CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2006
I.
CALL TO ORDER
A
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Liberty, Missouri was held
in the Council Chambers at City Hall on August 14, 2006 with Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp presiding. Mayor Steinkamp called the meeting to order
at 7:00
p.m.
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The invocation was given by Council Member Nick King
who then led the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Roll
call was answered by Mayor Robert T. Steinkamp; Coni Hadden and Harold
Phillips, Ward I; LeRoy Coe and Anna Marie Martin, Ward II; Juarenne Hester and
John Parry, Ward III; and Nick King and Bill Parker, Ward IV. Also in attendance were Curt Wenson, City
Administrator; Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Administrator; Steve Hansen,
Public Works Director; Brian Hess, City Engineer; Craig Knouse, Police Chief;
Gary Birch, Fire Chief; Val Drogt, Special Projects Manager; Linda Tyree,
Finance Director; Tony Sage, Information Services Manager; Dan Fernandez, Planner;
Jonna Wensel, Preservation Planner; Sara Cooke, Public Relations Coordinator; Shawnna Funderburk, Assistant to
the City Administrator; Jane Sharon, Deputy City Clerk; Jason Noble, The Kansas
City Star; and 6 members of the public.
IV. APPROVE
MINUTES AND SUMMARIES
A. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2006
Council Member Martin moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Hester
seconded the motion, which carried 5-0-3.
Council members Anna Marie Martin, Coni Hadden and Nick King, abstained
due to absence.
B. EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2006
Council Member Coe moved to approve the minutes as
distributed. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried 5-0-3.
Council members Anna Marie Martin, Coni Hadden and Nick King, abstained
due to absence.
C. STUDY SESSION MEETING SUMMARY OF AUGUST 7, 2006
Council Member Phillips moved to approve the meeting
summary as distributed. Council Member
Hadden seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
V. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION
Mayor
Steinkamp set a time limit for each speaker at five minutes.
Preston
Filger, 2116
Winding Woods Drive, asked what the City intended to do with the property he owns in the
Liberty Triangle. He stated his attorney
had informed him the matter was to go to a jury trial. Mr. Filger asked how the City would pay for
the property after the trial. Public
Works Director Steve Hansen stated the City had filed condemnation proceedings
last year and the commissioners’ award received had been three to four times
the appraised value of the property.
Both parties had filed exceptions to the award. LTD Enterprises is the redeveloper which is
responsible for buying the property. The
redeveloper has requested that the attorneys take this to a jury trial, which
would be scheduled some time next year.
Mr. Filger asked if the City could say no to LTD or to a portion of the
property. Mayor Steinkamp stated that,
because litigation is involved, these questions would be addressed in executive
session. Mr. Hansen stated that the City
must carry on with the process as long as LTD continues to cover the City’s
costs associated with determining the value of the property. Mayor Steinkamp stated that these questions
would be better discussed between the parties’ attorneys, though if the matter
can be resolved outside the judicial system, so much the better.
Dr.
Cheryl Walton, 25
Fulkerson Circle, stated she was a psychologist and had worked with at-risk youth for
many years. She expressed concern about
the aggressive drivers that enter the city every night. She stated she recently moved to a new home
and had not been able to sleep because of the noise. She contacted Kansas City, Missouri Police about the problem when staying at a hotel
across the highway in Kansas
City. She stated she had called Mayor Steinkamp
about the problem. She cannot return to
work because she is suffering from sleep deprivation. Liberty police told her they are aware of the problem but
another officer said there is no problem.
Dr. Walton stated the Kansas City police had acknowledged the problem and indicated
they have formed a task force. She said
the problem has increased with the opening of South Liberty Parkway and she worries about young people who might die
because of their reckless behavior. Dr.
Walton asked the Council to do something about the problem in Liberty.
VI. MEETING SCHEDULE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
IX. ORDINANCES,
CONTRACTS AND RESOLUTIONS
A. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF VENDOR PAYMENTS FROM JULY 14, 2006 THROUGH AUGUST 4, 2006 – ORDINANCE
Document No. 6556 was read. Council Member King moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Coe seconded
the motion.
Council Member Martin asked about check number 96755
for skate park equipment. Finance Director
Linda Tyree stated ramps and rails were being replaced at the Bennett Park
facility. Assistant City Administrator Cynthia Boecker noted this purchase was
included in the capital equipment budget.
