Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 14, 2021 Via Videoconference Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on April 14, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall and 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 and Chris Sevy, Planner I, were also present. 1.) Chair Leeper noted the Minutes from the March 24, 2021 regular meeting and February 17, 2021 special meeting are presented. Ms. Saul made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Ms. Prideaux 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 a Central Business District Overlay Site Plan Review for a new mixed-use building at 7th and Main Streets. Chair Leeper introduced the item and explained that it is to be deferred to a future meeting. Ms. Saul made a motion to approve the deferral. 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. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a land use map amendment and rezoning from M-1 to HWY-1 at 7009 Nordic Drive. Chair Leeper introduced the item and explained that the application has been withdrawn by the applicant, so no action is needed. 4.) The Commission then considered a rezoning request near Huntington Road and Cedar Heights Drive from A-1 Agricultural District and R-1 Residential District to MU Mixed Use Residential District, and to update the Pinnacle Prairie Master Plan to include this new area. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Ms. Howard provided background information. She explained that approximately 12 acres of the property would be rezoned from A-1 to MU and approximately three acres from R-1 to MU. The proposal would incorporate the new land into the larger Pinnacle Prairie Mixed Use District and update the master plan appropriately. She displayed a revised concept for Pinnacle Prairie East and the view of the area proposed for rezoning to MU and discussed the plans for those areas. She discussed the street network and traffic circulation as well as alternate routes and adjustments that may need to be made. Ms. Howard noted that a preliminary and final plat will be required prior to any land sales within the master planned area and a new developmental procedures agreement will need to be drafted and signed prior to setting a public hearing at City Council. Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone property from A-1 and R-1 to MU, and to update the Pinnacle Prairie Master Plan accordingly, subject to a new or amended development agreement that addresses the specific issues outlined in the staff report. 1  Carrie Hansen, Schoppe Design Associates, spoke about the connection of Prairie View out to Cedar Heights and the location of Huntington where the new roundabout is planned to go. She stated that if this is not possible they have agreed to relocate it to another portion of the proposed multi- family area. She noted that they have met their obligations for the Goldenrod and Prairie Parkway roundabout improvement that had been noted previously. They have also submitted a revised development procedures agreement that addresses many of the items in staff’s report and will continue to work with staff to finalize those documents. Mr. Holst made a motion to approve the item. 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. 5.) The next item of business was zoning code text amendments relative to downtown character district regulations. Chair Leeper introduced the item and entertained a motion to move it to the end of the agenda. Ms. Lynch made a motion to approve moving the item to the end of the agenda. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. All voted aye. 6.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was wheatpasting murals in the Central Business District Overlay. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that there is a proposal the place temporary wheatpasting murals sourced from historic photographs at different locations downtown. The murals are based on cultural memory, family snapshots and ephemeral street art and will be made of biodegradable, non-destructive wheat pasting art that will not permanently alter the facades of the building. He displayed images that are proposed for the various locations. He noted that the propose façade plan meets all of the Central Business Overlay Zoning District and Zoning Ordinance requirements and would be a positive community building effort. Staff recommends approval. Isaac Campbell, 2009 University Drive Apt G4, explained that this project is a main component of his masters thesis and that the photos are to explore what getting back together means post-Covid-19. It is also a community building effort to get people involved in volunteering to install the art on the buildings. Mr. Schrad stated that he feels that this is a wonderful idea and asked if we could explore more photos with more diversity. Mr. Campbell noted that there was a conscious effort to include several images that show people of diverse backgrounds, but wished there could be more. He explained that the photos are provided from Fortepan Iowa that are collected on a donated basis. The project hasn’t grown enough to provide many diverse images yet, but they are working to add those photos. Ms. Saul asked how long the wheatpasted images last. Mr. Campbell explained that it varies depending on weather conditions and other environmental factors. In his experience they can last up to a year. He is confident they would last well through the summer and into the fall. Mr. Leeper asked if there have been any discussion about permanent installations of this kind. Mr. Campbell noted that he has been asked that question and noted that this particular art form is temporary in nature. However, the project could be a catalyst to 2  build interest in more permanent murals in the downtown. He noted that a much of the benefit of the wheatpasting is the community building aspect and the social interaction that it generates. Kim Bear, 3815 Union Road, spoke to show support of the project from Community Main Street. Ms. Prideaux made a motion to approve the item. Mr. Schrad seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 9 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, Schrad and Sears), and 0 nays. 7.) The Commission then considered a College Hill Neighborhood Overlay review for 704-706 W. 28th Street. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Sevy provided background information. He explained that the request involves a remodel on the above-mentioned property and gave a brief review of the intent and purpose of the overlay. The proposal is to add bedrooms and other appropriate updates with the intent to raise the rental occupancy by one bedroom per unit. He noted that a similar request to add bedrooms was considered several months ago. This proposal is to add 1 bedroom per unit versus adding 2 bedrooms. The applicant modified the request based on the denial of his last request, which was deemed too dense. The property currently provides sufficient parking if counted in tandem, which is allowed. He discussed the density of the project with respect to the density of surrounding properties and noted that it fits with the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval due to sufficient parking, and consistency with the intent of the College Hill Overlay and occupancy standards outlined in the rental code. Mr. Sevy noted that he received communication from two of the neighbors who were not in favor of the density increase, and a third felt that the occupancy should not be limited. Wes Geisler, 5373 S. Hudson Road, stated that he feels that the proposed siding and exterior upgrades, as well as the new driveway and landscaping will add value to the neighborhood. Mr. Schrad stated that he likes the changes that were made in compromise and that he is in favor of the project. Mr. Holst agreed. Mr. Holst made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 9 ayes (Hartley, Holst, Larson, Leeper, Lynch, Prideaux, Saul, Schrad and Sears), and 0 nays. 8.) The next item of business was a minor subdivision plat on Lot 2 of Blain’s Corner 2nd Addition. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that property is located at 219 Brandilynn Boulevard and that it is proposed to divide the parcel into two lots and build an Aldi’s grocery store on the new lot. The introduction of this minor plat is for discussion and public comment purposes only at this time. Staff recommends approval with the stipulations that any comments or direction by the Commission are followed and that there is conformance with all city staff recommendations and technical requirements. Ryan Anderson, Civil Engineer with ISG and project manager, stated that Aldi has been looking for another site in the area for a while and feels that it will be a nice partnership with Blain’s. He made himself available for any questions. As staff still has a few technical changes to work out with the applicant, the item was 3  continued to the next meeting. 9.) The Commission then considered a HWY-1 site plan for Aldi’s grocery store. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that the proposal is to develop a 20,299 square foot Aldi’s grocery store which will be constructed on the new lot created with the Blain’s Corner 2nd addition minor plat. He discussed the basic information regarding the site plan, including setbacks, access points, lot lines and the trash location. He explained the requirements with regard to parking and open/green space, as well as the proposed sidewalk and landscaping plans. Mr. Atodaria provided renderings of the proposed signage and where it would be located if approved, as well as the design review, which includes proportion, roof shape/pitch/direction, pattern, materials, color and architectural features. He discussed the technical comments that still need to be addressed by the applicant and noted that they believe they will be completed by the next Commission meeting. At this time the item is just for discussion and public comment. Mr. Schrad asked if the proposed retention area meets the requirements for the square footage of the parking lot. Mr. Atodaria explained that it has been met. Mr. Larson asked what the technical issues are that still need to be resolved. Mr. Atodaria explained that they include the trash enclosure, updating the labeling of the water main, and general engineering comments to be reflected on the plan. The Commission continued the discussion to the next meeting. 10.) Chair Leeper brought back the agenda item for the zoning code text amendments relative to downtown character district. Ms. Howard explained that the code has been available for public review for over a month, the Commission has reviewed the code during separate work sessions, and a number of emails and phone inquiries have been received from people within the study area. Staff and the consultants have highlighted any requests for amendments to the draft code in the decision matrix provided in the packet. Chair Leeper opened up the hearing to the public for comments. Jessie Crisman, 1003 Main Street, asked for more clarification on how the properties will be impacted by changes being made to Main Street and the flow of traffic and how that will impact the safety of children in the neighborhood. Ms. Howard noted that the reconstruction of Main Street is not a part of zoning code changes, but with regard to the changes in the zoning code for that area, Ms. Howard explained that in that particular area would allow for a mix of uses like it does today, but it will also keep existing single-family houses conforming. Melissa Sander, daughter of Joyce Anderson of 1117 Main Street, noted that her mother is concerned with the traffic coming from 12th Street, particularly with the high school nearby. She is also concerned with potential loss of parking. Mr. Leeper explained that the questions about the road are not part of the current discussion regarding rezoning. Those things are being discussed at City Council, but it isn’t part of this discussion. Jim Benda, 315 W. 2nd Street, stated that he would propose that commercial development be allowed for the entire block depth between 1st and 2nd Streets, because he is concerned that the area is too small otherwise for commercial development. He gave McDonald’s as an example. Ms. Howard discussed the vision plan for that area and how the regulating plan does allow adjustments if needed to accommodate potential projects and discussed how the higher intensity Urban General does extend further into the block, 4 but designates the south sides of those blocks as Neighborhood frontage . She noted that this was one of the requests for amendments that is included in the decision matrix, so would be discussed in more detail later in the meeting. Hillery Oberle, 2508 Franklin Street, voiced general support for the overall downtown zoning revision and applauds the effort that has been put into this process. Kim Bear, Community Main Street, commended the City on the whole process and how citizens have been included in the progression of the updates. As there were no more comments from the public, Ms. Howard displayed the matrix of proposed amendments for discussion and covered each item to allow for comment from the Commission. The first item was a change to the building form standards to allow the private open area to be above grade for lots with less than 70’ of depth. The Commission agreed that the change made sense. The second item was a change to the required building line on the change of the Required Building Line (RBL) on the Downtown Regulating Plan, on the north side of W. 2nd Street from Franklin Street to the western border of the District. Staff/consultants recommend the RBL should be moved forward an additional 5 ft. from 15 ft. to 10 ft. off the front property line to allow for redevelopment on these shallow depth lots. The Commission agreed that the change made sense. The next item was to insure consistency of terms between the new proposed Section 26- 140 and proposed Section 26-197, as