Planning, Programming & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think we'll get settled in here. Yeah, we'll let we'll let him get ready and then we'll we'll call this meeting to order. They're printing me out an extra packet. You ready? Okay. Oh, they're printing you out an extra. Okay, here we go. All right, we're good. Never mind. Yeah. Yeah, the the one before showed up a week later. Um anyway, I'm send

all right. He just gave me his. Yep. Okay. Good afternoon. It's uh a little bit after 4 here. We're going to go ahead and call this planning, Programming, and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Uh first up, I uh need a motion to approve the March 10th, 2026 agenda. So moved. Sure. Rucker second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving the agenda signify by saying I. I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next up, uh we got we I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on February 10th, 2026. Please look them over if you haven't. And uh when someone's comfortable, um please make a motion. Rec. I'll move to approve. Second, PO. There's a motion and a second. Uh all those in favor of approving the minutes of the regular meeting on February 10th, 2026, signify by saying I. I

any opposed? Motion carries. Uh at this time, uh we will do oral presentations on non-aggenda items. Uh for those of you who wish to speak on non-aggenda items, uh please come to the microphone, identify yourself, and state your name and address. Um also us fellow commissioners, please make sure you state your name when speaking in the microphones. No, no, non agenda items. Okay,

the time is 4:03 p.m. And a hearing is scheduled at this time for a request by Auggie Ferguson on behalf of Element Construction Services to reszone approximately 1.35 acres of land from A1 Agricultural District to C1CZ conditional zoning district to allow for a contractor business with outside storage contractor equipment yard at 3730 Rancherero Road, pages 10 through 22 in your packet. At this time, we should receive and place on file a statement of verification signed by Alyssa Little stating, "I, Alyssa Little, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached letter, aerial photo, and site plan was mailed to each individual on the attached list by regular mail on February 20th, 2026. Could we have a motion to receive and place this notice on file?"

So moved. Do not second. Sherk. Okay. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Just starting off with staff. Um you guys um there's an email that we received from our office of a couple hours ago. So concerning this item, so it's a resone approximately 1.35 acres from A1 agriculture district to C1CZ conditional zoning district. The request to reszone the property could have a negative impact on the surrounding area. It is primarily residential and agricultural. No other commercial in the area. The proposed resone could have a negative impact vehicular and pedestrian traffic conditions in the area. This site is served by Rancher Road which is collector. However, this is seal code street. The area in question has been zoned one agricultural district Jones's zoning ordinance in 1969. Surrounding land uses and their zoning designations are as follows. To the north, vacant land zone day one agricultural district. To the south, Rancher Road residential and vacant land zone R1 one and two family residence district and RR rural residential district. To the east is residential district, zone A1 agricultural district. To the west is residential zone A1 agricultural district. The area is made up of largely of large lot residential built between 1910 and 2011. The applicants requesting a reszone the property from A1 agriculture district C1CZ conditional zoning district in order to legalize a business currently operating on the accessory structure that is located in the rear of the property. The homes along the north side of Rancher Road are all zoned A1 agricultural district with homes along the south side zoned R1 and RR. The applicant is requesting only the northern 300 ft of the property be reszoned. If the resone is approved, staff would like to see a condition of the property um be split in order to ensure the commercial and residential stay separate. as part of conditional zoning. The applicant's also requesting outside storage be allowed, which is normally not allowed even in a

commercial district, and has noted that the applicant does have materials sitting adjacent to the accessory structure. If the reason approved, screening would be um may want to be required on August 28th, 2018. the applicant request of variance um from the board of adjustment to build um 60 by 104 6240 ft accessory structure that is currently being used by the business at the time of the board of adjustment meeting. Um the applicant stated that he wanted to use a structure to house four trailers that were sitting on the property belonging to the Boy Scouts. The building department has concerns with the building was not built to commercial standards. This includes ADA restroom and commercial electrical service and potential sprinkler system and um if approved the building will need to be brought up to commercial code. The engineering department noted the applicant is going to need to develop a storm water decision plan. During tech review was not the applicant um was told to contact the building department regarding potential building and fire code issues. The future land use map designates this area as low density residential. The proposed resone would not be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and future land use map for the area. Therefore, staff recommends that the request by Augie Ferguson on behalf of Element Construction Services to resone approximately 1.35 acres of land from A1 agricultural district to C1CZ conditional zoning district to allow for a contractor business with outside storage contractor equipping yard at 3730 Ranch Cheryl Road be denied for fine reasons. The zone would have negative impact on the neighborhood as low density large lot residential. The reser could have a negative impact to traffic conditions area. The building may not be up to commercial design standards. There is the only um would not be in performance of the future land use for the area. The area is made up of primary low density large lot residential lots and is located one mile from the nearest commercial zone property. If the reszone is approved, it

should be with the following conditions. that the reszone area be split off from the residential portion of the property that the applicant submits a storm water detention plan and implements it. The building is updated to commercial building standards. The outside storage area be effectively screened from properties to the east and to the west. Thank you. Uh do any commissioners have questions for staff? For staff? Yeah, we'll start with staff. Um, no stone unturned. Is the applicant here? Come on up. State your name and address, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Auggie Ferguson, 3730 Rancherero Road, Waterl, Iowa. I appreciate you guys taking your valuable time to hear our to consider our approval of our request today. Um, I'm sure you're f familiar with our current situation. Uh, as provided in the meeting minutes, we're a small business. We work real hard to be reputable business, respectful of our community and neighbors, and want to work hard for our local employees, customers, and people of the Cedar Valley. We provide drywall services to Waterlue and the surrounding areas. When we built the building in 2019, we didn't realize we were not compliant. We didn't move in until uh late later in 21 after two visits from enforcement. We didn't understand why we were not compliant and we were notified of any issues. Only after we in were informed that the complaint came from my former employer and current competitor did we start receiving information from the city. I have signatures here from all the neighbors uh in our neighborhood that uh that are on board with us being and they are all the people that are also notified in the letter from the city. Uh we also have a standing agreement with another neighbor to put up some additional screening that is a concern of theirs. So we're trying to do everything possible to make sure that we're a good neighbor to everybody. Um, as you can see from the packet, and I don't know if you can show the pictures up there, too, but if you scroll down a little further, um, there's a couple pictures from Ranch Arrow Road that where you can see that you can't see the business. The way the property is sloped, it's very well hidden from the uh, south and the north and the west side. The only side that has any type of

visibility is right there from the east. and that happens to be Dwit Road which is about uh about half a mile away. So, um I'm asking for your approval on this today or to help us find a solution. Thank you. And I'm open to any questions. Thank you. Um I I got one simple question. Being a contractor business, you typically don't have customers at your this facility, right? No. No. Okay. We we travel to uh all the job sites, right? And majority of our employees start at the job site in the morning and go home from the job site in the afternoon. Okay. Just a quiet area anyway.

Yeah, we have very very low impact in in the neighborhood. All right. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant from commissioners? This is do I didn't know there was a whole business. I did not know that there was a whole business. I thought that it was a a shed behind a house. So, I did I just did not know it was a whole building. I'd like to think that's good because that's the way we tried doing it was to not let anybody know we were back there. So, uh and you've been operating the business since 2019? Since 2021. 21.

