Planning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22, 2013 – 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Fooken, Members Barton, Emanuel, Ridder, Wiese and Winter, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Don Simons and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: Chairman Sookram and Member Sawyer Vice Chairman Fooken called the meeting to order. Roll Call Vote was taken – 5 present. Vice Chairman Fooken 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 April 17, 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 Winter, seconded by Emanuel, to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the March 18, 2013 Regular Meeting and approve as received. Member Wiese arrived at 5:03 p.m. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 6 ayes. Motion Carried. Vice Chairman Fooken 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 Roger Chisholm to subdivide combined Lots 13 and 14, Block 13, Westside Addition, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska into two lots. Planning Director Harkins stated this is an item that the property owner in doing some research realized they had two lots that were previously in the past combined into one and they weren’t sure when. They are requesting a lot split at this location. The area is zoned R2 and the surrounding property is zoned R2 as well. The area is residential and they are looking at selling part of the property off for somebody else for development purposes. Harkins stated apparently is was two lots and combined into one and the current owner cannot find any records as to when and where. The County shows it as one lot. The County is basically saying that the applicant has to go through this process in order for them to split it again back into two for tax purposes. Member Ridder asked if we had anything that shows how this will be split. Harkins stated no. Basically they have not provided that but just basically came in and filled out the application. I contacted them and said I can take this but if staff didn’t have anything showing where the lot line would go we would just be asking for a deferral, which would actually be his recommendation. Emanuel stated they need to know where the lot lines will be at. 1 Harkins asked for a motion to table this until the next meeting. Moved by Ridder, seconded by Barton to recommend continuing this item to the next meeting. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 6 ayes. Motion Carried.  Consider request of Borisow Properties, LLC to amend Planned Unit Development to erect two additional buildings for a multi-family development complex at 1615 East Military Avenue, Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Wacek and Van Pattens Addition, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska. R4-High Density Residential District/PD – Planned Development District (Borisow Properties, LLC). Planning Director Harkins stated this is a proposed amendment to a PUD. This is apparently the second amendment to the PUD. The applicant bought the properties and in the past has constructed a multi-tenant apartment building on the north end of the site off of Military. They are looking for approval of an amendment to add two more apartment buildings to the south. When looking at the site plan, the proposed buildings are to the south and to the east so that southeast corner of the building remains essentially like an “L”. There are 24 apartment units proposed. As written in the staff report, the applicant generally meets all of the conditions per the site development standards. Staff really only has a couple of minor modifications that we have asked for in the staff report. This is mainly dealing with screening on the east sides between garages and apartment buildings as well and then the adjacent properties in order to help provide a buffer. One of the complaints we heard from adjacent property owners after the first building was constructed was screening and dirt filtered were being moved onto properties and pushed over so we are feeling this might be something that just helps make them a better neighbor. It also provides screening between buildings and adjacent properties. Because most of the properties surrounding this are residential in nature, you go south, east and west. The other condition we put on deals with drainage and that’s primarily on the east side of one of the proposed apartment buildings. There is an inlet to the southeast corner of that site near that zoning. Staff just wants to make sure the grass area would drain down to that inlet to provide positive drainage so that we are not impacting adjacent properties. As stated earlier, this is the second amendment to the PUD. There has been one other one in the past that dealt with the first apartment building. Harkins stated the applicant was present if there were any questions. Member Emanuel asked where the screening would be. Harkins stated what was asked for was essentially screening to the east. There are two buildings they are proposing. We have asked for screening to the east along the property line and between the proposed garage and the property line. Those are the two areas we asked for. Member Wiese asked if the screening would be trees or a buffer zone but not a fence. Harkins stated if the applicant wants to do a fence staff is o.k. with that. If they want to do landscaping, we are o.k. with that too. Vice Chairman Fooken asked what would be on the west side of the driveway. There is somebody’s house right there so when you park the lights may go right into the house. Harkins stated that was correct in that there was a residential property. It is primarily a garage that those parking stalls face so it would likely not be shining directly into living space which is why we didn’t ask for screening on that side. Member Wiese stated he thought there was already a fence along that property anyway. Harkins stated with the fence there it doesn’t make sense to ask for landscaping per say but we can ask for landscaping between those parking stalls and the property line. Applicant has proposed trying to do some additional plantings in some of the island areas to help soften the whole development up as well. Moved by Wiese, seconded by Barton to recommend approval of the request with the conditions as outlined by City staff which includes: 1. The applicant will provide additional screening between the 8 bay garage and adjacent properties (either thru landscaping or fencing). 2 2. The applicant will provide screening between the eastern building and the adjacent properties (either thru landscaping or fencing). 3. The applicant will ensure that all drainage will be contained on site and removed using the proposed drainage system and will not drain onto adjacent properties. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 6 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 3