[0:00] people parents would sit here in the
[0:01] parking lot for their kids and then they
[0:04] were all concerned about the people
[0:05] drinking playing cards.
[0:10] » I bet that was two meetings of that
[0:12] before.
[0:24] I was trying to figure out how DNR
[0:25] allowed these guys to put but they did
[0:28] along here around the along the river. I
[0:31] haven't even look at all that. I know
[0:33] that those $200,000 lots.
[0:38] » Well, but you know they
[0:42] that legs they they are very careful.
[0:45] They got concrete. They weren't supposed
[0:47] to cut any off trees down. Look at those
[0:49] lots are clearer.
[0:50] » Yeah.
[0:53] All right, good evening everyone.
[0:56] 7 o'clock. I'll call this U
[0:58] [clears throat] September 3rd, 2026
[1:01] meeting of the planning and zoning
[1:02] commission to order. Second thing on our
[1:05] list here is roll call. Page, could you
[1:07] help us out?
[1:08] » David Larson,
[1:09] » Present.
[1:09] » John Meyer
[1:10] » Present.
[1:11] » Pete Fuller
[1:12] » Present.
[1:12] » Stephanie Garner present. David Huer
[1:14] » Here.
[1:15] » Kate Payne. Kathy Olsen.
[1:18] » All right, we have quums. Move again.
[1:21] Item C on our agenda is approval for
[1:24] tonight's meeting.
[1:26] So moved.
[1:28] I have a second. Second. All right. That
[1:31] motion's been moved and seconded. All in
[1:32] favor answer with I. I. Hearing none
[1:36] opposed. Tonight's [clears throat]
[1:37] agenda passes.
[1:39] Item D is approval of our last meeting
[1:43] which was back on June 4th, 2026.
[1:47] as printed.
[1:49] No questions.
[1:54] I appro I move that we approved as
[1:56] presented. Second. All right. It's been
[1:58] moved and seconded. All in favor say I.
[2:01] I.
[2:03] » That motion passes as well. All right.
[2:08] So item E on our agenda is uh the start
[2:11] of our public hearing section. Um, so
[2:15] I'll go over a couple things here and
[2:16] we'll open and close each of these items
[2:19] one, two, and three separately as we go
[2:22] through. I'm not going to reread this
[2:23] every time. So if you have any
[2:25] questions, let me know. But at this
[2:27] time, the commissions will open a public
[2:29] hearing on the agenda item one as
[2:33] listed. The this public hearing has been
[2:36] properly noticed in accordance with Iowa
[2:38] law. I invite anyone wishing to speak in
[2:41] favor or in opposition to this item to
[2:44] come forward to the podium. State your
[2:46] name and address for the record. Um, we
[2:50] can limit the comments. I don't see that
[2:52] as a problem, but uh, I'll throw 5
[2:54] minutes out for now. So, we'll limit
[2:56] everyone to 5 minutes so everyone has
[2:59] the opportunity to be heard for and
[3:00] against. And I respectfully ask that
[3:03] comments not be uh, repetitive of
[3:05] testimony already provided. So state
[3:08] your opinion um not necessarily repeat
[3:11] what others had. Please direct all
[3:13] comments to the entire commission not
[3:14] individual members or staff. And with
[3:18] that if anyone would like to speak on
[3:20] our first item which is the reasonzoning
[3:22] of parcel ID uh ending in 6007
[3:27] from R3 multifamily residential to an R2
[3:32] district. Please come to the podium at
[3:34] this time.
[3:38] It' be nice to have addresses on these.
[3:41] » I know this one I didn't have an address
[3:44] for what I could find, but it's the um
[3:47] um friends of the family,
[3:49] » Right?
[3:49] » Lot.
[3:50] » Yep.
[3:53] » Behind Pizza Ranch.
[3:54] » Yes.
[3:54] » Yep.
[3:55] » Yes.
[3:57] » All right.
[3:59] Seeing no one who wants to speak at this
[4:01] time on this item one in our public
[4:04] hearing section, I will close the public
[4:06] hearing and now the commission uh can
[4:09] begin our discussion and action.
[4:13] Paige, could you help us with the agenda
[4:14] memo at this point?
[4:15] » Yeah. Uh to start out with, Iowa H
[4:17] Heartland Habitat for Humanity is the
[4:19] applicant on behalf of uh Cedar Valley
[4:22] Friends of the Family to reszone that
[4:25] parcel from R3 down to an R2 to allow
[4:29] for single family homes. Um the
[4:32] intention is to parcel off that single
[4:35] lot into three single family um lots.
[4:40] » Okay.
[4:41] Um, as you'll see, well, I'll start with
[4:44] no public comments were received for
[4:46] that public hearing notice. Um, and then
[4:48] as you'll see in the agenda memo, there
[4:50] were some items to consider as this
[4:53] would be a reszoning amending the zoner
[4:57] zoning map and future land use map.
[5:01] » Yep.
[5:08] » Yeah. I I had some questions and kind of
[5:12] notes I took. I don't know specifically
[5:14] and anyone knows, but I noticed on the
[5:16] future land use um it was zoned as
[5:19] future commercial. Um where other areas
[5:23] in that current zoning weren't. So I
[5:25] don't know if there was some history
[5:27] there or a backstory or if it was just
[5:31] it's not a perfect science. Maybe that
[5:32] was just
[5:33] » All of that
[5:35] » Back when it you know because of what it
[5:37] was in the middle. Yeah. Um, all the
[5:40] residential area that's why we did that
[5:42] back in.