We built the building in 2019. Okay. If this, excuse me, this is recorder. Um, if this was to get passed, um, do you have any concerns about updating to the commercial building standards that are going to be required of you? Yeah. Um, I've just found out about that in Thursday when I got the letter. And, uh, since Thursday, I've been working real hard to try and find out what what we got to do, if they even apply to us or not. But we're open to continuing that conversation, you know, with any any type of to meet the requirements or whatever is required of us. So,

okay. Um, do do you have any questions for us? Um, I don't think so. I mean, um, nothing to me. It seems pretty straightforward. We've really tried hard to not be noticeable. We've tried being good. We have a number of our neighbors here today that are here in support for that reason. And uh so I think um I think we've tried really hard to do to be a good good person in the community and a good neighbor.

All right. Um for the sake of simplicity in in this entire group, are you all neighbors? All of you. Is there one single person opposed to this? One person. Uh come on up and Okay. Um, well, thank you for your time and looks like we got a lot of support, but I also want to make sure Yeah. see all angles. I'm sure they'll explain it. These are uh Scott and Jod Vanickle. They're the neighbors to the east of the open side. So, they're the ones most impacted by our business. Okay.

They're also the ones that we've talked to about getting some additional screening, uh, which isn't in place yet. We've we've been talking about making that happen. So, okay. Well, let's let's get this figured out. First, I want to say is he is a great neighbor. Really, the opposition comes from making it smaller than bigger the redone portion. So, we've lived there for 16 years. were there before they came and you know never imagined there be business in our backyard. Yeah.

Um and Auggie has done a good job of being low impact but you know we still have um traffic from his business right on on the side of our house 45 ft from our master bedroom um that is coming at 6:00 a.m. when it's dark and there's lights coming through there and also um lights coming up from from into our uh great room and into our kitchen. And those are the things that we've talked to Auggie about to put some screening up there. You know, this has just come up. Um it's been that way since he the business has been there, but we've started talking about what we need to do. Okay.

And I think one of the really big things is we don't understand why um the it's going to be a 300 foot parcel because the business only takes up about 155 feet. And to me and to and to Scott, um that seems like uh the possibility for expansion and there is just no way we want anything expanding back there.

Uh now uh this would be a question for staff. Now part of it being a 300 foot parcel might include the fact that there needs to be some storm water retention in that plant. So part of that parcel would have to hold water in the event of rain. Is that something that would be part of why that lot would be that large? Need an engineer to answer that question.

This is Shrader with staff. So, um, in discussions with the applicant on his options for moving forward when it was kind of settled on the reszone, uh, I worked with him on a legal description and, you know, kind of came up with what we did both from a simplicity standpoint of just an ease of um, description, but also ensuring that there would be enough area for all aspects of the operation. Um, I suppose it does have room for the potential to expand, but as a conditional zoning, uh, any uh, future expansion would have to come back through a site plan amendment approval process I if the reszone were approved.

Okay. I'm just wondering, so is it CZ? Is that what you're saying? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Uh, plan condition or conditional zoning for commercial. That means that if they were to expand in ways like enlarged storage for equipment and stuff that would have to come back through here. So there would be a check on making sure that the business would expand because I will say do it road you can't even see it out there unless you looking for it. You can't sit on

and I do have a letter stating our concerns and um a couple of pictures. one, you know, from the back of our house for a back porch, what we get to look at every day, which is a large building with, you know, a business back there. Um, and also just, uh, how close the lot line is, um, as we look at those things. Let's check that out. And, uh, any anything else to add there? But like I said before, he is working with us. We've talked to him, so Okay. you know, he knows. All right. Thank you.

Uh, is there anybody else in the council chambers that would like to speak on this agenda item? Come, come on up. State your name and address.

Hi, my name is uh Corey Lorenzan and I'm the attorney representing um Auggie Ferguson and Element Construction Services. Business address is 726 West 4th Street here in Wateroo. Um I just a few points that that I want to kind of re re-emphasize that that Auggie made. Uh the first one being that this wasn't a complaint that was made by by a neighbor. Um he had been he built this with a with a variance in 2019, right, wrong or indifferent. He he believed that that he could um have this business out there. So he wasn't trying to back door this um or anything along those lines. um a competitor who he's not exactly on the greatest of terms with anymore um does what he can to try and undermine him and made this complaint. Uh code enforcement came out a few times and told him there were no issues with it and and so he continued to operate thinking that there were no um issues with it and then uh um you know recently uh we've we've been dealing with this issue where where the reszone um was recommended. Uh, I can attest to the fact that uh if you're driving on Rancherro that uh um you can't see this building and and uh because the first time I went to Auggie's place, I drove by it because I was like, "Where the heck is this um thing in this building behind it?" So, I had to come back around um the first time that I went out there. Um and and there's a lot here that that um Mr. Ferguson is perfectly fine with. He he's fine with splitting off this parcel. um he's he's fine fine with putting the screening up for the neighbors as he's discussed. Um frankly, the the issue that they just raised about expansion, he'd be fine putting a restriction on on that that he can't expand or he can't build um any further. Um he just wants to be able to continue to operate the business um as it is and and work with the neighbor to try and satisfy that. With regard to to um the

question that uh Miss Martin um asked about the the building um and coming to commercial code, I think generally there's an agreement that that yes, the the question is that we challenge uh that that some of the requirements here are needed. Um I I attempted to contact No Anderson a couple times. I I didn't get a call back. I did talk to Mr. Door North um this morning about 11:00 a.m. because we didn't get this and and these issues until an email at noon on Thursday and unfortunately with my schedule I wasn't able to follow up until this week um on some of this stuff. And so um for example the storm water detention, you know, my my conversation today was why is this required? Um especially if this is being split off and it's going to be less than than one acre. Why is this being required? It wasn't required in 2018 and 2019 when this was approved for a variance. I was referred to the engineer. I did have a conversation with um Cameron. Um I don't know Cameron's last name, but otherwise I'd say it, but I had a conversation with Cameron at the engineers's office and was um told he wasn't sure. He wasn't sure whether that's required or not. Um and he needed to look into it. And he also agreed that if this was approved as a variance and and it wasn't required to have storm water detention at that time in 18 or 19, it likely wouldn't be required at this point in time. Um but he wanted to dig into that and and uh um um decide. And so, you know, for example, yes, we're willing to do what's necessary, but we also challenge that all of this isn't necessary. I asked the same question with regard to the sprinkler and the response I got was well there's depending on how it's being used it may require a sprinkler. It may not require a sprinkler. I need to talk to the fire marshall about that. I did reach out to Brock um at at um the the fire department and I'm not casting any

spurs. we just weren't able to connect today. So, I wasn't able to get an answer on that. But I believe based off of my interpretation of the code is that sprinkler system would not be be required at this point in time. So, to the extent um that that there, you know, that we're seeking approval and if there's any conditions on it, we would challenge the fact that all that is required and we would want to work with with the city to make that um final determination because frankly, I was I was told today that it wasn't clear. um on on those those two issues. Another thing is, you know, we're it's a conversation about how he's out of compliance, about how Auggie's out of compliance in this building. Nobody's been out there to make that determination. For example, he does have ADA compliant bathrooms um out there. So, you know, there's a statement in there that he's out of compliance because a lack of ADA compliant bathrooms. He does have ADA compliant bathrooms. So, I would just state that that, you know, our our approval is is we're not necessarily agreeing that all those things need to be done. Um, we're agreeing that that in communications with the the um city, if it is decided that those things need to be done, then we'll make that that determination.

