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

Kearney, Nebraska

August 9, 2005

7:00 p.m.

 

A meeting of the City Council of Kearney, Nebraska, was convened in open and public session at 7:00 p.m. on August 9, 2005, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.  Present were: Randy Buschkoetter, Vice-President of the Council; Michaelle Trembly, City Clerk; Council Members Don Kearney, Stan Clouse, and Bruce Lear. Absent: Galen Hadley.  Michael W. Morgan, City Manager; Michael Kelley, City Attorney; Amber Brown, Management Assistant; 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: Scott Stober, Paul Brungardt, Harold Gary, Myrtle Gary, Tim Norwood, Craig Bennett, Greg Henderson, Cathryn Henderson, Margaret Stine,15 Boy Scouts and Leaders, Mike Cahill from KKPR Radio, Steve Altmaier from KGFW Radio, and Todd Gottula from Kearney Hub.

 

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

 

The Council held a moment of silent prayer.

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

15 Boy Scouts from Troop 136 led the Council members and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

 

There was no Oral Communications.

 

II.    UNFINISHED  BUSINESS

 

There was no Unfinished Business.

 

III.    PUBLIC  HEARINGS

 

DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR DAY CARE AT ST. LUKE’S GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE; 2201 EAST 32ND PLACE

 

Vice-President Buschkoetter opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Wilkins Hinrichs Stober Architects (Applicant) for St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village (Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a day care facility on property zoned “District R-3/PD, Urban Residential Multi-Family District (Medium Density)/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 12, St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (2201 East 32nd Place) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-120.

 

Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the following conditions: (1) any future development shall require a dedicated public street, and the day care facility will be accessed from the public street at that time; and further that the public street will be located in such a manner that it complies with building setback and green space requirements; (2) the trash enclosure shall be relocated to the east of the location it is presently shown to allow the trash trucks full front-loading access; (3) the detention cell shall be properly labeled as a retention cell; and (4) submit a design that shows both color and textural diversity and enhanced vertical landscaping on the west and south sides of the building as a substitution for the suggested 35 percent brick construction.

 

The applicant is requesting approval of Development Plans for a day care facility to be constructed as part of the St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village campus located at 2201 East 32nd Place.  This property is zoned R-3/PD.

 

The proposed day care facility is located south of the existing nursing facility taking access from East 32nd Street, through the existing nursing parking lot.  The proposed building is 5,934 square feet.  Adequate parking is provided in a lot south of the building.  There is only one access to and from the parking lot.  The KVFD Fire Administrator has reviewed the plans and approved them as adequate for emergency vehicle access and maneuvering.  Water and sewer services will be provided with separate connections and meters.  A Landscape Plan is provided.  Site drainage and a proposed detention cell are shown.  Issues of concern include the following items:

            1)         The property owner has additional land to the south and to the west of the proposed day care.  Although the private drive access is acceptable to serve the day care, any future development will require a dedicated public street, and the day care facilities will be accessed from the public street at that time.  The public street will be located in such a manner that it complies with building setback and green space requirements.

            2)         The detention cell is actually being designed as a retention facility.  Design and computations must be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits.

            3)         Construction material for all four sides of the proposed building is steel siding.  The existing buildings on the site are brick construction.  Staff recommended the addition of brick masonry to the proposed building so that it will blend into the campus more effectively, at least on the south and west elevations.  The applicant requested the Planning Commission to approve the building as presented since the brick would add extra expense to the project.  The Planning Commission decided that the brick is not necessary if the density of landscaping is increased on the west and south sides of the structure.

 

Scott Stober from Wilkins, Hinrich, Stober Architects presented this matter to the Council.  They have worked with the City to make sure that each of these items gets done so that they will be in compliance.  Council member Buschkoetter pointed out that originally more brick was required to be used on the building, but due to their tight budget because they are a non-profit organization, a compromise was reached.  Mr. Stober said they are in agreement with the compromise.  He also stated that the addition is behind the existing nursing home and does not face any public street at this time.  The discussion was that if there were a street in the future because the owner does also own the land to the west, a development could require a street there. They plan to start construction immediately and will complete the project in eight months.

 

There was no one present in opposition to this hearing.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse to close the hearing and approve the Application submitted by Wilkins Hinrichs Stober Architects (Applicant) for St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village (Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a day care facility on property zoned “District R-3/PD, Urban Residential Multi-Family District (Medium Density)/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 12, St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (2201 East 32nd Place) and approve Resolution No. 2005-120 subject to compliance of the following conditions: (1) any future development shall require a dedicated public street, and the day care facility will be accessed from the public street at that time; and further that the public street will be located in such a manner that it complies with building setback and green space requirements; (2) the trash enclosure shall be relocated to the east of the location it is presently shown to allow the trash trucks full front-loading access; (3) the detention cell shall be properly labeled as a retention cell; and (4) submit a design that shows both color and textural diversity and enhanced vertical landscaping on the west and south sides of the building as a substitution for the suggested 35 percent brick construction. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney, Lear. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-120

 

            WHEREAS, Wilkins Hinrichs Stober Architects (Applicant) for St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village (Owner) have applied for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a day care facility on property zoned “District R-3/PD, Urban Residential Multi-Family District (Medium Density)/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 12, St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (2201 East 32nd Place).

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Vice-President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the application of Wilkins Hinrichs Stober Architects (Applicant) for St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village (Owner) for District Planned Development Plan Approval for the construction of a day care facility on property zoned “District R-3/PD, Urban Residential Multi-Family District (Medium Density)/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 12, St. Luke’s Good Samaritan Village, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (2201 East 32nd Place) be approved subject to compliance of the following conditions: (1) any future development shall require a dedicated public street, and the day care facility will be accessed from the public street at that time; and further that the public street will be located in such a manner that it complies with building setback and green space requirements; (2) the trash enclosure shall be relocated to the east of the location it is presently shown to allow the trash trucks full front-loading access; (3) the detention cell shall be properly labeled as a retention cell; and (4) submit a design that shows both color and textural diversity and enhanced vertical landscaping on the west and south sides of the building as a substitution for the suggested 35 percent brick construction.

PASSED AND APPROVED THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       RANDY BUSCHKOETTER

                                                                                    VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

FINAL PLAT – HENDERSON SUBDIVISION

 

Vice-President Buschkoetter opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Ron Ridgway from Miller & Associates (Applicant) for Gregory R. and Cathryn Henderson (Owner) for final plat approval for “HENDERSON SUBDIVISION” a subdivision of Buffalo County, Nebraska for a tract of land described as being part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 10.0 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (approximately ½ mile north of 56th Street on 46th Avenue) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-121.

 

Planning Commission recommended approval.

 

The applicant is requesting subdivision platting of a rural parcel located in the city’s two-mile extra-territorial jurisdiction approximately one-half mile north of 56th Street on the east side of 46th Avenue.

 

The Preliminary and Final Plats depict a single lot.  The tract contains 10.0 acres and is currently zoned RR-1.  This site will accommodate a single rural residential house and any associated outbuildings.  Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat on July 15, 2005.

 

Craig Bennett from Miller & Associates presented this matter to the Council. This will be a single family dwelling that will be built on two lots.  Because these two lots were formally in a vacated subdivision, it required being platted even though it was ten acres.  It is basically a ten-acre, two lot parcel within the two-mile jurisdiction. 

 

There was no one present in opposition to this hearing.

 

Moved by Clouse seconded by Lear to close the hearing and approve the Application submitted by Ron Ridgway from Miller & Associates (Applicant) for Gregory R. and Cathryn Henderson (Owner) for final plat approval for “HENDERSON SUBDIVISION” a subdivision of Buffalo County, Nebraska for a tract of land described as being part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 10.0 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (approximately ½ mile north of 56th Street on 46th Avenue) and approve Resolution No. 2005-121. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Kearney, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-121

 

            BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, NEBRASKA, that the plat of “HENDERSON SUBDIVISION” a subdivision part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 10.0 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska, and in accordance with the terms and requirements of Sections 16-901 through 16-904 inclusive, R.R.S. 1943 (as amended) be accepted and ordered filed and recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Buffalo County, Nebraska.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Vice-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 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       RANDY BUSCHKOETTER

                                                                                    VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TACO JOHNS; NORTHWEST CORNER OF 56TH STREET AND 1ST AVENUE

 

Vice-President Buschkoetter opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Paul Brungardt from Brungardt Engineering for Ed Wiltgen (Applicant and Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a restaurant on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 2 of Block 1, Ingalls Crossing Second Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northwest corner of 56th Street and 1st Avenue) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-122.

