Thursday, June 15, 2000

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

Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

James Green Cedar Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

David Piest Public Works

Absent: None

Also present: Stan Shawver, Director Thad Yonke, Staff

Bill Florea, Staff Ora Ramsey, Staff

Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Green seconded a motion to approve the minutes of May 18, 2000 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclimation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

The Chairman announced that due to the anticipated length of the Windy Point hearing the order of the items on the agenda would be changed as follows:



  1. Request by James and Donna McManama on behalf of United States Cellular to locate a transmission facility including a 400’ tower on 14.7 acres located at 10901 E Hwy 22, Centralia.

Bill Florea gave the staff report that this property is located immediately west of the City of Centralia. The property is zoned A-2 (agriculture) as is all of the surrounding property. This request is to place a transmission facility on the property that will include a 400’ tower. This site is served by Union Electric and is located within the Centralia R-6 School district. Water service is not required by this land use. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for commercial land uses. Due to the height of the tower involved in this request, staff notified 35 property owners. The original zoning for this tract is A-2. There have been no pervious requests submitted on behalf of this property. The proposed use is consistent with the plan and staff recommends approval.

(Commissioner Sloan stated that she would abstain from any discussion or voting on this request since she does direct business with U. S. Cellular.)

Ken Jacob, Attorney at 1001 E Walnut, Suite 20, Columbia

Steve Rhinerson, Area Project Manager of 850 Twixt Town Rd NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52405

Patrick Armstrong, RF Engineer, of 850 Twixt Town Rd NE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52405

Mr Jacobs represents the property owner as well as U. S. Cellular. His clients are asking for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.). They have already submitted an application, which they believe, has met all the requirements of the Ordinance and requested the application become part of the record.

The site location is on a farm near Centralia. There are no other structures nearby. The location can be found on Exhibit H in the application. The 400-foot tower is needed because U.S. Cellular aims to provide a seamless coverage service to their customers. Exhibit J illustrates the propagation maps, which show the areas where there is no coverage. The simulation can be seen on Exhibits H and I. It is a guide tower.

Patrick Armstrong, U.S. Cellular is committed to providing seamless coverage to their customers and assisting them in their everyday communication needs as well as emergency needs, (i.e. 911). This 400- foot tower will provide coverage in the Centralia area as well as Hwy 22. In order to connect this tower with the Company’s other facilities nearby, they will use a microwave link, and in order to get a line of sight for that microwave link they need their transmit dish at 400 feet. That is why they are requesting the 400-foot guide tower.

Ken Jacobs addressed the tower requirement of co-location. This tower has the capacity of holding 21 other antennas other than the 7 they plan to place on the tower. Exhibit H illustrates the equipment building. The Ordinance also requires the tower to have lighting for towers over 200 feet, so does the FAA. The tower will be painted red and white and it will also have a light at night and nothing during the day. This is explained in Exhibit I of the application. The landscape plan is in Exhibit F. They will plant trees around the site of the facility. The security is an 8-foot fence with three barbed wires on the top. If someone did manage to get over the fence and open the door it would set off an alarm to a central location and that location would call the police.

They have met all the requirements of FAA and FCC.

Mr Jacob explained the comments of the response form for Commissioner Caruthers. The tower structure has the capacity of holding 21 additional antennas. The response forms were from other tower owners in the region confirming that their towers would not satisfy the tower needs of U.S. Cellular. There will be other companies that will desire to co-locate on this subject tower. The preliminary tower design in the application specs out possible sites for antennas placements on the tower.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in support of the request.

No one spoke in opposition to request.

Closed to public hearing.

David Piest asked if the type of landscaping or vegetation was the only condition staff was recommending Bill Florea stated staff was not placing any conditions on their recommendation. Staff discussed the type of plantings that would be appropriate and made suggestions but not recommended. The Cedars, being a native plant and better suited to this climate, were suggested rather than white pines. White pines require a lot more maintenance and have a higher chance of dying.

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve the request by James and Donna McManama on behalf of United States Cellular to locate a transmission facility including a 400’ tower on 14.7 acres located at 10901 E Hwy 22, Centralia.

Mike Morgan Yes Jim Green Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes Pat Smith Yes

Keith Kirkpatrick Yes David Piest Yes

Darin Fugit Yes Mary Sloan Abstained

Motion to approve the request carried. 7 Yes 1 Abstained




  1. Request by Allen and Judy Ronnebaum to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 38 acres, more or less, located at 3125 N Rte Z, Columbia.

Bill Florea gave this property is located on State Highway Z, approximately 3 miles east of Columbia and 1 ½ miles north of Interstate 70. The property is zoned A-1 (Agriculture), as is all of the surrounding property. This request is to rezone 38 acres, more or less, to A-2 (Agriculture). If approved, the property may be subdivided into 5-acre tracts. This property is located within the Columbia Public School District. Electric service is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. Water service is provided by Public Water District No. 9. There have been no previous requests submitted on be3half of this property. Staff notified 22 property owners concerning this request. Staff notes the proximity of this parcel to the Copper Creek development, and notes the transition of the area from very large tracts to smaller tracts in recommending approval of this request. Finally, staff notes that the A-2 zoning line lies 250 feet west of the west property line and so recommends approval of this request.

Allen Ronnebaum, of 3125 N Rte Z, Columbia. The applicants are requesting to divide the property and sale off two lots – one to his daughter and one to his mother. That is the extent of the request. Mr Ronnebaum stated he has no plans to develop it into a big development. The tract of land is about 38 acres.

Open to public hearing.

No one in support of request.

Those in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Terry Buckley, 2914 Route Z, Columbia. Mr Buckley, and his wife, are in opposition of the request. Mr Buckley has been elected by a group of landowners in the area to represent them here. He has a written petition signed by the landowners he is representing. They are petitioning the Council to deny this application for rezoning for several reasons.

1) The quality of life is one. All that signed the petition were attracted to this area of Rte Z because of it rural nature. We bought into the A-1 zoning because that is the zoning they wanted. They value the country life, the natural vista. They like being able to look out their windows and see nature. Most of the neighbors raise animals and plan to continue to. They like the seclusion away from subdivisions, traffic, noise, etc. Mr Buckley stated that the A-1 life that they have invested in. Collectively and individually they have invested substantial time and money in creating the lifestyle that they and their families now enjoy. They would like to see it maintained. They believe that the proposed rezoning would change things – irrevocably and forever.

  1. The sewage problem. Sewage treatment is a constant problem in rural areas. It is no different in the
  2. area of the proposed site. The proposed rezoning raises significant issues about effective sewage treatment run-off and esthetics. With A-2 zoning there could be as many as 15 house could be built on this 38 acre tract of land with 15 additional lagoons in the area or one or more community type lagoons, similar to the Shaw lagoon. Lagoons make good sense for a house in a rural the more houses you put in and have dumping into individual lagoons with common runoff the more problems you have. The neighbors are afraid this will cause substantial health and safety problems in the area.

  3. They believe this is spot zoning.
  4. Concerned with increased traffic in the area. This is a dangerous section of Rte Z. This is area that
  5. has an "S" curve and over a slight hill and into a straight stretch on which people like to go quite fast. At the north edge of this property, before Mexico Gravel Road, there is a slight rise in the road in which a small vehicle can hide. There have been a substantial number of accidents along that stretch of road. Opponents believe that an increase in the number of local residents travelling in and out of driveways along this section of Rte Z will increase the problems with safety. It would probably be better sequencing if the road problem was taken care of first

  6. Concerned for property values. The opponents did not know until the meeting just why the owner

wanted the rezoning and they were not sure what to expect. They were not sure what type of homes, how many homes, etc. After hearing the proposed plans Mr Buckley commented that it was not necessary to rezone A-2. There is substantial property there and if it is to be divided into three family parcels it can easily stay A-1.

Mr Buckley concluded by submitting the original copy of the petition to the Commission for their records.

Ira G Hubbell, of 7350 Mexico Gravel Road, Columbia. Mr Hubbell is a retired professional engineer , who lives on 229 acres farm that borders the subject property to the west. He asked the Commission to explain what a rezoning from A-1 to A-2 means. Chairman Kirkpatrick responded that going from 10 acre per house to essentially 5 acres lots unless the owner cares to plat it in a subdivision at which point he could drop the minimal lot size to 2.5 acres per tract. However, at the point the request is to change the zoning to A-2 with the minimal lot size being 5 acres.

All the property along Rte Z surrounding the subject property has not less than 10 acres and most have more than 30 acres per plot per house. This area has the poorest topography for drainage in the whole area. There is no place for the water to get out of this area. It does go across the street on the neighbor’s property that have 20-22 acres. It drains across the street onto their property. Run-off water and surface water from anything. Sewage water drainage. There is already a problem with sewage drainage on Mexico Gravel Road to the west at Manchester and Lawrence. There is sewage running on top of the ground there. Mr Hubbell stated that the only way the county can get away from the sewage problem is to connect to the City. The subject property is clay – no drainage. Mr Hubbell believes this land is only good for City type sewers. The sewer water and run-off water has to be removed someway so that it does not drain on someone else’s property.

Sara and Harold Mabrey, 3054 N Rte Z, Columbia. The Mabreys live across the street from Mr Ronnebaum's. During heavy rains there is a lot of water that runs-off the Ronnebaum property through the culvert underneath the road onto their property. Mrs Mabrey stated that they have found fish from his pond in their drainage area. It is unsafe for their grandchildren who like to play in that area. Mrs Mabrey presented photographs of the layout of the land to the Commission. Her property lays lower than the Ronnebaum property.

Mrs Mabrey contacted Gerry Worley of the Health Department. According to Mrs Mabrey septic tanks are not the answer in this area because of the laterals and their ability to absorb completely into the ground because of the clay problem. He said that basically lagoons would have to be installed. Then there is the potential for run-off again onto their property. Mrs Mabrey gave supporting documentation to the Commission. In closing Mrs Mabrey said finding fish in her yard is one thing – but having raw sewage run-off is another thing. The problem with the houses is not as great a concern if something could be done with septic or sewer. There may have been just 8 people listed on the petition, that is a lot of acreage because of the large parcels of land that is owned.

Glenn & Sheila Boyer, 2670 N Rte Z, Columbia. Their property is located on the "S" curve where there are a lot of traffic accidents. One person has been killed in the last 5 years. Their main concern is increase in traffic. The Boyers wanted to know why the land had to be rezoned if it was being divided for a couple of family members. Chairman Kirkpatrick explained that the applicant wants to divide the tracts smaller than 10-acre tracts.

Marcia L Devier, 2881 Rte Z, Columbia. Has lived on her property since 1970’s. Has 105 acres. Mr Ronnebaum purchased the property approximately 2 years ago and knew at the time that the tracts were 10-acre tracts. She does not believe it is necessary to change the zoning this soon. She is currently challenged with getting in and out of her driveway. She faces problems with erosion around her driveway because after it was cut it was not maintained (seeded or strawed). As a result there is a lot of erosion including down in the ditches. Just a month a go some people came around the corner and wiped out a couple of mailboxes and damaged the culvert. That still has not be changed out or repaired – so the water still has trouble getting through that ditch. Her property adjoins the proposed property. Her concern is that if general maintenance has not happened thus far in two years and gravel continual is put on new road – what will it be like with more traffic or new driveways.

