Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

this meeting of the planning and zoning commission to order. Paige, could you offer a roll call? David Larson. John Meyer here. Pete Fuller here. Stephanie Garner here. David Huser here. Kate Payne here. Kathy Olsen here. Um, [clears throat] next would be item C1, which is the approval of the agenda as pres as as printed. Would someone make a motion? Move approval. Second. Move and seconded that we approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed.

Motion carried. Item D1 is approval of minutes for the commission meeting on September 4th and the commission meeting on October 2nd. Um, I do have one correction that I found on the September 4th meeting minutes. If you page to page nine of 10, it says it was moved by Fuller, seconded by Olen, that commission recommend tableabling. And then it says motion did not pass. And I believe that that 70 vote would indicate that it did pass.

The motion to table pass. Yes. Yes. Um I would also point out on the October 2nd minutes on page 11, Oregon is misspelled. It's spelled like oregano without the O. Okay. So with those minor editorial or minor edits, um would someone like to make a motion to approve the minutes or accept the minutes? I guess it be I'll make a motion to accept this with the uh correct two corrections. Is there a second? Second.

So moved and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. They're approved. Okay. [cough and clears throat] Next item would be E1, regular business. Amend the Waverly City Code, Chapter 102, Flood Plane Management. Would you like to introduce that page?

Yeah. Um, so this came about uh Jason Con of the Iowa DNR came for our community site visit um last week and he brought forth these code changes just to remain in compliance with the NFIP. Well, there's a lot of changes and I did read it all and I don't know if there's uh anything that anyone else caught that were unacceptable or I have questions about. So, I guess I would open it to any questions.

There were a couple sections in there where it seemed like it had to do with use allowable uses. Is that a significant change in the use was changed to development for word wise and then there was those conditional uses that they just removed um because it was saying um something with the board of adjustment and he goes no variances just go through board adjustment and them concurrently. So now it's just removing the items that were listed out. It's not a major change to how we've been operating.

I I did find on page 15 just it's just a number lettering change 102.7.01 01 and then we have numbers 1 2 3 under that and number three has subsections that are one and two and I think those should be a and b you don't have a numbered section under a numbered section that's how the whole section is

yeah I think the sections are numbered there points within there and then if it's within the number then it's Yeah. So section three would be reviewed by the Iowa department is not required for proposed construction where A the bridge or culvert b the bridge or culvert again. Oh those numbers. Oh I see within part three. In part three. So 102.7.01 part three. This those things should be those should be A's and B. A and a B. Okay, gotcha. I wasn't down that far. [snorts]

I thought perhaps you were just doing that to make sure we read it. Oh, this is the formatting of how it's into our overarch, but no, I'll get that changed to A and B. Okay, any other questions or comments from members? If not, I would accept a motion. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Is there any further discussion? If not, uh would all those in favor say I? I. I.

Opposed. [clears throat] Note that the motion is unanimous. Okay. The next is item E2, platter survey uh on 1400 at 1400 Breamer Road agenda. Would you or Paige would you care to introduce that for [snorts] us?

Uh yeah, the applicants have proposed to split 1400 REM Road [snorts] into three separate parcels um for the potential sale for three future single family homes. Um, as you'll see in the agenda memo, couple of things that staff has looked at is your water sewer services. Um, water it they all three will connect to city water. Um, sewer is not within 500 ft. So, they would not be required to connect to sewer. Um, the park test did not pass. So, they have to instead of a traditional septic system, they would have to be an alternative system. And I emailed out some of those that Lindsay had sent earlier about possible options. Um, by not connecting to city sewer, partials are supposed to be 1 acre [cough] as [clears throat] well as 100 ft wide. Um, it meets the 100 ft wide. These lots are just shy of an acre. Um, so if recommended approval would be asking for variance for that. Um the second item is there is that existing accessory structure um 1500 square feet steel utility building which would be included on that parcel s um that parcel is proposed to be 03 [clears throat] acres and according to Waverly's accessory structure code lots of that size are up to are allowed up to 1,000 square ft of detach accessory structures. Um, so since it's proposed under one acre, that would be a variance for that as well if this gets recommended approval. Um, and then as you'll see, it does have that 60 ft access easement.

That would be a continuation of the existing road that's there basically, right? Correct. Yep. Okay. Paige, did you bring the uh minutes from the meeting when that was approved back about 5 years ago? Um really there wasn't much in those days. They didn't state several things that we talked about at that time. They're very summarized. Has this been had this been approved and then in 2021 this parcel was split off from the field? I believe um July 2021 it was split off for a single family development for all. So this in essence close to 3 acre parcel was just split off as one. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. [clears throat] What is the use of that uh auxiliary structure currently? Mhm. I don't know the owners are here if you want to ask them. I mean is it going to remain there with the when the variance is there? I mean, who would if it's a structure that's big enough, large large enough that it meets a variance, but yet you're going to fit in an single dwelling structure. How does that fit?

