The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL MEETING MINUTES d 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 ofthe additionmay 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 Marnan 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 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,' 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, a • 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 I' 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 A • 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 b roducts to a localquarry, Lentz noted that employee and delivery traffic would be much essth during construction anda i 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 emissionsand 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 Q • 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 in 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 'A 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. a 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. Katie 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 fmd 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 1F • 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 goidmine,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 iR 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 of ict conflict interest Ayes:Powers, Moser, Evans, Craft, Orchard, Grimm Nays: George, Fosselt,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 8:1 S p.m. Respectfull submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 19 • e� .. A - \AGENDA /4 4, Agenda Planning, Programming &Zoning Commission Regular Meeting- April 3,2007 4:00 P.M. 2nd Floor Council Chambers, City Hall I. Approval of the April 3,2007 Agenda II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on March 6,2007 III. Receive and place on file the Notes of the Special Meeting on March 13,2007(no quorum). IV. Financial Report:February 2007 V. Oral Presentations VI. Agenda Items 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,'/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,'/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. 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. 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. E. Discussion/Possible Action Items 1. Reminder—April 10,2007 Special Meeting of the Planning,Programming and Zoning Commission,3:00 p.m. VII. Adjournment **Next regular meeting of the Planning, Programming &Zoning Commission will be held on May 1, 2007 ** **Next special meeting of the Planning, Programming &Zoning Commission will be held on April 10, 2007 ** 2 \ .„.. Planning and oning. Commission April 3,2 007 L . • _ 1 C_1 ■.r i:1 1a1.i4 m1 11,11r...m4 I111l .1.11s\1 1,4,11,N 611 1a4=i.l_iV;.L\MUI1N11g1I4IIhI1III t 6*1HI&.I47-1 II17.17II.11 4N.1.1-11I1.%-1 1.=-.-h.h..1...-i.,A OMMaI.iIImI l=uni-i lgoMih n..I —NrI1111.1 f ., iuil � 1 111 f1, °.tea. — ::,,....77111 I 11:11 Illo p own zij ri76milt mu•Biro..rimiiiii III 11 I iliwi I'ill I I Illig-a.-a--611 1 I r.:LI I ip v.rilliliL•7....K1 h:1,1 111;.1 eils'ill I I 111:is;11....1.;:i..1131,:::::::..a..ir,yr;iiiii4111.41;r4,4 171:1 1146.4.14 .14f14:415:7:1:4,1:179:11:14 r..._I:7E 7,41:1144:—.1:::::wit....3......7 i.‘, ; VA4r4+4"• :7*'i i' ,. '! ••••;wginauglA.:1 iqui 1 /EJI I♦ ....,__, .. , A, -1 & B.P.1.. All `1�n ll 1=:n I 1 .1... I or 4,1"PINEllifirelle5 =7 ',, , illPlinieleAr7 — A\ „f'''''' , .60 . Nuelthme Nuip 1,, . �'v '�MP MN r" Ilk ti - IU LP • D1 I • N i as 0 I A 3 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 4:17 p.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 5 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 6 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 7 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, °c , .-- Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary 5 8 NOTES CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA PLANNING,PROGRAMMING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-3:30 P.M.March 13,2007 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: George,Craft,Powers, Loveless,Moser and Hart. Members absent were: Evans,Burt,Fossell,Grimm,Johnson,Hartleip, and Orchard. Others present: Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham and Tim Andera—Planning Depai tnient. 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 they had gotten through reviewing up to page 108 and had just finished review of the"H-C"Highway 20 Corridor Overlay District section. 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 XXII Vehicular Use,Parking and Loading Areas, Public Garages,Parking Lots and Filing Stations. 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 wording is being added to allow a parking area to no have the required 5' setback from an alley in the portion of the alley abutting the parking lot is paved as approved by the City Engineer. Schroeder noted that additional uses are being added to the list of uses that are not required,to provide hard surfacing. Currently only one and two family dwellings are exempted, but the proposed amendment would add"A- 1"District uses,temporary accesses, and wireless communication towers. Schroeder noted that changes to the wording on landscaping and screening were being proposed, removing much of the language because a separate section of the Ordinance also provides for the landscaping requirements,and that the screening requirements are being reworded to align with the new definition of screen that is proposed. Schroeder noted that it has been past practice that when determining the number of parking stalls required, that areas such as mechanical or storage areas can be excluded,although this was not clearly indicated in the Ordinance, so staff is proposing to add wording to exclude such areas. The Commission then reviewed the list of uses and parking required for each use. It was the general consensus that there does not seem to be parking problems, and that for the most part the numbers are fine. Staff noted that they were going to do some more comparison with what other communities require for uses, particularly restaurants, and if any additional changes are proposed staff will bring it back for review. No action was taken on the request 2. 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 the next special meeting would be on April 10, at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Secretary . a... 9 e , e a i as ® e° TECH NOTES CITY OF WATERLOO—TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE March 28,2007 Schroeder called the meeting of the City of Waterloo Technical Review Committee to order at 2:17 p.m., March 28,2007 in the Mollenhoff Conference Room on the 2nd Floor of City Hall. The following attended the meeting: Brian Johnson—Water Works;Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder,Chris Western, Shane Graham and Tim Andera—Planning Staff;Dennis Gentz—Engineering Staff;Mohammed Elahi—Traffic Operations;Ned DeBerg,WD Carter—Waterloo Fire and Rescue;Barbara Berguam—BHC EMA;Tim Shea—Waste Management A&B. Annexations&Hearings—Zoning Amendments Al & B2. Request by Elk Run Energy Associates,LLC,on behalf of the property owners for voluntary annexation of approximately 345 acres,as well as rezoning 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,'/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. Anderson gave a review of the staff report given last month,noting not much has changed,but did note that the amount of land being annexed and rezoned has decreased due to two property owners not signing the petition for the annexation and rezone. Anderson noted though the acreage size of the request has decreased, the overall plan submitted by Elk Run Energy still remains the same. Elahi noted that currently there is a truck traffic problem on Newell Street, and questioned if the developers are aware of this. Anderson noted that the developers are aware of the problem and are currently developing the most suitable routes for truck traffic arriving and leaving the plant site. Elahi noted that the report gives a detailed chart on the increase in the traffic counts on surrounding roadways,but noted there was not information on the traffic count increases at nearby major intersections such as Donald Street and N Elk Run Road,MLK and N Elk Run Road,Newell and N Elk Run Road,and Independence and N Elk Run Road,and would like to have some data provided to the Traffic Department. Elahi questioned if there was any information noting if high-ranking coal or low- ranking coal would be burnt at the plant,noting that low-ranking coal is more problematic and is harder to clean the exhaust from the plant. Anderson noted there was information in the report noting where the coal was being mined from,but nothing stating what rank of coal would be used. Berguam questioned that since the new power plant will have its own source of energy,if it has been discussed to establish a community shelter at the site,noting UNI has its own power plant and community shelter that can be utilized in times of natural disasters and the loss of electricity,such as the most recent ice storm that occurred a few months ago. Schroeder noted that had not been discussed and Staff can address the developers on this issue. Shea noted that it could possibly be a security issue having a shelter directly on the coal plant campus,and noted that if the possibility of a having a community shelter exists,the shelter would probably be located on the fringes of the development. Elahi questioned if the plant would possibly have an impact on tourism,noting that currently,a new casino is being built. Anderson noted that in the report submitted by the developers,there were tables and information stating that the development of a new coal plant would not have a large impact on tourism to a community,as well as having a minimal impact on new retail or residential development. C. Special Permits Tech Notes 3-28-2007 pg 1 10 1. Request by Struxture Architects on behalf of the Waterloo Community School District 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 the that applicants are requesting the approval for a Special Permit for the purpose of establishing a new two-story locker room and fitness center on the East High School campus,as well as renovating 5,600 SF of existing locker rooms. Graham noted that it would appear that the site plan for the East High site would meet the necessary conditions,which include adequate space for parking and have a limited impact on traffic and all utilities currently serve the site. Graham also noted that the area where the new addition would be constructed is currently a parking lot for school staff,and the applicant has noted that two rows of parking would be lost, however they noted that there would still be enough parking for school staff,as there will be a new row of parking along the street in front of the addition, in addition to the other existing parking lots. Graham noted it would appear that the new addition would be beneficial to the community and better serve its needs. Berguam questioned if the new addition would be attached to the existing building and if there is any designated space for safety if a natural disaster were to occur,such as a tornado. Graham noted that the new addition will be connected to the existing building and there will be an interior hallway on the lower level that can serve as a shelter if needed. Shea questioned if the new addition plans to use geothermal energy for the main energy source to power the building,which would result in a large amount of additional water being directed to the sewer plant,and noted it needs to be clarified if the type of geothermal energy being used is going to be an open loop or closed loop system. Shea noted if it is an open loop system,and during times of high water,the storm gates at the sewer plant are closed,and the plant needs to shut down their system, possibly flooding surrounding areas,or it can be possibly looked at to install additional pumping stations. Schroeder noted that the proposed addition will encroach on the former S Barclay Street right-of-way on the east side of the building,which was vacated in 2001 by Ordinance 4459, and an easement was retained on the portion vacated. Shea noted there is sanitary sewer running through that area,and Johnson noted Water Works has a line in that vacated right-of-way as well. Schroeder noted that a portion of the utility easement will possibly need to be vacated as part of the request. D. Plats 1. Request by Shive Hattery Inc.on behalf of Cardinal Construction for the Preliminary Plat of Country Club Business Center generally located east of Ansborough Avenue between San Marnan Drive and Highway 20 for development of a business park. Schroeder gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting the approval of the preliminary plat for the purpose of establishing a new 11-lot business park situated on 29.2 acres of land located near the southeast corner of Ansborough Avenue and San Marnan Drive north of Highway 20. Schroeder noted 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 also 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 Drive. Gentz noted that Engineering has requested that sidewalks be installed as development occurs,but has also requested that the entire recreational trail be installed to avoid having gaps in its construction as development occurs. Schroeder also noted that Engineering has noted that the originally proposed street name"Country Club Lane"will not work,and the proposed street name"Fitzway Drive"may not work. Schroeder noted the proposed Fitzway Drive would line up with the existing Fitzway Drive to the west of Ansborough Avenue,however,the future extension of the street to the east will connect to existing Fisher Drive,potentially creating a street name change in the middle of the block. Schroeder noted that there is an existing 8"sanitary sewer and 16"water line with in San Marnan Drive right-of-way,which will both be extended to serve the plat. Johnson noted that the preliminary plat shows the extension of the existing 16" waterline,which stops at the corner of San Marnan Drive and Ansborough Avenue,and is currently unsure if Water Works wants to install the new waterline within the San Marnan Drive right-of-way. Schroeder noted Tech Notes 3-28-2007 pg 2 I . 