Planning, Programming & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 4 PM and I will call this planning programming and zoning commission meeting to order 1st stop. I will entertain a motion to approve the July 14th, 2026 agenda. I would recommend that we take items a 1 a 2. Oh, a 1 and C1 combine them a 2 and C2 combine them and then put them at the end.

If that works for everyone commissioner, do not move to approve with the amendments as outlined 2nd.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the agenda signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next up, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting on May 12th, 2026. Please go through that. And when someone's comfortable, please make a motion or make corrections.

This is Schaefer with a motion to approve the minutes from May 12, 2026. Rucker will second.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Oh, he's going to get to sit in the shame spot here. All right. At this time... Okay. We don't have non-agenda items up front.

They're at the end. No, they're at the end.

They're at the end. Okay. Okay. We'll move on to item B1, request by Senor Tequila LLC to establish a non-limited alcohol sales use in the M1 Light Industrial District located at 118 East 11th Street, pages 32 through 39 in the packet.

This is Gowman with staff. The request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding areas. It was a nightclub in a non-limited alcohol sales use classification as recently as February 2026. The proposed special permit would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions in the area. The property in question can be accessed off of East 11th Street and Sycamore Street. There is a trail along East 11th Street. in question has been zoned m1 light industrial district since the adoption of zoning ordinance 3781 in 1991 prior to that it was owned m2 heavy industrial district the surrounding land uses and their zoning are as follows to the north is residential uses zone c2 commercial district to the east south and west are commercial uses and vacant lots zoned m1 light industrial district Property in question is not located within a special flood hazard area. The commercial uses have been developed as early as 1909 and the residential uses have been developed as early as 1869. The request would not meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance as an on-premise non-limited alcohol sales use is required to be set back 250 feet from protected uses. Senior Tequila LLC is requesting a special permit to establish non-limited alcohol sales use in the M1 Light Industrial District located at 118 East 11th Street. The property in question previously operated as El Senior Tequila Nightclub, which was an on-premise non-limited alcohol sales use and legal non-conforming because it was less than 250 feet from a protected use. And it's legal nonconforming status expired in May 2026. 3 months after closing in February 2026, the applicant plans to open and operate a bar on this. Premises the property in question about sports bar, which is a limited alcohol sales use. The applicant is required to obtain a special permit as they. as the proposed use is an on-premise non-limited alcohol sales use which is required to be 250 feet from the from protected uses and any other non-limited use the property in question is approximately 102 feet from residential protected uses requiring a variance from the board of adjustment Therefore, staff recommends that the request by Senior Tequila LLC to establish non-limited alcohol sales use in the M1 Light Industrial District located at 118 East 11th Street be approved for the following reasons. One, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area as it was an on-premise non-limited alcohol sales use as recently as February 2026. The request would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular pedestrian traffic in the area 3. the request is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and future land use map for the area subject to the following conditions that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, et cetera, including, but not limited to parking, landscaping, drainage, et cetera.

Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners for staff? And I think you got off easy on that 1 is the applicant here. If you wish to come up and speak a little bit, you can otherwise. Does any commissioners have questions for the applicant? Nope. All right. You're good there. Is there anyone in the council chambers that would like to speak on this agenda item? Is there anybody on zoom that would like to speak on this agenda item? Pretty straightforward there. I will then entertain a motion on the agenda item.

This is record. I would move to approve the request by senior tequila LLC to establish non limited alcohol sales use in the M one light industrial district located at one, one East 11th street be approved subject to the following conditions that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, et cetera, including, but not limited to parking, landscaping, drainage, et cetera.

Commissioner do not seconds.

Thank you. We have a motion in a 2nd. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the agenda item signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Next up.

One second, that is a special permit, so it'll go to the, this is Anderson, it'll go to the Board of Adjustment for final approval in two weeks.

Yep, same room. Next up, we've got item D1, a request by the City of Waterloo to vacate approximately 1,988 square feet of city-owned right-of-way of West 3rd Street at the intersection of Norton Street, pages 64 through 72.

That's part of the plaque, so do you want to wait and have that go with it?

Oh, yep, we'll move that up with...

That will be with a 2 a 2 c 2. okay.

Okay. Um, we will go to item 1, then request by David pardon if I didn't get that quite right for. Huh? Uh, how do I say that? Okay. Thank you request by David connect for an encroachment agreement to allow for a decorative rocks in the right of way of birch Avenue and West 7th street and our 2 1 and 2 family residence district located at 902 birch Avenue pages 73 through 80.

Just start off with staff request is for encouragement agreement law for decorative rocks in the right of way of Birch Avenue and 7th street in the one or two family residents district. The request would appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area. The property in question zones are two one and two family residents district zone associations to the adoption of the zoning ordinance in nineteen sixty nine. Surrounding line uses it are as follows to the north south east and west or his own door to one or two family residence district with single family homes The encroachment area is not located on a flood hazard area The area's primary compels a single family homes constructed as early as to 1906 and The applicant is requesting an encroachment agreement to allow for decorative rocks in the right-of-way of Birch Avenue and West 7th Street in the R2-102 Family Residence District at 902 Birch. The applicant has 12 decorative rocks along the right-of-way of West 7th Street and Birch Avenue, a rock pile consisting of about 59 rocks. Along city right away in the alley of budding the property in question to the South, the rock service aesthetic purposes for the applicant. The rocks have been there for multiple years. Castle stated the engineering is against the request and the ordinance does not permit this and will set a bad precedent. Therefore staff recommends that they request by David for an agreement to allow for a decade of rocks in the right away of birch Avenue and 7th street and there are 2 1 to 2 family residence district located 9 to perch Avenue be denied for the following reasons. The agreement would appear to have a negative impact on the area. The agreement was set up negative precedent.

All right, thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners for staff?

How long have these rocks been there?

How long? 13 years.

Why don't you come on up and state your name and address. I know you're probably Mr. David Knipp.

They've been there 13 years.

Okay. The stack along the garage.

is inside the telephone pole, inside of the bench roll. They're there to keep the people that missed the alley from wrecking my garage. That's why they're there. Okay, all right. The ones on the boulevard, there to keep people from driving down there, which they have. That's what started it. They drove down my boulevard and then drove across the front. So I put the rocks there so they wouldn't. And when we get the deep snow, nobody snowmobiles in my yard. But they do with the others. Now, I drove around and there's far more places that are covered than my lousy 14 rocks. There's bushes in between the sidewalk and the street. And the city don't plant bushes. And there's bricks around the tree trunks. I mean, if you're going to enforce this, you've got to go citywide. And there's a house on Norfolk to the tune of 385,000 appraisal that's got a beautiful landscape, but it's on the encroachment. And you can't single me out. I keep that neat. House across the street's got trees growing up around it. Franklin's got burned out houses. Look far worse than my rocks. I keep my yard as neat as I can for the last 41 plus years. And those have been there for 13 years. And because I got a disgruntled mail carrier that the post office won't keep away, that's what started this. Because he hates me with a passion.

I have a question for staff. What happens if there is snow and someone does snowmobile through there and the rocks are there? Is that a safety hazard?

Jamie Knutson, city engineer. I will play a lawyer at the moment. Even though I'm not one, I would say yes, there probably does, would present a hazard for that.

And if the city allows these to be there and someone is hurt, they could sue the city?

Absolutely. Okay.

Well, I have another question then. The question I have is, is it legal within the city limits to drive a snowmobile

That I don't know. That would be a police department issue. I don't know.

Well, even if it's not legal, they can still sue the city.

Well, even if it's not legal, they can still do it 90 miles an hour down the street, too. That's true.

Okay.

Any other questions from commissioners for the applicant?

Martin?

Oh, I'm asking if there's any other questions from commissioners for you at this moment there's not so thank you for coming up and speaking.

Did we get his name and address for the record?

That's Mr. David. At 902 perch Avenue. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the council chambers that would like to speak on this item?

Hector Salamanca, Royal Councilman for Ward 5. Mr., and I'll give my address as well, 834 Williston Avenue. I am Mr. Knipp's neighbor up the street. I can tell you that having moved to this Waterloo neighborhood since 2022, Those rocks have been there, hasn't been an issue. I've heard no complaints from neighbors. I actually spoke with Menter Knip a couple months ago about it, or a couple weeks ago, and I have no qualms, no issues with the rocks being there. He does keep his property very clean. He keeps it pretty orderly. I've admired those rocks myself and I think to his point that if the city is going to clamp down on this on one individual, then the city has to be prepared to clamp down on it across the entire city and not just him. When it comes to individuals riding snowmobiles, it is my belief and my belief only that they are bringing it upon themselves by not following city ordinances that most likely prohibit people riding snowmobiles in a neighborhood. And again, I'm in as a councilman and as a neighbor, full support of these rocks being there because it is decorative. It does make the neighborhood look nice. And again, nobody has had any qualms with it. Nobody has brought it up. And if nobody has borrowed up for 13 years, I'm sure there's a reason why. So my two cents. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the council chambers that would like to speak on this agenda item? Is there anybody on zoom that would like to speak on this agenda item? Um, okay.

I have another question for staff actually. Um, you know, we're talking kind of about the slippery slope argument here that it sets a negative precedent. What is the city afraid of that? What, what, where are we rolling down the hill from here?

Jamie Knutson, City Engineer. My ordinances, or the City's ordinances, require me to make sure the right-of-way is protected and clear, and the concern is that this one and the next one, we're allowing people to put stuff out on City right-of-way. At some point, enough's enough. Again, This is stuff, this is public right-of-way. It belongs to all of the citizens of Waterloo, not just this particular individual or the next one. At some point, it does get to be, where do you draw the line? And at some point, these things, I have no issues with the rocks. He can just move them back behind the sidewalk on his private property where they belong. We don't actively go looking for these things, but when they come up, we deal with them. And this is what the consequences of that are. Code enforcement brings it to our attention. We review it. It goes through the process. And the city engineer and my staff have looked at it and do not want these things out on city right-of-way.

Okay. A couple quick other questions. I mean, we have trees in city right-of-ways, right? What's the difference between rocks and trees? Is it because the rocks become a hazard when the snow covers them? Or what's the difference between rocks and trees?

You can see the tree no matter what time of year it is.

Okay, thank you.

What about a tree stump?

Again, if it's in the city right-of-way, it's the city's responsibility to maintain those. Our Leisure Services goes out and deals with trees that are on city right-of-way. We don't deal with the trees on private property, obviously.

I have a question void, but the property adjacent property owners to city property in this case. I mean, they can plant trees. Without the city's permission in that right away, right?

No, they still have to go through the leisure services to plant appropriate trees. The city has a list of trees that we only allow them to plant. on City Right-of-Way. We don't want walnuts. We don't want things that drop fruits or berries or nuts or anything like that because, again, those kinds of things fall on the sidewalk, and then we can have issues as being sued for that. Again, at some point, this is City Right-of-Way. It is ours to maintain. It is ours to manage.

Any further questions for staff? Okay, I will entertain a motion on the agenda item.

This is job or I don't know that I agree with us, but I I think that we do have to keep the president's it is to be on property so I'm going to make a motion that we deny the request by David for an encouragement to allow for that of rocks in the right away and birch Avenue and West 7th Street in our 212 and residents district look at I know to birch Avenue.

Thank you there's a motion second viewing. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I guess I will ask one more question. I'll ask the applicant. What's the heaviest rock you got out there? Pardon? What's the heaviest rock?

The one in the center on the long part is over a thousand pounds.

Oh, man. How did you get that there?

There's six or seven. I put it in there with my index finger.

Right, right.

But I had a truck with a hoist at the time.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. That's all I got.

I mean, it hasn't affected with the internet or anything.

Right.

Okay. That's all I got. I think I'm going to go ahead and let's see. Is there any other discussion? All right hearing none all those in favor of denying the request signify by saying, aye aye aye aye all those opposed. Aye sorry motion carries. Um, next up, we have a request by Catherine gates for an encroachment agreement. Oh, 1, sorry.

So this is a recommending body. So this will go to the Waterloo City Council in the near future. We will let you know that date.

Staff will get a hold of you. all right next up we've got a request by catherine gates for an encroachment agreement for a fence on the right-of-way of avon avenue and a retaining wall in the right-of-way of thorson avenue on the r2 one and two family residence district located at 405 thorson avenue pages 81 through 88. this door office staff this grouchman agreement to allow for offense in the right-of-way of avon avenue and the retaining wall in the right-of-way of thorson avenue and the r2 one and two family residence district

