MINUTES

BOONE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

7:30 p.m. - Thursday, November 16, 1995

Boone County Government Center

801 E. Walnut St., Columbia, MO

Chairman Schnarre, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with a quorum present. Roll call was taken by Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Secretary.

Present: Keith Schnarre, Chairman Bourbon Township

Keith Kirkpatrick Missouri Township

Bill Grace Centralia Township

Mary Sloan Rocky Fork Township

Joe Falco Perche Township

Frank Abart County Engineer

Absent: Jim Beasley Cedar Township

Jon Gerardi Columbia Township

Also Present: Stan Shawver, Director

Don Abell, Staff

Thad Yonke, Staff

Noel Boyt, Staff

Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Falco seconded a motion to approve the minutes of October 19, 1995 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairman Schnarre welcomed Commissioner Mary Sloan of the Rocky Fork Township to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Procedural statement read by Chairman Schnarre.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

None Submitted

REZONING REQUESTS

None Submitted

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

Request by Loren Gene, Loy Dale and G. Louis Nichols to revise

a review plan for a Planned Commercial Development to be known as

Rte B - HH Plaza (formerly known as Hancox Plaza), located

at 4500 E. Hwy. HH, Columbia.

Don Abell gave staff report this property is located approximately 1/2 mile north of the Columbia city limits at the intersection of State Highways B and HH. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all of the surrounding land. The property is vacant. The 1973 comprehensive plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. In 1989, the previous owner requested 7 acres of land to be rezoned to C-GP (Planned Commercial). A review plan for 2 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highways B and HH was approved for a convenience store. A final plan was never submitted. At the same time, a general concept plan was submitted for the rest of the property that showed a total of 7 lots. Proposed uses included a day care center and auto repair. A review plan for that area was not submitted. The current owner has indicated a desire to follow through with the convenience store, and a final plan will be forthcoming. They have now submitted a review plan for the balance of the property for consideration. Staff notified 21 property owners concerning this request.

There is an existing 12 inch water line running along the east side of Route B and along the north side of Highway HH. The Fire District comments that the exact water flow requirements for this development cannot be determined until after reviewing building occupancy type and classification. However, Water District #4 is confident they have adequate water pressure and volume available in these lines to meet fire flow requirements for commercial use.

The sewage disposal system will be a central collection system. Sewage treatment will be one of the following:

An on-site treatment plant located as shown on the plat, which will require approval by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

A line connected to the City of Columbia sewer line which is being constructed to serve the North Hampton Development approximately one half a mile to the south of this site. If this can be done, it may be necessary to construct a temporary storage structure until the city line is completed, which is estimated to be sometime next summer. This temporary storage structure would also have to meet the Missouri Department of Natural Resources requirements and it would have to be pumped periodically and the effluent taken to an approved disposal facility.

This plan meets the requirements for a planned development review plan. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

Driveways, parking, and loading areas will have a minimum of at least a chip and seal surface as required by the zoning ordinance and said improvements be installed for each structure prior to the issuance of a Final Occupancy Permit for that structure.

Fire hydrant locations be approved by the Fire District.

Required fire hydrants for each building be installed prior to the issuance of a Final Occupancy Permit for that building or as required by a subdivision plat.

Easements and right of way be dedicated by separate document prior to Final Plan approval or dedicated by Subdivision Plat.

Easements be dedicated around the sewer lines.

Bill Crockett, engineer with office at 1414 Range Line, and owner Gene Nichols approached the Commission.

Mr. Crockett stated that the existing plan was approved for Hancox but was not a part of the request for consideration. There were two areas he wanted to address. First was the sewage. He stated the sewage situation was a great concern of all involved. He had a phone conversation with a member of the Public Works Department, they were in support of hooking into the city system, but it would take City Council action since the site was not adjacent to the system. His second issue was that of the water flow to serve the area. Mr. Crockett advised he currently was a consultant for Water District #4 and he did not feel there would be a problem.

He stated that the land owner had gotten back with Mr. Nichols just yesterday (Wednesday, November 15) to advise him of the second roadway. He stated the plan only had one roadway heading to the south. The plan of the first presentation (1987) had two roadways. It was his hope and desire to eliminate one of the roads since the property in question was fronted on two other roads. One being Old Rte B and Oakland Church Road to the south. He stated it was the desire of the owner (Mr. Nichols) not to have the two roads.

Mr. Crockett stated it was required that two roadways be connected to his property, but the County Commission Order did not specify where the second roadway would go. It only specified that it would connect to the south. If that was a requirement, it maybe is a moot question because it may not allow the situation to be used as they desired for the plan with the realization that there would be a commercial situation on the end, provided the final plan is approved and details could be worked out on the commercial zoning/commercial development that had previously been accepted.

The use would be for a general distributing warehouse for the eastern most (or the left hand) lot and the other two structures to be neighborhood type buildings such as barbershop, beauty shop, cleaners and businesses that would be identified with a neighborhood.

No questions from Commissioners.

OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING

No one spoke in favor of the request.

