Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2011 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, August 17, 2011 — 5:15 PM City Hall — Emma J. Harvat Hall AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Special Exceptions 1. EXC11- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Kirk and Wim Murray for a special exception to allow a reduction in the rear principal building setback requirement for property located in the Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 1026 Fairchild Street. 2. EXC11- 00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Construction Co., Inc. for a special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant in the General Industrial (1 -1) zone on Independence Road, north of 420`h Street and south of Liberty Drive. D. Other E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: September 14, 2011 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 10, 2011 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz RE: Nonconforming lots and setback requirements Determining the Rear Lot Line The applicant contacted staff after the July Board of Adjustment meeting to get clarification on the rear setback requirement and what determines the rear property line on a square, corner lot. According to the zoning code, the Rear Lot Line is "opposite and most distant from the front lot line." The Front Lot Line is defined as follows: "A lot line separating a lot from the street right -of- way. On corner lots, the front lot line is the shortest street dimension, unless the lot is square or almost square, having dimensions at a ratio between three to two (3:2) and three to three (3:3). In that case, the front lot line may be along either street." In this case, the Building Department determined that because the existing house is located closer to the west property line (5 Proposed 2nd floor addition feet) than to the north line (12 feet), the �._.. - applicant would be best served by declaring ° ~ the north property line as the rear lot line. This would require a rear setback reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet. However, the 1 y7 applicant is within her rights to declare the west property line as the rear lot line. This j` a also would require a setback reduction. I Footprint of existing. j- However, because the second floor addition 1" floor of house Q e would be located 12 feet from the west property line (it is centered above the existing first floor) the setback reduction would be ' r� smaller - -from 20 feet to 12 feet. Under this scenario the property more than satisfies the side setback from the north property line since a 5 foot side setback is required and 10 feet would be preserved. This points to the peculiarity of the situation. On a square, corner lot, determining the rear property line is essentially arbitrary. The zoning code does not distinguish between the two sides of the property. August 12, 2011 Page 2 The relationship between properties Within the older neighborhoods in Iowa City it is not unusual to find structures and /or properties that are non - conforming. Most commonly these are found on the short side of the block where lots have been split into two. In the case before you there are two small properties, and both have non- conforming setbacks. The house at 1026 Fairchild is set back so deeply from Center Street that it cannot provide the required minimum rear setback. The adjacent house on Center Street sits significantly closer to Center Street and thus cannot satisfy the minimum front setback requirement. This makes for a somewhat unusual relationship between the two lots. Both houses are set approximately 10 -12 feet from the property line that separates them. Rear setback requirement The purpose of the minimum rear setback is, in part, to afford opportunity for private open space on each lot. Within this space properties may construct accessory buildings, such as unattached garages, workshops, and sheds. The area behind the house provides space for recreation and for activities and uses by the property owners or residents that may seem more appropriate, safe, or private, than on the street - facing side of the house —i.e. laundry lines, tool storage, waste receptacles, vegetable gardens, parking, play structures, pools, grills, etc. The subject property has little private space, approximately 12 feet on the north side of the house and 5 feet on the west. The setback reduction does not reduce the 12 feet of space at the ground level from the north property line. Staff concludes that the setback reduction is not contrary to the purpose of the setback requirements with regard to the issues of privacy and the physical relationship between buildings for the following reasons: • Given the orientation of the two properties, the setback at issue functions as a side setback —it abuts the side setback of the adjacent property; • Both properties provide 10 -12 feet of separation from their shared property line; and • The opportunity for private open space on the subject lot is preserved because the first floor of the structure will not extend any further into the required rear setback and thus the uses associated with the rear yard, including the existing shed, can be preserved. • The applicant has provided elevations (see attached) that show the north - facing window elevated to 5'6" above the floor level (sill height) and has indicated that she will use windows that do not open. Staff believes this would reasonably reduce privacy issues regarding views and sound. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Elevations provided by applicant 2. Photos provided by the applicant 3. Correspondence and photos provided by Julie Riggert 4. Correspondence from Benjamin Miller Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development it f/0 -30 _71 Aft It A Nk . - . -4L-l'- ---w9=mmq onto to 5 0Y9_ E�en 11 / Alft � - .0 -f - I» . -/� �r j ice. /� �� • . • -f�1`�' or Owl .� f � r n'✓ ``Y •1 t� tom,,.'_ IWO I I �. i • ', i • � �F� fit.. 1 ". Ir lip IA � r � i, �• • '* � � � .: i 1, �. � • � W .A - M' h• ` r •�, . , ,. air r r �� ppFi im r, .f • gyp. ! ..g J. Amlwwwol '- 3 - • �- E hey _ mow• „■.,,;.r,,;,. ;� � �, ,. x a t • .mil•. t � f� a I 1 r 1 ' I r I IFF '{Y t? 1 _ 5! it 1' 1P i f i • tUl a fri r_ d� ��r Kra" • �:�. t s I • e� i t S r � r.Ammww- . . : a T c = 3 � c V O, A y� _ I 0 V V N t 06 -~ L -0 0 L Z E r , C ^�V �.L 3 0 0 • w +i _A i1 s'� • r.Ammww- . . : a T c = 3 � c V O, A y� _ I 0 V V N t 06 -~ L -0 0 L Z E r , C ^�V �.L 3 0 0 • ..'.f •. ±..�• �f ' ?y Ark: got • • ,tom;• -a . y. �` � moors&- Close -up out of North facing kitchen window onto back yard &deck of 509 Center St. Q 0 \ \0 s� r� 1 t3-e t I 01 M T "Ofto . mom u 0 moa U. c 0 O..ft CN C) a o � N o .___row July 8, 2011 To the members of the Board of Adjustment; I am writing to inform you of my concerns involving the consideration of the special exemption for a rear setback reduction for the property located at 1026 Fairchild St owned by my neighbors, Kurt and Wim Murray. Although I harbor no ill will of any sort toward my neighbors, I feel that allowing this special exemption will create a hardship for me by invading my privacy and negatively affect the resale value of my property. The existing property at 1026 Fairchild St is already a nonconforming structure on a substandard lot. By allowing this special exemption, it will compound the nonconformity which brings their residence perilously close to our adjoining property line. By adding a second story addition this close to the property line, it will afford a view directly down onto my deck and into the rear of my home. I purchased my home in good faith with the understanding that current zoning laws would cover our situation. If the Fairchild property had been any closer to my property line at the time of purchase I may have been more reluctant to buy at that time. This is what I fear will happen for the future resale of my property. Therefore, it is my hope that this application for a special exemption for the property at 1026 Fairchild be denied. Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns, Julie Riggert 509 Center St Iowa City August 8, 2011 To the members of the Board of Adjustment, First and foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the extended amount of consideration that you have given to the request for special exemption for a rear setback reduction for the property located at 1026 Fairchild St. Although I have attached photos, I would invite you to physically come and examine the area between our homes, as pictures do not capture the spirit of just how close we already are. I believe that by allowing this special exception to an already nonconforming structure, a dangerous precedent will be established for the neighborhood. I know that the zoning codes were written to address situations exactly like this one, and they were in place when both of us purchased our properties. I feel strongly that both my sight and sound privacy will be violated, and it will greatly affect my resale value. Again, I don't want to cause undue duress to my neighbors, but once they move on, or the tree between us is removed, the addition remains. I think that there are other ways to add to the property without changing the existing zoning code. Therefore, once again I respectfully request that the application for special exception for the property at 1026 Fairchild be denied. Thank you, )aj V, - Julie Riggert 509 Center St Iowa City �.. _� �� 1 1 ��'. '• 7 �h k ;r� n� J •r .r �� u,. 3'� Y „ 1 �'� �' A .. ,� • , ;.� ,, ! t 3s l `` i.. 1. .'� ��� �,peA y. ,'it '4 � i , ` ��'. '• 7 �h k ;r� n� J •r .r �� u,. 3'� Y „ 1 �'� �' A .. ,� • , ;.� ,, ! t ,, i - L. `` i.. 1. ��� �,peA y. ,'it '4 � i , ` �. ��s ��..�F,. . �� . �� �! � ,.� v � S � �\ f ��� ,f � �r 'l.Mii�t ���/ � 'ire , • u'' >. a ' "� i �t k r From: Noor Ali <noorJ_ali @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:39 PM To: PlanningZoningPublic Subject: EXC11 -00004 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in support of the special exception, EXC 11- 00004, for 1026 Fairchild St. and its owners Kirk and Wim Murray. We reside at 1020 Fairchild St. directly to the west of the Murrays' house. They informed us in June 2011 of the additional bedroom they would like to add onto the north side of their house. We have seen drawings of the prospective addition, and have no issue with the addition. It is our hope that the special exception will be approved. Thank you, Noor and Benjamin Miller MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 13, 2011 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings, Barbara Eckstein STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Nick Benson OTHERS PRESENT: Lee Eno, Wim Murray, Julie Riggart RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Grenis, Sheerin, and Plagge were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 8, 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Grenis moved to approve the minutes as amended. Plagge seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0 (Eckstein and Jennings excused). SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC11- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Lee Eno for a special exception to allow a reduction in the rear principal setback requirement for property located in the Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8) zone at 1026 Fairchild Street. Walz shared a location map of the property, a corner lot at the intersection of Fairchild and Center Street. Walz said that the property is somewhat unusual in that it is a square lot and is slightly smaller than the minimum allowable lot size for an RS -8 zone under the current code. Another characteristic of the property is that the front setbacks are so deep as to make the Board of Adjustment July 13, 2011 Page 2 of 7 required rear setback impossible to achieve. Walz said that the because the north side of the property comes closest to meeting the required setback it was designated as the rear property line. Presently, the rear setback is 12 -feet whereas the requirement is 20 -feet. The proposed addition is on the second floor of the building; however, because the existing first floor of the house is already within the required setback area, any addition, even one on the second floor, must have a special exception to reduce the setback requirement. Walz said that in this particular case, the applicant is also requesting that the second floor addition be allowed to cantilever out two feet beyond the first floor. Staff believes that there is an unusual situation here, with the square corner lot and the deep front setbacks for the house. Walz said that this case is unusual because what is actually the rear setback functions practically as a side setback. She said that staff thinks this is a reasonable request due to the unusual nature of the corner lot and the way that the house is established on the corner lot such that there is a a practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. Granting the special exception is not, in staff's view, contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations because the subject lot is a reverse corner lot —the back of the property abuts the side of the neighboring property. Walz stated that the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by homes that are more densely built and are closer together, typically at the side property line. She said that it is not unusual in this neighborhood to have small corner lots or to see side setbacks of 10 feet or less. The proposed addition is located above the existing first floor of the house and cantilevers out two feet beyond the existing wall of the house. Walz said that this seemed to staff to provide reasonable separation that would not interfere with light or air flow and or fire protection, while still providing privacy and compatibility with the neighborhood. Walz noted that she has provided the Board with a copy of a letter concerning the project which had been written by a neighbor. Grenis asked why the rear setback applied to the side -yard even though for all intents and purposes it served as a side setback. Walz explained that except for lots which are double - fronting, there is always a requirement for a rear setback. In this situation, on the short side of the block where the lots have been split in half, the setback functions as a side setback rather than a rear setback because the neighbor's side - property -line abuts the rear property line. It is still however considered a rear setback. Sheerin said that the Board still needs to treat it as a rear setback, not a side setback. Walz said that the question is whether or not the Board feels the rear setback can be adjusted. Though, she added, it is the opinion of staff that the function of the setback is different based on the fact that the lots are laid out differently than lots would typically be laid out. Sheerin pointed out that the letter written by Julie Riggart addresses privacy concerns the addition might raise. Sheerin said that in the letter- writer's opinion granting the special exception for the decreased setback requirement would result in decreased privacy. Walz said that staffs opinion is that it will not; this is based on the design configuration of the building and the adequacy of the existing setback in terms of privacy, which is similar to a side setback. Sheerin said that she thought that the second story nature of the addition may contribute to privacy concerns. Walz said that staff believed the ten foot setback is adequate. Walz reiterated that staff's recommendation is to approve the special exception subject to the condition that the setback reduction applies to the addition only, and subject to substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted. Board of Adjustment July 13, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Sheerin opened the public hearing Lee Eno, 1629 Esther Street, introduced himself as the operator of a company known as Creative Improvements which would be doing the construction of the addition. Plagge asked if the two -foot cantilever was vital to the addition or if the addition could be constructed without it. Eno said that the removal of the cantilever would result in the loss of two feet of the 12x14 -foot room. He said that while the square footage