Laserfiche WebLink
City of Centerville <br />Planning and Zoning Commission <br />August 4, 2020 <br /> <br />Administrator Statz gave a staff review of the proposed addition to the building. He discussed the <br />interpretation of the setbacks and noted that the proposal seems to fit within the city code as long <br />as parking or proof of parking is addressed. <br /> <br />Representatives from the contractor doing the proposed renovation answered commissioners’ <br />questions regarding the addition. They noted that the expansion was to facilitate a new piece of <br />equipment. Also, they stated that the addition would match the architecture of the existing <br />building. <br /> <br />Consensus was that the proposal was a welcomed addition to the city and the commission did not <br />see any complications with the zoning code. <br /> <br />Since this was a concept review, no official action was taken. <br /> <br />st <br />4. Concept Plan Review – 71XX 21 Avenue Apartment Building <br /> <br />Administrator Statz gave an overview of the proposal, noting that the site is currently zoned B-2 <br />Main Street Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan does not currently guide this property for <br />anything other than a commercial use. However, there may be some practicality to the <br />development, given its proximity to the park and ride, and the neighboring uses to the north and <br />west being residential. <br /> <br />Chris Harchanko, a representative of the development presented his view of why this site is being <br />looked at. Mr. Harchanko is proposing a 96-unit, market rate, 3-story apartment building, taking <br />approximately 6 acres of property in the north end of the 22 acre parcel. He noted that <br />underground parking was being looked at, but depending on soil conditions, it may need to be a ½ <br />story above ground parking scenario. <br /> <br />Commissioner Haiden had questions about the footprint of the development <br /> <br />Mr. Steve King, from 1724 Sorel Street was recognized by Chairman Mosher. Mr. King asked if <br />there would be “affordable” units as a part of the development. Commissioner Fehrenbacher <br />noted that the developer had presented the proposal as “market rate”, meaning non-subsidized. <br /> <br />Since this was a concept review, no official action was taken. <br /> <br />VI. OLD BUSINESS <br /> <br />1. Driveway and Residential Parking Ordinance Revisions <br /> <br />Administrator Statz outlined the commission’s progress on this ordinance to date. City Planner <br />Phil Carlson presented a memo and figure he had prepared. The memo detailed the proposed <br />changes to the ordinance. The figure was a graphical depiction of the proposed changes, showing <br />where certain vehicles and equipment could be parked. Additionally, there were figures depicting <br />various vehicle types, including several classes of recreational vehicles. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding length, width, height, weight, commercial vs. personal vehicles, etc. <br /> <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />