2024-11-12 P & Z Packlet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Centerville Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2024 Chair Krueger opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to explain his reason(s) for his request. Applicant Mr. Colin Olson addressed the Commission to explain that he was trying to improve the property. The Planning Commission asked a few clarifying questions about the use of the underground storage, curb cuts, materials for the driveway, and comments from neighbors. There were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Thompson seconded by Commissioner Olson to Close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Motion carried. 2. Amendments to City Code, Chapter 156, Zoning Code 156.051 (Mixed Use District, (M-1) & 156.052, Mixed Use District (M-2) and Downtown Master Plan and Development Guidelines. Administrator Statz introduced this item as presented in the packet, reviewing the staff recommendations on each of the PowerPoint slides. Administrator Statz then reviewed the proposed text amendments in the Downtown Master Plan. Administrator Statz noted that on page 23 of the Downtown Master Plan this this section is about the M- 1 District and he did not mean to cross out the following: ÐthreeÑ floors; he did mean to cross out the Ð45Ñ feet and replace it with Ð35Ñ feet. Administrator Statz said he thinks not having a minimum building height in this district is fine. Discussion ensued density, height, parking, architecture and word-smithing verbiage. Points of interest are noted below: The staff recommendation on the maximum story in the M-1 District Î the document should say 35 feet as noted in the Power Point presentation The staff recommendation on zero setbacks and 45 feet in the M-1 District Î the document should say 3 floors and 35 feet Architecture Î questions about how many elements & what elements should be required Î the document needs to include examples of French architecture The meaning of the term intense as used in the downtown master plan. Administrator Statz noted that he thinks it is important to understand that M-1 is more intense in height and density than M- 2 in the sense that the district has two uses on the same site (retail + residential). Administrator Statz pointed out that the density requirements for M-1 and M-2 residential are the same though Explanation of high intensity and the recommendation to replace the term with high intensity style Recommendation to remove the words low, mid, high and replace these words with story and height when describing development patterns Parking and the preference for the old language about shared parking; word smith this section and include that surface parking is to be provided by each development and shall not count toward their total Clarification in the document about including only buildable land (when referencing density) per the cityÓs buildable acreage worksheet Adding a bolded section for mixed use corridors to differentiate between M-1 and M-2 The meaning of shared parking - Administrator Statz noted the idea is to maximize density and use of space downtown. Administrator Statz clarified that staff will add to city code: 1 parking Page 2 of 5