Thursday, December 18, 1997

Chairperson Kirkpatrick, called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m., with a quorum present. Roll Call was taken by Secretary Sloan.

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Joe Falco, Vice-Chairperson Perche Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Darin Fugit Columbia Township

Ron Marley Cedar Township

Bill Grace Centralia Township

Frank Abart Public Works Director

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Noel Boyt, Staff


Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Sloan seconded a motion to approve the minutes of November 20, 1997, meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read procedural statement.


Request by William and Shelly Dometrorch on behalf of Nextel Communications

for a Transmission Facility with a 300’ tower on 9.73 acres located at

12121 Old Rocheport Rd., Rocheport.

Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this property is located 2 miles east of Rocheport and 7 1/2 miles west of Columbia on Old Rocheport Road. The site is zoned A-2 (Agriculture) as is all of the surrounding property. This 9.73 acre tract is part of a larger 40 acre tract of land. This application is to place a transmission facility on the property that will include a 300’ tower. The tower and site is designed to accommodate multiple users. The proposed use should not have any impact on utilities or other services. The A-2 zoning is the original zoning for this site. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this site. The Department does not have any record of zoning violations on this tract of land. The comprehensive plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed use is a conditional use in the agricultural districts and so is consistent with the Master Plan. Staff notified 14 property owners concerning this request.

Brent Dometrorch, 12121 Old Rocheport Rd. owner of site in question came forward. He said he had given it a lot of thought. He purchased the land from his family and continues to use it for agriculture purposes. The tower would supplement the farming since it is not the most profitable. He said from his perspective he would much rather have a tower rather than a subdivision around him.

Tom Cummings, Nextel Communications, One City Place Drive, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO addressed the Commissioners. He showed a drawing highlighting the area of the tower site.

James Price, RF engineer with Nextel Communications, One City Place Drive, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO addressed the Commissioners. He is a radio frequency engineer. He is to design and optimize Nextel sites.

Mr. Cummings said that in talking with staff he thought the Commission was familiar with the general nature of wireless communication systems since there had been several previous applications before them. He had prepared testimony of the structure and how tower sites interact but would omit it in the interest of time if the Commission approves. Chairperson Kirkpatrick looked toward the commissioners for any objection, none was indicated and said he did not think it would be a problem to omit.

Mr. Cummings asked questions of Mr. Price. He asked if the site was designed to have a minimal visual impact on area? Mr. Price said yes, it was in the middle of fields and away from main roadways to be less visible. Mr. Cummings asked if towers in the area were looked at and what were the findings? Mr. Price said Nextel looked at three existing towers in the area. One tower to the west of proposed site owned by Capital Cable with a tower height of 150’. Their propagation model showed it would not suit their needs for coverage area. A second tower owned by US Cellular with a tower height of @ 185’ was 4.6 miles east of proposed site and again the propagation model showed it would leave coverage gaps. A third tower is owned by Zimmer Radio Group with a tower height of @ 285’ and is 6.4 miles NE of the proposed site and use of this tower would also leave coverage gaps.

Mr. Cummings asked if that all meant the option left was to build a new tower? Mr. Price agreed. He asked if several sites were investigated in the area? Mr. Price agreed. Mr. Cummings asked why this site was chosen. Did it allow compliance of the zoning ordinance setback requirements? Mr. Price agreed. Mr. Cummings asked what determined the height of the tower, was it the computer model that determined the height required to interconnect with the neighboring sites? Mr. Price again agreed.

Mr. Price introduced exhibits into the records.

Exhibit 1-coverage of proposed site.

Exhibit 2-combined coverage between sites. (proposed site and neighboring sites)

Exhibit 3-coverage if site not approved. (two neighboring sites)

(note- only one copy of each of these exhibits was presented to the commission- none were provided to the staff or provided for the record)

Mr. Cummings asked what aspects went into the computer models to determine the height and placement of a tower. Was the tree line, topography and line-of-sight an issue? Mr. Price said those were all factors entered into the computer. Mr. Cummings asked if this was the minimum height necessary for the desired signal coverage? Mr. Price said yes it is. Mr. Cummings asked what would be the result if the height was lowered? Mr. Price said there would be gaps in the coverage area, degrading the quality of service they try to offer. Mr. Cummings asked what would be the hardship to Nextel Communications if this site was not approved as it is designed? Mr. Price said there would be sunken costs, coverage holes as shown in exhibit 3 and loss of revenue in the customer base.

Mr. Cummings had one additional drawing to show to the Commission that showed the existing road and where it would be cut back along the fence line to the easement. He stated that it shows it is away from the main road as far as possible. The site was designed to be as remote and inconspicuous as possible. He asked that the Commission recommends to the County Commission to approve their request.

Commissioner Falco asked if their objective was to go straight across the state on I-70? Mr. Price said they were trying to cover the I-70 corridor from the city of St. Louis to Kansas City.

