Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh it's 7:00. I'm going to call this meeting uh the May 1st Planning and Zoning Commission to order. First uh item here, Paige, can you give us a roll call? David Larson, present. John Meyer, present. Pete Fuller, present. Stephanie Garner, present. David Huer, Kate Payne here, Kathy Olsson here. All right, that's enough for a quorum. So, we'll go ahead and go on to item C, which is approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting. Approval motion. Perfect. Do I have a second? Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes. All right. Item D is approval of the last meetings minutes of April 3rd, 2025 as written. I'd ask for a motion for that. I move that we approved as presented. I'll second. All right. Motion has been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes as well. All right. So section E is our public hearing. So um lot to talk about here. So I just usually try to cover a couple things. I don't know if um any of you have been to one of these meetings before, but basically the way it'll work is I'll just simply open a public hearing here shortly. Um I would ask anyone who wants to speak to the commission, address the entire commission. Um when you're at the podium, just state your name, state your address. Um based on the number of responses and feedback that we have, I'm going to limit everybody to 3 minutes for your first session of discussion. Um and then, you know, if you have more to say, you can come up again. Um, we obviously want to hear from as many of you who are willing to speak and talk to us as possible and then we'll close the public hearing and then we'll have some commission updates then move through our process. So, that being said, I will officially open the public hearing for item one, which is the PD resoning

application um for the parcel ID 91137602. which I'm guess is why most of you guys are here. We're happy to listen to your feedback here, comments as you wish. Sure. And yeah, just approach the podium as you will. Good evening. My name is Robert Warren. I live at 2113rd Street Southwest. And uh you may have seen um I sent in a written commentary about uh my concerns about uh the project that's uh going to be attempted. Um I put I put it in four bullet points. I'll consolidate that into two so keep things moving along as requested by the chair. Um first I want to speak as uh the HOA president of the Centennial Oaks Clubhouse patio homes. Um, we want to talk about the safety issues that I foresee possibly along Third Street Southwest. Uh, we get quite a bit of traffic through there. Uh, truck traffic, semi traffic going that's headed for u headed for high B headed for spawn and roast and for other places there. And it's going to be more more traffic on there if there are new homes being built. Uh I live on Third Street and uh so do uh seven of the HOA people uh live on Third Street and uh we have to back out and sometimes that gets uh kind of interesting backing out on there. People are I think are obeying the speed limit a little bit better. Somebody mentioned last night um where I was at that in front of our homes the street is 36 foot

36 feet wide which helps when there's traffic coming and trying to get back around there. When you turn the corner and go straight south where the housing proposal is it narrows to 30 ft wide with 17 driveways people trying to people trying to get out. It's uh it's going to make it uh kind of dangerous. Also want to talk about the condition of the roaded. Um right now um with more traffic on there and I know there's going to be more construction traffic. If this takes place, it's going to be hard on on the road. I'd like to talk personally about the about the environmental issues. Um, I invited you to take a look out there if you're not familiar with it. About halfway down from the clubhouse, uh, to the south is a low kind of natural or maybe it was actually man-made kind of area for for water to to be to fill in in case, you know, to and it comes under it comes under a a culvert there. It's a natural place for water to to go in. They have to bring in a lot of filer and they will have to bring in a lot of filter to even this out with a to grade with a road. Um the plans I have seen a short channel going through there. But if we get some of these pounding rains that's going to go across the fairway and it's going to go across to some people that I know live down in the neighborhood with the water water going down there. Um, and I heard this brought up uh last night. I was a kind of a mouse in the corner at the country club meeting. I'm not a member, but I was there and uh just uh just to see what what was going on. Plus

the fact I just hate to see trucking a lot of builder again and again and again in town. Kind of helps, you know, destroy the neighborhood. Thank you for listening. you can reread my uh my notes that I submitted earlier in the week. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Absolutely. Hi, I know you since I was on planning and zoning for 10 years. Anyway, Bill McCertie, I live at 100 Fairway Drive and my concerns, a lot of them have to do with what the golf course has already done. They built a swimming pool. Now, they've built the pickle ball courts that has forced water to run down toward the housing area where we live. And we have a lot of water running down that street constantly. It's still draining even though we haven't had a lot of rain since last week. And it still keeps draining constantly. And it's only going to get worse, especially the things that were just explained about if they're going to build those along there. They're going to have to fill in along there. They're going to raise it all up. The drainage is terrible. And it's gotten worse. when we moved there. Yeah, it wasn't bad, but it's over the years it's increased and increased and increased and I hate to see it go further than that. So, I hope that you and also the the fact about the traffic that traffic on Third Street, I wouldn't want to have to back out of one of those driveways. It's bad enough as he said when you go up up there right now past those other homes up there. It's you got

to really be careful to watch out for them. And it's it's not going to get better. It's going to get a lot worse. So, I hope you can see that and make a decision that's in favor of what the people are saying tonight. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Yeah. You don't know. Just take turns. That's fine. All right. Good evening. My name is Bob Cousin. I'm uh the only member of BCGC, excuse me, which owns the fairways development down there. And there's 28 lots there. We haven't developed them all out yet. Um, my big concern is, as Bill just mentioned, drainage for one, for the amount of water that's going to come down there with that many driveways, shrinking the whole golf course, which is going to put more safety concerns in there for golf balls. Um, as they narrow the fairway, they're pushing back and some feet with these lots, I believe. I'm not sure exactly what it is. Um, and I should know that, but uh we were losing the the design green space of the master plan of this golf course, which is um done in 1999 when it was first approved. Um um just basically I I don't think it's a place for that that housing that's going to go there. I think Brent has done some nice projects around Waverly. Many nice projects. It really has, but um I just don't think this one fits where it's at. There's other options. There's still developable areas um in the golf course, Tagalong Trail, which which I think Brent owned at one

