2024-08-14 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2024 Krueger also said that the city of Lexington has a lot of other high-rise buildings (Ephesians and the Loft) and the calls for service there are low due to higher rents. Slide 8 - Screening Administrator Statz reviewed the slide, noting that the existing trees on the east of the property line will remain in place and offer some screening, as well as a fence and arborvitae on the east side of the property edge. Administrator Statz noted that the developer, as noted earlier, stated that they are open to an opaque fence along the north and east sides of the property of 6-8ft. City Planner Carlson added that one of the main reasons for a fence is to screen headlights. Slide 9 - Parks Administrator Statz reviewed the park fees that would be paid upon execution of the development agreement and is not refundable through TIF. The amount collected would be $312,000 and can be used to expand or add new equipment to our parks system (not eligible for use on maintenance). Discussion ensued about the retaining wall staying and what would happen to trees if the parking lot were to be extended. Administrator Statz explained that if there is no more room for trees due to added parking, the Commission could ask for tree replacement elsewhere or for a donation to the tree fund. Discussion ensued about requiring more trees of a certain caliper as a condition of proof of parking. City Planner Carlson added that a caliper of 2.5 in or 6ft evergreen is what is optimal for survival. Slide 10 Î Utilities Administrator Statz reviewed the slide, noting that the city utilities are sufficient to handle the development; he also explained how utilities fees can be used. Administrator Statz noted that connection fees paid to the city for water, sewer, and stormwater would be $435,000. The development will be fully paying users of these utilities (not refundable through TIF). Slide 11 Î Traffic Administrator Statz noted that the traffic study shows that the development does not degrade the function of any neighboring intersection, and he reviewed key findings of the study, which are outlined in his presentation. Commissioner Seppala stated that she does not see how the number of cars coming out of a one-way area and adding another 700 to the stub will not cause problems for traffic and/or safety; she showed a picture of several bikes at the school. Discussion ensued about traffic and traffic calming measures such as a roundabout or traffic signal. Administrator Statz noted that staff has talked to the county about this and that from his perspective (engineering) that a traffic signal light would be green most often and this would not be the case for a roundabout; he added that the county will make the decision. Administrator Statz added that traffic calming will be needed in the next few years regardless of if this development goes through or not. Commissioner Kalina asked how pedestrians cross at a roundabout and Administrator Statz explained. Commissioner Seppala asked about the misalignment of the parking lot, adding that she felt it would be a good thing. Administrator Statz explained they will probably do a radius reduction to give people more room to get out of the development and maybe widening of the driveway. Discussion ensued about the added trips and traffic added (phase 1 and phase 2 of the development). Administrator Statz reviewed the traffic study slides in his presentation. Slide 12 Î School Capacity Administrator Statz reviewed his slide, noting that the new students that would be coming from the development would not overburden the schools. Discussion ensued about the developerÓs market study, which shows there will be about 30% young professionals and about 20% young families or Page 7 of 16