City of Crestview Hills Economic Development Committee Meeting Monday, December 5 th, :00 PM

Transcription

1 City of Crestview Hills Economic Development Committee Meeting Monday, December 5 th, :00 PM The Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Kramer at 6:01 pm. Those attending included Brian Summe, Mike Beiting and David Wurtenberger. The following members were absent, Frank Sommerkamp, Joe Roesel, and Drew Litmer. (Mr. Williams noted that Mr. Joe Price had resigned from the Committee, thus leaving a vacancy) A quorum was present. City Administrator Tim Williams and Mayor Paul Meier also attended the meeting. Guests attending included Councilmember Sharon Gronotte, Joe Schulte, Genie Wambaugh, Sarah Kubla, Matt Olliges, and Dave Heidrich. Minutes from the September 21 st, 2016 meeting were presented. Dave Wurtenberger made a motion to accept the minutes, seconded by Brian Summe. All in favor of the motion to approve. (correct spelling of Olliges in minutes) Discussion of Proposed Text Amendments to Off-Street Parking Regulations City Administrator Tim Williams presented two proposed text amendments to the City s Zoning Code for Committee consideration. Mr. Williams explained that the Mayor and Staff looked at our off-street parking requirements following a recent application by Zalla Companies to the City s Board of Adjustment for a variance to parking spaces. Zalla is proposing a new medical office building on an existing site and required several variances to make the building fit on the site. The BOA deadlocked 2-2 on whether to approve the variance requests. City Staff believes that two of the issues proposed for variances, parking space depth, and total parking spaces required for a medical office building, should be reevaluated based on our research. The parking space depth requirements for most communities are eighteen (18 ) feet while the Crestview Hills code requires nineteen (19 ) feet. Staff would recommend that the parking depth requirement change to 18 to match most other cities zoning regulations. Staff also looked at parking spaces required for medical office buildings. Mr. Williams stated that staff looked are numerous comparable communities in the region to see how they treated parking for medical offices. While the requirements varied, they tended to be in the range of one (1) per two hundred (200) g.s.f. This included suburban areas with large medical office concentrations such as West Chester, Blue Ash, Florence, Fort Thomas, Carmel (IN), Dublin (OH), and Brentwood (TN). Staff is recommending a standard of one space per 200 g.s.f. with an additional five (5) overflow spaces up to 30,000 square foot building. Buildings larger than 30,000 square foot would require ten (10) overflow spaces. Staff believes the recommended

2 changes are appropriate for the Thomas More Office park and keep the City competitive with other office parks in the region. The Committee had several questions regarding the amendments to the code. Dave Wurtenburger stated that he was comfortable with the change in parking depth to eighteen feet, however since there could be no overhang in parking garages, he believes the standards should be nineteen feet in garages or structured parking facilities. The Committee agreed with the change. Mr. Wurtenberger also stated that the gross square feet of a building should be better defined because in the industry it can be defined several different ways. He suggested that that gross square feet be defined in the section as the measurement of the building from the outside corners to determine size. The Committee members present agreed with the suggested definition. Mr. Wurtenberger also pondered whether medical practices that could be considered high volume should have a larger parking space requirement. However, he noted that it might be difficult to quantify this, as every medical practice is different with identical services (for instance primary care) having greatly different volumes of patients. Finally, Mr. Wurtenberger stated that he agreed with Staff s recommendation to not change the setback requirements in the RP-1 Zone. This is really a very site specific issue, and should be addressed by the BOA on an individual basis. Also, the current setbacks are reflective of the goal of the City to encourage greenspace and landscaping for a more park-like setting. Following further brief discussion, a motion was made by Dave Wurtenberger to accept the Staff s recommendations for text amendments to off-street parking requirements, with the changes cited above (parking space depths and required number of parking spaces for a medical office building). The motion was seconded by Brian Summe. All members voted in favor of the motion. The text amendment recommendation will be sent to the City Council for consideration on Thursday. 351 Centre View Update on Plans Dave Heidrich and Matt Olliges were present at the meeting to update the Committee on the status of the project. Mr. Heidrich noted that the Zalla had decreased the size of the building slightly since the last presentation, and addressed concerns of the Committee on buffering of the parking lot from Thomas More Parkway and Centre View Boulevard. Mr. Olliges stated that the berm has been widened and is taller than previously presented by Zalla Companies. Mr. Wurtenberger asked about the elevation change from TMP to the lot and if the berm and landscaping was sufficient to visually buffer cars. Mr. Heidrich stated that they would prepare elevation drawings for the site to show how the landscaping would buffer the parking lot. Mr. Olliges highlighted how the building s entrance has been improved aesthetically since the last presentation. The canopy has been improved as well as the front entrance. Mr. Summe asked about the dumpster location. Mr. Heidrich stated that it would be screened per the City

