BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, October 16 , 1997

Chairperson Kirkpatrick, called the meeting to order at 7:00 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

Darin Fugit Columbia Township

Frank Abart Public Works Director

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Absent: Ron Marley Cedar Township

Bill Grace Centralia Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Noel Boyt, Staff

Minutes of the September 18 , 1997, meeting were discussed.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve the minutes of September 18, 1997, meeting adding the Chairperson Kirkpatrick’s statement after the close of the public hearing requested by Columbia Insurance Co. and to add the Chairman’s procedural statement.

Motion passed by acclimation.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

NONE SUBMITTED

 

REZONING REQUESTS

 

Request by Dan E. and Cheryl Benthall to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to

C-G (General Commercial) of 3.0 acres, more or less, located at

6709 W Sugar Creek Rd., Columbia.

Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located approximately 2 miles west of Columbia, situated between I-70 and Sugar Creek Road. There had been a mobile home on this tract, but it burned down and was removed from the property. A residential garage and a shed remain. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). Property to the south is zoned A-R; to the east is highway right-of-way. To the west, property is zoned A-R. Land to the north, on the other side of I-70, is zoned C-G. The application indicates that the proposed use will be for storage units, which will require a conditional use permit. The original zoning for this site is A-2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the setback regulations allowing the garage to be built in 1987. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. The proposed use is not consistent with the plan. Staff notified 20 property owners concerning this request.

Cullen Cline, Cline & Johnston, 806 Locust Street, Columbia, attorney for the applicant and the owner

Dan Benthall addressed the commission.

Mr. Cline stated the request was to rezone a piece of ground which is approximately 1900’ long east to west and from the legal description is 60’ at the widest and 20’ at the narrowest. The property had accumulated a large amount of trash. Mr. Benthall removed 8-10 truck loads of trash from the property, paying $1300. to have it removed. Two structures are on the property. One is a garage as mentioned by staff. The owner wants to allow an individual person to rent it and engrave rocks. Second structure is a small shed, the age is unknown. The property abuts the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Cline did not see it as practical to put the property to residential use.

Mr. Cline said he advised Mr. Benthall to contact the surrounding property owners. He contacted approximately 10 owners in the vicinity and they signed his petition if approval.

Mr. Benthall added that he wanted the neighbors to be aware what he was doing and not be a surprise. Mr. Cline stated the petition was attached to the application.

Commissioner Abart asked about the application stating proposed uses were for storage units. He stated there was nothing on the application about rock engraving.

Mr. Benthall said there were two buildings on the property. A man wanted to move his rock engraving equipment out into the garage instead out of his house. Mr. Benthall advised the man had been engraving rocks on site for a couple of months. He only works 8-10 hours a week during the day. The other shed (10’ x 20’), on the property, would be rented for storage or other commercial use. He did not have any intention to build any additional units. He did want to generate some rental income from the property. Mr. Cline said the original thought was to put some storage units, but that would require obtaining a Conditional Use Permit.

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

In opposition to the request.

Kris Knutson and Barbara Knutson, 1001 Denninghoff addressed the commission. They said they were totally opposed to the rezoning request. They had a petition with approximately 45 signatures. The signatories on Mr. Benthall’s request have since signed the second petition stating their opposition to the request. The Knutson’s advised their petition was notarized and the first petition, circulated by Mr. Benthall, had not been notarized. Mr. Knutson said 20 people were mentioned in the staff report but he only counted 10 signatures.

Mr. Knutson said that from the initial look they have found out the Benthall’s wanted general commercial for additional storage units, plus additional units down the road. They feel once the property is zoned commercial, anything could happen. It is a residential area, a nice quite little street. They are worried about the traffic problem, lighting problem, and dust problem. Mr. Knutson stated the owner wanted to put a sign on the side of the garage. He showed photographs (#5) of the poor quality of work on the garage. He was concerned the poor quality construction would carry over to any future signs and/or structures. Mr. Knutson asked if Mr. Benthall wanted rental property why not just rent the garage as is, and avoid the expense of making it general commercial. If Mr. Benthall only intends to put up signs, why did they state their intention to build additional storage units. The State allows billboards on commercial property and some areas down I-70 there are billboards every 50’. A lot of it is grandfathered, but... Once there is a 1/3 of a mile that is general commercial, no telling what is going to happen?

Sheila Jira and Chuck Jira, 7655 W Sugar Creek Drive, Columbia. Mr. Jira said he was one of the people who signed the original petition. He knew the man doing the rock engraving and had stopped to speak with him. He indicated that would be all that would happen. Then when Kris and Barb Knutson advised them there would be storage sheds, Mr. Jira said that was not what he signed the first petition for. Mr. Jira said he had a heating and air conditioning business since 1969, further down the road, and was concerned about the road being so narrow. Mrs. Jira said they had gone around and spoke to the people who signed the first petition (Benthall’s petition) and contacted everyone except for Bob Bechtold. 21 land owners and nine (9) tenants signed their petition, whose signatures were notarized, in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Jira stated that at the crest of the hill where the garage is he was hit head on. He is concerned with traffic and the potential change to the character of the neighborhood.