Council Member Martin asked about check number 96626 for
an outdoor warning system. Fire Chief
Gary Birch stated that this was a new siren being placed on H Highway. Council
Member Hadden asked about checks numbered 96712 and 96826. Ms. Boecker stated one check was for a
retainer and the other covered the balance of the cost of service for this
vendor for the passholders party at the Community Center.
Council Member Hadden asked about check number 96929,
which was a trip refund. Mrs. Tyree
stated she would get additional information and provide it to Council. Council Member Martin noted there were other
refunds for the same amount.
Vote on the motion was as follows: Council Member Phillips – yes; Council Member
Martin – yes; Council Member Hester – yes; Council Member Parker – yes; Council
Member Hadden – yes; Council Member Coe – yes; Council Member Parry – yes; Council
Member King – yes. The motion carried
unanimously; it was approved by the Chair and inscribed in Ordinance No. 9015.
B. *APPEAL
OF HDRC DENIAL FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SIGN AT 11 EAST KANSAS
– RESOLUTION (continued from July 24, 2006 regular
session)
Preservation Planner Jonna Wensel stated the Historic District Review Commission
(HDRC) had denied a certificate of appropriateness for a sign at 11 East Kansas
on March
16, 2006. While it was determined that the sign
satisfied the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for façade signs, it did not
meet the Design Guidelines. The
placement of the sign over the fascia obstructs and detracts from that
architectural element. Ms. Wensel noted that, while the HDRC approved the previous
sign of the same size for this building in 2002, the Commission acknowledged in
its 2006 review that the previous sign was considered an exception and the
decision was an error HDRC wished to avoid repeating. The applicant is appealing the HDRC decision
as arbitrary and without adequate justification. The applicant met with members of the HDRC
design subcommittee on July 6, 2006 to discuss possible alternatives to the existing sign, but no resolution
was reached.
Ms. Wensel stated that,
should the Council uphold the HDRC decision and deny
the appeal, the applicant would have three options: remove the existing sign; remove the existing
sign and install a new sign that meets the design guidelines; or appeal the
Council’s decision to Circuit Court within 30 days.
Council Member Parker asked if the sign also blocks
the water flow from the building. Ms. Wensel stated that the architectural element on this
building also serves to divert water from the building. Mr. Parker asked how this is different than
the sign approved for the jewelry business on the north side of the
Square. Ms. Wensel
stated the issues with this sign involve a difference between the Design
Guidelines and the UDO.
Council Member Phillips noted the previous sign was
for a retail business that was located off the Square and moved to this
location on the Square and wanted to use the same sign. The HDRC approved a certificate of
appropriateness for that sign based on a financial consideration and to
encourage retail businesses on the Square.
Council Member Hadden asked for clarification of the
Design Guidelines. Ms. Wensel stated those adopted follow the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, which are considered best
practices for historic preservation.
Council Member Parker asked if the guidelines were in
effect when the first sign was approved.
Ms. Wensel said the Design Guidelines were but
the UDO was not in effect at that time.
The Zoning Ordinance did not permit perpendicular signs, which are now
permitted under the UDO. Council Member
Hester asked if the sign was placed before the application was considered by
HDRC. Ms. Wensel
stated this was an after-the-fact application for a certificate of appropriateness.
Council Member Hadden asked if there was any other way
to hang this sign. Ms. Wensel said there was not, prior to the UDO being
adopted. Council Member Martin asked
about the sign for the fabric shop. Ms. Wensel stated that previous sign was in place prior to the
historic preservation design guidelines being adopted in the 1980s.
Council Member King asked who decides whether an
architectural element is significant.
Ms. Wensel stated that the HDRC is given
authority to review applications, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s
standards and those standards outline what is and is not significant. Mr. King asked if the elements not considered
significant are noted in the standards.
Ms. Wensel said they could be and that this
architectural element is considered significant in the Design Guidelines.
Tim Flook, Flook & Graham, 11 East Kansas, stated that he was disappointed that the press had
been so interested in this sign. He said
he grew up in Liberty and cares about the Square and its integrity. When he met with the Design Subcommittee
there were no alternatives he preferred.
Mr. Flook stated the sign represents what he
wants to be, which is to be an attorney.
