Planning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 – 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sookram, Members, Fooken, Synovec, Wiese and Winter and Planning Director Rian Harkins ABSENT: Members Barton, Emanuel, Ridder and Sawyer Chairman Sookram called the meeting to order. Roll Call Vote was taken – 5 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 September 11, 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. It was moved by Fooken, seconded by Synovec, to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the August 20, 2012 Regular Meeting and approve as received. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 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 CLOU, LLC c/o Scott Tallman to erect accessory building that is not architecturally harmonious with the principal structure at 115 South Ridge Road, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska. Article 7, Section 704. RL – Lake and River District. Planning Director Harkins stated that this was a request for a conditional use permit in the RL Lake and River Zoning District to allow for an accessory building that is not architecturally harmonious with the primary structure. The applicant will be building a single family residential dwelling in the middle of the property with the accessory building, a detached garage, about 20 feet from the principal dwelling. The proposed detached garage is a Cleary Building as designed and included in the agenda packet. Planning Director Harkins stated that because the proposed building was at a considerable distance from any public road and is to serve the principle structure, staff was recommending approval. Member Synovec asked if the applicant was planning any other structures on the property. Planning Director Harkins indicated none that he was aware of. Moved by Winter, seconded by Wiese, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. 1  Consider request of Connie Stiver to combine the East 60’ of Lot 1, Block 6, the West 6’ of Lot 1, Block 6 and Lot 2, Block 6, R. Kittles Addition, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska into one lot. R1 – Single Family Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated that the applicant was seeking to combine two adjacent lots in the R-1 zoning district into a single lot. The applicant desires to do this in order to maximize development potential, including fencing on the property. Moved by Winter, seconded by Fooken to recommend approval of the lot combination. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried.  Consider the Preliminary Plat of Fremont Commons, a tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 17 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., Dodge County, Nebraska. Planning Director Harkins mentioned that this was the preliminary plat for a proposed Traditional Neighborhood Development. There would be multiple final plat’s due to the actual timing of development. The proposed development is at the intersection of US 30 and US 275 and is a mix of residential styles with commercial areas located to the north and northwest sections of the site. Member Fooken asked why this item was before the Planning Commission as the plat seems to be missing information. Some of the block lengths seem to be incorrect, and there is no indication of the location or size of infrastructure, nor an indication of street size. Planning Director Harkins stated if we can get the details as far as the infrastructure, the commercial lot layout like you see here, which is pretty close to what is shown with those other additions, I think we are there. I think the Vice Chairman raised a good point as far as double checking their block lengths. A couple of them are pretty close to that 660 so it might just be in their best interest just to do another flush of that just to make sure. Other than that, some of the other things that have been talked about in the past with this development between the City and the developer have been put forward in a MOU, which I know will be coming at some point to the City for review as well as part of the overall development. Member Fooken stated it just seems like we should have a package here that when it gets on the Planning Director’s desk he should make sure all the stuff is there so we have all our ducks in a row instead of piecing things together. There are so many pieces here that he is nervous about that. It is kind of like when the Planning Director asked the Planning Commission to adopt the entire comp plan in one sitting. That was tabled for a month and then that gave everybody time to read it and go through it. Evidently there are City and Department Heads that haven’t looked at this and they should be giving some kind of input on it. Harkins stated we can get a police cruiser there in a normal amount of time like we can everywhere else. They can get through those streets. Fooken stated just for the heck of it, there are people playing soccer and all of their cars are parked along there and just because of all of us sitting in this room today all of a sudden think we can get a rescue squad or whatever through there but what happens if somebody croaks down at the bottom of that picture because we just thought that stuff would fit through there and everybody would be o.k. with it. Member Winter stated that is up to the Fire Department and Police