January 12, 2009
Chairperson Siefford read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
Member Siefford called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. Other members present were: Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller and Stepp
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the November 18th, 2008 joint meeting “as amended”.
Bedlan noted that she had amended the minutes by correcting the listed typos.
Member Koerwitz made the motion to approve the minutes of the October 18th, 2008 joint meeting “as amended” and member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes"
(Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the discussion and recommendation to the City Council on the proposal to publish in the paper and/or insert in the light and water bills a notice of Building Permit Requirements.
Member Kleine questioned if we would be allowed to insert a flyer in the light and water bill so she contacted the light and water department and was told that it would be allowed. They charge $.18 per stuffer, it would need to be tri folded to meet certain specifications and they would need 30 days notice. They stated that it would go to about 3000 customers (the whole area) which member Kleine felt was good because as she stated everyone needs the information. She figured the total cost would be approximately $540. She stated that if the City Council would approve the flyer she felt this was the best way to inform everyone. Member Siefford agreed that the insert was a better way to notify the public than the paper. Bedlan noted that advertising on the TV and radio was free but that the paper would cost $7.35 per inch for a display notice similar to the garbage notice. Member Siefford asked if it could be posted on the front-page for that price. Bedlan responded that the paper informed her that it could be placed anywhere for that price. Member Siefford suggested it be put on the front-page sidebar instead of spending the money for flyers in the light and water bill. Member Stepp noted that not everyone gets the paper and that he felt inclusion in the light and water bill was the best way to inform everyone. Member Mueller also felt that it would be the most cost effective way to get the information out. Member Koerwitz noted that only 1/2 to 2/3 of the citizens received the paper. Member Kleine stated that the city would require volunteers to fold the insert; she volunteered herself and asked that a request for volunteers be included in the recommendation to the Council. Member Siefford asked if the city had an automatic folder to which Member Kleine stated that they do not because the light and water bills are now outsourced. Member Mueller made the motion to recommend to the City Council that a Building Permit requirements flyer be inserted into the light and water bill. Member Klein seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, were the discussion, recommendation and suggestions to the City Council on the enforcement of building permit requirements.
Bedlan gave each member a copy of section 105.15 and 10.99 from Regulatory Codes and article 9 from the City of Fairbury, Nebraska Zoning Regulations 2005 edition, for their review in regards to the aforementioned agenda item.
Member Stepp questioned if the individual in violation could be fined up to $100 per day. Bedlan responded that the city can fine up to $100 a day and require removal of the building if need be. The building inspector is given the authority to enforce the building codes in the city ordnances. The city is requesting that the committee suggest some specific fines for building code violations. Member Stepp suggested that if the City plans to begin enforcing some penalties for violations they should first notify the public and that a list of the violations and fines should be added to the notice of Building Permit Requirements insert in the light and water bill. Member Koerwitz asked what type of construction would qualify under code 150.15; specifically does it include decks and such. Bedlan responded that any addition or change to the property is considered construction and subject to the zoning laws. She noted that she is not sure if they have been requiring building permits for decks but that they are considered a change to the structure and should require a permit. Member Stepp read section 9.04 ‘A’, which specifies what type of construction requires a permit. Member Siefford asked how much information they want to put into the insert. Member Stepp stated that it needs to be brief so that people will take the time to read it. Member Siefford agreed but questioned how much detail it should go into. Specifically, he questioned if it should callout decks and add-ons, etc. Member Stepp and member Koerwitz noted that section 9.04 ‘A’ specifics alterations, which would include decks and add-ons. Member Siefford stated that we would want to be sure to include that information in the insert. Bedlan stated that the ordnance does require individuals to get a permit for alterations and notes that the building and zoning office would rather people come in and ask if they need a permit than to assume they do not. Member Siefford questioned if you need a permit when making repairs to a property. Bedlan stated that you might, specifically if you are repairing and upgrading. Member Stepp suggested including paragraph ‘A’ of section 9.04 and a portion of 9.06 in the insert. He does not