BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, August 16, 2001

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

Present: Michael Caruthers, Vice-Chairman Centralia Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Carl Freiling Cedar Township

Keith Neese Columbia Township

Kristen Heitkamp Missouri Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Absent: Pat Smith, Chairperson Perche Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Bill Florea, Staff

Thad Yonke, Staff Paula Evans, Staff

Vice-Chairman Caruthers read the procedural statement. And stated all plats will go before the County Commission on August 28, 2001.

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2001 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the July 19, 2001 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

 

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

None.

 

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

None.

 

 

 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

None.

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

 

  1. Valley Creek Plat 8, lot 84. S3-T48N-R12W. R-M. Abdullatif Bagegni and Soad Azzabi, owners. James V. Patchett, surveyor.
  2.  

  3. Valley Creek Plat 8, lot 85. S3-T48N-R12W. R-M. El-Sayed and Sinada Construction Corp., owner. James V. Patchett, surveyor.
  4.  

    Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that each of these two lot minor plats is a proposal to split the original parent lot 1st platted as a lot in Valley Creek Subdivision Plat 8, recorded in plat book 31 page 31 of the Boone County Records. Additionally, each of these lots is contained within the area designated on the approved final plan for Valley Creek PRD. Both lots are on the north side of Trikalla Drive. This property is zoned R-M PRD (residential moderate density planned residential development), the R-M underlying zoning is the original 1973 zoning. The Planned Residential Development was approved in April of 1997. The structures on each of these lots are designated as single family attached residences, and as such, must meet a higher building code standard than a traditional duplex, which externally these units resemble. The site is in the Columbia School District, Boone Electric service area, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Water service is provided by the City of Columbia. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis, and staff concurs with this request. Sewer is proposed to be from an existing BCRSD facility with ultimate treatment by the City of Columbia. The master plan shows this area as being suitable for residential development. These plats have 80 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval along with granting the waiver for traffic analysis.

    Present: Jim Patchett, surveyor, 1206-A, Business Loop 70W, Columbia

     

     

    Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve with waiver request, Valley Creek Plat 8, lot 84. Abdullatif Bagegni and Soad Azzabi, owners. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat with waiver request carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

     

    Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to approve with waiver request, Valley Creek Plat 8, lot 85. El-Sayed and Sinada Construction Corp., owner. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat with waiver request carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

     

     

  5. Jarrod Wilson Plat 1. S33-T50N-R12W. A-2. Juanita B McGrath and Carroll E. McGrath, owners. James V. Patchett, surveyor.
  6. Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located on Mt. Zion Church Road, approximately 1ľ miles west of Route B. The lot is being divided from a parent tract of approximately 71 acres. There is a mobile home, garage and lagoon on the property.

    The lot will have frontage on and direct access to Mt. Zion Church Road. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33-foot 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.

    Public Water Supply District Number 4 provides water service in this area.

    The existing lagoon will continue to be used for sewage disposal.

    The property scored 29 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

    Present: Jim Patchett, 1206 A, Business Loop 70W, Columbia

    Commissioner Neese asked applicant if the lagoon would be moved.

    Mr. Patchett stated no, there is an old lagoon on the site, but it has been mostly filled in. Mr. Patchett stated he doesnít know when it was built, but it is in better shape than the other lagoon and wouldnít anticipate it being moved or upgraded.

    Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve with waiver request, Jarrod Wilson Plat 1. Juanita B McGrath and Carroll E. McGrath, owners. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

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

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

     

     

     

  7. Hardin Subdivision. S29-T50N-!3W. A-2. Martin and Lisa Hardin, owners. Donald E. Bormann, Surveyor.
  8. Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating this one lot minor plat is a proposal to create a single platted lot out of a portion of an existing tract of ground leaving a remainder piece which will be incorporated into an adjoining tract by survey. The resultant combination survey will be a not for development area requiring a plat before any development could occur. The proposed plat is located on the south side of Benedict Road approximately 500 feet southwest of the intersection of State Route YY and Benedict Road. The site is approximately 4 miles southeast of the municipal limits of the City of Harrisburg. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The proposed subdivision contains 4.41 acres. The proposed lot is currently vacant. The site is in the Harrisburg School District, Boone Electric service area, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants are not required for this development. Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Service Water District #1. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewage treatment, and staff concurs with these requests. Sewer is proposed to be from an on-site system and a wastewater plan is in the file. The master plan shows this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential development. The plat has 35 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval along with granting the waivers for traffic analysis and sewer cost benefit analysis.

    No one present to represent the plat.

    Commissioner Morgan asked staff how many acres this was.

    Mr. Yonke stated the total area was 4.41-acres, applicants will lose some for right of way. 4.06-acres is probably the actual lot size by the time you take the right of way out of it. The total area within the original piece of ground is 4.41-acres.

    Commissioner Mink stated the County surveyor pointed out to him that the very north end of the plat shows a stone and has been remonumented in 2000, the county surveyor asked that it be corrected.

    Mr. Yonke stated that is why we donít have an original plat here tonight, they surveyor is making that correction.

    Commissioner Caruthers asked staff if that correction would get in the way of anything at this time.

    Mr. Yonke stated no, because staff will not let it go forward without the correction being put on there. It is a surveying term. The surveyor, now that he knows about it, canít let it go or he puts his license in jeopardy.

    Commissioner Neese made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to approve with waiver requests, Hardin Subdivision. Martin and Lisa Hardin, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve with waiver requests carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

     

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

     

     

  9. Shalimar Gardens Phase V, preliminary plat. S25-T49N-R13W. R-S. Larry and Cecilia Benton, owners. James R. Jeffries, surveyor.

 

Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located at the west end of the existing portion of Shalimar Gardens Subdivision, which is accessed from State Route 763. The plat contains 11 lots, 10 of which are proposed for residential use and one that is a recreational tract owned by the Shalimar Gardens Homeownerís Association. The proposed plat is part of a preliminary plat that was approved in 1994. A preliminary plat is only valid for 5 years. The original preliminary plat has expired; therefore the applicant was required to submit a new preliminary plat for approval.

Lots 99, 100 and 158-160 will be served by an extension of Jasmine Way. Lots 163-167 will be served by an extension of Camellia Way. Lot 172 has frontage on and access to Shalimar Court. Right of way for the road extensions will be dedicated on subsequent final plats. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

Columbia Water and Light provides water service to the subdivision. Water lines will be extended and fire hydrants will be installed, as necessary, to meet the specifications of both Columbia Water and Light and the Boone County Fire District.

Sewage generated by the development is treated at the Clearview Wastewater Treatment Plant. The facility is owned and operated by the Boone County Regional Sewer District. Comments received from the sewer district indicate that a connection fee of $1,115/lot will be charged to the owner of each lot at the time of connection to the sewer. The district also states that the Shalimar Gardens pump station should be upgraded to comply with applicable DNR standards.

Boone County subdivision regulations require that any subdivision containing more than 100 RS zoned lots have more than one point of public road access to lots within the plat. Shalimar Gardens currently contains eight commercially zoned lots and 98 residential lots. In June 2001 the Boone County Board of Adjustment granted a variance allowing the platting of 10 additional residential lots without providing a second access.

