View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Kearney, Nebraska

May 13, 2003

7:30 p.m.

 

A meeting of the City Council of Kearney, Nebraska, was convened in open and public session at 7:30 p.m. on May 13, 2003, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.  Present were: Bruce Blankenship, President of the Council; Michaelle Trembly, City Clerk; Council Members Randy Buschkoetter, Galen Hadley, Don Kearney, and Jose Zapata. Absent: None.  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: Chris Miller, Mitch Humphrey, Tim Norwood, Kelli Shada, Jim Shada, Steve Voigt, Barb Voigt, Jerry Schroeder, Gregg Johnson, Tim Lowe, Dan Lindstrom, Tanis Hall-Goedert, M.J. Schulz, Jan Schulz, Don Stearley, Scott Madison, John Macrander, Rich Peters, Mike Konz from Kearney Hub, Dave Jenner from KGFW Radio, and NTV News.

 

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 First Presbyterian Church provided the Invocation.

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

Boy Scouts from Troop 134 and Troop 158 led the Council members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

 

Kirk Stocker, Director of Utilities, made a presentation to the audience on the City’s proposed drought plan.

 

II.    UNFINISHED  BUSINESS

 

There was no Unfinished Business.

 

III.    PUBLIC  HEARINGS

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HEARTLAND HEMATOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY; SOUTH SIDE OF 42ND STREET BETWEEN 4TH AVENUE AND 6TH AVENUE

 

Mayor Blankenship opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Gregg Johnson (Applicant) for Johnson Imperial Home Co. (Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a medical clinic on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as part of Lot 1, Windsor Estates Eighth Addition to be known as Lot 2, Eagles Nest Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south side of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue) and to consider Resolution No. 2003-57. Planning Commission recommended approval.

 

The applicant is pursuing development approval for property located south of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue.  This property comprises the commercial strip mall known as Eagles Nest Plaza and three commercial outlots north of the strip mall.  A subdivision plat of this property to be known as “Eagles Nest Addition” is part of this approval process.  Also, a medical clinic for Heartland Hematology and Oncology will be located on one of the outlots.  Development Plan approval is required for the medical clinic.  This property is zoned C-3/PD.

 

Vacation

Portions of the existing subdivision known as “Windsor Estates Eighth Addition” must be vacated so that the land can be replatted as Eagles Nest Addition.  Lot 1, except for the north 193.0 feet of the east 164.0 feet of Windsor Estates Eighth is to be vacated.

 

Subdivision Plats

The applicant is requesting approval of the Final Plat for a four-lot subdivision to be known as Eagle Nest Addition. The Preliminary Plat was approved by Planning Commission on April 18, 2003.  The property is located south of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue. A Public Works Plan was previously approved for this area.  A Subdivision Agreement is not required.

 

Development Plan

The Development Plan that was submitted for this project contains all required information.  This site development is very similar to the dental clinic that was recently constructed to the east.  The proposed building materials include brick, stucco and asphalt shingles.  The site is well landscaped.  The site will drain into the existing 42nd Street storm sewer which dumps into the existing stormwater retention cell behind K-Mart.  This project is nicely done and will complement the existing development in the area.

 

Gregg Johnson, Johnson Imperial Home Company was present to answer any questions from the Council.

 

There was no one present in opposition to this hearing.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Buschkoetter to close the hearing and approve the Application submitted by Gregg Johnson (Applicant) for Johnson Imperial Home Co. (Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a medical clinic on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as part of Lot 1, Windsor Estates Eighth Addition to be known as Lot 2, Eagles Nest Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south side of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue) and approve Resolution No. 2003-57. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-57

 

            WHEREAS, Gregg Johnson (Applicant) for Johnson Imperial Home Co. (Owner) have applied for Development Plan Approval for the construction of a medical clinic on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as part of Lot 1, Windsor Estates Eighth Addition to be known as Lot 2, Eagles Nest Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south side of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue).

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the application of Gregg Johnson (Applicant) for Johnson Imperial Home Co. (Owner) for Development Plan Approval for the construction of a medical clinic on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as part of Lot 1, Windsor Estates Eighth Addition to be known as Lot 2, Eagles Nest Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south side of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue) be approved.

PASSED AND APPROVED THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONING – NORTHEAST CORNER OF 56TH STREET AND AVENUE E

 

Mayor Blankenship stated that this hearing and the next hearing can be discussed together but voted on separately.

 

Mayor Blankenship opened the public hearing on the Application to amend the Land Use Map of the City of Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan from “Urban Single Family Residential” to “High Density Residential” property described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northeast corner of 56th Street and Avenue E) and approve Resolution No. 2003-58. Planning Commission recommended denial.

 

The applicant is requesting approval of rezoning from Agricultural to R-3 for an 11.12 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 56th Street and Avenue E.  This parcel will be developed into an apartment complex if the rezoning is approved.

 

Land Use Map Amendment

The rezoning request requires consideration of amending the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Development Plan of the City of Kearney.  The current land use is “Urban Single-Family Residential.” Rezoning the property to R-3 will require an amendment to “High Density Residential.” City Planning Staff generally supports this application because it is in a location that is consistent with past policy for multi-family development.  The majority of the Planning Commission voted against the amendment with one dissenting vote.  In an attempt to provide more information regarding the issues at hand, here are some facts for your consideration of amending the land use map, first in summary fashion followed by a detailed explanation:

 

Summary….

 

1)         The Land Use Map can be amended and, in fact, is amended on a regular basis.

 

2)         The latest revisions to the Land Use Map as a component of the Comprehensive Plan update (anticipated for adoption this summer) present a significant departure from the 1997 Land Use Map that is currently in effect.  The subject property would be in compliance with the new version.

 

3)         Long range planning is a difficult task and the further out the property is the less certain we are about its future. As the community grows and expands closer to the property we can refine our ideas and make revisions based on the changes that growth brings. Therefore, the Land Use Plan evolves over time and may in fact become very different in its latest version from what it was in past versions.

 

Expanded thoughts….

 

1a)        Although the current (1997) Land Use Map shows the preferred land use for this site as “Urban Single-Family Residential,” the map status is amended by the action of the Planning Commission and City Council on a routine basis. In the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 there were 13, 12 and 14 applications respectively to amend the Land Use Map of the City of Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan. With the exception of two cases that were withdrawn from the agenda the remaining 37 amendments were approved.  That’s an average of better than one per month with an approval history of 94.8 percent.  Therefore, even though the Land Use Map is widely recognized as a planning reference when making land use decisions (the City is in fact required to create and maintain a Comprehensive Plan by state law in order to exercise land use controls like zoning) the facts show that the plan is flexible and subject to change, and has been changed frequently in the past at the request of land developers seeking a different zoning category.

 

2a)        Although the 1997 Land Use Map shows the subject property as best suited for “Urban Single-Family Residential” the most recent long range planning analysis proposes significant changes along the 56th Street corridor.  Urban Planning Consultant Martin H. Shukert of RDG Crose Gardner Shukert in Omaha prepared the 1997 Land Use Plan and has been working on the current update of the Comprehensive Development Plan, including the new land use map. The new plan is anticipated for completion June 1, 2003 and should come before the City Council for Public Hearing in August after staff review and a Public Open House. The new version of land uses recognizes 56th Street as an emerging mixed use corridor and proposes a mixture of land uses ranging from commercial retail to commercial non-retail, from single-family to medium density residential. The subject property is shown as “Medium Density Residential” which, when translated to zoning categories, equals R-3, the same zoning the applicant is requesting. The higher density uses along 56th Street are not surprising given the volumes of traffic that this leg of the inner arterial beltway carries on a daily basis. Although the new version of the comp plan has yet to be adopted, and may in fact be modified, it suggests a great departure from earlier versions of the land use map that depicted the 56th Street corridor as an outlying area most suitable for single-family residential. 

 

3a)        It is difficult to predict the future with certainty and therein lies the challenge of long range planning. The planning staff and planning consultants do their best to predict future population changes, demographic changes and barriers to development, future growth patterns, and community needs for example. Experts can evaluate past trends and extrapolate predictions into the future based on hind sight and mathematical reasoning. The truth is that the community is a dynamic and ever changing organism that makes it difficult to predict the future until more of the overall picture can be seen. Therefore, in past years the 56th Street corridor was largely undeveloped lying beyond the urban/rural interface and consequently no real development scenarios were projected.  As the years passed and the community grew to the north, the emphasis on 56th Street grew. In 1994-95 the City constructed the 56th Street sanitary sewer project with the hopes of attracting development to the corridor instead of outlying areas. In the 1997 comprehensive plan, 56th Street was identified as the northern leg of the inner beltway intended to move traffic at a higher rate of speed around the community. The City Public Works Department and the Nebraska Department of Roads began controlling access along the corridor minimizing the number of allowable access points. Development occurring along 56th Street began to take on a mixed use quality ranging from single-family homes to commercial retail. As the City looks to the future now, with the help of what it has learned in the past, it foresees 56th Street as an urban arterial street, a relatively high speed beltway with limited access. The City sees development patterns along the corridor as a mixed use pattern emphasizing more intensive uses closer to the street and less intensive uses further from the street. In a nutshell, this means uses like apartments and office buildings should be located adjacent to the street buffering the single-family residential further from the street. The residences to the south side of 56th Street are not afforded this type of buffer as they already exist. In these cases a solid privacy fence and dense landscaping along the wider right-of way of the arterial street is the best buffer available.

 

Two more points related to this train of thought…

 

First, this is not the first time we have seen a significant area of the Land Use Map amended in a substantial way. In 2000 Meadowlark Estates was platted south of 39th Street and east of 30th Avenue.  This area had long been shown as “Urban Single-Family Residential” on the Land Use Map but was amended at the request of the developer to provide a mixed use development pattern including commercial retail, commercial non-retail, and duplexes in addition to single-family. The reasons were similar to the case before the Council today. 39th Street is an arterial and 30th Avenue is an arterial, the western leg of the inner beltway. Due to the arterial access, this property was deemed suitable for a variety of more intensive uses when at one time it was destined only for single-family development.

 

Second, if the City envisions continued community growth in a northerly direction, at some point in time it will be developing the next arterial road one mile north of 56th Street, perhaps it will be 65th Street. The exact route and alignment of that street is unknown at this time. It is located well beyond the urban fringe but will come under increasing development pressure as time progresses.  Can the City develop a suitable and accurate land use plan for development along 65th Street at this time? Will it know more about the future character of that area next year, in five years, in ten years? Will its perceptions change over time of what constitutes “suitable land uses” as the area continues to develop? This example is no different than the evolution of 56th Street. The City has changed its perceptions over time as the area has itself changed.

 

Rezoning

The applicant is requesting rezoning from Agriculture to R-3 for the development of an apartment complex. Staff believes that this site is appropriate for multi-family development for the following reasons:

 

Summary….

 

4)         City policy for locating multi-family apartment projects has been to orient them to arterial roadways.

 

5)         Rental units provided by apartment projects are an important part of the housing mix in any community. The City can’t quit building apartments because some people don’t like them. It needs to find a location for these projects and they should be served by municipal infrastructure.

 

6)         The proposed rezoning is for R-3, “Medium Density Multi-Family.” There is a higher density multi-family category available in R-4, “High Density Multi-Family”. The developer is not asking for high density.

 

Expanded thoughts….