Well, in essence, I I believe the applicant is asking for a variance in the sideyard or variance in the building size, if that's correct. Yeah, I understand that. Does that have to go to board of adjustment? Not if we're sending it here and then to council. Okay. So with the plat survey just like on any plat if you you can request a varies through that process. What any [clears throat] does everybody have any thoughts or comments?

Well that's my question. I mean, this is designed for a single family dwelling with an accessory structure that exceeds what [clears throat] it's supposed to be. And how what what's the potential plan there for how the residence fits in there?

Well, it's going to be a tight fit, I guess. I I guess my comments regarding it um you know the I assume that I I guess I'd like to hear it from the owner um that they plan on doing um the alternative systems that we're talking about. I am familiar with them [laughter] and very frankly what they're doing is very simply you're building a secondary wastewater treatment plant on site to [clears throat] handle the effluent from the septi tank. There will be a discharge from these and that's different than the traditional septic tank infiltration bed that we're used to seeing those you know you you rely on the percolation of the soil and there is no discharge. So you know this thing falls from generally from the road back. So along that road somewhere there's going to be a discharge pipe um you know I when I look at the utility map that's provided there is apparently a storm sewer that runs along the opposite side of the road and I suppose an alternative would be to hook those discharges into that but that means that you're going to have the effluent discharge from those alternative systems coming out and running across the farm field continuously. ly whereas now it's an intermittent thing that happens with rainfall. So um I I have concerns with that. Um those secondary treatment systems um they're treating the effluent. They are mechanical. They require maintenance. It's not something [clears throat] that you ignore. You've got to look at it. Well, I I was familiar with a project

where we built u an ornco system in a subdivision when my design engineering days and you know they had to sign a maintenance agreement with the manufacturer and they came out monthly sampled the effluent and made sure the thing was working right. You know they just did. And um the difficulty was is that the community then when the owner decided he didn't want to pay for that maintenance contract anymore, there had to be an enforcement mechanism in place to make sure that that got done. Who's going to be the enforcement mechanism here? County health department.

Is she willing to do that? Would that then be a shared cost among the three owners of the Well, each owner have their own. And that's another thing. Each one could have their own or you could build an oversized one for all three. You can do that. But that makes it, you know, that means it becomes kind of an HOA situation where you're sharing cost. You can do that. Um I I my fear is that we're creating another Hines edition if you what's that? Or Murphy.

Yes, exactly. Hines or Murphy edition. You [clears throat] know the Hines the Hines edition is north on the Horton Road across from kind of across from the the new school. And right now the city is spending a lot of bucks evaluating. You know those are all built with wells and septic tanks. They got water now. still have their septic tanks and are evaluating and spending pretty good bucks, you know, trying to put together a plan to serve them with water and sewer improved. Um I I just wonder, you know, that's the difference between the the house density. So So what you're describing if they all go together, that's not a a lagoon.

No, no, no, no. It's a it's the same kind of a system that she referred to. You just build it three times as big. Yeah. You know, if if it was condensed to or enlarged to two lots, would there be a per test that would work then? Well, that's I I talked to our public works director and my understanding is the purse test failed because they hit bedrock. They have limestone 3 ft down, right? Yeah. Which means it will never There's There's a part of it that will that where the perk works. I'm sorry. One at a time. Sorry.

There's a there's a part of it that the perks uh worked. I know. But uh I don't know which part or how that would Well, if the limestone's only 3 ft down. I don't know. I mean, I was told that the it worked on part of it, but uh yeah, that's I was told that they did one park test and that and that was a result of that spot. That's not to say that if you move down that it would be the same result. Yeah. So, it would be every system that you want to put in is going to have to do a part, right? Do all the adjacent properties nearby have septic systems? Yes. And grandfathered in ones with historic types of standard.

I Well, it's there. It's like well when you and I lived up in Murphy um you know we were having issues. Yeah. And then the city came through and then there's a couple of them that didn't want to hook up but they still had to whenever they did they had to uh pay the fee. But where is the nearest sanitary line? About 1300 ft west and upill. West and uphill. across the copper terrace. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's a concern.