Mr. Cummings stated that would have been part of his presentation that he omitted. He said the way that the systems are built out are along market areas. St. Louis, Kansas City and the high population areas within those cities are their first target. From that, they branch out for usage along highways and other main corridors of transportation. At this point in time Nextel does not have continuous service from St. Louis to Kansas City. This is their first step to offer continuous service between those two cities. Nextel will next expand to the Lake of the Ozarks, building in the next year.

Open to the public. No one spoke in favor of the request.

Bill Rotts, attorney spoke for Dennis Long a neighbor who was also present. Mr. Rotts, 21560 Slate Creek Road, Hartsburg and Mr. Long 2400 N. Shady Hills Lane, Rocheport were present. Mr. Rotts said that Mr. Long’s property adjoins the proposed site. He built a new home at lake side and this would be a prominent visual presence out his front window just 600 yards away. It will traumatically effect the value of his property. He said Mr. Long was convinced his setting would be destroyed by the antenna. If the antenna would have been in place prior to construction, he said Mr. Long would not have built the home at that location. Mr. Long is owner of Long Construction Company, quite versed in property values and believes this would diminish his property value by as much as 20%. Mr. Rotts wanted to remind the commission that this is just one more antenna sprouting up in this community like some ugly dandelion. These antennas are taking over our community. It is not fair to the residents to have these visual pollutants on an ongoing daily basis. Mr. Rotts said there should be some consideration of a massive antenna to be constructed to be on one site and forcing all these cellular phone companies to be on one site and one place to minimize this. Can Nextel not join one of the other towers and why is this one a public necessity? The Tiger Hotel in downtown Columbia has different vendors joined at one location. He said he did not think there had been any demonstration in their presentation that there is a public necessity which is a requirement being mandatory for approval. He thought the public necessity was that they should join on antennas already in place.

Mr. Rotts reminded the Commission that one of the preeminent factors was how this request would impact property values of the areas for which it is intended. This area is one of the finest parts of Boone County. Rocheport has been a jewel in the bonnet of this area. It is in the river bluffs, an area that has a tremendous appeal. The tower site is a high spot or they would not have picked it. He asked that the request be denied and perhaps suggest they join on an existing tower already in place or at least prove it is impossible to be placed anywhere else.

Mr. Long spoke up and said when he bought the property he looked at all the towers in the area. He never expected a tower to be placed 600 yards from his house. His home appraised at $300,000. and if ever tried to sell he would loose money. He asked that the Commission would make use of other towers in the area.

Ed Petersheim, 7900 Hwy. 40 W, Columbia came forward. Owner of the property on the east side. He advised there were 5 towers with in 5 miles of the proposed site. One at Wehmeyer - Sugar Creek Road; 15000 Hwy. BB, Rocheport; 260 County Road 240, northwest of Rocheport; 4300 Hwy. 240, northwest of Rocheport; and one at Booth Lane @ Woodlandville. He was not convinced that a new tower was needed.

Mr. Petersheim read from the "Zoning Ordinance" of Boone County.

Section 15.A.2.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.

He had concerns of the health aspect. He did not think it could be proved that the towers did not cause some kind of health problems.

2.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.

He did not think neighbors wanted to look out their back door at a 300’ tower. He had 76 acres east of it. He did not think there would be any place on the 76 acres he could go without seeing the tower.

2.c. The conditional use permit will not substantially diminish or

impair property values of existing properties in the neighborhood.

He thought it limited salability, he did not think anyone would want to put up $250,000. home looking out the back at a tower. As far as a health hazard, if the public perception of the tower is that it is a hazard, then it is and would lower the property values.

2.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.

Mr. Petersheim said the property to the east of his had already been platted in 5 acre lots and other property is being developed. He thought a tower would be more appropriate in industrial or commercial zoning. He did not see where a tower would come into orderly and normal development. Property to the north is set for development with A-2 zoning.

2.g. The County Commission shall find that there is a public necessity for the conditional use permit.

He asked what was pubic necessity? Did that mean Boone County, mid-Missouri or what? He understood it would not benefit anyone in Boone County or mid-Missouri. It would be strictly for Kansas City and St. Louis. The tower is to be 300’ tall, all other towers in Boone County are 200’ or less. Why does it have to be that tall? There was other commercial property around, why not locate there? He was not for something that would be done at the expense of the people in Boone County. If it was for the immediate area and we would benefit from it, OK. He had been contacted to locate the tower on his property, but it did not take him 2 minutes to turn it down. He was considerate of the neighborhood.

Jeff Crane, 1855 S Rangeline Road, came forward on behalf of Dennis Long. Mr. Crane has been a builder for 30 years and in real-estate for two years. In his opinion, it would lower the property value. The tower that was approved for the location at Rte Z and Rangeline Road (180’ tall) has walked on little people. He said they came in, agreed on a price for the lease, built the tower but that the lease has not been paid. The tower is up and in use and the property owner still has yet to receive payment.