of the addition is not large, it is functional for the purposes to which the homeowner's wish to put it. Eno said the costs of the project would increase in proportion to the square footage the homeowners would gain from the project. Plagge said asked if the window could be on the east or the west side of the house instead of at its current placement. Eno said that the window will not have a typical placement, as it will be four feet off the ground, and is designed to provide natural light. Sheerin asked if it is possible to put the window higher or make it a skylight instead. Eno noted that there has to be a certain amount of structural support for the window, and he would be willing to place it as high as he could without compromising structural integrity of the addition. Sheerin said she was just trying to think of a way to provide the light while still maintaining the neighbor's privacy. Eno said that the four foot height is a minimum; he will raise the window as high as he can without compromising the structure. Plagge asked if the final decision as to window height was up to the Building Official that would be reviewing the site plan. Eno said that gable ends are not typically load- bearing walls; typically side -walls where the trusses /rafters come down are the walls that are load- bearing. He said that in order to proceed with the project he would have to be issued a building permit, which will have been reviewed by the Building official. Sheerin asked about the possibility of a skylight to provide natural light rather than putting a window at that location. Eno said that in his opinion a skylight would not look right on that house and would not really maintain the character of the home. Eno said that they are trying to make the addition look like it is supposed to be there by doing such thing as using cedar shingles and maintaining the roofline. Wim Murray, 1026 Fairchild Street, identified herself as the owner of the subject property. She said that the plans for the addition were actually designed by an architect with the idea of keeping the addition and the home itself in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Murray said she does not want to do a skylight because it does not fit the character of the house at all. Sheerin asked if the glass in the window could be obscured in order to maintain privacy. Murray said that the purpose of the windows is not for view, but for light. Murray shared photographs which she said demonstrate that more of the neighbor's property could be seen from their kitchen windows than could be seen from the proposed addition due to screening by a tree. She also shared photographs of the neighborhood that demonstrated how typical it is for homes there to be located very close to one another. Murray said that while they do not at all want to make their neighbor uncomfortable, they also do not want to be held to backyard standards when that space functions as a side -yard. Julie Riggart, 509 Center Street, said that the pictures shared by Murray are not reflective of the real view. Riggart said that this addition will allow a view directly into her backyard. She said that Board of Adjustment July 13, 2011 Page 4 of 7 the addition and the special exception will be a part of that property long after the Murray's have moved on. Riggart said that the properties were both purchased with the current zoning and setbacks in effect and it is only fair to apply the standards of the zone. Riggart said that at some point the homeowners may just need to decide that the home is not large enough to raise their family in, or find a way to put the additional bedroom somewhere else in the home. Riggart said that the addition will present a hardship for her property, and will ultimately make it difficult to re- sell. She said the two homes are very close together already. Plagge asked Riggart's opposition was primarily to the window, or more to the structure itself. Riggart said that the structure itself is objectionable. Riggart said that the house is too big for the lot as it is, and the addition will further dwarf her little house by comparison. Riggart said that the current zoning code came about because of issues like this, where people built and added on whether or not it was appropriate for the lot size or the neighborhood. Grenis asked whose property the tree was on. Riggart said the tree is on her property but it does hang over onto the Murray's property. Sheerin invited the applicant to respond. Eno said that it did not seem fair that the neighbor could build within five feet of the applicant's rear yard because the neighbor's setback is considered a side setback, whereas the subject property cannot build ten feet from the neighbor because their's is considered a rear setback even though it actually functions as a side -yard. Murray said that her understanding is that the yard in question is considered their backyard because their property has a Fairchild Street address. Walz said that is not correct; on a square corner lot the property owner has the option of choosing which lot -line is their back property line. In this case, Walz said, both of the frontages from Fairchild and Center Street are the same. She said that the rear setback cannot be met on either side of the property, so the side where they come closest to meeting the setback was used as the rear setback. Murray said that her family is not adding onto the house willy - nilly, but are taking the addition very seriously. They have hired an architect to make the design compatible with the existing home and are planning on taking the home back to wood siding. She said that it is her understanding that these improvements would actually improve the property values of hers and surrounding homes. Murray reiterated that even with the special exception, her structure will still be further from the lot line than Riggart's is required to be. Plagge asked if the applicant could live without the window, or if she would proceed with construction if the room had to be slightly smaller. Murray said she would not proceed with construction. The cost of the addition is $40,000, and that is for what will be the smallest bedroom upstairs even without reducing the size. Murray said that the house will still be a modestly -sized house for a family of four at only 1,600 square feet. She said that she would be willing to make the windows higher if the view was a concern, but even with them at a height of four feet she did not think the neighbor's deck could be viewed from the bedroom. Plagge asked if they planned to have windows on all three sides and Murray said that they do because it is a very dark, north- facing part of the house and they think the windows will not only add light but improve the appearance from the exterior. Walz said she wanted to offer a correction to something that was stated earlier. She noted that Board of Adjustment July 13, 2011 Page 5 of 7 from a zoning standpoint the subject house is not too big for the lot —it does not come close to meeting the maximum coverage standards. She said that while the house was placed there prior to current zoning regulations, the Board needs to decide whether or not the special exception is reasonable and satisfies the criteria. Walz noted that the reason that the special exception for setback reductions exist is because there are situations in town, particularly with properties that were established long before current zoning, where the zoning does not fit. Walz said that a special exception is not the same as a variance. Exceptions are written into the zoning and the Board is given the authority to review situations on a case -by -case basis and to decide whether or not it is appropriate and reasonable to grant the exceptions. Walz said that at this point the Board could decide if it wished to proceed with a vote or if it preferred to wait and have the benefit of a full board. She noted that in order for a special exception to pass, three Board members must vote in favor of it. Since only three Board members are present, that means that unanimous approval would be required. She said it may be appropriate for the Board to wait to have two more