On June 26, 2001 the Boone County Commission granted a variance allowing a 47-foot radius cul-de-sac at the end of Camellia Court.

The property scored 78 points on the rating system.

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

  1. The Shalimar Gardens Pump Station should be upgraded to comply with applicable DNR Standards.

Present: Jeff McCann, Allstate Consultants, 3312 Lemone Industrial Blvd, Columbia

Commissioner Freiling asked if the pump station that was currently there inadequate.

Mr. Florea stated he had no information from the sewer district other than what was in the staff report. Which is why the condition is worded somewhat openly, so that could be looked in to. There is adequate treatment capacity at the treatment facility. It is a matter of whether the pump station is adequate to pump it over there. Between now and when the final plats come in, that issue can be worked out between the developer and the sewer district.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked Commissioner Mink if there was anything said to him about this.

Commissioner Mink stated no.

Commissioner Morgan stated that note number 7 on the plat, it is the intent that all lots may be re-subdivided at any time by the owner without being subject to the Boone County lot vacation process.

Mr. Florea stated there is a formal process outlined in the subdivision regulations that if lots within a plat are to be replatted or redivided at any time, the owner would have to petition the County Commission for permission to do so, unless provisions are made on a plat stating otherwise. Applicants are choosing to state otherwise.

Commissioner Morgan asked why we would want to grant that at any time they could redivide without coming back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Mr. Florea stated the subdivision plat would come back to the Commission. It is only the vacation process that applicants could bypass. Rather than go to County Commission for permission to replat and then come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to get the subdivision approved, applicants can just skip the first step and come directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission for subdivision approval.

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations, Shalimar Gardens Phase V, preliminary plat. Larry and Cecilia Benton, owners. James R. Jeffries, surveyor. Jerry and Bridget Cook, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

 

Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carries. 6 Yes 0 No

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

  1. Zumwalt Estates. S14-T48N-R12W. A-R. David and Brenda Zumwalt, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.
  2.  

    Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this one lot minor plat is a proposal to combine an existing tract of ground and a not for development area into a single platted lot. The proposed plat is located on the south side of Richland Road approximately ľ mile west of the intersection of Olivet Road and Richland Road. The site is approximately ĺ to Ĺ mile east of the newly amended municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The property is zoned A-R (agricultural-residential) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The area contained within the plat is 7.04 acres. There is an existing home and on-site wastewater system on the larger original tract. By platting this lot, the not for development provision on the westernmost 59í of the lot, will be removed and an accessory building may be built within this area so long as the setbacks and other provisions of the zoning ordinances are met. The site is in the Columbia School District, Boone Electric service area, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants are not required for this development. Water service is provided by Public Service Water District #9. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewage treatment, and staff concurs with this requests. Sewer is proposed to remain from an existing on-site system and a wastewater plan is in the file. The master plan shows this area as being suitable for residential development. The plat has 71 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval along with granting the waivers for traffic analysis and sewer cost benefit analysis.

    No one present to represent the plat. Mr. Yonke stated he could address any questions regarding the plat.

    Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated note number 5 on the plat states an error in the center line stretch of Richland Road. What effect does that have on this plat.

    Mr. Yonke stated we get the surveyor together with the County surveyor to try to figure out where that description is. Right of way dedication has to go, by the County regulations, from the center of the road. Since there was a discrepancy in that, staff had applicants work with Boone County Public Works to try and agree on where that centerline should be. The centerline that was described and the centerline that exists, are two different ones. County Public Works have indicated that they are happy with what is described.

    Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve with waiver requests, Zumwalt Estates. David and Brenda Zumwalt, owners. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

  3. Patterson Estates. S19-T49N-R13W. A-2. Debra Clayborn, owner. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.
  4. Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this two lot minor plat is a proposal to divide an existing tract of ground into two platted lots. The proposed plat is located on the south side of Hatton Chapel Road approximately 2 miles west of the intersection of State Route E and Hatton Chapel Road. The site is approximately 3&1/2 to 4 miles northwest of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The proposed plat contains 13.33 acres. There is an existing home and on-site wastewater system on proposed lot 2. The site is in the Columbia School District, Boone Electric service area, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants are not required for this development. Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Service Water District #1. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewage treatment, and staff concurs with these requests. Sewer is proposed to remain from an existing on-site system. A sewage plan has been provided and is located in the file. The master plan shows this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential development. The plat has 56 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval along with granting the waivers for traffic analysis and sewer cost benefit analysis.

    No one present to represent the plat. Mr. Yonke stated he could address any questions regarding the plat.

    Commissioner Neese asked if the existing lagoon shown on the plat would go away.

    Mr. Yonke stated that the existing lagoon is being replaced on to the other lot, with a proposed location, applicants do have some of that figured out for it.

    Commissioner Neese stated that was a long way from the house.

    Mr. Yonke stated that all applicants had to do is show the Commission that it will work. Unfortunately, we have no real discretion beyond that.

    Commissioner Neese made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve with waiver requests, Patterson Estates. Debra Clayborn, owner. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

  5. Hulen Estates. S17-T49N-R13W. A-2. H. Lloyd and Lois Hulen, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.
  6. Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located on the east side of Route E, approximately one-half mile south of Akeman Bridge Road. The 6.81-acre tract is part of 25.21-acre parent tract. The remainder is being subdivided by administrative survey. The tract is undeveloped.

    The lot has frontage on and direct access to Route E. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33-foot half-width is being dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

    Consolidated Water District Number One can provide domestic water service to the property.

    On-site wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. A plan showing a suitable location for a lagoon has been submitted and is on file. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

    The property scored 53 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

    Present: Jim Brush, 506 Nichols St., Columbia

     

    Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve with waiver requests, Hulen Estates. H. Lloyd and Lois Hulen, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

  7. Willow Brook Plat 4. S20-T49N-R12W. R-S. Robert Conrad Developer, Inc., owner. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.
  8. Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this thirty-lot plat is located on the north side of Oakland Gravel Road and immediately east of both Willow Brook Plat 1 and north of Willow Brook Plat 3. The site is approximately 500í east of the intersection of Oakland Gravel Road and Alfalfa Drive. The site is 3/4 of a mile to 1 mile north of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The area being subdivided contains 9.31 acres. This phase of the development will complete the platting of the entire original parent tract. This property is zoned R-S, (residential-single family) which is the original 1973 zoning. All the surrounding property to the east, south, and west is zoned R-S. These are all original 1973 zonings. The property to the north of Plat 1 and proposed Willow Brook Plat 4 is zoned A-R (agricultural - residential), which was rezoned from A-2 in 1977.

