularly the eastern portion, perhaps with some street trees. He was also hopeful something could be worked out with the homeowners association to help with maintenance. He suggested it could be a demonstration project for the Water and Light Department to show how street trees could be used to create shade.
Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff report back on all of the issues/suggestions stated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ash and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman asked how the scholarship fund at the ARC was doing. Mr. Hood replied that they were continuing to take applications. He explained that they utilized the $35,000 the City appropriated and at the last Council meeting they transferred $2,500 from the Share the Light Program. It appeared that money might be used up and they were considering requesting another transfer at the next Council meeting, which would transfer another $1,000 from some money the Cosmo Club gave them that was held in reserve. They thought that amount would carry them through the remainder of this budget year.
Mayor Hindman mentioned a complaint he received about a regulation that there be no exchange of money, even for food, in the parks. Mr. Hood understood the ordinance to say there would be no selling in the parks, unless it was an authorized concession operation. He explained that they had never allowed the selling of any products in the parks. They had denied requests from groups under the parks special use application. Mayor Hindman asked if passing the hat amongst a group of picnickers to pay for the meat would be a violation. Mr. Hood said if someone took up a collection, nothing was said about it, but asked where to draw the line between that and someone driving an ice cream truck into the park and selling ice cream. He said they had to differentiate between what was and what was not selling. Mr. Ash thought if someone asked for permission they would be told no, but if they did it anyway, he doubted anything would be done about it. Mr. Boeckmann was not sure that would be a violation unless it was really a commercial venture. Mayor Hindman explained, on the parks special use application, there was a question regarding whether or not they would be charging for the food. Mr. Hood noted they received a request from a group where they wanted to bring a coke truck into the park at their event to sell drinks out of the coke truck to the participants. Mayor Hindman said the request he was told about was something different. It was pointed out there was a big difference between selling food and passing the hat. Mayor Hindman thought group picnics should be encouraged and this particular group felt very discouraged and were unhappy they could not do what they wanted. He said they went door to door to raise money to pay for the food because they could not sell tickets to their event. Mr. John felt they had gone from sharing the cost of a meal to selling tickets to a picnic. Mayor Hindman thought they could sell the tickets, but not at the park. He suggested Staff look into the issue to make sure a way was found so the people would feel they could have group picnics. Mr. Hutton thought the Council was asking Staff to enforce a policy that was in place in a realistic manner. Mayor Hindman thought the City should be encouraging people coming out with things like hotdog stands and ice cream trucks to the parks. Mr. Janku suggested licensing a concessionaire, but did not think they wanted it to be a random thing.
Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff be directed to look into the issue to see if this issue could be made more user friendly and to look at licensing concessionaires. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mayor Hindman noted the Green Meadows people had concerns in regards to the subdivision regulations. One suggestion was that there be a diagram or chart that anyone could look at, which showed the process from beginning to end. He also suggested that it be put on-line. There was also concern about the public notice not being more than 15 days.
Mr. Bondra noted that letters were sent out to property owners within 185 feet approximately 18 days before the hearing. Mayor Hindman did not feel that was enough notice in a lot of cases. He suggested that when there was an objection by a neighborhood association the issue be held over for an additional 15 days or the notice be 30 days rather than 15. Mr. Loveless noted the problem was that there was no official City action until a developer brought it in and asked it to be put on the Planning and Zoning agenda. Mayor Hindman felt the City could just make the notice period longer. Mr. Ash noted that during that time, things were changing. He felt the time to get the public involved was after Staff signed off on it. He noted a lot of times the controversial issues were ironed out by the time it got to the Council. Mr. Hutton pointed out that the developer might have worked on this for 9 months and would be very frustrated by this time. He did not see making them wait more at that point.
Mr. John suggested sending the issue to the Commission for review and asking them to look at going with the standard 15 days, but if at the meeting there was an objection, automatically tabling it. If there was no objection and there was a unanimous vote, it could be sent on through. An automatic go if it was not controversial or an automatic stop for two weeks if it was controversial. Mayor Hindman agreed. Mr. Janku agreed more time might be appropriate.
Mr. John made the motion that the issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and report back. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku.
Mr. Loveless asked to have a flow chart of the process included in the motion. Mr. John and Mr. Janku agreed.
The motion made by Mr. John, amended by Mr. Loveless, seconded by Mr. Janku, was approved unanimously by voice vote.
Mary Von Schoenborn, 3308 Crawford, President of the Green Meadows Neighborhood Association, stated the rezoning process regarding the Green Meadows issue had been a very hard process for all of them. She indicated that she did not get a notice of the rezoning and that only half of the people on Skylark got it, the ones that backed up to Tract C. Regarding trees, she noted the forest issue on Tract C. She understood part of that area was planned for water detention and felt the remaining trees would not survive. Ms. Von Schoenborn was also concerned about the intersection of Bethel and Green Meadows Road and pointed out two large PUD's would have a great impact on it. She asked that sidewalks be built on Green Meadows Circle as part of the development.
Harold Ankeney, 112 Park de Ville, discussed no parking on the east side of Park de Ville Drive. He was concerned because of traffic generated by the elementary school and a sight problem at the corner of Ash and Park de Ville Drive. Mr. Janku explained that Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance, which would be coming forward soon.
Mr. Janku suggested adjusting the agenda to allow persons speaking at the end of the meeting to speak before Council comments were made.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheela Amin
City Clerk
© 2024 City of Columbia