BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, July 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

James Green, Acting-Secretary Cedar Township

Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

David Piest Public Works

Pat Smith Perche Township

Absent: Mary Sloan Rocky Fork Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Ora Ramsey, Staff

 

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve the minutes of June 15, 2000 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

OLD BUSINESS

    1. Windy Point Development – CUP, Review Plan and Preliminary Plat was tabled 6/15/00). Chairman Kirkpatrick reminded the audience that the public hearing has been closed to discussion for both the applicant and the opposition. The Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the matter among themselves and hopefully come to a decision soon.
    2. Chairman Kirkpatrick reminded the audience that the Public Hearing was closed to discussion by the applicant and the opposition. The Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss the matter among themselves to hopefully arrive at a decision. Mr Kirkpatrick invited discussion.

      Commissioner Green began by commenting on the pairing studies or comparisons that Jack Blaylock had made and presented to the Commission on June 15, 2000. Commissioner Green stated that it is good to do the comparisons with as closely equal floor space, amenities and all for comparing the prices that the homes sold at. However, Mr Blaylock perhaps made light of the Louisiana Study, which had something like 3,000 different homes involved and since in the paired studies the homes were not sold to the same person another variable must be recognized. With that many variables in a small number and to come to the conclusion that there was no significant difference is a pretty far reach. Only by great numbers which will get rid of those variable, or even them out, can you come to any statistical significance in such comparisons. Commissioner Green stated he disagreed with Mr Blaylock’s comparison study.

      Commissioner Smith stated she has been going through all the documents and paying lots of attention to this issue and looking on her own for some research. As Commissioner Smith goes down the list of 7-CUP tests, the very first one stands out to her. This one states: The establishment, maintenance or operation of a Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.

      Commissioner Smith said she was a little concerned at the high density of the mobile home units. When this project first was presented to the Commissioners there were fewer mobile homes and there was more green space. Now, if you look at the mobile homes and look at what is undoubtedly going to be high density – a lot of people living there with a lot of children. The Commissioner stated it is very hard for her to get past the fact that there is going to be nothing for them to do. There will not be yards for them because the homes are going to be very close. There will not be the green space. She believes that has to do with public health, safety, comfort and general welfare. She asked if anyone else had concerns about that or thought about it. That same issue is closely related with all necessary facilities will be available to, including but not limited to. Commissioner Smith stated that the utilities, roads, access and drainage are all very well, but does not believe much thought has been given to personal capital that will be in there and how there will not be anything for them to do. She completed by saying those were to two general concerns.

      Commissioner Piest stated the first item he reviewed were the letters from the people who objected to the development. He stated it was pretty easy to get the consensus there. The second item he reviewed left him with a sense of a lower grade time-share (used the term loosely) proposal. It reminded him of a time-share proposal. Commissioner Piest stated time-shares are not really too great. He was not able to move past the voting numbers, the 1,000 potential votes. Mr Piest asked Mr Burnam if the request was all approved and granted, within the first 10 years, how many of the 1,000 potential voting rights did he truthfully and realistically see materializing, other than in the control of the developer/applicant.

      Mr Burnam responded that given the amount of infrastructure requirements that are going to be invested in the place he hopes it will be a successfully marketed property. The ultimate number of how many people are living in the development is the determination of how successful it will be. He stated he fully believes that at the end of 5 years that he will no longer have an active involvement in the operations of the Association. All the projections reflect the same. Based on the average home sells in Boone County and with 132 new single family homes to sell, approximately 25-26 homes will sell per year. He anticipates being out of the active involvement with the Association operations within 4 to 6 years. The voting rights and restrictions were set up the way they have been because the applicant is concerned about governance and would rather engineer for the worst case disaster. Rather than have to go back and fix it.

      Commissioner Piest asked Mr Burnam how many people, who have current ownership in Bon Gor Estates, would take advantage of the offers that are being proposed to them to join the Association.

      Mr Burnam stated he really could not say. He said there was a financial commitment involved in terms of annual dues, but there are benefits that derive from it, including expanded use of the lake and the common areas. It is hard to say. Maybe 100%, maybe 50%, maybe 0% will take advantage of the offer.

      Commissioner Piest said that the applicant could probably be assured there would be at least 36 because of what is in holdings. Mr Burnam said that according to the study that he did and the lot numbers that were resisted almost very single unit that is owned by Cris Burnam and/or his relatives would be included in the granting of voting rights.

      Mr Burnam stated that was not true. He said he would be happy to go through the proposed covenant. He asked Craig Van Matre to comment on the voting rights.

      Commissioner Piest said he was talking about rental units, apartment units that are included as he read through the covenant.

      Mr Burnam said the way he read it there should be 66 single-family lots in the Bon Gor Subdivision. Those are the 66 lots that they are giving the voting rights to. On top of that they have numerous units, about 110-apartment units altogether, those were not designed to be part of this association, because it was not fair to give myself disproportionate voting power.

      Commissioner Piest said his research is based on the information that is available at the Assessor’s Office. He could only go by what the Assessor’s records reflected because it is lists B-SIB LLC as ownership on many of the units, particularly the apartment units as well as some of the single-family units.

      Craig Van Matre stated that the covenants only give votes in previous Bon Gor Subdivision to the single-family lots. Cris Burnam stated that he does not own any single-family structures in the Bon Gor Subdivision. They only have duplexes and four-plexes. He stated he looked at a tax map this afternoon and it was very easy to look at a rooftop and wonder if it were a single-family.

      Commissioner Piest stated he was caught between two opinions after reading the part of the covenant; which stated any amendments or changes to the covenant would require the consent of the Boone County Commission. His first thought it wasn’t a bad idea, because any changes would be controlled by the Boone County Commission. Then he began to wonder if this is really what our Boone County Commission is for? Is this really what is wanted? Should the Boone County Commission spend their time settling potential disputes between factions in private enterprises. Mr Piest stated that once he began to ask himself those questions he knew that that is not what the Boone County Commission was established for. He stated he could not support the proposal given this fact and in addition to the things he mentioned earlier. Of the 7 conditions the first one has been addressed. The immediate vicinity for purposes permitted regulations CUP will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties. He really does not believe that this statement is true with the proposal as presented. Diminish or impair property value. Mr Piest said that he would have to go along with the Louisiana study on that item. He said there are half a dozen comparitors locally as opposed to many, many, many, many times that. With some of the commitments that have been made (items 4 and 6) could possible be addressed and if they were to be ruled on for or against those might go in the developer’s favor. Commissioner Piest said as far as impeding the normal and orderly development of improvements surrounding properties he believes the mobile home aspect of it is a detriment to that, which cause him to basically be in opposition to the proposal.

      Commissioner Fugit said he agrees with the other Commissioners. He also questioned whether it was appropriate land use and does it meet all the tests of the CUP? Commissioner Fugit was concerned that similar types of development may occur in this area or in other areas of the County. He stated that he would not like to see this type of development in front of or behind his house.

      Commissioner Smith stated that she personally thinks that livable mobile home parks are needed. However, she does not think this is one of them. She does not want to be labelled an elitist, because she does not want people to be able to afford their first homes. However, her beliefs are that many people also have their first, second and third children in their first homes; and if the home is not an appropriate place for them to grow up and live, then it is not a healthy environment for them or for anyone else around them.

      She does not want to go on the record as being against mobile homes or mobile home parks. Commissioner Smith stated that she really does see that there is a need for them in the County and in the Community. She continued by saying that a community is made whenever people are put together. However, in this case the social infrastructure is not there. The mobile home community will not succeed without it the way it is set up. She said it is not so much whether to live next door to mobile homes or park, but whether anyone should live in them when there is no place for them to live socially.

      Commissioner Fugit clarified that he was talking about a large park. He stated that he was not against anyone buying and placing a modular home or a double wide on 5 or 10 acres that they have bought. He just is not in favor of large parks with high density.

      Commissioner Smith stated she would rather see mobile homes in a planned community than to have them on 2.5 acres throughout Boone County, but she does not think that this is particularly the planned community because all elements of a community are not present in this proposal.

      Commissioner Piest addressed the issue of mobile homes. He shared the realization that if single-family residential was used in the area a denser plan could evolve. If that were the case he still believes that single-family residential is the appropriate way to go as opposed to additional mobile homes.

      Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded motion to deny the request by B-SIB, LLC for a permit for a conditional use permit for a mobile home park on 28.62 acres in the proposed development known as Windy Point located at Highway VV and Mauller Road, Columbia.

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes because it does not pass the CUP test #’s 1,2,3,5 & 6

      Darin Fugit Yes because it does not pass the CUP test #’s 1,2,5 & 6

      Michael Caruthers Yes because it does not pass the CUP test #’s 1,2,3,5 & 6

      Pat Smith Yes because it does not pass the CUP test #’s 1,5 & 2,3

      Mike Morgan Yes because it does not pass the CUP test #’s 2 & 3

      David Piest Yes because it does not pass the CUP test #’s 1,2,3 & 5

      Jim Green Yes because it does not pass the CUP test # 3

      The motion to deny the request was unanimous. 7 Yes 0 No

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to deny the request by B-SIB, LLC for a review plan and preliminary plat for a Planned Residential Development being that the conditional use permit was denied.

      The motion to deny the requests was approved by acclamation.

      * * * * *

    3. Request by Jeff Crane on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit
    4. to allow a 190’ tower on 28.9 acres located at 651 Rangeline Rd., Columbia.

      Thad Yonke gave the following staff report - This property is located approximately 3 miles east of Columbia at the intersection of I-70 and Rangeline Rd. This site is zoned M-L (Light Industrial), as is the adjoining land. The request is to allow a structure taller than 100’ to be placed on this site, as required by Section 9. B (2) of the zoning regulations. The structure is a 190’ tower used as part of a transmission facility, which is otherwise a permitted use in the M-L district. This site is within the Columbia School District, and electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is not a requirement for this land use. The original zoning for this site is M-L, however, it was rezoned in 1981 to REC (Recreation), and then rezoned back to M-L in 1993. In 1998, a permit was issued for a 180’ tower on an adjoining site. Staff notified 26 property owners about this request. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for industrial uses. The proposed use is consistent with the master plan. Staff review of the application has not shown any conflicts with the 7 tests that conditional use permits are required to meet. Staff recommends approval.

      Ken Jacob, Attorney, 1001 E Walnut, #201, Columbia and Todd Streiler, Project Manager and Joe Luwellen, Site Acquistion person – both of Voicestream.

      The application is somewhat different than most of the applications, because it is a permitted use. They usually are before the Commission trying to comply with the transmission facility conditional use permit. The CUP is needed because of the use of the tower.

      The location is 1855 Rangeline. It is zoned M-L zoning, which is a permitted use. The map will give some idea of where it is located. The reason for the request is shown on the propigation map. The color on the map represents the coverage by existing towers. The white represents the lack or seam in the service. Anyone who uses their car phone in the seam may lose their call or have a weak signal.

