BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, May 16, 2002

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

Present: Michael Caruthers, Vice-Chairman Centralia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Keith Neese Columbia Township

Carl Freiling Cedar Township

Kristen Heitkamp Missouri Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Absent: Pat Smith, Chairperson Perche Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Bill Florea, Staff

Thad Yonke, Staff Paula Evans, Staff

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2002 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Vice-Chairperson Caruthers 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, two rezoning requests, and two subdivision plats. One rezoning request is associated with a conditional use application. Consequently, the Commission will consider the rezoning request and its related conditional use permit at the same time.

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 staff table after 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.

All recommendations for approval are forwarded to the County Commission. They will conduct another public hearing on Wednesday, May 29, 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 Wednesday, May 29, 2002 will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will convene in this same room.

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

 

  1. Request by Jerry and Angie Gerzen for an Animal Training and Boarding Facility on 39.17 acres, located at 5650 N Boothe Ln, Rocheport.

Planner, Bill Florea gave the staff report stating that this property is located 6 miles northeast of Rocheport on Boothe Lane. The property is zoned A-1, Agriculture, as is all of the surrounding land. The applicants operate a horse training and boarding facility on their property, which includes a number of structures related to the business. This site is located within the Columbia School District, Boone Electric and Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 service areas. The original zoning for this tract is A-1. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this site. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed use is consistent with the master plan. Staff notified 11 property owners about this request. Staff recommends approval 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: Jerry & Angie Gerzen, 5650 N. Boothe Lane, Rocheport.

Mr. Gerzen stated that he has approximately 40-acres and they bought the farm. There were neighborhood restrictions from the Fentners who they bought it from. All the barns were already there, applicants didnít add any. The applicants did remodel and built some stalls in the main barn because it was a sheep barn to start, applicants turned it in to a horse barn. The Fentners were big horse people. In the restrictions it stated that they could add new buildings or remodel anything it took to run a full boarding facility. Applicants have been there for 5-years and have been doing that ever since.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request.

Joseph Burkart, 12000 Amber Lane, Rocheport.

Mr. Burkart stated that he is here on behalf of the applicants who he has known for less than 10 years but more than 5 years. Mr. Burkart stated that he has used the applicants facility on numerous occasions. Mr. Burkart stated that he is the past chairman of the Boone County 4-H horsemanship committee. Through 4-H, Mr. Burkart was charged with putting together a quality program for the kids of Boone County in the area of horsemanship. As part of that responsibility he contacted the applicants and on numerous occasions and at no charge to the kids of Boone County they were allowed to use the facility as a place to go and teach the kids horsemanship. They also had a horse show there on one occasion and in every situation in which Mr. Burkart has been on applicants property it has been well maintained; the stalls are well-kept and clean, and the horses are healthy. Mr. Burkart stated he has taken care of horses over one weekend and found that feed was in good supply. Hay was in good supply, the horses had adequate water and everything was well maintained. One of the charges that he had for the Boone County 4-H horsemanship committee when he became chairman was for the committee to realize the importance of getting kids in organized youth activities and the benefits this would have in keeping kids out of trouble. The applicants have supported that in their desire to have kids come to his property and learn horsemanship skills.

Mr. Burkart stated that he is in support of this facility.

Michelle Burkart, 12000 Amber Lane, Rocheport.

Ms. Burkart stated that on one occasion she kept one of her animals on the applicants property because she had no place of her own. Mr. Gerzen was more than happy to let her keep them there free of charge out of the goodness of his heart. Everything was kept nice, everything is kept mowed. You never have any problem finding anything, it is immaculate. Ms. Burkart stated that she has been all over the State at different facilities between rodeos, for the size that this facility is, it is nice.

Erin Hansen, 6801 Lakota Ridge, Columbia.

Ms. Hansen stated that she keeps two horses there right now and it is one of the nicest places she has ever kept her horses. Ms. Hansen stated that she boarded at three different places. The rent is reasonable and it is a really nice place.

James Dickenson, 3905 Bonne Femme Church Road, Columbia.

Mr. Dickenson stated that Mr. Gerzen has been one of his closest friends throughout his whole life. He has helped Mr. Dickenson out through thick and thin. This facility would be a good place for the Midway, Rocheport area, it would help the community out. The barns are in good shape. Mr. Dickenson stated that he doesnít see any reason why the applicants shouldnít get this permit. Mr. Dickenson stated that the applicants barns are probably the best he has seen throughout the State.

Kenneth Denson, 1032 County Road 299, Columbia.

Mr. Denson stated that he has known Mr. Gerzen for 15 years. Mr. Gerzen helped Mr. Denson with a Girl Scout troop in organizing their horsemanship and camping badges. Mr. Gerzen took his time; they used Mr. Gerzen's and Mr. Densonís horses to accommodate the troop. Mr. Gerzen went all out and helped to organize to see that these girls had a good time. 8 of the 10 girls had never been camping much less been on a horse before. Mr. Gerzen is a good friend and an honest person. Mr. Denson stated he wished the applicants were his next door neighbor because he is that easy to get along with. If you can't get along with Mr. Gerzen, you donít want to get along with anyone. The place is always clean. Mr. Denson stated that Mr. Gerzen is an outstanding citizen.

In opposition to the request.

Jim Chenault, 5600 N. Boothe Lane, Rocheport.

Mr. Chenault stated that it is his position that the unique factors of this property that distinguish it from other conditional use permit that have been granted by this Commission to various facilities over the years render this property unsuitable for the purpose in which the applicants are seeking to use it. Mr. Chenault presented the Commission with a packet. Mr. Chenault stated that this packet contains a cover letter outlining his basic position. It also contains various guidelines and State statutes pertaining to this situation.

Mr. Chenault stated that at the outset, he would like to note up front that the Chenaultís are not some City folk that moved out in to the country then got their nose out of joint because country folks around them were doing country things. Mr. Chenault stated that his family has farmed the same land in western Kentucky since the 1830ís and he spent many years on the farm and working on farms dealing with horses and cattle as well as agricultural stuff. Mr. Chenault stated that he is not anti-horse. He grew up with horses, his oldest daughter volunteers weekly at the Cedar Creek Therapeutic Riding Center. One of the positive aspects he viewed when buying this property is that the original owners of the property now owned by the Gerzen's were going to keep horses there. Mr. Chenault stated that he had agreements as far as using horses in exchange for mucking out their stalls.

Mr. Chenault stated that he wanted to give a brief overview of how he came to this property and how the property came to be in this unique situation. By 1995 his family had grown to 4 children. They began looking for an old house to restore. The house they had currently owned was going to be too small as the kids got bigger. Mr. Chenault enlisted a real estate agent and said they wanted to look for an old house to restore, at the very least a large yard, and some acreage would be nice. He looked for several months and didnít find anything that was going to be suitable for his purposes. The site he lives on now was part of a 500-acre tract and owned by Bill and Jean Fentner who lived on Graham Road, they decided to subdivide this property, they were looking to sell the house, all of the outbuildings and 25-acres. They were not able to find any takers for this package that was put together. A young lady that worked for the Fentners expressed interest in buying part of the property, they did not have any children and didnít have the need for a five bedroom, 1870ís farm house that was in dilapidated condition. The house was a perfect fit for the Chenaultís. Not only in the square footage available, but it was definitely a fixer-upper which the Chenaultís were ready to take on in exchange for the reduced price. Mr. Chenault met on several occasions with the other couple who was interested in buying the contiguous property they all discussed their plans in detail and hit it off immediately. They decided that this situation that with them buying these two adjoining tracts would be workable and enjoyable.

Mr. Chenault stated that after figuring all this out as well as going over the Fentners plans to subdivide the remaining acreage they closed the deal and moved there in December of 1995. The other couple began construction of the house shortly thereafter and moved in the following summer. Within a year, their circumstances changed and the other couple ended up having to sell the property. They ended up selling in July 1997 to Mr. Gerzen. Mr. Chenault stated that he didnít meet Mr. Gerzen prior to the sale of the property and had no idea what his plans were.

Mr. Chenault stated that he would agree up front that Mr. Gerzen is a very easy person to get along with, always a smile and a wave. Getting along with him was one thing, having him as a neighbor soon became another matter altogether. Mr. Chenault stated that he eventually learned of the applicants plans that he was going to be boarding horses on the property and not just merely keeping his own horses on the property. The applicant began building stables, which are located immediately behind Mr. Chenaultís house. Mr. Chenault stated that he has had various conversations as the proceedings went on and among the other things Mr. Chenault had concern with was the lack of fencing between the two pieces of property. The previous owners had never brought any horses on to the property. They had set corner posts and planned on erecting fences, when their plans changed, they never went any further. The only fence that separates any of these properties is an old wooden fence that runs through the Chenaultís backyard. It sets at varying distances off the property line, Mr. Chenault stated he believed it is visible from one of the aerial photographs that was submitted with the application.

Mr. Chenault stated that the fence has several gaps in it, it has no gate at the end of the drive near the Chenaultís property. It was dilapidated and ready to fall down when Mr. Chenault moved there seven years ago. It is even worse now. The only reason it is still standing is because it is the only thing they have to mark a distinction between the Chenault property and the Gerzen property. It does sit well on the Chenault property. One of the main garden plots is outside of that.

Mr. Chenault stated that he heard what the applicantís plans were and the applicants began boarding horses. Mr. Chenault stated he began having a number of concerns not only with the horses on the property but with continual trespasses on his property by boarders and employees. Several of the employees are associates of the Gerzen's who turned out not to be of particular desirable character. There are several incidents documented in the material that was presented to the Commission. Mr. Chenault stated that he was not going to re-talk about five years of stuff. What it basically came down to as far as being friendly and everything, this was all fine, but as far as keeping and maintaining the property. Many of the concerns that were voiced were dealt with by Mr. Gerzen stating that he will get around to it when he has the money. The attitude that has persisted throughout the term that Mr. Gerzen has spent as Mr. Chenaultís neighbor has been that this is his land and he will do with it what he wants. Problems have arose because that attitude seemed to expand to not only that it was his land and he would do with it what he wanted but he was also doing things with the Chenaultís land. There are several instances mentioned in the packet presented to the Commission.

Mr. Chenault stated that Mr. Gerzen has taken it upon himself to brush hog Mr. Chenaultís property after being repeatedly told not to because the Chenaultís were attempting to grow saplings and establish wildlife habitat at the rear of their property.

Mr. Chenault stated that under the seven criteria that are set forth in the guidelines for granting for a conditional use permit, there does not appear to be any way that the applicants can meet at least four of the guidelines. There are three basic distinctions between this application and other applications and minutes that were reviewed of previous Commission meetings. First is the extreme proximity of the Chenault residence to the commercial aspects of the Gerzen property. The west side of the stables is only 32-feet from the Chenault property line, the area they currently use as a backyard. The stables themselves are only approximately 55-yards from the rear of Mr. Chenault's house. There is a road that runs along the north side of the property only about 20-feet to the property line and approximately 50-yards to the side of the house there is traffic that circles Mr. Chenault's entire property.

Mr. Chenault stated that meanwhile, virtually all of the commercial use of this property to date and all that appears to be proposed in the application is directly to the rear of Mr. Chenaultís house. You can not even see most aspects of this operation from the applicantís house. The view out their own back door is one of a pond, some trees, rolling hills kept in pasture or in hay. For all intense and purposes applicants can not even see their own operation from where they are. They are located far enough away from where they routinely drive down to the commercial aspects of this property. Having this type of operation this close imposes some obvious distractions and disturbances in the Chenaultís day to day life. As the history went on with the original boarding operation, what previously was distraction and disturbance became concern and alarm for the Chenaultís personal safety. Among other things in addition to some of the people that were introduced to the property, there were still no fences erected. There were repeated trespasses upon the Chenaultís property both by people seeking to access the applicantís property, people riding horses, and horses that got away. There have been several instances including one as recently as February 2002 of horses running on to the Chenaultís property in a highly spooked condition. A horse that is highly spooked is liable to run over anything in its way. This one in February attempted to run over the Chenaultís barn, which is 45 by 90-foot.

Mr. Chenault stated that there have been people repeatedly coming up seeking to use the Chenaultís telephone or bathroom. As things stand now, Mr. Chenault doesnít believe the first three criteria labeled A, B, and C can be met without the property being fenced. Mr. Chenault stated he has always taken the position that even the most basic common sense would dictate that if you are going to buy land to keep horses on the first thing you would need to do is put up fences to keep the horses on the land. Horses are well known for getting over fences even when fences are erected. When there are no fences whatsoever it is 100-percent guaranteed that they are going to get off the land. In the event that common sense fails, Missouri has actually had a fencing law on the books since 1808. Information about that law is provided in the packet of materials that was received from the extension center. There is also a copy of the law that was amended in August 2001. Mr. Chenault stated that he provided copies of this law to Mr. Gerzenís attorney last October. The law is very specific; it requires that if you keep livestock you are required to erect a fence suitable for withholding the livestock such as horses or cattle. It requires that if you are going to erect a fence on a property boundary, you give notice to the adjacent landowners and the landowners agree upon the type of fence to be erected with provisions that if the landowners canít agree, a judge would make a decision for them. Mr. Chenault stated that he advised Mr. Gerzen at that time that if he did not seek to erect fences to prevent any future trespasses upon his land then Mr. Chenault would seek the appropriate action. Mr. Gerzen did not make any attempt to erect any fences until Mr. Chenault was out of town. Mr. Chenault stated that his wife advised him that Mr. Gerzen had begun erecting the fence. Not back near the stables but between the Chenaultís house and Mr. Gerzen's house. This fence does not meet the statutory criteria for minimum height much less there being notice to the Chenaultís, or any discussion on the type of fence to be erected.

Mr. Chenault stated he does not see any way that a conditional use permit can be granted without first being fencing in place. If it granted without fencing in place, Mr. Chenault stated that he would continue to be subjected to the same trespasses that he has been subjected to virtually since Mr. Gerzen moved on to the property. As far as criteria A, the safety concern, Mr. Chenault stated he believes he has a legitimate safety concern with horses getting on to his property in addition to the damages that can be done. That goes to criteria B, injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Chenault stated that his house is certainly in the immediate vicinity. The next closest house to this property is over a quarter mile away and does not have any type of view of what is going on.

Mr. Chenault stated that he has had vegetable gardens damaged, flower gardens damaged and all sorts of damage done to his lawn. If you have ever come home to find that your neighborís dog has gone to the bathroom in your front yard, imagine what happens when you come home and find that you have been visited by a horse. It is a constant sword of irritation. It is extremely noisy and there is a distinct lack of privacy that he can enjoy not only in the premises but also in his yard adjacent to his house. Over the years, the most that Mr. Chenault can remember that Mr. Gerzen boarded was 7 or 8 horses at any given time owned by 4 or 5 different individuals. These resulted in daily trips to do stuff with the horses, traffic constantly back and forth in front of Mr. Chenaultís house. Several individuals would turn out the horses to clean out their stalls without tethering them anyplace and of course they would wander off.

Mr. Chenault stated that criteria C concerns a substantial diminishment or impairment of property values for existing property. Mr. Chenault stated that he has not obtained a formal assessment of his property as he was not inclined to spend $350 to get an assessment in order to deal with Mr. Gerzen's problem. The effect of Mr. Chenaultís property value would be immediate and obvious. This location is otherwise a fairly an ideally country location. Various people that Mr. Chenault has talked to seems to agree that you wouldnít want to move out to the country just so you could be next door to a bunch of constant noise and congestion, not to mention have a commercial operation strictly in your backyard. In addition to that along the same lines as it relates to the property being so close to Mr. Chenaultís, there is criteria G set forth in the County guidelines that deal with meeting all other applicable regulations. In Mr. Gerzenís application the applicant indicates that there is a toilet in the stables as well as a sewage lagoon on his property. Both of which are true. However, the toilet is not attached to the lagoon, the toilet drains in to a pipe that comes out on Mr. Chenaultís land and runs in to a ditch next to the Chenaultís lagoon. This is not Mr. Gerzenís fault, Mr. Chenault stated he didnít believe Mr. Gerzen was aware of this until Mr. Chenault pointed it out last fall. This should have been addressed when the Fentners originally subdivided the land. Mr. Chenault stated that he spoke to the previous owners about this and they indicated that they understood from the Fentners that this pipe was to be hooked to the Chenaultís sewage lagoon. At the time the property was being subdivided, there were no sewage lagoons of any type on it, waste from the Chenaultís house as well as waste from the stables merely ran down straight pipes that had been there since the 1940ís when his house was first given indoor plumbing. The code required that the Fentners build a lagoon before the property was subdivided and that was done. Apparently the Fentners had decided to have this pipe hooked on to the Chenaultís lagoon too but that apparently was not done. The previous owners of the property never used the bathroom in the stables, the pipes have been frozen years before the property was ever bought, and there was no water available to the toilets. Mr. Chenault stated that to the best of his knowledge, the toilets are not working now. This problem was not discovered until April 2000, when at that time the Chenaultís had to replace their entire sewer line, which dated back to the 1940ís. When the new sewer was dug and the individual was looking to hook up the new pipe to the pipe that came out of the lagoon, the contractor asked if Mr. Chenault wanted the other pipe hooked up. Mr. Chenault stated he went to his house and ran all of the sinks and toilets and no water ever came out of the pipe. The contractor took the backhoe and begun excavating and they could tell it made a straight line in to the stables where the toilet was located. As far as Mr. Chenault knows, the stables do not have a working toilet facility. People would come to Mr. Chenaultís house wanting to use the bathroom. The availability of a toilet would be necessary for that type of operation and before a toilet can be used at that facility, you can not have raw human sewage dumped on to Mr. Chenaultís property, that is a violation of the Health code. There are specific requirements for having a lagoon dug and lines run.

Mr. Chenault stated that the second major distinction between this application and other applications that have been approved by the Commission is criteria F concerning hindering traffic flow or resulting in traffic congestion. This property is located on Boothe Lane, which is a stretch of road approximately nine-tenths of a mile long running between Graham road on the south and an intersection with Lathrop School road on the north. The only access to this property is traveling between nine-tenths at the minimum of a one-lane gravel road. The road in front of the Chenaultís house is 22-feet wide, but it varies due to erosion. There is basically one set of tracks running down the middle of the road. It is a sufficient width for vehicles to pass but only if they slow and pull to the right, you can not maintain control of your vehicle if you pull on to the side of the road even at the posted 35 mile-per-hour speed limit. At the time Mr. Chenault moved on to this property, there were only 2 houses on this stretch of road. Since that time there have been 4 additional houses built including the house currently occupied by the Gerzen's. Mr. Chenault stated that he has no problem with that but since 1995 the use of this road has increased four-fold just by the local residents. There is really not much through traffic on it. The applicants are proposing to board 32 horses. Even back in the days when they were boarding 6 or 8 there was a distinct increase in traffic on the roadway. 32-horses being boarded on the property could double the traffic on the road. Just meeting a vehicle on this road constitutes hindering the traffic flow. Another aspect is that most of Mr. Chenault's previous traffic has come from Columbia, which means you would normally come out Route J to Graham to Boothe lane, all of this traffic would go past Mr. Chenaultís house.

Mr. Chenault stated that another distinction between this application and previous applications is not so much with the seven criteria that are listed but with facts going in to record of other proceedings. It seems like that most typically, someone is before you seeking a conditional use permit because they had a piece of land for many years and their use of this land has evolved over the years to where they come up against the County code. This situation is different. The applicants bought this property for the specific use as a boarding and training facility and apparently made no inquiry whatsoever as to whether or not this sort of use was acceptable under the zoning code. This is not secret information, Mr. Chenault stated that he was able to determine this merely by placing a phone call and giving the location. Mr. Chenault stated that he was told what the property zoned, what was and was not permitted uses. Mr. Chenault stated that he doesnít believe the applicant is nearly a sympathetic of a posture as other applicants who were merely seeking to have ratification of long term use of their property.

Mr. Chenault stated that in conclusion, either Mr. Chenault or the applicants are going to be unable to enjoy their property in the manner in which was intended when they bought their properties. Mr. Chenault stated that he believes that the conditional use permit should not be granted since he was there first and the Chenaultís use of the property has been entirely consistent with the existing zoning that was in effect. Mr. Chenault stated that he believed that he acted reasonably in assuming that he could enjoy this property in light of the inquiries and everything he ever made before he signed on the dotted line to move on to the property. Mr. Chenault stated that if he were otherwise inclined to sell due to this non-conforming use going on behind his property, he is convinced that he would be able to realize less money for his time and sweat equity that is invested in the property due to the non-conforming use. On the other hand, the applicants are still perfectly free to use and enjoy their property as a horse farm, simply one where they are not boarding or training or otherwise engaging in any type of outdoor recreational activity that is covered by the regulations. If this is not acceptable to the applicants, this property would have full value as a horse farm. If Mr. Gerzen loses money it should be chalked up to a learning experience. Other people speaking in favor of this proposition mentioned quite a bit about children. Mr. Chenault stated that his children are his primary concern. Not only their safety to be free from being trampled by a runaway horse in the yard but in other situations in the past. Mr. Chenault stated that Mr. Gerzen specifically advised him that he might want to keep his children away from Mr. Gerzenís business partner. After Mr. Gerzen split ways with his business partner he took to chaining his driveway off at the road because he was afraid that his partner was going to go back and steal property from the stables. Mr. Chenault stated that his response was that now the business partner will use Mr. Chenaultís driveway to get to the stables. Mr. Gerzenís suggestion was that if the business partner did come, call the police.