believe it is too lengthy and feels it will cover all the requirements. Member Kleine questioned the two different penalties one for $500 listed in 10.99 of the general provisions and one for $100 listed in 9.06 of the zoning ordnances. Bedlan responded that the $100 penalty is specific to zoning and the $500 penalty is for a violation of anything in the regulatory codes. Member Siefford questioned if there was a time period given to correct the violation to which Bedlan responded that she thinks there is but is unsure of how long that period is. She stated that in the past letters were issued informing individuals that they were in violation and that they had so many days to correct the violation. Member Siefford feels that there should be a grace period for individuals to correct the violations and Bedlan stated that she would get that information for the next meeting. Member Koerwitz suggested that they have someone draft a letter and member Stepp suggested it include section 9.04 paragraph ‘A’ and section 9.06 of the zoning regulations, then if they need more information they can contact the zoning administrator. Member Koerwitz stated that if we include those paragraphs we will not need to elaborate further and they can call if they have questions. Member Kleine suggested we briefly state a summary of the building code requirements then below that include ordinances 9.04 ‘A’ and 9.06 so that individuals can read the actual ordinance if they so choose. Member Stepp questioned if we need an opinion from the city attorney on the letter before they recommend it to the City Council. Member Koerwitz agrees that we should check with the Attorney. Member Siefford questioned what the recourse is of an individual who is found to be in violation. Bedlan stated that if they disagree with the opinion of the building inspector and/or zoning administrator they can take it before the Board of Adjustments. Member Siefford asks how long that process usually takes. Bedlan responded that a Board of Adjustments meeting must be officially posted in the paper 10 days prior to the meeting so it would at least take 10 days but it is usually a fairly quick process, about 2 – 3 weeks. Member Siefford noted that he just wanted to be sure that this process could be found in the ordnances. Bedlan assured him that there is an entire section in the zoning regulations regarding the Board of Adjustment. She also noted that the zoning regulations are now online. Member Siefford questioned if they needed to make a motion to have the city attorney draw up a letter for approval by the Planning Commission and member Stepp asked if they should instead just suggest that the attorney advise them on their course of action. Bedlan stated that they could make a motion either to have the attorney draw up a letter to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and then they could recommend to the City Council on it or they could have the letter go directly to the City Council. Member Siefford stated that he thought they should review the letter before it goes before the Council and member Stepp agreed. Member Stepp suggested the letter include section 9.04 ‘A’ and 9.06 then, if the attorney feels that is sufficient, he would make the motion to recommend it to the Council. Member Siefford asked if a motion was needed to have the attorney draw up a letter. Member Mueller stated that he felt it would not hurt to make it a matter of record. He suggested they have the attorney draw up a letter condensing section 9.04 ‘A’ and 9.06 and including the penalties for the Planning Commissions approval prior to their recommendation to the Council. Member Stepp suggested that they have the attorney advise if section 9.04 ‘A’ and 9.06 would be sufficient enough for the letter. Member Siefford stated he would rather recommend on the actual letter. Member Mueller recommends they make it a motion to turn this over to the attorney for his opinion then have it returned to the Planning Commission so that they can recommend to the Council. He noted that we will probably incur legal fees in this process and it is important to make it a motion so that it is a matter of record in the minutes. Bedlan questioned if the motion is to include the suggestion that sections 9.04 ‘A’ and 9.06 are included in the letter. Member Stepp made the motion to send paragraph ‘A’ of section 9.04 and all of 9.06 to the city attorney for approval before the Planning Commission recommends it to the City Council. Member Koerwitz noted that the attorney would need to know that it was for publication in the paper. Member Kleine corrected him stating it was for the insert into the light and water bill. Member Stepp corrected his motion and suggested it now be, to have the city attorney draft and give his opinion on a letter, including paragraph ‘A’ of section 9.04 and all of 9.06 of the zoning regulations, to be inserted into the light and water bill. Member Koerwitz seconded the motion. Bedlan questioned if they wanted this notice included in the paper also. To which Member Siefford stated that he thought inclusion in the light and water bill would be enough. Member Stepp noted that they may get an opinion on that when it comes back from the attorney and that they can always add that later if they need to. Member Kleine stated that she is hopeful that the paper will do a write up on the issue when it goes before the Council. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
