BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, April 20, 2000

Chairperson Kirkpatrick, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., with a quorum present. Roll Call was taken by Acting-Secretary Green.

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Darin Fugit, Vice-Chairperson Columbia Township

Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

James Green, Acting-Secretary Cedar Township

Frank Abart Public Works Director

Pat Smith Perche Township

Absent: Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township None

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Ora Ramsey, Staff

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve the minutes of March 16, 2000 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick reviewed the procedural statement.

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

None

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

  1. Request by Jack and Julie Rader to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) and R-M (Moderate Density Residential) to REC (Recreation) of 125.48 acres, more or less, located at 5051 W I-70 DR NW, Columbia.
  2. Thad Yonke gave the staff report that this property is located west of the Columbia municipal limits on I-70 Drive, Northwest. The subject tract is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential) and R-S (Single Family Residential). Land to the north of the site is zoned A-2. To the east, zoning is R-S, R-M and A-R. Most, if not all, of this property, is located within the 100-year floodplain. There is a building on the property. This property is located within the Boone Electric service area, and the Columbia School District. Water service is provided by consolidated Public Water District No. 1. The applicant has requested that the land be rezoned to REC (Recreation). The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. The proposed use is consistent with the plan and staff generally supports this request. However, staff is concerned that this is a large tract of land being changed to recreational uses. Many such uses have the potential for generating significant traffic levels, which could negatively impact what is essentially a dead end road. However, while noting the concern for traffic impacts, staff recommends approval of the request. 39 property owners were notified of this request.

    Bruce Beckett, 901 E Broadway, #100, Columbia, attorney representing Jack and Julie Rader, 3326 S County Woods, Columbia. The Rader’s purchased this piece of property in April 1999. The overall purchase was slightly over 126 acres, but they have contracted to sell off a small flange of land sticking off to the east side of it, which was not the subject of this rezoning request. The subject property is all-agricultural and is improved with a new metal barn and levies to protect it from Perche Creek, which runs along the western side of the property. An aerial photo was obtained from the County Assessor and was displayed to illustrate the outline of the property. A two-acre parcel of ground, which also belongs to the Raders, achieves access to this property. Mr Beckett discussed the permitted uses referencing the Zoning Ordinance. It is understood the baseball fields would be permitted under the "other uses". Rader’s believe that the current zoning of the property is inappropriate because most of the land is within the floodplain. It is zoned for moderate density residential and single family residential and neither of these types of uses can be placed on this property under current zoning because of the floodplain. This property, under current zoning is appropriate for agricultural purposes and recreational purposes. There are many examples of recreational purposes being in floodplain areas in around this community. The only district, which allows both agricultural and recreational, is the recreational zoning district. The applicants believe that it only makes sense for the property to be zoned for the use for which is appropriate and feels it is inappropriate to continue in it’s current zoning. They were aware that not all neighbors are in support of the rezoning. Mr Beckett then addressed a letter of opposition that was submitted to the Commission by a neighbor. He stated that the type of use the Raders would be asking for would not be an offensive type and that any conditional type use would have to be approved by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commission before it could be permitted anyway.

    Commissioner Abart asked the applicants why they did not ask for a planned recreational district. The applicant stated there is not planned recreational district available. There is no such district.

    Open to public hearing.

    None spoke in favor of the request.

    Those in opposition of the request commented.

    Harold Creed, 1800 Earthland Rd, Columbia. Is the owner of a tract of land to the subject tract. He stated his neighborhood would rather the Raders not be granted a recreational zone and is recommending the use of conditional permits for whatever is proposed because no plan of development has been submitted. They have no other objections.

    Eric Jorgensen, 4301 W Gibbs Rd, Columbia. Mr Jorgensen has approximately 40 acres just west of subject property. His main concern is the amount of traffic that will be travelling I-70 NW. The road is very hill, there are blind spots and there are no shoulders. About 2 years ago there were two children who were blinded by the sun while driving on the road and were killed. In the Spring and in the Fall the sun lines up almost exactly with the road making it very difficult to see. With the recreational development and the amount of traffic increase there would be a significant increase in the amount of accidents on that road.

    Another concern is the amount of noise and light pollution that would occur with lighted fields, games at night. He does not really care for it because of the way his house looks out over the north end of the proposed recreational zoning area.

    Gary Krause, 2812 Wild Plum Ct, Columbia. Owns property immediately to east of subject property. Thinks that Mr Rader, as the property owner, should be able to do something appropriate with his land by going through the proper channels to request the use he desires. However, Mr Krause is concerned that responsible use would be utilized as well. There is nothing in the ordinance that says the recreational area can not be open 24 hours a day. There is nothing in the ordinance that it can be illuminated or not. It does not say that it will shut down at 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. like some parks do. Mr Krause ‘wants to be on the record of not being opposed to this, but pray for responsible use of this’. There are lots of us landowners in the community. And it is going to be a major setting from what the community is right now. Mr Crews, from California, the sheep man, and Grant’s widow, and Douglass and Eric, Mr Krause and Garner own some of the most attractive parts of the geography within 5 miles of where we sit (Boone County Government Center). The rezoning is going to make an entirely different change. Mr Krause said that as he fed his cows tonight he saw wild turkey standing in the fence where the recreational development will be. That probably will not be after the development opens. He does not want to be negative, but thinks they ought to expect that if the surrounding property owners are going to take on some changes they ought to puts some covenants on the rezoning so that it will be used responsible to respect the other property owners’ rights.

    Cindy D Wesselmann, 1700 N Earthland Rd, Columbia. Her family has 24 acres, a house and a barn. They have owned the proper for 8 years. She attended a meeting seven years ago for a rezoning request for the property that was directly across I-70 from their property. That request was granted for recreational use. The Wesselmanns recommended conditional use. The request was granted for full recreational use. That recreational area is the Perche Creek Golf Club. That has impacted their family and their lives. The lights from that golf course shine directly across the interstate. It lights up the whole front of the Wesselmann house. Mrs Wesselmann is concern that if the Raders are granted this request and it is blanket recreational use, instead of conditional use, that there is no limit to the amount of illumination on the fields. There is no limit to the hours of operation. At the Perche Creek Golf Club rezoning meeting, seven 7 years ago, they were told that the lights would be shut off at a certain time every night. That has not happened. Even during the weeknights the lights are on and sometimes until after mid-night. It is hard to sleep. This property is directly east of the Wesselmanns, across the creek, but still within a range of their neighborhood, where is has the potential of lighting up their entire backyard.

    Other concerns are noise if there are loud speakers. She agrees with Mr Krause and really does not want to see the land change that much. They have lived with the Perche Creek change for seven years from across the interstate, now it is coming from the east. She does not believe she is alone in saying that has had a great impact on the people who live in that area. Mrs Wesselmann asked that a conditional use permit be considered instead of a blank recreational.

    John Relles, 4563 W Gibbs Road, Columbia. Mr Relles is a youth coach for over 10 years for various sports. He believes that Columbia does not more recreational fields. Mr Relles is not totally opposed to a plan like there. However, he shares some of the same concerns such as the bright lights, noise pollution and hours of operation. As far as the zoning and just leaving it open at recreation, will there be ball fields or all night continuous golf? I-70 NW is a very dangerous road. It is nothing but valleys and peaks, which you can not see over until you get there. A slight hesitation of someone pulling out onto I-70 NW from a side road could cause an accident. There may be approximately 20 vehicles for every field that has a game being played. Will there be 2 fields or 20 fields. Twenty fields would mean 400 cars per every 1-1.5 hours depending on the length of the games. That is a very significant traffic problem. Combine that with the already dangerous road. There should be some major hesitation as far as considering this plan they way it is. If there were some controls and covenants listed as to how this property would be used and what kind of traffic impact this will have on the road in this area that would be helpful. As it is Mr Relles believes the community is setting itself up for some more crosses along the road. People tend to hurry when they are running a little late to a game or for practice. He sees a strong need for ball fields, but sees a strong need for some controls as well.

    Close to public hearing.

    Mr Beckett returns to address concerns about go cart tracks, shooting ranges, etc. all require conditional use permits. Secondly, there is no planned recreational district available to the applicant now. Third, consider the fact that this property is not now appropriately zoned. Fourth, no road is ever going to go in here until this property is used. That is a public road, not a private road. Roads are developed around the uses in the area. Forum Blvd was used as an example. The greater the use south in Columbia, the more public funds are used to improve the roads in the area to serve the uses which have developed. An all night golf course is currently allowed on this property. In R-S zoning districts you can have a golf course without restriction as to how long you can play golf. So that concern should not influence you. The applicants concluded by saying that they feel this is an appropriate zoning district for this land and hopes that Commission sees it this way as well and gives them a favorable recommendation.

    Commissioner Fugit’s question about the access to the property was answered. Mr Beckett also explained why two acres of the land was not included in the rezoning. The applicants were advised by Planning and Zoning that a caretaker’s home would not be allowed on recreational zoning. So applicant designated 2 acres not in the floodplain for a possible caretakers site.

    Commissioner Smith asked if applicants had considered applying for conditional use permits. Mr Beckett stated that there is no zoning district that says a person can have all these recreational uses as a conditional use. This is a permitted use in the recreational district and not allowed else where. There is no planned district and do not feel the current zoning is appropriate, but recreational is.

    Commissioner Fugit expressed concerns on the lighting at Perche Creek as well. There was no Planned District at the time Perche Creek was established, and therefore, the Commission could not regulate those lights. Without Planned District the Commission would not be able to regulate the lights for the Radar property either. There is a great need for this type of recreation in that area, but there is no zoning to control the lights.

    Mr Beckett said light pollution is unavoidable, maybe an ordinance is what is needed to control the lights.

    Chairman Kirkpatrick would hope to have revision of the Zoning Ordinance, to include Planned District, in place by the end of this year. He feels a need for Planned Recreation and shares concerns of Commissioner Darin Fugit and audience about the lighting, the number of people, and the traffic. He agreed with the applicant that current zoning was not appropriate.

    Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to deny the request by Jack and Julie Rader to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) and R-M (Moderate Density Residential) to REC (Recreation) of 125.48 acres, more or less, located at 5051 W I-70 Dr NW, Columbia.

    Frank Abart Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith No

    Motion to deny the rezoning request carried. 5 Yes 1 No

    ****

  3. Request by B. C. Investments of Columbia, L. L. C. to rezone 117.02 acres more or less, from A-2 (Agriculture) to the following: Tract A - 4.97 acres to CG-P (Planned Commercial); Tract B – 24.39 acres to CG-P; Tract C – 4.04 acres to C-GP; Tract D – 7.53 acres to R-D (Two Family Residential); Tract E – 7.20 acres to R-D; Tract F – 22.65 acres to R-S (Single Family Residential); Tract G – 25.17 acres to R-S; Tract H – 10.28 acres to R-M (Moderate Density Residential); Tract I – 10.79 acres to R-M, located at 8000 N Rte B, Columbia.

Bill Florea gave the staff report that this property is located north of Columbia on State Highways B and HH. This 117.02 acre parcel is bisected by Route B. The subject tract is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). The majority of the land adjacent to this site is zoned A-2, however there is a small Planned Commercial node at the southeast corner of Rte B and HH. To the east of this site there is an area zoned R-M that is platted as a subdivision. The land is vacant. The property is located within the Boone Electric service area. Water is provided by Public Water District No. 4. The proposed development lies within the Hallsville R-4 School District. The applicant has requested that the land be rezoned to several different categories. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential land uses. The proposed requests are not consistent with the plan. While staff recognizes that this site may be suitable for a higher density than the current A-2 zoning would permit, staff feels that there are problems that have to be resolved before any change in zoning is authorized. The request in its present form calls for a significant allocation of various residential categories, none of which the applicants have proposed to be planned except through the subdivision process. The request also asks for Planned Commercial zoning. The combined requests without any specific plans such as a review plan place the staff in the difficult position of having to recommend denial of a request that were it submitted with more information could receive the staff support. Staff recommends denial of this request. 83 property owners were notified of this request.

Jay Gebhardt, Civil Engineer with Allstate Consultants, lives at 711 W Ash, Columbia and Rhonda Carlson, 1110 Willowcreek, Columbia The City of Columbia Sanitary Sewer will extend and 80 acre point sewer up to the tract for them to have centralized sewer system. The current water lines around this site are large. Anywhere from 8 to 10 inches and they surround the tract. So water is available to the site. Access for the site is good. The property is surrounded with arterial roads and collector streets. Feel like planned commercial – accessory use. Expect 2 acre lots – each lot would be separately planned – incremental traffic plan updates.

Open to public hearing.

Those in favor of the request.

Dale Nichols, 9000 S Kari Lane, Columbia. Owns the convenience store on Rte HH and the property from Old Rte B to New Rte B along Rte HH. He also owns the Sheridan Hills apartment complex which lies east of the subject property. He believes this is a unique zoning because the acreage is surrounded by 4 roads. The car count, from 2 years, ago on Rte B was about 9,500 to 11,000 cars and Rte HH was somewhere between 1,500 and 1,800 cars. The State Highway Department confirmed both of those counts. It is an ideal tract for rezoning. It is perfectly located. The property up to this property is rezoned some kind of commercial development. In essence, Mr Nichols would like to see the property rezones.

Chad Sayre, 7401 Fall Creek Dr, Columbia. Chad, his wife and his mother are in great support of the rezoning. Really likes the Planned Commercial. There is a need for that service in that area and it is planned. A neighbor, Phil Heller, had to be at a City Council meeting and was not able to attend this meeting. However, Mr Heller said, ‘He didn’t have any big problems with it except for the 7.2 acre tract.’ He felt like it should be Single Family. Mr Sayre believes the roads are easily accessible. Thinks it is very will buffered from other existing development in the area and thinks it fits the terrain.

Mark Streeter, 6015 E Hwy HH, Columbia. He does do some business with C&C Construction. He is for the development and thinks it is great because of road locations on all four sides. City Sewer extending to the property is great. Thinks it is a good idea to have some of the City infrastructure already in place now as the area continues to develop with commercial development along Rte B. Does not see how this development can hurt the area at all.

John States, 7475 N Fall Creek Dr, Columbia. Spoke on behalf of his family. He likes the development is this area because he will be able to pick-up fast food or go to convenience store close to home without stopping at the Hwy 63 and I-70 interchange on his way home from work. Also the possibility of a fire station close by. Also this development will bring a tax base that will also probably help out some of the Hallsville area, the Hallsville School District. Mr States is in favor of and greatly supports the request.

Those in opposition of the request.

Randall L Griffith, 9000 Brown Station Dr, Columbia. Mr Griffith stated that the traffic is his biggest concern. Rte B is just about maxed out a lot of the time. There are some dangerous intersection. There are some things that need to happen before further extensive development in this area. There may be a plan for the hwy 4-lanes to be extended out, but plans do not always come about very quickly. So maybe the development is a little premature. He questioned the density for a rural subdivision and believes it is still high. Even considering the number he does like the idea of the commercial. Has no problem with the commercial along Rte B and feels that is something that has to take place and is going to. He wonders about the sewer and why the City of Columbia will extend the sewer before an annexation is going to take place. Mr Griffith also asked the Commission to consider the impact on the schools with this type of density and the number of family that will be added to the already overcrowded school systems.

Greg and Donna Sims, 8565 N Brown Station Road, Columbia. Would like to keep the rural atmosphere in the area. The traffic is a problem. Ketterer Road is a small one-lane gravel road with limited access. They own the property all to the north of Ketterer Road between both intersections. It is not as easy as people think. Concerned about 16-year-old daughter being a new driver. Concerned with 9 different zoning changing from what is in the area already. Believes it is not a good development, but haphazard development at best. He would not mind seeing residential development in that area. Commented on low-income housing, stating that he would like to see one of those that works really well. High volume traffic.

Mr Sims stated that he would like to see a better-planned development that has a better plan. Would like to see some green space. Would like to see a development that has some care about what atmosphere and quality of living is. There is no quality in this. It is a development for money.

Mrs Sims said she does not see and does not understand the need for 4 different types of zoning on these 9 tracts. She does not see any benefits to her neighborhood or changing a rural community to accommodating so many types of housing. Mrs Sims asked if the applicant has developed a similar project somewhere else and did it turn out beautiful? Of did it downgrade the neighborhood and did the applicant abandon the project and just move on to another project. She thinks that is what is happening to Columbia. An expansion and development can be done right (ie. Fox Croft). To Mrs Sims the project seems to be quick and easy, the applicants can make their money, move out and we are stuck with the reprimand of what it leaves. Mrs Sims mentioned a traffic problem on Rte B. Said she sits at Hwy HH for 10 minutes to get on Rte B in the morning. Says Ketterer is the same way. Traffic situation will not get any better by adding all the housing. It will only get worse. She is also concerned for how the development will change the quality and beauty of their own 45 acres tract of land that has wildlife and a nice atmosphere. That will be changed. She knows that development will increase and will come closer to their property as it does. She is not opposed to development but is opposed to the quality and wants it done right. Mrs Sims said she saw nothing in this proposed development that would not result but in increased crime rates, increased traffic congestion, and will ruin the esthetics of the neighborhood. She feels that the existing property owners need to be considered while planning the new development. How will it fit in to the scheme of what already exists in the area. She wants to see a better plan.

Roger Conklin, 8758 N Brown Station Rd, Columbia. Owns land across the railroad tracks from the proposed rezoning site. Is familiar with the land. He was born on site 72 years ago. His grandfather mined the clay on the property and build the old brick house that used to be there and his father was born in that house. There is a water problem that will happen on land. There is a lot of drainage that comes from the north and east side of the railroad that comes down through that draw. There are a lot of trees and brush in there now and it does not flood like it used too. When he was a child water would get really deep down that draw when you get a big rain. It comes from under the railroad. They have a huge pipe that will be full coming through and it comes from all the drains. There will be a lot of water coming down through there. On Ketterer Road, two cars can hardly pass on it. It is not much of a road. North Brown Station Road is narrow. A man was killed on the road a year ago. His dump truck run off the road. Also concerned about the density. If too many houses there may be problems with kids and dogs and his stock. Kids wanting to see the stock and dogs running over. Mr Conklin is not necessarily against the zoning but thinks there are some things that the Commission needs to know before it is voted on.

Sharon Brandkamp, 8275 N Buck Road, Columbia. Mrs Brandkamp concerned about traffic increase especially on the school bus route. She mentioned a blind corner on Ketterer right after Buck Road. She believes it is too much development for the roads to handle in that area. Even if Rte B was widened there still would be difficulty getting on it. Mrs Brandkamp is not opposed to the whole development. Single family housing units would be fine, some of the commercial would be okay. It is just too much for that area.

Kathy LaMere, 8393 N Buck Road, Columbia. Concerned with traffic and the number of accidents at the intersections of Hwy HH and Ketterer Road. Ketterer Road when it rains it usually washes out. It is becoming narrow as sides of the road wash out. She is also concerned with decreased property values if they have lots of apartment complexes built there. The area seems very congested. That area is very rural. There is often deer, turkey and foxes that cross through their property and through this area. That would be lost, the animal would not have any place to go. The Columbia bus route does not extend that far north. Hallsville School is already crowded. There won’t be any new space created until at least late 2001 or 2002. She does not mind the residential, but thinks it is too dense and really opposed to all the apartments and duplexes. Feels it is just to compact and dense.

Lynne Brunholtz, 8400 Buck Road, Columbia. Concerned with the proposed rezoning plans. Would not be opposed to a subdivision like Fox Croft with the 3-acre tracts with homes in the same price range. Rte B can not handle the traffic that the apartment complexes would bring. A friend drive a Hallsville School bus and talks about what a nightmare it is in the morning to get out on Rte B. There has already been one wreck with the Hallsville School Bus this year right off of Hwy HH. Those that live in the area know that Rte B can not handle the traffic.

Donna Jones, 6725 N Westview Dr, Columbia. Concerned about left-hand turns onto Rte B. Thinks it would be a mistake to have this great a number of house developed in this area with some major changes on the road. Even with expanding it to the 4 lanes there is still a problem with getting out onto Rte B without sacrificing lives.

Closed to public hearing.

Applicant returns and Rhonda Carlson addressed concerns of the people. The traffic situation has already been discussed. Ketterer Road was not discussed earlier because it was discussed at the Concept Review of the plat with the Planning Staff. Applicants had proposed to improve Ketterer Road at their expense. That was one of the discussion points they had and one of the agreements that they had intended to do.

The reason the plat was not presented at this meeting was because Windy Point was also scheduled to be on the agenda to and she did not see a need for the P & Z Commission to deal with both in one night. With the exception of being surprised this afternoon that there was any opposition from the Staff she felt the rezoning would be an easy thing for the Commission to look at. They discussed going planned and not going planned. The area with the planned is with the commercial, because that is going to take a longer time to develop.

The time frame of the development will be probably 10-15 years. All these homes and drives will not be there tomorrow. They probably will not be there within the next 4 or years unless she has miscalculated. The purpose of not going planned has nothing do to with not wanting the Commission to have control of what is happening. It has more to do with the fact that it is affordable housing not low-income housing. The applicants have never built low-income housing. She builds a lot of retirement, handicapped accessible housing. They are good neighbors and they usually are old style neighborhoods. She builds one or two expensive house per year. But the demand from the market perspective is for the affordable housing. If a planned development is submitted then every time a lot line may need to be moved or has to be adjusted a tremendous amount of work has to be done to come before the Commission and it adds cost. There is no benefit from that. When the plat is finally submitted the densities that were given will be put on the plat and they will never be exceeded. The applicants plan to submit full restrictive covenants, and intend to develop it with total control of what goes on out there.

The City of Columbia was expecting the development to be within the sewer build-out within the next 12 months. If the development is delayed much longer then it will go into 2001, but it was to go in the 2000 planning process. That was the City’s decision and they were actually at the concept review. They were not planning to drag out the extension for 4 to 5 years. As far as developing the property as A-2 the density would be lower, but then there would be a bunch of little lagoons. If is far more superior to connect to a City sewer or a similar system.

Green space was another concern. There are two natural creeks and draws in the west tract, filled with trees and woods and their intent and the plans that were before the County Staff showed minimal disturbance to that area. It will be used as buffer areas. The rest of the ground is clear. There will be a tremendous amount of green space. They will be well under the density requirements for each one of the zonings. There will be 39 duplexes. The majority of it will be single family residential.

Another concern was the City bus. There are a number of places in Columbia that are not serviceable by the City bus route. It would be a nice thing to have but it is not affordable. The intent was to put together a development that would be acceptable by the County Staff.

Mrs Carlson urged the Commission to table the request if they were going to deny it.