well as clarifying language in Character District Use Table introductory paragraph concerning additional standards that apply. This will essentially make the terms match in each Section. The Commission was in agreement with the changes. The fourth item was to correct the outline format as needed throughout the document. The Commission agreed. The fifth item was a request from the Historical Society to add them as a Civic Building designation in the Regulating Plan. Staff is also looking to change other similar buildings to that designation as well. The Commission agreed with the changes. The next item was a change to Section 26-140 to distinguish between small and large commercial assembly uses in the use classification section. The Commission agreed with this change. The seventh item was to change the Regulating Plan designated building frontage on west side of Overman Park from Neighborhood small to Urban General 2 to accommodate existing businesses located along Franklin Street. Or alternatively, a request from Tom and Dorinda Pounds who would like assurance that their business can continue, but that the home could also be converted back to residential use in the future should that be desired. They would like an approach that would better accommodate existing businesses while maintaining the residential character and scale of the area. Staff suggests adding language to state that all existing businesses in the Neighborhood frontages at the time of Code adoption would be considered conforming, however no new businesses would be permitted. The Commission agreed to Option 2 as outlined in the matrix. 5 The eighth item includes a design review process or role for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Howard discussed the pros and cons of the additional guidance proposed. Staff/consultants are not recommending adoption of a public design review process at this time. Mr. Larson would like to know more about the staff body that would be doing the architectural review and how the process works. Ms. Howard described the review process and the zoning review committee and the intent to assist developers in ensuring development projects meet all the new standards in the code. She noted that the committee can also consult with any other technical staff as needed and site plans would have to go through the Technical Review process as well. The Zoning Review Committee includes the planning manager, building official and a planner. She noted that this was a major goal of the zoning update to create a code that has clear and objective standards – to get rid of the gray area in the code, so projects could be reviewed administratively and to streamline the development review process. Ms. Saul asks what happens if someone doesn’t like the project. Ms. Howard stated that the code is clear and objective on standards so the staff has to follow those standards. There is not a lot of discretion with the new standards. Mr. Leeper noted that he would like to see some kind of process to be available to staff to send to the Commission to review and to approve or disapprove a project when something doesn’t seem right. There was more discussion by the Commission on the pros and cons of requiring this extra design review process. Director Sheetz noted that there were quite a few zones in the City where site plans are approved administratively already. There was further discussion on the matter and it was decided to keep the draft the same without a legislative review process and see how it works over time, noting that it could be reconsidered in the future if additional layer of review is needed. Item nine was brought forward by Kevin Harberts who owns properties along 2 nd Street. It is to change the Regulating Plan so that the General Urban frontage designation goes from the 1st Street frontage to 2nd Street frontage. The requestor would like the option to create larger through lots for commercial uses that extend the full depth of the block from 1st to 2nd Streets. Ms. Howard noted that this was what Mr. Benda was also requesting earlier in the meeting. The pros and cons were discussed. Staff/consultants do not recommend this change as it would create a poor transition to the residential neighborhood along 2nd Street and would not be consistent with the adopted Downtown Vision Plan, which illustrated how this transition could be accomplished. The regulating plan already allows deeper space to accommodate commercial redevelopment along 1st Street. The Commission agreed that there should be no change to the regulating plan. The next item was to consider the inclusion of vinyl siding as an approved wall material in neighborhood frontages. The pros and cons were discussed and options were given for alternative siding choices and the Commission had a great deal of discussion. The Commission came to a consensus to move forward with the first, second and third options noted on the decision matrix: 1. Maintain the prohibition of vinyl siding for new construction 2. Permit the use of vinyl siding to replace or repair existing vinyl siding and for additions to existing buildings that already have vinyl siding. 3. Permit use of vinyl siding that meets higher minimum standards for quality, maintenance, and durability, based on industry standards to replace or cover over other types of siding on existing single-family dwellings. The next item that was considered was lifting the prohibition of using higher quality foam products for architectural detail. Ms. Howard explained that the verbiage could be updated 6  to allow for that kind of foam and the staff/consultants felt that would be appropriate. The Commission agreed. The 12th item on the draft review was the provision of more direction on ADU’s. After brief explanation, the commission agreed with this change. The final item was the prohibition of conversion of existing single unit dwellings into duplexes or multi-unit dwellings, similar to the current prohibition in the R1 and R2 Zones. Staff recommends this change in order to help stabilize these neighborhoods, while allowing new housing types that meet all the new standards in the code. There was brief discussion and the Commission agreed with making this change. Mr. Leeper asked what the next steps would be. Howard explained that the Commission could continue the hearing as long as they feel is needed to cover any questions or suggestions for changes to the draft. She noted that staff anticipated that at least one additional meeting would be warranted and then if no further changes or discussion was needed, the Commission would make a recommendation to Council. In response to a question, she noted that variety of notifications and press releases have gone out to keep the public informed of the opportunity to participate. 11.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Holst made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Saul 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 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Assistant 7