Mr. Chenault stated that there were a few other specific instances that his wife has more direct personal knowledge of.

Commissioner Morgan asked Mr. Chenault if he ever thought of building a legal fence between the two properties.

Mr. Chenault stated no he did not think about it because under the statute, Mr. Gerzen has the responsibility to build the fence because he is keeping the livestock. The statute that has been in effect ever since Mr. Gerzen has lived out there has required the owner of the livestock to build the fence. Mr. Gerzen is entitled to report a lien on the Chenault property. If Mr. Chenault were to say that they won't put in the fence because they have no livestock then Mr. Gerzen is entitled under the statute to record a lien on the Chenault property for half the value of the fence. In the future, if the Chenaultís do acquire livestock the Chenaultís have to kick in one-half the value of the fence. Mr. Chenault stated he has been extremely busy and investing their free time and money in restoring the house.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that in the correspondence that Mr. Chenault presented it indicates that fence posts were laid and two surveys were made. Commissioner Heitkamp asked if this has resulted in the building of a fence.

Mr. Chenault stated no. What actually transpired there is from the get-go there has always been some confusion about the property line. Mr. Chenault stated that when he bought the property it had been abandoned for quite a while. The property behind his house and near the stables had been allowed to overgrow for perhaps a year. The surveys were done when the property was divided. During 1996, Mr. Chenault stated that he did not do anything in that area at all. Mr. Chenault stated that he planted some trees around the lagoon and some wildlife habitat seeds. The following year, the neighbors mowed it and a lot of the stakes were knocked down. Mr. Chenault stated that he was under the assumption that there were existing posts there and they thought that was where the property line was. Mr. Chenault stated that he and Mr. Gerzen had some disagreements about that over the year and it turned out that Mr. Gerzen was several feet off one way and Mr. Chenault was several feet off another way. During the summer of 2001 he set fence posts down between the stables and the Chenaultís lagoon and was going to grow pumpkins there and didnít want them trampled. Mr. Gerzen had a survey done first which determined that these posts were on Mr. Gerzen's property. Mr. Chenault stated he also had a survey done which confirmed Mr. Gerzen's survey. Mr. Chenault stated he removed all of the posts except for two that he couldnít get to without climbing over the manure pile or trampling the pumpkins himself.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the outcome is that there is no fence.

Mr. Chenault stated that is correct.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that Mr. Gerzen is keeping livestock without a fence.

Mrs. Chenault stated that when Mr. Chenault was out of town. She came home after work on March 27, 2002, Mr. Gerzen and several of his friends were putting up fence posts. Mrs. Chenault stated that the letter that was submitted to the Commission states there was a communication to Mr. Gerzen on October 30, 2001 that specifically detailed what the law was. On March 28, 2002, the applicant was taking chain-link and running it between the fence posts. Mrs. Chenault stated that she went to Mr. Gerzen with a copy of the actual statute and explained to Mr. Gerzen that what he was doing was not the proper height as well as meeting the State law requirement that was agreed upon. The length of this property with a chain-link fence is a lot more maintenance. The whole idea was for the Chenaultís and Gerzenís to sit down and talk about it. Mrs. Chenault stated that she and Mr. Gerzen talked for quite a while. Mrs. Chenault stated that Mr. Gerzen had said that the way the property was divided is not right. Mrs. Chenault stated that what Mr. Gerzen does directly effects the Chenaultís and has been very adverse to the enjoyment of their property, and the safety of their children.

Mrs. Chenault stated that she is concerned with what is going to happen if there are that many boarders. The other concern is that there is a lot of activity in maintaining that size a property. The fence that Mr. Gerzen talks about is already broken. There is a lot here that is of concern.

Mr. Chenault stated that right behind the stables there is a show ring with a wooden fence. The rails on this fence are spaced too wide so that the horses will stick their heads through the fence and eat the grass outside the fence. As soon as the horses lean far enough it breaks the boards off. Mr. Chenault stated that he doesnít see even with a fence how they could otherwise have full use and enjoyment of their property with all of the traffic, noise and disruption. Even if no one ever sits another foot on Mr. Chenault's land again or no horse ever comes on to their land again, which can not be guaranteed.

Mr. Chenault stated that Mr. Gerzen is not in compliance with the State statutes much less the zoning code. Mr. Chenault stated that he didnít want the Commission to think that he would be okay with this operation if only there were a fence, because that is not the case.

Mrs. Chenault stated that she obtained the aerial photographs that Mr. Gerzen had taken. Mr. Gerzen was identifying the facilities and he identified a barbecue area being built. Mrs. Chenault stated that she wanted to have an understanding of a conditional use permit for boarding and training facilities, what does that mean? Mrs. Chenault stated she would like to know the distinction between those activities versus an outdoor recreational facility. Mrs. Chenault stated that she is worried about 32 horses being boarded but does that mean he wants to host large barbecues? What is permitted under boarding and training?

Mr. Chenault stated that is a separate and distinct concern. When Mr. Gerzen was hosting the 4-H function in conjunction with Mr. Chenault's previous complaints about people using his driveway to get to the Gerzenís, the only solution that Mr. Gerzen came up with for this was to barricade the Chenaultís driveway. Mr. Chenault stated that it did keep people from using it, but it also kept the Chenaultís from using it. Over the years, Mr. Chenault stated that he canít remember giving anyone directions to their house and have them end up at the Gerzenís by mistake. Even though there are only two driveways to choose from here, people have consistently not been able to hit the right one. If there is going to be large scale barbecues being hosted on this property, this would seem to be even more aggravation and disturbance to Mr. Chenault, not to mention traffic on this one lane gravel road.

Commissioner Morgan stated that the fencing laws had been revised May 3, 2001.

Mr. Chenault stated that was when it was passed, it went in to effect August 28, 2001. Either way, that particular piece of the law is the law in Missouri as it stands today.

Commissioner Morgan asked how high the fence posts were that Mr. Gerzen was putting up.

Mr. Chenault stated that the actual fencing material on the fence that Mr. Gerzen put up, between the houses and not the stables, is 40-inches. Mr. Chenault stated he did not measure to the top of the posts, but the intent of the State law would be that the fencing material be at least 48-inches. The entire purpose of this law is to keep animals in or out. The posts are not what do that, but the material.

Jay Barta, 5800 N. Boothe Lane, Rocheport.

Mr. Barta stated that he called the Planning Department and asked about conditional use permits, Mr. Barta stated that he didnít get a very specific resolution as to what a conditional use permit provides. One of the major concerns was that there is not a maximum number of horses that Mr. Gerzen could have at this property. Mr. Gerzen is going for 32 horses, Mr. Barta stated that he didnít think that there was a maximum number if Mr. Gerzen decided to go with more than 32 horses.

Mr. Barta stated that he also wanted to know that if Mr. Gerzen sold this property as a business, does the conditional use permit expire and the next owner has to bring a request before the Commission, or does the permit continue. Mr. Barta asked if there was any way that once this is established can it be revoked if the neighbors are not happy with the way the property is being kept up? Mr. Barta stated that the applicants mentioned a barbecue pit and asked if there were any other restrictions as far as a conditional use permit if the applicant decides to have dogs there. Mr. Barta stated that he didnít get a complete description of what a conditional use permit is he is concerned with it being used for another use besides just horses.

Closed to public hearing.

Mr. Gerzen stated that the barbecue pit is for personal use and there are no plans of ever scheduling a barbecue party for anyone. Mr. Gerzen stated that his wife is an elementary school teacher and she may have a birthday party for the kids and the kids from the school come out. Mr. Gerzen stated that when it comes to capacity, he will have 18 stalls then a separate 4 stall barn that is complete.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if 22 horses would be the maximum number.

Mr. Gerzen stated yes, something like that. If it were ever 23 or 19, he would have to have a stall for them. Sometimes you can just put them in the field. Mr. Gerzen stated that he just bought another 25-acres that backs up to the farm, so he now has 40-acres. Mr. Gerzen stated that he owns all the fence to build it completely. Mr. Gerzen stated that Mr. Chenault has stopped him from building the fence twice otherwise they would be completed.

Mr. Gerzen stated that he hired Dave Knight and Bill Powell to read the law. Mr. Gerzen stated that he got a hold of the Missouri Extension Center and the way the law reads per his lawyers is that if you build the fence on the property line, then what Mr. Chenault stated is true. If you build it on your own property, it is your fence and your fence only, Mr. Gerzen canít ask Mr. Chenault for money and can't make them maintenance it and canít put a lien on them. The fence is approximately 8-inches to 12-inches on Mr. Gerzenís property and won't ask Mr. Chenault for anything. Mr. Gerzen stated he put up chain link fence, all the materials are brand new and didnít buy anything old or used. The fence is not 40-inches but 42-inches. The poles are almost 50-inches and white caps are on top of that, Mr. Gerzen stated that he is running a white 1-inch electric line all the way down it. Mr. Gerzen stated that if he ever turns it on if the horses try to get out, it will stop them.

Mr. Gerzen stated that he has had cat and dog issues. Last week, Mr. Chenaultís two dogs jumped a friends dog and there was a big altercation in that. Mr. Gerzen stated that Mr. McMillan told him if there wasnít a problem with the fences and had been stopped by the Chenaultís that problem wouldnít have happened with the dogs because the fences would have been done.

Mr. Gerzen stated that he took a week of vacation to build the fences and Mr. Chenault stopped him then Mr. Gerzen had to get an attorney.

Mr. Gerzen stated that his attorneyís told him to go ahead and finish the fences, they are in compliance since they are on his property and they will hold animals. Mr. Gerzen stated that his attorney Mr. Knight had informed him that he is being bullied by Mr. Chenault and Mr. Chenault is not reading the law right. Mr. Gerzen stated that if anyone has any questions for Mr. Knight or Mr. Powell they could talk to them.

Mr. Gerzen stated that there have been several occasions when he has found cows out on his property and left manure. Mr. Gerzen stated that he called the person who has all the cows, Mr. Gerzen stated that he looks at it like he is helping the neighbors by helping them get their cows back on their property. Mr. Gerzen stated that he knows he is 100-percent in compliance with the fence, and it will be taller than 48-inches chain link fences have small holes. Mr. Gerzen stated that he has 4 turnouts on the north side of the house and there are gates and his horses stay there. If the boarders want to turn them out they can turn them out there. If they choose to put them in the outdoor arena and break a board, then Mr. Gerzen replaces the boards. If a horse got out of the barn he could run when the fence is up and be completely contained.

Mr. Gerzen stated that he has had problems from the get-go instead of having open communications, Mr. Chenault cusses him and demands, he does not ask. Mr. Gerzen stated that Mr. Chenault moved the fences and Mr. Gerzen had to have it surveyed. Mr. Chenault would not get together to have a survey done, Mr. Gerzen stated that he just went and got it done himself and put his fences up in the correct manor. Mr. Gerzen stated that all of his posts are up, all he has to do is put the wire up.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked Mr. Gerzen when he moved to the property.

Mr. Gerzen stated in 1997.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if Mr. Gerzen has had livestock on the property since 1997.

Mr. Gerzen stated yes.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked when the fence was completed, or are they completed?

Mr. Gerzen stated that he has enclosures on one side but the total border is not finished.

Commissioner Mink asked Mr. Gerzen about the bathroom in the stalls.

Mr. Gerzen stated that there is an old abandoned bathroom in there, there is no plumbing inside the building. There was some old plumbing that was frozen. The only water there is a spigot outside a sliding door.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if the toilet is currently in use.

Mr. Gerzen stated no.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if there is any other existing toilet facility by the boarding area.

Mr. Gerzen stated that when he needed them he rented a port-a-potty.

Commissioner Sloan stated that if people are coming out there to board or train, there would be people there on a regular basis. Commissioner Sloan stated that she would think there needed to be some type of restroom facilities on a regular basis not just a port-a-potty.

Mr. Gerzen stated that he believed that the pipe is run from the bathroom to the lagoon on Mr. Chenaultís property, it was all one property at one point. Mr. Gerzen stated that he had asked the real estate agent about it and the agent stated that it was known and shared and they didnít care. Mr. Chenault could change his mind if it wasnít a law.

Commissioner Sloan asked who didnít care.

Mr. Gerzen stated the other property owners, which would be the Chenaultís, that information came from the realtor.

Commissioner Sloan stated that there is some interesting reading that Mr. Chenault talked about, this is hearsay because there is no one here to say whether it is absolutely correct or not. There are instances with other people that have come on to Mr. Chenaultís property and a woman who came in to their home, and instances with Mr. Gerzenís former partner. Commissioner Sloan asked Mr. Gerzen if there is truth to those accusations.

Mr. Gerzen stated somewhat in validity, yes. Mr. Gerzen stated that he had a fellow who boarded some horses there and his character was not up to par and Mr. Gerzen asked him to leave. There was an altercation, Mr. Gerzen called the Sheriff and had the man leave.

Commissioner Caruthers stated that he feels there are a lot of other issues than just a simple land use issue. It would be appropriate for the Commission to have more time at this point to look in to things and do a little more investigation. If this issue is tabled, the Commission will have the time to go further and look at both sides a little deeper. Commissioner Caruthers made a motion to table the request.

Commissioner Sloan asked Mr. Shawver if the Commission could table this request.

Mr. Shawver stated that the regulations state that the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to forward their recommendation to the County Commission within a certain amount of time. If the applicants consent to tabling the issue, then it can be tabled until the next scheduled meeting.

Commissioner Caruthers asked the applicants if they consent to tabling the issue.

Mr. Gerzen stated that whatever is asked of him he will do.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked the applicant if he consented.

Mr. Gerzen stated yes.

Commissioner Freiling stated he appreciated that because things have been raised here that are difficult.

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to table until the next scheduled meeting the request by Jerry and Angie Gerzen for an Animal Training and Boarding Facility on 39.17 acres, located at 5650 N Boothe Ln, Rocheport.

Mike Caruthers Yes Mary Sloan Yes Carl Freiling Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes Mike Morgan Yes David Mink Yes

Keith Neese No

Motion to table request carries. 6 Yes 1 No

Commissioner Caruthers informed the applicants that their request would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission again on June 20, 2002.

 

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

  1. Request by Linda Lenau and Robert Brown for an Outdoor Recreation Facility on 71.95 acres, located at 8825 W. Sarr Street, Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this property is located just outside of Huntsdale, south of the intersection of Route O and Grocery Branch Road. The current and original zoning is A-1. Property to the north, east, and south is zoned A-1. Property owned by the proponent, which is adjacent to the proposed rezoning abuts property zoned A-2, R-S and C-N. The western boundary of the property is defined by the Missouri River. The proposal is for a privately operated outdoor recreational facility on 71.95 acres of property owned by the applicants. A rezoning of 26.5 acres of the property to Recreation (REC), for development of a public campground, was recommended for denial by the P&Z Commission in February of 2002 and an appeal of the denial was withdrawn before being heard by the County Commission. The property is located in the Columbia School District, The Boone County Fire Protection District, Consolidated Public Water Service District #1, and Boone Electric Service areas. The proposal includes a boat ramp and associated parking lot, 18 individual campsites set up for 2 tents per site, 2 campsites that have no specific number of tents indicated, 1 RV campsite limited to a campground host, 1 group campsite, 1 restroom structure, and 1 park style shelter house. The facility is limited to a maximum of 150 persons by the proposal. The documentation on the proposal indicates the bait house/camp-store is part of the facility proposed. Staff notes that the bait house/camp-store is related to the facility proposed here as a CUP, however, the bait house/camp-store cannot be part of the CUP for the outdoor recreational facility. A separate application has been filed to rezone the bait house/camp-store from A-1 to C-GP. A review plan for the C-GP request has also been submitted. The Master Plan designates the property as suitable for agriculture or rural residential land use. As a privately operated outdoor recreational facility the request might be considered consistent with the Master Plan. The property being considered for this CUP lies primarily within the Missouri River floodway and is completely within the 100-year floodplain of the Missouri River. That physical attribute of the property severely limits the potential uses on the property to those uses that do not require any type of permanent structure such as campgrounds, ball fields or other outdoor recreation facilities. Floodplain Development Permits and No-Rise Certificates will need to be obtained for all work contained in the proposal. Staff notified 37 property owners about this request. As a CUP the proposal must meet the following criteria from the zoning ordinance to be eligible for approval.

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

Staff does note that the utility needs of this CUP are minimal. Boone Electric provides power in the area. Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 has water lines extended to Huntsdale capable of providing domestic service but not fire flow. There is no sewer service in the area, however the septic system for the campgrounds will have to be designed by a licensed engineer and approved by the Health Department to accommodate the needs of the campground facilities. The demand for public safety services will probably increase with more intensive use of the property. The demand will include law enforcement calls and calls for emergency medical services. Of particular concern is the location of the property within the floodway. The floodway is subject to hazardous conditions when flooding events occur. Such conditions could prove disastrous if a mechanism to notify and evacuate patrons is not in place. Lack of an effective notice and evacuation plan could lead to expensive and dangerous rescue operations. Access to the property will be by private drive extended approximately 800 feet across the 100-year floodplain from the Grocery Branch Road, Route O intersection. The private access drive will have to be improved to a minimum chip and seal surface. The property scored 20 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval with subject to the following 7 conditions:

  1. That the CUP is limited to those facilities, areas, and uses shown on the graphic submitted with the request including: a boat ramp and associated parking lot, 18 individual campsites set up for 2 tents per site, 2 campsites that have no specific number of tents indicated, 1 RV campsite limited to a campground host, 1 group campsite, 1 restroom structure, and 1 park style shelter house. Any addition or expansion of any use shown on the graphic will be considered a significant change and require a new hearing on the proposed change as an additional CUP.
  1. That the proposed 10-feet minimum of chip & seal surface roadway with 4-feet shoulders on each side is a requirement. Additionally, all parking and loading, unloading and other surfaces that are intended for use by vehicles, even temporarily, be a minimum of chip & seal surface.
  2. An effective notice and evacuation plan acceptable to the fire district and planning director be presented and approved as a requirement.
  3. That all lighting associated with the development be shielded and aimed inward and downward.
  4. That the parking areas in the boat ramp vicinity have a minimum width of 10-feet to accommodate large boat trailers.
  5. That Floodplain Development Permits and associated No-Rise Certificates be obtained for all work including grading and earthwork on the site.
  6. That the facility is limited to a maximum of 150 persons.

 

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

Robert Brown, 4001 S. Foxglove Lane, Columbia.

Taylen Brown, 15 Blue Jay Way, Columbia.

Mr. Brown stated that the insight that they received from the last meeting has been beneficial in developing the plan before the Commission tonight. Applicants feel they have addressed the concerns expressed by the Commission and believe that they have an excellent plan that will create the best campground on the Katy Trail and will be a model for future trail development.

Mr. Brown stated that Jim Estes delivered a draft copy of the plan to Stan Clay, who was in opposition to this request during the last hearing, a few days before the final version was submitted to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Brown stated he had not heard anything from Mr. Clay.

Mr. Brown stated that he has some items that were researched after submission. One item was traffic. To access the impact that the project would have on traffic on State Route O, applicants consulted the Missouri Department of Transportation's website and found that the traffic count on Route O between Route UU and Huntsdale is 536. Between I-70 and Gillespie Bridge is 1498. This count was done in the year 2000. To determine the expected boat traffic to the boat ramp, Mr. Brown stated that he consulted conservation agent, Robert Rice. Mr. Rice monitored the Providence boat ramp, which is operated by the Missouri Department of Conservation. No official figures are available, but Mr. Rice stated that during ideal or good boating conditions, no more than 5 boat trailers are parked at the Providence location during the week at any one time. On the best weekends during the summer the number can increase to 25.

