Planning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 15, 2013 – 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sookram, Emanuel, Fagan, Fooken, Ridder, Sawyer and Wiese, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Don Simons and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: Members Barton and Winter Chairman Sookram called the meeting to order. Roll Call Vote was taken – 7 present. Secretary Pruss 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 July 10, 2013 and is open to the public. Secretary Pruss 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 Sawyer, to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the June 17, 2013 Regular Meeting and approve as received. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 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 Chad Schoeneck to replace existing cabin with cabin that is an enlargement of a non-conforming structure at 2269 B Big Island Road, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska. AG – Agricultural/Urban Reserve District. Planning Director Rian Harkins stated this is in the floodway area along Big Island Road. The request as written in the staff report is to remove an existing cabin and replace it with one that is an enlargement essentially of the non-conforming structure. Staff has recommended approval subject to all necessary variances being granted. The area is zoned Agricultural/Urban Reserve so the Board of Adjustment essentially will be hearing an item next week for the 50’ side yard setback variance but essentially the existing cabin became non-conforming at the time the existing code was adopted so to replace it now would create that enlargement of the non- conformity. Staff does feel as written in the staff report all the other requirements of the zoning district such as surface coverage, parking, height requirements, as well as the front and rear yard setbacks, which are also 50 feet, would be met. There is a site plan as part of the staff report. We do not feel the enlargement poses a risk to the adjacent properties so, therefore, we have recommended approval. Harkins stated the applicant is present if the Commission had questions of them as well. Chad Schoeneck of 2269 B Big Island Road, Fremont, NE was present. Member Fooken asked the applicant what the construction schedule was like. Applicant stated pending approval 1 of the variance he would like to get started this fall. He was looking at using more modern construction techniques utilizing poured concrete structure and considering the safety factor in the floodway it would be an improvement. It would be an elevated structure versus what is currently there to minimize property loss and damage. It would be a safer, stronger structure. Member Fooken asked if the applicant was already in the process of getting a No Rise Certificate. Applicant stated he was. Moved by Ridder, seconded by Emanuel to recommend approval of the request. Member Fooken added subject to the No Rise Certificate. Member Ridder asked if that was inherent or is that something that has to be added to the motion. Fooken stated he would like that added in the motion. Planning Director Harkins stated Member Ridder could accept it as a friendly amendment. Member Ridder stated she would do so. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. Chairman Sookram asked if staff would stay on this or would this go to Council on July 30th. Planning Director Harkins stated they would stay on this and try to work and see how fast staff can get the No Rise Certificate and if it can be here in time to go as part of the packet for the 30th. If so, it will be included. Otherwise, we’ll hold the application until August. Consider request of Eldean Erickson Family Partnership to rezone Tax Lot 23, located in Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 8 East of the 6th P.M., Dodge County, Nebraska from AG – Agricultural/Urban Reserve District to GI – General Industrial District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is a rezoning request for the property around 12 acres in size on the northeast side of US Hwy. 30 and County Road 30. It is immediately east of Butler Machinery. It is zoned AG now. You have General Industrial to the west with Butler as well as to the south. It would not be a case of spot zoning and it would be a natural extension of the GI Zoning District. This is essentially for a potential development proposal that is coming on board. Staff feels the rezoning would be in compliance. We have looked at the comprehensive plan. It fits the land use pattern for the future land use plan and it also still would be compatible with any proposed potential airport expansion in the future, thus our recommendation for approval. Julie Bradrick of 3202 North County Road 20th Avenue, Fremont was present. Mrs. Bradrick stated it is also a residential area so what they are seeing is the industrial area moving into their residential area. There is just one lot to the south of them and then the next one would be the area that they are rezoning. Member Fooken asked Planning Director Harkins if he knew what the zoning of those houses would be. Harkins stated he did not. Fooken asked what the buffer zone would be. Harkins stated you would have buffer yard requirements in excess of 50’ and could be as much as 100’ but that would depend upon the zoning district. Planning Director Simon stated he thought it was 50’ Harkins stated if it is zoned for example agricultural even though it is a residential use that might be different. The bufferyard requirements between GI and AG are 100’, the same as R1 Zoning or Rural Residential so there would be that 100’ bufferyard requirement in the landscape. Fooken told Mrs. Bradrick that meant they couldn’t get any closer to her house than 100’ if they keep up with the buffer rules that they have in place. Mrs. Bradrick asked the Commission if they would want industrial by their house, 100’ from their house. She stated she knows she can’t stop progress. Member Fooken stated he has houses across the street from his Limited Industrial. Mrs. Bradrick asked what was going on and if there is something that is interested there for that property. At one point it said that the sale was pending so we assume that there was some company that was interested. Planning Director Harkins stated the agent for the applicant if they want to speak could answer that question. Staff’s only knowledge is there is an interest in the property for development and that’s all we know. Mrs. Bradrick repeated 100’ buffer. Member Fooken stated we did the ten year comprehensive plan and what they are proposing to change to General Industrial is in that plan and that was one of the land use things that were set out in the plan. Mrs. Bradrick wants to 2 know where it stops. Fooken stated probably 100’ from her house probably but depends who buys that next lot and what they are going to use it for. Member Emanuel asked if that next lot was part of that residential area. She pointed out where her house was, their large yard and then a lot behind their yard and then there is a driveway and then the lot so it would be essentially on the other side of their yard. Member Fooken stated in that buffer area there should be a certain amount of trees. Planning Director Harkins stated that is where the buffer or screening requirements would be utilized. Mrs. Bradrick stated the applicant had to provide the landscaping. Harkins stated that was correct. Member Fooken informed her if anyone would buy that lot that abuts her property and if it were industrial right. Harkins stated in General Industrial you have to remember there is no landscaping requirements. There is the bufferyard and that is essentially and they could leave that as just open green space. Member Ridder stated they don’t have to put in any screening or landscaping. Harkins stated not in GI but in LI they would have to. Harkins stated he knew they were trying to forecast the next property and that is a little hard to do. You would have to deal with that when it comes on board if it were to come on board. In all likelihood what you would be asking at that point is either trying to make sure a rezoning request would have requirements in which you could ask for like landscaping or screening to help provide a buffer to any adjacent residential property or if you feel it is your prerogative if it were, for example, to be a request to go to GI you could say no but you could approve a LI Zoning. That would be a step down as part of a transition. Member Fooken stated it was just something she needed to keep track of. Chairman Sookram reiterated that they were asking to go to GI. Harkins stated this applicant is asking to go to GI today. Member Fooken stated the City Council will make the final decision but the Planning Commission just provides then with a recommendation and she is more than welcome to come talk to them when it comes before the City Council. Applicant asked if that was at the end of July. Harkins stated that would be the 30th. Applicant asked if that is when a decision is made if it is approved or not. Harkins stated it would likely go, unless Council waives the three reading requirement rule, they would consider it three times before they do final passage. So the final passage would likely be the end of August unless the applicants ask for it to be waived. Rob George, agent for the applicant, 1941 East 16th was present. Mr. George stated he represented the Eldean Erickson Family Partnership. Mr. George stated this is a natural transit6ion. You have General Industrial on all sides. It’s perfect as it has access on the bypass, eventually it will have good access onto County Road S. He believes it is a natural progression and that is one of the things that we are very lacking in Fremont is sites to be able to put industrial development on. Moved by Fooken, seconded by Sawyer to recommend approval of the zoning change. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. Consider request of Dan Demuth to subdivide Lot 6, Central Park Subdivision, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska (2949 North Laverna) into two lots. Planning Director Harkins stated this was a lot split for townhomes in the R2 Zoning District. This is on the very north end of Laverna. The Tech Park is immediately to the west. It is about a block from where as I said in the Study Session where 32nd Street would extend or where it would meet Laverna if it were extended through there. It is essentially within the requirements of the zoning district as far as setback requirements and other site development standards hence staff’s recommendation for approval. Planning Director Harkins stated he did not believe the applicant was present. Chairman Sookram stated he wanted to clarify that this was for a townhome. Harkins stated it was. Moved by Emanuel, seconded by Wiese to recommend approval of the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. 3 Consider request of David Greenfield to subdivide the south 110 feet of Lot 5, Block 141, Original Town, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska into two lots. Planning Director Harkins stated this is at the northwest corner of 5th and H Streets. The area is zoned Downtown Commercial and that is the same zoning to the east, north and south. You have R3 west of the property across the street. This is a mix of service and retains commercial as well as other uses in this area. It is essentially the edge of the Downtown Commercial Zoning District. It is a split to take the area that has the two buildings on it and split it into two new lots so each building would be on its own separate lots. If you wanted to include the building code requirements being met as a condition of approval, you definitely can do that. You can approve as recommended, you could approve subject to firewalls being installed or you could defer or you could deny. Moved by Sawyer, seconded by Fagan to recommend approval of the request contingent upon firewalls meeting the requirements of the building code on both properties. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. Chairman Sookram stated this would go to Council on July 30th. Planning Director stated they would sit and hold on this one and take in August. Applicant David Greenfield was present. He asked what was firewalls and if it was a wall between them. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated it could be done a number of different ways. Applicant stated one building was brick and one was block. He stated there is one area that is about 12’ in between and another one has about 3’ to 4’, kind of a little notch. Member Wiese stated if both are all brick or block he would be fine but if you have any window openings, any garage doors or anything. Applicant stated there is a garage door. He stated he had a person that was looking at it but he would like to have a garage door so he could put stuff back in and out of it. Planning Director Harkins stated there is not a garage door between the buildings. Applicant stated there was not. Member Wiese stated then he was probably fine. Chief Building Inspector Simon asked if either building was sprinkled. Applicant stated no. Simon stated he would feel better if he just looked at is. He can look at it tomorrow or the next day and it’s not like they are holding it forever but there is a rule with the opening being adjacent or parallel, if it’s sprinkled it means a little different but just if he can look at it. Are there any other decks or wood or anything attached anywhere else? Applicant stated no. Simon stated he would just feel better if he looked at it. Chairman Sookram informed the applicant that’s why they are doing it this way so they can make sure they can take a look at it. Applicant stated for a while he thought they were talking about putting two great big brick walls down there or something. Simon stated he could have glass block and there was a number of things he could have in those walls that would still make it o.k. so he will just look at is. Applicant Greenfield stated there was just one overhead door toward the street side. Harkins stated that didn’t’ matter. Greenfield stated it was not on the street side but on the corner. Consider the second replat of Lots 16, 17 and 18, Block 1, Deerfield Third Addition, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska (Christensen Limited Partnership). R2 – Moderate Density Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is a replat of Lots 16, 17, 18 in Block 1 of Deerfield 3rd Addition. They are essentially taking three lots down into two. There are no easements to be vacated. The Department of Utilities didn’t see any conflicts when they reviewed this and so that is one of the reasons staff recommended approval. The lots fit within the Moderate Density 4 restrictions as far as the site development standards which was the other reason staff recommended approval. Moved by Emanuel, seconded by Ridder to recommend approval. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. Consider replat of Lots 13 thru 17, Block 4, Deerfield Third Addition, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska (Christensen Limited Partnership). R2 – Moderate Density Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated this property is also R2. It is the same general area except this is Block 4, Lots 13-17. This is taking multiple lots down into three. As mentioned in the Study Session, we will have a vacation for a utility easement that will go forward to Council on the 30th as well. This is essentially to create larger lots from what has already been platted. Moved by Ridder to recommend approval. Chairman Sookram asked if anything needed to be included regarding utilities. Planning Director Harkins stated typically from what staff from the Utilities Department told him was any conflicts like that just as a matter of course the property owners would be required to take care of relocating it at their expense anyway. Harkins stated if you want to make it a condition you certainly can but that’s the DU’s policy. Chairman Sookram stated it might not hurt to make sure that is part of it. Harkins stated in that case you might just want to add that as a stipulation. Member Ridder stated in the interest of adding more bureaucracy she would like to add that to her motion. Seconded by Emanuel Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m. 5