Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Monday, June 14, 2004
Chair Jack Hausmann called the regular meeting of the Wayne
Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m., on Monday, June 14, 2004, in the
Council Chambers of the Municipal Building.
Roll call was taken with the following members present: Marie Mohr, Sharon Braun, Vicki Pick, Kyle
Nelson, Bill Reeg, Darrell Miller, Don Endicott, Randy Brenner, Chair Jack
Hausmann, and Chief Inspector/Planner George Ellyson.
Motion made by Commissioner Pick and seconded by
Commissioner Miller to approve the minutes of Monday, May 3, 2004, as
stated. Chair Hausmann stated the
motion and second. All were in favor,
motion carried.
Chair Hausmann stated the first item on the agenda was the
discussion of retail stores, presented by City Administrator Lowell
Johnson. Administrator Johnson stated
that there is much consolidation of industrial, commercial, and retail type
businesses. There is a sorting out of
the "Mom and Pop" type businesses into larger businesses. In some of the areas of manufacturing and
retail, some of the smaller towns are losing their "Mom and Pop" stores and
they are selling out to larger manufacturing and retail type stores. Administrator Johnson opined that more
communities the size of Wayne, first class cities of Nebraska, are starting to
wake-up to the idea that they need to recruit the headquarter and ownership
type businesses or grow them locally and be cautious of someone that wants to
come in and have 800 jobs and add problems to the city's sewer system or a
retail store that may wipe out everything.
Administrator Johnson opined that he was bringing this to
the Planning Commission for their thoughts.
Johnson further opined that this should be included in the Municipal
Code so that if someone brings a proposal forward the city is not trying to
react to it and what are they going to do about it, because legally the city
may not be able to do anything.
Administrator Johnson suggested having a review process added to the
code that would allow the Planning Commission to require an impact study and
require a special use permit for those over a certain size, for example over
35,000 square feet. Administrator
Johnson opined that this is a forward looking item so that the city has some
control over its own destiny should someone want to come into town.
Administrator Johnson offered the following as a suggested
amendment: "Any new commercial or
industrial or retail business of 35,000 square feet or more would require a
special use permit and an economic impact study." Johnson opined that this could be included in the following
zoning districts: I-1, I-2, B-1, B-2,
and B-3 areas. Johnson opined that this
would give the Planning Commission an additional tool to use.
Commissioner Braun questioned what would be comparable to a
35,000 square foot building.
Administrator Johnson stated that the Community Activity Center is
38,000 square feet.
Commissioner Nelson questioned where in the code would this
be placed? Administrator Johnson stated
that it could be placed under the "Exception" portion.
Chair Hausmann questioned if there were any other questions
of Administrator Johnson. There being
none, Chair Hausmann moved onto the next agenda item, the discussion of permitted
accessory structures in the R zoning district.
Inspector Ellyson noted that at the last meeting the
Commission requested he seek information from other cities if they monitor, if
they manage, and if so how. Included in
the packet were copies of other communities and how they monitor and manage
accessory structures. Information was
gathered from Kearney, Blair, and Hastings.
Chair Hausmann stated for the Commission that at this point in time
there is nothing associated at this time in the zoning regulations and
therefore they are talking about the future, today.
Inspector Ellyson opined this issue has arisen based on the
lack of definition within the zoning language that would specifically set or
regulate the size of accessory structures, more specifically within the R
zoning designations. Based on that it
is something that the Commission needs to discuss is it something they want
to regulate, do they want to address it, do they want to have Inspector Ellyson
write something for the zoning language.
Chair Hausmann opined that looking at the various
communities he felt that Blair looked at the accessory structures more in line
with what Wayne would do rather than Kearney.
Perhaps Inspector Ellyson should put something together and bring it
back to the Planning Commission. Inspector
Ellyson asked the Commission which community they would prefer he model Wayne's
after?
Commissioner Reeg questioned if Inspector Ellyson had spoken
with anyone from the three communities regarding the information on accessory
structures? Inspector Ellyson stated
that he knows the building official from Blair very well and if it is within
code then it is working.
