Planning Commission

rI,E RECORI PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7, 2016 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, December 7, 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, Raymond Keller Jr., Jim Masters, John E. Robinson III, Leanne Sotak, Judy Sunde, and Herb Thompson. Howard Carson and Rebecca Hoch were absent. Planning Director Mark Stursma, Staff Attorney Amber Rupiper, City Planner Miche!!e Romeo, and Staff Engineer Derek Goff were also present. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on November 23, 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 Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Barker, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Ptannin t Commission Minutes Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to approve the 10/26/ 16 minutes. Roll Call: Eight 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 the SE1/ 4 of Section 2, T13N, R11E of the 6' P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NW corner of HWY 50 and Capehart Road. The applicant is Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation. ( Sarpy County Power Park West) FP- 16-0007 Chairman Mallory asked for questions from the Commission. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Masters, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of the Sarpy County Power Park West Final Plat ( FP- 16- 0007) because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compliant with the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Regulations as applicable to lot configuration and setbacks. Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Final Plat— To consider a Final Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land located 6th in the SW1/ 4 of Section 1, T13N, R11 E of the P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located on 1 Planning Commission December 7, 2096 the NE corner of HWY 50 and Capehart Road. The applicant is Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation. ( Sarpy County Power Park East) FP- 16- 0008 Andrew Rainboit of Sarpy County Economic Development Corporation, 1301 Harney Street Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that the project consists of a single lot with an outlot. He stated that he and the rest of the team for this project were present to address any questions or concerns from the Planning Commission. Chairman Mallory recognized that a letter in opposition to the project was accepted and distributed to the Planning Commissioners. He prefaced that by saying that the comments contained in the letter should not necessarily be considered in the Planning Commission' s vote regarding the Final Plat. Ms. Rupiper added that this was due to the scope of the standard of review for Final Plats which is detailed in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Chairman Mallory asked for questions from the Commission. Mr. Masters asked whether there needed to be clarification in regards to ownership of the subject property. Ms. Romeo informed the Commission that Mr. Masters was referring to a different project on the agenda. Mr. Masters asked about the farmhouse directly adjacent to the property, and whether City Council would deliberate further on the concerns of the owner of said property. Mr. Stursma explained that the owner of the property submitted a letter on December 7, 2016 that was distributed to the Planning Commission for this meeting along with a short memo from staff. He added that the standard of review for a Final Plat deals with specific parameters regarding consistency with the Preliminary Plat, the Subdivision Regulations, and the Zoning Regulations as related to lot configuration and setbacks. Mr. Stursma explained that the content of the provided letter is based on the use of the land and the terms of the zoning, which will be considered in other actions that City Council will address at a later date. He added that he did not want to give the Planning Commission the impression that they should disregard or not consider the letter in their decision, but that the concerns contained in the letter were not at quesfion within the Final P(at. He expiained that the applicant and the City are continuing to negotiate the terms of the Mixed Use Agreement, which will include terms that deal with compatibility of the uses to the surrounding area. Mr. Stursma added that the applicant has agreed to exceed the standards that are in place in the Zoning Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Mallory added that members of the public would also have the opportunity to speak in favor or in opposition of the project at the City Council meeting. Mr. Stursma explained that the next action by City Council will include consideration for approval of the Final Plat, the third reading for the Change of Zone, and the pertinent agreements. He added that the earliest that this would be on a City Council agenda is December 20, 2016. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Sarpy County Power Park East Final Plat ( FP- 16- 0008), because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Sarpy County Future Land Use Map, and compliant with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations as applicable to lot configuration and setbacks. Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. 