David Rogers, attorney with an office 813 E. Walnut Street addressed the Commission on behalf of the Heller family and Liberty Baptist Church which owned a acreage immediately adjacent to the site. They owned all of the land that surround this tract on the south (100 acres) and a substantial tract across the New Rte. B. The Heller’s have a substantial interest in the development of the neighborhood. He stated Mr. Crockett was at the disadvantage of not having been a part of the 1989 hearing. He said the historical background of this was important. When the seven (7) acre parcel was presented to the Commission, there was a substantial outcry from the neighborhood. This was the first commercial interest into the area and it was "sold" upon the idea that it was a neighborhood type usage. He noted the uses that were in the plat in 1989 were convenience store, daycare center, and a Laundromat. This was somewhat accepted because this was far enough from town and that there was a certain desirability in having these neighborhood type uses.

The Heller family was vitally interested in the development of the tract because of the fact good planning requires that this large acreage have access to Rte. H. They had been negotiating back and forth with the developer and a written agreement was entered into by the previous developer and the owners involved at the time. He stated if the little piece is sliced off, basically you are slicing off the access of well over 100 acres to Rte. H, so good planning would require the road system be in placed.

The preliminary development plan that was approved in 1989 had both roads shown on the plat. The minutes of the County Commission reflect the desirability of doing this was from a planning point of view and condition of their approval was on putting in two roads. The two roads become particularly important because there is a major draw running through here which basically cuts off the front acreage of several acres to the south from the back.

The plan presented by the Nichols family puts this large warehouse (20,000 sq. ft.) less than 200’ ft immediately to the west of the church. He stated this was no way a type of building that would be allowed in any sort of neighborhood commercial development. There may be a gap in the zoning ordinances in that the planned zoning only applies to the most open commercial zone. In doing the conditions, the Planning and Zoning could in fact limit it to more neighborhood type uses then it could be exercised through the planning process, because there is no Planned Neighborhood Commercial Zoning. This type of a use barely makes it in the commercial zoning, it is more of a light industrial type use. He was not denying that a distribution building could be put into the CGP zone, but that would be the most intense commercial use allowed because of the size of the building. The structure was as close to the Heller property as possible (25’ ft.), it is within (50’ ft.) of the pavement of Rte. HH, which means this 20,000 sq. ft. warehouse is basically not much further from the street than the average residence in town. A residence has a 25’ ft. setback line and usually there is 9’ ft. of open space between the pavement and the setback line.

Mr. Rogers stated that the plan submitted by Mr. Crockett and the Nichol’s was in direct contradiction of the written agreement that was part of the records before this Commission. He stated he was not suggesting that the agreement binds this Commission, but it would give them the sense of the Commissioners who served six (6) years ago. The plans that they presented were all well and good but what happens if the property was sold to someone else. He stated this was a good example of the things that Planning and Zoning worry about. Property that is sold to someone else and the plans dramatically change.

The applicants had been telling the neighborhood that there could be a large Texaco Station, but Mr. Rogers thought the only approved plan to Planning and Zoning had at the present would be a convenience store right here (pointing to map) requiring Amanda Court back to the midway point.

Mr. Rogers stated he was not trying to push the applicants into doing something they do not want to do, but in like manner he did not think they could buy the ground completely free of the obligations and the history of the site. The church members were not thrilled with the building that would be within 200’ ft. of a possible liquor distribution warehouse. That may or may not be a direct zoning consideration but he thought it was certainly an inappropriate type usage as it gets further away from Rte. B. It was an inappropriate usage in a neighborhood type zone and an inappropriate usage where you have to shoe horn the building in. A building of this size should be set back further from the street and further from the neighbors. Mr. Rogers urged the Commission to turn down the application.

He advised Mr. Heller was present to represent the Heller family, and the Pastor of the Liberty Baptist Church was present to represent the church property.

No one else spoke in opposition.

Mr. Bill Crockett addressed the Commission. He stated the distance from the church to the property shown in the most recent aerial photograph scales in excess of 750’ ft from their building to the existing church building and not the property. It was about 300’ ft. to 320’ ft from the building to the corner of church property. He said he took issue to that particular point stated by Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Crockett stated in regards to cutting off total access to the Heller property from Rte. HH. He again said that was incorrect. As Mr. Rogers stated, the west portion of the plan previously approved was remaining unchanged. He continued that the street did stub into the Heller property to the south so he again took issue.

Mr. Crockett commented on the statement that a residential house was located normally 35’ ft. from the edge of the street. That was correct. His following statement was that this building would be located that same distance. Mr. Crockett continued that from the center of Rte. HH pavement to the right-of-way was 80’ ft. at that location. The requirement along all state routes for platting is another 50’ ft setback for a total of 130’ ft. He stated the building was behind the 50’ ft. setback so it was at least 130’ ft plus from the center of the road. If you notice on the building proposed, one (1) corner of it was closer to the building line than a majority of the building which is at least 10’ ft. to 15’ ft behind that building line. He wanted to clarify those points.

Mr. Crockett stated Mr. Rogers made his presentation in all sincerity, however, he took issue with and did not agree with it. He believed Mr. Rogers made a very true statement in that he was not privy to the 1989 agreement other than reading the minutes. It may have reflected what went on in the room but did not reflect the negotiations with the owner at that time.

The proposal can be an asset to the neighborhood. The one unit is not the neighborhood commercial establishments that was discussed before. He made reference to a statement he had made concerning the secondary buildings that were located west of the primary building. As mentioned those structures would have barber shop, beauty shop some of those situations. The building was not going to be right against the property. It is well within the setback requirements normally associated with either residential or commercial property. Again he requested a favorable consideration.

