Planning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2012 – 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sookram, Members, Barton, Emanuel, Fooken, Ridder, Sawyer, Synovec, Wiese and Winter, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Marv Hansen and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: None Chairman Sookram called the meeting to order. Roll Call Vote was taken – 9 present. Chairman Sookram read a statement that this meeting was preceded by publicized notice in the Fremont Tribune and the agenda displayed in the lobby of the Municipal Building and posted online at www.fremontne.gov; and distributed to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council on August 15, 2012 and is open to the public. Chairman Sookram also stated a copy of the agenda was kept continually current and available to the public at 400 East Military, 3rd floor and a copy of the open meeting law is posted continually for public inspection located near the Council Chambers entrance door by the agendas. Moved by Fooken, seconded by Sawyer, to approve the legality of the meeting. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 9 ayes. Motion Carried. It was moved by Sawyer, seconded by Synovec, to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the July 16, 2012 Regular Meeting and approve as received. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 9 ayes. Motion Carried. Chairman Sookram stated the general public is invited to address the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda at this time or wait until discussion of their request is taking place. No public comments were received.  Consider request of Tom and Marka Sawyer to allow recycling collection and processing as part of a permitted conditional use at 336 West Shuster Ranch Road, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska. LI – Limited Industrial District. Article 4, Section 405, Table 4-2. Member Winter made a motion that Member Sawyer abstain from this item. Second by Barton. Roll Call Vote showed 8 ayes. Motion Carried. Planning Director Harkins stated as a point of order for those that are in attendance and not used to the rules of the Planning Commission, when a member has a conflict of interest the rules state that they are to leave the chambers until that agenda item is over. Harkins stated this is a conditional use permit that follows up a rezoning request from last month. The property in question is 336 West Shuster Ranch Road. It is just to the west of Broad Street on the south end of the community. It was rezoned last month per the Planning Commission’s approval from GC to LI. It was approved by the City Council as well. This takes one of the lots that is currently zoned LI and allows for recycling collection and processing. In 1 doing some last minute clarification with the applicant, they basically are going to use the existing building that is on the site and do everything indoors so they will basically still need to comply with landscaping and buffer requirements and things of that nature but they won’t necessary have the trash debris and things like that floating around to adjacent properties. As we discussed in Study Session, the area to the west is zoned R4, the areas to the north is GC and the area to the south and east is LI – Limited Industrial. It’s a mix of uses. The biggest one of concern would be the mobile home, the trailer park to the west but with the proper screening and landscaping that hazard can be mitigated especially with the operations being indoors. Because of that, as the Planning Commission looks through the conditional use table, which is the reasons why staff recommended approval based on the site plan. To go back to the idea in Study Session of don’t we normally have a site plan approval, yes, we typically do but in this case staff was willing to be flexible again because the applicant had done their homework and had been asking questions but also because they were trying to use an existing building and do that inside and the fact that it is a small amount of area next to R4 so that would give us the opportunity to make sure we enforce the screening there. Applicant is open to doing the site plan and providing that before any building permits or any operations take place. Chairman Sookram stated that would be recommended that all that is done first before permits are issued. Member Synovec asked if there have been any complaints from adjacent property owners. Harkins stated no feedback and no communication has been received from any adjacent property owners. Sookram stated the only thing he worried about was this becoming a ritual thing where things like that can keep coming up. He knows flexibility is good but having a site plan would have really let everyone know exactly how it is going to look. Harkins stated this was discussed at the staff level. One of the things that is going to be done is rework the Planning Department’s website to make sure as well as post signage in the Department that when applicants come in that they have certain items with them whether it be for Planning Commission items, Board of Adjustment or just building permits. One of the trends that we have seen is people coming in, filling out the application and then maybe giving us two sentences of information about what they want to do and then leaving. We are left either having to go get additional information or put graphics together and things like that which isn’t a problem for us but the more the applicant gives us the better off and the better due diligence staff can provide for the Commission