- I'll call to order the meeting of the Elsevier Planning Commission for Thursday, January 8th, 2026.
- All right, we can do this in a budget meeting. To the flag of the United States of America, and to the
- republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- Roll call please. David Drake. Here. Zach Michael. Here. Dan Swofford. Pamela Sample. Pat Weslowski.
- Here. Ryan Skaggs. Here. Steve Hale. Here. Thank you. The first item on our agenda is the election of
- officers for 2026. Do we have any nominations for president?
- I nominate David Drake. Second. Okay, do we have any other nominations? I guess not. Do we take a roll
- call vote on this or? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. I'm sorry,
- roll call. David Drake, Zach Michael. Yes.
- Uh, Pam Leselowski? Steve Hale? Ryan Skaggs? Do I ask them to if they're not here? No. All right. Okay,
- I guess it passes. Three letters. How about vice president? You're going to be vice president in a sec.
- No. How about Steve? Sure. I nominate Steve. Second.
- Second by Zach. Roll call, please. David Drake? Yes. Zach Michael? Yes. Pat Wesolowski? Yes. Steve Hale?
- Yes. Ryan Skaggs? Yes. Is that it? Yes. Because we used to do the secretary, but we don't do that anymore.
- Yeah, that's staff.
- Okay, next item on our agenda is approval of the minutes for December 4th, 2025. I have a brief comment,
- if that's all right. Sure. Or suggestion. In the last paragraph of the minutes, in reference to the
- septic issue with regard to the wrestling property, the minutes say David Drake made a motion to approve
- the primary clap of four lots, comma, pending that all lots will be on a septic system.
- which I don't think is exactly what the board decided. I know there's some back and forth, and I think
- Ryan was trying to make the point that the lots should be subject to a permit, pending permitting. And
- Dan was concerned about the staff report saying all lots would be on a septic system, and he thought
- that made it sound like there was a guarantee they could do septic. So I would just suggest tinkering
- with it a little bit,
- David to say David Drake made a motion to approve the primary plaque for four lots, period, pending
- that all lots would be on a septic system that add the language installation of a septic system subject
- to further approval by the appropriate board. That sounds beautiful. All right, thank you. So do we
- have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? Motion to approve the amended minutes. Second.
- Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none,
- motion carries. Does anyone have a conflict of interest they need to bring up in regard to our business
- tonight? Hearing none, we have no old business, new business. Primary plot approval for two lots, 6.24 acres,
- in the MG3 properties two lot subdivision. At 8631 West Flatwoods Road, the petitioner is MG3 properties
- LLC. The case number is PC26-1. Good evening. First on the agenda for this evening and for the year,
- petitioner MG3 properties LLC is requesting primary plat approval of the MG3 properties two lot subdivision
- for a total
- two lots totaling 6.2 acres. Staff report I had an error, I listed the acreage as 24.64, but that's
- what happens when you come back from holiday vacation. Subject parcels located 8631 West Flatwoods Road.
- Lot two is zoned industrial one, which is light industrial, and lot one is zoned commercial two. Subdivision
- is accessed from West Flatwoods Road.
- The lots meet all size and dimensional requirements of the unified development ordinance. Both lots
- are currently separate parcels and are not of an existing subdivision. The primary plat will adjust
- the parcel lines, separate the two businesses, and place both lots in a subdivision. Plan commission
- action on the primary plat can be in the form of approval. Approval with conditions denial are to continue
- the hearing.
- plan commission has the final say in these matters. It is a staff opinion that the proposed primary
- plat will meet all required zoning and minor subdivision regulations. Therefore staff recommends that
- the plan commission approve the primary plat for the mg3 properties to lot subdivision. This is the
- parcel location. The other lot is on the other side is Ava's
- trash removal, and then this is the proposed plan. And petitioner's representative is here if you have
- any questions. Okay, does anybody from the commission have any questions? I have a question on the pond.