 

4a)        It has been the policy of the City Planning Department to locate multi-family residential projects adjacent to arterial streets instead of routing the traffic through single-family neighborhoods on local streets. This policy has been upheld by the decisions of the Planning Commission and City Council over the years. 56th Street is an arterial and Avenue E is a collector.  Although many people have voiced their displeasure over Avenue E functioning in the capacity of a collector, it is what it is.  Avenue E has been identified as an important collector street or secondary arterial in the comprehensive plans of 1960 (to 48th Street), 1969 (to 56th Street), 1976, 1984, 1997 (to 65th Street) and will continue to be shown as such in the upcoming update this summer. The only better location for an apartment complex would be an arterial intersecting an arterial. This site, at the intersection of an arterial and collector certainly has the traffic movement capacity to allow for multi-family development. Access to the property could be split between the two streets or limited to the arterial.

 

5a)        An important part of community planning deals with housing issues. It is generally desirable to encourage a variety of housing types so that consumers have choices. Not everyone wants an owner-occupied single family home. Some people cannot afford one and some people are in a stage of life that they don’t want one.  Multi-family rentals fill an important niche in any housing market. Vacancy rates have been historically low in Kearney. Housing Market Studies performed by consultants in 1992 and 1997 showed a vacancy rate of 5.2 percent and projected a need for over 1,000 additional rental units.  Multi-family units often provide an affordable alternative to other types of housing. Consumers that can afford to upgrade to new construction apartments free up units in older, more affordable units.  If the City concurs that multi-family housing is an important part of the mix then it needs to put it somewhere. It is not an appropriate development strategy to place multi-family units in rural places on well and septic services.  Therefore, apartment complexes need to be served by municipal services; water sewer, refuse, police and fire. This means they need to be built in urban settings within or abutting the city limits so services can be provided.  The proposed site offers accessibility to all required infrastructure.

 

6a)        The developer has the option to request a rezoning to any category he/she desires. There is no guarantee that the rezoning request will be approved.  In this case, the developer has chosen medium density apartments instead of high density apartments. The zoning he has chosen happens to be in conformance with the latest version of the Land Use Map prepared by Marty Shukert.

 

Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying presented this matter to the Council.  He stated that when he presented this project to Planning Commission, he told them that this is located in a part of town that is in a mixed-use area and that he understands that there are people that may be concerned about this project.    He presented a map and gave an overview of the developments, property owners, and existing infrastructures that abuts this property.  He described the types of mixed-use facilities in the area that now access 56th Street and will in the future.

 

The Planning Commission recommended denial for their project; however, they believed that it would be worth presenting this project to the Council for review.  According to the staff, beginning in 1960 the Comprehensive Plan showed that 56th Street would be designated as an arterial and Avenue E from 31st Street north as a collector street.  He believes that when Marty Schukert, the planner, presents a new Comprehensive Plan that designation will probably remain.  With that in mind, they chose this site with the understanding that they have an arterial street on the south and a collector street on the west that would serve this site very well. 

 

He added that the veterinary clinic on the west does appear to be a use that directly conflicts with housing development.  In 1986 when the owner of that acreage came to the City and requested he be granted approval to put a clinic in that location, the City gave him a 25 year conditional use permit with the understanding that the City would probably grow to 56th Street sooner or later.  That conditional use permit will run out in 2011. 

 

Tim Norwood, 4411 Sunset Trail, addressed the Council.  He stated that since the Planning Commission meeting last week there has been a barrage of information that has come to him directly and indirectly that he does not think is correct.  He also wanted to address some of the comments and concerns that were made by some of the neighbors at that meeting.  

 

He stated that he has a purchase agreement to sell the property in question to a builder from another state.  The builder had preliminary meetings with the staff about constructing 148 units on this 11 acre tract consisting of 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units some being moderate to low income rent.  Part of the purchase agreement requires him to obtain the zoning for the builder.  His initial reaction was that he wanted R-4 zoning and after visiting with City staff he understood the importance of going to a lower density of R-3. 

 

He addressed five of the concerns that were expressed over and over again.

 

1.         The increase traffic and traffic speed on 56th Street and Avenue E.  There is no doubt this is going to be increased traffic on Avenue E whether these apartments get build or not. As stated earlier, Avenue E is a collector street and 56th Street is a main arterial and has been designated as such for some time.   Those are some of the reasons that he purchased the ground.  The idea of the apartments is to have some type of a buffering between the traffic and the single family houses.  He believes, as 56th Street is made into a 4-lane road and continues to become busier, there will be street signals added at 56th Street and Avenue N and 56th Street and Avenue E at some time.  He believes that those lights will help control the traffic speed, but there will be increased traffic.

 

2.         The apartments will negatively affect the value of the homes in the area. There is a large apartment complex on west 39th Street, the Broadmore Apartments.  Abutting it on the north is a new housing project.  The houses that are being built and sold there range from $220,000 to $250,000 plus and they are having no problem selling homes in this fine project.  The apartment complex right next door has not affected the sale of those houses.  The other side of the issue on values is to be sure that everyone understands that they acquired that whole quarter section in addition with a partner who also owns the quarter section to the east or what is remaining of it as they are developing it out.  He would not do anything to allow something to go up in that area that he thought for a second would reduce the overall value of the whole area.  He has a significant investment in this area.

 

3.         The question has been asked, “Does Kearney need more apartments?”  At the Kearney Planning Commission there was an individual that stated that he knew for a fact that there was a high vacancy rate and landlords were lowering rents.  He mentioned a project that he is involved with and there is no truth to that statement.  The company that was looking at this site did their own market study which concluded that there is no question that Kearney could handle this project.  He did his own personal housing study from a company in Illinois before that company did theirs and it was for a little different type of project, but the results showed two projects of 50 units.  They stated it was so obvious that Kearney was in need.  He believed that even if there was not a need, he is not sure that having an overbuilt situation in apartments is always bad.  It is not bad for tenants or people coming to town who are looking for choices.  His personal office manages about 300 apartment units except for normal vacancies such as moving in and out, they have no vacancies.  He believes that there are other property managers in Kearney that would concur with that.

 

4.         Meadowlark Elementary is full and a concern was voiced for children that would have to cross 56th Street to go to school.  He believes that the traffic signals will help provide the safety aspect of crossing that street for children in the apartments as well as those from Eastbrooke.  He wished that people had shown some concern about them before.  He would be willing to do whatever the City would suggest within reason to help provide that safe crossing of 56th Street.   Their office does as a standard practice keep the Public School Systems informed of what is going on.  He presented a sample letter of what is submitted to the Kearney Public Schools.  He wanted everyone to be aware that they do not just pop projects in and not keep the public school system informed.  When they made an acquisition in northeast Kearney, they sat down with Kearney Public School administration and informed them of the plans.  When they made this acquisition, they did the same thing and explained that it was going to be a little different than Eastbrooke.  It is going to have a little higher concentration of condominiums.  It will have some commercial ground in it, and it will have some apartments.  They appreciated getting this information as well as a timetable for these projects.  The letter also addresses the fact that the school system is constantly evaluating borders and boundaries for their students.  He did a survey of one of his 96-unit complex (1 and 2 bedrooms) and there were younger children but only three children were of school age.  He believes that they will probably have a larger impact on the school system by the single-family houses that they are building at the Eastbrooke Subdivision than in the apartment complex.

 

5.         The increased noise that would be created because the dwellers of the apartment complex do not care about neighborhoods.  He stated that everyone, either as a tenant or owner, has experience with someone that was not a good neighbor.  That can happen in any area.  A professional project of this size that is professionally managed will insure that a concerted effort will be made to take care of any problems that affect the neighborhood plus the people that live in the complex.  How the common area is managed has a direct relationship on how well a project rents. 

 

Council Member Buschkoetter asked Mr. Norwood to address the issue that what is being looked at is the rezoning, but the fact is that this sale may not go to this potential builder.

 

Mr. Norwood stated that right now he has a valid purchase agreement and he is moving ahead as if this builder will be the buyer.  In the same token, he has had two other builders contact him that if this deal does not go through, they would like to be considered for that ground.  In either case, they would have to meet with the staff and go through the entire development plan.  To be in compliance with the new ordinance, the minimums are quite significant.  In his opinion, no matter who actually develops the land, the result will be a nice project.  As far as a guarantee that if the zoning is approved that the land will be developed. The present builder did not want to invest any more money in the plans because one of the issues was the Planning Commission’s vote.  This was not the only issue but one of the issues.

 

Attorney Dan Lindstrom representing the Shadas, Prussas and Stones addressed the Council.  His clients are Jim and Kelli Shada, who live directly across the road to the south, Dr. Randy and Cynthia Stones, the veterinarian, whose property is on the north side of 56th Street immediately adjacent to the rezoned property, and Mike and Carol Prussa, who own Lots 1 and 2 in Prussa Addition which is just across the street diagonally to the southwest.

 

He presented a series of petitions that have been filed.  The first one was from his clients who have property within 300 feet of the proposed rezoning.  That does not meet the super majority vote under the code because of the fact that there are so many large owners including Mr. Norwood adjacent to the property.  Other people in the neighborhood who live in the area prepared the other petition.  He does not represent this people.  The Planning Commission overwhelmingly recommended denial of this rezoning application.  He believes that there were some very good reasons for that.  He stated that he is a little disappointed at the second guessing of the Planning Commission’s rational as to the reason they made that decision.  He was present at the Planning Commission meeting and heard the questions and he knows verbatim what happened.  The concern was that there is existing single family residences on the south side of 2nd Avenue now, those people moved there relying on the indication of the Land Use Map and the Comprehensive Plan that the property across the street from them was intended to be rezoned single family residential.  One could argue that was not a very good decision on their part, but they relied on it nonetheless.  

 

The second issue with the Planning Commission was there is a lot of displeasure with the amount of traffic currently on Avenue E.  He understands the City’s position on the fact that Avenue E is, and will remain, a collector street.  The question that many of the Planning Commission members had was “Why put more traffic on there if we don’t need to.”   The same applies to 56th Street. 

 

Finally, he thought there was a great deal of concern on the part of the Planning Commission about the fact that if this project is rezoned, those who have been involved in rezoning for a long time in the City have in the past had some control over how a project of this magnitude gets built.  A project with this kind of concentration of population and intensity of use is different than a lot of rezoning project that we look at.  He stated that he represents many developers and have appeared here many times on behalf of developers asking to rezone a piece of property.  In this case, he believes that the best interest is served by representing people in the community who have a legitimate complaint with the rezoning. 

 

He paraphrased from an editorial from the Hub last week.  The article said if we don’t build these apartments here, where are we going to build them?  They also made reference to the fact that three years ago an apartment developer came to the Council that obtained a rezoning.  Mr. Lindstrom represented that developer for a project of this same magnitude.  They made a decision not to build in Kearney for other reasons, but not because of the zoning.  This development would have been across the street from Meadowlark Golf Course.   They presented their project to the Council, the neighbors, and the community.  There was opposition, but in that case the homes were at least a quarter mile away and there were no single-family homes across the street.  They had plans, drawings, and the layout for everyone to look at, but we do not have that from the developer for this project.  That is a big difference and he believes resonated pretty soundly with the Planning Commission.

 

According to the Land Use Map, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan from 1997 which is still currently being used, there are a number of designated areas in the City that have been identified previously as being appropriate for this sort of high density residential use.  There are properties on 56th Street west of 2nd Avenue, both north and south of 48th Street, on 39th Street, on 30th Avenue, on Avenue N, and on 11th Avenue all of these are arterials and all of these are the interior beltways of the City.  His experience with developers is that this is not the only place that can be utilized.  He believed that this location is being proposed because someone willing to buy a piece of land has met a seller; it has nothing to do with somebody making a planning decision on the long haul.  Mr. Norwood proposes a very nice development in the community on this quarter section of land.  Mr. Norwood is not going to develop these apartments.  He had made that clear that he is going to sell to a developer whom nobody has met, has not shown a plan, and the unknown of what kind of manager will be there.  Nobody knows if that developer is going to buy this land, there are a number of things that could affect their decision other than the rezoning.  He stated that if the property is rezoned, then there is no control over what they do once it is rezoned. 

