BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, March 21, 2002

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

Present: Pat Smith, Chairperson Perche Township

Michael Caruthers, Vice-Chairman Centralia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Keith Neese Columbia Township

Carl Freiling Cedar Township

Kristen Heitkamp Missouri Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Bill Florea, Staff

Thad Yonke, Staff Paula Evans, Staff

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2002 meeting with an addition under New Business in which the Commissioners approved a study for the Gans Creek watershed.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairperson Smith explained that the Boone County Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory commission to the County Commission. The Commission is made up of individuals representing each township of the county and the county engineer.

The Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendations to the County Commission on matters dealing with land use. Tonight’s agenda includes two conditional use permits, two rezoning requests and two subdivision plats

The following procedure will be followed for the conditional use permits and the rezoning requests:

The agenda item will be announced, followed by a report from the Planning Department Staff. At that time, the applicant or their representative may make a presentation to the commission. The Commission may request additional information at that time, or later following the hearing. After the applicant’s presentation, the floor will be opened for anyone wishing to speak in support of the request.

Please give your name and mailing address when you address the commission. We also request that you sign the sheet on the table when you testify.

Next, the floor will be given over to those who may be opposed to the request. Direct all comments or questions to the Commission and please restrict your comments to the matter under discussion.

After those opposed to the request have had an opportunity to speak, the applicant will have a chance to respond to the concerns of those opposed to the request. Next the staff will be given an opportunity for any additional comments, as appropriate. The public hearing will then be closed and no further comments will be permitted from the audience or the applicant unless requested by the Commission. The Commission will then discuss the matter and may ask questions of anyone present during discussion. Finally, a motion will be made to either recommend the approval or denial of the request to the County Commission. Please note that the Boone County zoning regulations and subdivision regulations are considered to be a part of the record of these proceedings.

All recommendations for approval are forwarded to the County Commission. They will conduct another public hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 2002. Interested parties will again have the opportunity to comment on the requests at that time. The County Commission generally follows the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, they are not obligated to uphold any recommendation. Requests that are denied will not proceed to the County Commission unless the applicant files an appeal form within 3 working days. The County Commission hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 2, 2002 will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will convene at the Boone County Court House.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

 

  1. Request by John and Linda Coats for an animal boarding and training facility on 20.09 acres located at 5901 S River Hills Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this property is located in River Hills Subdivision, just south of the Columbia municipal limits off of State Highway KK. The property is zoned A-1, as is all of the surrounding property, except an area on the west side, which is zoned R-S. Spring Park subdivision is located in this R-S district. There is a house, two barns, and various outbuildings on the property. This request is for a permit for a horse boarding facility. The property is located within Consolidated Public Water District No. 1. Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. The site is within the Columbia Public School District. Access to the site is from River Hills Rd. The applicant’s property is comprised of two lots, lots 10 and 11 of River Hills Estates subdivision, which was platted in 1978. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. In forming a recommendation, the staff notes the close proximity of residential land uses to the site, but also takes notice of the large tract of land involved in the request. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the driveway and required parking area be dust free with a minimum of a chip seal surface. The required parking area will be determined by the area of the stables.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. The conditional use permit shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of

the zoning district in which it is located. The County Commission shall find that there is a

public necessity for the conditional use permit.

Present: John & Linda Coats, owners, 5901 River Hills.

Mr. Coats stated that they’ve had a horse operation for the last 20 years. It is mainly a breeding operation and applicants show a few horses around the country. Applicants are looking to change their operation a little. The community has changed a little in the recent months with the development of Thornbrook subdivision. Applicants saw an opportunity to change their operation by adding boarding. Mr. Coats stated it is based toward his retirement from the University and that is the reason for the change. Mr. Coats stated he would like to retire in six or seven years and would like to have the barn built and use it as part of an income to supplement his retirement.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Caruthers asked what kind of waste disposal do the applicants have in mind.

Mr. Coats stated that for several years, the applicants have given manure away. Applicants do charge for loading it, but if people want to load it themselves, they just take it away. Mr. Coats stated they have done this for several years. People use it in their gardens and in their compost piles. It is going to increase a little, but applicants are well set up to handle it. Applicants still have the tractor to load with and are going to put a concrete bunker in to put the waste in so there is no more run-off. Some of the waste will be spread in their pastures, but not a lot.

Commissioner Neese asked if there are going to be any public restrooms, there aren’t any on the plan.

Mr. Coats stated the applicants haven’t planned for any. At this point, applicants are not trying to get that big. Originally, the beginning plan, was to have a twenty stall barn and in the near future, applicants plan to build a hay storage barn, if applicants go to a bigger stall barn, at that time, public restrooms would have to be added. Right now, people should be able to use the restrooms in the Coats’ home.

Commissioner Neese asked applicant if the house is serviced with a lagoon.

Mr. Coats stated yes.

Commissioner Caruthers stated in the stables themselves, where is the hay stored and asked if it was above each stall.

Mr. Coats stated no, the new barn, as it shows in the drawing, there is a 24 x 12 area for hay. There is an existing barn that has 4000 bales of hay stored in it. The existing barn is 100-years old; it was built at three different times. The first section was built in 1876 and was put together with pegs. Applicants are trying to preserve the barn.

Commissioner Smith asked how big did the applicant’s plan for the indoor riding area to be.

Mr. Coats stated it will be 100 x 60 feet.

 

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve the request by John and Linda Coats for an animal boarding and training facility on 20.09 acres located at 5901 S River Hills Rd., Columbia, with the following condition:

Carl Freiling – Yes Mike Morgan – Yes

Pat Smith – Yes Keith Neese – Yes

Mike Caruthers – Yes David Mink – Yes

Mary Sloan – Yes Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

Motion to approve request carried unanimously.

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that this matter would go before the County Commission at 7:00 p.m., April 2, 2002 at the Boone County Court House.

 

 

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

 

 

  1. Request by Richard and Carol Samuels on behalf of U. S. Cellular for a transmission facility including a 190’ tower on 16.64 acres, located at 15365 W. Hwy BB, Rocheport.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this 16.64-acre tract is located on State Highway BB, just outside of the Rocheport City Limits. The property is currently vacant. United States Cellular proposes to build a 190’ monopole tower with antennae. The height of the entire structure, including antennae is not to exceed 199-feet. A prefabricated concrete structure, approximately 240 square feet will be used to enclose ground-based equipment.

In order for an application for a transmission facility to be approved, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal meets the criteria of The Boone County Zoning Ordinance Section 15 B Conditional Use Permits for Transmission Facilities and Section 15 A. Conditional Use Permits.

The application demonstrates compliance with most of the technical requirements of Section 15 B. The deficiencies are outlined as follows:

Section 15B(4)(a) states that applications for new transmission facilities may only be considered when an existing transmission facility cannot accommodate the planned new equipment. In essence, this section requires the new facility to co-locate on an existing tower unless there are technical reasons preventing co-location.

There are several transmission facilities in the vicinity of the proposed tower with base and top elevations greater than that of the proposed site and which have adequate capacity for the proposed facilities. They are as follows:

The base and top elevations of the proposed Rocheport tower are 687’ and 886’ respectively.

