Thursday, March 15, 2001

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

Present: Keith Kirkpatrick, Chairperson Missouri Township

Mary Sloan, Secretary Rocky Fork Township

Pat Smith Perche Township

Mike Morgan Bourbon Township

Keith Neese Columbia Township

Michael Caruthers Centralia Township

Carl Freiling Cedar Township

David Mink, Director Public Works

Absent: None.

Also present: Thad Yonke, Staff Bill Florea, Staff

Paula Evans, Staff

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve minutes of the February 15, 2001 meeting with no corrections.

Motion passed by acclamation.

Chairman Kirkpatrick read the procedural statement.

Chairman Kirkpatrick added that he wanted to recognize two outgoing Planning and Zoning Commissioners one of whom is present tonight, Darin Fugit, and also Commissioner Jim Green and their two replacements, the new Planning and Zoning Commissioners Carl Freiling, Cedar Township and Keith Neese, Columbia Township.










  1. Request by Edward and Sharyn Holt to rezone from C-GP (Planned Commercial) to M-LP (Planned Industrial) and to approve a review plan for 3.59 acres, more or less, located at 10601 Hardwick Ln., Columbia

Planner, Thad Yonke gave staff report stating that this property is located approximately 3/4 of a mile north of the recently altered Ashland municipal limits. This property is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the intersection of Route H and Hardwick Lane. The current zoning for the site is C-GP (planned commercial). This was rezoned from A-1 (agriculture) in 1991. All surrounding zoning is A-1 and these are all the original 1973 zonings. The property is currently the site of a house and structures that were previously used in conjunction with a plant nursery and small engine repair business. This request is to rezone the property to M-LP (planned industrial) and to approve a review plan for a mini-warehouse storage facility. This site is within the Southern Boone County School District and the Southern Boone County Fire Protection District. The site is located in Boone Electric Cooperative and Consolidated Public Water Service District #1 service areas. Water service and fire hydrants are required for this land use. There is a 4" waterline and hydrant located near the north property line as shown on the proposed review plan. An additional fire hydrant and waterline upgrades will be needed if any of buildings D, E, F, or G are to be constructed. A note indicating this is on the review plan. Sewage is proposed to be by a sub-surface wastewater system that will be regulated by the Health Department. The Health Dept. has concerns with respect to the area proposed for the lateral fields. These issues will have to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Health Dept. Driveway relocation will need to be worked out with County Public Works and MODOT as appropriate. The site does drain to Bass Creek and staff does have concern with respect to water quality and stormwater issues. Specifically, the current use of the site constitutes about 3% of the total site area with impervious surface. The proposed review plan will constitute about 75% of the site with impervious surfaces. This issue brings into question whether the proposed review plan is too intensive a use for this property. If approved, the review plan should be subject to stormwater and erosion control plan approval from the NRCS. The landscaped screening areas are shown as a single row of trees. Staff feels that this buffer will not be adequate and a minimum of two rows of evergreen trees at an average spacing of 15 feet triangulated on center should be required. The gravel "shoulder" areas along the 12í wide driving lane should really be a minimum of chip seal surface since it will effectively function as part of the drive lane and loading/unloading area. The applicant has expressed that he will seek a BOA variance to be allowed to use the gravel loading areas as shown. It is uncertain as to whether this variance will be granted. Note number 10 indicates that the applicant wants all the permitted uses of an M-L district except those specifically listed in the note. Staff feels that this is too broad a list and allows uses of much higher intensity of use and higher impact. Should the rezoning and review plan be approved staff feels that the use should be limited to the existing use or that shown or at the very least it be recognized that any change in use from the mini-warehouse storage units will require submission of a new review plan. The master plan designates this area as being suitable for agricultural and rural residential uses. The proposed use is not consistent with the master plan. However, the existing C-GP zoning is also not consistent and the master plan does indicate that where commercial and industrial development is to occur it should be planned. The request scores 66 points on the point rating scale. Staff notified 10 property owners.

Staff would be more comfortable in recommending approval if the proposal did not cover as much of the site and was limited to the use shown. However, should the Commission decide the use is appropriate, staff reluctantly recommends approval of both the rezoning and review plan subject to the following 7 conditions.

  1. That it be recognized that any change in use, including those allowed in note 10 will require submission of a revised review plan.
  2. That note 10 be revised to limit the use of the site to two uses as follows: A) the existing use of the plant nursery and small engine business or B) the mini-warehouse storage units and gravel outside storage lot as shown on the plan.
  3. That the landscape screening/buffer area should be a minimum of two rows of evergreen trees at an average spacing of 15 feet triangulated on center.
  4. That an approved landscaping plan be binding and that all planting and buffering be maintained in good condition at all times. Any planting materials that die or are not providing proper buffering will be replaced no later than the next growing season with plantings that will provide the required buffering equivalent.
  5. That the stormwater and erosion control plan be acceptable to the NRCS, County Public Works, and Planning Departments.
  6. No Billboards be allowed on the site.
  7. That the only uncovered gravel surfaces allowed in the development be the outside storage area and note 7 be modified to reflect this condition. This condition will be in effect unless the BOA grants a variance to use gravel as shown on the proposed plan.

Present: Jay Gebhardt, civil engineer, The Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, Columbia, 65201

Neil Satterlee, civil engineer, The Civil Group, 1010 Fay Street, Columbia, 65201

Edward & Sharyn Holt, owners, 10601 Hardwick Lane, Columbia, 65203

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he would like to do an introduction to the plan. To relieve some of the Commissionís concerns, applicants met with staff today and found out about the conditions. Mr. Gebhardt spoke with the owners this evening and they have agreed to all the conditions that the staff proposed. This should not be an issue.

Mr. Gebhardt showed drawings of the proposed plan, showing the placement of the proposed buildings, landscaping and location of the existing home. Mr. Gebhardt pointed out the property and all roads surrounding the property. Mr. Gebhardt also showed the placement of the small engine and landscaping business that was once there, which the owners had operated. Mr. Gebhardt pointed that there is a bluff along one end, and stated that there is a neighboring property with a small existing older home, and a garage that looks like it was converted at some point from an outdoor building in to a garage. Bass creek is on the other side of this property, the bridge going over it from Highway 63 is about 600 feet down the road.

The property to the north is vacant and zoned A-1. The property to the east is farm crops. Mr. Gebhardt pointed out, on a color coded map, the existing home, in which the property owners currently reside, and existing buildings that are from the old business that will be reused in the proposed storage business. The red area indicates the new office area. The owners live on the site and will create an office that is separate from their home. The yellow areas are a handicap accessible route from the parking area.

The zoning requirements require one space for every 2000 square feet of storage, which makes applicants provide all the parking. Mr. Gebhardtís feeling is that most people park at their unit when they come to the storage facility, but the parking is required, so applicants have shown it.

The gray areas and tan area on the map, differentiated between the seal coat and the gravel area. Owners were going gravel the loading and unloading area but the staff felt that this was not appropriate. Applicants do not want to fight that battle at this time and will seal coat all driving, loading and parking areas. Mr. Gebhardt informs Commission that they can disregard the two color changes other than it is a driving lane. Applicant pointed out the outside storage area and stated that it is for RVís and similar type of storage, it is fenced with a privacy fence from the back edge of the existing home to the property line. Applicant has agreed to do the triangulated on 15 foot center trees for screening. The reason the trees are going to the existing shed is because of the bluff and the lay of the land, it is really the only place that can only be seen from the highway. This property approximately 50 feet plus above US Highway 63.

Mr. Gebhardt continues that the buildings will be built in phases, they are not going to all be built at one time. It is kind of a circular thing, applicants could show just three buildings and all the rest would be green space and have a more favorable plan for the Commission to look at. Mr. Gebhardt is asking not to be punished for showing what they believe to be the ultimate build out. Owners plans to start out with just part of the buildings shown on the plan. Once the business gets started, they will expand, just like any business. Again they show a double row of screening in two places. They stopped the screening at one point so that visibility from the driveway would not be interfered with.

Mr. Gebhardt again, pointing at sketch of plan, stated that down in one area, applicants have what is called an extended dry water quality control structure. This may be a new term to some of the Commissionerís, but Mr. Gebhardt has had some experience with them. It is basically there to treat the storm water and act as a small detention pond, Mr. Gebhardt states he will discuss more of that later.

Mr. Gebhardt asks Commission if they have any questions in general about the plan or the layout. Mr. Gebhardt adds that the buildings are different sizes, the small ones have walk-in doors, some have overhead doors, and some are quite large for boat storage and similar storage. There is a mixture of different types.

Commissioner Caruthers stated that this was going to be built in phases and asks which buildings would be initiated.

Mr. Gebhardt stated building A, portions of building B, and building C.

Mr. Holt stated that was correct. About 100 feet of each building will be built in the first phase, about 100 feet with the first two buildings. The reason for this is to get a unit mix. To get a proper unit mix to be in the mini storage business, applicant states, you have to have 10 X 10ís, 10 X 15ís, 10 X 20ís, and 10 X 30ís. Later on, there will be 10 X 40ís for larger vehicles.

Mr. Holt stated that the concept is, that applicants have the highway right there and applicants would like to draw some business off of that.

Mr. Holt stated that he and his wife were here in 1991, and thanked Thad Yonke and the Commissioner for their time. Mrs. Holt submitted a map to the Commissioner so they could see exactly where Airport Road is and where the site is located. Mr. Holt presented a display of photos. Mrs. Holt passed to the Commissionerís, a book by a building company out of Wisconsin. Mr. Holt stated that he showed this book to Neil Satterlee and Mr. Satterlee was shocked when he observed it.