Mr. Brown stated that Route O already carries boating traffic to Providence from the Terrapin Neck Region in the northern part of Columbia. From the number of boats observed on Route O last summer, it is estimated that this is one-half of the total traffic going to Providence boat ramp. Most of these boaters will use new ramps, thus decreasing the traffic from Huntsdale to Providence and reduce the crowding on weekends. Assuming that each boater stays on the Missouri River one-half a day, the maximum increase in the number of boaters would be 5 during the week and 25 during the weekends. This gives less than a 1-percent increase in traffic during the week when Route O is the most dangerous due to heavy trucks. During the weekend when the heavy truck traffic is absent, the increase would be less than 5-percent.

Mr. Brown stated that another issue is flooding. Because of the recent floods due to the rain we have had, the Missouri river gave the applicants the chance to gather more exact figures on when the group camp site and a portion of the other campsites that are over the edge of the levy on the riverside would flood. The flood stage at Boonville is 21-feet. May 9 through 16th and beyond, the Missouri River was above flood stage at Boonville. On May 14 and 15th, it reached a crest of 26.6-feet, or 5.6 feet above the flood stage at Boonville. No portion of the campground was flooded, nor was any portion of the road to the campground. The river would probably have to rise to the 35-foot stage before the road connecting to Route O would flood. By that time, applicants would have sufficient time to evacuate everyone.

Mr. Brown read a letter from Linda Lenau which stated: "Dear Commissioners, I have been a real estate agent for 12-years and can safely say that the recreational project we are proposing for the farm ground at the end of Route O near Huntsdale will not cause a decrease in property values for the area. If I had believed it would, I would never have recommended we embark on this project since we still own 6 lots in Terrapin Hills. Residents in Terrapin Hills on the ridge purchased their lot with the Katy Trail State Park within hearing distance. These new campsites will be well landscaped and further away. Other real estate agents I have talked to envision a rise in land value for Huntsdale landowners."

Mr. Brown stated he also has a short letter from Rex Campbell which stated: "To whom it may concern. Linda Lenau asked me as a rural sociologist with considerable experience in planning and impacts of changes to review the plans for establishing a campground near Huntsdale. The plans appear to be carefully out and will have minimal impacts on the adjacent community. The restriction of tents only camping is an important restriction. People who use tents tend to be younger and stay a shorter period of time than people in campgrounds catering to RVís and other recreational vehicles. People of my age like our comforts that can best be found in an RV. In addition the visual impacts of a tent only campground than a campground with large motor homes and other RVís. Sincerely Rex P. Campbell, Professor of Rural Sociology."

Mr. Brown stated that his son gathered information on lighting.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that he talked to the City engineering department of water and light. They didnít really deal with indirect lighting too much and was referred to Phillips and Company where they were pretty familiar with the kind of lighting needed. The light would mount 5-foot on top of the levy and will shine down on the boat ramp part. You will not be able to see it from on top of the hill. It is a sodium light bulb, which keeps a narrow path. There are many different types of shields you can get to go on the light.

Mr. Taylen Brown asked for the people present in favor of the request to stand.

(Approximately 15 people stood.)

Mr. Schneider offered as evidence the Boone County Zoning Ordinances. (exhibit 1)

Mr. Schneider presented a plan of the development and asked Mr. Brown if this was the current plan.


Mr. Brown stated yes it is.

Mr. Schneider asked who prepared the plan.

Mr. Brown stated that he did.

Mr. Schneider asked if that was done in consultation with the landscaper.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider asked if the plan was submitted with the application.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider offered the plans in to the record as evidence. (exhibit 2)

Mr. Schneider stated that from the prior proceedings in February 2002 applicants were aware that some residents in Terrapin Hills are likely to be in opposition to this development. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Brown to explain exhibit 3.

Mr. Brown stated that exhibit 3 is a picture taken from the shelter house location, it shows the bait shop and the ridge above the bait shop.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked when this photograph was taken.

Mr. Brown stated it was taken right as the trees began to bloom, possibly the Friday or Saturday before the plans were submitted. Mr. Brown pointed out the shelter house and bait house in relation to the ridge.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Brown if the photo showed Terrapin Hills subdivision.

Mr. Brown stated yes. Mr. Brown pointed out the location of Terrapin Hills subdivision.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Brown to draw a mark above the Terrapin Hills subdivision.

Mr. Schneider asked how far the subdivision would be from the recreational project.

Mr. Brown stated over 1500-feet from the campground and further to the boat ramp.

Mr. Schneider asked approximately how far from the boat ramp.

Mr. Brown stated over 2000-feet.

Mr. Schneider asked how far from the bait house.

Mr. Brown stated the very beginning of Mr. Littleís property would be about 300 to 400-feet.

Mr. Schneider stated that Mr. Little is the closest property.

Mr. Brown stated that would be the closest property in Terrapin Hills. David Williams is the closest property to the bait house and he lives in Huntsdale. Mr. Williams wrote a letter in support of the request.

Mr. Schneider asked the elevation of Terrapin Hills in relation to the recreational project.

Mr. Brown stated it is around 60-feet elevated above the floodplain. The actual elevation is about 680-feet and some points of Terrapin Hills get up to 700-feet. That is at the very highest point.

Mr. Schneider stated that it was indicated that the applicants own 6 lots in Terrapin Hills.

Mr. Brown stated that is correct.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Brown if the applicants developed Terrapin Hills.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider stated that as the owner and developer of Terrapin Hills, this recreational project will impair the value of the lots in Terrapin Hills.

Mr. Brown stated not at all, but believes it will do the opposite.

Mr. Schneider stated that when the applicants were here in February, the applicants had rules and regulations for the recreational area which were obtained from the Missouri DNR.

Mr. Brown stated that is correct.

Mr. Schneider asked if exhibit 4 is the set of rules and regulations that applicants developed.

Mr. Brown stated yes, they were attached to the conditional use permit.

Mr. Schneider asked if applicants were adopting and implementing those rules and regulations for the campground.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider stated that there is one addition in terms of security or policing and monitoring which was included on the plan. There is reference to an RV host. Mr. Schneider asked the applicants to explain that.

Mr. Brown stated that the State generally uses an RV host in order to ward off problems. They are generally a retired couple that gets free hook-up for their RV and free camping; they are generally required to stay at least a month. They greet people when they come in and watch for potential problems. If there appears to be a potential problem, they contact the park supervisor and try to resolve it.

Mr. Schneider stated that on the plan, the applicants have reserved a space for the RV host and plan to use the State plan as a model for rules and regulations.

Mr. Brown stated that was correct.

Mr. Schneider asked how close the applicants are to the campground.

Mr. Brown stated approximately the same as the Littleís. Perhaps another 300-feet further back.

Mr. Schneider stated approximately a half-mile.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider stated that the applicants personally live close enough to monitor the site on a regular basis.

Mr. Brown stated he probably has the best view than anyone of the bait house itself, except for David Williams.

Mr. Schneider asked applicant if he received communication from Shannon Cave with the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider asked if it set forth the Conservationís policies concerning campgrounds.

Mr. Brown stated that Ms. Lenau met Shannon Cave at a conference and told him about the project. Mr. Cave was enthusiastic about it and said a campground was very much needed in the area and the conservation department was under some pressure to develop Boone Cave as a campground and the conservation department did not wish to do that. Mr. Cave thought this would fulfill the needs of Katy Trail bikers better than what the conservation department could do.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Brown if exhibit 5 is the email that the applicants received from Mr. Cave.

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Mr. Schneider stated regarding other like facilities along the river in Boone County are there any other river campgrounds.

Mr. Brown stated that he believed that Mike Cooper had a few sites, maybe 5 sites at Coopers Landing.

Mr. Schneider asked where that was located in relation to the applicants property.

Mr. Brown stated about 9 miles down river.

Mr. Schneider stated that there are no campgrounds along the MKT Trail within 9 miles of this site.

Mr. Brown stated that was correct and Coopers Landing is a very limited facility and caters more toward selling gasoline and catering to boaters.

Mr. Schneider asked the location of the nearest public boat ramp.

Mr. Brown stated that the nearest one is Providence on Perche Creek. That is around 9 miles, it is much further. If you could drive down the Katy Trail, it might be 9 miles; otherwise it would be about a 20-minute drive.

Mr. Schneider stated that in short, there is nothing similar to the proposed camp ground and boat ramp anywhere near the Huntsdale area.

Mr. Brown stated not at all. There is really no other campground in Boone County along the trail at all besides Coopers Landing, there may be something in Wilton, but if so they are very small.

Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Shawver as a matter of clarification, if boat ramps are a permitted use in an A-1 district.

Mr. Shawver stated no.

Mr. Schneider entered exhibits 3, 4, and 5 in to the record.

Mr. Schneider stated that when applicants were here in February, the Commission had two basic concerns with the proposal at that time. One was density; that the density was much greater than the density which has been limited. The other concern was lack of specifics; there was a general contour to the proposed area and lacked the particulars, which now exist on the plan. The applicants have met the concerns that the Commission voiced at that time. It is planned; it is a conditional use process so that the applicants are locked in to what is before the Commission. What you see is what you get. If there are to be any changes, the applicants have to go back for a public process. This would be a nice amenity for western Boone County. There is nothing close as an alternative.

Open to public hearing.

Present in favor of the request:

John Williamson, 4903 S. Coats Lane, Columbia.

Mr. Williamson stated he is a neighboring landowner. His property borders the applicants property on the south across Grocery Branch. Mr. Williamson stated that his family has owned the farm for six generations. Mr. Williamson stated that he has known three generations of the Wilhite family that sold the land to the applicants.

Mr. Williamson stated he has gotten to know the applicants fairly well since they bought the property and believes them to be honest and have integrity, that is important in a neighbor. Applicants have a nice subdivision development up there. Applicants have addressed the problems that were brought up by the Planning and Zoning Commission and also by the people in opposition to this request. They are nailing it down stating that they are going to have a certain number of campsites. If they want more, they will have to come back and ask the Commission for permission. If they want to do various other things they would have to come back before the Commission. Applicants are also adopting the State park rules, which is very important. There were concerns about noise, vandalism, drunkenness and vagrants sleeping there and so fourth. This would not be permitted in a State park. Applicants would maintain those rules so that shouldnít be a problem.

Mr. Williamson stated that one thing he would like to address is flooding. This was brought up at the last meeting in February. Mr. Williamson stated he is the president of the McBaine Levy District and has had experience along the Missouri River all his life. There is not flash flooding along the Missouri River; it is a gradual thing. It is not like Perche creek where you have a three-inch rain one evening and the next morning it is out flooding McBaine. The Missouri River doesnít do that. It is so big, it comes up and there is some warning. With 20 or so campsites, it wouldnít take 15 minutes to go notify people if you need them to get out of there. You could haul them out in two or three truck loads if you had to. Flooding is not a real problem. They would have to keep abreast of river stages and what they are. It seems that applicants have already done that by looking at the proposed campground since there has been some flooding.

Mr. Williamson stated he strongly supports this request and thinks it would be a great addition to the community.

Jeff Barrow, 1770 Coats Street, Columbia.

Mr. Barrow stated he is speaking as a "river-rat" as he has spent a lot of time on the Missouri River and has been paddling the Missouri River for 10-years. Mr. Barrow stated he has done it in high water, flood stage and in extremely low water, winter, spring, summer and fall. It is a much under recognized incredible natural resource that we have right in our backyard. One of the things Mr. Barrow stated that he found extremely frustrating is the lack of infrastructure for people who are using the river for recreation. There have been several times in Huntsdale where he has had to carry his boat and gear up over a ten-foot steep bank, he was very pleased to see a boat ramp go in there. When he heard that they were actually going to have a store and camping facilities he was even more pleased.

Mr. Barrow stated he wanted to commend the Commission for denying the request last time, because open zoning is not the proper way to be developing the Missouri River Corridor. Mr. Barrow stated that he paddled from Rocheport down to St. Charles and the river is sorely lacking in infrastructure. That doesnít mean we need to go at it "willy-nilly". The fact that the applicants have come before the Commission with a planned commercial area and with the conditions gives the proper community oversight to make sure we have the property type development. If the Commission approves this tonight they are going to be setting a standard for the other developments that are going to be coming as they inevitably will, the trail has been there for 10 or 15 years now and this development has been slow in coming. This is the type of standard that the Commission can be setting for the future development. When you get on the river in Rocheport and paddle down below those Moniteau bluffs, it is one of the most spectacular features on the Missouri River. When people can get out there in a boat, it is a transforming experience to be on that big body of water moving at 3 miles per hour. It is a continental force. If we can do things to get people out on the river and make them have a sense of ownership of that river then it is going to have tremendous benefits all along the line politically when people are supporting environmental issues. This little issue before the Commission tonight can set a standard that can then mushroom throughout Boone County and make the trail and river a much used resource. Mr. Barrow stated that he strongly encourages the Commission to support it.

Dorothy Eberhardt, 8791 W. Sarr, Columbia.

Ms. Eberhardt stated that she and her husband bought their property in July 2001. The plans for the boat ramp and bait house were one of the main deciding factors to purchase the property because they want access to the river and to enjoy the natural resources.

Ana Lopez, 8791 W. Sarr St, Columbia.

Ms. Lopez stated she is the owner and manager of Designers Plumbing and Hardware in Columbia. Ms. Lopez stated that she has been aware of and in favor of the Katfish Kays recreation complex in Huntsdale. Ms. Lopez stated that she has been instrumental in supplying Mr. Brown plumbing fixtures and accessories that would be both commercially functional and fully ADA compliant. The applicants have more than adequately complied with all the opposing concerns and required regulations of the Boone County Commissions. There is no reason why this request for the permit should be denied.

Mary Polacco, 3939 S. Felicity Lane, Columbia.

Ms. Polacco stated she is in support of the conditional use permit mainly to allow primitive camping under the trees along the river bank. Ms. Polacco stated that she examined the plans earlier this week at the applicants home and believe that the permit will provide a wonderful recreational resource for residents of Columbia and Boone County. In particular, the users are going to be families with young children and persons biking the Katy Trail. It is a rather romantic setting for couples. Other users of this area might be well-chaperoned youth groups. Ms. Polacco stated that she has a letter from a friend who likes to take scouts to camp out on John Williamsonís property. There wonít be a lot of partygoers as major users of the property. Primitive camping is hard, you want to party in a RV, you donít go to a campsite and pitch a tent. Ms. Polacco stated that when she was young, she and her family camped at various State parks around the country and does not recall any major party activity at primitive campsites. Ms. Polacco stated that if she goes to other campsites where RVís are permitted it is a different story. One of the major issues last time seemed to be lack of planning. Ms. Polacco stated she agrees with Mr. Barrow that she would not have approved it before.

Ms. Polacco stated that another issue mentioned was sound pollution might be a problem. When she is down at the riverbank, it is secluded, quiet and peaceful. She does not hear people on the Katy Trail talking, however, if she is on the bluffs in Terrapin a conversation on the Katy Trail sounds exactly like those people are right next to you. There is something funny about the sound at the bluffs at the Katy trail region that doesnít exist in the rest of the area. In terms of light, Ms. Polacco stated that a few campfires along the riverbanks is kind of romantic; it is a nice view and wouldnít create visual pollution. If there were a river casino there, she would be the first one up to be against it. Another issue that was brought up was people concerned about management of the property due to the lack of rules. The applicants have addressed this issue. This is one of the nicer subdivisions in Boone County; the applicants developed it, which speaks a little for itself.

Ms. Polacco stated that she strongly supports the requests because it would add recreational facilities for young families, kids, couples and bikers in the community.

Ms. Polacco read a letter from Dennis Hancock, 303 West Ridge Drive, Columbia. The letter states: "I understand that a camping area is being planned near Huntsdale on the Katy Trail. I feel this would be a positive development and would lead to the enjoyment of many diverse groups of people. As a scout leader, I would welcome a place on the Katy Trail that would support simple tent camping for small groups with a new emphasis on cup scout camping. Packs in Columbia could use such a facility to good advantage. As a cyclist, there are only a few places along the trail available for camping, such a facility close to Columbia would attract a number of local cyclists as long as tourists along the Katy Trail. As a father who enjoys simple camping and cycling, it would be nice to be able to load up the bicycles for an overnight camping trip. I hope this planned facility can become a reality and I urge the Commission to do what you can to help bring it about."

Patty Orschlen, 8809 Sarr St., Columbia.

Ms. Orschlen stated that her father heard about what the applicants were proposing with the property and got extremely excited about it. When you have 15 kids you have to find places to go to have recreational area.

Ms. Orschlen read a letter which stated: "Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, the Robert Brown and Linda Lenau project to be located on their farm at Huntsdale at the end of Route O will benefit the people of Boone County as well as many tourists." That is as well, a very good revenue. "The recreational plan addresses both the scenic views of local residents as well as the campers and the boaters who just want to enjoy the Missouri River. The plan provides landscaping around the campsites that will compliment the natural beauty of this place. The recreational sites help Katy Trail bikers and hikers in need of emergency communication in the area of Rocheport to Coopers Landing. Not all users

on the Katy Trail have cell phones, plus not all cell phones are functional in this area. The site will be a source of air for bicycle tires, snacks, water and fruit juices. It will provide restrooms and camping sites. Also some tent rentals, towel rentals, firewood and other grocery items that the bikers and campers need but are too bulky for hikers and cyclists to personally transport in to the area. If a biker decides impulsively that he wants to camp, he can get everything he needs from the camp store, or stay at Katyís Little Lodge, which will becoming up later. The recreational plan provides an important service to boaters. It is convenient for safe entry in to the water especially when Perche Creek is too low or too high. The only alternative is 40-miles away. It is a shorter distance for boaters coming from north of Huntsdale. The live bait well on the river is convenient because the nearest one is further south 20-miles if you are driving. Snacks and groceries are also available for boaters. It meets emergency needs for boaters; it lends a helping hand for a broken down boaters who can get off the river to safety and more conveniently. It results in fewer accidents. It can provide a grass helicopter spot, which could provide critical medical aid in an emergency or evacuation and trauma treatment situations. The bait house camp store helps all people near Huntsdale it is closer than driving 10-miles to the closest convenience store, which is not a grocery store, to buy simple necessities such as eggs, milk, butter, and ice cream. Please take the services of this project in to consideration; help make the river convenient, enjoyable and safety accessable for Boone County residents and visitors."

Danny Melloway, 3903 Rollins Road, Columbia.

Mr. Melloway stated that his mother is one of the Wilhite people that sold the farm to the applicants. She has adjoining property in the City of Huntsdale and some vacant lots in which Mr. Melloway is the caretaker of. Mr. Melloway stated that his mother passed away in February and she would be proud to have this ramp and the way the applicants have put it together. Mr. Melloway stated that he is a long time resident of Huntsdale and believes this would be an asset to the community and an asset to the Katy Trail. Mr. Melloway stated he fought the Katy Trail to no end and has accepted it. This would be an asset to the Katy Trail and would help the people that use the trail. The Commission should take this under consideration and grant the request.

Tim Dianics, 4912 Kirk Hill Rd, Columbia.

Mr. Dianics stated that he owns lot 15 in Terrapin Hills. Mr. Dianics stated that he is in support of the facilities that the applicants propose. There is a lack of public land and public access to the river. There are few access points and there are problems with the quality of access. With some of the access points that exist there are problems with maintenance on those. The Katy Trail is public space; there are few facilities that support users of the Katy Trail. There are few campgrounds and a lack of potable water, a lack of toilets and there is a lack of availability of foods and beverages. The facility that the applicants propose will provide those services. The applicants proposal is not of an entrepreneur spirit, they do not request or require any public monies. The applicants own the land, Mr. Dianics feels that the applicants should be able to go forward with this in support of the boaters and outdoor recreational people of Boone County.

In opposition to the request:

Stan Clay, 9250 W. Terrapin Hills, Columbia.

Mr. Clay stated that in considering the issues that the Commission is looking at on the two requests, it is unrealistic to believe that the applicants are going to be able to have a retired couple in an RV on that property through the week or every single weekend of the season from Spring to late Fall. It is entirely unrealistic. On issues of safety, at the last hearing it was discussed about ambulance, fire, and sheriffís department response and how long that would take and the roads they have to use. The property in question has one manner of ingress and regress and that is the pathway that goes across the Katy Trail and by the bait shop. Traffic on Route O is already a problem with cement trucks and bicyclists almost everyday. Everyone that lives in Huntsdale or the Terrapin Neck knows when they drive Grocery Branch road or Route O you come upon bicyclists particularly in the late evening and on the weekends during the same season, they are going to be camping. If the bait shop is rezoned, you can count on delivery trucks for what the applicants want to sell there. There is going to be traffic with boats and trailers. It is a narrow road with no shoulder. In the last week or less, a Boone County Fire truck ran off the road within a half-mile of Huntsdale on Route O and fell on its side. That is a professional response vehicle. If you add the mix of traffic there is now, the bicyclists, the delivery truck, boats and trailers it is going to be a real safety issue. There is also problem with fire. The field, when it is dry, which it isnít now, it is probably a third underwater from the rain, but when it is dry, it is a fire hazard. The nearest telephone is at the bait shop and the camping sites are 800 or more feet away. Another safety issue will be the amount of motor vehicle travel across the Katy Trail, where are these people are going to park? There are about 10 parking places at the bait shop, there is no parking allowed at the campsite. If there are going to be 100 plus people on those campsites, assuming even half of them come by motor vehicle, where are they going to park? In Huntsdale? In the private streets? Another issue is the enjoyment of others by their property. That is a consideration and there have been indications made that it won't effect anything.