2 Planning Commission December 7, 2016  PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit —A Special Use Permit to allow Truck Terminal as a permitted use on the property legally described as Lot 2, Hilltop ( ndustria( Park Replat 6, generaliy Iocated at 13427 Lynam Drive. The applicant is LGT Transport, LLC. ( LGT Transport) SUP- 16- 0005 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Pam Spaccarotella of LGT Transport, 5814 S. 142"d Street, Suite A, stepped forward to represent the applicant. She explained that the request is for more than a truck terminal because the space is intended to be the corporate headquarters for LGT Transport, LLC. She added that LGT Transport was established in 2012, and the business has grown from five trucks and trailers to over eighty trucks and trailers. Ms. Spaccarotella described that the business hauls HazMat Class 2 compressed gases, which are non-flammable and thus do not pose a danger except in a confined space. She further explained that products that LGT Transport hauls, such as liquid oxygen, are oxidizers which have the potential to enhance a flame if brought close to it. Ms. Spaccarotella shared that the business intends to have maintenance facilities on site for the trailers. She stated that LGT Transport has a growing business in the Omaha area, particularly in the hauling of carbon dioxide. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Ben Reicks, 19730 Jacobs Street ( Omaha), stepped forward on behalf of Jensen Tire. He explained that Jensen Tire is looking to build its corporate headquarters directly across the street from LGT Transport's proposed site. He inquired about the number of truck anticipated to be coming to and leaving the property on a daily basis. He also asked whether the business would operate twenty-four hours a day. Finally, Mr. Reicks questioned whether there would be any above or below ground storage tanks maintained on the property. Chairman Mallory recognized that a letter in opposition of the project from John Lund with College Connection LLC, owner of 13575 Lynam Drive, was accepted and distributed to the Commissioners. Ms. Spaccarotella stepped forward to answer Mr. Reicks' s questions. Regarding amount of truck and trailer traffic anficipated at the facility, she answered that there wili likely be approximately ten to twenty trucks at the facility per week. She prefaced this by explaining that the site is intended to be a corporate headquarters and LGT Transport does not have a significant presence in Omaha, NE at this time that would necessitate heavy truck traffic. She added that she does not anticipate having any underground or above ground storage of compressed gasses at this site. Finally, she answered that the facility will operate twenty-four hours a day; however, it will not be manned twenty-four hours a day. She clarified that the office hours at the facility will be 8: 00 AM to 5: 00 PM; however, there is a twenty-four hour dispatch where the phones are transferred to the employee who is on call. Ms. Spaccarotella advised that drivers will be able to enter and exit the facility on a twenty-four hour basis. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Keller questioned whether the trucks coming in and out of the facility would be maintained in the back of the building, and how any noise might affect the neighboring businesses. Ms. 3 Planning Commission I December 7, 2016 I  Spaccarotella replied that the trucks will not all be coming in at the same time. In addition, she communicated that the design of the site is so that the corporate headquarters will be at the front of the lot, and any truck and trailers will be in the back. In regards to the previously announced letter in opposition, she remarked that the site is intended to be a corporate headquarters; however, there are truck uses like Cummins and Inland Truck Parts nearby that have significant truck and trailer traffic. Mr. Masters asked whether the footprint of the subject property was large enough to accommodate future growth of the company. Ms. Spaccarotella expressed that LGT Transport does intend to grow at this site. She explained that the company has had phenomenal growth since its inception, and she anticipates that this site will accommodate the company for the next five to ten years. Mr. Masters expressed that he considers the business to be a good fit for the area. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission Staff Report stated that the company will not include production or storage of large quantities of gas at the site. He voiced that the way this is worded suggests that there will be some gas stored on site. Ms. Spaccarotella asserted there will not be any onsite tank storage at the proposed location; however, periodically trucks and trailers will come into the facility with product on them. She explained that this provision was added to the staff report to provide full disclosure. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Masters, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit to allow Truck Terminal as a permitted use on the property legally described as Lot 2, Hilltop Industrial Park Replat 6 ( SUP- 16- 0005) contingent upon the applicant agreeing to the conditions as established in Section 3( C) 1- 6 of the Planning Commission staff report, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and compliant Zoning Regu( ations. Roli Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Preliminarv Plat — A Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as the W1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 32, T14N, R12E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NE corner of 114th Street and Schram Road. The applicant is Celebrity Homes. ( Southern Pointe) PP- 16- 0007 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. John Fullenkamp, 11440 W Center Road, Ste. C ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Fuilenkamp displayed multiple maps on the overhead to show the Planning Commission and the public where the project is located and the proposed access points into the development. He communicated that the subject property is a 74.5 acre tract of land with 202 proposed single- family lots, and 13. 82 acres of greenspace with some additional natural features such as a pond. The proposed greenspace was needed to accommodate an OPPD power line easement that runs through the subject property. Mr. Fullenkamp advised that Southern Pointe is a Celebrity Homes project with homes projected to be in the $ 255, 000- 295, 000 price range. He added that the applicant has met with staff several times and believes that all of the staff contingencies can be adequately resolved. Mr. Keller asked whether Mr. Fullenkamp had any elevations of the proposed homes available. I Mr. Fullenkamp answered that the homes will likely be a mix of the Advantage series and the 4 Planning Commission December 7, 2016 Designer series of Celebrity Homes. He added that all of the homes have at least finro- car garages, with many designs having three-car garages. Mr. Fullenkamp displayed some photos on the overhead of potential home designs. He stated that the Designer series is anticipated on the slightly larger lots on the east side of the development with the Advantage series on the west side of the development. Mr. Masters asked whether the homes would be similar to homes in the adjacent Southbrook development. Mr. Fullenkamp advised that the developments should be simiiar. He also pointed out that the wider boulevard of Fenwick Street would be continued through this development from Southbrook. The trail system that runs north of Southbrook would be continued through the proposed development. Mr. Masters asked whether the price range would be similar to what exists in Southbrook. Mr. Fullenkamp communicated that he was unsure what the homes are priced at in Southbrook. He added that the developer of Southbrook has expressed that he has no objection to the proposed project. Mr. Fullenkamp stated that he believes that the houses will essentially be the same; however, some of the prices may be higher in Southbrook. Ms. Sotak added that she has sold homes in Southbrook in the range of$ 275, 000 to $ 550, 000. Ms. Sotak asked how the elevations will differ from what Celebrity Homes is currently building, and what requirements might be put in place in regards to elevations. Mr. Fullenkamp answered that Celebrity has a streetscape plan that varies from project to project but that he could not speak to the exact plan for Southern Pointe. He advised that the applicant could work with staff to determine this. Ms. Sotak added that this increased price range seems unusual for Celebrity Homes and that she hopes that there are some upgraded elevations in order to be compatible with the adjacent Southbrook development. Mr. Fullenkamp asserted that this higher price range is not that unusual for Celebrity Homes. He explained that the upgraded price range has become more standard because it has become harder for Celebrity Homes to build starter homes in the lower price ranges due to the price of land and development. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Kirk Goodnight, 11066 Edward Street, stepped forward and explained that he is a resident of Southbrook, and that he has concerns regarding drainage of the outlots. He inquired whether this new development plans to improve the existing drainage. He added that currently he has water rushing into his backyard when it rains, and that his sump pump runs constantly. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion Mr. Masters asked whether the issue of ownership outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report had been resolved. Ms. Romeo answered that there are two John EIlingers that own the subject property. She disclosed that the Planning Department has requested verification as to which John signed the application forms, and that the remaining John provide an authorization letter indicating that both land owners are agreeable to the application as it covers both properties. Ms. Romeo explained that the issue has not been addressed; however, the Planning Department asked that the applicant address the issue with their resubmittal. Mr. Masters asked Mr. Stursma to address the concerns of Mr. Goodnight. Mr. Stursma advised that the City does have stormwater management requirements, and that the flows post- 5 Planning Commission December 7, 2016  development may not exceed the flows pre- development. He added that a stormwater detention facility is p(anned in the drainage way just to the west of the lot in question to detain the runoff prior to it continuing through the Southbrook development. Mr. Masters asked whether this meant that drainage would improve for the Southbrook residents. Mr. Goff answered that the i City would require that pre- development runoff rates are maintained. He added that the flows are tYp icall Y less for the ma'J orit Y of s m a II e r storm events due to the re q uirements therefo r e ' m that regard there may be an overall improvement. He remarked that there are existing wetlands behind the property in question that are likely adding to Mr. Goodnight' s problem. Mr. Fullenkamp added that the applicant would be willing to meet with Mr. Goodnight in an attempt to address his concerns. Regarding the previously discussed ownership issue, Mr. Fullenkamp added that both John C. Ellinger and John A. Ellinger are on the purchase agreement for the property. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Mr. Keller, to recommend approval the Southern Pointe Preliminary Plat ( PP- 16-0007) contingent upon resolution of staff comments, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with Zoning Regulations, and compatible with surrounding uses. Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Chanqe of Zone— A Change of Zone from Agriculture (AG) to Multiple- Family Residential ( R-4) for the property legally described as the W1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 32, T14N, R12E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generaliy located on the NE corner of 114th Street and Schram Road. The applicant is Celebrity Homes. ( Southern Pointe) CZ- 16- 0007 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. John Fullenkamp, 11440 W Center Road, Ste. C ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. He did not have anything additional to add. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Mr. John C. Ellinger, 11505 S 114 h Street, stepped forward to explain that he is one of the owners of the subject property, and that he and John A. Ellinger were both present; He added that there are four owners of the property, John C. Ellinger, John A. Ellinger, and their respective spouses. He added that all owners are aware of the project and have signed the purchase agreement. 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. Sunde, seconded by Mr. Thompson, to recommend approval the Southern Pointe Change of Zone ( CZ- 16- 0007) contingent upon the resolution of staff comments, because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations, and compatible with adjacent uses. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays, one abstention from Mr. Keller. Motion carried. 6 Planning Commission December 7, 2016 Preliminarv Plat — A Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land located in the S1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 2, T13N, R12E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, d generally located NW of 72" Street and Capehart Road. The applicant is Shadow Lake 2, LLC. Shadow Lake 2) PP- 16- 0008 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Nancy Pridal, 14710 W Dodge Road ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. She explained that the project is located on the northwest corner of 72" d Street and Capehart Road, abutting the Shadow Lake subdivision. She added that the project is composed of 77 acres of single-family residential lots. She added that the lots will be the same size as the lots within Shadow Lake and Shadow Lake 2 will have similar builders and similar covenants because the project is being developed by the same developer as Shadow Lake. Ms. Pridal announced that 35 neighbors attended neighborhood meeting held by the developer during the week of November 28, 2016. The neighbors inquired about landscaping along the southern fence line. She stated that the scrub trees along the fence line will need to come out in order to construct utilities to serve the development. Ms. Pridal added that a landscape plan has not been completed for the development; however, landscaping will be installed within the outlots a along a drainage way that runs through the development and within entrance features on 72" Street and Capehart Road. She advised that the entrance locations have been discussed with Sarpy County and the City of Papillion and the applicant trusts that the entrances are properly located given the provided criteria. Ms. Pridal expressed that she is confident that the applicant will be able to address all of the contingencies outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report. More specifically, Ms. Pridal addressed the Planning Commission Staff Report comment that recreational amenities will need to be provided given that a park dedication is not proposed. She explained that a major drainage way that captures the drainage of about 150 acres south of Capehart Road accounts for 10 acres of the 77 acre development, which does not leave space for parks or trails. Additionally, there is a requirement to cost share for newly constructed improvements to 72" d Street and Capehart Road. She explained that there is a need to maximize the space available because of these encumbrances. Ms. Pridal mentioned that the applicant has met with the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Corps has expressed that they are on board with the applicant's general concept to minimize the impacts to the drainage way. She added that there are two bridge like crossings in the development over the drainage way. Ms. Pridal stated that the applicant anticipates being able to grade the subject property in the Spring of 2017. She addressed the Planning Commission Staff Report comment regarding the impact of existing easement within Lots 6- 10 and 84-85 on the buildable lot area by confirming that that the applicant has discussed this easement with Sarpy County and is confident that the ditch can be relocated so that the lots along Capehart Road are buildable. Additionally, Ms. Pridal confirmed that the applicant has a letter from the current owner of the subject property that authorizes the signature of the application. She noted that the current owner will not be a part of the Final Plat or the Subdivision Agreement because the developer intends to close on the land prior to the Final Plat. Mr. Barker asked whether it would be visibly noticeable that a person is crossing over from the original Shadow Lake residential development to the Shadow Lake 2 development would be able to distinguish the difference between the finro subdivisions. Ms. Pridal answered that she believes that the street signs wouid likely be the same; however, she was unsure whether the street lights would be able to be the same as what is used in Shadow Lake. She explained that 7 Planning Commission December 7, 2016 the globe lights in Shadow Lake may not meet OPPD' s current street light requirements. She added that she would need to verify whether or not the same street lights would be permitted. Ms. Sunde wanted to confirm whether the development would connect with the current trail system in Shadow Lake. Ms. Pridal advised that the Shadow Lake trai! would not continue into Shadow Lake 2 because the Shadow Lake trail does not far enough south to provide a connection point. She added that a trail is not proposed in Shadow Lake 2 since a trail system connection is not provided in Shadow Lake. She added that the neighborhood will have very close access to the amenities in Shadow Lake via street and sidewalk connections. Mr. Barker confirmed that the Shadow Lake trail does not come far enough south to provide connectivity to Shadow Lake 2. Ms. Pridal added that she believes that there is a future contribution to a trail system along 72"d Street shown in the Source and Use of Funds for the project. Mr. Keller asked whether developers consult with the loca! school district during the development process to ensure that the school is aware that they may need to anticipate a growth in student populations. Mr. Stursma answered that the original application for each new project is routed to the school district to inform them of it and allow them to make comments regarding the project so the district is notified almost immediately of the potential for growth. He added that the school district also conducts master planning exercises and consults with the local jurisdictions to identify development patterns to plan for student population growth. Ms. Sotak asked what the plan was to replace the scrub trees and other plants that currently line the properties on the south end of Shadow Lake to add a buffer since there is not currently a landscaping plan. Ms. Pridal stated that there is no plan for a buffer because the newly built comes will abut the backyards of the existing homes; therefore, a buffer is not required. She added that there will be trees planted in the outlots, which abut many of the proposed homes. She explained that homeowners would likely not be in favor of maintaining the scrub trees and creating an awkward drainage system. She continued to explain that the new drainage system will tie in nicely, and that the covenants will require two trees per lot. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Denny Gilbert, 7729 Leawood Street, stepped forward to express his concerns about the project. Mr. Gilbert read from part of the Papillion Park Plan. He highlighted the intent of the City to create a linked park network and providing park and recreational facilities to serve future neighborhoods as being a principle of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that he believes that the Papillion La Vista School District were, in part, a catalyst of this project, as they spent a considerable amount of money to bring the subject area into the school district. Mr. Gilbert expressed that he is concerned that with additional students in the school district that school traffic will increase. He added that it would be nice to have a walking trail that extended through the entire length of Shadow Lake and then into Shadow Lake 2. He expiained that students could use this trail instead of the sidewalk t og et to and from scho o I , which ma y im p rove safet y. He added that there has been talk of a park on 72"d Street and Capehart Road, and that it is his belief that a trail through the Shadow Lake 2 outlot would be a good way to access that in the future. Finally, Mr. Gilbert added that it is important to him that the new development be identical to Shadow Lake and that there should not be any distinction befinreen the two subdivisions. Guy Reynolds, 7509 Legacy Street, stepped forward as a resident of Shadow Lake and a member of the Shadow Lake Sanitary and Improvement District( SID 264) board. He expressed concern about recovering some of the costs of Shadow Lake. Mr. Reyno(ds detailed that the 8 Planning Commission December 7, 2016 cost is about$ 65, 000 per lot to build the infrastructure af