In order to be found in compliance with Section 15B(4)(a)1, the applicant must prove to the commission that there are sufficient reasons to make co-location on either the Voice Stream or Nextel tower impractical. There is not sufficient documentation in the submitted application materials to support a finding of compliance with this section.

All Conditional Use Permit proposals must meet the following criteria from the zoning ordinance to be eligible for approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special consideration should be given to compliance criteria (b), which states the conditional use permit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted by these regulations. A significant number of written comments have been received indicating that construction of the tower at the proposed location will have an adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of property. The Board of Aldermen of the City of Rocheport has passed a resolution that has been submitted for the record opposing issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. The resolution is based on a finding that erection of the tower will detract from the historic and aesthetic interests of the City of Rocheport.

Many of the comments in opposition claim that the tower will have a negative impact on property values in the area, which if true would support a finding of inconsistency with criteria (c).

53 property owners were notified concerning this request.

Staff recommends the application be denied based on non-compliance with Section 15B(4)(a) and Section 15A(2)(b).

If the Commission recommends approval, staff suggests the following conditions:

Present: Peter McNally, United States Cellular, 225 42nd Street, Des Moines, Iowa.

David Fowler, engineer, 1804 Vandiver Drive, Columbia.

Mr. McNally stated applicants are proposing to build a 200-foot monopole, unlighted tower in rural Boone County. Mr. McNally stated there are three things he wanted to try and cover. One is why a site is needed in the area and why the applicants have picked that particular site.

Mr. McNally stated that as most people know, US Cellular is licensed to provide cellular service through out Boone County, along with this right, applicants have the responsibility to provide good, quality, adequate service. Right now, applicants do not have adequate service. Mr. McNally stated he had some visual presentations to make.

Mr. McNally displayed a map showing the existing coverage in the area. Mr. McNally pointed out the locations of the Missouri River, Interstate 70, and the City of Rocheport. Mr. McNally explained that the shaded blue and green areas on the map are current coverage areas. The white areas are places that have no coverage. Mr. McNally stated the difference between the blue and green areas, are that the blue areas mean you could be in a building and place a phone call, green means you could be in a car, but probably not strong enough for it to work in a building. The white areas mean the phone wouldn’t work even inside a car. Mr. McNally stated that there is a large area that doesn’t have adequate service.

Mr. McNally stated that of all the sites US Cellular has in the Mid-West, the Midway site is the number two problem site that US Cellular has in terms of dropped calls. Those are the calls where you can place a call in the blue area and while you are traveling, the signal gets so bad the call gets dropped by the system. That does not include all the calls where you are getting really bad coverage where you have to repeat yourself a lot. It doesn’t include the calls where the customer gets so frustrated they just hang up the phone. It also doesn’t include the area where there is just poor coverage and people aren’t able to make a call at all. This is why applicants are here. It is not just US Cellular’s numbers that show this problem.

Mr. McNally stated applicants have had a couple of meetings with the Town of Rocheport and invited all the neighbors to the meeting. The Town was kind enough to listen. Applicants also mailed to everyone who met the County’s criteria for this meeting. Mr. McNally stated there were about a third of people who supported this request. About half a dozen people came up to Mr. McNally and stated that they have US Cellular service and are thinking about dropping it because they can’t get coverage in their homes. One woman stated she went into a retail store that sells all brands of phones. The woman told the clerk she lived in Rocheport; the store told her to not bother buying a phone, because she will never be able to use it in her house. People want to use their phones; they want to use them in their homes. The number one reason people buy phones is for safety. You get used to them and love the convenience, but that is not why we buy them. That is not what motivates us to buy them, it is safety. Over 100,000 calls to 911 are made from wireless phones everyday. That is why people buy phones. If people can’t have them at home where they spend a lot of time, they can’t have it when their kids are playing; it doesn’t serve its purpose. This is no longer a service for people in suits working in offices. This is a service where people and children are using. They want it where they play and they want it where they live. US Cellular is trying to fulfill that demand. This is why US Cellular wants to place a site in this area.

Mr. McNally stated that as Staff mentioned there are two sites that are at a higher elevation than the proposed site would be. Applicants looked at a lot of sites, much more than just those two and have discussed that with staff. Height is only half the equation; the other half is location. As staff mentioned in their report, these sites are two to three miles away. US Cellular only give in building coverage for a radius of three miles. When you are three miles away from where US Cellular is trying to cover, you miss half. That is the simple explanation for it, Mr. McNally stated he could show the Commission more diagrams if needed.

Mr. McNally presented a diagram of the coverage for the SBA tower. Mr. McNally stated this is a large tower about 300-feet tall, it does cover a lot of area, but there are significant problems with the coverage. There are a lot of areas where you get dropped calls. If you are traveling the route through the white areas on the diagram, you will drop calls. It doesn’t do much good for US Cellular to add coverage in that area because once you get 200-yards down the road, the call will drop. The SBA site also does not provide coverage for Rocheport. Applicants have looked and used from the beginning in the site selection process, the Boone County Zoning Ordinance as a guide to decide where to place the site. Mr. McNally stated he met with planner, Bill Florea and they went over the code and Mr. Florea informed applicants of what they needed to do. Applicants went out and cataloged all the existing sites and tried to make them work. The SBA site doesn’t work. The question of turning up the power levels, cranking it up so it broadcasts further, there are a couple of things that limit that. One is, it is two-way communication. The phone has to talk back to the tower and applicants don’t get to decide how powerful the phones are. The other thing is that US Cellular does not have the authority to serve the area across the river, Howard County. Mid-Missouri Cellular has the right to broadcast in that area, applicants have worked with them to find out if the levels of US Cellular’s signal are acceptable to Mid-Missouri Cellular. This is an FCC requirement.

Mr. McNally submitted a letter from the Mid Missouri Cellular stating that the SBA tower does not work. If applicants were to turn it up any higher than that to try and fill in some of the holes, the FCC will reject applicant's request to do that. That precludes US Cellular from doing that under the FCC law. Mr. McNally stated the applicants couldn’t turn up the volume anymore on this particular site. Mr. McNally stated he wished they could. Applicants have looked at all sorts of technical things.

Mr. McNally presented a diagram of the proposed Voice Stream Wireless site. The coverage is even worse in that area. This site proposal is redundant to the fact that we are already getting coverage at the Midway site. This site is located in the heart of where the Midway site is covered. It would be putting a site where there is already good coverage.

Mr. McNally stated what US Cellular proposes to do and what is shown in the letter is to back up to the river and only broadcast in one direction. This way the applicants won't have to worry about power coverage. Mid-Missouri Wireless has looked at this proposal and has agreed that it is acceptable and are willing to go along with it. There will be continuous coverage all the way through on Interstate 70. The City of Rocheport will be completely covered. This is important; no one else is providing good service in Rocheport. US Cellular has been around the longest. Customers are saying that their expectations have changed.

Mr. McNally stated applicants have looked at other sites. The sites are taller than what the applicants propose, but it is not all about height but about location. There is a 150-foot tower on a neighboring property but it is not where they need to be. Mr. McNally stated he hopes that is clear through the diagrams that were presented.

Mr. McNally stated applicants went back to the Boone County code and used that as their criteria. Mr. Florea went through what the criteria was, applicants have used that in trying to design the site. The Boone County code has in it the criteria for what the minimum adverse impact is. It establishes that, and that is what applicants followed. In exhibit D in the books submitted, applicants go through the criteria point by point. Mr. McNally stated he would go through the highlights again.

Mr. McNally stated the code requires that the tower be under 200-feet tall. Applicants have done that. It requires the tower not be lighted. Applicants have an FAA approval stating that no lights are required and applicants won't be putting on any other lights. The code requires that the tower have a galvanized finish and applicants will leave it as the galvanized finish. The code requires the tower be setback a distance equal to its height. Applicants will more than do that. Applicants have done all the things the code establishes. Mr. McNally gave the criteria for a minimum adverse impact. Applicants have done that and more.

Mr. McNally presented a site plan of the area, which showed the proposed tower site. Mr. McNally pointed out Highway DD in relation to the site and the location of trees. Mr. McNally stated the trees are pretty high. Some of the trees are 65-feet taller than the base of the monopole and there are several hundred feet of trees. Applicants have tried to place the monopole within those trees to try and provide as much screening as possible.

Mr. McNally stated that applicants flew a balloon on the property. Mr. McNally presented photographs of the balloon being flown at the site. Applicants notified everyone who received a notification for tonight’s meeting. The width of the pole at the top is going to be 3-feet or less. Applicants have a 3-foot balloon so it would simulate what the width is. The pole will be 190-foot tall. Applicants let out about 250-feet of line. For a lot of reasons: applicants wanted to make sure it was easy for applicants to find as they go around town. Applicants also wanted to be sure there wasn’t going to be any ambiguity and there wasn’t anyone saying that applicants let out less line, or because the wind was blowing it wouldn’t look as bad as it’s going to be. Therefore, applicants showed something that a lot of the time would look a lot worse. Applicants did a lot of calculations and measurements out there. Most of the time, the balloon was flying at 220-feet, sometimes the wind would let up and the balloon would be up to 250-feet. Other times the wind would gust and the balloon would be less than the proposed height. It was useful for the applicants to be able to find where the balloon was.

Mr. McNally stated that one of the good things is the tower would be setback from the ridge. On the right of the proposed tower, is the town water tank in the photo. Mr. McNally stated the town water tank is right on the ridge. The tower would be set back by another 400-feet east of the ridge. With the foreshadowing going on, no one will see that much of the pole because of the trees and the obscurity of it. Applicants drove around a lot that day. There is about a quarter mile to a third mile stretch on Highway BB where you can see it from the edge of town when you get to the crest of the hill, all the way to the first corner. Beyond that, you really don’t see it. You don’t see it all the way from that point all the way to the interchange with I-70. When you are in town, you really don’t see it. Once you are in town, there are buildings and trees and you can't see it. You have to get to a clear spot where you have a clear line of sight down the street that is running in that direction.

Mr. McNally presented a photograph taken from the top of the hill. Mr. McNally stated that the photo is taken from the driveway of the nearest residence.

Mr. McNally stated that not only did the applicants meet the criteria, but have gone beyond that. Applicants also submitted an application to the State Department for Historic Preservation. The State did a review of it and determined that there would be no adverse impact on the Rocheport National Historic District.

Mr. McNally presented a copy of that letter to the Commission.

Mr. McNally stated he hoped that would give the Commission an overview of why the site is needed in this area and why none of the existing sites would work. What applicants are proposing is going to be with minimal impact. Some people wish there wasn’t a tower at all. That could probably be said for electrical power lines. This request is not out of character from what is already there. Not only do the applicants meet the criteria that the County has established, but applicants have gone quite a ways beyond that. Applicants have met the criteria of the State Historic Preservation office.

Commissioner Caruthers stated he noted the water tower in the photograph and asked applicant why they chose not to co-locate on the water tower.

Mr. McNally stated the water is only about 100-feet tall. The proposed tower is 190-feet tall. The water tower is not tall enough to serve purpose to the west. In the application package, there is a coverage plot that shows the coverage applicants would get with that water tower. It would not solve the problem applicants have.

Commissioner Freiling stated given the fact that there are obviously problems with topography. The coverage areas that applicants are missing are under the drop of the prairie bluff lines as you go down in to the hills and valleys. Commissioner Freiling stated that his assumption is that those areas will forever be poorly served with present technology. Commissioner Freiling stated that there was no question that everyone expects technology will once again change. The aspect of the transmission technology will be addressed whether by satellite technology or something else. Given the fact that this is such a common issue in Boone County, which is topographically rough, Commissioner Freiling asked applicants if they isolated on Rocheport because of Interstate 70 or will the same issue come up at Hartsburg because of Highway 63, at McBaine because of Route K. Where does applicants anticipate more frequent tower spacing along the river corridor because of topographical issues.

Mr. McNally stated the reason applicants are focusing on this area is because it is the second largest problem US Cellular has in the entire Mid-West in terms of dropped calls.

Commissioner Freiling asked if that was because of traffic on Interstate 70.

Mr. McNally stated he couldn’t nail it as far as where the calls are dropped. It is somewhere within that cell. The assumption is it is the westerly rural areas and Interstate 70.

Commissioner Freiling stated that there is equal population densities in terms of local use in many other areas that have poor service.

Commissioner Sloan asked applicants how many customers they have in Rocheport.

Mr. McNally stated he didn’t know that off the top of his head. Applicants spoke with several the night of the meeting. Mr. McNally stated he also spoke with applicants who were former customers because of this problem.

Mr. Fowler stated the only thing it came down to is if you don’t have good service, you aren’t going to have many customers, it is kind of a catch 22. There were people at the meeting, one in particular who stated she was going to cancel her service, but now that the tower is going up, she won't cancel her service. Someone else said they had a few friends who had US Cellular service but canceled it because the service is poor. Mr. Fowler stated US Cellular has customers in Rocheport, but if the tower is put up, they will have more.

Mr. McNally stated there are a lot of visitors who go to Rocheport, both for the trail and for the other amenities of the town. There are other portions that are being served, other residential areas as well as other traffic corridors.

Commissioner Sloan stated that the people who live there will have to deal with the tower everyday and they should be the concern of the Commission. Commissioner Sloan asked what competitors of US Cellular have towers in that area that are potential customers of the area.

Mr. McNally stated that the service in Rocheport probably comes from the other side of the river because of the terrain. There is not a quality service in Rocheport at all. You may be able to make calls, but as far as in every house, it is not very good.

Commissioner Freiling stated the reason the applicants have not gone across the river is a licensing issue.

Mr. Fowler stated yes, US Cellular does not have a license and it is not for sale.

Commissioner Freiling asked who that license is held by.

Mr. Fowler stated Mid-Missouri Cellular; they are the cellular carrier.