Closed to public hearing.

Applicants returns.

Mr Ronnebaum stated that a 2.5-acre lake will be built and will take care of the run-off of the water. The one house has been there since 1970’s. A new lagoon has already been built for it on the backside of the property where his daughter lives. The property is actually bordered by A-2. All but 15 acres of Ms Devier's property is already A-2. Basically what they are looking at is another house on that property.

One of the houses currently on the property is located in the southwest corner and the new house that was built (that Mr Ronnebaum lives in) is on the northeast corner, about 300 feet from the road. The excess to the second house is a separate drive.

Applicant wants to place one more house on the tract. It would not be any different than two 10-acre tracts, but the applicant can not get a loan, nor can he handle it financially unless he rezones the land. He wants to deed the property to his daughter, but she can not get a loan on it with his name on deed. The situation is the same with his mother. He can not afford to build their houses or remodel the house.

Chairman Kirkpatrick questioned why they could not get financing on a 10-acre tract of land as opposed to a 5-acre tract of land. Mr Ronnebaum stated that he did not want to give away 10 acres of land and that neither his daughter nor his mother needed that much land. He plans to put cattle on the rest of the land and does not see a need to make the tracts small than 5-acres.

The third house would be close to the entry road.

Commissioner Fugit expressed concerns about extending A-2 zoning. He understands the problem the applicants have, but the problem is that if somebody else wants to come in and rezone then they would have a hard time denying that zoning. It could create a problem since there isn’t any sewer drains to take care of the sewage is the problem. There is a lot of clay in the area and when it rains the lagoons can have run-off. After the rezoning the applicant could sell it next year. All kinds of things could happen then because the zoning stays with the land forever.

Commissioner Piest addressed Ms Devier’s concerns of the mailboxes that were on Rte Z. He informed her that Rte Z was a State Road and therefore it is not in the jurisdiction of Boone County Public Works Department. She was advised to contract the State Department since it was a state right of way. Mr Piest asked if the applicant could submit something planned to get the rezoning accomplished. A common major concern that he heard deals with sewage and sewage treatment facility and ground that is basically clay. Mr Piest asked if there would be enough control, under a planned program, to control and elevate the concerns of the neighbors if the rezoning request came with a planned program? Bill Florea stated that it would be possible to limit potential density on the property and still grant a rezoning that would allow the applicant to create 5-acre tracts, but yet prevent creation of a number of 2.5-acre tracts. As far as the sewage problem there may not be much that the County can control on that part. The County does have established regulations that deal with waste disposal, but staff is not sure exactly.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) could limit the amount of development on the tract and at least with that amount of control the amount of wastewater could be controlled. Bill Florea agreed and then stated that a study would probably show what type of system would be required to elevate the effluent or potential problems.






Commissioner Fugit made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to deny the request by Allen and Judy Ronnebaum to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) of 38 acres, more or less, located at 3125 N Rte Z, , Columbia

Darin Fugit Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Michael Caruthers Yes David Piest Yes

Pat Smith Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Jim Green Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Motion to deny the rezoning request carried. 8 Yes 0 No

* * * * *

  1. Request by Janis M. Smith on behalf of the Missouri Rural Water Assoc. to rezone from A-2 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of 10.16 acres, more or less, and to approve a review plan for a planned development located at 6101 E Angel Ln., Ashland.

Bill Florea gave staff report that this property is located 2 miles north of Ashland and 6 miles south of Columbia at the intersection of Angel Ln. and Highway 63. The property is zoned A-2 (Agriculture), as is all of the surrounding property. There is a house, pole barn and several small sheds on the property. This request is to rezone the property and approve a Review Plan that will permit the Missouri Rural Water Association to utilize the property and existing structures for their state headquarters. The house will be used for office space and the barn will be used for storage and training. The plan indicates that there will be 2 sings, both measuring 3’ x 6’. This property is served by Consolidated Public Water District No. 1. Electricity is provided by Boone Electric Cooperative. The site is located within the Southern Boone R-1 School District, though the proposed use is a tax-exempt entity. The wastewater system will consist of an on-site system. The plan indicates that the entrance will be re-located from its present location to a point on Angel Lane. The lighting will be limited to one dusk-to-dawn light. Parking will be provided for 17 vehicles. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agriculture and rural residential land uses, but it should be pointed out that the plan does show commercial and industrial use near Columbia Regional Airport. Staff notified 8 property owners about this request. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to C-GP and approval of the review plan for the MRWA Office Park, with the condition that:

Ron Shy, 5600 S Hwy KK, Columbia, represents the Missouri Rural Water Assoc.

Jan Smith, property owner, of 6101 E Angel Ln., Ashland.

Mr Shy gave a brief history about the Missouri Rural Water Association. He stated that back in 1966 the group was called The Water District Association of Missouri. It was founded because of the beginning of rural water in Boone County and the surrounding Counties and eventually over the whole State. Its primary purpose is to provide technical assistance and training to their members, their water operators and to provide certification efforts and education. And also participate in legislative efforts. They do lobbying – they are the watchdog for the rural water associations and their members over the whole State. Since they were founded they have also increased their area of influence to waster water districts as well. So they are involved a lot of the rural aspects of development all over this state and a great deal of Boone County. They have been at 2610 Calvert Lane since the late 1970’s. They really need to move closer to Jefferson City and Regional Airport to facilitate some of their efforts in their legislative regards.

They actually looked at Jefferson City for a new location. However, they found this particular property which is near the airport, and is located between Jefferson City and Columbia, and is still in Boone County. They liked this location and the site. As staff has said, they do not want to add any buildings at this time, maybe never. But they want to limit their uses to this property to an office. Their present staff consists of two full-time people and two part-time people. Once a month they have 9 field people that will come in intermittently. Usually not at the same time. Once a year they have a training session for 40 or so operators or people out-of-state of might come in to receive operator training. The applicant believes this is an appropriate use for this property. The plan and the improvements that will be added to this property will be to add some parking spaces. The existing driveway will have to be relocated because of safety concerns and site distance concerns. Plans are to locate the drive further to the east on Angel Lane. There may be two signs. One on the building and one near the entrance or at least near the intersection of Angel Lane and Hardwick Lane in order to direction traffic to the site location. Presently there is an underground wastewater system. It is difficult to evaluate the system at this time without doing excavating. If the rezoning request is approved the applicant will have the system evaluated. Mr Shy suspects the waste water system will have to be upgraded to a commercial type facility on-site system. According to Mr Shy the traffic will probably be less than it is now.

Several photos of the tract, taken at different angles, were shown to the Commissioners.

Carl Frieling, This property is in the Three Creeks watershed. This proposed use will have less off-site impact than the present zoned use. With two full-time and two part-time employees and an occasional gathering will put far less use on a wastewater system than a household with bath water and wash water and clothes washing. The non-use of pastures will have less off-site impact than any other agricultural use in that watershed.

Open to public hearing.

Those in favor of the request.

David Lee, 6406 Mary Ann Circle, Columbia. Mr Lee thinks that the proposed use of the property will be good. He thinks it will be a low impact use of the property. The staff at MRWA are trained professionals and would be good neighbors.

Those in opposition of the request.

Marvin Sappington, 11500 Hardwick Lane, Columbia. Mr Sappington stated he has a problem with water from a lake, on the proposed site, flowing down on his pasture. That area of pasture was originally part of the 10.16 acres before Mr Sappington purchased it from Ms Smith 5 years ago. He believes it is great that the driveway will be moved. However, he thinks there will be a problem with traffic from the airport because the traffic does not stop now. He believes it would be a good thing to have this type of organization there – but had these concerns.

Bill Thompson, 12050 Hardwick Lane, Columbia. His property lies to the south of the proposed site. Mr Thompson does not object to this particular use, but his concern is that once the property has been rezoned he can not control what will happen next. If going to build near the airport you should build from the airport out rather than going all the way over to Hwy 63 and building back the other way. Believes there will be a domino effect and others will want to began rezoning to commercial. No other property in that area has C-GP zoning. Every other piece of property in that area is a different zone. It is an agricultural zone. Tax money is also being taken from the Southern Boone County District. A taxable piece of property is being converted to a non-taxable piece of property. The other concern is the traffic. As an illustration to this Mr Thompson went to post mail at the airport at 7:00 a.m. one morning and could not turn left to go south because a mail truck sat at the stop sign for 10 minutes because it could not get out into the flow of traffic. He does not like the signs at all.

Closed to public hearing.

Applicant returns.

Carl Freiling stated that the request was presented in the form that it was so that this is the only approved use. The applicant did not ask for a blank rezoning. This use really is low impact. Given the nature of the proposed site it is really much more apt to fit in to that general area than single family residential is in the future. Blank rezoning was not requested because the applicant wanted to be able to reassure the neighbors that they knew what could happen on the property and would not leave a question mark about what might happen in the future.

Ron Shy commented that the sign in questions is an unlit sign, 3x6, very little profile, used for directional purposes only. It is not for advertising. But that is negotiable too. The sign would help people, coming from Andrew County, Missouri, find the office. It is appropriate to have a sign in the Hardwick location. The sign would be the same size as the one that is currently on the building.

Jan Smith commented on the lake. Mr Sappington purchased some acreage off the subject property approximately 5 years ago. She stated that when Mr Sappington purchased the property the run-off was already there. He bought the land "as is". When the lake overflows that is where the run-off occurs. It happens to be on part of the proposed site and part on Mr Sappington’s property. And as far as the traffic, she doesn’t believe their traffic can be any worse than traffic generated by her teenage son and his friends.

Ron Shy handed out some brochures for the Association. He also echo Carl Freiling’s comment about the planned use. This is not blank zoning and anytime they have to do anything to this structure or anything on the grounds at the site, the applicant will have to come back to the Commission for reevaluation. That is a real key element in this proposal.

Commissioner Piest mentioned, for the record, that if future improvements were needed on the roadway, additional right-of-way might be requested either by County or State. He was not sure what the status of this area is at this time. Nor was he sure that additional right-of-way would be needed, but wanted the applicant to be aware up front that this is a possibility.

Ron Shy explained the driveway relocation to Chairman Kirkpatrick. The new driveway will be approximately 300 feet east of Hardwick on Angel Lane. Carl Freiling stated that the driveway presently dumps straight into the intersection.






Commissioner Green made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve the request by Janis M. Smith on behalf of the Missouri Rural Water Assoc. to rezone property located at 6101 E Angel Ln, Ashland from A-2 (Agriculture) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) of 10.16 acres, more or less, and to approve a review plan for a planned development subject to the following Staff recommendations and any County restrictions condition:

Jim Green Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Mike Morgan Yes Mary Sloan Yes

David Piest Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Pat Smith Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Motion to approve requested rezoning and review plan with conditions carried. 8 Yes 0 No




  1. Request by B-SIB, L.L.C. for a permit for a mobile home park on 28.62 acres located at the northwest corner of State Highway VV and Mauller Road. This request includes a preliminary plat and review plan for a Planned Residential Development to be known as Windy Point, on 93.8 acres.