 

In 1997 after some of these houses were built on the south side of 56th Street, the City in their planning process proposed that the property across the street to the north would be single family residential.  Many people who purchased property there have relied on that.  It has been argued that the City does a lot a modification of the Land Use Map, but he believed that it would be inappropriate to do it for that reason. It would also be inappropriate to always place high-density residential developments along an arterial.  In this circumstance, the Council’s good judgment to look at this situation is seeing if it makes sense.  The home owners concerns are traffic, noise, safety, the concentration of litter and all the other activities that involve 148 different living units all concentration together over eleven acres.   He believed that since the city goes to the trouble of creating this Comprehensive Plan every few years and hires consultants, and spend time with volunteers and staff, then ignore it, it is a waste of time and money.

 

It has been argued that since 56th Street and Avenue E are already busy traffic streets that it doesn’t matter anyway.  He does not believe that adding an inordinate amount of traffic to it is justified. 

 

Regarding the Broadmore Apartments and the houses being built next to them, those are decisions that those property owners are making now based on the knowledge that it is next to the property that they’ve chosen to buy.  This is a different situation; these owners have already purchased their property and an unknown quantity is being proposed across the street. 

 

He stated that he appreciated Mr. Norwood taking the time to sit down with him, his clients, and several folks in the neighborhood to discuss some of their concerns.  The letter that he shared from the Kearney Public Schools does not state that the school district supports this rezoning or this project.  It merely says that the school district is prepared to make whatever accommodations it needs to make.  He doesn’t see that as a letter in favor of the project itself.

 

Mr. Norwood said the noise, traffic, and the esthetics issues will be dealt with by the appropriate management of this complex; however, that is unknown.  They don’t know who the builder will be or the developer.

 

He asked that the Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning of this property.

 

Council Member Buschkoetter asked Mr. Lindstrom for his opinion about the development of single family residences along 56th Street creating the same problems as the housing along 39th Street with curb cuts and people backing out of their driveways.  He asked if it would not be better to put them on Avenue E that is not quite as busy as 56th Street.  He stated that with this plan there would be fewer curb cuts than with single family dwellings.

 

Mr. Lindstrom responded from the information that he received from Mr. Norwood the proposal is for an entrance on 56th Street and a second entrance on Avenue E.  He thought that this came from a recommendation from planning staff that would be their preference.  Mr. Lindstrom agreed there would be fewer curb cuts than with single family residences only because at the time of the 39th Street development relative to the development of 56th Street.  He believes that lessons have been learned on 39th Street some 20-30 years ago, today planning staff takes a much different view of curb cuts onto an arterial.  For example homes along Avenue I have ingress and egress and not onto 56th Street.  The Shada’s is the only home that he is aware of that has ingress and egress onto 56th Street.  They would have objection to an entrance that would line up with their driveway to this complex, because they sometimes get people in their driveway that don’t realize it is a private drive.  He believed regardless of what is built or what rezoning is done, the curb cut situation is not going to change at all. 

 

Council Member Hadley stated that regardless of where this complex is built, there could be the same concern voiced about noise, traffic, esthetics for this type of project.  These are not arguments unique to this particular location; these are arguments about a 140-unit apartment complex regardless of where you put it. 

 

Mr. Lindstrom agreed with this statement.  These are issues that are related to this size of concentrated and intense development.  Careful consideration must be given about a location.  If we put it a half-mile or a quarter mile away from single family residences, those arguments could still be made.  However, they would not carry as much weight as those coming from adjacent property owners. 

 

Mayor Blankenship posed the question about traffic, speed, safety, Meadowlark Elementary being at capacity, noise, litter still being applicable if these all become single-family units.

 

Mr. Lindstrom responded that it was possible but to a different degree.  He thought he recalled that Mr. Norwood proposed a couple hundred homes to develop in that quarter section.  Those people are certainly going to add their own level of those issues but they won’t all be on 11 acres.  He has had a number of people say to him that they would not have an objection to commercial use of the land, such as dental or law offices, perhaps even light retail rather than 140-unit apartment complex. 

 

Kelli Shada, 715 East 56th Street, stated that of the areas shown for location of high density on the map, none of those sites have a school at the end of the block.  She represents a lot of the people that signed the petitions that were submitted.  There would have been more if she would have had a few more days.  There were many that were unable to attend this meeting and asked her to speak for them who are adamant about not putting that density of traffic onto 56th Street.  She agrees there will be traffic no matter what goes there, they are not opposed to growth in Kearney.   She thinks the other options need to be considered such as is there a school at the end of the block, are there 300 plus cars in that small area.  She has a private practice counseling service on 2nd Avenue and she does not want 56th Street to turn into 2nd Avenue.  She can verify that the traffic is very heavy; you can see the semi-trucks from her front porch.  The difference between the other arterials and this street is that it was designed to be a beltway.  She doesn’t know if 39th Street gets semi-trucks, or how many the YDC Road might get. This semi traffic goes past the school and that cannot be changed, but don’t add 300 plus vehicles to that huge traffic.  If you don’t have families in those apartments with school age children, then you are probably going to have a lot of drivers.  So it’s not going to be two cars per 148, it might be four or five people sharing an apartment, which will be more cars.  She doesn’t want to see congestion.

 

Jim Shada, 715 East 56th Street, stated that there are over 200 names on the petition from people who basically have a major concern about the density that this project would bring into their area.  As he walked around and met the people in his area with the petition, they were doing things to improve the esthetics of their property.  He and his wife have been tenants and this is not geared towards renters, but geared towards ownership.  All of these homeowners live here now; the decision to live here has already been made.  Kearney is a special place because we have done a good job in planning.  He asked the Council to do the right thing and consider the present property owners, not to just look at this and say this is the area where it needs to be.  Their future is in the hands of the Council and he knows that making the right decision will assure that Kearney will have a good position in the future.

 

Dr. David Benavides, 5308 Avenue K, stated that he is an orthopedic surgeon in Kearney and that he agreed with the presentations made by Attorney Dan Lindstrom and the Shadas.  He addressed a couple of points brought up by Mr. Norwood.  Mr. Norwood stated that he had a study done to determine if there was a need for more apartments.  He posed the question about Mr. Norwood’s study about the need for more apartments as he does to his drug reps when they come in with a new medication and say this drug is better because this is what the study shows.  He asks who paid for the research and what did they want the study to say? 

 

The families in Eastbrooke have concerns about their own kids crossing Avenue N or 56th Street to Meadowlark School due to the high traffic. This has been an item of discussion at their PTO meetings. He spoke with Dr. Renner regarding school boundaries being changed.  She said in the eleven years that she has been involved in that they have only been changed twice by her report.  That was not a change of boundary but an annexation of other areas to be included in the schools as the area grew.

 

Dr. Benavides continued.  With regard to the ingress and egress off of 56th Street - he lived in Huston for many years and seeing many apartment complexes in different cities, and homes that abut against major arterials, he believes there is nothing wrong with having backyards and fences against that street and having access to that neighborhood from other avenues.

 

The proposal is to change from an urban single family to high density.  The point he made is high density is high density regardless of how you define it; it means more people.  If these homes get built it will bring more traffic, this complex would double the traffic.

 

After meeting with Mr. Norwood a few nights ago, he crossed the street from Meadowlark near the Avenue K and 56th Street intersection.  Mr. Norwood plans to put another commercial property there.  He stated that he is not sure that should be located near the elementary school with kindergarten to 5th grade students.  He granted there are some apartments by Sunrise Middle School, but those are 6th, 7th, and 8th graders that have little more mental maturity than a kindergartner does.  He asked to keep an open mind.

 

Don Stearley, 4703 Avenue G, stated that he believed that when you change a plan, many things follow in a disorderly manner.  This plan was made to be an orderly development and when you make a change of 10 acres at one time it could lead to backing up and doing things over.  He lives on the corner of Avenue E and Avenue G and they have noticed an increase of traffic since Avenue E was opened to 56th Street.  He visualized that even with three houses on an acre in that section; there will be a lot less traffic than with 148 units on 11 acres.  He believed that this development should go where all facilities can be engineered and developed to serve them simultaneously. 

 

Scott Madison, 5508 Avenue I, stated that he questioned whether we need these apartments in Kearney or not.  A month ago he read a population report in the Hub, which said in the 2000 census that we had 28,000,000 plus population and that the estimate for the end of 2002 was about 550 more people.  He also read last week that we have had 49 single family housing permits issued through April of this year, which they stated was on track with the past couple of years which had 100-150 permits issued.  Between 2001 – 2002 there have been approximately 200 single-family homes built.  With an average of two people in a home, that equals to 400 people taken care of right there.  There are 49 permits so far this year, which takes care of 100 more people.  He believes that we are taking care of our population growth mainly in single-family homes. There are also many condominiums going up.  Mr. Norwood wants to put more in Eastbrooke and also on the northwest corner behind the convenience store (Kingswood Circle).  According to what he has heard, Mr. Norwood has 11 approved, but is going to build 48.  They are building a lot of condominiums right now, which are selling like “hot cakes”, and he doesn’t believe that we need more apartments.   Since our population is not going up as much as was hoped, his information is that we hoped to be over 30,000 and we’re not there yet.

 

John Macrander, 5512 Avenue K, stated that he is a manufacturing engineer and he works with prints and develop plans all the time.  He is very concerned about the lack of planning, long term planning of that are where the apartments would go.  He was one of the eight people at the Planning Commission meeting and in some discussions after the meeting with Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Norwood they would get a neighborhood group together and have a discussion possibly at the elementary school.  The meeting that they had was limited to people within 300 feet who owned their property of the proposed site.  He believed that everyone has a stake in the area in this community.   He would have appreciated being invited to the meeting and he had contacted Mr. Humphrey by phone once or possibly twice regarding this. 

 

As you review the names and addresses of the people that signed the petition, you will notice that quite a few of them are in the Eastbrooke Addition.  Since they are located considerably further away from this development than his house, he did not understand why they are concerned as well, if it would not make some adverse affects on their property values.

 

Rich Peters, 5412 Avenue K, stated that he took the petition around to the people in Eastbrook.  His comment was that he wished that the Council could personally hear the comments made from the people in this area.  He would advise the Council to listen to the people.  He believed that the land west of Ace Hardware or Northridge would be a more suitable area since there are no single-family residences in that area.   

 

Steve Voigt, 5207 Avenue G Place, stated that he did not believe that the Comprehensive Plan should be changed for one project.  His additional concern was about “light pollution”.  If you drive by the Broadmoor it is lit up, which is required for security purposes.  He stated that thanks to good City planning, they have low intensity streetlights in his neighborhood.  His family can go out and view the stars if they want, which would not be possible with lighting required for a 148-unit apartment complex.  He stated that the Council has a lot of faith in the Planning Commission and believed that their recommendations should be given some serious consideration.

 

Barb Voigt, 5207 Avenue G Place, stated the reason people purchased property in their area was because of esthetics and they like nature and the Woodriver Water Shed that runs through their area. Before purchasing their property, she did a lot of research to insure that there would not be development behind them, about the Woodriver Water Shed, about the fiberoptic cable, and that there was a utility easement, that it was zoned for R-1 across the road.  They were aware that Kearney would eventually grow and would develop, but that it was planned for R-1.  Their previous home was across the street from a 4 unit apartment complex, but because of the traffic on that street, their two young children were not allowed to play in the street.  They chose this location to get away from that situation.  They did plan and did trust that the City Council and the Planning Commission would do what they felt was the plan.

 

Mayor Blankenship addressed some issues that had been brought up.  He does not mean to counter anything, but to give some information:

 

 (1) There was a study commissioned by the City, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Economic Development Council which was an independent study.  At that time, the study resulted in a need for 1,000 additional apartment units in Kearney.  He believes that additional units are a need in Kearney. 

 

 (2) The zoning that is being discussed is actually in the Glenwood School District according to Ken Anderson.  It is not in the Meadowlark School District at this point. 

 

 (3) In the near future, Marty Schukert will be bringing an addition to the Comprehensive Plan that will suggest some higher uses along 56th Street.

 

 (4) Mayor Blankenship asked if anyone in the course of the petition was approached with the idea that a sports bar was planned to be built along with this facility.  He believed that if anyone was approached with that information, it doesn’t give this petition a great deal of credibility.

 

Kelli Shada stated that she spoke to several people on the route while out for the petition that there was a “rumor” of a sports bar that would be put forth.  She made it clear that it was only a rumor and there are lots of rumor going around. She voiced her concern that once it’s rezoned, they don’t know what might be allowed.  She further stated that there is a rumor that a developer is waiting for this to go and then there is a plan for a sports bar.  She didn’t know if that was true or not.

 

Dr. Benavides stated that more specifically, the sports bar would be located at the commercial area near Wal-Mart.  The development of an apartment complex such as this would be in their favor in developing their business.  There was no comment made that they were hand in hand.

 

Council Member Kearney commented that he has lived on a collector street by the high school for 15 years with high traffic, and has since moved to get away from that high traffic area.  In 1988, he sold land along that 56th Street tract and was aware of its arterial nature, but it has developed way beyond anybody’s expectations.

 

Council Member Zapata asked Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan to clarify the process of how changes to the Comprehensive Plan could be adopted. 

 

Director of Public Works responded that the proposed Land Use is to go to a higher density along 56th Street.  That plan has not gone through the public hearing process yet.  The process will be coming up and opposition could be posed at that time.

 

Council Member Buschkoetter said that he lives three blocks off of 11th Street and face the same situation as 56th Street.  He stated that an investment in a home is one of the major investments a person can make both financially and emotionally.  11th Street is a major arterial.  He also has school-age children and he is concerned about traffic, school crossings, etc.

 

He pointed out that Windy Hills is right next to an apartment complex, the new middle school is located on one of the beltway streets as well.  When Meadowlark School decided on their location, they were aware that 56th Street was an arterial and that is why they did not have a major entrance on 56th Street.  The back of the school is on 56th Street, but most kids are picked up and dropped off in the front of the school.  He did not believe that the representation at this meeting, addresses the opinion of the entire community. 

 

Maggie Carson, 5408 Avenue I, stated that she is a teacher Sunrise Middle School. She believes that the huge apartment building near the school causes a lot of traffic problems.  She concluded that after viewing the clip of the Mayor on the news that evening that he has already made a decision in favor of the rezoning.  She believed that it was important that the people’s point of view be heard and considered.

 

Mayor Blankenship stated that he had informed Mr. Lindstrom and others involved of his intentions prior to the Council.  He stated that at that point he was leaning toward favoring the rezoning, but he was willing to listen to everyone’s testimony at this Council meeting and make a decision from there.

 

Council Member Hadley stated that the decision that he makes tonight sets precedence.  In order to make a decision, he needs to sort out whether the objection is to the apartment complex itself or to the fact that there are so many unknowns about this development.

 

Tim Norwood stated that he wanted to make some comments.  Regarding the meeting that was held he made the decision to invite only the people within 300 feet after the Planning Commission meeting because basically those attending said there was nothing that could be discussed that would change their minds.  They visited with anyone that called, one person called and did attend the meeting and anyone could have done that.

 

He received telephone calls from people that purchased homes from their office in the Eastbrooke subdivision asking why he would build an apartment complex that would cause their kids to “get kicked out of Meadowlark School”.  He assured them this was not true and did not understand why the people going around with petitions would say that.  The last time he talked to Ken Anderson, the plans were to extend the boundary north of Eastbrooke in the area going toward the golf course.  He was adding area, not taking area away. 

 

He thinks it is a mistaken idea that apartments and single-family houses can’t co-exist.  The people that live in apartments are good people.  They live in apartments for a variety of reasons.  He made the point that people also rent single-family houses and that doesn’t make them a bad neighbor. 

 

There was a comment that the Council has no control on this project.  His point was that is what the whole new ordinance was about.  It gives the opportunity for developers to know in advance what they need to present to the staff.  If they present even the minimum standards then they are able to go forward with the project and that’s what they were attempting to do with that project. He owns a lot of property in that area and he wants to be a good neighbor.  In that spirit and trying to move this project forward, he would be willing to accept an R-3 Planned District if the Council was willing to do so.

 

Mitch Humphrey stated that within 300 feet of this project, there are presently seven single-family lots that exist.  Of those seven, one is acreage, one church, one veterinarian clinic, and one condominium project.  Of the seven lots that are single-family residential lots, there are presently three that are built or under construction.   Presently this is a mixed-use area.   300 feet is roughly a block long   If it is carried out 500 feet, approximately a block and a half, there are 20 single family lots, ten homes are built with two on acreages, one church, one clinic, and one condominium project.  Keeping in mind that south of 56th Street, there is somewhat of a mixed used area at this time. 

 

Mr. Humphrey stated that he was involved along with Mr. Lindstrom with the other apartment project on 35th Street and 30th Avenue.  With that situation, there were some single-family lots just outside of 300 feet from that site, because he laid it out.  Mr. Lindstrom could have been speaking in generalities, but the homes were not a quarter mile as he had indicated.   The last time Mitch looked at the project, there were several people who had homes under construction and were adamantly against that project. 

 

Mr. Lindstrom stated that one can’t stand on precedence or policy because this is a unique situation.  The Comprehensive Plan is somewhat important, but we don’t have a problem with changing it.  This is a matter to be decided by the Council’s good judgment.

 

Mayor Blankenship said that as an elected official, he believes that consistency is important.  He was a stanch supporter of the project that Mr. Lindstrom alluded to earlier across from Meadowlark Golf Course.  It was a good project, but unfortunately it did not work out.  It was not unlike this situation at all, there were houses very close and it required a change in the Land Use Map.  He believed that regardless of what happens with this particular rezoning, there is going to be high traffic on 56th Street.  That does not mean that it is undesirable.  Many people have invested money along 56th Street and it is still desirable property.  The traffic will be handled a lot better with the 4-lane.  The fact there is a collector street that connects with that as well allows traffic in and out of that subdivision much better. He suggested adding the planned designation to the R-3 so each and everyone will get a chance to see what this plan looks like if and when it takes place. 

 

Council Member Buschkoetter stated his situation is similar to this one because he lives along one of the main arterials.  He can honestly say if one were being proposed near his neighborhood, he would have to agree that along a main arterial is where it needs to be.  He would approve a complex like this within blocks of his house.  He believes that this is in the best interest of the whole community.  After looking at everything, he is convinced that it is the right thing to do.

 

Council Member Hadley stated that he lives three or four blocks from the apartment complex on 35th Street and 30th Avenue that was approved.  He lived in University Heights for six months when he first came to town and thought it was not a good place to live along with university students.  However, there are many nice homes around University Heights; in fact ground is being broken for a new home within three quarters of a block.  There are people that co-exist with apartments.

 

Council Member Zapata stated he understands there are changes that are coming with the Comprehensive Plan, but he believes they should wait until we get there.  He was concerned that this project did not come with plans, so there were unknowns.  He is not totally comfortable with the plan, but adding the “P” to this makes it more acceptable. 

 

Moved by Blankenship seconded by Kearney to close the hearing and approve the Application to amend the Land Use Map of the City of Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan from “Urban Single Family Residential” to “High Density Residential” property described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northeast corner of 56th Street and Avenue E) and to deny Resolution No. 2003-58. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-58

 

            WHEREAS, an application for a revision of the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan has been filed in conjunction with and as a requisite part of its application for a change in the zoning for a tract of land described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., Buffalo County, Nebraska, more particularly described as follows:  Referring to the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24 and assuming the west line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 as bearing N00°20’04”W and all bearings contained herein are relative thereto; thence N00°20’04”W and on the west line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 a distance of 285.78 feet to the ACTUAL PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing N00°20’04”W and on the west line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 a distance of 469.50 feet; thence N89°39’56”E a distance of 704.23 feet; thence S00°48’43”E a distance of 749.11 feet to a point on the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24; thence S89°11’17”W and on the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 a distance of 474.58 feet; thence N00°48’43”W a distance of 197.00 feet; thence N45°34’23”W a distance of 122.90 feet; thence S89°30’56”W a distance of 180.00 feet, containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska, from “Urban Single Family Residential” to “High Density Residential”, and

            WHEREAS, the said application for change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been denied by the City Planning Commission, after a public hearing properly published and held, and

            WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing upon the said revision and voted in favor of a motion to approve the change in the Land Use Plan as requested by the applicant.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be and is hereby amended to change from “Urban Single Family Residential” to “High Density Residential” the use classification for the area described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., Buffalo County, Nebraska, more particularly described as follows:  Referring to the southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24 and assuming the west line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 as bearing N00°20’04”W and all bearings contained herein are relative thereto; thence N00°20’04”W and on the west line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 a distance of 285.78 feet to the ACTUAL PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing N00°20’04”W and on the west line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 a distance of 469.50 feet; thence N89°39’56”E a distance of 704.23 feet; thence S00°48’43”E a distance of 749.11 feet to a point on the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24; thence S89°11’17”W and on the south line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 24 a distance of 474.58 feet; thence N00°48’43”W a distance of 197.00 feet; thence N45°34’23”W a distance of 122.90 feet; thence S89°30’56”W a distance of 180.00 feet, containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

CITY CLERK                                                                 AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

 

REZONING – NORTHEAST CORNER OF 56TH STREET AND AVENUE E

 

Mayor Blankenship opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Mitchell Humphrey (Applicant) for Tim Norwood, President of NP Land Development, Inc. (Owner) to rezone from “AG, Agricultural District” to “District R-3, Urban Residential Multi-Family (Medium Density) District” property described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northeast corner of 56th Street and Avenue E). Planning Commission recommended denial.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Buschkoetter to close the hearing and approve the Application submitted by Mitchell Humphrey (Applicant) for Tim Norwood, President of NP Land Development, Inc. (Owner) to rezone from “AG, Agricultural District” to “District R-3/PD, Urban Residential Multi-Family (Medium Density)/Planned Development Overlay District” property described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northeast corner of 56th Street and Avenue E). Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

IV.    CONSENT  AGENDA

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley that Subsections 1 through 11 of Consent Agenda Item IV be approved. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

1.         Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting held April 22, 2003.

