BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, April 19, 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, Chairman Missouri Township

Michael Caruthers, Vice-Chairman Centralia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Keith Neese Columbia Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

Carl Freiling Cedar Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Absent: None.

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Bill Florea, Staff

Thad Yonke, Staff Paula Evans, Staff

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Sloan seconded a motion to approve minutes of the March 15, 2001 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

 

  1. Request by Faye C. Nowell for a permit for a boarding kennel / day care facility for dogs on 4.31

acres, 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 A-2. 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. 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 a conditional use permit for a small private boarding kennel and day care for dogs. 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. The property was rezoned to A-2 this past December at the request of the owner. Staff notified 28 property owners about this request.

Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the applicant follow the business plan filed with the request.

Present: Faye Nowell, owner, 5550 W. Gillespie Bridge Road, Columbia.

Mark Nichols, 3 West Boulevard South, Columbia.

Ms. Nowell read a statement stating that many people today are remaining single putting off having children or not having children at all. Pets are one way to focus a person’s need for love and nurturing, just as if they were children. When these four-legged kids need watching, pet owners demand better care and special treatment for their beloved pets.

In larger cities across the country, a new industry in pet care is emerging to meet the needs of discriminating pet owners; it is commonly called dog day care. This is a business fashioned after the child care industry, in which busy people drop their dogs off at the facility in the morning and pick them up after work in the early evening. During the day, the animals are exercised, groomed, trained, or otherwise entertained while their owners go about their busy day. It is becoming a fast growing business in our ever-hectic world.

There are no dog daycare or boarding facilities in the Columbia area that offer this type of specialized service for pet owners. The typical boarded animal is not allowed to play with other pets and gets no more than minimal attention from handlers while in the standard boarding kennel. During holiday seasons throughout the year, many pet owners find it next to impossible to find a place to board their pets, especially larger dogs. More and more pet owners are looking for personalized care for their beloved companion animals.

Ms. Nowell states that her proposed dog daycare and boarding facility, South Paw Acres, would help meet the needs of pet owners in the community with care in a home-like setting, out in the country side on over an acre of fresh green grass; complete with mature trees and a pond for the dogs to run and play in.

Ms. Nowell stated she would like to outline the overall concept of South Paw Acres and what is involved in dog day care. Then review the planned management procedures, and discuss in detail the building, landscaping, noise control and waste removal issues, as well as permit conditions.

During the month of February 2001, a market survey form was left at eleven area pet service vendors for customers to fill out regarding their opinions of dog day care and the services the customer may want, should it be open for business. Of thirty-seven questionnaires that were completed and returned, thirty of those people asked to be notified if and when this business does open. Most of the customer’s major interest in this business were boarding opportunities, the day care services, pet photography, birthday parties and grooming and training.

Again in March 2001, Ms. Nowell states she sent twenty-seven letters describing the proposed business to the area neighbors, along with an invitation to an open house set for Saturday, April 14th. No one attended. Ms. Nowell stated she also encouraged the neighbors to call if they wanted more information and no one did that.

As to the company size, this would be run only by Ms. Nowell for the beginning set up. If it got to be to the point where it was a little too busy for Ms. Nowell, she may have one other person in to help. At no time will there be over 10 dogs on the property. This property is 4. 31 acres and the land use does not support more than 10 dogs. Ms. Nowell states she wouldn’t want more than 10 dogs at a time. You can’t give the animals personalized care if you have too many animals at once.

Some of the day cares in the bigger cities house many more dogs than that, they have 20-30 dogs, but they are also on a bigger piece of property. If the business had to as such that there were a waiting list, Ms. Nowell would look for a better location and a more private place for more animals, this would never exceed more than 10 animals.

Some of the services provided in dog day care include dropping of the animals between 7-8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, they would stay until around 6:00 p.m., depending on what the owner needed. They will have a lot of activities throughout the day, some of the activities include group play time, rest time with snacks, one on one time, possibly a planned event like a walk in the park, more naps and snacks, lap time, then they are picked up. There are a lot of activities you can do with a dog. Like training from a business on the outside that would come in and work with the dogs if the owner wished. A groomer used as an outside resource to come in. The owner could request vet services if they wanted the animal taken to their own personal vet for that afternoon, this could be arranged.

In addition to the day care, which would be only Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., there would be boarding services provided for, preferably, the clients that are already in daycare. These clients would be carefully screened as well as the dogs for sociability and temperament. Ms. Nowell stated she would not just take someone off the street. Pick-up and drop-offs are by appointment only. Some of the other services that may be provided would include pet photography services; grooming by a contracted groomer; training by a contracted trainer; possibly agility equipment, where some dogs do agility training in dog clubs, this is something she could work on. There is a pond on the property the dogs can swim in the summer time. Birthday parties, these can be fun things for the owners that don’t have children. Some owners want to dote on their pets, just like anyone would want to dote on a child.

Ms. Nowell stated she would probably have some type of audio and video system, for the animal to have music for soothing and relaxation and probably pet videos like animal planet or something like that.

Some of the benefits of dog day care and why Columbia needs this service would include is that day care could curb chewing and barking habits that are brought on by boredom. Regular socialization helps make dogs well adjusted family pets, day care can raise the confidence level and physical coordination by playing with other dogs in a group, this is a natural way for the dog to lose unwanted weight. Some of these animals that stay home all day and owners feel guilty that they aren’t doing things with them so they feed them treats and the dogs just sit around and don’t exercise and end up fat.

The daycare improves overall health. It can create a common disposition through exposure to new surroundings, dogs and people. It ceases the owner’s guilt of leaving a dog home alone. Hydrotherapy, or swimming, can be used for animals with arthritic joints. The agility play are can promote learning, coordination, and behavioral improvement. Soothing music and pleasant visual experiences help relax the dogs. Snacks at regular intervals help with digestion as well as some animals may need regular snacks as if they are diabetic. Grooming, training and vet visits can be done while in daycare. Once home the dogs will be satisfied and content. No more torn up furniture, shoes, strung trash, just a happy, well-behaved dog.

Ms. Nowell stated that she looked in to the competition for this area. As far as boarding facilities, there are fourteen listed in the phone book in the Columbia area. Of those, four have exercise yards, two have fairly small exercise yards, and the other two facilities, Ms. Nowell states she is not sure of the size. None of these fourteen facilities advertise group play in a natural setting.

Regarding the management practices, Ms. Nowell stated that this would be a boarding and day care facility only. There would never be any breeding, raising or selling of animals at this facility ever. No over bookings of any animals, no animals in heat would be allowed, so there wouldn’t be a problem with behavior. Spade and neutered animals are preferred, unless an animal is a show dog, in which they are not supposed to be spade or neutered. Ten or less animals at one time in the building. These are for companion dogs only. All the dogs are interviewed for social behavior and acceptance with other dogs.

When a client came to Ms. Nowell wanting to have their dog in the facility, they would get an interview. They are only accepted after a complete interview determines their animal is appropriate for South Paw Acre activities. An interview would include evaluation of the animal’s health, temperament, and life history. An evaluation of the dog’s interaction with other dogs. They would have to present a certification paper of rabies vaccination, and a vet signed agreement that all shots are current and the dog is a good candidate for the program. These would have to be turned in before any scheduling of daycare. Also an owner would be asked to sign a service agreement, outlining liability issues, emergency procedures, the owners rights and expected care of the animal, as well as methods of payment.

South Paw Acres will carry business insurance specifically designed for kennels a one million dollar liability policy. Ms. Nowell’s homeowners insurance may also apply to some aspects of this business.

As to supervision of animals and the security of the property, Ms. Nowell stated that the animals are totally supervised whenever they are outside of the building, period. Barking dogs, if they are outside, are taken inside immediately if it is excessive. Inside the building that would house the animals they are also supervised if they are in groups and if they are not in their own individual kennel. Absolutely no dogs will be allowed outside at night. A five-foot chain-link fence surrounds the property, the gates that are there will always be locked and the building would be locked at night. An audio-video surveillance system would be put inside the dog building that Ms. Nowell could see from the house, which would help to supervise the animals when Ms. Nowell is not in the building, as well as check on them during the night without disturbing them.

Regarding emergency procedures, the owner would outline in the service contract what they want done for their pet in the event of an emergency, those guidelines would be followed. Other emergencies would be handled as needed. If Ms. Nowell had to leave the premises for an emergency, all the animals would be locked inside the building before leaving.

As to licensure, all City and County licenses would be secured before opening the business. Animal control regulations would be followed for urban service areas, which in their case, they say there is no leash law, but animals should be confined and under control at all times. That would certainly be the case here. There is no limit on the number of dogs allowed in the county on private property. Ms. Nowell stated she is limiting herself, for the benefits of the neighbors. As with any business, most professionals wish to have affiliations with other professionals in the field. Ms. Nowell stated that she would try to have good relations with other groomers and trainers. There would be a vet on-call, Ms. Nowell’s personal vet, would probably be the one to service this facility. Ms. Nowell stated that she would apply for American Boarding Kennel Association membership and go by their code of ethics as far as treatment of the animals and business. U.S.D.A. inspections would be made once a year and would adhere to any of their guidelines.

Ms. Nowell showed photos of the building design and different views of her property in relation to Longview Subdivision. She pointed out her neighbor to the very back of her property and stated that there is quite a bit of space between the neighbor’s house and Ms. Nowell’s back yard. On the southeast is the nearest area of Longview Subdivision. Ms. Nowell stated that there would probably be another house built further in. Ms. Nowell stated she went out and measured it and roughly it is around 100 yards to what looks to be the driveway.

Farther south is all open field and even farther south and west is more open field, that goes on down to Perche Creek, there will be no building that far down.

Ms. Nowell showed again the proposed look of the building after it is retrofitted with the kennels on the outside. Ms. Nowell stated the drawing was a professional architect’s rendition of the design of the building with specific sizes.

In retrofitting the building in order to accommodate the animals, Ms. Nowell stated they would meet all building codes, the building would be climate controlled with heating, air conditioning and running water. Currently the building has an outside wall and an inside particleboard face. Ms. Nowell stated that they would probably blow R-11 insulation in to the walls, which she was told by an insulation manufacturer, gives you a 39% reduction in noise. On top of that on the outside of the wall on the inside of the building, they would put a noise reduction product, Ms. Nowell showed a sample of an acousti-block, which is a rubberized material that should drop the noise level another 30%. These are used in kennels and other buildings like manufacturing plants that have a lot of noise; this keeps the noise level down. The ceiling is already insulated, so this would add to the walls. In addition to that, each dog would have their own kennel or cage inside, these kennels have panels on three sides, that also aid in noise reduction. The specs on this say they drop the noise level 30%. With all three of those noise reduction properties in place, it should be a fairly quiet building. After a dog has been exercised all day and ran and played hard, they are not going to want to sit up and bark all night.

Landscaping is also in the plan, Ms. Nowell stated that the architect laid out landscaping that would have several evergreen trees on Ms. Nowell’s side of the property for a noise and visual barrier for the dogs. If the property owners on the other side would want it, Ms. Nowell stated she would gladly pay to have other trees put on their side near her fence line to help double the intensity of that.

Ms. Nowell stated that she spoke with Gerry Worley with the Health Department on April 18, 2001, and he came out and looked at the facility. Based on the septic tank applicant has and the area they are dealing with, Mr. Worley stated that no special waste removal system is really needed.

Ms. Nowell asked Planner, Bill Florea if he had gotten a message from Mr. Worley.

Mr. Florea stated he did.

Ms. Nowell continued that she spoke with the Department of Natural Resources, and discussed it with them in Jefferson City, Ms. Nowell states that DNR told her that with the number of animals she will be working with, DNR has no requirements either. In addition to all of that, applicant will still have a daily pickup of solid waste; it would be either removed from the property by a business in town, Scoop and Doo. She has used them before on her property. Or the waste can be treated with environmentally safe chemicals to neutralize the odor and it dissolves the solids in to liquid, according to all the people Ms. Nowell has talked to, this does not harm the ground, effect neighbors or cause an odor problem.

There is a city wastewater treatment plant near Ms. Nowell’s property. On about three days a month, you can smell it. For whatever it’s worth, it is something the entire neighborhood lives with. Ms. Nowell doesn’t believe anything she does with dogs would be any worse than that.

Regarding the traffic control, Gillespie Bridge Road is a busy road. Ms. Nowell does not see the amount of people that would be coming and going to and from her property would be a great change of traffic flow on Gillespie Bridge Road.

As to permit limits, Ms. Nowell stated that she would be willing to request that a permit, if granted, include the following limits:

    1. No more than ten dogs at any one time on the property.
    2. That the permit be issued to Ms. Nowell only, and non-transferable.
    3. The business only be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. And weekends by appointment only.
    4. No breeding or raising or selling of animals would ever occur.

Commissioner Smith asked about the amount of dogs and if Ms. Nowell had any dogs of her own.

Ms. Nowell stated that she had three dogs and they are in the house and will not be part of this.

Commissioner Smith asked if her dogs would go out and socialize with the other dogs.

Ms. Nowell stated that they might.

Commissioner Smith asked Ms. Nowell if she envisioned clients having a regular commitment as they do with day care for kids. Every day they would bring their dog.

Ms. Nowell stated yes, she would hope so.

Commissioner Smith asked if there would be two-week boarding.

Ms. Nowell stated yes.

Commissioner Smith asked if she filled up with 10 dogs right away, would that be it?

Ms. Nowell stated yes, that was it.

Commissioner Smith asked if clients decided to get more dogs, what would she do?

Ms. Nowell stated that she couldn’t keep taking dogs, she has to draw the line and does not want to abuse the system or impair the neighborhood.

Ms. Nowell stated that she has statistics on the insulation and acoustics if the Commission would like to see them.

Commissioner Freiling asked what type of insulation would be used.

Ms. Nowell stated that she spoke with someone from Owens Corning and he said she could just put batting between the walls, but she is not sure and needs to speak with a contractor but believes she will use blown insulation.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request:

Susan Hatfield, co-founder of Happy Trails Animal Sanctuary, 3818 Blue Cedar Lane, Columbia.

Ms. Hatfield stated that she is the President and co-founder of Happy Trails Animal Sanctuary, which is a private, non-profit, tax-exempt, all volunteer, "no-kill" sanctuary in Columbia. Ms. Hatfield states she is here to support the application for the dog daycare facility, South Paw Acres. She has known Ms. Nowell for five years; they served together on the Board of Directors at the Humane Society until Ms. Hatfield left to form her own private, non-profit corporation.

Ms. Hatfield stated that their organization receives numerous calls from pet owners looking for professional, reputable dog day care. Something that is an alternative to putting your dog in a 3 X 5 kennel. Ms. Hatfield states she has looked in to dog day care for her own dogs. She has been at applicant’s home, where the daycare would be located. Ms. Nowell has a large yard, with a wonderful pond and has put up a new five-foot chain-link fence. There is a large, indoor area that would be remodeled into a play area for the dogs. By limiting the amount of animals that she takes in on a daily basis, she will be able to provide excellent care and supervision for the daily visitors she would have at the facility. Ms. Hatfield supports the vision of the dog daycare center and believes it is an important service for the Columbia community and hopes the Commission will give the application their full consideration.

Jim Johnson, co-founder of Happy Trails Animal Sanctuary, 8915 W. Shady Oak Lane, Columbia.

Mr. Johnson stated that he has known Ms. Nowell for many years. He also worked with Ms. Nowell on the Board of Directors at the Humane Society. Mr. Johnson initially did a home study on Ms. Nowell when she applied to be a foster parent with the Humane Society. Mr. Johnson has been to applicant’s new home recently and looked at what she had done. He believes that what Ms. Nowell is doing is a great thing and is very much needed in Columbia. Applicant’s presentation of planning and professionalism of the design of what Ms. Nowell has come up with is very indicative of how the program will be run. Mr. Johnson states he highly supports Ms. Nowell’s request.

 

In opposition:

Lori Miller, 2500 Barrys Bluff Court, Longview Subdivision, Columbia.

Ms. Miller stated she is probably one of the closest houses to the applicant’s property. Ms. Miller can see applicant’s house from hers, even with the leaves on the trees. There are several houses that will be built in the future in close proximity. The photos the applicant has shown are a little deceptive of what will actually be going on in the neighborhood in the near future. Longview is a great neighborhood, it has big trees, open spaces, people who love to be out and have a little space around them. It was an old family farm. People like it because it is open and airy. Ms. Miller stated that she is here to represent the neighbors of Longview.

Ms. Miller gave to the Commissioners a list of signatures of people against this request and stated that during the previous meeting on December 21, 2000, to hear the re-zoning, Ms. Miller presented that same list of signatures. Longview has deep concerns about what is going on with this property. Children safety is a big issue. Ms. Nowell has a fence up, but things happen with dogs, there are a lot of kids in the neighborhood. Noise is also a factor.

Ms. Miller stated that she has a dog and it is a good dog, but it barks. The dog gets a lot of exercise and gets played with all the time. Dogs hear other dogs barking and they start barking. The other property that is located adjacent to Longview that Ms. Nowell was speaking of, there is two or three other dogs on that property. Ms. Miller states she can identify the dog when it barks at night and can certainly hear the dog from her house. She has concerns that even though what Ms. Nowell is planning to do sounds very admirable, applicant can’t be with these animals 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Ms. Nowell will have to go to the doctor sometime or go to the grocery store sometime. Dogs bark, they are unhappy when they are away from home. It sounds like Ms. Nowell has a great plan in keeping them active, but the neighborhood has a lot of concerns with those issues. It seems to be inappropriate in this location.

Ms. Miller continued in regard to the letter for the open house, she believes there are eight different homes represented in the audience and not one of them have received a letter. If there had been a better distribution of it, perhaps there would have been better attendance to hear more about the request. Ms. Miller stated that when the Commission met on December 21, 2000, the Commission stated that there wasn’t any reason not to rezone but Commission thought that applicant would be hard pressed to get the Conditional Use Permit passed.

Vickie Miserez, realtor, 2606 Gabrianna, Longview Subdivision, Columbia.

Ms. Miserez stated that she also has sold real estate in Columbia for fourteen years and is marketing the Longview Subdivision. One of the things that realtors deal with all the time in marketing the subdivision is people perceive that because the wastewater treatment is down the hill from the subdivision, that they will smell it all the time. Ms. Miserez stated that they don’t smell it more than just a few times a month. But people perceive that it is there a lot more often than that. Ms. Miserez stated that she grew up on a farm and is not opposed to animals, she loves animals, and she had dogs growing up. She also knows that things happen and they will bark. In selling homes, she has had four or five people decide not to buy a particular house because of the dogs that were next door. That is a concern that they sometimes have. Applicant’s idea of having the dogs indoors is something that would be a lot more palatable than having them outside all the time with the barking and the noise. The reports in the newspaper about children or people being killed by dogs is also a concern. The five-foot fence will help, but again, you can’t be 100% sure that the gate will always be locked and that a dog may not get out. That is a concern that people have.

Ms. Miserez stated that she has had people that she recommends they not have their dogs at the house when they are showing it. If a dog is there, people will not be comfortable going in the yard. Ms. Miserez feels having a dog daycare close by may have an impact on salability of property, particularly if there is an outdoor kennel. Another concern is what guarantee does the neighborhood have that there will never be more than ten dogs. Who is going to police that, how are we going to know if there are more than ten dogs. Ms. Miserez stated she supports the concept of the dog daycare, but the location is a concern with being so close to a neighborhood.

Irl Brooks, 2608 Gabrianna Ct., Longview Subdivision, Columbia.

Mr. Brooks stated that he and his wife moved out there a little over a year ago. They left Georgetown Subdivision and one of the reasons they left is because of barking dogs. They could not go out on their back porch because the dogs were barking. They moved to Gabrianna Court in Longview and it is quiet and peaceful, it is one of the main reasons they like the area. Deer come up in their backyard, fox run across the field behind their home. Mr. Brooks would desire this request not to be in the neighborhood. Mr. Brooks stated that he admired Ms. Nowell for her work and what she is proposing to do and show the care for the animals. Mr. Brooks states he loves animals too, he was born and raised on a farm and is the Manager of the MFA Agri-Service in Columbia, so is well acquainted with how animals are and the care they need. He is not sure he wants a daycare for dogs that are going to be spending the night in the neighborhood. Because of the noise and the possibility of loose animals, as well as the possibility of the smell.

Mr. Brooks continues that he has questions that he would like answered. If the request is approved, who do the homeowners and neighbors contact if there is a noise problem. Do they call the County, the City, or the Commissioners at home. They have put up a five-foot chain-link fence; some dogs can get over a five-foot fence if they get a good run. Mr. Brooks states he has seen dogs climb fences before. What will keep the dogs from digging under the fence and getting out. The smell is another concern.

Tom Austin, 2604 Gabrianna Ct., Longview Subdivision, Columbia.

Mr. Austin stated that there was no doubt that the applicant is doing a great thing and that she would treat the animals well, and it is probably a needed service. Mr. Austin doesn’t believe the location is a good one. The homeowners have the right to enjoy the peace and quiet of the neighborhood and feels this would be jeopardized with having a daycare for dogs. Mr. Austin stated that there is potential for expansion. Anyone in the business area sees a good thing going they will expand, it is common sense. To start the business and have opportunities to expand it and it is hard to believe they won’t want to expand. There is nothing that Mr. Austin knows of that will limit how many dogs are cared for. Mr. Austin is concerned with the peace and quiet that he has the right to enjoy.

Mr. Brooks added that he did not receive the invitation to the open house that Ms. Nowell mentioned. It would have been nice if Ms. Nowell would have contacted the neighborhood and talked to them and gone over this proposal. To Mr. Brooks’ knowledge, there has been no contact with any of the neighbors in the subdivision.

Mr. Austin stated that he has talked to several neighbors and does not know of any invitation.

Commissioner Freiling asked Bill Florea if he was aware of any restrictions in the subdivision covenants regarding household pets.

Planner, Bill Florea said he was unaware of any restrictions that the subdivision might have.

Ms. Miserez stated that she knew of none.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that the property was not in the subdivision, so it would not matter.

Commissioner Morgan asked Ms. Miserez, that with her concern of dogs barking, when she sells property to people, does she see if the potential buyers have dogs.

Ms. Miserez stated that if the people see dogs, when they see the home and there is a lot of barking or there is a vicious dog, they will move away from that house and go somewhere else. Because number one, they don’t like the noise, or number two, they are concerned about the safety of their children.

Commissioner Morgan asked Ms. Miserez, what if the buyers brought in dogs.

Ms. Miserez stated that she didn’t have any control over that. But a potential buyer will not buy a house because of either barking dogs or dogs that they feel could become vicious with their children.

Greg Tweeddale, 2508 Longview, Columbia.

Mr. Tweeddale stated that he did receive an invitation to the applicant’s open house, but his wife had surgery two days before and so he was not able to attend the open house. Mr. Tweeddale’s concerns are if this does get approved, who would they contact with any problems. Applicant reiterated several times that she only wants ten dogs there at any point in time. Mr. Tweeddale stated that while he would not be extremely pleased if it is approved, but he may be able to live with it. Applicant mentioned she would like things written up to where it would be limited to just ten dogs. If that is the case and is rock solid, then fine, but is there a loophole where she can go ahead and expand. Getting it enforced, and how do they know there are just ten dogs there. Those are big concerns.

Larry Purvis, 2504 Barry’s Bluff, Columbia.

Mr. Purvis stated that he just built his new home and is trying to get the yard in now. He bought in the subdivision because it was a fantastic subdivision as far out as you could get and still be in the City limits. It has a beautiful location, it is quiet, they see deer and turkey all the time and hear and see a lot of ducks and geese. Mr. Purvis stated that he really likes it out there, his major concern is the noise. Mr. Purvis says he believes it is a good thing that Ms. Nowell is trying to do, however, you can hear dogs barking all the time when people only have one or two dogs. Mr. Purvis just moved from the Country Club Meadows subdivision and he could hear dogs barking all over the subdivision even though the homeowners only had one or two dogs.

Mr. Purvis continued that again, his major concern is the noise. If one dog barks, the other dogs will begin barking. Where his house is facing, he can see the south side of Ms. Nowell’s property from his front yard. Mr. Purvis is aware that Ms. Nowell’s home is not in the Longview subdivision, but at Ms. Miserez previously stated, they are developing and there will be houses that back up directly to Ms. Nowell’s property. With the way the street will go in, there will be houses backing directly up to Ms. Nowell’s property. Those homeowners will be even more affected than Mr. Purvis will be.

Noah Manning, 3910 Gorham Oak, Columbia.

Mr. Manning stated that he is not necessarily speaking in opposition or for the request but he is representing his church, which owns property in the vicinity of the request. Mr. Manning stated that a church is somewhat interested in serenity, peace and quiet in the vicinity. If in fact noise becomes a dominant issue in the area, that will not be a positive thing, particularly on Sunday mornings during worship times. They intend to build a church in that area within the next two or three years. If in fact they detect that there was a noise problem, the Church may choose to relocate. Right now, they are very happy with the property and would not like to relocate.

Closed to public hearing.

 

Ms. Nowell stated that there was a concern as who to complain to if this request did pass. Staff has sent to Ms. Nowell the rules of The Department of Agriculture, USDA, which governs the kennel. In the guidelines, it states, all permits shall be inspected at least once a year, or upon a complaint to the Department about a particular facility, the validity of the complaint will be determined by the State veterinarian. Homeowners can voice a complaint to the USDA.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that homeowners can also place a complaint with the Staff, they are in charge of enforcement in the County, if indeed this were approved with conditions placed and those conditions were not being met, Staff would be the enforcement body.

Ms. Nowell also noted that the USDA requires licensed kennels to provide paperwork on how many animals are being boarded and they keep track of all the numbers. Ms. Nowell stated that she has to report what she is doing to them and would not want to go over her limit of ten. The USDA would see that and they could call her on that.

As to the letters sent out, Ms. Nowell stated that she sent the invitations to open house and the explanations about the business to the property owners within 1000 feet of the property. It is a list she got from the Planning and Building Department and it did not occur to her to write to every neighbor, she assumed that most of them were within 1000 feet. Ms. Nowell stated that she also assumed that the homeowners who received letters would get in touch with their neighbors. It was an open invitation to anyone who wanted to attend. Two of the letters were returned, one of them was Ms. Millers and another was to a company who owns the property. Ms. Nowell stated she sent twenty-five letters that were not returned.

Ms. Nowell restated the hours of operation, which are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, no business on the weekends except for boarding pickups and drop-offs. There is no daycare going on during the weekends. Absolutely no dog will be left out at night, there is not an opportunity for them to go out after 7:00 p.m., so there would be no barking issue at night. During the day, most of the homeowners are at work, so they won’t be home to hear most of it anyway, if there is a noise issue. In addition, Ms. Nowell stated she did some research with some other dog day care facilitator’s across the country through email. She got one response back from a woman that says she notices a very definite decline in barking and other noise issues when the dogs are allowed to play in groups like this. A lot of what they are barking about is loneliness and attention, so when they get to play together they don’t have the levels of noise that they do in a usual kennel setting.

To reiterate, Ms. Nowell stated that the dogs will always be supervised outside whenever they are outside their kennel. There is no possible way for the dogs to get out of the fence without being seen. Ms. Nowell states that she would have a pretty good head start on them if they were trying to get to the fence. You learn to know these dogs, they are screened to begin with for sociability, obedience, aggressiveness, if the dog shows any sign of aggression, they are not going to be allowed in the program. Ms. Nowell stated that she has concerns for area children as well. The fence was made five-foot high so little kids can’t climb it that easily. Yes, they can climb, but it is a deterrent. People should be as responsible for their children as Ms. Nowell wants to be with these dogs and would do anything to work with the neighbors to make that happen.

Ms. Nowell continued that in the City of Columbia, there is nothing to stop these new neighbors from coming in with four dogs of their own, that is the limit in the City. Just because Ms. Nowell is the "bad guy" with ten dogs, doesn’t mean that she is the only one in the neighborhood with dogs. The neighbor behind her property, who is in the County, could have ten dogs as well, but they are not necessarily going to board them and keep them in a quiet facility like Ms. Nowell is proposing.

Commissioner Neese stated that he had a concern with the driveway and where it comes in to the property especially when you have ten people coming in and out of it. It seems to be a concern because of the angle of the driveway and also on the curve where the property sits.

Ms. Nowell stated that is a concern, and she suggests that if the neighbor across the street would allow her to put a fish-eye mirror across from her driveway, you could see what is coming around the corner. Ms. Nowell believes that would help. Another thing is, she would encourage people to use half-days, the dogs don’t have to come all day. If customers want to bring the dogs from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. that is okay. It wouldn’t necessarily be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner Neese stated that Ms. Nowell mentioned on the Conditional Use Permit application, it asks the question of reason or justification for the request being submitted, Ms. Nowell put that this property was purchased with the intention of opening a day care facility on it. Commissioner Neese stated that with as much residential zoning that may be in that area, he finds it odd that Ms. Nowell would go ahead and buy the property knowing that she would open a day care center.

Ms. Nowell stated that she fell in love with the property, that was probably an emotional decision. At the time Ms. Nowell bought the property, she didn’t realize that this was a whole process that you had to go through to have this kennel and wrongly assumed that living in the County, you could have as many dogs as you wanted. Ms. Nowell thought the only issue was animal control with the limit of four dogs in the City and no limit in the County. That was an error on Ms. Nowell’s part.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked applicant if she knew how old the existing septic tank was.

Ms. Nowell stated the house was built twelve years ago and presumes the septic tank is twelve years old. Ms. Nowell stated that it has been inspected and she has the report.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked staff if percolation tests were required twelve years ago.

Director, Stan Shawver stated no, they were not required.

Commissioner Mink asked how many dogs would be boarded over the weekend.

Ms. Nowell stated probably none, except at busy times during the year as in holidays.

Commissioner Morgan asked staff if there were no restrictions on how many dogs you could have on your property in the County.

Planner, Bill Florea stated that was correct, there are no restrictions, there are limitations on operating kennels, but not on the number of personal dogs, unless they have two or more breeding females. If they are breeding dogs, even if for private purposes, that could be considered a kennel.

Commissioner Neese asked if the kennels would be air-conditioned.

Ms. Nowell stated yes, the kennels would be climate controlled, air conditioned and heated. So the animals can stay indoors all day if necessary due to weather.

Commissioner Sloan asked Ms. Nowell to reiterate the conditions that Ms. Nowell was putting on herself.

Ms. Nowell stated

    1. No more than ten dogs at any one time.
    2. The permit is non-transferable.
    3. Hours are Monday – Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    4. No breeding animals.

Commissioner Sloan asked staff if Commission were to grant this permit, could they put a time limit on it for review.

Planner, Bill Florea stated yes.

Commissioner Sloan asked applicant how long it would be before the facility was open for business.

Ms. Nowell stated probably late summer, August at the earliest.

Commissioner Freiling asked if the Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit, what would happen if the conditions were met and a review was conducted.

Mr. Florea explained that if a review was placed on the permit, another hearing would be held. The hearing would be to determine if applicant was operating within the requirements of the permit that was issued.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the review was to determine if the applicant complies with the specific permit requirements, not whether the permit should be issued.

Mr. Florea stated that was correct.

Commissioner Sloan asked applicant when the property was purchased.

Ms. Nowell stated it was purchased in December 2000.

Commissioner Smith stated that she knew that this was a sensitive topic for people living in the area. Commissioner Smith stated that she lived in the County and it was a sensitive topic for her as well, when someone moves in down the street with ten dogs that don’t have air-conditioned kennels. Commissioner Smith stated that she worries about the lively hood of the dogs and believes that Ms. Nowell has made a lot of effort to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Applicant is not in the subdivision but in the County and as such within the County rules. There really is nothing that would stop someone else from buying her house and moving in with ten dogs that would bark all night.

Commissioner Smith continued that she feels that Ms. Nowell has made a lot of effort to hear the neighborhood’s concerns and to meet them. Because of that, Commissioner Smith believes that Ms. Nowell has put a lot of effort in to the business plan. When the applicant came before the Commission in December for the rezoning, the Commission told her that she would really need to do her homework to get the conditional use permit. Commissioner Smith believes that applicant has done her homework and feels that with the conditions that applicant has taken upon herself, that the request should be approved.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve the request by Faye C. Nowell for a permit for a boarding kennel / day care facility for dogs. Located at 5550 W Gillespie Bridge Rd., Columbia with the following conditions...

    1. That there never be more than ten dogs.
    2. The rights are non-transferable.
    3. Hours are Monday – Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    4. No breeding animals on the property.
    5. Discussion on the motion.

      Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that he heard nothing in the motion reflecting the other improvements that the applicant suggested such as sound proofing, insulation. There is also no mention in the motion of any weekend activity, which applicant also mentioned. Chairman Kirkpatrick asked Commissioner Smith that as he understood, the condition was Monday through Friday.

      Commissioner Smith stated that was correct.

      Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that as he understood, applicant’s comments earlier suggested boarding dogs over the weekend.

      Commissioner Smith asked applicant if they would come earlier, between Monday and Friday.

      Ms. Nowell stated that it would depend on the circumstances. Those are very isolated cases. If they would come on a weekend, it would be only one person to drop off the animal, maybe they would need to leave on Saturday and be back on next Sunday.

      Commissioner Smith added the following conditions...

    6. That the applicant is contingent upon the business plan.
    7. Weekends by appointment only.

Commissioner Smith questioned staff on the need for a review and what the standard review time was.

Planner, Bill Florea stated whether the Commission chose to put a review on or not. At any point in time under the County regulations, if there is evidence that Ms. Nowell is not operating within the conditions of the permit, Commission can bring her in anyway for a review at any time.

Commissioner Freiling stated that firstly, he did not like spot zoning and secondly suspects that Ms. Nowell’s proposed use will be less invasive that any other type of commercial use. Commissioner Freiling stated he also agrees with Ms. Miserez that perception is important and believes that the noise is an issue in that dogs like to bark.

Being no more discussion on the motion, Chairman Kirkpatrick asked for the vote on the following amended motion.

 

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve request

by Faye C. Nowell for a permit for a boarding kennel / day care facility for dogs. Located at 5550 W. Gillespie Bridge Rd., Columbia with the following conditions...

    1. That there be no more than ten dogs at any one time.
    2. The rights are non-transferable.
    3. Hours are Monday – Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    4. No breeding of animals on the property.
    5. Permit is contingent upon the business plan.
    6. Weekends by appointment only.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling N Keith Kirkpatrick N

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese N

Motion to approve request with six conditions carries. 5 Yes 3 No

 

PLAT REVIEWS

 

1. Brookfield Estates Plat 1. S24-T47N-R13W. A-2. Keith and Chastity Samuel, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of State Route N & Bluebird Lane. The site is approximately 3 & 1/2 miles south of the Columbia municipal limits. The subject tract is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. These are all original 1973 zonings.

In November of 1989 and July of 1990 requests were submitted to place a radio tower on this property, both were denied. The property is currently vacant. 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 plat contains 11 lots in total on a 29.06-acre portion of the 94.04-acre parent parcel. 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 developer’s cost. Water improvements and fire hydrants will need to be installed, approved, and acceptable prior to the plat going to County Commission or recording. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from a central collector wastewater system to be located on proposed lot 11. 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. 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.

The concerns with regard to the lake, dam and stormwater issues of the plats have been addressed by the developer's submission of and approval of plans by the NRCS. A cost estimate was provided with the submittal and is under review, once the appropriate amounts are determined by the County, it may be possible for the developer to bond the sewer and road construction. 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. One of the primary areas of question is with respect to the process after plat approval by the planning and zoning commission and when additional building permits can be obtained for the development.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the standard process it is outlined as follows. No additional building permits may be issued until the plat is recorded. The plat can not be recorded until it has been taken to the County Commission. The plat can not be taken to the County Commission until all the required infrastructure, both on and off site, is installed, approved and acceptable, or the water infrastructure is completely installed, approved, and acceptable and the sewer and road infrastructure is fully bonded for the total cost of construction. Only after the plat is recorded are the lots created and therefore eligible for sale or construction. The proposal has 58 points on the point rating system.

Since the plat meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations provided the following conditions are complied with, Staff recommends approval.

  1. That it be recognized that the stormwater and erosion control plans and mechanisms agreed to by the NRCS are binding components of the approved plat and must be followed or run the risk of voiding the planning and zoning commission plat approval.
  2. That it be recognized that both the internal and off-site water infrastructure will have to be installed, approved and acceptable before the plat is either taken to County Commission or recorded.
  3. That it be recognized that no additional building permits may be issued for the property until the plat is recorded and the lots are actually created.
  4. If the sewer system is bonded to allow the plat to be recorded prior to the actually complete installation of the sewer system, that no occupancy of any sort will be allowed on any structures until the sewer system is installed, approved, and acceptable to the BCRSD and County.
  5. No bonding of the plat is possible until all the plans for the entire infrastructure are totally approved by the appropriate agency and the Planning Director.

Present: Daniel Brush, surveyor, 506 Nichols St, Suite A, Columbia.

Keith Samuel, owner, 1680 S. Louisville, Columbia.

Bruce Beckett, 901 E. Broadway, Columbia.

Mr. Beckett stated that he thought it was important to note that this plat has been under intense scrutiny and as Staff has indicated, it complies with all of the regulations that are applicable to this type of subdivision. Applicants have some clarification on some of the conditions and have received that from Mr. Yonke. Staff suggested that no bonding of the plat be possible until all plans for the entire infrastructure are totally approved by the appropriate agency. Applicants spoke with Mr. Yonke about that condition who stated that this only needs to apply to this particular plat; plat one only, not to the entire preliminary plat. Both staff and applicants felt that would not be possible since those plats have not been prepared and specifications for that infrastructure can not be done until they are prepared. The conditions in which the staff has recommended are acceptable to the developer. The developer has worked closely with the water district and very close to getting all necessary easements to bring the fire flows to this subdivision. Applicants have worked very hard to make sure that the Department of Natural Resources is satisfied with all the storm water erosion control requirements. It has been inspected this week and found to be in compliance.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked staff about the first condition that it be recognized that the stormwater and erosion control plans and mechanisms agreed to by the NRCS are binding components of the approved plat and must be followed or run the risk of voiding the planning and zoning commission plat approval. Would it not be better to say, rather that running the risk of voiding the Planning and Zoning Commission plat approval, that the condition be followed or the plat approval will be voided.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that it was phrased this way was because certain things with respect to erosion can be caught in a way that it might be able to be remedied and still be brought in to compliance. Certain things, once it happens, your done and you can’t remedy it. If it something that can’t be remedied, then it would void the plat approval and it would not go to County Commission ever. If it is something that can be remedied and fixed, then obviously they have the opportunity to bring it back in to compliance. This is the reason it was phrased in this way.

Commissioner Mink stated that he understood what was stated in regard to the roads. Is the intent for Brook Valley Drive to be the main egress.

Mr. Beckett stated yes.

Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve Brookfield Estates Plat 1 with staff conditions. Keith and Chastity Samuel, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve plat carries. 8 Yes 0 No

 

 

2. D.J.D. Acres. S20-T49N-R12W. R-S. Donald and Joan Dicks, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that the property is located on the east side of Oakland Gravel Road, approximately one-half mile south of the intersection with Alfalfa Drive. The 9.65-acre parent tract is being divided into two lots. There is an existing home and septic system on proposed

Lot 2.

Both lots will have frontage on and direct access to Oakland Gravel Road. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33’ half-width right of way is being dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

Water District Number 4 provides water in this area.

Onsite wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. The applicant has submitted documentation indicating that there is a location on proposed Lot 1 that is suitable for a septic system. A request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis has been received.

The property scored 34 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

Present: Daniel Brush, surveyor, 506 Nichols Street, Suite A, Columbia.

Mr. Brush had no comments.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve request and waiver request, D.J.D. Acres. Donald and Joan Dicks, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carries. 8 Yes 0 No

 

3. Spry Subdivision. S23-T50N-R14W. A-2. Dennis and Karen Spry, owners. Steven R. Proctor, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating the property is located on the south side of Grey Road approximately one-quarter mile east of Route J. The fifteen-acre tract is being divided into three lots. Proposed lot 2 will contain the existing home and lagoon.

All lots will have frontage on and direct access to Grey Road. Right of way, sufficient to provide a 33’ half-width right of way is dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is in the Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 service area.

On-site wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. There is an existing lagoon serving the home on proposed lot 2. A suitable location for a lagoon is shown on each lot. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost benefit analysis.

The property scored 37 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

No one present to represent the plat.

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve request and waiver request, Spry Subdivision. Dennis and Karen Spry, owners. Steven R. Proctor, surveyor.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carries. 8 Yes 0 No

4. Lockwood Subdivision. S 12-T49N-R13W. A-R. Charles N. Lockwood, Melinda A. Lockwood,

James J. Lockwood and Katherine Buchanan, owners. Steven R. Proctor, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that the property is located on the east side of Route VV approximately one-half mile north of Mauller Road. The purpose of the plat is to adjust the location of the property line between two existing lots.

Both lots have direct road frontage on and access to Route VV. There is an existing 80-foot wide right of way for Route VV which, is classified as an arterial. Therefore, an additional 10-foot right of way dedication is required on this plat. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is in the Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 service area.

Both lots are developed with single-family homes and are using existing lagoons for wastewater disposal.

The property scored 50 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends Approval of the plat and waiver request.

No one present to represent the plat.

 

 

 

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve request and waiver request, Lockwood Subdivision. Charles N. Lockwood, Melinda A. Lockwood, James J. Lockwood and Katherine Buchanan, owners. Steven R. Proctor, surveyor.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve plat with waiver request carries. 8 Yes 0 No

 

OLD BUSINESS

Director, Stan Shawver, reported activities from the March 2001 meeting stating that the rezoning request by Ed and Sharyn Holt the County Commission upheld the recommendation to approve the request.

Regarding the request by Wanda and Sydney Powell and Delores Sanders Mead, ie: PF NET Corporation. The County Commission voted to uphold the recommendation to approve the rezoning request.

NEW BUSINESS

Director, Stan Shawver stated that he believed the Planning and Zoning Commission was losing an excellent Commissioner in Mr. Kirkpatrick. Staff appreciates working with Mr. Kirkpatrick as well as the fellow Commissioners.

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

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