On the agenda: Scottsbluff Planning Commission Regular Session — colocation (May 13)

SCOTTSBLUFF CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Monday, May 13, 2013, 8:00 PM
City Hall, 2525 Circle Drive
1. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Chairman

PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS

2. NEBRASKA OPEN MEETINGS ACT: For all interested parties, a copy of the
GLEN VANDENBERGE
CHAIRMAN
BECKY ESTRADA
VICE CHAIRMAN

Nebraska Open Meetings Act is posted on a bulletin board at the back of the council
chambers in the west corner.

3. ROLL CALL:

ANGIE AGUALLO

4. NOTICE OF CHANGES IN THE AGENDA: Additions may not be made to this agenda

DANA WEBER

less than 24-hours prior to the beginning of the meeting unless added under item 5 of
this agenda.

HENRY HUBER

5. CITIZENS WITH ITEMS NOT SCHEDULED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA: As
GARY HUTZEL
JIM ZITTERKOPF
ANITA CHADWICK

required by State Law, no item may be considered under this item unless the Planning
Commission determines that the matter requires an emergency action.

6. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM:
A April 8, 2013

7. NEW BUSINESS:
A Ordinance to Vacate
Ordinance to Vacate: Building Setback Line, Lot 5, Blk.3, Sitzman Subdivision
Applicant(s): Curt Mecklem
Owner(s): Curt Mecklem
Location: 5 East 35th Street
B Code amendment WCF
Zoning Code: Amendment Addition of requirements for Wireless Com. Facilities
Applicant: City of Scottsbluff
Owner: N/A
C Off Street Parking
Ordinance Text Change: CBD Chapter 25, Article 5

8. ADJOURN

The public is invited to participate in all Planning Commission Meetings. If you need special accommodations to participate in the meeting,
please contact the Development Services Department at (308) 630-6243, 24-hours prior to the meeting.

2525 CIRCLE DRIVE • SCOTTSBLUFF, NEBRASKA 69361 • (308) 630-6243 • FAX (308) 630-6294

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 1 / 23

City of Scottsbluff, Nebraska
Monday, May 13, 2013
Regular Meeting

Item Appr. Min.1
April 8, 2013

Staff Contact: Annie Urdiales

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 2 / 23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Scheduled Meeting
April 8, 2013
Scottsbluff, Nebraska
The Planning Commission of the City of Scottsbluff, Nebraska met in a regular scheduled meeting on
Monday, April 8, 2013, 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 2525 Circle Drive, Scottsbluff,
Nebraska. A notice of the meeting had been published in the Star-Herald, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, on March 29, 2013. The notice stated the date, hour and place of the meeting, that
the meeting would be open to the public, that anyone with a disability desiring reasonable accommodation
to attend the Planning Commission meeting should contact the Development Services Department, and
that an agenda of the meeting kept continuously current was available for public inspection at
Development Services Department office; provided, the City Planning Commission could modify the
agenda at the meeting if the business was determined that an emergency so required. A similar notice,
together with a copy of the agenda, also had been delivered to each Planning Commission member. An
agenda kept continuously current was available for public inspection at the office of the Development
Services Department at all times from publication to the time of the meeting.
ITEM 1: Chairman, Glen Vandenberge called the meeting to order. Roll call consisted of the following
members: Henry Huber, Gary Hutzel, Angie Aguallo, Anita Chadwick, and Becky Estrada. Absent: Jim
Zitterkopf and Dana Weber. City officials present: Annie Urdiales, Planning Administrator, Marlon
Johnson, City Planner, Nathan Johnson, Assistant City Manager, and Gary Batt, Code Administrator I.
ITEM 2: Chairperson Vandenberge informed all those present of the Nebraska Open Meetings Act and
that a copy of such is posted on the bulletin board in the back area of the Conference Room on the north
wall, for those interested parties.
ITEM 3: Acknowledgment of any changes in the agenda: None.
ITEM 4: Business not on agenda: None
ITEM 5: Citizens with items not scheduled on regular agenda: None
ITEM 6: The minutes of 2/11/13 were reviewed and approved as distributed. A motion was made to
accept the minutes by Huber, and seconded by Estrada. “YEAS”: Huber, Chadwick, Estrada, Aguallo,
and Vandenberge. “NAYS”: None. ABSTAIN: Hutzel. ABSENT: Zitterkopf and Weber. Motion
carried.
ITEM 7A: The Planning Commission opened a public hearing for a rezone of Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 2,
Adams Addition replat request from Property Owner, Neal Smith, trustee of Oregon Trail Land &
Aquatics Trust (lot 6) . Mr. Smith was also representing property owners, D Bar B Farms (David
Baltensperger, lot 5), and Western Terminal Storage (Paul Reed, lot 4). These parcels are located on
West 36th Street, West of Avenue I and Maveriks.

The applicants desire to rezone their Lots 6, 5, and 4 of Block 2 of Adams Addition to C-3
Heavy Commercial from R-1a Single Family Residential. The three parcels total
approximately 2.5 acres.
Lot 5 has a commercial structure that was permitted with a Variance and Lots 6 and 4 are
undeveloped. C-3 Zoning exists along both sides of 36th Street in this vicinity with some parcels
developed and others not. There is R-1a zoning to the north and Agricultural Zoning to the west.
Most of these properties are developed with their respective uses.

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 3 / 23

51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates these parcels as Employment Center,
which generally matches Commercial.
Neal Smith and Kathy Birch representing Western Terminal Storage spoke in favor of the rezone.
Conclusion: A motion was made by Estrada and seconded by Chadwick to make positive
recommendation to City Council on the rezone of Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 2, Adams Addition Replat from
R-1A to C-3 Heavy Commercial “YEAS”: Estrada, Hutzel, Huber, Chadwick, Aguallo, and
Vandenberge. “NAYS”: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Zitterkopf & Weber. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 7B: The Planning Commission opened a public hearing for a rezone of Part of Block 6A,
Panhandle Cooperative Addition replat. The request was made by Carl Francisco, Property Owner. Mr.
Francisco’s parcel is approximately 11.1 acres the majority of the parcel is zoned M-1, a portion (2.5
acres) of the parcel on the south and west side is zoned C-2. Mr. Francisco desires to rezone that part

of Block 6A to M-1 Light Manufacturing and Industrial from C-2 Neighborhood and Retail
Commercial, Block 6A is a single parcel of land with two zonings. The request will bring the
whole parcel into compliance with the actual use and the M-1 Zoning of the bulk of the parcel.
There is other M-1 Zoning to the east and there is C-2 Zoning to the west, to the south where
Main Street Market is located the property is zoned PBC (planned business center). Most of
these properties are developed with their respective uses.
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this parcel as Employment Center,
which generally matches Light Manufacturing and Industrial.
Robert Connell a neighbor to the north (1105 Ave D) asked what was allowed in an M-1 zoning district;
he was provided with a list of permitted uses and was reassured that any business dealing with hazardous
components would only be allowed with a special use permit from the Planning Commission.
Conclusion: A motion was made by Hutzel and seconded by Huber to make positive recommendation to
City Council to approve the rezone from C-2 Neighborhood Commercial to M-1 Light Manufacturing and
Industrial for the property addressed as 808 Avenue B (pt. Block 6A, Panhandle Cooperative Addition
replat) “YEAS”: Huber, Hutzel, Chadwick, Aguallo, Estrada, and Vandenberge. “NAYS”: None.
ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Zitterkopf and Weber. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 7C: The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on a proposed ordinance text
change for off street parking requirements in the C-1 Central Business District zoning district, 25-1-1 (13)
Residential – multi dwelling units – one & one half spaces per family. * Provided in a C-1 zone, off
street parking spaces are required only for residences, hotels and motels.
The Planning Commission had tabled this text change at their meeting of August 13, 2012 and asked for
more complete information and specific language for the off street parking & hours listed on the
municipal lots.
The BID at their meeting of December 12, 2012 decided to remove all time restrictions on all municipal
lots. They will leave time restrictions off of all the new signs for the City Municipal Parking Lots and
evaluate in summer to see if changes and additions for time restrictions need to be added back. They also
discussed the City issuing Parking Permits for residents, students, employees, and customers.
Staff had researched what other cities codes require for Central Business Districts, Downtown Business
Districts & Parking Districts regarding residential units. Grand Island, Kearney, North Platte and
Alliance have their CBD zoning districts exempt from the off street parking requirements.

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 4 / 23

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149

Nathan Johnson, Assistant City Manager, lives in one of the apartments over the old US Bank & the lease
he signed included where and times to park during different hours and situations.
The Planning Commission does not want to limit parking in the CBD and would like the Business
Improvement Board to look at the following for changes to the parking issues. 1. Enforcement. 2.
Identification tags for parking (residential, employee, student). 3. Regulations – areas of parking, and
4. Apartment leases.
Conclusion: A motion was made by Hutzel and seconded by Aguallo to table the ordinance text change
until the Business Improvement Board can review and decide on the best recommendation for the parking
in the Central Business District “YEAS”: Huber, Hutzel, Chadwick, Aguallo, Estrada, and Vandenberge.
“NAYS”: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Zitterkopf and Weber. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 7D: The Planning Commission opened a public hearing for a proposed ordinance text
addition for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF). The Planning Commission had previously
discussed wireless telecommunication facilities and was asked by Council to take another look into the
possibly of updating the current City Code for Wireless facilities.
Marlin addressed the Planning Commission and reviewed the proposed additions to the City Code. This
is the first public hearing on the proposed changes, we want to get more feedback from the public and
have contacted the Star Herald to help get this information out to the public. One of the considerations of
the ordinance is to allow WCF in residential zones. Currently, the Code does not allow WCFs in
Residential or Agricultural Zoning Districts. Adding them as a Conditional Use in Agricultural Zoning
seems rational; however adding them to Residential Districts is more problematic from aesthetical and
historical perspectives. One of the things proposed is allowing towers in residential only with a CUP or
administratively with minimum heights.
Henry Jacobsen, an Engineering Specialist in Wireless Communication Towers/Facilities addressed the
Planning Commission. The demand for wireless capacity will continue and in the next fifteen to twenty
years land lines will be discontinued. Tall towers are not the norm now; short utility towers are what
wireless technology is working with, short towers reuse same frequencies. All communities are facing
these same issues. Local zoning tends to over regulate and changes should be specific and defensible in
all zoning districts. All requests for towers should be reviewed and approved before tower is allowed to
be placed.
Some of the things the Planning Commission asked Marlin to add was information about underground
utilities; non-preferred locations anywhere where there are underground utilities. Possibly screening the
towers in public areas or placing them farther from residential areas, and require carriers to justify why
the tower is needed in the area.
The proposed draft includes Intent and Purpose, Definitions, and Zoning Requirements and attached to
these minutes.
A recommendation was made by the Planning Commission for staff to continue with the proposed
changes to the Wireless Communication Facilities and will review recommendations at the next Planning
Commission meeting.
ITEM 8. Unfinished Business: None

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 5 / 23

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

There being no further business the Planning Commission with a motion to adjourn made by Estrada and
seconded by Huber the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. “YEAS”: Huber, Aguallo, Estrada, Chadwick,
Hutzel, and Vandenberge. NAYS: none. ABSENT: Weber and Zitterkopf. Motion carried.
___________________________________
Glen Vandenberge, Chairperson
Attest: ______________________________
Annie Urdiales

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 6 / 23

City of Scottsbluff, Nebraska
Monday, May 13, 2013
Regular Meeting

Item NewBiz1
Ordinance to Vacate
Ordinance to Vacate: Building Setback Line, Lot 5, Blk.3, Sitzman Subdivision
Applicant(s): Curt Mecklem
Owner(s): Curt Mecklem
Location: 5 East 35th Street

Staff Contact: Annie Urdiales

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 7 / 23

SCOTTSBLUFF
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Location:

Planning Commission
Development Services Department
May 13, 2013
Ordinance to Vacate Bldg. Setback Line
5 East 35th Street

Zoning: R-1A
Property Size:
# Lots/Units:
Units/Acre

Background
Mr. Curt Mecklem has requested an ordinance to vacate a platted building setback on his parcel located at
5 East 35th Street. When Mr. Mecklem purchased lots 5 and 6, Block 3, Sitzman Subdivision, he was not
aware of the platted building setback line. Lot 6 has an existing home on the lot and Lot 5 is a vacant
corner lot surrounded by development. Mr. Mecklem has turned in plans for a new single family home on
the lot and meets the performance guidelines in the R-1A zoning. However, the platted 25’ building
setbacks on the west and south sides of the lot along with the curb radius limit the building area on the lot.
He is asking that we vacate the west platted building setback line; this will allow him to meet the side
street building setback of 12.5’.
City Staff has consulted with legal and the Register of Deeds, if approved the ordinance will be recorded
and filed with the plat for lot 5, Block 3, Sitzman Subdivision.
Planner’s Report & Recommendation

Vacation of Platted Setback Lines

Applicant/Owner – Curt Mecklem May 2013

It seems that once upon a time the Subdivision Ordinance required that zoning setbacks be
included on a plat. That can cause problems when zoning changes or when the Zoning Code is
amended. A 25 foot setback is no longer required on a side street. However, the Plat is a legal
document that we must enforce.
Alternatively, setback lines could be required on a plat per the developer’s covenants. We are
not aware of any covenants, so the only apparent issue could be if there are objections from the
neighborhood requesting that we uphold their covenants.
No objections have been noted and the property will still be in compliance with Code if the
setback line is vacated.
Staff recommends approval of the Vacation of the Platted Setback Lines.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve
Positive recommendation for ordinance to vacate west building set back line on west side of Lot 5,
Block 3, Sitzman Subdivision (5 E. 35th St.) to the City Council subject to the following
condition(s):
Staff Report, Page 1

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 8 / 23

Deny
Negative recommendation for ordinance to vacate west building set back line on west side of Lot 5,
Block 3, Sitzman Subdivision (5 E. 35th St.) to the City Council for the following reason(s):
Table
TABLE the ordinance to vacate west Building set back line on west side of Lot 5, Block 3, Sitzman
Subdivision (5 E. 35th St.) for the following reason(s):

Staff Report, Page 2

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 9 / 23

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 10 / 23

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 11 / 23

City of Scottsbluff, Nebraska
Monday, May 13, 2013
Regular Meeting

Item NewBiz2
Code amendment WCF
Zoning Code: Amendment Addition of requirements for Wireless Com. Facilities
Applicant: City of Scottsbluff
Owner: N/A

Staff Contact:

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 12 / 23

SCOTTSBLUFF PLANNING COMMISSION – Staff Report
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST - Wireless Communications Facilities

May 2013

This matter was continued at the April hearing, primarily to provide additional opportunity to
obtain public input. The Star-Herald published a front page article on April 20. The only call we
received was from Action Communications. We sent them copies of the materials you received
for April meeting. We have received no comments.
As we are hearing a request to amend the Code in Alliance we are considering the same matter
there. A special invite for public comment was posted on the City web site and the City
Facebook page. Two comments have been received. One was all for the concept to enhance
services. The other suggested that the City build a tower and rent the space.
Comment has continued to be requested from Verizon as well as from Action Communications
and from Wireless & Broadcast Siting-Advisors, LLC. To date there has been no feedback from
anyone except Viaero.
Currently, the Code does not allow WCFs in Residential or Agricultural Zoning Districts. This
proposal would limit towers in Residential to 75 feet, with exceptions.
The Code already allows towers up to 150 feet as a use by right in all Commercial and Industrial
Districts. The proposal is currently to leave that, but discussion on requiring a CUP in those
zones is a possible consideration.
Changes that I have made to the first Draft include:
Adding - “C”, that towers in Agricultural and Agricultural Residential may be considered with a
CUP without a particular height restriction.
Adding - less preferred locations to include; subdivisions with underground utilities.
Adding language such that “Required setbacks will be determined on individual site bases
through review of each Conditional Use Permit. Collapsible tower design may be required in
certain instances.”
Adding - that towers may be required to blend in and enhance compatibility with adjacent land
uses as reasonably feasible.
Adding to 8.- an appropriate privacy-type fence may be required to improve compatibility in
residential neighborhoods
Adding a definition: Utility Sublot means a lot that may be smaller than the minimum allowed in
a District or otherwise out of standard compliance. A Utility Sublot must have legal vehicular
access. Water may be allowed for property maintenance, but there shall be no sewer service
allowed.

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 13 / 23

I have requested input from the Attorney on how and where we amend the Code to allow Utility
Sublots. This will involve the Subdivision Regulations as well. We may need to advertise and
hear any amendments to the Subdivision Regulations at another hearing.
Please consider whether the language in 12 and/or 13 needs to be fleshed out to provide more
detail of process.
We need to consider landscaping and/or property maintenance. If we do not allow water on
Utility Sublots it might be difficult, plus you cannot screen the tower, just the services around the
base that we have already covered with fencing requirements. We will add a small section into
the Draft Amendment to the Code under 13 to cover property maintenance and we will allow
water, but no sewer service on a Utility Sublot.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve this or an amended version of the proposed Ordinance
Amendment.
Findings of Fact could include; there is a need for high capacity service in residential areas; all
sites in residential areas will require a special review for a Conditional Use Permit; consideration
has been given to lessen potential incompatibility; there have been no objections raised from the
public; input from the public was solicited through a front page article in the Star-Herald;

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 14 / 23

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCF)
Intent and Purpose
The purpose of the WCF regulations is to encourage and promote wireless communications
coverage for all areas of the City while minimizing the visual, environmental and neighborhood
impacts. The goals include providing personal wireless services throughout the City quickly,
effectively and efficiently while ensuring that basic matters such as FAA, FCC and Airport
Zoning requirements are met as well as addressing security, decommissioning and preferred
locations.
More preferred locations include commercial, industrial and agricultural areas and less preferred
locations include residential areas. More preferred locations in residential areas include public
lands, proximity to existing overhead utility corridors and proximity or attachment to existing
structures that might assist with screening.
Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms and words are defined.
Antenna means any exterior device designed and intended for telephonic, radio, data, internet or
television communications through the sending and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves. For
purposes of this chapter the term “antenna” shall not include an antenna used by an amateur
radio operator nor an antenna or satellite dish used for the private or non-commercial reception
of television or radio signals.
Antenna Height means the vertical distance from natural grade to the top of all appurtenances.
Antenna Support Structure means any building or structure other than a tower which can be used
for location of telecommunications facilities.
FAA means the Federal Aviation Administration.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission.
PWS means Personal Wireless Service Provider, which means a personal wireless service
facility owner, operator, lessee or any officer or employee thereof.
Tower means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of
supporting one or more antennas, including self-supporting lattice towers, guy towers or
monopole towers.
Utility Sublot means a lot that may be smaller than the minimum allowed in a District or
otherwise out of standard compliance. A Utility Sublot must have legal vehicular access. Water
may be allowed for property maintenance, but there shall be no sewer service allowed.
WCF means Wireless Telecommunications Facility.
WCF Site means a tract or parcel of land that contains the personal wireless service facilities
including any antenna, support structure, accessory building and parking, and may include other
uses associated with and ancillary to personal wireless services.
Zoning
A. Antennas in all Zoning Districts may be allowed by administrative review when attached
to existing structure, including roof-tops, building faces, water tower or existing utility

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 15 / 23

structure provided the antenna does not exceed 12 feet in height above the existing
structure and blends in with said structure.
B. This chapter recognizes two types of towers associated with PWS: those up to 75 feet in
height, which are constructed primarily for local distribution and reception of wireless
signals; and those greater than 75 feet in height, which are constructed primarily for the
concentration and transmission of signals to and from other towers.
C. Towers of any height shall be a conditionally permitted use by special review in A
Agricultural and AR Agricultural Residential zones.
D. Except as noted in E., towers over 75 feet in height shall not be affected by the
ordinances set forth in this chapter.
E. Towers no greater than 75 feet in height shall be a conditionally permitted use by special
review in all Zones, except where current zoning permits towers as a use by right.
However, allowances may be made to towers exceeding 75 feet in height if such towers
must be extended due to local circumstances or to accommodate co-location by other
service providers. The following conditions shall apply to towers in this paragraph.
1. Applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) shall include the following: The
legal description of the parcel upon which the PWS facilities are to be locates; a
survey of the parcel by a licensed surveyor; a scaled site plan clearly indicating the
location, type and height of proposed tower; adjacent land uses and zoning; adjacent
roadways and proposed means of access. The site plan shall indicate the antenna,
antenna support structure, building, fencing, buffering and all other items required in
this chapter.
2. There are more preferred areas for towers and less preferred areas for towers. More
preferred areas include; parks, public lands, proximity to existing overhead utility
corridors and proximity to what might be termed “shadow” structures, such as
churches, schools and public facilities, especially those that are multi-story. Less
preferred areas might include subdivisions that are wholly served by underground
utilities.
3. Towers, where possible, shall be constructed on existing utility easement and rightsof-ways, subject to existing utility restrictions, such as areas where underground
utilities are required.
4. Towers may be constructed on private land; as a permanent easement, as a land rental
arrangement or on a lot owned by the PWS. Creation of utility-type sub-lots will not
be subject to minimum lot size, but will be subject to access requirements and no
water service.

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 16 / 23

5. Required setbacks will be determined on individual site bases through review of each
Conditional Use Permit. Collapsible tower design may be required in certain
instances.
6. Towers may be built on municipal land subject to the CUP process and subject to
such legal and administrative contracts as deemed appropriate and necessary.
7. Towers may be required to blend in and enhance compatibility with adjacent land
uses as reasonably feasible.
8. Towers must be enclosed and secured by a chain-link fence or equivalent, of a
minimum of six feet in height, however an appropriate privacy-type fence may be
required to improve compatibility in residential neighborhoods. Anti-climb protection
must be installed to prevent, to the extent possible, unauthorized access. The security
fence must enclose all components of the site, including footings, guy wires (if
present), cabinets, equipment building and back-up generator. No property line
setbacks are automatically required for towers in this category, however, the security
fence enclosure must be adequate for the safe access and maintenance of the tower
and its equipment.
9. PWS must provide evidence that proposed towers have met all applicable regulations,
including local Airport Zoning, the FAA and the FCC prior to construction and be
Compliant with E-911 Public Safety Access Point.
10. No PWS shall act to exclude any other provider from using the same facility,
building, structure or location. PWSs shall cooperate in good faith to achieve colocation of facilities and equipment with other PWSs.
11. Upon request by the City, a PWS shall provide evidence why co-location is not
feasible.
12. Any tower approved in this chapter must be maintained in a manner consistent with
generally accepted industry practices. A tower may be inspected at any time, subject
to approved access by the service provide, to insure the safety of the general public.
Any deficiencies in structure or operation shall be promptly remedied.
13. The property shall be maintained in a reasonable manner and be kept weed free;
options can include rock, mulch, landscaping and maintenance or any combination
thereof.
14. A PWS or its successors or assigns shall promptly remove a tower and return a tower
site to its pre-construction conditions, should a tower be decommissioned or
otherwise deemed unnecessary or unusable.

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 17 / 23

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 18 / 23

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 19 / 23

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 20 / 23

City of Scottsbluff, Nebraska
Monday, May 13, 2013
Regular Meeting

Item NewBiz3
Off Street Parking
Ordinance Text Change: CBD Chapter 25, Article 5

Staff Contact: Annie Urdiales

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 21 / 23

SCOTTSBLUFF
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Location:

Planning Commission
Development Services Department
May 13, 2013
Parking Central Business District
Broadway

Zoning: C-1
Property Size:
# Lots/Units:
Units/Acre

Background
Staff sent information to the Business Improvement District Board & other downtown groups regarding
proposed parking changes/additions to the Central Business Districts. We received very few comments.
Several options have been discussed and considered including parking permits, with posted hours for
evening and daytime. Everyone agrees they do not want to make it too complicated, would like to keep it
simple and not drive customers away. The upgrades on Broadway will increase the parking with
approximately 48 spaced with the change to angle parking.
Planner’s Report & Recommendation PARKING ISSUES & PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE May 2013

A few weeks ago we sent you an outline of the history of the parking issues discussion over the
course of the last year or so along with some thoughts about where further discussion might lead.
We also sent that to the Business Improvement Board, Downtown Revitalization, Valley Visions
and Staff and asked that they share the request for comment with anyone they thought might
have an interest in the subject matter.
Comments were limited and those we received were to leave it simple and free without any
administration of parking passes. There was a comment to remove the 2 hour parking signs on
Broadway and to put some educational efforts into residents, employees, and students so they
understand that parking in the prime spaces is not beneficial to anyone in the downtown, and
thereby the health of their City.
It seems that the general consensus is to leave the situation as it is, but the City does need to
amend the Code to allow residential uses in the Downtown District without any required offstreet parking. This needs to be done to make our Code meet our actual process.
The Code requires that the Planning Commission act on a proposed amendment to the Code
within 70 days, or essentially three meetings. It has been nine months, or more, since the
discussion officially began and this will be the third Planning Commission meeting on the
matter. We are confident that the Council desires a recommendation from you as they value
your opinion, but we must move the matter on. The Code states that no action shall constitute a
recommendation of approval of the proposal.
Staff recommends that the off-street parking requirements be removed from 25-5-1 for C-1
Zoning, to read: *Provided in a C-1 Zone, no off-street parking spaces are required.
Staff Report, Page 1

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 22 / 23

RECOMMENDATION
Approve
Positive recommendation for ordinance change to read no off- street Parking spaces are required
in the C-1 (CBD) zoning district to the City Council subject to the following condition(s):
Deny
Negative recommendation for ordinance change to read no off- street Parking spaces are required
in the C-1 (CDB) zoning district to the City Council for the following reason(s):
Table
TABLE the ordinance change to read no off - street parking spaced are required in the C-1 ( CDB)
zoning district for the following reason(s):

Staff Report, Page 2

Scottsbluff

Regular Meeting - 5/13/2013

Page 23 / 23