RIVER FALLS — A pair of housing developments has been the talk of the city in River Falls, as the two proposals were grouped with multiple variances to city code. A multi-family Mann Valley proposal was approved, with a single and twin home proposal on Powell Avenue tabled for changes during the Oct. 28 meeting.

Both proposals went through a slurry of public comments at the River Falls Plan Commission and City Council meetings. Neither proposal was given the Plan Commission stamp of recommendation, but further discussions at the council meeting clarified some questions to garner more support from the council than the previous board.

The first proposal was for 255 units spread across seven buildings in Mann Valley. The units vary from townhomes, to studio apartments, to one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments. Three Sixty Real Estate Solutions partnered with Cinnaire Solutions for Cinnaire to include 50 affordable units.

The flexibility requested in the development are setback decreases from 25 to 10 feet, parking ratio decreases from two stalls per unit to about 1.5 to better fit the size of the units and a decrease in open space. As addressed at a previous meeting, the change in open space was justified by city staff because of the “quality” of open space including a sport court, community garden and dog park.

Assistant Director of Community Development Emily Shively displayed a chart detailing occurrences where recent housing developments were given exemptions to the three items requested at the Mann Valley development. Eleven of 12 multi-family developments in the last six years have requested and been granted open space variances, four of the last five projects have requested and received parking exemptions and the last two developments have been granted setback variances.

“In each of these, the determination was made that the project met the goals of the community, the general intent of the ordinances and was in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan,” Shively said.

Just shy of $199,000 would be collected for park dedication and $118,000 for park impact fees.

Dana Linscott of the River Falls Alliance for the Homeless spoke in favor of the development during public comment. Linscott said a lot of the public blowback stems from unanswered questions, hoping the developers of both proposals could speak to them.

“I’m really happy that you’re building [the] Mann Valley project that includes 50 low-income units,” Linscott said. “While that’s a small amount of what’s needed in River Falls, it’s a good start.”

A spotlighted concern of the Mann Valley proposal’s public comments was a potential for runoff into the Kinnickinnic River. With a request for decreased green space and some of that space being taken up by an impervious sport court, people mentioned fear of what could enter the river unwelcomed.

“The Kinnickinnic River watershed, home to one of Wisconsin’s premier Class 1 coldwater trout streams, needs to be protected,” John Witt said. “Expanding impervious surfaces, runoff, reduced infiltration like roofs, parking areas, driveways and sports courts will increase stormwater runoff, reduce infiltration and raise the risk of pollutants reaching the river.”

“The reason we were drawn here was because of the charming character of the city,” Mark Anderson of Collinswood said. “We understand and appreciate that development is going to happen, and we certainly know it’s necessary for a city to grow, but it’s also incumbent on developers, planners and city officials to encourage the right kind of growth.”

When the floor was opened back up to council, a variety of opinions bubbled to the surface.

“We do not take lightly environmental impacts of things. We are more strict, even to the north in Hudson, when it comes to our environmental stuff,” Alderperson Scott Morrissette said.

“There is nothing easy about this,” Alderperson Nick Carow said. “Cities that do not grow die. The vibrant community you live in does not exist without increased citizens.”

“For me, when I look at something like this, is it the worst plan? No, but have we considered other alternatives? I don’t believe we have,” Alderperson Sean Downing said.

Downing urged the city to push for multiplex housing for better rental opportunities.

“Multiplexes are known as the missing middle housing, because by providing gentle density, they can be more community integrated than large apartment buildings,” Downing said.

Downing added there was only one response to the Request For Proposals, claiming it is hard to vote in favor of the proposal, as there were no options for comparison. City Administrator Scot Simpson responded, saying city staff would not have recommended the lone proposal to council if they felt it did not align with plans and goals previously defined. Downing made the lone vote against the item.

The other proposal, which saw even more comments from the public, is a 93-unit development off Powell Avenue near North Winter Street that includes 61 single family homes and 32 twin homes. The requests for variation to city code were for lot width to decrease from 75 to 50 feet, setbacks to be measured to the foundation rather than the eave and decreased corner setbacks for a handful of the twin homes due to roadway configuration.