The property in question is zoned R2, 1 and 2 family residence district, zoned as such since the adoption of zoning ordinance in 1969. Surrounding land uses and zoning as follows. To the north and east, commercial residential zone uses zoned M1 light industrial district. To the south, zoned R2, 1 and 2 family residence district with single family homes. To the west, commercial and residential zoned M1 light industrial district and R2, 1 and 2 family residence district. The area's primary composed of single-family homes constructed in the mid-1990s. The applicant's requesting an encroachment agreement for a fence in the right-of-way of Avon Avenue and a retaining wall in the right-of-way of Thorson Avenue and the R2-1 and 2 Family Residence District located at 405 Thorson Avenue. The applicant's fence appears to be encroaching approximately 3.5 feet into city-owned right-of-way. The fence in question received the variance from the Board of Adjustment on June 25, 2002, after construction for a height variance to allow for a six-foot-tall fence instead of a maximum four-foot-tall allowed in the front yard. According to the applicant, the retaining wall along First Avenue was placed by previous owners, and it is a short retaining wall around six inches in height to account for a change in grade between the yard and the street. During tech reviews Castle stated that he spoke with Public Works and is not a precedent and they don't want to set they Can have actual curb constructed and it get approved through the engineering department? Schroeder asked if the concerns of Public Works is a snow plows to which Castle noted that as part of it and Schroeder responded the encroachment agreement would cover the city not having liability for any damage and Therefore, staff recommends to the request by Catherine Gaze for an encroachment agreement for a fence on the right-of-way of Avon Avenue be approved and the retaining wall right-of-way of Thorson Avenue be denied in the R212 Family Residence District located at 405 Thorson Avenue for the following reasons. The encroachment agreement for the fence would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. The encroachment agreement would not appear to have a negative impact on vacuator or pedestrian traffic in the area. Subject to the following conditions of fully signed and executed encouragement agreement.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? I do have 1 question for staff and that's probably pretty easy. Just double check and there's no utility. Access easements in that area.

This is Anderson step.

I mean, it's right away. So they're out there. It's for utilities and easing, but there's no other easements besides it being right away. Yeah.

So there's like, no. Electrical phone Internet boxes that they need to access behind the fence or anything. Oh, behind the fence. I'm sorry that you're talking about the other 1.

John, you said no? No. No easements back there.

Okay, cool. Thank you.

Do we feel like the issue under tech review and updates is taken care of because of the discussion and the encroachment agreement will cover the city not having liability?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

All right. I have a question. Were this retaining walls? Is that, I mean, does the property line go out there or is there some of this like a terrace that the city owns technically? I mean...

Jamie kids and city engineer, the retaining wall that you see along the. Road is in effect acting like a curb. There is no carbon gutter on Thorson Avenue. We have this issue with unimproved streets all over town where people put. railroad ties, bricks, you name it, out there. We've had a lot of them removed over the years. I understand the reason why folks want to do this, but again, it's still the right of way. It's still the city's to maintain. Again, the snowplow is going to take that out. It's just a hassle for our Public Works Department to have to deal with these things. It just, there's no reason for it to be there.

So the fact that the plows are going to come by and rip up a lawn because they don't see a curb is the property owner's responsibility?

Public Works will come back out and fix the sod. They do it on my... My street's been overlaid, and they come up and rip up my sod in the wintertime, too. So...

This is Schoberg. How long has this short-range animal been there? Do you know?

I don't know. The plans are that you can look at Google Earth, and it went back at least 2012. It looks like it's been a while. So, again, we don't know. What was it, 12, you said? 2012. It's as far back as Google Earth goes. Again, we don't go looking for these, but when they're brought to our attention, we do work with the property owners to get them removed.

Is there a reason why there wasn't a curb where that retaining wall is?

That's an excellent question. The short answer is depending upon, in the history of Waterloo, depending upon when a subdivision was done. The council did not require, or planning and zoning, whoever it was, but the city did not require at that time curb and gutter to be put in. Okay. There are some, I have about 60 miles of seal coat streets, these unimproved streets in town. There are less than 10 miles, I'm sure it's even less than that, that have curb and gutter. Most of them do not have curb and gutter on them, and we have issues with all of the time with people pulling off the edge of the road into the parking area and things like that. It's a constant issue with code enforcement and staff to get people to stop doing that. It's never ending and there's probably a few more that you will see coming before you in the near future. for parking in the right of way and things like that. But again, this is what the ordinance says, this is what we're doing. Again, if there's that many concerns, council should take it up and look to do something different.

Can I ask, is the applicant here?

That was actually my next step. Is the applicant here? Yes. Would you like to come up, state your name and address for the record? Tell us a little bit what's going on. Maybe we might have some questions for you.

My name is Catherine Gatiss. I live at 405 Thorson Avenue in Waterloo. I asked for this encroachment for the retaining wall as it was there when I bought the home in February of 2002. And then we moved in in May of 2002. So that retaining wall has been there at least for 23 years and it hasn't been a problem. And it was there before I bought the property and moved in. So I'm requesting that the retaining wall be approved.

Do any commissioners have questions for the applicant?

Is how many out of all this subdivision of this area that you're in how many houses out there have this retaining wall or a retaining wall? I see that looks like the neighbors got 1 to.

Which name that's all the same house.

Oh, that's all the same. Oh, okay. Are you the only 1 then? I'll rephrase my question. Are you the only 1 that's got a retaining wall like this out there?

Well, yeah, I'm, I'm the only person living on that block in the 400 block. There is no other house on the 400 block.

Of thorson realtors in the commission is this something that would or would have should have been caught on a. Um, inspection. Is this something that inspectors look for? Having permits pulled to do the proper, no, okay.

They'd call it out, but it's not, yeah.

It's not something that, okay. All right, thank you.

Is there anybody else in the council chambers that would like to speak on this agenda item? Make sure you state your name and address, please.

I'm Shirley Somerfelt. I live at 351 Fortson, kitty-cornered across from Kathy. And the retaining wall is very, very nice, very attractive. It looks good, and it serves the purpose for which she wants it. And I would highly suggest that you let her keep it.

All right. Thank you. Anybody else in the council chambers that would like to speak on the agenda item? Is there anybody on zoom that would like to speak on the agenda item? Hearing no further discussion on that. I'll entertain a motion on this item.

This is Ewing. I move that we approve an encroachment agreement for a fence in the right of way of Avon Avenue. That it be approved in a retaining wall in the right of way of Thorson Avenue be denied in the R2 one and two family residence district located at four or five Thorson Avenue for the following reasons. One, the encroachment agreement would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and two, the encroachment agreement would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area three the encroachment agreement is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and future land use map for the area subject to a fully signed and executed encroachment agreement commissioner do not seconds thank you so by this motion we are um asking to approve part of it and deny part of it is that the uh okay So that would mean that if we vote that way today, we would be recommending that she get to keep part of it and have to remove part of it, and that recommendation would go on to the city council for further review? Okay. Thank you.

All right. There is a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the motion, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Thank you.

Motion carries. Were you opposed to just the denial, but you're in favor of the fence approval?

I'm in favor of the fence. I don't think it's fair to tell her that she's lived there for 30 years, for Pete's sake. Thank you.

um next up we've got a request by the city of oh this is one of these items okay the time is 4 33 p.m and a hearing is scheduled at this time for requests by the city of waterloo to rezone approximately 4.86 acres from r3 multiple residence district r2 rp plan residence district and r3 rp plan residence district for Development of 17 lots, including the expansion of birdie cottage located at 310 up 1 drive pages 13 through 22. at this time we should receive in place on file a statement of verification signed by a little stating I, a little do hereby certify that a copy of the attached letter aerial photo insight plan was mailed to each individual on the attached list by regular mail on February 26, 2026. could we have a motion to receive and place this notice on file?

