BOONE COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

BOONE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER

801 E. WALNUT ST., COLUMBIA, MO.

Thursday, September 19, 2002

 

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

 

Present:                  Pat Smith, Chairperson                          Perche Township

                              Michael Caruthers, Vice-Chairman         Centralia Township

                              Mary Sloan, Secretary                           Rocky Fork Township

                              Carl Freiling                                          Cedar Township

                              Keith Neese                                          Columbia Township

                              Kristen Heitkamp                                  Missouri Township

                              David Mink, Director                             Public Works

                             

 

Absent:                   Mike Morgan                                       Bourbon Township

                             

                             

Also present:           Stan Shawver, Director                          Paula Evans, Staff

                              Thad Yonke, Staff                                          

 

Commissioner Heitkamp made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 15, 2002 meeting with no corrections.

 

Motion passed by acclamation.                                            

 

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

 

The Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendations to the County Commission on matters dealing with land use.  Tonight’s agenda includes two conditional use permits, two rezoning requests and three plat reviews.  I should point out that the rezoning request submitted by Fairway Meadows Corporation for property located at 4275 State Highway K has been withdrawn from consideration at this time.  Interested parties will be notified if that request is re-submitted at a future date.

 

In general, the Planning and Zoning Commission tries to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, however, they are authorized by the Missouri State Statutes to follow their own by-laws.  The by-laws provide that all members of the Commission, including the Chairperson, enjoy full privileges of the floor.  The Chairperson may debate, vote upon or even make any motion.

 

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

 

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

 

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. Please be considerate of everyone here.  The agenda tonight is lengthy, and while we wish to extend an opportunity to everyone that wishes to speak, we ask that you not be repetitious with your remarks.  We also recognize that many issues can be quite emotional.  In that regard we ask that you refrain from applause, cheers, catcalls or other signs of support or displeasure.  Please afford those with a different point of view from you own the same respect and consideration you would like to be shown yourself.

 

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

 

All recommendations for approval are forwarded to the County Commission.  They will conduct another public hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2002.   Interested parties will again have the opportunity to comment on the requests at that time.  The County Commission generally follows the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; however, they are not obligated to uphold any recommendation. Requests that are denied will not proceed to the County Commission unless the applicant files an appeal form within 3 working days. The County Commission hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 1, 2002 will begin at 7:00 p.m. and will convene in this same room.

 

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

 

 

1.       Request by Brad and Shelly Wooldridge to amend a permit issued 4/27/93 for a kennel by reducing the permit area from 9.0 acres to 5.0 acres, located at 9535 I-70 Dr. NE.

 

Director, Stan Shawver gave the staff report stating that this property is located approximately 3 miles east of Columbia on I-70 Drive Northeast.  This tract is zoned A-2 (Agriculture).  Land to the north is zoned A-2.  Land to the east is zoned A-R and REC.  Land to the west is zoned A-R.  Land to the south, on the other side of Interstate 70 is zoned A-2.  This tract is located in the Columbia Public School District.  Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative.  Water service is provided by Public Water District No. 9.  The original zoning for this tract is A-2.  In 1993, 9 acres were rezoned from A-2 to A-R and a conditional use permit was issued for a kennel.  This request is to reduce the size of the area covered by the conditional use permit from 9 acres to 5 acres.  The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses.  Staff notified 9 property owners about this request.

 

In order to approve a conditional use permit, the applicant must prove and the Commission must find that the use meets the criteria established by the Boone County Zoning Regulations.  The criteria are as follows:

 

(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.

 

In forming its recommendation, staff takes note that there have not been any complaints about the use of this property.  Staff recommends approval of this request.

 

Present:  David Brockhouse, 5881 Rocky Point Ct. Columbia.

 

Mr. Brockhouse stated that he is here on behalf of the owners.  The owners want to build their home on the back of the property. The conditional use permit comes up the middle of the property.  The applicants are asking to change the boundaries of the conditional use permit within the property.

 

Chairperson Smith asked if the owners lived on the property now.

 

Mr. Brockhouse stated yes; they are going to build another house in the back half of the property.  Mr. Brockhouse stated that originally the applicants were thinking about asking to reduce it from the nine acres to the five acres.  Mr. Brockhouse asked if it was possible to change it instead of running north to south with it to keeping it nine acres that run east and west.  Mr. Brockhouse stated that he didn’t know if he could ask to change it at this point.

 

Chairperson Smith asked the applicant if they still wanted to change the conditional use permit area.

 

Mr. Brockhouse stated that where the owners wanted it originally it was for nine acres, if it can be kept at nine acres and keep the front half for the conditional use permit off the service road for interstate 70.  Mr. Brockhouse stated that he didn’t know if he could ask for that change at this point.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that it would be a different request. 

 

Mr. Brockhouse stated that he would just keep the request as it is.

 

Chairperson Smith asked how many acres there were total. Mr. Brockhouse stated that there are 16.54 acres.

 

Chairperson Smith asked if there would be two homes on it and a kennel.  Mr. Brockhouse stated yes.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked if the applicants were currently living in the existing home.  Mr. Brockhouse stated yes.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked who the new home was being built for.  Mr. Brockhouse stated it is for the owners.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked what the plan is for the existing home.  Mr. Brockhouse stated that the people that help run the kennel are going to rent the existing home.

 

Open to public hearing.

 

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

 

Closed to public hearing.

 

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Heitkamp seconded a motion to approve with staff conditions the request by Brad and Shelly Wooldridge to amend a permit issued 4/27/93 for a kennel by reducing the permit area from 9.0 acres to 5.0 acres, located at 9535 I-70 Dr. NE.

 

 

                        Carl Freiling – Yes                    Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

                        Pat Smith – Yes                                    Mike Caruthers - Yes   

                        Keith Neese - Yes                    David Mink – Yes

                        Mary Sloan – Yes                    

                       

Motion to approve request carried unanimously.  

 

 

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that this matter would go before the County Commission at 7:00 p.m., October 1, 2002.

 

 

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

 

2.       Request by R Realty LLC for a permit to allow a salvage yard on 15.13 acres, located at 8250 E. Hwy 22, Centralia (corner of Hwy 22 and Schunemeyer Rd.)

 

 

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this property is located approximately 3 miles northwest of Centralia at the intersection of State Highway 22 and Schunemeyer Road.  This property is zoned M-G (General Industrial), which is the original zoning.  Property to the north is zoned A-1 and A-R.  To the east, property is zoned A-R.  To the south, land is zoned A-1 or A-R.  To the west, land is zoned A-1.  The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. This site is located within the Boone County R-5 school district.  Public Water District 10 provides water service in this area.  Boone Electric provides electricity. 

 

There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this site.  Staff notified 7 property owners about this request.

 

At the time zoning came into effect the property was the site of a fertilizer and farm services business.  The current use of the property is for storage of old mobile homes that are being salvaged.  Staff became aware of the current use of the property through a citizen complaint.  Upon further investigation, it was concluded that the property was being used as a salvage yard, which requires a conditional use permit in the M-G district. 

 

The property owner was initially contacted by certified letter dated January 31, 2002.  That letter identified the violation and established a compliance deadline of February 27, 2002.  The applicant did not respond to that letter.  A second letter was sent via certified mail on March 18, 2002.  The property owner met with staff on March 22, 2002.  During that meeting the owner agreed to submit an application for conditional use permit by April 24, 2002.  The property owner did not meet that deadline.  Staff sent a third letter to the property owner by certified mail on July 22, 2002.  The July 22 letter directed the owner to submit an application for conditional use permit by August 28, 2002.  The applicant met that deadline.

 

In order to approve a conditional use permit, the applicant must prove and the Commission must find that the use meets the criteria established by the Boone County Zoning Regulations.  The criteria are as follows:

 

 

(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.

 

As to Criteria (a), operation of salvage yards raises many potential threats to public health and safety.  If limited only to the salvage of mobile homes, the type of materials that may be generated by the salvage yard can be limited.  However, materials with the potential to cause adverse environmental impacts will be generated by the proposed use.  These include refrigerants contained in small appliances, which contain Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), used tires and household chemicals that may have been left in the mobile homes by previous occupants such as cleansers, pesticides and solvents.  The chemical compounds can leak onto the ground and be transported off-site by stormwater.  Used tires can be breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

 

Storing a large number of mobile homes in close proximity to one another can be a fire hazard.  Because of its previous use as a chemical plant, a fire on the property will likely cause the release of unknown substances into the atmosphere.  This could cause health problems for individuals living near the site.

 

The accumulation of junk material on the property also creates habitat for rodents and their predators.

 

As to Criteria (b), all property adjacent to the site is zoned for agricultural and/or residential use.  The use of this property as a salvage yard has a strong potential to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity.  The externalities listed above, regarding criteria (a), whether real or perceived, will degrade the ability of property owners in the area to use and enjoy their property.

 

As to Criteria (d) the applicant has not provided information indicating that the necessary utilities are available to the site.  Of particular concern is water service capable of providing sufficient fire flow for an industrial use.

 

Staff recommends denial of the request for failure to meet the criteria (a), (b) and (d).

 

Present:  Malcolm Clayton, 1501 E. Fox Hollow Road, Ashland.

              Mark Stevenson, 1122 Old Highway 63 S, Columbia.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that on the application it was stated that the proposed use for the conditional use permit was to dispose of old trailer houses parked on the property. Chairperson Smith asked how the applicants would be disposing of them and what the plan is.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that the applicants have been trying to get someone to take them.  Applicants did not bring them there.  The property was rented to a gentleman thinking that he was going to fix up or restore trailers and the renter just filled the property with the trailers and left them there.  Now it is the applicant’s problem to get rid of them. Applicants have been trying to get people to come and get the trailers and take them somewhere else where there are actual salvage yards for them. 

 

Chairperson Smith asked the applicants if they were going to get more trailers.  Mr. Clayton stated no, the applicants want to get rid of them.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked how many trailers were on the property now.  Mr. Clayton stated about 25 to 30 homes. Mr. Clayton stated that he is not sure.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that when the trailer courts were closed, two in particular, one being Walnut Hills, everybody had to get out of there.  There used to be another trailer park which used to be called Valley trailer court.  The renter hauled the trailers up to the property and was going to remodel and sell them and he didn’t do that.  In the end, the applicants inherited the supply of mobile homes.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked if it were true that the applicants bought the property on a collector’s deed on a tax sale.  Mr. Stevenson stated yes.  Mr. Clayton stated the property itself, yes.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that it didn’t have the mobile homes on it at that time they purchased the property.  It had been used by the United States Steel Cooperation for their agri-business.  Then someone in Minnesota owned it and didn’t pay the taxes for 1989 to 1991. The applicants bought it in 1992 at Raymond Easley’s collector’s tax sale.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that there is typically two years that the buyer has to hold it. A collector’s deed has been issued for it therefore the trailers become the applicant’s problem.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that the trailers weren’t on the property then.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked when the trailers began to be moved on the property.  Mr. Stevenson stated about two or three years ago.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked what was going on before then, was the property being rented?  Mr. Stevenson stated no. It was empty.  There was a lot of buildings and tanks there.  It used to be a full agri-service; it used to have a scale house and a lot of fertilizer.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked if mobile home restoration would have been a permitted use on the property.

 

Mr. Yonke explained that it would depend upon the specific nature of the refurbishing.  Anything that is salvaging of materials from anything becomes a salvage yard, so if you are taking materials off and ending up with some discarded material and pulling out what little bit you can use or things like that would automatically be a salvage yard which would require a conditional use permit in this zoning district.  It is not even allowed in any of the other zoning districts.  If it were taking them and reworking them to where you weren’t salvaging the materials then it might, but it would depend up on the specific scale and nature of it.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that it would not have been in compliance even if the renter did what he said he was going to.  Mr. Yonke stated that it might not have.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that as he understood it might have been in compliance.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that if the renter would have restored them, it would have been in compliance.

 

Mr. Stevenson asked if there was anything wrong with selling the trailers.

 

Mr. Yonke read the definition from the zoning regulations for “salvage or junk yard”:  “Any land or building, or other structure used for the storage, collection, processing or conversion of any worn out, cast ff, or discarded metal, paper, glass or other material which is ready for destruction, or has been collected or stored for salvage or conversion to some use.  This includes, but is not limited to, such things as automobiles, machinery, farm implements, household appliances and construction material.”  Mr. Yonke stated that it would qualify under that because it is being converted to some other use or some use.

