August 10th, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Mueller read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
1. Member Mueller called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and asked for roll call. Other members present were: Greg Koerwitz and Bob Stepp, Jerry Meyer and Kendall Schlake.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the July 13th, 2009 meeting.
Member Schlake made the motion to approve the minutes of the July 13th, 2009 meeting and member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Koerwitz, Mueller, Stepp, Meyer, Schlake) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the discussion and recommendation regarding the Application for Certificate of Work in the Historic District (HD-2009-02) from Fred Arnold in regards to work being done on the Fairbury Journal-News building [516 5th Street]. Located in the B1 – General Commercial Zoning District and the HD – Historic District Overlay.
Mr. Arnold was present and spoke to the commission. He stated that he has been working with Parker, Taladay and Bedlan to use some of the Downtown Design Challenge grant funds to renovate his store front. He states that he will be spending approximately 18,000 – 20,000 to upgrade the building, sidewalk, windows and add an awning. Member Stepp questioned if the plans included replacing the sidewalk and Arnold stated that they did. Bedlan clarified that for the Fairbury Journal News to qualify for the Downtown Design Challenge grant they need to be seen by the Historical Preservation Committee and that the planning commission is responsible for referring individuals to the Historic Preservation Committee. Member Stepp questioned if the building was on the historic register to which Arnold stated that he was not. Bedlan noted that he is still in the historic district overlay but not in the downtown commercial district. Member Mueller questioned how the signs on the common wall will be restored. Arnold stated that he planned on putting the signs back the way they originally were in the 1960’s. He stated that instead of painting on the brick again he planned to put vinyl lettering on aluminum panels. Member Mueller questioned if Arnolds new sidewalk would blend in with phase 2 of the downtown sidewalk renovation. Arnold stated that it would be similar to the other sidewalks. Member Stepp made the motion that the Planning Commission send the Application for Certificate of Work in the Historic District (HD-2009-02) from Fred Arnold for work being done on the Fairbury Journal-News building [516 5th Street] to the Historic Preservation Committee for their review. Member Koerwitz seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Mueller, Koerwitz, Meyer, Schlake, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, was the annual review of approved Special Use Permits
Bedlan stated that according to Article 6, Section 6.04 of the City of Fairbury, Nebraska Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition, the Planning Commission is to review the Special Use Permits that have been issued to check if they are still in compliance and are still valid. She noted that 8 permits were still active and 4 had been voided. Active permits are:
SU-2009-04
SU-2009-01
SUA-2008-001
SUA-2007-005
SUA-2007-002
SUA-2006-002
SUA-2006-001
SUA-2005-001
Void permits are:
SU-2009-02
SUA-2007-003
SUA-2006-003
SUA-1998-002
Bedlan stated that this was just an annual review of the Special Use permits and that no action was required to be taken at this time.
5. Next, was the discussion and recommendation in regards to changes to section 4.13 A of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition.
Bedlan stated that this was just a continuation of the discussion they have been having in regards to allowing for accessory buildings on lots without primary buildings. She stated that at the last meeting they had requested a list of the cities recommendations in regards to these lots which has been put in their packets and she wanted to remind them that there are already some zoning regulations that pertain to accessory buildings and that they are not discussing changes to them. They are only discussing if they want to allow for accessory buildings on lots without primary buildings and if so what kind of restrictions would they establish for these buildings. Kent Preston was present and questioned if it was allowable to have an accessory building on a lot adjacent to a lot with a primary structure on it if you owned both lots and Bedlan stated that it was because the assessor automatically joins those lots if you own both. Member Stepp questioned who would decide if landscaping would be appropriate. Member Mueller stated that trying to regulate landscaping would be difficult due to different interpretations. Member Schlake stated that his understanding was that individuals wanted to buy inexpensive properties knowing what they can do with it before they buy it and his belief is that there is some risk in buying these inexpensive properties. Member Mueller stated that some of the concern was what type of buildings would be allowed. He also noted that the buildings now need to go before the P&Z to be approved so they would have some control over the type of buildings that get built. Member Stepp noted that the thought was that allowing for these types of buildings would help to get rid of some of the dilapidated buildings existing now. Member Koerwitz noted that if this goes through there would be no control of what lots you could put an accessory building on and he is not sure he would like one next to his house. Bedlan explains that as it stands now you can build an accessory building on a lot without a primary building if you first get a special use permit which requires P&Z approval. Kent Preston notes that you do not need a special use permit if you own the property adjacent to where you want to put the accessory building. Member Koerwitz questions if the intent is to make it easier to build accessory buildings. To which Bedlan responds that it is. Kent Preston notes that the thought is to create incentive for people to buy lots and demolish the dilapidated building on the lot to build an accessory building. Member Schlake notes again that buying an inexpensive lot has its own risks. Member Mueller states that he would like to have the P&Z have a little more control over these types of buildings. Kent Preston notes that the City would be able to control the nuisance risk of these properties with current nuisance ordinances. Bedlan notes that the intent is to make it easier to build accessory buildings on lots that are not being maintained and too small for new construction therefore increasing the tax base. Member Koerwitz states that he still believes the P&Z needs to regulate what is being built and he feels that if an individual wants to build a reasonable structure it will be allowed, it is just a matter of getting the proper permit. Bedlan notes that Bartels complaint is that until she purchases the property she cannot get a special use permit. Preston notes that these buildings would not be for commercial use and that the risk is if you buy the property and cannot get the permit for some reason you will be left with just another property that needs to be mowed. Bedlan states that the issue is just for discussion and does not need to be voted on tonight. She will bring it before them again at the next meeting for a vote. Member Mueller states that he believes there needs to be some sort of regulation of these structures at the P&Z level and asks if we want to incorporate the other restrictions. Bedlan states that they are not needed if they choose to not allow for accessory buildings on a lot without a primary structure because zoning already has restrictions incorporated for these buildings in each zoning district and that if they feel a need to look at some of these restrictions at a later date (for instance size restrictions) they can. Member Koerwitz questions restrictions on type of building, size and if drive troughs are allowed. Bedlan notes that those requirements are already set in current zoning.
6. Next, were comments from the public on non-agenda items.
Member Mueller asked if there were any comments from the public on non-agenda items and there were none.
7. With no other business on the agenda, Member Schlake made the motion to adjourn. Member Meyer seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Koerwitz, Mueller, Schlake, Meyer, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Laura K. Bedlan
Planning Commission Secretary