Planning Commission

1V T. T l]ECO PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I JULY 27, 2016 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 7:00 PM. Chairman Michael Mallory called the meeting to order. Planning Assistant Andrea Blevins called the roll. Planning Commission members present were David Barker, Howard Carson, Rebecca Hoch, Raymond Keller Jr., Jim Masters, Ken Melhus, John E. Robinson III, and Judy Sunde. Leanne Sotak was absent. Mayor David Black, Planning Director Mark Stursma, Assistant Planning Director Amber Rupiper, City Planner Michelle Romeo, and City Engineer Jeff Thompson were also present. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on July 13, 2016. A copy of proof of publication is on file at fhe office of the City Clerk. Chairman Mallory led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Mallory announced that a copy of the Open Meetings Act is posted in the City Council Chambers. Mayor David Black administered the Oath of Office to new Planning Commissioner John E. Robinson IIL Approval of Aqenda Motion was made by Ms. Hoch, seconded by Mr. Melhus, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Planninq Commission Minutes Chairman Mallory asked the Commissioners whether there were any proposed changes to the minutes. Mr. Keller referred to the portion of minutes regarding the North Shore Commercial Final Plat, which states that Mr. Keller said " he cannot support gated communities in Papillion." He requested that the minutes be amended to reflect that he " will not" support gated communities in Papiiiion rather than he " cannot." Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the 06/29/ 16 minutes as amended by Mr. Keller. Roll Call: Nine 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 in part of the SW1/ 4 of the NE1/ 4 and the SE1/ 4 of the NE1/ 4 of Section 29, and together with I Lincoln Road Right-of-Way located in part of the NE1/ 4 of the SE1/ 4 and the NW1/ 4 of the SE1/ 4 of said Section 29, all located in T14N, R12E of the 6'h PM, Sarpy County, NE, generally located NE of 114' Street and Lincoln Road. The applicant is Stone Creek Plaza, LLC. ( Granite Falls North) FP- 16- 0006 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 Mark Westergard of E & A Consulting, 10909 Mifl Val{ey Road, Suite 100 ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Westergard stated that this project encompasses the first phase of Granite Falls North and is located immediately north of the Kingsbury Hills subdivision. He added that to the east of this project is the proposed WP- 7 dam site. Mr. Westergard explained that Lincoln Road was originally proposed to run along the southern boundary of this project, but it has been proposed in a curvilinear alignment due to the OPPD transmission lines. He added that Lincoln Road will be extended from 110th Street to 114th Street with Phase One, and possibly extended all the way to Wittmus Road if the parties can come to a financial arrangement. Mr. Westergard explained that this project includes eighty residential lots with Phase One and will connect to the current Kingsbury Hills sewer, but Phase Two will require an outfall sewer that will go to the north. He explained that Phase Three is not part of the Preliminary Plat but will be platted at a later time because of coordination issues in regards to WP-7. Chairman Mallory asked for questions from the Commission. Mr. Keller asked whether the development would include a splash pad as referenced in the City staff report. Mr. Westergard answered that staff and the applicant have acknowledged the need for a splash pad in this area, and the best Iocation for it is east of the Granite Falls project where the new middle school is located. He added that the applicant has plans to install a splash pad, but the application for that subdivision has not yet been submitted to the City. Mr. Masters asked about the timing of building the splash pad and the development and whether they plan to be built at the same time. Mr. Westergard answered that he did not know. Chairman Mallory asked whether Mr. Westergard was familiar with the contingencies listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report, and whether he was confident that those contingencies would be met. Mr. Westergard answered that the applicant and engineers agreed with the aforementioned contingencies. Mr. Keller asked whether the construction of Lincoln Road would cause it to be shut down while students and parents travel to the new middle school, and whether HWY 370 would have to be used as an alternate route. He expressed concern about the safety related to the use of the alternate route and the timing of construction based on his experience with construction on HWY 370 last school year. City Engineer Jeff Thompson answered that the County currently has Lincoln Road closed befinreen 96th Street and Wittmus Drive for construction. He added that the intent was to have this done before the school year begins, but the County had some issues with right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. He added that the County anticipates that the construction between 96' Street and Wittmus Drive will be complete by the end of 2016. Mr. Thompson explained that this particular project will improve Lincoln Road from 110' Street to 114' Street. He explained that a box culvert is being constructed in Kingsbury Hi11s that wiil connect Granite Falls residential and Kingsbury Hills so residents will be able to migrate through that neighborhood to get to the middle school. He added that the stretch of Lincoln Road 110th between Street and Wittmus Drive provides some challenges and the NRD is still designing the box culvert there and they have not worked out all of the details yet. Mr. Thompson has explained that the City has been working with the developer to try and bridge the 110th gap in Lincoln Road between Street and Wittmus Drive. Mr. Keller explained that he believes that shutting down Lincoln Road will be a safety issue, but he understands that things take time and complications arise in development. 2 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 I Mr. Meihus asked whether the applicant owns the land between 110th Street and Wittmus Drive. Mr. Westergard answered thaf BHI Development developed Granite Falls which is where the middle school is located, and they are also developing the Granite Lake project on the east side of WP-7, so the entire frontage with the exception of the NRD property, is controlled by this developer.h He added that the Interlocal Agreement regarding improvements to Lincoln Road 114th from 108` Street to Street is relatively simple as it only involves Sarpy County and the Granite Falls North SID; however, the Interlocal A 9 reement for im p rovements to Lincoln Road from 110th Street to Wittmus Drive will involve a number of parties including the school district, Granite Falls, Granite Lake, Granite Falls North, and Sarpy County. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Granite Falls North Final Plat ( FP- 16- 0006), contingent upon resolution of staff comments, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 1737 — An ordinance to annex certain Real Estate to the City of Papiilion, Nebraska. The applicant is the City of Papillion. The annexation area consists of Tracts 1 and 2, legally described as: Tract 1: THAT PART OF STATE HIGHWAY 370 RIGHT- OF-WAY IN 6T" SECTION 25, T14N, R11 E OF THE P. M., SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LYING 132ND BETWEEN STREET AND HIGHWAY 50, TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF STATE HIGHWAY 370 RIGHT- OF-WAY IN SECTION 36, T14N, R11 E OF THE 6TH P. M., SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LYING BETWEEN 132ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 50, ALL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE 132ND NORTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370 AND THE WEST LINE OF STREET; THENCE WESTERLY ON THE NORTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370 TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370 AND THE EAST LINE OF HIGHWAY 50; THENCE SOUTHERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370 AND THE EAST LINE OF HIGHWAY 50; THENCE EASTERLY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370 TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370 AND THE WEST LINE OF 132ND STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING and Tract 2: TAX LOT G AND TAX LOT H ( ALSO KNOWN AS TAX LOTS H1 AND H2) IN THE NW 1/ 4 OF 6T" SECTION 36, T14N, R11 E OF THE P. M., SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA, EXCEPT THOSE PARTS TAKEN FOR HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY, ALL MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NW 1l4;THENCE WEST ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NW 1/ 4 TO THE EAST LINE OF HIGHWAY 50;THENCE NORTHERLY ON THE EAST LINE OF HIGHWAY 50 TO THE SOUTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 370; THENCE EASTERLY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 37Q TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/ 4; THENCE SOUTH ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NW 1/ 4 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. The applicant is the City of Papillion. MISC- 16-0007 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E. 3`d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Stursma explained that the requested annexation is located in two tracts with Tract 1 being I a short segment of Highway 370 between 132" d Street and Highway 50, and Tract 2 being composed of approximately 160 acres of land south of Highway 370 and east of Highway 50 currently owned by Metropolitan Community College. He added that Metropolitan Community 3 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 College plans to construct their next campus at this site, and that Metropolitan Community College has expressed that they are in full support of the annexation through their communications with the City. Mr. Stursma explained that there are some advantages to Metropolitan Community College being annexed such as having access to City services at the time of construction. He explained that the City also proposed the annexation at this time because two other projects on the agenda are proposed on land that is partially bisected by the City' s extraterritorial jurisdiction ( ETJ). Mr. Stursma further explained that those properties need to be brought into one jurisdiction in order to be platted and zoned, which will be achieved with the proposed annexation and ETJ extension. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Masters asked whether the City is able to provide services to the annexation area. Mr. Stursma answered that an analysis was completed as part of the annexation review process to determine the impact on City services and budget. He confirmed that the CITY could provide services to the annexation area at the time of annexation. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Melhus, seconded by Mr. Barker to recommend approval of Ordinance # 1737 for the 2016 Annexation No. 1 ( MISC- 16- 0007), as shown in the attached exhibits, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning Regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1738— An ordinance to change the official Zoning Map of the City of Papillion in accordance with Section 205- 32 of the Papillion Municipal Code to adopt a Zoning Map and to apply existing or future zoning regulations, property use regulations, building ordinances, electrical ordinances, plumbing ordinances, and all other regulatory ordinances of the City of Papillion pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 16- 901. The applicant is the City of Papillion. MISC- 16- 0008 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E. 3`d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that the request is to change the Zoning Map. He added that the change to the Zoning Map is contingent upon the annexation because it will extend the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction ( ETJ) in relation to the extension of the City limits. Mr. Stursma added that the map change will assign zoning districts that are consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance for the area that wil4 be added to the City's jurisdiction. He added that the City reviewed Sarpy County's Zoning Map and there are five different zoning districts in the area that is being added to the City' s jurisdiction. He explained that: 1) Sarpy County' s Agricultural Farming ( AG) and Agricultural Development (AGD) Districts will be converted to the City's Agricultural ( AG) District and 2) Sarpy County' s Agriculture Residential ( AGR), Residentia{ Estates I{ ( RE2), and Residential Estates I ( REI) Districts will be converted to the City's Rural Residential Estates RE) District. Mr. Stursma reiterated that one of the reasons that the annexation and zoning map change are proposed is to accommodate Sarpy County Power Park East and Sarpy County Power Park West. 4 Planning Commission July 27, 2016  Ms. Sunde inquired about the purpose of the annexation. Mr. Stursma answered that the zoning for the area within the extended extraterritorial jurisdiction ( ETJ) needs to be converted to the I City's zoning districts. He added that the City looks at the current zoning district and all of the regulations related to that zoning district and determines which zoning district within the City's Zoning Ordinance is most consistent. Mr. Stursma explained that the proposed Sarpy County Power Park East and proposed Sarpy County Power Park West projects are partially within the City's jurisdiction and partia!! y within Sarpy County' s jurisdiction. He noted that the split J urisdiction creates challen 9 es in P lattin 9 and rezonin 9 the p ro P ert Y whereas Cit Y Council' s approval of the annexation and the ETJ expansion will bring the entirety of both properties within the City's jurisdiction so they may be legally platted and zoned. Mr. Keller asked whether the extension of the extraterritorial jurisdiction ( ETJ) would overlap with Springfield' s jurisdiction. Mr. Stursma explained that the City is not proposing to extend its ETJ into Springfield' s ETJ. He added that the City's understanding is that once a city's ETJ has been created, another city, even if the city is larger, cannot extend its ETJ into the other city's jurisdiction. He explained that the City is only extending the City's ETJ to be adjacent to Springfield' s jurisdiction. Ms. Hoch asked whether the notch depicted on the western edge of proposed ETJ area shows where the new ETJ will abut Springfield' s ETJ. Mr. Stursma confirmed that the notch does depict where the City's new ETJ will abut Springfield' s ETJ. Mr. Masters asked if the citizens coming into the City's jurisdiction would gain or lose anything from the zoning district conversion. Mr. Stursma answered that the proposed zoning is a close match to the current Sarpy County zoning designations. He explained the process used to determine the appropriate City zoning district conversion. Mr. Stursma added that the City also has the option to convert the zoning district based on the current use. He added that the City attempts to make the transition as easy as possible for the properties and uses that already exist in the area coming under City jurisdiction. Mr. Masters asked whether citizens who feel that the zoning conversion inadvertently affects them could come to the City and ask for accommodations. Mr. Stursma con rmed that they could. He added that a public process is in place to allow people to voice their concerns and opinions. Mr. Stursma added that after approval of the zoning conversion with the ETJ expansion, a property owner can request a change of zone as with any other property. Mr. Melhus asked if any of the current land owner's taxes would be impacted. Mr. Stursma explained that taxes are set by the County Assessor so he couid not provide a definitive answer. He added that the City's past experience has been that whether a property is in the county's jurisdiction or the City's ETJ generally does not have an effect on taxes. He continued to explain that being annexed may have an effect on taxes. He noted that Tract 1 is not subject to taxes because it is a section of state highway and Tract 2 is owned by a tax-exempt entity. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion With no further discussion, Motion was made b Y Mr. Barker, seconded b Y Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of Ordinance # 1738 to revise the Zoning Map for the City of Papillion MISC- 16- 0008) for the 2016 Annexation No. 1 area because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Regulations, and surrounding uses. Roll Cail: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. 5 Plannin 9 Commission July 27, 2016  Preliminarv Plat - A Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land located in the SE1/ 4 of Section 2, T13N, R11E of the 6' PM, Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NW carner of HWY 50 and Capehart Road. The applicant is Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation. ( Sarpy County Power Park West) PP- 16-0003 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Andrew Rainbolt of Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation ( SCEDC), 1301 Harney Street( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Rainbolt explained that SCEDC holds land options on the property in question and the property to the east across HWY 50, meaning they have an option to purchase both properties on the northwest ( Sarpy County Power Park West) and northeast ( Sarpy County Power Park East) corners of HWY 50 and Capehart Road. He added that SCEDC has been working with a world class company that is considering building a data center campus on both parcels of land. He explained that the company is in the final stages of their site selection. Mr. Rainbolt explained that the plat contemplates an intense use of the land, as most of the acreage will be used for buildings and services. He added that Eric Galley of Olsson Associates, the civil engineer for the applicant, was also present to answer any questions. Chairman Mallory asked whether the applicant foresees any concern in complying with the conditions { isted in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Eric GaNey of Olsson Associates, h 2111 S. 67` Street ( Omaha), confirmed that the applicant is aware of the conditions listed in the staff report and intends comply with them. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallo rY closed the p ublic hearin 9 and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Barker asked why the requirements in Section III, H of the Planning Commission Staff Report were not listed in the Section IV recommendations. Mr. Stursma answered that the items were code requirements that must be completed. Mr. Masters asked whether access between the buildings across HWY 50 would be needed. Mr. Rainbolt answered that he believed that access would be necessary because there will be office space on each side of the highway. He added that the project has preliminary approval from the Nebraska Department of Roads ( NDOR) to access both from the highway. I Mr. Keller asked whether the applicant had any renderings of the buildings. Mr. Galley answered that there are no architectural renderings at this time, but the applicant is working with staff in regards to the regulators for what the site will look like as part of the Mixed Use Development Agreement. Mr. Keller requested that the applicant provide renderings when the project comes back to the Planning Commission for Final Plat because the proposed location is visible from HWY 50. Mr. Galley added that this is a world class organization, and that they would like to be perceived as such, so he is confident that they will present a project that is satisfactory. He explained that the applicant will continue to work with City staff and will present renderings to the Commission. 6 Planning Commission July 27, 2016  Ms. Hoch asked about a former application for a business park in this vicinity, and asked where that project is located in relation to this project. City Planner Michelle Romeo explained that Ms. Hoch was referencing 14506 Schram Place which is further north on HWY 50. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Melhus, to recommend approval of the Sarpy County Power Park West Pre(iminary Plat ( PP- 16- 0003), contin 9 ent u P on the a pp licant revisin 9 the Permitted Uses List P er Section III G 4 because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Sarpy County Future Land Use Map, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Roli Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Chanae of Zone - A Change of Zone from Agriculture ( AG) to Mixed Use ( MU) for the property legally described as a tract of land located in the SE1/ 4 of Section 2, T13N, R11 E of the 6t" PM, Sarpy County, NE, genera!!y located on the NW corner of HWY 50 and Capehart Road. The applicant is Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation. ( Sarpy County Power Park West) CZ- 16-0003 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Andrew Rainbolt of Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation ( SCEDC), 1301 Harney Street ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Rainbolt explained that this application is to create a Mixed Use District to allow the data center use. Mr. Masters asked what currently exists in the notch on the map for Sarpy County Power Park East application. Mr. Rainbolt answered that it was the historic farmstead that was separated onto a different plot of land, and there is a residence located there now. Mr. Melhus asked about some of the terminology used in Section Ilf, G, 7 and 8 of the staff report for Sarpy County Power Park East, specifically the statement that the " development is sensitive to the residential use of the Mr. Rainbolt explained that the applicant will rely property." on the Mixed Use Development Agreement to define that term. Mr. Stursma explained that he would answer the question but wanted to be sure that the Commission recognized that the agenda item currently being heard is the Change of Zone for Sarpy County Power Park West. Mr. Stursma answered that there has been contact with the property owner, and the Mixed Use Development Agreement can provide additional requirements for things like buffering and access. He added that this had not been defined yet. Mr. Keller expressed general concerns related to how data centers are cooled and the amount of noise they produce as it relates to both ro' ects. He added that he interpreted the sensitivity to mean how the noise and access will affect surrounding uses which appear to be rural with the exception of the residential plot adjacent to the site on the east side of HWY 50. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Thomas Ackley of Koley Jessen Law Firm, 1125 S 103rd Street, Suite 800, stepped forward to I represent Rod and Kelly Jeck who own the notch of land depicted in the plat for Sarpy County Power Park East. Mr. Ackley clarified that the Commission was current(y addressing the Sarpy County Power Park West project. Chairman Mallory and Mr. Stursma confirmed that the 7 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 Commission was holding a public hearing for the Change of Zone for Sarpy County Power Park West. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Carson thanked Mr. Rainbolt and City staff for working to bring world class companies to Papillion. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of the Sarpy County Power Park West Change of Zone ( CZ- 16- 0003) from Agriculture ( AG) to Mixed Use ( MU), contingent upon the applicant revising the Permitted Uses List per Section III, G, 4, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Sarpy County Future Land Use Map, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Prelimina Plat- A Prelimina rY Plat for the N ro N ert Y le 9 all Y described as a tract of land located in the SW1/ 4 of Section 1, T13N, R11E of the 6th PM, Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NE corner of HWY 50 and Capehart Road. The applicant is Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation. ( Sarpy County Power Park East) PP- 16-0004 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Andrew Rainbolt of Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation ( SCEDC), 1301 Harney Street ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Rainbolt explained that this project is intended to be the second phase of the data center project because the project would start on the west side of HWY 50. He explained that this is the same project as Sarpy County Power Park West with a later build- out date. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Kelly Jeck, 14108 Capehart Road ( Springfield), explained that she owns the notch of land depicted on the Sarpy County Power Park East Preliminary Plat. She explained that she and her husband purchased the seven acre site in 1995 to build their home. She added that the 146 acre farm adjacent to their property was purchased by Steve and Beth Roth in 2013, and that one year later SCEDC obtained an option on the property. She added that she was never contacted by SCEDC when they obtained an option on the adjacent land. She explained that she disagrees that the requested zoning is compatible with the adjacent use of her home. She added that her home is approximately 2, 400 square feet and is two stories tall; however, the proposed buildings are 610, 000 square feet each, and, with the standard setback requirements, the buildings could possibly sit as little as twenty-five feet from her property line. Ms. Jeck explained that she and her husband met with Planning Director Mark Stursma, on July 5, 2016, and then again with Mark Stursma and Andrew Rainbolt on July 19, 2016 to discuss the project. Ms. Jeck explained that the proposed user would like to meet with her on August 15, 2016 to discuss the terms for the Mixed Use Development Agreement for the project and that she would ask the Planning Commission to hold their vote on this project until the August Planning 8 Planning Commission July 27, 2016  Commission meetin 9 so she and her husband could work out the terms of the Mixed Use Development Agreement with the proposed user and their team. Thomas Ackley of Koley Jessen Law Firm, 1125 S. 103rd Street, Suite 800 ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent adjacent land owners Rod and Kelly Jeck. Mr. Ackley explained that the proposed zoning for the project is irregular in that it proposes a Mixed Use District when he believes there will only be one use, a data center, on the property. He expressed concern that the terms that would be encompassed in the project' s Mixed Use Development Agreement, such as building finishes, landscape buffers, building heights, setbacks, design standards, etc., are currently unknown. He added that he did not believe that the proposed use was compatible with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's home. Mr. Ackley reiterated that Mr. and Mrs. Jeck would ask that the Planning Commission hold the project over to the August Planning Commission meeting until the terms of the Mixed Use Development Agreement are addressed or, alternatively, only make a motion on the northern half of the property by drawing a line through the middle of the plat. Ms. Hoch asked Mr. Ackley what the grade of the land was at this location in comparison to Mr. and Mrs. Jeck' s home. Adjacent landowner Rod Jeck, 14108 Capehart Road ( Springfield), explained tha't there is a slight grade increase going north on HWY 50 so the north end of the site might be thirty to forty feet higher than his property. Mr. Carson asked if Mr. and Mrs. Jeck intend to sell their property to the developer or if they plan on staying. Mr. Jeck stated that he and his wife had not given the idea that much thought yet. Mr. Rainbolt explained that the Mixed Use Development Agreement does not typica((y come in front of the Planning Commission as a matter of process, and that he is confident that Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's concerns will be addressed in the Mixed Use Development Agreement. He added that to hold off on a recommendation may put the project in jeopardy. Mr. Rainbolt explained that the shadow outline of the second building proposed on the sauth end of this site is speculative at this point. He explained that it is premature to assume that there would be a building on the southern half of this parcel, and that the space could potentially be used as buffer. Mr. Rainbolt added that the setback will be addressed in the Mixed Use Development Agreement, and that it is unlikely that the buildings will sit as little as twenty-five feet from Mr. and Mrs. Jeck' s lot line. Chairman Mallory asked why continuing the hearing to August may jeopardize the project. Mr. Rainbolt explained that the client has not made a final site selection yet and that this is a competitive process. He added that the SCEDC is trying to demonstrate that the client will be able to build what they need to at the site. Chairman Mallory asked why the adjacent landowner was not contacted at the time of option. Mr. Rainboit answered that he could not speak to 2013 when SCEDC gained control of the land; however, he informed Mr. Jeck this past Spring that there was data center user interested in the land adjacent to his property, and he had several conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck in the I 9 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 past few weeks. Mr. Rainboit added that he intends to inciude Mr. and Mrs. Jeck in the Mixed Use Development Agreement process to try and address their concerns. Ms. Hoch expressed concern about the notification given to the property owners of the adjacent lot. Mr. Rainbolt added that SCEDC anticipated that Sarpy County Power Park West would develop first and it was not until a few months ago that they learned that the client was interested in the eastern parcel. He also explained that he anticipated that Sarpy County Power Park East would develop north to south. Ms. Hoch expressed concern that the landholders were not addressed until three years after SCEDC optioned the land. Mr. Rainbolt assured the Commission that SCEDC engaged in a very public process regarding the future land use planning. He added that Mrs. Jeck works for the Sarpy County Planning Department so there may have been an assumption that Mr. and Mrs. Jeck realized the option existed because this parcel is designated as Business Park in the Sarpy County Future Land Use Plan. Ms. Sunde explained that these types of projects generally take years to land and asked if Mr. Rainbolt could explain how SCEDC got to this point in the process. Mr. Rainbolt explained that Papillion has developed a name for itself as a location that works well for data centers. He added that the SCEDC first engaged with this client five to six years ago and again two years ago. Ms. Sunde asked whether the building proposed on the south end of the property was absolutely intended to be built. Mr. Rainbolt confirmed that it is his understanding that the outiine depicted on the site plan was just meant to show that another building would fit there, but it is not necessarily his client's intention to build it. Ms. Sunde added that she understands how difficult it is to land projects of this magnitude based on her previous experience in economic development. She added that she sympathizes with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck but she cannot overlook the positive impact that this project would have on the county and the community. She expressed concern about continuing the hearing one month if the community truly wants to land this project. Ms. Sunde also asked about the scope of the competition for attracting this client. Mr. Rainbolt answered that he was not sure but was given an indication that if SCEDC could meet their October 4, 2016 Final Plat deadline that they would be able to make an announcement as to who the client was and close on the ground. He added that this project would help the City with the development of the HWY 50 corridor by potentially adding a six million dollar sewer system that would open up an additional 764 acres of land to development. Mr. Rainbolt explained that much of the additional development has been targeted as employment centers for the area. He added that this project alone couid bring approximatefy 100- 150 new jobs to the area in addition to the private contractor jobs it will create in the interim. Mr. Galley apologized for the level of communication about the project with the adjacent landowners and assured Mr. and Mrs. Jeck that they want to engage them in the Mixed Use Development Agreement process. He added that there was lengthy discussion with City staff during the projecYs initial stage as to the appropriate zoning. Although the proposed project's uses would fit within some of the City's base zoning districts, using such districts woufd have limited the client' s ability to defined the setbacks. He explained that a Mixed Use District seemed most appropriate because the client is a world class organization that wants to be a good neighbor, propose a project that fits the image that Papillion has for the HWY 50 corridor, 10 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 and provide a positive impact on the community. Mr. Galley explained that the size of the property would allow for a second building to be buiit elsewhere on the parcel. He added that there are over 400 feet befinreen the building shown on the site plan and Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's property line. He expressed confidence that a solution can be reached that works for everyone involved. He reiterated that it is his understanding that the City's standard process does not bring Mixed Use Development Agreements in front of the Planning Commission. He asked that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the project so the applicant and client can move forward on schedule. Mr. Melhus asked for Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's opinion on continuing the process. Mr. Ackley expressed that he did not befieve that holding the project over to an August Planning Commission meeting would hurt the project deadline, but he does believe that not holding off may hurt Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's chances of negotiating on the Mixed Use Development Agreement and having their voice heard at a public hearing. He asked that if the Planning Commission decided to move forward with a recommendation on the project that it be made contingent upon the client negotiating with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck regarding the Mixed Use Development Agreement regarding things like grading, buffering, and access. Mr. Galley explained that there is a preliminary grading plan available that contemplates that the floor elevation will only be approximately ten feet higher than where Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's property sits. He added that with that smaller difference in elevation, there should be ample opportunity for screening. He also added that Sarpy County Power Park East and Sarpy County Power Park West will be graded separately, and there is no intention of transferring dirt from the western parcel to the eastern parcel. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Barker inquired about Mr. Ackley's suggestion that only the northern half of the property be considered by the Planning Commission and whether this would be amenable to Mr. and Mrs. Jeck. Mr. Ackley answered that he is requesting that the preliminary plat and change of zone for this project would be limited to the northern half of the property. Mr. Barker asked how doing this would affect Mr. Rainbolt' s and Mr. Galley's client. Mr. Galley answered that the client may not be satisfied with something less than what is proposed because the client would then be entitled to purchase a portion of the site with no guarantee that they would ever be able to utilize it to the desired extent. He added that the exact same things that Mr. and Mrs. Jeck are trying to achieve by subdividing the site can be taken care of in the Mixed Use Development Agreement. Mr. Barker added that there seems to be a middle ground to make everyone happy had appropriate discussions occurred prior to this meeting. Mr. Galley explained that there is opportunity for compromise and that he would ask that the Commission put their trust in staff to follaw through. He added that there is an opportunity for the Commission to make a recommendation to move forward contingent upon Mr. and Mrs. Jeck meeting with the client regarding the terms of the Mixed Use Development Agreement. Mr. Barker asked whether it was appropriate for someone with the Commission to make such a motion. Mr. Stursma explained the process for a change of zone to Mixed Use. He added any Commissioner is able 11 Planning Commission July 27, 2016  to make their motion contingent upon addressing the compatibility to adjacent uses in the Mixed Use Development Agreement. Mr. Barker added that such a motion would provide Mr. Ackley and Mr. and Mrs. Jeck with a safety net. Mr. Ackley asserted that this was not agreeable to his client. Chairman Mallory added that the Mixed Use Development Agreement will be subject to City Council approval, so the concerns raised at the public hearing can be addressed through the Mixed Use Development Agreement. Ms. Sunde explained that she believes that what is being proposed is good for the community, and she is confident that City Councif wili consider Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's concerns. She also added that most of the concerns that Mr. and Mrs. Jeck have, such as the twenty-five foot setback, are not set in stone and the client has agreed to work with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck. She explained that there are also provisions within the City Code that wi41 help to mitigate any negative impact that the development may have on Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's property. Ms. Sunde added that thirty days could impact whether or not the client decides to develop in Papillion. Mr. Galley and Mr. Rainbolt added that they are in competition with other cities for the project so the one month delay could derail the project by sending a message to the client that they will not be able to build what they need to at this site. Mr. Rainbolt added that the client is agreeable to addressing the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Jeck. Chairman Mallory asked why the client was not able to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck prior to the Planning Commission meeting to work out the terms of the Mixed Use Development Agreement and why they did not attend the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Rainbolt explained that the I client was unable to make it tonight but has a meeting scheduled with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck. He added that the client is not located in the metro area, so it is logistically more difficult for them to be present. Ms. Sunde asked whether this was due to the client not wantin 9 to release their name. Mr. Rainbolt confirmed that the client does not wish to release their name yet so as not to reveal to their competitors or other communities that they are looking to develop in this area. Mr. Melhus stated that it seems odd to him that Mr. and Mrs. Jeck would not have been contacted for negotiations sooner. Ms. Hoch expressed that there has typically not been corporate representation for the Preliminary Plat and Change of Zone for other proposed data center projects in the area. She expressed confidence that City staff and City Council will ensure that the concerns presented will be addressed. Ms. Hoch expressed concern about how Mr. and Mrs. Jeck's property would develop in twenty or thirty years from now when Mr. and Mrs. Jeck no longer live at the property. She expressed particular concern about allowing access onto Capehart Road due to the proximity to the intersection with HWY 50. Chairman Mal{ory echoed Ms. Hoch' s concern about perForming due diligence to prevent any issues from arising. Mr. Stursma addressed the prior comments regarding why the project is proposing a Mixed Use Zoning District. He explained that there are multiple uses with this project including data center, 12 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 office p ublic utilit Y and warehousin 9 uses. He ad ded that so me of those uses ma Y be in the same building, but there are in fact multiple uses incorporated into the site. He explained that a Mixed Use District is appropriate for a campus such as the one proposed. Mr. Stursma explained that a Mixed Use District provides the opportunity to address issues specific to the site and advised that the applicant indicated that they are willing to address compatibility with adjoining properties in the Mixed Use Development Agreement. He stated that the Mixed Use Development Agreement is not on the agenda for this meeting and thus the Commission only needs to address the Change of Zone and Preliminary Plat. He added that the zoning allows the uses and allows all parties involved to move forward and work out the terms of the Mixed Use Development Agreement. He added that the proposed use is consistent with Sarpy County's recent land use effort that defined the uses of this land. He added that this land use effort was performed using a public process that identified that these types of uses would be permitted. Mr. Stursma identified additional opportunities for public input such as City Council consideration of the Preliminary Plat and Change of Zone. He added that the terms of the Mixed Use Development Agreement will be negotiated before it is presented to City Council with the Final Plat. He explained that the Mixed Use Development Agreement would not come before the Planning Commission even if the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearings on this project to the August Planning Commission meeting because the agreement is finalized later on in the process. Mr. Barker added that he works in business development so he understands the impact of any delay. He noted that a recommendation from the Planning Commission will not cause a loss for any of the parties. Ms. Hoch expressed concern about the message that will be sent to future development if the process is delayed. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Stursma whether he believed that a one month delay would hurt this project. Mr. Stursma answered that he believes that it would hurt this project because it is his understanding that the client has the money in this fiscal year to purchase the land and may not in the next fiscal year. He added that his impression of the client is that they want to do the right thing and that he has every confidence that the compatibility with adjoining properties will be addressed in the Mixed Use Development Agreement. Mr. Stursma also added, that the client offered to attend the Planning Commission meeting but he advised that SCEDC could represent the requests as the applicant on the project. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of the Sarpy County Power Park East Preliminary Plat ( PP- 16- 0004), contingent upon the applicant revising the permitted uses per Section III, G, 4, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Sarpy County Future Land Use Map, general compatibility with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Seven yeas, two nays by Chairman Mallory and Mr. Masters. Motion carried. Chanae of Zone— A Change of Zone from Agriculture ( AG) to Mixed Use ( MU) for the property legally described as a tract of land located in the SW1/ 4 of Section 1, T13N, R11E of the 6th PM, Sar pY Count Y NE 9 enerall Y locat e d on th e NE c o rner of HWY 50 and Ca p ehart Road. The applicant is Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation. ( Sarpy County Power Park East) CZ-16-0004 13 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 Chairman Maliory opened the pubiic hearing. Chairman Mallory asked if the applicant had additional comments. Representative for the applicant, Andrew Rainbolt of Sarpy County Economic Deveiopment Corporation, 1301 Harney Street( Omaha), did not have any additional comments. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Thomas Ackley of Koley Jessen Law Firm, 1125 S 103rd Street, Suite 800, stepped forward to represent adjacent land owners Rod and Keily Jeck. Mr. Ackley explained that a Change of Zone that establishes a Mixed Use District may define the use types permitted within its boundaries and that no one use should encompass more that eighty percent of the proposed uses. Mr. Ackley contended that this pro'1 ect involves a sin 9 le use of data center. Eric Galley of Olsson Associates, 2111 S. 117' Street, Suite 100 ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. He stated that the client is willing to working with Mr. and Mrs. Jeck regarding their previously stated concerns. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Sarpy County Power Park East Preliminary Plat ( PP- 16- 0004), contingent upon the applicant revising the permitted uses per Section III, G, 4, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Sarpy County Future Land Use Map, generally compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Six yeas, three nays by Mr. Keller, Chairman Mallory, and Mr. Masters. Motion carried. Preliminarv Plat - A Preliminary Plat and Change of Zone from Agriculture ( AG) to Single- Family Residential ( Medium Density) ( R- 2) for the property legally described as Tax Lot 15, located in the W1/ 2 of the SW1/ 4 of Section 33, T14N, R12E of the 6th PM, Sarpy County, NE, generally located northeast of 108th Street and Schram Road. The applicant is Dynasty Homes, LLC. ( The Reserve at Schram Point) PP- 16- 0005 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Mark Westergard of E& A Consulting, 10909 Mill Valley Road, Suite 100 ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Westergard stated that the project is located on the north side of Schram Road immediately adjacent to the Papillion Fire Station and the Walnut Creek camp grounds. He added that Schram Road is being improved, and this project would include two access points onto Schram Road. Mr. Westergard explained that the plat contemplates 33 single-family homes. He advised that the developer is negotiating with Sarpy County regarding contributions to Schram Road. He explained that there is an Interlocal Agreement in place that calls for the parcel to contribute $ 600, 000. 00 to the Schram Road improvements, but the developer anticipates only being able to contribute approximately$ 200,000. 00. 14 Planning Commission Jufy 27, 2016  Mr. Carson asked for the estimated sale price of the homes. Mr. Westergard stated that the Source and Use of Funds projects a sale price of approximately $ 300, 000.00, which may be a conservative number. He added that the lot sizes are similar to in size to those in the Southbrook subdivision and those homes are in the $ 330, 000. 00 to $ 370,000. 