 

Mr. Mink asked what attempts the applicants have made to remove the homes so far, what specific actions have the applicants taken to get them homes moved.  Mr. Clayton stated that he has some friends at Rolla and there was a gentleman who was supposed to come up a month and a half ago and look at them because he takes old trailer houses from around the country down there and demolitions them.  He takes the axles and frames off.  The gentleman stated that he was interested but has not come up to look at the homes yet.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that the two people who leased this and take them up there and restore them fizzled out.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t know what to do with these things and would welcome suggestions from the Commission.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he is at the point where he would like them to disappear. The land may have some eventual value but he is almost sorry he bought the property at the tax sale.  15-acres for a little over $3000 is a pretty good deal, but the property has more problems, it is one thing after another.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked why the applicants did not respond to the initial letters from the Planning Department.  Mr. Clayton stated that the first letter he saw was in March and Mr. Stevenson was out of the country at the time.  Mr. Stevenson has always taken care of everything. Mr. Clayton stated that when he did bring it to Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Clayton just dropped it off at his office and Mr. Stevenson never saw it. Mr. Clayton stated that when he got the second one, or actually the third one, Mr. Clayton came in and talked to one of the staff members and was informed as to what he needed to do and that is when Mr. Clayton got the stuff he needed to file for a temporary use permit.

 

Mr. Freiling stated that if the applicant’s intention is to rid themselves of the mobile homes; if applicants were able to do that they don’t need a salvage yard conditional use permit.  Mr. Stevenson stated that the applicants only need it temporarily to get rid of the mobile homes.  Mr. Clayton stated that all they need is a temporary permit so the applicants won’t be in violation with the homes sitting there until they get rid of them.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that after the renter towed them up there then abandoned it, there was another man who was going to go up and salvage them and applicants did not know there was any problem with that, then he got stopped from salvaging them so applicants have been at a stand still and that is why they need the conditional use permit to clean up the mess. If applicants don’t get this conditional use permit and salvage is not allowed then what will the applicants do?  You have to get rid of them but applicants don’t know anyone willing to buy them in the shape they are in.  Mr. Clayton asked if they can get permission to leave them there until they can get rid of them.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the landfill would take them.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t believe the landfill would take them.  They do not take automobile bodies or anything like that.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that they wouldn’t.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that to take them there you would have to crush them.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that there is a gentleman on Creasy Springs Road who takes steel and iron but he won't take aluminum.  You would have to take the aluminum bodies to a landfill.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that this is what he had envisioned.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that if the applicants took them apart, it would be considered salvaging.  Mr. Stevenson stated that if they were in pieces then the applicants could recycle the metal but the applicants have to be able to do that.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the applicants need time to do it therefore the applicants are applying for a conditional use permit that gives time to do this so applicants won’t be in violation and won’t be fined.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that the applicants would be able to get rid of the trailers.

 

Chairperson Smith asked how much time the applicants thought it would take.

 

Mr. Clayton stated he didn’t know he has never been in this type of situation before.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that both applicants have full time jobs and would like to request 1-year. Mr. Stevenson stated that he did not know what the Commission usually gives or if this even falls in to the typical conditional use permit.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that usually when people apply for a conditional use permit it is not usually a temporary conditional use permit, it is because they want to establish something that is an accepted use for their land but it has to be based on conditions like hours.  It is not usually for someone who usually wants to clean up their land.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that the applicants are not interested in building a salvage yard.

 

Chairperson Smith asked the applicants what they wanted to do with the land once they get it cleaned up.

Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t know at this time.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked how long the applicants thought it would take to haul the trailers off.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that if they had somewhere to go and could get the axles and tires, maybe a month or two.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t know who to find that would tow them or where they would take them.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that a year seems like a long time to do this.  If it doesn’t work and no one comes forward and the applicants can’t find anyone, then what?  The trailers will still be sitting there and applicants won’t be in compliance.  Commissioner Sloan stated that she would hesitate to give another year or six months to comply.  Commissioner Sloan stated that she would feel more comfortable if applicants had come in and said that they have someone to haul them off, or if the applicants had some sort of a plan to have them removed.  The applicants are asking the Commission to come up with a plan and that is not within the Commission’s realm.  There is concern that the applicants won’t be able to come up with a plan either because the applicants don’t have time or don’t know where to go. 

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he feels an urgency sitting in front of the Commission. One way or another it has to get done.  It is still just an old fertilizer plant even after the applicants are done but at least it won't have all the trailers sitting up there.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t know what the Commission would want in good faith as a promise or a plan.  Mr. Stevenson stated that what he doesn’t like about 6 month deadline is that winter is coming up. 

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that this process started a year ago.  Mr. Stevenson stated that it was a mess when the applicants got the property in 1993.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that as a landlord when your tenant leaves a mess you clean it up. It seems that the applicants have been trying to find someone else to clean it up as opposed to calling Fulton salvage yard and have them come and get these trailers and ask them how much they will charge.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t know that Fulton had a salvage yard that would come and get them.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that they are in the yellow pages. There are a number of bone yards around that decrepit mobile homes are taken to.

 

Mr. Stevenson asked how much they charged.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that he has no idea.  Commissioner Freiling stated that in his business he has used them to remove trailers from properties that were being sold.

 

Mr. Stevenson asked if it were reasonable if they charged $500 for each trailer.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that he had no idea.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that would amount to more than $15,000 to remove the trailers that are there.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that the rezoning or conditional use permit goes against the guidelines that the Commission is required to follow.  It doesn’t seem to be a remedy for cleaning up the landlord/tenant problem.

 

Commissioner Mink asked staff the process if this request is not approved.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the applicants could file an appeal if they wanted to.

 

Commissioner Mink asked what would happen if the County Commission denies the request.  Mr. Yonke stated that it would be sent to the Prosecuting Attorney’s office for enforcement action.

 

Mr. Clayton asked what happens then.  Mr. Yonke stated that the Prosecuting Attorney will send the owner a letter, usually giving one more chance to get it done by a certain deadline, if it doesn’t get done it will be filed with the court and there will be a hearing.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that the Prosecuting Attorney will give one more chance to get it done.  Mr. Stevenson stated that it was his understanding that the applicants couldn’t do it without a conditional use permit that the applicants are restricted.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that the applicants are in violation now and have been in violation for the last 6 months.  People have been salvaging materials off of the trailers.  Nothing changes with it.  When it gets to the Prosecutor’s office, if they say that applicants have 30 days or it will be filed on the court docket, if it is cleaned up before that date the charge will be dismissed. Nothing else has changed since then but the applicants got it done.  Technically the fact that it was in violation at this point is already a criminal act and therefore there could be a trial and applicants could be held responsible for the fact that it has already been in violation whether it gets cleaned up or not but that is up to the Prosecutor’s office.  That is true whether the conditional use permit is obtained or not because it has been in violation for the last 6 months.  Staff has been trying to establish a clean-up schedule rather than having to send it over to the Prosecutor at this point.

 

Open to public hearing.

 

No one spoke if favor of the request.

 

Present speaking in favor of the request:

 

Cindy Bowne, 6800 E. Hwy CC, Centralia.

Ms. Bowne stated that she is co-owner of 170-acres just north of the property in question.  Ms. Bowne stated that she had a half-mile of frontage on Highway 22 and a little under a half-mile on Schunemeyer Road.  Ms. Brown stated that her property is zoned A-R.  This is prime development land if she should choose to do that, right now it is in row crop and that is a good thing for it to be in; but it may not always be that way, this land was an investment and was inherited and it is an investment that was passed on to her.  Ms. Bowne stated that the property would lose value if there is a salvage yard across the yard.  Ms. Bowne stated that her property has already lost value due to the conditions across the road.  Ms. Bowne stated that she utilized the fertilizer plant when it was in operation; when it went out of operation she understood that it was part of the economy and the buildings were there and she has lived with that and understand that.  The trailers going in did not happen over night, this has been happening in the last 4 years.  This is in the watershed that goes in to the Mark Twain public drinking water; Long Branch flows right along the edge of the applicant’s property and goes north in to the Mark Twain Lake which provides public drinking water.  The State and Federal government have invested funds in the Long Branch watershed through different projects that are administered through the Boone County Soil and Water Conservation District and through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and through the Farm Service Agency.  This is a special project area that through the years there have been projects working with ag owners to mitigate their pesticide and nutrient uses so it does not pollute the water shed.  There has been great support in the area among the ag owners and are very happy with the progress that has been made there.  Ms. Bowne stated that as an ag owner she has participated in those programs and they work hard to keep the water quality good.  Testing in the other parts of Boone County has shown that the chloroform problem in water is many times attributed to rats and mice more than cattle and humans.  The conditions that are there with the trailers right now are prime conditions for rats and other vermin.  Ms. Bowne stated that she is concerned about the water quality there as it goes in to the public drinking water supply. 

 

Ms. Bowne stated that Highway 22 has a 60 mile per hour speed limit, the only access to the property is Schunemeyer Road to get on to the property you have to turn off of Highway 22, cross the railroad track and then go to the property.  The distance between the road and the railroad tract is just shy of about 100-feet.  There are no light crossings on the railroad tracks, so whenever they go to cross there is a hazard. Ms. Bowne stated that normally whenever you build on your property you have to meet setback requirements.  The trailers that are on the property are right up against the property line.  They are not very far from Mr. Charlie Palmer’s house.  If those trailers, as they are now or six months from now, catch fire that is a hazard to Mr. Palmer’s house.  Mr. Palmer has lived in that house for a long time and he is probably not happy with the view he has.  Ms. Bowne stated that she worries more about his safety if that should catch fire, whether it be a natural event or whether someone sets it. The gravel road that accesses the property is only about 20-feet wide and it is difficult for two cars to pass much less any other traffic that goes in or out of the property. 

 

Ms. Bowne stated that we promote Missouri as a tourism state; Highway 22 is a major east-west road.  This condition did not happen over night it has been sitting there for some time.  People go by and look at it and it is an eyesore, it is not something that should be put off cleaning up.  The applicants have requested a year.  Mr. Yonke stated that letters went out in January, it is now September, it has taken nine months to respond to the request to appear or to make a response.  The applicants are not making any concerted effort to get moving on this.  This is a concern because the longer it sits there the more hazard there is.  The applicants have leased the property before.  Applicants stated that they see the property as a financial burden; the applicants lease the property and Ms. Bowne assumes the applicants got a payment for that lease.  The activities that were going on there were not legal at the time they started going on there.  Ms. Bowne stated that as neighbors she has often wondered why those trailers went in there and why they were allowed to go in.   Ms. Bowne stated that she didn’t understand that someone had to complain in order to get it stopped.  The trailers came in on the first lease; more trailers came in on the second lease. Ms. Bowne stated that she can’t believe that anyone thinks that this was a legal operation from the very beginning.  There are also old vehicles on the property, not just trailers. 

 

Ms. Bowne stated that if the applicants needed some time to clean it up the neighbors would like to see six months, that is enough time for the applicants to get their act together and get things cleaned up.  In the meantime, it should be expressly said that there should not be anything else go in there.  Ms. Bowne stated that she is afraid this is going to become an illegal dump.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that Ms. Bowne was talking about water quality and runoff in public drinking water and yet Ms. Bowne used the fertilizer plant when it was there.  Ms. Bowne stated that the fertilizer plant at the time it was there was dry fertilizer.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that the water quality issue would always be the same.  Ms. Bowne stated that the water quality issue is always the same no matter where you are in the County.  The water runoff that goes in to the streams should be filtered and kept pure from unnatural contaminants whether they be point source or non point source.  Ms. Bowne stated that she believed that we are looking at a non point source contaminant.  The fertilizer plant has been closed for a long time, whether there are residuals there or not is unknown by Ms. Bowne but would assume if there are tanks that is a DNR issue because they deal with those particular things. The state and federal government has invested several thousands of dollars in the area to try to mitigate those types of pollutants; Ms. Bowne is sorry to see that this is taking a step back in this particular area because of the Mark Twain watershed.

 

Marty Bowne, 6800 E. Highway CC, Centralia.

Mr. Bowne stated that he is co-owner of 170-acres directly north of the property in question. 

 

Mr. Bowne presented photographs to the Commission which were taken from the Bowne property. 

 

Mr. Bowne stated that the photographs show some of the site.  Mr. Bowne stated that he is a farmer by trade and loves it.  The production of agriculture has not been very profitable during the last few years and knowing that his property is zoned A-R and according to Mr. Yonke part of it may be zoned A-1.  There is always the possibility for development and with production of agriculture being in the state that it is Mr. Bowne would hate to lose the opportunity for the property to be considered a valuable asset to develop residentially. 