Chairman Schnarre had a question for staff. Was the request of the two roads the only condition in the previous review plan? Director Shawver stated previously it was not a review plan, it was a general concept plan and yes those were the only two (2) conditions that were placed on it because it would have to come back for a review plan which would be subject to further conditions. The only thing that the review plan was approved on was the western most corner lot which is not part of this plan. This five (5) acres did not have a review plan.

Member Kirkpatrick ask about two (2) conditions meaning two (2) roads. Director Shawver agreed, yes two (2) roads providing access to the Heller property.

Mr. Crockett spoke up and stated he believed the Court Order identified them as a separate condition. They required two (2) roads but it was two (2) separate conditions.

Chairman Schnarre said in reading the certified copy order that the Commissioners signed...

"The Boone County Commission does here by approve the general

plan for the Hancox Plaza with two through streets". Done on August, 1989,

signed by Commissioner Graham."

Commissioner Abart asked Director Shawver what kind of obligation did that incur at least to the present Planning and Zoning Commission? Director Shawver stated that was a general concept plan, the County Commission approved it with the two through streets. Planning and Zoning does not have to uphold that, they are submitting a review plan and are asking not to require the streets. The historic approval was for two through streets, you should take that into consideration.

Commissioner Abart asked what would be the major objections to provide the second road? Mr. Crockett stated it could be provided, but it can not be provided at the location shown on the original plan. Chairman Schnarre asked where it would be proposed to have the second road? Commissioner Abart asked if there would be a possibility of an alternative to what was originally planned?

Chairman Schnarre stated that in looking at the land when driving by, there is a good size draw that ran down through the entire property. The upper westward street gives access to the western part of the draw and at the time of the request for the second street was that they have access on the eastern side of the draw. He thought that may have been the reason for the two streets. Commissioner Grace asked if that would make it a public street? Director Shawver answered yes. He continued that the land had to be platted and it would have to be public dedicated streets.

Chairman Schnarre stated that when the process is looked at and the way the subdivision plats are processed through Planning and Zoning the past history shows the Commission always looked for other methods to connect land. If this property does develop into a subdivision sometime, we always look as a method for extending the second exit. When looking at things those options need to be looked at as things are planned.

Commissioner Grace asked if Hancox Plaza owners would have to put in the second street if this other land was developed with condition of second street. Director Shawver advised that the same applicant owned Hancox Plaza.

Mr. Crockett asked if he could answer Commissioner Abart’s question. He continued that if the drawing was reviewed, approximately 400’ ft in from the east most point that would be the location of the center line of the road which would be acceptable for the usage. He did not believe it hit the Heller property at that particular location. To the left of the "title" the dash line to the top of the sheet that was the approximate property line. The Heller property is to the right and to the left is the other. This location that would be needed would be to the left of that property line.

Chairman Schnarre asked what would be the reason to locate it at that point? Mr. Crockett stated it was due to two reasons. One, if the building was slipped to the west, the terrain was such that it would be very difficult to get in and out of the building without an enormous amount of fill and two, being a distribution warehouse there was a need for stacking room for trucks as they head into the warehouse. The trucks could not be backed into the public street so at least 100’ ft of stacking room from the warehouse to the public street would be heading south. It would not be a problem until the street was extended but once it is extended then the trucks would be blocking it.

Commissioner Grace asked how many employees out of the building? Mr. Crockett advised that the proposed usage would have 12 plus 2. Twelve employees that would be there and leave the site are the drivers and two employees would remain on the premise all day.

Chairman Schnarre asked how many vehicles would they be using? Mr. Crockett stated there would be about 12.

Commissioner Abart asked Mr. Crockett if the road could be extended but he felt that would be a mistake because it would be congestive with truck traffic? Mr. Crockett stated that if he placed it any closer to the building than 100’ ft. it would be a mistake 10 years from now. It would not be a mistake until the road was extended southward. The trucks would be backed into the road blocking the road when someone wanted in or out.

Commissioner Grace stated he drove the road every day and it was almost suicide coming out of any of the side roads making a left hand turn. He asked what was the anticipation of the traffic coming out of Rte. HH. Mr. Crockett stated that in regards to this development would be 12 vehicles out, 12 vehicles in, times two. With drivers in and out, and in their private vehicles it would be 48 trips a day. Commissioner Grace added that with the approval of the other 2 proposed buildings it would add traffic to the area. Mr. Crockett stated that with the traffic situations, if it was developed according to the roads to handle the traffic, there would be no improvement on the roads because it did not work that way.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Rogers what were his clients primary objection? Was it the particular usage, the building itself, the lack of the second road, or all of the above? Mr. Rogers stated he was serving two masters and they have different objections. The church is concerned about the usage of the building and also the large size of the building so close to the church property. The pastor had pointed out to him the traffic concern. The concerns of the Heller family was primarily the elimination of the second road, building of this size within 25’ ft. of their property and the fact of the elimination of the second road meant that it would be poor planning. It would leave this substantially large acreage with the only way to access it was from Old Brown Station Road, and a major concern was from the neighborhood commercial usage to a light industrial use.

Chairman Schnarre stated that Mr. Rogers did bring up a point. There was something they struggle with as they approve a plan’s concept and then if a change of ownership, the concept of the plan changes. He stated he was very much in favor of the same type of road for a second entrance and exit for the property. He felt that was some of the compromises that were put with the original plan and felt obligated to make sure it is followed through.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated he agreed with him on both counts. He recalled that during the struggle several years ago, that the roads were a primary concern. He thought the reasoning and logic that applied then still applied equally well now. He was not particularly concerned about the usage of the proposed structure but he did agree with Mr. Rogers it was borderline industrial being a warehouse. He was concerned with the point that when it is accepted and a plan is approved, then it is bought out and someone wants to change it.

Commissioner Falco stated he was not on the Commission when it was done prior but he felt if the Planning and Zoning and the County Commission approved it with two roads prior, it should stay the same. Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated he did not see the situation change.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Falco seconded a motion to deny the request

by Loren Gene, Loy Dale and G. Louis Nichols to revise a review plan for a Planned Commercial Development to be known as Rte. B - HH Plaza.

Voting was as follows:

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Joe Falco yes

Keith Schnarre yes Bill Grace yes

Frank Abart yes Mary Sloan yes.

Motion to deny passed unanimously. 6 yes

 

 

Request by Missouri River City LTD Partnership to approve a review

plan for a Planned Commercial Development to be known as

Missouri River City South Park located at 400 N Roby Farm Rd.

Don Abell, gave staff report stating this property is located approximately 1 1/2 miles southeast of Rocheport at the intersection of Highway BB, and Roby Farm Rd with Interstate 70. The property is currently zoned C-G (General Commercial), as is all of the surrounding property. The property was platted as Muntzel subdivision in 1979, and replatted in 1983. The applicant is requesting that the tract be classified as a Planned Commercial Development to facilitate the further subdivision of the land. Current subdivision regulations would require consent of a majority of owners of the subdivision prior to any replat being approved. A planned development is exempt from those requirements. The 1973 comprehensive plan designated this area as being suited for commercial land uses. Staff notified 12 property owners concerning this request.

that the Missouri River City South Park, Planned Commercial Development located at 400 N. Roby Farm Rd. Missouri River City, Inc., owner. James Brush, Surveyor.

This development contains 7.4 acres. The owner is proposing 6 lots, lot 1 of which is shown as a common area and area for possible future lots.

The driveways and parking areas are part of the common area, and it is proposed that they continue to be privately owned and maintained.

Currently the existing structures are on a private water supply and private collector sewer system. There are some unresolved issues regarding the ability of this development to continue to use these utilities. The Planning Office has received a letter from the owner of these utilities, W.N. Geiger & Sons, Inc. They also own Gieger Mobile Home Park to the south of this property. The letter states that in the future, they have no plans to provide water or sewer system for any other outside users. I believe there is a representative of W.N. Geiger & Sons here to answer any questions.

The Fire District comments that fire hydrants are required every 300 ft. with acceptable fire flows.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

- A Public Service Commission approved water supply plan and DNR

approved Sewage disposal system plan be approved prior to County Commission approval of a Subdivision Final Plat.

- Fire hydrant locations be approved by the Fire District.

- Required fire hydrants be installed with adequate water flow available,

prior to County Commission approval of a Subdivision Final Plat.

- A document that clearly defines who will own the common areas

and who will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of these

common areas be submitted for review and approval, either by staff or Commission, and recorded prior to County Commission approval of a Subdivision Final Plat.

- All driveway and parking surfaces that are not already hard surfaced, be upgraded to a minimum of a chip and seal surface.

Jim Brush, consulting surveyor and land surveyor, office at 506 Nichols Street approached the Commission. He stated this was an unique area. It was appropriate when looking at the title that this is an area that is a community. A community that was started some years ago and basically that is probably the way of the people want to keep it, as a community. He said it may turn into a small city after awhile. Regarding the water and utilities his comments were going to be short and brief. The water districts really do not claim this area. They can not get close to it and can not serve it. They have not served it in the past. When this community started out they did what they needed to do and provide something for the area.

The request was not to do anything different than what was out there right now. No changes from the past. Asking to approve plan for the antique store, theater, dress shop, antique mall and a small restaurant on the bottom. Neighbors have a museum, service station and down the road with a mobile home park, across the road with another group. They are all interrelated on the utilities, have been from day one and will probably until the end of time. It is a community and if there is problem in the community, then the community will solve the problem.

As far as an up grade to provide fire flow, he did not think it would be a possibility. Regarding a development of another water source, he did not think anyone could afford to do that. He spoke to the Water Districts and asked if they could get there? The Water Districts told him maybe some day. It is basically a good system providing safe water. The sanitary sewer system seemed to be adequate. He knew of no complaints and no lawsuits. He was asking for the approval of the plan so that the different parcels could be used for individual financing, individual insurance and individual ownership.

Mr. Brush advised they would supply the comments regarding the common area. He would be happy to work with the areas regarding the parking areas and making them dust free. He thought everything in the parking area had an asphalt surface. He stated he would be asking the Board of Adjustment for a waiver on the requirements for a subdivision regulations regarding sewer and water. After dividing this, he stated there would be no change.

Chairman Schnarre asked Mr. Brush if this had all been platted prior to the sewer and water regulations and all grandfathered at the present time? Director Shawver stated that was correct. Mr. Brush added that when it was installed it was state of the art. The only thing that had changed were the regulations

Mr. Brush passed out some papers and stated they were basically a letter that stated one guy owned it all and then there are several deeds that said basically everybody owns it (water and the sewer). Mr. Brush asked for the Commissioners to look at the original subdivision plat, it showed public sewer easements going across two lots, but that was not the question. The question was if the Commission would allow the commercial area which was grouped together on one large lot to be transacted to individual ownership. At present it is all under one ownership. The people that run them want to have individual ownership of what they have. They could keep their own insurance on their own specific building. That was really the question. The sewer is not going to change, water is not going to change.

Commissioner Grace asked if they own them individually and no public water system then an individual provides the service. Mr. Brush stated they were all interrelated. It is a community, it is a planned area. He stated it was similar to that of the down town area. Interrelated in the sense that each one of these people are related to the other one for the common good of the parking, for the business, and for the neighborhood.

Commissioner Grace asked what if he bought a piece of the community all of a sudden does not like that he changed the antique mall to hot rod shop or something; they could cut the water off? Someone from the audience spoke up and said " theoretically".

Mr. Brush stated realistically it had to be understood that "you are part owner", as he ran through the deeds that is how he read it. In the deeds it states that "The people that own not No. 2 has a right to use... have had and always have the right to use."

Chairman Schnarre stated before going to public hearing he wanted to call on Mr. Giger. Mr. Giger came forward and wanted to address the issue. He stated he had legal ownership and his corporation had legal ownership of not only the property that the well sits on but they also had the State permit to operate the water system. He said he purchased it in essence for the benefit of the property that they had owned, which was the trailer park. He had provided free water and free sewer system since the time it was purchased. They are in the process of establishing a permanent permit with the Boone County Water and Sewer District and the Department of Natural Resources of which he did not have at the current time a permanent operating permit. If they ever did get the permanent operating permit from the Department of Natural Resources and from the Boone County Water and Sewer District, they had no intention of going to Public Service Commission and selling water to anyone.

Mr. Brush asked for the members in the audience that had come in favor of the request to please stand. Approximately 8 individuals stood.

Mr. Charles Cook, 704 Clayton, Columbia approached the Commission. He stated he was the current tenant and co-owner of Farm Road Antiques and had been since April 1st of 1994. He stated he would also be involved if the request was approved. He shared the parking with the Texaco and the Antique Mall but also the bed and breakfast and the antique shops there were on the other side. They were all interrelated and he did not believe the water or sewer would change.

No one spoke in opposition to the request.

Mrs. McDermott, resident who lived on Roby Farm Road approached the Commission. She wanted to know what the sewer system was? How did they dispose of the sewage? She never knew nor could she find out what it was.

Mr. Brush addressed the Commission. He stated the system had been installed for a number of years. He had not reviewed the actual specific paper work and had not called DNR to see if they did or did not have the permit on it. He stated that according to the history the subdivision plat itself was put together and designed by Ralph Ricketts, an engineer. The way that the easements and sewer lines were laid out on the plat told him that it was engineered. When he walked the area the lagoon told him it was built in accordance to the standards of the time. He could advise that most commercial operations create very little sewage. The load created by these businesses was insignificant as compared to the facility.

Mr. Brush made reference to the statement regarding the ownership of the well, he believed it was 100% true. Working with Division of Health on maintaining the system he believed was also 100% true. The obligation to serve the particular items as he read in the deeds and from the owners was an obligation and he reminded Planning and Zoning that Mr. Giger never said anywhere in his conversation that he was going to shut off what was existing and what was there. It was a community system, well maintained and will be a community system.

Mr. Brush approached the Commissioner and showed the old plat pointing items out.

He stated the systems interrelated and if ever it came to a time of rebuilding or enhancing, he thought everyone would step forward and do their part. Everyone is using it and he predicted everyone would continue to use it. He thought eventually what would be seen if the area did flourish and grow is the statement at the top referring to Missouri River City, LTD. he thought that would be one of the choices in the future and it would be a community. Where it would have its own PSC regulated utilities.

Chairman Schnarre asked if conditions were placed on the request and they can not meet it, would it then go to the Board of Adjustment? Director Shawver advised no, it would have to come back to Planning and Zoning Commission and ask for a relief to the conditions. Board of Adjustment can give relief from specific regulations but can not give relief from restrictions that P&Z have placed on them. They would have to return to P&Z and request revisions.

Chairman Schnarre asked if it was replated, would it place it into the new Subdivision Regulations? Director Shawver stated if they were platted or replatted it would fall under the new Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Schnarre continued and wanted to know if it was not stipulated, the requirements regarding fire hydrants and flow for commercial. Director Shawver answered that only if the platted the land.

Director Shawver explained that Missouri River City LTD Partnership had been platted as Muntzel subdivision and because the land was platted it now has to be replatted in order to be further subdivided. Under the Subdivision Regulations replatts require consent of ownership of 50% or more of the owners in the subdivision plat. The exception to that is a Planned Development. Rather than every time they want to replat land or cut off a lot getting 50% of the owners (and more and more owners as they go along are involved) they want to have the ability to come back just to Planning and Zoning Commission with their replat. Anything that is filed for final plat after June 17, 1995 has to comply with the Subdivision Regulations in effect at that time.

Chairman Schnarre stated it was not their responsibility to decide who has ownership of the water and sewer lines, that is their problem.

Director Shawver continued that if conditions were not placed and they come back with a final development plan but it is not platted, and you do not have conditions on it, the situation is exactly as it is now. He stated there was an opportunity now to improve the situation there regards to the fire protection, by placing conditions on the review plan. If they come back with a final development plan, they will be obligated to follow through with those improvements. Next week they could change their mind and continue to lease the properties. But if a final plan developed with fire hydrants for example, you have created a fire protection stand point that will benefit all the property owners that perhaps could result in lower insurance rates and would benefit all the potential occupants, full time owners or just a customer off of I-70 to shop.

Chairman Schnarre asked if they were requesting a review plan as a whole area that is on the plan and to divide them up into different lots. He continued that they were subdividing on the replat? Director Shawver agreed.

Mr. Brush wanted to comment that no one was against providing health and welfare issues such as fire hydrants. They are very good to do, unfortunately they have to walk before they run. The opportunity tonight was to allow different ownership to occur. If there was a reasonable means of providing fire flows as such, they would. The only way to do that right now would be to generate another source of water supply, run a line down to the river, run a line over to Rocheport and tie into their system. Financially the Water District can not do it and they could not do it. Mr. Brush wanted to address only the existing structures. There would not be anything out there tomorrow that was not there today he stated. If they ever needed to come back to Planning and Zoning Commission and ask for additional building sites and so forth, then a new use has been generated and also a new economic situation.

Chairman Schnarre stated the idea was great. He wanted to place conditions that they would have the opportunity to work with the Board of Adjustment on a case by case need.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked to how would it go to the Board of Adjustment? Mr. Schnarre stated regarding the fire and the water side of it. Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated if those conditions were placed on this, he did not think they would go before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Schnarre stated if the conditions were not placed and it was not replatted then Planning and Zoning would have messed up. Commissioner Kirkpatrick acknowledged and agreed.

Director Shawver advised it could be tied to new construction or future construction. If they come back for future construction and new lots that is a consideration they will have to make as they develop.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if there was any water coming up Roby Farm Road? Mr. Brush advised no.

Commissioner Abart asked if this was approved would it be assumed that this would increase commercial activity which would increase the need for the fire protection? Mr. Brush stated the same structure that was there today will be there tomorrow. If they came back for a new

lot, a new tract, a new use, then they would be back before Planning and Zoning Commission.

Chairman Schnarre asked if the usage identified on the plan required them to stay the same for each type of business? Director Shawver advised no. Unless they restricted it to be an antique store, but it could be any permitted use in the commercial zoning. You do have the power to restrict further. With the Planned Development Commercial Zoning or industrial, any permitted use in that zoning district is permitted unless the Commission restricts specific uses. Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if they could do that? Could they make it remain an antique store? Director Shawver said it would be overly restrictive, it would be better to say it could be used for anything except for one or more specific uses.

Mr. Brush stated he did not think that was a concern. It was either the concept that these people could go ahead and purchase the different lots because what is there today, is going to be there next week, is going to be there next year. If they come back for something new and different, then they were "fair game". Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if they came back and turn this miniature golf course into a massage parlor? What are the possibilities? Director Shawver stated that if the Commissioners were concerned about adult activities they should restrict adult activities.

Commissioner Grace asked if the Commission could limit that the buildings on the plan will stay there with no additions and no new buildings added without them coming back. Director Shawver stated that under the Planned District they could have decimal increases up to 10%. That will allow them to have certain additions without coming back. He stated they did not want to restrict any additions because the business may need to put on an airlock or do something to comply with ADA requirements.

Commissioner Grace asked if it could be approved with a condition that all buildings remain the same and no new building erected without coming back to Planning and Zoning? Director Shawver stated yes.

Commissioner Abart asked what kind of position would it put them in if approved without the fire hydrant requirements and next week someone wants to put in a larger development right across the street. The new development reminds us that we did not make MO River City Ltd. put in fire hydrants but we were making them put in fire hydrants? Mr. Brush reminded him that Planning and Zoning were limiting them to anything new as far as new structures.

Director Shawver stated one way to do that was to address fire hydrants related to new construction. Depending upon the use of the building and the size, they may be required to put in a fire hydrant under the building code. This may be only be one fire hydrant not a series of fire hydrants located every 300’ ft along the water line.

Mr. Brush stated that if a development did come in right across the street should have the same obligations they would have to do if it were something new like providing additional water and additional sewage. He continued that is was a neighborhood system and not a public system.

Commissioner Falco asked if this property and the trailer court were operating off of a lagoon that was 10 plus years old? Mr. Brush agreed. He continued that the purpose of this plan was so that each of the lots could be sold off individually. Mr. Brush said yes. There was a lot of land setting in the back and more in the front. There was a lot of potential, they want to be in a position to go ahead and transact the buildings into individual ownership, separate the insurance, and separate the financing. Mr. Brush stated any kind of restrictions could be placed if they come back for additional lots and or additional buildings.

Commissioner Abart stated that initially the request was to change the method of ownership and what that means. Chairman Schnarre stated that by them coming and asking P&Z to do that, then the door is open to bring it up to standards.

Chairman Falco stated that anyone of the pieces of parcel could be sold and depending upon what kind of business go into the location it could increase the water, sewer and the traffic. Mr. Brush added that if nothing happened, the same thing could happen tomorrow. You can control the new construction.

Chairman Schnarre stated that Mr. Brush was suggesting they control the new construction and leave the standards they have in place. He continued they had the opportunity to back up and pick up the old tracts if they wanted.

Commissioner Abart stated the way it stands now three other buildings could be built tomorrow. Mr. Brush stated he did not think so. They possibly could but he did not think they would hook them on to the water nor onto the sewer.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated this was much different than anything they had ever looked at.

Chairman Schnarre asked staff what was the suggestion in the staff report regarding the new development and where did it place them in analyzing other things? Would it create problems? Director Shawver stated no, because it would be tied to new construction. Regarding precedent, anything else would be new construction.

Chairman Schneider asked if any other situation in the County like this may exist? Mr. Brush stated that another one was across the road. Director Shawver advised that was not platted. He continued that some of Boone Industrial Park was platted (North on 763 up by Fletchers Orchard). There might be another situation but it really was an industrial development with public water and public sewer.

Commissioner Grace made and Commissioner Sloan seconded motion to approve Missouri River City LTD Partnership review plan for a Planned Commercial Development to be known as Missouri River City South Park with the following conditions:

- with no new construction allowed without meeting sewer, water,

fire hydrants standards,

- that all driveways, parking lots be minimum of chip and seal.

 

Mr. Randall Killgore, 201 North Roby Farm Road asked to approach the Commission before they voted. He stated he owned the bed and breakfast across from the planned development. He stated for the record regarding the water supply, it was not a public water supply. He was not speaking in favor or opposition. He wanted to advise that the water supply was established based on three (3) wells, one of which was on his property. It supplied water to his residence and business. The other well was on the Yahweh Assembly property, and the third well was across his property located on Mr. Giger’s property. All three wells are connected. His concern was that if any one of the wells did go down the design was that the other two wells were to support the one that went down. He stated that at the entrance of the trailer court three (3) valves or a series of valves in the ground designed to open and close any one of the three wells to allow the water to flow. There was a water problem last year with seepage on his property. He did not have any idea where it was coming from and discovered some underground pipes that ran out to Roby Farm Road that had rusted through and water was coming up like a natural spring. A neighbor in the Yahweh Assembly who knew of the system told him where to shut off the water. His concern would be in the handling of the sewage system.

He knew the wells could handle the need. He stated his residence was 140 years old and the his well was one of two that had been there. It was a very deep well and the water is fine. The notion of community and the way things are laid out, he stated, he agreed with it. His concern was the interrelationship of the wells and being owned by different people. If the community did happen to fall apart or to fail what would happen legally?

He stated that during the flooding in 1993 they were one of the few people with fresh water on that side of Interstate 70. Rocheport could not supply any water.

Voting was as follows:

Bill Grace yes Mary Sloan yes

Frank Abart yes Joe Falco no

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Keith Schnarre yes

Motion was approved. 5 yes 1 no

 

PLAT REVIEWS

Haun Subdivision Plat 2, Minor Plat. Located in S18-T49N-R12W.

Zoned A-R. Estil and Laura Haun, owners. Bill R. Crockett, surveyor.

This 2 lot Minor Subdivision is at the southwest corner of the intersection of Oakland Church Road and Wagon Trail Road. Additional right of way has been dedicated.

The engineer has requested a waiver of the sewage system cost benefit analysis. It is his opinion that for two lots it would be several times more expensive to install a central sewer system. On site individual sewage systems are proposed, with buildable areas shown on the plat.

The engineer also is requesting a waiver of the traffic analysis since Wagon Trail Road is an asphalt surfaced County road. The Public Works Department has recommended that the waiver be granted.

Staff recommends approval.

Bill Crockett approached the Commission. He stated he was present to answer any questions if there were any.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Falco seconded motion for approval of plat including both waivers noted by staff.

Voting was as followed:

Frank Abart yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Bill Grace yes Keith Schnarre yes

Motion to approve plat was unanimous. 6 yes

 

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion of "Working draft of Proposed Scenic Road Regulation."

 

Director Shawver reviewed with the Commission a working draft of the proposed scenic road regulations as prepared by the Scenic Road Committee which had members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Road and Bridge Advisory and Scenic Road Advocates. The draft had been prepared and reviewed by the Road and Bridge Advisory and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The idea was to establish a policy for Boone County roads to designate scenic roads. P & Z Commission was asked to review the policy because there were potential issues dealing with land use. At the last work session they had been discussed. He wanted to affirm the concept of scenic roads is an admirable concept, however, it does have potential implications for land use so it should be reviewed and studied. Director Shawver stated the Commission had had an ample time to review the proposal. The staff suggests that there was still some work that needed to be done on the policy. There were some legal implications that arise from certain requirements.

Chairman Schnarre stated he had reviewed it and agreed with staff and stated there were some areas to be changed. Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated he concurred with Director Shawver’s report and the Chairman’s that some areas were vague or questionable from a legal stand point.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick read a list of things that need to be addresses by the Policy. He also wanted to recommend that these items be adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and be forwarded to the County Commission:

SUGGESTED SCENIC ROAD POLICY MODIFICATIONS

 

1. Develop a review criteria that the Road and Bridge Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission can use to review scenic road requests.

2. Threshold for consideration should be higher than 50%, and should be easier to determine (road frontage versus property ownership).

3. Verification of ownership should be the very first step undertaken by staff.

4. Cutting trees needs to be specifically addressed, and clearly limited to the designated corridor area.

5. Landscape easement needs to be clearly extended to both sides of a roadway, and clarified as to whether this area is in addition to required zoning setbacks. Most county roads are located in areas zoned A-1 or A-2 that have a 50’ setback requirement.

NOTE: By state statute, zoning regulations do not apply to agricultural land uses. Consequently, existing setback regulations only apply to "non-farm uses".