Uh, I I can absolutely put some clarity on that. Some of those issues are outside of the scope of this commission. Right. Um other things like the zoning part of it. Yes, absolutely. Um so there might be a couple more different probably council, probably board of adjustment, things like that where those those kind of issues will get hashed out. But uh I I just want to make it clear for the record that that the agreement is we'll continue to work with them, but not necessarily they agree that those things um um need to be done. And I don't necessarily know on the fire sprinkler situation either, but um

this is Shrader staff. Uh I don't either, but I can just um attest that uh Brock Welliver, the fire marshall at the technical review committee meeting noted that it could require a sprinkler or it could not. It would depend on the specific use inside the building and um storage heights of certain things. There are certain aspects of vehicles, vehicle repair and storage heights that will kick in a sprinkler system. Yeah. And that's not necessarily automatic given based without doing an actual inspection.

That's fair enough. Just you our point is that it's not clear at this point, right? And it's it's also out of habit that we try not to spring these surprises on people later, right, after they've already went so far into the process. So, yeah, avoiding surprises is a good thing, right? Um, anything else to add? I don't. Are there any other questions for me? I don't think so. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Uh, anyone else want to speak on the agenda item or I Okay. My name is uh Roger Yoder. I'm here representing myself and my wife Joetta Yoder. We live at 3741 Rancherero Road, which would be the property directly south of um Element Construction Services location of 3730 Rancher Road. Um, I guess I just wanted to say that uh with our location, you know, we're uh I guess we would be vulnerable to impact for this business, but we're not. I I didn't even really think about there being a business there until I seen this paperwork sent out to me. Um, you know, if from our home, we can't even see or have any essence of a business being in the uh uh north side of the property um across the road from us. Um, you know, I I'm not even aware of vehicles coming in and out. Um, you know, there's no sounds like a uh loud sounds like a construction business. There's no um there's really nothing that uh impacts us from living on the north side. Um I realize the neighbors then to the east side have spoken and you know they have lights that impact them, but you know even lights coming in and out of that driveway or probably my lights when I turn my lights in the morning at 5:00 in the morning to leave to go work out before I go to work. I'm sure my lights are shining in Auggie's bedroom window as well, you know. So, from my perspective, being on the south side of

the road, the uh Auggie's property is well groomed, maintained. It's a beautiful property. Um I'm just here in support of this happening for them, this zoning change. Uh basically, because I don't have a sense of any negative impact at least to Roger and Gilletta Yoder living at 3741 Rancher Road. All right. Thank you. This is Shreder with staff and just a note that your wife Gilleta did submit a letter that was provided to the commission members as well. Oh, okay. Thank you. I got to read it.

Thank you. Yeah. Um, anybody else wishing to speak on this or uh I could entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I think I will go ahead and do that. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Record move to close the hearing. Second. Sherk. Thank you. All those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Um, I will at this point entertain a motion on the agenda item. There will be discussion on after the motion and second.

This is po motion. Okay. What what do you do to approve or to deny or to approve the reasonzoning? Okay. You want to note any conditions? Yeah. Um with the conditions of

Well, that that is one thing that I was going to bring up. If if we motion to approve this and if you don't necessarily agree with the detention plan and some of the other things such as like the the fire sprinkler system, is that all going to be could that be revisited by city council or how does that all work out if a storm detention is not required? I you know I I might break protocol here, but I'd like to ask the city a few questions before we make a motion on anything. Yeah.

Because it's because there's I I've got an hour's worth of questions here. Okay. This, you know, this whole thing doesn't make sense to me. Um first of all, it it bothers me greatly, okay, that there was a complaint there was a complaint filed by his competitor. Mhm. Okay. That to me that's unethical. Okay. That's my first opinion. Yeah.

The second thing is is that when you talk about um detention plans um and fire code issues, okay, just because I'm in the business, I know unless there's something hazardous in a building, sprinklers aren't required until you hit 12,000 square feet. Okay. So, I don't even know why. I granted the fire marshall probably gave a you know, cover my butt answer to something he didn't know. Okay. So, I So, I don't know what that is. I mean, we're talking about a building that's 6,000 square feet. Okay. Half of what a sprinkler co or what a sprinkler system would be required in a building.

Um, we're talking about storm water detention. He had conditional use on the property from what I understand before. That is incorrect. Huh? That is incorrect. Well, then why what what's it say here? The proposed request would not appear to have a negative impact on drainage in the area, but engineering department is going to require a storm water plan be submitted proper. Why wasn't that required when he built it?

Because it wasn't a commercial use. It was a residential use. But okay, then back farther it says he got permission by the board of adjustments at at the to for the Boy Scouts to be able to use it. That's not a conflict.

It wasn't for the Boy Scouts. It was for storage of uh vehicles that he indicated would include some Boy Scouts vehicles, but it was a residential building. He had a variance to allow that size of a building to be built accessory to a residential home which doesn't require storm water. But I will defer to the city engineer, Jamie Kudson, city engineer. We did I did go back and find the building application that was submitted by his builder at the time um in 2018. It was for a garage shed pole building 60 by 104 for storage only. And I would be more than happy to pass this around, but this was a site plan I was given showing. All it's showing is a 60x40 square out in the middle of his lot with no storage on the outside, no hard surfacing, no driveway, no nothing. This is what was submitted for a plan. Storm water. Our city storm water ordinance requires anything over 5,000 square feet of imperous area to have storm water detention. He is close to three times that or more right now. He's got over 17,000 square feet and that doesn't include the driveway. So again, he's three times the amount of what's required under our ordinance.

You're talking about parking. I am talking about our ordinance any imperous area. I understand that. So everything that's paved is 17,000 square feet. Correct. That's what you're saying. Pave and roof. Well, the storage area. Yeah, I understand that.

But it doesn't include the driveway going back to the building. So he is already way over the required threshold for storm water detention. And this count and this body needs to be careful because this ordinance affects everyone within the city and there are a whole host of issues if um we start trying to change this ordinance and I'm not sure this body has the authority to change this ordinance or to wave the fe wave the conditions of the ordinance. Um the only one that I believe would have that would be the city council. So again, per our ordinance currently, if he was showing up today to do this, he would be required to do detention. I can't tell you whether or not me or my staff looked at this in 2018. It could have came in, showed up as a 6,000t building in the middle of nowhere. We may have looked at it and said, "Okay, it's out in the middle of a big grass area. He's not doing anything. Fine. Not a problem." Now with today with what he has done he does not meet our ordinance. That's the require that's why I am asking that you put in the covenant or the requirement that he provide storm water detention. I don't necessarily disagree that maybe this is not the best issue but that's what our ordinance says. It does not differentiate between residential or commercial.

Thank you.

Okay. First of all, I'm not trying to change anything, okay? I'm I'm I'm trying to apply uh common sense to a situation that that, you know, doesn't make, you know, any sense to me at all. I mean, um I just when I read this um when I got this packet and I read it, um I I was just all struck. I don't know what else to say. So, I think it's, you know, and then did I read in here somewhere that uh staff was recommending that we table this?

No, the staff recommended denial of the application to reszone. However, we have a motion to approve it, but it has not been seconded because I think we were hung up on the were we going to include the conditions, which I would well the condition. Sorry, Commissioner Sherin. Sorry to cut you off, but it it doesn't actually have anything um about, you know, um sprinkler system or anything in those conditional. Um so I don't I don't think we I mean, can we it's probably a non-issue, but can we address these the concerns of everybody with uh the approval essentially?