 

2.         3CMA $350.00 Dues; ABC-CLIO $59.40 Bks; Ace Hardware $142.84 Various; Adams Co Sheriff $1,000.00 Dues; Advantage Rent A Car $197.53 Tr; AFLAC $1,707.98 Ded; Agent Fee $30.00 Tr; Alexander Hamilton Institute $108.76 Su; Allied Electronics $112.38 Inv; Alltel $3,769.53 Various; Amer Electric $1,202.58 Various; Amer Legion Emblem $229.35 Su; Amer Library Assoc $460.46 Bks; Andersen Wrecking $170.00 Various; Andersen's Outdoor Power $214.92 Various; Anderson Brothers $152.95 Rep; APA Memberships $315.00 Dues; Applebee's $16.05 Tr; Ashworth $2,849.31 Inv; Ayers Distributing $125.00 Su; Baird, Holm et al $5,531.25 Serv; Baker & Taylor $2,829.07 Bks; Bamford $7,842.28 Serv; Barco Mun Products $739.93 Tools; Bath & Body Works $33.00 Su; BBC Audiobooks America $119.75 Bks; Beacon Ballfields $38.00 Rep; Becker, G $234.49 Su; Ben Meadows $303.40 Tools; Bennett, T $1,304.25 Serv; Bernan $51.00 Bks; Best Access Systems $113.03 Su; Big Apple Fun Center $258.00 Serv; Big Flag $32.00 Inv; Bob's Super Store $76.42 Serv; Books on Tape $303.60 Bks; Bosselman Energy $10,411.16 Inv; Brecht, N $194.91 Rep; Briggs, J $35.00 Tr; Brodart $67.46 Serv; Buffalo Co Dist Court $129.00 Ded; Buffalo Co Reg of  Deeds $7.00 Serv; Buffalo Co Surveying $253.66 Su; Buffalo Co Treasurer $90.00 Reg; Buggy Bath Car Wash $16.00 Rep; Builders How-to $3,342.66 Various; Burke, M $3,150.00 Serv; Buzz's Marine $17.60 Su; Byco #4 Gas Station $30.34 Tr; Byrne, D $82.70 Tr; Cabela's Retail $187.67 Su; Canada Life Assurance $2,257.21 Ded; Casey's  $15.25 Tr; Cash Wa Distribution $1,778.98 Various; CDW Government $785.50 Su; Cellar Bar & Grill $80.00 Su; Central Fire $182.90 Various; Central Hydraulic Systems $158.94 Various; Central NE Bobcat $132.50 Various; CHAD $4.00 Ded; Charter Comm $64.96 Various; Charter Paging $6.42 Serv; Chesterman $1,652.09 Su; Christensen, D $339.75 Serv; CINPH1 Systems $44.43 Rep; City of Ky $157,527.86 Various; Claire's Boutiques $25.00 Su; Clerk of the US Dist Court $157,572.04 Serv; CLH $309.00 Weather Data; College Savings Plan of NE $245.00 Ded; Colorado RT $18.24 Tr; Columbus Ace Hardware $20.31 Su; Compass Point Books $13.95 Bks; Computer Pros $25.90 Su; Computer Warehouse #4 $166.92 Su; Conseco Life Ins $38.00 Ded; Construction Rental $73.50 Su; Control Masters $2,200.00 Rep; Copycat Printing $978.14 Various; Cordova, T $183.55 Tr; Corp Diversified Services $236,692.08 Various; Creative Co $16.98 Bks; Crossroads Ford $176.56 Inv; Culligan $215.75 Various; Cummins Great Plains $671.28 Various; D&M Security $952.50 Rep; Davis Instruments $610.00 Su; Dawson Co PPD $1,803.10 Serv; DE Newspaper Circulation $117.00 Bks; Deeter Foundry $196.00 Inv; DH Pace Comm Construction $49.00 Su; Diamond Vogel Paints $123.17 Inv; Discount Tools $64.95 Tools; Double M Farms $2,000.00 Composting; DPC Ind $10,105.67 Su; Dugan Business Forms $3,452.47 Su; Dultmeier Sales $501.24 Su; Dutton-Lainson $2,353.87 Various; Eakes Office Plus $1,920.78 Various; Easy Picker Golf Products $984.88 Su; Ecolab $26.00 Su; Elliott Equipment $1,374.39 Rep; Engels, D $103.30 Tr; Eversan $232.00 Rep; Expedia.Com $10.00 Tr; Expression Wear $82.50 Incentives; Facts on File $31.00 Bks; Fairbanks Int'l $1,432.46 Various; Farm Plan $1,063.86 Rep; Fastenal $243.61 Inv; Fiddelke Heating $199.03 Various; Fire Explorer Post #61 $100.00 Serv; Fitzgerald, R $55.20 Tr; Flying J/CFJ $26.08 Tr; Foot Joy $404.92 Su; Fremont Nat'l Bank $33,990.70 Ded; Frontier $8,895.63 Various; Galls $576.15 Various; Gary's I-80 Service $425.00 Serv; Gateway Supply $106.85 Rep; General Traffic Controls $5,880.35 Serv; Gilmore, R $18.32 Ref; Glazier, R $207.13 Tr; Gordon's Small Engine Repair $157.15 Inv; GFOA $330.00 Reg; Graham Tire $2,247.85 Various; Grainger $265.68 Various; Grand Central IGA $35.04 Su; GI Clean Comm System $4,500.00 Serv; GI Suburban Fire $181.68 Su; Great Amer Outdoor $38.76 Rep; Great Plains Asbestos Control $3,070.00 Serv; Great Plains One-Call $483.94 Serv; Great Plains Safety, Health $1,287.50 Serv; H&G Cleaners $529.14 Various; H&H Distributing $1,227.50 Su; H&M Services $166.77 Rep; Hach $961.48 Rep; Harshbarger, K $11.35 Tr; Hartman Llama $235.00 Nature Barn; Hertz Equip Rental $59.67 Inv; Highsmith $649.46 Various; Hinrichs, S $15.80 Cla; Hobby-Lobby $34.06 Su; Holiday Inns Express $104.75 Tr; Holmes Plbg $2,103.42 Various; Hometown Leasing $206.00 Capital Impr; HTE $1,065.00 Reg; I-80 Eppley Express $255.00 Tr; IBM $1,980.00 Tr; ICBO $62.00 Su; ICMA RC $2,454.36 Ded; IMLA $600.00 Dues; IRS $78,899.04 Ded; Interstate Structures $55,966.50 Serv; Int'l Assoc for Identification $120.00 Dues; IIMC $495.00 Reg; J&H Eagle Supply $37.53 Ref; Jack Lederman $363.22 Various; Jacobi's Carpet One $45.00 Su; Jacobsen, Orr et al $650.00 Serv; JWS Wiley Publishers $90.15 Su; K&K Parts $304.57 Inv; Kahle, A $34.50 Tr; Ky Area Chamber of Commerce $20,755.23 Taxes; Ky Area Solid Waste Agency $70,983.46 Tipping Fees; Ky Area United Way $569.58 Ded; Ky Clinic $268.00 Serv; Ky Concrete $1,060.38 Various; Ky Glass $27.05 Various; Ky Implement $505.67 Various; Ky Winlectric $70.80 Various; Ky Yamaha $408.80 Rep; Keith Co News $34.00 Bks; Kelley, M $74.61 Tr; Kelly Supply $234.56 Su; Killion Motors $78.71 Inv; Koetters, J $287.50 Tr; Kriz, A $14.55 Ref; L&E Mobil Computers $477.69 Inv; L&W Tires and Treads $396.72 Various; Landmark Audiobooks $10.00 Bks; Larkin Aquatics $3,420.00 Serv; Laser Art Design $165.00 Su; Lasertec of NE $566.00 Su; Law Enforcement Accessories $321.75 Su; Law Enforcement Training Ctr $135.00 Tr; Lawson Products $106.55 Rep; LECC $535.00 Dues; Lerner Publishing $232.50 Bks; Library Hotline $109.00 Tr; Liehs Drilling $3,376.00 Rep; Linda's Upholstery $73.90 Rep; Linweld $73.63 Inv; Lockmobile $92.90 Various; Long, D $13.54 Ref; LSS Lab Safety Supply $155.41 Tools; Lynn Peavey $19.50 Su; Maatsch, A $30.22 Ref; Machines and Media $1,343.50 Equip; Magic Cleaning Service $600.00 Su; Marlatt Machine Shop $607.53 Rep; Marriott $224.62 Tr; Marshall Cavendish $492.15 Bks; Martinosky, M $50.00 Reim; Matthew Bender $158.80 Su; May, J $13.20 Tr; McLaughlin, S $200.00 Reim; MGIA/MOCIC $25.00 Tr; Mid America Pay Phones $200.00 Su; Mid-American Specialities $512.88 Su; Midway Chevrolet $29.70 Rep; Midwest Crime Conf $35.00 Tr; Miller & Assoc $89,463.10 Serv; Miller Signs $477.00 Various; Molczyk, W $29.65 Ref; Moore Industries $770.72 Rep; Mosbarger, B $466.55 Various; Mr. Automotive $3,421.49 Various; MSI $449.00 Capital Impr; Municipal Supply $567.93 Inv; Murphy Tractor $1,947.77 Various; NAPA All Makes Auto Supply $2,130.12 Various; Nat'l Paper Supply $108.64 Su; Nat'l Waterworks $12,058.54 Inv; NCVC $35.00 Tr; NE Child Support $1,307.72 Ded; Ne Dept of Agriculture $90.00 Su; NE Dept of Revenue $21,995.93 Ded; NE Supreme Court $42.40 Su; NE Juvenile Justice Assoc $55.00 Tr; NE APWA $225.00 Reg; NE Dept of Aeronautics $894.87 Serv; NE Dept of Env Quality $300.00 Serv; NE Dept of Revenue $67,897.09 Various; NPPD $31.58 Serv; NE Section PGA $35.00 Dues; NE Truck Center Inc. $447.73 Inv; NEland Distributors $1,188.50 Su; Nelson Furniture $39.00 Rep; New World Systems $7,194.00 Software; Newman Signs $48.95 Su; Nogg Chemical $347.31 Inv; Northwest Electric $529.83 Rep; Northwestern Energy $6,626.84 Serv; NSVFA Fire School $15.00 Dues; NWA Air $214.50 Tr; ODV $81.25 Su; Office Depot $857.13 Su; Office Max $432.54 Various; Office Net $2,672.39 Various; O'Keefe Elevator $18.46 Rep; Old Navy $25.00 Su; OMB Police Supply $7,657.88 Capital Impr; OPS Systems $300.00 Rep; O'Reilly $147.21 Inv; Oriental Trading $24.85 Su; Orscheln Farm and Home $382.02 Various; Ostrander, T $69.00 Tr; Overhead Door $91.72 Various; P.E.P. $47.25 Rep; Paramount Linen $14.00 Rep; Pat's Plumbing $130.00 Rep; Patterson, B $153.14 Reim; Paul Otto Curb Grinding $117.00 Serv; Payne, B $55.20 Tr; Philby, E $7.28 Ref; Ping $1,668.13 Inv; Pioneer Manufacturing $929.00 Su; Pitney Bowes $143.11 Su; Pizza Hut $78.76 Su; Planning Commissioners $135.00 Bks; Platte Valley Comm $636.35 Serv; Platte Valley State Bank $812.91 Serv; Poppert, D $31.94 Ref; Portable Computer Systems $14,598.00 Rep; Powderhorn Ind $215.69 Su; Preferred Mail $114.30 Pstg; Presto-X $400.00 Various; Pueblo Chemical $892.50 Rep; Quality Inn Suites $395.00 Tr; Quinlan Publication $184.00 Dues; Radio Shack $121.17 Various; Ready Mixed Concrete $314.39 Rep; Reams Sprinkler Supply $195.55 Su; Recognition Unlimited $453.00 Incentives; Recorded Books $397.35 Bks; Respond First Aid Systems $88.35 Su; Riverside Animal Hospital $1,343.50 Serv; RMFMA-NE Treasurer $20.00 Fees; Rodehorst, S $250.00 Nature Barn; Rogers House $3.80 Tr; Rowland, A $22.75 Ref; Russells Appliances $1,526.00 Equip; Safety-Kleen $203.40 Su; Sahling Kenworth $203.54 Various; Scharff's Septic Tank Cleaning $290.00 Rep; Schloss Engineered Equip $3,000.14 Capital Impr; School District #7 $4,844.30 Remittance; Secretary of State $24.00 Su; See Clear Cleaning $3,600.00 Serv; Shackman Assoc $420.00 Tr; Sheraton Tacoma Hotel $260.50 Tr; Sherwin Williams $242.04 Su; Sign Center $2,020.50 Various; Sinclair Retail $20.56 Su; Sjuts, S $33.09 Ref; Skeen, L $34.61 Ref; Sleep Inn  $253.56 Tr; Snap On Tools $65.00 Su; Solid Waste Equipment $32,586.75 Various; Sorkness, C $350.00 Various; Sprint $129.23 Serv; State of NE DAS Comm $26.44 Serv; State of NE HHS Lab $1,149.00 Serv; Sterling Dist $109.48 Su; Stone Creations $38.95 Su; Story, G $34.50 Tr; Sun Turf $101.38 Rep; Super Shine Auto Wash $83.00 Various; Superior Signals $1,011.80 Inv; Sydney's $85.00 Serv; Syndistar $416.00 Bks; T&B Cleaning $1,100.00 Serv; Target $378.34 Su; Taubenheim, B $28.49 Ref; Tech Center Svc $36.86 Tr; Terra Scan $20,864.00 Serv; Texaco $19.41 Tr; Texas Refinery $717.75 Su; Theis, G $41.73 Pc; Theis, J $6.28 Ref; Thome, B $34.50 Tr; Thompson, L $50.00 Rep; Tilley Sprinkler Systems $58.22 Rep; Titleist $2,210.77 Su; Tollefsen Elliott Lumber $1,150.10 Various; Top Bulb $26.45 Inv; Top Hat Furniture $229.99 Serv; Tractor-Supply $518.71 Various; Trade Well Pallet $840.00 Su; Tri-City Arena $129.00 Serv; U Save Foods $29.26 Su; UAP Pueblo $753.78 Su; Union Oil $938.40 Inv; United Air $573.52 Tr; United Distillers $425.02 Su; United Seeds $3,039.00 Rep; United States Golf Assoc $100.00 Dues; UNMC $20.00 Reg; UPS $7.76 Inv; UPS West Store $57.63 Pstg; USPS $3.96 Pstg; Utility Equipment $2,120.06 Inv; Verizon Wireless $17.00 Serv; Video Store Shopper $44.98 Su; Village Cleaners $125.00 Cla; Vulcan $3,450.90 Signs; Wald & Co $12,000.00 Various; Waldenbooks $25.00 Su; Walgreens $12.46 Su; WalMart Supercenter $1,081.03 Various; Walters Electric $1,012.27 Rep; WCN $278.00 Su; Wellness Councils of America $76.80 Wellness Program; Wells Fargo $300.00 Various; West Group $570.84 Su; Western Security Svcs $625.00 Equip; Wiederspan, R $692.65 Tr; Wilke, C $36.05 Tr; Wilke-Donovan's True Value $160.92 Rep; Willey, J $12.68 Ref; Winfield Beatty Const $4,200.00 Capital Impr; Wittek Golf Supply $432.10 Su; Woods & Aitken $1,439.78 Serv; Woodside, M $57.24 Tr; Xerox $341.63 Various; Yant Equipment $85.70 Rep; Young, J $49.42 Tr; Young, M $10.35 Tr; Ziemba Roofing $140.00 Rep; Zimmerman Printers $440.00 Su; Zobel, L $4.23 Ref; Payroll Ending 04-19-2003 -- $230,366.54; and Payroll Ending 05-03-2003 -- $230,398.96.  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.         Approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 2-Final in the amount of $3,041.95 and the Certificate of Acceptance submitted by Concrete Workers, Inc. and approved by Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers for the 2002 Part III Improvements consisting of Paving Improvement District No. 2001-859 for the alley lying between 26th Street and 27th Street from 1st Avenue and 2nd Avenue and approve Resolution No. 2003-59.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-59

