Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Would our November meeting be on Thanksgiving week? Yes, it is, isn't it? Uh oh. Remind me to talk about that under new business and just make sure we're have we need to alter that. We I will not be here. Huh? I will not be. That's what I'm afraid of. That' be the 25th.

Just call you sergeant-at-arms and make you the official timekeeper. A lot of meetings actually [laughter] got off. I think I told you got off on me. She starts Oh, really?

It's pretty close right now. I mean, it's it's within a second of Do you make sure that's Yeah. Do you make sure that's accurate?

Yeah. That's my heartbeat, not the time. Look at there. All right, here we go. Welcome to the August 28th uh 2025 North Plat City Planning Commission meeting. Uh again, I mentioned earlier there's copies of the agenda over there. If you need to grab one, feel free to do that at any time. First item on the agenda is roll call. Davies here. Mun here. Matthews here. A here. Fudge here. Jet here. Forbes. Whirl. Van Bilson.

Yep. Okay. Quarum is present. Make sure you have your clickers everybody just so we're ready to go. Uh current copy of this open meetings act of the state of Nebraska is posted on the wall back there. You're welcome to refer to that at any time as well. Item number two, approval of minutes from September 23rd, 2025. I trust you've read them, memorized them. Quiz will begin in 30 seconds.

I move to approve the minutes. Second.

Motion by Jet, seconded by Van Velson to approve the minutes as presented. Any discussion on that matter? Not Michelle, please. And the minutes stand approved. Item number three, file number SU25-021. Discussion, consider action on an application by Lewis and Diane Heric for preliminary and final approval of Heric subdivision located at 4602 Rodeo Road in an A1 transitional agricultural district on property described as attractive land situated in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 25 township 14 north range 31 west of the six prime meridium link county Nebraska. Judy.

Okay. And you should have all received a copy of the preliminary and final plat for this property. Um last month you did make a recommendation to approve the resoning on this property. It's currently going through that process with the um city council. So once that uh reszoning is approved, then the subdivision will split one parcel into three lots and add both an access easement for the property to the west, the RV park, and a frontage road easement along Rodeo Road to service the three lots. The lots do have access to city sewer. However, city water is not available at this time. But planning staff has no objection to the proposed subdivision. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. I don't believe the applicant is here. So,

the access easement is on the north side of the Yep. Um that's all part of lot two though. That is um Yes, that is well a portion of it. You kind of see to the north there was already an existing easement in the original subdivision. So, they added a little bit on the south side to make it a little bit wider. And that's why lot two goes all wraps all the way around Yep. of the lot. Yep. just seemed like a really long skinny piece of a lot. That's why I was curious. Yeah, it's just to make sure that that lot always has access. Yep. It's a little squirly.

But presumably they could there would be highway access. Correct. Um they could at some point um but that's why we had to make sure um because they don't have any coverts there. Sometimes the highway has limited access. So, we just wanted to make sure that they would always have access. Makes sense to me. Thank you. Yep. Any more discussion on this one? Questions for Judy? I move to make a recommendation to approve file number SU25-021 preliminary and final approval of Heric subdivision. Second.

Motion by Vanvelson, seconded by Davies to approve as presented. More [clears throat] discussion on that matter. Michelle, please. All righty. And presuming this gets through uh the the reszone gets through city council, this will go on to city council then as well. Yep, that is correct. All righty. File number, excuse me, item number four is a public hearing. File number AM25-00006 discuss and consider action on updates North Plat City Code of Ordinances 76.22 regarding parking and storing of RVs, recreational vehicles. Judy,

okay, we all saw this um at the last meeting and then it was requested that this come back as a public hearing. Um planning commission will need to consider any changes to the RV regulations as presented and make re recommendations to forward to the city council. So, I did add on here um based off of the minutes and the discussion at the last meeting on September 23rd um planning staff's suggestion is to make the following changes as presented. So, um everything that's presented and then changing section E2 um that says with slides to remain fully retracted unless they will unless they will not encroach on the setback requirements of the particular zone where they are located. um to kind of replace with slides to remain fully retracted subject to all existing setbacks because um there was discussion with that at the last meeting that um if you're in a sideyard more than likely you're not going to be able to park any RV in a sideyard no matter what unless you're on an excessively large lot. So that was just a suggestion. You don't have to take any of my suggestions. And then the other one was delete um section E3D. But you guys have a choice to make any type of recommendation that you would like.

Yeah. So to be very clear, we can choose not to do anything. We can choose to alter part but not all or you can choose to re recommend all of these changes. Claire's mud. And these are all you recommend all these though? Um no actually some of those those were actually written by um the attorney. I did not disagree with him when he wrote those. He did write them and I said yeah looks good to me. Um but then based off of the last conversation I did make a recommendation to change a few of those.

And I'm not saying I agree with all of them. They were just the changes that were proposed or put out there for discussion. and so I tried to incorporate them into the ordinance.

All righty. So, um we did look at this a little bit last month. Uh we decided it would not be appropriate to make any changes without have first having this wash through a public hearing. And so there are one two three four five public hearings on the agenda tonight. So I'm going to read a set of uh kind of general guidelines for you um that will apply to all of the public hearings that we hold tonight. Planning Commission values your input and wants to hear from the audience. During the input uh public hearing, anybody wishing to speak must first be recognized by the chair. Once recognized, please approach the podium. State your name and address. Please keep your comments as brief as possible. Repetitive and excessively long testimony may be ended at the discretion of the chair. And with that, we are open for public hearing on item number four. Would anybody like to speak on this? want.

My name's Dale East and I live at 4173 Sequoia Drive here in town. Uh first of all, I want to thank some of the members here for coming out looking at my property. Uh Jeff, David, Kathleen, also Judy Clark for help with this matter. But I stand in opposition to the amendment for sideyards for the setback on the sideyards. And the reason that is uh with myself and some of my neighbors that uh we did put in driveways and paths to park our campers in this area and the setback as it's written will keep us from doing that. There's just not enough room with the five foot set back. Although we have been parking with like on my property, the side of the camper does go clear to the lot mine, but we haven't had any problems before this with uh neighbors or otherwise. The idea of uh putting in the drive and everything is to get the campers off the street to get, you know, our streets kind of narrow anyway, but to get them off there and a good place to store them where they're not hurting anybody else. I think the five foot setback's just going to cause more problems than it's worth. And we're kind of restricted on what people can do with their own property and such. So, as far as I'm concerned, that's the only thing that's that's uh I'm really opposing. I you know, I can't put the slide out on my property anyway because I'm to the lot line, but I'm thinking with some other people maybe ought to think about being able to put the slide out if it doesn't

encroach on the other person's property because they may have the real slide out on a side card. So that's the two things that I oppose the rest of it hangs. Any questions for Dale while he's up here? Thank you, sir. I saw you get up. And anybody else want to testify on this one? Show a hand. Okay, one more after this. Come on up. Name and address, sir. Mark [clears throat] Kenny, 3119. West second.

Okay, go ahead, Mark. Um, I wrote a letter to all of the planning commissioners. So, I wanted you guys to put a Facebook letter. Wrote it last after last meetings. Um, you had a statement here a few minutes ago said we can either do one, two, or three. I go with one. Don't change it. It's legal. It's not broke. There's people that think that it's broke, but it's not. Uh, what's the old saying? I think you guys have a solution, and now you're looking for a problem. Any any questions for Mark? Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming and thank you for the letter. Come on up, Steuart.

Really quickly, I think you said August 28th. Name name and address, please. Stuart Simpson, 1910 William, but I was going to say you said it was August 28th, not October 28th. Just clarify. My bad. [laughter]

Um, you received a letter from my wife and myself. Um, but I do want to read this just um, so everybody could hear it. U, my wife and I are in favor of AM25006, North Plat City Code of Ordinance Section 76.22 regarding parking and storing of recreational vehicles. Pursuant to section E3, parking is permitted outside the required front yard area on a driveway or hard service pad adjacent to the primary driveway for one recreational vehicle. My wife and I have concerns that about what patrons are doing in the city with their recreational vehicles. We have noticed many recreational vehicles in the city that are parked on the homeowners pass. Second, uh, pursuant to section E3C, the recreational vehicles must be at least 10 ft behind the front curbing. And many people walk, including students, back and forth from school daily and cannot walk on the sidewalk in various areas due to RVs parked on the appropriate driveway or hard service pad. Yet, they would be in violation of the 10-ft setback. We see many people walking in the street due to hitches or fifth wheel extensions that are hanging over the edge of the sidewalk. And three, pursuant to section 4, parking is permitted upon the public street for a maximum of 72 hours from April through October. Homeowners are also in violation of this section. Many of our neighbors have RVs and move them according to the hours stated. Again, we have noticed many RVs parked on the street for over 30 days without being moved. North Plat has many homeowners that are in violation of the code of ordinance section 76.22. And we realize that implementing this section will take rigorous code enforcement. And we hope that this section will be implemented so

that the residents and visitors can safely back out of driveways, drive down our streets, and enjoy walking safely on sidewalks. Thank you. Any questions for Stuart while he's up? [snorts] Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else want to testify on this one? Going once. Going twice. Make a motion we close public hearing. Second

motion by Bane, seconded by Jet to close the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion? Not Michelle, please. Okay, we're going to talk about this up here now. All right. Um, how you want to how you want to go? I think I did I I had an opportunity to talk to the city administrator before the meeting and I think he's hoping or looking or think the council is seeking a bit of clarification on one thing or seeking input on clarification on one thing. Let's put it that way. It's ultimately their decision. Um, under section E3, so this is on page three under the number three, they're hoping for some guidance on what we would consider hard surface. So hard surface, as it is written right now, could mean gravel. It could mean well it could mean crushed concrete. It could mean crushed asphalt. It could mean aggregate. It could mean pavers. It could mean whatever. So I think they're if they're if we do anything, they're hoping for some guidance on what we think that ought to be. That was what I got from [clears throat] hard surface. I think if you go mean it's concrete then you have potential for a problem if somebody slopes puts that in hard surface and slopes it to the neighbor get a big rain

water's going to run onto the neighbor. Yeah, I don't I don't disagree with you. So don't know that concrete's the right answer for surface hard surface kind of follows what's typical for the neighborhood too. So wide open where some parts of town all the driveways are gravel or rock or ribbon and bitter hard surface if it's gravel, rock, something other than dirt or grass. [clears throat] Could you put something that would be um hard surface so that no vegetation can grow?

Counselor, what is this? is probably left intentionally vague. I'm guessing

from my perspective it is. Um because I think the challenge for me is you know number one um we want to have we want to have city code that's enforceable and so we don't want to make it too hard to enforce. Um but also we have to I think one of the things that that our city is very good about is we always want to uh provide the proper um respect for property owners rights as well and um we don't want to make it overly burdensome for somebody to use their property in the way that they want to. Uh, so, you know, to say that it has to be uh a hard surface such as a cement pad is going to make it cost prohibitive for some people to be able to to do that. And as Mr. Simpson stated, you know, part of the part of the goal in in originally passing this uh ordinance was to get some of the RVs off of the city streets. And uh I think that was our initial goal when we did it. So, you know, now we're now we're dealing with some of the other fallout from it. But, you know, I like the idea of it being more open-ended just because, um, you know, I think Jeff's right. different parts of town, it probably looks different. But also, um, you know,

you have a gravel driveway, you shouldn't be forced to have a concrete pad for your Yeah, sure. That makes sense. You know, that I don't like most of it. think we should leave it until it was well and I don't think we should have to require a setback for a side door. If it's on your property, it's on your property. If it's on your property and the slide goes out to the property line, that's that's okay, too, because it's on your property. So, didn't want to have a sideyard or have a setback at all. That's for the building codes. That's for a permanent permanent structure. I got you.

Right. But if that U RV is a semi-permanent, I mean, it's there for 90% of the time. Um, there's no setback, right? I'm the guy on the I'm the guy that's next to that. That's a wall right next to my use of my yard. But then where does it stop? Um, is a vehicle then need to have setback, you know, does a tractor need to have set back? I mean, I I I agree with Jeff. I I I'm not

The only thing I would leave in is the parking or storing to clarify. Um, but I don't feel like someone should have to worry about the setback when they have their slides retracted. That to me is definitely overreach. Um, and when it comes to the hard surface, um, I thought you made a very good point. I think the goal of the hard surface is to avoid overgrowth of weeds which can collect gosh knows other, you know, issues. So I think keeping it as a hard service is just fine.

But I've seen stuff grow up through [laughter] sprayed. I think that's the spirit of it though. Correct. We're never going to get everything. Well, and part of the problem here is you've got to if you if you do anything, but we already are in a position where frankly we're having a hard time code enforcement the way it is. Yeah. Correct. Okay, we're not enforcement. Ironically, the original complaint on this was completely out of code to start with. Should have never been put there in the first place. Correct. Okay. So,

I guess one of the things I'd suggest is, you know, just anybody who listens to anything that goes on here tonight, if you know people that have RVs that are parking them in the wrong spot or aren't moving them off the street, help us out because this is we're it shouldn't be right up next to the street. that people are having to go around, walk into the street and and create an unsafe situation. They shouldn't be parked in areas where where they're out of compliance with existing code. Code enforcement starts with the complaint. Correct. It's going to have to come from the public. If it's annoyance to them, they need to call it in.

Ironically, the as I was looking at your property on the on the way back to my house from your property, I counted probably 15 RVs that were parked on streets and shouldn't have been there. Mhm. So, and then I counted 12 that had the side concrete pad and a good place to park it and it was on their lot and it was not in the way of anything.

Right. And the other the other observation I'll make is I think this is the second time I've seen something in the last 60 days where we have a solution that works well in with more modernized larger oversized lots like what we see out in Sequoia and that and that kind of that area but doesn't maybe work as well because the the lot sizes are smaller and the setbacks are smaller in some of those neighborhoods

and it I don't know how you fix that but sometimes this one size approach fits all thing doesn't really fit all very well. But I I'm of the opinion that we have a solution here. Um the spirit of is to get them off the street, which is what we're really trying to avoid, unless we want to do something to clarify what hard surface is. And maybe it's to maybe the only language you add is to keep vegetation down, but other than that, I'm in favor of just leaving it alone. I agree. I would make a motion that we leave it alone.

Further discussion on the motion. Yes, sir. Give me just a second. Was a motion made by Jeff and seconded by Nelson to not take any action on the proposal as it stands now. Discussion on the motion. Yeah. So that the uh uh section E2 would not have it would have the same language all in black with no red at all. Is that what you're saying? I want to make sure I know what standing these two would have no additional uh parking is permitted outside on the in the sideyard or in the rear yard behind the required front yard. That's how it would read.

Yeah. and E would not be added. The G um 7622E on page three would say such RV may be parked or stored in the following manner. Parking is permitted. Right. Parking is permitted. Parking is permitted. I don't I never did know the difference between parking and story. Um, I would think storing to me storing a vehicle means you put it into a building. I think parking is more than a park it. Oh, no. I'm storing that there. I can do that.

Storing is more than 72 hours.

Then it doesn't then it should say that. [laughter] Then it should say that. Um, slides retracted. That's all. I'll tell you what. I I ran out to your That's why I come blowing in. I ran out to Sequoia and looked at there's four different u RVs parked. Three of them are in line all the way back. They're on their side of this of the of the building and they're flush with the setback for the building that they're next to. Absolutely perfect. Somebody else has one that's kind of closer to the driveway. It's next to the driveway, but it doesn't cross the sidewalk. I don't have any problem with that. Uh I wish they were all further back. We I think if we're gonna do a set back, it'd be she's setting back from the from the uh sidewalk.

Yeah, it's just not enforced very well. So, it's in there.

If we do that, do we need anything more? I had I live across the street from where there where there was an RV parked and it was not 10 ft back from the curb, but it was on his side and and the neighbor who hated his guts uh um had he he put up a fence cuz he hated her guts, too. So there you go. [laughter] Fenced off. Uh it was all fair. Down the street there's another one. But they their nose is always out. You got to walk around that end of the street. So I don't know if store maybe it should say storing is more than 72 hours or whatever on the street. You can park on the street but you can't store it on the street.

And I don't think we worry about the sideyard set back. That seems it's your yard all the way to the edge and if the if if the fire department doesn't care about the setback to get to that backyard and to fight a fire then I don't know that we do. That'd be up to the city council to consider. But it ought to be back from the curb x number of feet from the center of the street or x number of feet from the curb or property line or whatever you want to say. Well, again, that's that's in there. It's just the problem is how do you it takes a complaint from somebody to call the city to have an officer go out there and ticket it and get them to move it.

That was kind of my point earlier. Anybody listen to this that that please comply? I mean, the the the ordinance is there. We're trying to work with everybody. We're trying to come up with a solution, but you got to help us out by by doing what you're supposed to do in accordance with the ordinance. Yes. I I park my motor home in my backyard and I also store it there over the winter in the backyard. It's not in a building. Mhm. So, am I parking it or am I storing it? Yes. Yes. [laughter] All right. Any more discussion? So leave it as it is is on is the motion. That's the motion on the table. Don't touch it.

Any more discussion? So basically you're forwarding no recommendation for any changes. That's correct. Correct. I just want to make sure I have it correct. Yep. Our our the plan that's not yet but Yeah. The planning commission's recommendation would be to forward it to the city council with no changes. No changes. That would be the effect of this motion. Correct. Hasn't that already been done when we first did this? No, because we tabled it. No, no, back. Yes. And then we had some issues and so that's why it came back just for you guys to look at it. Yep. Adopted the 72 hours. Yep. Mhm. We're But the but we've got a process. Okay. Okay. We have to follow.

We have to follow. All right. Any more discussion? Okay. Okay. So, a vote a vote yes is to leave it as is. A vote no is to bring it back and discuss changes. Are we all clear on that? All right. Michelle, please. And we will forward it with no recommendation. All right. Item number five is another public hearing discussing consider action on an annexation of lot one and two Branson second administrative subdivision Lincoln County Nebraska. Judy

well for some reason I don't have that in my packet. I say

I would like it. Thank you. [laughter] [snorts] Okay. So, this one is um you should have a um some review comments and then attached to that is a map and the proposed annexation is in accordance with chapter 11 annexation of the city of Northplat's comprehensive plan and amendments. The city of Northplat requires that individuals completing a subdivisions whose property is adjacent to city limits are required to request annexation. This proposed annexation um area consists of approximately 8.54 acres. The reasons for annexation include equity for taxpayers, priority of service for maintenance and emergency response allowing for continued growth of North Plat in an efficient and orderly fashion. Increased population, increase possible economic and funding opportunities, and lane miles increase allowing for additional road development and funding options. The proposed annex station is urban in character abinguing and adjacent to the current city limits and have access or will have access to city infrastructure improvements. Planning staff does recommend adoption of this. Um just so you know, this um subdivision was done probably over a year ago. Um I spoke with the property owners at the time and told them that they would have to request annexation and they were okay with it and then I forgot to put it on the agenda. So that's why you're seeing it about a year later.

You're telling me we're cleaning this up? We're cleaning it [clears throat] up. Got it. Tell me the name of the avenue that is the north quarter of that. Thank you. That is Eugene. Eugene. Thank you. Sorry. All right. Uh this is a public hearing. Um same rules as before. This is item number five on the Franen administrative subdivision annexation. Anybody want to talk on this one? Yes, sir.

Good evening. My name is Michael Cook. I live at 1906 West Eugene, uh, just outside the city limits of North Plat. Uh, Mr. chairman and commissioners. Uh I I don't oppose uh Daryl and Marcen's request to uh annex the property, but I have some questions I'm a little confused about. Um first off is the currently the property from what I understand is zoned A1 uh a transitional agriculture. Uh, in fact, everything between Eugene and uh oh, down to the next road and I can't remember what it is now. Walker,

thank you. Down to Walker all the way from the current city limits to Buffalo is an A1 uh district. And uh also uh are they going to uh request or is there a request currently in place to reszone the property or will it continue to be A1 because A1 has considerable restrictions on it and it's my understanding based on the city's uh proposed uh or the rationale uh is to uh enhance it for uh uh basically for uh individual housing development in that area. And again, I have no problem with that except for the fact that uh the map that was provided by the city uh for the annexation looks to be almost all what they used to call a checkerboard uh situation. It doesn't it's not consistent with uh the u or I guess it is consistent with the uh outline of the second parcel. Uh but I don't understand uh why the south end of that property uh is the way it is. Uh it's sort of peacemeal. But uh also uh how how are how does the city intend to uh provide service to uh both these parcels? Uh the reason I'm asking is uh on the map that was uh that was included uh it shows the water going uh out to the edge of the adjacent lot uh which is called subdivision 25 and then going south along that east side of the east leg of that uh

property. and it shows the sewer extending on out to the city limits. That based on uh what I was told by the previous city engineer is not correct. Uh he said that that uh it's a golden rod circle. Uh there's a manhole there and if anyone's driven down Eugene, you know which one I'm talking about. It's the one that sits about eight inches above the the pavement and if you hit it just right, it will bounce you right into the roof of your car. Uh, and the reason that it's so high is because of the flow that's required for the sewer to continue eastward. And the city engineer when I asked him about providing sewer down, I live uh two lots down from uh the proposed annex station and he said that uh they that it would be impossible to run sewer down Eugene without a additional lift station beyond that point uh at Golden Rod because of the fact that uh it's lower, you're actually, if you try and go east on on Eugene, you're actually going uphill. And by the time you put a standard flow to the sewer line, uh, at my property, again, at my property, it would be about 900 right at 1,000 ft from the existing city limits. the sewer would be 6 foot up in the air and uh makes it impossible to do that without some type of a lift station. And he said that estimated and this was like five years ago, the estimate of putting a lift station in would be about a million dollars uh to be able to adequately provide

service down the rest of the way to Buffalo on on Eugene. Now, I realize that the city is anticipating uh for example, my property uh when it was subdivided u about 15 years ago, two u uh easements were uh assigned on both uh on both sides of my property. uh their 12-oot easements uh going north and south from Walker to Eugene and uh I was told that that was for future uh uh sewer and water lines to come in. Now granted, the water line could run down Eugene, but that uh if you if you've been down Walker recently, uh there was a new sewer line put in Walker, basically a feeder line to supply uh the uh [snorts] the new uh quick stop at Buffalo and also to supply along uh Walker Road. So there there is the capacity now to run lines down through there. And this brings me to my next question on this uh and and it it really pertains to this property and to future development because that was addressed in the city's uh the planning commission uh staff summary [snorts] and that is uh who is going to pay for these uh improvements as well as the improvement uh I'm sure all of you love to drive down Eugene and meet some wide load down Eugene Avenue since it doesn't comply with any standards. Uh it did when it was a county uh road, a farm road, but uh it doesn't comply with any state standards or city standards for a city

for uh a what they call an access to a uh thoroughare. Both the the highway and Buffalo are thoroughares and roads between them are supposed to meet a standard and that standard is they have to be a minimum of 8t wide and the portion of the property that you're looking at [snorts] on the map uh this the city uh plot plan uh is only 7 foot wide at this time. In fact, in some places it's you'd be hardressed to call it 6 and 1/2t wide on each lane. And uh so there's improvements have to be done on the road. Now, if you look at the city map, it does show where when when Daryl uh had this uh did this re subdiv this redividing of his property and uh the subdividing of his property, the city required an additional 10 ft on the south side of Eugene. They did the same on my property. Now, the property in between, uh, you'll notice that's where the lake is that or pond that's out there. Uh, that property when when it was sold, uh, transition transferred property owners, they did not pick up that 10 foot. So, they're going to have to purchase some property in there, but uh, to widen this road. But uh one of the things that was mentioned in this summary was uh uh improvements to the road. And again, my next question is uh who is going to pay for this uh widening of the road?

Mr. Cook, if you've got questions, I'd encourage you to visit with city staff. I mean, is there anything you want to testify on directly about this? What I'm saying is that these questions that I have pertain to the long-term what is anticipated for this area here and that what they're doing here. Uh I don't think the city is in any position to provide the services that uh it says are are available for this property. Okay. Very good. Any questions for Mr. Cook? Thank you, sir. Anybody else want to testify on this one?

No one wants voice. Second. Motion by Bane, seconded by Jet to close the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion? No. Michelle, please. and the public hearing is now closed. So, when I read this, um, the first question I had was about Eugene. Okay. What's It seems like the county and the city are playing chicken with whoever has to deal with this first.

Um, Eugene has always been an issue because it was an old county road that has since portions of it has become city property. Um, one of the biggest problems with Eugene is the fact that it's not wide. People have built right up to the um, rightway line. And so at some point um, if you want to go widen that, you will have to do exactly what Mr. Cook said, purchase property from neighbors or you will have to get, you know, go through with eminent domain or something and and get property in order to widen that. So when we do subdivisions along there, what we try to do is widen that right away. Every time there's a subdivision, we try to take, you know, have the property owner dedicate an extra 10 ft, 20 ft, whatever it is, um, to get that along there. And that's what we continue to do as the city grows. We'll continue to do that. Maybe at some point eventually we will have a wide enough road or wide enough rideway that we can put a road in there. But um yeah, I you know, money's involved. Um when you build infrastructure, you assess neighboring property owners typically. That's how roads get put in. That's how water sewer gets put in. It's assessed to neighboring property owners. And I mean costs money. So

does this does this proposed annexation currently have access to city services or are they It does not. They would have to request extension. Um they have no intention of requesting extension. I believe that for the home that is currently being built there, they did put in a well and septic

and city electric I assume. Yes. So through the annexation they they requested this to be annexed but in the process wouldn't it make sense to jump out and make it a big square? Yeah. Okay. So um I don't want to say that they requested it. They really didn't want it annexed but our code says that any subdivision that is created that abuts city limits they are required to request annexation. So, just to clarify, I don't want anybody to think they wanted it necessarily, but that's what our code reads

through the creation of the subdivision. They by statute or by code have to have to say Yeah. have to request it. Yes.

So, um and this should have been done, like I said, quite a while ago because we did the subdivision quite a while ago. It was reszoned to a suburban residential. Um but I just dropped the ball, honestly. I mean, I'm admitting it. I just dropped the ball and didn't get it done. So, since I was going through these annexations, I looked at that and I was like, "Oh, I forgot to do that." So, that's why it's here. Um, and yes, would it make sense to annex the rest of it? I would love to annex more property, but we typically try to not do that as much as possible. And when these annex, you know, when they subdivide, we bring them in. So, that's what we try to do. Makes life a lot easier.

Currently, there's just one lot there now. There's two lots. There's two lots. It's a little small corner one and then a kind of D-shaped. Um it's actually if you can see that blue dotted line. Yep. It it goes essentially how um that annexation is. So it's that blue square that's right up against and then the neighboring property right to the west. That one up in the upper would be leftand corner is not part of the annexation. So that Bala Vista Drive is that that's a private drive. That is a private drive. It's kind of a mess really. It's a little Yeah. Bit strange how it developed. Yes. I mean, there's what I circled them. There's nine houses out here and none of them have their own lot.

Yeah. It's a little different. 10 houses. 10 plus the new one's 11. But it's on it's on its own. It's a good thing they did this because it's over there on its own lot. Yes. because the other one it's just been a mess for years and there's buildings right up I mean it's a maybe a 10 foot wide gravel drive with buildings right up against it right there it's a private drive so you can do anything you want basically I didn't that's why I was wondering I thought named I thought it wouldn't be a private drive but with annexation does that make this a public drive no remains a private drive because it's still on private property yep Are there addresses there? Yeah. Yes.

That's what all those number 17 numbers are. Yep. [laughter] It is interesting. I keep hoping sooner or later the city and the county will get together and figure this one out on Eugene because it's a mess. It's a safety hazard. I think we've lost a fire truck into that ditch at one point in time. I mean, if you've gone down that street and a semi's coming at you, scare the living daylights out of you. Yeah, there's plenty of driveways turning. [laughter] So,

yep. All right. Any more discussion on this? Not. There's a proposed motion there. I move to make a recommendation to annex into the corporate limits of city and north flat partial ID number 0054621.67 and 0054621.68 described as lot 1 and two. Brandon second administrative subdivision to link county Nebraska. [clears throat] Motion by Bane, seconded by Davies to recommend annexation. Any more discussion on this one? Not sh please. [clears throat]

Yeah, he just did it and the recommendation is made. This will go on to city council for their review. When will that? Um, it'll go November 4th and annexations have to be read three different times. So, it'll go into December. There you go. All right. Item number six, public hearing discussion consider on annexation of lot 13 Cody Land and Cattle in part of tract E, Lincoln County, Nebraska. Judy.

Okay. Again, you should have on this one, you should have an actual request for annexation and then a map showing the area to be annexed. Um, the proposed annexation was requested by the current owner. The letter of request is attached for your review. Um, again, this um this does consist of approximately 2 acres. Reasons for annexation include equity for taxpayers, clarity of service areas for maintenance and emergency response, allowing for continued growth of North Plat in an efficient and orderly fashion, increased population increases, possible economic and funding opportunities, and lane miles increase allowing for additional road development and [snorts] funding options. The proposed annexation is urban in character, abuing and adjacent to current city limits, and has city infrastructure improvements. Planning staff does recommend adoption of the proposed annexation. And this is um essentially a mobile home park um on 19th and Madison, close to Madison.

Okay. Like the last one, this is a public hearing. Uh anybody want to talk on this? This is item number six, annexation of lot 13, Cody Land and Cattle Company. Going once, going twice. Make a motion we close public hearing. Motion by Bane, seconded by Davies, close the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion? Not public hearing is now closed. So this one they actually did. Yes. Not I have to because that's what the rule says. Correct. They actually want to be They actually want to be annexed. Yes.

This a little. So each of those numbers from 1901 to 2021 is a lot. It is a address. It is a mobile home. It is just one lot. So this is a mobile home park. Each of those addresses is an individual mobile home space. Spot. Okay. Yep. And is there currently water and sewer to those lots?

Yes. um water, sewer, electric. Um I believe right now he pays the entire bill himself and then charges the mobile home owners. Um at this point, if he's in city limits, he is looking at the possibility of individually metering each of those. Is there storms who are there? That I cannot answer. I do not believe. So So it's just ditch between the street. I don't think there's storms. Pardon? No, there's not a ditch. No. Yeah, there's a ditch. No storm. So will that have to be changed?

Um, it could be in the future. It's not on the plans right now. It's not mandated that you have to change that immediately. Yeah, I' mandated as far as forcing them to hook up or anything like that. They're never forced to hook up to city water and sewer in this instance. They're already right set up. But is there any other mandates as far as city street, city curb, gutter, stom? Okay. No,

just so I have Do they access those lots off of Madison there? Um they access those lots off of that 19th Street and then right to the um west of the mobile home park there is a private drive that is part of that um right under the city limit the red Yeah, pretty much right under line. Okay, thank you. Yep. Yep.

Any other discussion? I move to make a recommendation to annex into corporate limits in city of north flat partial ID number 0054535.00 described as lot 13 Cody Lamb and cattle in part of tract Lincoln County Nebraska. Second motion by Bane seconded by Jet to make a recommendation to annex. Any more discussion on this one? Not Michelle please. And that recommendation is made. And this again will go to city council on November 4th.

Item number seven, discuss and consider action on a resolution regarding the city of Orat Devco housing uh project redevelopment plan pursuant to redevelopment law on property described as locked 678 9 and 10. Mulligan Meadows 4th subdivision Lincoln County, Nebraska. Judy.

Okay. And you should have all received a copy of the review comments. Attached to that is a resolution and attached to the resolution is the um redevelopment plan for the area. Um city planning commission's responsibility in a redevelopment process is to take public comment on whether the real estate described as in conformance with the city of North comprehensive plan and if the project meets or will meet the subdivision and zoning regulations and is an overall fit for development of the city. The following statement should be considered and confirmed. The property as presented is located in an area that has been declared blighted and substandard. The property is in conformance with current city of Northplat comprehensive plan. The project meets or will meet subdivision regulations and the development of this property to its full potential is in the best interest of the city of North Plat and the retire and the entire region. The principal purpose of a comprehensive plan is to provide basic policies to guide many activities of the city. It is used to help determine investment priorities and guide public and private development. At the same time, a comprehensive plan must be flexible in order to address changing conditions and respond to new situations that cannot be foreseen at the time of adoption. One goal of the current city of Northplac comprehensive plan is to create sufficient housing stock to provide safe choices and option for types of units and by cost. Sufficient housing stock and opt stock and options is obtained by redeveloping underutilized land with a mix of land uses that encourage new housing options, neighborhood services, and a variety of transportation options such as sidewalks, paths, trails, and roads. Reducing the number of substandard housing units in the community. Creating alternative housing options such as senior housing or low to moderate income housing. providing incentives such as density bonuses for redevelopment of areas with substandard housing stocked into safe affordable housing, including housing programs that encourage construction of multif family

rental units and affirm and support fair housing practices in Northplat and prepare the future growth by extending city infrastructure to areas targeted for development. As presented in the redevelopment plan, the project intends to continue development of Mulligan Meadows project to meet the demand for workforce housing. The project continues the original project and constitutes phase four and five of development pursuant to Nebraska community redevelopment law. Phase four will include the extension of 15th Street and will include fourth four to five single family homes along that street. Phase five will include construction of Curtis Avenue, which is going to run north and south. And the single family homes are intended to be moderately priced and specifically intended for those working families. Planning staff recommends approval of the city of Northflat Devco housing project redevelopment plan and passage of the attached resolution. The redevelopment plan is in conformance with the Northplat comprehensive plan 2011 and meets current city of Northplat subdivision and zoning regulations. The property is located in an area that has been declared lighted and substandard. This area is appropriate for residential development. It is surrounded by single family owner occupied and single family rental units. The proposed residential development in this location is a good fit for the area and overall growth of the city of North Plat. If you have any questions, a representative for the application is in the audience or I will be happy to answer any also.

All righty. This is a public hearing as uh described earlier. The rules are still in effect and without the public hearing on this is open. Come on up if you'd like to testify. Hi Gary. Hi. Been a while.

Gary Pearson, uh, president Northclad Area Chamber Development Corporation um, located at 502 South Dwey. Um, [clears throat] that Judy described what we're asking very well. Uh one of the reasons we're modifying our original plan is that in the corner um we are doing a 12plex uh multifamily um facility. Uh that would be three different forplexes. We got a Nebraska rural workforce housing fund grant uh to be able to do that. We felt it was a great fit here because uh Bonavilla Homes would also construct the basic structure. uh the rest of the construction will be done by uh contractor that's also involved in the in the project and we'll eventually have ownership of that and we've got to be a good feeder system going into our other workforce housing being developed there with modular homes. uh the lots that Judy described. Um we originally our master plan called for 51 uh homes in that area. Um and that will be reduced to 49 because we'll now have the multif family in the corner. There's also a drainage ditch there that needs to be rerouted. So there's expense in doing that and making sure that we're protecting the whole subdivision. So, um, uh, we've had some, uh, a lot of experts on our team like Brandon and, uh, Brent that was part of our chamber development team, uh, that, uh, designed this and and made sure that we could, uh, develop it the proper way that's definitely serving the purpose of, uh, workforce housing and at a level we're not seeing elsewhere in the community. homes are really well built and uh it's turning in kind of a model subdivision to do something creative. We wanted to do something for the north side of town. Also, we're taking all the risk as an organization on the cost of the infrastructure and the lots going in

there and by using uh the money to do that through TIFF and other avenues um we're reducing the house of the co the cost of the house by that amount. So really is serving the purpose it was intended to be and ask for u your acceptance of it passing it on and uh we definitely feel it conforms with the comprehensive plan. Any questions for Gary? You're going to reroute that dish. Can you get it around the golf course so I quit hitting golf balls into that water?

[laughter] It won't help you with your slice. Dang it. Any other Anybody else want to testify on this one? Going once, going twice. Make a motion we close public hearing. Second.

Motion by Bane, seconded by Davies to the public hearing on this one. Any discussion on that motion? Shell's getting used to me and the public hearing is now closed. So, if I remember my instruction correctly from councelor Trajinski, the four points that we need to make sure we touch on are property is as presented is lo is located in an area that has been declared blighted substandard. I think that's pretty clear. Property is in conformance current city nor conference plan. That's a yes. project meets or will meet subdivision and zoning regulations. Yes, the development of this property to its full potential is in the best interest of city north plat the entire region. I leave that to you. My opinion is yes. Just to clarify because I'm u slow the part that's under the cloud with the squiggly lines. Yes. So that's lot one two three utility lot four is that and five is the big one. That's what we're talking about.

Yes. Okay. And five is where the multiamp family goes. Yep. That to be created street will be everything. Yep. North. Yep. is the [clears throat] multifamily rental property or is okay. Yes. Thank you. [cough and clears throat] Any other discussion on this?

I move to approve the resolution recommending approval of the city of Northplat devco housing project redevelopment plan and approval of related actions. Motion by Jet, seconded by Bane to approve or recommend approval. Any more discussion on this one, Gary? This turned into a heck of a nice project over there. Thank you. Appreciate your work on it. Yep. Not Michelle. Let's planning commission recommends approval. This will go to the city council on November 4th as a public hearing.

All righty. Uh, item number eight, the actual description is a page and a half. I'm not going to bore you all with reading the entire thing. Item number eight is discussion consider action of and on adoption of the city of North Plat 2025 annexation plan East Sixth Street and the proposed annexation of properties described in the study more particularly uh and you've all got the list uh as described in the agenda and the committee packet. So, uh, Judy.

Okay. So, you should have all received a copy of the review comments. It's kind of interesting. Okay. So, you all should have received a copy of the review comments. Um, attached to that is a um, annexation study. And hopefully you all had a chance to look through that. City of Northplat's annexation policy is the basis for the study and is summarized in chapter 11 annexation of the city of Northplat's comprehensive plan and amendments. The city of Northplat has established an annexation policy which is consistent with the provisions allowed by the state of Nebraska. This policy is as follows. All areas are deemed to be urban and suburban in character adjacent to the corporate limits of Northplat shall be considered eligible for annexation and annexed according to the revised Nebraska statutes. The city of Northplat shall discourage the use of sanitary improvement districts within its extraterial extr territorial jurisdiction. If SIDs are approved and within the extr territorial jurisdiction, then there needs to be an agreement as part of the subdivision agreement that the SID will not protest any future annexation undertaken by the city of North Plat. The city of Northplat shall require the owner of any and all properties adjacent to the corporate limits of the city of Northplat to file subdivision plats on such properties as addition to the city of Northplat. All sand and gravel operations within the extr territorial jurisdiction shall be considered to be urban and suburban in character. The city of Northplat shall consider extension of ext of the extr territorial jurisdiction of the city along with all the improved annexations. All areas surrounded by the corporate limits of northplat shall be considered for annexation. County industrial tracks should periodically be reviewed as allowed by revised state statute for

consideration of annexation. Once potential annexation areas were identified using the above criteria, information and comments were solicited from city of Northplat staff within various city departments. Those staff members were invited to provide comments on the feedback on the potential impacts to capital improvement pro programs, operations, and maintenance budgets regarding possible annexation areas. Potential annexation areas identified that met at least one of the above criteria were analyzed. Land that will likely be annexed through other means was removed from consideration. For example, land adjacent to city limits but otherwise rural in character um will be annexed when property is subdivided. Planning staff identified nine areas for immediate annexation. All nine areas are summarized in the 2025 annexation plan and attached maps. These areas include a mixture of business, commercial properties, and residential homes. The proposed annexation areas consist of approximately 23 23.69 acres. Detailed information about each area can be found on the beginning of page 12 of the plan. And planning staff does recommend adoption of the plan and the proposed annexations. If you have any questions, I am happy to help.

All righty. This is also a public hearing. Uh reminder of the uh prior uh rules that I guidelines rules guidelines uh that uh I read earlier. And with that, the public hearing on this matter is now open. Who would like to go first? Somebody got to go first. Come on up. I don't bite. Name name and address, please. My name is Donnie Arson. I'm at 1708 East 6th Street.

Go ahead, Donnie. and myself and my family has an interest in 1800 block on East 6th Street, the 1,800 block on East 6th Street, the 2,000 block on East Sixth Street, and then I also own the property on the north side that you plan on annexing. And I am completely against annexation. It's going to cost me a lot more and city tax property taxes. I see no benefit at this time for it. I know a year or two ago, maybe longer, the north side of the Traxxas Tried and they bought it and it didn't go through. And anybody I've talked to in this area is against it. And so, you know, that's that's basically what I have to say. It's it's no benefit to me. and the property on the north side. You probably don't remember him, but uh J.R. Kessler owned that initially when he uh when the north side was annexed and his son Barry Kesler was on the council and so he managed to not get that. And I usually have a horse or a couple cows or something over there. It is not really residential. It's more or something like that. And I do have um someone that's looking to buy a couple of calves to grades. So that's all I have to say unless you have questions.

Any questions? Thank you, ma'am. Uh didn't get the first one up and then got two up the same time. Yeah.

Uh, my name is Ed Sterner. I live at 21101 East 6th Street. I've been there for 13 years. Um, I'm not in favor of annexation. I um not bought this property. When I bought this property, if I thought there was any any chance of being annex annexation property, I feel like the property taxes will increase. high enough they do it the way it is now. You can hardly make it work on an income social security. Um sales tax. This is Stone County, so we do not pay the 2% sales tax. If I were to go buy a new $50,000 vehicle, that makes a lot of dollars. Um, I also have horses, livestock there, which would have to be grandfathered in, I would think. Um, I guess that's pretty much all I've got to say. This first time I've ever done anything like this. I'm a country boy, so I don't really have any any foundation basis on. Um, I like my place. I've kept my place up. Place looks nice. We drive by. I try to keep for the most part I try to keep it orderly and and neat. I just I don't want to be I don't want to be in the city.

Good. Any questions for Mr. Sterner? Thank you, sir.

Thank Yeah, my name John Ericson. I'm 17086 Street. One thing I would like to compliment the people so far on that I've heard, there seem to be several of you that have a lot of common sense, which really shocks me because I've heard a lot of other stuff, you know, but in the process of it, I looked at how things are set up. that property on Sixth Street East that's outside of City Limiter. There's several people that have goats, chickens, horses. As a matter of fact, I ran into the sheriff at the Whites consignment auction the other day and I was telling him said, "I read something about that." He said, "The city has nothing to gain by that." He said, "It's ridiculous." But in the process of of this part of that ground that we have back there, I had I was licensed with the state of Nebraska for multiple years as a as a junkyard. We had a car crusher and so forth and we' got clear behind. My my folks took turns getting sick and took turns dying and my brother stopped and took care of them. So I went out and paid bills. I drove a semi-truck to Denver every day and we got everything paid for and now we're both old and we're retired so we can actually straighten stuff up. I talked to Dave Hond about some of the houses down there that while I was gone making the money, people came along and broke the windows out and that sort of thing and and even one of the blocks that was taken in that was part of the junkyard several years ago. Uh we were never informed about it or nothing. It just all of a sudden got in and part of it they were going to take some more of this in in the future. This has been and one of the city councilman came and approached me and said, "John,

you better show up at the next meeting because they're trying to take that in too without telling you." And I it's no reflection on you people. It was se multiple years ago. But what what we do there, like I said, it's not just me. everybody that we talked to all the way to the end of the end of the thing and they would have been here. Uh Brent, he's he runs a he's an electrician, does electrical work around town and everything. His him and his whole family is sick. He said if you need he said I I could represent him. He said if you need to he could get on speaker phone, but his him and his whole family is sick. So he's at home. But I talked to every everybody along there to find out their view. And uh not a single one wants wants that annexed into city limits. You know that it's just it's right by the tracks. It at one time it was under county. It was it was zoned for uh heavy industrial and then it some of it got switched around and changed. One of the blocks that got taken into city limits belonged to Mclofflin and it's all cleaned up now that they're working on it. But in the process of it, that's the only one that was zoned light industrial that whole block. Well, Georgia Cliff was a county attorney for years and a good friend anyway. He said that they can't spot zone. He said legally they have to take the whole block in. He said they do it, but he said legally they're not supposed to do it. I have no idea. I just know what he told me. But in the process of it, like I said, there's a lot of people everybody that that includes into that area doesn't want anything to do with it. You know, there's and all I can do is put forth what I have to say and see how see how the chips fall where they are. But in the process, uh, anybody that's been through that area, it's low water. It's, you know, it's called the

Lower East Side for a reason, you know, in the process. Uh, well, that really, anybody have any questions that I could answer? I, uh, I looked at things that, you know, we don't want an HOA in homeowners association. If you want to live in a gated community and everything is exactly, oh, paint this house the same, you can't park here, you do this. That's fine if that's what you want to do. I don't want the city as an HOA. I don't want the county as an HOA, and I don't want the whole state as an HOA. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, your happiness might not be the same as mine, but in the process of it, if collectively people, well, it's best for the whole group. The whole group. And if you take that collectively, that's socialism. If you send out the police or the sheriff or shall we say the Gestapo to enforce stuff that violates personal rights that this country was founded on, there's something wrong. Unless it's an a grievous violation that would cause harm to people. To me, it makes that common sense should enter into this stuff. But I don't know if I run my mouth too much, but anyway, I appreciate it.

Thank you. Any question? Question for you though before you leave if if I may. Uh, is your home in this area? Right across the street. I own all of it up there. So, I guess I would Do you live in this area? Is your home in Right. You bet. Okay. Steals is right across the street from where I live. Okay. And is uh are you on City Water and Sewer? At at home? Yeah. Uh, I'm on uh city sewer. Okay. because it it runs down the alley. There's nothing on Sixth Street. They they did put in a city a sewer

from Steels West because it was there was some already hooked up to it and they hooked it there and they never went out for bids or a thing. They came had them come down and put it in and [clears throat] Mr. Steel come and told me he said John cost you anything because he said I have people at work that come to work and they want to flood my septic tank that I have to have pumped all the time. So he wanted hooked up to city sewer. Well they never went for bid. It never did anything. They hooked it up. The guys that were putting the sewer out across over towards the the new for the truck stops and the packing plant thing and stuff that went out back. They just came in and did it.

Okay. But we did get a bill for $27,000. And if you don't pay that, they put that on your taxes. And if you don't pay that, it's 14% interest, you know, and so I know how that I know how that works. So there is some sewer in place. Are there other are the other places to hook up the sewage water and sewer? Nope. Nope. And there there's going to be no housing there. Like I said, it was a junkyard

and that's where it will be. Like I said, I was licensed with the state of Nebraska for multiple years and they just dropped that a few years ago. They said, "Well, they're going to let that from now on that's going to go with the cities." Well, I'm pretty sure if it was in the city how I how I would fare, you know. So, the city all the city has to offer me is services and I've been serviced enough. Yeah. Great. Thank you. All right. Anybody else want to test? Yep. Come on up.

Jeff Ericson, 2001 East 6th Street. Uh, I have farm animals. The large lot. The railroad tracks are directly behind me. So noisy. It's loud. The feed lot or the sail barn is directly across from me. It's loud. Dust clouds. Noisy. I don't see what the city has to do with my whole street. It's been that way since I've lived there. Pretty much live lived there my whole life and nobody that I've talked to wants to be in the city limits. Um, as far as services, things like that, it's really low. uh if we get a lot of rain in town that hits that vio dock that they put up over Newberry and the water backs up and it'll be this deep sometimes in the backyards. So, I mean, there's going to be considerable expense for the city to try to bring this up to city standards, I think. Can I I have a feeling there's people that don't like the way our street looks and [snorts] I guess my advice to them is it's not for everybody, but you don't have to go down my street. There's multiple streets that you can get on Fourth Street, this street, however you want to. Uh, I'm hooked up to city sewer and city water and I my property paid for the those to go across, but I have to pay a double minimum to use it even though it's a city line that the people across the street don't have to pay that for. Have I complained about it? No, because I'd rather not get involved in this situation we're in right now. It's fine. I'll pay it. I I think people need to look at these houses and these areas and uh as a future why why can't we have houses that are right outside the city? So you can have a little bit of a rural life and still have

a town next to it. You don't have to live 15 miles out or 5 miles out. Maybe an older gentleman can't get around as well, but he still likes to have horses and that allows that. you know, you start bringing the city rules in. You guys are fighting about RVs [snorts] on the side of your house, you know, I mean, it's like we have big lots. That's the least of our problems right now. And uh I think if there's a problem the city has with our community and what it looks like on our street, maybe talk with the county and talk with us and we'll work something out. But I don't see why it needs to be annexed in. And uh was is there a reason why it's getting annexed in? Is there a subdivision thing that happened or anything? Or who brought this up?

Just it was just city initiated because the area um everybody pretty much everybody out there has access to city water, sewer, and electric and are utilizing city water, sewer, and electric utilizing paved roads um that are public paved roads. And it's just an extension of the city. I mean, it it's makes sense to bring them into the city. Um, just for clarification, just so everyone understands, um, when they're right up against city limits, they do all follow fall under the extr territorial jurisdiction. So, they're already following city building code, city um, regulations when it comes to planning and zoning. So if they, you know, they're zoned residential and industrial in that area. There's no area that is zoned egg. They may have animals out there, but they're still zoned residential or industrial. Just for clarification, I wanted to make sure everybody understood that because they're saying that they don't want to be under the rules. They are currently under the rules. So

I a copy of that. I want I want to see like directly where the city has the authority to do anything they want. I heard this two-mile jurisdiction in multiple situations. Nobody's ever showed me any of it. I know the city police won't come to my house. Correct. Because that because you are outside city limits. So city policing is different. So the only thing that is in the ETJ is the extr territorial jurisdiction is planning, zoning, and building. So was there supposed to be sidewalks in front of my house? Um there should have been when that was originally developed cutters and [snorts] it's county. It's county not city. Let's

but right across the road there is city but I'm county and I mean you can look at the swast that comes in from the railroad tracks. Will they be in city limits? Are they That's what I understand. What's the railroad when you annex public right away, which a railroad would be considered a public ride away would be annexed into the city? Yes.

Okay. So then what about what what like in town? What about the noise level of the railroad? Because the tracks we're so low, you can stand in my yard and the tracks the wheels are at ear level. So we're dealing with noises, all this stuff. And I have no problem with that right now. But this becomes city property. I mean, do I start complaining about this and then we figure out, do we put a wall in? I mean, what at what point does this stop? Why can't we just leave it the way it is now? And if you have a problem with the cars, talk to people, talk to the county, talk to me, and we'll figure it out. We all talk to each other down our street and we can work it out.

Any questions for Mr. Ericson? Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Going once. One more.

Come on. [laughter] I do there is there is city water or city sewer runs from middle of steel's deal out to the end of Sixth Street and the city water doesn't go all that distance and the the two blocks uh west of there are not on city water or city sewer. There will be no housing there at all. They're being torn going to be torn down. I've talked to Dave Hon about getting a permit to to dismantle it. You know what I've got there and uh but that was all that was all county not city and it's been that way for anyway.

Thank you. All right. Anybody else? Go once. Going twice. Make a

motion to close public hearing. Motion by Bane, seconded by Davies to close the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion, [clears throat] please. And the public hearing is now closed. Okay. We're going to talk about this up here now. Okay. Oh, by the way, whatever we decide up here in vinyl tonight, it has to be read at city council three times. So just Okay. Oh, wait.

Um just for all the planning commissioners uh to to know Nebraska statute provides for the two mile extr territorial jur zoning jurisdiction. So it applies to um things like um building codes, zoning, different things that are set forth in statute. So,

I for the record I did get a call from uh Scott Steel. Uh he talked to me about it. Didn't really express um a view one way. The other did say that when they put that street in or overlaid the street, it created a lake in front of his building because there's no storm sewer through there. and he wasn't very happy about that, especially in the winter time when it freezes and it becomes an ice skating rink for as long as it takes for that to go away. So, he did send me some pictures that I have forwarded on to the city engineer. There's definitely

Yeah, I I think we may have contributed to that problem when we overlaid that street. So, that was I wanted to pass that along. Scott's not in town. I'm aware of that. Uh because I talked to him earlier today as well. So, Um, I just wanted to point out one thing. At the back of that, um, annexation plan, it does show um, names and addresses and then the services that are available. Um, some of those individuals are hooked up to all three, water, city, water, sewer, and um, electric. Some of them are hooked up to just water and sewer. Some of them are hooked up to just one service. And then of course some properties are not hooked up to any of it. But I [snorts] just wanted to point that out that you know it is available to most of the area. There are a few areas. Um and if you look through that annexation plan it does show you exactly where the water and sewer runs um and what services would be needed in a couple of areas but the majority of the areas do have access to city water sewer and electric.

It goes to bsentennial. Correct. What was that? It goes to bsentennial. Yeah. Um the block that um there's one block that doesn't have one and one block that doesn't have the other one. But let me tell you which block that is and what

um um let's see here. Um so that first one in area A um it looks like um that one would require extension of water and sewer. And then I believe area B I'm thinking um um the water does exist there on the east end of that. um it would need to be extended a little bit to reach the rest of it. And then on C also I believe um oh nope C is a no. So those are the only two that would need some extension of services. The rest of them all have access to now whether they're directly hooked up or not. [clears throat] Yeah,

some of them are, some of them aren't.

[clears throat]

I just want to state for the record that just because we can annex this property doesn't mean we should recommend annexing the property. [snorts] Study says we can and study says some good things. But do we does the is [snorts] that going to create new opportunities for development or um any kind of thing like that? Is it going to help anybody except whoever drew up the annexation plan? It's a long way before I think it's it's a generation before everybody wants to have it be city slick. Does it need to be?

One of the things that I do point out um in the annexation study is um equity. So you have individuals that are outside city limits, not paying city taxes. And I mean this is not just this area. There's other areas in town. Um, but they still are allocated the services of being in the city limits. They've got water, sewer, electric, um, access to city paved roads. So, you as a taxpayer or the rest of the taxpayers in the city are already paying the increased taxes for that same service.

They they're paying fees for those services, aren't they? They are paying a little bit of a fee but it's not a huge difference when it comes to what they are paying but yes. Yes. So are the roads maintained by city? Yes. Like is there trash picked up? Um it could be an interlocal agreement with the county but yes they are roads are maintained by either the city or the county. It could be an interlocal agreement. I would have to pull the interlocal agreement but yes those streets are maintained. Sixth Street is maintained.

What caused the jog in the line and to just to leave a block out? I'm trying to figure Well, if I was hearing correctly, we're not leaving that block out. We're wanting to bring that block in. But if I was hearing correctly, well, that was before my time, but if I was hearing correctly from the testimony, it said that one of the individuals was on the council at the time, and so that's why the cutout was occurred. So that would be the old Kesler property. That would be the old Kesler property.

Did anyone request the study be completed? Any of the one in the area? We have how is it that we have this study? Because what I try to do as a planner is make sure that we um do things appropriately and when individuals are again hooked up to city water, sewer, have access to city improved roads, um are getting the benefits of being within city limits without being within city limits, then it's time to take a look at what's going on for future development of the city. [snorts]

Um, so yeah, I am looking all over town at other areas um that could be annexed and so this was one of them that just um stuck out simply because they do have all the city improvements. [snorts] I [clears throat] guess my thoughts on the whole thing is I was shocked that it wasn't already in the city because of where it's at and located. I'm kind of shocked that whole north area is not part of the city.

Yep. Um, so I am kind of shocked that it is outside of the area and at the same time I see exactly where you guys are coming from. I mean it makes sense. You don't want to be in there. It's not in there. It's not bringing it in. But you are using part of the surfaces which can be done. And so I I feel from you know this is a very tough situation we're in. You know where do we look at it? So my thoughts is you know stepping back this does go to the commissioners who are elected. We are a planning commission but we have to look at it on a commission side. what's best for the city and the planning of the city. And that's where I I guess I side with the fact that one, it probably should have been in at one time, if not now, and now is probably as good a time as any. And I, you know, I know somebody said, you know, we're a generation ahead of it. Um, but what's what's going to change? I mean that, you know, it's going to be a better, yes, it's going to raise taxes for the people that are there, but eventually it's going to be able to improve the area to improve future generations to be there and improve the city overall, which is what planning is here to be for, is to improve the city.

Well, and I wanted to make a comment, too, just so you understand what our job is here. Our job is to review whether or not this fits with the long-term plan of what the city is. It's not our job to determine whether or not it passes. It's our job to look at it from 60,000 ft and say from the city standpoint, does this ultimately make sense? Whether that's today, whether it's a generation from now or whatnot. So, we have very different roles than the city council has. Um, our job is to look at planning and zoning law and say, is this should this be in city limits at some point in time? then it's up to the council to determine whether or not

now is the time or it's not the time. So we have really different rev we're kind of a review organization where they're a policy and lawmaking organization. I hope that makes some sense. So, um, if this is indeed annexed, what happens to the, uh, animals that were out there? Their old grandfather did grandfathered. They're currently already, I mean, technically, if you look at it from a zoning perspective, they're currently not meeting code. So, since they've been there, they've always been there. When that property was zoned to either industrial or residential, which was before my time, they would be considered legal non-conforming uses. So in our

so even if we bring it into city limits, they would still be allowed to continue to use that. Okay. So in our our lingo, that would be a nonconforming use, but you'd be allowed to do it as long as you still own the property and and we're still running it in the same way. Basically, if any other if if and when that would sell, then that non-conforming use

is gone. non-conforming uses go with the property. So, it's probably had animals there for, you know, I don't know how many years. So, as long as the animals stay there, then they're allowed to stay no matter what it gets resoned. If it gets reszoned to single family residential, they would still be allowed to stay there until such time as that non-conforming use is vacated. So, even if they sell it to another property owner, that property owner can still use it with animals on it. But once it's vacated for more than 12 months, then that goes away and they have to revert to what the current zoning is. Tell me if I'm wrong. Good. Okay.

And and my comment was the best way to understand that is if it's a continuous use, it continues as a legal non-conforming use. If you have the interruption, then you you're no longer entitled to a legal non-conforming use status. So, as long as you do it or the people, but as long as there's animals there, you're you can continue to have animals there. They can't stop you. But if it would ever if there would be none for a while, a 12-month period, then they could come in and enforce the law, enforce the statute. Okay. [snorts] The being in or out of the city limits doesn't make any difference on. Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Any other discussion? These things are fun for people up here who volunteer their time. So, uh, we understand there's an impact on you. Um, um, we ultimately get appointed by the mayor and the city council to review this stuff and then they get elected. You put their names on ballots and get elected and have to make the final decision. So, um, whatever happens here today, I'm sure they'll, if we don't recommend, does it go to council? It will go to council either way. either with your regardless positive or

regardless of what happens here goes to council. Okay. So that that's my point. We're a review organization. They're the policy makers. Okay. Anything else?

[clears throat] Well, you can make a motion to either um adopt. The motion would be to either recommend adoption or to not recommend adoption. If I move to not adopt and that is turned down, that's not an adoption. That's correct. There' have to be a motion, an affirmative motion to adopt.

That's correct. [laughter] Anyone? Well, then I move to make a recommendation to not adopt the city of North Plat 2025 annexation plan East 6th Street including proposed annexation of 31 parcel ID numbers and listing and planning commission materials as survey plat and recorded by the Lincoln County Register Beach. Second motion by Vanvelson, seconded by Jet. Okay. Now, to make sure everybody understands, if you vote yes, you're voting no. That's correct. Does that make sense?

Yes. If you vote yes, you're voting no. Any more discussion on that? No. [laughter] Michelle, please. Motion passes. This body recommends not adopting. This will still go on to city council. Okay. So, if you want to speak, come to the city council.

All right. Item number nine, old business. Any old business? Um, I got nothing. Item number 10. Um, our next meeting would be scheduled for the week of Thanksgiving on Tuesday the 25th. Nelson's already said he can't be here. Do we need to hunt? I'm I'm here. I'm here. I'm here as well. I'm here. Okay. Sounds like we're leaving it. Okay. Any other new business? I got

for the redevelopment plan.