Commissioner Freiling asked who Mid-Missouri Cellular serves.

Mr. Fowler stated they serve a market, which is Missouri 7, which is Howard County and others. Mr. Fowler stated he could not name all the Counties. Sprint and Cingular have licenses.

Commissioner Freiling stated it seems like the logical solution in dealing with the topographical issues on the Boone County side of the river, is to have the tower on the other side of the river.

Mr. McNally stated that is a logical way, but applicants are dealing with the Federal Government. US Cellular is not allowed to broadcast in that county without their permission, even then, only at certain levels. They’ve agreed to the minor levels that the Rocheport site would propose, but they won’t allow applicants to put a tower over there and they wouldn’t let them go with the SBA site as well.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated the two towers across the river are in Cooper County not Howard County.

Mr. McNally stated it was the same situation, Mid-Missouri Cellular covers both Cooper and Howard County.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if they allow co-locations.

Mr. McNally stated applicants are not allowed to go there per FCC regulations.

Mr. Fowler stated that is not entirely true, US Cellular could go there but they would have to agree to it. If applicants go there and transfer it in this direction, US Cellular is going to pick up their traffic and they will not agree to it.

Mr. McNally stated that applicants have explored that, the FCC requires Mid-Missouri Cellular to sign off on it. They are not willing to sign off on something like that.

Mr. Fowler stated he can see from their side of things, there would be no reason why they would.

Mr. McNally stated that US Cellular is going to be causing problems to Mid-Missouri’s system because they operate at the same frequencies that applicants do. Part of the problem is not only does Boone County have the unique topographical circumstances that have been brought up, but the site is also at a boundary. Why the County boundary is there and why the FCC decided to follow that county boundary as opposed to another one, Mr. McNally stated he doesn’t know. It is a very unique circumstance and it is very problematic for applicants. If applicants could go on the other side, it would solve a lot of problems, but it is not something that applicants are allowed to do that is how applicants came to the conclusion of placing the tower at the proposed site.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated the population of Rocheport is about 232 people, that is quite an infrastructure expense for 232 people.

Mr. Fowler stated that the tower is not entirely for Rocheport. From the west by transferring back to the east, applicants take a sector and point it out to cover down river up the side of the county and it covers perfectly. Coming from the other direction, you shoot over the border. There is no way to stop it.

Mr. McNally showed the diagram of the Voice Stream site again. Applicants are not covering Rocheport, but also not covering large areas. Including the Interstate and including Highway 40. This is a lot of traffic. Applicants are not just building a site just to cover Rocheport, but they are going to try and give them coverage at the same time, but that is not what is driving applicants. Applicants want to try and serve as many people as they can.

Commissioner Caruthers stated the market drive would be to serve the 2000 plus per hour cars driving down I-70 as opposed to the 232 people in Rocheport.

Mr. McNally stated applicants want to try and get as many customers as they can. Customers are saying they are canceling their service. Applicants don’t want to lose their customers. If there was an existing site out there that applicants could go on and avoid this process, and the expense and cover everything but Rocheport, they would. That site doesn’t exist. Applicants have to build a tower.

Mr. Fowler stated that SBA or Voice Stream Wireless does not cover the Interstate well either.

Mr. McNally stated that applicants are forced to build a tower. If a tower is going to be built, applicants want to cover as many people as they can. This will solve US Cellular’s problem. The tower needs to be backed up to the river. Either way, whether it is a new tower that applicants propose or a new tower somewhere else the applicants need to be backed up to the river because that is the border and it will be pointed outward. Mr. McNally stated they need to be somewhere along the ridgeline in order to solve the problems.

Mr. Fowler stated the way Rocheport sits, if it is covered, with the angle going up the road, the further you get away from there you are going to hit the hillside and Rocheport won’t get coverage. Being right above it will provide good coverage.

Commissioner Freiling stated this is what creates the problem.

Mr. Florea stated to the applicants that the coverage studies that were submitted with the application show the SBA site does not broadcast west.

Mr. McNally stated yes.

Mr. Florea asked it that was the same for the map that was displayed to the Commission.

Mr. McNally stated no, a sector was added on to that and pointed it straight toward the west and tried to work out a deal with Mid-Missouri Cellular, which they declined. Applicants then tried backing it off downhill, with that you just keep decreasing the service.

Mr. Florea stated that he noticed on that map, it didn’t show any bleed across the river from the SBA site, yet on the Rocheport site, it does. One of the arguments that applicants are making is that they can't broadcast across the river, are there exceptions?

Mr. McNally stated applicants could broadcast across the river, provided Mid-Missouri Cellular signs off on it. They will only sign off on it if is at a very low level.

Mr. Florea asked if Mid-Missouri Cellular has signed off on the bleed over as shown on the diagram.

Mr. McNally stated yes, that is what is stated on the letter. The letter also states they will not sign off on the SBA tower.

Mr. Florea asked if applicants have done studies that show the SBA site with a similar amount of bleed as they are willing to accept on the Rocheport site.

Mr. McNally stated the maximum amount of bleed Mid-Missouri Cellular is willing to accept is what was shown on the diagram. If applicants were able to turn the site down all the way to that level, that is the maximum they will accept. Once it is turned down that quietly, applicants are no longer able to cover Interstate 70. The power stays the same; it is just filtered down.

Mr. Florea stated his question still is why, from the Rocheport site, applicants can still show more bleed across the river than from the other site.

Mr. Fowler stated that what is happening is the applicants are getting bleed close to the river because it is line of site. What happens with the SBA shooting west, it catches the ridge right before it drops off. Right after the ridge there is not much coverage there, but being that the tower is taller, it ends up in the flat and on the other hillside because it is direct line of sight. With the antennas, the back flow has a lot less power that is why the map shows that.

Mr. McNally showed to the Commission the proposed site coverage map, pointing out the bleed over.

Open to public hearing.


No one spoke in favor of the request.

In opposition to the request.

Present: Susan McClintic, 15201 W. Highway BB, Rocheport.

Ms. McClintic stated that the proposed tower would be an "easy stones throw" from her home. Ms. McClintic stated that from her home currently, she can see three towers located to the east in Boone County. Two towers to the north which border directly on the Boone County Howard County line. One to the south, which is also located in Boone County which is a cable tower. Three directly across, in Ms. McClintic’s vision of the Missouri River in Cooper County. If you eliminate and go up the street a little, you can see two more, which total five in the western sky. That is eleven towers total based on the edge of the County. The aesthetic pollution that residents are experiencing because they live on the edge of Boone County is becoming a huge problem. There has to be a way we can protect and find a way for the people to share for these.

Ms. McClintic stated she has contacted the FCC and understands from the geographical licensing that there can be waivers requested on the possibility, especially when they are sitting so directly on the County lines, that is something that can be looked in to and applied for to avoid the multiple tower problem that they are having. The FCC is not protecting the County line and they are not protecting Rocheport. They are not looking at how communities are being created in Boone County.