Department to term that. Fooken stated that all the input should be part of that package before it is brought here. Planning Director Harkins stated we should walk through the scenario. He will bite and respond. He will respond by saying look how many points there are to anywhere in that park. Fooken stated he should look where the soccer field is located. Harkins stated worse case scenario you would have to come around on the access road if it was that blocked. In all likelihood what you would normally do is if for some reason there was no way to get a vehicle through they would come back around to the commercial area and back around the lake from the other side. Fooken responded by saying the Planning Director felt there was nothing to worry about. Harkins stated he didn’t think it would impair response time that badly. 2 Brad Hansen stated it was their intent that this path that is coming through the park that is drawn through here is a 10’ wide bike trail/walking path and it is also a path for maintenance vehicles for the park. If you are picking up trash, maintaining the landscape, whatever it is or it is emergency vehicles, that path is there and private parties would be able to get to it. Chairman Sookram stated he was looking for assurance from Planning that all of this would be hammered out by the final. Harkins stated he would have it hammered out before it goes to Council. Sookram stated he felt they would just be sending something incomplete to Council now even though it is the preliminary. Harkins stated the Preliminary Plat won’t go past this point and won’t go to Council until these issues get ironed out. Member Synovec stated it sounds like they are on a fast track and we don’t want to hold them back for another month and asked if a special session was needed for them to bring all of this back? Planning Director Harkins stated we could either try to do a special session to have the Planning Commission review one more time all the changes so they could defer until then, they could just defer to their regular meeting, they could approve subject to the revisions or they could deny. Member Winter asked if the Planning Commission approved subject to revisions, they bring a big plat in and we look at it. Harkins stated if the Planning Commission wants them to bring it back to you with those revisions….Winter stated that is what he was suggesting right. Harkins stated he was suggesting either half of you are comfortable with having them come back to you and the other half of the group sitting up here is comfortable sending it on to Council subject to the revisions and making sure it doesn’t go to Council until those revisions are indicated so the Planning Commission as a group has to decide whether or not you want this to come back before you one more time or whether or not you say ok but get all this hammered out before it goes to Council. Tom Winter asked as final clarification to me, does the Final Plat come back through this body. Harkins stated it does. So if we accept the conditions now and this preliminary moves forward to Council, you will see in the Final Plat the fact that all of those revisions have been accepted or implemented to your satisfaction. So it wouldn’t necessarily slow it down, it would allow us the time to get that all done before we have to give you the final detail submission on this first phase. I don’t think there is anything here that has from at least the notes that I took quickly that has us concerned. It is more detail that we need to spend some time with staff and it’s our total understanding that is the difference between a preliminary plat and a final plat is this is about concept and all those details need to get hammered out before you accept the Final Plat and that is exactly what they intend to do. He stated they would be happy to take some conditions and keep moving forward and bring the detail back to you in a full presentation again like this to take a look at all that. Member Synovec asked Member Fooken if he still has a problem with that. Fooken stated we should just look at our track record for the last how many months. How many issues have come before us and we tack stuff onto them and we never know if it gets taken care of or not. It is starting to turn into our track record where every time we make a motion it’s subject to this and subject to that. We never see it again, we never know if it’s been taken care of. There is enough gray area in here that hasn’t been touched, that has been left undone that I double we remember half of it if it did come back around and City staff is suppose to make sure these ducks are in a row before it comes to us. Planning Director Harkins stated he could give them an interim report for one. We allowed this to come to Planning Commission to help keep the project moving forward and to give the Planning Commission a chance to give your input. Harkins stated he could give them an interim report to show you what progress is being made as part of the conditions just so you know conditions are being met. As far as previous projects, if there are ones that you want to take a look at or want a report on, Harkins stated he would be happy to provide that to the Planning Commission at their request. Fooken stated he was just saying that every month it is always something. Something is not complete when it comes ahead of us and there are additions or