HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-12
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING
CITY OF RIVERSIDE, MISSOURI
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
The special meeting of the Board of Aldermen of the City of
Riverside, Missouri wea held in the City Hall in Riverside,
Missouri on November 12, 1991 at 7:30 pm. Those present were
Alderman Jim Wedua, Brenda Tetera, Jimmy Knrr, and Ed Rule.
Mayor Burch presided over the meeting. A list of property
owners in attendance is attached.
Mayor Burch welcomed every one and stated it hea been 18
months since the moratorium went into effect on the area
south of 9 Highway. During that eighteen months, a study has
been completed on this area by our city engineers, Larkin &
Associates. Mr. Ken Vaughn will tell you the results of the
study.
Ken Vaughn said the purpose of the study was to develop a
plan for utilities, drainage end streets for an area with a
low elevation. Drainage is very important. With the rules
we go by now to build in this urea, you need a ten to fifteen
foot fill to build to a level of the 100 year flood plain.
The alternative solution is a levy. The schematic shows the
plan of a private levy and streets, an interchange from
I-635. Van De Populiere would be four lane and the other
streets would be 2 lane. The development cost for utilities,
streets, sewers is S 12,000,000.00 plus. Add a private levy
and it would increase the coat to S 31,000,000.00 plus. This
would b® 97 cents per squnre foot of land. These coats are
preliminary estimated coats only.
Don Witt, city attorney, amid the process of implementing the
plan would be as follows: a hearing to get the comments of
the land owners, making application to amend the zoning order
and then the Board of Aldermen passing an ordinance the
change the zoning code. There are several ways to develop
the area. As a developer comes in to develop the area, he
will provide the infrastructure of drainage and 1/2 the coat
of roadway and to provide the public sewer. Impact fee set
aside fees collected from developers causing infrastructure
ad~uatments to the community. Monies to be used ea the
development further impacts the municipality. Moat cities do
it this way. There are also neighbor improvement districts
to use as a tool for developing. These districts would
require a vote of the people, and would have to develop
quickly. The neighborhood improvement districts would
assess as you go. Another way would be a bond issue. Witt
stated the city does not hove capacity for a bond issue.
Drainage is the initial problem. The developer has to keep
drainage on his property and protect the planned drainnge
districts. Secondly, the developer must have sewers and
r ~
Minutes Board of Alderman Meeting
Page 2, November 12, 1991
streets, end again the impact Ease.
Mayor Burch said the Board of Alderman was not here to pass
any ordinances tonight, but to listen to the comments of the
property owners.
Alderman Rule made a motion to recess, seconded by Alderman
Karr.
Meeting reconvene at 8:17 pm.
Aldermen Rule, Karr, Teters end Wedua present. Mayor Burch
presided over the remainder of the meeting.
Don Coleman wee the first to comment. Hia comments are
attached to the minutes.
Mayor Burch stated a filling and grading ordinance have been
in effect since 1977 as set out in the zoning codes.
Alderman Rule said development of buildings on mud and gravel
roads was the reason for the moratorium. A drainage plan is
not in place. Don Coleman said there should be a provision
to maintain drainage on the property without an expensive
infrastructure. Coleman also stated that perhaps within 20
years the whole area could possibly be filled. He sited the
amount of filling that has been done in the lest two or three
years. Rule stated these should be prioritized with streets
and drainage being first. Witt stated the part of this study
can be attributed to Coleman's insight of the problem. The
citizens of the area could prioritize under the neighborhood
improvement District. It was suggested that a development
ordinance that includes the area within the colored area of
the schematic be defined.
A start should be made at the railroad tracks and work
south. Wea Seyller stated he needed to study the report and
the ordinance. Something needs to be done at the Van de
Populiere crossing. Mayor Burch stated that a crossing
revamping is in the working by the Stets, Platte County and
the railroad. Vnn De Populiere would be the main arterial
road in the bottoms.
Coleman stated the point that Seyller was making is it was
going to be a levy or not. Seyller stated he would do his
part on the street. Rule asked if anyone from Hydro Conduit
was here. No one was.
The people. north of Seyller should participate also. Rule
stated the property should never hove been zoned industrial,
should have left zoned form land. The reason being to
r ~
Minutes Board of Alderman Meeting
Page 3, November 12, 1991
control the growth of the area.
Wedua stated that if the Federal levy goes, 49% of the coat
would be placed on the property owners and the Federal
government would pay 51% of the S 22,000,000.00 coat.
Mayor Burch stated the Federal levy would consist of a larger
area to be protected. The private levy would protect a
smaller area. In the eighteen months since the moratorium
went into effect, the city has spent fi 30,000.00 on this
study. We would like to have your comments back in 10 days.
