Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting August 28, 2019 City Hall Council Chambers 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa. The following Commission members were present: Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux, Saul and Wingert. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager, David Sturch, Planner III and Iris Lehmann, Planner I, were also present. 1.) Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the August 14, 2019 regular meeting are presented. Ms. Prideaux noted that Item 3, paragraph 3 should have the words “the minutes as presented” stricken. Mr. Larson made a motion to approve the Minutes as amended. Mr. Wingert seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux, Saul and Wingert), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a public hearing regarding a land use map amendment for West Fork Crossing. Notice of public hearing was published in the Courier on August 21, 2019. Ms. Saul made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Wingert seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux, Saul and Wingert), and 0 nays. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained the land use map amendment is for 119 acres of land in the A-1 District in the western part of the City along Union Road. He discussed the characteristics of the land use categories within the property and the existing floodplain. He displayed the proposed future land use map with amendments including:  reduction of greenways/floodplain to follow current floodplain and drainage areas  creation of areas for open space and parkland  opportunity to create area for neighborhood park  change neighborhood commercial to low density residential Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the future land use map from Greenways/Floodplain and Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential with conformance to all staff recommendations and comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mike Girsch, 1608 Union Road, expressed objection to the removal of the commercial area on his property as it reduces options for future sale. He feels there is potential for a smaller business to be built in the future. As there were no further comments from the public, Chair Holst closed the public hearing. Mr. Wingert noted that he will be abstaining from the item. Mr. Holst asked about the land use to the north of Mr. Girsch’s property. Mr. Sturch stated that the NewAldaya development was changed to planned development along with the RP zoning change. The land use doesn’t really follow the property lines but the Commission can consider changes as new plans are proposed in the area. Ms. Howard stated that they will have to think 1  about the long term plan to avoid piecemealing the area. Mr. Leeper noted that he is sensitive to a more restrictive zone. Ms. Howard suggested maintaining the neighborhood commercial land use to the north of the petitioner’s property. Mr. Leeper asked if there has been any contact from the property owners to the south. Mr. Sturch stated that a notification was sent out and he has not heard anything from those property owners. Mr. Holst stated that he would be supportive of the change to low density residential while maintaining the small neighborhood commercial land use. Ms. Saul moved to approve the land use map amendment from neighborhood commercial and greenways/floodplain to low density residential and maintain the neighborhood commercial to the north of the petitioner’s property on Union Road. Ms. Adkins seconded the motion. Ms. Prideaux asked when the Commission would consider parks and greenspace. Ms. Howard stated that comments regarding future use of greenway and open spaces are appropriate to speak to at this time. Ms. Prideaux noted that she would like to see parkland added. Ms. Saul asked how that would affect what the developer does on that land. Ms. Howard stated that developers typically look at the piece of land to include elements of a healthy neighborhood and it can all be determined when the actual preliminary plat is submitted for review by staff and the Commission. She clarified that the current request is to change the land use map designations and the zoning would be discussed during the rezoning hearing. Mr. Larson asked for clarification on the motion that was made. It was to amend the land use map with the exception of the areas to the north. The discussion ended and the motion to recommend approval of the land use map amendment was approved with 7 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux and Saul), one abstention (Wingert), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a public hearing for a rezoning request from A-1 to R-1 at West Fork Crossing. Mr. Leeper made a motion to open the public hearing and Ms. Adkins seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux, Saul and Wingert), and 0 nays. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that it is a rezoning request of 119 acres from A-1, Agriculture to R-1, Residential and explained the rezoning criteria used in the process. He noted that the request must be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, the property must be readily accessible to sanitary sewer service and have adequate roadway access. He discussed the previously approved land use map amendment and what it means for the rezoning. The area is prime for growth, all requirements for rezoning are met, and the rezoning makes sense for the location. Mr. Sturch also discussed needs that will be caused by rezoning, which included a potential high school, efficient delivery of public services, open space, parks, trail connections and a well-connected street network. Rezoning is the first step in the developmental process, which is followed by subdivision platting and stormwater review. Staff recommends approval with conformance with all staff recommendations and comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Wingert noted that he is abstaining for the discussion. Johnathon Klein, developer with ISG, spoke about how Cedar Falls is growing quickly and how this is a great location for future development. They intend to incorporate parks and greenways, connect to future trails, as well as to meet all regulations and stormwater management. Mike Girsch asked how this will affect his property and concerns with the stormwater runoff 2  from the development. Mr. Holst stated that his property is not included in the request. As there were no further comments from the public, Chair Holst closed the public hearing. Mr. Wingert noted that he will be abstaining from the item. Mr. Larson made a motion to approve the rezoning request as submitted. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. Mr. Leeper feels that this is an appropriate change and supports the rezoning. Ms. Saul agreed. Ms. Prideaux asked what the City’s requirements are for setting aside land for parks. Ms. Howard noted a clause in the subdivision code to set aside adequate open space to meet neighborhood needs. There is no specific numerical calculation for what to set aside, but staff works with developers to come to an appropriate agreement. Mr. Leeper encouraged the developer to consider the traffic for the development with the high school. The discussion ended and the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request was approved with 7 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux and Saul) 1 abstention (Wingert), and 0 nays. 4.) The Commission then considered a facade review for The Pump Haus at 311 Main Street. Chair Holst noted that he will be abstaining from the discussion and passing the Chair to Vice- Chair Leeper. He introduced the item and Ms. Lehmann provided background information. She explained that the owner is requesting a site plan review for a proposed façade change to the front of the building. It is proposed to replace the storefront windows with two glass industrial garage doors and to install a new awning over the recently approved sidewalk café. The property falls within the Central Business Overlay District, which triggers Planning and Zoning and City Council approval. Ms. Lehmann displayed a rendering of the current storefront and the proposed storefront. She explained that the property was built in 1893 and a number of substantial improvements have been made since then; these changes have made the structure non-contributing to the downtown historic district. She discussed both proposed modifications separately, starting with the criteria for the garage doors. She explained that the proposed alteration of the storefront windows goes against a number of the districts design criteria, including: proportion, pattern, windows and transparency, and architectural features. Large display windows allow for unimpeded views into the interior of buildings, which is ideal for retail and restaurant uses, and is the most important element of building design of storefronts. The smaller glass lites in the garage door will be less transparent and may not be ideal for retail uses if the use of the space were to change in the future. She noted that staff understands that operable windows could be an attractive feature for a restaurant during summer months and would be appropriate and attractive in a different context, such as along a side street, where a storefront does not currently exist, or a repurposed industrial building. However, changing out the classic storefront window configuration with modern glass, industrial garage doors would be a substantial change that is not in keeping with the historic character of the building or the district. The proportions of the garage doors do not fit in with the existing proportions of the façade and will disrupt the architectural features and design of the building. Staff has encouraged the applicant to consider other options, such as swivel windows that will open within the existing openings, or similar. Staff is not opposed to the use of glass garage doors in general, however, it is not compatible with the classic storefronts on Main Street downtown. Ms. Lehmann then discussed the second part of the proposal, the awning. It is proposed to be a 10’ x 20’ gray, lightweight canvas mounted to the building ten feet above the sidewalk and will have a clearance of 8’ off the sidewalk at the point of full extension, which does meet minimum clearance requirements. Awnings are allowed downtown, however this is proposal is unique in its scale and will require discussion by the Commission. Staff feels that this kind of improvement could be appropriate with the requirement that if the sidewalk café were ever removed, the awning be retracted to 5 feet or taken down. Another stipulation of approval 3  would be that the applicant work closely with the building official to ensure that the awning is of commercial quality and is safely and properly mounted to handle wind loads. Staff recommends denial of the garage door portion of the proposal based on the aforementioned reasons. Staff recommends approval of the proposed awning with the stipulations that the applicant coordinates with the Building Department to ensure quality and safe attachment and that the awning be retracted or taken down when the café is removed. Bruce and Johna Petersen, 1607 River Bluff Drive, stated that they changed their original design from one door to two in an effort to appease the review committee. They feel that this design is a new trend that gives a vibrant feel that allows guests to feel like they are indoors and outdoors. Ms. Petersen read an email from Carol Lilly of Community Main Street to Brandon of Christie Door Company, explaining that she likes and supports the concept of garage door type openings in restaurants and that the downtown design committee members are supportive as well. She explained the Downtown Overlay District and its purpose, and stated that she reached out with the intent to help business owners reach their goals while adhering to the ordinance. Ms. Petersen stated that they would like to stay current and on- trend and noted that they received a facade grant to help with the cost. She also noted that this is not irreversible and does not believe that this change would reduce window coverage. Mr. Larson stated that he is in support of the project and noted that he instinctually would have chosen one garage door. Ms. Saul agreed that she likes the project and she prefers one garage door. Ms. Prideaux stated that she feels that the single garage door would be the option that would work the best and that it would give a personal identity to the Pump Haus and some variation to Main Street. Mr. Larson also noted that the garage door is essentially storefront windows with breaks and hinges that allow it to retract. He also noted that as this storefront is not historically significant and the windows are inset, he feels this change does not disrespect the storefront’s current design. He added that this type of improvement should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Ms. Adkins also prefers the single garage door and feels that it allows for more transparency. Mr. Leeper thinks it’s a great idea, but doesn’t like the implementation. He feels the canopy is too large. Mr. Larson stated that if all businesses had large canopies, it would be unappealing, but to have just one would give it more interest. He asked if there is anything about this kind of awning that goes against code. Ms. Lehmann stated that the code speaks to projections over the sidewalk, but only really specifies signage. Awnings do not have specific language, but it has been staff practice to treat them the same to allow for clearance and walkability. There are also specific requirements for sidewalk cafés, which could also help dictate what is allowed. Ms. Howard stated that part of the reason that the awning needs to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council is because it extends into public property and needs to be appropriate in quality and construction. Ms. Saul made a motion to approve both proposed changes to the façade, with the change of making it a single garage door and with the stipulations noted in the staff report for the awning. Ms. Adkins seconded the motion. The motion was approved with 6 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Larson, Prideaux, Saul and Wingert), 1 abstention (Holst) and 1 nay (Leeper). 5.) The next item of business was a preliminary plat for Panther West. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Wingert noted that he would abstain from the discussion. Ms. Lehmann provided background information, explaining that the Panther Farms LLC proposes to subdivide approximately 40 acres of land in an R-1, Residential zone with the intent to develop 98 new residential lots similar to neighboring subdivisions. At this time the plat is being presented for discussion only. Ms. Lehmann provided a rendering of the four phases proposed within the plat and explained the breakdown of each section. The proposed plan coordinates the development with the installation of utilities, public services and streets. A stipulation is in 4  place that the Arbors Drive connection to Greenhill Road is in place before the final plat for this subdivision is approved. She also discussed the sidewalk connections, as well as a proposed traffic circle at the intersection of Madeline and Arbors Drive, that is under review by the Engineering Division. Stormwater is also under review by the Engineering Division and the Corps of Engineers, which may change the layout of the plat. Ms. Saul asked if the northeast corner needs to be platted before this plat. Ms. Lehmann noted that it should be done the same time or before. Ms. Saul also asked about Arbor Drive and how far it will be completed. Ms. Prideaux asked about additional traffic calming measures, such as additional cross walks, etc. Steve Trosky with CGA Engineers stated that a traffic calming circle has been added and they are willing to consider additional measures if there is room available. Mr. Leeper asked if the developer has any sense of timing of the phases. Mr. Trosky said that he does not at this time but could present it at the next meeting. Ms. Saul asked staff if the road in front of the school would be changed, as it is currently very narrow. Ms. Howard stated that it is considered more of a boulevard with a median in the middle. The width is also intended to slow people down. As the Commission had no further questions, the discussion was moved to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 6.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Leeper made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wingert seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Prideaux, Saul and Wingert), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Clerk 5