BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, April 18, 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

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

Absent: Michael Caruthers, Vice-Chairman Centralia Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Bill Florea, Staff

Paula Evans, Staff

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 21, 2002 meeting with no corrections.

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. Tonightís agenda includes two conditional use permits, one rezoning request, a review plan for a planned development, and three 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 applicantís 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 30, 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 30, 2002 will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will convene in this room.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

 

  1. Request by Janice Schuerman for an animal boarding and training facility and for a privately operated outdoor recreational facility on 43.22 acres, located at 4701 W Chapel Dr., Columbia.

Director, Stan Shawver gave the staff report stating that this property is located 2 miles northwest of Columbia. Access to the site is from Chapel Drive. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture), as is all of the surrounding land. There is a house, barn, carriage shelter, outdoor deck, shop, hay barn and mobile home on the property. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for an animal boarding and training facility, and a permit for an outdoor recreational facility. The applicants board horses, give riding lessons, provide instruction on driving horse drawn carriages. In addition, the property is used for birthday parties, hay rides, social functions, weddings and receptions. This site is within the Columbia Public School District. Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. This property lies within the boundaries of Consolidated Public Water District No. 1. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. Staff notified 32 property owners about this request. The use of this property will require that the driveway and required parking area have a dust free surface, which has a minimum standard of chip and seal. Generally, the required parking area for animal training and boarding facilities is determined by the size of the stables or the number of stalls. This is a dual request, which includes the outdoor recreation facility. Past requests have set a required parking area based upon the number of people the applicant projects will typically attend events. The application as submitted does not include a number of participants, so staff has not made a recommendation as to the number of parking spaces that must be provided. The commission should consider the applicantís testimony and base the required parking area on that information.

Staff recommends approval of the horse boarding/training facility with the following conditions:

The staff recommends approval of the outdoor recreational facility with the following conditions:

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: Janice Schuerman, 4701 W. Chapel Dr., Columbia

Ms. Schuerman stated she has operated a horse operation on her property for more than 19 years. For the past 8 years, she has also held outdoor recreational activities. The name of the business is Chapel View Stables. It recently came to the applicantís attention that she needed a conditional use permit to be in compliance with County regulations.

The stable is located on slightly more than 43 acres; 4.5 miles north of I-70 just off Route E on acreage adjacent to Billyís General Store.

The stable has grown from a breeding operation 19 years ago to include boarding, training, buying, retooling and selling all breeds of horses. Applicants give recreational horseback riding lessons and horse driving instructions. Horses are the applicantís primary business. The number and mix of horses varies by the season. Normally there are 15-20 horses on site. Applicants currently have ponies, Quarter Horses, Paints, Saddlebreds, Belgians & Pecherons. Three horses are boarders and several are training horses. The others are used for lessons, birthday party pony rides, horse-driving instruction and for horse drawn wagon and carriage rides.

Ms. Schuerman stated that Chapel View Stables consist of a 14-stall barn with an indoor arena, an outdoor riding arena, an outdoor driving arena, a shelter for the carriage, job cart, and wagons, a 1250 sq. foot open air deck, hay bale storage and combination tractor/farm equipment/hay/miscellaneous storage/shop. There are 4 individual paddocks and 4 fenced pastures surrounded by carriage lanes for recreational horseback riding and wagon rides. There is also a large field for open riding. That is where manure is spread with a manure spreader.

Ms. Schuerman stated that for the past 19 years, the barn is where she has spent most of her available waking hours. That is where applicantís family and friends would come to see her. They would horseback ride. The kids would ride ponies, have bonfires, have wiener roasts, and go on horse-drawn wagon rides. Out of those activities, evolved the outdoor recreational functions that applicants have hosted for others these past 8 years. Over the course of those 8 years, applicants have hosted a variety of functions. It has been an evolution.

Ms. Schuerman stated to give the Commission an idea of the types of functions that applicants consider to be their niche, Ms. Schuerman went back through the stables calendar for the past year. Eighty percent of the outdoor functions were 2-hour childrenís pony-ride birthday parties. Those functions are held on scattered weekends between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to noon, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00p.m.; or 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. They typically consist of 8 to 10 children and half a dozen parents. Those functions, and the others, are held either on the open-air deck or at the cart shelter next to it. During the past 12 months, the remaining outdoor activities predominately consisted of small customized functions. Early last spring a local Girl Scout troop of 7 girls and their leader had a wiener roast and hayride after school. Shortly after that, applicants donated use of the deck to the Study Exchange Committee of Ms. Schuermanís Rotary Club. The Committee wanted to treat visiting South African Rotarians in the Study Exchange Group to a catered barbecue dinner and hayride. The Rotarians and their 6 South African guests were gone before 8:00 p.m.

Ms. Schuerman stated that another event consisted of 12 middle-aged couples who had a Saturday night carry-in chili dinner at 5:30 p.m. Dinner was followed by roasting marshmallows and a hayride. They left before 9:00 p.m. On another Saturday evening, there was a 3-hour surprise 40th birthday party. Nine couples arrived with obnoxious age-related gifts. They ate a catered barbecue dinner, had a hayride and left before 10:00 p.m.

Ms. Schuerman stated that in August applicants donated the use of the deck to the City of Columbiaís Salt Drive Committee. That marked the end of the "Columbia Loves Kautarsi" campaign. The 90-minute Thursday evening event began at 7:00 p.m. and included recognition of various volunteers by Mayor Hindman. A barbershop quartet entertained as the 30 guests had cake and punch. That same month, a wife arranged a Thursday evening 50th birthday family event for her husband. He had undergone open-heart surgery earlier in the year and the family wanted him to know they were glad he was still around. Their 3 adult sons and their families barbecued hamburgers. The kids rode ponies and the family ended the evening at 8:30 p.m. after a group wagon ride.

Ms. Schuerman stated that in early September there was a small wedding and reception. The 7:00 p.m. ceremony began as the bride and her two daughters arriving by horse-drawn carriage. Their arrival was announced by the only music of the evening, a cello and 2 violins. Following the ceremony, the 40 guests had a catered dinner on the deck. Afterwards, the children all had a pony ride before the group departed.

Two weeks later, the applicants hosted a 5:30 p.m. wedding reception where the couple provided a catered taco buffet. There were 50 guests, many of them children. Entertainment consisted of a piñata for the children followed by wedding cake. All guests were gone and the tables were put away before 10:00 p.m. In early December one of the departments at the University had a Saturday afternoon Open House between 2-5 p.m. They brought hot chocolate and cookies. They roasted marshmallows and went on horse-drawn wagon rides while they waited for Santa to arrive. Each of the children shared their wish list with Santa before leaving with a special gift. A week later the applicants invited a dozen of their friends to the stable to do the same thing.

Ms. Schuerman stated that in addition to those customized events, last summer she and Mr. Thurston got married after an 18-year courtship. It was the biggest event the applicants ever held. It was on the Saturday night of the 4th of July week. The ceremony was at 6:00 p.m., dinner was at 7:00 p.m., and cake at 8:00 p.m. A disc jockey then played music until 9:30 p.m. until the fireworks display. The DJ played again until 11:30 p.m. It goes without saying, the applicants wedding was not a commercial event. And it is not an event the applicants plan to do again; it did make noise.

Ms. Schuerman stated that another event that created noise was in October. That event was for a college student who had been a long-term employee who graduated in December. His house and their dates were bused out for a bonfire and hayride with at DJ the music stopped at 11:30 p.m. The students were all gone by 12:00 a.m.

Ms. Schuerman stated that over the course of the 8 years of outdoor functions, there have only been 6 with a DJ; two of them were just mentioned. Applicants determined sometime ago that they are not interested in large noisy events. The DJ events are not functions that they plan on holding in the future. In fact last year, applicants turned down 17 of them. Applicants focus is on the horse activities and small customized outdoor functions; the pony ride birthday parties with 8 to 10 kids and their parents, and functions of 9 to 10 couples or families.

Ms. Schuerman stated that prior to applying for this permit, she visited with every neighbor she could reach and wrote to the rest. During those visits, a couple of the neighbors mentioned the music from applicants 4th of July wedding and the October hayride. Another neighbor told applicant that he was opposed to any commercial activity and would mobilize the neighborhood to fight this application. Ms. Schuerman stated she expects that neighbor is here this evening.

Ms. Schuerman stated she recently had a conversation with Mr. Shawver about paving issues associated with this application. He indicated that function size would impact the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Shawver mentioned the weddings. Ms. Schuerman stated she told Mr. Shawver that weddings are an insignificant part of what applicants do. Therefore, if those functions would result in major excavation and paving costs, applicants wonít do future weddings, nor will applicants donate the deck to civic groups. Applicants outdoor recreational target markets are pony ride birthday parties and intimate functions for couples and families.

Ms. Schuerman stated would conclude by saying that if you drive down Route E you probably wouldnít notice that Chapel View Stables is there. There is no sign along the roadway. They donít have a sign because they are not open to the general public traffic. Traffic consists of those who board horses, potential horse buyers, riding students and the attendees of private customized outdoor activities. Even though applicants donít have a sign, Chapel View Stables is a well-known member of the business community. Applicants are not operating in the shadows; they have been very public about who they are and what they do. Applicants run TV ads and have been featured in the Columbia HOME magazine. Applicants advertise with display ads in the Columbia Daily Tribune and have hosted a live broadcast of the Paul Pepper TV show. They are prominently identified in the yellow pages. The stable was featured as the cover story in the Business News section of the Tribune and they have been featured on KFRU radio as part of a month-long promotion. They have been the cover story in the Columbia Business Times. And the stable was named the 2000 Small Business of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce. Applicants have been in business for years and didnít realize that they needed a conditional use permit to be in compliance.

Ms. Schuerman presented a video to the Commission, which was a commercial for the Chapel View Stables.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request.

Luke Ulery, 5050 W. Route E., Columbia.

Mr. Ulery stated that he has lived on his property for four and a half years and didnít have children when he moved there. He now has children and is not concerned with the noise. Mr. Ulery stated that as everyone knows, when you have babies, you only want quiet so the baby doesnít wake up from the noise. Mr. Ulery stated that he has never had a problem with noise from the Schuerman property. Positive things are done with the property and the owners take care of it.

George Gasper, 5555 N. Murray Lane, Columbia.

Mr. Gasper stated that he doesnít have any problem with the noise. Mr. Gasper stated he has children and is planning riding lessons and a birthday party for his children this summer.

In opposition to the request.

Greg Heifner, 4322 East Ridge Road, Columbia.

Mr. Heifner presented a letter to the Commission.

Mr. Heifner stated that he shares a property line with Chapel View Stables. He does not currently reside on the property but hoped to retire there. Now he may have to reconsider. Mr. Heifner breeds cutting horses and the rest of the property is a wildlife preserve. Mr. Heifner stated that the applicants have done a fantastic job of improving the property.

Mr. Heifner stated that Mr. Thurston informed him that his biggest money making event is the parties. The applicants will have busloads of college students come to the property for parties. Mr. Heifner stated that he is concerned about access to the property.

Mr. Heifner stated that one of his concerns is the drainage of the property. All of the drainage of applicants property goes through Mr. Heifnerís and would like to know where 200 college students full of beer use the restroom. There are not sufficient restroom facilities on the property. Mr. Heifner stated the last time he was on the property, there was still an outhouse being utilized. There is only one small open lagoon which is conveniently located right at the front gate of Mr. Heifnerís property that is sufficient for a smaller trailer home with a couple of bedrooms. It is certainly no where close to meeting the code the County would want to enforce for having that many people on the property for a big party. Mr. Heifner stated he would like to know more about the sanitary facilities and whether they are going to have port-a-pots running up and down the road and how it will be accommodated.

Mr. Heifner stated he uses his farm for a vacation area and a place to get away so he has no comment as far as the noise pollution in the area, especially late at night. Mr. Heifner stated he does know that topographically that Chapel View Stables is located at the top of a ridge system that drains in to the Perche Creek area that Mr. Heifner owns. Sound does propagate through those ridges. One property may be 1000-feet away from the barn when the applicants are having a party, you might not be able to hear it, but somebody at the end of one of those ridge systems might have it blaring right in their back window. There should be some provisions to the noise pollution aspects of this.

Mr. Heifner stated he is not aware with the fact that a conditional use permit for an open recreational area wouldnít allow for a shooting range or a go cart track at a certain point in time. Mr. Heifner stated he would like to know what restrictions are allowable on the property. If the applicantís intent is truly to provide a place for children to experience the life of horses, it seems that a permanent curfew would make sense if applicants are not in the business of hosting late night parties.

Mr. Heifner stated that another question is are applicants allowed to provide liquor on the property. Mr. Heifner stated he has heard numerous complaints from property owners that when some of these late night parties let out; they find beer cans in the ditches down Chapel Road. The property owners are concerned as to what is going on; how much liquor is being consumed and why the neighbors have to be the ones to pick the beer cans up out of their ditches after a big party.

Mr. Heifner stated that these are all of his concerns at this point. A number of the neighbors would like to know what recourse the neighborhood has if Mr. Thurston abuses these rights and regulations, as well as what recourse the neighbors have for remedy if the Commission decides to grant this proposal.

Commissioner Morgan asked Mr. Heifner if the applicants are good about maintaining their property line fences.

Mr. Heifner stated he has no issue with that.

John Pekkala, 4350 N. Route E, Columbia.

Mr. Pekkala stated he is not really in opposition and does not have any problem with what applicants are doing, but there is tremendous pressure for college parties. Mr. Pekkala stated he doesnít want any part of that. Applicants may never do that, but the conditional use permit might allow a future property owner to turn it in to a Cornís Lake. Mr. Pekkala stated that horse rides and weddings have no effect on him at all and it is nice. We should be careful. Applicants wrote a letter saying that they just wanted to continue; that is fine. But it probably should be defined how many of these events are going on and then set some type of contingency there and the alcohol limitation would be good. There is big money in these fraternity parties and they get out of hand; however, not at the applicantís property.

James McMenamy, 5100 N. Route E, Columbia.

Mr. McMenamy stated that from his property he can see the barn where the activities take place across the field. Applicants do run a nice operation and a neat place. One concern is that applicants may consider putting a sign out at the road because quite a few times he has had to direct people to the applicantís property. People come in to his driveway and turn around looking for the applicantís property. It might be helpful to have a sign so it is easier to find. Mr. McMenamy stated he has lived there since 1994 and would estimate somewhere between 6 and 10 times he has been concerned about trying to fall asleep because of the music, the bass drum booms and at 10:30 p.m. you have to deal with that. Mr. McMenamy stated he didnít keep track of the exact number of times or the exact time the music stopped but does know it was prior to his going to bed. Sometimes, if you are not involved in the party it is disturbing when it is coming across the field and you might be trying to sit out on your deck or watch TV. Mr. McMenamy stated he would be concerned about how often and how big a party and the time they would close down. Otherwise, he has had very little contact with the neighbors, that may be a good thing because it means you donít have any problems. On applicantsí behalf, they do run a nice clean operation and is glad to see the nice things applicants do for the community.