11 that that plat shows storm sewers within the proposed public streets outleting to the proposed storm sewer retention pond on Lot 11,and then outleting to the north in the open ditch along San Marnan Drive. Engineering noted the need for proper easements and agreements be drawn up when public storm sewer lines outlet to a private retention pond. Schroeder noted the area of the proposed plat is split by several different zoning classifications which are, "C-P"Planned Commercial District,"B-P"Business Park,and"R-4,R-P" Planned Residence District. Schroeder noted these"planned"districts are site plan specific,and prior to any construction on the lots,the applicant will have to go through a site plan amendment process to approve the site plan layout and uses of the proposed lots. Schroeder noted that prior to approval of the final plat,the San Marnan Drive right-of-way included as outlot B would need to be approved for vacation. Elahi noted he would like to see traffic analysis study of the area,and noted the possibility of needing to install traffic signals at the'A mark where San Marnan Drive and Country Club Lane intersect as development of the plat occurs. Meeting adjourned 3: 47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tim Andera, Associate Planner Tech Notes 3-28-2007 pg 3 12 Annex—NE area—Elk Run Energy—Mar 07 REQUEST: THE REQUEST BY ELK RUN ENERGY ASSOCIATES LLC ON THE BEHALF OF LANDOWNERS FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 345 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ALONG MERLE ROAD, NORTH OF NEWELL STREET, 3 MILE EAST OF NORTH ELK RUN ROAD (EAST OF ELK RUN CREEK). THIS IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A 750-MEGAWATT COAL- FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITY. APPLICANT: Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC c/o LS Power Development, LLC, 400 Chesterfield Center, Suite 110, St. Louis, MO, 63017. LOCATION: The site is approximately 345 acres, east of Elk Run Creek, from the railroad line to Newell Street. 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 limits line. ZONING HISTORY: The property has been zoned "A" Agricultural District (since 1982) and is located outside of the corporate boundaries. This portion would be annexed as a part of this project. COMPREHENSIVE The Black Hawk County Future Land Use Map designates the area to be PLAN: annexed as agricultural. The City of Waterloo Future Land Use Map shows this entire area inside of the city limits as Industrial. SURROUNDING LAND USE: AREA ZONING CLASSIFICATION CURRENT USE North "A" Agricultural District agricultural "A-L" Agricultural Limited Quarry use East "A" Agricultural District agricultural "R-S" Residential Suburban residential homes South "A" Agricultural District agricultural West "A" Agricultural District agricultural "M-2,P" Planned Industrial Deere, Tyson, Eagle Tannery FLOOD INFORMATION: There is a small portion of the requested area that is located within a flood hazard area as indicated by the Federal Insurance Administration's Flood Insurance Rate Map 190535 0040. The area for development of the power plant is not located within the flood hazard area. MAJOR STREET PLAN: The area is served by Newell Street, which is classified as Minor Arterial (in city limits), and by North Elk Run Road to the west, which is classified as a Minor Arterial. North Elk Run Road has access to Highway 20 and 1-380 to the southeast, classified as Principal Arterials. UTILITY SERVICES: All services will be extended to the site by the applicable companies, 13 Annex—NE area—Elk Run Energy—Mar 07 including water, sewer, gas, electric, phone, etc. These services will be extended through the rights-of way. DEVELOPMENT SECTOR The LESA score for the site is 174 out of 300. ANALYSIS: This score represents a low agricultural value. PROPOSED USE: Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC affiliate of LS Power proposes to construct a 750-Megawatt coal-fired electric generation facility. The project would involve rail accessibility and use. STAFF ANALYSIS: The requested area is a 345-acre site, outside of the corporate limits, which would be voluntarily annexed into the city limits as a part of the project. Elk Run Energy Associates would be purchasing the area for annexation as a part of their project, and they are requesting the annexation. 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. By this description, the City would annex portions of Newell Street heading easterly to the main entrance site of the project. The annexation would not create any type of island situation, which is prohibited by the State Code of Iowa. A"flag pole" annexation is legal. While this area is not included within the City of Waterloo Future Land Use Map, the entire area within the corporate limits in this vicinity is designated for industrial development. This is 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. 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. The City of Waterloo has held a consultation with other entities as required on this request. At that consultation, of which the notes and submittals are attached for your review, there was discussion of drainage, traffic, and the overall development of the power plant. The majority of comments were focused on the project itself, and its operation. There has been a petition previously submitted to the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors, from adjacent neighbors, requesting the Board of Supervisors to stop the City of Waterloo from annexing the land. Said petition notes flooding, emission of chemicals, and traffic as reasons for the opposition. The Board of Supervisors has 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. The City of Waterloo has expressed its intent to maintain the improved Newell Street, after its annexation. 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. 14 Annex—NE area—Elk Run Energy—Mar 07 The City of Waterloo City Council will take action on the annexation of land at the same City Council meeting as the rezoning hearing. The annexation would then be forwarded to the State of Iowa for their review and approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Therefore, staff recommends that this request be approved for the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. The request would appear beneficial to the continued development of the Northeast Industrial Park area, and would appear compatible to surrounding industrial development. 3. The request would put more land into the city limits in the Primary Growth Area. 4. The request is a voluntary annexation. 15 Rezoning—NE area—Elk Run Energy—March 13, 2007 REQUEST: THE REQUEST BY ELK RUN ENERGY ASSOCIATES LLC ON BEHALF OF LANDOWNERS FOR THE FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 260 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ALONG MERLE ROAD, NORTH OF NEWELL STREET, 3/ MILE EAST OF NORTH ELK RUN ROAD (EAST OF ELK RUN CREEK). THIS IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A 750-MEGAWATT COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITY. APPLICANT: Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC c/o LS Power Development, LLC, 400 Chesterfield Center, Suite 110, St. Louis, Missouri, 63017, on behalf of numerous property owners. LOCATION: The site is approximately 260 acres, east of Elk Run Creek, between the railroad line to Newell Street. The site is part of 494-acres being purchased by Elk Run Energy Associates LLC. Of that total acreage, 345 acres would be annexed, and 260 acres would be rezoned, to allow for a buffer from adjacent properties. ZONING HISTORY: This area would be annexed into the city limits. The City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance, Part V, 2A-6, notes that all territory, which is annexed into the City of Waterloo, shall automatically be classified as "A-1"Agricultural District, until amended. As part of the unincorporated area, the site is currently zoned "A" Agricultural District. COMPREHENSIVE The City of Waterloo Future Land Use Map does not include this area, as it is PLAN: not currently located within the City of Waterloo Corporate Limits. The Black Hawk County Future Land Use Map designates the area to be annexed as Agricultural. The City of Waterloo Future Land Use Map shows this entire area inside of the city limits as Industrial. SURROUNDING LAND USE: AREA ZONING CLASSIFICATION CURRENT USE North "A"Agricultural District agricultural "A-L"Agricultural Limited quarry use East "A"Agricultural District agricultural "R-S" Residential Suburban residential homes South "A"Agricultural District agricultural West "A"Agricultural District agricultural "M-2,P" Planned Industrial Deere, Tyson, Eagle Tannery FLOOD INFORMATION: There is a small portion of the requested area that is located within a flood hazard area as indicated by the Federal Insurance Administration's Flood Insurance Rate Map 190535 0040. The area for development of the power plant is not located within the flood hazard area. MAJOR STREET PLAN: The area is served by Newell Street, which is classified as a Minor Arterial (in city limits), and by North Elk Run Road to the west, which is classified as a Minor Arterial. North Elk Run Road has access to Highway 20 and 1-380 to the 16 Rezoning—NE area—Elk Run Energy—March 13, 2007 southeast, classified as Principal Arterials. A transportation plan is included, noting street and rail options, and these are summarized in the staff analysis. UTILITY SERVICES: All services will be extended to the site by the applicable companies, including water, sewer, gas, electric, phone, etc. The provision of these services will include: - 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 will 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. The trains will be approximately 7,750 feet in length (assuming 135 cars and 3 to 4 locomotives, but potentially ranging from 110 to 150 cars). A new single or double rail loop will be built on project site, allowing for unloading on-site. DEVELOPMENT The Growth Area Map of the Comprehensive Plan does not include this area, SECTOR as it is not currently located within the City of Waterloo. The adjacent area to ANALYSIS: the west is a Primary Growth Area, scoring 29 out of a possible 31 points on the Land Evaluation Scoring Summary. PROPOSED USE: Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC, an affiliate of LS Power proposes to construct a 750-Megawatt coal-fired electric generation facility. The project would involve rail accessibility and use. STAFF ANALYSIS: The area requested for rezoning is a 260-acre site, outside of the corporate limits, which would be voluntarily annexed into the city limits as a part of the project. With that annexation process, the land is automatically classified as "A-1"Agricultural District. As Elk Run Energy Associates, LLC proposes to construct a 750-Megawatt coal-fired electric generation facility, the rezoning of the land to "M-2,P" Planned Industrial would be necessary. 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. This project would involve over $1 billion in investment, and is targeted to begin construction in 2008. The "M-2,P" Planned Industrial Districts 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. The required conditions listed in the "M-2" District notes 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." Elk Run Energy Associates LLC notes it will be utilizing state-of-the-art technology for its operation. This rezoning process, due to the submittal of the detailed information, will be approving the site plan as shown as a part of the rezoning process. The site plan shows several plant buildings, a tower location, wastewater pond, coal pile, rail line within site, as well as buffering areas, access point off of Newell Street, and some vegetative plantings. The submitted site plan would appear to meet all Required Conditions as stated in 17 Rezoning—NE area—Elk Run Energy—March 13,2007 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." The submitted site plan design will incorporate large setback distances from the property line to plant equipment and will utilize natural vegetation screening to create buffer areas to minimize off-site noise from operation of the plant. The plant will further be designed with noise mitigation measures as appropriate to ensure noise levels around rotating equipment and at the project boundary are consistent with OSHA requirements. Audible noise levels at the project boundary are expected to be similar to a quiet face-to-face conversation. The requested "M-2,P" rezoning of the site meets the designation of this general area, inside the city limits, as Industrial on the Future Land Use Map, and is consistent with the planned industrial classification of other adjacent sites, including the Deere and Company, Tyson Foods, Ferguson Enterprises, Warren Transport, the Eagle Tannery, Kinder Morgan Energy, as well as the Northeast Industrial Park further to the west. The rezoning will coincide with the request for annexation. The site plan, as submitted, would appear to meet all local ordinance requirements including setbacks, buffering, etc. and will be required to meet all applicable ordinances and regulations which will follow with further information such as storm water, landscaping, etc. As a part of this process, the applicant has submitted a traffic study performed by Earth Tech, a local transportation consultant. In summary, the study finds that the traffic, both rail and street traffic, will be minor in nature - both during the construction phase and the operational phase. 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, the study concluded that based on the trends in the region, locating a power plant does not negatively impact the value of the existing residential property. Staff is aware of many people vocalizing environmental concerns for the project. Staff has pointed out the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, and does not have authority over other environmental entities, laws, etc. We would reiterate the information submitted by the applicant: 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 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 will 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 18 Rezoning—NE area—Elk Run Energy—March 13, 2007 by-products. These by-products will 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 will 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. As noted previously, the City of Waterloo has previously invested large amounts of infrastructure into the northeast industrial area, including road construction, sewer and water lines. These improvements were constructed in this area for large industrial-type development, and this annexation would appear to meet the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the use and extension of existing infrastructure and logical expansion of an industrial area. The City of Waterloo City Council is working to set hearing dates for the annexation of property and rezoning of land. The project will also involve the City Council's approval of a Development Agreement between the City of Waterloo and the applicant to delineate the hook-on of infrastructure for sewer, road, water, wastewater, etc. An economic impact study, conducted by the Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, notes the 4-year construction period could sustain directly and indirectly as many as 1,526 jobs in the region (region is the Waterloo/Cedar Falls MSA which is Grundy, Bremer, and Black Hawk Counties), 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. There has also been opposition to the proposed project, primarily for environmental reasons, with traffic concerns also noted. Such opposition has previously included a petition to the Board of Supervisors of approximately 680 signatures against the request. Staff estimates this petition contains less than 100 signatures from residents within the Waterloo city limits. Staff would note 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 above in relation to the local, state, and federal regulation references. The traffic concerns would be addressed by the provisions of the traffic study, which we have included as conditions of our recommendation below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Therefore, staff recommends that this request be approved for the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. The request would put more land into the city limits in the Primary 19 Rezoning—NE area—Elk Run Energy—March 13, 2007 Growth Area. 4. The request is a voluntary annexation. 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 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. 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. 21 BEFORE Till', ('I l Y COUNCIL OF WATERLOO,[":RLOO,, 1O Y'it co 0,4 ', PI ri ICON FOR R ItIQI I.IN 1 ARY ANNEXATION The,t)tidersigned landowners and Elk Run Energy Associates, I I t , as option holdRfor-ret estate owned by the undersigned (collectively the ` I'ctieioners''), hereby petite the, ty of Wat-erlon,� Iowa (the "City') to annex the follcovv ing "territory, as showit.by th nap that follows, showing its location in relationship to the City, and as Iegal describ`ed on the Annexation Plat provided in subsequent pages herein. The names, addresses, and signatures of the Petitioners are set out in the following pages of this Petition l'or"Voluntary.Annexation and made a part hereof. The Petitioners herein represent at least eighty(81)) percent of the land area in the territory to be annexed. The territory to be annexed also includes a Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and a parcel of real estate owned by Merle Bell, which parties are not included among the Petitioners. In addition, the territory to be annexed includes a road occupied by Black Hawk County. Iowa. through easements with the underlying ownership thereof being in Phyllis Joan Morgan. Thomas C. and Theresa L. Milotaw James II. and Eleanor Pardoe, Michael and C'hristin A. Padden. John D. Arbuckle Trustee, Todd Raymond Munger, Scott Craig Munger, Troy Gene Munger, and Dorothy J. Munger, which parties are not included among the Petitioners. TIJE-REF()RI., pursuant to Iowa Code Section .368,7. Petitioners request a Resolution annexing the area described herein. /2)/ _ Icy. c- ,.. .: t�.._t ' ` aul'G Thessen (Date) Executive Vice President Elk Run Energy Associates. LI,C C/O I.S Power Development, LI,C 400 Chesterfield Center, Ste. 110 St. Louis, Missouri 63017 Phone 636-532-2200 RECEIVED BY TI-IE CITY OF WATERLOO,IOWA,TEAS 1 DAY OF ._. City Clrlt • ,= 3€€_ >Ms fIPJINL !W1y _,_ ";'. �,5 '� •,I ',`.`;,',<:"::tfai,11,,, aka:'. '�. iik .: _ r V ",:;,r t • ` ' .•�.� .ate ••.4..v4 '. . r' t;' v� " ,z-'"�-" ,° ,4,` e` 1 'ft M.s; }L 'I' ^�- ^d;% ,b•�' s,y,i1 =7. 3 ^sw �i''1 ✓:%:) z " r.z �<. '', •. . 'sYffi °'p .-1,. 'ate -, ,•' et 35.Y ,4r3 7<�"zb m"'4*-- 13 43 Pt :pit ° R � �'ft", ,,r�' 13,..F.` " -� s� f>.. < .'.4Iki Wiz, d "-'Y`."': ." , 4-040 ,13 ; e •( t � " _ • , " •eX.., .,vw»- y 6,:g a" yv S a# r",," a -o- r,° � :3 x ,, A^ {yam $ t'�'_e«•._- ".i-,�r, - 'y,, 4.:t,.r.•<.'smi- , ' , , y$r 8:ps�Q�'`�-f `;:€'-q r 'f i<-,As„'.s"}: i _A,szzl`.°-n s'.)%i 3•C6rh ,,?'.g< e 2` `5'f:., ., ' ,,GG.,is: i ;a`� v;. •v:R '=''-^ syV;;'xg ,saii',a m, ,;, x ry s..' -',,r `t:,t al'';x- s rtF:-> & o`er -,,, ,•7 4,'. y ' , a� ' 4 Vi';- '� � ,,S . ' ra<r . , -t• a - tt.. 1,1}i a . `x°'r:T ; . .s ri ,: .. .•. % x , ,, 7 ,. ." ¢ „> ,ma, _ � y ° y • m44 vtiNie • • �"' , ' , 8!�aG $`. Y y' - `�, e l ',9° A 4%A»„ „p . �}� r5I .' y ya“ 44n �. , ; a •t ' �t a" qt £ ,�( tk4 3 ;v"t,°yt: ,, .. , ,, ma ,.si ' ' ;_ : y> s' J ":^"t ; ^ t, k' >` ' t;ms,: ; ' a° '''iam .'_-''.0-0- ^ �,,, , ; , ; ? ` �, t-,",, ' e 3 • .ar.. gy y r —s= r. / < � ya�,F � _� _, 14 { , ' % t`i - # - , o-.6 ' ,,:k - a a .,,;°c 4... -. • „ „ ; a .tt ,d'- a 1 e i ' �; _ ' i ,`' 1 ,<'` '1 fi „e ,e,r_,t' .`� 3.3 ° %%P 't•v, �� _ i,:a`� t £H, <j y 'Zs ,. ., ,e # „ , , f.^ . 4 .- - ett g.", t urM �'"e ,�'" .v ,t,r y,,, x.�..;:r d '(y r , s€"$ f "�07 yam:s• s.. 4,1 +H :'%" r ' ,. A,d` " <''a . ' iF' :; y..`' .,.v'`1, _ r '' 4" ''•w xa' . - _ ' "- • "r > � _& r : '' 4 ' ta _ '� as< r b$ pn,._ ,$ .�'"`.:�frN ,R 43 "`�c ',°` ��-r �,€�x,` ><-._.:-;-�'€ � i".,,�4. eA t°'-k%'• ..'�,,r.,' '"i�% .pq�,a ,s ••6y,-44 `3'`'113 ` .' Yyi' 4 '4' `s` < 5i' 'i' , ,S fy„ yv,.e{...``s �?-ay' _ '4 .`'="x c.: '.'' t,a, °,: 's :',3T",,,_d :£a'.i>.i,'A`'v.,,-k <, fir; '4 n%?:':�;. �<a% \-'i3r�'�" ,F' ern,-��&� a`>--,"`,;. -- ��F'r - 4:; x.� ':"'mow d ��'��.`X'�'2'L�-/', f��' ye �'a ir 0 III �to _;,.`"v:"£»r :�. `'%'a-r,.,'@yitir §-', •°- e-'or `` `+s - r.� `^ ott 0 0 G v J x , =P.<3�I' i; r°' : ':,�`,4- ', ,. .--- # .�,, ,,` :� ;a m R. ' ':: >"8'� !-•.:.,:A: tm 4'a t,..,:ry_ ....,, = =. ,,, - m ,mot+ ,+3, 'rM' .z D �- x ^,.''gyp . �' �: 2 : w r z 4` , �,, ��° ,4 a'•%••''.' ' '. •ti AR, .. a ' seed' � ti 4 g a �. � "�'w`'`," 5 4; " p z: " '"^ fix . *:_ p: , ?>/:,, ,* • gt ,Do %.,A• .,:i,i l I 1 I ® F --- -------- o _—_ EtF fiN NOM__— _--_ _ N tt 3- o ,\ ;m A20 , c» z". Z O AS goo mR i i 9 IN mI oi a, IN _—__—__—__—___L____o' 6-- `L___—__4'__—__—__—_____--_— R` a`_ ,. m » »� ,0 33' 'i,',s� ESE i,` , a -5sii c, N ; c leom=: I a "` s= �'g I � \ ' ^4s ® ` \ i p » I 7, 7o^g » h 01 �f \\ bi,' c T P m I H • ;� . . ' --.- I �v zo r z O z m m P. RJR ��» ;A Li f♦ » 1 �\ I _ ,D�y'—moo z 3.14 Ate$ 11 ��G r I mRo go 4b x I L,_—•t \ � e oo> No� ze �i 3m5 { I o 1 I *=K. o L L� I; -4 1 NJ0.E R0U0 �� '� e � -e n r x v m o. • d, :? , DA• N-, _Co C _- 0 I _" m �I p; r © • e-I , a 2 i _ Im N. m mg' 33' w 0 r li EV I {€m I)® I U m I =e- • Y .,.• I ,f i `i =m i m HT, • -------------- -ta —gym „R.R.AflOW RMD s w A 1 $ _ l z� r4 d, » -» n PREPARED BY:MICHAEL R,FAGLE, EARTH TECH, 501 SYCAMORE STREET, SUITE 222, WATERLOO,IOMA,50703, 319-232-6531 7..f Ia Ea_ i.S i!: m a N Co.) i ® m 6 1 omm�mmawti f. z r m z z z z z A o o 0 0 $ism O u :w N =O 0 0 0 o a o a o o o 0 o a o 0 m ..N a :r,l Uhl 0 m a w ro o w m N a w,.+ -o m AAAAA -i I I 1 W d I I I I III Y tl 1 1 I 1 1 1 B Y 9 I -� N N N 8 N Z N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z w . N N N N m8e8 NSOm N , gg O Ng� o m8m �88;88Eii Z e o'm `�"o e m o ti m E m 1 m m m m m m m m m m m m E E Y Y m 8 Z m Z ti m m m m m oo N O D o 8 e 1. u"` N N 0'-Oi m;O e u 0 0 H e 0 0 I l• 7 l l l l m l 1. K i.S N 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 ,1, 1,,,A-npa x 8 O S b 0 0 0 O O a n x 1 -'DOZn - zm mm� 0> O r N N Z to rm-_,>._. m z-cmooz �mzn=.n n.Q ZZ m-1-1 oOn !100-t Fz^m2N� n��1 K..��SV _ xiW�-i�TA on"' v� - rox> m :m �8mnm>mn xxm_88T88�no ~ mmn$m IS io N.Rmp$=m�..fo','org2� moC '",I0 l >A,1n nino >-t z+ln"osNm`Inaizaw� NzzN mzm-mo.i`" A1b-,�NaN � s$�� rnpozozm �o�zmm.n eayV' �opzm.' ,,g, �0 rt 0 mrm' aim'"e : - .. - - . a'lNIa "Dana ia�'AA'mcr'o � ' !",1;i oea,25:44� pax xti,° myo'n mii-zm E Joao-Nim-, ?� z n8545 o+sOZToz o,.;:jAmx a Ny yw w Kr � g�-Im�om��bm ;� mn �'_ o�i In a�•+mowe'i o{y-�� 'rani-Nii:.�.-..1 m .m�°-8ovvou moi - z o cmi Tinia:-Nii ii4,1:474,%E!..ii' � TAONiT�onomimm�m mmm n`z ;-n-. mFyA$ ,1:2l7mxxmNim%'-'iamii !,1-A� z _iia _ Notioar,-yNxo:z•-+ Ivom -,N='N cl o mo s_'A manoma�n _ a�.�'um�Tin imAmn�� x -xi i7i -IN z�i !;!.. m�-Wi � CAI z$m-$A do xz rocTv �zOItim"'�-wi'dA n,'o�o-.yinm `"mo«n-zma-`mwym Ni x0N -- �� ii iv 8; Am-. xov, oat i iorTcmzx-I;ma...raoAKlriy ivo roi-", `" i�nm nz --aNN-goA nvmw-li i m- e-Icmmuoi=T m.r�moN £oi m Toonil'11,!:xnm -.'i$gm�n!Yomox`a'NimmowwgA„:4,,: i=`�io.N.of q„.3 �n m'zco'nm=!z m-'z" -wi 4,4-z'sim ^x' x ovAwoz -4,0 n N000000mTz mN.o!.^�,.mim :,onm�OOir 0 z m —9oor.m'�or„;- movc`=zooAzv" _ ��A goy -1 o n moray o � mr.�m�nom��o 1^qr nip,m1xoT"`-Niz '^ mgmm a m�s �n-aN- - �oa' =o = �� x -i :4MI;mmmino` ,12 ' s 8�$> A g� w��$ oibNma� "�."Nn �z`m° mo"' A .... `� mn�OO`s-NimOAifAn lxn D A_iOOi OOI IZiOmw2x�_rm��.- AS-� O A rOGpofZ O g.14 4 =1:8 mANZ.�Tm"Oi AZ Ponti-Nln Vai$Ta7X9,i rNziiOv-li _ nix op �gNT�,mglmo��19ob _ g � mvnZ- �ypazmanv�rNgr itl �w ::,;`:"Tiixg">mmnzX” w r zroo ao'mo.'- �rz =m BNn�yoo-z>N' "� -p ^gicsoc � "I ,irmo -'"4Egza$c-"in4>m nc,t. m_ miy A <<ru zvnm mT ioma$1ym-rinni.g "z,,4, m'mm' voi m F. '•gn �8« a x , f1 xN m m ..• i v iv' m m H N 9, T N 1A T 25 Landowner/Petitioner Name:Douglas Miller and Debra Miller Landowner/Petitioner Address:4811 Newell Street,Waterloo,IA 50703 Landowner/Petitioner Phone:(319)291-6035 Legal Description: The following described real property located in Black Hawk County,Iowa is FULLY included in the Annexation Plat: Parcel ID: 8912-15-476-003 THAT PART SE SE SEC 15 T 89 R 12 DESC AS FOL: COM AT SE COR SAID SE SE TH W 699.68 FT ALONG S LINE SAID SE SE TO PT OF BEG TH CONT W 523.27 FT ALONG SAID S LINE THN4I5.88FTTHE313.55FTTHS01 DEG 49MIN44 SEC W 93.97 FT THE 211.91 FT TH S 316.59 FT TO PT OF BEG EXC RD R-O-W Owner(s): isg16-citAbA sa,/ 9/ a 7 ougla Miller (Date) aI9 / 7 Debra Miller (Date) 26 Landowner/Petitioner Name: Marlene Pearl Miller Landowner/Petitioner Address:4418 Vintage Lane,Waterloo,IA 50701 Landowner/Petitioner Phone:(319)232-1806 Landowner/Petitioner Name:Darrel Oldenburger and Jeanne Mae Oldenburger Landowner/Petitioner Address:3435 Monarch Avenue,Marion,IA 52302 Landowner/Petitioner Phone: (319)377-2721 Legal Description: The following described real property located in Black Hawk County,Iowa is FULLY included in the Annexation Plat: Parcel ID: 8912-15-476-002 SE SE SEC 15 T 89 R 12 EXC N 17 FT OF THE S 50 FT OF THE W 300 FT SEE BK 493 P 631 AND EXC RD AND EXC THAT PART DESC AS FOL: COM AT SE COR SAID SE SE TH W 699.98 FT ALONG S LINE SAID SE SE TO PT OF BEG TH CONT W 523.27 FT ALONG SAID S LINE TH N 415.88 FT THE 313.55 FT TH S 01 DEG 49 MIN 44 SEC W93.97FTTHE211.91 FT TH S 316.59 FT TO PT OF BEG AND EXC RD R-O-W Parcel ID: 8912-15-426-001 NE SE EXC RR SEC 15 T 89 R 12 Parcel ID: 8912-14-351-001 SW SW SEC 14T89R12 ii Parcel ID:8912-14-301-001 NW SW SEC 14 T 89 R 12 Parcel ID: 8912-14-151-001 SW NW EXC RR SEC 14 T 89 R 12 Owner(s): Marlene Peal Miller - (Date) ;;), Darrel Oldenburger (Da (Jeanne Mae Oldenbur r (J)/c7/6 27 Landowner/Petitioner Name: Marvena Ryan Landowner/Petitioner Address: 2643 E.Donald Street,Waterloo,IA 50703 Landowner/Petitioner Phone: (319)236-3166 Legal Description: The following described real property located in Black Hawk County,Iowa is FULLY included in the Annexation Plat: Parcel ID:8912-14-326-001 NE SW SEC 14 T 89 R 12 The following described real property located in Black Hawk County,Iowa is PARTIALLY included in the Annexation Plat: Parcel ID: 8912-14-376-002 SE SW SEC 14 T 89 R 12 EXC COM AT PT 33 FT N OF SE COR SW SEC 14 TO PT OFBEGTH310FTNTH532 FTWTH310FTSTH532FTETOPTOFBEG Owner(s): Ma na Ryan f 1\ (Date) - 0Q- 07 28 Landowner/Petitioner Name:L K R Farms,Inc. Landowner/Petitioner Address:2825 Huntington Road,Waterloo,IA 50701 Landowner/Petitioner Phone:(319)277-1571 Legal Description: The following described real property located in Black Hawk County,Iowa is PARTIALLY included in the Annexation Plat: Parcel ID:8912-14-251-002 SW NE SEC 14 T 89 R 12 EXC N 540 FT OF E 665 FT OF W 855 FT&EASE Owner(s): • ---"). p reld C) a ois K.Rieger (Date) President •.•.......•. 