RIVER FALLS — A 255-unit multi-family development and a 93-lot subdivision were both proposed to the River Falls Plan Commission during the Oct. 7 meeting to the disapproval of many attending residents. Neither proposal received a recommendation from the Plan Commission for City Council approval after presentations and a public hearing.

Residents filled City Hall to largely voice their opposition for three variances requested to two separate developments from the developers to allow the proposals to be passed in the city.

Subdivision proposal

One proposal was for a 93-unit subdivision called Wildflower Meadows off Powell Avenue near North Winter Street. The mix would be 61 single family homes and 32 twin homes.

Senior Planner Harley Mehlhorn said the development is requesting three variances: minimum lot size from 7,500 square feet to 6,250 square feet, minimum lot width from 75 feet to 50 feet and setbacks measuring to the foundation rather than the overhang with a five-foot corner side yard setback on the twin home corners.

“There’s actually very little setback reduction on the single-family homes. It’s just the twin home corner lots that are deviating,” Mehlhorn said.

A primary concern spoken by the residents was the decrease in lot width and overall size.

“When you talked about going from 75 feet down to 50, that’s extremely high density,” Eric Amundsen of Marcella Court said. “You’re talking about one, two, maybe three acre lots that these homes are on, and now we want to put in high density into what was at one time a pretty open and spacious rural development.”

One neighbor to the development mentioned they have lived in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Chicago with the smaller lots, and people come to River Falls because of its space and quietness. Other commenters discussed lack of green space and overdevelopment.

“I just want to know what happened to our green space that River Falls brags about,” Gerald Gilbertson said. “All of the sudden, we’ve got someone coming in here that’s building homes that you can’t hardly get a golf cart between the two.

“I have no problem with Collinswood, that’s a beautiful spot, that’s awesome. Sterling Ponds, awesome, but you’ve got something like this coming in, you might as well put up townhomes that are on top of each other,” Gilbertson said.

The proposal includes sidewalks to Collins Park from the development in addition to a “pocket-park” inside the development with a play set.
Paul Tabone, a representative of site developer JP Brooks, was present at the meeting and answered some of the primary concerns of commenters. Tabone said the proposal is much less dense than allowed under the R-2 zoning because of an attempt to blend into the current surroundings. Under the proposal, JP Brooks would contribute crosswalks to the city as well as about $250,000 in Powell Avenue improvements and a play structure to the nearby park.

He said he would work with the engineer to reshape the trail to keep it further away from current residents’ homes.

“We believe, and we’ve worked very closely with staff to work to make sure that future traffic issues will be alleviated through that contribution,” Tabone said.

Storm ponding is planned to be larger than the standard and the developers have met with the city engineer about it.

“There were comments about strains on infrastructure, parks, services, fire, police. There are impact fees that would be associated with that,” Tabone said.

“Our concern is the pathway, or the trail that is going to be just to the north of that property. Our building is really close, the setback is close to the property line, and now, with the way the trail is being set up, we feel that’s way too close to our house,” Lu Ann Hecht, a Woodridge Drive resident, said. “People are just going to be walking by and touching our stuff, we think.”

Luke Feser, a neighbor of Hecht, expanded on the concerns of the trail, saying they already get a lot of people walking in the area, but adding residential units is going to exponentially increase foot traffic. He said twin homes come with a lot of renters, which means overhaul of residents frequently, and the “quiet” community will double in size.

“While, again, I also understand that growth happens, it is disappointing, and disheartening, and frustrating as an existing homeowner to see so many concessions given to big developers when there are so many challenges to conform to the ordinances for existing properties,” resident Elizabeth Bowden said. “I really would encourage you guys to look at the current zoning and the current neighborhoods and the things that we already have before we continue to destroy our valuable green space and ironically name things Preserve as we’re taking out neighborhood forests.”

Bowden mentioned an interest in making their property multi-family to combat a lack of affordable housing, but burdens faced are not met with the same variances as a larger developer may receive. Bowden asked the city to weigh long-term consequences to short-term gains for the two projects.

Resident Dave Spurgeon said with a new commercial park, The Preserve and now Wildflower all being constructed in the area, the traffic density is going to completely change.

Matt Ferguson, a lifelong River Falls resident said population density can hurt school districts.

“The property taxes that you’re going to get by having extra houses isn’t going to cover the amount of cost it will take to send a child to school,” Ferguson said. “If the average household has .32 children, and they put 94 units into this Powell Avenue development, that’s 30 kids. That may sound like not a lot, but the average cost to send a child to school here in River Falls is hard to properly determine, but somewhere between $7,000 and $15,000 a year.”

He said a range of $200,000-$450,000 to send 30 kids to school will not be completely patched by property taxes, and the school system will “suffer” for it. A few residents expressed the feeling that there was a “bait and switch,” getting them on board with a development they could back before bringing it back to the table in a larger capacity.

Plan Commission Member Mike Woolsey said the commission has to weigh the need for housing with the effect on the neighborhoods. Woolsey asked for the categories of the requested variances to see changes to the code if they want the developments to be approved rather than coming out with variances for every instance of development. Woolsey referred to an instance of Mehlhorn discussing how the parking space requirement codes can be improper depending on the size of the housing units, with Woolsey saying that is one of the codes that should be changed if that is the case.

“People in the audience must think, well, what are we doing up here? Well, we have a Comprehensive Plan, and we have a housing study and we are guided by that housing study,” Woolsey said. “We have a shortage of housing in this country by 2-3 million units. What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to balance those interests of the housing study and the recommendations.

“I’m seeing some things in these two developments that are not really pleasing me. I’m listening to what folks are saying, but I’m also keeping in mind that other goal that we have or the plans that we have that we are using as our guidance,” Woolsey said.

Mayor Dan Toland agreed with Woolsey, wanting to bring code updates through the commission and council before he would be comfortable recommending the proposals to council. The commission unanimously voted against recommending the development to council.

Multi-family development

A 255-unit multi-family development was also reviewed at the Plan Commission meeting. Included in the development would be seven buildings including three townhome buildings, two market rate apartment buildings, an income-based housing building and a community center/studio apartment building. The proposal comes from ThreeSixty Real Estate Solutions who are partnering with Cinnaire to include workforce housing in the development.

The three variation requests for the multi-family development are a reduced setback, reduced parking and reduced green space.

Mehlhorn presented on the project, diving into the three proposed variations from city code.

“The proposed development is seeking relief from three code standards,” Mehlhorn said. “Notably, [the setback from 25 to 10 feet] reduction is exclusive to a small area as shown here due to the existing site restraints.”

Mehlhorn said the setback variance is only used in a small area. He also said the reduction in total parking is from two stalls per unit to 1.5, a change due to many of the units being studio and one-bedroom units.

“[Code] necessitates two [parking] units per dwelling unit regardless of the size of the unit,” Mehlhorn said. “That actually comes out to no reduction at all if you apply a prorated model.”

He said basing parking space on unit size is more fitting to the industry standard than the current River Falls code of two parking spaces per unit.

As for the reduction of open space, Mehlhorn said it does not factor in the recreational quality of the space. Amenities proposed for the location include a sport court, dog park, community garden, paved trail and fitness areas.

One commenter said the development would be 13 acres or more if it stacked up to code, but is slated for 10. He asked that the Plan Commission, Park Board and City Council take time to reconsider the variances and to add pedestrian walkways for County Road M.

There were both complaints of safety from not meeting setback requirements as well as proximity to current homes for both proposals.

A resident raised a concern with a decrease from code in green space as well as an impervious sport court in effectively preventing runoff into the Kinnickinnic River.

“Excellent concern, completely understandable,” Mehlhorn said. “Regardless of the amount of green space, hardscape that’s proposed in the amenities, they will have to meet our drainage requirement flat out. We’re not giving any deviations to any sort of retention or drainage. They will meet our standards.”

The commission made no motion or discussion on the item, meaning the City Council did not get a recommendation from the commission.