Jerry Jesky, 4900 W. Chapel Drive, Columbia.

Mr. Jesky stated he lives at the intersection of Route E and Chapel Drive. Mr. Jesky stated he doesnít have any problem with pony rides or children. At the corner of Route E and Chapel Drive, Mr. Jesky often finds balloons and signs and so fourth on the sign at the corner of the street directing traffic towards the property. Mr. Jesky stated he doesnít mind balloons and signs. Mr. McMenamy suggested a large sign that would be on public right-of-way to direct traffic toward the property. Mr. Jesky stated he did not want to look at a sign and doesnít know if the property owner is planning to put one there. But it is something to think about; it is a tough place to find. Mr. Jesky stated he does now and then find debris in his yard; he mowed his lawn a couple days ago and ran over a can. Mr. Jesky stated he is not sure if it is from one of the parties or not and won't make accusations. The neighbors do get debris in their yards. Mr. Jesky stated that he is concerned about the proposed improvements. It sounds like the street would be paved or sealed. Mr. Jesky is curious as to whether that is going to happen. Mr. Jesky suggested an engineer look at the drainage effects of a paved road, as the ditches arenít very deep.

Mr. Jesky stated he is an engineer for Bartlett and West Engineers and they are the engineers for Boone County Water District Number 1. He is very familiar with the northwest area of Boone County. From doing hydraulic studies of the area that there is no way the property could sustain fire flow, there is only a 4-inch line running down Chapel Drive. Boone County Water District is proposing improvements that would help that. Someone needs to check in to the fire flow capabilities should a fire breakout on that large piece of property which is very valuable. More of a description needs to be done as to what improvements are going to be made. Mr. Jesky stated he is not in favor of having his yard ripped up so they can put an 8-inch water line down the street. Mr. Jesky stated he wouldnít mind the street being paved because it kicks up a lot of dust, but would like to know these things. Being on the corner, Mr. Jesky stated he hasnít had anyone ask for directions, maybe once or twice, but is not in favor of looking out and seeing a sign on the side of the road next to his property. The plan is that things will continue as they are. If things will continue as they are, then Mr. Jesky stated he has no problem with it. But if things are going to escalate and applicants want to start making more money and they have to start investing more in the signs and so on, then he wouldnít be in favor of that.

Dean Lakin, 5220 Hatton Chapel Rd., Columbia

Mr. Lakin stated he is the furthest west property from the applicants. Mr. Lakin stated he has listened to the remarks that have been made by other property owners around the facility and he agrees with them from the standpoint of having horse stables, training, breeding and so fourth. There are several out there. Boone County has a lot of them; that is not a problem. The birthday parties for little children is not a problem. The University is now a dry facility and they are looking for other places to go. Frankly, that is where the money is. As the Commission knows the students have went down to Hartsburg and tried to tear the town apart. Mr. Lakin stated he does not want that out there. Applicants are on a ridge, Mr. Lakin stated he is on the other ridge. The sound echoes and vibrates around dusk and dark and it does not shut off at 9:00 p.m. It is not that bad, but it can get a lot worse, Mr. Lakin stated he is concerned about that. From the standpoint of facilities, Mr. Lakin stated he does not know what is up there. He walked that property many years ago and has lived in Boone County since 1960. One thing we need to keep in mind is that whole area is designated as a sinkhole area. Mr. Lakin stated he built a new house there and went through all the hoops and all of the jumps to get legal and proper sewage facilities. It would be difficult if you start to talk about large numbers out there. Liquor is a real concern. If fraternity and sorority parties happen, the liquor comes with it. That is a rural area, you are looking at security. The liquor issue, on Route E, we all know the problems out there when everyone is sober and running up and down the road. Route E has its share of accidents and some deaths. It is also a major bike rider route. This is something that needs to be considered when we look at a conditional use permit.

Mr. Lakin stated that another concern is an article Mr. Lakin read in the Columbia Business Times in April 2001.

Mr. Lakin read the article. "Today Chapel View Stable is home to nearly 20 horses and offers Columbianís a variety of unique services. In addition to the limited boarding, the duo has also hosted all kinds of events from black-tie affairs to casual birthday parties. They specialize in weddings and wedding receptions, company picnics, birthday parties, Christmas celebrations, company retreats", Mr. Lakin stated it goes on. "Schuerman says that Thurston tells people that only imagination and a pocketbook can limit what we can accommodate and do". Mr. Lakin stated he has a problem with that.

Mr. Lakin asked for the people in the audience who are opposed to this request to raise their hand.

Approximately 13-15 people raised their hand.

Ivan Sander, 5500 N. Route E, Columbia.

Mr. Sander stated that his property abuts the applicantís property on one side at the backend of his property. Mr. Sander stated he had no problem with training facilities for horses or boarding horses. Mr. Sander stated his concern is sanitation problems that could happen. This is a sinkhole area; as such, septic tanks and lagoons are not acceptable and will not meet County code. The other concern is the noise; it is not just noise beyond 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. that is disturbing, it is noise that starts before that and it has happened more than once. Mr. Sander stated he is not saying it won't happen again, but it certainly could.

Jeff Wilcox, 5052 N. Route E, Columbia

Mr. Wilcox stated that he is not necessarily in opposition, but has some questions. Since the applicants are here asking for a conditional use permit, what is it exactly that applicants are doing that is not permissible? What would they have to retract from what they are currently doing? Once the conditional use permit is granted, does this permit stay in force forever and the future property owners might come along and do more, or does it revert back to the current requirements.

Chairperson Smith asked staff to clarify the conditional use permit, there have been a couple of questions as to whether the conditional use permit was granted, could someone else be able to come in and take over.

Mr. Shawver stated that zoning and conditional uses go with the land. Unless the Planning and Zoning Commission puts a restriction that it canít be transferred and is only for the present owner it would remain in effect. Whatever conditions are placed on it would all be in effect.

Chairperson Smith stated that the applicants could sell their business to someone else. The other question that was raised for a conditional use permit was, can someone else come in a do a different kind of recreational facility.

Mr. Shawver stated within the bounds of what an outdoor recreational facility is, yes. There was a question earlier whether they could have a shooting range, go-cart tracks. Those are specific land uses that are listed in the recreation zoning district so they would not be able to do those types of things as an outdoor recreational facility.

Mr. Wilcox asked what the applicants were doing that they shouldnít be.

Commissioner Freiling stated that basically, they have a business that brings public to the site, it is outside the current zoning.

Chairperson Smith stated it is only allowed under a conditional use permit.

Mr. Wilcox stated that once this thing is granted, if it is granted, it carries on to future property owners. If future property owners decided they wanted to expand it to include go-carts or model airplane flying or maybe some rodeo type of things. If that is a possibility, Mr. Wilcox stated he urges the Commission to put that restriction in. That is not what applicants are proposing, but future owners may want to do that.

Commissioner Sloan stated that this land is currently zoned A-2 and applicants have not asked for rezoning. Everything the applicants do would have to fall under the A-2 zoning. Commissioner Sloan read the permitted uses and condition uses under the A-2 zoning. Commissioner Sloan stated that only those uses would be permitted under the A-2 zoning. To go beyond these uses, applicants would have to have the land rezoned. An outdoor recreational facility is a conditional use.

Mr. Wilcox asked if that is what the applicants are applying for.

Commissioner Sloan stated that and also for an animal boarding and training facility.

Mr. Wilcox stated that a dog kennel is not included in either of the two things applicants are applying for.

Commissioner Sloan stated that a kennel is a conditional use also.

Mr. Wilcox stated that applicants are not applying for that.

Commissioner Sloan stated no.

Mr. Wilcox asked if under the outdoor recreational use, would go carts be allowed?

Mr. Shawver stated no.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked staff to go over what is allowed under the outdoor recreational since it is not defined.

Mr. Shawver stated what staff has seen in the past under outdoor recreational facilities are open-air picnic shelters, things similar to this request, social activities, staff has seen golf driving ranges and that is about it.

Mr. Mink asked if the use was limited to what the request is.

Mr. Shawver stated yes.

Mr. Mink stated that if this was granted, applicants couldnít go off and do something totally different than what they are asking for.

Mr. Shawver stated the use is restricted to what their request is.

Commissioner Freiling stated by requesting an outdoor recreational facility, how wide does that open doors.

Mr. Shawver stated it would have to specifically say that this is the use it is restricted to. Some ball fields were done some years ago and the outdoor use was restricted to ball fields and they could not change that without coming back through the process. Go-cart tracks are specifically listed in the recreation zoning as are shooting ranges; so those are not permissible under the outdoor recreational facility conditional use permit.

Mr. Wilcox stated he is not particularly opposed to the application. Mr. Wilcox stated he does reside on his property unlike Mr. Heifner and there is a half a mile long one lane gravel road that Mr. Wilcox accesses and would be concerned about keeping that clear for emergency access vehicles because it is just one lane.

Mr. Wilcox stated he saw the fireworks display and occasionally people have to back up on the road to let the other person get through, but that is not the main primary entrance. Mr. Thurston plows the road for snow and such, which helps out. Mr. Wilcox stated he is not opposing anything, but is just concerned about what happens 20 years from now once this is in place, if it is in place.

Commissioner Morgan asked Mr. Wilcox if that was his road.

Mr. Wilcox stated he had an easement, technically, it is the applicant's property, but Mr. Wilcox has a legal easement

Mr. McMenamy stated he had another concern regarding one of the accesses that borders his property on the south and on the east. Mr. McMenamy stated he likes to go out to walk and relax and has, on occasion, has retrieved beer and soda cans. Under the circumstances now things are fine, but if the applicants are going in to a larger, more commercial operation with a party every weekend with large numbers of people, that is another concern. Mr. McMenamy stated he is constantly picking up cans out of the ditch on Route E and doesnít want to expand his efforts.

Chairperson Smith read a letter addressed to Stan Shawver from Dorothy M. Jacob in opposition to the request.

The letter read as follows.

This is to request the following for your consideration. There was a fence running east to west along a north/south boundary of a 68-acre area along Route adjacent to the area asking for the conditional use zoning. My north boundary their south boundary. The fence must be replaced as soon as possible, for example, 60 days maximum.

Also, I would be concerned about the noise level after 10:00 p.m. particularly.

There is a lane off of Route E that leads to some of the property in the area that may need clarification. It has been in use to serve the land and buildings in the immediate area for many, many years. I feel it must remain open. I will appreciate you attention and consideration.

Chairperson Smith entered the letter in to the record.

David Duff, 4851 W. Chapel, Columbia.

Mr. Duff stated his concern was the flow of traffic that this presents and the dust, litter and noise. It seems like the parties start at one and bleed in and then activity starts at the 8:00 hour. If people happen to meet buddies, they arenít afraid to take your yard as their stopping zone. Mr. Duff stated he had to cater to those conditions, you have to close your windows because of the dust. The window air conditioner is out front it has to be shut off, the dust will go in the house and those are things that Mr. Duff stated he is bothered by.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Morgan asked applicants to respond to the letter that Ms. Jacobs sent regarding the fence line.

Ms. Schuerman stated it was an old, rusted, overgrown fence line. Applicants started cutting out trees to replace it and got occupied doing other things so they havenít went back to finish it. Applicants have double fenced everything. They fenced the perimeter and the pasture in 40-feet. It is double fenced to allow for carriage rides and horseback riding and still has horses in pasture. It is double expense and double the work, but it one way to maximize use of the property. That particular fence was overgrown, rusted out and falling apart.

Commissioner Morgan asked if applicants were going to replace it.

Ms. Schuerman stated absolutely.

Commissioner Morgan asked about the rest of the fencing around the property and if it was in the same shape.

Ms. Schuerman stated no, they donít have problems anywhere else, and it is the only piece that is left.

Commissioner Morgan asked what the road she was talking about.

Ms. Schuerman stated it was the same one that Craig Heifner referred to around Johnsonís house, which comes off of Route E. It is a small private road that three houses and Heifnerís barn access. It is not a road the applicants use for anything; but it does come down through the middle of applicantís property. Ms. Jacob was concerned about open access, they all have ingress/egress. Ms. Schuerman stated applicants have no intention of closing the road.

Ms. Schuerman stated the concern for expanding college parties. Mr. Lakin is correct; those are very lucrative functions because there is no place for them to go. When applicants talked about 6 functions that had DJís, five of those were college parties for the students who worked at the barn and their particular houses. Over the entire course of the 8 years applicants have had six DJ functions and five were for the kids who worked for the applicants. In each case, applicants would bus the employees fraternity or sorority in they were bussed out and to make sure applicants didnít have problems, applicants had off-duty uniformed Sheriffs deputyís to keep any other traffic from coming on so it didnít become an out of hand party. That is the 17 functions applicants turned down last year, as they are not interested in large, noisy, alcohol parties. It is lucrative, but applicants turned away 17 of them because they have no interest in doing those parties. They did them for the students who worked for the farm. Applicants donít have college students working for them anymore. That is not a concern. Anytime applicants did have a large function additional port-a-potties were put in. Applicants rent a Johnny-on-the-spot around the year so that is on site for sanitation.

Commissioner Freiling asked if that was the only restroom facility.

Ms. Schuerman stated applicants did not have running water for bathrooms. The house has a septic tank the laterals donít perc in that kind of terrain so applicants added the lagoon to catch the water on the perc side. Applicants have both a septic tank and lagoon for the house.

Chairperson Smith stated that someone was concerned about fire flow, water flow in case of fire.

Ms. Schuerman stated the fire department is about 60 seconds away, there are two ponds on the property that have water year round. Ms. Schuerman stated she is not concerned.

Commissioner Freiling stated that he identifies with both parties. Commissioner Freiling stated he sees concerns not so much with what applicants have done, but what applicants might do. If the Commission were to make recommendations on this conditional use permit which limited the hours of operation, which is common, and maybe address the alcohol as well as size and limitations. There should be some consideration given to a variance where those limitations donít apply if it is private and not a paid party. If those sorts of things were discussed would applicant have objections in considering the conditions?

Ms. Schuerman stated that when Mr. Shawver was talking about the recommendations, she thought they were quite reasonable.

Chairperson Smith asked applicant if the Sheriff has ever come to her property or been called to the property.

Ms. Schuerman stated she has never been approached by any neighbor or the authorities.

Chairperson Smith asked staff if they had any record.

Mr. Shawver stated no.

Ms. Schuerman stated that the comment about having these conditions apply to the current owner is reasonable if that is a big concern.

Commissioner Neese asked Ms. Schuerman to explain about the lagoon and also asked if that was approved by the Health Department and met specifications.

Ms. Schuerman stated it was built to specifications. It was a secondary catchall.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she is the applicantís neighbor on the south and runs the Jacob farm. Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she is well aware that applicants took down the fence several years ago and has been waiting for applicants to replace it ever since she moved in a year ago.