29 •• r • Aity NOTES CITY OF WATERLOO—ANNEXATION CONSULTATION MEETING ELK RUN ENERGY ASSOCIATES LLC 1:30 P.M.March 9,2007 Frank Mollenhoff Conference Room In compliance with Iowa Code Section 368.7,the City of Waterloo has arranged this consultation meeting with the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors and the Poyner Township Trustees to discus the petition of Elk Run Energy Associates LLC(LS Power)to voluntarily annex approximately 407 acres of land generally located along Merle Road,north of Newell Street, 3/of a mile east of N Elk Run Road(east of Elk Run Creek). The following attended the meeting: Frank Magsamen—Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors;Gail Mueller—Poyner Township Trustee;Tim Hurley Mayor of Waterloo;Don Temeyer,Noel Anderson and Aric Schroeder—Waterloo Planning and Zoning Department;Dennis Gentz—Waterloo Engineering Department; Helen Steffen—Black Hawk County Auditor's. Temeyer noted that LS Power is starting the process to annex the area in question and rezone the property for the proposed power plant development,noting that they will eventually file with the Iowa Utilities Board for their approval. Temeyer noted that the City's position is that if the LS Power project would not go ahead,such as if the Iowa utilities Board does not give them the permits they need to build the facility,that the City does not want to annex the area. Temeyer noted that if possible,the City will delay filing the annexation until it is determined if the Iowa Utilities Board will approve it,however this may not be allowed and the City may have to file the annexation prior to the Iowa Utilities Board action. Then the City will agree to sever the annexed land so it goes back to the County,noting that this is not property that the City of Waterloo wants to include in the City Limits unless it has a project like LS Power. Temeyer noted that we are here today to discus issues pertaining to the annexation. Temeyer noted that they are planning on purchasing more land than what they are proposing to annex,that way they will control land around to address environmental best management practices. Magsamen questioned if this additional land would need a zoning change. Temeyer noted that it would remain agricultural, as it would be used for agricultural purposes. Anderson pointed out that LS Power is proposing to buy 494 acres but is only requesting to annex 407 acres,and are requesting to rezone 310 acres,noting that they are trying to provide the buffering between themselves and the neighboring properties and to provide area for the conservation practices. Temeyer noted that they are proposing a double railroad track loop around the site so that they can have two trains in there if they need to,but the plan is to bring in a train on one day and then that train will leave the next day. Temeyer noted that this loop will help them to keep the stopped trains on site. Temeyer stated that one of the proposed conditions that will go along with the zoning is the improvement of Newell Street from Raymond Road to N Elk Run Road as part of the project,which will likely be included in a development agreement between LS Power and the City of Waterloo. Temeyer noted that the annexation is considered a "flagpole"annexation,noting that Phyllis Morgan and other property owners between the existing city limits and the proposed site have indicated they do not want to be annexed,so the annexation will include Newell Street out to the site,where it will then include Newell Street and the LS Power site. Temeyer noted that if annexed,the City could do an agreement with the property owners to keep the taxes the same for up to 10 years,but they do not want to be annexed. Temeyer noted that under the voluntary annexation law up to 20%of the land can be included if non-consenting,but it has not been felt that their annexation would be necessary. Mueller questioned what part of the road the City would own. Temeyer referenced the portion of Newell Street to be included in the City Limits as shown on the annexation map that was provided in the notice for the meeting. Temeyer noted it would include all of Newell Street east of N Elk Run Road to a point just past their entrance road. Mueller questioned how they can proceed if they do not currently own the property. Temeyer noted that they are petitioning to annex it and have purchase options,and as part of their option,the property owners are to do the Notes 03-09-07 Consultation Meeting for Elk Run Energy Annexation pg 1 30 things necessary for LS Power to get their permits. Magsamen questioned the process and action needed by the County. Temeyer noted that the way he understood it,it does not take official action of the Board of Supervisors. Schroeder noted that action from the Board of Supervisors(BoS)is encouraged,but the Iowa Code states that the BoS have so many days to take official action pertaining to the request,but also states that failure of the BoS to take action will not hold up the process,noting that the BoS can file an official recommendation or make comments or suggested changes,or take no official position. Mayor Hurley noted that the notice letter stated that the BoS could submit their comments up until April 10,and questioned if that was ok given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will likely review the request at their April 3,2007 meeting. Schroeder noted that the State Code requires that the consultation meeting be so many days ahead of the action of the Council,and that no later than 30 days after the consultation,the BoS shall,by resolution,state whether or not they support the application or whether they take no position. Schroeder noted that if we have that information before the P&Z meeting we would report it,but it is not required. Mueller questioned who is actually petitioning to have it annexed,LS Power or the landowners. Schroeder noted that it is LS Power on behalf of the landowners. Mueller questioned if all the landowners agreed. Schroeder noted that he had spoke with Mark Milburn,the project manager, earlier in the day,and that Milburn has been getting the signatures. Schroeder noted that LS Power had previously gotten signed option agreements that include wording that the landowners will sign necessary documents such as the annexation petition and rezoning petition. Schroeder noted that Milburn had indicated that all but one landowner has signed. Mueller noted that it was his understanding from a phone call just before he came to this meeting that there were two people that had not signed. Schroeder noted that Milburn will be submitting the signed petition to the City and at this point we were not for sure if it was missing one or two signatures,but noted that LS Power is working on getting all signatures,but has a legal document that the landowners have signed stating they will support the annexation. Magsamen questioned the area to be owned vs.the area to be annexed,and the differing areas where pointed out on the annexation map. Magsamen questioned if the City would then maintain the portion of Newell Street that will be annexed,and Temeyer noted that they would. Mayor Hurley questioned how far over that point would be. Temeyer noted that it extends east just before the first property not to be annexed. Mueller questioned why the City wouldn't take over maintenance to the plant access road. Temeyer noted that it is being taken over further than the plant access road,to a point just before the next residence. Magsamen questioned if Raymond Road would be improved. Mayor Hurley noted that Raymond is paved. Temeyer noted that the City is working to include in the agreement that Newell Street would get paved to Raymond Road,noting that they would likely seek RISE funding to pay for part of the improvement. Temeyer suggested that traffic after construction of the plant would be fairly light,as they are indicating only100 permanent employees. Mueller questioned if it would be a 4-year construction. Anderson noted that it has been indicated that it would be 3-4 years. Mueller questioned who would bear the burden on the County Roads during the 4 years of construction. Temeyer noted that the City is encouraging them to come in off of City roads. Anderson noted that as part of their application for rezoning and annexation they did do a traffic study,that includes proposed mitigation that have suggested mitigation for traffic impacts. Mueller questioned if the County still maintained most of N Elk Run Road. Schroeder noted that portions are maintained by the City of Waterloo,pointing to a map of the area showing what portions are in the City. Temeyer noted that we just rebuilt a portion of N Elk Run Road south to Independence Avenue,and improvements were made from Independence Avenue down to Dubuque Road that involved metropolitan area involvement. Anderson noted that urban federal funds and rural federal funds were used. Mueller noted that the 2 miles south of Independence are in the County and it was just redone two years ago and is already starting to rut out. Gentz noted that it was overlaid. Magsamen noted that they need to have their County Engineer look at the roads in the area,noting that the County is falling behind on funding to maintain roads and noted that they will want to see if LS Power is willing to participate in county road improvement projects,noting there will not be income from the plant until after the 4 years of construction. Mueller noted that any traffic coming off the interstate is going to come up N Elk Run Road,which was just overlaid and is already showing wear and tear,and in his opinion this puts burden on the County to fix the road during the 4 years of no income during construction. Temeyer noted that once it is operating,that there would be a significant income to allow for the improvements of roads. Magsamen noted that estimates of over$450,000. Temeyer noted that the County is in need of funds to fix roads just like the City is in need of funds,and that those details will have to be worked out. Temeyer noted that they would likely want to fix it after the construction,as during construction there may be a lot of wear and tear. Magsamen suggested that they need to sit down to review the road issues. Mueller questioned if the wide spot along Newell Street on the annexation map was because of the bridge,and Temeyer indicated that was correct. Schroeder noted that the County had previously done some bridge Notes 03-09-07 Consultation Meeting for Elk Run Energy Annexation pg 2 • 31 improvements and bought additional right-of-way,so it widens out near the bridge. Mueller questioned if the bridge will be big enough. Temeyer noted that it will have to be evaluated,and noted that depending on what they are bringing in,they may have to make special arrangements to protect the bridge,or could bring items in by rail. Mueller noted that he gets concerns for residents both upstream and downstream of the bridge concerned about flooding,noting that upstream residents are concerned that the bridge could block water and cause additional flooding for them and that downstream residents are concerned that if the bridge is widened it could allow more water down faster creating more flooding problems for them. Schroeder noted that the road and bridge would have to be designed;Schroeder noted as part of that they will have to get a 404 permit from the DNR and Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that they do not increase any flooding. Temeyer discussed that a lot of the flooding problems are caused by farming row crop practices,noting that LS Power will have retention ponds and other best management practices. Temeyer noted that typically old railroad bridges are the biggest restrictor to flood flows,and that there is a railroad bridge just north of the Newell Street Bridge. Temeyer noted that if they rebuild the bridge it should not make the flooding any worse. Gentz noted that those issues would have to be part of their bridge analysis for the road project. Mueller discussed past flooding events that have overtopped Independence Avenue,and have flooded portions of the area that the plant is proposed. Anderson noted that the area of the plant is not in an area designated as a floodplain. Mueller questioned how it could not be designated,as he is aware of at least two occasions where portions were under water. Schroeder pointed to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area, that showed the boundaries of the floodplain,and showed the area that the power plant would be located is not shown as within the 100-year floodplain. Mueller questioned how a 100-year flood was determined and if the two previous floods should cause them to redraw the map. Schroeder noted that the map delineates the 100-year flood event,and if the flood events were considered to be more than a 100-year flood event then it would not change where the 100-year flood limits would be. Schroeder noted that they will need to take flooding issue into consideration with the design of any bridge improvements,but the power plant site itself, should have no negative impact on flooding and may actually have a positive impact on runoff,as now it is farm fields with drain tiles trying to drain the field as fast as possible,whereas the site plan shows multiple storm water detention areas,as well as wetland ponds and pasture and best management farm practice areas with terraces,contour farming,etc. Temeyer noted that this is the official consultation meeting,but that we are also looking for comments as we go along through the various approval processes,and that Noel Anderson and Aric Schroeder with Planning Staff will be handling the project and anyone is welcome to call and ask questions. Temeyer explained the process for the development,noting that we anticipate that the annexation and rezoning will be on the April 3,2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,and will then go on to the City Council,and then on to the Iowa Utilities Board. Mueller questioned the rail access and if they would put an overpass on N Elk Run Road. Temeyer noted that the study shows it is not necessary,as trains do come through there and there would be a traffic block just like occurs now,but noted the important thing will be for them to be able to pull all the way onto the site and not stop over the intersection. Magsamen noted that the notice letter noted that they could provide written comments by March 20th and that the BoS would need to submit a resolution by April 10t. Mueller questioned what happens if they don't get all the signatures as far as the annexation. Temeyer noted it is a legal question because of the options that they have indicating that they have to sign the annexation petition. Schroeder noted the two different types of annexations including voluntary and involuntary,and that they intend for this request to be a voluntary annexation but even with voluntary,the State Code allows for up to 20%of the area to be annexed to not include consent of the landowner. Mueller questioned if they do not get 100%if they will have to redo their petition. Temeyer indicated they would not. Schroeder noted that only if they fell under the 80%petition,but even then there is the legal question as to their option { agreement wording stating their support for the annexation. With no additional comments,Temeyer thanked everyone for coming and noted that more meetings could be held if needed. The meeting adjourned at 2:28. Respectfully Submitted, Aric Schroeder, Senior Planner Notes 03-09-07 Consultation Meeting for Elk Run Energy Annexation pg 3 ......... 