So moved, Ewing. Second. Do not.

All those in favor of receiving and placing this notice on file, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Let's go to the staff report.

Just start off with staff. The proposal is rezone approximately four point eight six acres from our three multiple residence district to our two RP plan, residence district and our three RP plan, multiple residence district for the development of sixteen lots in the expression of birdie college cottage locate formerly home of the nursing home of three ten upland drive. The polls reason would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular pedestrian traffic conditions in the area. The site is served by Fair Lane Lane, which is currently a private road, which is in the process of becoming city-owned right away, and by Upland Drive, which is a local street. The area in question has been zoned R3, multiple residence district, multiple residence district since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1969. Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows. To the north is Highway 63 and residential, zoned R2, one and two family residence district. To the south is Upland Drive and residential, zoned R2, one and two family residence district. To the east is private fairway lane and residential, zoned R3, multiple residence district. To the west is us highway 63 residential and sports fields zones are to wanted to family residence district and a one agricultural district Residential in this area was built between 1964 and 1981 the sign in question had a nursing home facility that was demolished in 2025 The area is served by all utilities The reason only does meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance the applicants are proposing will subdivide the property and has submitted a preliminary platform approval. During tech review all over asked about the width of the roads didn't need to be at least 28 feet and castle noted that they are 31 feet. So they meet the requirements of the fire department. The City of Waterloo is proposing to rezone this property from R3 Multiple Residence District to R2 RP Planned Residence District and R3 RP Planned Residence District for development of 16 lots and the expansion of Birdie Cottage. The proposed rezone was brought before the Planning Commission on December 9, 2025. The decision was made at that time to table the item so decisions can be made about leaving enough property for the expansion of Birdie Cottage and the fate of the private street, Fairlane Lane. Along again, I'm gaining neighborhood input after discussions. It was decided to continue to propose reason of the majority of the property to our 2 rp for development of 16 home lots and reason the northern triangle of the property to our 3 rp to allow for expansion of pretty cottage on the 17th lot. The site plan shows 16 lots with single family homes, along with a lot for expansion of party cottage party cottage expansion. We'll need to go through a site plan amendment in the future. Once they finalize, there's the plans and designs. As far as the plot goes, it meets all the requirements. Mints plan includes 17 lots last 1 through 16 will range in size from 0.0. 0.17 acres to 0.33 acres with an average lot size of 0.21 acres. 17 is 0.71 acres and set aside for birdie cottage. The plants were designed by our engineering department, so they meet all their requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that the request by the city of Waterloo to rezone approximately 4.86 acres from R3 multiple residence district to R2 RP planned residence district and R3 RP planned multiple residence district located at 1310 Upland Drive be approved for the following reasons. That the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions request would be in performance with the future line use map and comprehensive plan. The reason and the site plan will create new infill lots and primary growth boundary in the city of Waterloo, and the request would get birdie cottage and expansion opportunity to currently do not have excellent there.

Thank you. Any questions for staff.

This is Schoberg. During the tech review, it said that Schroeder asked about detention and Castle explained where detention would be. I didn't see like a response of where that actually would be or shown.

Jamie Knutson, City Engineer. I believe it's track day is where the detention is going to be.

It's what? Track day.

Track day. It's a little triangular piece down towards the southeast corner.

Uh, they're essentially right here. Okay. On page 47, I'm assuming that's it is probably your best view of it because of combined agenda items.

Um, oh, I'm sorry.

Does that mean we're going to need to do it by motion? If we do.

Got it Thank you.

I see it track day.

I think he's going to bring it up on the screen. Yeah. Okay.

I have one other question, kind of following the same lines. So with Birdie Cottage getting that other part of the lot, will they have to have their own stormwater retention plan?

Jamie Knutson, City Engineer. Right now we have designed Tract A. Along that boundary, along 63, there's a drainage easement that would run from their property down to that Tract A. we made an assumption on what they were going to have for hard surface, assuming they're within that assumption, then no, they would not. If they're way beyond what we assumed for hard surface, then yes, they may have to do some additional detention.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for playing ahead on that. Are there any other questions from commissioners for staff? Thank you. Um, is there anybody in the council chambers that would like to speak on this agenda item? Is there anybody in zoom that would like to speak on the agenda item? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So.

So move to showberg 2nd viewing all those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying aye aye. Any opposed at this time? I will entertain a motion on the agenda item.

I would, but I don't know if we need to combine this with the 1 on.

Yeah, there will be that'll be a separate motion. It'll be a 1 and see 1. Yes, they want to see 1.

Does the motion cover both of them?

I'm checking.

I think it came with the public hearing. Okay.

And he read both staff reports, anybody gets ahead of me, you can get ahead of me.

Do you want the other staff report on that or no? No, he read the same. Okay. Cool.

Okay. Um.

I move that the request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 4.86 acres from R3 Multiple Residence District to R2 RP Planned Residence District and R3 RP Planned Residence District located at 310 Upland Avenue be approved for the following reasons. One, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Two, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions. Three, the request would be in conformance with the future land use map and the comprehensive plan. four the rezone and site plan will create new infill lots in the primary growth boundary within the city of waterloo five the request would give birdie cottage an expansion opportunity that they do not currently have second do not

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

Did we need to also approve the preliminary plat? Yeah. I think part of your motion, we need to approve the preliminary plat as well.

I also move that we need to approve the preliminary plat.

Second. Do not.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, it's a little tricky. Thank you for getting that hammered out. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving items A1 and C1 signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries next up. We've got items a 2 C2 and D1. they'll all be together here summary here. It's a request by the city of Waterloo to rezone approximately 10.67 acres from C1 neighborhood commercial district and a 1 agricultural district to our 3 RP plan residence district for the development of 14 lots of single family homes. and town homes located along west 3rd street and norton street west of sergeant road pages 23 through 31. and that was a2 c2 and d1 yes oh the time is 4 43 p.m and i hear enough scheduled at this time 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 26, 2026. Could we have a motion to receive and place this notice on file?

So moved. Rucker, second.

All right. I've got to remember... All those in favor of receiving and placing this notice on file signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We can go on to staff report.

