Kearney Planning Commission Meeting – April 16, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Kearney Planning Commission Meeting – April 16, 2021
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.
Consent Calendar
- The minutes of the March 19, 2021 meeting were approved by roll call vote (transcript does not record the specific vote, but it was noted as passed).
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public offered comment during the hearings; only applicants and city staff presented.
Discussion Items
- Fenwick Subdivision (Items 4–6): Rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to RR-2 (Rural Residential Intermediate Standards) and approval of preliminary and final plat for a one-lot subdivision at 1910 Antelope Avenue. Applicant Mitch Humphreys (Buffalo Surveying Corp.) noted the property is near the city edge and the existing house is within the 40-foot setback; a future land use amendment was not requested. Staff recommended approval. The commission voted unanimously to approve.
- Erin’s Valley Second (Items 7–9): Vacation of Lot 1, Block 1 of Erin’s Valley Subdivision and approval of preliminary and final plat for a new subdivision at 5455 West 60th Street. Applicant Trenton Snow represented the O’Briens, who intend to sell a non-buildable outlot (Outlot A) to a neighbor for horse pasture. Discussion included removing the building setback line from Outlot A; staff agreed to adjust the final plat accordingly. The commission voted unanimously to approve the vacation, preliminary plat, and final plat.
- Radtke Artrup Subdivision (Items 10–12): Rezoning from AG to RR-2 and approval of preliminary and final plat for a two-lot subdivision at 5145 Cottonmill Avenue. Applicant Trenton Snow explained the owners plan to build a new home on Lot 1 and sell Lot 2. Discussion focused on the 50-foot ingress-egress easement (Buffalo Avenue) that is not a dedicated road; staff noted it meets city code. The commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning, preliminary plat, and final plat.
- Fountain Hills Thirteenth Addition (Items 13–17): Rezoning from R-3 (Urban Residential Multi-Family Medium Density) to R-3/PD (Planned Development Overlay), approval of preliminary and final plat, annexation, and planned development plan for a 24.4-acre site east of 11th Avenue between 50th and 55th Streets. Applicant Craig Bennett (Miller & Associates) presented plans for 390 apartment units in 13 three-story buildings and a clubhouse, with 48% impervious coverage, extensive landscaping, and a deviation of 40 square feet per unit from the 2,500 sq. ft./unit minimum for the southern lot (Block 2). Staff recommended approval with that deviation. The commission voted unanimously to approve all five items.
Key Outcomes
- All motions passed unanimously (recorded votes: Chair Malone, McGinnis, Rickard, Yaw, Scott-Pandorf, Cochran, Dakan, and others all voted “aye”). Specific vote tallies are not provided in the transcript, but each roll call showed all ayes.
- Fenwick Subdivision: Rezoning No. 2021-05, Preliminary Plat No. 2021-05, and Final Plat No. 2021-05 approved.
- Erin’s Valley Second: Subdivision Vacation No. 2002-09, Preliminary Plat No. 2021-06, and Final Plat No. 2021-06 approved.
- Radtke Artrup Subdivision: Rezoning No. 2021-06, Preliminary Plat No. 2021-07, and Final Plat No. 2021-07 approved.
- Fountain Hills Thirteenth Addition: Rezoning No. 2021-07, Preliminary Plat No. 2021-08, Final Plat No. 2021-08, Annexation No. 2021-08, and Planned Development Plan No. 2021-07 approved, including a deviation of 40 square feet per unit for Block Two of the planned district.
- Staff reported that since 2015, approximately 528 multifamily rental units have been permitted, approaching the projected need of 692 units by 2025 (based on the 2017/2018 housing study).
- The meeting adjourned after the report.
Meeting Transcript
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?
openpublica.com