Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 20, 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, November 20, 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, Lynch, Prideaux, and Wingert. Leeper and Saul were absent. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager, David Sturch, Planner III, and Jaydevsinh Atodaria, Planner I, were also present. 1.) Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the November 6, 2019 regular meeting are presented. Mr. Hartley made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Ms. Adkins seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Lynch, Prideaux, and Wingert), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a petition to renew the College Hill Self Supporting Municipal Improvement District (SSMID). Chair Holst introduced the item and Ms. Howard provided background information. She explained that the College Hill Partnership has submitted a petition for renewal of the SSMID. The purpose of the district is to support the ongoing administrative functions and costs for the Partnership. Every five years the Partnerships must submit a new petition indicating support from at least 25% of the unique property owners representing at least 25% of the assessed value of commercial property within the SSMID District. State Code requires that the City Council receive the petition and refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for evaluation. Ms. Howard noted that the tax for the SSMID will remain the same. Since the petition submitted by the Partnership exceeds the minimum threshold of support per State Law, Staff recommends approval of the petition for renewal of the SSMID. Ms. Prideaux made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Lynch seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Lynch, Prideaux, and Wingert), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a request to rezone property at 4911 University from R-1, Residential to C-1, Commercial. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that the property is approximately 0.34 acres and contains a single family home with an attached two-car garage and a detached accessory structure. It has been registered as a rental unit since 2003 and the owner also owns the adjacent property at 4919 University Avenue. The property at 4919 University Avenue was rezoned from R-1 to C-1 to convert the existing home into a commercial office in 2001. The petitioner would like to tear down the house on the property at 4911 and combine the lots of 4911 and 4919 University to allow for future expansion of the office at 4919 or for other commercial use. The residential zoning of the property is inconsistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and is located between two other commercial properties. Staff noted that it would make sense to rezone this property to C-1 to be consistent with the adjacent property owned by the petitioner. Mr. Atodaria noted that the property at 4919 was rezoned subject to a zoning agreement that any development would comply with the standards of the MPC Zoning District, which will ensure that there is a good buffer and transition from commercial to the lower-scale residential neighborhood to the south. He noted the property currently has access to University Avenue, and once combined will also have access from Veralta Drive. Staff notes that no new access points to University Avenue or Veralta Drive will 1  be allowed. All public services are available to the property. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request subject to a conditional zoning agreement that ensures that future development of the property is in accordance with the standards of the MPC District. Brad Jacobsen, 806 Latham Place, stated that he is the owner of the properties and that he has decided that the property would be better suited to be a commercial property. Chair Holst noted that the project is consistent with the Master Plan for the area. Mr. Hartley made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Adkins seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Lynch, Prideaux, and Wingert), and 0 nays. 4.) The Commission then considered the preliminary and final plats for Greenhill Village Estates. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that it is a one lot subdivision on 8.66 acres. It is proposed to house a new senior living facility in the lot. He discussed the utility and stormwater drainage easements, explaining that there is overland flow to the drainage easement and storm sewer, and the storm sewer then carries the storm water to Ashworth Drive and eventually to an area wide detention basin. The plan for the area is to use the existing storm sewers and connect the dots by installing storm sewer to connect to the pond, which will release into storm sewer and overflow will run down the driveway to Algonquin Drive. Dry basins will also collect and transfer the water through the parking lots and into a wet pond. The developer will also create some piping around the proposed building to catch everything on the east half of the property. Mr. Sturch provided a rendering of the site plan to display how the storm water will be managed throughout the site. Staff would like to gather comments and continue the discussion at the next meeting. Jacob Wolfgang of Nelson Construction at 47 2040th Street, Des Moines, spoke to the project noting that the project proposes 120 apartment homes for assisted living and memory care. He noted that they met with the neighbors to discuss their plans and get feedback. Ms. Prideaux asked if there are plans to have more permeable surfaces in the parking lot to help with water runoff. Nick Bettis, Axiom Consultants, civil engineer for the project, stated that their calculations account for the hard surface and that area will direct the water into the wet detention basin and will be a controlled release per City requirements. They have not had any discussion regarding making the roadways permeable. Debbie Lee, 1415 Ashworth Drive, stated that she has several concerns. She wants to know how far the perimeter road is from their property and how it will affect traffic. She also stated concern with the fact that the wet basin will be very close to their home and whether it will be stagnant water, which will bring mosquitoes. Ms. Lee also noted concerns with potential light and noise pollution, as well the landscaping and any potential upkeep issues. Mr. Sturch stated that these concerns will be further explained with the site plan review for the next item on the agenda. Robin Frost, 4718 Addison Drive, expressed her appreciation of the developer’s interest in talking with the neighbors for feedback, and noted she had questions regarding the proposed berm. Mr. Wingert noted that he will abstain from this item. The item was continued to the next meeting. 5.) The next item of business was a Mixed Use Zone site plan for Greenhill Village Estates. Chair 2 Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that it is proposed to build a senior retirement facility and provided details, noting it would be a 124 unit retirement building with 91 required parking stalls and 104 proposed stalls. He provided information regarding the layout of the facility, including placement of the parking lot, commons, public sidewalks, etc. He provided specific building height information for the different buildings, as well as setbacks for each side of the property. Mr. Sturch displayed a rendering of the landscaping plan, building design for the different aspects of the buildings and site plan elements, such as a monument sign, site lighting and dumpster/generator screening. At this time staff would like to gather comments from discussion and continue the item to the next meeting. Nick Bettis came forward again to address some questions that had been asked in the last item’s discussion. He stated that the perimeter road Ms. Lee had asked about is roughly around 40 feet from the property line to the closest part of the drive. The pond is approximately 80 feet from their property. He also noted that the pond will be a wet pond year round with two or three fountains with aeration to control algae growth. The fountains will be for aesthetic and functional purposes. He also clarified that the berm Ms. Frost asked about will not be provided to the entire property because it would interfere with stormwater drainage, but that the area to the north would be raised to address the concerns. Ann Stanfield, manager of the senior living facility, stated that there will be approximately two food deliveries per week that take place on the perimeter roads that Ms. Lee asked about. Garbage collection would mirror the rest of the area and there would be some move in’s and move outs, but many residents won’t have vehicles so it should be a low impact on traffic. Robin Frost, 4718 Addison Drive, noted her concerns with property values and whether it will be desirable to live near the facility. She stated that she feels that the contractor has been willing to make adjustments to work with the neighbors’ concerns. She discussed different things that they have accommodated, including topping the berms with attractive plantings to create a visual barrier, decreasing the height of the buildings, placing mechanical equipment in the roof, and adjusting lighting to face away from neighboring properties. She stated that she is hoping for respectful work hours during construction, noting that it probably won’t be very attractive during the construction, but hopes the work will be done during business hours. They are hoping for appealing landscaping and upkeep and maintenance. Ms. Frost would also like to deliveries to be concentrated during business hours and not having a lot of staff change overnight. She would like to be informed about any changes in construction. Randy Lee, 1415 Ashworth Drive, stated concerns with construction work near the playground and suggested changes to the parking along the streets near it. Catherine DeSoto, 4606 Hudson Road, asked about deliveries on the back road and what road that is. She also asked if Loren Drive will connect to Addison or to Norse. Mr. Wolfgang stated that the deliveries will come in on the service road that is being created. He stated that food would come by semis and the move in and outs would be smaller moving trucks. Mr. Sturch clarified that Loren Drive will extend to the limits of the lot and eventually connect into Norse off Hudson Road and into Addison as well. Ryan Frost, 4718 Addison Drive, asked for review of the lighting plan. Mr. Bettis explained that there is lighting all along the south and west access points, noting that the specific plans can be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Holst asked if the lights would be on all night. Ms. Stanfield noted that staff will be coming in at 11:00 so they will be on at that time for safety purposes, but she will check. Mr. Frost asked about how many fire hydrants will be provided, as well as what utilities are provided. Mr. Bettis noted that five or six hydrants are currently shown and discussed the utilities and services coming in the back side of the building. 3  Debbie Lee, 1415 Ashworth, asked if any research or study has been done in comparable areas to the impact of home values with this kind of development. Mr. Wolfgang stated that he cannot answer that but stated that people who have had any flooding issues in the past would potentially have a better home value. Cathy DeSoto asked again about the connection to Norse Drive. Ms. Howard stated staff will provide an aerial photo or map with the larger neighborhood street layout at the next meeting. Ms. Stanfield added that there would be minimal lighting after midnight. Just enough for safety purposes. The majority of the lights would be turned off or down after staff changes. Rob Swales, 1524 Andover Court, commented on the traffic and parking around the park and how busy the area is during the summer. He also commented on the potential noise from service vehicles and traffic. Mr. Wingert noted that he will be abstaining from this item. Ms. Prideaux complimented the property and noted her appreciation for the neighbors coming to discuss issues and create a dialogue. Mr. Larson stated that he would like to encourage changing the placement of no parking signs around the park during construction, as well as considering expanding the inset parking to help with parking issues for the park. He also asked if this kind of building makes sense with the zoning and master plan, and whether there is any data on the type of traffic counts or activity that would be seen compared to the master plan. Ms. Howard stated that staff or the developer can bring back comparison of traffic generation with multi-family development at the next meeting but noted that due to the limited number of residents that would drive, that this type of residential facility would likely generate considerably less traffic than would the twelve, 12-unit apartment buildings originally shown in the master plan for the area. Mr. Larson also asked about the normal process for the master plan with this kind of development. Ms. Howard stated that senior living is an allowable use in the master plan and is a different type of multi- unit residential living so staff felt it was an appropriate use in the district and consistent with the master plan. Mr. Larson also asked about changing the wing from three to two stories. Mr. Sturch explained that it was discussed with the neighbors who asked for the building to be scaled down where closest to the single family homes in the neighborhood. He noted that more information can be provided at the next meeting. 6.) Chair Holst appointed a Nominating Committee for the 2020 Commission Officers. He nominated Ms. Adkins and Mr. Hartley. As there were no further objections, the Committee will bring back a nomination at the next meeting. 7.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Larson made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hartley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Adkins, Hartley, Holst, Larson, Lynch, Prideaux, and Wingert), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Clerk 4