Papillion Board of Adjustment

MINUTE RECORD

PAPILLION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

APRIL 14 2009– 7:00 PM

The Papillion Board of Adjustment met in open and public session at the Papillion Council Chambers on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Michael Mallory called the meeting to order. Planning Assistant Michelle Wehenkel called the roll. Members present wereJan Huff,Herb Thompson,and Robert Tribolet.Alternate Brian Hovey was not present. Planning Director Mark Stursma and City Attorney Michael Schirber were also present.

Notice of the meeting was given in advance by publication in the Papillion Times on April 2, 2009. Copies of publication are on file at the Office of the City Clerk.

Chairman Mallory led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Motion by Mr. Huff,seconded by Mr.Thompson, to approve the agenda. Roll call: Four yeas, no nays. Motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2008

Motion by Mr. Huff, seconded by Mr. Tribolet, to approve the April 8, 2008 minutes. Roll call: Four yeas, no nays. Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING

To consider a request for a variance from §205-94 (Site Development Regulations), for the property legally described as Lots P1, Q1, Q2, R1, R2, S1A1A, S1B, and S1C, Parson’s Subdivision, a subdivision as surveyed, platted, and recorded in Sarpy County, NE, generally located at 213, 213 ½, 225, and 233 S. Washington St. The applicant is Derek Ferrell. VAR-09-0001

Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing.

Derek Ferrell, 12478 Evans St. (Omaha) stepped forward as the applicant. He advised that the variance covers a number of lots. Lots R1 and R2 were sold to the church but they need Lots S1B and S1C for parking and access. He advised that a variance is needed for Lot R2 because the minimum lot width permitted is 50 feet; however, the lot width is only 40 feet. He stated that the front yard setback variance is needed because of the land that was taken as right-of-way for the expansion of Washington St.

Chairman Mallory asked if Mr. Ferrell was asking for two variances to reduce the front yard setback and to reduce the minimum lot width for Lot R2. Mr. Ferrell confirmed.

Mr. Huff inquired about the ownership of Lots R1 and R2. Mr. Ferrell advised that the owner is PapioCreekChurch. He noted that a representative from the church was present at the meeting.

Mr. Huff requested confirmation that the variance is for two property owners. Chairman Mallory confirmed that the application was signed by both property owners. Mr. Schirber advised that Mr. Ferrell has standing to request the variance.

Mr. Huff asked Mr. Ferrell if the city took the right-of-way. Mr. Ferrell advised that the right-of-way appeared to be taken in 1979 but is not sure if it was taken by the city or the state. Mr. Schirber advised that the state would have the responsibility for taking the right-of-way as Washington St. is a state highway. Chairman Mallory noted that right-of-way could have been taken as part of an expansion of Washington St. after 1979.

Mr. Stursma advised that it appears that part of the original lots was taken as right-of-way based on the history. The interior lot lines are six to eight feet shorter than originally platted.

Mr. Ferrell advised that he was unable to find the document showing the taking of the land for right-of-way due to the age of the records. Mr. Stursma reiterated that it appears that six to eight feet of the lots was taken as right-of-way at some point.

Mr. Tribolet noted that the lots other than Lot S1A1A appear to encroach on Washington St. He asked for clarification on why Lot S1A1A is part of the variance. Mr. Ferrell explained that Lot S1A1A is part of the parcel where his building is located. He wants to consolidate the lots to match the building locations.

Mr. Tribolet questioned if Lot S1A1A requires a variance for the front yard setback or lot width. Mr. Ferrell advised that the only issue with Lot S1A1A is the ability to meet the 3 to 1 ratio requirement.

Mr. Huff asked if the variance would impact the sidewalks in front of the buildings. Mr. Ferrell confirmed that it would not impact the sidewalks.

Chairman Mallory advised that applicant that a hardship must be shown. He asked the applicant to summarize the hardship. Mr. Ferrell advised that the church needs to purchase part of his parcel to address the parking issues related to their purchase of Lots R1 and R2. Additionally, Lot S1C needs to be consolidated with Lot Q2 because it is an accessory structure to a building on that lot. He advised that changing the lot lines to match the building configurations would make the process simpler. The lot lines would then match the ownership. He stated that the variance would allow him to consolidate eight lots into three lots.

Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents. Seeing or hearing none, Chairman Mallory advised Mr. Ferrell that only four of the five Board of Adjustment members were present. He stated that all four members would be required to unanimously vote to grant the variance. He questioned if Mr. Ferrell wanted to continue the public hearing or move forward with the request. Mr. Ferrell confirmed that he wanted to move forward with the request. Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and asked for discussion amongst the Board.

Mr. Huff noted that in order to grant a variance the hardship cannot be shared by other properties in the general vicinity. He questioned if Gene’s Automotive would be impacted by the same issues as Mr. Ferrell’s lots. Chairman Mallory advised that Gene’s Automotive does not encroach on the Washington St. right-of-way. Mr. Stursma advised that the purpose of Mr. Ferrell’s property is to assist with the sale of the lots. He noted that the parcel consists of a hodgepodge of lots. The property is difficult to transfer because it is legally nonconforming. Mr. Stursma explained that a variance is needed so the lots can be replatted. The lots cannot be replatted at this time because they do not meet to the current setbacks. He advised that a plat cannot be approved if it violates the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Stursma also noted that one of the lots does not meet the minimum lot width requirement. He observed that if the three lots on which Gene’s Automotive were consolidated the front yard setback would not be an issue. There may be difficultly meeting the side yard and rear yard setbacks but that is different than this request.

Mr. Thompson questioned if the variance request presents the required hardship versus a profit hardship. Mr. Huff concurred. Mr. Ferrell advised that two lots have already been sold to the church so profit is not an issue. His plan is provide the church with parking from Lots S1C and S1B. Mr. Stursma noted that ownership would not match the current property lines. Mr. Ferrell concurred. He noted that his parcel consists of Lots Q1, Q2, S1A1A, S1B, and S1C. If he sold the property, the next owner could say that the church could not use Lots S1B and S1C. He advised that the church needs the access provided by Lots S1B and S1C.

Chairman Mallory observed that the variance is needed to replat the lots so that the property can be transferred. He noted that the old portion of Papillion has irregular lot lines, property impacted by right-of-way takings, and irregular lot sizes. He advised that variances have been liberally used to clear those situations. An example would be the variance that was granted to provide handicap access to a house. Chairman Mallory stated that the inability to provide clear title to a property due to the lack of planning and zoning in the 1887 would be a hardship.

Mr. Huff questioned if the sale Lots R1 and R2 to the church was complete. Mr. Ferrell confirmed that the sale of those lots was complete but Lots S1C and S1B remain under his ownership. The church cannot have them because some of the lots are part of the Q lot property. He advised that the church need part of Lots S1C and S1B for access.

Mr. Tribolet made a motion, seconded by Thompson, to approve a variancefrom §205-94 (Site Development Regulations), for the property legally described as Lots P1, Q1, Q2, R1, R2, S1A1A, S1B, and S1C, Parson’s Subdivision as requested. Roll call: Four yeas, no nays. Motion approved.

Ms. Wehenkel advised the applicant that there is a 15 day waiting period before the variance is final.

To consider a request for a variance from §205-262 (Maximum Permitted Sign Area) and §205-263 (Permitted Signs by Numbers, Dimensions and Location), for the property legally described as part of Lot 4A1A, Huntington Park, a subdivision as surveyed, platted, and recorded in Sarpy County, NE, generally located at 11111 S. 84th St. The applicant is AlegentHealthMidlandsHospital. VAR-09-0002

Chairman Mallory opened the public hearing.

Bill Coonce, 7806 Manderson Cir. (Omaha), stepped forward as representative for the applicant. He advised that the Office District allows 100 sq. ft. of signage and one freestanding sign which is inadequate for the facility. Mr. Coonce noted that signs were permitted to be added in the past but they are currently in excess of what is allowed. The intent is to update the signs and make the hospital campus more navigable.

Chairman Mallory asked for the number of signs on the property. Mr. Coonce advised that the facility has 39 signs including way finding signs. Chairman Mallory asked how many of the signs are monument signs. Mr. Coonce advised that there are seven existing monument signs.

Chairman Mallory requested confirmation that the variance would allow less signage than is currently on site. Mr. Coonce confirmed.

Chairman Mallory called for proponents and opponents.

Bradley Rodgers, 103 Concord Cir., questioned if the size of the signs would change. Mr. Coonce advised that some of the sizes would change; however, most will decrease in size. Mr. Rodgers asked if lights would be added. Mr. Coonce advised that the signs will be internally or halo lit. Mr. Rodgers advised that his concern is the amount of light that will impact surrounding properties. He does not want the amount of light to increase.

Chairman Mallory requested confirmation that the applicant is requesting to increase the permitted sign height from 15 ft. to 18 ft. Mr. Coonce confirmed. He advised that the current sign heights are 15 ft. and 20 ft. so the proposed 18 ft. sign would be shorter.

Chairman Mallory requested clarification sign heights. Mr. Coonce advised that the hospital one of the two existing signs is over 15 ft. in height. The proposed 18 ft. sign will be shorter than the existing sign which is 20 ft. tall.

Mr. Huff questioned if the current signage is in violation of the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Stursma advised that he does not know the history of the signage approvals because it pre-dates his time as Planning Director. He noted that it appears that the city has been liberal with allowing way finding signs. Way finding signs are exempt from regulation and are not part of the sign budget. He noted that by definition way finding signs cannot contain advertising; however, it is important to be able to locate emergency rooms so the hospital name is allowed. He noted that the lot has a significant square footage of signs but many are exempt.

Mr. Huff questioned if the construction and data center signs would be removed. Mike Haijsman, 26360 Honeysuckle (McClelland, IA), with Alegent Health Property Management, advised that those are temporary construction signs that will become small way finding signs. The data center will have an attached sign. Mr. Haijsman explained that the intent is to remove the inadequate signs and provide signage for the data center. The signs for the data center are included in the numbers that were provided.

Chairman Mallory advised that applicant that a hardship must be shown. He asked the applicant to summarize the hardship. Mr. Haijsmanadvised that most of the monument and directional signs have “emergency” on them. It is important for the people in the community to be able to locate the emergency room. He noted that the signs are needed to direct the public to the appropriate locations. Mr. Haijsman explained that the inability to update the signs would be a hardship to the community.

Chairman Mallory questioned if Mr. Haijsman was saying that the hardship ispublic safety. Mr. Haijsmanadvised that this is a public safety issue.

Mr. Thompson asked for clarification regarding where the signs would be located. Mr. Haijsman advised that a new sign type has been developed. He noted that the existing signs are weathered and some have structural issues. He explained that 90% or more of the signs being requested are replacing existing signs.

Mr. Thompson stated that it appears that the variance request is multi-faceted. Chairman Mallory concurred.

Mr. Huff advised that his wife works for Nebraska Health Systems. He noted that it would not be a conflict. Mr. Schirber questioned if Mr. Huff had a financial interest in Nebraska Health System. Mr. Huff advised that he has no financial interest other than his wife’s paycheck.

Mr. Coonce provided an overview of the signs. He noted that three additional monument signs are included in the budget but there final location has not been determined. The signs will be for the data center, the utilities building, and a possible future access point.

Mr. Thompson asked if the three signs would be similar to the two renderings included in the packet. Mr. Coonce advised that they will be smaller. Mr. Haijsman advised that the three signs will be used for way finding. The data center will have an attached signs.

Mr. Stursma advised that the application takes into account all of the signs including the way finding signs. It will provide assurance that all the signs are permitted including the way finding signs.

Mr. Thompson questioned if the signs were covered by the request to increase the permitted sign area from 100 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. Mr. Stursma advised that the signs are covered by the request to increase the permitted sign area to 1,000 sq. ft. He noted that the increase sounds large; however, it may not be a large increase given the use and that the hospital is a large entity. It has different needs than a commercial entity. He explained that many of the signs may be exempt because they are way finding; however, those signs are included in the proposed budget.

Chairman Mallory advised that approximately 1400 sq. ft. would be needed given the October 2006 estimate of 930 sq. ft. He noted that the focus should be on public safety. He cited an example of a distraught father trying to locate the hospital for a wife in labor. Chairman Mallory observed that signage would help in locating the appropriate location to receive care. He stated that the hardship is shared by the community.

Mr. Thompson advised that he shared Chairman Mallory’s assessment; however, he is concerned about whether or not the proposed budget is adequate. He questioned if the number is based on the amount of signage used at another hospital. Mr. Coonce advised that the number was determined by the firm that designed the signs. The firm specializes in designing signage for hospitals. The amount and size is based on a number of factors including visibility from adjacent roads. Mr. Coonce noted that the proposed budget is in line with the existing signs and will be adequate for the campus.

Mr. Huff stated that the request is a public safety issue. He noted that the hospital was impacted when the access off of HWY 370 at Gold Coast was closed. He observed that the hospital’s sign can be seen at 90th St. and HWY 370 but it is not bright. He does not believe that the proposed signs will cause a light pollution issue.

Gordon Malm, 14929 Burt St. (Omaha), Alegent Health Director of Facility Planning, stated that the intent is to upgrade the signage at the hospital due to the growth of the campus and the widening of 84th St. He advised that the hospital needs additional signage. Alegent Health’s plan is to keep the signage to a minimum because it is an investment. He noted that the hospital has a number of roadways. The most critical need is to direct patients to the emergency room. Mr. Malm explained that the hospital campus has a new medical office that will need directional signs. He stated that approving the variance is in the public interest.

Seeing or hearing no further public comment, Chairman Mallory advised the representatives that only four of the five Board of Adjustment members were present. He stated that all four members would be required to unanimously vote to grant the variance. He questioned if the applicant wanted to continue the public hearing or move forward with the request. Mr. Haijsmanconfirmed that he wanted to move forward with the request. Chairman Mallory closed the public hearing and asked for discussion amongst the Board.

Mr. Thompson observed that MidlandsHospital is the only hospital in the City of Papillion. He noted that concern that a precedent will be set by granting a variance. He questioned what the impact would be on the Zoning Regulations. Mr. Stursma advised that the likelihood of setting a precedent is low, given the size of the community and how unlikely it would be to have a second hospital. He noted that if the city had more than one hospital a separate zoning district could be created. He observed that it is difficult to create a district for only one entity.