 

Mr. Bowne stated that his 170-acres has a house on it and his niece resides there. Mr. Bowne stated that he is sure that this is not a situation his niece likes looking at. The previous owners of this land has sold off two building sites and in the current plat book it is recorded as Schunemeyer subdivision along Schunemeyer Road, there are two houses along there.  Mr. Bowne stated that some of the concerns he has is the lower property values that could be associated any time you are near a salvage yard.  Mr. Bowne stated that he has a half-mile of Highway 22 frontage and he feels like if this conditional use permit was granted as a long standing permit it pretty well negates Mr. Bowne’s highway frontage because who is going to want a piece of property that looks across Highway 22 at a salvage yard.  If for no other lost value of the property, Mr. Bowne stated he has lost the value of that highway frontage.  During the course of his business when he has to give directions to his farm it is always stated that the Bowne’s property is located across from those old trailers. Mr. Bowne stated that people ask him where all of those trailers came from and why were they allowed to be put there.  Mr. Bowne stated that he has no answer for that and is hoping to get some answers tonight. It is not just a private nuisance to the adjoining property owners; it is a public nuisance to anyone that travels up and down Highway 22.  The road and infestation has snowballed; there are always skunks, possums, and different animals like that on the road, not just rats and mice. 

 

Mr. Bowne stated regarding environmental concerns that his farm is enrolled in the EQUIP program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, so Mr. Bowne is in the midst of a very viable environmental program where he is trying to be good stewards of the soil.  Mr. Bowne stated that it bothers him to see a situation like this come about where neighbors next door are doing everything against what he is trying to do.  In talking with the fire captains with the Boone County Fire Protection District, Mr. Bowne stated he has been informed that there have been several fire calls made to this site.  Whether it be called in by passer-bys going down Highway 22 or whether it be called in by neighbors but any time you see a fire with the black smoke like they sometimes see you have got to question what type of environmental contamination are we getting.  Mr. Bowne stated that he would like to leave the Commission with the thought that he knows that the Boone County standards are high enough that he is surprised that we have allowed something like this to come about.

 

Charles Palmer, 23791 N. Schunemeyer Road, Centralia.

Mr. Palmer stated that he lives right across the road from the property in question. From Mr. Palmers front door step to the fence line of the site is approximately 50-feet. The site is a dumping place as far as he is concerned.  The weeds grow up, sprouts grow up in to fences, the fences are rotted down lying in the grass and weeds you can’t mow it or you run in to the steel posts and woven wire and tear up your mower. There are a lot of rodents at the site, mice and rats.  Mr. Palmer stated that he is on the down stream side of the plant and the trash that comes down stream accumulates on Mr. Palmer’s property which is a good ½ mile which is another liability.  There is a lot of traffic going in and out of the site. Mr. Palmer stated that he believes there are at least 50 to 75 trailers on the site and all of the tires and rims are taken off the trailers and sitting on concrete blocks they may be on the ground, Mr. Palmer stated that he hasn’t really looked at it that closely.  Mr. Palmer stated that you have to have the rims and tires to move the trailers out of there. 

 

Mr. Palmer stated that he is on the downstream side of this site and goes through Mr. Palmer’s property.  Mr. Palmer stated that he has cattle and they have to drink out of the stream at times. The people in Centralia and Sturgeon area have stopped Mr. Palmer and inquired who owns the trailers and what is going to be done with them, Mr. Palmer stated that he does not know what to tell them because he doesn’t know himself what is going to happen. The trailers need to be piles up with a dozer and moved off. Mr. Palmer stated that he is sure all of the tires are off because he has bought an old tire from the previous renter. Mr. Palmer stated that the ½ mile of road is a gravel road, there are a lot of big trees behind it which makes good shade, it is a good building location all the way across, but who would want to move in next to a junk yard?

 

Jerri Sparks, 24000 Schunemeyer Road, Centralia.

Ms. Sparks stated that she lives north of the property and wanted to express her concerns about the operation because of the safety of the children.  When the owner starts the fire at the property and they are burning whatever it is they are burning black smoke accumulates in Ms. Sparks' garage and comes in the windows.  There have also been people that have maybe lived over there and they come over and get water from the back of Ms. Sparks' house.  Ms. Sparks stated that her husband would wake up and people would be getting water from the hydrant to her house.  She walked out of her house and the smell of skunk was around and she worries about rats and the animals that live at the site.  Ms. Sparks stated that the view she gets from her back yard, side yard, and front yard is the eyesore of the property in question. Ms. Sparks stated that other concerns are the value of her property and the traffic.

 

Closed to public hearing.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated to the applicants that the Commission can not grant a conditional use permit under these circumstances.  The conditional use permit guidelines that the Commission have to go by are very specific; the Commission doesn’t have the discretion that they have on rezoning requests.  If the permit violates any of the terms laid out in the zoning ordinance for a conditional use permit then the permit can not be granted. It is not a discretionary thing.  Commissioner Freiling stated that he is sure that the applicants have figured out that they have a problem. The County’s zoning issue potentially may be the least of the potential problems out there, particularly if there has been burning of materials that may be considered toxic in a residence  Commissioner Freiling stated he would encourage the applicants to try to strike a deal with the Prosecuting attorney’s office to give the applicants a certain amount of time to get those things out of there and clean it up.  It is probably going to be expensive. What has happened there has created the equivalent of a toxic site especially if all the axles have been removed; it is going to be much harder to get them out.

 

Mr. Shawver stated that based on the testimony received tonight indicates that the applicants can not meet the requirements of a conditional use permit.

 

Mr. Stevenson asked if the applicants were invited back up to speak.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated yes.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he doesn’t understand why the applicants were asked to get a conditional use permit if the Commission now says they can’t grant one. Mr. Stevenson stated that this is what the applicants were told to do, if the County is going to get this problem worked on then something needs to be worked out.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he and Mr. Clayton have a choice.  The applicants don’t own the land; they own stock in a limited liability corporation which owns the land and the applicants can walk away from that corporation.  The reason the corporation was set up was because the applicants knew that it had been an agri-business center and there were possibilities of pollutants there. 

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he has had some studies done recently.  The Commission stated that the applicants haven’t been doing anything but they have.  Mr. Stevenson presented brochures from the Fayette environmental services and this year the applicants have had the water and soil tested to see if there were any problems with EPA or toxins, any of those would have come from the prior use back when the plant was in use. Mr. Stevenson stated that he doesn’t see how a mobile home would be of any great pollutant concern.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he can see where a refrigerator or air conditioner could cause pollutants; those need to be disposed of properly.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t know where the burning thing came from. Applicants are in a situation where they have to decide whether to work on the problem or to walk away from it. 

 

Chairperson Smith stated that would have to be the applicant’s choice.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he was told that the applicants could not work on it.  Applicants were offering to work on it but were told that until a conditional use permit is granted no work is allowed so applicants have not worked on it.  Now applicants are hearing that they should have worked on it; but it was illegal to work on it so they couldn’t.  Then applicants were told they needed a conditional use permit but now they can’t get one. 

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that if applicants would have answered the first letter and had done something then probably something could have been done.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that is probably right.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that nine months have passed and now the applicants want to work something out and “strike a deal”.  That is what the original letter was about was to inform the applicants that they were in violation and to ask the applicants to come and talk to someone to work something out. Don’t wait nine months later and get threatened with prosecution then come in and say that you need six months.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that nine months ago was the one year anniversary of his sons death, he was 15-years old.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he can not handle too much of this; there is a limit to what he can handle.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he is not going to spend the rest of the night apologizing or making excuses.  Mr. Stevenson is here tonight to say that if the Commission gives the conditional use permit then Mr. Stevenson will get the place cleaned up and get those trailers out of there. Mr. Stevenson stated that he did not get that letter and doesn’t know what happened to it. His son died on February 15th and a month later Mr. Stevenson was on a trip out of the country; applicant stated that he is sorry it took so long and sincerely apologizes.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that it sounds that these trailers have been moving in to that location over a long period of time.  The applicants mentioned the two trailer parks that closed but it sounds like this has been happening for much longer than the past year, it has only been a year since those trailer parks have closed. This is not something that just came about then the applicant had a tragedy; this has been going on for quite a while. 

 

Commissioner Sloan stated to the members of the audience that it is unfortunate because they have asked the question why wasn’t something done up to this point.  Ms. Bowne had stated that a complaint wasn’t made; unfortunately, the County doesn’t’ have the resources and the personnel to just drive the roads and make sure everything is okay, if they did then maybe we would know about these things. When complaints are made the Planning office acts on them as quickly as possible.  The owners have owned the property for a while and this has been going on for a while, longer than 9, 10, or 11 months.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that Commissioner Sloan is going on something that is wrong.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he did not mean to say that the previous renter got these trailers specifically from Walnut Hills or Valley Trailer Court; applicants do not know where the trailers were acquired.  The trailers have been there longer than that because Jefferson Commons is in their second year of occupancy, it took them at least six months to build the place so it was probably 3 to 4 years ago when they closed and started moving trailers.  Mr. Stevenson stated he didn’t know where the trailers came from and doesn’t care.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the Commission doesn’t care where they came from either, what the Commission cares about is that the trailers are still there.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t mean to imply that they came from those two trailer courts.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that we all agree that the trailers have been there for a long time.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that since 1998 or 1999 they have been there.  Applicants have never had one compliant and no one said that there was anything wrong with that until recently.  Mr. Stevenson stated that he doesn’t mean to say that the applicants knew they were doing something wrong and didn’t care; no one said anything.  There were no complaints made and the County never said anything.  The first thing that the applicants heard was that you can't do anything.  The neighbors say that the trailers got hauled in there over a long period of time.  As far as land being zoned agriculture, the land to the south has 200 to 300 cars on it; that is not agricultural use.

 

Commissioner Caruthers suggested the applicants file a complaint.

 

Commissioner Caruthers made a motion to deny the request for a conditional use permit for the specific reasons of failure to meet the criteria listed in the conditional use permit specifically criteria a, b, and d.

 

Mr. Stevenson asked Commissioner Caruthers to inform him what criteria A is and how it is not met.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that criteria a is that 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.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t believe that the issuance of this conditional use permit would jeopardize the general health, public safety or welfare.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that if the applicants had a big fire up there it will jeopardize safety.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he is not proposing a big fire.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that apparently there have been some big fires up there.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated he is not proposing that.  Mr. Stevenson asked Commissioner Sloan if she were proposing that. The applicants are not asking for a permit to have a big fire

 

Chairperson Smith stated that criteria b is that 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.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that the Commission has heard testimony in that respect.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that the Commission has not heard it from applicants. The neighbors talked about their property values; applicants don’t want theirs down in the dumpster either; applicants would like to get the property cleaned up and Mr. Stevenson stated that he doesn’t see how cleaning this up would be detrimental to the neighbors property values, it would be advantageous to theirs.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that criteria c states that the conditional use permit will not substantially diminish or impair property values of existing properties in the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Stevenson stated that he didn’t believe that a temporary conditional use permit which would allow this area to be cleaned up would be detrimental, that is what the Commission wants.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that there was a motion on the table.  Chairperson Smith asked for a second on that motion.

 

Commissioner Sloan seconded the motion.

 

      Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Sloan seconded a motion to deny the request by R Realty LLC for a permit to allow a salvage yard on 15.13 acres, located at 8250 E Hwy 22, Centralia (corner of Hwy 22 and Schunemeyer Rd.).

 

 

                        Carl Freiling – Yes                    Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

                        Pat Smith – Yes                                    David Mink – Yes        

                        Mike Caruthers - Yes                Keith Neese - Yes

                        Mary Sloan – Yes                    

                       

Motion to deny request carried unanimously.         

 

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that if they would like to file an appeal to the County Commission, it had to be done in three working days.

 

Chairperson Smith informed Mr. Clayton that she believes the applicants have a problem but this is not the way to solve that problem.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that the reality is that it doesn’t matter if the applicants go before the County Commission.  The trailers have to be moved and until they are moved they are still there.  If the trailers are moved, the buildings are going to stay there.  Applicants are not going to clean up the property then build houses on it because someone across the road wants them to. Applicants have already had water tests and soil tests done, there is nothing on that property that the farmers all around, including the people making the complaints, are not spraying in the fields today.  Everything that is there has been tested.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that the problem is that the use of the site as a demolition site for trailers was not a permissible use.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that when he saw the trailers after renting the property, the renter paid one months rent and all the trailers were there.  They did not move in over three years, they moved in over three months. Mr. Clayton stated that the applicants stopped the renter from bringing any more in.  But the renter then skipped out and the applicants are stuck with the problem; rather, R Realty LLC is stuck with the problem.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that if he got up and walked out like Mr. Stevenson wants to then the County is stuck with the problem or whoever takes the property over on taxes.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that actually under a limited liability company, the corporation is liable up to the net worth of the company.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that he believes that the applicants remedy is to sit down with the Prosecutor and look at what the applicants wanted the Commission to do without a conditional use permit.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that this is something to take to the Prosecutor.  To tell the prosecutor that the applicants don’t have a conditional use permit and they need to find a solution. 

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that if he had to guess he believes the Prosecutor would be willing to work out a time table with the applicants avoiding prosecution in return for removing the trailers.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that he thought he had the problem solved once already and the lead fizzled out.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that the applicants are in a mess.

 

Mr. Clayton stated that he would like to see the property make him money instead of cost him money.

 

 

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

 

 

REZONING REQUESTS

 

 

 

1.       Request by the Martha L. Straub Trust to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-S/PRD (Single Family Residential / Planned Residential Development) and to approve a Review Plan for Martha’s Grove, on 16.55 acres, more or less, located at 5201 E. Bonne Femme Church Rd., Columbia.

 

Planner, Thad Yonke gave the staff report stating that this property is located one mile south of the general Columbia municipal limits to the north. The site is situated on the north side of Bonne Femme Church Road approximately 3000 feet southwest of the intersection of Highway 63 South and Bonne Femme Church Road. The site is immediately west of Bonne Femme Mobile Home Park. The site of the proposal comprises 16-acres of a 64.85-acre parent parcel. The property of the request is currently zoned A-1 (agriculture). The remainder of the parent parcel is also zoned A-1. Property to the south, west, and north of the requested site is zoned A-1. Property to the east is zoned A-1 with a small pocket of R-M (moderate density residential) upon which the existing MHP is located which was rezoned from A-1 in 1983. The other zonings are all the original 1973 zonings. Under the existing A-1 zoning the Maximum Theoretical Density for the property is 1.6 units, or 1 unit. Under the proposed R-S/PRD rezoning the Maximum Theoretical Density for the property is 102.99 units, or approximately 102 units. The specific review plan and preliminary plat submitted proposes only 20 buildings comprising a total of 40 units. Since the specific proposal includes 40 units, that is the maximum that would be allowed and is somewhat under ½ the density that could be requested in an R-S/PRD for this property. The proposed structures are single family attached units which externally resemble a duplex but have to be built to a higher standard under the building code. The development is proposing a private drive for internal circulation which would be treated similarly to an apartment complex parking lot. The vehicular circulation as proposed can not be made into public roads. There is some 100-year Floodplain on the property near the proposed entry drive and the property is in the watershed of environmentally sensitive streams. Staff has concerns over the density increase with respect to the site features and water quality as extensive site work and grading are required to build the entrance drive which is located at the drainage point for the property. The site is currently vacant and wooded. Sole access to the site is from Bonne Femme Church Road. The most direct route to the main traffic network is to go to Highway 63; however, there is a low water crossing in this path. Additionally, the portion of the road proximate to the development proposal and continuing on to the west is an unimproved gravel road. Some road improvements will be required for this development, if approved. A centralized sewer collector system is proposed for this development. The BCRSD is somewhat receptive to accepting a central system for this development; however, the specific type of system acceptable to the BCRSD has yet to be worked out. There is still concern that even treated wastewater from 40 units will have impact on the streams and water quality. Water service and fire hydrants will be required for this development. Consolidated Water District #1 has indicated they are not sure that there is sufficient existing water service for the development and that waterline upgrades will likely be required and will be at the developer’s expense. While staff does concur with the concept that a rezoning to increase the potential density and use of the property would have to be planned due to the sensitive nature of the site and area, staff is not convinced that the development can be made compatible with the surrounding area nor that conditions can be placed to sufficiently address the potential impacts due to the rezoning and subsequent development. In any rezoning request it is incumbent upon the applicant to show that the requested zoning is more appropriate than the existing zoning. Additionally, 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 resources necessary to serve the proposed development can be broken down into 3 general categories, utilities, transportation and public safety services. 

 

Utilities:  As mentioned previously, the existing water system is most likely inadequate at this time and will require upgrades to be sufficient. The central sewer operated by BCRSD is preferable in general to on-site systems, but there is still a question as to the appropriateness and impact of the volume and scale of the system on the area. Boone electric has power to the site. A centralized propane gas system including 2 large tanks is proposed by the developer. 

 

Transportation: The low water crossing on the road leading to the development and general state of the existing road brings into question the appropriateness of the rezoning with respect to access and transportation.

 

Public Safety Services: The property is in the Boone County Fire Protection District.  There is no district fire station located within 5 road miles of this site.

 

The development will be within the Columbia Public School District. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. Both the existing and proposed zonings are consistent with the master plan. This site has 56 points on the point rating system. Staff does not believe that the rezoning of A-1 to R-S/PRD is appropriate because of the limitations of the site features with respect to the increase in density and the sensitive nature of the area and questions as to the sufficiency of resources. Staff notified 19 property owners about this request.

 

Staff recommends denial of the Rezoning Request, Review Plan, and Preliminary Plat.

 

Should the Commission decide the rezoning is appropriate, then staff suggests the following conditions for the review plan and preliminary plat:

 

1.       That the development not be gated. The private drive/vehicular circulation system within the development is not allowed to have access limiting equipment or fixtures installed. This provision must be added as a note to the review plan and preliminary plat.

2.       That it is recognized that the private drive/vehicular circulation system within the development can not become public roads and will not be accepted by the county for maintenance.

3.       That waterline upgrades and hydrants be installed, along with all needed easements required and that these improvements be acceptable to the Consolidated Water District #1, Director of Planning, and Boone County Fire District.

4.       That the road improvements required by the development be worked out with Boone County Public Works and be acceptable to both the Public Works and Planning Directors.

 

These conditions will lessen the impact the rezoning has but staff does not feel they have a reasonable chance to mitigate all the impacts sufficiently.

 

Present:  Jay Gebhardt, A Civil Group, 711 W. Ash, Columbia

              Gary Straub, 4604 Bonne Femme Church Road, Columbia.

              James Straub, 1318 Ridge Road, Columbia.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the proposed zoning is a better use than the current A-1 zoning.  The applicants have no objections to the conditions that the staff has recommended.

 

Mr. Gebhardt presented an enlarged display of the zoning map that was published in the newspaper.

 

Mr. Gebhardt pointed out the locations of Highway 63, Bonne Femme Church Road, Bonne Femme Church, a landscaping business, triple B doors, Simon Steel, Williams Pipeline and Boone County Public Works.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that there is a 22 pad mobile home park that is located in the area.  The site the Straub’s own is in the area.  To the west is A-1 zoning; across the Section line, the next section is zoned types of residential, most of which is single family residential.  There are pieces of it zoned R-M and a little of M-LP.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he brought the map to show that the property is surrounded on three sides by different zonings than A-1. A-1 up to this point has been the appropriate zoning because A-1 is an appropriate holding zone for land until the appropriate plans come forward and the appropriate type of development. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt presented a drawing of the area.

 

Mr. Gebhardt pointed out Highway 63, Bonne Femme Church Road, and the mobile home park.  Mr. Gebhardt pointed out the property in question.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that there is a large church.  There is a wooded area and you can not get a good view from the road.  The piece of property behind it is zoned A-1, there is not much depth to it and it all becomes R-S. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt presented a plan of the development.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that this is a different type of use; what is being proposed here is different that what the Commission normally sees.  Out of the 60-acres, the west 16-1/2 acres is being requested for rezoning.  The dark green area on the map is the existing trees that would remain on the site.  Not many trees are going to be taken down.  Mr. Gebhardt pointed out Bonne Femme Church Road and stated that it is not a long road, it is about 500-feet to where you get back to the development starting, there is an existing pond on the property which will be discussed later.  Mr. Gebhardt pointed out the location of the proposed wastewater system.  There are two phases of the project.  The applicants are looking at 10 buildings in this phase and 10 buildings in the second phase.  Each one of the buildings is a single family attached home.  Applicants propose that the darker green area on the map would be subdivided in to two lots, so that when you buy, you don’t have to buy just the home, but you can also buy a small lot in the subdivision.  The area in the middle is intended to be made a public common area.  It is probably where the kids would gather to play, where people would meet and see each other.  The common area in the back is an area to provide some buffering for future development.  Applicants have a 50-setback line drawn on the plan to show that the buildings are well beyond the setback.  The density being proposed is 2.42 units per acre.  Applicants thought about going for an AR-PRD to try and lessen the impact but to do that, more land would need to be added.  Adding more land just to reduce the density doesn’t accomplish what needs to be accomplished which is to try and develop a good plan that is sensitive to the concerns of the area.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the units would be in the upwards of $100,000 per side, or $200,000 per unit.  It sounds like a lot of money but it is more or less the starter point for new homes.  Applicants are trying to provide diversity. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the impervious area being proposed is important because of the importance of the sensitive nature of Bonne Femme Creek, it is an outstanding resource.  It is a losing stream that disappears in to the ground and reemerges in Devil’s Ice Box, so it is a pretty sensitive drainage area, probably as sensitive as it gets.  Impervious areas have been shown in a lot of studies that when you hit 15-percent you start to affect water quality in the stream. When you hit 30-percent you have degraded the stream to the point that it can’t really support natural aquatic life.  Applicants are above the 15-percent at 22.05-percent it is quite a bit less than 30-percent. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the Commission may wonder why the applicants are proposing a private drive.  That goes back to impervious surface area.  Public streets require a minimum of 32-feet without going through the Board of Adjustment to get a narrower street; plus the configuration that the applicants want to use with the public square; you couldn’t do this and meet all the criteria for curvature.  Engineers have been taught and in all the design manuals they like everything curb and gutter.  Applicants are doing this without curb and gutter on purpose so the water will sheet either in to the common area or through the woods and be filtered through the pasture before it leaves the site.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there was a mention in the staff report about the utilities. There is no problem with electric; there is an electric line that runs through the property that applicants will route around.  Mr. Straub would like to provide natural gas to the buildings so that the owners could have gas heat in a more efficient heating system.  Natural gas is a long way off so the applicants are going to install propane tanks and put in a centralized propane system.  This system will be no different than being in the City on a natural gas system.  The owners will get a monthly bill and they don’t have to worry about filling the tanks.  There is a 6-inch water line on the farm, it goes to the road on the other side of the trailer park and then it runs down the road as a 4-inch.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that he dropped the ball on this and should have contacted the water district in August and have them do a flow test so Mr. Gebhardt could say that they have 250-gallons or no they don’t.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didn’t do that and now there is a water line out there that is busted, there is a three inch main busted next to the loop and the water district doesn’t want to do the flow test now because it wouldn’t give an accurate result. The point about the water is that it is the same as every subdivision; it is nothing unique to this development.  If the applicants don’t have the required fire flows the applicants either have to wait until water becomes available or go ahead and spend the money and do the upgrades that are necessary, which is part of the condition that is on the plat and applicants have no problem with it.  The water district does have plans to build a 12-inch water main about 200-feet east of this site across the property; they think they will get around to it in the next year.  If there is a water problem; that would solve it.  David Lee with the water district stated that he couldn’t tell the applicants that they don’t have it and can’t tell them that they do. Until that water main is fixed, the applicants won’t know. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the sanitary sewer is an important thing because of the sensitive drainage area and the creek flowing to Rock Bridge, applicants have contacted DNR and received a letter stating the limits that would be accepted for a wastewater treatment plant here.  They were 10/15 with disinfection required. One of the best ways to do that is with a re-circulating sand filter.  Mr. Gebhardt met with the Board for the Boone County Regional Sewer District in August and in September 2002 and last Tuesday they passed a resolution that said that if the rezoning is granted the Sewer District would accept operation and maintenance of a wastewater system that was built to their standards at this location. This system is a clean system and the disinfection is provided by ultra-violet light rather than chlorine so there is no residual chlorine in the discharge. This is about as best that it can be done.