we never thought of that or we have to do this, nobody told us that. We need to get our ducks in a row. Member Synovec stated that wasn’t an issue with the applicant as it was an issue with the Planning Commission. Fooken stated absolutely and when you have something this huge……Member Winter stated he thinks they fully intend to answer all the 3 questions. Fooken stated he wasn’t saying they don’t but was asking why we don’t have the information right up front basically. When the application is submitted, there should be a checklist of things in order to even submit this application you need to meet all these requirements. It’s all right in the Ordinance isn’t it? Harkins stated it was. Dave Mitchell asked if he could interject it is in Fremont Commons financial best interest to meet and deal with each one of these conditions and as Brad was indicating at the preliminary stage where we are expected to engage in these types of discussions because that’s what flushes out some of the issues and with a development of this sort where using the Ordinance, the law if you will, that allows this type of project to move ahead with some flexibility we are going to have some issues like this. At the same time, the last thing the Fremont Commons wants to do is to do anything half way and so my thought it and my suggestion would be to respectfully request you consider approving the project as submitted subject to the additional conditions that Rian had indicated early on and that we will meet those conditions as it moves towards the Final Plat. If there is a need for a further meeting, certainly they would entertain that but certainly if we can list out those conditions as Rian indicated they are not insurmountable they would deal with those one by one so the matter is complete when it goes to the next round. Member Synovec asked Member Fooken if he would like the revisions reread and see if anything needs to be added. Member Winter stated they could be added at another time couldn’t we. Planning Director Harkins stated no, only if it were to come back to them again as a Preliminary. You could only add conditions to the Preliminary Plat when it is before the Planning Commission so in order to do that you would have to table for now or postpone in order to add conditions later. Member Fooken stated if we can’t do it later, he would make a motion to that we table it now until we can get all our ducks in a row. If this is our only shot at getting it right, the City staff is putting it in our laps with this many loose ends. The TND actually has the structure as this isn’t the first one of these that has been built somewhere. So obviously this has been drawn with the guidelines of the TND, correct, just as we have guidelines of R1 or whatever. So they have obviously already addressed a lot of those issues Brad. I know you are saying there are some things that are out in the air but can we sit down and make that list. Member Fooken asked Member Wiese if he was ok with 24’ streets? Member Wiese stated in this style of addition I am. My only question would be could they build this TND and then turn the rest to R1 because like they are saying if the venue doesn’t fit are they able to change the rest of the area. Planning Director Harkins stated they can come back and rezone the rest of the development later. The main issues really are here with the plat. We could make the two mesh. Part of what you see here is a layout that gives them some of that flexibility anyway without necessarily having to rezone at a later time. Part of the issue that he felt Member Fooken was struggling with because we have never done this is are you comfortable with 24’ streets. Harkins stated that’s because he knows there are going to be others that come in after this and probably going to use the engineers like the ones standing at the podium now wanting to design it and part of the issue that we will have to push is would it be applicable everywhere because there is another developer sitting in the room that would love to do it for a conventional single family residential dwelling development. Is it applicable there? No, it is not. It’s applicable in a case like this because of the type of development you are doing and those that have done research on TND’s will tell you this is where it fits. It doesn’t fit everywhere but those types of street widths fit here. Todd Lorenz added a point of clarification as this is just sense of scale. He knows we have been talking safety and police and fire protection service and so forth, sense of scale street width, our streets as shown are 25’ back of curb, back of curb. The City of Omaha standard for residential subdivisions everywhere in the City of Omaha are 25’ back of curb back of curb so it’s been done in a traditional neighborhood, suburban neighborhood, it’s been done and proven that it works. He stated he was not suggesting that the City of Fremont change their code for all development. From a safety standpoint, it does work and to Brad’s point earlier that he was 4 trying to build the feel of a neighborhood, trying to create the neighborhood’s atmosphere, it’s important so that’s why it has been suggested. Member Winter stated he would like to suggest that Planning Director Harkins read through that again. Harkins stated technically there was a motion on the table. Member Fooken stated he didn’t make one. Harkins stated the following: 1. That the lot layout of the entire development must be shown including the commercial area even if development occurs via multiple final plats. 