Chair Hausmann opined that the Commission is looking more at
a height factor as much as anything.
Inspector Ellyson also asked the Commission to consider something of a
green area preservation type language, percentage of lot coverage type
language, or square footage based on the accessory structure relevant to the
primary structure area.
Inspector Ellyson opined that using a percentage area of
lots is difficult to gate as there are such variable lot sizes. If the city was fairly regiment with the lot
sizes throughout the city, typical of newer subdivisions, then you could go on
a lot percentage. A percentage of
coverage for a smaller lot as opposed to a larger lot, still allows accessory
structures to be larger on the lot than typical. Inspector Ellyson opined this is why he felt that it was more
proportional to base the area of the accessory structure on a percentage or a
value of the principal structure. The
principal structure still has to be the main structure on any residential
lot. If you make accessory structures
subordinate to the principal structures, irregardless of the lot size, then you
have still set the accessory structure based on the principal structure.
Chair Hausmann asked for any further comments or questions
on the discussion item. Motion made by
Commissioner Reeg and seconded by Commissioner Brenner to direct Inspector
Ellyson to draft language, modeled after Blair, regarding accessory structures
in residential districts and present the same at the next regularly scheduled
meeting. Chair Hausmann stated the
motion and second; all were in favor, motion carried.
Chair Hausmann then moved onto the last agenda item, the
discussion of the proposed changes to Chapter 90 Zoning of the Wayne Municipal
Code. Chair Hausmann stated that Draft
8 had been previously mailed to the Commission. The changes that were made at the May meeting were revised and
resulted in Draft 8. Chair Hausmann
stated that the Commission would take each section individually and review it
at that time.
Chair Hausmann stated for those in attendance at the
meeting, that this was strictly for discussion and not a public hearing;
however, if anyone had a question, they were to step toward the microphone and
address the Commission.
Craig Tiedtke, resident of Wayne, was present to speak on
the agenda item. Mr. Tiedtke was
present representing a group of various property owners regarding the proposed
zoning changes. On behalf of those Mr.
Tiedtke was representing, the group was requesting that the Planning Commission
postpone a decision on the zoning changes, until a later date, minimum of 30
days. This would allow for additional
time, for all interested parties, to establish a much needed dialogue, various
alternatives, and ultimately accomplish a desired outcome.
Mr. Tiedtke stated that he does not own any rental property,
the item that struck him most, was that there did not seem to be any dialogue. Mr. Tiedtke opined that the Planning
Commission should involve as many people as possible, before a public hearing,
to look at all the various alternatives.
Inspector Ellyson questioned Mr. Tiedtke that if the
Planning Commission should wait 30-days, would the group of property owners
have something written within that time frame.
Mr. Tiedtke stated that 30-days would allow them, the group
of property owners, to have another meeting and formalize alternatives for the
Planning Commission's consideration.
Darrel Heier of 220 East 6th Street, questioned
what model the Commission used to make the proposed changes.
Inspector Ellyson stated that they had gone to the City of
Kearney.
Mr. Heier opined that some of the requirements being
proposed, such as separate electrical and separate heat, are really going to
affect the community of Wayne economically.
Chair Hausmann then stated that the Commission would
continue reviewing the proposed changes, beginning with Section 90-10
Definitions.
Inspector Ellyson stated that the Category One Conversions
are any single dwelling unit structures occupied in part by the owner(s) with
some portion offered for rent located in the R-1 zoning districts only. The owner resides there as their permanent
residence, but rents out a bedroom or a portion of a basement.
A Category Two Conversion are those same single dwelling
unit structures, occupied in part by the owner, located in any or all of the
other R zoning districts (R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5) as well as the B-1, B-2, and B-3.
Category Three is a single family dwelling unit and/or
duplex structure, offered in whole for rent and not occupied by the owner of
record.
Inspector Ellyson stated that these three are single family
dwellings or single dwelling units.
