Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 9, 2022 Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on March 9, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. at the Community Center. The following Commission members were present: Grybovych, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Lynch, Moser and Saul. Crisman and Larson were absent. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager; Matthew Tolan, Civil Engineer II; Thomas Weintraut, Planner III; and Jaydevsinh Atodaria, Planner I were also present. 1.) Chair Leeper noted the Minutes from the February 23, 2022 regular meeting are presented. Ms. Lynch made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Mr. Hartley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Grybovych, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Lynch, Moser and Saul), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a public hearing on a petition to amend the zoning code to allow daycare uses in the M-1, Light Industrial District. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Ms. Howard provided background information. She noted that the staff analysis was presented at the last Planning and Zoning Meeting, but went over the highlights of the petition and the staff analysis. Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the zoning code to allow daycare uses in the M-1 District according to the standards outlined in the staff report. Ms. Lynch stated that she feels daycare is a critical need for the community and it is a great opportunity to utilize this to provide that need. Ms. Moser agreed. Ms. Lynch made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Grybovych, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Lynch, Moser and Saul), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was an amendment of the RP Master Plan for Autumn Ridge Development. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained that the item was discussed previously on November 24, 2020 and provided information about the previous proposal at that time. He discussed the history of the Autumn Ridge development and provided background on the area for the newer members on the Commission. He provided an aerial view of the entire Autumn Ridge development as currently developed and discussed the various phases that have been completed over the years. He displayed the proposed revised master plan explaining that it includes 92 units (34 single-family and 58 bi-attached units), and gave a summary of the number of lots and units as compared to the previously approved preliminary plat. He noted staff is supportive of the variety of housing types and additional density to meet market demand. Mr. Atodaria displayed photos of what the bi-attached units would look like. He discussed concerns with excessive paving along street frontages due to multiple double-wide driveways for the bi-attached units, which results in less room for on-street parking, compromised sidewalks, largely paved front yards and little room for landscaped front yards or street trees. In response to this concern, the developer proposes that all lots equal to or less than 60 feet in width be limited to a maximum of an 18 ft. driveway at the front lot line to reduce the paving areas on property. Mr. Atodaria also mentioned that the developer will be adding sidewalks along Union Road and W. 1st Street in addition to sidewalks bordering platted lots to comply with the City’s 1 ordinance. The City has agreed to construct a small segment of missing sidewalk along Union Road between Paddington Drive and the southern edge of proposed Autumn Ridge 11th Addition as a capital improvement project. City staff recommends that some usable open space be designated within the 9th and 11th Additions as originally agreed. The developer is proposing 1.15 acres of open space at the southeast of the proposed development. The land slopes toward the drainageway in this area, so will need to be graded and seeded carefully to provide usable park space. Staff outlined that they are working with applicant to make necessary revisions in the developmental procedures agreement, to be consistent with the proposed RP Master Plan. The applicant has submitted a rough draft of the agreement and deed of dedication for the preliminary plat and they are under review by City staff and the City Attorney. At this time, the matter is for discussion only and will be continued to the next meeting. Adam Daters, CGA Engineers, engineer for the project, came forward to say he is available for any questions. David Davis, 4407 Berry hill Road, stated concerns with the water drainage behind his house. He stated that the drainage area has not been maintained and that several times in the last two years the water has been running with the creek bed itself. He stated that he has concerns that the developer will not do the maintenance they have agreed to do. Lyle Simmons, 207 Corduroy Drive, echoed Mr. Davis’s concerns with the drainage. He also noted issues with on-street parking and the ability to drive down the street around parked cars. He explained concerns with the traffic on 1st Street and increased density. Brad Pierschbacher, 4228 W. 1st Street, stated that his property backs up to the north property line on the proposed new Addition and he explained concerns with what is happening with density and storm water management. Cynthia Luchenberg, 4322 W. 1st Street, stated concerns with increased traffic. She also discussed the original plan with regard to the number of lots and houses proposed and noted concerns about changes made to the original plan, so that now there are nearly double the number of units on the northern portion than what was originally proposed, which makes her neighborhood more dense than anticipated and more homes backing up to her lot. She spoke about the smaller lot sizes along the west boundary of her lot and how small and shallow they are and suggested that the lots be re-sized back to the four wider lots allowing more space for homes accounting for the shallow lot depth and a less congested area surrounding her property. She also noted the loss of a detention pond with trails that was originally proposed and the loss of greenspace from creating smaller lots. Willis Roberts, 4018 Wynnewood, stated concerns with stormwater drainage and asked how surface water is going to leave the area. His interpretation of the packet suggested that the surface water through swales was to be delivered to the retention area on the west boundary. He doesn’t understand how water is going to go down into a drainage area and back up to a retention pond. Mr. Holst asked if the homeowners association maintains the drainageway in question. Mr. Tolan explained that with Autumn Ridge 5th Addition a maintenance and repair agreement that is required with all detention facilities throughout the City, was signed. It states that all benefited properties have the responsibility to maintain the drainage facility, including the area to the north proposed for development. The Autumn Ridge Stormwater Maintenance group was set up by the developer to maintain these facilities. Mr. Tolan noted that he had conversations with the president of the Homeowner’s Association, who stated that the Stormwater Association exists in name only and that there has never been a meeting or vote 2  with anyone in that association. No stormwater maintenance has been done. Ms. Saul noted concerns with the density and the parking issue on that street and issues with visibility due to all the vehicles. Ms. Howard confirmed that front-facing garages on narrow lots result in more paved areas along the street. There are various possible solutions, as noted in the previous staff report in 2020, including shared driveways or rear access to garages from an alley. The developer has proposed limiting driveway widths to 18 feet. The question for the Commission is whether the overall change to the master plan and whether the solutions proposed by the developer to address concerns are reasonable or if modifications should be made. Ms. Grybovych asked about the reasoning for increasing the density and removing the pond that was originally proposed. Adam Daters, CGA, explained that the market demand was what drove that decision. Ms. Moser stated concern with the traffic flow, particularly along Union Road and 1st Street. She asked if there has been any traffic study or any type of estimation of the impact. Mr. Tolan explained that traffic analysis was addressed with the developer’s engineer. He noted that 1st Street is a state highway so must also be approved by the Iowa DOT. One concern was spacing from the adjacent intersection with Union and Highway 57. There have been talks with the developer’s engineer and the DOT that the proposed location of the driveway was considered an acceptable according to the DOT and their guidance would be followed for the connection to their roadway. Ms. Howard noted that one positive aspect is that there are multiple connections that will help distribute traffic as opposed to the originally proposed cul- de-sacs. Mr. Daters stated that they are willing to work with the neighbors on issues that have been brought forward. Mr. Holst felt that there is a pretty big change in density from the original master plan, and while density is good, he does understand how that could create concerns with the water issues. He questioned how it’s going to get better when there are already issues. Ms. Saul asked if the stormwater infrastructure being put in place will help with the surface water runoff. Mr. Tolan explained that regional detention was established with the 5th Addition for the entire area, including the 9th and 11th Additions. There was a culvert structure under Union Road that conveys water from upstream to downstream. At the time the regional facility was set up, a modification was done to the culvert to bring it up to current stormwater code. There is a 100-year detention that releases at a two year rate that is metered out. The concerns with the increase in density were addressed with the developers engineer and they verified that the detention capacities from the 2012 model do meet the original design intent. Mr. Leeper stated concern that master plans are meant to let people know generally what’s happening and decisions are being made based on the plan. It seems that these are pretty significant changes to the plan. Ms. Lynch agreed and stated while she understands that the demand is there, she hopes the developer will have conversations with surrounding neighbors to provide clarity to come to an agreement. The item will be continued to the next meeting. 4.) The Commission then considered the preliminary plat for Autumn Ridge 9th and 11th Additions. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He explained the basic information regarding the proposed preliminary plat, including setbacks, drainage and utility easements, community space/shared usable open space and public 3  sidewalks. Mr. Tolan spoke about stormwater management in the area, which included the existing regional detention facilities, Union Road Culvert modifications and additions for the 9th and 11th Additions. The Engineering Division recommends that the developer be responsible to clear and grub the existing detention facility prior to final plat approval to ensure that the facility is working properly to manage the stormwater. Mr. Atodaria discussed proposed street connections, access points and mailbox locations. He noted staff concerns with the phasing as Phase 1 in the 9th Addition is topographically higher in elevation than the 11th Addition in Phase 2, which will require utilities to be installed through the Phase 2 area to serve Phase 1. This will require all utilities, including storm sewers, stormwater channels and sanitary sewer, be extended from existing infrastructure from the south to the Phase 1 area. Staff notes that with the proposed phasing, all necessary infrastructure must be installed from the south as necessary to serve the needs of the 1st Phase. Mr. Atodaria also addressed the outstanding issues with minor label corrections on the plat, and that the applicant has submitted a rough draft of the Deed of Dedication for review. Those will be revised as needed. He noted that the proposed plat cannot be approved prior to the approval of the revisions to the master plan. Brad Pierschbacher, 4228 W. 1st Street, asked about the street connection and future construction. He asked how many houses are to be put in the new addition that will compound the density. He also noted concern with traffic coming out onto Highway 57. Cindy Luchtenberg, 4322 W. 1st Street, spoke about the original exits on the master plan. Willis Roberts, 4018 Wynnewood, asked if all the surface water and stormwater would come to the low drainage area and then east into the Fieldstone pond. Mr. Tolan stated that is correct and explained how it works. He also explained the silt control mechanisms. Ms. Grybovych asked about open greenspace and the requirements for what percentage is needed to be set aside. She asked why the park area was reduced. Ms. Howard explained that the subdivision code requires open space to be provided to serve the needs of the development, but there is no formula in place to determine an exact amount. She confirmed that previous staff report in 2020 suggested a minimum of 2 acres. The item will be continued to the next meeting. 5.) The next item of business was an RP site plan review for The Cove at Spruce Hills. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Atodaria provided background information. He discussed a rezoning in 2004 and an RP Plan amendment in 2014 and the changes made. He explained that in 2017 a final plat was approved and the proposed project will be the last development in the subdivision. It is proposed to build 30 units of 2-story townhomes within six buildings that would include four (4) five-unit townhome buildings, one (1) four-unit townhome building and one (1) six-unit townhome building. He discussed the proposed site plan layout with regard to garage and pedestrian access, facades and infrastructure. He noted that all infrastructure, including the internal streets and sidewalks would be private. He noted staff concerns about private streets and that long term maintenance and provision of services would fall to future homeowners. Mr. Atodaria spoke about the setbacks, easements, site access, stormwater management, landscaping and building elevations. It is noted that the sidewalks in the public right-of-way must meet city standards, including ADA compliance. The homeowners will be responsible for clearing snow, garbage removal and maintaining both the public and private sidewalks (installed within property boundary). He described the outstanding issues that included the need for lighting plan, approval of the minor plat prior to the site plan, and submission of the Deed of Dedication addressing responsibilities of maintenance of shared areas. He explained that future residents should note that the City will not provide any maintenance of private streets or sidewalks, or provide services such as snow removal and garbage pickup and the cost of such things will be the responsibility of the Home Owners 4  Association or the developer. Brian Wingert, 2110 Flynn Drive, spoke regarding the project as the developer. He discussed the density issues and the compromise to reduce it. He also explained that there will be a lot of landscaping and beautification done in the area. He also noted that an on-site manager has been hired to be available for any issues in the neighborhood. Mr. Wingert explained that the units are at a sale point of $250,000 and discussed affordable housing. Ms. Saul feels it is a good use of space. Ms. Lynch stated her appreciation for not removing the forest area behind the properties. The item was continued to the next meeting. 6.) The last item for consideration by the Commission was an MU Master Plan Amendment for Pinnacle Prairie Development. Chair Leeper introduced the item and Mr. Weintraut presented information about the request. He explained that the proposal is to construct 19 two-family units, similar to what has been developed in the larger Western Homes development to the south. Units would be on two lots with shared common space and noted that there is no zoning change required. He provided information regarding the original master plan and the proposed uses at that time. He explained that there are not many commercial uses in the area and that commercial development due to the location may not be as viable further from the main arterials, so the change to residential would be reasonable. He discussed the proposed elevations and noted that staff recommends the discussion of the proposed amendments at this time and continuing to the next meeting. Mr. Holst noted a conflict of interest on the item. Ms. Lynch noted that she also has a conflict of interest and will not be participating in the vote. Ms. Saul felt like it was a good plan. As there was no further discussion, the item will be moved to the next meeting. 7.) As there were no further comments, Ms. Lynch made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Grybovych, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Lynch, Moser and Saul), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Assistant 5