Mr. Clay stated that as he indicated at the last hearing, noise travels across that floodplain and up that bluff easily. You can hear the rumble of train cars, which is not upsetting, but you can hear it and they are probably two miles or more away across the Missouri River. You can hear people in normal conversation walking on the Katy Trail. It is not a problem or disruptive because it is just a handful of people from time to time and it is in the daytime. As indicated before, about a year or so ago, there was an unauthorized party in the same field that the applicants own of college kids coming down there and drinking; the noise was unbearable. The applicants didnít even know they were there until Mr. Clay called Ms. Lenau and told her there were people in her field playing music and having a party. Mr. Clay stated he does not understand how the applicants can monitor much from their house when they didnít even know that was going on until Mr. Clay called them. The elevation that was referred to before does increase the sound down there. Just in the last few days, Mr. Clay stated he could hear people in the field talking.

Mr. Clay stated that another issue is property values and what effect this conditional rezoning will have on property values. Mr. Clay stated he wanted to remind the Commission of what was said at the last hearing and some of the documents the Commission saw. The applicants sold lots in their development in Terrapin Hills, both in brochures and in ads in the newspaper selling the secluded area and the panoramic view of the Missouri River. It was also represented to everyone that bought a lot on the bluff looking down on this flood plain, Mr. Brown specifically represented that this floodplain would not be developed. Because of that and because of the view, the lots on the bluff cost a premium amount over the lots in the rest of the development. Mr. Clay stated that he doesnít know how the applicants can argue that this development, if allowed, will increase the value of those lots when they used the counter argument to sell them. The other lots that the applicants have remaining within the development are not on the bluff; they have sold them all. Something else, though the Commission doesnít care about disputes between landowners, another issue is that this was planned several years ago to do this, yet when they were selling the lots on the bluff, their representation was that nothing would be done down there. That should at least effect the Commissions consideration of the applicantís credibility. There are health issues, if you havenít been there in the last two or three days, the river hasnít flooded, it probably isnít going to flood for a while, but there is a lot of standing water just from the rainfall. The applicants are going to have a separate toilet facility by the boat dock near the river with its own septic field, applicants are talking about dumpsters by the boat dock and by the bait house which will get emptied whenever they consider it is full.

Mr. Clay stated considering the issue of whether there is some type of public necessity, Mr. Clay stated he doesnít see that it has been shown that there is a public necessity for this type of development or any development in that floodplain at this point. The Commission needs to ask themselves where this is going to go. The economics doesnít make sense; the applicants havenít presented any type of business plan on how this is going to fly. Most, if not all the Commissioners have seen the bait house and what theyíve put in to that. It was indicated in a Missourian article that the applicants were going to charge $4.50 per campsite to pay for this. At the last hearing the applicants indicated that it would be $4.50 per person. But at least at one point it was represented as $4.50 a campsite. The applicants competition for camping is Coopers Landing and they charge $5.00 a tent, they canít get much more than that for their campsites to be competitive and at Coopers Landing they can have as many people in their tent that they can cram in for $5.00. Another thing of concern is that the scope of this has already increased. When the applicants were here last time, to Mr. Clayís memory, the applicants had a proposal that was about 11 campsites, it has now grown to 18 to 20 with two group sites, whatever that means. Is this going to turn in to something where a couple of college kids come down and rent a group site for a night and bring in 50 people and have a party? It has expanded. To make this thing financially feasible, it will have to be expanded even more, they will have to allow more activities on there and do other things to raise revenue and expand the number of campsites. It is also of interest of how the applicants are going to make a profit with the bait shop if it is rezoned; it is a 300 square foot retail area. In the handouts are some of the things that the applicants have listed things they are going to sell. Every one of the items listed is open-ended from souvenirs to live bait to food and drinks. Mr. Clay stated he didnít know if they were going to have beer there for sale and all of this is supposed to happen in a 300 square foot area. It doesnít make economic sense. The only way it will make sense is if it is expanded or developed further in the future. This raises an interesting comment Mr. Clay stated he heard a moment ago from one of the supporters about an upcoming Katy Lodge. Mr. Clay stated he doesnít know where that came from because he has never heard of that, but that is what one of the supporters mentioned about upcoming in the future.

Mr. Clay stated that they are going to have to have more parking, 10 spots is not enough. It is going to have to increase in scope and it should be a concern to the Commission that the applicants started all of this without really getting any zoning or conditional use. Applicants were here last time and indicated that they didnít know they had to have rezoning to have this retail business and the bait shop, not knowing that with the agricultural zoning that all they could sell is bait and related bait items. That is not true. Mr. Clay stated that he has a letter from an attorney, Mr. Beckett that was written to the applicants in September 2001, which very clearly spells out that it was agriculture. Without the Commissions approval the applicants went ahead and began a building with showers and public restrooms. The square footage is non-retail but deals with the campsites and outside outlets for soda machines and so on.

Mr. Clay stated he has received emails and letters from Mr. Brown that indicate that the people opposed to this "need to attempt to fit in to the community that existed before (we) moved here" and "if (we) oppose rezoning we are an insular enclave in a hostile community". That is what Mr. Brown wrote. Mr. Clay stated that his wife is a native Boone Countian, she is a "Sapp" and if you know the Sappís they have been around here forever and the Nichols. Mr. Clay stated that his great-great-great-grandparents Joseph and Sheila Williamson, the same family tree with John Sam helped develop Huntsdale. Mr. Clay stated that his great-aunt has a home in Huntsdale and lived there for 50-years until she went to a residential care facility a few months ago. It is somewhat an insult to Mr. Clay to read these types of comments from Mr. Brown about who he is or what he is for and that he is an outsider or hostile. Under the ordinance, the request fails under some of the conditions. It is too wide open, it breaks a breach of trust that Mr. Clay relied on with them in what was going to be done and not done. Mr. Clay stated that he encourages the Commission on both issues to deny the requests.

Corinne "Corky" Little, 9290 W. Terrapin Hills, Columbia.

Ms. Little stated that Mr. Brown had said that her house and applicants house is approximately the same distance from the campground, Ms. Little stated she believes that is true. The difference is that she can see the whole thing and the applicants canít. The applicants can only see the little store.

Ms. Little read a statement which stated that she is here to address the possible misconception that those of us who oppose this zoning change are outsiders who have no connection to or interest in this community. My husband, William Guitar Little is the most recent member of his family to live in Boone County. The Guitarís have been here since before the civil war, that history is why we came here from Chicago. We also own three lots in Huntsdale and are invested in the welfare of that community. We are not insensitive to the farmers; both of our grandfathers were farmers. And we are not against small business; both of our fathers were in small business. We simply think that this rezoning is a bad idea for all the reasons the Commission have heard. The request for rezoning was unanimously defeated the last time we met, if anything, it is less well defined now. We ask you to protect this area through the appropriate enforcement of the zoning laws.

Pamela Newman, 9230 Terrapin Hills, Columbia.

Ms. Newman stated that she lives on the ridge overlooking the Missouri River and the site of the proposed campground and current bait shop. Ms. Newman stated that she is a native of Boone County, born and raised in Columbia. Ms. Newman stated that she is a graduate of Hickman High School and the University of Missouri. Ms. Newman stated that her nephew, Greg Early, lives down the road, her grandfather, James Burford, was an engineer on the MKT Railroad having lived in Mokane, Franklin and Columbia. Ms. Newman stated her father; Wilson Burford was also a graduate of Hickman High School, then called Columbia High School and the St. Louis School of Dentistry. Her father was an oral surgeon in Columbia with an office in the Guitar building, which is named after Corky Littleís husbands family, and across the hall from the office of Leslie Clayís father, Carl Sapp. Ms. Newman stated that her father was also a founding father of Ellis Fischel Hospital and a community minded man for whom the Cosmo Park Burford Shelter House is named. Ms. Newman stated that her two children were also raised here and are graduates of Hickman High School, Rock Bridge High School and Columbia College. As a child, Ms. Newman attended apple butter stirs at the Baine residence in McBaine, hunted ducks and geese in the river bottoms and explored Easley Cave.

Ms. Newman stated she mentions this to emphasize her ties to Columbia and the surrounding area and, as it turns out, with several of her neighbors who are also drawn here, not only because of the scenery and serenity, but also their own family heritage. Ms. Newman stated that she joined her neighbors in the opposition of a campground and expanded use of a commercial bait shop, camping is basically people living outside. Ms. Newman stated that she didnít expect to be sitting on her porch enjoying her home and seeing someoneís clothes drying on the line or campfire smoke drifting in her windows or college parties going in to all hours of the night or loud amplified music going through the trees. Or the noise of boats and trailers screaming down Route O. In reference to Mr. Brownís email dated Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 1:34 p.m. sent to Terrapin Hills in which he sent out his proposal, the campground rules and the goods and services offered at the bait store/camp store, Mr. Brown stated that "it should also be pointed out that the people who might be able to hear or see the campground bought lots that adjoined a State Park and the town of Huntsdale." The State Park that Mr. Brown referred to is the Katy Trail, which he prominently featured as a selling point for Terrapin Hills properties. The occasional noise Ms. Newman hears from bikers on the trail is a casual conversation as they proceed on their way. Not too many are walking on this stretch of the trail. As far as Huntsdale is concerned, the only noise the neighbors usually hear is from the hunting dogs and the church bell on Sunday, which rings before and after the 10:00 a.m. service. The neighbors knew what to expect moving next to the Katy Trail, but they were never told what to expect from the applicants.

Ms. Newman stated that the last paragraph of Mr. Brownís email states "if Terrapin Hills residents wish to become an insular enclave in a hostile community they can oppose this project. If they wish to embrace the history of the region and integrate themselves with the people who have their roots in this region they can support it." Ms. Newman stated that she believed she has documented the deep roots she has in this area and resents Mr. Brown implying that the neighbors are the problem. Ms. Newman stated that she has serious doubts about the feasability of this project based on the applicants past history of misrepresentation and false promises, not to mention that camping in a floodplain just doesnít seem like a good idea.

Bonnie Baker, 3869 S. Felicity Lane, Columbia.

Ms. Baker stated that she had a copy of the email and presented a copy to the Commission. Ms. Baker stated that she last came before this committee as a concerned neighbor opposing plans for a commercial campground. Today, Ms. Baker stated, her appeal is business oriented. Ms. Baker stated that the neighbors have been told by the applicants that their opposition was not a factor in the decision making last time. The neighbors have been painted as hostile residents with no sense of community. This is particularly insulting to Ms. Baker as her son is a fourth generation resident of Boone County, he counts among his reletives such esteemed families as Silvey and well known farm families as Wehmeyer and Alexander. Her family has always been good custodians of the thousands of acres they have owned in and around Boone County. Ms. Baker stated she is active in Midway Schools and other civil organizations, and co-chair of the Terrapin Hills Neighborhood Association Finance Committee. Ms. Baker stated that she is also president of a local company employing 60 people with annual sales of $4,000,000. Ms. Baker stated that in her work she has to evaluate the profitability of any new venture. Doing business with the State of Missouri and two neighboring states, her proposals are required to be backed by a performance bond. Ms. Baker stated that she can not make promises she doesnít have to keep. There are no performance guarantees here and there is no business plan. In reviewing the proposals, Ms. Baker stated she has come up with a list of items purchased or promised to be purchased. (Ms. Baker presented a copy of the shopping list to the Commission.) Ms. Baker asked the Commission to take a few minutes to review this and see that there is a significant upfront investment. Projected campsite revenues would probably cover annual operating costs but there is no return on the capital investment within the first few years and the plan does sound great but it is clearly not financially viable.

Ms. Baker stated that it is her concern that the operators would look to other revenues such as alcohol or tobacco from the sales to increase revenues to make the project more attractive and successful. Ms. Baker stated that she would like to see a list of other financially successful privately owned campgrounds. The proposal reads like a State owned camping facility, this is not a State park. Ms. Baker stated that she does not know of any State owned facilities that are financially independent. In the Show-Me-State, we like to be able to see something before we buy it. It is not difficult to garnish support with promises that are not legally binding. There may be a need for further camping in the area and this may be a beautiful site, it just doesnít make sense for here and for this. The opponents of Terrapin Hills are not just concerned neighboring landowners, we are negative business references. We know that contrary to what theyíve been told, the Commission does care about the opinions of the neighbors.

Ron Newman, 9230 Terrapin Hills, Columbia.

Mr. Newman stated he lives next to the proposed campsite and bait shop and has lived there for about 2 and a half years.

Mr. Newman presented some aerial photographs to the Commission that were taken on May 9, 2002.

Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Brown had stated that there wasnít any flooding in the area. Mr. Newman stated he has proof that is contrary to that. Mr. Newman stated that this flooding has been the result of severe storm activity as well as backup flooding from the Grocery Branch in to the Missouri River next to the boat dock.

Mr. Newman pointed out the location of the Grocery Branch, farmland, the levy and boat ramp on the first photograph. Mr. Newman also pointed out back up water from Grocery Branch that is running in to the Missouri River that is elevated enough so it has no where to go but in to the field. Mr. Newman stated that the proposed camping location is effectively underwater as well as the RV location, the handicapped location and the group site camping location. One of the striking issues is the fact that serious amount of water is backed up to the levy in the center of the property. The water stays there for quite a while, it stagnates and creates a bog that attracts mosquitoes. You are left with an environment that has standing water, mosquito infestation. When it dries up, it smells and it is not a wholesome camping environment.

Mr. Newman presented another photograph showing the Grocery Branch storm drainage, Mr. Newman stated that the photograph was taken down by the levy and bridge that overlooks the stream. There is a considerable amount of water flow, and unfortunately it doesnít have anywhere to go other than in to the river.

Mr. Newman presented an aerial photograph of the proposed boat ramp. Mr. Newman stated that the water cuts off access to the boat ramp. Mr. Newman stated that water is flowing in to the area so a levy system or dyke would need to be established to maintain stability in that area to keep the area from flooding. Another thing that exists is the fact that this isnít river flooding, this is just from severe storm water. Mr. Newman stated that he is concerned about proper notification to people who may be camping at the site of storms that roll through, there is no access in or out from these locations, these people could be stranded if they are not properly notified.

Mr. Newman stated that one of the criteria he is concerned about is the stormwater management and the lack of drainage that proposes a serious threat to this project. As it was stated, there is going to be a need for an evacuation plan. Mr. Newman stated he has lived there long enough he gets to see the storms roll across the river and they come up quite suddenly, not only with severe storms, there are lightening strikes potential tornadoes, river flooding. Mr. Newman stated he wanted to make sure that there is an absolutely established and viable evacuation plan that will be in place for the protection of the people that may be using this area. Mr. Newman stated that another concern is what is the criteria going to be for reopening the campground or boat ramp if the request is approved.

Mr. Newman stated that boating safety is another concern. With the potential increase of boat traffic on the river, is there a plan for water patrol to check licenses, motor safety equipment and drinking while boating? What are the planned resources committed to river rescue other than a grassy helicopter pad? The biggest issue that Mr. Newman has is opening this up to over 70-acres, it leaves the door open for large fraternity and University parties coming in to the area and bringing noisy crowds and drinking and that type of behavior. Mr. Newman stated that he has seen this occurrence down there in the past. There is currently a location in McBaine for this type of activity, that is at Dooleys, which is an enclosed building. Mr. Brown stated that the group campground would be used by such groups as big brothers and big sisters and the girl scouts. Mr. Newman stated he personally contacted these organizations and learned that big brothers and big sisters do not camp as a group, it is just a mentoring association. The girl scouts use their own and operated council campgrounds or locations approved by the American Camping Association.

Mr. Newman stated that while he recognizes the need for a plan regarding the usage for the area surrounding Huntsdale, Terrapin Hills and the Missouri River. There are concerns that the development will be detrimental. A true master plan established by a unified coalition of concerned citizens with the over site of this committee will allow the time for thoughtful decision making. We would rather model this area on the successes of Rocheport and Les Bourgeois, rather than Coopers Landing.

Doug Randall, 207 Rockingham, Columbia

Shirley Randall, 207 Rockingham, Columbia

Mr. Randall stated that he is building a home at 9181 Terrapin Hills. Mr. Randall stated that he and his wife are from South Dakota and are connected to rural America. There are more people in Calloway, Boone, and Cooper County than there is in the whole state of South Dakota. Mr. Randall stated that he works in the field of agriculture, and has been a member of the College of Agriculture at the University for 30 years. Mr. Randall stated that when he was considering the purchase of a lot in Terrapin Hills he specifically asked who owned the property below, Mr. Brown stated that he did. Mr. Randall stated he asked Mr. Brown what his plans were for that property and Mr. Brown stated that he was farming it and would continue to do so. Because of the flooding like in 1993, Mr. Brown stated he would consider a wetlands area and might even have some soil available when he does wildlife dugouts. Mr. Randall stated he had the impression that Mr. Brown was working with the DNR to accomplish this. During the viewing and discussions of lot 45, where the home is being built, Mr. Brown took him to the edge of the bluff and pointed out the view of the river including this area (pointing out location on map) of what the view is and indicated that this is why these lots cost significantly more. Mr. Brown informed Mr. Randall of the covenants, that there would be no dusk to dawn lights, the night sky would be clearly visible and there would be peace and quiet being on the river. The bluff edge and view which Mr. Brown always stressed upon in selling the property was key to the decision to buy. There had been trees cut to reveal the view of the river. Mr. Brown had stated that one of the conservation groups had offered to buy the area because it was best suited for wildlife along the river. Mr. Brown stated that the appraised value offer was too low. This area floods both from the Missouri River and from the creeks running in. A boat landing in primitive campground for trail reasons. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Mr. Randall stated he uses the trail often, the river is one of Missouriís best assets and is a big proponent of both.

Mr. Randall stated that six weeks ago the story for this area was a primitive campground, pop up campers would also be welcome but not RVís, at least not right now. During the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the number of campers per night was estimated at 450 now it is down to 150. Possible flush toilets, we now have a septic field to worry about. It has significantly increased in size. There is the concern of being 10 miles away from 20,000 students who like to party and have a habit of using the bluff above Easley where there are no facilities. There are doubts that the business plan is available, will there be this RV resident there during November, March and April when the students like to party? The results of all this is noise, lights, possibly a private lodge built that would be rented for parties, already a hunting area has been proposed. Mr. Randall stated that it has already been stated to him that if this is turned down, lights would be put there anyway. This whole area which starts out as a campground right now later could go to recreational use. Does that include dirt bikes and ATVís? The DNR, you would think, would have put a boat landing in Eagle Bluffs had a boat landing been needed. Mr. Randall stated he would like to see the use of the river but a boat landing in a proper environment is where it should be.

Mr. Randall stated that he is concerned about undisclosed plans down the road and how this will continue to grow. If things donít go right and this gets abandoned, who do neighbors complain to? Has the Planning and Zoning Commission ever retracted a conditional use permit ten years later if it is not used property. It is obviously a low priority with law enforcement, they have other more important things to do than roust out party people. Boone County and the various river groups should get together, generate a use plan for the entire Boone County Missouri River shoreline. This would be best for everybody concerned.

Geoff Gunnell, 8989 Terrapin Hills, Columbia.

Mr. Gunnell stated that he was puzzled as to whether to speak for or against this request, he spoke in favor of the request at the last meeting when it was a smaller proposal. Mr. Gunnell stated that he is for the idea that was originally proposed of public access to the river area, public access to the recreation area, especially the opportunity of having something that families and children can use. If that is done correctly and permitted correctly, that could fit in with the neighborhood and not cause problems. The first of the problems has to do with the boat trailers coming down Route O. Mr. Gunnell stated that he had a fish and ski boat, 17-foot aluminum boat, it was 17-foot across the back end, those boats are typically put on a 108-inch wide trailer, that is the legal maximum. Mr. Gunnell stated he was going down Route O and was enough over the centerline with that trailer and realized that it wasnít going to work. He ended up trading that boat for a smaller boat and trailer. The new trailer was also 108-inches across the wheels, Mr. Gunnell stated that he was a good 6 to 8-inches over the centerline of Route O. More and more of the popular family boats are being put on 108-inch wide trailers. A few weeks ago Mr. Gunnell stated he was driving down Route O with an empty trailer, a tractor trailer came around the curve, Mr. Gunnell had to drop his wheels off the edge of the pavement to get the tractor trailer by, as he was over the centerline when he came around the curve. Mr. Gunnell stated he went out today and measured the pavement where that happened, it is 17-feet, 4-inches across, then you have a drop. A lot of the rural people have smaller john boats, but once the ramp is built, there is going to be all kinds of activity coming in from the City of Columbia, including larger boats that have trouble fitting down Perche Creek Road.

