Planning Commission

PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2077 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7: 00 PM. Chairman Michael Mallory called the meeting to order. Planning Assistant Andrea Blevins called the roll. Planning Commission I members P resent were Howard Carson Rebecca Hoch Ra Y mond Keller Jr. John E. Robinson III, Leanne Sotak, and Herb Thompson. Dave Barker, Jim Masters and Judy Sunde were absent. Planning Director Mark Stursma, Assistant City Attorney Amber Rupiper, City Planner Michelle Romeo, Assistant Planning Director Travis Gibbons, and Staff Engineer Derek Goff were also present. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on February 8, 2017. 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 Aqenda Motion was made by Mr. Robinson III, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Planninq Commission Minutes Motion was made by Mr. Robinson III, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the 01/ 25/ 17 minutes. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. FINAL PLATS Final Plat— A Final Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land being all of Tax Lots 4 and 5 and part of Tax Lot 3, said tax lots located in part of the NE1/ 4 of the NW1/ 4, part of the SW1/ 4 of the NW1/ 4, part of the NW1/ 4 of the NW1/ 4 all located in Section 28; T14N, R12E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located at Wittmus Drive north of Lincoln Road. The I applicant is Woodland Homes, Inc. ( Granite Lake) FP- 17- 0001 Chairman Mallory asked for questions from the Commission. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Keller, to recommend approval of the Granite Lake Final Plat ( FP- 17- 0001) because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with adjacent uses, and compliant with the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations, contingent upon the resolution of staff comments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. 1 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 PUBLIC HEARING Preliminarv Plat — A Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as Tax Lot B in the 6th W1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 35, T14N, R12E of the P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located west of Towne Center Parkway along Olson Drive. The applicant is Advantage Investment Properties, LLC. ( Advantage Investments) PP- 17- 0001 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Pat Sullivan, 1246 Golden Gate Drive # 1, stepped forward to represent the applicant. Mr. Sullivan explained that the area being platted is former railroad right-of-way about 100 feet wide south of HWY 370. He added that there is a potential purchaser but the land is difficult to sell because it is unplatted. Mr. Sullivan explained that the site plan provided anticipates a car wash at this location; however, that is not the proposed use. He added that the zoning is consistent with adjacent properties. Mr. Carson inquired about the proposed use. Mr. Sullivan declared that the potential buyer has no disclosed the use; however, the potential buyer is aware of the allowed uses within the proposed General Commercial (GC) zoning district and the Highway Overlay District. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Keller asked why the applicant is choosing to zone this property as General Commercial GC) instead of Mixed Use ( MU). Mr. Stursma answered that Mixed Use Zoning requires a Mixed Use Agreement, which is too specific for marketing the property for sale. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Carson, to recommend approval of the Advantage Investments Preliminary Plat ( PP- 17- 0001) based on general consistency with adjacent land uses and compliant with Subdivision Regulations, contingent upon the resolution of staff comments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Chanqe of Zone — A Change of Zone from Agricultural ( AG) to General Commercial ( GC) for the property legally described as Tax Lot B in the W1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 35, T14N, R12E of the 6' P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located west of Towne Center Parkway along Olson Drive. The applicant is Advantage Investment Properties, LLC. ( Advantage Investments) CZ- 17- 0001 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Chairman Mallory noted that Pat Sullivan was available to answer any questions. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. 2 Planning Commission February 22, 2017  With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Carson, to recommend approval of the Advantage Investments Change of Zone ( CZ- 17- 0001) from Agricultural ( AG) to General Commercial ( GC) based on general consistency with adjacent land uses and compliance with Subdivision Regulations, contingent upon the resolution of staff comments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Preliminarv Plat — A Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land I located in the S1/ 2 of the NE1/ 4 of Section 35, T14N, R11 E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NW corner of HWY 50 and Gold Coast Drive. The applicant is Development Services Corp. ( Crossroads Commerce Park) PP- 17- 0002 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearir g. Larry Jobeun, 11440 W Center Road # C, s epped forward to represent the applicant. He noted that the developers Steve Garr and Tom upprecht of R & R Realty Group and the project engineer Eric Galley were also present. He n ted that the properties to the north and west of the property are zoned Limited Industrial ( LI), th property to the south is zoned Agricultural ( AG), and the Metropolitan Community Coliege site to the east is zoned Multiple-family