Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 12, 2018 City Hall Council Chambers 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa. The following Commission members were present: Adkins, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Saul and Wingert. Oberle was absent. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager and David Sturch, Planner III, were also present. 1.) Ms. Howard introduced new Commission member, Kyle Larson. Acting Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the November 28, 2018 regular meeting are presented. Ms. Giarusso made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Ms. Adkins seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Adkins, Giarusso, Hartley, Larson, Leeper, Saul and Wingert), 1 abstention (Holst) and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a College Hill Neighborhood Overlay District Site Plan Review for 2119 College Street. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that the item was previously brought before the Commission on November 28 for introduction and stated that the property is near the northwest corner of College and 22nd Streets. He provided the Commission with letters received from citizens. He discussed the breakdown of unit types and bedrooms, as well as parking stalls, and the code with regard to requirements. He displayed renderings of the proposed building and explained changes that were made per recommendations. He also showed building materials, as well as height comparison and scale. He spoke to additional site plan review elements and showed the landscaping plan, and noted that staff recommends approval of the building with the following recommendations: the building conforms to all city staff recommendations and technical requirements; a parking agreement be developed and executed for the project; and any comments from the commission. Kamyar Enshayan, 1703 Washington Street, president of the College Hill Partnership, stated that the board is in favor of the project and that they have submitted a letter of support. Eashaan Vajpeyi, 3831 Convair Lane, stated that previously Mr. Wingert has recused himself from a vote and feels that he should recuse himself again as he believes it is a conflict of interest. He stated his concerns with the parking and interpretation of the code. He feels that there should be more parking or a smaller building. He believes there should be equal treatment between commercial and residential uses. Dave Diebler, College Hill business owner, stated that he supports the project, but is concerned about using too much land for parking. He doesn’t believe it’s as big of an issue as some people feel it is. He feels that a parking study is needed on College Hill to help clarify and create a reasonable code change. 1 Brian Sires, 1939 College Street, stated that he supports the project, but he feels that the city parking code isn’t mentioned. He stated that Section 29-177, the parking code, should be followed. He believes that parking is required based on the code and feels it should still be made available off-site as well to help accommodate parking. Jerry Geisler, 4412 S. Hudson Road, stated that more parking stalls should be added for one bedroom units, as there is more often than not, more than one vehicle for each. Becky Hawbaker, 2309 Iowa Street, stated that she feels the project is fairly parked and supports the current proposal. Andy Fuchtman, 422 Ellen Street, spoke as owner of Sidecar Coffee and stated that he supports the project and would like to see more projects that help revitalize the Hill. John Taiber, 250 State Street, feels that parking is not a problem in the downtown area and believes that there should be more walkability and fewer cars. He stated that he supports the project. Kyle Dehmlow, 2113 Vera Way, has worked on College Hill since 2006 and discussed the lots with meters as opposed to the free lots, stating that people gravitate to the free parking but the lots with meters are mostly open, so he doesn’t see a need for additional parking. He supports redevelopment on the Hill. The discussion moved back to the Commission. Mr. Wingert noted that the reason he is no longer abstaining from the vote is because he has not been included in this project with the developer and the City Attorney said there is no need to recuse himself. Mr. Leeper stated that the code is fairly old and it wasn’t updated at a time when these kinds of projects were considered. This has created the need to interpret the code as it is. Mr. Holst noted that he supports the project, but still has an issue with the parking code and feels it should be changed before approving the project. Project developer Brent Dahlstrom, 5016 Samantha Circle, stated that he understands if the project is tabled at this time and time is allowed for changes and clarification. Mr. Leeper addressed the comments made that suggested the City is serving one particular developer and stated that this is not true and the Commission is volunteering their time to do what they believe is in the best interest of the city. Mr. Holst stated that the code has been around for a long time and does not reflect these kinds of projects, which requires change to the code. Ms. Saul believes that the job of the Commission is to make decisions based on the code, and doesn’t believe, at this time, that the project agrees with the code. While she loves the project, she feels the item should be tabled at this time. Ms. Giarusso made a motion to table the item until the code is changed. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was denied with 3 ayes (Adkins, Giarusso, Saul), 4 nays (Larson, Hartley, Leeper, Wingert) and 1 abstention (Holst). 2  Mr. Leeper made a motion to defer the item to the January 9, 2019 meeting. Mr. Wingert seconded the motion. The motion was approved with 6 ayes (Adkins, Giarusso, Hartley, Larson, Leeper, and Wingert), 1 nay (Saul) and 1 abstention (Holst). 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was Zoning Code Text Amendments, including proposed changes to Section 29-160, College Hill Neighborhood Overlay Zoning District to define and clarify standards for mixed-use buildings. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Ms. Howard provided background information. She explained that staff is bringing forward an interim solution to clarify the parking requirements for mixed- use buildings. She noted that the City is planning to do a parking study in the College Hill area to help establish the parking needs that can be used to officially update the code. Ms. Howard discussed the costs of setting aside land for parking. She also spoke to the plan to delete ambiguous and confusing language in the code with regard to mixed-use buildings. Staff recommends adding a definition for a mixed-use building and then adding a parking requirement for residential dwelling units within a mixed-use building. As a starting point, staff suggests one parking space per bedroom and eliminating the visitor parking requirement. To provide a level playing field for multiple dwelling buildings, staff recommends adopted the same requirement. Staff notes the importance of making sure the parking requirements are not set too high. After the parking study is completed, there may be a need to adjust the requirement again. Staff also recommends deleting the ambiguous language regarding principal, secondary, and accessory use as it relates to mixed-use buildings and the parking requirements. Language was also added to establish building design standards for the mixed-use buildings that address safe and prominent building entries, quality storefront design and standards for high quality materials. These standards are consistent with the standards already in the code related to design review in the College Hill Overlay and are consistent with the storefront design standards recently adopted for mixed-use storefront buildings in the Downtown Overlay. It is also proposed to clean up terms used for different types of dwellings to match the definitions in Section 29-2 of the code. Staff recommends discussion of the proposed amendments and setting a date for public hearing at the January 9, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Ms. Saul asked when the parking study will be done. Ms. Howard answered that the decision is up to City Council, but the idea is to review the results of the downtown study and then consider conducting a similar study in College Hill soon thereafter. Mr. Hartley clarified that the code amendments being discussed just apply to the College Hill Overlay, not downtown. Ms. Howard stated that is the case. Mr. Wingert asked about the process of making any additional changes to parking requirements after the parking study. Ms. Howard discussed the process. Mr. Leeper asked about the timing on the current and future code amendments. Ms. Howard stated that is up to the Commission to decide when to move the current proposed amendments forward to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Leeper asked what happens if someone wants to rehab an upper space in an existing property on College Hill. Ms. Howard noted that existing dwelling units would be grandfathered with no parking required. If new space is being added or converted to residential, they would have to provide parking according to the Code. She noted that there are options that could be explored to exempt upper floor space from the parking requirements. Staff could bring something back at the next meeting for the Commission to consider in this regard. Ms. Saul asked what happens when tenants don’t have ample parking and where they can park. 3  Brent Dahlstrom stated that he feels this is an amicable discussion and that there is work being done to find a balance, but feels that College Hill needs redevelopment. He noted that the floodplain is being updated within the city and suggested using the areas that will be in the floodplain for parking lots. Eashaan Vajpeyi stated that he supports the project but wants to see the code changed before reviewing the projects. He asked that the code be amended to reflect the development changes that have been coming forward. Brian Sires stated that he feels that there is some discrepancy in the commercial and residential uses. He also noted that studios and one bedroom units are typically shared by a couple to keep costs down and that isn’t counting visitors. He feels that there should be 1.5 stalls per one bedroom to accommodate the parking appropriately. Ryan Kriener, 4407 Donald Drive, stated that the area isn’t just for college students. They are intending to make it a vibrant area for everyone. He asked that the Commission keep that in consideration when making the changes. Kamyar Enshayan asked the Commission to recommend to City Council to do the parking study immediately. He noted that the College Hill Partnership has also sent a letter to Council asking the same. Andy Fuchtman stated that redevelopment has not been happening very quickly on the Hill and there have been some that have been skeptical about whether starting a business on College Hill was a good idea, but that there are those that have taken the chance and want things to move in a positive direction. He stated that Sidecar Coffee has been a success. There was further Commission discussion with regard to potential changes to the code. Staff will bring back verbiage for exemptions in existing buildings and will be presented at public hearing on January 9, 2019. 4.) Ms. Howard provided Commission updates. The December 26, 2018 will be cancelled due to lack of a quorum during that holiday week. She also noted that on January 7, 2019 the Planning and Zoning Commission is invited to attend a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the Capital Improvements Plan. The meeting will be held prior to the formal meeting, but the time has yet to be determined, so stay tuned for further information. 5.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Hartley made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wingert seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Saul and Wingert), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Clerk 4