32 i • • 0 ♦ •• NOTES CITY OF WATERLOO—ANNEXATION CONSULTATION MEETING ELK RUN ENERGY ASSOCIATES LLC 1:15 P.M.March 28,2007 Frank Mollenhoff Conference Room In compliance with Iowa Code Section 368.7,the City of Waterloo has arranged this consultation meeting with the Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors and the Poyner Township Trustees to discus the petition of Elk Run Energy Associates LLC(LS Power)to voluntarily annex approximately 345 acres of land generally located along Merle Road,north of Newell Street, %of a mile east of N Elk Run Road(east of Elk Run Creek). The following attended the meeting: Frank Magsamen—B lack Hawk County Board of Supervisors;Gail Mueller—Poyner Township Trustee;Tim Hurley—Mayor of Waterloo;Noel Anderson and Aric Schroeder— Waterloo Planning and Zoning Department;Dennis Gentz—Waterloo Engineering Department. Schroeder noted that the City of Waterloo held a consultation meeting regarding the petition by Elk Run Energy Associates LLC to voluntarily annex approximately 407 acres of land on March 9,2007. Schroeder noted that "notes"from that meeting were sent to those receiving notice for today's meeting. Schroeder noted that the consultation meeting was being redone due to the fact that the legal description and area proposed to be annexed was changed from what was submitted and discussed during the March 9,2007 consultation meeting. Schroeder noted that approximately 80 acres that was originally proposed to be included in the annexation is no longer proposed to be included in the annexation. Schroeder noted that the State Code provision requiring the consultation meeting and notice provides that the notice shall include a legal description and map of the area proposed to be annexed,and since the legal description and map were changed,a new consultation meeting was scheduled. Schroeder noted that other than the elimination of the approximately 80 acres,there were no other differences with the request. Schroeder noted that the"notes"from the March 9, 2007 meeting cover a lot of the issues surrounding the request in detail. Schroeder noted that the 80 acres removed from the annexation was not proposed to be used as part of the plant operations,and on the conceptual site plan provided by the applicants,the area is shown to be used for a recreational lake area and farming area,so it does not affect the proposed power plant. Magsamen noted that if the recreational area does not get included in the annexation that the County will need to take a look at who will own and maintain it, if it would be the County owning or maintaining it,or if it would be private. Schroeder noted that the applicants have not made any indication on that yet,but that he would look into it. Mayor Hurley asked Mr.Magsamen to explain the letter written by County Engineer Richard King on March 14. Magsamen noted that the letter,which was designed to be the written comments from Black Hawk County as a result of the first consultation meeting,gives comments and is a review of improvements that may need to be looked at as a result of the project,noting it is broken into two categories,drainage improvements including bridges,and road improvements. Magsamen noted that it suggests that the truck routes to and from the quarry should utilize state roads and should avoid county roads as much as possible. Mueller noted that they are going to have to go on county roads to get to state roads.Magsamen noted that it could be reduced depending on what route they take. Schroeder noted it could be limited to primarily Elk Run Rd if they take Elk Run to Highway 20,and then Highway 20 to either Highway 218 or Highway 21. Mueller questioned if it would be on the County's portion of Newell St as well. Schroeder noted that if truck traffic leaving the plant site went west on Newell St then it would be on the portion of Newell St that would be annexed into the City of Waterloo. Mueller questioned if the Bridge on Newell would then also be in the City, to which Schroeder indicated that it would be. Mueller questioned what route they were proposing,to which Schroeder noted that they are not proposing a specific route yet,but in their transportation study it includes a list of options for the routes,with one of those options including the utilization of Raymond Rd and Dysart Rd,to which Mr.King is suggesting that these roads not be used. Mueller noted that they couldn't use Raymond Rd Notes 03-28-07 Consultation Meeting for Elk Run Energy Annexation pg 1 • 33 because it has a truck embargo. Magsamen indicated they would likely need to stay on Elk Run Rd. Mueller noted that it can be proposed what route will be used,but once built it will not be possible to keep them off the roads,unless you put a truck embargo on them. Mayor Hurley agreed that forcing the traffic the way you want it to go can be difficult,but noted the City has had some success in working with businesses to take a collaborative approach and nudge them onto the roads they are wanted on,noting the neighborhood along Newell St has had problems with truck traffic and they try to work with the businesses to keep them off of Newell St in the residential areas. Magsamen noted that the other thing that Mr.King's letter indicates is a need for coordination between County road projects and road projects caused by LS Power so that all the roads are not under construction at the same time. Mueller questioned if Raymond Road would be reconstructed this year. Gentz noted that the letter from Mr.King lists the right-of-way for Raymond Rd in 2008 and improvements to the Independence/Raymond intersection in 2008,but that Raymond Rd construction between 281 and Dewar is listed as 2009.Magsamen noted that the letter identifies the potential costs of the 1 improvements and potential funding sources. Schroeder questioned when the County would anticipate formally requesting LS Power for funding participation for some of the improvements identified in the letter. Magsamen indicated that he was not sure but that it may not be until after the annexation and permitting approval,as they may not want to discuss it before they have their needed permits. Mayor Hurley questioned what the County's intent was regarding taking a position on the annexation. Magsamen indicated that he was not aware what the County would do yet,but that the consultation notice indicates the County has until April 27 to adopt a resolution to support or to take no position,noting that historically the County has not taken positions on annexations. Mayor Hurley questioned if the outcome of this consultation meeting and the comment period following that had any bearing on what the Planning and Zoning Commission is being requested to act on at the April 314 meeting. Schroeder indicated that the consultation meeting and the comment period following it would not affect the Planning and Zoning Commission's action. Mueller questioned clarification that the Planning and Zoning Commission action would be April 3`d,but the County doesn't have to comment until April 27`h. Schroeder noted that the County's written comments need to be submitted by April 6th,and if the County is going to adopt a resolution it is to be submitted by April 27`h. Magsamen noted that the County already submitted their written comments based on the timeline from the first consultation meeting that was held and did not anticipate that the County would submit any additional written comments. Magsamen noted that their comments do not directly pertain to the proposed annexation and pertain to the scope of what is taking place pertaining to the project and the desire for coordination. Mayor Hurley questioned clarification that the letter from Mr.King was the written comments of the County. Magsamen confirmed that they were the comments of the County,noting that the Board of Supervisors adopted and placed on file the letter as the County's official comments,so unless the Board members come up with additional comments they want to address he did not anticipate that there would be additional comments.Magsamen noted that another concern that was brought up at the last consultation meeting was drainage,both up stream and downstream,and what the impact of the proposed site would be on drainage,and noted the suggestion of the County for a comprehensive drainage plan for the area. Schroeder noted that he has spoken with representatives with LS Power regarding drainage issues,and that they have indicated that they are looking at the drainage issues and have made modifications to their site plan to accommodate more on-site storm water detention,and regarding the road/bridge improvements they noted that they will have to comply with all requirements to ensure that they don't have any negative impact based on the road and bridge improvements and that they will not cause more water to go downstream or to back water upstream,and regarding the on-site drainage improvements,they are trying to design it so they will actually be able to store more water on their site than what is currently stored now during a 100-year flood event,so that based on the lay of the land and farm fields as they exist now in a 100-year flood event the amount of water that is running off that site will actually be reduced with their development because of the lakes and other improvements that they are proposing. Mayor Hurley questioned if { the status of the signatures needed by LS Power was the same,regarding the property owners that are reluctant to sign the annexation petition. Schroeder noted that the status is the same in that there are two property owners that did not to sign the annexation petition, but that status is different in that the lack of those two signatures is what led LS Power to alter the area proposed to be annexed by eliminating one of the two property owners, noting they are still including one property owner that did not sign the petition,but that the area of this owner is less than 20%of the entire area,so the request is still considered a voluntary annexation by State Code. Schroeder noted that they have now formally submitted the requests,showing the original signed petition. Magsamen questioned if it was known if the runoff from the site would be diverted to Elk Run Creek and then Notes 03-28-07 Consultation Meeting for Elk Run Energy Annexation pg 2 34 go under the new bridge,or if it would still cross Newell Street at it's current location. Schroeder noted that he has not seen any specifics on the drainage outlets but that the conceptual site plan would appear to show the detention ponds and then the lakes and wetland ponds following the natural drainage way that funnels to that existing point where the drainage crosses Newell Street and that he anticipates that that they would propose the majority of the drainage to outlet there. Gentz questioned if there was a drainage report that addressed the proposed drainage. Anderson noted that we have not received the specifics on that. Anderson noted that the actual building site is not in a floodplain,but that portions of the property are located in a floodplain,and the floodplain regulations have wording about not negatively impacting the capacity or conveyance of the floodplain,so if they do direct it across the floodplain directly to the creek that drainage will have to be accounted for as not negatively impacting the floodplain. Anderson noted that as part of the bridge study they would probably review the overall drainage. Anderson noted that a benefit of the annexation process is that the City of Waterloo probably has more restrictive policies on storm water management,which if annexed the development would have to meet. Schroeder noted that Black Hawk County does not currently have a storm water detention requirement. With no further comments,Schroeder thanked those present for attending and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission will be reviewing the proposed annexation and rezone at their April 3,2007 meeting at 4:00 p.m.,and will make a recommendation that will go on to the City Council for final approval. Schroeder noted that the Council hearing date has not been set,but will likely be sometime in May. The meeting adjourned at 1:50. Respectfully Submitted, Aric Schroeder, Senior Planner Notes 03-28-07 Consultation Meeting for Elk Run Energy Annexation pg 3 Richard L.King,PE Office of the County• � Thomas P.Schoenen PE = I lackHawk CountyAssistant CountyEnon • Brian Cady, PE Assistant a County Engineer Engineer Dennis A.Clarke Lynn Kloberdanz " z ''' Geoffry A.Tinker,PLS 316 East Fifth Street, Room 211 Engineering stert Waterloo, Iowa 50703-4774 Jan Hix Telephone: 319-833-3008 Administrative Aide t s. Fax:319-833-3139 Galen Ellers E-mail:engineer@co.black-hawk.ia.us Maintenancesupedntendent Rick Buffington Maintenance Supervisor March 14, 2007 , r { ;y` ..r r pit qq'1 To: Board of Supervisors b ` .. ' 14‘t 3 From: Richard L. King, P.E./L.S. ,, County Engineer Re: Technical Review of LS Power Development .. Following are my comments regarding the L S Power Plant Annexation Report of P&Z: This is an important document that outlines the intent of the annexation. There are two areas that affect the further development and project scheduling for drainage and roads. I would suggest these projects, schedules and cost sharing be considered as noted on the attached outline. 1. Consider the projects as needed for the sight and area affected by the site. Drainage: An Outlet of the site drainage A Comprehensive Drainage Plan will address issues down stream to the Cedar River. Roads: Roads within the access of the site Roads leading to the Interstate Roads on the route to the quarry 2. Consider the ROW acquisition for roads prior to the rezoning 3. Consider the total cost for this general area of industrial development 4. Consider the importance of the Industrial access route around east and north of the metro area - . 