time and then he sold, but that was uh 20ome lots there that that are now owned by a different uh person that doesn't plan to know to develop it. to change the design of what we was established in 1999 when people bought the houses out there and uh enjoyed the living out there. The biggest problem there is to take away to build onto the golf course itself. in my opinion. Um I just don't think it's the right fit to come down that street and alter the golf course as well as as add housing that wasn't originally plotted into this addition. So I do have I gave a a sheet of objections that I filed to the whole commission here and I do have copies if anybody would like to look at that. I don't want to stand up here and read them all to you. I don't think I can do that in 3 minutes. But that's what I have to say at this point. So, thank you. Thank you. My name is Ron Bigger and I live at 104 Fairway. And part of the reason that we purchased our home out there in 2015 was of our understanding of how the development was laid out. uh and that there was anything that uh the development of the fairway edition out there. We understood that when we bought and for and that other uh projects out there, other developments

certainly probably would be very limited and may not, you know, and might may not take place. And that was kind of the reason why we purchased out there was we like to lay out the way things were understanding that there was going to be some other development uh as far as uh Bob Cousins development down there is concerned. So thank you. [Music] Yep. Please. Hi Raj, my name is Raj Patel. I'm at 173 Augusta Lane. 10 years ago when this agreement or sale agreement happened, I was part of the board and at that time the presentation was given the development of the housing was parallel to the parking lot next to the pool not to the street. And that's how it was presented. That being said, yesterday I heard that question to Brand about saying that okay, what got changed? There was no explanation on that one saying that what happened there. But point is if this continue then pretty much if you guys are ready to let the golf course go by developing bits and pieces here because if this goes in next time there is no stoppage. It will be always refer back to saying that oh last time you had no problem. So my humble request is just think and just make sure that it is taken care properly because we have invested a lot of money in that area and we enjoy the openness and

originally that's how it was designed just like he referred to 1999. So the green space in Waverly is getting less and less now because of the development everywhere. How much we going to go down on the green space, we don't know. Of course, we need the housing. No doubt about it. But there should be some balance. What area we want to continue, what area we don't want to continue. Because the problem is that will impact everything including tourism, invitation to the people when they look at it, it's crowded just like any other city and then that will kill the appear to move in this town. A lot of people walk in the evening in those area very freely because of the environment, clean air, because of the green space that is the key element. Environment wise, clean air is very essential in your life and that's why people walk in a open area in a field and everything and it's so beautiful when it comes to summer. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Will Cousin. I live at 141 St. Andrews Place. My biggest concern is where does the development stop? In 2018, they tried to develop a piece of the golf course that was rejected 5 to1 and um it was rejected because they were worried about the community. It wasn't in the community's best interest. So, Commissioner Dayne noted that separating and selling piece by piece isn't in the community's best interests. Um we bought

out there because of the open space. We enjoy the golf course. We think they've done a great job with the golf course, but when you modify the golf course without any studies on how that'll impact the property values out there is concerning. Um, I also submitted a letter that I think highlights some areas where I think this violates the comprehensive plan that the city has. So, I would ask you to take note of that and uh reference your comprehensive plan and um we'd appreciate it if you go by that. I know that's an important plan for the city. Um, I also reference how this violates the 1999 master plan for the course. And while I do realize there's been some changes with the pool added on that, it didn't impact the course like this is going to. It it it's going to shrink it significantly along that hole. And um those houses right there with all the development with the pool and everything right there. I think there's uh concerns for errant golf balls to be hit over there. Um I think most of the people that I know in the community disapprove of this plan and uh last night when we were at the town hall at the club and we asked if there's any future development, can you guarantee there won't be other areas of development? There was no guarantee on that. So um what's to stop them from continuing to develop on the course and devalue our properties? Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Bryce Aen. I'm the uh civil engineering representative for the applicant on this project. Um, I'd just like to speak to

some of the drainage issues that the residents have posed. Um, one of the first things that we look at when um, we're designing a development like this is how we're going to control the storm water runoff. Um, as one of the first residents mentioned, there is a small low spot that's just adjacent to the roadway. Um, and that is used to collect storm water as it runs off of Third Street. And so some of the initial things that we've looked at and we've discussed with the public works director is extending the storm sewer system so that it bypasses the houses they're proposed to be developed and so that that storm water can be collected where the fairway formerly was or is proposed to be. And so they would be detained and slowed down and then released at a slower rate. And by doing that, it actually increases or enhances the downstream flow. So it it helps reduce that flow that's coming off of the development. So that's some of the things that we look at when we're designing this um development. Um and we're taking drainage issues into a serious um consideration on this. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other? My name is Kevin Wilms. I live at 3604 Monahan Drive and I've previously submitted an email for your

consideration that outlines multiple concerns, but I'm going to focus on just one of them. In addition to living at 364 Monahan, I'm also the along with my wife the owner of 177 Augusta Lane. And just this last week, we broke ground on a new build out there in the property in the development. Uh you can imagine our surprise when the weekend after we broke ground, we get a letter that talks about making these changes to the golf course that we had chosen to invest in. One of the exact reasons why we chose to be out there was to enjoy the space that is Prairie Lakes, what it is today, what we thought it was going to be years to come. This change is proposed would irrevocably change the course for the worse. It goes totally against the reasons why we want to be out there and I'm sure it goes against the reasons why many people over the last 20 plus years chose to invest in that community. For that reason among many others, I urge you to reject this. Okay. Would anyone else like to speak? If you do, speak now. Any other comments? Yeah. All right. Seeing none, we're going to close the public hearing and then we'll move to commission discussion now. Paige, could you start us with the agenda memo on this? Um, yeah. It was just a pretty quick one. As you've seen in a lot of the public comments um there this first action is to look to amend that PD district. So when a PD zoning district is given you have an overall site plan

showing um what each area will consist of. Um on this one the original showed that north portion as um golf course or the south portion as the golf course and then north as the clubhouse. um was it 2016? I believe there is an amendment to allow for the pool and then a multif family residential structure that would kind of hover over those parcel lines. Um so this request is to change it into just residential development for 17 homes, single family detached homes. Okay. Thank you. Um, I forgot to ask you before I said thank you, I guess. Uh, so overall, um, I could be wrong here. So, I count 15 email responses, um, highlighting several issues, and I'm going to guess some of the same signatures are on the note sheet that we have gathered, which is totals 31 uh, signatures as well. So, um, any other feedback that you've received that we haven't? Nope. Everything's been passed along. Okay. Thank you. All right. Members of the commission, discussion points. Well, I don't I guess I'll be first. Uh I put a lot of credence in the original master plan and it has been change to facilitate some of the development in the past in 19 in 2016 and so on. Um to me this is a substantial change carving out that row of houses along third just

um I I just can't buy into that. I just can't um I think um Mr. Cousins proposal where he says uh basically for 26 years property owners and golf course members have relied on this city approved configuration and as was mentioned by the last gentleman you know he's just dug a hole to start building a new house based on that plan and to start messing with it I think is just not good stewardship. Um they did change the plan by selling off the um allowing the uh uh the driving range to move and and be a different use. Um they have changed it so that that vacant ground that's straight south of the parking lot could even become multifamily, but now it's occupied by a swimming pool and a pickle ball court, you know. So, you know, I I just can't justify that here. Um, this commission member would be opposed to the change. Thank you, John. I would like an explanation. On page two of the site development plan, um, there is allowance for drainage. Could could somebody explain that because right now there is there is an enormous amount of drainage out there. So how can somebody explain how that is going to work? Yeah. So in developments like this, typically what we'll do is we'll build some sort of

um earthn structure that retains the water and slowly releases it over a period of time. So that's what we would do in this case. Where where behind the houses? Um, it's behind sort of where that green line on the fairway is there a where behind the house is it's adjacent to the fairway. Yep. What is there now is a detention base? Yeah. You know, and it is and that's on the south side. Not on the south side. The west side on the on the west side. And that's where homes would that's going to be filled in with homes, right? Yeah. And so the one that's there right now is actually quite deep. This one would be fairly shallow. I mean, just a foot or two tall. You would hardly notice that there's a difference. And in a case like this where there's ample area to disperse the water, we would include like native grasses typically, sort of like you'd see in other parts of the course. So what's the green line going up and going through Bob Cousins property? That's the that's been modified. Yeah, that's sanitary sewer. That's the old We'll see them in other preliminary plots. If you go to the subdivision plaque, you can see the new route for the sanitary. Yeah. I I have a question if sorry if you were done. Are you I didn't want to interrupt you. Okay. For for me for you. Yeah. I mean I honestly you know more about this than probably definitely than I do. So, what why is this a good idea? I might defer that to the applicant. Um, that's maybe a better question for them. Um, we're providing what the city requires from an engineering perspective

on this project. Um, and that's kind of our role. Um, and so addressing the drainage issues is one thing that we're looking at. So, let me let me just build on that though. Okay. Um, the plans don't show, from what I can see, the revised design of the golf course because this is going to impact one there. It's down in the If you go under the regular business um Oh, F1. There's regular business in the subdivision. Oh, okay. It's show. Which one did you click on? Um, Bur links whole 10 realignment section. It's down. Oh, okay. Sorry. Let me look at that. Ask my question. Well, there's Okay. So, it it basically takes the I don't play golf. The fairway, is that the right word? And pushes it east. Yes. Which means it's going to be fairly close to the prop. the new build. It would be close to the new properties on the west side and closer to the future development of that outlot K. Is that what that's called? Fairwork. Um, it does seem tighter there than it does anywhere else throughout the golf course today in terms of the relationship of the fairway to the houses. And I guess that strikes me as a little risky. I mean, I think that if I were going to I I guess I'd be worried about golf ball. I mean, especially if I was hitting it. Me as well. Yeah. You know, I think um that's definitely something that we've

discussed with the applicants. Um it is a little tighter. Um but you know if you know that's not necessarily something that we're taking into account for when we're producing the engineering documents for this. Sure. So I I kind of can't speak to that. So then who's responsible for designing a successful and well-designed fairway? Is that part of this development? I mean, you're forcing then the golf course to have to redo something that they weren't planning on redoing. Whose responsibility is it to make that be as good as it was? The applicant owns all of it. Okay. But it seems to me that it's just moving the lines of that fairway for financial purposes of a development. It does look like that. Yes. Where is your water retain your retention pond? Where's that at? It's not I don't see it on here. I see you've got a a drain line going from the street down past the fairway. But is that where it's going to be? Right out right off the fairway right next to the houses that of the the fairway edition over here. Not necessarily. No. And we're still working through this. You got 24,000 square ft of housing/driveway is going to take up green space and you're going to tell me that no water is going to land over here in these other houses. Uh we're working through that with Justin at the city public works director. Um, but our initial plans would be to place that retention area just what is north on this plan of the tea boxes. So, if you went back to the golf course

layout, but that still drains straight down to the fairway division. All this whole thing, the tough drop shows, it goes right straight into his his whole property line, his whole subdivision. Yeah, that's that's correct. It does right now. And so this would retain the water that's running off of these proposed homes. Where's it going to go once it retains it? How are you going to do that? You going to build up a big wall between the fairway development and yours and the fairway? Well, so when we look at a development from when we look at a development from an engineering perspective, we just we're not increasing runoff from a proposed development. That's our decreasing where the water soaks into the ground. So yes, you are increasing runoff. Okay, that's I've done this before when I used to live out there. It does run it does increase the runoff. Okay. Well, we've made every effort with, you know, to work with the city to try and, you know, amend this problem. I just like to know I understand where you're putting your retention, but how is it going to be retained and not go into the homes of the future homes of the fairway division? Will it be released on the natural water course just as it was? So, as the water were to run across the fairway, it would then disperse just as it was in the previous state. I I mean I know this it's hard to answer that question because it seems like we're collecting the water downstream and towards that development whereas we're just trying to retain it and slow that water down from reaching that downstream development. Retaining also collecting retaining collecting. Yes. Wouldn't that render the use of that hole uh unusable for a