members to consider the matter, or it may proceed with the vote. Grenis said that the specific proposed exception is not supposed to impede on the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. He said this criterion continues to be a sticking point for him, given the neighbor's concerns. He said that as the proposal stands now he does not think the criterion is satisfied. Plagge said that he has seen board's rule both ways on this issue. He said that while he does not have a terrible concern with the actual structure, he does respect the privacy concerns. Plagge said that if the window to the north was a half window that was six or seven feet up he would be fine with the addition. He said he saw no problem with the other two windows being full windows. Grenis said that he would like to have a chance for the other two Board members to weigh in on the issue. Sheerin said she would too as she thinks it is a tough call. Plagge asked if it would be possible to get the Building Official's input on how high the window could go and still be structurally sound. Eno said that if the height of the window and the view from the window are the greatest concerns and a deferral was in order, then he would definitely explore some options to alleviate those concerns. He said that the customer is quite adamant about the natural light, and he would be willing to put together several different options without eliminating the window altogether. He said that a month's deferral would certainly give him enough time to explore options. Plagge asked if the deferral would present timing issues for the contractor. Eno said they would not cause timing issues for him, but the homeowner was anxious to get going with the project. Murrays said they had been hoping to have the project done before school starts. Plagge said he would be happy to rule on the application this evening if that is what the applicant desired. Sheerin asked if there was any way for the Board to come back to the application before the next scheduled meeting. Walz said that she would have to check schedules. Plagge said that he would be out of town quite a bit in the coming weeks. Riggart asked if the applicant was not required to show that there would be some hardship to the property in order for a special exception to be granted. Riggart said that whether the area in question is a side -yard or backyard is irrelevant unless the applicant showed there was some sort of hardship that would result from having to comply with zoning codes. Plagge said that his findings of fact would include a finding that the property is unusual enough that such hardship Board of Adjustment July 13, 2011 Page 6 of 7 could be found. Riggart said that a higher window would not satisfy her privacy concerns. Sheerin said that while she understands that Riggart's personal concerns are most important to her, what the Board is examining is what is the best way for these two properties to co -exist in this awkward situation. She said that she appreciated Riggart being there and taking the time to express her concerns. Murray said that it had occurred to her during the discussions that she would be fine with some kind of stained - glass, fixed - windows, as that would be compatible with the period of the house. She said that if that would satisfactorily obscure the view for Riggart's purposes, she would be willing to compromise on the decreased natural light that would result. Plagge asked if that was something that could be stipulated. Greenwood Hektoen said that wording could be included to require an opaque glass in the windows. Walz noted that the maintenance of such a requirement would be through the application for building permits or on a complaint basis. Grenis said that he would still really like the other two members of the Board to weigh in on the issue. Greenwood Hektoen advised the Board to close the public hearing and invite a motion. Walz asked if the public hearing could then be re- opened at the next meeting. Greenwood Hektoen said that it could be. There was some discussion as to whether or not the public hearing should be closed or continued until a certain date. It was determined that the public hearing would remain open on the issue. Grenis moved to defer the application until the August meeting or an earlier date as can be arranged. Plagge seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3 -0 (Jennings and Eckstein excused). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Plagge moved to adjourn. Grenis seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote (Jennings and Eckstein excused). w �O U) W D w W a Z N LL Op a W a� °ma O 7 _0 0 a 0 3Z X m C E N C E O N o 2.0<Z O CL Q II II Z II II W II >COOz ; >: W Y M oxoxx X x 0 x X M x x x x x CD m xxxxx M Xxx i x N N LU ctOLO NoM 25 0 0 0 0 0 LU CL N N N N N W 00000 C_ C N N N U W C •E N fn M U' C a U O L Q Z m m Q U O 7 _0 0 a 0 3Z X m C E N C E O N o 2.0<Z O CL Q II II Z II II W II >COOz ; >: W Y City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 10, 2011 To: Board of Adjustment From: Sarah Walz RE: EXC11 -00007 a special exception for a proposed cement batch /mix facility located on Lot 35 of Scott Industrial area, north of 4201h Street and south of Liberty Drive. Subsequent to mailing the Board of Adjustment packet on August 5, 1 received additional correspondence as well as information from the applicant and the DNR. Among the attachments are four letters /e -mails and one exhibit expressing concern about the location of the proposed facility. The correspondence raises the following issues: 1. Objection that concrete batch facilities are not allowed in the 1 -1 zone and that a special exception contradicts the zoning ordinance. 2. Impacts of dust, especially calcium carbonate (lime), on adjacent agricultural and industrial properties. 3. Reduced property values due to the height /appearance of the facility and increased truck traffic to the site. 4. Reduced opportunity for residential development on nearby property. 1. Are concrete batch plants allowed in the 1 -1 zone? It is important to make a distinction between a special exception and a variance. A special exception is required in instances when a use may be appropriate in a particular zone but has externalities such that may not be appropriate on any and all property with that zoning designation. Many uses, including daycares, drive - throughs, churches, schools, salvage yards, and community service centers, are allowed in certain zones by special exception only. The zoning code allows concrete batch facilities in two zones: the Heavy Industrial (1 -2) zone, by right; and the General Industrial (1 -2) zone by special exception. The zoning code provides specific criteria to be used in reviewing applications for the special exception —these address the externalities commonly associated with batch facilities, which are dust, noise, and traffic. 2. Dust impacts The DNR regulates these facilities for dust and water quality issues. In order to establish and operate the proposed use at the subject site, the applicant must secure another DNR permit. The particular equipment to be used in manufacturing concrete for this proposed facility includes a "bag house ". The Iowa DNR describes a baghouse as "an industrial strength 'vacuum cleaner' that removes particulate matter found in smoke, vapors, dust, or mists." The DNR indicates that "when an industry applies for an air quality permit to install a baghouse, DNR air quality engineers must determine if the baghouse has enough filters and surface area to remove an adequate amount of pollutants before issuing the permit. The DNR also reviews the design to ensure the proposed fan size is adequate to pull or push air through the series of filters." August 12, 2011 Page 2 Statements from the DNR, included here, seem to support the above assessment. Correspondence is included here from Dave Phelps and Chris Kjellmark with the Iowa DNR. In his e-mail, Mr. Kjellmark explains that "For these types of operations if they are complying with [DNR] rules for point source emissions and minimizing fugitive dust there should not be an air pollution problem. The biggest impact will likely be increase