2024-10-01 P & Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2024 Seppala noted that on pages 23 and 21 of the Downtown Master Plan, there are some inconsistencies with minimum and maximum densities. Administrator Statz stated that staff would prepare a slide on inconsistencies in the M-1 district, and there will be two separate slides. Discussion ensued about pages in the Downtown Master Plan not syncing with the PowerPoint. Administrator Statz said that he noticed this as well toward the back of the document and staff will make corrections. Commissioner Seppala asked how staff came up with the 12-30 units/acre for the M-2 district and if the densities were taken into consideration with the spirit of the plan as described on page 4 of the Downtown Master Plan. Administrator Statz explained that the densities and two-story height reflects the spirit of the plan. Discussion ensued about definitions for density and Administrator Statz noted that definitions for high, medium, low densities could have some overlap with high (12-45 units/acre) and Medium (12-30 units/acre) and low (12 units/acre and less). Administrator Statz clarified that M-2 would have no high density. Commissioner Kalina asked for clarification of the descriptions in the Downtown Master plan regarding the M-1 and M-2 districts. Administrator Statz noted that the document will be updated to be clearer when discussing the two districts: Mixed-Use Corridors (M-1) and Downtown Neighborhood (M-2). Building Height Administrator Statz reviewed the slides and discussion ensued about building height, setbacks, and definitions for story and floor. Commissioner Seppala asked about finished grade at the front of the building and Administrator Statz noted that grade is term of art that means the planned finished grade, not the subgrade, etc. Discussion ensued about ornamental towers and spires and if they are included in the height. Administrator Statz said they were not included in the Plan and advised the Commission to take a closer look at this during phase two of the revisions. Commissioner Olson noted that maybe the Commission could consider whether to allow ornamental spires in the M-1 but not in the M-2. Commissioner Seppala asked if the Commission could decide on a term for story or floor and define it as above grade if you can see it, noting that if it is below ground then it would not be counted as a floor or story. Administrator Statz cautioned the Commissioners against this definition because it would limit the LaLonde property to a one-story building in M-2 if there is a walk-out. Discussion ensued about stories with and without a walk-out. Administrator Statz suggested defining a floor or story as an above grade on more than one side and allowing a walk-out to be part of the building and not counted as a story in M-1 or M-2. Administrator Statz suggested thinking about other buildings, like townhomes. Commissioner Seppala asked about Bay View Villas and why it was a one story with a walk-out. Administrator Statz noted that the target market was retirees in this development. Discussion ensued about grade and the impact of having three stories. Administrator Statz noted that 30 percent of the town has 3 stories exposed; Administrator Statz added that it seems odd to have the downtown have more strict height requirements than in other areas of the city. Administrator Statz suggested defining a floor and story as above grade on more than one side and allowing a walk-out to not count as a story; he added that he thinks the definitions should be the same in the M-1 and M-2 districts. Page 3 of 6