Thad Yonke gave this staff report - (CUP & Review Plan, Preliminary Plat)- This proposal is for a CUP for a hybrid of a Mobile Home Park/Subdivision as part of a planned residential development. The project is located immediately North and East of Bon Gor Subdivision and runs to the intersection of Mauller Road and Highway VV. The site is approximately 300 feet East of the intersection of Wade School Road and Cunningham Drive. The site is located approximately 2 miles North of the Columbia City Limits. The property contained within the proposal is currently zoned R-S (residential single family) 86.1 acres and there is also a small portion of R-M (residential moderate density) 7.7 acres. These are the original 1973 zonings. Adjacent zoning to the North and South of the proposed development is R-S. Property to the West, within Bon Gor Subdivision, contains a mixture of zonings, R-S, R-M, and a small piece of C-N (neighborhood commercial). Property to the East across Highway VV is zoned A-R (agricultural-residential). These are all also original 1973 zonings. The current proposed review plan encompasses 93.8 acres. The proposed density for the entire PRD is 316 units. The maximum theoretical density for the PRD area is 670 units. The Mobile Home portion encompasses approximately 40 acres of the 93.8 and is proposed to have 84 lots, 18 lots for individual units, 52 lots set up for 2 units on each, 10 lots set up for 3 units on each, and 1 lot set up for 4 units. The total number of Mobile Homes proposed is 154 units, 50 more units than last year’s proposal, which contained 104 units. The remaining lots within the planned area contains 4 proposed 4-plex structures, 7 duplex structures, 132 single-family lots, the lake lot, a small park lot, 2 lots for residential storage buildings for the mobile home component, and 1 lot for a community building. The development proposes the 4-plexes to adjoin the existing apartments, the duplexes to adjoin the existing duplexes, and the remainder of the property on the West side of the lake to be single-family homes. The development on the East side of the lake is the Mobile Home portion of the development. The mobile home lots abut the property to the North and East with only a minimal landscape easement proposed as a buffer, as opposed to the larger buffer proposed in last year’s submittal. Staff does not feel that the current proposed landscape easement provides an adequate buffer. A continuous site proof privacy type fence in addition to the landscape easement would provide a better buffer to this property. The development is within the Columbia School District. The development is within Water District #7 and a note on the plan indicates service will be provided by Public Water Service District #7. This should be corrected as to reflect that Water District #7 has merged with Consolidated Public Water Service District #1. Water infrastructure extensions and up grades will be required for this development and the costs of these are the developer's responsibility. Additionally, part of the original proposed project was to eliminate the small water service system that serves Bon Gor by bringing it up to standards acceptable to Water District #7 and turning it over to them. Fire hydrants will be required and will have to meet fire & water district approvals. The actual requirements will vary based upon the actual size, uses, and construction methods proposed for the structures. Sewer service is proposed to be from the BCRSD. The developer has proposed eliminating the existing lagoon facility at Bon Gor by replacing it with a new facility to serve this development and the existing structures in Bon Gor. This again is at the developer’s cost. The BCRSD will need to approve any sewer proposal. A phasing plan has been submitted indicating the order of the phases that final plats and plans will follow. The development will be built in 8 phases. Additionally, a preliminary driveway plan has been provided. This is necessary since the lot sizes and road classifications make the placement of driveway locations critical in many locations. Driveway locations need to be shown on the road plans submitted with all final plats. There are a number of off-site road improvements that will be required as part of this development to mitigate traffic impacts caused by the development itself. These improvements have been identified by County Public Works in conjunction with both the PW consulting traffic engineering firm and the developers consulting traffic engineer’s traffic analysis. All road infrastructure off-site as well as on-site are at the developer’s cost. The first of these improvements is the improvement of the existing western portion of Cunningham Drive. This will need to be brought up to collector status to match the extension of this road as is contained within the proposed development. Cunningham Drive improvements will need to be made with phase 8 of the phasing plan. Improvements to Mauller Road are required and improvements at the intersection of Mauller Road & Highway VV are also required. The specific nature of these off-site improvements shall be worked out with BCPW & BC Planning when more specific and engineered plans are produced and submitted for the development. However, these improvements will need to include at a minimum the turn lanes proposed by the developer’s traffic engineer, an 8’ hard surface shoulder on the North side of Mauller Road, and the reworking of the existing road profile of Mauller Road to achieve appropriate site distance. These improvements are keyed to Phase 1 of the phasing plan and are at the developer’s cost. Improvements are required to the dam, spillway, and lake. These improvements will need to be keyed to Phase 2 of the development. Lot 85 needs to be included in Phase 2 of the phasing plan. These improvements will need to be acceptable to NRCS, BCPW, & BC Planning. These improvements are also at the developer’s cost. Sidewalks are required throughout the development. A portion of the Boone’s Lick Trail may be near and or be contained within the development area. The commission should assess the impact of this development with respect to the trail and any related historic assets. As a CUP the proposal must meet the following criteria from the zoning ordinance to be eligible for approval.

1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.

2. The conditional use permit will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted by these regulations.

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

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

5. The establishment of a conditional use permit will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district.

6. The establishment of a conditional use permit will not hinder the flow of traffic or result in traffic congestion on the public streets. This will include the provision of points of access to the subject property.

7. The conditional use permit shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. The County Commission shall find that there is a public necessity for the conditional use permit.

The master plan does show this area as suitable for residential development. The proposal rates 64 points on the point rating scale.

If the commission feels this application can comply with these criteria and is appropriate for the area, then:

Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the all of the following 10 conditions, which are intended to mitigate impacts based within the criteria.

  1. A Site-Proof continuous privacy type fence of 6’ height be required to be installed and maintained by the developer along the entire PRD boundary of lot 72, lots 1-3, and lots 14-25, as well as across the end of the road stub of Starboard Avenue until such time as the road is extended as a through road. This condition is necessary for the CUP to attempt to meet the conditional use tests #2 and #3 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  2. All off-site road improvements including, the improvement of the existing portion of Cunningham Drive, improvements to Mauller Road, and improvements to the intersection of Mauller Road and Highway VV -including left turn lanes, be designed and built by the developer after being approved by BCPW as a condition of approval. The specific nature of these improvements will be determined by BCPW & BC Planning when detailed engineering plans are provided with any final plat. The improvements to Cunningham Drive are required with phase 8. These are all required to meet CUP tests #2, #4, #5 and #6 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  3. The improvements to the intersection of Mauller Road and Highway VV, as well as the improvements to Mauller Road (between the intersection of Mauller Road and Highway VV and Starboard Avenue) including the reworking the existing road profile and the provision of an 8’ hard surface shoulder are required with phase 1. The specific nature of these improvements will be determined by BCPW & BC Planning when detailed engineering plans are provided with any final plat. This is required to meet CUP tests #2, #4, #5 and #6 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  4. The improvements to the dam, spillway, and lake area, all of which must be acceptable to the NRCS, BCPW, and BC Planning, as well as improvements to Mauller Road including the provision of an 8’ hard surface shoulder (between Starboard Avenue and the Western lot line of lot 225) are required with phase 2. These are all required to meet CUP tests #2, #4, #5 and #6 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  5. That lot 85 be included in phase 2 of the project. This is required to meet CUP tests #4, #5, and #6 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  6. That any change in Water or Sewer service provider as proposed be considered a change in the CUP and Review Plan and require coming back for a new hearing as these issues are contained within the scope of the proposal. This is required to meet CUP tests #4 and #5 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  7. That the phasing plan is considered binding. That before submission of the final plat for a phase of development, all preceding phases have been platted, constructed, and been recorded complete with all infrastructure including all off-site improvements required for the specific phase shown on the final plat and any preceding phase. In order to insure orderly development in compliance with the phasing plan bonding is not allowed. This is required to meet CUP tests #2, #4, #5, and #6 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  8. That a binding landscaping plan acceptable to the commission must be submitted and approved for each final plat and that if the plantings are not installed and maintained it constitute a violation of the CUP and review plan. All plantings that die must be replaced in the next growing season with an equivalent plant of equivalent size or larger. This is required to meet CUP tests #2 and #5 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  9. That final plats submitted can be required to include ROW stubs and common areas such as park space or any other area or lot contained within the development that the Planning Director feels is necessary for orderly and timely development. This is required to meet CUP tests #2 and #5 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.
  10. That the driveway plan be considered binding and that the driveway locations be shown and located on the final plat and associated road plans submitted for all phases. This is required to meet CUP tests #2 and #5 as listed in the staff report and proper development of the review plan area.

If the CUP is approved then Staff recommends approval of the review plan subject to the same conditions numbered 1-10 above.

If the CUP & Review Plan are approved then Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject again to the same conditions 1-10 above.

Craig Van Matre, 1103 E Broadway, Columbia. Handed to the Commission an outline of the documentary evidence and the visual aids, which he used in support of the testimonial evidence to be adduced.

He stated that this is a complex plan that has been through several literati’s. Staff has reviewed the plans for the project extensively. It has been modified repeatedly to meet Staff objections. The applicants now present the Commission with what they believe is a very good plan which merits Planning and Zoning Commission approval, complies with all the ordinances and will permit a development of a neighborhood which is sorely needed in Boone County.

The following documents were submitted to the Commission for review and/or record.

Mr Van Matre referred to page 2 of his summary (the list of visual aids) and paragraph 3 (the witnesses).

Commissioner Sloan stated that the amount of information that was presented to the Commission was overwhelming. She asked if was appropriate to perhaps "Table" the request so that the Commission would have a chance to study the information just presented. So that they could make a more objective and possibly a more intelligent decision on what they are looking at, rather than just try to absorb all the material.

Stan Shawver addressed the question in two points: 1) a motion to "Table" is always in order according to Robert Rules of Order, and 2) Mr Van Matre has provided visual aids to correspond to their testimony that their witness will present to you verbally. If hearing the testimonies you decide that you can not make a decision based on what you have heard you can always go back to the 1st point.

Mr Van Matre stated that from their perspective it is fair to say that the Commissioners should take as much time as they think they will need even if that includes past tonight the applicants are certainly willing to cooperate in that regards.

Chairman Kirkpatrick agreed with Commissioner Sloan. He commented on the 200-300 pages of documents that were just presented to the Commission. His personal position is and always has been; when the applicant comes and lays documents in front of him on the night of the hearing he does not pay any attention to it. Mr Kirkpatrick told Mr Van Matre that he could talk about what was presented to the Commission, but also informed him that he would not pick it up and look at it. He advised Mr Van Matre to proceed.

Mr Van Matre stated there was not a good mechanism for presenting into evidence the particular documents. We did not get the Staff report until yesterday. This has been and is a complex and evolutional application.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated he understood that part of the purpose for presenting the documents was to enter them into record. Mr Kirkpatrick then asked Mr Van Matre to understand that he would not look at the documents at the meeting.

Mr Van Matre replied that A) that was fine, but B) the presentation is not entirely dissimilar from what was presented to the Commission the last time. There has been a substantial rearrangement of lots but most to the concepts that will be presented are substantially similar to that which was presented last year.

Mr Van Matre continued by calling the first witness.

Cris Burnam, 2407 Rangeline, Columbia. Began by orientating everyone to the property. In the visual aids booklet Exhibit A is an areal photo of the area. The 8-acre lake is the central feature. On the east side of the lake, in between Hwy VV and the lake, is approximately a 42-acre piece of land with 2 homes on it. His old home place and the brick house was their family home for many years. The eastern portion is where they propose putting in the manufactured housing community. The western portion of the track comprises approximately 50 acres. Single family dwellings are proposed for the entire western portion. The property line actually follows the tree line. The applicant currently owns duplexes in the Bon Gor Lake apartment complex. The proposal shows that duplexes are proposed backing up to their existing duplexes. At the old tennis courts, recently converted to a playground, this area will house two new four plex units and it is adjacent two four plexes.

The applicant has made a substantial redesign from the concept last year. He understands there are questions that need to be answered. For example, Why did they go from 100 mobile homes, to 154 mobile homes? Why was the design flipped? Why did they go through and make all these radical changes. Mr Burnam explained that there were a couple of different reasons. First, the original plan called for the mobile homes to be all clustered in an area comprising approximately 12 acres for approximately 100 mobile homes. The plan now has flip-flop. The mobile home community has now been moved and will have 154 homes situated on 40 acres. That is 40 acres of land. That does not include the lake or any water. The density for the planned manufactured home community exceeds the area of a minimum lot size for single family homes. What is being presenting now is an entire package of just over 300 living units on a piece of land that could conceivable house up to 670 living units.

Mr Burnam stated that this was their compromise in terms of density, in terms of allowing this to be an affordable development. The applicant stated they were making sizeable up front commitment to infrastructure. The next photo is Exhibit B (not in the booklet). This is a photo of the existing Bon Gor neighborhood. Mr Burnam pointed out the 4.5 acres of open sewage lagoons that their plan would contemplate replacing. There are basically a couple of methods for the replacement. Mr Bill Marshall will explain that further in his presentation. The up shot is, when the infrastructure projects are completed, instead of seeing 4.5 acres of green, no green grass, there will be a fully enclosed compound, which will contain a modern state of the art treatment plant. It is approximately 40’x100’. There is a possibility of moving the treatment plant significantly further down stream onto adjoining property. If this could be done then the County could pick up a much larger watershed and perhaps bring sewage service into a much bigger area. That is planned for the future.

Mr Burnam presented another photo. The angle was from the north looking south. It is known as the Lochhaas tract. The very north end of Bon Gor Lake. This area is where the beginning of the manufactured home community will start.

He also pointed out that any time you get a group of 300 families living in an area there has to be some method of local government beyond strictly what the County will be willing to oversee or has time to oversee. He was not familiar with a subdivision of this magnitude that is being developed anywhere in the United States that does not accompany some pretty hefty restrictive covenants and governance issues. In other words how do you get all these people to live together and how do you preserve a quality of life and standards as you go forward? The Future Residence Association and because this is a mixed unit community it was decided to go through and do a few unusual things in terms of how governance will work in the future on this property. First, there will be 132 new single family homes. Each home that comes in will be awarded two votes in the Association. They each have to pay dues. There is also a fee due upon every land transaction that will be assessed to help fund the Association. That is not listed in the documents, in terms of budgetary numbers. An invitation will be offered to all the existing Bon Gor single family homeowners to join in by petition. Two things will be asked for in exchange. 1) The Bon Gor single family homeowners will basically have to accept the applicants restrictive covenants in terms of upkeep and how they keep their properties, and 2) they also have to pay dues.

Class C will be owned by the developer. It is 154 new manufactured home units. The land will be owned and not the dwelling units themselves. The votes will go with the land. Mr Burnam stated he has purposefully given himself half the votes of the other Classes of ownership that are contained in the Association. The apartment units the same thing. While he has taken half of the voting power. He is still paying his full share of dues to make sure that the Association is a living breathing organization going forward. In his experience with neighborhood associations, condominium associations, and those kinds of things, it comes down to two things. 1) You have to have a good set of founding documents that lays out rules of the road for the future, and 2) You have to have money. If an association is not well funded it cannot perform the things an association has to do. Mr Burnam stated he will only have 42% of the votes, but will be funding 48% of the Association. So if no one else ever pays their dues the Association will be getting at least $4500.00 a year. This can be used for improvements, playgrounds, enforcing restrictive covenants. It only takes one bad property owner in the area in a single family or duplex neighborhood to set up the area for decline and blight. There is where you have to have an association with real teeth, real funds and real power to police the area. That is where is being proposed in the future. This Association is independent of the developer and it can come after the developer if he does not keep up with his side of the bargain.

Mr Burnam addressed the manufacture home lots. He stated that if he had his preference there would not be any lots. There would be one large tract for the manufactured home park. County Code does not allow the one big tract if the applicant wants to put in County maintained streets. The applicant imposed this bedrock condition on the development. As the existing stock of lots for a mobile home owner to move into there is not a lot of supply. There are a few nice parks. There are no parks of the "quality" the applicant is trying to develop. If mobile home communities have poor or obsolete infrastructure the entire area starts to slide. All it takes is for a private road to be poorly maintained and develop potholes and all the terrible things you can think about with private roads that starts the side into a Crescent Meadows. That is another example. They do not have the proper infrastructure. The lot sizes are too small in just about ever park that was looked at. So lots had to be created so that County would take maintain the streets. The number of lots could have been 84 or 106 or 22. There is nothing magic about the number of lots. The lines were drawn to conform best to the roadway use; the right of way needed to get the publicly maintained streets into the neighborhood. On a go forward bases, as a developer and owner of this asset, the only thing that will have to be maintained is the quality of the customer. Everything else will be public utilities, public roads, etc. Mr Burnam stated that his job as manager/owner of this development will be marketing, enforcement of the covenant, and insuring that the quality of life is there. If the quality of life is not there then there will be problems marketing the lots or selling the single-family homes.

Back to the specific covenants for the manufactured home – this has not changed dramatically from last year. The minimum size home 1120 sq ft, 1997 model year or newer only and additional stipulation that on a go forward basis homes that are more than 3 years old will not be allowed in. So in 2003 homes that are newer than the year 1999 will only be allowed in. This is a 5-6 year development plan. By the year 2010 the average home in Windy Point will have stabilized at 6 years old. And will stay at 6 years old through natural attrition rates as people move out and new people move in. The development will be owner occupied only. This is not meant to be a student rental community. It is mean to be retired people and young families. Permanent foundation required as per the County Code. Axles and towing hitches must be removed. No out buildings. On-site storage will be provided. No boat parking, no RV parking, no inoperative vehicles.

Exhibit G – density. When before the County Commission, density became a major topic of concern, because density directly relates to quality of life in many cases. The applicant talked with the Commission and they responded favorably to the idea that a lot for a land area for a dwelling unit, in a manufactured home park, if it could be approaching 7,000 sq ft per unit (including street right of way, which it not allowed in the definition of a single family), that that was a reasonable density to approach. The old plan crammed a lot of homes into a very tight area. In the redesign it is 9,300 sq ft per dwelling unit with street right of way. Take away the street right of way, which is what the County typically does when they look at single family home subdivisions and we are actually at 7,200 sq ft per dwelling unit in a manufactured home park. Single family code calls for a minimum lot size of 7,000 feet. So this will be a dense community? Yes, it is. Is it denser than a single-family neighborhood would be? No, it is not. There is a lot of open yard space. There will be parks, community center, a clubhouse, and swimming pools.

Tim Maloney, Head designer with Ross Landscaping Design Inc, 2450 Trails West Ave, Columbia. Mr Maloney was approached by Mr Burnam to help increase the quality of life for the Windy Point development. A priority area was the buffer zone in the mobile home area. There will probably be a 6-foot fence in lieu of a lot of the designing or in addition to the landscape buffer. Mr Maloney intends to not only make the buffer area functional but also attractive for those looking out and those looking in the community. The planet list was used as an example of the types and quantity of plants to be used. Most of the plants to be used are Missouri natives and do extremely well. They are hardy and resistant the native wildlife and should maintain an attractive buffer for years and years to come. Immediately upon planting the sizes illustrated there should be 65-70% opacity. Within three years there would definitely be 80% and within 5 years it would be hard to see anything on the other side of the buffer.

The next phase was the park area. The dam of the existing lake, adjacent to the clubhouse, which will also have a park like setting along with the swimming pool. Basically the same mix of large shade trees, large evergreen trees, flowering smaller trees and some nice flowering ever green shrubs as well. Open green space for people to be able to relax and enjoy. A few large trees for shade and overall aesthetics

The interior of the mobile home is Exhibit J and L. This area really needs to have the feel of the quality of life. Trees are important. There is a difference between newer neighborhoods and older established neighborhoods. The trees are mature and established in the older neighborhoods. Mr Maloney referred to the Grasslands area just west of campus. Those trees and homes have been there 75 to 100 years and it is a cooler place, a more inviting place then the neighborhood in which he lives, Heritage Meadows. In Heritage Meadows everything has been bulldozed and new trees replanted. In the mobile home park area, there will be approximately 200 trees, averaging approximately 2 trees per lot. In placing the trees it is necessary to provide some privacy for each of the individual homes, as well as provide shade on the west and south sides to help cool the homes in the summer an other trees to help heat the homes in the winter. The trees also have to be placed to insure room for homes to be moved in and out of the community.

Exhibit K coincides with Exhibit L. This relates to the three entrances into the entire subdivision. This was designed based on a rod iron fence with stone pillar that actually planted to the hilt. Nice large trees in the background, some good evergreens, good mix of flowering shrubs. A maintenance company can provide seasonal color as well and annuals, perennials. This would make a nice "Here we are" wonderful entrance to the subdivision.

Exhibit M. Made referred to the Booneslick Trail, which runs to the northern portion of the property. It also historically ran through a lot of Broadway. A stone marker has been placed, signifying where that trail ran on Broadway. Likewise, the applicant proposes to preserve our heritage by installing another stone marker in the actual subdivision Windy Point. By preserving our heritage it also helps create a better quality of life for the residents within the subdivision.

Mr Maloney’s credentials are a Bachelor of Science from the University of MO-Columbia in plant science with emphasis in landscape design. He has been working in the landscape industry for 15 years. He started when he was in high school. He has been in the Columbia area working as designer for Ross Landscaping now for 4 years.

Commissioner Morgan stated that there was a parasite killing the Pin Oak tree in Boone County.

Mr Maloney responded that there is a parasite that is being carried by a bore. He recommends that with any Pin Oak that gets planted there is a spraying program. There are several other options to choose from that will make suitable shade trees.

Bill Marshall, President of Marshall Engineering and Surveying Inc, 300 St James, Columbia. Mr Marshall’s company is doing the engineering and surveying part on this project. He addressed the traffic impact analysis. Shafer, Kline & Warren prepared this report. Basically, their study found that all of the interior streets are to be classified as collector minor. They are not major roads. Starbird has a 60-foot right of way and could later be classified differently. It also goes to the northern boundary of that tract.

On page 4 one of the points they make is that the vast majority of the traffic generated by the mobile home lots is expected to access through the Trade Winds Ave, which is a street that goes out to Hwy VV, rather than going the Mauller Road and then going out. That is an important point.

On page 5 a couple of things were pointed out. All these streets in the subdivision are collector minor. Even Wade School Road, which has an "A" on it, is classified as collector minor and the "B" is the higher rating of the collector major, which basically is not a road there. Hwy VV, although based on traffic it is classified as a collector major, it probably would be considered arterial just because it used to be Hwy 63. The report brings out the need for the additional turning lane (left turn lane) on Hwy VV, which would turn onto Mauller. The report did point out that the sight distance on Mauller, at the 1st hump right above Hwy VV. It was suggested that the sight distance needs to be reviewed in the plans for the development.

Craig Van Matre asked Stan Shawver if it was a fair statement to say that the County’s experts reviewed these traffic studies and concurred with them. Mr Shawver responded that it was a fair statement.

Mr Van Matre also gave clarification on .5 where the AA, .4 AA, along Wade School Road. The yellow A is AM Peak Hours; the blue A is PM Peak Hours. He then asked Mr Marshall to explain what an A designation means.

Mr Marshall explained that that is what is called a collector minor designation and it relates to the number of vehicles that might be passing that particular point at peak hours during each day. In the morning at peak hour and the afternoon they determine how many cars pass that point during that particular hour.

Mr Van Matre asked if the A designation meant, in Shafter, Kline & Warren’s opinion, additional traffic from the development going onto any of the points that are listed AA reflects the most minor amount of impact available to a new development.

Mr Marshall stated he could not say it in those particular words. Basically what they said is that if you put this development in there here is what you get. In other words, you are still at that particular point. The reason for the left turn lane on Hwy VV is because a certain level of people turning there (over 100), in the peak hour. It is projected that the peak hour for the left turn people turning off of Hwy VV onto Mauller would reach 154 at the peak hour time. That would be more than 2 per minute. So that is the reason they suggested that. They still classified it as a B, collector major, not an arterial type of street.

The next item addressed was the storm drainage. Mr Marshall referred to the sketch that was handed out. Basically he worked with Frank Gordon, who is with the National Resource Conservation. He is the person that the County uses to review of the storm water. He and Aaron went over the report and made some minor modifications. The information was run twice by two different programs (Marshall’s and then Gordon’s). Basically both programs came up with the same thing. On the comparison sheet it shows the result they came up with as to what needs to happen in order to contain and control the storm water run off of this particular situation if it is developed as it is outline in the plat.

The water level in the lake will be left at the same level it is now. However, in the southeast corner erosion had eroded it down a little over one half foot below what the emergency spillway is on the west side. The dam will be raised basically about 1.4 feet and order to get additional storm water storage in case of a large flood, the water can be controlled. So the dam will be raised from 710.5 to 711.9. So before it would flow over the top of the dam it would have to rise 3 feet. The emergency spillway will be set 3 feet below that particular point. A steel overfill pipe will improve the situation. In addition an emergency spillway will be constructed at a certain width based on the estimated flow out of the pond. The diagram illustrates some remedial action that is necessary in order to assure the continuation of that dam. One of them is to put riprap there on the inside and re-establish a 3 to 1 slope on the inside face of the dam. Right now there has been quite a bit of erosion and eating away just from the wind and waves against the dam. On the spillway they propose to use the riprap there to establish spillway on the emergency spillway so that the water will not wash it out when it runs down like it has in the past.

Mr Gordon has assured Marshall that based on his analysis and his agreement with their analysis that the existing CMP underneath the road will be adequate to handle overflow that would come from this particular situation. The run off from the area will go into the lake. The water from the streets will be dumped into the lake. So the water will be contained on site and running it through the lake. The lake has a dampening effect on the overflow on any particular rain runoff. It will take it more time to run through that pond that to just run off the land. Therefore they believe it is appropriate to run the storm water drains from the streets down to the lake. These are basically the main things that have been looked at.

Mr Van Matre asked if it was a correct statement that the County had reviewed the drainage plans for the subdivision and approved them? Mr Shawer responded that that was correct.

Mr Marshall proceeded addressing the sewage system. He stated that the existing plant at Bon Gor is a small extended aeration plant designed by Bill Marshall in 1975 (25 years ago). This was a supplemental plant to attempt to unload some of the load on the lagoons. In an effort to make them work properly Mr Burnam installed this plant above the lagoons. The water runs from the plant into the lagoons. The old plant is a good plant. The only thing wrong with it is it creates a lot of noise because there are a couple of blowers on there that make quite a bit of noise. At times there it may get out of balance and create an amount of odor. It is not an ideal situation but it certainly helped the lagoons to be able to treat the sewage that was coming into the lagoons. In an effort to also improve that situation they will put some floating aerators on the lagoons which help to gain more oxygen into the water there.

A photo of the 5-cell system was shown. Usually in the summer there will be a bright green with the algae or duck weed. Sometimes in the winter it may brown. This is not a very good view to look out a back window and see those particular ponds with the knowledge of what is in them. Their intent is to work with the County and develop a treatment plant that will take care of the new development but also eliminate the need for the 5-lagoon and that particular sewage treatment plant. It is desired to either develop a plant on-site as earlier indicated, or move it down to the creek below there and put in a larger plant so that the County can also hook in several other sewage plants they have in the area to make it a regional plant. This is something that is being looked at and discussed with County. If that does not work, they anticipate eliminating this and put in a structure that is about 40x100 with a fence around it. The new area then would be serviced by 2 lift stations below the dam.

The lagoons can basically be taken out after a certain length of time of setting and stabilizing. They can be removed and filled in and the land reclaimed for a recreational area or sort. It is not wise to build houses over the tops of those lagoons, but they could be used for recreation. That would improve the quality of life.

Anyone who works in the area of sewage would realize that lagoons are good. They have a good use and they process the waste, but they do put out higher suspended solids. Also, their biological oxygen demand caused by algae is higher than it would be from a mechanical plant. Therefore, a mechanical plant has a better performance rating on the affluent than the lagoon.. One of the reason for going to a mechanical plan is because it does a better job of treating and takes a lot less land. It takes more energy because it requires air and that requires motors and blowers. But at the same time it is a better treatment plant.

The applicant has been working with Water District 7, which is now Consolidated Water District 1. The applicant has been working with the Water District on an agreement to bring the water down Hwy VV and tying in Wade School road to a project that Marshall completed for Water District 7 a few years ago. That part has been agreed upon. The Fire Department will determine where the hydrants go based on the loads and the type of residential structures are there. With apartment areas, the standard is 300 feet apart between fire hydrants. In single family residential areas, the standard is 500 feet apart. Fire protection would be provided. The applicant is looking at using underground electrical service to prevent a lot of unattractive wires strung all over the place.

Allen Moore, Real Estate Appraiser, office at 609 E Broadway and resides at 550 S Rangeline Rd, Columbia. Mr Moore has been a real estate appraiser in Columbia since around 1977. Mr Moore was asked to do a study of the subject property to assess how the proposed subdivision, specifically the manufactured housing segment, would influence the value, the use and enjoyment of the nearby property. As a part of the study he included sales of properties, and development of subdivisions near other existing manufacturing housing developments in the Columbia area. Mr Moore referred to the copy of his report that had been handed out to the Commission earlier. He began his summary by referencing a map on page 5 in the report. He pointed out a couple of factors of the neighborhood and the development. He reviewed the plan of the subdivision and believes it will reasonably well buffered. Some buffering is provided between the mobile homes and site built homes by the existing lake. That is a nice amenity. Also some designated park lands in some area. Along with the landscaping that was described before. The map identifies some of the surrounding land uses near the subject property. The most important thing to note is that all the uses that are going to be in the subdivision already exist in the neighborhood. There is another manufactured housing development just north of the property where Green Hills Mobile Home Park is located. There are some more manufactured homes at the southeast corner of Mauller and Hwy VV. There are some other apartments, duplexes and other single family homes.

Mr Moore commented that the removal of the lagoon would have a positive effect on the value of the property and especially the homes that are within a couple hundred feet of that facility right now. There are other pictures of other properties in the area provided in the report. Mr Moore did several case studies using a comparative market analysis. One of the main questions he tried to answer in this study was regarding the impact of existing manufactured homes on the value and order of development in the rest of the area. He compared homes that were sold and were adjacent to mobile home parks to homes that were similar but in other locations up to 1 mile away.

The first case study included 3605 Topanga in Belmont Village Subdivision. This subdivision is located just off Hwy 763. Page 11 of the study shows Belmont Village Plat 10 and Rustic Meadows Mobile Home Park. 3605 Topanga sold for $127,015.00. It was compared to a couple of different houses. The first one was at 2600 Thornberry in Springdale Estates Subdivision. That house was about the same size, full unfinished basement; a new home sold for $126,000.00. 3607 Topanga has full view of the mobile home Park yet it sold. The appreciation rates were also addressed in the report. The results of the appreciation study shows that the prices are not different and the rates of appreciation are not different for those homes that are in the proximity of the mobile home park. The sixth and last case study he considered where some of the new subdivisions have been developed and how close were some of those to other mobile home parks. In addition to Belmont Village, the new subdivision Vandereen Crossing is going in across the road and a little north from Rustic Meadows. There is also Bluff Creek, the Woodlands, and Eastland Hills – all are new subdivisions that have been developed in the last 10 years that have mobile home parks within a fairly close proximity. It seems reasonable to conclude from that that these developments would not be occurring if the proximity of the mobile homes was adversely effecting the orderly development of those projects or if there was a safety concern.

Other market consideration: He contacted several other manufactured and mobile home dealers in the Columbia area. These dealers indicated a very strong demand for lots that you could put a doublewide mobile home on and also for singlewides – but the primary demand was for doublewides. Each dealer indicated that the public streets and public utilities and restrictive covenants would create a very strong demand for lots such as this. Several of them mentioned that the only place you could get that lot was in Richland Heights, a community just east of Regional Hospital. It also has some restrictive covenants, city streets, and public utilities. The manager of Richland Heights indicated the stronger the restrictive covenants greatly improves the type of resident that would be attracted and increase the appeal of the development.

The chart on page 16 illustrates the finding of 13 other mobile home parks in Columbia. Of the 13 (not including Richland Heights) out of about 100 sites or more, there are only three doublewide sites available. They are not very appealing sites because of the potholes and unmaintained properties. Another factor of this development, which will be positive for the neighborhood, will be the construction of the site built homes in Windy Point on the west side of the lake. The average price of these homes will probably be quite a bit in access of the average price of homes in the neighborhood now. When that occurs it usually brings up the value of all the existing homes in the neighborhood and make the whole area more appealing from a marketing stand point.

His report also consisted of the comparison of homes on Bon Gor Court and also on Moberly Dr that had a view or backed up to the lagoon. Those homes were compared to other homes in Bon Gor and some other locations that did not. He looked at anywhere from $500.00 to $2,500.00 higher price to the homes that were not adjacent to that lagoon. That was not surprising. Mr Moore asked other appraisers opinions of what they thought the appreciation value of the property would increase to if the lagoons were removed. The other appraisers through the property would appreciate anywhere from 2 to 10% just be removing the lagoon. He surveyed a couple of duplexes in Bon Gor. The duplexes that back up to the lagoon rent for about $35.00/mo less than other duplexes in other parts of the subdivision.

Basically in a summary the market evidence shows that the value of homes adjacent to the mobile home parks does is not substantially diminished by that proximity, appreciation rates of those type of properties are similar. He thinks the Windy Point homes will be well buffered. The restrictive covenants are superior to anything in Boone County. The addition of the other homes in $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 range will be a plus. He concluded that the conditional use permit granting construction of the proposed Windy Point Subdivision would not adversely effect the use and enjoyment of nearby properties. It would not substantially diminish or impart the market value of the properties nearby. It would not impede normal and orderly development in improvement of surrounding properties for the uses permitted and based on the review of the traffic plans it would not hinder the flow of traffic or create traffic congestion on those streets.

Jack Blaylock, 802 E Broadway, resides at 1861 N Boothe Lane, Columbia. Mr Blaylock spent 7 years on Columbia’s Planning and Zoning Commission. He was asked to analyze the Windy Point development and present his opinions of the effects on the neighborhood of the entire residential development of Windy Point. In his study he considered the supply and the demand for the type of development that is being proposed by Windy Point. He considered the compatibility of the proposed land uses to the existing land uses that are already there. He considered the effect on value, if any, of other properties within the neighborhood. He considered the economic impact that such a development will have on the general welfare of the County.

Commissioner Smith asked who did the investigation in 1999 on the crime rates in the three different neighborhoods?

Mr Blaylock requested the investigation be done. Sgt Richard Jenkins, of the Columbia Police Department, was assigned to the investigation.

Mr Burnam summarized by reviewing the key points from each of the witnesses and projected what he believes Windy Point will look like in 2010. There would be a self-governing association with officials elected by the residents. Nearly $100,000.00 in dues will have been paid over the time period. That is very important when it comes to enforcing the covenant. He also stated that if he decided to sale the mobile home part of the development the new owner would be subject to the same set of covenant rules and will be subject to the same enforcement provisions by a well funded association. Any homeowner (SF or manufactured) who fails to meet minimum standards will be vigorously pursed.

Commissioner Sloan asked at what point in the process will the lagoon system be replaced?

Cris Burnam stated that the lagoon system will be one of the first item address because he can not collect a single dollar of income unless there is adequate sewage. There is no adequate sewage in place now. Even if the homes are built they can not be sold until the sewage issue has been resolved.

Commissioner Smith made reference to the I-70 By-pass proposals and how it would effect the Windy Point development since it fell within the 5 mile corridor.

Mr Burnam believes if planned growth continues the area can be shaped to handled whatever impact I-70 will have if they do a loop up to the north. It could open up a whole new areas for retail and residential development, but sensitive planning has to be used and development goes forward. That is why he is submitting a planned development instead of just an open rezoning request.

Mr Van Matre concluded by asking that the record include all the documents and visual aids presented.

Open to public hearing.

Those in favor of the request.

Orrie Snook, 1028 Bourn Ave, Columbia. Mr Snook stated he wanted to put a face to the people who can not find a place to rent, who do not have the ability to finance a home. For some time years ago he used to take people around and find homes for them. There were places on University Ave for rent where there are 8 apartment units, the basement would be flooded and a mess, but there was no place to buy a home. His appeal was to the Commission to consider how they would feel if they were in the same position of not having a nice affordable place to live. He stated that the people of Columbia, Missouri are looking to the Commission to give them some help. The Commission has the ability to say, "Yes." Or you can say "No. We don’t want you to have a home or to supply you with affordable housing."

Mr Snook said it disturbed him a good deal to hear politics and people biting each other. The Commission ought to be thinking about one thing, and that is – What’s good for the Columbia people who have supported you and voted for you. Not all this hype. He believes the proposed development will be a wonderful thing for the people, especially ones from the trailer court that was sold and everybody was thrown out. Here people have an opportunity to get a first-class A-1 facility. These developers are professionals and know what they are doing. Keep the pettiness can be kept out of the decision making. Think if you were in the position where you were trying to find a home for your wife or your kids and there wasn’t any decent housing available. What would you do? The community is looking to you (the Commission) to give them the opportunity to find a decent place to live. Mr Snook continued by saying that he came before the Commission in support of the Windy Point development to help the Commissioners find something within themselves to meet the need of the people. He to get rid of the outside conflicts and think what is good for the people in Columbia, Missouri. He came representing the people who were not able to attend the meeting who needed affordable housing. What is more important than having a place to call home? Each one of you have a home. You are affluent. The people go through all the Mickey Mouse stuff with the banks just to be rejected. You will hear a lot of things said in opposition of the development. But the bottom line is what is best for all the people in Columbia. There may be circumstances down the road where a person can not afford affordable housing.

Robert Knudd, 6444 N Pitchfork Place, Columbia. He said he was very interested in the northern part of the County. Take a look at Willow Brook, Haystack Acres and Vanderveen. Those places are built and sold almost before they come out of the ground. The northern part of the County is growing and Windy Point will be a great addition. Along with the progress that will be made with this housing, there would also be other amenities that the northern part needs badly, such as shopping malls and grocery stores. All of those things will come when the houses continue to be built, and when we continue with the progress in building the right kind of places for people to live. Haystack Acres is a perfect example where there are manufactured homes and stick built houses. They are very compatible with each other and the living environment there is terrific. Mr Knudd asked the Commission to consider that type of environment that will be at Windy Point.

The other point he made was that it may not be now, it may not be next week, it may not be next month, but Windy Point, that land, will be developed in some fashion. It may not be as it is currently being discussed, but it will be developed. One gentlemen, who is in opposition of the Windy Point development, told Mr Knudd that it would be developed. Once it is developed other businesses will begin to develop in the are as well. The area is already seeing businesses building new places such as Mari’s. Things will begin to change more once there are more nice living area for people to move in. He has hopes that the Commission will vote in favor of the request, and concluded by saying that things are changing and progress can not be stopped and eventually it will be developed.

Those in opposition of the request.

Tom Schneider, 11 N 7th Street, Columbia, represents many of the neighbors and individuals who are in opposition of the request. He agreed that the Windy Point property will develop but that was not the point. The issue is how it should develop. Mr Schneider proceeded with clarifying a point that Mr Van Matre made at the beginning of the hearing. Mr Van Matre said that it is true that the applicant has worked with the Staff to meet the Staff’s technical requirements, but that does not in any way imply that the Staff has in any way taken a position on or has endorsed the concept of this plan or proposal. The Staff was very clear to say if this plan or proposal is approved by this body or the County Commission then these requirements should be met.

Mr Schneider thinks there are really three significant differences between this plan and the one that was proposed and recommended for denial last summer. 1) The mobile home part has been flip-flop from the east to the west. That does nothing for the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, the intersection of Mauller Road and Hwy VV really is the gateway to the development of this whole area and the effect of that flip-flop is simply to place the mobile home park right at the gateway. 2) It increases the density of the number of mobile homes by 50% and 3) it essentially strips out what green space had been in the plan.

The changes are not improvements to the plan that recommended for denial by the P & Z Commission last summer. With respect to some of the claim benefits much has been made of the removal of the Bon Gor lagoon. That really is a red herring. That is not a result of this plan or the mobile home park proposed on the east side of this plan. That will be required as a result of any development on this property because that lagoon is at maximum capacity according to the Regional Sewer District and for the west half, the Single Family, to be developed the Sewer District will absolutely require removal of the lagoon. Approval of the mobile home park is not the cause of removal of that lagoon.

Much has been made of the need for affordable housing. The need for affordable housing does not mean that the development needs to be done poorly. The issue is whether this is a quality development. They are not mutually exclusive. You can have a quality development and provide affordable housing at the same time. It is like the argument that, there is a demand for sausage and therefore you need to use the snout, the organs, the awful and everything but the squeal on the pig. You don’t need to have maximum density in order to afford locations for affordable housing.

With respect to the issue of precedent that really has not been discussed much this evening. Mr Schneider agreed with the comments Stan Shawver made in a newspaper article. Each and every development has to be looked at on it’s own merits on a piece meal basis. But certainly what the P&Z and County Commission does will be of precedent. All citizens are entitled to equal protection under the laws and if a particular precedent is established for a particular mobile home density then anyone else who offers a similar proposal must necessarily be approved. It is understood that an engineering plan is being done, directly across Hwy VV on property owned by California State or Trust, for something similar. If this is approved the plans for that will probably be submitted in about 6 months for approval.

Stan Shawver responded to Mr Schneider’s question of how much undeveloped acreage is in Boone County by referring to the color-coded zoning map. The yellow area represents the R-S area.

Mr Schneider requested the zoning map be offered into record. The yellow area represents a large acreage of R-S in Boone County, which Mr Shawver has indicated is preliminary undeveloped. So the precedents issue is significant.

With respect to the public need (element 7 of the C.U.P) there may be a need for affordable housing. But no evidence has been presented for a need for affordable housing of 2, 3, or 4 mobile homes on a single lot. That is what is objectionable to the neighborhood. Both Mr Blaylock and Mr Moore indicated that there was a need for lots for doublewides. Most of the lots that are in the mobile home park that are being proposed, are 77 feet wide. How can those lots accommodate two doublewides? If they can accommodate they will be extremely close together.

Regarding fair market value, for the record, Mr Schneider offered an article in the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, published in September of 1999. That article was offered to the Commission in packets previously. The study was conducted by two professors over a 5-year period, in 5 parishes or counties in Louisiana. The number of "observations" was in excess of 3,000. It was a long haul market study. That study concluded that the proximity of mobile homes to single family dwellings did in fact have a negative impact on value of the single-family dwellings. It is a Louisiana study but the scientific approach appears to be impeccable and that was demonstrated.

A letter from Deputy Stone was offered into record. The letter is dated January 25, 2000. The letter addresses the County Sheriff’s Department experience in terms of the increase of service calls as a result of increases in density and specifically in relation to mobile home parks.

The restrictive covenants for County Downs & Bon Gor Lake Estates Subdivision were offered into the record. Both subdivision have two things in common. They both were developed by Gordon Burnam, the applicant’s father, and both prohibit trailers. That says something in itself.

The point was made by Bill Marshall about the runoff in the lake. How is that being addressed in the development plan and what sort of runoff is that going to be and what effect is it going to have on the fish the quality of the water?

David and Cindy Lochhaas have addressed the Booneslick history in great detail in some materials they previously furnished to the Commission. The Lochhaases had proposed the applicant dedicate or donate about 3 or 4 acres of the property on which a documented portion of the Booneslick trail is located in hopes that the developer would match that type of dedication. That is not something that this commission can require, but once that opportunity is lost it will be lost forever.

Mr Schneider found the applicant’s proposal to have the County Commission’s consent before any modifications or alterations can be made to the covenants and interesting proposal. He also questioned whether the County Commission would accept that responsibility, especially in light of their past unwillingness to enforce restrictive covenants. John Patton’s legal advise to them is "they can not do so". So it is questionable as to whether they will accept that responsibility that is being offered by the developer. County Commission can speak for itself and usually does not hesitate to do so.

A protest petition was offered into record. The petition is a part of Planning Departments file. It has been signed by some 330 individuals.

The statement was made by Mr Burnam that on average; the mobile home units will have more square footage than the minimum 7,000 sq ft required in zone R-S. In a way that is accurate, but some of the lots are in the neighborhood of 9500 or 9700 sq ft and have two units on them. Those lots are going to have far less than the 7,000 sq ft minimum. That is before the issues of driveway are even looked at on those lots of which there are several.

Mr Schneider asked Mr Blaylock how the figures 1in 5 homes in Boone County that are sold a manufactured. How does this correlate to the number of building permits that are issued. The sale of mobile home in Boone County does not mean it locates here. There are several mobile home venders on Hwy 63. From two miles north of Columbia all the way down to Ashland. Many of those homes are located outside of the Boone County area. Correlation of sales and the permitted placement in Boone County should probably be looked at.

Those are the general comments the neighborhood wished addressed. Mr Schneider then asked those present that were in opposition of the request to stand.

Mark Hollsinger, 7502 N Hwy VV, Columbia. Lives east of the Windy Point Development. Took exception to what Mr Moore and Mr Blaylock said about real estate values. The subdivisions that were talked about grew up around existing trailer parks and not the other way around.

Dan Hargis, 7701 Chesley, Columbia. Recently, the Sheriff’s Department was well criticized for taking 1.5 hours to respond to a call where a young girl was murdered. That is the situation where Sheriff Boehm previously stated, in a Commission Meeting, that the Sheriff’s Department is stretched to the max. Certainly the neighbors feel that with the addition of the proposed homes without more infrastructure will be a significant problem in that area. The Sheriff’s Department report dated January 25, 2000 compares numerous mobile home parks with numerous single family and multifamily residences. If you do the numbers you can see there is a 17% difference in crime rates between mobile homes neighborhoods and single-family residential neighborhoods.

Patty Sokolich-Watts, 6751 Creasy Springs, Columbia. Has lived at this address for 10 years. She is a teacher in the Columbia Public School System and has grave concerns over the amount of students that will be pouring into the Columbia Public Schools without a accommodating level of a tax base, particularly if these are of lower value homes. The other point is that Mr Moore talked about how so many of these homes in this particular development will be at or above the current level of value residences that are already there and yet on the other hand Mr Burnam talked about how this will be affordable housing anyone will be able to live there. A final point – Ms Sokolich-Watts was not impressed with the Albert Schweitzer-like concern that Mr Burnam seems to have on this area. The current lagoon quits working every summer. She is personal on record for calling the Public Health Department to call about the stench that emanates from that lagoon. There is also the issue of the brown Bon Gor Lake Estates sign that was dilapidated and falling down for many months.

Larry Luther, 7200 Wade School Rd, Columbia. Has lived at address for 30 years. Expressed strong opposition to the Windy Point C.U.P. in the condition it is in now. He feels that the run of 155 lots is a commercial development. That type of development is not consistent with the neighborhood that has always been there. This current neighborhood has been zoned R-S and should continue to be zoned R-S. People who have purchased homes in the existing neighborhood have done so because they liked the way the neighborhood as it is. To turn at this point and drop and incompatible use entirely from the zoning is a betrayal of everyone’s trust in Boone County.

There has been a lot of dangling the carrot in front of the existing neighbors and the Commission with the sewage treatment plant. Mr Luther is 200 feet from the sewage treatment plant and would much rather have the lagoon than have the development as it is proposed now. The area is going to develop and want to see it develop as it is zoned and not as a large commercial development.

Dave Lochhaas, 7501 N Hwy VV, Columbia. He and his wife have 28 acres. Their property is the one that has the remnant of the old Booneslick trail. He offered to answer any questions regarding the trail if there are any. He was more concerned about the real intents of the applicant. Mr Lochhaas was skeptical about the real reason as to what the applicant is intending to do. He stated that this plan to develop Windy Point was first brought to public attention over a year ago. At that time if the demonstrated concern that has been shown tonight about providing low-cost affordable housing had been put in place and the applicant had decided to go ahead and build to zoning families would already be living in modular homes something like Shalimar Gardens, which is perfectly acceptable to the neighborhood. He feels there is something else going on and the applicant is not coming clean on it.

David Griggs, 6420 Hwy VV, Columbia. Lives approximately 1/8 mile south and across the street from the proposed development. Mr Griggs believes that Windy Point could and probably will impact every parcel of R-S land in the County. Mr Griggs has lived on his tract of land for 50 years. This area is a well-established traditional single-family owner occupied neighborhood that has been zoned R-S to A-2 since 1973. He is not opposed to single-family development of the tract as it is zoned today. He does think the neighborhood is because they realize that that is allowed by the zoning of the tract today. As he stated in his letter to County Commission his concerns are about the density of the development, the number of living units, the fact that there are multiple homes on single rented lots, the increased traffic on Hwy VV, Hinton Road, Hwy 763 and Prathersville Road which are already over loaded. Mr Griggs closed by stating the property is zoned R-S (Single Family). The property is in an area that consists primarily of single-family owner occupied homes and asked the Commission to honor that long existing zoning.

Scott Searles, 7709 N Chesley, Columbia. He expressed concerns that the park area and recreation areas have mostly been diluted in the new plan. The population has been increased. It is such a dense population. So many people. That is a very serious bad change. He read an interesting article last Fall from Planning and Zoning of a new plan for preserving the rural character of some of the areas around Columbia and the Hinton area was mentioned specifically. It seems that that development would go exactly contrary to that. Mr Searles believes that that plan for preserving rural area in some places is a very good idea.

Charles Lockwood, 7700 N Hwy VV, Columbia. A 9-year resident. The C.U.P. is in place to help enhance development for the betterment of everybody. In this situation the C.U.P. is being used to circumvent existing zoning. Essentially the applicant is trying to do spot zoning and he is against that sort of thing.

Mike Canole, 7401 N Hwy VV, Columbia. A 42-year resident. His land will adjoin the property where the trailers will be placed. His back door will be 50-60 feet from this site. He stated a 6-foot fence will not make him happy. There is livestock that is a natural attraction for children. Who will stand liable if they throw wildcherry bark, (which is poisonous to horses), across the fence and something happens to his livestock? What is one the of children is hurt? Livestock, children and dogs do not mix.

Steve Zobrisky, 43 E Hinton Rd, Columbia. His concerns are density and traffic.

Carolyn Luther, 7200 N Wade School Rd, Columbia. The new proposal is in stages. She is concerned about all the mobile homes being placed in first, because the development can get as far as Stage 7 and all 155 of the mobile homes will be in place. But only 40 of the Single Family houses will be in place and if at that time the money runs out or anything else runs out then there will only be 40 of the Single Family homes and all the rest will be the mobile homes in place. Concerned about the green space being removed in the new proposal. When there are too many places close together and no place for the children to play. We the children play in the street or the lake?

Melinda L Lockwood, 7700 N Hwy VV, Columbia. Trailer parks are no longer the way to go. If you are following national trend the way to go is developments like Cherry Hill. Developments that will incorporate residential homes, commercial and light industry so that people can live in a neighborhood and really become a community. Mobile home parks are the wave of the past. Her nephew is the Head City Planner for Mermark, Florida and was a City Planner in Ft Lauderdale County. He was contacted last year when the Commissioners were checking into mobile home usage in Texas and Florida. He informed her that trailers were no longer viable for residential application. One of the main reasons in Florida is because the weather. The land is zoned residential, just keep it that way and build homes.

Patty Brown, 7900 O’Neal Rd, Columbia. Her concerns are traffic. Her family purchased 2 lot just north of the proposed site on Akeman Bridge. Two lots with an old mobile home on it and sold it. The property value of that they paid for was $5.62 for Lot 1 and $6.00 for Lot 2 and nothing for the mobile home. She stated she does not understand the tax base here when that is all they had to pay for what was there. She is not sure what will have to be paid as the property goes up, but that was all that was paid last year.

Reta Jones-Nicholson, 6600 N O’Neal Road. She is not part of the immediate neighborhood that will be impacted by the proposed development. She expressed concerns on behalf of the O’Neal Road Association. Not everybody who leaves Windy Point Development will go down Hwy 763. They will begin cutting across county and they will end up coming south along O’Neal Road. O’Neal and Akeman Bridge Road are not prepared for the traffic. The O’Neal Road neighborhood will have a lot of industrial development on the south (the Quarry), commercial development on the east and pressure from traffic from the north.

She asked the Commission to consider the fact that in the planning decisions realize that one of the areas that will be heavily impacted by this decision will be an area that is not in the immediate neighborhood but will definitely bear the brunt of a lot of it.

Richard Hiatt, 4105 Gallant Fox, Columbia. Owns property in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Mr Hiatt also invested in some acreage north in the Hinton area. He conveyed that he has lived in the southwest part of Columbia for 12 year or so. They so the positive things that were going on in north part of Columbia. They wanted to be a part of the changes and hope that it continues. Asked for the Commissioner to help by sticking with them on the positive changes that are happening in the area.

He also asked why anyone would want to take a beautiful piece of land that is their home place and put in as many lots as they are allowed to put. He can’t understand why anybody would do that. He commented that some people like to do big things. They like to have big dreams and if they can’t do it big they don’t want to do it at all. Mr Hiatt stated that he, along with other people, have dreams too. Their dreams may not be as big as this proposed development, but they were just as important. He then told the Commission their help was needed in sort of maintaining the dreams that he and others had started.

Scott Debates, 8001 N Chesley Dr, Columbia. He felt there was a an air of negotiation like things are already in the works and it this manipulated or that is manipulated it will still end up working out. He thinks the main point is that the neighborhood still want to keep the neighborhood single-family residential. He stated he does not believe that any amount of manipulation will make the homeowners and all the families that have lived in that whole area any more comfortable with changing it over to a mobile home park type atmosphere. There have been comments of heavier traffic and concerns, but that does not mean that there are negotiations on the table. Changing it from 155 mobile homes and lowering the traffic will not open negotiations. There are all kinds of other aspects other than the traffic and the density. The point is, changing it from single-family residence in general is spot zoning.

Closed to public hearing.

Applicant returned to the table.

Jack Blaylock addressed the article that Mr Schneider presented. Mr Blaylock stated that the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics has no standing in the real estate appraisal industry. The authors have no credential in real estate appraisal or in the examination of real estate.

Mr Schneider’s article stated that more than 1 out of every 3 new homes, comprised of single-family dwellings and mobile home, built or placed in the United States was a mobile home. Mr Blaylock stated that the estimate from the journal was more liberal than his, which was 1 out of every 5.

This is a study of sales of property there were within ½ mile of mobile home parks as opposed to the sale of properties that are a greater distance of ½ mile without consideration of the amenities that they possess. It is not a true technique of the pair of sales to determine the comparability of these prices. Mr Blaylock made reference to page 117, which basically admits that it was not a scientific study. Their last claim is that any remaining errors and omissions are fully the responsibility of the authors.

Advised the Commission to take the study for what it is. It is a study that is not an accepted practice of the pair of sales.

Bill Marshall commented on the lagoon. He stated he was not sure where Mr Schneider go his "evidence for saying that if they develop the tract of land to the east of Bon Gor that they would have to remove the lagoons in Bon Gor." That is totally false. DNR certainly would not require it. The County might want it done. The applicant wants it done to, but it is not required by DNR.

Commissioner Piest directed a question to Mr Burnam. Why multiple dwelling lots?

Cris Burnam stated there was not magical about it. He stated his preference would have been to have just one large land tract width with streets going through it. That is not a possibility. The reason 84 lots was chosen was because of driveway standards, the right of way standards and then they began drawing lines. It could have just as easily have been 42 lots. Those are arbitrary lines drawn by the surveyor so that the criteria of County code could be met and be able to have publicly dedicated streets and sidewalks.

Commissioner Piest stated that he was still not sure Mr Burnam addressed the issue of why multiple lots instead of shared driveways and things like that to accomplish it, but for the present he dropped the issue.

Cris Burnam stated that in the last 6 months the driveway placement had become more of an issue on proposed subdivisions. It is something that has been on the books for sometime, but there was a break-in period and now it is being a significant issue. Mr Burnam stated that Tim Capehart, the surveyor, would be the person to ask about the multiple dwelling lots. He could not attend the meeting.

Chairman Kirkpatrick complemented the opposition on their brevity and lack of repetition. There was very impressive and greatly appreciated.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that a lot of information was presented to the Commissioners both verbally and on paper. He made the suggestion to table the request to give the Commissioners time to absorb what was said and what was heard and continue the discussion next month.

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to table the requests by B-SIB, L.L.C. for a permit for a mobile home park on 28.62 acres, a preliminary plat and review plan for a Planned Residential Development to be known as Windy Point on 93.8 acres located at Highway VV and Mauller Road for a date no earlier than July 20, 2000.

Commissioner Caruthers asked if any more evidence or public hearing would be offered at that time? Chairman Kirkpatrick said he would anticipate anyone who wants to be present to answer questions at that point should be present. As far as public hear – it is closed. So there will be no more presentation of any evidence unless it is asked for by some member of the Commission. And that would also applied to anyone in opposition who would like to be present also.

David Piest Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Mike Morgan Yes Mary Sloan Yes

Pat Smith Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Jim Green Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Motion to table all three requests carried. 8 Yes 0 No




  1. Request by B-SIB, L.L.C. and Windy Point Partners, L.L.C. to approve a review plan and preliminary plat for Windy Point Planned Residential Development on 93.8 acres located at the northwest corner of State Highway VV and Mauller Road.

These requests were tabled along with the Conditional Use Permit request. (see above)




  1. Hackman Acres. S18-T46N-R12W. A-2. Norlan and Barbara Hackman, owners. Brian David Dollar, surveyor.
  2. Bill Florea gave the staff report that the property is located on the north side of Calvin Drive, approximately ½ mile west of Route M. The property is currently occupied by a house, a barn, a shop and a lagoon. All of the structures and the lagoon are on proposed Lot 2.

    All lots will have frontage on and direct access to Calvin Drive. Right of way sufficient to provide a 33’ half width will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

    The property is located in the Consolidated Water District Number 1 service area.

    On-site wastewater systems will be used for sewage disposal. The applicant has submitted a plan showing the location of future wastewater systems on each lot. The applicant has also submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis. It should be noted that the existing lagoon, located on proposed Lot 2, does not meet the minimum setback requirement. If it becomes necessary to rebuild the lagoon it will be done so in compliance with the regulations. A note has been placed on the plat regarding this issue.

    The Existing house on proposed Lot 2 is also in the front setback area. No additions will be allowed to the house within the setback area. In addition, if the home is damaged to the extent of 75% or more of its value, by any means, it will have to be rebuilt in compliance with all county regulations.

    The property scored 25 points on the rating system.

    Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

    None one was present to represent the plat.

    None discussion held.

    Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve Hackman Acres with waiver requests. S18-T46N-R12W. A-2. Norlan and Barbara Hackman, owners. Brian David Dollar, surveyor.

    Mary Sloan Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

    Pat Smith Yes Darin Fugit Yes

    Mike Morgan Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    David Piest Yes Jim Green Yes

    * * * * *

  3. Teel Subdivision. S9-T50N-R12W. A-2. Michael and Neta Teel, owners. Donald E. Bormann, surveyor.

Thad Yonke gave staff report that this proposal is for a 15 lot preliminary plat of a subdivision. The project is located on the East and South sides of Barnes School Road approximately 1/4 mile North of the intersection of Barnes School Road and Highway 124. The site is located approximately 2&1/2 miles West of the Hallsville City Limits. The bulk of the property contained within the proposal is currently zoned A-2 (agriculture) and is the original 1973 zoning. There is an approximately 9 acre portion of the property that is zoned M-LP with a condition that the operation be restricted to the manufacture and assembly of wood products only and there be no chemical treatment of wood products. This portion of the property was rezoned in 1991 from the original 1973 zoning of A-2. All adjacent zoning is A-2. These are all original 1973 zonings. The current proposed preliminary plat encompasses approximately 60.25 acres. The development is within the Hallsville School District. The development is within Water District #4. Water infrastructure extensions and up grades will be required for this development and the costs of these are the developer's responsibility. The site is located in the Boone County Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants will be required and will have to meet fire & water district approvals. The actual requirements will vary based upon the actual size, uses, and construction methods proposed for the structures. Sewer service is proposed to be from a STEP collector sewer system proposed on lot 11 that will be constructed by the developer and turned over to the BCRSD. The BCRSD will need to approve any sewer proposal. Sidewalks are not required for this development. The proposed cul-de-sac does meet the 1000’ maximum length, however, the subdivision regulations require that roads be extended to adjoining properties unless the commission waives this requirement for good cause shown. The severe topography to the East can probably be argued as to be cause not to extend the road to the Eastern property, however, the ridge line that the proposed cul-de-sac follows continues to the South property and the road should be continued to this property line as a road stub. An additional roadway will probably need to be provided through the M-LP portion of the property to intersect with the proposed road and its extension to the South property in order to avoid problems meeting the maximum length requirements. The master plan does show this area as suitable for agricultural and rural residential development. The proposal rates 21 points on the point rating scale.

Staff can not recommend approval of the preliminary plat because of the required road extension and length issues unless the commission finds that good cause is shown to waive the required road extension or maximum cul-de-sac length.

(Commissioner Sloan stated that she would abstain from any discussion or voting on this request since she does business with Mike Teel.)

Don Bormann, surveyor, was present to represent the plat.

Commissioner Piest made and Commissioner Green seconded a motion to approve Teel Subdivision plat "as is" with the following condition:

David Piest Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Jim Green Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Pat Smith Yes Mary Sloan Abstained

Michael Caruthers Yes Mike Morgan Yes

Motion to approve plat "as is" with conditions carried. 7 Yes 1 Abstained

* * * * *

  1. Paradise Hills Estates. S33-T48N-R13W. A-2. Russell and Laura Devenney, owners. Timothy D. Capehart, surveyor.
  2. Thad Yonke gave staff report that this 3 lot final plat containing a new public road is located on the north side of Applewood Creek Road at the immediate northwest corner of the intersection of State Route KK and Applewood Creek Road. The Planning Director waived the requirement for a preliminary plat for this specific replat. The site is generally south of the municipal limits of the City of Columbia within 1/2 mile of the nearest boundary. The area of the proposed subdivision contains 14.88 acres. The proposed plat is a replat of Lots 21 to 25 of Paradise Hills Estates Block 4, which was approved in November of 1996. A tentative approval for the vacation of these lots from the original plat was approved by the County Commission on March 28th 2000. This vacation does not go into affect until the suitable replat is approved and recorded. The owners of this property also own the adjoining undeveloped lots to the west of this proposed plat. These additional lots are still part of the original plat and no vacation request has been made on their behalf. The property contained within the plat is zoned A-2, (Agriculture) as is property to the west and south. Property to the East across State Route KK and to the north across Mill Creek is zoned R-S (residential single family). These are all the original 1973 zonings. The site is in the Columbia School District and the Boone County Fire Protection District. The site is in Consolidated Public Water District #1. However, we have been informed by the water district and the city that the property is in an area that is to be served by the city. The city indicates that watermain extensions are required. There is currently a water district 8-inch water line along the south side of Applewood Creek Road. Fire hydrants are required for this plat. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from the City of Columbia. The applicant has requested a waiver for the traffic analysis. There is a question of ownership of a small portion of proposed lot 21A. The surveyor has attempted to address this issue with a note on the plat. Since this issue has not been resolved prior to submittal for approval of this plat a note does seem to be a reasonable means of giving notice of the situation. This seems acceptable in this specific instance, as the area in question is not contained within any area being dedicated for easement or ROW. The master plan shows this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential development. The plat has 70 points on the point rating scale.

    Staff recommends approval of the replat and waiver request with recognition of the following condition:

    1. That it be recognized that prior to the plat going to the County Commission and being recorded verification from the City of Columbia and the Boone County Fire Protection District that the required infrastructure is acceptable and in place.

    Bill Marshall, Marshall Engineering, present with owner, Russell Devenney, to represent the plat.

    Commissioner Sloan made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve Paradise Hills Estates with staff recommendations and conditions. S33-T48N-R13W. A-2. Russell and Laura Devenney, owners. Timothy D. Capehart, surveyor.

    Mary Sloan Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

    Pat Smith Yes Jim Green Yes

    Keith Kirkpatrick Yes Mike Morgan Yes

    Darin Fugit Yes David Piest Yes

    Motion to approve plat with staff recommendations and conditions carried. 8 Yes 0 No

    * * * * *

  3. East Locust Grove Plat 1. S2-T48N-R12W. R-S. Floyd and Donna Wade, owners. Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

Bill Florea gave this staff report - the property is located on the south side of Locust Grove Drive between Pin Oak Blvd. and Lake of the Woods Road. The parent tract of approximately 40,000 square feet is being divided into two tracts of roughly equivalent size. There is an existing house located on proposed Lot 4A.

Both lots will have frontage on Locust Grove Drive, which has a 50-foot right of way. No additional right of way will be dedicated by this plat. The owner has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The site is in PWSD #9 service area; however, it is in an area that has a territorial agreement with the City of Columbia. Therefore, the City of Columbia will provide water service.

Sewer service will be provided by the BCRSD. The sewage will be conveyed by the district to the City of Columbia sewer system for treatment. This property is part of the Pin-Oak Neighborhood Improvement District. It is important to note that the sewer district has informed us that the Pin-Oak NID assessment was established on the parent tract. Therefore, if either of the lots in this plat defaults on the NID payment both lots are in jeopardy. The district recommends that the NID assessment be paid in full prior to selling either of the lots.

This plat has 83 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver requests.

Ron Lueck, surveyor, represented the plat. He stated that the NID assessment had been paid in full.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve East Locust Grove Plat 1 with waiver requests. S2-T48N-R12W. R-S. Floyd and Donna Wade, owners. Ronald G. Lueck, surveyor.

Pat Smith Yes Michael Caruthers Yes

Mike Morgan Yes Mary Sloan Yes

David Piest Yes Darin Fugit Yes

Jim Green Yes Keith Kirkpatrick Yes

Motion to approve plat with waiver requests and corrections carried. 8 Yes 0 No




Central Missouri Diabetes Children’s Camp, Inc was approved at County Commission.




According to the By-laws that the Boone County Planning and Zoning Commission officially adopted July 8, 1971 (Revised September 18, 1997), under Article III, it is time for the election of officers.




Being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,




Mary Sloan, Secretary

Minutes approved on this 20th, day of July, 2000.