Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 24, 2020 Via Videoconference Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on November 24, 2020 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, Schrad and Sears. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager, Jaydevsinh Atodaria, Planner I, David Wicke, City Engineer, and Matthew Tolan, Civil Engineer II, were also present. 1.) Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the November 11, 2020 regular meeting and work session are presented. Ms. Lynch made a motion to approve both sets of the Minutes as presented. Mr. Hartley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 9 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, Schrad and Sears), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was an amendment to the master plan for the Autumn Ridge Development. Chair Holst noted that he would need to recuse himself from the item and passed the item to Vice Chair Leeper. Vice Chair Leeper introduced the item and noted that the agenda items are all for public input and will not be voted on at this time. Mr. Atodaria provided background information explaining that the entire development is approximately 105 acres and has developed over a 20 year timeframe. An RP Master Plan was amended in 2001 and the entire area was rezoned from Agriculture to RP and there were five different areas created in the area. Mr. Atodaria showed a rendering of the development and explained the different kinds of development were planned for each area. There were other amendments made in 2005 and 2006 to reflect changes in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Additions. In 2013 the developer submitted a preliminary plat for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Additions that included a proposed 31 lots in the 8th Addition and 27 in the 9th, but the master plan was not updated at that time. He showed a rendering of the subdivision today and the breakdown of the 10 additions. He described the units that are proposed to be added to the 9th and 10th additions. Mr. Atodaria discussed the amendments to the 9th Addition, noting staff concerns with excessive paving along street frontages that would add congestion to the streets, diminish on-street parking, create less sidewalk continuity and reduce room for landscaped front yards or street trees. Staff has provided suggestions that could alleviate the excessive curb cuts, such as bi-attached units or townhomes with alley loaded garages, or common driveway for attached units and limited the size to two car garages. Staff also has noted concerns with sidewalk connections along Union Road and community space/shared usable open space. Mr. Atodaria discussed suggestions provided by staff for these issues. 1 Mr. Atodaria then discussed the proposed amendment to the 10th Addition and the number of units to be added in the area. He explained that staff has reviewed the master plan and recommends some changes to the Master Plan prior to approval. These include:  Providing a usable open space to enhance the livability of community in the 9 th Addition, as was anticipated in the original master plan.  Reduction of the number and size of proposed curb cuts for the proposed attached units in the 9th Addition.  Provision of a public sidewalk along Union Road from the 9th Addition to Paddington Drive to comply with the subdivision code and deed of dedication requirements. At this time, staff asked for comments and suggestions from the public and the Commission. Dennis Happel spoke about the lake detention that was taken out of the development early on as they felt that the uncontrolled runoff to the west on the farm ground would soon cause it to fall into disarray due to the siltation. During the review of Autumn Ridge 6 th and 7th in 2016, it was taken out by City staff due to the large stormwater issue that needed to be addressed. The large stormwater detention that was put into those additions was to help curb the runoff issues being discussed. With regard to the sidewalk, it has gone through the approval of two plats for that area and at that time staff felt it did not need to be installed because of the large bike trail across the street. He stated that they are not opposed to putting the sidewalk in from across the 9th Addition for a connection, but feels the City should be responsible for the rest. He discussed the parking issue that has been a concern and stated that there are other areas in town where similar concepts are used and there is not a problem with the on-street parking. They are trying to provide an affordable product for housing in the area and feel that adding an addition alley would create extra expense to the homeowners and costs for upkeep. They feel that housing mixture they have presented compliments the area and is a good plan. Jesse Meehan, 4305 Berry Hill, lives near the drainage ditch between the properties and stated that their houses were built with low water entry points and with FEMA remapping the area, residents are not able to refinance without getting flood insurance. He believes that increasing the number of houses will create more runoff and problems. He asked if the duplex lots could potentially be single-family if that’s what the owner prefers and if the houses were going to be “cookie cutter” and look the same. He would like to see some uniqueness in the area. He feels that if greenspace is proposed, it shouldn’t be like the current greenspace. He also asked if the City is going to maintain a park if one is planned. Doug Stanford, President of the Fieldstone Homeowners Association speaking for the Board of Directors, explained that a letter was presented to Stephanie Sheetz expressing their concerns with the project. He noted that they are concerned with the increased housing density in Autumn Ridge 9th and the traffic issues on Union Road. They feel that the increased density will intensify the traffic congestion and feels that it may be time to consider some upgrades to Union Road. The Board is also concerned with potential stormwater runoff issues with the addition of new construction that could potentially damage a pond in the development. Robert Zoulek, Autumn Ridge resident, asked how the developer will ensure that the elevations with the additional runoff will not worsen the current issues. 