I see the in in the conditions I do see that there would be the screening. Yeah. and um some drainage which would not deviate from what any other business does. Yeah. Stuff like that. And I will add that if uh there needs to be further changes to these conditions, the board of adjustment would be able to override this commission and that would probably be the right way to do that. Well, this is currently a reszone app which your recommendation will go on to the city council. Okay. So yeah, the city council would then do that if if we you know recommend to approve it. So

So um this is do not department concerns about uh whatever whatever the department has their specific concerns. Can that be added to conditions? It could. So like engineering says we have this concern and the fire department has this concern and another department has this other concern. So those three concerns and we'd be like well you meet these conditions and you meet you answer these concerns and you can do you can

this is this is Shrader with staff. Just note that building code requirements, fire code requirements, um, storm water management ordinance requirements, um, are all ordinances that would be required regardless of whether or not they're listed in a condition. We typically like to list them as conditions more forformational purposes and making sure it's clear on the record that uh there are issues that have to be addressed. And an issue being addressed doesn't necessarily mean that um it will require a sprinkler. It just means that it will have to comply with the fire code. So you can choose to not add any of those. code and would be whatever would be required would be required regardless.

I I also would add Commissioner Lico I condition three that it'd be updated to commercial building standards. I think that would encapsulate most of what the concerns were within the the notes in the packet. I yeah I think to address the neighbors concerns as well as the expansion on the um building as well. That was one of them like expanding within with on on that lot. Isn't that covered by the CZ zoning? Yep. Have to come back in front of us. Yeah. Then he said no, he just he had just said that they um would be open to that restriction of expanding the the building itself. So I was just saying to add that that to it.

Okay. Do we want to word Smith that hour? Yeah. And I think there's a Can I ask questions? Yeah. Come on up, please. Sorry. closed. Yeah, I know.

I would ask this, Mr. Shrader, as far as the position, if there are conditions placed on the approval as it gets submitted to the city council, would it be your position that if those restrictions get lifted in the interim through conversations um that that would take a supermajority then because it got approved with with the conditions? This is Shraider with staff. Um potentially I I I know I'm getting hyper technical here, but but my my thought is if there's an approval and conditions are approved after that the council can add those

as opposed to having to have a supermajority um

um you know to remove them if if there's any contentiousness. I I'm just raising that as an issue going forward. There is wording in state code um and then the zoning ordinance regarding the recommendation of the commission and then if the city council is to alter that recommendation the supermajority vote requirement. Again, I think the issue here is whether or not a reference to um various code requirements effectively amounts to an additional condition. It's covered by code already. So it

So maybe just don't just stick with the four. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Are you are you okay with doing that motion to approve with the approval conditions? Yeah, I think Okay. So, okay. We'll try this again.

Yep. Uh we have a motion, not a second yet, but a motion to approve. You could you could reword the storm water to just say meet storm water requirements instead of submit a storm water detention plan. Okay, let's Okay, so we have a motion to approve the request by Auggie Ferguson on behalf of Element Construction Services to reszone approximately 1.35 acres of land from A1 to agricultural to C1CZ conditional zoning to allow for a contractor business with outside storage contractor equipment yard at 3730 Rancher Road with the following conditions that the reszoned area be split off from the residential portion of the property. uh that storm water requirements are met. Uh that the building be updated commercial building standards that the outside storage area is be effectively screened from the properties to the east and west.

Second Bo, uh you made the motion. Well, you read it. You read it for clarity. I I reread your motion. Second void. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? hearing. None. All those in favor of approving the request signify by saying I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for uh working together and getting it right. And hopefully everyone stays good neighbors. Okay. Um, next up, don't want to start a no kings rally.

Not today, man. The time is 4:43 p.m. and a hearing is scheduled at this time for a request by the city of Wateroo to reszone approximately 28 acres of land from A1 Agricultural District of BP Business Park District located west and northwest of 4634 Kimble Avenue, pages 23 through 29 in your packet. At this time, we should receive and place on file a statement of verification signed by Alyssa Little stating, "I, Alyssa Little, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached letter, aerial photo, and site plan was mailed to each individual on the attached list by regular mail on February 20th, 2026. Could we have a motion to receive and place this notice on file?"

Rucker move. Second, Paul. Am I good to second that? Okay, we got a motion, a second. Uh, all those in favor of uh receiving and placing this notice on file signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

This is Tamala with staff. The request to reszone the property does not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and the reszone will be consistent with the zoning abudding the property in question. The proposed reason would not appear to have a negative impact upon vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions in the area. The area in question has been has been A1 agricult agricultural district since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1969. Surrounding land use and their zoning designations are as follows. To the north, US Highway 20 and vacant land zone BP Business Park District. To the south, vacant land zone A1 Agricultural District. To the east, residence and farmland zone A1 Agricultural District. To the west, vacant land for a future business park zone BP, Business Park District. The property is not located in a flood zone. The proposed request rec the proposed request would not appear to have a negative impact upon drainage in the area. As a property develops, it will need to meet modern drainage requirements. There's no development in the area besides the residential lot with agricultural bu buildings built in 1919 abuing the property in question to the east. Um, there are no easements or utilities on the property in question. The reszone meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. City of Wateroo is looking to reszone approximately 28 acres of land from A1 agricultural district to BP business Business Park District located west and northwest 4634 Kimble Avenue. The reszoning of the property will match the zoning to the west and north which was reszoned from A1 Agricultural District to BP Business Park District through multiple reszones starting in 2004. The city of Water is proposing to reszone the property in question for future development. There's no specific immediate development plans, but at the time of development, a site plan

amendment will be required. There are no comments at tech review. The proposal the future land use map designates this area as business park professional offices commercial with compatible light industrial. The proposed reszone would be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and future land use map for this area. Therefore, staff recommends that the request by city of Waterl to reszone approximately 28 acres of land from A1 Agricultural District to BP Business Park District located west and northwest of 4634 Kimble Avenue be approved meeting for the following reasons. The reason would not appear to have a negative impact to the area. The reason will match the zoning to the west and north. The reason is in is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and future land use map for this area. Any questions for staff?

Uh thank you. Yes. Uh do do we have a plans as a city to build any roads to this? This is Shrader with staff. Yes. I actually go ahead Jamie. The city engineer is much more versatile being able to answer.

Jamie Kudson, city engineer. Uh the short answer is yes. I wish I could give you a good schedule. We're hoping if things go right to be out later late spring, early summer with starting construction. Roads probably for the sewer and all the water and everything else, but uh roads probably won't be going in um probably till next year, this time next year. Um, I don't think we're going quite this far on these particular properties with the roads, but uh we have planned that eventually that Dakota Drive will go through clear through these properties out to Kimble. So eventually that's where it will go, but in this first round of roads, it's not going quite through these properties yet.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is there anybody in the council chambers that would like to speak on the agenda item? Anybody on Zoom that would like to speak on the agenda item? We got a quiet bunch on this one. Um hearing none of that. I'll entertain a motion to close public hearing. Recall move to close the hearing. Second. Do not. Thank you. We got a motion in a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Um I will go ahead and entertain a motion on the agenda item unless anyone has discussion. Uh this is do not. Is it okay that I make the motion? Yeah. Okay. So this is do not and I make the motion that we accept and uh we accept uh the staff recommendation that the request by the city of Waterlue. Am I reading on the right page? Page 29

by the city of Water to reszone approximately 28 acres of land from A1 agricultural to BP uh business park district located west and northwest of 4634 Kimble Avenue be approved uh just delete the word meeting

