Thursday, November 18, 1999

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

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Darin Fugit, Vice-Chairperson Columbia Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

James Green Cedar Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

Absent: Frank Abart Public Works Director

Vacant Centralia Township

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Noel Boyt, Staff

Ora Ramsey, Staff


Commissioner Darin Fugit made and Commissioner Mary Sloan seconded a motion to approve the minutes of October 21, 1999 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairman read procedural statement.








  1. Request by James and Mary Westerfield to rezone from A-R (Agriculture Residential) to M-L (Light Industrial) of 7.14 acres, more or less, located at 17800 N Old Hwy 63 North, Sturgeon.
  2. Bill Florea gave staff report stating that the property was located approximately 14 miles north of Columbia and six (6) miles southwest of Sturgeon. The site is located on the west side of Highway 63, and access to the site is from Old highway 63 North. The property is zoned A-R (Agriculture Residential) as is the property to the north and to the west. The property to the south and east is A-2. This site is located within the Sturgeon R-5 School District and Public Water District No. 10 service area. There is an existing 3000 sq. ft. building on the site. The existing building appears to be a commercial nonconforming use. However, Boone County Zoning Regulations require that a nonconforming use have a certificate of occupancy, issued within six months of the adoption of zoning, or one issued after the fact by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. County records do not indicate that either condition has been satisfied. This request is to rezone 7.14 acres to M-L zoning. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The requested zoning is not consistent with the master plan. Staff cannot support this request for the requested zoning district. Were evidence presented to the Board of Adjustment legitimizing the commercial nonconforming use, such approval would not allow any expansion of the facility, nor would it result in any specific improvement of the property. Approval of M-L zoning would allow this site to be developed with no restrictions except the minimal zoning requirements for parking and applicable building code standards. Staff recommends that this request be denied.

    Bruce Beckett, attorney with office 901 E Broadway, Columbia addressed the Commission. He represented the applicants. Jim Westerfield is a native Boone Countian and been a real estate appraiser here for many years. He has also been involved in the construction business. He purchased this tract of ground in 1969 before County Zoning came into effect. Which I believe was adopted in December 1973. Prior to his ownership the property had been used as a storage site by the State Highway Department for gravel and other materials used by the highway department and maintenance and construction of highways. The same year Mr Westerfield purchased the property he constructed this 3,000 square foot building on the property. It is a concrete floored and concrete walled building. A little bit ahead of its time, but it was built back in 1969. The use of it and his purpose for building it was to provide a place for his father to conduct his business. His father, at that time and to this day, has been involved in a used furniture business where he buys used furniture, stores it on the property, takes it apart, reassembles it, refinishes it and sells it. That business has been there since 1969 throughout this 30-year period.

    After the zoning ordinance was enacted in 1973 that use became a nonconforming use in as much as the property was originally zoned A-R. It is Mr Westerfield’s intention to improve the building that is located on this property spending about $25,000.00 to renovate it. To refurbish the roof on it. Redo the exterior of the building and retro fit it so it will be a better place for his father to do business. He has already paid for a water meter to come into the place. It is not served with water presently. It would be his intention also, not only to improve the exterior of the building, but to install an on-site treatment plant to serve that existing building. He also has a son-in-law who is an artist, who is a sculpture. Sculpts in clay. Fires the clay and glazes it and sells his artwork. He would also like his son-in-law to be able to use this for his studio.

    Before he spends too much money upgrading this property he wants to be assured that he is of conforming use so that he can continue to upgrade it. We examined the zoning ordinance and we felt that the zoning district that most appropriately describes the kind of activities has gone on there historically is the M-L zoning district because it permits, as a permitted use, the manufacture or assembly of wood products such as furniture. Mr Westerfield Sr. does not manufacture furniture, but he does deal in it, refurbish, refinish it and sell it. We think this zoning district is what we will probably have to have to continue that use as a lawful use. I also indicated that we think his son-in-law will be able to have his studio in this building if we were rezoned to M-L. The staff report as indicated by the staff makes several adverse comments regarding this zoning request. It alludes to the fact that no certificate of occupancy for a nonconforming use has been obtained. The ordinance requires that that be obtained within six months after the property is first zoned. Well that happened back in 1973. That was some thirty years ago and it has been used that way every since. I can assure you there is no evil intent there. The piece of property we are talking about is highly visible and has been highly visible for 30 years. The business that has been conducted on there has been advertised in a highly visible fashion. For anyone travelling to the north on Hwy 63 – you may see Westerfield furniture open Fridays, Saturdays and some other days is what the sign says. That’s the piece of ground we are talking about. Any event there was no purpose of evasion there and certainly if it is required that we go to the BOA to get it in order to continue our use or nonconforming use we will do so and we will certainly be able to provide plenty of evidence that that in fact has been going for that long of time.

    The report also makes reference to the master plan designating this property for use as agriculture/residential uses. In actuality this property is suitable for neither of those uses. It is a very narrow strip of ground located between old Hwy 63 and new Hwy 63. No one would put a home in that location. It is a four-lane highway being constructed next to it. And an old run down highway to the west of it. So it is not a great location for any kind of residence. The north part of the property is tree covered. The arial photos do not reflect that but it is grown in trees. All that would have to be removed to make any kind of agricultural piece of ground. It would not be very productive for anybody to use it. There is still remnants of gravel and other materials left by the highway department. That would probably take a substantial amount of money to clean up before it could ever be used for agricultural and 7 acres farms just are not very productive anyway.

    Finally the staff report indicates that if the request is granted the property could be developed without restrictions except what they characterize is the minimal zoning requirements and building code. I submit to you that for this particular piece of property that zoning ordinance and building code and all of the other kinds of regulations that would apply to any kind of industrial use, assuming a worse case scenario that here are Mr Westerfield’s real intentions to go in there and put in a factory or something, are going to be sufficient to handle this 7 acres tract of ground. I direct you attention to the zoning regulations which standing alone and by themselves, not considering any department of natural resources regulations or building codes, has height regulations, front, rear and side yard regulations, parking regulations, dust-free surface regulations, storm water regulations, sewage disposal regulations and off street loading regulations. You combine those with the building code. You combine those with DNR regulations and every other regulation that might apply to any of industry we might be able to put in this property under M-L zoning district and I think you have all the regulation you will need. I think there is a tendency in society today to heap regulations on top of each other until you almost make it impossible to use a piece of ground. Mr Westerfield is taking some photographs of this piece of property with a panoramic camera, which we will hand around and would like you to take a look at it just you can see what surrounds this property. (Photos distributed) I have also brought an Arial photo of this area which I have outlined the subject in yellow showing Old Hwy 63 on the west and new Hwy 63 on the east. This is right on the turnoff. Where you turn off on the hwy and proceed north on old Hwy 63. That is how it is accessed. I will pass that around too. There is very little residential or other type of activity in this area. We are a great deal of distance from anything else, except there is a trailer and older home across Old Hwy 63. There is a picture of that property in the panoramic set of pictures we are sending around. There is also a mobile home on a partial that is just to the north and west. We heard nothing from the neighbors. I have talked with the staff to see if anyone has any objections to the zoning request and to my knowledge there has been absolutely no objections whatsoever. Mr Westerfield has talked to the individual who lives to the north and west of his property and that individual indicated that he had no objection to the request. I stand back and I look at this zoning request and though I hear some of the comments that the staff is making I ask myself how can we possibly hurt this area by continuing to do what we are doing. Now or even if we upgrade and put another building in there there is really not much of an impact to make on anybody around there. We think this is an appropriate zoning request. Our honest intentions are to continue the use that we have now and to allow an art studio to go in there. We realize the public is always concerned about what’s the worse thing we could do with a piece of property but even if we did that this is not a very big piece of property and we think there is adequate controls in place to take care of those kinds of issues. With that to say we respectfully request that you consider our zoning proposal favorably and make a favorable recommendation of the Council. Mr Westerfield is here on my right. He would be happy to answer any questions you may have, as would I.

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

    Denise Agre, 301 E Bill Lawrence Rd, Sturgeon addressed the Board in opposition of the request. Ms Agre presented a notarized letter from her parents. She resides on neighboring property that actually belongs to her parents. Ms Agre stated her opposition is with the way she understood when she talked with the planning and zoning commission was that they were not going to regulate this so Mr Westerfield could change his mind at any moment from an art studio and put (i.e. and asphalt plant up there or anything) and there are residents in the area. My property adjoins the property from my understanding or we would not have gotten a letter. And there is a small creek that runs there so I worry about toxic waste if they do change their mind. I am not opposed to an art studio or keeping the building as it is as a furniture place. But my understanding with this is if you let it be zoned this that they are free to do whatever they actually want to on it. There was some talk of an asphalt plant possibly coming in was rumors. And those kind of things because new Hwy 63 is being built. That is my biggest concern is that they are going to come in and in our back yard we are going to have something very undesirable and our property value is going go (motioned ‘down hill’). That is the main reason why I am opposed. I do not know if I am totally understanding this or not, because I did not get the letter and Mr Westerfield never contacted me. And of course my parents live in Minnesota so it would have been hard to contact them. That is my biggest concern. If in truth that is exactly what he is going to do and later on we are not going to have anything there that is fine, but I am just concerned.

    Chairman Kirkpatrick pointed out that the uses that would be allowed under light industrial in the zoning regulations did not include an asphalt plant.

    Closed to public hearing.

    Mr. Beckett and Westerfield returned to the table. We only have a couple of responses to the comments in opposition. First, as you indicated that the asphalt plants can not be anywhere but in M-G district. It is not even permitted as a conditional use in an M-L district. In fact, M-L district is a limited industrial district intended to be a district, which has less offensive uses than heavy industrial, which is M-G. We are not asking for that.

    Second, there is no creek on or near this piece of property. This property sits high on a ridge that has been made by the highway going through there. And there is no creek that adjoins it at all. Even if there were, I would reiterate my point that if you are near any kind of a sensitive stream in this area of the country you are going to be regulated by a substantial number of agencies outside the County Boone, including the Department of Natural Resources, the Clean Water Commission and so on and so forth. They will assure that anything like that that is in jeopardy will be protected. The owner had nothing to add.

    Closed public hearing.

    Chairman Kirkpatrick asked if they had given any consideration at all to planned light industrial. Mr Beckett said he did not think they needed planned zoning on this 7-acre tract of ground. He stated that planned zoning is appropriate where there is some adjacent property that you are concerned about protecting. He looked through every page of the Boone County zoning map and found only three examples of MLP zoning (Planned Light Industrial) zoning. One piece of ground that was found was in dead center in Prathersville just east of the intersection of Hwy 63 and Prathersville Road. It is surrounded by commercial uses and he guessed that the reason that planned light industrial was required there was to protect those commercial uses from some offensive industrial use right adjoining their businesses. There is a second large tract of MLP on Rte UU as it extends south from I-70 near where Hwy 40 intersect with I-70 west of town. That is the J Lewis Crum facility. It is 160-acre tract of ground. Very little of it has actually ever had a plan approved on it. But it is right above a flood plain that pours into Perche Creek which is a tributary of the Missouri River and an important stream from an environmental prospective and I suspect that that planned designation was put on that piece of property to protect that stream and that flood way. The third piece was a very small tract on Simon Steel south of town on Hwy 63. It is a brand new building. It is in just north of the Three Creeks area. It is also an environmentally sensitive area. We have no such concerns in the area of the 7-acre tract. We do not think planned industrial is appropriate or needed. We think there is plenty of regulation to protect the public interest there.

    Commissioner Fugit asked how come they did not present a plan if they knew exactly what they wanted. He also asked the staff when was the last time Planning and Zoning Commission gave straight M-L zoning.

    Stan Shawver confirmed the last piece that was rezoned was out at I-70 and Rangeline Road east of town approximately 2 years ago.

    Mr Westerfield said about a year ago he talked to Mr Yonke in the Planning and Building Inspection Department about this and he asked him if he had any plans to develop it and build other buildings. Mr. Westerfield did not really have any intention of doing that at all. He just wanted to improve the property as is and get water to the property, install a sewage system and primarily let his son-in-law do his thing there. He stated he does not have any type of development in mind or building other buildings or cutting it up into pieces or anything like that.

    Commissioner Fugit stated he’s concerned about the zoning on the land 50 years from now.