 

Mr. Gebhardt pointed on the plan the proposed landscaping.  There is screening to the west. There is also screening to the north, Bob Lemone owns the property to the north and he had come to the Commission for a proposed rezoning for M-LP which was denied.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that Mr. Lemone may come back before the Commission for a similar request and the applicants would like to screen themselves from Mr. Lemones development. The trees provide a wooded entry.  Instead of coming in and trying to develop the area that is in natural tree cover, the applicants would rather leave it alone as much as possible and put a road in. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he met with Dave Nichols with the Public Works department to talk about the development.  Bonne Femme Road is gravel from just past the church all the way down.  Applicants will bear the cost of chip and sealing Boone Femme Road to the entrance of the development so that the traffic that the development is generating won't cause a dust problem for the existing property owners.  The other issue with the transportation that staff brought up was the low water crossing.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that he was told by the public works staff is that when it rains the low water crossing comes up fast and disappears fast so it is not something that is a huge obstacle for a long period of time.  If it is an obstacle this isn’t a dead end; there is another way in and out of this area so if there is an emergency vehicle there is another alternative.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that public works has done surveys out there and looked in to upgrading the low water crossing.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didn’t know where that stood or if it was funded but there has been a lot of concern.  Mr. Gebhardt stated he believes that comes from the church on the 7 acre piece of property which has a lot of members.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the biggest concern is probably the stormwater issue.  The Commission was presented a summary. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he was not going to try and say that this development would have no impact at all, because that is not possible. On the existing A-1 zoning someone could tear down trees and utilize the farm to its maximum extent would definitely have an impact; so A-1 is not pristine in not having any impacts at all.  One of the things the applicants are doing to try to mitigate this is the idea of cluster development.  Applicants are clustering the buildings and units on small lots and putting them in one area and preserving about 51-percent of the site.  Of that 51-percent there is six acres of the 16 that will not be touched at all.  As you go in and try to develop the land in a more conventional way the applicants would be tearing down a lot of trees and compacting the soil. The ability for the soil to absorb water would be lost; the loss of top soil; the leaf litter and the trees.  All of these things contribute to slow water and to dissipate velocity and filtering.  After the initial construction of a project one of the things that impacts the stream is the velocity of water entering the stream.  Most silt is caused by the erosion of its own banks after the initial construction; anything that could be done to slow water down; which is why the applicants got rid of the curbs and gutters.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that part of the reason for the attached units instead of single family detached units is economics in trying to keep these units in a price range.  Another benefit is that if you put two homes under one roof, that roof is going to be smaller than it is for two separate homes.  The less roof, the less impervious area you have.  It is these little things that add up when you try to mitigate your impact.  The clustering and attached homes are intentional to try and help the impact. All the open space adds to being able to slow the water and letting it do what it does naturally.  Minimizing impervious areas to only those that are only truly needed for the safety and welfare of the future families in the development. This is an obvious and necessary step in protecting the quality of the stormwater leaving any site.  It sometimes means compromising with the current standards for streets and driveways.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that the streets are 24-feet wide and the curb and gutters have been eliminated.  All these things are in direct violation of the street standards but they are things that as these stormwater issues come up will have to be addressed at some point.  Rather than try to get this as a public street, it is better to view this as a private network with parking for visitors in the area; that could not be done on a public street because you can't have back-out parking on to a public street.  It adds to the uniqueness of the property.  If you have a problem with it, the best way to think about it is like an apartment complex without the apartments. There is a private network that will be maintained by the owners of the neighborhood, snow removal, and general maintenance of the pavement. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants will not put up a gate and make this a private enclave; that is not the intent.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated the applicants are designing the homes, driveway and parking areas so that they are disconnected impervious areas.  When water hits the roof, it runs down the gutter, to the driveway to the street and down the gutter to an inlet down a pipe it never hits grass.  By not putting in the curbs and by slanting the driveway so they drain to the side yard, and by not piping the gutters to the street the applicants are allowing the water to disperse and it will be spread out. This is a recognized method of trying to slow the water and let anything being carried by the water to be deposited.  Applicants are keeping the overall impervious areas in the development below 22.05-percent, it is pretty well documented that the impervious area even with preventative measures has an impact.  The most important thing that the applicants are doing that has the biggest impact is that there is an existing pond on site that has been silted in.  Applicants are going to reuse the pond as a detention structure, also known as a wet extended detention cell. Not only does it capture and hold the water and release it at a set rate, it doesn’t exceed the rate that it leaves the site now. It holds the water for up to 72-hours above the normal pool level and the pond fills up and it doesn’t drain away for about 3 days down to normal pool, it is a very slow release on the top part.  Some of the dirtiest stormwater is considered the first flush or first half-inch of water.  This allows for capturing the water and holding it and if there is road salt or any sand in it, it has time to settle out.  A lot of the things that are in solution will settle out if you give them enough time.  Some things are going to be in the water, like solutions, no matter how much time the water is held, it wouldn’t do; but because it is a wet detention pond, there is a biological action in the pond through the aquatic life and plant life in the water that break down some of the nutrients that are in the water and further clean it. Mr. Gebhardt stated that to his knowledge, this is one of the best ways to try to handle the runoff. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that about ¾ of this site hits the pond.  The other ¼ of the site drains to another pond.  That pond is larger and isn’t silted in; it is a viable pond now.  Applicants feel the water will be directed to it and will receive the same benefits. Mr. Gebhardt stated that extended wet detention ponds; if you think of them as a sewage lagoon or the City’s wetlands, is the same kind of situation.  There are cat tails planted around the edge.  Not only does it benefit the stormwater it tends to keep kids and dogs out of the pond. Mr. Gebhardt stated that every time he does a detention pond it is always asked if he is going to fence it to keep the kids out.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that there are lakes and ponds all over and those aren’t necessarily fenced, but as soon as you get a manmade structure then everyone wants them fenced.  The cat tails around the pond will be about 10-feet thick when they are planted and they act as a pretty good barrier; you would have to be a pretty determined child to get in to the water to get in to the cat tails.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants are the third generation to own this land. The applicants could sit on this property for a while but they want to set an example of how they would like to see this developed because they have come to the conclusion; Gary Straub lives down the road and Jim Straub is going to build a home across from the development.  This is the type of development they would like to see.  The applicants feel that whether or not the Commission approves this request, the area is going to develop.  This is the type of development the applicants would like to see because they feel like whether the Commission approves this request the area is going to develop. With all the R-S zoning to the west and 600 acres of residential zoning there is going to be development at some time.  The applicants just want to do the right thing and do it right and set a precedent that is a good precedent to follow for other developers that come to the area. The applicants want the Commission to look at this and use it as an example for other developers.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he always hates to have a project turned down because people believe it is a great project but a bad location. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he doesn’t believe this is a bad location.  It is inevitable to be developed because of it proximity to Columbia; we may be talking 5 or 10 years but it going to happen.  In the long term we need to decide if there is going to be some technological breakthrough that makes developing in this area less harmful to the environment.  Right now what we have is pretty good.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the Boone County land use plan recognizes residential uses as appropriate for this site and provides a transition for high density R-M zoning to the east of the project and provides a transition between it and Highway 63.  There is a mobile home park that is zoned R-M; from the testimony from the prior conditional use permit, mobile home parks are a kind of transition area.  It may not be a mobile home park, it is zoned R-M, it could be apartments. This is a natural transition.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that as much as he likes to mix things up he doesn’t believe the time has come when people with a home on 2 acres want to live next to single family attached units.  We are always going to have this kind of segregation and that is unfortunate, but that is the way it is right now.  But at least the applicants will introduce a diversified type of housing in the area.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the plan provides affordable housing for future occupants in a portion of the County which is a highly desirable place to live. The plan takes in to consideration the sensitive watershed in which it is a part of. The design has been created to minimize the impact to the stream. Mr. Gebhardt stated that if anyone has any suggestions as to what they could do more than what they are doing, the applicants are very receptive to that. The applicants came to Mr. Gebhardt and stated their concerns and that they didn’t want to impact the watershed any more than was necessary. The applicants wanted to set an example that could be followed.  The sanitary sewer proposal will minimize the impact to the stream and provide options for removing existing and future onsite systems in the area.  There are onsite lagoons on many of the surrounding properties.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that his experience in lagoons a 30/30 discharge is about the best you can hope for, usually that degrades as time goes on and as maintenance is not performed.  This development allows the applicants to put a high quality wastewater plant in the area to treat the sewage.  It provides re-circulating sand filters which are very easily expanded; you add another re-circulating tank and more modules for the filter media and you’ve got extra capacity.  If the mobile home park decides to go away and the property is developed; there is an option besides an onsite lagoon, there is a cleaner option.  The church has a cleaner option as well.  The applicants have talked to the church and the church has expressed interest in connecting in to this system. Mr. Gebhardt stated that this is not necessarily a reason to approve the rezoning request but this development will help the situation rather that hurt it. One of the worst things we could do is have a have a sprawl occur here with homes on 2 or 10 acres with onsite systems. The impact to the stream just from the sewage would be pretty significant. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the Commission may be thinking why 40 units.  2.4 units an acre is not dense to Mr. Gebhardt.  It is a lot more than what is allowed on the A-1; granted one home versus 40 is a big jump but Mr. Gebhardt stated that his position is that this A-1 is just a holding zone until the appropriate plan comes along.  There is already established zoning in the area and it is pretty clear that there will be some type of development on here.  The applicants wanted to utilize the top of the hill and use the open farm field that is being plowed now and it worked out to have 10 buildings in this phase in 10 buildings in the next phase.  The RS-PRD would allow for 102 homes; the applicants are significantly lower than that.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didn’t want to try to do A-R PRD because all that would mean is that there are still 40 homes but you would use more of the land.  All the impacts on the stream would still be there.  There would still be 40 homes and the same amount of pavement. We need to utilize the land and density is one of the best ways to do that.  If not, there will be 40 2.5 acre lots and using up a lot more land. 

 

Mr. Gary Straub stated that he has been working with Mr. Gebhardt for a long time on this.  Mr. Gary Straub stated that he has lived in this area his entire life.  The area is developing and Columbia is growing whether the applicants want it to or not.  We could either fight it and let what is happening happen.  The property is completely surrounded by randomness, there is no order.  Mr. Gary Straub stated that he plans to live there for the rest of his life.  Someone will come along and buy this because families change and people will develop.  It all drains in to the same watershed. Applicants are not really doing this for financial gain that is obvious; they are also not doing it for a loss.  As Mr. Gebhardt stated, it is very important for the applicants to set a precedent as a way to develop because within the next few years there is going to be more land available around this area. If the applicants are the first ones to do something and the environment is the most important concern of the development.  The applicants went to Mr. Gebhardt and told him they wanted a nice comfortable environment that people would enjoy living in and won't impact the rest of the environment. Mr. Gebhardt stated that something else the applicants are concerned about is light pollution.  The lighting that will be put in the development will be all shielded lighting, directed downward and inward, no lighting will go up.  The environment is the applicant’s number one concern. It is a small development and the applicants want to get this started as some kind of an example.

 

Dr. James Straub stated that he believed that the applicants have covered all the points thoroughly.  Dr. Straub stated that his plans are to retire in the area and the applicants are concerned about the environment.  The applicants want to make an environmentally sound development as well as the reality of making something realistically and financially feasible.  The psychological peace of the area is important; that is also included in the plan as well as the environmental concerns.  Dr. Straub stated that he hopes the Commission will consider this request because the goal is to make this a model project to show that this area can be developed in a way that is sensitive and takes the environment in to account.  Applicants are open to making adjustments as far as the water district is concerned.  The area will be improved as well by the chip and seal that will reduce the amount of dust pollution in the area that is already there. There will be some positive benefits to the area.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that in the Commissioners packets they received perspectives of the units being proposed. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didn’t want anyone to think that these are the same duplexes being built everywhere and this is all just a show.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the buildings were 4000 square feet or each unit.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated the buildings are 4000 square feet. The applicants have gone through a lot of trouble.  One of the main concerns on the buildings themselves was that at first the applicants thought about putting the drive in the rear so the visual impact of the buildings weren’t just garages.  On a duplex type building with a two car garage you have two big doors facing the street.  The applicants have tried to minimize that by extending he overhang down to cover it up. You come off the driveway and in to a little courtyard area that is fenced off and it looks like part of the building from the outside but actually it is a little courtyard right by the front door.  Whether the Commission likes the design or not it is a different and unique type of product and is not just the standard duplex you see all over Columbia. The idea here is to rent to families and to get people to buy in to the area.  This is not a student housing project that some people may fear.

 

Commissioner Neese stated that Mr. Gebhardt had stated that on the development itself the homes would be starter homes of about $100,000 per unit which is fairly inexpensive.  Commissioner Neese asked if the applicants were going to sell lot by lot or is there already a developer that is going to build.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants are going to build all the units themselves.  There is no developer just flipping dirt, the applicants will be building all the units.  The applicants will maintain and own the units for a period of time.  The reason for making this is so the units can be split and sold in the future. Maybe the applicant’s kids will do that or the applicants may do it a little at a time to finance the rest of the project.  The intent is that the family will do the build out.

 

Commissioner Neese asked if these would be rental units.

 

Dr. Straub stated that in the beginning they would be rental units with the option to eventually buy. The rent will provide an ongoing income for his father. The goal at this point is to hold and rent for a period of time with the option of gradually selling over time.  The intention is not to immediately turn these over for sale but to take some time before that is done.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that these units would be primarily rental units.

 

Dr. Straub stated initially with the option to sell. It can be done in different phases, part of that depends on aspects of the trust and how it is set up.

 

Commissioner Neese stated that the propane is probably going to be a loop system.  According to a plan that the Commissioners looked at before there was possibly two tanks.  Commissioner Neese stated that the size of those tanks concern him.  Commissioner Neese asked the applicants to explain.  With children in the area, one area has bluffs of woods if it is going to be put in that area a fire would be of some importance.  Commissioner Neese asked the size of the tanks that are proposed. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the tanks are regulated by the FDA because propane is an agricultural product and all the tanks would have to meet standards and criteria produced by the USDA.

