Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-2010 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M AUGUST 3,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on August 3, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm,Johnson,Leonhart, Loveless, Loggins, Powers, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were:None Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Steve Schmitt and David Jones— City Council, and approximately 45 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 1, 2010 It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Whitehead to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: June 2010. Anderson noted this was the end of the year report,noting that 99%of the general administration budget was used, 74%of the equipment and travel budget, 89%of the software office supplies budget, and that 95% of expected revenues were currently showing as received,but that number would be higher as several property sales were not reflected in this total. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Young to approve the financial report for June 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Or Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Rezone Request 1. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of Lost Island Real Estate, LC. to rezone approximately 153.38 acres of land from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, "R-4, R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District, and"C-P" Planned Commercial District. It was moved by Schmitt and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to rezone 153.38 acres of property in question for the purpose of developing a 14.6 acre lake and RV Park, as well as future one and two family, multiple family, and commercial development. Andera noted it would appear that the proposed rezone would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as the area is planned for future Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 development and land at the far western portion of the ground in question is proposed for one and two family residential development, which would appear to provide for a good buffer and transition between the existing single family development to the west and the planned multiple family residences and commercial uses further to the east. Andera noted that the proposed rezone area is served by Hess Road from the north and south, and East Shaulis Road from the east and west, and both are classified as Minor Arterials and Highway 20 is adjacent to the land in question on its north end, and is classified as a Principal Arterial,however, it is a Limited Access Highway, and it is not anticipated that the site would have access from Highway 20 now or in the future. Andera noted that it would appear that the surrounding transportation system could accommodate for future traffic as development occurs, and it would appear the ability exists to expand and make traffic flow improvements when necessary. Andera noted that the proposed rezone area is zoned"A-1"Agricultural District, and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as noting that land to the north, including Highway 20 and state owned land, are also zoned"A-1"Agricultural District. Land to the north and further to the west of the ground in question near Landmark Commons is zoned"R-4,R-P". Land to the south consisted of South Hills Golf Course, zoned"A-1"Agricultural District. Land to the east contained Lost Island Water Park and vacant development ground,zoned"C-P"Planned Commercial District and to the west a Single-family residential development in Guernsey's Addition, zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. Andera noted that it may be necessary as future development occurs for screening and buffering to be included with individual commercial developments that would occur on the ground in question from the residential development to the west of the proposed rezone area and within the rezone area. Andera noted that additional commercial and multi-family development in this area will be required to create a water detention area to capture additional water runoff, and a storm water detention plan would need to be submitted to the Engineering Department as a part of the building permit process. Andera noted that the applicant is proposing to construct a dam and 15-acre lake that will also provide water detention and will significantly help drainage issues downstream,noting that a small portion of the requested area is located within a special flood hazard area. Andera noted that The Future Land Use Map designates this area as Low Density Residential and Mixed Residential, Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial, which would allow for the development of the RV Park and accompanying lake and noted that the rezone area is located within the Primary Growth Area. Andera noted that the applicant is intending to develop the northern portions of the ground in question into an RV park. A convenience store would be located near the entrance to the RV Park. Andera noted that it is also planned to have commercially zoned land near the northwest corner of Hess and East Shaulis Roads to accommodate for future commercial development at this intersection Plans_fnr the southern a„d .western portion-of the rezone_are inc1udeone and two family residential development abutting up to the single-family development within Guernsey's Addition, and planned multiple family residential development in between the single family dwellings to the west and the proposed commercial development to the east. Andera noted that the proposed rezone consists of 5.28 acres of"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, 60.9 acres of"R-4,R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District, and 87.2 acres of"C-P"Planned Commercial District for a total rezone area of 153.38 acres. Andera noted that staff has received calls from concerned property owners in the Guernsey Addition who have objected to Angus Drive being extended eastward to serve any future development but added that at this time,the land is only being requested to be rezoned, and the submitted plan is only conceptual. Andera noted that Angus Drive was developed with the intention to be extended to the east into the property in question,and was dead-ended at the property in question without a proper cul-de-sac or turn around if the street is not going to be extended adding that it is also more efficient and smart planning to have interconnected streets as opposed to allowing developments that do not interconnect other than by primary roads. Andera noted that the proposed rezone would provide for a good mixed use development in a currently high growth area of the City. Mary Loomer, 1429 Angus Drive, noted that she was opposed to extending Angus Drive and rezoning the - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 property for anything other then residential uses. Loomer noted her opposition for any commercial use for the property in question. Loomer submitted a petition against the rezone,noting that 95% of the Guernsey residents had signed it and 32 residents from E Shaulis. Velda Phillips, Land Mark Commons,noted her opposition to the rezone,noting that she felt it would devalue the property at Land Mark Commons. Phillips noted that she was not opposed to the plan, but felt it should be in a different location closer to the Cedar Knoll trailer park or north of Lost Island Water Park. Merideth McDonald, 1339 Angus Drive, noted that she loves the area where she lives and noted her belief that the streets cannot handle any additional traffic. McDonald noted that there were no sidewalks present in the area and that extending Angus Drive would generate more traffic for the area. McDonald noted that staff had recommended that if Angus Drive is not extended as planned it should be made into a cul-de-sac but noted her belief that if this street is forced to add a cal-de-sac,that all dead end streets in the city should add a cul-de-sac. Bruce Lehnen, 1465 E Shaulis,noted that he moved out to the Guernsey addition for the country style living and noted that adding a high-density neighborhood would not fit in with the existing area. Lehnen noted that the campground was originally planned to be north of the water park, and changing its location to the propsed site would lead to more traffic. Lehnen noted that any new development should be complementary to the existing homes. Lehnen noted that he felt there should be more than 1 block of single-family e-famil homes adde d as a buffer to the Guernsey Addition. Lehnen noted his concern about the addition of commercial development in the area, and the possibility that the pond would add to an already existing problem of goose and duck droppings in the area. Lehnen noted that storm water run off in the area is also a concern as the area already has flooding issues and questioned if the existing utilities were adequate. Heather Wagoner, 1345 Jersey, noted that she had grown up in the area and then moved to town, and then moved back to the Guernsey Addition because of the crime in town, and noted that it feels safer in her neighborhood. Wagoner noted that she was not against progress, but asked the Commission to think of the safety of the children. Paul Rottinghaus, 1360 Angus Drive,noted his concern about the extension of Angus Drive. Rottinghaus noted there is an underground spring present under his property which could add to storm water concern. Dan Knipp, 1360 Holstein Place, noted his belief that extending Angus Drive was a security and safety issue. Knipp noted his concern that the rezoning could be manipulated and wanted to insure that the zoning and the intent are the same so that what is shown in the plan is actually what is built. Joan Wasserfort, 1335 Jersey Lane, noted that she had lived in her home for 44 years and that she liked her privacy and was concerned about the addition of apartments. Wasserfort also noted her concern with the extension of Angus Drive. Gary Bertch, 4935 Young Road,noted that the proposed plan was just a concept and was open to adjustment. Bertch noted that his primary concern is the campground and the convenience store. Bertch noted that he would have no problem creating more single-family homes and noted that his company cares very much about the facilities and there appearance. Bertch noted this was especially true with the campgrounds as it is there intent that the campgrounds are surrounded by birms and mature trees so the campers cannot see the highway or other developments. Bertch noted that he would have no problem not extending Angus Street. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 Roland Knudsvig, 1348 Angus Drive,noted that he did not sign the petition. Knudsvig is concerned about the quality of homes and questioned if they would be modular homes, and questioned if 12-plex homes were good for the area. Knudsvig noted that he hoped that the developer would work with the residents on the project. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Loggins to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:38 pm. Anderson noted that the extension of Angus Drive is not part of the rezoning action and it would be part of the platting process. Anderson noted that any development would have to have a site plan amendment and go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anderson noted that the commercial area would also be a planned district and would require site plan approval. Anderson noted that the action proposed would approve the layout for the RV campground,the lake and convenience store. Loggins asked for a roll call vote. Young noted he would abstain from the vote. Loggins questioned the convenience store and if anyone had thoughts on that. Paul Rottinghaus, 1360 Angus Drive,noted that a convenience store is expected in most campgrounds and noted that he would not be in opposition. Heather Wagoner, 1345 Jersey,noted that she would not be in favor of the convenience store as there are other places a couple miles away. Bill Claassen, Claassen Engineering,noted that the convenience store is appropriate in that area between the water park, casino multi family and single-family dwellings. Dan Knipp, 1360 Holstein Place,noted that he was in favor of the convenience store, noting that he wished he would have thought of it first. Knipp added that it would be nice for him to have a convenience store less then 10-15 minutes away. Gary Bertch, 4935 Young Road, noted that the proposed campgrounds are affiliated with KOA Campgrounds which are the premier camping organization and they require a convenience store on site. Schmitt asked if the campground would be closed during the winter. Bertch noted that would be was the case,but the convenience store would remain open. Bertch added that the campground would have 145- 150 campsites with the potential for another 45-50 sites. Johnson asked if the Guernsey roads were public or private. Anderson noted they are public roads. Johnson noted that these districts were planned districts and were site plan specific and questioned if the campground and convenience store would be approved with this action. Anderson indicated that their approval is included in the request. Schmitt noted that the Klingman Addition was similar to the area in question noting that the extension of Angus Drive could be a positive element as it could give a second exit in the winter which could help with snow drifting over the only entrance to the area. Schmitt noted that the layout also does not have a straight thru street, which would prevent most thru traffic. Schmitt noted that when the street plan is looked at,the Klingman Addition would be a good example of how the layout shown can work. Johnson questioned if the area south of the lake would require a site plan. Anderson said they would have to submit a site plan as it develops. Schroeder noted that the current site plan only shows the camp ground and convenience store and that could be approved with the vote today. Schroeder noted that any other development would need to come back as either an overall plan, or as individual developments occur. -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 Powers asked if the lake would help out flooding in the Cedar Terrace area. Claassen noted that it would take the peaks off all flood events and would help regulate drainage. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Loveless to approve the rezone of approximately 153.38 acres of land from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District, "R-4,R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District, and "C-P"Planned Commercial District. Motion carried 7-0 with Young abstaining. B. Site Plan Amendments 1. Request by William Ramsey to rezone approximately 0.89 acres from"C-1"Commercial District to "C-1, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of constructing mini-storage units next to the existing condominium development at 1150 Home Park Boulevard, approximately 1 block to the east of Sergeant Road(Highway 63). It was moved by Young and seconded by Schmitt to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Poll gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to rezone the site in question to allow for mini-storage and that some of the storage would be used as garages for the condos at the same site, and the remaining storage would be rented out. Poll noted that the area in question is principally residential in nature. Single-family homes lie to the east, south and west of the proposed location. Veridian Credit Union lies further to the west along Ansborough Avenue, and the Katoski Greenbelt is located to the north. Poll noted that the Sergeant Road Trail runs along the west side of Sergeant Road, directly east of the site in question and that Byrnes Park is located to the south across Sergeant Road. Poll noted that the proposed rezone area is currently zoned"C-1" Commercial District and has been zoned as such since the adoption on the Zoning Ordinance and that if approved, the mini-storage would have to be screened from any adjacent residential uses. Poll noted that the site plan does not indicate additional detention and that appropriate drainage plans would have to be submitted with any site plans before a building permit is issued. Poll noted that the area to be rezoned is in the.Zone B 500-year floodplain and that the site is located just south of the flood control levee along Black Hawk Creek. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Mixed Commercial,Medium and High Density Residential, Professional Offices and Compatible Commercial and allowing mini-storage in this area would not appear to be in conformance with_the_Futnre__Land_Use_M nsive Plan Poll noted that-the-applic nthas submitted a site plan indicating 54 individual mini storage units, 6 of which would appear to be used for garages for condo units located on the south side of the same lot. Poll noted staff has concerns with the request as mini-storage has typically been seen as a heavy commercial use by the Zoning Ordinance, and is directed to be located behind other commercial businesses in a"C-2" district. Poll noted that this instance would appear to place the mini-storage in a principally residential area. Such a use would be out of character with the area and have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Poll noted that staff questioned if the current"C-1"Commercial District zoning for the area is appropriate, and if the area should be down zoned for residential development due to the existing homes, flooding concerns, proximity to the greenbelt, levee, and trail system. Poll also noted concerns with potential flooding in the area as the number of concrete foundations and amount of paving could adversely affect the drainage of the area. Poll noted staff recommended denial of the request as the proposed mini-storage facility would appear to be out of character with the area and have a negative impact on the neighborhood,the area was prone to flooding. Kirk Eschliman,representing the property owner, noted that this development was shown with the condo development, and views it as part of the condo plan. Eschliman noted that if there is a concern regarding - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 flooding, then there should be no residential development in the area either. Eschliman noted that this development would fit in with the neighborhood as the traffic flows off of Sergeant Road. Young questioned if there were 54 units. Echliman noted that 54 are needed to make a profit and indicated that some residents of the condos have indicated they would like more than one unit. Young questioned if Ramsey still owned all the condos. Eschliman indicated that he did not own them all. Young questioned what percentage of the units would be used as garages for the condos. Eschliman indicated that he did not know. Anderson noted that if the sole ownership of the units belonged to the residents of the condos, a special permit would not be needed. It was moved by Young,seconded by Powers to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:00 pm. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Schmitt to deny the request to rezone approximately 0.89 acres from "C-1"Commercial District to "C-1, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of constructing mini-storage units next to the existing condominium development at 1150 Home Park Boulevard, approximately 1 block to the east of Sergeant Road(Highway 63). Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Sedrick McIntosh for a Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a religious facility within the existing building at 1510 Logan Avenue, located at the northeast corner of Logan Avenue (Highway 63) and Esther Street. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing to establish a religious facility in the 2,552 SF building located at 1510 Logan Avenue,which was formerly used by Lutheran Services. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood and that the building in question is already in existence and would not appear to alter the character of the neighborhood. Poll noted that the proposed site is on the corner of Esther Street and Logan Avenue and that Esther is classified as a local street while Logan Avenue is considered a Principal Arterial. Poll noted that the area is zoned"R=4"Multiple Family Residence District, and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Poll noted that the majority of the surrounding area is comprised of single-family dwellings and that commercial areas were located toward the south and Carver Middle School was across Logan Avenue to the west. Poll noted that the applicant has not yet submitted detailed floor plans,but based on preliminary plans,they plan to utilize approximately 1,000 SF for the sanctuary of the church, and plan to use the remainder of the building for an office and gathering space. Poll noted that based on a 1,200 SF sanctuary area,the approximate maximum occupancy per the building code would be 80 persons. Poll noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a religious facility provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy, and therefore, 43 parking stalls would be required. Poll noted that the applicant has indicated that 20 parking spaces could be provided, a deficiency of 23 parking stalls. Poll noted that staff does have concerns on additional parking spreading out onto the surrounding streets, which could then lead to traffic congestion. Poll noted that the applicant has indicated the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Auto Zone directly across Esther Street for the use of up to 15 parking stalls for any additional parking needs. If such an agreement is reached, the request would only be 8 parking stalls deficient of the required 43 stalls. Poll noted that the applicant can reduce the size of their sanctuary area in order to reduce the building occupancy rate and comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Poll noted that in addition to a special permit request, a variance will be - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 required to the setback requirements for a religious facility, as the Zoning Ordinance states that A religious facility must have a building setback of"2 feet per 1 foot of building height". Poll noted that the building in question is approximately 15' tall, and therefore the setback must be 30' from all property lines and the current building setback from Logan Avenue is 14', and the north and east property line 20', which would require a variance for these setbacks. Poll noted that since the building has existed for some time, the variance request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Johnson asked if this property would be impacted by the by the Highway 63 expansion project. Anderson noted that the expansion would be on the west side of the road for this area. Loggins asked how many members the church was expecting to have. Pastor McIntosh noted there would be about 30 members initially. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Loveless that the Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a religious facility within the existing building at 1510 Logan Avenue, located at the northeast corner of Logan Avenue (Highway 63) and Esther Street be approved Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Waterloo Community Schools for the approval of a special permit for the purposes of placing a temporary modular classroom at the southwest portion of the Kingsley Elementary School grounds at 201 Sunset Road. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to place 2 separate 23'6"x 76' (1,786 SF) modular temporary classrooms at the southwest portion of the site in question for 3 to 5 years. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood, given the temporary nature, however, staff is concerned with the length of time they would like to have the temporary classroom upon the site. Andera noted that the property in question and all surrounding areas area zoned"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, and has been zoned as such since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance noting that the surrounding area was developed for single-family residential purposes from the 1920s to the 1940s. Andera noted that no additional screening is needed for the request as the proposed classrooms would be located behind a retaining wall along Sunset Road that will screen a majority of the building from residents to the south and west. Andera noted that the proposed modular classrooms are shown on a grassy area to the southwest of the school and it may be necessary to have storm water calculations submitted to the Engineering Department to see if proposed temporary classrooms would impact drainage at the site. Andera noted that the proposed modular structures would each house 2 classrooms, as well as a common bathroom to be shared between the 2 rooms. Andera noted that the architect for the project has submitted side elevations of the structures that have been provided by the manufacturer, which show 4 casement windows and 2 doors entering the 2 classrooms,which will face towards the playground area. The side facing towards Sunset Road shows 4 casement windows and 2 emergency exit doors on each unit with their landings and stairs down to the ground. Andera noted that both narrow ends of the structures appear to have an air conditioning unit extending from the structure and the proposed structure would be sided with wood siding. Andera noted that the structure is proposed to be placed in a recessed, grassy area directly adjacent to the playground. There is a retaining wall that abuts the property line along Sunset Road,therefore,the proposed classroom would sit approximately 6' to 8' lower than the street level,thus reducing its visibility some from the nearby residences. Andera noted that the schools have noted that they would like to have the temporary classrooms at the site for a 3 to 5 year timeframe,however, staff would like to have a more concrete timeframe in place before the Board of Adjustment hears the request at their August 24, 2010 meeting. Andera noted that staff has determined that allowing the 2 modular classrooms upon the site for 1 year would appear to be a minor request for a special permit,which would not need to go through a Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Adjustment review process. Andera noted that staff is recommending that the modular classrooms remain no more than 2 additional years beyond the 1 year timeframe they have been granted - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 through the minor special permit approval from staff, for a total of 3 years that the modular classrooms could be on the site. Andera noted that the schools are currently in the process of demolishing and constructing a new school at the Black Hawk Elementary site, and for this school year, students from Black Hawk will be sent to Edison School. Andera noted that the proposed modular building at Kingsley would allow for the option for parents of the children who attended Black Hawk Elementary to also have them attend Kingsley Elementary for this year,thus reducing the amount of additional children that would be attending Edison in the fall of this year. Schmitt questioned why any additional time would be needed beyond the one year that already had been approved. Andera noted that improvements were being made at other schools to increase the capacity, but they may not be complete by the beginning of next school year. Young noted the Black Hawk Elementary will not open till January of 2012 and the expansion at Orange Elementary had been accelerated but one year would not appear to be sufficient. Young noted that as these classrooms do have a tendency to be come permanent and noted that he believed a 3-year timeframe would be acceptable. Glenn Anderkay, 316 Prospect,noted his concern that the rooms were going to be placed in the baseball park area and questioned where the kids would play. Anderkay noted there was a lack of sidewalks in the area, which made the area unsafe. Anderkay noted that he was struck by a car on October 17th in front of Kingsley School. Anderkay noted that he would help collect signatures for a petition against the temporary classrooms. Anderkay noted that the school owns 276 Prospect and questioned why the house could not be modified for classrooms. Anderkay again noted that the city needs to add sidewalks in that area before more kids attend Kingsley School. Schroeder asked Young, as a representative of the School Board,to explain about the law allowing parents to opt there kids out of their current schools and attend Kingsley School. Young noted that the school district believes that many more kids will be attending Orange, Lou Henry, and Kingsley School. Young noted that Orange and Lou Henry have enough room to handle the additional kids, but Kingsley does not. Young noted that the No Child Left Behind Act stipulates that the State of Iowa allow voluntary transfers to other schools from a school that is not performing well enough. Young noted that the home on prospect has been purchased, and considered modifying it for classrooms,but it would not be feasible cost wise due to accessibility and sprinkling requirements. Young noted that the district is doing everything in their power to keep the modular classrooms temporary. Young noted that the additional stu entc w4nuld_be bussed,unless-they-livg_w} h hich-would-pr0 be attending Kingsley. Young noted that the problem currently being faced is what is going to be done with the kids coming in 3 weeks, and the use of the modular units seems to be the only option. Loggins noted that he would abstain from the vote as he worked for the school system. Schmitt noted that there appears to be a lack of planning present, and thought there had to be a better alternative then taking away playground space for temporary classrooms. Young noted that the School Board does not meet till September 7th, and school starts in mid August, which does not leave enough time for another solution. Young noted he lived in the Kingsley area and his child had to attend Kittrell School because there was not enough room in Kingsley School. Anderson noted that staff has already approved a minor special permit approval for use of the modular units for 1-year, and that the issue in question is the additional 2-4 years of use for the modular units. Anderson noted that the Kingsley Elementary School was built to hold 350 students, and the newer schools are built to hold. 450 students. Anderson noted that was one of the drawbacks of remodeling Kingsley and keeping the school in the neighborhood. - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 Powers noted that he had heard that playgrounds are important for the development of the children and that extra property is needed for these playgrounds. Powers noted that the Orange and Lou Henry site would appear to have room for the modular units and still have playgrounds. Schroeder noted that with the No Child Left Behind Act,the parents can choose what school they want their kids to attend,which would require the modular units to be located at Kingsley. Glenn Anderkay, 316 Prospect,noted that fire code stipulates how many kids can be in a building and recommended that the School District use the empty Irving School. Anderson noted that the empty school would not meet the No Child Left Behind Act. Anderkay questioned where the kids would go for recess. Young noted that he did not believe anyone in the School Board thought this was an ideal situation. Young indicated that several other alternatives were reviewed. Powers noted that he struggled with the fact that school would be started in two weeks, and this issue is just now coming before the Board of Adjustment. Young noted that the School District is struggling as well, and noted that the issue first came up about 3 weeks ago after the last School Board meeting. Young noted he was in an awkward spot as he was not the applicant,but was a representative of the School Board. Grimm noted that this was not a win-win situation for anyone, but noted that school starts in less then three weeks, and some sort of decision needs to be made to provide these kids with a safe environment and the modular units provide a safe environment. Grimm noted that he was not if favor of giving up the playground, but if the playground needed to be sacrificed for their education, then these modular class rooms were a necessity. Grimm noted this is a temporary measure, and after 3 years if they are still needed they will have to come through the Board of Adjustment again. Elizabeth Mahlstedt, 175 Prospect noted that she was opposed to the positioning of the modular units. Mahlstedt noted that they would be in full view of the prospect side. Mahlstedt noted her concern that the classrooms would distract from the character of the neighborhood. Mahlstedt also noted that she had attended class in modular classrooms, and although the rooms she used have been repurposed and are no longer used as classrooms,they are still on the site and did not want that happening to Kingsley School. Schmitt noted that the modular classrooms would still be present for a year no matter the vote,but if not approved,the School Board would have a year to come up with another solution. Young noted that one unit will be used,but the 2nd unit may not be used, and that would depend on the registration which _wouki_occur on August_9t' Grimm questioned if_the modulars would be neededforaleast-ayear_and a half Young noted that there was a monthly leasing charge, and a significant charge to bring them in from Minnesota as well as installation. Powers questioned if more modular units could be place on the property. Anderson noted that the School District did not believe they would need more then two, and added that it would be tough to put in more units because of the geothermal well in the area. Johnson noted that the situation was not ideal, but felt the School Board was acting in the best interest of the students and he would support the use of the modular classrooms for a total of 2 years, one more then already approved. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loveless for approval of a special permit for the purposes of placing 2 temporary modular classrooms at the southwest portion of the Kingsley Elementary School grounds at 201 Sunset Road be granted for a total of 2 years, one additional year more then already approved by staff. Motion carried 5-1 with Schmitt opposing the motion and Young and Loggins abstaining. - 9 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 Leonhart left the meeting at 5:45 p.m. D. Vacates/Enroachments 1. Request by Shane Feltz to vacate 4,600.4 SF of City right-of-way at the northeast corner of the Vinton and Franklin Streets;just south of 410 Vinton. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant wished for the City to vacate this land for the purpose of creating green space and play area for the applicant's adjoining home. Western noted that the request to vacate the right-of-way would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood,traffic conditions or pedestrian movements in the area. Western noted that the site was zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District and that the area to be vacated is not located within a special flood hazard area. Western noted that the area to be vacated is a remaining parcel of land from the widening project done to former Highway 20 by the I.D.O.T. in the late 1950's. Western noted that the surrounding area is principally residential with structures built between the late 1960's to present. Western noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as Residential, and this request would be in compliance with such designation. Western noted that the applicant is proposing to vacate the right- of-way for green space for his children to play and that the applicant essentially has no yard to speak of, as the lot his house sits on is just big enough for the house. Western noted that the front yard set back on this property is 5' from the sidewalk along Vinton. To the north,the home is bounded by an alleyway; and to the east,there is approximately 22' feet to the easterly property line, and only approximately 9' to the southerly property line. Western noted that the portion to be vacated has been deemed unnecessary for any further improvements by the Engineering Department. Grimm questioned who would maintain the sidewalks. Western noted that the applicant would be responsible. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to vacate 4,600.4 SF of City right-of-way at the northeast corner of the Vinton and Franklin Streets;just south of 410 Vinton. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Eva Culp for an Encroachment Agreement at 503 Gable Street to allow a hand railing to extend approximately 16.5' into the Gable Street right-of-way along a sidewalk that extends from property in question to Gable Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of an Encroachment Agreement to allow a 3' to 3.5' tall hand railing to extend approximately 16.5' into City right-of-way at 503 Gable Street. Andera noted that the request could have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as approval of the encroachment could set precedence for other properties in the area to request to have encroachments into City right-of-way. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact upon vehicular traffic in the area, as the railing would not appear to create any sight visibility problems. Andera noted that currently,there is no public sidewalk in front of the property in question, and if sidewalk were to be extended in the future,the handrail would create a conflict and would have to be removed and also, if the railing is allowed to remain in the right-of-way, the applicant would need to be aware that during the winter months, snow is piled along the edges of the road when they are cleared, and the potential exists for the railing to be damaged either by the weight of the snow, or a snow plow. Andera noted that in the past, encroachment agreements the City has entered into have included provisions that allow the City to give a notice of termination of the agreement if the right-of-way is needed for any future public or right-of-way purposes. Andera noted that the handrail in question appears - 10 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 to be constructed from treated wood, similar to what you see many decks constructed from, and it would appear that the rail could be easily removed if needed. Andera noted that the appearance of the railing seems to fit the character of a small fence, as there are many planks on the lower portion of the railing between each secured post. Andera noted that staff would recommend that the request be denied as it may set precedence for encroachment into city right-of-way, it does not appear to be needed for handicap accessibility purposes, and due to safety concerns as it is an obstruction in the city owned right-of-way. Loggins noted that there was a similar situation on Newell Street, and in that situation the encroachment was allowed to stay as long as it was moved if the City needed the to do anything in the right-of-way. Anderson noted that staff had recommended denial on the split rail fence on Newell. Logins noted that the applicant in that case was Cora Turner and she was granted the encroachment. Schroeder noted there were some differences in that request as that was a true fence, and it was replacing a fence that had been in existence. Loggins questioned if the City had plans in the future to install sidewalks along Gable Street. Anderson noted that he was not aware of any plans for sidewalks. Schmitt noted that the encroachment should be on a non-precedent basis and the City should not be liable. It was moved by Loggins,seconded by Young to approve the encroachment agreement,subject to 1) the railing be removed by the property owner if the City of Waterloo needs use of the portions of right- of-way the current railing is encroaching upon, and 2) that the encroachment agreement shall indemnify the City and hold it harmless with respect to any demand, claim, cause of action, damage, or injury made,suffered or incurred as a result of or in connection with the encroaching fencing. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request for an encroachment agreement to allow for the construction of 11 concrete automobile display pads adjacent to the Dan Deery Motors at 3900 Alexandra Drive, within the right-of-way along E San Marnan Drive. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the encroachment agreement, which would allow them to display vehicles for sale within the road right-of-way on a concrete pad. Graham noted that it is unclear if the request would have a negative impact on the surrounding area as the applicant-has-been illegally parking vehicles in theft=of-way on grass for some time now, and there have not been any complaints that staff is aware of from surrounding property owners. There is a turning lane along E San Marnan Drive for vehicles to turn onto Alexandra Drive, and it is unclear if any additional right-of-way would be needed for any future turn lanes or lane width expansions. Graham noted that there are currently no sidewalks located adjacent to the property. Graham noted that the property is currently located within the Zone A 100-year floodplain, however, a new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map is close to being adopted, which will show the entire property out of the floodplain altogether. Graham noted that it is unclear if there are any underground utilities such as gas, electric, etc. located within the encroachment area but added that there is a 72"private storm sewer that runs along the northern property line along E San Marnan Drive, that then cuts across the corner of the property at Alexandra Drive and heads east into the Wal-Mart parking lot as well as a 36"public storm sewer and 12" sanitary sewer located within the roadway of Alexandra Drive. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the property and all surrounding properties as"Commercial"and the use of the property for an automobile sales lot would conform to this designation. Graham noted that the applicant is requesting the encroachment agreement in order to construct the 18 concrete pads within the rights-of-way of E San Marnan Drive and Alexandra Drive for the purpose of displaying vehicles for sale; 11 of the pads are being shown along the north property line facing E San Marnan Drive, 1 pad is being shown at the corner - 11 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 of E San Marnan Drive and Alexandra Drive. Graham noted that the applicant has indicated that the pads along E San Marnan Drive would be 10' in diameter. Graham noted that staff did a site visit of the property, and along Alexandra Drive,there is approximately 19'4"from the back of the curb of the applicant's parking lot to the back of the curb of the road. Graham noted that the applicant has stated that the pads would be abutting the back of their parking lots curb and with a 10' diameter concrete pad, that would leave 9'4" from the back of the curb of the road to the concrete pad. Graham noted that staff had been concerened with the applicant's original application, which included 7 pads along Alexandra Drive, do to its closeness to the road,the issues with snow plowing, and the presence of a waterline in that area. Graham noted the applicant had planned to place pads in front of a fenced area along San Marnan drive,however access to those pads could not be gained from the property and may have been accessed off San Marnan Drive. Graham noted that the applicants had originally asked to have the pads be 12'-14' in diameter which the engineering department determined to be to large and would create to much encroachment. Due to staff concerns the applicant has modified their request, to remove the pads along Alexandra Drive,to remove the pads from the fenced area along San Marnan Drive and to lessen the diameter of the pads to 10'. Graham noted that even though the pad will be 9'4" from the back of the curb, vehicles that will be parking on the pads are not 10' in length; meaning that the vehicles will most likely extend closer to the roadway than the pads themselves. Also, the vehicles that currently park in the parking lot have bumpers that extend over the curb, subtracting from the distance that the vehicle on the pad will be to the road. Graham noted that staff did not get any measurements along E San Marnan Drive,but the grass right-of-way area varies the length of the property, due to the right turn lane from E San Marnan Drive onto Alexandra Drive. Graham noted that staff is also concerned about the potential precedence this request could set and that if the request is approved,then it could open the door to other automobile dealerships in the city to request to place vehicles in the right-of-way as well. Graham noted that if the request has been determined to not negatively impact any utilities, future use of right-of- way,traffic conditions, etc.,the precedence concern might be minimized. Graham noted that at this time, staff would recommend the encroachment agreement for the construction of 11 pads, adjacent to applicants property, extending approximately 7' into the right-of-way be approved as the request would not appear to negatively impact any utilities, future use of right-of-way,traffic conditions, etc and subject to the conditions that the applicant submits a detailed site plan showing the exact location of the proposed pads and the applicant sign an encroachment agreement that reinforces that no parking is allowed on the right-of-way of Alexandra Drive,the drainage way to the south of the property, or any other grass or non- approved-hard-surface-area-and-the-agreement-shall-provide for-the applicants-removal-of-the-pads if the site is no longer used as a car sales lot. Thorson noted that a condition should be added that the pads could only be accessed from the applicants property and not from San Marnan Drive. Johnson questioned who mows and maintains the right-of-way and trees between the applicants lot and San Marnan. Graham noted that the applicant maintained that area. Loggins noted that the applicant should be liable for the cars in the right-of-way. Loveless noted that the intersection of Alexandra and San Marnan are busy and questioned if this encroachment could hamper visibility. Graham indicated that it would not appear to alter visibility. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request for an encroachment agreement to allow for the construction of 11 concrete automobile display pads adjacent to the Dan Decry Motors at 3900 Alexandra Drive, within the right-of-way along E San Marnan Drive subject to - 12 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 3,2010 the conditions that that the applicant submits a detailed site plan showing the exact location of the proposed pads and the applicant sign an encroachment agreement that reinforces that no parking is allowed on the right-of-way of Alexandra Drive, the drainage way to the south of the property, or any other grass or non-approved hard surface area, the agreement shall provide for the applicants removal of the pads if the site is no longer used as a car sales lot and that the pads could only be accessed from the applicants property and not from San Marnan Drive. Motion carried unanimously E. Discussion 1. Set a date and time for a special meeting to review updates to the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted that the updated Zoning Ordinance was nearing completion and noted that special meetings would be needed to review the changes. Schroeder suggested that the special meeting could take place the Wednesday following each months Planning and Zoning Commission meeting from 4- 6p.m. Schroeder noted that would mean the first meeting would be on September 15th as the September Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was pushed back a week due to Labor Day. The Commission Members concurred to begin having Special Meetings on the Wednesday following each month's regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Johnson,seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, dt;Z:614,e‘61 Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 13 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -4:00 P.M AUGUST 31,2010 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:04p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on August 31, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm, Johnson, Loveless, Loggins, Powers, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Leonhart Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Loggins,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Kevan Cortright on the behalf of Browning Family Trust to rezone approximately 2.5 acres of land from"R-4"Multiple Family Residence District to "R-4, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District for property located at 3254 Kimball Avenue for the purpose of allowing for a pharmacy and related uses. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Powers to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone the land to"R-4,C-Z" Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of establishing a pharmacy at 3254 Kimball Avenue. Anders noted that the land needs to be rezoned for as such, as a pharmacy is not a principally permitted use in the "R-4"Multiple Family Residence District. Andera noted that the proposed rezone would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, however,the use of the pharmacy may create more traffic as compared to a professional office, and it may be necessary for the Commission to enact conditions upon the rezone request. Andera noted that the building at 3254 Kimball Avenue is currently used by the Blood Center of Iowa, and the pharmacy would utilize approximately the other half of the building. Andera noted that the majority of the area consists of professional office along the west side of Kimball Avenue, and multiple family developments directly to the west of the area in question. Andera also noted that there is single family residential located along the east side of Kimball Avenue. Andera noted that professional office development serves as a good buffer between commercial uses and residential uses, and that staff believes that if the primary function of the site is a pharmacy, as opposed to a retail store or heavier commercial use,that it will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Andera also noted that a similar situation occurred at the property directly to the north at 3222 Kimball Avenue where Bank Iowa is located. Andera noted that property was rezoned to "R-4,C- Z"in January of 2001 to allow for the development of the new bank. At that time,the Commission recommended, and the City Council placed conditions upon that rezone that limited the hours of operation of the bank,that there be no retail operations upon the site, as well as increased building design and landscaping aesthetics. These conditions were placed upon that rezone so that the bank, which is considered a commercial use, did not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood. Andera noted that it is customary that pharmacies do have some retail sales associated with the sale of medical supplies and other miscellaneous items,and it could be reviewed if any conditions need to be placed upon the rezone request. Planning and Zoning Commission August 31,2010 Special Meeting Loveless questioned if there was a concern with any additional traffic created by the new use. Andera noted that the site gains access from going south across the rear of the Bank Iowa site, however, it did not appear that the pharmacy would create a large amount of traffic. Anderson also noted that currently, there is a traffic study being conducted upon the Kimball Avenue corridor between Tower Park Drive and Ridgeway Avenue to evaluate traffic flow in that area, and it is anticipated that the study will be done this fall or early spring in 2011. Johnson noted that he would be abstaining from the vote due to a conflict,noting that he was contacted by the individuals from Bank Iowa to north to represent them on this matter. Johnson noted that the bank is not opposed to the pharmacy,but they were concerned with the hours of operation for the pharmacy, noting that they were limited in their hours of operation when their property was rezoned in 2001. Johnson noted that there is a wide array of pharmacies, noting that some pharmacies are run similar to a doctor's office, while there are others such as Walgreens,which is more a retail commercial development. Loggins questioned why regulating the hours of operation of the pharmacy would be necessary. Schroeder noted that staff receive calls from surrounding property owners that were concerned that the site would be developed as more of a commercial use pharmacy, such as Walgreens or CVS, and to address those concerns, staff wanted to bring the possibility of limiting the hours before the Commission, and if they found it necessary to enact conditions,the conditions could be included in the motion. Loggins noted that he did not see the reasons why this operation should have limited hours. Grimm noted that there may be instances where there is an emergency, and the pharmacist would need to meet a patient during non-normal hours of operation,however thought that would be a rare occasion and did not believe the surrounding neighborhood would mind when that periodically happened. Kevan Cortright noted that he is representing the applicant, as well as noting that the Greenwood Pharmacy is looking to relocate to this location from the current location at 214-224 Byron Avenue. Cortright noted that the owner is Bob Greenwood, and that he is on the National Board of Pharmacists, and that he has no interest or intentions as running the pharmacy as a retail operation. Cortright noted that the intent is to run the pharmacy as more of a clinic. Cortright noted that the pharmacy would offer infusions, immunizations, etc. Loggins noted that from the comments that have been made by the applicant's representative,that the pharmacy would not be a 24 hour operation. Cortright noted that is correct. Giillnirn iet of-interest. It was moved by Young,seconded by Powers to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:20 pm. Anderson noted that it possibly limiting the hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and any appointments after that time are done by appointment only may be an option. Anderson questioned if this would work for the applicant. Cortright noted that the existing store closes at 7 p.m., and did not know if these hours would still work for the applicant. Grimm noted that he felt that the Commission could approve the request as is with not conditions, and leave it up to the City Council to add any conditions if they feel it is necessary. It was moved by Young,seconded by Powers to approve the request for rezone. Motion carried 6-0 with Johnson and Whitehead abstaining. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 31,2010 Special Meeting B. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the City has been working on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance since December of 2007,however, it has been delayed, mostly due to a majority of staff time going towards the flood buyout process. Schroeder questioned the Commission on how they would like to proceed with reviewing the revisions, questioning if only the main points should be focused upon, or go over all changes. Commission members recommended that all changes be reviewed, noting that it has been a long period of time since the changes have been reviewed. Schroeder noted on page 1, letter C under the"Authority", was added,noting that most Zoning Ordinances have this section, which state the area of the State Code that allows a municipality to have a Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted that the Floodplain Ordinance for the City cannot be less restrictive than the Federal Floodplain Ordinance model,however, if the City wanted to impose for stricter provisions,they could be do so. Poll left at 4:45 p.m. Schroeder noted that under the"Definitions" section that there have been some changes to the Accessory Structures definition. Schroeder noted that there was some wording added into the definition pertaining to the "Restrictive Covenant"process. Schroeder also noted that the recently adopted "Alcohol Sales" ordinance is shown in the amended Zoning Ordinance, as well as noting that the definition for"Alcohol Sales" is listed in definition section. Schroeder noted that requests have come up in the past to have chickens, goats, cows, etc. in the City. Schroeder questioned if Commission members considered if they would like to preclude farm animals in the City Limits. Johnson questioned if pigs would be under the farm animal definition. Anderson noted that the Code of Ordinances already prohibits swine in the City Limits. Schroeder noted that horses are allowed within specific zoning districts as long as enough square footage is available upon the lot for the horse or horses. Johnson left at 4:52 p.m. Schroeder noted that there have been quite a few changes to the definition for a"Deck",noting the definition now states,pertaining to railings,that"with openings between boards that are at least the width of the boards". Grimm noted that the Building Code only allow for 3 Y2"between vertical slats connecting from the floor of the deck to the railing. Grimm noted that as the definition is currently written, somebody could put in a 1"x 6"post as a vertical slat,therefore,they could have up to a 6" opening between slats, which would not be in conformance with the Building Code. Schroeder noted that the definition will have to be rewritten. Schroeder went over the definitions of a"farm", "hobby farm", etc.,noting that a Special Permit may be needed for some farming activities. Schroeder also noted that under the definition of a farm, it is being changed from 35 acres to 80 acres. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 31,2010 Special Meeting Schroeder noted that definitions 64, 64A and 64B pertaining to "Group Homes"has been changed, noting that previously the definition said that in order to be considered a"Group Home", more than 8 individuals need to be living there. Schroeder noted that has been struck, and noted that it will now say "A facility that provides living arrangements for individuals"noting these individuals would be along the lines of a substance abuse facility or juvenile center. Schroeder noted that there have been problems in the past where a group home has been established,however,they have claimed that they have less than 8 individuals after being denied for a Special Permit. III. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Chairperson Grimm declared the meeting adjourned at 5:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner -4- MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M SEPTEMBER 14,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on September 14, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm, Leonhart, Loveless, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Johnson, Loggins and Powers Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll-Planning Department,Eric Thorson—Engineering Department. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on August 3, 2010 It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Schmitt to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: July 2010. Western gave the financial report, noting that the budget for this time of the year is on track, as well as noting that$50,000 is budgeted for the sale of City property, and currently at this time, $1,000 worth of property has been sold, so there is still $49,000 left to sell before that is met. It was moved by Young,seconded by Leonhart to approve the financial report for July 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Vacates 1. Request by Dick and Don Hurst to vacate a 16' X 142' (2,272 SF) sanitary sewer easement in the Second Addition of Kenyon's Addition,directly north of 2102 Kimball Avenue. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate the sanitary sewer easement located within the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center parking lot. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Poll noted that there are no known utilities located within the easement in question. Poll noted that a site plan amendment was passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for the construction of a 2,543 SF coffee shop. Poll noted that the submitted site plan showed a canopy attached to the coffee shop building that would stretch out over the easement. Poll noted that staff is recommending approval of the request to vacate the easement. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate. Motion unanimously carried. Planning and Zoning Commission September 14,2010 2. Request by Struxture Architects on the behalf of the Waterloo Community School District to vacate all of Littlefield Road lying south of its intersection with Sager Avenue for the purpose of including the vacated ground with the overall school grounds for the new West Elementary School. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate all of Littlefield Road lying south of Sager Avenue for the purpose of incorporating the vacated ground with the overall school grounds for the new West Elementary School. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic or pedestrian movements within the surrounding area. Andera noted that the section of Littlefield Road is approximately 130' long and serves 2 properties located at 1681 and 1701 Sager Avenue. Andera noted that the school district is currently in the process of constructing West Elementary School, and it is planned to purchase the homes that abut Sager Avenue and Sheldon Street to the north, and remove those homes so that that land can be a part of the overall school site. Andera noted that the school district has purchased 2 homes, and they will be removed. Andera noted that there is a 6" water line located within the right-of-way in question,and that water line either needs to be abandoned, converted to a private line, or if Water Works requests that the water line remain,they have asked that a 30' wide easement be retained over the west 30' of the right-of-way. Schmitt questioned what the plans are for the 6"water line,noting that the water line serves 1 fire hydrant that is located approximately 15' south of the dead-end of Littlefield Road on the school's property. Andera noted that if the fire hydrant were to remain or removed would have to be decided by the fire department. Grimm noted that the water line could dead-end at the intersection of Sager Avenue and Littlefield Road,noting that there is a hydrant at that corner that could serve the school site if needed. Young noted that at this time, the schools do not know if they will keep the fire hydrant in place, and they are still waiting for additional plans to be submitted by the school's consultant. Schmitt noted that he had a concern with having a condition that has too many options, noting that the Commission should make the decision that the water line remain, or if it should be abandoned. Young noted that he would abstain from voting, as he is a member of the school board. It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate, subject to the condition that the 6"water line within Littlefield Road be abandoned. Motion carried 5-0 with Young abstaining. 3 -Requcst by-Struxz re uhiteets on t he-behalf of- e—Wat School District to vacate an approximately 10' x 75' sanitary sewer easement directly adjacent to 1717 and 1725 Sager Avenue near the intersection of Sager Avenue and Sheldon Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate the sanitary sewer easement, as there are no plans to utilize the 8" sanitary sewer after West Elementary School is completed. Andera noted that upon a site visit by staff,it appeared that there was also an overhead electrical line located within the easement that serves the house at 1219 Sheldon Street. Andera noted that staff had contacted MidAmerican Energy, and they noted that the overhead line serves the house at 1219 Sheldon Street, and they noted that if the house at 1219 Sheldon Street is acquired by the schools,the electrical line can be abandoned. Andera noted that at this time, all other house acquisitions have been completed,except for the house at 1219 Sheldon Street. Young noted that he would abstain from voting, as he is a member of the school board. Grimm questioned if the Commission should be voting to vacate this easement, since all the houses needing to be acquired for the construction of the new school have not been fully acquired. Young noted that the plan is not to forward this request for the easement vacate to the City Council until all the needed properties are acquired. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 14,2010 It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate, subject to the condition that all homes served by the 8"sanitary sewer and overhead electrical line within the easement are acquired and moved or demolished by the Waterloo Community School District Motion carried 5-0 with Young abstaining. B. Discussion Loveless noted that within the Technical Review Committee meeting minutes that there was a request by Union Baptist Church at 130 Jackson Street to vacate an alley. Western noted that they were on the agenda, however,they are working with 2 abutting property owners next to the alley to see if they would be interested in acquiring a part of the alley,however, at this time, that decision has not been made. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Loveless,seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a4 -1Z/Lee-f-cA-- Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M OCTOBER 5,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on October 5, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox, Grimm,Johnson, Leonhart, Loveless,Powers, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: none Others present: Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll -Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department. I. Approval of the Agenda Chairperson Grimm introduced Dustin Cox as a new member of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission,noting that Cox would the representative from the Human Rights Commission and replace Ed Loggins. Grimm thanked Loggins for his service to the Commission and noted it was appreciated. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Young to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Special Meeting on August 31, 2010 and Regular Meeting on September 14, 2010 It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: August 2010. Schroeder gave the financial report,noting that the budget for this time of the year is on track and normal for this point in the year. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Schmitt to approve the financial report for August 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Vacates 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for the Preliminary and Final Plat No. 3 generally located at the northwest corner of West Airline Highway and Wagner Road for the development of an 8-lot industrial park subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, and the plat would promote additional development in the area that will be consistent to already existing light-industrial development along West Airline Highway and nearby Wagner Road. Andera noted that the property in question is zoned"M-2, P"Planned Industrial District and that surroundingproperties to the north and west includedP" p P Waterloo Regional g al Airport, zoned"M-2, Planning and Zoning Commission October 5,2010 Planned Industrial District. Andera noted that properties to the south included existing light industrial development along the south side of West Airline Highway,zoned"M-1"Light Industrial District, and east included Wagner Road and existing light industrial development, zoned"M-2"Heavy Industrial District. Andera noted that the plat would have frontage along West Airline Highway, as well as access to MidPort Boulevard as it is extended easterly. Andera noted that an extension of Betsworth Drive is shown directly to the south of the airport building, which could serve the proposed plat as future development occurs. Andera noted that any additional industrial development within the platted area will be required to create a water detention area to capture additional water runoff, and a storm water detention plan would need to be submitted to the City as a part of the building permit process adding that the plat slopes from northwest to southeast,with elevation ranging from 868' to 859'. Andera noted that the surrounding area is mostly comprised of light industrial development adding that recently, ConAgra completed a$42 million dollar expansion to their existing plant located along MidPort Boulevard,west of the area in question. Andera noted that FedEx and Advanced Heat Treat have also recently located within this area within the last few years, and future light industrial development is planned for this area. Andera noted that portions of the eastern side of the plat are located within the Zone-A, 100-year floodplain, and Zone-B, 500-year floodplain according to the Federal Insurance Administration's Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 190025 0005. Andera noted that the proposed plat will be served by the extensions of existing water, gas, electric, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer in the area and that the plat is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map for this area,which designates it as Industrial. Andera noted that the Preliminary and Final Plat consists of 8 lots, containing a total of 75.7 acres of land, which is located south of the terminal of the Waterloo Regional Airport,then extending southeasterly towards the intersection of West Airline Highway and Wagner Road. Andera noted that the size of lots range from 4.597 acres to 25.569 acres and the preliminary plat,which was drawn up in 2006, shows the potential for Lot 15 to be split up into 5 additional lots with a street crossing through the middle of those lots. Andera noted that if that lot were further subdivided, a final plat application would need to be submitted to do so. Andera noted that storm sewer and water would be extended within MidPort Boulevard as the road is extended further to the east towards West Airline Highway. Sanitary sewer is shown along the rear lot lines of Lots 15-20, extending southeasterly towards the intersection of West Airline Highway and Wagner Road, connecting into the existing sanitary sewer system within West Airline Highway. Existing sanitary sewer that is located within West Airline Highway, directly to the south, would serve lots 21 and 22. 30' utility easements are shown along all the frontages and rear lot lines of all lots within the subdivision. Andera noted that the preliminary plat shows an extension of MidPort Boulevard east and southeasterly towards West Airline Highway. Recently, the City did receive a RISE grant from the Iowa Department of Transportation to extend MidPort Boulevard to serve ConAgra's recent plant expansion project. Andera noted that staff recommends the request be approved. Schmitt asked-what-changes-had bcen made since the technical review meetiiig:Andera noted that the easement along Lot 20 had been increased in size to 40'. It was moved by Young,seconded by Schmitt to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of MidPort America Park Plat No. 3. Motion unanimously carried 2. Request by Michael Maker for a Special Permit to expand a existing legal non-conforming Alcohol Sales at 1831 Independence Avenue, located in a"C-2" Commercial District Poll gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to expand an existing non-limited alcohol sales establishment less than 100' from a residential (protected use) at 1831 Independence Avenue. Poll noted that this request for a non-limited alcohol sales establishment would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and the expansion in question is limited in size and is part of a well- established business. Poll noted that the property in question is zoned"C-2" Commercial District and residential properties to the east are zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District and the properties to the south are zoned"R-3"Multiple Residence District. Poll noted that Highland Elementary is located approximately 380' to the west, and the Diestelmeir Softball Complex is located '/4 mile to the southeast. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as low density residential and that -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 5,2010 this request would not appear be in compliance with such designation,however,the site is properly zoned and has an existing alcohol sales establishment present. Poll noted that in November of 2009, the Zoning Ordinance was revised at the request of the City Council to place more stringent review upon alcohol related businesses,partly due to a large influx of liquor stores being established within the City. Council members had received numerous complaints from residents that the recent establishment of alcohol related businesses was negatively impacting the City. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4976 on November 23, 2009,which placed a more thorough review upon alcohol related businesses requesting to be established within the City. Poll noted that the ordinance also specifically defines Protected Uses, which includes a residential use, day care center,house of worship, school,park, etc., and in this particular instance,the expansion of a non-limited alcohol sales establishment proposed for 1831 Independence Avenue would be required to obtain Special Permit approval because it is not located along a principal arterial street and is not more then 250' away from a protected use. Poll noted that because the site does not meet a setback of 100' from a Protected Use, a variance to the Alcohol Sales Ordinance would be required, adding that the proposed alcohol related use would be 93' from the residence at 1414 Bowers Street, 7' closer then allowed. Poll noted that the applicant has indicated that he would like to expand his existing alcohol related business known as the"Half Pint Saloon"and add a 14' x 30' (420 SF) area to be used as a pool area adding that the expansion would occur into an existing building to the east, and does not involve a rear addition to the building. Poll noted that this request is the first time an applicant has requested a special permit in conjunction with the new Alcohol Sales Ordinance. Poll noted that due to the limited size of the proposed addition and the history of the business in question that the requested special permit would appear to be appropriate. Poll noted that staff has contacted the Waterloo Police Department and they have expressed no concern about the proposed expansion and they have heard no opposition to the request. Poll noted that he had received a call from a concerned citizen noting that he believed that noise was an issue on Thurs,Friday and Saturday nights and expressed his concern regarding parking along Hallowell Road. Schmitt questioned if parking would be a concern for this site. Poll noted that adequate parking is currently provided and that the building in question had previously been used for auto repair and had consistently parked vehicles along Hallowell Road. Michael Maker, Owner of the Half Pint Saloon,noted that he owned all the land from 1773 Independence to the corner of Hallowell Road and noted they have never had any issues with parking. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Loveless to approve the request for a Special Permit to expand a existing legal non-conforming Alcohol Sales at 1831 Independence Avenue, located in a "C-2" Commercial District. Motion unanimously carried B. Discussion Schroeder noted that a Special Meeting would take place to review the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on October 6 at 4:00 p.m. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 5,2010 VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Loveless,seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner -4 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-4:00 P.M OCTOBER 6,2010 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on October 6, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm, Loveless, Powers, Schmitt, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Cox, Leonhart,Johnson, Young Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll-Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the review would continue in the definition section item(100A)on page 17. Schroeder noted that the definition of salvage yard had been modified to be more extensive, and noted that part of the definition applies to repair vehicles that are not being actively restored, and defines actively restored as the owner spending at lease 10 hours of labor in the repair or reconstruction of the vehicle every 30 days,noting that proving that the work has been done is the responsibility of the owner which may include receipts for parts installed in the vehicle. Schroeder noted this was done for code enforcement purposes to help deal with repair shops that leave junk vehicles and parts out that they are supposedly restoring. Schmitt noted that he liked the additional material, citing that the portion that requires parts to be installed will be a large help to code enforcement. Whitehead questioned if there should be another definition for(103) Restaurants noting that a fast/casual or fast/convenience may be needed for restaurants that use a model similar to Steak and Shake where the customer sits down and orders from a menu but is served with disposable dishes. Schroeder noted that issue would also need to be looked at when discussing parking as these definitions affect how much parking is required for a restaurant. Schmitt questioned if a definition should be added for a drive-thru only restaurant. Grimm questioned if projecting windows should be counted against the setback definition in(106). Schroeder noted that they are allowed to project 3 feet past the foundation without being included in the setback calculation. Schroeder noted that several definitions had been added to comply with DNR floodplain regulations. Schroeder noted that a definition had been added for start of construction(117A), which would give 180 days to start a project after the permit is issued. Schmitt questioned if a certain percentage of completion on the project could be required within the 180 days such as 10%or 15%. Whitehead questioned if the Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2010 Special Meeting 180 days could be reduced. Schmitt noted that it should not be reduced as some projects are delayed by winter. Schroeder noted that he would check with the attorney. Grimm questioned why definition(126) Summer Cottage was being removed noting his concern that if a cottage floods and the City is forced to buy them out that the City would have to treat it as a dwelling and pay more then its worth. Schroeder noted that the buyout system is based on occupancy time and does not distinguish between cottages and dwellings. Schroeder noted that if someone occupies their cottage for more then 180 days it is treated as a principal residence, and less then 180 days is treated as a second residence. Schroeder also noted that the building code treats all cottages and dwellings the same. Schroeder noted that the definitions were now reviewed and that there were no major proposed changes in Part IV District and Boundaries. Schroeder continued on to Part V General Regulations. Schroeder noted a more clear explanation of the fencing requirements for corner lots was given. Schmitt questioned if constantia wire and electric fence should be prohibited in residential areas. Grimm noted that many stables use electric fence, and many stables are located in residentially zoned areas. Schroeder noted that constantia wire should be included in the definition section(46)Fence, Residential, in the list of materials that cannot be used. Electric fencing for stables may require more review. III. Adjournment Powers noted that he needed to leave which would reduce the number of Commission members present below that of a quorum. Grimm noted that discussion could continue but the meeting would no longer be in session, no votes could be taken. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Grimm declared the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Powers departed at 5:15 p.m. and discussion continued. Schroeder noted that the section regarding Daycares had been moved to the General Regulations area. Poll questioned the reasoning behind regulation(g)under Day Cares which cited that day cares must be at least 300 feet away from each other. Schroeder noted he believed this was a state regulation. Schmitt noted if it is a state regulation,then there is no need to duplicate it in the ordinance and suggested it be pulled. Schroeder noted that regulations(d)and(e)under the daycare section were covered in the home occupation section and were also duplications that could be pulled. Schroeder noted that under Section E, Accessory Structures that Pods and similar structures would be allowed for 60-days at a property. Whitehead noted that"Pods"could be a Trade Marked word and a replacement may be needed. Schroeder noted"storage container" could be used in place of"Pods". Schmitt departed at 5:32 p.m. Schroeder noted that the Accessory Structures section now allowed one deck at least 3 feet from the principal residence that can be up to 200 SF to not be regulated as an accessory structure. Discussion discontinued at 5:45 p.m. and the remaining Commission members departed. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2010 Special Meeting Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner • - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M NOVEMBER 2,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Loveless on November 2, 2010 in the Cable Access Studio. Members present were: Cox, Leonhart, Loveless, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Powers, Johnson, Grimm Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham,Tim Andera and Adam Poll -Planning Department; Eric Thorson, Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Young,seconded by Schmitt to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Special Meeting on October 6,2010 and Regular Meeting on October 5, 2010 It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Leonhart to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: September 2010. Schroeder gave the financial report, noting that the budget for this time of the year is on track and normal for this point in the fiscal year. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to approve the financial report for September 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations Jeff Kurtz, Main Street Director, introduced himself noting that he had recently started in this position and looked forward to working with the Planning and-Zoning Commission. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings-Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Suresh and Rupa Reddy to rezone approximately 7.48 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-4"Multiple Residence District for the purpose of constructing additional multi-family unit buildings directly to the south of 6015-6220 Donegal Circle, which is directly south of Hawkeye Community College. It was moved by Young and seconded by Leonhart to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Loveless declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting the area in question is principally agricultural in nature but multiple family units lie to the north of the site while to the south, east, and west is all agricultural. Western noted that the area would be served by extending private Dublin Drive to the proposed area to be rezoned. Western noted that the proposed rezone area is currently zoned"A-1"Agricultural District and has been zoned as such since the adoption on the zoning ordinance in 1969 and that properties in the immediate Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2010 vicinity are also zoned as such with the exception of the apartment complexes to the north zoned"R-4" Multiple Family District. Western noted that the surrounding area is mixed with agricultural land that is actively farmed and apartment complexes directly north of the site in question are fairly new and were built in between 2003 and 2009. Western noted that the property in question is not located in the floodplain. Western noted that there is a private 8"sanitary sewer line that will serve the site and that a 12"waterline runs along the west side of Hammond Avenue to the City limits. Western noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Mixed Residential and the proposed rezone would appear to be in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Access can be established simply by extending Dublin Street to the site. Western noted that that the proposed development is a logical expansion to the existing multifamily development to the north and would help better serve the students attending Hawkeye Community College. Schmitt noted that the verbage used in the staff report referred to Donegal Circle and the map referred to the street as Donegal Court. Western noted that Donegal Court was the correct labeling on the street. Chuck Augustine,Attorney for the applicants,passed out a handout to the Commission. Augustine noted that currently the 243 units currently in existence were occupied, and that the applicants were turning away many students from the existing units. Augustine noted that the number of units that would be constructed on the site in question would depend on the viability of the land and the need by the students. Loveless questioned if the apartments would be for students. Augustine noted that was the case. Gaylen Houser,Vice President of Administration Finance of Hawkeye Community College,noted that the school was in favor of adding student housing. Houser noted that new,modern housing makes the school more competitive with other schools, and that the school supports the rezone request. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Young to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:17 pm. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Young to approve to rezone approximately 7.48 acres from "A- 1"Agricultural District to "R-4"Multiple Residence. Motion carried unanimously. B. Plats 1. Request by Kasim Mustedanagic for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Mustedanagic Minor Plat located along the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 130' south of Hummingbird Lane for the development of a 2-lot residential subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to split the existing 0.826 acre parcel into 2 separate parcels for the purpose of creating individual lots for the house at 4128 Mockingbird Lane and the house currently under construction at 4116 Mockingbird Lane. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and it would appear the split of the land for residential purposes would be consistent to already nearby residential development. Andera noted that it would appear that the proposed minor plat would not have a negative impact on surrounding traffic and pedestrian conditions in the area. Andera noted that a sidewalk was constructed in front of the recently constructed house at 4128 Mockingbird Lane, and a sidewalk will have to be constructed in front of 4116 Mockingbird Lane. Andera noted that the proposed plat and surrounding area is zoned"R-3, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District. Andera noted that the surrounding area has seen residential development from the middle 1990s up to date and the new housing constructed within the area comprises of single-family,two family developments. Andera noted that no portions of the plat are located within a Flood Hazard Area and the proposed plat is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map for this area. Andera noted that there is an 8" sanitary sewer and a 12" storm sewer located within Mockingbird Lane to the east of the proposed minor plat. Andera noted that Lot 1 of the proposed plat would be the largest, containing 0.515 acres, and Lot 2 would be 0.311 acres. Andera noted that a home has already been constructed at 4128 Mockingbird Lane, and that single-family house had already gone through the review process for a building permit. Andera noted that currently,there is a single-family - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2010 house under construction directly to the north of 4128 Mockingbird Lane. Andera noted that the address 4116 Mockingbird Lane was assigned to this property. Andera noted that that particular dwelling appears to meet all the required setbacks for this particular zoning district, and it appears that the house at its closest point is setback 10' from the north property line, which meets required side yard setback. Andera noted that upon a site visit by staff, it did not appear that there were any overhead electrical utilities on the lots in question, and all services appeared to come from the front of the properties, therefore, no utility easements are being proposed with this plat. It was moved by Young,seconded by Schmitt to approve the request for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Mustedanagic Minor Plat Motion unanimously carried C. Special Permits 1. Request by Jorge Lopez for a Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a religious facility within the existing building at 518-522 Lafayette Street, located approximately mid-block between East 4th Street and East Park Avenue, in a"C-3" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant requests approval of the special permit to allow for the establishment of a religious facility within the existing commercial building at 518-522 Lafayette Street. Graham noted that although the use would be located within the Central Business District,which is made up of primarily commercial uses,the proposed use would primarily be utilized on Sunday mornings, therefore not creating any negative impacts on the surrounding area. Graham noted that Lafayette Street is classified as a Collector Street and that there are currently sidewalks located on all street sides abutting the property. Graham noted that the request could impact the traffic conditions in the area, as the property does not have a parking lot to accommodate the vehicles but added that the applicant has indicated that the church patrons would park in the Park Avenue parking ramp,which would appear to lessen any impacts on parking and congestion on the downtown roads. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site for Commercial and that a religious facility can be located in almost any zoning district, making this potentially compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that the site plan shows the interior layout of the existing building, which includes several different building addresses. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a church provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy, and it is estimated that the maximum occupancy is 161 persons,therefore, the Zoning Ordinance would require 41 parking stalls. Graham noted that the property is zoned"C-3"District, however, which does not require uses to provide any on-site parking spaces. Grahamnoted-- applicant has--indi-cated-that wouldhave--between 20-aand 3@-people in attendance, and they would utilize the Park Avenue parking ramp for vehicle parking and that this would appear to lessen any potential issues with traffic congestion in the downtown area. Graham noted that the site plan also shows a 0' building setback from Lafayette Street and that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a religious facility be set back a minimum of 2 feet per 1 foot of building height. Graham noted that it is not known what the height of the building is,however a variance will be needed, because the building already has a 0' setback. Graham noted that the applicant has stated that the service hours would be from 10:00 a.m. until noon on Sundays,with little use during normal business hours on the weekdays. Graham noted that the request to establish the new religious facility at this location would not seem to fit in with the area, as this area is designated as the Central Business District, which is meant to be used for commercial store fronts, promoting commercial activity in this area of the City. Graham noted that e- mails from both Captain Beckman of the Waterloo Police Department and the Mayor had been received noting concerns with the request due to the fact that it does not seem to fit in with the area. However, the building has been vacant for some time, and the applicant is proposing to remodel the building for its use. Graham added that the church would mostly be used on Sunday mornings, when many of the businesses in the downtown area are closed. Graham noted that staff recommends that the special permit to allow for the establishment of a religious facility be approved. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2010 Andy Abbott, Owner of 517-521 Lafayette Street, noted his belief that the use of this building as a religious facility does not fit in the long-term plan for the downtown area. Abbott noted that the building had been recently remodeled and only vacant for about 18 months and he had hoped that a commercial use could be found for this building. Abbott noted that a religious facility would generate more traffic on Sundays, and felt that tenants in his building would want to sleep in on Sundays and this could affect that. Abbott noted that that a religious facility in this site does not appear to fit, and would cause the building to appear vacant for most times of the week. Abbott noted that this would not allow the downtown to be vibrant, and it was important to maintain the integrity of the downtown area. It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Young to approve the request for a Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a religious facility within the existing building at 518-522 Lafayette Street Motion unanimously carried D. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by Charles and Holly Rich to vacate approximately 0.039 acres (1,697 SF) of right-of-way at 563 Archer Avenue near the southwest corner of Dubuque Road and Colorado Street for the purpose of incorporating the right-of-way with their residential property. Poll gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to vacate the portion of excess right-of-way located along the alley behind their home and convey a small portion of their property to the City as it extends into the alley. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood as the property has been maintained as their rear yard since they purchased the property. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements in the area, as there would not appear to be a need for this area for present or future right-of-way purposes. Poll noted that currently the site in question is city-owned right-of-way and is not zoned, however,upon completion of the vacate,the site will be zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. Poll noted that there are no known utilities present in the property in question and there are also no know utilities running along Colorado or the south side of Dubuque Road. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as Low Density Residential, and this request would be in compliance with such designation. Poll noted that the request is to vacate the 1,697 SF of excess right-of-way and acquire 52.5 SF of the applicant's property located between the applicant's property at 563 Archer Avenue and the alley behind their home. Poll noted that the property in question cited by code enforcement when the applicants put up a row of posts for a fence along the alley to keep -other the appli ants have stated that they believed that they owned the property in question and upon receiving notice of their violation the applicants contacted the Planning and Zoning Department and began the vacate procedure. Poll noted that the applicants hired Kess and Associates to survey the property in question and the survey found that the northeast corner of the applicant's property extended out into the vehicular movement area of the alley. Poll noted that the Engineering Department noted that the City should acquire a small section(52.5 SF) of the applicant's property as part of the process to ensure that the City owned the entire alley. Poll noted that staff recommends the request to vacate 0.039 acres (1,697 SF) of excess right-of-way of Dubuque Road. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Young to approve the request to vacate approximately 0.039 acres (1,697SI) of right-of-way. Motion unanimously carried. 2. Request by Gene Geiger for and Encroachment Agreement at 2006 Dubuque Road to allow approximately 1' of a vehicular use area to encroach into Nevada Street right-of-way at the southeast corner of Nevada Street and Dubuque Road. Andera gave the staff report noting that it would not appear that the requested encroachment agreement along Nevada Street would have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that the -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2010 commercial developments at the northeast,northwest and southwest corners of the intersection in question appear to have parking lots that extend into portions of Dubuque Road and Nevada Street right- of-ways, and the proposed request appears to be similar to already existing commercial development within the area. Andera noted that the site in question is zoned"C-2" Commercial District and the property to the west is also zoned"C-2",and areas to the north, south and east are zoned"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District. Andera noted that the applicant constructed a new auto repair shop and parking area with vehicle display area on the lot in question in 2009 and as a part of that development, the applicant submitted a site plan detailing the overall layout of the site, showing the location of a storm water retention area along the north property line abutting Dubuque Road, however,the applicant did not construct the water retention area, and they are currently working with the Engineering Department to rectify this situation. Andera noted that the site in question has an odd, irregular shape to it due to the curvature of Dubuque Road along the north side, and the lots narrowness,which does limit the amount of area to be used for vehicular use purposes. Andera noted that on the submitted site plan, it showed all parking areas being setback 5' from all property lines,however, the parking area was not constructed as shown on the plans. Andera noted that staff from Planning and Engineering departments have met with the property owner within the last couple of months to discuss how to remedy the encroaching parking lot situation, which included applying for an encroachment agreement. Andera noted that in addition,the applicant installed a recycled asphalt surface on the eastern portion of their lot to display vehicles for sale. Andera noted that since meeting with the applicant regarding the issues with the lot, the hired consultant engineer for the redesign of the site has indicated that the applicant intends to remove that recycled asphalt mixture, and no variance is be requested for the surfacing. Andera noted that Rob Haaland,the consultant engineer noted that he was and there will be a detention area planned east of the building along the north line of the property. Andera noted that Engineering is recommending denial as they have concerns that paving up to the sidewalk interferes with sidewalk reconstruction and encourages driving and parking on the sidewalk, which is not designed for that use. Andera noted that at the October 26, 2010 Board of Adjustment meeting,the BOA approved a variance to the vehicular use areas setback from the property lines to allow for a 0' setback along Nevada Street and a l' setback from Dubuque Road. If the request for the encroachment agreement is denied,the applicant will need to remove 1' of the paved parking area from the right-of-way along Nevada Street. Andera noted that staff recommends that the request for an encroachment agreement be approved subject that a signed encroachment agreement be obtained. Young questioned if Engineering's concerns could be addressed t he encroachment agreement_ Andera noted that language could be included to address these concerns. Schmitt questioned what would keep the applicant from parking on the sidewalk and questioned if the applicant was aware that he would need to stay off the sidewalk. Andera noted that the applicant had been informed. Anderson noted that part of the encroachment agreement could include that concrete barriers be installed between the sidewalk and the parking lot. Thorson noted that the Engineering Department was opposed to the request noting that there is no reason this should be approved. Thorson noted that the applicant did not adhere to the submitted and approved site plan and legalizing mistakes made by the applicant sends a poor message. Leonhart questioned if any steps had been taken to rectify the lack of detention on site. Thorson noted that nothing had been submitted to the engineering department. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to deny the request for and Encroachment Agreement. Motion carried 6-0. E. Discussion - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2010 None VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Leonhart to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, die_----2(Leic-,— Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 6 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M DECEMBER 7,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on December 7, 2010 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox, Grimm,Johnson, Leonhart,Loveless, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Powers Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department; Eric Thorson,Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt and City Councilperson David Jones (4:21). I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 2, 2010. It was moved by Leonhart,seconded by Young to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: October 2010. Anderson gave the financial report,noting that the budget for this time of the year is on track and normal for this point in the fiscal year. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Young to approve the financial report for October 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings- Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Suresh and Rupa Reddy to rezone approximately 7.48 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-4"Multiple Residence District for the purpose of constructing additional multi-family unit buildings directly to the south of 6015-6220 Donegal Circle, which is directly south of Hawkeye Community College. It was moved by Young and seconded by Leonhart to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:04 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting that the request had previously been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as City Council. Western noted that it was brought to the attention of the Planning Department that the applicants directly to the north of the site in question did not receive proper notification of the rezone. Western noted that because of the lack of notification to the property to the north, and the potential impact on that site, another hearing should take place. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 Western noted that the area in question is principally agricultural in nature but multiple family units lie to the north of the site while to the south, east, and west is all agricultural. Western noted that the area would be served by extending private Dublin Drive to the proposed area to be rezoned. Western noted that the proposed rezone area is currently zoned"A-1"Agricultural District and has been zoned as such since the adoption on the zoning ordinance in 1969 and that properties in the immediate vicinity are also zoned as such with the exception of the apartment complexes to the north zoned"R-4"Multiple Family District. Western noted that the surrounding area is mixed with agricultural land that is actively farmed and apartment complexes directly north of the site in question are fairly new and were built in between 2003 and 2009. Western noted that the property in question is not located in the floodplain. Western noted that there is a private 8" sanitary sewer line that will serve the site and that a 12"waterline runs along the west side of Hammond Avenue to the City limits. Western noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Mixed Residential and the proposed rezone would appear to be in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan. Access can be established simply by extending Dublin Street to the site. Western noted that that the proposed development is a logical expansion to the existing multifamily development to the north and would help better serve the students attending Hawkeye Community College. Western noted that the Gary Bishop, one of the owners of property to the north,had submitted a letter noting concern for the development of the property including concerns regarding vehicular access as well as access to sewer lines. The letter also questioned if the street used for access would be a public or private street, and who would regulate the paving installed if the street was private. Anderson noted that he and Thorson had spoke to Mr. Bishop and noted that most of the questions were answered in that conversation. Bishop had noted that he did not wish to stop the rezoning,but wanted to ensure his voice was heard. Anderson noted that most of the concerns would be addressed during the permitting and development process. Johnson asked if the access street would be public or private. Anderson noted that the Zoning Ordinance would allow for a private street, but staff feels that a public street would better serve the area. Anderson noted that this could be worked out in the development or platting process. Chuck Augustine, attorney for the applicants,noted that he would like to address the concerns of WB Ventures. Augustine noted that he had also talked to Gary Bishop and had addressed the concerns. Augustine noted that currently the 243 units currently in existence were occupied, and that the applicants were turning away many students from the existing units. Augustine noted that the number of units that would be constructed on the site in question would depend on the viability of the land and the need by the students. Galen Howsare, Vice President of Administration Finance of Hawkeye Community College,noted that the-school-was-in favor-of-add' owsare noted-t hay new;modern-housing--makes-the school more competitive with other schools, and that the school supports the rezone request. Howsare noted that the college has been in contact with the traffic department to come up with a plan for a pedestrian crossing. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Whitehead to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:12 pm. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Schmitt to approve to rezone approximately 7.48 acres from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R-4"Multiple Residence subject to the condition that the final site plan meet all requirements including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, access, hard surface vehicle use areas etc. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request Union Baptist Church to rezone approximately 1.29 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "C-1, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of constructing mini- storage units directly south of 130 Jackson Street near the intersection of Jackson and Shilliam Streets. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 It was moved by Young and seconded by Johnson to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone the site in question to allow for mini storage. Western noted that the area in question is principally residential in nature. Single-family homes lie to the north and east of the proposed location and the Canadian National Railroad switching yard is located to the south and west. Western noted Jackson, Merriman, Shilliam, and Halstead Streets, which are considered local streets, serve the proposed rezone area. Western noted that the proposed rezone area is currently zoned"R-2"One and Two Family District and has been zoned as such since the adoption on the zoning ordinance in 1969 and that properties in the immediate vicinity are also zoned as such with the exception of the switching yard to the south which is zoned"M-1"Light Industrial and the homes to the east are zoned"R-3"Multiple Residence District. Western noted that the majority of the surrounding area is comprised of one and two family dwellings and the homes directly east of the site in question are fairly new homes that where built in between 2003 and 2004.Western noted that other surrounding developments were built in the early 1900's. Western noted that an 8" sanitary sewer line runs along Jackson,Merriman, and Halstead Street and there is a 21" storm sewer line that runs down Halstead Street. Western noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Low Density Residential. Western noted that allowing mini-storage in this area would not appear to be in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan or Comprehensive Plan however,the site is adjacent to the industrially zoned railroad-switching yard, and the proposed development could help create a buffer between the switching yard and the adjacent residential uses. Western noted that the proposed rezone would comprise of 1.29 acres owned by the applicant. Western noted that the applicant has submitted a site plan indicating 79 individual mini storage units would be constructed on the site. Western noted that mini-storage is a principal permitted use in the"M-1"Light Industrial District, and is a permitted use in the"C-2" Commercial District through the issuance of a Special Permit which takes into account the location for compatibility of surrounding uses and area directed to be located behind other commercial business. Western noted that staff initially had concerns with request due to the residential zoning and surrounding homes. However, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Guidebook,the area to be rezoned has a rating of 75, which is considered"Unacceptable", for residential construction, so the proposed development would appear to provide a good buffer for the adjoining residential uses. Western noted that a portion of the area —requested t^b��be—ezoned-was-fermer,�ned by the City of Waterloo-and-was-sold-for$1.00-to anz— individual under a development agreement that he would build a home on he property, or the lot would revert back to the city.No dwelling was ever built and the individual subsequently sold the property to the church. Western added that additional action of the Council to clear this matter will be required. Western noted that staff recommends the rezone be approved subject to the final site plan meeting all requirements including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, screening hard surface vehicle use areas etc. Loveless questioned if screening would be required and what type. Western noted that the screening would be required and could consist of over and under-story trees, evergreens, a fence or a combination of all three. Loveless questioned if the noise levels were loud enough where houses could not be built at the location. Western noted houses could be built,but federal dollars could not be used as the noise levels are above HUD approved levels. Anderson noted that sever of the Habitat for Humanity homes built in the area could not have been built on the site in question. Loveless questioned how the other Habitat homes were built. Western noted that the site in question was only 1 point above the acceptable noise threshold and would imagine that the other homes are far enough away to meet the acceptable noise levels. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 Charles Miles, Unity Neighborhood Association, noted that a mini-storage facility is not needed as the area in question is prone to flooding. Miles noted that he is opposed to the project. Pastor Jenkins of Union Baptist Church,noted that they intended to submit a drainage plan before construction for review by the Engineering Department. Jenkins noted that the church did not have any flooding problems. Johnson questioned if the church owns the three homes on the east side of Halstead Street. Jenkins noted those properties were not owned by the church. Jenkins noted the church owns the property to the south and west of the property in question. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:21 pm. Johnson noted that he is voting against the rezone as it is not in conformance with the Future Land Use Map, and an M-1 use is being placed across the street from residential use. Pastor Jenkins noted that no one in the community has opposed the mini-storage project, and noted that the project would be done in such a way that it would add and not detract from the area. Charles Miles again noted his concern about the lack of storm water drainage noting that many of the home in the area have sump pumps in the homes which have to run every time it rains. Pastor Jenkins noted that he lives in the neighborhood and he has no water problems whatsoever. Jenkins added that the church and their surrounding properties also have no water problems. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Loveless to approve to rezone approximately 1.29 acres from "R- 2"One and Two Family Residence District to "C-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of constructing mini-storage units directly south of 130 Jackson Street near the intersection of Jackson and Shilliam Streets with the condition that the final site plan meet all applicable city requirements, the final site plan be approved by the Board of Adjustment through the Special Permit process and City Council clears up any outstanding development agreements currently in place. Motion carried 5-3 with Whitehead,Leonhart, and Johnson voting against the request. B. Special Permits -- - Request by-Sfiruxture-ArChite tire-C-edar-VaileyCathoiic Schools for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of a 50,000 SF middle school building and 317 parking lot located directly to the west of Columbus High School at 3231 West 9th Street, located near the intersection of West 9th Street and St. Francis Drive, in an"R-3"Multiple Residence District. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting on the behalf of the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools to consolidate all the Catholic middle school students at the proposed 2-story, 50,000 SF new middle school. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the proposed use would be similar to the already existing Columbus High School upon the site in question, which was constructed in 1959. Andera noted that the request could potentially have an impact upon traffic conditions, as the addition of middle school students to the site would add additional bus and automobile traffic to the surrounding area. Andera noted that West 9th Street serves the property from the north and south, St. Francis Drive serves the property from the south, and both are classified as Local Streets. Other nearby streets that feed into West 9th Street and St. Francis Drive are Columbus Drive and Ravenwood Road, and both are also classified as Local Streets. Andera noted that the site also is adjacent to Hammond Avenue to the east,but the driveways on Hammond only serve the sports facilities and does not provide a main access to the school buildings. Andera noted that the -4 - • Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 property in question and areas to the southwest are zoned"R-3"Multiple Residence District. Lands to the south and east of the property in question are zoned"R-4"Multiple Residence District. Lands to the north and south of the property in question is zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. All the land in question has been zoned as such since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Andera noted that the surrounding area is a developed mix of uses ranging from single-family residences, multiple residence, educational, medical facilities and professional offices, with the majority of the development occurring in the 1960s to the 1970s. However,nearby medical facilities have added new additions from the mid 1990s up to 2009.Andera noted that the area is served by water, sanitary sewer, and other utilities. There is an 8" sanitary sewer line within St. Francis Drive to the south and 12" sanitary sewer within West 9th Street to the west. A 4"drain tile is located along both sides of West 9th Street to the west of the site, and there is a 10" storm sewer within St. Francis Drive. Also, a 30" storm sewer runs along the south line of the Columbus High School property, traveling eastward and connecting into the existing storm sewer network along Ravenwood Road. Andera noted that the new middle school would be constructed onto the west end of Columbus High School and consist of 18 classrooms, library, cafeteria,full sized gymnasium, office space and mechanical/utility space. Officials with the Cedar Valley Catholic Schools have indicated that approximately 240 students would attend the middle school, in addition to the 246 students attending Columbus High School. The proposed time operations of the middle school would be from 7:30 a.m. to 2:20 p.m.,the same hours as the high school. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has noted that the sanitary sewer network in this area experiences capacity overloads at times, and numbers indicating the amount of sanitary sewer flow coming from the new middle school would need to be submitted at this time. Engineering has also noted that the proposed development would be required to submit storm water calculations and a storm water retention plan. The proposed addition would be constructed in an area that currently is grass, and additional parking areas will be provided, thus increasing the amount of impermeable surfacing upon the site. Andera noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that for elementary,middle schools and other places of under driving-age students, 1 parking space for each person regularly employed on the premises, and 1 parking space for each classroom. There will be a total of 30 employees working at the new middle school, and a total of 18 classrooms in the new school, which would equate to 48 parking stalls needed. Also, due to Columbus High School being located upon the site,the required parking requirements for that use would need to be maintained. Andera noted that the parking requirements for a high school are 1 parking space for each and every person regularly employed on the_premises, and 1 parking space foreaach 6 students of the maximum occupancy. Andera noted that it is not known at this time what the maximum occupancy of Columbus is, and staff will work to determine that number to see if the parking requirements for the high school are still being met, or if a variance would be needed to the parking requirements. Andera noted that the applicant has submitted a site plan that shows an overall parking count of 317 spaces, with the parking lot being reconfigured to the south of the high school, and new parking spaces being added to the east of the high school near the football field. However, it is not planned at this time to add the additional parking spaces, and it is estimated that there will be 215 parking spaces on the site upon completion of the middle school,before a future parking expansion. Andera noted that staff recommends approval the request subject to the applicant submitibg current sanitary sewer flows from the site in question and what the projected sanitary sewer flows will be after the new middle school is constructed, the use of LEED water strategies, and it is determined that the expected traffic counts coming to and originating from the site will not have a significant negative impact on the adjacent streets. Schmitt questioned the need for a traffic study as many other schools have been built that do not need a traffic study adding that it's a middle school and the students will not be driving. Andera noted concerns - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 that it would be operating at the same hours as the high school and the traffic generated by busses and parents could add traffic to the area. Ken Jones, Struxture Architects, 314 4th Street,noted that Columbus High School currently has 246 students where it previously had over 1,000 students at a time. Jones noted he felt the orginal parking lot and accesses were built for significantly more students then would be present after the middle school is added. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Johnson to approve the request for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of a 50,000 SF middle school building and 317 parking lot located directly to the west of Columbus High School at 3231 West 9th Street subject to the condition that the final site plan meet all applicable city codes and regulations, the applicant submits current and projected sanitary sewer flows and traffic counts generated by the site are not found to have a significant negative impact on the area.Motion unanimously carried 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to install a total of 90 to 120 mesh screened advertising signs at the 3 baseball fields located at Danes Baseball Complex located along Movilla Street, north of Highway 63, and install a total of 90 to 120 mesh screened advertising signs at the 3 baseball fields located at Tibbits Baseball Complex at the intersection of West Donald and Cedar Bend Streets. Poll gave the staff report noting City of Waterloo would like to install 90 to 120 mesh screen advertising signs at both the Danes and Tibbits Baseball Complexes. Poll noted that the advertising signs are designed to primarily be viewed by individuals attending sporting activities at the complexes,but the signs would also be visible to the public from beyond the property lines of the complexes, so the special permit is required. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, however, the proposed signage would not appear to be highly visible from nearby residences and are similar to many other materials used to increase the visibility of a fence. Poll noted that the signage would be placed along the outfield fencing for all three baseball fields at both sites. Poll noted that staff felt that as the signage could potentially be observed by nearby residences that a special permit should be required. Poll noted that 5 homes appear to be in direct visual sight of the Danes Baseball Complex with none of the homes facing the Complex and that at least 20 residences would be in direct visual sight of the signage proposed at Tibbits Baseball Complex,but all of those properties to the north of Tibbits Baseball Complex are addressed off of Wakonda Drive with their rear yards abutting estDonald_S.treet and fading the proposed signage. Poll noted that other sporting facilities have similar advertising such as at Young Arena and Riverfront Stadium, however these signs are not visible from off premises. Poll noted that a variance would also need to be granted by the Board of Adjustment as these signs will be considered off-premises advertising, a use that is not allowed in the "A-1"Agricultural District. Poll noted that staff recommends the Special Permit request be granted. Johnson questioned how visible the signs would be from the back of the signage. Poll noted the signage was a mesh material, which would lead to some visibility. Schroeder noted that he believed the rear of the signage was a solid color but the advertising would be somewhat visible. Schroeder noted that the mesh material was needed to handle the wind load for the signage. Poll noted that staff had not received any calls opposed to the request. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Young to approve the request for a Special Permit to install a total of 90 to 120 mesh screened advertising signs at the 3 baseball fields located at Danes Baseball Complex, and install a total of 90 to 120 mesh screened advertising signs at the 3 baseball fields located at Tibbits Baseball Complex. Motion unanimously carried. C. Vacates/Encroachments - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 1. Request by Union Baptist Church to vacate the 16' wide public alley located between Shilliam Street and Merriman Street in Shilliam's 3rd Subdivision. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate the platted alley to allow for mini storage at the same site as the rezone. Western noted that most of the details of the surrounding area had been covered in the rezone request. Western noted that there no known utilities in the area to be vacated and therefore no easement would need to be retained. Western noted that the applicant owns all of the property abutting the area to be vacated except for the adjacent homes at 225 and 229 Halstead Street. Western noted that the property owner at 225 Halstead Street has indicated that they are not interested in acquiring the portion of alley adjacent to their property,while the property owner at 229 Halstead Street has indicated that they are interested in acquiring the portion of the alley adjacent to their property,which will allow them to maintain the driveway to their property along Jackson Street. Western noted that staff recommends vacating the alley as the alley would not appear to be necessary and the request would not appear to have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Schroeder noted that staff would recommend the request the alley vacate independent of the rezone request as the alley is not needed for any public purposes. It was moved by Young,seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate the 16'wide public alley located between Shilliam Street and Merriman Street in Shilliam's 3'd Subdivision. Motion unanimously carried 2. Request by Kathleen Jackson and Marilyn Orth to vacate approximately a 2,783 SF portion of public alley located directly north and adjacent to 35 Fletcher Avenue in Westfield Addition. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to vacate the alley in question for the purpose of incorporating the alley with the commercial property they own at 35 Fletcher Avenue, directly south of Highway 218. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements in the area. Andera noted that the applicants own the site to the south of the alley known as 35 Fletcher Avenue, as well as a triangular portion of ground to the north of the alley, and these particular parcels of land are zoned"M-1"Light Industrial District, and have been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Andera noted that when the alley is fully vacated, it will also be zoned as"M-1"Light Industrial District. Andera noted that it would appear that vacation of the public alley would not negatively impact the surrounding area, as the alley only serves-the-appl;e�s «;-and-eunently is used-as-a-means-of access to the 2 properties the applicant owns. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has questioned if the applicants still intend to use the curb-cut from Fletcher Avenue to the alley as a means of access to their properties, or if they plan to no longer utilize this curb-cut as an access point and added that if they no longer intend to use that curb-cut as an access point,then the curb-cut would need to be filled in with appropriate curb and gutter. Andera noted that the site at 35 Fletcher Avenue has 2 other access points, with 1 accessing a hard surfaced parking lot directly in front of the building, and another access point on the rear side of the building, accessing an outside storage yard off of Rock Island Avenue. Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to vacate the alley in question for the purpose of incorporating the portion of ground with the overall commercial site they own. The potential would exist if the alley were vacated for the applicant to expand their commercial building in the future if needed. Andera noted that staff has indicated to the applicant that due to the irregular shape of the alley requested to be vacated,that they would need to survey the property so that accurate measurements and square footages are received on the piece of ground in question, and so an accurate legal description can be provided to transfer the property. Andera noted that staff recommends the vacate request be approved subject to a plat of survey is submitted for the area to be vacated. Whitehead noted that he will abstain from the vote as he represents the applicant/property owner. - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 It was moved by Young,seconded by Schmitt to approve to vacate approximately a 2,783 SF portion of public alley located directly north and adjacent to 35 Fletcher Avenue in Weseld Addition subject to a plat of survey Ls submitted for the area to be vacated. Motion carried 7-0 with Whitehead abstaining. 3. Request by Richard Penn for an encroachment a&reement to allow parking bollards to encroach into the platted public alley north of 316-320 West 4th Street in Block 16 of the Original Plat of Waterloo West. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant requests to place four bollards along his building that would encroach 23.25"into a public alley to prevent his building from being struck by any vehicles using the alley. Poll noted that the request would appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood given the significant distance they would encroach into the busy alley. Similar parking bollards can be found directly across the street at 316 W 5th Street,which have not had any known negative impact and encroach 24" into the alley, but the alley has significantly less vehicular traffic. Poll noted that the request would appear to have a negative impact on traffic and pedestrian conditions in the area as the bollards would narrow the alley from 20' to about 18', which could significantly affect traffic movements through the alley, especially large delivery trucks. Poll noted that an 8" sanitary sewer line and a 12" storm sewer line run along the alley in question. Poll noted that the placement of the bollards would appear to be acceptable,however the told requested encroachment of 23.25" appears to be excessive. Poll noted that staff would suggest that approximately 12 to 13 inches should be the maximum encroachment allowed. Poll noted that there would be four bollards installed that would be 25' between centers and would measure 8.5"wide by 36"tall. Poll noted that the applicant has noted that the first bollard would be positioned 6"from the front corner of the building and the last one would be on the rear corner of the building. Poll noted that the 20' alley in question is a very busy alley, located in the downtown area with buildings located at or near zero lot line to the alley. Poll noted that adjacent businesses that utilize the alley include Subway, Doughy Joey's, Kings and Queens, Lindgren Glass, Convention and Visitors Bureau and the KXEO radio station. Poll noted that a signed and executed encroachment agreement would be required,which would stipulate that the bollards would have to be removed if the space was needed for public purposes. Poll noted that the applicant indicated that he has had vehicles strike the building in the past, which caused he to have to spend$40,000 to rebuild the damaged wall. Poll noted that staff would recommend the 23.25" encroachment be denied, but would recommend the approval of a 13" encroachment. Grimm questioned if the applicant agreed to the 13"encroachment. Poll noted he had spoke to the applieau , • ' dud that he would prefer the 2±2-5" encroachment,adding-that if a lesser amount was approved he would build the bollards to the encroachment approved. Young noted it appeared the applicant was not present for the Planning and Zoning Meeting and questioned if he was aware as to the time of the meeting. Poll noted the applicant was aware of the meeting time,noting that he had recently spoke to the applicant on the phone regarding the distance of encroachment. Schmitt noted his concern that this was a very busy alley. It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Whitehead to deny both the 23.25"and 13"encroachment agreements to allow parking bollards to encroach into the platted public alley north of 316-320 West 4"`Street. Motion carried 5-3 with Cox, Johnson and Loveless voting against the motion. D. Other 1. Appointment of a Planning and Zoning Commissioner to the Enterprise Zone Commission. Loveless nominated Whitehead to serve on the Commission. - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 7,2010 Grimm questioned if he was willing to serve. Whitehead indicated that he was. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Johnson to appoint Dustin Whitehead as a Commissioner to the Enterprise Zone Commission. E. Discussion 1. Infill housing development. Schroeder noted that Anderson wanted to generate discussion on infill development and discuss methods to ensure that large areas of infill development are compatible and enhance surrounding areas. Schroeder noted that the topic had specifically come up in regards to property that the City may be obtaining from the Waterloo School District. Young noted that the school system is doing a property review and are initially selling 8 different properties. Young noted that the City put in an offer on Baltimore Field, Former Lincoln School site and Williston Field. Schroeder noted that the City could initiate rezoning proceedings on these properties and create a planned district that could ensure that what was constructed at the location would be compatible with the surrounding area as anything built in the planned district would have to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Johnson questioned what they are zoned currently. Schroeder noted that most are "R-1"or"R-2"and some may be"R-3". Schroeder noted that staff is concerned that the new development should match existing developments in style and size. Schmitt questioned if it was as simple as adding "R-P"to the existing zoning. Schroeder noted that the "R-3" areas possibly should also be rezoned to "R-1,R-P". Johnson noted that he was ok with it. 2. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder questioned if there was a better time to meet to revise the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder questioned if the 2°a Tuesday of the month would be a better time. It was decided that was a better time. Schroeder questioned if 4-6 was a good time to hold the meeting. It was decided that it was. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 5:17p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 9 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING- 4:00 P.M DECEMBER 8,2010 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming,and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:04p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on December 8,2010 in the Mollenhoff Room. Members present were: Grimm,Loveless,Young, Schmitt,and Whitehead. Members absent were: Cox,Leonhart,Johnson, and Powers Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder,Chris Western, Shane Graham,Tim Andera-Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda • It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the Commission left off at the end of the"Accessory Structures" Section and would begin on the"Corner Lots"Section. Schroeder noted that there is some minor wording changes in the provision. H. Front Yard Schroeder noted that staff has thoroughly reviewed the provision,noting that there are multiple scenarios that can come under review under this provision. Schmitt questioned if the front yard is determined by where the front door is addressed. Schroeder noted that this provision applies more to the average front yard setbacks. Schroeder noted it has been suggested that the average setback needs to be within 10' of the existing average. J Platted-Build-ing-Lines Schroeder noted that this provision was struck in 2002,with the reasoning that it appeared setbacks were being covered by private restrictions. K. Pending Application for Building Permits. Schmitt questioned if somebody pulled a permit and did not start,would it be canceled. Schroeder noted that this applies to situations where a person gets a permit and does not start work within 180 days,the Ordinance changes, then their grandfather clause would go away. N. Conditional Zoning Schroeder noted that wording has been further expanded upon to better clarify what is a minor or major amendment process.Aric reciewed criteria for determining if a request is major is minor. O. Street Frontage Required Planning and Zoning Commission December 8,2010 Special Meeting Schroeder reviewed provision and noted there are no changes proposed. Schroeder opened up discussion if wording should be included to better address private streets. Schroeder noted something needs to be decided on which developments would appear appropriate for private streets and which would no. Schmitt noted that many complaints are received from residents on private streets that get through traffic as well as noting some private streets cannot be accepted as public as they are not built to City specifications. R.Proposed Use Not Covered by Title Schroeder gave an overview of this new section. S.Landscape Regulations Schroeder noted that these regulations are currently listed at the end of the"R-3"provision and that they are being moved to a provision of the General Regulations section. Schroeder noted that there are minor changes to the provision. Schroeder noted that Alternative Compliance is being changed from 2 acres to 1 acre. Schroeder gave the example of the Hy-Vee store on Ansbrough and noted that 2,500 points are needed. Schroeder notes that"sites larger then 2 acres or those with difficult site conditions may approve a reduced landscaping plan"without a variance. "A-1"Agricultural District Schroeder went over the"A-1"Agricultural District and the accessory structure requirements. Schroeder noted that farm animals put in the"A-1"would have to go through a Special Permit process. Schmitt questioned that some area have animals and if they want to add more would they be grandfathered in and would they need to go through a review to be considered a farm. Schmitt noted complaints that he had received from residents who live in a residential district right next to an Agricultural District. Schroeder noted that truck gardening is a permitted use in this district. Schroeder noted that the planning department has had requests to build an accessory structure on the lot where truck gardening takes place noting that the structure would be accessory to that use. Schroeder noted that the wording in the revised ordinance has been changed to make it clear that would not be permitted. Grimm gave an example of a 40 acre parcel where the owner splits off 5 acres. Grimm questioned could a house be on the 35 acres and build a new house on the 5 acres. Schroeder noted that it is opposite. The existing home could be split on the 5 acres(min 3 acres)and the remaining 35 acres is for farm purposes and a house could be built on the45 acres--- "R-R"Rural Residence Schroeder noted that this district was created due to a push for housing on Ranchero Road on the periphery of the City. Schroeder noted that the extension of utilities to land zoned as such may not occur. Schroeder noted that no land in the City is zoned as such. Schmitt questioned the need for the zoning district. Schroeder noted it could be reviewed if the district is needed. "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District Schroeder reviewed the permitted uses and noted some minor changes to the provision. Schmitt questioned if types of animals are defined. Schroeder noted that Farm,Household, and Livestock Animals are defined in the defmition section. Schroeder also noted that daycare regulations are moving to the General Regulations section. "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District Schroeder noted that some wording is being removed that repeats provisions that are listed in the"R-1"that are permitted in"R-2",noting the Ordinance builds on itself. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 8,2010 Special Meeting "R-3"Multiple Residence District Schroeder noted there were no major changes to this provision. Schroeder noted multiple changes in the bulk regulations table and a change in height regulations to 3 stories or 36'. "R-4"Multiple Residence District Schroeder noted some minor changes,noting changes to#6. Schroeder noted there are changes to bulk regulations table,noting that they are the same as the"R-3"changes. Schmitt noted to strike the word"Senior"from#9 and just say Piano/Organ Training Center. Grimm noted that"R-3"allows for 3 stories or 45'while the"R-4"allows for 4 stories of 48'.Grimm noted that a story should be a standard height and questioned why the"R-4"is capped at 4 stories. Whitehead questioned if 35' is too high for the"R-1"and possibly reduce the maximum height to 30'. "R-P"Planned Residence District Schroeder noted the"R-P"section is to be moved right after the"R-4" Section. "S-1" Shopping District Schroeder noted that wording had been added to better differentiate between minor and major amendment processes. III. Adjournment The meeting ended at the end of section"S-1" Shopping District. The next Special Meeting was scheduled for 1 week after the Regular Planning and Zoning meeting. It was moved by Young,seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Grimm declared the meeting adjourned at 5:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M JANUARY 4,2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on January 4, 2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm, Johnson,Leonhart, Loveless, Schmitt, and Young Members absent were: Cox, Powers, and Whitehead Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department; Eric Thorson,Engineering Department; Paul Huting—Leisure Services; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt and City Councilperson David Jones. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Young to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 2, 2010. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loveless to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report:November 2010. Anderson gave the financial report,noting that the budget for this time of the year is on track and normal for this point in the fiscal year noting that about 40%of the budget had been used. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Young to approve the financial report for October 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Elections 1. Election of Chairperson and Vice-chairperson for the term ending December 31, 2011 It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Johnson to elect Reggie Schmitt as Chairperson of the Planning Programming and Zoning Commission.Motion carried unanimously. Grimm noted that his term was up in March and he would not be able to be the Vice-chairperson. It was moved by Young,seconded by Johnson to elect Jesse Loveless as Vice-chairperson of the Planning Programming and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Permits 1. Request by Trailblazers Off Road Club for a Special Permit to construct a 40' x 60' (2,400 SF) storage building in the Riverview Recreational Area, located adjacent to Blocks 67 and 86 of Planning and Zoning Commission January 4,2011 Riverview Addition.. Poll ga\re the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to construct a 2,400 SF maintenance building in the Riverview Recreational Area that will be located within the floodway of the Cedar River. Poll noted that the request would appear to have a positive impact upon the park area, as the new storage building would allow storage of equipment used to maintain existing off-road trails. Poll noted that the site is zoned A-1 Agricultural District and sits near existing off-road trails. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have any negative impact on traffic conditions, as it is well off the road and located close to the river and a gravel parking area is located to the northwest of the proposed location. Poll noted that the proposed building would not appear to have an adverse impact on drainage. The building in question would be required to submit a drainage plan to the Engineering Department. Poll noted that the proposed building would be located within the floodway of the Cedar River, however, an elevation certificate has been submitted showing that the elevation of the land for the site in question is 6' higher then the 100-year flood elevation, and the proposed building would be constructed 7.5' higher then the 100-year flood elevation. Poll noted that the applicants could submit the elevation certificate to FEMA, and the structure would be removed from the floodplain by Letter of Map Amendment,but the timeline for LOMA approval can be several months so the applicant decided to proceed with the special permit request at this time. Poll noted that the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance requires that a special permit be approved for the new storage building, as it would be erected on public property and used as an accessory structure to a public use. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that a special permit be approved for any structure located within the floodway. Poll noted that the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan for this area,which is designated as Parks and Open Spaces. Paul Huting, Director of Leisure Services,noted that Leisure Services Commission would be in favor of the request. Huting noted that the funding for the building is coming from a State grant. Huting noted this would enhance the already good operations of the Trailblazers. Huting noted that when the Trailblazer's lease expires,the ownership of the building would switch to the City. Johnson asked if there were any concerns about safety and vandalism. Huting and noted that they were working with the fire department in order to make sure that the building was accessible to fire trucks. Wayne Schwartz, Trailblazers,noted that it was within the fenced trail area, which would help curb vandalism, and if it were moved to a different portion of the park there would not be sufficient elevation for the structure. Johnson asked for an explanation of the fenced area. Schwatz noted that the riding area was fenced in which would provide some security and there would be another fence around the structure of-barb—wire-on top: — — It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Young to approve a Special Permit to construct a 40'x 60' (2,400 SI)storage building in the Riverview Recreational Area. Motion carried unanimously. C. Vacates 1. Request by Westfield Lofts Condominium Accociation to vacate approximately 0.290 acres of former Westfield Avenue right-of-way near the intersection of West Commercial Street and West Jefferson Street, directly to the west of 25 West Commercial Street. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to vacate the right-of-way in question for the purpose of incorporating the land in question with the property they own at 25 West Commercial Street. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or traffic conditions in the area. Andera noted that approximately the southeasterly half of the piece of ground in question abutting 25 West Commercial Street is zoned"C-2" Commercial District, and it has been zoned as such since August 2000, when it was rezoned from"M-2"Heavy Industrial District and the other half of the right-of-way closest to the intersection of West Commercial/West -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission January 4,2011 Jefferson Streets and River Road is zoned"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District, and was rezoned as such in November 2006 from"M-2"Heavy Industrial District. Andera noted that there is a 12"water mains located in the center of the right-of-way in question and a 30" sanitary sewer line is located near the west property line that abuts Tract"G"of Tech Works Addition. Andera added that if the right-of-way is vacated,the Engineering Department is recommending that an easement be retained over,under and upon the entire area. Andera noted that the applicant owns the condominiums directly next to the right-of-way in question at 25 West Commercial Street. Andera noted that vacation of the right-of-way would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as it would appear that the area would not be needed for any future public right-of-way purposes. Andera noted that Westfield Avenue previously traveled over the right-of-way in question before West Jefferson Street, West Commercial Street and River Road were reconfigured as a part of the Cedar Valley Tech Works project. Currently, Westfield Avenue ends at West Jefferson Street, whereas previously, Westfield Avenue used to wrap around the north side of 25 West Commercial Street and connect into former River Road near the Manatt's Concrete Plant. Andera noted that the submitted vacate plat shows a 12"water main near the center of the ground in question, running from West Jefferson Street to West Commercial Street. Andera noted that the plat shows 20' wide water/utility easements being retained over these water lines. Andera noted that there is also a 30" sanitary sewer that runs near the west line of the right-of-way,near Tract"G" of Tech Works Addition. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has reviewed the vacate plat and has noted that they would prefer to have an easement retained over the entire piece of right-of-way after it was vacated rather than having multiple easements upon the lot. Andera noted that staff has contacted the applicant's surveyor to make them aware of the situation, and the surveyor has indicated that he would make contact with the condo association's chairperson in regards to the full easement request by the City. Andera noted ry that before the request can go to City Council the owner must submit an intent to vacate form signed by the adjacent property owners, noting they do not wish to purchase a portion of the vacate area. Andera noted that the applicants intend to use the piece of ground after it is vacated for parking purposes, as there is a very limited amount of space for parking on the site. Andera noted that the remaining right-of-way between West Jefferson and the parcel in question should also be vacated as it is standard City policy to vacate entire portions of right-of-way to avoid small sections of right-of-way that remain and the right-of- way has a consistent width. The excess right-of-way is not needed except to access to the adjoining properties including the applicant and Cedar Valley Techworks. Andera noted that staff recommends that thex-equest ject-to-an_easement being retained over,uu der-andupon-the-entire area to be vacated. Schroeder noted that it was staffs recommendation to vacate the entire right-of-way. Kirk Eschliman, Kess and Assoc.,noted he was available if there were any questions. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Schmitt to approve the vacate of approximately 0.290 acres of former Westfield Avenue right-of-way near the intersection of West Commercial Street and West Jefferson Street, directly to the west of 25 West Commercial Street subject to and easement being retained over, under, and upon the entire vacate area, that a completed intent to vacate form is submitted by the applicant and the entire Westfield Avenue between West Jefferson Street and West Commercial Street Motion carried unanimously. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission January 4,2011 VI. Adjournment Grimm noted that the next special meeting would be on January 11, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Johnson,seconded by Young to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner -4- MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-4:00 P.M JANUARY 11,2011 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming,and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on January 11,2010 in the 1s`floor conference room of City Hall. Members present were: Cox, Grimm,Loveless,Powers, Schmitt,Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Leonhart and Johnson, Others present:Aric Schroeder,and Adam Poll-Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the Commission left off at the end of the"S-1"Shopping Center Commercial District Section and would begin at"C-1"Neighborhood Commercial District. Part XII. "C-1"Neighborhood Commercial District Schroeder noted that some of the wording had been changed in the regulations section to address the issue of outside storage. Schroeder noted that Radio and Television studios were added to the principal permitted use section as well as professional cleaning services. Schroeder noted that 5.Business or professional offices allowed similar uses,but if administrative review found the use not to be similar it would be regulated under section 2A-7(R). Schroeder noted that Site Plan Required had been moved to the General Regulations section. Grimm-noted-that the-maxheight-allowed-should be changed to 3 stories or-36-feet— Part XIII. "C-2"Commercial District Schroeder noted that Kennel was no longer included as a principal use with an animal hospital or veterinary clinic but was moved to#16 in the principal permitted use section. Schroeder noted that#5 Auto Sales Lots now required a principal building. Schroeder added that vehicles not in running condition on in active restoration shall be located in an enclosed building. Schmitt questioned if the verbage could be added to specify the vehicles had to be DOT certified operational. Schroeder noted that#12 was added to break out a contractor business involving outdoor equipment yards from contractor businesses not involving outdoor equipment yards. Schroeder noted that#27 was added that allowed other similar uses subject to administrative review. Schroeder noted that the Site Plan Required section was moved to the General Regulations section. Part XIII(A)."C-P"Planned Commercial District Planning and Zoning Commission January 11,2011 Special Meeting Schroeder noted that in section(c)of the procedure section#1 establishes a 2-step process for planned districts. Schroeder noted that there are no height requirements as all plans are subject to staff approval. Part XIII(B). "B-P"Business Park District Schroeder noted that the changes in this section are similar to the changes found in the"C-P"section. Whitehead questioned why monument signs were no longer being considered a major change. Schroeder noted that generally monument signs are considered more acceptable,and because of that they were removed as a major change so they can be approved as a minor change so businesses would not have to go through the full site plan amendment process. Part XIV. "C-3"Central Business District Schroeder noted that wording was added to the first paragraph to address outside storage. Schroeder noted that wording was added for#2 Automobile body repair shops to know that vehicles not in running condition have to be located in an enclosed building. Schroeder noted that he would look at adding wording noting that vehicles must be DOT operational and have a current license. Grimm noted that the height requirement in the"C-3"table should read 8 stories or 96'tall. Part XV"M-1"Light Industrial District Schroeder noted that wording was added regarding outside storage. Schroeder noted that in 2003,wording was changed to allow residential homes in the"M-1"district to be rebuilt if destroyed,but we are not suggesting that wording he added that the home must be rebuilt within 2 years of the removal of the original structure. Schroeder noted that#28 body/repair shop was added to the list of principal permitted uses. Schmitt noted that wording should be added requiring vehicles to be in DOT running condition. Schroeder noted that#28-31 were now permitted with out a special permit and that#32 was changed to require a minimum fenced yard of 5 acres. Schroeder noted that#33 added sales auctions as a principal permitted use. Part XVI"M-2"Heavy Industrial District Schroeder-noted-that wording-was-adds extent-of the-district;and-noted-that-the-phrase building or premises may be used for any purpose whatsoever except those listed..."was retained. Part XVII"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District Schroeder noted that part C#2 added the word"generally"and noted that setbacks would be determined by plan review. Schroeder noted that C#4 cut the word"outdoor"as outdoor signs were covered in the sign portion of the ordinance. Schroeder noted that D#6 established a procedure for site plan amendments and makes it similar to the other planned districts. Part XVIII Floodway and Flood Plain Districts Schroeder noted that most wording changes were to meet DNR minimum requirements. Schroeder noted that the word mobile home would no longer be used and they would now be referred to as factory built homes per DNR standards. Young questioned if the minimum building elevation was still 1' above the 100-year floodplain. Schroeder indicated that it was and questioned if that was something the Commission felt needed to be changed. The Commission discussed the limited areas in Waterloo that are within a 100-year floodplain.Young noted that he felt -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission January 11,2011 Special Meeting it did not need to be changed. Schroeder noted that section k exempted detached garages allowing them to be built in the 100-year floodplain if a professional engineer certified that the listed requirements were met. Loveless left the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Part XIX"R-P"Planned Residence District Schroeder noted that this section had been moved to the residential area of the zoning ordinance. Part XX"H-C"Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District Whitehead questioned if this section should be moved ahead of Part XVIII Floodway and Flood Plain Districts. Schroeder noted that it would make sense but noted that it could cause a tracking problem as the numbering of the sections would change from the former ordinance to the new one. Schroeder noted that 2A numbering system actually dated back to when the Zoning Ordinance had been created and Waterloo had used Des Moines ordinance for a framework and kept their numbering system,noting that the 2A was the section of the Des Moines City Code that the Zoning Ordinance was found it. Schmitt noted that the 2A should be dropped.Poll noted that the Planning and Zoning commission may want to reference the Waterloo City Code number. Schroeder questioned if the overlay districts should be expanded,noting that Eric Johnson was a proponent for an overlay district along Highway 63. Schroeder noted that University Avenue was another possible location for an overlay district. Schmitt noted that the Commission should keep in mind the location of other economic development districts when the new overlay districts are created.The Commission discussed the idea of expanding overlay districts along all state highways,and there was general support to do so. Schroeder noted that approximately two years ago when the Commission had completed an initial review of the proposed Ordinance amendments and made a recommendation of approval on the amendments,the Ordinance was then reviewed by the City Council at a work secession and concern was raised on expanding the overlay districts,and the Council at that time decided to move it along without expanding the overlay districts. Schmitt noted that if additional overlay districts are created it may be prudent to merge the different overlay districts into one district. Schroder noted that a separate special meeting should be dedicated to considering possibilities for the overlay districts. It was decided to skip over the Overlay Districts and to resume the review at the next special meeting of the Parking Section. III. Adjournment The meeting left off on page 91 in the Overlay Districts section. Schroeder noted that the next starting point would be Part XXII Vehicular Use/Parking on February 8s`. It was moved by Young,seconded by Grimm to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M FEBRUARY 1,2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on February 1, 2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox, Grimm, Leonhart, Loveless, Powers, Schmitt, Whitehead, and Young Members absent were: Johnson Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department;Eric Thorson, Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt and City Councilperson David Jones and 3 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on January 4,2011 and Special Meeting on January 11, 2011. It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: December 2010. Anderson gave the financial report,noting that the budget for this time of the year is on track and normal for this point in the fiscal year noting that about 50%of the budget had been used. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Grimm to approve the financial report for December 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings-Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Laverne Droste to rezone approximately 0.85 acres at 245 Fletcher Avenue from"R-2, C- Z" Conditional Zoning District and"C-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District to "C-1, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of changing previously approved zoning conditions on the property. It was moved by Young and seconded by Cox to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:02 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to rezone the property at 245 Fletcher Avenue to allow for the redevelopment of the site. Andera noted that currently,the site is zoned as"R- 2,C-Z" and"C-2,C-Z",which allowed for the construction of a new commercial facility to be used as an electronics store with necessary storage. Andera noted that due to the property being conditionally zoned to allow for the electronics store use,the ability to establish a new commercial venture upon the site is Planning and Zoning Commission February 1,2011 limited to that use. Andera added that the storage building to the southeast of the main building at 245 Fletcher Avenue is also conditionally zoned to allow the use of that site to be for storage and electronics installation related to the business at 245 Fletcher Avenue. Andera noted that the property would need to be rezoned, and the conditions amended to allow for other lighter commercial uses the ability to locate at this location. Andera noted that it would appear that the rezone would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as uses within the "C-1"Commercial District are geared towards neighborhood developments, thus being more compatible to nearby residential development. Andera noted that the Conditional Zoning will prohibit commercial uses that would potentially have a negative impact on the area. Andera noted that it would appear that the rezone would not have a negative impact on traffic and pedestrian conditions in the area, as a new light commercial use would appear similar to the existing electronics store that is there. Andera noted that conditions of the approval may need to be considered to limit or restrict access to the site via the alley between Black Hawk Road and Joder Avenue. Andera noted that residents that called noted that they have alley access to their garages behind their properties, and at times, delivery trucks going to Red's CB used the alley, sometimes creating ruts in the alley, as well as noting that the alley is very narrow, and a tight 90 degree turn in the alley makes it difficult for some trucks to maneuver through. Andera noted that staff is looking at the possibility of restricting truck access to the site from either the entrance off of Joder Drive, or from the alley that accesses the cul-de- sac from the end of Black Hawk Road to alleviate any wear and tear upon the alley and ease concerns of the surrounding neighbors. Andera noted that alternatively, staff would suggest to vacate the portion of alley that abuts the rear portion of their property and close off the end of the alley with a fence so that delivery trucks will be required to access the site from either Joder Avenue or Black Hawk Road. Andera noted that the buildings located at 245 Fletcher Avenue were rezoned from"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-2,C-Z"Conditional Zoning District on October 7, 1987. Conditions were placed on that rezone request that limited development of that site as an electronics store with service and installation areas, a hard surfaced parking area for a minimum of 10 vehicles, and that the east property line be screened from adjoining properties with shrubs and/or fence. Andera added that in 1999, the applicant constructed a new storage building for the business to the southeast of the main building at 245 Fletcher Avenue at the end Black Hawk Road near its cul-de-sac. That property was rezoned from "R-2"to "C-2,C-Z" Conditional Zoning District. Andera noted that conditions placed upon that rezone_-were.the-development-be constructedin accordan e nth arking_and-landscaping - ordinance regulations, and that any development upon that site is effectively screened from the abutting residential properties to the east. Andera noted that it would appear that appropriate screening of both developments may not have been completed. Andera noted that as the land is currently zoned, it is limited to the use of the property as an electronics business with related incidental uses. Andera noted that rezoning of the property to "C-1,C-Z"would amend the previous conditions set in place,by allowing for additional light commercial uses upon the site. Andera noted that staff has received numerous calls from surrounding residents questioning why the applicant is rezoning the land, and what types of uses can locate within the building noting that many nearby residents do not want to see a bar or liquor store moving into the site, and some residents noted that they would not like to see an automobile dealership moving into the site, noting they can sometimes be unsightly. Andera noted that it would appear that access to the site is very limited, as no direct access is obtained from University Avenue, and only motorist traveling north on Fletcher Avenue can turn right onto Joder Avenue to get to the property adding that a left had turn from Fletcher Avenue onto Joder Avenue is restricted, due to a median in the middle of Fletcher Avenue. Andera noted that due to the limited access -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 1,2011 to the site, it would appear that a high intensity commercial use at this location would not be the best overall use of the property, and a lighter commercial use that does not depend on a good access for its operations would appear to work better. Andera noted that uses permitted in the "C-1"Commercial District be allowed at the site, including a car wash or gas station, subject to a car wash not having an automatic dryer, and all lights for any use to be diverted from surrounding residential properties. Staff also suggests that uses permitted in the"C-2" also be allowed,with the exception that adult uses as defined by the Zoning Ordinance,the sale of beer or alcoholic beverages upon the premises, outside storage and automobile sales should not be allowed at this location. Andera noted that any new commercial use upon the property needs to insure that it is properly and effectively screened by either landscaping or solid fencing from the residential properties to the east, and provides adequate parking. Andera noted that staff would recommend the rezone request subject to the conditions that uses permitted in the "C-1" Commercial District are allowed upon the site, and that uses permitted in the"C-2" Commercial District are allowed upon the site,except no adult uses are permitted, alcoholic beverage sales are not allowed, and the sale or repair of automobiles,trailers and farm implement equipment upon the site is not allowed. In addition,Andera noted that if a car wash or gas station locates upon the site, there are no automatic dryers, and all lighting for any use shall be diverted away from the surrounding residential uses and that proper screening of either landscaping plantings that make an effective visual bather, or a solid fence of at least 6' in height be installed along the abutting residential properties to the east. Gary Peverill, 216 Black Hawk Road, noted his concern about the type of business that would be able to locate at the site in question. Peverill noted that he has had his fence damaged by recreational vehicles that have used the alley to access the current business. Peverill noted his concern about potential damage to the alley. Peverill noted that he would not be in favor of a gas station at this location. Pam Peverill, 216 Black Hawk Road, noted that he has lived at her home for almost 28 years and that the area is a safe and quiet neighborhood. Peverill noted that she would like the neighborhood to stay that way. Schmitt questioned if the staff conditions provided would be satisfactory. Pam Peverill noted that her and her husband would not be in favor of any adult uses,alcohol uses, or any business that may cause ground pollution. Steve Droste, Power of Attorney for the applicant,noted that his father owns the property and that the current zoning limitations only allow for a CB and stero shop. Droste noted that the rezone was requested in order to make the property more attractive for sale and noted that he had no objection with limiting the type of businesses that locate at the property. Young questioned if Droste had read through all of the conditions. Droste noted that he had heard the staff report that listed the conditions, and it seemed inline with what he was requesting. Leonhart questioned if a gas station does decide to open on this property if they could sell beer. Schroeder noted that if the rezone is passed with current staff conditions no alcohol sales would be permitted. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Whitehead to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:18 pm It was moved by Young,seconded by Cox to approve the request to rezone approximately 0.85 acres at - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 1,2011 245 Fletcher Avenue from "R-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District and"C-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District to "C-1, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District with the conditions that that uses permitted in the "C-1"Commercial District are allowed upon the site, and that uses permitted in the "C-2" Commercial District are allowed upon the site, except no adult uses are permitted, alcoholic beverage sales are not allowed, and the sale or repair of automobiles, trailers and farm implement equipment upon the site is not allowed and if a car wash or gas station locates upon the site, no automatic dryers shall be used and any lighting should be directed away from nearby residences. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment Grimm noted that the next special meeting would be on February 8, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Grimm, seconded by Whitehead to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner -4 - CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -4:00 P.M FEBRUARY 8,2011 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming,and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on February 8th,2011 in the Mollenhoff Room. Members present were: Cox,Grimm,Loveless,Powers,and Schmitt. Members absent were: Leonhart,Johnson,Young and Whitehead Others present: Aric Schroeder,and Adam Poll-Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Loveless to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Part XXII,Vehicular and Loading Areas,Public Garages,Parking Lots and Filling Stations. Schroeder noted that the Commission would begin by discussing the parking section. Schroeder noted that regulations in other communities varied greatly. A. Scope of Regulations Schroeder noted that changes in the section A. Scope of Regulations consisted of adding wording to include"C-P" Commercial Planned Districts and"B-P"Business Park Districts to the wording as they are not specifically listed in the current version. B. General Regulations. Schroeder noted that#3 in General Requirements added wording to allow for parking in the front yard as long as it met setback regulations,noting there have been some issues with apartment complexes with buildings set back farther-in the lot-and-avaiiab e-space for a parking lot--in-the front of the building. Schroeder noted that#6 added wording to allow a parking area closer then 5 feet to a paved alley if approved by the City Engineer. Schroeder noted that#15 now excluded mechanical storage,warehouse area and other similar uses from being used as part of the parking calculation. C. Design and Maintenance Schroder noted that#2 changed the required thickness of Hot Mix Asphalt required for a parking area from 2"to 4". Schroeder noted that wording was also changed to allow no additional accesses off a dead end street unless a proper cau-de-sac or turn around is present. Schroeder noted that#4 added agricultural property,temporary accesses and wireless communication towers to the list of areas exempt from the hard surface parking requirement. D.Parking Space(s)Required Schroeder noted the following changes: 1.Auctions Establishments-breaks out indoor and outdoor auctions Planning and Zoning Commission February 8,2011 Special Meeting • 2. Veterinary Clinics and Kennels-can exclude animal exercise areas. 4. Banks/Professional Offices-offices under 50,000 SF require one space per 300 SF instead of 200 SF. 7. Carwash-added stacking regulations. 8. Churches/Religious Facility-Changed wording to regulate parking based on occupancy and not seating. 9. Community Center/Museum-Requires one space per 200 SF or 1 per 5 persons of maximum occupancy. 10. Contractor Business-Added category. 11. Correctional Facility-Added category. 12. Dance Halls-Requires one space per 4 persons instead of 1 space per 3 persons. 13.Day Care Center-Added category. 14.Medical Doctors Office-Requires 1 space per 200 SF instead of 1 per 150 SF. 15.e.Boarding House-Added category. 20. Hotels and Motels-Requires restaurants be calculated separately. Schmitt noted that Bed and Breakfasts should be added to this category. Grimm questioned what effect that would have on existing Bed and Breakfasts. Schroeder noted that it would not impact them as the current Zoning Ordinance noted that if there is a type business without specific parking regulations,the closest types business is used. Schroeder noted that in addition,any existing businesses would be grandfathered in if the ordinance is changed. Schroeder noted that hard surfacing is currently required for all vehicular use areas,but not for equipment storage areas and questioned if the Commission wanted to eliminate gravel storage areas. Schroeder noted that the Commission could allow the use of seal coat or use recycled asphalt as hard surfacing for those storage lots but noted that engineering in generally not in favor of those surfaces as they can quickly deteriorate. Cox noted that the City uses a number of gravel storage lots and this requirement would cost the City a significant amount of money as well as the citizens.Powers noted that Cattle Congress had many gravel lots. Schroeder noted that it seems logical to allow Cattle Congress gravel lots as they only use some of their gravel lots a few times a year. Schroeder questioned if Bed and Breakfasts should be listed by boarding houses. Grimm noted that they should be listed under Hotel/Motels as they are more similar. 24. Restaurants-Schroeder noted that Whitehead had concerns about restaurant parking requirements and had noted that there should be a separate category for fast-casual dining and he would get Whiteheads thoughts at the next meeting. Schroeder noted that changes for drive-up restaurants include requiring 1 space per 2.5 seats for restaurants with a drive up window instead of 1 space per 1.75 seats and requiring 1 space per 2 seats for a restaurant without a drive up window instead of 1 space per 1.5 seats. 25 Retail stores- Schroeder noted that world now be broken.-into_3-rategories-based-0n-square-foot.5_000 SF - would require 1 space per 250 SF, 5000-50,000 SF stores would require 1 space per every 200 SF,and 50,000 SF stores would require 1 space per every 300 SF. Grimm noted that the requirements seem to be out of order and that 1-5000 SF should require 1 space per 200 SF, 5000-50,000 SF should require 1 space per 250 SF,and 50,000 SF and larger stores should require 1 space per 300 SF. Schroeder agreed and noted he would make the appropriate change. 32. Any Commercial Use not Otherwise Specified- Schroeder noted this category was added as a catch all and requires 1 space per 300 SF of floor area. Schroeder also noted that graphics included in the section were not actually part of the Zoning Ordinance and were labeled as such. Part XXIII Outdoor Advertising Signs and Billboards Schroeder noted that this section was rewritten in 2004 so there were not to many changes. Schroeder noted that exemptions that had been discussed being added were signage at sports complexes and signs for government purposes. Schroeder noted that the dog park was an example as it was zoned"A-1"Agricultural as are many other parks,which does not allow the City to place a sign without a variance. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 8,2011 Special Meeting Schmitt noted that the wording in Section C,Regulation of All Signs,#1,c. should read"Signs erected by or pursuant too..."not"Signs erected by,or on behalf of..." Schroeder noted he would make that change. Schroeder noted that d,e,and fin the same section added language to deal with common signs such as"For Sale", warning signs, and political signage. Powers questioned if the City could require any kind of licensing or registration for political signs. Powers noted that requiring a campaign to register with the Clerk's office with contact information would allow for much quicker response to safety issues sometime present with political signage. Powers noted that the City of Cedar Falls had a similar system. Schroeder noted he would look into that,but added that may end up going into the Waterloo Code of Ordinances,and not the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted he would also check with the City Attorney for any potential legal issues. III. Adjournment Loveless noted that he had to leave and a quorum would no longer be present. Schroeder noted that after the meeting adjourned, general discussion could still take place,but no votes could occur. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Grimm to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously,and the meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. General Discussion: C.Regulation of Signs Schroeder noted that section g.Menu Sign was proposed to be added which would limit the size of Menu signage to 60 SF but would not would not count against other signage. Schroeder noted that regulations to allow for h.Bulletin Board, i. Subdivision and Development, and j.exterior banner sign regulations would also be added. Schmitt noted that the words"are permitted"should be listed after Monument signs in section"i. Subdivision and development signs"as it would make the wording more clear. Schroeder noted that Johnson had at one point proposed not allowing temporary signage. Powers noted that may be going a little too far. 5. "A-1"Agricultural District Schroeder noted that Bulletin boards and signs would be limited to 64 SF. 7. Residential Districts Poll noted that"R-3"and"R-4"districts should limit free standing signage to 80 SF as that is the limit place in the "C-1"Commercial District. 9. "C-2"Commercial District Schroeder noted that a minimum of 80 SF of signage would be permitted,noting that there are some very narrow lots that this would help. Schroeder noted that this meeting left off on page 139,Part XXIV, Special Provisions,Exceptions and Modifications. General Discussion ended at 5:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6/1-4-1-0(Le- Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - IF CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMIVIING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M MARCH 1, 2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on March 1,2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox, Grimm, Leonhart, Loveless, Powers, Schmitt, Whitehead, and Johnson Members absent were: Young Others present: Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham,Tim Andera and Adam Poll -Planning Department; Eric Thorson, Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt and David Jones, and approximately 65 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on February 1, 2011 and Special Meeting on February 8, 2011. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: January 2011. Schroeder gave the financial report noting revenue was ahead due to property sales and other categories were normal for this time of year. Grimm noted that photocopies were at 555%and questioned if something was out of the norm. Schroeder noted that he would have to check and suggested that if a project was sent to the print shop it may be taken out of this budget. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Grimm to approve the financial report for January 2011. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Special Permits 1. Request by Fidelity Towers for a Special Permit to construct a 120' monopole cellular tower at Morris Park, located at the northeast corner of East Ridgeway Avenue and West 11th Street in an"R- 2" One and Two Family Residence District. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant requests that the City approve the request to allow for the construction of a new 120' monopole cell tower and equipment on city owned property. Western noted that properties to the, south and east and west are zoned Residential, and have residential uses on them. Western noted that property owned by the Waterloo Schools to the north is also zoned residential but is being used for Kittrell School. Western noted that the request would not appear to have a negative Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 impact on the neighborhood,as the tower would be located over 240' from the nearest house, which equals double the height of the tower. Western noted that a 6' tall chain link fence would surround the leased area where the base of the tower and equipment would be located. Also, there will be shrubs planted by the applicant around the equipment building to help screen equipment area. Western noted that vehicular use areas would be hard surfaced with asphalt. Western noted the proposed location was not within the floodplain and that existing utilities to serve the site. Western noted that the City of Waterloo►Zoning Ordinance requires that any proposed freestanding tower structure within 500 feet of a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot shall go through the Planning, Programming & Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment, similar to a special permit. Western noted that the tower in question would be located adjacent to a single-family dwelling lot, and therefore the approval is required. Western noted that the proposed tower is a 120' Monopole structure with internal antenna's and room for co-locators. The applicant would be leasing a 2,500 SF area for the tower and equipment,which will be enclosed by a 6' tall chain link fence. Western noted that the applicant has noted that they are proposing the tower in order to provide better coverage in that area, and have provided coverage maps showing the coverage difference in the area with and without the proposed tower. Western noted that the Zoning Ordinance prefers that a new structure be co-located onto an existing tower or placed on a roof of an existing tall building, however the applicant has noted that no such locations were available. Western noted that although the tower would be located adjacent to a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot, it would appear that the tower would be located 240' from the nearest house to the South and West, and approximately 1,500' from the nearest house to the east. Western noted that even though the tower would be located over 200' from the nearest house, it is a predominately residential area and for that reason,the applicant has proposed that the tower be of a monopole design, which would lessen the visual impact on the surrounding area. Western went on to note that the required setback from all property lines for a new tower is 1/2 the tower height, 60' minimum. The setback from a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot is 500' except that it can be reduced to twice the tower height if the applicant can demonstrate that no other location in the immediate vicinity can meet the requirement. Western noted that it would appear that there are no other locations in the immediate vicinity that could meet the requirement; therefore the setback requirement would be twice the ei o e ower. a ower wi e , so a required setback would1e-240'twould appear that the tower would be over 240' from any one or 2 family dwelling lot, so a variance to the setback requirements will not be needed however; the Board of Adjustment must concur that the proposed tower does indeed meet all setback requirements. Western noted that the Engineering Department suggested that a flared style curb cut is used as well as a gate installed to keep vehicle traffic out of the park. Western noted that staff recommends the request subject to the condition that the tower is of a camouflage design to lessen the visual impact on the neighborhood. Johnson questioned if the emergency siren in the area could be collocated on the proposed cellular tower. Paul Hutting, Director of Leisure Services noted that the siren rotates so it would have to be mounted on the top of the tower and the proposed tower is too tall in order for the siren to be heard by the neighborhood. Trevor Wood, Fidelity Towers, noted that he was available for questions. Wood noted that the tower would be used to provide 4G coverage for the area for Clear Wireless although there was room for collocations. Powers questioned if there was a rental lease for the tower. Schroeder noted that there was and that would have to be approved by the City Council. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission • March 1,2011 It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Powers to approve the request for a Special Permit to construct a 120'monopole cellular tower at Morris Park, located at the northeast corner of East Ridgeway Avenue and West 1lm Street in an "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District with the conditions that that applicant use a flared style curb cut, installs a gate to keep vehicles out of the park and the tower is of a camouflage design to lessen the visual impact on the neighborhood.. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo for a Special Permit for the construction of a 101,904 SF addition to the existing 26,740 SF building, for a total of a 128,644 SF Public Works Facility building at the former Construction Machinery Site at 625 Glenwood Street in an"M-1" Light Industrial District Graham gave the staff report noting that the City is requesting approval of the special permit to allow for the development of the Waterloo Public Works Facility,which includes constructing a 101,904 SF addition to the existing 26,740 SF building. Graham noted that the impact on the surrounding neighborhood should be positive, as the site has been sitting vacant for quite some time, and this will give the City of Waterloo a presence in this area. Graham noted that surrounding properties to the south, east and west with railroad tracks to the north and residential north of that. Graham noted that there would appear to be no additional buffers needed or required. The Zoning Ordinance requires a buffer or screening from the adjoining properties zoned"R-2"Residential District,however there are existing trees along those property lines that appear to adequately screen the property. Graham noted that the area is not in the floodplain and that the area is served by an 8"private 8" sanitary sewer line located within vacated Beech St and Welby St and also a 24" storm sewer line located along Glenwood Street. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site for Industrial. The proposed use of the property for a public works facility by the City would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that the City of Waterloo has owned 6.84 acres of the property in question since 2003. The City then purchased the parcel with the existing building on it and another adjacent parcel in March of 2010, for a total parcel size of 11.08 acres. Graham noted that the City purchased the building site for the purpose of creating a new Public Works Facility at this location,which will house several City Departments in one location, as currently they are spread out in different locations. Those departments are Central Garage,which is currently located on Black Hawk Street, Traffic Operations,which is located on W 6th Street, and the Street Department,which is currently located on Black Hawk Street. Graham noted that the facility would also house most of the City of Waterloo's fleet vehicles, such as Engineering;-Cede-E- for-eement,-Poliee�-eta uld-nofhave-to-be-parked-itrothcr locations, such as under the Highway 218 bridge. Graham noted that by having vehicles stored indoors instead of outdoors,there will be a cost savings by having less wear and tear and repairs on vehicles that normally sit outdoors. Graham noted that the Site Plan shows an existing building size of 26,740 SF. The plan then shows a new 101,904 SF addition,which will extend to the west and to the south of the existing building. Graham noted that there will also be a 22,069 SF mezzanine within the addition, for a total square footage of the Public Works Facility being 150,713 SF. The site plan shows two entrances to the property: one off of Glenwood Street and one off of Linden Avenue, both of which are existing entrances to the property. The parking lot would then be located to the south of the building addition,near the Glenwood Street entrance. Graham noted that the proposed Public Works Facility would be a positive addition to the City and to the neighborhood in which it is to be located. The Facility would combine several departments into one location,which could bring cost savings to the City by having those operations in one centralized location.Also, the ability to store the City's vehicle fleet in one location not only could be a cost saver, - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 but it also frees up space in other locations for public parking(i.e. under Highway 218). Graham noted that staff recommended approval of the special permit request. Johnson questioned if any additional landscaping would be required. Graham noted that there were sufficient trees on the property to meet existing requirements and that there was a tree line along the south and east boundary of the property to act as a buffer for the property. B. Plats 1. Request by Hope Anderson for the preliminary and final plat of Anderson's Ninth Addition generally located south of Tower Park Drive, between Kimball Avenue and Mirage Ridge, for the development of a 6 lot commercial subdivision. Poll gave the staff report noting this request would create 6 lots for commercial development ranging in size from 0.45 acres to 1.75 acres. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as most of the surrounding land is used for commercial purposes. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions as traffic would access the lots from Mirage Ridge. Poll noted that the site is zoned"C-2"Commercial District and was not in the floodplain. Poll noted that an 8" sanitary sewer line and 6" storm sewer drain tiles run along Mirage Ridge. A 15" storm sewer line runs along Kimball Avenue. Various utility easements are shown on the final plat as well as a detention area on the south side of lot 4. Poll noted that Sanitary sewer would be extended from Mirage Ridge to serve the development. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as mixed commercial. Poll noted that Access easements are included for access to Lots 1, 2 and 3. Lot 1 is currently used as a residence and has its access off of Kimball, and would be allowed to keep that access until it is developed for commercial purposes, at which point, access will be granted from Mirage Ridge. Poll noted that Engineering did have some questions regarding the wording of the deed of dedication but added that they would work with the applicant to correct those wordings before it is forwarded to City Council. Poll noted that staff recommends the request to approve the preliminary and final plat of Anderson's Ninth Addition_ Johnson noted that he represented the applicants and would abstain from the vote. C. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for a Site Plan Amendment to the"M-2, P"Planned Industrial District for the construction of a 54'x 220' (11,880 SF)industrial building directly east of 2320 West Airline Highway. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the City is working to relocate an existing trucking company to the site in question to allow for further development of the Human Services Campus. Schroeder noted that the proposed use would be an excellent fit for this industrial area. Schroeder noted that the site plan -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 shows access off of Airline Highway, but that the applicant is considering gaining access to the site from Midport Blvd. Schroeder noted that the proposed structure appears to meet all setbacks required and noted that the building design has been approved by the airport board. Schroeder noted that building is designed of brick end walls for the office portion a metal clad exterior for the future expansion of the northern end, and principally doors on the east and west sides. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending the request as is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and is located in the primary growth area,the request meets the guidelines of the"M-2, P"Planned Industrial District, would be beneficial to the Midport Industrial Park as well as the airport area development. Schroeder noted that although this site has nothing to do with the proposed rezones on the agenda, it is in a planned district similar to what is being proposed for the rezone sites. Schroeder noted that any development in any planned zoning district would have to go through a similar site plan amendment process. Johnson noted that he represented the applicants and would abstain from the vote. bili#W#IONINVIMINIthfiregialWAIMONAWI 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 7.73 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District and"R-2, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Greenbrier School Site at 1554 Oakwood Drive at the northwest corner of Oakwood Drive and Cedar Bend Street. Andera noted that the next 10 rezone requests are all former properties of the Waterloo Community Schools. Andera noted that there are no current development plans submitted for the properties in question. Andera noted that staff was aware that most of these properties were within established neighborhoods and that the City initiated the rezone requests in order to protect the neighborhoods and ensure any development was compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Andera noted if these rezones are passed that any potential developer would have to go through the Site Plan Amendment process which included hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Andera gave the staff report noting that the proposed "R-1,R-P" Planed Residence District will help to redevelop the area for one and two family housing development. Andera noted that single-family homes would be ideal, with the potential of twin home development, if other multi-family dwellings were in the area. Andera noted that the design, layout, orientation, density, and style of homes will be highly important to ensure the development is beneficial to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes any development needs to uplift the surrounding neighborhood,not have any negative impact on it. Andera noted that rezoning the land as such and placing proper conditions on future development will prevent it from having a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that areas surrounding the proposed rezone sites consist mostly of single-family residential homes with existing utilities able to serve the sites in question. Andera noted that rezoning of the land would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo is taking proactive steps on several infill development sites within the community. Andera noted that utilizing infill development sites within developed portions of - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 the City where existing infrastructure is readily available is a Smart Growth Practice, and the installation and extension of utilities to serve any new development would be minimal, saving on future maintenance costs for the City. Andera noted that the proposed rezoning for all of these sites are as Planned Districts to ensure that compatible and suitable development occurs upon these infill sites near already existing and established neighborhoods. Rezoning the land to a Planned Residence district is meant to make certain that the City of Waterloo has a greater level of review for these sites to ensure the infill sites are properly redeveloped to have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and that the surrounding neighbors have a greater level of public input for the redevelopment of these sites. Andera noted that many of these residents have lived and invested in these areas for a long period of time, and it is in their interest that the transition from school sites to other residential sites is done in a way that is beneficial to their homes. Andera noted that all of the sites are primarily located within the developed portion of the City of Waterloo, the Primary Growth Area as designated by the City of Waterloo Comprehensive Plan. Andera noted that it is staffs goal that any redevelopment of these areas represent the best possible infill homes to each area and that staff would like to see new construction with compatible or better designs, compatible or bigger yards,more home amenities, and compatible or bigger houses. Andera noted that these sites need to uplift the neighborhoods, and make surrounding neighbors encouraged with their redevelopment, and secure that it is helping their property values and future investments in their own homes. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo Leisure Services Department has reviewed all of the sites to recommend they are eligible for redevelopment due to other park areas and open spaces being in close proximity. Andera noted that the "R-1, R-P" designation suggests a lower level of density, as the underlying "R-1" designation is the lowest density level in the City of Waterloo,with lots at least 9,000 SF in area,widths of at least 75', and greater setbacks for buildings. Andera noted that the"R-P"designation also gives the City of Waterloo greater levels of design review,provides for special provisions and care to be taken in site layout and design itself,to ensure compatibility to adjacent land uses, including screening, landscaping, building design, etc. It also provides for greater levels of public input, as any development would be required to be reviewed by the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission and subsequently the City Council after recommendation in lieu thereof. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and _possibly duplexes ifappropriate.,restrictin i lot_size-and lot-width to_-be-compatible-w the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Kenneth Showers, a concerned citizen, noted his concern that the taxpayers would be responsible for demolition cost of the associated buildings and questioned what method is in place to ensure that quality developments are constructed in these areas. Andera noted that the Site Plan Amendment process is required for any development in a planned district. Andera noted that any development would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission after a public hearing is held. Schroeder noted that the City of Waterloo only had bids to purchase properties that were currently vacant. Cox questioned if the city would be responsible for the demolition costs for any of the school buildings associated with these rezones. Schroeder noted the purchaser of the property would be responsible. Cox questioned what structure was in place to ensure that quality development would be built. Schroeder noted that any development in a planned district, such as the district proposed, would have to go through - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission . March 1,2011 a site plan amendment. Schroeder noted that as part of the site plan amendment process all plans submitted would have to be approved by the Planning Commission in a public hearing. Johnson noted that as the properties are currently zoned,they can be developed. Johnson noted that if the properties are not rezoned then the neighborhoods will have no say in what type of development is built, but if the property is rezoned to a planned district as proposed then the development would have to go through a site plan amendment process which would allow for public input from the neighborhood. Schmitt noted that the proposed zoning change is more restrictive then what is currently in place. Walter Gray, 405 Greenbrier,noted that he was opposed to any development for this property. Gray noted that the property in question is relatively small which would not allow for many houses and that the property is used by leisure services for youth football in the summer. Gray noted that young people need that spot for outdoor activities. Gray noted that there is a problem with youth today being overweight and that the youth need more outdoor area and not fewer. Gray noted that he would like the property to remain as it currently is. Tony Magee, 415 Greenbrier,noted that he lives next door to Walter Gray. Magee noted that he is opposed to development at this site. Magee noted that if additional homes are built in this area there is a greater chance that the crime rate will increase. Michelle Clark, 1568 Woodmayr, noted that she was not opposed to new homes going up on the site in question, but noted that she would like the basketball court to be kept. Clark noted Tibbets Park is located down the street, but noted there was not a good basketball area there or much else for kids to do. Clark noted that she would like to keep the basketball hoop and possibly see some playground equipment for the kids. Jamese Gray-Magee, 415 Greenbrier,noted that she was opposed to the rezone. Gray-Magee noted that a cell tower that was installed and was causing health problems and felt that the neighborhood should have more control of what goes on in the area. Gray-Magee noted that she felt safe being able to look out the window and see her children play. Gray-Magee noted that if the property in question were developed it would bring her more stress as she would not be able to see her children play. Gray-Magee noted that herParm-other-sites—hat-could-ie-de-veloped--insthis-one. Johnson noted his concern that there was confusion regarding the reasoning for the rezone request. Johnson noted that the City was taking a proactive step to create oversight to ensure quality development is constructed. Johnson noted that without the rezone request the properties in question could be developed as long as they met the minimum requirements for the zoning district so not rezoning the property does not affect the fact that the sites can be developed. Johnson noted that if the rezone is passed both the City as well as the residents of the neighborhoods in the area could help ensure that quality developments are constructed. Walter Gray,405 Greenbrier,noted that he did not want the site in question to be developed. Schroeder noted that there is no legal course to prevent the land from being developed. Grimm noted that if the School Board decides to sell the property to a developer the City has no say. Grimm noted that the purpose of the rezone is to protect the neighborhoods by allowing for - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 neighborhood and city input. Schroeder noted that he understood that residents would be concerned with losing an open space in their neighborhood. Schroeder noted that he would not want to lose a similar space but went on to note that the site is not a City park and it will not become a City park. Schroeder noted that the school system owns it and they are planning of disposing of it and that will open the site up for development as it is zoned residential. Schroeder noted that the City cannot prevent the site from being developed but with the rezone the City and neighborhood residents can change the coarse so that if it is developed it will be compatible with the neighborhood. Terry Ryeder, 1200 Baltimore, questioned if the land could be rezoned to be a park. Schroeder noted that parks are allowed in any residential district. Schroeder noted that the City is not looking to increase the amount of parks that they own and maintain. Schroeder noted that Leisure Services had looked at the sites and only one of which would be used for a City park. Schroeder noted that these sites are the School Systems to dispose of the way they choose and they don't have to sell to the City. Schroeder noted that even if the City wanted all the sites to be parks that the City could not afford to maintain them all and functionally run a city. Paul Hutting, Leisure Services Director,noted that the Planning Commission was catching the brunt of Leisure Services decision not to significantly expand the park system. Hutting noted that he was approached by the School System staff in regards to the sites. Hutting noted that the current budget situation would not allow for a significant increase to the park system and develop the sites into meaningful parks. Hutting noted that unfortunately parks are not all next to someone's house. Hutting noted that most of the athletic programs are run through athletic complexes. Hutting noted that Leisure Services could not afford to take on more sites and apologized to the Planning Commission as it appeared that they were taking complaints for a decision of the Leisure Services department. Hutting noted that what is being passed tonight would protect the neighbors and noted that any new park would have to go through the Leisure Services Commission and then City Council, and that the rezoning request would not preclude a site from becoming an official park. Schmitt noted that changing the site to a park is a entirely different process that would start with Leisure Services and go through City Council. Schmitt noted that most of the properties have been zoned residentially-since1969-but that-the-rezoning-tonight-would-make-it-more restrictive for a dew-leper-and would create an approval process so the neighborhood has a say in what type of development takes place. Michelle Clark, 1568 Woodmayr, questioned how many homes would be constructed on the Greenbrier site. Schmitt noted that there are guidelines that would make sure development would match the neighborhood. Clark questioned if the residents would have a say on the type of development. Schroeder noted that the neighborhood would be notified, and encouraged to provide input if a development plan is submitted. 3. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 2.2 acres from"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Van Eaton School Site at 2170 Burton Avenue, approximately 1/8 of a mile north of the intersection of Burton Avenue and West Donald Street. - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission • March 1,2011 •Andera gave the staff report noting that there is no known potential developers for the site. Andera noted that to the north, east and west is low density residential, and south is Ray Tiller Park. Andera noted that the school was constructed in the 1960's. noting that the building is vacant and demolition of the building is planned in the near future. Andera noted that the site is 2.2 acres. Andera noted that the "R-1, R-P" designation suggests a lower level of density,as the underlying "R-1" designation is the lowest density level in the City of Waterloo,with lots at least 9,000 SF in area,widths of at least 75', and greater setbacks for buildings. Andera noted that the"R-P"designation also gives the City of Waterloo greater levels of design review,provides for special provisions and care to be taken in site layout and design itself,to ensure compatibility to adjacent land uses, including screening, landscaping, building design, etc. It also provides for greater levels of public input, as any development would be required to be reviewed by the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission and subsequently the City Council after recommendation in lieu thereof Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to being rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages,number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Schroeder noted that the City currently owns the site and has for some time. Schroeder noted that the City will be responsible for the demolition of the building because they have owned the site for some time. 4. Request by the of Waterloo to rezone approximately 7 7 acres from"R-2 One anti Two Family Residence District to"R-1, R-P" Planned Residential District, located at the former Lincoln School Site at the southeast corner of Burton Avenue and West Parker Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the City is looking to acquire the site but there is no known developer at this time. Andera noted that to the north is existing commercial development,to the south east and west are existing one and two family residences. Andera noted that the former Lincoln School was constructed in the early 1900's and has since been demolished. Andera noted that the new Lincoln Elementary is located '/2 mile to the northwest at the intersection of Cedar Bend and Walker Streets. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required,including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate,restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, - 9- Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Ryan Madison, 650 Dawson,noted that he is not against the rezoning but noted that he was aware that there is a developer that is interested in the property. Madison noted that he is the President of the Riverfront Neighborhood Association and that they have been working to get the City to tear down the building so the Association could start raising private funds to put a park at the site. Madison questioned how the Association could ensure that they have an opportunity to obtain the land for the privately funded park. Madison then questioned the number of parks on the east side of Waterloo verses the west side. Madison noted that there were 34 parks on the West Side and a total of 15 on the east side but noted that at 9 of the 15 parks there is no playground equipment. Madison noted that currently there is playground equipment at the site in question because the neighborhood association requested it. Madison noted that the City came like a thief in the night and put a proposal for the property, noting that the City does not buy properties unless they have a plan for the property. Madison requested that his association be able to put in a proposal for a privately funded park and that no development occur on the site until there proposal is filed. Hutting noted that Leisure Services does not keep records of how many parks are on the east and west side but noted that parks are placed based on a geographic boundaries and population base. Hutting noted that he has met with Madison and is aware of his plan for a private funded city park. Hutting noted that if the funds can be raised the park could be a possibility. Hutting noted that in the meantime it seems advisable to rezone the area. Cox thanked Madison for his remarks and questioned if there were any privately funded parks in Waterloo. Hutting noted that there have been some successful example including Marks Park and noted that there were a number of service club donations for certain facilities in parks. Hutting noted that Marks Park is located on City property, so there was no private acquisition of land but noted Leisure Services have worked with other private entities including Build Our Ball Parks to improve existing parks. Cox questioned if Madison's goal is a possibility. Hutting noted that it was. Loveless noted that if the rezone request was approved it would not appear to affect Madison's plans as he would still have an opportunity to move forward with his plans. Schroeder noted that was the case and that the City was interested in obtaining the property but there are no concrete development plans so it could be established as a park in the future. 5. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 2.8 acres from"R-3"Multiple Residence District and"C-2" Commercial District to "C-P"Planned Commercial District, located at the former Expo High School Site 927 Franklin Street. biakifialkikkaghWethfiNiair Andera gave the staff report noting that this site was proposed to be rezoned to "C-P"Planned Commercial District as the site is close to the downtown and near other significant commercial use to the west. Andera noted that Peoples Health Clinic was interested in acquiring the property. Andera noted - 10- Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 that to the north was multiple family and office development,to the south is existing commercial,to the east in multiple family development, and to the west is a medical office development. Andera noted that the Expo site had been used as the school districts alternative high school but now have moved to another location. Andera noted that the site is located near East High School and Highland Elementary. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Schroeder noted that this was slightly different from the other requests as this is a commercial request but would still have to go through the site plan amendment process. Schroeder noted that Peoples Community Clinic is interested in the property but no plans have been submitted. ImiliaiaitglidfiffillabigliihKPBENWAMWERItheiNgl#41#1#011040"thrafr 6. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 1.14 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Francis Grout School Site at 330 Madison Street located at the southwest corner of Idaho Street and Madison Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the request was to rezone the former Francis Grout School from "R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District. Andera noted that surrounding land uses include to the north, south and west low density residential, and to the east is Highland Elementary School and the former Mcinstry School. Andera noted that the rezone consists of 1.14 acres. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this-is-proposed-to-be-rezoned. Andera-noted-that it is proposed-that-prior-to-the-approval-of any-specific- development plan, conditions on the approval will be required,including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Schroeder noted that the City currently owns this property as well. Schroeder noted that the school sold this site to and individual and the building deteriorated during that time. The City then acquired the property from the individual, and will be looking to demolish the building. Schmitt noted that this is the same block that the Waterloo Housing Authority has been building houses on. Schroeder noted that was the case although there are no concrete development plans for the site. - 11 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 7. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 7.96 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Maywood School Site at 800 Milwaukee Avenue, at the northeast corner of Calhoun Street and Milwaukee Avenue. It was moved by Johnson and seconded by Cox to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:27p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the request was to rezone the site from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District. Andera noted that Tri County Development Council operate the Head Start program and use the building for their purposes and they may wish to purchase the building. Andera noted that surrounding land uses in all directions are one and two family residences. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate,restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages,number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Lyle and Nannette Gains, 1420 Dearborn addressed the Commission. Lyle noted that a Planned District would allow for multiple family dwellings according to the Zoning Ordinance.Nannette noted that the area in question is a family neighborhood and they do not want multi-family so they are against the rezone. Lyle noted that a developer had tried to rezone a nearby property for multi-family housing, and if this rezone occurs,the developer will build multifamily housing at this location. Lyle noted that it would be better to rezone the property in question to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District. Schroeder noted that there is no point to rezone the property to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District as the"R-1" allows the same style uses as the"R-2"district. Schroeder noted that the"R-1, R-P" could potentially allow for multiple family housing, but noted that is why staff added the condition that allowed for only single family homes and possibly duplexes. Nannette questioned why staff was changing the zoning,noting that"R-2"was working fine for her. Schroeder noted that staff was trying to protect the neighborhood,but added that if the neighborhood does not feel they need additional protection then the rezone does not have to be passed. Lyle noted that he believed that a developer would challenge the City in court so they could build multifamily housing at the site. Schroeder noted that the conditions attached would prevent that from being the case. Lyle noted that he did not believe that to be the case. Nannette noted that she believed that the 250' notice area for a rezone was too small and should be expanded, noting that they did not receive a notice and had to find out from a neighbor. Lyle noted that he would get a petition. Nannette noted that"R-2" is a fine zoning classification and noted that the permit process is enough to protect the area. Schroeder noted that permits are required, but many more houses could be constructed in the area then would be compatible with the area with the current zoning. Lyle - 12 - Planning and Zoning Commission • March 1,2011 noted that a big developer will find a way around the new zoning classification and that city staff had fallen for a ploy.Nannette again noted that the 250' notice area was not enough. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Grimm to close the Public Hearing. Motion car ried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:38 p.m. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Johnson to approve the request to rezone approximately 7.96 acres from "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Maywood School Site at 800 Milwaukee Avenue, at the northeast corner of Calhoun Street and Milwaukee Avenue with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 1.12 acres from"R-3"Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Williston Field Site at the northeast corner of Williston Avenue and West 7th Street. It was moved by Powers and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:42 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera noted that the City is requesting to rezone approximately 1.12 acres from"R-3"Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District. Andera noted that to the east and west are one and two family residences zoned"R-3",to the north are multifamily homes zoned"R-3"and to the south are one and two family homes zoned"R-2". Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages,number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi- family housing is allowed to be constructed. Rebecca Mitchell, 1130 West 8th Street, questioned if only one and two family homes would be constructed. Schroeder noted that was the case. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Grimm to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:38 p.m. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Grimm to approve the request to rezone approximately 1.12 acres from "R-3"Multiple Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Williston Field Site at the northeast corner of Williston Avenue and West 7th Street with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 3.52 acres from"R-2"Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Irving Elementary Site at 728 Hawthorne Avenue, at the southwest corner of West 6th Street and Hawthorne Avenue. It was moved by Whitehead and seconded by Leonhart to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:47p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the request is to rezone approximately 3.52 acres from"R-2" - 13 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District. Andera noted that Habitat for Humanity is planning to acquire the property from the school, but no plans have been submitted at this time. Andera noted that one and two family residences surround the property in question. Andera noted that the nearest school is the new Irving Elementary at the intersection of West 5 and Baltimore Street. Andera noted that Miller Park is located approximately 3 blocks to the southwest along Mitchell Avenue. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Johnson to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:50 p.m. It was moved by Leonhart,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request to rezone approximately 3.52 acres from "R-2"Multiple Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Irving Elementary Site at 728 Hawthorne Avenue, at the southwest corner of West 6th Street and Hawthorne Avenue with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed Motion carried unanimously. 10. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 6.39acres from"R-2"Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Baltimore Field Site located along the east side of Vermont Street between Eureka Street and Hawthorne Avenue. It was moved by Whitehead and seconded by Leonhart to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera noted that the request is to rezone approximately 6.39acres from "R-2"Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District. Andera noted that he City is attempting to acquire this site but noted that there are no development plans for the site. Andera noted that_to the north, south, east and west are one and two family residences, and noted that further to the west is the Byron Avenue Hy-Vee which is zoned"C-1". Andera noted the new Irving Elementary at the intersection of West 5th and Baltimore Street is the nearest school. Andera noted that Miller Park is located 2 blocks to the south. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Whitehead to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:55 p.m. It was moved by Leonhart,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request to rezone approximately 3.52 acres from "R-2"Multiple Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District, located at - 14 - Planning and Zoning Commission • March 1,2011 the former Baltimore Field Site at located along the east side of Vermont Street between Eureka Street and Hawthorne Avenue with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 8.47 acres from"R-2"Multiple Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Devonshire School Site located along the south side of Devonshire Road near the intersection with Wenner Drive. It was moved by Powers and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:56 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the request was to rezone approximately 8.47 acres from"R-2" Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residential District. Andera noted that there is no known development plans at this time. Andera noted that to the north and west there are one and two family residences,to the south multifamily residences zoned"R-3",to the east are two family condominium homes zoned"R-3,R-P". Andera noted that the western third of the property is currently in the Zone A 100-year floodplain and that when the new flood maps come out later in the year that the western half of the property will be in the Zone A 100-year floodplain. Andera noted that residents in the area have expressed concerns regarding drainage and flooding issues in the area. Andera noted that any future development would have to ensure that it does not have a negative impact on drainage or flooding in the area. Andera noted that the City has a drainage plan for the area that indicated that a retention pond is needed at the site. Andera noted that Kingsley Elementary is located a mile to the northeast. Andera noted that the school district is proposing to sell a portion of the property to the City to maintain as a park. Andera noted that it is for the explicit reasons of making this a high quality development that this is proposed to be rezoned. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate,restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories,and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi-family housing is allowed to be constructed. Johnson questioned i ui mg cou be uilt in the Zone A 100-year floodplain. Schroeder noted that the Ordinance does not prohibit construction in the floodplain,but staff would be sensitive to floodplain and drainage issues in the area before allowing any development. Schroeder noted that a detention pond would be required on the site, and that could significantly decrease the size of the floodplain. Johnson questioned if it would be similar to Bontrager Park as far as serving as a park and as a flood control tool. Schroeder noted that was what the City would like to see. Paul Hutting, Director of Leisure Services,noted that Leisure Services is asking to maintain a park at the location because there is a park there now. Hutting noted they have a longstanding agreement with the school district to have a park at the location. Hutting noted that Leisure Services is not constructing a new park, but maintaining what is already present. Richard Pint, 466 Devonshire,noted that some major improvements on the sewer system in the area would be needed as well. Pint questioned the differences between the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Schroeder noted the new zoning classification would ensure that a developer would have to construct a development that is compatible with the neighborhood and also takes flooding and drainage into account. Schroeder noted that with the current zoning the developer would just have to meet minimum requirements. Schroeder noted that the new zoning would allow for more significant drainage - 15 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 1,2011 control. Diana Hawker, Graceline Condos,noted that she supports keeping the existing park as the nearest park is across Ansbourough. Hawker noted that she works for the Black Hawk County Health Department and cited how important exercise if for today's youth. Hawker questioned if the park could be kept out of the rezone. Schroeder noted that the new zoning classification would have no impact on the existence of the park. Schroeder noted that the park may be moved if a drainage basin is installed, but the park will still be present and the City would own the land. Hawker questioned if the park may be removed. Hutting noted that the Leisure Services has indicated an interest in retaining the park and the school system indicated that they are interested in retaining the park. Schmitt questioned if it would be similar to Lafayette Park with a large retention area and adjacent playground equipment. Hutting noted that the play equipment may need to be moved but would still be located on the same parcel. Matt Boquist, 2411 Delane Avenue,noted that the Planning Commission has a very tough job. Boquist questioned if the rezone would give the Planning Commission and the residents more control of what is developed in the area. Schroeder indicated in the affirmative. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Gimm to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 6:05 p.m. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request to rezone approximately 8.47 acres from "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residential District, located at the former Devonshire School Site located along the south side of Devonshire Road near the intersection with Wenner Drive with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment Grimm noted that the next special meeting would be on March 8, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Grimm, seconded by Whitehead to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 16 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -4:00 P.M MARCH 8,2011 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:40 p.m.by Chairperson Schmitt on March 8t',2011 in the Mollenhoff Room. Members present were: Whitehead,Cox,Powers, Schmitt and Young(4:40). Members absent were: Loveless,Johnson,and Grimm Others present:Aric Schroeder, and Adam Poll-Planning Department. Schmitt noted that as Young was going to be late that general discussion would take place till he arrived and a quorum was present. Schmitt started the general discussion at 4:04p.m. Schroeder noted that the last meeting left off Part XXIV Special Provisions,Exceptions and Modifications. A. Use of existing lots of record- Schroeder noted some minor wording changes. B. Structures Permitted Above Height Limit- Schroeder noted that wording was changed so that there need to be 1' of set back per 1' of height. Schroeder noted that the words"Churches and Temples"should be replaced by religious facilities. Schroeder noted that some additional regulations were added for towers as well. C. Area Requirements- Schroeder noted that the lot area was changed from 20,000 SF to 1.5 acres as that is the health department regulations. G. Existing Unenclosed Porch—Schroeder noted the change of wording in the title. Schroeder noted that in #2 new wording now allow for a front porch to extend 8' or'/4 the distance from the home to the property line based on required setback. Schroeder also noted new wording to clarify what qualifies as an unenclosed porch. Schmitt noted that some unenclosed porches built over easements are being enclosed as living area. H. Special Permit Required- 1. Schroeder noted that this now excludes parks and recreational trails and associated accessory uses and structures. 2. Schroeder noted that language was added to include institutions similar to schools. 3. Schroeder noted that this section now excludes animal hospitals,and he noted that non-profit institutions were moved to#17. 6. Poll questioned the term"goofy golf'. Schroeder noted that"or miniature golf'could be added. 8. Schroeder noted that in sect a,the term"at least"was struck as the fence is required to be a certain height. 10. Schroeder noted that wording was added to qualify any home that did not qualify as real estate. 15. Schroeder noted this section(Alcohol Sales)was under review and new language could potentially be submitted before the adoption of the amended ordinance. Young arrive at 4:40 p.m. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Young to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Y II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Part XXII,Vehicular and Loading Areas,Public Garages,Parking Lots and Filling Stations. Planning and Zoning Commission March 8,2011 Special Meeting Schroeder noted that#16-22 in section H. Special Permits required had been separated out from other previously listed used to help clarify the ordinance. Schroeder noted that#23 was a new and was meant for a Contractor Businesses with outside storage. Schroeder noted that#25 now required a special permit to keep livestock in the City,but noted that existing locations with livestock would be grandfathered in. Schroeder noted that the minor changes section of pg 148 had updated wording to set a standard definition of what is considered minor. • K. Subdividing of Lots- Schroeder noted that as the Ordinance is currently written every split requires a special permit. Schroeder noted it has been reworded to allow for a little leeway. Young questioned if the section could be struck completely and covered by the Subdivision Ordinance. Schroeder noted that the Subdivision Ordinance only sets minimums and does not force proposed lots to be similar to other lots in the area, so the section is needed. Young questioned if the wording should read"area or width". Schroeder noted that it should read"area and width".Young noted that using"or"may be preferable. Schroeder noted that can be difficult to determine width. M. Placement of Mobile Homes- Schroeder noted that new wording deals with the placement of mobile homes. N.Adult Uses- Schroeder noted that there was language dealing with Amortization that has never been enforced and would probably struck down in a court so the language is being struck. O. Towers- Schroeder noted that for#5 d 4)of this section of pg 155 a question has been raised if it is necessary noting that there are very few locations where a tower can be 500' from residential property. Schmitt noted that wording could be added to make the distance be twice the length of the tower and not 500'. Schroeder noted that would help. Schmitt questioned if towers should have a requirement of a setback from all buildings and not just residences. Schroeder noted that the County had similar wording for towers. R. Utility Exemption- Schroeder noted that most utilities are already exempt from special permits and this adds the wording. Whitehead questioned what was discussed in regards to Highway Overlays and the possibility of creating more. Schroeder noted that when the lastamended ordinanc,_uvas_proposed -Council was-opposed-to-more overlay districts due to the potential to stifle development,but additional discussion could be done whin this section of the Ordinance is reviewed. Whitehead noted they would help to make sure that Highway 63 and University are developed ascetically. Schroeder noted that he would talk to Anderson. Schroeder noted that we would begin the next meeting on page 160,Part XXIV, Special Provisions,Exceptions and Modifications Section S,Wind Energy Facilities. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Powers to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, __Tat jc, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner -2 - A a MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M APRIL 5,2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m.by Chairperson Schmitt on April 5, 2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox, Leonhart, Loveless, Young, Schmitt, Whitehead, Johnson, and Tackett Members absent were: Powers Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll- Planning Department; Eric Thorson,Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Cox to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on March 1, 2011 and Special Meeting on March 8, 2011. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: February 2011. Anderson gave the financial report noting revenue was ahead due to property sales and other categories were normal for this time of year. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Young to approve the financial report for February 2011. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. ——" V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 6.88 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residence District, located at the former Edison School site at 740 Magnolia Parkway at the southwest corner of Magnolia Parkway and Bismark Avenue. It was moved by Whitehead and seconded by Young to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:04 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting this rezone request was a former Waterloo Community Schools properties that the City was proposing to rezone, noting that the request was very similar to the school rezones that were discussed at the previous Planning and Zoning meeting on March 1. Andera noted that the "R-1,R-P" Planed Residence District will help to redevelop the area for one and two family housing development. Andera noted that single-family homes would be recommended. Andera noted that the design, layout, orientation, density, and style of homes will be highly important to ensure the Planning and Zoning Commission April 5,2011 development is beneficial to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes any development needs to uplift the surrounding neighborhood,not have any negative impact on it. Andera noted that rezoning the land as such and placing proper conditions on future development will prevent it from having a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that areas surrounding the proposed rezone sites consist mostly of single-family residential homes with existing utilities able to serve the sites in question. Andera noted that rezoning of the land would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo is taking proactive steps on several infill development sites within the community. Andera noted that utilizing infill development sites within developed portions of the City where existing infrastructure is readily available is a Smart Growth Practice, and the installation and extension of utilities to serve any new development would be minimal, saving on future maintenance costs for the City. Andera noted that the proposed rezoning for both of these sites are as Planned Districts to ensure that compatible and suitable development occurs upon these infill sites near already existing and established neighborhoods. Rezoning the land to a Planned Residence district is meant to make certain that the City of Waterloo has a greater level of review for these sites to ensure the infill sites are properly redeveloped to have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and that the surrounding neighbors have a greater level of public input for the redevelopment of these sites. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo Leisure Services Department has reviewed the site and noted that 2.1 acres would be kept and used as a park. Andera noted that it is proposed that prior to the approval of any specific development plan, conditions on the approval will be required, including limiting the type of development to single-family homes and possibly duplexes if appropriate, restricting the minimum lot size and lot width to be compatible with the neighborhood, and restricting designs, such as requirements for attached garages, number of stories, and minimum finished areas. Andera noted that for these reasons, staff recommends approval of both rezone requests. Anderson noted that he had received a call from a citizen suggesting that the property along Falls Avenue should be zoned commercially. Anderson noted that is a possibility in the future for this site, but at this time staff is recommending the entire area be zoned"R-1,R-P"Planned Residence District. Schmitt questioned if a condition should be added that 2.1 acres is used as a park. Anderson noted that the 2.1 acres was part of a property swap with the school system and that both the school system and the City were eager to relocate the park at this location. Anderson noted it could be a condition included in the rezone. Cox questioned where the proposed park would be on the site in question. Andera noted that the park would be at the far northwest portion of the property. Anderson noted that the exact boundaries are not known yet. Loveless questioned why this site would have a park and not the other school sites. Schmitt noted that this park was being formed as part of a land swap with the school system as they are building a school on Black Hawk Park. Schmitt noted that this park would take the place of the lost park. Anderson noted that this site had been chosen as there were no other parks in the area. Cox noted that the playground currently at the Edison site is extensive and questioned if it would remain on the site. Anderson noted that the existing playground is principally constructed out of wood that cannot be moved. Anderson noted that new equipment would have to be installed. Young noted that the playground was built by a community organization and would be nearly impossible to move. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Johnson to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:1 S p.m. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 5,2011 Young noted that as he was a member of the school board he would abstain from voting on the request. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loveless to approve the request to rezone approximately 6.88 acres from "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residence District, located at the former Edison School site at 740 Magnolia Parkway at the southwest corner of Magnolia Parkway and Bismark Avenue with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability, that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed and that a 2.1 acre park is located on the site. Motion carried 7-0 with Young abstaining. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 1.63 acres from"R-3"Multiple Residence District to "R-1, R-P"Planned Residence District, located at the former Lafayette School site at 2265 Lafayette Avenue at the southwest corner of Lafayette Avenue and Colorado Street. Schmitt introduced Lyn Tackett and a new member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was moved by Johnson and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:17p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting this rezone request was a former Waterloo Community Schools properties that the City was proposing to rezone,noting that the request was very similar to the school rezones that were discussed at the previous Planning and Zoning meeting on March 1. Andera noted that the "R-1,R-P" Planed Residence District will help to redevelop the area for one and two family housing development. Andera noted that single-family homes would be recommended. Andera noted that the design, layout, orientation, density, and style of homes will be highly important to ensure the development is beneficial to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes any development needs to uplift the surrounding neighborhood,not have any negative impact on it. Andera noted that rezoning the land as such and placing proper conditions on future development will prevent it from having a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that areas surrounding the proposed rezone sites consist mostly of single-family residential homes with existing utilities able to serve the sites in question. Andera noted that rezoning of the land would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo is taking proactive steps on several infill development sites within the community. Andera noted that utilizing infill development sites within developed portions of the City-where existing—infrastructure is—r adily-available-i wth-P--ractic,, tallat-ion-and extension of utilities to serve any new development would be minimal, saving on future maintenance costs for the City. Andera noted that the proposed rezoning for both of these sites are as Planned Districts to ensure that compatible and suitable development occurs upon these infill sites near already existing and established neighborhoods. Rezoning the land to a Planned Residence district is meant to make certain that the City of Waterloo has a greater level of review for these sites to ensure the infill sites are properly redeveloped to have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and that the surrounding neighbors have a greater level of public input for the redevelopment of these sites. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo Leisure Services Department has reviewed the site and recommends it is eligible for redevelopment due to other park areas and open spaces being in close proximity to the site in question. Andera noted that available water and sewer could be extended down Colorado and Indiana Streets to serve the site in question. Johnson questioned if the property should be rezoned to "R-2,R-P" as it is not a large site and surrounding lots smaller then"R-1"minimums. Anderson noted that larger lots were more desirable as they would encourage quality development and would allow for attached garages on homes and larger - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 5,2011 yards. Anderson noted that because it is a planned district lot sized would be more flexible then a traditional"R-1" area. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Loveless to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:23 p.m. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Tackett to approve the request to rezone approximately 1.63 acres from "R-3"Multiple Residence District to "R-1,R-P"Planned Residence District, located at the former Lafayette School site at 2265 Lafayette Avenue at the southwest corner of Lafayette Avenue and Colorado Street with the conditions that that the design be highly scrutinized to provide a higher level of design and livability and that no multi family housing is allowed to be constructed Motion carried 7-0 with Young abstaining. B. Site Plan Amendments 1. Request by OFI Properties for a Site Plan Amendment to the"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District to allow for the construction of a 17,500 SF industrial building directly to the east of 2425 GT Drive. Schmitt noted that usually a public hearing would be held for a site plan amendment but in this case the request was a late addition to the agenda and notice was not able to be sent out in the appropriate amount of time. Schmitt noted that because notice would not sent out the public hearing would need to be waived by a unanimous vote of the Commission. Schmitt noted that if the notice had gone out, it would have only gone to 2 nearby owners who were both very much in favor of the project as one of the was the applicant and the other was a business that worked closely with the applicant. Schmitt noted that the site was located in an industrial park without any nearby residences. It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Powers to waive the public hearing for the Site Plan Amendment to the "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District to allow for the construction of a 17,500 SF industrial building directly to the east of 2425 GT Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Western gave the staff report noting ConTrol, an existing business in the Northeast Industrial Park is working on a 17,500 sq. ft. expansion across the street from their current site which is a 70,000 sq. ft. building in the Nn_ a1 Park 2425 GT T1rive The ne oonrvtructig m-t0 expand their operations, and would involve the conveyance of additional land from the City of Waterloo. Western noted that the proposed plan is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map,which designates this area as Industrial. Western noted that this project would continue the development of this area,which has several other businesses in the industrial park including Gray Transportation,Matcon,Ryder, and the Crown Group adding that Fergeson Enterprises. Tyson Foods, John Deere, Twin City Hide, and Kinder Morgan are further to the east from the Park itself. Western noted that the proposed site plan would allow for the immediate construction of a 17,500 sq. ft. building(100' x 175'). The proposed building is setback from property lines 150' from GT Drive, 20' from the northern property line, and over 20' from the eastern and southern property lines. The docking area would face to the west with 6 parking spaces and 11 dock doors. Western noted that an overhead door is shown on the southern side of the building, and would need hard surfaced entrance for that door. A landscaping plan is being prepared and will be submitted prior to staff sign off of final site plan. Western noted that the exterior elevations of the site show a metal façade with windows. A total of 11 doors are shown on the exterior with doors at docking height. Western noted that the site plan shows 6 parking spaces for employees, which also has some landscaping -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 5,2011 area around the parking lot. Western noted that for industrial warehousing, the overall number of parking spaces is determined by the number of employees at the site. The overall site plan would still need to meet all city codes and ordinances regarding, but not limited to,building code requirements, drainage, parking, and landscaping, etc. Western noted that Con-Trol works with other companies for the supply, repair,maintenance, and management of container systems, shipping, and distribution. Western noted that they are a supplier to John Deere and their"just in time"Manufacturing process. This building is designed with potential expansion capabilities to the north and south. Western noted that staff recommends the request with the condition that the applicant continue to work with city staff to ensure compliance with city codes and ordinances regarding, but not limited to, uniform building code requirements, drainage, landscaping,parking, etc. It was moved by Young,seconded by Loveless to approve the request for a Site Plan Amendment to the "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District to allow for the construction of a 17,500 SF industrial building directly to the east of 2425 GT Drive. Motion carried unanimously. C. Encroachment Agreements 1. Request by Russell Lamson Limited Partnership for an encroachment agreement to allow for necessary appurtenances for the proposed Russell Lamson building renovation project, including encroachments into the public right-of-way of West 5th Street, Commercial Street, and the public alley southwesterly of the building at 209 West 5th Street in Block 9 of the Original Waterloo West Plat. Poll gave the staff report noting the applicant requests an encroachment agreement for a number of existing encroachments including light fixtures, entrance canopies, loading docks, window mounted air conditioners etc. that encroach into to the public right-of-way. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood given the fact that the encroachments have been in existence in many cases since the construction of the building in 1913. Poll noted that the building is recently under new ownership and have plans to remodel the building but want to ensure the various encroachments are legal. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic and pedestrian conditions in the area. Poll noted that most encroachments are at a height well above vehicle and pedestrian movement. Poll noted that the loading dock does project in to the alley but not to the extent wheretraffic is impeded and has been in existence__form_an,y_ Pa,-s Poll notes that the site is zoned"C-3" Commercial District, and a 12" sanitary sewer line is located in the alley directly south of the building and an 18" storm sewer line runs along West 5th Street. Poll noted that a signed and executed encroachment agreement would be required,which may stipulate that the encroachments would have to be removed if the space was needed for public purposes. Poll noted that staff recommends approval of the request. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Young to approve the request for an encroachment agreement to allow for necessary appurtenances for the proposed Russell Lamson building renovation project Motion carried unanimously. D. Special Permits 1. Request by Invision Architecture on behalf of Allen College for a Special Permit to construct a new 10,082 SF Academic building at 1950 Heath Street located directly between the existing Gerard Hall and the existing Barrett Forum. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 5,2011 Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant requests approval for a special permit to allow for the construction of a new 10,082 SF addition to Allen College,which will be constructed between the existing Gerard Hall and Barrett Forum buildings. Graham noted that the impact on the surrounding neighborhood should be positive, as this would be an expansion of an existing educational facility and noted that surrounding land uses are mostly owned by Allen Hospital or are used for commercial purposes. Graham noted that the property in question is zoned"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District. Graham noted that a storm water detention plan would be required, and the site plan appears to show an area for detention to the east of the building addition. Graham noted that there is an 8" sanitary sewer line located within Heath Street and a 12" storm sewer line located within Heath Street. Graham noted that The Future Land Use Map designates this site for Semi-Public, Utilities, Hospitals, and Railroad. The proposed use of the property for the Allen College Campus would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing to construct the new 10,082 SF addition to the Allen College Campus,which will be located between the existing Gerard Hall and Barrett Forum buildings on the property. This will create one large building, as the addition would join the two buildings together. Graham noted that the addition would be 2 stories in size, and would be used for additional classrooms/conference rooms and additional office space. Graham noted that the site plan shows a new entrance to the property near the northeast corner of the property, which would connect with the main parking lot to the west of the buildings. Also, a fire lane is being shown going south from the proposed entrance east of the buildings and just south of the fire lane, a new storm water detention pond is also being shown. Graham noted that the building would appear to meet all of the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well. Hank Wellnitz, 2141 Logan Avenue, Wellnitz noted that he owned two duplexes and a single family home. Wellnitz noted that he was not opposed to the Special Permit but had concerns about traffic and safety issues along Highway 63 citing the large amount of traffic and the high speed of that traffic. Wellnitz recommended a stoplight be installed at the intersection of Heath Street and Highway 63. Anderson noted that when the Hy-Vee was built a traffic study was completed which revealed that traffic counts were at a level where a traffic signal was not warranted. Anderson noted that a signal is planned at the intersection for the future but may not be installed for quite some time. Schmitt noted another study in that area that looked at the possibility of installing protected left turn lanes and noted that traffic numbers were not sufficient to warrant their installation. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Young to approve the request for a Special Permit to construct a new 10,082 SF Academic building at 1950 Heath Street located directly between the existing Gerard Hall and the existing Barrett Forum. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment Schroeder noted that the next special meeting would be on April 12, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Loveless to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 6 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - 4:00 P.M APRIL 12,2011 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming,and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on April 12th,2011 in the Mollenhoff Room. Members present were: Whitehead, Cox,Powers, Schmitt,Tackett,and Loveless. Members absent were: Johnson,Leonhart,and Young Others present:Aric Schroeder,Tim Andera, and Adam Poll-Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the last meeting left off Part XXIV Special Provisions,Exceptions and Modifications. Part XXII, Section S. Wind Energy Facilities. Schroeder noted that this is a new section as wind towers are becoming more common in residential areas. Schroeder noted that if the tower meets certain requirements then it would not need a special permit. Schroeder noted that wind towers would be divided into two categories,a"small"type would be the type used at a residence to offset the electricity use,while a"large"tower would be the type used for industrial uses. Schmitt questioned if the proposed ordinance covered different types of towers such as the"helix"type tower. Schroeder noted that any wind energy facility would be covered under the proposed wording. Tackett questioned if existing farm windmills would be regulated. Schmitt noted that if they are existing they would be grandfathered in. Schroeder noted that any new agricultural windmills would still be permitted,but --would-have-to-meet-the requ' ementb ofthe Oidinanc Schroeder noted that for subsection 4)Definitions that#10 Wind Energy Facility, Small was changed in the Black Hawk County Ordinance to allow for more then one tower, and questioned if the Commission thought a similar change should be made of if more then one tower should be left as a special permit use.The consensus was to leave the wording as is. Powers questioned if these towers would start being constructed more often in residential areas. Schroeder noted that the cash flow for residential towers is not the best,and that they appear in the countryside more because there previously were subsidies available. Schroeder noted that it currently takes about 30 years for a residential style tower to pay itself off,but the towers may only to last 20 years. Schmitt noted that eventually technology would catch up and make the towers more practical,which would lead to a proliferation of towers. Schroeder noted that any wind generating facility would be covered whether it was on a tower or mounted on top of a home. Powers noted that VGM had looked at constructing some towers on their property and found that 3 mid-sized towers would be sufficient to power their building. Schroeder noted that many homeowners are constructing wind energy facilities to be"green"knowing that they may not repay their investment. Part XXV Board of Adjustment Planning and Zoning Commission Apri112,2011 Special Meeting B. Schroeder noted that wording in this section was changed to City Planner and not Building Official and the City Planner enforces the Zoning Ordinance. 2A-52-Changed wording from Conditional Use to Special Permit A. Special Permits-changed wording from Conditional Use and added wording for clarification. 1. Defined Purpose and Standards,added language to be more legally binding C. added wording to be more legally binding and elaborated on variance standards. Schmitt questioned the use of the word"morals"in section A.4.noting that morals do not apply to the regulation of land. Schmitt noted that P&Z and BOA do not regulate morals. Schroeder noted that the wording was pulled directly from State Code. Powers noted the commission's role in community values.Whitehead noted that he sees Powers point,but noted that each Commissioner brought their own values. Schmitt noted that something should not be denied because it lacks morals adding that could easily be struck down in the courts.Tackett noted that there are regulations in existence that require buffers from protected uses. Schmitt noted that the buffers imply morals, but they are defined and concrete. Part XXV(A)Planning Programming and Zoning Commission Schroeder noted there is currently no section regarding the P&Z commission currently and this would add a section. Schmitt noted that currently the regulations are found in the City Code and should not be listed in both. Schroeder noted he would talk to the City Attorney and find out which is appropriate. Schmitt questioned if a change was made for electing officers at the end of a calendar year instead of at the beginning. Schroeder noted that that would have to be changed in the administrative rules and City Code. Schmitt noted that if it is moved to the Zoning Ordinance that the change should be made. Part XXVI Occupancy Permits A. Schroeder noted that regulations regarding a certificate of occupancy were being dropped as the building department dealt with that issue. D. Schroeder noted that DNR does not give approval till after local approval is given and the wording is changed to reflect this. Schmitt noted that on pg 174 Section C.the word"permit" should be added. Schroeder noted he had no problem with that. Cox left the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Part XXVIII Amendments Schroeder noted that there were several grammatical changes, as well as wording to clarify who is issued notices associated with Planning and Zoning Requests. Schmitt noted to add language indicating that road or private parcels not recognized by the county assessor database will not be notified. Schroeder noted that in section C,wording was changed from 250 feet to 200 feet as that reflected state code. Schroeder noted that in section E,wording was added to allow conditions to be applied on a property. Schroeder noted that this is already practiced,but wanted to add the wording. Part XXIX Violation,Penalties and Enforcement Schmitt questioned if a administrative fee should be added for the 2nd and 3`d offenses as the City Council added this fee for other City fees. Schroeder noted he would talk to the City Attorney. Loveless questioned if a violation can be issued every day. Schmitt noted that is standard language. Part XXXI Fees Schroeder noted that fees used to be listed,but are now adopted by resolution. Powers questioned how often fees go up. Schroeder noted last time they were up dated was 2003.Powers noted it could be time to revise them again. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission Apri112,2011 Special Meeting It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Loveless left at 5:22 p.m. and general discussion continued Schroeder noted that the topic of adding to the overlay district had been previously skipped and could be addressed now. Andera noted that there are many areas along Highway 20 and 63 that are already planned districts. Schroeder noted an overlay district could be drawn around existing planned districts. Schroeder noted that there would be some opposition in the community if the overlay districts are expanded as many people are opposed to additional government regulations. Schmitt noted that he believed expanding the overlay districts are necessary but it would have to be done in small steps. Tackett noted if there is too much compromise then the goal may be lost.Tackett noted that small changes can have big long term impacts. Schmitt noted that perhaps the name needed to be changed to something different and suggested the name "Gateway Districts" Whitehead questioned if there were exterior regulations for buildings.Andera noted there were in the 218 district. Schreoder noted they were found in the guidelines. Whitehead asked to see a copy of the guidelines. Schroeder noted he would try to set up a joint special meeting with the 218 Commission. Schroeder noted that another special meeting would be required to finish the proposed amended ordinance. Schmitt noted that the amended ordinance should be finished before the joint meeting is proposed. Schmitt noted that expansion of the overlay districts should be addressed separately so the amended ordinance continues to move forward. General discussion ended at 6:05 Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M MAY 3,2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on May 3, 2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox, Leonhart, Loveless, Powers, Schmitt, Whitehead, Johnson, and Tackett Members absent were: Young Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll -Planning Department; Eric Thorson, Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt, and approximately 20 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Cox to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on April 5,2011 and Special Meeting on April 12, 2011. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: March 2011. Anderson gave the financial report noting revenue was ahead due to property sales and other categories were normal for this time of year. It was moved by Tackett, seconded by Powers to approve the financial report for March 2011. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by the Tom Adams to rezone approximately 0.386 acres from"R-3"Multiple Residence District and "C-2"Commercial District to "C-2, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District, located at 512 Almond Street for the purpose of establishing an indoor recycling facility. It was moved by Johnson and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:03 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting the request is to rezone approximately 0.386 acres from"R-3" Multiple Residence District and"C-2"Commercial District to"C-2, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of establishing an indoor recycling facility (demanufacturing of appliances). Western noted that the area in question has mixed uses with commercial directly to the east and to the north,there is residential to the south and west and to the west includes the historic in nature Walnut Court Neighborhood. Western noted that the proposed rezone would not appear that there would be a negative Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 impact on the traffic in the area. The site in question is served by Almond Street, which is considered a local street. Western noted that the proposed rezone area is currently zoned"R-3"Multiple Residence District and"C-2" Commercial District and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance No. 2479 in 1969. Western noted that the proposed rezone would comprise of 0.386 acres owned by the applicant. The applicant has stated that all work will be done inside the building with no outside storage. This particular use is typically only allowed in the"M-1"Light Industrial or"M-2"Heavy Industrial Districts which is the reason for the rezone to"C-Z Conditional Zoning. Western noted that staff has concerns with the use in an area that is mixed with small retail businesses directly to the east and the Historic Walnut Court Neighborhood to the west and would like input from the surrounding neighbors on this request. However, it would appear that this would be a very small operation with one employee,with all work being done inside the building and no outside storage and limited traffic in and out of the site. Western noted that staff recommends the request with the conditions that that there not be any outside storage of appliances on the site and that all demanufacturing work be conducted inside the building. Tom Adams, 730 West Airline Highway,noted that he was going through the licensing process with the DNR to decommission appliances and that City approval of the site was the final step in the approval process. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loiveless to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:08 p.m. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Cox to approve the request to rezone approximately 0.386 acres from "R-3"Multiple Residence District and "C-2"Commercial District to "C-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District, located at 512 Almond Street for the purpose of establishing an indoor recycling facility with the conditions that there not be any outside storage of appliances on the site and that all demanufacturing work be conducted inside the building. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Mitchell Juhl to rezone approximately 0.192 acres from"M-1"Light Industrial District to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, located at 3961 Wagner Road, approximately 200' south of the intersection of Big Rock Road and Wagner Road. It was moved by Johnson and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone their home in an effort to sell their property as the lender they are working with will not lend if the home is zoned"M-1"Light Industrial. Poll noted that this could potentially have a negative impact on the area. The area in question is intended to be used in association with the airport in the future and a residential zoning classification could affect the development process down the road, and hinder development efforts on adjacent industrially zoned areas. Poll noted that in this case,the financial institution the buyer is using will not finance a property zoned "M-1" Light Industrial District. Most financial institutions consider these homes to be illegally built or legal non-conforming, which generally would not allow the homes to be rebuilt if the home is damaged or destroyed. Poll noted that knowing this to be the case, staff amended the Zoning Ordinance in 2003 to note that homes existing in Industrial Districts(including the"M-1") are considered a legal use and can be rebuilt in the event of being damaged or destroyed. Poll noted that staff can provide a"rebuild letter" to financial institutions to certify that the homes are a legal use and can be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed. In most cases,the letter provided is sufficient for the financial institution to consider the industrial zoning classification as no longer an issue. Poll noted that a rebuild letter was provided to the - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 applicants for their home. Poll noted that the property in question lies west of the airport and the Future Land Use Map designates this area for airport purposes. Staff has concerns that zoning this property residentially could negatively affect any future development in this area. Poll noted that the applicant has noted that the properties at 3730 and 3760 Wagner Road are zoned"R- 1"One and Two Family Residence District and were rezoned from"M-2"Heavy Industrial in 1990. Poll noted that the property at 3730 Wagner initiated the rezone in order to build a new house for his son on his property, which could not be built as the property was zoned industrially. Staff recommended denial of the rezone on the basis that the property was projected for future industrial development, there was no justifiable reason to recommend 20 acres be rezoned for one home, and that if a house were damaged or destroyed they could obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment to rebuild their homes. Poll noted that that this rezone was prior to the 2003 amendment that the ordinance to allow for homes in industrial zones to be rebuilt so such a variance would no longer be needed. Poll noted that in addition,the Airport Commission recommended against the rezone noting concern about potential conflicts other airports in the United States have had with residential developments near airports. Poll noted that staff is recommending denial of the request as the proposed rezone is not in compliance with the Future Land Use Map or Comprehensive Plan and could negatively affect future industrial development. Johnson questioned if anyone had talked to the bank. Poll noted that the principal lender was satisfied with the rebuild letter, but could not sell the mortgage to the secondary lender, Fannie Mae. Mitch Juhl, 3961 Wagner Road, noted that he was the applicant and that his wife had twins on the way and that his one bedroom home was too small. Juhl noted that this was the second buyer that could not get financing because the property is zoned"M-1" and something should be done. Nancy Meany, Prudential One,noted that financing was available, but 30 year fixed mortgages were not. Meany noted that banks on the secondary market would not purchase a mortgage unless it is a 30 year fixed loan, but in-house financing was available. Tackett noted that the homes in this area have been there a long time and questioned how they were built. Schroeder noted-that.the home-were builthefore xheaddoptiom of the 7 re grandfathered in. Meany noted that it has not been a problem to get financing on these homes in the past, but recently Fannie Mae have changed their policies and created the problem. Meany noted that in-house financing was available as a 7-10 year balloon type mortgage. Tackett questioned if the problem was with one particular lender or all of them. Meany noted that she has only worked through US Bank. Johnson questioned if the home would be sold thru FHA. Meany noted they were not as it required a 25% down payment and that the potential buyer was seeking IFA financing. Meany noted that another lender was offering a 10 year adjustable mortgage. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Loveless to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:24 p.m. Tackett questioned if rezoning this property to "R-1"would be a bad precedent. Johnson noted that the property across the road was rezoned to "R-1"in 2003 was due to a rash of insurance problems which was fixed by the new wording in the Ordinance. Johnson noted that having an island of"R-1"in a principally"M-1" area was bad practice. Johnson noted that the Ordinance is not working for the - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 applicant and questioned if staff could work with the financial institutions to avoid spot zoning these properties. Johnson noted that if the area is rezoned,perhaps the whole strip of houses should be rezoned. Schmitt noted that he would recommend tabling the request if he had to vote on the item today. Schroeder noted that staff would be willing to talk to the banks,but noted that he did not know what type of wording could be added that has not already been added. Whitehead questioned if the problem financial institutions were reading the wording in the Ordinance. Meany noted they were only provided what was in the rebuild letter. Schroeder noted that the wording was included in the rebuild letter. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Tackett to table the request to rezone approximately 0.192 acres from "M-1"Light Industrial District to "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District, located at 3961 Wagner Road for one month, in order to give staff an opportunity to talk to the banks involved and finding a solution or look at the possibility of rezoning the entire strip of housing in that area. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Vern Jackson to rezone approximately 3.14 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R- R"Rural Residence District, located at 2307 Katoski Drive for the purpose of creating an additional buildable lot for a single-family home. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Johnson to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:31 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing to construct one additional single- family home on the property, which currently has one existing home located on it. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as agricultural uses surround this property. The new home would be located on a 3.14-acre lot, which has one home already on it. Graham noted that the property in question and all surrounding properties are zoned"A-1" Agricultural District, and have been zoned as such since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Graham noted that no utilities serve this site,meaning that the new home would have to be connected to a well and xwo lrl harp an ind victual septic. system Bot oLthosesystems wou1dneed to he_approved by the Black Hawk County Health Department. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing the rezone in order to construct one additional home on the existing 3.14-acre property. Currently,one home exists on the property, and that home was built in 1958. Since the property is currently zoned"A-1"Agricultural District, a rezone will be needed in order to construct an additional home on the property. Graham noted that the"R-R" Rural Residence District is intended to allow homes that are on larger lots (minimum 1.5 acre lot size), and that do not have access to municipal utilities. The property is 3.14 acres in size,which would allow for 1 new home in addition to the existing home. The property does not have access to public sewer or water, so a private septic system and well would be needed for the new home,which would have to be approved by the Black Hawk County Health Department. Graham noted that even though this area is not designated for future residential growth,this request would not appear to have a significant impact on the surrounding area, as the home would be constructed on the same lot as an existing home, and no additional homes would be allowed based on the minimum requirements of the"R-R"Rural Residence District. Graham noted that staff recommends the request to rezone the property to"R-R"Rural Residence District. -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 Vern Jackson, 2307 Katoski Drive,noted that he had spoke to John Sheridan of the Black Hawk County Health Department who had indicated there would be no problem with installing well and septic in the area. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Whitehead to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:35 p.m. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request to rezone approximately 3.14 acres from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R R"Rural Residence District, located at 2307 Katoski Drive for the purpose of creating an additional buildable lot for a single-family home. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request by Damiane Carter to rezone approximately 0.175 acres from"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-2, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District, located at 926 Linn Street, for the purpose of operating a convenience store. It was moved by Cox and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:36 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting that the request is to rezone approximately 0.175 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-2" "C-Z" Conditional Zoning District at 926 Linn Street for the purpose of legally re-establishing an existing neighborhood convenience store. Western noted that the area in is surrounded by all residential uses and would appear to serve the area in a positive manner as a neighborhood commercial use and would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. Western noted that the proposed rezone would comprise of 0.175 acres to be purchased by the applicant. The site in question has had a retail convenience store for 40 plus years. The site was a grandfathered in but has now lost that"Grandfather status"and is now considered and illegal use in the "R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. Therefore this rezone request is an attempt to legalize a retail use in a district that does not allow retail or any commercial uses. Western noted that staff is supportive of infill development and Smart Growth principles as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning would work to re-establish a commercial presence in a vacant commercial building,while also -limiting-the-commercial-uses-so it daes_nst jeopardize-or_harm-the-residential neighborhood surrounding the site. Western noted that the"C-Z" Conditional Zoning classification works to allow uses in unique locations or transitional sites between different land uses. This site is definitely unique in it's history and location. Western noted that staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that there not be alcohol sales of any type at the site and that use at the site be limited to a convenience/grocery store. Tackett questioned if the applicant was moving to Waterloo. Damiane Carter, 17072 East Crestline Place,noted that he does intend to move back to Waterloo. Loveless questioned how the site lost its grandfathered status. Western noted that the store was closed and vacant for at least one year. Tackett noted that Walgreen's, HyVee, and other stores were not that far away and questioned if the market for a convenience store at the location is saturated. Carter noted that he believed a neighborhood store would be viable. Tackett questioned if groceries would just be sold or if tobacco would be sold as well. Carter noted that it would be a quick service store that would sell tobacco. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 Gene Waltemeyer, 908 Linn Street, noted that he lived just south of the site in question and that the owners of the last store had many problems including drugs and traffic concerns. Waltemeyer noted those concerns made it nearly impossible to rent the home. Waltemeyer noted he was not in favor of the rezoning. Rev Loggins,233 Oliver Street,noted that there have been many problems associated with this store in the past. Loggins noted that he has talked to the applicant who has assured him that the problems would not continue while he is running the store. Loggins noted that the site had a positive history except for one tenant. Loggins noted that he was in favor of the rezone request and noted that the neighborhood would be watching. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Leonhart to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:47 p.m. Tackett noted that she had concerns that if it was rezoned that whoever runs the business after the applicant may not take care for the site like the applicant is describing he would, and noted concerns that tobacco sales may add to the decline of the area and concerns that tobacco could end up in the hands of school kids. Tackett also expressed concern that other commercial uses could move to the site if it is rezoned. Western noted that the"R-2, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District would only allow for"R-2"uses and also a convenience store and that the conditions would carry over to any new owners. Tackett noted that she would support a condition be added that restricts tobacco sales. Western noted that would be very tough to regulate as no special licensing is needed to sell tobacco. Anderson noted that it could be added as a condition. Carter noted that the site previously sold both tobacco and alcohol with out issues and noted that kids had sources of tobacco closer to their schools then his store would be located. Carter also reiterated that he would not sell tobacco to minors. Tackett noted that she understands what the applicant is saying but noted that kids will fmd trouble, noting that they will fmd an adult to buy for them. Tackett noted that this store would be one more local —place-for kids-to-get-tobacco-- e kP kept o t of neighborhoods. Carter noted that he had the support of the neighbors and submitted letters of support. Schmitt noted that six letters of support were submitted. Johnson noted that he would like to add a condition to restrict the hours from 6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Johnson to approve the request to rezone approximately 0.175 acres from "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District, located at 926 Linn Street,for the purpose of operating a convenience store with the condition that there not be alcohol sales of any type at the site and that use at the site be limited to a convenience/grocery store and the hours of operation are restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Request by the Ross and Kathryn Jones for a site plan amendment to the "C-1, C-Z" Conditional Zoning District located at 700 West Parker Street to use the existing building as a grinding shop and computer office. - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Johnson to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:53 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera noted that the request is for a site plan amendment to establish a grinding shop and computer office at 700 West Parker Street. Andera noted that the request could have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as a grinding shop would appear to be more compatible with an industrial area. Andera noted that the applicant has indicated that within their application that there will be no outside storage, and any noise created by the site is very minimal and should not impact the surrounding area due to the operations being inside the building. Andera noted that the applicants indicated that the site will have very little customer visits, and currently,there are 2 employees working for the business. Surrounding uses in all directions includes single-family residential development zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. Andera noted that the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Low Density Residential, which would not allow for the development of this site as a grinding shop/computer office. Andera noted that the request is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, but the site was previously approved to be rezoned to `C-1,C-Z"to legalize a non-conforming commercial use. Andera noted that the site was previously used for East Side Furniture, which has since gone out of business. The lot in question is 16,275 SF in area, and there appears to be a sufficient amount of space behind the building for parking for employees and any customers that visit the site, which the applicant has noted is very minimal. Staff does have concerns with allowing a grinding shop to be located within the middle of a residential area, as the use would appear to be more industrial in nature,however,the applicant has noted that there will be no outside storage, and all work would take place inside the building,minimizing any sound disturbance upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that the applicant has submitted pictures of the operations that occur there, noting that the majority of the work is performed by CNC machines, which do not produce a large amount of noise. Andera noted that staff recommends the request be approved with the conditions that there is no outside storage, and all the business operations are contained within the building,the use be limited to approved uses, and that restrictions on noise levels be put in place. Ross Jones,noted that he was the applicant and that the product that would be created would be a very small product.Jones-noted thatle wouldimprove--the-building b stallin ?ne roetandinstalling glass block windows on the sides of the building that face nearby residences and also fix the parking lot. Jones noted that he would make this building into something to be proud of. Jones noted that the business would only have about 2 customers visit a year and that there would be two employees and currently no second shift. Jones noted that the loudest noise the shop would generate would be from the radio that the employees listen too. Galen Amfahr, 656 W Parker,noted that he was concerned about the noise a grinding shop would create. Jones noted that they would make precision parts that require process that create minimal noise. Jones noted that their current location at 1800 Falls Avenue has a wall 10' from a residence and the occupant cannot hear the equipment. Jones noted that the largest part that would be made would be 3/16" in diameter and added that his hours of operation are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Jones noted the computer business may operate later but would make no noise. Shirley Bentley, 701 W Parker,noted that it would be a pleasure to have a good neighbor that's quiet and wants to improve the neighborhood. - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 Jones noted that all grinding in done in an enclosed area and is wet while in the grinding process which greatly quiets the process. Jones noted that all overhead doors that may be opened would not face directly adjacent residences. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:03 p.m. Johnson noted that he would like to add a condition that the noise level cannot exceed 65 DB's at the property line and questioned if the applicant would agree to a condition that would restrict the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Jones noted he would have concern with the hours restriction as he would eventually like the option of having a second shift if the shop is busy enough. Anderson noted that a condition restricting the hours could be placed based on a recommendation of staff after a visit to the shop. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Cox to approve the request for a site plan amendment to the "C-1, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District located at 700 West Parker Street to use the existing building as a grinding shop and computer office with the conditions that that there is no outside storage, and all the business operations are contained within the building, the use be limited to approved uses, that noise levels do not exceed 65 decibels at the property line. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacates 1. Request by Arlin Zevenbergen to vacate the undeveloped right-of-way of Edgemont Avenue located approximately 350 feet south of Cataract Avenue and north of Southhaven Addition. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant requests approval of the vacate of the portion of Edgemont Avenue to allow for future residential development. Schroeder noted that Edgemont Avenue currently dead-ends approximately 350 feet south of Cataract Avenue, and approximately 800 feet north of Park Lane. The right-of-way for Edgemont Avenue extends from Cataract to Park,but there are currently no plans to construct the missing segment of street, so the applicant is requesting that the undeveloped portion be vacated. Schroeder noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The street has existed with the undeveloped portion for a very long time(at leastsince the 1960's), Indication from many of the adjacent landowners has been that the missing segment should not be developed, as it could create a short cut between Park Lane and Ridgeway Avenue adjacent to West High School, and would cause a significant increase in the amount of traffic through the residential area. Schroeder noted that Ridgeway Avenue to the north and Kimball Avenue to the west are both classified as a Minor Arterial. Edgemont Avenue, Cataract Avenue and Park Lane are classified as local streets. There are no pedestrian paths in the immediate vicinity,with the closest sidewalks located on Park Lane to the south and Ridgeway Avenue to the north. Schroeder noted that there is an existing 10" storm sewer line located along the west side of the north/south portion of Edgemont Avenue. There is a 6"water line along the west side of the north/south portion and along the north side of the east/west portion of Edgemont Avenue. An easement will need to be retained over portions of the area to be vacated. Schroeder noted that the applicant is pursuing the option to relocate the water line. Schroeder noted that the area requested to be vacated is right-of-way for Edgemont Avenue,but in an areas where no street has ever been developed. Edgemont Avenue extends south of Cataract Avenue about 350 feet where it dead-ends mid-block adjacent to the apartment complex known as Carriage Hill Apartments. There is no turn-around at this end. Schroeder noted that Edgemont Avenue extends north of Park Lane about 800 feet where it dead-ends near a single family home at 2512 Edgemont Avenue, - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 just west of a cell tower constructed with camouflage design as a flag pole. There is a turn-around at this end. The right-of-way for Edgemont was designed so that the street could be connected and be a"thru street", but this segment has never been constructed. Schroeder noted that there are 7 different property owners with land that is abutting the area to be vacated, including the applicant Mr. Zevenbergen, MKW Apartment LLC (owner of Carriage Hill Apartments), Covenant Medical (owner of 200 E Ridgeway, which has land that abuts Edgemont), and 4 single family dwellings to the south. The applicant initially inquired about vacating and purchasing the area in question back in 2007, and at that time a meeting was arranged with staff and all of the abutting landowners. At that time, Covenant Medical indicated that they were not opposed to the vacate and did not want to acquire any of the area to be vacated. Schroeder noted that the owners of the 4 single-family homes did not attend the meeting and did not provide any comment. Mr. Zevenbergen and a representative for MKW Apartment LLC were in attendance and discussed intent to each acquire the portion of Edgemont Avenue adjacent to their respective properties. Mr. Zevenbergen has recently constructed a 3-unit residential building on his property, and has indicated that he does not have immediate plans for additional development but wants to acquire the area to clean it up and keep it properly maintained, and would have the potential for additional residential development in the future. City Policy has been that if a street dead-ends,but has the right-of-way and is planned to be extended in the future, a permanent turn-around is not required, but if the right-of-way is vacated and the road is not going to be extended,then a permanent turn-around is required. The applicant is requesting that the area be vacated without an additional turn-around being installed, and has indicated that the road has existing with no turn-around at the dead-end since at least as far back as the 1960's. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the request subject to adequate easements be retained to existing utilities within the area to be vacated. Johnson questioned if a hammerhead turnaround would be needed, as there already appears to be one constructed. Schroeder noted that there is already one south of the proposed vacate area but the area to the north would need one as well. Schroeder noted that there are other options that could be used instead of a hammerhead north of the proposed vacate area such as a looped connection to Tropic Lane that may be easier after any additional development is planned. Arlin Zevenbergen, noted that he was the applicant and that he needs the proposed vacate area in order to construct additional units on the property and meet setback requirements. Zevenbergen noted that he could fit as many as 3-4 more duplexes on the property. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Tackett to approve the request to vacate the undeveloped right- of-way of Edgemont Avenue located approximately 350 feet south of Cataract Avenue and north of Southhaven Addition with the conditions that adequate easements be retained to existing utilities within the area to be vacated.Motion carried unanimously. Dave Leonhart left at 5:20 p.m. 2. Request by Redonna Parker to vacate a portion of the public alley directly behind her home at 624 Adams Street in Block 8 of Rose Hill Addition. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate an approximately 120' long section of public alley located between her home and a vacant lot she owns located across the alley for the intention of closing the alley. Poll noted that the request could have a negative effect on the area as it could potentially prevent one of the residents on the block from utilizing a detached garage on their property. Poll noted that the request could potentially have a negative impact on vehicular movements as - 9 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 this would effectively eliminate thru-traffic for the alley and not provide any turnarounds for the remaining portions of alley. Poll noted that the applicant owns the property on both sides of the requested vacate. Poll noted the applicant owns a 60' long section of alley that was obtained through the vacation of Wilkins Street in 1976 that lies directly west of the proposed vacate area. Poll noted that because the applicant owns o section of the alley, it is unclear if the applicant could block off that section of alley or would be required to keep it open and functional. Poll noted that the applicant has noted that she feels the alley is not needed and would like to prevent people from speeding down the alley. Poll noted that staff has concerns with the request as it could negatively affect vehicular traffic conditions, as it would effectively block the alley. Poll noted that this would create a situation where the ends of the alley are open, but the middle is closed and no turnaround would be available. Poll noted that for that reason, it is against City Policy to vacate a portion of an alley without vacating the entire alley. Poll noted that staff recommends denial of the request as it is against City Policy to vacate only a portion of an alley and the request would appear to have a negative impact vehicular traffic conditions in the area. Redonna Parker, 624 Adams,noted that nobody on either side of the alley near the proposed vacate area uses the alley. Parker noted that she wanted to vacate the alley in order to beautify the property. Parker noted that her grand children play in her back yard and she was concerned about their safety if the alley is not vacated. Parker noted that currently the alley is used by people running from police and other illicit activities. Horris Corey, landlord of 530 Adams,noted that his tenants have expressed an interest in constructing a garage that would require alley access. Corey noted that he was against the proposed vacate. Corey noted that on occasion he has plowed the alley so his tenants could get out. Parker noted that she only wanted to vacate the portion of alley between her home and the vacant lot she owns directly across the alley,noting that other residents could still use to alley for access. Parker noted that she has never seen anyone plow the alley. Herschel Parker, 624 Adams,noted that he has seen a City truck get stuck in the alley because it is not maintained. Cox-questioned-how many cars-used thealiey-perday. Parker-nuted that she—believed it was about 5=6 and noted that only one resident uses the alley. Schroeder noted that it is against City policy to vacate portions of alley as it does make maintenance and plowing difficult as there is no way for a City truck to turn around without driving on private property. Johnson questioned if the area of alley directly west of the proposed vacate area had been previously vacated and conveyed. Schroeder noted that it was formally Wilkins Street and had been vacated and conveyed in 1976. Schroeder noted that the vacate had used a poor legal description that conveyed the section that is now used as alley. Parker noted that the City does not maintain the alley and that garbage is picked up from the street side. Parker added that no restrictions were placed on the vacated Wilkins Street when she purchased it. Tackett questioned if the alley was needed for safety or convenience. Anderson noted that public safety did not object to the vacate. Schmitt questioned if a proper decision could be made without legal advise. Johnson noted that by allowing the neighborhood to use the alley for the last 40 years a claim of adverse possession could be - 10 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 made by the neighbors to keep the alley open. Parker noted that she has been paying taxes on the vacated section of Wilkins Street including the portion now used as alley for the last 40 years. Bruce Vaughn, 615 Cottage noted that there has always been an alley and that he does not think that one person should be able to change something that affects everyone on the block. Vaughn noted that he would like to see the alley remain completely open as it currently is. Loveless noted that as he owned property on the block in question that he would abstain from voting. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Powers to deny the request to vacate a portion of the public alley directly behind her home at 624 Adams Street in Block 8 of Rose Hill Addition. Motion carried 7- 0 with Loveless abstaining. 3. Request by Sunnyside South Addition LLC to vacate approximately 7.41 acres of West San Marnan Drive right-of-way between Ansborough Avenue and West 4th Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate approximately a %2 mile portion of West San Marnan right-of-way for the purpose of relocating San Marnan Drive further to the south to create new residential lots abutting the south edge of Sunnyside Country Club. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as additional single-family housing would be compatible with already existing development. Andera noted that the request could have a negative impact upon traffic within the surrounding area, as the road would need to be closed for approximately 3 months for construction of the new road,requiring that traffic find alternate routes. Andera noted that the north half of the vacate area is zoned"R-1"One and Two Family Residence District, and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. The south half of the vacate area is zoned"R-4,R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District, and"C-2,C-Z" Conditional Zoning District, and was rezoned as such on February 25,2004 from"A-1"Agricultural District. Andera noted the surrounding area is comprised of vacant development ground to the south for future multiple family residential development and professional office development. The Sunnyside Country Club is to the north and serves as green space, and there are single-family houses that abut that development. Andera noted that vacation of the right-of-way would not appear to have a negative impact on drainage in the area. There is currently ditch drainage along the existing road and there would be storm-swer-installed-as-part-of-the-constructio i of she v-road. The-storm-sewe will reed b adequately designed to handle the drainage in the area. Andera noted that there is 4"drain tile located on both the north and south sides of West San Marnan Drive. It appears that there were some culverts within the area in question,however, those have been abandoned and plugged. There is a large overhead electric line that runs along the south side of the road. Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to vacate approximately 2,600' of West San Marnan Drive right-of-way between Ansborough Avenue and West 4th Street for the purpose of relocating the roadway further to the south to create additional residential development lots that abut the south side of Sunnyside Country Club's golf course. Andera noted that the applicant has indicated that relocation and reconstruction of the new road will take approximately 3 months to complete, which means that traffic will have to be re-routed to other routes during that time. Andera noted that the submitted vacate plat shows 26 new residential lots being created upon the north side of the relocated road. It is planned to extend sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water to serve the new residential lots, all at the expense of the developer. Andera noted that at this time, it is not known what the sizes of the new sewers will be. The plans show the new roadway still being located within existing - 11 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 San Marnan Drive right-of-way,however, it may be necessary to examine if additional right-of-way would need to be dedicated in the future along the south side of the relocated road. The existing overhead electric line will still remain in its current location and be on the south side of the proposed road. Andera noted that it is planned future professional office development to the south of the proposed single-family houses as the area continues to develop. Andera noted that staff recommends approval of the request with the conditions that the new street be constructed within an approximate the 90-day timeframe after the property is conveyed to the applicant. Schmitt questioned if the 26 new lots would be addressed off of Ansborough. Andera noted that was the current plan although it could change in the future. Schmitt questioned how many cars used the proposed section of road per day. Anderson noted that approximately 4000 cars use that section of San Marnan according to the latest traffic studies noting those numbers are similar to Mitchell Street and Ridgeway Avenue. Schroeder questioned when Ansborough would be resurfaced. Thorson noted that Ansborough would not be resurfaced this year. Johnson noted that initially he was skeptical of the plan but after thinking about it he noted that he like the proposal more and more as it would appear to be a good development. Johnson noted that it would be ideal if Ansborough could be resurfaced first,but noted that even without that he was in favor of the proposal. Johnson noted that the proposal may cause a little inconvenience but was a creative development to bring in more housing to the area. Schmitt noted that he was also in favor of the proposal but added that 4000 cars diverted to Ridgeway and 4th Street could potentially cause some issues. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Johnson to approve the request to vacate approximately 7.41 acres of West San Marnan Drive right-of-way between Ansborough Avenue and West 4`"Street with the conditions that the new street be constructed within an approximate the 90-day timeframe after the property is conveyed to the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request by Wayne Claassen Engineering on behalf of Lost Island Real Estate LC to vacate existing sanitary sewer easements located northwest of the intersection of East Shaulis Road and Hess Road. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate the sanitary sewer easement for the-purpose-of r-elocating-thP Sanit�_a a ewer-nn the site to asliffe<rent location. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or traffic in the area. Andera noted that the site where the easements are located was rezoned from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District, "R-4,R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District, and"C-P"Planned Commercial District on September 13, 2010 to allow for the development of a camp ground and RV park. Andera noted that vacation of the easement would not appear to have a negative impact on drainage in the area, as a new easement would be dedicated to allow access to the relocated sanitary sewer if maintenance is needed in the future. Andera noted that the surrounding area is served by utilities such as water, storm and sanitary sewer, and other utilities such as telephone, gas, cable, etc. Dustin Cox left at 6::00 p.m. Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to vacate 2 sections of an existing sanitary sewer easement on land directly east of Guernsey Addition. The easements in question are located approximately in the middle of the ground, flowing from the west to the east. Andera noted that the largest segment of the easements in question is approximately 2,350' in length, and the other easement is approximately 480' in length, and is located directly west of the larger easement. Each easement is 40' in width. There is an - 12 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 3,2011 existing 30" sanitary sewer located within the entire length of the larger easement, and there is no sewer in the smaller easement. Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to vacate these sanitary sewer easements due to the proposed lake for the future campground being placed where the sewer currently sits. The applicant is proposing to install new sanitary sewer to the south of the proposed lake to serve the campground and any future residential growth between the lake and East Shaulis Road. Andera noted that new sanitary sewer easement agreements and easement plats have been submitted by the applicant, and once the item is heard at the City Council hearing, the new easement dedicates will subsequently follow the vacate request. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has reviewed the submitted easement document that will replace the current easement, and they have noted that the document appears to provide for enough space for crews to service the sewer if needed. Andera noted that staff recommends the request is approved with the condition that the newly submitted sanitary sewer easements are dedicated and recorded. It was moved by Tackett, seconded by Powers to approve the request to vacate existing sanitary sewer easements located northwest of the intersection of East Shaulis Road and Hess Road Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment Schroeder noted that the next special meeting would be on May 10, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 13 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING- 4:00 P.M MAY 10,2011 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:06 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Loveless on May 10th,2011 in the Mollenhoff Room. Members present were: Whitehead, Cox,Powers,Loveless,Young(4:48)and Tackett. Members absent were:Johnson,Leonhart,and Schmitt Others present:Aric Schroeder and Adam Poll-Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that eventually the Highway 218 section should be review as it had previously been skipped but that he would review the major changes from the beginning. Schroeder noted that wording had been added to definition(32A)Deck that limited the wall in front of a deck to 60% coverage noting concern about illegal conversion to enclosed porches. Schroeder noted that some of the wording defming a dwelling unit(36,39, and 40)had been changed to define a dwelling unit as having a bathroom or cooking facilities,and not both. Schroeder noted that he had added a definition for fast casual type of restaurant. Schroeder noted that parking requirements would have to be created as well. Schroeder noted that fencing regulations have been changed so that a 25' visibility triangle is now measured from the curb of an intersection and not a 20' visibility triangle measured from the property line. Young arrived at 4:48 p.m. Schroeder noted that minor changes had been made to Part XX Highway 218 Overlay District Schroeder noted that the bonding wording for F. Landscape requirements had been dropped as it was not needed. Schroeder noted that wording has been changed to the screening requirements as in some cases screening is not needed. Schroeder noted that sign requirements have not changed much although directional and menu signs were defined. Schroeder noted that Part XXI Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District requirements were nearly identical to Part XX Highway 218 Overlay District but there was no design review in the Highway 20 section. Young questioned if Highway 20 should be different as most of it is a raised interstate. Whitehead noted that he would like to see design review along Highway 20. Young questioned the regulations that include 300' measurement and questioned where the 300' started,from the centerline,edge of the highway or the property line. Schroeder noted it was the property line.Whitehead Planning and Zoning Commission May 10,2011 Special Meeting questioned if a whole property was included if only a portion of the property was within 300'. Schroeder noted that only the portion included was restricted by those regulations. Whitehead noted that he thought the entire property should be included if any portion with within 300'.Young noted he did not agree and noted that the point of the overlay district was for aesthetics purposes and not to subvert existing zoning. Whitehead noted that Part XX and Part XXI should be moved within the ordinance to follow Part XVII"M-2,P" Planned Industrial Districts. Schroeder noted that he did not think that would be a problem. Schroeder noted that within Part XIX"R-P"Planned Residence District wording would be added to limit"R-1,R- P"and"R-2,R-P"to residential single family homes and duplexes. Loveless left at 5:20 Whitehead questioned if"R-1,R-P"or"R-2,R-P"currently prevents multifamily housing. Schroeder noted that it currently did not,but the proposed wording would prevent multifamily housing in these districts. Schroeder noted that there were also proposed changes to the alcohol section of the Ordinance. Schroeder noted that it was a newer ordinance that was created in November of 2009. Schroeder noted that currently it requires that a special permit is required unless the business is on a principal arterial and is 250' from a protected use. Young questioned how we could write an ordinance revision in a fashion that would distinguish between the good and bad establishments. Schroeder noted that was where the problem was coming from. Young questioned how a alcohol license worked. Schroeder noted that the applicant applies online,the state notifies the City Clerk and there are various inspections that need to be passed. Schroeder noted that City Council is currently denying licenses due to behavior but the courts are not backing them up because in sufficient is cause is not documented. Schroeder noted that currently there is a 1 year grandfather clause for these uses and the new proposal would decrease this to 3 months within proposed overlay districts. Schroeder noted that Noel Anderson had proposed to not use overlays and restrict liquor stores and stores selling package liquor throughout the City. Tackett expressed concern about minors gaining access to alcohol and tobacco.Young noted there is a point system used in Cedar Falls to deal with problem landlords by not allowing them to rent after accumulating a certain amoiintofpoints and thought a similar system_.could be used fnr tt alcohol ordinance—Schroede noted the problem would be finding a point where there could be a clear line drawn. Cox questioned if the ordinance could restrict the hours of operation and if that would help. Schroeder noted that new businesses could be restricted,but not existing businesses. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Cox to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.Meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, dtx-r-ZaLe-ogr Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 2 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M JUNE 7,2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on June 7,2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox,Leonhart, Loveless, Young, Schmitt, Whitehead, Johnson, and Tackett Members absent were: Powers Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham and Tim Andera- Planning Department; Dennis Gentz, Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt, and approximately 12 citizens. ---I.—Approval-o -Agenda - It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Loveless to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on May 3,2011 and Special Meeting on May 10, 2011. It was moved by Tackett, seconded by Whitehead to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: April 2011. Anderson gave the financial report noting revenue was ahead due to property sales and other categories were normal for this time of year. It was moved by Young,seconded by Loveless to approve the financial report for April 2011. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Mitchell Juhl to rezone 0.19 acres from"M-1"Light Industrial District to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, located at 3961 Wagner Road. It was moved by Young and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report explaining the request,noting that this item was tabled at last months meeting in order to get some more information from the banks regarding this issue. Andera noted that staff has received a response from Fannie Mae noting that no such policy exists and that Fannie Mae does not even require rebuild letters for 1-4 unit properties. The representative from Fannie Mae noted that decisions to purchase a mortgage are not solely based on zoning but also factor in if the property is residential in nature and if other residences are in the area. In addition, staff has been in contact with • Planning and Zoning Commission June 7,2011 representatives from various financial institutions including US Bank and Community National Bank, and they have indicated that a 30-year fixed mortgage would not be a problem as long as the home can be rebuilt, is residential in nature, a home is the highest and best use for the property (determined in the appraisal),the property will maintain and hold its value, and similar comparisons can be found from other houses in an industrial zoning district. Andera indicated that in discussion with the realtor for the property, it was indicated to that the issue is arising with the Iowa Finance Authority(IFA). For homebuyers applying for down payment or other assistance through IFA,properties within an industrial zone have difficulty getting approved for assistance through IFA. Andera indicated that staff is recommending denial of the request, as the proposed rezone is not in compliance with the Future Land Use Map or Comprehensive Plan and could negatively affect future industrial development. Johnson indicated that he requested the issue be tabled last month in order for staff to further look into this issue, which they did. Johnson noted that it is an institutional issue, and this property should not be spot zoned. Schmitt agreed with Johnson's statement. Anderson indicated that he spoke with a representative with the Iowa Finance Authority, and they have no issues with financing these types of homes either. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Young to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:12 p.m. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loveless to deny the request to rezone approximately 0.19 acres from "M-1"Light Industrial District to "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District. Motion carried 7-1, with Tackett voting against the motion. 2. Request by Wesley Mahlstedt to rezone 0.30 acres from"C-2" Commercial District to"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District, located at 507 Wisconsin Street. It was moved by Young and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:14 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report explaining the request, and indicated that this request was similar to the first item on the agenda as far as why they are asking for the rezone,however this location is in a residential area, and would appear to make more sense. Western indicated that staff recommends approval of the rezone request, as there would not appear to be a negative impact on the area, as the site in question is primarily surrounded by residential neighborhoods and would not be out of character for the area, and the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Residential. It was moved by Whitehead, seconded by Young to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:18 p.m. Johnson indicated that although this request is similar to the previous request,this property is in the middle of a residential area. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cox to approve the request to rezone 0.30 acres from "C-2" Commercial District to "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District.Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Gene Meyer to rezone 12.01 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-R"Rural Residence District, located at 3545, 3555 and 3655 Ranchero Road for the purpose of creating one buildable lot for a single-family home. It was moved by Cox and seconded by Young to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission June 7,2011 Andera gave the staff report explaining the request, and indicated that staff recommends approval of the rezone, as the proposed rezone area would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as there are already approximately 20 nearby homes with similar sized lots, and the request would meet all of the requirements of the"R-R"Rural Residence District. Johnson questioned how many additional lots could be created, and Schroeder indicated that only two additional lots could be created based on the size of the rezone area, even though the applicants are only requesting the rezone for one lot. It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Leonhart to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:26 p.m. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Tackett to approve the request to rezone 12.1 acres from "A-1" Agricultural District to "R R"Rural Residence District Motion carried unanimously. 47 Request by'Todd Welch to rezone 1.59 acres from"C-1" Commercial District to "C=1Z" Conditional Zoning Commercial District, located at 1033 Decathlon Drive, for the purpose of establishing an auto sales office. It was moved by Young and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:28 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report explaining the request,noting that staff recommends approval of the request, as the proposed rezone area is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which designates this site as Mixed Residential,which allows for Low, Medium,to High Density Residential; Professional Offices and Neighborhood Commercial, and the site in question would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations, including setbacks, drainage, landscaping, etc., and the rezone area is already served by all necessary utilities. Andera noted that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. That there be no outside storage upon the site in question, 2. That there be no vehicle display area for the sale and purchase of vehicles upon the site in question, 3. That there be no auto repair/maintenance or body/fender repair work permitted on the site in question, and 4. That use of the site shall be limited to an automobile sales office, and any use permitted in the"C-1" Commercial District, except that the site shall not be used for an animal hospital,veterinary clinic, carwash, commercial parking lot, gas station, service station or alcohol sales use. Denise Colon with Alternatives Pregnancy Center, 1004 Decathlon Drive, indicated concerns on increasing traffic along Decathlon Drive,noting that the road needs to be repaired and suggested that a stop sign be put at the corner where cars turn near her building. Tackett questioned why the sales lot and office are not on the same site, and Andera noted that the sales office site has poor visibility from Ansborough Avenue, so it would be difficult to sell cars from that site. Cox questioned if the applicant could sell as many cars as he wanted at the location at Black Hawk Road and Ansborough Avenue, and Anderson indicated that he could as long as the parking requirements are still met for the business at that location. Cox then questioned if there could be a restriction on the number of vehicles that can be displayed for sale, and Anderson indicated that there could not, as it is not on the same property as the one proposing to be rezoned. There was a discussion on the private drive, and Schroeder indicated that since it is a private drive, that the stop sign and improvements would not be handled by the City. Cox questioned if there would be any cars on the site in question, and Schroeder indicated that there would not. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission June 7,2011 It was moved by Whitehead, seconded by Johnson to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:48 p.m. It was moved by Young,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request to rezone 1.59 acres from "C- 1"Commercial District to "C-1, C-Z"Conditional Zoning Commercial District subject to the following conditions:1. That there be no outside storage upon the site in question, 2. That there be no vehicle display area for the sale and purchase of vehicles upon the site in question, 3. That there be no auto repair/maintenance or body/fender repair work permitted on the site in question, and 4. That use of the site shall be limited to an automobile sales office, and any use permitted in the "C-1"Commercial District, except that the site shall not be used for an animal hospital, veterinary clinic, carwash, commercial parking lot,gas station, service station or alcohol sales use.Motion carried 7-1, with Loveless voting against the motion. B. Site Plan Amendments 1. Request by Howard L. Allen Investments, Inc for a site plan amendment in the"S-1" Shopping Center District, located east of 2825 Crossroads Boulevard, to allow for the construction of a new 10,600 SF 4-tenant retail shopping center. It was moved by Young and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report explaining the request,noting that the building is being shown with a 25' setback along E San Marnan Drive, however there is a 50' easement located along that property line, so the applicant would either have to move the building out of the easement or request to vacate a portion of that easement in order to keep the building where they are proposing it. Andera indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Map for this area as Commercial,the request is located within the Primary Growth Area according to the City of Waterloo Comprehensive Plan,the use and design would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and would appear to be compatible to the existing development in the area, and the request would provide additional employment opportunities to the area, and would provide for additional growth and taxes. Andera noted that the recommendation is subject to the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes,regulations, etc. including but not limited to parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Chris Fischels with Sulentic-Fischels Commercial Group indicated that they would like to keep the 25' setback for visibility purposes and would like to keep the process moving in order to start construction on the building as soon as possible. Fischels indicated that the adjacent Advance Auto Parts store is oriented towards the east, so there shouldn't be any issues with their building being a bit closer to San Marnan Drive. Anderson discussed the options that the commission had, including approving the site plan as is with the 25' setback,which would mean that City Council would have to approve the easement vacate,pr the commission could approve the site plan showing a 50' setback,which would stay out of the easement. Dennis Gentz with the Engineer's Office indicated that the applicant would need to shift their access point from Crossroads Boulevard a bit to align with the median cut in the road. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Young to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 5:12 p.m. Both Johnson and Whitehead announced that they have a conflict of interest with this request, and therefore would abstain from voting. -4- Planning and Zoning Commission June 7,2011 It was moved by Young,seconded by Loveless to approve the request for site plan amendment in the "S-1"Shopping Center District to allow for the construction of a new 10,600 SF 4-tenant retail shopping center,subject to the condition that the City Council vacate 25'of the 50'easement along E San Marnan Drive, and subject to the access to the property being moved to align with the median cut along Crossroads Boulevard. Motion carried 6-0, with Whitehead and Johnson abstaining. C. Plats 1. Request by John Humpal and Reta Kay Kiefer Humpal to plat 12.63 acres into one lot zoned"A-1" Agricultural District located at 5222 Dysart Rd, for the purpose of adding additional land to the existing residential lot. Graham gave the staff report explaining the request,noting that staff recommends approval of the request, as the plat is in accordance with the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance, and the plat is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map,which classify this area as Low Density-Residential-and-Mixed-Residential— It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Cox to approve the preliminary and final plat of Kiefer Minor Plat Motion carried unanimously. D. Vacates 1. Request by Skogman Homes/Midwest Development, Co. to vacate an 8' utility easement along the northeasterly property line of Lot 10 of Audubon Park 5th Addition, located north of 4230 Harbin Drive. Andera gave the staff report explaining the request, and noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, and would allow for a greater buildable area for new construction of a home within a neighborhood,the request would not appear to have any negative impact on utility service,traffic, or any services to serve the area, the easement would not appear necessary for any present or future public needs,the request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map for this area and would allow for development accordingly, and the request would appear to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Andera indicated that the recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request not be forwarded to full City Council until staff has made contact with other applicable utilities, and the inability to relocate or terminate any utilities within the easement area will result in the request being stopped and/or referred back to the Planning Commission. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Tackett to approve the request to vacate an 8'utility easement, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request not be forwarded to full City Council until staff has made contact with other applicable utilities, and the inability to relocate or terminate any utilities within the easement area will result in the request being stopped and/or referred back to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. E. Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1. Request to amend the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance by updating the regulations pertaining to floodplain management. Schroeder explained the amendment, noting that it will update terms and definitions as they apply to the floodplain regulations in order to make them compliant with the DNR Model Ordinance,which needs to be done prior to July 18th, when the new floodplain maps will be adopted for the City of Waterloo. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission June 7,2011 Schroeder handed out two maps, one which shows what areas are being taken out of the floodplain on the new maps, and one that shows which areas are being added to the floodplain. Johnson questioned what the impact would be if a property is being put into the floodplain, and Schroeder indicated that if the owner were to try to sell the home or refinance,the banks may require flood insurance. Schroeder indicated that if the City did not approve the new maps,that residents would not be eligible for flood insurance through the federal flood insurance program, and the City could not receive disaster funds if a flood ever occurred again. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Young to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. F. Plans and Studies 1. 2012-2016 Capital Improvements Program. Anderson explained the Capital Improvements Program,noting that the program is a 5-year program that gets updated yearly, as priorities can change from year to year. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the 2012-2016 Capital Improvements Program. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Adoption of the City Limits Urban Revitalization Area(CLURA)boundary. Anderson explained the CLURA,noting that it is designed to spur the construction of one and two family homes by offering a three-year tax abatement for new construction.Anderson indicated that there was a committee that met over a one-year timeframe, and this program was a product of those committee meetings. Anderson indicated that the original CURA boundary covers a portion of the city, and this new program would cover the remaining area of the City. It was moved by Young,seconded by Johnson to adopt the City Limits Urban Revitalization Area (CLURA) boundary. Motion carried unanimously. G. Other 1. Historic Preservation Ordinance Revision. Andera gave a brief overview of the ordinance revision. Johnson questioned if there were any tax incentives for being located within a historic district,and Andera indicated that there are not. Cox commented that by creating a historic district,you could be restricting the rights of a property owner that does not want to be located within one.Tackett questioned if any assistance was available to property owners if they are placed within a historic district,and Andera noted that there is not.Andera commented that you don't need to change a house just because you are in a district,but rather if you are going to do any improvements,then there are guidelines that need to be followed. Tackett indicated that she did not want to vote on this until she has had a chance to read through the entire ordinance. It was moved by Young,seconded by Leonhart to approve the revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Motion carried 7-0, with Tackett abstaining. 2. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places: Waterloo East Commercial Historic District. Andera explained the request,noting that this is a national register and not a local register, so it may be eligible for state and federal tax credits. Johnson questioned if this would create any additional work for staff, and Anderson noted that it would not, as it is monitored at the state and federal level. It was moved by Young,seconded by Cox to approve the nomination of both the Waterloo East Commercial Historic District, and Grace Methodist Episcopal Church at 633 Walnut Street. Motion - 6- Planning and Zoning Commission June 7,2011 carried unanimously. 3. Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places: Grace Methodist Episcopal Church at 633 Walnut Street. Request discussed and acted on with item#2. 4. Request to amend the fee schedule pertaining to Planning&Zoning requests. Anderson explained the request, noting that Waterloo is at or near the bottom compared to similar sized cities when it comes to filing fees. Anderson noted that the fees for most requests would go up some, but would still be at or near the bottom compared to the other similar sized cities in the state. It was moved by Tackett,seconded by Young to approve the fee schedule amendment. Motion carried Unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Whitehead, seconded by Young to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 6:04 p.m. Respectfully;submitted, geze Shane M. Graham, Planner II -7 - ) MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M JULY 12,2011 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairperson Schmitt on July 12, 2011 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were: Cox,Loveless, Young, Schmitt, Whitehead, and Tackett Members absent were: Powers, Johnson and Leonhart. Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham and Tim Andera- Planning Department; Dennis Gentz, Engineering Department; City Councilperson Steve Schmitt, and approximately 12 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 7, 2011. Tackett pointed out that the motion on item#4 on page 4 should show Loveless voting against the motion, and not herself It was moved by Cox,seconded by Young to approve the minutes as amended Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: May 2011. Anderson gave the financial report noting revenue was ahead due to property sales and other categories were normal for this time of year. It was moved by Young,seconded by Whitehead to approve the financial report for May 2011. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Hy-Vee, Inc. to rezone 0.62 acres from"R-3"Multiple Family Residence District to "R-3, C-Z" Conditional Zoning Multiple Residence District, located west of 3233 W 4th Street for the purpose of creating an employee parking lot for the adjacent grocery store currently under construction. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Schmitt declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report explaining the request. Andera indicated that staff is recommending approval of the request, as the rezone area is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Planning and Zoning Commission July 12,2011 Map,which designates this area as Mixed Residential,which allows for Low, Medium to High Density Residential; Professional Offices and Neighborhood Commercial,the site in question would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations including setbacks, drainage, landscaping, screening, etc, and it would appear that the proposed parking lot would be compatible and similar to other commercial parking lots within the area. Jeff Stein with Hy-Vee,Inc. indicated that he is available to answer any questions that the Commission has. Cox questioned if the applicant currently owns the property in question, and Mr. Stein indicated that they have a purchase agreement in place. Cox questioned if there was not enough employee parking available on the existing site,and Mr. Stein indicated that they do, and that they have a lease agreement for additional parking but this gives them an option in case that lease would go away. Andera noted that Traffic Operations indicated that no crosswalk would be needed to cross E zr street,however a light may be needed to illuminate the area. Schmitt indicated that this is no different than Allen Hospital on Donald Street. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Loveless to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing was closed at 4:10 p.m. It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Young to approve the request to rezone approximately 0.62 acres from "R-3"Multiple Family Residence District to "R-3, C-Z"Conditional Zoning Multiple Family Residence District Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Permits 1. Request by Ken Kampman for a special permit to allow for more than 25 cubic yards of fill to be brought onto the property, located on Lots 2 and 3 of Tower Park No. 6. Andera gave the staff report explaining the request. Andera indicated that staff is recommending approval of the request, as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, and the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and would be a good infill development project. Schmitt questioned how the fill being brought in would be monitored, noting that fill has already been brought onto the site, and Anderson indicated that the Black Hawk County Health Department would monitor it as a rubble fill site. It was moved by Cox,seconded by Young to approve the request for a special permit to allow for more than 25 cubic yards of fill to be brought onto the property. Motion carried unanimously. C. Plats 1. Request by Gene Meyer to plat 1.5 acres into one lot zoned"R-R"Rural Residence District located east of 3655 Ranchero Rd, for the purpose of creating one new buildable lot. Poll gave the staff report explaining the request, noting that staff recommends approval of the request, as the plat would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as there are already at least 20 nearby homes with similar sized lots, and the request would meet all of the requirements of the"R-R"Rural Residence District. It was moved by Tackett, seconded by Loveless to approve the Plat Motion carried unanimously. - 2 - ` Planning and Zoning Commission July 12,2011 D. Encroachment Agreements 1. Request by Joshua Jebe for an encroachment agreement to allow for a retaining wall to encroach 5' into the city-owned right-of-way, located at 813 Fairview Avenue. Western gave the staff report explaining the request, and noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, and subject to the condition that a signed and executed encroachment agreement be obtained. It was moved by Young,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request for an encroachment agreement to allow for a retaining wall to encroach 5'into the city-owned right-of-way, subject to the condition that a signed and executed encroachment agreement be obtained Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Loveless to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:27p.m. Respectfully submitted, Shane M. Graham, Planner II - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M JULY 6,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on July 6, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm, Johnson, Leonhart, Loveless, Powers, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Loggins Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Steve Schmitt and David Jones— City Council, and approximately 24 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Whitehead,seconded by Schmitt to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 1, 2010 It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Powers to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: May 2010. Anderson noted that revenues and costs in line with projections. Anderson noted that only 38%of the part time budget had been used, and this was due to the retirement of Bob Donels. It was moved by Young,seconded by Powers to approve the financial report for May 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Rezone Request 1. Request by Dick and Don Hurst to rezone approximately 0.45 acres of land from"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District to "S-1" Shopping Center District located north of 2102 Kimball Avenue for the purpose of bringing the existing legal non-conforming commercial parking lot to the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance near the northwest corner of Kimball Avenue and West Ridgeway Avenue. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Young to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Poll gave the staff report noting that this request by Dick and Don Hurst was to rezone a portion of the parking lot at Kimball Ridge from its current Zoning of"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District to "S-1" Shopping Center District to match the zoning of the rest of the shopping center and to bring the existing non-conforming parking lot into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Poll noted that there would appear to be a minimal impact on the surrounding area and land uses, as the area is currently used Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 as parking for the shopping center, and the rezone would allow the parking area to match the zoning of the rest of the shopping center. Poll noted that the area is zoned"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969 and that the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center was zoned"S-1" Shopping Center District and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Poll noted that a 4" drain tile is under Kimball Avenue directly east of the site in question, and an 8" sanitary sewer line is located to the west under Bellaire Road and within a 16' easement that runs along the south side of the site in question as well as another 8" sanitary sewer line that runs in a 16' easement that splits the site into east and west halves. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Commercial, and the rezone would appear to be in compliance with this designation. Poll noted that changing the zoning to "S-1" Shopping Center District would bring the property into compliance with its use by the shopping center for parking purposes. Poll noted that the rezoning is also needed for the subsequent request for a Site Plan Amendment to allow for a coffee shop to be built on the property, however the applicants would like the parking lot to be properly zoned regardless of the request for the coffee shop. Poll noted that staff recommends that the request for rezoning be approved as the area is currently used as a parking lot for the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center and has been since the adoption of the zoning ordinance and changing the zoning to "S-1" Shopping Center District would bring the parking lot into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Bruce Radue, VJ Engineering, noted that the request was fairly straightforward, and noted that several private issues of a personal nature may be voiced, but would not be relevant to the rezoning. Johnson noted that he would abstain as the Hurst brothers are clients and he may end up working on the project. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Schmitt to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Schmitt for the rezone of approximately 0.45 acres of land from "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District to "S-1"Shopping Center District located north of 2102 Kimball Avenue for the purpose of bringing the existing legal non-conforming commercial parking lot to the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance near the northwest corner of Kimball Avenue and West Ridgeway Avenue be approved. Motion carried 7-0 with Johnson abstaining. B. Site Plan Amendments 1. Request by Dick and Don Hurst for a Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1" Shopping Center District for the purpose of constructing a 2,543 SF coffee shop/restaurant north of 2102 Kimball Avenue at the north end of the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center near the northwest corner of Kimball Avenue and West Ridgeway Avenue. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Young to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:11 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting a site plan amendment for the construction of a free standing 2,543 coffee shop/restaurant at the north end of Kimball Ridge Shopping Center. Poll noted that there would appear to be minimal impact on the surrounding area and land uses as the coffee shop/restaurant would not appear to alter the character of the neighborhood as many commercial enterprises operate within the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center. Poll noted that the proposed coffee shop/restaurant would not appear to effect pedestrian or traffic conditions, but would reduce the available amount of parking at the site from 266 stalls to 244 stalls, which would be 22 stalls fewer then - 2 - • Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 required. Poll noted that a similar situation was encountered with the addition of the Flowerama on the south side of the same site in 1989 and in that case, staff was concerned about the setback from the intersection of Ridgeway and Kimball as well as a potential lack of parking. Poll noted the site plan was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission,but later passed by City Council. Poll noted this current request, it would not appear to have issues with the setback of the building in question from the road, as it would be positioned further away from Kimball Avenue then the Flowerama building, and would not appear to cause any line of site problems for traffic. Poll noted that staff would be concerned about the parking, noting that the applicant calculated that 266 stalls would be required, and that only 244 stalls would be provided with the current site plan; including that staff is concerned that more parking would be required as the applicant calculated the required stalls of the entire shopping center using the calculations required for a retail store, and staff would note that there are several different uses in addition to restaurants, bars, and other uses that require a higher parking requirement then a retail shop. Poll noted that that many of the uses share differing peak times, such as the restaurant and bar, which would lessen the overall stalls needed adding that City Council could approve the site plan for any number of parking stalls they feel is adequate as part of the Site Plan Amendment process. Poll noted that the proposed structure would be designed with a log cabin type siding and that structures in the area are principally constructed of brick, and other structures in the area have changed design elements to better fit the area. Poll noted that staff has concerns that the use of log cabin type siding could be out of character for the area and that other Cabin Coffee locations appear to be constructed with brick. Poll noted that staff recommends approval for a Site Plan Amendment as the proposed coffee shop/restaurant would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood and it would generate infill development and be in compliance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan. Poll noted that he had received a call from Doug Casteel of 624 Midlothian Blvd noting his concern of traffic congestion in the area and that he believed a traffic study should be done in the area. Anderson noted that there is a traffic study underway for Kimball Avenue between Ridgeway Avenue to Tower Park, which will take into account traffic movements from the Kimball Ridge Shopping Center. Bruce Radue, VJ Engineering, noted that several private issues of a personal nature may be voiced, but would not be relevant to the Site Plan Amendment. Radue also noted that a separate pole sign should be included in the site plan placed near Kimball Avenue. Radue noted that the matter of the cross easements is a private matter and should not be a concern of the City noting that a permit cannot be issued until a cross easement agreement is in place. Leonhart asked if there was any site drainage or detention in this request. Radue noted that the landscaped area in the front of the structure would serve this purpose. Schmitt asked what the plans were for snow removal for the property as currently the area is in question is used for storage of snow. Radue noted that the Hurst brothers would have to evaluate the situation, but would probably have the snow removed by truck. Grimm asked if more traffic would be expected on Bellaire Road. Radue noted that there would be some, but most would be directed to Kimball Avenue. Whitehead asked how much drive thru stacking was provided from the canopy to Kimball. Radue noted it allowed for 6-7 cars, but the Cabin Coffee representatives said that the normal amount of stacking was 3- 4 cars. Rick Hurtado of 105-107 Bellaire Road noted that he had concerns on the brick wall surrounding the site as it is currently in poor condition and also noted concern about more traffic using Bellaire Road to avoid Kimball Avenue traffic. Hurtado also noted that the shopping center looks bad, its filthy and smells badly. Maxine Heise of 2030-2036 Kimball Avenue noted that she has had an offer for her Duplex that was conditional upon rezoning it and stated that she could not get the property rezoned and was upset that the - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 City was willing to rezone a property for business, but not citizens. Heise noted that traffic was very bad and it is difficult exiting her driveway. Heise noted that there are many accidents in the area and she was concerned about any additional signage that could block her view of Kimball when existing her driveway. Heise noted her main concern was that she was not able to rezone the property. Dave Tyler of 148 Bellaire Road noted that he was upset with the shopping centers administration of the property. Tyler noted that he was upset that a semi trailer was parked on Bellaire Road to service the shopping center. Tyler noted that garbage was picked up at 5:30 a.m., which is a very loud process. Tyler noted that his home and neighbors were designed for retired people. Tyler noted that the shopping center is overgrown with weeds and refuse and pallets litter the area and feels that it is not run appropriately. Bob Schaffer of 138 Bellaire Road noted his agreement with Tyler. Schaffer noted that sometime two semi trucks park on Bellaire and block their driveways. Schaffer noted that he would like to see improvements to the fence around the property. Brad Barber of 406 North Shore Drive, Clear Lake Iowa noted he represented Cabin Coffee. Barber passed around two letters from the neighbors at the Mason City location. Barber noted that one of the letters noted that the traffic in Mason City has not impacted their home. Barber noted that Cabin Coffee would not allow too many cars to stack up and block the entry way and would have cars move forward to wait for their beverages or food. Barber noted that the pole sign would have to be at least 10 feet from the power lines and because of that would be away from Kimball Avenue and not block any visibility. Barber noted that the front of the property would be heavily landscaped, including a dry river rock bed, spruce trees, grass and landscaping between the brick wall and drive through. Barber noted the drive thru would not use a microphone and all orders would be made directly to a person at the drive-thru window. Barber noted that the hours on weekdays was from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. and would be closed on Sundays. Barber noted that the Coffee shop would be very kid friendly as well. Barber noted that he has had positive comments from the medical center across the street and the nearby hospice. Barber noted that he had received signatures from 9 of 14 stores located in the shopping center. Grimm asked if brick to match the existing options was an option. Barber noted that branding was very important and stated that Cabin Coffee would not be the same with a brick building. Mary Jane Schaffer of 138 Bellaire Road thought that the coffee shop was a good thing in the neighborhood but expressed her concern with the surrounding setting as the parking lot and fences are in need of repair. Rita Tyler of 148 Bellaire noted that she spoke to Barber and noted that he ran a great operation,but noted that she was worried that the Hurst Brothers do not run a good operation and cannot be reached for concerns. Rita Tyler noted that people park on Bellaire instead of in the parking lot of the business. It was moved by Young,seconded by Powers to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Young asked if there were any plans to reconstruct the walls. Anderson noted that the walls may be grandfathered. Poll noted that applicants noted they would like to install solid cedar fencing along their portion of the north side of the property. Loveless asked if the City could help out with any of the issues discussed. Anderson noted that he would bring these issues up to code enforcement and they could address some issues. - 4 - i Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 Schmitt noted that it was the Planning and Zoning Commission's job to look at the request, seemed to be a lot of other issues and noted that residents should talk to their council erson bund wear there p s a n out their phone numbers if they would like to see a change. Whitehead asked if the cross easement agreement being in place was a requirement. And was the case but Radue had asked that the requirement be changed to require the cross easement noted that agreement prior to obtaining a building permit. t It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Loveless for a Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1"Sho Center District for the purpose of constructing a 2,543 SF coffee shop/restaurant north o 2102g Kimball Avenue at the north end of the Kimball Ride Shonear f the north Kimball Avenue and West Ridgeway Avenue be approved with the condition that cross west corner of agreement be in place before a building permit is issued Motion carried 7-0easemsnt with Jo hnson. abstaining. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Thirteen Associates, LLC, for a special permit for the establishment a 45,000 SF mini- storage development within the existing building at 3561 University Avenue, located at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Greenhill Road in a"C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant requests approval of the special permit to allow for the existing 45,000 SF empty building to be used for an indoor mini-storage facility. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the use would be located in an existing building and surrounding uses are principally commercial. Graham noted that the request may generate additional traffic, as the building is currently vacant, but should not have an adverse impact on traffic conditions in the area. Graham noted that the property in question has been zoned "C-2" Commercial District since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site as Commercial and that this request would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that unlike traditional mini-storage facilities, the storage space will be located within an existing building, and not within a stand alone, garage type of building with numerous doors accessed from outside. Graham noted that a mini-storage facility is permitted in the "C-2" Commercial District, however, it requires a special permit first, approved by the Board of Adjustment, noting that and was intended to give more review over the location of proposed mini-storage facilities, ensuring their compatibility with surrounding uses, as some mini-storage facilities can become unsightly, and the intent was that they should be located behind other commercial developments and not in high visibility areas. Graham noted that staff recommends that the special permit to establish a 45,000 SF mini-storage facility within the existing building at 3561 University Avenue be approved as the request would not have a negative impact on the area, as the use would be in an existing commercial building in an existing commercial area, and the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, and is a good infill development project. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Young for a for a special permit for the establishment a 45,000 SF mini storage development within the existing building at 3561 University Avenue, located at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Greenhill Road in a "C-2"Commercial District be ' approved. Motion carried 7-0 with Whitehead abstaining. 2. Request by Prairie Construction Co., Inc. on behalf of Ascension Lutheran Church for a special permit for the purpose of constructing an 8,985 SF church addition to the South side of the building at 2211 Maynard Avenue at the southeast corner of Maynard Avenue and Greenhill Road in an"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 ition to Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to construct an AvenueFand Greenhill Roadn Lutheran . that Church,which is located at the southeast corner Maynardnur e familyroom,restrooms, as well as mechanical the new addition will consist of a new sanctuary, rye and storage areas. Andera noted that the request would not cto have a negative impact on on the south side oft e the neighborhood and that the proposed addition is planned to be constructed building, going closer to University Avenue, as well as being constructed towards Greenhill Road to the west. Andera noted that the new addition will not extend beyond the current church setback to the east, therefore, not going closer to the existing residential uses along Christensen Road. Andera noted that Greenhill Road serves the area from the north and south, and it is classified as Local Street. Andera erial, tle Maynard Avenue serves the site from the east and west, and noted that the property in question is zoned"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District, and that the land was not in a floodplain. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has noted that they would need to see a drainage plan and storm water calculation numbers to determine if the site has a large enough storm water detention basin to handle the additional runoff Andera noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site as Residential, and a religious facility can be located in almost any zoning district upon issuance of a special permit,making this compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Andera noted that the current church building is 10,952 SF, and when the new addition is completed,there will be a total of 19,937 SF upon the site,not including the detached garage located southeast of the church. Andera noted that the seating area of the sanctuary is approximately 60'x 67' (4,020 SF), which would equate to maximum occupancy of 575 persons and that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a religious facility provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy, therefore,based on a maximum occupancy of 575 persons,there would need to be 144 parking stalls provided on the site. Andera noted that the applicant noted that once the parking expansion is completed, there will be a total of 144 parking stalls,meeting the requirements of the Ordinance. Andera noted that the former sanctuary area,which is located on the northern side of the building,would be used as a fellowship hall for gatherings other than religious purposes, such as receptions,potlucks, etc. Andera noted that in addition to the special permit, a variance would be required to the setback requirements for a religious facility, as the Zoning Ordinance states that it must have a building setback of"2 feet per 1 foot of building height". Andera noted that the new addition is approximately 23'6"tall to the midpoint of the building peak on its west side facing towards Greenhill Road,which would require a setback of 47'. Andera noted that the new addition would be 45'6" from the west property line that abuts Greenhill Road, reducing the required setback by 1'6". The current building is 52' from the west property line, and the new addition will extend 6'6"beyond that,however, Andera noted that staff believes that approval of the variance request to the setback requirement would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the new addition would not be moving closer to any nearby residential uses. All other setbacks for the new addition meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Andera noted that staff recommends that the special permit be approved subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including,but not limited to, parking, landscaping, storm water detention, etc. It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Johnson for a special permit for the purpose of constructing an 8,895 SF church addition to the south side of the building at 2211 Maynard Avenue at the southeast corner of Maynard Road and Greenhill Road in an "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District be approved subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, parking, landscaping, storm water detention, etc. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Struxture Architects on behalf of the Hawkeye Community College Foundation for a Special Permit for the establishment of a Regional Transportation Training Facility and construction of a related 80' x 130' (10,400 SF) garage/classroom building, located directly to the south of 6315 Hammond Avenue. - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 Western gave the staff report noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, which consists of Agricultural land. Western noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic or pedestrian conditions in the area, as there are very few homes in the area, limiting pedestrian traffic. Western noted that the site is zoned"A-1"Agricultural District, and that the area in question was located in the Zone-C, no floodplain. Western noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that all public institutions obtain a special permit issued by the Board of Adjustment after a recommendation of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission in order to ensure that the request meets necessary conditions and safeguards for its operation. Western noted that it would appear that the site plan submitted by Hawkeye Community College would meet those necessary conditions, which include adequate space for parking and limited impact on traffic. Western noted that the training facility to be built in three phases will provide hands on instruction for driving large trucks, school buses,motorcycles and a variety of other vehicles. Phase I includes the drive way and a 600' x 300' concrete slab, connecting the site to Hammond Avenue and storm water retention basin and should be constructed by the end of September. Phase II will consist of 26' wide perimeter roads and a student parking area and Phase III will consist of a building for classroom space and semi-tractor parking. Western noted that Hammond Avenue between Orange Road and Washburn Road is a seal coat street, which may not hold up to truck traffic to the site and that the Engineering Department concurred and expressed concerns with the long-term effects of truck traffic on the seal coat portion of the road. Western also noted that it was also pointed out that there is a truck embargo on the Sink Creek bridge to the north of the site in question and added that the applicant has indicated that truck traffic will be directed to and from Washburn Road to the south. Western noted that the applicant indicated that there will be eight(8)trucks on the site. Western noted that that during the first part of the semester, all driver training would be on-site and that during 6 weeks of the semester, they conduct road training using empty trucks. Western noted that there would be about 15 empty truck trips to/from the site daily, all going to the south. Western noted that HCC stated that they would occasionally use loaded trucks on the street during the last part of each semester and that these 2 trucks would be loaded to 60,000 lbs, and the trucks would make 15-20 trips onto the road each semester. Western noted that the City of Waterloo working through the Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)has dedicated funds for Hammond Avenue north of this area for future improvements in 2011-2012 and that the City may need to look at potential cooperative efforts with Black Hawk County and the MPO to possibly include the portion of Hammond Avenue south of the site. Western noted that staff supports the request as it would appear that there would not be a negative impact on the surrounding area because the school owns a large portion of land in the area, and that a majority of the area around the school is vacant. Western added that the request should be subject to all truck traffic is directed to and from Washburn Road to the south and that the final site plan specifies all requirements, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Kim Reiter of 6216 Hammond Avenue noted that her property would be negatively impacted by the addition of this facility. Reiter noted that this would change the water flow and would cause the water to back up into her basement. Reiter also noted that this would increase traffic on Hammond Avenue and would deteriorate the road. Reiter also noted that she felt students would drive recklessly on their way to and from the facility. Dan Channer of Structure Architects noted that he would be available for any questions. Whitehead asked how the route of the truck traffic from Hammond would be enforced. Western noted there was a difficulty in enforcing the routes used, and currently these agreements used an honor system. Western noted that Hawkeye Community College had been a good neighbor in the past. - 7 - I Planning and Zoning Commission July 6,2010 Ray Beets, Associate Dean of Applied Sciences noted that all trucks will enter and exit from the south and that students would be supervised by an instructor when in the trucks. Grimm asked if this would replace the truck traffic and training at Greyhound Park. Beets noted that they are not currently using Greyhound Park but they had in the past, but this facility would replace other training locations throughout Waterloo. Beets also noted that they would have two simulators located at the facility as well. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Young for a Special Permit for the establishment of a Regional Transportation Training Facility and construction of a related 80'x 130' (10,400 SF). garage/classroom building, located directly to the south of 6315 Hammond Avenue be approved subject to all truck traffic is directed to and from Washburn Road to the south and that the final site plan specifies all requirements, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Motion carried unanimously. D. Discussion 1. Receive and place on file the FY 2011-2015 Capital Improvements Program Anderson noted that this is a 5 year plan that documents the capital improvements that are foreseen and that would be bonded for. Anderson noted that it is updated every year to reflect changing priorities. It was moved by Schmitt, seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the FY2011-2015 Capital Improvements Program. Motion carried unanimously VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Whitehead, seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 8 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M JUNE 1,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on June 1, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Grimm, Johnson, Leonhart, Loveless, Powers, Schmitt, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Loggins Others present: Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department, Dennis Gentz—Engineering Department, Steve Schmitt—City Council, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Grimm noted that the Request by Humaira Jabeen for a Special Permit to establish an Alcohol Sales establishment less then 250' from a Protected Use, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, along a Principle Arterial at 702 Washington Street had been withdrawn by the applicant. It was moved by Schmitt,seconded by Powers to approve the amended agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on May 4, 2010 It was moved by Young,seconded by Loveless to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: April 2010. Schroeder noted that revenues were slightly higher then projected, and that the rest of the items were in line with projections. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Schmitt to approve the financial report for April 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items B. Encroachment Agreements 1. Request by AHTS Architects on the behalf of JSA Development for an Encroachment agreement to allow for an emergency fire door, along with its concrete exit pad and steps to encroach 3'8" onto the sidewalk within the right-of-way of Sycamore Street. Andera gave the staff report noting the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions in the area, however, the request could have a negative impact on pedestrian traffic in the area as the proposed encroachment would narrow the width of the side walk. Andera noted that staff does have concerns with the exit pad and railing extending into the right-of-way, and if the request is approved, certain measures should be taken to clearly identify and make the encroachment clearly visible Planning and Zoning Commission June 1,2010 DRAFT in both daytime and nighttime hours. Andera noted that a private storm sewer and sanitary sewer line are located in the private alley, directly behind the building at 128 East 4th Street,however, it has not been determined at this time who owns that private alley. Andera noted that in past Encroachment Agreements the City has entered into have included provisions that allow the City to give a notice of termination of the agreement if the right-of-way is needed for any future public or right-of-way purposes. Andera noted that the applicant has stated that the platform of the proposed concrete pad would be 13"higher than the surrounding sidewalk. Andera noted that the right-of-way in question is currently used as a public sidewalk, and staff does have concerns with the proposed concrete pad and railing protruding out into the sidewalk, as the sidewalk is used by pedestrians and bicyclists. Andera noted that it would appear from drawings submitted by the applicant that there will be approximately 6'10"to 7' between the edge of the raised concrete pad and back of curb adding that the Engineering Department stated that the minimum amount of distance for clearance would be 5', and this proposed request would exceed that by almost 2'. Andera noted that the proposed encroachment agreement request appears to be similar to outdoor seating areas located on downtown sidewalks within the right-of-way and that with most of those requests, a railing separating the outdoor seating area from the sidewalk. Andera noted that from examination of the plat map for this area, it appears that there are no public utilities located within the right-of-way where the applicant intends to construct their emergency exit pad and staff has not heard from any private utility companies if there are any private utilities located within the right-of-way. Andera noted that staff has contacted Waterloo Water Works, and they have indicated that the proposed encroachment would not interfere with any of their water lines within the nearby area. Andera noted that staff recommends that the request for an encroachment agreement be approved subject to a signed and executed Encroachment Agreement and that the applicant make the encroachment as visible as possible to pedestrians and bicyclists, either through lighting,painting, markings, etc. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Whitehead to approve the request for the encroachment agreement subject to a signed and executed encroachment agreement and that the applicant make the encroachment as visible as possible to pedestrians and bicyclists, either through lighting,painting, markings, etc. Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion Grimm greeted Dave Leonhart and Reggie Schmitt as new members of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission. Grimm then thanked Larry Moser and Reid Craft for their service on the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission. Schroeder noted that staff is continuing to work on an update to the Zoning Ordinance, and that it would be ready for the Commission to review it within the next month or two. Schroeder noted that Commission members would have to decide if they want to review it at the end of a regular meeting or set aside special meetings for its review. Schmitt noted that in order to foster development downtown, it is important to determine the ownership of alleys; adding that if the ownership of the alley for the request reviewed today had been determined then an encroachment into the right-of-way would not have been needed. Grimm noted that he agreed. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission • June 1,2010 DRAFT VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Whitehead, seconded by Schmitt to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M APRIL 6,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on April 6, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, Powers, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: none Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll - Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Steve Schmitt, and David Jones— City Council; Dr. Garry Norris and Marty Metcalf of Waterloo Community Schools; Dan Charmer— Struxture Architects, and approximately 41 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Grimm noted that the special permit requests for the Waterloo Community Schools would be addressed first because they are similar request,then the other special permits should be reviewed secondly, and review of the rezoning request last. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Craft to approve the amended agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on March 2, 2010 It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loveless to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: February 2010. Anderson noted that legal services were at 335% of expected costs but noted that this was a small line item on the budget and that overall it was in good shape. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Moser to approve the financial report for January 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items B. Special Permits 1. Request by Struxture Architecture on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of 75,000 SF elementary school building and a 120-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities located at the northeast corner of Downing Avenue and Sheldon Street in an"R-3"Multiple Family Residence District. Chairperson Grimm noted that because the first two special permits are similar, discussion for both of the Special Permits would be heard at the same time. Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 Poll gave the staff report for the site of the current Black Hawk Elementary School noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood and that the school to be built would replace the existing Black Hawk Elementary located on the south side of the same site and Edison Elementary, which is located at Falls Avenue and Magnolia Parkway. Poll noted that two site plans were submitted for the site, one that keeps the 9 houses to the north, along Sager Avenue, and the other site plan proposes to remove them. Poll noted that the proposed area is served by Sheldon Street to the west, Sager Avenue borders the northern portion, and Downing Avenue is directly to the south, and all are classified as local streets. Poll noted that the majority of the homes in the surrounding area are one and two family residences and that a visual barrier would be needed between any residences and the parking lots. Poll noted that the area was not in the floodplain, However, City staff is aware that the surrounding area experiences drainage problems during times of heavy rainfall, and the school will be required to create a storm water detention area to capture additional water runoff. Poll added that staff is also working with the schools on potential help for the sanitary sewer concerns for the area in times of heavy rainfall also noting that there is a 10" sanitary sewer located on the east side of the site in question and a 12" storm sewer is located along Downing Avenue. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Low Density Residential and this request would be in compliance with such designation adding that the site is located within the Primary Growth Area as designated on the Growth Area Map within the Comprehensive Plan. Poll went on to note that the City of Waterloo would have to convey Black Hawk Park to the Waterloo Community Schools which requires a recommendation by the Leisure Services Commission and approval by the City Council. Poll noted that the applicant has submitted a proposed site plan showing the proposed layout of the school showing accesses off of Sager Avenue via Littlefield Road and Sheldon Street and that the applicant also submitted an alternative site plan showing the acquisition and removal of 9 homes along Sager Avenue that would allow for more yard space for the school. Poll noted that staff does have concerns regarding sanitary sewer as the area in question operates at near capacity and connecting the school to the existing sanitary sewer network could adversely affect surrounding residents adding that staff has requested that expected sewer flow data be provided. Poll noted the new school would hold 450 students but could be expanded to accommodate 650 students. Poll noted that the site plan that keeps the houses intact would have the parent drop-off parking with two access points off of Sheldon Street and the school itself would face Sheldon Street as well. Poll went on to note that the teacher parking and bus drive area would be directed off of Sheldon Street and Littlefield Road and the school configuration allows for open space and playground space to the east and south ends of the property. Poll noted that the site plan with homes removed(9 houses)would keep the school orientation towards Sheldon Street, but would move the building and parking areas north and the parent drop-off and parking area would change its south access to Downing Avenue, adding, the teacher parking and bus drop-off would change from one access off of Sheldon Street to two access points off of Sager Avenue. Poll noted that staff recommends the request for Special Permit be approved as the construction of the new school would work to modernize school facilities in the area, as well as help to solidify the existing neighborhood and its relationship to the school site but subject to the use of LEED water consumption strategies, which is estimated to provide an additional 10%in water savings for both plans provided for this site and also that the project is designed to have no adverse impact or a beneficial impact on the sanitary flow conditions of the area, through the use of a holding tank for wet weather conditions, or other similar design to achieve the goal of no added or a reduction in sewer flow in the area during wet weather flow conditions for the plan that would remove the 9 homes along Sager Avenue. 2. Request by Struxture Architecture on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of 75,000 SF elementary school building and a 120-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities located at the southeast corner of Dowing Avenue and Katoski Drive in an"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. Poll then gave a staff report on the site located at the southeast corner of Downing Avenue and Katoski Drive. Poll noted that the proposed area is served by Katoski Drive to the west, which is classified as a Minor Arterial, Huntington Road borders the southern portion of the special permit area, and is classified as a Collector; adding that Downing Avenue is north of the site, and would be accessed from S. Hackett -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 Road and Westland Avenue, and all are classified as a Local Streets. Poll noted that City staff is aware that the surrounding area experiences drainage problems during times of heavy rainfall, and the school will be required to create a storm water detention area to capture additional water runoff and that City staff is also in discussion with the schools regarding the sanitary sewer and inflow and infiltration in this area. Poll noted that approximately 60% of the property is located within the Zone-A, 100-year floodplain including a portion of the property that would be built upon. Poll noted that currently,the City is working with FEMA on a Floodplain map update, and FEMA has submitted a preliminary floodplain map, that shows approximately the northern 2/3 of the property being removed from the floodplain, however, these maps are still preliminary, and have not been adopted as the official floodplain map. Poll noted that if development occurs prior to the adoption of the new maps, the development will have to meet floodplain regulations which will require a 100-year flood elevation determination, and an elevation certificate to certify that the structure will be at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Poll noted that there is an 8" sanitary sewer located in the portion of South Hackett Road south of Downing Avenue, as well as a 15" sanitary sewer within Huntington Road, south of the site. A 60" storm sewer is located along the western edge of Katoski Drive, as well as 15"and 18" storm sewers along the western portions of the area and along the eastern portion of the area,there is are 27" and 48" storm sewers that drains into the 10' concrete bottom drainage ditch that drains to the south towards Huntington Road. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as low density residential and the request would be in compliance with such designation. Poll noted that the applicant has submitted a proposed site plan showing the proposed layout of the school, which show access points off of Katoski and Downing. Poll noted that staff does have concerns that a portion of the building is located within the Zone A 100-year floodplain as it currently mapped adding that most of the property would be removed from Zone A 100- year floodplain if the preliminary updated floodplain map is approved. No indication has been given as to the possible time line for approval. Poll noted that staff does have concerns regarding sanitary sewer as the area in question operates at near capacity and the addition of the school to the sanitary sewer network could adversely affect surrounding residents. Poll noted that based on existing water usage for the existing Kittrell Elementary School (same size and layout as proposed)the proposed school building for 450 or 650-student capacity would use 1,794 gallons or 2,555 gallons per day respectively. This would be adding approximately 2,555 gallons per day into the sewer system, which would not impact dry conditions, but may contribute negatively during wet weather periods. The idea of a"holding tank" for wet weather periods would appear to be a potential solution to this concern. Poll added that staff would also note that the applicant has indicated that they would bring fill to the property but has not indicated how much would be necessary or how that would affect drainage, adding that detention areas are not currently shown on the site plan but would be required. Poll noted that staff is working with the schools to determine a detailed contour map, and to ensure any new building meets adequate flood elevations. Poll noted that staff recommends the request for Special Permit be approved as construction of the new school would modernize facilities in the area but subject to the conditions that the construction of the new school is in conformance with the floodplain requirements; the project is designed to have no adverse impact or a beneficial impact on the sanitary flow conditions of the area,through the use of a holding tank for wet weather conditions, or other similar design to achieve the goal of no added or a reduction in sewer flow in the area during wet weather flow conditions and the use of LEED water consumption strategies are used, which is estimated to provide an additional 10% in water savings. Kent Kischer of 2205 Downing Avenue noted that he lived near the existing Black Hawk Elementary and he was concerned about the water issue in the area. Kischer noted that an alternative site plan should be used that would relocate the teacher/parent parking areas away from the residential homes on Downing Avenue. Kischer noted that he would much rather see nature then a parking lot and noted the abundance of wild life that is currently living in the site in question including deer and various types of birds. Kischer believed the layout of the school should be reversed so that the parking is on the west side of the - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 property and the gym is located on the south side of the building and the sports fields should be moved to the north end of the site in question. Kischer also noted that the detention area should be larger in order to make sure that there is proper drainage in the area. Dan Charmer of Struxture Architects noted that his firm had drawn up the site plans and would be happy to answer any questions. Moser asked if part of the building was shown in the 100-year floodplain. Channer noted that about half of the property was in the 100-year floodplain currently, but fill would be brought in and the structure would be built at least 1 foot above the 100-year floodplain. Johnson asked about the size required for the parent drop off area. Charmer noted that the parent drop off area was smaller at other schools in Waterloo, and that area caused the most traffic congestion issues. Channer noted that the larger drop off area should alleviate these issues. Ray High, 1709 Sager Avenue, noted he had concerns over the new school, due to the water problems in the area. High noted that his property is one of the properties proposed to be removed for the Black Hawk site and requested his property be bought out,but questioned what method would be used in the buyouts. Anderson noted that Waterloo Community Schools would be responsible for the any buyout that occurs and they would be responsible for the acquisition of the homes if they occurred. Johnson asked what steps were being taken to alleviate the sanitary sewer issues and the issue of illegal drain tile hook ups to the sanitary sewer lines. Thorson noted that the Engineering Department is not responsible for enforcement of the plumbing code and that the building department would have to address any enforcement issues. Thorson noted that the Capital Improvements Program is considering funding to address sanitary sewer issues in the area of the requests. Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road, noted that Merril Oster, a developer previously interested in rezoning the land at Katoski Drive and Huntington Road,was supposed to complete environmental studies on this area to help resolve the water issues. Dillavou indicated his concerns with storm drainage in the area and noted that if a school were built without making any improvements to the sanitary and storm sewers, that the conditions in the area would worsen. Dillavou noted that he had no problem with the school in this location, but he believed that the infrastructure must first be updated. Bob Gauger, 1410 Scott Avenue, noted that he lived along the edge of the site in question and noted that he has had issues with water in his basement since 1968 when his basement at one point had 3.5 feet of water in it. Gauger noted that now in order to keep his basement dry he has 3 separate '/2" sump pumps that struggle to keep his basement dry. Gauger noted that there is so much water pressure under his home that it has cracked the floor of the basement, and noted that he believes that the water problems need to be addressed before anything should be built at the Katoski and Downing site. Betty Gauger, also of 1410 Scott Avenue, noted that she was disappointed in the City's Fathers and with the Waterloo Community Schools for considering building a parking lot behind people's homes. Betty Gauger suggested that the land by Central Middle School should be used, and it was very disrespectful to tax payers to build at this location. Kent Kischer of 2205 Downing Avenue noted that his basement would have 2-3 feet of water in it every year in the past. Kischer noted that he installed a back up flow preventer, and his basement no longer floods. Chris Wightman of 1291 Westland Avenue noted her concern in regards to water at the corner of Westland Avenue and Downing Avenue. Wightman indicated that her basement gets water every spring, and she had installed multiple sump pumps to keep the basement dry. -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road, noted that due to all the problems with water a number of pumps had been installed in the area to keep the levels from getting too high. Chris Wightman, 1291 Westland Avenue, asked what would happen to the existing Black Hawk School if the Katoski/Downing Site were used. Charmer noted that the school board would remove the vacant building and the site could be used as additional park or green space. Moser asked if the excess land near Central Middle School in conjunction with the former Driver Education land would be enough space for a school. Dr. Gary Norris, School Superintendent noted that the there is not enough land in near Central Middle School citing that ideally 14 acres are needed, and noting that the Blackhawk site in only 10 acres. Norris noted that the school system examined 9 potential sites narrowing it down to the 2 presented. Norris noted that the schools system wants to be good neighbors and would install holding tanks to make sure that any additions to the sanitary sewer system could be handled. Moser asked how much land was available at the Central Middle School site.Norris noted that 3-4 acres would be available with the driving range, and 4-5 acres more with the addition of some of the land at Central Middle School. Norris noted this was not enough land, and in addition to the lack of land, he noted that it is the intention of the school system to keep the school in the neighborhood. Johnson asked if the existing Black Hawk Elementary feeds into the same sewer system as the proposed sites. Anderson noted that the proposed sites feed into the same system. Larry Scura, 1228 South Hills Drive, noted that the Katoski site would be too much of a headache. Scura noted that the challenges to get this site to work would be unfairly passing on excess costs to the taxpayers. Bob Gauger, 1410 Scott Avenue, asked how many students attend the schools that would be replaced and if all of those students would be going to the proposed school. Norris noted that 608 students attend both schools, but only 450 students would initially attend this school, and the boundary lines would be redrawn so the other students go to a different elementary school. Gauger questioned why the land at Central Middle School was not enough and noted that he believed that the Waterloo Community Schools. Timothy Funk, 1254 Sheldon Street, questioned if building an elementary school so close to Central Middle School could negatively influence the students at the elementary school noting concerns over drugs, bullying etc. Grimm noted that there would be separate roll call vote for both potential sites. Johnson noted that there is an ongoing water problem in this area that needs to be solved. Johnson noted that the Black Hawk site does not appear to have as much controversy and the site would appear to be flow neutral and would not have a negative impact on sanitary sewer conditions. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Moser to approve the request for the Special Permit to allow for the construction of 75,000 SF elementary school building and a 120-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities located at the northeast corner of Downing Avenue and Sheldon Street subject to the condition that the use of LEED water consumption strategies are used and if the homes to the north remain then the project is designed to have no adverse impact or a beneficial impact on the sanitary flow conditions of the area, through the use of a holding tank for wet weather conditions, or other similar design to achieve the goal of no added or a reduction in sewer flow in the area during wet weather flow conditions. Motion carried 6-0 with 3 members abstaining. Abstentions:Loggins, Whitehead and Young Norris asked for clarification if the approval was for both site plans submitted for the Black Hawk site. Johnson indicated that both site plans for the Black Hawk site were approved. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to deny the request for the Special Permit to allow for the construction of 75,000 SF elementary school building and a 120-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities located at the southeast corner of Dowing Avenue and Katoski Drive. Motion failed 3-3 with 3 members abstaining. Ayes: Craft,Powers and Moser Nays: Grimm, Johnson and Loveless Abstentions:Loggins, Whitehead and Young Johnson asked if a positive recommendation was needed. Schroeder noted that to pass a motion a majority was needed. Schroeder noted that the result of the vote could be looked at as a motion of denial or someone could make a motion to approve the request,then the motion to approve would fail resulting in a recommendation of denial. 3. Request by Prairie Lakes Church for a special permit to establish a religious facility for the purpose of holding Sunday morning church services at Hoover Middle School at 630 Hillcrest Road near the intersection of Park Lane and Hillcrest Road in an"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District. Graham gave the staff report noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the use would be located in the existing middle school building surrounded by residential uses. Graham noted that the request would generate additional traffic on Sunday mornings, as school is not in session on that day, however, there would appear to be more traffic generated by the school during the week, so no additional negative impacts on the traffic conditions are expected. Graham noted that as the structure is already in existence, and it appears to meet drainage requirements and is served by existing utilities. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site for Parks, Open Spaces, Schools, Government Facilities and Public Areas and that a religious facility can be located in almost any zoning district, making this compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that the site is located within the Primary Growth Area as designated on the Growth Area Map within the Comprehensive Plan. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a religious facility obtain a special permit, issued by the Board of Adjustment, after a recommendation from the Planning&Zoning Commission due in part to its ability to be developed in many residential zoning classifications, as well as the impacts such a development can have on other public infrastructure, such as traffic, sewer, etc. Graham noted that the main church facility is located in Cedar Falls, and the applicant has indicated that there are many members who live in Waterloo, and would like to hold a service in Waterloo as a result adding that the auditorium has a capacity of 700 people, however the church will only use half of that, as it can be partitioned off. Graham noted that the church would initially hold one service per Sunday at 11:00 a.m., and if needed, may include another service at 9:00 a.m. Graham noted that the lease with the school district is for a 1-year time frame, and only allows use of the building from 5:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. each Sunday. Graham noted that the applicant indicated that the church service would have somewhere between 200 and 300 people in attendance and that if this was a new location, and parking was to be required for 300 people,the Ordinance would require 75 parking stalls. Graham noted that after looking at the aerial photo of the site and manually counting the parking stalls,there would appear to be at least 175 parking stalls currently on the site,which would appear to be adequate for the needs of the church. Graham noted that the request to establish the religious facility in the existing school auditorium would not appear to be a detriment to the area, as the existing facility is large enough to accommodate the needs of the church, including space and parking requirements. However, staff would recommend that the special permit not be granted permanently, as a different facility could locate on the property in the future that has different space and parking requirements with no other approvals needed,which could negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Graham noted that staff recommends that the special permit to allow for the establishment of a religious facility at this location be approved, as the request would not have a negative impact on the - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 surrounding area, as it would utilize the existing middle school building and grounds, which will be able to accommodate such a use. Graham noted that staff would also recommend that the special permit be granted for a 1-year time frame, which is the time frame of the lease that the applicant has to use the school building. This will give staff an opportunity to see the type of impact that the use has on the surrounding area and if the applicant extends the lease, and staff has determined that the impact on the area is insignificant, the applicant can request an extension to the special permit. Johnson asked if the Church was holding services. Graham noted that a service was held at the location on April 4, noting that the church had signed a lease agreement with the school system prior to talking to City Planning Staff. Moser asked if they knew they needed a special permit. Graham noted that he believed they did not know it was required till after the Easter Service had been organized and advertised. Jay Nardini, 5414 Blue Bonnet Drive, Chairman of the Elder Board at Prairie Lakes Church noted the churches launch had been scheduled for Easter Sunday, and had not found out a Special Permit was needed till they attempted to obtain a temporary sign permit.Nardini noted that they then immediately applied for the permit. Powers noted that the area was well churched and asked why there was a need to move into that neighborhood. Nardini noted that Prarie Lakes Church started in Cedar Falls and had experienced significant growth. Nardini noted that they had chose to lease a facility till they decide to build or purchase their own building. Nardini noted that they have already had about 200 people that lived in that area committed to going to the church for at least one year. Nardini noted that the Church had attempted to purchase a building in a triangular zone identified,but were unsuccessful in finding a building. Nardini noted that they pay the school a monthly fee to the school system. Nardini noted there are a lot of people in the Cedar Valley that do not go to church and those are the people this Church is seeking. Loggins asked if the Church would look to construct their own building in the future. Nardini noted that they would like to build or purchase in the future if they grow. Loggins asked if there were two separate locations for the church. Nardini noted that there was one church, two locations. Larry Scura of 1228 South Hill Drive noted his concern with the lease. Scura asked if the monthly fee paid for additional security, liability, and cleaning services. Scura then noted that this county had a separation of Church and State and asked if it was legal to use school property to collect an offering to benefit on church and to hold church services. Scura then noted that he did not believe it was right to go ahead with things that are not fully approved noting that he believed the City of Waterloo had been doing a lot of that. George Russell, Finance Director for Prairie Lakes Church noted that the weekly lease payment covered custodial services and security costs. Forest Dillavou of 1725 Huntington Road noted that his children attended Christian Heritage Schools in Cedar Falls and had used on of the gyms from the public schools. Dillavou noted that his children were told that they were not allowed to have a prayer because it was a public school building. Dillavou noted it appeared the school board has changed, the law has changed or someone is looking the other way. Johnson noted he believed it was a great reuse of the building. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Loveless to approve the request for the Special Permit Motion carried 7-0 with Loggins and Young abstaining. - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 4. Request by Lily Furgerson for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of a 7,380 SF addition to the existing 4,880 SF non-profit Tri-County Child and Family Development Center at 507 Argyle Street in an"R-3"Multiple Family Residence District. Western gave the staff report noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, which primarily consists of commercial development to the east and south, and residential development to the west and north. Western noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic or pedestrian conditions in the area, as the proposed use would have off street parking. Western noted that the site is zoned"R-3"Multiple Residence District and the building was built in 1976, and has remained a daycare since. Western noted that the property is shown on the Future Land Use Map as Mixed Residential and the proposed special permit is located within the Primary Growth Area as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Western noted that the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance requires that all non-profit fraternal and philanthropic institutions obtain a special permit issued by the Board of Adjustment after recommendation of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission as the special permit ensures that the request meets necessary conditions and safeguards for its operation. Western noted that it would appear that the site plan for the addition would meet those necessary conditions, which includes adequate space for parking; all utilities serve the site,there would appear to be a limited impact on traffic and drainage adding that the proposed addition would appear to better serve the needs of the community. Western noted that one classroom in the facility would not have any windows and would be available for a storm shelter. Western noted that staff received one call from a nearby business in response to the courtesy notices they received who asked general questions about the request and indicated that their main concern was about the possible congestion of the alleyway between their property and the Day Care. Western noted that the site plan submitted indicates an additional 30 new off street parking spaces would appear to alleviate these concerns. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Craft to approve the request for the Special Permit subject to the construction of a storm shelter, that a fire evacuation plan be in place and the that building meets all applicable City Codes. Motion carried unanimously. B. Rezone Requests 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 38.9 acres of land from "A-1"Agricultural District to "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District at 4012 and 4428 Leversee Road, directly to the west of the Waterloo Regional Airport . It was moved by Craft and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:34 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Andera gave staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone 38.9 acres of property in question to open up additional development ground for future industrial development at 4012 and 4428 Leversee Road, west of the Waterloo Regional Airport. Andera noted that the proposed rezone would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area, as rezoning the land to "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District would be consistent with the zoning of lands that abut the land in question on the north, south and east. Andera noted that land to the west in the City of Cedar Falls is zoned for agricultural purposes, however, Cedar Falls has noted that they intend to development that ground in the future for industrial purposes as well. Andera noted that the proposed rezone area is served by Leversee Road from the north and south, which is classified as a Collector, and that West Airline Highway is located approximately 1 mile to the south, and is classified as a Minor Arterial. Andera noted that the land in question has close proximity to Highway 218 to the west,via Lone Tree Road and that Highway 218 is classified as a Principal Arterial, and Lone Tree Road is classified as a Collector. Andera noted that the proposed rezone area is zoned"A-1"Agricultural District, and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance adding that all property to the north, south and east was rezoned from"A-1" Agricultural District to "M-2,P" Planned Industrial District March 13, 1995 and was currently vacant noting that some single family homes were to the west in the City of Cedar Falls. Andera noted that the "M-2,P"zoning designation requires that new developments submit and execute a landscaping plan and - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission April 6,2010 that additional screening and buffering appears to be needed to separate any industrial developments that would occur on the ground in question from the existing single-family development to the west of the proposed rezone area. Andera noted that the area in question is not located in the floodplain, but any development of this land would need to submit a drainage plan including detention areas. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo has developed plans for the expansion of utilities in this area as part of the MidPort America Industrial Park Master Plan and that the two sites are currently served by well water and septic system. Andera noted that water is available just south of the railroad tracks on Leversee Road, along with sanitary sewer. Andera noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Industrial, which would allow for industrial development at this location and that the rezone area is located within the Primary Growth Area. Andera noted that staff has received interest from potential building prospects for this area in the past, and in order to be more prepared to handle additional industrial development within this area,the land would need to be zoned for industrial use. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo has actively worked with the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) in past years to have this land released so that it can be potentially developed to accommodate future industrial development within the City. Andera noted that in 2008,the City worked with the property owners at 4012 Leversee Road to acquire their property for future industrial development in the area. Currently, the previous property owners still live at 4012 Leversee Road, and the City and they signed into an Occupancy Agreement, allowing them to reside at the property until a prospect is identified for the area in question, or if they decide to relocate elsewhere. Andera noted that the City acquired the smaller 0.9 acre parcel formerly at 4428 Leversee Road in 2005, and the residential structure at that location has been demolished and noting that there would not appear to be any negative impact to the house at 4012 Leversee Road by rezoning the land, as currently, the surrounding land will remain as is until a new development is constructed upon the site in question. Andera noted that staff recommends that the request for rezoning to "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District be approved as the rezoning the land would provide for additional ground within the City for potential industrial development to occur, would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations including setbacks, drainage, landscaping, screening, etc. Grimm asked if the property could continue to be used as a farmstead. Andera noted it could continue to be used as a farmstead. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Powers to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Powers to approve the request to rezone the area in question. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Loveless,seconded by Moser to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 9 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M MARCH 2, 2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on March 2, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson(4:05), Loveless, Moser, Young, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Powers and Loggins Others present: Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 4 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Craft,seconded by Loveless to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on February 2, 2010 It was moved by Craft, seconded by Whitehead to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: January 2010. Schroeder noted that the financial reports were normal for this time of year noting that expenses were at 60%. Schroeder noted that revenue was up due to property sales. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Young to approve the financial report for January 2010. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by East Waterloo Housing, LLLP to vacate a 16' x 306' storm sewer easement on an unplatted lot bounded by Ash, Mobile,Newell and Webster Streets, north of Mt. Carmel Baptist Church, which is located north of 805 Adams Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate the storm sewer easement, as the current easement is too narrow, and does not provide enough space to excavate and pile dirt within the easement if maintenance is needed on the existing 12" storm sewer. Andera noted that the applicant has provided a new easement document for dedication, which will go through the City Council for approval at a later date, once the current easement is vacated. Andera noted that the proposed easement is larger in area, and provides the necessary space to work if maintenance is needed. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or traffic conditions in the area. Andera noted that the site where the easement is located is zoned "R-3,R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District and was not located in the flood plain. Andera noted that the surrounding area is Planning and Zoning Commission March 2,2010 comprised of predominately single-family housing,with the exception of the church located to the south of the area in question at 805 Adams Street. Andera also noted the site in question received approval in November of 2008 for the construction a 40-unit multi-family development apartment complex. Andera noted that the vacation of a portion of the easement would not appear to have a negative impact on drainage in the area, as a new easement would be dedicated to allow access to the storm sewer if maintenance is needed in the future. Andera noted that there is a 12" storm sewer that travels through the easement that is requested to be vacated and 8" sanitary sewer lines located within Newell Street to the north, Quincy Street to the west, and Webster Street to the south. Andera noted the applicant has had their attorney draft up a new storm sewer easement document to dedicate a new easement after the existing easement in question is vacated. Andera noted that the proposed easement to replace the existing easement is 25' x 306' (7,661 SF), with the 12"storm sewer line located approximately 15' to the south of the north line, and 10' north of the south line of the proposed easement,providing for a straighter alignment compared to what currently exists now. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has reviewed the submitted easement document that will replace the current easement, and they have noted that the document appears to meet the needs to correct the existing narrow easement width and its off center alignment. Andera noted that staff recommends that the request to vacate the 16' x 306' storm sewer easement be approved as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on drainage in the area, as a new easement would be dedicated to allow access to the storm sewer if maintenance is needed in the future and it would allow for the construction commence on the 40-unit Unity Square Townhomes Development. It was moved by Moser,seconded by Craft to approve the request to vacate subject to the dedication of the new easement. Motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion/Possible action Items 1. 2010 City of Waterloo Hazard Mitigation Plan Eric Johnson arrived at 4:05 p.m. Schroeder noted that the City was in the process of updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan as this is required to be done every five years by several grants that the City has received. Schroeder noted that the City's plan has expired along with many other communities in the area, but the City was granted an extension due in part to the flood of 2008. Schroeder noted that INRCOG was helping out in the drafting process. Loveless asked what role the Planning Commission played in this process. Schroeder noted that this update was principally for informational purposes and that the Hazard Mitigation Plan served to rank potential hazards and establish a proper response for the community. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Loveless, seconded by Craft to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 2 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M FEBRUARY 2,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Grimm on February 2, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson(4:03), Loggins, Loveless, Moser, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Powers and Young Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 6 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Craft, seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on January 5, 2010 It was moved by Craft,seconded by Whitehead to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: December 2009. Anderson noted that the financial reports were normal for this time of year with the exception of a spike in legal services fees due to the flood buyout and an increase of land sales. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Craft to approve the financial report for December 2009. Motion carried unanimously. Johnson arrived at 4:03 p.m. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Lockard Construction, Inc. on the behalf of MBAK Properties for Site Plan Amendment to the "R-4, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District for the development of a 12,800 SF office building at the southeast corner of West San Marnan Drive and Hurst Drive. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Whitehead to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:03 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. en. Poll gave staff report noting the request is for a site plan amendment to construct a 12,800 SF building that will be used as the new office of Kimball and Be echer Dentis try as well as a professional office on the lower level, and would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and would be compatible p ble to the already existing commercial and professional office development in the area. Poll noted that the proposed site plan amendment would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 traffic conditions in the area and is served by Hurst Drive from the west, which is classified as a local street and empties onto San Marnan Drive to the north, which is classified as a Minor Arterial. Poll noted that the site has been zoned"R-4, R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District since February 25, 2004, and prior to that the parcel was zoned"A-1"Agricultural District. Poll noted that sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water lines will be extended from the east and run down Tower Park Drive along the south side of the site in question. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as a Business Park, and the proposed development would be in compliance with such designation. Poll noted the site plan amendment consists of a 1.25 acre site containing one building and that the proposed structure would be a two-story design with a 6,400 SF footprint. Poll noted that adequate parking has been shown with 74 spaces being provided and 62 spaces being required with the proposed usage. Poll noted that the current plans did not show a space for a dumpster which may take up one parking space. Poll noted that drainage would be handled by the proposed detention facility located on the southeast corner of the site in question and that a landscaping and drainage plan will need to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit to insure that the required landscaping requirements are met for the project. Poll also noted concerns that had been raised by residents in the past in this area about the use of metal roofs and noted that staff would recommend the use of asphalt shingles. Poll noted that staff recommends that the request for site plan amendment in the "R-4, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District be approved. Bruce Radue of Lockard Engineering noted that an updated site plan had recently been submitted that added a dumpster location as well as an asphalt shingle roof. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Loggins to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to approve the request for a Site Plan Amendment. Motion carried 5-0 with Whitehead and Johnson abstaining. 2. Request by KNK Properties on the behalf of KLK Properties for Site Plan Amendment to the "S- 1" Shopping Center District to allow for a 9,476 SF addition to the former Econo Foods building at 1411 Flammang Drive. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting the request is for a site plan amendment to construct a 9,476 SF addition to the existing 56,941 SF former Econo Foods building and that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and would be compatible to the already existing retail development in the area. Western noted that the proposed site plan amendment would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding traffic conditions in the area and it would be in conformance with the classification of this area as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map within the City of Waterloo Comprehensive Plan. Western noted that the surrounding area has been zoned"S-1"Shopping District since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969, however,the site in question was rezoned to "S-1" Shopping District in 1984. Western noted that all utilities serve the area and appear adequate and that there is an 18" storm sewer, 15" sanitary sewer, as well as noting that water is available in Flammang Drive. Western noted that Econo Foods closed in approximately 2003 and the building has sat vacant since the closing. Western noted that the amendment of the plan is due to the proposed 9,476 SF of new construction along the east side of the building and that this is classified as a major amendment and must, therefore, go before the Planning, Programming & Zoning Commission and City Council for approval. Western noted that the proposed amendment would add 9, 746 SF to the existing 56,941 SF building and the existing space would be divided for one major tenant of about 41,365 SF and a smaller tenant of approximately 20,000 SF adding that the an additional expansion could be built in the future of 9,476 SF on the east side of the building for another smaller tenant. Western noted that the overall site would contain 409 parking spaces, and the Zoning ordinance only requires 304 spaces. Western noted that the strip mall development to the southeast was built with a shared parking agreement for 27 of the existing stalls which would create an excess of 78 stalls, adding that the"S-1"District specifically allows and encourages shared parking arrangements for flexibility throughout the commercial area. Western noted - 2 - I Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 that the proposed addition would meet all setback requirements for the area and common easements of access will be provided for adjoining properties most notably the Shoe Carnival and Hobby Lobby site, as well as Carlos O'Kelly's site. Western noted that there are no proposed changes to the access points to the site as it currently has access from Flammang Drive and a connection to the private roadway between this lot and the strip mall to the east, which connects into both Crossroads Boulevard and Flammang Drive. Western noted that staff will look at the existing landscaping layout, but does not anticipate any large planting needs as the site itself does qualify under the alternative compliance portion of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and that engineering staff will review the impact, if any, of the additional storm water needs for the site. Western noted that staff recommends that the request for site plan amendment in the "S-1" Shopping District be approved subject to the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to,parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Moser noted that there was an expansion on the western side of the building and asked if this was a future expansion. Western noted that it was. It was moved by Loveless,seconded by Moser to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Craft to approve the request subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes and regulations etc, including but not limited to parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Motion carried 6-0 with Johnson abstaining. B. Special Permits 1. Request by INVISION Architecture on the behalf of Black Hawk Grundy Mental Health Center for a special permit to allow for the construction of a 9,063 SF expansion to the existing 12,080 SF medical facility building at 2710 Saint Francis Drive at the northeast corner of West 9th Street and Saint Francis Drive in an "R-3"Multiple Residence District. Graham gave staff report noting that the applicant requests approval of the special permit to allow for the construction of a new addition to the existing mental health center and that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the use is already located on the property. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the traffic conditions, as the surrounding street system should be able to accommodate any additional traffic that the facility would generate. Graham noted that a storm water detention plan would be required, which would have to be approved by the Engineering Department and that the Engineering Department has indicated concern on where the storm water detention would be located, as the new addition and parking areas are taking up a good portion of the existing grass area. In addition, the Engineering Department also expressed some concern with another access on to Saint Francis Drive, noting that there were already too many commercial accesses within close proximity to each other. Graham noted that Bontrager Park is located directly to the west, and Columbus High School is located directly to the east. Graham noted that there is a 12" sanitary sewer line located within W 9th St and an 8" line located within St. Francis Dr and there is a 10" storm sewer line located within St. Francis Dr. noting that it would appear that the existing utilities could serve the proposed expansion. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site for Mixed Residential, including low, medium and high-density residential, and professional offices and a medical facility can be located in the R-3 District, making this compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that this request would be in accordance with Land Use Policy #19, which encourages infill development and utilizing existing structures with existing utilities. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a medical facility obtain a special permit, issued by the Board of Adjustment, after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and this is due in part to its ability to be developed in several residential zoning classifications, as well as the impacts such a development can have on other public infrastructure, such as traffic, sewer, etc. Graham noted that the applicant has provided an overall site plan of the property, side elevation diagrams, and interior site plans showing the layout of the 2 floors and the addition would be used for additional offices, conference room and outreach room for the mental heath center. Graham noted that the addition would appear to - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 meet all setback requirements and all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including parking requirements, as it would be located at the rear of the existing building, and would appear to meet the growing needs of the facility. Graham noted that the existing building is constructed of brick and the addition will be constructed to match the existing building. Graham noted that the request to construct the addition to the facility would not appear to be detrimental to the area and this area does have similar uses located in the vicinity, including Covenant Medical Center directly to the south. Graham also noted the large lots are located to the east with Columbus High School, and Bontrager Park located to the west. Graham noted that staff recommends that the special permit to allow for the addition to the Black Hawk Grundy Mental Health Center be approved as the request would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area, as it would be an addition to an existing building and the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map subject to the removal of the additional access on Saint Francis Drive. Roland Ganther of Black Hawk Grundy Mental Health Center asked for clarification regarding the removal of the access from Saint Francis Drive. Thorson noted that the Engineering Department would not approve another access point, as shown on the plan,to St. Francis Drive as there were already too many commercial within close proximity to each other. It was moved by Moser,seconded by Craft to approve the request subject to the removal of the additional access off Saint Francis Drive. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment Craft inquired as to the status of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Anderson noted that due to the staffing needs of the buyout process,the Zoning Ordinance amendments were not yet complete. Anderson noted that staff would do their best to complete the amendments in a reasonable amount of time. With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loveless to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 4 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M JANUARY 5,2010 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Loveless on January 5, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, Powers, and Whitehead. Members absent were: Young Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 6 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm to approve the agenda as submitted Motion carried unanimously. Grimm presided over the meeting from this point on. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on December 1, 2009 It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Loggins to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: October and November 2009. Anderson noted that the financial reports were normal for this time of year with the exception of a spike in legal services and an increase of land sales. IV. Oral Presentations V. Agenda Items A. Election of Officers 1. Election of Chairperson and Vice-chairperson for the term ending December 31, 2010. Moser nominated Steve Grimm as Chairperson. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Craft to elect Steve Grimm as Chairperson. Motion carried unanimously. Johnson nominated Jesse Loveless as Vice Chairperson, noting that it would be good to rotate the position of chairperson, and have the old chairperson serve as the back up. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Loggins to elect Jesse Loveless as Vice Chairperson. Motion carried unanimously. B. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Charles Heene to rezone approximately 0.81 acres of land from "A-1" Agricultural District to "R-1" Residential District at 3232 Osage Avenue for the purpose of allowing the Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 former radio station building to be converted into a single-family home. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Johnson to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Poll gave the staff report noting that there would appear to be minimal impact on the surrounding area and land uses, as the area has previously been used as a radio station and part of the radio station consisted an office that looks similar to a residential dwelling. Poll noted that this would not appear to impact traffic and that the majority of the surrounding area is comprised of agricultural land, with several farmsteads located in the vicinity. Poll noted that there are no sanitary sewer, storm sewer or water lines in the area and the site is served by an existing well and septic system that would have to be inspected by the county health department prior to residential use. Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Agricultural. Although the request is to utilize the property for residential purposes and may not conform with the designation of Agricultural, it is utilizing an existing building which would be in conformance with land use policy which encourages utilizing existing structures. Poll noted that the 1,404 SF building and three 295' antennas were constructed in 1972, which were allowed as a principal permitted use in the"A-1" Agricultural District and the entire property consists of 28.27 acres, but the applicant is only asking that 0.81 acres be rezoned to "R-1"which would prevent further residential development from occurring if the property is split and would be similar to other residences in the area that also have large lots. Poll noted that the applicant would be adding an attached 728 SF garage as well as an 8' porch along the front of the structure. Poll noted that staff was concerned that the long- term maintenance of the antennas be discussed to ensure that they do not become dilapidated and a hazard. Poll noted that the request is similar to the rezone requested at 2000 E Donald Street which the applicant rezoned a property from"A-1"to "R-1" in order to convert an old credit union building into a single family home noting that the request was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by City Council on August 6, 2007. Craft questioned in the septic inspection was required before the building could be approved for residential occupancy. Poll noted this was correct. Craft asked how the antennas would be maintained. Charles Heene 741 Timber Oak Road, Evansdale, noted that all towers would be removed. Heene noted that currently the property is tax exempt as it is owned by a church, and this rezone would return it to the tax rolls. Hene noted that he owns 140 acres to the south and west side of the property. Heene noted that he accepted responsibility to demolish the towers when he purchased the land. Moser asked if the remaining land could be converted into a conservation area. Heene noted that he would be using the excess land as a pasture for his horses. Johnson noted that he would like a timetable agreed upon to remove the towers. Heene noted he would not have a problem with that. Johnson noted that he would like a condition added that the towers are removed by July 1, 2010. Heene noted that timeframe would be acceptable. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loggins to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to approve the request on the condition that all radio towers are removed by July 1, 2010. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Contemporary Urban Development to rezone approximately 0.64 acres of land from "R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "C-P" Planned Commercial District near the northeast corner of Idaho Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive for development of a retail sales, neighborhood grocery/convenience store. It was moved by Loggins and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Andera gave staff report noting that an updated site plan had been received. Andera noted the applicant is - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 requesting to rezone the land from"R-2"to "C-P"to construct a convenience store upon the site,which will sell typical grocery items, beverages, etc. Andera noted that rezoning this area to "C-P" would appear to be consistent with the current commercial zoning of properties just to the north of the proposed rezone area along the east side of Idaho Street, which are zoned"C-1" and that the area proposed to be rezoned is separated from the existing residential uses by a large grove of trees, and it would appear to create a buffer between the neighborhood and commercial uses. Andera noted that the area was not in the floodplain and that the City View Creek drainage cunette is located southeast of the proposed rezone area. Andera noted that on June 2, 2009,the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to rezone the land in question from"R-2"to "C-P", however,the City Council voted to deny the request for rezoning on July 20, 2009 with concerns that a liquor store would be located at the site, and not enough information being submitted by the applicant relating to the use of the site. Andera noted that the applicant was eligible to resubmit the rezone request on November 20, 2009 and that in the interim, the City Council did approve to rezone City owned land to the south of the area in question from"R-3, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District to "C-P"Planned Commercial District on July 20, 2009 to allow for future commercial development at the intersection. Andera noted the City Council has also subsequently passed an Alcohol Sales Ordinance Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which puts tighter restrictions on alcohol sales uses. Andera noted that the "C-P" district requires any new commercial developments to go through a Site Plan Amendment process, which requires a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, unless the proposed development is considered a Minor Amendment, in which it would be reviewed by planning staff before being sent to the City Council for a final review. Andera noted that the applicant had submitted two separate site plans noting that one of the site plans faced the west toward Idaho Street and the other faced the building,parking lot and signage north towards the residential homes and noted that for that reason, staff would have a concern with the building oriented to the north. Andera noted that staff is recommending approval of the rezone request as the proposed rezone area is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, allowing for infill development in the Primary Growth Area and the site in question would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations including setbacks, drainage, landscaping, screening, etc, subject to the proposed convenience store meeting the requirements of the newly adopted Alcohol Sales Ordinance which would stipulates that the proposed store would have to be at least 100' from any residentially zoned district, have no more than 50%of its sales towards the purchase of alcohol, and 25% or less of the store area can be devoted towards the sale of alcohol. Kirk Eschliman of Kess &Associates noted that it would be a masonry structure so it would not need a firewall and it can have a setback of 5' from the south property line. Eschliman noted that he would prefer to orient the building to the west, as he believed orienting the building to the north would be out of place with the neighborhood. Eschliman noted that the store would not have petroleum sales and that less then 10%of the floor area would be devoted to alcohol sales. Craft asked if Mid-American Energy was satisfied with the size of the easement to the north and east. Eschliman noted they had come to an agreement in regards to the easement. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loggins to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Craft to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. C. Encroachments 1. Request by Northeast Iowa Center for Independent Living for an encroachment agreement to allow for a handicap accessibility ramp to encroach approximately 3.5' to 4' into the Railroad Avenue right-of-way at 1137 Steely Street. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant has indicated that the end of the ramp is extending into the right-of-way, and the applicant also noted that due to the grade difference between the house and the north property line,they are unable to achieve the minimum slope needed for the ramp per the American with Disabilities Act, unless they are able to extend the ramp into the right-of-way. Andera noted that the - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 ramp appeared to be encroaching approximately 5.5' to 7' into the right-of-way. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or traffic conditions and that the site is not in the floodplain. Andera noted that the potential exists to possibly vacate some of that right-of-way to accommodate the accessibility ramp, however, vacating a portion of Railroad Avenue right-of-way would not keep the consistency of the current 40' City right-of-way between the property in question and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, thus creating a"jog" in the right-of- way. Andera noted that typically there is a provision written into Encroachments Agreements, which allows the City to give a notice of termination of the agreement if the right-of-way is needed for any future public or right-of-way purposes. Andera noted that it would appear that the encroachment agreement would be a better option for the City to take,rather then vacating and selling the right-of-way to the property owner. Andera noted that there are no public utilities located within the right-of-way, and staff has not heard from any private utility companies if there are any private utilities located within the right-of-way. Andera noted that staff recommends that the request for an encroachment agreement be approved as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and subject to a signed and executed Encroachment Agreement. Craft asked if there was another encroachment on the property, as it appears from the aerial photo there may be. Andera noted that no other encroachments were present and the object in the aerial photo is a trailer. Jeff Ryant of the Northeast Iowa Center for Independent Living noted that he had done the construction and that due to the grade of the property an encroachment on to the City Property was necessary to maintain the proper angle. Ryant noted that the ramps are intended to be temporary in nature, and that when the client no longer needs the ramp, it would be removed and the materials used on another home. Craft asked if the property was surveyed before constructions. Ryant noted that the property was not professionally surveyed but that he had worked with City staff to plan where the ramp would be but that the grade was greater then anticipated in initial discussions with staff. Mosher asked if the home was a single-family dwelling. Ryant indicated it was. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Powers,seconded by Loveless to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 4 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M DECEMBER 1, 2009 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Loveless on December 1, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, Powers, Young and Whitehead. Members absent were: None Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Adam Poll— Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 4 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Chairperson Loveless introduced Dustin Whitehead as a new member on the Planning Commission. It was moved by Moser,seconded by Whitehead to approve the agenda as submitted Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 3, 2009 It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: October 2009. No financial report given. Schroeder noted that the report was not completed in time and that next month staff would provide the October and November reports. IV. Oral Presentations V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Ament, Inc. on the behalf of The Fortus Group for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Preserve at Crossroads, located at the end of Camelot Drive,directly to the north of the Super Target store at 1501 East San Marnan Drive for the development of a 4-lot residential subdivision. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to create 4 lots for additional residential development and that it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area or traffic conditions,as most of the surrounding land is used for residential purposes. Poll went on to note that the area is zoned"R-4"multiple residence district. Poll noted that single-family residences were to the north and west,while multiple family residences were to the east and west, and that vacant and commercial properties were to the south.Poll noted that the property was not in the floodplain and was served by an 8"sanitary sewer line and 4"storm sewer drain tiles run along both Bethel Street and Camelot Drive as well as a 24"storm sewer line runs along the west side of Bethel and an 18" storm sewer line runs along Camelot Drive.Poll noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as mixed residential and this request would be in compliance with such designation and that the site is located within the Primary Growth Area as designated on the Growth Area Map within the Comprehensive Plan. Poll noted that the lots vary in size from 3.37 acres to 0.91 acres and the request would allow for the construction of twelve 8-plex-apartment units consisting of 96 housing units in total.Poll noted that the proposed extension of Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 Oleson Road would grant access to all the lots in question and also that the current road width is 28',with a proposed 60' right-of-way to be dedicated.Poll noted that the developers will dedicate and convey 1.52 acres on the site for use as right-of-way and the road will be initially paved from Camelot to the western boundary of lots 1 and 2 with a temporary turnaround constructed until the road can be paved all the way to Bethel Street when lots 3 and 4 are developed and that detention areas are shown on lots 1 and 2. Sanitary sewer would be extended from Bethel Street and Camelot Drive to serve the development.Poll noted that staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat as the plat is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map, Subdivision Ordinance, is infill development in a primary growth area, and meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Thorson commented that he had just received a revised plat and there was still some minor information missing that the engineering department and that he would work with Larry Buchholz and the developer and get that info before the plat went to City Council. Craft inquired if the neighbors received notice. Schroeder noted that the neighbors are not sent notice as part of a plat and noted that notification is given to the neighborhood for rezones and special permits. Mosher asked if side elevations were available.Buchholz stated that those would be available shortly, but were not finished by the architect and noted that there would be a mix of handicap accessible and normal apartments. Johnson noted that he would abstain from the voting citing a possible conflict of interest. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of Preserve at Crossroads. Motion carried with a vote of 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. 2. Request by Helland Engineering on behalf of Kevin Kalsem for Kalsem's Minor Plat to divide 13.28 acres into a 2 lot residential subdivision at 320 West Orange Road. Western gave the staff report noting the request for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Kalsem's Minor Plat, which will split the existing parcel into two lots. Western noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area as it would appear the main intention of the plat is to split Parcel"C",where the house at 320 West Orange Road is located from the 10.55 acres of existing farm ground. Western noted that the proposed plat and surrounding area is zoned"R-1"One and Two Family Residence District and that land to the west is zoned"A"Agricultural District,and that land to the south and east is zoned"R-1"One and Two Family Residence District. Western noted that no portions of the plat are located within a Flood Hazard Area and that there is an 8" sanitary sewer located within West Orange Road to the south of the proposed minor plat, and if the 10.55 acres of vacant farm ground is developed in the future,the sanitary sewer could be extended to serve the plat as well as that there is no storm sewer located within the area while also noting that the proposed plat is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map for this area,which designates it as Low Density Residential. Western noted that the minor plat consists of 1 parcel of land(Parcel"C"),containing a total of 118,919 SF(2.73 acres)of land,which is located approximately 200' west of the intersection of A-B Avenue and West Orange Road and that the applicant is proposing to section off the southeast portion of the existing 13.28 acre parcel and sell the home, as well as selling the north 10.55 acres to a family member so that land can still be farmed noting that Parcel"C"also has an existing machine shed at it's northwest corner, and once the ground is divided,the existing shed will be 20' from both the north and west property lines,exceeding the minimum setback requirement of 3' for a detached structure in the rear yard by 17'.Western added the remaining 10.55 acre parcel of ground will still have approximately 144 feet of frontage along West Orange Road after the ground is split, allowing for a future access point to the property if it is developed for residential purposes in the future. Western noted that the applicant has submitted a plat of survey document in place of the preliminary and final plats and the documents do not show all of the required information for preliminary and final plat approval as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, however, given the minor nature of the split, it would not appear that the additional information is needed for approval of the plat. Western noted that the Subdivision Ordinance states that the City Council may vary the requirements if the purpose of the regulations are served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal. Western noted that staff recommends that the Preliminary and Final Plat of Kalsem's Minor Plat be approved as it is in - 2- Planning and Zoning Commission December 1,2009 accordance with the intent of the Subdivision Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map and is designated as the Primary Growth Area. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm to approve Kalsem's Minor Plat to divide 13.28 acres into a 2 lot residential subdivision at 320 West Orange Road Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Schroeder noted that staff was working to put together a draft for temporary signage and noted that staff is also working to complete revisions on the Zoning Ordinance and hoped to have that ready for the Planning Commission soon. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Grimm,seconded by Loggins to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 3 - • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M NOVEMBER 3,2009 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Loveless on November 3, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, and Young. Members absent were: Powers Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera, and Adam Poll—Planning Department, Dennis Gentz—Engineering Department, and approximately 10 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Young to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 6, 2009 It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loggins to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: September 2009. Anderson gave the financial report noting that the budget for this time of the year is currently on schedule at 25% for the year. Anderson noted that the phone account is a little high but that fell into the services account, which was under 25% for the year. Anderson noted that subscriptions were high as those were paid once at the beginning of the year. Anderson noted that currently the Planning Department is at 10% of the yearly goal for revenue,but noted that there are some pending sales that have been approved by council and not yet been finalized; but added that currently the financial report is in good standing for the year at this point. Moser questioned what#3620 Rental for$5,800 was from. Anderson noted that this was from rent/lease of property that the City leases out for agricultural and other purposes and this was paid in either January or the halfway mark. It was moved by Moser,seconded by Johnson to receive and place on file the financial report for September 2009. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations Anderson noted that the request by George Nicholas to rezone 6 lots from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "C-2" Commercial District in Kenwood Park Addition had been withdrawn by the applicant. Lila De Wolf, 1732 Forest Avenue,noted that she would like the property rezoned to"C-Z" Conditional Zoning and not"C-2" Commercial District. Gary Van Brocklin, 1819 Forest Avenue, noted that he enjoys the buffer currently in place between his property and the commercial development to the north, and added that the alley is rutted between his property and the proposed rezone area, and also that he objects to rezoning for the reason of"future commercial development"preferring that a specific use is cited before the area is rezoned noting that he would not like a liquor store to move into this location. Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2009 Schroeder noted that request was temporarily withdrawn by the applicant, and if it is resubmitted by the applicant that notice would once again be sent to all property owners within 250' of the requested rezone area. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by George Nicholas to rezone 6 lots in Kenwood Park Addition totaling approximately 1.04 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "C-2" Commercial District, located at the southeast corner of Ohio Street and Bertch Avenue,just south of Highway 218, for the purpose of future commercial development. Withdrawn by the applicant. B. Vacates 1. Request by Kenneth Wallaser to vacate the platted 8' public utility easements along the east side of lot 1 & 2, and the 8' public utility easement along the west side of 5 and 6 of Woodland Knolls Addition for a total easement width of 16',north of the intersection of South Hackett Road and Oakcrest Drive. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate a 16' utility easement to construct a 32' x 26' detached garage. Western noted that the proposed vacate would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area as the easement does not contain any known utilities, and that a portion of the easement has already been vacated. Western also noted that the northern most 15' of the utility easement could not be vacated, as there is an 8" sanitary sewer line in place at that location. Western noted that staff recommends the request be approved, as the vacate would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area or vehicular use and pedestrian traffic in the area, it is conformance with the Compressive Plan and Future Land Use, allows for further development of the property in question and is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Grimm asked if the request to vacate included the easement on lot 4. Anderson noted that no request had been made to vacate this section of the utility easement, but that the Planning and Zoning Commission could ask that the City vacate that section of utility easement as well. Johnson noted that he believed that the utility easement on lot 4 should be included to clean up the utility easement as long as no utilities were in that easement. Moser asked what would be done if the property owner on lot 4 did not want the easement vacated. Anderson noted that the easement in question was simply a utility easement and that the property owner of lot 4 already owned the property, so it should not negatively impact the owner. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Johnson to approve the vacate request and to include the easement on lot 4 as long as it is not needed for utilities. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate 3.317 acres of right-of-way at the southeast corner of Greenhill Road and University Avenue,just north of the existing office building at 1015 South Hackett Road. Andera gave the staff report noting that the City is requesting to vacate approximately 3.317 acres of excess right-of-way directly north of the John Deere Health Care facility at 1015 South Hackett Road. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions in the area and that if vacated,the property would be zoned"C-2" Commercial District. Andera noted that the surrounding area consists of mixed use developments with single-family homes to the south and east,the John Deere Health Care located to the south of the area in question and light commercial development at the southwest corner of South Hackett Road and Greenhill Road. Andera noted that a 6" sanitary sewer line and 6"water main are located within the dead-end of Flower Street, - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2009 directly to the south and east of the area in question and a 36" storm sewer line is located along the west side of Greenhill Road. In addition, Andera added that the Future Land Use Map designates this area as Commercial and the proposed use would be consistent with this designation. Andera noted that the City has been approached by developers regarding this property and the sale of this property would increase the City tax base as well as potentially creating additional job growth in the area. Andera noted that there was not a great deal of space to stack traffic on South Hackett Road and any vehicular entrance may need to be offset to the SE corner of the lot in question. Andera noted that the City has recently obtained a 60' x 140' (8,400)utility easement from the Iowa Department of Transportation on land they own directly to the east of the City owned property in question, in order to extend any necessary utilities from Flower Street such as sanitary sewer, water etc. to serve the site if it is developed. Andera noted that any development of the site would be required to meet all City codes including parking, landscaping and drainage and that staff recommends the vacate be approved as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, vehicular or pedestrian traffic; development of the site would create additional tax base and the area does not appear to be needed for future right-of-way purposes. Loggins asked if the City had been approached by any developers regarding this property. Andera noted that over the past few years and also recently the City has been approached by several developers interested in purchasing the property. It was moved by Loggins, seconded by Young to approve the request to vacate 3.317 acres of right-of- way at the southeast corner of Greenhill Road and University Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. C. Street Names 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name the Private Street serving the proposed Unity Square Townhomes at the southeast corner of Newell Street and Mobile Street as"Unity Square". Andera gave the staff report noting that the City of Waterloo is requesting to name the Private Street serving the Unity Square Townhomes Development at the southeast corner of Newell Street and Mobile Street as "Unity Square" citing that the request was reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and they found no conflicts with the proposed name. Andera noted that Unity Square Townhomes Development is going to be constructed on the lot bounded by Newell Street, Mobile Street, Ash Street and Webster Street and that access to the proposed street would be gained from Mobile Street, directly opposite the other side of the intersection where Quincy Street intersects with Mobile Street and added that the private street would make a loop in the middle of the development, serving the planned residential units,proposed community building and playground. Andera noted that the name of the street will be "Unity" and the street suffix would be "Square". It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to name the Private Street serving the proposed Unity Square Townhomes at the southeast corner of Newell Street and Mobile Street as "Unity Square" Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to rename portions of the Public Streets River Road, Westfield Avenue and Jefferson Street as "West Commercial Street" and"West Jefferson Street" located in Techworks Addition. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the City of Waterloo is requesting to rename portions of existing Public Streets adjacent to Techworks Addition so that the street names are consistent with the street names within Techworks Addition. Schroeder noted that it would be necessary to rename the portion of River Road generally located between Westfield Avenue and West Mullan Avenue at West Commercial Street, rename the portion of Westfield Avenue generally located between River Road and West Commercial Street as platted in Tract "B" of Techworks Addition as West Commercial Street, rename the portion of Jefferson Street generally located between West Mullan Avenue and West Jefferson Street as platted in Tract"F" of Techworks Addition as West Jefferson Street and name the portion of unnamed public street generally located south of West Commercial Street from Westfield - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 2,2009 Avenue to West Washington Street Access Road as West Commercial Street. Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department has reviewed the naming of the public streets and found there to be no conflicts with proposed names and recommends that the names be approved. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Johnson to approve the request to rename portions of the Public Streets River Road, Westfield Avenue and Jefferson Street as "West Commercial Street"and "West Jefferson Street"located in Techworks Addition. Motion carried unanimously D. Plans and Studies 4. Northeast Industrial Area Urban Renewal Tax Increment Finance District Expansion Schroeder noted that the City was looking to expand the Northeast Industrial Area Urban Renewal Tax Increment Finance District to include the former Eagle Tannery facility at 4455 Remington Road. Schroeder noted that the City would be able to provide any potential buyers for the property with extra incentive to relocate their business to this facility and expand the existing structures. Schroeder noted that the existing Tax Increment Finance District area includes most of the industrial land to the west of the proposed location. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to expand the Northeast Industrial Area Urban Renewal Tax Increment Finance District to include the former Eagle Tannery site at 4455 Remington Road. Motion carried unanimously E. Discussion Johnson discussed the proliferation of temporary signage in many commercial locations, and expressed concern that this practice is in violation of the intent of the sign ordinance and would like to see the regulations tightened up. Johnson added that he believes this practice gives the community a negative image and would like this issue to be addressed. Anderson noted that two different ordinances apply to signage; the zoning ordinance deals with permanent signs and the sign ordinance deals with the temporary signs that appear to be the concern. Anderson noted that staff would look at ways to create better enforcement of the sign ordinance. Johnson noted that he would like to receive a report regarding this issue and encouraged staff to observe the proliferations of these signs around the community, and noted that tighter restrictions could be added to the Zoning Ordinance. Loveless noted that today is Election Day, and encouraged those in attendance, along with the people watching on television to go out and vote. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, it was moved by Grimm,seconded by Loggins to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 4:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 4 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M OCTOBER 6,2009 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Loveless on October 6, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, Powers and Young. Grimm arrived at 4:07 pm. Members absent were: None Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera, and Adam Poll—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 35 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Johnson asked that items B-2, and C-1 be bumped up on the agenda directly following A-2 and A-3 as all of these items deal with the Human Services Campus. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on September 1, 2009 It was moved by Moser,seconded by Young to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: August 2009. Anderson gave the financial report noting that the budget for this time of the year is currently on schedule. He noted that staffing was already up to 25% due to the state buyout and that a line item adjustment would needed to be added due to different state funds that would be received as reimbursement for these expenditures. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the financial report for August 2009. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Special Permits 1. Request by Pat's Auto Salvage for a Special Permit to allow for the expansion of the existing salvage yard at the former Nelly Garvey School site at 2201 East Mitchell Avenue at the northeast corner of East Mitchell Avenue and Sheffield Avenue, 2 blocks east of Highway 218. Grimm present at 4:07 pm. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting a Special Permit for the purpose of expanding the applicants existing salvage yard to the former Nelly Garvey School site. Poll noted that the surrounding neighborhood is used primarily for salvage yard uses, as well as noting that some residential located to the north, and approving the Special Permit would not appear to have a negative Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. Poll noted that the request would allow for the potential reuse of the vacant school building as the applicant would like to use the structure for his office if the building is found to be structurally sound. Poll noted that the applicant had provided a petition of support for the Special Permit, and the applicant noted that a majority of the owners in the notification area had signed the petition for support. Poll noted that it would appear to be appropriate as the request would be in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recently voted to vacate Lowell Ave to the east with the intent to convey it to Pat's Auto Salvage. Poll noted that the applicant was also seeking an exemption to the stacking limits within the entire salvage yard allowing stacking objects above the top of the fence. Johnson asked for clarification on the exemption to the stacking limits. Anderson stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance, applicants could request stacking exemptions as part of the Special Permit process. Loggins noted that he would abstain from voting on the matter due to his employment with the Waterloo School system. Pat Roof of Pat's Auto salvage noted that over 99.5% of the people in the neighborhood were in support of the special permit. Roof stated that the stacking exemption would allow for more efficient storage and would allow him to stack objects safely over the top of the fence. Paul Hunting of the Waterloo Parks and Recreation Department noted the City's significant investment in the park to the east of this property. Hunting added that this should help to improve and increase the flow of traffic in the area. Hunting noted that he would like to meet with Mr. Roof about the relationship between the salvage yard and the park but added that this would be an improvement to the area and that he is not opposed to the request. Young noted that he as he was a school board member, he would be abstaining from the vote on the matter. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Moser to approve the Special Permit with the stacking exemption. Motion carried 6-0 with Loggins and Young abstaining. 2. Request by Invision Architecture on behalf of the Iowa Department of Corrections for a Special Permit for the construction of a 59,221 SF Iowa Department of Correctional Services Women's Facility at the northeast corner of Lafayette Street and Elm Street, in an"M-2" Heavy Industrial District. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a special permit to allow for the construction of a new women s Department of Corrections Facility. Andera noted that the proposed Special permit would not appear to have a negative impact on the area as it would be utilizing an existing vacant lot located in a Brownfield area also noting that there were residences to the north, light industrial and commercial to the east, west and south. Andera noted that the proposed facility would increase traffic in the area but would not have a significant impact on traffic conditions in the area if the onsite parking shown is provided. Andera noted that the property in question is zoned"M-2"Heavy Industrial District, and that properties to the east and south were similarly zoned, while properties to the west were zoned"M-1" light industrial and properties to the north were zone"R-3"multiple residence district. Andera noted that the area is served by all major utilities and noted that it may be necessary to extend storm sewer lines as no lines of significant size currently serve the area. It was noted that the Special Permit request would meet the requirements of the Future Land Use Map and was located in a primary growth area. Andera noted that because this building was a public government building it was required to go thru the Special Permit process. Andera went on to note that the applicant had looked into multiple sites around Waterloo before deciding on the site in question and noted that currently female offenders were housed in a facility located at 314 E 6th St and that the proposed expansion would allow - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 for increased accessibility for female offenders. Andera added that the proposed facility would create 19 new jobs along with 6 current existing employees for a total of 25 employees at this facility. Andera added that 25 parking stalls would be required at this site,which would appear to be provided between the employee parking to the north as well as the visitor lot to the east. Andera further added that building setback distances were not shown on the current site plan,but would have to meet"M-2"required setbacks, and that a variance would be required for the visitor lot to the west as it would appear to be zero feet from the property line while a 5 foot setback required. Andera noted that staff recommends the approval of this special permit because it would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and would act as a good buffer between the neighborhood and the industrial uses to the south,the request is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and would be a good infill development. Moser asked if the area flooded last year. Anderson noted that this site did not flood. Andera noted that some areas along Sycamore Street did receive some water. Karen Herkleman, District director of the Department of Corrections, 309 Artist Street,Hudson Iowa, noted that she believed that this project fits nicely with the Human Services Campus concept and thanked the Planning and Zoning commission for their consideration. Corey Jefferson, Ambassadors for Christ Church, 733 Sherman Street, expressed his concern about the impact on the area, if any, and future expansions. Eric Ritland, Invision Architecture, 424 Kingbard Blvd,noted that the size of the building size was closer to 26,000 SF and that the 59,221 SF size listed in the description was actually the size of the lot. Ritland added that future expansion would be unlikely as the design of the building took up almost the entire lot. Jacqueline Henney, 1601 Mulberry Street, questioned what had happened to a plan that had been mentioned to build high-rise condos along the river. Anderson responded that there were some condos that were planned closer to down town but he was not aware any being built in this location. Henney added that Mulberry was a quiet street and she believed that this would no longer be the case. Loggins expressed his concern on the type of message this would send to the young people in this area. Herkleman noted that the facility was designed to serve women in the community and that the women would be out in the community working during the day and felt her goals were compatible with that of the neighborhood. Herkleman noted that the facility would be staffed 24 hours a day and felt that the neighborhood would be even safer with this facility present. Colleen Deitrick, 1615 Mulberry Street, expressed her concern about the presence of the facility on the same block as a bar and thought that could be a potential negative influence for those using the facility as well as noting that she had been unaware that Operation Threshold and the Foodbank were also moving to the property and also asked if barb wire would be present at this facility. Herkleman noted that the Department of Corrections looked at 26 different sites around Waterloo before deciding on this location, and noted that the women would be out in the community and could access any bar. Herkleman noted that her staff did checks on the women using the facility and alcohol testing would be conducted every time someone entered the facility and felt the bar. Moser asked if this unit would replace part of the unit on 6th street. Herkleman noted that that the women would be moved out of the facility on 6th street and into this building and that would create more room for men at the facility on 6th street and the new facility would create more room for women as well. Loggins asked how much research was done on the site in question. Herkleman stated that the Department of Corrections had looked at 27 different sites over the last year, stating that the site had to be fairly close to the existing facility, and had to meet the size requirements for the facility. Ritland stated that there would not be any barbed wire at the facility as it was not considered a high - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 security facility, and the clients within would be working in the community during the day. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Young to approve the special permit. Motion passed 8-1 with Loggins voting against the approval. 3. Request by Operation Threshold for a Special Permit for the construction of new 27,610 SF office building located along the south side of Mulberry Street, mid-block between Elm street and Vinton Street, in an"M-2"Heavy Industrial District. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant requested a special permit to construct a new office building for use by Operation Threshold at the same site as the Department of Corrections facility, noting that most of the background information was already stated by Andera in the staff report for the Department of Corrections facility. Graham noted that the applicant was located in the 300 block of West 3 street but that building was heavily damaged by the flood of 2008 and that the current location was selected because it is part of the Human Services Campus in order to provide centralized services for low income individuals and families. Graham noted the building would be two stories in height and would be 27,610 SF in size of which 23,610 SF would be for office space and 4,000 SF would be for warehouse space and would house 78 employees, 25 more employees then currently employed, which is the result of increased programming due to the recent federal stimulus plan. Graham noted that the applicant has indicated that the building should be completed by April 2010, and that a variance to the setback requirements would appear to be necessary. Graham noted that this request would not appear to have a detrimental effect on the area, noting that this office could be located in several other zoning districts and the area in question is zoned"M-2"which would allow for more intense uses. Graham noted that staff is recommending approval of this special permit because it would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and would act as a good buffer between the neighborhood and the industrial uses to the south, the request is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and would be a good infill development. Young noted that it appeared that most of the traffic would be coming off Lafayette Street and asked if this was correct. Graham stated that the employees would access the building off of Mulberry Street, but the client parking would be accessed off of Lafayette Street. Barb Grant, Director of Operation Threshold, 405 Chestnut Street, stated that she appreciated the Commissions consideration of the request and the development of the Human Services Campus idea stating that the idea of the Human Services Campus has been in development for several decades. Grant continued that clients would access the building off Lafayette Street while employees would access it off of Mulberry Street. Jacqueline Henney, 1601 Mulberry Street, questioned if the Human Services campus would cause her property to increase or decrease in value. Moser stated that it depends on what impact that the Campus had on the neighborhood, and it also depends on if the Campus was a better use of the property then what it currently is being used for which is currently being used as vacant land. Henney stated that she is aware of the need of a Department of Corrections facility but felt that the use would be better further out of the City. Grant noted that many of their clients do not have access to a car and thus this site is better suited for their clientele then any sites further from downtown. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft to approve the request for the special permit for the construction of a new office for Operation Threshold Motion carried unanimously. B. Plats 2. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of the City of Waterloo, the Department of Corrections, and Operation Threshold for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Human Services Campus Addition generally located between Mulberry Street and Lafayette Street, east of Elm Street for the development of a 4-lot subdivision. -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 Poll gave the staff report noting the request would create 4 lots containing 4.75 acres of land, which would be used to create a Human Services campus to centralize several pubic and non-profit entities in one location to better service their clients noting that this request also dealt with much of the same background information as the previous two requests. Poll noted that the Department of Corrections Women's facility would be located on lot 1, Operation Threshold would be located on lot 3, and lots 2 and 4 would consist of shared parking. Poll noted that the plat provided in the packet shows lot 1 includes a portion of Elm Street, but this portion has since been removed and was no longer included in the plat. Poll noted that a phase 1 environmental study has been completed and nothing was found to prevent the development of the site, and also that the site was currently used to store excess snow removed from the down town area and the City would have to find another location for snow storage. Poll noted that staff recommends the preliminary and final plats for the Human Services Campus Addition be approved because it allows several public and non-profit entities to better serve their clientele, the plat is in accordance with the sub-division ordinance, Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan and the request would meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Young to approve the request for the preliminary and final plat of Human Service Campus Addition. Motion carried unanimously. C. Vacates 1. Request by Invision Architecture on behalf of the Iowa Department of Corrections to vacate a portion of Elm Street located between Mulberry Street and Lafayette Street in Lane and Fowler's 2nd Addition, for the purpose of incorporating the vacated right-of-way with the Human Services Campus Addition. Andera gave the staff report noting that the proposed vacated portion would eventually be used as parking for the Proposed Department of Corrections facility. Andera noted that the request may have some negative impact on traffic conditions as a section of roadway providing a link between Franklin Street and Sycamore Street the majority of the uses along elm street are residential, and if the street is vacated, it would deter traffic from using Elm Street as a cut thru, and direct more traffic on to minor arterials and out of residential areas. Andera noted that sidewalks are located on both sides of Elm Street and the removal of both of these sidewalks could restrict pedestrian movement. Andera went on to mention that the property on 328 Elm Street would still have access to Elm Street as only the south 245 ft of Elm Street would be conveyed to use for the Human Services Campus, leaving 90 ft accessible to the property at 328 Elm Street. Andera mentioned that the area to be vacated does contain a 30" sanitary sewer line, and an easement would need to be retained over the entire street if vacated. Andera noted that staff is concerned about the removal of two sidewalks and therefore would ask that only the east 54' of the street be vacated, leaving the west 6' as right of way to be used for use as a sidewalk but would recommend that the vacate be approved as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, the area to be vacated is located in the primary growth area,and would appear to help the redevelopment of the area and subject to the condition the a utility easement be retained over, under and upon the entire area to be vacated. Moser inquired about the status of the building to the west addressed at 54 Lane Street. Anderson noted that there was a business present in the building that used a good portion of the building, but that the owner had alternative access and was not opposed to the vacate. Curtis Ridgeway, 1520 Hawthorne, noted that he owned Fortune's Bar located at 328 Elm Street,just north and east of the requested vacate. Ridgeway stated that because of this Human Services Campus, he would lose his whole parking lot and beer garden, hurting his business. Johnson inquired if the City has looked into inquiring that property. Anderson stated that to date,the City has not looked into purchasing that property and noted that the northern portion of the vacate in question would be available as parking for the bar. Hawthorne stated that this would only constitute two spaces, Anderson pointed out that there was parking available on one side of Mulberry Street. Johnson stated that he believed that the City should - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 look into acquiring the property citing that a bar does not seem to meet the character of the Human Services Campus, but stated that he is in favor of vacating the street. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Moser to approve the request to vacate the east 54'of Elm Street between Lafayette Street and Mulberry Street with the retention of an easement and with the recommendation that the City make contact with Curtis Ridgeway regarding the purchase of his property at 328 Elm Street Motion carried unanimously A. Special Permits 4. Request by Thomas Adams for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of a 45' wind power generation tower northwest of the existing home at 730 West Airline Highway in an"A-1" Agricultural District. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a special permit for a 45' tall, 5 kilowatt wind tower stating that surrounding properties to the west, north and east are all agricultural with residential properties to the south and industrial further south. Schroeder noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area as it was over 100' from the nearest property line and over 400' to the nearest home and that this property and those surrounding it were all zoned"A-1" Agricultural with the exception of one property to the south that is zoned "M-2, P". Schroeder went on to say the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as low density residential and development such as this is permitted in"A-1" zoning districts upon approval of a Special Permit by the Board of Adjustment after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically mention wind towers and that staff is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance specifically for wind towers, however the amendment has not been adopted but staff has determined that the regulations for wireless communication towers would apply to wind towers as they are a comparable use. Schroeder noted that any lattice or guyed tower would be required to receive a special permit, and that the tower in question is a lattice design and would require a special permit and that it would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and meets setback requirements, therefore staff recommends the approval of the request. Craft inquired if any comments were received from the airport regarding the height of the tower. Schroeder stated that the airport director had received a copy of the tech packet and no comments were received, and that according to the Ordinance regulating height requirements,the site in question would not be in the primary glide path of the runway and would meet height requirements near the airport. Craft asked if the blades would be added to the 45' height. Schroeder noted that the blades would be counted towards the overall height in the proposed ordinance, and that the stated height is not based on the height of the blades, so the blade height would need to be added to get the overall height. Tom Adams, 730 West Airline Highway, noted that the blades would add 8' to the height creating a 53' total height. Schroeder added that this would still not cause the tower to break airport regulations. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Young to approve the request for a Special Permit allowing the construction of a 45'wind power generation tower at 730 West Airline Highway. Motion carried unanimously B. Plats 1. Request by VJ Engineering on the behalf of Ken Kampman for the Final Plat of Tower Park No. 6, a replat of Lot 1 of Tower Park No. 5, at the southeast corner of West San Marnan Drive and Hurst Drive for the development of a 3-lot commercial subdivision. Johnson noted that he would need to abstain from voting as he represented the owners of the property. Poll gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to create 3 smaller commercial lots from lot 1 - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission • October 6,2009 of Tower Park No. 5 stating that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding areas and it would appear to promote additional commercial development, citing similar commercial uses to the east, areas to the south and west which are currently used for agricultural use but have been planned for future commercial, and low density residential to the north across San Marnan Drive. Poll stated that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions as traffic would access the property from Hurst and Tower Park Drive and that none of the lots would be granted direct access to San Marnan Drive. Poll noted that the area in question is zoned"R-4, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District and that surrounding properties are zoned for commercial used, or high-density residential/professional office use. Poll noted that utilities would have to be extended from the east along Tower Park Drive and that the Future Land Use Map does designate this area as a Business Park and that the request would appear to be in compliance with this use. Poll stated that the plat consisted of 3 lots, containing 4.78 acres of land ranging in size from 1.25 acres to 2.26 acres with various utility easements to be retained and that the area of the plat designated"Parcel M"would be given to the City for public use as a street. Poll noted that staff recommends the request for the Final Plat of Tower Park No. 6 be approved as it is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Craft inquired the purpose of"Parcel M", Poll noted that it would be used as a turn lane on to San Marnan Drive. Anderson added that the deed of dedication did not mention sidewalks and noted that sidewalks had been required on the Country Club Plat to the west so in order to ensure continuity staff would review the deed of dedication to see if they were required. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Loggins to approve the request for the Final Plat of Tower Park No. 6. Motion carried unanimously C. Vacates 2. Request by Ifet Salihovic to vacate a portion of April Street Right-of-way in Jane Addition directly west of the property at 2524 Gloria Drive, for the purpose of constructing a privacy fence. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of April Street right-of- way for the purpose of construction a privacy fence along April Street adding that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or traffic conditions in the area. Andera went on to state that the site in question is zoned"R-2"residential district and that an 8" sewer line is located in April Street and angles southwesterly and cuts across the north corner of the area to be vacated, and thus an easement would need to be retained over, under and upon the entire portion of property to be vacated. Andera noted the Future Land Use Map designates this area as low density residential and the proposed use would appear to meet that designation. Andera stated that staff recommends the vacate be approved because the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, it is located in a primary growth area, subject to the condition that an easement is retained over, under and upon the entire area to be vacated. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Loggins to approve the request to vacate a portion of April Street right-of-way in Jane Addition directly west of the property at 2524 Gloria Drive subject to the condition that a utility easement is retained over, under and upon the entire area to be vacated Motion carried unanimously. D. Appeal of the Driveway Policy 1. Request by Colin Hurley for an appeal of the Driveway Policy prohibiting more than one driveway per residential property to allow for a second curb-cut from Park Lane to allow for the construction of a 24'x 32' (832 SF) detached garage northwest of the existing house at 2604 Crestline Avenue. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting a second curb-cut from Park Lane to - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 allow for the construction of a detached garage for the storage of antique cars, boats and watercraft noting that it would appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood as the surround properties have only one curb-cut, and could have a negative impact on traffic conditions as it is in violation of the City's Code regarding second driveways and the proposed second driveway is aligned with the intersection of Saratoga Drive and Park Lane and the engineering department feels that this could cause potential traffic conflicts and create an unsafe situation. Western noted that the City Code 33-10 mandates that an appeal of the decision of the City Engineer must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Western noted that the Code states there is to be one curb-cut per property unless the property has 100 ft or more street frontage along the same street frontage and that corner lots such as this lot should be limited to one driveway on the street with the least amount of traffic. Western noted that the applicant states that the new driveway along Park Lane would have limited use, but Park Lane has a significant amount of traffic that creates a potentially dangerous situation when the owner is backing out of the driveway and the amount of use could change with a new owner. Western stated that staff recommends that the decision of the City engineer to deny the request for the second curb-cut be upheld as it is in accordance with the Driveway and Sidewalk Ordinance of Waterloo, the second curb- cut could cause traffic conflicts in the area and may be detrimental to the plans of the neighborhood organization. Johnson inquired what notice was given to the neighborhood regarding this request. Western mentioned that no notice had been sent out to the neighborhood. Johnson stated that he believed that neighbors should be notified and have an opportunity to comment on this issue. Schroeder noted that notice could be sent out before this is sent on to City Council. Grimm asked if the permit to build the garage has been approved. Western stated that the owner was requesting to be granted a second curb cut before building the garage. Colin Hurley, 2604 Crestline Avenue, thanked the commission for considering the request and stated that the garage was a hobby garage that would not be heavily used, also noting that there were several places in the City where one street"T" intersects into another street and there is a driveway at the end of the street. Hurley noted that at the corner of Kimball Avenue and Park Lane there is a similar situation where traffic can come from a number of different directions, and noted that he has talked to several of his neighbors, none of whom can recall a single incident of an accident involving someone pulling in or backing out of a driveway along that street. Hurley also noted the presence of many other driveways that are already located on that street and added that the street allows parking on the south side, so most people driving would not be driving along the shoulder where the curb-cut is proposed. Loveless asked if the curb cut is not allowed, would Hurley still plan on building the garage. Hurley stated that if the curb cut is not approved that he would probably move as he purchased the property on the assumption that he could build a larger garage with a second driveway and currently rents several spaces for storage purposes and that he would rather spend his money on fixing up his property rather then spending it on rent. Loggins asked what the traffic was like. Hurley noted that its pretty quiet although it does get a little busy when school gets out. Hurley noted that he did not foresee a problem backing in or out as there was clear site for two or three blocks. Loggins asked how long Hurley had lived there and what school his kids went to. Hurley replied that he had lived there for three and half year, stating that his daughter attended Lou Henry and his son just started at West. Moser noted that there are a number of properties in west Waterloo that have two driveways. Craft noted that the code is clear and he felt that it was the commission's role to support the code. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Johnson to support the City Engineer's decision and deny the request for a second curb cut along Park Lane. Motion failed 3-5 with Johnson,Loveless and Craft voting in favor of the motion and Loggins, Grimm,Powers,Moser, and Young voting against the - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 motion. It was moved by Loggins,seconded by Grimm to support the appeal to allow construction of the second curb cut along Park Lane. Motion Carried 5-3 with Loggins, Grimm,Powers,Moser, and Young voting in favor of the motion and Johnson,Loveless and Craft voting against the motion. E. Hearings—Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for an Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, regulating the establishment of alcohol sales related businesses. Schroeder gave the staff report stating that staff had written an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate the placement of new alcohol sales and related businesses. Schroeder noted that the amendment would create a definition of alcohol sales, list protected uses that apply to alcohol sales, it would list a grocery store or drug store including alcohol sales as a permitted use in the "C-1" Commercial District and less restrictive districts provided that at least '/2 their total sales and 3/4 of their floor space are devoted to sales other then alcoholic beverages provided that the such uses are at least 100 ft from a protected use. Schroeder noted that alcohol sales would be a permitted use "C-2", "M-1" and "M-2" districts provided that such use are at least 100 feet from any protected use and upon approval of a Special Permit by the Board of Adjustment and after review by the Planning and Zoning Commission except that the Special Permit approval would not be required if such a use is located along a principal or minor arterial road, if such a use is a grocery store or drug store with at lease i/2 their gross income derived from and at least 3/4 of their floor space devoted to the sale of other then alcoholic beverages, or if such a use is a restaurant where at least half their gross income is derived from the sale of prepared food or food related services. Schroeder noted that the new amendment would allow alcohol sales as a permitted use in the "C-3" district without any set back or special permit requirements and the amendment would apply standards and general conditions that would apply to any alcohol sales facilities subject to the special permit approval. Schroeder noted that wording was added to prohibit drive thru windows as well and displayed a map showing potential areas that would be affected. Loggins asked who would enforce the new ordinance changes. Schroeder noted that city staff would enforce the changes, either the zoning office or code enforcement noting that staff has prepared an affidavit/agreement that would need to be signed where the owners would provide sales info upon request of the City. Young asked for clarification of the process. Schroeder noted that any use would have to be at least 100 ft from the building structure/service area to the property line of a protected use and defined protected use and added that a special permit would not be necessary if the request was along a principal or minor arterial. Anderson noted that the objective of these changes was to direct alcohol sales into the commercial corridors and not in the residential areas recognizing that there are some smaller commercial areas where a special permit could be obtained. Loggins stated that he supported the idea of making it tougher to sell alcohol in residential neighborhoods. Johnson asked if the minor arterial provision could be taken out so that only properties along principal arterials are exempt from obtaining special permits, citing that many of the minor arterials run along residential areas. Young stated that he agreed with Johnson as many of the schools are on the minor arterial streets. Loggins asked of the 100' setback from protected use could be changed to a greater distance. Johnson stated that if the Commission was to error, he would rather error on the side of the protected uses. Grimm added that notices send out for zoning requests went out to 250' around the affected property and he felt - 9 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 6,2009 that would be a more appropriate distance. Mike Beckman, 1011 Barrington, Cedar Falls, stated that he owned the property at 504 Riehl Street and he wanted to know how his property would be affected by the proposed ordinance as he has a substantial investment in the property. Schroeder noted that the property was zoned"C-2" and along a minor arterial, so if the building was at least 100' from any protected use property line, it would not require a special permit as proposed by staff,however, changes are being discussed by the Commission that would, if adopted, require the site in question to obtain Special Permit approval. Johnson stated that zoning process are part of the police powers of the Planning and Zoning commission and stated that the commission should not look at specific instances when revising this ordinance and believes that the City has had numerous complaints regarding the proliferation of alcohol sales and that the new ordinance should not be drafted using specific examples as these examples would have their chance to receive a special permit. Johnson went on to state that he believed that he would drop the language allowing properties on minor arterials to skip the special permit process and increase the distance to protected uses to 250'. Schroeder noted that right now there is a 100 ft mandatory minimum distance required between any alcohol sales and a protected use that would prohibit any business from selling alcohol if their building was closer to 100 ft from a protected use regardless of a special permit, and if the distance is increased to 250' separating protected uses from alcohol sales, the business should be subject to only the special permit and not a mandatory minimum separation requirement. Johnson agreed that the 100' separation could be mandatory, and the 250' is what would trigger a special permit. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Grim to pass the revised ordinance, subject to the distance from protected uses requiring a special permit being increased to 250'and the dropping of minor arterials as a special permit exemption Motion carried unanimously. G. Discussion There was no further discussion. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Loveless declared the meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 10 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M SEPTEMBER 1,2009 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Loveless on September 1, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, Powers and Young. Member(s) absent were: None Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, Tim Andera, and Adam Poll—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 35 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Moser,seconded by Craft to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on August 4, 2009 It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: July 2009. Anderson gave the financial report noting that the budget for this time of the year is currently on schedule. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Young to receive and place on file the financial report for July 2009. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by David Love to rezone approximately 0.475 acres of land from"R-2" One and Two Residence District to "M-1"Light Industrial District at the southeast corner of Peek Street and Quincy Street to allow for the continued use of the property as a contractor storage yard. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Loveless declared the hearing open. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property for the purpose of allowing an illegal contractor's storage yard to remain. Poll noted that the surrounding neighborhood is comprised mostly of one and two family dwellings, as well as noting that a 40-unit multifamily development is planned 2 blocks to the east at Newell Street and Mobile Street, and rezoning the land for industrial use could have a negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. Poll noted that the applicant has recently been cited by the Code Enforcement Division for the illegal contractor's storage yard in the residential area, and noted that the reason for the rezoning request is in response to the citation. Poll noted that the request has received opposition from some residents in the neighborhood. Poll noted that it would not appear to be appropriate to rezone this area as "M-1", as single-family homes Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 surround the property in question, and the request would not be in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. Poll noted that the continued use as a contractor storage yard discourages additional residential development in the area, as it does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Loggins questioned when the construction of the new multi-family development was scheduled to begin east of the site in question. Poll noted that the 40-unit multi-family development is scheduled to begin in the next month, north of Mount Carmel Church. Johnson noted that he has provided legal services for the applicant over the past years, and noted that he would be abstaining from the vote on the matter. Loveless noted that there are other properties in the nearby area that also illegally store construction equipment on improperly zoned land, specifically noting property at the corner of Douglas and Ash Streets, as well as the property near the corner of Mobile and Shilliam Streets, and questioned if Code Enforcement is looking into those properties as well. Poll noted that this particular incident came to Code Enforcements attention through a complaint, as well as noting that he is unaware if Code Enforcement is investigating the other properties that Loveless mentioned, but will check with them. David Love, 620 Quincy Street, noted that he also owns several adjacent lots in the area in addition to the lots in question, noting that he has allowed residents of the neighborhood to garden those lots and upkeep them, noting it keeps the area looking clean. Love noted his business started at the lots in question in 1981, and noted that the City had approached him in the past regarding the surfacing of the property, noting that he graveled the lots per the request of the City. Love noted that there are multiple properties nearby his that have been grown over by weeds and trees, noting that he maintains these lots, sometimes mowing them twice a week. Love also noted that he thought this situation had been addressed when he graveled the lots at the request of the City, however, it appears that Code requirements have changed since then. Love noted that if the Code requirements have been changed since then, he questioned if his property would be grandfathered in. Love noted that he believes he should be able to utilize the land for the current purposes, noting that he keeps up the property and pays taxes. Love noted that if the request is not approved, he may decide to let the properties go and no longer maintain them and leave them to the care of the City. Loggins questioned how long Mr. Love has been in the neighborhood in question. Love noted that he constructed a new home in 1980, directly adjacent to the lots in question. Loggins questioned how long Love has used the lot. Love noted that he has utilized the lots since 1981. Loggins questioned if there has been any resistance to the current use of the property up until this current notification of violation from the Code Enforcement Department. Love noted that there were no complaints on the use of the property up until this time. Loggins questioned if the Planning and Zoning Commission does not approve the request for rezoning, would the owner be willing to put any other use upon the lots. Love noted that he does not intend to put a new use on the lots if the request is denied. Loveless noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission only makes a recommendation on the requests at hand, and the City Council makes the final decision on rezoning requests. Love requested that the Commission take into consideration how well kept and maintained the lots are, and to drive through the neighborhood and look at other private properties that are not maintained, noting that this current use is a positive for the neighborhood. Darrel Jones, 802 North Barclay Street, noted he would like to see the property in question rezoned to "M-1" Light Industrial, as well as property between the rezone request and his property rezoned for industrial use to allow property owners to do more with their properties. Jones noted that there are 2 lots directly behind him that were once used as gardens, and now they are currently overgrown with weeds, as well as noting that he also maintains his property as Mr. Love does. Jones questioned what the requirements are for privacy fences, noting that you are able to construct a 6' privacy fence as long as you have a permit, however, Code Enforcement has notified him of a violation relating to a privacy fence constructed upon his property. Anderson noted that the details of his property would have to be looked at - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 to make a determination for Code Enforcement issuing a violation. Anderson questioned if Jones' property is a corner lot. Jones noted that his lot is a corner lot. Anderson noted that there are different regulations in regards to corner lots in terms of where the front and rear yards are located as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Anderson recommended that Jones come and discuss the matter with planning staff to work out the details. Aaron Morgan noted that he owns property in the general vicinity, and noted that he is against this request, noting that the area is primarily residential, as well as noting that the area has seen a considerable amount of new residential development in recent years. Morgan noted that he believes this location is not the proper place for contractor storage to occur. Ferrin Jones noted that she owns property in the area as well, and noted that she is in favor of this request, noting that the contractor business has utilized these lots for quite some time, as well as noting that Love maintains the lots very well. Jones noted that as long as the applicant keeps his property up, she has no objections to the use. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Moser to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Craft noted that it is staff's recommendation that the request be denied, as well as noting that if the request is approved, it would be allowing an industrial use within a residential area. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to deny the request for rezoning. Motion carried 5-2 with Grimm and Loggins voting against and Johnson abstaining. Moser questioned what precipitated this request for rezone. Poll noted that a complaint was received, and the Code Enforcement Department investigated the complaint. Moser noted that he wanted to verify that the City was not out driving around looking for violations. Johnson noted that the Zoning Ordinance should be enforced, however, it should to be enforced uniformly, as well as noting that if non-conforming businesses are allowed to exist, more problems are going to arise in the future. Anderson noted that the Code Enforcement Department generally responds on a complaint basis, however, when investigating a complaint,the Code Enforcement officers are generally cognizant of the surrounding area as well. Loggins noted that he agrees that there needs to be some uniformity in enforcing the Zoning Ordinance and code regulations. Loggins also noted the thing that troubles him regarding this request is there was only 1 complaint on the use the property,noting that the use has been there for many years now. 2. Request by Merril Oster on behalf of Greenhill Estates, Inc. to rezone approximately 29.41 acres of land from"R-2" One and Two Residence District to "R-3" Multiple Residence District at the northeast corner of Katoski Drive and Huntington Road for future multiple residential development. It was moved by Young,seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Loveless declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 30 acres of land from"R-2"to "R-3" for future multiple residential development. Andera noted that the proposed rezone request would appear to be inconsistent with the current"R-2"zoning designation of the land to the east and north, as well as the"A-1"Agricultural District west of the area in question, where Central Middle School is located. Andera noted that the area proposed to be rezoned has been zoned as "R-2" since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969, as well noting that the land south of Huntington Road was rezoned to `R-3,C-Z" in 1988 to allow for the development of a temporary concrete batch plant for the construction of an extension of South Hackett Road north of the site in question. Andera noted that the majority of the surrounding area is comprised of single-family dwellings, with the majority of those houses being constructed in the 1960s. Andera noted that City staff is aware that the surrounding area experiences drainage problems during times of heavy rainfall. Andera noted that the conceptual site - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 plan shows 2 detention basins, as well as noting that staff does have concerns on how the proposed development would affect drainage in the area based on the proposed density for the development. Andera noted that approximately 60% of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, as well as noting that the City is currently working with FEMA on a Floodplain Study for this area. Andera noted that a preliminary updated floodplain map has been received for the entire City, and it shows approximately 2/3 of this property being removed from the floodplain,with portions located along the southern portion of the lot still remaining in the 100-year floodplain. Andera noted that these maps are still preliminary, and have not been adopted by FEMA or the City Council as the official floodplain map for the City. Andera noted a 60" storm sewer is located along the western edge of Katoski Drive, as well as 15"and 18" storm sewers along the western portions of the rezone area. Andera noted that along the eastern area of the rezone area, there are 27" and 48" storm sewers that drain into a 10' concrete bottom drainage ditch that drains south towards Huntington Road. Andera noted that this particular area is designated as Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map, and the request would not be in conformance with that designation. Andera noted that the submitted conceptual plan for the land shows 11 proposed 24-unit multi-family apartment buildings and 28 twin homes, for a total of 56 units. Andera noted that the proposed development would have a total of 320 housing units. Andera noted that in order to be designated as Low Density Residential,there needs to be 6 or less housing units per acre. Andera noted that the submitted plan has 10.9 units per acre, as well noting that the properties abutting the periphery of the rezone area have a density of 4.9 units per acres, 5 units per acre less than what is proposed. Andera noted that Waste Management and Engineering staff have expressed concerns with the potential development, noting that the area suffers from poor drainage and minor flooding in times of heavy rainfall, as well as noting that the area has a high infiltration rate into the sanitary sewer system due to numerous reasons, such as many homes in the area have sump pumps that empty directly into the system. Andera noted that Waste Management suggested that a sanitary sewer study be completed prior to any new development occurring in the area. Johnson noted that the proposed development shows twin homes, as well as multi-family apartments, and questioned if the entire development consisted of twin homes, could that type of development occur without the need for rezoning. Andera noted that the "R-2" could allow for an all twin home development as long as the density requirements are met for that zoning district. Schroeder noted it could potentially be looked at a rezone to "R-2,C-Z" or"R-2,R-P"if the proposed density would be exceeding the normal density requirements of the "R-2" district. Andera noted that he had received 2 letters from surrounding property owners concerned over the proposed development, and he would read them to put them on record. Andera noted that Kent Kischer, 2205 Downing Avenue has lived at that property for 44 years, and noted that there is a lot of water runoff in the area, specifically noting that water from South Hackett Street drains onto his property, sometimes flooding his garage and backyard. Andera also noted that Kischer is in favor of constructing new twin homes with no basements upon the property in question, however, is against the request to construct multi-family apartment buildings. Kischer noted in his letter that he would not be opposed to 1 story, 4 unit apartment buildings. Kischer also noted in his letter that the property should remain zoned as "R-2" One and Two Residence District. Andera noted that he had also received a letter from Thomas and Kayleen Young, 2017 Downing Avenue, which notes that they agree with staff's recommendation to table the request,noting that the rezone is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Young also noted in their letter that the proposed development is not compatible and harmonious with the existing residential character already established in the neighborhood, noting a concern that the development could potentially lower property values in the area. Young also noted that the submitted plan lacks adequate screening, buffering and landscaping from their single-family house and neighborhood. Young noted in their letter that the proposed project will have a negative impact on drainage, storm water, wastewater facilities and utilities in the area, noting that the area already experiences drainage issues in times of heavy rainfall, as well as noting that the majority of the property is located within a FEMA flood hazard area. Young noted at the end of their letter that the applicant and developer should schedule and conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to scheduling the next application before Planning and Zoning - 4 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 Commission. Paul Beal, 1850 Huntington Road, noted that he is opposed to this request as well as any other development on this particular property until further improvements are made to the sanitary sewer and storm sewer in the area to handle additional development. Beal noted that they own 7 acres directly to the east of the site, and if an inch to 2 inches of rain is received, approximately 2 acres of their backyard will be under water, noting that he has photographs to prove that. Beal noted he has a back water valve on his sanitary sewer hook up, and the back water valve will shut off their sewer from 8 to 12 hours when heavy rain is received. Beal noted that there is a major problem with the sanitary and storm sewer systems in the area, as well as noting when the 10' concrete bottom drainage way is full, it backs up into their backyard, and it does not appear to make sense to allow new development to occur in that area until these issues are addressed. Laurie Walker, 1840 Huntington Road,noted the property in question is listed as being in a floodplain, and much of the ground is swampy, and the land cannot handle additional water. Walker noted that she has owned her home since 1989, and it is a given that she gets water in her basement every year, sometimes 3 times a year. Walker also noted that she is concerned for the safety of children in the neighborhood, noting that the new development would add additional vehicular traffic to the area, noting that the area already receives a large amount of traffic due to the close proximity of Central Middle School and Black Hawk Elementary. Walker noted she is opposed to the request. Kyle Helland, Helland Engineering,noted that he is representing the developer, Greenhill Estates, LLC, and noted that they had submitted a revised conceptual plan for the site, which shows the 24-unit apartment complexes being reduced to 8-units, and this has reduced the density of the overall development, including the 28 twin homes,to 4.9 units per acre. Helland noted that this submitted plan is for rezoning purposes, noting that any new development occurring at this location will have to go through a platting process, which will require additional review by planning and engineering. Helland noted that the applicant is trying to have the ability to open their options from going to twin homes to possibly apartment buildings. Helland noted that the revised plan is keeping the Low Density designation on the Future Land Use Map in mind, as the new density amount is below the 6 units per acre as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. Helland noted that the applicant has no issues with the City reviewing the sanitary sewer in the area, noting that the sewer system in the area is an old system, and has a high rate of infiltration. Helland noted that it is not planned to have any development occurring on the property right away, and the soonest new development would potentially occur is 6 months to 1 year. Helland noted that the timeframe for new development would provide City staff time to review the current sewer issues in the area. Dan Spore, 1208 Wren Road, noted that up to 3 times a year,his backyard is underwater when a moderate to heavy rain occurs. Spore noted that whatever development occurs upon the property in question is going to create additional runoff, and that runoff needs to be detained properly. Robert Gauger, 1410 Scott Avenue, noted that he is the last house on the west side of Scott Avenue, directly next to the field where the rezone is proposed. Gauger noted that he has a good overview of what transpires in the field behind him, and is familiar with the problems that occur. Gauger noted that approximately 15 to 20 years ago,the City put in a storm sewer line from the area of Wren Road to the middle of the field, which is directly south of his property. Gauger noted that the storm water pipe that was installed is fairly large, however, over the years,the pipe has filled up with silt from runoff, therefore,the pipe no longer carries the volume of water it was designed to carry. Gauger also noted that at the same time the storm sewer was installed, a drainage ditch was constructed in the middle of the field, and another storm sewer, which travels south from where Westland Avenue would be extended south of Downing Avenue, empties into the 10' concrete bottom drainage ditch as well. Gauger noted that this pipe also carries a large amount of water. Gauger noted that by the existing lay of the land in question,that area is a natural drainage area from all the way from University Avenue, south to this area, and questioned if this area is a good location to construct new housing, noting this is not a logical place. Gauger noted that if new housing is constructed on this land, do not construct homes with basements, as - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 it will lead to more problems in the future. William Boesen, 1862 Huntington Road,noted that he had spoken with Tim Andera in the Planning and Zoning Office, questioning why only people within 250' of this rezoning request are only notified. Boesen noted that Andera noted to him that it is a state law that property owners within this boundary be notified of this request. Boesen noted that is incorrect, and noted that there are a lot more houses in the neighborhood that should be notified of this request, specifically noting that if over 300 housing units are proposed, it would make sense that as many people as possible are notified. Boesen noted that there is a lot of wildlife that live on the land in question, and does not understand why anyone would want to construct new housing on the field. Boesen noted that he is opposed to the request, noting that the storm and sanitary system in the area is bad. Boesen also noted that he has purchased a generator, as the power goes out in this area quite often, and if that happens,there would be no power to run his sump pump to keep his basement from flooding. Charlie Mims, 1294 Westland Avenue, noted both Downing Avenue and Huntington Road are both listed as Local Streets in the staff report, and a main concern he has with the proposed development is the amount of traffic it would generate. Mims noted that Downing Avenue is a fairly busy street, noting that many drivers use the street as a cut-through to avoid University Avenue. Mims noted that traffic should be a major concern if over 300 housing units are proposed, and it is also important to take into account that Central Middle School is nearby, specifically noting the safety of children walking to and from school. Mims questioned if the Future Land Use Map is changed to accommodate for more densely developed residential uses, would that change in designation change the density for the entire area, or just the land in question. Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road,noted that he has lived at that property for approximately 40 years, and has experienced and seen everything bad about the City's infrastructure. Dillavou noted that he has seen the manhole cover at the corner of Black Hawk Road and Ansborough Avenue be pushed up by a 4' column of sewer water. Dillavou noted that multiple storm sewer lines empty into the middle of the field in question and drain into the 10' concrete bottom drainage ditch and travels southward underneath Huntington Road towards the flood levee. Dillavou noted that once the water gets high enough around the levee, the flapper valve on the levee closes off, and the water left behind the levee backs up into the yards of properties along the south side of Huntington Road. Dillavou noted that when it rains hard, he cannot leave his property without driving through a large amount of water. Dillavou noted that water goes over Downing Avenue near South Hackett Road and Deloris Drive, and he has seen people use a rowboat at the corner of Garden Avenue and Wren Road. Dillavou noted that a terrible situation exists in this area, and the situation needs to be addressed. Dillavou noted that the former Tunis Speedway site was rezoned for multi-family development some years back, and when that is developed, all the water runoff from that location will make its way south into the area in question. Dillavou noted that until storm and sanitary sewers in the area are improved, he believes no new development should occur in this area. Melinda Sickel, 1519 Huntington Road,noted that she is opposed to the request, noting there is wildlife on the property, as well as noting that the new development would create further traffic and sewer problems in the area. Dave Shirk, 1310 South Hackett Road,noted that is in favor of the request if it will push the City into addressing and taking care of the water issues in the area. Shirk noted that if more houses are constructed in the area, it will help keep Black Hawk Elementary and Central Middle School open by bringing more children to the area, as well as noting that Waterloo needs more housing development, however, new development needs to be done correctly. Shirk noted that Waterloo needs to be more progressive in their stance, noting that he travels to other Iowa cities where a lot of new development is occurring, and he would like to see Waterloo be the same way. Earl Jacobson, 1299 Westland Avenue, noted that he has lived there for 43 years, and they have experienced many problems over those years relating to water issues. Jacobsen noted that he has talked - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 to many mayors over those past 43 years, and the responses that he got from them was there was never enough money to improve the sewer system in that area. Jacobsen noted when heavy rain occurs,the City has to come out and pump out the sanitary sewer into the storm sewer to alleviate the problem. Jacobsen noted that you cannot be gone from your house for an extended period of time without wondering if your sump pump is working. Jacobsen noted that you have to live through these problems for it to make sense. Jacobsen noted that nobody should be constructing anything on the area in question due to the water problems in the area. Betty Gauger, 1410 Scott Avenue noted that she has cleaned her basement numerous times due to water backing up into the basement, as well as noting that she had always thought that the land in question was always zoned for agricultural purposes. Gauger noted that she objects to the multi-family development, noting that would not fit the character of the existing neighborhood. Robert Gauger noted that he has put in three 1 'A" sump pumps to keep up with the heavy rains in the spring, and the pumps do not stop until all the water in the field has seeped into the ground. Jim Apling, 1835 Huntington Road, noted that the people that have spoken today have presented some very good and valid points, and asked that the Commission take these comments very seriously, and look hard at what has been brought up. Bill Kauten, 2219 Downing Avenue, noted he has lived there for 45 years, and when a heavy rain occurs, the City comes out to pump the sanitary sewer out, sometimes without even having to call them. Kauten noted that he agrees with many of the points that have been presented today, and believes that the City should finally address these issues that have existed for many years now in order to allow the land in question to be developed and help Waterloo grow and expand. Kauten also noted that there have many times that he has had to forge through flooded streets in his pickup truck. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Grimm to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Craft noted that it is staff s recommendation to table the request, and questioned what the difference is between tabling the request or denying it. Anderson noted that staff is recommending tabling of the request to see if the applicant would have an interest to conduct a sewer study or address any concerns. Craft questioned if the request is denied, they could not reapply for a rezone request until 6 months from now. Anderson noted that they could not reapply until 4 months from now if the request is denied. Craft questioned if the developer is willing to proceed with a sewer study. Kyle Helland noted that during the Technical Review Committee meeting on August 26, 2009, it was noted that AECOM had done a sewer study on the sewer line within Huntington Road, and it was indicated at the meeting that one of the staff members would research that report. Helland noted that it is currently unclear who would conduct a new sewer study, questioning if it would be them or City staff. Helland questioned if a study is done, how far beyond the property in question does the study need to cover. Helland noted that it appear that there needs to be further discussion with the developer and City staff to discuss that matter. Craft questioned if Helland believes a sewer study would take 4 months to complete. Helland noted that he did not believe it would take that long to complete a sewer study. Moser questioned if the City has any plans to alleviate the sewer problems in this particular area. Thorson noted that he has not received any direction from the Mayor and City Council to begin looking at sewer improvements in this area. Thorson also noted that staff looked through files trying to find the sewer report that was completed by AECOM, noting no report was found, and was unaware of any report being completed by AECOM for the sanitary sewer in Huntington Road in recent years. Craft made a motion to deny the request, with Powers seconding the motion. Young noted that he would suggest that the request be tabled, noting that the motion for denial may have a chilling affect on the potential for any positive growth occurring upon this property. Young also noted that speaking from a Waterloo School's standpoint,there needs to be new housing and young families - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 with children within this area,however,new development needs to be done correctly, noting the many concerns that were brought up by area property owners. Anderson noted that a motion to table would supercede the motion to deny the request. Craft questioned if the surrounding property owners would be notified again when a rezoning request is submitted again. Anderson noted that the properties within 250' of the request would be notified. Loggins noted that he agreed with the decision to table. It was moved by Young,seconded by Johnson to table the request indefinitely,pending an infrastructure study of the surrounding area. Motion carried unanimously. A property owner questioned if the property owners within the immediate area be notified if a rezoning request is resubmitted, or will it just notify property owners directly adjacent to the request. Schroeder noted that notice will be mailed to property owners within 250' of the rezoning request. The property owner questioned if there is any possibility that the notification area can be extended another 250' on top of what is already required. Schroeder noted that it can be looked at expanding the notification area, however,the law is written at 250'. Schroeder noted that there will be a staff member in the hallway taking names of those who would like a courtesy notice sent to them when a rezone request is resubmitted. 3. Request by AHTS Architects on the behalf of Grace Baptist Church to rezone approximately 5.86 acres of land from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-2" One and Two Residence District at 3820 Hammond Avenue to allow for the expansion of the existing religious facility. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:21 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Loveless declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone request for the purpose of constructing a 1,600 SF addition to the existing religious facility. Western also noted that the applicant is requesting the rezone, as the current zoning of"A-1"Agricultural District does not allow for the current use as a church unless it was legally built prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Western noted that it is unclear how the church was allowed to be constructed in the "A-1" district in 1973. Western also noted that at the time the church was built, drainage retention plans were not required to be submitted in order obtain a building permit,however, with the new addition, the Engineering Department may now require a water detention plan be submitted for this request. Western noted that staff has determined that the proposed 1,600 SF addition will be considered as a minor request for special permit, and it will not be required to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Western noted that the proposed rezone would appear to be in conformance with the Future Land Use Map, which indicates this area as Low Density Residential. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Craft to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Johnson,seconded by Moser to approve the request for rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacates 1. Request by Patrick Moore to vacate a portion of the platted public alley in the Original Plat of Waterloo West, Block 37, directly to the southwest of the building located at 804-806 Commercial Street. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to vacate the portion of alley in Block 37 of Waterloo West. Andera noted that the applicant owns land on both sides of the alley and currently utilizes the alley for parking and storage. Andera noted that the area in question is 20'x 120' (2,400 SF), and the applicant would be the only party involved with the vacate process, as they are the only property - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 that abuts the alley. Andera noted that there is a 12" sanitary sewer line located within the alley, and if it is vacated, an easement will need to be retained to allow access to the sewer if future maintenance is needed. Andera noted that it would appear that the alley is not needed for any current or future right-of- way purposes, and the vacate of the alley would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Craft questioned what the advantage would be to the owner of the abutting property to vacate the alley. Andera noted that the owner would be gaining additional land space for the business operations. Craft noted that currently, the owner of the abutting land is already using the alley for their purposes, as well as questioning if the owner has plans to fence off the alley when it is vacated, making it difficult to access the sewer after business hours if needed. Craft questioned if it would be appropriate to put a provision in the staff recommendation that a fence cannot be constructed across the vacated alley, restricting access to the sanitary sewer line. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to approve the request to vacate subject to 1) that a utility easement be retained over, under and upon the entire area that is vacated, and 2) that the vacated alley not be fenced off, restricting access to the 12"sanitary sewer line within the alley. Motion carried 7-0, with Young abstaining due to a conflict of interest. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate approximately 1.81 acres of excess right-of-way of Broadway Street at the northeast corner of Broadway Street and Wagner Road for the creation of a developable lot. Johnson left at 5:29 p.m. Poll gave the staff report noting that the City is requesting to vacate the excess right-of-way, noting that the City has an interested developer that would like to construct a new industrial building at the intersection. Poll noted that the site in question is City owned right-of-way and is not zoned, however, upon completion of the vacate, the site will be zoned"M-2" Heavy Industrial District as the Zoning Ordinance states that whenever right-of-way is vacated, the zoning district adjoining the area shall automatically be extended. Poll noted that the site is located within the Zone-A, 100-year floodplain, and any new development would be required to meet the minimum floodplain standards for construction within the floodplain. Poll noted that there are 10" sanitary sewer lines that run along the north side of Broadway Street, on the west side of Wagner Road, and along the north side of the railroad tracks to the north. Poll also noted there is a 12"water line and natural gas line along the south side of the railroad tracks to the north, and a 25' easement will need to be retained. Poll also noted that at least a 20' right- of-way easement will be needed north of the sewer lines to the south of the property in question. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to vacate subject to the retention of a 25'utility easement along the north property line and a 20'right-of-way or utility easement along the north side of the southern sewer line. Motion carried unanimously. C. Hearings—Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for an Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates and rescinding the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance No. 2479 adopted February 3, 1969, and adopting a new City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance in lieu thereof. Schroeder noted that staff was hoping to get the Ordinance revision before this Commission today, however, many factors prohibited that from happening. Schroeder noted that he would like to get the item back on the agenda next month, however, recommended to table the request indefinitely so it's not being put on future agendas, not knowing if staff will be able to find time to discuss the changes. - 9 - Planning and Zoning Commission September 1,2009 It was moved by Loggins, seconded by Powers to table the request indefinitely. Motion carried unanimously. G. Discussion There was no further discussion. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Loveless declared the meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, City Planner - 10 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. MAY 5,2009 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:04 p.m. by Chairperson Loveless on May 5, 2009 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, Moser, and Young. Member(s) absent were: Evans and Powers Others present: Noel Anderson, Shane Graham and Tim Andera—Planning Department, Eric Thorson— Engineering Department, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Grimm to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on April 7, 2009 It was moved by Loggins, seconded by Young to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: March 2009. Anderson noted that the budget is currently through 75% of the fiscal year, and that everything is on target. Anderson noted that some sections of the budget are a little higher for this time of year, specifically noting postage, as well as noting that some items are lower. Anderson noted that some budget amendments would have to be done in order to balance the budget at the end of the fiscal year. Moser noted that salaries for the year are lower than what is expected, and questioned this. Anderson noted that the salary section is lower than anticipated, noting that the vacant Associate Planner position was not filled until October 2008. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to receive and place on file the financial report for March 2009. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Special Permits 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for a Special Permit to construct a 2,160 SF boathouse in the Floodway of the Cedar River at 707 Park Road in the same location as the previously existing boathouse in an"A-1"Agricultural District Andera gave the staff report noting that the City is requesting approval of the Special Permit for the purpose of constructing a new 2,160 SF boathouse in the same location as the previous boathouse that was destroyed in the 2008 floods. Andera noted that the new structure would be constructed with 9 garage doors on the lower level that would allow floodwaters to enter and exit the through the bottom of the structure with minimal obstruction. Andera noted that the 2ad level of the boathouse, where the meeting and gathering space would be located, would be constructed at an elevation of 859', 1' above Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 the flood level of 2008. Andera noted that construction of the new facility would allow for the continued use of the park by the rowing club, as well as the continued use of the park and surrounding area by the community. Craft questioned if the building would be rented to the general public for gatherings or meetings. Andera noted that the intent of the 2nd level of the building is to have it rented for family gatherings, wedding receptions, etc. Moser questioned if there is a reason why the 2"d level of the building is only going to be constructed 1' above the 2008 flood level, noting that it would appear necessary to construct a few feet higher if another flood were to happen of that magnitude or greater. Anderson noted that Leisure Services is looking at potentially building the 2"d floor level even higher than what was said within the staff report, as well as noting that Leisure Services is working with FEMA to cover the additional costs of raising the floor level higher. Rick Curran, Leisure Services noted that he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commission members had no questions for Mr. Curran. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit, subject to the final site plan being approved for use by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, as it is located within the floodway of the Cedar River. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacates 1. Request by Manatts, Inc. to vacate a portion of River Road right-of-way directly adjacent to 84-170 West Mullan Avenue for the redevelopment of the existing concrete plant. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of the existing River Road right-of-way for the purpose of redeveloping their existing concrete plant just east of the road. Andera noted that River Road is under construction to be relocated as a part of the West Commercial Street extension project, and one reason for the relocation of the street is to create more riverfront property for potential redevelopment of the area along the Cedar River. Andera noted that vacating and conveying a portion of the River Road right-of-way to Manatts, Inc. would not appear beneficial to this goal of redevelopment. Andera also noted that the request would not appear to impact vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area, as well as noting that as a part of the overall relocation of streets in the area, the recreational trail abutting the Manatts site would also need to be relocated. Andera noted that the applicant has stated that closing River Road without conveying them a portion would have a negative impact on their site. Andera noted that there are two right-in, right-out turns on River Road now, and one full access driveway, as well as noting there are access points located along Highway 63 to the site. Andera noted that staff has had several meetings with the applicants, discussing on whether or not all or a portion of the right-of-way could be vacated, and what would work to benefit both parties, however,no alternative plan or agreement has been reached between the two parties. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo "Sale of Property Policy" states procedures for the sale of City owned land, noting that 1) the City Council shall not sell un-buildable parcels of land, except to abutting property owners to try and create buildable parcels of land for future tax base development, and 2) that the offer amount and potential sale will consider "Smart Growth"principles to allow land to be used for the highest and best purpose in terms of allowing businesses and uses to grow in the developed portions of the community. Andera noted that the City Council reserves the right to sell property in a variety of manners, such as bidding, development proposal packets, or not selling the property at all. Andera noted that staff believes the sale of property to Manatts, Inc. is not in the best interest of the City to try and create future tax development, nor for the highest and best use of the land. Andera noted that the area in question is one of the few riverfront sites as noted within the Downtown Master Plan, and that plan emphasizes the redevelopment of the Cedar River riverfront. Andera noted that the West Commercial Street extension was designed in accordance to the goals of the Downtown Master Plan to allow for further development of riverfront property and to better utilize the new land parcels being created by the breakup of the former - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 Deere site into the separate entities of Tech Works and John Deere. Andera noted that the former River Road requested to be vacated could work to serve as additional land area in conjunction with Lot 3 of Techworks Addition. Andera noted that this particular area of River Road would appear better suited to be held back from vacation at this time for potential development in conjunction with Lot 3, in accordance with the Downtown Master Plan. Johnson questioned where the existing entrances are on River Road to gain access to Manatts, Inc., and where the proposed entrances will be after the roads are reconfigured. Andera noted that the existing entrances are shown in the aerial photo on page 26 of the P&Z packet. Anderson also pointed out the existing entrances on the overhead projection, as well as pointing out the proposed accesses. Young questioned what the yellow shaded area was on the aerial photo on page 28 of the packet. Anderson noted that the previous request in April was removed from the agenda, and that request requested an encroachment agreement to allow an existing vehicular use area to encroach onto the flood control levee. Anderson noted since then, the City is looking at the possibility of selling anything outside of a line 15' off of the toe of the levee to Manatts, in accordance to past Corp of Engineers approvals. Craft questioned if Manatts has equipment parked on portions of the levee. Anderson noted there is some equipment, as well as paved portions of the vehicular use area encroaching upon the flood control levee. Craft also questioned if Manatts is using all 4 of its current entrances/exits. Mark Rollinger, attorney representing Manatts, Inc.,handed out additional maps that better showed Manatts current accesses. Rollinger noted that the map he handed out showed the truck traffic patterns that have been utilized by Manatts, and noted that the entrance at the northernmost point of the site has been the traditional truck entrance to the plant. Rollinger noted that the main problem with not allowing Manatts to have all or a portion of the vacated River Road is the elimination of the inflow and outflow of truck traffic that utilize the facility. Rollinger noted that Manatts will be left with one straight-in, straight-out driveway, and it would be directly next to Hawkeye Alarm. Rollinger noted there is an existing driveway there now, however, that drive has been closed for some time due to visibility concerns when entering River Road. Rollinger noted that there is an access on West Mullan Avenue, however, it can be difficult at times in getting trucks on and off that street due to heavy traffic, and the access points from West Mullan Avenue are not conducive to the organized flow of the proposed concrete plant. Rollinger noted that when the City of Waterloo vacates right-of-way,property is typically sold and conveyed to an abutting property owner who has an interest in the property, and does not know of any such request where a property owner has been denied. Rollinger noted that the City has routinely allowed property owners to acquire half of the abutting right-of-way. Rollinger noted that Manatts would like either the entire roadway, or a portion of the right-of-way in order to maintain the access they currently have from River Road. Rollinger also noted that himself and Manatts have met with the City multiple times over the past year over the potential acquisition of the concrete plant for further development of the area, however, the two parties could not agree on a purchase price, as well as noting that the City could not purchase the property until a developer is identified. Rollinger also noted that they met with the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, and they also noted that they do not have a developer identified for the parcel as well. Rollinger noted that appears to be the correct process to wait until a developer is found for the parcel of land, however, it is one year later, and nobody had stepped forward to develop Lot 3 of Techworks Addition, and Manatts, Inc. is ready to proceed with their new concrete plant. Rollinger also noted that Manatts met with both the City and Cedar Valley Techworks at the same, and at that meeting, Techworks noted that they did not have any interest in acquiring a portion of River Road, because they did not want to take on the responsibilities of maintaining the road. Rollinger noted that if the City does not allow Manatts any portion of the right-of-way, that they would re-open the portion of River Road that is currently closed to allow Manatts to have full access to their site, however, they have heard that this portion or River Road will never open again. Rollinger also noted that the staff report points out that the City is seeking out the highest and best use for the adjacent property, and the redevelopment of the riverfront, there should have been something that has presented - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 itself by now, however, that has not occurred. Rollinger noted that for the City to suggest that highest and best use for this property is some alternative form of development is a false argument. Rollinger also pointed out that the staff report refers to the proposed parcel to be vacated as a riverfront development property,however,the parcel would only be riverfront development property if Manatts does not have a concrete plant located there. Rollinger noted that this creates the impression that the City wants to change the use of the Manatts property. Rollinger noted that either way, Manatts still has the intention of constructing a new concrete plant at this location. Rollinger also noted that if the planned truck traffic flow through the site is not achieved, the existing Ad-Fax building at the site will be demolished to achieve the desired flow, and felt this is unnecessary, and if the City is interested in redevelopment,they should be interested in a new, quieter concrete plant, as opposed to the one that existed at the site for nearly 40 years. Rollinger noted that there are multiple concrete plants located along rivers throughout the state, and they are located along rivers, because sand used to be dredged out of the rivers and used at the plants. Moser questioned if an older style concrete plant would be built on the location, or a newer type plant would be constructed. Rollinger noted that the existing plant has been demolished, and it would be a brand new plant with the latest technology. Rollinger noted that within the staff recommendation for denial,the second recommendation is interpreted as favoritism for one property owner over another, and that departs from longstanding policies that the City of Waterloo has in terms of selling adjacent right-of-way. Rollinger also noted that under Iowa Code Section 364.16, Manatts, Inc. has a claim against the City if a loss of access to River Road occurs, as well as noting that a value has not been determined on the amount of damages if access to River Road is closed off. Rollinger also noted that the Downtown Master Plan is not an official ordinance, rather, it is something that is to be taken into consideration when the City is considering land use changes. Rollinger noted that the City needs to take the Future Land Use Map into consideration, noting that the surrounding land and the Manatt's property are designated as Industrial, and the use of the property as a concrete plant would be an industrial use. Young questioned if the newly proposed access for Manatts to West Commercial Street would alleviate any safety and site visibility concerns Manatts may have of trucks entering the street due to the close proximity of the Hawkeye Alarm building. Rollinger noted even with the proposed driveway being moved further to the west from the Hawkeye Alarm building, it still would appear that the building still poses visibility problems. Johnson questioned if Manatts needs the entire right-of-way, or just a portion to fit their needs. Rollinger noted that Manatts would like at the very minimum is half of the right-of-way in order to access the existing access points that are currently along River Road. Johnson also questioned if the City has plans to use this portion of River Road as a through street in the future. Anderson noted that there are no intentions to use the road in the future, and permanently close it. Jerry Shoff, Shoff Consulting Engineers, noted that the truck traffic that has existed at the Manatt's facility has typically been a right-in, right-out movement,with loaded trucks turning right out onto West Mullan Avenue, and empty trucks and aggregate trucks turning right into the facility from River Road. Shoff noted that the first driveway is not utilized, and it is planned to have the aggregate trucks use the 2nd driveway, and the redi-mix trucks would use the 3rd driveway, and the trucks would proceed clockwise through the plant. Loggins questioned if Manatts would be taking any responsibility in reconfiguring and repaving the proposed accesses. Shoff noted if all or a portion of the right-of-way is vacated, Manatts would take on the responsibility of improving and maintaining the former road. Shoff also noted that if the entire right- of-way is conveyed to Manatts,they will work to maintain the already existing tree line and berm that is currently along the west side of River Road to screen the plant from any future development in the Techworks site. Loggins also questioned how long Manatts, Inc. has been at that location. Shoff noted that Shirey Concrete originally opened the site in 1938, and then sold the land to Manatts in 1988. - 4 - • Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 Loggins also questioned how many workers are employed at that facility. Shoff noted there are approximately 30 people employed at the facility. Moser questioned if Manatts has any other concrete plants located within the area. Shoff noted that they have a plant in Elk Run Heights, as well as a plant on Airline Highway, as well as noting that location is very important in the redi-mix industry, and with all the anticipated redevelopment in downtown, Manatts would like to remain as close as possible to this area. Craft questioned if the proposed entrance can be moved even further west then what is shown in the proposed plans to solve the problems of site visibility due to the nearby Hawkeye Alarm building. Anderson noted that thought could be looked into. Craft also questioned if Manatts has come to a resolution with the Water Works in regards to the 12"water main within the River Road right-of-way. Shoff noted that an easement has been offered by Manatts for all utilities within the right-of-way. Johnson questioned the possibility of angling the proposed vacate area, but still maintaining the two accesses, as well as Manatts giving some of their riverfront property for future development. Anderson noted that it was looked at them giving some of the northwest corner of their lot for future development, and the City giving some of the southerly River Road right-of-way to Manatts, however, that parcel of land would be too far from the concrete plant, and it would not work with the plants operations. Young questioned what the stance was on the entire situation from Manatts, Cedar Valley Techworks and the City. Rollinger noted that he could not speak for Techworks, however, in previous meetings between Manatts, Cedar Valley Techworks and the City, Techworks noted that they had no interest in acquiring the right-of-way at that time. Rollinger noted that since that meeting, Techworks stance on acquiring some of or all of the River Road right-of-way has changed, as noted in the February 24, 2009 letter from Carry Darrah. Anderson noted that at that time when the meeting was held between all three parties, Techworks did not have any proposed use for the right-of-way,but they still would like to keep their options open. Grimm questioned if ultimately half of the right-of-way is given to Manatts, and the other half is given to Techworks, would Techworks then be required to maintain their half of the former right-of-way. Anderson noted that would have to be discussed with Techworks. Anderson also noted that the City has vacated right-of-way in the past and not conveyed the portion of land right away. Craft questioned if Manatts could agree to give up some of the northern portion of the property for future development in exchange for half the right-of-way and a partial encroachment upon the flood control levee. Rollinger noted that the encroachment agreement is a different issue, and there is a tentative agreement between the Corp of Engineers, City of Waterloo and Manatts. Rollinger noted that the Corp's standard does allow for development 10'-15' from the toe of the levee, and the City is currently negotiating a sale of a portion of the levee to Manatts, and felt that putting that request in with the vacate request is not a good idea. Johnson questioned once the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews this request and makes a decision on it, it is then forwarded onto the City Council for their review. Anderson noted that is correct. Johnson noted and suggested that it would appear the best compromise to the situation is vacate and convey the southern portion of River Road right-of-way, and angle that from the edge of the northernmost entry down to Commercial Street, therefore keeping all access points open that Manatts needs for the optimal operation of their plant. Moser questioned if at one point in time the City was trying to redevelop the Manatt's site, but those plans did not come through. Anderson noted that it is within the Downtown Master Plan for the redevelopment of this site, and the redevelopment of the site focuses on the aesthetics of the river to bring forth a developer, however, at this time, no developer has been identified for this particular area. Moser also noted that the other half of the right-of-way should be offered to Techworks, and if they do not want the right-of-way, they can turn it down. Rollinger noted that if Techworks does not want their half of the - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 right-of-way,then Manatts would be interested in retaining the remaining portion of right-of-way. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to vacate and convey the southern portion of the River Road right-of-way angling from the edge of the northernmost driveway, south to Commercial Street, subject to offering the west half of the right-of-way to Cedar Valley Tech Works if they are willing to accept and maintain the former right-of-way. Motion carried 6-1 with Young voting against. C. Appeal of the Driveway Policy 1. Request by Larry Youngblut for an appeal of the Driveway Policy prohibiting more than one driveway per residential property to allow for a second curb-cut from Harbin Drive to allow for the construction of a 24'x 24' (576 SF) detached garage north of the existing house at 4250 Harbin Drive. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval to appeal the Driveway Policy for the purpose installing a second curb-cut at 4250 Harbin Drive. Andera noted that the City of Waterloo Code of Ordinances requires that an appeal of the decision of the City Engineer be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation before it is then forwarded onto the City Council for a final review. Andera noted that the Driveway Policy states there is to be one curb cut per property unless the property has 100 or more feet of street frontage along one street frontage, and double frontage lots, reversed frontage lots, and corner lots shall be limited to one driveway on the street with the least vehicular traffic. Andera noted that the property currently has an access onto Chickadee Drive to the south of the house. Andera also noted that the applicant has provided a list of seven corner properties in the nearby area that currently have two curb-cuts, and noted that staff has not heard of any conflicts due to these particular properties having two curb-cuts. Andera noted that the Engineering Department has noted that if the request were approved, the applicant would only be allowed to construct a single-lane driveway access that is no more than 10' wide at the sidewalk, and no more than 16' at the "flare" of the driveway connecting into Harbin Drive. Moser questioned if there was a reason the applicant was being limited to only a single-lane approach when the applicant is proposing a double garage. Eric Thorson, City Engineer noted that this was the condition that was placed upon the request, and the applicant has agreed to the condition. Craft questioned if the other seven driveways that were noted by the applicant that have two curb-cuts gone through an additional review process to have two curb-cuts. Thorson noted that those other driveways did not go through an additional review process due to the volumes of traffic at those particular intersections were the same, and the ordinance requires that access be provided to the least traveled street. Thorson noted that with this case, the lot has access to Chickadee Court, which is a cul- de-sac, and Harbin Drive, which is a through street, so it is easier differentiate which street has the least amount of traffic. Johnson questioned if the surrounding neighbors were notified of the request. Andera noted they were not as this type of request does not require notification. Johnson noted this request appears similar to a variance request, though it is not technically called that, and the surrounding neighbors may want to have a say on the request. Johnson also noted that the development to the north along Red Tail Lane will essentially use Harbin Drive as an access to get back to that area, noting that the developer of that subdivision had initially requested to gain access to West 4th Street, however, that request for access was denied, and the street was turned into a cul-de-sac. Johnson noted once that area develops further, there will be increased traffic on Harbin Drive, and having an additional driveway access could potentially be an issue for surrounding neighbors. Grimm initially made a motion to approve the request, subject to staff conditions. Reggie Schmitt, Ward 1 Councilperson noted that if one looks at aerial photographs of the seven - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 properties that the applicant pointed out as having two curb-cuts, that are all U-shaped driveways for access to a single-family house. Schmitt noted that if the request is approved, this would be the only instance in this particular area that he knows about where a second curb-cut provides access to a detached garage only. Johnson noted that he felt this item should be tabled in order for a notice to be sent to property owners within 250' of this request, as this request appears as a variance to the Driveway Policy,though it is not officially called that. Young concurred with that decision. Anderson noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission review is a recommendation to the City Council, and the Council would make the final decision on the request. Loggins noted that since the Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council, he felt that the Commission should go ahead and make a recommendation and vote on the matter, and let the City Council decide the final decision of the request. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Young to table the request indefinitely subject to a notice being sent to property owners within 250'of the request. Motion carried 5-2 with Grimm and Loggins voting against. D. Other—Historical Building Nominations 1. Recommendation of approval from the Planning,Programming and Zoning Commission for the nomination of the Rath Administration Building as a local landmark at the request of the Waterloo Historic Preservation Commission, located at 1515 Sycamore Street. Andera noted that the Historic Preservation Commission(HPC) is requesting to nominate the Rath Administration Building as a Local Landmark, which then require a review by the HPC for any work or material changes proposed to the outside of the structure. Andera noted that at the regular meeting of the HPC on April 21, 2009, the HPC recommended approval to nominate the building locally. Andera also noted that the building has been recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), however, a local review of any changes to the building would not need to go through an HPC unless it is designated locally. Johnson questioned why the HPC wants to designate the building, questioning if there is a tax incentive if the building is listed as a Local Landmark. Andera noted that there is no local incentive if the building is nominated locally. Andera also noted that the developer has already gone through the process to list the building on the NRHP in order to qualify for State and Federal Tax Credits as a part of the redevelopment of the building. Johnson also questioned if the building is nominated as a Local Landmark, will it create any additional hurdles or difficulties to tear down the building if the proposed project falls through. Andera noted that if the building is nominated on the local level, it would have to go through a review by the HPC in order to tear the building down. Craft questioned if the building has been sold over to the developer. Andera noted that it is anticipated that the building will be turned over to MAKO Waterloo Corporation within the next few weeks so they may begin their renovation and restoration of the building. Craft questioned if the developer and the architect for the project had an opinion on nominating the building locally. Andera noted that he has spoken with Dale McKinney, the architect for the project, and he has given approval for the building to be nominated as a Local Landmark. Andera also noted that he could make contact with the developer to see if their position has changed on this matter before it is forwarded to the City Council. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loggins to recommend approval of the Rath Administrative Office Building as a Local Landmark. Motion carried unanimous. 2. Recommendation of approval from the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission for the nomination of the Fowler Building at 226-228 East 4 Street to the National Register of Historic Places. - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission May 5,2009 Andera noted that the Fowler Building at 226-228 East 4th Street has been recently been restored, and since the building has been restored, it has been further redeveloped with the Screaming Eagle Restaurant moving into the 1st floor, Silos and Smokestacks relocating their offices to the second floor of the building, as well as new apartments being created on the 3`d floor. Andera noted that the developer of the project utilized Historic Tax Credits to restore the building, and in order to receive the full tax credit available, the building needs to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Andera noted that at their April 21, 2009 regular meeting,the HPC recommended approval of the nomination of the Fowler Building to the NRHP. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Young to recommend approval of the Fowler Building to the National Register of Historic Places. Motion carried unanimous. E. Plans and Studies 1. Receive and place on file the FY 2010-2014 Capital Improvements Program Graham noted that every year a copy of the Capital Improvements Program is handed out to Planning, Programming and Zoning Commissioners, which notes projects that the City would like to complete within the next five years. Graham noted that some projects are funded, as well as noting some projects are not funded because a source of funding has been identified yet. Graham noted that these projects could range from street improvements, sewer improvements,to office improvements. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the FY 2010-2014 Capital Improvements Program. Motion carried unanimous. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Loveless declared the meeting adjourned at 5:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c>1.)621- Tim Andera, Associate Planner for:Aric Schroeder - 8 - i • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. AUGUST 5, 2008 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Vice-Chairperson Grimm on August 5, 2008 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Evans, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins and Powers. Members absent were: Fossell, Loveless and Moser. Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 15 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Craft, seconded by Johnson to approve the agenda as amended with the removal item C2, due to the item being withdrawn by the applicant, as well as adding item El,Discussion/Possible Action Items,Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on July 1, 2008. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Craft to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Reports: June 2008. Anderson gave the financial report noting that the property sales quota for the fiscal year due to the department being one staff person short. Anderson also noted that the department was over budget with its salaries, due to the final payout to Don Temeyer, who retired in March of this year. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Loggins to receive and place on file the financial report for June 2008. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Deer Creek Development LLC for Site Plan Amendment to the"B-p"Business Park District along an extension of Athens Drive between Greyhound Drive and Titan Trail south of West Ridgeway Avenue in the Greenbelt Centre Development for the development of a 13,000 SF office building and to designate the future use of lots. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Evans to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Grimm declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the request for site plan amendment would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, as the proposed uses would be compatible with already existing development in the area. Schroeder noted that access to the site in question would be gained through Titan Trail and Greyhound drive, and the site would also be served by Ridgeway Avenue and Highway 63. Schroeder noted that the site plan amendment request consists of 1 building with a square footage of 13,000 SF, and the designation of the future use of 12 other lots in the area. Schroeder noted the proposed material for the new building is anticipated to be EIFS with masonry wainscot siding and Planning and Zoning Commission August 5,2008 asphalt shingles. Schroeder noted that the site plan for the building shows 55 parking stalls, as well as proposed landscaping plantings. Schroeder noted that lots 1 and 3 are designated for office use, while the 10 other remaining lots for future development are proposed to have either an office or restaurant use. Schroeder noted that designating the uses of the lots in advance would allow future site plan amendments to go through the minor review. Schroeder noted that any use change of the designated lots would then have to go through major site plan amendment approval process. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Powers to approve the request for site plan amendment subject to the site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc., including, but not limited to,parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Cardinal Construction for Site Plan Amendment to the "R-4,R-P"Planned Residence District, "C-P"Planned Commercial District, and"B-P"Business Park District for Lots 1-3 of Country Club Business Center Third Addition for the development of a professional office complex. Anderson noted this item came on the agenda late, and for a site plan amendment request, a notice is sent to neighboring property owners, however, a notice had not been sent due to the late arrival of the agenda item. Anderson noted that the Planning Commission has the power to waive the hearing requirement, and staff is requesting that that the hearing be waived. Anderson noted that a courtesy letter would still be sent to neighboring property owners in the area abutting the boundaries of the request before the City Council hearing. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to waive the hearing requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting the applicant requests approval of the site plan amendment to allow for an approximate 14,400 SF professional office building and up to four office buildings approximately 4,000 SF in size, which will be spread out across 3 separate lots. Schroeder noted that Lot 6 of Country Club Business Center addition is proposed to be split into 3 separate lots in a plat request later in the meeting. Schroeder noted the site plan amendment would allow for continued growth of the business park, and the previous designation of lots in a previous request did not show the proposed use of Lot 6,but professional offices were shown on various lots around the periphery of the site in question. Schroeder noted the proposed site layout incorporates a shared detention area to add a water feature on Lot 6, and to allow for greater density of development on other lots within the business park. Craft questioned how the detention pond was maintained. John Mixdorf, Cardinal Construction, noted that a pond maintenance association is being developed, and the association will exist during the entire life of the pond, and it will be the responsibility of the three lots abutting the pond to maintain the pond. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Craft to approve the request for site plan amendment subject to 1) the site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc., including, but not limited to,parking, landscaping, drainage, etc., and 2) that the curb cuts and entrance locations are approved by the City Engineering Department. Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Permits 1. Request by Hawkeye Community College for a Special Permit to allow for the development of a health education service center building and soccer facility, as well as other future buildings and additions to the existing school facility located at 1501 East Orange Road. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 5,2008 Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting the recommendation of approval for the special permit for the purpose of establishing a soccer facility and health education center on the campus, as well as future buildings as more development occurs. Schroeder noted that the submitted site plan shows the locations of several buildings and additions,proposed parking lots, and a new road connecting the campus with Hammond Avenue to the west, similar to how Arboretum Drive connects the campus to Hess Road to the east. Schroeder noted that the new health education and service center building would be approximately 37,000 SF and the adjoining soccer facility would be approximately 114,000 SF near the northwest corner of the campus. Schroeder noted that the parking requirements for colleges is 1 parking stall for each person regularly employed, as well as 1 parking stall for every two students at maximum occupancy. Schroeder noted that the number of employees and maximum occupancy of students has not been determined, and as permits are issued for individual projects, staff will require additional detail on the number of parking stalls to be provided. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Johnson to approve the Special Permit, subject to all the final site plans meeting all applicable City codes, regulations, etc., including, but not limited to,parking, drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. C. Plat 1. Request by Kess & Associates on behalf of David and Nancy Wallbaum for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Wallbaum Minor Plat generally located along Greenhill Road south of Rainbow Drive for the development of a 2-lot residential subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicants are requesting approval of the preliminary and final plats, which consists of 1.471 acres, and the proposed plat would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Andera noted that the main intention of the plat is to sell a small triangular potion of the land in question (Parcel "J") to the property owner at 1433 Oakcrest Drive, and the applicant will continue to own the remainder of the land(Parcel"I"). Andera noted that the plat request would not have any street access, and staff has recommended that the applicant tie Parcel "I"in with the house at 1559 Rainbow Drive through a restrictive covenant. Andera noted that Parcel "I" is a buildable lot, and if the applicant were approach in the future by a developer to construct a home upon that parcel, the applicant could sell that parcel off on that condition, with an easement agreement in place to provide access to Parcel "I". It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Evans to approve the minor plat, subject to a Restrictive Covenant being signed and executed, tying Parcel "I"into the property at 1559 Rainbow Drive. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by VJ Engineering on behalf of Logan Plaza for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Logan Plaza Second Addition generally located east of Logan Avenue (Highway 63) and north of East Donald Street for the development of a 3-lot commercial subdivision. The was request withdrawn by applicant. 3. Request by VJ Engineering on behalf of Deer Creek Development LLC for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Greenbelt Centre Plat No. 3, generally located along an extension of Athens Drive east of Greyhound Drive, south of West Ridgeway Avenue for the development of a 4-lot business park subdivision. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the preliminary and final plats consist of 4 lots upon 5 acres of land. Schroeder noted that portions of Athens Drive have been platted through previous plat requests, however, at this time, the street has not been paved, and once the street is completed, it will connect to Titan Trail to the east. Schroeder note that proposed sanitary sewer and water main extensions are shown on the plats, as well as noting that Water Works requests to see plans from the developer before any water mains are extended. Schroeder also noted that appropriate utility easements are shown on all lots - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 5,2008 within the subdivision, and that the Engineering Department has requested that the 25' easement along the west lot of Lot 4 be increased to 30' due to the depth of the sanitary sewer in that area. Craft questioned if it is proposed to have access from Lots 1 and 2 to West Ridgeway Avenue, noting that the deed of dedication has wording allowing access to West Ridgeway Avenue, and questioned if it is necessary to have a driveway there. Anderson noted that in order for Lots 1 and 2 to gain access to West Ridgeway Avenue, West Ridgeway Avenue would need to be converted into a 5-lane concept, as well as noting that the City Traffic Engineer has noted it would be acceptable to allow access if that is done. Bruce Radue, VJ Engineering,noted that the owner might or might not have an access to Lots 1 and 2 from West Ridgeway Avenue when the center turning lane is completed, however, they would like to leave that option open if needed. Craft noted that he is against having access to West Ridgeway Avenue from Lots 1 and 2, and does not see the reason for having an additional access where the two lots will have access to Athens Drive. Johnson questioned what the City's policy was for allowing additional curb cuts onto minor arterials, which West Ridgeway Avenue is classified as. Thorson noted that access is allowed to minor arterials if there are provisions allowed for a left turn movement, and the 5-lane concept does allow for that. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Powers to approve the request for the preliminary and final plat. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of Young Development Co. for the Final Plat of Klingaman Park Fourth Addition generally located west of Hoff Road between Teton Drive and West Shaulis Road for the development of a 27-lot residential subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting that the final plat consists of 27 lots ranging from 11,440 SF to 26,199 SF, containing a total of 9.3 acres of land. Andera noted that the plat shows 30' building lines, as well as the proposed street right-of-way widths for both Yellowstone and William Drives, which is 60'. Andera noted that it is noted in the deed of dedication that there is going to be public sidewalk dedicated as a part of the plat, connecting into existing sidewalks already in the area. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Evans to approve the request for the final plat. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Request by Shive-Hattery, Inc., on behalf of Cardinal Construction for the Final Plat of Country Club Business Center Third Addition, a Replat of Lot 6 of Country Club Business Center Addition, generally located east of Ansborough Avenue between San Marnan Drive and Highway 20, for the development of a 3-lot business park. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is proposing to replat Lot 6 of Country Club Business Center Addition into a total of 3 lots. Andera noted that Lot 1 would be 2.48 acres, Lot 2, 1.89 acres, and Lot 3, 1.61 acres, for a total plat area of 5.98 acres. Andera noted a 10' wide utility easement is shown around the frontages of all lots within the subdivision, and a 20' wide storm sewer easement is shown along the property line between Lots 1 and 3, which will channel into the proposed drainage pond. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to approve the request for the final plat. Motion carried unanimously. D. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by Bil Austin of 1413 Bluff Street to vacate the public sidewalk along Bluff Street between West 12th Street and West 13th Street adjacent to Lots 1 thru 6 of Drapers Addition. Andera gave the staff report noting the request to vacate 315' of public sidewalk would have a negative - 4 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 5,2008 impact on pedestrian traffic in the area, as it would be eliminating a section of sidewalk in an area with an already well-established sidewalk system. Andera noted that the applicants area requesting to have the sidewalk vacated for the purpose of allowing for additional parking areas in front of their properties, as currently, there is no parking allowed on either side of Bluff Street due to its narrowness. Andera noted that the applicants have requested to allow the sidewalk to remain and be allowed to park their vehicles over it. Andera noted that the Engineering Department is not in favor of the request, and if the sidewalk were to remain after it is vacated, it would create confusion among pedestrians, questioning why vehicles are being allowed to park upon and block the sidewalk. Loggins questioned when the City would begin filling in sidewalk gaps in the City. Thorson noted that currently, the City is working with INRCOG on selecting a consultant who will submit a report showing where sidewalk is most needed in the City, especially areas closer to schools. Thorson noted that it is anticipated that the report would be finished sometime around August 2009. Reggie Schmitt, Ward 1 Councilperson, noted that the current request is due to a parking issues, as well as noting that parking was restricted on either side of Bluff Street to allow enough room for fire trucks, ambulances and other rescue vehicles to pass through,noting that this is not a sidewalk gap, as it connects to the existing sidewalk. Craft noted that all the homes in the 1400 block have access to an alley behind their properties, as well as noting there is a well established sidewalk and trail system in the area. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to deny the request for vacate. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by David Reynolds for an Encroachment Agreement to allow for a 20'x 20' garage and 10'x 10' shed to encroach 2.75' into an 8' public utility easement at 526 Glencoe Avenue. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant requests approval of the encroachment agreement to allow an existing shed and proposed garage to encroach 2.75' into the public utility easement. Andera noted that the applicant had originally requested to allow the existing shed and proposed garage to encroach 1.5' into the easement, however, since the application had been submitted, the applicant had located the northwest property pin, and it was determined the structures would be encroaching by an additional 1.25'. Andera noted that staff had received an e-mail back from MidAmerican Energy, and they noted the shed and garage would still be fine with the new encroachment of 2.75'. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Craft to approve the request for an encroachment agreement, subject to a signed and executed Encroachment Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for an amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates and rescinding the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance No. 2479 adopted February 3, 1969, and adopting a new City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance in lieu there of. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Evans to table the request until the September, 2008 regular meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Grimm declared the meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 5,2008 Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 6 - • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. MARCH 4, 2008 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Moser on March 4, 2008 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt, Craft,Fossell, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Loveless, and Moser. Members absent were: Evans, Orchard, and Powers. Others present: Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 25 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the amended agenda as submitted with the removal of Item VA3, due to it being withdrawn by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on February 5, 2008. It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Loveless to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Reports: January 2008. Anderson gave the financial report, noting that the budget is currently through 50% of the fiscal year. Anderson noted that the benefits section is over the 50% amount, noting that some of these funds are paid in advance, as well as noting these will even out as the fiscal year nears its end. Anderson also noted that the price for is up,noting this section is currently at 90%. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the financial report for January 2008. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations Linda Laylin of the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance noted that the Elk Run Energy project would be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission within the next month, and invited Commissioners the opportunity to meet with staff from LS Power, Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, as well as Progress Cedar Valley for any questions, comments or concerns the Commission may have. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Benton's Ready Mix Concrete to rezone approximately 6.85 acres from "A-1" Agricultural District to "M-1"Light Industrial District on property located west of Bishop Avenue between Independence Avenue and MLK Jr. Drive for the development of a portable ready mix concrete plant. It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Moser declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone to establish a • . Planning and Zoning Commission March 4,2008 portable ready mix concrete plant near Waterloo's Northeast Industrial Park along Bishop Avenue. Schroeder noted that there is an existing 36"interceptor sanitary sewer located along MLK Jr. Drive, as well as an 8"water line along Independence Avenue that can be extended to serve the site. Schroeder noted that the surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial and industrial, and the addition of the concrete plant would be compatible to the surrounding uses, as well as noting that the proposed location for the new plant is located in and Industrial area as noted by the Future Land Use Map. Dwayne Eilers, 2265 Independence Avenue noted that he owns the property to the west of the proposed rezone area, as well as property at the northeast corner of Independence Avenue and Bishop Avenue. Eilers questioned who would be responsible for paying for the sewer and water to serve this new plant if portions of the utilities extend across his property. Schroeder noted the developer would be responsible for paying for the extension of utilities from Independence Avenue if they choose to extend them. Eilers noted that on the property he owns on the west side of the property proposed for rezoning,he is allowing a City contractor to dump cement on his property. Eilers noted that he has been notified that this is not legal, and questioned why this is not allowed since a cement factory would be built next door. Anderson noted that Eilers would need to submit a Rubble Fill Application for his property and go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment for approval for a rubble fill site to be established. Anderson noted that currently, Eilers property has not received the approval for a rubble fill site, and this would be the reason he is receiving a notice of violation. Craft questioned if there are any plans by the applicant to extend sewer and water to the site. The applicant noted that since it is a portable plant, there are no plans to extend sewer or water. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Johnson questioned since the property is going to be rezoned to"M-1"Light Industrial District, does the Ordinance require that utilities be extended to the site. Anderson noted that the Ordinance is written that if the site does need utilities, such as water or sewer to meet such guidelines as those in the Building Code,then the Ordinance would require that these utilities be extended. Anderson noted that if the utilities are a set distance from the site,the possibility of drilling a well and using a septic system could be an option. It was moved by _Craft, seconded by Loveless to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Samgene Terminal Inc. to rezone approximately 2.04 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to "M-1" Light Industrial District on property located east of 2135 Commercial Street,just east of La Porte Road for the redevelopment of existing industrial development. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Fossell to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:17p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Moser declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone to make it consistent with the current use of the property, and to allow for the redevelopment of the site. Schroeder noted that the requested area to be rezoned is approximately 2.04 acres, and of that area, Samegene Terminal, Inc owns approximately 1.05 acres. Schroeder noted that the City owns the remaining 0.99 acres,but Samgene Terminal is encroaching onto the property, and the company has indicated they have an interest in purchasing that remaining amount of land. Schroeder noted that the land to the east of the property in question is used by the City as a stockpile yard,where concrete and asphalt recycling occurs. Schroeder noted that the applicant is proposing to redevelop the area, including the potential sale of the approximately 2.04 acres with an existing 48'x 105' (5,040 SF)metal building to a potential buyer. Schroeder noted that the continued use of the area as industrial would appear to be consistent with the -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 4,2008 surrounding commercial uses and is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. Schroeder noted that Engineering does not have any opposition to the rezoning,but indicated that they may oppose the sale of the City owned property, indicating it may be shortsighted for the City to get rid of it, as the City is short on land needed for such uses. Burt questioned if the City were to sell land to the applicant, would the entire portion of land the City owns be sold to them, or will only a portion be sold. Schroeder noted that the City does not have the intent to sell the entire portion of land, but if the City is formally addressed by the applicant to buy the 0.99 acre, it can be taken into consideration. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Grimm to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Burt to approve the request, subject to the City of Waterloo correcting the situation by either requiring Samgene Terminal,Inc. rent the portion of land from the City that they are currently encroaching upon, or sell the portion of land to Samgene Terminal,Inc. for their continued use. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Hy-Vee, Inc. for Site Plan Amendment to the"S-1" Shopping Center District on property located at 1442 Flammang Drive to allow for a 5,700 SF addition to the existing Hy-Vee store for the development of a Hy-Vee Wine& Spirits retail facility. Request withdrawn by applicant. 4. Request by Grainger, Inc. on behalf of Leondorf LLC for Site Plan Amendment to the "B-P" Business Park District for the development of the Country Club Business Center Second Addition generally located east of Country Club Business Center Addition, east of Ansborough Avenue between West San Marnan Drive and Highway 20, including a new 42,000 SF office building and a 322-stall parking lot, with a 20,000 SF future addition. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Burt to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Moser declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the Site Plan Amendment for the purpose of constructing a new 42,000 SF office building, with a 20,000 SF future expansion. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, and would be compatible to the existing professional office development in the area as well. Andera noted that recently, VGM has completed a 40,000 SF office expansion, and Liberty Bank, as well as another office building is proposed to be built this year. Andera noted that the new Grainger office building would be a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental) design,which is a"green", environmentally sensitive building. Andera noted that the proposed materials for the outside of the building are glass and brick. Moser questioned what types of service does Grainger provide. Tim Cuvelier noted that the center in Waterloo is a service center that handles calls from around the country from Grainger customers. Loggins questioned what types of products does Grainger sell, as well as the hours of the facility. Cuvelier noted they sell maintenance repair and operation products, such as generators,motors and safety equipment, as well as noting the facility is open 24 hours. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Loveless to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft to approve the request subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to,parking, landscaping, drainage, etc. Motion carried unanimously. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 4,2008 B. Special Permits 1. Request by International Church of the Foursquare Gospel for a Special Permit to allow for the expansion of a religious facility into the existing building at 909 Independence Avenue,just east of Mohawk Street. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the purpose of expanding their church facility at 907 Independence Avenue. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing to purchase the 8,377 SF building at 909 Independence Avenue, directly to the east of their existing building. Graham noted at the present time, the applicant proposes to utilize only a 750 SF portion of the building to be used for a youth game room, while the rest of the building would not be utilized. Moser questioned if the current church facility shares a common wall with the building where the proposed church expansion would go. Graham noted that the two buildings have a zero lot line, and the applicant is proposing to install a fire door between the two buildings. Graham also noted that the church would be requesting a variance to the setback, as well as the height of the building. Edward Van Dorn, 820 Steely Street noted that he has been a long time resident of the neighborhood, as well as noting that he is in favor of the project, as it will be a good fit with the neighborhood. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Struxture Architects on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools for a Special Permit to allow for the redevelopment of Kittrell Elementary School, including a new 73,362 SF building and 105-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities located southeast of the existing school at 1520 Easton Avenue. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the Special Permit for the purpose of constructing a new Kittrell Elementary school at the southwest corner of Easton Avenue and Oregon Street. Graham noted that the new school would have access to both Easton Avenue and Oregon Street,while the school will be located within close proximity of West 11th Street and East Ridgeway Avenue. Graham noted the site plan shows a new sidewalk along Oregon Street, from Easton Avenue to East Ridgeway Avenue, as well as a new sidewalk to be installed along the north side of East Ridgeway Avenue, from Oregon Street to West 11th Street. Graham noted that the site plan shows the location of the building, which would be just east of the existing school. Graham noted that the site shows 3 new parking lots, 2 for school staff, and the other for visitors, as well as a new hard surface playground area and soft surface playground area. Graham noted that the school is intending to place a storm water detention pond at the northeast corner of Morris Park, and agreement would need to be worked out between the Waterloo Community Schools and Leisure Services for the maintenance of the detention pond. Graham noted that there are 2 building on the property, and the main school building at the northwest corner of the property would be demolished once the new school is constructed, and the remaining smaller annex building will remain. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loveless to approve the Special Permit, subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried 6-0 with Fossell and Loggins abstaining. C. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by Cora Turner for an Encroachment Agreement to allow a fence to encroach into the public right-of-way of Newell Street at 616 Newell Street. -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 4,2008 Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of an encroachment agreement,which would legalize two sections of a recently reconstructed split rail fence that encroaches up to 6' onto the city owned right-of-way at 616 Newell Street, as well as noting that the request may have a negative impact on the neighborhood by setting precedent to allow fences within City right-of- way. Schroeder noted that there is a 15" sanitary sewer line and 30"storm sewer line located within Newell Street, as well as overhead electric located directly over the encroaching fences. Schroeder noted that the applicants had indicated that the previous split-rail fence,which the new fence is replacing,was located in the same spot for many years. Schroeder also noted that the Black Hawk County website photo and aerial photo would appear to indicate that the previous fence was located in the right-of-way. Schroeder noted that there is a sidewalk located along the north side of Newell Street, but no sidewalk is located along the south side of the street. Schroeder noted that if the encroachment is approved, and if in the future it is determined that a sidewalk is needed along the south side of the road, the encroachment agreement would cease to further exist, and the fencing would have to be removed. Schroeder noted that in the past, a fence was allowed to encroach into the right-of-way at 111 Frederic Avenue,however, over 20 property owners in the Greenbrier neighborhood were required to remove fencing encroaching into the right-of-way. Schroeder noted that staff is aware of the uniqueness of this situation,noting that the previous fence has existed in City right-of-way without any problems. Grimm questioned if it can be written into the encroachment agreement that if a sidewalk is going to be placed in front of the property at 616 Newell Street, that the fencing would need to be removed. Schroeder noted that this type of language is typically added as a provision in recent encroachment agreements,noting the property owner would be notified and have a certain amount of time to remove the object encroaching into the right-of-way. Schroeder noted if the property owner does not remove the object, the City can remove the encroaching object, and assess the costs to the property owner. Loggins questioned how long has this particular area and property not had a sidewalk on the south side of Newell Street. Cora Turner, 616 Newell Street noted she has lived at the property in question for over 30 years, and there has never been a sidewalk in front of her property. Turner also noted as a correction to the staff report, she was not the person who applied for the building permit for the new fencing; rather it was Country Estate fence company, noting she thought they would be aware of the rules and regulations of the Ordinance. Loveless noted that a an encroachment agreement was approved at 111 Frederic Avenue, and questioned if a precedent has already been set by allowing that particular fence in City right-of-way. Schroeder noted that some fences have been approved,while other fencing has had to be removed, depending on the situation of each particular request. Loggins questioned if there is any proposed or anticipated sidewalk to be constructed in that area in the near future. Thorson noted that it is a goal of the City Council to begin filling gaps in the sidewalk system, and there is certainly the possibility of sidewalk being constructed in that area, as more sidewalks are going to be constructed in the City in the future. Craft noted that the fencing is violating the Zoning Ordinance, and noted his opposition to the request,noting that the Commission should follow the recommendation of staff and deny the request. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Loveless to approve the encroachment agreement, subject to 1) the fencing be removed by the property owner if the City of Waterloo needs use of the portions of right-of- way the current split-rail fencing is encroaching upon, and 2) that the encroachment agreement shall indemnify the City and hold it harmless with respect to any demand, claim, cause of action, damage, or injury made, suffered or incurred as a result of or in connection with the encroaching fencing. Motion carried 7-1 with Craft voting against. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 4,2008 2. Request by Laverne Lehman to vacate a portion of excess public right-of-way of Ashland Avenue and to vacate a portion of public alley located between Ashland Avenue and Kothe Avenue north of Brees Street for the purpose of expanding the existing commercial business at 1500 Ashland Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval to vacate a portion of Ashland Avenue and the north half of public alley in Block 4 of Rosebud Addition to allow for the construction of an 8,450 SF building. Schroeder noted as a part of the project,no buffers would be required,however, some landscaping along the south side of the proposed building would appear beneficial to help screen the area from adjoining residential uses along Brees Street. Schroeder noted that the applicant owns 1500 Ashland Avenue and 317-323 Kothe Avenue, and is proposing to purchase three vacant lots from the owner of the residence at 220 Brees Street. Schroeder noted that the vacation of 16' of excess right-of- way would not appear to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or on traffic conditions in the area. Schroeder also noted that the proposed alley vacate would only be for the north part of the block, and would leave a public alley at the south end abutting the south six lots (three lots per side). Schroeder noted it is required that the entire alley segments be vacated, so as to avoid dead-end alley,however the alley in question already dead-ends into Broadway Street to the north,with no access to Broadway Street. Burt noted he has concerns with the portion of alley that currently dead-ends into Broadway Street, noting that access should not be allowed to Broadway Street from the alley. Schroeder noted that the alley currently does not have any access to Broadway Street, and no access would be allowed. Craft questioned if the intention of the vacates is to allow the property owner to meet setback requirements of the"M-1"Light Industrial District for their new 8,450 SF building. Schroeder noted that the proposed building to be built on the three adjoining lots would not meet the required setbacks without the vacate. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Fossell to approve the request subject to a utility easement being retained over, under and upon the portion of Ashland Avenue to be vacated. Motion carried unanimously. D. Plats 1. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of Young Development Co. for the Preliminary Plat of Klingaman Park Fourth Addition generally located west of Hoff Road between Teton Drive and West Shaulis Road for the development of a 27-lot residential subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of the preliminary plat for the purpose of creating a new residential subdivision in southwest Waterloo. Andera noted that Yellowstone Drive will be extended from its current location near its intersection with Teton Drive to the south, and will connect with an extension of William Drive,which will have access to Hoff Road. Andera noted that the preliminary plat consists of 9.3 acres of land, and all lots within the subdivision show appropriate utility easements to serve the plat. Andera also noted that it is written into the preliminary deed of dedication that there is going to be public sidewalk dedicated, connecting with existing sidewalk in the area. Burt questioned what the zoning of the area in question is. Andera noted that the property is zoned"R-1" One and Two Family Residence District. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Loveless to approve the preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission March 4,2008 2. Request by Shive-Hattery Inc. on behalf of Cardinal Construction for the Final Plat of Country Club Business Center Second Addition generally located east of Country Club Business Center Addition, east of Ansborough Avenue between San Marnan Drive and Highway 20, for development of a 2-lot business park subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of the final plat for the purpose of establishing a 2-lot business park, as well as noting Grainger, Inc. is planning to construct a new 42,000 SF office building on Lot 1 of the subdivision. Andera noted that Lot 1 of the new subdivision will be combined with Lot 8 of the previously approved subdivision, which was approved in June of 2007. Andera noted that it is written indo the deed of dedication that there will be sidewalk extended along the north side of Lot 2 of the new subdivision, connecting into planned sidewalk along the northern side of Lot 6 in Country Club Business Center Addition. Andera also noted that a recreational trail would be extended along the south side of Fisher Drive as well. Andera noted that the final plat consists of 8.55 acres, and will be located primarily near the intersection of Bankers Boulevard and Fisher Drive. Andera noted as a part of the subdivision request,Fisher Drive, Bankers Boulevard and Tower Park Drive will be extended to serve the plat. Gene Leonhart of Cardinal Construction noted that he would be able to answer any questions the Commission may have. Grimm questioned if sidewalk is going to be extended throughout the entire plat. Leonhart noted that a recreational trail is planned along Fisher Drive, and sidewalk is planned throughout the rest of the development. Leonhart noted that the recreational trail will extend eastward as further development occurs. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Craft to approve the final plat. Motion carried unanimously. E. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name a private street as"Edgemont Avenue"to serve a proposed 3-plex, said private street being the northwesterly extension of the 2500 block of public Edgemont Avenue, located north of Park Lane. Graham gave the staff report noting that the Engineering Department requests that the City of Waterloo name the future private street Edgemont Avenue, which will serve a future 3-plex. Graham noted that the naming would allow for proper addressing in the area, and the Engineering Department has noted and found the proposed naming to he acceptable. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Grimm to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. F. Discussion Items Burt questioned if there has been any change or additional information received for the renaming of portions of Mobile Street to "Jimmie Porter Way." Schroeder noted that he had recently received an e- mail from Councilperson Quentin Hart,noting that the Porter family has chosen to withdraw this request at this time. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Moser declared the meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 7 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 5, 2008 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Vice-chairperson Moser on February 5, 2008 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, Evans, Fossell, Grimm, Johnson, Loggins, Moser, Orchard and Powers. Members absent were: Burt and Loveless. Others present: Don Temeyer, Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Temeyer noted that staff is recommending to table Agenda Item Fl, due to there being a family emergency for the applicant. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the agenda, subject to tabling Agenda Item Fl. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on December 4, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Reports: November and December 2007 Temeyer gave the financial report,noting that the budget is currently on target for the fiscal year. It was moved by Orchard, seconded by Orchard to receive and place on file the financial reports for November and December 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No Oral Presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Election of Officers 1. Election of a Chairperson and Vice-chairperson for the term ending December 31, 2008. Moser noted that Rev. Ed Loggins had been appointed to the Commission to represent the Human Rights Commission,replacing Warren George who left in December of 2007. Loggins noted that he has spent most of his life in Waterloo, and was a graduate of East High School, and is a graduate of UNI. Loggins also noted that he is a member of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, as well as a member of Neighborhood Partners. Loggins noted that he is pleased to be a part of the Commission, and looks forward to the time he gets to spend with it. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Grimm to nominate Moser as Chairperson with term ending December 31, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5,2008 It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Evans to nominate Grimm as Vice-chairperson with term ending December 31, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. B. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Deer Creed Development LLC to rezone approximately 118.63 acres from"M-2,P" Planned Industrial District to "B-P"Business Park District on property located along Greyhound Drive,just north of 3250 Greyhound Drive and west of 2015 West Ridgeway Avenue for the development of a business park. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Moser declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone for the purpose of establishing a business park near the former Greyhound Park. Andera noted that the proposed rezoning would coincide with already existing development and proposed land uses in the vicinity, as currently there is nearby light industrial uses in the area. Andera noted that the rezone area would have access to Highways 20 and 63, as well as West Ridgeway Avenue. Andera noted that in recent years, this area has seen additional interest from potential developers, and currently Mauer Eye Center is constructing a new 25,000 SF office in the park, and there are plans to construct a Gold's Gym to the south of that once more lots sell in the park. Andera noted that the applicant has noted that developers have expressed interest in the area,but had concerns and reservations with the land being zoned for industrial development, as well as noting that changing the zoning designation to Business Park would potentially be a better marketing tool for the area. Andera also noted that it may be necessary to amend the Future Land Use Map at some point to reflect this area as Business Park, as currently, it is shown as Industrial. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Powers to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Evans to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Permits 1. Request by J. Andy Walser on behalf of Northeast Iowa Foodbank for a Special Permit to allow for the establishment of the Young Life youth meeting place, a recreation and religious facility, within the easterly 2,000 SF of the building at 129 Plaza Circle,just south of Ridgeway Avenue. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a 2,000 SF youth recreational and religious facility at 129 Plaza Circle. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the traffic conditions, as it is an existing building with existing off-street parking, although it would appear that the site would be deficient of the number of parking stalls required, which is 38. Graham noted that typically when an event is held, there are usually between 10-20 cars on site. Graham noted that the applicant will be requesting a variance from the Board of Adjustment for the parking deficiency, as well as noting, it will be junior high school and high school students utilizing the facility, and most do not have cars. Graham noted that there are 220 students enrolled in the program, and the average attendance at each of the events is approximately 25 students. Graham also noted that the applicant is a requesting a variance to the setback, as a religious facility must have a setback of 2' per 1 foot of building height, and this building is 13' tall and would require a 26' setback. Graham noted that being this is an existing building, it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. Johnson, Evans and Loggins noted that they would be abstaining from the vote, noting that they each have a conflict of interest. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 5,2008 Loggins questioned what types of activities are planned for the new center. Andy Walser, Black Hawk Area Young Life Director noted that plan on having youth ministry meetings, which typically last 90 minutes, which involve games, small group discussion, snack and music. Loggins questioned what schools are served by the center. Walser noted that they have students from Peet, Hoover, Saint Edwards and Central middle schools, as well noting students attend the center from West, Columbus and East high schools. Beverly Lind, 219 Hillcrest Road noted that do not necessarily object to the request, but she does have concerns with the request, noting that the surrounding area is mostly populated by residents 55 years of age and older, noting that the Ridgeway Towers complex is directly east of the property in question. Lind noted that she had a concern for the safety of the teenagers attending the center, noting that there is only one access point to the property from Ridgeway Avenue, and there is only sidewalk along the south side of Ridgeway Avenue from Hillcrest Road, east to Kimball Avenue. Johnson noted that Northwestern Mutual is going to own the building, and they will have their group benefits division in one half of the building, and the youth center will be in the other half. Johnson noted that the landlord will be in one half of the building, and will monitor the activity of the young life center. Johnson noted that he has children that attend these youth groups at times, and noted that from what he has seen, they are very well organized meetings. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried 6-0 with Evans, Johnson and Loggins abstaining. 2. Request by InVision Architecture on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools for a Special Permit to allow for the redevelopment of McKinstry Elementary School, including a new 78,900 SF building at a 113-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities located south of the existing school at 1410 Independence Avenue. Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the Special Permit for the purpose of constructing a new elementary school to the south of the existing school at the southeast corner of Independence Avenue and Idaho Street. Anderson noted that the request would appear to have a positive impact upon the neighborhood and community, as it would serve the surrounding neighborhood and continue the redevelopment of the Waterloo Community School District. Anderson noted that there are pedestrian sidewalks in the area for students and parents to utilize. Anderson noted that a portion of the property is located within the floodplain, however, no portion of the new building would be constructed within the floodplain. Anderson noted that the school's main entrance will face Idaho Street on the west side of the building, as well as noting the new 113-stall parking lot will be on the west side of the building and have access to Idaho Street. Anderson also noted that bus traffic will be directed to the Independence Street entrance, which will be on the north side of the building near the gymnasium. Anderson noted that the site plan would appear to meet all requirements for zoning, including setbacks, etc. Anderson noted that they have not received a landscaping plan at this time, and staff will continue to work with the architect to obtain one. Fossell and Loggins both noted they would be abstaining from the vote, noting they both are involved with the Waterloo School District. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried 7-0 with Fossell and Loggins abstaining. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 5,2008 D. Plats 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Lockard Development, Inc. for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Tower Park No. 4 generally located west of 305 Tower Park Drive, at the southeast corner of Tower Park Drive and Winn Street for the purpose of a one-lot commercial development. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of both the preliminary and final plats, which consists of 8.57 acres, for the purpose of establishing a one buildable commercial lot located south of the existing Tower Park Office complex. Andera noted that the property was rezoned from"C-2" Commercial District to "C-2,C-Z"in June of 1987, noting that the rezoning of the land to a Conditional District was to insure that there be some long range planning and coordination of future development, as well as keeping development in harmony with the existing residential development on the north side of San Marnan Drive. Andera noted that the creation of a another building lot will be another addition to the already expanding San Marnan corridor between West 4th Street and Kimball Avenue, noting that to the east of the site, Cedar Valley Medical Associates and CBE Group constructed new buildings in 2005. Andera noted that the site can be served by sanitary sewer and storm sewer, as well as noting that appropriate easements are shown and provided for the maintenance of the existing utilities in the area. Andera noted that there are drainage easements on both the east and west sides of the plat, and storm water runoff will drain into these easements and drain south under Highway 20 and pond in an existing water detention basin south of the highway. Andera noted that at the Technical Review Committee, members noted that there needs to be wording put into the deed of dedication noting that the property owner of Lot 1 is responsible for maintaining the area shown as Tract`B"on the plat between Winn Street and Highway 20, as well as noting the deed of dedication needs to reference Tract"A" as either existing public right-of-way, or as right-of-way to be dedicated. Moser questioned if the staff recommendation should include that the area labeled as Tract`B" shall be maintained by the owner of Lot 1, as well as noting that Tract"A"be written into the deed of dedication as existing public right-of-way, or as right-of-way to be dedicated. Andera noted that the Commission could add that as a recommendation. Fossell questioned what the implications are that a portion of the proposed plat fall within the Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District. Andera noted that a small portion of the lot does fall within the corridor overlay area, however, does not see portions of a new building falling within corridor regulations. Andera noted that he foresees future landscaping areas on the proposed plat having to meet additional guidelines written into the Highway 20 Overlay Ordinance. Andera noted that if portions of a new building are affected by the corridor overlay, there are some additional guideline standards written into the Ordinance as well. Fossell questioned if this should be included in the staff recommendation. Temeyer noted that the developer should be aware of this, and once there is a transfer of property, this should be noted within the deed. Craft questioned if Winn Street is going to be a dead end street, or will it end at the entrance of Cedar Valley Medical Associates. Andera noted that the street is already in place and ends at that particular parking lot. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Grimm to approve the request, subject to 1) that it be written into the deed of dedication that the owner of Lot 1 be responsible for maintaining the area located between Winn Street and Highway 20, and 2) that it be written into the deed of dedication that Tract "A"be listed as existing public right-of-way, or as right-of-way to be dedicated. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. E. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to rename Phillip Street to "Phillips Street"between Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and Albany Street. -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 5,2008 Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the City of Waterloo is requesting the approval of the request for the purpose of having Black Hawk County and the City of Waterloo records reflecting the correct street name as "Phillips Street". Schroeder noted that the original plat of the area indicates the street as "Phillip Street"with no "S" at the end of the word Phillip. Schroeder noted it has been carried on the Black Hawk County real estate mapping page and the City of Waterloo records incorrectly as "Phillips Street" (S included). Schroeder noted that approving this request would correct this problem. Schroeder noted that recently, new street signs were placed that include the"S", and changing the street name would correct this, and only two residences would be affected, and staff does not foresee any affect on those properties. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Grimm to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. F. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by Cora J. Turner for an Encroachment Agreement to allow a fence to encroach into the public right-of-way of Newell Street at 616 Newell Street. The request was tabled to a future meeting date. G. Plans and Studies 1. Logan Avenue Urban Renewal and Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 1. Western gave an overview of the key areas of the proposed amendment, noting that the urban renewal area would include areas such as the Walnut Court Neighborhood, Longfellow School area in attempts to encourage additional development in these areas that have lacked development over the past years. Western noted that there are a large amount of vacant properties within this urban renewal area, and this plan is intended to provide an additional incentive for developers to begin an infill of existing lots with new residential dwellings. Western noted that the Highway 63 Corridor is included in this area, as well as the former Chamberlain Manufacturing site, which is currently going though an asbestos remediation phase, with anticipated demolition of the property coming in the near future. Western noted that once Chamberlain is gone, there are plans to develop that property into green space for the neighborhood, which would including relocating athletic fields from some areas of Gates Park to the site, as well as noting there are preliminary plans for a recreation center on the site. Western noted that there are not plans to have commercial or residential development on the site,noting that with the contamination in the area, it would not be a suitable place for this type of development. Fossell questioned why it is okay to put a park in an area that is contaminated. Western noted with housing development,basements would be put in,which would require digging into the soil, which would possibly dig into contaminated dirt. Western noted with the Chamberlain site, approximately 6 inches of fill would be brought in and"cap"the site, making it suitable for certain types of development such as this. Fossell noted that it just does not seem logical to establish a park on a contaminated site. Western noted that these ideas are preliminary and were given at a public input meeting, and the plans can change if needed. Loggins noted that he is familiar with the Walnut Court Neighborhood, and questioned if the City is relying on private investors to rehabilitate that neighborhood. Western noted that the City is searching out private investors for this area. Western noted that the Highway 63 CDC Commission has adopted areas such as the Walnut Court Neighborhood and the Longfellow School areas as places of special interest, and the CDC will work to attract redevelopment of these areas. Loggins questioned if staff foresees any problems attracting developers to these areas. Temeyer noted that it is going to take the full effort of multiple organizations to begin getting redevelopment in the urban renewal area, and it will take some time. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission February 5,2008 It was moved by Evans,seconded by Craft to approve the request. Motion carried 8-0 with Loggins abstaining. H. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Request to consider additional changes to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission has made their recommendation to approve the changes to the Zoning Ordinance, however, the City Council has not adopted the amended Zoning Ordinance yet. Schroeder noted that Jeri Thornsberry has submitted some proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically to the"M-2" Heavy Industrial District, and "M-2,P" Planned Industrial District. Schroeder noted that the "M-2"district allows for any use whatsoever, noting that the Thornsberry has concerns with having any use being able to go in the "M-2"district without additional review. Temeyer noted that other departments such as the Fire Department or Waste Management are included on the mailing list for the Technical Review Committee, and are invited to participate and provide comments on agenda items if needed. Moser questioned what other existing businesses are located within in"M-2" Heavy Industrial Areas. Schroeder noted that the downtown John Deere site is zoned "M-2", as well as "M-2" areas east of the airport along Wagner Road and Airline Highway are zoned"M-2" as well. Schroeder noted that staff wanted to bring this before the Commission, and recommends discussing at a future meeting. Moser questioned what the status is on allowing vertical steel siding on accessory buildings no larger than 200 SF. Temeyer noted that City Council initially recommended that the maximum size for an accessory building with vertical steel siding should be reverted back to 120 SF, but then recommended to increase it to 200 SF, and have not yet made a final determination. Temeyer noted that the applicant petitioning this request has appeared before the City Council asking them to reconsider the request. Loggins questioned what the zoning is for the Chamberlain Manufacturing property. Schroeder noted that he believes it is zoned"M-2"Heavy Industrial. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Moser declared the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted,Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 6 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. DECEMBER 4,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on December 4, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt, Craft, George, Grimm, Hart, Johnson, Loveless, Moser, and Powers. Members absent were: Evans, Fossell, Hartleip and Orchard. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 10 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Moser, seconded by Burt to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 6, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: October 2007 Temeyer gave the financial report, noting that the budget is currently on target for the year. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the financial report for October 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No Oral Presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Street Naming 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to rename portions of Mobile Street, Warneka Street, or Quincy Street to "Jimmie Porter Way". Hart noted that he had spoken with the family of Jimmie Porter, and they have noted that they would like to look into possibly renaming Mobile Street from Martin Luther King Jr. Drive to Ricker Street, and has asked for additional time to contemplate this decision. Hart noted that he would recommend tabling the item until details are sorted out. Hart noted that in previous years, the family has discussed renaming a street in the vicinity. Thorson noted that in the past, it was discussed to rename Warneka Street at that time, but nothing ever materialized. Thorson noted with this current request, some address changes would be needed on either Quincy Street or Warneka Street if those streets change names. Thorson also noted that if Mobile Street were renamed from Ricker Street, south to Adams Street,there would be no address changes. Burt questioned what the process would be if the request were to change the naming of Mobile Street from Ricker Street, south to MLK Drive. Thorson noted that if Mobile Street were going to be renamed Planning and Zoning Commission December 4,2007 south of Adams Street, a notice to property owners would need to be mailed out, as well as notifying utility companies. Thorson noted that address changes are big issues, noting that residents, as well as the Cunningham School would need to change stationary, checks, other mailings, etc. Loveless noted that he would like to see the entire length of Mobile Street from Ricker Street to MLK Drive renamed, but wants to know what the correct process is for handling a situation such as this. Temeyer noted that property owners affected by the street renaming would have to be notified so that the residents are aware that their address could possibly be changed, and that they are able to speak on this matter. George noted that the most efficient way to handle this situation would be not to table the motion, and to not recommend the request, and have a new request resubmitted for the renaming of Mobile Street from Ricker Street to MLK Drive, and chose to rescind his previous motion to table the request, with both Hart and Burt agreeing to that comment. Powers questioned Thorson that there would be no address changes from Ricker Street to Adams Street. Thorson noted that this was correct. George made a motion to not recommend this current recommendation on the agenda, with Grimm seconding the motion. Burt noted that he does not want this request to ultimately die, questioning if there can be a stipulation added to the motion, such as that item needs to be addressed at the next meeting in January. Loveless questioned what would be the process if it was approved at this meeting to allow for the name change of Mobile Street from Ricker Street to Adams Street, and address the rest of the road at a later meeting. Temeyer noted that the Commission could do a partial name change at this time, and receive an additional request for the rest of the name change at a later time. Powers noted that he would direct to staff to notify residents of the possible name change of Mobile Street from Adams Street to MLK Drive, and then bring the item back at a later date. Grimm noted that he would like to see this current request not go through at this time according to its wording, and would rather have a new request submitted next month, asking for the renaming of the entire length of Mobile Street between Ricker Street and MLK Drive. It was moved by George, seconded by Grimm to not approve the current name change request as submitted. Motion carried 6-3 with Burt, Hart and Loveless voting against. B. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate the platted alley in Block 4 of Riverside Addition adjacent to the Former Rath Administration Building at 1515 Sycamore Street. Andera gave the staff report, noting the City is requesting the approval to vacate the platted alley for the purpose of adding additional land area to the block that the former Rath Administration Building currently sits on. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as well as pedestrian and traffic movements in the area, as the alley is underutilized. Andera noted that it appears there are no utilities that will be affected if the alley is vacated, however,there is an overhead electric line to the north of the alley, and if needed, it may be necessary to dedicate an easement over a portion of the lot to the north of the administration building. Andera noted that vacating the alley, and dedicating additional land to the site may potentially offer an additional incentive to a prospective redeveloper for the property. Burt questioned what the reasoning was for vacating the alley at this time. Andera noted that the alley would be vacated for future planning efforts, as well as noting that there is very minimal use of the alley by the public, and it appears to be unneeded. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 4,2007 It was moved by Moser, seconded by Powers to approve the request to vacate. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Clubhouse Iowa, LLC for an Encroachment Agreement to allow a freestanding sign to encroach 2' into the public right-of-way of Sears Street and to allow three private light poles to encroach 1.5' into the public right-of-way of Crossroads Boulevard adjacent to the Advanced Auto building at 2010 Sears Street. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting approval of the encroachment agreement for the purpose of allowing a pole sign and three light poles to encroach into public right-of- way on both Sears Street and Crossroads Boulevard. Schroeder noted that if it were determined that such a pedestrian sidewalk is or will be needed in the future, and alternative option would be to require an easement over a portion of the property behind the sign to allow for a public sidewalk to get around the encroaching sign. Schroeder however noted that there appears not to be a sufficient amount of room to fit a sidewalk along Sears Street between the existing roadway and the encroaching sign. It was noted that even without the encroaching sign there would still only be about 6' between back of curb and the property line, which would still be very difficult to get a sidewalk along. Schroeder also noted that there are currently 3 light poles along the south side of the property along Crossroads Boulevard that are encroaching 1.5' into the City right-of-way, specifically noting that there is an 8" sanitary sewer ling within a utility easement along Crossroads Boulevard, which is 20' north of the property line where the private light poles are located, as well as other utilities such as gas, telephone, etc. Schroeder noted that Zoning Ordinance does have a required setback for light poles; however, they are not permitted within City right-of-way. Moser questioned if this request is similar to the encroachment agreement request that occurred at 174 West 13th Street, when the hired contractor built a new storage building 1' into City right-of-way, specifically noting that precedence was set by that request. Temeyer noted that this request is somewhat different, noting that the contractor was told by the Engineering Department how to stay away from these utilities, but chose to ignore that information. Thorson noted that the site plan for the new building showed the new sign and light poles on private property, and noted that it was construction mistakes that happened, specifically noting that the Engineering Department is opposed to the request, and have the contractor move the sign and lights to their correct locations. Moser questioned what the other alternative for the contractor would be for relocating the parking lot lights. Schroeder noted that it would appear the only other option would be to affix the lights to the building, and have them shine out over the parking lot. Craft noted that when Crossroads Boulevard was laid out in the late 1960's, the developer platted a 25' easement around the entire boulevard for utilities, and each utility had their own designated place within that easement. Rod Booth of Nagle Signs noted that prior to construction of the new sign, stakes had been laid out, and when it is was time to construct the new sign, there had been grading done in the area where the new sign was to be place, changing the terrain of the land. Booth noted that because of that, the stakes had been moved, which the sign installers were not aware of, noting this is the reason the sign was placed in the Sears Street right-of-way. Booth noted that the property owner did receive notice from the Engineering Department that the sign was in right-of-way, and he did meet with staff and offered to cut the pole off below grade and move the sign. Craft noted that he felt it was the obligation of the owner and hired engineer to get the lights and signs in their correct locations. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to deny the request for an encroachment agreement. Motion carried unanimously. - 3 - • Planning and Zoning Commission December 4,2007 C. Annexations/Severances 1. Request by Robert and Rita Welter for severance from the City of Waterloo of approximately 40 acres generally located at 4012 Leversee Road one mile north of West Airline Highway for the purpose of being annexed into the City of Cedar Falls. Anderson gave the staff report, noting the applicants are requesting approval to be severed (de-annexed) from the City of Waterloo for the purpose of being acquired by Cedar Falls and incorporated into the city limits of Cedar Falls. Anderson noted that the City of Waterloo has plans for the expansion of utilities in this area when later phases of MidPort America are platted out and developed. Anderson noted that the area in and around the applicants property have the capability of being serviced by utilities when a project or projects are proposed for that area, and that the City of Waterloo owns 240 acres surrounding the property in question on the north, east, and south side. Anderson noted that the City of Waterloo has worked with the FAA for release of this land from the Airport for development purposes, which was recently approved. Anderson noted that the property is within the Airport Multimodal Tax Increment Finance District, which is setup to allow the City to extend public infrastructure and other improvements for the development of the land. Anderson noted that the applicants have entered into an Acquisition Contract with the City of Cedar Falls, and intend to sell their land at a future date, as well as noting there is no pending project, as the contract offers a life estate to the applicants, and that the applicants have never requested any additional services in the past. Anderson noted that the site was annexed into the City of Waterloo in 1946, and the applicants have resided at the site since 1959. Anderson noted that the applicants have lived at this property for 48 years, and have been satisfied with services until severance was offered as a condition of the purchase. Anderson noted that City of Waterloo has provided multiple services to this area, such as seal-coating Leversee Road, as well as noting the Waterloo Police department has responded to 174 calls in this area this year. Anderson noted that the City has made past infrastructure improvements with the future plans of extension to serve this area in mind, as well as noting, the area is within easy access of Highway 218 from the Lone Tree Road interchange. Anderson noted that the City of Waterloo and the Cedar Valley Coalition have worked on a plan to common utilities and infrastructure for savings to the benefit of both cities, and pursuit of a tax sharing plan for the development of the area, however no such agreement has been established. Anderson noted that there would not appear to be a logical reason behind changing corporate jurisdictions for a speculative parcel of land that can be serviced by the existing corporate entity, as well as noting, due to recent record years of new construction in Waterloo,the City will need to continue to look for future phases for its business and industrial parks, and to keep land options open for interested prospects. Anderson noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission will make their recommendation, and the City Council will then vote on the matter. Anderson noted that if the City Council denies the request, the applicant, if still wanting to seek out severance, would need to file an involuntary application with the State of Iowa's City Development Board. If the CDB were to approve the severance, a referendum would be held requiring approval by Waterloo voters. Anderson noted that the request to sever does not meet any requirements for a more uniform boundary or for the gaining of services through annexation to the City of Cedar Falls, does not appear logical for the immediate or future development of the area, and noted the site is located within the Primary Growth Area within the City of Waterloo. Craft noted that the Waterloo Water Works did extend a 12" water main along Leversee Road from Airline Highway, north to the railroad tracks, and noted that there is no waterline on the Cedar Falls side, and Waterloo water was used to service properties in Cedar Falls in this area. Craft also noted that if the applicant's property were to be severed into Cedar Falls, it is possible that water and other infrastructure could not be extended across approximately 1300' of property frontage to serve areas to the north that would still be located within Waterloo. Craft noted that if the property were to be severed, and permission was granted to extend water and infrastructure across the applicant's property, the City would get no return on their investment, as there would be no water sales from that property. Craft noted it -4 - 1 Planning and Zoning Commission December 4,2007 would not be good planning to have this 38-acre chunk of land be removed from the City, as it would interrupt development in this area. Dave Welter, son of the applicants, noted that his parents have lived there since 1959, and moved to this particular piece of property to begin a career in farming. Welter noted that they are here today to work within the guidelines of the system, and to come up with a fair and equitable solution to his parent's request. Welter noted that his parents have tried to work with the City in the past, without success, as well as noting, his parents have had tremendous amount of stress due to whether to sell their land or not. Welter noted that the City did put forth an offer a few years back, but nothing ever materialized of it due to the City not following through on it. Welter noted that 6 months ago, the City of Cedar Falls approached his parents, and offered them a lifetime lease, the full-assessed value, as well as extending services into the property. Welter noted that Cedar Falls would allow Waterloo the option to tie into water and sewer services in the future free of charge through an agreement. Welter noted that of the 174 police calls to the area, none have been requested at his parent's property, and the majority of those calls were going to the Gas Light Trailer Park, as well as noting, when his father was involved in an accident with train on Leversee Road, Cedar Falls Police were the first to respond, and when Waterloo Police arrived,the two police departments were arguing on who is responsible for investigating the accident. Welter also noted the closest fire station is a little over a mile west on Lone Tree Road. Jim Sheerer, attorney for the applicants, noted that he is aware that if the applicant's property is severed into Cedar Falls,then the services that Cedar Falls extends would be available for Waterloo to hook onto, and could be extended even further to develop the remaining land on the east side of Leversee Road in Waterloo. Sheerer also noted that his clients have been offered market value for their property, but they are unable to accept the offer, as well as noting that they have been within the City of Waterloo since 1946, and they have not benefited from the services. Sheerer noted that Waterloo should look at this deal as a great benefit to the City, and does not understand why the City of Waterloo has not taken this deal. Moser noted that the City of Cedar Falls has made a reasonable offer to the property owners, and if the City of Waterloo were to offer the same, would it be considered. Sheerer noted that his clients have tried working with the City, but have not come to an agreement, as well as noting,that he has heard that the offer by Cedar Falls would not be matched. Sheerer also noted that he and his clients are not partial on who they work with. Craft noted they he sees no benefit to Waterloo to purchase services such as water and sewer from Cedar Falls to service this area, as the City has the capability of servicing the area with its own utilities. Sheerer noted that this appears to be a good deal for Waterloo, and once again, is unsure why Waterloo does not want to enter a deal such as this. Craft noted that cities the size of Waterloo or Cedar Falls normally serve utilities to the properties within their city limits as utilities are needed, and do not turn to other cities to provide services. Craft noted that the sharing of city services is more visible in smaller communities, and not in larger communities. Craft also noted that it would be rather unusual to have to negotiate with Cedar Falls to extend services once a prospect is found for the land east of Leversee Road, as this is typically not the way situations such as these are handled. It was moved by Craft, seconded by George to deny the request for severance. Motion carried unanimously. D. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for an amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates and rescinding the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance No. 2479 adopted February 3, 1969, and adopting a new City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance in lieu there of. - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission December 4,2007 Schroeder noted that staff, as well as Commission members have been working on the revision of the Ordinance for almost 2 years. Schroeder noted that there would be numerous areas of the Zoning Ordinance that would be amended, such as, considering additional Design Review within the Highway 63 and Highway 21 corridors and Board of Adjustment review changes. Schroeder noted that a contractor who builds shed buildings with vertical steel siding has contacted staff, and the smallest sheds they construct are 200 SF. Schroeder noted that currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows for a 120 SF shed with vertical steel siding, and anything above 120 SF would be prohibited by the Ordinance. Schroeder noted that staff requests that the provision still remains the same. Steve Finnegan noted that he has been in the shed building business for 9 years, and today, people need more space to store items. Finnegan noted that he felt steel siding was far more superior to either wood or vinyl siding, and his buildings fit into the neighborhoods just fine. Finnegan noted that being limited to 120 SF maximum, is limiting his business, and noted a specific situation where a customer lived next door to a commercial property with a metal building, and Finnegan noted to them that they cannot have vertical metal siding on their residential property. Grimm questioned Finnegan on how often he receives calls to build larger steel buildings. Finnegan noted that he receives calls for buildings larger than 120 SF very frequently. George questioned if a horizontal steel siding could be used, rather than vertical. Finnegan noted that it is a cost and availability issue. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Craft to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Powers to approve the Zoning Ordinance as amended, and to exempt accessory buildings up to 200 SF from requiring a building permit. Motion carried 8-1 with George voting against. D. Discussion/Possible Action Items Schroeder noted that the regular monthly Planning and Zoning Commission meeting would fall on January 1, 2008, and staff recommends changing that meeting to January 8, 2008 to avoid a conflict with the holiday. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to move the meeting date. Motion carried unanimously. Both Hart and George noted that this would be their last Commission meeting, as Hart would be taking the Ward 4 City Council Seat, and George's term with the Human Rights Commission is expiring at the end of the year. Both Hart and George noted that they have appreciated their time they got to spend on the Commission. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 6 - I MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 6, 2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on November 6, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, George, Grimm, Hart, Hartleip, Johnson, Moser, Orchard and Powers. Members absent were: Burt, Evans, Fossell and Loveless. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera---Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Powers to approve the agenda as amended, with the removal of Item B2, due to the applicant withdrawing the request. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 2, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Receive and place on file the Notes of the Special Meeting on October 9, 2007 (no quorum). It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the notes. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Financial Report: September 2007 Temeyer gave the financial report, noting that currently we are at 25% of the year, and the budget is a little bit ahead due to having 3 pay periods in the month of September, and also noted that the budget is right on track. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Hartleip to receive and place on file the financial report for September 2007. Motion carried unanimously. V. Oral Presentations No Oral Presentations were given. VI. Agenda Items A. Special Permits 1. Request by Craig Ceilley on behalf of Heartland Vineyard Church for a Special Permit for the establishment of a church facility in an existing building at 715 East 4th Street in a"C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting the approval of a Special Permit for the establishment of a church facility at 715 East 4th Street, near East High School. Graham noted that a religious facility can be located in almost any zoning district, making this compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that the site plan shows the interior • Planning and Zoning Commission November 6,2007 layout of the existing building, including the sanctuary, classrooms and offices. Graham noted that the site plan for the church shows 45 parking stalls, and the Zoning Ordinance requires that a church provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy, and that the Building Department has determined that the maximum occupancy for the building was 222, which would require 56 parking stalls. Graham noted that the applicants would file for a variance request, noting that the church would seat 155 people, and that the additional stalls would not be needed. Graham also noted that there would also need to be a variance to the setback of the building from the property line, as the Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 2 feet per 1 foot of building height for a church facility. Graham noted that the building is 13' tall, and would need to have a 26' setback. Craig Ceilley, a Board of Directors for the church noted that, if needed, a few more parking stalls can be included on the site, and noted that this is an existing building, and feels that the church facility will have a limited impact on the neighborhood. Moser questioned if the parking could be moved to the west and utilize the existing greenspace for additional parking. Ceilley noted that could be option, but would rather keep the greenspace. Ceilley also noted that on an average weekend, there are usually 120 people attending the service, and the majority of those people do not drive, and there are usually no more than 20 cars in the parking lot. It was moved by Craft, seconded by George to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried 8-0 with Hart abstaining due to a conflict of interest. B. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate the public alleys in Block 6 and Block 15 of the Original Plat of Waterloo West, between West 3rd Street and West Park Avenue, and between Commercial Street and Bluff Street, and to vacate an easement in Lot 3, Block 6 of the Original Plat of Waterloo West adjacent to 422 Commercial Street for the Waterloo RiverLoop Expo. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting the City is requesting to vacate multiple alleys and dedicate easements where necessary for the purpose of establishing the Waterloo RiverLoop Expo grounds, which would create the outdoor space necessary to attract trade shows and conventions to Waterloo, and would draw residents to the downtown area for community festivals and markets. Schroeder noted that there is existing sanitary sewer and overhead electric in portions of the alley to be vacated, so it would be necessary to retain a utility easement. Schroeder noted that the easement to be vacated is located along the east side of Lot 3, adjacent to the Community National Bank, and needs to be vacated due to a change in property lines that will be created with a land swap between the City and the bank. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to vacate, subject to the retention of a utility easement over the west 60'of the alley in Block 6 and retention of a utility easement over the entire alley in Block 15. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Myrtle Brackin for an Encroachment Agreement to allow a paved drive to encroach 8' into the public alley south of 340 Lamont Street. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting approval of an encroachment agreement to allow a new paved driveway to encroach approximately 8' into a platted alley. Schroeder noted that the applicant already has a gravel driveway that already encroaches 8' into the alley, and approval of the encroachment agreement would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the platted alley is unopened and overgrown with trees further to the east. Schroeder also noted that there are no utilities in area requested to have an encroachment agreement placed on it. Schroeder noted that the applicant considered vacating the alley, but chose not to, due to concerns of getting the other property owners abutting the alley to consent to vacate. - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 6,2007 Craft questioned what if the applicant parked vehicles in the driveway and blocked and restricted access to the alley for other motorist. Schroeder noted that the alley is currently not open for public access, and the encroachment agreement would address this issue. Craft noted that it appears the alley serves other properties. Schroeder noted that the alley would not be opened for public use, unless the property owners request that the alley be opened. Johnson noted that it is addressed in the encroachment agreement that there is a 60-day notice that would notify the applicant that the alley would be opened up, and they would have 60-days to remove their driveway from the alley. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Hartleip to approve the request for an encroachment agreement. Motion carried unanimously. C. Street Names 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to remove the name of the private street, Guardian Road from the City of Waterloo Street Index and Map, which said private street was to be located off of Ranchero Road just west of Highway 63 and the street name was previously approved but said private street has never been constructed, and new plans for the area do not include it construction. Western gave the staff report noting that the Engineering Department has been in the process of updating its official city map, and has found that Guardian Road has never been built, and there are no plans for its construction in the future. Western also noted that the removal of Guardian Road from the City Street Index would allow for a more accurate street index map. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Powers to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. D. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Set a date of hearing on the Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates as December 4, 2007 Schroeder noted that Commission members should receive a final copy of the Zoning Ordinance with the final changes within the next week, and staff is recommending that the Commission approve a date of hearing for the request on December 4, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to set the date of hearing. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. NOVEMBER 6, 2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on November 6, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Craft, George, Grimm, Hart,Hartleip, Johnson,Moser, Orchard and Powers. Members absent were: Burt,Evans,Fossell and Loveless. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Powers to approve the agenda as amended, with the removal of Item B2, due to the applicant withdrawing the request. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 2, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Receive and place on file the Notes of the Special Meeting on October 9, 2007 (no quorum). It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the notes. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Financial Report: September 2007 Temeyer gave the financial report, noting that currently we are at 25% of the year, and the budget is a little bit ahead due to having 3 pay periods in the month of September, and also noted that the budget is right on track. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Hartleip to receive and place on file the financial report for September 2007. Motion carried unanimously. V. Oral Presentations No Oral Presentations were given. VI. Agenda Items A. Special Permits 1. Request by Craig Ceilley on behalf of Heartland Vineyard Church for a Special Permit for the establishment of a church facility in an existing building at 715 East 4th Street in a"C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting the approval of a Special Permit for the establishment of a church facility at 715 East 4th Street, near East High School. Graham noted that a religious facility can be located in almost any zoning district,making this compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that the site plan shows the interior Planning and Zoning Commission November 6,2007 layout of the existing building, including the sanctuary, classrooms and offices. Graham noted that the site plan for the church shows 45 parking stalls, and the Zoning Ordinance requires that a church provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy, and that the Building Department has determined that the maximum occupancy for the building was 222, which would require 56 parking stalls. Graham noted that the applicants would file for a variance request,noting that the church would seat 155 people, and that the additional stalls would not be needed. Graham also noted that there would also need to be a variance to the setback of the building from the property line, as the Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 2 feet per 1 foot of building height for a church facility. Graham noted that the building is 13' tall,and would need to have a 26' setback. Craig Ceilley, a Board of Directors for the church noted that, if needed, a few more parking stalls can be included on the site, and noted that this is an existing building, and feels that the church facility will have a limited impact on the neighborhood. Moser questioned if the parking could be moved to the west and utilize the existing greenspace for additional parking. Ceilley noted that could be option, but would rather keep the greenspace. Ceilley also noted that on an average weekend, there are usually 120 people attending the service, and the majority of those people do not drive, and there are usually no more than 20 cars in the parking lot. It was moved by Craft, seconded by George to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried 8-0 with Hart abstaining due to a conflict of interest. B. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate the public alleys in Block 6 and Block 15 of the Original Plat of Waterloo West, between West 3rd Street and West Park Avenue, and between Commercial Street and Bluff Street, and to vacate an easement in Lot 3, Block 6 of the Original Plat of Waterloo West adjacent to 422 Commercial Street for the Waterloo RiverLoop Expo. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting the City is requesting to vacate multiple alleys and dedicate easements where necessary for the purpose of establishing the Waterloo RiverLoop Expo grounds, which would create the outdoor space necessary to attract trade shows and conventions to Waterloo, and would draw residents to the downtown area for community festivals and markets. Schroeder noted that there is existing sanitary sewer and overhead electric in portions of the alley to be vacated, so it would be necessary to retain a utility easement. Schroeder noted that the easement to be vacated is located along the east side of Lot 3,adjacent to the Community National Bank, and needs to be vacated due to a change in property lines that will be created with a land swap between the City and the bank. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to vacate, subject to the retention of a utility easement over the west 60'of the alley in Block 6 and retention of a utility easement over the entire alley in Block 15. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Myrtle Brackin for an Encroachment Agreement to allow a paved drive to encroach 8' into the public alley south of 340 Lamont Street. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting approval of an encroachment agreement to allow a new paved driveway to encroach approximately 8' into a platted alley. Schroeder noted that the applicant already has a gravel driveway that already encroaches 8' into the alley, and approval of the encroachment agreement would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the platted alley is unopened and overgrown with trees further to the east. Schroeder also noted that there are no utilities in area requested to have an encroachment agreement placed on it. Schroeder noted that the applicant considered vacating the alley, but chose not to, due to concerns of getting the other property owners abutting the alley to consent to vacate. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission November 6,2007 Craft questioned what if the applicant parked vehicles in the driveway and blocked and restricted access to the alley for other motorist. Schroeder noted that the alley is currently not open for public access,and the encroachment agreement would address this issue. Craft noted that it appears the alley serves other properties. Schroeder noted that the alley would not be opened for public use, unless the property owners request that the alley be opened. Johnson noted that it is addressed in the encroachment agreement that there is a 60-day notice that would notify the applicant that the alley would be opened up, and they would have 60-days to remove their driveway from the alley. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Hartleip to approve the request for an encroachment agreement. Motion carried unanimously. C. Street Names 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to remove the name of the private street, Guardian Road from the City of Waterloo Street Index and Map, which said private street was to be located off of Ranchero Road just west of Highway 63 and the street name was previously approved but said private street has never been constructed, and new plans for the area do not include it construction. Western gave the staff report noting that the Engineering Department has been in the process of updating its official city map, and has found that Guardian Road has never been built, and there are no plans for its construction in the future. Western also noted that the removal of Guardian Road from the City Street Index would allow for a more accurate street index map. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Powers to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. D. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Set a date of hearing on the Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates as December 4, 2007 Schroeder noted that Commission members should receive a final copy of the Zoning Ordinance with the final changes within the next week, and staff is recommending that the Commission approve a date of hearing for the request on December 4, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to set the date of hearing. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 3 - MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. OCTOBER 2,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on October 2, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George, Hart, Hartleip, Grimm, Evans, Fossell, Loveless,Moser, Johnson, Powers, and Craft. Members absent were: Burt and Orchard. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 5 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Powers to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on September 11, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Fossell to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: August 2007 Temeyer noted that we are currently 2 months into the fiscal year, noting that the schedule is at 16% of the year, but the budget is at 21%, noting that there was three paychecks during the month of August,but everything is right on track. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the financial report for August 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentation No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings - Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Kalyana Sundram on behalf of the RHF Foundation Inc.,to rezone approximately 6.5 acres from "R-2,C-Z" Conditional Residence District to "R-4"Multiple Residence District on property located east of 307 East Donald Street at the northwest corner of the intersection of East Donald Street and East 4th Street for the development of a medical and professional office facilty. It was moved by Powers and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:04 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that applicant is requesting approval of the rezoning request for the purpose of establishing a medical/professional office building directly to the east of the existing Logan Plaza shopping center. Schroeder noted that in June of 2002,the property was rezoned from "R-2"and "R-4"to "R-2,C-Z" for the purpose of constructing a senior living facility, as well as Planning and Zoning Commission October 2,2007 noting that a condition was placed on the property only allowing residents to be 55 years or older. Schroeder noted that the proposed development would create a good transitional use between the commercial and residential developments, and would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Schroeder noted there is sanitary sewer in the area, noting the applicant will need to determine the best option for connecting the proposed building and future outlots to the sanitary sewer system. Schroeder also noted that there is storm sewer serving the area, as well as sufficient water in the area to serve the development. Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department has noted that there is a high amount of traffic currently on East Donald Street, and the property would be limited to one access from East Donald Street. Moser questioned if the property would be able to gain access to East 4th Street, as well as questioning what type of surfacing is currently on East 4th Street. Schroeder noted that the current site plan submitted only shows an access from East Donald Street, and as development occurs, other access points from East 4th Street can be looked at. Schroeder also noted that currently, East 4th Street is a seal coat street. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Loveless to approve the request subject to 1) that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc., 2) that the site only be used for professional office and medical-related facilities, and 3) that only one access to East Donald Street shall be allowed. Motion carried 10-0 with Johnson abstaining due to a conflict of interest. B. Special Permits 1. Request by A-Line EDS Inc. for a Special Permit for expansion of the recycling yard in the "M-1" Light Industrial District at 808 Dearborn Avenue for the purpose of constructing a 13,488 SF building for warehousing and dismantling of distribution transformers. Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the special permit to expand its business operations at its exiting salvage yard site at 808 Dearborn Avenue. Anderson noted that the area fro the new building was designated for continued growth of the salvage business, and was to be fenced in, in 2007. Anderson noted that the need for fencing would note appear warranted as no outside storage is planned in this area, and would go into existing fenced areas. Anderson noted that the business recently expanded in 2003, and the additional request for expansion is to create additional warehousing space and space to dismantle distribution transformers for utility companies. Anderson also noted as a result of the expansion, additional employees would be hired to address the increasing volume of work. Anderson noted that the expansion would not involve additional areas for outside storage of materials, as any such storage needs will be accommodated within the existing fenced areas. Hartleip questioned how the City would be aware that no outside storage would be taking place, even though it has been put forth in staff recommendations that no outside storage will be allowed as apart of the expansion. Anderson noted that the business is classified as a salvage yard, and in order to be a salvage yard, there needs to be a licensed approved by the City Council, as well as an annual salvage yard inspection. Grimm questioned when these transformers arrive at the site, will they be sitting outside for sometime, or will they be put in the building right away. Ben DeYoung, A-Line EDS Inc. noted that there is an inside loading dock, and when the transformers arrive,they have to be inside at all times. Grimm also questioned if there will any PCB's (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) at the site, which are found in transformers. DeYoung noted there would be PCB's at the site, and they would be required to obtain a permit from the EPA in order to handle and dispose of the material. DeYoung also noted - 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission • October 2,2007 that there are federal monies available through the EPA that if their building was one day sold to another owner, these EPA funds would be available to rid the site of PCB's. Craft questioned if A- Line tested for the presence of PCB's. DeYoung noted as a part of the expansion, there will be a new PCB testing lab within the building. Craft also questioned how the PCB's were disposed of. DeYoung noted that anything over 500 PCB's is shipped off to Waste Management,then later shipped to an incinerator plant in Alabama. Craft then questioned what happens to PCB's less than 500. DeYoung noted that it can be resold to other buyers who have a reuse for the product. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit subject to the applicants meeting all applicable codes and ordinances at the local, state and federal levels for the operation proposed. Motion carried unanimously with Johnson abstaining due to a conflict of interest. C. Vacates 1. Request by Dick Wald to vacate the public sidewalk adjacent to 174 West 13th Street lying between Black Hawk Street and the public alley. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval to vacate a portion of sidewalk, which would allow for a driveway to the existing building which was constructed 1' onto City owned right-of-way. Schroeder noted that there is an established sidewalk system in the area, and approval to vacate the sidewalk would further take away from the existing sidewalk network in the area. Schroeder noted that recently, a 40'x 110' building was constructed on the site, and on 8/20/07, the City Council voted to allow that building to be 1' in the City right-of-way through an encroachment agreement. Schroeder noted at the time of the approval for the encroachment agreement, it was noted that there was sidewalk located along West 13th Street, and the building would appear to be right up to the sidewalk. Schroeder noted that staff had concerns at that time allowing the building to be built right up to the sidewalk, but noted that the sidewalk should be replaced. Schroeder noted that the applicant has made it aware that the property slopes, and the building was constructed with a step, with section being higher than the other. Schroeder also noted if the sidewalk is reconstructed, and due to grade and ADA compliance requirements, there would have to be a step between the building floor and the driveway, limiting access to the building. Schroeder noted that it appears the applicant would be able to rebuild the sidewalk with minimal impact on access to the building, as well as noting the applicant was aware of the location of the sidewalk and the grade of the property when the building was constructed. Moser questioned how the applicant is going to get access into the storage building if they are required to put a sidewalk in, and there is a height difference between the storage unit and the ground level. Schroeder noted that there would possibly be a small difference in height between the sidewalk and the storage unit floor level, but only for a portion of the building and it would not be impossible to get access into the building or storage unit. Powers noted that a typical rise for a step should not exceed 7 '/2". It was moved by Craft, seconded by Hartleip to deny the request to vacate. Motion carried unanimously. D. Discussion Items/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the Commission can decide to continue the review of amendments and changes proposed to the Zoning Ordinance over the past year, or wait until the next Special Meeting. Commission members chose not to continue their review at this meeting, and would review the changes at the October 9, 2007 Special Meeting. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission October 2,2007 2. Reminder—October 9, 2007 Special Meeting of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission, 3:00 p.m. Schroeder noted the next Special Meeting time, and urged as many Commission members attend as possible, as this will probably be the last Special Meeting regarding the revisions to the Ordinance before official action is taken on its approval. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary -4 - MEETING NOTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—3:00 P.M. October 9,2007 Not having a quorum of the members, the Special Meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming and Zoning Commission was not called to order. The members present decided to have a general discussion on the proposed amendments,but no official action was taken. Members present were: Loveless, Craft, Moser, Evans, George, and Fossell. Members absent were: Burt, Powers, Hartliep, Orchard, Johnson, Grimm and Hart Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera— Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda No quorum. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the Commission had completed their initial review of the entire Ordinance and were no going back through to review key areas that may need additional review or discussion. Schroeder noted that at the last Highway 218 Design Review Board meeting, the DRB did not vote on the changes made to the Zoning Ordinance in terms of their guidelines, and also noted that they were aware this special meeting may be the last special Planning and Zoning meeting before the Commission makes their final decision. Schroeder noted however, the DRB 218 is in favor of expanding DRB review to Highways 20, 21 and 63. Schroeder noted that the Highway 218 Overlay was created before the Highway 20 Overlay,with both having similar guidelines, but with the Highway 20 Overlay not having a Design Review Board. Schroeder that there have been minimal changes to the Parking Regulations, noting that some wording from the International Parking Regulations was added,which he got from the American Planning Association. Schroeder noted that there has been few changes to the Sign Regulations provision,noting that definitions for Temporary Signage,Menu Signage, and Directional Signage have been further elaborated and detailed better in the revision. Anderson noted that the current Ordinance allows for a 32 SF menu sign, and suggested raising the square footage amount to either 50 or 60 SF. Anderson noted that when McDonalds planned to rebuild their building on La Porte Road, they had to file for a variance, due to have 2 menu boards for 2 drive-thru lanes, exceeding the 32 SF maximum. Anderson noted the developer noted that most communities he has worked in do not even have regulations for menu signage. Schroeder noted with the proposed amendments, Subdivision Signage is a new addition to the Ordinance, which would allow a Subdivision Sign within in City right-of-way. Schroeder noted that Engineering had concerns with having new signage being placed in a median in the middle of the road, and suggest it should be on the side of the road. Schroeder noted that other surrounding cities • Planning and Zoning Commission,Special Meeting October 9,2007 Notes have multiple examples of having subdivision signs in the middle of right-of-way in a median and they have appeared not to cause problems. Craft questioned if subdivisions can have signage advertising the sale of lots. Schroeder noted they can have signage and would be regulated by the requirements for Bulletin Signage,with a maximum of 64 SF, as well as noting, once all the lots are sold,the sign or signs need to be removed. Anderson noted that in the near future, the downtown area might see an increased use in Electronic Message Boards. Anderson questioned should it be the responsibility of planning to review the proposed signage, or should it still be left up to Main Street Waterloo to look over the sign. Anderson noted that when a developer is interested in putting up an electronic message board,their step is to go through Main Street. Anderson noted that an electronic message board would need to go through the BOA for a variance,because they are not a permitted use in the"C-3" Commercial District. Schroeder suggested striking electronic message boards from the list of items being prohibited in the "C-3". Commission members agreed with that and continue to allow Main Street to perform the reviews for signage. Schroeder noted that the current provision for Subdivision of Lots is difficult to work with and usually requires that the person proposing the split of land have to apply for a variance. Schroeder questioned if the entire provision should be stricken from the Ordinance. Craft noted that the Ordinance should address more of the lot area,rather than the frontage of the lot. Commission members as a suggestion, that newly created lots should be at least 80%to 90% of the average size of lots in the area. 2. Set date and time for next Special Meeting—November 13, 2007 at 3 p.m. (if needed) Schroeder noted that we had not completed the review of the Ordinance, and that there should not be a need for additional special meetings. Respectfully Submitted, Aric Schroeder, Secretary 2 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M.AUGUST 7,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on August 7, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George, Hart, Hartleip, Grimm, Evans, Fossell, Loveless, Moser, Johnson, and Craft. Members absent were: Burt, Orchard and Powers. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department; and approximately 35 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Fossell to approve the agenda with the removal of Item Al to be tabled to a future meeting. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on July 10, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: June 2007 Temeyer noted that this was the end of the Fiscal Year, and the budget was right on target, and noted that the budget was met. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for June 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items B. Special Permits 1. Request by Masjid Al Noor Islamic Community Center for a Special Permit to allow for the development of an Islamic community center, including a 5,250 SF building and a 94 stall parking lot generally located south of 1015 South Hackett Road, at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Hackett Road and Sager Avenue in a"C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the establishment of a new Islamic community center. Graham noted that this request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as this would be a good transitional use between the residents to the south of Sager Avenue and the John Deere Health facility to the north of the proposed site. Graham noted that there has been no drainage plan submitted for the site, and that the site will need a storm water detention plan approved by the City Engineer's Office. Graham noted that there are existing utilities in the area that can be extended to serve the site when development occurs. Graham also noted that if a fire suppression system were to be used in the building,the existing water line may not have sufficient pressure, and it may be necessary to connect the 2 dead end lines at the ends of Saint Andrews Drive and Delores Drive, which may sufficiently increase the water Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 pressure. Graham noted that this area in the past has seen sanitary sewer problems, and the Engineering Department has requested to see anticipated flow data for the proposed building. Graham noted that the prayer hall can accommodate 406 people,which would require 102 parking stalls, so the applicant would need to provide 95 parking stalls to meet the Zoning requirements. Graham noted that the site plan does show landscaping, but a more detailed plan will need to be submitted. George questioned if the applicants were aware that on Friday evenings in the fall, that football games would be held at Memorial Stadium located to the west, and if Traffic Operations took this into consideration. Graham noted that Traffic Operations indicated they did not have any concerns with an increase in traffic in the area from the new community center. Gary Rosenkrans, 1214 Delores Drive noted that his biggest objection is with the sewer problem, noting over the past 40 years he has lived there,his basement has been flooded 3 times due to an overloaded sanitary sewer. Rosenkrans also noted that with the football games on Friday nights, he had concerns with traffic conditions in the area,noting that with the two combined activities in the area, it could pose a problem for area children. George noted that recently, the school district has redone the entire parking area around Central Middle School, and there should not be any more parking on the nearby residential streets. Hart questioned if staff would be able to address the sanitary sewer concerns. Thorson noted that their department has requested additional information on the sewer situation from the applicant, but have not received any additional information at this time. Raja Akbar, Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Islamic Center, noted that majority of traffic coming to the site on Fridays will be around noon, and some traffic will be there on Friday evenings, but not to the degree of the afternoon traffic. Hartleip questioned as far as the setback required from the property lines due to the height of the building, if the tall spires on top of the building are included for determining the setback. Schroeder noted that under the Special Provisions,Exceptions and Modifications section of the Zoning Ordinance,there is a provision that would designate these spires as ornamental, and would be exempt from the height requirements. Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road, noted that the sanitary sewer in the area has been horrible in terms of capacity, and being there is no report detailing the amount of additional sewage being added to the system,that this particular request should be tabled until a report is presented by the applicants. Fossell noted that there were no recommendations in the staff report noting that the sanitary sewer and water issues need to be resolved, and that there was nothing in the staff report noting the request needs to go to the Board of Adjustment. Schroeder noted that this request would need to go to the Board of Adjustment, as it is a Special Permit request, and that Water Works has no concerns with water service to the area, but noted that if the applicant plans to install a fire suppression system in the building, a flow test will need to be done on the water system in the area, and it may require that the two dead end hydrants be connected to increase water pressure. Schroeder noted that for the sanitary sewer issues,the City Engineer is waiting on additional flow data from the applicant. George questioned where excess runoff from the site would go due to adding a non-permeable surface. Temeyer noted that the applicant will have to submit a water detention plan for the site, and have a ponding area for water retention in times of heavy rain. Ibrahim Zegar noted that very few people would use the restroom facilities during their prayer services, and feels that this will not substantially affect the sanitary sewer in the area. Craft questioned if there is going to be a kitchen in the building. Zegar noted that the kitchen area is shown on the revised site plan that was provided. It was moved by George, seconded by Grimm to approve the request for Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 2. Request by Elizabeth Litzkow for a Special Permit for a rubble fill site within the floodway of Black Hawk Creek and the relocation of a portion of a legal non-conforming salvage yard located at 1720 Black Hawk Road from the south side of Black Hawk Road to the north side of Black Hawk Road in an"A-1"Agricultural District. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit to create a rubble fill site to bring fill into the north yard, and move salvage items from the south yard to the north yard. Schroeder noted in 1993, it was determined by the Iowa Supreme Court that the salvage yard was a legal non-conforming use. Schroeder also noted that the applicants submitted a similar request in 1997, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 9, 1997, and denied by the Board of Adjustment on June 24, 1997. Schroeder noted that the applicant is requesting to fill the north yard so that it is one foot above the 100-year floodplain, and then salvage material from the south yard would be moved to the north yard. Schroeder noted that the current salvage yard is within the floodway, and if it is moved to the north yard, it would have a negative impact on the residential properties to the north, as it would be enlarging a legal non- conforming use and moving it closer to the residential area. Schroeder noted that the current flood levee does create some buffer between the salvage yard and residential neighborhood, but staff has received complaints from area residents that the salvage items are visible from their property, even in single story homes. Schroeder noted a previous analysis of the property determined that the existence of the salvage yard creates a 0.3-foot increase in the 100-year flood level, and since that time, illegal filling has been occurring on the site. Schroeder noted that any filling in the floodway is prohibited unless approved by Special Permit(Conditional Use Permit), including both Board of Adjustment approval and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Schroeder noted that the IDNR and FEMA did give their concurrence to fill as proposed back in 1997 as apart of the plan to move to the north side of Black Hawk Road, but the Board of Adjustment denied the Special Permit request. Schroeder noted that the existing salvage yard is not consistent with the designation of the area as agricultural and parks and open spaces on the Future Land Use Map. Schroeder noted that the proposed Special Permit is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to: 1)preserve and protect the public health,welfare and safety of its residents; 2)make land use decisions in accordance with sound planning practices, including separation or mitigation of incompatible land uses; 3) provide and protect land and facilities for parks,recreational opportunities, and open space; and 4) protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as forestland, wetlands and floodplains. Schroeder noted that because the salvage yard in question is located within the "A-1"Agricultural District, and because it is located in the "F-W"Floodway District as well,the use in question is considered a non-conforming use. Schroeder noted that the non-conforming use regulations state that it is the intent of the Ordinance to permit non-conformities to continue until they are removed,but not to encourage their survival. Schroeder also noted that it is further the intent of the Ordinance that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, or be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the Ordinance (which in this case is considered to be the court ordered boundaries). Schroeder noted that the relocation of the portion of the salvage yard that is located south of Black Hawk Road to the north of Black Hawk Road in an area that exceeds the court approved boundaries would require the issuance of a variance by the Board of Adjustment. Schroeder noted the opposition to the request during the 1997 request, and that the 1997 plot plan indicated that there was 10.5 acres on the south side of the road that would be relocated into 9.4 acres on the north side of the road west of the court-approved boundaries, and that the applicant would also appear to be requesting that the area north of the road and east of the court-approved boundaries also be included in the special permit to allow this area be filled and have salvage material located on it, however no detailed information has been submitted, and if this area is to be included, additional information would need to be provided on existing and proposed contours and additional floodplain analysis. Schroeder noted that the City of Waterloo is currently in, and has been in court regarding compliance of the salvage yard within the court-approved boundaries, and that the City of Waterloo attempted to work with the property owners for acquisition and relocation of the yard to alleviate the Floodway obstructions,but the applicant did not respond to written offers by the City of Waterloo. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 Schroeder noted that Engineering indicated additional approval of the Army Corps of Engineers would also be required due to changes in their standards for improvements along a flood control levee. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending that the request be denied, as the request is not in accordance with the Future Land Use Map or the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the request is not in accordance with the regulations for a non-conforming use, as it would promote the expansion and survival of an incompatible non-conforming use, and the existence of the salvage yard in this location would continue to have a negative impact on Floodway conditions, even with the removal of the portion of the yard south of Black Hawk Road. Schroeder noted staff has received many calls in opposition to this project, including a call stating that as many as 6 loads of fill were delivered to the site this past weekend. Evans questioned if the City is currently in litigation with the applicant. Schroeder noted that the City is currently in court with the applicant. Evans noted that it would make sense to wait until the litigation is finished, and then make a decision on this request. Schroeder noted that there has been litigation ongoing for several years, and it would be better to proceed. Karen and Brian Johnson, 1631 Lark Lane, noted that other salvage yards they have gotten parts from in the past have some sort of organization to them, but noted this particular yard is a true"junk"yard, having no organization to it and having weeds all over and dilapidated buildings on the property, and it is an eyesore to the neighborhood. Elizabeth Litzkow, 1720 Black Hawk Road, noted she has lived at the property for the past 20 years, and her husband's parents have owned the property since 1967. Litzkow noted that they are a legal non-conforming use due to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in 1993, and noted that the property would not be an eyesore if the salvage operations were moved to the north side of Black Hawk Road, as FEMA would like to see. Litzkow noted there is a 12' tall dike that is at least 100' wide separating the salvage yard from the residences to the north. Litzkow also noted that the situation could be improved if they are allowed to relocate and put up a fence around the salvage yard. Litzkow also noted that neighborhood residents also ride motorized recreational vehicles illegally on the dike, and she has called numerous times to the City, and nothing has ever been done about it. Ed Cunningham, 1555 Lark Lane,noted he pays $4,000 in property taxes a year and does not want to look at the salvage yard. Ed Fritz, 1551 Lark Lane, noted that he walks the top of the dike near his house about 14 times a week, and is very familiar with the area. Fritz noted that he has observed many truck loads of salvage items, such as drywall, bicycle frames, bed frames and mattresses being brought into the property, and he had concerns on what other items are being dropped off at the site that may be potentially harmful to surrounding neighbors. Fritz noted that the Board of Adjustment had denied the applicants request in 1997,and even after this was done, fill is still being brought into the site illegally. Fritz noted that on August 6, 2007,Jones Brother's Trucking delivered a load of fill, and there was a worker there with and end-loader evening the fill out, as well as another truck later in the afternoon. Fritz noted if the applicant is allowed to move its operations across the street and bring fill in, they are essentially raising the elevation of the ground, and items such as semi trailers that are placed there will be more visible to the residents to the north. Fritz also noted that the junkyard is encouraging illegal dumping along Black Hawk Road and the dike. Mike Shaffer, 1749 Lark Lane,noted that there are a lot of tires left in ditches in the surrounding area. Shaffer questioned if there are any soils samples taken of the soil on the site, before any other soil is added to see if there are any contaminates on the property in question. Schroeder noted there is no soil testing done by the City, and suggested that other agencies such as the Black Hawk County Health Department or EPA may have some requirements on this. Gary Rankin of Young Family Foundation noted that the organization owns property west of the salvage yard on the north side of Black Hawk Road, and noted that his organization is not in favor of -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 having the salvage yard moving closer to their property. Rankin noted that every year,the property floods, and salvage vehicles are sitting in the floodwaters,thus contaminating the area with oil, gasoline and other vehicle liquids. Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road,noted that he has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years, and the salvage yard has been there longer then that. Dillavou also noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recently allowed Chase Auto Parts to expand in the floodway, as well as allowing Deery's salvage yard on Airline Highway to begin operations in the floodplain, and the Gold's Gym and Mauer Eye Center to bring fill in and build in the floodplain. Dillavou once again noted that they have received approval from the Iowa Supreme Court as a legal non-conforming use. Schroeder noted that the requests by Deery and Gold's Gym and Mauer Eye Center were granted permission to bring fill into areas designated as Zone-A, 100-year floodplain, and the fill for these projects were not being put in the floodway, which is prohibited by the Ordinance. Hartleip questioned what would be accomplished if the yard were moved from the south side of Black Hawk Road to the north side of the road. Anderson noted that study done by Earth Tech in 1997, which was Rust Engineering at the time, found that if the salvage items on the south side of the road were removed would allow for better flow of floodwaters in that area, and by putting fencing on the north side of the road, it would serve as an extension of the levee system, and there would still be a 0.3 raise in the water level in the area even if the yard was moved to the north side of the road, so the flooding situation would not get any better or any worse if the yard is moved, but it would get the vehicles out of the floodway. Grimm questioned if the applicant plans to move everything from the south salvage yard to the north salvage yard and never use the south yard for salvage purposes again. Litzkow noted that originally, she was going to apply for just a rubble bond, but in order to get approval for the rubble bond,the relocation of the yard had to be included with that request as well. Litzkow noted that if they are allowed to relocate the yard, it will no longer be the on the south side of the road as FEMA has requested. Craft questioned if the salvage yard is operating outside the area designated by the Iowa Supreme Court. Litzkow noted they are not outside their boundaries. Craft also questioned if there is illegal rubble being dumped on the site without the issuance of a rubble permit. Litzkow noted that there has been material dumped on the property due to not being able to install a fence. Craft questioned if vehicles are parked in the Black Hawk Road right-of-way. Litzkow noted there are vehicles in the right-of-way, and they had to be moved there due to flooding in the area. Moser questioned if the applicant has equipment on the proposed north yard to level out fill as it is brought in. Litzkow noted that this past weekend, they had received loads of gravel for their driveway, which the nearby neighbor had observed. Jan Saterlee, 1805 Lark Lane noted that she has lived in that area since 1963, and also noted since 1997, when the City noted to the applicant that they cannot bring any additional rubble onto the site, there has been rubble brought to the site, regardless of what was done in 1997, and that the City has done nothing to enforce this. Saterlee also noted that her husband received a letter from the City Attorney, noting that the applicants would not be able to bring additional rubble onto the site, but has been unable to locate the letter. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Hartleip to deny the request for Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by InVision Architecture on behalf of Allen Hospital for a Special Permit for the expansion of the hospital, including a 70,000 SF three-story addition with three additional future stories, additional parking area, and the relocation of the helipad south of Dale Street at 1828 Logan Avenue Anderson gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 purpose of expanding Allen Hospital. Anderson noted the request would appear to have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as it will continue Allen's growth and investment in this area. Anderson also noted that the helipad is proposed to be relocated to the south side of Dale Street, directly adjacent to residential homes. Anderson noted that currently, Allen Hospital puts a large amount of cooling water into a nearby drainage way, and with the new expansion planned, Engineering has requested that additional details be submitted. Anderson noted that the setbacks for a hospital require 2 feet for every 1-foot of building height, and that the original plan for a 3-story design will need a variance to the setback. Anderson noted that the 62' 3-story building would need to be 124' from the property line, and currently,the submitted plan shows it 85' from the property line. Anderson also noted that the applicant would need a variance for the building set back when the additional 3-stories are added as well. Anderson noted that the current helipad has about 100 flights per year on average, and the architect on the project has noted that this proposed location for the helipad is the best location, noting that the current location is too far away from the new emergency room. Anderson noted that Allen staff has held 3 neighborhood meetings with neighbors, and there was no opposition shown at the meetings. Hart noted that there is going to be an overall loss of 26 parking spaces, and questioned if Traffic Operations had a concern with additional traffic being added by the expansion. Anderson noted that through e-mail, Traffic Operations did not have any concerns with traffic in the area due to the expansion. Anderson also noted that he had received one letter of opposition to the project from Ernest and Marilyn Newman, 939 Reed Street, who understand the hospitals need to expand, but feel the expansion could be placed in a better place, farther away from residential uses, and also noted that the couple has concerns with the helipad being placed so close to residential homes. Augusta Green, 653 Hope Avenue, noted she lived in the 250' buffer, and questioned when Allen plans to begin the expansion. Eric Ritland of InVision Architecture noted that the plan is to start construction on the project in the fall of this year, and construction is anticipated to take about 18 months Geraldine Brown, 1649 Heath Street,noted that she does not live directly next to the proposed helipad, but she noted that she sympathizes with the neighbors, and believes that there needs to be a different location selected for the helipad. Brown also noted that she is pleased to see the expansion in the area and investment in the area. Celita Flowers, 926 Reed Street,noted she had the concerns with the helicopter landing near the homes,as well as the additional traffic entering and leaving the site. Alice Reed, 1636 Heath Street noted that she is there on the behalf of her sister who could not make it to the meeting, and noted her sister lives at 940 Cutler Street. Reed noted that her sister is not in favor of having the helipad right next to her home, and feels there needs to be a different location for the helipad,noting concerns with the noise it would create. Hartleip questioned how the proposed helipad site was picked as the best location. Ritland noted that his firm looked at 4 possible locations for the helipad,the existing helipad(Option A) on the north side of the hospital, but it was a distance of 975' from that helipad to the new emergency unit, Option B was to locate the helipad on the roof of the new addition,but there were concerns with exhaust fumes entering the building from the helicopter through the air ducts located on top of the roof, as well as a significant cost to put the helipad on the roof, and also with plans to construct an additional 3 stories on top of the building, the helipad would have to be removed, Option C in the southwest corner of the existing parking lot is the closest option,but the location of the helipad is prime space for the emergency room parking for patients and family members. Ritland noted that Option D is the proposed location of the helipad south of Dale Street in an existing paved parking lot, and also noted that there were several meetings with the emergency department staff, and it was determined that this was the most optimal location. - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 Jay Wilshire, of Allen Hospital noted that all the properties along Heath Street to be vacated are purchased, and there are plans to begin construction of the new parking lots before construction of the new building addition takes place. Wilshire noted that the parking along the southern potion of Heath Street will start this fall, and the parking directly to the north of that will begin in 2008. Johnson noted that Allen Hospital has been an anchor in this neighborhood, and applauds the hospitals expansion,but also noted that Dale Street has traditionally been the dividing line between the hospital and the residential properties to the south, and noted that he felt the helipad goes a little too far encroaching upon the neighborhood. Johnson noted that the helipad needs to be placed somewhere on the north side of Dale Street. Leon Letchford, 935-937 Cutler Street, noted he has owned that particular property for some time now, and he had concerns with the noises at night from the emergency helicopter coming in. Barb Paradine, 1756 Logan Avenue noted that when she was going to her car when a helicopter landed at the existing pad, she did not have a big problem, and suggested there are bigger problems with the semis driving by on Highway 63, and from car stereos. Paradine noted that if this is the best place for the helipad that the Commission should approve to put it there. Tammy O'Connor, 932 Reed Street,noted that the only thing separating the helipad from her property is a chain link fence, and that it is ridiculous for anyone to think that this will provide for a good buffer, and also noted that anyone at this meeting would not want it right next to their house. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Grimm to approve the request for Special Permit with a condition that the helipad be located north of Dale Street. Motion carried unanimously. C. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by Allen Hospital to vacate Heath Street and alley between West Donald Street and West Dale Street for the purpose of expanding the existing hospital parking areas at 1825 Logan Avenue Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the vacation in order to expand their parking west of Heath Street. Anderson noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and also noted that access between Donald Street and Dale Street would still be available by way of Columbia Street one block to the west. Anderson noted that Traffic Operations did not have concerns with the proposed vacate. Anderson also noted that the geometrics of where Heath Street intersects with Dale Street and Donald Street needs to be changed so the road does not still appear as a public road, and make it appear as a parking lot entrance. Anderson noted that the proposed vacate may have some impact on the fire rescue routes to the south of Dale Street, and staff is awaiting concerns from Waterloo Fire Rescue, but so far none have been indicated. Anderson noted that an easement needs to be retained for access and utility purposes over the areas to be vacated. Craft questioned if there will be some access restrictions in the new parking lot preventing drivers from going straight through from Dale Street and Donald Street. Ritland noted that the landscaping plan is still in progress, and it has been discussed to put some sort of vegetation screening up that would prevent this segment from being used as a cut through. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to vacate, subject to the retention of access and utility easements. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Iowa Northern Railway Company to vacate a portion of East Ridgeway Avenue lying east of Texas Street to allow for the construction of a rail spur. Western gave the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting the approval to vacate a portion of the East Ridgeway Avenue right-of-way for the purpose of constructing a rail spur into their existing site. - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 Western noted that the request would not have a negative impact on traffic conditions in the area, as Ridgeway Avenue currently dead ends into the IANR tracks, and the IANR will not allow for an at- grade crossing at this intersection, and will not grant the City an easement to cross over the tracks. Western noted that there are utilities running through the portion of right-of-way to be vacated, and a utility easement will need to be retained over,the entire area to be vacated. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate, subject to the retention of the utility easement over the entire area to be vacated. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Midwest Building, Inc. on behalf of Richard Wald for and Encroachment Agreement to allow a 40'x 110' building to encroach 1' into the right-of-way of West 13th Street at 174 West 13th Street, at the southwest corner of Black Hawk Street and West 13th Street Graham gave the staff report noting that the request could have a negative impact, as it would set precedence for other businesses to encroach into the right-of-way. Graham noted that the request would legalize an existing building being constructed 1' onto the city owned right-of-way, which was determined after construction of the building had already begun. Graham noted that the zoning requirement for this particular zoning area requires a 20' front yard setback, but the property received a variance on 11/28/2006 to allow the building to be placed on the property line. Graham also noted that there is a sidewalk located along West 13th Street, and the building would appear to be right up to where the sidewalk was previously located. Graham noted that this sidewalk was removed for construction of the building, and if approved, the replacement of the sidewalk will have to be 2' inside of the right-of-way, so that it maintains a 1' distance from the building. Hartleip questioned how something like this happens and who would be accountable for this. Schroeder noted that there was a survey done on the property, and the contractor who constructed the building measured incorrectly, and there was a letter included in the packet where the contractor took the blame for the mistake. Craft questioned if it would be better for the City to vacate and sell him the portion of the land. Anderson noted this situation would be better suited for an encroachment agreement, rather than a vacate in order to keep the right-of-way line straight and consistent. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Hartleip approve the request for encroachment,subject to that there remains a 2'separation of the sidewalk off of the property line, and the sidewalk remain 1' from the building. Motion carried unanimously. D. Plats 1. Request by VJ Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Menard, Inc. for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Menard-Logan Plaza Minor Plat generally located north of 307 East Donald Street, west of East 4th Street, adjacent to the existing Logan Plaza shopping center to allow for the development of a 214,000 SF Menards store and future commercial outlots. Andera gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the minor plat for the purpose of constructing a new Menards store in the area, as well as developing future commercial outlots. Andera noted that the request would have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood and existing commercial, as it would be providing additional retail opportunities and jobs for residents of north Waterloo. Andera noted that there are no pedestrian sidewalks serving the area, but once further platting and street development occurs in the area, a sidewalk plan may be necessary. Andera noted that currently, Engineering is working on improvements to the Virden Creek Drainage Way, and improvements to this drainage way will allow for more development in the area. Andera noted that the applicants have indicated that a subsequent plats will be submitted for the area in question, including the land north of the proposed Menards building, and that the subsequent plat will lay out the outlots for further development, as well as public and private roads and necessary - 8 - • Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 easements. Moser questioned where access to the plat would be. Andera noted that Heath Street would be extended across Highway 63, and connect into the parking area for the new store, as well as opening up access to the rest of the area to be platted. Schroeder noted that this is a minor plat, and the applicants wanted to separate the lot where the new Menards store would be from the other existing businesses and that the other area will be platted at a future meeting. Craft noted that the preliminary plat shows the Menards store crossing over the lot line between Lot 1 and the unplatted area. Schroeder noted that the area labeled as unplatted will be owned by Menards, and the way it was platted was to ensure they also get ownership of the lot being split off from the parcel to the south. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the preliminary and final plat. Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Items 1. Reminder—August 14, 2007 Special Meeting of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission, 3:00 p.m. Schroeder briefly noted the next meeting times of the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 9 - • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. AUGUST 7,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on August 7, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George, Hart, Hartleip, Grimm,Evans,Fossell, Loveless,Moser, Johnson, and Craft. Members absent were: Burt, Orchard and Powers. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department; and approximately 35 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Fossell to approve the agenda with the removal of Item Al to be tabled to a future meeting. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on July 10, 2007. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: June 2007 Temeyer noted that this was the end of the Fiscal Year, and the budget was right on target, and noted that the budget was met. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for June 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items B. Special Permits 1. Request by Masjid Al Noor Islamic Community Center for a Special Permit to allow for the development of an Islamic community center, including a 5,250 SF building and a 94 stall parking lot generally located south of 1015 South Hackett Road, at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Hackett Road and Sager Avenue in a"C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the establishment of a new Islamic community center. Graham noted that this request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as this would be a good transitional use between the residents to the south of Sager Avenue and the John Deere Health facility to the north of the proposed site. Graham noted that there has been no drainage plan submitted for the site, and that the site will need a storm water detention plan approved by the City Engineer's Office. Graham noted that there are existing utilities in the area that can be extended to serve the site when development occurs. Graham also noted that if a fire suppression system were to be used in the building,the existing water line may not have sufficient pressure, and it may be necessary to connect the 2 dead end lines at the ends of Saint Andrews Drive and Delores Drive, which may sufficiently increase the water Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 pressure. Graham noted that this area in the past has seen sanitary sewer problems, and the Engineering Department has requested to see anticipated flow data for the proposed building. Graham noted that the prayer hall can accommodate 406 people, which would require 102 parking stalls, so the applicant would need to provide 95 parking stalls to meet the Zoning requirements. Graham noted that the site plan does show landscaping,but a more detailed plan will need to be submitted. George questioned if the applicants were aware that on Friday evenings in the fall, that football games would be held at Memorial Stadium located to the west, and if Traffic Operations took this into consideration. Graham noted that Traffic Operations indicated they did not have any concerns with an increase in traffic in the area from the new community center. Gary Rosenkrans, 1214 Delores Drive noted that his biggest objection is with the sewer problem, noting over the past 40 years he has lived there,his basement has been flooded 3 times due to an overloaded sanitary sewer. Rosenkrans also noted that with the football games on Friday nights, he had concerns with traffic conditions in the area, noting that with the two combined activities in the area, it could pose a problem for area children. George noted that recently, the school district has redone the entire parking area around Central Middle School, and there should not be any more parking on the nearby residential streets. Hart questioned if staff would be able to address the sanitary sewer concerns. Thorson noted that their department has requested additional information on the sewer situation from the applicant, but have not received any additional information at this time. Raja Akbar, Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Islamic Center, noted that majority of traffic coming to the site on Fridays will be around noon, and some traffic will be there on Friday evenings, but not to the degree of the afternoon traffic. Hartleip questioned as far as the setback required from the property lines due to the height of the building, if the tall spires on top of the building are included for determining the setback. Schroeder noted that under the Special Provisions, Exceptions and Modifications section of the Zoning Ordinance, there is a provision that would designate these spires as ornamental, and would be exempt from the height requirements. Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road,noted that the sanitary sewer in the area has been horrible in terms of capacity, and being there is no report detailing the amount of additional sewage being added to the system, that this particular request should be tabled until a report is presented by the applicants. Fossell noted that there were no recommendations in the staff report noting that the sanitary sewer and water issues need to be resolved, and that there was nothing in the staff report noting the request needs to go to the Board of Adjustment. Schroeder noted that this request would need to go to the Board of Adjustment, as it is a Special Permit request, and that Water Works has no concerns with water service to the area, but noted that if the applicant plans to install a fire suppression system in the building, a flow test will need to be done on the water system in the area, and it may require that the two dead end hydrants be connected to increase water pressure. Schroeder noted that for the sanitary sewer issues, the City Engineer is waiting on additional flow data from the applicant. George questioned where excess runoff from the site would go due to adding a non-permeable surface. Temeyer noted that the applicant will have to submit a water detention plan for the site, and have a ponding area for water retention in times of heavy rain. Ibrahim Zegar noted that very few people would use the restroom facilities during their prayer services, and feels that this will not substantially affect the sanitary sewer in the area. Craft questioned if there is going to be a kitchen in the building. Zegar noted that the kitchen area is shown on the revised site plan that was provided. It was moved by George, seconded by Grimm to approve the request for Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. -2 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 2. Request by Elizabeth Litzkow for a Special Permit for a rubble fill site within the floodway of Black Hawk Creek and the relocation of a portion of a legal non-conforming salvage yard located at 1720 Black Hawk Road from the south side of Black Hawk Road to the north side of Black Hawk Road in an"A-1"Agricultural District. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit to create a rubble fill site to bring fill into the north yard, and move salvage items from the south yard to the north yard. Schroeder noted in 1993, it was determined by the Iowa Supreme Court that the salvage yard was a legal non-conforming use. Schroeder also noted that the applicants submitted a similar request in 1997, which was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 9, 1997, and denied by the Board of Adjustment on June 24, 1997. Schroeder noted that the applicant is requesting to fill the north yard so that it is one foot above the 100-year floodplain, and then salvage material from the south yard would be moved to the north yard. Schroeder noted that the current salvage yard is within the floodway, and if it is moved to the north yard,it would have a negative impact on the residential properties to the north,as it would be enlarging a legal non- conforming use and moving it closer to the residential area. Schroeder noted that the current flood levee does create some buffer between the salvage yard and residential neighborhood,but staff has received complaints from area residents that the salvage items are visible from their property, even in single story homes. Schroeder noted a previous analysis of the property determined that the existence of the salvage yard creates a 0.3-foot increase in the 100-year flood level, and since that time, illegal filling has been occurring on the site. Schroeder noted that any filling in the floodway is prohibited unless approved by Special Permit (Conditional Use Permit),including both Board of Adjustment approval and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Schroeder noted that the IDNR and FEMA did give their concurrence to fill as proposed back in 1997 as apart of the plan to move to the north side of Black Hawk Road, but the Board of Adjustment denied the Special Permit request. Schroeder noted that the existing salvage yard is not consistent with the designation of the area as agricultural and parks and open spaces on the Future Land Use Map. Schroeder noted that the proposed Special Permit is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals to: 1)preserve and protect the public health,welfare and safety of its residents;2)make land use decisions in accordance with sound planning practices, including separation or mitigation of incompatible land uses; 3) provide and protect land and facilities for parks, recreational opportunities, and open space; and 4) protect and preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as forestland, wetlands and floodplains. Schroeder noted that because the salvage yard in question is located within the "A-1"Agricultural District, and because it is located in the "F-W"Floodway District as well, the use in question is considered a non-conforming use. Schroeder noted that the non-conforming use regulations state that it is the intent of the Ordinance to permit non-conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Schroeder also noted that it is further the intent of the Ordinance that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, or be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the Ordinance (which in this case is considered to be the court ordered boundaries). Schroeder noted that the relocation of the portion of the salvage yard that is located south of Black Hawk Road to the north of Black Hawk Road in an area that exceeds the court approved boundaries would require the issuance of a variance by the Board of Adjustment. Schroeder noted the opposition to the request during the 1997 request, and that the 1997 plot plan indicated that there was 10.5 acres on the south side of the road that would be relocated into 9.4 acres on the north side of the road west of the court-approved boundaries, and that the applicant would also appear to be requesting that the area north of the road and east of the court-approved boundaries also be included in the special permit to allow this area be filled and have salvage material located on it, however no detailed information has been submitted, and if this area is to be included, additional information would need to be provided on existing and proposed contours and additional floodplain analysis. Schroeder noted that the City of Waterloo is currently in, and has been in court regarding compliance of the salvage yard within the court-approved boundaries,and that the City of Waterloo attempted to work with the property owners for acquisition and relocation of the yard to alleviate the Floodway obstructions, but the applicant did not respond to written offers by the City of Waterloo. - 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 Schroeder noted that Engineering indicated additional approval of the Army Corps of Engineers would also be required due to changes in their standards for improvements along a flood control levee. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending that the request be denied, as the request is not in accordance with the Future Land Use Map or the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan,the request is not in accordance with the regulations for a non-conforming use, as it would promote the expansion and survival of an incompatible non-conforming use, and the existence of the salvage yard in this location would continue to have a negative impact on Floodway conditions, even with the removal of the portion of the yard south of Black Hawk Road. Schroeder noted staff has received many calls in opposition to this project, including a call stating that as many as 6 loads of fill were delivered to the site this past weekend. Evans questioned if the City is currently in litigation with the applicant. Schroeder noted that the City is currently in court with the applicant. Evans noted that it would make sense to wait until the litigation is finished, and then make a decision on this request. Schroeder noted that there has been litigation ongoing for several years, and it would be better to proceed. Karen and Brian Johnson, 1631 Lark Lane, noted that other salvage yards they have gotten parts from in the past have some sort of organization to them, but noted this particular yard is a true "junk"yard, having no organization to it and having weeds all over and dilapidated buildings on the property, and it is an eyesore to the neighborhood. Elizabeth Litzkow, 1720 Black Hawk Road, noted she has lived at the property for the past 20 years, and her husband's parents have owned the property since 1967. Litzkow noted that they are a legal non-conforming use due to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in 1993, and noted that the property would not be an eyesore if the salvage operations were moved to the north side of Black Hawk Road, as FEMA would like to see. Litzkow noted there is a 12' tall dike that is at least 100' wide separating the salvage yard from the residences to the north. Litzkow also noted that the situation could be improved if they are allowed to relocate and put up a fence around the salvage yard. Litzkow also noted that neighborhood residents also ride motorized recreational vehicles illegally on the dike, and she has called numerous times to the City, and nothing has ever been done about it. Ed Cunningham, 1555 Lark Lane, noted he pays $4,000 in property taxes a year and does not want to look at the salvage yard. Ed Fritz, 1551 Lark Lane, noted that he walks the top of the dike near his house about 14 times a week, and is very familiar with the area. Fritz noted that he has observed many truck loads of salvage items, such as drywall, bicycle frames, bed frames and mattresses being brought into the property, and he had concerns on what other items are being dropped off at the site that may be potentially harmful to surrounding neighbors. Fritz noted that the Board of Adjustment had denied the applicants request in 1997, and even after this was done, fill is still being brought into the site illegally. Fritz noted that on August 6, 2007, Jones Brother's Trucking delivered a load of fill, and there was a worker there with and end-loader evening the fill out,as well as another truck later in the afternoon. Fritz noted if the applicant is allowed to move its operations across the street and bring fill in,they are essentially raising the elevation of the ground, and items such as semi trailers that are placed there will be more visible to the residents to the north. Fritz also noted that the junkyard is encouraging illegal dumping along Black Hawk Road and the dike. Mike Shaffer, 1749 Lark Lane, noted that there are a lot of tires left in ditches in the surrounding area. Shaffer questioned if there are any soils samples taken of the soil on the site, before any other soil is added to see if there are any contaminates on the property in question. Schroeder noted there is no soil testing done by the City, and suggested that other agencies such as the Black Hawk County Health Department or EPA may have some requirements on this. Gary Rankin of Young Family Foundation noted that the organization owns property west of the salvage yard on the north side of Black Hawk Road, and noted that his organization is not in favor of -4 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 having the salvage yard moving closer to their property. Rankin noted that every year,the property floods, and salvage vehicles are sitting in the floodwaters,thus contaminating the area with oil, gasoline and other vehicle liquids. Forest Dillavou, 1725 Huntington Road, noted that he has lived in the neighborhood for 40 years, and the salvage yard has been there longer then that. Dillavou also noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recently allowed Chase Auto Parts to expand in the floodway, as well as allowing Deery's salvage yard on Airline Highway to begin operations in the floodplain, and the Gold's Gym and Mauer Eye Center to bring fill in and build in the floodplain. Dillavou once again noted that they have received approval from the Iowa Supreme Court as a legal non-conforming use. Schroeder noted that the requests by Deery and Gold's Gym and Mauer Eye Center were granted permission to bring fill into areas designated as Zone-A, 100-year floodplain, and the fill for these projects were not being put in the floodway, which is prohibited by the Ordinance. Hartleip questioned what would be accomplished if the yard were moved from the south side of Black Hawk Road to the north side of the road. Anderson noted that study done by Earth Tech in 1997, which was Rust Engineering at the time, found that if the salvage items on the south side of the road were removed would allow for better flow of floodwaters in that area, and by putting fencing on the north side of the road, it would serve as an extension of the levee system, and there would still be a 0.3 raise in the water level in the area even if the yard was moved to the north side of the road, so the flooding situation would not get any better or any worse if the yard is moved,but it would get the vehicles out of the floodway. Grimm questioned if the applicant plans to move everything from the south salvage yard to the north salvage yard and never use the south yard for salvage purposes again. Litzkow noted that originally, she was going to apply for just a rubble bond, but in order to get approval for the rubble bond, the relocation of the yard had to be included with that request as well. Litzkow noted that if they are allowed to relocate the yard, it will no longer be the on the south side of the road as FEMA has requested. Craft questioned if the salvage yard is operating outside the area designated by the Iowa Supreme Court. Litzkow noted they are not outside their boundaries. Craft also questioned if there is illegal rubble being dumped on the site without the issuance of a rubble permit. Litzkow noted that there has been material dumped on the property due to not being able to install a fence. Craft questioned if vehicles are parked in the Black Hawk Road right-of-way. Litzkow noted there are vehicles in the right-of-way, and they had to be moved there due to flooding in the area. Moser questioned if the applicant has equipment on the proposed north yard to level out fill as it is brought in. Litzkow noted that this past weekend,they had received loads of gravel for their driveway, which the nearby neighbor had observed. Jan Saterlee, 1805 Lark Lane noted that she has lived in that area since 1963, and also noted since 1997, when the City noted to the applicant that they cannot bring any additional rubble onto the site, there has been rubble brought to the site, regardless of what was done in 1997, and that the City has done nothing to enforce this. Saterlee also noted that her husband received a letter from the City Attorney, noting that the applicants would not be able to bring additional rubble onto the site, but has been unable to locate the letter. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Hartleip to deny the request for Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by InVision Architecture on behalf of Allen Hospital for a Special Permit for the expansion of the hospital, including a 70,000 SF three-story addition with three additional future stories, additional parking area, and the relocation of the helipad south of Dale Street at 1828 Logan Avenue Anderson gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the - 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 purpose of expanding Allen Hospital. Anderson noted the request would appear to have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as it will continue Allen's growth and investment in this area. Anderson also noted that the helipad is proposed to be relocated to the south side of Dale Street, directly adjacent to residential homes. Anderson noted that currently, Allen Hospital puts a large amount of cooling water into a nearby drainage way, and with the new expansion planned, Engineering has requested that additional details be submitted. Anderson noted that the setbacks for a hospital require 2 feet for every 1-foot of building height, and that the original plan for a 3-story design will need a variance to the setback. Anderson noted that the 62' 3-story building would need to be 124' from the property line, and currently, the submitted plan shows it 85' from the property line. Anderson also noted that the applicant would need a variance for the building set back when the additional 3-stories are added as well. Anderson noted that the current helipad has about 100 flights per year on average, and the architect on the project has noted that this proposed location for the helipad is the best location, noting that the current location is too far away from the new emergency room. Anderson noted that Allen staff has held 3 neighborhood meetings with neighbors, and there was no opposition shown at the meetings. Hart noted that there is going to be an overall loss of 26 parking spaces, and questioned if Traffic Operations had a concern with additional traffic being added by the expansion. Anderson noted that through e-mail, Traffic Operations did not have any concerns with traffic in the area due to the expansion. Anderson also noted that he had received one letter of opposition to the project from Ernest and Marilyn Newman, 939 Reed Street, who understand the hospitals need to expand, but feel the expansion could be placed in a better place, farther away from residential uses, and also noted that the couple has concerns with the helipad being placed so close to residential homes. Augusta Green, 653 Hope Avenue, noted she lived in the 250' buffer, and questioned when Allen plans to begin the expansion. Eric Ritland of InVision Architecture noted that the plan is to start construction on the project in the fall of this year, and construction is anticipated to take about 18 months Geraldine Brown, 1649 Heath Street, noted that she does not live directly next to the proposed helipad, but she noted that she sympathizes with the neighbors, and believes that there needs to be a different location selected for the helipad. Brown also noted that she is pleased to see the expansion in the area and investment in the area. Celita Flowers, 926 Reed Street,noted she had the concerns with the helicopter landing near the homes, as well as the additional traffic entering and leaving the site. Alice Reed, 1636 Heath Street noted that she is there on the behalf of her sister who could not make it to the meeting, and noted her sister lives at 940 Cutler Street. Reed noted that her sister is not in favor of having the helipad right next to her home, and feels there needs to be a different location for the helipad,noting concerns with the noise it would create. Hartleip questioned how the proposed helipad site was picked as the best location. Ritland noted that his firm looked at 4 possible locations for the helipad,the existing helipad(Option A) on the north side of the hospital, but it was a distance of 975' from that helipad to the new emergency unit, Option B was to locate the helipad on the roof of the new addition, but there were concerns with exhaust fumes entering the building from the helicopter through the air ducts located on top of the roof, as well as a significant cost to put the helipad on the roof, and also with plans to construct an additional 3 stories on top of the building,the helipad would have to be removed, Option C in the southwest corner of the existing parking lot is the closest option, but the location of the helipad is prime space for the emergency room parking for patients and family members. Ritland noted that Option D is the proposed location of the helipad south of Dale Street in an existing paved parking lot, and also noted that there were several meetings with the emergency department staff, and it was determined that this was the most optimal location. - 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 Jay Wilshire, of Allen Hospital noted that all the properties along Heath Street to be vacated are purchased, and there are plans to begin construction of the new parking lots before construction of the new building addition takes place. Wilshire noted that the parking along the southern potion of Heath Street will start this fall, and the parking directly to the north of that will begin in 2008. Johnson noted that Allen Hospital has been an anchor in this neighborhood, and applauds the hospitals expansion, but also noted that Dale Street has traditionally been the dividing line between the hospital and the residential properties to the south, and noted that he felt the helipad goes a little too far encroaching upon the neighborhood. Johnson noted that the helipad needs to be placed somewhere on the north side of Dale Street. Leon Letchford, 935-937 Cutler Street, noted he has owned that particular property for some time now, and he had concerns with the noises at night from the emergency helicopter coming in. Barb Paradine, 1756 Logan Avenue noted that when she was going to her car when a helicopter landed at the existing pad, she did not have a big problem, and suggested there are bigger problems with the semis driving by on Highway 63, and from car stereos. Paradine noted that if this is the best place for the helipad that the Commission should approve to put it there. Tammy O'Connor, 932 Reed Street,noted that the only thing separating the helipad from her property is a chain link fence, and that it is ridiculous for anyone to think that this will provide for a good buffer, and also noted that anyone at this meeting would not want it right next to their house. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Grimm to approve the request for Special Permit with a condition that the helipad be located north of Dale Street Motion carried unanimously. C. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by Allen Hospital to vacate Heath Street and alley between West Donald Street and West Dale Street for the purpose of expanding the existing hospital parking areas at 1825 Logan Avenue Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the vacation in order to expand their parking west of Heath Street. Anderson noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and also noted that access between Donald Street and Dale Street would still be available by way of Columbia Street one block to the west. Anderson noted that Traffic Operations did not have concerns with the proposed vacate. Anderson also noted that the geometrics of where Heath Street intersects with Dale Street and Donald Street needs to be changed so the road does not still appear as a public road, and make it appear as a parking lot entrance. Anderson noted that the proposed vacate may have some impact on the fire rescue routes to the south of Dale Street, and staff is awaiting concerns from Waterloo Fire Rescue, but so far none have been indicated. Anderson noted that an easement needs to be retained for access and utility purposes over the areas to be vacated. Craft questioned if there will be some access restrictions in the new parking lot preventing drivers from going straight through from Dale Street and Donald Street. Ritland noted that the landscaping plan is still in progress, and it has been discussed to put some sort of vegetation screening up that would prevent this segment from being used as a cut through. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the request to vacate, subject to the retention of access and utility easements. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Iowa Northern Railway Company to vacate a portion of East Ridgeway Avenue lying east of Texas Street to allow for the construction of a rail spur. Western gave the staff report, noting the applicant is requesting the approval to vacate a portion of the East Ridgeway Avenue right-of-way for the purpose of constructing a rail spur into their existing site. - 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 Western noted that the request would not have a negative impact on traffic conditions in the area, as Ridgeway Avenue currently dead ends into the IANR tracks, and the IANR will not allow for an at- grade crossing at this intersection, and will not grant the City an easement to cross over the tracks. Western noted that there are utilities running through the portion of right-of-way to be vacated, and a utility easement will need to be retained over,the entire area to be vacated. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate, subject to the retention of the utility easement over the entire area to be vacated. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Midwest Building, Inc. on behalf of Richard Wald for and Encroachment Agreement to allow a 40'x 110' building to encroach 1' into the right-of-way of West 13th Street at 174 West 13th Street, at the southwest corner of Black Hawk Street and West 13th Street Graham gave the staff report noting that the request could have a negative impact, as it would set precedence for other businesses to encroach into the right-of-way. Graham noted that the request would legalize an existing building being constructed 1' onto the city owned right-of-way, which was determined after construction of the building had already begun. Graham noted that the zoning requirement for this particular zoning area requires a 20' front yard setback, but the property received a variance on 11/28/2006 to allow the building to be placed on the property line. Graham also noted that there is a sidewalk located along West 13th Street, and the building would appear to be right up to where the sidewalk was previously located. Graham noted that this sidewalk was removed for construction of the building, and if approved,the replacement of the sidewalk will have to be 2' inside of the right-of-way, so that it maintains a 1' distance from the building. Hartleip questioned how something like this happens and who would be accountable for this. Schroeder noted that there was a survey done on the property, and the contractor who constructed the building measured incorrectly, and there was a letter included in the packet where the contractor took the blame for the mistake. Craft questioned if it would be better for the City to vacate and sell him the portion of the land. Anderson noted this situation would be better suited for an encroachment agreement, rather than a vacate in order to keep the right-of-way line straight and consistent. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Hartleip approve the request for encroachment, subject to that there remains a 2'separation of the sidewalk off of the property line, and the sidewalk remain 1' from the building. Motion carried unanimously. D. Plats 1. Request by VJ Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Menard, Inc. for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Menard-Logan Plaza Minor Plat generally located north of 307 East Donald Street, west of East 4th Street, adjacent to the existing Logan Plaza shopping center to allow for the development of a 214,000 SF Menards store and future commercial outlots. Andera gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the minor plat for the purpose of constructing a new Menards store in the area, as well as developing future commercial outlots. Andera noted that the request would have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood and existing commercial, as it would be providing additional retail opportunities and jobs for residents of north Waterloo. Andera noted that there are no pedestrian sidewalks serving the area, but once further platting and street development occurs in the area, a sidewalk plan may be necessary. Andera noted that currently,Engineering is working on improvements to the Virden Creek Drainage Way, and improvements to this drainage way will allow for more development in the area. Andera noted that the applicants have indicated that a subsequent plats will be submitted for the area in question, including the land north of the proposed Menards building, and that the subsequent plat will lay out the outlots for further development, as well as public and private roads and necessary - 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission August 7,2007 easements. Moser questioned where access to the plat would be. Andera noted that Heath Street would be extended across Highway 63, and connect into the parking area for the new store, as well as opening up access to the rest of the area to be platted. Schroeder noted that this is a minor plat, and the applicants wanted to separate the lot where the new Menards store would be from the other existing businesses and that the other area will be platted at a future meeting. Craft noted that the preliminary plat shows the Menards store crossing over the lot line between Lot 1 and the unplatted area. Schroeder noted that the area labeled as unplatted will be owned by Menards, and the way it was platted was to ensure they also get ownership of the lot being split off from the parcel to the south. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the preliminary and final plat. Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Items 1. Reminder—August 14,2007 Special Meeting of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission, 3:00 p.m. Schroeder briefly noted the next meeting times of the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 6:15p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary - 9 - • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M.JULY 10,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on July 10, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George, Orchard, Hart, Powers, Grimm, Evans, Fossell, Loveless,Moser, and Craft Members absent were: Burt, Hartleip and Johnson. Others present: Don Temeyer,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera— Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department; and approximately 15 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Evans to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 5, 2007 and the Minutes from the Special Meeting on June 12, 2007. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: May 2007 Temyer noted that expenses were right on track and revenue was a bit behind,but there was a land sale in June that will help with revenue. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Orchard to receive and place on file the financial report for May 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations No oral presentations were given. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by David Milligan to rezone approximately 1.67 acres from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R-2"Residence District on property located at 3458 E. Shaulis Road, '/4 mile west of Cedar Terrace Drive for the purpose of allowing the existing home to be split off onto a smaller lot(existing lot is 1.31 acres, 1.69 acres less than the 3 acre minimum lot size in the"A-1"Agricultural District) It was moved by Powers and seconded by Evans to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone from "A-1" Planning and Zoning Commission July 10,2007 to "R-2" for the purpose of splitting off the current house on the property at 3458 E. Shaulis Road onto a smaller lot, and brining the house into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance due to it not meeting the minimum lot size in the"A-1"District. Andera noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area of the City as Low Density Residential, and the"R-2" zoning would be appropriate for the area, and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Andera noted that the existing house was built in 1969,the year the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and that a house is not a permitted use within the"A-1"District,unless the home is built prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and on a minimum of 3 acres of land. Andera noted that the owner cannot split the property without a rezone and have the house on a smaller parcel of land, as they would be increasing the non-conformity of the lot size. Andera noted that the existing homes across the street are zoned"R-2", and also noted that nearby subdivisions are zoned for residential development as well. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Orchard to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Evans to approve the request for rezoning. Motion carried unaimously. 2. Request by Richard Schmidt and Dee Ann Francis, on behalf of John Deere Employee Credit Union (Veridian Credit Union) to rezone approximately 3.64 acres from"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District to "R-1"Residence District on property located at 2000 E. Donald Street, at the southeast corner of the intersection of Donald Street and Sage Road for the purpose of allowing the former credit union building to be converted into a single-family home. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Fossell to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone for the purpose of converting the former credit union building into a single-family dwelling. Graham noted that staff does have concerns with the rezone, specifically noting that the rezone could have a negative impact on the area, as it could open the door for more residential development in that area, where there is currently limited City services, with no public sewer, and the site utilizing a septic system. Graham noted that the building is served by City water. Graham noted that the lot size is 3.64 acres, and this could amount to the creation of approximately 17 new lots if the property were to be subdivided, and if the rezone were approved, staff would recommend that the property be limited to the reuse of the existing building with no new homes allowed to be built on the lot. Graham noted that the former credit union building is vacant, as the company moved their operations to the Logan Avenue Hy-Vee Store, and the reuse of the building would possibly prevent the building from being vacant for a long period of time. Graham also noted that the majority of the surrounding farm land is zoned"M-2,P" Planned Industrial District, and the potential buyer should be aware that one day,the adjacent areas could be developed into industrial uses, creating additional noise, light and traffic. Schroeder noted that since the staff report was produced, the applicant has expressed concerns on only being allowed for the reuse of the existing building, and feels that this could potentially create problems in the future when trying to sell the property once again. Schroeder noted that staff is acceptable with amending the condition that the existing building can be converted into a residence, or a one new residential structure can replace the existing building, with no additional residential structures being allowed on the property. Moser questioned if the applicant could add a garage or other accessory building to the property. Schroeder noted if the rezone to "R-1"were approved,the zoning would allow for him to be able to construct an accessory structure. Grimm questioned if the applicant would still be able to convert this building into a residential structure if the property were zoned"A-1". Schroeder noted 2 Planning and Zoning Commission July 10,2007 that the building could not be converted, as a dwelling is only permitted in the "A-1" District built prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder also noted that staff looked at rezoning the area to "R-R"Rural Residential District, which was recently created as a zoning designation for rural residential areas that foresee no additional City services extended out into specific areas for some time. Schroeder noted that the surrounding area does have the potential for additional City services to be extended in that direction someday as development of the Northeast Industrial Park occurs, and staff felt when that does happen,the intent of the "R-R"District would no longer be applicable, as well as noting that the rezoning to "R-1"with the specific conditions would be sufficient enough to control residential development in the area. Craft questioned if the portion of the property that has the building on it could just be rezoned to"R-1". Schroeder noted he discussed this possibility with the realtor, and they noted this could be looked at as an option. Schroeder noted that there would then be the issue on what to do with the remaining land zoned"M-2,P" on the lot after the rezone occurs, as well as noting if the applicant plans to build an accessory building, and it was located in the "M- 2,P", it would be subject to additional site plan review under the "M-2,P"Zoning Ordinance. Hart questioned if once City services are available in this area, could a developer potentially come back and develop this area into more homes. Schroeder noted that it could potentially happen, but also noted that it is being looked at to change the Future Land Use Map in this area to Industrial from the current Low Density Residential designation. Temeyer noted that if the Commission approves the conditions proposed by staff,these conditions would be in place unless they are later removed by a formal public hearing. Richard Schmidt,noted that he is interested in purchasing the piece of land, and noted that he has concerns if he were to sell the land someday,that the restrictions of not being able to build a single- family home on the lot would hinder his ability to sell the land. Schmidt noted he has no intentions to build a large amount of houses, and just wishes to renovate the building, but also noted that the next person who buys the land may not want to live in the existing building, and would be more interested in building a new single-family home. Schmidt noted if the Commission chooses to keep the condition that only the building can be renovated, and no other residential structure can be built on the land, it might eventually pose a problem in him recouping some of his costs. Hart noted that the proposed amendment to the conditions would provide the applicant the ability to sell off the property and have a potential buyer be able to build a new single-family home on the property subject to the original building being removed. Mary Scholenbarger of Veridian Credit Union noted they support the request for the rezone, and also noted that they will work with the new owner of the land to get the monument sign currently on the property removed correctly. Vince McFadden noted that he farmed the land on the opposite side of E. Donald Street, directly across the street from the former credit union site, as well many other adjacent properties, and noted that usually, it is not the first buyer of a property you have problems with, it is usually buyers that follow, specifically noting future buyers may want to develop additional homes on the property. McFadden noted he supported the staff conditions, and does not want to see a large housing development happen in this area, and would rather see industrial development happen in this area. Fossell questioned if the applicant chose to rent the land to a farmer,would that be a legal use under this type of request. Temeyer noted that would be legal under the requested zoning. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Fossell to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission July 10,2007 It was moved by Evans, seconded by George to approve the request for rezoning subject to amended staff recommendations that 1) the property be limited to the conversion of the existing building into a residence only, or the replacement of the existing building with a residence, and that no additional residences be allowed on the property, and 2) the existing monument sign located on the property be removed. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by the City of Waterloo on behalf of Chase Auto Parts to rezone approximately 1.81 acres from "A-1"Agricultural District to"M-1" Light Industrial District on property located at 1041-1117 Sheffield Avenue along the former Mill Race between Mitchell Avenue and Easton Avenue. It was moved by Evans and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant has gone through the Special Permit process to have a salvage yard located in the encroachment areas along the former Mill Race on June 27, 2006, however it was overlooked that the encroachment areas in the Mill Race are zoned"A-1"Agricultural District, and a recycling business is permitted in an"M-1"or"M-2"zoning district upon issuance of a Special Permit. Schroeder also noted that on June 26, 2007, Chase Auto Salvage received a variance to not have to place a fence around the east side of the south yard in the floodway district,to avoid the obstruction of floodwaters. Schroeder noted that portions of the former encroachment areas within the north yard of Chase Auto are protected by the flood levee, while the portion of the former encroachment area in the south yard abutting the Mill Race are within a floodway district. Schroeder noted the Zoning Ordinance regulations for recycling yards prohibit salvage materials in the floodway, however, the area in question has been used as part of the salvage yard since before 1974, when the current owners purchased the business,prior to adoption of floodplain regulations in 1985. Schroeder noted that the rezoning of the two strips of land along the Mill Race,which have already been conveyed to Chase Auto have already been approved for a Special Permit for use as a part of a recycling yard, and would appear to be consistent with the other surrounding recycling yards in the area and the designation of the area as industrial on the Future Land Use Map. Pat Rooff, 1005 Sheffield Avenue,noted that according to the staff report, a portion of the salvage yard is located within the floodway, and wanted to verify this was correct. Schroeder noted that this was correct. Rooff questioned if the land to the east of 1003 Lowell Avenue,just abutting the northern portions of Chases' Auto Salvage yard was being included in the rezone request. Schroeder noted this portion of land is not located within the rezoning request. Rooff noted he had nine questions he wanted to present to the Commission,and felt the decision to rezone should be tabled until these questions are answered. Rooff noted his questions were; 1) Is the rezoning of this land clearing up a mistake made by the City, 2) Is this land in the floodplain, 3) Is the proposed use of this land considered a principle permitted use or a exceptionally permitted conditional use, 4)Have all the floodplain minimum protection level requirements been assessed as to the proposed use of this land, 5) Are there any restricted uses associated with this land in terms of it being located within the floodway, 6)Does any portion of this land that the City is requesting to be rezoned abut or lay within the 50-year flood bypass channel, 7)Has an emergency management hazard mitigation human intervention plan been approved, and is it on file with the Planning and Zoning Department, and 8) Are there any active or passive trails and/or recreational areas in close proximity to this land or are any proposed for the future? Schroeder went through the Rooff's questions,noting that 1)the City of Waterloo is clearing up a mistake that was made in the past by allowing a salvage yard operation in an"A-1"District. Schroeder noted that 2)the northern portion of the rezone is located within the 500-year floodplain, and the southern portion of the rezone is located within the floodway. Schroeder noted that 3)the use of the land is an exceptionally permitted conditional use, noting that the specific pieces of property have already gone through a Special Permit process, and were approved. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission • July 10,2007 Schroeder noted that 4)the portion of floodway has been used for salvage yard purposes since prior to 1974, and floodplain regulations were not adopted until 1985. Schroeder noted that 5)he could go through the floodplain regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, but with the land being used for salvage yard purposes before the adoption of the floodplain regulations,they would be grandfathered in. Schroeder noted that 6) he is unaware of what the 50-year flood bypass channel is, and possibly the engineering department could address this. Schroeder noted that 7)he is unaware of what an emergency management hazard mitigation human intervention plan is, and is unaware of any such plan on file with the Planning and Zoning Department. Schroeder finally noted that 8)the ground to the east is the Riverview Recreation Area, and there are currently plans in the works to expand the trails and develop the park in the area. Moser questioned if the encroachment areas are being used for salvage yard purposes, noting the aerial photo appears to have no salvage items within the encroachment areas. Schroeder noted that the majority of the encroachment does have salvage items within it. Rooff questioned if the Commission could also vote to rezone the portion of land to the north of the salvage yard to "M-1", instead of having to do that at a separate meeting. Schroeder noted that this piece of land was not included within the rezoning application. Temeyer noted that as it is still owned by the City of Waterloo, rezoning of land requires that a notification be sent out to property owners within 250' of the property. Tony Wilber of Wilber Auto Salvage noted he had concerns with the Mill Race being filled in as this has occurred in the past, and noted that this raises the water level in times of flooding, and force the waters onto his property. Wilber also noted that property owners to the south filled in portions of the Mill Race, and since then it has diverted more water onto his land. Temeyer noted that if any individual proposes to put fill into the Mill Race,it would require a rubble fill permit, and did not know of any additional fill in the Mill Race, and could research this with the Engineering Department. Moser questioned where Wilber Auto Salvage was located in proximity to the rezone. Wilber noted it was south of the property in question. Moser noted he had concerns with having a salvage yard in the floodplain, and questioned if it is legal to have a salvage yard in the floodplain. Schroeder noted that new salvage yards are prohibited in the floodway,however, existing yards in the floodplain or floodway may be grandfathered in. Fossell questioned if since Chase Auto Salvage has been inadvertently using this land for salvage purposes, the City is making it a legal use by rezoning the land to "M-1". Schroeder noted that was correct. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Evans to approve the request for rezoning subject to Pat Rooff's questions being answered prior to the City Council making their final decision. Motion carried 9-1 with Fossell voting against. 4. Request by the City of Waterloo for an Amendment to the City of waterloo Zoning Ordinance: Front Yard Required and More than One Residential Principal Permitted Use per Lot. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the Commission is continuing their review of the Zoning Ordinance, and also noted that staff felt the Front Yard Required area and More than One Residential Principal Permitted Use per Lot should be moved forward, as well as noting the suggested changes to be made to the provisions. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Evans to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission July 10,2007 It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the request for multiple amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Request by the City of Waterloo for an Amendment to the City of Waterloo Comprehensive Plan creating multiple updates to the Future Land Use Map. Schroeder gave an overview noting areas of change on the Future Land Use Map due to various reasons such as: wrong land designations, current development trends, anticipated development trends and recent annexations. Schroeder noted that the Comprehensive Plan requires that the Commission hold a public hearing prior to any changes to the Future Land Use Map. Schroeder noted that by the former Veridian Credit Union site on E. Donald Street, staff has been discussing changing the future land use designation to Industrial from Low Density Residential, which would be consistent with the fact that the area is zoned"M-2,P". Schroeder also noted that areas of the City that have been recently annexed in, such as areas of George Wyth State Park and the Ferguson site will need to have a future land use designation applied to them. Schroeder noted that former Chamberlain site still will remain as industrial, as it has not been determined what the future use of that land will be since there are still plans in the works for the former industrial site, and that a future amendment for that site may be needed. Vince McFadden questioned what Schroeder meant by changing the Future Land Use Map to Industrial by the former Veridian site on E. Donald Street, and questioned what the white area on the map meant by the Skyview Drive area where he currently farms. Schroeder noted that if the Future Land Use Map is changed to Industrial near the former Veridian site, it would mean the City would anticipate future industrial growth for that particular area, and the white area on the map near the Skyview Drive area is meant for agricultural purposes. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Evans, seconded by Grimm to approve the amendments to the Future Land Use Map. Motion carried unanimously. B. Street Namings Western gave the staff report, noting that Tyson is planning to extend a new public street from their employee parking lot, south to MLK Drive to separate where semi traffic and employee traffic currently enter the site, approximately 'A mile west of the intersection of MLK Drive and N. Elk Run Road. Western noted that currently, semi traffic and employees currently share the same entrance to the plant off of N. Elk Run Road. Vince McFadden questioned if this is the piece of land that split his farmland just to the south of Tyson a few years back, and a road was never developed. Schroeder noted this is the piece of land that split his farmland, and Tyson is currently ready to extend a public roadway through the area, noting the right-of-way has already been established. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Fossell to approve the public street naming. Motion carried unanimously. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission July 10,2007 C. Discussion Items 1. Reminder—August 14,2007 Special Meeting of the Planning,Programming and Zoning Commission, 3:00 p.m. Schroeder briefly noted the next meeting times of the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 7 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—3:00 P.M. MAY 8,2007 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:09 p.m. by Acting Chairperson Moser on May 8, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George, Loveless, Fossell, Powers, Craft, Moser, Hartleip and Grimm. Members absent were: Orchard, Burt, Evans, Johnson and Hart Others present: Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham and Tim Andera—Planning Department A. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that at last month's special meeting, the Commission had gotten through reviewing up to page 139 and had just reviewed parts of the Special Provisions, Exceptions and Modifications section, and Schroeder noted that the Commission is ready to start reviewing subsection H, Special Permit Required of the same section. Schroeder noted that a public building requires the issuance of a Special Permit, and also noted that now, specific uses of land for a public purpose, such as a golf course or the new downtown exposition grounds require a Special Permit as well. Schroeder noted that additional public facilities were added to subsection 6, noting that similar outdoor recreational facilities were being included as part of the Special Permit process. Schroeder noted that some of those specific uses include commercial baseball fields, swimming pools, skating, golf courses or country clubs, golf driving ranges, or similar open air recreational uses and facilities, excluding public or private parks or recreational trails, or accessory uses incidental with a park or recreational trail. Hartleip questioned what a commercial baseball field would be. Schroeder noted that Riverfront Stadium would be considered a commercial baseball field, and noted that the softball complex on Longfellow Street would not be considered a commercial field. Schroeder noted that for adult businesses, a reference to its specific zoning ordinance has been added under the Special Permit section. Schroeder noted that there are very few changes to the salvage yard/recycling yard subsection. Fossell noted that she has seen some salvage yards stack junk higher than the fences around the facility. Schroeder noted that it has been discussed to possibly raise the maximum fence regulations from 8' to 10'. Schroeder also noted that salvage yards are allowed to stack 2 cars higher than the fence height, and that other salvage materials may be up to 48' in height. Craft and Grimm both noted that it should be considered raising the maximum height to 10'. Grimm noted that if it is raised to 10', it may allow the salvage yard to stack a couple more cars on a pile, thus reducing the amount of land needed for the operation. Schroeder noted that items 15 thru 22 on page 141 are newly added items to the Special Permit section, noting uses such as mining, mini-storage, cellular towers, kennels,public utility structures, contractor business equipment yards, off-premise advertising signs and billboards when exceeding 300 square feet, as well all heavy industrial uses listed in Part XVI, 2A-37 (A)(4)would need to go through a Special Permit process. Schroeder read the newly added provision, stating staff is able to approve some Special Permit requests as minor after there is an administrative review by the Planning Department. Fossell questioned what the process is for determining if a project is minor. Schroeder noted that the location of construction on a lot, size of construction, replacement or change of signage, or change in the locations access, driveways or parking areas are some of the criteria used to consider if it is a minor change. Andera noted that recently, a Special Permit request was signed off as minor for a church requesting to place a 12'x 16' utility shed on their lot. Andera noted that some of the things looked at to approve it as Planning and Zoning Commission May 8,2007 Minutes minor were if there was sufficient screening from the new building and the neighborhood,where it was being placed on the lot, and what the use of the building would be. Andera also noted that the nearby condominiums faced away from the proposed structure. Fossell noted that there should be a policy drawn up on how to determine if a request is minor, stating the City needs to cover their footsteps. Hartleip noted that a log should be kept of all issues considered minor and given to the Commission at their monthly Planning and Zoning meetings. Craft noted that he felt increasing a buildings overall floor area by 50% seemed high to be considered as a minor change, and felt it should be at 25%. Schroeder noted that subsection K, Subdividing of Lots, had some additional language included, noting that the provision is rather confusing. Commission members suggested that the average width requirement for newly subdivided lots be removed from the provision. Schroeder noted there is some additional wording being added on where a mobile home can be placed in the City. Grimm noted that mobile homes used after a natural disaster should be added to the list of allowed structures. The Commission left off on page 141, and will continue at the next Special Meeting on subsection N, Adult Businesses. 2. Date and time for the next Special Meeting Schroeder noted the next Special Meeting would be held on June 12, 2007 in the Council Chambers at 3:00 p.m. I. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, a4e-T'-e3eLe-ogi Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 2 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. MAY 1,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on May 1, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt, Craft, Powers, Grimm, Johnson, Hartleip, Loveless,Moser, and Hart Members absent were: George,Evans, Fossell, and Orchard. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department; and approximately 35 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Burt, seconded by Hartleip to approve the agenda with the amendment to combine agenda items B1 & 2 as one action, as well as combining agenda items B3 & 4 as one action. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on April 3,2007 and the Minutes from the Special Meeting on April 10, 2007. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: March 2007 Temeyer noted that currently the budget is at 77%,with expenses a little ahead of revenues,noting that there is a pending property sale for over$40,000, and this property should be closed before the June 30, 2007 deadline for the end of the fiscal year, significantly bringing up the revenues of the budget. Burt questioned if the budget is revenue driven. Temeyer noted that the majority,roughly 75%, of the budget is driven by property taxes. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for March 2007. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations Bill Kammeyer of 526 Home Park Boulevard addressed the Commission, noting he was very pleased with the Planning and Zoning Commission's April, 3, 2007 meeting regarding the proposed coal fired plant on the northeast side of the City as well as noting what he thought was the most productive public meeting that has ever been held in the City of Waterloo. Kammeyer noted that the bar has been raised in Waterloo, noting that the meeting was very well presided over, and that other government entities should look as this meeting as an example to go by. Kammeyer noted that a Commissioner's job is a tough one when important decisions like the coal plant need to be decided, and the Commission did a very good job handling that pressure. Kammeyer noted that people were given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the issue, noting they were allowed to go over their 3 minute speaking limit, and that nobody should have left the Council Chambers feeling like they didn't have a chance to say what they thought about the project. Planning and Zoning Commission May 1,2007 V. Agenda Items A. Special Permits 1. Request by the City of Waterloo for a Speical Permit for the development of the development of the Waterloo RiverLoop Expo,including exhibition grounds for community gathering space,outdoor exhibit space for conventions and trade shows, and a year-round indoor public market, generally located between Park Avenue and W. 3rd Street, and between Commercial Street and Washington Street Graham gave the staff report noting that the City of Waterloo is requesting approval for the purpose of developing the Waterloo RiverLoop Exposition grounds in Downtown Waterloo. Graham noted the property in question is located between Park Avenue and W. 3rd Street, and between Commercial Street and Washington Street directly adjacent to Community National Bank and Operation Threshold. Graham also noted that the property is located in Zone-B, 500-year floodplain,however, the property is protected by the flood levee. Graham noted that the City of Waterloo recently completed the"Waterloo Downtown Redevelopment Master Plan",which divides the downtown area into districts and lays out a plan for short and long term development. Graham noted the City owns all of the area where the proposed grounds would go, and also noted that 4 buildings on the corner of Park Avenue and Jefferson Street would be demolished, and the former Chemlawn Building at the corner of West 3rd and Washington Street would remain as part of the project and be utilized as the public market area,which would provide space for local food producers to bring their produce and other products and sell to local residents. Graham noted that the exposition grounds are an important part of the downtown plan, and City leaders hope that the new grounds will attract trade shows and conventions, as well as additional new developments to the downtown area. Graham noted that at the Technical Review Committee meeting,Traffic Superintendent Sandi Greco had some concerns in making sure that the same amount of leased stalls,which will be removed for the project,would be available after the redevelopment is complete,noting that currently the Courier, Library, two banks and Operation Threshold currently lease these parking stalls from the City. Graham noted that the City is developing a parking management plan to address this issue. Burt questioned if this plan was dealing with the entire downtown redevelopment plan,or if it is being taken a step at a time. Graham noted the downtown plan is being done a step at a time, specifically noting that requests for the new Cedar River dam and downtown amphitheater came through as individual requests. Burt noted that he was wondering why all the downtown projects were not just approved under one Special Permit. Temeyer noted that a few years ago, the entire downtown plan was approved,but noted that each individual project is being brought before the Commission for their review so comments, questions and suggestions can be heard, as well as examining how the new projects will affect surrounding properties, traffic, land use, etc. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Burg Investments LLC for a Special Permit for more than one residential structure on a lot to allow for the development of 5 duplexes in addition to 2 existing duplexes on two lots at 121- 127 Eros Drive off of Rainbow Drive. Schroeder noted that he would hold off on giving the entire staff report, noting that staff is recommending tabling of the request due to opposition of the development, and based on the fact that the applicant is requesting that the item be tabled. Schroeder also noted that a petition against the development has been submitted to Planning staff. Schroeder also noted that he received calls from Karen Kerr, 122 Periwinkle, Tom and Judy Allen, 1163 Rainbow,Joe Prior, 1151 Rainbow,Bill 2 Planning and Zoning Commission May 1,2007 Rhodes, 1150 Rainbows, Brian Ballheim, 69 Joy, and Scott Schneider of 1150 Pleasant Valley Drive, and they wanted to go on record as being opposed to the project. Adam Burg of Burg Construction noted he would like to hold a neighborhood meeting to hear and address any concerns the neighbors have about the project and asked that the Commission table the request. Hart questioned how the residents would be notified of the meeting. Burg noted they would be notified by mail. Judy Allen of 1163 Rainbow Drive noted that numerous neighbors had taken time off of work to be there for the 4 o'clock meeting to speak in opposition to the project, and if it is tabled, these residents will have to take time off again to make the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Allen also noted that her, as well as the other neighbors would still be opposed to the project even after meeting with the developer. Johnson noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation only on the Special Permit, and the actual public hearing would be held in front of the Board of Adjustment. Johnson also noted that any time the developer can meet with the neighborhood to discuss it is a good thing. It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Hartleip to table the request until the developer has time to meet with neighbors and discuss possible changes to the plan, then resubmit to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried 8-1 with Burt voting against. 3. Request by Michael Douglas for a Special Permit to allow for the conversion of the former Lincoln School at 942 Newton Street into a community center. Western gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting that the Commission approve the request for a Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a community center at the corner of Burton Avenue and Newton Street in the former Lincoln School. Western noted the first phase of the conversion would only involve the gym area,while the applicant works out other details required by the Building Department, such as retro fitting of the building to meet the requirements of the Building Code. Western also noted that the applicant has already received approval to use the gym,provided that a fire door is installed between the gym and the rest of the building. Western noted the site plan proposes future hard surface parking adequate for this site,which includes approximately 60,000 SF that can be utilized for parking. Western also noted if it became necessary there is also a hard surfaced playground area and basketball courts that could be converted into parking directly along West Parker Street. Craft questioned if the gym was going to be a commercial operation, such as fees paid by a membership. Michael Douglas noted that there would be no fees paid by the youth, as well as the elderly utilizing the building. Douglas also noted that one of the goals of the center is to take the knowledge from the elderly and relay it back to the youth. Douglas noted that plans and goals for the center include entrepreneurial courses,workshops where the youth can build furniture or other items,teach the kids how to find a part-time job,make their own money, learn responsibility,keep them off of the streets and build character. Douglas also noted that other plans and goals, once the operations move further along include an art studio,radio studio, as well as a television studio,with Douglas noting he has 20 years of experience in broadcasting. Douglas noted that on the northern side of the community, there is a lack of programs for the youth, and feels his new project would be a much needed asset. Douglas noted that he wants this community center to be more than a place just to play basketball,he wants this new community center to teach the youth in the areas new skills that they can apply to future jobs and situations that arise during their lifetime,noting the center plans to work with Iowa Workforce Development to teach employment skills and provide an opportunity for individuals to find employment. Craft questioned where the financial support for the center would be 3 Planning and Zoning Commission May 1,2007 coming from. Douglas noted they are currently waiting on grants to come through as a source of funding, as well selling products that are made by students through the workshops offered there,such as selling farm produce that would come from the Logan Middle School Greenhouse, which the community center plans to partner with. Moser questioned what the status was of a similar project to this in a school located off of E. 4th Street. Douglas noted that was the former Krieg School,which is owned by Walter Reed, and currently the building is sitting vacant. Douglas noted that there is nowhere on the east side to hold a wedding reception, class reunion or other large event, and also noted that the school contains a kitchen, stage and gymnasium. Johnson noted that he would like to see this school redeveloped and have a new community gathering place for the neighborhood,but also noted he wants to be guaranteed that this will be a well run facility and does not want to see it go under and have the school sit vacant once again. Douglas noted that there is a rescission clause, and if the project is not underway by this fall,the organization will lose possession of the building. Douglas noted he could not guarantee where his money would be coming from, but noted he has invested some of his money into the project, and does not want to see the project fail. Loveless questioned what Douglas meant when he said"we", questioning if the Optimist Club was involved with the project. Douglas noted that he and his wife are fully involved with the project, and noted the Optimist Club is interested in participating in the venture. Douglas noted there would be a governing board for the new community center to ensure that the facility is a well maintained and well run organization. Loveless noted that it has already been approved for Douglas to begin using the gymnasium to get the program off of the ground,but questioned if Douglas had a time frame for when other parts of the building would be used when expansion occurs. Douglas noted there is a lot of school supplies stored in the building from other schools, such as chairs, desks, etc. and plan to auction off some of those items for seed money, and noted that additional funding allows for future expansion of the project. Powers noted that he commends Mr. Douglas for his ideas for this building, but also noted he would feel more comfortable about the project if he was able to view a business plan, grant applications,where the community funding would come from. Powers also noted he had concerns with the restroom facilities, and if he remembered correctly, that restrooms are not near the gym, and questioned how kids are going to be kept from roaming the building. Douglas noted there is a restroom on the first floor and invited Powers to come and tour through the building to answer some of the concerns he had. Douglas noted that the stairs will be blocked off, and also noted that there is a restroom near the new fire door that is being installed just off of the gym. Powers questioned if Douglas has filed for any grant applications. Douglas noted he has filed some grant applications, and he has been working with attorney Ken Nelson to file for a non-profit status, as well as noting he can not discuss who he has filed for grant applications with until they receive their non- profit status. Hartleip questioned if the main source of income would be coming from program and rental fees, and how were the estimates for rental charges determined. Douglas noted the organization plans on renting out the gymnasium for wedding parties, class reunions and other large events, and the rental estimates were determined by what other venues charge, such as the National Cattle Congress. Powers questioned if Douglas and the organization planned on maintaining the current playground equipment and green space. Douglas noted they plan on maintaining the playground equipment, as well as the basketball court. Douglas also noted they have plans to move some of the playground equipment onto one of the basketball courts, then creating the former playground area into additional parking for the facility. Temeyer noted that the facility cannot be just a dancehall, noting staff has discussed this with Douglas that dances have to be incidental to the operations of the community center, such as a wedding dance occurring twice a month. Douglas noted that the community center would not be a dancehall at all times. Todd Eckstrom, 1111 Burton Avenue,noted he was opposed to the project, specifically noting there is some vagueness on where the funding for the project will come from, as well as the amount of the parking required for the facility. Schroeder noted that it has been discussed with the applicant at possibly using the paved area where the basketball hoops currently are on the corner of West Parker 4 Planning and Zoning Commission May 1,2007 Street and Burton Avenue. Eckstrom questioned how they are going to gain access to this area,being there is currently no connection to the surrounding streets. Schroeder noted that Engineering would have to review a request to gain new access to either Burton or West Parker if the current basketball court is turned into additional parking. Burt noted that there is an access point off of Newton Street, which was used by school staff to gain access to parking areas. Schroeder noted that there is a small parking area near the gymnasium on the back of the school,however, the area is very small and automobile maneuvering is very restricted. Schroeder also noted that when the building was being used as a school, the parking was not hard surfaced, and the parking lot surfaces were grandfathered in, however,being that the use of the building is being changed,the non-conforming parking surfaces must be upgraded to hard surfacing. Schroeder noted that staff has discussed with the applicant about possibly issuing a temporary variance to allow the applicant to do the hard surfaced parking in phases to help the community center establish some sort of financial stability. Eckstrom also noted he has made numerous complaints to the City and school district,noting that the fire escape on the building is very unsafe, and has seen numerous unsupervised children who are climbing on the old fire escape, noting no one has been seriously injured,but that will eventually happen. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Loveless to approve the Special Permit subject to 1) that the applicant work with the Building Department to bring the building within the current building codes and meet all such requirements, 2) that the applicant also work with the Engineering Department on phasing in appropriate off street parking as the building is renovated, and 3) that the applicant provides the Board of Adjustment with a detailed report, noting how much the cost will be to bring the building up to code, and where additional funding and finances for the project will be coming from. Motion carried unanimously. B. Plats 1&2. Request by Helland Engineering on behalf of David and Donna Heideman for the Preliminary and Final plat of Huffman Addition generally located at 191 Belle Street for development of a 4-lot subdivision. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the preliminary and final plat of Huffman Addition for the purpose of establishing a 4-lot subdivision. Andera noted the subdivision would be served by private Belle Street,which would begin at the eastern edge of the plat and dead end on the western edge of the plat, and it would appear the private street would not have a negative impact on traffic conditions in the area. Andera also noted that the private street is listed on both the preliminary and final plats as a 52.8' private ingress/egress access easement. Andera noted the plat consists of 3.28 acres,with lot sizes ranging from 25,600 SF to 50,100 SF. Andera also noted that the northern portions of Lots 3 and 4 have both 100-year and 500-year floodplains, however, there is sufficient enough room between the floodplain and building line to build a new home, as well as noting that Lot 4 already has a house on it. Andera noted that the majority of the surrounding land uses,with the exception of the Cedar River to the north, are more of a suburban residential neighborhood, having larger lot sizes and greater setbacks, and it would appear the new development would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Hartleip to approve the request for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Huffman Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 3&4. Request by Kess and Associates, Inc. on behalf of Jerald Quint and Stacy Folkers for the Preliminary and Final plat of Quint-Folkers Subdivision generally located at 5640 Kimball Avenue, 1/8 mile north of Sidehill Drive for the purpose of developing a 3-lot subdivision. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission May 1,2007 Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the preliminary and final plat for the purpose of establishing a 3-lot subdivision. Schroeder noted that the applicant had previously requested a 4-lot subdivision with the establishment of a private street,but have since revised the plan, eliminating the private street and 1 lot. Schroeder noted the lot sizes range from 1 acre to 5 acres, and that all 3 lots have frontage onto Kimball Avenue. Schroeder noted that the previous plan showed the private street coming off of Kimball Avenue,however, Engineering was requiring that access to the lots be off of the private street. Schroeder noted that the revised plat and deed of dedication has been submitted. Schroeder also noted that Engineering has noted that the right-of-way along the frontage of Lot 2 is uneven and has requested that the east 7' of Lot 2 be dedicated for public right-of-way purposes, of which is included with the plat. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Moser to approve the request for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Quint-Folkers Subdivision. Motion carried unanimously. C. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by Jeff Reeves to vacate an 8'8"utility easement as platted along the south property line at 155 Trible Road to allow for the construction of a new garage. Andera gave the staff report,noting the applicant is requesting the approval of a utility easement vacate for the purpose of constructing a new garage parallel to the south property line. Andera noted there are no public or private utilities running through the proposed easement to be vacated, as well as noting there are utilities running through the easement on the rear portion of the lot,however, this easement would not be affected by the vacate. Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to build a 22'x 26'detached garage with a minimum 3' side yard set. Andera also noted that the applicant plans to have a paved access from the front of the house to the new garage. Craft questioned if there is another easement on the north property line. Andera noted there is an easement on the other property line opposite this one, and it will remain. Moser questioned why a developer platted all these easements around each lot. Schroeder noted that he believes the developer was unsure where the utilities would be put and just platted easements around all edges to ensure that there would be a dedicated area for utilities to be placed. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Craft to approve the request to vacate an 8'8"utility easement. Motion carried unanimously. D. Discussion/Possible Action Items Schroeder gave a reminder that the Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting would be held on May 8, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Terry Sterner of Interstate Brands(Wonder Bread Plant) 325 Commercial Street, noted that he is aware that the Waterloo RiverLoop and Exposition Grounds is moving forward and has concerns on how the new development will affect the operation of his business. Temeyer noted that the exposition grounds should not have an affect on the business. Sterner noted he had concerns with the streets being blocked off during large events,noting the company moves 18 to 20 trucks per day, as well as ingredient trucks coming to the site as well. Temeyer noted that it was noted in the staff report that the only street that is planned to be closed during large events is Jefferson Street,noting that should not impact the business,but also noted he cannot say for sure that someone may propose to close off other streets, such as Commercial Street and West 3rd Street. Temeyer noted that if someone does propose to close off other streets that may affect a businesses operations, that the City would sit down with the business to work out an agreement for traffic flow. Sterner noted that his 6 Planning and Zoning Commission May 1,2007 company also had concerns with the construction period and where equipment would be placed. Temeyer noted that it will be phases project, and noted that equipment can be parked on the portion of the exposition grounds that have already been completed so that equipment is not restricting access to other businesses in the area. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 5:17p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 7 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. April 3,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on April 3, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George,Evans,Burt, Fossell, Craft,Powers, Grimm, Johnson, Hartleip, Loveless, Moser, Orchard, and Hart. Burt left at 4:40. Members absent were: none. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, and Shane Graham— Planning Department; Eric Thorson and Dennis Gentz—Engineering Department; Mayor Tim Hurley and Councilperson Reggie Schmitt; and approximately 150 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Hart noted that he would like to entertain a motion to amend the agenda to change the order of the agenda to move the special permit and plat requests ahead of the annexation and rezoning requests. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to approve the agenda with the amendment to move the special permit and plat requests ahead of the annexation and rezoning requests. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on March 6,2007. It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Hartleip to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Receive and place on file the Notes of the Special Meeting on March 13, 2007 (no quorum) It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the notes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. IV. Financial Report: February 2007 Temeyer noted that the financial report is right on line. Temeyer noted that we are at about 63% which is where we should be at. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Orchard to receive and place on file the financial report for February 2007. Motion carried unanimously. V. Oral Presentations There were no Oral Comments from the Public. VI. Agenda Items Hart gave a statement giving instructions as to how the meeting would proceed,noting that they do try to follow Robert's Rules of Order. Hart noted that staff would give a report first,then the Commission could ask questions of staff, and then the applicant would be allowed to present and when that is done the Commission would allow residents to first speak in opposition and then all residents to speak in favor of the request or allow the applicant to answer any questions that are raised. Hart noted that they would probably take 3-5 people from each side and then alternate back and forth. Hart asked that people keep their comments to about 3 minutes because there are a lot of people and we want to give everyone an opportunity to speak to ensure that a diversity of the concerns are heard. Hart asked that people wishing to speak give new information so we do not have repetitive information. Hart noted later in the meeting we would break for a recess, as he has been told that there are individuals in the overflow room that would like to also come Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes up and share their comments, but the room is maxed out per the fire code, and so to give those folks an opportunity, individuals that have already spoke may wish to leave to make room for the others to come speak. Hart noted the following rules of conduct: 1)Please refrain from making abusive remarks or indulging in any offensive behavior or from engaging in any behavior that is not in keeping with proper courteous conduct, including the waiving or displaying of signs,2)refrain from talking to other members of the audience in a loud or otherwise disruptive manner, 3)refrain from initiating private conversations with Commission members, staff or legal counsel,4)refrain from approaching the podium unless recognized by the Chair, and 5)because this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, refrain from cheers,jeers, applause or any expressions of approval or disapproval of comments made by any speakers or any actions taken by the Commission. Hart noted that we want to hear as many comments as we can today in an orderly fashion. Hart noted that as previously advised by legal council, if any Commission members were contacted by individuals regarding a request,that it be disclosed so that it becomes part of the record. Hart noted that he received a few phone calls but they basically wanted to know about the process and protocol that would occur at today's meeting. Hart noted that he also received a couple sets of letters by residents regarding the power plant requests that he wanted to make known to the Commission, and Hart submitted the letters. Loveless noted that he received a letter concerning the power plant requests and submitted the letter. The other Commission members noted that they had received the same letter that Mr. Loveless referenced, and all members submitted the letters they had received. Powers noted that in addition to the letter that everyone received, he also had a meeting earlier that day where Mr. Milburn with LS Power and Alyssa with Hellman's presented information at his fire station on the power plant requests and wanted to disclose that. Evans noted that he had also attended several presentations on the power plant requests over the last 6 months at various locations. Craft noted that in September Mr. Milburn spoke to his Quinoas Club and he has had conversations with Mark Kresowik and Charles Larsen pertaining to the proposed power plant, and had also received the letter that the other Commission members received but had not had time to read it. Moser noted that he received the same letter and attended a program by LS Power and has received several phone calls from residents, but just discussed the general procedure of what is going to happen. Hart questioned if any Commission Member had a conflict of interest and would need to abstain from the vote, requesting that they identify that they need to abstain and indicate what the conflict of interest is. Johnson noted that he is representing the landowners owning the land for the Elk Run Energy proposed annexation and rezoning and would not participate in those requests. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Struxture Architects on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools for a Special Permit for the expansion of East High at 214 High Street for the purpose of a 16,819 SF two story locker room and fitness center addition to the northeast corner of the existing East High School. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the surrounding land use is mixed with additional school owned property and the adjacent railroad, with additional commercial uses further to the west and south. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a school obtain a special permit issued by the Board of Adjustment after a recommendation from the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission. Graham noted that the 16,819 SF two-story addition would be used for new locker rooms on the first floor and a new fitness center on the second floor, and approximately 5,600 SF of existing locker rooms would be remodeled. Graham noted that the addition would go into an existing parking area, and two rows of parking would be lost, however the applicant has indicated that there is adequate parking for staff, as there will be a new row of parking along the street in front of the addition. Graham noted that a portion of the addition may extend into vacated Barclay St, which was vacated in 1998 with an easement being retained, however the street was never conveyed to the School. Graham noted that the City may need to look into conveying the street while still maintaining an easement for an existing 2 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes sewer line. Graham noted that staff recommends the special permit be approved, as the request would appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map,and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions,and would appear to better serve the needs of the community, and subject to the condition that the final site plan meet all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc. Fossell noted that she would be abstaining from this vote due to her position with the School Board. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Loveless to approve the Special Permit subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried 12-0 with Fossell abstaining. D. Plats 1. Request by Shive Hattery Inc. on behalf of Cardinal Construction for the Preliminary Plat of Country Club Business Center Addition generally located east of Ansborough Avenue between San Marnan Drive and Highway 20 for development of a business park. Schroeder noted that the property was recently rezoned from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R-4,R-P" Planned Residence District, "C-P"Planned Commercial District, and"B-P"Business Park District back in February of 2004. Schroeder noted that the surrounding uses include a professional office, funeral home and multi-family homes to the north,US Highway 20 and vacant business park land to the south, vacant business park land to the east, and VGM Sunnyside Business Park to the west. Schroeder noted that the area is served by San Marnan Drive and Ansborough Ave, which are Minor Arterials,and Fitzway Drive, Tower Park Drive and Country Club Lane run through the plat and would be classified as local streets. Schroeder noted that US Highway 20 borders the southern portion of the plat and is classified as a Principal Arterial. Schroeder noted that the plat shows sidewalks located on one side of the proposed streets, except that no sidewalks are proposed on the portion of Country Club Lane between San Marnan Drive and Tower Park Drive, and that the plat shows the reservation of a 15' proposed recreational trail easement for the establishment of a recreational trail along the south side of Fitzway, which lines up with a proposed trail that is currently going through the platting approval process. Schroeder noted that Engineering is recommending that the proposed trail area be added as road right-of-way as opposed to an easement. Schroeder noted that sewer and water would be extended to serve the plat. Schroeder noted that the plat has two Outlots, of which Outlot B is a 1.89 acre strip of land that is currently part of the San Marnan Drive right-of-way,of which the applicants will be requesting it to be vacated and conveyed to them. Schroeder noted that the plat is divided by several different zoning districts, all of which are planned districts, so prior to any construction on the lots,the applicant would have to go through a site plan amendment process to approve the site plan layout and uses of the proposed lots. Schroeder noted that Engineering has stated that the proposed street name "Country Club Lane"would not work, and the proposed street name "Fitzway Drive"may not work, as it would line up with existing Fitzway Drive west of Ansborough,however the future extension of the street will connect to existing Fisher Drive,potentially creating a street name change in the middle of a block, so the street may need to be named"Fisher Drive"or the existing Fisher Drive would need to be re-named. Schroeder noted that staff recommends that the Preliminary Plat be approved, as the plat is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and can be serviced by extensions of existing utilities, and the plat is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and subject to the following conditions: 1) A change in the street names as required by Engineering, 2)The dedication of necessary easements to allow for a public storm sewer to drain into a private retention pond, 3) Dedication of additional right-of-way for the proposed recreational trail,with said trail to be constructed along with construction of the street,4)The Deed of Dedication shall provide for private maintenance of the retention pond and outlet, 5)A left turn lane on the street currently labeled as"Country Club Lane" at the intersection with San Marnan Drive, 6) The street currently labeled as "Fitzway Drive"shall match the street widths of existing Fitzway Drive at Ansborough Avenue. Hartleip noted that the Tech Notes indicate that Traffic would like to see a traffic analysis done and questioned if that has been done or is being proposed. Schroeder noted that it has not been done yet but that it has been relayed to the applicant that the Traffic Department has requested the additional 3 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes information, and the applicant may be able to add more comments. Hartleip questioned if that would be done automatically or if it should be added as a condition,to which Schroeder indicated that it could be added as a condition. Iry Mooseman with Shive Hattery noted that the report summarized the request well, and noted that he does not believe that any of the conditions cited are of any concern to the applicant and will work through those with staff, noting they will work with the Traffic Engineer to give him the info they will need to be satisfied with the design of the intersection. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Craft to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to:1)A change in the street names as required by Engineering, 2) The dedication of necessary easements to allow for a public storm sewer to drain into a private retention pond, 3)Dedication of additional right-of-way for the proposed recreational trail, with said trail to be constructed along with construction of the street, 4) The Deed of Dedication shall provide for private maintenance of the retention pond and outlet, 5)A left turn lane on the street currently labeled as "Country Club Lane"at the intersection with San Martian Drive, 6) The street currently labeled as "Fitzway Drive"shall match the street widths of existing Fitzway Drive atAnsborough Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Hart noted that items A-1 and B-1 would be discussed together,but acted on separately. A. Annexations 1. Request by Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC, on behalf of the property owners for voluntary annexation of approximately 345 acres generally located along Merle Road,North of Newell Street,3/4 of a mile East of N Elk Run Road(East of Elk Run Creek) for the purpose of constructing a 750-megawatt coal- fired electric generation facility. B. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Elk Run Energy Associates,LLC, on behalf of the property owners to rezone approximately 260 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District on property generally located along Merle Road,North of Newell Street,3/4 of a mile East of N Elk Run Road(East of Elk Run Creek) for the purpose of constructing a 750-megawatt coal-fired electric generation facility. It was moved by Burt and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the annexation staff report,noting that the annexation is approximately 345 acres, generally located east of Elk Run Creek, from the railroad line to Newell Street,noting that Elk Run Energy Associates LLC is purchasing approximately 494 acres in total, and leaving some area out of the annexation request to allow for a buffer between other properties and the City limit line. Anderson noted that the surrounding land uses include agricultural and quarry land to the north, agricultural and residential homes to the east,agricultural to the south, and agricultural and industrial to the west. Anderson noted that a small portion of the requested area is within a flood hazard area, however the area for development of the power plant is not located within a flood hazard area. Anderson noted that the area is served by Newell Street,which is classified as a Minor Arterial in the City limits, and by North Elk Run Road to the west,which is classified as a Minor Arterial, with access to Highway 20 and I-380 to the south,which is classified as a Principal Arterial. Anderson noted that all services would be extended to serve the site including water, sewer, gas, electric,phone, etc, and will be extended through the rights-of-way. Anderson noted that the site as a LESA score of 174 out of 300, which represents a low agricultural value and that Elk Run Energy Associates,LLC, an affiliate of LS Power,proposes to construct a 750-Megawatt coal-fired electric generation facility, including rail accessibility and use. Anderson noted that the 345 acres would be voluntarily annexed into the City Limits as part of the project, as Elk Run Energy Associates would be purchasing the area and are requesting the annexation. Anderson noted that the area to be annexed is not abutting the City of Waterloo corporate limits, so this annexation would be classified as a"flag pole"annexation, as the City would annex portions of Newell Street heading east to the main entrance site of the project, and the annexation would not create any type of island situation,which is prohibited by the State Code, and that a"flag pole"annexation is legal. Anderson noted that while the area is not included within the City of Waterloo Future Land Use Map, 4 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes the entire area within the corporate limits in this vicinity is designated for industrial development, due to the presence of Deere and Company, Tyson Foods, the Eagle Tannery, Ferguson Enterprises, Warren Transport, Kinder Morgan Energy, as well as the Northeast Industrial Park, and that the City of Waterloo has invested in past infrastructure improvements to this area for industrial type development, and this annexation would appear to meet the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the use of existing infrastructure and logical expansion of an industrial area. Anderson noted that the City of Waterloo has held a consultation with other entities as required on this request, of which the notes and submittals are included in the packet, with a majority of the comments focused on drainage,traffic, and the overall development and operation of the power plant. Anderson noted that there was previously a petition submitted to the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors from area residents requesting that the Supervisors stop the City of Waterloo from annexing the land, with the petition noting flooding, emission of chemicals, and traffic as reasons for the opposition. Anderson noted that the Board of Supervisors endorsed a letter from the Black Hawk County Engineer noting the need for information and planning on improvements relating to drainage and traffic/road improvements,and that the City of Waterloo has expressed its intent to maintain the improved Newell Street after its annexation. Anderson noted that the other notes of traffic to the site, drainage on and from the site, including bridge improvements, will be addressed in the Development Agreement between the City of Waterloo and Elk Run Energy Associates LLC,as well as meeting city codes and ordinances for such drainage designs, etc. Anderson noted that the City Council would take action on the annexation of land at the same meeting as the rezoning hearing, and that the annexation would then be forwarded to the State of Iowa for their review and approval. Anderson noted that staff recommends that the annexation be approved as the request is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,due to past infrastructure investment in this area for industrial development,making this a Smart Growth Project, the request would appear beneficial to the continued development of the Northeast Industrial Park area, and would appear compatible to surrounding industrial development, the request would put more land into the city limits in the Primary Growth Area, and the request is a voluntary annexation. Anderson gave the rezone staff report,noting that the rezone is on approximately 260 acres as a part of the 494 acres being purchased by Elk Run Energy Associates LLC. Anderson noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that all territory that is annexed into the City of Waterloo shall automatically be classified as "A-1"Agricultural District, until amended, and as part of the unincorporated area,the site is currently zoned"A"Agricultural. Anderson noted that all services would be extended to the site by the applicable companies, including the construction of a transmission line and switchyard/substation, the piping of natural gas from an existing supply pipeline in the area, storage tanks for above-ground storage of diesel fuel and gasoline, a system for providing wastewater effluent from the City of Waterloo wastewater treatment plant for the cooling process, a smaller quantity of wastewater would be returned to the Cedar River, with a larger quantity evaporating,the project will require 12 to 15 million gallons per day,potable water will be from the Waterloo Water Works,the provision of rail service for the coal train deliveries, with the trains being approximately 7,750 feet in length(assuming 135 cars and 3 to 4 locomotives, but potentially ranging from 110 to 150 cars), and a new single or double rail loop will be built on the project site, allowing for unloading on-site. Anderson noted that the Growth Area Map of the Comprehensive Plan does not include this area, as it is not currently located within the City of Waterloo, but the adjacent area to the west is a Primary Growth Area, scoring 29 out of a possible 31 points on the Land Evaluation Scoring Summary. Anderson noted that Elk Run Energy Associates is an affiliate of LS Power Development LLC,which was established in 1990, and has developed 10 other Greenfield power sites, with this project involving over$1 billion in investment, and is targeted to begin construction in 2008. The "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District permits any uses noted in the"M-2" District,which allows any use whatsoever except 4 listed uses, which list of exclusions does not include a power plant. Anderson noted that the required conditions listed in the "M-2"District note the "best practical means known for the disposal of refuse matter of water carried waste,the abatement of obnoxious or offensive odor, dust, smoke, gas,noise, or similar nuisance shall be employed", and that Elk Run Energy Associates LLC indicates that it will be utilizing state-of-the-art technology for its operation,and due to the submittal of the detailed information, will be approving the site plan as shown as a part of the rezoning process. Anderson noted that the site plan shows several plant buildings, a tower location, wastewater pond, coal pile, rail line within the site, as well as buffering areas, access off 5 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes of Newell Street, and some vegetative plantings, and that the submitted site plan would appear to meet all required conditions as stated in the"M-2,P"District regulations, including the indication that the proposed project will"establish performance standards relating to air and water pollution emissions meeting or exceeding standards established by Federal, State,or local pollution control ordinances or laws." Anderson noted that the submitted site plan design would incorporate large setback distances and natural vegetation screening to create buffer areas to minimize off-site noise from the operation of the plant. Anderson noted that as part of the process,the applicant has submitted a traffic study performed by Earth Tech, a local transportation consultant, which in summary finds that the traffic,both rail and street traffic, would be minor in nature,both during the construction phase and the operation phase, and that staff has included some mitigation alternatives in the recommendation. The applicants have further submitted an independent study on property values,to determine the impact of the project upon nearby property values,utilizing other coal fired power plants and developments near them, and the study concludes that based on the trends in the region, locating a power plant does not negatively impact the value of the existing residential property. Anderson noted that there have been many people vocalizing environmental concerns for the project, and staff has pointed out the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, and does not have authority over other environmental entities, laws, etc,and would reiterate the information submitted by the applicant: "the design, construction, and operation of the planned electric generation facility would be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The facility would be equipped with state-of-the-art air emission control technologies, which would make the Elk Run Energy Station one of the cleanest coal plants in the country. This compliance shall include meeting or exceeding all air and water pollution permits, standards, and laws. There will be extensive regulatory oversight and evaluation by state and federal authorities including the Iowa Department of Natural Resources(IDNR), Iowa Utilities Board (IUB), US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and US Army Corps of Engineers. The plant would comply with all federal laws including the Clean Air Act,the Clean Water Act, the Historic Preservation Act, and the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. The IDNR permits would ensure that a new emission source does not violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Waste streams produce coal combustion by-products and scrubber by-products. These by-products would be transported by truck to local quarries to be used as beneficial fill material. There will be a 450-foot tower above ground level for exhaust gases, cleaned by control technologies. The company would continue to further engineer and economically study the use and selection of renewable fuel sources. It may potentially involve switch grass, corn stalks,or waste products from Iowa-based ethanol projects". Anderson noted an economic impact study conducted by the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance,which notes the 4-year construction period could sustain directly and indirectly as many as 1,526 jobs in the region, and$271 million in 2006 dollars. The operation after construction is estimated at$25.8 million per year in economic stimulus, and $17.4 million in labor income associated with the plant. In addition,tax payments are estimated at over$2 million per year to local jurisdictions. The Greater Cedar Valley Alliance and Chamber of Commerce have taken action to endorse the project. Anderson noted that there has been opposition to the project,primarily for environmental reasons,with traffic concerns also noted, and such opposition has previously included a petition to the Board of Supervisors of approximately 680 signatures against the request, and staff estimates this petition contains less than 100 signatures from residents within the Waterloo city limits. Anderson reiterated that the City of Waterloo does not have the authority or the technical expertise or staff to properly discern the environmental regulations for which a power plant operates, and would leave those decisions to the appropriate authorities,beginning with the Iowa Utilities Board, and the others previously listed, and noted that traffic concerns would be addressed by the provisions of the traffic study,which staff has included as conditions in the recommendation. Anderson noted that staff recommends that the rezoning be approved as the request is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and would appear compatible to existing businesses and the Future Land Use Map for this area, and the request would appear beneficial to the continued development of the Northeast Industrial Park area,utilizing infrastructure previously invested into by the City of Waterloo, making this a Smart Growth Project, and the request would put more land into the city limits in the Primary Growth Area and is a voluntary annexation,and subject to the following conditions: 1)The proposed Mitigation Criteria as outlined in the traffic study on page 16, 2)that the design, construction, and operation of the planned electric generation facility will be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The facility would be 6 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes equipped with state-of-the-art air emission control technologies,which would make the Elk Run Energy Station one of the cleanest coal plans in the country, 3)that the company continues to further engineer and economically study the use and selection of renewable fuel sources,which may potentially involve switch grass,corn stalks, or waste products from Iowa-based ethanol projects, 4)that the site plan meets the rules and regulations of all applicable local codes and ordinances, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping,etc., and 5)that a Development Agreement is approved to address the extension of infrastructure for the project, including but not limited to, wastewater, water, sewer, and Newell Street improvements. Anderson noted that staff has received objections; one from Phyllis Morgan of 4621 Newell St and one from Merle Bell of 1111 Bauch St, and those were passed out to the Commission. Craft questioned that in the Development Sector Analysis portion of the staff report it mentioned a LESA score and questioned what that stood for. Schroeder noted that it stands for Land Evaluation Site Assessment(LESA) System,which is a system that the County utilizes to rank a site for agricultural viability. Mark Milburn with Elk Run Energy Associates, the project manager for development of the Elk Run Energy Station and is an employee of LS Power Development, of which Elk Run Energy Associates is an affiliate, spoke about the request. Milburn noted that staff gave a quality summary of the proposed project and he would just touch on some of the items and would be available to answer any questions. Milburn then reviewed the highlights of the proposed project and the requested annexation and rezoning requests. Milburn noted that they are proposing to start construction in 2008 and it would take about 4 years to construct, generating electricity in the 2011 or 2012 timeframe. Milburn reviewed the benefits and impacts of the proposed development,noting the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance independent study. Milburn reviewed the environmental aspects of the proposed project, noting it would meet or exceed all requirements and laws pertaining to environmental protection and noted the scrupulous oversight and evaluation from multiple agencies. Milburn noted other benefits of taking byproducts to reclaim local quarries instead of creating a landfill, and the ability of the project to reuse waste water from the City of Waterloo that is currently being discharged into the Cedar River, which they propose to enter into an agreement with the City to use that water to cool the plant. Milburn reviewed the conceptual site plan showing the land use around the site,where they are proposing to implement uses to benefit the plan,the neighbors, and the environment. Milburn introduced Mark Kuiper,who helped create the site development plan. Kuiper noted that the plan would improve the environmental quality of the land, both through improved water quality and through the use of native plant material, and to respond to the wishes of neighbors that were collected from meetings with the residents to create screening, continuation of farming, and recreational uses, including the potential inclusion of a fishing pond and recreation trail. Kuiper described the potential use of wetlands and the Elk Run Creek corridor to improve the environment, and to incorporate agricultural best management practices, which improve water quality and improve wildlife habitat. Kuiper noted that the plan has the input of the Black Hawk County Soil and Water Conservation District,who are interested in the creation of a one-stop demonstration area for best management practices. Milburn noted that the conservation aspects have been endorsed by the local Soil and Water Conservation District and the recreational aspects were endorsed by the Waterloo Leisure Services Commission. Milburn then discussed the transportation impacts of the project, including truck traffic and train traffic. Bob Lentz with Earth Tech Engineers discussed the scope of the transportation study that they conducted,noting that it considered traffic impacts both during and after construction and characterized its impact on the transportation system that is out there today. Lentz noted that the study concluded that during construction the traffic would disperse in all directions from the site and would not exceed the capacity of any roads leading from the site,but the main finding was that the portion of Newell St east of Elk Run Rd would need to be improved. Lentz noted that another mitigation proposed by the study was that construction truck traffic not be routed on Newell St to the west of Elk Run Rd, which gets into the residential areas. Lentz noted that during operation there are three transportation aspects, including general traffic going to the site by employees and deliveries,the disposal of the byproducts to a local quarry, and delivery of coal by train. Lentz noted that the employee and delivery traffic would be much less than during construction and would not have any significant impact on the transportation system. Lentz noted that the byproducts would require about 33 trucks per day to transport the material from the site to the quarry, and they 7 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes examined 9 different routings that the trucks could take, of which the roads on all 9 routes would have the capacity to take that much additional traffic, however they noted that some routes would be preferable from others, and the County Engineer has endorsed the route that keeps the trucks on state highways as much as possible. Lentz noted that coal deliveries by rail could come from 3 different companies in the area, and presently these tracks serve approximately 2-3 trains per day, generally operating at a 10 mph speed limit, and at this speed a coal train would generally block an individual crossing an average of approximately 9 minutes, and the plant would require 1 unit train every 2 days in and out. Lentz noted that they interviewed agencies that have a need to provide emergency services, such as police, fire, EMS,met transit, and school buss traffic. Lentz noted that the additional train traffic would not be a major impact on their operations. Lentz noted that the study gives several mitigation criteria, which the applicant has indicated are acceptable. Milburn noted that Elk Run Energy is prepared to accept all of the mitigations that are proposed in the study and in the development agreement mentioned in the staff report they would codify their comment to accept those mitigations. Milburn noted that an independent real estate appraiser looked at the project and determined that it would not have a negative impact on property values,citing properties and developments near other coal-fired power plants. Milburn noted that regarding site drainage,a study was completed by Earth Tech, and the design goal is that any of the drainage resulting from their project would be no worse than it is today and would even be better and that they could design the site drainage so that compared to a 100-year flooding event they could reduce by over 50%,maybe as much as 70%,the amount of drainage that is currently coming off the site. Milburn noted that they would meet all noise requirements of OSHA and lighting would be done in an appropriate manner. Milburn concluded that the project would provide a significant economic impact to the community with very little burden on local infrastructure and services and they have agreed to the mitigation measures provided in the transportation study and would be providing direct funding for various social programs and initiatives. Milburn noted that the project has received the support by the Greater Cedar Valley Chambers of Commerce of Waterloo and Cedar Falls,the Waterloo Industrial Development Association,the Waterloo Development Corporation, and the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance. Milburn asked that the Commission please vote in favor of a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested annexation petition and zoning application. Hart noted that a notebook is going to be passed around so that individuals could state their name so that they are recorded as being present, as not everyone may end up speaking. Don Shatzer,vice president of Community Energy Solutions,noted that the Commission is to consider the appropriate use of land, and questioned if 345 acres of prime Iowa farmland should be annexed into the City of Waterloo for industrial development. Shatzer discussed the loss of agricultural land and the irregular flagpole type annexation,which he does not feel is looked on favorably by the State. Shatzer also indicated that the Commission should consider that one of the parcels of land has been in the same family for over 100-years,noting the owner of this land and one other owner refused to sign voluntary annexation papers, and that LS Power simply reduced the number of acres to meet compliance for voluntary annexation. Shatzer discussed environment stewardship issues. Shatzer requested that the Commission not recommend approval of the requests. Laura Jackson of 1703 Washington St in Cedar Falls noted she is a scientist that has followed green house gas emission and global warming for 17 years in the scientific literature and also raises a family here in the Cedar Valley. Jackson asked that the proposal be denied on the concept of responsibility, which is in the six pillars of character on the poster behind the Commission, because of the current and future generations that would be negatively affected by this plant. Jackson discussed global warming and the lack of regulation. Jackson suggested that the plant is not state-of-the-art because it does not employ carbon-sequestration technology that is available today, and noted that our country and others would have to reduce carbon emissions by 80%by 2020 in order to head off the worst of the impacts of global warming. Jackson noted that the biomass fuels proposed by the applicants are highly unlikely to have any significant effect on total carbon emissions, and noted there should be a commitment of how much green house gasses they intend to replace with renewable fuels. Phyllis Morgan expressed her opposition to the request,noting her property is between the City Limits 8 • Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes and the area proposed to be annexed,noting she has lived there for 75 years, and doesn't want to have this plant built and have all this traffic on the road, and questioned how much of her property they are going to have to take with putting in pipes along the road or railroad. Merle Bell noted he was born on their family farm off of Newell St that his grandfather had bought around 1850 and has been in the family ever since. Bell noted he has lived there most his life and raised his children there. Bell noted that in 2003 he was approached about selling his farm, noting that his neighbors are all selling their farms and that there was going to be a coal-powered plant built west of his house, and that his wife, who was still alive at the time, was sick with lung cancer and had trouble breathing and said she could not live on their farm if a coal plant was next door so he signed an option to sell the land. Bell noted that he had promised his father before he died that he would never sell the family farm, and that later when LS Power came back and asked for an extension on the contract, his wife had died from cancer and he told them that he no longer wanted to sell, but they said LS Power would buy his land under contract if he did not agree to the extension, and now he hopes the power plant will not be built so he does not have to sell his land, and requested the Commission to vote against the annexation. Gail Mueller,president of Community Energy Solutions, asked the Commission to disclose all the communications with LS Power, its representatives, and all supporters and opponents of this project,as ex-parte communication must be disclosed at the public hearing, and if they are unable to do so at this time he requested that after hearing all the testimony today that the Commission delay the decision until the next regular scheduled meeting. Mueller suggested that there are significant legal questions to the proposal remaining,noting the DNR has not yet issued a permit nor has a draft permit been presented, so there is no evidence that this plant will meet all environmental regulations identified in the Zoning Ordinance. Mueller questioned having a 4:00 meeting,noting that other people wanted to be here but could not get off work, and asked that another meeting be scheduled on this issue which would also give the Black Hawk County Supervisors an opportunity to make their resolution and for the Commission to fully consider any questions raised here today. Mueller quoted the Zoning Ordinance's purpose to promote the health, safety,morals, order,convenience,prosperity and general welfare;to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City and to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to lessen congestion in the streets;to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,parks and other public requirements. Mueller noted that it was stated that they have 600 signatures and presented a petition to put on file with a lot more than 600 signatures. Richard Hockey, from Waterloo,noted that regarding an emergency, such as in the case of a tornado, if there would only be one road into the plant for fire trucks and emergency personal, as Tyson's has, and would have to go down the railroad track to get to. Hockey noted an article in the Courier regarding coal tar seeping into ground and hoped they would have a way to protect the environment from the coal tar. Milburn commented about carbon sequestration and the comment that it is available as a viable technology today. Milburn noted that there is a great push within their industry and in the country to further the research on carbon sequestration,which is one method to remove Co2 and sequester it into the ground, and there are ongoing studies, some of which are funded by the government, and LS Power and many other companies have made available funds to partner with potential investors and research opportunities to bring the technology to fruition and make it commercially viable, but it is not a commercially viable technology today. Milburn noted that there would be road upgrades required, particularly to Newell Street, and LS Power would commit a significant portion of the cost in doing that and there will not be any burden of the cost on the residents, and noted that they are working with Mrs. Morgan and her neighbors to try and protect them from being annexed, as they have indicated they do not want to be annexed. Mike Mallaro with Progress Cedar Valley, a group formed to look into this project and the impact it will have on the community, have learned that this is an extraordinary opportunity for the community and that they support it and hope the Commission will as well. Mallaro noted they visited the coal plant in Ottumwa,which has operated for 25 years, and they realized that it is a very high-tech and highly regulated facility, and that such facilities provide high-paying jobs and create a great economic impact 9 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes to the community, and the residents have no negative comments about having a coal plant in their community. Jonathan Shennowith, previously of Waterloo and now a Cedar Falls resident spoke in opposition to the annexation and rezoning requests,noting environmental concerns and stated that just because they would meet the requirements to be legal does not mean that the project should go forward. Nathan Northey, 214 Niagra representing his son and daughter-in-law at 938 N Raymond Rd, and expressed concern about the value of land, and concerned for additional industries that will want to be part of this,noting Newell St would be extended to Raymond Rd. Northey noted that he visited with Black Hawk County Engineer Richard King and has a copy of his report which raises issues about drainage and roads and the importance of industrial access to the east and north, and that the plant will put approximately a 15 million infrastructure requirement on the county and other local governments, and expressed concern on traffic impacts. Northery noted the train would not be going 10 mph over the Newell crossing, and would likely be going 2 mph so would block Newell St for at least 45 minutes every time it goes in and out of the plant, so anyone leaving the plant at that time would go to N Raymond Rd. Northey requested that the Commission deny the request or delay their action. Don Shoultz noted an overcapacity of energy production and that while he was in the legislature they looked at efforts to reduce energy consumption,noting that existing utility companies that provide electricity to the customers have to invest millions of dollars into energy efficient programs, and the rate controlled utilities have to buy renewable energy from small producers, and have to provide a certain amount of green energy, but this power plant will not be a rate controlled utility so will not have to do this. Shoultz suggested that the current model of how energy is produced and distributed is not going to continue and that this plant would be outdated. Mark Milburn noted that the physics of the project would provide the electricity to regional co-ops and long distance transmissions are not as feasible. Milburn noted that there is an interest in local companies,but if they don't have the customers to sell the power to they won't move forward with the plant. Milburn noted that the utilities that have a requirement for spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy are rate regulated utilities and they have a guaranteed rate of return and can pass on the additional costs to their customers,whereas they are a wholesale provider and could not pass on that cost to their customer as they would not buy from them. Milburn noted that the comments from the County Engineer regarding drainage would be addressed by Doug Schindel with Earth Tech. Schindel noted that they looked at the site from both a pre-development and post-development standpoint and are looking at decreasing runoff by adding retention basins in addition to the best management practices that Mr. Kuiper commented on, creating a 70%reduction in runoff. Dave Kreichi, chair of the Greater Cedar Valley Chamber of Commerce in Cedar Falls, expressed their support for the Elk Run Energy Station due to the economic impacts. Bob Manning,representing the Waterloo side of the Greater Cedar Valley Chamber of Commerce,noted that their Board supported the proposed plant with conditions,pending environmental evaluation,a transportation study,and for the company to purse and invest in renewable technologies. Joe Vich, 1525 Olympic Drive and chairman of the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, formed to be the single voice for economic development in the Cedar Valley. Vich noted that the applicants have worked diligently to educate individuals on the request. Vich noted that the City of Waterloo should be congratulated on three years of a row with over 100 million in permit valuation,but this project is 1.3 billion, 10 years worth of permits,providing 1,500 construction jobs over 4 years, and generate 2 million in taxes, $800,000 directly to the City of Waterloo,which are significant dollars to help lower our taxes. Vich noted that issues of the environment would go through many hearings and is the responsibility of other organizations that are more qualified to address those issues than many of us here. Hart noted that they would take a 10-minute recess, and noted that if people have had an opportunity to speak,there are folks downstairs that would like to speak, so if you have spoken and could rotate, it would let them have an chance to speak. After the recess,Hart reconvened the meeting. Joyce Jensen, 172 Gray St Elk Run Heights,noted that her house faces Dubuque Rd, which is so bad 10 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes due to the large amount of truck traffic which vibrates her house, and expressed concern that train traffic would do similar to other properties, and also expressed concern on the pollution it would emit. Betty Steege from Raymond Rd, spoke about their home as a major investment and concerns on the values,noting their acreage has been on sale for some time and their realtor was told by a potential buyer that he would be able to buy their acreage cheap after they start the power plant. Steege questioned the amount of emissions from the plant and expressed concern on the emissions. Steege commented that 50 people at a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and 61 signatures can stop a business from relocating it's world headquarters to a new state of the art green building with zero emissions because it might cause light pollution to ruin their view of the sky, noting they have real issues and around 4,000 signatures on the petition and asked the Commission to consider the health and the quality of the community and vote against this annexation and rezoning. Heather Sadler, on Donald St by Dewar, expressed her concerns with the proposed coal plant and effects on our air and water and its impact on our children and on autism, which is on the rise and the pollution from the plant would increase that risk. Juanita Williams, 6145 Kimball Ave, could not understand how the economic impacts are being considered but the health impacts are not, and increased health care costs would more than offset any economic benefits, and that is just health and not environment. Linda Huss, on Newell St, noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the health, safety, and general welfare must be considered, and all in Black Hawk County will be affected by this coal plant and the toxins that it will emit. Huss estimated that 28 excess deaths per year in Waterloo and Cedar Falls due to coal plants in Iowa and across the county, which does include old coal plants,but even putting up a new so called clean coal plant would result in excess deaths, estimating 2-6 premature deaths due to the LS power plant, and questioned how much a life is worth,but suggested that it outweighs any benefits from the plant, which doesn't even consider the increased health costs. Linda Shatzer, on Newell St,noted that they have been getting all the information they can on coal-fired power plants, and LS Power did not answer their questions at the May 11 meeting. Shatzer noted that air pollutants are a significant issue,particularly in the health of children. Shatzer noted that there is pollution in our area from other facilities like John Deere,CFU,UNI coal plant, etc. but questioned how building a plant of this magnitude is going to decrease the amount of pollution that we already have. Shatzer said that she does not want to live next to a coal plant and doesn't want it in anyone else's back yard either and that the annexation is the first step in adding to the health problems in Waterloo, Dewar and surrounding areas and suggested that it is the Commission's job to promote the health and safety of those living in Waterloo, and requested the Commission not recommend the annexation and rezoning. Cathy French, environmental manager with LS Power,noted that they are still preparing their application so none of the emissions estimates are finalized yet so she could not speak directly to those numbers, but emphasized that EPA is continually reviewing the national ambient air quality standards, levels of air pollution set to protect humans and the environment, including elderly and children, and they would have to meet those and increment levels that are significantly below the max, so this would never be even close to in violation of the standards that are protective of the health and the environment. French noted the comments on studies indicating a relationship between health problems and coal-fired power plants,but not most of those studies are done on"grandfathered"plants as that is the majority of what exists throughout the nation, as there have been only a handful of new plants built in the last 20 or so years since regulations have been in place requiring the level of emissions controls that they will have on the proposed plant. Hugh Field,president of the Waterloo Industrial Development Association, noted that WIDA has endorsed the project subject to a number of issues and concerns that they had, some of which have been addressed and others will be addressed in the future,and noted that the arguments on the health and environment, of which the Commission has been urged to address, is confusing based on listening to facts presented from both sides but suggested that fortunately the issue for the licensing of the plant where such technical issues are of concern would be done by the Environmental Protection Agency and 11 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and they will have to get the proper permitting and be of the highest standards and have the lowest emissions. Field commented on the development agreement being worked out and the applicants agreeing to the recommendations of the traffic study and noted the economic benefit of the plant and recommended the Commission approve the annexation and rezone. Rick Young, 3849 Trent Ln and Greater Cedar Valley Alliance,noted that no project is perfect,but what it comes down to is that we use electricity,we use electric lights, air conditioning,heat,we all use it so should not be hypocrites and think its ok if its in Council Bluffs, Ottumwa, or somewhere else, as we need electricity at home and at work,noting we need the product and the Waterloo-Cedar Falls area is a good area for it, as we can match what they need, will get about 2 million in taxes, a lot of money the County can use,noting the Courier article regarding Richard King and the County not being able to support the roads and bridges they have, and$800,000 in Waterloo will hire back a lot of police, fire,keep the library open longer and do a lot of other positive things for us, and the jobs and it payroll is a good thing to have in our community,the power plant will go someplace and we need it here. Young noted the coal plants in Cedar Falls and noted that within %2 mile around UNI's plant, which produces more mercury than this plant will,there have been new subdivisions and new houses, with a new subdivision in less than 1/8 of a mile that roads were just put in last year, and the housing boom in that area has been significant, certainly more homes than have been built in the Dewar and Dunkerton area. Young noted that within %2 mile of the downtown CFU plant there is a 40 million dollar downtown housing/commercial development, so suggest that the idea that the real-estate values would go down is not proven. Renata Sack, 414 Sunset Rd Waterloo,expressed concern over the annexation of 400 acres of farmland for a coal-fired power plant,noting the mistakes Waterloo has made is shaping our community, and this project could bring the most negative and long lasting effect of all, expressing concerns on the environmental effects of the plant, and referenced the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and asked the Commission to delay its decision until LS Power has filed its proposal with the Iowa Utilities Board and the DNR, so the detailed facts on size and emissions could be known. Ronda Rottinghaus, Canfield Rd 3 miles east of Dewar, expressed concern on the harmful effects of the plant, noting they have been assured that anything that comes out of the plant would be government regulated but indicated that the regulating agencies only enforce the current rules and they are not strict enough to protect the health. Rottinghaus noted that the government used to let people mix chemicals with bare hands and now they have to wear industrial rubber gloves, wear protective eyewear, and take a class to apply the chemicals. Rottinghaus noted that the government used to allow asbestos in schools and now they have to have special teams to bag and remove it. Susan Sonnack, 173 Gray St Elk Run Heights,noted that the annexation is not right for our county and that we are giving precious land to coal plants and Waterloo needs to be progressive and develop new and safe efficient energy. Sonnack suggested that this needs to be stopped and that we are losing a precious commodity that feeds the world, and the health effects on children is a concern,and suggested to consider the six pillars of character and stand up to this. Ron Spears,228 Prospect Ave Waterloo and owns an acreage at 4127 Independence Ave, noted that he has been there for 80 years. Spears referenced the purpose statement and indicated the Commission's job is to take care of them, including health,value of property, and appropriate land use, and lessen congestions in the City Streets, and to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,noting Mr. Milburn has not control over the railroads and they would do as they please coming and going with those trains,and referenced the need to protect the general welfare. Spears suggested that his property tax break would come to about$28 and that he could forfeit that for this type of a development. Mark Milburn noted a lack of understanding as to what they are intending to do pertaining to the mitigation measures identified in the transportation study and noted they are committing to all of the measures,which includes controlling the dispatch of outgoing trains,and noted there have been several comments on property values and introduced Mark Winninger, who conducted the study that is in the packet. Winninger,with Winninger Commercial of 3356 Kimball Ave,noted he specializes in real- estate evaluation and analysis, and noted that LS Power came to him to study the impact on the value of property where the project would be placed and indicated that there are basic economic principals that 12 • Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes effect the value of a property, and a prime one is that properties tend to seek the level of the surrounding properties and he determined the location of the plant with the buffer around it would not have any more of a negative affect on property values than those locational characteristics that already exist, noting the existing location characteristics include a lot of large heavy industrial uses including Eagle Ottawa Tannery, Tyson, Deere and Company, Warren Transport,a sewage treatment plant near Dewar, and farmland,noting that he also studied property values of properties around the coal plants in Cedar Falls, which have single family homes all around it and have seen a steady increase in property values, and the one at UNI has seen a lot of new development around it. Winninger also noted a MidAmerican plant in Council Bluffs, which is a 790 MW plant just being finished, and 3 years ago 2 residential subdivisions were developed despite the plant that was under construction. Winninger suggested that the problem that the residents in the area are going to have right now is that there is controversy over the issue, and while there is controversy and they are trying to sell their home it will affect the value, but when the controversy is over that factor will no longer exist. Ann Johnson, a local community activist from Cedar Falls,questioned who benefits, who is making the money, why now, why this town, and what the rush is. Johnson questioned where the coal is coming from and what we are doing to our environment and the Powder River Basin. Johnson referenced the six pillars statement and the Commission's mission statement. Johnson referenced the book"An Inconvenient Truth"and quoted All Gore from the book. Margaret Whiting, 1974 Caras Rd Waterloo, expressed concern on global warming and the need for renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal, and that this plant would be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Whiting noted that they have not submitted applications yet with information about the amounts and types of pollutants the plant will emit so suggested that it is too early for the City of Waterloo to make a decision about the annexation and rezoning, and requested the Commission delay the decision until the applications are submitted. Moris Dolph, 3221 Osage Rd Waterloo,noted he toured a GM plant in Mexico in 1990 that was touted as state-of-the-art pollution control, which turned out to be a lagoon. Dolph expressed concern on strangers bearing gifts and expressed concern on negative impacts on the environment. Michel Miller, 4811 Newell St, noted a concern that has not been addressed questioning why and when Earth Tech was formed and who funds them and their studies, and questioned the statement that without customers they would not be pursuing anything and wanted to know who their customers are and if it is MidAmerican or Alliant, who produces most of the energy in Iowa. Miller noted that they state that they are going to minimize pollutants and didn't think they could get any more minimal than what they are right now, and requested the Commission to wait to make the decision until after they get the permits from the DNR and the EPA. Jerry Gallmeyer, 2425 Crane Creek Rd, a 3-generation farm that is along Elk Run Creek, noted that when they put the new bridge in for Donald Street they made the opening in the bridge bigger so the water can go through but they raised the road and they still get flooded, as it can no longer go over top the road, and Dewar has had flooding problems as well and noted they say they will contain the water on site but they also would have to build a dike around the site to keep the creek out of the property, and know when the creek floods the water will back up onto this land, and after the plant is built it will be like a small dam with no place for the water to go and part of the study should look at that. Mark Milburn noted that there was a question on the studies and he noted that they paid for the studies, including the transportation study by Earth Tech, noting that they hired a consultant to look at the issues and nobody else offered to do them for free so they had to pay someone to do them. Milburn commented on the question of who their customers will be,noting he is bound by confidentially agreements from revealing names of customers but can say that if they don't have customers then they won't build the plant. Schindel noted that the site for the power plant is not within an area designated as a floodplain, and in terms of bridge sizing if Newell St gets reconstructed there are requirements that the DNR has for backwater that they will have to meet. Travis Young, 750 S Hacket Rd, noted that he has been at 11 meetings, presentations, or debates where 13 • Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes the LS Power Plant has been discussed and he has sat at tables across from Mr. Milburn and his answers have always been consistent and honest, and urged the Commission recommend approval. Hart questioned the source of coal. Milburn noted it would be from the Powder River Basin,which is primarily in Wyoming. Fossell questioned if it was hard or soft coal. Connie Marvin,N Raymond Rd, expressed concern on taking good rich farm ground out of production for the power plant, and questioned what is going to be done with it in 40 years when they are done producing energy, and suggested that it would become a burden to the City of Waterloo just like the Rath Company and the Dog Track. Marvin noted that there is a City Ordinance prohibiting the burning of leaves because it is harmful to neighbors but yet it is being considered to allow a plant to come in and burn coal,and suggested there is no logic to that, and requested that the Commission delay action. Dave Myers, 5111 Osage Rd, expressed his opposition to the LS Power development and has grave concerns on the pollution hazards that will be incumbent with this proposed facility, and noted numerous locations throughout the country were mercury pollution has been traced to coal plants. Myers also expressed concern on dumping fly-ash in the quarry that is directly connected to our drinking water aquifer, and suggested it is a great risk. Myers expressed that mercury and fly-ash contamination would have an adverse impact on his strawberry farm business, and submitted a letter going on record as opposed to the plant. Craig Miller, 5713 Independence Ave, expressed concern that the land under consideration is part of his family's land and he grew up hunting the area and with urban sprawl he will be unable to hunt this area anymore. Miller noted that along MLK Jr Dr there are lands with for sale signs,the railroad tracks, and the lagoon, and questioned if all possibilities of it being located in the City Limits have been exhausted without annexing this property. Jackie Bergren,Pleasant Dr Cedar Falls, and one of the over 4,000 people opposed to this plant and the annexing of it into Waterloo, noted she has suffered from life-threatening asthma attacks due to toxins in the air and is concerned for the elderly and those with other breathing problems and this would only make it worse. Bergren reviewed the amount of mercury that plants produce and expressed concern for the health of animals and for garden crops grown throughout the area. Bergren noted that the plant is suppose to bring in money to the community,but according to County Engineer Richard King, it is going to cost the community tax dollars to the tune of 15 million,with LS Power only paying about $300,000, less than 2%, and questioned if we want to pay out all this money to bring all these toxins on ourselves. Bergren asked the Commission to delay the action for people that could not make it here because of the 4:00 p.m. time, at least until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Bergren presented two letters to the Commission. Hart noted that 4:00 has been the standard meeting time probably since the Commission's inception, and we want it to be available for most people,but no matter what time we have it we will miss someone that has to work or has other commitments, and thanked all those that were able to make it to the meeting. Chris Pint, 1111 Bach St,noted that what she was going to say has been said by others but did question why this is being done backwards and why they are not getting their permits first, and then going for the annexation, and what exactly is conditional annexation,and how are the two people that didn't sign for the voluntary annexation going to be dealt with, and noted that plants are required to keep records on emissions for 28 days a month and questioned what about the other days in the month, and noted there are no regulations for what they put in these quarries and questioned how this would be monitored and regulated,and until these questions get answered to their satisfaction the request should be tabled. Mike King, 6031 E Donald St,noted a lot of real-estate in the area is for sale, noting that the study on values was mentioned but questioned why they did not come out and ask some people why their houses aren't selling, and suggested it is because LS Power wants to build this plant and nobody wants to move out there, noting he will be putting his house up for sale and if it doesn't sell he is going to be highly unhappy and questioned who would pay for the losses if he has to sell his house at a loss. King questioned where you are going to put 40 years of fly-ash, and suggested that there are not quarries big enough to hold 40 years of fly-ash, and questioned what happens when they are full. 14 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes Hart asked staff to address the procedural question on if this is being done backwards. Anderson noted that the Iowa Utilities Board wants all the local approvals in place prior to the application being submitted, so that is why it is going through the annexation and rezoning process at this time. Hart questioned conditional annexation. Anderson noted that because we know that they have other approvals at the state level, if the annexation is approved here and if acceptable by the State we would not file the annexation paperwork with the State in case that they are not able to get their approvals from the Iowa Utilities Board or others and that way we would not have to take any action and the area would not be annexed. Hart questioned the issue of two people not signing the voluntary annexation petition. Anderson noted that there is one person that did not sign that is included in the area that they are proposing to annex, and that area represents less than 20% of the total area requesting to be annexed so it is still considered to be a voluntary annexation. Hart questioned the 28 days regulations for the plant and the issue of leaking into the quarry. Milburn noted that the monitoring requirements by the DNR are 24/7 so they would be monitoring continuously throughout the operation of the plant, and regarding the quarry issue, there are regulations, as there is a state law that has specific requirements for what would be acceptable for reclaiming an existing quarry and they would have to meet that, and every quarry is not acceptable for it, as it depends upon the topography, distance to groundwater, and distance to surface waters, and the quarry they are proposing is controlled by BMC Corporation who currently has a permit to accept coal-combustion materials into that quarry from John Deer, UNI, and Iowa State University, and they are reclaiming over that area right now and have corn production where they have already placed ash. Milburn noted there was a question on how much the quarry can handle,noting they need to make sure they will have enough room for the long term and BMC Coropration, with the quarry they are proposing and other quarries in the area such as the Raymond quarry,have sufficient room for well over 100 years of fill, and regarding the issue of leaching out of the ash into the groundwater, because of the distance between the groundwater supply and the surface water,the DNR has determined which quarries are acceptable for that type of reclamation, and note that there have been studies done that show that the leaching actually doesn't take place and that due to the PH of the ground even if it did leach it wouldn't likely be transported to the groundwater, so all of those things put together the DNR would regulate and permit that would allow it. Dick Quackenbush, City Council member from the City of Jesup, noted they are 6 miles as the crow flies from the edge of this development and felt there was an unrepresented voice that needs to be represented,which is the counties of Fayette, Buchanan,Benton,and Delaware,noting this is the biggest decision that this board will make as far as health for over 80,000 people, and noted that the Commission wants to separate the environmental issues from the zoning and hopefully there would be this contingent in Des Moines that will safeguard us all,but it is still our responsibility to take care of ourselves,noting 90%of the airborne mercury will fall within 35 miles of the source, which is why he mentioned the counties he did, noting the prevailing winds and that they will take the brunt of it,with Jesup having mercury fallout for the next 40 years which is why he is here, as he is very concerned about the health of his constituents. Quackenbush noted that as a City Councilman he spent a day with the Iowa Department of Economic Development,who is in charge of the annexation board,noting that to him this is an island annexation, noting the Florida Keys are individual islands and have a bridge, and to simply put a road and call that part of something to differentiate from an island, and the Zoning Board should ask themselves if this is a contingent body of land to the City of Waterloo, noting the annexation board has been more stringent with irregular shaped annexations. Quackenbush noted that staff used the term "high tech" and"state-of-the-art"but he has never heard that LS Power will exceed the federal minimum emissions standards,which would be an easy thing to do to get the trust,and also noted that their plant can't be compared to Cedar Falls as CFU and the college utility are so small compared to what is being proposed. Karie Lesure, attorney from Mt. Vernon,noted she specializes in environmental law and is providing pro-bono council to the coalition that is opposed to the plant and came to listen,but since she has some expertise in the agency processes that have been referred to several times she wanted to make a few points on how the regulatory issues play out,noting that enforcement of the Clean Air Act will get a permit for every new source from our State Department of Natural Resources, and then they will enter into an enforcement period and the permits are only as good as the enforcement we receive from the DNR, and unfortunately Iowa DNR is one of the most poorly funded in the nation. Lesure noted that 15 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes she pulled quarterly compliance reports for the George Neal Station,MidAmerican's Council Bluff station, which includes six pages of singled-spaced violations over the course of a quarter for nearly every single day, these violations did not trigger fines and did not trigger any enforcement action and represents business as usual for Clean Air Act permitting in this state. Lesure spoke on coal-combustion waste, noting that in 1980 Congress asked the EPA to look at coal-combustion waste and to come up with a recommendation for regulating it, and 27 years later EPA has still not come up with a final agency action to regulate coal combustion waste under the recourse conservation and recovery act, and in January of this year an alternative proposal for regulating this waste stream but as it stands now in the State of Iowa we have what are called beneficial use regulations, which means we don't consider the coal ash that goes into a quarry a form of waste, it doesn't receive the same regulation as a sanitary landfill would, and there is no provision for groundwater monitoring or financial assurance, if we were to find at some point in the future that such a quarry is a giant superfund site that it comes back to every one of us. Lesure noted there will be permitting under the Clean Water Act because a river and a wetland are involved in this site, and if the Army Corps of Engineers is sufficiently concerned about the impact,there is the possibility of an environmental assessment, which would give more information on the local impacts on the proposed development, of which we might be interested in waiting on. Lesure commented on the role of local government, noting there are agencies to issue permits according to specific law, but it is the role of local government to take all the issues at hand, and ask what is truly best for this community. Lesure submitted a letter from someone that couldn't be here tonight. Mark Kresowik, formerly of 279 Hammond Ave, one of the organizers for Community Energy Solutions, and an employee of the Sierra Club here in the State of Iowa. Kresowik submitted the sign up sheet that was circulated as well as several letters from people that were not able to stay for the duration of the meeting. Kresowik noted that he understood the amount of frustration from people for months from not being able to express their opinions in any kind of formal way,this being the first opportunity in more than a year, noting it is the policy of LS Power not to debate these issues publicly and they have repeatedly refused any offer of public debate,noting that the meeting today is not a public debate, in that LS Power has been allowed to respond to every comment that has been made and they have not been given that same privilege, and asked that they consider the chance for the Commission to here a full presentation. Kresowik commented on the Clean Air Act and the amount of air pollution allowed and indicated that this plant would take up a significant amount of the emission allowed so the plant would hinder future economic development in this area. Kresowik also commented on the coming regulation on carbon dioxide emissions, and if regulated like the Clean Air Act,those areas that have huge emissions would also be hindered by the operation of this plant economically, and that the cost of the electricity in this region would go up dramatically and would be limited from what we are able to do. Kresowik commented on efficiency,noting that it is not true that it would be one of the most efficient plants in the country,noting that the University of Northern Iowa Plant is actually more efficient than what this plant would be, because it uses something called co-generation combined heat and power, which in many cases more than doubles the efficiency of a traditional coal fired plant,which would not be a technology that would be in use with the proposed plant, stating that it is being used across the country. Kresowik commended on the economic study that has been brought up, and that the author of the study specifically said not to use the study, and that the study was extremely limited in a proceeding of exactly this kind. Kresowik noted that renewable energy options would be better, including economically. Kresowik noted that all of the studies that have been mentioned have been funded by LS Power and there have been no independent studies done, and would encourage you, along with the advise of the Black Hawk County Engineer,to delay your proceedings until that is possible,noting that he has actually requested that delay. Kresowik commented on the economics, noting that with Mr. Kings numbers, about 15 million is needed to be paid by this community upfront, noting that you won't start collecting taxes from this plant until it operates,4 or 5 years down the road, and the debt burden built up on the 15 million that you will have to shell out will dwarf the 1 or 2 million that you will get in tax base, so you are not getting any tax base for decades. Kresowik noted that the quality of this land should be considered,noting that there is more agricultural land under production in the United States and in Iowa since 1944, and this land is valuable. Kresowik noted that our biggest export should not be dirty power, and commented on our community's roots in agriculture. Kresowik cited an estimate that 80% of the people in this community oppose this plant. Kresowik stated that the property should be left 16 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes with its current owners to power our rural economy and not to build a coal plant. Hart questioned the process regardless of the vote. Temeyer noted that the request would be filed with the City Council, who would take action similar to what has occurred today, they would set a date of public hearing and the annexation and rezoning hearing would probably occur at the same meeting, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission would be filed with the Council,and if it is a positive recommendation then it would require a simple majority vote of the Council to forward it on,but if there would be a negative vote of the Commission it would require a 3/4 vote for the Council to override the Commission's recommendation. It was moved by Evans and seconded by Powers to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Fossell restated her previous question if it was a hard or soft coal. Milburn noted that it is considered a medium subbitumonus coal. Moser noted that Mr. Schultz stated that at one time Iowa was 50% over capacitated with electricity and hasn't heard anyone say if we need more electricity or not,to which no one was sure of an answer. Fossell questioned if this were passed if the company would have to follow all new laws as they came into existence or if they would be grandfathered in at our present law level. Temeyer noted that it would depend, as any new law has to establish if it would apply to existing facilities or not, so Congress or the Legislature could enact new rules that they would have to follow,or they could say that they grandfather certain requirements. Noting that when the City of Waterloo passes new laws sometimes they require all to meet the regulation,which can be controversial,and sometimes we grandfather them in, so it can be different for each situation. Powers questioned Mr. Kresowik's comments on an 80%poll and questioned where the information on the poll was and if anyone has seen it, noting that based on the questions it can produce the results, and questioned who funded the poll. Kresowik stated that it was not a poll and it was an impartial person who had done a survey both in their personal opinion relative to the comments they had heard and the people they had talked to outside,but stated that a poll was done by University of Northern Iowa students and was done in Waterloo along the areas in the 4th Ward particularly and sampled a few other parts of the community and their numbers were actually even higher against the proposed plant. Kresowik commented that the Energy Information Administration is the source and is the department of US government that provides all the electric statistics, and from 1999 until 2003,the last date there is solid data from, the demand for electricity in Iowa did not grow at all, and in fact given the no population increase the projections for Iowa are not expected to grow over the next few years. Temeyer then read the names of the individuals that submitted a letter during the meeting, including Jack Hummel, Connie Marvin,Holly Lindsay, Anne Johnson,Jackie Berggren, Sue Alcott, Conrad Gallmeyer, Sue Etringer, Julie Fischer, Sheila Kayser, Michael Kayser, and Cleola Robb. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Evans to receive and place on file the written comments. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Evans to approve the annexation request, based on staff recommendations. Prior to vote George commented that he could not believe that there is more discussion from the Commission before the vote. Hart noted that he had asked for discussion and no additional comments were given. George questioned what the rush was, noting that we just accepted a stack of letters that he hasn't seen and would like to be able to read the letters before he makes a decision and noted he has heard several other questions tonight that he would like answers to before he casts a vote. Hart noted that there is a motion on the floor but the Commission can decide if they need a recess and then come back to make a decision. Moser questioned the statement by Mr. King that it will take 15 million to bring this site up to the standards that is needed and nobody has discussed that and questioned if they were improvements the county would need to spend anyway, or is it in addition to what the County is going to spend or the City is going to spend to improve the roads and rail lines to the site. Temeyer noted that the City isn't going to be required to spend this money and the development agreement would 17 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes address the improvement of Newell St and will ask that LS Power pay for the improvement,with our agreement to apply for a RISE grant to help pay for it, but if such a grant was awarded it would not fund the whole thing and so the development will ask them to pay for the construction of Newell Street from N Elk Run Rd to Raymond Rd. Temeyer noted that the other projects that Mr. King's letter references are current projects that the County has on their books as needed improvements already, so they have a need for road improvements, but this won't be caused by LS Power and these improvements need to be made whether LS Power goes or not. Temeyer noted that he would agree with Mr. King that he needs to make these improvements and the County needs to fund road improvements to get them done, noting that in the City of Waterloo we use our local option tax for road improvements so that they don't have to be assessed to local property owners, so this gets into a philosophical discussion with rural residents whether they want property tax relief or infrastructure improvements. Temeyer noted that everyone would agree that the County rural areas need road improvements, but those are part of the 15 million that is not caused by LS Power. George stated that he has not heard anything on percentages of who pays for what for the improvements that are needed. Temeyer noted that all of the utility improvements would be funded by LS Power to get the utility improvements to the site, and that Waterloo does not intend to fund those improvements. George questioned if the power company is going to pay for everything. Temeyer noted that that is what we are asking as part of the development agreement. Milburn noted that the road improvements for Newell St would be paid for by a commitment in the development agreement by LS Power to the City and they would also need to work with the County to do a similar sort of agreement to commit to certain funds to upgrade the road,noting that further studies are needed to understand what the cost of the road is going to be, but stated that anything that is caused by the power plant being built, such as infrastructure improvements, drainage control,road improvements,etc. has to be born by the project, and stated that the 15 million is not the cost to the City or the County because of the power plant,but there are costs and those costs would be the responsibility of the project, including pipelines and connections to utilities. Evans questioned if there is a number on how much Waterloo would spend or if there would be costs. Temeyer noted that he did not want to say there would be no cost,but it is the City's goal to keep those to a minimum. George noted that he heard the amount of money that the City would realize was not 2 million but somewhere around$800,000 a year once it is up and operating, stating that he did not feel that was much. Mayor Hurley noted that if you sit through the City budget process and know what has happened with the Human Rights Department, $800,000 is a goldmine, noting that when we were that short in the budget just to get legal on what we could budget,noting it is a matter of opinion but also noted that LS Power does not need the annexation to put the power plant in, and if not annexed they can simply go to the County and build their plant and then that $800,000 goes to Des Moines, and doesn't help the County as they would not get any more, so would not do anything additional to help Mr. King fix the County roads. Powers commented that the nurses,health care professionals, environmental attorneys and the citizenry that spoke tonight made some compelling statements,including some things that set him back and that he could learn from, but noted that he was not smart enough to analyze the environmental aspect and felt that his job as a Commissioner is to move this process forward so that those that are in the State and Federal level can help us as a community come up with those environmental impacts and make those statements for us. Powers noted that in terms of road problems,more traffic on a road is a good sign of economic development, and in terms of economic development,we need it,but we also need to look at the environmental impacts and he will defer to others. Evans suggested that we all have a job in the process and this is the Commission's job in the process,and there are others in the process that regulate the environment and suggested that the Commission does not have the expertise to do that and should not be expected to do that. Moser suggested that there have been good comments from both sides but suggested the Commission was ready to make a decision. Motion to approve the annexation carried 6-5, with Johnson abstaining due to a conflict of interest Ayes:Powers, Moser, Evans, Craft, Orchard, Grimm Nays: George, Fossell,Hartleip,Loveless,Hart Abstain: Johnson Absent:Burt 18 Planning and Zoning Commission April 3,2007 Minutes It was moved by Evans, seconded by Moser to approve the rezoning request based on staff recommendation and subject to the following conditions:1) The proposed Mitigation Criteria as outlined in the traffic study,Page 16, 2) That the design, construction, and operation of the planned electric generation facility will be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The facility will be equipped with state-of-the-art air emission control technologies, which will make the Elk Run Energy Station one of the cleanest coal plants in the country, 3) That the company continues to further engineer and economically study the use and selection of renewable fuel sources, which may potentially involve switch grass, corn stalks, or waste products from Iowa- based ethanol projects, 4) That the site plan meets the rules and regulations of all applicable local codes and ordinances, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc., and 5) That a Development Agreement is approved to address the extension of infrastructure for the project including, but not limited to, wastewater, water,sewer, and Newell Street improvements. Motion carried 6-5, with Johnson abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Ayes:Powers, Moser, Evans, Craft, Orchard, Grimm Nays: George, Fossell,Hartleip, Loveless,Hart Abstain: Johnson Absent:Burt E. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Hart noted as a reminder that the next Special Meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission would be held on April 10, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. VII. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfull submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 19 • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. MARCH 6,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairperson Hart on March 6, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: George, Burt, Fossell, Loveless, Evans, Hartleip, Craft, Grimm, Powers, Moser, and Hart Members absent were: Johnson and Orchard. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering Department; and approximately 10 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Craft, seconded by Powers to approve the agenda with the amendment to allow for James Walsh to address the Commission on the issues of Rezonings,Due Process, and Ex Parte Communication. Motion carried unanimously. Hart noted recently that Dolly Fortier submitted her resignation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and wanted to thank her for her time and effort spent working with the Commission over the past years. Hart noted that Fortier's replacement was Kevin Evans, and welcomed him to the Commission. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on February 6, 2007 and the Minutes from the Special Meeting on February 13, 2007. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Burt to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: December 2006 Temeyer noted that the financial report is right on line. Temeyer noted that the sale of City owned property is a little behind, but the City is aware of the new homes and tax base being created in the CURA District. It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Powers to receive and place on file the financial report for January 2006. Motion carried unanimously. Jim Walsh gave comments on a recent memorandum he had received from the Iowa City, City Attorney in regards to Rezonings, Due Process and Ex Parte Communication in relation to city or county boards. Walsh noted that recently the Iowa Supreme Court sent down a ruling that held the City of Dubuque Council's rezoning of a piece of property as a"quasi-judicial" action as opposed to a"legislative" action. Walsh noted that it will create major issues in zoning matters that are up for consideration, noting a "quasi-judicial"proceeding requires a court like process, which would include all interested parties having the right to present and hear all evidence provided, meaning that a one-sided meeting to discuss an issue without including the other party may be considered"ex parte communication". Walsh noted to the Planning and Zoning Commission that if they are aware of any anticipated zoning matters that may be happening in the near future, such as the Elk Run Energy rezone,which may be a contested issue,that the Planning and Zoning Commission March 6,2007 Minutes Commission members should try to avoid outside conversation of the issue until the official public hearing for the matter takes place. Walsh noted to the Commission that there might be times where Commission members may not be able to avoid contact, as someone may call a member or send them an e-mail. Walsh noted that Commission members can listen to what a particular person has to say, but provide no opinion on the mater to them and should then note those contacts and what comments and concerns were given at the public hearing on the matter. Walsh noted that it can be a very grey area as to specifically what would constitute "ex parte communication"and noted that any member can call his office to discuss the matter in more details. IV. Oral Presentations There were no Oral Comments from the Public. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendments 1. Request by Hope Anderson to rezone 0.74 acres from"R-4,R-P"Planned Residence District to "C- 1,C-Z"Conditional Zoning District at 1266 E Orange Road, at the southeast corner of the intersection of E Orange Road and Stardust Drive,just south of Hawkeye Community College to allow for the development of a 6,875 SF Commercial Building. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:17p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from "R- 4,R-P"Planned Residence District to `C-1,C-Z"Conditional Zoning District for the purpose of establishing a retail strip mall development, including the development of a restaurant, which would be located directly to the south of Hawkeye Community College. Schroeder noted that the property in question was zoned"R-4,R-P" in 1979 with recent apartment additions to the area in 1998, 2001 and 2004, along with a single family home that abuts the property in question. Schroeder noted the proposed zoning will allow for"C-1" Commercial uses, and will allow for the use of a restaurant, which is normally allowed in the "C-2"district. Schroeder noted the "C-1,C-Z"Conditional Commercial Zoning district is a site and use specific district, allowing for greater control on the layout and design of the overall development, as well as the types of use that will be permitted to insure the development is compatible with the surrounding uses. Schroeder noted the applicants are proposing a "sub sandwich"type restaurant, however, staff would like additional information to be included with the restriction of the use (such as size/seating capacity and if alcohol will be sold). Schroeder also noted that the proposed site plan shows a 6,875 SF building with a 39-stall parking lot, and based on the Zoning Ordinance, only a 34-stall parking lot is required. Schroeder also noted that access to that parking lot shall be limited to Stardust Drive and no access to E Orange Road. Schroeder noted that staff is requesting more information on what the exterior of the building is going to be constructed of in terms of design and materials. Schroeder noted that the house at 1266 E Orange Road is currently on the property in question, and noted if the property is approved for the rezoning, it will be split off from the lot in question and will have to then be addressed off of Stardust Drive. Fossell questioned if the Ordinances of Orange Township would play a factor in this request. Schroeder noted that currently Orange Township does not have their own set of regulations and ordinances and since the request is within the City of Waterloo,the City's Zoning Ordinance will prevail. Fossell noted that she believed at one time, Orange Township did have a Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted he was unaware of there being any ordinance, but did note before areas of Orange Township were annexed into the City, the Township may have had a Zoning Ordinance. Temeyer 2 Planning and Zoning Commission March 6,2007 Minutes noted that the restaurant would be used primarily by students and sidewalk connections with the Campus, as well as other apartment developments in the area should be looked into, particularly along Stardust Drive. Hart noted that the majority of the apartment population is Hawkeye students and a large percentage of them walk to class. Hart also noted that he would be abstaining from voting, due to a conflict of interest. Burt questioned how the number of handicap stalls required is determined. Schroeder noted that the amount of handicap stalls required is put forth by the Building Code, and the numbers required are also referenced in the Zoning Ordinance and the site plan submitted does meet the number of handicap stalls needed. It was moved by Burt and seconded by Hartleip to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Hartleip to approve the request to rezone, subject to the following conditions, 1) the property shall be limited to the uses of the "C-1"Commercial District, in addition to a 28-30 seat standard or fast food type restaurant, 2) that any use of the property, including any restaurant, shall not include sale of any alcoholic beverages, 3) that the exterior walls of any building on the property shall consist of brick, stone, or other similar masonry block design, 4) that an effective visual barrier of landscaping plantings shall be provided and maintained along the entire east property, and that a 6-8 foot solid wood or vinyl fence shall be provided and maintained along the 102 feet of parking area along the property line, setback a minimum of 10 feet, with effective visual barrier landscaping plantings located between the fence and the east property line, 5) that any dumpster on the property shall include a closure with a solid wood or solid vinyl fence or masonry block wall on three sides and a gate on the fourth side, 6) that the dwelling at 1266 E Orange Road shall be readdressed off of Stardust Drive, 7) that the property shall be limited to access from Stardust Drive, with no access to be permitted from E Orange Road, 8) that the final site plan meets all applicable City codes, including, but not limited to, storm water detention, landscaping, etc., and 9) that a sidewalk be installed along the eastern side of Stardust Drive Motion carried 10-0, with Hart abstaining due to a conflict of interest. 2. Request by the Islamic Foundation of Iowa for Site Plan Amendment to the"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District on property generally located west of 2010 W Ridgeway Avenue,just east of Greyhound Drive to allow for the development of an Islamic community center, including a 106' x 160' (16,960 SF)building and a 137 stall parking lot. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting a Site Plan Amendment and special permit to the "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District for the purpose of constructing a 106'x 160' (16,960 SF) Islamic community center, which will be situated on 8.25 acres. Graham also noted that the site plan shows a green area and an outdoor field further to the north of the building on the property, and the property has an existing field access along the west side of the property, which will be utilized as access to the new community center. Graham noted the proposed location is west of Martin Road along W Ridgeway Avenue and the majority of the surrounding ground is undeveloped except for Denso International to the east, as well as the nearby UBC Building Center on the south side of Ridgeway. Graham also noted that the Katoski Greenbelt is to the west which will likely never be developed. Graham noted that a religious facility is an allowed use in any zoning district upon approval of a special permit, and the proposed facility would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, however, the applicant needs to be aware of the industrial nature and intended use of the surrounding land, noting the developer to the south and west of the property is currently developing the ground for commercial and industrial use, and the City of Waterloo currently owns land to the east and foresees industrial development occurring on that ground. Graham noted that parts of the property are located in Zone A and Zone B (100 and 500-year floodplain), but the new building would be located in Zone C (not a flood hazard area). Graham noted that the nearest sewer 3 Planning and Zoning Commission March 6,2007 Minutes line is an 8" line within W Ridgeway Avenue, but stops 1,350' east at Martin Road and it is currently not known how sewer will be extended to the site. Graham noted that both the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer have concerns with access to the property, noting that Ridgeway Avenue is a high- speed roadway, and without turning lanes for the drive,this could be a traffic safety problem. Graham also noted that both Engineering and Traffic have suggested that deceleration lanes be added onto Ridgeway Avenue for both left and right turning traffic entering the site, and also noted that an acceleration lane may be needed at some point for traffic making right turns onto to Ridgeway Avenue from the community center. Graham noted that the Traffic Engineer has suggested that the parking lot be reconfigured to place the wider parking area on the north side and to reverse the parking angle on the other lanes, due to a concern that there would not be enough traffic stacking distance between Ridgeway and the parking lot area. Graham noted that the applicant has agreed to the traffic improvements suggested in a recent meeting. Fossell questioned whose responsibility it would be for installing the traffic turning lanes. Graham noted that the applicant is responsible for the new traffic improvements. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Burt to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Evans to approve the Site Plan Amendment to the "M-2,P" Planned Industrial District subject to 1) the left turn median improvements, right turn deceleration lane, and parking layout are constructed as determined by the Engineering and Traffic Departments, 2) that infrastructure is properly provided to the site and the applicant agrees to hook onto City services now or in the future when they are within the code requirements, and 3) that the building, while only preliminary in design at this time, is appropriately designed to blend in with surrounding development, including the potential uses of EFIS, stucco, brick, etc. Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Permits 1. Request by the Islamic Foundation of Iowa for a Special Permit to allow for the development of an Islamic community center, including a 106' x 160' (16,960 SF)building, and a 137 stall parking lot generally located west of 2010 W Ridgeway Avenue,just east of Greyhound Drive in an"M-2,P" Planned Industrial District. This request was discussed with item Al above. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Hartleip to approve the Special Permit subject to, 1) the left turn median improvements, right turn deceleration lane, and parking layout are constructed as determined by the Engineering and Traffic Departments, 2) that infrastructure is properly provided to the site and the applicant agrees to hook onto City services now or in the future when they are within the code requirements, and 3) that the building, while only preliminary in design at this time, is appropriately designed to blend in with surrounding development, including the potential uses of EFIS, stucco, brick, etc. Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted as a reminder that the next Special Meeting for the Planning and Zoning Commission would be held on March 13, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Schroeder also handed out the Administrative Rules of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as a section out 4 Planning and Zoning Commission March 6,2007 Minutes of the City's Code of Ordinances to refresh the current Commissioners on the guidelines and requirements of the Planning and Zoning Commission. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 5 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-3:30 P.M. February 13, 2007 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:32 p.m. by Acting Chairperson Moser on February 13,2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Fortier, Craft,Powers, Grimm, Hartleip, Loveless, George and Moser. Members absent were: Burt, Fossell, Johnson, Orchard and Hart. Others present: Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham and Tim Andera—Planning Department. A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that at last month's special meeting they had gotten through reviewing up to page 84 and had just finished review of the"R-P"Planned Residential District. Schroeder noted that at the last meetings and others before that they had discussed areas that it was determined that additional review would be needed,but that at this point staff planned to continue to move forward to get an initial review of the entire Ordinance complete, and that we would then go back to review those areas needing additional review. Schroeder noted that he would continue the review of the areas that staff was proposing a change, but that Commission members should speak up if they have a question or suggested amendment in a location that staff is not proposing an amendment, and ask questions or give comments and suggestions about the amendments that staff is proposing. Schroeder then began reviewing the proposed amendments, noting proposed changes in Part XX"H-C"Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District and Part XXI"H-C" Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District. Schroeder noted that many of the changes are just to make the Ordinance consistent, and will not change how the uses are regulated now. Schroeder noted that staff has been reviewing the proposed changes to the Highway 218 Overlay District with the Highway 218 Design Review Board. Schroeder explained the role of the Hwy 218 Board, as well as the procedures and process that are followed for development within the Hwy 218 Corridor that is subject to design review. Schroeder noted that the Hwy 218 Board has reviewed the changes as proposed,but has not made a formal recommendation as of yet,because additional review is needed and they wanted to have any input from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Schroeder then began reviewing the proposed changes within the Hwy 218 Overlay District. The Commission discussed the"Alternative Compliance"provision at length, but did not propose any additional changes. The Commission discussed the"Landscaping Requirements" provision, questioning the legality of the City contracting to have landscaping installed and the costs assessed against the property if a property owner fails to put in required landscaping. Schroeder noted that the current wording in the Ordinance provides for this to happen, and the proposed change just removes the wording requiring a bond or certificate of deposit, as the City has not been requiring this for many years. Schroeder noted that such action by the City would be a last resort, and the City will try and work with a property owner to install their required landscaping,but failure to do so would be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and the City could take action to install the landscaping and access the cost. Grimm questioned the provision requiring 65 percent of the lot exclusive of buildings and parking to be landscaped area for properties zoned"C-3"within the Hwy 218 Overlay District. The Commission discussed that whatever lot area is left exclusive of buildings and parking is basically all landscaped area, so did not feel that the provision made sense. Schroeder noted that this had been discussed with staff,but it had been suggested that the item be left in,noting that even if it effectively does not require a set amount of landscaped area, it does require that if there is any landscaped area left,that it be planted with .05 points per square foot of landscaped area. Schroeder noted that there is only a few blocks within the Hwy 218 Corridor that is zoned"C-3". Craft noted that that the"C" and"M"zones require that 25 percent of the total lot be landscaped and question if the proposed Grout expansion meet that. Schroeder noted that the Grout project was reviewed by the Hwy 218 Board under alternative compliance,but that he was not sure if they specifically looked at if the site was over or under the 25%requirement, and noted that they may have to take another look at that. Craft questioned if the Hwy 218 Board has received criticism from developers regarding the requirements. Schroeder noted that there are some people that are not happy with the added requirements and added costs it may cause,but that the Overlay District was Planning and Zoning Commission January 11,2007 Special Meeting Minutes created because Highway 218 is a major entry point into and corridor through the City of Waterloo and it was felt that an emphasis was needed to help improve the aesthetics along the corridor. Schroeder noted that recent conflict with developers has often been regarding requests for very plain vertical metal sided pole buildings that do not meet the design standards of the corridor. Craft suggested that the wording indicating that screening"may be required..."include"by the Design Review Board"to indicate who may be requiring the screen. Schroeder reviewed the proposed changes to the sign regulations of the 218 Corridor and no additional changes were proposed. Moser noted the provision indicating that a"Board member who misses more than one(1)consecutive meeting with no legitimate excuse may be recommended for removal by the Chair or Vice-Chair to the Mayor"and questioned if this was typical with other Boards. Schroeder noted that it was not typical, and that most others say that a member can be removed for"cause"by the City Council. Schroeder noted that he would review it for a potential change to be consistent with other Boards. Loveless noted that one consecutive meeting does not make sense, and that it should either read one meeting or two consecutive meetings. The Commission discussed subsection I on Screening/Fencing, questioning if the provision that indicates that"existing properties used for the storage of these materials shall comply with this section within one year of the adoption of this ordinance. Existing businesses may request a time extension from the Design Review Board"has been uses for all properties along the Corridor, indicating that it seems that there are several businesses with storage of such uses that do not meet the requirements and have been there for more than one year. Schroeder noted that he was unaware of how exactly or if this provision was implemented during that first year that the Corridor was created,but suggested that the provision would appear to be inconsistent with the"non- conforming use"section of the Ordinance. Schroeder noted that this section appears to indicate that they have to comply with the new rule, but the"non-conforming use"section would seem to indicate that if they had such a storage area legally established before the Ordinance was passed that they are allowed to continue without complying with the new requirements. The Commission suggested that the wording should be removed from the 218 section. Schroeder completed reviewing the 218 section and no additional comments were given. Schroeder then noted that the next section was the"H-C"Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District,but noted that the two districts are almost identical, except for the fact that the Hwy 20 Overlay District does not have a"Design Review Board"section, as there is no design review on Hwy 20,but that the majority of the other requirements, such as added setback requirements and added landscaping requirements, are the same as the Hwy 218 Overlay District,therefore staff is proposing the same changes to that section as just reviewed for the Hwy 218 section. The Commission discussed design review, questioning why the Hwy 20 Corridor would not have design review. The Commission also questioned if Highway 63 and Highway 21 should have a Corridor Overlay District as well. Schroeder noted that the possibility of creating a Hwy 63 Corridor has been discussed. Craft suggested that a Hwy 63 and Hwy 21 Corridor should be created, and that the existing Hwy 20 regulations and the new Hwy 63 and Hwy 21 District regulations should all get put into the Hwy 218 regulations, so that there is one section that covers all the Districts and they all have the same requirements, including design review. Schroeder suggested that if a majority of the Commission members feel as such, they may want to make a motion to recommend that the new Highway Overlay Districts be created and all put into the one section. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm, to recommend that a Highway 63 and Highway 21 Corridor Overlay District be created, and that the existing Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District regulations as well as the proposed Highway 63 and Highway 21 Corridor Overlay District regulations be moved within the existing Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District regulations, with descriptions added for the Highway 63 and Highway 21 Districts, creating one section with the same regulations for each of the Districts, including design review. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission completed the review of Part XXI"H-C"Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District, and will pick up next time with Part XXII Vehicular Use,Parking and Loading Areas,Public Garages,Parking Lots and Filling Stations No action was taken on the overall amendment 2. Date and time for the next Special Meeting 2 Planning and Zoning Commission January 11,2007 Special Meeting Minutes Schroeder noted that previously the Commission decided to hold special meetings on the second Tuesday of the month, so the next special meeting would be on March 13, at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -Z(Jaecti( k--. Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 3 3 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M.January 9,2007 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on January 9,2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Thomas,Burt, Loveless,Fortier,Hartleip, Craft,Johnson,Moser, Orchard,Hart Members absent were: Fossell, Powers, Grimm Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder,Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering and approximately 15 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Craft to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on December 5,2006. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hartleip to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Receive and place on file the Notes of the Special Meeting on December 12, 2006 (no quorum) It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hartleip to receive and place on file the notes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. IV. Financial Report:November 2006 There were no comments or questions regarding the Financial Report for November 2006 It was moved by Hart, seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the financial report for November 2006. Motion carried unanimously. V. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. VI. Agenda Items A. Election of Officers 1. Election of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the term ending December 31, 2007 It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Johnson to elect Hart as the new Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Johnson to elect Moser as the new Vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Hart and Johnson switched seats with Hart presiding as Chairperson over the remainder of the meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission 4 January 9,2007 Minutes B. Hearings 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance:Home Occupations in Accessory Buildings, Special Permit for More than One Residential Principal Permitted Use per lot, and Enclosure of an Existing Open Porch. Hart declared the hearing open at 4:06 p.m. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that Planning Staff is proposing changes to the Zoning Ordinance to allow barbershops, beauty shops and massage therapy in the Home Occupations provision of the Ordinance as long as the business only has one chair/table in the establishment. Schroeder noted that the amount of signage area for a home occupation will be increased to 2' x 2',as well as clarifying the amount of outside storage that will be allowed for a home occupation and allowing home occupations to be operated from and accessory structure. Schroeder noted that under the General Regulations provision multiple principal structures would continue to be permitted on a residential lot, but it would need to go through a Special Permit process to make sure that the structures meet the minimum lot size for the appropriate zoning district and are compatible to the neighborhood. Schroeder noted that an amendment to the Enclosed Porch provision of the Ordinance would allow a property owner whose home has an existing open porch built prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969 to enclose their entire front porch,rather than just a portion as is currently allowed. Schroeder noted that the amendment had also been discussed by the Commission at their December 12, 2006 Special Meeting. Burt questioned if the entire revised version of the Zoning Ordinance will be approved by City Council at one hearing. Schroeder noted that Planning Staff has deemed certain portions of the Ordinance as priorities to be revised and Staff is wanting to get those revised and approved by City Council at a sooner date. Schroeder noted that the entire revision of the Ordinance will take up to six or eight months. Schroeder also noted that when the revision of the Ordinance is complete, it will be sent to City Council to approve the new Ordinance as a whole. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Thomas to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Loveless to approve the Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance:Home Occupations in Accessory Buildings,Special Permit for More than One Residential Principal Permitted Use per lot, and Enclosure of an Existing Open Porch. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Ryan Companies Inc. on behalf of the Isle of Capri for Site Plan Amendment to the"C-P" Planned Commercial District at 777 Isle of Capri Boulevard to allow for an expansion to the hotel and casino building, including an 11,700 SF building addition to the existing 87,820 SF of total buildings, in addition to a 30,600 SF addition approved as minor,and 53 additional gaming positions for a total of 1,253 positions. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Thomas to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the Isle of Capri requests the approval to construct 11,700 SF addition to the existing 87,820 SF of buildings, along with a 30,600 SF addition,which was recently approved as minor by the City Council. Schroeder noted that the applicant has indicated that the new development would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, including traffic conditions, and also noted that the applicant is working with the City of Waterloo at critical intersections in the 2 Planning and Zoning Commission 5 January 9,2007 Minutes vicinity of the new casino to lessen the affects of added traffic in the area. Schroeder noted that staff has classified the new addition as a major site plan amendment,due to the potential of the new additions having a significant impact to the surrounding area. Schroeder noted that the Traffic Department has requested new analysis on the traffic queuing amounts, as well as more information on the proposed 600-seat entertainment venue planned for the casino. Schroeder also noted that the Traffic Department has requested that the Isle of Capri agree to a commitment to correct any traffic problems that may occur due to the new casino development. Schroeder noted that the pool/spa amenity is incidental with a hotel/casino development, and would not appear to have any negative impacts on the surrounding area and was deemed"minor", and was approved by City Council on 1/2/07. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Johnson to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Hartleep noted that the applicants have noted that the new amenities added to the new hoteUcasino would not have a significant impact on traffic conditions on the surrounding area and questioned how binding the Staff recommendations were. Schroeder noted that Staff is currently looking to have the applicant agree to the recommendations in writing and did not foresee any problems getting the agreement signed, and once it is agreed, it will be moved onto City Council. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hartleip to approve the Site Plan Amendment to the "C-P" Planned Commercial District,subject to the following conditions: 1) that Isle of Capri submit required information to Traffic Operations,2) that the applicant continues to agree not to make any requests for City involvement in the development or any improvements such as,street improvements, 3) the applicant continues to agree to provide a private easement for future access to Hess Road to the west of the casino when future development within the "C-P"District occurs, and 4) the applicant continues to agree that the existing and proposed additions will be used for casino and hotel uses and other incidental related uses, but not to include a conventions facility. Motion carried 8-2 with Burt and Loveless voting against. 3. Request by V.J.Engineering on behalf of Menard Inc.to rezone approximately 47 acres from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District and"C-2"Commercial District to"C-P"Planned Commercial District on property North of 307 East Donald Street, South of 300 Ralston Road, West of East 4th Street adjacent to the existing Logan Plaza shopping center to allow for the development of a 214,000 SF Menards store and future commercial out lots. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Burt to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 47 acres to"C-P"Planned Commercial District for the purpose of constructing a new Menards Home Improvement store, along with out lots along the outer edges of the development for future commercial development in the Logan Plaza vicinity. Anderson noted that Menards will be the owner of the newly created outlots and will have the authority to decide on what type of tenants can locate in the new lots. Anderson noted that new roads would be installed in the development with an extension of Heath Street to the east from its intersection with Highway 63. It was determined that traffic signals are warranted at that intersection,which will have to be approved by the IDOT. Anderson also noted that a new"backage"road will run directly to the east of the existing McDonald's restaurant and existing car wash and intersect with Heath Street and eventually as development occurs around the Menards area,travel north and intersect with Ralston Road. Anderson noted once the"backage"road is extended to Ralston Road, staff believes that Ralston road 3 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 January 9,2007 Minutes should be paved between Highway 63 and the new"backage"road. Anderson also noted that it has been requested that the frontage road running directly south of McDonald's be extended and connect with the new Menards parking lot. Anderson noted that there are some easement areas to the east of the proposed development for the Virden Creek drainage way,which the City is currently working on for future improvements, and will be working with Menards and other future property owners for proper development. Burt questioned if there would be any access from East 4th Street to the Menards site. Anderson noted that there would be no access from East 4th Street to the Menards site and that customer and truck traffic would enter the site from Highway 63. Temeyer noted that as the additional commercial development occurs, they could propose access from East 4th Street and that would be an evaluated at that time. Johnson questioned if the Commission was approving to rezone the property to"C-P" Planned Commercial, as well as approving the site plan submitted by Menards. Anderson noted that was correct. Mike Davis of Lighthouse Baptist Church questioned what kinds of uses could locate within the"C- P"district, with concerns on what types of development could occur around his church. Anderson noted that the district would allow for commercial development and professional offices. Tom O'Neil of Menards Incorporated addressed the Commission, noting that he would field any questions that the Commission had. Hartleip questioned how the proposed building would compare in size to the existing Menards on San Marnan Drive. O'Neil noted that the new building would be the exact same size and have the same building layout and format as the building on San Marnan Drive. Craft questioned if Menards would come back with a site plan. Temeyer noted that the Commission would be approving the site plan that was included in the packet at this meeting, but also noted Menards would have to submit a plat, due to outlots being planned. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Loveless to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Johnson to approve the to rezone approximately 47 acres to "C-P"Planned Commercial District and approve the site development plan,subject to:1) the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes,regulations, etc, including, but not limited to drainage, landscaping etc.,2) that Ralston Road be hard surfaced from the "backage"road connection point to Highway 63 to provide for proper traffic movement, 3) that the necessary traffic light and intersection improvements are made at the Heath Street and Highway 63 intersection, and 4) that the access point is made for the road south of the McDonald's site. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request by Iowa Wireless for Site Plan Amendment and approval of a major significance cell tower to the `S-1"Shopping Center Commercial District at 351 Fletcher Avenue to allow for the development of an 80' monopole tower and equipment just east of the Waterloo/Cedar Falls Board of Realtors building. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Burt to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:43 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting the approval of a site plan amendment and a major significance cell tower to allow for an 80' monopole cell tower directly 4 Planning and Zoning Commission 7 January 9,2007 Minutes adjacent to the Waterloo/Cedar Falls Board of Realtors building at 351 Fletcher Avenue. Graham noted that any cell tower located closer than 500' to any residential lot shall go to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to proceeding to the Board of Adjustment. Graham also noted that since the tower is located within an"S-1"district, it has to be approved for a site plan amendment before being forwarded to the City Council. Graham noted the cellular company did examine the possibility of co-locating at an existing tower at the corner of Highway 63 and West 3rd Street, but the tower is located outside the needed area of coverage and would not work for the network. Graham also noted that Iowa Wireless did provide staff with new maps showing that if they were to locate at the Highway 63/West 3rd Street tower that their coverage would not be sufficient enough to provide the best service to their customers. Graham noted that the proposed tower is within 250' of residential properties and for that reason, staff has recommended that the new tower be of a camouflage design to lessen the visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Graham also noted that the location of the cell tower will be 25' from the rear property line and will have to go before the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the setback. Schroeder noted that he did receive a phone call from a Patricia Bartels of 646 Summit Avenue, questioning the towers close proximity to the neighboring residential properties, affects on land values,television reception and affects on health and questioning why an alternative site would not work. Craft questioned if the vacant"R-3"property to the east of the proposed tower would be affected by the required setbacks of a cellular tower if the land were to be developed someday. Schroeder noted there would be no reverse setbacks required if new homes or condos were to be built on the vacant land to the east of the tower and noted that the tower should not have any negative impact on the further development of that land. Burt questioned why the site on West 3rd Street would not work. Jeff Patton,Real Estate Manager for Iowa Wireless noted that the company's policies are to try and co-locate either on their existing towers or lease space from their competitors,but also noted that Iowa Wireless could not locate at the tower at the corner of Highway 63 and West 3rd Street as it would leave a gap in their coverage area and would not work to offload calls from existing towers. It was moved by Hartleip and seconded by Burt to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Moser to approve the request for Site Plan Amendment to allow for the development of an 80'monopole tower subject to staff recommendation that the tower be a camouflage design (such as a flagpole) to lessen the visual impact on the surrounding properties. Motion carried unanimously. C. Cell Tower—Major Significance 1. Request by Iowa Wireless for approval of a major significance cell tower to allow for an 80' monopole tower and equipment on property owned by the Waterloo/Cedar falls Board of Realtors at 351 Fletcher Avenue. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Craft to approve the request for approval of a major significance cell tower to allow for the development of an 80'monopole tower subject to staff recommendation that the tower be of a camouflage design(such as a flagpole) to lessen the visual impact on the surrounding properties. Motion carried unanimously. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission 8 January 9,2007 Minutes D. Special Permits 1. Request by Weekley Auto Salvage for a Special Permit for a new salvage yard on property just south of 246 Hogle Street off of Dunham Place with 1 pole building totaling 1,440 SF in a"M-1"Light Industrial District. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting the approval to allow for the placement of 1 pole building on the lot to establish a recycling yard upon the issuance of a Special Permit from the Board of Adjustment. Graham noted that at last month's Planning and Zoning Meeting,the applicant was requesting the expansion of the existing salvage yard to the west at 104 Court Avenue, but sold that parcel off to another buyer and chose to retain the eastern portion facing Dunham Place for the new establishment of a salvage yard. Graham noted that there is currently a fence built around the existing property with some junk items already located within it. Graham also noted that the request would require a variance to the side and front yard setback due to the building being located closer to the side property line than the minimum 5' required, as well as being closer to the front property line than the minimum 25'required. Graham noted that staff recommends that the new yard be limited to recycling purposes and not include automobile parting and automobile wrecking. Burt questioned if the new recycling yard would require a permit from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Temeyer noted that the new recycling yard might have to obtain a permit from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and be inspected by the Health Department, depending on which types of uses occur on the lot. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Loveless to approve the request for a Special Permit to allow for the development of a new recycling yard subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc., including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc., and 2) that the site be limited to a recycling yard and not include automobile parting and automobile wrecking. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the Waterloo Leisure Services Commission on behalf of the City of Waterloo for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of a 65' x 56' (3,640 SF) Storage Building located at 1101 Campbell Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report noting,that Leisure Services is requesting to build a new 65' x 56' storage building on 1101 Campbell Avenue adjacent to the Byrnes Park Tennis Center and directly north of Iry Warren Memorial Golf Course. Schroeder noted that the new development would not have a negative impact on traffic in the area, as the new building would be used to house vehicles pertaining to the Leisure Services operations, and the only side of the building that will be visible will be constructed of block material to match the existing building. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Johnson to approve the request for a Special Permit to build a 65'x 56'(3,640 SF) storage building. Motion carried unanimously. E. Plats 1. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of the Cedar Valley Tech Works Inc. for the Preliminary Plat of Techworks Addition generally located at 400 Westfield Avenue,northwest of the intersection of Westfield Avenue and Jefferson Street for the purpose of development of the Cedar Valley Tech Works, a mixed-use commercial and industrial development. Andera gave the staff report, noting that Claassen Engineering is requesting approval of the Techworks Addition Preliminary Plat for the purposes of developing the Cedar Valley Tech Works. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission 9 January 9,2007 Minutes Andera noted that Commercial Street will be extended and travel around the northern and western portions of Lot 1 and connect with a relocated Westfield Avenue on the southwest portion of the plat and will eventually connect with the Highway 63/218 interchange,but that the street will not be able to be named Commercial Street. Andera also noted that a portion of River Road is shown to be vacated in the future, and that Water Works has requested that a 20' water main easement be retained over the water line running along the western portion of River Road proposed for vacation. Andera noted that at the time of the Preliminary Plat, a Deed of Dedication has not been submitted, but will be submitted with the Final Plat for the Techworks Addition. Craft noted that are two sets of waterlines running under the former Westfield Avenue with one for the John Deere site and the other line for the City of Waterloo. Andera indicated that the plat shows easements over those areas. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Orchard to approve the request for the Preliminary Plat of the Techworks Addition. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of VGM Development Corp. for the Preliminary Plat of VGM—Sunnyside Business Park generally located south of San Marnan Drive,just west of Ansborough Avenue along Fitzway Drive and Galactic Drive for development of a business park. Andera gave the staff report, noting that Claassen Engineering is requesting the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Sunnyside Business Park for the purpose of professional office and commercial development. Andera noted that the proposed business park would be served by Galactic and Fitzway Drives, and is adjacent to the recently constructed interchange with Highway 20 and Ansborough Avenue and will spread out traffic and ease traffic congestion along the San Marnan corridor. Andera also noted that within the plat,there is existing sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water mains that will be extended as more development occurs in the business park. Andera noted that there is a proposed roundabout at the intersection of Galactic Drive and Fitzway Drive, but at the time of the preliminary plat, Traffic and Engineering have requested that more information be submitted justifying a need for a roundabout at that intersection. Andera noted that a Deed of Dedication has not been submitted but will be submitted with the final plat. Hartleip questioned that if the preliminary plat were approved,would it address the issues that other City departments have with the proposed roundabout. Temeyer noted that the Commission is voting on the subdivision of the land and not the roundabout itself and when the developer is ready to install the new streets,they will have to come before the Public Works Committee and then be approved by City Council. Temeyer noted that this is the preliminary plat and the intersection configuration could change with the final plat. Andera also noted that Water Works has requested that a 20' water main easement be retained over the northeast corner of Lot 3. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Hartleip to approve the request for the Preliminary Plat of VGM Sunnyside Business Park subject to there being a 20'water main easement retained over the northeast side of Lot 3. Motion carried unanimously. F. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by Cardinal Construction Inc.to vacate a portion of public alley off of Park Avenue and a portion of public alley off of Sycamore Street in Block 4 of the Original Plat of Waterloo East, 102- 110 East Park Avenue (Regions Bank formerly Union Planters Bank) Western gave the staff report, noting that Cardinal Construction is requesting approval to vacate the portion of alley off of Sycamore Street and that it was determined that the portion of alley off of Park Avenue was vacated by Ordinance 2142 in 1958. Western noted that there is an existing sewer line in the proposed alley to be vacated;therefore a sanitary sewer easement will need to be retained. 7 Planning and Zoning Commission I January 9,2007 Minutes Western noted that when the existing bank property was being sold to Cardinal Construction, it was discovered that this 10' x 40' strip of alley had never been properly vacated. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Craft to approve the request to vacate the 10'x 40'strip of public alley right-of-way subject the retention of a utility easement. Motion carried unanimously. G. Plans and Studies 1. Traffic Analysis Zones(TAZ)—2035 population and employment projections to be included in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan created by the Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO). Schroeder noted that recently the MPO has done some changes to the TAZ boundaries that were recently submitted, therefore projected population and job growth numbers had to be recalculated. Schroeder noted that the TAZ models are used by the MPO and the IDOT to forecast traffic patterns. Schroeder noted these projections are based on where anticipated growth is going to occur,which is based on what a particular area is zoned,what the future land use map designates a particular area of the City for, as well as recent development trends. It was moved by Hartleip and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the Traffic Analysis Zones, 2035 Population and Employment Projections. Motion carried unanimously H. Discussion Items 1. Amendment of the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the next Special Meeting for review of the Zoning Ordinance will be on January 11, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Thomas also noted that this will be her last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and a new person from the Human Rights Commission will replace her spot. VII. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ric A. Schroeder, Secretary 8 4 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M.December 5,2006 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming,and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on December 5,2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Fossell, Craft, Grimm,Johnson,Hartleip,Loveless,Moser, Orchard, Hart Members absent were: Burt, Thomas,Powers, Fortier Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera— Planning Department; Eric Thorson—Engineering and approximately 15 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Motion was made by Hart and seconded by Loveless to approve the Agenda as submitted Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on November 7 and Special Meeting on November 14, 2006. Motion was made by Grimm and seconded by Craft to approve the Minutes as submitted Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: October 2006 There were no comments or questions regarding the Financial Report for October 2006 It was moved by Hart and seconded by Hartleip to receive and place on file the financial report for October 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendment 1. Request by National Retail Properties on behalf of Kenneth Kampman for a Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1" Shopping Center Commercial District at 1411 Flammang Drive to allow for the redevelopment of the former Econo Foods building including a 4,000 SF building addition to the existing 56,782 SF. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing a new retail establishment in the former Econo Foods, along with a 4,000 SF addition. Anderson noted that over the past few years, the City has been making improvements to the traffic movements in the Crossroads area. It was also noted that the Traffic Department has requested additional information on the Flammang Drive and Sarah Drive intersection and National Retail Properties will be working on providing this information. Anderson noted the amendment of the plan is due to the 4,000 SF addition being added Planning and Zoning Commission C December 5,2006 Minutes 5 onto the eastern side of the building,which is classified as a major amendment. Anderson noted that Staff has reviewed the site plan and does not anticipate any large landscaping needs. Anderson also noted that the developer is adding 4,000 SF of green space on the western portion of the building to make up for the green space lost from the new addition. Anderson noted that staff recommended approval of the site plan amendment based on the site plan meeting all applicable city codes,and regulations, including drainage and landscaping,and that the amendment would be a good use of reoccupying an existing vacant building. Johnson noted he would be abstaining from the vote due to a conflict of interest. Johnson noted he represented the original developer who believes that he has retained site plan approval rights and believes the plan should have come to him before Planning and Zoning approved it. Johnson also noted the individual had no objections to the project. Schroeder note that at the Tech meeting, Water Works brought to attention that the two existing fire hydrants on the lot were not working. Fossel questioned if the fire hydrant situation had yet been clarified. Schroeder noted that it should not be a problem getting the fire hydrants in working order before occupation of the building takes place. Cathy Evanson spoke on behalf of National Retailers and noted that they are aware of the fire hydrant situation and plan on having them back in working order. She also noted they have had a fire inspection of the existing sprinkler system and a fire flow test is being conducted and also,the main fire supply line will be reconfigured so each tenant has their own fire suppression system. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Fossel to approve the Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1" Shopping Center District subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes,regulations, etc. including but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. 2. Request by MKW Apartments LLC to rezone property from"R-3"Multiple Residence District to "R- 4"Multiple Residence District at 312 Cataract Avenue located south of Cataract Avenue and east of Edgemont Avenue to allow for the construction of an additional 22-unit apartment building. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Hart to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Johnson noted he would not vote on the issue due to representing the developer. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to allow for the construction of an additional 22-unit apartment building and that there are currently 120-units existing on the property. The proposed new 22-unit building would be located on the southwest corner of the lot where the existing playground sits. Schroeder noted that staff feels the location of the additional apartment building is consistent with the existing development and layout of the area. Schroeder also noted that applicant has inquired about vacating the existing Edgemont right-of-way, but at this time, is not pursuing that request. Hart questioned if the size of the proposed building will be similar to the existing format of the current buildings. Schroeder noted the new building would have three stories and be similar in size to the existing buildings. Craft noted that there appears to be two accessory buildings located on the southern lot that was previously split off from the existing apartment complex. Schroeder noted that the previous owner of the complex sold the northern portion of the property to the current developers and retained the southern portion for their own personal use. Schroeder noted when this was done, a violation of the Ordinance occurred, due to the existing garages being the only structures on the southern lot without a principal permitted use. The owner did receive a temporary variance on the property, which requires him to build a principal permitted use within two years of July 2005. Schroeder also noted that when the property was split, it was 2 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 December 5,2006 Minutes reduced from 7 acres to 5.3 acres,which caused the existing apartment complex not to meet the density requirements for the "R-3"zoning district. Temeyer questioned how the new building is going to get access to Edgemont since the street is not paved to where the proposed site of the new building will be. Schroeder noted this is something that is currently being discussed, and that Planning Staff is still waiting for a proposal from the developer on how the new building will be accessed. Craft noted that it appeared the Technical Review Committee was in favor of not vacating the right-of-way and sees a street extension needed to open up land for development to the west of the apartment complex. Sharon Nickel of 2503 Edgemont noted she is not opposed to the new building, but has concerns with the extension of Edgemont,which would open up access all the way through from Park Lane to Ridgeway Avenue. She noted there are many students from West High who use this neighborhood as a short cut to avoid the stoplights at Ridgeway and Kimball. Nickel also noted there are many students from Hoover who walk along Park Lane and had concerns for their safety if Edgemont is connected through. Nickel also noted there are three group homes on the southern portion of Edgemont and city buses,Exceptional Persons transportation, as well as employees who staff the group homes use the road regularly. She noted that she sees additional traffic as a problem for the neighborhood. Schroeder noted that he has received some calls from other surrounding neighborhood residents and some residents on Barton Avenue expressing that they would like to see Edgemont extended due to cut-through traffic on their street and Engineering would like to see the street extended as well so traffic is more spread out through the neighborhood. Gus Delamore of 2519 Edgemont noted he is opposed to an extension of Edgemont going through as well, but not opposed to the new construction of an additional apartment building. Moser questioned if the current applicant and the owner of the lot to south of the apartments could extend the street since the right-of-way for Edgemont already exists. Temeyer noted that the property owners cannot just install a new street without permission of the City. He noted this would have to go before Engineering and City Council for their approval, but noted that the right-of-way for the street is already there. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Moser to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Loveless to approve the request to rezone from "R-3" Multiple Residence District to "R-4"Multiple Residence District subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations,etc. including but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried with 7 ayes and 1 nay, with Fossel voting against and Johnson abstaining B. Special Permits 1. Request by Weekley Auto Salvage for a Special Permit to move two pole buildings totaling 3,120 SF and to expand the existing salvage yard at 104 Court Avenue in a"M-1"Light Industrial District. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is proposing to move two pole buildings that were recently purchased from the City onto the lot. Graham noted that one building will be placed in the existing salvage yard on the western portion of the lot, and the second will be placed in a proposed expansion on the eastern portion of the lot,which will have to be approved by a Special Permit to expand the salvage yard. Graham noted that a side yard and rear yard variance would be required to place the pole building closer than the required setbacks of the"M-1"district on the eastern side of 3 Planning and Zoning Commission 7 December 5,2006 Minutes the property. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the moving of the buildings to the lots and expansion of the salvage yard subject to the final site plan meeting applicable city codes and regulations, including drainage and landscaping and staff feels the proposed development would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area due to the predominantly industrial use of that area. Schroeder noted that it has been brought to staffs attention that the applicant is selling the existing salvage yard and will retain the proposed expansion area for his own use. Schroeder noted that this would no longer be a request to approve the expansion of a salvage yard, rather, a request to approve a new salvage yard, and that both salvage yards would have to be licensed under applicable City ordinances. Schroeder noted that since the applicant is going to own just the eastern portion of the lot,the variance request will be for a front yard and side yard setback, instead of a rear yard setback. Temeyer noted he would like to see an updated site plan from Mr. Weekley showing where the proposed placement of the building and access is going to be on the newly created salvage yard and if the building placement can be reviewed so that it may possibly not need a variance request to setbacks. Fossel questioned since these are now two different properties, should this be two different requests. Schroeder noted that it could be one request to establish a new yard with a new building on the easterly lot, even if they were to put the building on the existing yard to the west. Schroeder noted that there is a provision in the Ordinance that Planning Staff can approve additional or new buildings in a salvage yard if the square footage is less than 2,000 SF, which would be considered a minor amendment. Schroeder noted that since the westerly salvage yard exists and the building proposed to be moved onto that part is less than 2,000 SF,this request can be seen as minor and would not have to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval. Schroeder noted that the eastern salvage yard would have to submit a request to the Board of Adjustment due to the establishment of a new salvage yard. Craft questioned if anything has been decided on how the buildings would be moved. Schroeder noted no plan has been submitted and the owner will need to submit plans from a building mover before the buildings can be moved. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hartleip to approve the Special Permit subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc., including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc, and that both salvage yards be licensed under applicable city ordinances. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Upper Room Tabernacle for a Special Permit for a seven month extension on the required timeframe for completion of improvements previously approved by Special Permit at 1211 Cottage Grove Avenue in a"R-2"Residence District. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting an extension until May of 2007 to finish the 12' x 52' expansion of the church, as well as completing the parking area, interior and exterior remodeling, landscaping and other requirements. Schroeder noted that the applicant's timeframe expired in October of 2006. Schroeder noted that the applicants have submitted a letter detailing the progress that has been completed on the church, noting that framing,roofing, siding, completion of interior floors and walls, as well partial completion of the parking area has been done. The letter also noted that there have been delays on other parking areas, plumbing and heating and cooling. Schroeder noted that Staff recommends approval of the extension due to the amount of progress that has been completed on the church. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit subject to Staff conditions that before legal occupancy can take place, installation of required parking and landscaping and installation of all required facilities meet the building code and be completed by May of 2007. Motion carried unanimously. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission 8 December 5,2006 Minutes 3. Request by Celebration Church for a Special Permit to move a 480 SF garage onto the existing church property at 745 April Street in a"R-2"Residence District Schroeder gave the staff report noting the church is proposing to move an existing 480 SF garage onto church property just south of the main church building from an abutting property at 2548 Gloria Drive. Schroeder noted that the applicant was approved for a Special Permit in March 1998,which showed the main church building and several future phases and one detached structure. The applicants are proposing to move the second garage just to the north of an existing detached garage near the access point with May Street. Schroeder noted that access from May Street has been used by vehicles despite not being a hard surfaced entrance vehicular use area,which is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted that during times of adverse weather, mud has been tracked out from the entrance and tracked down neighboring streets. Staff is recommending that a minimum 20' wide hard surfaced drive be extended from the May Street entrance to both the proposed and existing garages and connected to the existing parking lot to the north,as required by the vehicular use regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Dan Bigler spoke on behalf of the church and noted that the church has worked to be good neighbors and wants to have the project done correctly. Craft questioned if the church was capable of installing the hard surface access required. Bigler noted they are not capable due to finances going towards paving more parking on the western side of the church to accommodate the growing congregation. Bigler noted that it is in the plans to pour more concrete near the proposed location of the second garage in the future as the church continues to grow. Craft noted that Staff is requiring hard surface access be installed, but since the church is not financially capable of doing so,what will be done. Temeyer noted that a permit would not be issued until it is guaranteed that this can be done. Craft questioned if the area was not being used as a vehicular use area,would it still require hard surfacing. Schroeder noted that is correct, but from Staff's point of view;the area has been used for vehicular use,which is a violation of the Ordinance. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Fossel to approve the Special Permit subject to Staff recommendation that the parking lot or a minimum of a 20'wide hard surfaced drive be extended from the May Street entrance to both the proposed and existing garages and connect to the existing parking lot to the north, as required by the vehicular use regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. C. Plats 1 &2. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Deer Creek Development LLC for the Preliminary Plat of Greenbelt Centre and the Final Plat of Greenbelt Centre No. 1 just west of Greyhound Drive, north of the former Greyhound Park. Andera gave the staff report and noted that there are existing utilities in the area and will be extended to provide service to both the preliminary and final plats. Andera also noted that a new road, Cyclone Drive, will serve the new Gold's Gym and Mauer Eye Center and will have a 60' right-of-way. Andera also noted the road will travel from Ridgeway Avenue, south to Greyhound Drive, and will eventually be extended eastward to Highway 63 as the business park expands. Andera noted staff recommended approval of the plats due to the new development will create infill development in the Primary Growth Area,the plats are in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and the plats would provide for orderly and compatible development for the existing area. There were no comments or questions on the request. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission 9 December 5,2006 Minutes It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to approve the Preliminary and Final plats based on Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. D. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to dedicate a 10' strip of right-of-way for Oak Avenue between Franklin Street and Mulberry Street. Andera gave the staff report noting that the City is requesting to dedicate the strip of land. Andera noted the City previously owned the block that abuts the sidewalk,which was previously the Mulberry Street Crossover, and sold the land to the Rose of Waterloo for a new assisted living center. However,the sidewalk was not dedicated right-of-way and was not sold to the Rose of Waterloo. Andera noted the City is requesting this dedicate to keep the strip of land as a public sidewalk,which it is already being used for. Andera noted staff recommended approval of the dedication. There were no questions or comments on this matter. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Craft to approve the request to dedicate the strip of right-of- way based on Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted the next Special Meeting will be on December 12, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Mollenhoff Room to discuss the Ordinance review. Schroeder noted there have been some changes made to the proposed amendment and it has been included with the packet handed out as well as the agenda for the next Special Meeting. Schroeder also noted that January's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is being moved from the first Tuesday to the second Tuesday, January 9, due to the holidays. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 6 9 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—3:30 P.M. November 14,2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission began at 3:41 p.m.,November 14, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Members present were: Loveless, Craft, Moser, Fortier, Grimm, Burt, Hartleip. Members absent were: Fossell, Powers, Orchard, Thomas, Hart, and Johnson. Others present: Aric Schroeder, and Tim Andera—Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda No motion was made. II. Agenda Items A. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder started at the "C-2" Commercial section of the Ordinance and noted that there are new regulations on outside storage displays, which was not included in the previous Ordinance. The new provision is intended to restrict outside storage of junk or salvage items in the "C-2"zoning district. Grimm raised the concern where it says in the provision that display items can be sold by commercial properties when the display area does not exceed an area equal to the area occupied by the building(s) on a property. Grimm noted that car dealerships display areas are much larger than the building(s) on the lot and feels the City could run into problems and auto dealerships should be exempt. Schroeder noted that this could be looked at. Schroeder noted that the intent of the new provision is to mostly focus on unsightly displays and junk. Craft noted that possibly it should be looked at that places such as Hy-Vee or Wal-Mart, which have garden displays during the warm months, should be exempt as well. Schroeder briefly touched on the adult uses provisions. Burt noted that he would possibly like to see 600' setback requirement moved up to 1000'. Schroeder noted there was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the decision of a community to have the 1000' minimum distance between adult uses and 1000' from residential districts. Burt requested to see a copy of the ruling. Schroeder suggested that if it were increased, that it should be considered to remove the item from being a Special Permit, so it would be a principal permitted use in certain districts. The new provision for permitted uses in"C-2"is not including businesses that have an outside display with no principal building located on the lot. Examples of this were satellite car lots and specifically mentioned, the for sale lot located on University Avenue near the former Brooster's Night Club that allows individuals to put automobiles for sale without having a principal structure on the sales lot. The provision of the Ordinance also noted that vehicles not in running condition, salvage items or used parts must be located in an enclosed building. Grimm had concerns, stating the City may have some problems with this provision without knowing which vehicles may or may not run anymore. The Commission agreed that this section of the "C-2" Ordinance needs to be discussed further at the next Special Meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission,Special Meeting 10 November 14,2006 Minutes It was noted that item number eight, Carpenter and Cabinet Shops would be moved and added to item number twelve in the Ordinance. Item number ten, Commercial Campgrounds, would be moved and added to item number 9,which would require applicants requesting a Commercial Campground to be approved for a Special Permit. Hobby Kennels were suggested to be removed from the Ordinance by the Commission and be replaced with Commercial Kennels. Also, Commission members want it to be required that kennels have to get a Special Permit as well, and be 250' from residential properties. Item number thirteen addressed contractor yards. There was nothing noted in the provision about temporary contractor yards. Grimm noted he, as well as other Commission members would like to see some regulations added into the Ordinance regulating temporary contractor yards. Schroeder noted that these temporary yards in a"C-2" District would have to obtain a rezone in order to operate and any issues would be addressed by the rezone process. Item fourteen had Drive-In Eating establishments moved to item twenty-five,under restaurants. Taverns and nightclubs were moved from item twenty-six to item fourteen. Since nightclubs and taverns were moved to this item, new establishments would have to be at least 100 feet from any residential district, which was has not been required previously. Fortier wanted to see the name Trailer Parks changed to Mobile Home Parks, because she believed Trailer Parks did not accurately depict the Mobile Home industry. There was some discussion on what the difference was between laundries, listed in the "C-2", and launderette,which is listed in"C- 1". The Commission agreed there needs to be more discussion on this particular item. Schroeder briefly discussed about some changes made to the chart at the end of the "C-2"Ordinance regulating items such as setback, lot area, etc. The Commission had no comments on the changes. The Commission and Staff got through the "C-2" district,though there will need to be more discussion on certain items. The next Special Meeting will pick up at"C-P", Planned Commercial on page 56. III. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Aric Schroeder Secretary 2 2 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - 4:00 P.M. November 7,2006 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on October 3,2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Fortier, Fossell, Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Hartleip, Loveless, Moser, Orchard, Hart Members absent were: Burt, Thomas, Powers Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department, and approximately 10 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Motion was made by Grimm and seconded by Craft to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 3, 2006 and October 10, 2006 Special Meeting. Motion was made by Craft and seconded by Fossell to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: September 2006 There was no comments or questions regarding the Financial Report for September 2006 It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Fortier to receive and place on file the financial report for September 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendment 1. Request Deer Creek Development for a Site Plan Amendment to the "M-2,P"Planned Industrial District to allow for the development of approximately 14 acres of the Greenbelt Centre Park, located just west of Greyhound Drive,just north of the former Greyhound Park for the development of a Gold's Gym and the Mauer Eye Center and Divine Spa. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Loveless to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Johnson noted he would be abstaining from the vote due to a conflict of interest. Schroeder gave the staff report stating the applicant is requesting the Site Plan Amendment for the development of a Gold's Gym and Mauer Eye Center and Divine Spa, which will be built on two lots in the business park. Schroeder noted in his staff report this will be the first development in the new Greenbelt Centre Park and it is also located in the Tax Increment Financing District near Ridgeway Avenue and Highway 63, which will provide additional revenue for the development of the area. It was also Planning and Zoning Commission 3. November 7,2006 Minutes noted that the City has received$11 million in federal funds for the redevelopment of parts of the Highway 63 corridor to the north through the City and this new development is encouraging as more development and activity begins to happen along the highway. Hart questioned if this Site Plan Amendment had to go through the Tech Review Committee, since this was added to the agenda late, and questioned if this new development would be receiving part of the $11 million dollars granted to the City from the federal government. Schroeder noted that an item such as this usually goes before the Tech Review Committee,but it was added to the agenda after the Tech meeting had taken place. It was also noted that the revised packet was mailed and e-mailed out to the individuals who are listed to get the Tech Committee packet and no comments or concerns were heard from those individuals. For the Highway 63 corridor improvements, Anderson noted that the development would not receive any funding from the $11 million dollars and that money is reserved for Highway 63 from Highway 218 to Donald Street. Fossell questioned why it was so important for this item to be on this month's Planning and Zoning agenda and not allow time for the Technical Review Committee to look at it. Anderson noted that the weather is getting colder and the construction season is starting to slow down and the normal procedure of going to the Tech Committee first was missed by two days, but the revised packet was sent to the Tech Review Committee. Craft then questioned if there has been a name assigned to the new street coming off of Ridgeway Avenue and if it will extend through to Greyhound Drive. Anderson noted the developers are anticipating on platting the entire 120-acre site preliminarily and then final plating lots as they develop over time,which will still allow for the naming of the streets and the developer is still working on connecting the street from Ridgeway to Greyhound Drive as part of the process. Moser questioned if any of the property was in the floodplain, Anderson noted it was located in the 100-year floodplain and there will need to be requirements met for fill. It was moved by Hartleip and seconded by Craft to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hartleip to approve the Site Plan Amendment to the "M- 2,P"Planned Industrial District subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. and the curb cuts and entrance locations to be approved by the City Engineering Department. Motion carried 9-0 with Johnson abstaining. B. Special Permits 1. Request by Crossroads Community Church for a Special Permit for the construction of a 50' x 50' (2500 SF)church classroom building in addition to the existing church building at 3622 Hammond Avenue in a"R-2" Residence District. Graham gave the staff report noting that this request went to the Board of Adjustment first before coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as three others on the agenda. The applicant is requesting this new building to serve the purpose of Sunday school classrooms. Hartleip then noted that the Tech Review notes said there is nothing on the site plan showing a reserved area for storm water detention and questioned if this was a non-issue and if it should be addressed through the Staff recommendation. Graham noted that generally Planning Staff will put this as a recommendation, but may have been omitted,but stated the Commission can add this as a condition of approval. Fossell noted that since the BOA has already reviewed this first before coming to the Planning Zoning Commission, she questioned why the Commission was reviewing the Special Permit and suggested that in the future,that the process of Special Permits be done in the correct sequence. Hartleip also shared the same concerns as well. Anderson stated that some of the reasons for doing the Special Permit process this way was again, due to the time of year and the slowing of the 2 Planning and Zoning Commission 4 November 7,2006 Minutes construction season, and the City is trying to be development friendly. Hartleip questioned the reason this process was done backwards was because the BOA met before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anderson noted Hartleip was correct. Hartleip noted his disagreement with the process being done backwards. Fossell questioned if the siding on the building was appropriate for the neighborhood. Schroeder noted that the siding material was considered by staff to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, being vinyl siding is common on residential uses. It was moved by Hartleip and seconded by Hart to approve the Special Permit subject to the site plan meeting storm water detention and drainage requirements. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Don Gardner Construction on behalf of Vic Fuller Salvage for a Special Permit for a 40' x 60' (2400 SF) building within the existing salvage yard at 2113 E. Mitchell Avenue in a"M-1" Light Industrial District. Schroeder gave the staff report and noted the proposed building will be for storage and work operations of the existing salvage yard and there is no proposed changes in accesses and drives into the salvage yard. It was also noted the area is protected by the existing flood levy, so there are not additional flood regulations that apply. Schroeder also noted that this new development is within the Highway 218 Overlay District and was approved by the Design Review Board earlier that day. It was also noted that the request went to the BOA before coming to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Schroeder stated that this proposed development did not have any conditions noted to drainage, landscaping, etc., but could be added on as a condition by the Commission. At the Tech Committee it was noted that the applicants are aware that a drainage plan is needed and area working on one for the Engineering Department to review and approve. Hartliep noted that if there is an issue with drainage, he would like to see it noted in the Staff recommendations in fear that something like drainage would be overlooked. Schroeder noted that it would not get overlooked because in order to get a building permit, the building plan needs to be reviewed by Planning and Engineering, particularly drainage, but that Staff can include it in future recommendations. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit subject to the site plan meeting storm water detention and drainage requirements. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Rivers Edge Christian Church for a Special Permit for the continued use of portable classrooms at 1247 Cedar Bend Street in a"C-1" Commercial District(previously approved on a temporary basis ending October 2006) Graham gave the staff report noting they are requesting a Special Permit for a two-year extension of the previous approval to allow for portable classrooms to remain. Previously,the church received approval from the Board of Adjustment for a four year time period to have the temporary classrooms until the church could build a new addition. Since the time the BOA approved the first Special Permit, the congregation has split and have indicated that they do not have the financial resources to complete an addition. Hartliep stated that it seems that the church has no intent to build a permanent structure and is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to let this go on longer and that the church has had four years to make a decision, and also questioned since the congregation split if they need two temporary trailers. James Russell spoke on behalf of the church and noted that about a year and a half ago, the minister was asked to leave and about 200 individuals from the congregation followed. Russell noted that they are getting about 100 people a Sunday and the financial situation has been difficult. Russell also stated they still do have plans to expand the church to the west and have consulted with an architect on building designs. Fossell questioned during the time after the congregation split, if they had time to investigate possible solutions for sale of the two buildings. Russell responded saying they have looked into auctioning off the buildings, such as EBAY, and they 3 Planning and Zoning Commission 5 November 7,2006 Minutes have checked with local construction companies to see if they needed contractor trailers without luck. Fossell noted she had difficulties with mobile homes being located in the middle of residential areas. Sherry Peters of 520 Greenbrier Road said she sympathized with the church going through tough times being her church closed down recently. Peters also noted she felt the four years given to the church was ample enough to decide what their plans were. She also stated that she did not want the time frame to be opened ended and have the trailers sitting on the property indefinitely. Moser questioned if surrounding neighbors had similar concerns as she had. She noted some neighbors did. Hartliep noted he would like to see the church submit plans for either a new addition or removal of the structures so in another two-years from now, they are not coming back with another request for an extension. Johnson noted that the staff recommendation noted a two year extension and no more extensions after that point and sees the staff recommendation as a fair compromise to either have plans for a new building or removing the trailers. Craft noted in the recommendation by staff, that it should be stated that another two year extension was given and that no more are to be given after that. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hartliep to approve the Special Permit for a two year extension, noting four years has already been granted and recommending no further extensions be given. Motion carried with 8 ayes and 2 nays, with Fossell and Hartleip voting against. 4. Request by the City of Waterloo on behalf of the Dan Gable International Wrestling Institute and Museum for a Special Permit for the establishment of a museum in an existing building at 303 Jefferson Street in the "C-3" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report and noted the request is going through backwards and the Board of Adjustment approved the project at its October meeting. Graham noted the construction of the new museum would coincide with other existing developments such as Young Arena, Five Sullivan Brothers Convention Center and contribute to the Sports and Entertainment District in that area. Hartleip questioned how construction could be happening without having permits from Planning and Zoning or the BOA. Graham noted that it was a Staff oversight. Schroeder commented that it was unclear as to what to classify a museum as and it is not specifically listed anywhere in the Ordinance. Schroeder noted that buildings serving as educational purposes require Special Permits and the museum was considered to be an educational facility. Schroeder also noted that the African American Museum was required to get a Special Permit, and the judgment for the Dan Gable Museum to get a Special Permit was based upon that. Hartleip questioned since museums are not listed under the Special Permit process, should this be something that needs to be addressed when the Ordinance is rewritten. Schroeder noted Staff has identified this as needing to be rewritten. Hart questioned if museums need to provide a certain amount of parking. Schroeder noted this type of use does require a certain amount of parking,but the property is in the "C-3" Commercial District, which is exempt from parking requirements. Anderson noted when the Exhibition Grounds begin work next year, more available parking will be located nearby which visitors to the museum can utilize, and that despite not required to have parking,the site does have some on-site parking. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Orchard to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried 9-0 with Johnson abstaining. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 November 7,2006 Minutes 5. Request by InVision Architecture on behalf of the Grout Museum for a Special Permit for the expansion of the existing museum at 505 South Street in a"C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report noting the request is allowed in the "C-2" Commercial District and the museum has received approval from the Board of Adjustment at the October meeting. Graham noted that the site plan provided for adequate space for parking. The applicant is proposing a 30000 SF addition to the existing Grout Museum,which will be used for the Iowa Veterans/5 Sullivan Brothers Museum. It was also noted that a variance was granted to the museum for setbacks, being 13 feet from the property line on Park Avenue and 17 feet from Washington Street, as well as receiving a variance for parking requirements by allowing the museum to use the existing 48 parking stalls. Fossell brought up the concern of having to cross Washington Street from the parking lots under Highway 218 to get to the museum. Anderson noted that the intersection of Park Avenue and Washington Street is signalized and allows for pedestrians to cross. Hart questioned if the Grout Museum would be changing its name, or if the new addition would be called just the Iowa Veterans Museum. Billie Bailey, Grout Museum Director,noted that the expansion will be the Iowa Veterans Museum/5 Sullivan Brothers Museum devoted to that purpose, and the Grout Museum will still be there focusing on local history. It was moved by Hartleip and seconded by Grimm to approve the Special Permit. Motion carried unanimously. C. Plats 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Doug Walters for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Crossroads Estates Replat No. 4 generally located north of Crossroads Estates Replat No. 3 off of Humming bird Circle. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the plat consists of three lots with access to Hummingbird Circle. It was also noted that since the property is zoned"R-3,R-P"Residential, it must be approved for a Site Plan Amendment by the City Council,which it was. Hartleip noted that in the Tech Notes, it said lots have been changed and some water stubs need to get used or be removed, and was concerned on who was responsible for removing the stubs. Schroeder noted it would be the developers who would be responsible for addressing this situation. Hartleip noted that in the Tech Notes Crossroads Estates Replat No. 3 was not shown on the site plan. Hartleip questioned if it had been recorded. Schroeder noted that it was a fairly new subdivision and there were some legal issues that have held up its recording process. Craft noted that the aerial photo of the proposed plat in the meeting packet was not the same shape as three lots being shown for subdivision. Schroeder noted that the entire parcel that exists now extends back to Mockingbird Lane to the east. It was also noted that the applicant has the option of purchasing the ground to the east of the 3-lot subdivision for further development, but was only platting the three lots at this time. Moser questioned if the structures will be single-family homes or duplexes. Schroeder noted they were going to be single- family homes, and the City Council has approved a Minor Site Plan Amendment indicating single- family homes. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hart to approve the Preliminary and Final plats subject to Staff recommendation. Motion carried 9-0 with Johnson abstaining. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission 7 -- November 7,2006 Minutes 2. Request by Claassen Engineering on behalf of Ibrahim Bacevac for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Bacevac Minor Plat No.1 located at 1365 E. Shaulis Road just east of Charolais Drive Andera gave the staff report stating the total plat area is 1.55 acres. In July of 2006, the BOA approved a variance to allow for the lot widths to be less than the average of other surrounding lots within 250' due to the uniqueness of a variety of different lot widths in the immediate area. Staff made the recommendation that only single-family homes should be built on the lots. Engineering also noted that it needs to be written in the Deed of Dedication where access is allowed to these new lots so there is no interference with the intersection of East Shaulis Road and Mercedes Bend. Andera also noted that a Deed of Dedication has still not been submitted. Hart questioned that some of the things missing such as the Deed of Dedication and wording where driveways can be placed on the lots,would it still be up for Staff approval. Schroeder noted if the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the plat,the plat would not be forwarded onto the City Council until a Deed of Dedication is received. Johnson noted that in the report that the lot widths were less than average than surrounding lot widths and questioned if there something in the Ordinance stating a variance needs to be obtained for this. Schroeder noted there is a provision in the Ordinance that if there is a lot that is larger than what is required by the Zoning District it is in, it can be subdivided into additional lots subject to the new lots being similar to the other surrounding lots in the area. Moser questioned if the neighbors concerns had been addressed. Schroeder noted that due to neighborhood concerns of a duplex being able to be built in the"R-2" zoning, it was recommended only single- family homes be built on the lots. It was also noted that some neighbors had concerns with the lots being too narrow for the neighborhood, but the BOA saw a uniqueness with the varying lot widths in the area. Grimm questioned about the existing driveway at 1365 E. Shaulis Road seems to extend onto Lot 3 from Lot 2. Schroeder noted there was a detached garage on where Lot 3 is now proposed, but it has since been demolished and the driveway will no longer extend into Lot 3. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Hartleip to approve the Preliminary and Final plats with a condition that only single-family homes can be built on the lots and a Deed of Dedication needs to be submitted before it is forwarded onto City Council. Motion passed with 9 ayes and 1 nay, with Hart voting against. D. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by InVision Architects on behalf of the Grout Museum at 505 South Street to vacate a 3.5' strip of excess right-of-way of West Park Avenue between Washington Street and South Street. Western gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to vacate and purchase excess right- of-way along West Park Avenue to accommodate the need for retaining walls and steps adjacent to the main entrance of the museum expansion. Engineering has indicated the strip of land is not needed for any future road purposes. Western noted another option was to have an encroachment agreement, but stated that the City Engineer has indicated it would be better to vacate the portion of land due to there being no plans to widen Park Avenue and potential liability the City would have if it enters into a encroachment agreement. It was also noted that Engineering was requiring a joint be installed between the right-of-way and the retaining wall to separate the museum property from City owned property if the sidewalk requires future repair. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hartleip to approve the request to vacate the 3.5'strip of right-of-way, subject to a joint installed between the City right-of-way and the retaining wall in the event there are needed sidewalk repairs in the future. Motion carried unanimously. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission 8 November 7,2006 Minutes 2. Request by Stephen Clabby to vacate a 5' utility easement along the west line of Lot 61 of Heartland Hills Second Addition,just west of 4041 Jodi Drive. Andera gave the staff report noting that the proposed vacate would not have a negative impact on the area and there are no utilities in the area proposed to be vacated. Andera also noted there was an existing 8' sanitary sewer easement on the southern portion of the lot, but is not being affected by this vacate. Andera noted that the purpose of this request was so the applicant could build a new home that will extent across the City Limit line into Cedar Falls. It was also noted that the applicant owns the home across the street and has an attached garage extending into Cedar Falls as well. Staff indicated that they have talked to the Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning and they have no problem with the home extending into their City, but wish to see a site plan to make sure the new house meets their setback requirements. It was also noted that this matter has been discussed with the County Auditor and Assessor and they see nothing indicating that a home cannot be built across the City Limit line. Andera also noted that the owner of Lot 61 has already sold 15' feet on the eastern portion of the lot to the neighbor at 4041 Jodi Drive. Schroeder noted that Waterloo will be providing services to the new home, such as water and sewer, being the majority of construction will occur in Waterloo. It was moved by Moser and seconded by Hart to approve the request to vacate the utility easement, subject to Staff recommendation that there be a public sidewalk installed across the entire width of Lot 61, including the easterly 15'before occupancy of the home can take place. Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted the next Special Meeting will be on November 14, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Mullenhoff Room to discuss the ordinance review. Schroeder then handed out a packet with a Traffic Analysis Zone map. He noted the Metropolitan Planning Organization does a long-range traffic study that analyzes the Traffic Analysis Zones relating to projected population and job growth to begin predicting future traffic patterns in the City and looks to have this on next month's agenda under Plans and Studies for Approval. VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:37p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 7 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—3:30 P.M. October 10,2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:52 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on October 10, 2006 in the Mollenoff Room at City Hall. Members present were: Loveless, Craft, Johnson,Moser via telephone, Thomas, Fortier and Grimm . Members absent were: Burt, Fossell, Powers, Hartliep, Orchard and Hart Others present: Don Temeyer, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department, and Marty Holdst of AHTS Architects. I. Approval of the Agenda Motion was made by Craft and seconded by Thomas to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendment 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of John M. Rooney Trust and Cynthia L Kuelbs Trust for a Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1" Shopping Center District located east of 2009 Crossroads Boulevard for the development of a 6,000 square foot retail building. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 3:54 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report. It was noted the applicant is requesting the Site Plan Amendment to Lot 2 of Crossroads Plat Number 1 to allow for a new retail building. The current building on the site is the former Midas store that will be demolished to allow for the new development. He noted the exterior of the building will be similar to the strip mall near the former Country Buffet site. The zoning ordinance requires that there be 30 parking spaces for the site. The submitted site plan shows 43 parking stalls. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Craft raised a question that the site plan shows an area reserved for storm water detention where the proposal of removing an easement is possible. Schroeder responded that there is a greenway easement there that is going to be vacated. There is a utility easement there as well, but that will remain. Schroeder noted there is not anything stating a storm water pond cannot be in an easement. As long as the pond does not interfere with existing utilities, it would be fine. It was also mentioned that the developer is going to have to ensure the utilities are deep enough in that area and the detention pond will be like a grass swale and not too deep. Craft than raised the concern that if some ground is removed from above a water main, it may not have enough ground cover above and possibly freeze during the wintertime. Marty Holdst of AHTS Architects noted that the option of having water detention under the parking lot could be an alternative that is examined. Planning and Zoning Commission,Special Meeting October 10,2006 Minutes It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Loveless to approve the Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1"Shopping Center District subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacate/Dedicate 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate the 40-foot Greenway Easement platted adjacent to Crossroads Boulevard along Lot 1, 2 and 3 and portions of Tract XG in Crossroads Plat No. 1 Schroeder gave the staff report. The requested greenway easement is located on the northeast side of Crossroads Boulevard and stretches from Toys R Us to the IHOP Restaurant. The proposed vacate will still allow development to continue to occur in the area. Schroeder noted the same greenway easement was vacated where the current Hampton Inn sits, as well as on the lots to the south where two more hotels are proposed. It was also noted that the existing IHOP,Bonanza Restaurant and Toys R Us both have parking areas that are located in the greenway easement and have appeared not to have had a negative impact on the surrounding area. Loveless asked what the exact definition of a"greenway"is. Schroeder noted some developers include greenway easements in their plans as building lines. Schroeder noted it was unclear what interest the City has in the easement that it would make sense to vacate the parcel. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate. Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder went through the different zoning districts from Residential to Commercial. He briefly described any changes in wording and descriptions in the Zoning Ordinance. He said the new wording in specific categories of the Ordinance is having a more uniform,more consistent language applied to them. The overall intent is to have the Zoning Ordinance read fairly similar in specific categories. An example would be having the wording describing the Residential District be fairly similar for all the divisions within the Residential District provision, namely the intent section. Allowable uses will read differently, being that different zoning districts allow different developments and uses. Concerns were brought up about Accessory Storage Garages that were being rented out to another person for storage. Schroeder brought up an example of garage units on Tropical Lane that were not being utilized by the tenants,rather they were being rented to others. There are some questions on how well the City will be able to enforce this ordinance and make sure no one is using these garages for these purposes. Schroeder noted that"C-1" Commercial District will now be known as "C-1"Neighborhood Commercial District. Before the change, "C-1" and"C-2"were both called Commercial Districts. The reason for the change is to better differentiate the two from each other. Thomas brought up how we are able to decipher the difference between halfway houses. Do some halfway houses just have sex offenders living there, and if they do, do they need to be regulated on 2 Planning and Zoning Commission,Special Meeting • October 10,2006 Minutes how far they have to be from certain structures, i.e., schools, churches, daycares. Then members were trying to determine what exactly a halfway house is. Suggestions brought up were drug rehabilitation centers, exceptional person's housing or homes for ex-convicts. Schroeder noted that housing for mentally challenged individuals are stated under the Ordinance as family homes. III. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Schroeder declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, %/Lt.__:_ea oeit Aric Schroeder Secretary 3 7 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—3:30 P.M. October 10,2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:52 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on October 10, 2006 in the Mollenoff Room at City Hall. Members present were: Loveless, Craft, Johnson, Moser via telephone, Thomas,Fortier and Grimm . Members absent were: Burt, Fossell,Powers,Hartliep, Orchard and Hart Others present: Don Temeyer,Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department, and Marty Holdst of AHTS Architects. I. Approval of the Agenda Motion was made by Craft and seconded by Thomas to approve the Agenda as submitted Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendment 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of John M. Rooney Trust and Cynthia L Kuelbs Trust for a Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1" Shopping Center District located east of 2009 Crossroads Boulevard for the development of a 6,000 square foot retail building. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Craft to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 3:54 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report. It was noted the applicant is requesting the Site Plan Amendment to Lot 2 of Crossroads Plat Number 1 to allow for a new retail building. The current building on the site is the former Midas store that will be demolished to allow for the new development. He noted the exterior of the building will be similar to the strip mall near the former Country Buffet site. The zoning ordinance requires that there be 30 parking spaces for the site. The submitted site plan shows 43 parking stalls. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Craft raised a question that the site plan shows an area reserved for storm water detention where the proposal of removing an easement is possible. Schroeder responded that there is a greenway easement there that is going to be vacated. There is a utility easement there as well,but that will remain. Schroeder noted there is not anything stating a storm water pond cannot be in an easement. As long as the pond does not interfere with existing utilities, it would be fine. It was also mentioned that the developer is going to have to ensure the utilities are deep enough in that area and the detention pond will be like a grass swale and not too deep. Craft than raised the concern that if some ground is removed from above a water main, it may not have enough ground cover above and possibly freeze during the wintertime. Marty Holdst of AHTS Architects noted that the option of having water detention under the parking lot could be an alternative that is examined. Planning and Zoning Commission,Special Meeting 8 October 10,2006 Minutes It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Loveless to approve the Site Plan Amendment to the "S-1"Shopping Center District subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including but not limited to, drainage,landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacate/Dedicate 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate the 40-foot Greenway Easement platted adjacent to Crossroads Boulevard along Lot 1,2 and 3 and portions of Tract XG in Crossroads Plat No. 1 Schroeder gave the staff report. The requested greenway easement is located on the northeast side of Crossroads Boulevard and stretches from Toys R Us to the IHOP Restaurant. The proposed vacate will still allow development to continue to occur in the area. Schroeder noted the same greenway easement was vacated where the current Hampton Inn sits,as well as on the lots to the south where two more hotels are proposed. It was also noted that the existing IHOP,Bonanza Restaurant and Toys R Us both have parking areas that are located in the greenway easement and have appeared not to have had a negative impact on the surrounding area. Loveless asked what the exact definition of a"greenway"is. Schroeder noted some developers include greenway easements in their plans as building lines. Schroeder noted it was unclear what interest the City has in the easement that it would make sense to vacate the parcel. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Loveless to approve the request to vacate. Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder went through the different zoning districts from Residential to Commercial. He briefly described any changes in wording and descriptions in the Zoning Ordinance. He said the new wording in specific categories of the Ordinance is having a more uniform, more consistent language applied to them. The overall intent is to have the Zoning Ordinance read fairly similar in specific categories. An example would be having the wording describing the Residential District be fairly similar for all the divisions within the Residential District provision, namely the intent section. Allowable uses will read differently, being that different zoning districts allow different developments and uses. Concerns were brought up about Accessory Storage Garages that were being rented out to another person for storage. Schroeder brought up an example of garage units on Tropical Lane that were not being utilized by the tenants,rather they were being rented to others. There are some questions on how well the City will be able to enforce this ordinance and make sure no one is using these garages for these purposes. Schroeder noted that"C-1"Commercial District will now be known as"C-1"Neighborhood Commercial District. Before the change,"C-1"and"C-2"were both called Commercial Districts. The reason for the change is to better differentiate the two from each other. Thomas brought up how we are able to decipher the difference between halfway houses. Do some halfway houses just have sex offenders living there, and if they do, do they need to be regulated on 2 Planning and Zoning Commission,Special Meeting 9 October 10,2006 Minutes how far they have to be from certain structures, i.e., schools, churches, daycares. Then members were trying to determine what exactly a halfway house is. Suggestions brought up were drug rehabilitation centers, exceptional person's housing or homes for ex-convicts. Schroeder noted that housing for mentally challenged individuals are stated under the Ordinance as family homes. III. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Schroeder declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ----2d i Aric Schroeder Secretary 3 r . 2 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. October 3,2006 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on October 3, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Loveless,Hartleip, Craft, Johnson,Powers,Moser,and Hart. Members absent were: Burt,Fossell,Fortier, Grimm,Rainey and Orchard Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder,Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department, and approximately 10 citizens. I. Approval of the Agenda Motion was made by Hartliep and seconded by Craft to approve the Agenda as submitted Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes from the Regular Meeting on September 12, 2006 Motion was made by Hart and seconded by Moser to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: August 2006 Temeyer gave the Financial Report and noted that the department is at 15%of its expenditures at 16%of the year and currently right on target. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hart to receive and place on file the financial report for August 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations There were no oral presentations. V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendment 1. Request by Lockard Development on behalf of the Cedar Valley Tech Works Inc.to rezone property from "M-2"Heavy Industrial District to"M-2,P"Planned Industrial District at 400 Westfield Avenue, northwest of the intersection of Westfield Avenue and Jefferson Street for the purpose of developing the Cedar Valley Tech Works, a mixed use commercial and industrial development. It was moved by Powers and seconded by Hart to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:07 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the request would rezone approximately 40 acres in and around the John Deere Westfield Facilities at 400 Westfield Avenue with a portion being donated to the Cedar Valley Tech Works,which is part of the Cedar River Renaissance Plan and Downtown Waterloo Redevelopment Master Plan. Schroeder stated the purpose of the development is to create a Planning and Zoning Commission 3 October 3,2006 Minutes bio-based incubator and commercialization center to provide manufacturing and office space for new businesses involved in the biotech industry. A portion of the buildings will be used for the Cedar Valley Tech Works,while the other donated buildings will be demolished to allow for the extension of Commercial Street to the redesigned 218/63 interchange directly south of the property. It was also noted that the proposed plan shows 4 new 30,000 square foot buildings and a relocated River Road. It was also noted that the site has existing utilities such as water and sewer to serve the area. Hartliep questioned about the Tech Committees' concerns about the water and sewage about who bears the costs on providing a new lift station and any changes. Temeyer noted it was joint project between the City and Tech Works. He said the City has applied for a RISE grant to build the new streets, including the storm sewer in the streets,as well as and EDA grant to cover some of the costs of building the new storm sewer. The City will have to match half of the grant with its own funds and then it will be repaid back by the TIF revenue generated from the project. Craft asked who was responsible for the demolition of the unneeded buildings. Temeyer stated demolition will be done and paid for by Cedar Valley Tech Works Inc. It was moved by Powers and seconded by Hart to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hartliep and seconded by Loveless to rezone the property subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes,regulations, etc. including but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to dedicate public Winn Street and necessary easements generally located south of Fisher Drive in Tower Park. Andera gave the staff report stating this is the second stretch of Winn Street in the Business Park that will serve the existing CBE Group and Cedar Valley Associates as well as future development in the area. It was noted that Schenk Engineering has submitted plans detailing areas to be dedicated as public right-of-way,as well as areas needed for permanent and temporary easements for construction, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. It was also noted by Andera that the street is part of a network of streets proposed for the Business Park and will allow customers and workers to travel between Kimball and Ansborough Avenues without going onto San Marnan Drive. Johnson questioned if there will be room to the south of the street for development. Andera stated there is a drainage way to the south and there are no lots for development. Johnson had concerns about streets just serving one side as being expensive to construct. Johnson then asked who was paying for the street. Temeyer said it was constructed through a RISE grant. Moser questioned if the street ended at the Cedar Valley Medical Associates. Andera stated the street exists and it does end at Cedar Valley Medical and CBE Group and the City is now dedicating it. It was moved by Moser and seconded by Powers to approve the request to dedicate. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to dedicate public Schukei Road and necessary easements generally located north of the San Marnan Drive Frontage Road, south of Bethel Street, east of Lois Lane. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission A October 3,2006 Minutes 4 Schroeder gave the staff report noting the newly dedicated streets will serve the proposed Shadow Creek Crossing Condominium development. Schroeder noted that when the property was being rezoned, surrounding neighbors expressed opposition about Schukei Road being connected to Bethel Street as well as there being a connection from Schukei Road to Hammond Avenue by way of Lois Lane,however,the rezone was approved subject to a condition requiring the connection. Schroeder noted that the dedication of Schukei Road as a public street would ensure adequate traffic connections to the neighborhood,which provides for better traffic flow and emergency response. Moser questioned if Schukei Road ended at the north property boundary of the Shadow Creek project. Schroeder stated Schukei Road will end when it intersects with Kaplan Drive just north of the development. Hartliep than asked what was the reasoning why some of the proposed streets are Lanes, Courts,Drives, etc., and wanted to know if there was any reason why a street is either a Lane or Drive,thinking there would be a consistency to the development if a street designation had a reasoning behind it. Schroeder noted the engineering department would be the one to comment on street naming and he knew of no criteria on whether a street is a Lane or Drive, etc. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Hartliep to approve the request to dedicate Schukei and necessary easements. Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Peters Rock Temple for a Special Permit for the establishment of a church in an existing building at 115 Center Street in an"M-1"Light Industrial District. Graham gave the staff report stating that the plan was tabled back in June 2006 because there were insufficient plans when originally submitted. Graham noted that the surrounding land uses are industrial and churches are allowed in any zoning district upon issuance of a special permit. The applicant's plans are to convert the existing 24' x 36' building into a church. It was also noted that the site plan does not show any landscaping and storm water detention. Graham noted the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan though it may not be compatible with the surrounding industrial area. Leo Caruth addressed the Commission,noting that he and his wife own the buildings and businesses directly to the west of the proposed church, and also noted having no problem with the church, but he mentioned sometimes his business works late into the night and very rarely on Sunday and he was not sure when their church services would be. Caruth wanted to make it aware that this is an industrial area where his business is located and there is going to be truck traffic and noise quite often, and mentioned he did not want to interrupt their church services,but on the other hand,he didn't want someone complaining to City Hall about too much noise coming from his business. Moser than asked if he was located directly next door and Caruth indicated that he was and that the building next to the church property is a storage building for finished products. He also noted that trucks are normally loaded in the lot between the church and his business,but did say there are times when a truck is loaded on the street. Hart asked Mr.Caruth if he had any problem with the proposed development. Mr. Caruth indicated that he did not. Hart asked since Leo Caruth expressed concerns about there being noise and trucks nearby, if the applicants had a problem knowing this exists. Rev. Walter Jackson responded saying they recognize the use of the surrounding area as commercial and industrial and it shouldn't be a problem. Moser asked how long the building had been vacant. Michael Douglas,the current owner of the property in question, said the building was purchased around a year ago and he had used it to store items in, and noted that since Mr. and Mrs. Jackson have expressed interest in putting a church there, electrical and 3 Planning and Zoning Commission October 3,2006 Minutes 5 water has been updated. Mr.Douglas said this project is adding new life to Center Street. Moser asked what was in the building before Mr. Douglas purchased it. Douglas said the gentleman before was using it for storage as well. Moser asked if the church had to be brought up to commercial code. Schroeder responded that it did have to meet commercial code,which is what the electrical and plumbing updates were for. It was moved by Hart and seconded by Craft to approve the Special Permit subject to the site plan meeting all applicable codes, including but not limited to,storm water detention, landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. D. Stamp or Signature Block Required for Recording 1. Amendment by the City of Waterloo to require a stamp or signature block to be included on each plat of survey prior to being recorded. Schroeder gave an abbreviated staff report stating the ultimate goal of the stamp is to keep plats of surveys from being recorded that have not been approved by the governing body. He noted it creates a problem when trying to go back and fix the problem after a plat has been recorded. He mentioned over the course of this project there have been multiple meetings including all cities in the county, surveyors and other interested parties. Schroeder noted the Recorder's Office has endorsed this system of review. Once all jurisdictions in the County have adopted the stamp,the Recorder will refuse any plat that had not been stamped accordingly. The County has already adopted this method and it is unsure what stages the other jurisdictions in the County are at in terms of adopting the review process. Craft asked if a property owner has had their property surveyed and a plat is drawn and they want to file, does it get the stamp at appropriate jurisdiction's City Hall. Schroeder answered if it is a retrace of the existing legal description,the hired surveyor can mark it and record it themselves. Schroeder noted if a property owner wanted to have their land surveyed so they can sell half and retain the rest,than the plan needs to be reviewed by the appropriate governing body to ensure the split is in compliance and properly recorded. Hart asked if the splits that have not been done correctly happen very often. Schroeder said it is more often that splits are properly done, but said the ones that are done incorrectly are difficult to deal with and correct. Schroeder gave examples of some instances going to court. Hart asked if the rezone at 65 Conger Street where an 8-plex apartment was in an"R-2"zoning district when it should have been an"R-3"zoning designation was an example of a property not being recorded properly in the past. Schroeder noted that on the Conger Street rezone,there was no splitting of land, instead the building was being rezoned since its density was not in conformance with the existing zoning. The Recording Stamp would not have been needed in this process. Johnson noted he had forwarded the request onto the Black Hawk County Real Estate Committee and he said he received positive feedback on the propose recording system. It was moved by Moser and seconded by Hartliep to approve the Stamp or Signature Block to record plats or surveys. Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted the next Special Meeting will be on October 10, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Mullenhoff Room to discuss the ordinance review, as well as a Site Plan Amendment in the Crossroads Area. Hart noted he sometimes time conflicts on the early meetings due to work and other obligations. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 October 3,2006 Minutes VI. Adjournment With no further business to discuss,Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 4:SO p.m. Respectfully submitted, ti- Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 5 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMIVIING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. September 12,2006 The regular meeting of the City of Waterloo Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on September 12,2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were:Thomas,Fossell,Hartleip, Craft, Grimm,Johnson,Powers,Moser, Orchard and Hart. Members absent were:Burt,Loveless, and Fortier. Others present:Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tim Andera—Planning Department,Eric Thorson—Engineering Department,Councilpersons Carolyn Cole and Reggie Schmitt,Ned Deberg—Fire Rescue, and 20 citizens. I. Approval of the September 12,2006 Agenda. Hearing no changes,Johnson declared the agenda approved as submitted.. II. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on August 1,2006. It was moved by Fossell,seconded by Thomas to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Notes of the Special Meetings on August 8,2006 and August 29,2006 (no quorum) It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Hartleip to receive and place on file the notes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Financial Report: June 2006. Temeyer noted that we are at 8%of the year and 8%of the budget, and we are at month one of the budget and everything is normal. Fossell questioned why a line item was at 63%and Temeyer noted that it was a payout that is only once a year instead of monthly like the other items. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for July 2006. Motion carried unanimously. V. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. VI. Agenda Items. A. Hearings 1. Request by the Anderson-Bogert Engineers on behalf of Shadow Creek Crossing, L.C.to rezone property from"A-1"Agricultural District and"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-4"Multiple Residence District east of 1012 Lois Lane, south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road for the purpose of development of Shadow Creek Crossing,a multiple-family residential development. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Hart,to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 4:10 p.m.Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the request was tabled at last month's meeting, noting that the applicant is purchasing the 16 acre parcel of which the majority is zoned"R-4"currently, and approximately 1.1 acres is zoned"R-2"along the west end of the property and approximately 2.3 acres is zoned is zoned"A-1"along the southeast end along Schukei Rd, and the applicant is Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes /� proposing to rezone these areas so the entire property is zoned"R-4". Schroeder noted that the `T Commission tabled the request so the developer could arrange a meeting with the neighborhood as well as staff,which occurred on August 9,2006. Schroeder noted at the neighborhood meeting there was a lot of discussion regarding the development and the applicant can address what some of the issues that were raised were and what led them to propose the current site plan. Schroeder noted that at the recommendation of City staff,the applicant is proposing to extend Schukei Rd as a public street connecting it to existing Bethel Street, as the City Engineer,Traffic Engineer, Fire Chief,and City Planner have recommended that Schukei Rd be extended as a public street with the private street connecting between existing Lois Ln and the extension of Schukei Rd, as it ensures that there are adequate connection points through the neighborhood for better traffic flow including better fire response. Schroeder noted that at the neighborhood meeting there was concern expressed towards the connection to both Hammond Ave and Bethel St, and the current site plan does show both of those connections,but also shows several traffic calming features, including several speed humps. Schroeder noted that the site plan shows sidewalks on both sides of the public Schukei Rd extension except for a small section at the north where the site plan shows sidewalk on only the west side where it connects to Bethel which only has sidewalk along the west side. The site plan also shows sidewalk along the south side of the private Lois Lane extension to where it connects with Schukei Rd. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending approval of the rezone, as it is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan, and the condo development would appear to create a good buffer between the single-family homes to the north and west and the professional offices and commercial uses to the south and east, and subject to the following conditions: 1)that the development shall include a public street extension of Schukei Rd connecting to Bethel St within 2 years and that sidewalks be required on at least one side, 2)that the development shall be condominiums with a homeowners association responsible for maintenance of the private roads and utilities,and 3)that the final site plan meet all applicable codes, including but not limited to,hard surface vehicular use areas, storm water detention, landscaping, etc. Johnson noted that he would abstain from voting as he has a conflict of interest and is representing the land owning trust. Johnson questioned if the request would be site plan specific. Schroeder noted that the"R-4"District is not considered site plan specific, and if it was zoned "R-4,R-P"Planned District it would be site plan specific,but that the applicants have not proposed to rezone it to that designation. Johnson questioned if there was any protection that the condos would stay condos given that the"R-4"district allows for apartments or other uses. Schroeder noted that if the request were approved with the staff recommended conditions then it would have to stay as condos. Hart questioned if the community meeting took place with some of the residents. Schroeder noted that it did occur and that there was probably at least 20-30 residents of the area as well as staff and representatives for the developer,who reviewed what the proposed development was and tried to answer any questions of the neighborhood. Hart noted the restrictive covenant condition sheet will state that the development has to be condominiums. Schroeder noted that was correct and that the applicants have signed the restrictive covenant form. Hart noted that there was a picture of High Development and questioned if that was the style of building being proposed. Schroeder noted the picture in the packet was just a printout from the applicants website which is the same design that they presented at the neighborhood meeting, but that the applicant could speak more as to the proposed design of the buildings. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 5 Hartleip questioned if the issues of garbage collection have been addressed. Schroeder noted that issue was discussed at the Tech meeting and has not been fully resolved yet,but does not need to be resolved at this time and would just need to be resolved prior to construction of the units, noting that the sanitation department will pick up garbage for 4-unit or smaller buildings,which is being proposed here,but has expressed concern that on the private dead-end street that are narrow and short, it would be difficult for the garbage trucks to pick up trash along them, so it was discussed that an alternative option might be that the residents would have to take the garbage containers up to the through-street or the developer could look at private garbage collection for the entire development. Hartleip questioned if there would be something so the owners of the homes that would have the farthest to walk their garbage containers, especially in the winter time, noting that it looked like a bit of a distance. Schroeder noted he was not sure. Hart questioned if some of the condos would have children and if there would be a park or playground. Schroeder noted that they are not showing any park or playground but they are intending this to resemble a lower density residential neighborhood and although it is predominantly 4-unit condos,they are building them so they still have yard areas,particularly rear yards that will have quite a bit of green space for each owner. Darryl High with Regency High Development out of Cedar Rapids speaking on behalf of Shadow Creek Crossing noted that his staff did have a meeting with the neighbors and took a lot of the input from that meeting back to him,noting that they are kind of in a unique situation that they are somewhat caught between the neighbors desires and the City staffs desires. High noted that they are willing to accept all of the staff conditions,noting that they were not originally proposing to connect Schukei Rd but it is a requirement of staff and a requirement that it be a public street and they have agreed to do that, and that the Lois Ln connection would be made as a private drive and would be posted as private drive,residents only. High noted that he does not feel they are in a position where they can make everybody happy but they are trying to do their best and the main issue is addressing public safety and access with fire and ambulance. High noted that all of the proposed units would have an attached garage directly providing the owner access directly into their home and there is a foundation with full basement with each unit,and nobody living above or below you. High noted there is not a playground designed for the area,and it will be a maintenance free with snow removed and lawn cared for community,and have provided spacing between buildings and would not want playground equipment in a common area. Jeri Damro of 1012 Lois Ln noted that at the neighborhood meeting there were several points brought up and that it seems like the developer is being accommodated in every wish and not one point from the neighborhood is being addressed. When they left the neighborhood meeting it was being proposed that there would either be a traffic gate on Lois Ln to only allow emergency access or that there would be a cul-de-sac so they did not connect,and none of that has been brought up and questioned what has happened between the August 9th neighborhood meeting and this meeting, noting that staff was at that meeting and seemed open to those proposals. Damro noted that there is an additional issue of a sidewalk on the south side of Lois Ln noting it would mean a 190 feet of sidewalk in front of his house and questioned if he would pay for that so that Shadow Creek Crossing can have walking access. Damro noted they even talked about deeding the existing portion of Lois Ln to the two existing property owners, but this all appears to be moot. Anderson noted those were options that were discussed at the meeting,noting there were some neighbors that did not want Lois Ln to connect as they feel it will bring more traffic out to Hammond,but there were also neighbors that were concerned that by not connecting Lois Ln that it will force all of the traffic up Bethel St, and noted that it was something that the developer was going to go back and look at but no decisions were made at the meeting. Anderson noted that the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 6 sidewalk would not be extended onto the existing development on Lois Ln and would only be on the new development, and the City would not require them to put in sidewalk as part of this project. High noted that regarding the option of putting a gate across the connection, it was something they had tried with a previous development and that the gated idea is not something that he is interested in doing. High appoligized that he was not able to be at the neighborhood meeting to indicate that,as he was at another communities City Council meeting,but noted that in warmer climates the gate works but they become a heavy burden and constant maintenance issue for a homeowners association. High noted regarding sidewalk,they are never interested in putting a financial burden on a fellow property owner,and if there is to be connectivity of the sidewalk out to Hammond Ave that they would be willing to pay for it, as they own the private access drive. Damro questioned how snow removal would be handled,noting that the existing property owners have dealt with it, and noted there is an emergency gate at the end of Highway 21 that goes into the hospital,and that was added in the last few years and it works fine so an emergency gate is not anything new in this climate area. Johnson noted that the gate might benefit Mr.Damro but would not benefit the people of Bethel St. Damro noted that the majority of the people at the neighborhood meeting were from Hammond and the other streets north of Lois Ln and that there was only one person that was there that supported Lois connection. Steve Knipp, representing the Hurst Neighborhood Association,noted that if you put a 152 units or whatever the number is, and if the easiest access is out to Hammond, it is going to be a nightmare,and that is what they were trying to address at the neighborhood meeting,and it was his understanding that the problem with not having access to Lois Ln was that the Fire Department would not be able to turn around, and it was also his understanding that the developer did not want to connect to Lois Ln in the first place. (Original site plan provided by the developer did include a private street connection between Schukei Rd and Lois Ln) Knipp noted regardless of that, he did not think the City would want a 152 units accessing directly onto Hammond Ave, noting that labeling it a private drive will only slightly discourage people driving on Hammond Ave from going down it,but would not address the traffic coming off Lois Ln onto Hammond. Anderson noted that the City would prefer the access to Lois Ln, and that for emergency access only the gate was looked at as an option,but the developer has opted not do that, and we have received comments from people living in the area that they would not want the gate, as it will push more traffic up Bethel St. Anderson noted that a large part of the neighborhood meeting talked about the traffic problems on Hammond Ave and that the City is working on making plans _ to improve the intersection of Hammond Ave and Ridgeway, and the Traffic Engineers believe the improvements would improve the Hammond traffic flow. Ron Varney of 3349 Hammond Ave,which is across from Mr. Damro on Lois Ln, noted that he has an empty lot behind his garage and noted that Lois Ln has been private and dead ends for years and has had problems with people driving down it and turning around in his yard. Varney noted that the residents took Mr.Powers suggestion to have a neighborhood meeting, and met in good faith with representatives of Shadow Creek Crossing and staff and he feels that he has been date rapped, as they left the meeting feeling that the issues they wanted addressed were going to be addressed,yet here they are at this meeting getting blind sided. Varney stated that the difference between an apartment and a condo is simply a name change, and that if someone wanted to take one of the apartments on Langley and change it to a condo they could do so, so wanted assurances that this would not happen, noting that the"R-2"portion is right behind his property and when he purchased the land he was under the understanding it was"R-2"for a reason, noting the portion that is"R-4"has been there forever and he is not asking for anything to 4 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 7 be done about that. Varney noted that he is not in favor of Lois going through to Hammond as they have a traffic nightmare there already. Paresh Shettigar of 1215 Kaplan noted that he was not able to attend the neighborhood meeting and has not had a chance to talk to the neighbors about what was discussed,but questioned regarding the letter showing Schukei Rd connecting to Bethel Street and then private Lois Ln connecting between Hammond Ave and Schukei Rd,what the traffic calming feature in the middle of Lois Ln was,noting the legend shows a typical speed hump, but questioned the bend in the road. Shettigar also questioned why the site plan showed sidewalk on the east side of Schukei Rd when on Bethel St what portions of sidewalk exist are on the west side, so it doesn't make any sense, and also questioned the portion of Bethel St were there is no sidewalk if the City has any plans to build a sidewalk,noting there are lots of kids in the neighborhood and a daycare center at the church. (at the neighborhood meeting representatives of the church noted that there is no longer a daycare at the church) Shettigar noted there are a of people that take Kaplan, Olson, or Langley to cross over onto Bethel from Hammond and they constantly speed, and felt that with the extension of Schukei Rd that more traffic will cross over and questioned if it was in the City's plans to put a traffic calming feature on those streets going across. Todd Happel with Anderson- Bogert Engineers and the engineer for the developer noted that the traffic calming feature in the middle of Lois Ln has not been final designed yet but would be some kind of a"chicane"and would be a curved raised median in the street with plantings to try to slow traffic down,noting it would be used in conjunction with the speed tables,which is different from a speed hump and causes you to have to slow down more. Happel noted regarding sidewalk,that there is no sidewalk on the east side of the road north of the development so they took 100' of sidewalk off their plan. Anderson noted regarding the question about traffic calming,there is an existing speed hump on Bethel north of Kaplan. Anderson indicated there are no plans for the City to assess property owners to put in sidewalk along Bethel St. Shettigar question if there is sidewalk along the east side of the extension of Schukei Rd. Schroeder noted that the current site plan shows sidewalk on both sides of the Schukei Rd extension,except for the 100' or so on the east side at the north end. Anderson noted that as a request for speed humps is made by the public,the Traffic Department goes out and studies it and determine if one is warranted, so if the neighbors feel that one is warranted along the east west roads,they would need to submit a request. Alan Knutson of 1036 Kaplan Dr questioned the finalization of the garbage removal and if it does go private expressed concern if it would have unsightly dumpsters. High noted that they would prefer to not have dumpsters and will try to work with City staff as to what they will be allowed to do,but would want the homeowners to have normal garbage pickup, noting dumpsters can create an issue of standing garbage,but that they are at the mercy of what the City will allow them to do. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Hartleip to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Craft to approve the request subject to: 1) that the development shall include a public street extension of Schukei Rd connecting to Bethel St within 2 years and that sidewalks be required on at least one side, 2) that the development shall be condominiums with a homeowners association responsible for maintenance of the private roads and utilities,and 3) that the final site plan meet all applicable codes, including but not limited to, hard surface vehicular use areas,storm water detention,landscaping, etc. Motion carried 8-1 with Johnson abstaining. Yays: Grimm,Moser, Thomas,Powers, Orchard,Hart, Fossell, Craft Nays:Hartleip 5 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 8 Johnson noted that there are two other items pertaining to the same development and suggested that they be taken out of order so that they can be addressed now and the people present for that issue will not have to wait. Johnson noted items Cl and F1 would be moved up on the agenda. C. Plats 3. Request by Anderson-Bogert Engineers on behalf of Shadow Creek Crossing,L.C. for the Preliminary and Final Plat of Shadow Creek Crossing Plat of Survey generally located east of Lois Lane, south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road. Schroeder noted that the plat consists of two parcels,a parcel`B"that is 15.4 acres and parcel "C"totaling 1.06 acres. Schroeder noted that the applicant is purchasing parcel B for the condo development and parcel C is currently leased and will be sold to GMAC Mortgage Company,as it is used for a portion of their parking lot. Schroeder noted that the applicant has submitted an overall development site plan in place of a preliminary plat and has submitted a plat of survey document in place of a final plat,and the documents do not show all of the required information for preliminary and final plat approval as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, however given the minor nature of the split as it is just splitting the existing parking lot off from the remainder of the property, and given that the applicant will have to submit the additional details at a later date when the street and easements are dedicated, it would not appear that the additional information is needed for approval of the plat at this time,and the Subdivision Ordinance does allow the Council to vary the requirements of the Ordinance if the purpose of the regulations are served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending approval subject to the future dedication of public right-of-way for Schukei Rd and the dedication of necessary public easements for the utilities to serve the development, and submittal and approval of a detailed drainage plan. It was moved by Hart,seconded by Moser to approve the request subject to the future dedication of public right-of-way for Schukei Rd and the dedication of necessary public easements for the utilities to serve the development,and submittal and approval of a detailed drainage plan. Motion carried 8-1 with Johnson abstaining. Yays: Grimm,Moser, Thomas,Powers, Orchard,Hart,Fossell, Craft Nays:Hartleip F. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name the following private streets within the proposed Shadow Creek Crossing development east of Lois Lane, south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road: "Huntley Lane","Governor Court","Destin Drive", "Crown Court", "Talcott Court"and"Creekside Court"; and to name the private street extension of Lois Lane from the east end of existing Lois Lane to its dead end just east of the extension of Schukei Road as"Lois Lane"; and to name the public street extension of Schukei Road from the north end of existing Schukei Road to existing Bethel Street as"Schukei Road";and to rename a portion of the existing public street Bethel Street south of its intersection with Kaplan Drive as"Schukei Road". Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department has reviewed the naming of the streets which will serve the development, and is recommending approval, and that staff recommends approval of the street naming subject to Schukei Rd being extended as a public street connecting to Bethel Street and that sidewalks be required on at least one side. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 9 Johnson noted that this would mean Schukei Rd would remain Schukei Rd until the intersection with Kaplan and then it would become Bethel St. Schroeder noted that was correct and that it was felt that it would be better to have the point that the street changes names at an intersection rather than at an alternative point. Steve Knipp, 1119 Kaplan, noted that if he was living on Bethel he would not want to have to change his address and noted that he did not think there was anyone living of Schukei and thought it would be common sense to name Schukei as Bethel instead. Johnson noted that no addressed would change because of the street naming. Schroeder noted that the change from Bethel is only south of Kaplan, and that there are only two abutting property owners, and the one is the vacant parcel owned by the church and the other is the home on the west side which is addressed off of Kaplan Dr. It was moved by Hart,seconded by Moser to approve the request subject to Schukei Rd being extended as a public street connecting to Bethel Street within 2 years and that sidewalks be required on at least one side. Motion carried 8-1 with Johnson abstaining. Yays: Grimm,Moser, Thomas,Powers, Orchard,Hart,Fossell, Craft Nays:Hartleip A. Hearings 2. Request by Heritage Housing Associates L.P.to rezone property from"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to"R-3"Multiple Residence District at 65 Conger Street to legalize an existing 8-unit apartment building built in 1972. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 5:1 p.m.Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the apartment complex with Housing Enterprise Tax Credits,and a requirement of that process is that the property must be in compliance with applicable zoning laws,and during that process it was determined that 65 Conger is not in compliance,as it is located in an"R-2"District, and an 8-plex is only allowed in the"R-3"or less restrictive district. Western noted that at the time the apartment was built in 1972 the property was also zoned"R-2"and would not have been a permitted use, and that staff has researched the site and it is still unknown as to how the building was allowed, and staff has not found any information that would indicate the property was ever rezoned or that a variance was issued, however staff feels that the apartment complex has existed for approximately 34 years and would appear to be compatible to the surrounding area and that staff is recommending approval of the request. Johnson questioned if there would be any uses in the"R-3"that would make them want to do a conditional zoning. Western noted that there would not appear to be too many other principal permitted uses listed in the"R-3"that would need to be concerned to do a conditional zoning. Johnson noted that it has been a part of the neighborhood for a long time and is not suggesting that it should go away but also noted that it is different then all of the surrounding uses and would not want to see the use expanded. Fossel questioned if we should fix something that was not done right by rezoning it, or if we should just say since it was done we will allow it to continue,but if it were to be razed that it would not be able to be returned to an apartment. Johnson discussed the difference between a legal non-conforming use vs a non-conforming use. Anderson noted that as best they can 7 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 1 0 determine, it is a non-conforming use,but noted that the reason that it is coming up is because the owner is trying to fix it up, and to do so they need a letter stating it is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and that can not be done without the rezone. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hart to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm to approve the request. Motion carried 8-2. Yays:Moser, Thomas,Powers, Orchard, Craft,Johnson,Hartleip, Grimm Nays:Hart, Fossell 3. Request by Beaver Valley Nursery and Landscape on behalf of Oster Family Limited Partnership to rezone 77 acres from"A-1"Agricultural District to`B-P"Business Park District at the Southeast corner of Sergeant Road(Hwy 63)and Ranchero Road,just south of 2424 Ranchero Road, for development of a garden retail center and nursery. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Thomas,to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 5:12 p.m.Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting the City rezone the 77 acres along the eastern side of Hwy 63 from Ranchero Rd to Prescott's Creek for the development of the garden retail center. Anderson noted the surrounding uses and that the site is zoned for agricultural purposes and is in agricultural production, and that the`B-P"designation allows for the orderly development of the large parcel, as it is a planned district allowing for greater protection and harmonious development techniques where such development would occur near the growing residential areas. Anderson noted that a majority of the site is located within the 100- yr floodplain, so development must be elevated in accordance with the floodplain regulations. Anderson noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as commercial and business park, and is located within the Primary Growth Area, and with the utilities already in place,this is defined as a smart growth development site. Anderson noted the site plan shows a 12,000 sf garden retail commercial building and 34,000 sf in accessory buildings for greenhouses,which appears to be compatible development to the existing business climate along Ranchero Rd and the plan shows a nursery stock area to the south of the building area, which will work as good use of the large floodplain designation of this area, requiring less fill than full development of the site, and will make a good buffer for the residential development to the east and south,and will make for the possibility of future lots along Highway 63 for more development. Anderson noted that staff is recommending approval, as the plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for infill development in the Primary Growth Area,the site would appear to allow for compatible design to the surrounding developments, including the commercial area along Ranchero Rd and creating a landscaped area in the nursery stock along the residential areas to the south and east, and the site plan would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all requirements of the Ordinance, and based on the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes,regulations, etc, including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. Fossell questioned if there was any reason to be concerned that the Iowa D.O.T.may not give an additional access. Anderson noted that at this point the applicants are only showing the landscaping business,but given it is a large site, at some point in the future they may be interested in putting in a frontage road off of Ranchero to go in front of or behind additional lots, and if the D.O.T. did not allow another access,they would just have to keep it as a cul-de-sac. 8 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 11 It was moved by Hart,seconded by Hartleip to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Hart to recommend approval of the request. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request by Atul Patel for a site plan amendment to the"S-1" Shopping District for the construction of two hotels on a portion of Tract XG of Crossroads Plat No. 1,just south of 2034 La Porte Road at the northwest corner of Bopp Street and La Porte Road. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 5:25 p.m.Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Johnson noted that he would abstain as he represents the seller of the property. Anderson gave the staff report noting that this is an amendment to the"S-1"District to allow for the construction of a hotel development of the 2.5 acre site at the northwest corner of Bopp St and La Porte Rd. Anderson noted the surrounding uses and indicated the redevelopment would appear to have a positive impact on the area,as it would continue the commercial development of the area and the proposed hotels are designed with the narrow dimension of buildings towards La Porte Rd to still allow a line of site between La Porte Rd and the Crossroads Shopping Center. Anderson noted the request would not appear to have any negative impact on traffic conditions and the site is designated as commercial on the Future Land Use Map and in in the Primary Growth Area, so is defined as smart growth. Anderson noted the proposed request would construct two buildings,the first a 50'4"high,4-story, 77 unit hotel building, and the second a 3- story, 59-unit hotel buiding,on the 2.5 acre parcel of land, and that the hotels would appear to contain the necessary parking and meet setback requirements. Anderson noted that staff is recommending approval as the plan is in conformance with the Comp Plan allowing for infill development in the Primary Growth Area, and the site plan would appear to meet all the intentions of the"S-1"district regulations, and the proposed amendment would appear beneficial to continued commercial development of the area and would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required gegulations including setbacks,drainage, landscaping, screening, etc. and subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes,regulations,etc. including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping,etc. Hart questioned traffic and if there would be any impact,as it is fairly busy. Anderson noted that the Traffic Engineer did not believe that there would be any concerns based on the development. Louis Youngblood with 2026 Bopp St noted that he is not opposed but wanted to know how far from the intersection of Bopp St the access from La Porte Rd would be and also questioned if the two hotels would be the same,what the name was, and if it would have a restaurant. Anderson noted the plan does not show a restaurant and the applicant has not submitted the name of the proposed hotel or hotels. Anderson noted that the driveway onto La Porte is near the center of the lot. Youngblood noted that there are traffic problems with that intersection now, but noted it would be better if the driveway would be more in the center of the lot. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Fossell to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm to recommend approval of the request. Motion carried 9-0 with Johnson abstaining. 9 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 12 5. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance: Schedule of Fees,Projections,Double Frontage Lots, and Signage for Strip Developments. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the memo in the packet that explained each of the provisions of the Ordinance being amended and gave a brief review of the provision, including to the"Strip Developments or Strip Malls signage"provision,"Double Frontage Lots"provision, "Ordinary Projections and Handicap Ramps"provision,and"Filing Fee"provision. The Commission then reviewed and discussed the proposed changes. It was moved by Fosse!,seconded by Powers to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Hartleip to recommend approval of the request Motion carried unanimously. B. Special Permits 1. Request by Deery Investments for a Special Permit for a proposed 50' x 150' building and parking area within the approved recycling yard at 1346 W Airline Hwy(Special Permit granted 2/22/05). Schroeder noted that this request is going through the process backwards and the Board of Adjustment approved the special permit subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval. Schroeder reviewed the staff report and noted that the special permit will allow and additional building and parking area. Schroeder noted that the original special permit approved a nearly 20 acre yard and the current site plan shows a much smaller area, and that the original special permit was approved subject to several conditions, and approval of this site plan will not impact those conditions. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending approval of the request,and noted that since the Board of Adjustment approved it subject to the Commission recommending approval, if the Commission did not recommend approval it would have to go back to the Board. It was moved by Hartleip seconded by Hart to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Mills Construction on behalf of St.Edwards Church for a Special Permit for a proposed 26' x 32' storage building adjacent to the existing church parking lot at the southeast corner of Kimball Avenue and E Mitchell Avenue across the street from the church at 1435 Kimball Avenue. Graham noted that the church is proposing to build the garage addition to replace an existing smaller shed in a similar location, and noted that it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area as it will be constructed with residentially compatible material, including vinyl siding and shingled roof. Graham noted that staff is recommending that the request be approved, as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic and is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan. It was moved by Craft seconded by Hartleip to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. C. Plats 1. Request by Wayne Claassen Engineering on behalf of Hayek Enterprises Inc. for the Final Plat of Nottingham Heights Addition generally located west of Nottingham Second Addition off of William Drive,just west of W 4th Street. Western gave the staff reort noting that the final plat consists of 6 lots on a total of 4.924 acres with access onto West Lim St from extended William Dr,and that the plat would appear to show 10 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 13 all of the required information. Western noted staff is recommending that the plat be approved,as it is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and can be serviced by extensions of existing utilities, and is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan, and would appear to provide for the orderly development of land and is compatible to surrounding developments. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Grimm to recommend approval the request. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Wayne Claassen Engineering on behalf of Lost Island Real Estate L.C. for the Preliminary Plat of Lost Island East Addition generally located west of Isle of Capri Addition off of Isle of Capri Boulevard,just north of E Shaulis Road. Western gave the staff report noting that the plat consists of 2 lots totaling 12.243 lots in a"C-P" Planned Commercial District, so future development will have to go through the site plan amendment process. Western noted that the plat provides for a private street Banyan Dr,which will have access off of private Isle of Capri Blvd,which has access off of Shaulis Rd. Western noted that the plat would appear to show the required information and staff is recommending approval as the plat is in accordance with the subdivision ordinance and can be serviced by extensions of existing utilities,the plat is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan, and the plat would appear to provide for the orderly development of land and is compatible to surrounding developments. Johnson questioned if Banyan would be used as a cut through and if traffic calming would be needed. Western noted that no concerns were raised at the Technical Review Committee meeting. Fossell questioned how it could be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Map if we don't know what the use will be. Western noted that the use will be commercial and the Future Land Use Map identifies the area as commercial,and also since the area is zoned"C-P", the future development will have to come back through the site plan amendment process. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Powers to recommend approval the request. Motion carried unanimously. D. Appeal of Driveway Policy 1. Request by Dick Wald for an appeal of the Driveway Specifications prohibiting more than a 26' wide driveway at back of sidewalk to allow for a 110' wide driveway at back of sidewalk onto W 13th Street on Lot 1 of Block 61 of Anthony Bakers Addition, a vacant lot located southeast of 1420 Black Hawk Street, for the construction of a mini-storage building(also requires a variance to the Zoning Ordinance). Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the appeal to the driveway specifications would appear to have a negative impact upon the area as the request would set precedent for allowing wider driveways, and may also create additional traffic conflicts and may encourage traffic to park on the portion of driveway that is within the public street right-of-way, as well as encouraging traffic to back out onto the public street, both of which would be prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted the applicant does own an existing mini-storage building across the street that has a similar driveway and there has not been any problems with that,noting that it is a low- traffic street which does not have a lot of thru-traffic, and the street does not go anywhere to the north of Black Hawk and does not have a connection to Hwy 218 to the south. Schroeder noted that the City Code mandates that an appeal of the decision of the city engineer be reviewed by the Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision, and the driveway specifications set for by the City indicates that the maximum width of a driveway at back of sidewalk is not to exceed 26', and the owner is requesting a 110' driveway. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending that the decision of the City Engineer be affirmed and the appeal be denied as the decision of the Engineer is in accordance with the Driveway Specifications of the City of Waterloo and the appeal would appear to cause traffic problems in the area and would set 11 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 14 precedent for similar requests. Hartleip questioned the width of the existing driveway and how it was allowed. Eric Thorson noted that he is not aware of how wide the driveway is as it was not approved by City staff and he is not sure how it was allowed to be built, and was put in without the proper approvals. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Powers to recommend denial of the appeal and support the decision of the City Engineer. Motion carried 9-1. Yays:Hart, Grimm,Powers,Moser, Thomas,Fossell, Craft,Johnson,Hartleip Nays: Orchard E. Cell Tower—Major Significance 1. Request by Iowa Wireless for approval of a major significance cell tower to allow for a 120' monopole tower and equipment on property owned by Donald Miller just west of 419 W Louise Street. Graham gave the staff report noting that the Ordinance requires that any proposed freestanding tower structure within 500 feet of a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot shall go though the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment, similar to a special permit, and that it would appear that the tower in question would be located approximately 250 feet from the nearest single-family dwelling lot, and therefore the approval is required. Graham noted the proposed tower is a 120' monopole tower,which would be located on the 10-acre parcel of ground,which is heavily wooded. The applicant would be leasing a 75' x 75' area for the tower and equipment, as well as an access easement from the road. The applicant has noted that they are proposing the tower in order to provide better coverage in and around the Allen Hospital area, and have noted that they tried to co-locate on top of the hospital building,however the hospital could not commit to a long-term lease for space on the roof with the company. The applicant has noted that they have looked at other sites,however this site was chosen because it would give the needed coverage and would provide a natural buffer being in a wooded area. Other than the request not meeting the setback requirement from a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot,all other requirements for a new cell tower would appear to be met. Based on the fact that the tower would be located on property zoned Heavy Industrial,and the tower would be located on a large lot that is densely wooded,the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. Hartleip questioned if it was required to contact the neighbors and did we get any feedback. Western noted that we did send notice to property owners within 250' and we have not received any feedback. Todd Armenson with IWireless noted that they do not have the FAA determination yet,but if they can't get the determination then they can't build the tower anyway. Craft questioned if they were proposing to light it, and Armenson noted that they were not proposing to light it. Temeyer noted on the fact that it was not being flush mounted and questioned the applicant about that. Armenson noted that since they were going through the major process they decided not to go with the flush mount,which gives them more options for how to install it and better coverage, especially since it is in such a densely wooded area. Johnson questioned if the FAA would require lighting. Armenson noted that you do not have to light towers under 200 feet unless the FAS specifically requires it. Hart questioned if there was any health risk. Armenson noted that they have FCC guidelines on the emissions from towers and there are no known hazards. Anderson noted that a City couldn't deny a tower based on health concerns because there are no proven health risks. Craft questioned if Allen had any concerns given the proximity to their landing pad. It was moved by Fossell,seconded by Orchard to recommend approval of the request subject to FAA approval.Motion carried 9-1 with Hart voting nay.. 12 Planning and Zoning Commission September 12,2006 Minutes 15 G. Stamp or Signature Block Required for Recording 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to require a stamp or signature block to be included on each plat of survey prior to being recorded. Johnson noted that he has a real estate attorney committee that he would like to get their input on the stamp system before the Commission makes a recommendation. Schroeder noted that there is a memo in the packet discussing the stamp system and includes a sample resolution that the Council will adopt,noting that it is something that staff have been working on several years and will be adopted county wide by every jurisdiction within Black Hawk County to create a uniform system, and they have had several meeting to try and work out the system,noting that Black Hawk County adopted the system earlier that day and other communities are working on adoption. It was moved by Hartliep,seconded by Hart to table the request. Motion carried unanimously. H. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance,creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that the last two special meetings did not have enough members to represent a quorum and stressed the importance for members to try and make future special meetings so that the review of the Ordinance can be completed in a reasonable time. Schroeder noted that the next special meeting will not be until October 10,2006 at 3:30 in the Mollenhoff Conference Room. Adjournment It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Grimm to adjourn the meeting at 5:56 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submi ed, ric A. Schroeder, Secretary 13 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M.August 1,2006 The regular meeting of the City of Waterloo Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m.by Acting Chairperson Hart on August 1,2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt,Thomas,Fossell,Loveless,Hartleip, Craft, Grimm,Powers, and Hart. Members absent were: Orchard,Moser,Johnson, and Fortier. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella—Planning Department,Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Councilperson Carolyn Cole, Ned Deberg—Fire Rescue, and 20 citizens. I. Approval of the August 1, 2006 Agenda. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on July 11, 2006 and Special Meeting on July 18, 2006. It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Hartleip to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: June 2006. Temeyer noted that this was the end of the year report and that we had only spent 97% of the budget, which was$13,392 returned to the general fund, and noted that we received 103% or$4,146 over projection so a total of$17,538 returned to the general fund. Burt questioned if there was a line item set up for Board training. Temeyer noted that there is a line item for training so it the Commission wanted to pursue some sort of training it could be looked into. Fossell questioned the budget amendment process and Temeyer explained when and how a budget gets amended. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Burt to receive and place on file the financial report for June 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. V. Agenda Items. A. Hearings 1. Request by the Anderson-Bogert Engineers on behalf of Shadow Creek Crossing,L.C.to rezone property from"A-1" Agricultural District and"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to "R-4"Multiple Family Residence District east of 1012 Lois Lane, south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road for the purpose of development of Shadow Creek Crossing, a multiple-family residential development. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Burt, to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 4:08 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Hart declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the majority of the property in question that the applicants are purchasing for the development is already zoned"R-4"Multiple Residence District, and only a portion along the west edge adjacent to Lois Ln is zoned"R-2"Residence District and a portion along the southeast edge adjacent to Schukie Rd is zoned"A-1" Agricultural District. Schroeder noted that the area is divided by predominantly single family Planning and Zoning Commission August 1,2006 Minutes homes and duplexes to the north and west, with professional office and commercial development to the south and east,therefore the proposed multi-family development would appear to create a good buffer between the uses, and would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, with the majority of the property in question already being zoning appropriately for the development. Schroeder noted that the proposed development would be served by Hammond Ave, which is classified as a Minor Arterial, and Schukei Rd, which is a local street, and that staff is recommending that Schukei Rd be extended as a public street connecting into Bethel St. Schroeder noted that the applicant would prefer to not make the Bethel St connection, but has indicated that he would make the connection and build it as a public street if the City requires it. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending that the street connection be made, as it ensures that there are adequate connection points through the neighborhood and provides for better traffic flow, including better fire and emergency response. Schroeder noted that staff mailed a courtesy letter to all of the property owners in the neighborhood to the north requesting their input on the Bethel Street connection, and we received comments from a Florine Rule of 1037 Kaplan who noted her opposition to the connection, and Todd and Barbara Western of 3220 Bethel St expressed concern on heavy traffic and the speed of the traffic, and expressed their desire that if the connection is made that it be designed to force traffic to stop or slow down. Schroeder noted that a representative of GMAC had also called and expressed their thought that the connection should be made. Schroeder noted that there are not sidewalks along the existing portions of Lois Ln or Schukei Rd, but there is sidewalk along Bethel St, so staff is recommending that if Schukei Rd is required to be extended as a public street connecting into Bethel St, that sidewalks be required on at least one side. Schroeder noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area for mixed residential and commercial, and the site is located within the Primary Growth Area. Schroeder noted that of the 15.2 acre property the applicant is purchasing, approximately 11.8 acres is zoned "R-4", while 1.1 acres is zoned"R-2"and 2.3 acres is "A-1",while the applicant is proposing a mix of predominantly 4-unit condos with some 3-unit condos. Schroeder noted that staff is recommending the rezone be approved as the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed condo development would appear to create a good buffer between the single-family homes to the north and west and the professional offices and commercial uses to the south and east, and subject a condition that the development shall include a public street extension of Schukei Rd connecting to Bethel St and that sidewalks be required on at least one side. Fossell suggested that the request also be subject to a revised site plan meeting all applicable codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping,parking, etc. Steve Knipp, 1119 Kaplan Dr, submitted a petition of opposition to the rezone request,noted that nobody that he talked to is in favor of the request, noting concerns that it will adversely affect their neighborhood, quality of life, and property values. Knipp noted that City should be about creating neighborhoods, and if you put single-family dwellings in a neighborhood and then surround them by multi-family dwellings you have destroyed the neighborhood. Ron Varney, 3349 Hammond, at the corner of Hammond and Lois, commented that the traffic on Hammond Ave when GMAC lets out is tremendous, and felt that the City has not done a good enough job controlling traffic flow in that neighborhood and now we are looking at giving GMAC access into another neighborhood that will run into Ridgeway, and it will congest the area further. Varney noted major concern when the casino opens that even more traffic will be coming down Hammond. Varney also noted that when City overlaid Hammond Ave 8-10 years ago, Lois Ln at the end will flood and in the winter that freezes over creating a big problem. Varney noted that 2 Planning and Zoning Commission • August 1,2006 Minutes the Damro's and themselves maintain Lois Ln and claimed that he purchased Lois Ln with his property in 1983 and new what the zoning was when he purchased the property so he thought it had been looked at for what would take place in the future so that he would not have to worry,but noted here we are today and that there was no guarantee that when they say it is going to be multiple family that there will not be apartment buildings in there, and if there are apartments back there,there is going to be additional traffic flow that he didn't think the area could handle, noting that there have already been deadly accidents on Hammond, and that traffic from the 4- way stop sometimes backs all the way up to Lois Ln. Hart questioned if the applicant would be tied to the condos and if they would have to come back to change it to apartments. Schroeder noted that they would not be tied to the condos, as both a condo development or apartment development are permitted in the "R-4"District, however the Commission could look at such a restriction as a condition of approval. Schroeder noted that it needed to be pointed out and made clear that the rezoning request is only to rezone two fairly small portions of the property, and the majority of the property is already zoned "R-4"District so the conditions may not apply to that property, and that portion of the property is appropriately zoned for multi-family, whether that be condos or apartments, and has been zoned as such since adoptions of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Burt questioned if they proceeded with the project without a rezone if Schukei would be their only access. Schroeder noted that they could connect to Schukei Rd and Bethel St and also could likely connect to private Lois Ln, depending on who owns it. Jeri Damro, 1012 Lois Ln,the only house with a Lois Ln address,reiterated that the 3"overlay that was put on Hammond causes problems,noting the rain that fell earlier in the day is sitting at the intersection that can't drain down into the storm sewer, and felt that this will cause more drainage to that intersection, noting there is no storm sewer on Lois Ln. Damro questioned if the units would be owner-occupied or rental, and how the maintenance, such as snow removal and street sweeping, would be handled with all the additional units, and if they are rental units there would be no neighborhood association. Damro also questioned if it would have underground utilities, storm sewer, and if property would be fenced. Damro also questioned how the development would affect his taxes and what the timeline for construction would be. Darryl High,president of Regency-High Development and the applicant representing Shadow Creek Crossing, noted that the units would be owner-occupied town homes, each dwelling having its own garage an entryway. High noted that the grounds of the entire area would be handled by a homeowners association, and that there would be underground utilities and storm water detention, and that fencing and the connectivity of the streets was a challenging question,noting that he has built town-home communities around the state and for some they have been asked to fence and gate the community, and in his opinion it is not the answer to the neighborhoods. High noted the type of housing is geared to people who are looking for low maintenance or a first time homebuyer, and if they are fenced in they don't have any connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods. High noted their first though was to not connect to Bethel Street with the homeowners association taking care of the snow removal, lawn care, etc, but noted that they understand the position of the City on the connectivity of streets, and if that is a requirement placed on them they will abide by it. High noted that he estimates that they would build and sell between 35-40 units a year, but you build as they are purchased, so it could be faster is they sell. Fossell questioned if Mr. High could be more specific on the timeframe,noting the neighbors question was how long he could expect construction equipment driving up and down his street. High noted that they plan on starting construction down by Schukie, so the connectivity to his 3 Planning and Zoning Commission August 1,2006 Minutes area would not be until towards the end,noting they will not put it all in at once, and will develop in pods. Fossell questioned when he would like to begin. High noted that he would like to pull permit on the property that is already zoned properly in the next 2 weeks. Powers questioned what the square footage would be. High noted they start about 1,050 with a 2 bedroom 2 bath, go to about 1,500 with a 3 bedroom 2 bath, noting all have full basements with forced air gas, central air, garage door openers, and are a nice alternative. Damro questioned who actually owned the existing Lois Ln,noting he has been to City Hall,the Courthouse, and to Attorneys and has not gotten that answered if he owns the street. Damro expressed concern on the increased traffic that would be going by his home and out onto Hammond. Temeyer noted that his abstract would show what rights he has to Lois Ln, and his attorney should be able to make an opinion. Varney noted that Lois Lane was owned by Lois Davenport who tried to give it to the City back when she built the duplex and the road, but the City would not accept it because there was not a cul-de-sac, and Damro moved in and between the two of them they have been maintaining it,noting that they both have an easement that is built into it and guaranteed. Varney expressed concern that while they were surveying the property the crew seemed to think they could park their construction equipment on his property and had and attitude when he told them it was his property. Carolyn Cole of 836 Lynkaylee Dr and Ward 2 councilperson noted that she has been attending the Hurst Neighborhood Association meetings and the concerns come up surrounding apartments on Langly Rd with some bad landlords and bad tenants, lots of noise, speeding, and traffic problems. Cole noted that when GMAC lets out the traffic is terrible and people cut through this neighborhood. Cole noted the Neighborhood Association has some legitimate concerns and she is very concerned about this rezoning,particularly when she hears it could be switched to apartments with no further approvals. Paresh Shettigar of 1215 Kaplan Dr noted he is a civil engineer by training and is concerned that they were not given a lot of notice,just receiving it on Saturday, so that did not give them a lot of time to call people or fmd out about traffic studies or other things the City may be doing. (The notice referred to was a courtesy notice sent to the entire neighborhood, and not the official notice to the landowners within 250' of the rezone,which was sent out 10 days in advance). Shettigar noted that 11.8 acres is zoned"R-4" already but noted there is a church just east of Bethel north of Kaplan which houses a daycare and expressed concern on increasing traffic on Bethel. Shettigar noted he is in opposition to the extension of Bethel Street connecting to Schukie Road, as it will aggravate the traffic situation at the corner of Lois Ln and Hammond Ave. Alan Knutson of 1036 Kaplan Dr submitted pictures of the area and surrounding intersections and the condition of some of the roads in the area. Knutson reviewed what each picture depicted. Knutson noted that there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood to reach Kittrell School, and also expressed concern that there was not guarantee that there would not be apartments. Knutson also expressed concern with condo developments having parking issues, noting the site has very little room for parking for visitors. Fire Chief Ned Deberg commented that they would like to see Schukie go on to Bethel for better response purposes, noting that if they would respond to a fire in that area that the first station to respond would be#8 from La Porte Rd and San Marnan, but engines from 3 other stations would respond and the more ways into a neighborhood they have the better off they are, and with EMS response, there could be engines coming from all over town as well, so they would be better off 4 Planning and Zoning Commission • August 1,2006 Minutes with the multiple entries. A resident commented that he has watched emergency vehicles trying to get through the area when Ridgeway and Hammond get backed up and it is virtually impossible for them to get through now, so expressed concern if you increase traffic that it will become that much more difficult. Deberg noted that was a difficult question to answer, but that if this feeds more traffic onto Bethel to Ridgeway going east that it would decrease traffic at the intersection of Hammond and Ridgeway, noting that they realize Hammond and Ridgeway is a difficult intersection and they have to be very careful at it, but noted there are many difficult intersections throughout the City, and reiterated that the more entries into an area that they have the better they will be. High apologized if any of his engineers were on the neighbors property and that they are not here to be disrespectful. High noted that the town homes should not be compared to apartments as they are owner occupied with garages, a spot for guest parking in front of each unit, and then some additional parking. High noted that there might be some existing problem issues in the area such as the road intersection, but noted that it sounds like the City is looking at those and already trying to address them, and noted that they have approximately 90 active developments throughout the state, and that when they first looked at Waterloo they looked at the Land Use Plan and identified pieces of property that the Planning Commission and City have identified for a logical place for this type of zoning and development,noting they feel like they are trying to clean up the zoning on the ends of the property. High noted that the development would have entrance signs identifying Shadow Creek Crossing and there will be a minimum of 15-18 million dollars worth of residences, so it will increase the tax base without the City having to build new roads or sewer and water, as those will be built at the expense of the developer, and sometimes those types of investments allow the City to turn around and improve other public property. Steve Simon of 1140 Kaplan noted that he understands when a developer throws 18 million dollars tax revenue the City likes that,but he has a daughter that goes to Columbus and he doesn't like her crossing Ridgeway and Hammond right now, and also expressed concern the shortness of the time that the residents had to prepare. Simon noted that he thinks the Schukie to Bethel connection is a bad idea as it will bring more Crossroads area traffic into the neighborhood. Hart asked Temeyer explained how the process would proceed whether or not it was approved by the Commission, and Temeyer noted that the request is for rezoning, which has two parts,the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, and that as part of the application for rezoning it was realized that there would be an issue with neighborhood concern so additional courtesy notice was sent to try and let the neighborhood know that there was the consideration that there could a Bethel Street connection. Temeyer noted that the Planning Commission will issue a recommendation only, which will be forwarded to the City Council how will make the final determination on the request,including the issue of if the Bethel Street connection should be made. Fossell questioned if the greater majority was already rezoned. Temeyer stated that the greater majority has been zoned since 1969. Fossell questioned if they have made their plans but would have no access to the property if these areas are not rezoned. Temeyer noted that they would have access to Schukie and own the property to Lois Ln which connects to Hammond, and would have access to Bethel. Temeyer noted that the question is if these two parts that are zoned "R-2"and "A-1" should be rezoned to allow for town homes, otherwise they could put single family or other compatible development in the "R-2"zoning, and can develop the existing"R-4" zoning with the town homes. Craft asked the developer if he was prepared to start soon with developing the existing"R-4"area and ignoring the two parts that are under discussion with the rezoning request. High noted that they would be willing to do that and could start on the portions 5 Planning and Zoning Commission August 1,2006 Minutes that area already zoned"R-4",but noted they are looking for the City's stamp of approval on the overall project,noting if they are not rezoned they would continue with the rest of the project. Grimm questioned if the developer would be opposed to putting in speed bumps to help alleviate some of the through traffic or slow it down. High noted that he would not be opposed and would like to see the traffic doing 15 MPH through his development, but noted that the challenge to speed bumps is for snow plows,but is willing to whatever they can to slow the traffic down, and would do whatever the City allowed them to do. Powers noted that the Neighborhood Association has made some good points,concerns, and suggestions, in terms of access, narrowing of streets, and heavy traffic in the area and questioned if Mr. High owned the property that goes all the way up to Sears Drive. High noted that he did not own to Sears. Schroeder noted that the vacant land east of the area in question is owned by Target Corporation, and that is the area that abuts to Sears Drive. Powers noted that he likes to see developments that are compatible with an existing neighborhood and questioned if the developer would be willing to arrange a meeting with the neighborhood to see if there are issues that can be resolved prior to moving forward. High noted that he would be willing to have such a meeting,but noted that a lot of the issues such as the street connections,they may not have a lot of ability to change, as they are from the City. It was moved by Thomas,seconded by Grimm to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0 (Burt left the meeting prior to the vote). Powers suggested that the item should be tabled to allow the developer to get together with the neighborhood to try and resolve the issues and let the neighborhood know what the plan is for roads,type of development, etc. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Loveless to table the request until the next regular meeting so the applicant can arrange a meeting with the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Crossroads Community Church to rezone property from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-2" One and Two Family Residence District at 3534 Hammond Ave to allow for the expansion of the church located at 3622 Hammond Ave. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Thomas, to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 5:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearings open. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicants are proposing the rezone to allow for the expansion of the existing church,which is located on the parcel to the south. Graham noted that the church owns the parcel in question which has a house on it that would be demolished, and the rezone is required because the"A-1"district does not allow for a church and the "R-2"District does, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as the church already exists and owns the property in question. Graham noted that the applicant will need to go through the Special Permit process as well, but the applicants did not turn in detailed plans in time for that item to be placed on the agenda, so it will be on next month's agenda, and given the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan and would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, staff is recommending approval. Hart noted that a few months back there was a proposed church that had not submitted the detailed site plans and the Commission tabled the request. Temeyer noted that part of the request is the Special Permit which will come back before the Commission,but with this request there is also a rezone required,which is a separate issue and approval of the rezone would not have a negative impact on the area. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission • August 1,2006 Minutes It was moved by Craft,seconded by Fossell to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hartlip, seconded by Powers to recommend approval of the request. Motion carried unanimously. B. Plats 1. Request by Wayne Claassen Engineering on behalf of Hayek Enterprises Inc. for the Preliminary Plat of Nottingham Heights Addition generally located west of Nottingham Second Addition off of William Drive,just west of W 4th Street. Western gave the staff report noting that the plat consists of 6 lots on a total of 4.924 acres with access onto West Forth St from extended William Drive, and that additional land for development lies to the north and west, and that the plat is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and can be serviced by extensions of existing utilities,the plat is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan for the area, and the plat would appear to provide for the orderly development of land and is compatible to surrounding developments,therefore staff recommends approval of the plat. Fossell questioned what a NPDES permit is. Temeyer and Thorson explained what the permit is, as it pertains to their storm water management plan. Craft noted there were questions at the Tech meeting regarding storm sewer and a turn around needed. Schroeder noted that there is a gravel area at the end of where the proposed will be that can be used as a turn around, and the applicant's engineer had indicated that most of the area drains to the west so they will not need to extend the storm sewer further up William Dr. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Powers to recommend approval the preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. C. Appeal of Driveway Policy 1. Request by Douglas and Catherine Brace for an appeal of the Driveway Policy prohibiting more than one driveway on a double frontage lot to allow for a second driveway on Maryland Avenue for a proposed garage in addition to an existing driveway on Hillside Avenue for an existing garage and house at 110 Hillside Avenue. LaZella gave the staff report noting that the Driveway Policy set forth by the City of Waterloo states that there is to be one curb cut per property, unless the property has 100 or more feet of street frontage along one street frontage, double frontage lots,reversed frontage lots, and corner lots shall be limited to one (1) driveway on the street with the least vehicular traffic. LaZella noted that the applicants are requesting to allow for a second driveway on the double frontage lot, which has an existing driveway on Hillside and are proposing a driveway onto Maryland. LaZella noted that the proposed second driveway would be located on the lot abutting single- family homes along Maryland, and the applicant is proposing to build a garage on the back lot, with a restrictive covenant between the two lots. LaZella noted that staff is concerned that the garage on the vacant lot surrounded by single-family homes will look out of character with the neighborhood, and thus could have a negative impact o the area,however the surrounding property owners have signed a letter in support of the second driveway and garage, and the applicants can legally build a garage without issuance of the driveway appeal,but would have to eliminate the existing access onto Hillside Drive. LaZella noted that staff recommends that the decision of the City Engineer be affirmed and the appeal be denied, as the decision of the City Engineer is in accordance wit the Driveway Policy, and the appeal request could to cause traffic problems in the area and may be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Hart noted that it would be house, then garage,then house along Maryland. Craft questioned if the applicants have indicated if they will reduce the size of the garage since the Board of 7 Planning and Zoning Commission August 1,2006 Minutes Adjustment denied the variance to exceed the accessory size limit. Doug Brace noted that they intend to remove a shed on the property so that they can still build the size garage proposed, noting they only have a single stall garage built back in the 30's and have no place on their original lot that they could build a double garage, so they bought the back lot with the sold purpose of building a second garage on it,noting that the neighbors have signed the petition because they keep their property well maintained and it would not hurt the neighborhood. Grimm questioned if they would have the same setbacks as the homes along Maryland. Brace noted that is their plan and they will try and keep it as far back,being behind the front of their house, but maybe not as far back as the back of their houses. Catherine noted the street is narrow and parking on the street can be problematic, so they are trying to get it so they do not have to park on the street anymore, and noted that both streets have fairly minimal traffic flow. Thomas questioned if the homeowner on Maryland Ave owned this vacant lot and wanted to build a garage and new curb cut if they would be able to as long as they had more than 100 feet of street frontage, and it was noted that they would be able to. Craft noted that he is inclined to support the City Engineer realizing that the City Council will have the final say. Thomas and Fossell initially decided to abstain as they know the applicants,but it was decided that merely knowing the applicants would not constitute a conflict of interest. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loveless to recommend denial of the appeal and support the decision of the City Engineer. Motion failed 3-5. Yays: Craft,Hartleip,Loveless Nays:Hart, Grimm,Powers, Thomas, Fossell It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to recommend approval of the appeal. Motion carried 5-3. Ayes:Hart, Grimm,Powers, Thomas, Fossell Nays: Craft,Hartleip,Loveless D. Encroachment Agreements 1. Request by Richard Fliehler for an Encroachment Agreement to allow for a 12' x 16' shed to encroach 2' into an 8' utility easement along the west property line at 615 Hilltop Road. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting the encroachment agreement to be able to build a 12' x 16' shed over a portion of the 8' utility easement along the west property line, and would encroach approximately 2' into the easement, noting there is an existing 8' x 10' shed that encroaches approximately 4' into the easement that will be removed, and is requesting the encroachment agreement so he can keep the shed as close to the line as possible so that it does not take up so much of the backyard. Schroeder noted that there are overhead electric and phone in the easement, but would not appear to hinder access to utilities. Richard Fliehler noted that he wants to remove the 8' x 10' shed and build a new one next to it. Craft questioned if the utility companies were contacted and had no objection. Schroeder noted that as part of the Technical Review Committee,the utility companies are mailed the packet, and that no utility company had expressed any concern with the encroachment, but had not directly heard from any of them. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Powers to recommend approval of the request. Motion carried unanimously. E. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name the following private streets within the proposed Shadow Creek Crossing development east of Lois Lane, south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road: "Shadow Creek Crossing", "Walker Way", "Governor Court", "Destin Drive", and 8 Planning and Zoning Commission • August 1,2006 Minutes "Crown Court". This item was discussed with item Al above. It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Thomas to table the request for one month. Motion carried unanimously. F. Appointments 1. Appointment of a Planning,Programming and Zoning Commission Member to the Enterprise Zone Commission. Anderson noted that the City has adopted an Enterprise Zone which allows housing and commercial businesses additional state incentives, such as investment tax credits,refunds on state sales tax, etc. As part of having an Enterprise Zone the City must have an Enterprise Zone Commission,which is comprised of 9 people, 3 of which are at large, and the other 6 are from specific agencies, such as an Iowa Department of Economic Development, local labor force, Board of Supervisor, etc, and one of the seats is for a Planning and Zoning Commission member, which was formerly filled by Tom Langlas, who is no longer a member of the Commission so a new member must be appointed. Anderson noted that the Commission meets on an as needed basis, so when a development comes in they call the Commissioners to set up a time for a meeting. It was moved by Fossell, seconded by Powers to appoint Jerry Hartleip to the Enterprise Zone Commission. Motion carried unanimously. G. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder stated the Commission will continue the review the proposed amendments and updates to the Zoning Ordinance at the special meeting to be held on August 8, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Mollenhoff Conference Room. Adjournment It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Grimm to adjourn the meeting at 5:56 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 9 ti MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-3:30 P.M.July 18, 2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Acting Chairperson Moser on July 18, 2006 in the Frank Mollenhoff Conference Room (Chairperson Johnson arrived at 3:45). Members present were: Burt, Fossell, Craft,Powers, Grimm, Hartleip, Loveless, and Moser. Johnson arrived at 3:45. Members absent were: Thomas,Fortier, Orchard, and Hart. Others present:Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella—Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda. Acting Chairperson Moser declared the agenda approved as submitted. II. Agenda Items. A. Discussion Items 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment—Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that at last month's special meeting they had gotten through reviewing up to page 29 and had just finished review of the Accessory Building regulations in the"General Regulations" section. Schroeder noted that at the last meeting there was a very lengthy discussion on the fence requirements, and that additional review of this area will be required, but that would be done at a later time when staff has prepared some additional suggested language. Schroeder noted that there had been a few minor changes made to the areas previously reviewed and noted where the changes were. Schroeder noted that he would continue through the Ordinance and review the areas that staff was proposing a change,but that Commission members should speak up if they have a question or suggested amendment in a location that staff is not proposing an amendment, and ask questions or give comments and suggestions about the amendments that staff is proposing. Schroeder then began reviewing the proposed amendments,noting proposed changes in Part V "General Regulations", from subparagraph H"Front Yard"to up to but not including subparagraph Q "Site Plan Required". The Commission gave several comments regarding the provisions for the front yard, discussing the possibility of putting in a 5' leeway when calculating the average setback,but ensuring the leeway does not allow them to extend out past the front yard setback of both adjacent properties. It was decided that further review will be required to come up with the appropriate wording. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on subparagraph J`Building Lines on Approved Plats", which was a provision that was previously removed from the Zoning Ordinance but that staff was recommending be put back in the Ordinance. The Commission discussed the provision and how it causes the Zoning Ordinance to "adopt"the setback requirement of a subdivision by reference to the platted building line. Schroeder explained how the provision works and reasons why the provision should be added back in, including preventing development to cross a platted building line in situations where the platted building line is more restrictive than what the Zoning Ordinance requires, and that it creates a public process for a citizen to go through if they want to build across a building line, or creating a public process for which a neighbor can go through if their neighbor illegally builds across a building line. Schroeder noted that the provision was removed under the concern by a previous Assistant City Attorney that the platted building line is a private deed restriction that should not be enforced by the City,however their have been no court rulings that have indicated that a city can not enforce the platted building lines, and it is fairly common for cities to have such a provision adopting the platted building lines by reference, Planning and Zoning Commission July 18,2006 Special Meeting Minutes and noting that platted building lines are more than just private deed restrictions, as they are drawn directly on the plat,just like easements,which are enforced by the public. Johnson spoke on reasons for not re-adopting the provision,including not wanting the staff to have to take up more time enforcing what he believes is a private matter between the property owners of a subdivision, and that he feels that such restrictions expire after 21 years if not renewed by the property owners of the subdivision. After a lengthy discussion their was a show of hands of the Commissioners present to support or not support re-inserting the provision. 3 members indicated support of re-inserting the provision and 5 members indicated support of leaving the provision out of the Ordinance No action was taken on the request 1. Date and time for the next Special Meeting Schroeder noted that previously the Commission decided to hold special meetings on the second Tuesday of the month, so if not changed the next special meeting would be on Tuesday August 8, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. No change was made. III. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4477.:12iy(jiteric. Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 2 • • I. IL • • 4' ■ ♦ • TECH NOTES CITY OF WATERLOO—TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE July 26, 2006 Schroeder called the meeting of the City of Waterloo Technical Review Committee to order at 1:35 p.m.,July 26,2006 in the Mollenhoff Conference Room on the 2nd Floor of City Hall. The following attended the meeting: Brian Johnson—Water Works;Dennis Gentz—Engineering Department;Ned Deberg—Fire Department,Tim Shea—Waste Management;Frank Magsamen—BHC EMA; Larry Sivensind—BHC Health Department; Brian Schoon—INRCOG;Aric Schroeder,Chris Western and Shane Graham—Planning staff. A. Hearings 1. Request by the Anderson-Bogert Engineers on behalf of Shadow Creek Crossing,L.C.to rezone property from"A-1"Agricultural District and"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District to "R-4"Multiple Family Residence District east of 1012 Lois Lane,south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road for the purpose of development of Shadow Creek Crossing,a multiple-family residential development. Schroeder gave staff report,noting that staff is recommending approval subject to the development including a public street extension of Schukei Rd connecting to Bethel St and a public street extended to the east property line if deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer. Schroeder noted that staff would be meeting with the developer's engineer on Thursday to discus this and other issues. Deberg noted that the Fire Department agrees that Schukei should be connected to Bethel for proper fire protection of the area,but did not express a concern whether the connection was public or a private street. Johnson noted that it was previously conveyed to Water Works that the roads would connect,and they have a 12"main stubbed to the end of both Schukei and Bethel and need to connect them,so it not through a street,they will need an easement,and it will likely need to be a minimum of 30' wide. Johnson noted that there is also an 8"line at the end of Lois with a hydrant,which would likely be extended east to the 12"line. Shea questioned if the sanitary sewer lines would be public or private. Schroeder noted that it was not yet know. She also noted that he would need to know what their plans for garbage pickup are,noting that the development is a mix with buildings with 4 or less units and buildings with more than 4 units,and that the current code requires that they provide garbage pickup to 4-unit buildings or less,but not buildings of more than 4 units,which must privately contract for garbage pickup. Gentz noted that more information would be needed for the storm sewer plan,as they show a detention pond,but it is unclear if they will be able to drain the entire site to it,and if the existing storm sewer in Schukei will be able to handle to flow. The Committee also discussed traffic movements in the area discussing the poor traffic conditions on Hammond Ave,particularly at the intersection of Ridgeway,but also discussed the potential concerns of the neighborhood that connecting to Bethel St could put a lot of traffic through the residential neighborhood and questioned if that would cause intersection problems along their, particularly at the intersection of Ridgeway and Bethel. 2. Request by Crossroads Community Church to rezone property from"A-1"Agricultural District to "R-2"One and Two Family Residence District at 3534 Hammond Ave to allow for the expansion of the church located at 3622 Hammond Ave. Graham gave the staff report noting that staff is recommending approval of the rezone. Gentz questioned if a site plan had been provided. Schroeder noted that a site plan had not yet been provided,which is why staff would be recommending tabling on the next item which is the special permit for the expansion of the church, Tech notes 07-26-06 pg 1 but that the rezoning of the land should be able to proceed without the site plan,as the development can not occur until the special permit is approved,and the special permit can not be reviewed without the site plan, as well as other details on the design and layout of the building and parking area. B. Special Permits 1. Request by Crossroads Community Church for a Special Permit to expand the church facility at 3622 Hammond Avenue in a"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District. Schroeder noted that the applicant has not provided significant details for review,and that the item would be tabled or removed from the agenda. C. Plats 1. Request by Wayne Claassen Engineering on behalf of Hayek Enterprises Inc.for the Preliminary Plat of Nottingham Heights Addition generally located west of Nottingham Second Addition off of William Drive,just west of W 4th Street. Western gave the staff report noting staff is recommending approval of the plat. Schroeder noted that there is a small parcel of land in the middle of the area being platted that is not in Mr.Hayek's name. Gentz and Western noted that it was indicated by Mr.Hayek that he had sold this parcel off for someone to build a house on,which did not happen,and he would now be buying it back. Gentz noted that he has not seen a profile, but that currently storm sewer runs up William to Crusade and the plat does not show it extending up William into the area being platted and questioned if the existing intakes would be sufficient to handle the runoff. Gentz noted that they will need to install a temporary turn around at the end of William,and that an NPDES permit would be required. D. Appeal of Driveway Policy 1. Request by Douglas and Catherine Brace for an appeal of the Driveway Policy prohibiting more than one driveway on a double frontage lot to allow for a second driveway on Maryland Avenue for a proposed garage in addition to an existing driveway on Hillside Avenue for an existing garage and house at 110 Hillside Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that staff is recommending denial. Schroeder noted that the applicant's were also seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment to exceed the accessory size limit,which was denied by the Board on 07/25/06,but that at the meeting the applicants indicated that they were unaware that their driveway request had actually been denied and that they felt in discussions with the City Engineer that Mr.Thorson had indicated support of the request. Gentz stated that he was aware that the applicants had spoke with Mr.Thorson but was unaware of the conversation. Schroeder noted that staff would have to confer with Mr.Thorson to determine if he wants to alter the staff recommendation. E. Encroachment Agreements 1. Request by Richard Fliehler for an Encroachment Agreement to allow for a 12' x 16' shed to encroach 2' into an 8' utility easement along the west property line at 615 Hilltop Road. Schroeder gave the staff report and noted that staff is recommending approval on the encroachment agreement. Gentz questioned why the structures could not be moved so they were not encroaching. Schroeder noted that the applicant would like to keep the buildings as far to the side property line as possible to avoid them from extending further into his backyard,and felt that if they were not negatively impacting any utilities that the encroachment would not be a big deal. Gentz questioned what was in the easement. Schroeder noted that there was overhead utilities but was not aware of anything else,and that the other utilities receive the packet and that we have not hear any comments from them as of yet. Schroeder noted that typically the power company has not had a problem with such encroachments as long as they still have sufficient room to get in and maintain their lines. She questioned the liability issue. Schroeder noted that they have revised the standard encroachment agreement that is used,and the new one is very detailed and specific to address issues such as liability and removal of the encroachment if needed by the City or utility. Tech notes 07-26-06 pg 2 F. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name the following private streets within the proposed Shadow Creek Crossing development east of Lois Lane,south of Bethel Street and north of Schukei Road: "Shadow Creek Crossing","Walker Way","Governor Court","Destin Drive",and"Crown Court". Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the street name"Shadow Creek Crossing"will be fine as long as the existing portion of Lois Land is re-named as well,and the duplex that is addressed off of Lois Lane is changed. Schroeder noted that the proposed street names"Carolina Ct","Aspen Cr,and Walker Way"are not acceptable as they are the same or too similar to existing street names. Meeting adjourned 2:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Senior Planner Tech notes 07-26-06 pg 3 j __ 4 � MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M.July 11,2006 The regular meeting of the City of Waterloo Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on July 11, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt,Fortier,Hartleip, Craft, Grimm, Johnson,Powers, Moser, and Orchard. Members absent were: Thomas, Fossell,Loveless, and Hart. Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella— Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Councilperson Reggie Schmitt,Ned Deberg—Fire Rescue, and 6 citizens. I. Approval of the July 11, 2006 Agenda. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Grimm to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on June 6, 2006 and Special Meeting on June 13, 2006. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: May 2006. Anderson noted that we are at 92% of the budget and would appear to be on track. Johnson questioned if this was just through May and if the end of fiscal year had not been compiled yet. Anderson noted that it was just for may, and that next month's agenda would have the June report, which is the end of fiscal year. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for May 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. V. Agenda Items. Johnson noted that items Al and A2 are related requests so suggested that both items be reviewed and acted on together. A. Hearings 1. Request by the Hurst Holding Company, Inc. to rezone property from"R-2"Residence District and"C-1" Commercial District to "C-1, C-Z"Conditional Commercial District at 1010 E Mitchell Avenue to allow for the use of a restaurant in addition to other uses permitted in the"C-1" Commercial District. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone property from"C-1" Commercial District to "R-2" Residence District just west of 1010 E Mitchell Avenue. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 4:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearings open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that for item Al the applicants are proposing to establish a restaurant in the strip mall adjacent to Home Town Foods at 1010 E Mitchell Ave, and that a restaurant is not permitted in the "C-1"District so the applicants are requesting to rezone the a � Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes property to "C-1,Z-Z"to allow for the restaurant as well as other commercial uses permitted in the"C-1"District. Schroeder noted that the site has multiple commercial uses on it and would appear to have sufficient parking, however the Ordinance requires 5 parking stalls per 1,000 SF of floor area, and based on the total footprint of the buildings this would require 150 parking stalls, whereas there are only approximately 100 hard surfaced stalls,however areas used only for storage, warehouse,mechanical,or other similar uses may be excluded and staff is trying to obtain information on the amount of area that can be excluded,but expects that it will be enough that the approximately 100 stall will be sufficient. Schroeder noted that the portion of the property that is the formerly vacated Bourland Avenue is currently being used for parking, as well as the recycling drop off location,but has gravel surfacing,which is not permitted for vehicular use areas. Schroeder noted that staff recommends the rezone be approved subject to the condition that the property shall be limited to the uses of the "C-1"District in addition to a 28-30 seat standard type restaurant, and that the property is in compliance with parking regulations, including the number of spaces required, and hard surfacing requirements. Schroeder noted that item A2 is for a strip of land adjacent to 1010 E Mitchell which was purchased by the City of Waterloo for the Dry Run Creek Cunnett, and if the property to the east is rezoned, it would leave a narrow sliver of land owned by the City of Waterloo zoned"C-1"with no other"C-1"zoning surrounding it, and given that it is used for the creek and is surrounded by residential uses to the west, staff is recommending that the area be downzoned to"R-2". Hartleip questioned how a previous restaurant could have been located there. Schroeder noted that it was not known by staff,but would have been in violation. Burt questioned the parking issue, and Schroeder noted that they will need to obtain information on the layout of the buildings to determine the areas that can be excluded, but that they expect that enough area will get excluded that the property will be in compliance with the parking requirements. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Craft to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Powers to approve item Al the request by Hurst Holding Company,Inc. subject to the following two conditions: 1) That the property shall be limited to the uses of the "C-1"Commercial District in addition to a 28-30 seat standard type restaurant, and 2) That the property is in compliance with parking regulations, including the number of spaces required and hard surfacing; and to approve item A2 the request by the City of Waterloo. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Southland Park L.C. for a site plan amendment to the"R-3, R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District located south of Southland Park Fourth Addition off of Charm Drive for the development of Southland Park 5th Addition. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Orchard, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. LaZella gave the staff report noting that the original site plan approved for this area showed condominium development with private streets,and that the "R-P"district is site plan specific, so the proposed change to develop one and two family housing units on public roads requires the site plan amendment approval. LaZella noted that the plan consists of 51 lots on a total of 19.89 acres 2 • Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes with access off of Charm Drive, and that two of the lots would be for commercial uses. LaZella noted that staff is recommending approval of the request. Craft questioned when the extension to Shaulis would be made. Anderson noted that the developers will do this in a two phase approach with the north part first, so the connection would not be made until they do the second phase. Anderson noted that we had still not received street names,but that we would require them before it is sent to Council. Thorson noted that there would need to be two new names for the proposed road,and Charm Drive will be extended. Johnson noted that he represents the developer so will be abstaining. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Hartleip to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hartleip to approve the request. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. B. Plats 1. Request by VJ Engineering on behalf of Southland Park L.C. for the Preliminary Plat of Southland Park 5th Addition generally located south of Southland Park Fourth Addition off of Charm Drive. LaZella gave the staff report noted the plat had come before the Commission in 2004 and was tabled due to concern with extending a public sewer from a private sewer and that the new plan is to upgrade the private sewer to public before extending it, and that there were also concerns on drainage. LaZella noted that no deed of dedication has been submitted yet as required, but that the applicant has indicated that a deed of dedication similar to the deed of dedication for Southland Park 4th Addition would be used. LaZella noted that staff is recommending approval on the plat subject to the private sewer being upgraded and accepted as public,the drainage concerns being addressed per the Engineering Department, and that the plat designate street names. Burt questioned if this would have to come back before them, and Johnson noted that this was just the preliminary plat approval, and that the final plat would still have to come before them. Hartleip questioned the process of shifting from a private to a public sewer, and Thorson noted that the sewer line must be televised and they have to pay to make any improvements to bring it up to the public street standards, and that has been done and there are a few improvements needed to bring it up to public standards, and that they are currently seeking bids to do that work and will then have to provide a 2 year maintenance bond just like any other sewer built as public. Craft questioned if the adjacent residents notified. Schroeder noted that as part of the site plan amendment request there were notice to property owners that were sent, but that approval of a plat does not include notice to property owner, so had this property not been zoned"R-P"Planned Residential District there would not have been any notice. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Burt to approve the preliminary plat subject to the following three conditions:1) The private sanitary sewer line being upgraded and accepted as public, 2) The drainage concerns being addressed,per the Engineering Department, and 3) That the plat designate street names for the proposed streets prior to submittal to Council. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. C. Vacates 1. Request by Karlton Dyke at 1942 Locke Avenue to vacate a portion of alley abutting Lot 124 and 125 of Pleasant View Addition. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes Western gave the staff report noting that the applicants are proposing to vacate a portion of the alley in the rear of their lot at 1942 Locke Ave, and that it has been the policy of the City to vacate entire segments of right-of-way and not just portions like this request to avoid creating dead-end right-of-ways,however a portion of the alley to the east of the property in question has already been vacated,therefore the request to vacate the additional portion would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and will only shorten the existing dead end. Western noted that the applicants recently constructed a home on the lot in question and the home is approximately 30 square feet over the 35%maximum lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, so vacating the 800 square feet would bring the property into compliance. Western noted that staff is recommending approval of the request, subject to the retention of an easement. Hartleip questioned how the house was built not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted that he worked with the applicants when they got the building permit for the new home, and that on the site plan that he approved for the building permit included the house and several porches with a total square footage that came to just under the 35%maximum,but that the actual blue prints of the house used for Building Inspections review had a deck on the rear of the house that was not included on the site plan that Planning approved but it was not caught that the plans were different, and this deck caused the property to exceed the 35% requirement. Johnson noted that usually when we vacate we offer the alley to each abutting property owner and questioned if the property owner to the south refused their portion. Schroeder noted that the property owner to the south,which is Mr. Money, did sign an intent to vacate form indicating that they did not want to purchase their portion. There was a brief discussion on the offer price for the alley but Johnson noted that the Commission no longer reviews price and that the Building and Grounds Committee reviews that. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Fortier to approve the vacate request. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by VGM Management,Ltd at 1111 W San Marnan Drive to vacate a portion of excess right of way of San Marnan Drive near the southwest corner of San Marnan Drive and Ansborough Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that applicants are requesting to vacate a portion of the southerly side of San Marnan Dr to accommodate expanded parking area for their expanded office development, and that the area to be vacated would be approximately 15' south of the existing santary sewer line, and that the area would not appear to be needed for future right-of- way needs. Schroeder noted that a portion of the parking will be within 5' of the proposed right- of-way line, so a variance will be required by the Board of Adjustment, and that initially the Traffic Department had expressed concerns as the Ansborough Interchange and development of this corridor will bring more traffic to the nearby intersection requiring future improvements,but with the approximately 60' of right of way between the existing road and the property line, staff believes there is sufficient room for any improvements such as turn lanes,therefore staff is recommending approval of the vacate subject to the retention of a utility easement. Grimm questioned if they are looking to the City to give this to them or if they will be paying for it, and Anderson noted that those details had not been discussed yet. Craft noted that the Traffic Engineer noted at the Technical Review Committee meeting that the right of way should be kept, and that it would appear that the parking could be flipped so that it was on the other side of the drive in a grass area that would not require the vacate. Anderson noted that it might be a possibility,but also noted that after going out and getting more detailed plans for the Traffic Department,they are now comfortable with vacating the area. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the request subject to the retention of an easement. Motion carried unanimously. 4 • Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes D. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name a private street"Commons Circle"off of Maxhellen Boulevard. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the named private street will be off of Maxhellen Boulevard and will circle around the new Landmark Commons development, and in the future when Maxhellen Boulevard is extended further to the east Commons Circle will be extended to connect back into Maxhellen,and that staff is recommending approval. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Orchard to approve the request Motion carried unanimously. E. Plans and Studies 1. FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program. Anderson noted that last month staff had passed out the FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program and noted that it should be received and placed on file. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program. Motion carried unanimously. F. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder stated the Commission will continue the review the proposed amendments and updates to the Zoning Ordinance at the special meeting to be held on July 18, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Mollenhoff Conference Room. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, dte.Lam- Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 5 13 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-3:30 P.M. June 13,2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Acting Chairperson Hart on June 13, 2006 in the Frank Mollenhoff Conference Room. Members present were: Fortier,Hartleip, Hart, Loveless, Burt, Craft, and Moser. Members absent were: Fossell, Powers, Grimm, Thomas, Johnson, and Orchard. Others present: Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella—Planning Department; Paul Hansen—Code Enforcement. I. Approval of the Agenda. It was moved by Hartliep,seconded by Burt to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items. A. Discussion Items 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment-2-acre minimum lot size for"C-P"Planned Commercial Districts. Schroeder noted that at last month's special meeting they had gotten through reviewing up to page 25 and had just started review of the"General Regulations"section. Schroeder noted that there had been a few minor changes made to the areas previously reviewed and noted where the changes were. The Commission briefly discussed proposed wording changes to the definition of kennel. Schroeder noted that he would continue through the Ordinance and review the areas that staff was proposing a change, but that Commission members should speak up if they have a question or suggested amendment in a location that staff is not proposing an amendment, and ask questions or give comments and suggestions about the amendments that staff is proposing. Schroeder then began reviewing the proposed amendments, noting proposed changes in Part V "General Regulations", up to but not including subparagraph F "Corner Lots". The Commission gave several comments regarding the provisions for fences, suggesting further amendments to make how fences are regulated on both types of corner lots the same, requiring additional wording for corner lots with the house addressed or facing the narrow dimension street frontage. The Commission suggested striking the amendment that would allow fences taller than 8 feet on residential properties if setback the distance of a principal building and concurred that the provision requiring the 20' triangle of visibility with the intersection of driveways and an alley should be removed,making further question if the provision requiring the 20' triangle of visibility with the intersection of driveways and a street was overly restrictive, given that the provision is measured from the street right-of-way line,which is typically already 15 to 18 feet back from the curb. The Commission reviewed and expressed concern on the provision that allows for fences for commercial properties to be taller than 4 feet in a front yard and allowing solid fences in the 20' triangle of visibility, noting that such a commercial use next to a residential use could have a negative impact. Schroeder noted that often times such fencing is actually required by the Ordinance, as commercial uses are required to screen their parking areas from residential uses with a minimum of a 6' solid fence. It was determined that further review of the provision may be required. It was suggested that we require commercial fences that are solid and taller than 4' when adjacent to a front yard of a residence would require a special permit. It was suggested to change "residential zones"to "residential uses"when referring to where home occupations are permitted. No other changes to the home occupation section or the accessory building section were suggested. No action was taken on the request Planning and Zoning Commission 14 May 9,2006 Special Meeting Minutes 2. Set date and time for the next Special Meeting Schroeder noted that previously the Commission to hold special meetings on the second Tuesday of the month, which would typically be one week after the Commission's regular meeting on the first Tuesday of the month. Schroeder noted that in July the regular meeting of the Commission is getting pushed back to the second Tuesday because the first Tuesday is the Fourth of July holiday. Schroeder noted that a special meeting could be held on the third Tuesday, a different date could be picked, or the Commission could decide to not hold a special meeting in July. The Commission decided to hold the special meeting on the third Tuesday of July at 3:30 p.m. III. Adjournment With no further business Hart declared the meeting adjourned at 4:SS p.m. Respectfully submitted, t..r Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 2 3 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M.June 6,2006 The regular meeting of the City of Waterloo Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on June 6, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt, Fossell, Loveless,Hartleip, Craft, Grimm,Johnson, Powers, and Hart. Members absent were: Thomas,Fortier,Moser, and Orchard. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella—Planning Department, Jamie Knutsen—Engineering Department, and 14 citizens. I. Approval of the June 6, 2006 Agenda. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Hartleip to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on May 2,2006 and Special Meeting on May 9, 2006. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Hartleip to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: April 2006. Temeyer noted that expenses have been a little high,but that revenues are exceeding as well. Temeyer noted that the Council had approved a budget amendment to account for the changes in expenses and revenue, so the next report should show the numbers right where they should be. Temeyer noted that the increased revenue was caused by sale of property and rent. It was moved by Powers and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for April, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. V. Agenda Items. A. Hearings 1. Request by Stainles Plus Inc. for a site plan amendment to the"C-1, C-Z" Conditional Commercial District located at 3533 Cedar Terrace Drive to allow for the expansion of the existing building. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicants are proposing a 9,750 SF expansion of the existing 9,200 SF building at 3533 Cedar Terrace Drive,which is zoned"C-1, C-Z" Conditional Commercial District. Applicant noted that site was originally a legal non-conforming use site built in 1968 and last used for warehousing and a sawmill. In December of 2001 the site was rezoned to allow the current business. The Future Lan Use Map designates the area as residential,however the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the presence of legal non-conforming sites and their ability to be used in compatible ways to create a positive development, so the use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan encouraging infill development and Smart Growth. Anderson indicated that the site plan shows the area of expansion, including an expansion of the current vehicular use area, which will need to be hard surfaced. Anderson noted that the 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission 4 June 6,2006 Minutes approval had one condition, which was that the site have no outside storage,and our office has received no complaints on the use, and not outside storage was visible. Anderson noted that the building design indicates ribbed vertical metal panels with a low slope seam metal roof, similar to the design and materials of the existing building. Anderson noted that staff recommends the site plan amendment be approved as it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for infill development and smart growth,the expansion layout would appear compatible to the existing building on the site, and would not appear detrimental to the nearby residential development in the area, and the proposed expansion would appear beneficial to the City of Waterloo, as Stainless Plus has reutilized a previous legal non-conforming site, and is a good infill development project by allowing Stainless Plus to continue to grow, and given that the site plan would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations incluiding setbacks, drainage, landscaping, screening, etc. Fossell questioned the comment regarding a sprinkler system that was in the Tech notes. Anderson noted that Chief Deberg had pointed out that the size of the building did not require a sprinkler system, and that there are fire hydrants in close proximity so they could fight fires adequately. Craft questioned the number of employees and if this would increase their employees. James Butler,part owner of Stainless Plus, noted that they currently have 13 employees including himself and his partner, and at this time they are not planning on increasing the number of employees, and this will give them more storage space. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Hart to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Powers to approve the request subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by NM Development L.C. to rezone property from"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District to"C-P"Planned Commercial District at the southeast corner of Donald Street and Logan Avenue (Hwy 63)to allow for the development of a Walgreen's Pharmacy on lots 1-5 and 20-24 in Block 1 of North Waterloo Place. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Loveless, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the staff report noting that the applicants are requesting to rezone the 10 lots for the development of a Walgreen's Pharmacy, noting the project would involve the redevelopment of the Allen parking lot, and 5 homes along the west side of Hope Avenue to construct a 14,820 building with full access onto Donald St and a right-in/right-out onto Logan Ave. Anderson noted the surrounding uses include Logan Plaza Shopping Center to the north zoned"C-2", residential homes to the south and east zoned"R-2"and to the west is Allen Hospital,zoned"R- 3". Anderson noted that the Logan Plaza property owner has expressed opposition to the rezoning,with concerns that the City should work to redevelop the center, and not rezone additional land along the periphery that is primarily a residential setting. Anderson noted that they have been in conversations with the developer, and will work with adjacent neighbors to ensure a compatible design of the site, including determining the best way to screen the site from the south and east. Discussions have also included on if the alley should remain open into the parking lot area, noting that Waterloo Fire would prefer to see the alley remain open,but would be capable of fighting fires with either decision. Anderson noted that an abutting neighborh to the south had expressed a preference that the alley be closed to avoid through traffic going and 2 Planning and Zoning Commission June 6,2006 Minutes 5 coming from the site. Traffic Operations has voiced some concern with a right-in/right-out onto Logan,preferring instead to see only a right-in design. Anderson noted that the access onto Donald will need to be aligned with the access point into the Logan Plaza Shopping Center,to avoid weaving movements in the street. Anderson noted that the City is working on the redevelopment and improvement of the entire Highway 63 Corridor, but that the preliminary plans do not indicate any need for acquisition of any of this property. Anderson noted that the Future Land Use Map designates the area as residential, however the site is at the intersection of a Principal and Minor Arterial, and near a shopping center development,and also noted that the proposed development would appear to offer an opportunity for a neighborhood commercial use that could be compatibly designed to meet the growing needs for more retail operations in and around the Logan Plaza area. Anderson noted that the Planned Commercial designation would further give the neighbors some security for the future of the site, as any change in use would need to come back through the process. Anderson noted that staff recommends the rezoning be approved as the plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for infill development in the Primary Growth Area, the site would appear to allow for compatible design to the nearby neighborhood and Logan Plaza shopping area, and would not appear detrimental to the nearby residential development,and the site plan would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations including setbacks, drainage, landscaping, screening etc, and subject to the fmal site plan being in accordance with the decision of the Iowa Department of Transportation in regards to the access point onto Highway 63. Hart questioned if there was a traffic study noting that right now at certain times of the day traffic is backed up and if we add a store how many cars will this increase the traffic. Anderson noted that the City has reviewed traffic as part of the 63 corridor study,which included looking at the Donald St intersection, and the consultant for the City has looked at this and has not expressed a concern with the access onto Donald as long as it is lined up with the access into Logan Plaza. Hart questioned if their was communication between Walgreen's and the Logan Plaza Shopping Center about building there. Anderson noted that the Logan Plaza Shopping Center has a private deed restriction that does not allow another pharmacy on the property, so Walgreen's does not have the option to build there. Hart expressed concerns with locating the Walgreen's there stating it seems like an odd location. Temeyer read the letter from Robert Rappaport, part owner of the shopping center, which indicated his opposition to the rezoning. Craft questioned if the DoT has approved the Logan access or not. Anderson noted that it is his understanding that they are working with the DoT, but have not received approval yet. Craft questioned what would happen if the City took action on the rezone and then the Dot were to not approve the access. Anderson noted that the applicants would have to decide if they wanted to continue with the project without that access. If the zoning gets adopted and they do not build, any other proposed use would have to come back through the approval process. Eric Jones of 714 Hope St noted that he does not want to relocate and is opposed. Johnson questioned if his house was one of the houses being purchased for the project, and Jones indicated that it was. It was determined that 714 Hope St was on the east side of the street and was not one of the houses being purchased for the project. Kevin Spooner,the general contractor on the project and representing the applicant, spoke noting that the opposition letter that was read was done by an owner that has a tenant, Osco Drug, that is a competitor, and this may have colored their comments. Spooner indicated that all issued that have been raised, such as traffic,access, and screening can be addressed. Burt questioned what 3 Planning and Zoning Commission 6 June 6,2006 Minutes made them choose that spot. Spooner noted that Walgreen's picks a location they want, and gives that to a developer who tries to assemble a site,which is typically on or within a certain distance from a specific corner. Spooner noted that the proposed layout should work very well,perhaps better than other Walgreen's sites,noting that much of the traffic that enters off of Logan Ave will exit to Donald and then back onto Logan through a controlled intersection. Burt questioned that it was stated they have approve from the 5 property owners but one had spoke in opposition to the request. Spooner noted that it might be a property tenant, as it is his understanding that they have an agreement with all of the property owners. Johnson questioned what type of screening would be proposed. Spooner noted that they are not proposing a specific screen yet,and are willing to work with staff at what will be considered acceptable,noting that he thought staff would prefer landscaping as opposed to just a fence. Anderson noted that staff does feel that landscaping might look better,particularly along the east property line, rather than a plain fence. Grimm noted many of the houses facing Logan and Hope have garages with their access from the alley and questioned what type of access would be maintained. Spooner noted that the developer is open to leaving the alley open into Walgreen's. Johnson noted that even if it is closed off from access into the Walgreen's site,they would still have access to the south off of Dale St. Hartleip questioned the screening to the south. Spooner noted that they intend to do screening to the south and east, but have not decided specifically what that screening would be. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Burt to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Grimm to approve the request subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc, and that the final site plan is in accordance with the decision of the Iowa Department of Transportation, in regards to the access point on Highway 63. Motion carried 5 to 2 with 2 abstentions. Ayes: Grimm,powers,Burt,Fossell, Craft Nays:Johnson,Loveless Abstain:Hartleip,Hart B. Plats 1. Request by Kess&Associates,Inc. on behalf of Iowa Hearland Habitat for Humanity for the Final Plat of Heartland Heights Addition generally located at the southeast corner of Newell and City View Streets. Western gave the staff report noted the plat had come before the Commission in January and was tabled. Western noted that they had worked out the floodplain issues, and have established the elevations the houses will be built at to ensure adequate floodplain drainage in the area, and therefore staff recommends approval of the plat, as it is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan,can be served by existing streets and utilities and not street dedication is necessary,and the plat would appear to provide for the orderly development of land and is compatible to surrounding developments and works towards the City's policy of infill development of land, and subject to a condition of no access to Newell St being allowed from Lot 2. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission 7 June 6,2006 Minutes It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the final plat subject to a condition that no access shall be allowed from Lot 2. Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Peters Rock Temple for a Special Permit for the establishment of a church in an existing building at 115 Center Street in an"M-1"Light Industrial District. Graham gave the staff report noting the site is zoned"M-1"Light Industrial and is surround by industrial and commercial uses, and the site in question was constructed as an industrial building that the applicants are proposing to re-use as a church facility. Johnson noted that staff is recommending that the request be tabled until sufficient details such as parking, landscaping, detention, and interior layout are provided, and questioned if the applicants were aware of staff s recommendation. Western noted that he has been attempting to contact the applicant and just spoke with them earlier that day and went of the details that staff did not feel were adequately provided. They indicated that they would try to contact an engineer firm to see about getting plans drawn up,noting that he had also spoke with Mr. Douglas who currently owns the building. Leo Cruith, owner of LJ's welding immediately to the west of the site in question. Noted he is not opposed to a church, but noted there is times they are working late welding, grinding, pounding,etc. Noted last night they were working late and they were holding church service. Noted they have semis pulling up loading and unloading and wanted to make sure that them putting in a church facility next to them wouldn't cause a negative impact on their ability to use the property for industrial purposes. Johnson noted that the area is zoned industrially and the are aware of that, so the Church should have no ability to affect the use of the area as industrial. Cruith questioned how long the length of a special permit would be good. Johnson noted that it would go on so long as the use was there. Cruith questioned if it was renewable annually and Johnson noted that it does not need to be renewed. Burt questioned what the permitted uses for "M-1"would include. Temeyer stated that is allows light industrial uses like welding and sheet metal shops. Burt noted he didn't have a problem with that,but questioned if a church is an allowable use. Temeyer noted that a church can be located in any district upon issuance of a special permit, but they need to be aware that they are locating in such a district. Burt noted that he sees some potential conflict between allowing a church in such a district and surrounding industrial uses. Hartleip noted that the church was making the choice to locate in such a district, and they will have to live with the consequences. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Loveless to table the request. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Chase Auto for a Special Permit for the expansion of a Salvage/Recycling Yard at 1041 Sheffield Avenue for areas currently used as part of the salvage yard that were recently conveyed to the applicant by the City of Waterloo. Noel gave the staff report noting that the City of Waterloo had previously vacated some areas in and around the Chase Auto salvage yard in the early 1980', and through an oversight, some of the areas were never conveyed until recently. Anderson noted that at that time Chase owned some of the land abutting the areas vacated,while they only leased other portions of the area, so not all of the areas were conveyed. They have subsequently obtained ownership of the surroundings areas. Anderson noted that the areas have been used as part of the salvage yard, and approval of the special permit will ensure that the approved legal for the yard will match the area that is used for salvage operations. Anderson noted that recently the 6 different areas identified on the aerial photo have been vacated and now conveyed to Chase. Anderson noted that staff recommends that the special permit be approved, as the special permit request would appear to meet all zoning ordinance requirements and is compatible to other surrounding industrial uses,the site plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,which designates the area as industrial on the Future Land Use Map, and allows for continued growth of an existing business in the Primary Growth 5 Planning and Zoning Commission 8 June 6,2006 Minutes Area, and the special permit request would better delineate the areas along the levee and included areas recently vacated and conveyed. Johnson questioned if the additional area is also fenced. Anderson noted that the areas are within the area that is already used for the salvage yard area,which is already fenced. Anderson noted the ordinance allows for areas adjacent to levee system or other barrier providing permanent screen. Burt questioned the cause of why these areas were not approved originally. Anderson noted that there were portions that were vacated and conveyed back in the 80's but they didn't own all of the abutting land around the areas that did not get vacated and conveyed, but they have subsequently bought those surrounding parcels and the City has now vacated and conveyed those areas to them so this will include these areas in the area legally approved for the special permit. It was moved by Hartliep,seconded by Fossell to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Waterloo Community Schools for a Special Permit for the expansion of West High at 425 East Ridgeway Avenue. Graham gave the staff report noting that the project is for an expansion to West High at 425 E Ridgeway Ave,noting that all public institutions are required to obtain a special permit issued by the Board of Adjustment after recommendation of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission. Graham noted that the expansion is a 5,200 square foot two-story addition to the north end of West High, in an existing grass area near the outdoor running track, and would not interfere with the existing parking. Graham noted the expansion is for new locker rooms, and a new weight and exercise room,and the addition will match the design of the existing building. Graham stated that staff is recommending approval as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions,and the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan. Johnson question if the once cent local option sales tax would fund the expansion and Fossell indicated that it would be funded through the option tax. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Craft to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. D. Appeal of Driveway Policy 1. Request by Burg Construction for an appeal of the Driveway Policy prohibiting more than one driveway per property with less than 100 feet of street frontage to allow for two driveways in association with the construction of two duplexes on a vacant lot with 99 feet of street frontage just east of 3541 E Shaulis Rd. Temeyer stated that the City has a Driveway Policy that limits the number and location of driveways, and the Ordinance states that an appeal of the City Engineer's determination in denying a driveway must be approved by the City Council, after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Western gave the staff report noting that the property currently has 99' of street frontage along Shaulis Road, 1' less than the minimum for the policy to allow a second driveway. Western noted that the two driveways would be less than 10' apart and that staff is recommending that the decision of the City Engineer be affirmed, and that the appeal be denied. Schroeder noted that the applicant went before the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance to the minimum lot width to allow him to build two duplexes side by side, noting that the property has sufficient area that two duplexes could be built one behind the other, but it was felt that having the duplexes side by side would be more fitting with the character of the neighborhood, so the Board of Adjustment did approve the variance, given the uniqueness that without approval of the variance the applicant could still build two duplexes, one stacked behind the other, but that the structures would be more compatible with the neighborhood side by side, so without the waiver to 6 Planning and Zoning Commission 9 June 6,2006 Minutes the driveway policy he can still build two duplexes but would have to stack them. Craft questioned if he could put a common wall between the two duplexes. Temeyer noted then it would require a rezone to a multi-family district. Johnson noted that they could buy 1' from the neighborhood and not need the appeal. Craft stated that he felt we need to stick to the rule. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Burt to deny the appeal and reaffirm the determination of the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by David Knipp for an appeal of the Driveway Policy prohibiting more than one driveway per property with less than 100 feet of street frontage to allow for a second driveway in association with an existing duplex on a lot with 78.42 feet of street frontage at 1240-1242 Hammond Ave. Western gave the staff report noting that the request for a second curb cut could have a negative impact on the neighborhood and traffic conditions in the area, given the high amount of traffic existing on Hammond Ave and the proximity of surrounding curb cuts. Western noted that the property owner recently converted the single family home into a duplex and is now requesting that there be a second driveway for the second half of the home. Western noted that the property currently has a double drive, which would allow other options for providing additional parking for the duplex. Western noted that the property currently has 78.42' of street frontage along Hammond Ave with the one existing driveway, so the property is not being denied access, therefore staff recommends that the decision of the City Engineer be affirmed and that the appeal be denied, as the appeal would appear to cause traffic problems in the area and may be detrimental to the neighborhood, and given that the property has a double drive,which would allow other options for providing additional parking for the duplex. It was moved by Hartliep,seconded by Fossell to deny the appeal and reaffirm the determination of the City Engineer.Motion carried unanimously. E. Vacates/Encroachments 1. Request by William Van Skiver to vacate the public sidewalk adjacent to 1515 Glenny Avenue. LaZella gave the staff report noting that the applicants are proposing to vacate the sidewalk in the residential area,however the request would appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood by limiting pedestrian access. LaZella noted that the property is the second lot to the east of W 11th Street, which does have sidewalk, while the adjacent lot between the property in question and 11 th Street does not have sidewalk,however the City of Waterloo is currently investigating a grant that would work to fill in sidewalk gaps, such as the connection of this section to W 1 l th St. LaZella noted that throughout the history of the City, sidewalks were required at times,but later not required, creating gaps in sidewalk continuity based on the time of platting and requirements for sidewalks at that time,but the grant would work to fill in such gaps,providing a continuous sidewalk system, and would be used as a pedestrian route to schools. LaZella noted that staff recommends that the sidewalk vacate request be denied,due to the fact that there is only one lot separating the W 11 th St sidewalk from this portion, and there is great potential to connect this portion to the sidewalk system, and there is potential grant money to build sidewalks in areas within 2 miles of schools, as there are at this site. The Commission discussed the location of sidewalks in the area and the absence of sidewalk on both sides of Glenny except in front of the property in question and the one directly across the street from it. William Van Skiver noted that he has lived at the address for 21 years and not even the postman uses the sidewalk in front of his house,as he cuts across the other yards with no sidewalk. Van Skiver noted that his neighbor has a 10' lilac bush that stands right in the way of the sidewalk so wanted to appeal the decision to have to maintain the sidewalk, noting if allowed he was capable of hauling the sidewalk away. Burt questioned if he would remove the sidewalk if 7 Planning and Zoning Commission I 0 June 6,2006 Minutes approved, and Van Skiver noted that he would remove it. Burt questioned how old the sidewalk was and Van Skiver noted that it has been there for the 20 years that he has lived there. Van Skiver noted that he has not heard of any plans by the City to extend sidewalk in the area. Johnson commented that his thought that he understands that we want sidewalks, and thought if this was the only gap where sidewalk was missing he would support having it be put in,but noted that if grant money were to become available to put in sidewalk,then it would not be fair that all the neighbors would get sidewalks at no expense to them where he gets stuck paying for his. Johnson noted that he supports sidewalks,but in this instance he couldn't see supporting making this guy put in the only sidewalk in the area that didn't go anywhere. Craft pointed out that there are not very many streets to the east of this that have sidewalks, so if there is a grant it would be a long distance for a sidewalk along this street to connect into anything. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Burt to approve the vacate request. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Gerald and Doris Boogren to approve an encroachment agreement at 104 Four Seasons Drive to allow an existing retaining wall within the public street right-of-way. LaZella gave the staff report noting that the existing retaining wall encroaches 2.4' along the south end of the property along Rainbow Dr and 4' along the west end of the property line along Four Seasons Dr. LaZella noted that along Rainbow Dr the wall runs directly adjacent to the sidewall,and along Four Seasons Dr the wall encloses a power pole and a telephone box,but is built at a lower height so that access to the box does not appear to be hindered. The applicants have indicated that the retaining wall was recently built to replace a previous wall in a similar location. LaZella noted that the applicant's attorney had prepared an encroachment agreement, which was included in the packet,but staff determined this agreement to be unacceptable to the City as it creates liability to the City, and typically structures such as retaining walls are not permitted in the public street right-of-way,but in some instances they have been allowed,but only with an encroachment agreement that expressly removes all liability from the City. LaZella noted that staff has prepared an alternative encroachment agreement, but the attorney for the applicants indicated that it is not likely that they will agree to it as it places liability on them, and they had indicated that if they are required to remove the encroachment they will seek relief from the contractor that built the retaining wall. LaZella indicated that staff recommends that the encroachment be approved if the applicants agree to the City's encroachment agreement, as the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan and the encroachment would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood,but that staff recommends that the encroachment be denied if the applicants to not agree to the City's encroachment agreement, as the request would create liability for the City of Waterloo and the request would set precedent for similar requests in the future. Johnson noted that he had looked at the agreement drafted by the Boogren's and he also had concerns with it,noting the liability issue and also that the agreement was written more as an easement agreement granting them an easement on the property instead of an encroachment agreement. Johnson noted that he thought that a major difference between an encroachment agreement and an easement agreement, is if they ever tore the wall down there would be a requirement that it get moved back onto their property and questioned if that should be added to the agreement, and also questioned what would happen if the City needed to widen the street or perform other work in the area,usually an encroachment agreement will give the City the right to give notice requiring removal,and stated the way he was reading the agreement if the city needed to tear down the wall to get at utilities that he thought the City would be required to rebuild the wall at their expense. Johnson noted that we would hope we don't have to ask them to remove it unless it needs to be removed, and if it does,it should be the property owners problem not the City's, as we don't want any added liability,noting we are trying to be accommodating,but we don't want the extra liability. Schroeder noted that they could look at revising the wording to make encroachment agreements better address some of those issues, but noted that the City's 8 ( Planning and Zoning Commission 11 June 6,2006 Minutes proposed agreement is a fairly standardized form that has been used with several encroachments in the past,and there is a provision that states the property owners have the right to maintain the encroachment, but subject to the rights of the City and or any agency to which the city has granted a utility franchise, for access of said right of way expressly recognizing and acknowledging that any damage that occurs to said retaining walls will be the sole risk and expense of Boogren and all successors and assigns. So if the City or an agency the City has given rights to needs to get in their they can rip out any encroachment at no expense to the City. Craft noted that right now, if the City needs to widen the street and a power pole is in the way they simply tell the power company they need to be moved and they move them, and indicated that he thought it should be the same way with the retaining wall. Schroeder noted that he thought the provision of the agreement would give the City the ability to do that,but agreed that there is always a better way to write it to be more clear. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hartleip to approve the request subject to the provisions of the City's version of the agreement, with wording added terminating agreement if the encroachment is removed and allowing the city to order removal of the encroachment with adequate notice. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate a portion of Rath Street west of Vinton Street. LaZella gave the staff report noting that the vacate would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions,with the retention of an easement for a 10"water line that runs through the area to be vacated to serve Crystal Distribution. LaZella noted that Ordinance 1322 vacated Rath St between Vinton St and Division St, except for the portion abutting Lots 5, 6, & 7, and there is no record that this area was ever vacated. LaZella noted that the City is working with Crystal and Skyview LLC for the continued expansion of Crystal in this area, and as part of that,the City would acquire 93-97 Vinton St from Skyview LLC,to allow for the demolition and the construction of an additional 60,000 SF building by Crystal Distribution. LaZella noted that staff recommends approval of the vacate, as the request to vacate will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions and the area would not appear to be needed for present or future right-of-way needs, and the vacation will allow for the continued development of the area, and subject to the retention of an easement for the 10"water main. It was moved by Hartliep,seconded by Grimm to approve the request subject to the retention of a utility easement.Motion carried unanimously. 4. Request by NM Development L.C. to vacate a portion of alley at the southeast corner of Donald Street and Logan Avenue to allow for the development of a Walgreen's Pharmacy on lots 1-5 and 20-24 in Block 1 of North Waterloo Place. Anderson gave the staff report noting that most of the information was discussed during the hearing on the rezoning of the land. Anderson noted that staff is recommending approval of the vacate as the area would not appear to detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood and would not appear to be needed for present or future right-of-way needs, and the site plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,allowing for infill development in the Primary Growth Area,the site would appear to allow for compatible design to the nearby neighborhood and Logan Plaza shopping area, and the site plan would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations including setbacks, drainage, landscaping, screening, etc., and subject to the retention of and easement if necessary,depending if it is decided to allow the alley to open up into the Walgreen's site. Hart noted that he intended to abstain from this request as well,due to personal connection to residents in the area. Hartleip noted he would abstain as he works in the pharmacy industry. 9 2 Planning and Zoning Commission 1 June 6,2006 Minutes It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Craft to approve the request subject to the retention of an easement if the alley is opened into the site. Motion carried 5 to 1 with two abstentions (Burt left meeting prior to vote). Ayes: Grimm,Powers, Fossell, Craft,Johnson Nays:Loveless Abstentions:Hartleip,Hart F. Discussion Items 1. FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program. Staff passed out the FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program and noted that it would be placed on next month's agenda to be received and placed on file. 2. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Johnson noted that the Commission had meet for a special meeting last month and will continue that review at the next special meeting. Schroeder stated the Commission will continue the review at the special meeting to be held on June 13, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Respectfully s i ed, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 10 3 74-1-Id1W- MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. May 2,2006 The regular meeting of the City of Waterloo Planning,Programming,and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on May 2, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt,Loveless, Fortier, Hartleip, Craft, Grimm, Johnson,Moser, Orchard, and Hart. Members absent were: Thomas,Fossell, and Powers. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Morgan Hoosman—Planning Department,Dennis Gentz—Engineering Department, and 9 citizens. I. Approval of the May 2, 2007 Agenda. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Orchard to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on April 4,2006 and Special Meeting on April 11, 2006. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: March 2006. Temeyer stated the budget is currently on schedule at 80%, and the revenue is at 97%,which the expenses are exceeding what is expected but the revenues are exceeding as well. Temeyer noted that the • Council had approved a budget amendment to account for the changes in expenses and revenue, so the next report should show the numbers right where they should be. Temeyer noted that the increased revenue was caused by sale of property and rent. It was moved by Loveless and seconded by Burt to receive and place on file the financial report for March 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. V. Agenda Items. A. Hearings 1. Request by Harold and Charlene Burington to rezone property from "A-1" Agricultural District to "C-2, C-Z" Conditional Commercial District at 4466 Wagner Road to allow for the construction of a single-family home and for the reuse of existing agricultural buildings as a commercial storage facility. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Craft, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the site is '/2 mile north of Big Rock Rd and mile south of Dunkerton Rd,just inside the City Limits,with the property in question and all surrounding properties being zoned"A-1"Agricultural District,except for the residence at 4519 Wagner Rd just outside the City Limits, which is zoned"A-R"Agricultural-Residential District. Schroeder noted that the surrounding uses are predominantly agricultural with a few residences adjacent to the property in question and property further to the west is zoned"M-2, P"Planned Industrial District, as it is part of the airport property. Schroeder noted that the site contains multiple agricultural buildings, including farm barns and sheds,and is shown on the Future Land Planning and Zoning Commission May 2,2006 Minutes Use Map as agricultural. There are some additional homes further to the south along Wagner Rd, however these homes are predominantly zoned industrial and are shown on the Future Land Use Map as industrial. Schroeder indicated that the proposed development of a new dwelling would appear to be inconsistent with the predominate use of the area, and given the proximity of the site to areas of existing and future industrial development, as well as the Waterloo Regional Airport, the proposed home would be inconsistent with the future industrial development of the area, and the proposed use of the existing agricultural buildings for a commercial storage area could have a negative impact on the neighborhood,noting that several residents in the area have expressed concern with the establishment of a commercial business, including concerns on outside storage, hours of operation, and other potential commercial uses being located there in the future. Schroeder noted that the area is not served by sanitary sewer, so a septic system would be required. Schroeder noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this area for agriculture,and land farther to the west and south is designated for industrial,while land to the north is shown on the Future Land Use Map for Black Hawk County as agricultural,with the closest area designated as future residential being over 2 miles away. Schroeder noted that the area is located within the Reserve Growth Area on the City of Waterloo Growth Map, and that the request would not appear to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map or Comprehensive Plan. Schroeder noted the applicants agreed to submit the request as a"C-Z" conditional zoning request, so that no additional uses or buildings would be permitted without going back through an approval process, but so approval would give them a use of the buildings,which are no longer used for agricultural purposes,but are in good condition. Schroeder noted that conversion of the property from an agricultural use to a commercial use would require that the facility meet all applicable commercial codes, including required hard surface vehicular use areas, landscaping, storm water plan, etc. Schroeder noted that based on the fact that the request is not in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan and given that approval could set precedent for future requests for dwellings in the area,which would be inconsistent with the existing agricultural uses and existing and future industrial development,that staff is recommending denial of the request. Schroeder noted that he had been in contact with the applicants to let them know of staff's concern and recommendation, and that the applicants may be considering altering their request to eliminate the commercial component,but want the request for the additional home to go forward. Hart questioned the status of the home just to the north of the area in question. Schroeder noted that the home is owned by the applicants and is part of the same farm which got split by the City Limits,with part of the farm and that house to the north outside the City Limits, and part of the farm and the farm buildings located to the south inside the City Limits. Schroeder noted that the applicant have indicated that originally there was a home in the general location of where the additional home is being proposed, but that house was actually moved to a different location on the same farm, which is now the acreage that has been split off from the farm just to the south of the area in question. Grimm questioned if the proposed house would be for the applicants or for sale. Schroeder noted that it was his understanding that the house would be for sale. Johnson questioned the uses allowed in an ag zoning and if equipment could be stored for others. Schroeder indicated someone could store their own farm equipment,but if it is being rented out then it would be considered a commercial business that would require the commercial zoning. Harold and Charlene Burington indicated that they wished to withdraw the commercial part of their request due to the difficulties for insurance,paving, and other requirements but still wanted to move forward to request approval to be able to build a new home. The Burington's noted that they farm and have a daughter that may want to move back into the area. Temeyer noted that there is a provision in the Ordinance that allows a family member to build a house on a farm but 2 Planning and Zoning Commission111111111 May 2,2006 Minutes the provision requires that the family member be actively engaged in the farming operation and requires that a minimum of 35 acres remain with the farm after the transfer. The Burington's indicated that they would not want to tie their hands with it having to be for a family member. The Burington's noted that without the approval they have no use of the buildings, but if someone could build a house there they could use the buildings for personal storage or horses. Burt questioned the status of the house to the north. The Burington's noted that it has been recently remodeled and that they intend to sell it off. Temeyer expressed concern with having more homes built in the area given the surrounding agriculture and proximity of the airport. Beck questioned if there was no one interested in the buildings for agricultural purposes. The Burington's noted that they don't think anyone will want it with just ag buildings and no other use allowed. Craft noted that he drove by the site and the buildings are in good condition,but noted that farmers don't need as many buildings as they used to so it is a shame that there is not some other use other than agricultural that the buildings could be put too. Garry Nolting of 4422 Wagner Rd spoke in opposition to the request,noting that he is not opposed to the proposed residence but is opposed to the commercial component, noting that the Burington's would operate such a business ok, but that the rezoning would open the door for future property owners to establish other commercial uses that would not be compatible with the area. John Lentsch of 4519 Wagner Rd stated he was opposed to the rezoning to commercial and that it would not be compatible to the area,but noted that he was not opposed to the proposed residence. Lentsch noted that increased traffic for a commercial use could cause traffic problems as people drive by the area fast and try to pass slower moving vehicles. Johnson noted that the applicants have withdrawn the commercial component of the request, so that is no longer being considered by the Commission. Schroeder indicated that the request should then be changed to rezone the property to "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District as opposed to the "C-2, C-Z" Conditional Commercial District. Burt questioned if staff was still sticking to their recommendation of denial for the home, even though the commercial component has been withdrawn. Schroeder noted that due to the concerns noted, staff is still recommending denial of a rezoning to allow the house. The Burington's indicated their acceptance of such a change, noting that they had wanted the commercial component of the request to give a future owner the option of reusing the existing agricultural buildings on the property for storage, but that they did not want to pursue that it they would have to add hard surfacing and other requirements. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Orchard to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Hartleip to deny the request as it is not in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, which designates this area for agricultural, and approval could set precedent for future requests for additional dwellings in the area, which would be inconsistent with the existing agricultural uses and existing and future industrial development. Motion carried with 8 ayes and 2 nays (Fortier and Craft). B. Plats 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Andrew MacLennan Homes LLC for the Final Plat of Summerland Farms First Addition generally located west of Dysart Road off of Mills Lane. Johnson noted that he would abstain from voting, as he does work for the applicant. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission May 2,2006 Minutes Hoosman gave the staff report noting the plat consists of 19.3 acres to be developed with 35 lots, of which 31 would be for single family homes and 4 lots would be for multi-family. Hoosman indicated that the plat contains all necessary information and that it will be served by extensions of existing water and sanitary sewers, will be accessed by a private street Mills Lane and Summerland Drive. Hoosman noted that staff recommends approval of the final plat. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Orchard to approve the final plat. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson and Hartleip abstaining. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Martin Culpepper for a Special Permit for construction of a church facility at the southwest corner of Creston Avenue and Cottage Grove Avenue. Graham gave the staff report noting the request was tabled at last month's meeting and that the applicant was requesting a special permit to allow for the construction of a 56' x 40' church facility, noting that the applicant had submitted a detailed site plan, interior building layout, and side elevation diagram,noting that the site plan shows the building setback 30' from the property line along Creston and Cottage Grove,which meets the required setback, and that the Ordinance requires 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy,which is 118 persons, thus requires 30 parking stalls, which the site plan shows. Graham noted that at last months meeting the applicant had indicated that vertical metal siding would be used, which staff had stated opposition to use of such siding in a residential area, and that applicant has changed the siding to painted T- 111 wood siding. Graham noted that staff is recommending the Special Permit be approved as the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comp Plan, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood,and subject to a condition that the site plan meet all applicable codes,including but not limited to, storm water detention, landscaping, etc. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Hart to approve the request subject to the site plan meeting all applicable codes, including but not limited to, storm water detention, landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. D. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by David Heideman to dedicate a portion of existing private Belle Street as public Belle Street generally located in the 100 Block of Belle Street just west of Ruby Drive. Schroeder noted that the existing private street serves as the sole access to two homes and the applicant has noted the possibility of four additional lots that could be served by the road. Schroeder noted that the request would have a negative impact by setting precedent of the City accepting a private street that has not been built to public street standards as a public street. Schroeder noted that the street is already in existence as a private seal coat street and additional development can occur off of the private street, or the property owner could upgrade the street to meet the standards of a public street before the City accepts it into the public street system. Schroeder noted that there is an existing 8"private sanitary sewer line that extends off an 8" public sewer within public Belle Street, and it is unclear if the existing sewer line was built to the standards of a public sewer or if it is the intent of the applicant for it to become a public sewer. Schroeder noted that the applicant has pointed out that the existing public Belle Street and other streets in the area are also seal-coat streets not built to current public street standards. Despite this, the City requires that no street is accepted into the public street system unless constructed to current standards, and as an example of this in the same neighborhood, Juniper Dr,which is just east of Bell Street, was built after the other subdivisions in the area, and was required to be built to current standards, including being paved with curb and gutter before it was accepted into the public street system. Schroeder noted that acceptance of a private street not built to current 4 Planning and Zoning Commission May 2,2006 Minutes standards into the public street system would set precedent for other requests, and that the Engineering Department has indicated their objection to the request, noting that the applicant understood that the street would be private when he constructed it a few years back, and that there are a lot of private streets throughout the City of Waterloo,many of which are built much closer to public street standards than the street in question, and that the City can not accept such streets unless the developer brings the street up to current standards. Schroeder noted that staff was recommending denial of the request, as the proposed street does not meet the City's requirement of not accepting new streets that have not been constructed to current public street standards,the request would set precedent for future requests for the City to accept streets that are not built to public street standards, and the applicant can develop additional lots utilizing the private street or the applicant can upgrade the street to meet current public street standards before it being accepted into the public street system. Burt questioned the design of a seal coat street. Gentz noted that a seal coat street is typically built with a base of crushed rock or asphalt and then has a thin layer of aggregate embedded in a thin layer of emulsion,which is a sprayed on asphalt. Gentz noted that such a street is intended to carry a very low traffic and is not a very strong structure. Grimm questioned the status of the other streets in the area being seal coat streets. Schroeder noted that the majority of them are only seal coat streets and that the City Engineer had indicated that they were originally gravel roads that were already in existence when the City annexed the area and had to take over maintenance, and they were upgraded to a seal coat street as part of the street reconstruction program. Schroeder noted that those streets were handed to the City when the area was annexed, and were not an example where a developer built a new road to a substandard design and then requested the City accept it into the public street system. Craft noted that Juniper had been mentioned as a paved street, but that it is located outside the City Limits. Schroeder noted that it is outside the City Limits, but because the subdivision was within the two- mile territorial review of the City,the subdivision had to be approved by the City, and as part of that approval the City required that the street be paved with curb and gutter if it was to be a public street. Grimm questioned when the applicant built the private street. Gentz noted that documents in the packet indicate that it was around 1998 or 1999. David Heideman noted that he has been approached by different people interested in building a home out there, but when you tell them it is a private road and that they are responsible for the maintenance it turns them away. Heideman noted that when they first bought the property they were told that with a private road a gravel road would be just fine,but when they got the permits they were told that it had to be improved, so he spent a lot of money to build it, and noted that if he can sell lots for more homes it would generate more taxes for the City, and noted that it would be too expensive to tear it up and put concrete down, noting that none of the other roads in the area are paved. Heideman noted that he could turn the sewer over to the City as well. Hart expressed concern on the precedent of accepting private streets. Johnson also expressed that concern, noting that he is not a proponent of new subdivisions utilizing private streets, and that it will be a mater of time before their roads break up and the residents come to the City to try and get the City to take care of their streets. Grimm noted that his problem is that this street is built the same as the rest of Belle Street, and precedent or no precedent it fits in with the neighborhood and could be viewed as a special case. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to deny the request as the request to dedicate the proposed street does not meet the City's requirement of not accepting new streets that have not been constructed to current public street standards, the request would set precedent for future requests for the City to accept streets that have not been constructed to current public street standards, and the applicant can develop additional lots utilizing the private street or the applicant can upgrade the street to meet current public street standards before being accepted into the public street system. Motion carried unanimously. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission May 2,2006 Minutes 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to dedicate public Fitzway Drive generally located south of San Marnan Drive east of Galactic Drive and west of Ansborough Avenue. Schroeder noted that a few months ago the Commission acted to name Fitzway Drive but at that time the exact boundaries of the street were not known, and now survey work has been completed on the first portion so we are looking to dedicate it as public Fitzway Drive. Temeyer noted that the street will be constructed with R.I.S.E. funds and will serve the VGM expansion and other future development in the area. It was moved by Hartliip,seconded by Hart to approve the request Motion carried unanimously. E. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Johnson noted that the Commission had meet for a special meeting last month and had made it through 10 pages, and will continue that review at the next special meeting. Schroeder submitted an update of the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance, which is a revision of the entire ordinance. Schroeder stated the Commission will continue the review at the special meeting to be held on May 9, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. Temeyer noted that Associate Planner Morgan Hoosman had resigned her position with the City of Waterloo and will become the new project director of Opportunity Works. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully i d, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 6 8 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-3:30 P.M. July 18,2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Acting Chairperson Moser on July 18, 2006 in the Frank Mollenhoff Conference Room(Chairperson Johnson arrived at 3:45). Members present were: Burt, Fossell, Craft,Powers, Grimm, Hartleip, Loveless, and Moser. Johnson arrived at 3:45. Members absent were: Thomas, Fortier, Orchard, and Hart. Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella— Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda. Acting Chairperson Moser declared the agenda approved as submitted. II. Agenda Items. A. Discussion Items 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment—Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder noted that at last month's special meeting they had gotten through reviewing up to page 29 and had just finished review of the Accessory Building regulations in the "General Regulations" section. Schroeder noted that at the last meeting there was a very lengthy discussion on the fence requirements, and that additional review of this area will be required, but that would be done at a later time when staff has prepared some additional suggested language. Schroeder noted that there had been a few minor changes made to the areas previously reviewed and noted where the changes were. Schroeder noted that he would continue through the Ordinance and review the areas that staff was proposing a change, but that Commission members should speak up if they have a question or suggested amendment in a location that staff is not proposing an amendment,and ask questions or give comments and suggestions about the amendments that staff is proposing. Schroeder then began reviewing the proposed amendments,noting proposed changes in Part V"General Regulations", from subparagraph H"Front Yard"to up to but not including subparagraph Q "Site Plan Required". The Commission gave several comments regarding the provisions for the front yard, discussing the possibility of putting in a 5' leeway when calculating the average setback, but ensuring the leeway does not allow them to extend out past the front yard setback of both adjacent properties. It was decided that further review will be required to come up with the appropriate wording. The Commission had a lengthy discussion on subparagraph J`Building Lines on Approved Plats",which was a provision that was previously removed from the Zoning Ordinance but that staff was recommending be put back in the Ordinance. The Commission discussed the provision and how it causes the Zoning Ordinance to "adopt"the setback requirement of a subdivision by reference to the platted building line. Schroeder explained how the provision works and reasons why the provision should be added back in, including preventing development to cross a platted building line in situations where the platted building line is more restrictive than what the Zoning Ordinance requires,and that it creates a public process for a citizen to go through if they want to build across a building line, or creating a public process for which a neighbor can go through if their neighbor illegally builds across a building line. Schroeder noted that the provision was removed under the concern by a previous Assistant City Attorney that the platted building line is a private deed restriction that should not be enforced by the City,however their have been no court rulings that have indicated that a city can not enforce the platted building lines, and it is fairly common for cities to have such a provision adopting the platted building lines by reference, Planning and Zoning Commission July 18,2006 Special Meeting Minutes 9 and noting that platted building lines are more than just private deed restrictions, as they are drawn directly on the plat,just like easements,which are enforced by the public. Johnson spoke on reasons for not re-adopting the provision, including not wanting the staff to have to take up more time enforcing what he believes is a private matter between the property owners of a subdivision, and that he feels that such restrictions expire after 21 years if not renewed by the property owners of the subdivision. After a lengthy discussion their was a show of hands of the Commissioners present to support or not support re-inserting the provision. 3 members indicated support of re-inserting the provision and 5 members indicated support of leaving the provision out of the Ordinance No action was taken on the request 1. Date and time for the next Special Meeting Schroeder noted that previously the Commission decided to hold special meetings on the second Tuesday of the month, so if not changed the next special meeting would be on Tuesday August 8, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. No change was made. III. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 2 3 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M.July 11,2006 The regular meeting of the City of Waterloo Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson on July 11,2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Burt,Fortier,Hartleip, Craft, Grimm, Johnson,Powers, Moser, and Orchard. Members absent were: Thomas, Fossell, Loveless, and Hart. Others present:Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Tracy LaZella— Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Councilperson Reggie Schmitt,Ned Deberg—Fire Rescue, and 6 citizens. I. Approval of the July 11, 2006 Agenda. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Grimm to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on June 6, 2006 and Special Meeting on June 13, 2006. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Grimm to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Financial Report: May 2006. Anderson noted that we are at 92%of the budget and would appear to be on track. Johnson questioned if this was just through May and if the end of fiscal year had not been compiled yet. Anderson noted that it was just for may, and that next month's agenda would have the June report,which is the end of fiscal year. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for May 2006. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. V. Agenda Items. Johnson noted that items Al and A2 are related requests so suggested that both items be reviewed and acted on together. A. Hearings 1. Request by the Hurst Holding Company, Inc. to rezone property from"R-2"Residence District and"C-1"Commercial District to"C-1, C-Z"Conditional Commercial District at 1010 E Mitchell Avenue to allow for the use of a restaurant in addition to other uses permitted in the"C-1" Commercial District. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone property from"C-1"Commercial District to "R-2" Residence District just west of 1010 E Mitchell Avenue. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statements of verification at 4:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearings open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that for item Al the applicants are proposing to establish a restaurant in the strip mall adjacent to Home Town Foods at 1010 E Mitchell Ave, and that a restaurant is not permitted in the "C-1"District so the applicants are requesting to rezone the Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes 4 property to"C-1,Z-Z"to allow for the restaurant as well as other commercial uses permitted in the "C-1"District. Schroeder noted that the site has multiple commercial uses on it and would appear to have sufficient parking,however the Ordinance requires 5 parking stalls per 1,000 SF of floor area, and based on the total footprint of the buildings this would require 150 parking stalls, whereas there are only approximately 100 hard surfaced stalls, however areas used only for storage,warehouse, mechanical, or other similar uses may be excluded and staff is trying to obtain information on the amount of area that can be excluded, but expects that it will be enough that the approximately 100 stall will be sufficient. Schroeder noted that the portion of the property that is the formerly vacated Bourland Avenue is currently being used for parking, as well as the recycling drop off location,but has gravel surfacing,which is not permitted for vehicular use areas. Schroeder noted that staff recommends the rezone be approved subject to the condition that the property shall be limited to the uses of the"C-1"District in addition to a 28-30 seat standard type restaurant,and that the property is in compliance with parking regulations, including the number of spaces required, and hard surfacing requirements. Schroeder noted that item A2 is for a strip of land adjacent to 1010 E Mitchell which was purchased by the City of Waterloo for the Dry Run Creek Cunnett, and if the property to the east is rezoned, it would leave a narrow sliver of land owned by the City of Waterloo zoned "C-1"with no other"C-1"zoning surrounding it, and given that it is used for the creek and is surrounded by residential uses to the west, staff is recommending that the area be downzoned to"R-2". Hartleip questioned how a previous restaurant could have been located there. Schroeder noted that it was not known by staff,but would have been in violation. Burt questioned the parking issue, and Schroeder noted that they will need to obtain information on the layout of the buildings to determine the areas that can be excluded,but that they expect that enough area will get excluded that the property will be in compliance with the parking requirements. It was moved by Powers,seconded by Craft to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Powers to approve item Al the request by Hurst Holding Company,Inc. subject to the following two conditions:1) That the property shall be limited to the uses of the "C-1"Commercial District in addition to a 28-30 seat standard type restaurant, and 2) That the property is in compliance with parking regulations, including the number of spaces required and hard surfacing; and to approve item A2 the request by the City of Waterloo. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Southland Park L.C. for a site plan amendment to the "R-3, R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District located south of Southland Park Fourth Addition off of Charm Drive for the development of Southland Park 5th Addition. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Orchard, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. LaZella gave the staff report noting that the original site plan approved for this area showed condominium development with private streets, and that the"R-P"district is site plan specific, so the proposed change to develop one and two family housing units on public roads requires the site plan amendment approval. LaZella noted that the plan consists of 51 lots on a total of 19.89 acres 2 Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes 5 with access off of Charm Drive, and that two of the lots would be for commercial uses. LaZella noted that staff is recommending approval of the request. Craft questioned when the extension to Shaulis would be made. Anderson noted that the developers will do this in a two phase approach with the north part first, so the connection would not be made until they do the second phase. Anderson noted that we had still not received street names,but that we would require them before it is sent to Council. Thorson noted that there would need to be two new names for the proposed road, and Charm Drive will be extended. Johnson noted that he represents the developer so will be abstaining. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Hartleip to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Hartleip to approve the request. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. B. Plats 1. Request by VJ Engineering on behalf of Southland Park L.C. for the Preliminary Plat of Southland Park 5th Addition generally located south of Southland Park Fourth Addition off of Charm Drive. LaZella gave the staff report noted the plat had come before the Commission in 2004 and was tabled due to concern with extending a public sewer from a private sewer and that the new plan is to upgrade the private sewer to public before extending it, and that there were also concerns on drainage. LaZella noted that no deed of dedication has been submitted yet as required, but that the applicant has indicated that a deed of dedication similar to the deed of dedication for Southland Park 4th Addition would be used. LaZella noted that staff is recommending approval on the plat subject to the private sewer being upgraded and accepted as public,the drainage concerns being addressed per the Engineering Department, and that the plat designate street names. Burt questioned if this would have to come back before them, and Johnson noted that this was just the preliminary plat approval, and that the final plat would still have to come before them. Hartleip questioned the process of shifting from a private to a public sewer, and Thorson noted that the sewer line must be televised and they have to pay to make any improvements to bring it up to the public street standards, and that has been done and there are a few improvements needed to bring it up to public standards, and that they are currently seeking bids to do that work and will then have to provide a 2 year maintenance bond just like any other sewer built as public. Craft questioned if the adjacent residents notified. Schroeder noted that as part of the site plan amendment request there were notice to property owners that were sent, but that approval of a plat does not include notice to property owner, so had this property not been zoned"R-P"Planned Residential District there would not have been any notice. It was moved by Craft,seconded by Burt to approve the preliminary plat subject to the following three conditions: 1) The private sanitary sewer line being upgraded and accepted as public, 2) The drainage concerns being addressed,per the Engineering Department, and 3) That the plat designate street names for the proposed streets prior to submittal to Council. Motion carried 8-0 with Johnson abstaining. C. Vacates 1. Request by Karlton Dyke at 1942 Locke Avenue to vacate a portion of alley abutting Lot 124 and 125 of Pleasant View Addition. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes 6 Western gave the staff report noting that the applicants are proposing to vacate a portion of the alley in the rear of their lot at 1942 Locke Ave, and that it has been the policy of the City to vacate entire segments of right-of-way and not just portions like this request to avoid creating dead-end right-of-ways,however a portion of the alley to the east of the property in question has already been vacated,therefore the request to vacate the additional portion would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and will only shorten the existing dead end. Western noted that the applicants recently constructed a home on the lot in question and the home is approximately 30 square feet over the 35%maximum lot coverage allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, so vacating the 800 square feet would bring the property into compliance. Western noted that staff is recommending approval of the request, subject to the retention of an easement. Hartleip questioned how the house was built not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Schroeder noted that he worked with the applicants when they got the building permit for the new home, and that on the site plan that he approved for the building permit included the house and several porches with a total square footage that came to just under the 35%maximum,but that the actual blue prints of the house used for Building Inspections review had a deck on the rear of the house that was not included on the site plan that Planning approved but it was not caught that the plans were different, and this deck caused the property to exceed the 35%requirement. Johnson noted that usually when we vacate we offer the alley to each abutting property owner and questioned if the property owner to the south refused their portion. Schroeder noted that the property owner to the south, which is Mr. Money, did sign an intent to vacate form indicating that they did not want to purchase their portion. There was a brief discussion on the offer price for the alley but Johnson noted that the Commission no longer reviews price and that the Building and Grounds Committee reviews that. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Fortier to approve the vacate request. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by VGM Management, Ltd at 1111 W San Marnan Drive to vacate a portion of excess right of way of San Marnan Drive near the southwest corner of San Marnan Drive and Ansborough Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that applicants are requesting to vacate a portion of the southerly side of San Marnan Dr to accommodate expanded parking area for their expanded office development, and that the area to be vacated would be approximately 15' south of the existing santary sewer line, and that the area would not appear to be needed for future right-of- way needs. Schroeder noted that a portion of the parking will be within 5' of the proposed right- of-way line, so a variance will be required by the Board of Adjustment, and that initially the Traffic Department had expressed concerns as the Ansborough Interchange and development of this corridor will bring more traffic to the nearby intersection requiring future improvements,but with the approximately 60' of right of way between the existing road and the property line, staff believes there is sufficient room for any improvements such as turn lanes,therefore staff is recommending approval of the vacate subject to the retention of a utility easement. Grimm questioned if they are looking to the City to give this to them or if they will be paying for it, and Anderson noted that those details had not been discussed yet. Craft noted that the Traffic Engineer noted at the Technical Review Committee meeting that the right of way should be kept, and that it would appear that the parking could be flipped so that it was on the other side of the drive in a grass area that would not require the vacate. Anderson noted that it might be a possibility,but also noted that after going out and getting more detailed plans for the Traffic Department,they are now comfortable with vacating the area. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Powers to approve the request subject to the retention of an easement.Motion carried unanimously. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission July 11,2006 Minutes 7 D. Street Namings 1. Request by the City of Waterloo to name a private street"Commons Circle"off of Maxhellen Boulevard. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the named private street will be off of Maxhellen Boulevard and will circle around the new Landmark Commons development, and in the future when Maxhellen Boulevard is extended further to the east Commons Circle will be extended to connect back into Maxhellen,and that staff is recommending approval. It was moved by Hartleip,seconded by Orchard to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. E. Plans and Studies 1. FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program. Anderson noted that last month staff had passed out the FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program and noted that it should be received and placed on file. It was moved by Burt,seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the FY2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program. Motion carried unanimously. F. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder stated the Commission will continue the review the proposed amendments and updates to the Zoning Ordinance at the special meeting to be held on July 18, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in the Mollenhoff Conference Room. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 5 AGENDA ,p.16;111W T_ m �rerloo`o Agenda Planning,Programming &Zoning Commission Regular Meeting- May 2,2006 2nd Floor Council Chambers City Hall 4:00 P.M. I. Approval of the May 2,2007 Agenda II. Minutes of Regular Meeting on April 4,2006 and Special Meeting on April 11,2006 III. Financial Report: March 2006 IV. Oral Presentations V. Agenda Items A. Hearings—Zoning Amendment 1. Request by Harold and Charlene Burington to rezone property from"A-1"Agricultural District to"C-2, C-Z"Conditional Commercial District at 4466 Wagner Road to allow for the construction of a single- family home and for the reuse of existing agricultural buildings as a commercial storage facility. B. Plats 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Andrew MacLennan Homes LLC for the Final Plat of Summerland Farms First Addition generally located west of Dysart Road off of Mills Lane. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Martin Culpepper for a Special Permit for the construction of a church facility generally located at the southwest corner of Creston Avenue and Cottage Grove Avenue. D. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by David Heideman to dedicate a portion of existing private Belle Street as public Belle Street generally located in the 100 Block of Belle Street just west of Ruby Drive. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to dedicate public Fitzway Drive generally located south of San Marnan Drive east of Galactic Drive and west of Ansborough Avenue E. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. VI. Adjournment **Next special meeting of the Planning, Programming &Zoning Commission will be held on May 9, 2006 ** **Next regular meeting of the Planning, Programming &Zoning Commission will be held on June 6, 2006 ** MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M.April 4,2006 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m., by Chairperson Johnson on March 7, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Thomas, Craft, Grimm, Johnson, Loveless, Orchard, Hartleip,Powers,Moser, and Hart. Members absent were: Fortier,Burt, and Fossell,. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Morgan Hoosman—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, and approximately 15 citizens. I. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on March 7, 2006. Powers stated that the minutes should be revised to note that he was present at the meeting. Motion was made by Grimm and seconded by Orchard to approve the Minutes with the revision. Motion carried unanimously. II. Financial Report: February 2006. Temeyer stated the budget is currently on schedule at 66%, and the revenue is at 87%which should exceed the budget by$15,000-20,000. Temeyer stated there will be a several sale of city properties by the end of the fiscal year. Moser questioned the purpose of the $3500 in lease or rent. Temeyer stated it is due to lease from signs along the highway corridors and farm ground income. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Powers to receive and place on file the financial report for February 2006. Motion carried unanimously. III. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. IV. Agenda Items. A. Hearings 1. Request by Brian Tressler to rezone property from "C-1" Commercial District to "C-1, C-Z" Conditional Commercial District for an auto sales and repair shop and taxi company at 956-958 West Parker Street. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting to rezone the property to legalize an auto sales business with incidental repair shop and a tax business. Graham noted that the site is located adjacent to another property zoned"C-1, C-Z"which is being used as a wholesale distributorship, and the requested use would appear to be compatible to the existing adjacent commercial use. Graham noted the auto sales business was recently started after they received a letter from the Planning Office stating that the use was permitted in the C-1 classification, • Planning and Zoning Commission April 4,2006 Minutes however that letter was incorrect. Graham noted that automobile establishments for display,hire, and sales are not listed as a principle permitted use until the C-2 district. Graham noted that the property has two addresses, which house two different businesses;the auto sales and repair and a taxi company. Graham noted that the taxi company would also not be permitted in the C-1 district. Graham noted the rear of the building currently appears to be surfaced with gravel which is not a permitted hard surface for parking, so an approved hard surface may be required. Graham also noted this item was previously tabled by the Commission due to concerns of piles of tires in the rear and some car seats. Graham noted that since the last meeting all of the tires have been cleaned up and there is no more outside storage on the property. Graham noted that the applicant has signed a conditions sheet agreeing to the 3 conditions as recommended by staff. Graham noted staff recommended approval of the request given the fact that the adjacent property is zoned C-1, C-Z and has a more intense use on it than the proposed request, with the conditions of no outside storage except for licensed vehicles and vehicles for sale, any vehicular use area be hard surfaced and drainage as approved by City Engineer, and limited to auto sale business, including incidental repair and a taxi company. Johnson questioned if the property was cleaned to an acceptable standard by city staff. Graham stated the property was cleaned of all outside junk and storage approximately 3-4 days after the last meeting and has been clean since that date. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Craft to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Grimm to approve the request subject to the following conditions:No outside storage, except for licensed vehicles and vehicles for sale, that any vehicular use area in the rear of the property be surfaced with a hard surface type and drainage plan approved by the City Engineer, and that the property shall be limited to the use of an auto sales business, including incidental repair, and a taxi company, or any Principal Permitted Use in the "C-1"Commercial District Motion carried with 9 ayes and 1 nay(Hart). 2. Request by Grace Elliott for a site plan amendment to the "R-3,R-P"Planned Residence District located at 3216 Thisledown Drive and 5309-5311 Blue Bonnet Drive for the purpose of constructing a 26' x 62' garage and a 26' x 26' garage and two small sheds. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Craft, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicants are requesting approval for a site plan amendment on the 1.73 acre site which was once a professional office building and was recently approved for a site plan amendment to convert it into a 3-unit senior housing complex and a 1 or 2 family residential lot. Schroeder noted the proposed location of the garages would be in the existing parking lot on the property between the existing building and Thisledown Drive, and the applicant has agreed to construct the garages with a siding and roofing material to match the existing structures on the property. Schroeder noted that the proposed garages would provide two stall for each of the three units of the existing building, which was recently approved to be converted from a professional office building into a 3-unit senior housing complex. Schroeder noted that the proposed garages would be located directly across from the front yards of several 2 Planning and Zoning Commission April 4,2006 Minutes homes. Schroeder noted that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the condition that the site plan as submitted and the side elevation diagram as submitted, indicating the design of the garages will match the design of the existing structures on the property. Grimm questioned if the property meets the requirements for the maximum allocated square footage for detached accessory structures. Schroeder stated a multifamily use is not limited to the same requirement as a 1 or 2 family dwelling. Scroeder stated a multifamily development is limited by overall layout, setbacks,parking, and landscaping requirements,but not a specific maximum limit. Moser questioned if elevation was changed from the one submitted which shows two 2-car garages and one 1-garage. Mike Elliott, 1138 Jane Street, on behalf of the applicant, stated there will be a 3-car garage for one unit and two 2-car garages for the remaining units. Moser questioned the total number of units. Elliott stated there are three units. It was moved by Powers, seconded by Hart, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loveless to approve the request subject to following conditions: the site plan as submitted and the side elevation diagram as submitted, indicating the design of the garages will match the design of the existing structures on the property. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone property from"C-P"Planned Commercial District to "C-3" Commercial District at 191 West 5th Street and the surrounding properties (downtown casino site). It was moved by Hartleip seconded by Thomas, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:22 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicants were requesting to rezone the property from "C-P"Planned Commercial District back to"C-3" Commercial District, which was the designation of the property before it was rezoned for the proposed downtown casino location. Schroeder noted that on October 25, 2004,the City Council approved the request by the Cedar Valley Gaming Company, and during that rezoning process it was indicated that if the site was not successful in receiving a gaming license that the property should be rezoned back to "C-3" Commercial District. Schroeder noted that the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission later denied an application for a gaming license for the site. Schroeder noted that staff recommended approval of the rezone. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Grimm, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Grimm, seconded by Powers to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission April 4,2006 Minutes B. Plats 1. Request by Kess and Associates Inc. on behalf of Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity for the Preliminary Plat of Heartland Heights Addition generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Newell Street and City View Street. Hoosman gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting for platting for new residential housing units. Hoosman noted that the request came before the Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission previously and it was tabled in order to address drainage and sewer issues. Hoosman noted that a revised plat has been submitted. Hoosman noted the applicant is currently applying to FEMA to removed the property from the 100-year flood plain, and have received a base flood elevation of 899.1 feet from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Hoosman noted the applicant plans to build the homes to this level with a large easement area surrounding the drainage way to address the drainage concerns. Hoosman noted that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the condition that no access be allowed to Newell St from Lot 2. Powers questioned how the area could be removed from the flood plain. Schroeder stated that when FEMA does a flood study for an area,they do not have sufficient funds to conduct studies for every area of the entire community. Schroeder noted that on the unstudied streams, FEMA produces a generalized flood plain boundary where they are approximating the calculated 100- year flood plain. Schroeder noted with those situations,the property owner can have a more specific elevation determined and work with the DNR for a concurrence on the 100-year flood plain. Schroeder stated there would still be a drainage way in the area, but some areas will be removed from flood plain status. Hart questioned why no access would be allowed off of Newell Street. Johnson stated it is due to sight distance. Hoosman stated the policy of the City Engineering Department is that the driveway must be located on the less traveled street. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Craft to approve the preliminary plat subject to the following condition: That no access be allowed onto Newell Street from Lot 2. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Rokes Development Company for the Preliminary Plat of Crossroads Estates Replat No. 3 generally located west of Mockingbird Land and east of Hummingbird Circle. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting to plat six lots of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. in size. Schroeder noted the preliminary plat shows access to Hummingbird Circle and Mockingbird Lane. Schroeder noted that the property is zoned"R-3, R-P"Planned Multiple Residence District, and the City Council has already approved a site plan amendment for the development of the proposed duplexes to be located on the lots. Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department stated that provisions for storm water will be required, and that the proposed private drive would need to be named for addressing purposes. Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department also stated that the original subdivision of the area was approved subject to sidewalks to be located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, so the deed of dedication will need to indicated that sidewalks are required along Lot 1 & 2. Schroeder noted that staff recommended approval of the plat. Johnson stated he would abstain from voting due to a conflict , of interest. It was moved by Loveless, seconded by Orchard to approve the preliminary and final plat as submitted. Motion carried with 9 ayes and 1 absention (Johnson). 4 Planning and Zoning Commission April 4,2006 Minutes 3. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Rokes Development Company for the Final Plat of Crossroads Estates Replat No. 3 generally located west of Mockingbird Land and east of Hummingbird Circle. This item was discussed and acted upon with Item B-2. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Upper Room Tabernacle for a Special Permit for a 12' x 52' addition to a church facility at 1211 Cottage Grove Avenue at the northeast corner of Creston Avenue and Cottage Grove Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting a special permit to allow for the expansion of the church facility. Schroeder noted that a special permit was approved by the Board of Adjustment for the establishment of the church facility in January of 1997. Schroeder noted that the property is surrounded by residential development. Schroeder noted the applicant's plans are to construct the addition to the existing building which was partially constructed and partially moved onto the property in 1997. Schroeder noted that since the building was located on the property, the church facility was not completed, including needed work to the interior and exterior of the building, including not having parking or landscaping installed. Schroeder noted that the applicants are ready to proceed with the completion of the church. Schroeder noted that staff recommended approval of the request subject to completion of site within 6 months. A citizen, Rose Jordan, 1014 Creston Avenue, stated she has concerns with the length of time it would take for the facility to be completed, and to ensure that someone would monitor the progress of the church. Hartleip questioned what the recourse if the project is not completed within 6 months. Schroeder stated the property is currently in non-compliance with the Zoning Ordinance,and if the church is not completed,they would have the option to apply for an extension, but otherwise would be issued a citation. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Loveless to approve the request subject to the following conditions:that all required facilities for the legal occupancy of the facility for a church be completed within 6 months, including installation of the required parking and landscaping and installation of all required facilities to meet the building code. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Martin Culpepper of a Special Permit for the construction of a church facility generally located at the southwest corner of Creston Avenue and Cottage Grove Avenue. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant requesting a special permit to allow for the construction of the church facility. Graham noted that the applicant's plans are to construct a 60' x 40' church facility on the property. Graham noted that the site plan shows the building with a setback of 15' from the property line along Creston Avenue, and the Zoning Ordinance requires that churches maintain a setback of 2' feet per 1 foot of building height. Graham noted that the site plan does not show the height of the building, however to have a 15' setback, the building could only be 7 '/2 feet tall in which is no feasible. Graham also noted that the Zoning Ordinance would require 65 parking stalls,but the applicant has indicated that the church would not need as many parking stalls and would be petitioning the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Graham noted that the applicant has not submitted details on the design or material of the building,which is needed to determine the compatibility of the structure with the surrounding development. Graham noted that staff recommended tabling the request due to the fact that insufficient plans 5 Planning and Zoning Commission April 4,2006 Minutes and details have not yet been submitted by the applicant. The applicant, Martin Culpepper, stated he did not agree with the staff recommendation to table due to the fact that he did not receive a message left by staff stating the request for the additional information needed. Culpepper stated the entire property is 140' x 200' and that there is adequate space to move the setback to meet the requirement. Culpepper stated that some of the neighbors have complained about the proximity to the "M-1"zoning, and would like to see many of the trees remain, which he would also like many of the trees to remain. Culpepper stated the plans were place approximately 60 feet of concrete for parking for 30-40 individuals for 20 stalls. Culpepper stated the building would be constructed similar to the Lighthouse Church on Logan Avenue. Culpepper stated the ceilings of the building will be no higher than 10' and building height will be 15-17'. Grimm questioned if the applicant would be able to submit the information to the city planning office. Culpepper stated he would be able to submit all required information and meet all regulations. Culpepper stated the building will face Cottage Grove Avenue, and he owns the property on the south side of the street,therefore it would not face any neighbors. Culpepper stated all storm water would be retained on the property due to the fact that there is no sewer in the area. Loveless questioned what the applicants plans were for parking if the congregation of the church expands in the future. Culpepper stated there is adequate space to construct additional parking stalls if needed. Craft questioned if there was a problem to delay the project to table the request for one month. Culpepper stated he would like to move forward with the project as soon as possible, and would provide staff with all required information. Anderson stated staff would still recommended tabling the request to obtain information on future phases and design of the building. Anderson noted that the Lighthouse Church is not in close proximity to residential therefore was allowed a metal-designed building and there is also a provision that landscaping and block-work would need to be done in the future. Culpepper questioned if he would be able to get on the agenda for the special meeting scheduled for April 11, 2006. Johnson stated there will be no public business at that meeting. Schroeder noted that the applicant may not be able to obtain all required information by that date since a detailed site plan from an engineer or architect and side elevation, storm water detention, and other information is needed to ensure compatibility to surrounding residential development. Johnson stated the applicant can meet with staff to submit all information by the next meeting. A citizen, Rose Jordan, 1310 Creston Avenue, stated she did not support the request due to the fact that Mr. Culpepper does not keep the property in a clean state. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Powers to table the request for one month. Motion carried unanimously. D. Discussion Items 1. Expansion of the Enterprise Zone. Anderson stated that the Enterprise Zone is a state tax incentive for commercial and residential development, and state had a deadline for expanding the Enterprise Zone, which can be a total of 1%of the county land area. Anderson stated staff looked for any additional areas for expansion. Anderson stated the proposed areas are the former Lincoln School, Chamberlain Manufacturing site, vacant Phillips property along Idaho Street, former Irving School, and the TechWorks site. Craft questioned if staff intended to include the residential block adjacent to Irving Street between Forest Street and Hawthorne Avenue. Anderson stated vacant land adjacent to the site was 6 Planning and Zoning Commission April 4,2006 Minutes included in the area. Powers questioned if it is acceptable to have an Enterprise Zone that is not contiguous. Anderson stated each area is its own Enterprise Zone in order to give a longer period of time. 2. Amendment to the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates. Schroeder submitted the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance, which is a revision of the entire ordinance. Schroeder stated the Commission will review the proposed ordinance at the special meeting to be held on April 11,2006 at 4:00 p.m. Schroeder stated it will take some time to review the entire document, and may need to schedule additional special meetings. Johnson questioned if the entire amendment will be available on the city's website. Schroeder stated staff could make it available online. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 644:: Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 7 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING- 4:00 P.M.April 11,2006 The special meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by Chairperson Johnson on April 11, 2006 in the Frank Mollenhoff Conference Room. Members present were: Thomas, Fortier,Hartleip, Craft, Grimm, Johnson,Loveless, and Moser. Members absent were: Burt, Fossell, Powers,Hart, and Orchard. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Morgan Hoosman—Planning Department. I. Approval of the Agenda. Motion was moved by Thomas and seconded by Craft to approve the agenda as submitted Motion carried unanimously. II. Agenda Items. A. Discussion Items 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment-2-acre minimum lot size for"C-P"Planned Commercial Districts. Schroeder noted that staff was proposing multiple changes and updates to the Zoning Ordinance, and that the Commission had been provided a draft of the proposed changes. Schroeder noted that he would go through the Ordinance and review the areas that staff was proposing a change, but that Commission members should speak up if they have a question or suggested amendment in a location that staff is not proposing an amendment, and ask questions or give comments and suggestions about the amendments that staff is proposing. Schroeder noted that many of the amendments are fairly minor to clear up language, like grammatical things such as adding"a"or"the"etc. Schroeder noted that other amendments are intended to clarify the way that the Zoning Ordinance is currently being interpreted but where it may not be as clear as it needs to be in the Ordinance. Schroeder then began reviewing the proposed amendments, noting proposed changes in Part I "Title and Purpose",Part II "Interpretation of Standards", and Part III "Definitions", up to the definition of a Historic Structure. The Commission gave several comments regarding the definition of an Accessory Structure, suggesting to strike the word"subordinate" from the definition and changing"tied to"to"legally combined to"regarding a restrictive covenant allowing an accessory structure on a vacant lot abutting a lot with a house. Grimm suggested defining a principal structure. There was a general discussion on the use of restrictive covenants to allow an accessory structure on a vacant lot abutting a lot with a house. The Commission suggested that the definition of a "Bed and Breakfast"be further reviewed, and staff noted that they would look at how other communities have defined it and see if any changes are needed. The Commission reviewed the definition for both a "Basement" and a"Cellar"and suggested further review. The Commission reviewed and discussed the definition of a"Dwelling" and how it does not include a mobile home or cabin. The Commission reviewed the definition of"Dwelling, Multiple" and if the wordingshou ld be« "bathroom om and cooking facilities" or"bathroom or cooking facilities". The Commission reviewed the definition of"Family Home"and questioned if the wording"mentally retarded" should be changed to "mentally challenged". Anderson noted that he though the wording was based on the wording from the State Code so they may not be able to change it, and that staff would look into that. The Commission suggested re-wording the definitions of fences as it pertains to describing where they can be located. No action was taken on the request Planning and Zoning Commission March 7,2006 Minutes 2. Set date of next special meeting The Commission discussed holding future special meeting to review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. It was decided that a future meeting should be scheduled on the second Tuesday of each month(1 week after the regular meeting of the Planning Commission)until such time as the review of the amendment is complete. It was also discussed that the time of the meeting may need to be a little earlier than the normal 4:00 p.m.,to allow them more time to review the amendment and still end at a decent time. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Grimm to hold a special meeting to review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment on the second Tuesday of each month until such time as the review of the amendment is complete. Motion carried unanimously. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 2 • MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. February 7,2006 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:02 p.m., by acting Chairperson Johnson on February 7, 2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Thomas, Grimm, Johnson,Powers,Moser, Orchard and Hart. Burt arrived at 4:07. Members absent were: Fossell, Fortier,Hartleip, Craft, and Powers. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Morgan Hoosman—Planning Department,Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Councilperson Reggie Schmidt, and 15 citizens. I. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on December 6, 2005. Motion was made by Thomas and seconded by Hart to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Financial Report: November and December 2005. Temeyer stated the department is currently at 80% of its revenue due to sale of city properties, and the expenditures are also slightly over budget. It was moved by Grimm and seconded by Thomas to receive and place on file the financial report for November and December 2005. Motion carried unanimously. III. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. IV. Election of Officers for the 2006 Calendar Year A. Election of a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the term ending December 31, 2006. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Moser to nominate Johnson to serve as Chairperson. Johnson accepted the nomination. It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Grimm to nominate Hart as Vice Chairperson. Hart accepted the nomination. Motion carried unanimously. V. Agenda Items. Johnson stated that Agenda Item B-2 had been withdrawn from the agenda. A. Hearings 1. Request by Michael Beckman to rezone property from "R-2"Residence District to "C-2" Commercial District at 504 Riehl Street for the purpose of an auto sales display lot. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:07p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the rezone to allow for an auto sales display lot on a portion of the existing parking lot at 504 Riehl Street, noting that the property is currently zoned"R-2" but is it a part of an existing parking lot to a Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes commercial use. Schroeder indicated that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or on traffic conditions in the area, and that the site was formerly the Broadway Diner,which is predominantly situated in a C-2 District. Schroeder noted that the property has historically been used for been used for commercial purposes, and it is unclear how the parking are was established despite the residential classification, noting the 1982 aerial photograph shows a house on the lot in question. Schroeder noted that the parking lot was recently reconstructed and an access from the parking was added that connects into the driveway of the residence to the west before outletting onto Riehl Street. Schroeder noted that the existing parking area is directly adjacent to a residence which does currently have a 6' fence that screens the majority of the property,but that staff would recommend extending the 6' tall sold privacy fence between 504 and 526 Riehl Street be to the south to a point that is in line with the front of the home at 526 Riehl Street. Johnson stated that he was done work for Beckman therefore he would abstain from voting on the request. Johnson questioned if there were any concerns with lighting, speakers,and hours of operation. Schroeder stated the Zoning Ordinance would specifically require that any lighting be directed away from residential properties. Burt questioned how many cars were planned to be displayed on the lot, and currently how many parking spaces were available. Burt also questioned if there would be any traffic concerns along Riehl Street. Schroeder stated the Zoning Ordinance does require a certain number of parking spaces that would be required to be available for employees and customers, and that staff would review the applicant's site plan to ensure that the minimum requirements would be met. The applicant, Beckman, stated there are currently two entrances along Riehl Street and the entrance adjacent to 526 Riehl Street would be closed. Beckman stated there is currently one entrance onto Broadway Street, and he planned to add a garage door at this entrance. Beckman stated he does not intend to place any outdoor speakers on the property, and there is existing lighting to be used. Beckman stated the Department of Transportation requires the business to be open 37 hours per week, and he plans to have hours of operation between 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Saturday. Burt questioned how many cars were planned for the lot. Beckman stated he does not plan to place anymore than 50 cars on the lot, and he has no intention of overfilling the lot with cars. Hart questioned if the business has any impact on the property values of the surrounding homes. Schroeder noted that surrounding uses can impact the value of an adjacent property but he could not give a specific answer on any value changes. Moser questioned if there is any restriction on parking sales vehicles on the street. Beckman stated the DOT requires all vehicles to be on the sales lot. Schroeder stated the City Code of Ordinances does not allow sales vehicles to be parked on the street due to the fact that they would not be licensed vehicles. Temeyer stated the Zoning Ordinance previously allowed parking of a commercial business up to 200 feet into a residential district, and that regulation was removed from the Ordinance. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Burt, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Hart, seconded by Orchard to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) That the existing 6'tall privacy fence between 504 and 526 Riehl Street be extended to the south to a point that is in line with the front of the home at 526 Riehl Street. Motion carried with 8 ayes and 1 abstention (Johnson—conflict of interest). 2 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes 2. Request by Jerry Quint and Stacy Folkers to rezone property from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R-1" Residence District at 5640 Kimball Avenue for residential development. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Thomas, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicants are requesting approval of the rezone to allow for residential development at 5640 Kimball Avenue. Western noted the applicants have two potential site plans for the development of the land. Western noted that option one shows the property being split into three lots, and option two shows the property being split into six different lots ranging from 0.6 acres to 2.6 acres. Western noted that the area can be served by extension of all necessary utilities which includes an 8"sanitary sewer located 320' feet north of the southerly lot line as well as a 12"water main located within Kimball Ave. Western noted the request is not in conformance with the classification of this area as vacant agricultural on the Future Land Use Map,but there is existing residential areas to the south. Western noted that staff recommended approval of the request. Moser questioned where the sewer line is located near the property. Western stated the sanitary sewer line currently ends near the existing driveway on the property. Burt questioned why the area was classified as vacant agricultural. Western stated based on the Comprehensive Plan,the area scored low due to the fact at the time it did not have the utilities for public water. Barbara Henning, 138 Sidehill Drive, stated concerns with the request. Henning stated she was informed that the property would only be split into two lots, and she wished to have further information on how the area would be developed due to the fact that there is an access area between the two properties. Henning also stated the neighbors have stated the area currently has issues with water pressure and sewer problems. Henning also stated she would wish to see the trees and old barns remain on the property, and not see modular homes go onto the neighborhood. Johnson stated this was a request to rezone, and how the applicants would develop the area would be reviewed in the future in the platting process. Johnson stated the type of houses to be built would be determined by the builder, and the City is prohibited by state code to discriminate against manufactured housing. Anderson stated if the property is rezoned and moves to the platting process then utilities and easements would be reviewed at that time. Western stated the applicants currently plan an access approximately where the existing access is located. Mike Janopoulus, 170 Sidehill Drive, stated concerns with residential development on the surrounding farmland in the area, noting the applicants sent out a letter to surrounding residents stating the applicants only planned to build a new house. The applicant, Jerry Quint, stated the main purpose for the rezone was to build a new house on the north side of the property, but they have had several people inquire about splitting off a portion of the land for development. Quint stated they have not hired an engineer to determine if extending utilities would be cost effective, and the intention is to get rezone approval before moving forward with the project. Johnson questioned if they planned to demolish the existing structures. Quint stated they planned to demolish all structures except for the existing house. Johnson questioned how they planned for access off of Kimball Avenue. Quint stated they would extend the existing private driveway. Johnson questioned if the applicants had met with any of the neighbors about the request. Quint stated 3 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes they have not met with neighbors,but did send the letter out to them. Johnson questioned if the applicants planned to remove any trees. Quint stated they did not plan to remove any trees from the property. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Grimm, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Moser to approve the request for rezone. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by Brian Tressler to rezone property from "C-1" Commercial District to "C-1, C-Z" Conditional Commercial District for an auto sales and repair shop at 956-958 W. Parker Street. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Orchard, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:42 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting to rezone the property to legalize an auto sales business with incidental repair shop and a tax business. Graham noted that the site is located adjacent to another property zoned"C-1, C-Z"which is being used as a wholesale distributorship, and the requested use would appear to be compatible to the existing adjacent commercial use. Graham noted the auto sales business was recently started after they received a letter from the Planning Office stating that the use was permitted in the C-1 classification, however that letter was incorrect. Graham noted that automobile establishments for display,hire, and sales are not listed as a principle permitted use until the C-2 district. Graham noted that the property has two addresses, which house two different businesses; the auto sales and repair, and a taxi company. Graham noted that the taxi company would also not be permitted in the C-1 district. Graham noted the rear of the building currently appears to be surfaced with gravel which is not a permitted surface for parking, so an approved hard surface may be required. Graham also noted there were a few piles of tires in the rear and some car seats, and that staff recommends a condition of no outside storage of materials. Graham noted staff recommended approval of the request given the fact that the adjacent property is zoned C-1, C-Z and has a more intense use on it than the proposed request,with the conditions of no outside storage and hard surfacing of parking areas. Burt questioned how the City found out the error in the zoning. Graham stated that Code Enforcement gave notice to the taxi company and it was then latter discovered that the letter that was written for the dealership was in error. Johnson questioned if the property to the north was currently vacant. Graham stated the property is a vacant lot owned by Myers-Cox wholesale distributorship. Hart noted concerns with the visibility of the tires and car seats on the rear of the building. Graham stated the applicant has agreed to the condition of no outside storage on the property and that the items would be removed. Burt questioned where the applicant would place all of their equipment with such a small building. Powers also noted concerns with the neighborhood, and ensuring that the applicant removed all outside storage. The applicant, Jeff Hammer, stated the piles of tires belonged to the taxi company,their tenants, and a letter from Code Enforcement was sent out informing them to clean-up by January 15th and he was giving them until February loth to have all items removed. Burt questioned where would the supplies 4 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes related to the auto repair business be stored. The applicant stated all parts would be stored in the building including oil barrels. The applicant stated they would only have 7-10 cars on the lot,and they are currently seeking bids for concrete for the rear of the property. Harold Getty, 3rd Ward Councilperson, stated his concerns with the request. Getty recommended that the request be tabled until the property is properly cleaned and brought into compliance. The applicant stated he recently purchased the building, and they do want the property to be cleaned up. Johnson questioned if the applicant would agree to tabling the request for one month. The applicant stated he would agree to tabling the request. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Thomas, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Burt questioned if the request is tabled for one month, if it causes any problems for the owners to be operating out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Johnson stated the staff will be conscience of the fact that the applicant are in process of getting the property in compliance. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Powers to table the request for rezone. Motion carried with 8 ayes and 1 nay(Hart). 4. Request by Modern Builders on behalf of Con-Trol for Site Plan Amendment to the "M-2, P" Planned Industrial District for the development of a 69,120 sq. ft. building in the Northeast Industrial Park. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Thomas, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Anderson gave the staff report noting the applicants were requesting the site plan amendment for a 50,000-70,000 sq. ft. expansion of their existing building in the Northeast Industrial Park. Anderson noted they are currently operating out of approximately 64,000 sq. ft. in the industrial park at 2277 Northeast Drive and 2550 GT Drive. Anderson noted the new construction would allow for them to expand their operations and would involve the conveyance of additional land from the City of Waterloo. Anderson noted that building is proposed to be oriented with docking doors to face the west and east,noting the deed of dedication for the Northeast Industrial Park No. 3 stated that docking doors must face the rear or side of the lot. Anderson noted staff has been working with other landowners in order to amend the deed to allow docking doors to face GT Drive, as it is an interior street. Anderson noted the exterior elevations of the site whith metal façade, windows and EFIS along the office area,with a total of 37 doors on the exterior mainly facing the east. Anderson noted the site plan show 48 parking spaces for employees with landscaping area around the parking lot. Anderson noted that staff recommended approval of the request with the condition of compliance with all city codes and ordinances. Johnson questioned if the applicant intended to vacate the old building. Anderson stated the applicant may continue to operate out of the existing building. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Thomas, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes It was moved by Moser, seconded by Burt to approve the request for site plan amendment subject to the following condition: 1) The applicant continue to work with city staff to ensure compliance with city codes and ordinances regarding, but not limited to, uniform building code requirements, drainage, landscaping,parking, etc. Motion carried unanimously. B. Plats 1. Request by Kess and Associates Inc. on behalf on Iowa Heartland Habitat for Humanity for the Preliminary Plat of Heartland Heights Addition generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Newell Street and City View Street. Hoosman stated that a revised plat has been submitted. Hoosman gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting platting for new residential lots. Hoosman stated that the plat shows 7 lots to be developed as single-family homes, with approximately 8,000 SF lots. Hoosman noted that Engineering Department has stated that lot 2 would be restricted to access onto City View Street. Hoosman noted the Engineering Department has expressed concerns with how lots 3,4, and 5 would be able to be served by sanitary sewer lines. Hoosman noted the applicants have indicted they may use grinder pumps,but the Engineering Department has not had adequate time to review the revised plat. Hoosman noted that portions of the area are located within the Zone-A 100-year flood plain, and the applicant is attempting to remove the portion from the 100-year floodplain through the process of a Letter of Map Amendment(LOMA), which an application has already been filed with FEMA. Hoosman noted that Planning and Engineering staff have expressed concerns with the existing drainage area, and the proximity of homes to the drainage way due to the potential impact it may have during events of heavy rain in the area. Hoosman noted that staff recommended tabling the request in order to allow additional time to review the plat and obtain information regarding the effects of new residential development on the existing drainage way and to determine the location of proper sanitary sewer service for all lots within the development. Johnson questioned if the applicant would agree to tabling the request for one month. Kirk Eschlman with Kess & Associates, on behalf of the applicant, stated Habitat has utilized grinder pumps for other home developments in the city. Eschlman stated they had added additional area for easement with a no build condition and drawn building pad to show the open area between buildings to allow for proper drainage. Eschlman stated the application to FEMA has already been submitted and it may take up to 120 days to hear a response, and they have also submitted an application for a determination for base flood elevation to Iowa DNR. Burt questioned if the new houses would divert the rainwater flow onto the existing houses to the south. Eschlman stated under state code the development cannot increase the run-off onto existing properties, and it would only allow the existing flow to continue to pass through the area. Johnson questioned if the City Engineer still has concerns with the plat. Thorson stated the revised plat was not received in the Engineering Department until that morning, and there are still several issues to be resolved. Thorson stated the Engineer Department is not opposed to the use of grinder pumps, but they would like to review the type of system to be used and where the lines are to be located. Thorson also stated the consultant used outdated topography information which needs to be corrected. Thorson stated the issues can be resolved, but they would need additional time to review. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Burt to table the request for one month. Motion carried unanimously. 6 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes 2. This item was removed from the agenda. 3. Request by City of Waterloo to amend the deed of dedication of the Northeast Industrial Park Plat No. 3. Anderson gave the staff report noting this request would allow for docking doors to face GT Drive, which would change the design of future site plans and how they gain access to the street system. Anderson noted staff has held a meeting with other property owners in the Northeast Industrial Park and it was unanimous determined of those present that docking doors be able to face GT Drive. Anderson noted that the reasoning included the fact that docking doors facing GT Drive would only be visible from the interior of the industrial park and would allow for better option to not have docking doors face MLK Drive. Anderson noted that the deed of dedication of the Northeast Industrial Park Plat No. 3 allows for amendment if in agreement of not less than 95% of the owners of the land with that plat. Anderson noted that staff recommended approval of the request as it would still appear to meet the aesthetic goals of the industrial park setting by minimizing visibility of docking doors from MLK Drive and Northeast Drive. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Orchard to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Permits 1. Request by Waterloo Community Schools for a special permit for the construction of an indoor athletic building at West High School located at 425 E. Ridgeway Avenue. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting a special permit to allow for the construction of an 88' x 50' (4400 sq. ft.)athletic building at West High School. Graham noted the surrounding area is predominately residential with some commercial uses to the south along Ridgeway Avenue, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood as the building would be sided with residentially compatible materials such as vinyl siding with a metal roof, and would be partially screened from the residences to the north and west by existing trees and the softball field. Graham noted the building would be located next to an existing batting cage, near the softball and baseball fields,which are in the northwest corner of the school property. Graham noted that currently the school has 2 gymnasiums,which during the winter months get booked for other activities,thus not allowing any of the spring or summer sports programs the opportunity to use the facilities for practice. Graham noted the planning office received a letter of concern from a property owner that lives across the street from the proposed building on Easton Avenue, and the concern raise was that the siding on the building would not match the rest of the buildings around it, currently made of vertical wood siding that is painted with school colors. Graham noted that it would appear that there would be some screening from the proposed building and homes to the north. Graham noted that staff recommend approval of the request. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Moser to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. D. Vacates/Dedicates 1. Request by Lynn Piper to vacate a portion of Hallowell Road and Willow Street adjacent to 502 Hallowell Road. 7 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes Anderson gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting to vacate a 60' x 760' portion of Hallowell Road and a 210' x 331' portion of Willow Street adjacent to 502 Hallowell Road. Anderson noted the area is served by all necessary utitilies which includes an 8" sanitary sewer as well as a water main that is located within Hallowell Road along the east side of the right-of-way which ends at Corrinne Street. Anderson noted that the Technical Review Committee determined that if development were to occur in the future it could be done and it was not a concern at this time. Anderson noted the property owner to the west previously stated his family had donated the land for right-of-way purposes, and research from the County Recorder's Office found that the area was dedicated by the Hallowell family. Anderson noted that the property owner to the west did not state any objection nor wish to purchase his portion of the area. Anderson noted staff recommended the request be approved as it would not appear to have any present or future needs for right-of-way. Johnson questioned if the applicant owned the property adjacent to the right-of-way,which Anderson stated she does own the property. Anderson noted the applicant has submitted a letter to the City stating the offer for the property. Anderson noted that the Engineering Department has stated that by vacating the portion of right-of-way the applicant's house would need to be readdressed due to the fact that Hallowell Road would no longer exist. A citizen, Bruce Bowers, 1307 Vine Street, stated he did not object to the vacation of the right-of- way, but did believe the applicant should not have to pay for the land. Mr. Bowers wanted to ensure that the applicant would be responsible for any tress that would fall onto his property. Temeyer stated the trees would be a private property matter. Johnson stated fallen trees would be the City's responsibility as long as the City continues to own it,but if the area is vacated, it would no longer be the responsibility of the City. Johnson stated that the Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission does not determine the sale price of city property, which will be a determination of the City Council. Burt questioned if the area is to be vacated should the readdressing of the existing property be made a condition of the request. Thorson stated the Engineering Department does addressing, and would require the change. Thorson noted the area would be vacated up to N. Faye Street, and the Hallowell Road address would no longer be valid because the road will no longer be there. Mr. Bowers stated he is not opposed to the address change. It was moved by Hart, seconded by Orchard to approve the request as submitted Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the City of Waterloo to vacate the westerly 8' utility easement along a portion of Lotl 2 and all of Lot 13 in the Northeast Industrial Park Plat No. 4 to allow for development. Anderson gave the staff report noting the applicant wished to vacate the easement along the westerly edge of Lot 13 and the southerly portion of Lot 12. Anderson noted the request will allow for a better development site for the proposed Con Trol development plan. Anderson noted the City would be adding a portion of the land through replatting and dedicating a new easement for the same purpose. Anderson noted that staff recommended approval of the request since it will be replace by an easement of the same size,would not appear to cause any negative impacts, and allow for better site development. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Orchard to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 8 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes 2. Request by City of Waterloo to dedicate public street right-of-way as John Street generally located off of E. Parker Street east of E. Mullan Avenue Schroeder gave the staff report noting that this is a request to dedicate an existing street currently maintained by the City. Schroeder noted that when the Virden Creek cunnette was constructed the former John Street was vacated and a new John Street was established to provide access to a few houses. Schroeder noted that the new street was never formally dedicated, and it has recently created some issues for locating the street for emergency services. Johnson questioned why the street was to be dedicated as a public street versus a private drive. Thorson stated the street has been in existence and the city has been maintaining it, and this is an effort to correct an error. It was moved by Burt, seconded by Powers to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. E. Determination of Similar Use 1. Request by Joel Harris for a determination of a similar use to allow a professional cleaning service in an"R-4"Multiple Residence District at 432 Locust Street. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant was requesting a determination of similar use to allow for a professional cleaning service in the "R-4"Residence District. Schroeder noted the building was formerly used as the Kline Optical office and has historically been a professional office. Schroeder noted in the recent years it has been used as a single-family dwelling. Schroeder noted that the applicant is seeking a determination that the proposed change to a professional cleaning service is similar to the other professional office uses permitted in an"R-4"District. Schroeder noted on May 8, 1989 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1989-204 which allowed the property at 1321 W. 4th Street to be used as a carpet and furniture cleaning business as a similar use to those permitted in the "R-4"District. Schroeder noted the applicant intends to maintain ownership of the property at 1321 W. 4th Street,but intends to move most of the operations of his professional cleaning service to the 432 Locust Street. Schroeder noted that most of the building will be used as office with some areas for repairs and storage of equipment. Schroeder noted there will not be many employees on-site for more than picking or dropping off a vehicle. Schroeder noted staff recommended that it be determined that the use of the property as a professional cleaning service would be similar to other uses permitted in the "R-4"District. Burt questioned why this was not a request to rezone. Johnson stated that there are permitted uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance, but it does not list every use possible. Schroeder stated the request was specifically approved for the previous site and this provision of the Zoning Ordinance is not extremely clear. Schroeder stated staff is currently addressing the matter with the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Grimm questioned if there would be any signage on the property. The applicant stated there would be signage similar to the current site. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Powers to approve the request subject to the following condition: 1) no outside storage except for licensed vehicles. Motion carried unanimously. F. Discussion Items 1. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Schroeder stated staff is undertaking a major revision of the Zoning Ordinance, encompassing all provisions of the Ordinance. Schroeder stated the amendment will update all provisions and create a 9 Planning and Zoning Commission February 7,2006 Minutes more consistent ordinance. Schroeder suggested the item be placed on next month's agenda for a hearing, and staff anticipates that it may take several meetings for the Commission to fully review the document. Schroeder stated staff is currently making final changes, and will be sending the draft out with the next month packets. Burt suggested the Commission may need to have a special meeting to review it. Johnson questioned if the Ordinance has been recodified since the original adoption. Temeyer stated it has not been, and it could be discussed with the City Clerk to include the Zoning Ordinance as a part of the City Code of Ordinances,which is recodified every five years. Temeyer noted that the code sections are not consistent with City Code sections. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at S:SS p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 10 MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-4:00 P.M. December 6,2005 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m., by acting Chairperson Moser on December 6, 2005 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Rainey-Thomas, Loveless, Hartleip, Craft,Moser, Orchard and Hart. Johnson arrived at 4:07. Members absent were: Burt, Fossell,Fortier, Grimm and Powers. Others present: Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, Shane Graham, and Adam Broich—Planning Department,Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Councilperson Reggie Schmidt, and 2 citizens. I. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on November 1, 2005. Motion was made by Rainey-Thomas and seconded by Craft to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Financial Report: October 2005. Anderson stated the percentages for the budget are right at where they are suppose to be for the year. It was moved by Craft and seconded by Rainey-Thomas to receive and place on file the financial report for October 2005. Motion carried unanimously. III. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. IV. Agenda Items. A. Special Permits 1. Request by Jim Cook for a Special Permit for the construction of a 5,200 square foot mini-storage facility at 4036-4044 Logan Avenue in the "C-2" Commercial District. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the special permit to allow for the construction of a 5,200 SF mini-storage facility at the northeast corner of the intersection of Logan Ave and E Big Rock Rd, 1 mile north of Airline Hwy, noting that the property and much of the surrounding property is zoned"C-2" Commercial District. Graham indicated that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or on traffic conditions in the area, and that the site is designated as commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that there are several existing building on the property that would remain and are currently used for a commercial business. Graham noted that typically requests for special permit are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for their recommendation prior to final approval by the Board of Adjustment, but that in order to expedite the process the request went before the Board of Adjustment on November 22, 2005, at which meeting the Board unanimously approved the request, subject to placing a 6' tall sold privacy fence along the easterly side of the vehicular use area to screen the residential properties to the east, and subject to the recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission December 6,2005 Minutes Hartlip noted that the staff report mentioned a drainage concern along the side of the building and that a revised site plan would be submitted and questioned the status of that. Thorson noted that he had spoke with the applicant's engineer and that they would be revising the site plan to include a swale along the east side of the building to direct storm water runoff,which would address their concern,but noted that the revised site plan had not yet been submitted. Hartlip suggested that the revised site plan should be a condition of approval. It was moved by Hartlip,seconded by Rainey-Thomas to approve the request for special permit subject to the following conditions: 1)Placing of a 6'tall solid privacy fence along the easterly side of the vehicular use area to screen the residential properties to the east, and, 2) That a revised site plan be submitted and approved to address the drainage concern. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by the First Church of the Open Bible for a Special Permit for the establishment of a youth ministry in an existing facility at 1005 Commercial Street. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicants are requesting approval of the special permit to allow the existing building at 1005 Commercial St to be used for youth ministries in association with the existing church at 928 Jefferson St, which is approximately 1 block to the south. Schroeder noted that the site is located at the intersection of Commercial St and W 8th St, and that the site and surrounding properties are zoned"M-1"Light Industrial, and surrounding uses are predominantly industrial mixed with commercial and some residential. Schroeder noted that the applicants are not proposing any changes to the exterior or interior of the existing building and would only be brining in recreation equipment such as a pool table, so there would not appear to be a negative impact on the area. Schroeder noted that the site has an existing 7,068 SF building that would be used for youth recreation activities and youth ministries, and that the property has existing off street parking as well as a row of parking along the building within the 8th St right of way, and have also noted that their main church facility is only a block away, so they do not anticipate any parking problems. Schroeder noted that the Ordinance requires 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy,but that it had not yet been determined what the occupancy of the building would be. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that all religious facilities obtain a special permit, and further requires that any building for such a use be set back from all yard lines a distance of not less than 2 feet for each foot of building height. The building in question is at or near a zero lot line on three sides, so does not meet the required setbacks. Schroeder noted that given the fact that the building is existing, and would appear to have similar setbacks to other structures in the area, it would not appear that the additional setback requirements are needed, and that the Board of Adjustment can approve a variance to the setback requirements and or parking requirements as part of the request for special permit. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Loveless to approve the request for special permit. Motion carried unanimously. B. Street Namings 1. Request by the Engineering Department to name a new public street within Deer Creek Plat No. 1 located east of Greyhound Drive,just north of the intersection of Greyhound Drive and Highway 63, as Titan Trail. 2 Planning and Zoning Commission December 6,2005 Minutes Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the new public street will be part of the Deer Creek Plat No. 1, a two lot subdivision recently approved by the Commission and City Council. Schroeder noted that when the plat was approved, no street name was identified on the plat, therefore the street naming must go back through the approval process. Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department had reviewed and recommended approval of the street name It was moved by Hartlip, seconded by Orchard to approve the street naming. Motion carried unanimously. C. Discussion Items There were no further discussion. Adjournment With no further business Moser declared the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 3 • s MINUTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -4:00 P.M. November 1,2005 The regular meeting of the Waterloo City Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by Chairperson Johnson on November 1,2005 in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members present were: Johnson, Thomas, Fortier, Craft, Powers, Grimm,Hartleip, and Moser. Members absent were: Burt,Fossell, Loveless, Orchard,Hart. Others present: Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder, Chris Western, and Shane Graham—Planning Department, Eric Thorson—Engineering Department, Councilperson Reggie Schmidt, and 8 citizens I. Minutes of the Regular Meeting on October 4, 2005. Grimm noted that the minutes needed to be changed to reflect that Fossell was not in attendance. Motion was made by Grimm and seconded by Reed to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. Financial Report: September 2005. Anderson stated the percentages for the budget are right at where they are suppose to be for the year. It was moved by Rainey and seconded by Grimm to receive and place on file the financial report for September 2005. Motion carried unanimously. III. Oral Presentations. There were no oral presentations given. IV. Agenda Items. A. Hearings 1. Request by Nooren Commercial Group on behalf of Harding Enterprises L.C. for Site Plan Amendment to the "C-2, C-Z"Conditional Zoning District for the construction of a 8,033 SF mini mall development replacing the existing car wash building at 1315-1325 Ansborough Avenue. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Reed, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the applicants are requesting the site plan amendment for the redevelopment of the car wash portion of the shared commercial building addressed 1315- 1325 Ansborough Ave for the construction of an 8,033 SF mini-mall replacing the 4,155 SF car wash building. Schroeder noted that the surrounding area is mixed with commercial and residential uses, with areas zoned"C-2, C-Z"to the north and south, and residential areas to the west and east. There is other existing strip commercial developments along Ansborough Ave,but it is within close proximity to residential development. The requested redevelopment from a car wash to strip retail, with appropriate conditions for site plan, permitted use restrictions as stated in the staff report, and traffic measures for access, would appear to make this request compatible to existing commercial uses as well as blend in with the residential developments. Schroeder noted that the site is primarily served by Ansborough Ave, which is classified as a Minor Arterial, and that there is also an access point from Downing, which is classified as a local street. Schroeder Planning and Zoning Commission November 1,2005 Minutes noted that in the rezoning of the property in 1989, concern was noted regarding the location and number of access points onto Ansborough Ave. The proposed site plan shows a change from the originally approved plan, as the applicants are requesting to move the existing access onto Ansborough Ave farther to the south and install a second access onto Ansborough Ave to the north. Schroeder noted that the amendment would be in conformance with the classification of this area as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive Plan, and that the site is located within the Primary Growth Area, and would be classified as Smart Growth. Schroeder noted that the site plan shows the layout of the building,parking, access and also shows a dumpster location in the east parking area,of which staff has some concern with the orientation of the dumpster,which may lead to garbage trucks backing onto Downing Avenue, and is in close proximity to residential uses. Schroeder noted that the site plan shows 46 parking stalls,whereas a retail development would require 40 stalls, so would appear to meet parking requirements. Schroeder noted that the request also shows an additional pole sign being added to the site, and with the breakup of the former car wash facility into multiple tenants, staff believes the to be a fair request, as the number of businesses in this portion will more than triple, and the sign would still be a good distance away from other signs in the area. Schroeder noted that the preliminary building design indicates typical commercial buildings with a mixture of brick, and other building materials,which would appear compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential development. Schroeder noted that staff was awaiting word from the Engineering Department on the proposal to change the access onto Ansborough Ave,noting that Engineering had expressed some concern given the traffic patterns on Ansborough Ave and was currently looking at whether or not they would allow the second access from Ansborough. Hartelip questioned is the issue regarding the access would change the staff recommendation. Schroeder noted that it would not, as staff was recommending approval subject to several conditions,which included that the access has to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, so if the Traffic Engineer does not approve it or approves it in an altered fashion they would have to go with that design if approved as a condition. Grimm questioned if any study has been done on projected traffic counts for this area. Noel noted that the Traffic Engineer had not indicated any concern regarding the change in use. Ron Dillavou of 44 W Eagle but owns property at 1304 Ansborough Ave, and stated his opposition to the request noting the traffic is already horrendous and there are multiple accidents on a weekly basis. Dillavou also noted that with an interchange going in on Hwy 20 and Ansborough Ave that this would increase traffic on Ansborough Ave. Dillavou noted that he had started a petition in opposition to the request and only has 5 names currently but indicated that there would be more names before it went to City Council. Dillavou presented the petition. Dillavou stated that most of the residential neighbors feel that if the request is approved they want there property zoned commercial so they can move out. Forest Dillavou of 1725 Huntington Rd noted that they have had trouble with sanitary sewer in the area, noting Huntington Rd has sewer backups into their basements. Dillavou indicated that at Black Hawk Rd and Ansborough Ave there is a sump pump that pumps sanitary sewer into the storm sewer and there is another one at Downing and Evergreen. Dillavoue noted that traffic is bad and that this is an ambulance and traffic route and that when the original owner that rezoned it to commercial was strictly told that there would be only one access off of Ansborough which 2 Planning and Zoning Commission November 1,2005 Minutes was suppose to be an in only and that out traffic was to go through Downing. Johnson questioned if the car wash discharged into the sanitary or storm. Anderson noted that in discussion with the developer it was noted that their waste water goes into the sanitary sewer. Johnson noted that the impact on the sanitary on the area would be lessened by the mini-mall development. Paul Helland, of Helland Engineering represented the applicant and stated that he did not have information on sanitary or storm discharges,but noted that if there was concern on the location of the dumpster that they were agreeable to having the dumpster being put into an alternative location that was satisfactory to everyone and that the developer would accept what ever Engineering Department deems acceptable as far as entrances to the property and requested the item be forwarded on to City Council. Mosher questioned the claim of sanitary sewer being discharged into the storm sewer. Thorson noted that in times of heavy rainfall there are time of overloading of the sanitary sewer in this area and Waste Management Services has to pump sanitary flows into storm sewer, and they have to notify the DNR when this occurs. Thorson noted that the existing carwash was probably built before the practice of most current carwashes, which is to recycle their water, which decreased the amount of water going into the sanitary sewer, so the proposed development would likely have less input into the sanitary sewer system. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Hartleip, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the request for site plan amendment subject to the following conditions: 1) The site plan as submitted, with the new structure being constructed of similar or compatible materials as the existing split face design of the existing commercial developments on site. The site plan shows no changes to the existing parking area or screening structures, 2) That no bars, taverns, or adult use establishments be permitted on the site, or any extensive outside storage of materials;3) That the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, drainage, landscaping, etc. 4) That any changes to existing curb cuts and entrance locations are approved by the Traffic Engineer and City Engineering Department. Motion carried 7-0 with Johnson abstaining. 2. Request by the Rose of Waterloo, L.P. to rezone property from "R-3"Multiple Residence District and "M-1"Light Industrial District to "R-4,R-P"Planned Residence District for the purpose of building a 64-unit affordable assisted senior living facility along Oak Avenue between Franklin and Mulberry Streets. It was moved by Grimm,seconded by Craft, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Western gave the staff report noting that the are to be rezoned is City owned land between Oak Avenue and Utica Street and that the rezone is to allow for a 64-unit affordable assisted senior living facility. Western noted that portions of the site are part of the recently vacated Mulberry Street crossover, which is scheduled to be removed as part of the U.S. Highway 63 redevelopment. Western noted that the surrounding land uses are mixed,with residential to the north, residential and industrial to the south, residential to the east, and industrial to the west. Western indicated that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission November 1,2005 Minutes neighborhood or surrounding land uses, as the development would appear to be compatible and blend in with the residential developments. Western noted that the area is served by Franklin Street,which is classified as a Minor Arterial, and Oak Avenue, classified as a local street. Western noted that there is an existing 36" sanitary sewer line within the existing Mulberry Street crossover that will need to be relocated for the development, as well as several water main service lines that will need to be removed if not utilized. Western indicated that the request is in conformance with the classification of the area as mixed residential on the Future Land Use Map, and would be defined as Smart Growth. Western noted that the proposed building would be a 3- story building constructed of a brick veneer and vinyl materials,with asphalt shingles,which is compatible to surrounding developments. Western noted that staff is recommending approval as the plan is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map,the site plan would appear compatible to other commercial and residential development in the area, and staff supports expansion and growth in the CURA and Enterprise Zone areas as the development would appear beneficial to the City of Waterloo as a good infill development project. Moser questioned if the applicant would pay the costs for relocating the sewer and removing the water service lines. Anderson indicated that would be at the expense of the developer. Craft questioned how would pay for the removal of the crossover street. Anderson noted that it is slated to be removed by the City as part of the local option tax project, as the street was slated to be reconstructed. Thorson noted that the City Engineering Department had proposed to eliminate this street long before this project ever came about,noting the City had already planned to remove it, noting that a study had been done that indicated that the crossover is not needed and it made more financial sense to remove it than to replace it. Craft noted that he did not see storm water detention on the site plan and questioned what would be done. Thorson noted that the site plan does not show a lot of area for detention but they will have to meet the detention requirements and the developer is aware of this,noting that the staffs recommendation includes requiring that the request meet all city codes including drainage. Johnson questioned if there was a lower level parking under the building. Helgeson representing the Rose of Waterloo L.P. indicated that there was a two-stall garage incorporated into the building on the main level,but that at this point they were not proposing underground parking. Lyle Taylor,representing the owners of Hawkeye Meats, a business in the area, questioned if Utica St going to be reconnected to Franklin and if Mulberry St would be reconnected to Oak. Thorson noted that the Mulberry St and Oak Avenue intersection would be restored the way it was before the crossover, but that they did not have any plans to connect Utica Street with Franklin. Taylor suggested that Utica should be connected, and also questioned if there would be bus service provided to the development. Helgeson noted that he had appeared before the Commission with a similar request at the corner of Lafayette and Indiana, however that request did not get approval of the tax credits needed. Helgeson noted that they moved the request to this site as it is within a"qualified census tract"which qualifies them for 20 additional points on their application for the tax credits,which makes their likelihood for approval very good. Helgeson noted that they had no opposition to the City connecting Utica St with Franklin St,but have not made any specific request that the City make the connection. Helgeson noted that in terms of bus service, individuals under the program proposed by the Iowa Finance Authority for assisted living facilities they provide both independent living and then also provide services that will be provided by a local home health service provided, but they do not provide transportation and are not required to do so, but residents would have access to a dial to ride system. Rainey questioned if the minimum age required is 62 and older. Helgeson stated it is 55,noting that he has two similar facilities open, including the Rose of Ames and the Rose of Des Moines which is just opening. Rainey questioned if they would also be requesting Home Funds and also if transportation could be a part of the plan to arrange transportation. Helgeson noted that they 4 Planning and Zoning Commission • November 1,2005 Minutes would not be applying for Home Funds and that as part of the available services arranging transportation can be included. Fortier questioned laundry facilities and questioned the layout of the units. Helgeson noted that there would be laundry on every flood and units on three floors. Daryl Hartema, 158 Letsch Rd questioned where the sanitary sewer would be relocated to. Thorson stated that the City had not received any details on the relocation and that it would be up to the developer but that the City would require plans by the developers engineer,but noted that there has been talk of running it along Utica Street and then over on Mulberry Street. It was moved by Rainey, seconded by Grimm, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Grimm to approve the request subject to the site plan as submitted and that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, drainage,landscaping, etc. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Request by the City of Waterloo to rezone property from"A-1"Agricultural to "M-2,M-P" Planned Industrial District along the Cedar River between 18th Street and Wyoming Street for existing and future industrial development. It was moved by Rainey, seconded by Grimm, to receive and place on file the statement of verification at 4:48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously and Johnson declared the hearing open. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that the area in question is zoned"A-1"Agricultural, but has multiple existing industrial uses that are legal non-conforming and that the City is proposing to rezone the area to an industrial classification to make the existing uses a permitted use and to allow for expansion of existing uses, as well as future industrial development. Schroeder noted that the site is located along the Cedar River between 18th Street and Wyoming Street, south of the railroad tracks. Schroeder noted that the area is currently zoned"A-1"Agricultural, but was previously zoned"U-1",which was an Unclassified District that was eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance, and all land within the City that was zoned"U-1"was rezoned to "A-1"on 6/15/98). Schroeder noted that the area in question, as well as the surrounding area, is predominantly industrial, so the rezoning request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. There are some residential use mixed in with the industrial uses in the area to the north of the railroad tracks, however the Planned Industrial classification should work to help limit the impact of future development on these residential uses. Schroeder noted that the area is served by multiple local streets connecting to Lafayette Street, which is classified as a Minor Arterial. Schroeder noted that the area requested to be rezoned is not within a designated flood hazard area, and is protected from the 100-year floodplain by the flood control levee. Schroeder noted that there is a 54"sanitary sewer located along the Cedar River along the entire area to be rezoned and there is also an 8" sanitary sewer in Wyoming Street,just north of the railroad tracks. Schroeder noted that there are no storm sewer or water lines within the area to be rezoned, and that existing businesses have private water service lines. Schroeder noted that Water Works has indicated there is a lack of sufficient water service to much of the area and that they do not have any current plans to extend water to the area. Schroeder noted that the request is in conformance with the classification of the area as industrial on the Future Land Use Map, and development would be classified as Smart Growth development. Schroeder noted that the City has recently received several requests from businesses within the area for expansion projects, but because of the non- conforming status the businesses have had to go through a variance approval process,therefore 5 Planning and Zoning Commission November 1,2005 Minutes staff is proposing that the City rezone the area on its own motion given the large area, multiple property owners involved, and fact that the surrounding area is predominantly industrial. Schroeder noted that much of the surrounding area is zoned"M-1"Light Industrial, however staff is proposing to rezone the area to "M-2,P"Planned Industrial, as many of the existing uses would actually not be considered principal permitted uses in the"M-1"District, and would require "M- 2"Heavy Industrial classification, and given that the "M-2"District is the least restrict zoning district, and that there are some surrounding residential uses, staff recommends the"M-2,P" District, that way any new development or major expansion of existing development would be required to go through a site plan amendment approval process. Schroeder noted that some areas to be rezoned are used for drainage and some areas have a lack of available infrastructure, however the rezoning should not allow mismanaged development, as the planned designation will still allow City review,therefore staff recommends that the rezone be approved as 1) The request to rezone is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map for this area,which classifies it as Industrial, and is located within the Primary Growth Area of the Comprehensive Plan; 2)The request to rezone would appear compatible to other industrial development in the area; and 3)The request to rezone would appear beneficial to the City of Waterloo by allowing redevelopment of existing uses in an industrial area. Johnson questioned why the land east of Colorado Street that currently has no uses on it was included and if there was any expansion project. Schroeder noted that the City does not have any expansion projects in that area, noting that much of that area is a drainage area, and that the main reason it was included is that it is adjacent to the existing industrial development and has potential for industrial development if the drainage issue is addressed. Johnson questioned the status of the land to the east of the area to be rezoned. Schroeder noted that it is an area that is still designated as a 100-year floodplain and is a drainage area and has less likelihood for future development. Ed Freights with National By-Products at 140 Nevada Street noted that he is one of the companies that does not have adequate water, and noted that it is an industrial area,but there is currently no way for truck traffic to get in and out of the area without going through residential areas which can create conflict with the residents,and suggested that this rezoning could compound the problem unless the City puts in a street that connects without going through residences, and suggested that additional water and fire plugs need to be put in the area. It was moved by Hartleip, seconded by Grimm, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Johnson stated if this area was virgin land that we probably wouldn't be putting our industrial uses along the river and would probably reserve it for recreation or residential, but recognized that there are existing business and we don't want them to be non-conforming uses, so agreed with the rezoning of the land west of Colorado Street,but questioned if we should be encouraging additional industrial development and suggested the area east of Colorado Street should not be rezoned, and also agreed that if a road for industrial traffic could be added to the area it would be beneficial. The Commission discussed development in the area and services to the area. It was moved by Craft, seconded by Moser to approve the request. Motion carried 7-1. Ayes: Rainey, Powers, Fortier, Craft,Hartleip, Grimm,Moser Nays: Johnson 6 Planning and Zoning Commission November 1,2005 Minutes B. Plats 1. Request by Schenk Engineering on behalf of Joe Minard for Preliminary Plat of Summerland Farms First Addition. Graham gave the staff report noting that the plat is generally located west of Summerland Farms Addition, west of Dysart Rd and north of Orange Rd. Graham noted the requested plat would appear to be compatible to existing residential uses as well as blend in with with the surrounding residential developments. Graham noted that the area is served by Mills Lane, which is a private street, and that Mills Lane connects into Dysart Rd, which is classified as a Collector Street. Graham noted that the plat shows a future street labeled Tract D, which would serve future residential development to the west. Graham noted that the plat consists of 19.3 acres to be developed, with a total of 34 lots, 30 for single-family homes and 4 for multiple-family residence, including a 36 unit dwelling, a 6-unit dwelling and two 8-unit dwelling. Graham noted that the plat shows all of the necessary documentation per the Subdivision Ordinance and staff is recommending that the preliminary plat be approved, as the plat is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, can be serviced by extension of existing utilities, is located within the Primary Growth Area, and would appear to provide for orderly development and would be compatible with surrounding developments. Grimm questioned if there was a reason there would not be sidewalks. Schroeder noted that they are proposing private streets that have a rural section design, including ditches, and that sidewalks are not being proposed by the developer,noting that this is consistent with Summerland Farms Addition which was previously approved. Moser noted that with such a development you have no curb and gutter or sidewalks but noted with a private street someone is going to have to maintain them and expressed concern that the homeowners may not be fully understanding that. It was moved by Moser, seconded by Powers to approve the preliminary plat. Motion carried 7-0 with Johnson abstaining. C. Vacates There were no vacate requests on the agenda. D. Ordinance Amendments 1. Stoop/Step Projections and Overhanging Balconies. This item was removed from the agenda by staff for further review and will be placed on a future agenda of the Commission. E. Discussion Items There were no discussion items. Adjournment With no further business Johnson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 7