    Mr Beckett then commented that most industry that the Commission would be afraid of would be in a place other than this. Any industry that can cause any real significant harm would want lots of water pressure, 8" water mains, large sewers. None of that is available here. They are going to be looking at Concord office and Industrial plaza or Boone Industrial Park north of town. This property is not configured for a heavy type of industry. If you look at most of your industrial parks you have almost a perfectly piece of square ground where there is a lot of space for exterior parking and material storage. I have been working with industrial real estate developers a long time. I can tell you that is what they are looking for. This just is not an attractive place for any kind of heavy industry. It is too far away from everything. It is 14 miles north of the City limits of Columbia and 4 or 5 miles south of the Randolph County Line. The cosmetic look of this area has not changed hardly at all in 30 years. I just do not think this is a site where anybody would be interested in it.

    Commissioner Morgan inquired about the size of the wastewater treatment facility that would be constructed.

    Mr Westerfield replied the size would be according to whatever the County required. He was not sure what size would be needed for his site at this time or what would is needed for commercial use.

    Commissioner Green asked about the current wastewater treatment for the site.

    Mr Westerfield said that there was not wastewater treatment at this time. There is no water or waste facilities on the property.

    Commissioner Morgan said that there was nothing in the building at this time. It is just basically a barn with concrete floor. He stated that he did not have a problem with the zoning request.

    Chairman Kirkpatrick said he did not have a problem with the current use whether or not it actually had an occupancy permit as Mr Beckett pointed out. It does go back a long long time and predates zoning regulations. It was either overlooked at the time or just uncontested. I do have a problem with unplanned rezoning when either the category is commercial or light industrial or large residential rezoning. Like Commissioner Fugit I am concerned about what may happen however many years down the road the property may change hands and may longer be in the family that currently owns it. I have seen even planned light industrial developments go bad. It was planned but there were restriction that should have been put in place when it was approved. If you do not at least require a planned development or development plan you run that risk and certainly more. All my years on this commission that is the position I have taken and I see no reason to change it now. I am not saying that if they came back with a request for planned industrial that I would necessarily support that, but I would certainly look at it a great deal more favorable than I do when we have straight zoning.

    Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to deny the request by James and Mary Westerfield to rezone from A-R (Agriculture Residential) to M-L (Light Industrial) of 7.14 acres, more or less, located at 17800 N Old Hwy 63 North, Sturgeon.

    Mike Morgan yes Darin Fugit yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

    Jim Green no Pat Smith yes

    Motion to deny rezoning request was approved. 5 yes 1 no

    * * * * * * * *

  3. Request by James and Donna McManama to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 20.13 acres, more or less, located at 22901 N March Rd., Centralia.
  4. Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that the property was located approximately 1 mile west of Centralia at the intersection of State Highway 22 and March Rd. The property is zoned A-1 (Agriculture) as is north, west and south. Land to the east across March Rd. is zoned A-2. There is a house on the land and the open area has been used as pasture. This site is within the Centralia R-6 school district. Water is provided by Public Water District No. 10. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this property. This request is to rezone 20.13 acres to A-2 zoning. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the master plan. Staff recommends approval of this request.

    Buddy Woolfolk, Real Estate Broker at 620 N Allen, Centralia has this property listed and addressed the Commission. Mr Woolfolk stated he has a potential buyer for the house and a 5-acre tract. The potential buyer does not want the whole 20 acres. That is why he is making the request to have the property rezoned. We will divide the property into 3 tracts if the property is rezoned and will take it through the minor subdivision plat to do that. The area around this property is mostly agricultural land and we do not want to cut it up into small acreages the 2, 3, 4 acre lots like that. There are a couple of other places very near here that are A-R has one house on it and one that is rezoned to A-2 that has one house on it. The land right across the road the McManama’s also still own that and they have their own home there. We have good water pressure to supply water to additional tracts that we may try to sell at some time. It is less than a mile from Centralia city limits. I think it is just a good area for this type of development.

    Open to the public. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request.

    Closed to public hearing.

    Chairman Kirkpatrick asked staff if rezoning for sell of 5 acres was the cheapest, cleanest way of doing this.

    Thad Yonke said that as an A-1 zoning it is not possible to create a 5-acre tract and an A-2 with 2.5 acres being minimum size, you could create a 5-acre tract.

    Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that this does not appear to be something that you automatically label a spot zoning. There are other A-2 adjacent and even some A-R. Unless somebody can convince me otherwise I do not see a problem.

    Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Smith seconded motion to approve request by James and Donna McManama to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 20.13 acres, more or less, located at 22901 N March Rd., Centralia.

