Planning Commission

1V a A PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 27, 2016 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 7: 00 PM. Chairman Mike Mallory called the meeting to order. Planning Assistant Andrea Blevins called the roll. Planning Commission members present were Howard Carson, Raymond Keller Jr, Jim Masters, and Judy Sunde. David Barker, Rebecca Hoch, Ken Melhus, and Leanne Sotak were absent. Planning Director Mark Stursma, Assistant Planning Director Amber Rupiper, City Engineer Jeff Thompson, and City Planner Michelle Romeo were also present. Chairman Mallory led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on April 13, 2016. A copy of proof of publication is on file at the office of the City Clerk. Chairman Mallory announced that a copy of the Open Meetings Act is posted in the City Council Chambers. Approval of Aqenda Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Masters, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Five yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Plannina Commission Minutes Motion was made by Mr. Masters, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the 03/ 30/ 16 minutes. Roll Call: Five yeas, no nays. Motion carried. FINAL PLAT Final Plat - To consider a Final Plat for the property legally described as lots 1 through 130, inclusive and outlots A through D, inclusive, Pioneer View, being a platting of that part of the N 2 of the SE %, the S ' h of the NE '/ 4, the NE '/ of the NE '/ 4, of Section 24, T14N, R12E, of the 6th P. M., Sa py County, NE, generally located east of 66th Street and Centennial Road. The applicant is MBR Development, LLC. ( Pioneer View) FP- 16- 0003 Ken Pollard of Lamp Rynearson, 14710 W. Dodge Road, Suite 100 ( Omaha) stepped forward to represent the applicant. Chairman Mallory asked for questions from the Commission. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Pollard if there were any pictures of the homes available to provide an example of the proposed product. Mr. Pollard answered that the homes proposed in this development would be very similar to the product at Settlers Creek. Mr. Carson asked what the 1 Planning Commission April 27, 2016  estimated sale price of the proposed homes would be. Mr. Poilard answered that the estimated sale price of the homes would be approximately$ 330, 000. 00. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Pioneer View ( FP- 16- 0003), contingent upon staff comments, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as proposed to be amended, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Five yeas, no nays by. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Larqe Proiect Special Use Permit — A Large Project Special Use Permit for the property legally described as Lots 9 and 12, Schewe Farms, generally located at 120th Street and Ballpark Way. The applicant is Graham Development. (Venue at Werner Park) SUP- 16- 0001 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Joe Zadina of Lamp Rynearson, 14710 W. Dodge Road, Suite 100 ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Zadina explained that the applicants were present at the meeting from Texas and North Dakota, and that there has been a lot of collaboration between the applicant and City staff to ready this project to ensure that the project is a good fit for the proposed site. He presented a site plan for Lot 9 of the project on the overhead, and explained that the entire project includes Lot 9 and Lot 12, with the emphasis being on Lot 9. He explained that Lot 9 is a 14 acre parcel and Lot 12 is an 11 acre parcel, or approximately 25 total acres. He added that there are 540 total proposed units, with a density of 21 units per acre which is within the City's acceptable limits. He explained that there is some interesting topography at the site that will play into the design of the buildings and allow for some of the buildings to have a walk-out feature with two stories on the front of the building, and three stories along the back of the buildings. He continued that there is a benefit to the east of the development with the existing creek, as well as many proposed amenities on site. Mr. Zadina explained that the concept plan for Lot 9 has been created, the improvements vetted, and a topographic survey has been performed on Lot 9. Mr. Zadina continued that there is a water quality ordinance for the City, and in order to comply with that the developer has conceptually looked at creating water features on the site. He pointed out that there were several proposed ponds on the site plan that are not only for stormwater quality but also an amenity for the development. Mr. Zadina explained that he is happy to answer any questions that the public or the commissioners may have, and that the applicants are also available to answer any questions. Chairman Mallory asked the applicant if they would like to say anything prior to the call for public comment. Ernie and Corbin Graham of Graham Development, 770 Blackberry Lane ( Washington, TX), stepped forward and explained that they would be willing to answer any questions. Chairman Mallory asked for any questions from the Commission. Mr. Masters inquired about a section in the Relevant Case History of the Planning Department' s staff report that states adoption of an agreement for the remaining lots was delayed," referring to another developer's I 2 Plannin 9 Commission April 27, 2016  project proposed at the site in 2010. Mr. Masters asked for the cause of the aforementioned delay. Mr. Zadina explained that this was prior to Graham Development's involvement with the site. He added that he was before the Planning Commission about one and a half years ago representing a different developer at the site. Mr. Zadina asked Mark Stursma to explain. Mr. Stursma stated that this particular comment in the staff report refers to the Schewe Farms Mixed Use District. The developer adopted to delay the adoption of a Mixed Use Development Agreement until they have a better idea of how the Mixed Use District will develop. He explained that this particular project is within the Schewe Farms SID but the zoning is R-4 Multiple Family Residential, and apartments are permitted by right in the R-4 District. He continued that the applicant is not asking for approval of the use of apartments because that is permitted by right., He explained that the scale of the project places it into the Large Project category, which necessitates a Special Use Permit. Mr. Stursma explained that the Large Project category means that projects over a certain size, unless completed with a Mixed Use District, requires review by Planning Commission and City Council with a public hearing so there is an opportunity for the public to voice their questions and concerns. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Keller asked the applicant to explain the purposed of a water quality pond. Mr. Zadina answered that the City's Stormwater Management regulations ensure that developers do not increase runoff into the tributaries. He added that the water quality pond is sized so the water can be detained and slowly released. This means that runoff remains the same or is reduced from what is at the site today. He explained that the quality component requires that the runoff be treated and filtered before entering the tributaries. He stated that the owner intends to maintain a permanent water level with the expectation that the water level will rise and lower during storm events. He explained that the pond will have the capacity to treat and collect runoff but will always have a water surface elevation so it can be enjoyed. Chairman Mallory asked if stormwater would be the only source of water in the detention ponds. Mr. Zadina explained that the intent is to use stormwater but the developer is considering installing a small water service line to ensure that there is a constant water level. Chairman Mallory expressed that his concern was that he has seen detention ponds in other areas that are dry or overgrown with weeds, which would not be very attractive. Mr. Zadina explained that this has been discussed, and the developer is looking into ways to maintain a certain water level in the ponds. Chairman Mallory asked what the total number of units would be with both Lot 9 and 12 completed. Mr. Ernie Graham and Mr. Zadina explained that the total number will be 540 units with 300 units on Lot 9 and 240 units on Lot 12. Mr. Masters asked for clarification regarding the comment in section F( 3) of the Planning Department's staff report regarding the statement that the applicant has requested that the Special Use Permit be renewable in five years, but in contrast, the Planning Department recommends against a renewal requirement. Mr. Stursma explained that the applicant has been agreeable to a renewal period because they plan on creating a quality project where there wil( not be a concern or need for the Special Use Permit. He stated that the City's position is that if a developer is making that large of an investment it is better to give a yes or no decision rather than put the project at risk again in five years. Mr. Stursma added that if this were a smaller scale or more temporary project, then a renewal requirement would make more sense, however, due to the scale of this project, City staff support making this a onetime approval. Ms. I 3 Pianning Commission April 27, 2016 Sunde asked for clarification on Section III( F)( 4)( i) that states the " Special Use Permit shall not be subject to renewal." Mr. Stursma expiained that the Planning Department's recommendation is that the Special Use Permit not be required to be renewed. Ms. Sunde inquired about the emergency access to the complex since it is proposed to be gated. Mr. Zadina explained that the applicant does not have an issue with providing a code to emergency responders for the gate. Ms. Sunde confirmed that the gate would be operated by a keypad system. Mr. Zadina answered yes. Mr. Carson asked if the developer planned to build the sediment collection basins prior to grading to reduce the amount of silting into the nearby creek. Mr. Zadina explained that there is an existing detention pond in the northeast corner of the site, and it is currently functioning as a silt basin with the majority of Lot 9 diverting to that basin. He further explained that the developer is required to keep that basin and expand it as necessary for the project. He continued that one of the first things the developer will likely do is make sure the basin is excavate d to a P r o p e r bottom de P th to allow it to accumulate the silt from the site He added that the proper swales have been cut to direct the drainage to the basin, and the developer plans to monitor the basin so it can be cleaned periodically. Mr. Carson added that he noticed the property slopes down from west to east and just before the creek there is a slope where several trees have already been planted. He asked if the developer did this ahead of time to hold the soil and reduce runoff. Mr. Zadina explained that he did not believe that this developer had planted those trees, and there are certain limits that do not allow the developer to do much development within the creek boundary. He believes that the trees were established prior to the proposal of this development. City Engineer Jeff Thompson added that the trees in question were planted by the original developer for Schewe Farms to get some growth established prior to construction on the lots. Mr. Carson added that developments along the Highway 370 corridor should be as appealing as possible because said corridor could be considered the main showpiece for Papillion. Mr. Zadina added that the project is close to Highway 370, but is partially buffered by the commercial lots to the south of the project. He assured the Commission that the developer plans to put their best foot forward on all street frontages and buildings visible from Highway 370. He added that the developer may plan to add some future screening from the commercial lots to the south once the use of those lots is determined. Ms. Sunde asked the developer what they anticipate the rent being on the proposed units. Mr. Corbin and Ernie Graham answered that the anticipated rent would be between $ 875. 00 and 1, 200. 00 per month. Mr. Carson asked when the developer anticipated having the first building completed. Mr. Ernie Graham explained that it is hard to give exact dates due to the size of the project and the possibility of unforeseen delays, but he believes that construction will begin befinreen July and September 2016. He added that the buildings on the left side of the development would be completed and rented first. He anticipated that the entire project would be completed within 22- 25 months, with the first building being available to lease in 15- 18 months. Chairman Mallory asked Mr. Zadina to project the elevations provided to the City on the overhead. Mr. Zadina offered a brief explanation of the exhibits being shown. He explained that the stucco proposed on the elevation is not a readily available or cost effective material to use 4 Planning Commission April 27, 2016 so that material is likely to change] to vertical siding but the color scheme should remain the same or similar. Mr. Ernie Graham added that the developer is aware that the project will be a part of the gateway to the City so they have worked with staff to find elevations that are appealing. He added that the intention is to make the entire project as visually appealing as possible but, if needed, the developer will put a better foot forward on the street frontages. Mr. Keller inquired about the proposed gate surrounding the project. He asked why the gate is needed. He expressed that he is not in favor of gated communities. Mr. Ernie Graham answered that the gate is not necessary, and is not set in stone. He added that the gated community concept will depend on local demand so the gates will not be added if the community does not want a gated complex. Mr. Keller added that he has voted against a gated community project in the past, however, he believes that this is a great project because it allows the average citizen the opportunity to have access to the ballpark and Prairie Queen Recreation Area. He expressed that gated communities tend to segregate society so he does not support that concept for the City of Papillion. Mr. Ernie Graham added that the gate is not about a necessity. Mr. Carson added that the project abuts a creek so he does not believe that the gated community aspect with create street connectivity issues. He noted that the gate could add an attribute of safety that maybe Papillion could use. Mr. Ernie Graham added that the gate may be helpful in keeping traffic from the ballpark out of the apartments. Chairman Mallory asked whether the purpose of the gate was to stop vehicular traffic. Mr. Ernie Graham answered that there would be an iron fence around the property, and two vehicular gates for the tenants to get in with keypads. Mr. Masters asked Mr. Stursma for the City's opinion regarding gated communities. Mr. Stursma explained that he is opposed to gated communities when they restrict street connectivity within the community. He added that in this case, the streets surrounding the property would not be gated and a future trail will be constructed outside the gated area along the creek would be public. He added that the Planning Department does not object to the gated concept because the gates would not restrict street connectivity. Ms. Sunde added that she is typically not in favor of gated communities; however, she believes that this particular project could attract a different type of person to Papillion, or offer a different level of security for single mothers or people who travel often. She added that there may be a niche and a need for a gated community like this when it does not impede the street connectivity. Mr. Ernie Graham added that the developer has built gated apartment communities in the past on numerous occasions, and it has always been well received, but the addition of the gate in Papillion would be market driven. Mr. Stursma clarified that on Lot 9 the access to the complex is not on 120th Street; however, Lot 12 proposes one access point off of 120th Street. Mr. Zadina pointed out the proposed access points on the site plan, and added that the access point off of 120`h Street would be an exit only gate. He noted that other options could be considered if the exit to 120' Street is a concern. Mr. Zadina asked Mr. Thompson for his opinion on access points for Lot 12. Mr. Thompson answered that he would have to look at it from a regional perspective to see if 12p`n Street will continue north and connect with Cornhusker Road. He added that if 120th Street would not continue north to connect with Cornhusker Road, then he would access to the project 5 Planning Commission Apri! 27, 2016  120th off of Street may be preferable, because Lincoln Road will then likely be the main corridor befinreen Prairie Queen and downtown Papillion. Mr. Keiler added that he seems to be in the minority opinion in his opposition to the gated community. He added that his concern is the good for the community and the perception of the community. He stated that having a gated community sends a message that citizens have to be careful because there is crime in the area, and he believes that Papillion is well policed and generally safe. He noted that he likes the accessibility to the surrounding amenities for middle- class people, and that he would offer his support to the project initially. Chairman Mallory stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Keller' s perspective; however, he believes that the property owner should have the discretion to put up the gate if they believe it is necessary for safety and security, and that the gate is not a deal breaker for him. Mr. Ernie Graham added that the gate itself is a $ 300,000. 00 item, and that as developers they are generally in the minority in proposing gated communities. He added that he believes that for their target market and proximity to the bailpark that it may be a feature that they should consider, however, he agrees that each proposed gated community should be vetted based on its impact to the City. Mr. Masters added that he did not believe that having the gate would deter potential tenants; however, the absence of a gate may deter certain renters who could decide to rent in other surrounding communities where a gated option is available. Chairman Mallory advised a recommendation of approval for City Council will require a unanimous vote of all five Commissioners. Mr. Keller assured the developers that he planned on supporting the project despite his opposition to the gate. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Mr. Carson, to recommend approval of the Venue at Werner Park Large Project Special Use Permit ( SUP- 16- 0001), contingent upon resolution of staff comments, because it is generally consistent with the Zoning Regulations, the concept plan presented, the future land use designation, and compatible with adjacent uses. Roll Call: Five yeas, no nays by. Motion carried. CURRENT BUSINESS: Planning Commission members discussed amending the Planning Commission bylaws to accommodate the appointment of an alternate member to the Planning Commission per Mayor Black' s request. Mr. Stursma expiained that Mayor Black has decided to add an alternate to the Planning Commission based on commissioner attendance over the past couple of years. He added that the Mayor has someone in mind to appoint to the alternate position, and has asked that City Code be amended to allow for an alternate Planning Commission member. Mr. Stursma 17th explained that he believes that the ordinance will be introduced City Council at the May meeting, and will be approved near the end of June. He shared that the Planning Department h intends to have bylaws ready for Planning Commission approval at the May 25` meeting. Chairman Mallory added that the Planning Commission needs to amend the bylaws to identify how the alternate will function. He noted that it would do little good to have an alternate if they were not present at every meeting. He also added that if a vacancy came up on the Planning 6 Planning Commission Apri! 27, 2016 Commission that the alternate should be able to transition into that vacancy. Mr. Stursma explained that the decision to appoint a vacant seat would likely be up to the Mayor. Mr. Stursma explained to the commission that state law says that the alternate member may attend any meeting and may serve as a voting and participating member of the Commission at any time when less than the full number of regular commission members is present and capable of voting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Stursma advised that the City Administrator approved transferring the iPads that the City already has to Planning Commissioners so that the meeting packets can be made digital. He added that there would be training for the new technology. Mr. Keller recognized and welcomed his students in attendance. With no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Mr. Carson, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 8: 18 PM. CITY OF PAPILLION t Michael Mallory, Chairma 7 Planning Commission April 27, 2016