      There is an existing tower that belongs to AT&T. If antennas could be placed on that tower it would improve the situation. However, that AT&T tower does not have the structural capacity to carry Voicestream antennas on it. There is a water tower that is located just south of the site. It does not provide the objective coverage that is needed. It is also outside the search area. Southwestern Bell has an existing monopole tower at the location that is only 110 feet. That tower would allow space at the 90-foot level, which would not rectify the problem either. There would still be a gap in service. The tower is too short and fully loaded anyway.

      The proposed tower is a 190-foot monopole. Drawings of the antenna and their placements were submitted. If the new tower is built it will provide for at least 2 other carriers at 165 and 175 foot level. The tower will allow for three arrays of 6 antennas. No lighting will be required because the tower is under 200 feet. The color will be galvanized. Typical equipment box for cellular towers will be used.

      For security there will be a 6-foot chained fence with 3-feet of barbed wire. The gate will be locked with an alarm system.

      The FFA ‘No Hazard’ has been filed. The notice has not been received back from FFA yet. Mr Jacob asked the Commission to respond positively towards his request and that it be contingent upon his receipt of the ‘No Hazard’ before the County Commission votes on it. Mr Jacob is confident that there is no hazard in the proposed project and that they will receive their notice from the FFA. They are licensed by the FCC to provide services in the area. There is no health or safety issues related to this cellular tower. It will serve the general public by driving cost for service down. By having a number of providers in the area the prices for cellular telephone use (hand and car) will go down and the quality of services will go up. It is a permitted use and will not change the nature of the area because there is an existing tower in the area. According to prior appraisals that were done by Craig Van Matre and other appraislers from around the country, towers have not caused a diminishment in the value of property. Mr Jacob shared that a lot of new homes have been built near his house since a tower was erected there. There will be very little traffic coming in the sight – maybe once or twice a month. There is parking for two cars. Voicestream would have their power and separate phone line. As far the development in the future around the area – they believe because there is already a tower there it will not change the nature of the property.

      Open to public hearing.

      Those in favor of the request.

      Those in opposition of the request.

      Closed to public hearing.

      Commissioner Fugit asked why the applicant had not already obtained the ‘No Hazard" permit.

      Mr Jacob replied that the response time of receiving the permits is not as quick as it used to be. Due to the increased number of towers being developed, the number of ‘No Hazard’ applications have also increased. The FFA processes them on a first received first returned basis. There is no way to control the timing of it. There are at least 6 companies developing networks in the area and they are working well together. There is room for two other locations on this tower.

      Commissioner Piest asked if the permit issued in 1988 was for the existing tower that is presently on the site? He was told yes. Even though it is a simular type structure and type of usage it needs it’s own permit because both towers are over 100 feet in height. The existing was 110 feet.

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick said it looks like a good site for the use. It is well positioned along the I-70 corridor. There is already an existing tower there. He does not see a problem with the application.

      Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to approve the request by Jeff Crane on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit to allow a 190’ tower on 28.9 acres located at 651 Rangeline Rd., Columbia with the condition that the FAA approval be received by the applicant prior to County Commission’s hearing on August 1, 2000.

      Pat Smith Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

      Mike Morgan Yes Jim Green Yes

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes David Piest Yes

      Darin Fugit Yes

      Motion to approve with condition was unanimously carried. 7 Yes 0 No

       

      * * * * *

    5. Request by Ronald and Sharon Basinger on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 120’ tower on 15 acres located at 6157 E Forsee Rd., Ashland.
    6. Bill Florea gave the following staff report that this property is located south of the city of Ashland at the intersection of Forsee Road and Highway 63. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). Land to the south is zoned A-R (Agriculture Residential), land to the east is zoned A-2. The area to the north and west are within the Ashland City limits. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a transmission facility that will include a 120’ tower. The original zoning for this tract is A-2. In 1991, 3.67 acres of the original parcel were rezoned to A-R and a conditional use permit was issued for a day-care center, which is still in operation. In 1999, a permit was issued to allow an outdoor recreation facility. This site is within the Southern Boone R-1 School District, and electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is not a requirement for this land use. Staff notified 18 property owners about this request. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. The proposed use is not consistent with the master plan. Additionally, comments have been received from the airport manager of Columbia Regional Airport, and Ozark Airlines expressing opposition to the proposed tower. Based on this information and review of the application, staff believes that this application can not satisfy conditional use permit test (a) "the establishment, maintenance or operation of a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare." Staff believes that approval of this request could endanger the public safety, and so recommends denial of the request.

      Ken Jacob, Attorney, 1001 E Walnut, #201, Columbia and Todd Streiler, Project Manager and Joe Luwellen, Site Acquistion person – both of Voicestream.

      This particular site raises interesting issues. The FAA does not require notification at this particular site because they determine that it is no hazard. However that the FAA is some regional office in Kansas City, and they do not live here and deal with the issues that have to be dealt with locally.

      At this time the applicant asked the Commission to table the application. The applicant would like to meet with Ozark Airlines and the Board of the Airport and show them their search area and see if they can’t find a sight that would not pose any danger to the community or anybody else.

      Commissioner Fugit asked if the request was tabled and moved somewhere else if it would require a different application. Commissioner Kirkpatrick said it would be a different application.

      The applicant said they might withdraw it but wanted to have the opportunity to sit down and talk to the other people in the Company who are not here tonight.

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick suggested the applicant talk to the neighbors. Ken Jacob said that the City of Ashland has a representative present also and they will want to meet them too. There is a need to develop a tower in this area. Not just for this company, but for other ones. The trip back and forth to Jefferson City proves coverage is not great in that area. The airport is there and needs to be taken into mind.

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to table the request, until the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, by Ronald and Sharon Basinger on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 120’ tower on 15 acres located at 6157 E Forsee Rd., Ashland.

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

      Darin Fugit Yes Mike Morgan Yes

      Michael Caruthers Yes David Piest Yes

      Jim Green Yes

      Motion to table the request was unanimously carried. 7 Yes 0 No

      * * * * *

    7. Request by R. Herbert and Mary Scott on behalf of U. S. Cellular for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 180’ tower on 26.57 acres, more or less, located at 10170 N Hwy VV, Columbia.

Bill Florea gave staff report that this property is located approximately 6 miles north of Columbia on State Highway VV. The property is zoned A-2, Agriculture, as is all of the surrounding property. The applicant has requested a permit for a transmission facility that will include a 180’ tower. The original zoning for this site is A-2, and there have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of the property. This site is within the Harrisburg R-8 School District, and electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is not a requirement for this land use. Staff notified 19 property owners about this request. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed use is consistent with the plan. Staff review of the application has not shown any conflicts with 7 tests that conditional use permits are required to meet. Staff recommends approval.

Ken Jacob, Attorney, 1001 E Walnut, #201, Columbia and Patrick Armstrong, Radio Frequency Engineer and Steve Rhinenson, Project Manager.

The location is N Hwy VV with A-2 zoning. As this is not a permitted use but a conditional use – all things they have to go through are under the transmission facility ordinance. The exhibit that will be referred to can be found in the red binders which contain the various visuals.

Exhibit I shows the location of the tower. The site plan is Exhibit G. Exhibit K explains the need for the tower. The green shaded area represents the coverage, the blue shaded area represents the coverage area after the tower is built, and the white represents the gap/seam in coverage. Several of the tower owners were contacted, including the City of Columbia that has a tower by the power plant. Ron Paul, Chief Engineer for the City of Columbia Water and Light Department, did not have the expertise to know whether the water tower could have been used – no does the City of Columbia have anyone would could have made that type of RF determination. The propogation maps speak for themselves. The other tower owners filled in the form, commenting they are too far and would not work. If you can see a tower – you will get good coverage. If you can not see one – you are probably not going to get good coverage. The tower is another monopole which stands at 180 feet as shown in Exhibit I. The co-location capacity there will be room for another co-location at 140 feet and dishes at the 80 and 120 foot level.

The ground equipment is somewhat different than that of Voicestream. Exhibit K identifies the tower equipment. It will have 3 antennas at 180 feet, 2 dishes at 80 and 95 feet, 2 runs of wave guide for the microwave and 3 runs of co-excable for the cellular. The tower will be galvanized, because it is under 200 feet. Cedar trees will be planted around the fencing. Exhibit G details the landscape design. Security on this pole will be an 8 foot fence with 3 layers of barbed wire and a 24 hour alarm system. The FAA ‘No Hazard’ notice under Exhibit L in the FCC under Exhibit M. Mr Jacob stated that there has been no opposition to the tower as far as he knows.

Commissioner Morgan asked about the elevation. He stated that the map in Exhibit K showed Hinton being between Sturgeon and Columbia. He asked if the Hinton elevation is about the same as the Sturgeon elevation. There is approximately a 14-mile distance from Hinton to Sturgeon.

The applicant stated that the ground elevation in Sturgeon was 860 feet. The ground elevation at the Hinton site is 780 feet. The ground elevation in southeast Columbia is 815 feet.

Commissioner Morgan asked if the range from the Columbia tower to the Hinton tower is as effective as the one from Hinton to Sturgeon – as far as coverage is concerned.

The applicant believes it is as effective. The models used from map in the exhibits are all hypothetical. They are just computer models and this is the best that it can be modeled without actually having a site there and taking measurements. The level that is specified on the colored map is the signal level that US Cellular requires for an in car coverage from a hand held phone. So as long as they have that signal all along the highway a person should be able to carry a call all the way from Columbia to the Sturgeon site. So essentially it will be a seamless coverage there.

Commissioner Caruthers noted that it also effects Finger Lakes and asked the applicant if he has talked to DNR?

Mr Jacob stated he has not – the Ordinance requires applicant to contact a certain group of people and that is pretty much who has been contacted. There are environmental assessments that are done.

Open to public hearing.

Those in favor of the request. None.

Those in opposition of the request. None.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked Commissioner Caruthers what his concerns were about Finger Lakes.

Commissioner Caruthers responded that his concerns were possible RF radiation effecting anything in the ecological system there or interferring with radio use or something of that nature. There should not be any problem.

Applicant stated it will not interfer with radio use. They are allocated a certain band width, a certain frequency range to use. In order to retain licensing from FCC they have to operate in that band. They are the only ones who can operate in that band. The problem would occur for others if they were operating in the applicants band.

Mike Morgan Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Pat Smith Yes Jim Green Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes David Piest Yes

Darin Fugit Yes

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve request by R. Herbert and Mary Scott on behalf of U. S. Cellular for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 180’ tower on 26.57 acres, more or less, located at 10170 N Hwy VV, Columbia.

