Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 13, 2020 City Hall Council Chambers 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa. The following Commission members were present: Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch and Prideaux. Adkins and Saul were absent. Karen Howard, Planning & Community Services Manager and Shane Graham, Economic Development Coordinator, were also present. 1.) Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the April 22, 2020 regular meeting are presented. Mr. Hartley made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Mr. Larson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 6 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch and Prideaux), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a preliminary plat amendment for the Arbors Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Additions. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Graham provided background information. He explained that the item was discussed at the previous meeting and gave a brief recap of the project. He discussed the original plat from 2014, revisions made in 2018 and he then described the changes being proposed. He displayed potential duplex designs for the area, and discussed the proposed addendum to the Original Development Procedures Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the amended preliminary plat subject to conformance with staff recommendations and any additional comments from the Commission. Mr. Holst asked about the requirements based upon the zoning, and whether the density is changed much from what was already allowed. Kevin Fittro confirmed that duplexes were already allowed so this proposal will not increase the allowed density. He discussed that the market drives the need for these duplex style homes. Howard clarified that the change to the plat is to create separate lots for each duplex unit. Amy Rube, 2932 Timber Cove Drive, commented that it would be helpful for developers to explain to potential buyers the potential changes that could come in the neighborhood and have transparency with regard to the kinds of housing that could be built. She also noted that she would like to have some assurance that the values of the new construction would not decrease and stated that she would prefer that steps be taken to keep these units from becoming rentals. Mr. Fittro stated that he understands the concerns of the homeowners, but noted that as developers and builders, it is also in their best interest to keep a quality neighborhood so they are doing things in a way in which it will be good for all parties. Mr. Larson asked about the one and two story units and how the need for either is driven. Mr. Graham stated there is nothing in the agreement that specifies a need for a certain percentage of one or the other. Mr. Fittro stated that it would be market driven. Howard clarified that staff is not recommending specific models but rather that there is some variation in the design of the units to prevent a monotonous street with the same design repeated all along the block. These two models are what the developer provided as examples of the variation that would be provided. Mr. Larson stated that made sense. 1  Mr. Leeper asked staff to consider ways for getting zoning information out to the public and homebuyers so they are aware of what kinds of housing are allowed in different zones. Ms. Howard noted that one possibility is to provide additional information for realtors. She noted that there is no guarantee that things won’t change in the future, but that is why there is a public process when a change is proposed. Staff would be willing to provide more information to anyone who has questions. It was suggested that additional information might be provided on the City’s website. Ms. Prideaux made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Lynch seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 6 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch and Prideaux), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a rezoning request from R-1 and A-1 to RP, Planned Residential in the West Fork Development. Chair Holst introduced the item and Ms. Howard provided background information. She explained that the proposed rezoning is for approximately 177 acres located north of West 27th Street and east of Union Road. The northern portion of the property was rezoned in October 2019. She discussed the proposed zoning in each part of the property and the proposed master plan that was submitted by the developer. Ms. Howard stated that single-family detached homes are being proposed on different sized lots in the area, from 6,000 square feet up to ½ acre lots, with most in the lower to midsize range. She discussed the street and trail connectivity shown on the proposed master plan, as well as topography and environmental features, stormwater management, greenspace and parks, and described the proposed development phasing. She provided a rendering of the different work areas proposed in the order they will be completed. She noted that the phasing was particularly important to ensure that the major north-south and east-west road connections are made in a timely fashion to prevent traffic circulation issues in the future neighborhood, particularly when the new school is built. These important streets include connections between Waterbury Drive and Union Road, and two north-south street connections to 27th Street and a neighborhood street connection near the northwest corner of the new high school site. This will allow local residents a much shorter route to school that will encourage walking and biking. Staff recommends that at least one north-south route be completely constructed within one year of the high school opening, anticipated in 2023. The Future Land Use Map was displayed for the area and Ms. Howard stated that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the development is also accessible to public infrastructure, but that sanitary sewer will need to be extended from the south to serve the southern half of the development. Staff has recommended that the developer work with the school district on a mutually beneficial arrangement for extending the sewer. Howard summarized the points in the staff report. Staff recommends discussion by the Commission at this time and setting a public hearing for the upcoming meeting on May 27. Gale Bonsall, 85 River Ridge Road, stated that he feels it is a great subdivision and asked about the potential for him to develop property he owns in the area. The developer agreed to discuss the possibilities with Mr. Bonsall for connection to their proposed street stub to the north. Mike Goyen, 1712 Union Road, noted concerns about parking as the lots are smaller and wondered about the width of the streets. He also asked about the proposed retention pond next to his property and where the overflow will go, as well as whether he will be responsible for weed management. The developer stated that the standard street width should not create parking issues. He also explained that the retention basin is the responsibility of the developer, and the overflow will drain across his property, but it will be no different than the drainage pattern that exists currently. He noted that the drainage would be more controlled with the retention pond in place. 2  The developer addressed the phasing and how it was decided to be completed in the order that has been proposed. Mr. Leeper recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. There were few comments from the Commission. The item was moved to the next meeting. 4.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Hartley made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Leeper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 6 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch and Prideaux), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Clerk 3