but also the better chance we have of clearly communicating what is going on, what is proposed and giving them the best opportunity to present themselves. Sookram stated doing it this way does leave a big hole for discussion as to what would look good, what would not look good or what would fit there. Harkins stated once of the options the Commission had if they desired is to table the item and bring it up again next month pending a site plan being submitted. Member Ridder asked if there is a time limit on this issue and why wouldn’t maybe the applicant be encouraged to provide a site map to the Commission prior to bringing this in front of us. Ridder asked if there was a time issue that this needed to be approved now so something could happen in the future and then staff was allowed to see a site map and make a determination. Harkins stated their business had just been expanding to the point they were just trying to figure out some of their options and really just is one of those pieces of information that just doesn’t always get included whether it be this applicant or anybody else. Harkins stated he has seen this trend a lot since he has been here whether it be a lot split or things of that nature many times staff has to put everything together for an application. Member Synovec asked if it is just pre-emptive for some as they just want to go ahead and get approval so they know they can do it down the road and they really don’t have a plan. Harkins stated part is pre-emptive in their case but Harkins stated the applicant is present if they would like to provide any other information. In his discussions with them, it has been their looking at expanding and trying to do more work so this gives them something as far as a location to start working from for a base of operations for that particular aspect. Member Winter asked who would make up the site plan, the applicant or an engineering firm or someone like that. Harkins stated the applicant could hire someone to do it like an engineering firm or they could do it themselves. 2 Applicant Tom Sawyer, owner of the property at 336 Shuster Ranch Road was present. Mr. Sawyer stated this was the first he was aware of this. He wasn’t quite sure what staff was asking for as a site plan. Chairman Sookram stated a site plan shows how it is going to look. Because there is residential behind it, that is probably one of the biggest concerns. Member Fooken stated the site plan would show the setbacks, the landscaping requirements. It would be clearer for the Planning Commission. Mr. Sawyer stated it is an existing building that he has just completed. It is a brick building and a nice looking building. Mr. Sawyer again stated he doesn’t know what they are asking for. Member Wiese stated the applicant is asking permission to use an existing building to perform recycling so at the end of this meeting we are okaying it that they can use that building for their operation as the building stands so there won’t be any site plan or building permit as it has already been given. Harkins stated the building permit has already been done. In this case, if the applicant could just provide us with a drawing that shows where the building sits on the lot and then where the applicant plans on doing any necessary landscaping and buffering between his property and the adjacent properties around him, that is primarily what the Commission is looking for. Member Wiese asked if that would have already been required on the original building permit. Applicant Sawyer stated his building permit has all the setbacks. Harkins stated that part is true but as far as landscaping and things like that. Member Barton stated landscaping requirements don’t change based on his conditional use permit. Harkins stated those requirements were there when the applicant rezoned the property. Member Barton stated all that was really changing is what the applicant is going to do with the building. Planning Director Harkins stated the use is a conditional use so the applicant has to have that approval in LI. Applicant Sawyer stated this building is identical to the one that is on the lot to the east and it has a green area in front. Sawyer stated he has not planted it yet as it is just dirt but there will be grass that is mowed, paved driveways. Member Ridder stated that the conditional use asked for conditional use of the lot and it doesn’t specify in here that it was a building and all enclosed inside. Ridder stated that was not in the materials that she had. Harkins stated that was correct. Member Ridder stated part of the question is that we are talking about approval of a lot versus approval of a building, which is different in terms of aesthetics for the community right next to a residential area. Mr. Sawyer stated he thought he had 90’ from the west side of the building to the trailer court on this lot and it is in a cul-de-sac so it is tapered but there is 90 feet to the west of the building. Planning Director Harkins stated since the applicant already has an existing building and that was part of the building permit issuance as far as showing that type of plan, they would have to be able to show to the City how they are going to do that 30’ of buffering that would be required against that R4 zoning, which would be the west side of the property. The applicant would have to essentially provide some kind of drawing showing what types of plants and things like that. That would be the requirement that they are talking about. Mr. Sawyer said it currently looks bad on the west line and it’s because of the trailer court trees growing through a fence and it’s not on his property. Mr. Sawyer asked them if the Planning Commission wanted him to put up something to cover their side or his side. Harkins stated the applicant would have to put up a fence. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated it would have to be a fence in the middle of that 30’ bufferyard. Harkins stated essentially it would be something like that which would be screening along that 30’. Applicant Sawyer asked if the fence should be on his property line or 30’ in. Hansen stated it should be 15’ in from the property line. Sawyer asked if it should be a privacy fence. Planning Director Harkins stated that was correct. Applicant Sawyer stated that would not be a problem. Harkins stated doing that would meet all the buffering and screening requirements. Member Winter asked if since it was a conditional use could they set hours of operation……do they plan on going 8:00 to 5:00. Mr. Sawyer stated it would be a daytime operation. Mr. Sawyer stated part of the problem with the 15’ of the fence is the people from the trailer courts throw a lot of stuff over the fence so that will give them a larger area. That hasn’t been an issue with him but he feels that is the next thing that will happen. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated he would agree with the applicant. Harkins stated in all likelihood that will happen. When that does start to happen, then let’s sit down and talk and we’ll approach the trailer court and take 3 appropriate steps. Applicant Sawyer stated he gets along with the neighbor, the trailer court, so he just picks up tires and haul them away and that is the type of things that he gets. Sawyer stated maybe that’s where the fence should be on the property line. He would rather have it there than 15’ in. It was asked if he could do both. Sawyer stated there is already a fence on the property line of woven wire. It was asked if he could put a privacy fence on the property line and then 15’ in to keep people from throwing things over as easily. Building Inspector Hansen stated they would just throw them over the fence. Sawyer stated he would rather come in a foot from the property line and not mess with their fence and put up a new privacy fence and that would be better for everyone. Planning Director Harkins stated that would be a decision the Commission would have to make on whether they wanted to allow that or not as part of the conditional use permit approval. Harkins stated since this request was coming in as a conditional use, the Planning Commission has the authority to vary those things under this realm. Normally they would not as it would go to the Board of Adjustment. When you are working as a conditional use, they would. As a point of information to Member Winter, yes, as a conditional use item recommendation stipulate hours of operation if felt necessary in the general health, interest, safety and public welfare of the community. Applicant Sawyer stated it might be Saturday morning but not very often. Moved by Winter, seconded by Fooken to recommend approval of the conditional use request with the fence being erected within one foot of the lot line and the hours of operation being Monday thru Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Applicant Sawyer was in agreement with these conditions. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 8 ayes. Motion Carried.  Consider request of Deer Pointe Corporation to rezone part of the S ½ NW ¼ of Section 18, Township 17 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., Dodge County, Nebraska from AG – Agricultural/Urban Reserve District and R1 – Single Family Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is to the northwest of Diers Parkway and 16th Street. It is adjacent to Deer Pointe Subdivision and actually was part of the preliminary plat. This is a rezoning to eventually add four more lots to the residential section of Deer Pointe. Staff is recommending approval based on compatibility with regard to R1 zoning across the street so it is adjacent and is not spot zoning. Staff has received and reviewed and provided comments on a proposed replat or sketch plat regarding these lots and so the applicant and their agent know in terms of when they come forward to the Commission at some point in the future to actually plat those lots what they will need to provide for additional information but at this time staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. Harkins stated the applicant’s agent was present. Marlin Brabec of Don Peterson and Associates, representing the Deer Pointe Development, was present. Mr. Brabec stated this was basically adding four lots on the east side of the street as there are already streets there. It was part of the preliminary plat and just a continuation of the subdivision. Mr. Brabec was questioned as to why just four lots. Mr. Brabec said that is how it works in the economic plan and that is where the street ends so that is basically why they are doing it that way. It makes economic sense. Moved by Winter, seconded by Emanuel to recommend approval of the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 9 ayes. Motion Carried.  Study Session Item: Comp. Plan quarterly review: Chapter 4 – Housing and Neighborhoods.  Study Session Item: Zoning Ordinance Review. 4 Planning Director Harkins stated he would use general slides from one of the past presentations. This chapter primarily deals with housing development and things of that nature. You can see the purpose of the chapter but there are some key principles that are listed in there. The chapter overall has some different pieces of information and helps paint a good picture of where the City is at as far as being in a point in time. Harkins stated one of the things this chapter was based upon was the number of past housing studies that have been done over the past 5, 6, 8 years. Key issues identified while putting the plan together include: demand for affordable housing keeps pace with growth. Member Fooken asked what the strategy would be to come up with affordable housing. Suggestions to increase affordable housing were smaller lots, cheaper lots, possibly dealing with other mechanisms to help people. Also discussed was trying to increase housing downtown to give more options, looking at density bonuses in the zoning code, trying to do education programs and look at other regulatory barriers but also doing neighborhood level protection. This is one of the reasons why TIF for the residential side was discussed. One recommendation in the plan was to do a vacant lot inventory. Harkins stated they were trying to take that a step further in creating an inventory where vacant lots are in residential areas but also where deteriorated housing is, where we have had code complaints and things of that nature but also based on assessor data what condition and trying to visually verify the condition of some of that housing stock as well based on past studies and other things so that an inventory can be put together to help guide in looking at potential areas to try and do some residential redevelopment. Member Synovec confirmed with Harkins that we don’t’ have that now and seems like we should. Member Fooken stated the City has a backlog of houses that are ready to be knocked down but the City just does not have money to knock them down. Planning Director Harkins stated the City has done a small amount over the past few years from CDBG funds towards that and those lots typically wind up getting transferred to Habitat. We are also trying to take the step as a City through the capital improvement plan of designating a certain amount over time every year to do more of that where properties are condemned or need to be knocked down where we can purchase and maybe start to put lots together as part of that inventory and also turn around and use that as a redevelopment opportunity. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated part of the problem in the past with the grant money was that the houses had to be vacant. Another area that is a little bit more long term for the Planning Department to work on is helping to develop neighborhood level planning studies where staff can actually get down at street level more than they are now with different areas. Part of the problem now is that we just don’t have that neighborhood leadership capacity. Part of it for us will be helping different community groups to try and build to that point. Member Wiese asked if TIF money was available for areas that are in flood zones. A big part of our town is cut off. Harkins stated staff is going to start making more of a concerted push to do things like that but also help push the Corp to get more studies done, dikes rebuilt and things of that nature to help pull areas out of the flood plain. Harkins stated as we discuss this, please understand these are some of the steps that staff is starting to take to help work on some of this. Harkins stated those are some of the general type of recommendations and highlighted some additional to include: downtown residential is a conditional use. One of the ideas is to make that just permitted. One of the recommendations was to look at the zoning code to deal with trying to go smaller lot sizes in some neighborhoods in order to allow infill development opportunities, especially if it’s at a character that matches adjacent housing. Harkins talked about Community Housing Development Organization. It is a type of group that deals with housing issues and housing redevelopment. They would work essentially in some of the same ways that Habitat does but differently. They would have some 5 different clientele; they would have a different focus with the goals still the same of providing more housing, more affordable housing. Harkins stated for staff as decision makers it’s about where the energy is focused the most, especially the first couple of years to create the most opportunity. Harkins stated this is the just the start of a discussion and certain aspects can certainly be talked about again in study sessions. Neighborhood level clean-up, a city pick-up day and tree removal was discussed. Harkins stated staff is also trying to re-evaluate how code enforcement and abatement are handled. An extended discussion and input from Planning Commission members involving code enforcement was held. Harkins stated in the past the City has been like many other communities and been a reactive process and its complaint driven. Member Sawyer asked if there is a priority for cleaning up vacant and existing houses. Harkins stated it is an area that we are trying to make more of a priority as of now. Chief Building Inspector Hansen reminded the Commission that if you are going to condemn the house, you have to find a place for the people that you are throwing out of the house to live. Planning Director Harkins stated if there were particular things that Commission members definitely want him or the consultant take a look at they should feel free to contact him. Harkins reminded everyone that next month’s study session will be Dave Ptak, talking about Board of Adjustment and findings of fact. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 6