The Commission sought out options from County Staff. Stan Shawver explained that they could approve, table or deny the whole request. They could vote on each of the 9 sections individually or they could split their vote.

Commissioner Caruthers asked the applicant why they were requesting rezoning for all this at once instead of in stages.

In dealing with large subdivisions and tracts in Columbia, even though you go in with a design, there is always a problem with rezoning issues no matter what. Applicant would rather be straightforward with what they plan to do with the whole tract than try to piece meal. Applicant feels they have worked really carefully in dealing with the buffers that why it is a whole big piece. If presented it a piece at a time there would still be opposition to it. There is always going to be opposition to any form of development and hopes to address the issues of the neighborhood but will not be able to please everyone. So the applicant wants them to know right up front what we are dealing with. Jay Gebhardt believes it is best to plan out the whole thing. Things may change over the life span of the project, but it is best to come forthright with what you are proposing. Some think this is not organized or that it makes no sense. It does make sense because they are using buffers and stepping down the zoning.

Commissioner Abart is uncomfortable with any of this that is not planned and will probably oppose the areas that are not planned.

Commissioner Caruthers drives Rte B everyday and will like a little more information and input. His feels would be to table it.

Chairman Kirkpatrick does have a problem with the concept but does see enough details to get excited about it.

Commissioner Smith stated the traffic is a real concern for her. She appreciates the traffic concerns of the neighbors. She also appreciates the fact that the Commission was given the whole picture.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to table the request by B. C. Investments of Columbia, L. L. C. to rezone 117.02 acres more or less, from A-2 (Agriculture) to the following: Tract A - 4.97 acres to CG-P (Planned Commercial); Tract B – 24.39 acres to CG-P; Tract C – 4.04 acres to C-GP; Tract D – 7.53 acres to R-D (Two Family Residential); Tract E – 7.20 acres to R-D; Tract F – 22.65 acres to R-S (Single Family Residential); Tract G – 25.17 acres to R-S; Tract H – 10.28 acres to R-M (Moderate Density Residential); Tract I – 10.79 acres to R-M, located at 8000 N Rte B, Columbia until the next meeting (May 18, 2000).

Discussion on motion – traffic study will be over the impact of the whole development and will be given to public works in enough time to do an adequate study before the next meeting.

Michael Caruthers Yes Jim Green Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Pat Smith Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Frank Abart No

Motion to table the rezoning request carried. 5 Yes 1 No

 

 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

  1. Request by Michael and Vickie Gilbane to approve a Review Plan on 2.7 acres,

more or less, located at 10371 I-70 Drive N. E., Columbia. NOTE – a zoning change

to M-LP was approved in Feb. 2000.

Thad Yonke gave the following staff report - This 2.7-acre property is located approximately 6 miles east of Columbia on I-70 Drive, Northeast. The property is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential), as is all of the surrounding land, except land situated south of I-70. In February of this year a rezoning request to change the zoning to M-LP (planned light industrial) was approved for the property by the County Commission. This rezoning is pending approval of both a review and final development plan. There were 5 conditions placed on the development at the rezoning approval. These conditions are shown on the review plan. There is and old house and several sheds on the property which will be removed as part of the development of the property. The proposed review plan indicates that the development will include two buildings containing approximately 4,000 sq. ft. each and a 120’ by 160’ privacy fenced parking and storage area behind one of the proposed buildings. Wastewater facilities will be required to comply with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources requirements for a commercial wastewater system. The existing pond is proposed to be reconstructed and remain as a stormwater detention area. Landscaping is shown on the review plan. The subject tract is located within the Columbia School District. Water is provided by Public Water District 9. Fire hydrants are required for this development. Boone Electric Co-operative is the electric service provider. Staff notified 25 property owners concerning this request. Staff recommends approval of the review plan subject to the same 5 conditions as shown on County Commission Order # 64-2000 being made conditions of approval for the review plan.

Kent Gilbane, 7667 Wade School Road, Columbia. Basically the request reflects what was originally submitted in February. We are putting two 40x100 buildings on this property. Will use the background as it is presently is being used – trees grown over, brush, etc. Included in their plan, as requested by the County Commissioner, was using the present pond as a retention pond. The topography of the ground and water runoff runs to that area naturally. Parking area in the front for display of the vehicles for sale will be limited to 15 vehicles in front which presently reflects in the plan. An 8’ tall privacy fence surrounding the cars that are waiting to be rebuild around the first main building. The main entrance way in the front off of I-70 Dr NE. Removing the existing buildings and limiting to the cars was what they included in the original plan. This plan now shows the lagoon system. The other plan did not. Originally the parking area was at the property line. They have moved that 10 feet off the line. Also the west side has been changed to 25 feet from the drive just to the west. Also, the on the review plan there is no residence. There predominately just a few shed, a garage and two drive on two separate lots just to the west of subject property.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in support of the review plan.

No one spoke in opposition.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to approve the Review Plan by Michael and Vickie Gilbane, with Staff Recommendations for the 2.7 acres, more or less, located at 10371 I-70 Drive N. E., Columbia. NOTE – a zoning change to M-LP was approved in Feb. 2000.

Darin Fugit Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Frank Abart Yes Jim Green Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes Pat Smith Yes

Motion to approve with staff recommendations carried. 6 Yes 0 No

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

  1. Paradise Hills Estates S33-T48N-R13W. A-2. Owners: John and Heidi Miles and Russell and Laura Devenney. Surveyor: Timothy D. Capehart.

