CITY OF LA VISTA 8116 PARK VIEW BOULEVARD LA VISTA, NE P: (402) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 CITY OF LA VISTA 8116 PARK VIEW BOULEVARD LA VISTA, NE P: (402) CZOPY A-s La Vista PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21,2016-7:00 P.M. The City of La Vista Planning Commission held a meeting on Thursday, July 21st, in e Harold "Andy" Anderson Council Chamber at La Vista City Hall, 8116 Park View Boulevard. Chairman Gayle Malmquist called e meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. wi e following members present: Mike Krzywicki, Gayle Malmquist, John Gahan, Tom Miller, Jackie Hill, and Jason Dale. Members absent were: Harold Sargus, Kevin Wetuski, Kaleen Alexander, and Mike Circo: Also in attendance were Chris Solberg, City Planner; Meghan Engberg, Permit Technician; Ann Birch, Community Development Director; John Kottmann, City Engineer; and Tom McKeon, City Attorney. Legal notice of e public meeting and hearing were posted, distributed and published according to Nebraska law. Notice was simultaneously given to all members of e Planning Commission. All proceedings shown were taken while e convened meeting was open to e attendance of e public. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Malmquist at 7:00 p.m. Copies of e agenda and staff reports were made available to e public. 2. Approval of Meeting Minutes - June 16,2016 Mille r moved, seconded by Hill to approve e June 16 minutes wi corrections. Ayes: Krzywicki, Gahan, Malmquist, Hill, Dale, and Miller. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sargus, Wetuski, Alexander, and Circo. Motion Carried. (6-0) 3. Old Business None. 4. New Business A. Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Section 7.08 (Off - Street Parking: Parking for Individuals wi Disabilities) - City of La Vista i. Staff Report - Chris Solberg: Solberg stated upon staff review of Section 7.08, Off-Street Parking: Parking for individuals wi Disabilities, it was concluded an update to e regulations was warranted. The proposed changes add a separate column for e required Minimum Number of Van Accessible Parking Spaces wiin e table in Section Additional minor changes are proposed to increase e number of accessible spaces at shall be served by an access aisle. Redline copies of e aforementioned sections are attached. Staff recommends approval of e proposed amendments. ii. Public Hearing- Opened by Gayle Malmquist No members of e public came forward. 1

2 Malmquist closed e Public Hearing. Malmquist asked if ese changes were in compliance wi e ADA or if ere were changes to e ADA at mandated is. Solberg said ere were some changes from e Department of Justice at were sent down regarding changes in eir requirements and we are updating our regulations accordingly. Krzywicki said he had a question in regards to Section He asked since ere is a possibility at two signs will need to be attached if one is van accessible as well as handicapped, if it can be clarified wheer 60" refers to e higher sign or e lower sign. Malmquist asked if it says at least 60" above ground surface measured from e lowest sign, so you would only need to add e word "lowest". So e last sentence would read "ADA mandates at least 60 inches above ground surface measured from e bottom of e lowest sign." iii. Recommendation: Gaha n moved, seconded by l Hil to approve to e City Council e Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Section 7.08, Off-Street Parking: Parking for Individuals wi Disabilities, as it is consistent wi e Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ayes: KrzywickiGahan, Malmquist; Hill, Dale and Miller. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sargus, Wetuski, Alexander, and Circo. Motion Carried. (6-0) B. Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Sections 2.14 (Definitions "M"), 5.13 (1-1 Light Industrial District), 5.14 (1-2 Heavy Industrial District) - City of La Vista i. Staff Report - Chris Solberg: Solberg stated alough microbreweries are currently allowed outright in e 1-2 Heavy Industrial District rough Section , staff review has concluded at is use needs to be specifically addressed. The proposed changes to e Zoning Ordinance provide for e use of microbreweries outright in bo e 1-1 Light Industrial and 1-2 Heavy Industrial zoning districts. However, if e microbrewery were to include on-site sales as part of e operation on site, a Conditional Use Permit would need to be obtained. Staff recommends approval of e proposed amendments. ii. Public Hearing - opened by Gayle Malmquist No members of e public came forward. Malmquist closed e Public Hearing. Malmquist inquired wheer microbreweries currently are allowed in 1-1 and I- 2, but e problem is if it includes on-site sales, en a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Solberg confirmed and added we are also allowing for microbreweries in

3 Hill noted at e definition of brew pubs indicated at no more an 10,000 barrels of beer annually are to be produced. She noted in our new definition we are going wi ese establishments not producing more an 20,000 barrels per year and wanted to know why we were increasing from 10,000 barrels to 20,000 barrels. She wanted to know why 20,000 is e magic number. Solberg said e state statutes refer to 20,000 barrels. Microbrewery would now be specifically permitted wiin e 1-1 and 1-2 districts and as a conditional use wiin e C-3 district and e goal is to separate at use from brew pubs. Previously it was referencing back to brew pubs, so ey are trying to separate brew pubs from microbreweries because brew pubs are more restaurant based. They are trying to create a distinction between uses. Hill asked if e 20,000 was consistent wi adjacent communities. She wanted to know where e definition came from, what it was modeled by. Solberg said ey took a number of different definitions from a number of different locations. However, ere was some linkage back to state statutes at define a microbrewery and at e figure is somewhere wiin e state statute. Malmquist agreed and said she believed it was somewhere in e state statutes when e state come up wi regulations for ese "creatures" and at's where e 20,000 came from. Krzywicki asked about e definition where it says 75% sold off-site and wanted to know how is will be monitored and if all microbreweries in e city will be required to file a report of what eir percentage is. He en asked if e existing ones are grandfaered or if ey will have to apply for e special use permit. Solberg said at will be addressed at e time at a complaint would come up. It would be a lot like e oer regulations at might require an inquiry at e time of complaint, on e 75% aspect. He said if ere was a complaint at someone was selling more an e 25% on-site en we would investigate at. Krzywicki said e reason he was asking about e grandfaering is because ere is a pretty easily identified number of ese currently in e city and asking em about is change and wheer ey had any concerns and wheer ey ought ey would be able to comply. He wanted to know what e City's position would be in requiring e change in e ordinance to be complied wi for somebody who is already invested in e business. Solberg said he didn't ink we would chase after ose businesses unless ere was a complaint or if ere was a change in eir use. Krzywicki said it seemed like a lot of e microbreweries now have party rooms, tours, and selling product in eir shops. Solberg said at's part of e reason at we're requiring e Conditional Use permit, is for e on-site sales because of e possible traffic and parking concerns. He said a lot of times ey wait for em to expand or change eir use at some point and deal wi it en. 3

4 Krzywicki asked if ere have been any instances where e parking at's adjacent to e microbrewery is significantly under where people are having to park on streets in at area. Solberg said he has received no complaints on at. iii. Recommendation: l Hil moved, seconded by Gaho n to approve e proposed amendments. Ayes: Krzywicki, Gahan, Malmquist, Hill, Dale and Miller. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sargus, Wetuski, Alexander, and Circo. Motion Carried. (6-0) C. Public Hearing for e proposed Redevelopment Plan for e 84 Redevelopment Area - Amendment No. 1 - City of La Vista Street i. Staff Report - Chris Solberg: Solberg stated e Mayor and City Council, on behalf of e City and after review and recommendation of e Planning Commission and satisfying all notice, public hearing and oer applicable requirements, by Resolution No declared e 84 Street Redevelopment Area as a substandard and blighted area in need of redevelopment. Subsequent approval of Resolution No on July 16, 2013 approved of a Redevelopment Plan of e 84 Street Redevelopment Area. Also, on July 16, 2013 e City Council approved Resolution No approving of e Redevelopment Plan for e 84 Street Redevelopment Area. He mentioned in eir packet is an amendment to e Redevelopment Plan for e 84 Street Redevelopment Area Amendment No.l. He asked em to please note at ey have received a red line version of at amendment to replace e existing text of e document, as ere are some minor changes at have been incorporated since e packets were compiled. The public copy has been updated wi is new red line version. Staff recommends approval as follows: After review, recommending to e Community Development Agency and governing body of e City of La Vista e Redevelopment Plan Amendment presented at e meeting as in conformity, and conformity of e Redevelopment Plan as amended, wi e La Vista Comprehensive Plan, subject to (i) exhibits satisfactory to e City Engineer, (ii) such modifications, if any, e City Administrator or her designee determines necessary or appropriate, (iii) making or performance of any required findings, actions or analysis under e Community Development Law to e satisfaction of e City Administrator or her designee, and (iv) City Council adoption of e proposed amendment to e Comprehensive Plan to incorporate e Redevelopment Plan Amendment into e Comprehensive Plan. Solberg asked e commission members to please note at any motion follows at recommendation. ii. Public Hearing - Opened by Gayle Malmquist No members of e public came forward. Malmquist closed e Public Hearing. 4

5 Malmquist noted ey had before em a revised amendment copy dated July 20, Krzywicki said in e overview of e item, e last sentence in e very large paragraph referencing where it talks about eliminating and preventing e recurrence of e substandard and blighted area. He wanted to know what in e amendment would prevent any future recurrence of substandard or blighted area. McKeon said ere are two pieces to e amendment. The first being e mixed-use redevelopment project and at includes e private improvements by e redeveloper. Then, ere is also e vision for e La Vista Community Development Agency to do e demolition and site preparation. In doing so, at is e elimination of e substandard and blighted area. Then ere is a second project which is e public improvement project and at's where e City will come in and put in streets and parking and recreational areas at are going to be needed. In doing all at, bo e public investment and e private improvements, you are essentially preventing e recurrence of e substandard and blighted area. He en asked Krzywicki if at answered his question. Krzywicki said it explains e goal, but if we have an owner of ese properties in e future who decides not to maintain em, what would be in is document to prevent it from going into disrepair. McKeon said is is really e first step and ere are multiple layers to is. These are e ground rules of how it's going to develop and at's required for us to actually adopt someing like is under state statute before adding oer steps. He said at e Council review will take place in August, where is item will come up and, subject to approval of is item, e redevelopment contract and a subdivision agreement will get into e private improvements and it also has a provision about maintenance. He said e redeveloper is putting a lot of money into it and e assumption is at ey will maintain it, but ere will be provisions in e agreement as well about maintenance. Then, on top of at, you will have laws and regulations at generally apply as far as maintenance goes. So, you will have multiple layers of addressing at interest. Solberg added at wiin e redevelopment contract ere will be a set of design guidelines, and as wi any of e oer design guidelines wiin e City of La Vista, it requires durable materials which help wi e longevity of any development like at. Krzywicki said e main reason at he brought it up was because he had found an article online at he passed around to oer planning members at was pointing e finger at cities for not protecting e taxpayers from areas going into blight like e Walmart abandonment and ings like at. He said ere were ings in original redevelopment contracts at made it easier for cities to step in sooner, and at could have prevented ings like at from happening. Gahan asked if someone could explain what e TIF financing was. 5

6 McKeon said essentially what it is at you've got your property set at a valuation currently and e redeveloper is going to come and actually put private investment in and increase e value. The taxes on at increase in value will be turned back essentially for him to help service his debt on e public improvements he's going to be responsible for building. In is case it would be site acquisition, e fagade enhancements at are over and above e existing standards, streetscaping and sidewalks are e primary parts. Gahan asked if ese are e property taxes. McKeon said at was correct. Gahan said e property taxes are paid to e county and asked if it was e entire amount at ey would get. McKeon said at it is. He en mentioned at it is limited to 15 years. Gahan asked if it is capped at 37 million. McKeon said at was correct. Chris Erickson from City Ventures en came forward to speak. He said tax increment financing was described correctly. He said ey are looking to invest about $230 million into e project and ey are projecting for at to go onto e tax roles at about $175 million. He said today's current tax value on e property is about $10 million and at will continue to go to everyone at it goes to currently, so ey call at e base and en e increment is e added value above at, so it would be e $175 [million] minus e $10 [million]. The $165 million in value would come back to em. They will write a check to e county, e county collects all e money and ey take some fees out of it and ey will en turn around and write a check back to em for a period of 15 years. It actually ends up being less an at because it takes some time to build e project. Gahan asked once ey reach a point in e contract, e dollar amount, if it's over. Erickson said at's basically e way it works. He said in some instances if ere's excessive increment sometimes a second note is floated. It's a 15 year note, but ey're building e first 2 years so ere's no incremental value ere, so it's typically only 13 years of payments. He said it hardly ever gets paid off significantly early; it's usually only a year or so prior. Gahan said e sooner you can get e project up and going and it gets above a certain level, e sooner ey will start realizing some of at money. Erickson said at's why is tax increment financing has become such a tool at is used roughout e United States because it's truly based on e success of e private investment, so if e increment is not ere, ere's really no risk. All he gets is a note saying at he gets ose future cash rolls, but only on e value at ey create and so if he does not create at much value en he doesn't get back at much money. 6

7 Gahan asked if e county is going to reap e extra value after e 15 years. Erickson said yes and en it will start coming back to everyone. Krzywicki en asked if e First National Bank, Chili's, McDonald's and Car Wash will be staying where ey are or if ere were plans to move em to a different location on e property. Erickson said ere are currently negotiations ongoing wi First National Bank at are progressing in a really positive direction to relocate em. They have submitted an offer to Chili's to relocate, but at is a much more challenging structure ey have from an ownership perspective because ere are 4 layers ere. They are attempting to work rough at and if ey are fortunate enough to do it, e tenant has expressed interest in moving wi e project. They have planned around eir building for now. McDonald's is locked in until 2049 and are not willing to give at up. The car wash is staying as well because ere really is no way to reconfigure at. Gahan en asked about e exhibit in regards to e Engineer's Opinion of Costs. He said he believed e City was responsible for ese improvements, which include e site demolition, e grading, paving, utilities, etc. He asked if is was e extra Vi cent sales tax at was going to pay for at. McKeon said at work is actually being done by e Community Development Agency and en e City would eier directly paying using e 1 /z cent sales tax because it's intended to be used for redevelopment projects in is area or oer public infrastructure projects. Then ere's e potential to also issue bonds or have financing backed by at additional K cent. Gahan said he was curious if e extra % cent was on line to meet e cost. He said assuming e 34 cent was being put towards is. McKeon said at it is being set aside, but he's not sure how much is in at account. Solberg said e last he heard it was over 1.5 million. He said at e % cent sales tax is only meant to pay for a portion of e overall project because it is a very large project. Gahan asked if everyone was comfortable wi e direction e City is heading as far as e City's responsibility for ese costs. Solberg said he wanted to clarify at we're not talking about e 34 cent here. He asked McKeon to verify at is is just for TIF related aspects. McKeon concurred, stating what ey are approving is if is proposed plan is in conformity wi e Comprehensive Plan. He said we are not getting into e financing and ings like at. He said at is actually going to be taken up by e Council at e first meeting in August and maybe oer meetings. He mentioned ere was a bond resolution at e last meeting to pay for some of is project, which was backed by e additional 34 cent. 7

8 iii. Recommendation: Mille r moved, seconded by Gaha n for approval recommending to e Community Development Agency and governing body of e City of La Vista e Redevelopment Plan Amendment presented at e meeting as in conformity, and conformity of e Redevelopment Plan as amended, wi e La Vista Comprehensive Plan, subject to (i) exhibits satisfactory to e City Engineer, (ii) such modifications, if any, e City Administrator or her designee determines necessary or appropriate, (iii) making or performance of any required findings, actions or analysis under e Community Development Law to e satisfaction of e City Administrator or her designee, and (iv) City Council adoption of e proposed amendment to Comprehensive Plan to incorporate e Redevelopment Plan Amendment into e Comprehensive Plan. Ayes: Krzywicki, Gahan, Malmquist, Hill, Dale and Miller. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sargus, Wetuski, Alexander, and Circo. Motion Carried. (6-0) D. Public Hearing regarding Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate Redevelopment Plan for e 84 Street Redevelopment Area - Amendment No. 1 - City of La Vista. i. Staff Report - Chris Solberg & Tom McKeon: Solberg stated e existing Redevelopment Plan is incorporated wiin e Comprehensive Plan as an appendix to e Comprehensive Plan. He said in essence we are amending at document and we are going to have to amend e Comprehensive Plan as well. Through is agenda item ey will be recommending approval to amend e Comprehensive Plan. McKeon en said e idea behind at is e Redevelopment Plan has to be consistent wi e Comprehensive Plan and e easiest way to do at is to amend e Comprehensive Plan to incorporate e Redevelopment Plan. So, e recommendation would be to amend e Comprehensive Plan to incorporate e Redevelopment Plan Amendment IMo. 1. ii. Public Hearing - opened by Gayle Malmquist. No members of e public came forward. Public Hearing Closed by Malmquist. iii. Recommendation: Gaha n moved, seconded by Dal e to recommend approval of e Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate e Redevelopment Amendment No. 1 be approved to e City Council. Ayes: Krzywicki, Gahan, Malmquist, Hill, Dale and Miller. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sargus, Wetuski, Alexander, and Circo. Motion Carried. (6-0) 5. Comments from e Floor None. 6. Comments from Planning Commission Krzywicki asked for an update on Costco's progress. 8

9 Kottmann said e street construction portion of it, Portside Parkway, will be putting in a change order to extend e deadline approximately 30 days from at primarily due to rain delays and construction coordination delays wi e Costco construction team. He said ey are also behind schedule, however ey "swear" at ey will be opening is fall and will do what it takes to make at happen. 7. Comments from Staff Solberg mentioned Taste of La Vista is next Saturday and everyone should have received postcards in e mail regarding it. He said we would love everyone to come out. We will be reviewing e goals is time around and presenting em to everybody and we would like eir input. 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned by Malmquist at 7:56 9

10 Reviewed by Planning Commission: Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Chairperson Approval Date l:\community Development\Planning Department\Planning Commission\Minutes\2016\ Minutes.Docx 10