 

WHEREAS, Concrete Workers, Inc. has performed services in connection with the 2002 Part III Improvements consisting of Paving Improvement District No. 2001-859 for the alley between 26th Street and 27th Street from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue, and the City’s engineer, Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers, have filed with the City Clerk Application and Certificate for Payment No. 2-Final in the amount of $3,041.95 as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference and as follows:

 

Original Contract Sum

$35,758.15

Change Order No. 1

-21,430.75

Contract Sum to Date

 

Total Completed and Stored to Date

Retainage

Total Earned Less Retainage

Less Previous Payments

 

Current Payment Due

$14,327.40

 

$14,327.40

.00

14,327.40

  11,285.45

 

$ 3,041.95

 

            WHEREAS, the Engineer and Contractor have now certified to the City Clerk that work is accepted as of April 21, 2003, as shown by Exhibit “B” 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 Application and Certificate for Payment No. 2-Final, as shown on Exhibit “A”, and the Certificate of Acceptance, as shown on Exhibit “B”, be and are hereby accepted and approved.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

4.         Approve the Contract between the City of Kearney and CH2M Hill Inc. for on-going support services related to City water and wastewater supply, conveyance and treatment systems and approve Resolution No. 2003-60.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-60

 

            BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the President be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Contract between the City of Kearney and CH2M Hill Inc. for support services related to the City water and wastewater supply, conveyance and treatment systems, a copy of the Contract marked Exhibit “A” is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

5.         Approve the Nebraska Environmental Trust 2003 Grant Contract for the Kearney Area Recycling Center located at 3007 East 39th Street and approve Resolution No. 2003-61.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-61

 

            WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2002-207 on August 27, 2002 authorizing Administration to submit a Grant Application to the Nebraska Environmental Trust in the amount of $200,000.00 to assist in the construction of the Kearney Area Recycling Center; and

            WHEREAS, the Nebraska Environmental Trust approved the Grant Application as submitted by the City of Kearney; and

            WHEREAS, in order to receive the Grant funds, the Nebraska Environmental Trust and the City of Kearney shall enter into a contract outline the City’s requirements for the use of these funds.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the President be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Nebraska Environmental Trust 2003 Grant Contract, a copy marked Exhibit “A” is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

6.         Approve the request submitted by Frances Weides for the American Legion Auxiliary Unit 52 to offer poppies for donations on May 23, 24, 25, 2003 throughout the City of Kearney.

 

7.         Approve the application submitted by EXPRESSIONS CATERING, INC., dba “Paradise Cove” for a Special Designated License in connection with their Class C58433 Liquor License to dispense beer, wine and distilled spirits in the Food Court at the Great Platte River Road Memorial Archway Monument on May 29, 2003 from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. subject to the City receiving the required Certificate of Insurance for liquor liability.

 

8.         Approve the recommendation from the Mayor on the appointment of Marta Moorman to serve as the alternate on the Advisory Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners.

 

9.         Consider supporting the Nebraska Crime Commission 2002 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Application being submitted by Buffalo County for the Buffalo County Attention Center Program and approve Resolution No. 2003-62.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-62

 

            WHEREAS, the City of Kearney and Buffalo County have a mutual interest in the well being and interests for the youth of Kearney and Buffalo County; and,

            WHEREAS, the State of Nebraska has offered funding to both the City of Kearney and Buffalo County contingent on an application for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program to be presented to the Nebraska Crime Commission; and

            WHEREAS, the possible amount of funding will be $16,042.00 for the City of Kearney, and $12,543.00 for Buffalo County with a ten percent match for each to acquire these funds; and

            WHEREAS, these monies will be used to refurbish, maintain, and provide part-time contract staffing for the current Buffalo County Attention Center, which is used by both the City of Kearney and Buffalo County to house and attend to the needs of delinquent and pre-delinquent youth.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska that the Council supports the application.

            Be it further resoLVed that an agreement will be created in the future to provide for the application for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program funding, and that these moneys will be shared to provide for juvenile services for the youth of the City of Kearney and Buffalo County.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

10.        Approve the request submitted by Cruise Nite-2003 Committee to block off Central Avenue from 25th Street to North Railroad Street, 23rd Street from 1st Avenue to Avenue A, the parking lot located west of Cunningham’s Journal, the parking lot located behind City Hall, and the parking lot located north of MONA and to conduct a parade on July 19, 2003 subject to the City receiving an executed Agreement complying with the terms and conditions.

 

11.        Approve the request submitted by ReFind to block off Central Avenue from 22nd Street to 23rd Street on August 9, 2003 from 6:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m. for a street dance subject to the City receiving an executed Agreement complying with the terms and conditions.

 

V.    CONSENT  AGENDA  ORDINANCES

 

None.

 

VI.    REGULAR  AGENDA

 

ORDINANCE NO. 6954 – VACATE PORTION OF WINDSOR ESTATES EIGHTH ADDITION

 

Council Member Hadley introduced Ordinance No. 6954, being Subsection 1 of Agenda Item VI to vacate Lot 1, except the north 193.0 feet of the east 164.0 feet thereof, Windsor Estates Eighth Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue), 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 Zapata 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, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley. Nay: None. 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. 6954 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley. Nay: None.  Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Zapata seconded by Blankenship that Ordinance No. 6954 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Blankenship, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 6954 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.

 

FINAL PLAT – EAGLES NEST ADDITION

 

Mayor Blankenship opened for discussion the application submitted by Mitch Humphrey (Applicant) for Calvin R. Johnson and Johnson Imperial Home Co. (Owner) for final plat approval of “EAGLES NEST ADDITION” to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue) and to consider Resolution No. 2003-63 subject to the effective date of Ordinance No. 6954. Planning Commission recommended approval.

 

Mitch Humphrey representing Johnson Imperial Home Co. presented this matter to the Council.  He stated the Eagles Nest Plaza, which is an office complex is located on the southerly portion of this site.  This will be a 4-lot subdivision which would encompass one of the lots Mr. Johnson presented earlier in the meeting.  The utilities are in place and the Staff and Planning Commission had a positive recommendation. 

 

Moved by Blankenship seconded by Kearney to approve the application submitted by Mitch Humphrey (Applicant) for Calvin R. Johnson and Johnson Imperial Home Co. (Owner) for final plat approval of “EAGLES NEST ADDITION” to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south of 42nd Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue) and approve Resolution No. 2003-63 subject to the effective date of Ordinance No. 6954. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-63

 

            BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, NEBRASKA, that the plat of “EAGLES NEST ADDITION”, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska, duly made out, acknowledged and certified, and the same hereby is approved and in accordance with the provisions and requirements of Section 19-916 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, accepted and ordered filed and recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Buffalo County, Nebraska; said addition is hereby included within the corporate limits of said City and shall be and become a part of said City for all purposes whatsoever, and the inhabits of such addition shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges and shall be subject to all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of said City.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President of the Council be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the final plat on behalf of the City of Kearney, Nebraska.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

ORDINANCE NO. 6955 – REZONING NORTHEAST CORNER OF 56TH STREET AND AVENUE E

 

Council Member Kearney introduced Ordinance No. 6955, being Subsection 3 of Agenda Item VI to rezone from “AG, Agricultural District” to “District R-3/PD, Urban Residential Multi-Family (Medium Density)/Planned Development Overlay District” property described as a tract of land being part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 11.12 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northeast corner of 56th Street and Avenue E), 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 Buschkoetter 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, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata. Nay: None. 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. 6955 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata. Nay: None.  Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley that Ordinance No. 6955 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 6955 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.

