Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Most people use, like, gray or whatever.

Good morning. I will call the July 7, 2026 Norfolk Planning Commission meeting to order, inform the public of the Open Meetings Act in the northwest corner of the building, and ask for a roll.

Waite?

Here.

Sock? Simonson? Here. Hupke? Here. Hoffert? Here. Geiger? Here. Griffith? Here. Keech?

Here.

Ronfeldt?

Here. I ask for approval of the full agenda. Move to approve. Second. Please vote.

All commission members present voting in the affirmative.

Motion carries.

And consideration of the approval of the minutes of the June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. So moved.

Need a second.

Second.

Thank you.

All commission members present voting in the affirmative motion carries.

Consideration of resolution 2026 PC-6 approving a conditional use permit for landscape contracting and recycling on property addressed as 4606 South First Street We'll read this in for the record Be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Norfolk Nebraska that Janice Lambert is hereby granted a conditional use permit for landscape contracting and recycling subject to the following terms and conditions a Hours of operation for the use of the wood chipper shall be from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. until 12 noon on Saturdays. Stockpile types and layout areas shall be per the attached site plan and number 3 below. Stockpiling materials shall be located a minimum of 25 feet north of the existing power poles along West-South Airport Road. and shall be conducted in such a way as not to constitute a hazard to any person or to adjoining properties. In the case that West South Airport Road is paved in front of the operations Ingress-Egress Drive, then the applicant shall, within one year of time that West South Airport Road is paved, hard surface a minimum 100 feet of the Ingress-Egress Drive to the hard surfacing of West South Airport Road. such that all traffic leaving the site shall travel the entire 100 feet on the hard surfacing until they are on West South Airport Road. There is relief from the minimum tree landscaping in the 10-foot required green space along West South Airport Road due to the existing large power poles slash lines. The conditioner use permit shall be for 10 years and pursuant to the Norfolk City Code shall be personal privilege granted to the applicant and shall not be subject to transfer. Value to observe and maintain the conditions and restrictions of the Conditional Use Permit shall be considered a violation of the Code of the City of Norfolk, Nebraska, subject to penalty as provided herein and may be grounds for review, including alteration or termination of the permit. All procedures and standards outlined in Section 27-56 of the Norfolk City Code pertaining to the Conditional Use Permit shall be observed in the Conditional Use Permit granted herein shall be subject to the provisions of the Norfolk City Code that provide for an appeal to be taken within 15 days of the decision of the Planning Commission and there shall be compliance with flood plan regulations and any other applicable city, county, state, or federal regulations that may apply.

I'll make a motion to consider resolution 2026 PC six approving a conditional use permit for landscape contracting and recycling on property addressed as 4606 South first street.

Second motion in a second, please vote.

All commission members present voting in the affirmative resolution 2026 PC dash six is adopted.

Thank you. I will open the public hearing to hear comments regarding of the South Norfolk redevelopment area, blight and substandard study.

Okay. I will start this off because Hannah Keelan is the one who did this and they were unable to come today. So I will try to help answer this and kind of do a synopsis of the blight and substandard factors. So the South Norfolk redevelopment area blight and substandard encompasses approximately 110 acres south of the railroad tracks and west of South First Street. I have that map up here so you can see the dark outline is what we were discussing as the blight area. Their approach included an area-wide assessment of primary structures in all parcels and with all blight and substandard factors taken into consideration except the defective or unusual conditions of title being investigated. So that would be a lot of work if they were to do that. 186 primary structures received comprehensive exterior inspections to document structural deficiencies, and 218 legal parcels were evaluated for conditions such as existing and adjacent land uses, site conditions, existence of debris, parking conditions, and street sidewalk alley surface conditions. These area-wide evaluations resulted in each blight and substandard factor being categorized as having either a strong presence of the factor reasonable presence of the factor or no presence of factor within the study area. Each of the substandard factors have a strong presence within the study area. The factors are dilapidated and deterioration. 55 structures were recorded with major and minor deteriorating conditions and three structures dilapidated. The second one is age of obsolescence. 149 of the 181 existing residential and commercial structures with verifiable ages are 40 plus years of age with an average being 83. Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation or open space is the third factor. The existing water and sewer mains are constructed of outdated material and are approximately 80 to 90 years old and there are no planned open spaces or parks within the study area. And then the fourth, any combination of factors that are detrimental to public health, safety, morals, or welfare. The primary contributing elements included deteriorating structures, prevalence of undeveloped or underutilized land or lots, the age of structures, and the water and sewer lines. Any questions on those before I move into the blight factors? Because those were the substandard. And I can show you pictures after we go through this. They do have some pictures as part of the study too. So there are 12 blight factors. Seven have a strong presence. Three have a reasonable presence. And one has little to no. So the seven that have the strong presence are substantial number of deteriorated or dilapidated structures. So again, 55 have the major minor deterioration and three are dilapidated. The second is in sanitary or unsafe conditions, 58 structures being deteriorated or dilapidated and 149 of the 181 being 40 plus years of age. The third is deterioration of site or other improvements. So 75 parcels or 34.4% of the total 218 parcels were observed to be fair to poor site conditions and nine parcels having major debris and 54 parcels having minor debris. The fourth is diversity of ownership, so 200 of four individuals or distinct ownership groups own property within the study area. The fifth is existing of conditions which endanger life or property by fire or other causes. 58 structures are deteriorating or dilapidated, the age of the structures, the underdeveloped or underutilized parcels, and the age and conditions of water sewer lines. Six is other environmental blighted factors, deteriorated structures with minor and major defects, outdated infrastructure, 18.6% of the study area being underdeveloped parcels contributing to the underdeveloped, underutilized land, and nine parcels having major debris and 54 parcels minor debris. And then the seventh is one of the other five conditions which includes exceeding the blight criteria of structures being 40 years of age. So that's kind of the synopsis of the blight study and how they came to the conclusion that this area was in a blight and substandard condition based on the state laws. And here are some of the pictures as part of the blight area too. I'll just flip through those. So you can see some of the deteriorating structures and the debris. I believe that's it. Any questions that I can try to help answer?

Thank you, Val. This is a public hearing. Anyone else would like to speak on behalf of light and substandard study? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Open for discussion. I think this is an area of town that could use a little love. Redevelopment, I think, would be a good purpose for this area.

Yeah, and there are a lot of whether it's vacant homes or homes that just don't look too nice, but I mean, there's some very nice ones too. Um, but then there, I mean, there's just so much opportunity down there too. I mean, you think about the industrial that's there, there's some commercial, um, it just, there's a lot of opportunity that, uh, to increase where it's at right now.

It being, you know, close to Taha and all the baseball fields. I know it's just a busy, it's a busy summer area down there and, Like you said, there are some very nice homes down there. There's also some, what's the term, dilapidated, I guess, so. Deteriorating. Deteriorating. So, given the opportunity to bring a little love to southeast Norfolk.

All right, we're good. Okay. Make a motion to consider recommendation of the South Norfolk redevelopment area blight and substandard study.

Second motion is second. Please vote.

All commission members present voting and the affirmative motion carries.

Thank you. I'll open up the public hearing at the request of Granville custom homes to consider a zone change from agricultural and R1, one and two family residential district to R1, one and two family residential district on property generally located north of Sheridan Drive and west of North 25th Street.

Good morning, I'm Steven Romickers with Granville Custom Homes. The zoning is turning this basically to the next edition of a neighborhood we call Blackberry Heights. This will be the fourth edition and it's, uh... platy or preliminary plastic on for you next is uh... some townhomes and mostly single-family beyond that so uh... some of this is already zone i think our one but it was just summit ag because we didn't know how far we're going on the initial phase so it's just converting all that over to our one is that any questions on that was the average home costs that uh... So single-family homes about 500,000 and the town homes around 400,000 I think there's like 20 single-family lots and Is there Somewhere like 20 and 10 20 single-family maybe 10 townhome doors We'll be extending Blackberry Drive and then extending a new road named heritage that goes east-west across there and So it's just another phase. It doesn't really connect to much of anything right now. So it's just an extension of what we have there. Any other questions on the zoning piece? Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak on behalf of the zone change? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing open for discussion.

Seems like a good addition to what they got going on. Obviously agriculture makes sense to change to residential here and keep the development in the side of the town moving.

Pretty easy decision for me. It looks great up there. I'd take a motion.

Make a motion to consider recommendation of a zoning change from agricultural district and one and two family residential district to our one, one and two family residential district on property generally located north of Sheridan drive and west of north 25th street.

Second motion to second, please vote.

All commission members present voting on the affirmative motion carries.

Thank you. Consideration of the recommendation of the final plan of Blackberry Heights, fourth edition.

Hello again. Yeah, Stephen Romaker, Granville Custom Homes. So this is an extension of Blackberry fourth, Blackberry going into Blackberry fourth would be this edition. I don't think there's really, A lot of the detention areas already built. A lot of this is already built. So there's like a detention, some outlots that are detention. That stuff's already there. So this is not a whole lot of infrastructure as far as the storm sewer development goes, which is nice because that's all been resolved as part of the prior phase. And let's see. Yeah, single family and some townhomes.

Thank you. That outlaw A, that would be one of the retentions there?

So A is a retention cell, yep, and then there's an unplatted, but to the, or it's platted, but not on this phase. You can see it up to the right, yeah. That's the other detention area. Okay. Thank you.

In counting lots, it looks like there's 12 single family attached. and then 20 detached.

Any other concerns with the Platteville?

No, I think Steve, well, both Steve's, you're working on this subdivision agreement for council and that sort of thing moving on.

I did send one over to Brianna, but it was late, probably later.

Yeah, I sent it out for review yesterday.

It's kind of a copy and paste of what we did at Fox Ridge.

Okay, so.

Steve, what do you think, what's your build-up type frame for this? Yeah. For curiosity.

I mean, the housing market's slowed dramatically, so... Just three years? No, it's probably, what, so 20 single families, is that what it was? Four or five? Yeah, probably more like that. Yep. We'll see if things turn, but I think the inflation and the interest rates have really... caught up to people in 26 in particular.

Well, I figure a community like ours, I figure us at about 28,500, because I throw in a little part with us. But 28,500, if you're growing at a half a percent, which we do, our growth is around 0.6, 0.65. That boils down to about 70 family units a year. Builders are you and Wyndham and a little bit over at Walters. These are all on the single-family side. Maybe a little bit at Legacy Bend if they get that going again. Yeah, so five, six homes, five, six units a year.

That's probably what the pace is going to be. It's really kind of a different pace for us, but that's just where we're at right now.

Thank you. Thank you.

What's appropriate? Do I need to come up if I just have a question?

Yeah, go ahead and come up. And then we just ask that you sign in.

So my only question is, again, on the number of lots. You said 10 and 20, and you counted how many?

So there's 20 single family detached, so the bigger lots up here. The ones that have A's and B's behind the lot numbers, those are the single family attached. He's calling them townhomes, so they look like a duplex, but Two people can own each side. Sure.

So 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 on the north, correct? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

Ah, ah, ah. Yep.

Oh, because those aren't built all the way to the street, to the pending street that goes west. So the retention...

So there's a group on the right-hand side of town hall lots. They're actually already platted as part of a prior phase, but we shifted some lot lines. So on the existing street, and I'm not sure if you live up there, but...

I do.

Okay, I'm sorry, and I'm sorry if I did.

That's okay. Randy Pinkelman, I'm just north of city limits.

Oh, sure, okay. So on the existing street, we're not adding lots. We're shifting some lot lines on the existing street. Then up against the acreages, you're going to have, there's nine single-family lots. And that stretches... It's about the full acreage and then about half of the other acreage if I had to.

Okay. Here's what the other drawing was showing.

This one here actually shows it, I suppose, is the stuff that's not hatched. It doesn't have hatch marks. Right, right. That's the stuff that's getting rezoned. Yeah. It looks like it does kind of go to the corner, but I don't think our lots would go all the way to the corner. Okay. Maybe halfway across. Somewhere right in there, yeah.

Yeah.

It might be. That might be about right. We might have zoned a little bit further than what we're going to build.

And there behind the 17-24, that's the other green space, is that correct?

Yeah, that big detention cell right there, yes.

And that will actually be considered a pond like the other one is?

Well, it's a dry cell, but what it does is it collects the water from storms and slows it and then releases it at a certain rate. into a pipe, which releases it to another detention cell, which releases it at another restricted rate out to existing drainage.

Okay. And then future plans would be to wrap clear around and go all the way to Eisenhower?

Left and then goes north to Eisenhower.

Okay.

And is that basically 30th? Is that 30th coming all the way up? Is that what that is, Steve? I can't remember.

It feels like it's Westview or Blackberry or Westview, maybe, going north. Yeah, that's right. I think it's going to be called Westview again. Is it the right-hand neighborhood or the left?

I don't know. I just haven't bumped into it yet. Yeah, well, I haven't given you any problems.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I'll take a motion.

I take a motion to consider recommendation of the final plat of the Blackberry Heights 4th edition.

Second. Motion and a second. Please vote.

All commission members present voting in the affirmative. Motion carries.

Thank you. Consideration of the recommendation of the final plot of the Biermann Noonan addition.

I have brought this up. This is essentially one person exchanging some of their backyard to their other neighbor. So you can see where lot two used to go all the way kind of southeast because the easements are still there. They're not vacating those easements. And they're essentially taking this square off of what is currently lot two and adding it to lot one, essentially. So they're just changing hands for this square back here.

A little friendly neighbor swap. Yeah. Any concerns from your end, Val?

No. Somebody else just wants to mow more.

Yep.

I'll make a motion to consider recommendation of the final plan of the Biermann unit addition.

Second. Second.

And we'll have to do a roll call because the system grows up again.

We've done like three years without any freezes.

Yeah, but I got nothing. All right. Waite?

Yes.

Simonson? Here. Hoffert? Yes. Geiger? Yes. Griffith? Yes. Keech? Yes. Ronbelt?

Yes.

All commission members present voting in the affirmative. Motion carries.

Consideration of the recommendation of the final plan of the Dvorak addition.

So this is out in Eastern Heights. Um, it, you can kind of see previously lot four and lot five, they're combining it into one lot and they're really doing this also because they want the, the newer setbacks because it's, you know, it was 25, 25 on both sides and they are trying to put a garage addition, but not accessing the garage off of that Eastern side. So you can go a little closer, um, just for, some getting rid of, I think, steps on the inside because there's some issues of trying to do steps, I believe, out there. So they're trying to make it easier to get in and out of the house and the garage. But they needed a few extra feet. They needed that 10 extra feet to make that happen.

Because it went from 25 to 15 with the...

Right, as long as you're not accessing the garage off of that so that you'd be blocking the sidewalk. Yeah.

Any other concerns, Val?

Nope. This one's pretty simple.

Thank you. I'll take a motion. I'll move for consideration of the recommendation of the final platyodivoric addition. Second.

Okay. Waite? Yes. Simonson? Yes. Hoffert? Yes. Geiger? Yes. Griffith? Yes. Keech? Yes. Lundfeldt? Yes. All commission members present voting in the affirmative. Motion carries.

Thank you. Any other open topics or concerns? Thank you. I take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you all. Enjoy your Muggy Tuesday.