- It says down here, develop a plan approved by the commission to that the town of Elksville shall require
- an inspection by the town engineer. We aren't at the development plan. Development plan is next. This
- is just for the subdivision to subdivide, clean up the lot line. Okay. Okay. Any more questions for
- Denise? Seeing none, does the petitioner want to say anything?
- Any questions for the petitioner? Any comments from the public? Seeing none, do we have a motion? Well,
- then I'll make a motion that we approve PC 26-1, the preliminary plan approval for energy three properties.
- Second. Motion and a second, roll call, please.
- David Drake? Yes. Steve Hale? Yes. Zach Michael? Yes. Brian Skaggs? Yes. Pat Wesolowski? Yes. Okay,
- motion carries. Next item on our agenda is case number PC26-2, a request by MG3 Properties for consideration
- of development plan approval for self storage units at 8631 West Flatwood Road.
- This is also pertains to the first, this is also the MG3 properties. Petitioner MG3 properties LLC is
- requesting development plan approval of self storage units to be located at 8631 West Flatwoods Road.
- Subject parcel zone industrial one light industrial subdivision is accessed from West Flatwoods Road.
- On November 12th, 2025, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved the following, a special exception to allow
- self-storage units in an I-1 zoning district, reduction of the minimum buffer yard width to 15 feet
- along the south and west property lines, removal of the 60-foot buffer requirement between I-1 and C-2
- zoning districts along the east property line,
- The technical advisory committee met on December 16th, 2025 and reviewed the plans has submitted. No
- significant deficiencies were reported. Development plan meets the minimum requirements of the Ellsville
- town code and tech review comments have been addressed. The pond will be drained and specifications
- for the same have been outlined in the development plan. There would be one accessible parking space.
- At the request of the planning department, the petitioner has agreed to construct a parking lot for
- the employees of the adjacent business, which is Avis, at 8325 West Flatwoods Road, which they also
- own. The parking lot is part of your development plan review. And I have to apologize. When I drafted
- the staff report, I was moving stuff around and I inserted the plan commission action and recommendations
- before the criteria and then my actual recommendation was after and I thought I'd deleted them,
- I had not. So I imagine you were confused. So I apologize for that. The plan commission is tasked with
- either approving, approving with conditions. Nine are continuing this development plan based on 11 criteria
- as follows. Self storage units are permitted by special exception in the I-1 district, which was approved by
- BZA, therefore is considered compatible with surrounding land uses. In addition, the use will have little
- direct impact on adjacent properties. Industrial one with commercial use is encouraged along West State
- Road 46. Traffic will enter and exit from West Flatwoods Road and adequate traffic flow has been accommodated
- in the development plan. The fire department has approved the radius of turns and curves on the development plan.
- One accessible parking space is required. All traffic should come from West Flatwoods Road. There's
- no reason for concern as the self-storage units will not generate a substantial increase in traffic.
- Different structure will be included on site as required by fire and building codes. West Flatwoods
- Road is maintained by the town of Ellisville. Stormwater and erosion control will be managed in accordance
- with town and state regulations.
- The petitioner has voluntarily included landscaping. The petitioner voluntarily agreed to include
- landscaping, which will serve as a buffer where shown in the development plan. There are no limestone
- structures indicated on the site and the self unit storage units will be constructed in an industrial
- zone district.
- At the time of the writing of this report, there were no written concerns regarding the development
- plan received by staff. Plan commission action is stated earlier and has a reminder on the development
- plan can be in the form of approval, approval with conditions, denial, or to continue the hearing. The
- plan commission has the final say in these matters. Staff recommendation.
- Development plan approval shall be predicated on the criteria I reviewed earlier. If the plan commission
- does find that development plan is in agreement with those items, the plan commission shall approve
- the development plan. Additionally, the plan commission may include any conditions they feel are necessary
- and relevant to the development of the property in the appropriate manner. It is staff opinion that
- the requirements of the development plan section
- from the town of Ellesville Cota ordinances have been reasonably achieved. Staff recommends the plan
- commission approve the development plan for 8631 West Flatwoods Road with the following conditions.
