BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. Walnut St., Columbia, MO

June 20, 1995 - 7:30 p.m.

(Rescheduled from 6/15/95)

Mr. Schnarre, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with a quorum present.

Roll call was taken by Stan Shawver, Acting Secretary.

PRESENT: Keith Schnarre Jim Beasley

Bill Grace Jon Gerardi

Joe Falco Stan Elmore

ABSENT: Keith Kirkpatrick Mike Sloan

ALSO PRESENT: Stan Shawver, Director Don Abell, Staff

Noel Boyt, Staff

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Elmore seconded motion to approve minutes of the May 18, 1995 meeting with no noted corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

Request by Brenda Benner to expand a horse training operation from

19 stalls to 32 stalls on 17.29 acres located at 6901 N. Oakland Gravel Road.

Staff member Don Abell gave the report stating this site is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Columbia at the southwest corner of the intersection of Oakland Gravel Road and Oakland Church Rd. There are 17.29 acres zoned A-2 (Agriculture) included in this parcel of ground. All of the adjacent properties are Zoned A-2. The property includes a pole structure which houses stables, an indoor riding arena, and an apartment.

The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to expand a house training and boarding facility from 19 stalls to 32 stalls. The 1973 comprehensive plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. In February 1992, the applicant received a conditional use permit to operate an animal training and boarding facility with a limit of 19 horses. Staff notified 19 property owners.

Brenda Benner, applicant, approached the Commission. She stated she was the owner. Her business had grown and she needed to enlarge the facility. She stated she was going to build on to the facility on the north side. Have the same arena. In 1992 when she first started the horse training and boarding facility she did not expect to grow this fast. She has a waiting list with clients from Chesterfield, Springfield, Kansas City, MO, and as far away as Des Moines, Iowa.

Open to public hearing . No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the request.

Ms. Benner stated that before the meeting she had been approached by a member of the church adjacent to the facility. He stated to her, prior to the meeting that they (the church) appreciated what a good neighbor she was.

Chairman Schnarre asked Ms. Benner if she knew what the previous conditions were. She answered yes. Chairman asked if the conditions were satisfactory to her? She stated yes. She just wanted to increase the number of stalls.

Commissioner Elmore asked what kind of horses she trained. She advised primarily American Saddlebred, Arabians, Morgans, Quarter horses, walking horses.

Commissioner Elmore asked the cost of boarding. She stated $230.00 per month.

Commissioner Grace asked if the horses were kept in the stalls all the time except when they are trained. Ms. Benner advised some are kept up because they are show horses and do not want to be out in the sun. Others are turned out in the pasture, it depends on the horses.

Commissioner Grace asked what is done with the waste? Ms. Benner stated she had a manure spreader that was maintained on 17 acres. She continued she had the best crop of hay waiting to be cut.

Commissioner Elmore moved and Commissioner Gerardi second motion to approve the request by Brenda Benner to expand a horse training operation from 19 stalls to 32 stalls on 17.9 acres located at 6901 N. Oakland Gravel Rd. and all other conditions to remain in effect.

Voting was as follow:

Stan Elmore yes Jon Gerardi yes

Keith Schnarre yes Jim Beasley yes

Bill Grace yes Joe Falco yes

Motion carried unanimously 6 yes

Motion will go before County Commission on Tuesday, June 27 at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

1. BOURGEOIS

Request by Curtis H. and Martha Bourgeois and Curtis M. Bourgeois to

rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of 19.4 acres,

more or less, located at 14020 W. Highway BB.

Staff member Don Abell reported this site is located on State Highway BB approximately .5 (one half) mile southeast of Rocheport. The property approximately .5 (one half) southeast of Rocheport. The property is zoned A-2, as is all of the property located to the east, south, and to the north. An adjoining parcel of 3.1 acres is zoned C-GP (Planned Commercial). The review plan submitted without he application for C-GP zoning shows a structure that will be both a restaurant and wine tasting facility. The 1973 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The applicants requested and received a change in zoning for a 3.1 acre tract adjacent to this site in October 1986. That is the site of a wine tasting facility. Staff notified 10 property owners.

Chairman Schnarre advised that if the rezoning request would be approved, the request for the review plan of a C-GP (Planned Commercial) would be considered next, out of order as listed on the agenda.

David Rogers, attorney of 813 E. Walnut St., Columbia approached the Commission to represent the applicant. He stated the applicant had a successful business on his homesite overlooking the Missouri River. Mr. Rogers showed a diagram of the land involved, pointing out the winery, homesite, and present building with small amount of food service. He showed where the new structure would be if approved.

Mr. Rogers stated that with the present conditions of the wine tasting and small amount of food service from the A-Frame, there was very limited amount of parking. He stated there are 6 to 8 very busy weekends during the year where parking is all the way back on the drive and along Rte BB. The plans were to use the building structure at the Interchange exclusively for the wine production, and move the restaurant to the new location. Also to expand interior parking in hard surface and the overflow to grass.

The intention is to consolidate, and move the restaurant to the new building, extend the amount of parking allowing private functions such as weddings or limited gatherings in the A-Frame. The public would utilize the restaurant since the winery has drawn a wide spread of tourists. Mr. Rogers continued that they did not think there would be an increase in the number of people visiting over the 6 large weekends, the owners hoped to have the people throughout the week and not just over weekends.

Mr. Rogers stated he had heard it had been expressed the request was a large one for the type of facility but he wanted to explain the nature of the site’s topography. He stated a large amount of the area would not be touched. There were four (4) major tree ravines on the property that would not be impacted at all. There are three (3) fingers of land out onto the bluff. One for the homesite, which will not be used for any commercial activity. In fact, under the Planned Commercial designation this would not be able to be used for any type of commercial activity without coming before of the Board again.

The new site proposed will have all weather surface parking and overflow parking. He stated the owners want to eliminate any burden the parking that has been on the neighbors. Mr. Rogers stated any fire protection and/or sewerage questions could be addressed to the engineer who was present.

Chairman Schnarre asked if they will continue to live in the home? Mr. Rodgers advised yes.

Open to the public. No one spoke out in favor or in opposition to the request.

Chairman Schnarre ask if there was anything to do to assure enough parking spaces and not to have vehicles parked out on the highway? Mr. Rogers said probably not until the Constitution was passed. Then the county could make laws restricting parking and so on. There are 75 spaces allocated, more than what is required for a facility of this type he continued. Mr. Rogers continued that one of the reasons people continue to park out towards the highway was because they do not know there was parking closer. Plans are to have an employee directing traffic to go inside (closer) to park during heavier times of activity.

Commissioner Gerardi asked that with 75 more places required, were the additional 75 spaces hard surface parking or is it in the grass? Mr. Rogers advised it included the overflow parking on grass.

Commissioner Grace asked if off the main road, would there be one or two egresses and would the entrance and exit be on the same drive, or separate? Mr. Rogers stated there are two entrances and two exits, with the changes it will be more obvious for the direction of traffic.

Chairman Schnarre asked staff if Planned Commercial required chip and sealed all of the parking or just part of them. Director Shawver advised that on Planned Commercial the requirement is that chip and seal be a minimum level of service for required parking and drives even outside of commercial because it is access to the site.

Chairman Schnarre asked about the drive from Rte BB, to the commercial zoning?

Director Shawver advised the drive would have to be chip and seal, it would also have to be a fire access.

Commissioner Falco asked if the drive to the south will have to be chip and seal and how many parking spaces or what will be in the grass. Commissioner Gerardi stated 75 parking places were on the plan by the restaurant.

Mr. Bill Marshall approached the Commission, he stated there were some handicap parking places next to the building on the lower area.

Bruce Goebel, architect at 33 East Broadway, addressed the Commission. He stated the sketch plan showed hard surface parking for approximately 83 spaces up towards the crest of the hill. This should be more than ample to service the restaurant on a day to day basis. There are two levels, they are trying to get handicap accessibility closest to the building with a sidewalk that meets handicap requirements to enter the building. Then the overflow parking will be on top of the hill, and amongst the grape vines. The time the overflow parking will be used will be the 6 - 8 times a year. We feel that in general we have addressed the facility for the parking for 98% of the time. It is those big weekends and big events that force the overflow. He did not see any reason to hard surface the areas which were used so seldom.

Mr. Goebel stated he spoke to Ken Hines, Boone County Fire Protection District. Mr. Goebel stated there was a letter in the file from Mr. Hines which he had responded to. Mr. Hines’ concern was getting into the site. There will be standards which will be addressed when the presentation for the building permit is made. There will be fire hydrants.

Commissioner Gerardi made and Commissioner Falco second request by Curtis H. and Martha Bourgeois and Curtis M. Bourgeois to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial of 19.4 acres, more or less, located at 14020 W. Highway BB.

Chairman Schnarre asked staff if any complaints and/or phone calls had been received about the request. Director Shawver stated that the staff had received a complaint directed to the situation where people park on the highway, rather than on the property.

Chairman Schnarre stated there was a lot of unusable land in the tract.

Voting was as follows:

Jon Gerardi yes Joe Falco yes

Stan Elmore yes Keith Schnarre yes

Jim Beasley yes Bill Grace yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

Request by Curtis H. and Martha Bourgeois and Curtis M. Bourgeois to approve

Les Bourgeois Winery, a review plan of a C-GP (Planned Commercial)

development on 19.4 acres, more or less, located at 14020 W. Highway BB.

Commissioner Gerardi asked if staff had any questions? Chairman Schnarre stated that the service road was gravel. Chairman Schnarre stated that if the entrances will be chip and seal, maybe the drive should be to.

Mr. Bruce Goebel stated that what was submitted was by his office. He stated the Bourgeois have discussed this with him for 2 years. They will have a sign that stated there is "more parking" inside. He has wanted to get the public off the road into the parking. It is more of a perception that there is no parking than there is actual fact. With proper signs, this should happen.

Chairman Schnarre asked staff about signs. Director Shawver state that billboards were a concern. He stated that the final plan should show what the actual sign would be.

Commissioner Gerardi asked if the details could be done on the final if we say now, we require the drives for all customer/traffic be chip and sealed or dust proof. And questions of lighting, do we ask about it now or on the final plan. Director Shawver stated that all conditions that are desired must be placed on the review plan.

Mr. Rogers stated that details on the interior of one’s own property it is not generally given where you do not enroll the public right-of-way.

Commissioner Elmore made and Commissioner Beasley second a motion to approve review plan as submitted with conditions:

- that all exterior lighting be designed so as to minimize the impact on the

surrounding area, details to be shown on the final development plan;

- all signs comply with original condition (description of signs to be

provided with final development plan);

- the existing entrance/exit to accommodate two-way traffic, be at least 20 ft.

wide and have a dust free surface.

Commissioner Beasley wanted to know if a width should be given. A two- way lane is not very wide sometimes.

Commissioner Elmore asked Mr. Goebel how wide was the drive in the plan? Mr. Goebel stated it was showing approximately 24’ of width, it may not meet the standards for the Fire District as of Emergency vehicles.

Mr. Rogers stated it would not be a regular public used road. More for delivery trucks, we would prefer to have the road gravel as shown rather than a chip and seal surface for the facility, drive and back end.

Chairman Schnarre asked if this will meet the wastewater requirements. Director Shawver advised it will have to in order to receive a building permit.

Voting as follows:

Stan Elmore yes Joe Falco yes

Keith Schnarre yes Jim Beasley yes

Bill Grace yes Jon Gerardi yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

Motion to go before County Commission on June 27th, 1995.

2. KELLAR AND JAMES

Request by Dan and Chris Kellar and Mike and Brenda James to rezone from

A-2 (Agriculture) to R-S (Single Family Residential of 15 acres, more or less,

located at 7000 S. High Point Lane.

Staff report was given by Don Abell gave staff report stating that this site is located on High Point Lane, approximately 1.25 (1 1/4) miles south of Columbia. The adjoining land is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). The site is currently vacant. Applicants would like to develop the property as a subdivision for single family dwellings. The 1973 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. There have been no previous zoning actions on this tract of land. Staff notified 25 property owners.

Mike James, applicant addressed the Commission. He stated that with the growth patterns, he and Mr. Kellar wanted to rezone the 15 acres into lots of approximately 100’ by 100’. This would create 25 to 35 lots. The cost of the property to be approximately $10K and the house would be $90K to $110K. The development would have restrictions of no manufactured housing. The development would leave the trees.

Mr. James continued that an in-ground treatment plant would be created, 6" (six inch) water lines, dust free streets, and lighting. The property was located 300’ feet off of Rte K on High Point Lane.

Chairman Schnarre asked how long had the property been purchased and why request

R-S and not A-R? Mr. James stated the property had been purchased 60 days prior.

For the rezoning, Mr. James stated because of the lay of the property. The property falls off the back, lots of 1/2 acre would not be as desirable. The best sites are at the front.

Open to public hearing No one spoke in favor of the request

Mr. Bill Martin, 7560 S. High Point Lane addressed the Commission. He stated he owned 97 acres adjoining the proposed rezoning. He stated Gateway South, Cedar Brook, Leather Wood Hills are about one mile away from him. He said a lot of people trespass across his property and up and down the creek, this would add even more problems. Mr. Martin wanted the road conditions to be looked into. Access on and off Rte K was hazardous.

Mr. Rick Kitchen, 1650 W. High Point Lane, which was a mile east of the proposed development. Mr. Kitchen wanted to recommend to the Commission to post signs when there is a rezoning. He found out about the rezoning a day before the scheduled meeting. He stated the city always posts signs for rezoning, he wanted to see that happen for the county. He did not see the notice in the paper nor was he on the mailing list but the rezoning would effect him. He stated he and his wife bought the property out in the county, out on High Point Lane. They wanted less density and a quiet neighborhood. Most of the residents on High Point Lane own 5 or more acres of property. The rezoning from A-2 to Residential, only requires lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. This rezoning could have 60 homes materialize. Residents are concerned about the quality of the road, quality of the sewage, the road is a dirt road with a lot of traffic. Last summer there were three (3) injury accidents right outside of his house. Prior to that the neighbors had their car totaled right outside of their driveway. He and the neighbors wanted a quiet neighborhood, with a possibility of 60 home sites, the area would change.

Chairman Schnarre asked Mr. Kitchen how long he had been a resident there. Mr. Kitchen answered two (2) years ago, he had bought 11 acres.

Mr. Kitchen continued that he had spoken to one of the County Commissioners. He was advised if he did come to the P & Z and spoke to please say something about posting signs for proposed rezoning.

Martha Martin, 850 S High Point Lane approximately 20 years, owning 26 acres addressed the Commission. Her concern was with the road, especially with the blind hill with a right turn off Rte K. Where High Point Lane and Rte K meet, it is on a curve on a ravine. This is extremely dangerous in winter months.

Susan Ailor MD, 1990 W High Point, approached the commission. She stated she wanted to restate the problems of the road in the area. She spoke of possibly finding a vehicle in the ditch then worrying if it was a friend of your own teenagers, or who is it. The first winter she lived out there it took the County three (3) days before the first attempt to clear the road. She and her neighbors try to maintain clearing of snow on their own. She stated the road can not handle many more cars.

Mr. Donald Baker, 8251 S. High Point Lane, resident 10 yrs. approached the Commission. He stated High Point Lane is a bad road, what makes is worse is Rte K is a narrow two lane curvy black top. If an increase of even 30-40 homes Rte K will be even more dangerous. Next to the proposed rezoning there is a big power substation. With the increase of development the chances of power outages are possible. We all would be out of service. Mr. Baker asked about the sewage, was it to go up to the Gateway Subdivision. He asked if Gateway could handle the increase. The back of the land has a creek. He stated the creek was prone to overflowing. Surrounding neighbors have 3 acres, with this development it would change the whole country atmosphere.

Mr. Fred Fisher a resident on High Point Lane addressed the Commission. He wanted to express concerns for the areas already addressed. Mr. Fisher asked for the other residents concern regarding the proposed rezoning to please stand. About 20 - 25 people stood that were in attendance.

Mr. Bill Durren, 1401 W. High Point Lane (approx. 1 mile from away) with 80 acres, resident since 1982 addressed the Commission. Mr. Durren stated he is developing his property breaking it into

5 - 7 acre tracts. To the north there is already a large development, with a minimum tract of 5 to about 30 acres. To the east there are 10 acre lots, to the south there is a 100 acre farm, to the west there are all lots. With all this development there is a lot of traffic off of High Point onto Rte K.

Mr. Tom Thomas, 7700 High Point Lane, resident there for 10 years addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission what was to keep the developers from putting up as many houses as they wanted instead of 25-30? What was to keep the developers from bulldozing every tree. Mr. Thomas stated he did not know the zoning laws but the impact is always greater than the developers present. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any way to restrict the developers to a minimum amount of impact or how many houses can they build if it was kept "Agriculture"? Chairman Schnarre advised A-2 they would need 2 1/2 acres per house. Mr. Thomas said, "that would be great".

Chairman Schnarre stated that the development would fall under the new Subdivision Regulations, and there was a minimum tree ordinance.

Ed Ailer, MD who lived on High Point since 1990 addressed the Commission. He stated he could not over emphasize the will of all of the neighbors to keep it at a low density area.

The applicants addressed the Commission regarding the concerns. Dan Kellar stated that regarding the lot sizes, number of houses, he would be happy to make a stipulation, he did not want to saturate with a bunch of houses. Regarding Rte K, the property is not that far off Rte K. only about 300 ft. The sewage treatment, if rezoning was approved there would be in-ground sewage treatment to meet County Specifications and Dept. of Natural Resources. They planned to put in dust free streets. Regarding the trees, the country life is to enjoy the trees. Mr. Kellar stated there were people that could not afford 5 to 10 acre tracts that would like to live in a rural area. The Bon Femme Estates 5 acre tracts are selling for $60K and more.

Closed public hearing.

Commissioner Falco had a question for Commissioner Elmore, was there a (Road) plan for High Point Lane. Commissioner Elmore stated, "No, there was not, the county is paving from Hill Creek Subdivision east to Rte N.

Commissioner Beasley asked the applicants to clarify the response to the questions to Mr. Thomas question. Why not stay A-2, why request the rezoning?

Mr. James stated that the property needed to be looked at. Because of the lay of the land, half acre tracts were needed to develop the lower property.

Commissioner Gerardi stated that the A-2 zoning was appropriate, R-S zoning for any reason was too dense and almost inconceivable and he would make a motion to deny the request.

Commissioner Gerardi made and Commissioner Beasley seconded a motion to deny rezoning request by Dan and Chris Kellar and Mike and Brenda James to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to R-S (Single Family Residential of 15 acres, more or less, located at 7000 S. High Point Lane.

Voting was as follows:

Jon Gerardi yes Jim Beasley yes

Keith Schnarre yes Bill Grace yes

Joe Falco yes Stan Elmore yes

Motion to deny was approved 6 yes

Chairman advised the applicants could appeal to the County Commission within three

(3) working days.

3. Central Bridge Co.

Request by Central Bridge Co. to rezone from R-M

(Moderate Density Residential) to M-LP (Planned Industrial) of 1.83 acres,

located at 1451 E. Prathersville Road.

Don Abell gave staff report stating the site is located approximately 1 1/2 miles north of Columbia. The site is currently zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential) as is all of the adjoining land. The tract is currently vacant except for an older single family dwelling located on Prathersville Road. The applicant would like to construct office space and a maintenance facility for construction business. The 1973 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as being suitable for moderate density residential land use. In June, 1993, the applicants submitted a review plan and zoning change for 5.7 acres adjacent to this tract. The zoning change was to alter the zoning from R-M to M-LP. A final development plan has not been submitted. The applicants are requesting a zone change for this parcel, and have submitted a revised review plan for consideration and approval of the Commission. Staff notified 42 property owners.

Chairman Schnarre stated that if the rezoning request was approved the request by Central Bridge Co. to amend a previously approved Review Plan would follow.

Mr. Ron Shy was present to represent Central Bridge Co. and addressed the Commission. He stated if the Commission checks the previous Review Plan the building orientation was different and the reason for the rezoning from R-M is for the office parking and access to a road that runs to Prathersville Rd past the Boone County Fire Station.

Mr. Shy introduced Simon and Walther, architects who studied the original Review Plan and this plan to make comments regarding the parking areas and building locations.

Philip Duff, with Simon and Walther approached the Commission as project architect for the office building and later the shop building shown on the Review Plan. The review plan of 1993 had the area for the office building and the shop building oriented in the east and west direction. At that time, no architect had been employed. As Simon and Walther studied what Central Bridge hoped to do with the office and shop building, we came up with a revised plan that shows the office and vehicle maintenance separate. One of the advantages was of the new orientation of the office bldg. to the east, can take advantage of a parking lot that ties into the existing main entrance to the north. This will create the same entrance as shown on the previous 1993 Review Plan for the shop bay and vehicle maintenance. As that is developed, the shop bay will not face the road, the entrance will be on the long side, having a much less visual impact from Prathersville Road. The landscaping plan will show the areas south and east of the shop bldg. and south of the office bldg. with landscaping designed to screen that from the neighbors. The office building is designed and they have elevations for review. The structure is more than an industrial facility, it is a brick office building where it is two stories, brick all the way down, far more than a "metal building".

Chairman Schnarre asked about the landscaping. Mr. Shy stated it was not shown on the Review Plan. He continued that they were showing a 50 ft. half width right-of-way dedication. Primary concern is for the parking to be moved to the east side of the building which would have access to the road.

Ms. Shelly Simon, architect and President of Simon and Walther addressed the Commission. She asked the Commission when they looked at the landscape plan submitted, that was designed by Oist and Town Associates, out of St. Louis. Oist and Town Associates have done other facilities such as Woodrail Center and MFA Oil Company, and MFA Inc. She stated that level of landscaping would be done for this site that Mr. Eckhoff was committed to provide.

Commissioner Gerardi wanted it noted that the rezoning was in question at this time, not landscaping.

Open to public hearing No one spoke in favor of the request

Mr. George Wilson of 1600 E. Prathersville Rd. addressed the Commission. Mr. Wilson stated his property was right across from the Central Bridge’s present drive. He stated two main problems in that area were too much traffic on Prathersville Drive and there was a storm drainage problem. Mr. Wilson could not see a commercial development helping that at all, he was opposed to the rezoning.

Mr. Bob Baker of 1520 E. Prathersville Rd. addressed the Commission. He stated he was not against building an office building but the maintenance building he was. With all the equipment down there it would not help their property value.

Chairman Schnarre stated that in the Review Plan that had been approved the maintenance building would not change a whole lot from the original plan. Mr. Baker said it was not the structure, it was bringing all their equipment down to work on that worried him.

Mr. Fred George, who was buying a home at 1480 Prathersville Rd. stated he had lived there 22 years addressed the Commission next. He stated the first problem was the storm drain. He stated the County had not taken care of the run off. Mr. George stated he had not received a notice and the owner he was buying the property from had not received a notice. Mr. George wanted to know who was going to take care of the sewer they are talking about because the lagoon presently in use (according to the people at the Sewage place he spoke to about 3 yrs. ago) was over loaded then. Mr. George said Mr. Eckhoff talked about building office buildings there and "we" were all for it. Now he wants to move his maintenance building right down in his front yard.

Ms. Heddy White 1521 E. Prathersville Road, two houses from the fire station addressed the Commission. She stated there was enough traffic the way it is with out any more built in there. Ms. White did not believe the parking lot should be put out there.

Mr. Ron Shy address the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Shy stated it was not Mr. Eckhoff’s intention to store a lot of equipment down near the road. The building is set back from the existing road, approximately 200 ft., almost 150 ft. from the new right-of-way lines. That all will be landscaped around Ms. Wyatt’s house and the area down by the road.

Chairman Schnarre wanted to know more about the problem with the storm drain from Commissioner Elmore, did he know where it was. Commissioner Elmore stated he did not know where it was.

Mr. Shy stated that the only storm drainage structure was on the south west corner of the property. He said it has not been evaluated for size of pipe or anything, he was not aware there was any type of problem.

Mr. Shy stated he had a comment from the Boone County Regional Sewer District saying that depending on the use and the number of people in the building, the lagoon may or may not have capacity to service them. However, if it needs upgrading, Mr. Eckhoff will be required to do so. He stated Mr. Eckhoff will also be running the sanitary sewer main through the property as shown on the plat.

Mr. Mike Gilbert spoke up from the audience stating that the water backs up the private road behind Prathersville Road. From the private road all the way back up to Prathersville Rd has water that backs up in a heavy rain. There is no outlet for it.

Closed to public hearing

Commissioner Gerardi stated he thought Review Plans were just that, and the details came back the next time. He said here we are again now about lights, how about driveway widths, how about entry way surfaces, how about concrete aprons, how about radius curb entry, etc. He said there are a lot of things to talk about, most of it you trust it to be handled but to think all of this will magically come back the next time. In short, do we now get into driveway widths, or act on this as a general idea of what might happen. Chairman Schnarre stated that if it was to be in the final plat, we have to state it on the review plan. Chairman Schnarre stated the first thing is to do is to rezone or not.

Commissioner Gerardi made and Commissioner Beasley seconded a motion to approve request by Central Bridge Co. to rezone from R-M (Moderate Density Residential) to M-LP (Planned Industrial) of 1.83 acres, located at 1451 E. Prathersville Road.

Commissioner Grace asked if it was rezoned, did it mean they could do what they want, or just the parking lot. Will they be able to add other buildings?

Chairman Schnarre stated the rezoning at present is for the parking lot, they would have to come back to add any additional buildings.

Commissioner Elmore asked the applicant how they got from one part of their tract to the other. There is no driveway between two of the pieces. The parking lot for the rezoning is away from the building. Applicant advised the properties connected to the north.

Commissioner Elmore stated this should take some traffic off of the entrance by the Fire station. This will provide a second entrance off Prathersville Rd. Commissioner Elmore asked Director Shawver if the buildings could be built without the second entrance being built? Director Shawver stated that the project could be built in phases; the commission can require that specific entrances be built prior to all phases being complete.

Voting was as follows:

Jon Gerardi yes Jim Beasley yes

Keith Schnarre yes Bill Grace yes

Joe Falco yes Stan Elmore yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

REVIEW PLAN - CENTRAL BRIDGE PLAN

Commissioner Elmore asked the applicant if their intention was to stage this project. Shelley Simon said yes.

 

Commissioner Elmore made and Commissioner seconded a motion to approve the revised review plan for Central Plaza Planned Industrial development, subject to the following conditions:

- that the west driveway be built to provide access to the site as part

of the first development phase;

- that the lighting plan be shown on the final development plan,

designed so as to minimize impact on area properties;

- all land area not shown as occupied by buildings or parking are to

be shown on a landscape plan to be submitted for review along with

the final development plan.

Chairman Schnarre wanted to know if signs had been addressed--

Commissioner Gerardi wanted to know if storm water had been addressed--

Commissioner Gerardi continued that with the slope, the concrete, the storage facility, the nature of the service and kind of fluids involved in some of the equipment, if there was a likely candidate for a study that would be passed down stream, Mr. Eckhoff would be a good suspect for it.

Commissioner Gerardi made and Commissioner Grace seconded a motion to amend motion on submittal of final Plan the applicant make a storm water study and report to be submitted for the entire property including remedial action necessary to correct drainage problems.

Voting for the amended motion was as follows:

Jon Gerardi yes Bill Grace yes

Keith Schnarre yes Jim Beasley yes

Joe Falco yes Stan Elmore no

Motion to amend motion passed 5 yes - 1 no

 

The entire question was called for a vote:

(recap questions with all conditions)

Commissioner Elmore made and Commissioner seconded a motion to approve the revised review plan for Central Plaza Planned Industrial development, subject to the following conditions:

- that the west driveway be built to provide access to the site as part

of the first development phase;

- that the lighting plan be shown on the final development plan,

designed so as to minimize impact on area properties;

- all land area not shown as occupied by buildings or parking are to

be shown on a landscape plan to be submitted for review along with

the final development plan;

- that a storm water study and report be submitted for the entire property including remedial action necessary to correct drainage problems.

Voting was as follows:

Stan Elmore yes Jim Beasley yes

Bill Grace yes Jon Gerardi yes

Keith Schnarre yes Joe Falco yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

Recess was taken for 5 minutes.

PLAT REVIEW

1. Benthall’s Subdivision, Plat One, final plat. Located in S9-T49N-R12W

Zoned A-2 Marvin and Carylon Benthall, owners. Bill Crockett, surveyor.

Don Abell gave staff report stating this two lot subdivision is located on Ketter Road, approximately one half (1/2) mile west of Rte B. Located in the A-2 zoning district, additional right-of-way has been granted along Ketter Road. Public water is available along the road and each lot will have an individual sewer system. It is recommended that the triangle identified as tract No. 3 either be dedicated as road right-of-way or transferred to an adjoining property owner. This plat was 50 points on the rating scale.

Commissioner Elmore made and Commissioner Gerardi seconded a motion to approve the plat of Benthall’s Subdivision contingent upon the area shown as Tract No. 3 being dedicated as road right-of-way or being deeded to the adjoining property owner.

Voting was as follows:

Stan Elmore yes Jon Gerardi yes

Keith Schnarre yes Jim Beasley yes

Bill Grace yes Joe Falco yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

2. County Downes Subdivision, Block VI, final plat.

Located in S11-T49N-R13W Zoned R-S

Gordon and Bonnie Burnam, owners. Ron Lueck, surveyor.

Don Abell gave staff report that this fourteen lot subdivision is located within County Downes Subdivision. Situated in a residential single family zoning district, lot size range from 17,500 sq. ft. to 58,775 sq. ft. All of the lots on the south side of the road are greater than one (1) acre in size. The lots on the north side of the road range from 17,500 to 56,300 sq. ft.

There are five interior tracts that were created prior to Planning and Zoning. A twenty foot access easement which is originally provided for those tracts has been removed from the final plat (see letter from John Patton in file).

All existing lots in County Downes Block I & II have residential development.

Water service for this development is available with a planned upgrade to 6 inch (6") line along Wade School Road. Sewage treatment will be provided for by the Boone County regional Sewer District. The District currently serves the County Downes Subdivision area.

Trobridge Road is a gravel, county maintained road. This plat has 55 points on the rating scale.

Ron Lueck, addressed the Commission, he stated that the County Subdivision Regulations do not require access to a previously land locked parcel. The property was already land locked, not doing anything to land lock it. He stated the place where the easement was show on the preliminary is where we will grant it if it is forced by court action.

Commissioner Gerardi commented that one of the fundamental reasons for platting ground is to establish access suitably. In the city of Columbia, attempts are made to use the platting process to access the land locked ground. Not to forever land lock it. It seems like a developer and any thoughtful commission that was looking at a plan that was forever land locking someone else’s ground in a subdivision plat would at least require the developer to access that tract on a roadway in a public domain. It would be foolish to say we are in the planning business if we go around land locking pieces of ground inside a subdivision.

Mr. Lueck stated they were not the ones land locking the property, who ever wrote the deed land locked it, they provided no access to those parcels.

Commissioner Gerardi stated that now is the opportunity for access.

Mr. Lueck stated the opportunity for access also exists after platting. They can get the access where it was shown on the Preliminary Plat, along the lot lines of 11, 12. Granting that access easement opens up the parcel for development, there could be a house behind a house.

Commissioner Gerardi asked if the owner of the landlocked property was aware of this. Bill Marshall advised that Mr. Burnam was attempting to buy the property. The owner Margaret Flen lives somewhere in south Florida, she is elderly. So far, no agreement has been reached to purchase the property. Mr. Marshall stated Ms. Flen also owns property across the road on the south side that is also landlocked.

Commissioner Gerardi asked if the preliminary also shows access to each of the properties. Mr. Marshall, stated yes it did.

Commissioner Gerardi asked that since there is a substantial deviation from the preliminary to the final plat what is to happen. Director Shawver stated that the staff sought a legal opinion on this subject. John Patton advised that the regulations do not require that a developer provide access to land locked land. Consequently, the fact that it was voluntarily shown on a preliminary plat has no bearing on the final approval of the plat.

Commissioner Grace stated this is a case of buyer beware. If I buy the property and find out the land behind me was land locked and I was forced to allow easement, is the situation conveyed to the new buyer? He stated it may not be a question for Planning & Zoning, but was P & Z putting four people in a difficult position?

Mr. Marshall advised that the will owners know there are some sections back there they do not own and not adjacent to the road.

Commissioner Beasley stated we are not compounding the problem.

Commissioner Gerardi stated the remedy to the problem is so simple. We are platting the grounds with roadways and lot lines etc. and the remedy to the landlocked land is to allow access to it.

Commissioner Grace stated if they owned all the tracts, there were would be options to have access to the back sites. If now platted it off, the property owner in front is forced to give up 90 ft.

Mr. Marshall stated the solution was simple, for Mr. Burnam to buy the property. Mr. Marshall stated they did not want the possibility of a house behind a house.

Commissioner Falco stated that if this was approved like this, the mother dies, the son would have to go to court to have this corrected.

Commissioner Schnarre stated the way it is subdivided he would still have to go to court.

According to legal counsel, we can not make it have an easement.

Commissioner Elmore ask Director Shawver if we had a 40 acre tract of land, land locked beside this subdivision, and we were asking them to extend street right-of-way over to it, would Mr. Patton’s letter still apply.

Director Shawver stated that would be a different situation. In that case, the land would be subject to development, and we could require that roads be extended to the property line. In this situation, the property already is landlocked.

Commissioner Elmore stated this cries for the need for Subdivision Regulations. This piece of land was created when there were no regulations in the County.

Commissioner Elmore moved and Commissioner Falco seconded a motion to approve the final plat of County Downes Subdivision Block VI.

Voting was as follows:

Stan Elmore yes Joe Falco yes

Jon Gerardi no Bill Grace yes

Jim Beasley no Keith Schnarre yes

Motion was approved. 4 yes - 2 no

 

3. Haystack Acres Addition, final plat. Located in S17 & S18 -T49N-R12W

Zoned A-R Gordon and Bonnie Burnam, owners. Ron Lueck, surveyor.

Don Abell gave staff report that this 130 lot subdivision is located on the north side of Alfalfa Dr. and the west side of Oakland Gravel Rd. just north of Haystack Acres. Located in the A-R zoning district, each tract is approximately one half (1/2) acre. Originally, this property was presented to the planning Commission as a request to rezone to residential single family and followed with a second request to rezone to planned residential. Both requests were denied.

Water District No. 4 has indicated that upgraded water service will have to be extended from Rte. B, along Oakland Gravel Rd.

As with previous submissions, sewage treatment will be provided by the Boone County Regional Sewer District. A sewage treatment plant is proposed on lot 50.

Alfalfa Dr. is scheduled to be paved under the county’s street improvement program. The developer plans to have interior gravel roads as permitted under the current subdivision regulations.

Staff confirmed that each lot is equal to or grater that one half (1/5) acre. This plat has 52 points on the rating scale.

Commissioner Gerardi made and Commissioner Elmore second motion to approve Haystack Acres Addition, final plat.

Voting was as follows:

Jon Gerardi yes Stan Elmore yes

Joe Falco yes Bill Grace yes

Jim Beasley yes Keith Schnarre yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

 

OLD BUSINESS

1. Bonne Femme Hills, a planned residential development.

Located in S33-T47N-R12W and S4-T46N-R12W

Zoned A-1 Carl & Joyce Fritchey, owners. James W. Brush, surveyor

Don Abell gave staff report that since this plan was prepared, a discrepancy between the deeds of Mr. Fritchey and the property owner to the west of this property. There may be just under 60 acres in this tract. This has not been resolved. However, staff feels this can still be considered because it is a PRD and if approved, the Commission can go on the record that tract no. 6 is not for development unless the discrepancy is resolved and determined that there is a full 60 acres or more in this parcel.

Jim Brush approached the Commission. He stated that there were some overlaps in the deeds. Mr. Brush thought an agreement had been reached with Mr. Biggs and Mr. Powell who were also present for the meeting. Mr. Brush asked for this to be approved as it is. If in time, a building permit application is completed for Tract #6 it will have the required lot size.

Commissioner Gerardi stated he liked this development. This is the situation where the owner asked for increased density, but the request was turned down. He came back with a planned development that lets him have a higher density next to the road, and retains land for agricultural use. Good planning.

Mr. Jim Powell, attorney for David Biggs who owns property to the north and west of Mr. Fritchey’s property. Note on Tract B and Tract C there is a fence line. The Fence line for Tract B runs in between the boundary lines, on tract C it runs along the south line. Mr. Biggs claimed ownership to everything north of the fence line and west of the fence line. He has farmed the property with his father in excess of 31 years. We have worked things out tonight with Mr. Brush. He will locate the fences and if necessary changes are necessary, the legal descriptions for quick claim deeds will be recorded. Mr. Powell stated that Mr. Biggs had no objection to approval of this Final Development Plan.

Commissioner Elmore made and Commissioner Beasley seconded a motion to approve the Final Development Plan for Bonne Femme Hills PRD with the stipulation that no more than five (5) building permits be issued until proof is shown that the tract consists of 60 acres or more; and that area shown as right-of-way be changed to an easement .

Voting was as follows:

Stan Elmore yes Jim Beasley yes

Keith Schnarre yes Foe Falco yes

Bill Grace yes Jon Gerardi yes

Motion was approved unanimously 6 yes

 

Meeting Adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Stan Shawver

Acting Secretary

 

Minutes Approved on this ____ day of July, 1995