He added that the existing sign was good and the Council needs to
balance the desire for the integrity of the Square with the rights of
individuals. He stated he hasn’t lobbied
for this but asks the Council to consider the appeal with an open mind,
realizing that, for the sake of viability of the HDRC, sometimes the Council
has to disagree with its decisions. Mr. Flook noted that he has a business relationship with one of
the council members, who would refrain from voting in this matter. He asked the Council to consider the base
purpose of the standards, which is the integrity of the Square. The fascia is common, with no ornate molding
and the sign is proportional to the lower windows, which keeps the building
proportional. If the design is ordinary
a person can consider changing it and if it is historical then yes, it should
be addressed. Mr. Flook
stated the sign is not a factor and the Council must strike a balance. He asked the Council to overturn the HDRC
decision and show how the process works for all, while respecting property
owners. He stated the sign has been essentially
in the same form and color for five years.
He stated he had completed the application for the sign but did not
submit when other business interrupted the process. He stated his partner had placed the sign
without realizing the approval had not yet been granted. Mr. Flook asked the
Council to show the public, by its decision, that it can be flexible and the
efforts of business are appreciated.
Council Member King moved to approve the resolution
granting a certificate of appropriateness for the sign. Council Member Martin seconded the
motion. Council Member Hadden stated
that she had served on the committee when the initial historic preservation
ordinance was put in place and a lot of thought had gone into the choices. The Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines
were intentionally used with the historic preservation overlay. There was much discussion before recommending
the adoption of guidelines that would provide criteria for preserving the
City’s unique heritage. She added that
the property owners take on the responsibility of learning about the buildings
and maintaining them. When any other law
is disobeyed there are consequences.
Mrs. Hadden stated she was glad to see HDRC trying to set right a wrong
precedent. She stated she would vote to
uphold the denial.
Council Member Hester stated she was sympathetic to
the remarks of Mr. Flook, but the HDRC stated the
first decision was a mistake and there is nowhere to draw the line in making
exceptions. She also expressed concern
about the application for the certificate of appropriateness coming after the
fact. She stated she would vote against
the resolution.
Council Member Phillips quoted from the HDRC minutes
which stated that there is a significant architectural element that is obscured
by the sign. He stated the Downtown
Master Plan was adopted with an emphasis on historic preservation and referred
to the letter received from HDLI. He
stated he would vote in opposition to the resolution.
Council Member King stated this appeal has been before
the Council for some time and he appreciated the opportunity to take a position
on the matter. He stated that guidelines
are not law and without the human element there would be no need for the
Council. The HDRC was put in place to
have a plan that is as solid as possible, but exceptions must be expected. He stated the Council’s job is to make the
calls, noting the Master Plan is a good example of something that is a
beginning, not an ending point. He
stated that, while the guidelines use the word “shall”, with respect to
architectural elements, there are very few buildings that do not have fascia
between the first and second floors, along with numerous other architectural
features. But the determination of what
is significant must be mixed with the rights of individuals and the purpose of
the guidelines is to keep from having something ridiculous done. He stated this is not a significant element
and it does not change anything. He
stated he would vote in favor of the resolution.
The motion failed 3-4-1. Council
Members Hadden, Phillips, Martin and Hester voted in opposition. Council Member Parry abstained, due to a
potential conflict of interest.
C. AMENDMENT
TO CITY CODE SECTION 21-2, ENUMERATION OF NUISANCES, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO SIGHT DISTANCE ON CORNER LOTS AND OFF-STREET PARKING – ORDINANCE
Council Member King asked for an example of a sight
triangle. Planner Dan Fernandez provided
the Council with a drawing showing an intersection and the sight triangles
surrounding it, noting that objects are essentially not permitted within 24
feet. Council Member Parry asked if the
City is responsible for maintaining the right-of-way. City Administrator Curt Wenson stated it
depends on the property.
Council Member Hadden asked if a property owner had a
fence in the sight distance area if the City would ask the owner to move
it. Mr. Fernandez said that was
possible. Council Member Parker asked
what would happen in situations where the property owner already has something
in these sight distance areas and that he would like to inform citizens before
the ordinance is passed. Council Member
Phillips asked if language being proposed is the same as what was in the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Fernandez said that was
correct and there were no changes to the language.
Council Member King asked if this is enforced today
and how that occurs. Mr. Wenson stated
it is complaint driven for the most part.
Deputy City Clerk Jane Sharon stated the language was originally in the
Zoning Ordinance and when the Unified Development Ordinance was adopted, it was
planned to move these two items under the nuisance codes, because it was
believed to be a more appropriate location.
Council Member Hester asked if a fence is permitted in
the right-of-way. Mr. Fernandez said it
is not. Council Member Parker asked
about trees and bushes and how the City could now say they have to be
removed. Council Member King for
clarification of what language is in place now in the UDO. Ms. Sharon stated that the language would be
placed in the chapter on nuisance codes and is not being added to the UDO.
Council Member Parker again expressed concern about
requiring existing situations to be changed because this is being added to the
Code. Mr. Wenson stated the enforcement
is common sense and staff works with property owners to address issues. Mr. Parker asked if there has been a problem
in the past. Mr. Hansen stated that it
is rare to have a problem with this, but when there is it usually relates to
shrubbery. Staff tries to mitigate the
problem. Council Member Coe asked about
the MoDOT traffic control box at Brown and M-291 Highway. Mr. Hansen stated the City could request a
relocation of the box.
Document No. 6557 was read. Council Member Martin moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member King seconded the motion, which failed 7-1-0. Council
Member Coe voted in opposition.
Mayor Steinkamp stated the ordinance would be
considered on second reading at the August 28 regular session.
Council Member Hester left the meeting at this time.
D. TEMPORARY
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CORBIN THEATRE EVENT ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 – RESOLUTION
Council Member Hadden asked if all businesses could
apply for this type of temporary license.
Ms. Sharon stated that the State limits this license to charitable,
civic, fraternal and political organizations and the like. Council Member Martin moved to approve the
resolution. Council Member Hadden
seconded the motion, which carried 6-1-1. Council
Member King voted in opposition and Council Member Hester abstained from the
vote. The resolution is inscribed in
Resolution No. 2258.
Council Member Hester rejoined the meeting at this
time.
E. ACCEPTANCE
OF EASEMENTS – SOUTH
LIBERTY PARKWAY
– ORDINANCE
Document No. 6558 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Coe seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Hadden moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member King seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9017.
F. ACCEPTANCE
OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITY EASEMENT – FORMER GUY’S PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT –
ORDINANCE
Document No. 6559 was read. Council Member King moved to waive the rules
and consider the ordinance on first reading.
Council Member Martin seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Council Member Hadden moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Phillips
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was approved by the Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9018.
G. CONTRACT
WITH CUNNINGHAM SANDBLASTING AND PAINTING COMPANY FOR CLEANING AND PAINTING
PORTIONS OF NASHUA AND GORDON WATER TOWERS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $23,345.00
– ORDINANCE
Document No. 6560 was read. Council Member Hadden moved to waive the
rules and consider the ordinance on first reading. Council Member Phillips seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Council Member Martin moved to approve the
ordinance. Council Member Hester
seconded the motion. Council Member
Parry asked about the company with the lowest bid. Mr. Hansen stated that, while it appeared to
be the lowest bid, the company had not included the cost of painting with the
bid and adding that cost would make the bid significantly higher. City Engineer Brian Hess stated the bidder
had chosen not to include painting, which meant the bid did not meet the
required specifications. Council Member
Phillips asked if the whole water tower would be painted. Mr. Hansen said it would just be the riser
inside the tower that would be painted under the contract. The outside of the towers would be
power-washed to remove the staining that occurs. Council Member Martin asked if this process would
take care of the mold. Mr. Hansen said
it would remove it and the whole tower would be repainted later. Mrs. Martin asked about lighting to address
the mold problem. Mr. Hansen stated that
would not help much but lighting could be researched as a future solution. Mrs. Martin asked if it is routine to repaint
the towers every few years. Mr. Hansen
said it is. The motion carried
unanimously. It was approved by the
Chair and is inscribed in Ordinance No. 9019.
XI.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr.
Wenson introduced Assistant to the City Administrator Shawnna Funderburk, who
would assist in the area of economic development as well as work on citizen
service requests. He also noted that
the packet distributed last week was the first to be available electronically
and is accessible on the City’s website.
Mr. Wenson stated the Boards and Commissions Recognition dinner is
Saturday evening at the Community Center.
He also noted upcoming topics on the August 21 agendas, including
election ordinances; downtown parking; communication mechanisms and a voluntary
annexation of property along H Highway.
XII.
MISCELLANEOUS
MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Council
Member Phillips commended Dub Steincross and Mary Alice Dobberstine for their
efforts culminating in last week’s election.
Council Members Martin and Hester joined in thanking Steincross and
Dobberstine. Mrs. Hester also asked if
the City has any authority over stop signs on private property. Mr. Hansen said it does not.
Council
Member King noted two issues conveyed to staff earlier and said he appreciated
the assistance provided by the code enforcement staff pertaining to 807
Prairie.
Mayor
Steinkamp stated there would be a five minute break and then the Council would
go into executive session.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The
meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
__________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________________
Deputy City Clerk