Thad Yonke gave the staff report - This 3 lot minor plat is located on the north side of Applewood Creek Road at the immediate northwest corner of the intersection of State Route KK and Applewood Creek Road. The site is generally south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia within 1/2 mile of the nearest boundary. The area of the proposed subdivision contains 14.88 acres. The proposed plat is a replat of Lots 21 to 25 of Paradise Hills Estates Block 4, which was approved in November of 1996. A tentative approval for the vacation of these lots from the original plat was approved by the County Commission on March 28th 2000. This vacation does not go into affect until the suitable replat is approved and recorded. The owners of this property also own the adjoining undeveloped lots to the west of this proposed plat. These additional lots are still part of the original plat and no vacation request has been made on their behalf. The property contained within the plat is zoned A-2, (Agriculture) as is property to the west and south. Property to the East across State Route KK and to the north across Mill Creek is zoned R-S (residential single family). These are all the original 1973 zonings. The site is in the Columbia School District and the Boone County Fire Protection District. The site is in Consolidated Public Water District #1. However, we have been informed by the water district and the city that the property is in an area that is to be served by the city. The city indicates that watermain extensions are required. There is currently a water district 8-inch water line along the south side of Applewood Creek Road. Fire hydrants are required for this plat. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from the City of Columbia. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis. As proposed there are a number of problems with this plat. The proposed plat does not comply with the subdivision regulations. The first issue is that proposed Lot 22A is designed to be a tier lot. Appendix B of the Subdivision Regulations Section 1.8.1 states; the Commission may allow tier lots on previously unplatted land. The regulations further qualify this by setting specific criteria that must be met to use tier lots in the design of a subdivision. Since the land was previously platted a tier lot is not allowed in the replat and is by definition not in compliance with the regulations. As the specific language of the ordinance "on previously unplatted land" is only relevant when a replat is proposed it is clear that the intent of the regulations is to prohibit exactly the situation presented by this proposed plat: the use of a tier lot in a replat. A variance from this provision of the regulations is being sought by the developer from the Board of Adjustments. However, since no variance has been granted at this time the plat does not comply with the regulations. Additionally, it is questionable whether or not any variance will be granted. It should also be recognized that even where tier lots are allowed to be proposed, the use is discretionary and the Commission can deny any plat proposing a tier if they feel it does not meet the required criteria. The second issue is that a concrete private road, complete with cul-de-sac has been built in the area of the proposed tier. Part of the intent of the subdivision regulations is to prohibit the use of private roads where a public road is appropriate. This private road has the appearance of a public road and would easily be mistaken for a public road by the general public. The cost to put in this private road as constructed constitutes a substantial portion of the cost to have proposed and constructed a public road. Therefore, the argument that it would be unreasonable to serve the lots with a public cul-de-sac becomes highly suspect. This private road is constructed well in excess of what is normally found even as a high quality driveway and appears to be an attempt to build a private road where a public road should be with the intent of circumventing the regulations. Neither this site improvement nor any of the easements, which will be required for it, are shown or indicated on the plat and from field inspection the private road appears to cross the proposed new lot lines. Additionally, a second private road has been roughed in on the adjoining property within the subdivision owned by the same developer. This lends further support to argument that an intent to circumvent the regulations. The creation of this private road does not comply with a number of provisions of the subdivision regulations. This private road falls under the definition of private drive (section 1.4.26) of the subdivision regulations. This private drive does not comply with section 1.5.7 Public and Private Road Restrictions, and section 1.6.3 Minor Plat. Section 1.5.7 states that it is unlawful to create or build any non-governmentally maintained publicly dedicated road or private drive except as authorized by the subdivision regulations or as authorized for planned developments under the Boone County Zoning Regulations. The private road is not authorized under the subdivision regulations and has been built thus violating two of the provisions of section 1.5.7. Since the private road as constructed crosses proposed lot lines, access easements would be necessary to insure each lot could use the road since the road falls upon multiple proposed lots. Section 1.6.3 Minor Plat prohibits the use of a common private driveway to access lots in a subdivision where any lot contained within the plat is less than 5 acres. Since the tier is not allowed on lot 22A, Lot 22A becomes accessed solely by private road. Additionally, even if a variance is granted to allow the proposal of a tier lot within a replat. The fact that the tier is proposed to fall under the area of the private road means it is unlikely to be able to be approved by this commission as it will fail to meet the general criteria of section 1.8.1 that "tier lot design is the most feasible means to access lots due to extreme topographic conditions". The third issue with this plat is that there is a question of ownership over a portion of the area contained within the proposed replat. The surveyor has attempted to address this issue with notes on the plat This issue should be resolved prior to approval of a plat since it calls into question the owners statement since this portion of land may actually not be owned by the subdivider. This plat has 70 points on the point rating scale.

Since the proposed replat does not comply with the subdivision regulations staff recommends denial of the plat for the following reasons:

  1. The plat violates Appendix B Section 1.8.1 of the Boone County, Missouri Land Use Regulations Chapter 1 Subdivision Regulations by proposing a tier lot on previously platted ground.
  2. The plat violates section 1.5.7 of the Boone County, Missouri Land Use Regulations Chapter 1 Subdivision Regulations by containing a private road that has not been authorized under nor is in compliance with the regulations.
  3. The plat violates section 1.6.3 of the Boone County, Missouri Land Use Regulations Chapter 1 Subdivision Regulations by proposing the use of a common private drive to access lots in a plat which contains a lot of less than 5 acres.
  4. The ownership of a portion of the proposed plat is in question which calls the dedication and owners certification into question as section 3.4 of the Boone County, Missouri Land Use Regulations Chapter 1 Subdivision Regulations require certification that the owner has given consent to the subdivision.
  5. Improvement information, specifically the easements relating to the constructed private road, pertinent to the proposed subdivision are not shown and are missing on the plat as required in section 3.4 of the Boone County, Missouri Land Use Regulations Chapter 1 Subdivision Regulations.
  6. Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Staff why this plat was brought before them with this many problems? Too much time will be spent on it and there are too many other plats to be addressed. Commissioner Abart agreed.

    Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded motion to deny Paradise Hills Estates S33-T48N-R13W. A-2. Owners: John and Heidi Miles and Russell and Laura Devenney. Surveyor: Timothy D. Capehart.

    Frank Abart Yes Darin Fugit Yes

    Michael Caruthers Yes Jim Green Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

    Motion to deny plat due to multiple violations contained in the staff report carried. 6 Yes 0 No

    ****

  7. Cornell’s Friendly Acres Block 2. S11-T47N-R13W. A-R. Owners: James and Delores Cornell. Surveyor: Timothy J. Reed.
  8. Bill Florea gave the following staff report - The property is located south of Route K on the east side of Hill Creek Road. The purpose of this subdivision is to consolidate two lots into one building lot. The County Commission approved a request to vacate and replat the underlying lots March 28, 2000. Approval of this plat will finalize the vacation process.

    The lot will have frontage on and access to Hill Creek Road. Additional right of way, sufficient to provide a 33’ half-width right of way will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

    Water service will be provided by Consolidated Public Water District Number 1.

    The property is served by a privately owned central sewer system. The recorded restrictive covenants prohibit the installation and use of individual wastewater systems.

     

    The property scored 73 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

    Tim J Reed, surveyor, represented the plat and made no further comments.

    Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve Cornell’s Friendly Acres Block 2. S11-T47N-R13W. A-R. with waiver request. Owners: James and Delores Cornell. Surveyor: Timothy J. Reed.

    Pat Smith Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Frank Abart Yes

    Motion to approve plat with waiver request carried. 6 Yes 0 No

    ****

  9. Fern Gully. S23-T50N-R14W. A-2. Owners: John and Charma Farris and Kevin and Donna Steward. Surveyor: Donald E. Bormann.
  10. Bill Florea gave the staff report that the property is located on the north side of Hwy. 124, just east of the intersection with Route E. The purpose of the subdivision is to consolidate and reconfigure 4 existing survey tracts into two lots. There are currently two homes, two lagoons and two outbuildings on the property.

    Both lots will have frontage on and direct access to Hwy 124. Three feet of additional right of way for 124 will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

    The property is in the Water District Number 10-service area.

    There are two existing lagoons serving the existing homes on the property. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

    The property scored 67 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

    Don Bormann, surveyor, represented the plat.

    Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve Fern Gully. S23-T50N-R14W. A-2, with waiver requests. Owners: John and Charma Farris and Kevin and Donna Steward. Surveyor: Donald E. Bormann.

     

     

    Darin Fugit Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    Pat Smith Yes Jim Green Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Frank Abart Yes

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carried. 6 Yes 0 No

    ****

  11. Hendren Estates. S3T50N-R13W. A-2. Owners: Barry and Linda Nichols. Surveyor: Donald E. Bormann.
  12. Thad Yonke gave staff report that this 1 lot minor plat is located off a proposed private easement on the east side of Oak Grove School Road approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection of Blakemore Road and Oak Grove School Road. The site is approximately 5 miles east of the municipal limits of Harrisburg. The area being subdivided contains 5.00 acres out of a parent parcel of approximately 75 acres. This property is zoned A-2 (Agricultural) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The site is in the Harrisburg School District and the Boone County Fire Protection District. The site is in Public Service Water District 10 service area. Sewage treatment is proposed to be on-site. An appropriate plan has been provided and is in the file. Therefore, the developer has requested a waiver of the requirement for traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for sewage treatment. Staff concurs with this request. The private easement to access this lot is allowed as all lots contained within the plat are 5 acres or larger. This plat has 15 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.

    Don Bormann, surveyor, represented the plat. He stated that this tract is currently served by all the land behind here. There is an opening on the north end where the owner still has access and he has a 30-foot access on the south side of the tract in front of it. With this plat they are vacating that 30 foot access in exchange for a 30’ access on his north side to get closer access. Mr Bormann received the paperwork this week on that but they have not been signed yet.

