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.