Mr. Gunnell stated he believed it would be a nice place to have a boat ramp, but until Route O is fixed, Mr. Gunnell stated he wonders if it is wise to have one or not. Mr. Brown has stated that the DNR and DOC and maybe the Corps are absolutely in favor of this project and that they have no plans for a boat ramp in the area. Mr. Gunnell stated that two years ago he was going to the meetings about the Big Muddy development on the Missouri River, although these were mostly idea getting meetings at that point trying to get everybodyís input, a boat ramp was mentioned. There were no specific plans but once the opportunity comes to have someone build one for you, suddenly there are no more plans.

Mr. Gunnell stated that he knew a year ago from telephone conversations with the applicants concerning this development. Mr. Gunnell stated that he mentioned his concern to the applicants of fraternity parties may end up down there and that would be a problem. Mr. Gunnell stated that to his amazement, the applicants stated that they were going to book parties like that, alcohol parties are part of the plan. In one conversation the applicants stated it would be a party once a month, in another conversation they stated once every two weeks. Mr. Gunnell stated he has been trying to convince them that this is not a good idea, not only from the point of view of fitting this in with the neighborhood, but also from several public safety issues. Mr. Brown informed Mr. Gunnell that he did not want to take the responsibility for it, it is not his problem if people get drunk. If there is a law enforcement problem, the applicants stated they would have law enforcement come down there. There are some real public safety problems associated with that kind of activity in that specific area.

Mr. Gunnell stated that he has a proposal that he made up. (Mr. Gunnell presented this proposal to the Commission.) Mr. Gunnell stated that this area needs to have a no alcohol policy. Mr. Gunnell stated he is proposing a specific policy that says no alcohol, no drugs, no firearms, quiet time all the time. These should be on large signs 2-feet by 2-feet or 3-feet by 3-feet. There should be four signs. One on the wall of the bait house under the light by the pay phone, one on the top of the boat ramp, and one at the entrance to the facility, and one at the fork in the road. Posting a no alcohol sign would do more to reduce the County service calls to the area than any other single action, if such service calls were required, the posted no alcohol policy would allow law enforcement to more easily deal with the situation.

Mr. Gunnell stated that some of the benefits of having a no alcohol polity are saving lives on Route O. The likelihood of killing other innocent cyclists while intoxicated is a foreseeable certainty. Mr. Gunnell asked Mr. Yonke of the requirements that were mentioned during the staff report; one of them had to do with public safety.

Mr. Yonke stated that on a rezoning request there is a sufficiency of resources test that needs to be applied and one of those three categories was public safety concerns. Similarly on the conditional use permit the staff addressed conditions to try to address the seven tests, one of which is public safety.

Mr. Gunnell stated that public safety is a legitimate issue in this debate. Saving lives in the water, there are all kids of alcohol related boating accidents. The Missouri River is not a particularly forgiving area to boat in. Reducing intoxication is going to save lives and save County service calls. There is an additional hazard on the shoreline in this area, in many cases the rock is jumbled around by the current, when you walk around down there, you usually find things that will move around under your feet. It seems foreseeable that if you are intoxicated, you are going to fall and hit your head and drown. These three issues: Route O, boating and shoreline are very specific to this site that make it uniquely dangerous for people who are intoxicated. It would be in the best interest of the applicants to have a no alcohol policy to try and make a good-faith effort to reduce these kind of alcohol related accidents. The benefits include the elimination of any intentional booking of all alcohol related parties which has been one of the major neighborhood objections as a noise generated by these parties. This property is not suitable for keg parties due to noise and safety issues. The County needs to make sure that such use is prohibited by the permit.

Mr. Gunnell stated that the no drugs part on the sign is self-explanatory. The no firearms; this is a range safety issue. Mr. Gunnell stated he hasnít been comfortable pointing a gun down at the river for probably 15 years. There are too many people around everywhere and you canít see them all.

Mr. Gunnell stated regarding firearms that Mr. Brown had stated that he wanted to have duck hunting next door to the development, to rent the land out.

Mr. Gunnell stated that there should be quiet time all the time. The acoustics of river valley make noise a quality of life issue to the nearby residential area; property value issue for the people the applicants sold lots overlooking the campground. The original understanding was that the campground was to be a much smaller primitive campground area than what is currently proposed, quiet time all the time protects the natural sonic environment so that everyone can enjoy the bird calls that are part of the river experience.

Mr. Gunnell stated that another rule should be no generators. Somewhere in the DNR code applicants tell what hours these generators can run. Assuming that is one per occupant or 20 to 30 generators, that is not going to work down there. Regarding lighting: strike the sentence "Lighting will take in to consideration the demands of insurance, fire and police protection requirements and may have to be changed to meet those requirements." Mr. Gunnell stated no, it is up to the planning department in concert with representatives from the fire and sheriffs departments to examine the plans and the site and make specific location, wattage, directionality recommendations for lighting for public discussion, followed by specific permitting if the plan meets public and governmental approval. A blank check for lighting is unacceptable in this area. Replace the sentence lights will be directed downward and toward the river if possible. Lights directed toward the river actually interfere with nigh docking by blinding incoming boaters.

Mr. Gunnell stated regarding the impact of college binge drinking, the National Institutes of Health estimate 1400 student deaths a year, 500,000 injuries, 70,000 cases of sexual assault. All of this seems to be so easily preventable in this area by just posting a no alcohol policy. Mr. Gunnell read from the NIH release stating that prevention strategies must simultaneously target 3 constituencies: the student population as a whole; the college and its surrounding environment; and the individual at-risk or alcohol-dependent drinker. That is one study that made the national news. Another comment from the Director of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving is that we need renewed political leadership and action at the federal level and in every state and community if we are serious about curbing this most frequent violent crime. Members and supporters are eager to work with our government leaders and all concerned citizens to re-engage the nation once again in bringing down the drunk driving death toll. Mr. Gunnell stated he spoke with Kim Dude who is the Director of the MU wellness center and the assistant director of MU student affairs, she probably knows more about student intoxication problems than anyone else in this area. Ms. Dude said that she didnít have the statistics but MU is far worse than the natural averages in both binge drinking and DUIís despise the dry 2000 initiative, the fraternity system is the most at-risk group. An estimated 70-percent of students are drinking at private parties. In the east campus area, Columbia police often have difficulty dealing with out of control parties. Mr. Gunnell stated he explained to Ms. Dude what was being proposed, the road, the boating, and loose rocks, her comment was that it is a disaster waiting to happen. One of these days, an intoxicated student is going to kill a family; it is unwise to approve this. Mr. Gunnell stated that this is when he began to have his problems with this overweigh his desire to have some sort of public access. If you donít get rid of the alcohol problems on Route O, people are going to die; there is no question about it. Mr. Brownís attitude through all of this is that he doesnít care and it is not his problem. Mr. Gunnell stated that he can not deal with that attitude, he and his wife drive on that road as well as his neighbors. If you are going to set up something like a park and drink on the worst road in the County, why would you set up something like this for alcohol parties on the worst road in the County? If people need a place to go out and drink outside, we have the fairgrounds. The sheriffs department is right across the highway.

Mr. Gunnell stated that if the Commission does approve this request, he urges that the Commission approve or require some sort of restriction to keep people safe by restricting alcohol and the other restrictions are reasonable also.

Closed to public hearing.

Mr. Brown pointed out on the aerial photo and stated that the applicants are building the road. There is a ditch that drains the entire area. Without a culvert installed the rain has backed up.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she was at the site on Sunday and the whole middle part was underwater. Where is the culvert going to be and where would the water drain to?

Mr. Brown stated that dirt was built up to raise the road which created a dam. All of the water runs through the levy and back down. The water can't get out of the field until a culvert is put in. Mr. Brown stated he has never had a keg party there. The applicants werenít home during the party that Mr. Clay mentioned. The partygoers did over $1000 worth of damage to the bean field. Mr. Brown stated he called the sheriff and they didnít manage to catch anyone.

Mr. Schneider stated that there were concerns of future plans of expansion, the Commission can just say no. There is a specific proposal before the Commission, if another proposal comes up later and it is not appropriate, just say no. That is why this process exists, so that is not a valid concern. The economics of it are the applicants concern and no one elseís. It is not like the applicants are going to build a lot of infrastructure. With respect to the reference of the bait shop, the staff report very plainly indicated that a building permit was issued for that bait shop. As far as the proposed policy; the campground is a destination, people go there to camp and there is no particular reason why there would be a lot of people going back and forth on Route O. Another issue is whether or not Boone County would adopt prohibition. In various zones the County permits bars and taverns and why something like this would be a condition on a campground seems to be very inconsistent. There were references to representations that were made. At the last meeting Mr. Brown indicated that he informed people that there would not be a subdivision down there as it is in a floodplain. Overtime, people remember things differently and perhaps that was taken as some kind of undertaking that nothing would ever be built there. The strange thing is when there is a grievance of that nature made, usually in the real estate contracts there are restrictive covenants, these properties were purchased pursuant to real estate contracts with lawyers who reviewed and sometimes changed the contract. There is nothing in the real estate contracts of the sort.

Commissioner Sloan asked how many people does the applicant see on one of the group campsites?

Mr. Brown stated maybe 30 people.

Commissioner Sloan stated there will be two group campsites.

Mr. Brown stated that was correct. The applicants have limited the people to 150 no matter what.

Commissioner Sloan stated that if the applicants get two campsites with 30 people each, that is 60 people and you have X number of other campsites, the applicants will say sorry, we are full?

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Commissioner Freiling stated with a maximum of 150 people, how many commodes and how many showers?

Mr. Brown stated that the applicants followed the DNR guidelines. Mr. Brown stated the information is attached to the application.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that there are currently 6 stools and 2 showers.

Commissioner Freiling asked how many were at the campground and how many are at the bait house.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that is what is in the bait shop.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the applicants have to know that the campers are not going to walk all the way to the bait shop to go to the bathroom. So how many bathrooms will be at the campsite.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that maybe a total of four stools.

Mr. Brown stated that the second restroom doesnít necessarily have to be as large as the first because the applicants are covered through the DNR guidelines for their planning in the bait house showers and stools. The second facility is basically for convenience.

Commissioner Neese stated that is built with a cinder block building and when it floods what happens?

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that it has a valve in it so nothing can back up in the septic system. Once it goes down there it has a floating valve so no water can float back out.

Commissioner Neese stated that water won't permeate down in to that with that check valve?

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that was correct.

Commissioner Neese stated that one of the issues that was not addressed tonight was the trail crossing across the Katy Trail. No one has said anything about that. There are going to be people on the Katy Trail and you have to enter both the campground and the bait shop by crossing the Katy Trail. Is there any provision that the applicants have made so far for safety reasons to slow bikers and walkers on the Katy Trail so they will not be hit by cars coming on Route O or on the Katy Trail.

Mr. Brown stated that he has an easement with DNR for a public road across the Katy Trail. There is an agreement that it is on DNR, if they decide they wish to put in a crossing gate to slow traffic down, applicants will pay for that.

Commissioner Neese asked who determines when that would be put in?

Mr. Brown stated that DNR determines whether they want one there or not. If they do want one, applicants would pay for it as were the terms of the easement with them.

Commissioner Neese stated that he still hasnít seen where this is a public necessity because there are other locations with boat docks. That issue has never been cleared up by the applicants. Commissioner Neese stated that he believes that this is going to become the party cove of the Missouri River. It may not be on water, but that is a concern. We are not talking about prohibition in this County but the applicants know what has been going on in Easley or other places. With it being an alcohol free campus, the students are looking for places. The police response time, when the applicants called them before, the people had already gone. That doesnít help the people. This is not a "not in my neighborhood" and "not at my backdoor" issue, this is an issue of public safety. The applicants are building something where the police response time is not going to be there. The applicants are going to allow someone who is not a paid employee to police this for the applicants. Commissioner Neese stated he sees this as a public nuisance instead of a public necessity.

Commissioner Neese stated he doesnít know how the applicants are going to meet the fire flow on the water. Is the waterline going in to meet that or is a stand tower going to be built to meet the fire flow that would be necessary in order to fight fires in that area?

Mr. Brown stated that he received a fax on that condition this afternoon and called Jeff Scott with the Fire Department. In describing the building to Mr. Scott, he had seen the plans and thought that one fire truck with water hauled on, a fire truck would be sufficient to handle that.

Commissioner Neese asked where the fire truck would be located.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated Midway.


Commissioner Neese asked what kind of response time is that?

Mr. Taylen Brown stated about 10 minutes.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated 15 minutes easily.

Mr. Brown stated that there is a response time on the fax.

Commissioner Neese stated that he understands that there are two sides to this but the applicants sold property to homeowners, the property is zoned A-1 and the applicants built a bait house, which is permissible, but how many showers and bathrooms were in the original plans?

Mr. Yonke stated that what the applicants built was actually on the original plans. Staff had questions about how many showers and toilets you actually need at just a 300 square foot bait house, but until there is an actual violation of use, there isnít anything in the code to prohibit you from having extra bathrooms or having showers at a bait house.

Commissioner Neese stated that he is having a problem piecing this together as a public necessity.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that he has spoken with Tom OíSullivan at the Boone County Sheriffs office and they have started patrolling that area more now since they know there is going to be a business there soon. They didnít seem to have any problems coming down for any reason if they were needed. Mr. Sullivan was very impressed that they werenít going to be selling any alcohol or tobacco and that would help a lot with keeping parties down. McBaine is right down the road with a very large building, if college kids want to go party, that is probably where they are going to go party at. It would be a lot better environment for them than being out in the woods.

Commissioner Sloan stated that she disagrees with that because in order to party there, they will have to rent it and do various other things.

Mr. Brown stated that the people who bike the Katy Trail are generally older and environmentally conscious, they are not prone to drink. This is not something the applicants expect to have a problem with in the campground because the people the applicants want to attract and the only way to make money on this operation is to attract family oriented clientele. If the applicants let people go in there and drink in the campground, they will ruin their reputation and lose money and be out of business.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the issues that have been raised are sobering. Is there any practical mechanism that the Commission can attach to a conditional use permit approval that will simply and effectively prohibit the possibility that if this becomes an untenable project as a campground that it does not become a highly profitable party campground with alcohol as the center?

Mr. Yonke stated that the plan that the staff has that was submitted with the application shows 18 individual sites, each with two tents, one host site, two individual sites where the tents are not specified and one group campground. There is only one group camping area in the plan. With the site being limited to 150 people, that would be the maximum. To answer the question as to whether someone could come in and rent out the individual spaces and then have a big party, if they do, enforcement is going to be difficult.

Commissioner Freiling asked if you could put 150 people in the group campground.

Mr. Yonke stated that it all depends on how the Commission crafts the conditions, then enforcement is going to be a totally different issue.

Commissioner Sloan stated that the Commission could make a conditional use permit for a limited period of time and make them come back a year from now and start over and review it at that point.

Mr. Yonke stated that in addition to conditions that staff recommended, some form of review period or non-transferable and a review period are types of things that are the ultimate safety nets to see that something doesnít happen in perpetuity. Specifically on a case by case basis it is going to be very difficult to try and implement those types of restrictions.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the applicants are coming back for a conditional use permit on 71-acres, the original request was for 26-acres. Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she would assume the 26-acres is the graphic presentation the applicants presented.

Mr. Brown stated that it was basically divided up. It ends up being three different sections, it is 165-acres applicants had originally asked for a line that was drawn from here (pointing at map) to here. The County arbitrarily divided it on section lines. The 71-acres includes all the area.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked the applicants why they are coming back and asking for 71-acres when they asked for 26-acres last time.

Mr. Brown stated that this is the way the County divided it up.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the applicant had a survey for 26-acres and showed the Commission the representation of a campground on 26-acres in February which is essentially what this request is.

Mr. Brown stated that is correct.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked Staff if it would be possible to give the applicants a conditional use permit for 26-acres as represented.

Mr. Shawver stated yes.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that in other words, the campground could get a conditional use permit. But the rest of the use would remain agriculture.

Mr. Brown stated that is correct.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she visited the site several times and talked with Mike Cooper, the neighbors and the applicants. Having been a Rocheport resident for 20-years, she knows when the creek is slow and you are in Rocheport, you can't put a boat out anywhere unless you go down to Providence and sometimes you can't get out at Providence. You canít get out at New Franklin anymore and Taylors Landing is gone. Commissioner Heitkamp stated she has been told that MDC is putting up a new ramp at Taylors Landing. There is a clear need for a boat ramp in this area. Commissioner Heitkamp asked applicants if they have considered a boat club for use of the boat ramp and if that would be feasible, it would certainly limit traffic on Route O. As a Rocheport resident and anyone from north Boone County wanting to put in a boat, most would be driving down Route O anyway to go to Providence. That traffic almost already exists, traffic coming out from Columbia would be coming out by way of Coats Lane or Highway K to use this.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she has given this a lot of thought because she has driven Route O a lot and it is an extremely dangerous road. Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she would want to be the last person in the world to put traffic on it for any reason, however, in this County, development is a given. We can not go out anywhere in Boone County and see the stars and be away from development, it is going to happen. How it is going to be developed however, is basically up to the Commission to determine. How the campground is going to work, if it is ever going to get through based on what the Commission has heard tonight.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she has concerns about the road when it floods and how chip and seal will be kept on the road and throughout. Commissioner Heitkamp stated she would like to see the landscaping be completed before hand and plant trees before it is developed. The boat ramp is elevated and if you are anywhere near Terrapin Hills you have a good view of the parking lot at the boat ramp, there are no more than 30 spaces at Providence, the applicant havenít indicated how many parking spaces they would have at their boat ramp. Commissioner Heitkamp suggested there be no more than 25 spaces and that the parking lot be landscaped.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated she had questions about security, are the applicants planning to have a gate at the entrance way?

Mr. Brown stated yes.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked how the gate would operate.

Mr. Brown stated they would have a gate that would be closeable to the campers. It is something you would close at night, it would not have a lock.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated the other question is lighting at the bait house. Is it going to be from a pole or on the bait house itself?

Mr. Brown stated that it is already in place and it is just a small fluorescent light.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the Commission could put on a condition that all infrastructure would be in place before it would be approved?

Commissioner Sloan stated that the applicant has asked that the restroom, which may not be completed until July 2003 so the applicants asked for the conditional use extension be granted for the additional restroom. Then in the next sentence it stated that the applicants plan to develop the group campsite and a few others this year and ask that a conditional use extension be granted until June 2004 for the applicants to complete the campground project. They are asking for 2 years.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the applicants would have to have a functioning restroom down by the campsite before opening, it just makes sense. People are not going to walk up to the bait house to use the restroom. The applicants can not ask the Commission to allow the applicants to have a campground with no restroom. It makes sense that the applicants would develop the individual sites first before developing the group campground, the Commission has heard from people who were worried about groups using it. If you donít have individual sites, then obviously the applicants will only have group campers.

Mr. Brown stated that his original plan was to put in port-a-pottys until such time that a restroom is put in. That would be the ideal situation in order for him to open this year at all, this would be the only way to do so. Mr. Brown stated that he would get the bathroom put in as fast as possible, if it becomes a condition that the applicants can't open until the restrooms are down there then the applicants will live with it. Mr. Brown stated that he would hate to see some kind of time limit in knowing that he would have to come back every year for a progress report, it has been very stressful for the applicants. If applicants knew what they know now, they would have never started this project because it is too much stress. Applicants didnít believe that they were going to make tons and tons of money, but was trying to give something back to the community and believes it is a good project. The Commission can put whatever conditions they want and the applicants will try and meet those conditions.

Commissioner Freiling asked if the applicants had any intention of allowing the site to be used as a party site.

Mr. Brown stated no.

Commissioner Freiling stated that he understands the world changes. Commissioner Freiling asked Mr. Schneider if he knew of a mechanism that the owners could establish that would ensure the Commission that the site would not become a party site.

Mr. Schneider stated that the best way to do that is to put on renewals and see what happens. This is not what the applicants want to see happen but it is probably the simplest and most effective way of ensuring that. It could be possible to incorporate the rules and regulations as a condition. But then we come to the enforcement issue.

Commissioner Sloan stated if the Commission put a five-year renewal on it for arguments sake, if something unforeseen happens the first year or second year, and there is a cry of outrage from the neighborhood, the applicants response is going to be that they have a five-year permit. If the Commission is going to do something like that, Commissioner Sloan stated that she hasnít heard anything that will make her vote for anything more than a one-year renewal, that is the way it would have to be so the Commission can see what develops.

Commissioner Freiling asked if there was a way to establish a limitation on the nature of the review or is it just wide open?

Mr. Shawver stated that past reviews have covered the conditions on the conditional use permit.

Commissioner Freiling stated that the Commission would go through the entire public hearing process.

Commissioner Sloan asked Commissioner Mink his impression of Route O and the issues that have been brought up.

Commissioner Mink stated that 17-foot is very narrow, 108-inches is 9-feet and if you have two 9-foot trailers that is 18-feet, if what Mr. Gunnell stated earlier is correct, it is tight.

Commissioner Neese stated that putting on a one, two, or three-year review it would limit the applicants. This is either a good deal or not. Commissioner Neese stated that he didnít believe it was a good deal trying to make this fit. This is not the only land near the river that could have a boat dock and boat ramp. It is not the only land that is on the Katy Trail that could have a campground on the other side of the Katy Trail, it is not a good deal. This wasnít well planned out. The applicants made oral commitments to people and then they do this, then they build a ramp without a permit and built a bait house that did have a permit, but it was to service something they were going to build in the future. It is not good for the County; this is not the place. Commissioner Neese stated that he canít even support a one-year.

Commissioner Sloan asked if the Commission denied this, what happens to the bait house. It can sell bait and that is it, no bread, or groceries.

Mr. Shawver stated that the bait house is not part of the campground.

(Discussion among Commission members)

Commissioner Freiling stated that he supports access to the Missouri River, that is a valuable public asset. Commissioner Freiling stated that he feels that this is an inappropriate site for a campground for two or three reasons. If this is a family campsite, anyone who utilizes the river understands how dangerous the current is on the river, kids donít belong there. It seems that we are inviting problems of one kind or another by approving a site that is right on the river, it is not just the flood issues or the access issues. Commissioner Neese is correct in that the Commission is going to establish a precedent in approving campground in the floodplain. This is not an appropriate precedent. Commissioner Neese stated that he like the boat ramp and the bait house and the fact that Huntsdale could have a community retail outlet. Commissioner Freiling stated that being a real estate agent, he knows agents are not the proper venue for complaints about representation. Commissioner Freiling stated that he has safety concerns about this side of the campground.

Commissioner Neese made a motion to deny the request for a conditional use permit. Commissioner Heitkamp seconded the motion.

Discussion on the motion:

Commissioner Freiling asked staff if the permit is denied, can the applicant resubmit relative to establishing the boat ramp use. And if he does resubmit relative to the boat ramp use, would it be a requirement that the road be chip and sealed or is that a requirement that could be waived as a condition.

Mr. Shawver stated that the boat ramp falls under a recreational facility, the zoning regulations preclude the applicants from applying for the same category if they are denied. The campground and boat ramp are still a commercial type application and would require chip and seal. The Commission could extend time to install the chip and seal but it can not be waived.

Commissioner Neese made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to deny a request by Linda Lenau and Robert Brown for an Outdoor Recreation Facility on 71.95 acres, located at 8825 W. Sarr Street, Columbia.

 

Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan Yes Carl Freiling Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes David Mink Yes

Motion to deny request carries. 7 Yes 0 No

Vice-Chairperson Caruthers informed applicants that if they wished to appeal this decision to the County Commission, an appeal form would need to be filed with the Planning Department within three working days.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

  1. Request by Linda Lenau and Robert Brown to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of .65 acres, more or less, and to approve a Review Plan for property located at 8825 W. Sarr Street, Columbia.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that the general location, service areas, and background from the immediately preceding CUP are the same for this rezoning request and review plan request. The specific area of the request is 0.65 acres of the parent parcel as shown on the submitted review plan. The proposal includes a bait house/camp-store with shower and restroom facilities and a parking area. A building permit for a "bait house" was issued on this property in 2001. The bait house is currently under construction. The bait house is related to the CUP application previously heard but cannot be part of the CUP. However, the applicant has stated that the bathrooms and showers built into the bait house are intended to serve the proposed campground. The primary focus of this request is to change the existing bait house into a bait house & camp-store, removing the limitations of a bait house alone. The rezoning would make it possible for the bait house & camp-store to sell items of use to the community of Huntsdale, trail users and others in the area as well as to campers if the preceding CUP was approved. The items are listed on the review plan. The size of the structure is limited to that shown on the plan. Additionally, any additions or changes to the plan will require a revised review and revised final plan to be approved. The rezoning will not go into effect until a final development plan is approved including any conditions placed upon the review plan. There is a small C-N neighborhood commercial zoning district in Huntsdale near this proposal.

The Master Plan designates the property as suitable for agriculture or rural residential land use. The request is not consistent with the Master Plan, however, the plan does indicate that where commercial and industrial uses are proposed for consideration such requests should be planned requests. The Plan also identifies a sufficiency of resources test to as a means to judge the suitability of land proposed for rezoning. In applying the test it is necessary to look at the possible uses under the requested zoning, any physical constraints of the property that would limit the possible uses and finally, whether there are sufficient resources to support the potential uses of the property.

The property being considered for rezoning lies within the Missouri River 100-year floodplain. The resources necessary to support the proposed rezoning can be broken down into three general categories, Utilities, Public Safety Services and Transportation.

The property scored 20 points on the rating system.

37 property owners were notified of this request

Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following 6 conditions:

  1. That it be recognized that the development is limited only to that which has been requested and shown on the review plan, any alteration in proposed use, additional structures, or additions to the structure shown is a major change and will require a revised review and revised final plan be submitted and approved after appropriate public hearings.
  2. That a means of providing required fire flow be provided and be acceptable to both the fire district and director of planning.
  3. That the location of any dumpster or refuse containment area be shown on the plan including a 6í wooden privacy type screening fence.
  4. That all lighting be shielded and directed inward and downward.
  5. That all drive and parking areas are a minimum of chip & seal surface, with the further recognition that no gravel surfaces are allowed within the review plan area.
  6. That the access drive between the review plan area and the MKT trail be a minimum of chip & seal surface.

See discussion above under conditional use permits.

 

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to approve a request by Linda Lenau and Robert Brown to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of .65 acres, more or less, for property located at 8825 W. Sarr Street, Columbia.

 

Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan Yes Carl Freiling Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes David Mink Yes

Motion to approve request carries. 7 Yes 0 No

Vice-Chairperson Caruthers informed the applicants that this would go before the County Commission on Wednesday, May 29, 2002.

Commissioner Mink asked staff if there was a problem with the setbacks.

Mr. Yonke stated that staff is satisfied that the setback is adequate.

Commissioner Mink asked if the sewer lateral field was existing.

Mr. Yonke stated that they have to exist to approve the restrooms.

Mr. Taylen Brown stated that the applicants would not be able to get a final on the building permit without approval from the health department.

Commissioner Freiling added the condition of business hours to be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve with staff conditions and an additional condition restricting business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., a request by Linda Lenau and Robert Brown to approve a Review Plan for property located at 8825 W. Sarr Street, Columbia.

 

Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan Yes Carl Freiling Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes David Mink Yes

Motion to approve request with conditions carries. 7 Yes 0 No

Vice-Chairperson Caruthers informed the applicants that this request would go before the County Commission on Wednesday, May 29, 2002.

 

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

  1. Request by Dana and Elizabeth Austin to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to A-R / PRD (Agriculture Planned Residential Development) of 250 acres, more or less, and to approve a Review Plan for property located at 4201 E Christian School Rd., Hartsburg.

Commissioner Freiling stated that due to a professional relationship with the applicants he would recuse himself from the hearing. Commissioner Freiling left the Commission Chambers.

Planner Bill Florea stated that it should be noted for the record that Commissioner Freiling also recused himself from the work session at which this project was discussed.

Vice-Chairperson Caruthers agreed.

Mr. Florea gave the staff report stating that this 250-acre tract is located approximately 1 Ĺ miles southwest of Ashland. The zoning is A-2, all of the surrounding property is zoned A-2. The property has been used for agricultural purposes but is otherwise undeveloped. The request is for approval of a rezoning to Agriculture Residential Planned Residential Development or AR-PRD. There have been no previous requests made for this property.

The first item to be considered is whether a rezoning to AR-PRD is appropriate. The Master Plan calls for the use of a "Sufficiency of Resources Test" when considering the rezoning of land. The purpose of the test is to determine whether there are sufficient resources available to support the proposed zoning, or whether services could be made available in an efficient manner.

The AR-PRD zoning limits the residential density that is allowed within the development. In this case the proposed density for the development is 125 homes, which is an increase of 25% over the density allowed by the current A-2 zoning. If the rezoning and review plan is approved, the maximum density for the tract is 125 homes on 250 acres or 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres.

The resources necessary to serve the proposed development can be broken down into 3 general categories, utilities, transportation, and public safety services.

Utilities: Consolidated Public Water District Number 1 will provide water service. The developer is funding the extension of an 8-inch water line to the property. The line will provide adequate water for domestic service and provide sufficient flow for fire protection. This will not only benefit the development but other properties in the area as well.

A central wastewater collection and treatment system will be installed to provide sewer service to each lot within the development. The treatment system will include a re-circulating sand filter and ultra-violet dis-infection and will be designed to meet the discharge limits for a losing stream. When construction is complete the Regional Sewer District will assume ownership and provide maintenance and operation services.

Boone Electric will provide electricity. Ameren U.E. will provide natural gas.

Primary access to the development will be via Christian School Road, which is a paved two-lane road and is classified as a collector road. Collector roads carry between 750 and 2500 average daily trips. The additional traffic generated by development will not cause a change in the classification of the road.

There are three problematic curves between Old 63 and the project site. One of the curves is adjacent to the project site. The other two curves are between the project site and Old 63. The Developer has agreed to straighten the curve that is adjacent to the development as a required off site improvement.

The property is in the Southern Boone County Fire District. The Fire Chief has stated that with the construction of the 8-inch water main, the District can provide fire protection services.

Compatibility:

The development was designed as a cluster subdivision. In a rural cluster subdivision, lot sizes are reduced in exchange for preservation of open space. The smaller lot sizes can lead to a first impression of incompatibility with existing conventional rural development patterns. However, the key measurement of compatibility should be in terms of gross density and use, not lot size. The gross density of the proposal is one home per two acres. Compared to the current zoning, which allows one home per 2.5 acres, the proposed density is compatible with the surrounding area. In terms of use, the uses proposed for the development, residential, is similar to the uses allowed by the current A-2 zoning.

Rural clustered subdivisions take on many similarities of traditional rural villages such as compactness and tighter form, medium density, open spaces within and around the edges and streets scaled for appropriate use. The tighter grouping of homes helps to engender a feeling of community among the residents, which in turn, can lead to a greater likelihood for a broader range of relationships and friendships and an increased sense of mutual responsibility and support among neighbors.

There are also environmental benefits associated with clustered subdivisions such as reduced land disturbance, reduced impervious surface and increased open space. It should be noted that an open space strip of at least 25 feet and a building setback of 50-feet is maintained around the perimeter of the development. This provides a similar setback as required by the current zoning and a 25-foot buffer of open space.

The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the draft Boone County Stream Buffer Ordinance. Although not originally designed to comply, only slight modifications were required in order to meet the provisions of the draft ordinance. The developer voluntarily made the modifications.

The property scored 51 points on the rating system.

44 property owners were notified of this request.

Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:

1. The improvements to Christian School Road shall be completed with the first phase of the development.

2. The portion of Hart Ridge Boulevard that stubs to the adjacent property to the south must be built with or before the phase of the development that includes Prairie Sage Lane.

3. Each phase must be developed in a manner so that it can stand on its own or with a previously platted phase.

4. A reference to Boone County Commission Orders 181-2002, 182-2002, 183-2002 and 184-2002 shall be placed on the review plan and preliminary plat.

5. The developer shall determine a private entity to provide maintenance for the islands in the area of Lots 1-12.

6. A private access easement shall be provided for Lot 201.

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

Dana Austin, owner, 4201 E. Christian School Rd, Hartsburg.

Neal Slattery, surveyor, A Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, Columbia.

The applicants presented a smaller version of the plan and a copy of the project summary to the Commission.

Mr. Gebhardt presented a map and pointed out I-70 in Columbia, Highway 54 in Jefferson City. The site is color-coded in green. Mr. Gebhardt pointed out the location of Ashland and showed distances to the schools and fire station. One fire station is approximately 3 Ĺ miles away, a fire station in Hartsburg that is approximately 4 miles away and a future fire station planned on Mt. Pleasant Road about 4 Ĺ miles away.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that is about 3-miles by road from the proposed tract to the new elementary school in Ashland.

Mr. Gebhardt presented an aerial map showing Christian School Road and the curves mentioned in the staff report, there is a sharp curve right in front of the proposed site. The property is color-coded blue, it is approximately 250-acres. Mr. Gebhardt pointed out the locations of Snowy Hills Lane and Albert Road.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that Albert lane stubs to the property and Christian School road is an access. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the map also shows how the land has been used up to this point, it is basically a subdivision of lots ranging from 2 acres all the way up to 15-acres. Most of them were created prior to 1995 by survey.

Mr. Gebhardt presented a copy of a 100 scale. Mr. Gebhardt informed the Commission that the plans they have are at 200 scale, what you normally look at is 100 scale. When you look at these lots they look pretty small, but 1 inch equals 200-feet. The land is zoned A-2, it could be developed now with 100 2 Ĺ acre lots. When Mr. Austin came in Mr. Gebhardt stated that they could do that but asked what could they do that would be better? This plan is what they came up with.

Mr. Gebhardt, pointing to the map, and stated that there has been some poor terminology used by the applicants to describe this in the beginning. There are 12-lots that have been described as condominiums, but they are not, they are single family homes on single family lots just like any other house on a lot around. The difference with Red Bud Circle is that these 12 lots are smaller lots for people who donít want to mow their grass or plow their snow, it is a no maintenance area. These are not condos, they are just homes where they pay an additional fee to have their grass mowed. The other lots, 13 thru 125 and 201 range from Ĺ acre up to 3 Ĺ acres. There is a different size variety of different housing types that could be put in, it is a mixture of residential, all single family.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants purposely showed the common areas as green just to show how much of the land is going to be left undisturbed. That is one of the major points of doing a cluster development to preserve the green space and common area for the enjoyment of all the residents without them having to own and maintain it. They can own it together and maintain it together and enjoy it together.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that because the configuration of the land is basically ridges where the roads are, applicants could not create a street system where there were multiple roads and outlets to spread the traffic out through the development and ended up with one main feeder road. Applicants decided that needed to be a collector street. The applicants met with staff and talked with them about trying to do something that was a little more innovative and a little nicer for the subdivision and a little more stormwater friendly. Applicants took the standard collector street, split it apart, put a landscape median in the middle and tilted the road so it drains to the median rather that toward the curb and gutter and storm drainage. Mr. Gebhardt stated that this allows the applicants to put in detention in each one of these crossroads for the road which will settle solids, it is also a water quality type of thing, plus it is pretty.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that Christian School Road was a big stumbling block for the applicants at first. On the map you can see the curves better. There are two curves close together and then you have a sharp one. This is where people run off the road on a regular basis. Applicants sat down with the Planning staff and public works staff to find a solution. The solution that they collectively came up with is what is in front of the Commission tonight, which is relocating Christian School Road on to the applicants tract to collector street standards and tying back in. Thus eliminating that curve and also creating a situation where the applicants can rebuilt part of Christian School Road at applicants cost.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the sewer will be a recirculating sand filter to be built on location. They look like a little gravel parking lot about 50 by 50, they are pretty unintrusive, applicants are going to screen that for their own benefit. There will be an access to that lot and the lot will be given to the regional sewer district for their ownership and maintenance of the sewer facility. The applicants have permission from the sewer district to install septic tank effluent pumps, it is a pump in the yard that pumps sewage to the plant, these are becoming more and more common.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he has some bullet points on what measures that applicants have taken regarding stormwater. Applicants believe they have tried to mitigate as much of the impact as they can. One of the first things people are concerned about is the increased runoff from stormwater because of a development. This is directly related to the impervious area, which is directly related to how dense you develop. It is stated that applicants are going to stay below 15-percent impervious, by calculations, applicants are actually going to be about 9-percent, but bumped it up to 15-percent. If you have ever been involved in these things, they say that the stream starts to be degraded at 15-percent, and at 30-percent, it is degraded. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he is confident that the applicants will be below 15-percent where water quality becomes an issue. Applicants have limited the development to ridge tops leaving 50-percent or about 125 acres of the site undisturbed. Minimizing the impervious surfaces by requesting a 28-foot wide curb and gutter streets rather than the standard 32-foot wide streets. Applicants have already asked for and received a variance from the Road and Bridge Advisory for that. 28-foot streets serve the neighborhood, most of these are cul-de-sacs and they serve the limited amount of traffic that is on them fine without having to have the extra pavement. Designing the neighborhood collector as a parkway with the median serving as a swale that will provide detention and water quality control for the runoff from the road. Disconnecting impervious surfaces. Keeping the overall impervious areas below 15-percent. Minimizing lawn areas and their associate lawn treatment chemicals. Mr. Gebhardt stated that there wouldnít be big yards so not as much chemicals will be put on them. Using best management practices determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Mr. Frank Gordon had some suggestions for during and after construction for the applicants to use as BMPís for erosion control. Applicants will implement them when they get to the final plat stage. Mr. Gebhardt stated that applicants had a draft on the stream buffer ordinance and read through it and realized that applicants werenít that far away from being there. Mr. Gordon reviewed the plan to see what the applicants needed to do to meet the stream buffer ordinance. Mr. Gordon made some suggestions of putting in some non-development easements on the lots so no one could encroach that close to the stream.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that in past experience, he has had people always say that it is a good project, but a bad location, Mr. Gebhardt stated he didnít want that to happen tonight. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he made a list of some of the reasons he believes this is a good location and a great project. It is close to Highway 63, which provides access to both Columbia and Jefferson City. It has a central collection sanitary sewer, the water mains are being extended to provide fire protection to the proposed neighborhood and the existing neighborhood, which does not have adequate fire protection at this time. The development adjoins an existing subdivision and although the building lots are smaller, the overall design fits in well with the surrounding property. Mr. Gebhardt stated he is not trying to compare size but there are locations where there are 50-foot setbacks and a 25-foot common area, but the majority of the site has substantial space. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he respects that these lots are different from the rest, but applicants are trying to buffer themselves from them and them from applicants. All of the proposed streets will add to the safety and welfare of both the new residents and the existing residents by providing improved access to all properties. Applicants are connecting to Albert Road which will provide those people who are on a dead end road to come in and out instead of having to go out Christian School and up the steep hill. The same with West Snowy Hills Lane, applicants have worked with the Abrams and they have agreed to let applicants build a road down to West Snowy Hills Lane. This will provide another access out for that cul-de-sac and will be built just like all the other streets in the subdivision, all curb and gutter streets.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the existing soils are not suitable for agricultural uses and it appropriate for this type of development, that is a quote from Mr. Frank Gordon. Christian School Road is a paved asphalt road that provides access to the site and approximately 1000 feet is being reconstructed through the tract to eliminate the most dangerous of three bad curves. The Fire District is satisfied with the location and is pleased that the improved access and fire flows are the result of the development. There is no impact to the community assets as listed in the Boone County Subdivision Regulations. The Southern Boone County School District has been contacted and has not expressed a concern with the impact to the schools. The design is an efficient use of infrastructure, applicants have 250-acres and applicants are serving it with less roads, less sewer, less water, less of everything and are serving the same or more people that they would otherwise. It is more efficient from a maintenance point of view for the County and it is more efficient from the developers point of view. The development is designed to respect the assets of the property. Mr. Gebhardt stated what he considers the assets of the property are the ridges, the open pastures and the trees on the hillsides, the views, and the character of the land. It maintains the essential part of the tract that makes it a beautiful place to live. It respects the owners of the existing subdivisions by providing open space and the existing buffers between the properties, and it gives 125 families the opportunity to live and enjoy this part of the county without having to own and maintain a 2.5-acre lot.

Commissioner Neese asked if those are detached houses around the circle.

Mr. Gebhardt stated yes, they are all going to be detached homes.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked why applicants are rebuilding the road.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that is to provide another way of ingress and egress to the subdivision.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the pond was existing.

Mr. Gebhardt stated yes, it is going to be enlarged.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked how big it was going to be.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that currently it is half the size shown on the plan, it will be about 1-acre.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked what the green lines were on the map.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that is the tree line.

Commissioner Neese stated that this is a low-pressure sewer system.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that it is actually a low flow, high head. It is kind of like a well pump and they can pump a tremendous amount but at a low flow.

Commissioner Neese stated it would be similar to what the Woodlands have.

Mr. Gebhardt stated yes, except the Woodlands have a conventional treatment plant. One clarification is that this is a tributary to Jemerson Creek and that is the north property line. That portion of the tributary is not a losing stream, it becomes a losing stream further up. Applicants chose to go ahead and make this treatment plant a recirculating sand filter with a dis-infection as a voluntary thing because the applicants were concerned about Jemerson Creek and the surrounding area. Applicants want to do as much as they can.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request.

Present: Bill and Pat Abrams, 4105 W. Snowy Hills Lane, Hartsburg.

Mr. Abrams stated that he bought his land in 1974, and built in 1977. Mr. Abrams anticipated that development would occur on this property and located his home accordingly on his acreage. He didnít believe 25 years ago that anyone would end up buying that farm to farm it, it didnít make sense. Mr. Abrams stated he would have liked to see someone buy it and turn it in to a private hunting preserve or something of that sort, no one has and that is not a likelihood. Mr. Abrams stated that he reviewed the plans for the proposed development and is impressed by the quality of the development. Mr. Abrams stated that he wouldnít expect any appreciable negative impact on property values as a result of the project, it may even cause property values to increase over time. There are a number of less desirable uses that could be done on this property without having to come back to the Commission for this kind of review.

Ms. Abrams stated that she and her husband have been at their property for over 25-years and raised their family there and have been very happy. Looking at the plan and seeing all the green that is going to be left, the sewer system and the boulevards, Ms. Abrams stated that she is extremely happy that other families are going to be able to come out there and raise their families.

Dave Bartow, 3891 E. Christian School Rd, Hartsburg.

Mr. Bartow stated that he is new to the area, he has only been there about five months and the reason he is speaking in favor of this is because if he had property in this sort of situation he would want to develop it himself. It is crazy around the area of Ashland and Hartsburg to stand in the face of change because that is what is making the community of Ashland better. Mr. Bartow stated that there are concerns, those three "S" turns are very sharp and the pavement is not very wide. Mr. Bartow stated that he has been off the road once himself and his wife gets in to the other lane. If you are not used to those turns, you overshoot them with your speed and you are in the other lane before you know it. One of the concerns is the other two "S" curves that will cause problems. The other concern is that a lot of this traffic is going to filter down to the intersection where Highway A and Highway 63 meet. Eventually there is going to have to be a signal there because of the load of traffic that sits and waits to get on to the Highway. The other issue is that the Austinís have quite a few dogs and inasmuch as he likes dogs and although this is not an issue with the land, there are probably 8 or 9 dogs and they run like crazy. Mr. Bartow stated that he wanted to make sure that the people that let 8 or 9 dogs run crazy arenít letting this development run crazy. Mr. Bartow stated that he likes the idea and likes the fact that his property values will go up, but want to make sure that the concerns about the road and turns are addressed. Mr. Bartow stated that since he is further down the road, the traffic wonít effect where he is and come by his house but there is a lot of other people will have that traffic come by their homes and those turns are pretty tight.

In opposition to the request.

Present: Scott Rybolt, 4151 E. Christian School Rd, Hartsburg.

Penny Rybolt, 4151 E. Christian School Rd, Hartsburg.

Mr. Rybolt presented a petition signed by opponents of the request.

Mr. Rybolt stated that he is here representing the people who signed the petition but wants the Commission to understand that those people may have their own issues to bring up. Mr. Rybolt read the petition which stated "We the undersigned are opposed to the rezoning from A-2 to AR-PRD of the 250-acres owned by the Austinís to be developed in to massive subdivisions with homes on as little as Ĺ acre lots and condominiums" or which the applicants say single dwelling homes.

Mr. Rybolt stated that the increase of traffic on Christian School Road will make already dangerous conditions much worse. On this road there are two seriously tight "S" curves which werenít really represented clearly by the applicants. The applicants stated that there is not going to be an impact. There are 66 homes down there, the average home has 2 cars, that is 132 cars on that road now. You can not say that another 250 cars isnít going to make an impact, because it will. The decrease of natural resources such as grass and forest will increase erosion runoff and flooding downstream and causing dangers to the surrounding residential areas. Mr. Rybolt stated that his family has been down there since 1920, Mr. Rybolt stated that he grew up on that road when there were only 5 houses on the whole road from the beginning of Highway 63 to the City of Hartsburg. No roads were going off to the side, the only road cutting off of there was Jemerson Creek. Mr. Rybolt stated that he knows what the land looked like down there then and opposed the Al-Don-Al subdivision that is there now. The erosion has been massive and it has been devastating to some of the farms down there. The applicants stated that there is only going to be an increase of 15-percent runoff. That is the same person who stated that there was going to be no impact from the additional 250 cars. The applicants are going to put homes on top of the ridge side by side on Ĺ acre lots and hard pave the surface; the water is going to run down in to the gullies and the natural waterways that take the water off now at a much faster rate. If you hard surface something, you donít have to be a rocket scientist to know that it is going to run off faster than if you have grass land or wood land. The applicant stated that they were going to bank this road and it will be fine because it is going to be banked to storm drain this water out. The water on the road is not the main issue it is the water coming off the top of the houses, the garage and everywhere else that is going to be seeking itís own way down the hill. That is what is eroding the land.

Mr. Rybolt stated that another issue is the natural atmosphere of the area to preserve the grasslands and trees will be stripped and will force wildlife in to other areas. You will have issues with deer and other animals getting in to the agriculture areas where there are farms and an orchard down the road. It was in the early 1970ís when that property was zoned A-2 and the Al-Don-Al subdivision was formed. When that was zoned A-2, the Planning and Zoning Commission did that for a reason, they wanted to keep a rural community rural. They wanted to see the houses separated. The other reason they did it is because they didnít want a developer to come in and densely populate a rural community area. They didnít want a developer to come in and maybe put a trailer court in to that area. The Planning and Zoning Commission was clear about what they wanted back then and it should be clear what they want right now. As Commissioner Neese addressed the last issue that was before them, the people were verbally promised something. The Planning and Zoning Commission said that they wanted them to have a rural community because the Commission wanted them to have more than Ĺ acre lots. By doing that there are 52-homes out there with 52-families that say that this is what they wanted. Now the Commission is saying, what the heck, we are going to go ahead and zone this into Ĺ acre lots so Mr. Austin could put an extra dollar in his pocket, that is the only reason for it. There is no need for a densely populated area here. As Commissioner Neese stated before, there are other areas for boat ramps to go in. It is the same with this development, there are other areas for the densely populated neighborhoods to go too, like in the Ashland city limits where there is plenty of land and densely populated people already.

Mr. Rybolt stated that technical issues such as lack of storm drainage and insufficient sewage systems to support the large development. Mr. Rybolt stated that we donít know enough about this new system that the applicants are proposing and we donít know the devastating effects it is going to have to the agriculture and everything else down stream. You have two main arteries that are going down. You have Christian School Road Creek, which runs all the way down to Hart Creek and Hart Creek is a main artery in to the Missouri River. Jemerson creek ties in to Hart Creek also, your main sewage runoff is going to be going in to Jemerson creek, which is going to go in to Hart Creek, which is going to in to the Missouri River. These are issues that need to be looked at very carefully.

Mr. Rybolt pointed to the map provided by the applicants and stated that somewhere in there is a holler with probably 10,000 tires in it that has never been addressed by DNR or anyone else. The applicants have to get rid of them and they can't bury or burn them. How will those tires be taken out of there? You will have to strip the land. Mr. Rybolt stated that he has no idea how the applicants can say that they won't strip the land.

Danny McKee, 4109 W Snowy Hills Road, Hartsburg.

Mr. McKee stated that he has lived at that address since 1984 and has raised his family there. Mr. McKee stated that he worked and put everything he had in to his home because when he bought it, it was zoned for 2 Ĺ acre lots. They were being sold as 4.95 or 4.25 acres where you could just put one house on a lot and everything wouldnít be clustered. Mr. McKee stated that he has been there for 17 years and has been happy there. He built a $8000 lake which lays directly under where the applicants are going to build on the ridge top where everything they do up there like fertilizer, chemicals, and sprays will run right in to his lake that he has stocked over the years. Mr. McKee stated that everyone present tonight will be effected by this development, but he will be effected more than anyone because Mr. Abrams is letting the applicants put a road within 50-feet of Mr. McKeeís house and the road is coming across the back within 50-feet of his house. Mr. McKee stated that he moved in to the country to be in the country and now he will have a road within 50-feet of his house. Mr. McKee stated that he was under the understanding that when he bought it you had to have 2 Ĺ acres to do anything. Now the applicants are showing on their plat that within 50-feet of his house will be three houses. Right outside his backdoor, the road runs through there. Between himself and Mr. Rybolt, it shows 6 houses in an area where from when they bought, there could only be one house.

Mr. McKee stated that five years ago, his father was diagnosed with cancer, Mr. McKee came to planning and zoning wanting to build an additional house on his 4.95-acres to move his father in to and take care of him. Mr. McKee stated he was told no, he had to have 5-acres, 2 Ĺ acres per household. Just because someone comes in here with money doesnít make it right where they can come in and develop the land and put houses on ĺ of an acre when Mr. McKee couldnít do it five years ago. Money is the issue here. Mr. McKee stated that he has no problem if the applicant wants to develop the land behind him but it should be done in the acreage just like Mr. McKee had to do 18 years ago when he and the neighbors moved there. Mr. McKee stated he agreed with Mr. Rybolt regarding the tires, they are right behind his house and there are at least 20,000 tires there.

Kathy Murray, 2900 E. Nichols Road, Hartsburg.

Ms. Murray stated that her house was on a 2-Ĺ acre plot. Ms. Murray stated that she can understand the need for growth and real estate. Looking at the property that she has had in the family since 1968 is that the runoff in to Jemerson Creek has already increased dramatically with the growth in Ashland. It used to take a 3-inch rain to flood out the road which is a dead end, there is one way in and one way out. Now 2 to 2 Ĺ inches will flood it out. A large chunk of Nichols road, which runs off Jemerson, has fallen in, they are already looking at having to repair that. In addition in looking at the plan, Ms. Murray stated that her property is used a lot for shooting and deer hunting, those houses are right in that backyard area. An additional concern is that half of her farm is not accessable except by four-wheeler. Ms. Murray stated that was fine with her because it is a tree farm and she loves it that way. If this huge subdivision is going to go in here and growth goes forward, Ms. Murray stated she wants a stub. If her children want to subdivide her land, they need a way to get to it. Jemerson creek is either very calm or it is out of control, it is getting to be out of control more and more.

Ray Denker, 3115 W. Snowy Hills, Hartsburg.

Mr. Denker stated that he is very emotional about this situation. 90-percent of the people down Christian School Road and the families around there are emotional about it. Mr. Denker stated that he moved out to that area to have country living. As a couple of people already said, they were limited and couldnít put more than one residence on 5-acres. He was told that is what the law is. Mr. Denker stated he checked once to see if he could put something on his land with his daughter and was told no. Mr. Denker stated that he has been out there for more than 22-years. He moved out to that area for that reason, to be in a place where he could have country living and wildlife area. It is more quiet.

Mr. Denker stated that some if his issues have already been addressed such as the skinny road. Even if the applicants do straighten out Christian School Road it isnít of adequate width to take care of the extra traffic. This is a skinny road, there are no shoulders, there is a drop off on both sides. Even if they do straighten out those "S" curves there is still a problem with extra traffic. Periodically, there are places for people to walk along the road to take walks or walk their dog because there is not too much traffic on it. Increasing traffic will make that too dangerous. The Commission may not be concerned about those types of things, but those who live out there are concerned about these things and there are quite a few people that are concerned. Increasing population density was also mentioned. There is only the Boone County law enforcement, the applicants stated that this wouldnít be a problem. Mr. Denker stated he disagrees with that. It is out in the boondocks and it is an increased length of time for the Boone County Sheriff to get there so there is a problem with increasing population.

Mr. Denker stated that he purposely spent his money to go out in to that area. We would see in increase in tame animals that roam around right now. There is a problem right now even with some dogs that are a problem. Mr. Denker stated that he has been threatened by a couple of dogs in his backyard. On of his childrenís small dog had a big chunk eaten off of it, it took a long time to recover, then two months later, it disappeared. People living in a country setting will let their dogs roam around, then there would be an increasing problem.

Mr. Denker stated that we would also see an increase in waste products. His home would be right at the edge of the plat, therefore the runoff would be right behind his house at the bottom of the hill. There is a drainage ditch and he would get the drainage, the applicants stated that they would take care of that, Mr. Denker stated that he disagrees with that. You have the tops of the houses and the streets, you will have a lot more runoff. It was mentioned that this development may increase his property values. Mr. Denker stated that he didnít want it to increase, he is staying there. This would be an increase in cost for him.

Mr. Denker stated that fire protection was also mentioned. The fire protection out of Ashland is all volunteer people so response time is always less. There may not be adequate response for that many increases. With houses that close by the woods, fires can start and get in to woods then it can travel very fast. Mr. Denker stated that he has more of a danger of fire starting with this increased population. This development will force the wildlife away, one of the reasons he moved there is because of the increase in wildlife, that is what he wanted to be around. When you get more population density it pushes the wildlife in to a different area.

Krista Kovach, 18508 S. Albert Rd., Hartsburg.

Ms. Kovach stated that she was opposed to this development for quite a few reasons. Primarily, this is the wrong location. It is a nice development, there are some nice green spaces, Ms. Kovach stated that she appreciates the preservation of those green spaces but this isnít the place to build. If you take a look at it, you will see that this is leapfrog development. By rezoning this piece of property you are actually planting a seed, it is like a silent disease of development that is going to spread throughout the rest of the country. Ms. Kovach stated that she lives there because she likes the country. Being a leap-frog development issue is something significant to look at because there is a lot of areas around there where someone else could decide to do the same thing with their plots of land.

Ms. Kovach stated that there is a serious safety issue in association with this. Ms. Kovach presented an aerial photograph that was taken by the USGS in 1996. The photographs show the road coming in from Highway 63 and the "S" curves that are there. Unless you have actually seen those curves, it is hard to imagine how tight they are. Until you get on the 45-degree divide of each of those angles, you really canít see any other cars because of the way the trees are, you can't see anything coming. Even though you stay in your lane, there are other people who might not, this is a serious safety issue. If you err on the side of caution with 125 lots, most of these people are probably going to be 2-car families, but even going with 1 Ĺ cars per house, that gives you about 200 additional cars on this road. That is a significant increase. The additional cars are going to be a significant. Ms. Kovach stated she can not see how, with clear conscience the Commission could advise this development to go through knowing that it puts these peoples lives at stake. The Commission could say that the people have lived there knowing that the road was bad. This is true, but they also knew that the population was not that high and there werenít that many cars going back and forth, but if you add in those additional cars, it really causes an intense problem in each of those joints. Even if the applicants smooth out the last curve, there are two significant "S" curves and those arenít going to change, then you have an increased problem at those spots.

Ms. Kovach stated that soil erosion is going to be a problem. The swales in the middle of the roads are a nice idea for the roads, you have to understand where she lives. It is on the top of a big, rocky hillside and the soil is really loose. If you leave your garden hose running for too long, you have a ravine. Ms. Kovach stated that she evened out her gravel driveway, two days later it rained and now there is a stream cut through the middle of it. The soil is very easily moved. Knowing that the soil around here is so fragile and erodes so easily, a lot of it was probably prairie and glade before the forest grew up. One of the things that is characteristic of glades are rocky soils. Where those pipes outflow from each of those swales is going to cause an erosion issue and it is all going to flow downstream. It will impact peoples land that is around this and the people that have water flow over their driveways on high water level days, that will really impact their lives. Although that doesnít impact Ms. Kovachís property it does impact the people of this area.

Ms. Kovach stated that ultimately why so many people are here tonight is because they care about this place and it comes down to a quality of life issue. They want to live in the country and a place where they can have peace and quiet. Where you can run out in your backyard and no one sees you; there is privacy. Albert Road is a dead end road now, this would connect it and make it a through road and that will change the character.

Ms. Kovach stated that another characteristic of living in the country is feeling safe. Ms. Kovach stated that she is single now but she wants to have kids and live in this area for a long time and wants her kids to grow up knowing nature. This development, if it goes in is just the spur that is going to make the rest of the area develop increasingly. By allowing this development to change to smaller acreage, the Commission is setting a precedent that the rest of the acreage around it could also be developed in smaller acres. Ms. Kovach asked the Commission to take this matter seriously. To the neighbors, it is in their hearts and it is a passion for them, this is why all these people are here. There are not many people who live around this area, and they are here. If the Commission looks at the percentage of the neighborhood the Commission will see that they are here and want to preserve their heritage and the way they live. Ms. Kovach stated that she has only lived there for two years, but this is the biggest loan she has ever taken out in her life and she has put more at stake here than she ever has anywhere before. Ms. Kovach stated that she used to work in the national park service and used to live on 275 square miles of nationally significant land. This may not be nationally significant land, but it is significant to her, life significant. Ms. Kovach asked that the Commission help them because they want it to stay that way. The only way to do this is to deny this petition to rezone.

Nancy Burke, 4180 E. Christian School Road, Hartsburg.

Bartley Burke, 4180 E. Christian School Road, Hartsburg.

Ms. Burke stated that her property is directly across the road from the projected entrance of this subdivision. Ms. Burke stated that she is very concerned about the traffic issue. She has never seen a road have 200 extra cars put on to it when there wasnít a plan immediately following it to widen or straighten the road. As a result, the speeds of the average car on that road have increased. Ms. Burke stated that she has lived in rural Missouri all her life and everywhere that a road was improved she found speeding teenagers. The only thing that keeps people slowed down on Christian School road now is the fact that there are three very dangerous "S" curves. The first time the kid gets his speed up, he shoots in to the pasture. If this road is straightened, which is the normal progression of things, people won't be safe. We are safer now than we will be.

Ms. Burke stated that she moved here because she has always lived in the country and the greatest thing about her house was that she could sit on her front porch and see other peoples cows grazing. This was a precious landscape, now she will sit on her front porch and see 200 cars driving out and ten houses. The whole character of the area will be gone.

Mr. Burke stated that the applicants have planned their entrance right across from his house so he will get all of the headlights of the cars coming directly in to his front windows. Mr. Burke would appreciate if that did not happen. Mr. Burke stated that he is opposed to rezoning the area, it is a leapfrog development and the Commission would be setting a precedent. Mr. Burke asked what the public benefit is of this development, he doesnít see any. How does this benefit Boone County? It will put stress on fire, police, water, and so on. Mr. Burke stated that what he does see is TIF in Ashland which is about a developer trying to get money to build his infrastructure. The same thing is happening here, this is why the applicant is wanting to rezone because he can get more houses in there and realtors can sell more lots and with the extra lots they can put the infrastructure in and pay for it that way.

Mr. Burke stated he has heard the words cluster housing, green spaces, buffer zones, they donít have a choice in this property because they have to put the houses on the ridge tops. They arenít going to put the houses in the bottom of the ravines.

Mr. Burke stated that they were talking about straightening out the curve, what does the County do with old roadway because there is going to be hundreds of feet of old roadway in his front yard.

Ms. Burke asked if there is a procedure for abandonment of roads. When that road is abandoned, what happens to it?

Commissioner Mink stated that part of the road would be retained as a County road to access the power station.

Ms. Burke stated that would be on the corner of her property. There is a telephone station.

Commissioner Mink stated that the road down to that would be retained as County maintained.

Ms. Burke stated that barely touches her property line. The road goes down the frontage of her property.

Commissioner Mink stated that if the road was abandoned it would revert back to the adjacent property owners, if the Burkeís are one of those they would get half of it, the other half would go to whoever is on the other side.

Mr. Burke asked what he was to do with half of a road. He would have a strip of asphalt in his front yard.

Commissioner Mink stated that would be up to the developer if they wanted to rip it up and landscape it.

Don Stewart, 3111, W. Snowy Hills Lane, Hartsburg.

Mr. Stewart stated that he had 3 brief points. The staff observation in his report in favor of the development characterized the development as something that is not a significant change to the existing area, staff used the term "a small rural village". Hartsburg is a small rural village. This is not a small rural village. The area is rural, and this would be a substantial change to what is there now. The other observation that this proposal is much better than the alternative. The alternative is the existing zoning. 62-people own land there under the existing zoning, they like it, that is why they are there. Rezoning changes it substantially. Mr. Stewart stated that his final point is the idea of leapfrog development. Ashland is a community with services. There is acreage adjoining Ashland where it would be simple to extend water, sewer, and police without having to jump a mile and a half away and create new sewer, water, and marginal law enforcement. So saying that it is appropriate is really not the case. Mr. Stewart stated that he hopes the Commission denies the request.

