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