longer period of time? The golf hole? Yeah. This would be off of the golf. Unless it rained a lot, then it would be on the golf hole. Right. What's that? Unless it rained a lot, then it would be on the fairway or even in the development. So, in this diagram, we're showing it north of the T boxes that were proposed. Does he plan on raising the T boxes and raising the green? because that's again more drainage. This is still very preliminary so we haven't dug into that level of detail yet. So north of the T- box you mean like closer to the ball courts that area? Uh sorry that would be playing north on this diagram. So, um, it's to the actual east of So, he's talking about right in here, but we've got a lot of bite on those. Any more questions? I just have one. Um, understanding a lot of this is preliminary. Could you give like an percentage estimate to the storm water plan? Is it 10% done? do, you know, just kind of like out of this timeline where you are right now, could you qualify how much you've looked at the retention? Yeah, I mean, it's hard to quantify that that type of analysis that we do. Um, we're definitely looking at it from the city. A lot of the runoff actually that's attributed through that area is coming off the road. Mhm. Um so that's why working with Justin trying to you know identify exactly how much water is coming off and how much we're going to need to retain. So right now I would say we're very preliminarily looking at that but I can't really put a number to it at this point. Thank you. Thank you. I um I would like to hear from some of

the folks who have spoken about why they feel this will devalue the property they already own. Much of that property is quite a ways away from this from these 17 homes. Uh but why do you feel it will devalue your property at this point? Yeah, I'll speak on that. Sure. Um, when the course was originally built, there were studies done to design that golf course to be a top tier golf course for this area. Modifying that design changes all specs for that golf course. You're going from a par4 to a par three on that hole. So, already you're losing one stroke. They talked about maybe changing a hold as a par4 to a par five to make it the same par, but that changes the whole the whole way you play that golf course. How does that affect property values though? Well, that part of the reason people want to live on there is because it's a top tier course and that's why you built nice homes on that course and you had all that open space. When you start to pack a bunch of houses in there, you lose that feel for the neighborhood. You lose green space. Waverly has sold off a park down by the Cedar River in the past. Um they've sold off green space. So now they're losing more green space to accommodate housing. Um we I personally feel that it impacts my property value when you pack in those houses. It's a different neighborhood for Waverly. It's not a neighborhood where the houses are packed in there. And when you start to do that, where does it stop? So we approve this. Then we have another one wherever else there's prairie grass or they want to modify the golf course again. And so I'm thinking of the future when I think about my property value as well. There's a lot of other spaces they'd like to develop out there. And I don't agree with that. One of the reasons I moved out there and I support

that community is because of that space and because of the layout of the course. So I I there are a lot of reasons that I think that this isn't a good idea. Yeah. There are some arguments though that I'm have struggling to understand the logic behind. And one of them is the sort of green space argument to be honest. I while it is a green space, it is not really a publicly used green space except to play golf. It's not like anyone can just go do it. Playing golf is um prohibitive for many people in the community. I would and I I mean I I don't play golf so um but I just don't feel like that's an argument that's as strong as storm water or 17 driveways on the street or um changing the master plan and kind of the what it was intended to be. So I'm a little skeptical on some of the arguments here and I understand what you guys are all think you're sitting there going how many arguments can we make to see what will stick and I get that. Yeah. And but I do think that we should maybe not focus on the loss of green space because I don't really think that you're really affecting overall green space of the city that much or really public parks in a way. I can understand that if you would see the amount of people that walk around the loop that live in that neighborhood within the golf course, even the street, they walk down the street there because there's no sidewalk. There'll be a side there'll be sidewalks here from other neighborhoods. Yeah, it it's a lot of traffic out in that neighborhood. There's already an Aldi over there that brings a lot of traffic to that neighborhood. And um so it it's a concern of ours. It might not be the primary concern, but it is a

concern. Um, and then where does it end? You know, so we approve this and then we go and approve other areas. And sooner or later, no one wants to live out there anymore. So, I mean, that's not why we moved out to that neighborhood. And as you saw in 2018, the council notes, they denied it. Um there were some other areas on the far east side of the course that they were trying to develop as well. Um so you know there's been no studies done there's been no studies to show whether or not it increases or decreases the property values. Um so I think you know I didn't know about this until 2 days ago and I live in that neighborhood and I think a lot of people in this room didn't know about it until two days ago. So we've not seen any studies to show what it's going to do to our property values. Um, and that's a concern for us, David. How how, you know, just from the perspective of the master plan, how binding is that? So, I want to clarify when you say master plan, are you talking golf course master plan or the comprehensive plan? I'm talking the master plan, the 1999 master plan, the planned unit development. And what was your question? I missed it. I'm sorry. How b how binding is it? How binding is it? It's binding just like zoning. It's a zoning it's an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Isn't that correct page? A plan unit development. So the it went through three readings and it's adopted as a uh as a PD district. the plan itself if it gets amended of how Bill did it in 18 or was proposing to do in 18. It's just a excuse me resolution change at that point because you're just changing

um the layout of it rather than a zoning ordinance. But I mean we're designating this is an application to change use from golf course to residential. So that's just that's the same weight as a zoning ordinance change. So it's got to go to the council and go through I assume three readings and and the whole bit. And so how binding is it? Um I don't know how to answer that for sure. Um it's kind of like any of your other subdivisions that you have. I guess is we've approved this layout to go forward. Now, we've gotten plat surveys to change those previously. That's to a smaller scale than what this is. This is obviously a lot bigger of an area. So, can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? I It's up to um kind of the applicant and their members since that's a private business on there. Yeah. So the way I understand this Kathy is that that in order to make this change you come through the process that we're going through right now right so that's the binding side of it it's not an unchangeable thing there's just a process for change and that's what's happening now this is the first step in that process for change so it's it's binding in regard so in the you have to go through this process okay so in the I'm I'm just looking at this procedurally so let's suppose that this is not approved. Mhm. Let's pretend it's not approved by the commission tonight. Uh what are I'm I'm kind of thinking about Will's uh comments about where does this where do these changes

stop? Uh and so how how does what what happens if this is uh denied then the owner can pursue other changes to the PD? Well, we'd have to go through the same amendment process. Go through the same process. Yes. Okay. So, the question really that we're dealing with is this a um I'll just use the term good. I don't know if that's the the best word, but but is this a change to that PD that uh makes sense for whatever technical reasons we talk about? Correct. Which it might be different on another part of a change to that PD. Is this how it was changed to have a multiple multiple family area? because that wasn't in the original plan and it was changed to have the multiple family um designation there. So I think when he when Brent first proposed this back I don't remember what year it was he talked about putting two buildings four stories with 100 people residential or 100 unit residential. Uh so I mean that's how that changed um from the original. So that's been done once and so you you take a look at here even though that wasn't implemented it became a swimming pool but it's still a multiple family designation right now. Is this part multiple family? No. But the the area to the north in there, you know, so he could go take down the pickle ball court and put up a a multiple family type of a unit. So that I think that's the thing you got to be thinking about here is that's something that will come back because he can

rightfully do that right now. What he's doing now is putting these down along Third Street. I'm not trying to sit here and advocate for him. I'm I want to make sure we took it look at the whole history here and understand what's happening here. I think I'm right on that. I'm not for sure. Is that right? So you're saying David there's a chunk of this? Yeah, this this property this chunk right here I be south of the parking lot is it was amended in 16 according to the resolutions to allow him to put talk about a church or multif family dwelling in that green space or that open field. So on the main screen so everyone can join us here it would be the area south of the park like you said. Yeah, I think you got to look at the whole picture here and understand what has happened in the past here with the multiple family situation and that's how you change different areas. So, it can be changed throughout the whole um PD. So, I mean it's just something that and so going on the history with that too cuz it's happened one other time um the triangle of red breezy hills. So, early 18 end of 17 what was that? Breezy Hills. Kate's pulling it up in the corner, southeast corner. Um there's looks like it's owned by Ted Weightman right now. That plat survey was approved in end of 17 or early of 18. Mhm. Um and so that was also was not on the original plan. Now that's just one single family. Um but that one was approved and the one that was denied was just to the north of those five lots and that was later in 18. Now, have any of these previous changes changed the actual golf course like the greens and the tea boxes and the fairways? That triangle? I don't think so. I don't

know about this swimming pool area, but did that change it? No. Yeah, I'm happy. Okay. Bren Dstrom, thanks for thanks for a few minutes. Just want to address a few things. It's it's an interesting spot to be in. A lot of these people in the room are are great customers of the golf course. Um long-term supporters, so I understand that. Um I'm thankful for them. Uh and I understand that I've made some of them upset by this proposal. Um so it's a weird spot to be in. Uh you wish to withdraw it? I I do not I do not I think the if if this is turned down, we will go back to the multifamily buildings and put up the 100 units. That's that was the original plan. And so John John that's what we proposed in uh 16 and we brought that forward and that was approved that kind of sounds no no it's not a threat that's that was the original plan I just want to just want to be clear about that but we have turned changed the golf course why so I'm going to jump in just for a minute so I'd like to keep it to one comment at a time um just so we can maintain some discussion here so while uh Mr. Alstrom has the podium. Let let's let him speak. So, the golf course was changed uh when we put the when we put the pool in. Um I think Kate, you made a comment about the safety of the hole. So, currently when when golfers tee off on that hole, they they pull out their driver and they do their best. uh with this change would shift it to a much shorter hole where it would be a it'd be more of a 150 yard shot where no longer you'd have that that long range club. So that that is a thought. It really has to be changed either way where they're teeing off from right now. An errant shot could go in the pool. It it has to

be changed. It's going to be addressed. I I think that it's it's not a threat. very likely that this hole will be a par three and that and that's that's a decision that myself and the staff are going to have to make. Uh so we did change the hole at that time when we brought the pool in because they did tee off from a further part uh behind that. Um as far as Ted's property that that did not change the course at all. It looks the exact same as it does today. Ted never went forward with building anything there. Um Mark Ever owns the lots and I think someone just started building a house there on the corner. um just last week pro possibly uh in one of those lots and and he owned that before I did. Um but yeah, golf courses have changed. We all we have two great courses in this community and uh at one point the the golf course the municipal course was completely different and it a part of it was sold to the hospital and it uh a new part was added. It's it's the precedent has happened here before and and I think it's a great course still uh there and um you know I think this is a great course. I I love the cousin family. They've been um so it's it's it's hard to be against them. Uh but I do believe everyone's values has raised with the the level of investment that we've put in this course over the last 10 years and I think it'll continue to do so because we've been um stewards of the course. We won't um as long as we own it, we we plan to make it better each year. And um I know there's an argument of whether or not this makes it better or not. And I understand that we are all not going to agree on that. I think what we're here to do is talk about a change from the plan to have two buildings, which was the the plan I brought in 16, and that was approved, and change that from that plan of 100 units to this plan of 17. I was I was myself surprised by the push back because I thought we were coming down in

the density a long ways. Um as far as the water runoff there there's people that are they're engineers uh engineers that work for the city, engineers that work for us and that has to be approved before anything is built. Nothing can be built without a approved drainage plan. Um and and and that that that goes beyond this meeting tonight. I don't think that's what this meeting tonight is about. Um but anyway, I appreciate it. I understand that there's some some push back in the crowd and up here um tonight. So, if you have any questions for me, I will stay until you tell me you're done with me. I did ask an earlier question that I think maybe you were going to have to answer. I I'm ready. Which is why is it a good idea? Why is it a good idea? Okay, I I own this build business and this golf course and to the best of my ability, I need to have it run profitably or else we will not have a golf course at all. 10 years ago when when I was called by the members, some of the members, it it was just going to be sold to a church. They asked me to invest in the property and and take over that ownership and and and I agreed to do that. Since then, we've put in millions of dollars of investment through the pool, through the pickle ball, through renovating the clubhouse. It's hard to make money at a golf course. So, we do have to find ways so that so that we can make this golf course a better place long term. Everyone that lives on the golf course, they're more likely to be a member of this golf course while I own it or when someday someone else owns this. So, I believe it's in the betterment of this course to have more people live on the course. I I love hearing the story about someone building on the course and how excited they are. I think these 17 people would be excited to live there as well, to enjoy this course, to enjoy the view. And so the more people that can live on the course from my perspective

as the owner is a positive for the course. Okay, that answers my question. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And I know our public hearing is closed, but I feel if there's other comments or discussions, um, feel free, um, to, uh, those comments. Now, you know, I don't want to stifle that. I just wanted to make sure we were talking in order. I just a general comment that uh the part about the 100 unit apartment complex I think you'll lose members and that's a risk he's willing willing to take. Um I'm confident of that. I know myself I wouldn't be a member if that happened. Um and I probably wouldn't stay in that community. Uh Dale Goi, I live at 168 Eagle Ridge Drive. You know, we talk about the housing. Mr. Dalstrom has done a lot of good things in the community. No, no question. This, however, is not the right thing to do. He sold the driving range for $1 million. that was changed so they could have multi- family housing on it. 10 acres. 10 acres of housing right across the street. He also bought Tagalong Trail that has 23 already plotted lots. Already plotted. He sold that off. Plenty of opportunity to to housing

instead of carving up a beautiful golf course. It's wrong. It's wrong on so many issues. Is this wrong from a safety standpoint? You there was some mention of packing all this in in that area. I have two sons that live on the golf course, too. And my one son Quint lives on M Mulligan Circle. Hole number two has some tea boxes spread out there. You couldn't imagine that somebody could hit a golf ball way over there to the housing from to Mulligan Circle. My son has broken windows on his house. His sighting has been hit. He gets golf balls in the backyard. And he even found a golf ball on the front of his house on Mulligan Circle. There are some real serious problems when you redesign a course that isn't laid out like this. You're going to have liability questions, I think, for the city and the owner. If you approve this, for example, knowing that a safety issue was raised, a serious safety issue, when you pack these all in, everybody's not a pro golfer that hits it straight every every time. hooking, fading, all kinds of things. That area is packed is going to be packed with houses 17 plus all the houses that Bob Cousin wants to build in his Outlaw K. There's going to be problems when somebody's child gets hit with a golf ball, puts an eye out, has brain damage. Who's going to have liability for that? when the city is aware. Nobody's done a safety study on this proposal. I would guess if somebody has some serious

injury or even property damage and this issue is brought up to the city and the city says, "So what? We don't care. Who's going to pay? Who's going to get sued?" That's a serious issue in this area. Not that doesn't even measure all the other issues that should clearly deny this project. Thank you. I also want to give Brent credit for what he's done owning the golf course. I think credit is deserved where it's due and it's certainly due here. Uh Brent also referenced precedent and changing a golf course and he talked about the city course which is true but I would also remind you what was the exchange in the city course and whose betterment was it for? It was an expansion of the hospital benefits the community versus which would uh this this change benefit. I think it's clearly different in the city case. The course also expanded and added two new holes of arguably better quality than what they had before. And the course in general is probably better off for it. This proposal there's not there's not a any sort of pathway to a better option for the course. It is objectively a a deterioration of the course. And I think there's other golfers here that could probably fill you in. I know many of you or at least one of you has claimed that you're not a golfer. I am. And I can tell you it's a less desirable layout of the course. For other golfers who care about that thing, it's less desirable. And if you put the the plan back up that has the layout of the hole, as somebody who I I hate saying

this, I'm a reasonably competent golfer. uh a five handicap approximately. People would consider me a decent golfer. I'm nervous that I could cause a safety issue on that hole. The edge of the green as it's drawn, if you look from the T- box, the edge of the green, it almost goes over the property owned by Bob Cousin. I can guarantee you I'm not hitting the green every time, and many other people are. Somebody is going to get hit and they're going to get hit frequently. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to put a motion before the uh commission. I don't mean it to end discussion, but uh you can ask for it. Basically, I would move that the planning and zoning commission not not recommend approval of this resoning application for an amendment of the land use and PD plan to the city council. All right, we have a motion to the commission. Is there a second? Second. All right, we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. I would ask that we take a vote. All in favor of the proposal to not recommend this for approval to city council. Uh say I. I. Hearing none opposed. Hi. Okay, there is a pose. Okay, so the motion still passes. We do have one opposed. Kate, did you get everything captured? Kate, pa. Perfect. Probably should have done a roll call. I thought about that. But thank you, John. I think we captured I think you did, too. I was trying to watch. So, all right. I I just want to say though that

I think that there's just not been enough vetting of this. I'm not convinced that it's inappropriate to build on the west edge of the golf course. I think that this isn't the solution. And I'm not sure that 100 apartments is the right solution either. But um if you look at it holistically, there is development around the perimeter of the golf course everywhere. And yes, there are safety issues even today. Um so I'm not sure that the idea is wrong. I think that this solution is probably not the right one. So when I say no, it's because I don't think this has been vetted out adequately. That's all. I've got two hours of driving time to think about this, but I'm going to take you. My concern is I'd much rather have 17 units than have some large multifamily back here. And that's the only, you know, that's I have a tough time with this. I understand. I've been involved with this course since its beginning. Um, but I, you know, we passed that multif family because that's what Brent said he was going to do back in whatever it was. And so that's where I'm coming from. I mean, I I'm not saying I I love this, but I love it better than a multif family being put up there. That's, you know, my concern there. because one way or the other I he's going to try to um turn around and put more people out there. There's a study that was done by Golf Magazine I think many many years ago and

it's been reone that half the people that live on a golf course don't even golf because they want to be there for the green space. So I think that's you know why there's people that want to be there. So anyway, just wanted to let everybody know where I'm at. Yeah. And and I since we're discussing this a little bit, um I'd like to just make a comment. You know, I appreciate all of the feedback for and against and um your participation in this process. Uh we were able to review all of these comments. Um and just remind you this is really as planning and zoning, we are an advisory commission to the city council. So the final decision does rest with the city council. Um, so I encourage you to um, you know, contact your council member. Um, give them some feedback as well. Sorry, Brian. Yeah, I'm I'm word one, so I'm going to be hearing from all you certainly reach out and again, uh, you know, I just wanted to to, but it will take a super majority of the council bill. Sure. It's going to take. Yep. I just want to make sure everybody understands that process. We're a piece of it. So five or seven. No, six. It's six out of seven. Unless you're carve somebody off. Okay, that could happen. All right. So, hearing no more discussion on that. We do have another u discussion here for our public hearing. So I will open a public hearing for item two of the agenda in that section which is the reszoning application for multiple city properties to U1 environmentally sensitive areas. Um so with this open now if anyone would like to comment on that uh please follow the same rules

approach podium name and address and uh address the commission as a whole. have a mass [Music] excess. I just want to know how you can get 100 units. Yeah. Three stories. That's so I mean these are 12 shut the doors. Shut the doors. Yeah. These are these are so public hearing still open for this section. Does anybody have any comments for item two in the public hearing section? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. We'll move into commission discussion starting with agenda memo if you would page. Yeah. Um so no written comments were received for this item prior. Um what this is is basically just reszoning a lot of those FEMA flood buyout lots um to more accurately reflect of the current use today. Um planning and zoning actually approved this uh May or maybe July and I think it was July of 2022. It went to council for first reading and then it just got dropped. That was right um in the time when the previous zoning administrator left. So I think that it just kind of fell through the cracks in that transition and so we're bringing it back now just to get those more accurately reflected the use. Yeah, I think I remember this going through. I do follow it through uh the council side

at the time. Um so obviously staff supports this. Yeah. Um any changes to the original proposal or is this as it was? Okay. Remove two parcels. So two parcels were removed which is a zero. And were they removed because they were already zoned correctly. So they were mistakenly on the first list. They were already reszone. Okay. So this list currently is as accurate as we know it to be for Kate very this list that I just have one question. Some of these are some of these properties that are they're going to become U1 environmentally sensitive because they were FEMA buyouts. Correct. Correct. But that was before the dam changed and the flood maps changed. But that FEMA's designation you're stuck with because it's a FEMA designation. Yep. But they know whether there's in the flood plane or not. Billy things are getting changed now. Well, and that's the comment I had to Paige is that in the Northwest there's probably 13 to 15 of these lots that are now out of the flood plane and buildable. I mean, it's very, you know, right across the river over here, we've got a new subdivision north of St. Paul's Church that are building new units, and the lots lot on the corner is a FEMA lot that's going to become a U. And it's all the same. You can't tell the difference. My my qualification to Paige was is I said with the dealmaker in Washington, let's not forget that we could should try to get some rules changed so that we aren't stuck with this forever because several many of these are very very nice developable

laws. I know a prior uh city attorney went up to DC and tried lobbying for it and um was shot down. Um I've been working with a couple representatives because Cedar Rapids was trying to go through the same thing. they were trying to lobby because they've got several lots that now would be buildable and out of the flood plane. Um, and they just keep getting pushed back to. So, if it was state funds, the state of Iowa has said you can buy those back out for the cost, but the federal is still saying no. So, very they're very flexible right now. Yeah. FEMA doesn't have any money. So, I I wouldn't be surprised if there could be some of this that changes. It raises the question of if we just leave it alone and let it sit a little longer, is it a better strategy for future development rather than to change it now? I don't know that really makes a difference, you know, to zone it back again. Is there anything pending to be built on these for a park or anything? No. So, it can just walk Yeah, you can and you can still do parks. You can do parks and gardens and all that good stuff, but you can't build a structure. Well, there's still restrictions on the type of parks. I mean, I know there was some conversation about trying to get a volleyball court on one of them and was told like, you know, that's not the right kind of drainage or something. Well, that's still no because of FEMA's guidelines, right? Um because of the amount having to fill to bring in, you're not allowed to bring fill into these lots and quite a bit of elevation change on those. um and it butts up next to the dry run. So, we can't put up a fence to stop the ball from going down into um the waterway. So, they are very particular. Yes. On items you can put onto these lots, but right now most of these lots are residential today. And ideally, you would want to be able to fill them in with more residential structures, especially if we

have a housing market that's trying to build smaller low-income housing, but currently people look at the map and they say, "Look at all these residential zones that people can build on." And then we have to say, "Actually, no, you can't build those cuz they're FEMA lots." So, it would be nice. It would be nice if the message was clear. It would be nice if the zoning map reflected that you can't build here. Correct. If that changes later, we can switching back and that'd be fine. The zoning should reflect what you're using today. The future land use now that can show as residential because in the future we would like to see those as residential. All right, that makes sense. Yeah. And the ones that have taken are not at the front. They're really only the ones in the northwest cuz that's the only ones that the dam helped. Right. So, it's not, you know, of the 30 or 40, it's not all of them by any means. Okay. Other discussion on this item? If not, I would ask for a motion. I move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the reszoning of multiple city properties to U1 environmentally sensitive to the city council. Second. All right, we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor? It is. Once you have a U1, you can always take it back out, right? Yep. For sure. Absolutely. Okay. I just It's important, I think. Yeah, I agree. Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, that's how I heard it as well. So, we'll resume the vote. All in favor say I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes as well. So moving on to item E F excuse me um in our regular business um I guess I asked the commission a little bit here. So this is a review of

the preliminary plot uh for the Prairie Links edition. Um based on our earlier decision um this is something we can still discuss and review and proceed with. Um, I asked the commission for your thoughts on doing that. Can you really I don't think you can. They don't I don't see how we can approve a plat for something that we've not approved the development plan for. No, you don't have to come back if the council approves it and then we'll have to approve the plat then. Yeah, we were debating about this earlier. So, I mean I think I think I'm right on that. You agree with me too? You got more. I I don't know how you can approve a preliminary plat that's contrary to the zoning ordinance, which is what the plan development is. Yeah, I understand. And and I guess I would move that we table this until further whatever happens with the city council. Okay. I'd second that. All right. So, we have that moved and seconded. I don't think we have to vote on that technically, do we? So, basically, you're postponing it until and if council approves the amendment. Yes. Can we bring it back off the table? And Okay. I would do a vote on it just All right. So, we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. Uh all in favor of tableabling this agenda item until further clarity is provided uh by council on this resoning application say I hearing none opposed that motion passes. What does it what what does that mean? Just a second. If there's f further clarification from council, what do you mean? If the council approves the reszoning, then this becomes a valid

plan and then it would come back to us as an agenda item. And maybe by then they'll have the detention basin and all that stuff worked out too cuz right now that's not shown on this file. All right. Any other discussion on that before I move on? No. All right. Item number two, regular business is election of officers. Ironically, are you willing to continue as uh chair of the commission? I would accept your proposal for that. I move that the plan zoning commission elect David Larson as chairperson. [Laughter] All right. That's every yet it's been simple enough and then a motion or um do we actually take a vote? She was that do we take a vote? Yeah. Okay. Do I lead the vote? You can move on. We have a second now. You can say all in favor. Yes. Now you zoning commission. You the um chair votes you. Yeah. It's not like the the council there. Yeah. You know, I knew I knew that that or you could hold yourself back until and break a tie if you think it's going to be 33. Is there a risk? That didn't sound like it. So, anyway, all jokes aside, u all in favor of me continuing as commission for another year here. Say I I I myself too. So, all right. That motion passes. We'll see. All right. Number two. Hang on. There's a second part to that before we we have to Oh, yeah. We need the vice president. Vice chair. Yeah. That's where I was going. Oh, wait. I thought you were going to the next agenda. Okay. So, uh I would entertain discussion on vice chairperson for the commission. Who's

the vice chair right now? John. He's not as me. How they gave us a move the pling commission elect John Meyer as vice chairperson. Second. All right. We have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor of John maintaining vice chair person say I. I. That was bother me. All right. Any other Dave is such a regular attender. I never challenged which I like. different. All right. Uh item three. Um yeah, moving into that under regular business, uh which is apply a survey for parcel K at 140, excuse me, 401 glasses Maple Avenue Waverly. Uh Kate, can you walk us through Kate? Sorry, Paige. It's okay. Um yeah, I apologize that this is the very last on the agenda for you to have to sit through the whole item. your item came in last hour. Um so yes, they've requested the plat survey for parcel um parcel K which is just combining they uh or she owns all of the that platted culde-sac um wanting to do an addition on that north side of the property. Um and so they want to combine those two lots into one to um allow for the addition. All right. Any comments from staff on this one? No. Okay. Commission discussion. I guess I had a question. Are you going to take the street return out of there that was built from the culde-sac and maybe kind of dress that up a little bit at all? Or

still shows it on the plat. Uh we're not going to do anything with that part of it yet because it's on the other side. Okay. Um, but uh we'll make our house as nice as we possibly can. Well, I mean now I just when you pull up the Pine Street in your book, there's not a whole lot we can do with that. Uh the sewer is right there. Uh so right, we might have to address the sewer issue on that side of it. Uh so I mean it's got the curb radiuses in there yet. They're not doing anything. So yeah. Um, no. Because our sewer runs uh our neighbors and our sewer run right through there. So, we uh we can't mess with that right now until we uh get that taken care of. I don't see it as an issue. It's just kind of Pine Street is never going to go through as a culde-sac. We just might as well. I mean, it's So, it could be vacated kind of like um Tagalong did. Yeah. Where they just vacated there. Yeah. Someday. Yeah. Or maybe if there's lots in the back get sold, you know, I guess that could happen, too. Well, our our intention was we bought them so that they would not be developed ultimately. Um, we wanted to preserve the land behind it and just the openness for our for our personal uh generation. Uh that doesn't mean that we will not sell them in the future when we don't uh want to live in Waverly or on that part of Waverly. Things change, right? Yep. You bet you. You bet. So, for sure. Okay. Maybe I'm just obtuse, but what exactly is happening? I mean, so you have that larger lot and you're splitting it into two. No, the the entire larger lot is the one larger. So, this is going to become one just Massive lot. Yes. Okay.

No. No. Just not massive, just larger. There's We're having four and then the one right behind us. Okay. So, those two are being merged together. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. So, one buildable lot out of the culde-sac is being combined with the south lot. Okay. Yes. Not all five. I'm sorry. So, but so all we're doing is just combining those two into a single build over the property line with Gotcha. So you could you could build like north to the north. Okay. Yep. And you're still respecting the I would say where the road would be. Yes. We're not changing any of the road. The um our lots are behind the road and there's nothing. Okay. Gota by the road you mean the roundabout or the the road is not a road yet. So you're basically 402 and 403. So the last four digits of the Yep. Yep. Right. Y So are they they're bound by the platted culde-sac though for setback. Yep. Yeah. I move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the plat survey for parcel K located at 401 Maple Avenue Waverly to Iowa to the Iowa Waverly Iowa City Council. Second. All right. Motion has been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes as well. Thank you for your feedback. Uh item G, staff updates. Paige, do you have anything? Um just to welcome Pete as his first meeting on the commission. Good times. Yeah, it's quite the day to kick it off. Absolutely. We're always this busy. Sure. All right. Uh, item H, commission updates. That That was my thunder that

Paige just stole. I was going to introduce Pete, but okay. Um, I don't have anything else. Anybody else have any comments for the any anything else for commission? Okay. I move that we adjourn. All right. We are. Thank you.