November 8, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Chairperson Kleine read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
1. Chairperson Kleine called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked for roll call. Other members present were: Robert Brackle, Kendall Schlake, Bob Stepp, Paul Schramm and Bill Runge.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the October 11th, 2010 meeting.
Member Brackle made the motion to approve the minutes of the October 11th, 2010 meeting and member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the Application for Certificate of Work in the Historic District request HD-2010-08 from Geri Katz Oregon Trail Development, LLC / Julie Lambert in regards to work being done on Stagecoach Mall [ 510 E Street ]. Legally described as Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 17, Original Town Addition, Fairbury, Jefferson County, Nebraska. Located in the B2 – Downtown Commercial Zoning District and the HD – Historic District Overlay. Discussion, taking of any necessary or desired action.
Julie Lambert was present and spoke to the commission in regards to the work being done at stagecoach mall. She stated that she is planning on reopening the mall for miracle on the square December 3. Then again full time in the spring and noted that there needs to be some work done to the exterior of the building prior to her reopening. She has done some of the work already just to secure the panels because she was concerned that there might be a safety issue if winds became strong enough to pull the panels off. She would like to get some of this work done while the weather is still nice. Then later she will work on new graphics. Bedlan stated that if the Planning Commission wants to approve this application she recommends that they do it as they have done in the past and approve, pending Historic Preservations approval of the application. Member Schlake made the motion to approve the Application for Certificate of Work in the Historic District HD-2010-08 from Geri Katz Oregon Trail Development, LLC / Julie Lambert pending approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Runge seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, was the resubmittal of the Application for Certificate of Work in the Historic District. Request HD-2010-04 from Siebert Communications in regards to work being done at KUTT/KGMT Radio Station [ 412 4th Street ]. Legally described as Lot 6, Blk. 32, Original Town Addition, Fairbury, Jefferson County, Nebraska. Located in the B2 – Downtown Commercial Zoning District and the HD – Historic District Overlay. Discussion, taking of any necessary or desired action.
Nancy Siebert was present and spoke to the commission in regards to the work being done at KUTT/KGMT Radio Station. She stated that they are requesting “no material affect” be issued by the Planning and Zoning commission. They intend to combine both buildings making just one entrance, remove the black glass and tiles, expose the beam, rework the scroll and paint. Basically, returning a significant portion of the buildings to their original state. She noted that they are also trying to beat the weather and get the work done before it gets cold. Member Brackle noted that the building will look much better when it is done. She noted that their building permit was extended on October 14th. In answer to Member Stepps question Nancy verified that the upstairs will not be used however there is HVAC equipment up there and they do need to have an egress for fire safety code which the plan shows. Bedlan noted that the plan looks good and everything meets her requirements, however there was a motion made at the last Historic Preservation meeting that states that another certification must be approved before any more work to the frontage is done. She stated that at the last meeting Siebert did not have a complete plan for the outside of the building and that is why the historic preservation committee made the motion this way. She noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission is allowed to override Historic Preservations motion in this instance and questions if that is something they want to do. Member Runge questions how much more time it will take for the certificate to go back before the Historic Preservation commission. Bedlan answered that those meetings are set on a case by case basis and she can usually have a Historic Preservation meeting put together in a week or so if she can get hearing notice to the paper right away. Member Schlake questioned what change is causing it to have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission again. Bedlan stated that it is the significant change to the frontage. Nancy stated that they are only going to change from the top of the glass windows down and that they will be making it more historic. Nancy noted that all the electrical and mechanical floor plans have been sent to the state. Member Runge stated that he would like to help Siebert get started on the project and questioned when they would like to get the project completed. Nancy stated that they would like to get it completed by April. Member Schlake questioned if Siebert could continue to work on the inside while they are waiting to get approval for the outside. Bedlan stated that they could pending state approval including but not limited to HHS and the State Fire Marshal. Member Brackle made the motion to approve the resubmittal of the Certificate of work in the Historic District pending the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Member Runge seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
5. Next was the review of current zoning and land use ordinances to ensure there are no discriminatory policies or practices as required by the Department of Economic Development to meet requirements of the federal fair housing laws and as part of the CDBG Program. Discussion, taking of any necessary or desired action.
Bedlan explained that this is a request from DED to review our zoning and landuse ordinances to make sure that there are no discriminatory policies or practices in them. She noted that this only applies to ordinances not covenants or other building specific requirements such as low income eligibility. Member Kline questioned if the city has a fair housing ordinance and Bedlan stated that they did however it is not in the zoning or landuse ordinance. Member Stepp made the motion confirming that current landuse and zoning are free from discriminatory policies and practices and meet the fair housing requirements. Member Schramm seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
6. Next was the Public hearing regarding request for changes to section 5.18 – HD of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition (Historic District – Overlay). Discussion, taking of any necessary or desired action.
Chairperson Kline opened the hearing. Bedlan stated that this change will allow Historic Preservation to hear Certificates to Work in the Historic District before Planning and Zoning and eliminate the need for the extra meeting creating a more streamlined procedure for making changes in the historic district. She also explains that this change will allow us to apply for Certified Local Government status which may be a source for potential funding availability in the future. She notes that essentially the historic district is already in ordinance however, it just needs some clean up for us to apply for CLG status. Member Kline notes that it appears that the Planning Commission will only deal with landmark and landmark designation allowing Historic Preservation to deal with the actual construction. Member Stepp notes that he likes the fact that it eliminates the need for the extra meetings. Bedlan also notes the there is an appeal process to council if the resident disagrees with the findings of the Historic District Commission and/or Planning and Zoning. She explains that special use permits in the historic district will still be seen by the Planning and Zoning Commission however if the permit just deals with building in the historic district it does not need to be seen by Planning and Zoning. She also notes that both the State Historical Society and the City attorney have reviewed the proposed ordinance. Member Kline closed the hearing. Member Schlake made the motion to approve the recommendation from the Historic Preservation Committee approving changes to section 5.18 - HD of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations - 2005 Edition (Historic District Overlay as suggested in draft comments 3. Member Brackle seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
7. Next was the annual review of Special Use Permits. Taking of any necessary or desired action.
Member Kleine noted that both the businesses that were required to bring their signs into compliance at the last meeting are now in compliance. Member Runge made the motion to approve special use permits SUA-2007-005 for Francis and SU-2009-04 for Barnett. Member Schramm seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Chairperson Kleine asked for the commissions input on the problem of the residential existing nonconforming issues in zoning for her to take to the Board of Adjustments. Member Runge suggested that the area in question be rezoned to make it fit with the residential nature of the area. Bedlan stated that rezoning is not too difficult a change to make however she noted that there are other areas of town that appear to have the same zoning conflicts and questions how they will deal with other home occupations in commercial and/or light industrial districts. Member Runge stated that he does not want to restrict residences from making improvements to their homes because they are in commercially zoned areas. Member Brackle again stated that he is still concerned about “junk yards” cropping up as home businesses and feels that we need to change the zoning law so that residential properties in commercially and industrially zoned areas can remain residential. Chairperson Kleine suggested considering residential transition zoning for these areas. Member Brackle stated that NDOR suggested they strip zone the highway commercial when they last rezoned. He also noted that we have the same zoning problem south of town in the light industrial area. Chief Voss suggested adding residential structures to the permitted uses and home occupancies as special permitted uses in B1 and B2. Bedlan states that the problem could be dealt with easily that way however, she wants to note that if you make a change like that you are diffusing the zoning districts somewhat and will have people building residential structures and business next to each other. Member Brackle suggested allowing for existing residential structures in B1 and B2. Member Kleine questions if we could put a date on it specifying houses built before the date of the zoning change. Chief Voss questions if they want to restrict new structures. Member Brackle stated that if they want to try to build new structures on a lot they would need to get a variance and that would make it more difficult and in turn keep business without restricting the existing residential structures. Again Voss expresses his concern about restricting new residential building in the commercial areas. Member Brackle request the zoning administrator get some feedback from the City Attorney in regards to this new suggestion. Chairperson Kleine request feedback in regards to specifying only houses built before a specific date. Bedlan explains the different schools of thought that cities have on how to structure zoning boundaries and states that if they just decide to make the change by adding residential structures to the districts in questions they will not need to go before the Board of Adjustments. Member Schlake notes that eventually we will have to make a decision on this issue and questions if this is a viable option. Bedlan states that she thinks it is but would like to get the attorneys opinion. This discussion was closed
8. Next was the continued review of Article 2 - Definitions, (pg. 2 -14)
Chairperson Kleine questioned Bedlan on the definition of carport. She stated that the building code offers a definition that requires the structure be open on at least 2 sides (309.4). Member Runge notes that if there is a door on it, it should be considered a shed or a garage. Chairperson Kleine questions if we want to designate 2 open sides in our zoning or leave it. Bedlan stated that she would have no problem leaving it as long as everyone is clear on the definition. Member Schramm states that he does have a definition of grade however he would like to run it by one other individual before he makes a suggestion on how to change the zoning ordinance. Chairperson Kleine request that the home occupation definition be referenced in the districts that allow for home occupations. Kleine suggested adding the home occupation signage to the sign requirements. She questions the definition of service station and screened enclosure areas. It is noted that this is essentially to prevent junk automobiles from sitting out in the open. Chief Voss explained the junk vehicle laws in the city, future plans for enforcement and the 10 day time period. Member Brackle questions the addition of portable buildings to the structure definition as mentioned at the last meeting. Bedlan notes that structures have to be more than 120 square feet before a building permit is required by state statute and that even if the structure is considered portable if it is more than 120 square feet the property owner will need to be issued a new permit every time the building is moved, this is to meet setback requirements. Brackle questions what cargo containers would be considered? Bedlan notes that this has become an issue in larger cities and believes it would be a good idea to deal with in our zoning as well. She states that these containers can be over the 120 square feet and essentially can be located anywhere without regard for setback requirements. By adding portable structure to the definitions it restricts where the pods and cargo containers can be located, requiring them to meet the same setbacks as other buildings unless they are temporary. Member Schlake questions if we need to define portable structure. There is some discussion of how to define temporary so that pods can be used for moving and not have to meet setback requirements however they will not be able to be left there for more than the temporary time period. Bedlan suggest she do a search through zoning on the word temporary and get that information for them at the next meeting. She will also look into a definition for portable structures. Chairperson Kleine states that they appear to be done with definitions and requests that the Commission review Article 3 and 4 pages 15 - 25 at their next meeting.
9. Next were comments from the public on non-agenda items.
With no other business on the agenda and no comments from the public on non-agenda items member Brackle made the motion to adjourn. Member Schramm seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Brackle, Stepp, Schlake, Runge, Schramm) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Laura K. Bedlan
Planning Commission Secretary