Kearney, Nebraska
March 23, 2004
7:30 p.m.
Prior to
the regular Council meeting, the Council met as the Board of Directors for the
Kearney Municipal Airport Corporation in open and public session at 7:30 p.m. on March 23, 2004 in
the Council Chambers at City Hall. This meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. A meeting of the City Council of Kearney,
Nebraska, was then convened in open and public session at 7:46 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Present
were: Bruce L. Blankenship, President of the Council; Michaelle Trembly,
City Clerk; Council Members Randy Buschkoetter, Stan Clouse, Galen
Hadley. Absent: Don Kearney. G. Allen Johnson, City Manager;
Michael Kelley, City Attorney; John Prescott, Assistant City Manager; Wendell
Wessels, Director of Finance and Administration; Kirk Stocker, Director of
Utilities; and Rod Wiederspan, Director of Public Works were also
present. Some of the citizens present in the audience included: Larry
Vogel, Kent Cordes, Dan Lindstrom, Travis Mason, Leonard Skov, Mark Bowman,
Terry Hibberd, Brian Thome, Kyle Harshbarger, Terry Eirich, Matt Manary, Dan
Lynch, Byron Hanson, Jim Tacha, Mike Martinosky, Lichelle Martinosky, Chris
Vasquez, Rand Petersen, Rich Spellman, Jerry Thompson, Ken Tracy, Brian
Summers, Sandy Walker, Mike Guenther, Jim Brooker, Scott Hayden, Tim Lowe,
Steve Lewis, Carlos Segura, Jack Garrison, Davin Jones-UNK Representative, Mike
Konz from Kearney Hub, and Mike Cahill from KKPR Radio.
Notice of the meeting was given
in advance thereof by publication in the Kearney Hub, the designated method for
giving notice, a copy of the proof of publication being attached to these
minutes. Advance notice of the meeting was also given to the City Council
and a copy of their acknowledgment or receipt of such notice is attached to
these minutes. Availability of the Agenda was communicated in the advance
notice and in the notice to the Mayor and City Council. All proceedings
hereafter shown were taken while the meeting was open to the attendance of the
public.
I. ROUTINE BUSINESS
INVOCATION
Reverend Matt Robinson from the
Presbyterian Church provided the Invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Kearney Volunteer Fire
Department Color Guard presented the flags. Boy Scouts Dan Hanson and Matt
Hanson led the Council members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
RECOGNITION – BRIAN SUMMERS
Mayor Blankenship and Council
members recognized Brian Summers for saving a boy’s life. He was presented an
award by the Kearney Police Department.
RECOGNITION – KVFD MEMBERS JIM
BROOKER, MIKE MARTINOSKY, MIKE GUENTHER AND SANDY WALKER
KVFD Service Awards were
presented to Jim Brooker – 15 years, Mike Martinosky – 15 years, Mike Guenther
– 5 years, Sandy Walker – 5 years.
RECOGNITION – SCOTT HAYDEN AND
MARK BOWMAN
City employee Mark Bowman was
honored for 25 years of service with the Utilities/Water Production Division.
He was presented a $100 savings bond. City employee Scott Hayden was also
honored for 15 years of service with the Park & Recreation
Department. He was presented a watch.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There was no Oral Communications.
II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no Unfinished Business.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Hadley seconded by
Buschkoetter that Subsections 1 through 12 of Consent Agenda Item IV be
approved. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Hadley,
Clouse, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
1.
Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting held March 9, 2004.
2.
Approve the following Claims: 3CMA $350.00 Dues; A-1 Refrigeration $4,426.84
Rep; Adams Co Sheriff $1,000.00 Dues; Alamar Uniforms $2,907.00 Su; Amer Fence
$660.00 Rep; Amer Planning $315.00 Dues; AMS $54.66 Rep; Antelope Newspaper
$126.50 Serv; APWA $125.00 Tr; AT&T $141.86 Serv; Automated Systems $806.75
Serv; Baird, Holm $400.00 Serv; Baker & Taylor $1,469.71 Bks; Bamford
$752.18 Rep; BBC Audiobooks $256.38 Bks; BD Construction $7,443.25 Serv;
Beckson $77.06 Su; Berens-Tate Consulting $8,500.00 Serv; Blue Cross Blue
Shield $39,042.45 Claims; Books on Tape $447.20 Bks; Bowman, M $40.25 Tr;
Broadfoot Sand $2,726.65 Su; Buffalo Co Attorney $11,250.00 Serv; Buffalo Co Court
$164.98 Ded; Builder's Warehouse $61.64 Su; Bundy, L $20.14 Ref; Capstone Press
$1,644.60 Bks; Cash-Wa $166.27 Su; Child's World $1,152.70 Bks; City Glass
$99.68 Rep; City of Ky $91,780.09 Various; College Savings Plan of NE $115.00
Ded; Construction Rental $95.00 Serv; Control Masters $828.00 Rep; Cordova, T
$10.70 Tr; Culligan $67.67 Rep; Cummins Great Plains $429.64 Equip; Darley, W
$275.59 Equip; Dawson Co PPD $11,672.82 Serv; Dineen, F $53.14 Ref; Direct
Digital $4,616.56 Bks; Diverse Media $34.19 Bks; DT Development $1,354.41 Ref;
Dugan Business Forms $1,016.41 Su; Dutton-Lainson $562.99 Various; Dynix
$1,011.50 Serv; Eakes $121.24 Su; Ecolab $26.00 Su; EDM Equipment $639.29
Various; EFI-Wright Sales $1,331.03 Rep; Ely Churchich & Assoc $11,363.00 Serv;
Envirotech Services $11,376.70 Su; ESRI $3,128.50 Various; Fastenal $14.54 Rep;
FBINAA $55.00 Capital Outlay; Fedex $148.48 Pstg; Freburg, N $184.62 Ded; Fred
Pryor Seminars $195.00 Tr; Fremont Nat'l Bank $33,729.26 Ded; Frontier
$7,730.93 Serv; Galls $386.41 Various; Garrelts, P $8.05 Ref; Garrett Tires
$4,862.06 Various; Gary's I-80 $880.00 Serv; Great Plains One-Call $114.79
Serv; Great Plains Safety & Health $2,175.00 Serv; Guideposts $16.94 Bks;
H&G Cleaners $264.67 Serv; ICMA RC $2,879.94 Ded; IRS $75,799.13 Ded; Jack
Lederman Co $60.36 Various; James W Bell Co $182.20 Su; Johnson Corrosion Eng
$1,976.64 Serv; Ky Clinic $434.00 Serv; Ky Concrete $1,677.77 Serv; Ky Hub
$2,986.34 Serv; Ky Winlectric $97.92 Su; Ky Winnelson $7,143.90 Inv; Kirkham Michael
$1,003.51 Serv; Lamp, Rynearson & Assoc $860.30 Serv; Laser Art Design
$23.54 Serv; Laughlin, K $360.00 Ded; Lawchek $250.00 Bks; Lea, A $8.78 Ref;
Lerner Publication $150.82 Bks; Lewis, J $51.55 Ref; Lexis Nexis $89.00 Bks;
Linda's Upholstery $91.85 Su; Linweld $70.74 Various; Lisa's $10.00 Serv;
Lynch, D $106.95 Tr; Magic Cleaning $600.00 Serv; Marlatt Machine Shop
$15,436.98 Various; Martinosky, M $50.00 Ref; McLaughlin, P $10.70 Tr; MGS Tech