truck traffic to that part of the industrial park. As far as crop damage, if any occurred it would come from cement dust which the facility if complying with our rules should be minimizing. I would not expect the impacts to be as bad as on crops planted along a heavily use county gravel road. if the truck traffic to the plant were found to be causing fugitive dust it is likely the DNR field office would require the facility to water the access road to minimize emissions." The above statement is echoed in Mr. Phelps e-mail, which also explains that calcium carbonate is not toxic, but that it is regulated as dust from the plant. As indicated in the staff report, at the request of one property owner I contacted the crop specialist with the Iowa State extension who indicated that calcium carbonate is a substance that is often applied to agricultural crops. He was aware of no concerns with regard to the impact of concrete dust on cropland and indicated that any effect would be similar to cropland located along a gravel road. The applicant has indicated that his facility does not use calcium carbonate. He has noted that calcium carbonate is not allowed on most jobs and when it is used it is in liquid form and is added at the job site. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan showing the facility located on the north half of Lot 35 (the original site plan showed the facility on the south half of the lot). The cement batch facility is located to the back (east) side of the lot with the stormwater detention at the front (west of the lot). Access to the facility is provided along a drive. All unpaved areas of the site will be covered with turf grass. The site plan shows S3 (tall) evergreen screening along the entire north, south, and east property lines. A line of poplars is shown behind the evergreens to provide taller, fast - growing screening to further reduce dust escape. Staff recommends evergreen and poplar screening be located along the west side of the batch facility, between the paved area and the stormwater facility. Increased truck traffic There will be additional truck traffic associated with this use. However, Staff believes the anticipated increase in truck traffic for the proposed use should be viewed within the context of the much expanded industrial zone and the infrastructure in place to support it. The location of the industrial zone was chosen due to its proximity to Highway 6 and the railroad. In anticipation of new industrial uses, the City has improved 4201h street to carry greater vehicle traffic to Highway 6. Staff does not believe that the truck traffic generated by the use will be out of character with the zone and other uses that surround it. Height of the proposed facility The applicant has indicated that the maximum height of the equipment to be used on the site is 53 feet. The maximum height in the 1 -1 zone is 45 feet. The maximum height may be increased, provided that for each foot of height increased above the 45 -foot limit, the front, side, and rear setbacks are increased by an additional 2 feet. The only setback requirement for this property is a 20 -foot front setback, therefore 53 -foot towers would need to be set back a minimum of 16 feet from any side or rear property line and 36 feet from the front property line. August 12, 2011 Page 3 Staff has recommended, and the applicant has shown fast - growing poplar in order to reduce dust escape to neighboring industrial and agricultural uses and to screen activities on the site. Distance will minimize views form other areas, such as those zones commercial or future residential areas to the north of the railroad or south of Highway 6. Portions of the towers will remain visible from other areas, including the Highway 6 right -of -way. However, staff believes that the proposed screening meets the intent of the specific criteria for the special exception: to screen outdoor storage and work areas and to reduce dust, noise and visual impacts of the proposed use from surrounding properties. Impact on property values The proposed cement batch facility is located in the middle of a large industrial zone with appropriate access to Highway 6 via an improved 420th Street. Adjacent uses are industrial uses or agricultural. The Southeast District Plan indicates that future zoning in the area will be industrial on land between Highway 6 and the railroad. North of the railroad the plan indicates an area of open space (a regional park) following Snyder Creek to provide separation between future residential and the industrial zone, which does extend north of the railroad. The South District Plan shows the closest potential residential zoning south of Highway 6 (approximately 1,000 feet from the subject site). Given the current and future planned uses in the vicinity, Staff does not believe that the batch facility will negatively effect property values for the uses allowed in those zones. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial view of the proposed location 2. Revised site plan 3. Photos of batch plants in Iowa City and Coralville 4. Screen assessment for views from 4201h Street submitted by Mark Hamer 5. Correspondence Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development �C Q d h U d O O a w x H O C7 z 0 0 a F T ��_ ` tit � � y' �{ 4. 4{ .. . ? i r� 1 ,. o i j a� A 1 l: S y� A, ,,. x. . , cn C4 W Q O C4 H w ►C m m q'3 i } F S tiee:E � 1 L. r : ��_.....�.� - � . . !. . , . �- - - - - -- .. . 'IR 0 1 t G. El r �' '�F j; ' y.z. �'�% � 3 �; ; � r 4 +, . , j ('; , ` - f fi' Y„�-. ._... _.__. .. . t _ � ..... _.. _. a i t / / � Q � / W � q � Q « . 2 ? S > « <» w �� q S * U � � .a« \� / « \� \� .+ ��\ 2 .� : > \�\ :\< � \ � \� � :/� \� � : < : ����22 O °o¢ E R Now f� a a s fm • 5� flx' twit ` fm �` � -+fir s., 1 1 � � � vF �fYt' � •�� • t k MIT yY • r --- .__ -------- __ ------- ___ 29,•- Aq- fA �. S; .i, y� y�� 1.�• 1, "a � j P. �-•, � + .fit r.* �. _ . -7. � it. Z ��. � , e �* I 0 �- .. �, � �, . T ,a +�� ,��, �� �,.. �.. �.. �'�r� ,u'' w�•r 9 k�� -; ��, b "� w. ` A , ? i� r ..` �- r• __ �� i I 11 13 II&I'll 0 3 oC8 x� Qw� wW a O O �w O v� wa a Qw CE) O LL H O F) LU CD J z O z w tX z O Jn z w D z CL W O n O C� D- LL O O W_ } CL O LL 1L O z _O O O J e .o-,Gs FIF I �r 0 0 Z 4 g .o-,ez .o-,9Z w a S 4 �3 0 4 0 4 r 4 H w w J C) LL i..h CD ( IL 1-U '-'1 } (Y D- Z ll.l W 4 0 4 • �r 1L u� rL 0 z C w } O i7 t ■ 4 4 S _W > J3 O 4 I LU J(.".�1-�-I 1_L H 0 m LU } D- Z L1J I 4 .o-,e9 .0-199 W LL O H z It' U .o-,4z .0-,as J I- 8 X IV Lj 0 4 4 .0- ez .0-199 4 4 .0-149 .0-199 �r (In W W f1! J J C) 1L N LU Q } n W W 4 • �r N LL 0 Z 0 0 w g w 4 iD 0 4 a (J) W W IY I- J J C) LL 0 LU } n LLI W v z p E q�-. 3 C1 m A NN C LU LL `O F- ED �� IIII IIII IIII I III III III IIIII III iOeYN III I il�il w¢� fna� a w I VJ d Z H w W �z I I I m 0p 9 morn 300, I 1111111 t J :OD Z ¢ \ o a Cp HCn �... Vv U N� O .Y W S^,L.✓L rc � Z \, p Y UI VI II LY Zv r3 E z 0 III I II II I I \Ina Z I I WO O Z O � piN \�`- II II 11 II as OOW Ili W U o o 0 �J (nR X00 vi Z O O m III III a W ? �° I o m o o° S WV I M UIM 3S OV06 N01031 NVOI83WV ER2V dIHS83N18Vd 1V631430 11G), 8d '1 V '3 Z W III III III III III III III IIII III IIII ,III IIII, ,III II111 ,III IIIII F- IUi1 w w �� IIII IIII IIII I III III III IIIII III iOeYN III I il�il I � a I Z N lSV �z Z fL �� w W IIII I I I I I I I I I I m 0p 9 a< I 1111111 t � CJ ow ly)qI > > 0a O rc � \, p Y IIII �I III II III II III II I av II Zv am z 0 III I II II I I \Ina Z I I WO O Z O � piN \�`- II II 11 II as OOW Ili II ��ry SA 0 11 I I II I I III III 111 III III W ? III III III wl 1 III I III I11� I cam @Wp�II T�II I III III ZW III III, III II S 10 � W WV IN/1M� NZ III II N III XC4 III III II 0 8—a III III III dl� nptm 3 III III I III III 111 III III III I� I I I III1� 1 I I I I I LL m 6 N z< x V lO - - - - - - - II IIIII I I IIII I - - , N r O co O 3 \ In J < N a \ LL t 3 \ i N Q \ I M UIM 3S OV06 N01031 NVOI83WV ER2V dIHS83N18Vd 1V631430 11G), 8d '1 V '3 Z W III III III III III III III IIII III IIII ,III IIII, ,III II111 ,III IIIII U J = K IUi1 w w �� IIII IIII IIII I III III III IIIII III iOeYN III I il�il I � a I Z N lSV �z Z fL �� w W IIII I I I I I I I I I I m 0p 9 O I 1111111 I I � CJ ow ly)qI a 4JI, II I IIII �I III II III II III II III III I II II'-I II I II I II I I I I III I II II I I \Ina Z I I II O � piN \�`- II II 11 II pp OOW Ili II ��ry SA O a�� 11 I I II I I III III 111 III III III III III wl 1 III I III I11� I @Wp�II T�II I III III ZW III III, III II S 10 � W (IIIIIII III NZ III II � O Z III XC4 III III II n 60 � Z III III III dl� Z lg III III I III III 111 III III III I� I I I III1� 1 I I I I I LL m 6 N - - - - - - - II IIIII I I IIII I - - , (IV 08 dON�3QNHdQQNI — I — — W WC — — - - - - - - WE _ WE ZL9 - -- -- — - — — — — — — — — — — — — - OV08 30N3GN3dONI 69LZ 3AI80 Ale3811 146f NOIIVORI8V3 V ON1013M bOR13dns J) ' ar NOOZ N031 73SSn8 �a ��� 1N3ryls'�Ni g3b1s Sarah Walz From: Ljpanderp <Ijpanderp @aol.com> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:03 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: Fwd: Board of Adjustment Hearing - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ljpanderp <Ipanderp @aol.com> To: Ipr224 <Ipr224 @uky.edu >; mrp1963 <mrp1963 @gmail.com >; fharmprybi <fharmprybi @aol.