 

Planning Commission recommended approval.

 

The applicant is requesting approval of Development Plans for a drive-thru restaurant facility to be constructed at the northwest corner of 56th Street and 1st Avenue (next to Applebee’s).  This property is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1 of Ingalls Crossing 2nd Addition and is zoned C-2/PD.

 

Staff met with the applicant to discuss the original submission and the applicant has revised the Development Plans accordingly.  All submission requirements have been met. There is adequate parking, a landscape plan and sidewalk is provided, stormwater detention is shown. The access drive aligns with McDonalds access drive on the opposite side of the street.  The trash enclosure has been relocated in accordance with the request by the Utilities Department. Floor plans and building elevations are included.  The east part of the site is reserved for possible future development.

 

Computations for the stormwater detention cell must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits.

 

Paul Brungardt from Brungardt Engineering presented this matter to the Council. This would be a north Taco John’s located east of Applebee’s site.  The building will be sitting east and west with access off of 1st Avenue Place.  There will be a loop drive around and the access will align with the future McDonald’s alignment.  Storm drainage will take place with detention cells on the southeast corner.  There will be two faces on the building and one will face 56th Street.  Entrance to the store will be on the north side.  The drive-thru lanes will be on the south end.

 

There was no one present in opposition to this hearing.

 

Moved by Lear seconded by Buschkoetter to close the hearing and approve the Application submitted by Paul Brungardt from Brungardt Engineering for Ed Wiltgen (Applicant and Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a restaurant on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 2 of Block 1, Ingalls Crossing Second Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northwest corner of 56th Street and 1st Avenue) and approve Resolution No. 2005-122. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-122

 

            WHEREAS, Paul Brungardt from Brungardt Engineering for Ed Wiltgen (Applicant and Owner) have applied for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a restaurant on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 2 of Block 1, Ingalls Crossing Second Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northwest corner of 56th Street and 1st Avenue).

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Vice-President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the application of Paul Brungardt from Brungardt Engineering for Ed Wiltgen (Applicant and Owner) for District Planned Development Plan Approval for the construction of a restaurant on property zoned “District C-2/PD, Community Commercial District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 2 of Block 1, Ingalls Crossing Second Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (northwest corner of 56th Street and 1st Avenue) be approved subject to the computations for the stormwater detention cell shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits.

PASSED AND APPROVED THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       RANDY BUSCHKOETTER

                                                                                    VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

AMEND SECTION 13-107, TABLE 14-1 AND SECTION 46-105 TO INCLUDE CARE WASHES IN DISTRICT C-1

 

Vice-President Buschkoetter opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 13-107 “Commercial Use Types” of Chapter 13 “Use Types”; Table 14-1 “Use Matrix” of Chapter 14 “Zoning District Regulations”, and Section 46-105 “Supplemental Use Regulations: Commercial Uses” of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, a part of the Code of the City of Kearney to include car washes in a “District C-1, Limited Commercial District” zone.

 

Planning Commission recommended not amending the Code to include car washes in a District C-1 zone.

 

City Planner Lance Lang presented this matter to the Council. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on March 18, 2005 and was forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval.  The Council remanded it back to the Planning Commission for further review.  The Planning Commission reviewed this matter again at the June 17, 2005 meeting and continued it for one month so that staff could draft the language for the proposed code amendment.  Whereas the original approach on this matter was by Conditional Use Permit, the discussion in June suggested an alternative approach to amending the code to regulate car washes in C-1 zoning.  Staff presented these findings at the July 15 Planning Commission meeting and, after extensive discussion, the Commission decided not to recommend approval of the proposed amendment.  If the City Council agrees with the recommendation, this means that the code stands as is and car washes are not permitted in C-1 zones.

 

The following is the text that was presented to Planning Commission in July as an alternative approach (instead of CUP) to amending the code. The proposed amendment requires changes in three separate chapters of the Unified Land Development Ordinance as follows:

 

Section 13-107, “Commercial Use Types” of Chapter 13, “Use Types” defines each conceivable land use by use type in agricultural, civic, residential, commercial and industrial categories.  Car washes are currently lumped into a broad commercial category called “Automotive and Equipment Services” then further defined as one of several auto related uses under “Auto Services.”  This use type includes many automotive related activities such as car washes, service stations, muffler shops, tire sales, etc.  Planning Commission believed it would be appropriate to more specifically define car washes as a unique use type.  Therefore, staff recommended amending this section of the code to add a commercial use type under “Automotive and Equipment Services” to be known as “Auto Washing Facilities.”  Typical uses will include “automated and self-service car washes, car vacuuming facilities, and auto detail shops.”  References to auto washing are to be removed from “Auto Services” and this use type will be renamed “Auto Maintenance Services”.

 

Chapter 14, “Zoning District Regulations”, Table 14-1, “Use Matrix” will be amended by adding the term “Auto Washing Facilities” as a permitted use in C-1 zones under commercial use types.  In addition, a reference to Section 46-105 will be added under the heading “Supplemental Regulations” in the far right column to establish the specific requirements for car washes in C-1 zones.  Also, since car washes have been broken out of auto services the table will be amended to show all zones that allow car washes.  “Auto Services” will be changed to “Auto Maintenance Services” in the table.

 

Chapter 46, “Supplemental Use Regulations”, Section 46-105, “Supplemental Use Regulations: Commercial Uses”, Paragraph B, “Auto Washing Facilities” currently has two regulations dealing with on-site stacking.  Staff proposed to add provisions 3a – 3g as follows:

 

      3a.        Limited to single bay, fully enclosed, automated type facilities.

      3b.        A fifty (50) foot buffer is required from and abutting residential zone or use, thirty feet of which must be maintained as landscaped green space.

      3c.        One six (6) foot minimum height evergreen tree per each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of the required fifty (50) foot buffer, which shall be planted in the thirty (30) foot green space area.

      3d.        An eight (8) foot height solid privacy fence or wall shall be erected at the property line for the entire length of any abutting residentially zoned or used lot(s).

      3e.        No vacuums are to be located in the fifty (50) foot buffer.

      3f.         Hours of operation shall be limited to opening to the public no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and closing no later than 11:00 p.m.

      3g.        All outside site lighting must be low impact, high efficiency, sharp cut-off fixture, shielded or pointed internally into the site.

 

As this information was presented to Planning Commission there was discussion regarding the implications and severity of items 3a through 3g above.  Is the fifty-foot buffer reasonable?  Why require such a large buffer if there will also be requirements for fencing and landscaping?  How solid does the required fence need to be to attenuate the noise of the car wash?  Is PVC acceptable or should it be a solid masonry wall?  How will the limitation on hours of operation be enforced?  These types of questions generated a great deal of discussion and a wide range of opinions.

 

There was also input from members of the audience, most of which were referring to a specific car wash proposal proposed at Avenue N and 56th Street in a C-1 zone.  Staff reminded everyone that the task before the Planning Commission is not to make the code “fit” the needs of this particular car wash, nor is it to penalize this particular car wash.  The code amendment before the Planning Commission, if approved, would then apply to any future car wash proposed in any C-1 zone.

 

Once again, the range of options to address this car wash in a C-1 setting was discussed.

 

            1)  Do not approve the code amendments and let the current code prevail.  This means no car washes in C-1 zones, period.

 

            2)  Allow car washes in any C-1 zone as a matter of right (no special permits or approvals needed).

 

            3)  Amend the code as presented above to include special regulations for car washes in C-1 zones, the purpose of which would be to mitigate the undesirable externalities of a typical car wash in any C-1 zone.