Ms. McClintic stated that looking at the criteria that the County has established. For criteria A., one of the things that Ms. McClintic stated she realizes is the FCC does not support the concerns for the health conditions. It has come up at several of the meetings the residents have had in the area, that it could be a problem and with the multiple towers in the are, some of the research still shows that there is inconclusive evidence in that. For criteria B., for the enjoyment of the property, Ms. McClintic stated she could not see how another tower in the area could increase that enjoyment. Ms. McClintic stated she goes to bed every night looking from the eastern direction with a tower, that is what she sees every night when she built beautiful windows to be able to look out and enjoy that scenery in the area, but what she sees is flashing lights.

Ms. McClintic stated for criteria C., in regards to property values, Ms. McClintic stated she doesn’t see how this could compliment the County or the property or how it can continue to be anything that would appraise. It is a difficult area to appraise property there anyway because no homes have sold along that road in twenty years. That shows a very strong and stable community and people who enjoy the rural setting and relish in the fact that we have the opportunity to live in this historical area. Residents have chosen to live in the historical area because it is protected by the historical district and to continue to look at the Missouri River access and the historical opportunities to share there. This tower could not enhance property values for the residents in any way.

Ms. McClintic stated that when they flew the balloon, she felt that it was sitting on top of her. One of the things Ms. McClintic stated that one thing she hasn’t heard Mr. Fowler or Mr. McNally address is the road access on Mr. Samuels' property. At this time, it is just a little hay road, a place for a tractor to come in and out. How is that going to change the look as they come in and out through there and how can that be integrated in to the area?

Ms. McClintic stated there is a second side she would like to share. Ms. McClintic stated she has served as president of the Friends of Rocheport Historical Society and has been an active member for over 10 years and sits on the Board at this point. Ms. McClintic stated she has shared with that committee the great concern that this is not the kind of welcome that she would want to see as people come in to the historical community. Ms. McClintic stated they are charged to protect that in being on that Board and serving as members. The historical district was set up many years ago in hopes that no matter what came along this district could possibly help protect the area and continue to service and share that history with anyone who comes in to the area. This definitely effects our historical cemetery where the proposed tower is when the simulation balloon was flown; you could see that balloon from almost every grave in the cemetery. Those graves date back to the 1700’s that is not something she would like to see continued, but would like to see them be preserved. Ms. McClintic stated that the trees alone there are breathtaking.

Ms. McClintic stated that the mechanical building that is proposed to be built has no historical basis. It would certainly be seen where the tower is planned to be built; you can easily see the stakes already just from the road so the mechanical building would stand out.

Ms. McClintic stated that when the simulation balloon was flown, you could see this from the entire city of Rocheport. On the community hall steps, the Rocheport schoolhouse, on the historical icehouse and through out the entire cemetery. That can be seen and it was proven that the tower was going to effect all of those historical areas. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged to help protect those areas. This tower can not help personal or historical properties, it can not increase property values and the companies have to find a way so they can share these towers so residents don’t continue to see this growing throughout the whole river area.

Ms. McClintic stated she didn’t thing she should be punished because she lives on the county edge. The Planning and Zoning Commission has to help residents come together to find a way to protect the area. The history needs to be preserved. Frequently you hear the media call Rocheport the crown jewel of Boone County. Ms. McClintic stated she challenges all to continue so they continue to think of it that way and that we continue to do that.

Ms. McClintic stated in response to one of Mr. McNally’s comments, there is quite a lot of coverage from different people who use their cellular phones at the bed and breakfast and also the local residents. It just happens not to be with US Cellular.

Ms. McClintic stated she and her husband have had the opportunity to move many times with their careers and have chosen not to do that. They have chosen to call Rocheport home. That is what she wants the Planning and Zoning Commission to know when she leaves; that this is her home. She has chosen to stay there and does not want to have to look at the tower, or have people who choose to come and visit the area, historically or personally, to have to look at the tower.

Ms. McClintic stated she asks the Planning and Zoning Commission to look at the integrity of the homes and the community and help to protect her history and the County’s.

Ms. McClintic submitted a petition signed by a variety of people through out the entire County. Ms. McClintic stated she hoped the Commission would look at it as paying rent for the use of the planet she hopes the Commission realizes that these people are doing that if they are going across through out the entire County. There are people not just from Rocheport who have signed the petition.

George Randy Blackburn, 15030 Highway BB, Rocheport.

Mr. Blackburn stated that there have been a couple of thing said that aren’t quite true. First, the applicants said that everyone in Rocheport was notified about the meeting at the town hall. This is not true. Regarding the tree line along Highway BB, there is only one tall tree on the whole side of Highway BB. There are no trees blocking this tower. You can see the tower from Highway 40 and a lot more areas than the applicants are saying.

Mr. Blackburn stated that it was said that there are 253 people in Rocheport. Not everyone in Rocheport is going to have a cellular phone, it will just be the parents, so you are only talking about 50 homes and maybe one-quarter of those houses are going to have US Cellular service. All of those houses have regular phones anyway so Mr. Blackburn stated he is not sure that people need the service; people can use Sprint.

Mr. Blackburn stated he believes there is a State law that says that you are not supposed to be distracted while traveling on a Highway, which means dialing phones, answering phones and talking on phones. There is a question in there. Mr. Blackburn stated his parents sold this land to the Samuels. When they did, they signed a letter that they would only build one house on the land, it was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Samuels and Mr. Blackburn’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Blackburn. The letter was dated and notarized which was faxed to the staff this morning.

Alex Killy, speaking on behalf of parents, Frank and Aletha Killy, 103 Ward Street, Rocheport.

Mr. Killy read a letter written by his father Mr. Frank Killy which states as follows.

"Aletha and I have purchased a home in Rocheport Missouri. We chose this town because of its size, setting and historical values. We feel these values will be adversely effected by the placement of yet another tower, especially one so close to the town and the homes. Property values and possible health hazards are real concerns along with the deterioration of the historic value of the town. This will be the first impression that everybody sees when they come to this town. It will be there day and night. There are only a few that stand to profit from the tower, but many will be effected by it. These towers should not be within 1000 feet of any home. Think about it, would you or your family want one overshadowing your home? Possibly they could put it further back on the property or find another property away from any homes. Maybe even lease a space from one of the many towers already in the area. I have Suncom and Aletha has Cingular, both work very well in Rocheport, isn’t that enough? Again I ask you to take the time to vision 190-foot tower in your backyard, ask your family what they would think. There has to be another way, seek and I’m sure you will find. Why ruin a unique town such as Rocheport with this on your door step, US Cellular will remain even if this tower does not."

Karen Brown, 403 Bourn Ave, Columbia.

Ms. Brown stated she owns the land immediately to the south of Ms. McClintic. Ms. Brown stated she wanted to reiterate what everyone else has said. Ms. Brown stated she emailed a letter to some of the Commissioners. Ms. Brown stated she just wanted the Commissioners to know she was here and she opposes it for all the same reasons.

Ms. Brown stated she has invested in a house in Rocheport that they are refurbishing and intend to build their dream home on their land and don’t want it in the shadow of a cellular tower.

Joe Wolfe, 205 Columbia Street, Rocheport.