The primary piece that saw public comment on this proposal was the decreased lot size.

“Building homes is a good thing. Building tiny homes on small lots is not okay,” Charles Erickson said.

Cheryl Hoffman of Woodridge Drive spoke on behalf of Woodridge’s Neighborhood Association and 204 petition signees against the proposal.

“That nearly doubles the density of Woodridge on half of the acreage,” Hoffman said. “These changes do not fit the established character, spacing or layout of our community. If approved, this development would add approximately 460 more residents, 180 additional vehicles using the same roadway as walkers, who enjoy walking the Woodridge loop that does not have shoulders.”

At the Plan Commission meeting, much of the commission discussion revolved around the code variances. With many recent River Falls developments being granted variances, the question arose of why they do not change the codes as a whole.

“The one in Mann Valley, I know there’s been some discussion on that. I did do some research since the time that I came and spoke with the Plan Commission. There’s a few concerns, but not anything that I would consider a deal breaker with how things are progressing out there, and what the city’s plan is for that,” resident Eric Amundson said. “The issue that I have is for the development in between Woodridge Drive East and West.”

Amundson had concerns about decreasing lot setbacks from 75 to 50 feet in the 93-unit development. Amundson said some developments on the south side of town face similar congestion, and the infrastructure can create issues of traffic, parking and safety because too many units were packed into developments.

“I see the same exact thing happening [on the south side of town],” Amundson said. “I am definitely not one of those that says, ‘Not in my backyard.’ I understand development. I don’t have an issue with it, but let’s be responsible with what we’re doing.”

Paul Tabone of J.P. Brooks, the proposers of the 93-unit development, spoke to council in an attempt to address some concern. Tabone said they target housing for the “missing middle” class, which is the goal of this proposal.

“The deviations on the PUD, we believe, are minimal,” Tabone said.

After lengthy council discussion, council tabled the development to return to council after the developer works with staff to address lot and park sizes.

“We need this type of housing in the city, there’s no doubt about it,” Morrissette said. “Unfortunately, I can’t support this. I can’t support the 50-foot lot lines. I was not on the council when Knollwood was put in, and I’m basing my comments on the fact that I get calls from Knollwood about parking issues.”

Morrissette said he hopes that if they did not pass the development, an altered proposal comes to council that addresses some of the concerns. Both the Park Board and Plan Commission did not approve the proposal. While there were discussions at the Plan Commission meeting of codifying some of the variances rather than continuing to approve variances, Morrissette said he would not approve of that either. He said he does not have an exact lot size in mind which he would approve; however, increasing the size and getting creative to build spacing would bring him to consider the proposal.

Alderperson Todd Bjerstedt said, as a former developer and builder, it is “challenging, but not impossible to do a very nice job on a narrow lot.”

“I have also been on this board for almost eight years now, and I can’t count how many times people have come here and said we want affordable single-family housing,” Bjerstedt said. “We can’t give it to them unless we give them the density… Density and affordability are joined at the hip, like it or not.”

Alderperson Jeff Bjork asked for some adjustment to lots in order to increase park space within the development, citing it as the reason the Park Board opposed the proposal. Tabone said they would be willing to work with the city to make that change.

Garbage contract

Despite recent perceived shortfalls, council approved a five-year refuse and recycling contract with Waste Management.

“You guys are making it awful hard on us with the history you guys have had recently about not picking up on that day or just general problems with pickup,” Morrissette said about Waste Management. “We’d really like it to not be a problem.”

Simpson said there have been fewer complaints recently after three “bad weeks” where a letter was sent and a penalty issued. Within the proposal, Simpson said Waste Management would take on some of the customer service and billing responsibilities from the city, which he had concern about given his high faith in the city’s handling of customer service.

Carow was set to vote against the motion in “protest” of the current service.

“Because you’re not picking up trash all that well, in my opinion, that makes it hard to say let’s give you extra responsibilities,” Carow said.

An amendment was made to retain billing and customer service, a motion council would approve.