Ms. Schuerman stated applicants got busy doing other things.

Commissioner Heitkamp hasnít been able to use the horse pasture on the north side of the farm because applicants took the fence down.

Ms. Schuerman stated that the fence wasnít even holding the horses in.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that since she didnít live there when the fence was taken down, she is not sure how the fencing was. The fence on Mr. Pekkalaís side is still up and in good shape. Commissioner Heitkamp stated that since she moved there last June there were several evenings that she could not enjoy because of the loud noise. Commissioner Heitkamp is about a half a mile south of applicants maybe two ridges south and the house sits next to the pond. Commissioner Heitkamp stated she thought the noise was coming from Mr. Johnsonís shop, but Mrs. Johnson assured Commissioner Heitkamp that couldnít be the case. The noise was deafening and Commissioner Heitkamp stated she could not enjoy her property. A conditional use permit can only be granted if it does not detract from the enjoyment of the property within 1000 feet. Those two considerations specifically apply to the outdoor recreational facility. The horse boarding facility, daytime hours, and pony rides for the kids, how can people object to that? The Commission is presented with two requests; one for a horse boarding facility and one for an outdoor recreational facility.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that for the horse boarding facility she would ask that the Commission consider asking Ms. Schuerman to consider replacing the fence on the south side before any conditional use permit is granted and also consider the conditions mentioned restricting use to daylight hours, replace the fence. There is a problem going down Chapel Drive, Commissioner Heitkamp stated she drove down there today looking for applicants place, at the end, there is a lake and there is no signage. Commissioner Heitkamp stated she is not sure where the private lane goes in which Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Heifner use. Ms. Jacob told Commissioner Heitkamp that this is recorded as a Boone County right-of-way. Commissioner Heitkamp asked Commissioner Mink if he could shed some light on this issue.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the farm lane is on Ms. Jacobs property, it goes within 25-feet of Mr. Johnsonís front door, not 50-feet. Commissioner Heitkamp stated she spoke with the Johnsonís earlier this week. This is a horse community, Route E is horse people and no one objects to someone having a horse stable out there. On the other hand, Route E is very dangerous. This is a residential neighborhood, the homes are close, all the neighbors open their windows in the summer and when the neighbors are subject to loud parties that could get out of hand and could be full of fraternity boys; and parties have been hosted for fraternity houses. Everyone in the neighborhood has reservations.

Ms. Schuerman stated she understands that but asked the Commission to keep in mind that applicants have no intention of doing future fraternity parties.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the applicants can tell the Commission that but the Commission can not restrict that if a conditional use permit is granted for an outdoor recreational facility.

Ms. Schuerman asked if that were something that could be built in to a restriction.

Mr. Shawver stated it could be built in to the restriction, but it would be difficult to police.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked the applicant how she felt about operating only during daylight hours.

Ms. Schuerman stated she didnít have a problem with that except for some birthday parties.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if those were the ones that were booming all over the neighborhood last summer.

Ms. Schuerman stated that the applicants have had DJís only twice last summer. It is unfortunate that once youíve made a noise everyone assumes you are guilty of every noise. There are high school garage bands in the neighborhood as well. Every time there is a boom or a bass, everyone thinks it is the applicants. Ms. Schuerman stated they donít even have high powered stereo equipment out there. There isnít a lot of noise unless there is a DJ. Ms. Schuerman stated that her point is that applicants may not be the guilty party every time there is a noise.

Mr. Shawver stated that the Commission could place a restriction against amplified music.

Ms. Schuerman stated that would be very reasonable.

Commissioner Sloan asked the staff to clarify that the driveway and parking area is to have a dust-free surface within six months. Exactly what would that include? A comment was made about the size of the current parking area and with the number of cars they plan to have, applicants would have to expand the parking and they donít want to do that. The neighbors have mentioned dust; are we talking about paving or chip and seal on the entire road?

Mr. Shawver stated no. Chapel Drive is a public road with County right-of-way; the County maintains that road. The regulations require that the drive and the required parking area be chip and sealed. We are not talking about asphalt or concrete but chip and sealed with an oil base coat and seal rock. As far as the numbers; the application did not provide numbers for staff to base anything on, that is why it was left for the testimony for the Commission to determine how many parking places they felt would be appropriate.

Commissioner Sloan asked applicant what the maximum number of people the applicants have had at a function within the last year.

Ms. Schuerman stated the maximum would be 60 people.

Commissioner Sloan stated if there is 3 people per car that would mean the applicants would need 20 parking spaces.

Ms. Schuerman stated that is not unrealistic.

Commissioner Sloan stated that applicants currently have eleven spaces but did not want to expand.

Ms. Schuerman stated that applicants could accommodate the additional parking inside the front of the stable area without having to excavate.

Commissioner Sloan asked applicant if the area she was speaking of was currently chip and sealed.

Ms. Schuerman stated no, none of it is. It would all have to be done.

Ms. Schuerman stated regarding the dust issue; one thing that comes to mind is applicants have a 225 gallon poly tank applicants use to fill horses tanks with. If applicants could get an apparatus for that to be a sprayer, applicants could run that down the road before a party to help with the dust.

Commissioner Freiling asked how long the road was, maybe a quarter mile?

Ms. Schuerman stated if even that long.

Ms. Schuerman stated that Mr. Lakin mentioned had quoted an article talking about your pocketbook being your limitation and that is true. It could be as nice as having Jacks do the catering instead of Buckingham Barbecue. It could be horse drawn wagon rides instead of tractor wagon rides. If applicants have to spend more energy and more time, the client is going to pay more. Any event can be priced up or down based upon the clientís budget.

Commissioner Sloan asked if applicants are presently running the events or does the client come in and set up and the applicants oversee them.

Ms. Schuerman stated that the applicants are always on site they never let anyone do anything without applicants being there.

Commissioner Sloan stated she understood that applicants were on site but are they there with the event or off at the home.

Ms. Schuerman stated that applicants supervise every event.

Commissioner Freiling asked staff how the 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. ending time come about.

Mr. Shawver stated that those are hours that have been applied for in a couple of other things in the past. There have also been some that have been strictly limited to dusk. Last month when the Heffernans went before the County Commission the applicants indicated they were hoping to have some events after dark with no artificial lighting so the Commission made it for an hour and a half after dusk as a maximum time. The ball fields have had restrictions of 10:00 p.m. during the week and 11:00 p.m. on weekends or 11:30 p.m. on weekends.

Commissioner Freiling stated that ball fields tend not to be in this type of residential area.

Mr. Shawver stated that some of them are in fairly dense areas.

Commissioner Mink stated to applicant that the Public Works department has some private pay dust control programs if applicants are interested, they could call the Public Works department about some products that can be applied that may mitigate the dust problem.

Ms. Schuerman stated that the fence could be done in 60 days.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the fence was up at the other boundaries.

Ms. Schuerman stated that applicants have fence up everywhere but that particular area.

Mr. Thurston stated that the reason he took the fence down in the first place was because there were two or three big trees that have fallen on the fence and the neighbors horses came on to the applicants property two or three different times. There was a tremendous amount of damage to the new fences because there were horses in applicants fence the neighbors horses came up to them and were fighting back and forth on them. Mr. Thurston stated he took the fence down to replace it but hasnít had the time to put it back up yet.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that has been several years ago and those horses are 30-years old.

Mr. Thurston stated he understood how old the horses are and knows how long it has been. That is the only stretch of fence that is left and will be on the fence first thing in the morning.

Commissioner Freiling stated he assumed from the conversation and the neighbors comments that we have no problem with the animal boarding and training facility other that the Commissioners concerns.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked applicants if they spread the manure.

Ms. Schuerman stated yes.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated for the horse boarding facility applicants use the Johnny on the spot, which is fine for the boarding. Commissioner Heitkamp asked if birthday parties are included in the animal boarding and training.

Ms. Schuerman stated no.

Chairperson Smith stated that parties would be under the outdoor recreational facility.

Commissioner Freiling stated that on the horse boarding and training; one of the things the Commission should probably consider is that the Commission doesnít want a 60 stable facility.

Mr. Shawver stated that the Commission could place a limit on the number of boarded horses.

Commissioner Freiling asked applicants if there was a number of horses they were comfortable with in terms of the number of horses they could have.

Ms. Schuerman stated the most the applicants have had is 25 horses. Applicants have a 14-stall barn then have all the other pastures, but 25 is the most that applicants have ever had there.

Commissioner Freiling asked staff if they reviewed the facilities.

Mr. Shawver stated no.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked what a reasonable amount of horses for boarding would be.

Chairperson Smith stated it would depend on how many stalls you have and if you were just going to depend on the pasture which applicants probably won't. Chairperson Smith stated that she would guess that applicants pretty much have what they have now.

Commissioner Freiling stated he would like to recommend approval with staff recommendations on the dust free parking area and an additional limitation on the number of horses to be boarded at the facility be limited to no more than 25 horses and the property be properly fenced.

Commissioner Sloan stated she would like to have something more specific included as far as the fencing is concerned. Commissioner Sloan stated she appreciated the fact that Mr. Thurston has had some health problem but something else could happen and we would be back in the same.

Mr. Thurston asked what a reasonable time would be to put the fence up.

Commissioner Sloan stated within 60 days.

Mr. Thurston stated 60 days would be fine.

Mr. Shawver stated he is a little uncomfortable with a condition that is really a property boundary dispute being attached to this conditional use permit.

Commissioner Freiling asked if it were more straightforward to indicate that the property owner would maintain sound property boundary fencing.

Mr. Shawver stated he believed that is acceptable.

Commissioner Sloan stated it seems reasonable to transfer that permit.

Commissioner Freiling stated that permit has a value because the amount of investment is considerable and you should be able to transfer the conditional use permit to use it as a horse boarding facility.

Chairperson Smith added that it is agricultural land.

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve the request by Janice Schuerman for an animal boarding and training facility on 43.22 acres, located at 4701 W Chapel Dr., Columbia with the following conditions:

        1. Staff recommendations of providing a dust free surface driveway and parking area within 6 months.
        2. The maximum number of horses to be boarded is not to exceed 25.
        3. The property be properly fenced and maintained.
        4.  

          Carl Freiling Ė Yes Mike Morgan Ė Yes

          Pat Smith Ė Yes Keith Neese Ė Yes

          David Mink Ė Yes Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

          Mary Sloan Ė Yes

          Motion to approve request with conditions carried unanimously.

           

          Chairperson Smith stated moving on to the outdoor recreational facility. Chairperson Smith stated that a couple of things have interested her. There is a lot of people that are opposed to the request, but is curious if the applicants havenít come for a conditional use permit how many people would come to be opposed to it. The Sheriff has never been called; the Commission has no record of anyone who has been in opposition. Ms. Schuerman has stated that she hasnít heard from anyone. Sometimes this kind of proceeding brings things up. Chairperson Smith stated she drives home on Route E and hasnít seen an inordinate amount of traffic turning in there. As for litter, Chairperson Smith stated to come to her bottom land and you will see litter and she doesnít have any kind of conditional use permit. Not all the litter can be blames on the applicants. Litter is a problem in Boone County, but sometimes we look for reasons when these things come before us. Chairperson Smith stated that she sympathizes with both sides. Chairperson Smith stated she is very interested with the fact that the Sheriff has never been there and there have never been any complaints about the applicants that the Commission knows of.

          Commissioner Freiling asked applicants if they sold alcohol.

          Ms. Schuerman stated no; applicants donít have a license to sell alcohol. When applicants had a college party, a third party licensed vendor did that. Applicants have never provided alcohol.

          Commissioner Freiling stated his concerns are hours, alcohol, the size of the gatherings, and the volume of the music. These limitations should not apply to private parties that applicants donít charge for because everyone else can do this on their property.

          Commissioner Sloan stated that there isnít anyway that all of these events are going to be family events. Commissioner Sloan stated she doesnít have a problem with there being a third party vendor as far as alcohol. But there will be parties with alcohol. Applicants said the largest number of people that they have hosted in the past year is 60. That is reasonable if that is the maximum number and is comfortable with limiting the size of the events to 60 people. But she is also in favor of limiting them to daylight hours, or dusk and no amplified music and that the permit not be transferable to any new property owner.

          Commissioner Freiling asked the applicants what percentage of their parties involve alcohol.

          Ms. Schuerman stated weddings. But applicants only had two last year and doesnít have to do them anymore.

          Commissioner Sloan stated she is not asking that the Commission restricts alcohol but if you restrict it to daylight hours or dusk, you will probably limit the amount of alcohol that is involved in these parties.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that one of the things that could make this obnoxious in the neighborhood would be parties where people drink too much. Commissioner Freiling stated he sees alcohol as a legitimate issue.

          Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the applicants had a wedding for one or two hundred people, would the applicants need additional parking.

          Mr. Shawver stated that the Commission had to determine what is a reasonable amount of parking. The Commission has asked the question of the maximum number of people in attendance in the past year and Ms. Schuerman indicated 60 people, the Commission took that amount and determined that 20 parking spaces would be needed. If the Commission is going to limit the number of participants, that is very difficult for the staff to police. Any event, no matter what it is at some point there will be some overflow parking. The main thing is that any overflow parking has to be contained on the applicantís property, it canít spill over on to the public road or on to a neighborís property. That would be a short-term event. The parking has to be designed so that it accommodates the majority of functions that the applicants are going to have.

          Commissioner Heitkamp stated she believed that 60 people is kind of small.

          Commissioner Sloan asked if the Commission could limit the number of parking spaces.

          Mr. Shawver stated he would prefer that the Commission place a necessity for staff to go out and see how many cars applicants have parked out there on a Saturday or Sunday. If the Commission is interested in limiting the number of participants, from what Ms. Schuerman has stated you can require that applicants have a certain number of parking spaces chip and seal for a certain size of event. For the applicants to have more than that there would be a scale. You could say 20 parking spaces for up to 60 people; 40 parking spaces for 80 people; or 50 spaces for 100 people. That does provide the staff with the opportunity for the staff to do spot checks, which is certainly a lot easier than going out and counting cars every weekend.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that on amplified music; are we talking about acoustical only or are radios and boom-boxes okay; or is it that they canít have the DJís high-amp stuff.

          Mr. Shawver suggested to the Commission that they be as clear as possible so that there is not any ambiguity. The staff has a difficult time trying to interpret the intent of the Commission. Mr. Shawver stated that another point he would like to make is that the Commission was talking about the conditions not applying to private family functions. Commissioner Sloan was thinking that Commissioner Freiling was thinking that any private party wouldnít apply. The Schuerman family has Christmas parties and family reunions. The Commission needs to specify that because if they donít specify that, it applies to all their events because there is no way for the staff to know if the facility is being leased out or if everyone is a member of the Thurston family.