Mary Lee Coats, 307 E Ash, Columbia approached the Commission. Her parents had owned the land adjacent to this property. She now owns 110 acres. She said Mr. Cummings said there were gaps and there will still be gaps. How many more meeting saying there are more gaps for more and more towers?

She asked why did this tower have to go up in the middle of the field and not closer to the road? Every few days she has read a new telecommunication system has a new tower, does the county have a plan for how much more land should be left undeveloped? She was opposed to any lights. She likes it completely dark.

Applicants returned. Mr. Cummings did not know there was this much opposition. He said maybe he should have gone through his full presentation anyway addressing many of the questions. Mr. Long and his attorney mentioned co-location. This tower will be designed to accommodate as many carriers as is technically possible. They have already been in contact with Sprint PCS in St. Louis and if approved they would co-locate, eliminating one potential tower already. They were abiding by the Zoning Ordinances even though the tower would be in the proximity of his house (600’). His attorney said 10 years ago we were not faced with these problems, he was absolutely right. Not until 1996 did Congress pass the 1996 Telecommunication Act. The Federal government smade it a nation-wide mandate to approve this type of wireless communication.

Comments about the tower being so tall at 300’. That height will allow them to accommodate more carriers.

He thought that was behind the spirit in the Zoning Ordinance of Boone County.

The issue of the strobe light was mentioned. He said the regulations gave them the option to either paint (red and white) or install a strobe light. Mr. Cummings said they (Commission) had his word it would not have a strobe light. It would have a red light at night, per FAA regulations but no unnecessary lighting to be installed.

The issue of lower property values is speculative at this point. The county has seen and must recognize the Federal Mandate to implement the wireless communication systems.

Mr. Petersheim wanted them to locate on an existing tower. Evidence presented and included in the application show where it is not technically possible to serve their customers "in this area" without this tower.

Comments were made that Nextel is a big company from out of town to serve people from St. Louis and Kansas. If he gave that impression he wanted to retract it. That is not their goal.

Issues regarding health, in section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act specifically state that regulation of placement of towers shall not be based on health effects of radio frequency emissions. He had a copy if it needed to be introduced into the record. Comment was made that the tower may impair development. This tower would offer a service not previously available to them.

The design of the systems is based on the search ring (geographic area within where they need to find a site to place tower). The search ring is fairly set based on the characteristics of the area, topographical conditions, tree line conditions, line-of-sight, etc., they do not have the ability to move the site where they want to.

Ms. Coats comments asking why in the middle of a field? They can not place it nearer to the front of the property because it would not comply with the Zoning Ordinance of Boone County. Regarding her comments of the lighting, they will have the minimum amount of lighting. Their suggestions to Director Shawver of a daytime strobe he said was "officially withdrawn". Mr. Cummings asked if there were any other questions.

Brent Dometrorch re-addressed the commission. He said he agreed more with Ms. Coats than any of the rest. He also wanted the land to remain vacant. He would prefer a tower over his farm as opposed to being covered up by housing.

Closed to public hearing.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked how many antennas could co-locate on the tower. Mr. Cummings thought at least 3 but it would hold what was required by the regulations. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if Joint Communications was going to locate a tower in the vicinity, had he had any communication with them? Mr. Cummings said no, but they may not have been aware of the request.

Commissioner Grace asked where their next closest tower was? Mr. Price said it was actually in Columbia, about 9 miles east of the proposed site. Commissioner Sloan asked how tall was that tower. Mr. Price advised 180’.

Commissioner Grace asked what the federal mandates say to do.? Director Shawver said the Telecommunications Act of 1996 facilitates the placement of telecommunications equipment around country. It does not mandate placement of a particular service, otherwise, there would be no reason to be present tonight for this request. It does place restrictions on what can be considered in denying an application. For example, the Commission can not consider health hazards of RF radiation as a valid reason to deny request. It does, however, allow county or local jurisdictions to place reasonable restrictions on setting and location. Our regulations are in compliance with the Federal regulations. You are not mandated to approve any particular location. Our standard test for CUP’s are still valid for consideration with exception of public health and safety with respect to RF radiation.

Mr. Cummings wanted to agree with Director Shawver, the mandates he was referring to were not to specific site location as he had suggested.

Commissioner Abart asked about their nature of service. Since there was a tower in the area, was the nature of their service that much different than the cellular service? Mr. Cummings stated that each carrier design is different. They operate in a similar band as cellular in terms as frequency range. The nature of service is dramatically different. They offer a 2 way radio function, pager function, short message service and the cellular service as well.

Commissioner Abart asked if they could not co-locate? Mr. Cummings stated that their computer model predicts the coverage they will generate from any given site. They have studied other sites. A site 6.4 - 6.9 miles away as suggested by Director Shawver had been added to their list. The existing towers in the area are either outside of our search ring and will not satisfy the technical needs of their systems or are too low to do so.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked where their nearest facility to the west was located? Would it be in Boonville? Mr. Cummings said they are not operating at present to the west, but it will be located in Boonville.

Commissioner Marley asked if they already had a lease on the property. Mr. Cummings said further plans were predicated on their systems as designed. Commissioner Marley asked if there was any other alternative? Mr. Cummings said the only alternative was to build on a neighbor next door or a small distance away. Their options are limited.

Commissioner Morgan asked for the company’s future plan. Mr. Cummings said they plan to build along the I-70 corridor. The distance between sites depends on previous topography, tree lines, etc. (approximately 6-9 miles apart). Commissioner Morgan asked how far apart will their towers continue to be? Mr. Cummings said that in higher population area towers are a lot closer. Downtown St. Louis as close as 2-3 miles apart.

Commissioner Falco asked for staff to clarify requirements on the lighting. Director Shawver stated that any tower that exceeds 200’ in height must comply with FAA lighting requirements. They require anything 200’ tall to be lighted. Our regulations further state that towers more than 200’ can only be lighted by a red night beacon

and that they be painted red and white for daytime visibility unless specifically called to do otherwise by the FAA. What was proposed was a white strobe, then the applicant suggested they would consider a white strobe during the day and convert to a red strobe at night. Mr. Cummings agreed tonight that they would comply with our regulations and provide the red beacon at night.

Commissioner Falco asked staff if there was anything questionable about the application? Director Shawver stated that on the face of the application, it complies with the requirements for consideration of a transmission facility by the Commission. We have threshold considerations, they have to meet these tests and provide this information for the request even to be considered. And they have provided that information.

Commissioner Sloan read from the Telecommunication Act of 1996 - Section 704


(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the

provision of personal wireless services.

(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act

on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal

wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the

request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking

into account the nature and scope of such request.

(iii) Any decision by a state or local government or instrumentality

thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless

service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence

contained in a written record.

Commissioner Sloan said that her understanding was that it could not be a personal dislike of this facility because of it being an eyesore, or a general dislike one might have of towers. Director Shawver agreed, a Commissioner can not deny request because they do not like towers in general. That would not be valid. The Telecommunications Act, however, does not gut our regulations. The test for consideration of approval of a Conditional Use Permit still applies. We still have that authority. The "prohibition" we have, is that a decision has to be based on a written record. Courts have interpreted this to mean that not be based on minutes of a meeting. It has to be written testimony. P & Z will be making a recommendation to the County Commission and County Commission will be conducting another public hearing. Based on what comes out of that, if it is a denial, it will have to be based on written record. Meaning that the ones opposed or the ones in support will have to submit their arguments in writing to the record. Then it would be available for review by court if need be. Your hands are not tied, you do not have to approve this tower. You can not deny it because it is Nextel and not Ameritech or U.S. Cellular. You can not make a decision because of the unknown quantities of magnetic radiation. You can not make a decision it is bad for the environment. Those arguments have been negated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Commissioner Marley asked if it could be based on other alternatives? Commissioner Marley asked which lease came first, this one or Booneville’s. Mr. Cummings said the company took the market area which this one is in, a highway corridor, then distributes the search range or search area. Then contractors go to the property owners and knock on doors (or calls) and propose a lease to them. Of those responses they have their possible candidates. Then the Engineering Department says of these 3 candidates, based on zoning, environmental impact, and other factors they choose this site as a primary candidate. When they say, "they do not have a site on air in Boonville," they have identified a candidate and are proceeding forward. It is not a domino effect. A combination of search rings that tie together the two major metropolitan areas in Missouri.

Mr. Cummings said he felt there were some unresolved issues and offered to have a meeting will all interested parties before December 30 to discus any open issues. Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if that meant he would be willing to table Planning and Zoning Commission to table this until the February, 1998 meeting. Mr. Cummings said he was just offering the meeting to interested individual and not the Board.

Commissioner Falco said the last six months the Commission had seen 3-4 tower requests. This one was out there by itself. He thought with the height there would be a possibility of co-location.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick said he thought Boone County Joint Communication is intending to establish a transmitter in that same neighborhood. Boone County Joint Communication has no requirement to come before Planning & Zoning Commission for a CUP. They could build whatever they want, however they want as long as they get permission from the land owner, he thought there would be a tower there before long. This would be an opportunity to provide site for mutual use if approved.

Commissioner Abart asked about the tower to the east of the proposed site and the status, did the County Commission approve it? Chairperson Kirkpatrick advised that tower request was to go from 190’ to 240’ but was to obtain easements from the neighbors. County Commission approved with their same conditions.

Commissioner Sloan asked if there was room for other users? Mr. Cummings said yes, at least for two other ones depending on their technical needs. Commissioner Sloan said other cellular companies will be coming into business, it bothered her that they may want to construct a tower because the existing sites do no fit their needs. She said she did not know where it will end.

Mr. Cummings stated the FCC has jurisdiction over licensing of wireless communications. FCC only sells a certain number of licenses per market area. The reason on the growth of wireless communications in the last year, year and a half, is because at the time of the 1996 Telecom Act the PCS (Personal Communications Service) licenses were being sold in the 1.9 - 2. gigahertz range. To increase competitions in wireless communications the FCC there were special mobile radio frequencies that are in the process.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Fugit made motion to approve request by William and Shelly Dometrorch on behalf of Nextel Communications for a Transmission Facility with a 300’ tower on 9.73 acres located at 12121 Old Rocheport Rd., Rocheport with stipulation that applicant will meet lighting and painting regulations.

Joe Falco yes Darin Fugit yes

Bill Grace yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Ron Marley no Mike Morgan yes

Mary Sloan no Frank Abart yes

Motion to approve was passed. 5 yes 2 no



Request by Brenton Anderton to rezone from A-R (Agriculture Residential) to CG-P (Planned Commercial) 4.46 acres, more or less, located at 20950 N Old Highway 63 North, Sturgeon.

Thad Yonke gave staff report this property is located 3 miles southwest of Sturgeon. The property is bounded by Highway 63 on the east side and Old Highway 63 on the west. This property is zoned A-R (Agriculture Residential), as is all of the property to the north and south. Property to the east and west is zoned A-2 (Agriculture). There is a modular home and a detached garage on the property. This site is served by Public Water District No. 10, and is part of the Sturgeon School District. The applicant is requesting Planned Commercial, but has not submitted a review plan at this time. If this request is approved, a review plan will have to be submitted and considered at a public hearing. If the review plan is approved, a final development plan will have to be submitted for consideration. The A-R zoning is the original zoning classification for this site. In May 1996, this property was platted as part of a two lot subdivision known as Anderton Subdivision. In February 1996, the department received a series of complaints that a used car lot was operating on this property in violation of county zoning regulations. The matter had to be referred to the Prosecuting Attorney before the property came into compliance. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Master Plan. Staff notified 6 property owners concerning this request.

Brent Anderton, 20950 Old Hwy. 63 North, Sturgeon and Teri McBee, 16151 Old Hwy. 63 North, Sturgeon approached the Commission. Ms. McBee spoke on Mr. Anderton’s behalf. She stated she was a real-estate broker in Boone County for 14 yr. and in Sedalia prior to that.

Ms. McBee read the following statement. She had watched the highway change people’s lives in many ways. We are all aware that the 4 lane is expanding on Northern Boone County. This is a much needed change. The growth of northern Boone County has overwhelmed the inadequate roadways. Progress is important and in this case desperately needed to save lives. With the volume of traffic this highway carries is imperative that the 4 lane comes through. It is disturbing people’s lives and most people are adjusting very well. Mr. Anderton’s property is being condemned by the highway approximately 3/4 mile due north on Hwy. 63, at CC and Hwy. 63. Mr. Anderton is asking for 4.46 acres to be rezoned at the NW corner of the intersection of Crofton Hall Road and Hwy. 63. The zoning is now A-R and he asking of the rezoning of his property to Planned Commercial.

In her opinion, the highest and best use of the property and most of the highway frontage on Hwy. 63 will be planned commercial due to the high volume of traffic and noise level making it somewhat undesirable for residential development. She could contest to the noise level since she live on an old stretch of Hwy. 63 from Pinnacle Hills to Breedlove. There have been several locations on the outer roads that have been rezoned lately for Planned Commercial due to the sense of opinion that it is the highest and best use of the properties. With the volume of traffic Hwy. 63 carries now and will be steadily increasing, she believed that as a committee they would have to agree that planned commercial development is the best use of the property. We are in need of Planned Commercial development in Northern Boone County. She strongly suggested that the rezoning request be approved for proper growth in Boone County. She travels these roadways to and from Columbia sometimes 4 and 5 times a day and night. The lighting is very inadequate disabling the crossroads to be visible thus causing extreme situations with unfamiliar drivers. Inadequate lighting at the crossroads, improper visibility and untimely turn signals before turning has caused the death of many people. She strongly suggested that the planned commercial zoning be approved.

Ms. McBee advised she thought they had made an error in the legal or the address, one of the two. The property is located on Hwy. 63 but she believed the address was Crofton Hall. That was the correct diagram she added.

