Planning and Zoning Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting February 14, 2018 City Hall Council Chambers 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa. The following Commission members were present: Adkins, Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Oberle and Saul. Wingert was absent. David Sturch, Planner III, Shane Graham, Planner II, and Iris Lehmann, Planner I, were also present. 1.) Chair Oberle noted the Minutes from the January 24, 2018 regular meeting are presented. Mr. Holst made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Mr. Hartley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Oberle and Saul), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was the Gateway Business Park at Cedar Falls Preliminary Plat. Chair Oberle introduced the item and Mr. Graham provided background information, noting that the item was reviewed at the January 10, 2018 meeting. The property is located near the corner of West Ridgeway Avenue and Hudson Road, where the developer would like to plat six lots. He discussed the slight modifications to the site plan since the last meeting, which included changing a roundabout to a T-intersection as well as moving Gateway Lane and the median 150 ft. to the east. He displayed renderings of the street connectivity and stormwater management and noted that staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. Holst asked about the roundabout and why it would be necessary. Mr. Graham stated that they are looking to the future and trying to prepare the access for more traffic. Mr. Leeper noted the future traffic projections on West Ridgeway and asked if there are too many access locations. Mr. Graham stated that the City Engineer felt that it would not be a problem. Ms. Saul asked if the recreation trail will have any connections to anything else along Hudson Road. Mr. Graham explained that there are no immediate plans to go any further north but the city would investigate it for future development. Mr. Arntson asked if Lot 2 is the location where there is discussion regarding a roundabout. Mr. Graham clarified that it was. Mr. Holst made a motion to approve. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Oberle and Saul), and 0 nays. 3.) The next item brought to the Commission was a presentation by Carol Lilly of Community Main Street with regard to the Central Business Overlay. Ms. Lilly discussed design guidelines and the overlay ordinance, noting that from 1987 to 2016 the assessed value of the Central Business District has increased by 821%, providing a significant tax base for the city. She provided context from Community Main Street’s perspective regarding the 1  relationship between the overlay ordinance and Main Street’s design guidelines. She encouraged Commission members to consider how the guidelines have helped to successfully shape the downtown as they update the ordinance. Updating the ordinance can remove confusion by specifying which categories of information must be used and which are advisory. 4.) The Commission then considered the Central Business District site plan review of the Hampton Inn hotel. Chair Oberle introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that the project is being proposed at the corner of First and Main Streets in the C-3 District at the site of the former Broom Factory Restaurant. He discussed the background of the property between 2010 and 2012 and the plans that had been proposed during that time. The proposed Hampton Inn hotel would be six stories with 132 parking stalls. He displayed renderings of the notable site plan elements, as well as landscaping, site access, building façade, design and height, lighting design, levee construction, stormwater management and easement vacation. At this time, staff would like to gather comments and continue discussion at the February 28, 2018 meeting. The developer, Om Patel, Director of Hawkeye Hotels of Iowa City, spoke to the background of the business and the Hampton Inn brand, noting it is one of the largest hotel franchises in the United States. They are proposing a different, more customized and unique hotel to fit in to downtown Cedar Falls. Mr. Leeper feels that the project has a strong base, but would like them to work with the design further to follow the Main Street theme. Mr. Arntson agreed, stating he would like it to look less corporate and more like the downtown feel, however he does feel it is a great redevelopment and appreciates the project. Ms. Saul suggested adding an arched theme to the design element to help the building follow the downtown design and feel. Mr. Holst noted that he didn’t feel the height was unreasonable and was not opposed to it. Mr. Arntson asked about the customer drop off site location, which is at the back of the building. The building has pedestrian flow that would allow people to easily access downtown. Ms. Giarusso asked about river development and whether the site plan is taking that into account. Mr. Sturch explained that staff is working with a river consultant and the idea is to make the trail connections and bring the river closer to downtown. As part of the levee project, the wall opening will be moved but maintained. Mr. Patel asked if there are any specific elements the Commission would like to see changed to the site plan. Ms. Saul noted that arching elements, particularly the windows, would be nice. Mr. Leeper stated that the base is good but could still use work and asked that they look a little further into some scale and texture. The item will be brought back to the February 28, 2018 Commission meeting. 5.) The next item of business was the HWY-1 District site plan review for Holiday Inn and Suites/Conference Center. Chair Oberle introduced the item and Mr. Graham provided background information. He explained that the project is located along Hudson and Road and Cyber Lane, just south of Technology Parkway and is in the HWY-20 Commercial Corridor Overlay District. The site is roughly 9 acres in size with a four-story hotel containing 126 rooms and a 31,000 sq. ft. conference center. Mr. Graham discussed additional features of the site plan including parking, dumpster, recreation trails, etc. The total site has 346 parking stalls, as well as an additional 76 stalls for the future hotel. He 2  discussed the landscaping plan, stormwater management plan, building design, exterior perspective, and signage plan. At this time staff would like to gather comments and continue the discussion at the February 28, 2018 Planning and Zoning meeting. Atul Patel (307 Winding Ridge Road) of Open Door Hospitality came forward to note that their company is heavily invested in the Cedar Valley and the surrounding towns. They are doing their best to bring needed amenities to the area while working with the IHG brand. Alisha Schmitz (2030 North Ridge Drive, Coralville) of Russel Development stated that they will be removing one of the monument signs that Mr. Graham had discussed to come into compliance with the sign regulations. She also discussed the two different colors of stucco that are proposed and asked for comments or opinions from the Commission. Ms. Oberle asked to see the image of the stucco colors that had been discussed. Ms. Schmitz provided a summary of the proposed colors. Mr. Arntson stated that this is the first building you will see when entering the City and would like to see better renderings at the next meeting, showing more detail that better reflects the different colors. He feels that it is a substantial and significant investment coming to town. He also asked if there is a similar building that IHG has built to give an idea of how it would look. Ms. Schmitz explained that this particular building is more of a hybrid, but they can show some examples to help visualize the proposed building. The meeting was continued to the February 28 Planning and Zoning meeting. 6.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was a College Hill Neighborhood District Site Plan Review for a projecting sign and awning at 917 W. 23rd Street. Chair Oberle introduced the item and Ms. Lehmann provided background information. She explained that the owner is requesting a façade review for the property with regard to the proposed sign and awning. The property is on the edge of the College Hill Overlay District, and these items qualify as substantial improvements and require Planning and Zoning and City Council approval. She provided renderings of the awning and signage, noting that each meet all zoning requirements. Staff recommends approval of the awning and projecting sign. Mr. Arntson made a motion to approve. Mr. Leeper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Oberle and Saul), and 0 nays. 7.) The Commission then considered the Central Business District site plan review for the relocation of the former Chamber building at the corner of First and Main Streets. Chair Oberle introduced the item and Ms. Lehmann provided background information, explaining that this item ties into the proposed Hampton Inn hotel project discussed earlier in the meeting. Community Main Street is proposing to relocate the former Chamber building to the southeast corner of the River Place Development near the entrance of the Water Reclamation site. She provided a rendering of the original site and the proposed location. At this time staff is just bringing the item to the Commission for discussion. Ms. Lehmann explained that the location in question is part of the River Place Development that was approved by City Council. She discussed the proposal to move the building, as well as provide a garage for storage of materials and their Gator. She discussed the elements that are considered in the Central Business District, such as the 3  proposed use, setbacks, parking, landscaping, sidewalk, lighting, and stormwater management. She also noted that no signage, aside from a galss etching on the main doors, is currently being proposed for this site. If Community Main Street were to decide to add signage, it would come back to the Commission at that time. Ms. Lehmann displayed renderings of the proposed façade, discussing elements that are proposed as well as the items that staff would like input on from the Commission. She discussed the materials and texture/color, which staff has no concerns about. The proportion of the building is a concern for staff and they would like guidance from the Commission. Staff also would like Commission input regarding the roof shape, pitch and direction, as the buildings close by have flat roofs. Staff would also like Commission direction with regard to architectural features. Staff would like to bring this item back to the Commission on February 28. Ms. Carol Lilly, Community Main Street, thanked the City for their help thus far. She noted that while Viking Pump is close by, they will be closer to the one-story end of the building and that the roof design nearby is similar. Ms. Lilly said they will also add the required ADA parking spot, as well as meet the landscaping requirements that are needed. They would like to maintain existing openings for security reasons, and noted that they do have some screenings planned with additional landscaping. Community Main Street feels they have met the conditions of the downtown overlay. Ms. Oberle applauded the reuse of the structure. Mr. Arntson asked if there was a plan to dig a basement. Ms. Lilly stated that there will be a basement. Mr. Holst noted a conflict of interest and stated that he will be abstaining from the future vote. Ms. Saul felt it is a good site for the Community Main Street building and likes the plan to repurpose a building. She stated that she understands staff’s concerns on the design but given that this is a reuse/relocation of a building she is ok with the proposed building’s proportion and roofing. She did add that it would be nice to see some added architectural detail. Mr. Arntson asked about potentially incorporating some of the elements from the buildings in Riverplace Development to make it blend in better. Ms. Lehmann asked if there was any opinion with regard to added windows. Ms. Saul felt they weren’t needed along the bike path. The rest of the Commission agreed. Ms. Oberle asked about the roof condition and whether it would be replaced. Ms. Lilly explained that it had been inspected, is in good shape and does not need to be replaced. The item will be continued at the February 28, 2018 Planning and Zoning meeting. 8.) The final item of business was the zoning ordinance update. Chair Oberle introduced the item and Ms. Lehmann provided information with regard to terminology changes pursuant to House File 134 and consistency among city codes. She explained that this is an introduction to an update of the entire zoning code to reflect HF 134 that was put in place in April 2017 and states: “A city shall not, after January 1, 2018 adopt or enforce any regulation or restriction related to the occupancy of residential rental property that is based upon the existence of familial or non-familial relationships between the occupants of such rental property.” 4  In December 2017, the city passed an update to the rental code to meet these requirements. Most changes were terminology based, and now all codes need to be updated to reflect these changes. An example of changes would include removing the term “family” from single-family and updating it to “unit” (i.e. single-unit). Ms. Oberle clarified that this will affect several zoning ordinance sections. Ms. Saul asked what single- unit will mean. Ms. Lehmann noted that it is defined in the specific section of the code and Ms. Sheetz further explained that a single-unit dwelling is a structure containing one dwelling unit. The item will be brought to the Commission for public hearing and a vote at the February 28 meeting. 9.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Leeper made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Saul seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Adkins, Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Oberle and Saul), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie Houk Sheetz Joanne Goodrich Director of Community Development Administrative Clerk 5