Planning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2013 – 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sookram, Members Barton, Emanuel, Fagan, Fooken, Ridder and Sawyer, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Don Simons and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: Member Wiese Chairman Sookram called the meeting to order. Roll Call Vote was taken – 7 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 July 10, 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 Fooken, seconded by Emanuel, to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the July 15, 2013 Regular Meeting and approve as received. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 7 ayes. Motion Carried. Member Ridder arrived at 5:05 p.m. 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 the Final Plat of Fremont Technology Park, Lots 2 thru 8 and Tax Lot 144 of D. Schroeder’s Subdivision, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska (City of Fremont). Planning Director Harkins stated this is a final plat for their consideration of the Fremont Technology Park. This is essentially likely to be the first of a couple of replats or a replat pattern that will happen as other areas of the Tech Park come on line. This is essentially being done in this form in order to facilitate the sale of one lot to Great Plains Communications so they can put up essentially a hut at the Tech Park site in order to facilitate future development. It is essentially a step toward helping having everything in place in order to land the actual businesses the Tech Park is designed to be and targeted toward. So there are essentially four lots in this plat. Two are considered Outlots A and B. That is where most of the future development would likely occur. There is Lot One that takes in the American Broadband area that’s been there for a number of months now. Lot two takes in the area that Great Plains was looking at purchasing from the City. Essentially what the engineer for Great Plains and for GFDC has done is essentially come in with an actual platted street to gain access to the lot and then tried to establish connections of Lincoln, an extension of Lincoln and an extension of 29th Street in order to at least have some platting pattern of at least interior circulation established as well as establishing some of the actual sanitary sewer and water easements for future development as well. For example, the easement that extends from where Lincoln connects to 29th Street could potentially be turned into future right-of-way as well for Lincoln if that were to 1 be extended up to 32nd Street once that’s developed. This maintains some flexibility going forward. Again, most of the area that would be developed in the future sits in two Outlots A and B for the purposes of at some point when other development potential comes in that there could be a replat at least of that outlot if not the entire area. The area is zoned Business Park (BP). That is an action the Commission has taken in the last year to do that rezoning. There is a mix of zoning districts and land uses around this area. Staff feels right now from what is being proposed in the Tech Park that this fits really what we are looking at doing. This is the area that Great Plains has proposed in terms of size. Lot wise that is the area they are looking at trying to purchase from the City. Member Fooken asked what the bufferyard requirement for BP was. He stated it was suppose to be on Page 8-3, he thought. He stated he was mostly asking because of where that backs up against Laverna. He stated it was missing in the book. It has LI, GI and all that but BP was not added. Harkins stated Member Fooken was referring to Table 8-2 on the bufferyard requirements that is going from a more intensive to a less intensive district, Page 8-3 and BP is not listed a district in there. Fooken stated it should be and it should probably be added. Harkins stated that is something that should be added at some point. Fooken stated a lot of stuff you can do in LI you can do in BP or not. Harkins stated there are some similarities. Fooken stated we should just use the LI buffer zone and call it 40’ maybe. Harkins stated you could but right now they have developed Lot 2 where I think you would want to imply the bufferyard requirement would have to be placed. Ultimately are you trying to go to the idea that the lot is not big enough? Fooken stated no as he was just trying to look for that BP thing as he read the entire weekend. On the right hand side he feels there should be a 40’ buffer zone but reminded Harkins that they talked about that and it is not a requirement to show the buffer zones on the plat. Harkins stated that was correct that it is not. Fooken stated we have a buffer zone on the right hand side against those houses probably but then we should also have a buffer zone on Lot 2 and on Lot 1 where it abuts against AG right or wrong? Harkins stated you could. If you are going to be totally consistent to the letter you would want to look at something through there. In all likelihood though part of the question you will have to balance that against is how long that property is going to stay AG. There is already a for sale sign on it. Fooken stated he did not have a crystal ball and all he knew is what the Ordinance says right. Harkins stated right now the Zoning Ordinance does not have a buffer yard requirement for BP and if you wanted to add that stipulation in. Fooken stated he thinks those people on Laverna are probably a little bit interested in that. They don’t want some kind of whatever up against their back yard. Planning Director Harkins stated sure, but there