Commissioner Falco held up the diagram which was Lot l and asked if the diagram was the correct. He owned both of the lots but there was some confusion about the it and suggested tabling the request. He stated it was 409 Crofton Hall. The corner lot of Hwy. 63 and Crofton Hall. Director Shawver stated that the rezoning application stated Lot 1 of Anderton Subdivision, and the site plat submitted showed Lot 1, which was the 4.46 acres as part of the application signed by Mr. Anderton which says 4.46 acres. The Commission can act on this request to approve or deny, tabling would just be to table the request. Ms. McBee said to go ahead with the request, but added he would later submit for rezoning on the other tract 2 property. Chairperson Kirkpatrick stated it would be on the 4.46 acres, Lot 1 of Anderton Acres. and not 2.58 acres which is Lot 2

Commissioner Grace asked if the car lot was grandfathered for when the highway was taken out? Director Shawver stated that the corner that is zoned commercial is 1.5 miles north of this site at the corner of Hwy. 63 and Hwy. CC. There is commercial zoning at the SE corner and at the NW corner of this other intersection and that it is an existing commercial zoning.

Commissioner Grace asked if it would be wiped out by the new road? Director Shawver thought the SE corner would be purchased by the state and has no effect on the NW corner. Thad Yonke stated that the Master Plan still showed the intersection of Highway 63 and Highway CC as the commercial node for the area.

Opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of the request.

Otis Jones, 151 Crofton Hall Road came forward. He said he felt the rezoning would create a bad traffic hazard and lower their land values and quality of life.

Howard House, 110 Crofton Hall Rd. came forward. He was opposed to the request simply if it was a decent car lot it would lot, it would be all right, but the way he started out before and now to look at it half of them are junkers. Now it is an eyesore.

Mary Riesburg, owned the farm across the street addressed the Commission. It is farm land and she wants to keep it that way. She worked very hard to acquire that land and wants to keep it nice for the people (children) who come after.

Robert Johns, 21393 N Hwy. 63, addressed the Commission. He is at the end of the old highway which is one of the boundaries of the said property. He has two concerns, one of which being the traffic. He just closed on property on the east side of old Hwy. 63. Second was the traffic and congestion of vehicle turning around in their driveways.

Peggy Jones, 151 W Crofton Hall Road came forward. She has gone out the gravel road every day for over 20 years. Mr. Anderton has been in the neighborhood about 1 year. When he moved out there he moved a bunch of old cars in.

Dorothy Goosy, 20791 N Rice Road which is off Crofton Hall Road addressed the Commission. She said she lived on the family farm and is present not only for herself but for her husband and in-laws. The grandmother who owned the farm passed away the night before and she was opposed to the request. They have a cattle farm of 240 acres which had been in the family of 100 years.

Pat Ronkel, 301 Crofton Hall Road, came forward. She is a property owner opposed to the rezoning. They purchased the property because it was in a non-commercial area and would like it to stay that way.

Brent Anderton readdressed the Commission. Mr. Anderton said their were a lot of assumptions, all he wanted to do was put a flee market/antique shop in there. He said he felt they were totally unprepared.

Ms. McBee said retail sales was generalized so he could possibly have a car lot. He has since sold his business and decided not to put it there. If that is the main opposition, he would like to have a retail sales there and the car lot could be extracted from the request.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked what if this rezoning was approved. What ever kind of business he would intend to operate, when would the business be in operation? Mr. Anderton said Spring of 1998.

Chairman Kirkpatrick advised the applicant that Planned General Commercial requires both a review plan and a final development be submitted. A Review Plan has to be submitted first through this Commission and be approved by County Commission. Then in some following month any changes/comments would be incorporated into the Review Plan for the Final Development Plan and then approved by the two Commissions. He wanted Mr. Anderton to be aware of the necessary steps that needed to be followed.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Falco said the application is to rezone property to Planned Commercial. Director Shawver said the application stated Sales lot, retail, wholesale, used equipment, cars, trucks, same as my CC and Hwy. 63 location was used for. The Commission through the Planned Development processes can restrict uses. The Commission could say this structure is restricted to sales of antiques and antiques furniture.

Chairman Kirkpatrick said if the County Commission were to approve the recommendation it still would not be rezoned because we do not have a Review Plan and a Final Development Plan. Commissioner Sloan asked if the request was denied, what time table was involved. Director Shawver said that if this site was denied it is prohibited from coming back for a period of one year. The adjoining tract could come back for different zoning classification request next month. Or this tract could come back for single family residential or light industrial, it just can not come beack with the same request.

Commissioner Falco stated the existing lot there needs a wider turn onto black top. He did not feel this paroperty was appropriate for commercial use.

Commission Abart state he felt it eventually would be commercial and agreed with Commissioner Falco that it was not appropriate for commercial rezoning at this time.

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Fugit second motion to deny request by Brenton Anderton to rezone from A-R (Agriculture Residential) to CG-P (Planned Commercial) 4.46 acres, more or less, located at 20950 N Old Highway 63 North, Sturgeon.

