Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting August 12, 2020 Via Videoconference Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on August 12 at 5:30 p.m. via videoconference due to precautions necessary to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The following Commission members were present: Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul and Schrad. Adkins was absent. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager, Jaydevsinh Atodaria, Planner I, and Chris Sevy, Planner I, were also present. 1.) Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the July 22, 2020 regular meeting are presented. Mr. Hartley made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, and Schrad), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item for consideration by the Commission was the final plat for the Chrisbro subdivision. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that the plat is located at 7213 Nordic Drive in the Industrial Park and is in the HWY-1 commercial zoning district. He displayed the location of detention basins and noted that all utilities and internal road connections are private and are available to all platted lots. He noted that the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval with any comments or direction specified by the Commission and conformance to all staff recommendations and technical comments. Wendell Lupkes, VJ Engineering, stated that the owner doesn’t have immediate plans to develop the lots and the proposed second hotel has been put on hold due to COVID-19. They would like to get approval of the final plat to have it ready when potential buyers are ready. Ms. Saul made a motion to approve the item. Mr. Schrad seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, and Schrad), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a site plan amendment for the Hy-Vee located at 6301 University Avenue. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sevy provided background information. He explained that the Hy-Vee would like to upgrade their current grocery pickup location to a more permanent location that would include a small storage building to house orders, an overhead canopy, changes to parking and signage. He provided renderings of the proposed elevations and signage. 1  Staff recommends approval of the item with any direction specified by the Commission and conformance to all staff recommendations and technical comments. John Brehm, representative for Hy-Vee, explained that online orders have increased since COVID-19 and it has created a higher demand and the need for a more permanent solution for pick-up of online orders. Mr. Leeper made a motion to approve the item. Mr. Larson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, and Schrad), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a Central Business District design review for signage at 515 Main Street. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information on the case. Mr. Atodaria explained that the review for this case is about proposed new projecting awning and sign over the public sidewalk for the Masonic Lodge. The illustrations provided by the applicant for the proposed projecting awning and sign meet the City code and design review requirements for Downtown Central Business District Overlay district. Staff recommends approval of the request. Ms. Prideaux mentioned that this is pretty straightforward case. Ms. Prideaux made a motion to approve the item. Mr. Hartley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes. (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul and Schrad) and 0 nays. 4.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a Central Business District Overlay design review for a projecting awning sign at 212 Main Street. Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information on the case. Mr. Atodaria explained that the review for this case is about projecting sign over the public sidewalk for a new business, Splendore Medical Spa. The illustrations provided by the applicant for the proposed projecting sign meets the City code and design review requirements for Downtown Central Business District Overlay district. Staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Schrad asked staff, if there is any lighting that will be focused on the projecting sign for highlighting the sign as the proposed sign is non-illuminated. Mr. Atodaria mentioned that the applicant proposes a non-illuminated sign only; there will be no other projection from the façade as per the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Schrad made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Prideaux seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes. (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul and Schrad) and 0 nays. 5.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a text amendment to the subdivision code for Division 3 Final Plat Section 20-100. Chair Holst introduced the 2 item and Ms. Howard provided background information. She explained that the purpose of the subdivision code is to establish “minimum standards for the design, development and improvement of subdivisions so that the existing land uses will be protected, and so that adequate provisions are made for public facilities and services, and so that growth occurs in an orderly manner, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city.” Ms. Howard explained the intent and structure of the subdivision ordinance and the differences between the preliminary and final platting processes. She explained that the subdivision code currently doesn’t include specific rules regarding final plat phasing. While a phasing plan is requested, it has been left largely up to the developer to determine the order of development. In some cases, it has resulted in critical street connections remaining unfinished, which can create short and long term costs to the community from the inefficient or incomplete street pattern. Other issues include increased commute times; overburdening certain streets with excess traffic, impacting homeowners along those routes; safety concerns for pedestrians along the congested routes, particularly children; increased driver frustration and speeding; increased emergency response times; and inefficient routing for utilities and services such as refuse pick-up and snow removal. She displayed examples of incomplete streets and problematic final plat phasing using aerial photographs. Ms. Howard discussed the first step, which is to establish a standard for final plat phasing to ensure that critical infrastructure connections occur in a timely manner and prior to less critical areas of a subdivision. While giving flexibility to the developer to propose phasing that meets the pace of market demand, the City would have the discretion to determine if the final plat phase can function as an independent development and ensure that no essential infrastructure improvements are being circumvented or delayed. The next step would be to adopt street connectivity standards that provide multiple street stubs to subdivision boundaries, allowing continuation of the street pattern on adjacent properties. Block lengths would be limited and existing restrictions on cul-de- sacs would be enforced. A standard for intersection spacing along major roadways would also be established, as well as consideration of construction access. Code amendments to establish these standards will be brought forward for discussion at a future Commission meeting. Ms. Howard displayed the proposed amendments to the code and brought it to the Commission for discussion. Ms. Prideaux stated that this has been explained well and will ensure the standard is applied fairly and consistently. Mr. Larson noted that case- by-case attention should be maintained as things do change over time. With regard to street connectivity standards, he would like more information about what other communities are doing. He has some skepticism of using a blanket approach. Mr. Leeper stated that these changes are good to consider. Mr. Schrad asked if staff could look at the zoning in Ankeny to see how they are dealing with sprawl in their community. Mr. Larson and Ms. Saul want to see research regarding street connectivity standards in 3  other communities and how it has affected them and what changes we could make to keep up with their growth. The item will be continued for discussion at the next Planning and Zoning meeting. 5.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Hartley made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Prideaux seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes. (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul and Schrad) and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Clerk 4