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

Kearney, Nebraska

October 11, 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 October 11, 2005, in the Council Chambers at City Hall.  Present were: Galen D. Hadley, President of the Council; Michaelle Trembly, City Clerk; Council Members Randy Buschkoetter, Don Kearney, Stan Clouse, and Bruce Lear. Absent: None.  Michael W. Morgan, City Manager; Michael Tye, 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: Gerry O’Rourke, Paul Brungardt, Mitch Humphrey, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Kerby, Joe Woodward, Denise Woodward, Bob Hogeland, Janis Hogeland, Robin Marshall, Jan Jamison, Nels Taylor, Patrick Murphy, Mike Konz 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

 

Reverend Doug Shada from Cornerstone Berean Church provided the Invocation.

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

Boy Scout Brett Schipporeit 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

 

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR DEMOLITION COSTS OF 1814 8TH AVENUE

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing for the Council to meet as the Board of Equalization to consider the costs accrued and expended to demolish a building and clean and clear property described as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, Kearney Land and Investment Company’s 1st Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska, to determine whether to: (1) levy the costs as a special assessment against the lot or real estate upon which the building or structure is located; or (2) collect the cost from the owner of the building or structure and enforce the collection by civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-170.

 

Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan presented this matter to the Council A building located at 1814 8th Avenue was declared to be an unsafe and unfit structure for human occupancy as described in Section 108 of the 2003 International Property Maintenance Code.  The property owner was notified in accordance with Section 110 and ordered to demolish the building.  The property owner appealed the decision of the Building Official to the Board of Appeals and the Boards of Appeals upheld the Building Official’s decision. The property owner then filed a petition in District Court seeking a reversal of the decision of the Board of Appeals. On December 8, 2004 the District Court dismissed the petition for the reason that the property owner did not properly file the appeal from the Board of Adjustment and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal. The property owner had 30 days in which to file an appeal.

 

The property owner filed with the District Court a Motion for New Trial. On April 12, 2005 the District Court overruled the Motion for New Trial and the property owner had a period of thirty days in which to file a Notice of Appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals in regards to this decision. No appeal was filed and the decision of the Board of Adjustment was upheld by the Buffalo County District Court.

 

In accordance with Section 18-1722 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, the property owner failed or neglected to demolish the building and on June 27, 2005, the City of Kearney demolished the building and cleared the lot.  The cost the City incurred was $11,400.02.  Therefore, the City Council must meet as a Board of Equalization to determine whether to levy the costs as a special assessment against the property or to authorize the City Manager to collect the costs in a civil action against the property owner.

 

Gerry O’Rourke 1212 4th Avenue addressed the Council and stated he is the owner of 1814 8th Avenue.  They did not go to district court.  There was a technicality that kept him from district court on this issue.  He was not notified of the date that this property had to be demolished.  He had shared with former City Attorney Mike Kelley that if the ruling were that he had to demolish it, he would do it himself.  He was the driver on a bus trip that left June 25th and he returned on June 29th.  When he returned the house was gone.  He again stated that he was not notified of a date that this had to be done.  He is protesting this cost.  He understood that there was 90 days in which to file a lien against the property, which has passed.  The second alternative is through a civil process, which he would welcome in order to bring these issues to the top of the table. 

 

City Manager Michael Morgan stated the resolution states that this can be handled by simple action or by a special assessment.  Mayor Hadley commented that decision is up to administration. City Manager stated he believed it was important to point out the process that was followed.  The house was demolished on June 27, 2005 and the process was started 3-4 months in advance of that.  On April 12th, District Court overruled Mr. O’Rourke’s motion, another 30 days was allowed to file an appeal.  No appeal was filed in that 30 days and there was a court order for Mr. O’Rourke to demolish that property immediately, which was confirmed by the Director of Public Works.  Mr. O’Rourke had until May 12th to make an appeal or demolish the structure, which was the intent of the court’s ruling. 

 

Mr. O’Rourke again stated that he was never notified of the date that it had to be done.  The court order did not read that way and he did not interpret it that way.  He received no other notification of the date.  He wants to be heard in the civil court because he does not believe that he is liable for the expenses of demolishing this house.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse to close the hearing as the Council meeting as the Board of Equalization and approve the costs accrued and expended to demolish a building and clean and clear property described as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, Kearney Land and Investment Company’s 1st Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska and approve Resolution No. 2005-170 authorizing administration to collect the costs of said demolition, removal and clearing from the owner of the building or structure and enforce the collection by civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction; or to levy the costs as a special assessment and such special assessment shall be a lien on the real estate and shall be collected in the manner provided for special assessments. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Lear, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-170

 

            WHEREAS, a certain building within the City of Kearney being located 1814 8th Avenue, Kearney, Nebraska, and legally described as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, Kearney Land and Investment Company’s 1st Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska, has been determined by the Chief Building Official to be an unsafe and unfit structure for human occupancy as described in Section 108 of the 2003 International Property Maintenance Code; and

            WHEREAS, the property owner was notified in accordance with Section 110 of the 2003 International Property Maintenance Code and ordered to demolish the building; and

            WHEREAS, the property owner appealed the decision of the Building Official to the Board of Appeals and the Boards of Appeals upheld the Building Official’s decision; and

            WHEREAS, the property owner then proceeded through the Court system and ultimately the decision of the Board of Adjustment was upheld by the Buffalo County District Court.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the property owner failed or neglected to demolish the building and the City proceeded appropriately in demolishing the building and clearing and cleaning the property described as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, Kearney Land and Investment Company’s 1st Addition, an addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska. The City is hereby authorized and directed to collect the costs of said demolition, removal and clearing from the owner of the building or structure and enforce the collection by civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction; or to levy the costs as a special assessment and such special assessment shall be a lien on the real estate and shall be collected in the manner provided for special assessments.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

AMEND SECTION 47-105C “ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FOR RR1 AND RR-2 DISTRICTS”

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing on the proposed amendment to Section 47-105 C. “Accessory Buildings for RR-1 and RR-2 Districts” of Chapter 47 “Supplemental Development Regulations” of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, a part of the Code of the City of Kearney to decrease the footage required for interior side yard to 25 feet.  Planning Commission recommended that the proposed code amendment be denied.

 

Chapter 47 of the Unified Land Development Ordinance (UDO), “Supplemental Development Regulations” specifies setbacks for accessory buildings in different residential zoning districts under Section 47-105 (c).  In District RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards) and District RR-2, Rural Residential District (Intermediate Standards) the side yard setback for accessory buildings is currently 50 feet.  The applicant has requested an amendment to the Code to reduce the side yard setback to 25 feet.

 

As staff considered this amendment it seemed reasonable and went to Planning Commission with staff support.  During the hearing at Planning Commission several issues were raised and discussed.  Since large animals are allowed on a limited basis in the rural residential zones, there was a concern of whether 25 feet would be adequate separation from a barn, stable or corral.  There was some discussion regarding the possibility of distinguishing the type and use of the outbuilding such that a barn would require a greater setback than a garage.  There was also discussion of whether the proper approach is being taken to resolve this issue.

 

A Code amendment, if approved, would affect every accessory building erected in rural residential zones in the future.  Since the challenge of locating these buildings on rural sites often seems to relate to topography, staff questioned whether it may be a better idea to leave the Code requirement as is but allow individual owners to go before the Board of Adjustment if they could claim a hardship.  Steep slopes, ravines and draws in the landscape do not accommodate a flat buildable area for accessory buildings without a significant amount of earthmoving and grading.  In this case, the applicant is faced by this situation where a ravine happens to be where the accessory building should be to meet current setbacks.  Planning Commission recommended denial of the Code amendment as presented and encouraged the applicants to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance.

 

Bob Hogeland, 5915 53rd Avenue, presented this matter to the Council. He believes that the 50-foot setback is unreasonable and did not think that they understood what the lot sizes are in their area.  The average lot is between 200-250 feet and some are smaller.  Even a 200 foot lot with the 50-foot setbacks would be losing 50 percent of the lot to the setback.  What started this issue is that he wants to put a garage in which to park his mower and vehicle.  The covenant in their area was set up for 25-foot setbacks.  He has been working with the Planning Clerk at the City and going back through the records.  There were no setbacks required at all until the change in May of 2004 requiring these aggressive setbacks.  These are aggressive setbacks for all the sub-areas.  He suggested changing it back to a percentage of 25 feet.  He has talked to other homeowners in his area and many have the same issue. 

 

The major concern brought up by the Planning Commission was the theory of having a barn or animal waste runoff close to the lot line.  Many of these lots are down to an acre and half or two acres, which would only allow one animal per acre.  Regarding the barn and animal runoff issue, he pointed out the runoff comes from a corral that is usually set next to the property line and the barn is set back in.  He did not believe that issue should be a concern because he only wants to build a garage.  In town, three foot is required for a 75-foot lot per side for a total of six feet, which is less than seven percent of the lot.  In their area, because of the size of the lots, 100 feet of setback takes over 50 percent and in some cases 75 percent of the lot that people will not be allowed to build on. 

 

Council member Clouse asked if Mr. Hogeland’s project is on hold for now awaiting the outcome of this meeting?  Mr. Hogeland stated when he began this project, he went through their covenants and he did not realize there had been a change.  He purchased his property in 1999 at which time there was no setback.  The City has gone back in their records and cannot find anything on the record that it got changed in the RR-1, RR-2 zoning before 2004.  He has driven around his area and seen newer buildings built anywhere from 3-5-15 feet from their property line.  In some subdivisions, there are corrals built within five feet of their property lines. 

 

He wants his building completed before it snows, but he has already been working with the City for three months on this issue.  The first time he came before the board, he was told they recommended the setback.  Mayor Hadley asked if Mr. Hogeland did not have the ravine would he be able to build with the appropriate 50-foot setbacks?  Mr. Hogeland did not see that the ravine poses a problem.  The reason a person purchases a bigger lot is so they can have more things on it, not because you need a bigger setback.  These 50-foot setbacks on both sides and front and back really limit a person as to what they can do.  He knew someone that went before the Board of Adjustments to get it changed, but had to spend money to do so.  That also was unfair to have to go that route for a code he believes is too severe. 

 

Director of Public Works Rod Wiederspan stated that staff was undecided because they believed that a 25-foot setback for a garage is probably allowable.  The big question is what if that garage turns into a barn or a structure that houses animals?  The Planning Commission had a problem with that issue.  As the UDO was being reviewed, there was a lot of discussion about animals in RR1 and RR2 zones.  At that time, they believed that the 50-foot setback would guarantee that the next property owner would always have a separation between the animals and their property line. 

 

Council member Clouse pointed out that people can make changes even after things are approved, that is a fact.  Director of Public Works stated there is nothing that states that buildings can only be used for a garage, livery or stable.  Council member Clouse asked if they could take another look at this and single out animals and make that differentiation.  His concern is having served on the Board of Adjustments and proving hardships can sometimes be difficult.  If a citizen has a viable reason, it might be somewhat difficult to prove a hardship.  It might be denied even though it meets the intent even though they do not have the animals because of some unnecessary restrictions. 

 

Council member Clouse asked if they could modify that particular section by specifying when they apply for the permits by singling out animals versus garage type structure?  Director of Public Works stated they could probably do something using a graduating setback based on the size of the structure to be built as is allowed in town.  This would prevent a large quonset-type building right next to the property line.  The Planning Commission wanted to build off a case by case basis. If the elevation or the grade of the lot is such that they cannot build anywhere else, then they would want it taken to the Board of Adjustment for a hardship.  One did go through the Board of Adjustment last month for this same type of deal and was granted the 25-foot setback for it.  Typically, if a lot of these start going through the Board of Adjustment, then we take a look at making a Code change. Council member Clouse stated that would be his recommendation to do it now because it costs $100 to go to the Board of Adjustment for each case. 

    

City Manager stated since the concerns Mr. Hogeland has are timing and process, is there a way for the Council to grant an exception and then take it back and look at amending the Code?  He believed the Council might be uncomfortable with amending the Code without going back and doing some research.

 

Council member Lear stated that in his personal opinion this is a reasonable proposal.  He could see nothing wrong with a garage 25 feet from the lot line.  He believed Mr. Hogeland got a little hung up on this animal issue, but he also made a good point about a barn being built 50 feet from the lot line, but the corral can run right up to the edge of the property. The question is how do they address it appropriately?  Mr. Morgan stated the Planning Commission would like the opportunity to look at other conditions.  He asked again about the process to provide an exception in this case considering the facts.   Mayor Hadley looked at it from the standpoint of the other people in the area.  Perhaps there are people who made a point to build outside the City because they wanted to have space between them and their neighbor.  There might be people that would voice that opinion if a public hearing were held regarding this matter. 

 

Director of Public Works stated what they have run into in the past when there were no size restrictions or setbacks that people were building quonsets three times the size of their houses.  So for those people who purchased a lot in the rural area to have lots of open space, some were confronted with a neighbor building a barn about as big as their lot. That was the reason for originally enacting some size restrictions and some setbacks.  Mayor Hadley said he did not want to do this and then six months from now have someone come in because his neighbor is building a quonset within 25 feett of the property line.  Mr. Hogeland stated he believed the square footage, size and a percentage of the size should be a consideration. 

 

Council member Buschkoetter stated he agreed with Mr. Hogeland, but believed they could not amend the Code today without doing more research about what would be appropriate.  They would also be open for input from citizens like Mr. Hogeland, who have a lot of information at hand. The difficulty the Council has is that they have to come up with a one size fits all policy.  They have to set the ground rules that are fair for everybody. By writing it in such a way, it has hindered Mr. Hogeland from use of his property. 

 

Council member Lear asked if this is sent back to Planning Commission are we looking at 45 days to come back to Council?  Director of Public Works stated that Planning Commission meets next Friday (October 14) and it is too late to get it on this month’s agenda.  It would be next month before it could go to the Planning Commission to be heard.  City Clerk stated the Board of Adjustment meets on October 24th and the notice will be published this Friday (October 14).  It is possible if the Council waived the fee, to allow Mr. Hogeland to go to Board of Adjustment. 

 

Council member Lear stated that he would support Planning Commission’s recommendation.  That does not mean that he does not think Mr. Hogeland is right in all the cases that he made.  What they do not have before them is the proper policy to adopt to address all the issues completely.  So the choice they have is to try and give him a Board of Adjustment option to address his particular issue more quickly than they could come back with a policy change that makes sense on all counts.  He asked Mr. Hogeland if that is something that would be agreeable?  Mr. Hogeland agreed. 

 

Council members agreed they should ask the Planning Commission to go back and review this.  Council member Clouse stated that something rubs him wrong about sending this back to the Board of Adjustment and tell them how to vote because the Council thinks this is the way it ought to be. Council member Lear said they cannot tell the Board of Adjustment how to vote.  Council member Buschkoetter added just like the Planning Commission cannot tell the Council how to vote when they make their recommendations to them.

 

Joe Woodward 6345 46th Avenue stated that he developed the subdivision that Hogelands live in.  This was an 80-acre subdivision that he divided into 25 lots, six of which were five acres.  He has been unable to sell any of those 5-acre lots in 15 years.  He has found that everybody wants the smaller lots.  He still owns the 5-acre lot to the south of Hogeland’s lot.  He was not only interested in Trail Ridge Subdivision where these folks live, but also other subdivisions.  Within two miles of Kearney, there are 1,294 parcels, 930 of which have houses on them and 364 vacant. 

 

He handed out a map showing where these lots are located.  These lots range from 10 under 10,000 square foot up to 20,000 square foot.  He makes the break at 20,000 because he considered anything bigger to be a farm.  Of those 364 vacant lots, the people building on them will be in to see the Council or the Board of Adjustment.  He urged that the Council consider changing it back to 25-foot setbacks.  When he did the covenant, he wanted to keep it nice for all the residents and looked at 25-foot setbacks as a reasonable amount.  That puts 50 feet between buildings.  It provides for fire protection.  He is very concerned about livestock in their area and was surprised when he saw that issue in the Planning Commission minutes.  He checked the assessor’s records for property within the 2-mile limit and found there are 18 stables.  There are 29 loafing sheds.  These shed are delivered on a trailer.  They are portable and do not need a permit.  It is hard for the assessor to find them and put them on the tax roles.  A loafing shed is a 3-sided structure (usually to keep horses).  Within the 2-mile jurisdiction of Kearney, he does not see that many animals as a percentage.  He did some calculations on a 3-acre lot and whether the frontage was 200 or 400 foot wide, he came up with approximately 60 percent of the land devoted to the setbacks according to the current restrictions. His requested the Council to consider changing it back to 25-foot setbacks on the sides.

 

Jan Jameson stated that she owns property at 5416 62nd Street in Trail Ridge Estates that they purchased in 2000 and on which they hope to build.  Their land has a lot of different tables and levels and they have staked their setbacks at 30 feet thinking they were well within the 25-foot setbacks.  Her concern was with the 50-foot setback currently being required, they will not be able to build.  Director of Public Works stated that this does not apply to her because they are building a main dwelling and not a detached accessory use building.  He stated that the house as a main dwelling could be within 25 feet of the property line.  The interior side yard requires 25 feet.  If the side yard is on the street side, then it is 50 feet.  She stated they are 55 feet from the street and 25 feet from the property line on the side yards.  Director of Public Works stated they are within the requirements and could proceed.

 

Nels Taylor stated that he owns two lots in Trail Ridge Subdivision.  He poured the foundation for his garage over 4½ years ago.  His foundation is 38 feet from the property line and he would have to start over to accommodate the 50-foot setbacks.  He has six acres on which he built his own home and believes in paying as you go.  Due to medical bills, he has been unable financially to finish the garage.  He urged the Council to change the setback requirements to 25 feet. He said he would support the restrictions on the larger buildings and the animals. A detached garage, such as Hogeland is building following City building codes, would be an answer to the plans of many who live in that area.   

 

Mayor Hadley stated that they want to make sure that they do not make a decision that creates a consequence later.  This has only been 15-20 minutes of public discussion and needs to be given more thought.  Director of Public Works stated this was discussed at great length at Planning Commission because of the same issue.  They did not have a problem with the garages, but how do you control the use? 

 

Council member Buschkoetter stated he knows what a barn is and he knows what a garage is – why can’t the City write a code that differentiates between them?  Director of Public Works stated it could be done; it comes down to enforcement because things can be converted at any time.  Council member Lear asked about how the enforcement of that is different from any code? The way a conditional use permit is enforced is by a neighbor making a complaint and the City taking action on it.  He believed this was fundamentally the same as that situation. 

 

Council member Lear stated he was perplexed because he was not comfortable rewriting code “on the fly”.  His frustration is this is the second time in his memory that a proposal has come to the Council that the Planning Commission recommended against, yet they did not make a recommendation for anything.  As he reads the Planning Commission minutes, it appears there is a fair amount of sympathy for Mr. Hogeland’s situation and for others. His recommendation was going to the Board of Adjustment with this application.  On the flip side, he believed ignorance of the rules in no excuse.  The Code changed in 2004 and any time you go onto a piece of property there is not any automatic right.  Each landowner is responsible to know what the rules are and to abide by those.  The Council always wants to try to respond to those needs.  It is still incumbent for each person to know the rules and follow them. 

 

Denise Woodward, 6445 53rd Avenue, stated that she also agrees with the 25-foot setbacks.  They are one of the people that built their house and planned to eventually put a detached garage on their property.  They are planning to do so in the near future, but it would be impossible with the 50-foot setbacks.  They would have to put it directly behind their house in order to meet the requirements.  She asked the Council to consider changing it to this reasonable amount of 25 feet. 

 

Council member Buschkoetter stated three of them on the Council amended this a year and a half ago and he was sure they had their reasons at the time.  He would like to go back and see what those reasons were before they change it “on the fly”.  He is very sympatric to the situations, especially the Hogelands who want to get this done before the snow flies.  They are writing this code for not only this subdivision, but for all the subdivisions.  They have already tried this “one size fits all” and it does not work for their subdivision.  So they will probably inconvenience the Hogelands, but hopefully will have a better fitting code in place when the others are ready to build.  He recommended the free pass to the Board of Adjustment for Mr. Hogeland. 

 

Moved by Clouse seconded by Lear to close the hearing and deny the proposed amendment to Section 47-105 C. “Accessory Buildings for RR-1 and RR-2 Districts” of Chapter 47 “Supplemental Development Regulations” of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, a part of the Code of the City of Kearney to decrease the footage required for interior side yard to 25 feet, directed City staff and the Planning Commission to further research amending the Code on this matter, and to place this application before the Board of Adjustment on October 24, 2005 and to waive the fee required to be paid by the applicant. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

REZONING SOUTH OF 28TH STREET AND EAST OF 2ND AVENUE

 

Council member Kearney vacated his chair and abstained from voting on this matter for the reason Charlotte Green is an employee of Kearney State Bank.

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for Don and Charlotte Green (Owner) to rezone from “District R-2, Urban Residential Mixed Density District” to “District UC, Mixed Use Urban Corridor District” property described as Lot 328, Southwest Quarter School Section Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south of 28th Street and east of 2nd Avenue).  Planning Commission recommended approval.

 

The applicant is requesting rezoning of a parcel on the east side of 2nd Avenue just south of 28th Street from R-2 to UC, Urban Corridor.  This rezoning is a continuation of property consolidation for a proposed commercial office project at this location.  Last month the applicant requested rezoning of the adjacent lots to the west to UC, Urban Corridor.  The proposed project will be a mirror image of the development on the west side of 2nd Avenue which was recently rezoned to UC and two buildings were constructed.  A pharmacy and a financial aid agency occupy those buildings.

 

The same developer that completed the west project is requesting the rezoning for the east project.  The concept is to repeat what was done on the west side of the street, although the tenants of any proposed buildings have not been identified.  Conceptual plans have been prepared to illustrate a site layout.  Staff is investigating the possibility of closing the alley.  The applicant is requesting the UC zoning at this time to add this lot to the overall project.  The rezoning request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map of the Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan.  The existing houses will be removed from the property.

 

Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying was present to discuss this matter with the Council.

 

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 Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for Don and Charlotte Green (Owner) to rezone from “District R-2, Urban Residential Mixed Density District” to “District UC, Mixed Use Urban Corridor District” property described as Lot 328, Southwest Quarter School Section Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south of 28th Street and east of 2nd Avenue). Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Kearney abstained. Motion carried.

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVENUE N AND SOUTH OF 60TH STREET

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for NP Land Development, Inc. (Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a residential duplex on property zoned “District R-2/PD, Urban Residential Mixed Density District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 1, Stoneridge Second Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (west side of Avenue N and south of 60th Street) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-171.  Planning Commission recommended approval subject to compliance with the following conditions:  (a) Emergency access shall be provided from the west end of the east-west cul-de-sac to Avenue K.  Upon construction of Avenue K a permanent 25-foot wide drive must be extended to Avenue K.  At the end of the drive an entrance gate or chain may be installed subject to the Kearney Volunteer Fire Department being provided with access.  The cul-de-sac is required to provide a turn-around for garbage trucks, improved convenience for citizens who inadvertently enter the development, and emergency personnel.  (b) Water and sanitary sewer shall be extended by the Developer through a Developer Constructed Infrastructure Agreement.  (c)  Water to be extended west when water is available in Avenue K.  (d)  The road outlot shall also be labeled as a water and sanitary sewer utility easement all the way to Avenue K. (e)  A sanitary sewer easement shall extend to Stoneridge 3rd Addition from the east cul‑de‑sac. (f)  All easements shall be shown on the Final Plat and dedicated to the City at no cost. (g)  An additional fire hydrant is required at the entrance west of Avenue N. (h)  The cul-de-sac radii shall be 45 feet.  (i) Turning radii must be increased to 25 feet on Avenue N entrance and both interior T‑intersections to ensure fire truck access.  (j) No on-site detention is required.  All storm water must be diverted to the regional detention cell to the west.  All storm sewer piping shall be sized to convey a 10-year frequency storm.  (k) An erosion control permit must be obtained for the state.  (l) Landscape plan is provided.  (m) An eight-foot wide hike-bike trail shall be constructed along Avenue N as shown on the City of Kearney Trail Master Plan.  The trail shall be shown on the Development Plans.  The City will participate in the cost of said trail.

 

The applicant is requesting approval to develop duplex condominiums on Lot 1, Stone Ridge 2nd Addition, south of 60th Street and west of Avenue N.  There are 34 living units proposed in 17 buildings.  The property is zoned R-2, which is not a “planned” zone.  However, the developer is proposing private streets which require review and approval by Planning Commission and City Council, in essence making it a planned zone.  This project will require vacation of the existing subdivision (Stoneridge 2nd Addition) so that it can be replatted as Stoneridge 7th Addition in the future.  The Final Plat will also be submitted in the future.  On the present agenda is the Development Plans and Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat in September.

 

The proposed subdivision, Stoneridge 7th Addition, is comprised of three lots, a road lot and two larger lots, one north of the road lot and one south of the road lot.  A Public Works Plan has been submitted.  

 

The road lot contains a twenty-five foot wide private road that terminates in a cul-de-sac at the west end of the development.  The duplex buildings are clustered around two private cul‑de‑sac streets that extend north from the primary cul-de-sac and also on the south side of the primary cul-de-sac.  The duplexes feature two-car garages and additional visitor parking is spread throughout the development. The Unified Development Ordinance does not allow private streets to serve more than twelve housing units.  In this case, staff has agreed to support the higher density subject to the conditions listed below.  The applicant agreed to comply with each one of the conditions at the Planning Commission hearing.

 

Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying presented this matter to the Council. The site is north of the Kingwood Circle Condominium project on the west side of Avenue N.  The Kingwood project is right at the intersection (more or less) of 56th and Avenue N. There are 7.72 acres (more or less) where they want to place another condominium project.  There will be 17 buildings (34 units).  Final plat approval has been submitted to the Planning Commission basically complying with all of the requirements A-M.  One caveat was when the engineers and the Director of Utilities looked at the easement issue (d) concerning the road lot being labeled as a water and sanitary sewer utility easement.  What they are proposing to do instead is delineating separate easements dedicated to the City on the final plat.  The buildings are spaced adequately throughout the project and the density is not a significant issue.  It is not going to be as dense as what could be allowed by Code. 

 

Provision (d), addressing that road lot as a sanitary sewer and water easement is not specifically correct.  What they are going to do is provide dedicated easements on the final plat for the water lines and the sewer lines.  The Director of Utilities has reviewed this change.  

 

There was no one present in opposition to this hearing.

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley to close the hearing and approve the Application submitted by Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for NP Land Development, Inc. (Owner) for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a residential duplex on property zoned “District R-2/PD, Urban Residential Mixed Density District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 1, Stoneridge Second Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (west side of Avenue N and south of 60th Street) and approve Resolution No. 2005-171 subject to compliance with the following conditions:  (a) Emergency access shall be provided from the west end of the east-west cul-de-sac to Avenue K.  Upon construction of Avenue K a permanent 25-foot wide drive must be extended to Avenue K.  At the end of the drive an entrance gate or chain may be installed subject to the Kearney Volunteer Fire Department being provided with access.  The cul-de-sac is required to provide a turn-around for garbage trucks, improved convenience for citizens who inadvertently enter the development, and emergency personnel.  (b) Water and sanitary sewer shall be extended by the Developer through a Developer Constructed Infrastructure Agreement.  (c)  Water to be extended west when water is available in Avenue K.  (d)  The applicant shall dedicate easements for water and sanitary sewer as necessary, so that water can be extended to Avenue K in the future. (e)  A sanitary sewer easement shall extend to Stoneridge 3rd Addition from. (e)  A sanitary sewer easement shall extend to Stoneridge 3rd Addition from the east cul‑de‑sac. (f)  All easements shall be shown on the Final Plat and dedicated to the City at no cost. (g)  An additional fire hydrant is required at the entrance west of Avenue N. (h)  The cul-de-sac radii shall be 45 feet.  (i) Turning radii must be increased to 25 feet on Avenue N entrance and both interior T‑intersections to ensure fire truck access.  (j) No on-site detention is required.  All storm water must be diverted to the regional detention cell to the west.  All storm sewer piping shall be sized to convey a 10-year frequency storm.  (k) An erosion control permit must be obtained for the state.  (l) Landscape plan is provided.  (m) An eight-foot wide hike-bike trail shall be constructed along Avenue N as shown on the City of Kearney Trail Master Plan.  The trail shall be shown on the Development Plans.  The City will participate in the cost of said trail.  Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-171

 

            WHEREAS, Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for NP Land Development, Inc. (Owner) have applied for Planned District Development Plan Approval for the construction of a residential duplex on property zoned “District R-2/PD, Urban Residential Mixed Density District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 1, Stoneridge Second Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (west side of Avenue N and south of 60th Street).

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the application of Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for NP Land Development, Inc. (Owner) for District Planned Development Plan Approval for the construction of a residential duplex on property zoned “District R-2/PD, Urban Residential Mixed Density District/Planned Development Overlay District” and described as Lot 1, Stoneridge Second Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (west side of Avenue N and south of 60th Street) be approved subject to compliance of the following conditions:

         (a)     Emergency access shall be provided from the west end of the east-west cul-de-sac to Avenue K.  Upon construction of Avenue K a permanent 25-foot wide drive must be extended to Avenue K.  At the end of the drive an entrance gate or chain may be installed subject to the Kearney Volunteer Fire Department being provided with access.  The cul-de-sac is required to provide a turn-around for garbage trucks, improved convenience for citizens who inadvertently enter the development, and emergency personnel.

         (b)     Water and sanitary sewer shall be extended by the Developer through a Developer Constructed Infrastructure Agreement.

         (c)     Water to be extended west when water is available in Avenue K.

         (d)     The applicant shall dedicate easements for water and sanitary sewer as necessary, so that water can be extended to Avenue K in the future.

         (e)     A sanitary sewer easement shall extend to Stoneridge 3rd Addition from the east cul‑de‑sac.

         (f)      All easements shall be shown on the Final Plat and dedicated to the City at no cost.

         (g)     An additional fire hydrant is required at the entrance west of Avenue N.

         (h)     The cul-de-sac radii shall be 45 feet.

         (i)      Turning radii must be increased to 25 feet on Avenue N entrance and both interior T‑intersections to ensure fire truck access.

         (j)      No on-site detention is required.  All storm water must be diverted to the regional detention cell to the west.  All storm sewer piping shall be sized to convey a 10-year frequency storm.

         (k)     An erosion control permit must be obtained for the state.

         (l)      Landscape plan is provided.

         (m)    An eight-foot wide hike-bike trail shall be constructed along Avenue N as shown on the City of Kearney Trail Master Plan.  The trail shall be shown on the Development Plans.  The City will participate in the cost of said trail.

PASSED AND APPROVED THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR ¼ MILES WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 30TH AVENUE AND ISLAND ROAD

 

Public Hearings 5, 6 and 7 were discussed together but voted on separately.

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan from “Agriculture - Open” to “Rural Estates” property described as a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-172.

 

The applicant is requesting approval to zone and plat a tract of land that is approximately 169.02 acres located west of town along I-80 in the Two-Mile Extra Territorial Zoning Jurisdiction.  The exact location is ¼ mile west of 30th Avenue and north of Island Road which is the gravel road that parallels the interstate.  The proposed use is a rural residential subdivision.

 

The Future Land Use Map of the City of Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan shows this area to be “Agriculture/Open Space” which is the current use of the property.  The rural subdivision will require amending the map to “Rural Estates”, the corresponding land use category for the requested zoning of RR-1.

 

The parcel in question has never been zoned so is considered Agricultural by default.  The rezoning request is from Agricultural to RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards).  Staff does not anticipate serving this land with municipal utilities in the future so the requested rezoning is acceptable.

 

This land was never previously platted.  The Preliminary and Final Plat, to be known as Deerfield Subdivision, consist of some 35 lots and some outlots which interconnect to form an internal network of common open space that could be used for equestrian riding or a hike-bike path.  The Preliminary Plat was approved on a split vote by the Planning Commission on September 16, 2005.  Two of the lots will contain small sandpit lakes, one existing and one proposed.  Major overhead electric transmission lines traverse the site and the subdivision layout is such that these power lines are contained in the outlots.  This area has a well established history of high groundwater, seasonal standing water and surface flooding, especially in the spring of the year.  Most of the site is in flood plain.  Floodwaters frequently overtop 30th Avenue where the bridge crosses the creek in the springtime. The Planning Commission voiced concerns regarding development of land in such a sensitive environmental setting. The Planning Commission vote on all motions regarding this subdivision was split- four in favor, two opposed, three absent.

 

Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying stated the lots in this subdivision will be larger than three acres up to 5-51/2 acres. There will be a generous amount of open space where there will be dedicated outlots for riding trails to be used by the guests, invitees and owners of the property.  There will be adequate setbacks, easements, etc. to accommodate utility placement. There will be several amenities such as some small ponds (one is already there) to provide some additional open space and green space. 

 

Council member Buschkoetter stated that a major concern of this development that Planning Commission looked at was dealing with the flood plain in the area.  Mr. Humphrey responded that this area is located within a flood hazard boundary area.  This does not mean that development cannot occur.  It means that the City must look at the development of houses there, the septic systems and leachate fields to make sure that they are properly constructed. Bill Abood has installed septic systems, leachate fields and wells and is very knowledgeable how that needs to happen within a flood plain.  The structures are required to be built to satisfy the minimum standards of one foot above the flood plain.  This is what will happen.  It is not the intent of the developer to allow a whole scale raising of the lots.  A lot of five acres, for example, does not require that the entire five acres need to be filled which would inhibit any potential ground water, seepage or drainage from being impeded. They want to follow suit with the development that has occurred in the area, where there is scattered housing, which were built in such a way that the rain water is not impeded and will proceed along its physically natural course.  The building site would be built up, but not the whole lot.  

 

Council member Kearney stated that his house was built in a flood plain was constructed one foot about the 100-year flood mark.  He had to purchase flood insurance until FEMA acted on it.  If a home is built on a flood plain and is financed by any federally insured institution, then they must have flood insurance to protect it. 

 

There was no one present in opposition to this hearing.

 

Moved by Hadley seconded by Kearney to close the hearing and approve the proposed amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Kearney Comprehensive Development Plan from “Agriculture - Open” to “Rural Estates” property described as a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road) and approve Resolution No. 2005-172. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Lear, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-172

 

            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 being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road), from “Agricultural – Open” to “Rural Estates”, and

            WHEREAS, the said application for change in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been approved 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 “Agricultural – Open” to “Rural Estates” the use classification for the area described as a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road).

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

REZONING FOR ¼ MILES WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 30TH AVENUE AND ISLAND ROAD

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for Deerfield LLC, c/o Gaylan Abood and William Abood (Owner) to rezone from “District AG, Agricultural District” to “District RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards)” property described as a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road).

 

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 Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for Deerfield LLC, c/o Gaylan Abood and William Abood (Owner) to rezone from “District AG, Agricultural District” to “District RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards)” property described as a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road). Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

FINAL PLAT FOR DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION

 

Mayor Hadley opened the public hearing on the Application submitted by Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for Deerfield LLC, c/o Gaylan Abood and William Abood (Owner) for final plat approval for “DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION”, Buffalo County, Nebraska for a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-173.

 

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 Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying (Applicant) for Deerfield LLC, c/o Gaylan Abood and William Abood (Owner) for final plat approval for “DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION”, Buffalo County, Nebraska for a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road) and approve Resolution No. 2005-173. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-173

 

            BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, NEBRASKA, that the plat of “DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION” a subdivision being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 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 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 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

IV.    CONSENT  AGENDA

 

Council member Lear abstained from voting on Item 4 for the reason the applicant conducts business with the Platte Valley State Bank.

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley that Subsection 4 of Consent Agenda Item IV be approved. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Lear abstained. Motion carried.

 

4.         Approve the application for a Special Designated License submitted by LEROY SMITH, dba “George Spencer Vineyard & Tasting Room” in connection with their Class “ID62962” Liquor License to dispense beer and wine in the Great Platte River Road Archway Monument, 3060 1st Street, on November 10, 2005 from 5:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. for a dinner subject to the City receiving the required Certificate of Insurance.

 

Moved by Lear seconded by Hadley that Subsections 1, 2, 3 and 5 through 11 of Consent Agenda Item IV be approved. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Lear, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

1.         Approve Minutes of Regular Meeting held September 27, 2005.

 

2.         Approve the following Claims: 3M $1,306.80 smcs; AT&T $105.54 smcs; Ace Irrigation $381.77 smcs; AFLAC $1,681.30 ps; Alltel $958.32 smcs; Almquist,R $95.00 smcs; Amax Contracting $406.06 smcs; Avid Technology $1,499.00 smcs; AWWA $140.00 smcs; B&B Auto Glass $980.10 smcs; Baker & Taylor $1,048.17 smcs; BBC Audiobooks $8.00 smcs; Big Flag Farm $60.00 smcs; Blessing $105,799.87 co; Bluecross Blueshield $13,670.35 smcs; Bosselman $20,314.04 smcs; Buffalo Co Sheriff $99,462.50 smcs; Cash-Wa $1,286.53 smcs; CHAD $16.00 ps; Charter Comm $43.55 smcs; Charter Paging $22.46 smcs; City of Ky $172,843.27 smcs,ps; City of Salina $889.44 ps; Civic Plus $5,220.00 smcs; College Savings Plan of NE $50.00 ps; Conseco Life Insurance $38.00 ps; Copycat $195.25 smcs; Culligan $184.00 smcs; Daake,K $6.41 smcs; DARE America $464.31 smcs; Development Council $371.25 smcs; Double M Farms $2,000.00 smcs; DPC $4,501.10 smcs; Dutton-Lainson $2.47 smcs; Eagle Integrated Solutions $8,280.00 smcs; Eakes $5,367.01 smcs,co; Ecolab $27.00 smcs; EFI-Wright Sales $237.14 smcs; Fairbanks $1,129.38 smcs; Fenemore,C $144.00 smcs; Fiddelke Heating $307.88 smcs; Freburg,N $184.62 ps; Fred Pryor Seminars $99.00 smcs; Frontier $573.36 smcs; Gangwish Turf $45.90 co; Grimes,S $49.45 smcs; H&H Distributing $243.20 smcs; Hand Well $172.30 smcs; Harley Davidson $449.70 smcs; Harrison,R $49.82 smcs; Highsmith $119.00 smcs; Holiday $92.80 smcs; Hometown Leasing $208.91 smcs; Hunting,J $23.00 smcs; ICMA $2,430.60 ps; Infinisource $1,829.52 smcs; IRS $87,085.94 ps; ISCO $175.75 smcs; Jack Lederman $102.61 smcs; Jacobsen, Orr, Nelson $682.50 smcs; Jensen,S $23.00 smcs; Justice Studies $100.00 smcs; Ky Area United Way $590.36 ps; Ky Chamber Comm $15,387.67 smcs; Ky Towing $212.50 smcs; Ky Young Life $1,793.46 smcs; Koetters,J $75.00 smcs; Kooyman,R $200.00 ps; Lang,L $133.98 ps; Laughlin,K $360.00 ps; League of NE Municipalities $31,532.00 smcs; Lewis,N $87.23 smcs; Lindner,S $212.76 smcs; Lockton $13,225.00 smcs; Magic Cleaning $250.00 smcs; Mail Express $137.49 smcs; Managers,S $20.00 smcs; Metlife $3,934.88 ps; MGS Tech $45.40 co; Mid America Pay Phones $100.00 smcs; Midas Auto Service $107.68 smcs; Midlands Contracting $115,420.40 co; Milco Environmental $954.00 smcs; Miller & Associates $29,036.79 co; Moore Wallace $502.50 smcs; Mosbarger,B $200.00 ps; Municipal Supply $275.06 smcs; Nat'l Paper Supply $86.16 smcs; Nat'l Waterworks $970.72 smcs; NE Child Support $1,045.43 ps; NE Crime Commission $3.00 smcs; NE Dept of Revenue $25,490.72 ps; NE Health Lab $708.00 smcs; NE Machinery $1,196.80 smcs; New Directions $5,116.80 smcs; Newman Traffic Signs $253.70 smcs; Northwestern $290.79 smcs; Novus $31.50 smcs; NRLS $30.00 smcs; NSA POAN $400.00 smcs; Office Depot $220.22 smcs; Paramount $121.99 smcs; Paulsen $168,539.43 co; Payflex Systems $378.25 ps; Pearson,K $20.00 smcs; Petroleum Equipment $738.54 smcs; Platte Valley Comm $571.50 smcs; Presto-X $309.00 smcs; Push Pedal Pull $1,756.00 ps; Quality Books $240.00 smcs; Quinlan Publishing $154.80 smcs; Random House $884.60 smcs; Reserve Account $8,000.00 smcs; Respond First Aid $96.15 smcs; Schmidt,A $49.45 smcs; Scholastic Library $254.52 smcs; Shirt Shack $1,842.40 smcs; Snap-On Tools $197.10 smcs; Sorenson Group $36,178.19 co; State of NE DAS Comm $16.46 smcs; Stover,J $20.00 smcs; Sun Life Financial $20,249.47 smcs; Superintendent of Documents $550.00 smcs; Thomas,P $52.70 smcs; Thompson,K $40.14 smcs; UNICO $3,953.00 smcs; US Internet $1,620.00 smcs; USEPA $6,992.00 smcs; Village Uniform $143.30 smcs; Warren-T $415.00 smcs; Washington State Support $102.00 ps; We Care Tree Service $505.00 smcs; Wilson,K $14.00 smcs; Woods & Aitken $984.28 co; Yellow Van Cleaning $299.50 smcs; Zavodsky,M $6.41 smcs; Zimmerman Printers $57.00 smcs; Zurich $10.00 smcs; Payroll Ending 10-01-2005 -- $270,313.30.  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 T-Hangar C-5 Lease Agreement between the City of Kearney and Jim Whitesel for storage at the Kearney Municipal Airport and approve Resolution No. 2005-174.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-174

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the President be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the T-Hangar C-5 Lease Agreement, on behalf of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, with James Whitesel, a copy of the Agreement, marked Exhibit “1”, is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

5.         Approve the application to extend Conditional Use Permit No. 1999-07 granted to South Central Behavioral Services to locate a transitional living facility located at 2701 Central Avenue for a period of two years.

 

6.         Approve the Municipal Lease Agreement between the City of Kearney and Nebraska National Bank for the 60 golf carts located at the Meadowlark Hills Golf Course and approve Resolution No. 2005-175.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-175

 

            BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska as follows:

1.                   The Municipal Lease Agreement (the “Agreement”) is hereby approved substantially in the form presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.

2.                   The President of the Council is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement, and to execute such other certificates and documents as may be necessary and appropriate to effectuate the transactions contemplated by the Agreement.  The Agreement, and the related documents may contain such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as the President of the Council shall determine to be necessary, and the execution thereof by the President of the Council shall be conclusive evidence of such determination and its approval by the Council.

3.                   Lessee reasonably anticipates that it will not issue tax-exempt obligations (not including “private activity bonds” as defined in Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) in an aggregate amount in excess of ten million dollars during the calendar year in which the Lease commences.  The lease is designed as a qualified tax-exempt obligation for purposes of Section 265(b)(c) of the Internal revenue Code of 1986, as amended, relating to deductibility of interest by financial institutions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

7.         Approve the bid received for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite to be used in the City’s water treatment process submitted by D.P.C. Industries in the amount of $0.98 per gallon.

 

8.         Approve the request submitted by Mitch Humphrey from Buffalo Surveying to extend the filing date until October 14, 2005 for filing the final plat, the Subdivision Agreement, and the Permanent and Temporary Sanitary Sewer Easement for “AUSTIN SUBDIVISION” with the Buffalo County Register of Deeds.

 

9.         Approve the application for a Special Designated License submitted by JUAN LAZO, dba “El Tropico” in connection with their Class “IB37623” Liquor License to dispense beer and distilled spirits in the Exhibit Building located at the Buffalo County Fairgrounds, 3807 Avenue N, on October 29, 2005 from 6:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. for a Mexican dance subject to the City receiving the required Certificate of Insurance.

 

10.        Approve the Developer Constructed Infrastructure Agreement between the City of Kearney and NP Land Development and Nebraska National Bank for the construction of public improvements for Lot 1, Stoneridge Second Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska and approve Resolution No. 2005-176.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-176

 

            BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEARNEY, NEBRASKA, that the agreement entitled “Developer Constructed Infrastructure Agreement” for Lot 1, Stoneridge Second Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska be and is hereby accepted and approved. A copy of said Agreement marked Exhibit 1 is attached hereto, negotiated by and between the City of Kearney and NP Land Development and Nebraska National Bank to construct public improvements in accordance with the Kearney City Code.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the President of the Council be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute the same agreement on behalf of the City of Kearney.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

11.        Accept the report from the City Clerk on the sufficiency of objection/protest received in connection with Paving Improvement District No. 2005-907 for the alley lying between 24th Street and 25th Street from 5th Avenue to 6th Avenue.

 

V.    CONSENT  AGENDA  ORDINANCES

 

ORDINANCE NO. 7218 – REPEAL PAVING DISTRICT NO. 2005-907

 

The City received a letter from a property owner requesting the City pave the alley between 24th Street and 25th Street from 5th Avenue to 6th Avenue. At the September 11, 2005 Council meeting, the City Council passed and approved Ordinance No. 7204 creating Paving Improvement District No. 2005-907 for the alley lying between 24th Street and 25th Street from 5th Avenue to 6th Avenue.

 

Administration received written objections from most of the property owners within the proposed district.  It appears there is approximately 600 feet of assessable footage with 425 feet in objection to the creation of the district which represents 70.83 percent.  Section 16-620 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes states “If the owners of the record title representing more than fifty percent of the front footage of the property abutting or adjoining and continuous or extended street, cul-de-sac, or alley of the district, or portion thereof which is closed at one end, and who were such owners at the time the ordinance creating the district was published, shall file with the city clerk, within twenty days from the first publication of said notice, written objections to the improvements of a district, said work shall not be done in said district under said ordinance, but said ordinance shall be repealed.”  Since the objection for the district does represent more that fifty percent, the district will need to be repealed.

 

Council Member Hadley introduced Ordinance No. 7218, being Subsection 1 of Agenda Item V to repeal Ordinance No. 7204 creating Paving Improvement District No. 2005-907 for the alley lying between 24th Street and 25th Street from 5th Avenue to 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 Kearney 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: Hadley, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear. 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. 7218 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear. Nay: None. Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse that Ordinance No. 7218 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Hadley, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7218 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.

 

VI.    REGULAR  AGENDA

 

ORDINANCE NO. 7219 – AMEND SECTION 47-105 C “ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FOR RR-1 AND RR-2”

 

Moved by Clouse seconded by Lear to deny Ordinance No. 7219 amending Section 47-105 C. “Accessory Buildings for RR-1 and RR-2 Districts” of Chapter 47 “Supplemental Development Regulations” of the Unified Land Development Ordinance, a part of the Code of the City of Kearney to decrease the footage required for Interior Side Yard to 25 feet. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

ORDINANCE NO. 7220 – REZONE SOUTH OF 28TH STREET AND EAST OF 2ND AVENUE

 

Council member Kearney vacated his chair and abstained from voting on this matter for the reason Charlotte Green is an employee of Kearney State Bank.

 

Council Member Lear introduced Ordinance No. 7220, being Subsection 2 of Agenda Item VI to rezone from “District R-2, Urban Residential Mixed Density District” to “District UC, Mixed Use Urban Corridor District” property described as Lot 328, Southwest Quarter School Section Addition to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County, Nebraska (south of 28th Street and east of 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 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: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Kearney abstained. 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. 7220 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Kearney abstained Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley that Ordinance No. 7220 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Kearney abstained. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7220 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.

 

ORDINANCE NO. 7221 – REZONE 1/4 MILE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 30TH AVENUE AND ISLAND ROAD

 

Council Member Hadley introduced Ordinance No. 7221, being Subsection 3 of Agenda Item VI to rezone from “District AG, Agricultural District” to “District RR-1, Rural Residential District (Rural Standards)” property described as a tract of land being Government Lots 6 and 7, the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 8 North, Range 16 West of the 6th P.M., containing 169.02 acres, more or less, Buffalo County, Nebraska (1/4 mile west of the intersection of 30th Avenue and Island Road), 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 Kearney 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: Hadley, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. 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. 7221 by number. Roll call of those in favor of the passage of said ordinance on the first reading resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Motion carried. Ordinance was read by number.

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse that Ordinance No. 7221 be passed, approved and published as required by law. Roll call resulted as follows:  Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

By reason of the roll call voted on the first reading and final passage of the ordinance, Ordinance No. 7221 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 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – 1816 AND 1818 AVENUE K

 

Mayor Hadley opened for discussion the appeal submitted by Robin Marshall on the review and evaluation of site development standards by Administration for property zoned “District M-1, Limited Industrial District” and described as Lot 14 and Lot 15 of Irvin’s Subdivision, to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County Nebraska as it pertains to landscaping requirements (1816 and 1818 Avenue K) and to consider approval of Resolution No. 2005-177.  Planning Commission recommended that the appeal be granted based on the compromise that the applicant has submitted which included:  (a) Five deciduous trees (3 trees along South Railroad Street in the right-of-way and 2 trees along Avenue K off of the right-of-way width) shall be planted in the fall of 2005 but no later than the spring of 2006; and (b) Buffalo grass shall be planted along the South Railroad Street right-of-way and the 46.8 feet x 113 feet area east of the building, except for the concrete driveway, along Avenue K.

 

The applicant is developing this property with a metal construction pole barn proposed for storage.  The property is zoned M-1 and the proposed use is allowable in this zoning district.  The use requires Site Plan Review by staff.  Staff reviewed the plans and noted that no landscaping is proposed.  The applicant was advised of the landscaping requirements for M-1 zoning as set forth in the Unified Land Development Ordinance (UDO).  The applicant did not agree and submitted an appeal letter to request a hearing of this matter before the Planning Commission and City Council.

 

During the September 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a compromise solution that complies with the landscape requirements along one street, but does not fully comply along the other street.

 

But first, for some background information; Chapter 48 of the UDO, “Landscaping and Screening Standards,” requires a ten-foot wide landscape strip along all streets in this zoning district.  This landscape strip is in addition to the right-of-way width.  The strip is to be planted to grass with one deciduous street tree, two-inch caliper minimum, for every 500 square feet of landscape area.  With a 10-foot strip, this formula equates to one tree every 50 lineal feet of street frontage.  Since the property in question is a corner lot, the landscaping is required along both streets.  Two trees are required on Avenue K frontage and three trees on South Railroad Street frontage.  Staff recommends Buffalo Grass as a drought tolerant native grass species where irrigation is not available.  Staff believes that the Council has provided clear direction and that landscaping is required in all M‑1 zones.  The Council has stated in the past that the ten foot grass strip with one tree every 50 feet is required on all abutting streets. 

 

Staff understands that many of the M-1 industrial areas of the City are not landscaped and not very attractive.  This particular property is located across the street from Anderson Wrecking Company.  On the other hand, we must keep in mind: a) the landscaping is required by Code for new developments and expansions, and b) we will never “improve” the visual quality of these areas if we take the stance that it is always going to be the way it is today.  We can affect positive change in these areas, even though it will be on an incremental basis, one project at a time.  The applicant’s compromise upholds the spirit of improving these areas.

 

The applicant has proposed a compromise that is acceptable to the Planning Commission.  Although the solution does not fully comply with the requirements of Chapter 48, it does meet the spirit of intent for streetscaping.  Also, a glitch in the ordinance was discovered as we worked through this project.  The section of the ordinance that regulates fencing allows a solid six to eight foot fence to be located on the side property line as long as it is past the front yard setback.  However, the ten-foot landscape strip required on all streets abutting the property encroaches into the fenced area if a fence is erected on the property line.  Therefore, in such a situation the landscaping does not meet the intent of the ordinance since it would be located on the other side of a fence.

 

In this case, the applicant proposes to erect the fence on the property line and to landscape the right-of way between the fence and the street curb on Railroad Street.  The required trees on this side will be planted in the right-of-way instead of the ten-foot landscape strip.  On the Avenue K side, the applicant can meet the landscape requirements as set forth in the ordinance.  Planning Commission believed that the proposed compromise was acceptable.

 

Staff will need to investigate amending the code to relieve the conflicting language in the fence and landscape sections.

 

Robin Marshall presented this matter to the Council. He stated the landscaping requirements for his property being zoned M-1 are that it should have ten feet of landscaping on each side from the street.  Since it is a corner lot, landscaping would be required on two sides of the property.  The deviation from what is presently required is that the north side would be on the right-of-way of the landscaping. The Planning Commission approved this.  During Planning Commission, there was a lot of discussion about a fence.  Mr. Marshall had proposed putting a chain link fence on his property line or just inside the property line.  His understanding was that any type of fence is allowed, even a solid fence. There was discussion that if he put a solid fence in and his landscaping had to be inside it, that would not accomplish enhancing the aesthetics of the area, which was the intent. 

 

Director of Public Works stated that fence issue did come up during the Planning Commission discussion.  Originally, they required sidewalks and paved parking areas in the M-1 zone. There was a developer that came in and requested that the City do away with the hard surfacing and the sidewalks. At that time the compromise was a 10-foot buffer area and landscaping would be required on the street side of any lot.  That portion of the drive access onto the property would be paved back to that 10-foot landscape area. When the landscape requirements were changed, the City did not change the requirement for the fence.  The fence can go right out to the property line, which would definitely hide the landscaping behind the fence.  The Planning Commission worked with Mr. Marshall to try to get a solution.  He has more landscaped area on Avenue K than is actually required and reducing that strip on South Railroad Street, the Planning Commission believed would accomplish what they intended with the plan that he submitted. 

 

Council member Buschkoetter commented that it seemed strange that the City has this requirement about a solid fence since the landscaping would not show, but thought it would make sense if it were a chain link fence.  His point was that they probably should differentiate between having a solid fence and a chain link fence. Director of Public Works agreed.  Mr. Marshall stated that when he gets finished with this building and this project, it would be the best looking property between Central Avenue and Avenue M when you are on south Railroad Street.

 

Council member Buschkoetter wanted to reiterate the comment made at the Planning Commission that they were not talking about setting a new precedent.

 

Moved by Clouse seconded by Buschkoetter to grant the appeal filed by Robin Marshall based on the compromise that the applicant has submitted for property zoned “District M-1, Limited Industrial District” and described as Lot 14 and Lot 15 of Irvin’s Subdivision, to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County Nebraska and approve Resolution No. 2005-177. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-177

 

            WHEREAS, an appeal has been submitted by Robin Marshall on the review and evaluation of site development standards by City Administration as it pertains to landscaping requirements for property zoned “District M-1, Limited Industrial District” and described as Lot 14 and Lot 15 of Irvin’s Subdivision, to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County Nebraska (1816 and 1818 Avenue K), and

            WHEREAS, said appeal has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 16, 2005 which appeal included a compromise solution that complies with the landscape requirements along one street but did not fully comply along the other street and the Planning Commission voted in favor of the compromise as it meets the spirit and intent of the landscaping requirements, and

            WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this matter on October 11, 2005 and voted in favor of the compromise solution as presented by the applicant and staff.

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and City Council of the City of Kearney, Nebraska, that the proposed landscaping plan submitted by Robin Marshall for property zoned “District M-1, Limited Industrial District” and described as Lot 14 and Lot 15 of Irvin’s Subdivision, to the City of Kearney, Buffalo County Nebraska (1816 and 1818 Avenue K) be approved subject to compliance with the following conditions:

(1)           Five deciduous trees (3 trees along the South Railroad Street in the right-of-way and 2 trees along Avenue K off of the right-of-way width) shall be planted in the fall of 2005 but no later than the spring of 2006;

(2)           Buffalo grass shall be planted along the South Railroad Street right-of-way and the 46.8 feet x 113 feet area east of the building, except for the concrete driveway, along Avenue K, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.

            PASSED AND APPROVED THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2005.

 

ATTEST:                                                                       GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK

 

CORPORATE MANAGER APPLICATION – EAGLES CLUB

 

Mayor Hadley opened for discussion the application for Corporate Manager of Patrick Murphy submitted by Eagles Fraternal Order #2722 in connection with their Class “C11097” Liquor License located at 17 West 24th Street.

 

Mr. Murphy has been hired by the Fraternal Order of Eagles Club #2722 to manage the club/restaurant.  Mr. Murphy has prior experience in operating a licensed liquor establishment; having previously held a license associated with McMurphy’s Pub in Overton, Nebraska. There is no record of any violations for the local Eagles club in that last 5 years.

 

Mayor Hadley stated that after the last compliance check where the Country Club was one of the ones caught in the sting that he wanted to make the statement that private clubs are not exempt from making sure that underage drinking does not go on in those types of establishments.

 

Patrick Murphy, 311 West 26th Street, stated that the Eagles Club was also checked under that particular compliance round. His cliental is 95 percent members and so they know pretty much everyone that goes there. 

 

Moved by Buschkoetter seconded by Hadley to approve the application for Corporate Manager of Patrick Murphy submitted by Eagles Fraternal Order #2722 in connection with their Class “C11097” Liquor License located at 17 West 24th Street. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Buschkoetter, Lear, Clouse, Kearney. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIMS   FREMONT NATIONAL BANK -- $38,096.38; PLATTE VALLEY STATE BANK -- $100.00

 

Moved by Hadley seconded by Kearney that Open Account Claims in the amount of $38,096.38 payable to Fremont National Bank and in the amount of $100.00 payable to Platte Valley State Bank be allowed. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter. Nay: None. Lear abstained. Motion carried.

 

VII.    REPORTS

 

City Manager Michael Morgan stated that tonight they heard some complex planning and zoning cases and he believed that comments about the Planning Commission at times might be providing them other options or a fix not just sending it forward or back. The staff will take that under consideration. He also noted that the Council saw the complexity and the conditions that came out of these projects as it relates to the Development Review Team (DRT).  There has not been a lot of discussion, but the DRT is working very hard and it is their goal to get these projects before the Council with those kinds of things worked out.  He appreciates the staff’s efforts on these and will continue to improve in that area. 

 

Council member Clouse stated that he has been watching with interest some of the ordinances in some of the other cities in the state that they have been passing with regard to residential housing for sex offenders in proximity to schools.  He believed this is something our community wants to keep our eye on. If that type of ordinance is something we would want to approach, he believed that we need to take a look at doing that.  This has been playing out in some of our sister communities around the state and something we want to watch here in our community. 

 

Mayor Hadley stated that he did have a concern from a citizen on certain types of dogs in the City. North Platte has passed a recent ordinance regarding dogs.  Council member Clouse commented that he noticed on Sunday around the Mall area, people were sitting out there selling Pitt Bull puppies. 

 

VIII.    ADJOURN

 

Moved by Kearney seconded by Clouse that Council adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Roll call resulted as follows: Aye: Hadley, Clouse, Kearney, Buschkoetter, Lear. Nay: None. Motion carried.

 

 

                                                                                    GALEN D. HADLEY

                                                                                    PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

                                                                                    AND EX-OFFICIO MAYOR

ATTEST:

MICHAELLE E. TREMBLY

CITY CLERK