Mike Morgan yes Darin Fugit yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Bill Grace yes

Ron Marley yes Frank Abart yes

Motion to deny rezoning was unanimous 8 yes




Request by Ron and Teri McBee to approve a Final Development Plan for

Northern Exposure Planned Commercial Development on 8.17 acres, more or less,

located at 15160 N Old Hwy. 63 North, Sturgeon.

Bill Florea gave staff report that this property is located at the intersection of Highway 63 and State Highway 124 West approximately 11 miles north of Columbia. The property is vacant except for an old house at the north end of the property. Property to the east across Highway 63 is zoned A-2, as is the land to the south. Property to the north is zoned R-S (Single Family Residential). This property was platted as Jett Subdivision, a two lot subdivision in 1990. In May 1997, the applicants submitted a rezoning request and review plan to rezone the Property to C-GP. The final development plan being considered is based on the review plan approved in May. Approval of the final development plan will result in the property being rezoned to C-GP as requested in May. This site is within the service area of Public Water District No. 10, and is within the Harrisburg School District. Staff notified 20 property owners concerning this request.

Teri McBee - requested that they approve the final development plan for Northern Exposure Planned Commercial Development.

Commercial Morgan asked how far away there were from the fire station. Ms. McBee said 5 miles from sturgeon, and 6 miles from Harrisburg. The closest fire hydrant would be Harrisburg.

Chairperson Kirkpatrick asked if this was part of a platted subdivision. Director Shawver said yes.

Commissioner Grace noted planned commercial says convenience store with all accessories but plan says restaurant. Director Shawver said that at the Planning and Zoning meeting in May, similar to the Phillips 66 Station on Hwy. 63, it would be convince store, similar to Casey’s where food is prepared on site.

Commissioner Morgan asked if they would sell gasoline? Ms. McBee said there would probably be gasoline, yes.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Abart second motion to approve request by Ron and Teri McBee to approve a Final Development Plan for Northern Exposure Planned Commercial Development on 8.17 acres, more or less, located at 15160 N Old Hwy. 63 North, Sturgeon.

Joe Falco yes Frank Abart yes

Mike Morgan no Darin Fugit yes

Ron Marley yes Bill Grace yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

Motion to approve passed. 7 yes 1 no


Valley Creek PRD - replat of lot 89 S3-T48N-R12W. R-M. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this two lot minor plat is a proposal to split the original parent lot, lot 89, 1st platted as a lot in Valley Creek Subdivision Plat 8, recorded in plat book 31 page 31 of the Boone County Records. Additionally, this lot is contained within the area designated on the approved final plan for Valley Creek PRD. Lot 89 is located on the north side of Trikalla Drive. This property is zoned R-M PRD (residential moderate density), the R-M underlying zoning is the original 1973 zoning. The Planned Residential Development was approved in April of 1997. The structure on this lot is designated as single family attached residence, and as such, must meet a higher building code standard than a traditional duplex, which, externally this unit resembles. This plat represents part of the final stage of the plan as initially presented for the 20 lots of Valley Creek Plat 8 as part of the PRD. Water service is provided by the City of Columbia. Central sewage treatment will be from the BCRSD. The owner has requested a waiver of the requirement for traffic analysis. Staff concurs with this request and recommends that the waiver be granted. This plat has 80 points on the point rating scale.

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

Commissioner Grace made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to approve request of Valley

Creek PRD - replat of lot 89 with staff recommendations.

Bill Grace yes Frank Abart yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Ron Marley yes

Darin Fugit yes Mike Morgan yes

Motion to approve was unanimous. 8 yes



Victoria South, revised preliminary plat. S11-T47N-R13W. R-S. Angelo Skyvalidas, owner.

