BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, December 21, 2000

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

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Darin Fugit, Vice-Chairperson Columbia Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Jim Green Cedar Township

Absent: Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff David Piest, Public Works Staff

Paula Evans, Staff

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

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

1. Request by Larry and Mildred Clark on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 200’ tower on 16.97 acres, located at 950 N Rte O, Rocheport.

 

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report that this property is located 5 1/2 miles west of Columbia and 4 miles southeast of Rocheport on State Highway O. This property is located approximately 600 feet south of the Route O/Route J interchange on I-70. The current zoning for the site is split between A-2 (agriculture) on the south portion of the property and C-G (general commercial) on the north part of the property. The zoning to the northeast, north, and northwest is C-G. The zoning to the west, south, east, southwest, and southeast is A-2. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The property is currently vacant. This request is to place a transmission facility on the property that will include a 200’ self-supporting lattice tower that will be used for telecommunications purposes. Staff has reviewed the application and finds that it contains all the required information for consideration by the Commission. This site is within the Columbia School District, and electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is not a requirement for this land use. In order to obtain approval for a conditional use permit for a transmission facility, the facility must meet all the specific provisions of Section 15 B as well as meet all 7 of the normal tests for approval of any conditional use permit. . As a CUP the proposal must meet the following criteria from the zoning ordinance to be eligible for approval.

1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.

2. The conditional use permit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted by these regulations.

3. The conditional use permit will not substantially diminish or impair property values of existing properties in the neighborhood.

4. All necessary facilities will be available, including, but not limited to, utilities, roads, road access and drainage.

5. The establishment of a conditional use permit will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district.

6. The establishment of a conditional use permit will not hinder the flow of traffic or result in traffic congestion on the public streets. This will include the provision of points of access to the subject property.

7. The conditional use permit shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. The County Commission shall find that there is a public necessity for the conditional use permit.

 

The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential uses. The proposed use is consistent with the master plan. However, there are two issues of concern that must be pointed out. First, the zoning ordinance specifies that towers be either mono-pole or a guyed tower unless the County Commission approves other reasonable alternatives practicable for visual or technical reasons. The commission must determine that the proposed self-supported lattice tower is both a reasonable alternative and that there are sufficient visual or technical reasons to justify the approval, otherwise a self-supported lattice tower would be prohibited. The second issue to consider is the impact upon the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties, CUP Criteria #2 as mentioned previously. The proposed location of the facility is within 250’ of neighboring properties under different ownership and could impact these properties. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this property. Staff notified 20 property owners about this request. In general, staff supports this request, but questions why it couldn’t have been placed further to the north away from the residential development adjacent to the south property line.

Should the Commission decide to approve the transmission facility staff recommends the following 3 conditions:

  1. That the tower be limited to a mono-pole type structure in order to limit visual impact to the neighboring properties.
  2. That a revised landscaping and buffering plan be prepared and submitted by a registered landscape architect licensed to practice in the state of Missouri. The landscaping plan must be prepared to provide a year round sight proof buffer of the compound and lower portion of the tower to all adjoining properties. The buffer must be designed to be site proof within 5 years. The specific details of the landscaping plan must be worked out with planning staff and be acceptable for approval from the Planning Director.
  3. That an approved landscaping plan be binding and that all planting and buffering be maintained in good condition at all times. Any planting materials that die or are not providing proper buffering will be replaced no later than the next growing season with plantings that will provide the required buffering equivalent.

 

Present:

Tom Gilligan, Zoning Supervisor, Voice Stream Wireless, 2004 Westport Center, St.Louis

Ken Jacob, Attorney, 1001 E. Walnut, Suite 201, Columbia

Joe Begnel, Voice Stream Wireless, 2004 Westport Center, St. Louis

Ken Jacob stated the location of the tower is at 950 N. Route O, near the junction of Route’s O and J, near Highway 70. The actual land that the applicants are leasing is 100’ X 100’ on the larger tract. The reason Voice Stream needs this tower is because applicant is in the process of building a tower six miles to the east. They already have a tower six miles to the west. Applicant presented maps to the Commission. Tom Gilligan, of Voice Stream Wireless, stated that the tower site that is under construction is at the Norwest Storage Facility, which is to the east of the site. Across the river, is known as Voice Stream Kansas City Market. There is a site that stops at the river. The proposed site accomplishes successful coverage to the east of the Norwest Storage Facility, as well as to the west, where the Kansas City Market begins. In comparison to the other sites, this proposed site covers an area of about 2/3 of a mile.

Mr. Jacob stated that essentially, if you were using a Voice Stream telephone in this area, you would lose your call. This is why the tower is needed. Originally when the application was presented to the County, the Staff suggested that applicant speak with two other providers instead of putting one array of antennas on this tower. Also, that they approach US Cellular and Southwestern Bell to put antennas on both towers in order to cover this particular area. After meeting with US Cellular and Southwestern Bell, applicants received a letter from those companies, stating the tower lacks capacity to include any more equipment, the towers are full. Mr. Jacobs stated he believes the existing tower was one of the first towers in the County to be issued a permit under the current ordinance. Since then, that tower has already been structurally increased. It would not handle the equipment. This would only leave the other tower available, and it would not supply appropriate coverage. That is why a new tower is needed.

Mr. Jacobs continued sighting the differences in the lattice tower and the mono-pole type. Mono-pole and guide towers are the preferred tower in Boone County. A guide tower is in fact a lattice tower, but only has wires to increase stability. Mr. Jacob believes there is an ambiguity in the ordinance. And it could possibly be changed in the future to clear that issue. In order to get a lattice tower, the ordinance suggests there needs to be visual or technical reasons.

Mr. Jacob submitted a simulation photo to the Commission of the proposed tower, as well as, a photo of a mono-pole. Mr. Jacobs stated that the mono-pole is thicker and the array of antennas is usually in a triangle. Regarding the technical issues, one of the requirements of the ordinance is to provide opportunities for other companies to locate their antennas on this tower. A lattice tower creates more opportunity than a mono-pole because it allows for different locations in which to place the antennas.

Mr. Gilligan stated that Voice Stream is open to the mono-pole type design, but prefers the lattice type because of its flexibility and it ability to accommodates a variety of antenna types. For example the Omni Directional type of antenna provide a 360 degree signal. It doesn’t rest on top of the mono-pole, the 360 degree signal is blocked by the thickness of the mono-pole. By using a mono-pole, coverage is lost. For visual reasons, the lattice tower better accommodates various types of attachments. A mono-pole type is limited. However, applicant states, he is open to whatever type the Commission approves, but believes that a lattice type is more appropriate and more accommodating to a variety of antennas.

Mr. Jacob added that if there were a recommendation from the Commission for applicants to use a mono-pole, it would be acceptable. Applicant does think, however, that the ordinance is somewhat unclear on the issue of guide towers. And also for the technical issues, in that a lattice tower does give more options for co-locations. Visually, as long as they don’t have lights on them, a lattice tower is more acceptable, but will go however the Commission recommends.

Regarding co-locations, either the lattice or mono-pole will have the capacity for two other companies to co-locate, depending upon their particular needs. The intended equipment for the tower, will include four antennas, two facing east and two facing west, and co-ax cable. Because the tower is 200’ it will not require lights. The equipment on the ground will include the Nokia cabinets, which will be placed on a 10 X 14 pad.

Applicant agrees to get a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect upon approval. Addressing the security issues, the site will be surrounded by a 6’ fence with a locked gate and barbed wire on top. It will have an anti-tampering alert system on the gate, so Voice Stream will be aware if anyone should break in. In terms of safety, the Federal Government does not allow local governments to make decisions on emissions the antennas and equipment put out, the proposed equipment is 2000 times below any emissions that could cause harm. Applicant submitted a letter from the FAA regarding their determination. And an application to show that applicant is licensed by the FCC.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick questioned the location of the proposed tower and why it could not be placed further north.

Mr. Gilligan explained that the location is a small area. The landowner dictates where they would allow applicant to place the facility. If that area meets zoning setbacks, they usually have to comply with the landowner, due to further development plans of the property owner. Mr. Gilligan states that they have met the concerns of the landowner and the setback regulations. The site is remote and heavily wooded. Applicant stated that they will preserve existing vegetation as much as possible.

Mr. Jacob provided a letter from the property owner, Mr. Clark. The letter states that Mr. Clark believes the proposed site would be the most appropriate.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Jacob of the placement of the other existing towers and questioned whether he was referring to the tower on Rocheport Road.

Mr. Jacob stated yes, that was the tower.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that applicant did not give a feasible reason why the tower on Rocheport Road could not be used instead of putting up a new one.

Mr. Gilligan explained that the Staff’s last comments from the meeting a month ago, had exercised an overlay of the towers in which the applicant ruled out in the engineering report, which is on file. The SBA tower to the west sits too far west to make a successful hand-off to the Norwest site. And the US Cellular site is too far east to the Kansas City site to make successful hand offs. In the application package, applicants had analyzed the two towers, but Staff overlaid that if applicant used those two towers, applicant could get the coverage objective. From a visual perspective, the two sites would accomplish what one site will accomplish. However, the letter from US Cellular indicated that the tower is full and can not be further modified.

Mr. Jacob stated that Voice Stream could put antennas on the other towers, but would still need the new tower because it wouldn’t cover the areas that the new tower would cover.

Mr. Gilligan stated that if the two existing sites would have worked, they would have used them.

Joe Begnel, Radio Frequency Engineer for Voice Stream Wireless, stated that the tower is too far west and is a 300’ tower. If going west on I-70 at the Route O intersection, the top of the SBA tower can not be seen from the highway. That is a concern because applicant wishes to have a line of site from the highway to the tower as to eliminate dropped calls.

Commissioner Caruthers asked what type of antennas would be used.

Mr. Gilligan stated that Voice Stream uses the panel type of antennas.

Commissioner Caruthers inquired whether the consideration of the radio output of the whip antenna, in a mono-pole design, would work.

Mr. Gilligan stated that other companies and emergency service types of antennas, tend to be whip antennas, they could employ whip antennas but questions their efficiency and the desired coverage.

Commissioner Mink asked applicant if they preferred the lattice tower due to technical reasons.

Mr. Jacob stated that mono-pole towers have 3, triangular-shape set of antennas on it. They have to fit on that way due to the shape of the mono-pole. Because the lattice tower has a lot of different parts connecting, it allows for more flexibility of setting different types of antennas for other types of users on the lattice type. The cost of a lattice type is more cost efficient.

Commissioner Mink questioned if a lattice tower would be easier.

Mr. Begnel stated that is correct, a lattice tower has more flexibility. Future carriers involve different sizes of antennas. The lattice tower would give more capability for future uses.

Commissioner Caruthers asked that if applicant did use a lattice type tower, did they have a specific version of guide lines to support the lattice.

Mr. Gilligan stated it was more of a space requirement and using up more land than necessary or acquiring more land than necessary. There are certain prohibitions, restrictions and limits on types of things that can be done with a lattice tower.

Mr. Jacob stated that the guide wires serve a purpose for the structural capacity of the tower. And generally they are used on much taller towers. To put them on this tower would serve no purpose, and would not add to the aesthetic quality of the area.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of request.

In opposition:

Present:

Barry Estabrooks, 10351 W. Kings Lane, Rocheport

Scott Cristal, 10650 W. Kings Lane, Rocheport

Robert Rowe, 10151 W. Kings Lane, Rocheport

Mr. Cristal stated that the land where the tower is to be placed is zoned agriculture. But within 1000 feet of that, there are over 20 families with small children. One thing regulations mention in terms of reasons to turn down a request of this nature, is if there is a decrease in property values. No one knows for sure how dangerous the radiation is from cellular towers. There is perception and that is always a key. If someone wanted to move to this area and they see the tower, no matter how well landscaped it is, the tower will still be visible because the trees will not grow that tall. People will not be as eager to move in to the area. As a result, property values will decrease. Eventually over time it may be decided that within 1000 feet, the radiation that is given off by this tower, may be dangerous. That is an area that is not determined as of now, but is something that is being investigated. There is evidence that says radiation such as this, is dangerous, but there is not enough of a study in terms of years, to give much credence to that.

Mr. Cristal continued that one of the things that makes Columbia such a great place to live is that the community cares about, not only how it looks, but the quality of life. Placing a tower such as this is something that would reduce the quality of life in the proposed area. Even though only 20 families were notified, there are many more families in the area that would be affected by the placement of this tower. It was implied that there were going to be future uses that were unknown at this time. With technology changing, it is unknown what else could be placed there. It opens the door, even if stipulations were placed. Mr. Cristal strongly suggests the Commission turn down the request.

Barry Estabrooks stated that his main concern was that Voice Stream views this as a fore-gone conclusion. Construction has already begun on this site and applicants are burying cable. He believes they are doing this without a permit and checked with the Planning Department who stated there should be a permit. The access road is of great concern, it is within 50’ and terminates on to Route O. And he is concerned as to who will have access to that road. Mr. Estabrooks is also concerned about his property value. It is not something neighboring property owners want in the area and asks that the request be denied.

Robert Rowe asked Commission if the tower was to be 250’ from the property line.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that he believes that is what was said.

Mr. Rowe stated that applicants were doing studies and were within yards of his property line.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that he understood that the tower itself would be 250’ from property lines.

Closed to Public Hearing.

Ken Jacob addressed the safety issues and the perception and the unknown issues regarding the safety of these type of telephones. Mr. Jacob stated that for years, the Federal Government has studied the impact of the emissions from these type of towers. There is a Federal law that states that local government can not disapprove a tower because of safety issues because there are none. Property values will not decrease. Good cellular phone use will actually increase the value of property. Studies have been done in Columbia as to whether property values have been effected, and the answer was no. Mr. Jacob has many assessments that state, that no where in the country have property values decreased due to towers. As to future uses, they are required by the County, to make available future uses. Applicants would prefer not to have a future use requirement on those towers because the people they are required to let on those towers are their competitors. That is required by law in the Boone County Ordinance not by the applicant. If that was not a requirement of Boone County, there would be many more towers. The issue of cables being laid, Voice Stream is not laying any cable. And Voice Stream is not aware of anyone laying cables.

Mr. Gilligan stated it could be fiber optic cable being laid. It is not Voice Stream laying cable.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked about the issue of the distance to the property line.

Mr. Gilligan stated the setbacks would be enforced. The survey and site plan submitted, reflect that.

Mr. Jacob stated that the Staff has the site plan, and it is more detailed than the plan the Commissioners have. The ordinance requires a certain distance and Applicants have met all requirements of the ordinance.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that the plan is binding, the distance on the site plans show the distance as 250’ to the center of the tower from the property line in each direction. That is a requirement because that is what is shown on the plan and applicant is required to meet the height setback.

Commissioner Mink stated there was an issue of the access road.

Mr. Jacob stated that the company will only need to make one or two trips a month to check the equipment.

Mr. Gilligan stated that there is an existing access road that stops about 200 feet in to the property and they will be using that and making a 12’ gravel road to the tower.

Commissioner Fugit stated that up until now the property owners had that access road blocked off.

Mr. Gilligan stated that they would put a gate up at the beginning of the road if there is not one there now. The landowner would have a key to the gate and so will the applicant. Mr. Gilligan stated that he did not want anyone around the site for a number of reasons.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Staff if there was a permit required to bury cable.

Thad Yonke stated that if it was Boone Electric or GTE putting in their cable, they are not required to get a permit. If it were communications equipment, associated with the transmission facility they would need to have their plans approved for the transmission facility, and a building permit associated with that. It may be Boone Electric or GTE running power and they don’t notify staff.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked applicant why they are not placing tower further north.

Mr. Gilligan stated that the landowner made the decision of where to place tower. It does work with the zoning perspective, they can meet setbacks, and it is a remote location.

Mr. Jacob stated that this is where property owner wants the tower. Applicants are at the mercy of where the property owner wants it placed. The property owner has plans for the rest of his property.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked how many vendors could co-locate on the tower.

Mr. Gilligan stated that in accordance with the regulations, two additional carriers, two additional microwaves, and two radio type carriers.

Commissioner Smith asked who did the studies that on the property value issues.

Mr. Jacob stated that there is an application on file with the Commission, and Staff is aware of it because that is who made him aware. Mr. Van Matre representing Nextel, had a study done to assess locally, the impact of property values. The report stated that towers do not reduce property values. Companies across the country have done studies and Mr. Jacob has studies from other places.

Commissioner Smith asked if Staff was aware of this study.

Director, Stan Shawver stated that about two years ago, specifically for the Nextel tower on Old Rocheport Road, Mr. Van Matre commissioned a study performed by Alan Moore. The study of towers in rural areas, the findings were that it had no impact on property values. Mr. Moore also did a study in 1990 when there was a tower request in the Blue Bird Lane area. The study had the same conclusion. Studies were done in high density areas and had the same conclusion. There was no impact on property values.

Commissioner Mink asked staff the reason lattice towers were left out of zoning regulations.

Stan Shawver stated that typically the lattice towers have a much broader base than a guide tower. The guide towers come down almost to a point and can achieve more height that a lattice tower. Lattice towers have a very broad base. When the regulations were written in 1991, it was felt that the impact of a narrow width, has less impact in the neighborhood. It is aesthetics more than anything else. The mono-poles and guide towers don’t have as much of an impact. The guide wires disappear in to the horizon. Mono-pole towers are painted gray and can blend in better.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve, with staff conditions and restriction to include a gate, the request by Larry and Mildred Clark on behalf of Voicestream Wireless for a permit to allow a transmission facility including a 200’ tower on 16.97 acres, located at 950 N Rte O, Rocheport.

David Mink Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Pat Smith Y

Keith Kirkpatrick Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request with staff recommendations and restriction of gate carries. 6 Yes 0 No

 

2. Request by Joseph and Mary Petsel and Joseph Carrone for a permit to allow self storage units to be placed on 4.28 acres located at 6500 W. Henderson Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave this staff report stating that this property is located west of Columbia in the Midway area. The property is situated between Highway 40 and Henderson Rd. The property is zoned C-G (General Commercial). Property to the north is zoned A-2. To the east, property is zoned C-G. Land to the south and west is zoned A-R. There is a mobile home on the property that is to remain for a caretaker. The applicant has proposed building self-storage units on the site. This site lies within the Columbia Public School District. Water service is not required for the proposed land use. Electric service will be provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses, though it should be noted that commercial zoning applies to this site. The original zoning for this site is C-G. In 1988, a request was denied that would have permitted a truck terminal to be placed on this property. Staff notified 53 property owners about this request.

As a CUP the proposal must meet the following criteria from the zoning ordinance to be eligible for approval.

1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.

2. The conditional use permit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted by these regulations.

3. The conditional use permit will not substantially diminish or impair property values of existing properties in the neighborhood.

4. All necessary facilities will be available, including, but not limited to, utilities, roads, road access and drainage.

5. The establishment of a conditional use permit will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district.

6. The establishment of a conditional use permit will not hinder the flow of traffic or result in traffic congestion on the public streets. This will include the provision of points of access to the subject property.

7. The conditional use permit shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. The County Commission shall find that there is a public necessity for the conditional use permit.

Staff supports this request and recommends approval with the following 6 conditions:

1. No access is permitted onto Hwy 40 from the site.

  1. Only a single access meeting county standards is allowed on Henderson Road.
  2. All driveway, loading, and parking areas are to be dust free (minimum chip and seal).
  3. No Billboards be allowed on the site.
  4. That a landscaping buffer and buffering plan acceptable to the planning department be submitted and approved and that such an approved landscaping plan be binding and that all planting and buffering be maintained in good condition at all times. Any planting materials that die or are not providing proper buffering will be replaced no later than the next growing season with plantings that will provide the required buffering equivalent.
  5. Lighting be oriented inward and downward so as to minimize light leaving the site.

Present: Mary Petsel, 6846 N. Bell Road, Columbia

Joseph Petsel, 6846 N. Bell Rd, Columbia

Courtney Herbst, 4606 Nick Court, Columbia

Mrs. Petsel stated that there is a single access to the property of 30 feet wide already established. Applicant has no plans to access the new Highway 40 and have agreed to put chip and seal coating for the access. Applicant stated that the landscaping buffer and lighting are not a problem.

Ms. Herbst stated that the sketch in the application. There is a trailer on the west side of the property, a relative of the Petsel’s reside in the mobile home. This will be the only residential structure on the property. If anything happens to the mobile home, it will be removed. There will only be one access, they will not go off the new Highway 40 so it wouldn’t be a burden to traffic on the highway. There is a lagoon south of the property, which is already fenced and landscaped with trees. There is a substantial amount of natural landscaping there. The lighting would be minimal. Applicant plans to only have one access and no access between the buildings for security reasons. The lighting would only be on the north side of the property and not on the south.

Ms. Herbst added that this would be an engineered project and does not intend to put unsightly buildings on the area. Applicant has no intention of putting on a staff person, therefore, would not need any water facilities. The entrance way to the structure will be the old Highway 40 and not the new Highway 40.

Mrs. Petsel stated that there is a drainage area through the property, it is south of the area that is intended for the building.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if the existing landscaping conformed with County regulations.

Ms. Herbst stated that the landscaping is not in regulation.

Mrs. Petsel stated that it was a natural growth area along the drainage area and asked Staff if the landscaping buffer was to be on the Henderson side or the Highway 40 side.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that generally, the idea is to buffer from the main roadway or from other developed properties. It could be on both sides. It would be up to the applicants to propose a landscaping plan, Staff would review that plan to see how it impacts other properties and work with applicant to remedy any problems.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

No one spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Fugit asked if only the trailer was currently on the property.

Ms. Herbst stated that was correct.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that he was familiar with the property and it is his feeling that if any commercial ventures should be done, if suitable, it would have happened by now considering the zoning has been in place. However, Chairperson Kirkpatrick believes that this may be the best, if not the only use for that kind of property. He would support the request.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve with staff conditions the request by Joseph and Mary Petsel and Joseph Carrone for a permit to allow self storage units to be placed on 4.28 acres located at 6500 W. Henderson Rd., Columbia.

 

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request with staff conditions carries. 6 Yes 0 No

REZONING REQUESTS

1. Request by Merle and Beverly Wright on behalf of Faye Nowell to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 4.31 acres, more or less, located at 5550 W Gillespie Bridge Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this property is located just outside of the Columbia municipal limits on Gillespie Bridge Rd. The property is zoned R-S. Property to the north and east is zoned R-S; to the south is R-1, which is a city of Columbia zoning designation. The west property line of this tract is Perche Creek, which is the boundary line between the R-S and A-2. Everything west of Perche Creek is zoned A-2. There is a single family dwelling and a detached garage on this property. The applicant is requesting that the 4.31 acre tract be down-zoned to A-2. This property lies within the Columbia Public School District. Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is provided by Consolidated Water District No. 1. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. The original zoning for this tract is R-S. There have been no previous requests to alter the zoning. Staff notified 28 property owners about this request. Initially, staff was concerned that this zoning request may be inappropriate. However, closer study of the site, including access and topography, has led the staff to conclude that this site would be extremely difficult to develop under the existing R-S zoning. Staff further notes that the A-2 zoning district adjoins this tract on the west side, so the request would not constitute a spot zoning. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Present: Faye Nowell, 5550 W. Gillespie Bridge Rd., Columbia

CJ Strawn, 1613 Handley Place, Columbia

Ms. Nowell stated that she is the new land owner and wants to make it her permanent residence and in addition, would like to start a dog-daycare business with the detached garage on the back of the property. Applicant stated that when she first looked at the property back in the fall, the MLS sheet provided by the realtor noted the property was zoned A-2. That was of interest to the applicant because it would provide for a dog business in the County. Applicant stated she knew the A-2 zoning would be needed. Upon further inspection, applicant stated, Bill Florea pointed out that the property was actually zoned residential. It was mistakenly listed by the realtor. By this point, applicant was half-way through deciding. Applicant felt the business she wanted to do was of low-impact to the surrounding community and down-zoning to A-2 would not be detrimental to the community.

Applicant passed to Commissioners an outline with information of the proposed business.

Ms. Nowell read the outline. This 4.3 acre tract of land has a single residential home on the property and a detached 2-car garage behind the house. It is applicants intent to maintain the house as a permanent home and use the detached garage as a small, therapeutic, dog-daycare boarding facility. This home based business would be run in such a manner as to not disturb area neighbors. More specifically, the average number of dogs to be housed daily is expected to be between five and seven animals. The maximum number of dogs to be in the building at one time will never exceed ten. The dogs would be supervised at all times both in the fenced yard and in the garage. The dogs will be well exercised during the day, which will alleviate virtually all barking. Excessive barking is usually caused by boredom or lack of attention and exercise. At night, the dogs would be housed inside the garage in individual kennels, should any noise erupt at a late hour it would be attended to immediately. There will be no outside kennels at this point.

Applicant continued that a five-foot, chain-link fence will surround the area and landscaping will keep the dogs from seeing much outside of their enclosure or things to bark at. All solid waste would be removed on a weekly basis. There should be no ill effects to the area sewer system. Applicant has her own, private sewer system. Therefore, it would not affect surrounding homes. The increase of traffic to the area would be alleviated by implementing a pick-up and drop-off service for pet owners, at a central location.

Commissioner Smith asked if applicant had done research to see if there was a need for this type of business.

Ms. Nowell stated that research was done up to a point and would not pursue this until a market survey was done and see that there is a real need. But applicant feels that the potential for the market is there.

Commissioner Smith asked how close the proposed site was located to other houses.

Ms. Nowell stated that the property has trees around it. The back yard neighbor has two acres. The other side of the property is Gillespie Bridge Road and on the further side of that is a large land owner. The only impacted area would be the Longview Subdivision. Their property is fairly far from the applicants and the nearest is the backyards. It is naturally landscaped along the back.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Staff if a Conditional Use Permit is required for the use that the applicant is suggesting.

Planner, Bill Florea stated that was correct.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked the applicant if they understood that requirement.

Applicant stated yes.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that at this point, Commission is only looking at the rezoning request and are not concerned with the future use of the property at this point.

Planner, Bill Florea stated that this was correct and should not weigh the future use in the decision of rezoning.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

In opposition:

Present: Lori Miller, 2500 Barrys Bluff Ct., Longview Subdivision, Columbia

Ms. Miller stated that Longview subdivision boarders a couple sides of the property the applicant purchased. Longview subdivision will eventually have 80 homes. Currently there are 27 homes that are occupied. Ms. Miller represents 24 of those homeowners and has signatures. Ms. Miller and other homeowners have concerns with putting a kennel next door, whether it is just during the day time hours or not. A special interest is the fact that the applicant stated that an outside kennel would not be out of the question. Ms. Miller stated that she has concerns for the impact of the neighborhood. All dogs do bark whether they are exercised or not. Waste removal on a weekly basis may be an issue. There are not any homes that currently back up to the property, but there will be in the near future. Once rezoned, there is nothing to stop an increase from 10 to 100 dogs, or what the future property owner may do with this property and that is of great concern. With the way the City of Columbia is expanding, and with the property bordering the City, this property could end up in the city and it would then be a spot zoning.

Closed to public hearing.

Ms. Nowell stated that the barking issue is understood. The garage that will be used for this facility is already insulated to some extent and applicant could see that it was done to a more thorough capacity if needed. Applicant stated that she didn’t want more than ten dogs on the property, it is not good care for the animal. If applicant ever wanted to expand the business, she would look for a new piece of property and build a kennel. It is meant to stay very small and not impact the community. Longview Subdivision is the only place that could be impacted, but it is only one side of four.

Commissioner Caruthers asked staff to put a home based business on the property, is there anything in A-2 that would preclude that.

Planner, Bill Florea stated no, a kennel does require a Conditional Use Permit, there are other types of home based business that would not. But the applicant’s choice of business would require a CUP. At that point, there could be limitations put on the use, or conditions placed on the permit, those are issues that would be dealt with more fully in a Conditional Use Permit hearing.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked Staff that the report mentioned, further study indicated that there might be some problem developing the property in R-S, and asked Staff to cover that again.

Mr. Florea stated that topography was a problem. It is uphill to the nearest city sewer so that would involve pumping sewage. A good deal of the site is very steep, and really doesn’t lend itself to development, not that it couldn’t be developed, but it would be very difficult. A-2 zoning would prevent any type of dense land use on that piece of property that is approximate to the creek bluff.

Commissioner Fugit asked applicant if the use would be for dogs and a daycare and if that was to be two different things.

Applicant stated that it would be a doggie-daycare, not children.

Ms. Strawn stated that she has known applicant for 15 years and applicant has always taken good care of animals. Applicant is a very good candidate for this.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that he didn’t have a problem with rezoning to A-2, but may have a problem with the Conditional Use Permit when it comes forward.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve the request by Merle and Beverly Wright on behalf of Faye Nowell to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) to A-2 (Agriculture).

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request carries. 6 Yes 0 No

 

 

2. Request by PF Net Property Corp. to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of 3 acres, more or less, located at 7301 W. Henderson Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report this site is located west of Columbia in the Midway area on Henderson Rd. The property is zoned R-S (Single Family Residential). All of the surrounding property is zoned R-S, except an area of A-R near the southeast property line of this tract. This request is to rezone 3 acres from R-S to C-GP (Planned Commercial). If approved, a review plan and a final development plan will have to be submitted before any construction activity may take place on the property. The applicant’s proposed use for this site is an Optical Amplifier Site, which is required to boost the signal on fiber optic cables. This site is within the Columbia School District, and electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is not a requirement for this land use. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. The original zoning for this tract is R-S. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this property. Staff notified 55 property owners about this request. While the master plan designates this area for residential land uses, the plan does suggest that the use of planned commercial and industrial districts is an acceptable method of providing for such uses. Staff believes that the proposed use can be sited at this location with very little impact on the surrounding properties if the proposed staff conditions are imposed. Any review plans should include extensive landscaping details.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following 7 conditions.

1. That no transmission tower is allowed in association with this facility.

  1. Only a single access meeting county standards is allowed on Henderson Road.
  2. All driveway, loading, and parking areas are to be dust free (minimum chip and seal).
  3. No Billboards be allowed on the site.
  4. That an extensive landscaping buffer and buffering plan acceptable to the planning department be submitted and approved and that such an approved landscaping plan be binding and that all planting and buffering be maintained in good condition at all times. Any planting materials that die or are not providing proper buffering will be replaced no later than the next growing season with plantings that will provide the required buffering equivalent.
  5. Lighting be oriented inward and downward so as to minimize light leaving the site.

7. That it be recognized that the tract must be properly subdivided in accordance with county regulations.

Present: Tom Schneider, 11 N. 7th Street, Columbia

Lonnie Heft, PF NET Properties, 600 Kenning Street, Suite 85, Houston, TX

Mr. Schneider circulated a locator map and color-coded excerpt from the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Schneider stated that PF NET Properties have acquired this 3-acre site, it is between West Henderson Road and the Church cemetery. The site is immediately adjacent to some property that is zoned commercial. There are a number of commercial uses along US 40 on the same side of the highway, including the before mentioned Petsel site. On Highway 40 there is Midway Auto sales, a Fire Station and other commercial businesses.

Mr. Schneider added that they are requesting this be rezoned to planned commercial, and would be for an Optical Amplifier facility, a description of those facilities was included with the application. Mr. Schneider circulated a slightly revised review plan which applicant stated will be filed with the Staff. Mr. Schneider also submitted to Commissioners, a photograph of a like facility. Mr. Schneider stated the photo is very similar to the facility being proposed. The photo shows a five-bay as opposed to a four-bay unit, the site plan indicates that there would be two facilities constructed now, one for PF NET and one for AT & T, who partner these sites.

Mr. Schneider added that both sites would have an expansion pad to allow for a similar building to be constructed adjacent to each. The property would be surrounded by security fence. The security fence is designed to keep people from climbing over, these are not manned facilities. Essentially, the facilities house equipment necessary to boost light wave signals traveling through fiber optic cables. They are located about fifty miles apart and are un-intrusive, there is no glare, smoke or odor, and they don’t generate traffic, they are not unsightly, especially when landscaped. They don’t generate noise, except when the emergency generator comes on and they test those periodically. Applicant sent letters to everyone on the Assessor’s list to explain the project and have not received any calls.

Commissioner Mink asked what type of landscaping is around the area.

Mr. Schneider stated that there is gravel near the security fence.

Mr. Heft stated that from the base of the facility about 20-30 foot out would be gravel.

Commissioner Mink asked about the remainder of the property.

Mr. Heft stated that it would be left as it is. It was pasture land, part of it is timber, and woods border the back of the back part of the property. The northwest part of it goes to a creek, behind that is the Locust Grove Church cemetery.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

No one spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that this type of usage would be detrimental to the area. Looking at the area now, there is a number of older buildings, and can’t imagine that this would harm anything.

Commissioner Caruthers asked to where Henderson Road comes down and meets Locust Grove Church Road, in relation to the old general store, if the site was directly behind or east of it.

Mr. Heft stated the site would be just to the east of it and in the neighborhood of 300 feet back to the east of that intersection, or the south east corner.

Commissioner Fugit asked staff if there was any concern for the noise of the generator.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that is why staff requires buffering, for vision and sound.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked applicant how often the facility is tested.

Applicant stated bi-monthly approximately a half-hour for maintenance and upkeep. It can be programmed electronically to come on at a certain time for a half-hour. But it does come on automatically if the power goes off.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if there were fuel tanks for the generator.

Applicant responded that it does have a diesel fuel tank. It would be a double lined container that would meet EPA requirements.

Commissioner Caruthers asked the location of the fuel tanks.

Applicant stated he was not sure. But believes there would not be an underground facility.

Commissioner Mink stated that information provided states that the tank would be above ground.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve with staff conditions the request by PF Net Property Corp. to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) to C-GP (Planned Commercial)

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request with staff conditions carried. 6 Yes 0 No

3. Request by Barry and Sheri Homan to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to REC (Recreation) of 34 acres, more or less, located at 14341 N Proctor Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this request is to rezone 34-acre tract from A-2 to REC (Recreation). The property is located 4 miles east of Harrisburg, 10 ½ miles north of Columbia and 2 miles west of Highway 63. The site is located about ½ mile south of Highway 124 on Proctor Road, which is a gravel, county maintained road. A traffic count conducted in 1998 indicated the traffic level to be 35 vehicles per day.

The original and current zoning for this tract is A-2, as is all of the surrounding property. This property is within the Harrisburg R-8 School District. Boone Electric Co-operative provides electric service. Information from the Public Water District indicates that there is no public water at this end of Proctor Road. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses.

The applicants live on the property, and operate a landscaping business from the site. In 1999, a conditional use permit was issued to allow an outdoor recreational facility on a 10 acre portion of this property. The applicant included a copy of the permit as part of the application. The Conditional Use Permit was issued with six conditions. One of the conditions stated the permit was to be issued for one year. At the end of the year the County Commission was to review the permit to determine whether the use had been compatible with the neighborhood. Upon review, the Commission found that the conditions of approval had not been complied with. Specifically, it was found that the hours of operation had not been followed and the required 60 dust free parking spaces had not been provided. The Commission suspended the Conditional Use Permit with the provision that it may be reinstated at a later date if the original conditions are complied with.

In analyzing this request, it is necessary to consider all of the possible uses allowed by the Recreation zoning district. It is not sufficient to consider only the use proposed by the applicant.

Staff notified 18 property owners concerning this request.

Staff recommends the request be denied for the following reasons:

Present: Barry and Sheri Homan, 14341 N. Proctor Road, Columbia

Mr. Homan submitted to the Commission, a layout of the proposed use.

Mr. Homan stated that he and Mrs. Homan currently use the area as botanical park with various theme gardens, based on 4 acres of the ten acre tract that they are currently using under the Conditional Use Permit. Applicants’ essentially provide amenities for hosting a variety of occasions such as reunions, weddings, receptions and similar events. These amenities include a 40’ X 60’ timber framed pavilion, restrooms with a non-discharging septic tank, an annually inspected private water system, an on site fire hydrant, and 22 parking places on asphalt. Pursuant to the recommendation by Boone County Planning and Zoning Department, applicant is requesting rezoning to REC. The CUP recommended by Bill Florea allowed the applicants to operate legally, while putting in the required infrastructure and work out the logistics of operating a park and gardens. The completion of the required parking places will be on the newly acquired land that is included in the proposal, thus the need to rezone. Also long range planning in a stable atmosphere is essential to proper planning. The maps show that most of the land will be left as is, in its natural state.

Applicant continues that they are working with soil and water service under a TSI program to enhance what was over grazed cattle and timber land. The old fescue fields are being turned in to quail habitats, they are working with Quail Unlimited.

Mr. Homan stated he has worked closely with the County Planning Department to ensure that an environmentally clean development is being done, with minimal impact to the surrounding community. As a landscaper, the applicant’s main focus is to ensure that the land use is compatible with the area through more intensive plantings, buffers and general use of the ground, and a more aesthetic setting than the cattle grazing.

Mr. Homan addressed several issues that the County brought up; regarding the fire station in Harrisburg, it was built closer to the proposed site, however, through the CUP, it was required to have an on-site fire hydrant. A fire hydrant has been installed, which was approved by Ken Hines. Gerry Worley has approved the private water well for use in this development.

As far as the County road, applicant states that it has had one load of rock put on it this year. That is the total amount of rock put on this road. Applicant doesn’t see the road as being detrimental as far as any increased traffic from what the applicant produced. Applicant understands that under recreation zoning there is a wide variety of other uses, camping and so forth. Applicant does not want to get in to that, and doesn’t see getting in to it. Applicants own the property and intend to keep it. Once it is developed in to the park setting that it has become, applicant doesn’t see bringing in RV’s and camping to destroy the aesthetics of what is trying to become a botanical garden.

Mr. Homan continued that looking around in Mid-Missouri, there is no such thing as a botanical park or garden of this nature. Some people consider the campus as a botanical park. That is more or less in an urban setting. Shelter Gardens is a private setting, and is very limited to amenities that people require for doing outdoor events like the applicant is doing. Applicant has found that this brings out-of-towners in to the County. It brings commerce in to the County and a lot of them require overnight stays. A lot are from out of State, they spend money here, then leave. Applicant doesn’t believe they are creating a density level that will be ongoing all the time. Most weddings and events generally occur on Saturdays. Applicants found that rehearsals occur on Friday for a couple hours and it seems Sundays were pretty much nill. Last year when this began, applicants already had two events under contract before the restriction was set for daylight hours. Applicant upheld the contractual agreements. The last six events did close off before dark. There was a private event that ended at dark. The level of activity was really not great. There could be a possible increase in activity, but again, it is pretty much limited to the weekends. Applicants both work full time.

Mrs. Homan stated that they are just family oriented events, weddings, there are children there, it is nothing that is adult only events. Applicants have tried to make it a very beautiful place, a place that enhances Boone County, they are not in it to detract from Boone County. Some very nice oak trees are approaching champion size and applicants plan to enroll those in the program. Mrs. Homan adds that they are trying to enhance the county where they live and plan on keeping the acreage as stated before.

Mr. Homan added that they have 22 parking places at this time. The acquisition of the adjacent land, was planned to begin with. They are going to put the entire parking lot in a more appropriate place with the proper buffers on both sides. There is an entrance and an exit, which is more or less, one way traffic. The land negotiations bogged down, due to reasons outside applicants control, it had to be pursued with the permit phase which Bill Florea recommended and applicants have done that and are now back to where originally started once the land was under applicant’s ownership.

Applicant understands that under recreation zoning, the land can’t be sub-divided or developed in to residential lots. This is something applicant is seeking to decrease the urbanization of certain areas. The services are lacking, but they are not wanting services brought in to increase that exact effect. Applicant states he will submit, at the Commissioner’s meeting, the signatures of all neighbors but two, and pretty much the surrounding neighborhood and communities.

Applicant states that one thing that will be an issue will be the noise. Out of the eight events last year, there was one that did create a disturbance. Certain types of noise need to be controlled and a little more attention paid to monitoring and keeping noise at a more appropriate level, within the compounds of the pavilion, so as not to carry over any great distance.

Commissioner Fugit asked applicant if they put gravel on the county road.

Mr. Homan stated that he didn’t do anything with the county road other than maintain it to a degree as far as blading it to keep rock on certain areas. The County put rock on the road and that is the only County maintenance that Proctor Road got this year. The degree of maintenance is very minimal and with Rick Harvey saying that there is minimal amount of care because it is kept in good shape due to being a school bus route. The county has no intention of paving, chip and sealing, or anything. Mr. Harvey did not say that increased traffic would be a detriment. Applicant finds that the less grading of the side decreases the erosion by not disturbing what is growing. The road is kept very well for the minimal amount of impact that applicant has had on it.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

In opposition:

Present: Kenneth Darwent, 14351 N. Proctor Rd, Columbia

Mr. Darwent stated that he believed to rezone was a very big step, kind of like a blank check. He has a series of questions for the applicant for more detail for himself to feel out what the future might bring.

    1. What specific recreational events are planned for the rezoning area, other that what the applicant stated.
    2. Will more that one recreational event be held at the same time.
    3. What would be the specific hours of operation as far as months of the year, days of the week and hours of the day.
    4. Will the recreational property be open to the public at all times during the hours of operation.
    5. Will the events be by invitation only.
    6. Will alcoholic beverages be permitted on the grounds, if yes, will the applicant provide alcoholic beverages.
    7. What specific forms of musical entertainment will be allowed on the grounds.
    8. What hours will the musical entertainment be allowed to play.
    9. Will catering by the applicants be available upon request by the patrons.
    10. Will there be fees charged for the use of this facility.
    11. Do applicants have personal liability insurance to cover expenses if a patron should injure themselves on adjoining landowners property.

Mr. Darwent stated he would like answers to those questions and in closing in the year of 2000, applicants have had private parties, private wedding receptions with live bands lasting in to the night, and as the night goes by, the patrons and the music get louder. By allowing this to happen, the applicants have already set a pattern of what to expect in the future. The applicants were given a Conditional Use Permit and did not follow the guidelines set forth by the County Commissioners. By not following these guidelines, the applicant has shown that fulfilling the needs of the public, to have a private, intimate rural setting for the occasions of private weddings and receptions, that the intention to provide a safe and healthy atmosphere for family social functions comes before the neighbor’s right to have a safe and healthy atmosphere of peace and quiet.

Mr. Darwent asks that the Commission deny the request, he feels that it is a very vague rezoning and any possibilities in the future could come up.

Closed to public hearing.

Mrs. Homan, responding to the questions asked by Mr. Darwent, stated that the specific recreational events are weddings, family reunions, picnics and those sorts of events. There have been no sorority or fraternity parties, or adult only events. It’s exactly as stated before and that is the plan.

Mr. Homan stated he doesn’t know the definition of what exactly recreation is but applicant is not set up to do ball games of any sort, or competitive sports. The layout of the land isn’t conducive to any such activity.

Mrs. Homan stated that the recreational events consist of volleyball, wiffle ball, croquet, low impact sports.

Mr. Homan stated that only one event can occur at a time. There is only one pavilion, most events take up the entire space and he doesn’t see it occurring where they can do multiple events. The stated parking lot will not accommodate a big influx of multiple events. The lay of the land where the parking is, is more or less a meadow, parking is adjacent to the road where as the 20 acres to the west is more or less hills and hollows and tree covered. With the TSI Program applicant is required to leave it as such for 10 years or longer. Disturbance is very minimal.

Mr. Homan stated regarding the hours of operation, it is a seasonal park, open during the months of April to October. Days of the week looks like a weekend activity, with possibly some use during the week, but at this time, applicant doesn’t solicit or do anything in that regard. Hours of the day, during weekends, it could be an ongoing thing all day long as far as people coming in for weddings, because of decorating. People will come in the morning with a few people and decorate and the influx of the crowd usually comes at the time the event is scheduled, they generally stay for the allotted time, then they leave.

Applicant stated that two of the events carried on into the evening, but they already had contractual agreements with the people and wasn’t going to break it. The last six events that were done, did end before dark, and they worked toward compliance on the matter as best they could at the time. The place will not be open to the public, so there will not be a general drive by, in and out, traffic with a fee to visit to come and go. It is a private park.

Most REC zoning has been for camping and scouting activities, this is a different, radical approach to an agriculture use of the ground that has been lacking in Boone County and Mid-Missouri.

Mrs. Homan stated that when the facility is holding an event, it is by invitation only.

Mr. Homan stated that there is alcohol on the ground, but applicant does not provide the alcohol. That is something that the either the caterer, whom must have an alcohol license, if they are serving, or the patrons themselves bring it. Mrs. Homan added, unless it was applicant’s own private party and not being leased to anyone.

Mr. Homan continued that the specific forms of entertainment include D.J.’s, C.D. players, bands, string quartets a vast mixture of music. Applicants have found that the C.D. players and the string quartets, the softer music, and folk music, blend in very well with the area. Applicant does know that bands are a problem and are addressing that as hands-on, to keep it down. Applicant does not want the bands in the pavilion where they are moving everyone out of the pavilion or to the back of the building. There is some considerations in regards to the loudness by keeping the place usable to it’s fullest extent.

Mrs. Homan adds that during the event they did receive a noise complaint, the event ended at 8:00p.m. and stated that applicants know they have to move earlier in to the day.

Mr. Homan stated that they did not have a kitchen on site, therefore would not do the catering. It was thought that catering would bring the request more in to a commercial operation. Heuer’s Country Store is presently soliciting some of the business, but for the most part, it is referred out to The Smoke House, Buckinghams, Suttons Place and Applegate’s. There are plenty of caterers in Boone County who can handle an influx and shouldn’t be a problem.

Mr. Homan stated that a fee is charged for using the place. Every park charges a fee, even the city parks. The fee is pro-rated to what the person can pay. It is not a fixed fee but a sliding scale.

Applicants do carry liability insurance, not only for applicant’s place, but for people who use the place. It is a general blanket liability. Mrs. Homan states that they carry two policies, one for the personal home and property and a policy for the park property.

Commissioner Caruthers asked what level of indemnity is on the insurance for both policies.

Mrs. Homan stated that they are adequate, and received through Farm Bureau.

Mr. Homan stated that the blanket liability for the park is one million dollars.

Mr. Homan asked staff the criteria and length of time required to put in the parking lot under zoning versus CUP.

Bill Florea stated that usually applicants are given six months to install the parking.

Mr. Homan asked if that was for everyone in the zoning.

Bill Florea stated, that generally that was the case.

Mr. Homan stated that he appreciates Mr. Darwents concerns and is glad he had input in to the operation. Applicant stated that one thing that they did notice that the property values did go up significantly surrounding this area. Not only with the land the applicants bought, but with some land that is for sale or on the market in the vicinity of the area. Most of the people in the area favor this as a neighborhood park. Between Hallsville, Sturgeon, and Harrisburg, they favor it’s location because of the proximity to these three towns, to keep people more local as to the use of it. Applicant states that they have been solicited for high school proms. Sunnydale has called about using it for their proms and that is the level of what they want to use it for, the more upscale, family oriented activity.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if the pavilion was an enclosed or open area.

Mr. Homan stated that it is an open, timber framed pavilion. It blends in with the area and has a green roof, and can not be seen from the road. There are curtains, which can enclose and buffer in case of wind or rain. Applicants have found that the placement of the speakers and music in a certain direction, minimizes the impact on neighbors, as applicant works out the certain logistics of that part of it, it will become more less of an impact to neighbors.

Commissioner Mink questioned applicant on the high school contacting applicant regarding the prom, and stated that he could not imagine a prom ending at dark. Mr. Mink added that he believes that it would go on longer.

Mr. Homan stated that he didn’t say that it would end at dark, when there a chaperones and parental input in some of these events, they tend to stay under control and going in to the evening, they can stay under control. It is a noise factor that is the bigger issue and believes that needs to be more of a hands on approach, where applicant states, they have physically told D.J.’s that there is a certain volume level that needs to be kept or turn it off. Going in to the evening, applicant doesn’t believe it needs to get loud to enjoy. Most of the older parents and older people tend to enjoy it more when the music is down to a lower volume. Applicants said they comply because those are the people paying the bill. To re-iterate, we’ll have to pretty much sit on bands or minimize the types of music being played to acoustical, folk type, bluegrass, and country western, those types are a good mix. When you get the bands they like to have a big bass. Mr. Homan states that you have to sit on them to keep them down.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked staff if rezoning to recreational would in effect negate all the conditions that were placed on it.

Director, Stan Shawver stated that was correct, the conditions would no longer apply.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick explained that the conditions that were placed when the previous request was approved would go away. There would be no restrictions. Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that there is no planned recreational district in the zoning regulations. Therefore, any permitted use in a recreational district could be carried on this tract of land, should it be rezoned and Commission has no power to restrict anything except for conditional uses that are listed under recreational.

Mrs. Homan stated that one of the reasons they are requesting to go recreational is because the weddings are not planned a week or two in advance, but a year or two in advance, and that is one of the reasons applicants wish to rezone.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that he fails to see how that applies.

Mrs. Homan stated that it is really hard to plan for what type of weddings and things applicants can have if they are under a year to year basis. A longer lead time is needed on some of those events.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that is regarding the yearly review; but had the conditions been met during the previous review the review would have gone away, period, it would have never existed.

Mr. Homan questioned staff whether that was true.

Director Shawver stated that what the Commission stated is that until all the conditions were complied with, the permit did not exist. Once all the conditions have been met, the permit would be re-instated, unless there were any future violations, in which case, the Commission would revoke it. The power of compliance was in the applicant’s hands.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick states that he understands and the point that he was making was that had the review been satisfactory, there would have been no further review.

Stan Shawver acknowledged that the Commission said nothing about any further reviews.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that this is generally the case. And asked the applicant about the comment regarding recreational development, in leaving the situation as it is.

Mr. Homan stated that they did not know what occurs from year to year.

Commissioner Smith stated that she was uncomfortable when it came to the Conditional Use Permit that this was the right kind of use of this land, and that she thinks opening it up to recreation when indeed they have no control is wrong. She continued that it also bothers her that the request does not comply with the Master Plan. She always thought that we need to re-visit the Master Plan, but she doesn’t believe that doing it piece by piece with this type of rezoning is the way to do it. Commissioner Smith stated that she believes Commission should always go by the master plan.

Comissioner Smith made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to deny the request by Barry and Sheri Homan to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to REC (Recreation).

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to deny request carries. 6 Yes 0 No

4. Request by Godas Development, Inc., to rezone from R-M to CGP and approve a revised Review Plan for Lakeview Mall Phase II, located at 5695 E. Clark Lane, Columbia.

REQUEST TABLED

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to table the request by Godas Development, Inc., to rezone from R-M to CGP and approve a revised Review Plan for Lakeview Mall Phase II.

Motion to table request carries by acclimation.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

NONE

PLAT REVIEWS

 

 

  1. Quarter Mile Hills Plat 1. S9-T50N-R12W. A-2. Michael and Neta Teel, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this proposal is for a 3 lot phase of a final major plat of a subdivision. The preliminary plat for this development was approved in June of this year as "Teel Subdivision". The project is located on the North side of the re-alignment of Barnes School Road approximately 1/4 mile North of the intersection of Barnes School Road and Highway 124. The site is located approximately 2&1/2 miles West of the Hallsville City Limits. The portion of the development contained within this plat is zoned A-2 (agriculture) All adjacent zoning is A-2. These are all original 1973 zonings. The current proposed phase of the final plat encompasses 11.68 acres. The development is within the Hallsville School District. The development is within Water District #4. Water infrastructure extensions and up grades will be required for this development and the costs of these are the developer's responsibility. The site is located in the Boone County Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants will be required and will have to meet fire & water district approvals. The actual requirements will vary based upon the actual size, uses, and construction methods proposed for the structures. Sewer service is proposed to be from a STEP collector sewer system proposed on lot 9 in final plat 2 that will be constructed by the developer and turned over to the BCRSD. The BCRSD will need to approve any sewer proposal. Sidewalks are not required for this development. The master plan does show this area as suitable for agricultural and rural residential development. The proposal rates 21 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval.

Present: Don Bormann, surveyor, 101 N. Allen, Centralia

Mr. Bormann stated that this is plat 1 of 2 plats, both are in. Plat 1 doesn’t have any improvements on them other than needing water pressure. The water line is going to be done sometime next year by the water district. Mike Teel has worked out an agreement with the water district but Mr. Bormann is not sure of the terms of the agreement. Applicant wanted to go ahead and get these three lots before the rest is available because of building the streets and sewer. This part would be available first although the sewer will have to be tied in on this plat also. It is only a three lot subdivision. Applicant states that the street name Company Lane, is not an official name yet it has been accepted by joint communications and still needs to be formally changed by the County, that is what was an original road before it was relocated. Mr. Bormann asked Mr. Yonke if he was working on that.

Planner Thad Yonke stated that it has to be resolved regardless, the road has been relocated, so the name has to be changed.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Green seconded a motion to approve Quarter Mile Hills Plat 1.

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Abstain

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request carried. 5 Yes 1 Abstain 0 No

 

2. Quarter Mile Hills Plat 2. S9-T50N-R12W. A-2. Michael and Neta Teel, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report that this proposal is for a 13 lot phase of a final major plat of

subdivision. The preliminary plat for this development was approved in June of this year as "Teel

Subdivision". The project is located on the South side of the re-alignment of Barnes School Road

approximately 1/4 mile North of the intersection of Barnes School Road and Highway 124. The site is

located approximately 2&1/2 miles West of the Hallsville City Limits. The bulk of the property

contained within the proposal is currently zoned A-2 (agriculture) and is the original 1973 zoning. There

is an approximately 9 acre portion of the property that is zoned M-LP with a condition that the operation

be restricted to the manufacture and assembly of wood products only and there be no chemical treatment

of wood products. This portion of the property was rezoned in 1991 from the original 1973 zoning of A-2. All adjacent zoning is A-2. These are all original 1973 zonings. The current proposed phase of the

final plat encompasses 47.69 acres. The development is within the Hallsville School District. The development is within Water District #4. Water infrastructure extensions and up grades will be required for this development and the costs of these are the developer's responsibility. The site is located in the Boone County Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants will be required and will have to meet fire & water district approvals. The actual requirements will vary based upon the actual size, uses, and construction methods proposed for the structures. Sewer service is proposed to be from a STEP collector sewer system proposed on lot 9 in final plat 2 that will be constructed by the developer and turned over to the BCRSD. The BCRSD will need to approve any sewer proposal. Sidewalks are not required for this development. The master plan does show this area as suitable for agricultural and rural residential development. The proposal rates 21 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition:

    1. That it be recognized that there is a note on the plat that prohibits direct access to Barnes School Road from lots 4 & 14.

Present: Don Bormann, surveyor, 107 N. Allen, Centralia

Mr. Bormann stated that there is several things to be considered, one is the zoning is not quite in compliance with the lot, as far as the commercial lot is concerned, that is something that applicant will be bringing in and will probably be rectified before the plat could be approved. Mr. Bormann stated that he will have that in before the meeting in February 2001. The frontage goes in through where the lagoon is for the existing house and wants to bring it down to the south side, where it should have been in the first place.

Mr. Bormann adds that Mr. Teel is going to do something with the commercial property, but does not know what yet. Mr. Teel owns property to the west of this and knows all the neighbors and will not do something that will cause a problem. What Mr. Teel decides to do will be in conformance with what is in the area. He will have a rezoning request or anything other than wood products.

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations Quarter Mile Hills Plat 2.

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Abstain

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request with staff conditions carried. 5 Yes 1 Abstain 0 No

3. Callahan Creek Estates Block 1. S1-T49N-R14W. A-2. Missouri Cattle Breeders, Inc., owner. Brian D. Dollar, surveyor.

 

 

Planner Bill Florea gave staff report that the the property is located on Wilhite Road approximately 1.5 miles east of Route J. The plat contains four lots of approximately 5 acres each. Also being divided from the parent tract is an Administrative Survey, containing 10 lots of 10 acres each which, is pending approval and a two lot minor plat that will be submitted in the future. A remainder tract of approximately 93 acres will be left after recording the Administrative Survey and Minor Plats.

Lots 1 and 2 will be accessed by a private driveway easement. The same easement will be used for access to two of the lots in the Administrative Survey. Lots 3&4 have frontage on and access to Wilhite Road. Additional right of way, sufficient to provide a 33-foot half-width for Wilhite Road will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 will provide water service. A plan showing the approximate location of fire hydrants has been submitted. The actual location of the hydrants will be coordinated with the water district and the Boone County Fire Protection District.

The developer has proposed on site wastewater systems for sewage disposal. A cost benefit analysis has been submitted comparing the cost of on-site systems to a central sewer system. The cost of providing a central system is approximately 3.5 times the cost for individual systems. A plan showing a suitable location for a lagoon, on each lot in the plat, has been submitted.

The property scored 18 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

Present: Brian Dollar, surveyor, 1033 E. Walnut, Columbia

Mr. Dollar stated that there are restricted covenants for the subdivision, including minimum of 2000 square foot, no mobile or manufactured homes, and no junk cars.

Commissioner Mink commented why the road is proposed as a private road. The concern is Commissioner Mink already has situations like this where a private road is put in and later it is requested it be brought in to the County system. Sometimes the road is not built to standards and becomes a burden on the owners of the property to bring the road to standards, in order to bring the road in to the system. Commissioner Mink questioned applicant why this proposed as a private road and not built to County standards.

Mr. Dollar stated that the owners prefer to make it a private road, it is less expensive, and would be a major plat. Only 4 tracts will be served from this drive. If there were more lots, that would be justified, but since they are larger tracts land less lots, that is why it is a private drive.

Commissioner Mink stated that there will be no snow removal.

Mr. Dollar stated that Turner-Jones is doing the agreements for the private road maintenance and all buyers will be aware of those agreements when they purchase the property.

Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve with waiver request Callahan Creek Estates Block 1.

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

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

4. The Woodlands Plat 5A. S27-T48N-R12W. A-R. Rhodes-Payne Properties, Inc. owner. Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea, gave this 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. This plat comprises 39 lots of the Revised Preliminary Plat of The Woodlands Plat 5 which was approved in November 2000.

Access to the property is from Turkey Trail Drive to the west and Cottage Lane to the east. Prior to recording this plat all roads shown on this plat and Cottage Lane must be constructed according to the conditions established by the approval of the preliminary plat.

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 Boone County Regional Sewer District will provide sewer service at the El Chaparral facility. The district and the developer have a conceptual agreement in place where the developer will fund certain improvements to the system. One of the conditions of preliminary plat approval requires that the developer provide documentation that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has issued a revised operating permit prior to recording the final plat.

The property scored 71 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat.

Present: Ron Lueck, Surveyor, 300 St. James St., Columbia

John Payne, 10951 I-70 Drive NE, Columbia

Mr. Lueck stated that this plat is one of the final steps in a long process that started in February 2000 with a concept review. It was originally submitted in September for the October meeting, it was withdrawn and did some revision to the preliminary plat. That revision has caused applicant to do a 66 foot right of way through part of the plat ending with a 66 foot width at the Bob Cat and Rabbit Run Drive intersection. Road plans have been submitted. Erosion control plans, applicant believes, the County is still reviewing. Whatever is worked out with them will be taken care of.

Commissioner Mink stated that there are a couple of draining structures, particularly in sections of the road that only allow for a 50 foot right of way, that may require a small, additional, drainage easement for inspection purposes. Commissioner Mink stated that he would need to address that to the engineer. Commissioner Mink stated that it is not a problem, but more of a house-keeping issue. Commissioner Mink stated that it is something that will need to be addressed prior to final approval of the plat.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve, subject to approval by Public Works, The Woodlands Plat 5A

Pat Smith Y Jim Green Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request carried. 6 Yes 0 No

OLD BUSINESS

Planner, Stan Shawver, stated that all the plats were done as said last month. To update, the Kinkied/Kelly request that was submitted a couple of months ago was approved by the County Commission, the MLP on ABC Lane, there were a number of conditions on it.

 

NEW BUSINESS

NONE.

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Jim Green

Acting Secretary

Minutes approved on this ______th, day of January, 2001.