    The site is within the Columbia Public School District and Boone County Fire Protection District. Water service will be provided by Public Water District #4. There is an 8" watermain coming from the north out of Haystack Acres Addition that was extended to serve the previous portions of Willow Brook Subdivision. We anticipate that a 6 or 8-inch line will be required to serve this phase. Fire hydrants and sidewalks are required for this subdivision. Sewage treatment will be from the central system that was completed as a joint venture by the BCRSD and the City of Columbia. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Columbia. The City of Columbia will have to approve the sewer installation prior to County Commission sign-off. The traffic analysis submitted with Plat 1 and looking at the entire subdivision indicates no plat initiated off-site improvements are required for Alfalfa Drive, Oakland Gravel Road, or Prathersville Road. Public works has reviewed and approved the traffic analysis. The road names are extensions of existing roads and have been approved by JCIC. The property is subject to an agreement with the City that requires that the plat be submitted through the city process prior to submission to the county. This has been done and documentation that the proposed plat complies with city regulations and agreement provisions is in the file. The master plan shows this area as suitable for residential land uses. This plat has 67 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval.

    No one present to represent the plat. Mr. Yonke stated he could address any questions regarding the plat.

    Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked staff if this area was to be annexed in to the City of Columbia.

    Mr. Yonke stated it was not contiguous, if it were contiguous, it would have to annex immediately.

    Commissioner Morgan stated that years ago there was a fuel depot around Alfalfa Road.

    Mr. Yonke stated yes, it was fairly close to this site. Some of the tanks were on early phases of this plat. It hasnít been platted before; it was kind of towards the south closer to the intersection of where Alfalfa came off. Those were done in the earlier phases of the development.

    Commissioner Neese asked staff if they received any comments by the neighbors regarding this.

    Mr. Yonke stated it was a subdivision plat, so there is no notification. Staff has received no complaints on the development itself as the houses have been going up, as the roads have been going in, Staff has received no negative calls.

     

    Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve Willow Brook Plat 4. Robert Conrad Developer, Inc., owner. Curtis E. Basinger, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

     

     

  9. Little General. S3/10-T47N-R13W. R-M. Blue Acres, Inc., owner. Michael L. Klasing, surveyor.
  10.  

    Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located at the intersection of State Route K and Old Plank Road. It is currently developed with a Little General convenience store. The property was rezoned from R-S to C-N in 1975.

    The Lot has frontage on and an existing access to Route K. Route K is designated as an arterial at this location. Right of way sufficient to provide a 50-foot 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.

    Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 provides water service to the property.

    Boone County Regional Sewer District provides sewer service to the property.

    The property scored 81 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

    Present: Jeff McCann, Allstate Consultants, 3312 Lemone Industrial Blvd, Columbia

    Commissioner Neese asked if the gasoline tanks met all of DNRís specifications and requirements.

    Mr. McCann stated he didnít have the knowledge of that.

    Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked what the primary reason was for this particular final lot.

    Mr. McCann stated that from what he understood, this parcel is being platted so it could be sold separately from the other parcel that will remain.

    Commissioner Morgan asked if this area was on the City sewer system.

    Mr. McCann stated he wasnít sure, he hasnít been involved with the project, the surveyor couldnít be here this evening and is only here to answer general questions, Mr. McCann stated he didnít know any of the specifics.

    Mr. Florea stated it was a sewer district facility that serves the property.

    Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve with waiver request, Little General. Blue Acres, Inc., owner. Michael L. Klasing, surveyor.

     

    Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

    Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat with waiver request carries. 6 Yes 0 No

     

     

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     

  11. Abilene Acres Amended. S5-T48N-R13W. Emily Gibbs Wilson, owner. David W. Piest, surveyor.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this one lot major plat is a proposal to clarify the boundaries of an existing tract of ground and to dedicate and delineate the ROW for the road known as Abilene Acres. The proposed plat is located on the north side of I-70 Drive Northwest approximately 1300 feet west of the intersection of where I-70 Drive Northwest and Sorrellís Overpass are located. The site is approximately Ĺ mile west of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The property is zoned A-R (agricultural-residential), as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The area contained within the plat is 1.05 acres. Proposed lot 1 is vacant and there is a roadway within the ROW shown on the proposed plat. There are a few technical issues that will need to be worked out with County Public Works prior to the plat going to County Commission. The site is in the Columbia School District, Boone Electric service area, and the Boone County Fire Protection District. Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Service Water District #1. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewage treatment, and staff concurs with these requests. Sewer is proposed to be from on-site systems and the Health Dept. will have to approve any system before construction can begin. The master plan shows this area as being suitable for residential development. The plat has 83 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval along with granting the waivers for traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewer subject to the condition that the technical issues remaining with respect to the existing road be worked out to the satisfaction of County Public Works and the Director of Planning prior to the plat going to the County Commission.

Present: Rod Stephens, Attorney for owner, 11 N. 7th Street, Columbia

Commissioner Morgan asked if there was going to be a cul-de-sac on the end of Abilene Acres Road.

Mr. Yonke stated he didnít believe there, there is kind of a turn around, but not what you would traditionally look at as a cul-de-sac. This road has existed for a number of years. This is really a plat to clarify and clean up some existing problems.

Commissioner Neese asked if there was an on site central sewer system.

Mr. Yonke stated no.

Commissioner Neese asked if the location of the lagoon on this size lot would be a problem.

Mr. Yonke stated not generally. When staff sent it over for health department comments, they did not send back their normal comment, which is "must comply with the on site system requirements", which would have kicked the plat. Instead, they sent over a statement that said that none of the lots that exist out there meet the minimum requirements. This leads staff to believe that the Health Department will work with the property owner, which is why staff phrased it the way they did. Applicants have to get approval before they build on it, then they require a Board of Adjustment for sewer board of review or some other type of situation. The lot exists now; it is just a matter of clarifying where the lines are.

Commissioner Freiling stated in other words, they are treating it like a grandfather situation.

Mr. Yonke stated yes.

 

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations, Abilene Acres Amended. Emily Gibbs Wilson, owner. David W. Piest, surveyor.

 

Mike Caruthers Y Carl Freiling Y David Mink Y Keith Neese Y

Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carries. 6 Yes 0 No

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

1. Request by Nicholas Peckham and New Town LLC to appeal a ruling by the Director of Planning,

regarding the nature of changes proposed for the Final Plan of New Town Planned Development.

 

Present: Nick Peckham, 15 S. 10th Street, Columbia

Tom Trabue, 1901 Pennsylvania, Columbia

Gary Oxenhandler, Attorney, 220 N. 8th Street, Columbia

Mr. Peckham stated that they are seeking clarification of the words two-story and two-and-a-half-story on the New Town final plans. In 1998, Mr. Peckham made a preliminary and a final presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding New Town, a real estate development, based on traditional planning concepts.

Boone County does not have a traditional neighborhood development ordinance. In fact, TNDís are not mentioned in the Boone County Zoning Ordinance at all. New Town is an already approved combination of planned residential and planned commercial zoning. During the preliminary and final presentations to this commission, Mr. Peckham stated he used a document entitled the Thirteen Points of Traditional Neighborhood Development, written by Andres Duany & Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, as an outline of good traditional planning concepts for New Town.

Mr. Trabue passed copies of the outline to the Commissioners.

