Planning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2013 – 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sookram, Members Emanuel, Ridder, Sawyer, Wiese and Winter, Chief Building Inspector Don Simons and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: Members Barton, Fooken and Sassaman Chairman Sookram called the meeting to order. Roll Call Vote was taken – 6 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 March 13, 2013 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 Emanuel, seconded by Winter, to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the February 18, 2013 Regular Meeting and approve as received. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 6 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 Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Yanike Development, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska (Fremont Area Habitat for Humanity). Chairman Sookram stated staff is recommending approval. The applicant is seeking to split two of these into three, a replat. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated as you can see from the GIS drawing submitted that was just ran off, the two lots that the applicant wants to split into three will still be a little bit smaller than the three across the street. The one across the street is a corner lot so those three houses are actually closer than what these three proposed lots would be. Chairman Sookram stated a letter was brought forward from Roger Beckman of 1454 4th Avenue Court. Moved by Ridder, seconded by Emanuel to receive and file that letter. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 6 ayes. Dan Martinez from APEX Land Surveying was present. Mr. Martinez stated as Don Simon indicated they were going to do a lot split but Mr. Harkins suggested they do a replat to reconfigure this lot layout. It does take in two lots and legally creates three lots. He wanted to add that Lot 3 to the south which already has a duplex on it could actually be split like 2A and 2B. Because it is a duplex, you would go along a common wall and create separate parcels but that is not how that plot was developed. That is what is happening on this particular layout. Habitat wants to build an attached single family dwelling so that they end up on 2A and 2B with a common wall along that lot line and then 1A will have one individual detached Habitat house. Mr. Martinez stated he met with Don Kruse, their general contractor and manager for their 1 construction and with those units he’s usually suppose to provide for enough off-street parking but like with any single family residence like the letter addresses, some people will park out in the streets of course. Mr. Martinez doesn’t know how we address that. Applicant is not showing any hardship as they are meeting the rules and requirements for the minimum square footages. Based upon one other comment, he does have a drawing if anyone wants to see it as it just shows the foundation footprints on the lot. Lot 1A’s home will sit on the lot with the very back rear corner being 5’ off the lot line. There is an easement there. Towards the street, the front yard, will be about 9 ½’ not quite off the property line. Off of the south lot line of 2B the closets that structure gets is 14’ in the back and then in the front it is 21’ off of the lot line. That one they are substantially more so it looks like there is a lot in between those houses. In between their attached dwelling they are going to build and the detached one, there is going to be over 25’ on the rear and almost a little over 40’ in the front between the two. Chairman Sookram asked Mr. Martinez is he knew what the rear compares to the houses coming around the corner as he sees it is 32’. He asked if they were all about the same. Mr. Martinez stated he has never measured these but looks like they are narrower than what is drawn on there. He is not sure. Sookram stated it seems to be a little tight coming around the corner. Mr. Martinez stated these lots are not overly deep but there are some lots in town that do actually go to a point in the rear lot lines. The original plat of College Park Addition shows some lots right around 34.6 feet, 34.8. Sookram stated they are not getting a whole lot narrower than what they are going to be in that area. Martinez stated in the frontage across the street as Don was mentioning, 48’, 47.9’, 47.9’ but then again they are on the opposite side of the front yard and their rear yard is a lot wider. Chairman Sookram asked if this street can hold parking on both sides. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated as designed the density is not going to change. On that first lot to the south, you could have a duplex. If they kept as is, they could have a duplex and they would have three units there anyway so they are just dividing this into individual lots so the same density is there and guessing the same amount of parking. Maybe in a duplex setting there might be more and he doesn’t feel this will add to the parking. Sookram stated he just wanted to be sure the letter was addressed. Martinez stated he hadn’t thought about that but at this point they could build a duplex on Lot 2 and a single family on Lot 1. It would basically be the same scenario. Member Harkins asked if there were garages planned. Martinez stated Habitat hasn’t been building garages. Ridder stated since we weren’t looking specifically at what the footprint looks like on the lot if the new homeowner decides to build a garage does this support that. Martinez stated on all three of them with a setback of 5’ on the side they could do that. They would not be able to go all the way to the rear of the house but from the front corner going back as those homes are quite deep in there as you know. There is the possibility because the very front corner on the most narrow is 19.5’ and it’s 13’ at the back of the house so someone could put a single car garage in. Chairman Sookram asked Chief Building Inspector Simon if there had been any discussion with Habitat about blending the houses more into the neighborhood or do they just have a single look they are going to use. Simon stated there hadn’t been any discussion with him but may have been with Planning Director Harkins. He does not know in the past to address Ms. Ridder’s concerns that he has seen Habitat when they propose or have their layout that there is a proposal for a future garage to be put in so the houses can be configured in such a manner that a garage can be added at some point later so it’s not centered on the lot or you restrict yourself on one side or the other so that could be something we could do to request from Habitat. No discussion was held with him though but it would be a good idea I believe. Chairman Sookram stated he felt it was time to start addressing blending the homes into the neighborhoods instead of having them look completely different from the entire neighborhood. Sookram stated he new Planning Director Harkins had discussed this once before and the possibility of doing that. Mr. Martinez stated just being one of the people that is in between working with Habitat and the design, he knows from what he has heard it is strictly budget issues but maybe there is alternatives to that but that’s why they stick with the same house. In fact, just now you probably 2 have some drawings from them and Don Kruse has worked in the Omaha area so he is familiar with some of the requirements where Fremont didn’t require as many drawings of the structures. He has spent some time preparing or creating those drawings himself but he thinks what they are used to is building without even a hard set of plans. As you know, they just either flip that house or modify the setback in the front that jogs either 8 or 12 feet. Mr. Martinez stated that would affect this particular lot plan significantly whether they could change the width of it. Sookram stated he just remembered there was discussion about it that it was brought up quite heavily. Member Ridder asked Chairman Sookram if he was talking about the footprint or the materials. Sookram stated not the materials just the way it blends into the neighborhood like you have for instance even in his neighborhood if you put a Habitat house that they standardly use from what he has seen around town it would be completely out of the neighborhood’s look. Member Ridder stated for some neighborhoods that is an improvement. Sookram stated it is for some. Ridder stated she just wants to understand what we are talking about. It was stated the ones on Pierce Street blend in nicely. Mr. Martinez stated that is the same ones here. Member Ridder stated it was a good question but she just wanted to acknowledge that sometimes it is an improvement to the neighborhood. Chief Building Inspector stated he would speak with Mr. Harkins as it is something that we can address. Sookram stated that would be a good idea. Not saying it is not an improvement but just saying the architecture of the house is much different than the entire neighborhood sometimes. Pierce Street was pretty much vacant. Member Wiese stated he is just picturing that house and what it would look like in this neighborhood. He stated they are about the same look as most are not over 900 or 1,000 square foot so it will be the same size. Member Winter stated they would all be 700 square feet over there. The largest home would be the home the Yanike’s built to the south on the subdivision. Sookram stated he does remember the discussion came up that we were going to approach Habitat about it next time when they came around for more lots so maybe this is the time to do it. Moved by Wiese, seconded by Sawyer to recommend approval of the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 6 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. 3