$19.28 Serv; Microfilm Imaging $2,380.00 Serv; Mid America Pump $6,254.00 Rep;
Midlands Contracting $7,432.00 Rep; Midwest Turf $82.08 Rep; Miller &
Associates $35,276.59 Serv; Miller Signs $1,916.00 Various; Mitchell 1 $530.60
Bks; Moore Construction $737.54 Ref; Motorola $20,106.14 Serv; MSI Systems $2,500.00
Serv; Municipal Supplies $475.91 Su; Murray, S $35.71 Ref; Nat'l Paper Supplies
$150.00 Su; NWWA $20,690.58 Various; NCS Equipment $154.48 Rep; NE Child
Support $978.49 Ded; NE Supreme Court $104.85 Bks; NE Assoc of Airport
Officials $500.00 Rep; Ne-IAI $15.00 Tr; Nelson Furniture $2,322.79 Serv; NERPA
$30.00 Tr; Northstar Audio Books $6.50 Bks; Northwestern $13,733.95 Serv; NSVFA
$1,455.00 Tr; Office Depot $1,584.04 Su; Ostendorf, J $31.52 Ref; Overhead Door
$1,275.51 Various; Paramount Linen $54.12 Su; Paul Otto Curb Grinding $54.00
Serv; Pierson, Fitchett $81.00 Serv; Platte Valley Communications $5,998.13
Serv; Presto X $121.00 Serv; Quality Books $2,330.39 Bks; Recorded Books
$134.80 Bks; Regional Books $180.54 Bks; Research Tech $89.95 Su; Riverside Animal
Hospital $1,000.85 Serv; Roper's Radiator $39.50 Su; Saathoff, J $800.97
Various; Sahling Kenworth $266.28 Rep; Sandhills Press $47.00 Bks; Sesna, D
$10.70 Tr; S-F Analytical Lab $490.00 Serv; Shamrock $52.98 Su; Simmerman
Electric $390.00 Rep; Slack, E $53.14 Ref; Snap on Tools $926.35 Tools; Solid
Waste Equipment $4,044.00 Containers; Special Operations Tech $139.00 Equip;
Splitter, M $423.23 Tr; Sprint $199.08 Serv; St of NE Dept of Aeronautics
$1,470.00 Various; Super Shine $7.00 Rep; Sutphen $114.30 Rep; T&B Cleaning
$1,500.00 Serv; Theis, G $32.23 Pc; Thompson, J $40.25 Tr; Underground
Construction $7,820.00 Serv; Union Oil $228.00 Inv; UNK-Human Resources $242.49
Serv; Urbanek, G $10.70 Tr; US Postmaster $345.00 Pstg; VHPS $152.96 Bks; Village
Cleaners $289.36 Various; Washington State Support $102.01 Ded; Wilke Donovan's
$56.39 Rep; Willenberg, B $10.23 Ref; Willis Shoes $140.13 Rep; WPCI $214.00
Serv; Zimmerman Printers $245.95 Serv; Payroll Ending 03-06-2004 --
$234,157.72. The foregoing schedule of claims is published in accordance
with Section 19-1102 of the Revised Statutes of Nebraska, and is published at
an expense of $_________ to the City of Kearney.
3.
Receive recommendations of Planning Commission and set April 13, 2004 at 7:30 P.M. as date and time for hearing on those applications where applicable.
4.
Ratify the action taken by the Kearney Municipal Airport Corporation on
approving the T-Hangar A-2 Lease Agreement with Timothy Rhoads, dba “Falcon
Helicopters, Inc.” and approve Resolution No. 2004-46.
RESOLUTION NO.
2004-46
BE IT RESOLVED
by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the
President be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the T-Hangar Lease
Agreement, on behalf of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, with Timothy Rhoads, dba
“Falcon Helicopters, Inc.”, a copy of the Agreement, marked Exhibit “1”, is
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2004.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
CITY
CLERK
5.
Approve the application for a Special Designated License submitted by STEVE
& JONI PAULSEN, dba “Party Pros Catering” in connection with their Class
D/K Catering Liquor License to dispense beer, wine and distilled spirits at the
Buffalo County Fairgrounds, 3807 Avenue N in the Exposition Building on April
16 and 17, 2004 from 12:00 p.m. (noon) until 1:00 a.m. and in the Exhibit
Building on April 16 and 17, 2004 from 9:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. in connection
with the Rodeo and Dance.
6.
Approve Change Order No. 6 for a decrease in the amount of $1,325,737.00
submitted and approved by CH2M Hill in connection with the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Renovation Project and approve Resolution No. 2004-47.
RESOLUTION
NO. 2004-47
WHEREAS,
Centric/Jones Company of Denver, Colorado has performed services in connection
with the Kearney Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements, Schedule “A”, and the
City's engineer, CH2M Hill, have filed with the City Clerk Change Order No. 6
showing a decrease in the amount of $1,325,737.00 as shown on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as follows:
|
Original Contract Sum
|
$12,950,000.00
|
|
Change
Order No. 6
|
-
1,325,737.00
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Sum To Date
|
$11,624,263.00
|
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of
Kearney, Nebraska, and hereby find and determine that Change Order No. 6, as
shown on Exhibit “A”, be and is hereby accepted and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2004.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
CITY
CLERK
7.
Approve the application for a Special Designated License submitted by JUAN
LAZO, dba “El Tropico” in connection with their Class B/M37623 Liquor License
to dispense beer and distilled spirits in the Exhibit Building located at the
Buffalo County Fairgrounds, 3807 Avenue N on May 1, 2004 from 12:00 p.m. (noon)
until 1:00 a.m. in connection with the Cinco de Mayo Celebration subject to the
City receiving the required Certificate of Insurance.
8.
Designate Wells Fargo Bank Nebraska, N.A. of Kearney; Platte Valley State Bank
& Trust Company of Kearney; Kearney State Bank & Trust Company of
Kearney; US Bank of Kearney; Nebraska National Bank of Kearney; Commercial
Federal Bank of Kearney; TierOne Bank of Kearney; and Five Points Bank of Kearney
as the City’s depositories for funds of the City of Kearney and approve
Resolution No. 2004-48.
RESOLUTION
NO. 2004-48
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have determined that it is appropriate and
proper to designate various banks as depositories for funds of the City of Kearney.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of
Kearney, Nebraska, that Wells Fargo Bank Nebraska, N.A. of Kearney, Platte
Valley State Bank & Trust Company of Kearney, Kearney State Bank &
Trust Company of Kearney, US Bank of Kearney, Nebraska National Bank of
Kearney, Commercial Federal Bank of Kearney, TierOne Bank of Kearney, and Five
Points Bank of Kearney be and are hereby designated as city depository banks.
However, such designation as a city depository shall not be exclusive and shall
not be determined in any way to constitute a franchise to the exclusion of
other designated depositories.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the President and City
Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska that checks, drafts or other
withdrawal orders issued against the funds of the City on deposit with said
depositories be signed by any one of the following who now hold offices or
positions with the City:
G. Allen Johnson, City Manager
Wendell R. Wessels, Director of Finance and Administration
Nancy Roth, Accounting Technician
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions and parts of
resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed and that Resolution No.
2002-110 is hereby specifically rescinded and repealed.
PASSED AND
APPROVED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2004.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
CITY CLERK
9.
Approve the request submitted by Cathleen McCue-Headlee to extend Conditional
Use Permit No. 95-02 granting a dog grooming service at 211 East 30th Street
for a period of one year.
10.
Approve Change Order No. 1 for a decrease in the amount of $10,355.60,
Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3-Final in the amount of $8,493.63,
and the Certificate of Substantial Completion submitted by Dan Roeder Concrete
and approved by Miller & Associates in connection with the 2003 Part III
Improvements consisting of Paving Improvement District No. 2003-874 for
52nd Street from Avenue E to 175 feet west of Avenue B Place, Paving
Improvement District No. 2003-875 for Avenue C Place from 52nd Street to its
terminus in a cul-de-sac, Paving Improvement District No. 2003-876 for Avenue B
Place from 52nd Street to its terminus in a cul-de-sac and approve Resolution
No. 2004-49.
RESOLUTION
NO. 2004-49
WHEREAS, Dan
Roeder Concrete, Inc. has performed services in connection with the 2003
Part III Improvements consisting of Paving Improvement District No.
2003-874 for 52nd Street from Avenue E to 175 feet west of Avenue B Place,
Paving Improvement District No. 2003-875 for Avenue C Place from 52nd Street to
its terminus in a cul-de-sac, Paving Improvement District No. 2003-876 for
Avenue B Place from 52nd Street to its terminus in a cul-de-sac, and the City's
engineer, Miller & Associates, have filed with the City Clerk Change Order
No. 1 showing a decrease in the amount of $10,355.60 as shown on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference; and
WHEREAS, Dan
Roeder Concrete, Inc. and Miller & Associates have filed with the City
Clerk Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3-Final in the amount of
$8,493.63 as shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference and as follows:
|
Original Contract Sum
|
$225,828.20
|
|
Change
Order No. 1 (3-23-2004)
|
- 10,355.60
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Sum To Date
|
215,472.60
|
|
Gross Amount Due
|
215,472.60
|
|
Retainage
|
.00
|
|
Amount Due to Date
|
215,472.60
|
|
Less Previous Certificates for
Payment
|
206,978.97
|
|
|
|
|
Current Payment Due
|
$
8,493.63
|
WHEREAS, the Engineer and Contractor have now certified to the City Clerk that
work is completed as of August 21, 2003, as shown by Exhibit “C” attached
hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of
Kearney, Nebraska, and hereby find and determine that Change Order No. 1, as
shown on Exhibit “A”, Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3-Final, as
shown on Exhibit “B”, and the Certificate of Substantial Completion, as shown
on Exhibit “C” be and are hereby accepted and approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2004.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
CITY
CLERK
11.
Approve the request submitted by the Kearney Volunteer Fire Department, in
conjunction with Kidz Explore, to block off the west end of Platte Road in
front of the Tri-City Arena, 609 Platte Road, on April 24, 2004 from 9:00 a.m.
until 6:00 p.m. and on April 25, 2004 from 12:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.
12.
Ratify the action taken by the Kearney Municipal Airport Corporation on
approving the execution of a Letter of Support for Essential Air Service to the
Department of Transportation and approve Resolution No. 2004-50.
RESOLUTION NO.
2004-50
WHEREAS, the Kearney Municipal Airport has been working diligently to improve
the air service options available to central Nebraskans and to increase the
number of enplanements from the local airport; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation is presently accepting
recommendations to award a two-year contract for Essential Air Service; and
WHEREAS, such contract could provide up to $1 million in improvement funds
contingent on the number of enplanements; and
WERHEAS, on March 23, 2004, the Kearney City Council approved a resolution
submitting a recommendation to the Department of Transportation to provide
eastbound air service from Kearney, Nebraska to Kansas City, Missouri with one
stop in Grand Island, Nebraska, and to provide westbound air service from Grand
Island, Nebraska to Denver, Colorado with one stop in Kearney, Nebraska; and
WHEREAS, this proposal would serve more passengers in central Nebraska, and
would be the best use of federal Essential Air Service subsidies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kearney, Nebraska supports these cooperative efforts to
increase affordable, convenient options for air travel for central Nebraska;
and
WHEREAS, increased traffic to serve central Nebraska would be a valuable asset
to the community and surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of
Kearney, Nebraska, that the President and City Council of Kearney, Nebraska do
hereby pledge their full support, endorsement, and cooperation with the City of
Grand Island, Nebraska in submitting a recommendation to the Department of
Transportation seeking Essential Air Service improvement funding to provide
eastbound air service from Kearney, Nebraska to Kansas City, Missouri with one
stop in Grand Island, Nebraska, and to provide westbound air service from Grand
Island, Nebraska to Denver, Colorado with one stop in Kearney, Nebraska.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Letter of Support executed by the Airport Manager
and the Kearney City Council, acting as the Kearney Municipal Airport
Corporation, be submitted to the Department of Transportation expressing
support for such project.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2004.
ATTEST:
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
CITY
CLERK
V. CONSENT AGENDA
ORDINANCES
None.
VI. REGULAR AGENDA
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LIGHTHOUSE
POINT SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by
Blankenship to remove from the table for discussion the “Second Amendment to
Lighthouse Point Subdivision Agreement” between the City of Kearney and DT
Development, Inc. and to consider Resolution No. 2004-45. Roll call resulted as
follows: Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Hadley, Clouse. Nay:
None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
During the development of the
Lighthouse Point Addition to the City of Kearney, the developer and the City
negotiated a “Lighthouse Point Subdivision Agreement”, which was amended at the
developer’s request on May 28, 2002 by authority of Resolution 2002-138. The
Council previously received a letter from Jeff Orr, Attorney for DT
Development, requesting to amend Paragraph 13 of the Amended Agreement
(originally Paragraph 16) to read as follows: “To develop Lot 1, Block 1 of
Lighthouse Point preliminary plat as approved on May 21, 1993, referred to as
Lot 1, Block 7 in the Lighthouse Point final plat, as a planned zone to include
condominiums and townhouses. The ultimate developer of this lot shall
landscape, light, and otherwise improve the area and create a Homeowners
Association as an ongoing entity to maintain and further improve this lot.”
The original agreement only
allowed duplex condominiums to be built on this lot. With this amendment the
developer would be allowed to build up to 4 unit condominiums or townhouses.
According to the last sentence of
Mr. Orr’s request letter, “a representative of the developer will in fact
contact the Lighthouse Point Homeowners Association and advise them of the
proposed changes…”
Attorney Dan Lindstrom,
representing DT Development, presented this matter to the Council. He stated
the Lighthouse Subdivision Agreement has been amended previously and DT
Development is requesting a second amendment to this agreement. This
amendment would change the language relating to a partial in the Lighthouse
Point Subdivision that had original been considered for condominium development
and is zoned R-2 which would permit condominium development. The
language in the original agreement recited the old Zoning Ordinance. The R-2
ordinance has now been amended to permit 4-plex rather than duplex townhouse
and condominium development. He asked to have that language inserted to
permit 4-plex condominium development on this property. In addition there
was some language concerning a fence or a fencing requirement, which they are
requesting to have stricken. This comes from a discussion that DT
Development had with City planning staff. Mr. Lindstrom’s understanding
was that the planning staff was in support of that amendment. These
amendments would allow them to comply with the zoning ordinances that presently
exist.
Council Member Clouse commented
that the agreement states “planned zone to include duplex condominiums”.
He asked for clarification since Mr. Lindstrom referred to the UDO.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that in the
original agreement of 1993, there was no UDO at that time and the zoning
ordinance has since been amended. This is also a plan zoned which was in
effect in 1993. This affects, to some degree, how the Planning Commission,
City staff and perhaps the Council will review development plans for that
property. The language that was in the agreement mirrored the language
and the requirements of an R-2 zone as it existed in 1993. Since
that time the R-2 zoning has changed. If the agreement had stated that it
be consistent with an R-2 zoning than they would be looking at basically the
same effect as this amendment that is suggested.
Council Member Buschkoetter
stated that the language in the 1993 agreement mentioned “duplexes” by name.
He believed that in 1993 that it was understood clearly as duplexes only.
There was a written agreement with signatures which talked about duplexes not
4-plexes and the issue at hand is amending that agreement. He asked Mr.
Lindstrom to address that change as it affects the people in that neighborhood,
who purchased their property based on that idea which now is being considered
for change.
Mr. Lindstrom responded he was
not a party to the negotiations in 1993, but his understanding is that they were
looking at this property to be properly zoned R-2. He believed that City
planning staff prefers to see a transition from single family residential
housing to multi-family especially as it approaches an arterial such as 39th
Street, which abuts this piece of property. These lots are on the very
southwestern boundary of Lighthouse Point as it intersects with 39th Street and
Country Club Lane. He believed that the intention at the time was to
have an R-2 type of zoning. He clarified that DT Development is not
intending to develop this parcel; there is a potential buyer who is working
with City staff. Mr. Lindstrom’s understanding is the potential buyer’s
discussions with City staff would be much more suitable with a 4-plex type of
development than a duplex type of development. He also understood that
City staff favors the 4-plex developments because it fits better with the kinds
of restrictions that are required. However, these are issues for that
developer to take to the Planning Commission and to be addressed at another
time.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that they do
not want it to any longer say duplex; they want it to say 4-plexes permitted
under the current R-2 zoning. The agreement has been amended once and
this would be a second amendment. He believes this fits in with what is
being done in the City with similar developments and fits with Kearney’s
present zoning code. He is unaware of the arguments of those who might be
in opposition to this. He was uncertain about the facts these owners might present
that would indicate that they relied at all on the agreement, read it, or
understood it.
Council Member Hadley asked about
what is allowed under the current R-2 zoning. Director of Public Works Rod
Wiederspan responded that the current R-2 zoning allows a 4-unit townhouse,
which is basically taking two duplexes and putting them together making four
units with a front and back entrance for each. The previous zoning code
was strictly duplex units. The new UDO allows up to a 4-unit townhouse,
not a 4-plex, top to bottom box type of apartment, but a townhouse that has a
front and a back door. The definition of a townhouse and condominium is
basically the same and can be used interchangeably. In the original agreement,
the duplex design was required to have a front and rear entrance (not a box
stacked type situation).
In answer to Council Member
Hadley’s question, Mr. Lindstrom responded that Mr. Orr, on behalf of DT
Development, sent a letter to Mr. Kelley saying that he would notify the
representatives of the homeowners association regarding the proposed
changes. There are two attorneys that represent the homeowners
association. It is his understanding that both have been contacted but he has
not visited with either of them, but representatives of DT Development
have. The association’s attorneys have passed along the information to
the homeowners. There has been no direct feedback to DT, and their
attorneys have not indicated that they have received any negative
feedback. He did not know what information that they have received about
what this development would look like. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he
visited with the proposed developer, and that his initial design plan has just
recently been prepared. Mr. Lindstrom stated whether the homeowners have
looked at the design plan or not – that is not the issue before the
Council. The design plan is an issue for the Planning Commission to
review at the appropriate time.
Mayor Blankenship suggested this
matter should be considered by the Planning Commission issue since this change
could possibly impact traffic, off-street parking, entrances and exits. Mr.
Lindstrom responded the approval of the development plan itself is within the
Planning Commission’s province. The Council can review the development
plan and City planning staff spends a lot of time reviewing it before and after
it goes to Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom stated in his opinion, this
issue is outside the Planning Commission’s province because it has no ability
to sign an agreement on behalf of the City. The Council approves those
agreements and amendments to those agreements.
Council Member Clouse stated that
there is another issue about the fencing along 39th Street. He asked what
was the reason for removing the fencing and some other things along 39th Street
as stated in the original agreement? Mr. Lindstrom responded that at a meeting
with City staff, who were aware of the general nature of the layout design of
the new developer, that it was apparent there was nothing in the original
agreement describing the type of fence, except that it is a privacy
fence. With the agreement of City staff, the request was made to pull the
fence from that language. City staff was uncertain about the function of
the fence, if it would provide benefit to the people of the multi-family
development or to the single-family owners.
Council Member Buschkoetter asked
if it was unusual for development of a subdivision to have this type of an
agreement. Director of Public Works stated that there are subdivision
agreements, but usually they deal with infrastructure, payment method
(districts or infrastructure agreement). A subdivision agreement usually
does not deal with a duplex, condominium or fence issue. Typically, those
are more of a restrictive covenant that is handled within a subdivision.
On this agreement, there are a number of items that the developer wanted to see
in the subdivision agreement and the fence was one of them.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that a
covenant is an agreement that is entered into which defines the land. It
runs with the land and each covenant is different. He stated there are no
covenants to his understanding that apply directly to this piece of
property. He also stated that there are covenants within Lighthouse Point
Subdivision that apply to the R-1 properties. Those covenants would not
be appropriate for this type of multi-family type development because they
speak to development issues of single-family homes. This is a development
agreement between the City and the developer and at that time there were some
things that were anticipated and as we all know in the development business
things change. One of the things that changed is the request from the
City to revise this agreement. Most times those details are handled with
planned zoned or zoning constraints that are already a part of the zoning code.
Council Member Buschkoetter
stated that to play devil’s advocate, this agreement was not handled in this
way in this circumstance. He quoted Mr. Lindstrom when he said “covenants
run with the land” and asked as the agreement stands now, does it not run with
the land? Mr. Lindstrom responded that it does not because this agreement
is between the City of Kearney and the developer that sets out certain
perimeters that will define that relationship. If the land were sold, the
agreement would not go with the land because it is an agreement between the
City and DT Development, not an agreement that would be binding on other property
owners at a later time. The R-2 zoning of the property would
remain.
Council Member Hadley posed the
question about what right the City has to change this agreement when the
property owners in that area are the ones that must live with the changes in
the agreement and might have based their purchase on stipulations of the
agreement. Mr. Lindstrom answered that it is no different than the City by
passing the UDO, which changed the R-2 zone from what it was in 1993 to what it
is today. This amendment essentially does the same thing. The
decision to adopt the UDO affected essentially every homeowner in this
community. He believed that it is important for the City to be able to do
this and everyone agreed to that when the new zoning ordinance was
adopted. He stated that it is also important to remember when a person
owns a piece of land and wants to control what happens on the land next to it,
he needs to rely on the City to follow the zoning codes. However, that
person really does not have any business getting involved in what that owner
does unless he has some contractual or regulatory rights to do
that.
Mr. Lindstrom stated he could not
speak for the developer or what his project might look like. His
impression is that those who have called the City today from the homeowners
association and expressed what a terrible thing this is have in their mind some
idea that this is going to be an ugly looking development. He visited
with the developer and does not believe that is going to be the case at
all. He urged those people to take those issues before the Planning
Commission and deal with them there. They need to look at the
development, as it is proposed and the quality of the development. He did not
believe that 4-plexes would be a disadvantage to the City or the
homeowners. After visiting with the proposed Developer, City staff has
indicated that the number of curb cuts that would be required, ease of getting
services to each unit (garbage truck and fire trucks), in terms of aesthetics,
it actually works better than several duplexes.
Council Member Clouse stated he
looks at this as a “housekeeping” item. He asked by cleaning things up
before they have all the discussion, what is the impact on the developer if
they wait and do this “housekeeping” after the developer comes to the Planning
Commission? Mr. Lindstrom that the problem is that the developer, who intends
to buy this property from DT Development, has in his purchase agreement a
provision that says this must happen before he will buy the property. If
this developer does not buy the property, then it is unknown what the next
buyer might want to put there. This developer wants to move forward with
this development fairly rapidly and delay will put some hardship on him.
Stephen Lewis, 4303 28th Avenue,
is vice-president of the Lighthouse Point Homeowners Association and spoke on
their behalf. Mr. Lewis stated that he hoped to answer some of the
questions about why they have higher expectations for their subdivision. He
quoted from DT Developments paragraph 2 of the subdivision covenants: “It is
the belief of the developer that Lighthouse Point Addition is an exclusive
development designed for those who appreciate and expect those extras provided
in this development and therefore the following restrictive covenants have been
set forth to further and provide for those investing and building in the
subdivision and for the preservation of the natural beauty and terrain of the
area. It is the unanimous position of the board of directors of Lighthouse
Point Homeowner Association that those City resolutions and the covenants that
were created by the City and the developer and signed by all members of the
Association not be changed by allowing any alterations that could have an
adverse affect.”
Mr. Lewis stated that the current
owners made decisions based on promises in those covenants and those
resolutions passed by the City Council. He stated that it is the position
of the Lighthouse Point Homeowners Association that the proposal to alter the
original agreement and allow construction of triplex and quadplex units (a
triplex was in the plan they obtained as of January 27, 2004) is not acceptable. Although they do not have a copy of the most recent plan, they
believe that contrary to all the parties involved there are some safety issues
that were present in that plan.
- Limited ingress and egress from
the west boundary of the development with no outlet onto 26th Avenue,
which negates the purpose of 26th Avenue.
- Funneling traffic might lead to
an earlier need for a stop light at Country Club Lane and 39th Avenue.
- Lack of sidewalks and curbs
except from garage edge to the front door.
- There are no curbs.
- There are no setbacks and
Lighthouse Point covenants require 35-foot setbacks.
- Inadequate parking for
residents because no parking on the street is allowed.
- No open or common space or
facilities for the residents.
- There is no open area for
children to play (it is expected there would be children in these
complexes).
Lighthouse Point Subdivision
Board unanimously voted on the fence in the covenants. According to the
covenants that were in effect in 1993, neither the developer nor anyone else
may grant an exception to those covenants. Mr. Lewis stated that every
current homeowner that they could reach signed their petition stating that they
made their purchase decision based on the proceeding agreements. They
also agreed that they believed that the duplex issue was over and above the R-2
zoning issue. There are some duplexes in their subdivision and they would like
to have more of them. There are some $1,000,000 homes that do not have 7,300
square feet as Mr. Lindstrom indicated each unit of the 4-plex would
have.
Mr.
Lindstrom indicated that this is not the first time the bylaws of Lighthouse
Point Subdivision have been amended. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Orr is
aware of the fact that the Lighthouse Point Homeowners Association has retained
counsel out of Lincoln, Nebraska regarding that first amendment which was passed on a consent
agenda. The privacy fence issue was addressed in a letter received in
October from a real estate agent representing Mr. Segura. After receipt
of this letter, the Lighthouse Point Board met regarding removing the privacy
fence requirement. Their response was that they would not remove the fence
requirement; however, they might reconsider that decision if they were allowed
to have a chance to look at the elevations and what the building would actually
look like. Their thought was that they would rather see nice buildings
than a privacy fence; however a privacy fence is preferable depending on what
the buildings look like. That is the last correspondence they have had
with them.
The Board
has also been trying since last May (when this board was formed) to meet with
Mr. Orr and members of DT Development. After numerous calls, no response
was received from them. Mr. Lewis stated that they do not want to go to
trial or sue anybody, which would cost a lot of money even if they won.
They want compliance of the agreements that were made. He indicated their
willingness to meet with the developer or builder at any time. On behalf of the
residents of Lighthouse Point, he requested that the Council not accept this
second amendment.
Mayor Blankenship stated that he
is not justifying anything that any of the attorneys have done, but when there
is pending litigation then it is not ethical for Mr. Orr or anyone from that
firm to visit with residents of Lighthouse Point, but would need to visit with
their attorney. Mr. Lewis responded that in May the litigation was not
pending, in fact they didn’t even have an attorney other than to look over the
covenants.
Mayor Blankenship stated that he
has lived in Kearney for 35 years and this is not the way we do business in Kearney.
He believes that the Council needs to find a way to set the two groups down
together and work through these issues. This is going to be an ongoing
process and there are a lot of acres out there that need to be developed.
He further stated that he does not want to have to address these kinds of
issues time after time. He sees a couple of options: 1) table this issue
and if it is important to both parties then they will get together and visit
about it, or 2) take it to the Planning Commission where it will be considered
and ultimately come back to the Council.
Council Member Clouse said that
he would agree with the Mayor’s sentiments. He also had a question for
the Director of Public Works. If the sale is approved and is contingent
on amending this covenant, when the developer as owner of the property takes
this to the Planning Commission and they run into stumbling blocks, could they
still be denied the ability to develop that property? Mr. Clouse believes
there needs to be some dialog taking place to make sure there is a neighborhood
that fits well and does not have this adversarial relationship. He would
prefer this to be done upfront and brought back to the Council as a “housekeeping
item”. Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan responded they could not be
denied if they build within the UDO. If the developer meets the criteria for
the R-2 zone under the present UDO, he would have the right to proceed.
The use is granted by the zoning, if amended to follow the UDO. In a planned
district, the City staff can suggest changes in the plan and then try to work
together with the developer and Planning Commission to work with the issues to
meet the concerns of the neighborhood. If the developer is unwilling to
make those changes, then he has a legal right to go through the process to see
that he is meeting the intent of the code.
This typically does not happen
because the City can work things out before it get to that point.
Legally, they cannot tell the developer that he cannot build, that is a whole
other issue. This developer was on the Planning Commission for the past
two months and decided to continue it because an agreement had not been worked
out at the Council level. The Planning Commission believed that it was
not in the best interest to act on it in violation of what the Lighthouse Point
Subdivision agreement states. Mr. Wiederspan stated he thinks that the
developer should go to the Lighthouse Point Homeowners Association and sit down
as a group, work it out, and then come back together to the Council to change
the agreement to allow it to go forward.
Mr. Lewis stated that this
developer is in no way involved with the first amendment that was made.
The developer can sit down and talk to the Homeowners board and they would
welcome that. In their letter to the developer, dated November 3, 2003, they indicated they might be willing to consider 4-plexes if they could
be allowed to have some approval over what the buildings look like. They
would rather see pretty houses than an ugly fence. In the City’s
resolution, they believe that it would bind the developer and the builder
because the resolution would take precedence over the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
They possibly would be willing to reconsider their stand on the duplex issue if
the developer would bring his plan to them. The only option the
Homeowners Association believed they had was to look at one item that Mr.
Segura has built (12 units behind Wal-Mart) which appear to be very much like
the proposal they received in January. His opinion is if that were what
they are going to look like, he would rather have the privacy fence. If
the developer has something different planned, then they want to see it.
Mr. Lindstrom stated in answer to
a question from Council Member Clouse, he does not believe that the Planning
Commission has the jurisdiction to decide this issue. As Mr. Wiederspan
indicated, they are getting “the cart before the horse” if you have a developer
who does not own the property, who has not and might never close on the
property because he does not have the agreement that is contingent on closing
on the property. If the developer goes to the work that needs to be done
between now and the Planning Commission, which is scheduled for April 16th, and
is turned down there; he has done this all for nothing. He did not think
that it would be appropriate at all to take this to the Planning
Commission.
If the homeowners have an issue
about the esthetic nature of the development, they should have that
conversation. Mr. Lewis has indicated that they are willing to do
that. Mr. Lindstrom had a conversation with the developer and the
information that he had was passed along to the Association. He indicated
that the City staff knows who the players of this Association are. People
are not “stonewalling” these people and would not do that unless there was a
good reason to not talk to them in mass. He believed there is a phenomenon
that happens when talking to people in a group that prevents rational
discussion sometimes. In light of the fact that there is threatened
litigation, it is important that they speak through the authorized
representative. As he indicated, they are prohibited from talking to the
Association. The new developer could talk with these people; but he has
indicated that he has received no feedback.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he
resents the fact that his client has been placed to blame for a situation that
is not the case at all. He urged the Council to move forward with the
amendment and pass the resolution. If esthetics needs to be discussed,
then that should happen after the developer presents his plan to the Homeowners
Association, Planning Commission, and City staff. Mr. Lindstrom stated he
had not seen any elevations and did not think that City staff had either.
He believed that it is a Planning Commission issue.
Mr. Lindstrom said he knows the
intent of the person that drafted the original agreement and he knows the
intent of the developer, who is his client. In 1993, the intention was
that this be developed as an R-2 property. It has always been intended to
be a multi-family, condominium, R-2 type development. The code has
changed and the underlying criteria that the City uses to evaluate it have
somewhat changed. He believed that this is consistent with what is being
done in other areas in Kearney.
Council Member Buschkoetter
stated that he disagreed with Mr. Lindstrom’s statement. There was no way
to envision in 1993 that the UDO would be passed and it would move away from
what is written in “black and white” and that is the word “duplex.” There
is no reason for the developer to think that in the future, they would be able
to put in a 4-plex. Meanwhile, Lighthouse Point Homeowners Association is
reading in “black and white” that duplexes are the only thing to be built
according to the agreement. In this case, there is a restrictive
subdivision ordinance that is more restrictive than most subdivision
ordinances. He stated if he were a homeowner there, he would think that
agreement offered him some protection from exactly what is being
proposed. His issue is dealing with what was perception, not necessarily
the letter of the law, and whether or not the City’s responsibility is to
protect what was perceived by the owners of that subdivision.
Mr.
Lindstrom responded what he understood from what Mr. Lewis said that the
homeowners were talking about their bylaws and covenants, which is not this
issue. He could not address what each of those homeowners was thinking when
they purchased property. He also could not address if they understood
this was an agreement between the developer and the City and not between the
City and them nor them and the developer.
Council Member Hadley asked Mr.
Lindstrom to summarize, leaving the homeowners out of it, why the Council
should change this agreement, and why is it in the best interest of the City to
change this agreement?
Mr. Lindstrom responded that he
did not think that the Homeowners Association threatening the City with
litigation is an appropriate way for them to influence what happens on another
piece of property. In visiting with City staff which understands
precisely what the development issues are on this piece of property, he found
they were of a mind that this is a better fit than what would exist otherwise.
If this property were laid out in this fashion, it would actually fit the
esthetics, the development, and the provision of City services to this property
better than if it were laid out as duplexes. By laying this out as duplexes,
they might find that it is not economically feasible as the homeowners or the
City would like to see it done. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the
homeowners are not paying for this development so he concluded they could not
decide the standards. The developer must make these economic decisions.
Mayor Blankenship stated this is
a rather simple matter and to some extent, he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom.
He believed the crux of the matter is that people in this subdivision thought
only duplexes could be built, and are concerned this proposal could double the
number of units and people in their area. If this were a completely new
subdivision, such as 56th Street, the UDO would apply. In this situation,
there are neighbors that bought this land thinking they would have duplexes in
their area. There is a process in place where the Planning Commission
makes recommendations to the Council relative to development.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that
duplexes could possibly increase the number of people because they would be
configured differently. He believed that is an issue for staff and
Planning Commission to approve depending on what plan is submitted. He
did not see how this situation could be reconciled with 56th Street. Mr.
Lindstrom stated that he represented the petition from the neighbors that did
not want 56th Street rezoned. He said he made the same arguments that
others were making regarding this issue and the Council rezoned it. He
did not believe there was a lot of difference between them. Mayor
Blankenship stated he could reconcile it because it was all a part of the plan
that came to the Council in 1993 and is the same piece of property and the same
owners. Council Member Buschkoetter commented that Kearney has gone
beyond simple zoning and created a more restrictive subdivision
agreement. He believed that this is easy to reconcile because this is a
different case. This is an existing subdivision agreement that is more
restrictive than probably 80 percent of all other agreements out there.
Mr. Lindstrom stated he
appreciates the difficulty that this presents and he did not mean to be unduly
argumentative about it. He knows that the Council must listen to both
sides and do so with great patience and dignity. He believed that there
is a difference and so on that point, he disagrees. Mayor Blankenship stated
that he wanted to see a resolution to this, although it might not happen
immediately. What he wanted to see happen is for Mr. Lindstrom, DT
Development, and the potential buyer to visit with the Homeowners Association
and their attorney. He asked Mr. Lindstrom if that could ethically be done?
Mr. Lindstrom answered that there are some difficult issues involved, the
threat of litigation, the accessibility of Lincoln counsel to participate, and
the reluctance of the Homeowners Association to involve their attorneys in the
discussions, which was communicated to him.
Council Member Clouse stated that
as he sees it there are four options, approve, deny, table, or get Planning
Commission’s input. Mr. Lindstrom stated he does not think Planning
Commission is viable, tabling runs risk that this will not move forward at all.
The developer advised Mr. Lindstrom that this needs to go before the Planning
Commission on April 16th and since this has been tabled twice, if it is tabled
again it goes off the table and has to be filed again. If the developer
decides that he simply cannot do this anymore and walks away, Mr. Lindstrom
believed that tabling or a no vote would accomplish that. He believed
that to deny it could end the discussion. If this does not move forward,
there is a possibility this property might not sell and have to be remarketed
to another developer, who might not build as nice a development as
proposed.
Carlos Segura, 1518 Lakeview
Drive, stated that he knows this is not a matter between him and the City or
DT Development, or the neighborhood, but believed that he had the right to
express himself. He stated that as he watched, he heard his name being
used with wrong information. Regarding the statement that it has been
impossible for the Homeowners Association to talk to him; he did talk with
their attorney twice after the two meetings that he had with the City
staff. The City staff advised him to talk to their attorney because it
would be difficult to meet with all the people of the Association. As in
any business, time is money. The Association meets once a month and he
did not have their schedule. He believed the best way to do it was to
talk to Dan Bahensky, which he did twice.
Mr. Segura and his realtor met
with Mr. Bahensky and showed him the plan and asked for feedback. Mr. Bahensky
contacted the Homeowners Association and received a letter from them. In
the Homeowners Association’s letter, they requested blueprints of his
development and stated if they liked the houses, then they would approve it. He
did not understand why they could approve or disapprove his plan. The second
time he met with City staff about requirements and City codes, he changed the
project to comply with such things as curb cuts. He understood that the
Lighthouse Point Association was in charge of the boulevards, which are in the
middle of County Club Lane, but indicated they did not want to do them.
He stated that he offered to the attorney of the Homeowners Association that if
they approved it, he would pay to cut the boulevard and repave. He
changed the project to include that without asking more for the
boulevard. He stated that he has a hard time understanding why they are
saying they have had a hard time meeting with him. Another thing that was
stated is that they have nothing to compare this project with, only the 12
units. It is a matter of City record that he has built those 12 units in
the Pines I Condominiums. He also has built 22 other units that are
completed and occupied by people that are happy with them.
One of the important things Mr.
Segura liked about this property was that the developer agreement with the City
provided that this piece of property did not have any covenants. He understood
the reason is because that piece of land will have its own homeowners association.
He does not understand why he has to go to another homeowners association for
approval (nothing against them and he did not want to say anything
wrong). He did not believe that he needed to go to each member of the
association because he is not the developer yet. He is the potential
buyer. He understands that the developer agreement says that it was just
duplexes per the city code at that time. Mr. Lindstrom is asking the
Council to fit together the developer agreement with the City Code as it is now.
He is not asking for an exemption, the R-2 zone today allows the developer to
build townhouses. His proposal is to build townhouses.
Mayor
Blankenship stated the issue for him is the intent to go from duplexes to
4-plexes, and that is a significant difference to him. He believes that
the neighborhood should have some input in that issue because that has an
impact on them. He restated again that he wants to see all parties
involved work this out. He is inclined to ask the Planning staff for
their input although it might not be within their jurisdiction, but it is in
their area of expertise to address an issue such as this.
Mr. Segura stated that the
developer agreement does not specify how many duplexes he could build.
According to the code he could build 80+ units without any restriction because
of the R-2 zoning. The code also specifies 2,500 square feet of land per
unit. There is 250,000 square feet of land there, which would permit 100
units. He said his proposal is to build 35 units. His reasoning is
that if he goes to the Planning Commission with a plan for 80 units (1,000
square feet per unit), then they could not say anything about that plan.
The thing that was difficult for him to understand at this point is that anyone
would think that he would purchase this nice piece of land in the best
neighborhood in town and build something ugly. He does not want to be
involved in an argument, but did want to set the record straight.
Council Member Buschkoetter agreed
with the Mayor. He stated that he has no doubt that Mr. Segura will build
a nice building. He has seen Mr. Segura’s work and likes it very much and
believes that he is a good businessman. Mr. Buschkoetter stated that he
thinks that this situation goes beyond the regular subdivision agreements and
they need to protect that neighborhood in that area and empower them to have
some input. He agreed that if the Council sends this to the Planning
Commission there is still the possibility to get this done. He did not
know if it would be done fast enough, but believed that it could still get
done. He believed that sending it to Planning Commission, it could
breathe life into this plan. It might not be everything that people at
Lighthouse Point want to hear, and hopes there is a way to reach some middle
ground.
City Attorney Mike Kelley stated
as he understands it, this issue is not approval of the design review which is
already before the Planning Commission. What the Mayor is recommending is
to send it back to Planning Commission for their advise and review concerning
the duplex or 4-plex issue, and what impact they believe that would have on the
whole neighborhood.
Mayor Blankenship stated that he
relies on the Planning Commission for their expertise in assessing traffic
impact and the impact of duplexes versus 4-plexes. Council Member Hadley
stated that he agreed with the Mayor. Council Member Buschkoetter agreed
that it would be nice to have advice from the Planning Commission, but it also
opens the door for conversation between the two parties in an ethical
manner.
Council Member Clouse stated that
he does not believe this is Mr. Segura’s issue but Mr. Lindstrom’s issue.
Earlier the response from Mr. Lindstrom was to approve or deny and there was
nothing up for negotiation. He understands where the other members of the
Council are coming from, but Mr. Lindstrom is the one petitioning the Council
to change the agreement.
Mr. Lewis stated that their last
communication did not include Mr. Segura’s name or address. The
information they received was sent from his realtor, who sent it to Dan
Bahensky. The letter Mr. Segura received was from Mr. Bahensky saying
that he could not represent him because he already represented the Lighthouse
Point Association. Mr. Bahensky simply attached the letter from the
Association as their answer, which might have been inappropriate in its wording
to be sent to Mr. Segura. The Association had asked the attorney to put the
proper wording in it before sending it to Mr. Segura as their answer.
Basically, they did not want extra curb cuts because of the median and did not
want to change the looks of the entrance to this very nice area. They did
not want to exempt the privacy fence, but would consider that if they were
allowed to see the plans. The Association communicates with each other by
email and they have been known to meet on, as little as, one-day notice.
They are not averse to meeting with the client and they did not mean to
threaten litigation. He only brought that first amendment litigation up
to make a point that they did not want to use the first amendment to set a
precedent for the second amendment.
Jack Garrison, 2819 West 44th
Street, resident of Lighthouse Point, stated that he agrees that they need
some logical discussion. There is an issue that has not been raised by
Dan Lindstrom or the Association spokesman that he believed is misleading, if
not inaccurate. That issue is that Mr. Lindstrom’s client (DT
Development) is part of the Homeowners Association and (without being
unethical) has the right to discuss with them as a member of the Homeowners
Association Board.
Moved by Blankenship seconded by
Hadley to have the Planning Commission consider the affects the amendment will
have on the development in this area. Roll call resulted as
follows: Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Hadley. Nay: Clouse.
Kearney absent. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 7048 – CREATE PAVING
DISTRICT NO. 2004-885
Bruce Grupe presented this matter
to the Council. He stated that this is a complicated district and so he wanted
to keep the Council informed about what is involved. One of the
complexities of the project is keeping access to the homes in the area of the
bridge construction. They have elected to divide this project into four
different bid package. First is the bridge structure over the canal and
he thanked NPPD for working with the City in a timely manner, which was
critical to this project. The second phase is to construct the work on 30th
Avenue from Highway 30 to what is projected to be 31st Street (south edge of
the vacant field across the street from the golf course).
There were more than 40 residents
that attended the meeting at the golf course to explain how the City is going
to handle traffic to keep access to the homes. They have decided to build
it in halves with a combination of gap paving and some temporary access
roads. Third is to continue from where they left off on 31st Street north
to 39th Street and some improvement to that intersection. They are just
beginning the fourth phase, which is from the 30th Avenue overpass north up to
Highway 30. They anticipate using similar methods to get people in and
out.
Council Member Clouse introduced
Ordinance No. 7048, being Subsection 2 of Agenda Item VI to create Paving
Improvement District No. 2004-885 for 30th Avenue from LaCrosse Drive to 39th
Street, and moved that the statutory rules requiring ordinances to be read by
title on three different days be suspended and said ordinances be considered
for passage on the same day upon reading by number only, and then placed on
final passage and that the City Clerk be permitted to call out the number of
the ordinance on its first reading and then upon its final passage.
Council Member Hadley seconded the motion to suspend the rules. President
of the Council asked for discussion or if anyone in the audience was interested
in the ordinance. No one responded. Clerk called the roll which
resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Hadley, Clouse, Buschkoetter.
Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion to suspend the rules having been
concurred in by three-fourths of the City Council, said motion was declared
passed and adopted. City Clerk read Ordinance No. 7048 by number.
Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first
reading resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Hadley, Clouse,
Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
Ordinance was read by number.
Moved by Hadley seconded by
Buschkoetter that Ordinance No. 7048 be passed, approved and published as
required by law. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship,
Clouse, Buschkoetter, Hadley. Nay: None. Kearney absent. Motion
carried.
By reason of the roll call voted
on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7048 is
declared to be lawfully passed and adopted upon publication in pamphlet form
and made available to the public at the Office of the City Clerk, the Kearney
Police Department and the Kearney Public Library.
PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR
2004 PART I IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE II (30TH AVENUE FROM HIGHWAY 30 NORTH TO 31ST
STREET)
Mayor Blankenship opened for
discussion the Plans and Specifications for the 2004 Part I Improvements –
Phase II consisting of Paving Improvement District No. 2004-885 for 30th
Avenue from Highway 30 north to 31st Street and set the bid opening date for
April 14, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
As
part of the 2004 Long Range Goals, Budget process, and the current One and Six
Year Street Improvement Plan, the City Council approved the upgrade of 30th Avenue to a four-lane roadway. The City is ready to advertise and
receive bids for the construction of the aforementioned project. Attached
is a letter from Miller & Associates requesting approval of the plans and
specifications and to set the bid opening date for April 14, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ranges between
$800,000 and $1,200,000. The work involved is scheduled to be
substantially complete and open to traffic before July 31, 2004.
Kent Cordes from Miller &
Associates was present to answer any questions.
Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by
Blankenship to approve the Plans and Specifications for the 2004 Part I
Improvements – Phase II consisting of Paving Improvement District No.
2004-885 for 30th Avenue from Highway 30 north to 31st Street and set the bid
opening date for April 14, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. Roll call resulted as
follows: Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Hadley, Clouse. Nay:
None. Kearney absent. Motion carried.
PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR
2004 PART III IMPROVEMENTS
Mayor Blankenship opened for
discussion the Plans and Specifications for the 2004 Part III Improvements
consisting of Paving Improvement District No. 2004-880 for LaPlatte Road from
Meadow Lane to approximately 160 feet south of Redwood Lane, Water District No.
2004-529 for LaPlatte Road from Meadow Lane to Plaza Boulevard, and Sewer
District No. 2004-471 or LaPlatte Road from Meadow Lane to approximately 160
feet south of Redwood Lane and set the bid opening date for April 15, 2004 at
2:00 p.m.
As
part of the 2004 Long Range Goals, Budget process, and the current One and Six
Year Street Plan the City Council approved the installation of the above
referenced public infrastructure. The City is ready to advertise and
receive bids for the construction of the aforementioned project. Attached
is a letter from Miller & Associates requesting approval of the plans and
specifications and to set the bid opening date for April 15, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. The Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ranges between
$200,000 and $300,000. The work involved in Part A (water and sewer) is
scheduled to be substantially complete before June 1, 2004 and final completion is scheduled for June 30, 2004. The work involved in Part B (paving)
is scheduled to be substantially complete before July 1, 2004.
Travis Mason from Miller &
Associates was present to answer any questions.
Moved by Blankenship seconded by
Clouse to approve the Plans and Specifications for the 2004 Part III
Improvements consisting of Paving Improvement District No. 2004-880 for
LaPlatte Road from Meadow Lane to approximately 160 feet south of Redwood Lane,
Water District No. 2004-529 for LaPlatte Road from Meadow Lane to Plaza
Boulevard, and Sewer District No. 2004-471 or LaPlatte Road from Meadow Lane to
approximately 160 feet south of Redwood Lane and set the bid opening date for
April 15, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye:
Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Hadley, Clouse. Nay: None. Kearney
absent. Motion carried.
OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIMS
-- NPPD -- $47,454.65
Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by
Blankenship that Open Account Claims in the amount of $47,454.65 payable to
NPPD be allowed. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship,
Hadley, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Clouse abstained. Kearney
absent. Motion carried.
VII. REPORTS
None.
VIII. ADJOURN
Moved by Hadley seconded by Buschkoetter
that Council adjourn at 9:51 p.m. Roll call resulted as follows:
Aye: Blankenship, Clouse, Buschkoetter, Hadley. Nay: None. Kearney
absent. Motion carried.
BRUCE L.
BLANKENSHIP
PRESIDENT OF
THE COUNCIL
AND
EX-OFFICIO MAYOR
ATTEST:
MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY
CITY CLERK