is a 100 foot public drainage easement against the houses that are off Laverna. Fooken stated he will get to that 100 foot later as he has a whole slew of questions. Fooken commented alright, so don’t worry about the buffer zone. Ok so we won’t worry about the buffer zone. Fooken asked Harkins if he noticed how the intersection coming from the doctor’s road on 29th. They have one of those fancy approaches. Well, somewhere in that reading it states that intersections are suppose to match each other. He stated he had a bigger picture if Harkins wanted to look at it. Harkins stated he was looking at the centerlines that do match up. Fooken stated he knew that but the width was totally different and maybe it’s no big deal either is that what you are saying. Harkins stated 29th on the left side of Yager is a little bit wider. Fooken stated he has an island in the middle doesn’t it. Harkins stated it has an island right at the intersection but it funnels down to the same width as you see along what is proposed as 29th being extended into the Tech Park. There has been some design work to do at that intersection to add a median in as part of the wider approach to match those up completely. Fooken stated maybe the City would want to put a sign in the median at the intersection. Fooken stated he was just asking and didn’t know. Harkins stated you could but that would also be up to the other parties we are working with to market the park. Fooken just thought it said that intersections have to be aligned but he didn’t realize that it just meant the centerline has to be aligned. Fooken also asked if this is a collector street. Harkins asked 29th or Yager? 2 Fooken stated 29th and Lincoln both. It’s an entrance into a subdivision right so isn’t that a collector street. Fooken stated he was just reading it and thought that’s what is said. Harkins asked Fooken if he was reading the proposed code or the existing. Member Fooken stated the proposed code hasn’t been adopted yet so he only has a 1979 thing when Harkins was five years old to go by. Harkins stated he was going by the Subdivision Regulations. Fooken stated he was and asked if that applied. Harkins stated it is a subdivision yes. Fooken stated so that was a collector street but definition maybe and so if it is. Harkins stated he would not look at 29th as a collector street into the Tech Park. Fooken stated it looks like a main entrance into the development. Harkins stated even if it is he would call that a local street in all likelihood right now. If at the point in time you have other development coming in, we can ask for wider right-of- way width as part of replats. Fooken asked if you would have to have wider streets too or not. Harkins stated if you were asking for additional right-of-way it would be with the intent that you would make wider streets. Fooken stated the right-of-way is suppose to be 75 feet and he thinks it is marked 55, if it’s a collector street. Harkins stated right now it is proposed at 65’ for right-of-way width. Fooken stated that was correct but it is suppose to be 75 feet for a collector. Harkins stated that was right. The City is asking for a variance from that requirement because that essentially right now is what we are proposing as a local street just to get into the center of the development. Fooken asked if the City just gets a variance for that and it’s no big deal. Harkin stated every applicant for subdivision plats has to make those requests at the point and time they make the application for the plat. Fooken asked if this was the Final Plat and this is the plan they are going to build do. Harkins stated this is the start of the platting process. This is a plat designed to accommodate essentially the two huts, one that is there and one that is proposed. Harkins stated the Commission would see other replats come in for additional lots at the point and time they come on line. When that occurs, if staff feels the need for additional right-of-way, that would be the time they would get it. In other words, if you brought in a development proposal for that area north of what is considered 29th and the City felt it was going to function fully as a collector, at that point in time we would ask for additional land for right-of- way as part of the replat requirement. Fooken asked if when the City puts a street in there they would put a 42 foot street or a skinnier one. Harkins stated they would probably go 42 but again part of that is going to depend on the timing of development. This is a replat essentially to make a lot for a fiber hut. Fooken stated they were not actually putting a street in there even though it is on the Final Plat. Harkins stated right. At this point in time there are no plans to put the street in. Fooken asked if they wouldn’t be putting 27th Street in there either. Fooken stated no, that would have to function. We would have to build Lincoln to get across at least to where 27th is proposed and then that would get constructed. Fooken asked if Lincoln would be a 42 foot wide collector street. Harkins stated in all likelihood to start with yes. Fooken repeated in all likelihood. It’s not drawn that way. Fooken asked if we were cemented in to the way these were drawn. Harkins stated no they are not cemented in. Fooken stated he thought a Final Plat was pretty much official, this is the plan. Harkins stated right but again this is a Final Plat essentially for one small lot with the rest of this area that will be developed later. This is a Final Plat submitted this way in order to keep multiple options open for the City later on. Fooken stated he thinks Lincoln Street needs to run straight through. If you stop and look, we