Shadow Lake so SID 264 has to tax at the maximum rate for the next 22 years to pay for these costs. He explained that SID 264 paid for approximately 500 feet of sanitary sewer designed to connect to development to the south. He declared that there is no mechanism for Shadow Lake to recoup costs, burden share, or work out differences with the separate SID. Mr. Reynolds asserted that all of the drainage on the subject property comes into Shadow Lake, which means that upstream development will be adding more water into a lake that SID 264 has to manage. He expressed that the Subdivision Agreement for SID 264 contemplates that the lake must be open to the public but SID 264 carries the entire burden for the maintenance. He explained that SID 264 has about $ 30 million worth of debt and the residents are frustrated by the high taxes. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the City consider an Interlocal Agreement between the City, Shadow Lake, and Shadow Lake 2 to help SID 264 reconcile some of its costs for the shared amenities. Mr. Reynolds identified an outlot system within Shadow Lake that may allow for a trail system that would be able to connect to a trail system in Shadow Lake 2. Chairman Mallory explained that many of the concerns that Mr. Reynold expresses were outside the scope of the Planning Commissions review but that there may be other venues where his concerns could be addressed. Tim Linderman, 7510 South Shore Street, stepped forward as a resident of Shadow Lake and a member of the SID 264 Board of Trustees. He stated that he shares Mr. Reynolds concerns about cost sharing. He expressed sympathy for Shadow Lake 2' s encumbrances for improvements to 72" Street and Capehart Road; however, SID 264 had similar costs with contributions toward both 72"d Street and 84th Street, a trail connection, and finro public parking lots to provide access to the lake. He asserted that many residents have expressed that they would like an additional trail connection to the south, and that the SID may be willing to assist in making that connection to the south. Mr. Linderman added that the residents would also like some type of park or playground system in the area. He affirmed that residents are welcome to use the elementary school playground outside of school hours. Mr. Linderman expressed concern about the runoff or drainage from Shadow Lake 2 into Shadow Lake. He asked Shadow Lake 2' s plan for drainage and preventing sediment buildup because the drainage way in Shadow Lake flows northeast into Shadow Lake. Mr. Linderman explained that residents have made complaints in the last couple of years regarding algae in the lake, and based on an analysis, much of the algae is believed to come from fertilizer upstream. He added that he hopes that Shadow Lake 2 has a plan to prevent any additional damage to the lake. Ms. Pridal explained that there will be six water quality basins in Shadow Lake 2, four along the major drainage way and two along 72" d Street, that meet the Papio- Missouri Natural Resource District ( NRD) requirements of first flush and no net increase. She added that Shadow Lake 2 will also be burdened by development to the south like Shadow Lake. She explained that there are 150 acres south of Capehart Road that drain to the drainage way in Shadow Lake 2, and that storm flow has to be accommodated in the design of the culverts and drainage ways for the project. She added that the culvert of Leawood Circle in Shadow Lake and the Shadow Lake dams were designed for a fully developed basin. Ms. Pridal explained that the existing wetland area on the subject property should help catch some of the sediment in the runoff. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and catled for Commission discussion. 9 Planning Commission December 7, 2016 Ms. Sunde asked whether Shadow ake 2 couid feasibly connect to the existing traii system in Shadow Lake. Mr. Stursma answered that the applicant and City staff have discussed trails and parks within this development. He acknowledged that it is common practice to use drainage ways as trail corridors; however, there is no Shadow Lake trail that connects to Shadow Lake 2. The trail along 72"d Street adjacent to Shadow Lake Towne Center will eventually be extended along this development to provide a trail connection to this project. He explained that the options that would allow for a trail system within Shadow Lake 2 did not seem feasible. Ms. Sunde asked Mr. Stursma to confirm that the 72"d Street trail would extend to Capehart Road. Mr. Stursma stated that extending the 72"d Street trail to Capehart Road was the solution that the City and the applicant reached to connect the development to the regional trail system. Ms. Sunde asked whether there would be any interest from the developer to put a trail in though the outlots, and whether Shadow Lake would be willing to make a connection. Mr. Stursma answered that he does not believe that building a trail through the drainage way in Shadow Lake 2 would serve any real purpose because it would not connect to a regional system. He added that the outlots are not ideally located to allow a crossing across Capehart Road for future connection to the south. Mr. Masters asked whether it was common practice for a development to place the sewer infrastructure for other deveiopment to connect to later. Mr. Stursma answered that in cases of oversizing utilities there is generally a mechanism in place to allow for reimbursement. He added that said mechanism should have been included in the Source and Use of Funds for Shadow Lake development. Mr. Masters asked whether a traffic study had been completed to make sure that the areas around the school are not overwhelmed. Mr. Barker expressed that he lives close to the school, and that he does not believe that traffic will increase because the school is at capacity. He added that the traffic really should not be an issue for residents with normal work hours because the school traffic only exists for about twenty-five minutes in the morning and twenty-five minutes in the afternoon. Mr. Stursma answered that the traffic has not been analyzed around the school in connection to this application. He added that if the school district decides that it needs to expand the school then the City would partner with the school district and the traffic would be analyzed at that time. Mr. Thompson asked whether there is a process in place for the current homeowners to try and reconcile their differences. Mr. Stursma answered that finro required public hearings allows those with an interest in the outcome to provide comment. He added that the applicant becoming aware of the concerns through the public hearing process is a first step in reconciling said concerns. Mr. Stursma expressed that he is confident that there will be communication between the applicant and the SID 264 board members. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Robinson III, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval the Shadow Lake 2 Preliminary Plat ( PP- 16- 0008) because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compliant with Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations, and compatible with surrounding uses. Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Chanae of Zone —A Change of Zone from Agriculture (AG) to Urban Family Residential ( R- 3) for the propert Y le 9 ally described as a tract of land located in the S1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 6th 2, T13N, R12E of the P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located NW of 72"d Street and Capehart Road. The applicant is Shadow Lake 2, LLC. ( Shadow Lake 2) CZ-16-0008 10 Planning Commission December 7, 2016  Chairman Maliory opened the public hearing. I Chairm a n Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Mr. Barker explained that he has been a resident of Shadow Lake for over eight years, and it was his understanding that the subject property was originally supposed to be a part of Shadow Lake, but the landowner did not wish to sell at that time. For this reason, he believes that the SID should have reasonably anticipated this development. Mr. Barker added that the southwest portion of Shadow Lake does not connect to trail so most people that live within the development d have to thaccess the trail through sidewalks. He added that the trail system a(ong the 72" St reet and 84 Street is the onl Y feasible o P tion due to the 9 eo 9 ra P h Y of the area. Mr. Stursma added that the frail system along 72"d Street will tie into a trail system along the West Papio Creek. He explained that the City does not tend to require parks with a playground in areas where there is access to an elementary school because the school has no issue with the public accessing the playground outside of school hours. He added that the City has been discouraging smaller parks within neighborhoods because they become a challenge to maintain. Mr. Barker added that the children in his neighborhood do go to the school in lieu of a park. 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. Sunde, to recommend approval the Shadow Lake 2 Change of Zone ( CZ- 16- 0008) contingent upon the resolution of staff comments, because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Regulations, and compatible with surrounding areas and uses. Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Amendment —A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to reflect the future land use designations adopted by Sarpy County in 2015 for the HWY 50 and HWY 370 Sub-Area. The Sub-Area has a northern boundary of HWY 370, an eastern boundary of 132"d Street, a southern boundary of Capehart Road, and a western boundary of I- 80. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Sarpy County FLU Map Amendment) CPA-16- 0004 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 action is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a sub- area plan that was adopted by Sarpy County in 2015. He added this area came into the City of Papillion' s zoning jurisdiction when the extraterritorial jurisdiction was expanded with the City's 2015 Prairie Queen annexation. Mr. Stursma stated that the City has been relying on Sarpy County' s map as the sub- area develops, and given the number of current and potential developments in said area, the City believes that it is appropriate to formally adopt the sub-area plan until the City formally amend its entire future land use plan. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. 11 Planning Commission December 7, 2016  Mr. Keller asked whether this action wouid essentially rezone the sub- area. Mr. Stursma answered that the Comprehensive Pian includes a Future Land Use Map that shows the general uses that are anticipated to develop. He added that the sub- area became part of the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction due to the City's annexation in 2015. Mr. Stursma explained that the City believes it is appropriate to adopt the Sarpy County Future Land Use Map for the sub- area in order to be consistent with the former planning efforts of Sarpy County in this area. He added that at some point in the future the City will adopt an updated Future Land Use Map. Ms. Sunde asked whether this adoption was in connection with the Sarpy County Power Park East and Sarpy County Power Park West projects. Mr. Stursma answered that those projects do fall within the area, and that those projects are consistent with the plan. Ms. Romeo added that LightEdge Commercial Park is another application that the Planning Commission has seen that falls within the sub-area. Mr. Stursma added that the City also has other pending applications within the sub-area. Ms. Rupiper explained that the adoption of the Future Land Use Map in Sarpy County would have gone through a public process prior to Sarpy County's adoption of said map. Ms. Sunde asked whether the adoption was a formality. Mr. Stursma explained that the City worked very closely with Sarpy County on the transition after the 2015 annexation in order to ensure that ongoing development in the sub- area would not be harmed. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Barker, to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map to reflect the future land use designations adopted by Sarpy County in 2015 for the HWY 50 and HWY 370 Sub- Area ( CPA- 16- 0004). Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Amendment— A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt stormwater policies for the Southern Sarpy Watershed. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Southern Sarpy Watershed Amendment) CPA-16-0003 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 in 2006 the City of Papillion adopted stormwater management policies as a part of a metro wide partnership regarding the Papio Creek Watershed. He added that this amendment expands the aforementioned polices to apply to the Platte River Watershed. He explained that these policies apply to prope ties south of the ridgeline in Sarpy County, part of which falls within Papillion' s jurisdiction. Mr. Stursma explained that the proposed policies are similar to those adopted with the Papio Creek Watershed. He added that there is a fee that will be collected to help fund a study to map all of the creeks within the watershed and develop a more detailed plan. Mr. Masters asked whether this was a step in pioneering sewer south of the ridgeline. Mr. Stursma stated that this is unrelated because it deals with stormwater facilities, and puts in place the rules where those facilities are required. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and Seeing no further public input, opponents. I Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. 12 Planning Commission December 7, 2016 With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Sunde to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt stormwater policies for the Southern Sarpy Watershed ( CPA- 16- 0003). Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1760 — An ordinance to amend § 205- 155( B)( 2)( k) of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with filling of the floodway fringe as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt stormwater policies for the Southern Sarpy Watershed. The applicant is the City of Papillion. TC- 16- 0003 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E. 3 d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained this amendment is related to CPA- 16- 0003, in that a section of the policy needs to be incorporated into the Zoning Regulations. He added that the amendment will expand the 25% restriction of fill within the floodplain to areas within the Platte River Watershed. The 25% restriction is a standard policy that all jurisdictions within Papio Watershed have enforced since 2006. Mr. Stursma explained that there is a mechanism that allows people to raise properties within the floodplain up above the floodplain; however, too much floodwater sent downstream causing harm to other properties if too much of the floodplain is filled. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Barker asked who takes the responsibility of monitoring the fill. Mr. Stursma answered that the individual jurisdiction is responsible. He added that before a person can disturb more than one acre of land, they must apply for a grading permit, and a Floodplain Development Permit is required before disturbing any land within the floodplain. He explained that the twenty-five percent fill is regulated within the Floodplain Development Permit. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Mr. Robinson III, to recommend approval of Ordinance # 1760 § 205- 155( B)( 2)( k) of the Papillion Municipal Code TC- 16- 0003). Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Masters asked about making a change to the Planning Commission staff report to assist while making motions. Planning staff agreed to make the proposed adjustment. 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 9: 14 PM. CITY OF PAPILLION S c 1' Michael Mallory, Chair an 13 Planning Commission December 7, 2016