Kearney commission adopts future land use map amendment, delays zoning code rewrite to Feb. 10

The Kearney Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 13 approved a resolution amending the city’s future land use map and directed staff to adjust the downtown-overlay boundary, while deferring a proposed comprehensive zoning-code rewrite for further study.

Planning staff presented a proposed update to the future land use map and related priorities drawn from the city’s fiscal-year goals, including actions to reduce minimum lot sizes, identify higher-density housing areas and adjust land designations near interstate interchanges. Alex Johnson of Lamp Rynearson participated online as the code and plan consultant. Staff said the proposed map fills previously uncolored fringe areas and identifies opportunity sites near the I‑35/Highway 92 interchange, Watson Drive and a Greenfield site on Nineteenth Street for potential multifamily, commercial or industrial uses.

Commissioners debated the downtown overlay boundary and asked staff to redraw the northern edge to follow property or right-of-way lines and the railroad corridor so the district is more coherent. Commissioners asked staff to consider including the city-owned VFW property and some single-family parcels on the east side of Clark Street; staff agreed to adjust the map accordingly. "We can update the proposed land use map to match what that is," planning staff member David said after commissioners described the preferred boundary changes.

Commissioners approved Resolution PZ-2025-01, amending the comprehensive plan’s future land use map, and explicitly asked staff to refine the downtown-overlay boundary to follow property or right-of-way lines and the railroad from the southwest pool parcel north to the senior housing parcel (excluding that senior housing parcel).

Separately, staff reviewed a package of proposed zoning-code changes intended to support the plan update: creating a Downtown Overlay District; consolidating commercial/office land-use categories; permitting interior accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family districts; reducing minimum lot sizes (R-1 from 75 x 110 to 60 x 100, i.e., 6,000 sq. ft.); increasing maximum residential densities (R-1 from 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre; R-2 from 9 to 10; R-3 from 13 to 15; R-4 from 26 to 36); reducing certain setbacks; lowering multifamily parking from 2.0 to 1.5 spaces per unit; and increasing permitted building heights in some commercial and industrial districts. Staff said the Downtown Overlay would include maximum setbacks to promote walkability and allow mixed-use development over time.

Commissioners raised multiple substantive concerns during the zoning discussion: lot-coverage limits, how lowering minimum lot widths would affect infrastructure costs, minimum dwelling-unit sizes, landscaping and stormwater effects from high lot coverage in commercial districts, and the lack of design criteria for ADUs. Several commissioners asked staff to benchmark standards from surrounding and metro-area communities before the commission acts. One commissioner urged raising residential lot-coverage limits (suggested to 60 percent) and lowering the minimum house size in some proposals to 750 square feet to promote affordability; others said they could not support major commercial or industrial lot-coverage increases without comparative research.

Commissioners also asked clarifying questions about conditional uses such as small wind-energy systems and telecommunication towers; staff noted tall utility or turbine projects would require conditional-use approvals and additional review.

Because commissioners requested more comparative data and specific text revisions (lot coverage, minimum house sizes, ADU design criteria, and commercial/industrial landscaping standards), the commission voted to continue action on the proposed zoning-code amendments to a date-certain Feb. 10 so staff can return with revised ordinance language and exhibits that illustrate lot-size/house-size footprints.

No members of the public were present online for either item. The commission’s approval of the comprehensive-plan amendment is limited to the map and the resolution language; code changes would require a subsequent ordinance through the board of aldermen process.