Mr. Holt stated that the storage unit in the book was built in Columbus, Ohio. If you look at Mr. Holtís plans, the unit in the book looks almost exactly like Mr. Holtís plans. Mr. Satterlee did not plan this. The reason for that, is because there is an economic thing. Mr. Holt stated the best way he knows how to explain is like the way McDonald-Douglas does, you invest money and once you start gaining money, you re-invest that money. It takes a certain amount of square feet ultimately, to where you are a success. In other words, your business is built on your trade, it takes a heavy investment up front. This is why applicants drew out the entire plan, Mr. Holt stated that he believes it would take him 10 Ė 15 years to build what is on the plan. Applicants just want to start with two little buildings.

Mr. Holt stated that in all fairness to everybody, Commission should see the entire plan. Mr. Holt pointed to the pictures on display, pointing out photos of Highway 63, a photo looking south to Ashland, a photo looking north to Columbia, Panoramic photos, photos of the north driveway, and photos of the house and office. Applicant plans to put the office on the front of the existing house. The reason for that is so owners can see cars going in and out, which Mr. Holt believes to be a security measure. Mr. Holt pointed out where the actual entrance would be. He had Steve Brown, with the Missouri Department of Transportation, come out and show him where a good, safe driveway could be placed. Mr. Brown came out and put up a target and sighted it in and stated where the entrance needed to go. A phone pedestal would need to be moved.

Mr. Holt pointed out Hardwick Lane, a shop that is approximately 400 Ė 500 feet long, another photo of the field and the present sign which is barely visible. Mr. Holt states he can not build a sign big enough. It is almost impossible. Mr. Holt wishes to extend their sign a little bit to make it more visible. 73 percent of this business comes out of the phone book, which is part of the reason why they are calling it Airport Area, with the Aís in the name.

Mr. Holt stated when they were discussing the size of the complex. There is an excerpt out of a magazine called Inside Self-Storage, which Mr. Holt has been receiving for about a year. On the second page of the magazine under rules of site selection shows an example of a typical project, the land use is about 49 percent of the land. The particular example in the magazine is 3.75 acres, so it is a pretty good example. Mr. Holt states that this is out of a national magazine. Some of the areas that applicant highlighted, talk about the abundance of frontage, Mr. Holt states he has frontage on that highway. Hardwick Lane has very low traffic, so in terms of safety, he does not know how many cars go down Hardwick Lane a day, but if it is 15, 10 of them are probably lost. Some other things Mr. Holt highlighted are the types of buildings as Mr. Gebhardt referred to, it takes different types of buildings.

Mr. Holt stated that what he wants is a little different, he wants to build a building specifically for boats, Mr. Holt believes that is something that is up and coming in this business as indicated in the literature he has read. The example that the magazine shows, it looks almost exactly like Mr. Holtís plan. On the next page of the magazine, Mr. Holt states it is the same thing it is basically the same thing as 2.6 acres, 31,700 square feet or 32 percent. The difference in the two of them, is that the buildings in one picture go east to west and in the other picture, they go north to south. In applicants proposed site the buildings go east to west because applicants feel that would be best for security. It doesnít form a wall that you canít see behind.

Mr. Holt continued that there is a mention there of perimeter buildings which, as shown on applicants plan, there are some perimeter buildings that helps with security. This business is a business where square footage is all you talk about. Finally, on the last page, there is an insert in the packages submitted to Commission, about the traffic count. Mr. Holt stated he got those from MODOT in September 2000, when he began researching. On the last page, the traffic count refers to 10,000 cars a day, that is a nationwide study, it takes about 10,000 cars a day, anyone in business knows that probably yields maybe 100 Ė 500 people who might look up. On the upper right hand corner it talks about 40,000 square feet and that paragraph states that it should be noted that facilities with less than 40,000 square feet are entirely different in nature and refers to charging higher rents in order to protect your investment. Mr. Holt believed that these would be good examples of what goes on in this business.

Mr. Holt stated that they were in the lawn and garden business for five years and when Mr. Holt came in for his zoning, he told the committee then that this is exactly what he wanted to do. Mr. Holt stated he went to school to become a certified Briggs and Stratton mechanic and became a certified Tecumseh mechanic and these are all different schools Mr. Holt had to go to. Mr. Holt states he became a certified Kohler mechanic, Mrs. Holt became a member of the American Association of Nurserymen.

Mr. Holt stated on the first page of the magazine, there is the study of square foot study and applicant went around town and visited most of the facilities. Most facilities in town are about 250 units. There are about 15 facilities. It sounds shocking but they are kind of hidden and well placed. If you take 15 facilities times 250 units, youíve got 3750 units, and divide that by the population of Ashland and Columbia together. Something in this business they talked about was population propensity, the definition, by the dictionary, is what people intend to do. But it is something they have used in this business for a long time, measuring feasibility of whether a storage facility would go. Applicants found it to come out to about a 2.5 propensity. Nationally, the propensity is a 4.5, so this would indicate that there is still room in the business in this location if you add Ashland and Columbia together. This site in right in between the two. Some of the other factors are that a lot of houses these days are being built on a slab. That indicates again, a need for more storage. The County has a high count of University students, another reference to the 20,000 cars.

Applicant asked Commission to keep in mind that 73 percent of the business comes out of the phone book. Some other factors that applicant stated he got out of a report that was put together by Bernie Andrews with R.E.D.I., the average age should be over 33.5 and according to the R.E.D.I. study, the average age in Columbia is 39. The income should be above the National average of 34,000 and over 30 percent of the labor market of Columbia and the surrounding area is above that. Regarding the educational level, the National average of years of school should be above 11.4, and 98.3 percent have attained a high school diploma in our area. In other words, we have a very educated, well to do area, and theses people have possessions that they need to store.

Mr. Holt continued that he spoke with Mr. Eftink, the city manager of Ashland and Mr. Eftink stated that he has 325 houses platted in Ashland. Southern Columbia, as we know, is one of the fastest growing areas of Boone County. Mr. Holt gave an example: A guy who fishes at Lake of the Ozarks, Mark Twain Lake, and back to Lake of the Ozarks by Sedalia, he may want a central location to put his boat. Mr. Holt stated that he couldnít go without mentioning the airport. Applicant stated he went to the airport and spoke with Bill Boston, who stated that no matter what happens at the airport that applicant would not interfere in anyway with their plans, it is a half-moon shape with flight patterns, and radio waves. The only thing Mr. Boston was concerned with is that applicant may put up a cell phone tower. Mr. Holt stated that he has no intentions of doing that and no intentions of putting up any kind of billboard.

Mr. Holt stated that the location is four miles north of Ashland and eleven miles south of Columbia. Regarding the concern of looking at another ugly storage facility. Mr. Holt stated that this subject is near to their hearts since they were in the lawn and garden business. Part of the subject tonight before they came to the meeting was they were asked what to put on the plan and were not sure how to answer that. He stated that he may want to put a certain tree in a specific place, then it doesnít look right in landscaping. Applicant stated that they have a good idea of what to do out there now. Just around for applicantís enjoyment are some hollyís, rhododendron, purple leaf trees, aristocrat pears, mapleís and so fourth.

Mr. Holt stated that they like a nice, clean property and when applicant had the lawn and garden business, they kept it clean. It takes an effort, at times they might have had 300 lawn mowers out there. Another thing applicant showed earlier was the access. People can easily get on Hardwick Lane from the north and the south.

Applicant continued that the phase development is extremely important to applicant. Mr. Holt stated that he expect this to be a success. From the literature applicant studied, these facilities only have an 8 percent failure rate. Mr. Holt stated that his bank is behind him on this. Mr. Holt worked in a restaurant business in which there is a 94 percent failure rate. There is quite a difference there. Mr. Holt stated that he and his wife believe this is compatible with the long-term plan of Boone County. The airport area is going to develop at some point.

In summing up, Mr. Holt stated that if you look at the pictures, notice that the barns are white and will be trimmed in evergreen, then the home site will be white vinyl with evergreen trim so that everything will fold together as a nice package. It is not a polluting business.

Mrs. Holt stated to add to the landscaping plan, Mrs. Holt agrees that a staggered screen would be a more effective block, particularly on the Highway 63 side. Mrs. Holt, pointing out on the plan diagram, added that they did not extend the evergreens beyond certain points, so you can barely see beyond that point. Applicants felt that this would be adequate. Mrs. Holt stated that they do wish to block their neighbors to the south. As far as accent plants, it would be nice to be able to put some around the buildings. But will have to see how that fits with the chip and seal. Accent plants are already in place around the house, which is the office.

Mrs. Holt states she likes to go with something blooming throughout the growing season. As far as the structural part of the landscaping, the main idea here was to show that applicants were going to block the facility and have a green buffer.

Mr. Holt pointed to a photo on the display, showing the end of the driveway. He stated that there is an area that is open. It is 70 miles per hour. That is a blip, applicant proposes to put a double row of trees there and feel certain that no part of the facility would be seen from the highway.

Mr. Gebhardt passed to the Commissioners, literature which he read to the Commission. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he thought it was necessary to mention Bass Creek and the storm water issues because this is something that is going to get more important as time goes on and the County adopts EPAís phase 2 storm water regulations. Although now the County doesnít have any requirements that he is aware of other that getting the plan approved. Mr. Gebhardt stated he spoke with Mr. Holt in the beginning that this was a big concern. Applicants have adjusted by filling the water quality control structure. Mr. Gebhardt showed on the plat where this structure would be placed.

Mr. Gebhardt, addressing the literature, states on the first sheet is different frequency storms, the predevelopment flow, which is equal to the flow that comes off the land the way it sits today. The post development flow without any detention, if applicants were not to do anything but just develop this and let it run off, which applicants are not doing, but is in the literature for comparison. Then post development flow with detention. The one that should jump out is the two-year storm. There is a 66 percent reduction from what is flowing today. It is raining right now, if we had a perfect two-year storm, you can predict the flow that comes off this site. Using these same models, after it runs through the detention, you will have 66 percent less or about 1.3 cubic feet per second rather than 3.9 c.f.s. today, if applicant did nothing there would be 4.8 c.f.s.

Mr. Gebhardt stated he would go ahead and show the 10, 25, and 100-year storms, you will see there is an increase. So the basin was not designed for flood control. This is a good distinction that needs to be made, there are not flooding problems in the area, the problem is water quality, so what applicant is trying to do is, treat the water quality and address that issue. It has been shown that the dirtiest water is the first half-inch or the first water that rinses and runs off is the dirtiest. In this case using the extended dry detention basin, any kind of suspended solids that we have, everything from this site is going to go in to the basin before it leaves the site. Any solids will be able to drop out before it goes out. There is a standpipe with perforated holes in it, it will sit there and drain out over a slow period of time. That is how Mr. Gebhardt is able to knock the peak off this flow and reduce the peak discharge. So everyone will understand, by reducing the peak, the total volume of flow has not been reduced. More water will run off the site, but it is not going to run off as fast and will run off over a longer period of time. What it does is basically reduce the velocity of the flow and keep the string banks from eroding. Stream bank erosion is one of the major things, it was always thought that stream bank erosion was a natural process, and it is. But developments whether its agriculture land or a mini storage effects how fast the rate of the erosion is.

Mr. Gebhardt continued that some people may wonder why they did not address the 10, 25, and 100-year storm. Mr. Gebhardt stated he would like to address that now. The 10 year storm is, in this area, if you use the rain fall intensity charts is 5.2 inches of rain over a 24 hour period. Mr. Gebhardt stated that he does not remember the last time there was 5 inches of rain over a 24-hour period. That is the problem with trying to model this, because you try to make it nice and clean to look at, but nature doesnít work that way. It rains hard and slows down, doesnít over night and it rains that morning, it is hard to model. 5 inches is a lot in a 24-hour period. We design residential streets and subdivision drainage for 10-year storms, which are pretty major storms. What applicants tried to design for is the normal frequently occurring storms, not these major events that occur.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that the basin was designed to primarily adjust water quality but not flood control. Regarding the extended detention basin, you can get wet extended detention basins, the problem with wet extended detention ponds, is the ecological system. You have to have fish and all kinds of things to eat all the stuff that is in the water. It is kind of like a wetlands, like the City of Columbia uses to treat sewage. Applicants feel that maintenance wise and practicality wise is a dry detention, although it doesnít go to all the same lengths that a wet detention would, it does provide for the settling of the solids. This can be a lot of different things, mainly we are talking about silt as the main pollutant, and it is what effects aquatic life in the stream.

Mr. Gebhardt states that even though these large storms do occur and there is extreme corrosion that occur from that. There is no denying that this does have some effect on that, someday, someone will have to balance manís use of the land versus natureís use of the streams. Mr. Gebhardt stated that it is not a fine line for him to walk, but it is probably one the Commission will have to address in the future.

Mr. Gebhardt states that he believes they have proposed something here that goes a long way to address that. Other design parameters applicant has used is to reduce the unnecessary impervious areas.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that because of the gravel issue, applicants have to show a hardship to go to the Board of Adjustment and the hardship isnít there, except that they do not want to have any more impervious area than they have to. That is something that will be addressed down the road by someone else and their plan. The most important part of the plan in regards to storm water quality is what is not shown. The best way to prevent pollution in streams, is not to let the pollution get in to the streams in the first place. A self-storage facility is controlled by an on site manager, which provides the control need to educate and prevent pollution. The proposed use of a mini storage eliminates many of the sources of pollution. Lawn fertilizers and pesticides and other typical residential and agricultural pollutants will not be present on site in the quantities that could exist in a residential and agricultural area. These are concerns. Just having Chemlawn coming out and doing your lawn is not good for stream health. In a mini storage, the owners are controlling who comes in, and controlling what gets put on the lawns.

Mr. Gebhardt added that the owners are proposing strict controls, which will be enforced on the type of materials that are stored at the site. Vehicles will be monitored for leaks and the owners of those vehicles will be contacted to take corrective steps or remove the vehicle. The owner will go after the guy with the $200,000 RV who isnít worried because it probably will not have a leak. The owner will not have the jalopy sitting there that will be restored someday by someone. Those kind of decisions are under ownerís control and applicant plans to exercise that control. There will be no fertilizers and pesticides will only be used as a last resort, after all their options have been exhausted. If there are termites, owner might have to use pesticides, there are some cases in which you have to do that. Although the site may seem to contain a great deal of impervious area, which was staffís comment, the point applicant likes to make is that they need this much to make it work financially. But also, Mr. Gebhardt would like to put it in perspective from a hydrological point of view. Farming a land of straight row crops and then leaving it barren during the winter could result in the same amount of increase of runoff. Although you may prefer row crops over self-storage, row crops that are fertilized and use pest control are much more likely to not only increase the amount of runoff, but also should be considered just as detrimental to the water quality. In that effect, an increase of runoff would be very similar in the sediment and chemical pollution would also be the same or greater.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that he is not proposing that agriculture is bad, and self-storage is good, but when you look at this, again you have to balance the need. Mr. Holt has tried to make the point that there is a critical mass here, and you need a certain amount of these units to make them work. Applicants have tried to address the storm water quality issues on the site.

Open to public hearing.

In favor of the request.

Present: Kevin Nahler, P.O. Box 290, Ashland, 65010

Mr. Nahler stated that he owns the property just to the north of the proposed site. Mr. Nahler stated that he has no problem with what applicants are planning. Mr. Nahlerís property has been standing for a while and he went through the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a request to rezone to planned commercial, which was tabled. Mr. Nahler at one point wanted to build a house on that property and was told that the area was light industrial commercial use. So what applicant proposes would help Mr. Nahler in the future.

No spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Commissioner Mink questioned the south property line in relation to the staff recommendation and asked applicant if they planned on double rows of trees everywhere there are rows of trees shown on the plan or is it in a particular place.

Mr. Gebhardt stated there would be double rows of trees everywhere there are trees shown. On the south side there is 12 1/2 feet between the buildings and the property line. But the staff has indicated that they want the trees to be in a 15 feet triangular center. There is a berm shown on the grading plan along the south side and one row of trees would be on top of that berm, on the back side or the property side of that berm, there is a swale that directs water to the detention area. That second row would be in that swale area of trees. Applicant feels that there is enough room in there to get the trees in. The idea is for this to grow up in to a screen, so the trees would grow together and provide some kind of opacity so you canít see the buildings from the south.

Commissioner Mink asked what the height of the fence was.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that there is a woven wire fence. The plan is just showing that the fence is to remain.

Commissioner Mink stated there is no chain link fence?

Mr. Holt stated that maybe in time, they may put one in. But right now the woven wire will stay in place and as the pictures show, that as you approach the property, there is an elevation. They would like to keep it open for as long as they can.

Commissioner Mink asked if the north fence is the proposed privacy fence.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that was correct.

Commissioner Mink asked if that was planned early in the construction phase.

Mr. Gebhardt stated no, this is planned to be constructed as part of the landscaping plan. It was put on the plan as a result of the comments from the staff. The staff wanted some type of screening there. There is an existing driveway from the lawn care business on the property line and applicant does not want to move that driveway in order to plant trees. Applicants felt the only way to address the screening was to put in a privacy fence.

Commissioner Caruthers asked applicant if the lawn and garden business would continue.

Mr. Gebhardt stated no, the lawn and garden business does not exist now.

Mr. Holt stated they closed the business in 1996 and suffered from it. He never lost any money but never made any money due to costs.

Commissioner Caruthers asked applicant if they plan to store any airfreight at this facility.

Mr. Holt stated he spoke with Mr. Boston about that. Mr. Boston stated to him that at this time, he doesnít know of any. The airport itself has an additional length of land that the airport hopes to sell. Mr. Holt stated that he didnít expect to pick up any business from that. Where he may pickup business, would be someone coming in to town and catches a flight, happens to go by and needs to store their things. It seems that all these major highways and with the airport right there, he hopes to get some storage business from that over time. Applicant states this is why they are trying to think ahead.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked applicant what use they propose for the outside storage area.

Mr. Holt stated he would be probably put RVís and boats there. Mr. Holt added that the rent is not going to be cheap, meaning applicants want to keep an upgraded facility, they live there and want to run a clean business.

Commissioner Neese asked if there was going to be outside security lighting and what the business hours would be.

Mr. Holt stated that there would be security lighting.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that this issue was addressed on the plans. It will be inwardly directed so as not to shine on the neighbors.

Commissioner Neese asked if there would be certain business hours that will be maintained.

Mr. Holt stated daylight hours only and added that he did not want to turn his life upside down. Over time as the business grows, it is only natural in this business to be assessable. The lighting will be attached to the building. What applicant does not want to do is put up telephone poles with glare lights everywhere. He doesnít believe it is necessary and added that he does not want to advertise with the lights.

Commissioner Morgan made and Commissioner Mink seconded a motion to approve request by Edward and Sharyn Holt to rezone from C-GP to M-LP.

Discussion: Commissioner Freiling stated that he feels that this is a spot rezoning. The site has inadequate water service and fire suppression. Commissioner Freiling stated he is reluctant to approve spot rezonings.

Commissioner Neese asked Chairman Kirkpatrick if this could revert back to the original zoning.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that this was not a conditional use permit, but a rezoning request, the motion was made to include the seven conditions suggested by the staff. As to whether it could be reverted back to the prior use as a small engine and landscaping facility, no, one of the conditions that was included in the motion, it that it be used as either: A. The existing use of plant nursery and small business, or, B. The mini warehouse storage unit. One or the other.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that the intention was that if the whole operation did not pan out, they could maintain the original use, but not a mixture of the two.

Commissioner Smith wanted to clarify that it was currently zoned as commercial now.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that was correct.

Commissioner Smith stated that all the zoning around it is different from it now. So it is not like they are bringing in spot zoning because the spot zoning is already there. They are just changing they type of commercial zoning. It is not like they are taking agricultural and bringing in spot zoning.

Mr. Gebhardt stated that they discussed the idea of whether, the mini storage would have been conditional use under the CG-P zoning. It would not have allowed the outside storage. In discussing with staff, applicants thought, the simpler and more straightforward way, was to request ML-P, which would allow the outside storage for the RVís, which is the central part of the plan. Applicants did not go in to this trying to rezone to industrial, but to try to do mini storage and work with staff to come up with the best zoning for that.

Mr. Holt stated that outside storage is a part of what you offer the customer.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that the seven recommendations apply to the review plan, and there are no conditions placed on the rezoning.

Planner, Thad Yonke, stated that was correct.

Being no further discussion on this motion, with a motion and a second on the floor, Chairman Kirkpatrick asked for the vote.

Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling N Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve request carries. 7 Yes 1 No


Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve a review plan with seven staff recommendations by Edward and Sharyn Holt.


Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve request with seven staff recommendations carries. 8 Yes 0 No



  1. Request by Wanda and Sydney Powell and Delores Sanders Mead on behalf of PF Net Property Corp. to rezone from R-S (Single Family Residential) to C-GP (Planned Commercial) and to approve a review plan and subdivision plat for 2.5 acres, more or less, located at 7201 Henderson Rd., Columbia.

Planner, Bill Florea gave staff report stating that this site is located west of Columbia in the Midway area on Henderson Road. The property is zoned R-S (Single Family Residential). All of the surrounding property is zoned RS except AR to the south and C-G to the southeast. The current request includes a rezoning to Planned General Commercial, C-GP, approvals of a Review Plan and Minor Plat. If approved, the site will be used for an optical amplifier that is required to boost the signal on fiber optic cables. In addition to the proposed minor plat and review plan, a final development plan will have to be submitted and approved prior to the rezoning taking effect and prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed use.

The property is within the Columbia School District, electric service is provided by Boone Electric. Water service is not a requirement for this use. The Master Plan designates this area as being suitable for residential land uses. There have been no previous requests submitted on behalf of this property.

A rezoning of the property immediately west to Planned General Commercial C-GP was tentatively approved in December 2000. A Review Plan and minor plat were approved in February 2001. The proposed use for that site was also an optical amplifier. Due to unfavorable site conditions the applicant desires to use the site currently proposed rather than the site immediately west. A letter has been submitted by the applicant agreeing to submit a letter withdrawing the approved Review Plan to be effective upon County Commission approval of the currently proposed rezoning, review plan and minor plat.

The property has frontage on and access to Henderson Road, which has a 60-foot wide right of way. The Major Thoroughfare Plan designates Henderson Road as a local street at this location. Therefore, no right of way will be dedicated by this plat. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the requirement to provide a traffic analysis.

The property is within the service area of Consolidated Water District Number 1. There is no water service required for the proposed use on this property.

The facility to be constructed on the property is unmanned and will not have plumbing. Therefore, there will be no wastewater system on the premises. However, the subdivision regulations require that a platted lot be capable of supporting a wastewater system. The developer has submitted a plan showing a suitable location for a lagoon on the property. The applicant has requested a waiver of the requirement to provide a wastewater cost-benefit analysis.

There is a series of notes printed on the review plan responding to concerns raised during the rezoning of the property. These notes are binding on the property owner if the review plan is approved

The property scored 50 points on the rating system. 55 property owners received notification of this request.

Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and review plan and the plat and waiver requests.


Present: Tom Schneider, 11 N. 7th Street, Columbia, 65201

Mr. Schneider stated he represents PF Net Properties Corporation, which has previously submitted an identical application to the Commission, which has been approved by the Commission as well as the County Commission. On the property which is approximately 100 feet immediately to this west of this site. As indicated by the staff, there is a topographical problem, which makes the existing site unsuitable. This application before the Commission tonight, literally is the equivalent of sliding the prior application approved by this Commission and the County Commission, 300 feet to the east. For the benefit of the two new Commission members, Mr. Schneider circulated a photograph. What these involve, there would be two buildings housing the optical amplifying equipment, they are not manned, they do not have glare, they do not produce smoke, they do not product odor, they donít generate traffic. They are not unsightly, they are unintrusive and do not generate noise except there is an emergency generator on site and every two weeks, this is tested for approximately 30 minutes. The bottom line is, this is precisely the same application as before, moved 300 feet to the east, so that topographically, the project can be built.

Commissioner Sloan asked what would happen to the other piece of property.

Mr. Schneider stated that as the staff report indicated, applicants have filed a letter stating that the original site entitlements that were approved, the rezoning, review plan and so fourth, would be vacated and it would revert back to the RS zoning. Then it would be marketed and does not know PF Netís plans, but could become a residential site. But in short the first site would be abandoned.

Commissioner Sloan asked it the letter would be binding.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that yes, they would.

Mr. Schneider stated that it was his understanding, that technically, the original site has not been finally approved.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that was correct.

Mr. Schneider stated that he then believes the letter would be binding.

Commissioner Neese asked applicant where they would store the diesel fuel.

Mr. Schneider stated the generator was above ground and has no idea where they will store any fuel.

Commissioner Neese stated that if it was to run for several hours, it probably would require a tank of some size.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked if that would be regulated by DNR

Planner, Bill Florea stated he believed so.

Commissioner Mink stated he believed that he asked that same question last time and believes they were above ground tanks.

Mr. Schneider stated that was his recollection as well.

Open to public hearing.

No one spoke in favor of the request.

No one spoke in opposition of the request.

Closed to public hearing.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that this request appears to be exactly the same request that Commission saw previously. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he is familiar with the area and has heard no opposition from the neighboring property owners and canít see where this would be in any way derogatory to the community.

Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve request by Wanda and Sydney Powell and Delores Sanders Mead on behalf of PF Net Property Corp. to rezone from R-S to C-GP.


Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y


Motion to approve request carries. 8 Yes 0 No


Commissioner Smith made and Commissioner Caruthers seconded a motion to approve a review plan by Wanda and Sydney Powell and Delores Sanders Mead on behalf of PF Net Property Corp.


Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y


Motion to approve request carries. 8 Yes 0 No

Commissioner Caruthers made and Commissioner Smith seconded a motion to approve a subdivision plat by Wanda and Sydney Powell and Delores Sanders Mead on behalf of PF Net Property Corp.


Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y


Motion to approve request carries. 8 Yes 0 No









1. Crutchfield Subdivision. S13-T49N-R13W. R-M. Daniel and Debra Crutchfield, owners. Steven R. Proctor, surveyor.

Planner, Thad Yonke, gave staff report stating that This two lot minor plat is located on the east side of Highway VV approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of Mauller road and Highway VV. The site is approximately 2&1/2 miles north of the Municipal Limits of the City of Columbia. The zoning for the property is currently split, the north portion of the site is zoned R-M (residential moderate density) the south portion of the property is zoned A-R (agricultural residential). Property to the immediate north is zoned R-M, to the west is R-S (residential single family), to the south and east are zoned A-R. These are all the original 1973 zonings. The request encompasses 15.70 acres. There is currently a trailer, lagoon, and barn on proposed lot 1. The other lot is proposed for a dwelling unit, located as shown at the proposed footing location. The site is within the Columbia School District. The site is in Consolidated Public Water Service District #1 and there is a 4" waterline on the property currently. Fire hydrants are not required at this time by this plat. However, the water district indicates waterline upgrade may be required. The site is in the Boone County Fire Protection District. Sewage treatment is proposed to be from individual on-site systems. The County/City of Columbia Health Dept. will need to approve any sewage system. The developer has requested a waiver from the traffic analysis, and cost benefit analysis for on-site wastewater systems and staff concurs with this request. The proposal rates 50 points on the point rating scale.

Staff recommends approval of the plat and waiver request subject to the following 2 conditions:

  1. That the joint Boone County/City of Columbia Health Dept. approve any on-site wastewater systems and that the systems meet all county standards.
  2. The zoning in note 3 on the plat is incorrect and needs to be changed.


No one present to represent the plat.

Chairman Kirkpatrick asked staff if the note is the only reference to the zoning district on the plat.

Planner, Thad Yonke stated that was correct.

Chairman Kirkpatrick stated that was the only one.

Mr. Yonke stated that applicants are not required to put a zoning note on there, but since they did, staff wants it to be correct.

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to approve Crutchfield Subdivision with staff recommendations. Daniel and Debra Crutchfield, owners. Steven R. Proctor, surveyor.


Pat Smith Y Mike Morgan Y Carl Freiling Y Keith Kirkpatrick Y

David Mink Y Mike Caruthers Y

Mary Sloan Y Keith Neese Y

Motion to approve request carries. 8 Yes 0 No



1. Brookfield Estates, plats 1 Ė 5. S24-T47N-R13W. A-2. Keith and Chastity Samuel, owners. J. Daniel Brush, surveyor. (tabled 2/15/01)

Commissioner Freiling made and Commissioner Morgan seconded a motion to recognize Brookfield estates, plats 1 Ė 5 have been withdrawn.

Motion carried by acclimation.


1. Fill vacant Vice-Chairperson seat as stated in Article III, Section 4 of the Planning & Zoning Commission By-Laws.

Recognizing that the Planning and Zoning Commission is currently without a Vice-Chairperson. Chairman Kirkpatrick opened the floor for nominations.

Commissioner Sloan nominated Commissioner Caruthers for the Vice-Chairperson position.

This being the only nomination, Chairman Kirkpatrick asked for a vote.

Motion passed by acclimation.

The new Vice-Chairperson for the Planning and Zoning Commission is Commissioner Caruthers.


Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Mary Sloan


Minutes approved on this ______th, day of April, 2001.