    Jim Green yes Pat Smith yes

    Mike Morgan no Mary Sloan yes

    Darin Fugit yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

    Motion to approve rezoning request was approved. 5 yes 1 no

    * * * * * * * *

  5. Request by R and L Properties & Development, Inc. to rezone from R-M (Moderate Density Residential) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of .695 acres, more or less, located at 5445 S Ponderosa St., Columbia.

Thad Yonke gave staff report that the site is located ½ mile south of the Columbia city limits. The property is zoned R-M (Moderate Density Residential), property to the east and south is C-G (General Commercial), and to the west is R-M. The property is vacant and lies within the Columbia school district. Water is provided by Consolidated Public Water District No. 1. There have been no previous requests submitted for this site. This request is to rezone .695 acres to C-GP zoning. If this request is approved, both a review plan and final development plan will have to be prepared before any change in zoning will occur. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for industrial land uses. The requested zoning district is consistent with the master plan. Staff recommends that this request be approved.

John R Satterlee, R and L Properties, 4051 Forum Blvd, Columbia came forward. He recently requested the rezoning of this particular small piece of property for a couple of reasons. There are a couple of very difficult configure more building on the property because of the range line that runs through the property. Initially he tried to trade some CG property for some RM property to straighten out the lines. But after reviewing the options he thought it would be better to request a rezoning. He would like to be able to use the small piece of property to go along with the CG property to enlarge it slightly. There is a natural barrier there just to the north of the address that is 4806 Meadow Lark Lane. There is a ravine there that has a lot of trees. Which makes a natural barrier between what would be the CG property and the existing 4-plex that is there. We also felt like adding any more 4-plexes, which we could build at some particular time, we can’t right because of the sewer district, would cause more congestion on that particular road than would be needed or should be allowed.

Open to the public.

Delton Jacobs, 511 Longfellow Lane, Columbia came in support of the rezoning request. He has spoken with Mr Satterlee about his intended use of the property is. He has known Rod (Mr Satterlee) a long time and has not seen him do anything that he would be uncomfortable with in the last 20 years. When I look at this request in light of what seems to be pretty much predominant in the surrounding area, considering petroleum storage facilities, 200 or 300’ radio/TV towers and things of that nature I would have to say it is fairly compatible as an office facility in this area. I believe that is what his intention is. I would like to see you support that as opposed to some other things that may come along in the future.

Jim Hofmann, 3700 S Forest Acres, Columbia came in opposition of the rezoning request. He has owned properties on Meadow Lark Lane and Schooner Drive for approximately 30 years. He objects to commercial zoning started down Meadow Lark Drive. Mr Satterlee already has commercial property facing Ponderosa. It would be detrimental to the area because we now have a lot families and children in that area. We really do not need a commercial environment. There is plenty of commercial to the south.

Stephen and Karen Blumer, 8181 Hill Creek Road, Columbia also opposed the rezoning request. Mr and Mrs Blumer own the property at 4805 Meadow Lark Lane, which is across the street from the property that is being considered to be rezoned. The actual location of the property was discussed. Mr Blumer also stated that there are no natural barriers on the property as Mr Satterlee had reported. Mr Blumer said there is no natural barrier, just a street. There are no trees. He has just two pine trees across the street and that is it. There are not four-plexes just duplexes. The street has no shoulder. It is a residential neighborhood. Some of the questions he would like to ask are:

?Why is there a request to rezone this property owned by R and L Properties and Development, Inc. I would like to keep it as it is. As a natural buffer between the Williams Pipeline, the new 5 story tall billboard that is there that lights up the night sky. It seems like things keep encroaching more and more towards those duplexes. I live on one side of my duplex and my sister rents out the other side. I feel that would be detrimental to us as far as renting the property goes if they were right across the street from a gas station or convenience store with lots of traffic. Especially with the street like it is with no shoulder. What does R and L Properties & Development plan to build on the property? Will they make improvements to the street on Meadow Lark Lane? Will there be limitations to the light and noise pollution if they develop this into some kind of commercial property? I am real concerned about a buffer area between the duplexes that are there and what is going on now. I can not see it getting even closer than it is. I am opposed to the rezoning request by R and L Development. When I purchased the property at Meadow Lark Lane there was a sign across the street that said that town houses were going to build. The sign is still there. They have got it partially covered up but the sign is still there. In the last six months a 5 story billboard has been built on the property. A rezoning request was also made and approved so a driveway could be built to the storage units that are behind Williams Pipeline. That was approved. My sister is not happy with the 5 story sign that lights up the sky. I also feel that if rezoning is allowed that the property will not be used as a buffer zone but developed into some type of commercial property. They are just making the commercial property on that corner even bigger. This will disrupt the neighborhood, especially if the road is not improved. Again Meadow Lark Lane has no shoulder. Traffic is really tight as it is. Parking is very limited. Not to mention, if it is commercialized, the litter, the noise. The property I purchased was a substantial investment. If rezoning is allowed I feel that the property value will go down. Renting the property on the other side is going to be difficult. I hope you please deny the proposal to rezone that area.

Chairman Kirkpatrick gave a brief answer to some of Mr Blumer’s questions. He stated that even if the request was approved by this Commission and by the County Commission the property is not actually rezoned until the final development plan has been submitted and approved and goes through this Commission and the County Commission. The applicant has not submitted a plan at this point. So should those approvals take place down the road at some point and time a lot of the concerns that you expressed here will be addressed in that final development plan. As it stands right now we do not know what the applicant plans to do and we can not address them until he actually presents the plans. If he should go on and pursue it. He will have to come back with a final development plan at which time you would have an opportunity to come back and express your concerns and have more input.

Stephen Blumer stated that he has owned the property for 1.5 years and was not notified about the 5-story billboard that was built there. I received no letter, no notice whatsoever.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that the property that the billboard is on was already zoned commercial. So no zoning request was necessary.

Close to public hearing.

The applicant was called back to the table. He described that sign that is on the property which advertises that town houses which are four plexes. The property has been zoned R-M. It is not duplexes they are four plexes. The natural barrier that I was referring to is a small ravene that runs just to the north of the last four plex that was built there. It does have a lot of trees in it. Rather than disturbing that and building more four plexes, which we could do at some point in time, we would rather do away with that and combine this piece. This piece that’s .6 acres with the C-G property. So there is a natural barrier there. It is just to the north of the last building that we built. It would separate the R-M zone from the C-GP if you vote for that.

Commissioner Morgan asked if the about the location of the sewer lagoon.

Mr Satterlee stated that they can not building anything on the property right now except that possibly something that would allow for an onsite treatment plant. That is all we could do. The sewer district has indicated that it will be a year or two before anything happens out in that area to where we could build any more four plexes on the property.

Commissioner Fugit ask what kind of an office would be in there.

Mr Satterlee said that it would be an office space where there would not be anything going on there at night. I am in the construction business and I would like to have an office space of my own to where I could manage my properties out of. I wanted to put in one of these office in for myself and allow for some inside storage of some things maybe on the lower level. We planned on a two level building. Where you could go in on one level and then go down to the other one and there would be some inside storage type things. There are a lot of people who have businesses and do a lot of traveling between Jefferson City and Columbia. That would be advantageous for them to work out of there as an office. There would not be any convenience or anything like that. It would just be something that would primarily be used during the day.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that the Commission has in the past, both approved and denied planned development requests when they were not accompanied by a plan initially. He does not have a problem with a development plan in hand if the development request is approved because rezoning does not take place until a final development plan is approved. Even if we approve this request tonight and the County Commission does in a week or two week. The property is still not rezoned because there has been no final development plan submitted or approved by either body. So, that does not cause me a great deal of heartburn. The one thing I do like about this is it is a planned request, which gives the County a great deal of control of what does go on.

Chairman Kirkpatrick made and Commissioner Green seconded motion to approve zoning request by R and L Properties & Development, Inc. from R-M (Moderate Density Residential) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of .695 acres, more or less, located at 5445 S Ponderosa St., Columbia.

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Jim Green yes

Darin Fugit no Pat Smith yes

Mike Morgan no Mary Sloan no

Motion to approve request failed.

* * *

Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to deny request by R and L Properties & Development, Inc. to rezone from R-M (Moderate Density Residential) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of .695 acres, more or less, located at 5445 S Ponderosa St., Columbia.

Darin Fugit yes Mike Morgan yes

Pat Smith no Jim Green no

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

Motion to deny the request carried. 4 yes 2 no




1. Request by Copper Creek Development, L.L.C. to approve a Final Development plan for part of Copper Creek Planned Residential Development located at 7901 E St. Charles Rd., Columbia.

Bill Florea gave staff report stating that the property is located 2 miles east of Columbia on St Charles Road. The current proposal includes a Final plat for 1 lot and a Final Development Plan for 1 lot and is the third phase of Copper Creek PRD. The lot is a corner lot and will have frontage on and direct access to either Whitewater Drive or Payette Drive. Water service will be provided by Water District Number 9. Wastewater will be treated in a plant being built in Stanton Subdivision which is west of Copper Creek on the south side of St. Charles. The proposal scored 58 points on the rating system.

Staff recommends approval of the final plat and final plan.

Jim Patchett, 1206 A Bus Loop 70 West, Columbia is the surveyor that prepared the plats. He explained why only one lot. Lot 32 was across the street from the originally proposed treatment facility in Plat I. Plat II evolved while they were still trying to work out the sewers. As it turns out now the treatment facility is on down the stream. It is not on the Copper Creek property at all. The amenities being put in for Plat I also serve this lot. So this would be a complete when Plat I is complete. The streets and sewers and water will all be in. So it was decided to go ahead and capture that lot with the development of Phase I.

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

Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Fugit seconded motion to approve the final development plan for Copper Creek Plat 3

Jim Green yes Darin Fugit yes

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Mary Sloan yes

Pat Smith yes Mike Morgan yes

Motion to approve final development plan for Copper Creek was unanimously approved.




  1. Copper Creek Plat 3. S1-T48N-R12W. A-R. Copper Creek Development, LLC,
  2. owner. James V. Patchett, surveyor.

    See staff report and applicant’s comments are above in Planned Residential Development

    Staff recommends approval of the final plat

    Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Morgan seconded motion to approve plat 3 of Copper Creek.

    Mary Sloan yes Mike Morgan yes

    Pat Smith yes Jim Green yes

    Darin Fugit yes Keith Kirkpatrick yes

    Motion to approve Copper Creek Plat 3 was unanimously approved.

    * * * * * * * *

  3. Southern Elegance, Plat 2. S13-T47N-R13W. A-2. Sandra K. Nichols and the Shirley Jean Traxler Revocable Trust, owners. James R. Jeffries, surveyor.

Owners called and No one was present to represent plat.

Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this 1 lot minor re-plat of lot 1 of Southern Elegance subdivision is located on the west side of Route N approximately 2300 feet southwest of the intersection of Pierpont Meadows Road and Route N.. The site is approximately 3 miles south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia. The area being subdivided contains 8.53 acres and includes the entire original lot 1 and a portion of the large farm immediately to the north. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture) as is all the surrounding property and these are all the original 1973 zonings. A tentative approval on the vacation of the original lot and concept of the re-plat was granted by the County Commission on November 2nd of this year. Water service will be provided to the site by Consolidated Public Water District #1. There is currently a 4" waterline along the front side of lot 1. Fire hydrants are not required within minor plats containing less than 5 lots, as is the case here. The site is in the Columbia School District. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from an on-site lagoon. A plan showing that there is an area on the lot for a lagoon has been provided and is 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. This plat has 54 points on the point rating scale.

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

Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Green seconded motion to approve Southern Elegance, Plat 2 with staff recommendations granting of the waivers for traffic analysis and cost benefit analysis for central sewer.

Mary Sloan yes Jim Green yes

Pat Smith yes Mike Morgan no

Keith Kirkpatrick yes Darin Fugit yes

Motion to approve Southern Elegance, Plat 2 with staff recommendations was approved unanimously.




Director Shawver gave report on items from the October 21, 1999 Planning and Zoning meeting that went to the County Commission on November 2, 1999.

Located at 14341 Proctor Rd., Columbia. Planning and Zoning recommended denial of appeal to County Commission who approved the appeal.

(Light Industrial) of .97 acres, more or less, located at 5150 I-70 Dr. SW, Columbia. Planning

and Zoning recommended denial of appeal to County Commission who approved the appeal.

or less, located at 1400 State Highway CC, Sturgeon. Planning and Zoning recommended

approval to County Commission who approved the request.







Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Mary Sloan



Minutes approved on this 16th, day of December, 1999.