They can be duplexes with the proper separation requirements.
There being no further discussion on Section 90-10
Definitions, Chair Hausmann moved onto Section 90-710 Parking Regulations.
Inspector Ellyson stated that the language of Section 90-710
provides standards that previous to the proposed changes had not been a part of
the zoning language. The standards
simply state that one parking space per bedroom be set aside and devoted
on-site, but does make provisions for terrace parking spaces, a maximum of
two. It also provides design standards
for location of parking spaces in front of the dwelling unit. And, it also provides surfacing
requirements.
Chair Hausmann asked Inspector Ellyson to present a scenario
regarding a Category One with two bedrooms.
Inspector Ellyson stated that the owner of record is in residence of the
structure and rents out one bedroom. If
the structure has a two car garage then obviously the two spaces are provided
within the garage area. No parking
restrictions would be placed nor would be asked of that structure. The city would inspect for the five life
safety requirements smoke detectors, egress windows, ground fault control
circuitry, stairway that needed lights, and handrails.
Chair Hausmann then asked Inspector Ellyson to present another
scenario for a Category Three with two bedrooms. Inspector Ellyson stated that it would allow for one renter per
bedroom space, no parking would be required because there would be two parking
spaces with the two car garage. The
same life safety requirements would be required. Then that structure would be allowed to be rented by two
individuals, unrelated.
Question was raised from the audience, regarding four
unrelated people in the house.
Inspector Ellyson stated that it depends on the bedroom size. Parking is regulated by the amount of
bedrooms in the structure and depending on the number of occupants allowed in
the structure. A two bedroom unit would
be allowed to be rented by two occupants.
Therefore two parking spaces would be required, unless the owner had the
minimum standards for allowing more than two persons to occupy that bedroom
space or 140 square feet total.
Question from the audience was asked about a four bedroom
structure, on a corner lot, and a two car garage. Inspector Ellyson stated that the code would require two
additional parking spaces to the rear or side of the structure. The audience member asked if the two car
garage could be used and then have two additional spaces in front of the
garage. Inspector Ellyson stated that
would be allowed, provided that the 9x20 parking space is interior of the
lot. The code would require four
parking spaces interior of the lot two in the garage.
Question from the audience was asked about a four bedroom
structure, on a corner lot, and no garage.
Inspector Ellyson stated the code would require parking to be located no
more than two in front of the property, between the building line and the front
property line, and then the second two would be required to either the side of
the structure, behind the front building line, or in fact to the rear of the
property. If it has alley access, then
hard surfacing would be required to the parking, including the parking spaces,
in the front as well as the side. If
the entry to the parking space is hard surface, then the driveway and the
parking space are required to be hard surfaced.
Inspector Ellyson stated that each situation is specific to
itself and needs to be looked at on an individual basis.
Chair Hausmann asked if there were any other questions
specific to 90-710 Parking Regulations.
Chair Hausmann stated that for review purposes on page 6 of Draft 8,
there is a chart to explain what was discussed.
Chair Hausmann stated the next section for review is Section
90-202 and Section 90-205 of the R-1 Zoning District. Inspector Ellyson stated that the only addition to these sections
would be to add item number seven to Section 90-202, allowing a Category Three
as a permitted principal use and structure in an R-1.
Chair Hausmann moved onto Section 90-232 and Section 90-235
of the R-2 Zoning District. Inspector
Ellyson stated that once again these are additions to those particular sections
already in existence wherein a permitted principal use and structure would
include a two family dwelling, including Category Three duplexes. The proposed changes are expanding to
include the new definitions, Category One, Two, and Three. These changes will be consistent in each of
the R zoning districts wherein they are expanding the zoning language of each of
the zoning districts to include the new definitions.
Chair Hausmann then moved onto Section 90-262 and Section
90-265 of the R-3 Zoning District.
Again, Inspector Ellyson stated that this is additional language to the
existing, similar to the previous section.
Chair Hausmann then moved onto Section 90-292 and Section
90-294 of the R-4 Zoning District.
Inspector Ellyson stated that this language is specific to include
statements that are relevant to the R-4 zoning district.
Chair Hausmann moved onto Section 90-312 and Section 90-315
for the R-5 Zoning District. Again, as
previous zoning districts, Inspector Ellyson stated this section is being
amended to include the additional language.
Chair Hausmann then moved onto Section 90-354 of the B-1
Zoning District. Inspector Ellyson
stated that again this language is required to upgrade the B-1 language to
include the respective Categories, but it also is there as part of the parking
requirements in the B-1. It is part of
a housekeeping issue.
Chair Hausmann moved onto Section 90-394 of the B-2 Zoning
District. Inspector Ellyson stated that
it is the same as the B-1 Zoning District.
Chair Hausmann moved onto Section 90-424 of the B-3 Zoning
District. Inspector Ellyson stated that
it is the same as the previous B zoning district.
Chair Hausmann then proceeded onto Section 90-756 through
Section 90-761 Nonconforming Development.
Inspector Ellyson stated that this section is the focus of the changes
that the previous ones, if implemented need to show. So this section now becomes a similar, in most respects, to the
language that was brought back from Kearney, with regards to managing and
regulating these properties.
Basically nonconforming development identifies under the
following sections:
Section 90-756 Purpose defines the purpose of the section.
Section 90-757 Regulations additive basically states that
if there is a conflict, then the most restrictive regulation will apply, which
is more of a legal housekeeping issue.
Section 90-758 Nonconforming lots basically this section
refers to lots that do not meet the minimum area requirements.
Section 90-759 Nonconforming structures this section
refers to structures that were constructed legally under regulations in effect
before the effective date of these regulations. Section 90-759 specifically:
continuation, additions, or enlargements to nonconforming structures
provides provisions wherein structures can be enlarged, similar to some
existing language in the code, but this is more specific in identifying what
can happen to structures and how legal non-conforming structures can be
expanded.
Section 90-760 Nonconforming uses there is a difference
between uses and buildings, as buildings are in part regulated, but more
importantly zoning language tends to address uses rather than specific
buildings or building types. For
example, a roller skating rink may or may not be allowed in a zoning
district. Roller skating is the use and
the building is not being regulated.
This allows for non-conforming uses to continue and it allows any use
already in existence, at the time of the adoptive language, is allowed to
continue as is without being effected by any zoning changes. Under Section 90-760 Nonconforming uses
abandonment of nonconforming uses if the use becomes vacant or unused for a
continuous period of twelve months, then the use is abandoned.
Inspector Ellyson stated for the Commission that there are
draft/sample affidavits to accompany the proposed changes. These affidavits are merely a suggestion of
ways to prove that a structure is/was being utilized in some way, shape, or
form that may be a little different than what the code would allow for.
Inspector Ellyson stated that the proposed changes are
created with ways and means within the code that would allow for property
owners to come before the Planning Commission on an individual basis and to
have the Planning Commission take a look at each individual place to see
whether or not it fit the parameters used within the code. Basically the code wants to look at and
insure that each of the single dwelling units has egress windows available in
each bedroom; smoke detectors in each bedroom and the corridor connecting the
bedrooms; the code wants to see if there are GFCI controlled outlets at all
countertop locations (bathroom and kitchen); any stairway with more than six
risers in it, needs to have a light in the stairway; any set of steps with two
or more risers will be required to have a handrail; egress windows are required
in below grade bedrooms. These are the
five life safety code issues that will be looked at and addressed when an
inspection is conducted on the structure.
If these items are not in place, the city will ask that on some specific
date that all five of the life safety code issued will be in place within the
structure. Currently, and depending on
the discussion, the impending language of the proposed changes, the original
target date was August 1, 2005. There
would be some target date when all structures need to be registered. There would be a second target date for
compliance to the life safety code issues.
The final target date would be a two-year allowance for creating the
required parking spaces. The ordinance
is designed to cover approximately two-years in its entirety.
Inspector Ellyson stated that the original target date was
that all the structures be registered by December 1 of 2004 and then six-months
after the registration period that the property owners would need to be in
compliance with the life safety issues.
Then two years to meet the parking requirements.
Inspector Ellyson stated that the proposed changes were
intentionally spread out over two years for two reasons: one, that changes cost money, and two, did
not want to impose restrictive restrictions that in some instances, would cost
more. They did not want the changes to
have a serious adverse effect on the property owners, but rather compliance to
the structures at a more gradual rate that is fair to the entire community.
Commissioner Endicott asked if the standards were all in
place with new construction. Inspector
Ellyson stated that they were. The five
life safety codes issues are the minimum within the code. Inspector Ellyson stated that as he does
other inspections on complaint issues within the community, these are the five
code items that continually reoccur in the structures that he inspects.
Commissioner Endicott questioned how many GFCI receptacles
are required. Inspector Ellyson stated
that new code requires that there are two circuits in the kitchen of which
those that service countertops are required to be GFCI controlled.
Darrel Heier questioned the use of an air conditioner unit
in basement apartments. Mr. Heier
stated that the safety codes he understands, but some of the proposed changes
are meant for new construction and not for the older properties. Commissioner Endicott opined that if the
state comes in and tells you that you cannot do something anymore that is
reality. Mr. Heier stated that the
structure he owns has always been a duplex.
Commissioner Mohr questioned if there is a firewall between the two
units. Mr. Heier stated that there was
not a firewall. Mr. Heier also voiced
concerns regarding the parking requirements.
Ronald Carnes, property owner of 422 Lincoln, the structure
is a five-plex unit and an older structure.
Mr. Carnes stated that within the last three years they have had steam
heat with one furnace. They have added
so that now every apartment has their own thermostat. Would this mean that they would need to change so that every
apartment would have separate furnaces and eliminate the steam heat from the
apartments? Inspector Ellyson stated
that the five-plex unit would not be regulated by the proposed changes. It is not considered a single family
dwelling. Inspector Ellyson further
stated that the proposed changes are directed solely at single family dwellings
and not multi-family.
Chair Hausmann asked Inspector Ellyson to explain what
prompted the proposed changes.
Inspector Ellyson stated that for years the City of Wayne has dealt with
issues that created neighborhood problems as far as the perception of creating
a negative impact within any specific block or combined blocks of the
community.
Several years ago in 1995 the City went through a great deal
of discussion and involvement and adopted a definition in Section 90-10 of the
Zoning Code, regarding the definition of a "family". What the city tried focusing on was that many homes were occupied
beyond the safe capacity of that structure.
They were occupied without addressing life safety issues, as discussed
earlier.
The City then enacted an ordinance that stated that no more
than four unrelated adults were allowed to occupy a single dwelling unit. That definition became a very tough definition
from the standpoint of enforcement. How
did the city prove that there were more than four unrelated adults living in
one structure? The situation was
allowed to continue to exist based on no clear cut way of how to manage or
regulate the four unrelated. Recently
City Council has become much more aggressive and much more interested in
regulating and enforcing the no more than four unrelated zoning
definition. It has since become a
priority with the Council to make changes and to enforce the Section 90-10
definition.
Inspector Ellyson stated that there is constant debate
within the community regarding parking and it has become an issue and is one
reason why Council is addressing it.
One can see all over the community, cars parked randomly in front of
homes, helter-skelter parking in the front yard, in the mud, in tracks that are
cut in the properties, often the owners are absentee land owners. When contacting the owners regarding the
issues, they have no idea what is happening with the property. Then the City of Wayne has been in kind of a
management mode, wherein the city has been placed in the situation where the
city manages the property for the absentee land owners. The city is not in the property management
mode. The discussion within the Council
is designed and directed to require the property owners to become managers of
their own property. Those who have
managed their property in the past, the city had no problems. The city does not want to be a property
manager; therefore, the city is looking at some code changes that remove them
from the property management status and require the property owners to step up
and manage their own property. It is
the situations of a few properties that have brought the city to a more
regulatory position.
Inspector Ellyson stated that parking continues to be an
issue and discussion with parking on only one side of the street throughout the
city has been a concern.
Inspector Ellyson asked for any further comments from
Administrator Johnson. Johnson stated that
over the four years he has been here, parking has been a real concern,
especially the last year to eighteen months.
Chair Hausmann asked for any further comments. The spokesperson for the property owners in
attendance, opined that those rental units near his home, he has not had many
problems with parking, other than a few loud parties.
Chair Hausmann stated that this is the third discussion the
Planning Commission has had on the proposed changes. Inspector Ellyson reiterated that this is the third discussion of
the Commission. Inspector Ellyson asked
those that were at the other two meetings, where are the alternatives to the
proposed changes? This is the reason
the meeting occurred in a public discussion forum, was for an intake process.
Chair Hausmann stated that the Planning Commission will hold
a public hearing on the proposed changes and then their approval or disapproval
will be forwarded onto the City Council for their subsequent review and final
decision during a public hearing format.
Jack Middendorf, resident of Wayne, questioned how many
rental units there are in the City of Wayne and how many are owned by local
residents and how many are owned by out-of-town residents. Inspector Ellyson stated that there are at
least two or three out-of-town rental owners present at the meeting. Mr. Middendorf opined that it would be
helpful toknow how many are from out-of-town who own rental property.
Ken Prochop, resident of Wayne, questioned the family
definition. He had his wife purchased
some property before the enactment of the definition, more so to protect their
own property, rather than for investment.
The one property has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, living room, dining
room, and kitchen. Prior to the family
definition, it was rented to five unrelated people. Mr. Prochop's concern was that prior to the enactment of the
changes, are there some cases within the City of Wayne that can be looked at,
where there have been no problems as far as terrace parking or neighbors
calling in, or involving the police, that the landowners have met the
requirements to make the structure a safe, habitable space.
Inspector Ellyson wanted to clarify the question, by asking
if the Planning Commission would allow for more than four unrelated to occupy
the single family dwelling unit. Chair
Hausmann stated that the City Council would need to vote to override that type
of request, since the City Council enacted the ordinance.
Mr. Heier questioned if the City knew about HUD's
restrictions were not as restrictive as the city's. Inspector Ellyson stated that in any case law, whether or not
they agree with the federal or other entity, wherever two codes differ, the
more restrictive code will prevail in any court system.
Chair Hausmann asked the Planning Commission for a motion to
set a public hearing regarding the proposed changes.
Inspector Ellyson asked that the Planning Commission
consider and make discussion with the request before them regarding the 30-day
extension. Does the Commission want the
proposed changes to come back again in 30-days?
Motion made by Commissioner Endicott and seconded by
Commissioner Reeg to allow the property owners 30-days in which to present some
alternatives to the proposed changes and present them at the next regular
meeting. Chair Hausmann stated that tat
the last three meetings, the Commission has opened up the discussion to the
public to allow them to ask questions.
Draft 8 will be used as a means for the public hearing. Inspector Ellyson stated that part of the
public hearing process becomes part of the formal adoptive process required by
law, wherein the Commission discusses the proposed changes, wherein the public
hearing becomes part of the recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Reeg opined that the property owners
requesting the extension would have a much better comfort level if they were
given a 30-day extension. Chair
Hausmann stated the motion and second; all were in favor, motion carried.
Discussion was held among the Commission members regarding
how the proposed changes would get distributed to the property owners. Commissioner Braun stated any legal notice
in the newspaper would be adequate by law.
Further discussion among the Commission, indicated that there has been
much discussion about the proposed changes.
Inspector Ellyson stated for the property owners that if they present
changes, that they offer alternatives to the proposed changes.
There being no further discussion, motion was made by
Commissioner Mohr and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the
meeting. Chair Hausmann stated the
motion and second; all were in favor, motion carried and the meeting was
adjourned.
