Planning Commission

PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 7: 00 PM. Chairman Michael Mallory ca(led the meeting to order. Planning Assistant Andrea Blevins called the roll. Planning Commission members present were David Barker, Rebecca Hoch, Jim Masters, Ken Melhus, John E. Robinson III, and Judy Sunde. Howard Carson, Raymond Keller Jr., and Leanne Sotak were absent. 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 September 14, 2016. A copy of proof of publication is on file at the 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. Approval of Aaenda Motion was made by Ms. Hoch, seconded by Mr. Melhus, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Plannina Commission Minutes Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Hoch, to approve the 07/ 27/ 16 minutes. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 1748 — A request to amend § 170- 22( C)( 2)( b), and to add §, 170-22( D) of Section 170- 22, to the Papillion Municipal Code, both having to do with capital facilities charges, and to amend the alpha- ordering of subsequent subsections to § 170- 22. The appiicant is the City of Papillion. TC- 16-0001 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 this amendment is proposed to clarify a reference to the capital faci(ities charges in the City of Papiflion' s Subdivision Regulations. He stated that the current practice of the City is to place all fees under the City's Master Fee Schedule. He added that having references to those fees' dollar amounts in both the ordinance and the Master Fee Schedule can cause confusion and cause concurrent updates to be missed. Mr. Stursma explained that if approved, the proposed update would change the language of the code to reference the Master Fee Schedule rather than the actual fee dollar amounfi. 1 Planning Commission September 28, 2016 Mr. Masters asked whether the change would have any financial impact to the citizens. Mr. Stursma a nswered that the fee is not changmg with th s action smce the amended I anguage will reference the Master Fee Schedule rather than the actual fee. Mr. Masters also asked whether the fee would be applicable to Sanitary and Improvement Districts ( SID). City Engineer Jeff Thompson explained that the capital facilities charge is charged to all new developments, whether private or located within an SID, to fund the City's water infrastructure. He added that such fees are charged at the time of development rather than the time of connection. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. With n o further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Masters, seconded by Mr. Ba rker , to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1748 because the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1752— 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 regutations, 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- 0009 Chairman M lory opened the public hearing. Planning Director ark Stursma, 122 E. 3 d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that t e purpose of the proposed change was to address boundary concerns by a development applica t. He added that at this time, however, another more permanent solution to the concern is bein considered. Mr. Stursma stated that as such, fhe City is requesting that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and lay this Ordinance on the table otherwise referred to as" tabling"). Mr. Barker asked whether not moving forward with this ordinance would put the City in jeopardy of losing property to a surrounding jurisdiction. Mr. Stursma answered that the City will not risk losing jurisdiction because the City's boundary shall stay the same if the Ordinance is laid on the table and no action is taken. 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 Ms. Hoch, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to lay Ordinance No. 1752 to revise the Zoning Map for the City of Papillion ( MISC- 16- 0009) on the table. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1753— 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- 0010 2 Planning Commission September 28, 2016 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 purpose of the proposed change was to address boundary concerns by a development applicant. He added that, at this time, another more permanent solution to the concern is being considered. Mr. Stursma stated that as such, the City is requesting that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and lay this Ordinance on the table. 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. Barker, seconded by Ms. Hoch, to lay Ordinance No. 1753 to revise the Zoning Map for the City of Papillion ( MISC- 16- 0010) on the table. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1754— 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 0011 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 purpose of the proposed change was to address boundary concerns by a development applicant. He added that at this time, however, another more permanent solution to the concern is being considered. Mr. Stursma stated that as such, the City is requesting that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and lay this Ordinance on the table. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and Seeing no further public input, opponents. Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Masters asked when an action that is tabled would expire. Assistant Planning Director Amber Rupiper answered that when an agenda item is laid on the table, it would effectively expire at the end of the next Planning Commission meeting if not picked up at that meeting. Chairman Mallory added that a public hearing notice would be required in order to bring the action back to the Planning Commission. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Mr. Melhus, to lay Ordinance No. 1754 to revise the Zoning Map for the City of Papillion ( MISC- 16- 0011) on the table. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1755 — An ordinance to amend Chapter 205, Article XXII of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with MU Mixed Use District. The applicant is the City of Papillion. TC- 16- 0002 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. 3 Planning Commission September 28, 2016  Mark Stursma, Planning Director for the City of Papillion, 122 E. 3 d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that this amendment relates to how the City handles a transition in zoning when property that was zoned under Sarpy County's jurisdiction comes under the jurisdiction of the City. He added that right now the City handles such transitions by I converting property zoned under Sarpy County to the most similar zoning district designation under the City's zoning ordinance or to the zoning district that is consistent with the established use of the property. Mr. Stursma explained that this ordinance amendment will provide the City with a process for making this transition for properties that are zoned Mixed Use ( MU) under Sarpy County's jurisdiction, as the current process does not account for Mixed Use Deve(opment Agreements. He added that Mixed Use zoning is essentially zoning by agreement and that this amendment would allow Sarpy County to ask the City to be a party to Mixed Use Development Agreements for developments within the City's potential growth area. Mr. Stursma explained that when the development eventually comes under the City's jurisdiction, the transition would be seamless for the property owner(s) if the City is already a party to the Mixed Use Development Agreement. He added that it also creates an incentive for the County and Developers to include the City in the review process for Mixed Use; Development Agreements within the City's potential growth area. He explained that this is a real benefit to the City, property owners, and developers because it offers clarity in how the transition from County jurisdiction to City jurisdiction will occur. Ms. Hoch asked how Sarpy County's design standards match up to the City' design standards since such standards are included in a Mixed Use Development Agreement. She also asked whether this ordinance could potentially increase the quality of design standards by making the City a party to Mixed Use Development Agreements under the County' s jurisdiction. Mr. Stursma answered that it is the City's intent to have more influence over the design criteria of such developments by incentivizing the inclusion of the City as a party to such Mixed Use Development Agreements. He added that if a situation arises in which the City did not agree to the terms of a particular Mixed Use Development Agreement, that the City could then refuse to be a party to said agreement. He stated that it would then be up to the developer and the County to decide whether they would like to proceed without the City. He explained that this could mean that a new Mixed Use Development Agreement may be required if the development comes under the City's jurisdiction in fhe future. Mr. Masters asked whether there was an effort underway to avoid conflicts like this from arising. Mr. Stursma answered that he believes that the relationship between the City and the County is positive, and that this amendment is being proposed in coordination with Sarpy County. He added that the City and County are willing to work together. Mr. Masters asked for clarification regarding Section II( A)(1) of the Planning Commission Staff Report regarding an area where Mixed Use zoning was proposed under Sarpy County's jurisdiction, but the property was instead converted to an Agricultural (AG) District when it came under the City's jurisdiction after the 2015 Annexation and ETJ extension. City Planner Michelle Romeo explained that under Sarpy County's jurisdiction, the developer of the property in 4 Planning Commission September 28, 2016 question had proposed a Mixed Use development, but did not complete the Change of Zone process prior to being brought under the City's jurisdiction in July of 2015. She added that the property was classified as an Agricultural ( AG) District under the County's jurisdiction on the day the City took jurisdiction of the property, so the zoning was converted to an Agricultural ( AG) District under the City' s jurisdiction. She explained that this scenario inspired the City's quandary as to what it would have done had the developer completed the Change of Zone process under Sarpy County's jurisdiction and a Mixed Use Development Agreement had already been in place. 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. Masters, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1755 to amend Chapter 205, Article XXII of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with MU Mixed Use District ( TC- 16- 0002), because it is generally consistent with the Compcehensive Plan. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. CURRENT BUSINESS The Planning Commissian members participated in a brief training on utilizing iPads at Planning Commission meetings. OTHER BUSINESS With no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Mr. Melhus, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 7: 51 PM. CITY OF PAPILLION 4 Michael Mallory, Chair an 5 Planning Commission September 28, 2016