Mr. Peckham stated he was not going to read the outline in its entirety, but would like to point out a few of the issues.

The first point on the handout, a neighborhood has a discernible center. Mr. Peckham stated this is true at New Town. There is a circle at the corner of Center Street and Newtown Avenue.

#2. Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center. Mr. Peckham stated this is true at New Town.

#3. There are a variety of dwelling types within the neighborhood. These usually take the form of houses, row houses, and apartments, such that younger and older people, singles and families, the poor and the wealthy, may find places to live. Mr. Peckham stated this is true, or intended to be true, at New Town.

#4. There are shops and offices at the edge of the neighborhood. Mr. Peckham stated this is true.

#5. A small ancillary building is permitted within the backyard of each house. Mr. Peckham stated back in 1998, this Board found this was not in keeping with the desires of the County or the ordinance in that this was not permitted.

#6. There is an elementary school close enough so that most children can walk to their school. Mr. Peckham stated that this was beyond the scope of the developer.

#7. There are small playgrounds quite near the dwellings. Mr. Peckham stated there was a 3 and a half-acre park at New Town.

#8. The streets within the neighborhood are a connected network. Mr. Peckham stated this is true with New Town.

#9. The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. Mr. Peckham stated they have already planted 32 trees on Center Street, Field Street and the next street are slightly narrower as approved by the Road and Bridge Advisory Board.

#10. Buildings at the neighborhood are placed close to the street. Mr. Peckham stated this was true with New Town.

#11. Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the streets. Mr. Peckham stated this was true.

#12. Certain prominent sites are reversed for civic buildings. Mr. Peckham stated that what the City Government does is beyond the scope of the developer in this case.

#13. The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. Mr. Peckham stated this would be true as well.

Mr. Peckham stated he wanted to point out the Andres Duany is one of the founders of an organization known as the congress for new urbanism. His wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk is the Dean of Architecture at the University of Miami. Their firm, DPZ, has designed most of the traditional neighborhood developments in the United States and minimum height requirements are not a part of traditional neighborhood developments.

Mr. Peckham stated, regarding the outline, the italicized notes, New Town includes 10 of the 13 points and Point 6 and 4, the civic buildings and the elementary school, are beyond the scope of the developers authority and the ancillary buildings in the backyard was not permitted. Mr. Peckham asked the Commissioners to note that point 3 states the variety of buildings and the related footnote, no minimum height requirements. This has been the basis for New Town from the start; it was presented to this Planning and Zoning Commission. Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Boone County Commission approved this compact development.

Mr. Peckham stated that in his affidavit, which should be in the Commissionerís packets as well as Tom Trabueís affidavit; they never intended to have minimum height requirements at New Town. The two-story and two-and a half story notes have always been maximums that are consistent with the zoning. Had applicants intended these heights to be minimum requirements, applicants would have said so in their presentation on the final plans.

Mr. Peckham stated when the required lot size presentation was made to the Board of Adjustment, the minutes reflect applicants intent to have some lower class houses without garages, just the required parking spaces, these minutes also reflect applicants intention both one and two story houses. In the Boone County Zoning Ordinance, Section 9, the height regulations only states maximum heights permitted in different zoning districts. When Mr. Trabue prepared the approved final plans, the height restrictions of two-story homes and two and a half story commercial buildings are also maximums. In fact these maximums may never be reached in the commercial area for two reasons. First, the market place will not support it and second, there is neither the sewer capacity nor the parking capacity for this level of maximum build-out. Applicants do not intend these height limits to be minimums or requirements, since in zoning language, heights are commonly understood to be maximums. Some New Town homes will be built at this two-story maximum. Others will be one-story, one and a half story or even one-story with a partial second floor.

Mr. Peckham stated that in addition, Cedar Brook, Gateway South, and Bonne Femme Estates surrounding New Town all have both one-story homes, two-story homes, and apartments. In addition, the only commercial building within three miles of New Town is the one-story Texaco station adjacent to the property.

Mr. Peckham stated he is the editor of a magazine called Missouri Architect and Mr. Peckham stated he turned to the Webster Dictionary for the definition of the word "townhouse". On page 2418 of the dictionary, the word townhouse is defined as a house in town as distinguished from a house in the country. The dictionary makes no mention of number of floors in a townhouse. We find townhouses ranging from one to five or even more floors. This definition is the intended meaning for the word townhouse found on the final plat. As a further indication of the two and a half story commercial zonings being the maximum building height permitted, applicantís consultants have completed architecture and engineering drawings and specifications for the first commercial building. This will be located on New Town lot C2 and Maly Commercial Realty is applicantís realtor. New Town LLC. has an agreement to build a restaurant and retail space and an apartment above the restaurant for the owner. The plans were submitted for a permit on Monday, July 30, 2001, a few days later, Planner, Thad Yonke, informed the builder that the building permit review process of these plans would have to wait until the height question was resolved. New Town LLC, the developer, as well as Peckham and Wright Architects, and Trabue, Hansen and Hinshaw, the designers, always intended New Town to have 62 houses, both one and two stories, as well as commercial buildings that could not exceed two and a half stories. This was applicantís presentation in the 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and applicants are repeating it here tonight.

Mr. Peckham continued that New Town LLC has contracted with the sewer district for sewer treatment capacity sized for these 62 homes and the approved one story commercial building area.

To summarize, Mr. Peckham stated, from the start, applicants presented the two and two and a half story heights as maximums, consistent with the language of the Boone County Zoning Ordinance. In 1998, applicants stated to the Planning and Zoning Commission the intent to have a mixed use community with a variety of housing and commercial buildings as outlined in the handout titled The Thirteen Points of Traditional Neighborhood Development. New Town LLC. acted in good faith contracting with the sewer district regarding the expected build out of New Town. New Town LLC. and their consultants also acted in good faith, designing a restaurant with an apartment above on lot C2 in New Town, the building is both one and two stories. Applicants acted in good faith preparing plans for one and two story houses, using the dictionary definition of a townhouse. And applicants used the words two story and two and a half story as maximum height, which is the common practice in zoning laws. For these reasons and for other testimony the Commissionerís may hear tonight, Mr. Peckham respectfully request this Commission clarify that two stories and two and a half stories are the upper height limits, not the lower height minimums or requirements for New Town.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked Mr. Trabue if he had anything to add.

Mr. Trabue stated not really, unless there were any questions regarding Mr. Peckhamís presentation. Mr. Trabue stated they did prepare the final plans that are in front of the Commissioners. What is questioned here are a couple of lines on those documents that indicate two story residences and two story commercial buildings. What applicants are representing is that those are intended to be maximums and would be able to proceed with one or one and a half story residences, or one, one-story commercial buildings, as was the intent when applicants made their presentations to the Planning and Zoning Commission originally.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the approval of the original plan was perceived on the presentation and the plans submitted and asked applicants if their intentions have changed.

Mr. Peckham stated that in a sense, applicants are asking for a clarification as opposed to an appeal. This was the intention from the get go. The minutes of the Commission meeting do not mention the height requirement.