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 5, 20111:28 pm Subject: Board of Adjustment Hearing Ms. Walz, E and L General Partnership owns many acres in the area being considered for a special exemption to allow construction of a concrete manufacturing plant. This is an area the city so far is developing as a clean industrial park. It is surrounded by prime, highly productive, agricultural acres and private homes and or homesteads. My partner and I have serious concerns about the lime dust (aka calcium carbonate) that is emitted from such plants. Field crops, corn, soybeans, sorghum, alfalfa, family garden vegetables, trees, and landscape materials will be killed by the covering of lime dust. Any inspection of similar concrete manufacturing plants will note that they are placed far from private homes and there is nothing growing around them. Note also the white /beige film of dust that covers everything near such a facility. To condem this industrial park and surrounding agricultural land to the contamination by lime dust is unconscionable. All parties who may be affected by this horrible intrusion into their daily lives or source of income must be notified of this meeting. It is the law. In your correspondence you have mentioned August 10 and August 13 as the meeting date. Could you clarify the date, time, and location, please. Sincerely, Eldon and Larry Prybil Sarah Walz From: Mark Hamer <markh @hamerlawoffice.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:22 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: FW: Board Of Adjustment Hearing Cynthia Usher Legal Secretary IIamer Law Office, PLLC 2710 N. Dodge Street, Suite 5 Iowa City, IA 52245 319- 248 -4870 cynthiaughamerl awo ffi ce. com This e -mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C. Sections 2510 -2521, is confidential and is legally privileged. This message and its attachments may also be privileged and attorney work product. They are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. From: Mark Hamer Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:02 PM To: Sara -Walz @iowa- city.org Cc: lawrence.prybil @uky.edu Subject: Board Of Adjustment Hearing Sa ra - -- Per our telephone discussion, I have been retained by Dr. Lawrence Prybil to represent he and his wife in connection with the Board of Adjustment hearing this evening. I understand that this application was filed in mid -July and that notice was given last week. Dr. Prybil advises me that he did not learn of this until midweek last week. If this matter is not rescheduled by the Board to the September meeting, please take this email as my request that such a deferral be presented to the Board to provide adequate time to review and comment on issues related to this application. As we discussed by phone, my initial observation is that the granting of a special exception in this case will allow for construction of a plant at least 45 feet and potentially 53 feet in height. If you have any questions concerning this email, please let me know. Thank you. Mark Hamer Mark T. Hamer Hamer Law Office, PLLC 2710 N. Dodge Street, Suite 5 Iowa City, IA 52245 319- 248 -4870 August 9, 2011 To: Sarah Walz and Members of the Board of Adjustment Via email @ sarah- walz @iowa- city.org From: Teresa Morrow Re: Special Exception to Allow Concrete Manufacturing Plant in existing I -1 zone I recently became aware of an agenda item that will be discussed at the Board of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 10. The agenda item concerns an application submitted by Streb Construction Co., Inc. for a special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant to be located just north of 420 °i Street on Independence Road in Iowa City. I am somewhat familiar with this area as I recently listed and sold a farm just across 420 °i Street. The Buyer plans to develop residential housing sometime in the future on the site. When the Buyer originally considered the property, they did take into consideration the close -by industrial park already in the area. Though it caused some concern, they did ultimately decide to purchase the property for future development. They did not feel the 1 -1 zoning and allowed uses would be a huge impediment to future development. The possible approval of this application changes that. The special exception you are considering would allow a wet cement plant to be located in that same light industrial area. Though it would be surrounded by other industrial uses, the height is expected to be much taller than the existing surrounding buildings. Even with the screening requirement you will impose in order to get approval, the operation will be unsightly and will likely be seen (due to its height) above any screening. Land values in the area will not only be impacted by the view of the proposed plant but also by the dust that will be generated from the plant operations as well as additional truck traffic. If the current I -I (light industrial) zoning was meant to allow this type of use, a special exception would not be required. There are likely much more suitable locations other than the one currently proposed. Teresa Morrow, CCIM Broker- Associate Blank & McCune, The Real Estate Company 506 E. College Street Iowa City, IA Sarah Walz From: alan- swanson @mchsi.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 3:33 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: Board of Adjustment Wed 8- 10 -11: Emailed letter regarding exception for concrete plant ATTN: Sarah Walz For the Board of Adjustment Meeting of Wednesday, 8 -10 -11 Dear Members of the Board, I have been asked by concerned parties to comment on tonight's proposed zoning variance. This would allow a large wet -batch concrete plant to be granted a "special exception" as a heavy manufacturing installation to be located egregiously amidst a general industrial zone that is currently (and it is hoped in the future to remain) low profile and low environmentally impacting. If this is allowed to happen, it seems clear to me that a structure involving a tall tower or towers -- apparently more than twice as high as any existing structures in the area is undesirable. But of paramount importance is the heavy particulate dispersion (major dust despite attempts at "screening ") typical of such plants and from arriving and departing trucks. These factors likely will lessen the area's desirability to industrial property owners and buyers. Thus this zoning variance, if approved, is likely to lower land -use values for existing and future development, close -in and perhaps even further -out. Surely there are other places where this plant would be a more compatible neighbor. It is clear to me that the current zoning of this site was put in place for sound economic reasons. Alan Swanson Alan Swanson, Broker - Associate BLANK & McCUNE The Real Estate Company 506 E. College St., Iowa City IA 52244 -2404 Licensed to sell real estate in Iowa Sarah Walz From: Devin Ezop <devinezop @metrowire.