          Commissioner Mink stated there was some discussion about limiting the hours to dusk. The recommendation was for 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends.

          Ms. Schuerman stated she would prefer to do something like that than try to decide on September it might be 7:14 p.m. and the next month it might be 6:05 p.m.

          Commissioner Freiling asked if 11:00 p.m. was too late on weekends.

          Commissioner Heitkamp stated yes. 8:00 p.m. would be better.

          Commissioner Mink asked 8:00 p.m. on weekdays?

          Commissioner Sloan stated if she were living out by there she would want it to be daylight.

          Commissioner Heitkamp stated that when there are big parties and it goes until dusk and people get on the roads, it is not a great driving time, but it is better than getting on Route E at night.

          Commissioner Sloan stated that right now it is getting dark around 7:45 p.m., it will be 8:30 or 9:00 during the summer. Most of the events are during the warmer weather, so 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. would be reasonable. The neighbors probably donít go to bed at 8 or 9:00 p.m., so if they want to sleep it won't interfere with their sleep.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that in the winter it would be 5:00 p.m. that may not be feasible. Maybe the Commission should say 8:00 or dusk, whichever comes last.

          Commissioner Mink stated maybe 9:00 p.m. year round.

          Commissioner Morgan stated he liked the idea of 9:00 p.m. year round.

          Ms. Schuerman stated the latest functions they have had were 10:00 p.m.

          Commissioner Neese asked if that has been on weekends.

          Ms. Schuerman stated yes.

          Commissioner Sloan stated that if people knew they had to be in the party or at least be quieter at 9:00 then it would happen, the Commission is not saying they have to get off the property.

          Commissioner Mink and Chairperson Smith stated that this is what the Commission is saying.

          Commissioner Neese stated that another problem is where the sound is coming from. The applicants can't control noise that is coming off of someone elseís property. There may be people from other properties that are making noise.

          Commissioner Sloan stated she understands that but the other property owners arenít renting out their property for functions and that is where the difference lies. Commissioner Sloan stated if the applicants have a private family party and it goes crazy what is the difference?

          Chairperson Smith stated you call the Sheriff.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that since the applicants are asking for permission to do a commercial function that is an obligation to control the impact. It is unreasonable not to have music that is electronic. On the other hand it is unreasonable to limit it and not have the high volume levels.

          Mr. Shawver stated that the hours of operation would restrict the noise.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that he has a suggestion to the alcohol that there not be any vendors. If someone wants to have a wedding and they bring in their own alcohol, that is their business. But there shouldnít be any vendored alcohol.

          Ms. Schuerman asked why the Commission would do that.

          Commissioner Freiling asked if the applicants do vendored alcohol quite a bit.

          Ms. Schuerman stated she is just curious; they do vendored alcohol for the college parties and weddings only.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that applicants are expecting enough volume of consumption.

          Commissioner Mink stated if applicants are having sales not someone having a wedding and bringing in a bartender.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that you can take alcohol to your friends house and donít have to ask permission of the County but if there is going to be alcohol sold on the property.

          Ms. Schuerman stated that it is not sold on the property; the client will hire Jacks to come in and do the food and to bring in and serve alcohol instead of having kegs and open coolers.

          Commissioner Freiling stated he understood and apparently had a misconception of what the vendors were doing.

          Commissioner Neese asked if the Commission could limit alcohol to weekends only, Friday and Saturday?

          Commissioner Heitkamp stated that alcohol is unregulated in the County.

          Ms. Schuerman stated that the Commission keeps having concerns with college parties; that is not the business that the applicants are going after and the business the applicants want. These things are family get togethers and co-workers; they arenít there to get drunk, they are there for the function whether it is a barbecue, a birthday party, or hayride. These are adults; not immature people who are trying to get drunk before 10:00. Ms. Schuerman stated she is not sure that alcohol is an issue.

          Commissioner Mink stated that it seems reasonable that if everything ends at 9:00 or 10:00 and there is no amplified music, the fraternities are going to go somewhere else.

          Commissioner Freiling asked if anyone had any suggestions for the recommendation that music be kept at a moderate level. It is subjective and doesnít do anything but place a notice for the people who live around there. Commissioner Freiling stated he doesnít know what to do that is enforceable.

          Mr. Shawver stated that rather than do that; any citizen has the right to call the Sheriffs department and file a complaint. What Commissioner Freiling may consider as moderate Commissioner Mink may consider as not moderate. That is best left to the nuisance complaints to the Sheriffs department.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that he suggests the Commission approve the request for the outdoor recreational facility conditional use permit with staff recommendations of no overnight camping; the use hours be restricted to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday; that the conditional use permit be non transferable; and that the private functions of the owners that are not commercial shall not be subject to these limitations.

          Mr. Shawver asked about the required parking.

          Commissioner Freiling asked applicants if they went with their current parking facilities, if they chip and seal both the parking area and the drive areas and the horse trailer areas that applicants have. If there are 10 designated parking spaces, how many would the applicants have without using them for horse trailers. Will applicants have 20 spaces? If there are 10 designated sites will the applicants have the capacity for larger events on a chip and seal surface.

          Ms. Schuerman stated not on a chip and seal surface but on applicants roadway.

          Commissioner Freiling stated he recommends that staffs suggestion of 10 parking spaces with a chip and seal surface be accepted but that all parking for all events must be contained on the applicants property and not on public right of way or easement areas.

           

          Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve the request by Janice Schuerman for a privately operated outdoor recreational facility on 43.22 acres, located at 4701 W Chapel Dr., Columbia with the following conditions:

              1. No overnight camping.
              2. The hours be limited to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday; 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
              3. This conditional use permit is non transferable.
              4. A minimum of 10 chip/seal parking spaces be provided and any additional parking spaces be contained within the owners property and not on right of way or public roads.
              5. Owners private or personal functions are not subject to these conditions.

Carl Freiling Ė Yes Mike Morgan Ė Yes

Pat Smith Ė Yes Keith Neese Ė Yes

David Mink Ė Yes Kristen Heitkamp - No

Mary Sloan Ė No

Motion to approve request carries. 5 Yes 2 No

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that both requests would go before the County Commission on April 30, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers. Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that they should attend this meeting.

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

 

 

  1. Request by Sharon Savage for an animal training facility on 10.0 acres located at 6301 S Scottís Blvd., Columbia.
  2. Director, Stan Shawver 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. There is a house and above ground swimming pool on the property. This request is for a permit for an animal training facility. The applicant provides obedience or agility training to dogs. 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 Scottís Boulevard. River Hills Estates subdivision 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 applicant has indicated that class size for agility training is a maximum of 8 dogs, and obedience training is restricted to 6 dogs. The applicant does have special events when as many as 30 dogs may be present. This lot was originally developed as a residential property, and the applicant lives in the house. Staff is of the opinion that 10 parking spaces will accommodate most activities that take place on this site.

    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.

     

    Present: Sharon Savage, 6301 S. Scott Blvd, Columbia.

    Ms. Savage stated that she and her husband recently moved to Columbia from England a couple of months ago and bought the property because they like to live out in the country. Ms. Savage stated that she would like to make her property nice for wildlife.

    Ms. Savage stated she has been training and showing dogs as a hobby for 25 years and has taught a lot at local kennel clubs. When applicants moved here from England they found that the Columbia Kennel Club does not offer any classes. Since she misses being around dogs, she wanted to start giving very small classes as a hobby. Ms. Savage has a regular full-time day job working as a technical writer for a software company. The classes are restricted to two hours in the evenings and four hours on Saturdays. Currently applicants have four agility classes on Saturday with a total of 25 students between those four classes and will start obedience classes next week; two classes with five dogs each and two classes with three dogs each. These classes will be held Monday and Tuesday evenings from 6:00 to 7:00p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Ms. Savage stated she has two dogs herself; one is a fourteen year old de-barked Australian Cattle Dog who is on chemotherapy right now, he sleeps a lot. The other is a Jack Russell terrier who is seven years old; you can see him on Paul Pepper all the time doing tricks. He has been in Purina ads and things. The dogs that come to class are not there to be boarded and doesnít train them herself. They are just regular family pets that come in and sit and walk on a leash without pulling. The obedience classes are held indoors in a converted two-car garage in the walk out basement. About half of the walk out basement consisted of a garage that was stacked with junk. It has since been cleaned out. The agility course is set up in the front yard. That is only going to be set up during a few months in the year, it is not a year round activity and will be taken down after the next session because it will be too hot to do agility for the next few months. The course will be put up again in a few months then it will come down again in the winter for about five months. It is an occasional thing that is set up for six week classes. The agility equipment is new and attractive.

    Ms. Savage stated there is a strip of forest that shields the agility course from view.

    Commissioner Freiling asked applicants if they bought the property with the intention of using it for this purpose.

    Ms. Savage stated yes.

    Commissioner Freiling asked applicant if she was aware of the need for a conditional use permit when she began the operation.

    Ms. Savage stated she called around to find out and was told no. She then came in to the Planning Department to double check and then found out that a conditional use permit was needed.

    Commissioner Mink asked staff if this conditional use permit could evolve in to a kennel or boarding facility.

    Mr. Shawver stated that this is a conditional use permit for an animal training and boarding facility. If the Commission decides to approve this request they need to be specific on the conditions. The condition of no boarding could be included in the conditions.

    Ms. Savage stated that would be fine.

    Commissioner Sloan stated she believed that 10 parking spaces is too many and should probably only be half that.

    Commissioner Freiling stated that more than likely there would be one car for each dog.

    Ms. Savage stated that they already have 10 parking spaces.

    Commissioner Sloan asked the applicant if she had any problem with chip and sealing the parking and driveway.

    Ms. Savage stated that she does these classes as a hobby. It may not be cost effective to chip and seal.

    Mr. Shawver stated that the Commission could consider extending the requirement for the chip and seal drive. Providing a chip seal surface for the drive and parking areas are a requirement of the zoning regulations for all conditional use permits.

    Commissioner Sloan informed the applicant that the drive and parking would have to be a chip seal surface.

    Open to public hearing.

    No one spoke in favor of the request.

    Speaking in opposition to the request:

    David Jimenez, 4700 Timber Ridge, Columbia.

    Mr. Jimenez stated that he is not opposed to free enterprise. The time for the agility course in the yard is limited throughout the year; that is fine.

    Mr. Jimenez stated that he is concerned that the past several times he has driven by there; the traffic has increased tremendously. He has driven by on several Saturdays and there have been rows of cars parked along both sides of the road on the grass. Mr. Jimenez stated that he is also concerned about the fact that Scotts Boulevard, perhaps in the future, is going to be expanded and what will happen to the parking in that situation. It has been stated that the applicants can park up to X amount of cars in the driveway, so far, Mr. Jimenez stated he hasnít seen that. The front of the house is approximately 50-yards and the training facility is in the front. Applicants have 10 acres and Mr. Jimenez stated he is not concerned with the facility being in place.

    Mr. Jimenez stated he is worried about future expansion and the issue of boarding. Applicant stated that is not her intention to build a kennel and worries about the barking dogs. Mr. Jimenez stated that overall he would be in support of the permit with the restrictions. However, he worries about the parking, noise and the expansion of this facility in the future. Mr. Jimenez stated he hoped the Commission takes these issues in to account.

    Closed to public hearing.

    Commissioner Mink asked applicant the hours of operation.

    Ms. Savage stated she gives agility classes starting from 10:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday, then 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Those are the hours that the applicant foresees forever. Applicant has no employees and doesnít intend to have any employees. Applicant teaches all the classes herself; four classes in a row of being down on her knees handing dogs treats for going through tunnels. The obedience classes which are going to be starting are going to be Monday and Tuesday evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Applicant did project having a class from 8:00 to 9:00 on Monday but have moved those dogs in to earlier classes. At most, applicant may add a class that will go until 9:00 p.m. Those classes are indoors; the dogs drive down the driveway, park in front of the garage and walk down a pathway that applicants have to the back yard and go indoors.

    Commissioner Mink stated that in nice weather, applicant will have outdoor training; in inclement weather, applicant will have indoor training.

    Ms. Savage stated that the obedience classes will always be held indoors. The agility classes are always going to be held outdoors because the agility course has to be in a 9000 square foot fenced area to be regulation. That is the flattest part of the property; applicants would have loved to put the course in the back of the property, but there are a few acres of forest and behind that is an extremely steep hill and it wouldnít be appropriate for the dogs.

    Chairperson Smith asked about the concern of people parking along the road.

    Ms. Savage stated that all she can think of is first off all the only classes that applicant has held so far are agility classes and there have only been three of those. There are only six or seven cars total at anyone time on the property. They can easily fit in the driveway and they do. Ms. Savage stated she has never seen anyone park in the road. There was one time that people may have parked in the road was a for a grand opening party and it was a weight pulling fun day. Ms. Savage stated she expected about two people to show up and to her surprise, 26 dogs showed up. That was on a Sunday afternoon between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m. If there were any people parked in the road, they could have easily fit in the driveway. Ms. Savage stated she doesnít plan on having anymore of those events but may have a Sunday afternoon event like that maybe three times a year.

    Chairperson Smith asked if the agility course is always up.

    Ms. Savage stated no. The fence that surrounds the agility course will be permanent. Sometimes applicant will take the agility course down and it is down all week except for three main obstacles that are too heavy to move. Everything else is taken down and put under a tarp because the PVC that it is made out of can be destroyed by UV rays. Ms. Savage stated she left the agility course up this week because she was too tired to take it down. The course as a whole is only going to be out there for several six week sessions in the spring and several in the fall. It will be down for the hot part of summer and for maybe four or five months in the winter.

    Commissioner Heitkamp asked applicant if she could landscape the front yard at the road.

    Ms. Savage stated that the entire length of the front yard in front of the agility course right now has huge bushes that are probably eight feet tall. There are a couple of gaps that applicants could plant additional bushes to fill those gaps. It had been planted all along but a couple must have died. Applicants would be happy to add some landscaping or maybe decorative picket fence around the driveway area to block the view.

    Commissioner Mink asked staff about postponing the chip seal.

    Mr. Shawver stated that the Commission could extend the applicants additional time to install it. Typically staff recommends six months so the applicant could establish a good base and give them time to get it done. The Heffernan request two months ago; the Commission extended them two years to have that done.

    Commissioner Freiling stated that applicant is doing this as a hobby.

    Ms. Savage stated yes; she does charge money for classes but it goes back in to the business.

    Commissioner Freiling stated that the impact to the neighborhood has a commercial aspect to it because it generates more traffic.

    Commissioner Mink asked applicant if she would have any objections to a restriction on hours of operation to be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

    Ms. Savage stated no.

    Commissioner Mink made a motion to approve the request with the conditions that the driveway and parking area must be dust free with a minimum chip and seal surface within two years with five parking spaces with overflow parking on site for a total of 10 spaces; no kenneling will be allowed; hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

    Discussion on the motion.