Yes. If you if there if you would like to speak to the issue, please come to the microphone and identify yourself. I'm Dean Chilling and uh we uh been working with Paige trying to see about this uh splitting into three lots

and uh the um the conformity of and scalability is I think we're on course with that these uh the average size of the fair home addition lots are4 acres They I know admit they're grandfathered in but their systems are uh standard septics and they so if there is a failure they have no choice but to go to the uh alternative septic system. So in view of that and the small square footage of these lots um the size of these lots are twice as as large and the uh the north and the south lots did pass. The middle lot is the one that did not pass because uh coastal plumbing dug with the backhoe to further verify that there was uh gravel there or bedrock, whatever you want to call it. So, I'm of the opinion that I I think the the uh lots S and U, the two outside lots that did pass the percolation test, uh could qualify for a standard septic system. um the middle lot. Um I think uh if we if it did go to an alternative system there [cough] plenty

of room to uh handle the effluent. Um there is maintenance more maintenance involved like you said. Um but the effluence effluent um I mean they've been described as you can it's drinkable. I wouldn't go as far as to do that, but it shows some some of them uh degree of uh uh how the for clarification the clarity of the effluent and everything. They they go to quite a bit of work to make sure that this water is very clean and clear. If you did route to the other end like you spoke, it would go down the concrete, the 15-inch concrete reinforced pipe, and it ends up in the same creek in the same place. Um, I I think we'd have better luck just keeping uh the uh septic fields uh over to the west and uh follow follow that natural drain course there. Um I don't know if there any other questions I could answer.

Why three lots instead of two? Well, uh, in the [clears throat] interest of scale and conformability and affordability, uh, people would more be more likely to, uh, afford, uh, an acre as opposed to an acre and a half, especially considering the the size of the other lots in the Fair Home Edition. These are huge compared relative to the existing lots in the fair home edition.

If it went to two lots, would they still they wouldn't need the variances, would they?

No. No. I mean, I I understand what you're saying. Just because those south of there are smaller lots, you know, that isn't a reason for us to be approving them as a um to go passing this with three lots. And if there if it was two lots and it would there's per would work in both those lots and there would be a variance for the building. I think that's what we I I think that's where I would lead to, you know, um I I just don't want to get into a situation uh where uh it could be a problem down the road and that's, you know, um when you came to it 5 years ago, you know, this was going to be a single, we approved that and that's just yeah, you know, it worked with that and it'll work with two, but I just don't see how it can work with three. That's my opinion.

[clears throat] our intentions there got thwarted to some affordability is is what we were I understand ran up against new construction uh affordability is pretty it's pretty tough yeah the the effluent coming out of a system like that would go where down the ditch well if you in the front if you if you click On the utility map, there is a pipe that's running along the easterly side of this roadway. The blue line. [clears throat] Oh, this one. That one. Okay. And it can be hooked into that and it takes it down to this.

But then it just goes out across somebody else's property. Correct. That or would you hook up to a field tile? Well, that not anymore. Not anymore. It's [laughter] I mean it just seems a little strange that even if it's cleaned and clear looking that you would allow the waste from three private pieces of property to drain across somebody else's property especially that we are a time of transfer state and that we monitor all those septic systems. Mhm. Yeah. Well, that's what every wastewater treatment plant does. Sure. But

I mean, the idea is that but that's monitored and those alternative alternative systems bring it up to basically standard secondary.

Um they may or may not be capable of removing phosphates and nitrates, but those are not a big issue with a single family dwelling. Um my problem still remains is that you know just because we got three or four feet of good soil [cough] that might be [clears throat] that's not over you know a wet time and and a family with four kids and all of that that you know that's when you size the system that percolation even if you build a conventional system it's going down. And when you have soils that shallow, you will never know when the system fails cuz it'll migrate into the bedrock below. And that's exactly the whole I don't know if you've heard of the car topography problems. That's exactly what's happening with those. I just don't feel that this lot ought to be developed until sewer is available. And that's where I stand on it. Enough of my comments. If it were two lots, would it then be compliant for the traditional septic system?

Based on the results that they have now, be the top one and the lower one that passed. [clears throat] Yeah. And then if the lots were bigger, would the accessory building have an issue? No. No variances. If each SWAT was over one acre, then they can have that bigger.

Originally, I was in the same camp as John cuz I went through that up in Murphy edition and they're going through it in Hines edition now. And I it's just it's something that there's no need to do it if we don't have to approve something. I mean, the rest of the people in Fairome sooner or later are going to get to a reckoning just like those two subdivisions did. And yeah, well, not only that, but even out in East um East Waverly. Yeah. Any further questions for Mr. Schilling or discussion?

If not, would someone care to make a motion? Well, just so we have something to act on, I would move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the plat survey creating parcels STNU, 1400 Bremer Road, Buy Avenue to city council. [clears throat] Okay. She you've made a ma made a motion to approve as it stands which would be granting the both of the variances so to speak

and that's how the motions are written on the agenda. So I think it's best to always do the motion to approve and then if you don't want it then you can vote no right um I I yeah since that's how it's written. Okay. Um is there a second to that motion? I will second that. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that it be approved. Um, is there any further discussion on that motion? Um, I would ask for a roll call vote. [clears throat]

Uh, Pete Fuller, no. Stephanie Garner, no. Dave Fuser, no. Kate Payne, no. Kathy Olsson, no. John. [clears throat] No.

So, this will be forwarded on to the council with no re with an adverse recommendation from planning and zoning.

So, I will talk to him after um I'll be in touch with you tomorrow or so to see if he wants to bring it to council with that recommendation. So if if he chooses to proceed to council, it would take a six vote basically. Three/4ers. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Moving on to [clears throat] item E3, adopt the updated Waverly zoning map. Page, you want to introduce it a bit? Yeah, this is just um the map that has been changed with the approvals that have been or the properties that have been reszoned since the last map was updated November of 2024. Um we have really just those two resonings that took place. The one on um GLSW was on the east side of town there kind of over um Walls Hollow and then the other one was always flood by outs that we finished the resulting from residential to the U1 and so the new map should reflect all those resilings. [clears throat] Okay. I move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the updated Waverly zoning map to city council.

There is a second. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would all those in favor say I? I opposed. Same sign. Okay. And item E4, regular business plan of survey separating parcel TT from 914th Street Southwest. Paige.

Yeah. Um, so this one is parsing off that back building. If you look at the aerial map, um the building that sits to the east of like the Napa building, um proposing to parcel that off uh to be used as a separate business. Um it does have its own sanitary sewer connection, a dedicated electric meter. Um the water service is shared with the Napa building. Um the agenda memo says that we still were going to be requesting the agreement. We did get that finalized today. Um Bo sent over the final one just this afternoon. Um and Justin Neons reviewed it and finds it acceptable. Um so if this moves forward then we'll take that to council.

Okay. So each would have their own meter but it's a shared water service line. Correct. So, the water meter will have to get installed also prior to going to council. Okay. We don't allow that in duplexes. We're going to have an issue that a duplex owner comes in and wants to convert it to a a dup, you know, separate ownership on a duplex. And we haven't allowed that, I don't think, for a shared. We did um there's a couple of them last year um that we did the common wall agreements, right? Yeah, but I mean but they're but

they each had their own water meter and then they had within that agreement how they would be maintained, who had ownership and how the costs were split. Yeah, I think the one up by the hospital was that way. Yep. Hospital then second Avenue Northeast. Yeah. I just But the years ago we didn't allow that. Correct. Yeah. Yep. And now the utility code does say that um section 74 something I just looked at it today um that if it is shared then we just have to have that agreement on place and things. So that must been a change to the code to allow that.

Any other comments or questions? Are you the applicant here? Hey, do you have any comments you would like to make to the commission? Um, okay. I mean, unless you have questions. Okay. I mean, if you have a question, I'll be glad to answer. My only comment is I'm glad to see something going into that building that'll do something. I will I will say that I plan to make the building more appealing. Okay. [laughter] Will you be taking bottles and cans?

I will not. I will not. I I own the mobile, so I'll have now it's really good because I'll have access back there now to the back of my building, which I didn't have before. And uh my plan is to run my internet. I have an internet business currently in Water that I've had four separate breakins into my buildings downtown Water and I need to relocate to a different location and that is what I'm planning on. You I should have asked you to come up and identify yourself. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm Zach Basher. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. So, is uh any more discussion or would someone like to make a motion?

I'll move that the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the PL survey separating Brussel TT from 919 Fourth Street Southwest uh contingent. Well, and it no longer has to say contingent upon uh staff approval of the water service agreement because that's already been received. That's been received. Yep. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Been moved and seconded. I assume that service agreement gets recorded then. It will. He actually um Boil it into the deed. So, it creates the easement agreement for that utilities. It creates the other easement. So, it'll be recorded with the deed. So, we'll go with the deed and then it'll be an ongoing need restriction on the room.

Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Okay. Uh it's been moved and seconded. Um I believe on this one we again can do a voice vote. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion carried unanimously. Paige, do you have any staff updates? I do not.

How about Katie? Does she have any? No. commission updates. Um, I guess the only comment I wanted to um I think everybody got the uh thing about the closed meeting education. Did you all get something about that way back when? Okay. I didn't know if you mean the mean the education continuing education for for closed, you know, open closed meetings. Oh, yeah. The open Yes. Yeah, that's by Everbrite or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody is welcome to do it. Um if you are appointed on or after July 1, you're required to

Yeah. I listened to it the other night. It was long. It was it Well, it was long and it um you know was a long PowerPoint with lots of information that honestly I think would be better read. Yeah. But there was an opportunity to ask questions. So I registered for it too for the meeting on the 19th. So I'll spend my early afternoon doing that. Get comfortable. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other commission members have something along the way? Okay. Is there a motion to adjurnn? I'll make that one.

So moved and seconded. [clears throat] I think we're journed. How's the meeting?