Planning and Zoning Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting September 12, 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, September 12, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa. The following Commission members were present: Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Saul and Wingert. Adkins and Oberle were absent. Karen Howard, Community Services Manager, David Sturch, Planner III and Iris Lehmann, Planner I, were also present. 1.) Acting Chair Holst noted the Minutes from the August 22, 2018 regular meeting are presented. Ms. Giarusso made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Mr. Hartley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 7 ayes (Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper, Saul and Wingert) and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a continuation of public hearing regarding a rezoning request at the end of Lakeshore Drive from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Residential. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Wingert noted that he will be abstaining from the item. Mr. Sturch provided background information, explaining that the item was introduced at the last meeting. It is a 20 acre parcel at the end of Lakeshore Drive that is proposed for residential use. He noted that utilities meet requirements, as well as the land use map. Staff recommends approval with conformance to all city staff recommendations and technical comments as well as any comments or direction from the Commission. Tamie Stahl, 1009 Lakeshore Drive, stated that she was told when they moved into their home they were told this area would never be rezoned as there were too many issues and asked how it could be considered at this time. Mr. Adam Daters, Clapsaddle Garber Associates, stated that he believes all criteria for rezoning have been met. Ms. Saul noted that she feels that it is straightforward and consistent with the land use map. Mr. Holst agreed. Mr. Leeper made a motion to approve. Mr. Arntson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 5 ayes (Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Holst, Leeper and Saul), 2 abstentions (Holst and Wingert) and 0 nays. 3.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was the Park Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that approximately 9 acres of the parcel is in the floodplain, it contains significant tree stands, steep slopes and meandering streams from the west and south to the Cedar River. He noted that the goal is to maintain those things, and that there is a required review for grading, storm water detention and runoff. The design is to create a controlled runoff for that area. Mr. Sturch displayed the proposed plat and identified the lots and easements, as well as detention basins. He explained the proposed plans for the runoff to divert into a ravine. Staff would like to discuss the plat at this time and gather any comments for continued discussion at the next Planning and Zoning meeting. 1  Mr. Adam Daters, Clapsaddle Garber Associates, came forward to clarify that they are in agreement with the additional requirements and their intent is to leave the area as natural as possible. Mr. Holst asked if there any consideration of a future extension of Lakeshore Drive. Mr. Daters noted that there wasn’t any discussion on that. Mr. Leeper stated his concern for the storm water and asked if it might be better to release it into the stream versus a controlled release. Mr. Arntson asked about the elevation and drainage, and where the water will go. Mr. Daters provided answers to each inquiry. Mr. Leeper asked if Mr. Daters is comfortable stating that this will not make things worse. Mr. Daters explained stated that they don’t affect it currently and that it will not be worse. Tamie Stahl, 1009 Lakeshore Drive, noted concerns about the development and said that the Lakeshore Development has not been treated well. She reiterated concerns with storm water management and showed the debris that come through the pond whenever there is a greater amount of water flow. She also passed out pictures of the issues in the area when it rains. Lisa Sage, owner of the lot on corner of Lakeshore and Lilliput, asked for clarification about runoff from the south. Mr. Daters explained that they will be trying to push the water drainage further to the north. Ms. Saul recommended that staff walk the property to get a better view as opposed to just looking at a map. Ms. Stahl suggested that if staff and/or the Commission come to look at the property, she invited them to let herself or another property owner know so they can show them the existing issues. Mr. Leeper encouraged the Developer to look for ways to ways to make things a little better in the area, rather than just settle for not making them worse. Mr. Arntson asked for clarification of the drainage of Lot 6 to ensure its draining properly. The matter will be continued at the September 26 Planning and Zoning meeting. 4.) The Commission then considered the Downtown Design Review of 308 Franklin Street. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Mr. Sturch provided background information. He explained that the item is in regard to a business that will be relocating to the property at 308 Franklin Street and an addition with a deck is proposed to accommodate ADA accessibility requirements. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Holst recommended that the roof pitch for the addition match the rest of the building. Mr. Arntson made a motion to approve with the change to the pitch in the roof. Mr. Leeper seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 6 ayes (Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Leeper, Saul and Wingert), 1 abstention (Holst) and 0 nays. 5.) The next item of business was the Downtown Design Review of 419 Washington Street. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Ms. Lehmann provided background information. She explained that the owner of Cottonwood Canyon is proposing to build a new deck on the front of the property to provide more customer seating and visibility for the restaurant. The property was originally built as a single-family home and was eventually converted to a commercial use. The proposal includes moving the free-standing sign to the other side of the walkway to make room for the deck. Ms. Lehmann discussed the requirements for any downtown design changes and noted that all requirements are met. She explained that staff has been working with the petitioner to create a plan that will be appropriate and he is willing to make necessary changes. Staff recommends approval with the following stipulations: 2  1) The wood deck, existing wood ramp, and stoop structure must be painted or stained with an opaque color that is consistent with the color of the building. 2) Applicant modifies the size of the deck to ensure it is setback a minimum of 3 feet from the public sidewalk and provides a landscape plan including how shrubs for the area between the deck and the sidewalk. 3) Additional details are provided for the construction of the deck. Specifically the type of skirting and balustrade details as described in the staff report 4) The liquor license is amended to include the area of the new deck. Randolph Brian, Cottonwood Canyon, stated that he is comfortable with any adjustments to the porch and thinks it will enhance the business. He also noted that the neighbors on either side are aware of the project and neither had objections. Ms. Saul made a motion to approve. Ms. Giarusso seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 6 ayes (Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Leeper, Saul and Wingert), 1 abstention (Holst) and 0 nays. 6.) The next item for consideration by the Commission was the Downtown Design Review of 408 – 412 Main Street. Acting Chair Holst introduced the item and Ms. Lehmann provided background information. She explained that the owners would like to paint a mural over the entire south side of the building. The proposal will not affect the primary façade of the building but it is highly visible and will bring vibrancy to what is currently a blank wall. Ms. Lehmann showed a rendering of the proposed mural, which is the artist’s abstract representation of Cedar Falls. Staff feels the mural is appropriate for the location. The applicants have agreed to maintain the mural over time. Staff recommends approval with any recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Wingert asked if this is being approved just because it is on a secondary façade. Ms. Lehmann confirmed that this is one of the main reasons for approval. Mr. Hartley asked why the Commission approves this kind of artwork and who handles and appropriates the art that is currently downtown. Ms. Lehmann noted that the code requires review of Murals on private property by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She added that she believes that the Public Art Commission works with UNI to rotate the sculptures throughout the downtown’s public right of way. Carol Lilly, Community Main Street, explained that the difference is that there are no public funds being used for this project and this is also a private property, as such review by the Public Art Committee is not required. Mr. Arntson asked what the rules would be if someone wanted to paint brickwork that should be preserved. Ms. Lehmann clarified that it is highly discouraged in the Code. Mr. Leeper noted that he is uncomfortable with the Commission approving art and feels that a cursory visit with the Public Art Committee would be more appropriate. Ms. Lehmann stated that the Commission isn’t really being asked to provide feedback on the art itself, but rather the objective parts of the project, such as location, painting of a wall, colors, appropriateness of the general content/message etc. There was further discussion on whether the Commission should approve art. Ms. Saul made a motion to approve. Mr. Arntson seconded the motion. The motion was approved with 4 ayes (Arntson, Giarusso, Saul and Wingert), 2 nays (Hartley and Leeper) 1 abstention (Holst) and 0 nays. 7.) The Commission then received updates regarding future community visioning process and zoning code update for downtown. Ms. Howard reviewed presentations and discussions that have taken place regarding the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates and 3  explained that the City Council directed staff to move forward with an RFP for a consultant experienced in visioning and the development of form-based zoning codes. Ms. Howard explained the next steps going forward with the process of working with a consultant. She discussed recent coordination with an upcoming parking study that will be used to help with updating the code. She explained the public outreach and visioning portion of the design process as well as the development of the code. Mr. Leeper noted that it takes a while to get through this process and we’re doing a small chunk of the City and wondered if there are some broad planning moves for the entire city that might be considered that aren’t as detailed as this will be a long process. Ms. Howard said that staff is trying to balance schedules and the rest of the work being done within the City while being sure to do things correctly. 8.) As there were no further comments, Mr. Leeper made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wingert seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 6 ayes (Arntson, Giarusso, Hartley, Leeper, Saul and Wingert), 1 abstention (Holst) and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Clerk 4