    Thad Yonke stated the blanks for those easements are provided on there and they will have to be filled and recorded prior to County Commission, but since the property is accessible by private easement it does not cause an issue.

    Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to approve Hendren Estates. S3T50N-R13W. A-2., with waiver requests. Owners: Barry and Linda Nichols. Surveyor: Donald E. Bormann.

    Pat Smith Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    Frank Abart Yes Jim Green Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Darin Fugit Yes

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carried. 6 Yes 0 No

    ****

  13. The Woodlands Plat 5 (preliminary plat). S27-T48N-R12W. A-R. Owners: Rhodes-Payne Properties, Inc. Surveyor: Ronald G. Lueck.

Bill Florea gave staff report that the property is adjacent to and east of the existing Woodlands subdivision, north of New Haven Road and west of Rolling Hills Road. The area within the proposed subdivision is approximately 124 acres. There are two existing wastewater lagoons on the property. Both serve single family residences located off the property.

Access to the property is from Turkey Trail Drive to the west and New Haven Road to the south. A traffic study submitted by the developer assigns roadway classifications within the proposed subdivision. It does not assess the impact of additional traffic to existing county roads as required by Boone County Subdivision Regulations Appendix B.2.1. However, it does indicate that 395 average daily trips will be added to Turkey Trail at the western boundary of the subdivision. This additional traffic will continue to New Haven Road via Winding Trail Drive. The addition of 395 ADT to Winding Trail will necessitate improvements to Winding Trail Drive to at least a "Local-Major" road standard but, lacking data regarding the existing traffic on Winding Trail, the actual standard of improvement cannot be definitively identified. The proposal is not in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations Section 1.7.5 and Appendix B.2.1 that requires streets in an existing subdivision to be brought into conformance with current standards when they are impacted by a new subdivision.

The property has fifty feet of frontage on Cottage Lane at the eastern edge of the subdivision. The subdivision has been designed with no connection to Cottage Lane. Subdivision Regulations Appendix B.2.2 requires the arrangement of rights of way in a subdivision to provide for continuation of existing streets or rights of way in adjoining areas. The Commission may waive this requirement if deemed undesirable for reasons of topography or design. The topography is suitable to such a connection as demonstrated by a previous design that included a connection to Cottage Lane. The lack of connection to Cottage Lane has resulted in the creation of a cul-de-sac length for Rabbit Run that exceeds the maximum allowable length. Therefore, it is concluded that the current design is less desirable than a design that provides a through connection to Cottage Lane. The applicant has not submitted any information in support of a waiver of this requirement.

As previously noted, Rabbit Run, a cul-de-sac, is approximately 1500 feet in length. The cul-de-sac length is measured from the center of the cul-de-sac bulb to the right of way line of the nearest through street from which it derives (Subdivision Regulations Appendix B.2.6). Right of way stubs to adjacent properties do not count as a through street until such time as the stub street is connected to a through street (Subdivision Regulations Appendix B.1.8.2). In this case, the cul-de-sac length is measured to the point at which Rabbit Run connects to Turkey Trail Drive. A cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet in length may be approved by the Commission only for topographic or other unique reasons. There is no topographic reason to support a waiver to this requirement. The applicant has not submitted any information in support of a waiver to this requirement. However, any proposed justification for a waiver must be balanced against the public interest in creation of a through street network which helps to disperse local traffic and facilitates access to the subdivision by emergency and other services.

Lots 146-149 are designed to access directly to New Haven Road, which is designated as an arterial on the Major Thoroughfare Plan. The Commission may require mitigation of the impact caused by direct access to an arterial street by requiring alternate design. The developer has made no proposal regarding this issue.

Lot 125 does not have direct access to a public road. Although Cottage Lane is a public right of way, the road is not maintained to Lot 125. In order to be considered a public road, the road must be permanently controlled and maintained by a public agency (Subdivision Regulations 1.4.27). County maintenance of Cottage Lane ends at the end of the existing pavement which falls short of proposed Lot 125 by approximately 200 feet.

The property is within the Water District 9 Service area. There is adequate water for both domestic use and fire protection. The Boone County Fire District and Water District 9 will determine the location of fire hydrants.

The developer proposes to install a STEP system, through which septic tank effluent will be pumped to the El Chaparral facility for treatment. Marshall Engineering has submitted to Boone County Regional Sewer District a report regarding the available capacity of the El Chaparral system. The sewer district is reviewing the report and does not have conclusive comments at this time. The district does comment that the operating permit for the El Chaparral system allows treatment for 1,850 users but currently serves 2,000 people. Approval of the Woodlands Plat 5 would add approximately 300 users to the system. It may be possible to revise the operating permit by application to the Department of Natural Resources.

A report issued by the USDA/NRCS suggests that the drainageways, which are vegetated by native timber, be left in their natural condition and that the old-cropped areas be seeded to a good grass cover such as fescue.

The existing lagoons on the property do not appear to meet the setback distance of 75 feet from the proposed lot lines.

The property scored 71 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends the plat be denied because the plat does not meet the Boone County Subdivision Regulations, as follows:

  1. The applicant has not submitted a traffic analysis meeting the requirements of Appendix B.2.1 of the Subdivision Regulations. This has made it impossible to quantify the impacts and potential developer-funded improvements to the existing portion of Turkey Trail Drive and to Winding Trail Drive. Such improvements are necessary due to the addition of 395 average daily trips to those streets from this development.
  2. The plat does not provide for connection of right of way to Cottage Lane, which violates Appendix B.2.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. There are no topographic features, which make such connection undesirable. There are no other design issues that make such a connection undesirable, especially when balanced against the public interest in developing a through street network. And, the lack of a connection to Cottage Lane results in the creation of a cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet.
  3. There is no topographic or other reason to approve a 1500-foot long cul-de-sac.
  4. Lot 125 does not have access to a public road
  5. There is no verification of sewer availability.

John Payne , owner and Ron Lueck,, surveyor represented the plat. John Payne stated he was not seeking a rezoning request. The property is A-R and could go 248 lots if they desired. This has not been their intention. This is the last phase of a 10-12 build-out of 400 acres. They have 68 lots proposed before the Commission tonight. He stated they have had some conflict with Staff on the length of the cul-de-sac on Rabbit Run. Mr Payne’s opinion, and possibly the engineers, you would measure a cul-de-sac length for an intersection. He said Staff tells them that is not the way to define that. They are willing to shorten Rabbit Run to 1000 feet. He presented the Commissioners with a drawing illustration how they would shorten it.

We have met with the Sewer District. In 1992, when they became the 1st step system in Boone County, they had to analyze the lagoon systems at El Chaparral for the Sewer District. They just did another analysis for them of their lagoon system. It is not exactly what Staff says it is. Mr John says he would be happy to provide a copy of the report. They have met with the Sewer District. He said they were fine with their continuation of the step system. Basically when Jim Brush stated this project for Mr Payne, back in 1990 or 1991, all the land was laid out. This is the not the first time the Commissioners have seen this laid out. This phase of this development has probably a dozen property owners on Rolling Hills and New Haven Road. Mr Payne has offered the Sewer District that they will provide easement and try and work in a timely manner to have these people hooked up to the central sewer system, trying to be good neighbors in the area. Mr Payne thinks Staff’s comments on sewer systems are not right and Tom Rattermann can provide the information on that.

As far as the traffic, Mr Payne met with Public Works people at their offices. Met with Dave Piest and two or three of their engineers. There was a concerned with the size of the road inside this plat. Basically, they wanted 66 feet right-of-way in the main road in this section of the plat. That was the reason the traffic study was done. To try to justify 50 foot right-of-way. Mr Payne stated at this point in time they do not have any problems. But if the Commission wants a 66 feet right-of-way through the main part of this plat they do not have a problem with that either. They don’t think it is necessary, but they don’t have any problems giving it.