00 price range. Ms. Hoch asked whether the subdivision would have a connection to the Walnut Creek Recreation Area. Mr. Westergard explained that there is not a pedestrian access proposed within the subdivision. City Engineer Jeff Thompson answered that the RV park and Walnut Creek Recreation Area are owned by the City of Papillion. He explained that during the discussion with the developer, it was determined that a trail connection within the subdivision would not be desirable. He added that the City is planning on building a ten foot trail from the Walnut Creek Recreation Area entrance of Turkey Road to 108' Street with the improvements to Schram Road which would allow pedestrian access to the park for this development. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. With no further discussion,Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval The Reserve at Schram Point Preliminary Plat ( PP- 16- 0005), of contingent upon staff comments, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and consistent with the Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Chanae of Zone — A Change of Zone from Agriculture ( AG) to Single- Family Residential Medium Density) ( R-2) for the property legally described as Tax Lot 15, located in the W1/ 2 of the SW1/ 4 of Section 33, T14N, R12E of the 6th PM, Sarpy County, NE, generally located 108th northeast of Street and Schram Road. The applicant is Dynasty Homes, LLC. (The Reserve at Schram Point) CZ-16-0005 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Mark Westergard of E & A Consulting, 10909 Mill Valley Road, Suite 100 ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and Seeing no further public input, opponents. Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of The Reserve at Schram Point Change of Zone ( CZ- 16- 0005), contingent upon staff comments, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Special Use Permit —A Special Use Permit to allow Storage ( Limited Access) as a permitted use on the property legally described as Lot 2, Prairie Corners Replat 4, generally located at 14403 Frontier Road. The applicant is Redbird Group, LLC. ( Heartland Storage) SUP- 16- 0004 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. I 5 Plannin 9 Commission July 27, 2016 Jason Thiellen of E& A Consulting, 10909 Mill Valley Road, Suite 100 ( Omaha}, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Thiellen stated that the applicant, Daryl Leise, and the project attorney, Russ Daub, were also present in the event that there were any questions for them. Mr. Thiellen explained that the site is currently a gas station, and the applicant is proposing to change the use to a climate controlled limited storage. He added that the facility would be a five story 100, 000 square foot building, and that all storage would be housed inside with two access points into the building. Mr. Thiellen explained that the greenspace at the site would be increased from what exists today. He added that this project will reduce access points from four to two, thus improving tra c flow. Mr. Thiellen presented a rendering of the proposed building and commented that the facility will look more like an office building than a storage facility. He added that higher quality building materials will be used based on the requirements for the Highway Overlay District. Mr. Thiellen also added that the client will comply with the City's provided conditions. Mr. Carson asked that the applicant make an effort to have the building look as nice as possible as it is on a main entry corridor to the City. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Chad Harrington, 14507 Frontier Road ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent Werner Enterprises. He explained that Werner Enterprises borders the property and has some concerns with having a storage facility in the area. Mr. Harrington stated that traffic in the area is mostly industrial with tractor trailers and that Werner Enterprises is concerned that a storage facility will create traffic conflicts with the addition of pickups with trailers accessing the storage facility. He expressed concern about the traffic that will be generated by the 450 units proposed in the facility. Mr. Harrington stated that Werner Enterprises believes that this use is not conducive to the industrial park. He added that Werner Enterprises also has concerns that the removal of the fuel tanks at the site could contaminate the soil and water table of the land that Werner Enterprises owns. 110th Russ Daub, 2800 S. Court, Suite 1 ( Omaha}, attorney for the applicant, explained that Mr. Leise has guaranteed that the units will be upscale in terms of design. He added the Mr. Leise recognizes that this will be a key corner in the City with high visibility, and that the finished product will be of high quality. He added that the use will be compatible to a greater degree than what currently exists in the area. Mr. Daub added that the client recognizes that the gas tanks will have to be remediated and removed to improve the use of the property. He added that remediation will occur when the gas tanks are removed. Mr. Masters asked whether the applicant would be willing to speak to Werner Enterprises about their concerns. Mr. Daub ensured the Commission that the project team has already reached out to Werner Enterprises. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. 16 Planning Commission July 27, 2016 I Mr. Mas te rs r efe r red to Mr. Harrin 9 ton s concerns about traffic flow and asked Cit Y staff whether the y believed that the traffic would be less th a n that of th e current u se as a g as station. City Engineer Jeff Thompson answered that arguably the gas station would produce more traffic than a storage facility, particularly at peak times. He added that there would likely be the same mix of vehicles such as over-the-road trucks, box trucks, and trucks with trailers at a gas station as there would be at a storage facility but that the intensity of traffic would likely be much less. Mr. Thompson also explained that the state has standards and regulations for remediation and removal of gas tanks, and that from experience he knows that this process is heavily monitored by the state. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of the Heartland Storage Special Use Permit ( SUP- 16- 0004), contingent upon resolving Planning Department contingencies, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Papillion Development Concept Map, compatible with adjacent uses, and in compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS With no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Ms. Hoch, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 10: 12 PM. CITY OF PAPILLION Mi hael Mallory, Chairrrlan 17 Planning Commission July 27, 2016