[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.

Planning and Zoning Commission - Sep 03 2026

Transcript