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:26 AM To: Sarah Walz Subject: Wet Batch Concrete Plant - Iowa City Ms. Walz: My name is Devin Ezop. I am the Operations Manager for Metro Wire & Cable Co. We are electrical and electronic wire and cable company located at 2802 Independence Rd in Iowa City. Eldon Prybil contacted me in regard to a new cement plant that is proposed to be built near our facility. I would like to take this opportunity to say Metro Wire & Cable is against the building of this plant at its current proposed location. The calcium carbonate dust has the potential to kill our landscaping and vegetation as well as create a hazardous work environment for our employees. With the heat in the summer we leave our warehouse doors open to offer ventilation and a breeze. This plant will create hazardous dust that will penetrate our building creating a filthy environment as well as a hazard. I appreciate you taking the time to hear my concern. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. Thank you! Thank you, Devin H. Ezop Metro Wire & Cable Co. Sales Operations Manager -Iowa City HR /Corporate Development W 586.264.3050 / F 586.264.2904 / M 586.557.3563 / www.metrowire.net Sarah Walz From: Kjellmark, Chris [DNR] <Chris.Kjellmark @dnr.iowa.gov> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 10:49 AM To: Sarah Walz Subject: RE: Question regarding concrete wet batch palnt in the vicinity of crop land or residnetial areas Attachments: ConcreteBatchlnformatioc11s12 .pdf Dear Ms. Walz The batch plant will be subject to our state particulate standard outlined below and the fugitive dust standard shown below. It is possible that the plant would be subject to a lower particulate standard if during the review for the construction permits the facility has some modeled impacts of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at the property line. For these types of operations if they are complying with our rules for point source emissions and minimizing fugitive dust there should not be an air pollution problem. The biggest impact will likely be increase truck traffic to that part of the industrial park. The attached AP -42 pdf file describes the processes and possible impacts of these types of facilities. As far as crop damage, if any occurred it would come from cement dust which the facility if complying with our rules should be minimizing. I would not expect the impacts to be as bad as on crops planted along a heavily use county gravel road. If the truck traffic to the plant were found to be causing fugitive dust it is likely the DNR field office would require the facility to water the access road to minimize emissions. This is outlined in the standard shown below. If you would like to discuss this further I would be happy to talk with you. For detailed questions on our construction permitting process or possible modeling issues I would defer to our construction permitting section. I work in our Title V operating permit section and can answer general questions for you. A point of contact in our construction permit section would be John Curtin at (515) 281 -8012. 1 hope I have provided you with the information in which you were interested. Let me know if you have additional questions. 567 - 23.3(4558) Specific contaminants. 23.3(1) General. The emission standards contained in this rule shall apply to each source operation unless a specific emission standard for the process involved is prescribed elsewhere in this chapter, in which case the specific standard shall apply. 23.3(2) Particulate matter. No person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate matter from any source in excess of the emission standards specified in this chapter, except as provided in 567 — Chapter 24. a. General emission rate. (1) For sources constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after July 21, 1999, the emission of particulate matter from any process shall not exceed an emission standard of 0.1 grain per dry standard cubic foot (dscf) of exhaust gas, except as provided in 567- 21.2(455B), 23.1(4558), 23.4(4558), and 567 — Chapter 24. (2) For sources constructed, modified or reconstructed prior to July 21, 1999, the emission of particulate matter from any process shall not exceed the amount determined from Table I, or amount specified in a permit if based on an emission standard of 0.1 grain per standard cubic foot of exhaust gas, or established from standards provided in 23.1(4558) and 23.4(4558). c. Fugitive dust. 1 (1) Attainment and unclassified areas. A person shall take reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne in quantities sufficient to cause a nuisance as defined in Iowa Code section 657.1 when the person allows, causes or permits any materials to be handled, transported or stored or a building, its appurtenances or a construction haul road to be used, constructed, altered, repaired or demolished, with the exception of farming operations or dust generated by ordinary travel on unpaved roads. Ordinary travel includes routine traffic and road maintenance activities such as scarifying, compacting, transporting road maintenance surfacing material, and scraping of the unpaved public road surface. All persons, with the above exceptions, shall take reasonable precautions to prevent the discharge of visible emissions of fugitive dusts beyond the lot line of the property on which the emissions originate. The public highway authority shall be responsible for taking corrective action in those cases where said authority has received complaints of or has actual knowledge of dust conditions which require abatement pursuant to this subrule. Reasonable precautions may include, but not be limited to, the following procedures. 1. Use, where practical, of water or chemicals for control of dusts in the demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, the grading of roads or the clearing of land. 2. Application of suitable materials, such as but not limited to asphalt, oil, water or chemicals on unpaved roads, material stockpiles, race tracks and other surfaces which can give rise to airborne dusts. 3. Installation and use of containment or control equipment, to enclose or otherwise limit the emissions resulting from the handling and transfer of dusty materials, such as but not limited to grain, fertilizer or limestone. 4. Covering, at all times when in motion, open- bodied vehicles transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dusts. 5. Prompt removal of earth or other material from paved streets or to which earth or other material has been transported by trucking or earth - moving equipment, erosion by water or other means. 6. Reducing the speed of vehicles traveling over on- property surfaces as necessary to minimize the generation of airborne dusts. (2) Nonattainment areas. Subparagraph (1) notwithstanding, no person shall allow, cause or permit any visible emission of fugitive dust in a nonattainment area for particulate matter to go beyond the lot line of the property on which a traditional source is located without taking reasonable precautions to prevent emission. Traditional source means a source category for which a particulate emission standard has been established in 23.1(2), 23.3(2) "a," 23.3(2) "b" or 23.4(4556) and includes a quarry operation, haul road or parking lot associated with a traditional source. This paragraph does not modify the emission standard stated in 23.1(2), 23.3(2) "a," 23.3(2) "b" or 23.4(4556), but rather establishes a separate requirement for fugitive dust from such sources. For guidance on the types of controls which may constitute reasonable precautions, see "Identification of Techniques for the Control of Industrial Fugitive Dust Emissions," [available from the department] adopted by the commission on May 19, 1981. (3) Reclassified areas. Reasonable precautions implemented pursuant to the nonattainment area provisions of subparagraph (2) shall remain in effect if the nonattainment area is redesignated to either attainment or unclassified after March 6, 1980. The link below is where I got the attached pdf which describes the concrete batch process and the possible emissions. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/­­chll/final/"cllsl2.pd The environmental regulations under the Iowa Administrative Code may be found at the following link: http: / /www.legis,iowa.gov /Iowa Law/ AdminCode/ chapterpocs.aspx ?pubDate= 07 -27- 2011 &agency =567 Christopher J. Kjellmark 7900 Hickman Rd., Suite 1 Windsor Heights, IA 50324 (515) 281 -7826 Chris.Kjellmark @dnr.iowa.gov 2 Sarah Walz From: Phelps, Dave [DNR] <Dave.Phelps @dnr.iowa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:01 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: RE: Question regarding concrete wet batch palnt in the vicinity of crop land or residnetial areas Hi Sarah: I have been responding to a few questions that have arisen regarding the proposed batch plant. Somehow Chris Kjellmark received these and he has forwarded them on to me. We have permitted several hundred batch plants. Because of the number, we developed a generalized template for permitting them. This included doing what is known as dispersion modeling which assesses the impact of the particulates (dust) being generated by the operation of the plant. This does not include the road traffic which we do not regulate. Our permitting process assures the ambient air quality standards will be met by the proper operation of the plant. Calcium carbonate is limestone, which comes from the gravel in roads and is used in rock form in concrete. Of course, there will be dust involved as it is handled. It is not toxic; in fact, it is in teeth and bones. We would regulate the calcium carbonate as dust, i.e., emissions from the batch plant itself. The gravel roads are regulated by the county as a nuisance if it is excessive. Below is the response I sent earlier to a farmer in the area that has concerns as well. "Dear Mr. Prybil: Chris Kjellmark forwarded your email to me for a response. All concrete batch plants are required to get a permit from us before they build. Since we were not given the name of the facility, I could not check to see if they have applied for a permit. I can tell you that the department developed a standardized permit template for batch plants that are protective of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, meaning the health standards that were established by the EPA will be met for any facility that builds. These are generally more restrictive than those set to protect welfare, which would include other impacts from the dust being generated. As long as they build the facility according to the permit that we will issue, emissions from the plant will be minimized. This does not mean however that there will be no emissions. As noted, if there is a gravel road nearby, this could result in more emissions than the batch plant. The road emissions are regulated by the county, not the department. Excessive dust would be handled as a nuisance condition to be addressed by the county health department. In summary, a batch plant should not cause excessive dust conditions that should be a concern. Although there will be some emissions, using the controls required by the permit will mitigate those emissions. I hope this answers your questions." If you have other questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly. Dave David Phelps Supervisor, Construction Permitting Section Air Quality Bureau Department of Natural Resources 7900 Hickman Road, Suite 1 Windsor Heights, Iowa 50324 Phone: 515 - 281 -8189 Fax: 515 - 242 -5094 Email: dave.phelps @dnr.iowa.gov From: Sarah Walz [Sarah -Walz @iowa- city.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20119:37 AM To: Kjellmark, Chris [DNR] Subject: RE: Question regarding concrete wet batch paint in the vicinity of crop land or residnetial areas I received the following message from a neighbor of the plant. "The calcium carbonate dust has the potential to kill our landscaping and vegetation as well as create a hazardous work environment for our employees. With the heat in the summer we leave our warehouse doors open to offer ventilation and a breeze. This plant will create hazardous dust that will penetrate our building creating a filthy environment as well as a hazard." Can you respond with regard to health concerns or anything particular to calcium carbonate. Sarah From: Kjellmark, Chris [DNRJ [ mailto :Chris.Kjellmark @dnr.iowa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 05, 201110:49 AM To: Sarah Walz Subject: RE: Question regarding concrete wet batch paint in the vicinity of crop land or residnetial areas Dear Ms. Walz The batch plant will be subject to our state particulate standard outlined below and the fugitive dust standard shown below. It is possible that the plant would be subject to a lower particulate standard if during the review for the construction permits the facility has some modeled impacts of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at the property line. For these types of operations if they are complying with our rules for point source emissions and minimizing fugitive dust there should not be an air pollution problem. The biggest impact will likely be increase truck traffic to that part of the industrial park. The attached AP -42 pdf file describes the processes and possible impacts of these types of facilities. As far as crop damage, if any occurred it would come from cement dust which the facility if complying with our rules should be minimizing. I would not expect the impacts to be as bad as on crops planted along a heavily use county gravel road. If the truck traffic to the plant were found to be causing fugitive dust it is likely the DNR field office would require the facility to water the access road to minimize emissions. This is outlined in the standard shown below. If you would like to discuss this further I would be happy to talk with you. For detailed questions on our construction permitting process or possible modeling issues I would defer to our construction permitting section. I work in our Title V operating permit section and can answer general questions for you. A point of contact in our construction permit section would be John Curtin at (515) 281 -8012. 1 hope I have provided you with the information in which you were interested. Let me know if you have additional questions. 567 - 23.3(4556) Specific contaminants. 23.3(1) General. The emission standards contained in this rule shall apply to each source operation unless a specific emission standard for the process involved is prescribed elsewhere in this chapter, in which case the specific standard shall apply. 23.3(2) Particulate matter. No person shall cause or allow the emission of particulate matter from any source in excess of the emission standards specified in this chapter, except as provided in 567 - Chapter 24. a. General emission rate. July 20, 2011 Attn: Iowa City Board of Adjustment To Whom It May Concern: I am in favor of allowing Streb Construction Co., Inc. to place a concrete plant on lot 35 of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. I urge this board to vote in favor of this use. Respectfully, f Mik Gerdin Rus ell Gerdi July 20, 2011 Attn: Iowa City Board of Adjustment To Whom It May Concern: I am in favor of allowing Streb Construction Co., Inc. to place a concrete plant on lot 35 of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. I urge this board to vote in favor of this use. Respectfully, Al Streb Streb Investment Partnership L.L.C. July 20, 2011 Attn: Iowa City Board of Adjustment To Whom It May Concern: I am in favor of allowing Streb Construction Co., Inc. to place a concrete plant on lot 35 of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. I urge this board to vote in favor of this use. Respectfully, Mary Jo" deb 2802 Independence Road July 20, 2011 Attn: Iowa City Board of Adjustment To Whom It May Concern: I am in favor of allowing Streb Construction Co., Inc. to place a concrete plant on lot 35 of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. I urge this board to vote in favor of this use. Respectfully, Rusty Zook Midwest Frame and Axle July 20, 2011 Attn: Iowa City Board of Adjustment To Whom It May Concern: I am in favor of allowing Streb Construction Co., Inc. to place a concrete plant on lot 35 of the Scott -Six Industrial Park. I urge this board to vote in favor of this use. Respectfully, Dustin Zook Superior Welding and Fabrication