2. Off-street widths must be indicated on the plat. Lakeshore Drive must be widened to accommodate larger traffic volumes simply because of its layout. 3. All infrastructure sizes must be indicated on the plat and all infrastructure must be indicated on the plat. No utilities should be located to the rear of any lot. Brad Hansen asked for clarification from Mr. Harkins that he wanted Lakeshore Drive widened. Could he be specific as to what he thinks is appropriate for them to consider. Member Synovec also asked to delete that as we already have a Lakeshore Drive. Brad Hansen stated it was probably thrown on there by someone of his staff so they were happy to review all the street names. Harkins stated the applicant has it shown as the same width and they probably need to add 6’ to the width of Lakeshore just to accommodate any potential of weaving through traffic. Applicant asked if a 30’ street section. Harkins stated he felt that would give them enough. Member Winter asked how wide Lakeshore was presently? Applicant stated on the drawing it was 25’, which is the main street coming in. All the streets are shown at 25’. Planning Director Harkins stated because it loops around and could potentially serve as an outlet for one of those retail lots to that northwest and then feed down to that frontage or back around, there could be a lot of traffic potentially coming in and he knows in the residential area he lives in here in Fremont even with the street jog he still gets traffic coming through doing 45 rounding corners so that’s part of the reason why he is thinking a little bit wider because he could see somebody taking a couple of those corners just a wee bit too fast and someone’s Christmas decorations can go flying. 4. All infrastructure needs to be shown on the plat and all infrastructure as shown on the plat must be able to accommodate the development at full built-out. In other words, don’t show the infrastructure for just sizing it for one phase but show me what it would take to do all of it. 5. Indicate the provider of, the timing of and the cost of all infrastructure development either on the plat or in a document related to it, even if it was just in the design guidelines. 6. As far as the park, it would be accepted by the City upon the Final Plat of the second residential addition. The development of that interior trail system, the development of at least one playground area, which by looking at what the applicant has shown on the first phase they would take care of that. 7. The installation of an aeration system for the pond and any necessary rip rap or other material to prevent the lake from eroding the shoreline. He will leave that to the applicant’s discretion on how they do that. Applicant stated they share the concern and the landscape plans are obviously preliminary and they haven’t gotten thru the final detail of those. Harkins stated those are the conditions that he sees. Some of that is information they should have had already and he understands where the applicant is coming from as well as it is preliminary and we’re not there yet but granted at the same time we do typically want a lot of that indicated. Member Synovec stated if a motion to approve was made do the special provisions need to be included? Planning Director Harkins stated the conditions that we talked about here would 5 suffice compared to the staff report. Member Winter asked what if this is approved and the Fire Department comes in and says where Lakeshore Drive comes in those commercial streets need to be wider. How does that work. Harkins stated that would be more of a suggestion they would be making. We could walk thru with them why, we could talk about it more again as we get closer to the Final Plat for those areas. Winter stated if the Fire Department comes in and suggests 35’ feeds coming in, we could change that. Applicant stated to Member Winter that his experience in working in 45 states throughout the country that if the fire marshal says he wants it, he usually gets it. Frankly he doesn’t have a lot of consideration for councils and zoning boards as he really rules the roost and we respect that. Harkins stated the answer to where that would happen in the process is that we could go forward to the Final Plat for that commercial area and then take a look at that and make those changes. Harkins stated at this point he felt the Planning Commission was ready to deal with a motion in one direction or another. Moved by Synovec, seconded by Wiese to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat with the revisions described by Mr. Harkins. Member Fooken asked when the Final Plat comes back, all we can do is vote it down to stop it or change it. Harkins stated that was correct. Planning Commission can vote the Final Plat up or down unless there are some conditions the Planning Commission wants to add to the Final Plat. Again, the Preliminary Plat won’t be taken to Council until we get these revisions. Roll Call Vote showed 4 ayes – 1 nay (Fooken). Motion Carried.  