Dale & Nancy Lenger, 5120 Christian School Road, Hartsburg.

Mr. Lenger stated he owned the first ĺ mile on the south side of Christian School, which includes the two "S" curves. There has been discussion of negative impact on the current residents and he agrees with that. The subdivision will detract from the current rural settings with the additional housing, encourage pets running loose, including a problem with livestock. Increased traffic on the roads have been discussed, the average speed will increase by 10 miles per hour with the additional homes, this will add several hundred vehicles to the road. In reference to the vehicle count earlier in a conversation with Boone County Commissioner Karen Miller before the road was paved. Commissioner Miller indicated that there was a 250-vehicle count per day on that road. Through pictures and observation, there have been several people who spent 5 minutes each morning driving back and forth so it could be paved. Mr. Lenger stated that he didnít know where the number 750 to 1200 vehicles came from. With the additional homes, there will be several hundred vehicles.

Mr. Lenger stated that the population of this subdivision will total more than Claysville, Hartsburg, Wilton and Easley populations all together. Increased traffic on this road from large construction equipment and delivery trucks will have an impact on the existing road. In the same conversation with Commissioner Karen Miller two years ago, the County road department does not have a maintenance plan in place for Christian School road when it was paved. There is going to be an increase with children in the area going to Southern Boone County Schools. This could increase taxes to provide classrooms. Mr. Lenger stated that he spoke with the school superintendent a few years back when they were starting the West Oak subdivision, there was a proposal for an additional 100 houses, the superintendents eyes lit up. The national average being 2.7 kids per home, he was looking at an additional 270 students. As a result of that subdivision and another one, there was an additional school building built in Ashland.

Mr. Lenger stated that he and his wife own a cow calf operation along Christian School Road. The individuals that move from the city to the country may not enjoy the smell associated with livestock. Mr. Lenger stated he can understand that to a point. This livestock is part of his income. In the event that the individuals see fit that the aroma does not suit their lifestyle and they petition that the he has to get rid of his livestock then it effects his income.

Mr. Lenger stated that it has been mentioned about straightening Christian School road, Mr. Lenger stated he can only speculate that if the Commission agrees to this rezoning that the amount of residents that would be in the subdivision would outnumber the individuals here tonight so they could petition to have the road straightened or flattened which would effect the existing property owners. In this area there are a lot of farmers and they use Christian School road to move farm equipment like tractors, discs, planters, cultivators, and hay equipment. It starts in the early spring and lasts all summer long in to the fall. The existing property owners understand this concept. If people are brought in to the community that are not familiar with this, there is the possibility of accidents. Christian School road is located in the country, it has country surroundings and atmospheres. Building a subdivision on this road would take away all the pleasures of living in the country. Mr. Lenger stated if he took a livestock operation and put it in a subdivision in town, what would be the benefit. There is no benefit to bringing a subdivision to the country.

Ms. Lenger stated that it was mentioned that this new subdivision would respect the rights of the property owners. Ms. Lenger stated that she didnít think that this new proposed subdivision would respect the rights of the current property owners. This area is a rural agricultural area. The density of this project would permanently alter this for the current residents and turn this area in to a residential area, not an agricultural farming type of rural area. Ms. Lenger urged the Commission to deny the request for rezoning.

Ms. Lenger asked the people in the audience that are opposed to this request to stand up.

Approximately 40 people stood.

Ms. Lenger stated that this is something that is very near and dear to their hearts otherwise they would not be here.

Mike Rovetto, 4225 E. Christian School Road, Hartsburg.

Mr. Rovetto stated that he previously bought the land north of this development five years ago. At that time, one of the first things he did was to contact the conservation department and work with them to set up a timber stand improvement program and worked with the USDA to do that. One of the reasons for doing this was the fact that the land is very viable and very easily eroded and it was eroding very badly. In the process of doing this, he placed a dam across one of the gullies that runs quite high at times, to try and control some erosion. It turns out that the planned development sits on a ridge right above that dam. Most of the single family homes sit right above the dam. In talking about setbacks if you go 50-feet to the top of that ridge the drop is about 60 to 70-feet minimum. Down towards the west end of that the drop is closer to 200 to 250-feet and it drops very quickly, it is not a gradual, general slope.

Mr. Rovetto stated that one of the goals of planning and zoning as he understands has been to try and keep high density growth concentrated in the areas where there is already growth, Columbia, Ashland, and Hartsburg, rather than to allow more development to go on. Mr. Rovetto stated that he should benefit greatly from this development going in because he has 100-acres of land sitting next to it. That should be worth another 50 families. He could come back in and greatly increase the property value if that goes in and develop that land. Mr. Rovetto stated that he doesnít want to do that, he prefers to keep the land as it is.

Mr. Rovetto stated that the developers wanted to develop this, they knew what the zoning regulations were when they bought this land, so they knew what the existing zoning regulations were and that is what they should live with. Mr. Rovetto stated that a large part of this development is very crowded toward his property line, it turns out that the Austinís, through Carl Freiling came to Mr. Rovetto with an offer that was equivalent to giving them the 100-acres and they would buy his house.

Mike Oliver, 18551 S. Albert Road, Hartsburg.

Mr. Oliver stated that he agrees with what everyone else has said. Mr. Oliver stated that the applicants are talking about having their cul-de-sacs by Albert Road. Mr. Oliver stated that he lives on a cul-de-sac and moved out there on that account, and now the applicants want to connect it to their road and that destroys the reason he bought out there. The developers are going to have their cul-de-sacs, that is not right. The developers want to have their smaller lots. Mr. Oliver stated that he has two lots one of them is a 3-acre lot. 7 years ago, Mr. Oliver was told that he could not build on that three acre lot, so it has set there and now the developer can build on smaller lots, Mr. Oliver stated he didnít think that was right.

Danny McKee, 4109 W. Snowy Hills, Hartsburg.

Mr. McKee stated that he didnít know how many of the Commission members have kids. Mr. McKee asked the Commission to pile up in their cars at 7:00 in the morning and go down Christian School road and head out of there. When you come out of there in the morning at 7:30, with the applicants talking about putting 200 houses out there and with the traffic, when you come out of there, you might as well be driving with a flashlight in your eyes because you are facing straight in to the sunlight. Mr. McKee stated that when he takes his kids to school in the morning, he has to drive with his hand up to block the sun from his eyes. It is the same thing when you come back in the evening, the sun is glaring straight in your eyes again. The Commission may ask why anyone would want to live down there, well everyone moved down there knowing it was like that and they learned to live with it. What is going to happen when you put 200 people in there and not one of them knows how to drive on the road. Another concern is the sewer system running in to Jemerson Creek. There were to teenagers riding their four-wheelers and crossed Jemerson Creek, the conservation caught them and gave them tickets. They said it was polluting the water, but you can run sewer system down in to the water and that is not polluting it?

Jim Bullard, 19201 Jemerson Creek Road, Hartsburg.

Mr. Bullard stated that he was downstream from the property. Looking at the property on the map, it looks like a rather insignificant part of the Jemerson Creek watershed. But a 15-percent gain in runoff, multiplying that by the other 250-acre tracts in the water shed, that is more than the creek can handle, it is over bank full now. The bridge on the south edge of Jemerson Creek road you canít even get over the bridge if the creek is up. A gain of 15-percent runoff is not an acceptable number. It needs to be controlled because each development will add more and the net gain will be too much for the creek.

Mary March, 19191 Jemerson Creek Rd., Hartsburg.

George March, 19191 Jemerson Creek Rd., Hartsburg.

Ms. March stated that she is concerned about the runoff and the water entering Jemerson Creek. There are several spots along the creek where parts of the road have actually dropped off in to the creek. If you go down to Harts Road to go down in to Hartsburg at this time there is a sign there stating that the road is closed because the same thing has happened there. Ms. March stated that she doubts that any fire equipment or anything else coming up from Hartsburg could get through at this point, it would be too dangerous for the truck to try and get through. Ms. March stated that she didnít think that anymore water should enter that creek than there already is because it looks as though there will continue to be problems with it. As far as the "S" curves on Christian School Road, Ms. March stated that she doesnít drive that road very often but was forced to last week because she couldnít go through Hartsburg and couldnít cross the creek because of high water going toward Ashland. You probably couldnít drive more than 35-miles an hour around those "S" curves without getting in to the other lane and you can not see any other vehicle coming towards you at that point. Ms. March stated that she hopes the Commission considers this very strongly before giving permission for this.

Mr. March stated that if some of the Commission members come down that way, a fire truck can not get down Jemerson Creek Road from Hartsburg. First of all they can't make it down Harts Creek Road, there are two barriers up now. If they could get through, once they get on to Jemerson Creek there are now signs up and a fire truck couldnít get through there. The real issue is to maintain the character of the area. The Commission doesnít see the missing map, the topographical map is not here; it should have been here. The Commission needs to see what they are talking about to see the lines and they will find out the idea that it is a pretty wooly area. Mr. March stated he wants it kept wooly, that is why he is there. Mr. March stated that he bought his property back in 1976 and developed it in 1991 and he likes it. If the applicants want a new development, move it out toward the highway. It would be safer and it is not what we are about down there, Mr. March stated that they are different people they are not in to a subdivision area and donít want a subdivision and donít need it. They can put it somewhere else. For the developers to come and tell them that the schools have open arms, read the paper and find out that Ashland school is scratching their head trying to figure out what to do and where to build.

Mr. March stated to the people on Christian School road that the mail carrier shrugs his shoulders when he has to go in reverse. He comes through Jemerson Creek road first then comes around and he does not like driving that because of the curves and it puts him at risk. Mr. March stated to the Commission that the character of the property does not need to be rezoned.

Gretchen Spegal, 3529 W. Snowy Hills Rd, Hartsburg.

Ms. Spegal stated that some questions that she would like to hear a response on from the applicants, one has to do with the undisturbed area. Applicants had an invitational meeting before, Ms. Spegal stated she was grateful for that because they gave a lot of information. There were some things that she liked about what the applicants were going to do but overall she is opposed. In that 20 to 25 foot of undisturbed area, the applicants talked about getting rid of the scrub brush, the undergrowth that the applicants thought was not appealing. It is part of the character of the area. What the applicants were considering scrub brush is what her land is covered in, she finds it beautiful in the wildlife it attracts. Ms. Spegal stated that if the applicants take that out, they will lose the wildlife. Not just from the development itself but removing the extra foliage and trees will remove what wildlife that will come.

Ms. Spegal stated that one of the things she was unsure of is the entrance to Snowy Hills Road and if they are widening it. Ms. Spegal stated she cringes at the thought of losing the trees along that road. Look at Dee Woods and the trees they lost, Ms. Spegal stated she would hate to see that happen in the area, it is part of the character.

Morris Ray, 18501 Albert Road, Hartsburg.

Mr. Ray stated that his property joins where the cul-de-sac is and the applicants are talking about taking the cul-de-sac out. There is no easement there for the road to go through. They tried to go through there 3 or 4 years ago but there was no easement to the land, they had to go out the other way. Mr. Ray stated that Albert Road is narrow, when you come off of Albert you go right in to the bottom, if it is wintertime, they donít stop, they go right over a bluff. If they go right, they go in to another holler they can't get up. If you turn to the left you have to go up Cavanaugh Hill which is hard to get up unless you have 4-wheel drive or chains. Mr. Ray stated that to hook that road up and take the cul-de-sac out will be no benefit to anyone. Mr. Ray stated that he is opposed to changing the zoning.

Closed to public hearing.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that this is a hard concept to get. This land is zoned A-2 and the character of the land is 2 Ĺ acre lots. It may not be what is there but that is what can happen. The applicants are asking for 25 more lots than they could have under the current lots. It could be developed as it is in A-2 zoning with 100 lots. The applicants feel that the extra 25-lots allows the applicants to do some nice things besides fixing Christian School Road, they can do the divided park way and preserve the green space rather than having everything evenly distributed 2 Ĺ acre lots. The applicants can move dirt pretty cheap so it can be done. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didnít want to go down that road too far.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that as far as the tires that were mentioned, the tires are from a previous owner. The applicants have been up-front with the staff about that, they told staff from the very beginning that the tires were there and Mr. Austin is working with the DNR and the County Solid Waste to dispose of them properly. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the impervious area, just inherently whether you argue about 10-percent, 15-percent, or 5-percent, a cluster development has less impervious area than a standard A-2 development because there are less roads. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants are putting homes, garages and driveways out there but they are putting in a lot less roads than they would have to in order to do that. Roads constitute a large portion of the impervious area.

Mr. Gebhardt asked the Commission if they received the letter from the fire district.

Mr. Florea stated that the Commission did not get it, it came in too late.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there is a letter from the Fire District stating that they donít have a problem with it.

Regarding the entrance and the Burkes property, Mr. Gebhardt stated that he would try to move the entrance so there arenít headlights shining in to the home. It was not intentional. The applicants have some room and can slide that around and try to avoid that situation. It was mentioned that the cluster development was a buzz-word, Mr. Gebhardt stated that he feels very strongly about this development because he has been trying to find a piece of land and a client to do this type of development for a long time. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he comes to these meetings and listens to the Commission and tries to find ways to address the issues, using a cluster development concept is one way to address a lot of concerns. This is more to the applicants than just a buzzword to make it seem something it isnít.

Mr. Gebhardt stated regarding Christian School Road, the applicants will do whatever the Burkes want the applicants to do. The applicants planned to remove the existing pavement then re-seed. If the applicants want it left in, the applicants will leave it, the applicants will work with the Burkes to decide how they want it addressed. As far as ruining cul-de-sacs, the applicants are making stubs as required by the subdivision regulations, Mr. Gebhardt stated he would let the staff address that issue, Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants would be glad not to do them.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that Ms. Spegal mentioned removing scrub areas and trees being removed. Applicants stated that this was a recommendation by the State forester to remove the scrub for the health of the forest. If the neighbors want the cedars and the brush left, the applicants will leave them. Applicants will not be doing improvements to Snowy Hill Lane, it will be the connection street from Snowy Hill to the subdivision, which is a required connection under the subdivision regulations.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there were several conditions that the staff recommended, applicants have no problems with the conditions. The conditions would have been included on the plan but applicants did not know about them until today.

Commissioner Neese asked the applicants to address the sewer issue for those who do not understand.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that it would be a central collection system with a sand filter. It will have a 50 by 50 sand bed, the sewage gets continually gets recirculated. A permit from the DNR is required.

Commissioner Sloan asked the applicants why they decided to go this route, even staying with the 125-acres, applicants could still put 50 homes on that part of it. If the whole 250-acres is usable, the applicants can put 100 homes on it, Commissioner Sloan stated that she is not sure that everyone in the audience understands. Why did the applicants choose to ask for a different agricultural zoning instead of leaving it as is.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants started with A-2 and right now, it is applicants understanding that the staff is working on allowing clustering in A-2 without a rezoning change. It would give a bonus density, however nothing is in writing yet. The applicants embrace that and tried to find a way to do some of the things that staff was discussing. When the applicants looked at the tract, to meet the county standards as far as infrastructure, paved streets, and central collection system, even with what Commissioner Sloan had stated in having 50 or 60 lots, it would be hard to justify not putting in some kind of central collection system rather than a lot of on site sewers. The cost is prohibitive, if you look at a 10 or 5 acre lot you could list them as $70,000 or $80,000 lots to justify the cost. The density is something that is needed in order to meet the standards. It is also something that is needed to make it better.

Commissioner Neese asked the applicants how they long they expected this development to take place and if they have done any marketing for it.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that as far as absorption rate, applicants are hoping for 10 or 15 lots a year, applicants hope it is better than that. It could take off and be a five-year project. The market is unpredictable.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked what subdivision is south of the proposed tract.

Mr. Gebhardt stated West Snowy Hills.

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if those are 5-acre tracts.

Mr. Gebhardt stated yes, basically they are five-acre lots. When the subdivision regulations allowed surveys for five acres in A-2 they could go in and cut the lots with a survey. Mr. Gebhardt stated that Mr. Slattery did the boundary survey for Mr. Austin, he stated that some of the lots are smaller than 5-acres.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that this is an elegant subdivision. It creates community and keeps wildlife but she is concerned with the road issue with putting something the size of this development on Christian School Road.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that this was the most difficult issue to try and resolve. Applicants looked at what needed to be done to make the road safe and what the fair portion the developer should contribute to that, given that there are people who live out there that didnít contribute anything to the existing road. From that perspective, applicants are trying to do their fair share. There are limits on how much the County can make the developer do off site, as far as picking this curve versus another curve, that was worked out with staff and came up with this as being the best solution.

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she hopes the people in opposition understands that the developer can turn around and subdivide this in to 2 Ĺ acre lots and there will still be just as many people on this road. This is not going to stay country, you are in Ashland.

A member from the audience asked how many houses Commissioner Sloan is talking about versus how many houses the applicants propose to put out there.

Commissioner Sloan stated that there could still be 100 houses there.

Commissioner Caruthers stated he understands the concerns from the opposition. This is the best development he has seen since he has been on this Commission. The property is already zoned for development, the applicants can develop the property as it is and end up with a much worse scenario. This is actually a win-win situation. It is not often that a developer comes in with a proposal likes this and goes so far out of their way to make this a better situation for everyone.

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve the request by Dana and Elizabeth Austin to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to A-R / PRD (Agriculture Planned Residential Development) of 250 acres, more or less, and to approve a Review Plan for property located at 4201 E Christian School Rd., Hartsburg.

 

Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan No Kristen Heitkamp No David Mink Yes

Motion to approve request carries. 4 Yes 2 No

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve with staff conditions a Review Plan by Dana and Elizabeth Austin for property located at 4201 E Christian School Rd., Hartsburg.

 

Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes David Mink Yes

Motion to approve request carries. 6 Yes 0 No

 

Vice-Chairperson Caruthers informed applicants that these issues would go before the County Commission on Wednesday, May 29, 2002.

 

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

 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

None.

 

 

PLAT REVIEWS

  1. The Ridge at Hart Creek Ė preliminary plat. S28/29-T46N-R12W. Dana and Elizabeth Austin, owners. Neal Slattery, surveyor.
  2. See related staff report under rezoning requests.

    Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations, the Ridge at Hart Creek Ė preliminary plat. S28/29-T46N-R12W. Dana and Elizabeth Austin, owners. Neal Slattery, surveyor.

    Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

    Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes David Mink Yes

    Motion to approve plat carries. 6 Yes 0 No

    Vice-Chairperson Caruthers informed the applicants that this would go before the County Commission on Wednesday, May 29, 2002.

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

     

  3. Clear Creek. S31-T48N-R12W. Joseph Bindbeutel and Dorothea Carpenter-Bindbeutel, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this 2 lot minor plat is located on the north side of Gans Road behind the parcels that front the north side of Gans Road. The property is accessed by a private access easement. The site is approximately 500 feet north and 600 feet west of the intersection of Rock Quarry Road and Gans Road. The site is approximately ľ mile south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The area being subdivided contains 11.03-acres. The property is zoned R-S (residential single-family) as is all the surrounding property. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The property is currently the site of one house and a garage contained on proposed lot 2. The site is in Consolidated Water 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 Boone County Fire Protection District and Columbia School District. Sewage treatment will be from a City of Columbia central sewer main that is on the property currently. A waiver from a traffic analysis has been requested. Staff concurs with the granting of this waiver. The site is in the Boone Electric Service area. This plat has 50 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval along with the granting of the waiver for traffic analysis subject to the following 3 conditions:

1.In the dedication statement Ö "Easements as shown on the plat are hereby dedicated to the public use forever." Should be removed from the plat because the only easement on the plat that is not already dedicated is the 50' wide roadway and utility easement across the bottom of Lot 2. The County cannot accept that easement because there is NO publicly maintained roadway access to that strip.

2.The "Existing 16' wide sewer easement" shown across the top of both lots does not work mathematically. The dedication statement needs to be modified to remove the dedicated to public use forever portion, as the Public Works Dept. has notified us that there are no easements being created by this plat that will be eligible for public acceptance.

3.A waterline extension may be required in order for public water service to be available to the new undeveloped lot.

No one present to represent the plat.

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations, Clear Creek. S31-T48N-R12W. Joseph Bindbeutel and Dorothea Carpenter-Bindbeutel, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

Mike Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Keith Neese Yes Mary Sloan Yes Kristen Heitkamp Yes David Mink Yes

Carl Freiling Yes

Motion to approve plat carries. 7 Yes 0 No

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

 

OLD BUSINESS

None.

NEW BUSINESS

None.

 

ADJOURN

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Mary Sloan

Secretary

Minutes approved on this 20th, day of June, 2002.