September 14th, 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: Cathy Kleine, Greg Koerwitz, Gene Mueller, Bob Stepp, Bill Runge and Kendall Schlake.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the August 10th, 2009 meeting.
Member Schlake requested the word cheap be changed to inexpensive. Member Stepp made the motion to approve the minutes of the August 10th, 2009 meeting ‘as amended’ and member Schlake seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Stepp, Runge, Schlake) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the discussion and recommendation regarding the request for a Special Use Permit (SU-2009-05) from Greg Hergott to build an apartment on lot 11 & S 6” of S ˝ of lot 10, Blk. 31, Original Town, Fairbury Ne. [306 E Street] in the General Commercial Zone.
Mr. Hergott was present and spoke to the commission. He stated that he has converted the old 1935 Dodge Commercial Building into an apartment which he will move into permanently when he sells his other home. Right now it is 90% complete. All of his electric and pluming has been checked and certified per code requirements. He does have a bathroom and small cooking area although he does not currently cook at this location and he is now just waiting for Chief Voss’s inspection and occupancy permit. Member Kleine stated that when the comprehensive plan was originally written one of its goals was to get the downtown area functioning 24/7 and allow for residences in the downtown area so she finds it surprising that an apartment would not be an allowed use in that zoning district. Member Runge commented that it is nice to have a building renovated. Member Schlake questioned if the neighbors were ok with the apartment. Mr. Hergott stated that they were. Member Schlake noted that they would probably be present if they had any concerns about the renovation. Chief Voss informed the committee that pending their approval of the special use permit he will do an occupancy inspection because the structure has changed classification and he does not foresee any problems issuing and occupancy permit if the special use permit is granted. Member Kleine noted that the apartment meets the standards for a special use permit. Member Kleine made the motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Request for Special Use Permit application (SU-2009-05) from Greg Hergott to build and apartment on lot 11 & S 6” of S ˝ of lot 10, Blk. 31, Original Town, Fairbury Ne. [306 E Street] in the General Commercial Zone. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Mueller, Koerwitz, Runge, Schlake, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, was the hearing in regards to changes to section 4.13 A of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition (requiring accessory buildings be located only on lots with principal buildings).
Bedlan stated that the committee’s vote was in regards to Bartels request to allow for accessory buildings to be constructed on lots without primary buildings. She noted that although Mrs. Bartels could not attend tonight she had spoken with Bedlan earlier and stated that she would attend the council meeting at which planning and zoning makes their recommendation. Chief Voss wanted to make sure that the committee was aware that primary structures could not be used as storage units. He noted that the city is in the process of deciding how they will address this problem and the first step was to make the planning and zoning committee aware of the zoning rules regarding it. Member Stepp noted that there has been a lot of discussion in regards to allowing for accessory buildings on vacant lots and questioned if that is what they were hearing on tonight to which Bedlan stated that it was. City Administrator Joseph Parker was present and addressed the committee stating that he has acquired grant monies to teardown dilapidated houses and that many of these structures are on small lots that will be difficult to build new houses on. He noted the city’s concern that they may end up with a lot of nice empty lots that are not big enough for new houses. For this reason he feels that the allowance of accessory buildings on some of these small lots may help to solve the empty lots problem and also generate some tax revenue for the city. In regards to concerns about these properties being kept up he notes that he sees no reason why any neglected buildings couldn’t be attacked with the nuisance ordinance. Member Stepp questioned construction and setback requirements. Bedlan noted that there are already some accessory building requirements in zoning which specify construction requirements. She then read the accessory building requirements in section 4.13 and noted paragraph F. requiring structures be stick built and constructed of materials customarily used in residential construction and paragraph H. allowing for pre-fabricated buildings as long as they are constructed as designated by the instructions and use only the original components indicated in the plan. She believes this should prevent against unsafe and/or unsightly materials being used to build these structures. Member Stepp questions if they will need to vote on those specific requirements tonight. Bedlan stated that it will depend on how they choose to word their motion but that they do not have to vote on requirements for accessory buildings only on if they choose to allow for accessory buildings on lots without primary buildings. Member Koerwitz questioned how the special use permit process for building accessory buildings on lots without primary buildings would change based on their vote tonight. Bedlan stated that tonight they are voting on whether or not they are going to continue requiring special use permits for these types of accessory buildings. She stated that in Bartels situation to build an accessory building on the lot she is requesting she will need to first buy the lot then request a special use permit and pending its approval get a building permit and build her structure. If the committee votes to change this process then she will only need to purchase the lot, get a building permit and build her structure – there would be no special use permit requirement and she would not need to get approval from the planning and zoning committee. Member Koerwitz reiterated that they would be removing the need to get a special use permit to put up a secondary building on a lot without a primary building. Member Kleine noted that Bartels cannot apply for the currently required special use permit without first purchasing the lot and suggested that one way to fix this issue and not get rid of the special use permit requirement would be to allow for a pre-application for special use permit which would essentially tell Bartels if she would be allowed to put an accessory building on this lot prior to purchasing it. Bedlan referred the committee to the pre-application she handed out prior to the meeting that was patterned after the pre-application used for subdivisions and noted that member Kleine’s proposed pre-application could either be in written form or just as an agenda item on which the planning commission will discuss and recommend on whether the individuals plans and data meet the objectives of the regulations. Chief Voss stated that if they choose to do a pre-application he would like to see some objectives from the committee in regards to their requirements and notes that people may come to get pre-applications just to raise the value of their lots. He stated that he would much prefer to have it either be all or nothing and have the requirements written prior to allowing for these types of structures. He also asked the committee to keep in mind that you can build a garage on a property on which a dilapidated primary building is located and then teardown the dilapidated building and you have the same end result as is being requested now. He also suggested another compromise may be to specify the maximum lot size these garages may be built on so as to prevent building these accessory buildings on lots that could be used for new home construction. It is also noted that you can already do this if your lot is adjacent to the proposed building site. Member Runge questioned Mr. Parker about what will happen to the vacant lots after the dilapidated buildings are demolished. Mr. Parker stated that there are a few that the city has purchased but most of the lots will not change ownership and therefore will still need to be maintained by the property owner. Again, he noted his concern that this may generate a lot of vacant lots that are not big enough to build new homes on. Member Koerwitz questioned if Mr. Parker is in favor of abolishing the need for individuals to get the special use permit. Mr. Parker stated that he was in favor of this and that he also thought the pre-application was a good idea his only concern is that the committee may get themselves into a situation where they feel they need to change their mind after they give their approval for the pre-application. Mr. Parker also noted that it seems like the resident trying to build an accessory building on a lot without a primary building can find ways to circumvent the system anyway. Member Stepp stated that he feels that a pre-application may be more of a hassle for those involved. Member Schlake stated that his concern is that the city may lose control of what is being put up and he wanted to make sure that there is enough “teeth” in the zoning regulations to control it. Member Runge stated that with the upcoming demos this may be a good opportunity to clean up lots and get them to owners who will take care of them. Bedlan stated that zoning already has some regulations that deal with construction of accessory buildings and she suggest the committee review section 4.13 to see if that is enough “teeth” for them. Based on that they can decide if they want to add more restrictions or not. Member Kleine clarified that the vote for tonight is to decide if they are to eliminate the special use permit from section 4.13. Member Mueller closed the hearing. Member Stepp made the motion to modify section A and I of 4.13 of the Fairbury zoning regulations to allow for construction of an accessory building on a lot without a primary building pending review and acceptance of suggested requirements from the city. Member Schlake seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Schlake, Runge, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
5. 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.
6. With no other business on the agenda, Member Kleine made the motion to adjourn. Member Koerwitz seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 6 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Mueller, Schlake, Runge, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Laura K. Bedlan
Planning Commission Secretary