Planning Commission

MINUTE CORD PAPILLION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 25, 2018 The Papillion Planning Commission met in open session at the Papillion City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 7:00 PM. Chairwoman Rebecca Hoch called the meeting to order. Planning Assistant Andrea Blevins called the roll. Planning Commission members present were Howard Carson, Raymond Keller Jr., John E. Robinson Ill, Leanne Sotak, Judy Sunde, Herb Thompson, and Wayne Wilson. David Barker and Jim Masters were absent. Planning Director Mark Stursma, Assistant City Attorney Amber Rupiper, Assistant Planning Director Travis Gibbons, and Staff Engineer Derek Goff were also present. Chairwoman Hoch led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on April 11, 2018. A copy of proof of publication is on file at the office of the City Clerk. Chairwoman Hoch announced that a copy of the Open Meetings Act is posted in the City Council Chambers. Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Mr. Robinson III, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes Motion was made by Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Keller, to approve the March 28, 2018 minutes. Roll Call: Six yeas, no nays, two abstentions from Mr. Robinson III and Mr. Wilson. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Preliminary Plat— A Preliminary Plat for the property legally described as a tract of land being part of the SE 1/ 4 of Section 31, T14N, R12E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located NW of S 120th Street and Schram Road. The applicant is Ashbury Hills Development, LLC. (Ashbury Hills) PP- 17-0011 Chairwoman Hoch noted that this item was continued from the previous public hearing on February 28, 2018, thus the public hearing remained open. Larry Jobeun, 11440 W Center Road, Suite C ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. He announced that the applicant Peter Katt and the project engineers from E & A Consulting Group, Kyle Vohl and Jason Thiellen, were also present. Peter Katt, 6400 Artisan Way ( Lincoln), stepped forward to represent that applicant. He noted that he has been a land use real estate attorney in the Lincoln market for over thirty years. He added that this development would be a Legacy Homes project. Mr. Katt noted that three major roads flow through the development, which include S 120th Street, S 126th Street, and Gold Coast Road. He expressed that this creates some challenges in developing the site, because none of the proposed homes will take access off those major roads. He advised that the major roads create a natural separation for the varying types of housing proposed. Mr. Katt explained that the development team met with the neighbors in Ashbury Farm twice. He noted that the project was not very well received during the first meeting with the neighbors; however, some modifications were made to the project because of those discussions. Mr. Katt summarized that the project proposes four different housing types. He pointed out that the homes abutting Ashbury Farm on the north end of the site will be a similar product to the homes found in Ashbury Farm with larger, more expensive lots. He indicated that the homes proposed on the west side of the project would be similar to the product found at Ashbury Creek. He described the product on the eastern side of the project as being similar to that currently found in Prairie Hills. Mr. Katt expressed that the Mixed Use proposal in the southeast corner of the site would be a mix of owner occupied and rental housing that would be similar to some of the "missing middle" housing projects that have been developed in other areas. Mr. Katt established that the southwest corner of the project does not currently have sewer available. He summarized that because of the lack of sewer, the development team had to propose uses that would not require sewer, and as such, the plan currently shows storage and soccer fields for that portion of the development. Mr. Jobeun summarized the project area and explained that the project encompasses 155 acres. He noted that the project proposes 292 single-family residential lots. He disclosed that the proposal includes fifty lots on the north side of Gold Coast Road ( abutting Ashbury Farm) that on average would be approximately 105 feet in width and 150 feet in depth with approximate values of $500, 000 or more. He added that 79 mid- range lots are proposed on the western side of the development would be approximately 90 feet in width and 130 feet in depth with an average valuation of $ 350, 000 to $ 500,000. Finally, he described that the eastern portion of the development is proposed to develop as 163 lots that would be approximately 70 feet in width and 125 feet in depth with an approximate valuations of$ 275, 000 to $ 340, 000. Mr. Jobeun stated that proposed Outlots A through F will be used for detention basins or post construction stormwater management, and that Outlots G and H would be reserved for greenspace and buffer areas. Mr. Jobeun explained that Lot 295 is anticipated to develop as 167 mutli-family residential units utilize a " missing middle" design concept. He noted that there are only conceptual that will designs for this portion of the project at this time. He asserted that the self-storage component proposed on Lot 294 sits approximately twelve feet below the residential lots adjacent to the north. He reiterated that this use does not need sewer as sewer is not available. Mr. Jobeun alleged that the project complies with the future land use designation of low-density residential with an overall density of 2. 