Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 14, 2022 Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on December 14, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. at the Community Center. The following Commission members were present: Crisman, Grybovych, Larson, Leeper (joined later in the meeting by phone), Lynch and Moser. Hartley was absent. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager, Shane Graham, Economic Development Coordinator, Michelle Pezley, Planner III and Chris Sevy, Planner I were also present. 1.) Acting Chair Lynch noted the Minutes from the November 22, 2022 regular meeting are presented. Ms. Crisman made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Ms. Grybovych seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Crisman, Grybovych, Larson, Lynch and Moser), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a public hearing for a new zoning agreement in Midway Business Park. Acting Chair Lynch introduced the item and Mr. Sevy provided background information. He explained that the property sits east of Cedar Heights Drive and north of Greenhill Road and Lots 5 and 6 are not properly zoned for an assisted living facility. The new zoning agreement would remove the zoning restriction by rezoning the lots to R-4 and would also allow for a correction to the legal description. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and the new zoning agreement. Mr. Larson made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Grybovych seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Crisman, Grybovych, Larson, Lynch and Moser), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a public hearing regarding a rezoning of Lots 1-4 in the Midway 2nd Addition. Acting Chair Lynch introduced the item and Mr. Sevy provided background information. He explained that the previous rezoning to R-4 with an associated zoning agreement was intended to encompass a larger area that included the Lovejoy cul-de-sac. However, the legal description in the previous zoning action years ago has an error, so the properties need to be rezoned with the correct legal description. Since these four lots are at the end of a cul-de-sac that does not connect to the Midway Business Park and have already been developed with single family homes, the City is proposing to rezone these lots to R-1, so the zoning is consistent with the rest of the residential neighborhood. Ms. Moser made a motion to approve the item. Mr. Larson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Crisman, Grybovych, Larson, Lynch and Moser), and 0 nays. 4.) The Commission then considered the Southwest Cedar Falls Urban Renewal Plan. Acting Chair Lynch introduced the item and Mr. Graham provided background information. He indicated that the City is looking to establish a new urban renewal area on land that has not yet been developed adjacent to the existing industrial park. He showed a map of the proposed boundaries and indicated that the future use of the property would be for industrial uses as an expansion area of the current industrial park. He discussed the state code requirements and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He showed the future land use map and explained the different designations for each area. He indicated that specific goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan include expanding and enhancing the commercial and industrial 1  base, supporting new businesses through innovative economic development programs, repairing aging infrastructure, and expanding technology infrastructure to attract business and industry, to name a few. He indicated that within the Comprehensive Plan is also found a Future Land Use Map, which includes both current and proposed uses within the city. More specifically for the area of the city where the proposed Southwest Cedar Falls Urban Renewal Plan is being proposed, the Future Land Use Map designates this area for Industrial uses. Mr. Graham also discussed the objectives for the new Urban Renewal Plan, which includes: a) stimulate private investment in new commercial and industrial development. b) plan and provide for sufficient land for commercial or industrial development. c) provide for installation of public infrastructure. d) use of various governmental incentives to provide a marketable and attractive investment climate. e) achieve a well-balanced economy. f) develop a sound economic base. Staff finds that, based on the goals and designated future land uses listed in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed objectives and activities of the proposed Southwest Cedar Falls Urban Renewal Plan are in conformance with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. Staff recommends that the Commission find that the proposed Southwest Cedar Falls Urban Renewal Plan is in conformity with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. Mr. Larsen made a motion recommending that the proposed Southwest Cedar Falls Urban Renewal Plan is in conformance with the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. Ms. Crisman seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Larsen, Crisman, Grybovych, Lynch and Moser), and 0 nays. 5.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a site plan review for a tri-plex on Lot 4 of the Hanna Park Commercial Addition. Mr. Leeper joined the meeting at this time by phone. Mr. Larson recused himself from this item and the one following. Acting Chair Lynch introduced the item and Ms. Pezley provided background information. She explained that the applicant is proposing a new tri-plex at the corner of Valley High Drive and Cedar Heights Drive. The parcel is within the C-1 Commercial District and residential uses are allowed if reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council. One condition is that the future land use map is supportive of the proposed residential uses. The land use map was amended in November 2021 to allow for medium density residential use in this area. Each unit will consist of three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a three-car garage and each driveway will be off Valley High Drive. The subject lot is in the 500-year floodplain. Development is allowed on lots of record within the 500-year floodplain as long as it meets the floodplain regulations and is properly elevated one foot above the 500 year floodplain. Ms. Pezley discussed the setback, parking, landscaping, lighting and stormwater requirements, noting that all are met. She provided renderings of the proposed tri-plex design and stated that staff recommends approval of the project subject to comments or direction specified by the Commission, conformance with all staff recommendations and technical comments, and the stipulation that construction of the proposed residential development must commence within one year of City Council approval, with an option for a one-year extension. Ms. Crisman asked Ms. Pezley to discuss the stormwater management issues. Ms. Pezley explained that any stormwater that leaves the parcel has to meet two-year release rate for existing development for a 100-year storm event. These criteria were reviewed by the Engineering division. Larry Kuzman, Clapsaddle Garber Associates, explained that he is not aware of any stormwater issues the neighbors are having so he cannot comment on what 2  issues there may be. He explained the current flow pattern with the uncontrolled run-off and discussed how with development the run-off will be controlled and directed toward the creek. Ms. Grybovich made a motion to approve the item. Ms. Crisman seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Leeper, Crisman, Grybovych, Lynch and Moser), 1 abstention and 0 nays. 6.) The Commission then discussed the preliminary plat for Hidden Pines. Acting Chair Lynch introduced the item and Ms. Pezley provided background information. She explained that a preliminary plat is proposed near the intersection of Greenhill Road and Cedar Heights Drive. She explained that the parcel is within the R-2 zoning district and consists of 43 residential lots. The developer plans to complete the project in two phases starting in the spring. She discussed the street extensions and noted that the City of Waterloo sent a letter stating they have no objections with those extensions and with the stormwater management as proposed. She spoke about stormwater management, public sanitary sewer, wetlands and open space, as well as critical infrastructure and traffic calming provided. Staff recommends gathering comments from the Commission and the public and to continue the discussion to the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Nate Kass, Fehr Graham Engineering and Environmental came forward to express his availability for comments and questions. Ms. Moser asked what the wetland mitigation entails. Mr. Kass explained that it would be specific native vegetation that will be graded very flat such that it will retain some runoff. It will be placed very strategically near the northern stormwater basin. Ms. Crisman asked if there are any plans to take care of and maintain the space if there are future issues. He stated that any issues will be addressed. Pat Burke, 1406 Asbury Lane, stated concerns with the stormwater and future placement of different kinds of buildings near his home on the property south of the proposed subdivision. Ms. Howard stated that nothing has been proposed on that property at this time other than the extension of the sewer line within an easement to Huntington Road, so she doesn’t want to speculate what may be developed in the future. She indicated that any proposal would need approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and the neighboring property owners would be notified, so there would be opportunity for neighbors to provide input. He asked about potential consequences of the stormwater runoff plan. Dan Murphy, 1438 Asbury Lane, Waterloo, stated concerns with stormwater runoff and potential traffic issues. Mr. Kass explained that the runoff should be less and that even if there were some kind of system failure it will run to a planned overflow route. He explained that City ordinances were followed and the Engineering division approved of the plans. Charles Camarata, 4050 Matthew Drive, Waterloo, stated he believes that there is a wetland and didn’t understand what qualifies an area as a wetland. Mr. Kass explained the criteria that would have to be met to be considered a wetland. Mr. Camarata also stated concerns with parking and traffic in that area. Anthony Smith, 4816 Luke Street, Waterloo, stated concerns with home values, water runoff and traffic. Pat Burke came forward again to discuss traffic issues. Mr. Kass spoke about the traffic study and how the decisions were made with regard to how the traffic will flow. Mr. Burke asked about the process for this item’s approval. 3  Mr. Smith asked if the traffic study was done before or after the roundabout was finished and expressed his thoughts on how traffic would move. He also commented again regarding one of the retention ponds. Mr. Kass addressed the comments made. Mr. Murphy asked if Waterloo has been notified of the project. Ms. Pezley stated that they have been involved and have no objections. Mr. Camarata came forward regarding the traffic again. Mr. Burke added comments regarding traffic as well. Ms. Crisman asked for clarification on how the city handles issues with traffic in terms of change of the speed limit or speed bumps. Ms. Howard stated that staff can provide additional information at the next meeting regarding the traffic analysis. She indicated that Engineering staff will be present to address questions as well. Ms. Crisman also asked if some historical information could be provided about how the space has been handled in the past. Ms. Moser also asked for assurance from the engineering division regarding the stormwater management improvements. Ms. Crisman asked what the relationship with the Waterloo Planning and Zoning Commission has been in the past. Ms. Howard explained that the applicant was asked to reach out to the City of Waterloo to get their permission to extend the streets and direct stormwater overflow into the Waterloo storm sewer. The City of Waterloo provided a letter indicating their agreement with the plat as proposed. Ms. Grybovich asked if it is customary for the developer to have a meeting with the residents. Ms. Howard stated that it is encouraged for the developer to have a good neighbor meeting, but it is optional. The item was continued to the next meeting. 7.) Ms. Howard discussed the Downtown Character District Project updates and the process and review times. She also asked the Commission for suggestions on any additional training resources that they would be interested in. 8.) As there were no further comments, Ms. Moser made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Crisman seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Crisman, Grybovych, Leeper, Lynch and Moser), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Assistant 4