 

APPEAL OF TIM LOWE ON SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT

 

Mayor Blankenship opened for discussion the appeal submitted by Tim Lowe on the review and evaluation of site development features by Administration for property zoned “District M-1, Limited Industrial District” and described as Lots 754 through 760, inclusive, Original Town of Kearney Junction now the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska. Planning Commission recommended denial.

 

The applicant would like to develop this property for mini-warehousing consisting of two large buildings containing a total of 33 storage units. Twelve of the proposed units are 12’ x 20’, twelve are 12’ x 25’ and the remaining nine are 15’ x 40’. Some of the units will have sixteen-foot sidewalls to accommodate large recreational vehicles. The site was previously used as a lumber storage warehouse.  The land is zoned M-1 which allows self-storage units by right. The Unified Land Development Ordinance (UDO) categorizes this use as “convenience storage” and requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Staff for this use in this zoning district. The UDO also has supplemental use requirements for self-storage projects which must be met. In this case, the applicant submitted the Site Plan, Planning Staff reviewed said plan and sent a letter to the applicant requesting revisions to bring the project into compliance with the requirements of the UDO.  The applicant does not agree with the contents of the review letter and submitted an appeal letter to request a hearing of this matter before the Planning Commission. The Commission recommended denial of his appeal. He now appeals to the City Council.  This appeal process is set forth in the UDO.

 

When City Planning Staff reviewed the Site Plan for compliance with UDO requirements it became apparent that the Site Plan as presented does not comply. Although the mini-storage units are an allowable use in M-1 zoning districts, there are requirements set forth in the ordinance that must be met regarding setbacks, paving, landscaping, etc. We must remember no matter what previous codes have required or allowed in the past, the code before us now is the Unified Land Development Ordinance. City staff is in the process of evaluating the ordinance for upcoming revisions to make it as reasonable and equitable as possible. Chapter 46 of the UDO, Supplemental Use Regulations, lists supplemental development requirements by use. “Convenience Storage” requires the following development standards as the code is now written:

 

1.   The minimum size of a convenience storage facility shall be one acre.

2.   Activities within the facility shall be limited to the rental of storage cubicles and the administration and maintenance of the facility.

3.   All driveways within the facility shall provide a paved surface with a minimum width of twenty-five feet.

4.   All storage must be within enclosed buildings and shall not include the storage of hazardous materials.

5.   No storage buildings may open into required front yards.

6.   Facilities must maintain landscaped bufferyards of thirty-five feet adjacent to any public right-of-way and twenty feet adjacent to other property lines, unless greater setbacks are required by Chapter 48. (Landscaping and Screening Chapter)

 

As staff reviewed the site plan and applied the above listed criteria a response letter was written to the applicant. Following is the basis of the letter e.g. staff’s interpretation of the above criteria and the application of the criteria to the Site Plan in question.

 

1.   The size of the project is somewhere in the range of .63 acres.  Although the code states a minimum of one acre for development of this type of use, staff feels it would be a good infill project for this location if other requirements are met.  (Deviation # 1)

2.   Proposed activities comply with the intent of the code.

3.   1st Avenue, South Railroad Street and the alley are not paved at this time.  Staff is not requiring paving of the interior drives since they take access off of unimproved (unpaved) gravel streets and alley. In addition to paving of the interior driveways, Staff could require paving of the abutting streets and alley prior to issuance of a Building Permit since the code states “all public improvements must be in place on all abutting streets prior to any building permit being issued for any lot.”  (Deviation # 2) (Staff concurs that the width of the interior drive should be a minimum of 25 feet, the Site Plan shows 20 feet.)

4.   Proposed project complies.

5.   The Site Plan proposes the west building with overhead doors opening into the front yard on 1st Avenue.  Staff concurs with Code, the overhead doors shall take access from the interior drive, not the public street.

6.  The bufferyard provisions seem excessive to staff especially when the project is located in an industrial area. Staff is planning to revise these requirements in the near future. Therefore, Staff is requiring a 10-foot landscape strip along both public streets with one tree for every 500 square feet of landscape area. (You will recall, when BD Construction asked the question about landscaping requirements in M-1 zoning this is the formula approved by City Council for M-1 developments.)  (Deviation # 3)

 

Staff has agreed internally to three deviations from the requirements of the UDO which are in favor of the applicant. The review letter sent to the applicant is based on these decisions and requests only the following two considerations as to the Site Plan layout: a) No overhead doors shall open onto 1st Avenue or South Railroad Street; b) A ten-foot strip of landscaped area inside the property line shall be maintained on 1st Avenue and South Railroad Street. The landscaped area shall include one tree for each 500 square feet of area. In this case, a total of seven trees are required.  

 

Staff believes that the requirements that have been requested are fair and reasonable for this project. Since revisions to the code are forthcoming, some liberty was taken by Staff, in an effort to work with the applicant and after considerable discussion, to allow the three previously stated deviations. Alternatively, if the City Council so desires, Staff will apply the code strictly, as it is written, which will require a 35 foot bufferyard along the two public streets, a 20 foot buffer yard from the other property lines, paving of 1st Avenue, South Railroad Street and the alley for the entire length as they abut the project site, and paving of all interior drives. The project could also be denied in its entirety since the site does not meet the one acre minimum size requirement as set forth in Chapter 46.

 

At the Planning Commission hearing there was a great deal of discussion regarding this appeal. The applicant believes he was misled by City Staff when he discussed this project because he ordered the steel to construct the buildings based on staff advice. His recollection is that staff reviewed the site plan early on while staff contends a site plan was not submitted until towards the end of the process.  Apparently, a staff comment was made to the effect that self storage units would be an acceptable use on the site but with no site plan in hand, the details of the development were unknown. It does not appear that the developer researched the UDO requirements before ordering the buildings.   

 

There was also discussion about the landscaping requirements and the fact that water is not available at this site and the surrounding area is devoid of landscape.  The property is zoned M-1 and the development standards regarding landscaping, paving and sidewalks were established by the City Council when BD Construction demanded an answer. Staff is simply applying the established standard based on the zoning. Should we treat one M-1 property different from another M-1 property?

 

The final issue that received a considerable amount of discussion during the Planning Commission hearing is orientation of the overhead doors and access and maneuvering from the public way. The UDO prohibits overhead doors from facing the street. Why? Staff believes that the main reason is to insure that access to the storage units is taken from the internal drives and not from the public street. Mr. Lowe proposes to store large vehicles such as RV’s and motor homes and he plans to use the public street for maneuvering in and out of the units.  Staff does not support this idea.

 

In the end, Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal recognizing that the appellant has two options.  First, he can appeal (and has appealed) his matter to the City Council. Second, he can make changes to the Site Plan to bring it into compliance with the UDO, obtain a building permit, and build the project according to the revisions.

 

Similarly, the City Council can approve the appeal allowing the appellant the latitude to build the project as he desires. Or, the Council can deny the appeal and the appellant has the option of revising the plans and building the project in compliance with the UDO or he could appeal the matter to the District Court.

 

Planning Commission recommended denial of the appeal.  The action items that must be included in a motion to bring the project into compliance with the staff recommendations are as follows: 1) The overhead doors cannot face any public street. (Facing doors on the public alley is okay); and 2) Since this property is zoned M-1, a ten-foot wide landscape strip is required along all abutting public streets. The landscape strip shall be planted to turf grass with (1) two-inch caliper deciduous tree for every 500 square feet of landscape area. (In this case, a total of seven trees).

 

Tim Lowe, 422 West 22nd Street, presented this matter to the Council.  He wanted to discuss the impact of parts of the UDO on certain parts of the community.  He surmised that when the UDO was being developed, the vision was for paved streets, curbing, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, and water service.  During its development, he bet that the vision was not for an old lumberyard. 

 

He doesn’t believe that a plan can be implemented that takes into account all the variables that occur naturally in a community.  The plan is already being modified and deviated from to accommodate what did not occur to the planners when it was being drafted and voted into law.  He further stated that the UDO has partially condemned and taken value from a portion of the community.  The greatest devaluating impact of the UDO will be felt on the older parts of the community, primarily along the railroad corridor.  The elimination of at-grade crossings and increase rail traffic has already had a negative impact.  If the cost of developing or redeveloping this area increases, the highest and best use of these properties will be to remain as they are now or due to depletion of the structures be turned into vacant lot which have a tendency to become weed infested dumping areas for collectibles.  He suggested maybe certain areas of town should be exempt from the UDO, maybe as the property is redeveloped, it should not require magic to make it fit into the UDO. 

 

The location of the property is not in the most glamorous part of town, nor will it ever be glamorous.  It lies on two gravel streets that go nowhere and a gravel alley.  There is no water or sewer in the public right-of-way abutting the property.  The Union Pacific also makes life very difficult every ten minutes.  All the commercial buildings on that block are on the public right-of-way.  Marlatt and Cash-Wa both have overhead doors which open into the right-of-way.  The Habitat building, a block south, was built on the property line and has an overhead door, which was built not too long ago.  The proposed buildings as drawn would be set back 25 feet from the property line.  Without water, the green area would be very difficult, without curbs the landscaping would quickly be obliterated by trucks and other traffic. He believes that the project would be appropriate to this location and asked that the plan be approved as submitted.

 

Mayor Blankenship stated that there have been meetings with planning staff and a number of compromises made to the UDO.  It’s now down to a couple of points of contention.  (1)  landscaping, (2) the doors opening to either 1st Avenue or Railroad Street.

 

Mr. Lowe quoted from the UDO, Page 2556, Item F, Construction Sales and Service: “All storage buildings with overhead doors, drive openings, or open bays, and all loading areas shall be fully screened from the view at eye level from the public street or adjacent property.”  That is not the wording that is in Convenient Storage, Item G.  He believed that Item F does not apply to what he wants to do. 

 

Director of Public Works stated per the UDO, it states “no storage buildings may open into required front yards”, which is Item G under Convenience Storage.  The one below that is the item in question. The 25 yards is the required front yard or the street. The primary reason for that is to allow for the maneuvering of large vehicles that need to move into the street right-of-way, blocking traffic when they are getting in and out. 

 

Mr. Norwood stated that in order to turn the 16-foot tall building around and have it face the alley, it would have to be 40 foot back from the property line. Even if he trimmed the other building and put on the other side, there is not sufficient room and he would be back to one building.  He does not believe the project is justifiable with one building.  The other thing is these buildings are more attractive on the front than on the back.  He believes it would be defeating the purpose to some degree on esthetics.  He stated the UDO is very restrictive and that the Railroad Corridor will never be redeveloped, it is a unique area. 

 

Council Member Kearney stated he believed that precedence must be followed.  Making modifications for this project, would possibly lead to other exceptions.

 

Council Member Hadley stated that he is also concerned about setting precedence, but the Council would not have voted on the 56th Street project, as they did if they were not flexible in changing precedence. 

 

Council Member Buschkoetter stated that he recalls when the UDO was being developed, one of the things discussed was if a situation were to come up, the Council has the last say on unique situations.  The system was designed for the Council to be the place for people to go when something like this comes up.