Consider request of Fremont Commons, LLC to rezone a tract located in the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼) of Section 17, Township 17 North, Range 9 East from AG – Agricultural/Urban Reserve District to GC – General Commercial District and R-3 Mixed Density Residential District with TND – Traditional Neighborhood Development District Overlay. Planning Director Harkins stated we do have a TND section in the Ordinance. There has only been one other TND Development ever proposed in Fremont and it was a few years ago and it was denied for varying reasons. The proposed development here is a mix of different uses. This is a rezoning in three parts. To take an area from AG – Agricultural/Urban Reserve to GC and R3 so the residential areas in the plat would be R3, the commercial areas would be GC, the proposed GC areas adjacent to General Commercial Zoning now, the residential would be to the east and the south of the proposed development. The TND overlay goes on top of that to flex the standards as we talked about before in some other study sessions. One of the other aspects of the TND District is particular requirements as far as parks and other items. They have indicated in the design guidelines an area of substantial park space. Staff, after reviewing the TND guidelines, feels the rezoning is appropriate and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also feels that they have satisfied the general intent of the TND overlay in terms of the requirements for park space and for layout as far as the general development plan. With regard to the gross floor area of commercial space, staff feels they met the requirements there as well so that is why staff is recommending approval. Moved by Winter, seconded by Synovec to recommend approval of the request. Dave Mitchell requested to make one comment before the vote. The 90 units as he understands it will only be with respect to the first phase that is shown on the Preliminary Plat is that correct? They are zoning essentially by plat as they go through. Harkins asked if that is the way they want it to be? Applicant stated it was. They will zone it along with the Final Plat. Harkins stated they really just want the R3 right now with the TND overlay. Applicant also stated the GC for just the top part. This is the Phase One that will be coming through with the Final Plat and you will have all of that detail that was discussed and this would be the portion that gets rezoned with the approved Final Plat. The standards and everything they are outlining here and everything else is here but they don’t want to commit all that in the preliminary but the Final Plat detail of 6 that is all to be determined still. The commercial land and this parcel here is already zoned GC. The other parcel that they bought from the Highway Department is annexed into the City and is zoned GC today. They are suggesting is they continue that zoning across the TND down the east side and they would come through when they have a Final Plat on the rest of this through the detailed zoning within. The reason for that is many facets. The fact that they are doing a TND overlay and modifying or working through the specific setbacks and standards and parcel plans on that really puts the pressure on them to make sure they know what it is when coming through the Final Plat what those parcels are going to be, how many lots there are, exactly how these commercial spaces are going to lay out before they ask for a Final Plat. Because of the complexity of the TND, they are suggesting let’s do the zoning because when they do the zoning they’ll have more detailed setbacks and aspects of each of those parcels that has to be addressed. Frankly today they just don’t know what that will be. If they just left it General Commercial and General R3, all those things don’t apply. The fact that they are going to add all the additional stipulations to it, they need the time to make sure they are right so they can get the right provisions on each piece of this as they complete it. Harkins stated he was ok with that but would just need the applicant to supply a legal. Applicant stated there will be a legal description with the Final that is going to tie all that down in detail. Harkins stated they will need to provide that by noon Thursday. Winter rephrased his motion to state Phase One with an updated legal. Harkins stated that would be considered an amendment to the motion. Roll Call Vote showed 4 ayes – 1 nay (Fooken). Motion Carried.  Consider the Final Plat of Deer Pointe Second Addition, consisting of Lot 6, Block 2 Deer Pointe Addition and part of the S ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 18, Township 17 North, Range 9 East, Dodge County, Nebraska. Planning Director Harkins stated the rezoning for this was done last month and this is a follow- up to add in the additional lots to the area they are looking at. Harkins stated you can see the general map for location but also the aerial showing where the open ground right now where the lots are going. The plat basically has four lots just because they are going based on what market forces are doing so that’s why they are only doing four lots right now. Staff is recommending approval based on previous actions. Harkins stated he would be happy to answer any questions but the applicant’s agent is here as well. Moved by Fooken, seconded by Wiese to recommend approval of the Final Plat. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried.  Study Session – Board of Adjustment & Findings of Fact Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 7