 

Dr. Straub stated that the people doing it is Gygr Gas out of Boonville the tanks are approximately 2000 gallons.  As far as the fire safety, it is nothing compared to each one of the tanks just across the way of 1,000,000 gallons. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants had the option of having 40 separate tanks or two larger tanks. 

 

Commissioner Sloan asked how many buildings the applicants were going to begin building. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that it will be done in two phases.  The first phase is 10 buildings and the second phase is 10 buildings.

 

Mr. Straub stated that the first phase will be done right away.  There are no definite plans to start the second phase but it had to be in the plan because it is planned residential.  It may be started in two years or three, or maybe never.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked what if things don’t go as planned.  When you see things come in that look good but then they don’t end up the way people wanted them to end up.  Then the applicants come back before the Commission wanting to make changes because it didn’t fly the way the applicants wanted it to.  Staff is concerned about the ability for fire trucks regarding those private roads. The applicants are not calling this a student development but if the applicants can't sell the units or get them rented so all of a sudden the applicants put six students in there; that changes the dynamics of parking and everything else.  Commissioner Sloan stated that she wonders at what point do the applicants say that this development didn’t work so they will have to do something else.

 

Dr. Straub stated that financially the applicants will look at this development step by step. A big factor is that the applicants live in the area and are concerned about the neighbors and the applicant’s commitment to them.  Financially there is nothing guaranteeing a major recession not hitting Columbia and changing everything.  Based on the feedback from realtors at this point and from other sources, the projected cost of rental is well within the area.  There is a demand in the area; other developments that are not as nice as this proposed development and they rent quickly at the same price. Based on the feed back that the applicants have got from realtors there is no guarantee on it but the applicants are not operating on a shoe string budget.  The applicant’s lively hood does not depend on getting these units rented right away.  The applicants have the ability to take some time to make sure they get the right renters.  Having been a landlord, his experience is that if you are renting to students it would end up costing far more in the headaches in the wear and tear on the place than would be practical.

 

Mr. Straub stated that his family has been in the rental business for a few years and have a considerable amount of experience in rental.  Mr. Straub stated that his family keeps their properties rented all the time.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that something that is not clear is typically there are not usually landowners who already owns the land free and clear.  The applicants have no land cost.

 

Dr. Straub stated that as with any development there are no guarantees. 

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that the Commission sees the ones that fail or do not go as planned.

 

Dr. Straub stated that the difference is that because the applicants are starting with already owning the land the costs are down more.  The fact that the applicants live in the area and this development is not the applicant’s lively hood and won't have to turn it over as quickly as possible.  Another thing is that the applicants have been in the community for a long time and their intention is known to be solid.  If there is a major recession would the applicants consider something different?  The whole ball game changes there but there probably won’t be students looking to live in a place like that.

 

Commissioner Mink stated that if you start out with rentals it seems like the appreciation of these places would not be as good as if it were just homeownership type of arrangement.  Commissioner Mink stated that he has doubts as to how marketable those homes would be in the midst of a rental environment; therefore it may always be a rental environment.  There could be four or six single people per home with a lot of extra cars. Commissioner Mink stated that he appreciates Mr. Gebhardts layout and the sensitivity to the environment but it doesn’t create a whole lot of space for all those extra cars without blocking roads where emergency vehicles can't get in and trash trucks can't get in. There is concern that this plan looks good on paper but in reality it could turn in to something the applicants aren’t anticipating.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that even if the applicant’s intentions were to sell these there is no reason the person who buys the buildings couldn’t rent them.  Regarding student housing; it is not legal to outlaw students.  One of the things that the applicants are proposing is no more than three unrelated people can live in the units.  The applicants don’t want to go down that road. 

 

Commissioner Mink stated that his question gets to car storage without blocking access to emergency vehicles. 

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there are 32 off street parking spaces. In a lot of small towns, narrow streets are common; they slow traffic down and make the streets more pedestrian friendly. With a 24 foot of pavement with a car parked on one side which takes about six foot.  It does work because when you meet a car on the road one car pulls over and lets the other one pass.  It is not a neat type of engineering for moving cars but in a neighborhood like this it doesn’t matter if the cars move efficiently; the streets are safer if they are more narrow than if they were wide.

 

Commissioner Mink stated that his question wasn’t about car movement; it was about large fire trucks.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that if you had 24-feet and you have an 18-foot fire truck the building code shows a fire lane of 18-feet on commercial property.  Everyone talks about what if the buildings caught on fire, most fire department responses are to traffic accidents.

 

Commissioner Mink stated that his other question regarded trash collection.  Will that be provided in dumpsters or will the occupants hire their own.

 

Mr. Straub stated that it would probably be someone like Superior.  When you live in the County that is the way you deal with it.

 

Commissioner Mink asked if the homes association would contract and invoice the people or would it be up to each individual property owner.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that it would be up to each individual property owner just like the electric and water.

 

Open to public hearing.

 

Present:

 

Ann Elam, 5270 E. Boone Femme Church Road, Columbia.

Ms. Elam stated that she is not against the proposal but what she is against is are the applicants going to fix the bridge down below that floods and people can’t get in and out.  And are they going to maintain the road better.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that those issues would be addressed when the applicants come forward again.

 

Ms. Elam stated that she has lived on the road since 1987.  There is a low water crossing in front of her house and she had to put in a sump pump under her house because the County wouldn’t do anything about the water.  There are floods out there.  Ms. Elam stated that she belongs to the Little Boone Femme Watershed committee.  The committee is trying to do a lot.

 

Present speaking in opposition to the request:

 

Mark Osborn, 304 Anderson Ave, Columbia.

Mr. Osborn stated that he is here on behalf of Show-Me Clean Streams.  There are a lot of things in Mr. Gebhardts presentation that looked very nice; in another location Mr. Osborn stated that he would be in favor of the request.  A lot of the concerns have been raised; particularly the losing stream situation and it needs to be pointed out that the area where it crosses Highway 63 is near a swallow hole and the underground stream goes directly to Devil’s Ice Box.  As far as the density question we are not only talking about the concentration of the contaminants whether it is by chemical oxygen demand or a particular matter but also the volume.  As was mentioned the lagoon systems in the area are probably not the best kind of treatment systems but as far as the number of people that are using each one, it tends to mitigate what the impact is. During dry periods this may be the only flow in to the upper stretches of the Bonne Femme Creek so the entire volume going in to the system could consist of effluent.  Mr. Osborn stated that he is glad the applicants have taken measures to mitigate some of the runoff and many of those concepts Mr. Osborn is in favor of but wants to remind the Commission that runoff can include a lot of things including microphebal fecal coloform and that sort of thing.  The area downstream is recreational area particularly where the stream exits from the Devil’s Ice Box system. 

 

Mr. Osborn stated that his final concern is the precedent this establishes in that area.  If this is approved someone else may want to come in and put up their own development which may or may not be as environmentally benign as this one is designed to be and it would be a lot harder for the Commission to say no and to keep in mind that this is all upstream from a State Park.

 

Jan Weaver, 412 ½ W. Walnut, Columbia.

Ms. Weaver stated that she is here representing Friends of Rock Bridge Memorial State Park. Ms. Weaver stated that she teaches environmental studies and the applicants have managed to hit almost every concern that she would have.  It would be a model development that she would like to see her students to see but location does matter.  Ms. Weaver is concerned that the applicants propose to discharge the wastewater in to a losing stream that drains in to Rock Bridge.

 

Ms. Weaver presented a map of the Rock Bridge Park.

 

Ms. Weaver pointed out the placement of the proposed development.  Ms. Weaver stated that the stream goes underground and it comes out at Rock Bridge in the Devil's Ice Box.  The park has 300,000 visits per year and most of the people who go to the park are going to see that part of the park. When you go there you can walk down some stairs in to the Devil's Ice Box and in to the cave and in to the cave stream.  Ms. Weaver stated that her kids have waded in there as well as other family members.  Ms. Weaver stated that she has done a wild cave tour in there where you are waist deep or more in the cave water and in some of the passages water is dripping down on top of you.  It is a concern that the wastewater discharge from this development would be going in to the underground water system and draining in to the cave.  Ms. Weaver stated that she understands the discharge permit from DNR allows 400 bacterial colony forming units in the discharge water. EPA’s standard for full body contact is 156 colony forming units.  While the water under normal circumstances might be diluted by rainwater that filters in to the groundwater there are times of the year when there is no rainwater and it might be going undiluted in to the cave stream. It would significantly impair the use and enjoyment of the park.

 

Boyd Terry, 5880 New Haven Road, Columbia.

Mr. Terry stated that the upper Gans Creek runs through his property.  Mr. Terry stated that he is impressed with the efforts by the developers to try and address some of the issues and it brings to mind how much we don’t know and how much concern we have to have because of that lack of knowledge about protecting the area.  It points out that we need to have a comprehensive use plan for this whole area before we can make intelligent decisions about it. If we have that comprehensive use plan then it may allow us to more comfortably make the proper development in the area.  Mr. Terry stated that there is a little of hedging.  The impervious surface density is a little higher than we would like it to be but maybe it is alright.  The applicants are hedging a little bit even though they have made great efforts to try to make things correct.  Mr. Terry stated that we should not get ourselves a little bit in to trouble until we have a comprehensive use plan for this whole watershed area.  That may make the Commission’s job easier and it would make developments more appropriate for the use of this area.

 

Closed to public hearing.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that many who spoke shared in her sentiments that it is a great development.  But some environmental questions were raised.

 

Mr. Straub stated that he shares the concerns.  Mr. Straub stated that there are 600 acres zoned R-S beside the development which could any day be developed, it is already zoned for that and it all drains in to the Bonne Femme watershed.  Mr. Straub stated that this development would not dump directly in to the stream they are dumping in to the watershed of the stream.  It gets filtered through a lot of different places before it gets to the stream, but it is in the watershed.  Mr. Straub stated that the water shed is huge.  Are we going to stop all development in the watershed or are we going to try and make sense of the developments.  It takes concerns but it still addresses the reality that Columbia is a growing community.  Boone County is one of the fastest growing communities in the country. We should develop in the right direction.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that someone mentioned that if the Commission allowed this development then it would be hard to say no to future development.  Mr. Gebhardt stated that he believes this would be a good precedent and it would be easy for him to sit on the Commission and say no because of what has been done with this development; if other developers can not meet the same standards then the Commission could say no. Mr. Straub had hit on the issue about Rock Bridge State Park.  As a person who works on plans he doesn’t want to come in and convince the Commission of something; he would rather come in and have the Commission tell him what to do and he would do it.  In this case with a comprehensive plan; Mr. Gebhardt stated that he doesn’t know what he could do that he hasn’t already done. The sewer could be pumped to the City of Columbia, other than that; this area has big a drainage area.  The proposed wastewater treatment will have an impact but as this area develops as it is currently zoned you can have onsite systems or you can have other types of systems put in.  The system that the applicants are proposing is a state of the art system. 

 

Chairperson Smith asked the applicants if they had considered voluntary annexation.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants can’t annex; they are not adjacent to the City.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the nearest sewer to this site is the one that runs through the Phillips farm up to Lenoir and it runs to a pump station.  It is maxed out and can’t handle any more flow. Applicants are concerned about the Devil's Ice Box too but what the applicants see is either you have no development or you have onsite sewer systems that will do the best job.  That is what applicants are proposing; if the property to the west were developed they would required to do the same limits. If it is developed as 2 1/5 or 5 acre lots because the cost of the sewer is too high they will put in onsite systems; that will also have an impact. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he doesn’t know what the solution is but stopping growth until a plan is developed is not a good answer.  Examples can be made of this plan and it would be a good example and a good precedent and be a guideline. 

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked who ever said that we have to move out instead of up.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that one of his concerns is the roads.  Commissioner Freiling stated that there have been some great examples but there are many more day to day examples of change of plans that occur because the market does not accept the concept. Because of the design of the streets and the parking which are designed around a limited acreage if it doesn’t work as planned it is going to be a parking and traffic mess because there is not an adequate place to park vehicles if you have more than two or three vehicles per unit.  The street plan does not allow for a change in use although the street itself will be internal.  The second thing is from the applicant’s standpoint at least stubbing the street through the balance of the road so that at sometime this could become a through road and to be only 40 units with one single way in and one single way out.  That is a public safety issue.  It is not that it is probable but with a narrow street running the woods it is possible. There is no future plan for change in use of the area or in making it more accessible.  It is impossible to stop growth and impossible to have intensive use of any kind including row crop which does not have offsite impact in watersheds. Aside from the things the applicants can not escape from it is locked in to something that doesn’t allow for it to be easily changed without causing problems.

 

Dr. Straub stated that the idea of modifying it in a way that does not physically lock it in to one concept.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that it is a new concept that hasn’t been market tested in this area except as rental properties. 

 

Dr. Straub stated that there is access out the other way almost to the other end of the property that would not be hard to make.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that this is ¼ of the A-1 acreage; conceivably it could be replicated 3 more times on the A-1 acres so there would be 160 units on 68 acres. If this development is set as a precedent wouldn’t that precipitate continuing the precedent on the rest of the 68 acres.

 

Mr. Straub stated that it has been a thought.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the Commission is not here to question the long range plans and this is on Highway 63 but there are several considerations that are public safety considerations; number one is the environment.  The applicants may argue that you can’t stop development; environmentally, nationally across the nation there are communities that have put a moratorium on development until environmental standards could be set and could be met.  This County is looking at stormwater Phase 3 EPA standards.  The Commissions duty to put a moratorium on it until those standards could be met, just for public safety and for public health. This is a wonderful development but the problem is the location is so sensitive and the Commission wouldn’t be doing their duty if they allowed a precedent to be set in this losing stream.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that he would have to second that. In the Devil's Ice Box there are certain species that exist no where else in the world. 

 

Mr. Straub asked about the other 600 acres that is already zoned R-S.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that the Commission doesn’t know yet.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that nationally, downed zoning has passed through Circuit Courts.  Things have been down-zoned because of the environmental hazards.

 

Dr. Straub stated that he would be very happy if growth stopped.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if Boone Femme Creek runs through the farm.

 

Dr. Straub stated that it runs through his property.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked Dr. Straub was visited by DNR within the past year.  Landowners south of Dr. Straub informed Commissioner Heitkamp that the fecal count in Devil's Ice Box was so high that they got a visit from someone trying to find out where this is coming from.

 

Dr. Straub stated that he knew where it was coming from. The mobile home park across highway 63 plus all the new development on 63 and the commercial zoning coming along which has no concern for the environment.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the trailer park is an unfortunate situation it was one of the first land application lagoons, it was supposed to be a no discharge lagoon unfortunately it is on a manual pump and it is not getting done.

 

Dr. Straub stated that there is another much larger mobile home park and auto auction.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the fecal count is coming from people so it is coming from somewhere.

 

Mr. Straub stated that the trailer park across the road has hundreds of trailers.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that the problem is not the plan necessarily, but there is some concern there too. On 68 acres where the applicants could have evolved in that through street access why not?

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the Straub’s owns the property.  Applicants could easily modify the plan and show a future connection to the future development.

 

Commissioner Freiling asked why not move it to where a through street could be put.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the low water crossing cuts through the property so there would be another bridge to build.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked why not build next to the old church.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that the highway is too close.

 

Mr. Straub stated that it is not a pleasant environment.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that another issue on the parking issue; if you are not satisfied with people parking on the streets there is a large common area.  There are 40 units and 32 extra parking spaces, that could be duplicated and have 64 parking spaces. Those concerns could be accommodated with additional parking. You have to balance that with impervious area.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that the applicants are at 22 and 15 is where you start to affect the stream.

 

Mr. Straub stated that the applicants are in a situation and that is why they are here.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked what if the density was half.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that would affect the economics.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that it seems that the applicants could put 6 houses on the 68 acres and make as much money as doing the development.

 

Mr. Straub stated that it is not the type of development the applicants want to see.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that part of it would be timing.  With the EPA stormwater regulations still coming and until we know and get a little better information the timing is going to have a play in this and there are assumptions being made that are not as concrete as the Commission would like them to be.  It is a great plan but most concerns are timing and location.  Until we can come up with something a little better.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that if the applicants asked the Commission to table this request and took care of some of the concerns and to give the Commission of a basic understanding as far as the water quality measures; if there is anything the applicants can do, they will do it.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that the Commission appreciates that.

 

Mr. Gebhardt asked if in time we are talking years or months.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that EPA Phase 2 has a definite date.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated it is March 2003.

 

Mr. Shawver stated that March 2003 is the deadline for the application process.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that this property has been in trust and the fifth generation is hanging around and this is not the applicants lively hood so essentially the applicants are saying that time is not of the essence.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there is one thing that time is of the essence and that is that the interest rates are desirable right now and it allows the applicants to keep their costs low and to rent them for less than they would have to otherwise.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that it is mitigated by the fact that the applicants don’t have a land cost. Applicants still have some play there.

 

Commissioner Mink stated that the permit application process for Phase 2 is not going to answer any of the questions that were raised here. In that process you identify your best management practices which Mr. Gebhardt has done.  It seems that the effect of denying this is to basically impose a moratorium on hundreds of acres of land in that watershed and stop development from occurring until someone figures out a way not to discharge water from a site.  Commissioner Mink stated that he doesn’t see any answers forthcoming in any time frame that is going to be acceptable.  Commissioner Mink stated that he is concerned about the way this discussion is going as far as thinking that there is some magical answers out there.  Mr. Gebhardt has done an excellent job of bringing the state of the art to the table with the treatment plant that is being proposed.  It is probably as good as it can get.  The only other option is to say leave it as a pasture indefinitely, Commissioner Mink stated that he is not sure that is acceptable either.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that the fact that the applicants can convert these to rental units or maybe intend to is some indication that they can probably be built as designed.  Commissioner Freiling stated that he would be more comfortable if the applicants would have included the extra acreage and given a higher ratio of impervious surface because in the future the density here will almost certainly be patterned not just on this tract but throughout the area.  Maybe this concept should have been placed on a little larger portion of the acreage even if it didn’t use any more of the acreage it would allow applicants to show in a plan future expansion of parking in the event that the owners find they have inadequate parking.  With private streets there are no controls and Lake Champetra is a great example. There was a fire the fire truck jackknifed and no one could get in or out.  Commissioner Freiling stated that he would like to see a couple of these things addressed aside from the concerns expressed by the people on environmental concerns.  From a practical standpoint assuming that the Commission will not say that there is to be no development in this watershed and assuming that the applicants have done things that are at this time prudent and possible Commissioner Freiling would like to see it be larger and would like to see a different opportunity on how the roads would connect in the future.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didn’t have a problem with that.  That can be done in two ways, the applicants could table it tonight and the applicants can come back next month with a different plan.  The applicants would still have the 40 units and the same impervious area. If it is possible this is a review plan and if there was a condition on the review plan that the acreage be increased to say 2 units per acre could the applicants go that by condition.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that the problem that is run in to is that this is also a rezoning request and as a rezoning request it has a very defined legal description on the 16.55 acres. The problem is that they can't through the normal amendment and condition process alter the basic request which is 16.55 acres.

 

Mr. Straub asked if the applicants could withdraw the request and resubmit it with more acreage.

 

Mr. Shawver stated that it is more of a public notice problem than anything else.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that if the applicants do withdraw it; it can be without prejudice if no decision has been made and the applicants feel that it effectively similar to a tabling where the applicants could then refile a new application for next month.  The problem the applicants would have if they simply alter the acreage slightly there is a question as to whether the one year stipulation if an action is taken would come in to effect.  But if it is withdrawn without prejudice then it would be almost effectively the same as tabling. Applicants may want to make sure with the Commission that they are comfortable with it before.


Commissioner Freiling stated that he would like more time to think about this request.

 

Mr. Straub stated that the issue of the roads is something that the applicants have been fighting from the very beginning because of the stormwater issue.  To make the roads they way the Commission wants them up to County standards will increase impervious areas a huge amount which defeats the stormwater runoff, therefore lies the dilemma that the Commission will have to address one of these days.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked if the applicants thought about applying for a variance or is a variance available under those conditions.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that staff would want to see even the private roads in this since it is a planned development as hard surface.  Certain portions of a development are going to have to be hard surface; the question is making the choices on which portion you are going to use as a hard surface. It doesn’t buy you that much and it gives a lot of other problems associated with it.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked about the new technology that uses the plastic web.

 

Mr. Yonke asked if it was a semi-permeable hard surface.

 

Mr. Straub stated it was a plastic grid that allows you to put pervious material to it and it holds it together.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that generally speaking most of the semi-permeable or permeable road surfaces are only suitable for secondary roads; basically they use them as shoulders as parking and not even primary parking but secondary parking and not as primary road accesses.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that one thing to think about is when subdivisions are done in the City of Columbia, 3 units per acre is pretty typical.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that if this is tabled it is her sense that the Commission is telling the applicants that if they come back and have changed some things then the applicants have a better chance of having it approved.  Commissioner Sloan stated that at this point she didn’t know whether she would fall in to that category and that is something for the rest of the Commission to think about.  What are the applicants going to gain by tabling?

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the alternative is for the applicants to withdraw the request without prejudice.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that if the Commissions concerns are environmental, it is not going to change unless the Commission decides that this is as good as it’s going to get at this time and yes there will be development down there so the Commission should get the best they can. If it is more than that then the Commission won’t approve it even though they change things; why put the applicants through the process.

 

Dr. Straub stated that it is a matter of precedent by changing the numbers and that sets the stage for any future development to say it must be no more than this density; that makes sense but the question is if there is going to be a total moratorium on development in any of this area or not.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated not a moratorium on development but is the Commission going to agree to participate voluntarily in the increased development in the area. From the Commissions standpoint that is the issue.  When you take R-S zoning if they come in and show a plan that meets all the development requirements you have no choice.  This is an issue over which the Commission has a choice.

 

Dr. Straub stated that until there was new technology or new knowledge of something there isn’t going to be any new development in the area, that will have to be the Commission’s decision.  If that is the decision that the Commission makes that would be set for any developer in the area to say that there is not point in looking for rezoning.  On the other hand if the Commission says that they want careful planning then this is the opportunity to use a model that the Commission can say that other developers have to meet these standards. This bigger decision for the Commission to make is if they are going to put a flat no on rezoning until new technology comes along or do we want to use this as the opportunity to make a very conservative, cautious, environmentally sensitive development. 

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that the Commission doesn’t know the answer to that.

 

Mr. Straub stated that he agrees with what the Commission is saying but there is one thing to think about is that it won’t be very long before this property is annexed.  If the property is annexed in to the City then it changes everything.  If the Commission does this now they can stop the City from doing some things.  Once it becomes part of the City you never know what might happen; it will be very heavy density.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp stated that she is not sure that the City wouldn’t make the applicants come up to City code. Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the City would make the applicants bring the streets up to City code.

 

Mr. Straub stated no.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the Commission has three options at this point.  One is that the applicants withdraw the application and resubmit it with changes; the other one is for the Commission to table the request, the Commission could table it for any length of time but the applicants can not make any design changes.

 

Mr. Shawver stated that the applicants could make basic changes.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the applicants could not change the number of acres. The third option would be for the Commission to act upon the application now. The Commission could decide on two of those options.

 

Dr. Straub stated that if the applicants withdraw and if in the meantime the Commission gets together and makes the decision.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that the Commission could not do that in closed session.

 

Mr. Gebhardt asked Commissioner Caruthers if the applicants would gain anything by withdrawing this request or should the applicants go ahead and have the request voted on.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that the applicants would probably gain something but he can't say exactly what that something is. What the applicants will gain is some time so the Commission can better look at this.

 

Chairperson stated that she has been thinking about these issues for four years; another month probably will not help. If someone comes forward with a development and says that they have done everything they can and the Commission tells them it is not enough, then when will it be enough.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that if the Commission went ahead and voted on this and it is denied then later, without some substantial change the applicants couldn’t bring it back for a year.

 

Mr. Shawver stated that even if the Commission denies this request, the applicants can still appeal.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he didn’t know if a year or two years is enough time for the technology to change.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that if the applicants address everything that they have heard from the Commission; it would probably be a substantial change. 

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that both Ms. Weaver and Mr. Osborn thought it was a good development and asked them what more could the applicants do to make this an acceptable development and not have it have the impact that they are worried about.  Commissioner Sloan stated that when she hears about the watershed issues is that it is not a good idea no matter what.  You are kind of at an impasse when you say either go forward and let people develop and try and do the best they can with it or do we stop it all together, particularly in that area because it is a sensitive area. Is there anything that can do more than what they are doing?

 

Ms. Weaver stated that she spoke to one issue because applicants had addressed all the other issues.  The wastewater issue is a concern.  Ms. Weaver stated that she doesn’t know how much is going to be discharged from that system.  If every other development does the sand filter system what increased impact will that have on the stream. That is something that is going to have to be addressed by a land use plan that looks at the entire area and says that this watershed can support this amount of wastewater and once we reach that are they going to connect to a City sewer system or have some centralized collection system.  Ms. Weaver stated that she is afraid that is years down the road with respect to what the applicants want to do. There are places that are already zoned for development that aren’t going to take this kind of care with it.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that those developments won't be coming before the Commission.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that it is straight R-S zoning so as long as they meet the subdivision regulations the Commission will not have any control.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that it will possibly be years before technology comes down the pipe as far as keeping the wastewater to an acceptable low impact level.  Commissioner Caruthers asked about iodized resin filters, one micron.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he doesn’t know anything about them.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that it is going to be expensive.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the applicants would put in any system that is required.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that an iodized resin one micron filter would purify raw sewage.

 

Chairperson Smith asked where there is an example of that.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that he had a few examples.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that all parties watching this issue have to consider that any intensive human impact has a water quality impact.  It may well be that a well designed site for residential use with a well designed and maintained wastewater treatment system might have less impact than the present row crop agricultural use has with herbicides and pesticides.  We are aware of the issues but don’t have the right information.

 

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there is currently an existing lagoon with 22 trailers a church with a lagoon; this is a solution to that, a step in the right direction.

 

Mr. Straub stated that two areas could benefit from this development and it could offset a lot of pollution that is already there.

 

(10 minute recess)

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that it would be difficult for him to approve this.  If the plan came back with the amount of acreage included in the project increased and the road issue addressed, the two issues with the roads; one being the lack of a secondary access and the second thing is if the maintenance on the private roads break down in the future. Commissioner Freiling stated that he would rather see the plan modified.

 

Dr. Straub asked if it were permissible to give information in supporting the issues if the applicants decided to withdraw the request.

 

Commissioner Caruthers stated that would be helpful.

 

Mr. Yonke stated that on a resubmittal the applicants can resubmit any supporting information that he wishes to submit in support of whatever resubmittal concept that they have.  It will be forwarded to the Commissioners.

 

Chairperson Smith stated that one thing that was not addressed was the question about the low water.

 

Dr. Straub stated that was up to the Public Works Department.

 

The applicants withdrew their request.

 

 

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

 

 

2.       Request by Bruce M. Bauer to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 20 acres, more or less, located at 3851 E. Biggs Rd., Ashland.

 

Commissioner Freiling stated that he is in a position of having professional conflicts so he will withdraw himself from the hearing.

 

Commissioner Freiling left the Commission Chambers.

 

Director, Stan Shawver gave the staff report stating that this property is located 1 ½ miles northwest of Ashland on Biggs Road, 1200 feet west of State Highway DD.  This property is zoned A-1 (Agriculture), and all the surrounding property is zoned A-1.  Approximately 700 feet west of the subject tract the zoning changes to A-2.  The property is currently vacant but it has been used for agricultural purposes.  This site is located within the Southern Boone R-1 School District.  Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative.  Water service is provided by Consolidated Public Water District No. 1.   The original zoning for this tract is A-1.  There have been no previous requests to rezone this property.  However, property approximately ¼ mile north east of this tract did not receive approval of a rezoning request in 1995.  That property was subsequently developed as a large lot planned development.  The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agricultural and residential land uses.  Staff notified 12 property owners concerning this request. 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 resources necessary to serve the proposed development can be broken down into 3 general categories, utilities, transportation and public safety services. 

 

Utilities:  This site is served by Boone Electric Cooperative and Consolidated Public Water District No. 1.   A central waste-water system is not available for this site.  The developer is proposing the use of individual on-site waste-water systems.

 

Transportation:  Access to the site is from Biggs Road, a gravel, county maintained road.  The developer proposes to divide the property into 6 lots, which will add an additional 54 trips per day to this unimproved road.  A preliminary design shows a road that would intersect Biggs Road. 

 

Public Safety:  The property is in the Southern Boone County Fire Protection District.  A district fire station is located inside the city of Ashland, approximately 2 miles from this site.

 

This property is not adjacent to A-2 zoning.  In the past, the staff has recommended approval of a number of A-1 to A-2 rezoning requests.  However, most of those requests have been for property directly adjacent to A-2 zoned land.  That is not the case here, but as noted above, A-2 zoning lies 700 feet to the west.  Staff has some concern that granting this rezoning request will lead to all of the properties on the south side of Biggs Road to be rezoned.  Staff recommends that this request be approved.

 

Present:  Bruce Bauer, 502 Misty Lane, Ashland.

               Bill Crockett, 2608 N. Stadium Blvd, Columbia.

 

Mr. Bauer stated that the applicants are requesting rezoning of 20 acres in to lots of 2.5-acres or more.

 

Commissioner Caruthers asked how long the proposed cul-de-sac will be.  Mr. Bauer stated approximately 800-feet.

 

Mr. Crockett stated it is about 800-feet long.  The whole tract is a little over 1200-feet deep and the road would go about 2/3 of the way back.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked staff if that was a concern.  Mr. Yonke stated that this is currently a rezoning request.  The cul-de-sac length will be addresses when the land is subdivided.

 

Open to public hearing.

 

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

 

Closed to public hearing.

 

Commissioner Sloan stated that the Commission sat here and debated the other rezoning request for two hours and debated the density of the area to be developed and now we have something exactly counter to what was just discussed.

 

Commissioner Neese asked if lagoons would be placed on all the lots.

 

Mr. Crockett stated that this has not been determined yet.  Applicants will do a cost analysis and see which is the best and which will give the best result and try to intertwine the economics of it all.  You have to consider two things; one is what will do the best job, and two, what is most economical.  It used to be all economics but that is not the case anymore.

 

Commissioner Sloan asked if this location was in a sensitive watershed area.

 

Commissioner Neese stated that he didn’t believe that it was.

 

Chairperson Smith asked which watershed this property is in.  Mr. Crockett stated that he believed the property is in two different watersheds, one goes to the east and one to the west. It is in the very high reaches of either one. Mr. Crockett stated that the one to the west he knows is not sensitive and doesn’t believe the other one is.

 

Commissioner Heitkamp asked if the 20-acres is just a piece of Mr. Bauer’s land or if the 20-acres is the entire tract.  Mr. Bauer asked if Commissioner Heitkamp was looking at the 6 tracts. Mr. Bauer stated that this is the 20-acres with the 6 tracts on it.

 

Chairperson Smith asked if Mr. Bauer owned the adjoining property.

 

Mr. Bauer stated no, he just owns the 20-acres.

 

Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Bauer how long he has owned the land.

 

Mr. Bauer stated a couple of months.

 

Chairperson Smith asked the applicant if he bought the property with the express purpose of developing it.  Mr. Bauer stated yes. Mr. Bauer stated that the 20-acre tract immediately to the west is for sale and Mr. Bauer has heard that there is a chance for a similar rezoning request for that acreage as well.  That would be the only piece of property that divided it from the other A-2 zoning in the area.

 

 

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Neese seconded a motion to approve the request by Bruce M. Bauer to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 20 acres, more or less, located at 3851 E. Biggs Rd., Ashland.

 

                       

                        Pat Smith – Yes                                    Keith Neese – Yes       

                        Mary Sloan – Yes                     David Mink – Yes

                        Kristen Heitkamp - No              Mike Caruthers - Yes

                        Carl Freiling – Not present for vote

 

Motion to approve request carries.          5  Yes              1  No                1  Not present              

 

Chairperson Smith informed the applicants that this request will go before the County Commission on October 1, 2002.

 

 

Commissioner Freiling returned to the Commission Chambers.

 

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

 

PLAT REVIEWS

 

 

1.       Yates Acres.  S3-T49N-R12W.  A-2.  Charles and Cynthia Yates, owners.  J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

 

The staff report was entered in to the record. The report states that this property is located on the south side of Spiva Crossing Road, approximately one-half mile east of N. Brown Station Road.  The subdividers own two adjacent tracts, one is 10 acres, and the other is 6 acres.  The intent of the subdivision is to create a 2.5-acre lot.  An administrative survey is in process to create a 13.73-acre tract out of the remaining property.

 

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

 

Water District Number 4 provides water service in this area.

 

There is an existing lagoon on the lot, which meets the current setback requirements.  The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

 

The property scored 30 points on the rating system.

 

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

 

 

      Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations the plat of Yates Acres.  S3-T49N-R12W.  A-2.  Charles and Cynthia Yates, owners.  J. Daniel Brush, surveyor.

 

                        Pat Smith – Yes                                    Keith Neese – Yes       

                        Mike Caruthers – Yes               David Mink – Yes

                        Mary Sloan – Yes                     Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

                        Carl Freiling - Yes                    

                       

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carries.         7  Yes                         

 

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

 

 

 

2.       Forest Park Plat 3.  S33-T50N-R12W.  A-2.  Jeffrey and Laura Baker, owners.  James V. Patchett, surveyor.

 

The staff report was entered in to the record.  The report states that this 3 lot phase of a major plat is located to the immediate north of Forest Park Plat 1 and immediately west of Forest Park Plat 2. The site is at the end of Forest Meadow Way. The site is approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Forest Park Way and Forest Meadow Way. The site is approximately 3 miles north of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia and approximately 3&1/2 miles southwest of the municipal limits of Hallsville. The area being subdivided contains 28.54-acres out of a 148.54-acre parent parcel. Forest Park Plats 1 & 2 were created out of the same parent parcel which after this proposed plat will leave approximately 120-acres. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture). All the surrounding property is zoned A-2 and these are all original 1973 zonings. The property is currently vacant. The site is in Water District #4. Fire hydrants are required since this is a phase of a major plat regardless of number of lots. The site is in the Boone County Fire Protection District and Hallsville School District. The site is in the Boone Electric Service area. Sewage treatment will most likely be from on-site sewage systems that will have to meet Health department regulations. A cost benefit analysis for on-site vs. central wastewater systems has been provided and shows that on-site systems are still more reasonable from the cost point of view. However, as all the previous plats from the same parent parcel must be included in a cost analysis any further platting will at some point trigger a central sewer system for the property including all previous plats. An on-site wastewater system plan has been submitted and is included in the file. A traffic analysis waiver has been requested. Staff concurs with the granting of this waiver. This plat has 34 points on the point rating scale.

 

Staff recommends approval along with the granting of the waiver request subject to the following 3 conditions:

  1. That it is recognized that fire hydrants are required for this plat and will have to be installed prior to recording.
  2. That it is recognized that further platting of the parent parcel will eventually trigger the requirement of a central sewer and that all previous developments will have to be included in the determination of when the system will be required.
  3. The blanks for the most current ownership deed will need to be filled in prior to County Commission approval, to make the dedication statement valid.

 

      Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations the plat of Forest Park Plat 3.  S33-T50N-R12W.  A-2.  Jeffrey and Laura Baker, owners.  James V. Patchett, surveyor.

 

                        Pat Smith – Yes                                    Keith Neese – Yes       

                        Mike Caruthers – Yes               David Mink – Yes

                        Mary Sloan – Yes                     Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

                        Carl Freiling - Yes

                       

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carries.         7  Yes                         

 

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

 

3.       Tomlin Hill Lakes.  S18-T47N-R12.  A-2.  John A. Gonnerman Trust, owner.  Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

 

The staff report was entered in to the record.  The report states that this 3 lot minor plat is located at the immediate northwest corner of the intersection of Bluebird Lane and Tomlin Hill Road. The site is approximately 3 miles south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The area being subdivided contains 16.41-acres out of a 37.2-acre parent parcel. The remainder of the parent parcel is indicated as 20.82-acres which is large enough to not need to go through a process under the subdivision regulations. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture). All the surrounding property is zoned A-2 and these are all original 1973 zonings. The property is currently vacant. 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. The site is in the Boone Electric Service area. Sewage treatment will be from on-site sewage systems that will have to meet Health department regulations. An on-site wastewater system plan has been submitted and is included in the file. A waiver for cost benefit analysis for on-site vs. central wastewater systems has been requested. A traffic analysis waiver has also been requested. Staff concurs with the granting of these waivers.  This plat has 38 points on the point rating scale.

 

Staff recommends approval along with the granting of the waiver requests.

 

 

      Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve with staff recommendations the plat of Tomlin Hill Lakes.  S18-T47N-R12.  A-2.  John A. Gonnerman Trust, owner.  Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

 

                        Pat Smith – Yes                                    Keith Neese – Yes       

                        Mike Caruthers – Yes               David Mink – Yes

                        Mary Sloan – Yes                     Kristen Heitkamp - Yes

                        Carl Freiling - Yes

                       

Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations carries.         7  Yes                         

 

 

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

 

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Mr. Shawver informed the Commission of the decisions of the County Commission.

 

Mr. Shawver stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of an agri business on Nursery road.  The County Commission upheld the recommendation with the conditions that were recommended. Mr. Regan has had several meetings with the building inspection department to discuss construction plans and requirements for his building. 

 

Mr. Shawver stated that there were two requests for Nick Peckham last month.  Mr. Peckham withdrew one request for 10-acres to RD the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the 5-acre rezoning. This was not appealed to the County Commission. Mr. Peckham has submitted an application to the City of Columbia for annexation since it was directly adjacent to the Cascades development. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Mr. Yonke stated that he is hoping to have information for the planned recreational district ready for the Commissioners by the next meeting. 

 

ADJOURN

 

Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.      

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Mary Sloan,

Secretary

 

Minutes approved on this 19th day of September, 2002.