Motion to approve the request was unanimously carried. 7 Yes 0 No

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

    1. Request by Earl and Mariea Caruthers to rezone from A-1
    2. (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 13.78 acres, more or less, located

      at 3901 N Boothe Ln., Columbia.

      Bill Florea gave staff report that this property is located approximately five miles west of Columbia on Boothe Ln. The property is zoned A-1 (Agriculture). Land to the north, south and west is zoned A-1. Land to the east is zoned A-2. There is a modular home and garage on the property. This request is to rezone the property to A-2, which will allow the property to be split into two lots as part of a family transfer. The original zoning for this site is A-1, and there have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of the property. This site is within the Columbia School District, and electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Water District No. 1. Staff notified 11 property owners about this request. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed use is consistent with the plan. Staff recommends approval of this request.

      Commissioner Caruthers abstained from the discussion and the vote on this request due to relationship with applicants.

      Earl Caruthers, 4001 N Locust Grove Church Road. Wants to divide the land so that they can give their daughter the minimum required acreage to get a residential loan.

      Open to public hearing.

      In favor of request. None.

      In opposition of the request. None.

      Closed to public hearing.

      The applicant does not plan to have anything else on the property. Their daughter currently lives there. The home is already there.

      Commissioner Piest pointed out item 4 in the request for revision of zoning map – the size is listed as 13.783 acres. What is the purpose of listing an additional .853 acres. Does that have anything to do with the strip at the bottom or roadway frontage? What is that for.

      Mr Caruthers explained that the strip in the survey actually was not in the original plot that was owned by the University or the other people. They put the fence in 10-15 years ago where it is today. When they surveyed it they found that there was that section of land along there that is kind of no man’s land. It is within the applicant’s fence, but actually the line was that far in.

      Mrs Caruthers stated the fence is where the original fence was that has been there for as long as they have known. This is a piece of land that was her parent’s before they came into possession of part of it. It is split up between Mrs Caruthers and her brother. The original fence was there and when they put the new fence in they put it where the original fence was. That section of land has been part of that land for 30 years – not sure if it is considered theirs or what, but that is the reason it is there.

      Commissioner Piest stated his concern is granting rezoning to a small strip of land that might technically belong to someone else.

      Mr Caruthers explained that part would belong to the University of Missouri and part would be long to Kirby. It might belong to Kirby, the University leases it.

      Stan Shawver said the piece is too small to do anything. However, in cases where there is questionable ownership it would be easier to exclude that .85 acres.

      Commissioner Piest stated there must have been a reason why it was included. He asked if someone may have suggested it to Mr Caruthers. Who responded that when they did the survey the surveyor included it in. The surveyor said just don’t build anything in that .85 area. Don’t put the road there don’t anything else there because it is questionable. The fact that it was fenced into the Caruthers area is the reason the surveyor may have included it.

      Commissioner Piest said that based on his knowledge of this type of thing, he will stand with Mr Shawver’s recommended that it be excluded, because it could be challenged and if it ever where he is not sure how it would end up. It could end up in court if someone ever tried to claim it – who knows what would happen then. So in all safety it should be excluded. Commissioner Kirkpatrick said the simplest way to do that is to state in a motion on 13.783.

      Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to approve request by Earl and Mariea Caruthers to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 13.783 acres, more or less, located at 3901 N Boothe Ln., Columbia (shown as Tract 2 on the survey), that would naturally exclude the .853 acres.

      David Piest Yes Michael Caruthers Abstain

      Mike Morgan Yes Jim Green Yes

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

      Darin Fugit Yes

      Motion to approve the rezoning request carried. 6 Yes 0 No 1 Abstain

      * * * * *

    3. Request by Robert L Kinkead to rezone 22.38 acres, more or less, from
    4. A-2 (Agriculture) to the following: 4.89 acres to C-GP (Planned Commercial);

      17.49 acres to M-LP (Planned Industrial), all located at 7841 E ABC Ln, Columbia

      Thad Yonke gave the staff report that this property is located approximately 2 miles east of the Columbia municipal limits on ABC Lane. The subject tract is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). Land to the north of the site is zoned A-2. To the east, north, and, west of the subject tract the zoning is also A-2. These are all original 1973 zonings. Property to the south across I-70 is zoned R-S (residential single-family) with a small pocket of C-G (general commercial) zoning. The R-S is an original 1973 zoning with the small C-G property having been rezoned form the original R-S zoning in 1987. The current use of the property is for a veterinary facility that primarily handles large animals such as cattle. This use was certified by a variance from the Boone County Board of Adjustment in 1986 with the stipulation that no part of the property south of the southerly wall of the veterinary facility building be used for the veterinary use. The applicant has requested that 4.89 acres of the property be rezoned to C-GP and that 17.49 acres of the property be rezoned to M-LP. The total property encompasses 22.38 acres. No review plans have been submitted. If the rezoning is granted, it will not go into effect until appropriate review and final plans have been approved. This property is located within the Boone Electric service area, the Columbia School District, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Water District No.9. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. The proposed use is not consistent with the plan; any such uses have the potential for generating significant traffic levels, which could negatively, impact what is essentially a dead end road. 47 property owners were notified of this request.

      In the absence of any plan and since the rezoning is not consistent with the County Master Plan, staff can not recommend approval of the request.

      Rod Stephens, 11 N 7th St, Columbia. Mr Stephens is the attorney for Robert Kinkead. Mr Kinkead is a vetenarian and is at a seminar out of state. He had planned to attend the meeting but had to fill in for someone else.

      This property is used for cattle operation right now. Mr Kinkead wishes to have the property rezoned for the purpose of selling the property and making it a little bit more marketable. He does not have any potential buyers at this point and he does not have any particualr uses in mind for the property. He is simply coming forth and asking that the property be rezoned. There might have been a mistake made on the agenda. For the 17.49 acres the application actually requested that that be rezoned at Light Industrial and on the agenda it says Planned Industrial. Mr Kinkead does not have any problem with the property being rezoned Planned Industrial or Light Industrial. Either way would be fine with him, but he did choose to select the Light Industrial classification.

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated that there is not Planned Industrial category. There is a Planned Light Industrial. Mr Stephens responded that Mr Kinkead had asked for Light Industial. That was stated on the application. Commissioner Kirkpatrick restated Planned Light Industrial is a category and asked if this was the intended category? Mr Stephens agreed.

      Stan Shawver said that on the application it read Planned Commercial/Light Industrial. Staff interrupted that as Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial. That is the way it was advertised. If they are asking for Light Industrial that has not been properly advertised.

      Mr Stephens stated that Mr Kinkead would accept either classification.

      Stan Shawver pointed out to the Commission that the way the proposed use is, for the area sought to be rezoned to Light Industrial. All uses permitted in the M-L Light Industrial District include the present use with a list that led Staff to believe that there was a Planned Commercial because there is no reason to list all uses in Planned Light Industrial because they are all permitted.

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick then asked if everyone agreed that Light Industrial is the category that is being discussed. Mr Stephens said yes and added "Planned". Commissioner Kirkpatrick informed Mr Stephens that he was on record as noting that the applicant has no objection to Planned Light Industrial. Mr Stephens responded by saying yes, he was aware that he was on record.

      Open to public hearing.

      Those in favor of request.

      Those in opposition of request.

       

      Janet Primm, 760 NE Park Lane, Columbia. Lives across the road from this land. He want to rezone, get everything in place and then do with it whatever he wants. She stated she did not understand what Planned Commercial means or Planned Light Industrial means. What types of building would be going up on the land? The area across from him is a densely populated area. When he went in with his cow lot there were all kinds of problems. The neighbors were assured that there would not be any problems – but there were a lot of problems. The area was supposed to be a stop off point for cattle in transit. The smell became so bad that he had to cut back the cattle in order to keep everybody from bothering him and his business. Mrs Primm does not see how he expects to do straight rezoning when he can’t give the stipulation exactly what he intends to do with that land to those around us. He has nothing laid out.

      Randy Gay, 7551 E ABC Lane, Columbia. Has lived in area since 1989 and is curious as to what will happen if it is rezoned. He and his neighbors have endured some of Mr Kinkead’s business practices in the past – and are wondering how this will effect them. Concerned about property values. ABC Lane is Old Hwy 40 and are next to ABC Labs and have enough problems with traffic. It is a dead-end road and very narrow. He has learned to adjust to the traffic flow and the semi-trucks carrying the cattle at various times of day. Traffic and property values are the main concerns.

      Van Bond, 7881 E ABC Lane, Columbia. His property joined the subject property. He is very concerned about the traffic. ABC Lane is a State Highway and has no posted speed limit. Therefore a people can legally drive 55 mph, however, they usually drive about 70 mph. The road is very narrow. There are two 90-degree turns right off of Rte Z. A semi-truck can not get around those curves without getting into the other lane. He is concerned about the sewer system that will be used at the site.

      Donna Brady-Whitehead, 7541 E ABC Lane, Columbia. Moved to their property 3-years ago wanting to get a little further out of town. Concerned about property values and traffic. She stated the road is narrow and needs work done to it. She is afraid more traffic would damage the road even more. She is against the rezoning.

      Jerry Carrington, 729 Demaret, Columbia. Has several reasons for being against the request. The infrastructure of I-70 has few culverts that go underneath I-70. Storm drainage water that needs to be considered for what is constructed on the north side. The road, being the way it is, there is still a fire hazard for the area for fire trucks going out to Rte Z or I-70. There is no offer to build a road out to St Charles Road. The people that live in Fairway Meadows have been hacked pretty hard with two sewage lagoons, which were going to be drained. One is not being drained and the people in the subdivision are paying a surcharge for sewage basically based on the fact that ABC Lab was going to tie into that at one time. That lagoon is still not drained and the property owners still have not heard anymore about it and there has been no offer with this request to pay any expense to relieve the people that live in Fairway Meadows of that sewer expense. There also the new road that is going through which will be a benefit to somebody with land sales later on after it is done this summer. As a total effect of the thing on the north side of the Interstate – basically the storm drainage situation and the fixed number of culverts that go across the Interstate needs to be looked at.

      Staff presented a letter of opposition received from Ruth Stoecker, 1110 Soest Road, Rolla, MO 65401, Trustee for Noreen C Carl. The property owner expressed concern for property values.

      Closed to public hearing.

      Rod Stephens returned to the table. He was not able to address the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that was not a definite plan to use of the property. He admitted there were many variables that could not be overlooked. He stated that there are many concerns with the rezoning, never the less Dr Kinkead does wish to present this application for rezoning for the Commission’s consideration.

      Commissioner Smith asked if Dr Kinkead had been trying the sell the land as it is currently zoned? Mr Stephens responded that Mr Kinkead’s goal is the sell the property and that he has been advised that it will be more marketable if he could get it rezoned. As far as Mr Stephens knows Mr Kinkead has not tried to sell the property with the current zoning. (Echoes from the audience stated otherwise.)

      Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated that the County has had a fairly significant number of requests to rezone in planned categories without a plan. The Commission has at times approved them and at times turned them down. The Commission is reluctant to approve them even without any industrial involvement because it is unknown what might come along with the plan. Also it should be know that even if the rezoning request is approved at the time – no rezoning takes place – it is still not rezoned until a final development plan has been approved. He is more reluctant to approve the request with the industrial included. Planned commercial does not bother him as much as industrial. He does not see how it will be any more marketable should the request be approved, because it is still not rezoned.

      Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to deny the request by Robert L Kinkead to rezone 22.38 acres, more or less, from A-2 (Agriculture) to the following: 4.89 acres to C-GP (Planned Commercial); 17.49 acres to M-LP (Planned Industrial), all located at 7841 E ABC Ln, Columbia.

       

      Pat Smith Yes Jim Green Yes

      Darin Fugit Yes Mike Morgan Yes

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes David Piest Yes

      Michael Caruthers Yes

      Motion to deny request carried. 7 Yes 0 No

      * * * * *

    5. 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.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated that this item was tabled on April 20, 2000. The applicant requested the previous applicant be withdrawn. It was withdrawn. This is a totally new application.

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 land is vacant. The majority of the land adjacent to this site is zoned A-2, however there is a small Planned Commercial node including a convenience store 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 Sheridan Hills Subdivision. North of the property on the west side of Route B is a area zoned A-2 and platted as Foxcroft North. The property is located within the Boone Electric service area. The proposed development lies within the Hallsville R-4 School District. The development is proposed in four phases according to a phasing plan contained in the traffic study.

The applicant has requested that the land be rezoned to several different categories as follows:

The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential land uses. The proposal includes urban residential and commercial land uses, and therefore, is not consistent with the Master Plan.

Water is provided by Public Water District No. 4. The water district has adequate infrastructure in place to provide potable water and fire flow. The developer in accordance with plans approved by the water district and Boone County Fire District will construct waterlines and fire hydrants, internal to the development.

The City of Columbia will provide sewer service. The City will extend a main from North Hampton Village to the property, a distance of approximately 3600 lineal feet. The developer would be required to provide funding for improvements to the North Hampton Village Pump Station. With those improvements in place, there would be adequate sewer service for this proposal.

The developers have secured a variance from the Boone County Road Standards, which will allow certain roads interior to the development to be built to standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations. The varied items are identified in Boone County Commission Order 285-2000.

A traffic study, prepared by Allstate Consultants has been submitted which contains an analysis of existing conditions and a projection of traffic generated by the development. The key issues include the impact of development generated traffic to the following road sections and intersections:

The traffic generated by the development raises the functional classification of this section of road to Major Collector. Under Boone County Subdivision Regulations Section 1.7.5 and Appendix B.2.1 the developer is required to improve the existing roadway to the Major Collector Road Standard (24’ paved road surface with 8’ paved shoulders). The developer has not agreed to make the required improvements.

The eastbound and westbound approaches to this intersection are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. With the additional traffic from this development the westbound approach will be reduced to LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound approach will be reduced to LOS E in the AM peak and LOS F in the PM peak. The developer is proposing to build a dedicated right turn lane for the eastbound approach. This is not expected to increase the LOS but will reduce the time delay for vehicles turning south onto Route B.

The traffic generated by the development raises the functional classification of this section of road to Major Collector. Under Boone County Subdivision Regulations Section 1.7.5 and Appendix B.2.1 the developer is required to improve the existing roadway to the Major Collector Road Standard (24’ paved road surface with 8’ paved shoulders). The developer has not agreed to make the required improvements.

The traffic study indicates that the westbound approach to this intersection is currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) F in the AM peak hours and LOS E in the PM peak. The traffic generated by this development will increase the delay to westbound vehicles in the AM and reduce the LOS to F in the PM peak hours. The developer is proposing to build a northbound right turn lane with Phase 1 of the development and third lane for a portion of Route HH with Phase 4. The addition of the third lane to Route HH is not expected to increase the LOS but will reduce the increased delay to westbound vehicles.

Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request for the following reasons. 1) The request is not consistent with the Master Plan. 2) The addition of development generated traffic overtaxes the existing road network and will cause severe delay and potentially hazardous conditions for motorists in the area.

If the rezoning request is denied, staff recommends denial of the review plan and preliminary plat.

If the rezoning request is approved, staff recommends approval of the review plan and preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:

  1. A revised review plan and final plan meeting the requirements of the Boone County Zoning Regulations must be submitted prior to any building construction for all planned districts.
  2. Ketterer Road between N. Brown Station Road and Route B shall be improved to a major collector standard with shoulders. These improvements shall be made concurrently with Phase 2 of the development.
  3. N. Brown Station Road between Route HH and Ketterer Road shall be improved to a major collector standard with shoulders. The portion of N. Brown Station Road adjacent to Phase 1 shall be improved concurrently with Phase 1. The remaining portion of N. Brown Station Road shall be improved concurrently with Phase 2.

Staff notified 83 property owners regarding this request.

The property scored 75 points on the rating system.

Jay Gebhardt, Civil Engineer with Allstate Consultants, 711 W Ash, Columbia. Mr Gebhardt represented Rhonda and Cass Carlson, the owners of BC Investment. Brian Harrington with Allstate Consultants was present as well. He prepared the traffic study.

Mr Gebhardt presented Settler’s Ridge Exhibit A and described the layout of the single-family dwellings and the multi-family dwellings. The previous request was for straight zonings for R-M and since then the applicant has worked with Staff to go to a Planned Residential Development. Mr Gebhart said that they have a unique situation, which he believes justifies the infrastructures. There is a major arterial road. It is a MoDOT maintained highway. It is a major road connecting the northern and southern part of the County. There is Old Rte B which is called North Brown Station Road now. It used to carry a lot of the traffic that is now on new Rte B. There is State Rte HH. It carries a lot of traffic to the east and west. There is also existing Ketterer Road. It is a gravel road, but the applicant has plans to improve it. The Staff reported that applicant disagreed and they do but not totally.

Sheridan Hills Development is not shown. It is R-M development with a mixture of housing types. The Colt Railroad is there also. All these things when they first looked at the site started to have an influence of what surrounded them. There is also a fairly major creek that runs through the property. It and another became natural dividers for the request.

The whole idea is there is a major road and this is based on the belief that they can not plat homes along Rte B that people would buy. It is too major of a road. The applicant does not believe there is a huge market for $150,000 homes on .5 acre lots on a major road. There is also a need for services in the area. Everyone that lives in this area has to go to one town or another to get services. That just adds more car trips up and down Rte B. If the commercial area could be spread out in smaller notes and service these area in a regional (not like Columbia Mall). Regional as in groups of neighborhoods where they are not driving into Wal-Mart and the dry cleaner or bank. The applicant will try to provide some of the services closer to where the residents live. That is idea between the Commercial. It creates a buffer from Rte B. It also provides services for the surrounding neighborhoods. PRD 14 there are some details about it, but basically they have limited themselves to a density of 14. That is the maximum conservative density. Staff stated that the applicant is allowed 17 in R-M. However, applicant decided to go with 14 in this area. It is a nice flat area. They can probably get some density in and create another layer of buffering from the commercial down to the duplexes across the street from the PRD.

Mr Gebhardt believes it is an appropriate zoning request for the area even though it disagrees with the Master Plan. In the Master Plan he see existing zoning. He does not see any kind of planning as in 50 years or 20 years from now, which this project would be. He sees what is zoned now. In Mr Gebhardt’s opinion if the community is to continue to grow people need to be placed in this area. There are issues about schools, and all kinds of things – but if a person wants to buy one of the proposed homes it is because they want to live in this part of the County. They want to live in the Hallsville School District. They want to live in this part for their own reasons. If a place is not provided for them in the proposed area they are going to find a place somewhere else. To have all the infrastructure in place – not just the roads, but the sewer that we can have and the water.

There is a problem with traffic in this area. Mr Gebhardt believes, whether it is right or wrong, these problems get corrected when development occurs rather than before. It is hard for any person in control of public funds to spend money on a road to do major improvements, like a light or something, until there is a dyer need for it. Because there is such a limit to what can be done.

In Phase I – the Highway Department wants a separate right turn on HH so that the people do not have to stop at the light. They also want a deceleration lane and a right turn lane from Rte B onto State Hwy HH. The applicants agreed with Staff to pave Ketterer Road from north Brown Station Road to the intersection and to put 4’ aggregate shoulders. The standard that they are requiring is 8’ asphalt shoulders. Mr Gebhardt stated that it is down to which standard should be used. Subdivisions require a certain standard – applicant does not feel it is justified. However, if the plat could be approved with that as a condition to be worked out it would be worked out. Several improvements have been made at the request of the State Department. MoDOT said they could not place a light without justification. They preferred the applicant do lane widening and geometric of the intersection so that they can come in and easily put up a light without the difficulty of lane widening. The traffic study states that the intersection will warrant a light in 5 years without the proposed development.

Applicant will spend $100,000 doing improvement. There is a considerable amount of money being spent off site on the premieter roads. City has agreed to extend the sewer under the 80-acre policy. The Carlsons have given some seed money to improve a pump station. So there is sewer and adequate waterlines to serve this neighborhood. This road is capable of handling a lot more traffic than it does now, because it used to handle the new Rte B traffic. One lady at the last meeting said, "no matter where you go, you are back at Rte B". No matter what kind of development occurs it is going to cause a change in the traffic. With this development there will be money to improve the infrastructure that is there. It is free money for the County and State.

Brian Harrington, Allstate Consultants,5212 Gasconade, Columbia. The traffic study is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers method, which is a method used nationwide. The projected amount of traffic generated by this development was based on nationwide averages for this, which seems to be conservative for this area, because it is taken for a lot of bigger cities and everything is mixed in. In all cases where the density might vary, such as the planned unit development, the applicants has taken the maximum density of 14 units per acre. They used conservative numbers (worse case as far as the most traffic generation) possible in the commercial area.

The project has been divided into four phases. The development will not happen immediately. It is anticipated to be development in phases over a period of probably 10 years minimum. Phase I is the southeast portion of the area which is the single family and the land immediately adjacent to Rte HH. With that Phase the applicant plans to build the right turn lane and improve the right turning movement on the intersection of Brown Station and Rte HH. With Phase II it completes the portion immediately adjacent to Brown Station and to Ketterer. Also the paving of Ketterer and adding a lane on the intersection of Ketterer and Rte B to enable people heading north to bypass anybody that is waiting to turn south, and continue the general progress of Phase II. Phase III would be the residential area on the west, which would include paving Ketterer to the development and as in Phase II, add a lane onto the intersection of Ketterer and Rte B. Phase IV would complete the commercial area, which is seen as the farthest out time period, but is also the most significant traffic generation. With the commercial phase the applicant anticipates building the left turn lane between the first intersection and Rte B (that would be a left turn lane on to Rte B and a left turn into what is named Settler’s Ridge Dr. It would also propose widening Rte B in order to allow for this turn lane pocket that Jay Gebhardt talked about, that prevents the through traffic from being required to stop if somebody is turning left into the development.