    Commissioner Freiling stated that since the applicant has no particular financial investment in the facility, would the applicant object to the conditional use permit being non transferable.

    Ms. Savage stated that was fine. Applicants plan to stay there forever anyway.

    Commissioner Mink stated he would be glad to add that as a condition.

    Mr. Shawver asked Commissioner Mink that he mentioned no kenneling; does he also mean no boarding as well?

    Commissioner Mink stated he would add that also as a condition.

    Commissioner Heitkamp asked about landscaping the agility course.

    Commissioner Mink added a condition of property landscaping and maintenance.

    Commissioner Mink made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve the request by Sharon Savage for an animal training facility on 10.0 acres located at 6301 S Scottís Blvd., Columbia with the following conditions:

        1. There be no boarding or kenneling allowed.
        2. Within two years the driveway and parking area which is to include a minimum of 5 spaces be dust free with a minimum of a chip seal surface and additional overflow parking must be on site.
        3. Hours of operation are to be 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
        4. This conditional use permit is non transferable to a new owner.
        5. Applicant maintain proper landscaping to shield the area.
        6.  

          Pat Smith Ė Yes Kristen Heitkamp Ė Yes

          Mary Sloan Ė Yes Keith Neese Ė Yes

          Mike Morgan Ė Yes Carl Freiling Ė Yes

          David Mink - Yes

          Motion to approve request carries. 7 Yes 0 No

           

           

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

          REZONING REQUESTS

           

        7. Request by Crown Diversified Industries Corp. to rezone from R-S (Residential Single Family) to
        8. C-G (General Commercial) of 3.75 acres, more or less, located at 7208 E I-70 Dr. SE, Columbia.

          Director, Stan Shawver gave the staff report stating that this property is located Ĺ mile east of the Columbia municipal limits on I-70 Drive SE. The property is zoned R-S (Single Family Residential), which is the same zoning of the land to the south and east. Land to the west is zoned R-M and R-D. Land to the north on the other side of I-70 is zoned C-G. This site is located within the Columbia Public School District. Public Water District No. 9 provides water. Boone Electric Cooperative provides electric service. The original zoning for this tract is R-S. An over-the-road trucking company operated from this site for many years. In 2001, the Zoning Board of Adjustment recognized that the north 240 feet of this tract have status as a nonconforming use, equivalent of C-G. As a non-conforming use, the site is restricted in that the building can not be expanded or be replaced if more than 75% of the structure is damaged. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land use. While Staff supports commercial use of this property Staff feels that because of the residential nature of the surrounding area the public would be better served if the tract were rezoned to a planned district. Staff recommends that the request be denied.

          Present: Harold Chapman Jr., General Mgr., Crown Power and Equip., 5393 N. Highway PP, Columbia.

          Mr. Chapman presented a handout to the Commission which explained the applicants position.

          Mr. Chapman stated that Crown Power and Equipment is the owner of the business that resides at the property in question, Central Missouri Equipment. Mr. Chapman stated he is here to represent the owners of the property.

          Mr. Chapman stated that the applicants position is not that they are planning to do any building anytime soon or any expansion. They started the business new last year. The applicants concerns are if there happened to be a fire or wind storm that would damage the building above seventy-five percent, they could not operate the building for the business any longer. One of the issues is that the property has been used for commercial use since 1970ís. It is taxed as commercial property. That is why the applicants are here tonight.

          Chairperson Smith asked applicants if they thought to apply for planned commercial.

          Mr. Chapman stated that is an option, applicants would rather have commercial. It has been commercial for many years. There is commercial property to the east of the property. Applicants concern is the fact that they are trying to build a business and have been in this community for many years operating a business. A wind storm could come through tonight and applicants would have no opportunity to build back under the current zoning. Applicants want to be able to operate their business and allow it to grow.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that the thing that makes planned commercial less attractive make it more attractive to the Commission. Commissioner Freiling asked applicants if they discussed the option of applying for planned commercial with staff when the request was made.

          Mr. Florea stated that staff never discussed it with applicants but did discuss with the applicantís real estate agent.

          Mr. Chapman stated to the Commission that he had no plans other than to operate just like they are right now.

          Chairperson Smith stated it sounds like it is planned.

          Mr. Chapman stated that he would like to operate it as it is for two or three years. If the business continues like they hope it would, applicants would like to build a newer, larger facility on the property back away from I-70 a little because they are pretty close to the outer road as it is. Mr. Chapman asked if it could be zoned planned commercial without giving the Commission plans today? Do applicants have to give a plan that they are not even sure he will build for two or three years or maybe never? All indications show that this company is going to grow, the product they are selling seems to be going over well in the community and looks like they will be able to operate a successful business there.

          Mr. Shawver stated that the zoning regulations do allow commercial and industrial applications to proceed without filing a review plan or a final development plan. The zoning does not actually change until the review plan and final development plan are submitted and approved. Mr. Shawver stated that applicants canít do that tonight because the public notice and everything that was given was that this was a request for general commercial so it would require a new application. But it could be done without a plan other than showing what the existing structures and boundaries are.

          Commissioner Sloan stated the applicants would be able to continue operating as is.

          Mr. Shawver stated yes because the zoning doesnít change until the final development plan is filed. In theory, since the zoning doesnít change, they would still have the grandfather rights up until that point.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that would solve the issue.

          Mr. Shawver stated that when the applicants knew what they wanted to do as in add on to it, they could bring the plans in.

          Commissioner Freiling stated if applicants had a major loss then they would know they had the right to rebuild.

          Mr. Chapman stated that he felt he was kind of stuck right now. There is proof; applicants are paying commercial property taxes on property that is being used commercially but it is not zoned that way.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that from the Commissionís standpoint because there is so much residential use in the area and general commercial is really a pretty broad brush of possibilities. It is very difficult to open the door. If applicants were to withdraw the request and come back with a planned commercial request it would be much easier to admit the present reality.

          Commissioner Sloan asked the applicant if his real estate agent explained that to him.

          Mr. Chapman stated not exactly that way. Mr. Chapman stated he went through this process when he built the facility on Prathersville Road. Mr. Chapman stated he would not like to be in a situation where if the wind blew the building down or if it burned down tonight that he wouldnít be able to rebuild. Applicants do wish to operate two businesses in Boone County.

          Mr. Florea stated that the situation that would achieve the applicants goal the best would be to come back with a planned commercial request and a review plan that shows what the applicant has at the property now. The Commission could approve that and approve a final plan based on that; then the rezoning is achieved. If applicant suffers a loss the applicant could rebuild without going through the Planning and Zoning Commission because the rezoning is already approved. If the applicants come back for planned commercial without a review plan, then that doesnít change the zoning that just gives the applicant some assurance that the Commission agrees that rezoning that property some time in the future is a good idea. If applicants suffer a loss at that point they would still have a delay going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commission to have a review plan and final plan approved which could be a six to twelve week delay.

          Commissioner Freiling stated that in that case if the applicants were to come in and apply for a planned commercial, present the Commission with the present reality as the plan the applicant would achieve their rezoning so that their liability circumstance is cured. If the applicants wish to change their plan in the future, they would have to come back and submit a new plan.

          Mr. Chapman stated that chip and seal has been a big topic; what would applicants have to go through to asphalt their lot.

          Mr. Shawver stated that applicants are welcome to asphalt the lot now.

          Mr. Chapman stated he would withdraw the request and come back with a planned commercial request at a later date.

          Chairperson Smith accepted the withdraw of the application.

           

           

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

           

        9. Request by William Tincher to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to M-LP (Planned Industrial) and to

approve a Review Plan of 115 acres, more or less, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 63 and Benson Road, Sturgeon.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this site is located 2 miles southwest of Sturgeon at the former intersection of Highway 63, Benson Road and State Highway F. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture), which is the original zoning. All of the surrounding areas are zoned for agricultural use, except for an area on the north side of the 115-acre tract, which is zoned C-G. The applicant submitted two rezoning applications in September of 2001. The requests were recommended for denial by the P&Z Commission and were appealed to the County Commission. The applicant requested that the County Commission, rather than hear the appeal, remand the issue back to the P&Z Commission once the applicant provided more detailed information about the request. The applicant has dropped the portion of the original request that fell on the west side of Highway 63. The portion of the original request on the east side of Highway 63 is back before the P&Z Commission this evening and comprises a request is to rezone 115 acres to M-LP (Planned Industrial) and to approve a PID Review Plan associated with the rezoning request.

This area is located within the Sturgeon R-V school district. Public Water Supply District 10 provides water service. Boone Electric provides electric service. There is no sewer service to the property. Prior to the September 2001 request there have been no previous requests submitted for this property. Staff notified 11 property owners about this request.

The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed use is not consistent with the master plan; however, the plan does state that, when appropriate, planned commercial or planned industrial zoning can be considered along the major highways of Boone County. The proposal rates 40 points on the point rating system.

The applicant has presented a review plan for consideration. The review plan shows 14 lots ranging in size from 2.61 acres to 41.55 acres. An internal road network is also proposed to provide cross development traffic flow. The majority of the traffic from the development can be anticipated to go north from the development along Benson Road to the newly reconstructed Highway 22 Highway 63 interchange, which is located Ĺ mile to the north of the development. No structures are shown for any of the lots, so Revised Review and Revised Final Plans will be required to be acceptable and approved prior to any building construction on any of the proposed lots. A preliminary and final plat or plats will also be required before any lots are actually created. The only proposed restriction on possible proposed uses is that massage parlors are prohibited, and no specific uses are proposed at this time. Therefore, a worst case or most intensive use analysis must be applied when evaluating whether there are sufficient resources to support the proposed rezoning. The lack of any significant limitations on uses on the review plan makes analysis of the impact and infrastructure needs created by the rezoning particularly difficult.

The range of uses that would be permitted in an M-LP district include all of the uses in the Office Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, and Light Industrial Districts.

In general it is possible to break down infrastructure requirements into three categories, sewer, water and transportation. Following are examples of the uses that would be allowed by the rezoning organized by infrastructure demand. Some uses appear in more than one category:

The rezoning will also significantly increase the demand for fire, police and ambulance services.

The application lacks specificity with regard to the utilities available to the property. There is no sewer service available to the property. There is a note on the review plan indicating that the initial phases may propose on-site wastewater systems. In order to develop a quality industrial development that will be beneficial to the community and county in terms of generating enough density of use, a central collector wastewater system needs to be part of the development proposal from the initial phases of the development. If public water service is available it is unlikely to be able to meet the fire flow requirements. The proposed review plan indicates that a standpipe for water storage is proposed on a not-for-development-tract east of proposed lot 1. Again to make the development a quality industrial development that will be beneficial to the community and county in terms of generating enough density of use the on-site water storage will have to be sized so it will be adequate for high volume users and fire flows and needs to be part of any initial phase of the development. When combined with the potential for large numbers of uses that require heavy daily water flows it can be concluded that there is an inadequate water supply for the proposed rezoning. The existing traffic system, consisting mostly of local streets is incapable of handling the potential traffic without mitigation. Based upon current usage the county has a plan to rework Benson Road with a chip seal surface, the current county plan will not be adequate for the proposed change in adjacent zoning. It is not possible to quantify mitigating measures without a proposed circulation system and engineered traffic analysis, other than to conclude that Benson Road from the easternmost part of the property all the way back to the interchange of Highway 63 and Highway 22 will need at a minimum to be reconstructed to a commercial/industrial collector standard.

After applying the sufficiency of resources test described in the Master Plan staff has formed a recommendation that this request not be approved without appropriate plans and demonstrating that adequate water, sewer and other infrastructure can be provided before the site is developed. Although the additional information is helpful to help clarify some of the infrastructure and development issues of this proposal, the specifics of the infrastructure adequacy are still sufficiently lacking, which indicates that adequate infrastructure does not exist and will likely be prohibitive in cost to make the rezoning appropriate at this time. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the rezoning request and review plan

However, should the P&Z Commission feel that the rezoning is both appropriate and that provision of adequate infrastructure can be provided for the development to be beneficial to the community and county, then staff strongly recommends the following 8 conditions be placed upon the review plan to attempt to mitigate the lack of sufficient infrastructure.

  1. That it be recognized that no structures can be built within the development until approved revised review and final plans are obtained for the specific portion of the development proposed.
  2. That the current review plan be revised to show a central collection wastewater system for the development including a lot for the treatment facility that is acceptable to both the planning department and the BCRSD. That a central collection wastewater system be required for the development and be required as part of the initial phase of the development.
  3. That the water standpipe be sized and designed such as to provide sufficient water for both high volume water uses and high volume fire flow, that documentation acceptable to the planning department and Boone County Fire Protection District be provided as to how the amount of storage was calculated, and that said standpipe be required as part of the initial phase of development.
  4. That the final development plan be submitted concurrently with a preliminary plat.
  5. That an engineered traffic study examining the most intensive possible uses be submitted with the preliminary plat and final plan. The study shall propose mitigation of traffic impacts on the surrounding road network including reconstruction of Benson Road to a commercial/industrial standard.
  6. That the initial phase of the development present a final plat including all the road frontage along Benson Road and that the plat will be completed and recorded prior to completion of any additional phase of the development.
  7. That all conditions of the approved review plan be noted on the review plan and existing notes and information contradictory to the conditions be removed or modified to be compatible with the conditions.
  8. That the not-for-development-tract be indicated as a lot on the review plan and that it be noted as not-for-development.

If the Commission feels that these requirements are going to be to expensive, staff reminds the Commission that these conditions are required to help insure a minimum adequate level of infrastructure to support a quality development and that the lack of existing services in the proposal area makes the required conditions extensive. If the cost of providing adequate infrastructure to a development in its initial phases is too great for the development to accept then it is inappropriate to rezone the property at this time.

Present: Chad Sayre, Allstate Consultants, 7401 Fall Creek, Columbia.

Rob Smith, President, Prime Development.

Matt Jarrett, Vice-President, Prime Development

Mr. Sayre stated that Prime Development is working with the landowner, Mr. Tincher, on this industrial park. A couple of months ago, Prime Development contacted Mr. Sayre and asked him to take a look at this development and work with them to try and put together a plan for the property to be rezoned to planned industrial.

Mr. Sayre presented an enlarged copy of the Boone County plat book showing the property location.

Mr. Sayre stated that the darkest colored tract is the tract in question. The yellow area is the city limits of Sturgeon. The pink colored area is Benson Road and the interchange for Highway 22 and Highway 63. Mr. Sayre pointed out the location of the existing business; it is a distribution terminal.

Mr. Sayre stated, pointing to a layout of the proposed development, these tracts are difficult to work with sometimes. There is nothing wrong with an employment node in a rural area. Applicants have met with the Mayor of the City of Sturgeon and will be talking to them as time goes by about the potential annexation of this tract. Eventually these tracts will develop out to the interchange. The planned industrial zoning is an asset not only to this Commission but also to the developer in this case because it does allow several passes back in front of this Commission with any plan for any building. What applicants donít want to do is spend a lot of money on items that the applicants donít disagree with such as traffic studies and so fourth. Benson Road needs to be improved higher than just a chip and seal surface. Prime Development Corporation will say that Benson Road has to be improved in order to sell quality lots in that area.