3 Ordinances with a brick surround that matches the building. Mr. Wurtenburger confirmed the brick was not brick panels, but actual brick façade. The Committee also discussed the setbacks of the parking lot to Thomas More Parkway. Mayor Meier stated that Thomas More Parkway is identified as an arterial/collector street and therefore the fifty (50) foot setback would be required. Zalla would need to include in their variance request to the City s Board of Adjustment a setback request for Thomas More Parkway as well as from Centre View Boulevard. Mr. Heidrich asked about timing for the proposed text amendment changes and a possible BOA hearing. Mr. Williams walked him through our process to change the zoning code text. Institutional Zone Wall Sign Size Standards Mr. Williams provided the Committee with background on a recent variance request by Thomas More College for a wall sign installed on the main academic building on campus. Mr. Williams reported that the variance request was disapproved unanimously by the Board of Adjustment due to the large difference (80 sq ft) between the new sign (that was already installed without a permit) and the current size standard (4 sq ft) in the City s Zoning Code. The Board declared the sign, as well as others that were also installed without a permit, to be non-conforming signs and further referred the sign size standards to the Economic Development and Zoning Committee for further review. The Committee is asked to review the City s current wall sign size standards, and consider whether they should be increased. Mr. Williams stated that he thought this issue needed proper study and analysis by the Committee, and is recommending that the Chairman appoint a sub-committee to review the standards from other similar communities, gain input from adjoining property owners and the College, and come back to the full committee with a recommendation. Chairman Kramer appointed Dave Wurtenburger, Brian Summe and Tim Williams to the sub-committee. The Sub-committee will report back in the next couple of months. College Park Reinvestment Committee Councilmember Sharon Gronotte presented the findings of the College Park Reinvestment Committee to Economic Development Committee members. Ms. Gronotte stated that the Committee looked at a number of metrics on this subdivision over the past ten years, and found that reinvestment in the homes has lagged behind that of other Crestview Hills subdivisions. They also found that more rental properties are now in the neighborhood than previously and that there have been more code violations in this neighborhood versus other Crestview Hills subdivisions. She also stated that there has been a large generational turnover in the neighborhood over the past ten years, and many early residents have moved on to retirement areas or passed away. The Committee s goal is to find

4 ways to urge significant reinvestment into the neighborhood by enhancing the value of the homes. Mr. Williams noted that only three homes in the neighborhood have undergone significant renovations (additions or significant structural upgrades) over the last ten years. This is in spite of over one third of the houses changing hands. Based on the evidence over the last ten years and the desire of the City Council to encourage more reinvestment, the Committee is recommending a property tax incentive program. The program would offset all City property taxes for up to a seven year period. The City would offer up to seven tax incentives each year for a period of seven years each. Applicants must be owner-occupied properties and must continue to occupy the residence for each of the next seven years to be eligible for the property tax offset. The applicant would have up to 16 months to complete their renovations after application. Following the renovations, the applicant would file a tax offset form and provide copies of receipts from contractors and pictures of the renovations. Several Economic Development Committee members noted that due to the City s low tax rate, that the amount of the incentive was probably not enough to incentivize someone to take on a substantial renovation (estimated at about $2,100 over the seven years). There was much discussion about this issue, but Chairman Kramer noted that we needed to start with a more reasonably priced program, but could reassess after the first few years if the program did not prove successful in spurring renovations, or the neighborhood showed a marked decline. Brian Summe inquired about the nature of qualifying work. He thought that exterior renovations could really enhance the overall quality of the neighborhood. If exterior items are falling in disrepair such as driveways and roofs, it can affect the overall appearance of the house, even with the internal upgrades. The Committee discussed this at length but determined that the incentive should remain as significant structural renovations at the outset. The renovations threshold would be $30,000 based on the Committee s recommendation. Mr. Williams also noted the additional work that will be necessary by the City to focus more intently on Code violations in the neighborhood. Mr. Wurtenberger asked about a historical overlay district or some other federal or state program that might provide tax credits for renovations. Mr. Williams will investigate, but the Committee determined that implementing a historic district came with far too many regulations and would not be the best approach at this time. Mr. Williams also noted the proposed program would be a rebate program as opposed to a tax abatement due to restrictions in Kentucky law. While this will have the same effect for implementation of the program, it will require more clerical work on behalf of the City. Brian Summe then made the motion to accept and recommend the College Park incentive program as proposed by the study group. The recommendation would be sent to the City Council for consideration in January, after the program is incorporated into a City Ordinance by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Dave Wurtenberger. All members voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Kramer thanked Ms. Gronotte and the College Park Reinvestment Committee members for their work on this program.

5 Other Business Mr. Williams brought the Committee up to date on the staff s effort on preparing a new zoning designation/code for Mixed Uses. Mr. Williams noted this a very high priority project for the City, and staff will be working over the next month to prepare a RFP for a zoning consultant to assist in preparing the new zoning regulations. Mr. Williams felt the City needed to get out in front of any potential plan that could be presented by property owners to approve a project and request the zone change to Mixed Use. Mr. Williams also noted that even though it is in the staff s work plan, work on creating new commercial design standards for the office park is still several months away due to other ongoing projects. With no further business before the Committee, a motion was made by Brian Summe to adjourn, seconded by Dave Wurtenberger. Meet adjourned at 7:58 pm.