6. Utility companies should review plans.

7. The policy should set a minimum road surface width for gravel roads. Additionally, the policy requires that gravel roads remain gravel. There should be a procedure established to upgrade road surface based on certain criteria, including traffic counts. In some cases, five years could be excessive in considering improvements.

8. Tree canopies should have both a minimum and a maximum dimensions.

9. Costs of maintaining the tree canopy will be hard to determine, hard to apportion and even harder to collect. Maintenance should be funded by the county, or a mechanism to establish something similar to a neighborhood improvement district should be developed.

10. This policy needs to be reviewed by legal staff. Of particular concern is the requirement that subdivisions have to be Planned Developments.

 

Director Shawver stated that the staff would be happy to continue to work on a suitable policy.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded motion to return the Scenic Road Polity along with the recommendations read by Commissioner Kirkpatrick to the County Commission for additional study.

Mr. Randall Kilgore, 201N. Roby Farm Road a member of the Scenic Road Committee approached the Commission. He stated he served on the committee representing the interest of the advocates of the people of Roby Farm Road. He advised Mr. Lineberry also served from the Rock Quarry Road group.

Mr. Kilgore agreed with what P & Z were doing with one proviso. That the original committee be kept informed and included some way. If this goes back to the County Commissioners it would add more time to a response. He stated the Scenic Road Committee had waited since May to hear anything and did not think it was fair. Many, many hours had been given to working on the policy. He stated the Scenic Road Committee were prepared to make changes regarding the recommendations previously read. He said the members of the Scenic Road Committee would have been present if they had been given the opportunity.

He asked that if the recommendations are sent to the County Commission, that the County Commission will keep the Scenic Road Committee involved.

 

Commissioner Abart asked Mr. Kilgore who was the chairman of the committee? He advised there was not a chair but that Mr. Elmore had served as the facilitator. Commissioner Abart stated he would send back information through the Public Works Department to him.

 

Voting was as follows:

Joe Falco yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Bill Grace yes Keith Schnarre yes

Frank Abart yes Mary Sloan yes

Motion passed unanimously. 6 yes

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

Proposed revision of Section 1.8 of Boone County Subdivision Regulations.

Director Shawver advised the Commissioners that when the County revised the Subdivision Regulations and took effect June 17, 1995 there was a provision in the Regulations dealing with vacating existing subdivision plats and subsequently replatting those same areas.

A previous provision that under the old regulations it could not replat land unless you had received 100% of the consent of the property owners in that particular subdivision plat (Not the entire subdivision but in that portion of the plat that would be vacated and replatted). The revised subdivision regulations changed that provision to "a majority" of the lot owners. The county became involved in a legal challenge based on that provision. Allegation that the provision delegating authority of the County Commission to private citizens. The statutes view platting subdivision or platting land as more of an administrative type action. Legal cases here in Missouri show that if subdivisions meets the subdivision requirements it has to be reproved. The ability to approve rests with the County Commission based on recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The possibility that a subdivision could proceed to be based on the permission of adjoining property owners or other property owners was that it would be an unlawful delegation of the County Commission’s authority.

The result of the lawsuit has been restudied by the County Commission and by the advise of their legal council have proposed alternative language. What this essentially does is take away the direct involvement of the existing property owners in a subdivision. They do not have to be involved in starting the process. It allows a property owner to petition the County Commission to vacate a subdivision and then subsequently replat.

The County Commission then has the obligation to hold a public hearing and to weigh a number of factors in the public hearing in determining whether the plat should be vacated or the portion vacated or to be replatted.

Director Shawver stated it places the decision directly on the County Commission. He stated it would not change the exception that a Planned Development would have. The County Commission has scheduled a public hearing to consider this proposal on November 28th., it will follow the regular P & Z meeting at 7:00 p.m. To change the Subdivision Regulations it would follow some type of recommendations or endorsement from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Mr. Rogers addressed the Commissioners. He stated the proposed proposal would be equally dead if is passed. He said there would be another lawsuit in the wording of the proposed change. He said the right to vacate and to subdivide land has to be something that is measurable against criteria. It is not a legislative decision like zoning that can be based on very general factors like general character of the neighborhood, welfare of the body corporate. etc. The County Commission he felt was reluctant to let go. He stated that the County Commission liked the idea of considering this on a case by case basis like they consider rezoning requests.

Mr. Rogers gave the Commissioners a hand out to assist in making a recommendation to the County Commission and to assist the County Commission in making a decision to subdivide land so there would not be an adverse effect on street alignments, right-of-ways, acquisition projects, public utilities, soil conservation or water detention. Mr. Rogers said he would like to see their recommendation not passed but the one he had given out to Planning and Zoning be adopted.

Commissioner Abart asked Director Shawver if the proposed subdivision change was developed by County legal council? Director Shawver said that was correct.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated that Mr. Rogers was correct, the document he gave did not look to be or did not appear to be great deal different than what legal council developed.

Commissioner Grace stated it sounded like something the lawyers would battle and it was beyond them.

Commissioner Grace made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward the staff prepared recommendations for revision of the "Subdivision Regulations" and forward the revisions submitted by Mr. Rogers to be given full consideration by the County Commission.

Voting was as follows:

Bill Grace yes Frank Abart yes

Mary Sloan yes Joe Falco yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Keith Schnarre yes

Motion passed unanimously. 6 yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADJOURNED

Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Keith Kirkpatrick\

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 21st day of December 1995.