BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, September 18, 1997

Chairperson Kirkpatrick, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with a quorum present. Roll Call was taken by Secretary Sloan.

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Joe Falco, Vice-Chairperson Perche Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Ron Marley Cedar Township

Frank Abart Public Works Director

Absent: Vacant Bourbon Township

Darin Fugit Columbia Township

Bill Grace Centralia Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Noel Boyt, Staff

 

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Marley seconded a motion to approve the minutes of August 21, 1997, meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairman’s Procedural Statement

The Boone county Commission is an advisory commission to the County Commission. The commission is made up of individuals representing each township of the county and the County Engineer.

The Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendations the County commission on matters dealing with land use. Tonight’s agenda includes one (1) Conditional Use Permit, one (1) Rezoning Request, and five (5) Subdivision plats.

The following procedure will be followed for the conditional use permit and the rezoning request:

the agenda item will be announced, followed by a report from the Planning Department staff. At that time, the applicant or their representative may make a presentation to the Commission. The Commission may request additional information at that time, or later following the hearing. After the applicant’s presentation, the floor will be opened for anyone wishing to speak in support of the request.

Please give your name and mailing address when you address the Commission.

Next, the floor will be given over to those who may be opposed to the request. Direct all comments or questions to the Commission and please restrict your comments to the matter under discussion.

After those opposed to the request have had a chance to speak, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond to the concerns of those opposed to the request. At that time, the public hearing will be closed and no further comments will be permitted from the audience or the applicant unless requested by the Commission. The Commission will then discuss the matter and may ask questions of anyone present during discussion. Finally a motion will be made to either recommend the approval or denial of the request to the County Commission.

All recommendations for approval are forwarded to the County Commission. They will conduct another public hearing on Tuesday September 30th. Interested parties will again have the opportunity to comment on the requests at that time. The County Commission generally follows the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, however, they are not obligated to uphold any recommendation. Requests that are denied will not proceed to the County Commission unless the applicant files an appeal form within 3 working days. The County Commission hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 30, 1997, will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will convene in this same room.

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

Request by United States Cellular Corp. to increase the height of an existing

transmission facility (cellular tower) from 190’ to 240’, located at 7130 Wehmeyer

Road, Columbia. (approved September 1, 1992)

Bill Florea gave staff report that this property is located approximately 2.5 miles west of Columbia on Wehmeyer Road, just south of the intersection with Sugar Creek Road. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is the land located to the east, south and west. Land to the north is zoned A-R (Agriculture Residential). There is a transmission facility for cellular telephones on this property that includes a 190’ tower. The applicants are requesting a permit to allow a taller tower that will provide co-location for multiple cellular services. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. If cellular service is considered a utility, then the proposed use is consistent with the plan. The existing transmission facility was approved in September 1992 and complies with all requirements of the Boone County Zoning Regulations. Staff notified 17 property owners concerning this request.

Steve Kissel, Ameritech, Manager-Real Estate and Construction, 500 Maryville College Drive, Suite 250, St. Louis, MO and Dennis Paul, President of Prime Site International, P O Box 5, Wood River, IL made their presentation to the Commissioners. Mr. Kissel stated he was representing US Cellular since they were the potential co-locator at the tower. He reminded the commissioners that he had made a presentation August, 1997 on a tower facility on the eastern side of the county for a co-location at that time. This site has an existing tower. Inside the application document, there was a "search area map" that the design engineers have given him to seek out a potential new site. In this particular case, the search area map actually encompassed the existing tower. This would be their first and best choice as a potential location. There are some issues to the adjoining property owners regarding fall areas. The existing site is appropriate for a tower and therefore, rather than adding another tower in this area, they feel a larger tower would be needed for the co-location. At present, the tower is going through a structural evaluation versus a new tower. They could guarantee every design criteria, in terms of wind loads etc., would be met from the safety standpoint. Concerning the structural integrity of either the tower as modified to get to 240’ or subsequent new tower that might have to be built to replace it, either will be designed and built to meet the highest structural design criteria. He said they have begun to contact some of the property owners. They have a piece of property that is 400’ wide and they need to be a t 240’ location. The reason for the tower to be 240’ is coverage in northern Boone county. They try to put in for maximum coverage in order to minimize the number of towers requested. If they can not put in a tower at 240’ at this location, then it will create a need for an additional towers, maybe to the north, maybe to the south.

Commissioner Marley requested an explanation of the fall area. Mr. Kissel said the existing tower was in the center of a 400’ wide tract. To extend the existing tower to 240 feet, which is their requirement, they would need to negotiate a fall zone easement on both the north side and the south side with the adjoining property owners. The owners of 7000 W Sugar Creek and the 7100 W Wehmeyer Rd. would need to be negotiated with. Mr. Kissel gave copies of photos of the tower and the surrounding land. He said they need approximately 25’ from each of the owners in terms of the fall zone easement. Commissioner Marley asked if they had received the easements. Mr. Kissel said they had not.

Commissioner Falco asked of the reference to possibly build a different tower? Mr. Kissel said yes, the request for the height of the tower to be raised to 240’. It was not clear at this point if the existing tower could be stiffened, strengthened and raised or, whether a new tower will be built and the existing tower removed. Both options are possible. This is a Rone tower. They are one of the better tower manufactures in the industry. Many guyed towers have been modified and increased in height, however, they are still evaluating that with US Cellular.

Commissioner Falco said that in the minutes of the August, ‘97 meeting, Mr. Kissel had stated that BOCA requirements called for an 80 m.p.h. wind load and the monopole tower as proposed, had 100 m.p.h. wind load. He asked if there would be the same type of requirement for this tower? Mr. Kissel advised that when Ameritech designs towers, they design them to a 90 m.p.h. wind load which is what the monopole is designed. He said that this was an existing tower and he believed it was designed to the BOCA code. They are reviewing the wind load. They are not committed to raising this tower vs. a new tower. Both are feasible. They are above the height limit for a monopole and there are different soil conditions in terms of rock. Two types of towers would work, one being the guyed tower (that is there today) or the lattice style self support tower.

Commissioner Sloan asked if the tower were to fall, would it fall into itself? Mr. Kissel had they had no history of any falling towers within their five (5) markets -- Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. When a tower does fall, and there have been some that have fallen, a guyed tower is on a pivot point at the bottom. When one of the guy wires breaks it would spiral down. The tower would have to simultaneously have all three guy wires cut for it to fall over.

A lattice type tower actually folds over because the wind load at the top folds over at the mid point and folds on itself.

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

Ray Cockrum and Elaine Cockrum, 7000 W Sugar Creek Rd. came forward. Mr. Cockrum stated that in 1992, when US Cellular came to the site they had concerns as now. They had explained they had enough room for the tower to fall, and they had guaranteed there would not be a light at the top. Now if the tower goes 240’ FAA the might require the light and painting. Mr. Cockrum said they are right under the tower and object to it. Elaine Cockrum said she had witnessed a tower that had blown up in Ozark, MO years ago. While she was out working in the garden, a telephone tower less than 1/4 mile away blew up. The house across the street from the tower had every window blown out -- that the tower did not fall to design. She invited the Commissioners out to her house and take a look at the tower. Chairman Kirkpatrick said he drove by her house every day and noticed it. Mr. Cockrum said that another 25’ easement would be too close to the back of his house. Mrs. Cockrum asked if the tower falls, could it not bounce and slide 150’ ft.

Kris Knutson and Barbara Knutson, 1001 Denninghoff, lots A, B, and C adjacent to D, E, and F one of which is the tower. He said they are adjacent to the tower. They had planned on building a house, on one of their lots, to see the city lights. Now, he might not be able to put the house on top of the property. He said he was not concerned with the structure falling but was concerned about the additional 50’. They had purchased the property seeing the tower as is. Would it effect the value of his property? He wanted to know if they would strengthen the grounding for the additional height. He was also concerned if the tower would now have a strobe light or a flashy strobe? Barbara Knutson said they may not be in the fall area of the tower but they look at it every day, all day long. They have lost GTE into the house with lightning storms this last year.

Chairman Kirkpatrick answered that if they were due east they were not in the fall area. It was 350’ to their property line and the FAA dictates what type of lights would be used. Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Director Shawver for information. Director Shawver stated that anything over 200’ tall would require an FAA decision on type of lighting. At night it would require lighting, however, unless the FAA specifically requires the white strobe, our regulations states they would have to have the red beacon.

Gary Cockrum and Angie Cockrum, 7100 W Wehmeyer Rd. came forward. He said they owned the property directly south of the tower. Their concern was the fall zone as well as the looks of the tower. He said if he does give 25’ of easement to the tower his house would only be 25’ from that easement line. He does not want it that close to his house. He is concerned about the flashing lights and lighting. He is a customer of the tower and as the tower stands he gets good reception even into Randolph Co. He wanted to know if they could give a guarantee if that tower falls it would not hit his house.

Ken Hunt and Susan Hunt, 51 N Denninghoff Rd., came forward. Mr. Hunt said they lived approximately 1/2 mile due south along the ridge from the tower. They see about 3/4 of the tower from the first floor and second floor level of their home. Their concern was the eyesore. When the tower was constructed they had grumbled but at least were glad there was no light on the top. Mr. Hunt has migraine headaches and is bothered by bright lights. Bright lights give him a stressful feeling if he does not get a migraine itself. Another concern is that there is a private airstrip one (1) mile away so there might have to be a strobe on the top.

Closed to Public Hearing.

Steve Kissel and Dennis Paul returned to the table. They thanked the residents who came. Some of the issues he wanted to address. There was a tower already at the location, Boone County wants towers to be co-located. He wanted to address the concerns of Ray and Elaine Cockrum, he did not know the structure of the tower that blew up but there were not the stringent standards years ago that there are today. Regardless, if the tower was a lattice tower or a guyed tower he could insure the tower would be structurally sound. With the resources of Ameritech and US Cellular on this tower, there will be a higher factor of safety and more protection with two major entities involved in the project.

In terms of fall zone easements, the tower in its current position, only requires two (2) fall zone easements. They would like to talk to all the neighbors about their concerns and Mr. Kissel invited them to talk to him after the meeting.

One concern stated was that if the tower fell due east, where it would land. Mr. Kissel said if a total failure happened and it would fall due east, it was 350’ to that property line. Another concern was lightning, Mr. Kissel said there is a barred grid around the shelter with rods driven on ten (10’) foot centers. Another series of grounding is around the fence and a series of grounding that is around the tower. The ultimate protection is with their grounding. Regarding questions about strobe lights with a tower over 200’, the FFA does require lighting at night. They never use night strobes. The other option is the solid red light, a side mounted light and top light. Regarding the private airstrip within a mile the tower being over 200’ and lit, it would be an increased level of safety over a 190’ unlit tower.

In terms of the daylight situation, there are two options for a tower over 200’. There is painting the tower an FAA orange and a white or there is a daytime strobe. A daytime strobe is a very low power strobe and can be screened from below and so it is visible from the air and not from the ground. Their preference is an unpainted tower with the low powered daytime strobes that are not visible from the ground. The FAA has the ultimate authority and then the County with the regulations.

Mr. Kissel stated that there was a tower on the site and if the extension is approved or not, there will still be a tower there. If the request is not approved they would have to come back with an application for an another site in the same vicinity.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked what they wanted to do at night, if they used a daytime strobe? Mr. Kissel said it would be a solid red beacon (non flashing). Chuck Brady, operations, spoke up from the audience and said at the top there was a pulse beacon.

Chairman Kirkpatrick advised Mr. Kissel that even if the Planning and Zoning Commission/County Commission would approve the Conditional Use Permit that they still could not extend the tower 50’ without acquiring some more property or a fall easement. Mr. Kissel understood. He said they were looking at re-positioning the tower within the property since it 600’ by 400’ lot. There is some flexibility in different directions.

Commissioner Falco asked what happened to the white strobe at night. Mr. Kissel stated they turn off, having a day and night mode. Commissioner Falco stated he liked the co-sharing concept. Every time a tower issue comes up he cringes, but when the two groups work together, that is the best alternative.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that this request would have to meet requirements that being either to acquire more land or obtaining fall easements. He continued that if the adjacent property owners did not allow the easements or sell the property, there was no requirement the residents had to sell or have to give easements.

Mr. Kissel spoke more about the fall zone and that it was not the same as a building line. Chairman Kirkpatrick said all of that would fall under their negotiating power. Chairman Kirkpatrick said he understood the neighbors concerns and if his house was a mile or two closer he may be more concerned.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Sloan seconded motion to approve request by United States Cellular Corp. to increase the height of an existing transmission facility (cellular tower) from 190’ to 240’, located at 7130 Wehmeyer Road, Columbia. with the following conditions:

Director Shawver read from page 53 of the "Zoning Ordinance for Boone County, Missouri"

"Section 15. B. Conditional Use Permits for Transmission Facilities:

(4) Approval Standards for a New Transmission Facility:

(e) Transmission towers shall have the least practicable adverse effect on the

environment and property values in the surrounding area. A transmission

tower complies with this standard if it complies with the following:

(e) 1. If the tower is 200 feet or less in height, more than 10,000 feet

from an airport, and has a galvanized finish or is painted silver.

(e) 2. If the tower is over 200 feet in height, it shall comply with FAA

painting and lighting standards. Lighting is restricted to red beacon style

lights, except where FAA requirements specify a different type of

lighting.

(e) 3. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the

FAA.

(e) 4. Towers shall be the minimum height necessary to comply with

the provisions of these regulations.

(e) 5. Towers shall be either mono-pole or guyed unless the County

Commission approves other reasonable alternatives practicable for

visual or technical reasons."

Voting as follows:

Joe Falco yes Mary Sloan yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Ron Marley no

Frank Abart yes

Motion was approved 4 yes 1 no

 

REZONING REQUESTS

 

Request by James Kekeris on behalf of Columbia Insurance Group, Inc., to rezone

from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) and to approve a review

plan on 31 acres, more or less, located at 6301 E Highway AB, Columbia.

Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this property is located approximately 4 miles south of Columbia at the intersection of Highway 63 and State Highway AB. Access to this property is from State Highway AB. The site under consideration for change in zoning is zoned A-1 (Agriculture),as is all the surrounding property. There is a house and barn on the property at the present time. The co-applicant’s are proposing to develop this property as a commercial office. One new structure is proposed that will enclose 144,000 sq. ft. of floor space. This property is located within the Columbia School District and the Boone County Fire Protection District (Highway AB is the dividing line). The nearest fire station is located 6 miles away on Highway WW. According to Consolidated Public Water District No. 1, there is a 2 inch water line serving this property. The Boone County Fire Protection District has advised us that they will require a minimum 1,000 gallon per minute fire flow for a two hour period. This means that on site water storage will have to be provided for 120,000 gallons of water. The Fire District has ruled out use of the existing lake or other arrangement of dry hydrants. Natural drainage from this site is to the Three Creeks State Forest. This will require that storm water must leave the property in the equivalent state of rainwater. Any wastewater discharge that leaves this property will also be required to be a very high quality. The A-1 zoning is the original zoning for this site. In 1987, a conditional use permit was issued for an animal training operation. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture, rural residential and undeveloped land uses. The proposed use is inconsistent with the plan. This site has 38 points on the Point Rating Scale. Staff notified 14 property owners concerning this request.

Jim Cunningham, Secretary/General Counsel of Columbia Insurance Group, 2102 White Gate Drive, Columbia, Ron Shy from Allstate Consultants, 3312 Lemone Industrial Blvd., Columbia and Chad Sayre also from Allstate Consultants came forward to make presentation to the Commissioners.

Mr. Cunningham stated this Columbia company was located in the White Gate Shopping Center. They are insurance company based out of Columbia. They do not want to develop the property and sell it, they want to construct a new office building. Their existing office building is small. He knew actions spoke louder than words so Mr. Cunningham showed some pictures of the exterior of their current office building and how they had up-dated the property since the photo in black and white. They also remodeled the interior and made a "green area"; it gave the employees an area to relax and improved the neighborhood.

The property they want to rezone from A-1 to C-GP was on the NE corner of Hwy. 63 and Hwy. AB. They do not want to rezone the entire tract. He advised the present plans were to use the existing house for administrative offices and to build a building with two floors of 70,000 sq. ft. each. The barn and surrounding area to be for recreational use and the pond would stay A-1. The CG property in the corner would stay CG with the intent to place a sign that would be a ground contact sign.

When they contacted Allstate Consultants they wanted to preserve the area. They were able to eliminate 40 parking spaces and preserve 33 acres. Water from the lake and proposed retention basin would be used to irrigate the landscaped areas. They wanted as close to a zero impact as possible with protection of the environment.

Mr. Cunningham said he had tried to contact property owners within 1000’ and mailed a letter to residents within a mile. They invited all of the people to their facility for an open house and over 20 neighbors were present

He sought out and met with the Greenbelt Coalition and met with the Sierra Club.

In their meeting there were four areas of concern:

1. Sewage treatment - The would only have toilets or sinks, no manufacturing process generating,

less impact. Ron Shy stated they would be utilizing a recirculating sand filter system which would be cleaner than the City of Columbia wastewater treatment plant. In their presentation the president wanted the re-circulating sand filter system to go further and be used for irrigation. In pulling past water bills they used 8800 cubic feet of water per month. Mr. Cunningham said his family of 5 used 1200 cubic feet of water per month. He said the impact would be like a family of 4 with a lagoon.

 

2. Surface Water - Would be contained in the lake or basins and used at a later time.

3. Green Area - They would preserve 33 acres up front.

4. Traffic - The traffic would be about 150 employees using flex time arriving from 7 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. He was not sure how the company would grow. May be 200-250 employees in 10 years. Mr. Cunningham had counted the cars at different times at their present coming up with an average of 106 vehicles. 106 cars - use flex time, start arriving at 7 am. until 9:30 a.m. he thought it would be minimal impact on traffic. Mr. Cunningham stated they did want to provide their own infrastructure.

Chad Sayre gave details of the waste water treatment system being that of a septic tank to another septic tank with anaerobic treatment with a secondary re-circulating sand filters, with the effluent being discharged to a drip irrigation system. Not a cheap item. They want to get a discharge permit because the do not want to have to store effluent during the winter and wet months. DNR said there should not be a problem. They will have two wells on site and could fill a pond. The underground clear well could be used to meet fire flows.

Commissioner Abart asked about the drip system and whether it was susceptible to freezing.

Mr. Sayre stated since 1980’s the system designs have been improved such that freezing is unlikely.

Ron Shy addressed the concern of the traffic impact. He said there would be employees from Ashland area, Columbia area (all around). The company allows employees to work a flex schedule with A.M. arrival time being spaced out over a two hour period which would help alleviate morning congestion Hwy. 63 already had problems that need improvement on the south bound lane. It needs improvement, but not sure what. He said there were traffic studies being done which need to be evaluated.

Mr. Cunningham said that the impact will be less than if the property was developed into residential uses. Their office would have lower impact than a typical commercial use putting out chemicals.

Ron Shy stated that a traffic count was in process. Hwy. AB was not causing the problems it was at the intersection of Hwy. 63 and Hwy. 163.

Commissioner Marley asked about the recreation facility and the wastewater? Mr. Cunningham said it was a nice barn and did not know how they would utilize it but they would hook it into the wastewater system whatever it was. Commissioner Marley noted that if the barn were converted to a recreation facility, people would be taking showers thereby increasing the volume of wastewater.

Commissioner Falco stated that he did not feel the traffic would be a problem. Columbia Insurance Group was a good company you could count on and would do whatever was required. They were an asset to the community.

Open to the public.

Doug Reece from Hwy. 163 (1.5 miles away) was concerned about the traffic. He said adding that number of car over 2.5 hours meant one (1) car every 30 seconds, which is not much of an impact! If the speed limit was changed to 50 mph it would help. He continued that an acceleration and deceleration lane was needed.

Tom Cobb from the Deer Park Store came forward. He welcomed them as neighbors. He did not see any problems. He would much rather have this development than a hog farm. Again he did not see any problems.

Dale Creech, of Country Club Drive, addressed the Commissioners. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Columbia Insurance and an executive with MFA Oil. He said that seven (7) years ago they went through similar concerns from neighbors in the Grindstone area when MFA wanted to relocate there. The neighbors concerns were never realized. He said the facility would be an asset to the area.

Marian Stevenson, from Greenbelt Coalition came forward. Their main concern was to ensure the protection of the Bonne Femme watershed in which the proposed development would be built.

She read into the record conditions the Greenbelt Coalition would like in place if rezoning approved

(copy in file).

No net increase in storm-water run-off from pre-development levels.

No net increase of pollutant loads in Bonne Femme Creek

Open space - scenic and conservation easements to buffer Hwy. 63.

Larry Oetting, Rte 1 on AB came forward. He said he was not sure if he was for or against the development but he thought the traffic was a problem now. He said it was not fair to compare this with the rezoning on Hwy. H across from the airport. He added that the water pressure was also a problem and it should be increased.

Greg Wingert 4900 E Deer Knoll Rd, approximately a mile west from the site came forward. He said he moved out in the country for a reason. He does not have a problem with this possible owner because it does sound desirable but if the property is zoned commercial what about the next owner. His major concern was the traffic at the intersection at Hwy. AB.

Mike Gregory, 5001 E Deer Knoll Rd. said the traffic is his big concern. If this has 250 employees the traffic on and off Hwy. 63 would be too much for it to handle. He wanted to applaud the applicant for the green space on the property.

Mark Temple, 6120 AB Road, said he would prefer a horse farm to an insurance company. If traffic alone is taken into account, the intersection of AB and Hwy. 63 is currently able to cope with the 70 m.p.h. speed limit for cross loading and off loading traffic. Another 150 or more cars in morning and evening would increase the accident rate at this corner.

Closed to public hearing.

Jim Cunningham was glad for all the neighbor that came out. They wanted to be judged on the merits of the proposal. He said Greenbelt Coalition suggestions were all right, but some scared him. As far as storm water and run off they do want to make it a high level project as possible.

Ron Shy agreed with traffic congestion and 70 m.p.h. is a problem. Need acceleration and deceleration lanes they hope to improve. He physically saw three (3) vehicle stacking lanes with plans in process.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Cunningham about the company. Was it a Stock or Mutual Company? Mr. Cunningham said it was affiliated with some stock and mutual funds. Chairman Kirkpatrick asked if the plans would have a cafeteria facility in the building? Mr. Cunningham said they would have to have something. A lot of the employees would go off site but a lot would stay.

Commissioner Abart asked about the fire flow and the wells? Ron Shy said there would be underground storage tanks and pumps. Commissioner Abart asked about a permit for discharge from DNR. Chad Sayre commented going in with a filter system having high standards is planned. A discharge permit is being requested for monitoring and education purposes Ron Shy said the storm water run off into a pond on south side of property would be used for watering the front. Parking area at north will require retention

Commissioner Falco asked about the discharge from the sand system. Chad Sayre said it was a two tank septic system. From there to a pump tank and dose the sand filter a couple times a day or three times a day in a recirculating tank. After the water goes through the sand filter it goes into the recirculating tank, then that water goes back over the sand filter again. It goes through that process several times with timers and pumps. Chad said that normally this system in within a half acre residential lot making disposal of the outflow difficult. With this acreage, they have adequate land in landscaping to use the outflow for irrigation.

Commissioner Falco asked what was the time frame? Mr. Cunningham said he saw in the newspaper construction would start next year. He added details had not been made, maybe within a year they would have more details but for an answer tonight maybe 2-5 years.

Commissioner Marley asked how many are on site for training? Mr. Cunningham said training currently seats approximately 42 people. They split the training up to maybe 20. They prefer smaller groups and have more hands on in their sessions. They currently have only three (3) visitor parking spaces. Mr. Cunningham had never seen all three spaces filled.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated let me preface what I am about to read to you. With some of my thoughts on this request every since I first heard of about it in the Tribune about 6 weeks or two months ago. My initial reaction, part of this stems from having month, to month, to month working on the industrial request down at the airport was-- that this was probably a pretty terrible idea. And then I thought about it for a while and I thought okay, maybe not a terrible idea, maybe just a bad idea. I talked to staff at great length about it and gave it a lot more thought and finally decided, well it is not such a bad idea. If it is, maybe it is the best bad idea we have seen for this corridor. I have come around convincing myself I guess, it is not such a bad idea after all, but..... I do have concerns. The same ones that every one has expressed tonight and you all have attempted to address and.....so the last week or two I have been putting together in my own mind a list of restrictions or requirements (which ever you prefer to call them) that would allow me to personally support this application. And I managed to actually get that list together on paper late yesterday and I have provided copies already to Commissioners and to staff. What I am about to read to you ...since you folks have not heard it yet, I want to read it to the benefit of the audience to because I do not have copies for all them, but do have copies for you gentlemen. Which if someone will grab these. These are provided for you three for your information, I don’t expect comments from you on them, in fact I am going to ask that you not comment on them. This would be as part of the commission discussion and the only way I would want you folks to comment on them is if you are specifically asked to do so by a member of the Commission.

 

 

 

The following are the suggested requirements for Columbia Insurance Group Review Plan:

1. Traffic Control/Safety

a. Require acceleration/deceleration lanes, in both directions, on highway 63 at the

AB intersection.

All engineering, design and construction to be approved by the Missouri Department

of Transportation.

All cost to be paid by the developer.

b. To ensure minimal congestion at the intersection, required occupant to schedule

work shifts so that no more than 40% of it’s employees begin or end work during

any thirty minute period of the day.

2. Water Supply

a. In order to ensure adequate flows for fire protection, developer to adhere to all

recommendations of the Boone County Fire Protection District.

3. Waste Water

a. Design, construction and operation to be approved by Missouri Department of

Natural Resources.

b. Unless waste water is removed to an off site treatment system, the quality of any

waste water leaving the property shall be a least equal to the purity of rainwater.

4 Storm Water Run Off

a. Developer to conduct a study to quantify current, pre-construction run off levels.

b. Developer to design and construct a storm water run off control system to ensure that

run off levels do not exceed pre-construction levels either during or after construction.

Design requirements shall be based on a 10 year storm.

c. Developer responsible for ensuring that all run off, during and after construction, shall

be at least equal to the purity of rainwater.

5. Setbacks

a. No development, except for landscaping, may take place within 300 feet on Highway 63.

b. No development, except for landscaping, shall take place within 200 feet of Route AB.

6. Landscaping

a. Developer to submit a landscape plan to include, at a minimum, 3 rows of evergreens

planted in a north/south direction along the Highway 63 right-of-way. Evergreens

should be of a variety normally expected to attain a height of 30 feet at maturity.

Plan should also include a minimum of 2 rows of evergreens planted in an east/west

direction along the right-of-way of Route AB. In both cases the rows shall be staggered

with the trees planted on 15 foot centers. Earth berms may be used as desired as a base

to help attain the 30 foot height.

b. After completion occupant shall maintain and replace all trees, as required, in order

to ensure screening of the development from both roadways.

7. Signs

a. A maximum of two (2) name signs shall be allowed, on the highway 63 corridor and

one on the Route AB corridor. Neither sign shall exceed a maximum area of 64 square

feet. No other signs except those used to denote service and emergency entrances, not

to exceed 8 square feet, shall be allowed on the perimeter of the property.

8. Lighting

a. All lighting, shall include that for signs, shall be directed inward and downward in order

to minimize light pollution in the neighborhood and safety concerns from both the

highways and the approach path of Columbia Regional Airport.

Chairman Kirkpatrick thinking about 1. a. of the acceleration/deceleration lanes it should be added that "prior to issue of occupancy permit". These were his thought and asked his fellow Commissioners to change or add anything they thought necessary.

Commissioner Falco agreed with Chairman Kirkpatrick the lanes need to be "in" before occupancy.

Commissioner Abart asked about if DNR allows rain run off can P & Z require more? Chairman Kirkpatrick said his restriction comes from being an employee of an insurance company for over 30 years. He knows there are a lot of non organic materials being used to landscape. As far as DNR concerned, he wanted their approval. His concern was this sensitive environmental area.

Commissioner Abart asked applicant if they had any preliminary plans on the landscaping. Mr. Cunningham said not yet. Chairman Kirkpatrick asked if the landscaping setback would have conflicts with building. He did not want to hide the building, just screen the area and break it up. Mr. Cunningham did not foresee any problems.

Commissioner Falco stated the lighting comment is very important.

Commissioner Sloan asked the hours worked by the employees? Mr. Cunningham stated they did not use shifts. It was true flex time. There were two to three (2-3) computer operators there 24 hr. a day.

Commissioner Sloan wanted to make a comment about the plan. She said they had come forward with an excellent plan. Because of Mr. Levy’s proposal, the Commission now thinks of areas not thought of a year ago or even a few months ago. She wanted to think they would be going to start with the best and let others (the following applicants) live up to Columbia Insurance Group standards as presented.

 

Commissioner Marley made a motion and Commissioner Sloan seconded the motion to approve review plan on behalf of Columbia Insurance Group Inc. with the conditions listed by Chairman Kirkpatrick with exception to #1 - Traffic lanes in place prior to occupancy and No. 4. c. Storm water run-off and rainwater purity equivalent to natural biological loading.

 

1. Traffic Control/Safety

a. Require acceleration/deceleration lanes, in both directions, on highway 63 at the AB

intersection in place prior to occupancy. All engineering, design and construction

to be approved by the Missouri Department of Transportation. All cost to be paid by

the developer.

b. To ensure minimal congestion at the intersection, required occupant to schedule work

shifts so that no more than 40% of it’s employees begin or end work during any thirty

minute period of the day.

2. Water Supply

a. In order to ensure adequate flows for fire protection, developer to adhere to all

recommendations of the Boone County Fire Protection District.

3. Waste Water

a. Design, construction and operation to be approved by Missouri Department of Natural

Resources.

b. Unless waste water is removed to an off site treatment system, the quality of any waste

water leaving the property shall be a least equal to the purity of rainwater.

4 Storm Water Run Off

a. Developer to conduct a study to quantify current, pre-construction run off levels.

b. Developer to design and construct a storm water run off control system to ensure that

run off levels do not exceed pre-construction levels either during or after construction.

Design requirements shall be based on a 10 years storm.

c. Developer responsible for ensuring that all run off (Storm water run-off and rainwater)

purity equivalent to natural biological loading during and after construction, shall be at

least equal to the purity of rainwater.

5. Setbacks

a. No development, except for landscaping, may take place within 300 feet on Highway 63.

b. No development, except for landscaping, shall take place within 200 feet of Route AB.

 

6. Landscaping

a. Developer to submit a landscape plan to include, at a minimum, 3 rows of evergreens

planted in a north/south direction along the Highway 63 right-of-way. Evergreens should

be of a variety normally expected to attain a height of 30 feet at maturity. Plan should

also include a minimum of 2 rows of evergreens planted in an east/west direction along

the right-o-way of Route AB. In both cases the rows shall be staggered with the trees

planted on 15 foot centers. Earth berms may be used as desired to help attain the 30 foot

height.

b. After completion occupant shall maintain and replace all trees, as required in order to

ensure screening of the development from both roadways.

7. Signs

a. A maximum of two (2) name signs shall be allowed, on the highway 63 corridor

and one on the Route AB corridor. Neither sign shall exceed a maximum area of

64 square feet. No other signs except those used to denote service and emergency

entrances, not to exceed 8 square feet, shall be allowed on the perimeter of the property.

8. Lighting

a. All lighting, shall include that for signs, shall be directed inward and downward in

order to minimize light pollution in the neighborhood and safety concerns from both

the highways and the approach path of Columbia Regional Airport.

 

Voting as follows:

Ron Marley yes Mary Sloan yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Joe Falco yes

Frank Abart yes

Motion to approve plan review 5 yes

 

Commissioner Marley made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to recommend approval of the request by James Kekeris on behalf of Columbia Insurance Group, Inc., to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) and to approve a review plan on 31 acres, more or less, located at 6301 E Highway AB, Columbia.

Ron Marley yes Frank Abart yes

Joe Falco yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Mary Sloan yes

Motion to approve rezoning was unanimous. 5 yes

 

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

Winfrey Estates Subdivision. S17-T47N-R12W. A-2.

David and Tammy Winfrey, owners. C. Stephen Heying, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave staff report that his two lot plat is located in the immediate southeast corner of the intersection of Cheavens Road and Tomlin Hill Road. The site is approximately 4 miles south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The area being subdivided contains 9.92 acres. This property is zoned A-2 (agriculture) as is all the surrounding property, these are the original 1973 zonings. Water service will be provided by Consolidated Public Water Service District #1. There is currently a 3" waterline along the east side of Tomlin Hill Road and another 2" waterline along the south side of Cheavens Road. Sewage treatment will be on site, the appropriate area is designated on a separate document in the file. The owner has requested a waiver of the requirement for traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for sewage treatment. This plat has 26 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval along with granting of the waivers for cost benefit analysis for sewage treatment and traffic analysis.

Steve Heying present to represent owner.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Marley seconded motion to approve Winfrey Estates Subdivision. with staff recommendations and waivers. S17-T47N-R12W. A-2. David and Tammy Winfrey, owners. C. Stephen Heying, surveyor.

Joe Falco yes Ron Marley yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

Frank Abart yes

Motion to approve Winfrey Estates was unanimous. 5 yes

 

Lake Breeze Subdivision. S34-T50N-R13W. A-2.

Marvin and Linda Heishman, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

Bill Florea gave staff report that this three lot minor plat is located immediately southwest of the intersection of Route VV and Gilbert Road, approximately six miles north of Columbia. There are four existing structures and two lagoons on the property. The house and one shed are located on proposed lot 3. The two remaining sheds and the two lagoons are located on proposed lot 2.

The property is zoned A-2.

All of the lots have frontage on Gilbert road, lot 1 also has frontage on Route VV. A dedication of land sufficient to provide a 33 foot half width right of way is shown on this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

Wastewater will be disposed of using on site systems. The lagoon serving the existing house will not be on the same parcel as the home that it serves, however, an easement will be established. All wastewater systems must comply with Health Department regulations for on site wastewater disposal. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a central sewer cost benefit analysis.

Water service will be provided by Water District Number 7. The District has a four inch line along Dripping Springs Road, a four inch line on the east side of Gilbert and a two inch line on the west side of Gilbert. There is adequate capacity to serve this subdivision.

This subdivision scores 23 on the Point Rating System.

Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and waiver requests.

Gene Basinger was present to represent owner.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Falco second motion to approve Lake Breeze Subdivision with staff recommendations S34-T50N-R13W. A-2. Marvin and Linda Heishman, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

Frank Abart yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Ron Marley yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve Lake Breeze was unanimous. 5 yes

 

Raintree Subdivision Plat 1 and Raintree Subdivision Plat 2.

S14-T49N-R13W. R-S.

David and Caryn Fenton, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

Bill Florea gave staff report that this proposal consists of a ten lot minor plat being developed in two phases, a seven lot plat and a three lot plat. The project is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Wade School Road and Mauller Road approximately three fourths of a mile west of Route VV. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS).

All of the lots have frontage on and access to Wade School road, and/or frontage on Mauller Road except lots 6 and 7, which will be accessed by private easement. Land sufficient to provide a thirty three foot half width right of way will be dedicate on these plats along both Wade School and Mauller Roads The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

Wastewater is proposed to be disposed of via on site systems. The sewer system in Bon Gor Estates, on the east side of Wade School Road, is currently at capacity and cannot accept any additional service connections. Boone County Regional Sewer District has long-term plans to connect the Bon Gor system to other regional systems which may make connection for lots within this subdivision practical at some point. It is important to note that Boone County wastewater regulations can require home builders to connect to an existing sewer system if any portion of the building lot is within 225 feet of a sanitary sewer and if such connection is practical and is permitted by the entity responsible for the sewer system. If connections become available it is likely the builders of homes within this subdivision will not be permitted to use on-site disposal systems but will be required to connect to the central sewer. The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a cost benefit analysis of a collection type sewer system

Water is provided by Water District Number 7. There is an existing six inch line along Wade School Road and a two and one half inch waterline along Mauller Road. The District plans to install a six inch line on the south side of Mauler Road. The Subdivision Regulations require fire hydrants to be installed, by the developer, at a maximum spacing of five hundred feet.

This plat scores 59 on the Point Rating System.

Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and waiver requests subject to the following conditions:

must be complete prior to recording of each plat.

Gene Basinger was present to represent owner.

Commissioner Falco stated he did not like the drive ways on and off the main road. Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Basinger why two (2) plats? Mr. Basinger replied if all was on one plat, nothing could be done until the water line is in.

Commissioner Marley made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to approve Raintree Subdivision Plat 1 with staff recommendations S14-T49N-R13W. R-S. David and Caryn Fenton, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

Ron Marley yes Frank Abart yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes

Motion to approve Plat 1 was unanimous. 5 yes

 

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Falco seconded motion to approve Raintree Subdivision Plat 2. with staff recommendations. S14-T49N-R13W. R-S. David and Caryn Fenton, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

Frank Abart yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Ron Marley yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve Plat 2 was unanimous. 5 yes

 

Valley Creek PRD - replat of lots 81 and 82. S3-T48N-R12W. R-M.

Patrick R. McClung, owner. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that each of these two lot minor plats is a proposal to split the original parent lot 1st platted as a lot in Valley Creek Subdivision Plat 8, recorded in plat book 31 page 31 of the Boone County Records. Additionally, each of these lots is contained within the area designated on the approved final plan for Valley Creek PRD. Both lots are on the north side of Trikalla Drive. This property is zoned R-M PRD (residential moderate density), the R-M underlying zoning is the original 1973 zoning. The Planned Residential Development was approved in April of 1997. The structures on each of these lots are designated as single family attached residences, and as such, must meet a higher building code standard than a traditional duplex which externally these units resemble. These plats represent the final stage of the plan as initially presented for these lots as part of the PRD. Water service is provided by the City of Columbia. Central sewage treatment will be from the BCRSD. The owner has requested a waiver of the requirement for traffic analysis. Staff concurs with this request and recommends that the waiver be granted. This plat has 80 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval along with granting the waiver for traffic analysis.

Jim Patchett was present to represent owner.

Commissioner Marley made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to approve request by Valley Creek PRD - replat of lots 81 S3-T48N-R12W. R-M. Patrick R. McClung, owner. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

Ron Marley yes Frank Abart yes

Mary Sloan yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Joe Falco yes

Motion to approve replat of lot 81 was unanimous. 5 yes

 

 

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Falco seconded motion to approve request by Valley Creek PRD - replat of lots 82. S3-T48N-R12W. R-M. Patrick R. McClung, owner. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

Frank Abart yes Joe Falco yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

Ron Marley yes

Motion to approve replat of Lot 82 was unanimous. 5 yes

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

NEW BUSINESS

Discuss revision of by-laws that would allow meetings to begin at 7:00 P.M.

Commissioner Abart stated he would be in favor of changing the time of Planning and Zoning Meetings.

Commissioner Marley made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to amend Bylaw to change the meeting of the Planning and Zoning to begin at 7:00 p.m.

Motion carried by acclimation.

ADJOURN

Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 16th, day of October, 1997.