Cedar Falls council approves multi‑residential urban revitalization area despite neighbors’ objections

The Cedar Falls City Council on Feb. 3 adopted ordinance No. 3093, designating a multi‑residential urban revitalization area that includes property near Luke and Millennium Streets, after a contentious public and council debate over whether the designation could encourage multi‑unit development adjacent to existing single‑family homes.

Residents from Luke and Millennium Streets urged councilors to exclude the narrow strips directly behind their homes from the revitalization area, saying the city would be offering incentives that risk putting multi‑unit buildings “right up on my property line.” Resident Kathy Thompson told the council she and neighbors had met with staff and asked why the boundary was extended to the strips behind Luke and Millennium streets; she said the result could place “a red light on the area behind our homes by offering incentives.”

John Thompson, whose property backs the narrow strip, said the terrain and elevation make the lots unusually close to adjacent homes and warned that higher‑density buildings would affect privacy: “If you squeezed apartment buildings in there, you would not only be right up against our property line, but you’d be looking right in our bedroom window.”

Council discussion focused on two competing priorities: council members who supported the ordinance emphasized the city’s need for new housing and the value of retaining a tool that allows the city to offer tax‑based incentives when a qualifying multi‑residential project is proposed. Supporters said the designation does not itself approve any development or compel use of incentives; any future project would require a development agreement and would be subject to design, setback and parking requirements.

Other councilors and several members of the public argued that including already developed strips of single‑family property in an incentive area was inappropriate. Councilor Ganfield proposed an amendment to shrink the boundary to exclude the southern residential portions and include only the properties directly proposed for redevelopment (the church and daycare parcels). City attorney and staff advised that a substantive amendment would restart required public notice and readings and could delay adoption and, consequently, eligibility for developers who want the incentive applied to imminent projects.

After further debate and public comment, council voted to approve…