 

            4)  Require a Conditional Use Permit for any and all car washes in C-1 zones with appropriate conditions attached to mitigate externalities on a case by case basis.

 

After further discussion, Planning Commission recommended option number 1 – to NOT approve the code amendments and not to consider further code amendments – to let the code stand and thereby prohibit car washes in C-1 zones.  There seem to be too many incompatibility issues to resolve in this sensitive case of commercial land use directly abutting residential land use.

 

There was a car wash that was previously proposed at 56th and Avenue N and if the Code were amended, they still would like to build it there.  Some of the people attending the Planning Commission meeting were caught up in that particular car wash location and project.  Mr. Lang reminded them that the proposal before them was an amendment to the Code for any C-1 zone in the City of Kearney (not just at 56th Street and Avenue N). The intention was neither to tailor the language to meet the needs for that project at 56th Street nor penalize that project.  They were just trying to come up with a way to control the relationship between the residential and the car wash users in those C-1 zones.  After much discussion, the Planning Commission decided that car washes were not the best idea being that close to residential. 

 

Car washes would continue to be allowed in Districts C-2, C-3 and other places in the community.  Other uses that would not be allowed in C-1 that are allowed in C-2, would be very large retailers.  Small retailers such as a grocery store would be allowed, but not a super Wal-Mart.  The idea of the C-1 zone is that it provides for a neighborhood type service. These types of allowable businesses would be a place to drop off dry cleaning, a small impact convenience store (not 24 hour) and a place to workout and exercise.  The places that are zoned C-1 for example are closer to the neighborhoods:  56th Street and Avenue N, 39th Street and Avenue N, and 39th Street and 17th Avenue which are all “off the beaten path” from the C-2, C-3 corridors. The automotive services and big box retailers go on 2nd Avenue or Highway 30.  The neighborhood stuff is further out in the community and closer to those residential neighborhoods. 

 

Council member Clouse asked what the car wash at 39th Street and Avenue N is zoned?  Mr. Lang responded it is zoned C-1/PD, which is a planned district in C-1.  At the time Muddy Mike’s car wash was put in, the Code said it could be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit approval.  They did go through the process and the Council approved it.  When the new Unified Land Development Ordinance was adopted, car washes were not included in C-1 even with a Conditional Use Permit.    

 

Council member Lear asked if they believed this is applicable to all C-1 districts or did this particular one in question help them tighten that discussion?  Muddy Mike’s does not have residential immediately adjacent to it.  Part of the discussion was that a C-1 could be wide open like Muddy Mike’s or as on 56th Street and Avenue N, which already have residential all around it.  There could be a number of scenarios for a C-1, such as it might even have residential proposed, but not built.  That led to the Conditional Use Permit with the new Unified Land Development Ordinance so that it could be site specific and conditions could be tailored to each site. Mr. Lang said his interpretation of the Planning Commission’s thinking is the consideration of the “integrity” and the “tranquility” of the neighborhood and their rights to enjoy their homes should be held higher than commercial. There are many other places in the City that are definitely commercial that would be well suited for a car wash. 

 

Council member Lear asked what the zoning is for the Amoco Station located on 2nd Avenue and 56th Street?  Mr. Lang responded the Amoco Station is in a C-2 planned district. Rod Wiederspan, Director of Public Works, stated that all of the other car washes in Kearney are in C-2 or C-3 zoning except for Muddy Mike’s, which is in C-1.  At the time Muddy Mike’s was proposed, the Code was amended to go in with a Conditional Use Permit because of the location and there was nothing around it.  Mr. Lang stated Muddy Mike’s instigated using the Conditional Use Permit across the board for car washes in any zoning, because they do have some unique characteristics.  There are situations where car washes want to be in a C-2 or C-3 zone, but might not be the best sight for one. They were hoping that the Conditional Use Permit would be the control factor.  It is definitely different now under the new Unified Land Development Ordinance.  C-1 and C-2 are the big commercial zones, but car washes are also allowed by right in M-1 and M-2 and perhaps in an urban corridor. 

 

Council member Lear suggested the possibility of rezoning an area C-2 to allow the car wash to be built.  Mr. Lang pointed out that might not be a good thing to do in a residential area because if the car wash were to go out of business for any reason, then that site would be pre-zoned for any number of uses that would not be compatible with a C-1 neighborhood setting. 

 

Council member Kearney stated that his concern is still, as he stated in earlier discussions, a car wash is a substantial investment and is not convertible to any other type business.  Opposition to it by the neighborhood can lead to revoking the Conditional Use Permit in following years and creates a problem situation for the investor and the City Council as a consultant.  He said he preferred to vote the amendments up or down, not to make adjustments to the proposed regulations.

 

Council member Lear made the point that it is one thing to buy or acquire a piece of property where a car wash is already there or where you could reasonably know that a car wash is permitted to be there.  It is another thing to acquire property where it is not particularly obvious that a car wash could be there.  He believed that put people in a difficult position.  He is not a “big fan” of a Conditional Use Permit for car washes partly related to those reasons.  He stated he did not have a problem denying the amendments proposed and that is what the Planning Commission recommended.

 

Council member Clouse agreed that car wash locations need to stay separate from C-1.  As he looked through the matrix, he saw that C-1 is set up for nice, quiet type neighborhood activity.  He is in agreement with that concept.  He thought car washes should have regulations in a C-2 or C-3, but not as stringent as the ones set forth in the C-1 amendment proposal. 

 

Council member Buschkoetter asked if all regulations would apply in an M-1 zone?  Mr. Lang replied by right it would be allowed, but they would have to meet setbacks and they would look at the site for landscaping.  He believed that most investors would find it more palatable to put it in a C-2 or C-3 in the first place, because of all the extra land costs required without the benefit of the land.  He believed that Muddy Mike’s location is not bad since it is not residential in the immediate area.  Director of Public Works stated that Muddy Mike’s is a unique location for C-1 zoning because it is on the corner of two arterials.  On one side are the fairgrounds and on the back is more commercial.  This is not a typical C-1 zone, where residential is abutting it. Council member Buschkoetter did not believe that it should require additional setbacks or triple the amount of landscaping, as proposed, if it went to a C-1.

 

Paul Brungardt spoke as representative of Gene McElhinny for 56th Street and Avenue N.  He stated that Mr. McElhinny is in support of that Conditional Use Permit and if there are stringent regulations, he wants to have a chance to meet those in the C-1 zone.  This particular project did have an attached car wash when it was first designed.  After that presentation, it did become a detached.  Mr. Brungardt also emphasized that Mr. McElhinny is truly going to be a “good neighbor”.  If this is in any way going to infringe on the neighborhood behind him, he will not do it.  Mr. McElhinny has met with them occasionally in the last couple of months and has addressed some of their concerns.  Mr. Brungardt commented he was not certain why the architect changed the design from an attached to a detached car wash, except that it was going to be difficult to transition a car through there.  If it remained attached, it would have to be a pull in and back out because of the site and the way the building is shaped.  The detached facility is similar to the one on 56th Street and 2nd Avenue, where the blowers and the vacuum are to the south away from the residential.  The lights would go on inside and he would work it with any timelines requirements necessary.  He intended to minimize any impact to the neighborhood possible.

 

City Manager Michael Morgan stated that one of the unfortunate things about this whole discussion is that it has had less to do with this particular project than philosophically how the City should handle these types of situations. Mr. Brungardt said he was in agreement with that statement. 

 

Tim Norwood, 4411 Sunset Trail, stated that the Planning Commission staff really did their job and worked hard on this proposal.  They looked at all the angles and listened to a variety of peoples’ input on it, both at the Planning Commission and staff meetings. The one thing that came across at the meeting that he attended was no matter if the car wash is a one, two or three-bay, it will create stacking.  As soon as you have stacking, it is unlike parking your vehicle and going in to a convenience store, drycleaner or a place to get an ice cream cone.  Waiting for a car wash, you will sit there with your car running.  This can create noise, especially diesels, motorcycles and vehicles with improper muffler systems.  As pointed out earlier, businesses with drive-thru windows are not permitted in C-1 zoning, and he concluded that car washes should not be in C-1 zoning either.  Mr. Norwood also commented that he was not in favor of penalizing car washes by making more regulations in C-2 and C-3 zones.  He believed that has already been factored in as the Code states.   

 

Council member Buschkoetter stated that he did not see any reason to change the regulations as it stands for car washes in a C-2 or C-3 zone. Due to the discussion presented, he had no recommendation for staff in that regard.  He stated he did not favor car washes in a C-1 zone.  Council member Clouse agreed that the proposed regulations were fairly severe and he did not favor moving them to other zones.                                                                                                          

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Kearney to close the hearing and deny the proposed amendments to Section 13-107 “Commercial Use Types” of Chapter 13 “Use Types”; Table 14-1 “Use Matrix” of Chapter 14 “Zoning District Regulations”, and Section 46-105 “Supplemental Use Regulations: Commercial Uses” of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, a part of the Code of the City of Kearney to include car washes in a “District C-1, Limited Commercial District” zone. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney, Lear. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

IV.    CONSENT  AGENDA

 

Vice-President Buschkoetter stated that Item 4 of the Consent Agenda was withdrawn by the applicant. There, no action is necessary.

 

Items 8 and 9 are applications for Special Designated Licenses that were added to the Agenda as Addendums yesterday.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse that Subsections 1 through 9 of Consent Agenda Item IV be approved noting that Item 4 was withdrawn. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Kearney, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

1.         Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting held July 26, 2005.

 

2.         Approve the following Claims: A.M. Player $809.09 smcs; Abbey Someone $1,400.00 smcs; Accu-Cut $140.00 smcs; Ace Hardware $225.13 smcs; Advanced Auto Parts $73.58 smcs; AFLAC $1,681.30 ps; Air Midway $88.62 smcs; Allied Electronics $247.94 smcs; Alltel $2,848.15 smcs; Amazon $601.88 smcs; Amer Electric $2,280.71 smcs,co; APWA $515.00 smcs; Apala,J $5.00 smcs; Applebys/CR Toys $39.98 smcs; Artic Refrigeration $427.06 smcs; Ask Supply $82.50 smcs; B&B Electronics $86.84 co; Bailey,K $16.39 smcs; Baker & Taylor $1,281.96 smcs; Bamford $110.00 smcs; Barco Municipal $1,196.94 co; Baristas Daily Grind $6.66 smcs; Barney Insurance $95.00 smcs; BBC Audiobooks $559.93 smcs; Berke,C $14.17 smcs; Berke,N $100.00 smcs; Big O Tires $10.00 smcs; Bike Shed $20.00 smcs; Blessing $154,294.43 co; Blockbuster $2.12 smcs; Bluecross Blueshield $19,009.34 smcs; Bobs Super Store $32.98 smcs; Bond,G $2.75 smcs; Bosselman $18,386.62 smcs; Broadfoot's $2,569.93 smcs,co; Brousseau,A $10.00 smcs; Brown,A $183.08 smcs; Bryant & Bryant Const $43,430.10 co; BSB Construction $59,625.93 co; Buffalo Co Dist Court $158.00 smcs; Buffalo Co Mutual Aid $100.00 smcs; Buffalo Co Reg of Deeds $6.00 smcs; Buffalo Co Treasurer $33,750.00 smcs; Buggy Bath $8.00 smcs; Builders $3,423.74 smcs,co; Buzz's Marine $13.00 smcs; Cabela's $723.12 smcs; Carrot-Top $1,000.00 co; Cash Wa $982.16 smcs; CBA Lighting $278.20 smcs; CDW Govt $346.97 co; Centaur Entp $220.86 smcs; Central Auto $234.48 smcs; Central Fire $41.50 smcs; Central Hydraulic $605.84 smcs; Central NE Bobcat $135.00 smcs; CHAD $24.00 ps; Charter Comm $43.55 smcs; Charter Paging $22.46 smcs; Chesterman's $3,013.07 smcs; Christensen,F $21.90 smcs; Christensen,J $3.42 smcs; City of Ky $272,367.81 smcs,ps; Clifford of Vermont $425.24 smcs; College Savings Plan of NE $50.00 ps; Computer Hardware $47.45 co; Conseco $38.00 ps; Consolidated Plastics $559.79 smcs; Construction Rental $281.51 smcs,co; Control Masters $4,210.48 smcs; Copycat $905.58 smcs; Cracker Barrel $54.33 smcs; Crocker,J $23.77 smcs; Crossroads Ford $413.35 smcs; Crown Awards $113.75 smcs; Culligan $324.00 smcs; Cummins $68.64 smcs; CVI $186.77 smcs; D&D Industries $222.00 smcs; Dannehl's Feed $250.10 smcs; Dare America $72.89 smcs; Davis/Sun Turf $28.26 smcs; Dawson Co PPD $5,361.85 smcs; Dell $10,623.16 smcs,co; Demco $807.75 smcs; Dept. of the Treasury $4.80 ps; Deterding's $61.58 smcs; Diamond Vogel $129.26 smcs; Discount Trains $46.27 smcs; Dooley,H $13.43 smcs; Double M Farms $2,000.00 smcs; DPC Industries $8,701.19 smcs; Dreyer,D $80.56 smcs; Dutton-Lainson $15.61 smcs; Dye,L $24.99 smcs; Eakes $2,051.32 smcs,co; Ecolab $54.00 smcs; Eirich,T $50.00 smcs; Elliott $964.02 smcs; Emed $56.96 smcs; Evans,B $27.24 smcs; Exxonmobile $21.00 smcs; Fairbanks $471.98 smcs; Family Advocacy Network $2,500.00 smcs; Farm Plan $11.98 smcs; Farmers Union $967.59 smcs; Fastenal $1,328.99 smcs; FedEx $102.82 smcs; Feese,S $33.67 smcs; Fenton,M $30.52 smcs; Fiddelke Heating $4,260.42 smcs,co; Fireguard $254.45 smcs; Footjoy $694.00 smcs; Force America $17.85 smcs; Fowler,K $13.80 smcs; Fox Bros Hay $6,452.64 smcs; Freburg,N $184.62 ps; Frontier $8,683.66 smcs; Fyr-tek $78.59 smcs; Galeton Gloves $995.85 smcs; Galls $235.46 smcs; Gangwish Turf $110.28 smcs; Garrett Tires $3,148.69 smcs; Gene's Electric $400.00 smcs; Geneva's Subway $7.37 smcs; Golden Rule $625.39 smcs; Golf Assoc Scorecard $78.06 smcs; Gordon's Small Engine $46.75 smcs; GFOA $50.00 smcs; Graham Tire $113.68 smcs; Grainger $1,241.56 smcs; Grand Central IGA $94.06 smcs; GI Independent $780.00 smcs; Great Amer Outdoor $309.93 smcs; Greg Larson Sports $191.14 smcs; H&H Distributing $2,115.20 smcs; Hach $255.60 smcs; Hancock,S $24.27 smcs; Hastings  $20.92 smcs; HDR Engineering $10,117.70 smcs; Henne,J $32.00 smcs; Highplains Auto $29.75 smcs; Hircock,S $18.80 smcs; Hobby-Lobby $159.93 smcs; Hogins,E $26.96 smcs; Holdiay $130.57 smcs; Holiday Inn $14.87 smcs; Holmes Plumbing $1,049.47 smcs,co; Hometown Leasing $208.91 smcs; Hotsy $223.70 smcs; Huskers.com $93.12 smcs; ICMA RC $2,396.69 ps; Information Today $305.05 smcs; IRS $92,130.35 ps; Jack Lederman $158.47 smcs; James,D $3,138.30 smcs; Johnson,S $50.00 smcs; Jorgensen,M $17.36 smcs; K&K Parts $400.33 smcs; Ky Area Chamber $16,944.93 smcs; Ky Concrete $21,855.39 smcs,co; Ky Glass $40.00 smcs; Ky Hub $59.00 smcs; Ky Implement $915.72 smcs; Ky Towing $257.50 smcs; Ky United Way $921.54 ps; Ky Whse $259.95 smcs; Ky WLE $30.07 smcs,co; Ky WNE $5.01 smcs; Ky Yamaha $281.65 smcs; KHAS-TV $37.00 smcs; Killion Motors $21.64 smcs; Kirkham Michael $23,673.23 co; Klutman,D $21.36 smcs; Kmart $67.74 smcs; Konz,M $1.16 smcs; Kooyman,R $200.00 ps; Kriha Fluid Power $70.08 smcs; Krueger,K $16.30 smcs; Kuehler,T $9.86 smcs; Kyocera $28.72 smcs; Lang,L $110.72 smcs; Laser Art Design $10.20 smcs; Laughlin,K $360.00 ps; Lawson Products $214.81 smcs; LCL Truck Equipment $23.18 smcs; Lieb,K $40.00 smcs; Linweld $115.45 smcs; Little Mexico $17.42 smcs; Lockmobile $34.17 smcs; Logan Contractors $1,376.75 smcs,co; Machines and Media $265.00 smcs; Macrae Productions $600.00 smcs; Magic Cleaning $850.00 smcs; Mail Express $138.49 smcs; Maines Electric $901.20 smcs; Marchand,M $114.04 smcs; Marlatt Machine $640.12 smcs,co; Menards $3,091.83 smcs,co; MES-Snyder $111.18 smcs; Metlife $5,877.36 ps; Mid America Sales Assoc $653.86 smcs; Mid States Radar $350.00 smcs; Midlands Contracting $45,554.30 co; Midwest Striping $11,575.50 smcs; Midwest Turf $625.05 smcs; Miller & Associates $142,527.00 co; Miller Signs $200.00 smcs,co; Miltona Turf $118.58 smcs; Misko Sports $11.75 smcs; Mobile Concepts $10,000.00 co; Morgan,M $103.50 smcs; Mosbarger,B $200.00 ps; Motion Industries $857.29 smcs; Mr. Automotive $2,696.23 smcs; Municipal Supply $657.18 smcs; Munson,K $40.00 smcs; NAFI $40.00 smcs; Napa All Makes $1,052.34 smcs; Nat'l Paper Supply $215.52 smcs; NWWA $6,163.49 smcs; NCL of Wisconsin $705.19 smcs; NCS Equipment $404.11 smcs; NE Child Support $1,099.51 ps; NE Health Lab $24.00 smcs; NE Secretary of State $2.25 smcs; NE Chapter IAEI $327.00 smcs; NE Crime Comm $3.00 smcs; NE Dept of Revenue $39,262.52 ps; NE Golf & Turf $760.00 smcs; NE Machinery $100.76 smcs; NE Truck Center $11.59 smcs; NE Wine $21.57 smcs; NEland Distributors $1,935.70 smcs; Netknacks $76.75 smcs; Network Solutions $179.94 smcs; Nevco Scoreboard $421.15 smcs; New Radio Group $350.00 smcs; Newman Traffic $174.28 smcs; Norm's Plumbing $4,562.60 smcs,co; Northgate Veterinary $493.45 smcs; Northwest Electric $17.43 smcs; Northwestern Energy $3,390.52 smcs; Novus $111.50 smcs; NTV $20.00 smcs; Office Depot $62.12 smcs; Officemax $593.27 smcs,co; Officenet $225.48 smcs,co; O'Keefe Elevator $125.92 smcs; Old Home Bakery $39.95 smcs; O'Reilly $1,509.97 smcs; Oriental Trading $181.75 smcs; Orscheln $1,752.03 smcs,co; Outdoor Recreation $310.12 smcs; Owens,S $57.57 smcs; Paramount $172.39 smcs; Party America $9.85 smcs; Paul A. Otto Curb $81.00 co; Payflex $378.25 ps; Payne Larson $939.87 co; Petro Stopping Centers $10.01 smcs; PGA of America $766.00 smcs; Pioneer $867.10 smcs; Platte Valley Comm $2,337.96 smcs,co; Postmaster $370.00 smcs; Precision Industries $265.05 smcs; Presco Sales $912.00 smcs; Presto-X $145.00 smcs; Pritchard,K $15.35 smcs; Quill $359.46 smcs; Quinn,R $22.21 smcs; Radio Shack $59.98 smcs; Ramada Inn $335.04 smcs; Random House $299.20 smcs; Rasmussen,T $44.08 smcs; Reams $1,240.34 smcs; Recognition $38.15 smcs; Recorded Books $272.20 smcs; Respond First Aid $104.10 smcs; Riekes Material $426.14 smcs; Ring,D $21.31 smcs; Riverside $4,143.80 smcs; Road Builders $846.88 smcs; Ropers's Radiator $867.37 smcs; Saathoff,J $22.90 smcs; Sage,P $20.17 smcs; Sahling Kenworth $2,591.53 smcs; Schwan's $1,043.93 smcs; See Clear Cleaning $1,900.00 smcs; S-F Analytical $852.00 smcs; Shamrock Turf $213.00 smcs; Shell Oil $80.00 smcs; Sherwin Williams $225.80 smcs; Shirt Shack $595.50 smcs; Snap-On Tools $81.50 smcs; Sojourners $39.95 smcs; Solid Waste Agency $53,397.65 smcs; Solomon,E $1.55 smcs; South Central Diesel $23.50 smcs; Spencer Turbine $2,189.77 smcs; Springer Roofing $5,535.00 co; Sprinkler Whse $167.05 smcs; St. Luke's Good Sam $1,335.00 smcs; State of NE $30.00 smcs; Steinbrecker,B $16.30 smcs; Sterling Distributors $222.28 smcs; Story,G $484.79 smcs; Subway $37.22 smcs; Sun Life Financial $20,372.62 smcs; Supercircuits $3,522.19 smcs; Supershine Auto $28.75 smcs; SYX Tiger $279.97 co; Tanner,S $19.27 smcs; Target $17.00 smcs; Taylor,M $25.70 smcs; Texoma Golf $360.98 smcs; Thompson,L $30.00 smcs; Thomson Gale $56.15 smcs; Titelist $4,767.21 smcs; Tool Doctor $37.50 smcs; Tractor Supply $1,175.76 smcs; Tri-City Outdoor $739.00 smcs,co; U Stop $141.00 smcs; UAP Pueblo $84.75 smcs; Ultra-Chem $378.56 smcs; Underground Const $966.00 co; Unico Group $40.00 smcs; Union Oil $4,204.69 smcs; Union Pacific Railroad $1,500.00 smcs,er; United Air $443.22 smcs; United Distillers $154.02 smcs; United Seeds $378.71 smcs; United States Flag $15.58 smcs; UPS $70.99 smcs; U-Save Foods $366.92 smcs; USDA-APHIS $85.00 smcs; USPS $117.39 smcs; Valentino's $49.48 smcs; Van Diest $1,482.38 smcs; Vasquez,C $161.20 smcs; VFIS-CETS $120.00 smcs; Village Uniform $380.88 smcs; Walgreen $12.99 smcs; Wal-mart $2,501.95 smcs,co; Warped Sportz $45.00 smcs; Washington State Support $102.00 ps; Wastecorp $390.00 smcs; Westfall $68.40 smcs; Whalen,J $161.20 smcs; Whiskey Creek Steakhouse $81.11 smcs; Wilke Donovan's $194.59 smcs; Winning Edge $124.50 smcs; Wong,L $12.36 smcs; Xerox $368.85 smcs,co; Yanda's Music $667.00 co; Yarrington,R $40.00 smcs; Zimmerman Printers $266.00 smcs; Payroll Ending 7-23-2005 -- $289,819.42.  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 the request submitted by the Museum of Nebraska Art to loan the Lawton Parker’s “An English Girl” to the Philbrook Museum of Art for inclusion to the exhibition entitled “In the Studios of Paris: William Bouguereau and His American Students”.

 

4.         WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT – NO ACTION TAKEN.  Approve the request submitted by the University of Nebraska at Kearney Athletic Department to conduct a fireworks display at the Kearney Country Club, 2800 19th Avenue on August 26, 2005 beginning 9:30 p.m. and ending no later than 10:30 p.m.

 

5.         Approve the bids received for the 2005 Part VII Improvements consisting of 27th Street and Avenue N signalization and approve Resolution No. 2005-123 awarding the bid to Kayton Electric from Holdrege, Nebraska in the amount of $85,277.00.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-123

 

            WHEREAS, Miller & Associates and the City of Kearney have reviewed the sealed bids which were opened on August 3, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. for the 2005 Part VII Improvements consisting of 27th Street and Avenue N signalization; and

            WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost was $101,095.00; and

WHEREAS, the said engineers have recommended the bid offered by Kayton Electric of Holdrege, Nebraska in the sum of $85,277.00 be accepted as the lowest responsible bid.  

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Vice-President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska that the Engineers recommendation is hereby accepted and approved, that Kayton Electric of Holdrege, Nebraska be and is the lowest responsible bidder for the 2005 Part VII Improvements consisting of 27th Street and Avenue N signalization, to be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the City Clerk and that the bid of Kayton Electric of Holdrege, Nebraska in the sum of $85,277.00 be and is hereby accepted.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the 27th Street and Avenue N signalization in the amount of $101,095.00 be and is hereby accepted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Vice-President of the Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute contracts for such improvements in accordance with the bid, plans, specifications, and general stipulations pertaining thereto.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       RANDY BUSCHKOETTER

                                                                                    VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

6.         Approve the recommendation from staff on rejecting the bids received for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Facility Belt Conveyor.

 

7.         Accept the recommendation from staff to deny the claim filed Steve Windrum on behalf of Kerri Goshorn and approve the submittal by staff to the League Association of Risk Management for determination.

 

8.         Approve the Application for a Special Designated License submitted by JUAN LAZO, dba “El Tropico” in connection with their Class IB-37623 liquor license to dispense beer and distilled spirits in the Exhibit Building located at the Buffalo County Fairgrounds, 3807 Avenue N, on August 27, 2005 from 6:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. for a Mexican dance.

 

9.         Approve the Applications for a Special Designated License submitted by CHICKEN BONES OF KEARNEY, INC., dba “Chicken Coop Sports Bar & Grill” in connection with their Class I-54354 liquor license to dispense beer and distilled spirits in the Exposition Building and the Ag Pavilion Building located at the Buffalo County Fairgrounds, 3807 Avenue N, on September 9 and 10, 2005 from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. and on September 11, 2005 from 12:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m. for the Fulton Horse Sale subject to the City receiving the required Certificate of Insurance.

 

V.    CONSENT  AGENDA  ORDINANCES

 

None.

 

VI.    REGULAR  AGENDA

 

ORDINANCE NO. 7192 – AMEND SECTION 13-107, TABLE 14-1 AND SECTION 46-105 TO INCLUDE CAR WASHES IN DISTRICT C-1

 

Moved by Clouse seconded by Lear that Ordinance No. 7192 be denied. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney, Lear. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

APPLEBEE’S – CORPORATE MANAGER APPLICATION

 

Moved by Lear seconded by Buschkoetter to remove from the table the Application for Corporate Manager of Margaret Stine submitted by CONCORD NEIGHBORHOOD CORPORATION, dba “Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar” located at 5605 2nd Avenue in connection with their Class I-55213 liquor license. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

Margaret Stine presented this matter to the Council. She is the vice-president of operations for the franchise.  They have five cities and nine locations in Nebraska.  She is replacing the previous vice-president, who left the company as corporate liquor manager.  She is presently holding several other liquor licenses within the chain.  Council member Kearney asked Ms. Stine if she was aware of the problems that Kearney had with violations of the liquor licenses and how seriously the City Council takes compliance?  She said that she was aware of that fact.  They also take compliance very seriously.  They do not only train their servers and bartenders, who touch alcohol, but also all employees on a regular basis. Council member Kearney asked if Applebee’s in Kearney had ever been caught in any of the “stings” for liquor violations. She stated that they have never violated Kearney’s Code. 

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Kearney to approve the Application for Corporate Manager of Margaret Stine submitted by CONCORD NEIGHBORHOOD CORPORATION, dba “Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar” located at 5605 2nd Avenue in connection with their Class I-55213 liquor license. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney, Lear. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

STREET IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY

 

Vice-President Buschkoetter opened for discussion the repealing of Resolution No. 2004-99 and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-124 setting forth the Street Improvement Assessment Policy.

 

Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan presented this matter to the Council. Nebraska law allows cities to assess the benefit of public improvements to the benefiting properties through the public improvement district process.  On June 8, 2004 the City Council passed Resolution No. 2004-99 establishing the policy for assessment standards for paving districts.  With the recent creation and rejection of a reconstruction district for 11th Street the City Council has instructed staff to amend the key issues of concern in the policy.

 

First a definition was added to clarify that new street construction includes, but is not limited to, upgrading any street from dirt, gravel, crushed rock, asphalt, and/or any other substandard street.

 

In the existing policy, street reconstruction is assessed at a prorated rate based on the roadway classification.  We are proposing to change this so that arterial street reconstruction projects will not be assessed back to the abutting property owner but will be funded through the general obligation of the City.  Collector streets will be assessed back 50% of the reconstruction cost with local streets and alleys being assessed 75% of the reconstruction cost.

 

Also in the original policy, single family and duplex development along arterial streets are not assessed for paving improvements.  The intent of the policy was to give developers an incentive to develop low density residential along the arterial street system in order to reduce the access points improving safety and traffic flow along our arterial street system.  We believe this is still a very important part of the policy but to clarify the R-1 and R-2 density issues for both the property owner and city staff we have changed the title to now include townhouses.  “Residential – Low Density” (single family, duplex & townhouse units only) Special Assessment Deferral Policy this policy will still allow the property owner to apply for a “Residential – Low Density” deferral of the special assessments similar to an “Agricultural” deferral.

 

The “Residential – Low Density” deferral shall be terminated upon any of the following events:

  1. Written notification to the City of Kearney by the Owner of Record Title to remove such deferral;
  2. The property is developed but no longer used as “Residential – Low Density”;
  3. Change of rezoning to a higher use other than R-1 or R-2;
  4. The Owner of Record Title request, and is granted by the City of Kearney, a “curb cut” to the arterial street.

 

Whenever property, which has received a “Residential – Low Density” deferral becomes disqualified for such deferral, the owner of record title of such property, shall pay to the City of Kearney an amount equal to the total amount of special assessments, which were deferred against the property.

 

We have also added the ability for property zoned “District RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards)” and/or “District RR-2, Rural Residential (Intermediate Standards)” to take a total deferral if they do not have a curb cut and a partial deferral if they do have a single curb cut onto the arterial street.

 

This revised policy will allow the City to collect special assessments against arterial streets in the future if the property is up-zoned or a curb cut is granted.

 

Director of Public Works clarified new street construction.  This is defined as upgrading any street from dirt, gravel, crushed rock, asphalt and/or any other substandard street.  The situations they came across were arterials outside the City limits or where the County has made asphalt improvements.  This would include any pre-existing street which is not built to the City’s standards. Council member Lear commented that typically no one has been assessed for those streets. 

 

Council member Kearney pointed out that questions arose in the Fairacres Subdivision whether those roads should be considered new or only repaired.  Director of Public Works stated those streets in Fairacres were built under the SID to City standards (36-foot wide, 6-inch concrete with curb, gutter and storm sewer) and the City called those reconstruction.  It was not necessarily an assessment back to the property owners, but as an SID, the property owner did pay for that street.  In that situation, the City would consider that a reconstruction and assess that back accordingly.  If there were a collector street in that neighborhood, than 50 percent would be assessed back.  If it were a local street, 75 percent would be assessed back to the property owner as a reconstruction. 

 

Council member Lear stated that a paving district must be created before assessing and go through the process.  Director of Public Works added that if over 50 percent of the abutting property owners petition it out, then the district is not created and built.  It comes down to this; at what point does that property owner think it is worth it to have his street upgraded to new condition? 

 

Director of Public Works stated that in the past there was some confusion about what is low-density.  Under the original policy, low-density was single-family or duplex, which was based on the old Zoning Code. With the new Unified Land Development Ordinance, low-density now includes 4-unit townhouses the same as duplexes.  In that zoning district, the lot area required is the same whether it is a duplex or a 4-plex.

 

The 11th Street project is a total reconstruction; therefore the City will pick up the cost under general obligation for arterial streets.  Next year, improvements to 39th Street from 6th Avenue to Avenue A are scheduled, which is an arterial.  This project will be a total reconstruction, and there will be no assessments since it is a reconstruction of an arterial. 

 

In the past, single family dwellings (low-density) were not assessed on an arterial that is considered new construction.  The City is now going to assess that property at 100 percent, but allow them to take an arterial deferral.  If a property owner does not have a curb cut on that arterial, there will not be any assessment.  The property owner will fill out a form, basically like the agricultural deferment form, which is granted until such time that they ask for a curb cut.  The City is going to be very restrictive in granting any curb cuts onto arterials because they are trying to limit the numbers.  If a property owner gets enough property and wants to rezone it to commercial or multi-family (in the future) with a redevelopment, then the City can go back and assess them for the cost of the arterial. 

 

Council member Lear asked if the property owners would be notified of the deferral.  Mr. Wiederspan stated that the City Clerk has created a form that will be included in the letter that will be sent when the Avenue N district is created. The deferral form will state that they can apply for the deferral if they do not have access to the roadway. They need to sign the form, send it in and the City will handle the assessments when the Board of Equalization meets. 

 

City Manager Michael Morgan added that the assessments would be based on a 36-foot wide, residential standard. Director of Public Works stated that sometimes they build 8-foot 10-inch concrete depending on the traffic volume expected instead of the standard.  If it is an arterial street, the City will pick up the overall cost between the difference for an oversized street under general obligation.  They assess back a standard size street even if they build an 8-foot wide, 10-inch street to handle the expected traffic volume.

 

Council member Lear asked if new street construction residential high-density, even if they do not have a curb cut, would still be subject to the assessment?  Director of Public Works stated they would be subject to an assessment at a 36-foot 6-inch standard (including commercial and industrial).  It is only an arterial deferment.  No matter what type they are on reconstruction of an arterial, they are not going to be charged.  If it is a collector or local street, they will be assessed no matter what type they are. The City will always pay for the upsizing of any street. 

 

Using Avenue E (a collector street) as an example, the process for a proposed paving district would be assessed back at 50 percent of the standard street.  However, if 50 percent of the abutting property owners would petition a project like that out, then the City would have to determine how to pay for those improvements. This could happen on future projects where the street maintenance needs to be done, but perhaps the residences do not believe it is necessary. They are trying to write the new policy with the understanding that it is always subject to change.  The assessment was reduced from 75 percent to 50 percent in anticipation that traffic on a street like Avenue E that is used by more motorists than just the residents, and other smaller streets, like Avenue L Place that is used primarily by the residents in that area are both fairly assessed. 

 

The policy does not have a definition of an arterial and a collector street, but there is one in our other functional classifications.  The functional classification map with the state shows arterials are section lines; collectors are usually quarter section lines (depending on how the subdivisions are laid out) so that the local traffic within that subdivision comes into a collector street and dumps out to an arterial.   Traffic volumes are also factored in the determination.  The arterial and the collector streets in the neighborhoods are determined in advance.  The classification can be justified as they get traffic counts and know the volumes. 

 

City Manager Michael Morgan clarified the City could order a street in and assess any property owner at anytime.  The policy tries to be as flexible in recognizing the City’s goals in respect to buffering on residential and arterials, as well as access for which there is a reward.  Most of these would not have the same policy, so it depends on the transportation network.  This current policy, as it is proposed, does recognize the value of what the City hopes to achieve.  At the same time, there is a tremendous cost to this policy.  This change going to a “no arterial assessment” on reconstruction is a fairly expensive proposition. There are many property owners along an arterial street, who have never paid any assessment for any street in Kearney, which is one of the things this policy will do.  He believes this is a very fair and appropriate policy by reducing the 75 percent to 50 percent assessment and going back to the residential street standard.  There are projects that will come up in the future that will not fit this policy.  Those will have to be addressed on an individual basis and use good common sense in dealing with them.  It is also important that whatever policy the governing body decides, it cannot bind other governing bodies.  In fairness to the developers and others, the City needs to find something that it can be comfortable with.

 

Council member Clouse said he agreed with the City Manager that this policy is a good attempt to being fair to all parties concerned.  If it is an arterial and everybody is using it, then everybody should pay a piece of it.  Mr. Morgan stated that does not mean that a person located on an arterial cannot end up with a “good deal”, but they will have a drawback of being on a thoroughfare street and would not be allowed a curb cut.  Council member Clouse commented that the one that concerns him is the collector street, where he sees most of the issues in the future.  Mr. Morgan replied the reconstruction of those collector streets would be needed more often, but having the reduction makes it fair. 

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse to repeal Resolution No. 2004-99 and approve Resolution No. 2005-124 setting forth the Street Improvement Assessment Policy. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Kearney, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-124

 

            WHEREAS, the City of Kearney is authorized by State statute to assess the benefit of public paving improvements to the benefited properties; and

            WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Kearney desires to establish a policy for assessment standards, based on construction type, land use type, and street type; and

            WHEREAS, the Council desires that such a policy provide equity and consistency in the assessment of improvement benefits; and

            WHEREAS, the paving portion considered for assessment is represented by all labor, materials, and equipment required to pave a 36’ wide, 6” thick concrete street.  Paving width/thickness oversizing and intersections are not subject to assessment; and

            WHEREAS, “new street construction” includes, but is not limited to, upgrading any street from dirt, gravel, crushed rock, asphalt, and/or any other substandard street.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Vice-President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the City of Kearney street improvement assessment policy is as follows:

 

Paving Assessment Percentages – These percentages reflect the assessment applied to the property and are a proportionate amount of the cost of the improvements that benefit the properties.

 

 

 

 

 

New Street Construction

 

 

 

 

Land Use

Arterial

Collector

Local

Alleys

Residential – Low Density

100%

100%

100%

100%

Residential – High Density

100%

100%

100%

100%

Commercial

100%

100%

100%

100%

Industrial

100%

100%

100%

100%

 

 

 

 

 

Street Reconstruction

 

 

 

 

Land Use

Arterial

Collector

Local

Alleys

Residential – Low Density

0%

50%

75%

75%

Residential – High Density

0%

50%

75%

75%

Commercial

0%

50%

75%

75%

Industrial

0%

50%

75%

75%

 

“Residential – Low Density” (single family, duplex & townhouse units only) Special Assessment Deferral Policy - Whenever the City of Kearney creates a paving improvement district on or after August 9, 2005 for an arterial street, which includes property zoned R-1 or R-2, the owners of record title of such adjacent property may apply for a “Residential – Low Density” deferral from paving special assessments.  The “Residential – Low Density” special assessment deferral shall apply only to property zoned R-1 or R-2 which is intended to be developed into single family, duplex or townhouse units only.  Any owner of record title eligible for the “Residential – Low Density” deferral shall make application to the City of Kearney no later than thirty days prior to the date that the City Council sets as a Board of Equalization to assess the costs of the paving improvement district.  No “Residential – Low Density” deferrals shall be granted by the City of Kearney to owners of record title of such adjacent property if said property has access to the arterial street via a private curb cut.

               The “Residential – Low Density” deferral shall be terminated upon any of the following events: (1) written notification to the City of Kearney by the owner of record title to remove such deferral; (2) the property is developed but no longer used as “Residential – Low Density”; (3) change of rezoning to a higher use other than R-1 or R-2; (4) the owner of record title request, and is granted by the City of Kearney, a “curb cut” to the arterial street.

            Whenever property which has received a “Residential – Low Density” deferral becomes disqualified for such deferral, the owner of record title of such property shall pay to the City of Kearney an amount equal to the total amount of special assessments which were deferred against the property.  Interest upon the special assessments shall be deferred, and shall accrue from the time that the City of Kearney determines that the property becomes disqualified for deferral.  The interest rate shall be the same as was charged to other property owners within the special assessment district in question, and shall be amortized over the term to coincide with the original amortization that was allowed to other property owners within the special assessment district in question.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that whenever the City of Kearney creates a paving improvement district on or after August 9, 2005 which includes property zoned “District RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards)” and/or “District RR-2, Rural Residential District (Intermediate Standards)” the owners of record title of such adjacent property shall be assessed a front footage amount not to exceed 250 feet if said property has access to the arterial street via a private curb cut; the remainder of the property being considered agricultural, the owners of the land included in the said district may be entitled to an agricultural deferral of the remaining assessments.  Owners of record title shall make application to the City of Kearney no later than thirty days prior to the date that the City Council sets as a Board of Equalization to assess the costs of the paving improvement district. The deferral of the special assessments shall continue unless terminated upon any of the following events: (1) notification by the owner of record title to the city council to remove such deferral; (2) sale or transfer to a new owner who does not make a new application within sixty days of the sale or transfer; (3) transfer by reason of death of a former owner to a new owner who does not make application within 125 days of the transfer; (4) the land is no longer being used as agricultural land and is being developed; or (5) the owner of record title request, and is granted by the City of Kearney, a “curb cut” to the arterial street

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 2004-99 passed and approved on June 8, 2004, and all other resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith be and are hereby repealed.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       RANDY BUSCHKOETTER

                                                                                    VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

ORDINANCE NO. 7193 – CREATE PAVING DISTRICT NO. 2005-903

 

Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan stated Chapter 16 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes spells out the rules by which paving, water, and sewer districts may be created in public entities.  Basically, the Council has the power to create districts and make improvements and assess the costs to the property which is benefited by the improvements. The City must publish notice of the creation of the district one time each week for not less than 20 days in a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation in the City.  After publication, if the owners of the record title representing more than 50% of the front footage of the property abutting or adjoining any continuous or extending improvements objects in writing within 20 days from the first publication of said notice the work will not be done.  If objections are not filed against the district in a timely manner which meets the law, the Mayor and Council shall proceed to construct such improvements.

 

Avenue N is considered an arterial street, and under the City’s policy as presented in the previous item on the Agenda, the assessment standards for the new construction of an arterial street would be assessed back to the property owners.

 

Director of Public Works stated most of this property is zoned R-1 and has no access and the owners can ask for the arterial deferment.  The big triangle on the north of this property is a rural residential property and has an access onto the arterial.  Under the new policy, they would pay for 250 feet of the arterial and ask for a deferral for the remainder of their property.  This gives them the ability to have an access onto the arterial as a large lot and pay a portion of that arterial, but not pay for 769 feet of frontage.  The property owner has the opportunity to pay a portion of that, but still limits the number of friction points on the arterial streets. 

 

Council member Lear wanted an explanation as to the difference between an arterial deferral and an agricultural deferral.  Director of Public Works stated an agricultural deferral is set up in the state statues.  If you have property that has not been subdivided, has not been zoned and is primarily used for ag, you can defer those assessments until such time that you subdivide, zone, etc.  The arterial deferral was adopted and follows the same guidelines as the agricultural deferral, but it is not a state statute. There are large lots of 700-800 feet that do not qualify for an agricultural deferral, but since they have limited access, it accomplishes what the City wants by only assessing them back 250 feet and taking the arterial deferral on the balance. 

 

Council member Lear asked about a hypothetical situation of annexing Cottonmill Road, where there are multiple residences.  Director of Public Works stated this is where the policy comes to play.  As the City takes that property, they do not want to assess back the full balance of their property.  Most property has only one access onto the arterial and a single family with limited access.  It was decided that to be fair, they would only assess a portion and defer the remainder.  Along Cottonmill Road, however, a number of those properties do not have private access onto Cottonmill Road; they come on to a public street and those would all take the arterial deferral.  If a property owner did have a large parcel of property that does have access, than they would be assessed for 250 feet.  City Manager stated the staff’s struggle was trying to decide what an appropriate amount of feet to assess would be.  It is up to the Council to decide if 250 feet is too much or not enough.  The value of the property has nothing to do with the cost of the assessment.  Director of Public Works stated the normal blocks on the older part of town are 300 feet.  Applying that to an arterial is limiting the access to every block.  

 

Council Member Clouse introduced Ordinance No. 7193, being Subsection 4 of Agenda Item VI to create Paving Improvement District No. 2005-903 for Avenue N from the south lot line of Lot 4 of Block 2, Stoneridge Third Addition and the south lot line of Lot 4 of Block 2, Eastbrooke Sixth, north a distance of 1,465.92± feet, 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 Lear 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: Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion to suspend the rules having been concurred in by three-fourths of the City Council, said motion was declared passed and adopted. City Clerk read Ordinance No. 7193 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Lear seconded by Buschkoetter that Ordinance No. 7193 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney, Lear. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7193 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.

 

OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIMS – NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT - $67,166.37; FREMONT NATIONAL BANK - $23,558.20; SCHOOL DISTRICT #7 - $1,012.55

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Kearney that the Open Account Claim in the amount of $67,166.37 payable to Nebraska Public Power District be allowed. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Kearney, Lear. Nay: None. Clouse abstained. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse that the Open Account Claim in the amount of $23,558.20 payable to Fremont National Bank be allowed. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Lear abstained. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

Moved by Clouse seconded by Lear that the Open Account Claim in the amount of $1,012.55 payable to School District #7 be allowed. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None.  Buschkoetter abstained. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

VII.    REPORTS

 

STP FUNDING

 

Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan stated the Surface Transportation Program money that the City has is approximately $1.5 million in the accumulated balance.  The project the City was going to use those dollars for was the Cherry Avenue Bypass.  With the recent funding on the Cherry Avenue project and the fact that they have come out with a new bill, the City needs to go ahead and allocate those dollars toward a project.  Typically, the City has tried to use that money on state projects, such as the two overpasses and intersection at 25th Street and Avenue E; projects that the City jointly works with the state (they do the paperwork and disburse the money) are a much easier way to use these funds.  Since the City cannot spend it on Cherry Avenue, the City probably is not going to have the ability to spend it on a state project.  It was suggested to use it next year on the 39th Street project from 6th Avenue to Avenue A to reduce the cost of that project.  The City can only use this STP money for collectors, arterials, or state and federal highways.  It really cannot be used to redo gravel streets, but preference is to use it within the City limits.  It is money that comes to the City of Kearney

 

Cherry Avenue was outside the City limits, but since it was a joint City/County project the state indicated they would allow us to use it for that project.  Staff will be looking for a project, but otherwise anticipates using it on 39th Street if that is acceptable.  The City has to at least have the STP funds obligated to a project even if it not spent.  City Manager stated the money has been accumulating and the funding is to the transportation bill. The current bill was extended and the line gets drawn when it ends.  Staff went through hours of discussion on how to submit for a project.  He wanted to get the Council familiar with this funding. 

 

Director of Public Works added that the City can expend more than what is in the City’s balance, because they know that the City will be getting more each year.  The City will probably obligate more than expected so staff will not have to go through this process again.  City Manager stated typically it adds to the cost of the project when the City has to go through all the state and federal requirements.  The contractors increase their costs accordingly.  In the past, the City has not wanted projects with the state because the administrative costs are so great.  It almost needs a full time staff person to manage projects with respect to the requirements.

 

VIII.    ADJOURN

 

Moved by Lear seconded by Buschkoetter that Council adjourn at 8:21 p.m. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Buschkoetter, Kearney, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Hadley absent. Motion carried.

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                       RANDY BUSCHKOETTER

                                                                                    VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK