BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, February 15, 2001

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

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Darin Fugit, Vice-Chairperson Columbia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Michael Caruthers (arrived at 7:05pm) Centralia Township

Absent: Jim Green Cedar Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Paula Evans, Staff

 

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Sloan seconded a motion to approve minutes of the December 21, 2000 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

NONE SUBMITTED.

REZONING REQUESTS

NONE SUBMITTED.

 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

  1. Request by PF Net to approve a review plan and subdivision plat for Midway

Communications Subdivision located at 7301 W. Henderson Rd., Columbia.

 

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this site is located west of Columbia in the Midway area on Henderson Road. The property is zoned R-S (Single Family Residential). A rezoning of the property to Planned General Commercial C-GP was tentatively approved in December 2000. The three-acre tract was illegally divided from its parent tract when PF Net purchased it. The currently proposed minor plat will legitimize the previous land division. Also being proposed is a Review Plan showing a single use on the property, an Optical Amplifier, that is required to boost the signal on fiber optic cables. In addition to the proposed minor plat and review plan, a final development plan will have to be submitted and approved prior to the rezoning taking effect and prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed use.

The property has frontage on and access to Henderson Road, which has a 60-foot wide right of way. The Major Thoroughfare Plan designates Henderson Road as a collector from the intersection with Locust Grove Church Road 100 meters east. Therefore, 3-feet of additional right of way is being dedicated by this plat, only for the portion of frontage that is within 100 meters of Locust Grove Church Road. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is within the service area of Consolidated Water District Number 1. There is no water service required for the proposed use on this property.

The facility to be constructed on the property is unmanned and will not have plumbing. Therefore, there will be no wastewater system on the premises. However, the subdivision regulations require that a platted lot be capable of supporting a wastewater system. The developer has submitted a plan showing a suitable location for a lagoon on the property. The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

There is a series of notes printed on the review plan responding to concerns raised during the rezoning of the property. These notes are binding on the property owner if the review plan is approved. The notes address all of the concerns from the rezoning except one, which will be satisfied when the plat currently under consideration is recorded.

The property scored 50 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and review plan and the waiver requests

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

Lonnie Heft

Dan Brush, surveyor, 506 Nichols St, Columbia

Mr. Schneider stated that regarding the development plan, applicant is circulating a photo of the optical amplifier facility, which was submitted as well during the land use hearing. The plan is striking in the respect that there is an unusual amount of landscaping involved in this particular development and note that the plants or shrubs are to be six feet minimum height at the time of planting, there should be excellent natural buffering for this facility. Regarding the aspects of the optical amplifier facility, it was stated before that there was no glare, no smoke, no odor, doesnít generate traffic, it isnít unsightly. It doesnít generate noise except when the emergency generator might come on. It is fairly un-intrusive and is unmanned so there is no need for the various studies that staff mentioned.

Mr. Schneider continued that for what it is worth, there were going to be two buildings one for AT & T and one for PF NET, whom commonly partner sites. Apparently the engineer decided that the topography was such that there would be too much earth work involved on this site, and they decided to option another two and a half acres adjacent to this property and immediately back to the east. Another application will follow for that site with the result being over all three of these sites instead of two because of the topography.

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 made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve request

by PF Net to approve a review plan, located at 7301 W. Henderson Road, Columbia.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y

 

Motion to approve request carries. 7 Yes 0 No

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve subdivision

plat for Midway Communications Subdivision, located at 7301 W. Henderson Rd., Columbia.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y

Motion to approve request carries. 7 Yes 0 No

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

 

    1. Williamsí Estate. S21-T48N-R12W. R-S. George and Ethel Williams, owners. Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that the minor plat containing one lot is located on the west side of Rustic Road, approximately one-half mile south of Route WW. There is a single family dwelling currently under construction and a lagoon on the property.

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

The subdivision is in the service area of Water District Number 9.

A lagoon, currently on the property will be used for wastewater disposal.

The property scored 46 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

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

Mr. Lueck stated that the plat is pretty straightforward. This had been done twice, it started as a family transfer and later found out that R-1 zoning can not be family transferred, and has since done six edits to the plat at the request of the City and the County. This is a one lot, five acre out of a thirty-acre piece.

Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Fugit seconded a motion to approve Williamsí

Estate.

Pat Smith Y Mary Sloan Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mike Caruthers Y

Motion to approve request carried. 7 Yes 0 No

2. Brookfield Estates, plats 1 Ė 5. S24-T47N-R13W. A-2. Keith and Chastity

Samuel, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this property is located at the north east corner of the intersection of State route N and Blue Bird lane. The site is approximately three and one-half miles south of the Columbia municipal limits. 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. In August of 2000, a rezoning request for A-R/PRD (Agricultural Residential Planned Residential Development), a review plan, and associated preliminary plat were denied by both the P & Z Commission and County Commission.

The proposed plats contain 34 lots in total on the 94.04-acre parcel. Plat 1 encompasses 38.25 acres and proposes 14 lots. Plat 2 encompasses 28.61 acres and proposes 10 lots. Plat 3 encompasses 2.21 acres and proposes 1 lot. Plat 4 encompasses 14.09 acres and proposes 5 lots. Plat 5 encompasses 10.87 acres and proposes 4 lots.

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 fire protection of 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 developerís cost. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from a central collector wastewater system to be located on proposed lot 15 in Plat 3. This facility will have to be permitted by the state Department of Natural Resources and given to the BCRSD for operation and maintenance. It is our understanding that the sewage system will be a STEP (Septic Tank Effluent Pump) system with a sand-filter type treatment facility. There are problems with the proposed lot for the treatment facility. Lot 14 of Plat 1 and Lot 15 of Plat 3 each contain portions of the dam that creates the north-lake within the proposed subdivision. The notes on the plats indicate that lot 15 will be conveyed to the BCRSD as required, but also indicate that the lot will be common area for the homeowners association. The placement of a portion of the dam on the sewer treatment lot and the attempt to make the lot also common area are unacceptable to the BCRSD and do not conform to the preliminary plat. The developer has indicated that they intend to work out the details of these arrangements at a later time. This violates condition #6 of the preliminary plat that the proper covenants or control mechanisms are created for the maintenance of the common areas prior to submission of any final plats for the property. Additionally, this proposal violates Appendix B sections 1.4 & 1.9 of the subdivision regulations, which requires the liability and maintenance to be provided by the agency or entity that, is in possession of the subject land. No proposed covenants or control measures have been submitted as required by the regulations. This failure on the developerís part is especially critical with respect to this development, as many of the still unresolved issues would have to be addressed in the covenants and agreements. Proposed covenants are likely to not adequately address county, sewer district, and other agency concerns and will likely require redesign to address outstanding infrastructure issues. So at this point the sewer issues have not been resolved and the plat is considered not to have sewer service that can be approved. Approval of any portion of the development at this time would be premature. Additional right-of-way to provide a minimum 33í 1/2 width as measured from the existing centerlines of both Bluebird Lane and State Route N is provided. Roads within this development will be required to be constructed in compliance with county standards and will have to be hard surface. Curb & guttering and sidewalks are not required for this subdivision. There are still concerns with regards to the lake, dam and stormwater issues of the plats. The stormwater calculations were not provided with the construction plans, and this omission raises issues for both lakes and specifically the north-lake and dam. The northern dam has been constructed and was constructed without submittal of plans prior to its construction. NRCS was not kept apprised by the developer of the lake and dam design and plans until after construction. The as-built condition of the north dam is not acceptable to the NRCS as was required by condition on the preliminary plat. Modifications to the northern dam are required. An engineered cost estimate was not provided with the initial submission as required by appendix A, section 1.3 of the subdivision regulations. A cost estimate was provided with the re-submittal to address comments on the plats. However, this estimate is not sealed as required of an engineered cost estimate, nor is it complete, nor detailed as to costs. Therefore, no engineered cost estimate has been provided and bonding for any of these plats is not allowed. Due to the design of the development and the choice of how to propose the phasing of the plats, plats 1, 2, 3, & 4, all these plats are integrally dependent upon each other and can not be developed separately. Additionally, plat 5 will have to wait until plats 1-4 are completed. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The neighbors and other interested citizens are expressing concerns and questions about the development of this property and staff continues to explain the process and address the questions to the extent available. The proposal has 58 points on the point rating system.

Since the final plats do not comply with the conditions of the preliminary plat and does not meet the subdivision regulations, staff recommends denial of all 5 of the plats.

Specifically the proposed plats violate condition #5 of the preliminary plat which states, "That the stormwater & erosion control suggestions for the lakes & site provided by the NRCS be followed as requirements." The proposal violates condition #6 of the preliminary plat, which states, "That proper covenants or other control mechanisms be created for the maintenance of the common areas prior to submission of any final plats for the property." Additionally, the plat does not comply with the subdivision regulations with respect to the provision of covenants and violates Appendix B, sections 1.4 & 1.9 as well as Appendix A, section 1.3.

Basically, the submission is premature. The only way to comply with the conditions of the preliminary plat and subdivision regulations is to resubmit the plats for another agenda after first having worked out all the issues with respect to the regulations and preliminary plat conditions prior to the submission. This would include submitting all proposed covenants and agreements after having worked out acceptable language and specifics of the covenants and agreements prior to the submission.

If the commission desires to approve the plats despite the plats not complying with preliminary plat conditions nor the subdivision regulations, then staff recommends the following conditions, which will help lessen the extent to which the plats do not comply. It must be recognized though that the plats will still not meet the preliminary plat conditions or subdivision regulations.

  1. That plats 1 to 4 be completed as a single component of the development as they are all integrally dependent upon each other and do not meet county regulations if developed separately. That all infrastructure for all of the plats 1-4 be complete, approved, and acceptable to the appropriate agency as well as the Director of Planning prior to these plats being taken to the County Commission for approval.
  2. That it be recognized that no bonding is allowed for any portion of this development nor any of these plats 1, 2, 3, or 4.
  3. That the dams for both lakes be built to address all the NRCS concerns, specifically including but not limited to the modifications to the north dam & associated spillway and that such construction be acceptable to both NRCS and the Director of Planning prior to any of the plats being taken to the County Commission.
  4. That the other stormwater and erosion control plans and mechanisms for the entire site be acceptable to NRCS for the development and that documentation of the plans and their acceptance be provided prior to the plats being scheduled for County Commission approval.
  5. That it be recognized that any redesign or reconfiguration made to address out-standing deficiencies or for any other reasons be considered to void any approval and require a new submittal of revised plats for all areas of this development.
  6. That any agreements or covenants proposed for the plat be reviewed and be fully acceptable to the Director of Planning and associated agencies prior to scheduling the plats for the County Commission. (This will still not be the same as condition #6 of the preliminary plat as this is specifically supposed to be worked out fully prior to submission to and plat approvals by the P&Z.)

Chairman Kirkpatrick questioned staff regarding plat 3 and itís size.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that plat 3 consisted of one lot, which is lot 15 and that it is 2.21 acres and added that it was not in compliance with the zoning regulations.

Present: Dan Brush, 506 Nichols Street, Columbia, MO

Keith Samuels,

Jim Brush, 506 Nichols Street, Columbia, MO

Mr. Dan Brush stated that the items regarding the storm water and the NRCS, Mr. Brush stated that he has spoke with Mr. Gordon and received his comments yesterday afternoon, February 14, 2001, and had discussed those comments. The main items Mr. Gordon had concerns with is whether or not it is more of a benefit to use a metered open channel to go ahead and control the storm water. Or whether a pipe needs to be imput. Mr. Brush stated that it is more of a technical matter rather than a specific problem with the lakes and with the dam, Mr. Gordon understands as well as applicant that any kind of a spillway device will need to be constructed in the existing dam.

The items regarding the sewer district and the sewer treatment plant is something that was raised yesterday and was discussed it with the sewer district; it seemed to be a problem this afternoon. At this point in time as of 5:00pm, when Mr. Brush discussed the issue with Mr. Ratterman, he indicated to applicant that the sewer district had decided not to have any part of the dam on their lot. Because of that, applicant proposes that plats 2, 3, 4, and 5 be tabled until the next meeting so they can work out the geometric configurations that will enable the sewer district to have the piece of property they want for their facility. Applicant also proposes that plat 1 go ahead and be processed tonight for the following reasons...

    1. There is a window coming up for construction. Approving plat 1 will enable applicant to go ahead and meet that window and begin construction on the roads. Plat 1 is not a plat that will be re-configured in regards to the sewer district.
    2. Plat 1 can not be recorded until the improvements and infrastructure are put in. Which includes the sewer lines and sewer treatment plant and that lot being given to the sewer district.

By going ahead and approving plat 1 will enable applicant to begin construction and bring in the water line to improve the water in the area. As well as, bringing the fire flows to the location and will also allow for beginning work on the streets.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked applicant if they were asking Commission to table everything except plat 1.

Mr. Brush stated that was correct.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked applicant if anything on the back side of the lot will have an effect on plat 1.

Mr. Brush stated that nothing would have an effect. After discussing with Mr. Ratterman, at 4:30 this afternoon, it was agreed that the best way for the lots to be reconfigured, is to reduce the portion of the lot that the sewer district has their facility on. They will get all the street frontage and the remainder of that lot will be combined with the adjacent lot. The dam and lake will be on the adjacent lot 16.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked staff for comments.

Mr. Yonke stated that if plat 1 was approved without plat 3, plat 1 has no sewer service. As far as staff is concerned, additionally the whole project is tied together so all the plats need to be configured and reviewed as one big project. Essentially, staff rejected a submission of solely plat 1 back in December because there was no provision for the sewer service. At the same time if Commission holds off action on plat 2-5, it is exactly the same plat that was submitted and wasnít appropriate to be seen by P & Z at that time.

Mr. Yonke continued that there is no difference between having plat 1 be looked at solely now as there was plat 1 submitted before without the remaining pieces. As far as being able to extend the water line, working with the water district in order to get water to the property is not dependent upon a plat being approved.

Mr. Jim Brush stated that, as he understands, they submitted plat 1 sometime before, and it was rejected because the rest of the plats were not submitted, so that easements and street alignments could be evaluated and configured. That is why applicant went ahead and went through these plats and the construction plans and submitted all of those. They have been reviewed by public works and the water and sewer departments and basically, they are all in compliance. The only thing applicant feels that they are working with, is the geometry of how to cut up the different parcels. Applicant has done a grouping in the various lots and cut them up in to different plats. Applicant thought that yesterday morning that everything was okay. Today applicant found out that it wasnít. The sewer district has asked for their sewer lot to be shortened up and made smaller so it doesnít include part of the dam. Applicant added that this is more of technical, lawyer type issue than he is acquainted with. Mr. Brush added that he had no problem with that, but he would like for plat 1 to go ahead and be approved so they can go ahead and start some of the more mainline construction when there is a window of good weather in March. As far as the rest of it, applicant thinks it can be worked out one way or another.

Mr. Brush continued that the attorneys can go ahead and decide where the lake is and where the dam is and can tell applicant how short to go ahead and put it on there. But he would like to see the Commission go ahead and let them get started with the one phase.

Mr. Yonke stated that one further issue with respect to this is that if plat 1 were looked at separately, and assuming that the sewer issue was not involved. Applicant has not complied with the submission requirements to provide all the covenants and maintenance agreements for the dam, part of which are in plat 1. So it doesnít meet the technical submission requirements as well. Additionally, conditions on the preliminary plat would have applied to plat 1 as well; the submission requirements were not met with respect to that, so it still doesnít meet the preliminary plat conditions.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that if Commission went ahead and approved plat 1 tonight, it would be without any kind of sewage plan at all, and doesnít see how Commission could do that.

Mr. Brush stated that the sewer plans are all submitted and are being processed. The problem that applicant sees is the piece of land and the configuration that they want the treatment plant to be on. A big piece was shown and they apparently want a small piece of land.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that he understands that, but the point is, applicant is asking the Commission to approve a subdivision that doesnít show any kind of sewage treatment facility at all. And we donít know when applicant will be back with the rest of the information, or even if applicant will be back.

Commissioner Sloan agrees that Commission can not start doing things on a "when if" and "as if" basis.

Mr. Jim Brush stated that he did not disagree. But from his point of view, two days ago applicant was ready to start construction, and now it looks like there is a technical issue on how big it is and if applicant canít work around it, Mr. Brush states that tabling the request is the appropriate thing to do.

Thad Yonke stated that if it is tabled, and requires redesign, it will still require re-submission, but it will have the same effect. Theoretically, if it is tabled, it will be tabled to next month, if applicant gets the issues worked out with the redesign for next month and it is submitted in time with all of the things that are required, then we are back to the same point. Tabling it, if everything is worked out and all the proper submissions come in by the deadline by the next submittal, we would not have a problem, but if not, then applicant is back to the same point next time that it doesnít meet the regulations.

Director, Stan Shawver stated that regulations allow Commission to table only for one month. Everything must be submitted by Tuesday, February 20 by 5:00p.m. There is nothing that stops applicant from continuing construction on the road installation, as long as it is according to the plans that have been approved. Regarding the water line extension, if the water district has any questions about that, Staff would confirm. If applicant can not have everything in by 5:00pm Tuesday, it would be best for applicant to completely withdraw at this point. The biggest thing is there were a number of conditions that were required to be met before it was even resubmitted, and those conditions were not met. The Staff worked diligently to get them in compliance, Mr. Brush and Brush and Associated worked very hard. There are just issues there that are difficult to resolve. During the testimony of the public hearings last year, this is an environmentally sensitive area; it is an area that has not seen a lot of growth of this scale. It is important that everything be done accordingly to what the requirements are.

Thad Yonke stated that the conditions, to re-emphasize, that the issues are worked out prior to submission, that doesnít mean just proposing that they might be able to be worked out, but it is supposed to be fully worked out and everyone agree to it prior to submission. Otherwise, we are back to the same point next month with maybe a few more issues resolved, but still not technically meeting the conditions.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if Commission were to deny the request today, what kind of time frame before applicant could resubmit.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that the request could come before Commission next month. But applicant would still have to meet all the requirements.

Director, Stan Shawver stated that a denial does not prejudice the Commission or Staff one way or the other against future submissions.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated that even if these plats were denied today, applicant would still have the opportunity to bring the same plat before the Commission again, with the covenants, if they choose to do so.

Thad Yonke stated that applicant would still need to have the previously stated issues worked out prior to resubmission. So it would need to be a pretty good proposal. It is a very tight time frame to get that done in.

Commissioner Smith stated that if applicant wanted to withdraw it, it was up to them.

Dan Brush asked staff to go over again what issues need to be worked out prior to submission.

Thad Yonke stated that the preliminary plat conditions from the October 19, 2000 minutes were...

    1. That a no access easement be added to all lots along Route N, and no direct access be allowed to State Route N. That has been complied with on the current one.
    2. That the required water improvements be completed to provide fire flow and that it be recognized that this is at the developers cost. Staff understands that applicant is working on that, it is not required prior to submission.
    3. The location of the treatment facility be considered and important aspect of the subdivision design and that it be recognized that if the location is moved and new preliminary plat submission be required. So far that has not been an issue particularly.
    4. That the exact relocation of Blue Bird Lane be worked out with staff and MODOT prior to final platting. That is one that is still up in the air, but the alignment is set up but there is no specific reconstruction project. That is why staff has not raised this issue for this initial submission. The right of way has been taken to be the realignment.
    5. The storm water and erosion control suggestions for the lakes on site provided by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, be followed as requirements. Those are in the file and applicant has received copies of the earlier ones. That would include comments that staff has received since then with respect to the plans, simply because there were no specific construction plans at that time to review. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
    6. The proper covenants and other control mechanisms be created for the maintenance of the common areas prior to the submission of any final plats for the property. This is the issue that has to be worked out prior to the submission. That common area would include any kind of dam or other structural requiring maintenance.

Mr. Jim Brush stated that those can be submitted tomorrow and asked on the storm water, it was applicants understanding that one of the problems was the calculations. They were not in his copy of it as soon as applicant found that out, applicant made another set of calculations and gave them to him. As applicant understands the only question is whether the overflow on the north lake is a metered channel or whether to run it through a pipe. Tomorrow applicant will give him two options and he can have his choice. Those two items are not significant; applicant can go ahead and provide those as such. Plat 3 will be slightly reconfigured and the adjoining lot and the other plat will be slightly reconfigured. Applicant believes there is a very good probability that this could be submitted, and hopefully they will get a positive response from the sewer district and from the storm water by Tuesday.

Thad Yonke stated that all that stuff has to come together correctly, it may be possible.

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Sloan seconded a motion to table Brookfield

Estates, plats 1 Ė 5 until March 2001.

 

Pat Smith Y Mary Sloan Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mike Morgan Y

 

Motion to table request until March 2001 carried. 7 Yes 0 No

  1. 3. Callahan Creek Estates Plat 2. S1-T49N-R14W. A-2. Missouri Cattle Breeders, Inc.,

owner. Brian David Dollar, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that the property is located on Everett School Road approximately 1.5 miles east of Route J. The plat contains two 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 four lot minor plat that was approved by the Commission in December. 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 applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 will provide water service. Fire hydrants will be required according to Boone County Standards. 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 plan showing a suitable location for a lagoon, on each lot in the plat, has been submitted. The developer has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property scored 18 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

No one present to represent the plat.

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve Callahan

Creek Estates Plat 2

Pat Smith Y Mary Sloan Y

Darin Fugit Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mike Morgan Y

Motion to approve request carried. 7 Yes 0 No

 

OLD BUSINESS

Director Shawver stated that the CUP at the Clark property for the transmission facility on Route O and I-70, the Commission recommended approval for this facility and the County Commission upheld that recommendation. They have been proceeding with the preparation of the plans and have pulled a building permit on that application.

The CUP for the warehouse on Henderson Road and Highway 40, the Commission recommended approval of that, and the County Commission upheld that recommendation. The applicants have submitted construction plans; County Building Inspectors are working with the applicants to resolve some technical problems with the specific plans that were submitted. Construction should be proceeding before too long.

Regarding rezoning requests, PF NET the County Commission upheld the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendations for approval.

The Homan rezoning request Commission recommended denial which was appealed to the County Commission, and County Commission upheld recommendation for denial.

 

NEW BUSINESS

Director Stan Shawver wanted to note that the engineer tonight was making a complaint that they only found out about the problems with their plats two days ago. The complaints go back more than two weeks ago when staff submitted comments back to them and applicant failed to comply with requirements. Essentially applicant thought they could take their case to the Commission.

That seems to be a common thing. Unfortunately staff has to be more strict in compliance with regulations. Regulations say very clearly that if applicant does not submit everything as required when they submit, it is automatically pulled from the agenda. Staff has never done that and may have to start.

Staff has spent a month of time to work on the plat. One of the main reasons for turning down a final plat is because it does not comply with the conditions of the preliminary plat and that was the case here.

The time frame for submission is twenty-four days before the Commission agenda upon which it supposed to appear. As soon as staff gets those plats they are sent out to all commenting agencies, they essentially have one week to review that plat, get their comments back to staff, and in that same week period, the staff is reviewing the plats for all County requirements and putting the comments together. The submitting agencies, Public Works, Boone County Regional Sewer District, GTE, whomever may comment puts all of their comments in to one form and sends them all to the surveyor or engineer for their ability to correct the plat. They have a week then to make those corrections and get it back to staff.

Last Thursdays work session where the plats were submitted to Commissioners. Literally the plats are walking in the door at 5:00pm. Staff does not have a chance to review them at that point to see if they comply with all the comments. They go in to the packets to the Commissioners with the assumption that they do. Staff then has another week to review those plats and actually, in order to get the comments out to the engineers or surveyors to let them know that there are still problems so they will have a couple of days to correct them. Staff actually is down to three days for everything.

Mr. Shawver continued to say he agrees that it is not a timely fashion, we could always require that the plats be submitted 60 days ahead of time like the City of Columbia does, but County tries to make our process more streamlined. These things are going to happen, Mr. Shawver believes staff responds in a very credible, very professional manner and apologized to the Commissioners for having to hear that discussion. They should never be here to Commission at this point, they should almost be administrative. It either complies or does not comply.

 

 

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

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