This is Gowman with staff. The request to rezone 10.67 acres from C1 neighborhood commercial district and A1 agricultural district to R3RP planned residence district would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area as it would allow for housing in a good location for infill housing. and there are already residential uses adjacent to the site in question. The proposed rezone would not appear to have a negative impact on vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions in the area. The site is served by West 3rd Street and Norton Street, both classified as local roads. The rezone area is also adjacent to Sargent Road, Highway 63, a principal arterial. The Sargent Road Trail runs along Sargent Road, Highway 63, adjacent to the site. The area in question that is zoned C1 Neighborhood Commercial District has been zoned as such since the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1969. The area that is currently zoned A1 Agricultural District was rezoned from U1 Unclassified District in 1998. Surrounding land uses and their zoning designations are as follows. The north is the Katowski Greenbelt zoned A1 Agricultural District. To the south is single-family and multi-family dwellings on c1 neighborhood commercial district To the east is sergeant road highway 63 and single-family dwellings owned r2 one and two family residents district to the west is ainsborough avenue and katowski greenbelt zoned a1 agricultural district Now the surrounding area consists of some single-family homes built between 1909 and 1946 condos built between 2020 and 2024 in a vet clinic built in 1972 A portion of the area to be rezoned is in the special flood hazard area including being within the floodway the buildable lots To be created or not within the special flood hazard area there in zone X protected by levy Since they are in zone X. There's no floodplain regulations that need to be met by future development on these properties and There are some 18-inch storm mains running along the right-of-way for West 3rd Street. There is also an 8-inch sanitary sewer line and a 6-inch water main running along West 3rd Street and Norton Street. Stormwater detention is required as this will be a new subdivision. A detention basin is planned. Shown on the preliminary plat being within the area labeled as tract a on the preliminary plat The rezone area meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance as the rezone area is larger than two acres which is the minimum size to request to change the zoning to an RP zoning district and The applicant is proposing to rezone 10.67 acres of land from C1 neighborhood commercial district and A1 agricultural district to R3 or P planned residence district to allow for 14 new residential lots. This area was a wooded detention basin at the base of the flood control levee that flanks Black Hawk Creek. The trees have already been removed and some grading work is happening. The area used for the detention basin is being shrunk and the basin will be deepened to still maintain the proper water storage capacity for the flood control system. With the reduced detention basin footprint, there is now area available for infill housing. The rezone area isn't an ideal location for infill housing due to its nearness to Highway 63 and is close to other residential neighborhoods. The RP designation allows some flexibility with the design of the subdivision to fully utilize the land but is site plan specific, so provides assurances to neighbors for what will be built with any changes having to go through a site plan amendment process, which would include notice to neighbors. The plan is to either have all 14 lots be single family homes or be mostly single family homes with town homes on the lots whose frontage is along Norton Street. the area is designated as mixed commercial medium to high density residential professional offices neighborhood commercial on the future land use map a component of the comprehensive plan the rezone request which will allow for 14 new buildable lots does meet this designation as the r3rp district designation it's considered medium density residential this request also meets the agricultural and natural resource goal number two in the comprehensive plan which is that the city should promote infill and incorporated land redevelopment and revitalization opportunities whenever possible as an alternative to urban expansion. And the tech review well over asked how the two lots to the northwest will be accessed, to which Castle stated that it is for the levee and the ponding area for the Corps of Engineers, therefore will not need access. Therefore, staff recommends that the request by the city of Waterloo to reason approximately 10.67 acres from C1 Neighborhood Commercial District and A1 Agricultural District to the R3RP Planned Residence District for the development of 14 lots of single-family homes and townhomes along West 3rd Street and Norton Street west of Sargent Road be approved for the following reasons. One, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions in the area. the request appears to be compatible with surrounding land uses the request would allow for 14 new residential lots and the infill site helping to accomplish the goal to create more infill housing in the city and with the final conditions that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes regulations etc including but not limited to parking landscaping screening drainage etc in a specific reference to the preliminary plat Let me find the page. The smallest lot will be 7,346 square feet, and the largest is 19,055 square feet, with the average lot size being 9,008 square feet. The minimum lot size for the R3RP planned residence district is 4,500 square feet, which all of the lots exceed the minimum Lot width in the R3 multiple residence district is 50 feet. All of the lot widths are larger than 50 feet. Three tracks will be created by the preliminary plat. Track A will be reserved by the city of Waterloo for flood control and stormwater management purposes and will be 7.59 acres. Track B will be reserved for future development. and will be 0.13 acres track c will be dedicated as west third street right away and will be 0.07 acres there will be a 10-foot utility easement at the front along the of the lots there's also a 20-foot electrical easement running along the east side of lot a lot one and tract a the plat does show legal descriptions existing to Topographic contours, property lines, lot dimensions, utility locations, adjoining subdivisions, lot size, right-of-way widths, existing vegetation, street names, and the grading plan. As part of, we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat as well. Part of this overall plan for the area the city is also requesting to vacate 1988 square feet of city-owned right-of-way this is right along the corner where West Third Street turns into Norton Street and The area to be vacated is not needed for the right-of-way for West 3rd Street. The current right-of-way for West 3rd Street has a sharp corner. However, when the road was built, the road curves around the corner, leaving excess land that is not needed to maintain the required right-of-way width. Vacating the unneeded portion of the right-of-way will allow it to be usable space. Portions of the vacated area will be with... Some of the lots of the preliminary plat the applicant has submitted and the rest of the vacated area will be in tract a on the plat Due to the location of the road there will also be some land to the north of a portion of West Third Street that will be dedicated as part of The platting process to maintain the proper right-of-way width the city is recommending approval of the vacate request as well Thank you are there any questions for staff I

Yes, this is Commissioner Dunant. Can you review for me what the difference is between a townhome and a single-family home?

This is Anderson with staff. So a townhome could be like a threeplex or a fourplex where there are attached row dwellings, attached homewares. The others would be detached structures.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Lystico, when they do go to start building on this site, will that go through, because it's gonna be RP, will that come through us again?

With the approval of the lots as single family homes or town homes, we would not expect to bring the actual house designs back through unless something were to change and they were to try to change it to a, an apartment building or something like that. But otherwise, if it was a single family home or a town home, it would not come back.

Okay. So thank you. Um, so I'm asking this because, uh, what I would worry about in this particular street is if they built some, um, garage upfront kind of homes where there was nothing, um, I don't know if that would be the right kind of style of a home to fit on that busy street, especially when the flood levees close on Fletcher Avenue. So I think maybe there might need to be a little bit of discussion on what style of homes could be built on those.

And the way we have been approving development agreements, so when the city sells lots, we'll sell it by development agreement, requiring them to build a house on it right away. We have been including house designs in those development agreements. So that would go to directly to the city council for them to see those house designs before they're built.

Okay. That makes sense. Are there any further questions for staff? Is there anybody in the council chambers that would like to speak on this agenda item? Please state your name and address for public record.

Rebecca van Heiden, 2575 West 3rd Street. So I'm that corner that's super busy. It is a very dangerous corner. My mailbox is across the road, and I almost get hit by a car every day trying to go get my mail. Without that, you can't back out of the driveway because when they close Fletcher, everybody takes West 3rd and Norton, and we cannot back out of our driveways. I have to pull in and out like three or four times to finally be able to get out of my car safely. And honestly, it floods all the way up to my house. I've had two feet of water in my garage four years ago when it closed the whole road because the whole thing was underwater. I just feel like we're putting people in danger. Because I have also seen many car crashes from people going 40 miles an hour down that road. They don't take the curve. So they go straight up right to where these houses would be, and then somebody's house is going to have a car in it. And it happens summertime, wintertime. It doesn't matter when. But I have seen multiple cars flipped over upside down. I've seen somebody hit a telephone pole. I have seen somebody take out my mailbox twice. That road is very dangerous. And the apartments next to us have had kids in that apartment. And I have seen kids almost get hit on that road because it was very discreet. So you couldn't really see anything. So people were driving fast. Well, you also have zero visibility because of how tight that corner is. You can't see from my house like where it is. I cannot see the other side of the road. So I have to sit and wait and hope that nobody's coming around the corner before I cross the road.

Yeah, all right. Okay. Any questions for. All right, thank you. Is there come on up state your name and address.

I'm Austin van, hiding 2, 5, 7, 5, 3rd street as well. You said something was sent out in February. Is that correct?

I believe so February 26.

I never received anything.

after the trees were cut down, after it was graded, then we got the letter.

I see a date on this letterhead that says June 29th. I apologize for that.

I have it here if you'd like to see it.

Is it this one? Yeah, same letter.

I will reiterate what she was saying. Adding 14 more homes with potentially two to four cars each coming in and out of there will cause more difficulties.

Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak on this agenda item? Okay. Anybody on Zoom that would like to speak on this agenda item? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved, Schoberg. Second.

Second, Ewing. Second, Sherk.

Thank you. We've got a motion and a second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

I have one follow-up question for staff. What has it done on the developments like for, to address their concerns like for traffic flow patterns or anything like that? Like is that thought about as you're going through these developments and these info lots that I think are great for the city, but something to think about?

And I'll piggyback the question onto that is what was said about Fletcher Avenue and this comment in here about, you know, the detention basin is being shrunk, but it's being deepened, you know, further depth. I mean, that's not really gonna solve the problem of Fletcher Avenue having to be closed when it's heavy rains, right?

This is Anderson with staff. I'll let Jamie answer the engineering questions part of it. I mean, and Jamie would actually be the 1 that would review the driveway locations of the lots. The traffic department is a part of the technical review committee to look at the layout of the streets and all that for traffic concerns. So.

Jamie, it's the city engineer as far as the detention, because this was an existing detention base, and it was hidden with all the trees and everything in there and the overgrowth. 1 of the things that the city is required to do per our agreement with the federal government is to maintain our detention basins. And this is part of what we are doing here. By deepening it and working with the Corps, and we do have our permits for wetlands, stream credits, as well as approval from the Corps for the size of the detention and what we're putting back in, we are actually being able to make it deeper and a little bit smaller so that we can have lots of long third street there. So we did and have gone through the process to make sure that what we are doing is in full conformance with the Corps of Engineers.

Thank you. Earlier during the staff report, it was said that all the lots are over 50 feet. However, I'm seeing that some of the lots, especially in that very tight corner on the street side of it are actually one is lot nine is 40.76 feet wide and lot 10 is 44 feet wide and lot 11 It's sitting right on the corner. How would that work with driveways?

This is Anderson with staff. So I'll note, like, if you're looking at, like, lot 13, you see those little extra circles there on the front. So the first part is 45 feet, and the second part is another. So it's probably over 50 combined. You just can't see all of it. Same thing with lot 12. You know, so some of them are going to have different numbers on here. But if you had the expanded version with all the references to, like, C4 and C6 and all that, there'd be some more numbers there. It's a curve, so they're showing the differences of the curved portions. Okay.

No, is that page 68?

I'm on page 60 there. Is there a better one on 68 maybe? 58. I'm on 60 as well. And 68 is the existing. I see. Platted area. So, yeah, page going back is. Okay.

I got one other question.

Jamie Knudson, City Engineer. I just wanted to address one other comment that was made about the flooding. There is currently, if you stand out there on 3rd Street and look north towards the levee, there's a big green box sitting at the toe of the levee. That's a pump. We are in the process of working with the Corps to put in permanent piping to go up and over the levee. Currently, right now, we're using Portable hoses that we'd bring out as needed to provide flood control for that area. So we are including. Proposed flood control for for that area as well.

Okay. So that'll actually improve it overall.

Jamie can use some city engineer. I have a hard time thinking of any pump or lift station that is a stormwater lift station within the city of Waterloo that has a backup generator. So, I mean, it's going to have full power, it'll have electric power, and I believe that thing has also got a gas backup in it. Providing backup generation is extremely expensive and generally we don't have the only time we provide the backup generation is for sanitary lift stations.

We do need some order for these proceedings and the order is that we had the public hearing and the public hearing has been closed. So.

My, my other question is, is there a discussion how to improve traffic safety on 3rd street? There's various. Mechanisms that can be done such as speed bombs, which none of us actually like, but they do make things safer.

If they're, Jamie Knudsen, city engineer, again, if there's concerns about speeding, we'll refer that to the police department for them to look at enforcement. I will also, after this meeting or tomorrow, I will also have our traffic engineer take a look at it and see if there are things that she needs to do. With some of that, I don't know off the top of my head, but we'll have staff look into it.

All right, thank you. Are there any other comments, questions from commissioners? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the agenda item.

This is Schaefer. I move to approve the request by the City of Waterloo to rezone approximately 10.67 acres from C1 neighborhood commercial district and A1 agricultural district to R3 RP planned resident district. for the development of 14 lots of single-family homes and townhomes located along West 3rd Street and Norton Street, west of Sergeant Rove. Coupled with the preliminary plat approval of the Ardmore addition and the vacate of approximately 1,988 square feet, city right away and be approved for the following reasons the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions in the area the request appears to be compatible with the surrounding land uses the request would allow for 14 new residential lots at an infill site helping to accomplish the goal to create more infill housing in the city And that the final plat meets all applicable city codes regulations, including, but not limited to parking landscaping screening. I'd also add that, uh, traffic study conversations regarding the propensity of accidents discussed here today.

2nd, was a vacated vacate in the perfect.

Do not will 2nd, thank you.

We have a motion and a 2nd, is there any discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of approving the motion signify by saying aye aye any opposed. Thank you. Okay at this time, we will. Allow people to speak on non agenda items. For those of you that wish to speak on non agenda items. Please come to the microphone, identify yourself, and state your name and address. We also should do a good job of stating our names before speaking. That's what I got. I will limit discussion to five minutes per individual.

I guess I'll break the ice. Dennis Harbaugh, 6145 Kimball Avenue, Waterloo. And I want to thank you all for your service. I know you're not exactly raking in the big bucks serving on this commission and are volunteers, so I just appreciate that. As background, I just want you to know I used to work as an economic development siting professional. And I want to share a couple concerns I have about the proposed data center that you all will be dealing with in the coming months. The 1st issue is entirely within the purview of planning and zoning commission, and that is whether this proposed data center is. As it's proposed is the right location. As you know, the South Waterloo Business Park is kind of the crown jewel, or was meant to be the crown jewel of Waterloo's business parks. And the initial vision was to bring in office buildings, small businesses, light industry, like Cedar Falls Business Parks, basically. And we know that hasn't happened. And I want to suggest to you that the data center, as proposed, is a terrible fit for that specific location. Even though that center might qualify as light industrial under Waterloo's criteria, whether it should or not is another, maybe an open question. But either way, it doesn't mean that it necessarily should be located And I want the commission, as you think about this in the future, to think about the long-term consequences of locating a data center in this park. You think it's hard now, and we know we've had challenges attracting tenants to that business park. You think it's hard now. Wait till you put a data center smack dab in the middle of your best business park. putting a data center there would be the kiss of death for that park. And so it raises the question whether maybe that business would be better suited for one of your heavy industrial parks. And I think that's a question that the commission should really think long and hard about as you consider this issue in the coming months. Secondly, related to water usage, my understanding is that this data center would use a closed loop system, but even those type of systems have to be flushed and refilled periodically. And as you know, I'm sure you guys are doing your research on data centers, you know that they take the water that comes in and then they add PFAS chemicals, which everybody calls forever chemicals, to the water to increase the cooling capacity of the water. So questions that are really important that you all need to get answered are what chemicals specifically will Wauhawk Inc. be putting into the water that they receive from Waterloo? And then when they flush that system, how are they gonna handle that now cancer-causing water? The forever chemicals they put into it are everyone acknowledges and agrees cause cancer. That's not an issue in dispute. The question is, what are they gonna do with it? Are they gonna put it back into the Waterloo water treatment facility? Most municipal facilities, water treatment plants are not equipped to remove those forever chemicals. So from a strictly economic development perspective, You know, data centers are unique because they're high resource usage, low job creators. And because of that, they need to have a specific policy for both incentives and citizen protections that are different from the sort of normal city incentives. And right now, Waterloo has neither for data centers. So I think the wise and logical action for planning and zoning as you deal with this, begin to deal with this, when it comes to you would be to table it indefinitely and then send it back to the city council. And hopefully they will maybe approve maybe a temporary moratorium while they put together a policy to deal with all data centers. What would be really a mistake would be for you all, I think, to approve the data center application that will be before you. and then later on, a month or two later, have the city council approve a new data center policy, which I think everybody realizes we need here, because then you would have approved one set of incentives and protections for one data center, and then other data center applications, which will probably come, would be under different criteria, and that would not be fair. So these are just two of many, many unanswered questions about this data center. And so with that, I don't want to go over time. So I just, again, thank you for your time and your consideration of this issue. It's really important to the city of Waterloo. And thanks for your service.

Thank you.

Hi there, Carol Chaden, 147 Summit Avenue. And I also want to thank you for your service. I know sometimes public service can be a thankless job. Just to piggyback off of what Dennis just said, I'm speaking about the data center as well and you need to know before this comes before you that there is a lot of questions that the people in the community have. We presented the city council with a petition with over 3,000 signatures that we got within a week about a month ago at the city council meeting. Since then, it's well over 4,000 signatures, and that's just the people that saw it online. So just so you know, this is a hot topic here in our community, and I see your board, and I'm learning more and more about how the process works, and even the city councilors really didn't know. Last night, we had a Ward 1 meeting, and Steve was there, and we had a couple other at-large people were there. And even they weren't real sure about the process of how this is gonna work. So that causes me a lot of concern. It causes me a lot of concern that they didn't know who this company was. They didn't know the owners, they didn't know anything about Wahawk Power, and that concerns me that we gave away a huge, millions of dollars worth of property that the city owned and bought for whatever, how many millions. to a company we don't have any details on for a dollar, and then gave them a 50% tax abatement. So to me that seems a little bit backwards, and I know this is the body that is the gatekeeper of our community and of our land. And so I would just encourage you to do your due diligence. I know in my profession, we have rules, regulations, ethics we have to go by. And I know all of you are professionals that have businesses in this community, and you're invested in this community. We don't know about Oaxaca Power. I know when I went to buy my house, I had to fill out all kinds of paperwork. There's all kinds of rules and regulations about buying property. And we don't even know who these people are. And so that just really scares me a lot. So I don't really trust people necessarily. I don't know. And I know the banks don't trust me to just say I want to buy this house and they give me the money. So I just request basically the same thing as Dennis, and that the actual Owners of this development company. It's an LLC which of course you know it limits their liability So if something were to go wrong say they move out in five years and they leave everything and all the crap that they're gonna leave there with the water and What is our, how do we claw that back from them? You know what I mean? So I think we need a moratorium that's been requested from the city council. I know Steve is gonna work on that. And we've requested it from the board of supervisors. I think there's a whole lot more information that we need to gather because knowledge is power. and you're the guardians of our resources, and we just need to use some common sense, and I'm just pleading with you to do that. There's a lot of people out here that are kind of upset, so thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

My name is Carolyn Belphy, 5036 Ainsborough Avenue, Waterloo. I live on a sixth generation farm that's going to be really near this. And, you know, we're here because we care about Waterloo and the people living here and what happens in the future and how Waterloo is growing, going to grow. And I do believe we want the same things. We want that to grow in smart ways and that we'll provide a good quality of life and serves our needs, brings new jobs, improves quality of life, and sound businesses to this area. But I really believe the Oaxaca Data Center is just the opposite than that, that we kind of have more invested and more issues and potential problems and fewer gains. data centers are known for using massive electrical and water cooling demands and that exceeds the light zoning very often in many areas they really are more suitable in areas that are heavy industrial and I really do believe that this would, as Dennis spoke to, devalue the South Waterloo area and business park. Along with that, I started adding up how many people are living in Audubon Park, Audubon Heights, Sunnyside Golf Course, these are other neighborhoods that would be very affected by the noise, which is constant, and which I'm sure you've heard much about, bothering people all over our nation. and creating all kinds of disturbances in their psyche as well as their work life and home lives so that's thousands of people we're talking about as well as 600 that are in the offices of vgm and that's you know i'm just scratching the surface with all of those places where people are I do believe it would devalue these neighborhoods also. I have so far yet to meet someone that wants to live next to an AI data center, even within a mile. So if you can find those people, fine, but I think you're going to actually destroy that whole area out there for development, which is one of our nicer neighborhoods in Waterloo. So I want to know what kind of regulations you have to protect us from the constant noise also. What is being done about that? I believe that light industrial usually means drawing businesses and allowing businesses that do not create major noise, odor, smoke, or environmental nuisances. This should be a red flag to our Planning and Zoning Commission as well as they have 25 acres as part of this deal. Now my understanding this is one data center we're talking about. What kind of promise do you have from them or deal do you have with them that they won't put in many AI data centers? They have 25 acres, they're putting in one. That will not cover 25 acres. I don't believe it does. So I want to know, are you putting in any protections for them to not build more? Because these corporations have a reputation of getting their foot in the door. And once they've got one in, they're going to build more. So I want to know what you're doing about that and what you're doing to prevent that. And of course, I want to know how you would protect us from utility rate increases on the water and the and the electricity. As Dennis talked about, the water pollution is very scary. And we haven't even tested, I believe the water passed 17,000 gallons, and these can use much more than that, the AI data centers. And I'd like to know how much this data center is going to be using. So we urge you to not go farther with this data plan. It does not fit the area, our needs, our environmental protections. We ask you to also not rezone that area into heavier industrial because it's really not suitable for the area. This is a quality of life issue, economic issue, and a health issue. And we know how fast this technology's changing. We don't even know how many years that would be there. But what you have left over is a real possibility of severe water pollution. And how are you going to take care of that? And affecting a whole way of life in Waterloo and kind of degrading the whole South Waterloo area. So thank you for listening. And the people are very concerned about lots of people and so um we really we really care and and really appreciate you hearing us out and would like you to to not go further with this thank you thank you carolyn we don't have every answer about this right now i do have one answer

These this stuff if if this is going on, it's on a plan zone. So, when those kind of things happen, they have to submit a site plan and that goes through review. So that means that when they say we build 1 building. That that's what they get to build and if they try to build more, they have to go through it again. So there is at least 1 protection, but just like a lot of you, we also have a lot of questions up here too. So, with that, is somebody else willing to speak on a non agenda item?

Yes, we're going to have you approach the microphone.

Yeah, come on up. Thank you.

Carol Chayden again. There's a group of us that are going to get some questions together to hand in to Noel before your tech review, if that comes up. Is there any idea when this might come before the commission again?

We don't know yet. We'll definitely keep you informed as we hear back from them the details of what they're working out.

So we're going to try to get those questions to you in the next couple weeks. Okay, thank you. Hopefully that's enough time.

We live here too, and a lot of times when we go through and we think about something, we also think, is that something that we would want to live next door to? So this is something that we absolutely do take seriously. Would you like to come up and speak?

I'm Diane Siddig, 816 West Orange Road. I agree with everything that's been said regarding the data center. I happen to be one of the farmers that farms two century farms, and now this data center site will be within a half a mile of those farms. I feel that the heat and the noise and destroying the insects and contaminating the water will all negatively affect our farming operation. And I just want you to think about that, too, along with the other things. And I really appreciate you hearing us and listening. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Hello, my name is Justin Crow. I reside at 123 Tribal Road of Waterloo, Iowa. I currently work somewhere where we deal with PCBs and dealing with chemicals, and that's an issue. I have a daughter. And I'm scared for the future when I hear about these kind of things, because we don't actually have. Long like evidence of what these places can do, especially if they're not handled correctly. And I already see that the water company is telling us to kind of cut back on our water usage, but even a small. Um, data center can use up to 500,000 gallons of water on a daily basis. And I question is that going to fall on us? The residents do we have to. Pretty much cut our usage so that they can use their water. Like, I, like, I've been around, I just moved back here from Arizona, seen a whole bunch of crazy stuff that's going on in California when they're telling people to make their cuts back on their water and how the residents have to pay for it all. And I just like, this is my hometown and I would hate to. see it, you know, become worse or get stuck with this because, like, this is stuff that's going to be stuck with us forever and our kids are going to have to, you know, deal with it or answer for it. So I just hope that everybody does their due diligence and, like, looks into the long-term effects of these things because i don't think you know having you know like the artificial intelligence just to come in and take from us i'd rather have a park or something a lot better for the community other than this and that's just my stance on it and thank you guys for listening to us thank you

All right, go on once. I'm running out of room for notes by the way.

I'll make it short. My name is Eva Garcia. I live at 608 Summit Avenue in Waterloo. I'm here to back up all these people that have come up and have spoke about the data center. I also, I'm curious, has our aquifers ever been measured to see what we have in it? I don't know. because that's a big issue too. I'm just, that's it. I'm just backing these people up and I wanna thank you really for listening to us. It does mean a lot to us. I appreciate it and thank you.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on a non-agenda item? Going once, okay.

I hate public speaking. So, do I, my name is Keith and I live at 700 West 1st street. I live at someone I'm worse. My name is Keith and. The status center really kind of blindsided all of us. We are, we're all like, screaming at Cedar falls. Don't vote for this. Don't vote for this. Don't vote for this. And then all of a sudden, oh, we got 1. And there was like no clue, no warning, no information. Still half the damn town doesn't even know about it. And there's such a lack of communication, no clarity. I sincerely feel betrayed because you know we don't want this. You know we don't. And it's pretty disappointing. You know, and I think that's pretty much all I have to say is that you know we don't want it, and you snuck it in on us. I don't think a single one of us appreciates that. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on non-agenda items? Going once, going twice. All right, thank you so much. Oh, come on up. I think we'll mark you as our last one possibly. Yeah, she made it, okay.

Kathleen Shoemaker, 129 Irene Court, Waterloo. I would like to know, I'm going to go back to last year's when that city council decided to at least begin rolling with this and selling that property for a dollar, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But I would like to know, and then this council came in and reports being blindsided by it along with residents. I would like to know where we can access the research and information that noah landerson or that you guys and last year's city council came up with how you thought about this and what is what assessment you know what research assessment that information that you had that encouraged you to move this toward that council and that also um uh indicated to that council that they should vote on selling it and stuff.

Well, to clarify things, we didn't move anything to council. They might have done some of that stuff independent of us. We do make recommendations to them sometimes and stuff we do approve or deny could go through Board of Adjustment and ultimately council. The amount of stuff that we know is about the same amount of stuff that you know. And the other important thing to remember is that what was Something a year ago conditions do change and it will be important to scrutinize. The most up to date information.

Well, I would agree with all that, but I guess I'll go to city council and ask if there's information about. You know, research and assessments.

Absolutely. I appreciate you come in here. Please go to city council and. Make sure that, uh, democracy works. This is why we have council chamber with seats in it. All right, um, anyone else would like to speak. You're a nun, uh, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So move. Sure.

2nd. All right all those in favor. Thank you so much for your patience.