36 • _ al C l D E 1 F f G H ( I s LS Power : Segment Location ; Task • : Target ` 1 $$ • Funding 4 Drainage comprehensive plan Is needed to evaluate tasks pending tarot and costs I 5 - Elk Run Creek ! ___.--- -----....------.._.- _-._--i i 6 North of Newell __ 7 ______ : I__-- Rail Road _^^ Ran road bridge drainage capacity'pending _ -;- • 8 Raymond Rd _-_Road Reconstru ction&Storm_Sewer;With paving -- • 9 _ !Dewar - Road Reconstruction&Storm Sewer;With paving _ - 10 - ;Newell Bridge _- - Bridge Reconstruction -- ,With paving ' $650,0001IDOT/C!y/Co 11 South of Newell ' • 12 (Independence _Bridge Reconstruction-- _pending -, -$600,000f!DOT 13 • :Osage :Bridge Reconstruction_ - --With paving^_ $600,000!Co_ 14 ',City Of Elk Run ;Bridge Reconstruction _pending : 1 •5 - - -- :Elk Run Tribute ---- .- _ - - ... -_i__- - 16 ~- --_t !Section 14- - -!outlet development at Newell _!With paving $150,0001LS_Power 17 Section 22&23 Drainage way :pending 1 $75,0001LS Power 18 -^ - i Section 26&27- Drainage way_-- - - pending__ -$75,000`LS Power _ i9 - - - Storm Water management---=-------. - ` --- `-- - 20 - i-__-- lo'City of Watero , -___ .__- ----- :ByOrdinace', 21 - I i !Black Hawk County Syordinace : 22 { City of Elk Run ---� By Ordinace i 23 'Comprehensive Master Plan :City/County Agreement 'pending . . $150,000: 27 Transportation , --- I.--__...--------_.__ .__._.___-- 1. - 27 Tra ns p rt io - �. .. - - _• -- -- -- -._.�. _ ?6 `Rail. 29 Location i ;Main line upgrade ;pending 30 ;Crossing improvements______ signal and gates •_ - pending • 31 ',Spur alternate location study pending ' • 32 :Roads i_ i I 33 Access area I . 34 I ;Newell Street ,Citylcounty agreement tatter zoning 1 ROW for road construction 2008' $75,000 Cty/Co; 36 I 'Reconstrucion Elk Run To and t.-___ _-2009 $4,220,000'Ctyfco 37 I Elk Road :City/couaty agreement Latter zoning ! 38 i I IROW for road construction • 2010i $25,0001Co. 39 _..._-__` • ' • 1 -krdependencetODubuque__.-..._____._..__..__._20117 $1,200,000:City/Co.- 40Raymond ROW for road construction. i 20081 41 !independence Raymondintersection 20081 $1,200,000;!DOT/Co. • 42 : • 1281 to Dewar 20091 $900,000 Co. • 43 ;- Dewar 2010 $600,000Co. 44 $8,270,000, 45 Truck Routes • 1• • 46 -I-- TTransportation Plan --_ --Route review 1.. 47, 1 -- --i.... 'Projects pending __------ : _ -- 48 - - D��-- 1_._.._. ._...2009i---'$3000.000 Co. -•� - `1 _ Eagle I ..i ;14500t000 Co. 50 Co. 51 _ __' _.....__..._.__-_..L__._ 52 Total Drain a ._____..._.. - - .. $.2,300,000 53 1 Total Road $12,770,600 - 54 j Tota, 15,070,000 57 _.._.!-.... • ; .. `). 'O.., . 17+ 3W1 r.....:;r. .L.,,,. •---r:/.. . .., * '1*' k' \ . •-:' t )- it:t ..• ' 0 t! )4VI 4" - IN I'.. .... ?-........., ie.-,i--:1-r anos 4.g..\, _I I t t (f 4 ,,,;),it,=.,, . ,.; 3 ► (ter .,i !� `, E .) ir.„\,s 4 r- ►I . _ i ., \ . ; e:-.tat-, ...e _, * \ t's !bliii:1( •, . ,._(1 •. .. Pi;: ,..,,,,j)(? i - 1-- , .44, , „ , } ram f 1 .yam• .: iiyl 1-- . ( d.,•-• vi: c ,,...:. il „).„, , ..., t, n IA t., .•,, ) ...;. 'Ns'l , , r . --- 4 . _ Aim+. ''' .- --.. 41!!,.:17ii. kiii \ . , k," i . ) .... • if-- c—• s-^i I .:" .., .._, . ,,,,,,.5.,..v,,i ,,N,. -,\\ .,,,..b .,,• ‘,/,.: i•-c/,:.,-:: m74.,71e,jr. ,-7p..) j Al"I! �y J t ti Y > �, ,,, '.t •.r _,..... . • + � .• • L !\.•f *e' t _^ 1• , ) • - P , �1 • _ . ` I . � ! r , .........„...„ _ .„ , �r , t At , '�gFpEtt �y��, 99" � i 111/YAJfl-.fW�yl.. :1!, 1 I av -0*i r✓rt i i' t4 t '- * '� e�} ' �'. 2,...s.. ��Y• � �••_t ,jay - a 1 t` r7 r! ",1.r/' '', , Y• > 1 r t ,' _Alt+tWA= itdigion iiiiiiihi i _ r 4 f I. '.am ; „sr.ur .1cf . �-'u ,_ I ,. J�� • � y . ,t •' ►r F,E ,•fir ��x �'�i !0 "-- � kx: t "t -^ , i„. ,ipl•-ik ',, ,..t n t •� •IY� J. i a+r " � a '""`-p .. -nitmar� O . \i ,e ..� _r See accompanying binder for information submitted by Elk Run Energy Associates LLC. pertaining to the rezoning request. 149 North of Newell St along Merle Rd — Elk Run Energy Rezone & Annexation (pictures taken on 2/27/07) ' .; `.fir �;'�,�,:�.,�;�'�•"�. Standing at the ,:, ..` ,�,i-" 5 intersection of N ewell S t an,:: d Merl e e F t``., e :; ; _ Rd looki fi'��:...:�` 1^. �, n north at �. ,�. g ; vi p,*I,;. 19 T the area of the ,4. ,:a,,,o,,.,=':< "; • proposed power <;:: - . :., a ,,, plant. �': ,._, � :-. .max- -.'<; s_,. �: ;'.dam... ,_ a:. �:'�."- -_. x • -;ter '<' `''> _. 4a x: ▪ .' > Y„ Standing at the p �`' ? ▪ Y ,I intersection of ;, Newell St and Merle a.. 'w>` �`. Rd lookingeast down Newell �%zlf°> 'N ;.{;,�`rs"ice„� .. ",> a$,-. yam. ,zr ,z3. vim Standing at the intersection of ,,, .., w,, � >,.. . Newell St and Merle � �%„7.�� P�.°:'. .�:- �.::`�,�..;�,,:.; cam`- Rd looking �..."�'"'o DPP. Y `l ;., .�tJ:, ,- -:, :. -, northwest o e ram.::^ :F; ��. �'� f the area -" •� . , ��ti�::^. of the �::', �.� �`�,:��''�`� �. .��,:: -':��_ -��~> � � ..:��:,.._=�=�`� .�.� proposed a <2-45; `rt:rt`:" _ �b:?��`,.Laz,... ,Y..:'��e�7&;f 3 �,-„,,,.;u- .:. ';<., -:.•:..- �'��`� �� _:` power plant. „c�" 'yxz>:: - �.,, "��,�`'.-�.":'-'ja : `'''�'-;..a°,;;�;�. `c.; •�'t,' d�^' �z 2:'°;� _;:;ys �?;. � may.- 4•. :`: F .; .fie., ' ';w',,a,, ter?-', s ' u:g t` Pg 1 150 North of Newell St along Merle Rd — Elk Run Energy Rezone & Annexation (pictures taken on 2/27/07) 4444441 Standing at the �r X 1. intersection of • .,-. x Newell St and Merle Rd looking northeast 4,0 at the area of the 3` proposed power plant. 4 Standing on Merle Rd looking south at the area south of Newell St. --c.,-,Ar21,14 h a w s a1 b � x ` .., ��;g; Looking at 4811 "` a Newell St, which is • e proposed to be • 141,4 bought out for the s proposed power plant. Pg 2 151 North of Newell St along Merle Rd — Elk Run Energy Rezone & Annexation (pictures taken on 2/27/07) l< tki% 1 .< k. :. 1 a ' bought R eo u� o we r� "- proposed ps pMLrooeoprkloeisngdda,tttowf1obh6rei4ct4hh" -i:--'---ittiz--.7-tafilliiiii"--.4 4tokt,4-.--,. -:-.:.•,..co---t--.,—,,,..,- • ,,,,,,,,'-.:,..._ -'',,,,, -..:.,,,,,,;,',1 ei s s �, plant. p ,t •!,:-,7":4,:/.:7 ,;''''7':i. s':-‘i'k'kl„ ''''''''kc'S'''''i'i.4f,'''.4V. ilj..!k's,;:".;;:!.?k. "RS;'iltikl.kiff-'"1.111:1:: Looking at 5421 :p • -,, Newell St, which is � � " # not proposed to be � �� - bought out. Elk Run , Energy would own land to the north : west and east. J �k 3` ' £ w ;;. ,, Lookin at 5549 Newell St, which is . not proposed to be F bought out. Elk Run e A Energy would own • ,„ land to the north " � west and east. } F cw Pg 3 152 North of Newell St along Merle Rd — Elk Run Enemy Rezone & Annexation (pictures taken on 2/27/07) !copy _ - i�. �.F ,,,44 Standing on Newell : . -uh' ''``: St lookin northeast ; ..' g across the RR tracks . ' ;` ` ,: at the Eagle Ottawa :., °: .r,::,z s ... ,V, p,.. v .rce;. tanneryfacili ,., � "' e;,;' ° gym= :.; � ,.,..,�,._ter,,. s "",? �A Standing on N Elk ,0 ,v ro� ° , . Run Rd looking west pt .. ,, may,.``: : ;i>, d. . at the Tyson facility -': y, 4: . ° ..®,,..:. (formerly IBP). » 15-*41.44 : `•" ' `3, „vim: :,. ';'a.. '<:"`;'� zr.:�,,.i^`•�.g g.��4 ;�� ems,. `,_� _ „:fin _ ;;x. �-m:::;.; : "��3i�>'' '' *o.,, ,; _ : _-;;,, . . 4'L ate:,. gavilkitsgmanist <<w' Standingon N Elk := t ', "'r ..� � ��_. -. Run Rd looking east xi:. p =' 'F .w° . I• at the Kinder :.a , : F: > •.:..;=r= o 47,; =°"Y:4�'2-" .;..a�.. Morgan Energy „4,<":.; q'd':.;,,,, .,,,,,, '.p `. ew tT.,:.4 tM -=: „ Y :.._; _ facility. ',. uti%P°•yKy.'�x. :'F ,.$g,6�."yY'�; +• `(`'$,,$ ,'y',.?m .o,.. 'N«,TL%'..ys� . x,��¢ .,,.X.*.., ° 'f1 ,..' 'fix". ..,3,47:•" April 3,2007 153 REQUEST: FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF EAST HIGH SCHOOL, INCLUDING A 16,819 SF TWO-STORY LOCKER ROOM AND FITNESS CENTER ADDITION LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SCHOOL. APPLICANT: Struxture Architects on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools, 314 E 4th St, Waterloo, IA. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests that the City approve the special perm it in order to allow for the expansion of the existing East High School located at 214 High Street, to allow for the construction of a 16,819 SF two-story addition, which would include new locker rooms and a fitness center. LOCATION, CURRENT AND ZONING ZONING, This site, zoned R-3 Multiple Residence District, is located at 214 High HISTORY: Street,just north of MLK Jr Drive. North — Railroad, zoned M-1 Light Industrial South -School owned property, zoned R-3 East— Railroad, zoned M-1 West—School owned property, zoned R-3 The area in question has been zoned as such since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD & The surrounding land use is predom inately commercial and industrial, SURROUNDING as the railroad is located to the north an d east, and there are LAND USES: commercial uses farther to the south along Fran klin and Walnut Streets, and commercial uses to the west along E. 4th Street. The request would not appear to have a neg ative impact on the neighborhood. MAJOR STREET PLAN, TRAFFIC & The area is served from the south by High Street and served from the PEDESTRIAN west by Lime Street, both of which are classified as local streets. The CONDITIONS: request for expansion would not ap pear p ppea r to cause a negative impact on the traffic conditions in the area. There is a sidewalk located along a portion of the east side of High Street directly in front of the school, and along the north side of Lime Street that runs west to E 4th Street, which also has sidewalks. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION: No portion of the property is located within a flood hazard area, as indicated by the Federal Insurance Administration's Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 190025 0004. SANITARY SEWER: Existing sanitary sewer serves the site. No changes or are needed. WATER &STORM SEWER: Existing water and storm sewer serves the site. RELATIONSHIP TO 214 High St East High Special Permit 04-03-07 COMPREHENSIVE The Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map designates this 154 PLAN & area as parks, open spaces, schools, hospitals and government DEVELOPMENT facilities.A development such as this is permitted in the R-3 district SECTOR ANALYSIS: upon issuance of a special permit, so the request would be in conformance with the Future Land Use Map within the City of Waterloo Comprehensive Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS: The City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance req uires that a school obtain a special permit issued by the Board of Adjustment after a recommendation of the Planning, Program ming and Zoning Commission. The special permit ensures that the req uest meets necessary conditions and safeguards for its operation. It would appear that the site plan for the East High site would meet the necessary conditions, which include adequate space for parking and limited impact on traffic, and all utilities serve the site. East High School is proposing to build an addition to the exis ting school, which would be located to the north of the existing gymnasium on the northeast side of the school. The project consists of a two-story, 16,819 SF building addition, which would house new locker rooms on the first floor and a new fitness center on the second floor.Also, approximately 5,600 SF of existing locker rooms would be remodeled as a part of the overall project. The area where the addition would be constructed is currently a parking lot for school staff, and the applicant has noted that two rows of parking would be lost, however they noted that there would still be adequate parking for staff, as there will be a new row of parking along the street in front of the addition, in addition to the other existing parking lots for staff.Also, it would appear from the site plan provided that a portion of the addition would actually be located within vacated Barclay St. Barclay St was vacated on 4/23/98, of which an easement was retained over the entire vacated area, due to there being a sanitary sewer located within the area. However, none of the vacated area has actually been dedicated to the Waterloo Community Schools, so it is technically still considered City owned right-of-way. The City may need to look into dedicating that vacated area to the School, while still maintaining an easement for the sewer. It would appear that the addition would not have a negative impact on the area, as the surrounding area is made up of mostly commercial and industrial uses, and the school ow ns a majority of the surrounding area. It would also appear that the addition would better serve the needs of the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Therefore, staff recommends the special permit request be approved for the following reasons: 1. The request would appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. 2. The request would not appear to have a negative im pact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, and would appear to better serve the needs of the community. And subject to the following condition: 1. That the final site plan meet all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc. r 3Request for �. a Special Permit at 214 High Street 3 . `' . (East High) for the Purpose of Expanding the School. ,.,. ,, FA �„ c �� ' „ b 8.6V .- �-".i ` r.'.Y,+-,.:JT1 K *°b,"`3y "r.". -"z,:-4ei.' -'L,',+ `4`I '�'� `�3 �d;.�O.' F'6, EY ..".s:•, :��'-`y,,r„ kx, ;rc v..,r.F<� -, ,,.a� ' ''qn� ;;£''5 `. ',414, ,s.'. ,„;.''gk. r3'.. "ot• ;.� ;, .."k ��.'�:"` - :,"., r N�,"a.4,',b«� 'e"3n1�'yb' _ P+- 3x ':;as- k3>,i� .,„�'`t��'�` "°'\;G�F�� »�S.'i,�s,�.��' ~ 3,,,4As' ..g-,a° .r 'A, v{' ;4,, �-;� _ •.ID �1 ��,`�.✓aCn v' .,.+,', c.ai<e n H,,,w -d+ ,y°> `k' .'sb frh,• >' a A ",e:'e.'.., ,�.rt ,' " ;� <;_ ', - D<,,,ty. '? . .> ,p •fix,-`_i,,1\- -` .,,. '';at• `-„,,,F - 4 , :" �8�. ., ® l .4 :• ate,•.%>„, ;":y:."%- ;q , .L; `E., e`+ >-,,,, -,`$ ,„'i e a; 'e '::'-yy.`i s 're," yy,,hn -, .','a'E 'Lf,,1a �' „It ,.`C `<ilit n-' g- , A y <iz, . 3 b bra '9^,'��r,," ,„:• t•:E e •„ •jM' ,F,i` Ni,... S'„g ... ;,>r, '', n,�;,'w'"..,,-£c ;y�tys�., 4 e _- ..' za... Proposed Addition to East High ., Lime St • .' : :` .� -> i " r ` �'<$-` ' rs Van: ,.+ { Na 4 tairrilirAir4; ,,_,,,.East Higher - _ ter,`' _ set "', :r .- SQ „ A z :J`� ' ,ate, x,.,, MINE ,,'*;—..r.`-,/ <-<"' - ,t+' ..L.,:it:?,,,f.,,;,;,:14„.•:,,riitps,.sw,,,,;:Ki:,4 iii,f;,,,livo:-,-) •-,,,,t,I.,,,,,,!::4,-- ' , i',..,4, 7 rt,', 1-1°'f - , - ,s ` -^' .