George Higgins stated he understood the cost of
infrastructure ® 97 cents per square foot, would coat a total
of S 40,000.00 per acre.
Joe Nelson asked if the public levy would come under neighbor
hood district. Witt didn't think this would work.
Jim Francis wanted to know where Van De Populiere would go if
the owner ecrosa from Hydro Conduit should be interested
in participating.
Phillip Brenner Baked if the Burlington Northern property was
included in the moratorium. Bob Gieaeke said Glecier Park
owns 468 acres of which 400 scree is from the levy north.
Kansas City Power & Light owns 45 Acres and EFD Packaging
owns 16 acres and Phillip Snowden owns 40 acres.
Mayor Burch asked how many property owners had their property
up for sale. Three raised their hands.
No further discussion the meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Q.f,Q/ `
Acting Sec ary
r
I ~
. I ~ ~~- ~ ~Q4- y~oa Vata L7e iAea. It ~G~ ~ GYl5a
i ~
i o i/.~d ~~ Pa ~r~~~~ S~s~
~ i ~
L~~x ~
2.se ~ ~o?a `/ ft'/ l/ /J9 L fe r ~+ Y / Sa
!
~
!r2 G y C,~ s-~-~ ~ S '1 '.t 1 5 ,.~.~- ~ ~ ~ W-•1i.+eo~ _]r4(e t;'-! O 3 of
___ o u u ~ c~~ ~N 1N'o od ~n ~u' d
j~ ~ <' ox 9014 ~ty~RSiyE ~4/6£~
~° 3a ~a ~ w. ~~. /P,~~, ~ ~y~sl
_,_ L UN/S ~.~if /~~ J CN~o L ~/.S %
':` I! ~`
I~ . ,
,::
-. l
Ib
:~
~I
~~i
.':1
.J
~i .~
i~
', .
4030 vandepopouliere Road
Riverside,~~MO 64150
November 6, 1991
The Honorable Betty Burch, Mayor
City of Riverside, MO
Ret Quindaro Bend Final Report
Doerr Mayor Burchs
This letter is in response to the Quindaro Bend Final Report and
comments made et the steering committee meeting of '10/23/91
regarding that r®port. I am also addressing the proposed Riverside
Quindaro send Aevelopment ordinance which were presented at that
meeting.
The first and foremost issue is the construction of a levee to
protect the area from Missouri River floods so that it is not
necessary to fill in the area prior to developm®nt.
The preliminary report has estimates for the levee and the level of
Fedexal participation in the cost make i,t nppear that th® decision
to build a levee will be a marginal one at best:
The alternative to building a levee is to f~.ll in the land as
needed to a level above the flaad ®levation. It appears that
within the next year all of the fillable Flood -Plain land in
Riverside that is not now covered by the moratorium will b® filled.
The proposed ordinance does not have a section on grading and
filling of land and coordination of that activity with other
development activity. The city should make provisions in the
development ordinance that would allow a person to fill and grade,
by permit after approval of grading plans and runoff provisions,
without th® need to. construct ®xpensive utilities and streets prior
to completing the fill.
The second most important issue is the method of financing the
construction of the infrastructure system that is necessary for the
Quindaro Bend area to be developed. Based on the magnitude of the
entire area and the high cost of aampleting the infrastructure
cyst®m, I do not believe that the financing plan provided for in
the proposed ordinance is the most appropriate, ®ither in terms of
economic feasibility, practicality or fairness, nor do I believe
that the ordinanae will stimulate and enhance d®velopment. In
fact, it is my belief that, if passed, the proposed ordinance will
stifle development of the area.
To r®quire individua]. developers of tracts of land to front the
cost to build the infrastructure system, not only for their awn
Ti~oocs~CJS~colbureh.~Tq
• •.
development, but also for other parcels of land in the path of
development, is ridiculous. It eliminates any chance for develop-
ment and will keep individual projects from getting off the ground.
It automatically makes any development economically unfeasible. No
lending institution will loan funds to build infrastructure systems
on land which cannot be pledged to the lender to secure repayment
of the loan. In this day and age, how many developers have enough
cash that they can afford to allocate millions of dollars to build
infrastructure systems for themselves and for others? Probably
none. From an economic viewpoint, then, I just do not think the
proposed ordinance is workable.
Now let's look at the proposed. ordinance from a practical viewpoint
and examine if the proposed ordinance contains a sense of fairness.
If a developer has a parcel that is two miles from Highway 9, is it
fair or reasonable to expect the developer to build one-half of the
width of a road from the developer's premises to Highway 9? And
what good will it do. the development or other landowners in the
area to have only one half of a road built to new city requirements
and standards? Who will build the other half and when will it be
built? And why will other property owners who have already
developed parcels of land along this road and who use the road not
have to contribute to the cost of the road? The same holds true
for drainage, sewage and all other infrastructure items.
Let me take a moment to get more specific. There are only three
possible entrance points into the Quindaro Bend development area:
Vandepopouliere Road, Maddox Road and Vandepopouliere Road via a
proposed diamond interchange at I-635. All property that is
developed in this area will have access only through one of these
entrances.
The cost of developing those entrances and interconnecting them
should be shared by all properties in the area.
The impact fee structure as presently written is grossly unfair and
a discouragement to development. Although all property owners
would have to use the track crossing, only the first developer
would pay for it, and he could only recover a maximum of 50~ of his
cost if all other undeveloped property Along his project was
developed. This does not address the engineering impracticality of
constructing half of a road crossing.
Consider that half of the property on Vandepopouliere Road for 1800
feet south of Highway 9 that is already developed to some degree
and is not assessable. Consider also that a four-lane grade
crossing built to railroad standards will cost approximately
$100,000. Consider also that the unfortunate person who first
developed the .Vandepopouliere entrance from Highway 9 would also
have to solve the drainage problem which has been created by MoKan
Container and Twin Traffic Marking. Neither property owner would
T:\DOCS\CJS\colhurch.LTR
2
r
.~:
w
be compelled to participate in either the cost or the land contribution.
Hydro Conduit would certainly have no compelling reason to want to
voluntarily participate in the cost of a road, storm drainage or
sanitary improvements. A similar situation exists on Maddox Road
with Sutherland Lumber, Thompson Lumber and Knapco Manufacturing.
Thus, the first owner to develop south of the tracks would have to
construct 1800 feet of road in addition to his own front footage,
resolve a storm water drainage problem and allocate enough of his
property to hold runoff from two other properties. He would also
have to construct a sanitary sewage pump to handle all of the
sewage in a drainage district but with no hope of recovering funds
from properties already developed.
This same scenario would apply to the storm water pumping stations
and main trunk storm drains. The main trunk drains will take more
land and be far more expensive to construct than the minor
collector storm drains at the upper end of the watershed. The
ordinance makes no provision for allocation of cost or impact fees
for construction of storm drains. Therefore, no one would consider
constructing anything but a holding basin for storm water.
There is no consideration given in the ordinance to the development
of a diamond interchange at I-635 and Vandepopouliere Road and
allocation of the costs for that interchange.
The ordinance also fails to take into consideration either increas-
ing construction costs or interest costs with changeable rates. It
also does not take into consideration condemning and paying for
land and necessary right-of-way that will be required to put in the
new roads, sewer lines and other infrastructure improvements.
Any impact fees should be assessed at a fixed rate of interest for
the length of time that they have been in place prior to the
development of abutting property that would be required to pay
impact fees. For example, the City of Weatherby Lake uses an
interest based impact fee structure for assessing new developers
for previously expanded sanitary sewer improvement costs.
In summary, there are numerous infrastructure-type facilities
which, when developed and constructed, will serve all properties to
some degree. These "common facilities" should be constructed
through the use of either a "benefit district" or a "neighborhood
improvement district" so that all properties that benefit from the
improvement will share in the cost of that improvement. I can
support an ordinance that:
1) Includes benefit districts or neighborhood improvement
districts that would allocate the cost of mutually
beneficial improvements such as entrance roads, grade
crossings, highway interchanges, main trunk storm and
T:\DOCS\CJS\colburch.LTR
3
r
~..
sanitary sewers and pumping stations and any other
improvements that benefit all of the property.
2) Includes storm drains as assessable improvements.
3) Includes an interest factor for assessing impact fees and
reimbursing developers.
4) Includes some method that will assess already developed
properties for the mutually beneficial improvements that
will be constructed.
5) Includes a provision for filling and grading of property
prior to incurring an obligation to construct roads,
sanitary sewers and other expensive improvements.
I am opposed to the proposed ordinance as it is now written because
it will discourage any meaningful development in the area. It is
grossly unfair to those who do choose to develop and places the
burden of solving existing drainage problems on those who did not
cause the problems.
Let us not pass an ordinance for development that makes development
impossible. Such action would be self-defeating and would be doing
a great disservice to the community. Let us instead carve out an
ordinance that makes sense economically, that is practical and fair
and that is a positive step forward for the benefit of all.
Respectfully,
Donald P. Coleman
T:\DOCS\CJS\colburch.LTR
4
r