residential ( R- 4). Mr. Jobeun displayed a site plan of t e proposed project, and explained that the four individual lots will be developed in phases He added that the project is consistent with the future land use map with the exception tha 145th Street and 147" Street will not extend south through the development and will instead terminate with a cul- de-sac. He specified that a separate Comprehensive Plan Amendment s proposed to address this discrepancy. Mr. Jobeun explained that the Traffic Impact Study confirmed that the proposed street connections should be adequate to serve the proposed project and the properties to the north. Mr. Jobeun added that there will be a dedication of right-of-way in order to build Gold Coast Road along the south end of the project. Gold Coast Roadh will be built in phases along with the development of the lots. In addition, he noted that 146 Street and 150th Street will also be built as the separate phases are developed. Mr. Jobeun added that the total valuation of the development is approximately $ 55 million, with being valued at approximately $ 12. 5 the first two buildings million each and the last two buildings being valued at approximately$ 16. 5 million each. Mr. Carson asked whether the applicant was confident that they could favorably resolve the contingencies in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Mr. Jobeun answered affirmatively. 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. Carson, seconded by Mr. Thompson, to recommend approval of the Crossroads Commerce Park Preliminary Plat ( PP- 17- 0002) based on general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as proposed to be amended, compatibility with adjacent uses, compliance with Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations, contingent upon the resolution of staff comments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. I Chanqe of Zone — A Change of Zone from Agricultural ( AG) to Limited lndustria! ( LI) for the property legally described as a tract of land located in the S1/ 2 of the NE1/ 4 of Section 35, 6th T14N, R11 E of the P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NW corner of HWY 50 and Gold Coast Drive. The applicant is Development Services Corp. ( Crossroads Commerce Park) CZ- 17- 0002 3 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 Chai man Mallory opened the public hearing. Chairman Mallory noted that Larry Jobeun was available to answer any questions. Chairman Ma11ory 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. Carson, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to recommend approval of the Crossroads Commerce Park Change of Zone ( CZ- 17- 0002) from Agricultural ( AG) to Limited Industrial ( LI) based on general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as proposed to be amended, compatibility with adjacent uses, compliance with Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations, contingent upon the resolution of staff comments. Roll Ca(L Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — A Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property legally described as a tract of land located in the S1/ 2 of the NE1/ 4 of Section 35, T14N, R11E 6th of the P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located on the NW corner of HWY 50 and Gold Coast Road. The applicant is Development Services Corp. ( Crossroads Commerce Park) CPA- 17- 0003 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Chairman Mallory noted that Larry Jobeun was available to answer any questions. 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. Carson, to recommend approval of the Crossroads Commerce Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA- 17-0003) based on general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as proposed to be amended, compatibility with adjacent uses, compliance with Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations, contingent upon the resolution of staff comments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Comarehensive Plan Amendment— A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Future Land Use Map for the Walnut Creek Lake Sub-Area. The Sub-Area has a northern boundary of HWY 370, an eastern boundary of 96th Street, a southern boundary of Schram Road, and a 108th western boundary of Street. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Walnut Creek Lake Sub-Area FLU Map Amendment) CPA-17- 0002 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E 3` Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that a portion of the sub-area along Highway 370 was previously designated as Mixed Use and that two portions along Schram Road and a portion at 96th Street and Schram Road were designated residential. He added that these designations were inadvertently changed to a park land designation when the WP- RB5 Sub-Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved. He explained that the request is to revert back to the previous designations. 4 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 Mr. Garson asked whether this affects the high schooi. Mr. Stursma explained that this designation would also amend the future land use designation to be the previous designation. Chairman Mallo rY called for p ro P onents and o pp onents. Pat Sullivan, 1246 Golden Gate Drive # 1, stepped forward to represent the Cohen family, owners of a piece of land along HWY 370 affected by this proposal. He advised that potential developers do not give his clients' property a second look because the property is currently designated as park land. He added that this amendment will put his clients' land back on the radar for development. Seeing no furthec public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Carson asked whether the Mixed Use pieces along HWY 370 would have access to HWY 370. He also inquired about the proposed uses. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that there is full access at 102"d Street and HWY 370 that would be used to access the property. He further explained that there have been inquiries about multi- family residential and commercial uses. He explained that the amendment will allow his client to market the property. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Robinson III, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to recommend approval of the Walnut Creek Lake Sub-Area FLU Map Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment ( CPA- 17- 0002) based on compliance with Nebraska State Statute, general consistency with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and consistency with the existing development pattern. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1764 —An ordinance to amend § 205- 249( C)( 4) of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with the parking regulations for recreational vehicles. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Recreational Vehicles Ordinance Amendment) TC- 17- 0001 Chairman Mailory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E 3`d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that the City of Papillion received a large number of complaints about recreational vehicles being parked in residential driveways. He affirmed that the City has regulations that limit the length of trailers including box trailers, camper trailers, and flatbed trailers to 20 feet in length. He stated that the large number of complaints prompted the City to look into whether the regulations that control parking of recreational vehicles and trailers needed to be amended. Mr. Stursma stated that enforcement of parking violations in relation to the parking recreational vehicles and trailers in residential districts has been delayed until the City determines whether to amend the its regulations. Mr. Stursma explained that the City Council' s Public Safety Committee discussed the matter, and determined that the limitation of 20 feet in length for trailers should also be applied to motorized recreational vehicles. Further, he added that the Public Safety Committee recommended that trailers and recreational vehicles parked in the front, street side, and interior side yards be limited to 20 feet in length. Mr. Stursma recited the language change within the proposed ordinance amendment. He clari ed that recreational vehicles that exceed 20 feet in length would still be permitted to park in the rear yard. Mr. Stursma drew a diagram to depict the designation between front yard, interior side yard, street side yard, and rear yard as requested by Chairman Mallory. 5 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 Ms. Hoch asked how wide the average interior side yard is in Papillion. Mr. Stursma answered that the typical interior side yard setback is 10 feet; however, some of the older neighborhoods were constructed under different regulations. He added that the street side yard setback is 15 feet, and front yard setbacks range from 25 to 35 feet. Mr. Thompson asked what safety concerns need to be addressed with this amendment. Mr. Stursma answered that the Public Safety Committee expressed that they wanted to address the discrepancy between trailers and drivable vehicles, as both could diminish a neighbor's visibility and ability to enjoy their property. Ms. Hoch asked whether this amendment applies to boat trailers as well, as she believes the brochure provided by the Building Department is ambiguous. Mr. Stursma clarified that boat trailers are included within the 20 foot restriction. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Frank Paltinavich, address not provided, asked how the ordinance affects Class C motor homes. He also asked whether grandfather rights would be instituted. Steve Strom, 13604 Slayton Street, asked why the length limit is 20 feet, when most all recreational vehicles are longer. Charles Clark, 13504 Glenn Street, asked what the safety concern is in regards to longer campers. Daniel Hill, 707 Tara Road, asked about the nature of the complaints received that lead to the proposed amendment. Bruce DeJong, 308 Fall Creek Road, asked why recreational vehicles of a certain size were being classified as commercial vehicles. John Vaida, 1524 Applewood Drive, asked for clarification on whether recreational vehicles over 2 0 feet long could be parked in the rear yard. foe Marcuzzo, 1003 Berkley Avenue, asked how the length of trailers and recreational vehicles is measured. Alan Brummel, 818 Juniper Drive, stepped forward to represent the citizen' s recreational vehicle group. Mr. Brumme! expressed concerns about the newly proposed allowable length being too restrictive. He remarked that the recreational vehicle group believes that the City is attempting to ban recreational vehicles from residential He communicated that many neighborhoods. recreational vehicle owners have invested a considerable amount of money to be able to park and store their recreational vehicles on their property and will continue to pay property taxes on the improvements although they may no longer be permitted to be used for their intended use. Mr. Brummel also expressed that the recreational vehicle group does not believe that the City has meaningfully considered or addressed the citizens' concerns while drafting this amendment despite their efforts to communicate with the City. He summarized that he believes that this amendment and the existing regulations regarding trailers and recreational vehicles are unreasonable and the length restrictions appear to be arbitrarily determined. 