[5:43] » Yeah. I didn't think the comprehensive I
[5:44] think it's because the comprehensive
[5:46] planners didn't figure on it burning
[5:48] down,
[5:49] » You know. Um, but
[5:53] » When it burned down, I think it uh
[5:55] changed a lot of people's plans. So that
[5:58] was uh a non
[6:01] » It was vacant
[6:01] » Compliant use as our
[6:05] » Well it was
[6:07] » It was vacant.
[6:08] » Yeah.
[6:08] » And I when we did the comprehensive plan
[6:11] what there were two comprehensive plans
[6:14] ago.
[6:14] » Oh okay.
[6:15] » So carryover more or less
[6:16] » I think.
[6:17] » Yeah. Okay. Well
[6:19] » I mean I think it's
[6:20] » I think it's an excellent use for it. It
[6:22] fits. It's it's to me certainly not a a
[6:27] spot zoning. Everything uh uh on three
[6:31] two sides of it and across the street is
[6:33] is residential. So, you know, I think
[6:36] it's a excellent use and hope have it of
[6:40] Habitat for Humanity has success with
[6:42] it.
[6:44] » And we do have a representative with
[6:46] Habitat for Humanity tonight if there's
[6:48] any questions.
[6:51] Yeah, I I agree with John here tonight
[6:55] as well. I think uh you know the infill
[6:58] areas like this are good development
[7:00] opportunities and it's a a spot that I
[7:04] think helps um it's cohesive to what's
[7:09] around it. So,
[7:12] » And prior to Valley Friends and Family,
[7:14] it was an infill.
[7:16] » Okay.
[7:19] All right. Additional discussion. If
[7:22] not, I would ask for a motion.
[7:31] » Go ahead. golf golf
[7:37] move the planning and zoning commission
[7:38] recommend approval of the reszoning
[7:40] application for parcel [clears throat]
[7:42] um IDA 09042760
[7:46] from R3 multifamily to R2 residential
[7:50] district and amend the zoning and future
[7:53] land use maps
[7:55] uh to the city council.
[7:57] » That seven should be up at the end of
[7:58] the partial ID number.
[8:00] » Yeah, I figured that. Yeah.
[8:02] » So, amendment.
[8:03] » I didn't pick that up right away, but
[8:05] then I looked up and I saw where it was.
[8:07] Yeah.
[8:08] » I will second that motion.
[8:10] » All right. That motion's been moved
[8:11] [clears throat] and seconded and noted
[8:13] typo correction there. Uh, all in favor
[8:16] say I.
[8:18] » I.
[8:19] » Hearing none opposed. That motion passes
[8:21] as well.
[8:24] All right.
[8:26] And I understand that's a long motion to
[8:28] make because it's like five sentences
[8:31] there in a fine line. So, all right. So,
[8:34] now I'll go ahead and open the public uh
[8:37] hearing for item two, which is the
[8:39] reasonzoning of 1320th Street Northwest
[8:43] and 1302 20th Street Northwest, Waverly,
[8:47] Iowa from A1 to R3
[8:51] uh multiple family residential. So if
[8:54] anyone would wish to speak on this item,
[8:57] please approach the podium and again
[8:59] state your name and address.
[9:10] Okay.
[9:12] All right. One more time. Anyone want to
[9:14] speak on this one? If not, I'll close
[9:17] the public hearing.
[9:18] » I mean, I can add a few comments on this
[9:21] one. Um,
[9:24] this particular
[9:26] » Could you identify yourself, please?
[9:28] » This is Paula Guys. I'm the CEO at
[9:29] Bartles Lutheran Retirement Community.
[9:32] For this particular property, there are
[9:34] there were already two homes there. Um,
[9:39] when we purchased the one home, um, that
[9:42] home has been tore down. There remains a
[9:45] home there that we rent to someone. We
[9:49] would like to reszone this so it's
[9:51] cohesive with Eisenock Village which is
[9:54] already there and then use it for future
[9:59] properties or accessories to go along
[10:01] with that property. Um I'm not I'm not
[10:05] sure how that all happened historically,
[10:07] but uh it makes sense. Um seems like it
[10:11] should have already been an R2, but I
[10:14] don't really know the history of that.
[10:16] So,
[10:17] appreciate you taking a look at it.
[10:21] » Yep. Thank you.
[10:28] » All right. Anyone else would like to
[10:30] speak on this item?
[10:33] Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public
[10:35] hearing and now the commission can have
[10:37] our discussion
[10:39] and actions. [clears throat]
[10:41] Well, I have been asked by several
[10:43] people out there. Um, the application
[10:47] talks about accessory use with an R3
[10:50] zone. Technically, you could put a
[10:52] couple duplexes out there in the same
[10:55] mold as Anna Estates or
[10:59] um, Eisenhawk Village.
[11:03] The plan is to use it for storage or
[11:06] garages or
[11:09] something like that.
[11:12] We don't have a plan for that yet.
[11:15] » Um what we were thinking is yes, we
[11:18] could either do a couple of um
[11:22] I don't know if a duplex would fit, but
[11:24] maybe a single family unit kind of like
[11:27] at Anna Estates. We we would like to
[11:29] consider possibly doing um a [snorts]
[11:33] storage unit for our residents out
[11:37] there. Um, so it'd be specifically for
[11:39] our residents, but it would have the
[11:41] same look and feel as the rest of the
[11:44] the units out there.
[11:45] » Okay. Thank you.
[11:54] » I realize I didn't have Paige go through
[11:56] the agenda memo, but I feel we've
[11:58] covered that just for the record sake. I
[12:00] guess
[12:01] I'll acknowledge that.
[12:03] » I will also add though that no public
[12:05] comments were received on that one. I
[12:07] was going to ask. Thank you.
[12:16] Um I will note and I guess in support of
[12:19] it it does match the future land use
[12:21] plan um that this transitions to
[12:25] residential of some sort. So R3
[12:27] certainly fits that.
[12:30] Well, I would move the planning and
[12:31] zoning commission recommend approval of
[12:34] uh 1300 20th Street 1302 20th Street
[12:38] Northwest from A1 to R3
[12:41] uh and amend the zoning map to the city.
[12:45] M amend the zoning map and recommend
[12:48] that to the city council.
[12:49] » Second. All right, it's been moved and
[12:52] seconded. All in favor say I.
[12:56] » Hearing none opposed. That motion passes
[12:58] as well.
[13:01] Okay, moving to item three uh in our
[13:04] public hearing. I'll go ahead and open
[13:06] the public hearing for item 3, which is
[13:09] a reszoning of 220th 9th Avenue
[13:12] Northwest from R2 uh to R4 multiple
[13:16] family uh residential transitional
[13:19] district.
[13:20] Anyone [clears throat] would like to
[13:21] speak on this one, please approach the
[13:24] podium.
[13:28] I'm [clears throat] Larry Hansen. Live
[13:29] at 1010 Fourth Street Northwest.
[13:33] I live directly west of the property
[13:36] you're trying to reszone.
[13:38] I am definitely against you reszoning
[13:42] that to R4.
[13:46] that is in the middle of an R2
[13:49] residential district
[13:52] and it should not be brought back in as
[13:55] an R4. The school wasn't that bad in an
[13:59] R2.
[14:02] The reason I'm
[14:05] very much against it, I'm not sure
[14:07] what's going in there. And on R4, you
[14:10] can build a building up to 45 ft tall
[14:15] within 10 ft of my property line.
[14:19] I have a good view of everything now.
[14:22] But if you put a 45- ft building up next
[14:26] to my park lot line, 10 ft away,
[14:29] [clears throat] I sit on my deck and
[14:31] look at a building that shouldn't be
[14:33] there.
[14:38] It may you may need housing in this
[14:40] town, but if you want to put single
[14:43] family in there, fine. But don't be
[14:45] building no 45 foot buildings.
[14:49] And I seem can't seem to find out just
[14:52] what is going in there. I've heard
[14:54] rumors,
[14:56] but I'm dead set against it.
[14:59] It'll ru it'll lower the valuable value
[15:03] of my property along with my neighbors.
[15:08] It's going to create more problems than
[15:10] it is good.
[15:12] That's all I have to say.
[15:17] » Thank you, Larry.
[15:27] » Paula Guys again, uh, CEO of Bartles.
[15:30] Um,
[15:32] so we do not have an exact plan for what
[15:36] we want to do. Uh, I would just like to
[15:39] talk through a few of um the reasons why
[15:44] we're making this request. So, we're
[15:46] requesting a zoning change from R2 to R4
[15:49] for this property to allow us to develop
[15:52] additional senior housing. Um, we
[15:56] believe this is a thoughtful and
[15:58] appropriate use of the property that
[16:00] will provide a significant benefit to
[16:02] the Waverly community while being
[16:04] respectful to the surrounding
[16:07] neighborhood.
[16:09] Our goal is not simply to develop this
[16:11] property. Our goal is to create quality
[16:15] housing options for seniors in an
[16:17] appropriate location that strengthens
[16:20] the community for years to come.
[16:24] Two independent housing studies have
[16:26] been done, one by the city, one by
[16:29] Bartles that support the need for
[16:31] additional senior housing in our area.
[16:34] The demographic information also
[16:37] supports continued demand for senior
[16:39] housing well into the future with the
[16:42] need projected to continue through
[16:44] approximately 2055.
[16:48] This isn't a shortterm opportunity based
[16:51] on today's market. This is a long-term
[16:54] community need. As our population ages,
[16:57] Waverly and the surrounding area will
[16:59] need appropriate housing options that
[17:01] allow seniors to remain very active in
[17:04] the community.
[17:05] We are proposing a lower profile, lower
[17:10] density development
[17:12] um really located on this than the
[17:16] former school site which housed
[17:19] approximately 180 students along with
[17:22] school buses and a lot of traffic for
[17:24] pickup and drop off of students. Um, our
[17:28] proposed development will be a lower
[17:30] profile, lower density than what what
[17:33] previously existed on that site. We
[17:36] believe this will create a much
[17:37] different environment to the surrounding
[17:40] uh neighborhood.
[17:43] Uh, the traffic will be significantly
[17:45] different. Um
[17:48] and we feel like this is a appropriate
[17:50] location for senior housing because um
[17:54] it gets them close to the downtown area.
[17:58] Um other existing community amenities.
[18:03] They will uh support the Waverly
[18:06] downtown businesses and the WABP right
[18:09] next door gives them other amenities
[18:12] that would be close by.
[18:17] Uh
[18:20] when seniors move into appropriate
[18:22] senior housing, they frequently make
[18:25] their existing homes available to
[18:28] firsttime homeowners, which is also an
[18:32] important feature for Waverly.
[18:35] We are a continuous care retirement
[18:37] community and what that means is we have
[18:41] experience serving seniors and
[18:43] understanding their needs over time.
[18:47] So we have many things um that support
[18:51] them along the way and help them to be
[18:53] successful for a long time in the
[18:56] buildings that we build. We take pride
[18:59] in the quality and steward stewardship.
[19:02] uh we build quality products, we care
[19:05] about the surrounding neighborhood and
[19:07] would definitely want something to fit
[19:10] in. And we do feel like this would be a
[19:13] long-term benefit to Waverly.
[19:17] Um it addresses a documented need for
[19:20] senior housing. It'll meet a long-term
[19:23] demographical need. Um it'll put an
[19:26] underutilized property back into
[19:28] productive use. create a lower profile,
[19:32] lower density residential environment.
[19:35] Reduces the traffic from the former
[19:38] former school, supports the downtown
[19:41] Waverly businesses, provides convenient
[19:44] access to existing community amenities,
[19:48] and it should complement other
[19:50] residential developments in the area.
[19:54] We understand that resoning changes
[19:57] deserve careful consideration.
[19:59] We respect the planning and zoning
[20:01] commission's responsibility to look at
[20:03] how this proposal fits into the
[20:05] neighborhood and the Waverly community.
[20:07] [clears throat]
[20:09] More importantly, we believe this
[20:11] project provides a meaningful public
[20:13] benefit
[20:15] and the opportunity for seniors to stay
[20:17] in the Waverly community while helping
[20:20] create opportunities for other families
[20:22] to enter the housing market.
[20:25] We are committed to building something
[20:27] that's high quality, well-maintained,
[20:30] and a positive addition to the
[20:32] neighborhood.
[20:34] » Um, if you look at this site,
[20:38] » You get that on the screen with us.
[20:43] » I don't not unless we can put it on the
[20:45] projector. I don't think it'll go on the
[20:47] screen.
[20:49] » This is the site. Like I said, we don't
[20:53] exactly know, you know, where we would
[20:55] position things. The these two
[20:58] buildings, this is right across the
[21:00] street. This is right down on Fifth
[21:03] Street. We obviously want something that
[21:05] looks better than that. This is just
[21:08] kind of a proposal with decks facing the
[21:11] river,
[21:12] but more of a low profile.
[21:16] We're not exactly sure about the garages
[21:20] underneath. Um we know the individuals
[21:23] that live here will want garages. Um but
[21:26] we definitely want kind of a modern
[21:30] look, low profile. Um but the ability to
[21:35] to have people have decks facing the
[21:37] river and um have it be something that
[21:40] looks really nice for the area.
[21:46] Um, here is the Hansen home. We're
[21:49] really thinking kind of down like this
[21:52] to fit in. Well,
[21:53] » And your topography,
[21:55] » Right? It kind of goes down. So, if you
[21:58] remember where those um playground
[22:00] equipment was, that kind of was down the
[22:03] hill, but
[22:05] » Okay.
[22:06] » I don't know if that
[22:06] » What are your plans going to be for the
[22:09] south part of that lot then?
[22:12] Looks like parking in the concept.
[22:13] » Yeah.
[22:14] » Well, by Yeah. But I mean, do you need
[22:16] that much parking when you're
[22:18] » I just We probably keep as much green
[22:20] space as we could. We like to do that
[22:22] with all of our um developments. Um this
[22:27] tree line we'd probably clean out just a
[22:29] little bit so that they actually could
[22:31] see through to the river.
[22:34] Yeah, it's [clears throat]
[22:36] I mean looking at the beacon, it looks
[22:38] like most of those trees are on the
[22:40] other property, but you know,
[22:42] » On the private property.
[22:44] » Yeah, when you look at it, quite a bit
[22:47] of this would happen.
[22:51] » So, you would have no intention of
[22:52] having anything in front of the two
[22:55] residences up there? No,
[22:59] there's actually, and it doesn't show it
[23:02] very well, but I think it's because of
[23:04] the line. There's actually a a row of
[23:08] edges right here.
[23:09] » Right.
[23:13] We do like to keep a fair amount of
[23:15] green space just for walkability
[23:18] and outdoor space.
[23:22] Um,
[23:24] » This is just a thought though. So could
[23:27] it be split that the R4 would be down
[23:29] below and we keep the and so that to
[23:33] appease the present land owners that
[23:36] they would not
[23:38] could not
[23:41] build anything in front of their you
[23:42] know
[23:43] » What would that do with setbacks?
[23:46] » Yeah know why it's very complicated.
[23:48] Yeah. Well, I know, but I'm just trying
[23:50] we're trying to appease, you know, and I
[23:52] think, you know, that you know,
[23:54] » We can say what we want to right here
[23:56] and then turn around and and down the
[23:58] road. Um um it could become an issue,
[24:03] not just an issue.
[24:04] » Let me ask you this. You were on the BNZ
[24:07] when the Waverly Veterans Post was
[24:10] built. How did you guys handle the How
[24:14] did you handle the buffer zone there
[24:16] between the dwellings and that?
[24:19] » Well,
[24:20] » Before we go there, let's finish the
[24:21] hearing.
[24:22] » Yeah.
[24:22] » Yeah. I'm sorry.
[24:22] » Yeah. Before we go there. Yeah. Thanks.
[24:24] No problem. Um,
[24:27] » Do you have anything else right now?
[24:29] » No, not someone has questions.
[24:31] » Have you shared that with the
[24:34] » The crowd,
[24:36] » The residences?
[24:37] » Yeah.
[24:42] So this is the property.
[24:45] This is
[24:47] » We had, you know, trees and um a BM.
[24:53] They never did it till
[24:56] » Came up another a second time. You mean
[24:59] three stories?
[25:00] » Well, you
[25:02] we're not talking four, five stories,
[25:05] but three stories.
[25:08] » We don't really
[25:09] » I know that would make it complicated,
[25:10] but it would sure make everybody
[25:13] happy. That was that was my concern was
[25:17] what they
[25:19] could build on four stories from the
[25:21] property line right there. Maybe two
[25:24] stories, two and a half stories.
[25:34] not
[25:36] question the board on the board right
[25:39] now
[25:42] those things change
[25:51] [clears throat]
[25:51] » But you're right you know put R2 they
[25:53] could really
[25:56] » We're looking at trans
[26:08] [clears throat]
[26:09] » Well let's save that for
[26:11] » To finish the hearing first
[26:14] » Don't
[26:16] [clears throat]
[26:22] we
[26:25] If you got your garage underneath there,
[26:38] » But you cannot build and run all the
[26:41] water in it.
[26:43] » That's a lot steadily toward the river.
[26:46] [clears throat]
[26:47] » That would be our construction company's
[26:49] problem. we can work with them to figure
[26:52] out how to make the slope work
[26:54] correctly.
[26:55] » Yeah, we don't we don't have any
[26:56] specific design yet, but um anyone that
[27:01] knows BAS knows that we're very
[27:03] thoughtful about making things try to
[27:04] blend in to the neighborhood the best we
[27:07] can.
[27:09] » Well, that's where I disagree. That hill
[27:12] is quite steep. It all float goes toward
[27:15] the river. If they build try to build
[27:18] garages underneath, you're running all
[27:20] the water toward the garage, which no
[27:24] contractor is going to do, they're going
[27:26] to have to funnel it somewhere else. So,
[27:29] they're going to have to move it more to
[27:31] the top of the hill to avoid that.
[27:36] And I you I don't understand why you
[27:39] want to put an R4 in the middle of an
[27:41] R2.
[27:43] That all of that is R2.
[27:46] The school was art to preferential use I
[27:50] believe at the time. Yeah.
[28:04] » My name is Bob O'Hare. I live at 1084
[28:07] Street Northwest. I am the other
[28:09] homeowner. I agree with everything that
[28:12] Larry is stating and at this stage of
[28:16] giving them the right to come with our
[28:19] four they can change their mind in
[28:22] tomorrow and put what they want there.
[28:26] I mean we got to have something. I don't
[28:28] want to wake up morning and go out on my
[28:30] deck and look at a wall out there
[28:32] either.
[28:34] So till we get some assurance of what's
[28:37] going to happen, I I'm not for it.
[28:42] And then where we're talking, she was
[28:44] talking about the hedges there. The
[28:46] hedges do belong to the school.
[28:49] They're not they're not our property
[28:52] line is just on the west edge of that.
[29:00] Thank you.
[29:06] The only other comment I would just add
[29:09] is if you look at some of the houses
[29:11] that are already developed, if you kept
[29:13] it just in R2, the number of houses and
[29:16] how tall those houses are,
[29:19] they're very large houses there by the
[29:22] river.
[29:28] » Okay.
[29:31] Additional public comments on item three
[29:35] here.
[29:40] » I'm Judy Hansen and I live at 1010 First
[29:44] Streets
[29:46] and our backyard is connected to the lot
[29:49] that we're talking about.
[29:52] And the tall houses that she's talking
[29:55] about are the ones that are over by the
[29:56] river. They are nice, tall, big houses.
[30:01] Um, the ones around us aren't.
[30:05] Um, when we moved here in 2014,
[30:10] we moved there because we like the area.
[30:13] We thought we were real happy with
[30:16] everything, the school, the h neighbors,
[30:19] the housing around us. And then we heard
[30:24] that the school was going to close.
[30:27] And then we heard that it was being sold
[30:31] and tore down
[30:33] and it just broke our hearts because we
[30:35] thought, "What's going to go in there
[30:37] next?"
[30:39] And
[30:41] we don't want
[30:43] three and fourtory homes or condos or
[30:48] apartments or whatever they're going to
[30:49] be
[30:51] right next to us sitting out on our
[30:53] deck. We entertain with families and
[30:57] having entertainment out there and
[31:00] looking at a side of a three, fourtory
[31:02] home is just not attractive. I don't
[31:06] care how fancy they make it.
[31:10] Um, I agree with my husband and the
[31:14] neighbors that that's not a place for
[31:17] condos to be put up in the middle of of
[31:21] the homes. We're all used to the school
[31:24] level, a single story. That's why we
[31:28] moved there because we like the area. We
[31:30] like the low
[31:33] housing.
[31:35] And I just hope you don't switch it
[31:40] over.
[31:49] If it was R2, you could put in a twotory
[31:52] house within
[31:55] » 7 and 1/2 ft.
[31:56] » 7 and 1/2 ft of your property line. You
[31:58] realize that too, don't you?
[32:01] » And it can be a max height of 35 ft
[32:05] » Is what I was looking at. And maybe we
[32:07] should close the public hearing.
[32:09] » I want to make sure everybody has a
[32:10] chance to speak. Obviously, we have some
[32:12] other items to discuss here. Uh, does
[32:15] any other member of our public audience
[32:17] tonight wish to speak on this topic?
[32:23] » Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public
[32:26] hearing and we'll go ahead and start our
[32:29] discussion as a commission. Sorry to
[32:31] interrupt you, Dave.
[32:32] » No, that's fine.
[32:34] I just wanted to point out I mean, we
[32:36] need to point out to them what could
[32:38] happen there, too. If it was left in R2,
[32:40] they could run a street down
[32:43] from what is that? Eighth Street.
[32:46] » Yep.
[32:46] » Down through there and sell off for R2
[32:49] housing.
[32:51] » Yeah. And I was doing a little reading
[32:53] here as well. So yeah, 35 ft for an R2,
[32:56] 45 ft for an R4. So it does increase the
[33:00] height with an R4. And it has a
[33:02] provision for
[33:05] distance on the setback if it's higher
[33:07] than 45.
[33:09] which increases the distance from
[33:11] adjoining parcels
[33:17] » For Paul. Do you have any concept of how
[33:19] many units you're talking about on this
[33:22] lot?
[33:24] » We haven't done anything. Typically,
[33:26] what we do is we work with a civil
[33:28] engineer and look at the layout and then
[33:31] we'll work with an architect to help us.
[33:35] Roughly what we were thinking is two
[33:38] lower profile buildings with about 16
[33:42] units in each one. 14 and 16, we're not
[33:46] exactly sure.
[33:49] [clears throat]
[33:56] for the wires situation. You could put
[33:58] retainage pods in there so it doesn't
[34:02] run down into the
[34:05] housing.
[34:06] » Yeah.
[34:07] » I mean know that could be done um to
[34:10] take care of that water shed.
[34:14] » Right. You're the civil engineer.
[34:16] » Well, I guess I'll start some
[34:19] discussion, make some comments. All of
[34:21] those drainage issues can be addressed.
[34:24] the lot is big enough and when you're
[34:26] talking about buildings of that size and
[34:29] footprint um
[34:32] you can solve all of those problems. I I
[34:34] I truly believe you can. As far as the
[34:37] setback and I don't know if we can
[34:40] recommend approval with um
[34:44] an additional buffer there is not a um
[34:47] there's a requirement for a site plan
[34:50] but the site plan goes through
[34:52] administrative approved review and
[34:54] approval and I don't know if we can um
[34:59] require with the zoning that uh that we
[35:02] have uh uh instead of you know 10 foot
[35:05] you
[35:06] 25 or 30 foot setback on that
[35:10] westerly side. Um you know when I look
[35:14] at our comprehensive plan that we work
[35:16] so hard on and look at the housing goal
[35:18] strategies it fits virtually well it
[35:21] does it fits all of them. Um you know we
[35:25] want a mixed housing type support
[35:27] increases in density filling in vacant
[35:30] spaces. um try to make a you know a
[35:33] cross-section of affordable housing for
[35:36] the uh different age categories of the
[35:39] community. Um um it it just fits all of
[35:44] those things. Um and I I I feel that
[35:48] we've had an eye on that kind of a
[35:50] development that we want, you know, um
[35:54] more than what R2 density would require
[35:57] with basically 65 ft by 12t lots. Um,
[36:05] I think that the
[36:08] I think it's important to do some kind
[36:11] of a buffer on the west side
[36:14] behind those two houses for sure. Um,
[36:18] and I would hope that that could be
[36:19] addressed during the site plan review
[36:22] process. I would also urge Bartles, I
[36:27] can't make it a requirement, but when
[36:29] they get a more firm site plan that they
[36:33] talk to the people out there and make
[36:35] that happen. So,
[36:39] I'll chime in real quick. We can put um
[36:45] a condition within the resoning
[36:47] ordinance for this specific parcel. So
[36:50] we can increase that west set back if
[36:54] » Like we did with Waverly area.
[36:57] » That's different because that was a
[36:58] special provisional
[36:59] » Reuse. Yeah. But we could do something
[37:02] like that to require
[37:05] » Some type of a
[37:07] we did it out in um
[37:10] » I know like Hines Edition had one um
[37:13] » Across the road from H or no um from El
[37:17] Soul restaurant.