Randy Westveer and Eileen Westveer, 6500 W Sugar Creek Drive, Columbia. Mr. Westveer said they lived at the beginning of the gravel where the state maintenance ends. His concerns were the increased traffic and dust. They purchased the house two (2) years ago because of the peace and quiet. The trees that are on the Benthall’s property provide a tremendous buffer zone from I-70. If trees were removed to place billboards or other structures the residents would loose the buffer zone. The road is not built to handle increased traffic and the loss of privacy with the unknown types of renters. His child rides his bike and with added traffic he may have to restrict him to stay home. Mrs. Westveer advised she had signed the original petition. She had been advised by Mr. Benthall that the property was not large enough to do anything more with because it was only 20’ to 60’ deep. He did not tell her the property was 1900’ long and stretches for 1/3 of a mile in front of her house. She is not in favor of any part being rezoned commercial.

Mark Brunstrom, 7101 W Wehmeyer Rd. and Richard Brunstrom, 7150 W Sugar Creek Dr. addressed the commission.

Mark Brunstrom said he had not signed the original petition. He owned property in the immediate area. He thought the problem started in the method the original petition had been passed and explained the land use. After investigation by neighbors, they found the land use was completely different than first advised. He made reference to photograph #5. He asked the Commissioners to look at the garage. It is multiple colored and stained and had some repair. It was involved in a fire last year. It was repaired with what looks like left over material. They are afraid this is the type of work that will go on with the rest of the future construction on the property. The photo does not show it, but the property has never been mowed except for when the Benthall’s took over the property. Most of the 14 loads of trash that were removed was the burnt mobile home. He suggested the property would best be used for road improvements.

Richard Brunstrom said he had owned property in the area for almost 32 years. When you come up and over the hump there is a curve on it and there has been many an accident on it. He stated the road did not need additional traffic out there.

Linda Thornhill, 1301 N Denninghoff Rd., Columbia came forward. She was opposed to it because of the devaluation of her property. The road is very dangerous.

Elaine Cockrin, 7000 W Sugar Creek, Columbia. She said her husband, Ray could not make it since he was in the corn field. She said everyone of the neighbors were appreciative of Mr. Benthall cleaning up the property. Second, she said that Benthall did not tell them about the storage buildings. When they originally signed the petition is was for the man carving rocks. They were opposed to rezoning the property.

If Benthall is going to put signs, the tree line on the north side would be better left there since it curbs a lot of the traffic noise coming off I-70. If storage units go up and the tree line is removed there would be no buffer to the interstate.

Everett P. Jacobs, 200 Longfellow, Columbia, came forward. He stated he owned a farm that fronts on both sides of the said property. It had been in the Jacobs’ family since 1890. His friends and neighbors have said all they need to. They could get more signatures if necessary that are opposed to the added traffic.

Darren Harris, 299 County Road 342, Franklin came forward. He owns two pieces of property, one across the road from Sugar Creek and the second property on Denninghoff that he rents. His main concern was the tree line and the dust. Additional traffic would be unsafe.

Narayanan Ravindran, 1313 Garden Court, Columbia addressed the commission. His objection was also the traffic. Within 50 yards he had 4 roads and or driveways and there is any more added traffic it would be hazardous for him.

Harold Sontag, 8270 Sugar Creek came forward. He had been involved in an accident on the corner and he supported everything that had been said by the neighbors.

Applicants returned.

Mr. Benthall stated he use to own 35 billboards and he is getting out of the business. He continued that to place signs they have to be 500 feet apart and 500 from any exit ramp. He is now down to 5 permits from 20-25 from the State of Missouri. He did not intend to put up a building since the burn out. He was advised he could place a double wide but he did not want to do that. He wanted to rent the shed and second building.

Mr. Cline spoke up and wanted to amend the application to delete mention of construction of storage shed.

That was a mistake and was pointed out by staff because the sheds would need a Conditional Use Permit. The only intention was to rent the two units on the property.

Mr. Benthall stated that with the 1990’ long property it would be hard to meet the setbacks for any type of added buildings on the property.

Mr. Cline heard that the people think they have been tricked. No one had told him or Mr. Benthall they withdrew their names from the petition. Mr. Cline stated regardless of whether the rezoning request is granted, Mr. Benthall could cut every tree on the property eliminating the buffer. That is not his intention. If they want it as a buffer, Mr. Benthall would sell it to them.

Closed to public hearing.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked the applicant when he purchased the property, was it June of 1997, Mr. Benthall said yes, 3-4 months ago.

Commissioner Falco stated the applicant had stated he wanted to remove the storage units from the application. He did not have a problem with that. Even if the units were not on the application he would have to think long and hard for anything that the Commission has approved that was not Planned Commercial. If the request was Planned Commercial and the plan fit the scheme he might look at it, but this was not Planned Commercial.

Chairman Kirkpatrick said he could count on one finger the number of General Commercial rezoning requests that have been approved since he had been on the Planning and Zoning Commission. There is nothing about this request that compels him to make it the second. The comments of the neighbors about the road and traffic are well taken, he drives the road every day. It could be used for residential, as in the past, and did not see any compelling reason to rezone the property.

Commissioner Abart said to give a blanket commercial rezoning anything could be placed on the property. Anything from a mortuary, kennels, virtually anything allowed by commercial zoning. He does not oppose commercial zoning for the area. He is opposed to a blanket zoning. He wanted some assurance that if commercial does go in it would not effect the neighborhood and the neighbors.

Commissioner Fugit stated he felt the same. He wanted to know what commercial use would be on the property.

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Falco seconded a motion to deny the rezoning request

Darin Fugit yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Mike Morgan yes Frank Abart yes

Motion to deny was unanimous. 6 yes

Chairman advised applicant they had 3 working days to file an appeal at the Planning and Building Inspection Department..

 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

NONE SUBMITTED

 

PLAT REVIEWS

Valley Creek PRD - replat of lots 78, 89, 90 and 91 S3-T48N-R12W. R-M.

James V. Patchett, surveyor.

Lot 89 had been removed from request.

Thad Yonke gave staff report 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. Lot 78 is located on the north side of Trikalla Drive. Lots 89, 90, & 91 are located on the south side of Trikalla Drive. These later three lots are subject to a Board of Adjustment variance granted in June of 1997 allowing these three lots to be exempted from the requirement to provide sidewalks along 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. These plats has 80 points on the point rating scale.

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

James V. Patchett, surveyor came forward. He asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Abart seconded a motion to approve re-Plat of Lot 78 with waiver of traffic analysis.

Joe Falco yes Frank Abart yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

Darin Fugit yes Mike Morgan yes

Motion to approve re-plat of lot 78 was unanimous. 6 yes

 

Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve re-Plat of Lot 90 with waiver of traffic analysis.

Mary Sloan yes Darin Fugit yes

Mike Morgan yes Frank Abart yes

Joe Falco yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve re-plat of lot 90 was unanimous 6 yes

 

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Abart seconded a motion to approve re-Plat of Lot 91 with waiver of traffic analysis.

Darin Fugit yes Frank Abart yes

Mary Sloan yes Mike Morgan yes

Joe Falco yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve re-plat of lot 91 was unanimous 6 yes

 

 

Prairie Oak Subdivision, preliminary plat. S19-T49N-R11W. Next Millennium, Ltd., owner.

Bill R. Crockett, surveyor.

Bill Florea gave staff report stating the proposed subdivision consists of a road, running east then north from Liddell Lane to Mount Hope Road. The road was created as tract 22 of a survey recorded June 9, 1995. The property is zoned A-1. The purpose of the subdivision is to plat and dedicate the right of way and road, to the public.

Water is provided by Water District Number Nine which has a six inch line along the road with fire hydrants spaced at 1000 feet. The fire hydrant spacing has been approved by the Fire Marshall.

No road name is shown on the plat. The developer has submitted a list of names for approval by Joint Communications. The final plat is required to have a road name.

The plat scores 35 on the point rating system.

Staff recommends approval with the condition that an approved road name be shown on the final plat.

Bill R. Crockett, surveyor was present. He stated they had to run through the platting to create the road. He was frustrated that the request for the road naming had not been approved by 911 (Joint Communication). He had already waited over three (3) weeks.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Fugit second motion to approve the plat with condition of name being shown on the plat along with staff recommendations.

Frank Abart yes Darin Fugit yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Mike Morgan yes

Motion to approve plat with conditions was approved. 6 yes

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

NEW BUSINESS

Update Major Thoroughfare Plan for Columbia and metro area.

Director Shawver addressed the commission. He referred to the information handed out in the past and at the work session. Director Shawver discussed the different amendments. He did state that 90% of the plan was within the city limits of Columbia. It is a joint plan and both have to endorse. CATSO recommended the Thoroughfare Plan be accepted.

Commissioner Abart advised that the process the Thoroughfare Plan had gone through had already consisted of many, many person hours. It went through a technical committee Director Shawver sat on, then to the CATSO Committee he sat on. City has to have their Planning and Zoning approve before the City Council as our Planning and Zoning before County Commission. He said it has come to this point with a great deal of thought.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to recommend approval of the revisions to the Major Thoroughfare Plan.

Joe Falco yes Frank Abart yes

Mary Sloan yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Darin Fugit yes Mike Morgan yes

Motion to recommend approval was unanimous. 6 yes

New Planning and Zoning Commissioner

Director Shawver wanted to introduce the newly appointed Commissioner from the Bourbon Township, Mike Morgan. He would be replacing Keith Schnarre who had stepped down in June, 1997.

ADJOURN

Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 20 th, day of November, 1997.