Mr. Wolfe stated for the record, his home is located in town, thus he is not here to argue property values and placement of the tower within the view of his house, that is not the case. There are couple things that are new in result of the testimony; one is the document that was distributed to the Commission by the Historical Society saying that the tower would have no impact on the historical district of Rocheport. Mr. Wolfe stated that is a curious document and he has neither seen nor read it. Mr. Wolfe stated it wouldn’t have any impact because the historic district in Rocheport is confined to about three city blocks and doesn’t encompass the area where the proposed tower would be. So it would not have any impact on the historical district of Rocheport as defined by the Federal Government.

Mr. Wolfe stated that service to Rocheport has been mentioned. Mr. Wolfe stated that in one of the letters he wrote to one of the members of the Commission, it was noted that the population of Rocheport is 208 people, that is what the city limit sign says. Mr. Wolfe stated we would all be foolish to think that the success of the cellular company is going to rise or fall on the number of cell phones in Rocheport Missouri. There are 208 souls there, many of them are older and Mr. Wolfe stated he doubted that they would be customers even if they were the finest service on the face of the earth. The company is not going to rise and fall on sales in Rocheport. The heavy emphasis on the service to Rocheport is a little heavy and transparent. Mr. Wolfe stated he had the opportunity to serve as a Board Member of the Friends of Rocheport. Mr. Wolfe stated that he has only lived in the community for four years. That community has worked long and hard to establish itself as a quiet, quaint river community. The people who have put long hours in to establishing it as such are trying to enhance and preserve the historical legacy of not just Rocheport, but all river towns in Boone County. Another bit of visual pollution just outside of Rocheport is going to help in that pursuit. Those people who come to ride the trails, walk their dogs, or come to the bed and breakfast need a little better greeting than another tower.

Closed to public hearing.

Mr. McNally stated that Carol Samuels, the property owner and co-applicant wished to speak.

Carol Samuels, 8303 S. Trails Drive, Columbia.

Ms. Samuels stated that she and her husband bought the property eight years ago with the intent of building a house an agreement was signed with the Blackburns before it was purchased. The agreement was that there was to be water provided so a home could be built, there is still no water there and therefore, that is why a house was not built on it. The intention of that contract was strictly because Mr. Blackburn did not want to sell the property and have a mobile home put on it. That is why the contract was written that a home would be put on the land. This raises the issue of residential versus commercial. There is already and AT & T building on the land. Ms. Samuels stated she and her husband are both customers of US Cellular and have been very happy with the service. Applicants feel this would be a real service to the community. Applicants know from self-experience that you can't get a tower when you are down in Rocheport, you can’t use the phone, it is not available. Ms. Samuels stated she carries her phone with her all the time for safety reasons and for convenience. Ms. Samuels stated she walks and rides the trail and would like to use her phone in case of an emergency. Ms. Samuels stated her husband was born and raised in Rocheport, so he is very familiar with the community and has an interest in the community. That is one of the reasons the Samuels’ purchased the land with the intent to move there. Ms. Samuels stated that Mr. Samuels’ grandmother's home is one of the historic homes. Mr. Samuels has been a part of that community for many years. Applicants feel this would be a good service to the community and it is going to improve public safety.

Mr. McNally stated that as far as the supposed contract, it is not a zoning issue, but does know that there is an issue there, it is a private issue between the two property owners. It is not zoning related so the Commission has the benefit of not having to worry about that and just focus on the code. Applicants will address it they will not invest in the site if there is something there that would preclude it.

Mr. McNally stated that the waivers that were mentioned, yes those exist and those are the things that applicants have been talking to Mid-Missouri cellular about and they will grant for the proposed site because the levels are low, but they won't grant it for the SBA site. Mr. McNally stated that applicants have been pursuing that diligently and have been able to get the best case scenario out of that. As far as access goes, it is in the application. Applicants will use the existing access point that is already serving the property; it is a collector road that goes through there. They will continue to use that access point from the collector road and put a gravel drive down to the site. The site is 30-feet below the grade of the road so the 10-feet building wouldn’t be in the line of site; you would have to look down to see it.

Mr. McNally stated that the applicants have met all the requirements of the code and hope that the Commission sees it likewise and votes to approve the conditional use permit.

Commissioner Smith asked about the AT & T building.

Mr. McNally stated that the AT & T building is on a parcel that was carved out of this property several years ago, it is on a 40 by 40-foot piece of property. Fiber optics equipment is run in there.

Commissioner Smith asked if it was put on the property after the Samuels owned it.

Ms. Samuels stated it was put on when the Blackburns owned it. It has been there 20-years or longer.

Ms. Samuels stated that Mr. Blackburn stated that there was one tree there along Route BB, that is not true, there is a big woods area and it will provide coverage so you will not be able to see the tower from a lot of areas because of the woods. There is one big area that goes down the hill and around the bottom and up another area, so there are a lot of trees there that help block the view of the area.

Commissioner Neese stated that the issue he is struggling with is the eleven towers in the area. Some of them are across in Cooper County and Howard County and asked applicant what the problem was with the other 5 or 6 towers in the area. There are other towers there available. Commissioner Neese stated that is what he is struggling to understand is why there needs to be another tower.

Mr. McNally stated that these sites as far as in building coverage only cover for a radius of 3 miles. There may be eleven sites that you can see. Ms. McClintic’s home has got wonderful views from it. You can see about 360 degrees or about 20 more miles. You can probably see the towers from there, but if they are 20 miles away, they don’t do any good. If they are a mile away, they don’t do any good. These are very small cells that applicants are covering so they need to be in a very specific geographic area.

Commissioner Neese stated that the gold mine that the applicants are after is the little square that is Interstate 70, that is the gold mine, the people going up and down the interstate, that is what is advertised is that service is continual along the interstate.

Mr. McNally stated that because of the licensing issue, applicants need to back up to the river so they need to be on the ridge in order to accommodate. There isn’t an existing tower that is in that area to accommodate applicants; none of the existing towers shown will work.

Commissioner Neese stated that if it is I-70, that is where the majority of customers that are linking to the cell site. It looks like that would be the case that applicants would be locating it along I-70 much closer than Rocheport Missouri. Commissioner Neese stated he is trying to logically think through this as to why applicants are trying to put it away from the interstate.

Mr. McNally stated applicants are not trying to put it away from the interstate, they are trying to cover the interstate and the surrounding areas, both north of the interstate and south of the interstate.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the applicants had a letter in support from Mark Stevenson, and asked the applicants why they don’t place the tower on the Stevenson property that is right on the interstate.

Mr. McNally stated applicants have looked at that, there is an existing tower right at that entrance, but it isn’t permissible under the current code criteria to be able to do that.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated because it isn’t A-1 or A-2, it is commercially zoned. Applicants would need a conditional use permit in commercial zoning, but that would be impossible. Commissioner Heitkamp asked staff if it could be allowed under commercial at Mark Stevenson’s property on the corner of I-70 and Roby Farm Road.

Mr. Florea stated he didn’t believe the applicants could meet the setbacks on that site.

Mr. McNally stated that applicants did explore that opportunity but for zoning reasons as well as interest of the landowner, it wasn’t possible.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that Mr. Stevenson is in support of putting the tower on the edge of a National Historical District.

Mr. McNally stated he could not speak for Mr. Stevenson, but imagines that Mr. Stevenson’s letter speaks for itself.

Commissioner Freiling commented that the presentation of towers as a public service doesn’t wash much with him. It is a business. The applicants are asking the Commission for a conditional use permit to place a commercial enterprise in an area zoned residential. Commissioner Freiling stated that he understands that in different areas with different zoning and perhaps with different cultural community histories, that may not be such a big issue. But in Boone County, wherever applicants go in the future; towers are most certainly going to be considered as a commercial intrusion in a residential area. Without question the placement of these towers in residential areas, particularly in dense areas like a small city is an intrusion. Faced with the opposition of the citizens, to whom the Commission is responsible in answering to, of the placement of a commercial enterprise in their neighborhood. And given the language of the conditional use permit which requires the Commission to consider that in a denial. Selecting tower sites that are in areas where common sense will tell you and meet a strong opposition, is not going to be fruitful. For the Commission to approve a tower site in a circumstance where the people in a unique neighborhood consider a diminution of their pleasure of their homes.

Commissioner Freiling advised the applicants that in looking for sites in Boone County under the zoning ordinances and given the Commissions responsibilities; applicants have to consider that sites like this one next to a historical site and a previous request for a site near Rock Bridge State Park, these sites are almost non-starters. Commissioner Freiling stated he knew the applicants invested a lot of time and money to raise these towers. Commissioner Freiling urged the applicants to consider the strong local opposition, particularly under a circumstance such as this. Commissioner Freiling stated he hated to see there be a misunderstanding about where the applicants are trying to get to, because the goal is understandable, but the Commission has to consider the impacts.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that for the record she received a letter from Mr. Wolfe in opposition to the tower. Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she also had conversations with six landowners, Rocheport is in Missouri Township in which Commissioner Heitkamp represents. The proposed tower would be on a scenic view which spans about 15 miles and as you drive in to the city of Rocheport you see the long view then drop in to the city. In 1976, the city was placed on the National Historic Register; this city is the only city in Boone County to be on the National Historic Register. It is marketed nationally on the internet as a National Historic treasure. The economy of Rocheport depends on the city being pristine. The economy gross sales taxes are between one and two million per annum. Much of that comes from bed and breakfasts, which advertise that it’s a Currier and Ives type of place. The economic impact of the town having a cell phone tower would be detrimental. As far as aesthetics, The First Circuit Court denied a cell tower in the case of Amherst versus Omnipoint Communications in 1999. It was rejected for aesthetic reasons. The reasons here are evident that aesthetics here plays an important part.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to deny the request by Richard and Carol Samuels on behalf of U. S. Cellular for a transmission facility including a 190’ tower on 16.64 acres, located at 15365 W. Hwy BB, Rocheport.

Kristen Heitkamp – Yes Mike Caruthers – Yes

Pat Smith – Yes Keith Neese – Yes

Mary Sloan – Yes Carl Freiling – Yes

Mike Morgan – Yes David Mink - Yes

Motion to deny request carries. 8 Yes

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants if they wished to go before the County Commission an appeal form would need to be filed within three working days.

 

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

REZONING REQUESTS

 

  1. Request by Steven and Christina Nelson to rezone from C-G (General Commercial) to M-L (Light Industrial) of 1.29 acres, more or less, located at 8601 E. Trade Center Dr., Columbia.
  2. Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this tract of land is located 2 ˝ miles east of Columbia at the I-70 / Route Z interchange. Access to the site is from Trade Center Drive. The applicant’s own lot 3 of I-70 Trade Center subdivision. The south .71 acres of this lot is zoned M-L (Light Industrial). The north 1.29 acres is zoned C-G (General Commercial). Land to the east of the area included in this request is zoned C-G, as is land to the north and west. Land to the south is zoned M-L. The property is located within Public Water District No. 9. Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. All required infrastructure for the requested use is in place. The site is within the Columbia Public School District. Staff notified 11 property owners about this request.

    I-70 Trade Center subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission in February 1999. The County Commission accepted the plat in September 2000. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for industrial land uses. The requested zoning classification conforms to the master plan. This tract has 71 points on the Point Rating Scale. Staff recommends approval of this request.

    Present: Jay Gebhardt, Engineer, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, Columbia.

    Steve Nelson, 1704 Brookfield Manor, Columbia.

    Christina Nelson, 1704 Brookfield Manor, Columbia.

    Mr. Gebhardt stated he believes this is a straightforward request and will answer any questions the Commission has.

    Chairperson Smith asked the applicants the reason for the rezoning.

    Mr. Nelson stated he owned a landscaping business and are getting ready to build a 4500 square foot building on the site with the .73 acres, applicants feel that is too small to run the business operation. Since the applicants run a landscaping business, staff felt that due to the fact that applicants might store mulch and rock in conjunction with the business it would be more appropriate to be in the M-L district as opposed to being in the C-G district.

    Open to public hearing.

    No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request.

    Closed to public hearing.

     

    Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve the request by Steven and Christina Nelson to rezone from C-G (General Commercial) to M-L (Light Industrial) of 1.29 acres, more or less, located at 8601 E. Trade Center Dr., Columbia.

    Mike Caruthers - Yes Keith Neese - Yes

    David Mink - Yes Mike Morgan – Yes

    Kristen Heitkamp – Yes Carl Freiling - Yes

    Mary Sloan – Yes Pat Smith - Yes

    Motion to approve request carries. 8 Yes

    Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that this matter would go before the County Commission at 7:00 p.m., April 2, 2002 at the Boone County Court House.

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

     

  3. Request by John and Pamela Massey to rezone from REC (Recreation) to M-L (Light Industrial) of 6.81 acres, more or less, located at 8451 E Trade Center Dr., Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this tract of land is located 2 ˝ miles east of Columbia at the I-70 / Route Z interchange. Access to the site is from Trade Center Drive. This tract is zoned REC (Recreation). All of the surrounding land is zoned M-L (Light Industrial). The property is located within Public Water District No. 9. Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. All required infrastructure for the requested use is in place. The original zoning for this tract was M-L. In 1981, it was included in a request to rezone 30 acres to REC which was used for a softball complex. A conditional use permit was also issued for incidental sales (concession stand). In 1986 a conditional use permit was issued for a trap and skeet range. In 1991 a permit was issued for a go-cart track. This tract was included in I-70 Trade center Plat 2, which was approved in November 2001. The site is within the Columbia Public School District. Staff notified 19 property owners about this request. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for industrial land uses. The requested zoning classification conforms to the master plan. This tract has 71 points on the Point Rating Scale. Staff recommends approval of this request.

Present: Jay Gebhardt, Engineer, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, Columbia.

John Massey, 4829 N. Cedar Lake Court, Columbia.

Mr. Massey stated he is trying to clean up the property.

Commissioner Neese asked if there were any buildings on the site.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke if favor of or in opposition to the request.

