Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Monday, May 3, 2004

 

Chair Jack Hausmann called the regular meeting of the Wayne Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, May 3, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building.  Roll call was taken with the following members present:  Vicki Pick, Randy Brenner, Darrell Miller, Kyle Nelson, Sharon Braun, Chair Jack Hausmann, and Chief Inspector/Planner George Ellyson.  Absent:  Marie Mohr, Bill Reeg, and Don Endicott.

 

Motion made by Commissioner Braun and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the minutes of Monday, April 5, 2004, as stated.  Chair Hausmann stated the motion and second.  All were in favor; motion carried.

 

Chair Hausmann stated the first agenda item was the discussion of permitted accessory structures in R zoning districts.  City Administrator Lowell Johnson was in attendance to discuss this item.

 

Administrator Johnson stated that he wanted to make the Planning Commission aware of something in regards to this agenda issue.  Johnson stated that he does not usually see building permit applications, but occasionally he sees something that is of concern and needs some special attention.  Johnson opined that there are two issues, in residential areas there are no restrictions on the size of accessory structures.  Occasionally you come across a proposal where the accessory structure is larger than the house and the intent of the neighborhood is residential, if a building is built that is larger than the house and it is placed right next to another home, there is a concern that needs to be looked at.  Johnson stated that an application has come forward regarding a 40x48x16 garage in a residential area.  He opined that the size of the building when staked on the property does not fit the neighborhood and Johnson stated that the applicant was asked to come back with a smaller sized building plan more incline with the residential neighborhood area.  Johnson opined that when you live in a rural area, one is not putting an accessory structure 15 to 20 feet from another residence.  When you live in town, it affects those that live 15 to 20 feet from you.  Administrator Johnson noted that Inspector Ellyson had drafted some suggestions for accessory structures and size for the meeting.

 

Administrator Johnson noted for the Commission that the next issue has not risen in Wayne, but has come up in other communities, is the issue of galvanized steel buildings in residential areas.  Johnson opined that he does not find it appropriate material for a building in a residential neighborhood.

 

Johnson opined that the purpose of zoning areas is to have buildings and uses that are consistent somewhat with the primary uses in the area.

 

Inspector Ellyson provided copies of Draft 1 of the proposed changes for accessory structures and uses in R-1 through R-5 zones, and B-2 and B-3 zones.  The proposed changes were the same in each of the aforementioned zoning districts.

 

Chair Hausmann asked if there were any further questions and/or comments from the Commission members.

 

Commissioner Miller questioned additional structures on the property.  Inspector Ellyson stated that the 50% would be accumulative of all the accessory structures.

 

Commissioner Braun questioned why Inspector Ellyson chose 50%.  He stated it was just a number and after trying several different percentages, it kept coming back to 50%.  Commissioner Braun questioned if other communities regulate permitted accessory structures.  Inspector Ellyson stated that other communities do some regulating, mostly by no more than a percentage of the lot area.

 

Inspector Ellyson stated that many subdivisions place their own covenants regulating accessory structures.

 

Commissioner Braun opined that they should look into other communities, specifically looking at those communities that use a percentage of the lot size.

 

Commissioner Brenner questioned if that 50% calculated for height of the structure.  Inspector Ellyson stated that it does not calculate in height.

 

Chair Hausmann stated that due to time limitations for the meeting, that the item be tabled until the June or July meeting for further discussion.  Inspector Ellyson questioned if the Commission wanted to direct him to seek what other communities are doing regarding this issue.

 

Chair Hausmann then moved onto the next agenda item regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 90 Zoning of the Wayne Municipal Code.  Chair Hausmann stated that there are several changes, and that it is only a draft and it is not a public hearing, the Commission is simply going to discuss the changes.

 

Inspector Ellyson began reviewing DRAFT 7 beginning with Section 90-10 Definitions and those changes that were added or deleted since the last draft.  Those changes in Section 90-10 were:  addition of definition ‘bedroom'; addition of ‘conversions' to Category One definition; addition of ‘occupied in part by the owner(s) with some portion' to the definition of Category One Conversions and Category Two; addition of Category Three; addition of ‘or property line' and ‘or asphalt' and to item no. 4 addition of ‘and Category Three' to Terrace Parking definition.

 

A member of the public questioned what constituted an individual.  Inspector Ellyson gave an example of two sisters coming to Wayne and attending college, lived together, would be considered two individuals and no more could occupy the structure.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto Section 90-710 Parking Regulations.  Deletion and an addition was made to item (c)(1) deleted ‘bedroom' and added ‘tenant'; addition to (c)(3) ‘asphalt'; addition to (c)(4) ‘or'; (c)(5) the addition of concerns regarding the surface of parking; deletion and addition was made to item (d)(1) delete ‘bedroom' and add ‘tenant'; (d)(3) addition of ‘asphalt'; (d)(5) the addition of concerns regarding the surface of parking; part (e) Residential Structure Category Three (single family) was added; part (f) addition of ‘Category One, Category Two, and Category Three dwelling units'.  The table in Section 90-710 was amended to include Category One, Two, Three – single and duplex.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto R-1 Residential Zoning Section 90-202, 90-205.  Addition to item no. 1 ‘including Category Three duplexes'; item no. 13 addition of (a) ‘maximum of two tenants shall only be allowed in any Category One Conversion'; (b) addition of ‘provided the bedroom meets minimum room dimensions as defined by this code'; (d) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto R-2 Residential Zoning Section 90-232, 90-235.  Addition to item no. 1 ‘including Category Three duplexes'; addition of item no. 10 ‘Category Three single family dwellings'; item no. 9 addition of (a) ‘maximum of two tenants shall only be allowed in any Category Two Conversion'; (b) addition of ‘provided the bedroom meets minimum room dimensions s defined by this code'; (d) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members or those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto R-3 Residential Zoning Section 90-262, 90-265.  Addition to item no. 2 ‘including Category Three duplexes'; addition of item no. 10 ‘Category Three single family dwellings'; item no. 12 addition of (a) ‘maximum of two tenants shall only be allowed in any Category Two Conversion'; (b) addition of ‘provided the bedroom meets minimum room dimensions as defined by this code'; (d) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto R-4 Residential Zoning Section 90-292, 90-294.  Addition to item no. 2 ‘including Category Three duplexes'; addition of item no. 10 ‘Category Three single family dwellings'; item (b)(2)(b)(1) addition of (1) ‘maximum of two tenants shall only be allowed in any Category Two Conversion'; (2) addition of ‘provided the bedroom meets minimum room dimensions as defined by this code'; (4) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto R-5 Residential Zoning Section 90-312, 90-315.  Addition to item no. 2 ‘including Category Three duplexes'; addition of item no. 7 ‘Category Three single family dwellings'; item no. 7(b) addition of (1) ‘maximum of two tenants shall only be allowed in any Category Two Conversion'; (2) addition of ‘provided the bedroom meets minimum room dimensions as defined by this code'; (4) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto B-1 Highway Commercial Zoning Section 90-354.  Addition to item no. c ‘use or', ‘or Category Three', (1) add ‘two' and delete ‘three', and add ‘(Category Two) or maximum of four tenants (Category Three designation), provided each bedroom meets minimum room dimensions as defined by this code'; (4) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto B-2 Central Business Zoning Section 90-394.  Addition to item no. c ‘use or', or ‘or Category Three', (1) add ‘two' and delete ‘three', and add ‘(Category Two) or maximum of four tenants (Category Three designation), provided each bedroom meets minimum dimensions as defined by this code'; (4) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

There being no further discussion among the Commission members and those in attendance from the public, Inspector Ellyson moved onto B-3 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Section 90-424.  Addition to item no. c ‘use or', ‘or Category Three', (1) add ‘two' and delete ‘three', and add ‘(Category Two) or maximum of four tenants (Category Three designation), provided each bedroom meets minimum room dimensions as defined by this code'; (4) addition of ‘or Category Three', ‘with the exception of the public hearing requirements', deleted the including of public hearings by Planning Commission and City Council.

 

Inspector Ellyson stated that new section consists of Section 90-756 through 90-761 and is basically the section brought back from the City of Kearney.  This section establishes a time element or time frame that provides the property owners time to bring the dwelling units up to some minimal code requirements and or then also the parking requirements.

 

Inspector Ellyson then began reviewing section 90-756 purpose, 90-757 regulations additive, 90-758 nonconforming lots – Ellyson gave a brief explanation of what this particular section means.

 

Inspector Ellyson began reviewing section 90-759 nonconforming structures.

 

Additions were made to section 90-761 (b) adding ‘and Category Three'; addition of (b)(3) Category Three Properties; (c)(2) addition relating to Category Three structures; (c)(3) addition of ‘legal and or'; (d)(1) addition of ‘legal or'; deletion of unimproved; (d)(2) addition of ‘and/or'.

 

Inspector Ellyson reviewed the sample affidavit forms which can be used to help prove the legal status prior to 1979, the adoption of zoning.  One form is from a former property owner and the other from a neighbor.

 

Inspector Ellyson asked the Commission and those in attendance if they had any specific questions regarding the proposed changes.

 

One question from the public questioned some structures located along Logan Street and Nebraska Street, there were some hard rock, gravel, rock, and wood chip.  Inspector Ellyson questioned if these structures were owner occupied or rentals, the gentleman from the public stated that he thought they were all owner occupied.  Inspector Ellyson stated that the proposed language does not address owner occupied structures.  The gentleman questioned why it was only those rental units and not owner occupied units.  Inspector Ellyson was unsure.  Inspector Ellyson suggested that those types of concerns and comments be brought up at the public hearing at the Planning Commission and the City Council hearings.

 

Chair Hausmann questioned the Commission if they would like to have one more meeting regarding the proposed changes before holding a public hearing.  The consensus of the Commission was to hold one more discussion session prior to holding a public hearing on the proposed changes.

 

Chair Hausmann stated that he and Commissioner Pick will be absent for the next regular scheduled meeting on Monday, June 7.  Inspector Ellyson questioned if the Commission would be willing to meet at another time during the month so as to allow all the members to be present.

 

Consensus of the Commission was to hold the next meeting on Monday, June 14, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.  There being no further discussion, motion made by Commissioner Pick and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting.  Chair Hausmann stated the motion and second, all were in favor, motion carried and the meeting was adjourned.