6 Planning Commission February 22, 2017  John Werthmann, 1002 S Madison Street, described the different types of trai(ers. He expressed concern about his investment and the taxes he has paid and will continue to pay on the improvements he made to keep his trailer on his property. Dave Ostrom, 510 Quail Ridge Road, expressed concern that the 20 foot length restriction is too short for a motorized recreational vehicle such as a Class C motor home. He provided a copy of I a letter, dated 4/27/ 12, that he received from former City Planner Brian Craig that provided information on the parking regulations for recreational vehicles. Roger Cherry, 834 S Harrison Street, expressed concern about the amount he has invested in adding a pad on his property and the cost of storing a recreational vehicle. He recommended that the length of trailers and recreational vehicles be increased to 30 feet or that older nei g hborhoods be g randfathered to allow longer trailers and recreational vehicles. Krystle Jorczak, 1114 Conestoga Road, asked for the number of complaints that were received. Dan Elder, 1211 Buckboard Boulevard, expressed concern that he received a violation notice from the Papillion Police Department for his trailer being abandoned even though it was recently purchased. It was later determined that the notice was issued in error. Mr. Elder expressed concern that he is being targeted. He cited an email from Councilmember Mumgaard, which he alleged included a reference to " artificial complaints." He asserted that recreational vehicles, trailers, and boats suggest a robust community. Mark Emodi, 2114 Christine Street, asked why there is an issue with parking recreational vehicles on concrete within the side yard. Bruce DeJong, 308 Fall Creek Road, stepped forward again and expressed concern about the 48 hour limit on parking a recreational vehicle in the front yard. He surmised that this is not enough time to load, unload, and maintain the recreational vehicle. He also asked what the safety concern is with parking a recreational vehicle in the front yard. Guy Robarge, 1001 Crest Road, indicated that he only purchased a home in Papillion because he was under the impression that he could park his recreational vehicle on his property. He expressed that he believes that there is a lack of communication within the City, which has led to the more restrictive proposal. Finally, he expressed that he has invested a lot of money in the recreational vehicle, adding a pad on his property, and the cost of storing a recreational vehicle. St Kelly Buettner, 12711 S 71 Street, expressed concern about how the ordinance change will affect her as she lives in a camper on a property that is zoned Residential Rural Estates ( RE). Larry Jobes, 1313 Scott Road, asserted that his Class C motor home has been parked in his driveway since 2001, and that this amendment will cause significant financial burden to him. Colin Ruppert, 848 S Madison, stated that he has been parking his camper in his driveway for over 17 years and it does not impede vision down the street from where it is parked. He noted that it is false to assume that parking a camper in his driveway depreciates property vafues or hinders a neighbor's enjoyment of their property. He also asked about grandfather rights. 7 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 Robert Griffin, 910 Renee Avenue, asked why his recreational vehicle would be classified as a commercial vehicle under He afso expressed that he has been parking a the ordinance. recreational vehicle at his home for many years. John Hanf, 906 Shenandoah Drive, expressed that storing his recreational vehicle off-site does not allow him to perform the maintenance needed to keep the vehicle in good working condition. Anne Keffe r, 807 Monarch Circle, remarked that recreational vehicles stored off-site are oft en broken into, and that it is beneficial for recreational vehicle owners to park and store their vehicles on their own property. Ma rY Allman, 504 Gruenther Street described that she has si 9 nificantl Y invested in ownin 9 and operating her recreational vehicle, and that money goes back into the community through the recreational activities of recreational vehicle owners. Lieland Rowell, 849 S Harrison Street, summarized that this amendment has potential to hurt the ability of the citizens of Papillion to enjoy the outdoors and the City's recreational amenities. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Stursma addressed the questions that were asked during the public hearing. He expressed that the intention of the ordinance was to address the discrepancy in the current ordinance between a motorized recreational vehicle and a trailer. He asserted that the ordinance as proposed does not address any grandfather rights, and that grandfather rights are typically only applied to uses and buildings. Mr. Stursma also commented that the area behind the rear house line will still be considered the rear yard for the purpose of parking a recreational vehicle on a double frontage lot. He expressed that he was unsure of the origin of the 20 foot length limit; however, he could attest that this limit has been in the City Code since at least 1995. In regards to the safety concern, Mr. Stursma advised that the review of recreational vehicle regulations was assigned to the Public Safety Committee because the complaints that were received concerned visibility and sightlines being impacted by recreational vehicles. He confirmed that approximately 40 complaints were received in the summer of 2016. Most of the complaints came from one person who looked for other violations and made o cial complaints to the City because he was frustrated that he received a violation notice. The City has an obligation to investigate every complaint. Mr. Stursma explained that the City Code would need to be consulted to determine whether Ms. Buettner would be able to live in her recreational vehic{e within the Lienemann' s Subdivision but that the regulation for heavy commercial vehicles does not apply to the RE District. Ms. Rupiper expressed that the difference between how the state classifies recreational vehicles and how the city is classifying recreational vehicles concerns what is being regulated. She explained that the state is regulating street operation and registration, while the City is regulating parking on public streets and private property. Ms. Hoch asked whether the City knows how many recreational vehicles are registered within City limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction. She also asked about comparable zoning regulations in other jurisdictions. Mr. Stursma answered that he was unsure of the number of recreational vehicles owned within City limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction. He added that knowing this information would not indicate where those vehicles are parked or stored. Mr. 8 Planning Commission February 22, 2017  Gibbons gave a brief overview of the City of Omaha' s regulations regarding the parking of recreational vehicles.Ms. Romeo gave a brief overview of the zoning regulations of other surrounding jurisdictions. Ms. Hoch communicated that she does not understand where the 20 foot limit comes from, as it appears to be a non- standard trailer or recreational vehicle length. She expressed that she would want to store her RV on her property if she were a recreational vehicle owner. She expressed that the length restriction is undue regulation because it is her belief that parking a recreational vehicle in ones driveway does not pose any type of threat to the value of adjacent homes. She asserted that she does not support the amendment. She recommended that the entire ordinance be reviewed and perhaps be amended to be more permissive. Ms. Sotak advised that she too is a recreational vehicle owner, but that the Commission is tasked with making a decision that is in the best interest of the community as a whole. She expressed that additional information needed to be provided to make a decision. Motion was made by Ms. Sotak to table the discussion of Ordinance No. 1764 until more information is gathered; no second. Motion failed due to lack of second. Mr. Thompson expressed that one size fits all regulations rarely work. He expressed that the ordinance warrants further research in order for a fair and equitable solution to be reached. Mr. Carson asked for clarification on the types of recreational vehicles impacted by the proposed amendment. Mr. Stursma reiterated the language change in the proposed ordinance. He explained that it places a maximum length of 20 feet on any recreational vehicle including boats and boat trailers that are parked in the front, interior side, or street side yard. Mr. Keller declared that he is not in favor of the ordinance amendment. Ms. Hoch expressed that she understands that a number of recreational vehicles are already affected by the current ordinance; however, she is not in favor of the current ordinance or the amendment. Mr. Keller concurred. Ms. Hoch noted that all motions are required to be in the a rmative. With no further discussion, Motion wasby Ms. Hoch, seconded by Mr. Keller, to made recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1764 regarding Recreational Vehicles ( TC- 17- 0001). Roll Call: no yeas, seven nays by Carson, Hoch, Keller, Mallory, Robinson III, Sotak, and Thompson. Motion fails. Therefore the recommendation is denial. Chairman Mallory called a brief recess at 9:45 PM. At 9: 52 PM, Chairman Mallory called for the meeting to reconvene. Ordinance No. 1765— An ordinance to amend § 205- 205 of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with Maximum Permitted Sound Levels Adjacent to Residential Districts, § 205- 215( B)( 2) of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with Exceptions to Openness of Required Yards related to decks), § 205- 219 of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with Principal Buildings, § 205- 220 of the Papillion Municipal Code having to do with Accessory Buildings and Structures, and Article XXXV of the Papillion Zoning Regulations having to do with Landscaping 9 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 I and Screening Regulations. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Zoning Regulatory Adjustments Ordinance Amendment) TC- 17- 0002 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 proposed amendments are meant to relax and clarify the zoning code. He added that there is an amendment regarding the Maximum Permitted Sound Levels Adjacent to Residential Districts that is directly related to Ordinance No. 1749, which is being proposed to City Council. Ordinance No. 1749 relates to the times of day when certain decibels of sound will be permitted and restricts the maximum sound level to 70 decibels. He advised that the current Zoning Ordinance limits sound levels to a maximum of 65 decibels, therefore, the Zoning Ordinance would conflict with Ordinance No. 1749 if it is adopted by City Council. He clarified that this amendment is meant to make the Zoning Ordinance consistent with the Ordinance No. 1749, if adopted. Mr. Stursma added that the noise portion of this amendment will not move forward if Ordinance No. 1749 is not adopted. Mr. Stursma added that the ordinance amendment will allow decks to extend up to ten feet into a front, side, street side, or rear yard setback. He explained that the City frequently receives requests for such decks as well as requests to rebuild non- conforming decks in older