uh for the for the following reasons. uh the resone would um not appear to have a negative impact to the area. The reason will will match the re the reszone will match the zoning to the west and north and the rezone is in compliance with the uh comprehensive plan and future land use map for the area. Second, Sherk. Thank you. We got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of approving request or agenda item signify by saying I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, next up we will move on to a request by Snyder Associates on behalf of Robson Homes Inc. for preliminary plat of Prairie Meadow Estate, second edition, a 41 lot residential subdivision in the R3RP plan residence district located east of Mystic Drive with extensions of Grindstone Circle and Morning Dove Drive. This is Tamala with staff. The request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or land use as a surrounding area is primarily twin homes and single family homes zoned R3 RP plan residence district. The site is located to the east of Mystic Drive which is designated as a local street. There is a sidewalk along both sides of Grindstone Circle and Morning Dove Drive. The request would not appear of negative impact upon vehicular pedestrian traffic in the area as this area is zone R3 RP plan residence district. The site is zone R3 RP plan residence district and has been since the adoption of ordinance 5811 on November 3rd, 2025 when it was reszoned from R3 multiple residence district. um the following zonings for the surrounding areas. To the north, commercial development zone S1 shopping center district. To the south, vacant land and Cedar Valley lawn care zoned A1 agricultural district. To the east, vacant land zone R3 multiple residence district and an electric substation zoned A1 agricultural district. To the west, residential development zone R3 RP plan residence district. There are no trails in the im immediate vicinity, but one is being constructed along Leaport Road as a part of the road reconstruction project 1/4 mile to the east. Um, commercial buildings to the north were constructed between 1994 and 2013. Nearby residential dwellings have been

constructed from 2010 to the present with ongoing residential construction on Mystic Drive. The area is not in a special flood hazard area. The applicant has submitted a storm water management plan and will need to get it approved through the engineering department. There is an 8 in sanitary line proposed in the preliminary plat along with the 15t drainage easement and 20ft storm sewer and drainage easement and 20ft public drainage easement and a 20ft storm sewer easement. Um there's an existing 15oot drainage easement and 15 foot storm surmit to the west of the development. Among other purposes, the RP plan residence district aims to provide greater flexibility and diversification of land uses and building locations. Therefore, the request will need a site plan amendment. The preliminary plat is proposing a 41 lot single family residential development. The Prairie Meadow Estate Second Edition will be located to the east of Prairie Meadow Estates First Edition. The parcel is roughly 26.09 acres. The single family residential development will stay in character and size with the existing residential properties in the area. The subdivision ordinance requires that preliminary plat submissions include such criteria as boundaries of property, proposed streets, easements, and widths of right of way, contours, and utility locations. The plat includes most of the items listed, but the following need to be included and labeled. Street surfacing, and number two is name of the proposed streets. There's one proposed street, which only has a temporary name, street B. Um, in tech review, the Crossroads Boulevard connection was discussed and it was deemed for a future phase. The future land use map

designates this area as mixed commercial, medium to high density, residential, professional offices, and compatible commercial. The proposed land use is in conformance with the future land use map for this area. Therefore, staff recommends that the request by Snyder Associates on behalf of Robson Homes Incorporated for the preliminary plat of Prairie Meadow Estate second edition of 41 lot residential subdivision in the R3 RP planned residence district be approved for the following reason. The request is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and future land use map for this area. The area to be platted will work to continue positive residential development in the area and continue to make needed additional road connections in this area of community. The request would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area and would be compatible with surrounding development and with the following conditions that the preliminary plot be updated prior to it being submitted to city council.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Yeah, this is Commissioner Sherk. I think the only one that I I'm fairly familiar with this area and from my understanding uh the neighborhood over there has been asking for another ingress egress out of this neighborhood and so with adding all these additional lots there's decent amount of homes back there I guess is there any plans from the city to um add another um way to exit this neighborhood enter this neighborhood I guess what is it I mean it meets up with what the crossroads Circle Drive there. But, um, I know it's been a point of discussion for a while. So,

yeah, Jamie Kson, city engineer. We just had another meeting today about that actually. Um, we're still working with the different property owners um to make that connection. The city doesn't own any of the property in between there. So, we're working with those property owners to determine the alignment. Mhm. Um once we get that worked out, yes, the city is legally obligated from a 1960 something uh agreement to provide that box cover across there. So once we get the alignment, we'll get started. It's probably another, my guess, another year out, okay, the earliest before we would get to the point of construction because of DNR and FEMA flood plane regulations and other things we have to go through. But we are in in the process. So

Okay. that I had heard that, but I just Yep. Yeah. didn't see it on here. And obviously, it's a lot of lot of lots that you're adding back there. So, yeah. And it it there come there there will come a point in time that the fire marshall won't allow any more residential development to the east until we have that second exit. Okay. So, good to know. This is Shrader with staff and really good to know. And long term the um hope would be that the development continues to the east and then connects to Leaport Road as well making an additional connection but the short term will be the connection to the north um soon. Yeah.

Yeah. And we did as part of the Leaport Road if you drive through there we have set out I believe there's two access points along Leaport Road for future development to connect into directly. So, it's been been planned for. We just need to get it across the finish line, so to speak. Mr. Secretary,

this is this is Dina with my question. Um, do we expect any of those um requirements uh to change DNR or to be updated? I I hope not. We have several other large box coverts on that same drainage way just upstream. One's up by Derry's uh at Alexandria. There's another one at Sarah. Um so we're expecting the size to be similar. Um we're not expecting anything. It just takes a while to get through the process with the DNR and with FEMA. That's that's all. So

I was and that's that's what I wanted the question to clarify if any of their requirements would change over that two-year period. I don't I don't think so. Usually once you submit something to the DNR, they they continue working on things or or reviewing it based on what the what the rules are at the time when you submit it. So Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um any other questions for staff? Oh, is the applicant here on Zoom or anything? Yes. Good evening. Jason Leon with Snider Associates. Can you all hear me? Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. But like I said, Jason Nun with Snder, appreciate your time this evening. I will say that we do agree to address the conditions prior to the city council, the two that were listed there this evening. Um, and we continue to work with staff and appreciate their feedback on that future drive connection as we're working with the neighboring property owner there to the north. So, we're well aware of it. We're planning on it and we're just trying to get that finalized here too as well. So, happy to answer any questions should the commission have any of me. Thank you. Do any commissioners have questions? I think you got off easy and thank you for being cognizant of uh getting that access point. Um okay. Well, I I think we can go ahead and make a motion on this agenda item then.

Mrs. recorder. I will uh move to approve the recommendation by staff that the request by Snider Associates on behalf of Robson Helms, Inc. for the preliminary plat of Prairie Meadows East Second Edition, a 41 lot residential subdivision in the R3RP planned residence district be approved with the following conditions. that the prelim preliminary plat be updated prior to it being submitted to city council. Second. Sure. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor of approving the agenda item signify by saying I. I.

I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Thank you. Uh, next up we've got a request by Wendy Recctor to vacate approximately 3,32 square feet of a 20 foot alley in the C2 Commercial District and R4 Multiple Residence District located adjacent to 516 West 8th Street and 917 South Street, pages 41- 47 in your packet. This is Gman with staff. So, this is a request to vacate approximately 3,32 square feet of a 20ft alley. Now, the request to vacate the alley would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood as the properties that use the alley to access their garages are both owned by the applicant. The vacation request would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions as the alley is a dead end which only provides access to two properties which the applicant owns. The site is served by West 8th Street, which is a local street. The vacation request uh is if the vacation request is approved, then half of the alley that borders the parking lot would be zoned C2 commercial district and the other half would be zoned R4 multiple residence district. Surrounding land uses and their zoning designations are as follows. To the north, parking lot uh for CNS car company zoned C2 commercial district. To the south is residential lot zoned R4 multiple residence district. To the east is commercial uses zone C2 commercial district. And to the west is residential lots zoned R4 multiple residence district. Uh some of the lots uh to the west are currently being requested to be reszone to the C2 commercial district. The surrounding area consists of res residences built between 1913 and 1915 at a gas station to the south built in 1998 and a commercial parking lot for

CNS Car Company. A drainage plan is not required for this request. No portion of the property is located within flood plane. There is a 6in water man running along West 8th Street. There is an overhead electric line that runs along the alley. The applicants are not looking to subdivide the property at this time. The applicant is proposing to vacate and purchase from the city the alley that comes off of uh West 8th Street. The alley is a dead-end alley and serves as the access point for two garages located at 917 South Street and 516 West 8th Street. Both properties being owned by the applicant. This portion of West 8th Street is a dead end a as the street does not connect to Washington Street. The applicant has indicated that she is willing to purchase the alley. The city will need to keep a utility easement as there are overhead electrical lines in the alley. There was a previous request regarding this alley in 2009. That request, however, was not to vacate the alley, but was for an encroachment agreement to allow for a fence to be built at the end of the alley uh a little ways along the northeast side of the alley. That request was denied by the planning and zoning commission and then withdrawn primarily uh because the other abuing property owner, CNS Car Company, was opposed to the request. CNS Properties has informed staff that they are opposed to this request to vacate as they are currently planning changes to their property, including a potential vacation of Seventh Street. The technical review committee had no comments or concerns about this request. The area is designated as commercial on the future land use map, a component of the comprehensive plan. This request would be in conformance with that designation as it will stay as an access point for two properties that currently use it.

Therefore, staff recommends that the request by Wendy Recctor to vacate approximately 3,32 ft of a 20ft alley in the C2 commercial district and R4 multiple residence district located adjacent to 516 West 8th Street and 917 South Street. It be tabled for two months for the following reasons. Uh the two months will give staff time to study and plan for all the proposed changes in the larger area. Thank you. Other questions for staff?

So this is do not I don't know if this is a question for staff but I'll ask it anyways. Um do we have a timeline from CNS car company for what they want to do with what uh what their plans are with the vacation of Seventh Street? I was not told the specific timeline. Uh the owner of CNS car company had talked with null and null was the one who had me put uh table it for two months and so I'm assuming they're working to get that vacation request in fairly soon and I know they're actively working on their plans.

Okay. Thank you. Jamie Kudson, the city engineer. We actually have a meeting with the IDOT tomorrow um to discuss the vacation of Seventh Street and what that may or may not mean for access from Washington. Washington Street is currently controlled by the Iowa DOT and if we vacate it, we just need to understand what requirements they may have. They may require that Seventh Street, that opening gets closed up completely um and not allow any driveways onto it. We don't know. Um, but we just want to make sure that we talk with the DOT so that CNS knows

what uh what the rules are to play by if if they go ahead with vacating Seventh Street. Okay, I'm going to look at this map again. Well, Seventh Street is uh not even touching this alley that or the proposed vacate area on the other side of the block.

Correct. But I don't know what all I don't know exactly what CNS's overall plans are. I just know that part of that involves the vacation of Seventh Street. So, if they can't vacate it or depending upon what the DOT comes back with, they may not want to vacate it, that may affect their plans. I I can't speak to what plans CNS has specifically other than we are meeting with the DOT tomorrow to get some clarity on those requirements. Okay.

Yeah. And the reason why I asked my question was because it was CNS car company that that appeared to be the only opponent to this request. This is Commissioner Shurk and that actually following up with that you guys have in here CNS car company and CNS properties both but those are two separate companies separate owners. There is a CNS properties and obviously CNS car company are those is this a typo or because I know CNS properties does own property down there and two very different ownership. This is Shredder with staff. I assume it's a typo. It's um

Mr. Culie is the representative of the abuing property owner that has noted objection to the vacate.

Yeah. This is Anderson with staff. I'm on Zoom. Can you guys hear me? Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Kulie with CNS Car Company um is the person I've talked to. Um as Jamie noted, they are looking at some potential larger plans um as owners of three quarters of that block. Um it seems to make sense to staff to table this to see what options they may have with the vacate with the DOT as that will obviously influence the potential layout uh development that could occur on threequarters of this block where the alley is located. So, um, you know, it doesn't appear to be any negative impact to table it for 2 months so we can figure out the bigger plan implications. Thank you. Um, the the only viable person to vacate this alley to would be to the applicant is what I'm getting because they can they have buildings that is an access point to them is what I'm getting out of that. the situator with staff. All abuing property owners have rights to you know uh requesting an right of way such as an alley to be vacated or um opposing a vacate or if an alley is vacated um they have a right to get half of the alley rightway and CNS is an abuing property owner to this property.

Okay. Yeah, because I I wouldn't want uh I wouldn't want these people to not be able to get into their garage. Um correct. No, I This is Anderson again. I mean, I think one of the things that's out there is that if for some reason the vacated of Seventh Street would not work out the way CNS envisions and they would have to go with different plans. I mean, there's a potential where they could reddo portions of their parking area to utilize that portion of the alley to gain access over to 8th Street. um depending upon traffic, you know, circulations in and out of their site. Um as it is a public alley, so it makes some sense to kind of wait and see what what their options may be.

Oh, which would not obstruct access from the applicant. I uh I just happen to remember that the purpose of this was because people were driving through that alley and slides sideswiping uh the applicants cars. But um anyway, speaking of applicant, is the applicant here? Come on up. State your name and address, please.

Hi, I'm Wendy Rector, 917 South Street out west 8 Street. So, I guess they just told me to come today and see if you guys had any um questions for me or whatever. I don't see how Seventh Street affects what we're doing in our alley part. I mean, he's literally taken up almost all of our whole area, right? Like, I don't think we should How far are we going to go? We're just going to get smothered by CNS auto. Well, and

you know, I'm just asking for a little alley, which is my access to both my garages, you know, on the rental property and my property. You have to go through that alley. years ago, I tried to get um a driveway put at my house. They denied me because they didn't want me to go out on South Street backing up because of the new highway they got, you know, put in or whatever. You know, then it would have been cheap to put in a driveway or another access.

Now it's not at all. Not for two properties especially. It just wouldn't even be good. So, you know, my only thing is to that alley is my driveway.

But it's not just sideswiping cars. We snowb blow it. We take care of it. If people throw their garbage in that alley, he picks it up. CNS has nothing to do. They don't do anything with that alley at all. If the holes need to be done, who calls to get them done? I call the city, they come and do it. We would do it on our own if we own the property. You know, we bring gravel in before because the city didn't come, you know, so we've taken care of the alley and I just think he's got enough and now we want Seventh Street. So that's our access. You know what I mean? So now, okay, you got Seventh Street. So we either got to go clear to Ninth Street or we got to turn clear at fourth street or fifth street.

This is Trader with staff. I would I would just know I understand your position and I understand the thought that he has enough. Um and I would also note that um the vacate regardless of how it was done would not take away your access. But by code, if it is vacated and the other abuing property owner wants their half, they have the right to half of this. They could not obstruct your alley. But if this vacate moves forward, even though the other abuing property owner is objecting, if it were to move forward and be vacated, he would then have the option to buy his half. That is the code.

So then, okay, Anderson is the one who said, I, you know, want you to go through with this. I said I already said in this meeting I know how this works. So if it wasn't going to work, why would you guys say let's go ahead and you know spend your $175 and your time here and everything else if it's not going to work. I don't understand. As a

it was not my idea to do this again. I told him I know how this works. As a fellow alley person, I don't know how to say it. I live on a property that my garage is in an alleyway. That makes a lot more sense. I really understand your concerns, especially you pick up the trash. No one else does, right? No, you get weird people through there, weird cars sometimes. Oh, there's fights. There's all kinds of stuff. We need to keep people to keep people out of there. We want a fence, you know, going up there to to try to keep it, you know,

I can't I can't speak for this whole commission, but I can say that I understand that and I want to get to a road where you get control of that a little bit better. Uh I think probably working with the city and making sure that they get whatever is going on with 7th works out and maybe they say, "All right, we can get away from this alley." That would be a really great thing. I would I would urge staff to work with CNS to be like, you know, you don't need that alleyway if that makes sense. They really don't. And especially if you're going to give them all whole Seventh Street because

so we're going to inconvenience. And then they allowed him to put a driveway, cut a curb, put a driveway out on Seventh Street or on South Street for his new property. Well, I got that right away. And a car just about nailed me yesterday. I you he's got his employees are parked on South Street now. He's got this driveway coming out so the people coming out of there can't see because he's got all of his employees parked there and we're coming down South Street. So boop, there he is. You know what I mean? Right. All right. He takes up everything. We can't even hardly use Seven Street right now because he has the big,

you know, he unloads his cars. You can ask these guys. They drive down there. unloads the car. It's right on there. So, half time he can't use it anyway. He's illegally parked on the other side of the street. You know, how much are we going to control? I can definitely say that I'm not going to be a fan of another access point to that parking lot that uses this alleyway. That's not the core intent um of what that alleyway was for. It was basically for a couple garages. Um, yeah. Any any questions for us?

Um, I just um hope you didn't waste my money or my time, you know, because I I just don't see why he needs it. He doesn't. All right. Thank you. Um, any other comments, questions from staff? All right.

Anderson with staff. note. Um, you know, part of our part of our job is to evaluate such requests for the public use of the alleyway, and I think that is what we're doing. Um, obviously, there doesn't appear to be much of a public use for an alley portion that only serves a couple of garages. So, it makes sense to look at the the potential to vacate it. Um, at the same time, since we're being hit with the possibility of some larger redevelopment on the same block, it also makes sense to table it for a few months to look at the larger impact of the potential vacate of public right away.

Thank you. Uh, do you say that would be a few months or two months?

The staff recommendation was hoping we're hoping to know by then. Yeah. Okay, cool. Um, all right. Thank you. Uh, at this point, I'll entertain a motion on the agenda item. This is Poe. Um, I'll recommend that we do table this request by Wendy uh Recctor uh to vacate this uh 332 foot alley in the C2 commercial district in R4 multiple uh residence district located adjacent to 516 West 8th Street and 917 South Street uh uh for two months.

Okay, I'll second that motion. This is do not Thank you. Uh there there's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Second. Void. Second. Okay. Uh the discussion part. Uh Commissioner Lico. Yeah. I I think uh a table is right at this time. Uh I I don't want to kick this down this can down the alley literally. Right. Um would he be able to park in the alley? That's why the tableabling I think is the right thing because if

if they if if we don't get a plan for seventh, who knows what kind of weird things could happen where they say we want to buy the other half. But if they have seventh and that works for them, then I I would encourage them to Exactly. It gets Yeah. We we have to get a solution. It used to be an alley that went all the way through. Yep. They let him close that whole. Yeah. So, we we have to come to a solution that actually works for you. And I think I think table in he gets everything. Yep.

Yeah. I I think tableing it will get the solution that we're looking for. So, um anyway, any other discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of tableabling the agenda item by two months signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Um. Next up, we've got a request by BFA, Inc. on behalf of Walmart to vacate two 26,821 square feet of 20 foot waterline easement located at 1334 Flaming Drive. you right there.

Okay. Um actually, are we able to combine that with item three? Yes.

Okay. So, there's two items there. Um the other one is to dedicate 3,436 square feet of 20 foot waterline easement at the same property to allow for store expansion. Uh staff report This request to vacate the waterline easement would not appear to have a negative impact on surrounding area as there is not a water line in the majority of the easement and the applicant will be dedicating a new easement around where the water line is located. It would not have a uh a negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Uh the area in question is zoned S1 shopping center District uh since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1969. Surrounding land uses and zoning is as follows. To the north is commercial properties zoned S1 uh shopping center district. To the south is residential properties as zoned R3RP planned multiple residence district. To the east is commercial property zoned S1. Uh to the west is commercial property zoned C2CZ uh conditional zoning commercial district. The Walmart building was built in 1989. The residential buildings to the south were built between 2007 and 2016. Uh, a drainage plan will not be needed for this request. There is a 12-in water man that crosses the easement at one point. This is the water man that will have a new easement dedicated around it. There is also a 18in storm sewer located in the Walmart parking lot. Uh the applicant is requesting to vacate a 26,821 foot easement uh for a water man. Uh the majority of the water man on the property does not run in this easement. A portion of the water man does cross the easement. However, the applicant has also submitted a request to dedicate an easement around where the prop the water line is located. The vacate and

dedication request is necessary to place an easement for the water line in the correct location. The technical review committee had no comments or concerns about this request. The property is designated as commercial on the future land use map. Uh this request is in conformance with that designation. Therefore, staff recommends that the request by BFA Inc. on behalf of Walmart to vacate 26,821 ft of 20 foot waterline easement located at 1334 Flaming Drive be approved for the following reasons. The easement is not needed in this location as the water line was not built in the easement. The applicant will be dedicating an easement that follows where the water line is located. Uh and just to combine the two, uh staff does recommend that the request to dedicate a 30,436 ft 20 uh foot waterline easement uh be approved uh for the reasons that the easement will cover the location where the water man is located and they are submitting the request to vacate the easement that is in the wrong location.

All right, good job. Thank you. Um any questions for staff? Well, uh, this is Duna. The first time I guess when I read this request, I did not realized that the shopping center was built in 1989. I thought it had always been there. So, not since I was age nine, but um, so that was news to me when I read the item. Uh, is is the applicant on Zoom? I am. This is Rick Roofing. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you.

Excellent. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Uh, and thank you for that thorough staff report. If am I able to share my screen or no? I'm not sure if I don't know what they have for permissions. If you can give it a try. Yeah. Otherwise, if you're referencing things were submitted, we can probably get it pulled up on the other screen that the commission would be able to see. Right. All right. Uh, I'm going to try to share my screen. A picture might make this very simple. Um, but let me know if you can see my screen or not.

We can tell you're attempting to share something. Oh, there it is. Y Okay. Okay. Perfect. So quickly, the Walmart was initially built in '89. In 2004, it was expanded. The water line at the time of the expansion and and the existing water line and easement that we're trying to vacate is that in yellow that's shown, okay?

Is what's trying to be vacated. Uh when it was expanded, the water line was moved out over here uh outside of the building and the truck dock. However, the easement there was never an easement um revised for it. Where staff report mentions that much of the water line is outside of the easement. Today, that is true. So, city staff actually went out and located this line and the the light blue line inside of the blue, which the blue is the proposed easement. Now, that is where the water line actually is today. the both water lines, the easements that are in your packet, those been reviewed by the city. It's also been reviewed uh and approved by Waterlue Waterworks and the original easement shown in yellow um was dedicated to the city and in the com combination of well how can we easily do this swap if you will or vacate the old bring in the dedicate the new the waterworks company was h uh fine with the city vacating the yellow and then When the dedicated portion in blue moves forward and is recorded, that is for the use of both the city and waterlue waterworks so that they have rights to their their water man. Um, but all we're really doing is just what this picture shows. We're vacating the yellow. Uh, it does encroach upon the building. There's no water line in this portion. It's over here, but it's outside of it at this location. and we're dedicating the blue uh shaded area for the actual water line where it is today.

All right. Thank you. So, basically just a housekeeping thing. It is housekeeping. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you so much for the explanation. All right. I'll stop shar. Thanks. Do uh any commissioners have any further questions? No. All right. Right. I'll entertain a motion on the agenda items.

This is recorder. I'll move to approve uh the request by BFA, Inc. on behalf of Walmart to vacate 26,821 square feet of 20 foot waterline easement located at 133 Fleming Drive be approved. and the request by BFA um on behalf of Walmart to dedicate 30,436 square ft of 20ft waterline easement located at 133 Fleming Drive be approved second do not

All right there's a motion and a second I was just double checking for conditions um is there any discussion hearing none all Those in favor of approving the agenda item signify by saying I. I. I. I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Uh, last up, we've got an amendment to the city of Wateroo zoning ordinance to eliminate hobby farm provisions, amend restrictions for farm animals, to add restrictions for tobacco and vape shops, and other miscellaneous changes.

This is Shrader with staff. So, um, after several, uh, discussions of various interested parties for concerns related to Hobby Farm and concerns related to, um, vaping, more particular, but tobacco and vape go together in how they're regulated by state code. Uh the city formed two subcommittees, one specifically for hobby farms and one specifically for tobacco and vape to review the existing ordinance, review what some other communities are doing and look at potential changes to the ordinance. Um with regards to the hobby farm provisions, the um committee looked at basically three different alternatives. Uh one which would keep the hobby farm regulations but increase restrictions including uh annual uh licensing and inspections. um and additional restrictions on um cleaning uh sanitariness, disposal of waste and deceased animals, all of that kind of stuff. The second option was to look at keeping a provision for chickens, but otherwise primarily removing provisions for hobby farms. And the third option was primarily removing hobby farms um other than provisions for farm animals in agricultural zones and

uh on a farm setting of over 35 acres. And overwhelmingly the committee um recommended that we'd move forward with the third alternative uh removing provisions for hobby farms and only providing for provisions for farm animals when they're in an A1 agricultural district meeting certain requirements or on a farm setting of 35 acres. The other uh committee looking at tobacco and vape regulations looked at um issues uh the concerns on increased usage of vape particularly in the youth particularly within schools. Um there was representatives of the health department and Waterlue schools on um the committee and and they reviewed issues that they're continuing to see. Um, so the committee looked at what a few other communities are doing, which there's not a lot of them, um, that are regulating this yet, but then looked at proposing some restrictions that, uh, define a tobacco vape shop. Uh, and then put some added restrictions uh, if it a use meets the definition of a tobacco and vape shop. Increase setbacks from protected uses. uh increased setbacks from schools, particularly increased setbacks from other uh tobacco vape shops um and providing signage restrictions. And then most of all of the other uh changes are fairly minor, primarily to uh address changes to state code. Uh

like for instance the state code was changed to uh prohibit cities from regulating uh siding material um which the city of Waterl did. So we're striking that. Uh the state code was amended to um prohibit cities from regulating firework sales. So we're striking those provisions and our definitions of daycare didn't match up with definitions in state code. So most of those were just kind of clean up. So I can certainly uh go through any of the specifics in more detail. Um or I can just open it up for any questions.

U I will point out the business end of the tobacco vape shop guidelines is on page 77 in your packet. That is where the the biggest chunk of what we're probably going to discuss is going on. I I also noted uh or I've seen that um while most hobby farm stuff was struck out, there were some provisions left in there for horses. Is that correct? This is Shraider with staff. So horses were uh always regulated separately from the hobby farm. So weren't considered a hobby farm. So as part of the restrictions, yeah, we're just making that clear that that's still the case. Horses are still allowed. They are not considered a hobby farm. They have their own set of regulations just as they always did.

Okay. Okay. So, what is the response uh for hobby farm regulations of people who already have their establishment? Are they grandfathered in? This is shredder with staff. Yes, they are grandfathered in. And there is u that would be covered under our our uh grandfathering. It's actually called non-conforming use section of the ordinance. But just to be clear, we did also add some wording about that in the changes just to make it clear that they would be grandfathered in. Yes.

Okay. And if anybody has viol so any violation would just be a standard violation and we're going to follow the laws and and follow uh enforcement of violations just like any other thing. Correct.

Um I think that's all I think that's all my questions. Are there any tobacco vape shops that do not fall within these general regulations currently in the city limits? This shredder with staff. Um there would be ones that I'm sure don't meet these setback requirements. Again, the existing ones would be grandfathered, so it wouldn't impact them. Um, there would also likely be some existing ones that wouldn't comply with signage requirements, which they are also um grandfathered, but there is wording on a phase out of the grandfathering.

Okay. Are there any other questions for staff? Uh oh, one more. So these subcommittees were they uh did they consist of city council then or uh the straighter of staff? Yes, they did consist of at least one if not two council members. Okay. So when this gets and mayor Okay. So when this gets to the council and the mayor, they're not going to be like, "Holy moly, what's this surprise?" Um the mayor most definitely will not be because he started as a council member on both committees and and ended as the mayor on

both committees. Yep. Okay. Um the we did kind of bring in a new council person towards the end as there was uh so new council members.

Do we need to vote then to approve this or is thisformational? No, this we are asking for you to make a recommendation uh on the item. We are looking to move this forward to the city council. Um there was moratoriums on new hobby farms and new tobacco uh licenses that um was put into place um some time back and those moratoriums are um set to uh expire here in early May. So, we are looking to try and move this along so we could get this potentially adopted before the end of the moratoriums.

Okay. Does there need to be a 30-day public comment period or or public participation, especially on the um especially on the hobby forum aspect.

This is Shreder with staff. Um there's no specific provision for a 30-day uh requirement. Um there is requirements for a hearing of which this is considered a hearing of the planning and zoning commission. The city council is also uh required to hold a hearing and that will be getting scheduled soon and I would anticipate that this will get a little bit more review discussion when it when it goes to city council. I was surprised that there wasn't anybody here in the audience here tonight uh on this issue since this this had been a more um contentious issue in the past when we discussed this issue before.

So yeah, any further questions? All right. Well, make sure there's anyone here to talk on it. Um, I mean it I think a lot of folks probably did see that it was something designed by the council is going to end at the council. Um, there's a little bit of processes here. If if you know that's what they they came up with and I don't see anything unusual, that's what it will most likely be I guess. Um, I'll entertain a motion to approve these or recommend them for you to speak on this one. No, you weren't here to speak on this item, were you?

Okay. I'm the new council member. I'm observing. Yeah, sounds good. Welcome to Welcome to council. So, I'm just I'm just observing what's going on. That's all I All right. Okay. So, this is do not I'll make that motion to approve the recommendation as presented. This is PO. I'll second.

All right. Um, oh yeah, it's not a mandatory roll call. Um, okay. All those in favor of approving the um ordinance changes including eliminating hobby farm provisions and uh adding restrictions to tobac tobacco and vape shops and signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other um discussion items?

Just a note on the Wendy Recker um item. We need we need to remind staff to uh remember to tell her the date of the next hearing or the next meeting that her issue is going to come up because she left before we got to say a date. We will definitely do that. Yeah. Um we'll we'll try to get some finances. I spoke with staff here and just you know once in a while we should have a pulse check on how how things are going but we'll we'll try to get that next month. Uh with that I'll uh entertain a motion to adjurnn. Recommend to second. Sure. All in favor uh signify by saying I I opposed. Thank you for your patience today and