- One, that the requirements, guidelines, and our specifications for the drainage, grading, fill, and
- are any other activities resulting in a drainage of the pond and reconstruction of the land for construction
- of the self-storage units be strictly
- adhered to, pursuant to the development plan followed by the plan commission. And I just want this for
- the record. And two, that the town of Ellsville shall require an inspection by a town's engineer at
- each phase of the draining of the pond and preparing the land for construction of the self-storage units.
- And petitioner's representative is here. Okay, does anybody from the planning commission have any questions
- for Denise?
- The development plan does specifically state what is to take place with the drainage. And I just want
- to make sure that it's on the record and that they must adhere to whatever you passed that's in the
- development plan. Okay, any questions for Denise? Yes, please.
- a hard copy of the engineer's report? Yes. Okay. And also what type of buffing that he's gonna put up?
- You said he's gonna put them up voluntarily? Uh-huh, that's on the Flatwood side of the road, so it'll
- be a road buffing. Do you know what type it is gonna be? Let me see.
- Let me see if I included that. So this is a rendering of what each building will look like. I thought
- I put the landscaping, so this is landscaping but it doesn't list the trees. In our packet it does.
- It's like the seventh page.
- I can read it. Looks like bald cypress, eastern red cedar maybe, sycamore, black chokeberry, boxwood,
- button bush. Looks like cranberry.
- Juniper, those are shrubs, red maple. So it's on top of the page. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any more questions
- for Denise? Seeing none, does the petitioner want to say anything? H.A. Willis.
- and the project engineer for this particular development. I just want to kind of elaborate on some of
- the details Denise talked about. So we have on our demolition plan instructions for the contractor to
- actually drain that pond. There's going to be some mitigation steps along the way to control the drainage
- instead of just breaching the dam and just letting it flow out. Basically you breach the top of the
- dam and you slowly drain it
- and then you'll lower the breach and then slowly drain it, lower the breach again. And then the temporary
- or the two ponds that we have proposed in our grading plan, there's one on the far west side that will
- be downstream of the existing pond. There will be a temporary basin that will be constructed before
- that pond's drained. So all that water coming out of that pond will drain into our water quality pond
- to kind of control it and treat it.
- And then, so the landscaping, it's just a combination of trees and shrubs along flat woods. It's kind
- of like an industrial streetscape. And the additional buffering measures that we have is we're gonna
- be doing opaque fencing around the self-storage. And then more than happy to answer any questions. Okay,
- does anybody have any questions for AJ?
- Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this petition? Seeing none, do we have
- a motion? I'll make a motion to accept PC262 development plan approval for self-storage units. Second.
- Okay, we have a motion and second. Roll call, please. David Drake? Yes. Steve Hale? Yes. Zach Michael?
- Yes. Ryan Skaggs. Yes. Pat Wesolowski. Yes. Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda is primary plot approval
- for four lots, 11.34 acres in the lot four of the Ripley minor subdivision. Petitioner is Mike Ripley,
- case number is PC 26-5. The petitioner, Mike Ripley, is requesting primary plot approval of the lot
- four of Ripley minor.
- Subdivision Amendment 1 for a total of four lots totaling 11.34 acres. Subject parcels located at 4601
- West McNeely Street. Lots are zoned agricultural and minor subdivisions are permitted within an agricultural
- zoning district. Subdivision is accessed from West McNeely Street. The lots will meet all size and dimensional
- requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. All lots will share a common driveway. Purchasers
- of the lots will be responsible for putting the driveway in in accordance with the UDO standards. Pursuant
- to the UDO, minor residential subdivisions for fewer lots. Section 5.3C, there are no public rights
- away. Public improvements or utility main extensions are proposed or required.
- sidewalks and trails are optional. The plan commission action on the primary plat can be in the form
- of approval, approval with conditions, denial or to continue the hearing. The plan commission has the
- final say in these matters. It is a staff opinion that the proposed primary plat will meet all required
- zoning and minor subdivision regulations. Therefore staff recommends that the plan commission approve
- the primary plat for the lot for Ripley minor subdivision amendment one and petitioners representative
- is here if you have any questions. Okay, does anybody have any questions for Denise? So basically we're
- taking part of this big piece and turning it into four lots of two and a half to three acres.
- Yes, it's the part on the aerial where the red X is. Now, are there any standards, what are the standards
- for what the roadway would be? Can it be gravel or does it have to be? They'll have to black top. They'll
- have to black top it. And are there any drainage standards for a minor subdivision? Yeah, I think
- AJ can explain, I thought you put in drainage easements or did you? Oh, okay, I'm sorry. Okay, we'll
- ask him about that. But I think when they build out the lots, they will of course have to do that. Okay.
- With it being a minor subdivision, how many lots can that have? So they can have four or fewer.
- So is this with a red X, is that gonna become its own like parcel and then you'll have the back smaller
- piece. So the red X is the right side of that U shape, so to speak. And so it's being split into the
- four. So then it will still be able to divide the other side as well, I guess. That becomes its own
- thing. Yeah, we did that last one. Oh, we did that, okay. Yeah. Last one? Yeah.
- Any more questions for Denise? Okay, I think you're gonna have to come up here for this one. Yeah, so
- this is just a four lot subdivision. I just wanted to reiterate there's no development associated with
- this subdivision at this time. Any future development would have to go through the permitting process
- per the UDO.
- For drainage, there are certain requirements that you have to, or triggers that require stormwater
- improvements. Since this is gonna be most likely just one house on each of these four lots, there aren't
- any public improvements. It's not gonna be like a roadway. It's just gonna be like a standard shared driveway.
- So those triggers, and I don't know them off the top of my head, it's a certain amount of land disturbance
- that would trigger stormwater improvements. That would be the responsibility of whoever is gonna permit
- any future development. So right now, the land conditions are gonna stay exactly the same as the current
- conditions. So do our development standards for just the regular permit
- have drainage standards that prevent drainage from running off of the property? Yes. When whoever goes
- to build a lot, when they have it surveyed and turn it in, they will, they always include the topo on
- that. So they know how it's going to drain. And then they'll have, of course have to have drainage easements.
- I thought he already put those in. I hadn't looked at it since New Year's or before New Year's,
- I was mistaken. One of the reasons I ask is I know it's gonna come up. Yeah, it's gonna go up. What
- type of sewer is gonna be there? Right now, the intent is for it to be septic. The closest sewer is
- about 1,700 feet from the property. The award is, I think, required about 300 feet within 300 feet.
- Yeah, so you have to be within, you have to be within 300 feet. If you're within 300 feet of an existing
- sewer, you have to connect to the city sewer. If you're outside 300 feet, then you're allowed to, well,
- we're working on getting a variance to allow septic, but I've been working with Denise. She said that
- she's fine with septic and there's, we're working on.
- Getting that variance because the UDO has a conflicting statement in it about where septic's allowed.
- Septic's not allowed anywhere in the town of Ellisville per the UDO, but that wasn't the intent when
- the UDO was created. So we're just allowing four houses on four big lots, which is rather unusual for
- Ellisville that we even get lots this big.
- And our petition, we're really just asking to subdivide the land. We're not asking for houses to be
- constructed at this time. Okay, does anybody have any more questions for AJ? Okay, how about public
- comment? I knew you were gonna say something. Just more questions.
- I need to sign in here. My name's Tim Crouch. I am a homeowner that resides directly across McNeely
- from this development. And no problem from a standpoint of subdividing the property into the four lots.
- My understanding is that under the existing ag zoning,
- It's one house per lot, if I recall correctly, unless of course they would petition to try to change
- the zoning on this, which I'm assuming they could going forward, but that would have to be approved.
- My question, I guess, is associated with the development. I understand there's no plan to do this right
- now, but if each individual, one of these lots sell individually at different times, then what's,
- who puts the, what criteria is used for driveway, drainage, those types of issues, because I'm down
- slope from this, okay, will be applied and will those, if they are developed one at a time, is there
- going to be a view to the future if more traffic, obviously you got four lots developed,
- as far as any kind of upgrade requirements as the other lots are developed at a later time, or will
- these to be developed all at the same time? And then, you know, the design based on the four lots being
- developed at the same, you know, generally about the same time, how does that work? That's a long question.
- So the way I understand it,
- The petitioner will sell the lots. I have no idea if they'll sell out one time. Whoever goes in first
- and AJ may have to help me with this. Whoever goes in first will put in the driveway to their place
- and then the next person will put it in and then has they more will have to reimburse when the other
- ones come in if the driveway is already installed.
- and we have an MS4 inspector, Department of Public Works, and we have an engineer, so the lots, we will
- take care of any stormwater and drainage. That is just not a concern, because it will have to be surveyed,
- whoever purchases it. Technically, under our zoning ordinance, how many
- lots could actually go in that space if they wanted. It's sown eggs. So with minimum lot for an eggs,
- two acres. Okay. So about what it is, the driveway, is it offset from his driveway? It looks like it
- on the, on the map there. Yes, it's offset slightly. Is that the,
- There's a relay or a, basically what I call a relay building for Smithville telephone that sits on that
- property right now. That driveway coming in off of McNeely serves that relay building. I assume that
- if there's development, they'll use the existing entrance probably off of that or maybe not. It's gonna
- be shifted slightly west, but most likely
- new driveway, but that relay driveway is supposed to be, that relay station in the driveway is supposed
- to be being removed in three years or so. I don't think Smithville plans to keep that much longer. But
- when the driveway goes in, most likely that relay driveway will be connected to the proposed common
- driveway and all
- four owners and relay station with access from one point. I see. Okay. Um, so the driveway that's put
- in for the first lot, will there be requirements on that debate to basically size that, uh, according
- to the four lots that's there, that's going to be developed over a period of time. Uh, and the same
- thing hold to the drainage.
- requirements for that site. If the person that buys the first lot is responsible for putting the drainage
- in. For their lot. Okay, for their lot. Yes. Okay, so they don't have to worry about the future development.
- In other words, if there's more drainage or more sheet runoff from that site because it's all being
- developed now,
- Is that going to be factored into the initial design when it first goes in or is it if there's needs,
- if there is need for upgrades as the additional lots are developed, will that be incorporated into the
- requirements for that next owner? They'll be incorporated. The first lot is going to be heavily reviewed
- by all town departments.
- So that it does take care our lineup with what will be required for the other lots will have an engineer
- look at it. Okay, so that will be taken into account. Yes. And are the triggers on a minor development
- like this as far as site drainage and driveway and other specifics is that are those in writing somewhere
- that can be reviewed by the public triggers.
- the requirements that's going to be placed on the development of the property. It's the unified development.
- The standards in the UDO are those are in the UDO. Are they detailed specifically within the UDO? Yes.
- Okay. Okay. I'm supposed to hold you to three minutes and we've got a lot. That's all I had. Okay. Thank
- you very much. All right. Anybody else?
- Seeing none, do we have a motion? I will make a motion to approve PC 26-5 lot four of the Ripley minor
- subdivision. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. David Drake? Yes.
- Steve Hale? Yes. Zach Michael? Yes. Ryan Skaggs? Yes. Pat Wasielowski? Yes. Motion carries.
- Next item on our agenda is planning department update. Your next meeting is February 5th, and I believe
- that we'll have one position for you. Okay, approval to the floor. Are there any comments from the public
- about non-agenda items? Seeing none, are there any planning commission comments? Seeing none,
- we're adjourned.