Closed to public hearing.

 

Commissioner Neese made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve the request by John and Pamela Massey to rezone from REC (Recreation) to M-L (Light Industrial) of 6.81 acres, more or less, located at 8451 E Trade Center Dr., Columbia.

Keith Neese – Yes David Mink – Yes

Mike Morgan – Yes Kristen Heitkamp – Yes

Carl Freiling – Yes Mary Sloan – Yes

Mike Caruthers – Yes Pat Smith – Yes

Motion to approve request carries. Yes

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that this matter would go before the County Commission at 7:00 p.m., April 2, 2002 at the Boone County Court House.

 

PLAT REVIEWS

 

  1. Kaiser. S28-T50N-R13W. A-2. John and Mary Ann Kaiser, owners. Steven Proctor, surveyor.
  2. Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this property is located on the west side of Silver Fork Hill Road just north of the intersection with Stone Drive.

    The lot has frontage on and direct access to Silver Fork Hill Road. Right of way, sufficient to provide a 33-foot half-width 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.

    A suitable location for a lagoon is shown on the plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

    The property scored 41 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

    No one present to represent the plat.

     

    Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion Kaiser. A-2. John and Mary Ann Kaiser, owners. Steven Proctor, surveyor.

     

    Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y

    Mike Caruthers Y Keith Neese Y Mary Sloan Y Carl Freiling Y

    David Mink Y Kristen Heitkamp Y

    Motion to approve plat carries. 8 Yes

     

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

     

  3. The Hamlet Park. S17-T48N-R13W. Opal E. Smith Trust, owner. Jay Gebhardt, surveyor.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this property is located at the end of Manhasset Drive, which is in the Hamlet Subdivision and within the Columbia City Limits. After platting, the Columbia Parks and Recreation Department intends to purchase the property for use as a neighborhood park.

Access to the property is via Manhasset Drive, which was initially designed as a through street to connect to the future section of Louisville Drive. Manhasset is paved to the property line, but since it was designed as a through street does not have a cul-de-sac at its terminus. The Parks Department does not intend to connect Manhasset through to future Louisville Drive since a through street is not a desirable feature for a neighborhood park. Therefore, a permanent cul-de-sac will be required at the end of Manhasset. The cul-de-sac must be built or its construction guaranteed by suitable surety prior to recording the plat. Right of way for the Manhasset cul-de-sac and for the section of Louisville Drive abutting this property is dedicated by this plat. The applicant will not be required to build any portion of Louisville Drive. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is within the City of Columbia water service area. The property will be eligible for City sewer service upon annexation.

The property scored 76 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request.

Present: Jay Gebhardt, Engineer, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, Columbia.

Steve Saitta, Parks and Recreation, City of Columbia, 4450 N. Cindy Lane, Columbia.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the City of Columbia has identified this site and made arrangements to purchase the site for a neighborhood park for not only for the Hamlet, but also for Stone Ridge Estates, Quails Creek and the general area. It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Department to annex this property after they take ownership of it. Applicants are here before the County instead of the City of Columbia because the owners desire to have this transaction occur as quickly as possible. This was the shortest and quickest route to get there.

Commissioner Neese asked if the lots in the subdivision in the City notified of this request.

Mr. Gebhardt stated the applicants did not notify them.

Commissioner Neese asked staff if they notified those residents.

Mr. Shawver stated that staff is not required to notify on subdivision plats.

Commissioner Neese asked if there were any signs put out.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that applicants are not aware of any notification.

Mr. Yonke stated that some of the residents of the Hamlet are aware.

Commissioner Neese asked if the Home Association had been notified.

Mr. Saitta stated that the Association itself has not been notified. This particular portion of town has been identified since the 1994 master plan with funding for this acquisition is through the extension of the quarter cent 1999 sales tax. By that it has been made aware that the Parks and Recreation Department is looking for property in this area of town. There has been a fair amount of talk but nothing formally of notifying the Homeowners Association.

Commissioner Neese stated that there was one lot dedicated in the subdivision for the park and asked if that was to be for a neighborhood park. It was in plat 1.

Mr. Saitta stated that applicants didn’t feel that was appropriate for the size they were after and the general population they are trying to satisfy. Applicants feel this is a very ideal site and believe that it will handle the needs of the Hamlet quite well as well as Stone Crest and the future development, which will occur all around this area.

Commissioner Morgan asked if this land was put up for sale or was it something that just worked out where there was a piece of land and the City decided they would like to have it.

Mr. Saitta stated that the entire farm has been for sale. Applicants waited, they had a contract on that real estate agent with a contract to sell. About the time it expired applicants began to approach the owners with regard to identifying a piece of land that would be suited for a neighborhood park and the owners began to work with applicants at that time.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she had a problem with not informing anyone of this development.

 

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve The Hamlet Park Opal E. Smith Trust, owner. Jay Gebhardt, surveyor.

 

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y

Mike Caruthers Y Keith Neese Y Mary Sloan Y Carl Freiling Y

David Mink Y Kristen Heitkamp N

Motion to approve plat carries. 7 Yes 1 No

 

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

OLD BUSINESS

Director, Stan Shawver updated the Planning and Zoning Commission of the decisions rendered by the County Commission on March 6, 2002.

The decisions were as follows.

Judith and William Heffernan for a permit for an Outdoor Recreational. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. The request continued to the County Commission, but was postponed by the applicant, as they were unable to attend the County Commission meeting.

Mary Douglass for a permit for a Bed and Breakfast located at 4299 Gibbs Rd., Columbia. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. The County Commission upheld the decision to approve. Commission Order Number 105-2002.

Charles and Melinda Lockwood to rezone from R-M to R-M/PRD and to approve a Review Plan of 4.64 acres, more or less, located at 7700 N Hwy VV, Columbia. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. The County Commission upheld the decision to approve. Commission Order Number 106-2002.

Linda Lenau and Robert Brown to rezone from A-1 to REC at 8825 W. Sarr Street. The applicants appealed the Planning and Zoning Commissions decision then they withdrew their appeal.

Delores Sanders Mead and Lewis V. Mead, Wanda and Sidney Powell, on behalf of Jira Heating and Cooling Service, Inc. to rezone from R-S to ML-P and to approve a Review located at 7171 W. Henderson Rd., Columbia. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. The County Commission upheld the decision to approve. Commission Order Number 108-2002.

Richard T. Reams to rezone from A-1 to A-2 of 15.02 acres located at 13030 N Robinson Rd., Hallsville. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. The County Commission upheld the decision to approve. Commission Order Number 110-2002.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

Commissioner Caruthers stated that he, Commissioner Freiling, and Commissioner Sloan have put together with the Columbia Planning and Zoning Commission have put together a proposal for a shared web site.

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Sloan seconded a motion to approve the recommendation and forward it to the County Commission for approval.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the County Commissioners were most gracious in their approval of the request for a joint effort.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission could study the character preservation overlay district as a Commission.

Mr. Shawver stated that could be pursued at the next scheduled work session.

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 18th day of April, 2002.