Mr Gebhardt stated that if any part of Phase 4 is developed then Phase 4 improvements are required. The major improvements will not be put off for 10 year. If part of Phase 2 is developed then the improvements for Phase 2 are required. The Phases were given numbers so that they could be identified, but that is not necessarily the order in which they will be developed or in that order of being done – though the commercial phase will be the farthest out time period. If someone wants to develop Phase II then the applicant will pave Ketterer Road before approval of the final plat and get it recorded.

Mr Harrington explained the Level of Service, which was mentioned in the Staff report. Intersection based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers are given a grade, Letters A through F. A being the least average delay to a vehicle that approaches the intersection and F being the most. The criteria for that is based on the delay that is incurred and an intersection will operate at level service F when the delay starts averaging 50 seconds per vehicle. On a two-lane road with high volume that occurs quite rapidly. A signal is usually timed from 1-2 minutes cycle time. So anyone that hits the end of that cycle their vehicle will have to wait at least one minute, which would automatically classify that as Level Service F. This is based on the average delay to all the vehicles in the intersection, but Level Service F does not mean the intersection does not work, it just means the delay is greater than 50 seconds to the average car approaching it.

Rhonda Carlson, applicant/developer, PO Box 1233, Columbia. Ms Carlson addressed comments and concerns that the residents had made in the April 20th meeting. There are some comments that have no answers to. She stated from her years of experience in developing that there will never be a development that will not generate opposition in this day and age. Neighbors do not want change.

Ms Carlson stated that she worked long with the Commission, the Home Builder’s Association and with the Columbia Board of Realtors back with the point system for how a piece of ground is supposed to be assessed before it is developed. Some of the comments she made were incorporated as to establish where developments could go. Ms Carlson said their proposed development exceeds the 50 points and hit 75 points. Based on the points she had it was 63 points. Where would you develop and where would you put this development. A developer does not just go out in the middle of some place and say they like the way the ground lays and start development. They must do a lot of investigation, which is what Mrs Carlson has done. The Carlsons are presented with approximately 5 pieces of ground a month that people want them to take a look at. She stated they are like a moving target if they are able to develop and do it successfully, in this town, people will bring their properties for development. She stated they pass on 95% of them. The proposed site passed all the requirements on their checklist.

A lot of people talked about the schools. She did a quick analysis by talking to the Assessor’s office to see what the development means to the Hallsville Schools. That tract of ground in 1999 contributed $199.13 to the Hallsville School system. If this plat is approved and the development of Phase I proceeds within a years time after dirt is moved the property will be reassessed. Just with lots in Phase I with no other improvements other than the streets going in, the contribution to the Hallsville School system will be over $13,000 based on this last years tax rates. A conservative estimate within a year – 5 duplexes are built with a value of $110,000 and 5 homes at $90,000.00 – you are looking at a contribution to the Hallsville School system, just with Phase I, of $20,000 once it is reassessed.

The development is right in the urban service area, or just outside of it if Rte HH is the cutoff point, of one of the largest employers in the area. All of the employment districts there. Employees’ homes would be close to work. If you do not put it here were would you put it. Ms Carlson said to keep in mind that this is a 10-year plan. The tax money does and will always go the Hallsville even after annexation. The developers would have to enter into and sign an annexation agreement and that would affect the County, but the County would get to keep the money for taxes on the roads. That is an agreement that is between the City and the County. This is a 10-year plan being presented before the Commission to let you know what the plans are.

The cut off is in Meadow Lake Subdivision. Anything north of that goes to Hallsville. The property tax dollars will go to Hallsville and will always go to Hallsville. To get the tax allocations changed the State would have to make the changes. That is why Rocheport monies will always go to New Franklin.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request.

Chad Sayre, 7401 Fall Creek Dr, Columbia. Mr Sayre is in favor of the development and thinks it is nice that the developers came forward with full plan. He thinks it is good that it is a mixed-use development. It is well within a development area. He agrees that showing all the land in north Boone County as agricultural zoning is a nice thought but not very realistic from a planning standpoint. If you look at 2,000 acres strip basically along the Rte B corridor. This development makes sense because it is occurring where there is sewer, water and and streets. It is abounded by 4 public right of ways. It is a very rare case. Mr Sayre spoke before and said he had some reservations about the multi-family not being planned. However, he would now like to commend the developer on changing that. That adds a lot of flexibility with the Staff and looking at the development portion of it.

Mr Sayre said it was a well-planned development and is full support of it.

Dale Nichols, 9000 S Kari Lane, Columbia. Mr Nichols is in favor of the project and is the owner of the property on south side of Rte HH that runs from Old Rte B to new Rte B, Phillip 66 convenience store and the Sheraton Hills apartments. There was a concern about what would eventually be developed on that piece of land. People in Illinois owned it. The Nichols wanted to see the property developed in a real professional way. The applicant have made giant step making this presentation. Mr Nichols commented that it was admirable that they offer a project with a 10-year development range and develop the roads and the infrastructure around it over that 10-year period. The roads develop as the subdivision develops. When the project is completed in 10 year it will probably generate $300,000 to $400,000 per year, but it will be generating as it goes along also. The Hallsville Schools need money this project will help them. It the development never happens the tax base will never be there. Mr Nichols had questions on the infrastructure situation. He did not understand why some of the future tax base could not be used to develop the infrastructure of paying for the sewer and the roads that are being required in some kind of a traffic fund drawn on now to do the road study and to do the repairs, maintenance and infrastructure so that you can use it to pay down the road. He stated he would like to see it developed. He called it a class development and stated that the applicants have done a good job presenting it to the Commission

Those in opposition of the request.

D K Seltsam, 5201 E Hwy HH, Columbia. Mr Seltsam had a question regarding access. He asked what access is available on the north/south part of the subdivision? Will it all come out on Hwy HH? Or can the new Rte B be accessed anywhere they want to?

Commissioner Kirkpatrick assured Mr Seltsam that the applicant would answer his question when the returned for their rebuttal.

Sandor Czekus, 4189 Ketterer Road, Columbia. If the development is approved it will put 76 lots right out his front door. A lot of duplexes. The traffic in the area is bad enough. It takes normally 10-15 minutes to get off Ketterer onto Rte B and head to Columbia for work. This development is adding a lot more houses and what has been planned for the roadway does not sound adequate. A lot more home, a lot more people and there has been no mention of crime. When a lot of people come into a small area that always has to be addressed. Mr Czekus mention the sewer situation and asked if the existing residents would be required to change over to public sewer from their individual systems. It concerned him that the applicants have not come up with a lot more answers yet.

Sharon Brandkamp, 8275 N Buck Road, Columbia. Mrs Brandkamp lives in Foxcroft Subdivision. She is concerned with the traffic congestion of turning off of Ketterer onto Rte B going north (left) towards Hallsville. That is the direction the bus goes. It goes around Ketterer, it has a blind curve. Her concern is a lot more traffic coming around the corner with the bus stop there. Even if they put a right turn the bus goes left and it still won’t help the bus. There is a blind hill coming up. One can not see far enough to judge to go left there and a right hand lane won’t help there. Mrs Brandkamp commented on the proposal for the multi-family closest to Rte B. She stated that she would not want families there with children. Her family moved to their current residence 2 years ago and they have lost a dog on Rte B, deer get hit all the time. When it goes to 4-lanes she would not want to see family units up close to Rte B because it is too dangerous. She could see businesses but not families. It is a dangerous road. It is dark at night, not lit. There is a slight water problem on Ketterer. In a hard rainwater goes over the road. Will they pave all of Ketterer or just at the subdivision entrance? Where the tree line is the water runs over and floods down in there so they need to leave that draw on that side. The Brandkamps moved to their home because they wanted to be away from all the little conveniences. They are only 5 minutes from Gerbes so it is not like they are isolated. They don’t need a bunch of commercial businesses built up out in their area. If they want to be near apartments they would have moved some place where they had them close by. Hallsville Schools tried to pass $3,500,000 for improvements for the school and it did not pass. So the $20,000 probably won’t make that much of a dent in what they want with the extra kids they will have.

Kathleen Martin, 4189 Ketterer Rd, Columbia. The looked for country living close to the City but not within the City. They bought their house approximately 8 months ago because it was in the country and because it was quiet there. There is a very very deep concern about traffic and the school bus which has a difficult time getting on to Rte B in the morning and going north to Hallsville. There are times when the bus sits there for 5-10-15 minutes before it can get across traffic. Sometimes it has to squeeze in between traffic. The traffic on Rte B coming from Hallsville and Centralia it is bumper to bumper. Mrs Martin stated you have to literally squeeze in between people to get in. At intersection at Rte B and Hwy HH there have been numerous accidents. People have been pushed off the road into the ditch. People bump in to each other. It is a real concern. The sewer system is a real concern. Will the existing homeowners with individual waste water systems be required to connect to the public sewer system? If so that will create another bill. Also, if you have rural water are you paying two separate bills? The taxes will increase. There will be multi-families with children – will another school have to be built in Hallsville to accommodate the increase of children? Will the school zones change if there is not enough room in Hallsville? Will some of the children have to go to school in Columbia? Taxes are fine. They generate money but it also causes hardships. All these highways coming up and it costs money. Who pays for them? We pay for them. Property taxes go up, school taxes go up. The average person can not make it because the cost of living is not matched by wages. We make less wages and the cost of living goes higher and higher and higher. Mrs Martin stated that right now she can pull out of her driveway in the morning and safely get to Rte B. She can set there to wait to get onto traffic. But when she pulls out of her driveway with a double lane paved highway with all these other people across the road from her… She does not see it making it better, and believers it will only get worse. They have concerns about it and don’t think it is a good idea.

Greg Sims, 8565 N Brown Station Road, Columbia. His family owns the 43 acres just to the north of the proposed development. The majority of the land surrounding this is already A-2. He thinks it should stay A-2. The development is not consistent with the use of most of the existing homes and your own County Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. It does not follow the County Master Plan. Mr Sims does not total oppose the development. He would support a PRD, like in an A-R3 which have .5 acre lots, which is consistent with the use they already have there. The Simses allowed the Water District to put the line through their 43 acres for development. Mr Sims said they knew the development was going to happen. The did not know it was going to be as dense as it is. The minor improvements proposed will never handle the erratic traffic volumes. Each road (Ketterer and Hwy HH) is expected to handle over 7,000 cars daily. This is up from 250 to 2,350 respectively. That is a lot of cars. The applicants are talking about right turn lanes and not left turn lanes. Most of the traffic goes into Columbia. The development will seriously increase the accident and death total in this section of Route B, with the State not anticipating to ever put a signal here. This development will tax out schools without contributing significantly to the tax base. Mr Sims commented on the $20,000 figure that Mrs Carlson had shared earlier in her presentation. He stated that $20,000 will be a drop in the bucket compared to how many kids will be allocated to this tax base. This area is not a develop to the Simses. It is their home. Mr Sims said that they are not there to raise money, but to raise a family. It does not have as much potential to them as it has history. Most people probably do not know that this is the site the original Daniel Boone Trail comes through in the immediate area. Daniel and Morgan, in 1806 blazed the trail on their way to the Howard County saltlick. In conclusion, Mr Sims asked the Commission to deny this development rezoning.

Donna Sims, 8565 N Brown Station Road, Columbia. She is also opposed to the development. She feels they are only 6 miles from Columbia, not so far to travel. They travel every day to go to work and does think they have a need for a restaurant or commercial services that is significant. In regard to the statements the developer made on housing statuses and the prices of houses Mrs Sims said she does not believe that the applicants are familiar with the area. A lot of her neighbors have very nice homes. They have lived in the area for a long time. If she goes up Spiva Crossing, Fox Croft, Hwy HH there are many, many homes valued at the $100,000 - $150,000 range. It is not a low-income area. They take pride in where they live. They take pride in their yards and in their families and do not want to see that community change by the crime rate – or by increased congestion and increased families. The applicant was talking about the picturesque creek that would run through their property. That sounds very nice and attractive, but how picturesque is it going to be when you have 2,000 units of houses in one area congested together. Does that really add any value? Turn lanes. Turn lanes are not going to solve or eliminate the traffic. They are going to create more congestion. They will not improve the visibility of the road. Mrs Sims stated she and her husband are not opposed to development. They are also for development. They approved the Water District and some day may want to develop their land as well. They are looking at residential areas. It is their home, their community, it is where they raise their kids and take pride in that and want to keep it that way. Mrs Sims read part of Section 1B from the Zoning Ordinance and pointed out the following three key things that bothered her about the proposed development. 1) and lessening or avoiding undue congestion in the public streets or highways; 2) to prevent to overcrowding of land; 3) to avoid undue concentration of population. These three items would effect their neighborhood. In closing Mrs Sims told the Commission that these were the laws and the rules that the County had written and she, her family and neighbors were standing up to have the Commission support them in their opposition to the development.

Randy Griffith, 9000 Brown Station Dr, Columbia. Mr Griffith lives approximately .5 miles north of the proposed subdivision. His main concern with the development is as Staff had said, this was supposed to be a rural setting. As it was termed earlier, it is more of an urban density type of subdivision that is being proposed. The development does not go along with the Master Plan for that type of area in the County. They talked about the commercial part possibly cutting down the traffic. That may be possible to stop people from driving all the way to Columbia. He stated he is really not opposed to that. However, he believes that needs to come first. Mr Griffith does not believe that you can build the houses for 10 years and not have the commercial and still say traffic will cut down because there will be 10 years of too much traffic for Rte B to handle. All the roads mentioned still dump out on Rte B where you make turn lanes or not. There is still too much traffic for the road to handle. The schools are crowded now. This will add to the congestion. With the first year of 5 duplexes, 5 single-family dwellings assume 15 families would add $20,000.00 in tax revenue. The cost per student is around $2,800.00 per year. So with the 15 families it will cost the school system about $42,000.00 if each one of those 15 families has one child in the Hallsville School system. With that Mr Griffith asked the Commission to oppose the request.

Maribeth Frevert, 7691 N Zack Road, Columbia. Mrs Frevert is opposed to the development because of the high volume of traffic. She has a 16-year-old driving Rte B now and it scares her. Neither Rte B, Hwy HH or Ketterer were meant to carry that volume traffic. It will take quite a bit of improvement to get Ketterer up to that standard. There is a new development of single family housing at Lake Capri on Hickory Lane and Benthall Lane and they have big lots and that has been developing over the past few years. There are other developments in the area that have lots that need to be built on. People will not move their homes just because that is were they work. The people who work in the 3M area are not going to move to the area just because it is close to where they work. Those people are already employed and already have homes established in Columbia. So the development, in Mrs Frevert’s opinion, will not be a major draw to them. She also agreed that there was no need for commercial services in the area, because they are only 5 or 6 miles from anything they need, one way or the other. She is also afraid of the threat of annexing into the City limits of Columbia. Her family moved to be outside of the City limits. They would like to stay that way. The Hallsville School District is not made to handle that many people. They will have to have some major changes and more than the $20,000 per year to build a new school. That is what it would take if they had that much housing in the area. The one statement about Brown Station being old Rte B – she has live in the area for 18 years not and before the new Rte B was built there were some bumper stickers that said "Pray for me I drive Rte B". So Brown Station Road is really not an alternative. The estatic value of have the wide open space have always been nice to have wildlife in the neighborhood. Turkey, deer roaming the area. She stated she would hate to loose that.

Lynn Brunholtz, 8400 Buck Road, Columbia. Her concerns are a lot of what the others have spoken of. The traffic on Rte B and Ketterer by Fox Croft north. That is a very dangerous road. That is the one the school bus travels. It will be a safety issue getting kids on and off the bus with the added density. It is a very narrow curvey road. Concerned about the depreciation of her home. She moved to the area approximately 1.5 ago to get away from the kind of development that is being proposed. Mrs Brunholtz stated that there are some nice houses in the area and that the ones being proposed are not. She is very much opposed to that. She said it makes you wonder how far you have to go to get away from this kind of thing. Mrs Brunholtz did said she would not be so much opposed to the houses if they were the same kind of houses that they have, but she is very opposed to rental property. We have enough rental property. There is a large complex on Hwy HH and another just down the road on Rte B and Oakland Church Rd. She and a friend circulated a petition and obtained 74 signatures. Everyone with the exception of two people, who were involved in the development, were very ademately opposed to the development. She stated she was surprised that more people were present and representing at the meeting. The traffic was the main thing. Mrs Brunholtz closed by saying people do not want the development. It is a nice rural setting and hope that the Commision will deny the request.

Donna Jones, 6725 N Westview Dr, Columbia. She expressed great concern about the traffic. In order to get back into the Columbia City limits they have to make a left hand turn onto Rte B. Normally Mrs Jones goes south to the turn lane that the City has put in. There has been a problem with the turn lane. It creates a blind spot. If trying to make a left hand turn off of N Brown Station Road onto Rte B heading back to Columbia, they face endless traffic coming from the Hallsville direction. And with the turn lane you have a blind spot, especially with a larger vehicle. Mrs Jones stated she would have been killed a couple of months ago if she had pulled out a second sooner because of the blind spot in the turn lane. There is also the traffic directly across on Brown Station Road. Sometimes there are anxious people who do not want to wait. The Jones have lived in Meadow Lakes Subdivsion since 1977 and are familiar with the roads. The development is just not worth sacrificing lives. They enjoy low crime rate as well. She believes this would all change with the new development.

Norma Crawford, 6081 E O’Rear Road, Columbia. Mrs Crawford is very much in agreement with the points that have already been made. She also has additional issues that concern her. The two streams that run through each section of the property. However, she did not hear anything on what environmental impact the development might have on those streams or what they plan to do in controlling storm water run-off and so forth and the effect it may have on those streams as well. Mrs Crawford ask that the term "free money" be further explained during the rebuttal. She is concerned that the Phase number does not signfy the order in which they plan for the development to occur. The natural assumption would be that that would say Phase I is what is going to happen first, Phase 2 will happen next, etc. It is a concern to her that the applicants can not give a definite order in which the development will occur. The next issue is the potential impact from the rerouting or the parallel routing of I-70 and how close it will come to the development. The only other thing is her family moved out to that part of the area to get away from town. They don’t mind going to town for products and services and they go through there on their way to work any way.

Phil Heller, 7401 N Brown Station Road, Columbia. Mr Heller represented himself, his wife and the Heller Trust. He stated that if he had to sum the development up in three words he would say, "Much too much". He really does think that the proposal is much too much. Regarding the school, this project does not even come close to pulling it’s own weight. The voters of the Hallsville School District just voted down a $3,500,000 bond issue that the school said they needed and taxpayers said they could not afford it. He said he could see the potential of 10+ school buses heading from Hallsville School to this development when this development is completed. That is going to have a major, major impact on the school district. The Carlsons are asking the taxpayers in the Hallsville School District to pay for this thing. Mr Heller stated a friend on the West Coast just built a new home. They assessed him right from the get-go an impact fee on his home of $12,000.00 just to cover whatever possible impact it could have on the school. The increased density of the development does not fit the area. He stated he met with Mrs Carlson about this and expressed that if a house was put on a .5 acre, with her commercial development, that would allow her about 160 homes. That is a lot of homes. That falls under A-R, which is a home per .5 acre. The tract is a prime piece of ground and sooner or later it will be developed, but hopeful it is in a more moderate scheme of things. At some point in time he too might develop his property. Mr Heller stated that he just could not see that he would ever request an increase density like what the applicant is requesting on the proposed tract. The $20,000.00 for the start-up of the development would only be a drop in the bucket of the budget of the Hallsville School District and would come a long way from pulling its own weight. Mr Heller also stated that the highway right of way proposal, on the request to put houses closer than 50 feet to the highway right, only tells him that every home that can possible be put on the tract will be put on it if the Commission will allow it to happen. He was not able to make the April meeting because he was in a rezoning meeting of his own with the City. He rezoned some property approximately 2 miles to the south of the proposed tract. He rezoned 45 acres and was unopposed. So to say anytime you go to rezone something is not necessarily the case. The landowners and neighbors just do not approve of the plan that has been submitted. Mr Heller wished the Carlsons a lot of luck on their developments but hopes that this one does not take place the way they have proposed it. He believes he could support a .5 acre tract per home and could also support the planned commercial, but anything more than that would just way way overload the area. The traffic study stated it would put almost 8,000 on Rte B on each exit when the proposal is fully developed. Some of the cars will try to come out on the Brown Station Rte B corridor and that intersection is overloaded also. His wife was hit sitting at the stop sign at that intersection by a City garbage truck.

Closed to public hearing.

Rhonda Carlson explains and points out the access in and out of the proposed subdivision to Mr Seltsam. There would not be any access onto Rte B.

Traffic is going to be a concern. The improvements that were made were recommended by MoDOT. They did not ask for a signal and in speaking with Mr Stamper, he met with them and they still did not want a signal there. They are going to put a signal somewhere else first.

Affordable housing does not equal low-income properties. The applicant stated she does not build subsides housing. She never has, not that there is anything wrong with that, but affordable housing is just that. It is what the majority of the people in this community want and need. There is a lack of affordable housing because most people want to get out there and build that big expensive house for market. Ms Carlson stated she is talking from a building perspective. Those houses sit. Affordable housing are basically taken up when they are built. That is not low-income. It is not the intent. The applicant said she will build there exactly what they have built in other areas of the community. They maintain a neighborhood. They always build a neighborhood, that way they can control what happens there.

A number of people said they would not oppose .5 acre lots, 2 acre lots, 2.5 acre lots – but in the same situation they have said that there are lots available in Lake Capri. Mrs Carlson pointed out that Lake Capri has been developed for quite some time and there are a lot of lots left there. Therefore, one can judge the demand for that type of property. It is not as much of a demand as it is for affordable housing.

Many people expressed concern about the annexation. Mrs Carlson stated that there is no requirement that the people that are outside of the subdivision annex as well. Once the City would get there and annex the people outside the subdivision would have the right to decide whether or not they want to annex into the City. That is their choice. The City cannot force that upon them.

People scoffed at the $20,000 that would be contributed to the Hallsville School System. That amount was a very conservative amount for over the next 2 to 2.5 years and that was for 5 single-family houses and 5 duplexes. Mrs Carlson used property values probably lower that what will be seen, but that was to be conservative and that was just for Phase I. It was scoffed at. She asked herself - how is it that someone else’s child is allow to attend a school for a lesser amount. Somebody moves to the Hallsville School District and buys a house that is already existing they are going to pay the same amount. However if she builds a new subdivision she should pay more as a homeowner to have my child go to a Hallsville School. That is not the way it works, but taking that into consideration, a number of people said do a larger development on the lot. Mrs Carlson used an absord extreme on the other end - $200,000.00 houses on 2.5 acre lots, soon a 46 house built-out subdivision. The whole subdivision, not just Phase I would contribute $76,000.00 to the Hallsville School system vs 1/5 of the subdivision, that is not built out, where there are 5 homes and 5 duplexes and some 50 vacant lots still remaining contributes $20,000.00. Mrs Carlson said that she could be wrong but she believes that as you increase the population to your schools and your tax base, you also increase your bonding capacity.

There was a statement made about the people who came and spoke in favor of this other than the applicant being involved in this. There is no involvement. Chad Sayre is a resident. He came to the meeting on his own free will. He was told by Mrs Carlson that he did not have to be present. However, he feels strongly enough about the development, and it does not matter where he is employed, that he felt that he should come forward and speak. As for Mr Nichols he has absolutely no involvement with this property other than he feels that it should go forward.

On the matter of crime rate. Mrs Carlson spoke with Tom Sullivan at the Sheriff’s Department. In his experience crime rates go down because criminals don’t choose to be in areas where they might be seen. They like to go in areas where they can hide and when there is activity that is not where they travel to.

If the plan was approved the applicant would have to meet the Counties storm water requirements.

Mrs Carlson stated that the only "free money" would be the free money the developer would be providing in inputting infrastructure.

Brian Harrington responded to the comments about building right turn lanes off Ketterer only. The right turn lanes separate the turning movements, so by building a right turn lane it will in essence build a left turn lane at the same time, because it pulls the right turn movements out and allows the left turn movements to be in their own lane.

The average daily traffic entering onto Rte B is not 8,000. The most conservative estimates are roughly half that figure and those are deceiptive high because that does not account for the traffic that uses the commercial area that is already on Rte B, which would be a significant amount of it. That is a person leaving a residence or a store or coming to it. That does not account for someone coming from one residence in this to another which would reduce the total overall traffic. It would be lowered by any vehicles that are on Rte B already that turn off to fill-up with gas and get right back on. The 8,000 cars per entrance is not right. It is much lower than that.

When the applicants approached the planning of the development they acknowledged there were some existing traffic problems. There is no way around that. Rte B is the only route to and from Centralia and Hallsville. The only direct route in Columbia. In acknowledging that and with the Counties help the traffic study was prepared. They have worked with the County’s traffic consultants to address the problems that they could and make some improvements that would not be there without this development.

A traffic signal at Rte B and Hwy HH was discussed with the State Department of Transportation. The intersection does not now warrant a traffic light. Which means in no way will they put a traffic light in, because there becomes a liability with that light. No matter what improvements it makes it also becomes a liability. The State Department of Transporation felt that in order to facilitate a light in the future the best recommendation would be that the developer go ahead and improve the intersection geometrically so that the State could come in at a future time and signal the intersection when they feel it is needed. But at this time it is not needed. In the future it will be warranted independly of the proposed development, but it has already been stated by the State that it would not likely be put in at that time. So basically hands are tied. Interim solutions are being made so it will facilitate a traffic signal in the future and make it easier to put in at that time.

Ron Shy, 5600 S Rte KK, Columbia. Mr Shy offered that everytime a development like this is done traffic issues come up. Whether it is Hwy WW, Rte K, I-70 or half a dozen other routes to Hallsville or Columbia. Traffic is always an issue. In the majority of the cases the development occurs prior to the improvements in the infrastructure to a large degree. It is difficult for the Highway Department, MoDot or anyone else to come in and do these changes until it warranted by the development or what goes on around the area. This is not a new phenonama. This project that is being proposed is not a 2-year development. This is going to take some years to develop. The people who move up here, if they don’t come to this site and want to go to northern Boone County they could go somewhere else and still go to this school district. There are people who want to live in the area. As time goes on the needs for these additional roads and routes to Columbia, north/south arterial street, will become more prominent. It will involve additional planning by Boone County government. There are several areas in the County just like this. Some lady mentioned the I-70 corridor that possibly could come north. That is a valide statement and needs to be considered.

Mr Shy stated that as far as this development is concerned they have tried to do everything they can do with, their limited resources – so to speak, in trying to solve all the problems on Rte B. The developer can do what they are required to do within a reasonable manner.

Jay Gebhardt stated that it was concession on the part of the Carlson to go to the planned residential districts. Originally they had requested open zoning. It was a big step for them to concide to go to the planned residential so that you could afore more planning. There will be more opportunity to review the plans and talk about traffic as we go through the process.

He also stated that it is amazing to read through the traffic study materials and see how the information is generated. A lot of terminology in the traffic study. The people hired by the County to review the traffic study set limitations on Brian for what he could and could not assume. Basically because the information was not exactly the way it was supposed to be in the standard they assume an even more strict standard. So on the commercial they may assume no pass by trips at all and it is all new. Mr Gebhardt does not think, in his opinion, that it is really very reflective of what the true traffic situation will be. It is not that the traffic study is not a significant thing. However, Mr Gebhardt feels that the numbers that are bounced around are a little outrageous. People are going to come to this part of the County because they want to be there. If we don’t provide houses for them that is affordable where will they go? Not everyone can buy 5 acres and put on it whatever they want to do. The infrasture is in place. This is an appropriate rezoning request. It really just boils down to the individuals philosophy. Is this a rural development or is this an appropriate development to use the land when the infrasture is in place?

Commissioner Piest addressed the comment that Brian Harrington had restriction placed on him by the consultant that was hired by the County. The consultants that are hired are proven professionals that do this type of work for a living on a regular bases. If the implication was that we did not necessarily have decent people that imposed standards of unnatural things or something. The County has used other consultants that they will not use again, because the County was not happy with the results they received. Not that they went one way or another opposed to what we thought. They did not do a good job. In this case we are dealing with people who are doing a good job.

Brian Harrington stated that they were not trying to insinuate that. They have been very professional and we have a great deal of respect for them. The difference is they are approaching it from a major city perspective and they have not been on the site to see the traffic, as far as Mr Harrington knows. They hadn’t when they were doing the traffic study. He was told that at the time it was being reviewed that they had not been to the site.

Commissioner Piest stated he was surprised. Mr Piest stated he is not opposed to the development. He stated he was going to stop speaking as an employee for Boone County and would start speaking for himself, David Piest. He is not opposed to the development. However, there are certain issues that go with it that need to be addressed.

Areas A through G, 5 of which are planned, 4 which are not. What is the major with planned development? Why not just say we will go along with the whole thing planned.

Brian Harrington responded. What they are trying to do is allowed by the straignt zoning. He then asked if the County does not want straight zoning why do we have it? Planned Districts are for clustering house or rough topography in his opinion.

Rhonda Carlson commented that the reason it is a planned district was with the single-family they know exactly what they are doing with that part. The commercial is planned because you don’t know what the users are. They have a vision, but it is not certain. Ms Carlson submitted a list from the April meeting stating what would not go in the Commercial area. (That list was not a part of this present application). It is a 10-year layout and gives the County control over what can and can not go in there. The R-3 she wants as a buffer, but she want to protect the residence as well as give the County say in what happens there. Giving it straight zoning would give the developer free hand – to go with 17 units per acre. This is the maximum we will do and the County can say yes or no as the plan develops.

Commissioner Piest stated he was speaking for himself and not as an employee of Boone County. As far as the State is concerned it is a non-issue. No matter what. The applicants could stand up and offer to pay for the signalization and the State would not do it. They won’t do it until all the items on their 8 point check list have been achieved. Then they will put the signal up somewhere. There will be utilized as access, if this plan is approved and the development goes ahead, there are 4 accesses onto Rte B. Primarily with the property that lies east of Rte B. Ketterer Rd, State Hwy HH, Heller Rd, Brown Station Rd (Old Rte B). None are signalized. These people are going to try the different roads until they figure out which one is best for them. At some point in time one of the roads will quality the State 8 point check list. When that time comes then the State will start investigation possibilites of creating funding for that signal, which may take another 5 years as we all well know. Mr Piest has been told that likely, if the money is already in place it will happen a lot faster. This is something that should be considered, as the developer. Consider entering into some kind of an agreement to place that money into an account in an agreeable situation with the County and when the time comes. When 8 point check list is complete and the body count has gone high enough, enough accidents have occurred, etc, etc, etc. When if final happens then they will start and it could take another 5 years plus. Commissioner Piest said he would stand a better choice of supporting the request if the money were already in place.

Rhonda Carlson said that issue was already discussed with MoDOT. Putting money towards a light was discussed at the very fist meeting that had with MoDOT. When the traffic study was handed to them at that meeting, he said, before looking at the study, we would prefer you put the geometrics in place than give us the money for the light.

Commissioner Piest stated he had heard the same statement. Mr Piest stated he would have to function as both an employee of Boone County and as an individual since it was through the County functioning and investigations and talking with Mr Patton there is a mechanism that is available to be utilized. It is not an unproven or untried practice in this part of the world because it is done within the City. There is room within the regulations that the State allows the County Government within and within the regulations that we have created for ourselves. There is room for this to happen and it is a point that has to be addressed before he can support the proposal.

Commission Piest feels there is a problem with excessive density in the project. He stated he is not recommending it be widdled down a lot but some kind of compromise with all these people who are so adimitly opposed to the heavy density that is proposed.

Commissioner Fugit stated the Commission as a whole generally likes to see planned development so that they can see what is going to happen. Then they can approve or disapprove what will happen. It seems like there is a catch-22 situation with traffic light situation. He just recently saw a bad accident at Rte B and Hwy HH. He still would like to see a traffic light go in there even if MoDOT is not prepared to do it. For the safety and welfare of the people of Boone County and the people that live out there. MoDOT does not live in that area and they have a check list, and they are not ones out there getting killed or bang up on Rte B everyday. Those are the problems Commissioner Fugit sees with the request. There are 62 acres of unplanned development and not traffic light.

Conceiptually speaking Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated he does not have a big problem with the request. He said he surprises himself on how much he likes it. He did have one pretty serious concern and another that will probably wind up killing the request.

Someone asked why do you have unplanned districts if you want everything planned. A note from Mr Shawver explains it very clearly. We have unplanned districts because the County is already completely zoned and a lot of the land is undeveloped. It is zoned in unplanned districts. When we rezone, you will find this group at least, prefers to rezone as planned district whenever possible. Planned districts gives opportunity to change things from what they would normally be under unplanned district.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked Mrs Carlson to re-explain why she did not chose to plan the whole development.

Mrs Carlson responded that they were submitting a preliminary plat that shows the unplanned areas and those areas will not be changing significantly at all. In the Single-family unplanned district and the the duplexes that are shown unplanned there will be no significant change unless there is big significant changes in County subdivision regulations, because the period of time between April 20 and now has been spent meeting with the Planning Department in making changes and making sure that everything that we did met with their requirements within the subdivision. The only things we have not come up with 100% vision on is the plans. She explained that there will not be a change in the density that has been presented. Right behind the rezoning request is the preliminary plat is sitting before Commission and they are the same body that can turn the request down if the plat is signficantly different from what was proposed. The whole purpose of the time frame was to get the variance from the Road and Bridge for the types of streets in the development plan.

Jay Gebhardt asked what major things would be shown on a review plan for a PR-D R-S that is not shown on a prelimiary plat, except for landscapping plan and those kinds of things. This plan shows the size of the lots, the street network.

Bill Florea stated it is not necessarily the information that is shown on the review plan itself. But it is the scope of the review that changes. There is broader discretion on the part of the Planning Commission and the County Commission on approving it or placing conditions of approval on a proposal. Things as open space, landscapping, more estatic items than what can be approved under a straight zoning. That is the primary difference.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick’s other concern is the intersection of Rte B and Hwy HH and what can be done there. Everyone is pretty much in agreement with what the State will and will not do. Nobody is arguing what can and can not be done right now, but it has put the applicant in a crack., but on the other hand he is very reluctant to approve something that may, as Dave says, build the body count. There is not much more that can be said to address the issue unless it is to go along with the suggestion David Piest made earlier.

Commissioner Green said he doesn’t believe the commercial aspect of the development is likely to be filled. He said it was a personal feeling but did not believe other commercial businesses would want to come to the area, other than a Casey’s or two or the Phillips 66 station.

Mrs Carlson referred to her phasing map. Phase 4 is the majority of the commercial. That should come at the very end of the development. She does not foresee being huge needs – maybe offices. They are not counting on that being the big draw.

Commissioner Smith said she likes the development. She does not like where it is at and there is really nothing she can do about that. A bigger concern for her is as Columbia grows this is an area she calls it a rural-urban area. She does not think all the land can be A-2. She is not sure that we should be revisiting the Master Plan by approving rezoning here and approving rezoning there. By that what is happening is establishing a picture of how Boone County is going to look by doing this kind of zoning. Maybe we should go back and relook at the Master Plan, but she has some problems with the pre-annexation agreement and just the whole issue of once we approve this it pretty much sets the stage for this is the way the growth is going to go, because the next people will come in and say well you have commercial along there and etc. Commissioner Smith said she is not sure the County wants to make those decisions. She does like the development through.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick explained the voting rights. He stated any motion in favor or against this request may include all 9 tracts or if there is pieces or parts that you like and you know others that you don’t like they can be considered individually or in small groups or whatever.

Commissioner Caruthers stated that traffic is one of the main issues we are dealing with here. He asked if anyone had talked to the Colt terminal about maybe activiting passenger service and you have the resource right there. We keep hearing the Rte B corridor is heavily congested from Centralia to Columbia. It is just a thought. Other communities are looking into it as a renewed resource.

Mrs Carlson said she had never thought about it and the suggestion never came up. She said she wouldn’t know where to start to find the information. She did say it was an interesting proposal.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick agreed that was a good suggestion.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded motion to approve the request by B. C. Investments of Columbia, L. L. C. with staff recommendations on the planned segment 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.

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith No

Michael Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan No

Darin Fugit No David Piest No

Jim Green No

Motion to approve the request was denied. 2 Yes 5 No

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded motion to approve the request by B. C. Investments of Columbia, L. L. C. with staff recommendations on the planned segment 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.

 

David Piest Yes Jim Green No

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith No

Darin Fugit No Mike Morgan No

Michael Caruthers Yes

Motion to approve the requested was denied. 3 Yes 4 No

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to deny 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.

Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

Mike Morgan Yes Pat Smith Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick No David Piest No

Michael Caruthers No

Motion to deny the request was approved. 4 Yes 3 No

 

 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

    1. Request by Louie Ray and Judith Yow to approve a Review Plan

for Tower Industrial Park, Lot 6, located at 1755 Prathersville Rd., Columbia.

Thad Yonke gave the staff report (Revised Review Plan)- This site is located north of the Columbia City Limits on the north side of Prathersville Road and approximately one quarter mile west of the Highway 63 North’s Prathersville interchange. The property is currently zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential) which is the original 1973 zoning with a pending M-LP (planned light industrial) designation approved in March of 1999 that will not go into effect until a review and final plan are approved for the property contained within this proposal. Adjacent zoning to the south and west is R-M, which are original 1973 zonings. Zoning to the north is M-LP that was rezoned from its original zoning of R-M effective with the approval of the final development plan for Tower Industrial Park Lot 5 in July of 1999. Zoning to the east is C-N (neighborhood commercial) which was rezoned from the original R-M in 1998. The request encompasses 2.37 acres and shows a proposed split of the original lot 6 into two lots, lot 6A & 6B. The portion of this review plan request that pertains to the intent to create 2 lots will require a vacation hearing and approval of a replat. These steps have not yet been initiated. The review plan shows proposed future lot 6A as vacant, while proposed future lot 6B is shown as a parking, restroom, storage, and playground area that is intended to support the use of the adjoining mini-mart to the East. It should be recognized that an additional revised review plan for proposed future lot 6A will be required before any structures can be placed on the lot 6A. The site is within the Columbia School District. Water service is provided by the City of Columbia. Since sewer and water service will be from the City of Columbia there is a pre-annexation agreement requiring the meeting of all city standards and review in effect for this property. A landscaping plan, lighting plan, and erosion control plan are needed to comply with the original submitted review plan conditions; it is important to note that since a pre-annexation agreement is in effect, that the landscaping requirements will need to meet the city standards. No direct access to Prathersville Road should be allowed from proposed future lot 6A and the access to proposed future lot 6B should be limited to the single existing driveway shown. The proposal rates 71 points on the point rating scale. Staff notified 78 property owners concerning this request.

Staff recommends approval of the revised review plan subject to the following conditions:

  1. That the proper vacation and replat approval be sought and approved along with the actual approval of the 2-lot replat. This will need to be done prior to approval of a final plan.
  2. That an acceptable landscaping/erosion control plan be submitted with the final plan with recognition that it be allowed to be modified by the inclusion of a higher level of planting, screening and other features where necessary to meet the city standards.
  3. That the development obtains the proper approvals from the city as required by the pre-annexation agreement in effect for the property.
  4. That access to proposed future lot 6B be limited to the single existing driveway shown on the revised review plan and that proposed lot 6A have no direct access to Prathersville Road.
  5. That an acceptable lighting plan be submitted with the final plan and that the lighting be directed inward to comply with the original condition placed on the original review plan for the development.

Ron Shy, 5600 S Hwy KK, Columbia. Mr Yow purchased all of Lot 6, primarily to to provide additional parking area for this mini-mart. He is also planning some picnic areas and also some playground areas for people who come to participate in those games with their kids or whatever will they are visiting the store. At some point in time the other part will be sold to someone separate. The reason he is before the Commission is because he could not get a permit to build restrooms on Lot 6B. The sewer line shown on the plan is already in place, but it has not been hooked-up yet because of the agreements that are necessary with the City. Mr Shy’s firm did the original Tower Estates so he knows this line was relocated in from of R J’s Mini-mart, at their request, hoping that they could get on the sewer system sometime in the future.

Mr Yow stated that he did have the letter of annexation, signed by the City of Columbia.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve the request by Louie Ray and Judith Yow to approve the revised Review Plan with staff recommendations for Tower Industrial Park, Lot 6, located at 1755 Prathersville Rd., Columbia.

Michael Caruthers Yes Pat Smith Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes David Piest Yes

Jim Green Yes

Motion to approve the request was unanimously carried. 7 Yes 0 No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

    1. Settlers Ridge, preliminary plat. S9-T49-R12W. B.C. Investment,

L.L.C., owner. Michael L. Klasing, surveyor.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Piest seconded motion to deny Settlers Ridge, preliminary plat and review plan. S9-T49-R12W. B.C. Investment, LLC, owner. Michael L Klasing, surveyor.

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Jim Green Yes

David Piest Yes Pat Smith Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes

Motion to deny the request was unanimously carried. 7 Yes 0 No

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

McManama CUP PZ recommended approval C Commission approved

Ronnebaum Rezone PZ recommended denial Recommendation stood

MO Rural Water PZ recommended approval C Commission approved

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

Congratulations!!!

Stan Shawver commended Thad Yonke and Bill Florea have recently tested for the Amercian Institute of Certified Planners which is a very great honor. They not only tested but passed the test. Approximately 60% of the people who take the test pass it. The City of Columbia does not have any AICP Planners on staff. There are none in Central Missouri. You have to go to Springfield, St Louis or Kansas City. There are a couple at the University but they don’t do planning like Boone County does.

Election of Officers

All offices were declared vacant. Stan Shawver acted as Chairman. The following officers were elected:

Chairman - Keith Kirkpatrick

Moved by Darin Fugit, Seconded by Mike Morgan, approved by acclimation.

Vice-Chairman – Darin Fugit

Moved by Mike Morgan, Seconded by Michael Caruthers, approved by acclimation.

Secretary – Mary Sloan

Moved by Jim Green, Seconded by Darin Fugit, approved by acclimation.

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Jim Green

Acting-Secretary

Minutes approved on this 17th, day of August, 2000.