9 units per acre, well below the 4 units per acre allowed. Mr. Jobeun addressed the staff report comment regarding the lack of park dedication within this project. He noted that rather than eliminating eleven residential lots, the developer would prefer to contribute to the existing park in Ashbury Farm. Mr. Jobeun noted that the project is projected to be developed in four phases. He presented the phasing plan. 2 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 Mr. Jobeun reiterated that the development team conducted two meetings with the residents of Ashbury Farm, and noted that approximately 65 to 70 people were in attendance. He suggested that the second meeting was better received because some of the residents' concerns had been addressed. Mr. Jobeun suggested that the development team should be able to resolve most of the contingencies outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Chairwoman Hoch called for proponents and opponents. Natasha Kerrigan, 11406 S 121st Circle, stepped forward to express concerns about the mix of housing price ranges proposed in Ashbury Hills. She alleged that this concept would negatively affect the valuation of the homes in Ashbury Farm. She also advised that this development could stifle the growth of neighborhoods similar to Ashbury Farm in Papillion. Jennifer Coughlin, 12209 Cooper Street, stepped forward to signify that she does not believe that the proposed development is indicative of thoughtful or purposeful development. She expressed frustration that the development team did not revise their application between the February 28, 2018 Planning Commission meeting and this meeting. She noted that the developer indicated that the proposed project does not deviate from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Coughlin disagrees. She detailed that the developer is only dedicating . 4 acres of greenspace or park space on a 155- acre plot, equivalent to . 02%. She expressed that public parks are an important to Papillion as a community. She agreed with the recommendation found in Section Ill, B, 3, a of the Planning Commission Staff Report that suggests utilizing Lots 1 through 11 in the northeast corner of the development as park space. She noted that there is currently no access to the current park space in Ashbury Farm. Ms. Coughlin mentioned that the lot sizes of several of the proposed lots are not consistent with other lots nearby, and asked whether the developer had done anything to address the concerns outlined in Section III, B, 6 of the Planning Commission Staff Report. She pointed out that the street layout does not follow the typical grid system which may cause problems. She asked why the developer is not following the standards for arterials and collectors. Ms. Coughlin noted that although Lots 293 and 294 are not sewerable, several of the permitted uses on the Permitted Uses List for these lots would require sewer. She also declared that the proposed mix of residential uses on Lot 295 will result in that lot being considered high- density residential, which is inconsistent with the future land use designation. 121st Sean Kerrigan, 11406 S Circle, stepped forward to express concerns about the inconsistently of the types of homes proposed in Ashbury Hills with the type of homes being built in Ashbury Farm. He expressed concerns about the proposed density. He noted that there are no other developments similar to Ashbury Farm in Papillion, and that this development could stifle the growth of neighborhoods similar to Ashbury Farm in Papillion. He expressed concerns about the uses proposed on the Mixed Use lots negatively affecting the valuation of the homes in Ashbury Farm. 120th Toby Free, 11437 S Avenue, thanked the development team for meeting with the neighbors, and involving them in the planning of the proposed development. He noted that the development team provided a reasonable compromise to address the concerns of the residents of Ashbury Farm. He noted that he appreciates that S 122nd Street will no longer be a through 3 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 street, as this preserves the existing greenspace in Ashbury Farm. He added that he would like the trail system to be improved with this development. Scott Daly, 11433 S 120th Avenue, stepped forward to express concerns that there are many uncertainties regarding this development. He asserted that Legacy Homes does not currently build homes comparable to those in Ashbury Farm, and is concerned about the inconsistency that this may cause. He asserted that there are currently over 900 lots pending development in Papillion that propose homes priced at $ 350, 000 and below, and expressed that there are other places to develop this type of project that would be more appropriate. He also noted that Prairie Hills is another Legacy Homes development in the area, and it developing slowly compared to Ashbury Creek. Shari Vossen, 12210 Cooper Street, stepped forward and expressed frustration that she was not