neighborhoods. Mr. Stursma asserted that the City wishes to relax the code to be more consistent with the requests of residents and builders due to the volume of these requests. Mr. Stursma noted that the City also receives multiple inquiries about accessory buildings. He explained that the current ordinance requires a five foot side yard setback and an eight foot rear yard setback for accessory buildings behind a rear building line, which is consistent with standard utility easement dedication. He expressed that, based on research of the practices of surrounding jurisdictions the City is proposing an exception of the setback requirements for accessory structures 200 square feet or less in size. Mr. Stursma described that this amendment aiso proposed changes to the Landscaping and Screening Requirements that seeks to clarify Article XXXV of the zoning regulations. Mr. Carson asked staff to clarify whether the decibel levels would increase with this amendment. Mr. Stursma answered that the amendment would increase the decibel level from 65 decibels to 70 decibels. He prefaced that by stating that the separate Ordinance No. 1749, if adopted, will specify time restrictions on that noise and create additional permitting requirements for events that generate noise. He asserted that the ordinance will be more restrictive on noise because of the aforementioned factors. He also added that 70 decibels is more consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. Mr. Carson asked whether there are a lot of complaints about sound issues. Mr. Stursma answered that the complaints mainly pertain to entertainment activities. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Mr. Keller expressed concern about the decibel level increasing due to the sound levels that entertainment venues already impose on some residential districts. Ms. Rupiper clarified that the sounds that are addressed within this ordinance only applies to the Zoning Ordinance and is 10 Planning Commission February 22, 2017  intended to mirror what is going being proposed to City Council in Ordinance No. 1749. She asserted that the separate ordinance wifl only apply to city limits; however, Ordinance No. 1765 for decibel limits within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction as well. Mr. Thompson asked who the five decibel increase would benefit. Ms. Romeo explained the difference between 60 and 70 decibels as defined by the Occupationa! Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA). She clarified that the ordinance is not intended to simply benefit venues such as SumTur Amphitheater and Werner Park, but is to be applied more broadly. She noted that entertainment venues and the citizens they serve will benefit from the decibel increase. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Thompson, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1765 ( TC- 17- 0002) regarding Zoning Regulatory Adjustments. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1766 — An ordinance to amend Chapter 205 to repeal § 205-211 having to do with Wireless Towers and adopt regulations for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance) TC- 17- 0003 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. d City Planner Michelle Romeo, 122 E 3 Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. She detailed that the City contracted with a consultant in July of 2016, and as such staff found it appropriate to update the ordinance as it deals with wireless telecommunications facilities. She added that there have been changes in federal level regulations and proposals to change state level regulations. She stated that the current ordinance needs to be repealed in its entirety and replaced with a more comprehensive ordinance that brings the City into compliance with federal regulations. Ms. Romeo explained that the new ordinance proposes a two- step process that includes an administrative process for an eligible facilities request, and a special use permit process for more significant changes to existing towers or the construction of new towers. Mr. Carson asked whether this ordinance would protect Papillion from unattractive cell phone towers. Ms. Romeo answered that there are requirements in the ordinance that pertain to visual impact, location, and collocation. Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Michelle Roth, 508 N Polk Circle, owner of Great Plains Land Services stepped forward as a contract project manager for U. S. Cellular. Ms. Roth stated that U. S. Cellular would like the motion to be tabled until they can adequately review the ordinance and prepare a response. She asked whether the other cell service carriers could be notified of the ordinance and be given the opportunity to provide input. She explained that U. S. Cellular has gone through the application process to replace tower an antenna was not transmitting properly on a tower at I 10707 S 149th St, and she had to request relief from the process because the process was taking a long time. She expressed that U. S. Cellular has requested that the ordinance allow for waiver of the process in situations where immediate or emergency repair is needed. Ms. Roth further explained that U. S. Cellular is in opposition to § 205- 284, § 205- 286, and § 205- 287 of the proposed ordinance, and would also request that § 205- 285 limit the bond amount to I 20, 000.00. 11 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 Seeing no further public input, Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and called for Commission discussion. Ms. Rupiper expressed that a six month moratorium on building new wireless communications facilities is in effect now, and expires on May 1, 2017. She added that this is the last Planning Commission meeting that will allow the ordinance to be adopted and in effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium. She explained that tabling the ordinance would hinder the City's ability to have an ordinance in place before the moratorium expires. Ms. Rupiper explained that the City contracted with the consultant originally because a prospective tower builder attempted to assert that it had rights to build wireless telecommunications facilities within the public right-of-way. She stated that the City hired a consultant to obtain a better understanding of its rights in respect to these claims. Chairman Mallory asked whether the City Council could extend the moratorium. Ms. Rupiper and Ms. Romeo stated that the consultant advised that the moratorium should only be six months. Ms. Romeo stated that having a moratorium that is longer than six months has the potential to open the City to liability issues. Ms. Hoch asked whether the ordinance could be amended either prior to adoption by City Council or after adoption if deemed necessary. Ms. Romeo answered in the affirmative. Ms. Romeo added that in the process of working with the consultant, the City has experienced some growing pains, and as a result has modified the ordinance that was provided by the consultant. She explained that the use of a consultant is optional; however, the option provides a mechanism for the City to collect an escrow and be repaid for any fees that the City would incur should it decide to use the consultant. She explained that the fees referenced within the ordinance would be defined in the Master Fee Schedule, as this allows the fees to be easily amended when necessary. Chairman Mallory expressed support for tabling the ordinance. Ms. Rupiper explained that federal regulations control City Council' s ability to extend the moratorium; therefore, tabling could create liability issues. She added that there is still time to tweak the ordinance, however, and that it can also be amended at a later date. Mr. Carson expressed support for moving forward with a recommendation. Mr. Thompson asked when the fine-tuning of the ordinance would occur. Ms. Rupiper answered that it could occur befinreen now and the public hearing at City Council, or in an amendment after the fact. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Thompson, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1766 ( TC- 17- 0003) regarding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities because it more effectively protects the health, safety, and welfare of the community and complies with FCC regulations for wireless telecommunication facilities. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1767 — An ordinance to annex certain Real Estate to the City of Papillion, Nebraska. The applicant is the City of Papillion. The annexation area is legally described as the 12 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 N1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 25, T14N, R11 E of the 6th P. M., together with the west 33. 00 feet of the N1/ 2 of the SE1/ 4 of Section 30, T14N, R11E of the 6th P. M. all in Sarpy County, NE. 2017 Annexation No. 1) MISC- 17- 0002 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E 3 d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He displayed a map of the area proposed to be annexed and explained that the area to be annexed is located on the west side of 132" d Street and slightly north of HWY 370 where the Shopko distribution center is located. He stated that the property is currently zoned Limited Industrial ( LI) and is used for industrial purposes. Mr. Stursma confirmed that this annexation does not extend the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. He added that the City has performed a financial analysis and it meets the City's standards for annexation. Ms. Hoch asked whether the City considered whether the fire department had the capacity to service this property. Mr. Stursma answered that every time the City considers an annexation, it performs an analysis of the potential impact on services, he confirmed that the fire department has no concerns with this annexation. 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. Thompson, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1767 for the 2017 Annexation No. 1 ( MISC- 17- 0002), because it is consistent with the annexation policy found in the Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call: Seven yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1768— 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 include parcels and areas annexed by Ordinance No. 1767, and to provide for an effective date thereof. The applicant is the City of Papillion. MISC- 17-0003 Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing. Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E 3`d Street, stepped forward to represent the applicant. He explained that whenever the City performs an annexation, it needs to amend the zoning map. He expressed that there is no need to change the zoning classifications because the property was already within the City s extraterritorial jurisdiction. 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. Robinson III, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1768 to change the official Zoning Map of the City of Papillion ( MISC- 17- 0003) for the 2017 Annexation No. 1 area because it is consistent with Section 205- 32 of the zoning regulations. Roll Call: Nine yeas, no nays. Motion carried. 13 Planning Commission February 22, 2017 OTHER BUSINESS With no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Ms. Hoch, seconded by Mr. Carson, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:40 PM. CITY OF PAPILLION l L. - Mich el Mallory, Chairma 14 Planning Commission February 22, 2017