5. Next, was the public hearing of the City of Fairbury, Nebraska 1 & 6 Year Street Improvement Plan for 2009 – 2014.
Bedlan spoke on behalf of the street department explaining that the 1 & 6 is a yearly report to be submitted to the State of Nebraska. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing where any recommendations, additions, deletions or alterations may be presented. It will then go to the City Council who will hold a public hearing before submitting it to the State. She noted form 11 addresses projects done in 2008 and only shows general maintenance. The projects that were slated for last year were moved to this year’s form 8 (the 1 year plan) or moved to form 9 (the 6 year plan). Project M-279 (108), 24th Street from Industrial Drive to ‘L’ Street was moved to the 6 year plan. Project M-279 (111a) Industrial Drive from 24th Street south to 23rd Street was moved to the 6 year plan. Project M-279 (111b) Industrial Drive from 24th Street north to 27th Street was moved to the 6 year plan. Project M-279 (110a) Bacon road from ‘I’ Street to ‘J’ Street has been moved to the 1 year plan for 2009. It is approximately 366’ and estimated at $81,800. This project is in cooperation with Fairbury Foods. Project M-279 (110b) ‘J’ Street from Bacon Road to 3rd Street has also been moved to the 1 year plan for 2009. It is approximately 300’ and estimated at $67,200. It is phase II of the Fairbury Foods proposed paving project. Project M-279 (112) 17th Street from ‘F’ Street east to the alley has also been moved to the 1 year plan for 2009. It is approximately 198’ and estimated at $37,400 it is being done in cooperation with Larry Schramm. The City would also like to amend the 1 year to add a project for maintenance in the amount of $20,000, which is already included in the budget. This includes armor coating and any other maintenance needed after the spring thaw. The other 23 projects listed are on the 6 year plan. Member Koerwitz questioned when the 17th street project would be bid. Bedlan stated the bidding is starting now and the City hopes to begin work on it at the beginning of April. Member Kleine notes two more projects listed on the 1 year plan. Bedlan stated that those are Projects M-279 (113) and M-279 (114) storm sewer repair and are also starting in April. Member Kleine asked if the storm sewer projects involved street work to which Bedlan responded that they were going to try to keep all the work between the back of curb and sidewalk. It was also noted that the maps were on hand for viewing. Member Siefford confirmed that they were just replacing the existing damaged storm sewer. Member Kleine noted that she noticed all the flags and Bedlan stated that most the flags are one call and that there will be some utility relocates, specifically the gas. Member Siefford asked if all the one year projects were a go this year and Bedlan stated to the best of her knowledge they were, to which the commission noted their pleasure. Member Siefford asked if the city covers the cost of the storm sewer repair or if the landowners are responsible. Bedlan stated that the city will pay for the storm sewer project. Bacon Road and 17th Street have been made paving districts and the landowners will be assessed for those projects. Member Kleine stated that she had concerns about project M279 (85) on West 4th street. She feels there is a major problem with storm sewer drainage. She noted that there are storm sewer inlets on Fredrick, 5th and A, 3rd and A and between A and B by the city garage but she feels that there needs to be and inlet at West 4th and A because there is always standing water there and if we plan to do that street she would like to make a recommendation to add drainage to the project. Bedlan stated that she spoke with Hynek about the problem and he stated that the number of inlets was not the issue in that area but rather the outlet because it goes directly into the river and when it is high there is nowhere for the water to go, it just sits in the storm sewer until the river goes down. He stated that regardless of the number of inlets there will still be an issue. However, Bedlan stated she would make the recommendation to have drainage addressed on that street project. Member Koerwitz stated that 16th from E-F is in desperate need of attention. He feels that the City has spent an inordinate amount of time repairing and regarding that street after every storm. He notes that they constantly have to barricade the street and it is a potential hazard. Member Siefford asked about redirecting the storm water to which Member Koerwitz notes that water from the North and East all flows to that low spot and when Schramm’s pond overflows the dam it is like a gully rushing through the area. Member Siefford suggested doing something like they did with McNish Park. Member Koerwitz states he is not sure what needs to be done but that it needs to be looked at because it is a hazard, especially at night because there are no lights in that area. He recommends that we prioritize that street and move it to the one year list. Member Siefford asked if we could look into federal funding. Bedlan responded that Member Mueller suggested the City check into the storm water discharge fund which she will do. Member Siefford asked if the city had to pay for McNish Park. Bedlan was not sure but again said she would check into that and have an answer for them at the next meeting. Member Kleine made the motion that the Commission approve the City of Fairbury, Nebraska One (1) & Six (6) Year Street Improvement Plan for 2009 - 2014 with the recommendations to add maintenance to the one year plan in the amount of 20,000, drainage to project M279 (85) West 4th street and to move project M279 (95) 16th street from E-F to the One year plan. Mueller seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Stepp, Siefford) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
7. With no other business on the agenda, Koerwitz made the motion to adjourn. Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Siefford, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed. Member Siefford declared the hearing adjourned.
Laura K. Bedlan
Board of Adjustment Secretary