� ; r,;t„�.4$,, ,,` y_ z-,,,s444:t • k. im` .''t� •• M1INs '- t4s4 ' ,- F ` t,y, , .: j .7:'< ,"40::`x� ' v` - Via ' .„ :1 ;, z ' rt; i-. C -,\ I n 1 ''' r 3". ; n ,, : §F -, >1 71: ,,,,y: :. .g F , , e 4 �'' ~.>';�,�$ .ue' ";-::::''" - :`f- ,a' ; ! .�'� �;�' Y i: .a ,`: � �` ,' '4,;' � , v , !. „h ;,r+-` :,7::';:',:,''''''l'''''';'47-54'''' .�` ` 0,p>' .-"ha r� 4#4 '-; k _ Man St l t �� y -fib r AsZ," :�- J "T t £ 'I"'i ;A �" M;° y ;z � , _" i't (nE _< a g, s S"" - ,,, '� , - ,°, 4:-'' S � , Feet' oqi:...-.--.,,—_ 1 � ; i , / " i! ( iff , bZ /q / ,, / ' \\$ � ,,__._ e�_._...._,. .,_ 1 ._,. __.........._„ __ ,s/ 4 0 Itt.E.-1 -----___ s:,i.L..z.,_.F.11VailitalliV'T: Ala IMMIIIIIW4 f , - , '„-„.:-,..,,.--,-.\N ''-`.•:•::', L.', „. --\-:,',.„ - - . „„.777-.'" ':7,',.-,,,.,,,,,, * �ktv A-\ tl. �0 �.: = .. t Int f � 3a - .. _ ,' \ T u t '.<,„-:•'..,'"'t•, -lik o * - . x # t rnlytn eerrf \ t*C► , a { </ o * ' 1 I , ' 1 ' i t- ";:•,•:'''':--'•-•,',•:.-;':'•-•:•<,;:';,/:://-;<:'•';`:-''',/ �_ .T 1 f S iFtsg '''''' :' '",'''"'"..' .?;, - -ate - / - ,,,,, „,„„„ -,:, Fi ► " ' lG SCHOOL LS 1E THE T WATERLOO C.S.Dt. ,E ARCHITECTS RE ADDITION' & MUD FOR WATERLOO. 1WA a v it ,py rf�fv > 57 1 IPA # w A -� {�V .ram,,�T�S �. 7 { l E 'atz_:„�t4rIt;: rr Art �, fi P �� let 1"39 _! A r rt I I 2 t4. I } 1iv I --- an ..I' ri _, I_ .......:, EAST SCHOOL LOCCEEI I AR c c� cra ' TE KAti.S.0 ►. 1 t f l l 158 "i-I S 7 S S t t a t, e t a x t I r"".. r'1/7 -. , a t g c Ckl 110111* ..4 < 11 1Mrrr srrrtrr. # fr+Y ■ # rr I 1 , - f r ;: ',. `�. • a Miffiiitii .._.. , .-r•,t rF A— gill _,_ w 4 _. ,id, . . ,. ,.- i---- r„,,. ----. 611 1 r 1 $ $ r am:;4-- , TU a67ARCHITECT $ WATERLOO S WATEILOO • APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT 159 CITY OF WATERLOO PLANNING.. PROGRAMMING, AND ZONING COMMISSION WATERLOO, IOWA 319.291.4366 New or Overall Amendment Involving a variance(s) Minor Change (check one)(Minor Change must be approved by staff) 1. APPLICATION INFORMATION: a. Applicant's name(please pprint): f`LAY. t < /I re l i ci S Address: 31 q , ' } *e Phone: 3Ig3 °�v-I 5/6 Fax:�.,31q j _ City: ;�` �2.��'rI J� (. ){'A I o o State: ..1`oc.;.xi. Zip: 50,103 b. Status of applicant: (a)Owner (b)Other jC (CHECK ONE): If other explain: /1 rc.h } c} c. Property owner's name if different than above(please print): &a,}erloQCar",rr W' School Address: 1 3 1 }-,,r Phone:-3l 1-1433 J R Fax.__ 'tQ -q33__ t ' City: (JO_ erioo State: Zt) .ors,. Zip: 07 2. PROPERTY INFORMATION: a. General location of special permit: i'tfi r` e0.s. COritsr o-' a5f 14 Sc l b. Legal description of property or portion requesting special permit: 1 .:f 11 ie s Lo4 1 L rce Tb WI 3 a . -33 -v( t3) c. Dimensions of proposed special permit: /qO) `yffq d. Area of proposed special permit: /(pi I 5 9 '. c S- 34 - / $ -:=57 e. Current zoning: R f. Variance(s)requested: g. Reason(s)for special permit and proposed uses(s)of property: r t(-ei~ erne of [:,i I✓ :t I c dcI 1 t sins I L r/c/no SchooLS Ii. Conditions(if any)agreed to(does not affect any existing conditions unless specified): 1. Other pertinent information (use reverse side if necessary): Please Note: If applicant is not the owner of the property,the signature of the owner must be secured. If it is the intent to subdivide (split) any land,vacant or improved in conjunction with this request it must go through a platting process (separate from special permit request). The filing fee of$175(for new or overall amendment),$200(if involving a variance),or SO(for minor change)(payable to the City of Waterloo)is required. This fee is non-refundable. Under no condition shall said sum or any part thereof be refunded for failure of said amendment to be enacted into law. Any major change in any of the information given will require that the request go back through the process,with a new riling fee. The undersigned certify under oath and under the penalties of perjury that all information on this request and submitted along with it is true and correct. All information submitted will be used by the Waterloo Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission and the Waterloo Board of Adjustment in making their decision. The undersigned authorize City Zoning Officials to enter the property in question in regards to the request. } '3 0? 4- ' :15 711 I-P leant. Dal Signature of Owner Date 160 214 High Street — East High Expansion Special Permit (pictures taken on 3/29/07) `- Standing on vacated �... _., " Barclay St looking „, , •::," ,' ' n� north at the existing _;;,e, _ t;.. East High School. ' �..�J^�n.,%'�'rv��iHyi' b tt FS6:h.�,<�:��.•�,-a->%/�i.�„s• fib}a:,S"Y,:ai�<•,:-< '4,,0"." •1s"10-,'Y. %.. ,y"'•F•Ou ,, v,x Standing in the parking theeast lotwa lookingof f _ :: m::_ - : :, . at ll iiiw , I - F the existing gvm. _ ` ' „I Addition would be ` ., Wi. ,. .-`y`_N $ i V '"3 ,.'„ to the north and east. .`�Y.•:i'-s^.�" ''.�`"3a`, �'/'!ca �, .?3:• ,�",,:�Y'^tw`'2.-,g:s� 3�;;�1�F+'t„%. `z, 'g.,s:; ,r.x,i s . x' Standing in the ` " 4`,, =i < parking lot looking a :At' -_ ' -s - at the north wall of ,, ". P M the existing gYm. 4 '3stm Addition would be > Ym N,,, to the north and east. • •• Pg 1 161 214 High Street — East High Expansion Special Permit ' (pictures taken on 3/29/07) F •, i - Standing in the' f$ parking lot looking r as x north at the abutting railroad yard. '' ` { 1`- ,,ice .�.� r r r Standing in the .,, parking lot looking east at the track. ,. yam 'TF , *^Y :-* $i' . .'"s+` sue.- ¢ i r r 60. �® a ispagior �. Ca ;r erg..»x .a,5 +M : € k' `z -:.-',,t,...'4.:•,. :_::.': -', <.' ''--..,,-.,',.,' ` � `�� Standing in the � _ parking lot looking � � ' f � southwest at the �- ti adjacent First Evangelical ,�.r "� Lutheran Church. £�� ..M '� Pg 2 4/3/07 1 62 REQUEST: REQUEST TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COUNTRY CLUB BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION APPLICANT: Cardinal Construction, 800 Waterloo Building, PO Box 897 AGENT: Shive-Hattery, Inc. 201 Third Ave SE, Suite 500, Cedar Rapids, IA LOCATION: This site is located east of Ansborough Avenue between W San Marnan Drive and Highway 20. CURRENT ZONING: The property was recently rezoned from "A-1"Agricultural District to "R-4,R-P" Planned Residence District, "C-P" P lanned Commercial District, and "B-P" Business Park District on 2/25/04. DEVELOPMENT SECTOR ANALYSIS: This site is located on the edge of the developed portion of the City, which is considered to be a prime development area. SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING: North — Professional office and Parrot and Wood funeral home, zoned "R-3,R-P" South—US Highway 20 and vacant business park, zoned "B-P" East—Vacant business park, zoned "R-4,R-P" and "B-P" West—VGM Sunnyside Business Park, zoned "C-2,C-Z"and "R- 4,R-P" FLOODP LAI N INFORMATION: The entire area of the requested plat is not located w ithin a special flood hazard area as indicated by the Federal Insurance Administration's Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 190025 0014. MAJOR STREET PLAN/ TRAFFIC: The area is served from the east and west by San Marnan Drive, which is classified as a Minor Arterial. Ansborough Avenue serves the area from the north and south on the western portion of the development and is classified as a Minor Arterial. Fitzway Drive, Tower Park Drive and Country Club Lane run through the middle of the plat and would be classified as local streets. US Highway 20 borders the southern portion of the plat and is classified as a Major Arterial. 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. Also, 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 Drive. The vacant land on the west side of Ansborough Ave is also currently going through platting approval process, and also shows a proposed recreational trail that would connect to the proposed trail in this plat. Engineering is recommending that the proposed trail area be added as road right- of-way as opposed to an easement. SANITARY SEWER: There is an existing 8" sanitary sewer under San Marnan Drive that will be extended to serve the plat. WATER & STORM SEWER: There is an existing 16" water line stubbed under San Marnan Drive that may be extended to serve the plat. Water Works would prefer that the main be extended throug h outlot B as opposed to the San 04-03-07 Country Club Business Center Addition Preliminary Plat 4f3,o7 163 Marnan right-of-way, with an easement being retained over the entire outlot B. The plat shows storm sewers within the proposed public streets outleting to the proposed storm water retention pond, and then outleting to the north in the open ditch along San M arnan Drive. Engineering has noted the need for proper easements and agreements when public storm sewer lines outlet to a private retention pond. RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE The proposed plat is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map PLAN: for this area, which designates it as Business Park, which allows for professional offices, commercial uses, as well as compatibly designed light industrial uses. STAFF ANALYSIS: The Preliminary Plat consists of 11 lots ranging from 1.21 acres to 5.98 acres. The preliminary plat shows access to West San Marnan Drive and Ansborough Avenue, with future connections to the east to Tower Park Drive and Fisher Drive. The plat also shows two outlots. Outlot A is a 0.19 acres tract near the intersection of Country Club Lane and Tower Park Drive and 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 to be vacated and conveyed to them. The area of the proposed plat is split by several different zoning classifications, all of which are a site plan specific "planned" district. Lots 1, 2, and a small portion of lot 11 are zoned "C-P" Planned Commercial District. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and the remainder of lot 11 are zoned "R-4,R-P" Planned Residence District. Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 are zoned "B-P" Business Park. Prior to any construction on the lots, the applicant will have to go through a site plan amendment process to approve the site plan layout and uses of the proposed lots. Within the areas zoned "R-4,R-P", the Ordinance limits commercial development to 10% of the entire area that was zoned "R-4,R-P". The areas that were zoned "R-4,R-P" with one action on 2/25/04 includes other ar eas not owned by the applicants, including the vacant ground to the east, gro and to the west across Ansborough Ave (also currently going through platting approval process) and land south of Highway 20 along Ansborough Avenue. These areas total approximately 120 acres, 10% of which is approximately 18 acres, so only 18 acres of these areas zoned "R-4,R-P" can be developed w ith commercial uses, unless further amendments are approved. The preliminary plat shows the existing elevation of the site ranging from 834' to 858' feet above sea level, with proposed elevation of the site ranging from835' to 857'. No fill requirements are indicated, but some site grading will be required. Building setback lines are shown on the plat. Engineering has noted that the originally proposed street name "Country Club Lane" will not work, and the proposed street name "Fitzway Drive" may not work. The proposed Fitzway Drive 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 street name change in the middle of a block. The proposed street may need to be named "Fisher Drive" or possibly the existing Fisher 04-03-07 Country Club Business Center Addition Preliminary Plat 4/3/07 164 Drive would need to be re-named. The deed of dedication has not yet been submitted and will be submitted by the applicants with the Final Plat to be reviewed by Staff and reported to the Planning and Zoning Com mission for any concerns at that time. Also, prior to the approval of the final plat the San Marnan Drive right-of-way included as outlot B would need to be vacated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plat of Country Club Business Center Addition be approved for the following reasons: 1. The plat is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and can be serviced by extensions of existing utilities. 2. The plat is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, which classify this area as Business Park, which allows for professional offices, commercial uses, as well as compatibly designed light industrial uses, and is designated as a Primary Growth Area. And subject to the following: 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 "County 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. 04-03-07 Country Club Business Center Addition Preliminary Plat ^<_». a -,,„ -•••,..araeislia,FT. ., ._-a. .• ".. , .. ;ate„ • l Request for the Preliminary Plat of Country Club Business Center , f ! Addition at the Southeast Corner of San Marnan & Ansborough pI ">ys 4, 5, 'riff" , . =,kfv,', 9 . .?" ,,^` r« £ '" "%?f'r a ty 1 1 ems- ', • t �' qg .-c.; `mar �' '�' ^,-: `; T 1, x=*S,fig.�^,°• ,9 .<.'4, ei `�'4.,^ ,.211: �F .v...,1441-L1::,,,,,it, ..4,,,ti,,,,,14,,,,m- t:,-------]:,:-.,,,,. ;',,,%;'-' li - --*-', ., ,, ':„.:, ,..-.- •:;.:., ...,.....k, , .- lik.j. .. ,I;;?..1 „ ,,,,,,*,..,,,,, — „, -7,,, iitt, P" :7,'1,,-..:,,,,:. �:✓N r S te '" -`L.4-'...fla,,,,„ / ^ .,'$q';m, _ _ , ' : ,1--' ,, :''''i 0. 'j,�''� ;-A- y�;,,,,- ;i.>w e. _ .a ,; :pia,. . , „ ♦d nk'ti, ;yu: xe py• %s xs^F A,>ry ' San Mani VG :s; >- ;v , ' �ter.-�'> �;�,.,�.. i, t �`a� ,�v'"xb<,s,, ."�'3"x• ,z;'' Jr� '3;,J' =;y,.s`'. ?'r�'z.`�.*: s..%,vim_ j 1 ,.. ':4v`�4y, `" s;>,,y`,-.0 r_ �q,,,,e'„.,:,A., :, ,.,, `,*"_, fit.,.' '=,rya,<,ae:"to", ., "'F; v ,, , "' y "„.. Are Proposed ` ':; 3 „ ,�,:: ,, ;.;xr;,,, l., ;h H' q`�x v'� j�,> �., �� to be Platted �� .�a.,� �� .,r�,, � .�;'"'�'ff^"« s?",. ,#f '_'r �, e.;:;r.::=_rt z _+' .� W;n ,'� , �i<r.s1r-'", �' y�".,,�..'�'�:'< "�`'>. FFee,,.. nfr." __ ef» ;r,�:.;�' ax8^' I'i9!i • 3�n�f:'a,.#<� ..'�1.�',Y�:�gyyj`�,."` x�;��'�,3 �/.% .$y�,g- ,> .;yyl`�,. , _. _ " `-n-,x:� :' ,4, 'u.".' , °4E 1<,,B:'"4,,•;:4' .:,= caYPYV,f4a,,`,`"3,y"F, 4 5',44;4 ;-'''� iN, �. • - `,-. .^, '^YYa �r , F ;; ,' f:;I:A'y^..':5 'i''- -•%-;n,,;.� Ay, ': 5::,�•t.,.,;<`ems�'{ f,s 4V4;1••••Z,..244.','2g4'''A'''t';,4%4'4";tA4:A4'!",',-4rJ:4.,'•";4";,4;',;';;r-;r44-;,f,'..i,r''6,,44:'.74a•1'r"4t',4-4%4447-4 41`:44'44'-;,'41—':"-t?4'''''/'--':A'':,4''','`'4:':''5,:*'i'';`'' ," ",R < .. .SaN..,e'4 s,,,net'"i,ny_"1< .3t">?' 1d ,pr<z✓ ."vs.,'. ="'£" .,A4 ',-4. 4, a',°., 4_,:, ,r: a::+ :Pour°c' °".N4 , , ,04 : ^t tih $-: ,,;st !.:L'Aa:= ."T, t "i'$',,t it •+7. "<a.=.�t:,sti. ar .,•^ �'" '":'.a°,a>'�. .v., 4: ..;.;a Z! -` `Cax. s`, `hx x:3,,, '�-" ,."�;? .3<r";":Ya', ..,_,. ' „a -: -: '"' w; ,,. ,w,et". , Y t;�' 'was, soo zso o ._,, ;;-soo i , ., aeRa s :,F r ;, 1 ,Feet { 'x<:,',<;%>"-„'`i.-Nx4 F„�,,,3'. 'J: 4 .w T 's• f . ' cc y > r e i,, Sn 5- xl a zu _ fJ 3 5 IT > 5� 1�f �- . -2 S { { S r k 'S k S. ? 4. J _ 5 " Y 7 i X k' J b - _ S t F -_"c i s m A _ (�(, T,,..5f,i'-....75: A ',,,:-.,.' ,---J.,g•"' t7,-,;11,--.1.A-.-;,1. 11,,F-'1,S,J,- t,;:t,t-74 t;: .. .. .. . . ...,9:...,izco,. . ... . . .. i iN - _ ""'s bT 1 a z ( I Q _ y Lei 1 e +q� t / m 0 M tG y 5 { - EE v _[ P 4 k4,1 4 II E` A, IEJ, ' P. O ,,�,COUNTRY BUSINESS E tE . 3z A.a6ITION TO WATERLOO,IA CO ... - • . a) a) '.. N BO: oua , _�€if r r. r'^'.. I Y [ e 1 j'_ _. 1 2 .f F a 1 t( / yei 1 g CdY a at j II r. - E t r �. wflilm*-iiii;;;;;:i.itil:',;;:;,;;:;,::-;:;;:::,;;.-,i1,;;i - 1� ,i ; ,,,7.--;;,;:--.72,7;;;;.1„,_:. lii il„ i ilk` 1 1: 11 itril---•-- .., .. r';;:--- -: - - '014:-.1ti i Lir--; i *, rat R • ift/ I 1� f 1 1'_ a r[ t if , - � // / y. PO Z: ce i - fl} fi �. � � � a �,r < �_0-o r- I- ? "k. xi x;t' R Fiq r4 t Iz y 0111; {t( -s<.zI T F rF - I IIII' -' ; PRELIMINARY PLAT 4IVEE•• A IEZN.' COUNTRY L BUSINESS CENTER #s a Io G 1 i � ,r ci • ADDITION;. WATERLOO:tip - c'2 f 1 V • _ ..-,-- ., . -.':': ::' 4------ --------4---- : • : -44,: - f • ] L---- ••-/- „, -• , ,. , -, , , •.• :: .,;- : ' .. -.: 1:.;--•:. '-::. . ,-',.„,,/,',I-.-.A.t4sEii3f360,64/AVOE 1 . . --i / ••/1 -i ti -;'-:- , -: • . .-'-- --, ,-'''''''' '.....-Ti.....iri,,ilat,..,-...tir,---''-,,..,'-. -T•;-----:---:--7,... ---A-A.-----A.,.:-A':,--.' :;7,'-:->,Tri .;I.:\c'.,i A '',." 1-----' I.-A','- 1.--- 1-,,/7,j71011-71''''-,--4"?•':k.,:::-,;---•-•:',I•dri ; :---•-ii:-. , ;---;"-r-- , ki •• .--'•\ -;--\i.-''',,,-'-'.-;;-ii--:-1.l 1,„i„•1;1, \..'";\:-c.-\ ',-; -1-. 1 L-ile,',/,1 ;'-ligt.1-11-•,;-,,-:-.:1:: -'s•-g:-4--;-',4 ,.- ,..,' 1..-',/,;-f->\,„.:-,-,1,.,,,,, ---,,..\ \:, ,,•••• '--k.„ '.,../-';',;:-:,:-:.t.1.., -,,, -21.--.4 i -...f,,, °, •,:i'y':'.7,1/ I I,/ ird: !--',5 1--,!:1-<-- '-' ; A--------1''' '-'-•-' :' ', '\ '-,----\-:-' J-1:-/-.'\--I--\,,\-,•,-- k', :i, i• i',,i'/->li I ,- 4-,,,A„;...,__-.,',-- ' ! ,,.,,,h„,, ,, , 1 :-,--.. 1-, -I.---,, ,;•.4 ,.. -. :,`,5 1 g„ .or ,,i,- :i ?,I INA, i,,,-,..-*:---, ,'•„•t_thl . ,, :„ i .., - ., „:„,,- - .'-:-_,,-,...t.--i -..•,:--.p.,„-\ -..-: ,,,-1. •:. ,. :,--..4A ,: .i „::, 444.4-i.,':-,..„ '•4:Nii ' "„; i ----':'; --):' ) i 4 I [(14-2-'4.,,,':::,•,'1,-1;:i\NJ\ 1 1.4e;,,:1; i; ,,''t II .:-,,,,-,-..:.-t':,,,i1„-, !,'-','.- , „,, „.„,„.„:, ,' • 1,--- ,„:"- : -,/,. 1E- , qi-,:ki 1 .a.', ;:::_- ' /:- -----'<t„../.:„. i / i--;- '-,:r,,,l- ., '4.-:"'-',,,',:,.,-,";.,,,) :;','-i- i i : ; r :Azi . -: tE,-14'-.1 1'-'•„„: - ,I, •,-.,; " ---(' >,--: ' 1 -',./--''''-^,-...,-?--i-Y-E0g,./ r•/! -/--14V-X-4--- ,:••• 1 I '!': i,- 11- *tt ili -•itl•:P;! !•!•,.,'..;- !!„.,<::!!,!" i., / /1••• ,,•!' ;,-, !!' /1-'Illy.-!-- .7• ,'./'/V--*-'4,,,*V,V i ;i ! !f :-, .1 '•'-fli-1 i;::!'''l 1 .;!,:,•!!!!'; . ././/"!";"! ,i,,,,-*'; : ..„2/./.1„/..)///,...4.-i!.- ,!,,/ !•:1 :,/ jr,-i!--Xti,...,:f\-N/ i!• : 1 '-•, li •..-:,,,‘,V.!! i;:--;!,X!i ' -'• ' ; --z- -•":"'• !!--,---/•/..2!-;1Y---/•- .1 i / 1• P:0'14 _ -4--:.-----_.:'.-----T.,..•,...f4., : i,-;!!! /1,:i:///•;'7' !--i"-AP'''-14-3';'-'7 •:;,,"/-i;!--/ -'-'4?-7/-,'- 1 4-,d' i..--li-1/-:.,;::,,,,',.'_'.'-..',t.:17::::,,.._•::=7.7,-1 :',...',.:i / --- ----- f/r : ,,••'-' ,,,,'" .-:)//',p''#''../:. ri / .' .4 1: '. „---/ ' '. ../. , .. y ./ it i -I ' " ; ' - ' /-7-''--4.1 -'-i , - - ,--- —4,-..1„ /' I.,''' ,el '-4 • ---- --- ',- ----"-' -' :;:#F4'i_-,, -..LMi-V.::' : i 1 1:;:' \-: - ::1: (i!, ,:: /01i07-''-',/-' -/-1'"-:j --i71-----,1,1 41.-,-.:t ------- ..----"St•;:„'il,'411 ..: ..-' /11 -:,'I -\ _••1 . .-'.- : `,--../1,:i4 -, ',..lri'-'.---,,..,,/-4--.-. _'•,1,-.. ,..-11-47,;,-t'=;.j.,,-,---,i't,i,k----<•---•---„,..,.---•'-. :'„:•.i.V1111(1 .--- ,-: /-• i 1 -..-t •,i '• '-: ,,.: ,,-'71/-:.?1,1\s,, „ \.„. 17-''''',, '-\-.. -A-41.,/:-lit ii•-•-.. ..„ ,„-''''''' . ....••:::/:10:1,:-I'',„41-41- 1 ,• 1 i .'t .1 aF., 'i • :it il-P.111- --A •-: '-,:, v: ,-.---„ ' ',§' it\ iii-t ', •)------ - .../ ---filit--A I•filid - .: . li '--.--:„.1kk---1-- 13;-;;;;,--(;" .- --; / : ."; "- I! I.4!.-''.,4-i ' ,, ' ; -1-7I; NI ;---I. _.,---.. rIt..‘,;e:.-;4/,' I'-.---- .,;-:;: ' ! :-;:". ; I ---; 1;1-1/1.-.4 - I 4;•-"... T;'-----k."----, . .. "k;',-,It-1---il•• ... .. /- - ',./:• -- i1 0, itly.f,t..,: . ..., „ -'--,,,,,, „ :,-,-„„, , . \....„ -'''„:„.,„ Ijki'--. ,1 /-•• - „.../ ../AM*, !141,,i - ii -1 1. \• :-, - ;V.'„'.4 '!,If .-N ' •\"P"--,-:::-i, '''. -. ':-"-- --•,- -i-CtA;.'---1---/-/-'-- ---- - .: .,, hi -,. -..,.• . \'''-:::'' , -',„ , -':„-.,.---- -••• --,01 -,} ,,,,,./ ..../ ,.,..,.t,•:,:,1,lit..I•-p,, . , --7—t,--±-tft--41.13' :.1:,; ;-‘---. .!4--,_ --'',, -'---'- --\., ...-,./11.1"/1,14-------7'7-,•,•,/:'• ---,2 4PH-*...U0,-1, 1 • : -1 /A \ ' •.-'4 - \ -- '''', "'_ '-,111'Trii.-. i -,„.--• .:,, ....,., ,r-- ----P-IPli //-- ---' ,'-.- .11' - -I- ' - - - ' 111,4--..cal ' . -:•4 ' -\-• -!'--\ ;!--• -,.- ‘••-:!,! 1/4:112/-71•".1/* /„--4. iii„ II;-;•-- -1-- - "•--,.. -\., --'..--'.; i. rrilli : ;! -;!... • '-.;••---.i. !!*.i........,-- --!i ,.' -411 Lk; / .7• ...--,c' ! -,I-k---i„,":1 ' iliP -!to 41 !AL--,--,'-'•,,L" :f•--- -2-'-" ,,,,,,-• '''',- ' -/. .--•:(- •:/r" ._-,.-g4,,,•-i-i,"-„“•i-,10 .... > Ii„- ' / /•'''' 1 '', "---'---- ' '--'. -N. '• '', -'2-,1----te:- 5.,'-4-ii•-7:7,7".. --'4 ,, '-N /... ---• --'11.)-WW---;i1t,q"s• 1,7;,! . / LI I -• '-: --",---„, :,-., ' \,.-.. :i-,.f.,„,t-4,..„-_-.1,..,.. ..-..--„,.,:if„,,,...c7.-' ,"-...,;"N‹,-,•• - -''‘OW/.,,/ „.....,/:-2,'-'- .,..-k,f51 :•,,!,,ili, 411 ,t,- 1 1 1 , 1 41 :-. -., ... -. \ i„1„i- :,.,110 ,.. ------- ---:„ .,„:-,--: ,,,„...,:\ /./.g„--,,, f----- "/ ./ /•„..,.....„--•-;,,-.4•44ai.: igi -"':•z I 1 .• / /,'-c ---„. ------I,, \„.. •-::.„, \ ,, 1-.'„rt-H4t,. ----,:\ ----- \---1-'''''-k.„., -.,„.••,4-'''' ,7/.41/„-'10,7 / i -----,:'' ' ,--- Vrk:411, Lifri--- } ,- 11'(V N, \-. g...`• .'---,_. , •-•--: ''.'.\-i fli l'"1„ -- .'-'--.. '--\ -„„\''','','.:„..---.`;'."-'-',K,,, -Wi ,:,"',/'''' "-„,---- ,,,,,,„...1....--j-;•,•il,.,:y4„1_-t-q-,:. ,,,---,,-. •- i l'•-: \--,, -',.. ."•'••, • ''--.', ':•,_. '1\1../IP-1.. .; ---,i',..,. \--.--.1.\ ..\V)!-----.;-E.izi..- ,•••-/ .4,-1_--.;,---,,,--"...1 '''-'1:,.:Et':# "L014,41.1',13, - II / '''-‘\--,. 1-'",,, r. ''''---. _ \-'--.- '-•:. -'1\14-frii -------i.--r i',-,.,-•--:.1 ! ---..•-•,, '41\-,:i7----, -.,_'<;:'•''.;-4,'",----'.7:'-7 -;;)1,114.1-„ii,P121 /I „„\--..,.'''---::., '„'‘-„ „'•••,-„., '.\•.,,. „.•:c. ilail''-- .,..„------ .--„, „'''',„ -'i•-.--„, ..-;-,,24 :Z'''__....,,,t •:„.;,,-'-<-.: ,-- ,..„-•711thl„..L-11/1 i / '-• ''- '- ' '-' '''' /L'//' //--------1 „:„„'"'-'-- ''' '.-, ...:=:--/---ft?. ---> '=";"IZ'Pt-s4',i;,4,__<:''''---..'„",>-- :;.,":„:14,,V,..i.r4-4-•-:'91 ‘-•-. '---•-• '''''',, -\ ''-',- ''-yikl-fii/----:---„ . ' --. '''-, \--,''-, --H l:',.,- /41: ..',; ''''.•.'' ' 'f,--.-.7-,.7r- 7- -.7-::::.," yg:.1-z-_:ip-, -- r 1 L. ' -- 4 '„,,,- #...:„...„,‘--------„T_L:,_.. .„---:\. la, . - ,:-------: ---,,,,--...,,,,:--:--,,,,,----: ,/- --7---771'-p.:.,---,. ..4. 1...• ,-. .,,,.-'''-'-. ••,,,,.,,,,,„<-7, ,St,,,,--•-7.--'-------"--,k-.---,,,zz-,-,.... -,..:',/..,.1§...g.'47:-&•.--.5,--.2 .•:--,.;:::-:;,.,2:-H.-1.-,:—"— _:.,--Se.::.•;„, -71,-..'_-•:•:..li.i.4,tiiii-----4,.-17,-.i."1, i,-k i . :....„.., . -- ... ....._ .. : -.;•-;-,.,' ' .i--. 'V 7'I'7:::-4-7--II-T'T ----;---- 4 ,I; - ';:4;77-,-'7;;-;';-;-7+r-A I'- ;....-, .. ... -- .".: I-:!.'I ''.;;I.I -•,-;; If I- ------- ---- --..... . :'-7V.7 ."--- .. -- •-- „ - „. --- - --i"•-':•-• .... . .--z. . .,. ...:.„.. - -• -t---,- - .';.:':-.:i -. ',-.-• --.:!,;,,,,,'I; - :-.1 ..---- - '.!,.•,-; 1-,1:( :. --; : :':iiIiill .M -..-'•-:---:. :: -7,:i-....4-1-, • :,,.: 1 i -;,,-_ ,A,,. ' ' -•:":, !-':-''-'.hl 1.".„?, '1 ..., „., g.?....,-,•-•-i- '' 1.4%;"Afi',I't,11:9-filiiiIii-IipIi!! 1"-, ',-----,--,------- ! ;;, ;•""-. :1 r- .; 444 •: 1 4'1 1; ''; XX:X •' "" " -"-- ,-,,1 „• 'i.;'..'!. .- !!!!--;!•1 i • X i :: -!'-:,;.7.'•!)( .. .. ...,..„......-----.... . —.... : : : • : • !..1 PRELIMINARY PLAT \\.. ...:!;. SKIVEH ATTERY..I 1 '-' • : - - !.' COUNTRY CLUB -BUSINES GEN FER AMMON TO WATERLOO,iA. 7-4 P...,-,tc.,c2.:2 1- !„'-,::-- ,-,'- - • , . • ' ' ' • :: ' i - c„,,,,': , -1, I ' - ' • ' ; ' - • ..& co co CITY OF WA I'ERLOO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 169 REQUEST FOR PLATTING (MINOR OR PRELIMINARY) 1. APPLICATION INFORMATION: a. Applicant's Name(please print):Gene P.Leonhart Address: 800 Waterloo Building,P.O.Box897 Phone: 319-232-5400 City: Waterloo State: Iowa Zip:50704 b. Status of Applicant: (a)Owner X (b)Other (CHECK ONE):If other explain: c. Property Owner's Name if different than above(please print):David R.Trent,Frank M.Trent, Scott R.Trent,and Amy M.Bowman Address: 700 Le Roy Street Phone: 563-264-5474 City:Muscatine State:Iowa Zip: 52761 2. PROPERTY INFORMATION: a. Name of Plat: Country Club Business Center Addition b. General Location of Property: NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 9,Township 88N,Range 13W c. Area of Proposed Plat: 30.37 Acres d. Zoning District(s): CP,R-4,R-P,BP 3. OTHER DOCUMENTATION: a. Preliminary Deed of Dedication(prefered but not required) b. Overall Street Plan(if applicable) c. Six(6)copies of the Preliminary Plat which are in conformance with Section 11-3-2 of the Subdivision Ord. d. Four(4)copies of Preliminary Deed of Dedication 4. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS a. Are you requesting participation by the City in any improvements? Yes •V No b. If yes specify why and for what for? �U L r•J ,,, (0.,.43S 0i1 S n , Mrs re,A,.._ c. Costs(estimated): Total Cost Estimate Requested City Share Storm Sewer $ (S y too 0 $ Sanitary Sewer $ 74 00 v $ Paving $ y'30, po a $ Land Dedicated $ 47/,Q $ TOTAL $ , coo $ The Request Fee of$100 + $10 per lot (payable to the City of Waterloo) is required. This fee is non- refundable. Under no condition shall said sum or any part thereof be refunded for failure of said request to be approved. Any major change in any of the information given will require that the request go back through the process, with a new Request Fee. The undersigned certify under oath and under the penalties of perjury that all information on this request and submitted along with it is true and correct.All information submitted will be used by the Waterloo Planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission and the Waterloo City Council in making their decision. The undersigned authorize City Zoning Officials to enter the property in question in regards to the request. ature pplicant Date Signature of Owner Date 170 Preliminary Plat of Country Club Business Center Addition (pictures taken on 3/29/07) looking east at t Standing along Ansborough Ave he to be area proposed platted. along t h S a n tz intersection sed Countypropo „ < Club Lnking MStaanndainngD loo ,/ south at the area i z *h proposed to be ,. e'' 1" • platted. - ,c 4— 1y a *.firior F�AAy d- Standing along San Marnan Dr looking -,, i , s southwest at the area � 3 < proposed to be platted. Pg 1 171 Preliminary Plat of Country Club Business Center Addition (pictures taken on 3/29/07) i Standing along Ansborough Ave go"' looking west at the y VGM facility across �a, from the proposed _�_ �_. � plat. z .. § Standing near the intersection of $� Ansborough Ave and San Marnan Dr n 4 � Ai looking north at a -� � professional office x� complex. -'�,, " sY'. :a z- yy a wrg Standing near the .. intersection of Ansborough Ave and San Marnan Dr ::,•.- -.is--,„--1,0,:zi, .. looking north at the „ -:-R40,44,74;74„. Alt 4:4'..f 10'',.1.41‘i,. ,,,,,,, r,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ve,, Parrot and Wood 1,104 u� `g � �� funeral home. Pg 2 172 ii-►\: �4 CITY OF WATERLOO , IOWA .. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT elailliti. M . 715 Mulberry Street • Waterloo,Iowa 50703-5783 • (319)291-4366 Fax(319)291-4262 �0j�r AO DONALD J.TEMEYER,Community Planning&Development Director 0 Mayor MEMORANDUM TIMOTHY J. HURLEY To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members COUNCIL MEMBERS From: Aric A. Schroeder, Senior Planner REGINALD A. Date: 03/29/07 SCHMITT Ward I RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 2006-2007 Updates CAROLYN COLE Ward 2 The Planning Commission met on March 13, 2007 to continue the review of the HAROLD multiple changes and updates staff is proposing to the entire City of Waterloo GETTY Zoning Ordinance No. 2479. The meeting did not have a quorum of the Ward 3 Commission, so no official meeting was held(see attached notes). The IOFIN A. Commission previously decided to hold Special Meetings to continue review of the K NCAID amendments on the 2nd Tuesday of each month(one week after the regularly Ward 4 scheduled meeting). The next special meeting will be April 10, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in RON the Frank Mollenhoff Conference room. We previously passed out an updated WEEPER copy of the proposed amendment for the entire Ordinance. Please bring your Ward 5 copy of the proposed amendment with you to the meeting. There have been some proposed changes since that copy was printed, however staff is not planning BOB on completely reprinting the amendment at this time, as further changes will be GREENWOOD At Large made. The changes will be pointed out at the meeting, and an updated copy of the proposed amendment is available in Adobe PDF format and can be ERIC downloaded from the City's website at the following link: GUNDERSON At-Large http://www.wplwloo.lib.ia.us/waterloo/zoning.html If you have any question or suggestions for the amendment, please contact our office. Respectfully, 7 / — z 4 ,::/ ,e..-(..-- e/ 4,,,,,,,,-- A..„, Aric A. Schroeder, Senior Planner WE'RE WORKING FOR YOU! n r e An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer