BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, August 17, 2000

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

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Darin Fugit, Vice-Chairperson Columbia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

James Green Cedar Township

Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

David Piest Public Works

Pat Smith Perche Township

Absent: None

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Ora Ramsey, Staff

 

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve the minutes of July 20, 2000 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

1. Request by Keith and Chastity Samuel to rezone from A-2

(Agriculture) to A-R/PRD (Agriculture Residential/Planned Residential

Development) and to approve a Review Plan and preliminary plat on 94.04

acres, more or less, located at 9200 S Rte N, Columbia; to be known as

Brookfield Estates.

Thad Yonke gave staff report that this property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of State Route N & Bluebird Lane. The site is approximately 3 & 1/2 miles south of the Columbia municipal limits. The subject tract is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. These are all original 1973 zonings. In November of 1989 and July of 1990 requests were submitted to place a radio tower on this property, both were denied. The property is currently vacant. Construction has begun on the lakes that are shown on the review plan/preliminary plat. The applicant is requesting rezoning of the entire 94.04-acre parcel to A-R/PRD (agricultural-residential/planned residential development). A review plan/preliminary plat has been submitted showing, 41 lots for single family dwellings, a lot for a central wastewater system, 2 common area lots each containing a lake, and a single not-for development common area lot. 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.1. The water district engineers have indicated that there is not sufficient water service for this development at this time. Water line extensions and up-grades will be required to meet the required fire flow for the development and these will be at the developer’s cost. Additional right-of-way to provide a minimum 33’ 1/2 width as measured from the existing centerlines of both Bluebird Lane and State Route N will be required. The review plan/preliminary plat shows a realignment corridor for the intersection of Bluebird Lane and State Route N. The exact location of this corridor and associated road improvements or construction will need to be worked out with both County Public Works and MoDOT. Proposed Chastity Lane is a required road connection to meet the maximum block length requirements, as shown, this connection ties into the realignment corridor for Bluebird Lane. As shown, the developer will be responsible for building the realignment of Bluebird Lane since a required road connection relies upon this realignment. If the developer does not intend to commit himself to building the realignment then Chastity Lane will need to be appropriately relocated to the east to tie into the existing and undisturbed portion of Bluebird Lane. If this change is made, it will need to be worked out with staff prior to final plat submission. Lot 3 does not comply with the subdivision regulation length to width requirements and must be reconfigured. A road stub to the property to the east is required and has not been provided. Staff does not feel there are any topographic or other good causes to not meet this requirement. The note on the plat indicating the average lot size of 2.3 acres is somewhat misleading. If you take the 94.04 acres and divide that number by the number of dwelling units proposed for the site which is 41, then you obtain the 2.29 acres. This is not an average lot size but rather the average residential density on the entire site. The two are not the same thing. Average lot size would need to be calculated by calculating the individual acreage of each lot and averaging the total. The proposed acreage of each lot is not provided. In absence of this information, it is probably more appropriate to look to the graphic to get a feel for the sizes of lots being proposed. If this is done then one determines that of the 41 lots proposed for residential development there are at least 16 lots that are right at the 1 acre size, a number between 1 to 2 acres, and only a few over the 2 acre size. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. An A-R zoning designation is not consistent with the plan; however, the plan does recommend the use of planned developments to make developments more compatible. The lots around the perimeter of the development proposal do tend to be the larger lots more in keeping with the area than those proposed for the internal portion of the development. The proposal has 58 points on the point rating system. 29 property owners were notified of this request.

If the commission approves the rezoning request, then staff recommends approval of the review plan and preliminary plat subject to the following 8 conditions.

  1. That no buildings be allowed in the green space easement and no direct access be allowed to State Route N or Bluebird Lane.
  2. That Lot 3 be brought into compliance with the subdivision regulations.
  3. That required water improvements are completed to provide required fire flow and that it be recognized that this is the developer cost.
  4. That the required road stub to the east property be provided and the location worked out with the planning & public works staff.
  5. If the required connection of Chastity Lane remains where it is, that the developer is required to build the relocation of Bluebird Lane. If Chastity Lane is moved then this issue will need to be re-evaluated and must be worked out with the planning & public works staff.
  6. That the exact relocation of Bluebird Lane be worked out with staff & MoDOT prior to final platting.
  7. That the stormwater & erosion control suggestions for the lakes & site provided by the NRCS be followed as requirements.
  8. Since the wastewater plant is proposed along the edge of the development against a neighboring property, buffering should be required and an acceptable landscaping plan submitted.

Bruce Beckett, Attorney, 901 E Broadway, Columbia. Keith Samuel, owner, 1680 E Louisville Dr, Columbia. Jim Brush, Surveyor, Mr Beckett represents Keith and Chastity Samuel. The property is now zoned A-2, which permits a 2.5-acre tract of land to be sold and developed for residential purposes. The applicant’s request is to rezone to agricultural-residential, but in the planned district rather than in an open district so that the applicant is bound by the provisions of the review plan and final plot and plan which are ultimately approved if the rezoning request is granted. Though the A-R zoning being requested would permit .5 acre tracts of land, the density proposed by the review plan submitted by Mr Samuel is substantially less that. The applicant agreed that the 2.3-acre per lot reference on the review plan is somewhat misleading. There are 41 lots, 94.04 acres – if the acreage is divided by the number of lots is averages to approximately 2.3. To be more accurate, the applicants prepared and distributed a statistical summary of what is shown on the review plan.

The statistical summary shows the acreage of each lot on the Review Plan and evidences that there are fifteen 1-acre lots. There are fourteen lots over 1-acre, but less than 2 acres. Ten lots that are between 2 and 3.2 acres. Two lots of more than 5-acres. Which is a total of 41. This is a good blend of lot sizes.

Mr Beckett also pointed out that not only are there 72.10 acres covered by the 41 lots, but also there is almost 13.5 acres of common area, which consists of two large lakes. One lake is almost 8 acres and one, which is slightly over 3 acres. There is also a common area, which is the treatment facility and 1.1 acre of green space lot, which is a remnant, which would be left if Bluebird is realigned as shown on this review plan. In addition to that, out of the 72 acres that are in residential lots, at least 10 acres of that is in green space. So there are almost 23 acres dedicated to things like lakes and green space within this subdivision. If you have about 23 acres dedicated to those kinds of uses, that is a little over 23% of this property is devoted to green space, lakes, or other protected kinds of areas, that can’t be used for building. In that respect the applicant things the request is superior to even A-2 zoning. Mr Beckett further explained that if the roads were taken out (of which there are 9 acres of roads), which would leave 85 acres; and if the property was left A-2 zoning, the applicant could place about 34 2.5-acre parcels within the 94 acres. The applicant is asking for 7 additional lots making it a total of 41 lots and in return the Planning and Zoning Commission has control over what happen in the plans which can not be deviated from.

The review plan also shows 50-foot setbacks from all roads, which is the same for A-2 zoning. In A-R zoning the requirement is for a 25-foot setback but the applicant has increased the setback to 50 feet so that they will not deviate from the existing setbacks too much. Public sewer would also be brought to the area. It is the owners plan to construct and dedicate to the Boone County Sewer District a treatment facility and all the collector lines that are within this subdivision. It is anticipated that that treatment facility will be at the capacity that would be sufficient to serve other adjoining areas. A centralized treatment facility in an area is far superior to the multitude of private treatment plants that result from development of the property in some more restrictive zoning district. It is also the owner’s intention to bring natural gas into the area. Other adjoining property owners will benefit from the utilities will be brought to the site as well. There are three entrances planned from public thoroughfares into this development. One on Route N, and two onto Bluebird. One of those entrances is Chastity Lane, which was added as Staff suggestion in order to meet the block requirements. It is shown going into, what was intended to be a reserved 66-foot tract for a potential future realignment of Bluebird. By doing that the owner thought he was making a concession to the public, because the intersection of Bluebird and Route N could use some improvement. By showing it on the plans, the owner did not intend to be obliged to pay for the construction of this new realignment of Bluebird himself. Only to provide for that in the future, should the County at some time deem that that is an appropriate place to spend County money to realign the two roads. The Staff indicated that if it is not the owner’s intention to pay for construction of the realigned Bluebird Road, they would have to realign Chastity to the east so that it meets up with existing Bluebird. That would be the portion of the Staff’s recommendation in that respect that the owner intends to follow. The treatment plant is on the northern boundary of the property and is 1.38 acres. Common Lot A is a 7.848 acre tract which will have the large with an island in it. The purpose for the island is to preserve a specimen Oak tree that is in the vicinity of that island to keep it from being destroyed. Common Lot B is a 3 acre tract for a second lake that will be used by lots around it. The last Common area is the remnant lot that would lie south of realigned Bluebird, if that road were realigned. That would also be dedicated green space. The 10 acres of green space in the residential lots that were referred to earlier are along Route N – along Lots 1 through 5 and also along the southeast corner of the subdivision there is about 4 acres of green space preserved, existing tree cover and roughly another 6 acres of green space, intended to preserve some of the existing tree coverage that is there. There would be some slight realignment of the green space so that there would be a useable lot in Lot 5. The smaller lots are concentrated in the central portion of the development around the common area lakes. The larger lots are out on the perimeter next to the neighbors.

Mr Beckett and Staff discussed some environmental concerns of some of the neighbors. Mr Beckett stated he confirmed with them that this area is not currently in any identified sinkhole area. The nearest streamed that could be identified by looking at a plat book were Little Bonne Femme Creek and Bonne Femme Creek. Both are at least 1.5 miles away. Mr Beckett stated there are no identified environmentally sensitive creeks in the area that the applicant is aware of that would be effected by the subdivision. This plan only would result in approximately 7 lots more than could be put in the subdivision now. In view of the rather substantial measures Mr Samuel has taken to configure this subdivision and establish green spaces and other area devoted not for building – it seems to the applicant that this a far superior result than would otherwise be achieved if the property developed with its currently zoning. Mr Samuel is in the business of developing real estate and that is why he bought the property. He will develop it, however the request before the Commission is a quality development and far more superior to what he will be allowed to do at the site now without the approval of the request.

Mr Beckett addressed some of the Staff Recommendations, which are being imposed as a condition of the approval of the plan. Applicant stated they just received, this week, that the Water District had concluded that there were not adequate fire flows there. The initial information received was that there was adequate fire flows at the sight. If they had known about the inadequate fire flow they would have addressed that earlier than this week. Mr Samuel has been in contact with the Fire District and the Water District and is right now discussing several ways of bringing the fire flow that are required to the development. The applicant understands that this will be a condition of approval. It must be done and houses can not be built within adequate fire flow. They do not object to the condition but would like the flexibility to work with the Fire Protection District and the Water District in order to provide those fire flow. Mr Beckett previously commented on Bluebird and Chastity. Regarding the reconfiguration of Lot 3, third lot from the bottom of the north west corner. That is a length verses width problem. That can easily be resolved by reconfiguring all three of the northwest lots together. The applicant believes they can meet that requirement – so they do not object to that condition. Regarding the road stub on the eastern boundary of the property – that will probably be a road going to nowhere. One of the requirements is to carry roads to the neighbors. The applicant is uncertain whether the Williamses want a road stubbed over to their property. The road would be about 200 feet. The applicant would be willing to consider anything reasonable, but it seems to be a cost that is not worth incurring right at this point. If that is a requirement and it can not be worked out with Staff and the neighbor to their satisfaction and they are required to do it then they will do it. Regarding Staff recommendation that no buildings allowed in the green spaces shown on the final plat – the applicant agrees with that condition. In so far as storm water erosion control suggestions from the NRCS, and wastewater plant buffering and landscaping, those requirements are understood as well, and the applicant has no objections. In conclusion, Mr Beckett stated that he, Mr Keith Samuel and Mr Jim Brush were ready to answer any questions the Commission might have at this time.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if Lots 1 through5 would be left as green space and not for development? Mr Beckett said that Lots 1 through 5 had about the western half of them devoted to green space. There is a line on the plat that proceeds through the lots and there are arrows showing the green space out to the east part of that line and out to Route N. The only deviation that will need to be made will be on Lot 5. The lot line will have to be bent out to make a buildable lot line. So the green space is actually a little more than the western half of Lots 1 through 5.

Mr Beckett responded to Commissioner Fugit’s question regarding the location of the treatment plant which is on Common Lot C (which is 1.38 acres).

Commissioner Green asked the applicant if changes on the green space could be made once someone buys the lot. Commissioner Smith expressed the same concern. They stated that once someone buys the lot they may not be able to build in the green space, but they can chop down trees if they feel like it – since the land belongs to them. The green space belongs to the lots and is not really common green space.

Mr Beckett stressed that the 94 acres is primarily pasture ground. Some of the tree cover is not good. A lot of it is thorny locust. There are some good trees, but a lot are not. The purpose of the green space is to keep it green, whether it is grass or trees. It can not be built on and that is the intention and recommendation the Staff made the conditioning approval. The applicant is willing to live with that.

Commissioner Piest asked if the location of the green spaces could be identified by actual dimensions. Mr Brush stated it would take some work, but the green spaces could actually be tied down with exact dimensions.

Open to public hearing.

Those in favor of the request.

Richard Clarke, 1415 E Georgetown Loop, Columbia. Mr Clarke is the president of the Georgetown Neighborhood Association. He has known Keith and Chastity Samuel for a number of years. They have built a number of homes in the Georgetown Subdivision in Georgetown West. The Neighborhood Association has been very pleased with the homes they have constructed. They have been good neighbors and have not tried to get around any of the regulations that govern Georgetown. They have generally been accommodating and good neighbors. Mr Clarke stated he would rather see a planned development anywhere in the County, rather than just wide open to any kind of development. He encouraged the use of the planned development.

Tracy Arey, 2409 Wild Oak Ct, Columbia. Mr Arey spoke in support of the subdivision because of the dedicated lakes and green space. He stated giving up 25% of the property is basically land given away. A lot of people in this county would not be willing to give up 25% of their land. The Association will take that land over and it would not be any benefit to the owner whatsoever. The model community in the County is 23-25%. It is real similar to The Woodlands, which is very County-like. Property owners are getting their space. Based on the sewage system and all the improvements that will be done – it real similar to The Woodlands other than the additional improvements of the roads that would be in this subdivision. Mr Arey stated that he is working with Mr Samuel on selling the properties for him. He has had some phone calls from people interested in buying the property. A couple of the calls were from concerned people who live in the neighborhood around the proposed site. They were approached by someone who stated that there will be 200 homes put in the subdivision. There was a petition signed stating there were too many houses for 94 acres. In the particular call that Mr Arey remembered the neighbor was concerned because he knew the information being told was not correct and he was told that 200 homes were to be built in the subdivision.

Those in opposition of the request.

James Comas, 1231 E Bluebird Lane, Columbia. Mr Comas spoke on behalf of two groups and gave an overview of concerns and objections to the rezoning request. The first group consists of over 50% of those who own property within 1,000 feet of the proposed development. These property owner signed a written protest against the change in zoning and their signatures have been notarized. Copies of the written protest were distributed to the Commissioners.

The second group consists of over 60 people who own property in the general vicinity of the proposed development and who have signed a written protest against the change in zoning. These signatures were collected in less than two weeks, at a time when many of the neighbors have been out of town. Mr Comas responded to Mr Arey’s comment. He stated that over 40 neighbors met last Sunday night discussing the information on the proposed site. People who volunteered to route the petitions knew exactly how many plots where on the plat. Mr Comas said he had no doubt that the people who took the petitions around represented the plat accurately.

Mr Comas and neighbors that signed the written protest petition offered the following objections to the proposed change in zoning and the grounds for the objections include: 1) creation of spot zoning, 2) creation of urban sprawl, 3) lack of adequate water supply, 4) lack of proper fire protection, 5) lack of proper police protection, 6) lack of proper storm water control, 7) creation of a nuisance from sewer treatment site, 8) creation of traffic congestion, 9) incompatibility with surrounding zoning, 10) failure to conform to the Boone County Master Plan, 11) violation of rights of adjacent property owners who purchased property in reliance upon the existing A-2 zoning.

Mr Comas began by stating that there are three families who within the past 13 months have purchased homes on land adjacent to the proposed development. In addition, there was a 4th family who purchased land this past January with the intent of building a home. So there are four families who purchased property within the last 13 months in reliance upon the existing A-2 zoning. Four families that recently made an important decision of where to establish their home. They did not decide to establish their homes in the suburbs. These families decided to establish their homes in a rural agriculture community.

The Master Plan contains a land use plan including a map designating future land uses. The map shows that the land to the west, north and east of Rock Bridge State Park is to be used as residential. The area south of the park is to remain agricultural and rural. Moreover, the proposed development is located in the vicinity of both Rock Bridge State Park and the Three Creeks State Forest. The opponent’s belief that the request to rezone is not consistent with the County’s Master Plan. Also they believe that approval of the rezoning will establish a precedent for development in this area. Approval for this plan would mark the beginning of the end of this rural area south of Rock Bridge Park.

The planned development is significantly more dense than the surrounding area. As explained in the Staff report the developer’s plat is misleading in its statement that the average lot size is 2.3 acres. The average size of the residential lots is actually closer to 1.65. More importantly 36 of the 41 lots are less then 2.5 acres. By comparison the average size of properties within 1000 feet of the proposed development the average size is 68 acres. Also, the average size of properties in the same section of the Township (section 24) is 19.05 acres. Mr Comas stated the computations were based on the most recently updated orthophoto map from the County Assessor’s office that was updated on August 20, 1999.

As stated in the Staff report, ‘ The water district engineers have indicated that there is not sufficient water service for this development at this time.’ Even if the developer is willing to pay for upgrading the water service the opposing neighbors still question the appropriateness of this kind of development in a rural area. The bottom line is the infrastructure does not exist and creating the planned infrastructure would destroy the rural character of the area. Creating this infrastructure, upgrading the water lines, creating a sewer system, bringing in natural gas – all this would do would encourage more development in this area.

There are concerns for increased traffic on the area roads, especially along Route N and the stretch of Hwy 163 from Rock Bridge Elementary School past Rock Bridge State Park to the junction at Pierpont. It might be argued that this one development will not result in a significant increase in traffic. However, it is more realistic to consider the amount of traffic resulting from several developments that are certain to come if the proposed development is approved. If allowed to continue this development will set a precedent for the area.

They are also concerned about the wastewater plant. Mr Comas said his family did not purchase their home last year so they look out their back door and see a waste treatment facility. They moved to the country because they enjoyed hearing frogs and insects at night and an occasional coyote. They did not move to a rural area in order to listen to the hum of motors pumping sewage. Generally, the developer’s plan is to have the effluent from this wastewater plant flow into Little Bonne Femme. The opponents believe that such a plan raises serious questions about the likely consequences about the Little Bonne Femme watershed and possible the Bonne Femme watershed. This last point raises the more general issue of environmental concerns. In addition to the watershed questions, Mr Comas ended the overview by introducing a preliminary draft of a report currently being prepared by Dr Lisa Meeks, a Professor of Geology at Central Missouri State University. The title of the report is Assessment and Prediction of Sinkhole Development in Boone County, Missouri. This report is part of a long-term study beginning in the 1950’s of sinkholes in this area. The maps of the recent study are not yet completed, but the draft contains conclusions that are believed to be important for the Commission’s consideration.

The recent study map Section 18, which touches the northeast corner of section 24 where the proposed development is located. Mr Comas quoted the report’s finding and conclusions. ‘When the initial base map was completed and taken into the field for cross checking 83 new sinkholes were identified that were not found on the original topographic map. These new sinkholes ranged in size from a few feet in diameter to hundreds of feet in diameter and were found on the edge of roads, in fields and forests, and even as the foundation for one house in the area. Regression analysis was a success and indicates that with a high degree of probability that sinkholes will form in the future along existing linear trends. It is suggested that these areas be restricted to agricultural land use only as the building of houses in these trends would result in costly structural damage and danger to the inhabitants.’ This study did not include the property of the proposed development, but the report clearly shows that there are many more sinkholes than what currently appear on the original topographical maps. There are several neighbors along both Bluebird Lane and Route N who have lived in the area for many years and have first hand account of sinkholes in the area.

Mr Comas concluded the overview by reiterating that approval of the request to rezone, approval of this kind of development – this precedent would mark the beginning of the end of this rural area south of Rock Bridge Park.

Sheri Potter, 8799 S Rte N, Columbia. Ms Potter lives across the road from where the road is to be built. She is concerned about her 9-month old son being hit by a car. She stated she is one of the new families and was not expecting any of the proposed changes. Ms Potter stated she has already seen a bad wreck in front of their house this year. If the road is built it will cross some of the land they own. The taxpayers will end up paying for the new road that will be built. She moved to the country to get away from the city so her son could have a good life and live in the country like she grew up. If the proposed development is built if will effect the wildlife and hunting in the area. Ms Potter stated there are a lot of bike riders in the area from the MKT Trail. Bikes and cars do not mix. There will be more accidents. She believes the whole city will have problems with this development. It took her 2 years to find her home. She likes the area and her neighbors. She questions the motive and intent of the Samuels since she heard they don’t live in the area.

Commissioner Sloan asked Staff how a road can go across Ms Potter’s property? Thad Yonke responded by saying the portion of the road that is being considered for realignment is actually at Route N and the curve where it would curve there is actually within the Samuel property. The other portions of Bluebird Lane also have some sharp 90-degree curves, but those are not spoken to in the Staff report.

Robert E (Gene) Riddell, 1684 County Road 276, Fulton. Mr Riddell is the prospective buyer to land next to the proposed development. Mr Riddell asked to be shown where the wastewater treatment plant would be located and asked where the wastewater goes after it leaves the plant. The land that he will purchase (the Traxler property) is an undivided portion of 32 acres that joins to the north side of the Samuel property. There used to be a creek behind the property. Will the sewer drain into that creek and across properties in that low spot or how will it work. It concerns him because he doesn’t want to buy property that sewer water will be running across.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick suggested Mr Riddell contact the Department of Natural Resources regarding any discharges that may come from the wastewater treatment system, because the system would have to meet State standards.

Ken Midkiff, 1005 Belleview Ct, Columbia. Mr Midkiff came to represent the Osage Chapter of the Sierra Club in the area. Mr Midkiff started by stating that they are opposed to further development in the area more dense than A-2. He served on the long range planning commission and many discussions were held on how to handle A-2 development. Anything more dense than that is too much for the area. It is too close to the Rock Bridge State Park. It is too close to the Three Creeks Conservation area. He also questioned the statement that this is not a karst area. Mr Midkiff said he was pleased to hear that a geologist has begun to do some studies of the area. The geologist he spoke with stated that while there may not be a visible karst, the sinkholes, springs and etc., that what is under the surface has a type of openings in the conduit that would allow the further development of such sinkholes. A few years ago the West Plains wastewater treatment plant collapsed and fell into a sinkhole including the ground water. There was no evidence prior to that collapse of there being karst topography in the area. Slowly under the surface it ate way and the sinkhole collapsed.

Mr Midkiff agreed with the developer that the on-site sewage disposal systems are problematic. Both the Department of Health and the Department of Natural Resources are wrestling with on-site treatment plants. Mr Midkiff suggested that no additional wastewater treatment plans be allowed that the area and that any development be required to hook up to a Boone County wastewater treatment system. It is impossible to protect the ground water in that area with the proliferation of on-site sewage disposal systems. The wastewater would have to be treated to the standards for the designation of the receiving water body. If it is a livestock-watering stream, which means there would be no limit on pathogen (ie ecoli, picacol, salmonella). Those would be allowed to flow into the street without any limits. That is simply the way our wastewater treatment laws work in the State of Missouri. Mr Midkiff flew over the area a few times and Rock Bridge State Park and Three Creeks Conservation area are becoming islands of green in a sea of development. We see what has happened on the north side, the east side and the west sided and now this is moving to the south side. This is urban sprawl. The only way to get there is by single car vehicle. There is no immediate shopping. The nearest shopping center is the Piedmont Store. The point is this is commercial urban sprawl, leapfrog development and is out of character for the area.

Jeff Mitchell, 5117 Louisville Court, Columbia. He and Katherine Linder own the land immediately adjacent to the proposed development. He commented on a point that Mr Beckett had made. Mr Mitchell stated that unless the lakes or ponds are drained that are already being built he doesn’t think the developer can get as many houses in as he plans under the A-2 zoning. He is opposed to changing the zoning to A-R.

Annette Robbins, 408 W Robin Ridge Rd, Columbia. Mrs Robbins and her family have nearly been hit by speeding on coming cars on Route N. She has called numerous times to official to find out who has jurisdiction over Route N and has been told it under the jurisdiction of the State Highway Patrol and that they do not have enough people to sit and monitor speeding traffic. The traffic is a real concern for her. She has been pushed off the road by cars. It is a real dangerous road.

Susan C Haines, 7800 S Rock Bridge Lane, Columbia. Ms Haines is the president of the Friends for Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. She has taken the wild cave tour in the Devil’s Icebox. When she toured it 3 years ago 5 miles of the Devil’s Icebox had been explored and had been mapped at that time. In the last 3 years an additional 2 miles have been identified and mapped. There are additional rooms, caverns, space that contribute to the sinkholes that have been spoken about earlier. It is important that anyone who builds in the area is aware of the fact that they are constantly finding and discovering new passages. Anytime there are torrential rains there are experiences of additional spaces that are being washed out in that partial terrain. The flood of 1993 created some very intense concerns from the Department of Natural Resources. As the water seeped through and into the Devil’s Icebox area it washed out areas that had not been mapped previously. It was a grave concern for people who lived in that particular area because they noticed that there was additional moving and additional loss of land around the sink hold areas where there was movement of it, the new loss of land through sinkhole spaces. Ms Haines has lived in the area for 20 years and has seen the progress of the land and wanted to share her concern from the perspective that anyone who decides to build in that area is aware of the fact that there is a lot of underground happening. She encouraged the Commission to take a tour through the Devil’s Icebox so that they will see how the land lies and how it has been carved out. She told them they would be surprised at what they saw as well as see the beauty below ground that they would hate to see destroyed with effluent or additional chemicals. It is a treasurery for the community.

Katherine Matera, 8171 Tomlin Hill Rd, Columbia. Ms Matera and many of her neighbors received a letter from the Boone County Soil and Water Conservation District. The letter was from Bud Holiman, the Chairman. His letter stated that the Boone County Soil and Water Conservation District was doing a progress with Bonne Femme Agricultural Non-point Source Project. The project provided cost-share dollars to complete conservation projects to improve water quality and prevent soil erosion. The area includes Bonne Femme and Little Bonne Femme water sheds. This is the land that runs south of Columbia to north of Ashland and from the west side of the Columbia Regional Airport to Easley. That is a large area. They are inviting eligible land donors. It is an opportunity to establish pasture grass, building terraces, waterways, ponds, diversion and crop fields and additional conservation practices are available. It is a cost-share dollar program. She and her neighbor feel that if they are this interested in trying to provide their monies to join with them to provide these conservation programs this area must indeed be something to consider. The majority of the landowners are good stewards. This is also a stewardship issue. They are happy of have people join in the community, but would like them to also be stewards of the property and not just people who drive in and drive out and enjoy other people’s stewardship.

James Gibson, 406 Robin Ridge Rd, Columbia. Mr Gibson began by saying there has been some concern expressed about the adequacy of the highway running from Rock Bridge Elementary School out through the park and on to Easley, Route N specifically. In its most recent report the Missouri Department of Transportation, which is the financing arm for all the road in that area, indicated they had no funds available for the widening or improvement of Route N in addition to its existing width. He shares the concerns of Mrs Robbins about the adequacy of the current highway. For 30 years he has driven the road and can not tell how many times he has nearly avoided disaster, because of the inadequacy of the current road. If you add an influx of a large number of other vehicles, on a daily basis by this rezoning, you truly are inviting disaster for the residence for that portion of the county.

James Kamp, 1172 E Bluebird Lane, Columbia. Mr Kamp stated that the bicyclist in the area take their own lives in their hands and put everyone else at risk and he wishes that somebody could put some signs up just to say that bicycling on those roads is a risk. It is a very narrow road and many people driving seem to skirt and hug the middle line.

Mr Kamp also shared a personal benefit he gets from living where he does. He lives to the south of Bluebird lane and to the north is the big field that is to be developed. He can go outside and see the stars at night. He can also see the big lights of Columbia. When he first moved to the area the lights of Columbia weren’t so big. He can’t see the stars to the north, but he can see them over his head and to the south and they are beautiful. He has a sister that lives in Leroy, Illinois (close to Bloomington). She lives in a subdivision that has bigger lots and you can see the stars there too because there is a lot of space between the houses. Mr Kamp feels that the congestion of 1 to 2 acre plots in the middle of this proposed subdivision is going to put a hamper on what he sees. He closed by saying he enjoys seeing the stars.

Roxann Durham, 1807 E Bluebird Lane, Columbia. The proposed development lies between her house and Rock Bridge State Park. It may not be a known karst area where the development is, but they have 23 acres and on that 23 acres they have about 10 sinkholes. There are also a lot of sinkholes in Rock Bridge State Park so she has a hard time believing there is no tunneling under the area that is being proposed for development, because there is a lot of sinkhole activity in that surrounding area. She also commented on the point of the misinformation being given as the petitions were passed around. Ms Durham was one of the folks to whom the petitions were brought and the description of the proposed development was accurate. It did not say anything about 200 lots. It talked about approximately 40 some building lots. So the information her family was given was accurate and she doesn’t think there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation relating to those signatures that were gotten through those petitions. She stated she lives in the country because she chose to and would be very saddened to see this level of development in an area that is now rural. She has concerns for the infrastructure and certainly has concerns for the traffic in the area – along Route N and Hwy 163 in front of Rock Bridge State Park. Rock Bridge State Park is a big draw, the River down around Easley is a big draw. There is a lot of traffic there already and 45 more homes at 2 cars each will add another 90 cars to the area. With trips to work and back home makes for another 180 pieces of traffic to the area per day, at least. This figure does not include trips to the store, to the Park or to Easley. That area is not designed to handle that level of traffic.

Nancy Boon, 8251 S Rte N, Columbia. Ms Boon lives half way between the proposed development and Pierpont intersection. She also expressed concern for traffic. She hears squealing tires and accidents near her house frequently. The area she is also concerned about is the area through Rock Bridge. Ms Boon stated the road through Rock Bridge is becoming a collector road. Since State Farm was built a lot of people are coming in off of Hwy 63 on 163 through Pierpont and through Rock Bridge State Park. This includes semi-trucks as well as normal automobile traffic. If this area is developed with the proposed development or any future developments the impact on the road through Rock Bridge will increase its use as a collector street.

Troy Potter, 9799 S Rte N, Columbia. He likes country living. He likes the big lakes that they are building. If developer wants to build a big house go right ahead. Mr Potter said the neighbors would be glad to have the Samuels as neighbors, but he does not welcome a subdivision in the neighborhood and suggested the developer build the proposed subdivision by Georgetown where there are other existing subdivisions. He stated that his neighbors are happy the way things are and that they don’t need a subdivision in the area.

Kurt Albert, 2000 W Gleason Rd, Columbia. Mr Albert asked the people opposed to the proposed development to stand so that the Commission could see the number in representation. The lake immediately south of the subject property is a sinkhole itself. Within approximately 300 yards visible from in the ‘Timber Lakes Property’ sinkholes are visible within 50 and 100 feet from the road. He is concerned about the traffic as well – has driven the road for 12 years and it has become much more dangerous like others have said. Mr Albert said he is not sure what the County Engineers will do with the Bluebird junction and stated it is probably the most ridiculous piece of junction anywhere in the County -–it is very dangerous. A number of accidents have happened there over the years. Not certain what can be done. It is a dipping blind curve. Lastly, he does not agree with whoever said 2.5 acres was an appropriate size for a lot in this portion of the County. He believes 5 or 10 acres is more appropriate. Mr Albert said he doesn’t want to see the property down zoned at all, but would like to see at least 5 acres is what would be correct.

Richard Chancellor, 504 Waldo Ct, Columbia. He and his wife bought 62 acres 35 years ago, which are within 1000 feet of the proposed development. They had intentions of building their retirement home after they retire. Mr Chancellor said he will retire in 4 months. He have to take a hard look at possibly putting a home there now.

There are five concerns he would like to bring up: 1) Traffic congestion; 2) the impact the development might have on his investment out there; 3) the impact it might have on the fresh water springs which they have on their property; 4) the impact it will have on the wild life – the development is primarily pasture land – that is understood. However, it will drive the wild life, the deer and all the other things back into the wilderness from what the neighbors enjoy right now; and 5) noise pollution – there won’t be the sound of birds and bugs – there will be motors of cars and air conditioners going on.

John Burris, 1000 E Bluebird Lane, Columbia. Lives directly south of the proposed development. Ask what the prices of the homes will be? Wanted to know if they were relatively inexpensive homes. Are they comparable to the neighborhood. He would like to see the 2.5-acre minimum abided by. That would be a situation with the rest of the properties out there. Mr Burris stated that the applicant has a right to do what ever he wants with his property provided he follows the regulations. The only problem he would have is if the houses where lower cost housing. Mr Burris stated he wouldn’t want to see that in his neighborhood.

Phil Miller, 900 E Bluebird Lane, Columbia. Mr & Ms Miller purchased their land approximately 30 years ago. At that time the thought this type of proposed development would probably stop at Rock Bridge State Park. For the most part that has been the situation. Mr Miller said he is not a person that believes somebody should tell him what to do with his land, with exception. This is an exception. He believes that 2.5 acres is too small to start with. The development does not fit in the neighborhood. He said it was like putting a square peg in a round hole. It is totally out of place. Most of the people in the neighborhood have small farms and have a few head of livestock, horses, cattle whatever. He has concerns about fencing. Mr Miller is required to build fences around his property for his livestock. Once in a while his livestock will get out and go to neighboring property. He is concerned about being held liable for damages his livestock may inflict on the neighbors in the new development since they are not required to install fences. He officially retired from the University of Missouri, a couple of months ago. He was employed with the University Policy Department. The winter snow and the traffic are unimaginable. When it gets slick a number of people have to be pulled out of ditches. The bicyclists – a few years back there was some kind of a bicycle convention at Rock Bridge State Park. At about 8:00 a.m., just when the traffic was really getting heavy, they had somewhere between 800 and 1,000 bicyclists pull out of Rock Bridge State Park using that existing, narrow, curving road way. Mr Miller stopped the man in charge and told him how he was putting the bicyclists’ lives on the line. Every marathon runs seems to use these roads and hills – because the roads are steep and curvy. He is not sure how many close encounters he has had himself. The students are about to return. He said he can guarantee within the next week there will be half a dozen skid marks where somebody has run off the road into the ditches. No one has been killed, but people have been seriously hurt. These are points that really need to be considered.

Deanna Crane, 1251 E Bluebird Lane, Columbia. Ms Crane stated she is a horseback rider. She works 10-hour days. She goes home and gets on her horse and rides on Bluebird Lane, down to the Three Creeks area, and around the Park. It is very refreshing to get on a horse and ride out and look at the beautiful countryside. If the subdivision goes in the riding will stop because of the traffic. She has a 12-year old son who loves to go horseback riding also. This is their time together. Even now when they ride the traffic is heavy. People pull up next to them, screech their tires and take off. Ms Crane believes this will only happen more if the subdivision is developed in their neighbor. She appealed to the Commission to think about it. She asked them when they get off work if they want to go downtown through bumper to bumper traffic? – or – would they rather take a drive through the country and see what is out there. If this area is allowed to grow up like that there won’t be anything in Columbia for anybody to see but houses.

Richard Bienvenu, 9681 S Rte N, Columbia. Has lived at that address since 1968 in the oldest house on the road. The local call his house ‘The Ole Samuel’s Place’. He added to one of the first speakers’ comments. It is not a rural legend that sinkholes appear on Route N. There is a huge lake across Bluebird Lane. It can be seen on the maps. Mr Bienvenu stated he has seen it goes dry, sink into the ground once, and people from miles around were picking up big fish. Phil Miller, who spoke earlier, said he saw it go dry twice. It doesn’t just dry up. It sinks. That means it is a sinkhole there. Whatever the maps show. This is just to the south of Bluebird Lane. Mr Bienvenu also has concerns about the bad roads and heavy traffic and feels the development is too dense.

Closed to public hearing.

The applicant returns and address some of the comments and concerns of the neighbors.

Mr Beckett said that the lakes are not already existing on the property. The larger lake construction has commenced, but only a very small portion of the dam has been built and only a very small portion of the basin that will ultimately form the lake is full of water at this point. The second lake, the southern most one, has not been started yet. So they do believe that they can get that many lots in the subdivision if they develop it as A-2.

There has been some talk about effluent coming out of a treatment plant. It is important to point out that there is absolutely no question but that a centralized treatment plant will put out a much cleaner effluent than what would run off of this property if there were a multitude of private treatment facilities. Everybody that flushes a toilet puts water in the creeks and rivers – everybody in Columbia, everybody in Boone County. It all goes somewhere. The question is how do you control it? The answer is you control it with centralized treatment facilities like shown on the review plan.

The applicant believes the development is consistent with the surrounding area. The only deviation from the A-2 property, which joins this one, is that the applicant wants to build 7 more lots than they believe they would be able to get on if they were to leave it A-2 zoning. That is not inconsistent with the permitted zoning that is right adjacent to it. Mr Beckett said he wanted to be care and sensitive about this, but believes it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of people who own a 20, 40, 60-acre tract of land who just do not want to see houses go up next to them. He stated that the problem with that here is that the issue is not – if there is going to be any houses in this area – the question is are there going to be 34 or 35 2.5 acre A-2 lots that are totally uncontrolled? – or – are there going to be 41 A-R residential lots in a planned development. He pointed out that this Commission and the County Commission have consistently urged property owners that come before this body to come with planned zoning requests. This is a good, well-planned review plan and zoning request. This is what developers believe the Commissions are looking for. He urged the Commissioners not to get caught up in the emotion of some of the comments that were being made. Mr Beckett asked the Commission to compare it to what could be done on the land if it was left as it is currently zoned.

Keith Samuels said he hopes that by adding the treatment plant it might be a benefit to some of the neighbors. His neighbor to the northeast has sewage running across the Samuel’s property. Mr Samuel said he would be willing to give him an easement to tap onto their main sewer lines. The neighbor has not responded to the offer yet.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick began by saying that what he has heard he is not sure that Mr Beckett was not right – that there are probably folks here that own chunks of land near the proposed development who prefer not to see any more development at all. There may be another segment of the folks who just do not understand that the issue is a difference of 7 lots between what can be done now with no rezoning at all, simply by following the subdivision regulations and what the developer has proposed. The point being – the developer can develop the property now, with no further rezoning request. He can leave out of the meeting and go plat it. All he has to do is following the regulations. Those 34 or 35 lots will be there. Chairman Kirkpatrick said it seemed like there were some folks in the audience that did not understanding that the developer could do that.

Commissioner Piest commented further along the same line of explanation. He heard comments from several witness who may think the Commission has the authority over the lot sizes. Commissioner Piest explained that the Commission can not dictate to the developer that they can not have 2.5-acre lots. The Commission can not say change it to 5, 10, 20 or 40 acre minimum lot sizes. The Commission has no authority to change lot sizes. It is 2.5-acre minimum lot size right now with current zoning and the applicants do have the capability, if they desire, to develop 34 lots. He reiterated that the Commission can not change anything except downward. The Commission can not tell the developer that he can not develop the land at 2.5 acres, but must use 5 acres or 10 acres. The Commission does not have the kind of authority and does not even come close to that kind of authority. The Commission does not have the authority to deny the request based on karst areas. All the Commission has the right to do is approve or deny based on the regulations. He doesn’t believe that the development can be stopped and he personally would prefer to see a development that offers guarantees of green areas, particularly on the perimeter of the development, as opposed to what he would label ‘willy nilly 2.5 acres and hang on to your hat because no telling what is coming’. There is no control over that. All you can do is let the developer go ahead and do it. The only control would be over the sewage systems, which would be handle on an individual basis should the developer decide not to locate a central facility. There is at least one thing that the neighbors are getting out of the plan is consolidation of effluent into an area into a treatment facility. Commissioner Piest hopes that the developer would hold true to his word and it wouldn’t be capabilities of just an additional half a dozen or so. He asked Mr Brush to put a factor to the possible sewage treatment capacity.

Mr Brush stated the treatment facility capacity would be included in the design with the Boone County Regional Sewer District. He stated they would following the Sewer District’s guidance. He could not give a solid number – capacity would be as is appropriate that the Sewer District would recommend for the area.

Commissioner Piest asked if the system would be capable of handing 1 more residence, 10, 20, maybe double the amount that is being constructed? He said he was trying to get something in a ball park to help the neighbors understand that they are actually better off with a planned development and not.

Mr Brush offered that if a neighbor came to the developer and asked for some allocations for development of some type – the applicant would make it available to them.

Commissioner Sloan asked Commissioner Piest to address the traffic conditions in that area. He said Route N is a State Highway Route. There is not a whole lot that can be done about State Route N unless it is addressed through MoDOT. As was stated there is no funding available for those kinds of roads. Those kinds of projects. Prioritize repairs to State Route N, State Route K, State Route KK – most of the lettered routes in Boone County could not be taken care of by MoDOT in a 5 or 10 year span, even if that was all they had to take care of. There are too many bad situations in the County. It is unfortunate but development can not be stopped of the road situations. Scott’s Blvd is finally receiving repairs of something that was probably necessary 15 or 20 years ago. Local entities are finally getting around to repairing that. It is not a good situation down on Route N – but again the Planning and Zoning Commission has nothing to do with that. They can not deny on that basis, provided all other things are there. It is unfortunate, but that is the way the system is. Hopefully something will happen to cause MoDOT to evaluate the situations in Boone County and magically some money will float to them where they can address the situation. He then stated that he wouldn’t hold his breath.

Commissioner Fugit asked Staff if the property was developed A-2 how many lots could responsibly be developed and what different types of sewer system could they use. Would the applicant be limited to a particular system because it is near the Park?

Thad Yonke responded that if it was developed at 30-36 lots, even at the 2.5-acre, the Subdivision Regulations will basically still require a centralized waste water system. Even though the 2.5-acre is the minimum lot size that can legally have a lagoon, when you proposed lots of them next to each other a cost benefit analysis is required. The applicant has to show that it is substantially less cost for those and that it is not going to be a public detriment to do that. Otherwise the applicant is required to put in the central waste water system anyway. If the acreage was developed as 5 or 10 acre pieces or even 15 acre it would lower the number of lots. The lower the number of lots goes, the less likely the cost benefit analysis would trigger a central waste water system. Even if it does determine as a karst area it doesn’t prohibit the wastewater system – it merely means the engineer has to take that into account when he designs the system.

Commissioner Piest apologized for misspeaking and saying there would be no control.

Commissioner Fugit asked if 2.5 acre lots would MoDOT allow them to access on Route N?

Thad Yonke stated that MoDOT is kind of inconsistent on that. If the plat is approved where the only access to the road is the State Route and it is not a limited access State Route, then you can put MoDOT in the position of having to grant access. However, they also have the ability, since Staff sends them plats for review, to come back and say they don’t like the lot configuration and that it needs to be re-orientated so that it would be served off other roads. MoDOT does have the ability to comment on that, but they don’t necessary comment on that – so it could be put in the position where they would allow direct assess. A lot of that would have to do with the specific design of the property and how many lots.

Commissioner Sloan stated she agrees with the people who spoke. She understands there is a big difference between 2.5 acres and 40 acres or whatever – but as she looks at the plan it does bother her that there was more thought put into how they could get more lots and change the zoning to fit that, rather than taking the A-2 zoning and working with and developing the plan around that area. She said she doesn’t know how many acre or acre and a half lots there are in that area, but suspected very few. She suspected there were very few that were 2.5 acres. She feels that this could have been done in a different manner. Commissioner Sloan told the public that the Commissioners were aware of roads like State Route N. The Commissioner have driven those roads and most of the Commissioners have lived in Boone County for a long time and are familiar with the areas. Something the public thinks the Commissioners are not aware of some of the concerns – but they are. She stated she is a bicyclist and has been on that road and realizes how difficult it is for the traffic and for the bicyclists also. She told the public to keep in mind when they come before the Commission that they share the concerns of the public and they do try and have some knowledge of the concerns and also of what kind of impact these types of developments do have on this area. She also agreed with Commissioner Piest that the Commission can not stop development in the area, even though that is what most people would like. She too stressed that that is now in their power. Everybody won’t be happy – nobody would be happy probably. The developer doesn’t want to do some things – the people don’t want the development – so – but the Commission will do the best they can with making it as good as possible.

Commissioner Piest asked to see it included in the motion that delineation of the green spaces be required on the final platting.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Piest seconded motion to approve request by Keith and Chastity Samuel to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to A-R/PRD (Agriculture Residential/ Planned Residential Development) with staff recommendations and delineation of all the green space by the final plat on 94.04 acres, more or less, located at 9200 S Rte N, Columbia; to be known as Brookfield Estates.

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Mary Sloan No

David Piest Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Darin Fugit No Jim Green No

Mike Morgan No Pat Smith No

Motion to approve the rezoning request failed. 3 Yes 5 No

* * * * *

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Green seconded motion to deny the request by Keith and Chastity Samuel to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to A-R/PRD (Agriculture Residential/Planned Residential Development) on 94.04 acres, more or less, located at 9200 S Rte N, Columbia; to be known as Brookfield Estates.

Darin Fugit Yes Pat Smith Yes

Jim Green Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Mary Sloan Yes David Piest No

Michael Caruthers No Keith Kirkpatrick No

Motion to deny request carried. 5 Yes 3 No

* * * * *

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Green seconded motion to deny the request by Keith and Chastity Samuel to approve a Review Plan and Preliminary Plat on 94.04 acres, more or less, located at 9200 S Rte N, Columbia; to be known as Brookfield Estates.

 

Darin Fugit Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Jim Green Yes Pat Smith Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Mary Sloan Yes David Piest Yes

Motion to deny request carried. 8 Yes 0 No

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

    1. The Woodlands Plat 5. A-R. SS27-T48N-R12W. Rhodes-Payne Properties, Inc., owner. Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

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

Access to the property is from Turkey Trail Drive to the west, New Haven Road to the south and Cottage Lane to the east. A traffic study submitted by the developer assigns roadway classifications within the proposed subdivision and assesses the impact of the development to existing roads. All of the roads within the development have been classified as Local Minor streets and will be built to that standard.

The study indicates that 321 average daily trips (ADT) will be added to Turkey Trail Drive at the western boundary of the subdivision. This additional traffic will continue to New Haven Road via Winding Trail Drive. Winding Trail Drive currently carries 701 ADT. The addition of 321 ADT to Winding Trail will result in post development ADT of 1022 ADT. This raises the classification of Winding Trail Drive to a Collector-Minor street. Boone County Subdivision Regulations Section 1.7.5 and Appendix B.2.1 that require streets in an existing subdivision to be brought into conformance with current standards when they are impacted by a new subdivision. In this case that will include installation of 4’ wide paved shoulders on both sides of Winding Trail Drive.

The property has fifty feet of frontage on Cottage Lane at the eastern edge of the subdivision. The subdivision has been designed to connect to Cottage Lane. Cottage Lane currently carries 54 ADT. The post development traffic is projected to be 201 ADT. This does not raise the classification of the road, however the road does not meet the standard for a local minor road. Therefore, staff recommends improvements to Cottage Lane in order to meet the current standard for a local minor road.

Lots 148-151 are designed to access directly to New Haven Road, which is designated as an arterial on the Major Thoroughfare Plan. The traffic consultant hired by the County recommends that these lots not be allowed direct access to New Haven Road. The Commission may require mitigation of the impact caused by direct access to an arterial street by requiring alternate design or by allowing double frontage lots.

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

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

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

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

The property scored 71 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:

  1. Improve Winding Trail Drive to collector-minor standard with shoulders from Turkey Trail Drive to New Haven Road.
  2. Improve Cottage Lane to local-minor standard with shoulders from the connection of Rabbit Run to Rolling Hills Road.
  3. Redesign the plat so that lots 148-151 have access to an internal street and place a note on the plat prohibiting direct access to New Haven Road from those lots.
  4. Place a note on the plat indicating that lot 152 is prohibited from accessing directly onto New Haven Road
  5. Prior to the submittal of any final plat, the developer shall provide documentation from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources that there is adequate capacity in the El Chaparral treatment system for all of the lots in The Woodlands Plat 5.
  6. Prior to platting lots 143, 159 and 160 as shown on the preliminary plat, the lagoons on lots 143 and 159 shall be removed.

John Payne, 10951 I-70 Dr NE, Columbia. Mr Payne has been here since April 1991 with this development. This is the last 124 acres of approximately 400-acre development. In April 1991 a drawing was presented to the Commission showing the layout of the section. In January 1995 another drawing of the same section was presented. There is nothing really new in the layout.

In April Staff had 5 comments and recommended denial. Mr Payne said Staff wanted: 1) a traffic study and a study is not required until there are 100 lots. This had 70 lots. 2) They want the development to connect to Cottage Lane, where there was a cul-de-sac that was approximately 1500 feet long. 3) Lot 125 didn’t have access to a public road. 4) Need verification of sewer availability.

Mr Payne stated the traffic study was done by Shafter, Kline & Warren, who was present to answer any questions. They have connected to Cottage and are agreeable to improving Cottage. It is a County road has been a County road since 1965 and is County maintained. By connecting to Cottage the 1500 foot cul-de-sac has been dropped. They have rearranged the plat so that Lot 128 has access from another road. Even before the last meeting Mr Payne met with the Sewer District and they had accepted to giving the developer a variance on the lot sizes for the development. He does not think the Sewer District has ever said that there was not sewer available if everything was okay with the lagoon system at El Chaparral. In 1992, 1997 and 2000 the engineers from Marshall Engineering have analyzed the El Chaparral lagoon system for the Sewer District and all three times they have come to the conclusion that there is plenty of capacity for whatever would be done at The Woodlands.

There are some problems with the El Chaparral lagoon system, but they are due to deferred maintenance. The Sewer District voted and basically said that as long as the capacity is at El Chaparral and DNR is satisfied with everything that this development can be hooked up to the system. Mr Payne said his engineers have already met with Tom Rattermann. Mr Payne stated he is paying to have the permit redone for the El Chaparral lagoon system that they pointed out in the 1992 study that it did need to be modified and it wasn’t. He is doing it and trying to help the Sewer District look at the lagoon system and improve it.

Everything that was asked for at the April meeting has been done. Mr Payne addressed the 6 items that were listed on the new staff report. Item 2) Cottage Lane – developer has already agreed to make the improvements. Item 4) See note #9 on the plat – it indicates that Lot 152 is prohibited from coming off New Haven Road. Item 5) basically is what was mentioned earlier about the Sewer District and DNR. Item 6) If the Commission can give Mr Payne legal authority to take the lagoons out – he would take them out. They are on his property and do have an easement and a right to be there, but they are not sufficient sizes for Boone County Regulations today. Item 1) Mr Payne said before July 31, 2000 they were under the impression that as long as they connected to Cottage Lane they would either have to widening Winding Trail Drive or improving Cottage Lane. Item 3) Redesign for Lots facing New Haven Road. Before July 31st Items 1 and 3 where not on the table. Mr Payne stated these items have just come up in the last two weeks and the first official formal document they saw was at 4:15 this afternoon.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if Staff had any comments or remarks regarding recommendations 1 and 3. Bill Florea stated that the recommendations came from the traffic study that was provided by Schafter, Kline & Warren; and Booker, Willis, Ratliff’s review of that traffic study. The recommendations were based on traffic counts developed by Schafter, Kline & Warren. The surveyor was contacted with the information August 1st via fax. Staff offered to meet with applicant 2 or 3 different times and so far they have not chosen to meet to discuss said issues. Standard requirements of the Subdivision Regulations that they improve roads that they impact.

Bill Florea commented on Item 6. They are platting those out of compliance. Currently they are closer to the external property line than is allowed by County Regulations, but they are proposing new lot lines that are closer than 75 feet to the waterline of those lagoons and that is what the County is objecting to – platting out of compliance. It is their proximity to a proposed lot line that is the concern.

Commissioner Piest commented that the County has had their traffic studies and they are acting in accordance with the recommendations therein. The traffic study as preformed for the County.

Commissioner Piest was not sure when discussion on Lots 148-151 began. It is possible it began a couple of months ago with an engineer that is no longer with the firm. There may have been discussion in this direction with regards to frontage onto New Haven Road – maybe not these two specific lots – but frontage on New Haven Road. He has to qualify that. Commissioner Piest does not remember the specifics on that but is almost positive that it did enter into discussion at that time.

Bill Florea commented that these issues were addressed at the Concept Review. These are all standard issues that are raised at a Concept Review as potentially effecting the plat.

Ron Lueck asked if the four lots onto New Haven Road were addressed at the Concept Review? Bill Florea said he would have to check his notes – but any development that proposes lots on an arterial road that would be a normal comment for staff to address.

Mr Payne said there were about 12 other properties before the 4 lots proposed on New Haven that already have driveways. In fact, 9 of them are previous lots in other plats of The Woodlands. Nothing has been mentioned on site distances.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if the direct access issue was prohibited by the Subdivision Regulations.

Bill Florea stated that is was prohibited by the Subdivision Regulations. However, it is permissive language in the regulation that is at the discretion of the Commission. The Commission may give approval or you may require mitigation.

Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve The Woodlands Plat 5, with staff recommendations, A-R. S27-T48N-R12W. Rhodes-Payne Properties, Inc., owner. Ronald G Lueck, surveyor.

Jim Green Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Darin Fugit Yes David Piest Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Pat Smith Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

* * * * *

    1. Silver Fork Estates. A-2. S27-T50N-R13W. Phil Blom, owner. Brian David Dollar, surveyor.
    2. Bill Florea gave the following staff report - The property is located on the north side of Route VV approximately ¾ mile east of Dripping Springs Road.

      Lot 1 will have frontage on and direct access to Route VV. Lots 2 and 3 will use a private easement to access Route VV. The existing right of way width for Route VV exceeds the minimum standard. Therefore, no additional right of way will be dedicated by this plat.

      The property is within the service area of Consolidated Water District Number 1. There is a 4-inch waterline on the south side of VV. In order to obtain water service to the property, the developer will have to bore under Route VV and extend a six-inch main to the property.

      On-site wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. The applicant has submitted a plan showing the proposed location of on-site wastewater system. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

      The property scored 33 points on the rating system.

      Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests. The only condition staff was going to ask for was taken care of tonight by submittal of the plan. Therefore, Staff is not asking for any conditions.

      Brian Dollar, 1033 E Walnut, Columbia. Present to represent the plat.

      Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to approve Silver Fork Estates, staff recommendations have been met, A-2. S27-T50N-R13W. Phil Blom, owner. Brian David Dollar, surveyor.

      Mary Sloan Yes Jim Green Yes

      Mike Morgan Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

      David Piest Yes Darin Fugit Yes

      Pat Smith Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

      Motion to approve plat carried. 8 Yes 0 No

      * * * * *

    3. Martin. A-2. S5-T50N-R11W. Kenneth S. Martin Trust, owner. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.
    4. Bill Florea gave staff report that the property is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Davenport Road and Davis Road, approximately 2 ½ miles northeast of Hallsville.

      The lot will have frontage on and direct access to both Davis Road and Davenport Road. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33’ half-width for both roads will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

      The property is in the Water District 4 service area.

      There is an existing septic tank on the property for sewage disposal.

      The property scored 26 points on the rating system.

      Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

      Donald Bormann, 101 N Allen, Centralia. Present to represent plat.

       

       

       

       

       

      Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to approve Martin with staff recommendations. A-2. S5-T50N-R11W. Kenneth S. Martin Trust, owner. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.

      Mary Sloan Yes Jim Green Yes

      Mike Morgan Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

      David Piest Yes Darin Fugit Yes

      Pat Smith Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

      Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

      * * * * *

    5. Wellin. A-2. S5-T50N-R11W. Phillip & Sharon Wellin, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.
    6. Bill Florea gave staff report that the property is located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Road and Roberts Lane, approximately 4 miles south of Centralia.

      All three lots will have frontage on and direct access to Roberts Lane. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33’ half width for Davis Road and Roberts Lane is being dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

      The property is in Water District Number 4.

      On-site wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

      The property scored 12 points on the rating system.

      Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

      Donald Bormann, 101 N Allen, Centralia. Present to represent plat.

      Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve Wellin with staff recommendations. A-2. S5-T50N-R11W. Phillip & Sharon Wellin, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.

      Jim Green Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

      Pat Smith Yes Mike Morgan Yes

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes David Piest Yes

      Mary Sloan Yes Darin Fugit Yes

      Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

      * * * * *

    7. Schultz. A-2. S9-T50-R11W. David & Claudia Schultz, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.
    8. Bill Florea gave this staff report - The property is located on JB Lane, approximately 3 miles northeast of Hallsville.

      The lot will have frontage on and direct access to JB Lane. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33’ half-width will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

      The property is in the Water District 4 service area.

      An onsite wastewater system will be used for sewage disposal. The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

      The property scored 24 points on the rating system.

      Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

      Donald Bormann, 101 N Allen, Centralia. Present to represent plat.

      Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve Schultz with staff recommendations. A-2. S9-T50-R11W. David & Claudia Schultz, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.

      Pat Smith Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

      Darin Fugit Yes Jim Green Yes

      Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Mike Morgan Yes

      Mary Sloan Yes David Piest Yes

      Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

      * * * * *

    9. American Legion Plat 1. R-S. S16-T48N-R12W. American Legion Post 202, owner. James R. Jeffries, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave this staff report - This site is located immediately east of the Columbia City Limits on the east side of Rustic Road approximately one half mile east of the Highway WW – Highway 63 interchange. The property is currently zoned R-S (Residential Single-Family) as is all the surrounding property outside the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The city zoning for the property immediately to the west of Rustic Road is A-1 (agriculture). The request encompasses 20.38 acres and shows a proposed split of the original parcel into two lots, proposed lot 1 containing the existing legion hall is 3.09 acres & proposed lot 2 is 16.60 acres which contains the existing ball fields. The property is currently the location of the American Legion, Herbert Williams Post 202 and several baseball fields. The site is within the Columbia School District. Water service is provided by the Public Water Service District #9. Fire hydrants meeting the Commercial standard of the Boone County Fire Protection District will be required. It is our understanding that the current Legion Hall and facilities are served by a failing on-site sewer system. Sewer service for this plat is being provided by the City of Columbia through a sewer main extension. Since the sewer is from the City of Columbia a pre-annexation agreement requiring the meeting of all city standards and review will be needed for this property. Until the central sewer is constructed approval from the joint Boone County/City of Columbia Health Dept. will be required for continued use of the on-site wastewater systems. No direct access to Highway WW is allowed, the access to both these proposed lots is off Legion Lane, which functions as an outer road and falls within the Highway WW right-of-way. The developer has requested a waiver from the traffic analysis, and staff concurs with this request. Lot 2 is a tier lot since the design contains a tier. It is our understanding that the tier is being proposed to keep the existing easement that falls within this area and that continues to the north under a single ownership. The proposal rates 83 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request subject to the following 5 conditions:

  1. That the joint Boone County/City of Columbia Health Dept. approve continued use of the on-site wastewater systems until the city central sewer extension is constructed.
  2. That documentation guaranteeing the installation and connection of the central sewer system is obtained from the City of Columbia.
  3. That the development obtains the proper approvals from the city as required by the pre-annexation agreement needed for the property.
  4. That direct access to proposed Highway WW be prohibited.
  5. That fire hydrants and appropriate water up-grades be in place or guaranteed prior to recording of the plat.

Chad Sayre, 7401 Fall Creek Drive, Columbia. Mr Sayre works with Allstate Consultants and is representing the American Legion tonight. Allstate Consultants got involved in the project several months ago because of an enforcement action of the State of Missouri on the on-site system. They had a meals program that was being prepared in the American Legion and it overloaded the system. Because of it’s proximity with the playground and several things it was referred to enforcement. Allstate first looked at using the lagoon, which currently serves the concession stand for the American Legion ball field. Worked with City of Columbia to tie up all loose ends with the park. The City had invested a lot of money in the park and the American Legion also wanted to guarantee that there would continue to be a park there. So they both met and the American Legion decided to dedicate a little over 16 acres to the City of Columbia in an agreement to extend wastewater service to their building. It has gone through first reading at the Council and that the formal agreement is not signed yet. It is due to come up Monday. They have started working through some contingencies that staff recommended now so that they could have the plat with the contingencies met whenever the agreement is signed.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Piest seconded motion to approve American Legion Plat 1, with staff recommendations, R-S. S16-T48N-R12W. American Legion Post 202, owner. James R. Jeffries, surveyor.

Michael Caruthers Yes Jim Green Yes

David Piest Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Mike Morgan Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Pat Smith Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

* * * * *

    1. Lake of the Woods South Phase 1. C-G. S10-T48N-R12W. Lake of the Woods South LLC, owner. James R. Jeffries, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave the following staff report - This 9-lot preliminary plat is located just east of the Columbia City limits, immediately at the southeast corner of the intersection of St. Charles Road and I-70 Dr. SE. The property is zoned C-G (General-Commercial). Property to the immediate south has a pending C-GP zoning that was approved in February of this year that will not go into effect until an appropriate review & final plan are approved. The property further south beyond the C-GP is zoned R-S (Residential-Single Family). Property to the east has pending approval for M-LP (Planned Light-Industrial) to the immediate north-northeast and pending C-GP to the east-southeast. These zoning will not go into effect until review and final plans are approved for these sites. The M-LP from R-S request was approved in March of 1999 the C-GP from R-S request was approved in March of 2000. Property to the west is zoned C-G and is an original 1973 zoning. To the north, across I-70 property is zoned C-G and this is also an original 1973 zoning. The 14.3 acres included in this request is vacant. The proposal includes 9 lots and 2 commercial roadways that will connect into the future phases of the development. The connection of proposed Bull Run Drive will require a variance from the Road & Bridge advisory committee and County Commission since it does not meet spacing requirements. Access to the lots should be internal off proposed Bull Run Drive & Hunley Drive unless specifically approved. Two shared driveway accesses are proposed off I-70 Dr SE, one along the common lot lines between lots 1& 2 and one along the common lot line between lots 2 & 3. Should the final plat propose fewer lots than the preliminary, then these accesses may be further limited or even be required to be eliminated on the final plat. Lot 9 as proposed can not meet access spacing requirements and it is our understanding that it is proposed in its current configuration to address the likelihood that the MTP will be amended altering the required ROW dedication. This lot should be considered not for separate development from lot 8 unless it is reconfigured since it does not meet the access requirements. Road improvements are being proposed for St. Charles Road including the addition of a turn lane. The developer has requested that the traffic study be deferred to a later point in the development. Staff concurs with this request provided the current proposed improvements are completed for this phase and it is recognized that the traffic study for the remainder of the development may trigger additional improvements to the roads around and contained in this current phase. These improvements will be required of the developer. Water service will be provided by Public Water District No. 9. The site is within the Columbia School District and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Hydrants and waterline up-grades meeting the commercial fire requirements are required. Sewer service is proposed to be from a new facility that will be designed to handle the entire new development and eliminate the existing facility serving the Lake of the Woods subdivision. Platting of the sewer facility lot will be required prior or concurrently with any final plat. The plat has 81 points on the point rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and postponement of the traffic analysis subject to the following 7 conditions.

  1. That a variance be obtained to allow the placement of the connection of Bull Run Drive to St. Charles Road.
  2. That at most, the 2 proposed accesses points be allowed on I-70 Dr. SE and no direct access be allowed to St. Charles.
  3. That if a final plat is submitted that is proposed with fewer lots, that the 2 direct access points to I-70 Dr. SE can be limited or further lessened or be required to be eliminated.
  4. That lot 9 be eliminated as a separate lot or reconfigured so as to meet access requirements. This must be accomplished without causing access or driveway spacing problems for the other proposed lots.
  5. That the traffic analysis for the development be triggered with the next phase of the development.
  6. That adequate waterline and hydrants meeting the commercial standards of the Boone County Fire Protection District be provided for the development.
  7. That the central sewer lot be platted prior to or concurrently with the final plat for the first phase of this development submitted.

Chad Sayre, 7401 Fall Creek Dr, Columbia. Mr Sayre works for Allstate Consultants.

Brian Connell, 28 N 8th St, Suite 517, Columbia.

Earlier the rezoning request the staff went over the whole plat. It was discussed through the concept review that the whole plan needed to be showed for planning purposes and also for the traffic study – so that the potential density on the tract may be. The applicants have an agreement with Mr & Mrs Schultz, which defines the need for a regional treatment facility. There are several facilities that are tributary to this one that are currently, with the whole development, being addressed with the BCRSD. The agreement was drafted by Turner Jones and is signed. It basically tells the intent of the two landowners partnering up and trying to get together on the development of this tract. It provides 5 or 6 acres in a legal description for that to put in a wastewater treatment facility that we feel can serve a lot larger area. There are economic analysis being done with the BCRSD. There are a lot of changes happening with the traffic situation as far as the planning documents are concerned. Traffic counts were taken before the students were out in the Spring and the left turn lanes are warranted, but the applicant would like to put the traffic study until they know what the classification of St Charles will be. That can be tied to the planned zoning and basically the rest of what they are proposing. Efforts are being coordinated as far as the development of the tract with the other landowner. It is a major development and that’s why they are proposing to make the improvements to St Charles on the very first phase. Developer is in agreement with the 7 conditions. Basically compliance with the notes on the left of the preliminary plat.

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Green seconded motion to approve Lake of the Woods South Phase 1, with staff recommendations, C-G. S10-T48N-R12W. Lake of the Woods South LLC, owner. James R. Jeffries, surveyor.

David Piest Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Jim Green Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Pat Smith Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

* * * * *

    1. Spencer Hills Plat 2. R-S. S24-T49N-R13W. NBC Inc., owner. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Bill Florea gave staff report that the property is located east of and adjacent to Clearview Subdivision, approximately one mile north of Columbia. The current zoning is Moderate Density Residential, R-M. A preliminary plat of 10 single family and 20 duplex lots was approved in August 1998. The first phase of the project, Spencer Hills Plat 1 containing 10 single family lots, was approved in September 1998. A revised preliminary plat was approved in May 1999. A second revised preliminary plat was approved in May, 2000. This final plat includes all of the lots within the second revised preliminary plat.

The lots within the development will be accessed by public roads constructed by the developer. A traffic study conducted for the first preliminary plat recommends construction of a second outlet in addition to Autumn Drive. The second outlet was originally intended to be created by building Autumn Drive north to E. Cedar Court and extending E. Cedar Court west to connect with the existing portion of E. Cedar Court in Clearview Subdivision. Due to topographic reasons and concerns of affected neighbors, this connection is no longer desirable. Instead, a connection to the existing portion of Clearview Drive at the southeast corner of this plat will be made. The previous plat required the second access to be constructed prior to platting the 21st lot. That restriction should be carried over to this plat by requiring the connection to the existing portion of Clearview Drive to be made prior to platting the 21st lot.

The developer has an existing agreement with Boone County Regional Sewer District to provide sewer service. The existing agreement allows sewer service for 68 residential units. Because of the R-M zoning, some of the lots in the plat qualify for duplex and multi-family dwellings. An appropriate note has been placed on the plat in order to ensure that at least one single family sewer service is reserved for each lot.

The City of Columbia will provide water service. The developer will be responsible for construction of the main that will be built according to plans prepared by City Water and Light. Fire hydrant spacing and fire flow will meet City of Columbia Standards, which exceed Boone County Standards.

The property scores 84 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition:

  1. Prior to platting the 21st lot in Spencer Hills, the internal street network shall be connected to the existing portion of Clearview Drive. All construction must meet the current standards published in the Boone County Road, Bridge and Right of Way Regulations.

James W Brush, 506 Nichols, Columbia. Represented the plat.

Commissioner Caruthers asked staff to explain the 4th note on the plat. Bill Florea commented that it is the agreement he spoke about in the staff report. They are limited to 68 residential services and 68 lots is what they have platted. There is also a note on the plat that restricts them from placing duplex or multi-family dwellings on any lots that would use more than the one unit of sewer service per lot. So staff took those 68 units and made sure that 1 is reserved for each of the 68 lots.

Commissioner Piest asked if improvements will be made to Autumn Drive. Bill Florea stated he knew nothing about the improvements to Autumn Drive. Autumn Drive is an exterior road to the plat and is not required as part of the plat, especially now since they are not connecting Autumn Drive to the north in order to connect East Cedar Court to the west. They are not placing any traffic on that portion of the street. Mr Florea did not remember any past conditions or agreements as to who would be responsible for the improvements of Autumn Drive. Commissioner Piest is concerned that if the issue is not pressed that Autumn Drive may not be developed. Mr Brush remembered that Autumn Drive was supposed to be improved by the County. Commissioner Piest is not sure that the County will pay for the improvements now.

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to approve Spencer Hills Plat 2, with staff recommendations, R-S. S24-T49N-R13W. NBC Inc., owner. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

David Piest Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Mike Morgan Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Pat Smith Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Jim Green Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carried. 8 Yes 0 No

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

*Windy Point was denied by PZ – County Commission to hear request on September 19, 2000.

*Jeff Crane/Voicestream Wireless on Rangeline Rd was tabled by County Commission.

*Herbert & Mary Scott/U S Cellular on Hwy VV was approved by County Commission.

*Earl & Mariea Caruthers rezoning request was approved by County Commission.

*BC Investment rezoning request was approved by County Commission

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 21st, day of September, 2000.