Mr. Sayre stated that wastewater is not a huge concern for the applicants from the civil engineering side. From the planning standpoint Mr. Sayre stated he could understand the staffs concern. Wastewater and water capacity in any town but Columbia and Boone County is an issue. Applicants donít think that it is inappropriate for the City of Sturgeon and northern Boone County to have a shot at those businesses that are locating in Randolph County and the City of Moberly. There are quality employees in this area; there is a major interchange that is being constructed; Highway 22 and a freeway Highway 63. The potential for people to locate in those corridors is going to become higher. Applicants believe this would be the highest and best use for the property; it is very flat. Applicants have discusses with staff the possibility of a different street design just because Public Works probably doesnít want a waffled road. It is very flat. Applicants may incorporate a little wider cross section without curb and gutters. These are all things that will come through this Commission and before Staff about three more times.

Mr. Sayre stated that the applicants agree with the comment from staff regarding Benson Road.

Mr. Sayre presented a copy of the review plan.


Mr. Sayre stated that applicants showed the utility easements that were being proposed of all the property lines. The comment about the on site sewer system is that applicants might have a business that might use less, maybe 50-gallons a day, and to expend the money on a central wastewater treatment facility is not a huge issue; applicants will do that. But the most sanitary means of disposal of those small flows with these soils would be an on site sewer system. Applicants feel that those would be permitted in Boone County by the Health Department. The slopes are very flat; Mr. Sayre showed the proposes site of the wastewater treatment facility on the review plan. The review plan says that the area and lot dimensions to be determined by final design. From the design standpoint as difficult as it is with traffic, applicants donít believe it is appropriate for the developer to expend a lot of money. When the staff report stated "the worst case" then corrected and said "most intensive case", these utilities actually will control the type of development that might occur. Applicants have to be in front of this board; this is just to see if it is appropriate in Boone County to have industrial zoning here. Applicants have to show buildings even on the final review plan to even get that approved.

Mr. Sayre stated the one comment he didnít think was appropriate is number 6 in the staff report. If Prime Development Corporation gets a contact from the State Department of Economical Development that doesnít have a problem with the location; they are saying that the applicants donít have to be in Columbia. Applicants want to be closer to the new four-lane Highway 36 and the industries in Moberly and Centralia and want the rural atmosphere. There are companies out there like that.

Mr. Sayre pointed out the location of a stand pipe on the review plan.

Mr. Sayre stated he didnít think it was appropriate for applicants to have to plat all of the lots along Benson Road. If the concern is the right-of-way acquisition, we could get some other documentation to make sure the adequate right of way is platted for that 38-foot wide street, or whatever street we work out.

Mr. Sayre stated that if the concern is the roadway he proposes the road be extended down. The market is not the Columbia, Interstate 70 market but the northern Boone County market. Mr. Sayre stated the biggest concern is water. The applicants talked to the City of Sturgeon and they were not against the request but could not afford to spend a lot of money to extend water lines. The terrain is appropriate for this type of development, however it is not appropriate to spend a lot of money on an unknown.

Mr. Sayre stated that the rezoning will not be approved until the final development plan is approved so there is no harm in approving the rezoning because it will not take effect until the Commission approves the final development plan.

Commissioner Mink stated that the right of way where it used to go up through the sharp curve, it looks like applicants are intending to leave that as a road and it is coming in at an angle to the road which is not a good situation. What are the plans for the abandoned road if the straightening project is done.

Mr. Sayre stated that what was shown as the alignment was intended to be shown as what was current with the County staff at the time. That alignment could change still. The area that is being cut off; applicants assume that would be abandoned and demolished.

Commissioner Mink stated that it would be returned to adjacent landowners.

Mr. Sayre stated yes.

Commissioner Mink stated he is not sure about access to the residence and has not seen the final plan so is not sure how the engineer plans to deal with that.

Mr. Sayre stated it would not be applicants intention to maintain that geometry.

Commissioner Mink stated that 2.63 acres is more or less shown as a potential lot it doesnít really show how that lot would be accessed.

Mr. Sayre asked Commissioner Mink if he was talking about lot 14.

Commissioner Mink stated yes.

Mr. Sayre stated it would be accessed off the new Benson Road.

Commissioner Mink asked if that would be in alignment with Stanton Boulevard.

Mr. Sayre stated he didnít know, it has not been determined. Mr. Sayre stated he believed it would make sense to line up an access with Stanton Road. But that lot also has fairly long frontage approximately 770 feet so applicants would have the possibility to feel pretty good about obtaining another driveway 440-feet away from Stanton. That lot is going to wind up being pretty rough. Applicants havenít gone in to a lot of specifics on lot development. Part of the reason for just the basic review plan is that applicants could start off on the road of making assumptions and throwing foot prints on that plan; that may be required. Whenever applicants come in with a development proposal for the first lot, it may be required that applicants do a more detailed plan for assumptions. If applicants have to defend a traffic study to County staff; applicants would probably have to do a more detailed layout. Applicants donít have their zoning yet.

Commissioner Mink stated that one of the traffic concerns is possible traffic going back toward Sturgeon on Benson Road. It is hard to imagine that happening but anything is possible.

Mr. Sayre stated that one would think with the choices at hand; taking a left or right, one would head to the outer road and go up to the interchange. The Mayor of Sturgeon did say that people are looking across the railroad tracks at Sturgeon to do more residential development.

Mr. Sayre pointed out the location of the railroad tracks on the review plan.

Mr. Sayre stated that applicants think that once that happens, Benson Road would be improved but not to a County commercial standard; it would be more of an asphalt overlay like Sturgeon would do now. Applicants would think that any industrial traffic would certainly want to go out toward Highway 63.

Commissioner Mink stated that applicants mentioned how flat it was up there and in the design process in what the Public Works department is trying to do, they are finding it rather difficult to achieve drainage for the stormwater. Commissioner Mink stated he would be concerned about the roads that applicants are proposing; that applicants would have the same problem. There is no slope to work with and would like to hear how applicants propose to deal with that.

Mr. Sayre stated that those flat slopes are great when it comes to competing with another community on excavation costs if it is a competition for a prospect. Applicants would have an advantage from a excavation costs but from the public side the roadway improvement side, applicants concern is the roadway slopes. One thing that applicants talked about was still using maybe not curb and gutter sections, but still going with roadway ditches and still going with combinations of piping that would be off the right of way. It would be more of a cost issue; that has been done only in shorter areas. If applicants get their rezoning applicants would be back in front of the Commission also.

Commissioner Mink stated he would be concerned about ditches becoming detention ponds with no drainage.

Mr. Sayre stated he got a comment from MoDot worried about increased flows and applicants said that they are just worried about getting the water over there. It is definitely a concern for the applicants as well. Piping may be the only way with the flat slopes that are there. The different piping systems might be these collection areas with oversized piping to handle these stormwater flows that might come off these buildings. It may be economic to combine some of the water and use underground detention in oversized piping that could be laid flatter. From the Countyís standpoint there would be the concern with sediment. The oversized piping would be combination detention but there would be these areas that would be ditched that would be partial detention and entrance to these oversized pipes. That is as far as the applicants have gotten.

Commissioner Mink stated that even though it was piped he would still be concerned that it is going to be tough just to find a place to daylight the pipe.

Commissioner Neese stated that applicants need the zoning. Is it more that applicants need to have the zoning so they can go out and get businesses; if you just have raw land and a business that is looking at an industrial park that says it is zoned A-1 the business won't even look a second time. Applicants won't see the prospect. Is this the reason for the applicants trying to get the rezoning without a plan?

Mr. Sayre stated that the first thing that applicants need to do is Prime Development is doing another industrial area, 29 acres. They are grading it, preparing it, and building the streets, it is right at the northern boundary of the city limits of Columbia. They are doing all of that on the front end because of what they know is available market. Mr. Sayre stated in his opinion, in this market the client can't afford to invest all of the money in infrastructure where we may have only maybe one prospect a year; we hope it is an issue and hope they get more prospects than what they are expecting. Applicants are trying to develop this with a realistic goal in mind to have a plan. Most of these prospects that come along arenít big users but they still have a varying amount of uses; users of water and creation of wastewater. The stage that applicants are at now is if this is an appropriate use for this ground. Is it the highest and best use and is it appropriate. Does it have the potential to serve northern Boone County as this employment node? Mr. Sayre stated he believes it does and hopes the City of Sturgeon does. The City of Sturgeon has their eye on the existing interchange that is being constructed and they are also very frustrated that they didnít get the second interchange there at Highway CC. They felt that got slipped by them through the planning part of the improvement plan of Highway 63. Mr. Sayre stated that stage that he sees the applicants at is; here is this review plan that shows an internal development concept, here is this developer that says that they agree with the staff report. For this to be a good piece of property to development and for the applicants to sell lots applicants will have to do off site improvements.

Mr. Sayre stated regarding the plan process, it is an advantage for it to be planned in this case because it should allow the County and County Staff the flexibility to work with applicants for this potential. Applicants have to be back in front of this Commission three times, there is the possibility that something can be done concurrently if the applicants get a prospect with a defined use, a defined amount of wastewater and a defined amount of water needs. Applicants are requesting a zoning that won't come in to effect until the final development plan is approved. Once we do a review plan and submit it to the Staff there will be stormwater requirements, fire protection and water requirements, a wastewater requirement and also a traffic requirement. Depending upon the prospect that comes in the County will have a trigger because of the conditions that are put on this plan. Mr. Sayre asked Mr. Florea that whenever applicants get a prospect they have to come up with a preliminary plat of the whole tract.

Mr. Florea stated it depends on whether the applicants have to subdivide the property or not.

Mr. Sayre stated he thought that was in the staff report. Applicants will get a prospect and come to the Commission and show them what the applicants are going to do. Staff will recommend that a traffic study has to be done or not be done before the plan is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If there are 20 trucks a day, there will be a question of what needs to be done. If economic development dollars are involved, if there are new employees then it complicates the closing of that property but it makes it a lot easier for off site improvements because there could be grant dollars involved also. That is down the line.

Mr. Sayre stated that before he can even go to the City of Sturgeon and talk to them, applicants want to know if this is an appropriate use in Boone County 2000-feet from the interchange of Highway 22 and Highway 63. Before the applicants can begin, they need to know if there is enough control in this plan that the County feels comfortable that they are going to get to see it not just once but twice. Mr. Florea talked about the possibility of being able to get a building permit without doing that. Mr. Sayre stated he didnít think that in this planned zoning that any building could be built without doing a final review plan. That would determine whether or not the applicants could get a building permit. As far as the on site sewers, Staff can say to put in on site sewers. Other small users that may use 50 gallons a day it may make sense. Improvements could be bonded for the future development. There are ways to make sure that Prime Development or someone puts up the amount of security to the County to make sure that those things are put in later. If it has to be put in now then it could be phased in and applicants could put in a central collection system; it is not a huge issue but it may make more sense just because of the small amount of flow that the applicants are expecting from some of these prospects.

Commissioner Morgan stated he has a hard time believing that there is only going to be 50 gallons of wastewater used in a business on a daily basis.

Mr. Sayre stated it is surprising. A lot of them that have on site sewer systems like a door company, an assembly that is fairly automated it may have four employees. Trucking companies have very little wastewater because the guys back up and load and there is the one toilet in the building. Now with 1.6 gallons per flush a lot of flushes can occur. Applicants did one the other day for a landscape business where it was sized for 65 gallons a day. If it makes sense, applicants can propose it; but if it doesnít, the staff is going to have full control over what gets approved and what doesnít.

Commissioner Mink stated he has seen on the news jobs being lost from Centralia and Mexico and places similar to this. Commissioner Mink asked applicants what guarantees or what kind of market have applicants done to think that someone would be interested in this.

Mr. Sayre stated that applicants are lucky in this case that Prime Development has done development up and down both corridors, Highway 22 and Highway 63. Some of those employees in Centralia and Mexico drove down Highway 22 and moved up to Moberly and applicants want a shot at them in Boone County. Applicants think that those employees didnít move from Centralia and Sturgeon, some probably did, they are not driving up to Moberly. Theyíve had a lot of new jobs there but if their jobs are going to transfer in these local or rural areas developments like this can be viable and these small communities deserve a shot at them.

Commissioner Mink stated that Mr. Sayre mentioned number 6 and asked staff that the concern is that applicants can build Tincher Industrial Boulevard and have Bourbon Township coming off and possibly avoid ever coming in to contact with Benson. This could be platted in a different way down the road where all the lots were turned inward away from Benson then not ever effect Benson Road. What is the concern of number 6?

Mr. Florea stated that the condition was not written to require the platting of all the lots along Benson Road 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9. The concern was because problems that the Public Works Department has had obtaining right of way for Benson Road. They are approaching the point of condemnation. If the Commission chooses to approve the rezoning then staff thought it appropriate that the right of way acquisition should happen first.

Mr. Sayre stated that he was not aware that right of way was an issue and neither was Mr. Smith. Mr. Florea informed applicants today. Mr. Smith called the owner and they met with Wendy Lister and signed the documents. You can't do an industrial park without right of way dedicated.

Mr. Florea stated that applicants have a set of documents with them.

Commissioner Mink stated that Ms. Lister called him before the meeting and said the 50-feet of right of way that the County is trying to purchase through there for Benson Road is completed.

Mr. Sayre stated there would need to be extra right of way for the street the applicants want to put in.

Commissioner Mink stated yes. In a plat the County would require a 66-foot right of way; the County only purchased a 50-foot right of way.

Mr. Sayre stated that applicants put on the plan that this would be dedicated; the 33-foot half width right of way. As long as the intention was not that applicants had to construct all of Benson Road unless they stepped through that. Applicants would come with a prospect and come down one of these internal roadways and come with a plan then the County will still have control on the off site improvements because of the rezoning restrictions. Applicants could still be forced to do that before the plan is approved.

Commissioner Mink stated that if the applicants platted 33-feet on the south side and the County owned 25-feet on the north side already, the County would still not have the 66-foot right of way, they would be 8-feet short. How would the applicants build the type of road they are proposing and not have the right of way that the County requires?

Mr. Sayre stated that as far as the 38-foot width on a 19-foot half width, applicants would have to make sure that the storm drainage structures would have to go on applicants side of the road. They might be the size where a modified system where they would be under the pavement might not be suitable to the County, nor would it be practical because of the grades that they would have to achieve. If there is extra right of way that is required, that would also be a comment that applicants would be subject to before the final plan and final plat is approved.

Commissioner Mink asked staff that they can only require dedication of the right of way on the platted side. You can't require the full width of the road.

Mr. Florea stated that only the property owner can sign a subdivision plat dedicating right of way. However, other types of infrastructure improvements, if there are easements or rights of way necessary for those improvements and those are being built by the developer, usually it is the developers responsibility to obtain the right of ways. If there is additional right of way on the north side that was required in order to do improvements to the road that are the responsibility of the developer, then probably the right of way acquisition would be the developers responsibility as well.

Open to public.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

In opposition to the request:

Norman Lenhardt, 1118 St. Christopher St., Columbia.

Mr. Lenhardt stated he didnít know if he was necessarily opposed to the request but is very concerned about the water supply they are going to have to use and is concerned about drying up the farmers wells in the area. They have done that over in Sedalia with the poultry plant. All the wells within 3 or 4 miles of there has gone dry, which leaves all the farmers stuck. This area that applicants are proposing where they are going in to the water supply, particularly the more shallow water supplies are not very reliable. The other concern is as flat as it is up there not only is it flat, it is notorious for not having internal drainage. The water tends to stand a lot so the roads are not going to hold up as well. Applicants will have to rethink their roadways, particularly blacktop is not going to be the thing up there because it is just soup underneath. Blacktop is no better than the base under it. In the parking lot area, applicants should be required to go with porous pavement. There are containment cells you can do this with and they hold up a lot better even that concrete; they are about the same price. This would be another way to help out the situation. You have to go a long way to get the fall you need to get that water out. Stormwater is going to be greatly increased by the buildings.

Mr. Lenhardt stated he was concerned if the applicants were looking toward single story buildings or if they would be site specific. Mr. Lenhardt stated he has worked in plenty of shops in St. Louis that had two and three-stories and it didnít seem to bother anything. Now people thing they had to spread all over the countryside. There is only so much farmland in the area and this property is prime farmland. The more efficiently we use the land the better off we are going to be. The so-called surplus food we have now is not going to be here in 5 years. There will be changes in the price of food. In 1955 Americans spent 26-percent of their salary for food, today we spend less than 11-percent. It will swing back the other way some day so we need to rethink that whole economy. If we donít look at it ahead of time, we are going to have real problems.

Mr. Lenhardt stated those are his concerns; the water, excessive use of farmland for single story buildings, and the drainage.

Nathanael Kohl, 1080 Route Y, Harrisburg.

Mr. Kohl stated that he was a resident of Sturgeon for several years. Mr. Kohl stated that he had to speak because this is far more significant than anything this Commission has faced tonight. Mr. Kohl stated that he is shocked that there is not public here to comment on it. This is a significant change to northern Boone County and any change that is made in zoning the Commission has to think about it real hard.

Closed to public hearing.

Mr. Sayre stated as far as the comment of a porous pavement, applicants would be glad to evaluate that. It is difficult to get that approved in Boone County. It turns out that up there might be a pretty good instance with the soil types; applicants may look at that. As far as the wells go; applicants are not real confident that they can drill their own well. Someone at Sturgeon said that the City may want to get in to the water business again and that is not their goal. The formations that would be available there; Mr. Lenhardt is correct, it is a sulfur content. Mr. Sayre stated it has been a while since he has looked at a water survey up there but you would have to go east quite a way before they can get good water without going to a lot different formation than what Mr. Lenhardt was talking about. Mr. Sayre stated that they are right on the border of having brine water in that area. There is a potential for a well there, it just might have to be in a formation that is excessively deep. It is not the applicants intention to drill a well, applicants would need to work with the water district in order to do something like that.

Mr. Sayre stated that if there is an adequate location or any kind of an impact to the district; applicants arenít asking the districts customers rates be raised for this park. The applicants are planning on working with the district and have talked to the Mayor of Sturgeon and he had indicated that the City wanted to work with the water district. They have some issues, they are charted as a real water district. The industrial park will need to have fire protection. That is the reason for proposing a privately owned and maintained water storage facility. It would have to be permitted through the Department of Natural Resources. Applicants believe that the size of the facility would be dependant on how much water the water district could offer the applicants as a customer. If it is 15 gallons a minute then that will determine the size of the facility. If it is 50 gallons a minute then that would also determine the size of the facility. The increased size of the amount of water service that they could supply the applicants will determine the amount of storage that is required as the park is developed. Applicants hope to get a user large enough that they can do that and elevate a tower but applicants donít know if that will be the case. The existing business that is up there now is a dry hydrant and a pond which is something that Mr. Smith has stated to the owner that they are not interested in doing.

Chairperson Smith asked what type of market research the applicants have done to see how they could see those lots; applicants talked a lot about employees, Chairperson Smith stated she doesnít remember the applicants talking about who they may be attracting to these spots.

Mr. Sayre stated that as far as a market study to publicize; applicants have not. Applicants want to get the zoning before doing that. The liability of Sturgeon or the residents up there so they donít have to drive to Columbia or Moberly or Centralia, in basic concept applicants feel that there is a potential for that.

Chairperson Smith stated she was just trying to think who the County was turning prime farmland over to.

Mr. Sayre stated that there is one trucking terminal up there; there will be those list of clients.

Mr. Sayre stated that he did not address Mr. Kohlís comments but agrees that this is a major rezoning and this is the initial phase of it. That is why the applicants goal is to determine if it is appropriate. The Mayor of Sturgeonís eyes lit up when the applicants showed him the plan because of the possibilities. The City of Sturgeon made it real clear that they are a small community and there has to be other funding mechanisms in place besides the public private partnership possibilities go down in the rural areas.

Mr. Smith stated he is the President of Prime Development Corporation, it is a sister company to Randy Adams Construction, which is a design build general contractor that has operated here in Columbia for 33 years. The bulk of the applicants business is in out-state Missouri; that is roughly defined as a 100 mile radius of Columbia. Applicants operate in numerous small communities and have been very instrumental in a number of them in assisting in their economic development efforts. This project is more of an economic development than a land development. There has been a trend in recent years that applicants have tracked and paid attention to and have participated in. In that large employers are moving out of the metropolitan areas. There are a lot of reasons why; traffic, running out of land, real estate prices are too high, but most of all they can not find employees. Mr. Smith gave an example of a recent project the owners were getting ready to open their doors and were looking for 80 applicants they got 3600 applicants; that is a fact, this was in Moberly. Those people come from a 50 mile radius of that location. That is a classic example.

Mr. Smith stated that another business that was put in at a similar location, they had a one-day job fair and were looking for 40 employees and had 1200 inquiries. That is why people are coming, and that is why they are moving out in to the out-state areas this is why they businesses want to go to the rural settings because they know that as well as applicants do. Applicants work in Boonville, Fulton, Mexico, Moberly, Rolla, and Sullivan; this is a growing trend. Boone County has a lot of things to offer, all the things we all enjoy. Those rural settings are very attractive to larger employees and those trends will continue with time. As far as market study, applicants live it everyday and know what is happening. The phone calls applicants get everyday of these types of businesses that want to look and consider. Are they all suitable for this? Absolutely not. Would we recommend this? No. But it is another alternative. It is going out of our County and those tax dollars go with it and the families and all the things that go with that. There is simply not anything like that within Boone County that we can offer.

Mr. Smith stated that this development probably in a best since would be a 10-year development at the minimum. That may be optimistic; but it will probably take a minimum of 10-years to build this up. The improvements that need to happen are going to evolve with time. Mr. Sayre mentioned economic development dollars, more specifically that is CDBG grants; applicants have participated in those and enjoyed the benefits of those, there is up to one million dollars you can draw down on one particular project, that is for 100 jobs, it is $10,000 per job. Those dollars are available year in and year out. The Department of Economic Development does not even use all that fund. They are getting more eager and the requirements that fit within that program are getting broader. It is not just for new jobs moving in from Kansas or Nebraska; it can be for retention projects. There is a business in St. Louis that is going to move to Kansas unless they can find a more out-state, more room, and an employee base, those dollars are available for retention projects as well. Mr. Smith stated he has participated in those so knows it to be a fact.

Commissioner Morgan asked if these businesses are moving to out-county areas because wages are cheaper and they can hire people for less wages?

Mr. Smith stated in some cases that could be. The work ethic is the primary reason. The people in the rural areas, it is just a matter that the work ethic tends to be better.

Commissioner Morgan asked if the applicants are going to be asking for a lot of tax breaks when they develop this land.

Mr. Smith stated no.

Commissioner Morgan stated that the reason that Wal-Mart had such a large turn out is the fact that they started out at $16 and hour.

Mr. Smith stated that is part of it. The other business that he referred to was Scholastics it is a book warehouse and they started out at $7 or $8 per hour. The employment base is there and that is why the business are moving out of the metro areas because they can't get people to work.

Commissioner Morgan stated that at CCX there is probably seven people that work there that live in the area. Commissioner Morgan stated he didnít think there were that many in the Sturgeon area. The State of Missouri loses over 100,000 acres a year of farmland to development. Basically it can not be replaced. Food prices and things like that are going to be imported. We already import a lot of food from other countries where they donít regulate pesticides and herbicides they use. Commissioner Morgan stated that his main concern is the loss of farmland. Sturgeon does need the tax dollars, especially the school district. Sturgeon school district had to build a holding pond also so it is not unusual for anyone to build out there and have to build fire ponds. It may be a fact the applicants will have to get used to.

Mr. Smith stated it is not something the applicants would want to do. As they have stated tonight applicants realize this is a planned zoning and everything that applicants propose to do would have to come back before the Commission and it would have to be discussed and the issues would need to be ironed out. Applicants can only be that specific tonight. They donít know if it is a 5000 square foot user or a 100,000 square foot user and all the different ramifications of each situation; they would all be unique in nature. It is not just Planning and Zoning but codes and other things that govern the applicants.

Mr. Jarrett stated that what Mr. Smith has stated is a very great point none of the applicants would disagree. The key in this situation is to find the right balance. Mr. Jarrett stated that he agrees completely, the loss of farmland is a big concern. The other concern is people in those communities being able to have kids who grow up in those communities to have something to do so they wonít have to leave town and go somewhere else. If you find the right balance in economic development you are able to potentially create a situation that serves everyone, it has to go through something like this so that it does keep that balance.

Commissioner Morgan stated that he hated to see a piece of ground like that taken out of production on maybes for 10 years. Agriculture is the biggest business in Missouri.

Mr. Smith stated that the owner has no intention of taking the property out of production. Applicants realize that they are asking for the potential of zoning. The permission for it to be rezoned if applicants meet all the criteria that would be required for a specific project. Mr. Tincher intends on continuing to try and generate revenue off of that property.

Mr. Sayre stated he had the feeling that Mr. Tincher would farm every inch of that property.

Commissioner Mink stated that the applicants comments about not having enough applicants in Columbia or Moberly; this area is in the labor shed of both of those communities so if you canít find applicants within those metropolitan areas, Commissioner Mink stated he is not sure where applicants think they are going to come from to work out in that area. Commissioner Mink stated that he recently moved to Boone County from a large metropolitan area and people do work there, but they won't work as cheaply and believes that Commissioner Morganís comment was dead on when he stated the reason these businesses are moving to those types of areas is to avoid labor costs.

Mr. Sayre stated that this business moved from Jefferson City to Moberly and at a job fair, their goal was to get 80 applicants, they got 1200 applicants for those 80 positions. There was a lot more people interested than what anyone expected. That fact in itself is why Moberly was the successful candidate in getting the Wal-Mart distribution center. That and the fact that Heilig Meyer closed and there is a trucking force available so they saw the opportunity there. There are twenty-two miles in either direction of this location, except for the west, where employment is becoming available and the applicants have just a good an argument as anybody to say that employment potential would work in this location.

Commissioner Mink stated he didnít know what the unemployment rate is in Moberly but in Columbia it is pretty low. There may be some underemployment if people see a company coming in that provides more premium jobs they would apply for that and leave whatever they were doing. Commissioner Mink stated there is no anchor tenant proposed so he can only speculate what could go in there. It may be just a warehouse with a couple of forklift operators. As far as economic development; that is a big unknown without any more specifics about what kind of anchor tenant the applicants have to bring in.

Mr. Sayre stated that he was intimately involved in the project in Moberly at the Wal-Mart distribution center. There was a discussion or disagreement as to if the unemployment numbers were skewed because of the prison. Those are actually included in the unemployment calculations. There is this big wonder of whether or not those numbers were skewed. When they had to extend their job fair by three times the length of what they were expecting in applicants that in itself adds a lot of validity that there is employment available to the north.

Commissioner Sloan stated that this is a big undertaking with a ten year plan, maybe even longer than that. Applicants are reluctant to go in to some of these things because you donít know what is going to happen, by the same token applicants are talking about employment and people wanting to move. The Commission doesnít know that you could do this and a company could come in two years from now and that could be it. This could sit and there are other areas closer in to Columbia that are industrial type developments that haven't really developed. Commissioner Sloan stated she has concerns about going on a wish; we hope this happens, we wish this happens but we donít know.

Commissioner Sloan stated she can't look ten years down the road and think this is a good thing, because she does not see enough now to make her think that.

Mr. Sayre stated that the beauty in getting to work in the planned zoning district with this development the risk is all on the landowner. This land won't be taken out of agriculture production all at once. Applicants won't even get their zoning until they actually come in to the final plan and have a prospect, which the Commission will get to evaluate again. The risk is what Mr. Sayre has problems understanding what the risk would be to the County, the neighbors, and the landowner would be dependant on how much money that you are being asked to invest in to the project. Mr. Sayre stated that is what he thinks the Commission should base their decision on.

Mr. Jarrett stated that small communities deserve the opportunity to experience economic development and grow and do the things that they want to do just like a big community. One thing about looking in to the future, there is not this type of development in a community like Sturgeon. One thing that you can guarantee is that if you look at this from this standpoint, this type of development especially in a situation where you donít have to spend a great deal of money until you have these people in hand is a great way to do a low-cost, lower risk economic development. You have the ability for the town of Sturgeon to increase its tax base and gives great opportunities for its people. That won't happen if we donít do something like this.

Chairperson Smith stated she wished someone from Sturgeon were here to tell the Commission this.

Mr. Jarrett stated he wished they were here too.

Mr. Smith stated that the thing about the land use and the development and all of these things, if he has learned anything in his years of doing industrial development is that you donít know. That is absolutely correct. There is no way of measuring that. Mr. Smith stated that he owns a spec building of 67,000 square feet that has been sitting for going on six years. Mr. Smith stated he has sold several projects and attracted businesses around that due to the spec building. Mr. Smith stated he understands the risks and the Commission is correct, you donít know what will happen. Mr. Smith stated that his opinion is that this type of park will attract one of two things, what the applicants consider to be very small 10,000 square feet or less or very large. One of the things that this offers is the parcels that are closer in to Columbia is that there are no large parcels. The one applicants are referring to in Moberly is a 160-acre site for one project. There are not sites like that when you get closer in. If you have a user that needs a 20 or 30-acre site, they are not available.

Commissioner Sloan stated that applicants donít have any prospects at the present time.

Mr. Smith stated no they donít; but they have no way of even attracting or talking to any potential clients if they canít tell them that they have the ability to zone.

Commissioner Freiling stated that in south Boone County this is something theyíve experienced over a long period of time. When you donít have the proper zoning and infrastructure in place to attract business. Commissioner Freiling stated that his position is that while he does have sympathy for the applicants, he also has a strong sympathy for the staffís position because in particular the issues that are hard to deal with like the availability of water is the most troubling because everything else is more a matter of money and engineering. Commissioner Freiling stated he would like to have more information. Some of the information would have to come from the City of Sturgeon. Commissioner Freiling stated that he would like to have more time to look at this and an opportunity to think about it.

Commissioner Morgan asked the staff if this request could be tabled until next month and have the applicants come back with some people from Sturgeon.

Mr. Sayre asked the Commission what information they would like to see.

Commissioner Freiling stated that he would like information on the water issue. If applicants find a proper user you can deal with streets and drainage.

Mr. Shawver stated that the zoning regulations do not allow the Commission to table this type of request. The Commission will have to approve or deny it or the applicants can withdraw the request.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the Commission can not approve the request unless the applicants can show that adequate infrastructure is available for the project.

Commissioner Mink stated that this is not in the city limits of Sturgeon, so they will not change their tax base at all. It sounds like it is too far to away to annex.

Mr. Sayre stated that he hopes the cityís attorney finds out a way how.

Commissioner Mink stated that it is an unknown. Commissioner Mink stated he didnít know what the housing stock was in Sturgeon or if there is available land to build more houses. Although people may work there it doesnít necessarily mean that people will relocate there. The economic development argument still sounds weak.

Mr. Sayre presented the review plan and asked the Commission if this would be an appropriate location, is this a suitable location for that land use? The water issue is a concern of the applicants as well. It is self governing. Planned zoning is an advantage to the developer when it comes time for projects like this. Mr. Sayre stated if he had the prospect and it was placed on the smaller lot, if the client needed 15-gallons of water a minute, peak. The prospect may not need any fire protection by code, there is the standpipe that can cover a two-hour fire flow. Is this an appropriate location for a node in northern Boone County? That is the issue. Is this a good node for this County and this city and for this community. It is next to an interchange, it is very visible. Mr. Sayre stated that the applicants are not saying that water is not an issue. But it is a self-governing issue.

Commissioner Freiling stated that what will happen is if the Commission approves this request and the applicants come in with a great prospect, it gets very hard to say no at that point. Because then everyone is fired up about getting other prospects.

Mr. Jarrett stated that economic development is a stretch in small communities. If you look at small communities all around like Boone County, Cole County and other counties, they are literally drying up. Sturgeon is probably not the kind of community it was 25-years ago. These types of developments help maintain that and help those communities survive.

Commissioner Mink stated that a site that is interesting from the prospect of the things that it does have going for it, the highway access the flatness of it, you could build a large warehouse pretty easily on a flat piece of ground. From that standpoint it does have some benefits but the water is a big concern. Applicants stated that if they had one small development in the corner of the property they could provide 15 gallons. That is very marginal and that doesnít address the rest of the property. Applicants would have to have a pretty significant tenant going in to offset the costs of the infrastructure.

Mr. Sayre stated that if applicants had to spend $112,000 to extend a line to Sturgeon; applicants are in a position where they are in a rural water district regardless of whether this gets annexed or not, the applicants are within their district. If the water district chooses to serve the applicants they may require improvements that is where they will work with the district. In speaking with the Mayor of Sturgeon, it is a very interesting water district. Applicants are in a position where they are concerned about water also but the Mayor was also concerned about the applicants not being able to get water through the district. If the district wishes not to serve the applicants then they will request that they are not within their district they will then extend a line to Sturgeon. Is that cost prohibitive? It is something you donít want to do but it would be a lot cheaper than an elevated tower of a certain size that is being served with a very low supply, meaning 25-gallons a minute. Applicants may be able to get a lot more out of the line extension to the City, then there are benefits all along Benson Road.

Mr. Sayre stated that the applicants are stuck in a situation where they would have to spend all the money on the front end before he even knows if he gets his zoning. Mr. Sayre stated he wanted to know if it was appropriate.

Commissioner Freiling stated it is only appropriate if the applicants have enough water.

Mr. Smith stated that he would use Commissioner Minkís example of a large warehouse. Many times land costs or other related infrastructure costs do not determine whether that facility goes here or another State away. Those costs are so minute in the overall investment. $100,000 for a water line sitting here to serve a small business is a big expense but for something like that, it is very minor. It is in the single digit percentages of the cost of a project. It is the location, the employment base, the quality of life, and transportation. Those things are important.

Commissioner Mink stated that if applicants were able to attract someone like that, then he would agree. But it would appear all applicants are attracting landscapers with a need for a 10,000 square foot warehouse, that is a big cost to them, again we come back to the unknown. Commissioner Mink stated he didnít know anything about Sturgeonís water system and if they have the treatment capacity to absorb these kind of additions or not.

Mr. Sayre stated that Sturgeon purchases their water from the district. Applicants are within the water district; it is in their service area. Even though there are no customers there, applicants are within their district so they are really dealing with the water district initially.

Commissioner Mink stated that the City of Sturgeon does not have an independent water treatment facility. So the applicants have circled the loop and come right back to the water district.

Mr. Shawver stated that Sturgeon buys their water from the water district. They have a municipal water system but they make their own rules for distribution. When the high school was built on the north side of Sturgeon; even though there is a water district water tower within 100 yards of the school the water district would not allow fire hydrants be placed for the fire protection of that school. The school had to annex in to the City of Sturgeon and Sturgeon had to extend their water lines to the school in order to provide fire hydrants and sprinklers. This would be a similar situation. Mr. Shawver stated he didnít know what the State law or municipal law will allow the City of Sturgeon to extend municipal water lines out to serve a private development. Mr. Shawver stated he didnít know how that will work. It would seem that the water district will have the ability to say no, we are not allowing the City of Sturgeon to serve that area unless it is annexed in to the city; it is a mile and a half away.

Chairperson Smith stated that is another unknown.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked what the limitation was for annexation.

Mr. Shawver stated there is no limit on annexation but you have to get the other property owners to agree, it has to be contiguous.

Commissioner Morgan stated that water district 10 is not friendly about putting in fire hydrants.

Mr. Shawver stated they donít believe in fire hydrants or sprinkler systems.

Commissioner Morgan stated that there is one on Ponderosa Road that the developer of the land put in 1971 out of his pocket. There is probably not 5 fire hydrants in water district 10 outside of the city limits.

Mr. Sayre stated that is why the applicants assumed they would have to purchase a storage facility and have their own private fire protection system.

Commissioner Morgan stated that applicants may be able to put a water treatment plant on Hugh Tincherís lake and pull water off the lake.

Mr. Sayre stated that applicants are not going to promote the City of Sturgeon getting back in the water business. Applicants believe that the City has decided to centralize. They are a very large customer of the water district. Applicants are allowing the City of Sturgeon, if they want this to happen, to meet with the district themselves.

Commissioner Mink stated he feels that without more information about the water supply it is hard to support the request.

Mr. Smith asked the Commission if they feel this is the limiting factor.

Commissioner Mink stated it is one of the major limiting factors.

Mr. Smith stated he can understand the position that the applicants are in tonight.

Commissioner Freiling stated that large rezonings are troublesome for the Commission because they create precedent that the Commission doesnít like to face. It is particularly difficult when there is so much unknown. The fact that it is a planned development somewhat easier. The fact that it is in an area that has not benefited from the economic growth of Boone County. But it is a big unknown, it is a tough proposal to support. Applicants do not have the option of solving the adequate water supply on their own. That is a critical limiting factor.

Mr. Sayre stated that applicants can't say that they will not be above providing a supply well on site; applicants are not confident enough to tell the Commission that.

Commissioner Freiling asked applicants the nature of the conversations with the district.

Mr. Sayre stated that after meeting with the City of Sturgeon, applicants havenít met with the water district at request of the City.

Commissioner Freiling asked why the City went to the district themselves, is it because they had a better chance?

Mr. Sayre stated he believed that the city wanted to see what the districts position was. Also the fact that there are issues as to whether the city should be in the water business. Those are big issues for the city.

Mr. Smith asked the Commission if the applicants were to withdraw the request and meet with the city council and discuss this at length; what limitations would there be if applicants withdrew their request tonight.

Mr. Shawver stated that if the applicants withdrew without prejudice they could resubmit their application at any time. If a motion was made to recommend denial and the applicants appealed the decision to the County Commission then they could approve or deny the request as well.

Mr. Smith stated that even with the appeal process, applicants want the support of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Applicants will choose to withdraw the request.

Mr. Sayre stated that if the Commission accepts the withdraw, they will do so on the basis of water.

Chairperson Smith accepted the request to withdraw the application on the basis of water.

 

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

 

PLAT REVIEWS

 

  1. Lazy K, Plat 2. S22-T46N-R12W. A-2. John King, Susan King, James P. Wilson and Reba Earl Kraus, owners. James V. Patchett, surveyor.
  2.  

    Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this 2 lot minor plat is located on the west side of Old Highway 63 approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of Old Highway 63 and Dee Woods Road. The site is approximately 1/4 mile south of the municipal limits of the City of Ashland. The area being subdivided contains 7.92-acres. The property is zoned A-2 (agricultural) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The property is currently the site of one house and a barn. The site is just south of a number of small lots along Dee Woods Road that do not meet the minimum lot size for the zoning district. The current proposal is just east of W-K subdivision that was approved in September of 2001. The site is in Consolidated Water District #1 and a 6" waterline runs along the south side of Dee Woods Road. Fire hydrants are not required for minor plats containing less than 4 lots, as is the case here. A 20í waterline easement by separate document is needed for a 4" water main that serves this development, a place for the deed book & page reference is provided on the plat. This plat consists of the 2nd & 3rd lots being created from the parent parcels, any further division of the parent parcels resulting in a lot of less than 10 acres will trigger the 6" waterline and fire hydrant requirements. The site is in the Southern Boone County School District. Sewage treatment will remain from an on-site system. A waiver from both a traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewer has been requested. Staff concurs with the granting of these waivers. The site is in the Southern Boone County Fire Protection District and Union Electric Service areas. This plat has 68 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval along with the granting of the waivers for traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewer. The blanks for the waterline easement will need to be filled in with the proper book & page reference prior to recording.

    No one present to represent the plat.

    Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve, with waiver requests, Lazy-K Plat 2., A-2, John King, Susan King, James P. Wilson and Reba Earl Kraus, owners. James V. Patchett, surveyor

     

    Carl Freiling Ė Yes Mike Morgan Ė Yes

    Pat Smith Ė Yes Keith Neese Ė Yes

    David Mink Ė Yes Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

    Mary Sloan Ė Yes

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carried unanimously.

     

     

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

  3. Nirmaierís Estate. S24-T50N-R13W. Mary Nirmaier, Clarence and Barbara Castleman, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.
  4.  

    Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this 1 lot minor plat is located at the south of where Lipscomb Road makes a sharp turn to the west and is approximately 600 feet west of Highway 63. The site is approximately 5 miles west of the municipal limits of the City of Hallsville. The area being subdivided contains 7.26-acres out of a 40.7-acre parent parcel. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture). All the surrounding property is zoned A-2 these are all original 1973 zonings. The site of the plat is currently the site of a pre-1976 mobile home and accompanying lagoon. A conditional use permit was issued in 1992 for the pre-1976 trailer. The site is in Consolidated Public Water Service District #1. Fire hydrants are not required for minor plats containing less than 4 lots, as is the case here. The site is in the Harrisburg School District. Sewage treatment is to be from an on-site lagoon that will have to meet Health department regulations. A waiver for cost benefit analysis for on-site versus central wastewater systems has been requested. A traffic analysis waiver has also been requested. Staff concurs with the granting of these waivers. This plat has 30 points on the point rating scale.

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

    No one present to represent the plat.

     

    Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve, with waiver requests, Nirmaierís Estate Mary Nirmaier, Clarence and Barbara Castleman, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

     

    Carl Freiling Ė Yes Mike Morgan Ė Yes

    Pat Smith Ė Yes Keith Neese Ė Yes

    David Mink Ė Yes Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

    Mary Sloan Ė Yes

    Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carried unanimously.

     

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

     

     

  5. Cagleís Place. S24-T50N-R13W. A-2. Elgan and Pauline Castleman, owners. Nathanael Kohl, surveyor.

 

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this 1 lot minor plat is located on the west side of Old Highway 63 approximately 1000 feet southwest of the intersection of Highway 63 and Old Highway 63. The site is approximately 5 miles west of the municipal limits of the City of Hallsville. The area being subdivided contains 5.23-acres out of an approximately 26-acre parent parcel. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture). All the surrounding property is zoned A-2 these are all original 1973 zonings. The site of the plat is currently vacant except for a foundation from an old barn. The site is in Consolidated Public Water Service District #1. Fire hydrants are not required for minor plats containing less than 4 lots, as is the case here. The site is in the Harrisburg School District. Sewage treatment is to be from an on-site lagoon that will have to meet Health department regulations. A waiver for cost benefit analysis for on-site vs. central wastewater systems has been requested. A traffic analysis waiver has also been requested. Staff concurs with the granting of these waivers. This plat has 35 points on the point rating scale.

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

Present: Nathanael Kohl, surveyor, 1080 Route Y, Harrisburg.

Commissioner Neese asked applicants if the old barn foundation would be moved.

Mr. Kohl stated he didnít know, it is not usable.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve, with waiver requests, Cagleís Place. A-2. Elgan and Pauline Castleman, owners. Nathanael Kohl, surveyor.

 

Carl Freiling Ė Yes Mike Morgan Ė Yes

Pat Smith Ė Yes Keith Neese Ė Yes

David Mink Ė Yes Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

Mary Sloan Ė Yes

Motion to approve plat with waiver requests carried unanimously.

 

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

 

OLD BUSINESS

Director, Stan Shawver reported on last months activities. The conditional use permit for John and Linda Coats for an animal boarding and training facility, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, the County Commission upheld that recommendation.

The conditional use permit for Richard and Carol Samuels for a US Cellular transmission facility, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, the applicants appealed that decision to the County Commission who upheld the recommendation to deny.

The rezoning requests for Steve and Christina Nelson and a similar request for John and Pamela Massey, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on both requests, the County Commission upheld those recommendations.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

Chairperson Smith stated that a motion was needed for the character preservation overlay district.

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Freiling seconded a motion that the

Chairperson appoint a sub-committee to review the character preservation overlay district and

report back next month.

Motion approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Heitkamp, Commissioner Freiling, and Commissioner Mink were appointed.

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 16th day of May, 2002.