Jefferson County Council Advances Lionstone With New Conditions, Revises UDO Agreement
HILLSBORO, Mo. — The Jefferson County Council worked through a wide-ranging agenda at its latest meeting, approving changes to the county’s Unified Development Order rewrite process, advancing the proposed Lionstone residential development with new restrictions, and moving the county’s annual tax levy legislation forward.
The meeting also included discussion of a telecommunications tower, another District 7 rezoning request, county sales tax collections, ongoing infrastructure work, and questions involving stormwater regulations.
UDO Rewrite Agreement Revised
One of the evening’s most closely discussed items was Bill No. 26-09226, which amends Jefferson County’s agreement with planning consultant Houseal Lavigne Associates LLC for the rewrite of the county’s Unified Development Order, commonly referred to as the UDO.
The item was removed from the consent agenda so council members could discuss it separately and read the changes into the public record. The revised agreement changes the project scope and project team without adding an additional fee. County staff had raised concerns during the consultant’s work, leading county officials to meet with senior management at the firm and negotiate changes to the process.
The UDO establishes many of the county’s rules governing zoning, land use, development, setbacks, and related issues. Jefferson County’s Planning Division is responsible for maintaining and implementing the county’s UDO.
Councilman Tim Brown said the council does not intend to allow a target completion date to take priority over getting the document right. Brown said council members would have an opportunity to work through the proposed UDO in work sessions before a final version is brought forward for consideration.
County Executive Dennis Gannon echoed that position, saying the document will govern the county into the future and should not be rushed simply to satisfy a timeline.
The council approved the Bill by a 7-0 vote.
Concerns about the rewrite had also been raised during public comments. Residents questioned proposed zoning changes, the consultant’s work, and whether enough time had been provided for a thorough review.
Lionstone Moves Forward With Additional Requirements
The council also took up another Bill, which concerns an application that would rezone property from R10 and R20 single-family residential zoning to PR1 planned residential zoning for the proposed Lionstone development in Council District 2.
Councilman Billy Crow introduced two additional conditions before the project moved forward.
Under the amendment, each single-family home would be required to include a functional, fully enclosed attached garage capable of holding at least two passenger vehicles side by side. Following discussion among council members, the requirement was expanded to also require a driveway capable of accommodating two vehicles side by side.
The amendment also strengthened the development’s floodplain restrictions. No building or structure would be permitted within the area identified as the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain, commonly referred to as the 500-year floodplain, including applicable FEMA shaded Zone X areas. Language that had previously said the developer was “encouraged” to remove structures from the 500-year floodplain was changed to “shall.”
Councilman Bob Tullock supported the garage and driveway requirement, raising concerns that narrower parking arrangements could push additional vehicles onto subdivision streets and potentially make access more difficult for emergency vehicles.
The council approved the amendments 7-0. The amended proposal was then approved on its first reading and moved toward perfection by a 6-1 vote.
The Lionstone proposal also drew significant participation during public comments, with residents speaking both in support of and in opposition to the development. Because a formal public hearing had already been held, speakers addressing the project during this meeting were limited to stating whether they supported or opposed it.
County Tax Levy Moves Forward After Expanded Review
The council also held a public hearing on the county’s tax levy for general revenue, parks, the special road and bridge fund, and law enforcement.
Gannon said an outside accounting firm had reviewed the levy calculations. Unlike previous reviews that primarily examined the mathematical calculations, he said this year’s process also included reviewing the state statutes authorizing the individual portions of the levy.
The Bill was approved on its first reading and moved toward perfection by a 7-0 vote.
Telecommunications Tower and District 7 Rezoning Advance
The council unanimously advanced another Bill, which would authorize a conditional use permit for a 190-foot telecommunications tower in an LR2 Large Lot Residential district in Council District 7.
During discussion the Council raised a broader concern about the county’s regulations involving development around telecommunications towers and suggested the issue should be examined during the UDO rewrite. The bill moved forward by a 7-0 vote.
County Reports Land Sale, Sales Tax Numbers
During his report, Gannon said 225 properties had initially been scheduled for the county’s Aug. 24 annual land sale. Of those, 138 were paid before the sale, while 74 properties were sold for a combined approximately $972,000.
Gannon emphasized that the full amount does not remain with county government. Proceeds are distributed among the various taxing entities entitled to the delinquent taxes.
The largest bid on a single parcel was approximately $160,000.
Gannon also reported year-to-date county sales tax collections of approximately $13.06 million, about 1.16 percent below the same point last year. He attributed part of that decrease to adjustments involving cannabis sales tax collections.
Road and infrastructure work associated with the James Hardie project on the eastern side of Jefferson County is also nearing completion, according to the executive’s report.
Other Public Comments
Residents brought several additional subjects before the council during the meeting.
One resident asked the county to consider making greater use of its animal control facility by offering or contracting for lower-cost spay, neuter, and vaccination services. Another asked the county to consider establishing a memorial honoring the USS Liberty and raised concerns about municipal annexation procedures.
The meeting concluded after council members addressed several additional county matters, including stormwater regulations and questions surrounding responsibility for storm drainage infrastructure in unincorporated areas.
With several major development and zoning issues still moving through the legislative process, the council is expected to revisit many of the evening’s topics at future meetings.