There is a concern since the other phases of the Woodland are completed. The houses are built and are $200,000.00 to $400,000.00. The utility lines are in the ground and everything is seeded and strawed and belongs to other people. Mr Payne said it is hard for him to go back to the owners of property along Winding Trail and get any more access to widen the road on Winding Trails out to New Haven on the other entrance that does connect to this plat.

The issue on Lot 25 – there is a definition on the plat. This is a preliminary plat and not a final plat. He believes that Lot 25 fronts a public road. It is not maintained the full length. It is dedicated the full length and has been accepted by the County at full length and Mr Payne stated he had verification of that. He said that on a final plat he is sure they can change it where it has access out off one of the other streets.

He addressed the issues on Lots 146 to 149 that front on New Haven Road, by stating there are probably a dozen other properties to the west that front on New Haven Road and that is why it was laid out that way and does not believe it is a necessarily bad thing.

Ron Lueck stated that as far as sewer availability the voting at the Boone County Regional Sewer Board the March 23, 2000 meeting they agreed to allow this variance request for running these lots into the El Chaparral lagoon system. The main concern for the traffic study was not what is proposed in here. As he understood from the Engineer’s meeting with them it was for a interior road classification and from that traffic trip generation it just showed that everything in there was a local minor road standard. Even Cottage Lane would be a local minor.

Bill Florea answered Chairman Kirkpatrick question of the maximum cul-de-sac length by stating that 1000 feet was the maximum length, but also added that Commission has the ability to bury that thought for the criteria noted. The method of measurement is really not a matter of Staff opinion. It is pretty clearly laid out the in the Subdivision Regulations.

Commission Abart commented that there are probably a lot of things here that they probably just flat disagree with and those are things that they need to work out with Staff. Some of the things regarding traffic studies and things are very clearly laid out in Subdivision Regulations as to what they are for and why they are needed and what they are supposed to tell the Commission. Mr Abart doesn’t believe the Commission has varied from that, but it is not uncommon for everybody to take their own side and it is not an exact science in traffic counts. On the other hand if they have sewer information, things like that, that they seem to have in conflict with the information that Staff has with the Sewer District it is just another point in his opinion why the Commission should not even be reviewing the plat. These issues are not worked out. Commissioner Abart asked why the Commission was even discussing these things they do not meet the subdivision regulations. It can not be voted on if it does not be regulations.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that all issues should be ironed out before they are presented to the Commission. That is the whole purpose of the planning process with the Staff.

Mr Payne stated he had a problem and wanted to have the time to talk about it. Chairman Kirkpatrick told him to go ahead. Mr Payne stated that a couple of years ago in came before the Commission with 100 acres out at Trails West. He asked for a replatting of a couple lots that he owned in Trails West to get me into a County Road which if it had to be done today, as is shown here today in this plat Subdivision Regulations require him to stub out to adjoining property owners. He was turned down by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commission. So this time he came in here and he believes that Mr Abart is the major cause here, his opinion is a major opinion, (and Mr Payne stated that he was not running Mr Abart down), but he wants a connection to Cottage Lane and they expect Mr Payne to upgrade it at his expense. It is a County Road. There probably won’t be that many people go out on it and he doesn’t know how or what it is going to cost to upgrade it. There are 8 houses out there now own it and a lot of them have concrete driveways coming out on that road that they resurfaced last year. From his standpoint it is an unknown. A large unknown and one that he does not really think he can really do. Stan went to, Mr Abart of his department and asked to see if we could get a figure on it or a cost share. Mr Payne said there is no way he could say he improve Cottage without knowing what it is going to cost. He would rather do something else with the land. That something else is not what the Commission would want to see. He could come in with a 248-lot request. He stated he does want to do that, he has a nice development out there. This is the last phase of a 10-12 year deal. It is not like it is a brand new development. The Subdivision Regulations changed in 1995 and that is where we are running into problems.

Commissioner Abart explained to Mr Payne that he is not making him put in the stub. It is a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations. As far as the impact to the roadway that is difficult to do that until you have a traffic study to let you know what the impact will be before you can determine what level of improve needs to be made. Mr Abart stated they made a preliminary estimate on their own and made a proposal about so what would be consider extremely minor improvements, widening at the shoulders and things like that. There was another engineer that was with you at the time who flat out said ‘No. Just not even going to consider that.’ Mr Abart thought they were trying to move things forward and provide minimal improvements. Seems like it was 2 feet added to each side of the existing pavement poured out and maybe a 2-inch overlay over the whole thing. Mr Abart said he doesn’t know that they are going to do that now, because he doesn’t know what the traffic impact will be. That was something he offered to move the plat along two months ago. So he is not willing to commit to that until he knows what the traffic impact will be.

If Cottage is not used then there would be no impact, but if Cottage is used there would be an impact. Subdivision Regulations require it come out on Cottage. So there are a lot of problems that need to be worked out on this plat.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to deny The Woodlands Plat 5 (preliminary plat). S27-T48N-R12W. A-R. Owners: Rhodes-Payne Properties, Inc. Surveyor: Ronald G. Lueck.

Frank Abart Yes Jim Green Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Pat Smith Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Motion to deny the plat for reasons as outlined by Staff carried. 6 Yes 0 No

****

  1. Nichols Hollar. S5-T45-R12W. A-2. Owner: Gary D. Nichols. Surveyor: Curtis E. Basinger.
  2. Bill Florea gave staff report that the property is located on the north side of Route A, approximately one mile north of Hartsburg. There are no existing structures or lagoons on the property.

    All three lots will have frontage on and access to Route A. An additional 3 feet of right of way will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

    The property is in the Consolidated Water District Number 1 service area. There is a 4-inch waterline along the state right of way that can be tapped for residential service.

    On-site wastewater systems will be used to dispose of wastewater. A plan is on file showing a suitable area for a septic system on each lot and a soil report indicating that the soil is suitable for a septic system. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost benefit analysis.

    The property scored 68 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

    Curtis E Basinger, Surveyor, represented plat without comments.

     

    Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve Nichols Hollar. S5-T45-R12W. A-2. Owner: Gary D. Nichols. Surveyor: Curtis E. Basinger.

    Jim Green Yes Darin Fugit Yes

    Pat Smith Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Frank Abart Yes

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carried. 6 Yes 0 No

    ****

  3. Oberlin Valley Plat 5 (preliminary plat). S33-T49N-R13W. R-S. Owner: DDM Investments, Inc. Surveyor: Curtis E. Basinger.

Thad Yonke gave the Staff report that this proposed 70 lot subdivision is located south and somewhat west of Oberlin Valley Plat 3.The proposed plat is located approximately 300 feet to the west and approximately 1000 feet south of the intersection of Obermiller Road and Creasy Springs Road. This preliminary plat contains a phase of the major plat of Oberlin Valley and represents a portion of the overall development. The area contained within the proposed plat contains approximately 39.7 acres. This property is zoned R-S (Residential Single Family) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. Water service to the existing portions of Oberlin Valley is provided by Consolidated Public Water District No. 1. There is a 6-inch line on the West Side of Oberlin Valley Drive. However, we have been notified by both the City of Columbia and the Water District that this current proposal is within an area to be served by the City of Columbia and that extensions of city watermains will be required. Sewage for this subdivision is proposed to be handled by a BCRSD central system located on lot 7 of Oberlin Valley Plat 3. However, there is not currently enough capacity to serve the proposed development and improvements to the system will be required to accommodate this proposal. Access to this entire proposed plat comes from a single extension of Oberlin Valley Drive. Oberlin Valley Drive is already in excess of the 1000’ limit for a cul-de-sac roads. The single access point crosses a regulated 100-year floodplain and floodway. This provision does call the proposed subdivision road network design into question with respect to the prohibition in the subdivision regulations to creating roads subject to frequent flooding, Appendix B section 2.4. The proposed subdivision indicates by note that the road will be elevated above base flood elevation, but this issue is still one that should be weighed into any approval especially as this is the only way proposed to get in or out for all 70 of the proposed lots. This issue raises questions as to whether the proposed design is appropriate when balanced against the public interest of multiple access and through road networks. The single access point means that the entire road network proposed within this preliminary plat become cul-de-sacs that are significantly in excess of the 1000’ maximum allowed length (Subdivision Regulations Appendix B 2.6). A cul-de-sac in excess of 1000 feet in length may be approved by the Commission only for topographic or other unique reasons. There is no topographic reason to support a waiver to this requirement. The applicant has not submitted any information in support of a waiver to this requirement. However, any proposed justification for a waiver must be balanced against the public interest in creation of a through street network which helps disperse local traffic and facilitates access to the subdivision by emergency and other services. Even if the single access point did not make all the road lengths excessive the road labeled "Street B" is in and of itself over the 1000-foot length. The 1st road proposed to come off the extension of Oberlin Valley Drive will make Oberlin Valley Drive violates the maximum Block length of 1320 feet (Subdivision Regulations Appendix B section 1.3). No traffic information for the development has been provided but since there is a single connection point to the existing plat the ADT (Average Daily Trips) for the subdivision can be approximated. This results in 639 ADT at the point of connection from this proposal to the existing portion of Oberlin Valley Drive. This is over 200 greater than the 400 that will trigger required improvements to the existing road including additional ROW. This will require vacating and replatting of portions of the existing road frontage lots. Many of these lots are still owned by the same developer. Additionally, this brings attention to the issue that proposed ROW within the proposed plat is inadequate and as no traffic information has been provided to justify the design. The design is in violation of the provisions of the regulations for provision of proper ROW for proposed streets. The lot sizes when coupled with the anticipated road classifications will make it difficult if not impossible to meet required driveway spacings. Fire hydrants and sidewalks will be required in this development. This plat has 67 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends that the plat be denied for the following reasons:

  1. The applicant has not submitted a traffic analysis meeting the requirements of Appendix B.2.1 of the of the Subdivision Regulations. This has made it impossible to quantify the impacts and developer-funded improvements to the existing portion of Oberlin Valley Drive and to assess the required ROW for the streets proposed within the plat.
  2. There is no topographic or other reason to approve the designed road network within the plat which makes all roads proposed cul-de-sacs significantly over the 1000 feet maximum. The public interest in having a through road network which helps disperse local traffic and facilitates access to the subdivision by emergency and other services is significant especially in light of there being no justification submitted for the excessive lengths.
  3. The road design of the plat creates block lengths that violate the requirements of Appendix B. 1.3 of the of the Subdivision Regulations.
  4. The lot sizes when coupled with the anticipated road classifications will make it difficult if not impossible to meet required driveway spacings.

Curtis E Basinger, Surveyor, represented the plat. Did not expect the plat to be approved at this meeting, but needed to explain some of the problems they are running into with conflicting information. Basically this is an on going plat. There was a small plat started prior to 1994 that created a few lots up along Obermiller Rd and created that Overland Valley Dr down where that exists today. He clients came along and bought the remainder of the property and they did a plat that really was what is shown now, Lots 11-20. At the time most of Lots 11-20 are in the flood plain. They required filling to make them buildable. The magnitude of filling this was going to be something that was really cost prohibitive and the second problem there was not adequate water available to the subdivision. County Water District said that if they build a waterline from Roemer Road up to our line then we would have adequate water to the subdivision. That was approximately ˝ mile line. Again it was very cost prohibitive for the owners. The County came along and decided to rebuild Obermiller Road. They had lots of extra fill which they needed to get rid of, which went to these lots, which helped the owners. Also the Water District then had to relocate their line so they built the line to serve the subdivision. They have water and a new road. The lots were being filled and proceeding with the development getting the lots up to power. Homes were being built and lots were being sold. Everyone knew when the subdivision was first started that the rest of the hill would be developed. At a concept review they discovered that the City and County had made a territorial agreement and used the creek as their boundary line. That is when the owners were told they would have to bring water from the City and that was approximately ˝ mile away. The Water District verbally told the owners that they could work with the City and they could service this area over here. Then the Water District told them they could service them except they didn’t have adequate water. If it was adequate for one area how can it not be adequate for the other when it was built by the Water District. It seems like a catch 22 thing on the water. Mr Basinger at that time told his client to hold the preliminary plat, because they needed to get their water straightened out. His clients wanted to take the plat on through so they could see what kind of problems they had. The plat was submitted. The big thing now is the County says Overland Valley Dr needs to be a collector street and that more right-of-way must be acquired.

Mr Basinger came before the Commission for two things: 1) To get on record what the problems are so they can see if they can solve them. 2) Some of the comments on the Staff report they might discuss.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded motion to deny Oberlin Valley Plat 5 (preliminary plat). S33-T49N-R13W. R-S., with Staff comments. Owner: DDM Investments, Inc. Surveyor: Curtis E. Basinger.

Frank Abart Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes Jim Green Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

Motion to deny the plat carried. 6 Yes 0 No

****

  1. Rolling Oaks Plat 2. S19-T50N-R13W. A-2. Owner: David & Mary Ann Rausch. Surveyor: Michael L. Klasing.

Bill Florea gave Staff report that the property is located north and south of Alspaw Road, immediately east of Route E. The proposal is to create a 12 lot residential subdivision with lots ranging in size from 2.5 acres to nearly eight acres.

All lots will have access to Alspaw Road except Lot 10, which only has frontage on Route E. Lot 9 has frontage on both Route E and Alspaw Road. The preliminary plat was approved with one condition, that direct access from Lot 9 to Route E be prohibited. Placing a note on the final plat can enforce this condition. Right of way for Alspaw Road, sufficient to meet the standard for a collector road, will be dedicated by this plat.

The property is in Consolidated Water District Number 1. There is an existing six-inch line running along Alspaw Road that has adequate capacity to provide domestic service and fire flow. The developer will be responsible for the installation of fire hydrants at intervals not exceeding 500 feet prior to recording this plat.

In accordance with the preliminary plat approval, on-site wastewater systems will be used for wastewater disposal. A plan showing an appropriate location for a lagoon on each lot is on file.

The property scored 46 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval with the following condition.

No one was present to represent this plat.

 

 

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve Rolling Oaks Plat 2. S19-T50N-R13W. A-2., with Staff recommendations. Owner: David & Mary Ann Rausch. Surveyor: Michael L. Klasing.

Frank Abart Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

Motion to approve plat with Staff recommendations carried. 6 Yes

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded motion to re-approve Sickman Subdivision S19-T50N-R13W. A-2.. Owner: David & Mary Ann Rausch. Surveyor: Michael L. Klasing.

Frank Abart Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

Motion to re-approve plat with Staff recommendations carried. 6 Yes 0 No

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

The Commission directed Staff to research whether it was possible to reject plats that don’t comply with regulation without bringing them before the full Commission.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion for Staff to research whether it was possible to reject plats that don’t comply with regulation without bringing them before the full Commission.

Frank Abart Yes Pat Smith Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Jim Green Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Motion was carried. 6 Yes 0 No

ADJOURN

Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

__________________________

Jim Green, Acting-Secretary

Minutes approved on this 18th, day of May, 2000.