 

Council Member Hadley agreed with Council Member Buschkoetter.  He applauds the City Staff for their work on this for following what the UDO states.  The Planning Commission also took that position.  He questions if this is a situation where good judgment should be used.  Landscaping seems unreasonable with no water available. 

 

Mr. Lowe stated when you radically change the rules that govern a piece of property that has been developed for over 100 years, he is not sure that the same yardstick can be used against that as you would against a prime virgin piece of territory that has never been developed.  He pointed out that each situation needs to be looked at individually and determined if it is justified. 

 

Mayor Blankenship posed the question, does the Council want to have the doors on all storage units facing the front or are we saying this is such a peculiar instance that we’re willing to do one of these deals in a public meeting, and say to the next guy down the road that he can’t.  That is really the rub on this deal.

 

Council Member Kearney asked does the Council want to ask for modification of the UDO that either satisfy the tract along the railroad?  He would prefer to send it back to the Planning and Zoning with the recommendation that they try to find a way to work this out.

 

Mayor Blankenship stated that he believed the problem with that if they are looking to modify something in a given area of town that is probably going to be more a policy change, which could take six weeks or more.   He believed that Mr. Lowe deserves a decision on this issue at this meeting or sometime soon. 

 

Director of Public Works stated they are bringing some changes to the Planning Commission at the next planning meeting next Friday for this particular zone.  Regarding the overhead doors opening onto the street or not allowed to open into the front yard is for safety issues with traffic.  In this situation, there is not that much traffic on this street, which he understands.  How to write that for every street, so you can designate which ones have little traffic and another has too much and won’t be a problem for the next person that comes in. 

 

City Manager Allen Johnson asked for some direction to Staff regarding this.  He wanted to know if they wanted the UDO addressed in this area?  He thought if they didn’t, you have set precedence.  You cannot set aside Tim Lowe’s lot; perhaps you need to address the railroad district.  There is no question about the Council’s authority to grant this to the applicant.  He asked to make part of the motion some direction to Staff as to go back and revisit the UDO and propose some changes.

 

Mitch Humphrey said he was the person that served on the Unified Land Development Ordinance Task Force.  Based on what has been said, he thinks that everyone realizes that there were things that would come up pertaining to the ordinance itself.  He encouraged them to make a positive recommendation for this particular project if all the little details can be worked out.  Then later have the Planning Commission or Staff look at an overlay district, whether it be the Railroad Corridor or the shadow of the Overpass District to try to address these situations where they have these pre-existing sites that are difficult to fit in a neighborhood.    

 

Moved by Hadley seconded by Zapata to approve the appeal submitted by Tim Lowe on the review and evaluation of site development features by Administration for property zoned “District M-1, Limited Industrial District” and described as Lots 754 through 760, inclusive, Original Town of Kearney Junction now the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska as presented with the proviso that the Planning Commission look at the Railroad Corridor for potential changes in the UDO to fit situations such as this. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

ORDINANCE NO. 6956 – VACATE PORTION OF BOSSELMAN AND SHIELD’S ADDITIONS

 

This item and the next item were discussed together but voted on separately.

 

The applicant is pursuing approval of subdivision platting for property located at 4207 and 4215 2nd Avenue, Amigos north and the Mirror Image north car wash.   This property is zoned C-2.  The purpose of this subdivision is to transfer a strip of land that is currently owned by Amigos to the car wash owners.  This strip of land is located east of the car wash between the car wash and the adjacent residential neighborhood.  The land was originally purchased as part of the Amigos tract for parking but has never been improved (hard-surfaced) to commercial standards.  Some of the residential neighbors abutting to the east have complained about the unfinished character of this piece of property.  The car wash will incorporate the property into their site and hard surface it.  The owner of the car wash also plans to construct a small office/maintenance building on the north side of the car wash site.

 

Vacation                                                                                                                                          

Portions of the existing subdivision known as “Bosselman Addition” must be vacated so that the land can be replatted as Bosselman Second Addition.

 

Subdivision Plats

The applicant is requesting approval of the Final Plat for a two-lot subdivision to be known as Bosselman Second Addition.   The Preliminary Plat was approved by Planning Commission on April 18, 2003.  The property is located at 4207 and 4215 2nd Avenue and contains Amigos restaurant on Lot 2 and Mirror Image car wash on Lot 1.  A Public Works Plan is not required.  A Subdivision Agreement is not required.

 

Council Member Zapata introduced Ordinance No. 6956, being Subsection 5 of Agenda Item VI to vacate a part of Lot 2, Bosselman Addition, being a replat of Lot 1, Shield’s Addition, a subdivision to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska; AND a tract of land being part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Bosselman Addition, being a replat of Lot 1, Shield’s Addition, a subdivision to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska; AND a tract of land being part of Lot 1, Shield’s Addition, a subdivision to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (4207 and 4215 2nd Avenue), 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 Blankenship 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, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: None. 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. 6956 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: None.  Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Blankenship seconded by Kearney that Ordinance No. 6956 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Blankenship, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 6956 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.

 

FINAL PLAT – BOSSELMAN SECOND ADDITION

 

Mayor Blankenship opened for discussion the application submitted by Mitch Humphrey (Applicant and Owner) for final plat approval of “BOSSELMAN SECOND ADDITION” to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (4207 and 4215 2nd Avenue) and approve Resolution No. 2003-64 subject to the effective date of Ordinance No. 6956. Planning Commission recommended approval.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Buschkoetter to approve the application submitted by Mitch Humphrey (Applicant and Owner) for final plat approval of “BOSSELMAN SECOND ADDITION” to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (4207 and 4215 2nd Avenue) and approve Resolution No. 2003-64 subject to the effective date of Ordinance No. 6956. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Buschkoetter, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-64

 

            BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, NEBRASKA, that the plat of “BOSSELMAN SECOND ADDITION”, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska, duly made out, acknowledged and certified, and the same hereby is approved and in accordance with the provisions and requirements of Section 19-916 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, accepted and ordered filed and recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Buffalo County, Nebraska; said addition is hereby included within the corporate limits of said City and shall be and become a part of said City for all purposes whatsoever, and the inhabits of such addition shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges and shall be subject to all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of said City.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President of the Council be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the final plat on behalf of the City of Kearney, Nebraska.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

OBJECTION TO PAVING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2003-873

 

Mayor Blankenship opened for discussion the report from the City Clerk on the objection/protest filed against Ordinance No. 6946 creating Paving Improvement District No. 2003-873 for 56th Street from Avenue N west to a point 630± feet west of Parklane Drive.

 

City Clerk stated that on March 25, 2003, the City Council passed and approved Ordinance No. 6946 creating Paving Improvement District No. 2003-873 for 56th Street from Avenue N west to a point 630± feet west of Parklane Drive. Administration received a written objection from one property owner.  The property owner understands there will be no assessments against his property.  However, the objection pertains to the placement of a proposed hike/bike trail.  Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan contacted Mr. and Mrs. Macrander to discuss the location of the 8-foot curb sidewalk and how it would look in comparison to the 4-foot setback sidewalk that is currently located along 56th Street.  As a result of that discussion Mr. Grupe and Mr. Wiederspan went out and staked the location of the proposed 8-foot sidewalk at 56th Street and Avenue K.  This allowed the property owner to visually see how it would look along their property.

 

Section 16-667.01 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes states “The owners of the record title representing more than fifty percent of the front footage of the property abutting upon the streets, avenues, or alleys, or parts thereof which are within such a proposed district may, by petition, stop formation of such a district.”  Since there was only one property owner in objection to the district which does not represent more than fifty percent, the improvements to 56th Street will proceed.

 

Administration recommends the Council accept the City Clerk’s report on the insufficiency objection/protest filed against Ordinance No. 6946 creating Paving Improvement District No. 2003-873 for 56th Street from Avenue N west to a point 630± feet west of Parklane Drive.

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley to accept the report from the City Clerk on the insufficiency of objection/protest filed against Ordinance No. 6946 creating Paving Improvement District No. 2003-873 for 56th Street from Avenue N west to a point 630± feet west of Parklane Drive. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Kearney, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESIGNATION OF COUNCIL MEMBER JOSE ZAPATA

 

Mayor Blankenship opened for discussion the acceptance of the resignation of Jose Zapata, receive a written Notice of Vacancy from the City Manager, authorize the City Clerk to publish such Notice of Vacancy, effective at the end of the meeting scheduled for June 24, 2003 and consider Resolution No. 2003-65.

 

At the last Council meeting, April 22, 2003 Council member Zapata announced his intent to resign his position on the Council effective June 24, 2003.

 

In accordance with Sections 32-562 and 32-569(1)(a) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, such resignation shall not take effect until accepted by the Council at a regular or special meeting and shall be part of the minutes.  The vacancy shall be filled by the Mayor and Council for the balance of the unexpired term.  The Council shall at once give public notice of the vacancy by causing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City the office vacated and the length of the unexpired term.  Council member Zapata’s term expires in 2004.  The vacancy shall be filled within 45 days after the vacancy occurs.

 

The Mayor shall, within four weeks of notice of vacancy, call a special meeting of the Council or place the issue of filling such vacancy on the agenda at the next regular meeting at which time the Mayor shall submit the name of a qualified registered voter to fill the vacancy for the balance of the unexpired term.  The Council shall vote upon such nominee, and if a majority votes in favor of such nominee, the vacancy shall be declared filled.  If the nominee fails to receive a majority of the votes, the nomination shall be rejected and the Mayor shall at the next regular or special meeting submit the name of another qualified registered voter to fill the vacancy.  If the subsequent nominee fails to receive a majority of the votes, the Mayor shall continue at such meeting to submit the names of qualified registered voters in nomination and the Council shall continue to vote upon such nominations until the vacancy is filled.

 

Administration, in accordance with the Nebraska Statutes, recommends the Council accept the resignation of Jose Zapata, receive the written Notice of Vacancy of Office from the City Manager and authorize the City Clerk to publish said Notice of Vacancy effective June 24, 2003.

 

Moved by Hadley seconded by Blankenship to accept the resignation of Jose Zapata, receive and accept  a written Notice of Vacancy from the City Manager, authorize the City Clerk to publish such Notice of Vacancy effective June 24, 2003 and approve Resolution No. 2003-65. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: Zapata abstaining.  None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-65

 

            WHEREAS, Council Member Jose Zapata has formally tendered his resignation from office as a member of the Kearney City Council to the City Council; and

            WHEREAS, his resignation from office is effective June 24, 2003; and

            WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms and requirements of Section 32-569(1)(a) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, the City Manager has tendered to the City Council a written Notice of Vacancy of Office.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the resignation of Council Member Jose Zapata from office effective June 24, 2003 be and is hereby received and accepted in accordance with Section 32-562 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager’s letter Notifying the City Council of the Vacancy of the Office currently held by Council Member Zapata should be and is hereby received and accepted and shall appear as a part of the Minutes of this meeting.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 32-569(1)(a) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes that the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City that the office currently held by City Council Member Jose Zapata will be vacated, and that the length of the unexpired term ends December 14, 2004.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2003.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

CITY CLERK

 

OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIMS -- NONE

 

There were no Open Account Claims.

 

VII.    REPORTS

 

None.

VIII.    ADJOURN

 

Moved by Hadley seconded by Buschkoetter that Council adjourn at 10:55 p.m. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Blankenship, Zapata, Hadley, Buschkoetter, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

                                                                                    BRUCE L. BLANKENSHIP

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

ATTEST:

 

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK