The Kearney Planning Commission met on Friday, April 16, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. in City Council Chambers to consider several rezoning, subdivision, annexation, and planned development applications. The commission approved all items unanimously, including a major apartment complex development.
And the final plates like that with a one lot subdivision with the resulting 1.76 acre piece. This is nothing that is unusual, particularly for this area. If you remember the zoning map that I put up there, does show whoops, I picked the wrong button there. Show several house sites in the area that have been there for a number of years in a situation similar to this. So zoning, in my opinion, isn't or shouldn't be a major concern. I would like to see the city as we discussed in a in a DRT meeting. Uh consider which Joni and her sister are completely in agreement with zoning this area of at least their property from M2 to agricultural because they really don't want that heavy industrial, you know, Eaton Corporation, Baldwin type plant out in that area. So I'm hoping the city takes that up and champions that and maybe considers the the land to the to the west as part of that deal too in the near future. With all of that stated, I think I've covered at least the important bases. And if you have any questions, I can answer them at this time. Does the future land use map also identify that as an M district, or is it mixed use? You know Colette has that listed out as a C O U C C one C2 C3 BP and M1. I think that's a good question. Almost anything you want to ask for, huh? Um yes. No, no. I if you're okay with that, I'm fine with that answer. Okay. So I mean, well, this is obviously this is on the edge of the city, and as you do planning, the ideal model is there's nothing else there to encounter, so we can do as we wish, but in right reality, there are things there that are going to be different. Right. This is one of those. Right. Any questions for Mitch? Rezoning the agricultural land is not part of your no, no. That's just uh uh option or or uh concept that the city staff brought up and said, would you be willing to? And I spoke with the owners and they said absolutely they they they didn't want that to be particularly zoned M2 in the past when her parents were alive or their parents were alive, and and they just as soon agree with the city if the city will will champion that cause they'd agree with it. Do you have any comments? Um yeah, just some simple ones. Um staff is suggesting no future land use amendment, even though RR2 isn't compatible with the MU3. We would like that continued for future development um for the ability for future development when we look at that. Umce the as Mitch said, since the current house is within the 40-foot setback of RR2 zoning district, the house and any future development will be guided by chapter 58, um, which gives them the ability to do quite a few things. Um we go from there, yes. Um, was nice enough to get us a letter from subdivision from N DEE that no subdivision review is needed whenever we go from a larger lot to a smaller lot. We're just always going to ask. Um so that's kind of where we are there. Um staff recommends approval of this rezoning preliminary plat and final plated on the findings of fact that were found in the memo. So and if you'd like me to read those, I will, but if you don't, that's what I thought. I appreciate the offer offer. Thanks. Thank you. Uh, this is a hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to be heard on this matter? Any additional questions for Mitch or for Collette. Okay, um we're gonna go through these each one at a time. The first item is uh the um rezoning of the property that we're considering, and it is to rezone from district AG to district R R2 rural residential district. Is there a motion in regards to that? Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve rezoning number 2021-05 Fenwick subdivision based on cities staff's finding effect has been moved and seconded. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any additional discussion?