Commission recommends rezoning four Elm Street lots for Enzo Athletic Performance after contested public hearing

The North Platte City Planning Commission on May 27 recommended approval of a future land use map amendment (AM25‑00004) and a rezoning (Z25‑006) for four vacant lots at 801–807 South Elm Street so the property owners, Jason and Kayla Jensen, can build a proposed 6,000–7,000 square‑foot wellness and fitness center under the Enzo Athletic Performance name.

Jason and Kayla Jensen told the commission they have run Enzo for 11 years and described the proposed facility as a family‑oriented gym with youth programs, on‑site child services and structured class schedules. "Our goal is to build a state of the art space focused on wellness, youth development, and family fitness," Jason Jensen said. He said the applicants paid about $50,000 per lot and plan more than adequate on‑site parking; class capacity is typically 25 with average attendance of 18–20 in peak sessions.

The proposal drew a large turnout of nearby residents concerned about traffic, parking, noise, precedent and the possibility that other H‑1 allowed uses could occupy the site in the future. Opponents cited safety concerns for neighborhood children and argued the lots were purchased and used historically as residential. Tom Warbleau, a resident at 816 South Elm, urged caution: "It could be a heliport. It could be a restaurant. It could be a cremation facility," he said, pointing to the range of H‑1 permitted uses listed in staff materials.

The applicants said a 70‑signature petition against rezoning circulated in the community contained only 11 signatures from residents within the city’s 300‑foot notification radius; they also provided copies of covenants and said Charles Kucera (the prior owner) waived covenants in 1989. Planning staff clarified that covenants and deed restrictions are private agreements enforceable by private parties, not by the city; zoning decisions remain a public matter enforced by the city.

Planning staff had no objection to the proposed amendment or rezoning if the amendment to the future land use map is approved. Commissioners discussed the area pattern—H‑1 zoning already exists on nearby parcels and the property sits adjacent to commercial/medical uses and parking lots—and the potential that rezoning would allow other H‑1 uses in the future.

Commissioner Matthews moved and Commissioner Van Velsen seconded a motion to recommend approval of the future land use map amendment; the commission voted 4‑to‑1 in favor. On the rezoning motion (file Z25‑006), Commissioner Matthews moved and Commissioner Bain seconded; the motion carried with the commission recording the vote as approved 4‑to‑1, with Commissioners Jett and Davies listed as recused/abstaining from the matter. Both items will go to City Council for final consideration and public hearing on June 3, 2025.

Planning staff and commissioners noted the distinction between a conditional use permit and rezoning: a conditional use permit could have been tailored to a single project, whereas rezoning opens the parcel to all uses allowed in the H‑1 district. Several residents requested the city consider alternatives or stronger conditions to limit future uses if council approves rezoning; staff reiterated that covenants are a private enforcement mechanism and cannot be enforced by the city planning department.