Mr. Trabue stated that one of the things they are responding to during the original hearing, with most of the planned developments, they have some controversy associated with them. One of the things applicants continue to hear from the neighbors in the Cedar Brook area was a concern about this development towering above the residential development next door. If you have seen the property, it does set a little higher in elevation, so there was a natural tendency toward that anyway. That is one of the things that people continue to talk about is they did not want a big commercial development there. Applicants responded by placing these maximums on the sizes of the structures. The zoning ordinances provide opportunities to go higher if they wanted to. Of course applicants would have had to sell that at that time. Applicants chose to put those maximum limitations on the plans to address the needs of the neighborhood.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked applicants if he was correct that this is an appeal by the ruling of the Director of Planning regarding to the nature of the changes.

Mr. Peckham stated that Mr. Shawverís indication on this is that two and two and a half stories are a requirement, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission or some other body indicates otherwise. This is not applicantís intention, but Mr. Peckham states that he can understand that Mr. Shawver has had this interpretation.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked to hear Mr. Shawverís position of this.

Mr. Shawver stated that Mr. Peckham used the word clarification. If the Commissioners look on the agenda, they will see that what the applicants are actually here for is an appeal. The zoning regulations on planned residential development, Section 6.(A)(5), states, "minor change in plans. From time to time during the construction the proponent may make minor changes to the approved Final Plan so long as such changes have been approved by the Director of Planning, or upon denial by the Director with the approval of the Commission. Any change in proposed use, any increase in proposed density shall not be considered a minor change. Any dimensional variation greater that ten (10) percent shall not be considered a minor change."

Mr. Shawver stated that the plan in which was approved is binding on the County. The place it has labeled two-story residences detached garage and next to garage the word typical is in parenthesis. We are bound by that; we can not rule one way or the other. Mr. Peckham has presented a proposal to build some single-family dwellings with attached garages. The process that this development went through in 1998 and 1999, the rezoning request, the review plan, final development plan and the subsequent subdivision plat was a very extensive, very public process. The record indicates that there were going to be townhouses, they were going to be two-story structures, as is on the plan that is in front of the Commissioners. To change that to one-story or one and a half-story structures seemed like a significant change and beyond what Mr. Shawver stated he would classify as a minor change. The regulations provide that a developer can change their plans if they come back through the process, submit a revised plan and a revised final development plan and get those approved. Other developers have done that in many instances in the past and feel that is the appropriate situation to handle this when you have significant changes. The process is open and can be done and would receive a fair hearing. The plans say two-story structures for the residential and two and a half stories for the commercial. The planned development regulations have total flexibility on height rate regulations and residential. There is no maximum height regulation in the planned development for residential uses.

Mr. Shawver read the definition of the word "townhouse" from page 1248 of the Merriam Webster dictionary, as there was a second part of the definition. "1. A house in town: specifically, the city residence of one having a countryseat or having a chief residence elsewhere (stayed at their town house during the social season.) 2. a usually single-family house of two or sometimes three stories that is usually connected to a similar house by a common sidewall; also; Row House."

Mr. Shawver stated that the structures that have been built in New Town are two story townhouses and one single-family two-story dwelling. That is all of the structures that have been built in the last three years. All infrastructure is in place. They have started amenities, as far as planting trees. The lift station for the wastewater system is in place; it has not been connected to the main sewer facility. However, there has been no occupancy on the structures that are out there. The sewer district has an agreement to pump the lift station out periodically if there is any load on it.

Mr. Shawver stated that is the basis of why we are here; it is a matter of opinion. Mr. Shawver states his opinion is that this is not a minor change, if it was a minor change, we wouldnít be here tonight. Mr. Peckhamís opinion is that it is a minor change. Applicants have introduced affidavits that allege that this is a scrivenerís error that they had left the word maximum off. It may or may not be the case, Mr. Shawver states he does not know, and has nothing to refute that. The Planning and Zoning Commissionís basis of decision is whether this is a minor change or is it not a minor change.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated he represents New Town LLC. and added that Mr. Shawver correctly states that the procedure that applicants were under is the appeal procedure. That really is the only procedure that is available in this matter. It is a little different and that is why Mr. Peckham was referring to it as a clarification, because applicants believe that the plans say what applicants want to do and that is where the disagreement lies. There is one procedure available, it is called an appeal and it is based on minor and major changes. It is interesting in Section 6 (A)(5) that there are three specific issues. One, is it an increase in use of the property. Mr. Oxenhandler states it is not. Two, is it an increase in density, Mr. Oxenhandler states it is not. Number three talks about 10-percent dimensional changes, one could say that there will be if you were talking two and a half stories and now only one story, that may be the case. However, there is no references in anything that has ever been submitted on any written plan that applicants are aware of, maybe Mr. Shawver can correct if that is not the case, that talks about dimensions. Therefore, the issue of dimensions is also out.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated that he believes that this is not an everyday event where someone disagrees with the Director of Planning. However, the people who put together the ordinance said there would be circumstances under which reasonable people are going to disagree about what is and what is not a particular matter. That is what the Planning and Zoning Commission is faced with this evening. Obviously, whenever you are involved in any kind of development of a project, time is a significant issue, and enough said with regard to that issue. Applicants felt it was important to come here, and have great respect for Mr. Shawver and Mr. Oxenhandler believes the Planning and Zoning Commission has great respect for Mr. Peckham and Mr. Trabue.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated that he is startled that there is any intimation of the credibility of the affidavits that they submitted. It may be that the parties donít agree, but for anyone to endeavor to look under their sworn oath as to what they perceived they were doing when applicants submitted these plans, Mr. Oxenhandler stated he had to object to that. The Planning and Zoning Commission have an interesting issue presented before them. Applicants do not feel they are asking for a major change, applicants are not asking for a change in use, or change in density, there is not a dimensional change, that anyone here but maybe Mr. Shawver, could point to. Applicants think it is appropriate that The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that when applicants spoke of one and a half, or two stories, or two and a half stories, that was being approached as a maximum and not a specific nor minimum.

Commissioner Morgan asked if applicants if they still intended to use the original 15.08 acres for housing.

Mr. Peckham stated yes, the streets are in place, the lots are all in place.

Commissioner Morgan asked if applicants were going to use the 7.6 acres for commercial.

Mr. Peckham stated yes.

Commissioner Mink asked why this route was chosen rather than the specified manner to clear up something like this. It sounds like there is a process where they could go through and follow and establish procedure to clear this up, rather than this appeal process.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated applicants chose this procedure, certainly there are other procedures out there, but this is one that is available. Applicants have the right to disagree, just as Mr. Shawver has the right to disagree. It isnít like applicants are asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to create something else. Applicants spoke with the County Commission and have some sense of how they feel about this, however, they could not act. The County Commission told applicants that one of the alternatives was to appeal and that is what applicants are doing. It is in the County ordinances, just as other thins are in the County ordinances.

Mr. Peckham stated they are here tonight because when applicants went to the County Commission last week, Mr. Shawver was kind enough to point out that he had already placed applicants on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda.