2 Lyle Simmons, asked what impact studies have been done and how can they find the information regarding the potential effects of this project. Dennis Happel reiterated the planned housing units and explained that the stormwater issue was addressed in 2016 with the large detention area. It has been reviewed and the impact of these additional additions was addressed back in the planning of previous additions. He also stated that they will not be the only builder in the development so there should not be an issue with “cookie cutter” design. As for the traffic issues, the developer has provided all the access the city has asked for and explained that Union Road issues would be more of a city matter. He also noted that the damage to the pond was not a result of Autumn Ridge. Adam Daters, CGA Engineers, added that the traffic engineer for the project did simulations that showed that there was very little impact from the traffic increase. Cindy Luchtenberg, resident in the Autumn Ridge area, questioned the approval process of which builder can build in the addition. She stated concerns with the effect this project could have on their ability to hook up to city water and sewer and the costs involved. Mr. Meehan feels that the detention pond will not help with the issues that could arise. Willis Roberts noted that he feels there will be additional traffic flow problems based on the layout proposed. Mr. Happel explained that the developer or the building committee approve the configuration and design of the homes to keep the character of the neighborhood intact. He discussed the planned housing in the garden home area and explained that those are not geared to be rentals. He stated that the runoff has been addressed and numerous studies have been done and that it will not be an issue. He also addressed the comment regarding sewer hookup and explained that they have no control over how it fits someone’s property. Amber Hines feels that the proposed housing does not match the character of the current neighborhoods. Mr. Happel stated that they have mixed in multi-unit housing well in other areas of the neighborhoods and doesn’t feel it will be an issue. Mr. Schrad asked about the lot sizes proposed for duplexes. Ms. Howard explained that the lot line shown is for one side of the duplex as they are considered to be a “bi- attached” single-family dwellings, with each side on its own lot. Mr. Schrad also feels that there needs to be a park and asked if the City would take care of it. Planning staff spoke with the Parks Department and they would be amenable to looking at a proposal for a public park in that area. Mr. Larson asked if there were any metrics used to decide that this one parcel needed to have a park or what motivated the decision. He was under the impression that this area was going to be more senior driven and wondered how that would serve that community. Ms. Howard explained that the park would service the whole Autumn Ridge neighborhood as opposed to just one addition. A park would also fill the need for open space requirements. Mr. Larson asked about the proposal process for a park. Ms. Howard explained that the developer would need to submit a plan and the Parks Department 3  would review the proposal. Vice Chair Leeper asked about stormwater setup for the area. Mr. Tolan explained that with this subdivision and subsequent subdivisions, regional detention was set up utilizing an existing culvert under Union Road and a secondary detention basin series. All detention for the entire area was already included in the 2012 study and has already been installed. Ms. Saul stated she is concerned with all the paving and driveways with regard to walkability and safety and asked if there is a way to mitigate that. Mr. Larson asked about the maximum allowable width when curb cuts are directly abutting. Mr. Tolan provided information in response. Vice Chair Leeper stated that he felt the developer should work with the City to address the concerns that have been expressed and then come back to the Commission after that. Mr. Larson asked about the continuation of the sidewalk from the previous phases. He would like to know if there is a legal obligation to put the paths in. Ms. Howard stated that there is a requirement in the subdivision code that allows sidewalks to be put in post- development and requires it to be completed within five years of the completion of the plat. Mr. Larson asked a few more questions. Vice Chair Leeper stated that he would like to hear more from the Commission to give some direction to the developer on whether they agree with the comments and recommendations from staff. Mr. Schrad stated that he agrees with the recommendations from staff but does recommend that the developer listen to the comments from neighbors. Mr. Larson felt the park and the sidewalk situations are important for further consideration. Ms. Saul and Ms. Lynch agreed. The item was continued to the next meeting. 3.) The next item for consideration was the preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge 9th Addition. Vice Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that the phasing of the project and provided renderings of the area being discussed. He provided information regarding the requirements for the minimum perimeter setback and Ms. Howard noted that the developer establishes the building setbacks in a RP District and the plat must be consistent with the setbacks established with the master plan and development agreement. He also discussed and displayed drainage easements in the plat, as well as the stormwater management plan. Mr. Tolan provided further details with regard to the stormwater management and its history. Mr. Atodaria discussed proposed street connections, access points and mailbox locations and their layout and noted a concern about the mailbox clusters located too close to the intersections with Union and 1st Streets. Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and would like to bring it to the Commission for discussion only at this time. Staff notes that the proposed plat cannot be approved prior to the approval of the RP Master Plan and associated revision of the developmental procedures agreement. Steve Troskey, CGA, noted that they will work with USPS with regard to the placement of the mailboxes. He also stated that in previous additions in Autumn Ridge there was a 5 foot side yard setback and the developer would like to see that on the internal units of the development to remain consistent with the other additions. 4  Ms. Saul stated that she would prefer to wait to see the results with regard to the Master Plan. The item was continued to the next meeting. 4.) The Commission then considered the preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge 10th Addition. Vice Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He discussed the phases and the proposal for each. He discussed and displayed the proposed setbacks for the units. He also spoke to the easements for the plat, as well as stormwater management. Mr. Tolan gave details with regard to the stormwater and its setup. Mr. Atodaria also provided information with regard to the street connections, access points and mailbox locations. Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and would like to bring it to the Commission for discussion only at this time. Staff notes that the proposed plat cannot be approved prior to the approval of the RP Master Plan and associated revision of the developmental procedures agreement. The item was continued to the next meeting. 5.) Chair Holst noted that the next item for discussion is the appointment of the nominating committee for the election of officers for 2021. He explained that he has asked Ms. Lynch and Mr. Schrad to serve as the nominating committee. They will be bringing forward nominations for Chair and Vice Chair at one of the next two meetings. 6.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Larson made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Lynch seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 9 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, Schrad and Sears), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Assistant 5