have Yager and then you don’t have another street that goes straight through until you hit Luther. We probably need another straight shot through there because sooner or later that will get developed on the north side of 32nd right. Shouldn’t you put that easement that goes straight north? Harkins stated Fooken was asking to turn the easement into right-of-way and extend the right-of-way for Lincoln all the way up on the plat to 32nd. Fooken asked if that isn’t how the City would protect it in case they want to do that later by putting that in there now. Harkins stated that is one way we would do it and the other way would essentially be to turn that easement into full right-of-way at the point there was a replat for other development. Fooken said Harkins was just saying kick the can down the road and we’ll worry about it later basically. Harkins stated he was saying there are two options. It can be extended now or they can wait. Fooken asked if it would not be smart just to do it now so nobody forgets later. Harkins stated part of the issue right now is there is no development pressure on this property so you can dedicate right-of-way 3 all you want but if you have a development proposal that goes in right where that street would be extended then you have to replat to get rid of that right-of-way. Fooken stated you would have to replat anyway to put that development in. Harkins stated you would so you might as well until you know exactly what someone wants to do and how they want to use the site. Jennifer Bixby, City Council, was present. She stated for marketers it was suggested they not have the right-of-way in there as it could deter the buildable area. Fooken stated she was saying it works better for her to sell it if they don’t have it in there. Bixby replied yes. Harkins would add off of that when the site was master planned it was done so with the idea that some of this would be left open until a point where you had actual development potential ready to buy and build and then we would come in with the Final Plat to configure everything. Fooken asked when this plan, because it looks like a blueprint to him, this plan says 30 foot public sanitary sewer easement. Can they run normal water lines right along that sanitary sewer or is that a no. Planning Director Harkins stated they could run it in that easement. Fooken stated they can. Harkins stated they can run water in that sanitary sewer easement. Fooken thought if it only states sanitary sewer than that is all they can do maybe. Harkins stated it could be changed to a public utility easement to help clarify. Fooken stated the City right now has a bid out don’t they to extend that water main all the way to 32nd Street. Harkins asked if the City or the Department of Utilities as those are two separate entities. Fooken commented really, whatever. He just feels one concerted effort needs to be put in there. The left hand not talking to the right hand isn’t very handy sometimes. For instance, that 100 foot easement. What are they doing with that 100 foot easement on the right hand side as Harkins stated it was for water something? Harkins stated it was a drainage easement. Fooken asked what that mean. Harkins stated there is some area through there right now that is like a drainage type ditch so that 100 feet takes that into account. Fooken stated nobody can mess with that 100 foot where they have an actual drainage right now. Harkins stated that was correct and it would be designed as you get future development to help carry storm water runoff from that area. Fooken asked about future development and if they are going to dig holes and put a cement culvert all the way down there or a bioswale. Harkins stated they could do that or some other type of drainage pipe to get to that easement with the ditches and then the ditch would take it out to another part of the drainage system. Fooken stated if you go out on Laverna a lot of those people on Laverna, just like in Washington Heights, I think are pumping to keep water out of their basements. If you alter that ditch it could make their basements fill up more. Harkins stated it could but in all likelihood the way he has seen the drainage design at this point the intent between the Tech Park and 32nd Street is to help carry water out of that area faster or if they have to retain it on site in order to keep it out of the basements. Fooken stated since they were talking about water, he asked Harkins if he happened to notice on the 32 foot wide street on 27th Street, did you notice where they put the rebar? It’s the little dot with the dot in the middle of the circle. Harkins stated he was aware of the rebar location. Fooken stated it looked like half of the street was in the ditch. He said he couldn’t put the pins in the corner of the lot because it is in the middle of the creek. So if they are back 20 foot and you have a 32 foot street, that means 12 feet of it would be on dry land and the rest will be in the creek. Harkins stated no, they are trying to keep the street actually out of the ditch. It would come up toward the edge of it. When they were looking at actual corner positions, part of that would also entail the fact that part of the improvements that would go into the Tech Park would include a box culvert or some type of bridge to get over that ditch. Fooken asked if the bridge is going to go all the way from Lincoln to that lot. Harkins stated it would go across that ditch so that it would likely reach where 27th Street would be. There is a design right now for a box culvert to get across that creek. Fooken asked if the lots would need to have cement approaches. Harkins stated at the time they are developed and you put buildings on them yes. Fooken stated he was talking about Lot 1 and Lot 2. Harkins stated yes. Fooken asked if they will need to pave for parking. Harkins stated they are asking them to place concrete there. There is not a large parking area that would be associated with Lot 2 essentially to park a vehicle there when someone is providing 4 service to that building. Fooken stated they are not going to build to this plan anyway. Harkins asked who isn’t. Fooken stated the City when they put 27th Street in. Harkins stated Lot 2 is being sold with the idea that buyer is going to build according to the plans that we have here. Fooken stated since the City owns the ground, they have to pay to put 27th Street in. Harkins stated yes. Fooken asked if they were going to put it where it is drawn. Harkins stated unless we come in with a replat to change it but that’s the general idea right now. Lincoln and 29th Street are platted the way they are to provide for example Outlot B with the potential to be one large open area and the other areas that are in Outlot A to be able to have boundary lines set to create smaller lots potentially. Again, part of that is when development might occur. Right now it is being left open to create more of an open concept for better marketing. Fooken stated o.k. you are the expert. It just seems to me like “final” has this word about it that says “final” this is where we go with everything. Harkins stated he understood that but in the time that he has been here how many times have we seen people come in with lot splits and replats in order to move boundary lines in areas that have been final platted for years. Fooken stated he was just thinking that streets you just don’t pick them up and move them and lot lines are a whole different deal. Harkins stated that was true and that he thinks what he sees here will be some of what you see on the ground if and when the Tech Park is fully built out. Fooken stated Harkins was saying it’s all o.k. and don’t worry about it basically. Harkins is saying from where we are at right now staff feels this is acceptable. Chairman Sookram asked if this would be paved, the area in front of this building in this lot. Harkins stated their approach would need to be paved; their parking area would need to be paved. Sookram stated he was under the impression that we were getting away from dirt lots. Harkins stated that was correct. Moved by Sawyer, seconded by Emanuel to recommend approval of the Final Plat. Roll Call Vote showed 7 ayes – 1 nay (Fooken). Motion Carried. Consider replat of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Day Acres East Fourth Addition, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska (1036, 1048 and 1060 North Eastwood Drive). R1 – Single Family Residential District (Roger Pannier). Planning Director Harkins stated this is a replat request to take Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Day Acres East Fourth and reconfigure it and replat it into two larger lots. The applicant is essentially looking at resale potential and development potential and feels this is a better option hence the request. Harkins stated when we ran this by the Department of Utilities they didn’t see any conflicts and felt that there wasn’t anything that was an issue and utilities would be rerouted at the property owner’s expense. The area is R1 zoning and most of the surrounding area except the area to the east is as well, which the area to the east is AG. The area has been platted. Staff feels this is an acceptable replat and recommends approval. Chairman Sookram asked if Eastwood Drive goes all the way out to those two. Harkins stated it does. It doesn’t show on the aerial but Eastwood Drive has the utilities in the ground and the infrastructure is in place. Eastwood Drive basically comes up and connects to Cherrywood. Member Ridder asked how different in size are these lots compared to those on the other side right now. One of those is big and is very different. Harkins stated one is very big. Obviously the two are bigger than a lot of the others in that subdivision. They essentially would be two of the larger ones in that subdivision or that version of it but there are a couple of lots due to the odd shape that are size wise in this general area. Ridder asked how near are they to these. Harkins stated he meant to say that in terms of size. One is farther north and actually both are father north at the north end. Harkins stated they are not right here in the same space. What you see as far as the original platting pattern is fairly typical of lots right in this part of the subdivision. Ridder asked what we see in the proposed or what’s here now in front of us. Harkins stated what they see right now is very typical of the lot size. Member Fooken asked if they will be double frontage lots. Harkins stated they would be considered double frontage. 5 That is also why you see a 25’ setback. Fooken asked if they have to be a percentage larger than other ones or are they already. Harkins stated these would be larger already with the replat but with double frontage essentially you have to have you think of areas off Morningside. For example, some of those residential lots are double frontage; the same setback that see in the front of 25 feet is what you see in the back because of the double frontage issue. It’s the same case here. Fooken stated Johnson is an arterial road right. Harkins stated it would be considered that yes. He would consider it yes. Moved by Fooken, seconded by Barton to recommend approval of the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 8 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:32 p.m. 6