notified of the neighborhood meetings because she does not live within 300 feet of the proposed development. As a result, she did not attend. She noted that the development team indicated that they revised the plans based on the conversations had at the neighborhood meetings, and that the revised plans were well received. Ms. Vossen asserted that the majority of her neighbors are still unhappy with the proposed development. She expressed concerns about the potential traffic addition onto S 120th Street, which is now too narrow to handle the potential additional traffic from this development and other local developments that will gain a connection to S 120th Street via Gold Coast Road. She noted that the current neighborhood greenspace in Ashbury Farm is not a useable park space because there is no access. Finally, she asked whether the developer has been in contact with the school district to discuss the impact that this development may have on their student population. Jeff Steames, 12313 Slayton Street, stepped forward to express concerns that the proposed development could stifle development similar to the product found in Ashbury Farm in the area. He added that he is concerned about the proposed density of Ashbury Hills and the lack of park space. Mr. Steames expressed that the Ashbury Hills development could negatively impact the valuation of homes in Ashbury Farm. Seeing no further public input, Chairwoman Hoch closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Jobeun noted that S 120th Street will be an arterial street or boulevard that runs north and south through the development. He added that the fifty lots immediately adjacent to Ashbury Farm create a 600 foot buffer between the $ 500, 000 plus homes and the homes in the lower price ranges. He noted that the smaller products range in price from $ 275,000 to $ 340,000, which are relatively large homes and thus compatible with the existing development to the north. Mr. Jobeun expressed that Legacy Homes will not be building the homes on the larger lots. He mentioned that the Legacy Homes in Prairie Hills now have an average valuation of$ 300,000 or more. Mr. Jobeun noted that one arterial and three collector streets should be more than adequate to handle the additional traffic. He added that there would eventually be a traffic signal at S 114th Street and HWY 370. Mr. Jobeun stated that there is a trail system proposed throughout the development including sections on either side of Gold Coast Road and along S 126th Street. He indicated that the development team believes that this project is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. He noted that the development team reduced the proposal by 166 units after meeting with the 4 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 neighbors in Ashbury Farm, which created a density that is below the maximum allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning classification. Mr. Jobeun assured the Commission and the public that the school district is aware of the proposed development, and has not expressed any opposition. Mr. Carson noted that the applicant asked that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing in February in order to address the contingencies listed in the February 28, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report for Ashbury Hills. He added that none of the contingencies were addressed during that time, and asked why. Mr. Jobeun explained that some contingencies had been addressed in a conversation with Planning Director Mark Stursma, and that he was confident that the development team could resolve the contingencies. He noted that one of the larger issues with the project concerned a water main extension to service the site, and revealed that said issue had since been resolved. Mr. Carson expressed that he could not support the project with such a large number of contingencies pending. He suggested that the applicant consider continuing the hearing until some of the issues have been addressed. Ms. Sotak noted that the street layout seems awkward and undesirable, and asked whether the applicant has any plans to improve said layout. Mr. Jobeun displayed a copy of the Papillion Future Land Use Map for the area, and suggested that the road system proposed is consistent with the road layout found in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Sotak asked Mr. Stursma to comment on Mr. Jobeun' s assertion. Mr. Stursma agreed that the layout is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and noted that most of the concerns regarding roads with this development come from the whether the phasing of the development will allow for additional connections within the development. Ms. Sotak noted that she does not believe that the current traffic layout is well suited for this development. Ms. Sotak added that she does not like the unknown uses on Lots 293-295. Ms. Sotak asked whether the intersection of S 114th Street and HWY 370 would eventually be signalized. Mr. Stursma explained that a traffic signal is planned for S 114th Street, however, because it is located on a State highway, the signal cannot be installed until warranted by the State. He added that it is his understanding that the warrants are close to being reached now. Mr. Thompson asked Chairwoman Hoch to convey what options the Commission had to delay the decision before them. Chairwoman Hoch explained that there would need to be a motion and a second to continue the item. She noted that in order to move forward, that there would need to be a motion in the affirmative for the project. She added that the public hearing would not be reopened for this item if the item were continued because the public hearing had already been closed. Ms. Sunde asked staff to explain the difference between what is considered with a Preliminary Plat versus a Final Plat. Mr. Stursma explained that the bulk of the analysis on a project is completed at the Preliminary Plat stage. Ms. Sunde asked whether the contingencies outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report are significant enough to warrant a revised Preliminary Plat. Mr. Stursma noted that he could not definitively answer her because it would depend how the comments are addressed by the applicant. 5 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 Ms. Sunde asked the development team whether they were confident that they could address the contingencies to the satisfaction of staff. Mr. Jobeun answered in the affirmative. Chairwoman Hoch noted that the ridgeline cuts through Lots 78 through 82 making them a part of the unsewerable region. She asked how residential lots are going to develop where sewer is not available. Mr. Jobeun indicated that those lots could be graded in a way that will make them sewerable. Mr. Wilson noted that many of the contingencies would need to be addressed by the applicant before he would be comfortable supporting the project. Mr. Wilson asked approximately how many residents attended the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Jobeun explained that there were approximately 70 people in attendance at the first meeting, and less than 40 at the second neighborhood meeting. He noted that the applicant gathered an email list at the first meeting in order to keep in contact with the residents. He added that letters notifying neighbors of the first meeting were sent out to all property owners located within 300 feet of the project. Mr. Keller asked staff about the price points for Founders Ridge. Mr. Joebun noted that he was unsure, but guessed that those homes would be valued at and above $ 300, 000. Mr. Keller noted that the lots in Founders Ridge near Ashbury Farms are smaller in comparison to Ashbury Farm. Mr. Keller asked whether there were still a lot of lots available in Ashbury Farm. Christian Bessmer, 12211 Slayton Street, stepped forward as a resident of Ashbury Farm and noted that the second phase of Ashbury Farm is still undeveloped. Mr. Keller noted that diversity is an important part of the community, and he does not love the idea of segregating residents by the price point of their homes. He added that if homes in the higher price points were in high demand in Papillion, the developer would be building them. He added that he was struggling with making a decision on the project. Ms. Sunde offered her support of the project. Mr. Robinson Ill asked what would constitute a material and significant change to warrant the need for a revised Preliminary Plat, and whether any of the contingencies listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report would constitute such a change. Mr. Stursma explained that a revised Preliminary Plat would be necessary for revised items that could have a significant impact on the neighboring properties. He reiterated that the need for a revised Preliminary Plat depends on how the applicant chooses to address the contingencies. Mr. Carson noted that he worries about the mix of valuations within the neighborhood. He explained that he does not believe that there is enough of a buffer between the valuations. He reiterated that he would not support the project with so many contingencies in place. Chairwoman Hoch referenced Sections III, I, 7 and Ill, I, 8 of the Planning Commission Staff Report regarding the typical requirement to defer sewerable property and obtain permission from the City of Omaha, the City of Papillion, and Sarpy County in order to expand sewer and wastewater services south of the ridgeline, and asked how the applicant intends to address this issue. She also asked why the necessary permissions had not yet been obtained. She noted 6 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 that these issues seem to be quite significant to not be addressed. Mr. Jobeun explained that the development team met with Bob Stubbe, Public Works Director for the City of Omaha, and stated that he indicated that it would be up to the City of Papillion as whether to allow this area to be served by sewer. He added that he believes that the sewer has the capacity to support the portion of this property that is currently non- sewerable. Mr. Jobeun alleged that the development team has permission from Sarpy County for this connection. Kyle Vohl, 10909 Mill Valley Road, stepped forward as an engineer for the project. He explained that Art Beccard with Sarpy County provided an email that states that he would support then necessary sewer connections. He noted that the applicant will continue to work with the City of Papillion. Chairwoman Hoch asked staff whether approval for sewer is traditionally provided with a Preliminary Plat. Mr. Stursma expressed that the sewer issue would need to be addressed prior to City Council consideration of the Preliminary Plat. He noted that when staff does not address these types of issues early on in the process that the developer will be surprised by the need to get approvals from other entities. He added that in this specific project, the sewer issue is complicated, as the project would connect to two different outfall sewers, and a portion of the project falls below the ridgeline. He mentioned that the City of Omaha has not historically deferred the decision of whether to allow a developer to grade past the ridgeline to the City of Papillion. He asserted that it can be difficult for a developer to obtain these types of approvals prior to determining whether their project is feasible. He noted that getting written confirmation of the approval can take time, and there are no guarantees that the area outside of the ridgeline will be sewered without formal approval from the City of Omaha, therefore, the southern lots are at risk until formal approvals are obtained. Mr. Jobeun added that the lots below the ridgeline are a part of Phase 2 of the development, therefore, the issue of sewering those lots would be handled at a later date. Mr. Thompson added that the Commission is struggling to see both sides, and wishes to be fair and equitable to all involved parties. Chairwoman Hoch noted that the Commission only gets to vote on what comes before them, and has to recommend approval of or vote against the project based on the criteria established by law. She noted that the public would have another opportunity to voice his or her opinions in front of City Council. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Robinson Ill, seconded by Ms. Sunde, to recommend approval of the Ashbury Hills Preliminary Plat ( PP- 17- 0011) because it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application s submitted by the applicant and approved by City Council, or the Preliminary Plat is revised to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described in Section III, B of the Planning Commission Staff Report; compatible with adjacent uses if the Preliminary Plat is modified to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described in Section III, B of the Planning Commission Staff Report; compliant with the Zoning Regulations; and compliant with Subdivision Regulations if adequate water service is established, adequate sanitary sewer service is established and waivers are submitted by the applicant and approved by City Council; contingent upon the resolution of staff comments and revising the alignment of S 119th Circle and S 119th Avenue as described in Section III, D, 8 of the Planning Commission Staff report, and limiting the height of commercial buildings on Lots 293 through 294 as detailed in Section III, J, 8 of the Planning Commission Staff Report. Roll Call: Three yeas, five nays by Mr. Carson, Chairwoman Hoch, Mr. Keller, Ms. Sotak, and Mr. Thompson. Motion fails; therefore, the recommendation is denial. 7 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 Mr. Jobeun asked that the Planning Commission reconsider its Motion and vote and make a motion to continue the hearing to a later date when the applicant and staff are ready to present it. Chairwoman Hoch asked whether changes would be made between this meeting and the next time theproject is presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jobeun answered in the affirmative. Motion was made by Mr. Thompson, seconded by Mr. Carson to reconsider the previous vote for the Ashbury Hills Preliminary Plat ( PP- 17- 0011). Roll Call: Six yeas, two nays by Mr. Carson and Ms. Sotak. With a supermajority of six or more votes, motion carried. Motion was made by Ms. Sunde to continue the hearing for the Ashbury Hills Preliminary Plat PP- 17- 0011) to a later date when the applicant and staff are ready to present it. Roll Call: Seven yeas, one nay by Mr. Keller. With a supermajority of six or more votes, motion carried. Change of Zone —A Change of Zone from Agricultural ( AG) to Multiple- Family Residential ( R- 4) and Mixed Use ( MU) for the property legally described as a tract of land being part of the SE 1/ 4 of Section 31, T14N, R12E of the 6th P. M., Sarpy County, NE, generally located NW of S 120th Street and Schram Road. The applicant is Ashbury Hills Development, LLC. ( Ashbury Hills) CZ- 17- 0014 Chairwoman Hoch noted that this item was continued from the previous public hearing on February 28, 2018, thus the public hearing remained open. Larry Jobeun, 11440 W Center Road, Suite C ( Omaha), stepped forward to represent the applicant. He requested a continuance on this matter to give the applicant time to address some of the contingencies outlined in the Planning Commission Staff Report. Chairwoman Hoch explained that the public hearing for this item would remain open if the Planning Commission makes a motion to continue the hearing. Jeff Steames, 12313 Slayton Street, stepped forward to clarify whether the public would have the opportunity to speak on the Preliminary Plat item in the future. Chairwoman Hoch explained that the public would be able to speak regarding the Change of Zone when this item is brought back in front of the Planning Commission again. She noted that since the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat was closed, proponents and opponents would not be called for that item next time it is on the Planning Commission agenda. The public hearing remains open. With no further discussion, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to continue the public hearing for the Ashbury Hills Change of Zone ( CZ- 17- 0014) to a later date when the applicant and staff are ready to present it. Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. Ordinance No. 1804— An ordinance to amend Article II ( Development Definitions), Article XXXI Civic, commercial, and Office Design Guidelines), Article XXXII ( Industrial Design Guidelines), and Article XXXVII ( Signs) of Chapter 205 of the Papillion Municipal Code to create an 1- 80 Sign Corridor with corresponding sign regulation adjustments and to clarify the regulations applicable 8 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 to non- conforming signs. The applicant is the City of Papillion. ( Sign Ordinance Amendment) TC- 18- 0001 Planning Director Mark Stursma, 122 E 3rd Street, stepped forward to represent that applicant. He explained that a City Council sub-committee has provided a recommendation of approval for this item. He noted that the City's jurisdiction expanded up to the 1- 80 corridor somewhat recently, and that the sign expectations along the interstate are much different than those within the community. He noted that there are many businesses located along 1- 80 that have signs over 80 feet tall, and the current maximum height in the zoning code is 20 feet. Mr. Stursma explained that there has been much concern from business owners and the development community that the current sign regulations do not meet the need of more visible signs for those located along the 1- 80 corridor. He noted that staff considered the design standards of other communities located along the 1- 80 corridor in Nebraska when drafting the proposed amendment. He reported that the 1- 80 corridor area of application applies to businesses that fall within 660 feet from the edge of the interstate, which is consistent with the area where the Nebraska Department of Transportation ( NDOT) regulates signs. Mr. Stursma explained that signs within the area of application would have the option to ask for an adjustment that would allow signs up to 45 feet in height and 200 square feet of sign. He added that the 45-foot tall signs would not be allowed within 300 feet of one another, or within 150 feet of any other detached sign. He added that this amendment would allow 100 percent of the area of a sign to be digital, noting that now only 50 percent is allowed. He communicated that the amendment will also clean up some confusing language within the current ordinance. He explained that the proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding communities while remaining quite conservative. Chairwoman Hoch called for proponents and opponents. Seeing no further public input, Chairwoman Hoch closed the public hearing and called for Commission Discussion. Mr. Thompson asked whether there are any safety concerns in allowing 100 percent digital signs. Mr. Stursma noted that digital signs would still be subject to the other requirements within the code regarding digital signs including, but not limited to, the maximum refresh rate, and restrictions regarding flashing lights and moving images. He added that the NDOT has similar safety regulations in place that would safeguard these signs from creating a distraction for drivers. Mr. Wilson asked staff to explain the current ordinance. Mr. Stursma explained that the current ordinance requires monument signs with a maximum height of 20 feet. Mr. Wilson asked whether the City has received several requests for larger signs. Mr. Stursma affirmed that the City has had significant interested in this change. He noted that the Mixed Use Development Agreement for 370 North allowed for larger signs. He added that the 45 foot height design standard comes from an agreement with the Nebraska Innovation Zoning Commission. Mr. Carson asked whether any of the existing signs on the 1- 80 corridor would be deemed illegal if the ordinance passes. Mr. Stursma referred to the sign inventory that is attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report, and noted that there are nine non- conforming signs under the current ordinance. He expressed that these are considered legal non-conforming signs that 9 Planning Commission April 25, 2018 could not be rebuilt to the same specifications if destroyed. He voiced that some of these signs would be brought into compliance with the amendment. Motion was made by Ms. Sunde, seconded by Ms. Sotak, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1804 ( TC- 18- 0001). Roll Call: Eight yeas, no nays. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Stursma informed the Planning Commission that the City is currently working with a consultant to update the Comprehensive Plan, and asked the Planning Commissioners to let staff know whether he or she is interested in being a part of the Steering Committee. With no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Mr. Keller, seconded by Ms. Sunde to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:31 PM. CITY OF PAPILLION Rebecca Hoch, C`iairwoman 10 Planning Commission April 25, 2018