[37:18] They put a burm
[37:20] » In that when that was developed, too.
[37:22] » Okay.
[37:23] » So, I mean, there's, you know, we could
[37:25] require that as part of that
[37:28] » Because that's what we did out there and
[37:30] but I know that was a special
[37:31] provisional use with the way area
[37:33] veterans post and and putting a burm in
[37:38] there with some trees and shrubs.
[37:44] How many parking spots are you going to
[37:46] be looking at there, Paula?
[37:50] » Well, I think it be one vehicle per unit
[37:56] » And and we depends on the number of
[37:58] units. We've got requirements of how
[38:00] many are
[38:01] » Yeah. No, I know. I just was trying to
[38:03] figure out, you know, if we if they
[38:05] » Had space, you know, uh in there. Um
[38:11] I mean you were showing garages in the
[38:13] concept. So it would be for
[38:17] » Visitors
[38:18] » Visitors visitor parking. Yeah.
[38:45] Let me ask this question, Bob and Larry.
[38:49] if we could come up with some kind of a
[38:52] uh um area there to the west or to the
[38:56] east of your houses that would not allow
[39:00] for anything to come within a certain
[39:02] number of feet. Would that be if you
[39:05] could work with Bartles and that would
[39:07] that I don't know how large area you're
[39:10] thinking of but if that would be able to
[39:13] be pulled together with Bartles would
[39:15] you be happy with that? [clears throat]
[39:29] » [cough]
[39:31] » I guess the big thing to me is the
[39:35] height of the buildings.
[39:38] And
[39:42] even if they put them 45 ft from my
[39:46] backyard,
[39:48] I still got to I can get a 45 ft
[39:51] building according to your zoning.
[39:54] » I'm not saying they're going to build
[39:55] one that high, but they could.
[39:58] » It could be 35T, too,
[39:59] » Right? It could be 35,
[40:01] » But I think they're talking about
[40:02] parking in that area.
[40:04] » Well, I know. This is what I don't know.
[40:08] » Yeah.
[40:09] » I mean, and I don't I don't like the
[40:11] idea of granting them uh
[40:16] are for when there are limitations that
[40:20] are way beyond my expectations
[40:24] cuz I don't know what they're going to
[40:25] do.
[40:27] And you don't know what they're going to
[40:29] do.
[40:33] » You're right.
[40:34] » You're right. If I had a plan
[40:36] [clears throat]
[40:38] and they give me the elevations and the
[40:41] heights that they was going to do it,
[40:44] then I would look at it a little
[40:45] different.
[40:48] But when you just automatically change
[40:51] it from R2 to R4, that opens it wide
[40:55] open to whatever they want to do
[40:58] according to R4 regulations.
[41:02] And I don't like the R4 regulations
[41:05] right next to me.
[41:08] That is my complaint.
[41:09] » Yeah, I understand. Yeah, I
[41:13] » And there is other property in town.
[41:15] Yes, I know things have done over years.
[41:18] » I served on the city council for 20
[41:20] years before I come to this town and
[41:22] some of the things I see go on here
[41:26] are very disturbing.
[41:29] » Thank you for your input. Mhm.
[41:35] » I didn't mean to open it back up to
[41:36] public hearing, but I'm trying to come
[41:38] up with something a solution that we can
[41:41] » Yeah, I'll I'll entertain additional
[41:44] discussion here. Go ahead.
[41:46] » I agree with Larry somewhat that
[41:49] we don't know what the future is going
[41:50] to bring. I mean, and once we sign the
[41:53] papers allowing it to come in, we can't
[41:55] stop it. I do I could live with that
[41:58] being a parking lot down there and taken
[42:01] care of like you say with the buffer
[42:03] strip or something and the other units
[42:07] further up over the hill. Uh I could I
[42:11] could live with that. But Larry is right
[42:13] up on top of the hill there. He's he's
[42:15] going to take the brunt of it of them
[42:18] where mine is just facing east. But I
[42:21] could live with the parking lot out
[42:22] there.
[42:25] » All right. Thank you.
[42:28] Within our commission discussion,
[42:31] uh Kate, I know you had a public comment
[42:35] um on the screen before. Could you put
[42:37] that back up for us? So, we did receive
[42:41] uh a letter I guess that you did, Paige.
[42:45] Okay.
[42:46] » In support of
[42:47] » In supportive. Yeah.
[42:51] » No, we didn't. We just emailed it out.
[42:53] We didn't attach it to the agenda. Oh, I
[42:55] thought it was a
[42:55] » No, that's just the application.
[42:57] » Oh, okay. It was small. Sorry.
[43:00] » Anyway, there was a a letter received in
[43:03] support uh from a homeowner to the south
[43:05] of the road a little bit, right?
[43:09] » Yes.
[43:10] » Okay.
[43:13] Well, I you know, I understand the
[43:16] concerns, but I also know
[43:19] Barlas is in a position where they don't
[43:20] want to start spending money on detailed
[43:23] plans until they know that they've got a
[43:27] target that they can hit um or you know
[43:30] what they're at. um to ask them to bring
[43:33] a to spend a lot of money on a on a plan
[43:36] and not have a um an idea that the
[43:39] zoning is going to be approved is pretty
[43:41] tough thing to ask. So,
[43:44] I don't
[43:54] Well, I don't see any else showing up,
[43:56] but I'll I'll move that the Planning and
[43:58] Zoning Commission recommend approval of
[44:00] this to an R4
[44:02] with the condition that special
[44:05] attention be made in site plan review
[44:09] related to a buffer along the West
[44:13] property line.
[44:24] » We have a motion to the commission. Do
[44:27] we have a second?
[44:29] » I'll second that.
[44:31] » Okay.
[44:35] All right. We have a motion that's been
[44:36] moved and seconded. All in favor say I.
[44:40] So there
[44:41] » The only thing I would say is that I
[44:43] think we need you need to I don't know
[44:45] where the vote's going to come, but I
[44:46] think Paula, you guys need to get
[44:49] together with these folks and and and
[44:52] work with them and putting a a plan
[44:54] together so they have a good
[44:55] understanding
[44:57] uh and uh would feel comfortable with
[45:00] that. I think with what John added is to
[45:05] that makes a big difference there. And
[45:08] it and I don't know, can you bring it
[45:10] back to us to make sure that it's
[45:14] um before the city
[45:18] um uh fathers uh or not fathers, but the
[45:22] city staff approves anything that uh you
[45:25] bring it to us first?
[45:28] » That's not in the not in the ordinance,
[45:30] but
[45:30] » I know it isn't in the ordinance, but
[45:32] can we do that?
[45:37] I mean, you guys could see it, but I
[45:39] don't think you could do anything about
[45:41] it.
[45:41] » Well, you pass it, but I think it, you
[45:44] know,
[45:50] » Trying to think if we've done it.
[45:52] » Would a modification to the motion make
[45:55] a difference that if you put something
[45:57] in that that it comes back to the
[45:59] commission?
[46:00] » I don't see how.
[46:02] Well,
[46:03] » We the ordinance says it's admin the
[46:05] site plan is administratively approved
[46:08] » By the building official and planning
[46:09] and zoning administrator. We can't
[46:11] change the ordinance on our own motion.
[46:14] » It would come here if
[46:15] » We try
[46:16] » If they didn't like my they could appeal
[46:19] my decision to you on the site plan
[46:21] review.
[46:22] » Oh,
[46:23] okay. Yeah,
[46:27] » We obviously would be happy to work with
[46:31] that
[46:34] » Understand what we're proposing to do.
[46:37] And I think Paige actually hit upon the
[46:39] solution is that
[46:42] if what they propose if if I mean we can
[46:46] ask to be presented to the property
[46:47] owners and if they don't like it
[46:52] you can turn it down and then it can be
[46:54] appealed and then we would see it.
[46:57] Yeah, that's right.
[46:59] Cuz we had that situation out there on
[47:02] the east uh on the south side of three
[47:05] there cuz the first time around it it
[47:09] didn't meet with what the developer
[47:12] of course that was a development.
[47:15] » Oh, it's right there behind
[47:19] it's across the street from
[47:22] uh one of the old Schneiders. And then
[47:24] there's like a commercial property and
[47:27] then there's BMS there with trees on it.
[47:30] And then they we had to go back and
[47:32] forth on that one hands.
[47:34] » No,
[47:35] » That would be one hand addition. Yeah.
[47:37] Yeah.
[47:38] » Okay.
[47:39] » So we know what the what can happen. So
[47:41] if they're not they can appeal comes
[47:44] back to us, right?
[47:47] » Okay.
[47:49] I didn't mean to stop, but I want to
[47:51] have something that
[47:52] » I want to have be nice to people having
[47:55] that
[47:56] » It works well. They've been there longer
[47:58] than what Barnes has been. So,
[48:03] » All right, I want to resume. So, we have
[48:05] a motion that's been moved and seconded.
[48:07] » Yep.
[48:08] » Any other further discussion?
[48:12] » All right. I would ask all in favor say
[48:14] I.
[48:15] » I.
[48:16] » I. hearing. None opposed. That motion
[48:19] passes.
[48:24] Next item on our agenda is item F, which
[48:28] deals with staff updates. Paige, I see
[48:31] what you've listed. [laughter]
[48:33] » Yeah, I just put that on there as a
[48:35] reminder that our update to city council
[48:38] is on September 28th, um the 4th Monday
[48:42] of this month. And Dave, are you
[48:45] planning on putting something together
[48:46] and do you want to send it out to us for
[48:49] feedback?
[48:50] » I do and I am. Uh so I will commit to a
[48:55] week, week and a half from today to have
[48:58] something put together um for review and
[49:01] input from the commission here. And
[49:03] you're certainly welcome to join me on
[49:05] the 28th if you'd like.
[49:06] » Yes.
[49:07] » And we'll go over our update.
[49:08] » It's on my calendar.
[49:10] » Yeah. Perfect.
[49:12] Um, so yeah, that's the plan.
[49:16] » Anything else?
[49:17] » That's all I had.
[49:18] » All right, commission updates and G in
[49:21] our agenda. Kind of feel like we just
[49:23] covered some of that together with the
[49:26] staff updates. Anybody else have
[49:28] anything?
[49:32] Okay, hearing none, we're moving to item
[49:34] H
[49:36] move we adjourn.
[49:38] » We are so adjourned. Thank you.