Commissioner Mink asked Mr. Shawver if there was a procedure that the department would have preferred to this process.

Mr. Shawver stated that if Commissioners see this as a major change, the proper procedure is to file a revised review plan before the Planning and Zoning Commission, have a public hearing, to allow public input, then take it before the County Commission. If it is approved there, then a final development plan can be prepared. The way the Countyís regulations are set up, the Commissionís Chairman and Secretary may approve a Final Plan without Commission review when no changes or conditions have been imposed on the review plan by the County Commission and when the plan meets all final plan requirements. The department believes that in a major change situation, that would be the appropriate way to go. The Commission also asked how often this had been done. This is the first time there has been a disagreement between a developer and the planning staff. Honestly, we do get changes, they come in periodically with the developer wanting to make a building smaller, rearrange some minor buildings and that type of thing, we typically sign off on those. When they want to make a major change they donít even ask, they say we want to change it, how do we do it? They go through the review process. It is a unique situation; not one that weíve been faced with before, this is the first time there has been an appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission on a disputed issue.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated that Mr. Shawver accurately described the processes available. Mr. Oxenhandler stated he may have misunderstood this but sometimes you approve as minor changes, smaller buildings. It is unique in that you donít often see a conflict between the Planning Director and a developer that comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission. But they happen all the time and discussions take place and due process permits the applicants the right to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. A more circuitous route in which applicants may achieve what applicants want to achieve will cost applicants, that is an important aspect of development. Applicants do not feel that this is a major change, it is not use, it is not density, it not 10-percent dimensional. The risk applicants run is clearly, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Department work together all the time. The Commission relies on the Director for his good council with regard to issues. But that doesnít mean that every time he is right. And it doesnít mean that because this is the only time that this procedure has been utilized that there must be something wrong. It was for these exact issues that the drafters of the County Zoning Ordinance thought about issues. What about where there is a reasonable disagreement between the Planning Director and a developer. What can they do, do they have to go through the whole process again? Mr. Oxenhandler believes there is an outline for what it takes for applicants to be before the Commission. Applicants believe they are here appropriately and are hoping that just because it is a new thing, that it wonít be a circumstance where the only thing you look at, is that applicants are disagreeing with Mr. Shawver and he must know. Because that is not always the case.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated he understands Mr. Shawverís sensitivity to the issue and applicants are not offended by any means by the fact that they have to be here this evening. It is appropriate; this is a good procedure. Applicants believe this is not a major change, but a minor change and would like the Commissionís approval on it.

Commissioner Freiling asked what the Commission is being asked.

Mr. Peckham stated the final plans have the phrases two-story residence and two-and a half story commercial building. The preliminary interpretation by the Planning Department is that this is a requirement. That the commercial buildings shall be two-and a half stories.

Commissioner Freiling asked Mr. Peckham what applicants intended to do if the Commission were to approve the request.

Mr. Peckham stated they would pretty much follow the outline of point 3 of the handout; to build a diverse community.

Mr. Shawver showed Mr. Peckham a copy of the final plan.

Mr. Peckham stated that Mr. Shawver asked him to mention the detached garages, which could be viewed as another issue.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the difference of the interpretation is not just which side of the fence you are sitting on. Mr. Shawver has to protect the Planning Department. This could set precedence of a lot of significant changes on plats. The Commissions standpoint is to balance. Commissioner Freiling stated that from his standpoint, if this project was presented and gained approval based on the fact that it was an innovative concept that was based on the precedence of building a new community and the architectural look and the nature of the development. If this was the concept that was pitched and approved, that is what Commissioner Freiling states he is trying to get to.

Mr. Peckham stated that there is no question that in the numerous meetings, both the preliminary and final presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and other meetings that applicants had with Mr. Shawver and his staff, as well as Road and Bridge and a wide range of people that applicants have met with over the year, prior to the ultimate approval by Planning and Zoning and the Commission of New Town, that they talked about the concept of traditional neighborhood development and the whole notion of having mixed use development and the problems that might be identified as being associated with large single use tracts of land. Applicants didnít invent this idea. People all over the country have been talking about this, both in professional planning circles, governmental circles and probably Planning and Zoning Boards throughout America, facing the issue of how to use the land that we have. How do we plan for the infrastructure, what is it like to live in a community and how can we benefit the people who only live there for the way the community is put together. There is no question in that describing the various tradition neighborhood developments that exist around the United States. Seaside in Florida, communities in Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Colorado, California, and all over the country that we pointed out that there a wide variety of things. Many of them are in far more dense areas, for example the T and D in Denver, there is more or less that whole metro plex there and has more of the characteristics you would expect to find in a larger downtown area. New Town, as we all know, is located about 7 or 8 miles from here and surrounded by the subdivisions that Mr. Peckham mentioned that have the two and three story dwellings, but it also surrounded on the west by farmland. The enthusiasm Mr. Peckham has for the idea of traditional planning.

Mr. Peckham stated he mentioned a variety of things, and if Mr. Shawver or any other citizen of Columbia or Boone County believed that he was making an assertion or a promise that this would happen, then clearly, Mr. Peckham states he didnít speak as clearly as he should have. Mr. Peckham stated what he believed he has said and what he believes the minutes of the meetings indicate is that applicants are trying to achieve a community that is more or less outlined on those thirteen points. Of the points that applicants have any control over, applicants have met all of them. Although one reason, that Mr. Peckham states would be very easy for Mr. Shawver or others to understand that the houses would be two-story is that applicants brought in the preliminary drawings of the houses that are out there now. They are two-story and that is what they intended to do. Applicants did not state that this was the only thing they intend to do. Whether or not this language requires applicants to build all two-story houses throughout New Town and all two-and a half story commercial buildings. Applicants hope not.

Commissioner Freiling asked staff on the presentation of this plat, would approval of this platted subdivision with the existing uses been changed at time of approval. Were considerations given in the approval.

Mr. Shawver stated he was not sure how to answer that question. This development has just about every zoning classification available except for industrial encompassed within its boarders. It was at that time, the first development the County had that incorporated multi-family, single-family and commercial development all in one development. There have been things since then that have been proposed that way. Typically in the past we would have a proposal for commercial development and then later residential beside it, or vice-versa. It was an all-encompassing view; there was a substantial amount of education provided by Mr. Peckham and the staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time, as well as a lot of information about developments around the country. It probably took a change in mindset with the Planning and Zoning Commission to look at the benefit of an all neighborhood development of this sort. It is something different than what theyíve seen. Were there concessions? Mr. Shawver stated he didnít know if concessions is the proper word to use. This development requested and received a number of variances. There were variances granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, variances granted by the Public Works Road and Bridge Advisory Commission and the County Commission. Were they variances that would not have been offered to other developers? Mr. Shawver states he couldnít answer that, we see variances all the time. Mr. Shawver stated that he doesnít know if there has been a development that has been before so many commissions of the County.

Mr. Peckham stated he believed the plat would have been approved. Applicants saw two-story as an upper limit.

Commissioner Morgan asked staff what the Commission was supposed to do about this, if they were supposed to make the change here.

Mr. Shawver stated the Planning and Zoning Commission could not say that the word maximum was left out, it is not there. Had the word been there, Mr. Shawver states he doesnít know if it would have made a difference to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff probably would have asked other questions like what is meant by maximum two-stories, what is the height. From the plan the commercial lots have square footage of buildings listed on those. It probably would have generated some additions, but doesnít know if it would have made any difference in the approval process. The fact is, the word is not there. The applicants are asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to say that building less than two-story structures is a minor change to the plans and no further process is necessary. And that two-stories with the detached garages are not a mandatory requirement; and two-and a half stories are not mandatory on the commercial plots. There are three things to be decided. The applicantís request is that the Commission consider those to be minor changes to the approved plan.

Commissioner Mink stated that what seems to be at stake is the process of presenting something, being accepted through the public process and then it is changed later to something else without going through the process again. Commissioner Mink asked if that was the issue.

Mr. Shawver stated that was staffís view.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated that was not a-typical. As Mr. Shawver has indicated, people come to him all the time and he permits changes.

Commissioner Mink stated those changes are not major.

Mr. Oxenhandler stated the only point he was making is the point that Commissioner Mink is making now. Applicantís perception is that this is not a major change that is being made. It can be made at this level. It is being presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Under the theory that any change needs to go back through a different process, that would not make any sense under the procedures that the County has.

Commissioner Mink stated that one of the problems that he is having is that it sounds like this is solely based on the character. This is a significant character change. Commissioner Mink stated he doesnít have a problem with applicants are wanting to do, but it sounds like this was sold that it was a unique character type of development, and now weíre coming back with something that is changing the character. Taking a story off seems rather major; changing the character that was presented in this particular case seems to be the issue.

Mr. Peckham stated it was not applicantís intention to change the character of the neighborhood. In fact, Mr. Peckham doesnít think anyone had a fully laid out vision of exactly what the neighborhood would look like. Applicants did try to follow the principals of traditional neighborhood planning as was mentioned in the handout and believes they succeeded. Were the development to be located across the street from Hickman High School, it would be outside the Countyís jurisdiction, of course, but it could be possible that a land owner would come to the Commission and say that the plan says two-and a half stories, but can ask to go three-stories, and make a presentation that would make that argument legitimate. However, the reason that applicants are here is that from the very start, applicants did not intend to build 40,000 plus or minus square feet of two and a half story commercial buildings. Applicants never had that intention, if they did, applicants would not have contracted with the sewer districts for only enough for the ground floor, plus just a little more than that. Applicants do not have enough sewer or parking to do that, it was never applicants intention. It was never applicant's intention that the word requirement be appended to two-stories or two and a half stories, or minimum. Applicants were using what Mr. Peckham thought Mr. Trabue had described as ordinary zoning height limit language. When you describe the height of something, a height beyond what you canít go. The Boone County Government Building is in an area that is zoned to be higher than the building is, it doesnít mean the City is going to come back and say "make the building taller."

Mr. Oxenhandler stated that the question that Commissioner Mink poses is a fair one. That is a judgement that Commissionerís have to make as to whether this will change the character. Mr. Oxenhandler states his impression is that everything is being done to set the character the way it was presented, the only issue that is on the table is whether or not some buildings arenít going to be as tall as it perceived they should be. The roads are laid out exactly; the commercial areas are in a commercial area. There is a town center, there is a park, and it is located where it is supposed to be. It has the sewer systems and stormwater systems that were supposed to be there and this is but one aspect. Mr. Oxenhandler canít say to the Commission that between a story and two stories, there is not a character question. Commissionerís should not just look at that aspect of it, Commissionerís should look at it in its totality and see what is built out there, what the infrastructure is, is exactly what has been planned all along. It is a fair question with regard to character, but Mr. Oxenhandler believes the Commissionerís need to look at the project as a whole. The project as a whole is unique.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked Mr. Peckham if he brought a copy of the marketing brochure.

Mr. Peckham stated no.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated she had studied the marketing folder for New Town and as Commissioner Heitkamp understands it, traditional neighborhood developments are based on houses that are set close together with frontage on a narrow street. The garages are on alleys behind the houses, so that people can get to know their neighbors. Commissioner Heitkamp asked Mr. Peckham if that was correct.

Mr. Peckham stated absolutely.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked Mr. Peckham if he was asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow applicants to change it from a house with a detached garage to a house with an attached garage.

Mr. Peckham stated he did not come to this meeting tonight to talk about the garage. The intention of New Town and the requirement of New Town; is that all garages, whether they be garages or parking places for the residential units be accessed from the alley so there will be no curb-cuts on the streets and that is exactly what is going to be there. Applicants are not asking for a change in that.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated applicants were not asking for a change.

Mr. Peckham stated they have not changed the notion of a traditional neighborhood development having the parking places accessed from the alleys; as opposed to access from driveways on the streets, no curb-cuts on the streets will be done.

Mr. Peckham stated he recognize that the drawing says detached garage (typical). However, those of the Commissioners that have been down to New Town will see that the four townhouses that are completed have a garage which has a roof attached to the roof that is over the back porch, attached to the house, attached to the roof that is over the front porch.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if it was accessable only through the alley.

Mr. Peckham stated the vehicles are only accessable through the alley and that is the only way any of the houses will ever have access to the vehicles, is through the alley. That is fundamental to the concept. Whether the garage is physically attached to the house as it is for the four townhouses that are built are physically detached from the house as it is, at least momentarily, for the single family houses. There is the notion of perhaps putting a roof over, so you could walk out that door and in to the kitchen door due to weather conditions. Or, if other things were to be built, which were discussed in the Planning and Zoning, and that is to have a second floor on the garage, which could be used for a home office or and additional bedroom. When the notion of an additional bedroom was brought up with respect to a second story on the garage, it was pointed out that if applicants were to have access to that second floor through a separate stairway, it would not be permitted because it would be considered a separate dwelling unit on the same property. Such a configuration would have to be attached to the house and applicants are perfectly fine with that. Applicants are perfectly fine with not having auxiliary buildings on the lots. The issue before the Commissioners tonight, Mr. Peckham believes, is primarily whether or not two-story is a requirement or a maximum.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that applicants received a variance from the Board of Adjustment so the lots would be more narrow than the regulation and longer. There would be no way to build a conventional suburban house on those lots. A conventional suburban houses that Commissioner Heitkamp states she sees, built around here today, have a garage next to the house. Anything that would be built in New Town will have garages behind the houses.

Mr. Peckham stated that was correct.

Commissioner Neese stated there was no way for applicants could guarantee that. On West Broadway, there was recently a house that was actually a ranch turned around on a very narrow lot and it has the garage in the back. It is possible.

Commissioner Freiling asked if there was some guarantee that all houses in the approved plat will have their on site parking structure accessed from the alley.

Mr. Shawver stated the plan doesnít call for that. It doesnít specify it on the faces of plan. The notation on the plan does not say that the townhouses have detached garages. That only applies to the single family residential.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if applicants would need another variance to put curb-cuts in those streets.

Mr. Peckham stated he had no intention of ever putting curb-cuts in the streets. If someone were to buy one of those lots and decide to want to do that, they would absolutely have to get a variance. Mr. Peckham stated he would come to the meeting and strongly protest it.

Commissioner Neese stated that what bothers him, is that the Planning and Zoning Commission is here for the people and noticed that there were people speaking for this proposal but also speaking against, that is the thing that the Commission provides is public input. Commissioner Neese stated he was not here when this proposal previously came through. But there was a lot of public opposition and that is the only part that Commissioner Neese sees that applicants should go back and resubmit the proposal to give the opportunity for public input. If the neighborhood was comfortable with the New Town concept, which is a good concept, and if the neighbors in the area are opposed were sold on one plan, and now applicants come back with the single house plan, it seems what the Planning and Zoning Commission is trying to keep is the public input.

Commissioner Neese stated that his understanding on the sewer is that all the other utilities are in, including the streets, and asked Mr. Peckham if the sewer was adequate for what applicant is proposing or will additional things have to be added for example a pump station or lift station.

Mr. Trabue stated that during the process, when the sewer plan was developed, one of the programs that applicants initiated with the sewer district is putting in a regional plant to potentially take the lagoons out of service that are there now. Over a period of time applicants were able to accomplish that, during that process and as the plats were approved, the sewer district went for additional State funding, which put a delay in the sewer districtís process in order to be able to provide the sewer. As Mr. Yonke indicated, the sewer district did agree, because they had already given applicants the assurance that they would have sewer capacity, the sewer district agreed to provide capacity by pumping as needed until their sewer plant was put online. Theyíve been under contract, the lift station that is onsite is completed, it has not been started yet because it is not connected to the new plant. But have received phone calls today from the contractor who is installing the new plant. The sewer district has an agreement with Mr. Peckham to provide sewer service to his facilities in accordance with the early plans.

Mr. Peckham stated in that this is evidently the first time in history such an event has come before Planning, would it be possible for him to share a letter written by one of the neighbors.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated that he felt actually the reason the Commission was here tonight is to look at an appeal of a ruling made by the Planning Director. In keeping the issue well framed at this time, Vice-Chairperson Caruthers feels that questions that may be pertaining directly to the plat itself or things like that would be the best through a public forum. What the Commissioners are asking here tonight truly is, is the notes as printed on the final plan truly binding or are they, as applicantís believe, a minor change that can be changed with the discretion of the Planning Director without the need for a public hearing. Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated that to him, that is the issue at hand.

Mr. Peckham stated that was well put, and to state it even more succinctly, the question is whether or not the phrase two-story has an implied appended word to it; required, maximum, minimum, or optional. There are a number of different ways the word, without an appendage, could be interpreted. Mr. Shawver has interpreted it as a requirement. Applicants intended it as a maximum; applicants have testified to that but do not know how the Planning and Zoning Commissioners would interpret it.

Mr. Shawver stated that Mr. Peckham has put it exactly right, is two-story minimum, maximum or indifferent.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated that if these are going to be called final plans, and itís went through the review process, plat reviews and have went through multiple steps and multiple public hearings and there has been all kinds of time to catch and well document the intentions. The Planning and Zoning Commission are to rule on the basis of fact. It is a fact that it what is on the plan and therefore in the plan. Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated they way he sees it, is that if you could simply go and change the plans, then the whole public process had no purpose to begin with.

Commissioner Mink stated that Commissioner Caruthersí questions pointed out the need for the review process to occur. What is going to happen when you make these changes, those are legitimate questions that need a hearing.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that going from two-story to one story is a significant change.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated it was a 50-percent change.

Mr. Peckham stated he understood and agreed with the analysis that one story is half as big as two-stories. But begs Commission to understand that the height was offered in the same spirit that the height in the zoning ordinance is given and that is, itís a height beyond which you can not go.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked what it would take for applicants to just submit a new review plan.

Mr. Peckham stated it would take the current drawing and add the word maximum.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated to then have a public hearing on it and so forth. Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked staff if it would be a typical process.

Mr. Shawver stated that was correct.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers asked applicant if they would be willing to just add one word and resubmitting it for public process.

Mr. Peckham stated he did not have an aversion to it, except it effects the construction schedule. Applicants did not act with ill will when New Town LLC. paid the consultants considerable money to draw the plans that are in the Building Department right now for building on lot C2, which is not two and a half stories and never was intended to be. Mr. Peckham stated he did not try to violate the spirit of New Town and the approved plan, because as Mr. Peckham states as he has said several times this evening, it was the intention of New Town to have these two numbers be interpreted and understood as a maximum. Any reasonable person would recognize, except perhaps for downtown Columbia and the State Farm building, virtually all the commercial development in Boone County is single story. Mr. Peckham thinks it is also reasonable to recognize that when in good faith, New Town LLC. contracted with the sewer district for sewer service for New Town. Applicants contracted for what they thought would actually be built and appreciate the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission would allow to go to a higher limit and recognize that if they went there, that would be an unusual circumstance and applicants would have to somehow negotiate a new contract and probably for the construction of a new sewer plant to accommodate it. It was never applicantís intention to do that. Mr. Peckham stated the affidavit indicating that we are only talking about a word that was omitted and would suggest it wasnít omitted, it would be as easy for a different person in the same chair to look at that word and say that is a minimum or itís a maximum. All of these possible interpretations could have been made. Applicants happen to believe that the interpretation that was made was never, ever, the intention of New Town. The minutes of the meeting reflect that, the behavior of the people who have spent their money making the community a success reflect that.

Vice-Chairman Caruthers stated that basically, this meeting could go all night arguing, but at this time will close the public portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Freiling asked staff if this process involved public comment.

Mr. Shawver stated no.

Commissioner Freiling stated what he sees, being a realtor and Commissioner for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the change applicants are proposing is a change in plans, but not a change in the impact. When this project is complete, it will have no different impact on the roads, water, or sewer.

When asking if the plan would have been approved in the same fashion if it had been presented as showing two-story as a maximum. Commissioner Freiling stated the problem he had with the idea is, he has no idea if it would have been approved or not. From the Commissionís standpoint, the problem they are dealing with it the Commission would leave themselves wide open to opportunity in the future.

 

 

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to uphold the ruling by the Director of Planning regarding the nature of changes, the changes are not minor in nature, concerning the Final Plan of NewTown Planned Development.

 

Mike Caurthers Y Carl Freiling Abstain David Mink Y Keith Neese Abstain

Mike Morgan Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

Motion to uphold ruling by the Director of planning carries. 4 Yes 2 Abstain 0 No

 

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

Director, Stan Shawver stated the County Commission is setting a date for the quarterly get together in October. There may be a conflict with the Commission Chambers, so the meeting may take place in a different room.

The Planning and Zoning Commission by-laws will be reviewed in the month of September.

 

 

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Keith Neese

Acting-Secretary

Minutes approved on this 20th, day of September, 2001.