Nathanael Kohl, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave staff report that this forty-five lot proposed preliminary plat is located east of Old Village Road, about 450’ north of the intersection of Old Village Road and State Route K. Unlike the original preliminary the site now has direct road frontage on State Route K. The site is approximately 1/4 mile south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The area being subdivided contains 21 acres, an additional 10 acres more or less being added to the area shown on the original preliminary plat approved May 15th 1997. This property is zoned R-S (residential-single family), this is the original 1973 zoning. Water service will be provided by Consolidated Public Water Service District #1. There is currently a 6" line along Route K and it is our understanding that the developer is working with the water district to obtain necessary easements within which the required watermain upgrade can be extended. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from a central system extension from the City of Columbia including a pump station. It is our understanding that City policy will require that this plat meet all of the City of Columbia development and subdivision standards as a condition of sewer service. We have been notified that this means that the plat will need to be formally submitted to the City to go through its review process prior to or as a binding condition for sewer service. It is important to note that changes required to meet the City standards may require changes and or work on the original submitted plat. A revised traffic analysis prepared by the developer’s engineer has been conducted and is provided in the file; it should be noted that this analysis indicates that the developer believes that the off-site improvement requirements for Old Village Road originally imposed upon the original preliminary and previous final plat requests is no longer warranted. County Public Works is not in total agreement with the traffic analysis, but does generally agree that the improvement requirements to Old Village Road can be dropped provided the primary access to this development is a state approved direct connection to Route K. If something were to happen and the direct connection to Route K was not built or approved then not only would the Old Village Road improvements need to be kept in place but would need to be yet again re-evaluated in terms of impact from the increase in total number of lots. The Highway department has indicated to public works that they do not believe they have been approached about any new connection to Route K at this point. The 47’ Temporary Turn-Around easements shown on the roads indicated as "B Street" and "C Street" need to be placed so as to guarantee direct permanent access to the lots that would otherwise have frontage on the stubs to the adjoining properties. There are a number of utility mains proposed to be located within the dedicated ROW this should be cleared with County Public Works as the general policy is to not allow utilities to be run in the ROW but merely to allow crossings. Sidewalks are required within the plat. This area is within the urban service area of Columbia. The plat has 78 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval subject to five provisions,

1) That the direct access to Route K be considered a major component to this preliminary plat and that should it not be possible to access Route K directly, it be considered a major change requiring a new revised preliminary to be submitted.

2) That access for Azoros Drive onto Route K be secured from the State Highway Department and that it be installed, inspected, and approved accordingly before the requirements for off-site improvements specified in the earlier hearings for the original preliminary plat and Victoria South Plat 1 be waived.

3) That the proposed temporary turn around easements that will cap out the stubs to adjoining properties be placed at the end of each stub such that all lots within the subdivision will have direct permanent access onto a constructed Publicly Dedicated and Publicly Maintained Roadway.

4) That County Public Works give approval on any final plat of the proposed utility placement where main lines are proposed to be within the ROW.

5) That road names for the roadways shown as "C Street" and "B Street" have real road names submitted and approved by Joint Communications.

Nathanael Kohl, 1080 State Rte Y, surveyor came forward. He said regarding the recommendations he was concerned about the timing of the installation of the intersection at Rte K. If a permit for the intersection was issued maybe that would alleviate the concern that they would not be able to get it.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read recommendation No. 2. addressing the concern Mr. Kohl brought up.

Commissioner Abart commented on item No. 2. which were un-audible. Commissioner Abart did say some agreement could be work out on the wording.

Commissioner Abart made and Commissioner Falco second motion to approve Victoria South, revised preliminary plat subject to all of staff recommendations as noted 1-5 with alterations to No. 2 which provides Public Works Department to work out any cooperative arrangement with the developers.

Frank Abart yes Joe Falco yes

Mary Sloan yes Bill Grace yes

Ron Marley yes Darin Fugit yes

Mike Morgan yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve was unanimous. 8 yes



Forest Park , Plat 2. S33-T50N-R12W. A-2. James and Donna Gregory, owners.

Ronald Lueck, surveyor.

Bill gave staff report stating that this five lot final plat is the second final plat of a 15 lot preliminary plat approved in July of 1996. The property is located approximately 4 miles south of Hallsville and one half mile west of Route B, on Mt. Zion Church Road. The preliminary plat contained 120 acres, this final plat contains 28.42 acres. The property is zoned A-2.

Access is provided to Mt. Zion Church Road by Forest Park Way and Forest Meadow Way, which will both be constructed as part of this subdivision. The proposal does include cul-de-sac’s which exceed the 1000 foot maximum length. That issue was discussed by the Commission during the review of the preliminary plat. Because of the low density of the development, the plat was approved as submitted, with the long cul-de-sac’s.

Wastewater will be disposed of using small on site systems.

Water service is provided by Water District Number 4 through a six inch line that was extended from Route B down Mt. Zion Church Road. Fire hydrants will be installed every 500 feet as required by the subdivision regulations.

The property scored 29 on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval.

Ronald Lueck, surveyor, 300 St. James Street, Columbia addressed the Commission. He said this was an extension for the next phase of Forest Park Subdivision. They started with five plus (5+) acreage lots. The first 700’ is built and accepted by the county. The road plans have been completed the road plans and returned them to county this week with the suggested changes.

Commissioner Falco made and Commissioner Abart seconded motion to approve Forest Park , Plat 2

Joe Falco yes Frank Abart yes

Mike Morgan yes Darin Fugit yes

Ron Marley yes Bill Grace yes

Mary Sloan yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

Motion to approve Forrest Park Plat 2 was unanimous. 8 yes



Director Shawver reminded Commission that plats were the items on the November meeting.

County Commission did have another vacation and replat.





Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Mary Sloan


Minutes approved on this 19th, day of February, 1998.