Planning Commission

PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 27, 2016 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7:00 PM. Vice Chairman Jim Masters called the meeting to order. City Planner Michelle Romeo called the roll. Planning Commission members present were David Barker, Howard Carson, Ken Melhus, Leanne Sotak, and Raymond Keller Jr. Judy Sunde joined the Commission at 7: 05 PM. Michael Mallory and Rebecca Hoch were absent. Planning Director Mark Stursma, Assistant Planning Director Amber Rupiper, Planning Assistant Andrea Blevins, and City Engineer Derek Goff were also present. Vice Chairman Masters led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on January 13, 2016. A copy of proof of publication is on file at the office of the City Clerk. Vice Chairman Masters announced that a copy of the Open Meetings Act is posted in the City Council Chambers. Approval of Aaenda Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Mr. Carson, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Six yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Planninq Commission Minutes Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Carson, to approve the 11/ 18/ 15 minutes. Roll Calh Six yeas, no nays. Motion carried. FINAL PLAT Final Plat— To consider a Final Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land located h in part of Tax Lot 1 of Section 2, T13N, R11 E of the 6' P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally 156th located at the SE corner of Street and Schram Rd. The applicant is Edge Business Continuity Center. ( LightEdge Commercial Park). FP- 15- 0005 67th Eric Galley, 2111 S. Street, Suite 200 ( Omaha), with Olsson Associates, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Galley explained that the Sarpy County Board approved the Preliminary Plat for this project, however, due to Papillion' s annexation of Prairie Queen that went into effect in July of 2015, the Final Plat for this project now falls under the City of Papillion' s zoning jurisdiction. He added that the Preliminary Plat included about 75 acres of land platted into five lots. He continued to explain that Lot 1 is the lot being considered on the Final Plat and that the Final Plat is in general conformance with the Preliminary Plat with the exception that Lot 1 is now larger and encompasses Lots 3 and 4 on the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Galley added that Lot 5 is not being platted as a part of this submittal. He continued that Lot 1 is significantly larger than that of the Preliminary Plat and that the project includes Outlot A, which 1 Planning Commission January 27, 2016  includes wetlands and drainage, and Lot 2 as a standalone lot. Mr. Gailey added that the developer's program grew between the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat stages deeming it necessary to make Lot 1 larger for the day one build. He explained that Lot 1 expanded from 13 acres on the Preliminary Plat to 23 acres on the Final Plat because the develaper intends to build a Data Center on Lot 1 in phases. He added that the first phase will likely be a 10, 000 square foot data hal! with a front office and a co-location center. Vice Chairman Masters asked for questions from the Commission. Mr. Melhus confirmed with Mr. Galley that this tax lot was formerly part of Sarpy County and that the Preliminary Plat was approved by the Sarpy County Board. Mr. Melhus asked Mr. Galley if the entire project now falls under Papillion' s Zoning jurisdiction. Mr. Galley answered that everything that is being platted today is within Papillion' s jurisdiction. Mr. Galley added that the portion of the south half of the tax lot that falls into Sarpy County's jurisdiction was not being platted today because, per staff recommendations, the zoning jurisdiction for that portion of the tax lot would need to fall under one jurisdiction before a Final Plat for the remaining tax lot could be approved. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Stursma whether staff was working with the developer and engineers to resolve the contingencies listed in the staff report and whether Mr. Stursma believed that said contingencies were resolvable. Mr. Stursma answered that the contingencies would be addressed prior to taking the Final Plat to City Council. He added that staff did not believe that any of the contingencies were of a nature that should prevent the Planning Commission from giving its recommendation. Mr. Carson also inquired about the second half of the property, not included in this Final Plat, being in two different jurisdictions ( City of Papillion and Sarpy County). Mr. Carson asked whether the City of Papillion will ask Sarpy County for that piece to come under the City's jurisdiction when it is time to plat it. Mr. Stursma answered that the Preliminary Plat was approved under Sarpy County's jurisdiction by their county board. When Papillion' s annexation of Prairie Queen took effect in July of 2015, this property fell partially within Papillion' s extra- territorial Jurisdiction ( ETJ), giving Papillion the Zoning Authority for said portion. Mr. Stursma continued that the portion of the property being requested for Final Plat falls entirely within Papillion' s zoning jurisdiction. The portion of the remainder of the property partially falls under Sarpy County's Zoning jurisdiction. Before the developer will be able to Final Plat this remaining portion, there will need to be some resolution of the jurisdiction. Mr. Stursma added that there will be options to accomplish this: ( 1) the City could amend its boundary to exclude that property, ( 2) the County could cede jurisdiction of the property to Papillion, or (3) depending on the timing, the City could perform another annexation that would bring the property under Papillion' s zoning jurisdiction. Mr. Stursma added that the important thing to remember is that there are options when it comes time to plat the remainder of this property, and the hope is that this issue will be resolved long before there is a need to plat the remainder. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Mr. Carson, to recommend approval of the LightEdge Commercial Park Final Plat ( FP- 15- 0005) because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations. Mr. Barker requested that the recommendation be contingent upon resolution of staff comments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. I 2 Planning Commission January 27, 2016  PUBLIC HEARING One & Six Year Road Plan — To consider the One & Six Year Road Plan for the City of Papillion. The applicant is the City of Papiflion. MISC- 16-0001 Vice Chairman Masters opened the public hearing. Marty Leming, 9909 Portal Road ( Papillion), Public Works Director for the City of Papillion, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Leming explained that Public Works is in the process of wrapping up last year's project regarding the improvements to Washington Street. He added that there is seeding and striping to do in the spring in order to compete this project. 108th Mr. Leming further explained that Street from Schram Road to the new Middle School is now paved, and he anticipates that the installation of a trail and sidewalk system will be finished this spring. Mr. Leming continued that the City is currently working on plans for the improvements to Schram Road between Turkey Road and 114th Street, as well as plans for the crosswalk lights in Downtown Papillion. Mr. Leming explained the majority of the One & Six Year Road Plan is contained in the One Year Plan for the proposed 2016-2017 fiscal year. Mr. Leming added that there was a correction to the plan regarding the project at 96th Street and Highway 370. He explained that the City has been working with consultants and the $ 615, 000 proposed cost has been lowered to about $ 264,000. He added that the City plans to put a right- turn lane in for southbound to westbound traffic and make dual left-turn lanes for the southbound to eastbound traffic. He added that the City also plans to install advanced warning signs for when traffic is stopped at this intersection. He explained that in the past five years, there have been 92 accidents at this intersection, one resulting in a fatality. Because of the safety concerns, the City reached out to the State to ask for safety funds to modify the intersection so it is more user friendly and less hazardous to the public. Vice Chairman Masters called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Vice Chairman Masters closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. 84th Mr. Melhus asked if certain streets in Street, were partially the Papillion, such as g4tn responsibility of the State to Mr. Leming answered that yes, streets such as maintain. Street, considered Highway N- 85, and Highway 370 fall under the State' s responsibility for maintenance; however, Papillion is responsible for a portion of the cost of said maintenance. He added that if there was a major project or improvement on one of these roads where the State and City shared responsibility, the State would be responsible for approximately eighty percent of the cost and the City of Papillion would be responsible for approximately twenty percent of the cost. Mr. Melhus also asked if there were other items, other than those presented, that require the State's attention. Mr. Leming answered yes, that the City works with the Nebraska Department of Roads ( NDOR) on these projects. Mr. Leming explained that the NDOR came to the City of Papillion a couple of years ago with some extra funds, about $ 1. 6 million, and the City 350, 000. The City of Papillion used these funds to complete the contributed an additional $ overlay and bridge decking work ast year. I 3 Planning Commission January 27, 2016 Mr. Barker asked about the time frame for improvements to Schram Road between 84th Street and 108th Streets. Mr. Leming answered that the City was currently in the design phase and that there is an item on the February 2, 2016 City Council Agenda for the tree trimming along this corridor. The trees must be trimmed prior to April 1, 2016 to be in compliance with the Migratory Bird Act. He added that in the next couple of months the City will be trimming and grubbing the trees along that corridor. He continued that the City is hoping to authorize this project in late spring or early summer and try to get it started in late summer or ear(y fall. Mr. Barker also asked about the time frame for the 96" Street and Highway 370 traffic lane improvements, and how these improvements tie into the completion of the new junior high school. Mr. Leming answered that the City is wrapping up with the consultant on this project, and that they are applying to the NDOR for safety funds. He continued that the NDOR meets on February 11, 2016 and that he believes that the City has presented a good case and has the NDOR's backing for this project. Mr. Leming is hopeful that the City will be awarded those funds. He added that if the funds are awarded, Papillion Public Works will try to get this project started. However, Mr. Leming added that this money is in next year's budget and will not go into effect until October 1, 2016. Mr. Leming explained that in contrast, the Schram Road project is already bonded. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Melhus, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of the One & Six Year Road Plan ( MISC- 16- 0001). Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance Amendment ( ORD. # 1731)— To consider an ordinance amendment to Chapter 205 Zoning Ordinance) having to do with the creation of a new storage facility use type. The applicant is the City of Papillion. MISC- 16-0002 Vice Chairman Masters opened the public hearing. Mark Stursma, 122 East Third Street ( Papillion), Planning Director for the City of Papillion, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Stursma explained that Ordinance 1731 is a proposed amendment to Papillion' s Zoning Ordinances with the purpose of creating a new use type, Storage ( Limited Access), because the City was approached by a developer regarding this type of storage facility. Mr, Stursma continued that this is not the typical use type that one thinks of when considering Convenience Storage because traditional Convenience Storage is comprised of multiple single- story, self-serve buildings with rows of garage doors overhead. He added that our current zoning ordinances only a(lows for traditional Convenience Storage in restricted locations and does not allow this use type in the Highway Overlay District. He added that the proposed storage facility use type is different in appearance and character because such buildings would be climate controlled, contain individual rental spaces that are only accessible from the interior of the building, and would tend to look more like office buildings than a traditional storage facility. Mr. Stursma continued that this new storage facility use type is intended to meet all of the Commercial, Civic, and Office Design Guidelines. Mr. Stursma added that this new use type would be called Storage ( Limited access) in the Permitted Use Table of Papillion' s Zoning Regulations and would be allowed by right in the Limited Industrial ( LI) and General Industrial ( GI) districts, and allowed by a Special Use Permit ( SUP) in the General Commercial ( GC) disfrict, and would nof be restricted in the Highway Overlay District like Convenience Storage. 4 Planning Commission January 27, 2016 Vice Chairman Masters called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Vice Chairman Masters closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Barker asked whether there would be landscaping requirements around such structures given that the proposed use type would not be restricted in location, like the current Convenience Storage use type, and that the structure would look more like an office building. Mr. Stursma answered that yes, landscaping would be required. He added that this use type would be treated the same as any commercial or industrial use, that the landscaping regulations are based on the zoning classification and not necessarily on the individual use type. Ms. Sunde asked if Mr. Stursma had any visuals of the new use type to present to the commission. Mr. Stursma answered no, that he did not have any pictures, but he has seen elevations of this type of structure. Mr. Stursma added that the structures would need to meet Commercial, Civic, and Office Design Guidelines, and from what examples he has seen, the structures generally tend to be multi- story buildings made of a mix of glass and masonry. Mr. Barker added that he had seen examples of this use type in other metropolitan cities and that they look nice. Vice Chairman Masters asked if the overriding premise for this new use type was to gain general consistency when building such facilities so that they have similar themes and appearance across the City. Mr. Stursma answered that in this particular case, the City of Papillion had a request from a developer to build something like the new use type, and it did not fit well into any of the City's current use type categories. He added that the City would have to call it Convenience Storage when this is really a different type of use. Mr. Stursma continued that there was an opportunity for the developer to apply for an amendment to the zoning ordinances, however, after a discussion with Mayor Black, it was decided that the City should be the applicant because this was a use type that is not covered well in the current regulations. Mr. Melhus asked why the new use type would not be permitted in the Agricultural ( AG) District when the current Convenience Storage Use type is allowed in an Agricultural ( AG) District with a Special Use Permit ( SUP). Mr. Stursma answered that Convenience Storage is currently permitted with a Special Use Permit( SUP) in the Agricultural ( AG) District because it is possible for a farmstead in the Agricultural ( AG) District to have some buildings with space that may be rented out to people to store things and could thus be considered convenience storage. He added in a case such as that, it may be appropriate to allow Convenience Storage in the Agriculture ( AG) District through a Special Use Permit ( SUP). Mr. Stursma continued, however, this new use type would not be allowed in the Agricultural ( AG) District because it is a different type of construction that is more commercial in nature and thus not appropriate in the Agricultural ( AG) District. He added that this new use type should necessitate a platting and zoning requirement. Mr. Melhus also asked if seasonal storage for things like boats and trailers would be allowed in this new use type. Mr. Stursma answered that these types of things could be stored in a Storage Limited access) facility; however, they would have to be stored indoors because this use type does not allow for outdoor storage. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment, ORD. # 1731, having to do with a new storage facility use type ( MISC- 16- 0002). Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. 5 Planning Commission January 27, 2016  Ordinance Amendment ( ORD. # 17321— To consider an ordinance amendment to Chapter 205 Zoning Ordinance) having to do with freestanding canopy structures. The applicant is the City of Papillion. MISC- 16- 0003 Vice Chairman Masters opened the public hearing. Mark Stursma, 122 East Third Street ( Papillion), Planning Director for the City of Papillion, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Stursma explained that the purpose of this amendment is to adopt design guide(ines for commercial canopies that are accessory structures. Mr. Stursma continued that the standards the City is proposing come from standard language that the City has been proposing in Mixed Use Agreements. Mr. Stursma added that these types of canopies are generally used for convenience store canopies over fuel islands, but could apply to a number of other uses. Mr. Stursma explained that the standards would be classified as accessory structure design guidelines and fall under the general commercial and industrial design guidelines because one may see these types of structures in both commercial and industrial uses. He added that the standards themselves are pulled directly from the standard language in Mixed Use Agreements. Mr. Stursma explained that the guidelines address the roof structure af the canopies and aflow for either a pitched or flat roof. He added that if the roof is pifiched, the materials used will need to be consistent with the materials of the principal building; if the roof is flat, some sort of decorative element will need to be added to the edge of the roof. Mr. Stursma explained that the guidelines will also place standards for building materials. For instance, masonry consistent with that of the primary building will be required for at least the lowest eight ( 8) feet of the pillars. He continued to explain that any lighting underneath the canopy will need to be recessed, as this limits the amount of glare off of the structure. He added that bright coloration on the canopies will also be restricted. He explained that this requirement is important because the bright colors of canopies are often required by the fuel provider, and the only way around this requirement is if something else is mandated by the City. Accordingly, this would be one way to keep the coloration consistent with the primary building. He added that the reason for bringing this amendment to the Planning Commission is that the City has been using these guidelines in its Mixed Use Agreements and that convenience store development over the last several years has all been within Mixed Use ( MU) Districts. However, it is highly possible that convenience stores may be developed on traditional commercial and industrial zoned properties and because of this the City believed that it should revise the Code to be consistent with what has been required in the Mixed Use Agreements. Vice Chairman Masters called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Vice Chairman Masters closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Both Mr.Carson and Vice Chairman Masters added that they believed the ordinance I amendment was well written and offers a good level of consistency to developers as this is something that has been discussed many times with applicants in the past. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Melhus, seconded by Ms. Barker, to recommend approva! of the Ordinance Amendment, ORD. # 1731, having to do with freestanding canopy structures ( MISC- 16- 0003). Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. 6 Planning Commission January 27, 2016 Preliminarv Plat— To consider a Revised Preliminary Plat for the property legaliy described as a tract of land being Lots 1, 2, and 3 Henry's Highlands Replat 1, a subdivision located in the SE of the SW % of Section 30, together with part of said SE % of said SW % of Sections 30 and also part of the NE '/ 4 of said SW '/ 4 of Section 30, all located in T14N, R12E of the 6th PM, Sarpy County, Nebraska, generally located on the NW corner of 126ih Street and Highway 370. The applicant is BHI Development, LLC. ( North Shore Commercial). PP- 14- 0005 Vice Chairman Masters opened the public hearing. Jason Thiellen, 10909 Mill Valley Road ( Omaha), of E& A Consulting Group, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Thiellen explained that this development is roughly a fifty-three acre, almost fifty-four acre, project that is essentially two projects in one. He continued that the northern portion is planned as a Planned Unit Development ( PUD) with seventy villa lots. He added that the villas will roughly be the same as the product that one can see at Shadow Lake that BHI Development, LLC has developed there. Mr. Thiellen explained that BHI Development has run out of villa lots at Shadow Lake and is looking for another location to place a similar product. He explained that the division to the south of the proposed villas will be a Mixed Use Development with roughly 165,000 square feet of commercial space, with 21, 000 square feet of that being a Religious Assembly use, a one- hundred room hotel, and a three-hundred unit multi- family apartment above the proposed retaii. He added that the villa site wilf be a gated community with private streets and that the units are meant to cater to the empty-nesters and snow- birds coming to Nebraska during the summer. He continued that there will be connectivity from the villas to the Mixed Use development and the Prairie Queen recreational area. Mr. Thiellen explained that the developer has requested to reduce the setbacks within the Planned Unit Development ( PUD) for the villas because it is a gated community and there were some challenges with grading at the site. He added that the developer had asked within the Planned Unit Development Agreement that the front yard setbacks be reduced to 32 feet from the curb; however, because streets in the original proposal were placed in an outlot, the setbacks will need to be adjusted coming from the outlot, and not from the back of the curb within the street. He continued that the applicant was requesting to reduce the interior setbacks from ten feet to five feet. He explained that it is identified in the Planning Department' s staff report that the rear yard setbacks would be reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet; however, the applicant would like to push the houses back further from the street and reduce the rear yard setback to 15 feet, adding the remaining five feet to the front yard setback. He explained that this is a gated community, and all of the lawn maintenance would be taken care of by a contractor, so the type of client these villas wou(d attract are not looking to have large backyards. Mr. Thiellen continued that within the Mixed Use ( MU) District there would be four access points through the development with terminations at key points in the project into a center area surrounded by retail and apartments. He explained that this meant that there would be entertainment for those who visited Werner Park, and if an office moved into the Mixed Use MU) Development, it would be a good place for people to work, live, play, and shop. Mr. Thiellen explained that there would not be a final Mixed Use Agreement until the final phases of the project and that right now the applicant is just trying to get the zoning in place. He added that the only use that is definite at this point is the Religious Assembly use. This group currently rents a space from the City and is looking for a new one. He continued that the 7 Planning Commission January 27, 2016  applicant intends to work with City staff to get the Religious Assembly use into this location with another use permit of some sort. Mr. Thiellen added that the developers and engineers have been working with staff on this project since June of 2014, partially due to the developer not quite knowing what kind of units he was trying to fit into this location because he did not have a good idea of the product type he wanted. Mr. Thiellen explained that since then, the developer has figured out what kind of units he would like and the lots have been created for that product. He explained that the project was under conditional approval and that the applicant has been working with staff on those conditions and will continue to do so. Vice Chairman Masters called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Vice Chairman Masters closed the P ublic hearin J and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Melhus asked about the size and cost of the multi-family units and the market they are targeted toward. Mr. Thiellen answered that they are a conceptual plan at this point so he does not have an exact cost, but the units would likely cater to the young professional. Ms. Sotak asked about other access roads that would be added to the area by the hotel because right now there only appears to be one large access road going south to HWY 370. Mr. Thiellen answered that there will be no access to HWY 370, because it is not allowed by the State; however, there will be other access points added, and all of the streets included in the Preliminary Plat will be public right-of-way. He added that these streets will be reflected on the Final Plat and in the final Mixed Use Agreement. Vice Chairman Masters asked if the villas would be a gated community. Mr. Thiellen confirmed that it would be. Vice Chairman Masters asked Mark Stursma about the City's stance on gated communities. Mr. Stursma answered the City did not necessarily have a stance and any prior discussion was merely his opinion; however, he has seen other developments across the country, and it is common to have a residential component similar to the one proposed. He added that the City tends to discourage gated co nmunities when they reduce street access in the community because the City wants to be very cautious that it is not creating an island that the public cannot get through. He continued that in this situation, because the development backs up to a major park and reservoir, there is not a need for access through the sight and, in that sense, the gated community does not create a problem for Papillion' s public street nefinrork. Mr. Keller asked if this project would be the only gated community in Papillion. Mr. Stursma answered that it would be the first and that in the future it would be more of a market decision as to whether it is appropriate to build more development like this. He added that if this project is very successful and there is clearly a demand for this type of product, he is sure that the City will get requests for more gated communities in the future. Mr. Stursma explained that he believes that the City's role is to ensure that developments are done in a way that does not create a problem for the public. Given this, the City reviews proposed development to ensure that street access and conn ect ivi ty o r pedestria n connect ivi ty ' is not restricted where such connectivity is warranted or needed. He added that this site met the City's criteria, and there are I certainly other sites that would be suitable. Ms. Sunde asked what the price point would be for the proposed units. Mr. Thiellen answered that he did not know on the multi- family units, but the villas would approximately be $ 300, 000 to 450, 000 depending on chosen finishes. Ms. Sunde asked for the proposed square footage for 8 Planning Commission January 27, 2016  the villas. Mr, Thiellen answered that the villas would consist of roughly 1, 400 to 1, 700 square foot ranches. Mr. Melhus asked if garages would be included with the villas. Mr. Thiellen confirmed that they would be included. He continued to ex p lain that the villas ad'1 acent to the Shadow Lake development are very similar to what the proposed villas. Mr. Carson noted that 35 contingencies are listed in the staff report. He asked if the developer was working with the City on said contingencies and, if so, has there been improvement on the project. Mr. Stursma answered that the developer had to work on this project for a long time because it is a unique product on a difficult site, it is adjacent to Prairie Queen Recreational Area, has a mix of uses, and would be the first gated community in Papiilion. He added that there has been a lot of evolution in this project. He continued that the comments from staff are predominately engineering related and are things that will get worked out before City Council submission but were not concerns that should prevent the Planning Commission from recommendation. Mr. Thiellen added that a lot of the comments would not be worked out until the design phase of the project. He assured the Commission that the developer and engineers are working with staff. Mr. Melhus inquired about the setbacks for the villa portion of the project. Mr. Thiellen said that five feet would be taken from the rear yard to push the houses further back from the street. He continued that the front yard setback would need to be adjusted based on the outlot that would have been right-of-way. Mr. Thiellen explained that originally the applicant proposed private streets with an access easement but determined that it would be better for it to be in an outlot. He continued to explain that the front yard setbacks need to be adjusted, but he does not have an exact number right now. Mr. Melhus commented that 20 feet does not leave much of a back yard, especially for the proposed price point. Mr. Thielien added that the type of buyers these villas are targeted towards are not focused on the rear yard. Mr. Stursma added that he would like to clarify that the villa portion of this product is residential zoning but with a Planned Unit Development ( PUD) overlay. He explained that this type of overlay allows for setbacks to be adjusted based on what the applicant has requested. He continued that in this particular case, this project contains smaller units with an association that handles all exterior maintenance. He continued to explain that the applicant is looking for a little higher density and has requested that they be allowed to adjust the setback between those units from ten feet to five feet, and originally the plan was to reduce the front yard setback, but in the final design it became apparent that it made more sense to reduce the rear yard. He continued that later on in this project the private streets went from being within an easement and having the property line going to the center of the pavement to an outlot, so now instead of measuring from the pavement, one can measure from the lot line. He explained that distance does not change, but how it is measured does. He assured that all of this information will be clarified in the actual Planned Unit Development ( PUD) document that is created near the end of the process. Mr. Keller added that he does not really like the idea of having a gated community in Papillion because he believes that it gives a perception that one needs a gated community to be safe and that the community is not safe. Mr. Keller added that the Papillion community is safe. He continued to explain that he does not like the gated community trend because he believes that it I segregates the community, and he does not support this project. 9 Planning Commission January 27, 2016 With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to recommend approval of the North Shore Commercial Preliminary Plat ( PP- 14-0005) because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations. Roll Call: Six yeas, one nay by Mr. Keller. Motion carried. Chanqe of Zone —To consider a Revised Change of Zone from AG ( Agriculture) to Mixed Use MU) and R- 3 PUD ( Urban Family Residential — Planned Unit Development) for the property legally described as a tract of land being Lots 1, 2, and 3 Henry' s Highlands Replat 1, a located in the SE '/ 4 of the SW '/ 4 of Section 30, together with part of said SE '/ of subdivision saidSW '/ of Sections 30 and also part of the NE '/ 4 of said SW '/ of Section 30, all located in T14N, R12E of the 6' PM, Sarpy County, Nebraska, generally located on the NW corner of 126' Street and Highway 370. The applicant is BHI Development, LLC. ( North Shore Commercial). CZ- 14-0005 Vice Chairman Masters opened the public hearing. Jason Thiellen, 10909 Mill Valley Road ( Omaha), of E& A Associates, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Thiellen addressed the Commission and the public and stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that anyone had Vice Chairman Masters called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Vice Chairman Masters closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of the North Shore Commercial Change of Zone ( PP- 14-0005) from AG Agriculture) to Mixed Use ( MU) and R- 3 PUD ( Urban Family Residential — Planned Unit Development), because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Preliminarv Plat— To consider a Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as a part of Tax Lot 2A, a Tax Lot located in the NW '/ 4 of Section 25, and also together with Tax Lot 2B located in said NW '/ 4 of Section 25, and also together with Lot 2 Prairie Corners 2, a subdivision located in said NW '/ of Section 25, also togetherwith Lots 3- 5, said Prairie Corners Two, and also together with the included Cornhusker Road Right-of-Way located in, said NW '/ of Section 25 and also together with the included Clarence Lane Right-of-Way located in said NW '/ of Section 25, all located in T14N, R11 E of the 6th PM, Sarpy County, NE, generally located immediately south of Cornhusker Road and north of Prairie Corners Road between St Highway 50 and 141 Street. The applicant is Werner Enterprises, Inc. ( Prairie Corners Five). PP- 15- 0003 Vice Chairman Masters opened the public hearing. 115th Ron DuVall and Matt Sutton, 1044 N. Street, Suite 300 ( Omaha), of Schemmer Associates, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. DuVall offered to answer any questions that the Commission or public may have about the project. Vice Chairman Masters asked Mr. DuVall if he had any type of presentation for the proposal. Mr. DuVall explained that most of the staff has seen the project and that the applicant and engineers have been working 10 Planning Commission January 27, 2016  closely with staff on the project. Mr. DuVall placed a printout of the Preliminary Plat on the overhead for the Commission and public to view. I Mr. Barker asked whether this project was an extension of the property that Werner already owns north of Cornhusker and whether it is the same t YP e of p ro'1 ect. Mr. DuVall answered Y es. Vice Chairman Masters asked if there was anything else that Mr. DuVall would like the Commission and the public to know about the application. Mr. DuVall explained that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent land uses, and compliant with both the subdivision regulations and the zoning regulations. Vice Chairman Masters called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Vice Chairman Masters closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Melhus asked whether the two buildings that were displayed on the Preliminary Plat were already in place, or whether they were proposed construction, and what the plan was with the rest of the land being platted. Mr. DuVall explained that the two buildings on Lot 1 Prairie Corners Four and Lot 1 Prairie Corners Three were existing buildings. Mr. Melhus asked what the plan was with the rest of the land shown. Mr. DuVall explained that the lots with existing buildings are not within the proposed subdivision, but rather it is Lots 1 through 5 that are being platted with Limited Industrial ( LI) zoning. Mr. Keller asked about the area of application on the Preliminary Plat because there were some discrepancies between the Preliminary Plat that Mr. DuVall displayed and what was in the Planning Commission Packet. Mr. DuVall explained that the plat in the packet was the correct one. Matt Sutton, 1044 N. 115th Street, Suite 300 ( Omaha), of Schemmer Associates, also stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Sutton clarified that the intent of the five lots is to build a new facility on Lots 1 and 5 for Truck Center Company. He explained that the project would be a 150,000 square foot freightliner truck center and that they are currently in the design phase for this part of the project. The purpose of this replat would be to carve out a couple of parcels for Truck Center, and currently this is the only known project on these five parcels. Mr. Carson asked if the Blue Bargain Barn and the Distribution Center visible at the top of the plat provided were part of this plat. Mr. Sutton answered that they were not part of the plat. Mr. Carson asked if the existing Werner Tractor Trailer Maintenance and repair facility was included in this plat. Mr. Sutton answered yes and confirmed that the entire necessary infrastructure for Cornhusker Road is already installed. Mr. Carson asked why there is a replat being done on a facility that is already built, referring to the Werner Tractor Trailer Maintenance Center. Mr. Stursma answered that this property was platted and zoned years ago under Sarpy County jurisdiction, the Werner facility is already a part of the plat, and that Werner owns the rest of the land being replatted. He added that there are four small lots that were previously platted, as well as some dedicated right-of-way. He explained that Werner now has a real user for this site but needs a much larger parcel. He explained that this project is simply replatting the land and moving the lot lines and eliminating the previously dedicated right-of-way to accommodate for this larger lot because there is now a 11 Planning Commission January 27, 2016 known use for this property. He added that the zoning is currently Limited Industrial ( I) so there is no Chan 9 e of Zone necessa rY. Mr. Carson asked if the new lots and new buildings would have new access points off of Cornhusker Road. Mr. Stursma confirmed that this was correct. He added that because there are (arger lots being created, the access is directly off of Cornhusker Road, so there is no need for an interior street. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Prairie Corners Five Preliminary Plat ( PP- 15-0003) because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Vice Chairman Masters introduced new hire Andrea Blevins, Planning Assistant. Mr. Stursma introduced Staff Engineer, Derek Goff. Mr. Stursma brought to the Commission' s attention the upcoming Nebraska NPZA conference March 9th through 11th in Kearney, Nebraska. He encouraged the Commissioners and Board of Adjustment members to attend. Mr. Melhus and Ms. Sunde also encouraged the Commissioners to attend. Mr. Melhus inquired about Appendix A regarding the architectural style and materials for the North Shore Commercial Project, as they seemed outdated. Mr. Stursma explained that this shows their intent for the villa product. With no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 8: 18 PM. C F PA I N i__ Jim Master , Vice Chairman 12 Planning Commission January 27, 2016