Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I could get a hang of that. Um, good evening and welcome to the April 2nd meeting of the De Moines City Planning and Zoning Commission. I will start by reading our rules and procedures. The plan and zoning commission is generally an advisory body to the city council. The city council will hold a public hearing and make the final decision on all matters before the commission other than site plans and subdivision plat unless denials or conditional approvals thereof are appealed. The applicant will be given 10 minutes to present the request. Proponents and then opponents for the from the public are then allowed to speak in that order with each speaker allowed a maximum of 5 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 5 minutes for a rebuttal. The hearing will then be closed and the commission will discuss and vote on the issue. All comments are to be gerine to the item under consideration and speakers are to maintain a courteous manner. Items listed on the consent portion of the agenda will not be individ individually discussed and will be considered for approval in accordance with the recommendation in the staff report unless an individual present or a member of the commission requests that the item be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately under the public hearing agenda. Uh let's start with an approval of our minutes from our last meeting. Would anyone like to move approval of those?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Any abstensions? Thank you. Motion passes and we'll move into the consent agenda. Item number one is a request from De Moine Prep Facilities LLC for the following regarding three parcels located in the vicinity of 107 East 6th Street. Determination as to whether the requested resoning is in conformance with plan DSM. reszoning the properties from DX2 downtown district to DXR downtown district to allow development of a new athletic field and accessory park which is a sports and recreation private participant outdoor use type. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this um item removed from the consent agenda and discussed under the public hearing? Anyone on the commission? Okay. Item number one will stay on consent. Item number two is a request from RM Madden Construction regarding property located at 225 Arthur Avenue for review and approval of a public hearing site plan and for the following type 2 design alternatives in accordance with city code. A allow for an attached garage with an overhead door on the front facade of a house type D. B allow for a rear yard setback of 12.5 feet where the minimum required rear yard setback is 30 feet per city code. Would anyone in the audience like this item um removed from the consent agenda and discussed under the public hearing? Okay. Then our consent agenda consists of item number one. Could we have a motion to move consent? Move approval.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay, motion passes and we will start on the public hearing agenda with item number two and Jillian will present for staff.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Jillian Summer with planning staff. Item number two is in regards to a property at 225 Arthur Avenue. It's in the Union Park neighborhood um to the north of Berlin Marina in the northwest of Union Park. It is located on a uniquely shaped lot. It is um a lot that is wider than it is deep. Um so the um to the north is Arthur Avenue. To the south is actually a city alley. The applicant is proposing new construction of a um just over a thousand square foot new home. It would be um it is the property is zoned um N5 which requires house D. House D um is uh typically a house that would have either a garage on the side or rear of the house if attached or sometimes it would have a detached garage located in the rear yard. Um the elevations uh proposed are a small cottage style house again with a a side garage, onecar garage. The garage would be facing north towards Arthur Avenue. Here is a view of the site plan, how it would lay out on the lot. Um and as you can see again, this is a 62t depth lot. Normally we see at least a 100 foot depth in lot and that's what the regulations are are based on. Um the applicant is requesting two two type uh two design alternatives. One to have the garage facing Arthur Avenue and one to have a reduced rear yard setback, the 30-oot rear yard setback. Um if they were to try to meet that, the

house would have to be shoved all the way to the front of the lot. Um which then they would have a front yard setback issue. So, they have physical constraints in meeting that rear yard setback. The garage facing Arthur Avenue, um there are a few other houses along this street that already have garages facing Arthur Avenue. The driveways already come off of Arthur Avenue. Um therefore, as staff, we are recommending approval of these two type 2 design alternatives.

Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this item? Well, the applicant is the applicant here. Please come forward. State your name and address for our records and sign in on the white sheet when you're done. And you have up to 10 minutes.

Okay. Uh my name is Michael Madden. Address 254 48th place. Um, yeah, like staff said, it's a difficult lot to build on. Um, depth is a big constraint, so we picked a house type that would u fit that lot best. Um, I don't think, uh, there's really a good way around the front or rear uh, setback issue. Um, I think the issue that is more in play is the front-facing garage. um it would face a public uh alleyway if it were to face back. I think there's a little more traffic on that um city alleyway. Um that habitat development. Uh the main entry points are on the rear of those houses facing um the alley. The garage is coming off that. Um so there's more more people and more traffic uh to the back of the house, the back of the lot. Um, and then the other issue is, um, if we were to face that garage to the rear, uh, we'd have to have a, uh, some transparency on the front. And I just think a garage looks, uh, a lot more pleasing, a lot more functional than facing the garage to the rear and then having windows on that garage. So, that's we went for this. So,

any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Uh, now is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral, please come forward. And also state your name and address for our records. Sign in when you're done. And you have up to five minutes.

Okay. Hello, my name is Angela Burke Boston. My address is 1223 Stevenson Way. I am here because I am the lot next door to this that what you have numbered as 221. And I am aware of this because I received a letter that said to whom it may concern. So other than that, that was my only notice other than Mr. Madden sending me a letter asking whether or not he wanted to purchase the lot next door. So, I'm primarily here to find out what is happening um over in the neighborhood and to get information. So, that's why I'm registered as neutral. Um I am thinking about the development that is to the rear that most of the activity is over at the rear of the uh the building. Um well, Arthur Street and I'm thinking that I'm not sure why a rear garage would not work over there. I don't know whe there are any other people in the neighborhood here. Obviously, I stated my address. I don't live in the neighborhood, but I do own the lot next door. So, I am neutral. Um, but I am looking for information about the development. So, thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak neutrally about the project? Anyone in opposition? Okay. applicant, you do have five minutes for a rebuttal if you want to add anything to what you said. Okay, then I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion and uh motions.

Um I would just say I seem to think it makes sense to to show what Madden is showing and it's great that they're working with staff to make some of those accommodations. So if uh anybody has any comments uh please say so otherwise um I'm happy to move staff. Thank you. I guess I have one clarification to make sure it's clear on. So basically to face rear we would still have the garage protruding out the outside. There'd be extra vision requirements and there's no way for the garage to fit behind. Is that correct? Because the patio is gone. If I got the measurements right that there is no way to fit the garage behind. Yeah, we can pull up the layout site plan

because it looks like is that really only what's essentially 17 feet and you need 21 of depth to put the garage behind. Is that right?

Yeah, I probably short of a different floor plan and maybe reducing the front yard setback. You know, we're probably looking at either as the applicants described it just you flip access or the alternative would be a detached garage. um that is set in the back. Although I'm guessing that they'd want some sort of um driveway off of the alley for additional parking. So, it probably would float again, you know, again, if unless we're going to expect a different house plan, it probably float generally in that area. Um, the other thing I would add since I'm talking is that as we looked at this as staff, we did, you know, we didn't pull out the zoning or we didn't zoom out on the zoning map, but this is an area of transition where we have um N5 zoning and N um, excuse me, N3A zoning and that N3A zoning district is associated with the house type B, which is more of a ranch. It has more provisions for uh, garage, front-loaded garages. And so we felt the fact that this is unusually shaped. It's in a neighborhood where we have both of those house forms. And actually if you look at the street, even though it's points to the house type D, which is a traditional craftsman Victorian old school de mo house form, the street really is more ranches, um, front-loaded garages. If you look at the aerial, I don't know if we can go the staff can flip to that. So that's really the thinking we had as staff, how we came to the conclusion to support the request.

I guess I would just add that um as much as I'm not a fan of garages in front of a house, um I'm excited to see small lots being used and um small homes being built. And I think the land itself in the back is much more functional when it's allowed to be a little bit more cohesive like that. Um, and an occasional exception. That's why we're here, right? Is for that kind of opportunity. So, I I appreciate this project. I support it. Staff. Any more discussion on the motion on the table? Okay. All in favor of the motion to move staff, please raise your right hand. Motion passes and we will move to item number three which is a request from Jorge Gonzalez and Saul Gonzalez for the following regarding property located at 3176th Avenue. Determination as to whether the requested reszone is in conformance with plan DSM. Amending plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from lowmedium density residential to community mixed use and reszoning the property from NX1 neighborhood mixed district to MX3 community mixeduse district to allow reuse of the property for a vehicle maintenance repair minor use and Srioshi will present for staff.

Thank you madam chair. Srioshi Chakrabarti planning staff. Um item number three is for a property at 317th 6th Avenue. This is a subject property. This is located in the uh Highland Park Oak Park neighborhood and um there is an existing auto repair business that has operated on this property for um quite a while. it has lost its legal non-conforming status and therefore the uh current owners are requesting to reszone the property to the correct zoning district in order to allow an auto repair shop on on this property. So um as I mentioned the subject property is in the Highland Park Oak Park neighborhood. It's in a u primarily a transitional area. Um so there is uh primarily residential uses but then there's a scattering of lowintensity commercial as well as light industrial uses along the 6th Avenue corridor. There's also some um um public semi-public type uses. There's a uh community PK county community uh center right across the street. There is the North High School a little further south. The Riverview Park is to the to the west. And then as you go further north it becomes more uh commercial and then we have the Uclid Avenue uh corridor. So that is just to give you a context of the area. Um this is the subject property. It includes um a one-story building and then it's got uh parking um in the back with a driveway. Here you can see there's a alley looking west towards 6th Avenue. This is looking south on um on 6th Avenue towards downtown. And this is looking north. Um as you can see the

character of the corridor here. Further south you can see more of the uh light commercial and industrial character of the corridor. And then looking north, it's uh more residential. And then um these are just looking north from the subject property. There's some vacant residential lots that are zoned for potential um future residential development. Uh this is just a a map that shows um some uh information on zoning and land use and I will come back to this when I'm talking uh more about the staff recommendation and the staff rationale. So I'll come back to this but uh the subject property is uh right here where you can see the red um circle. So with the u um with the reszoning request if the property were to be reszoned then the applicant would be required to bring the site into conformance with the city code. Uh they would also be required to uh do additional improvement along the rightway which is in disrepair as you saw in the photographs. They would also be required to comply with supplemental um regulations that are applicable for this particular use and those are listed here. Um moving on to the resoning request, the request is to um reszone to MX3 district. MX3 district is um predominantly intended for um uh more busy transportation corridors and nodes where you have higher intensity commercial uses. Um and it also requires a land use designation of community mixed use in order for it to conform to the future land use designation. So currently the um the uh the the property the area has a low medium density residential designation

um and the with the proposed resoning it would have to be changed to a community mixeduse designation. staff's um uh staff's rationale with this particular request is that the requested resoning to the MX3 district and the uh corresponding land use designation of community mixeduse is not appropriate for the area because of the character of the 6th Avenue um transportation corridor and the and the surrounding area. And I will um go back now to the map that I was talking about. So if you look here you can see this is the subject property primarily the area around this is a low medium and lowdensity residential. As you look further south there is some uh light industrial use. As you go further north towards the Uclid Avenue um corridor you you kind of start seeing the dark red which is the community mixeduse designation and the neighbor mix neighborhood mixeduse. Um so Uclid Avenue is a busy uh commercial corridor. So that is an area where staff envisions more of the typical MX3 type uses and the community mixeduse designation, land use designation. It could also be in areas like say for instance along 2nd avenue further east. This is also uh this kind of use is also more uh predominant within community and neighborhood nodes where you start seeing some of those uh mixed uses and higher intensity commercial businesses that can be accessed both by car and by other modes of transportation. So with that uh in mind, staff thinks that this area where the subject property is located is more of a transitioning area where you see the transition from the uh more of the neighborhood residential

type uses to the commercial uses. And so um we believe that a um lower intensity commercial use which is supported by zoning districts such as NX1 or RX1 district is more appropriate and the corresponding land use designation that supports that would be neighborhood mixed use. So with that uh rationale um staff would be supportive of a um of a zoning district such as RX1 or NX1. However, the MX3 district is too intense for the character and the type of uses within this particular area. So, staff is recommending denial of their request to zone reszone to MX3 and the land use um change from lowmedium density residential to community mixed use. The applicant did uh conduct a neighborhood meeting as required and this is their summary. I believe they had um um they had a conversation with one of the neighbors and also had separate phone conversations with a few other neighbors about the project. And um here's again some documentation of the conversations they had. We received a comment letter in opposition from invests that uh owns some property in the vicinity of this site. And this is also a letter um they are opposed to the resoning and this particular proposed use of auto repair um in on the within the subject property. And I'll just uh zoom in a bit so you can read this.

And this is the consent map showing the um properties and opposition within the consent map boundary. The opposition percentage stands at 17.49%. What's the threshold for needing supermajority? 20%.

And just also, oop, sorry, I was just going to ask if we had any questions. Please go ahead. I got a bunch. But okay, so just to clarify, we actually only have one entity that's an opposition. They just happen to own 17% of the parcels within that area. Is that right? That is correct.

So we only have one group that has a financial stake in the outcome who's there. Number two, I guess um when we say like the vicinity, right, and say, "Hey, this is too far away from other stuff." It seems like we're less than a block away from heavy industrial. So I guess when we say the area, what do we mean? Um I'll just go back to the uh map again. Uh we are primarily thinking about the character of the 6th Avenue. So the kind of uses that are along 6th Avenue. And when you start thinking about um districts such as MX3, those are um along more busy commercial corridors. So you can think of Uclid Avenue, Second Avenue, um Southeast 14th. Those are some of the examples in the community where the MX3 uses are concentrated. Um, we believe that 6th Avenue is not as intense as some of those corridors and the type of uses that would be more appropriate along those corridors would be ones that are allowed within less intense uh districts such as RX1 or NX1. But just to also make sure we're clear, so that what they're asking to do is already being done and has been done for years here, right?

It it has um always been an auto repair shop. It did lose its legal non-conforming. Yeah. So the it was previous owner, right? It the use ceased and then the the current applicant is a new owner or Right. It because it was vacant over 6 months, it lost its legal non-conforming rights. We one last. Do you know when the how long it's been vacant? I know I know the minimum threshold is 6 months. I just didn't know. If you happen to know off the top of your head, we can figure it out later. It's not a big deal. I think it has. Maybe the applicant can provide more clarity, but I think it has been vacant for at least a year.

And last one last one. I'm just making sure I'm getting the points from yours. So, we know it's always been this use. We're saying we want this use again. We know that we're only a block away from intensive uses that would be similar to this. And the last one we're saying that we need multiple forms of transportation. There's literally a bus stop out the front door. You can't get closer than that. Yeah.

I I think just to add on to what Shreyoshi said is is just the proximity to the residential that's immediate in this. If you look at this map, you have houses in multiple directions. If you look at their parcel, I don't even think I I believe it is too small to comply with the minimum lot area for auto repair. I could be wrong, but we could check that. But that the back end of their parcel is actually owned by the neighboring property. They also own the property 316, which isn't part of the request, but um it's we just felt that this is property is too intertwined with the houses that around it to to do auto repair. Sorry.

Again, that's our recommendation. What use is going on in 3011 and 3007, the next door neighbor? What's happening there? Are those residential? Are you talking? Can we see the larger map, the one that actually has the uses on it? 311 and 3007. What's going on in there? This is um again, this this is the future land use map and zoning. So, it's not it's not telling us what might be in those buildings at this point. It is it is a a commercial I believe a flooring um business. So it's not residential. It's not residential to the south. It's residential to the north and to the to the east.

So it's a residential across the street to the north. It's residential behind to the east, but to the south it's commercial. Just to the immediate south, but if you look back in that block further south, like right here where my cursor is, that's also residential. Uh but on 6th Avenue along Sixth Avenue. Yeah, that's all houses. There's one commercial building or two. It's a double and then after that that block is all houses. So we're aggressively commercial south. We have a small patch of houses. Then we still have a continuation commercial up to this property. Is that a fair way to also look at it? Correct. Okay.

Yeah. I mean I think it's it's it's definitely a transitional area. Again, this is just a staff recommendation, but it it is intertwin. It's an area that's intertwined in a residential setting. We had a long discussion of staff, tried to weigh the different options, the pros and the cons, um impacts on neighbors, and and that's what's led us to make this recommendation. Well, I just want to clarify again that the people who live in the neighborhood came to the meeting and supported the proposal, but InvestDSM, who's an investor in the neighborhood, doesn't. Is that correct?

Yes. We we did not receive any other comment cards or um communication from any of the other neighbors other than invests. Yeah, we and I don't I don't think we had as staff we've had any contact with anybody other than the written correspondence that we're sharing, but the applicants reported that they did and that they have supported. I just want to make it just make sure it's clear that it's um not that we were contacted and it didn't show up on our map. The map that we show as far as the response, that's the written submittal as part of the notice process. I just want to make sure that those are two different ways to get input and engage the public, but they don't always overlap.

Jeff, I got a question, please. Um, the uh did Neighborhood Development Corporation have a comment? We did not receive any comment. Okay. They got a huge project going on a block down and a block over on the park. It's right that bottom left part of their I think that's their lot right there. So that's a big new construction um residential project as I recall. Yes.

Yeah. Um, and this this go did uh did we ask the ward chair for city council if they're supporting it yet or not? Do we do we do that? Uh, we don't typically we haven't heard anything from any of the council people, but we don't um reach out to them or anything. I mean, it's just, you know, this is the first step in the process. I have no idea what they're okay

aware of. And to be I mean I just put it straight out there that we write our staff report before we get comment cards in. We're we've already prepared this before we know where anybody I mean sometimes we might hear early from neighbors but the vast majority of time the cases that you're seeing the report and our recommendations are based purely off of our professional analysis and recommendation. I know that I've talked to Linda before about this area and she is very pro getting this area revitalized, more retail, residential. Um, probably not mechanic shops, just uh FYI.

Yes. Can you turn your mic on? Sorry. To get a use variance. Yes. Through the board of adjustment to use this as an auto repair shop. And that use variance could come with conditions to address some of the concerns in invest DSM's letter. Diesel trucks running, you know, over time, noise, that kind of thing. And if they don't comply with the conditional or the use variance by the board of adjustment, then they cannot run that business any longer. and we wouldn't have to reszone the property. Correct.

That's correct. If they receive a reasonzoning denial from the city council, then they have up to a year to uh go to the zoning board of adjustment to seek a use variance. They would have to meet the hardship test in order to successfully receive a use variance. And that hardship test is what? There is um there is criteria within the uh within the code that the uh board of adjustment members would review um and make a determination if they do meet the hardship test.

In short, you have to demonstrate you really have um no other economic use of the property. So I mean it is a a steep challenge. I mean I I the use of our answers do get approved. I'm not saying they don't, but I think we have we do have to recognize it. It is a fairly robust test. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Soshi? If we reszone this to the RX that you suggested, what would be an allowable usage of the building under that? What like what's a couple examples?

Uh yes. So the um RX district will allow um lesser intense commercial uses. It could be things like small offices, uh maybe like a office for service type like a like a um salon, hair salon or something of that nature. Um so it it just includes uh lesser intense commercial uses that are that fit more within the neighborhood mixeduse category.

Yeah. And I and I think Trayoshi, you'd mentioned to me that you have talked that through with the applicant. I mean, you know, it could be services, could be like barber shop stuff, it could be retail, could be office. Um, I we if if it was important to the commission, we can display the use table, you know, and share go through the list of stuff, but um I don't want, you know, don't want to necessarily eat up time if you don't want to see it. I have a question for staff. This site is within the recently adopted urban renewal area, correct? If it's not in it, it's it's adjacent. I don't remember immediately to the north.

So, it's not the site itself is not part of the it's not within the area. I believe thank you. Any more questions?

Okay. Thank you. Uh is the applicant present? You're welcome to come forward. Uh, please state your name and address for our records and sign in when you are finished and you have up to 10 minutes. Hello, my name is Jorge Gonzalez and my address is 826 East Livingston Avenue and uh I'm one of the owners of the property of 3176th Street and I purchased this property in back in April of 2024 with the vision to turn it back into a repair mechanic shop because that's what the previous owner had it for many many years and the previous owner before him I believe it was a motorcycle shop with one of the persons that came to the meeting had told us they had been in the neighborhood for at least 20 years and they've known the whole history about this shop. So, it it's practically what we're trying to bring it back to. I know that one it's only one position and she said they need the 20% in order to move move forward and they're not meeting their request. So, what we're trying to do is fix up the neighborhood, make it compliant to whatever you guys want and the the noise, the dirtiness and everything. We want to take care of that. Uh we have fixed a property of 3100 Boston Avenue. That was my brother's property I believe like four years ago. He did rebuild the whole house. So, we've been trying to fix up that neighborhood because we do live on we used to live on Second Avenue with my parents for over 20 years. So, we've been in that neighborhood for a long time and just trying to bring it up and meet all the compliances you guys are requiring. As long as as well as the aesthetics of the shop, we can do any paint work, new windows, new garage doors, the fencing, the I believe you guys are requiring um a sidewalk on Boston and 6th Avenue. We can meet all those compliances.

Any questions for the applicant? Who do you expect to be your customers at the auto shop? Like people from the neighborhood or people from the neighborhood, friends, family? Yeah. So, do you think it would be a business that supports the neighborhood? I guess you can say that. I know there is another business to the north of that that is also a tire shop and it's been there for a long time. Also a cleaning service for cars or detail service for cars. There is another one next to it that's up closer to Uklid. Yeah, it's only within 200 feet of this property.

Are there any other car shops on 6th Avenue between downtown and I 80? 6th Avenue. Probably not on 6th Avenue. A lot on Second Avenue, though. Yeah, I'm thinking of I think there are some on Six. I think there's one um closer to like like Franklin area down there. Maybe there is one passing Uklid. There's a there's a tire shop right before Uklid. Yes. Yes. I know my my cousin did own one on maybe within half a mile of Uklid to the north few years ago and I know it's still in place as a mechanic shop.

Um what kind of work would you be doing on vehicles? This is for um passenger vehicles, not big trucks, heavy trucks. So, are you doing tireles? Just tire changes, oil change, brakes, tire service, stuff like that. No, not big stuff. And you currently own the building, not a contract buyer or anything. You own it or Yeah. Okay.

Go ahead. Well, my auto mechanic shop is I get to walk to it from my house and it's surrounded by residential property. So, I think that's a tremendous opportunity um for folks in the neighborhood to easily be able to access a shop. I think it's super exciting that you all are from the neighborhood and are continuing to invest in the neighborhood. So, thank you for that. Yeah. Thank you. Um I'm concerned

because this is not the first time we've had a case where there's a buyer and uh they intend to use the building as it had been previously used. And then in the meantime there's a lapse that the buyer is unaware of and then we end up here. um which creates tremendous expense and I think we should ask the question how is this happening that this information isn't getting passed along because obviously people buy a property in good faith um anticipate using a property in the same way it's been used for a very long time makes sense and then we find ourselves here where the ability to do that is lapsed and the business can't continue. So, this is not so much a question for you as maybe for us, but was that vacant? Have you been holding it and then you just hadn't started the business yet? Or was it vacant before you purchased it for a while?

So, that was what we thought when we purchased the property and the guy moved out of town. He was renting it to somebody else that was using it as a storage place and that's the time that it lost its mechanic license. The time that it was being rented out, I think it was like within a year when those renter people out moved out. Then we purchased the property. Then we were trying to make it a mechanic shop and then we found all this out. So So the you bought it in 2024. Yes. And then the prior to that it had been rented to for storage and then prior to that it had been an auto repair, right? Yes. So it wasn't vacant. It just was being used not as an auto shop and that caused the caused it to lapse. How does that

Yeah. I mean, I I I I think there's it's been vacant clearly even if it had been I think as Treyoshi presented it. I think at the planning staff we were aware that it been it's been vacant and it's been vacant longer than what the code allows you for a non-conforming use. Um but and it what I'm hearing tonight is that even before the vacancy, the use had actually changed prior to that. So, it's hasn't been, you know, it's been that would have been a an action that where you lose your non-conforming rights as well if you change the use of something that's um um not permitted in the zoning district that's there. So, but again, our analysis was based on it being vacant for a couple years. Okay.

So, I know we occasionally have conversations like this that come up that are about our process that's sort of outside of that, but obviously we want to be a city that supports small businesses and supports people who are investing in their own neighborhoods. So, I I hope we can well our um

the neighborhood services department which different department than ours but we partner with them on a lot and they they where zoning enforcement is housed and other enforcement activities. They have a vacant building monitoring case. So, you know, um that we do try to track it, you know, so people are looking at property and they call and ask about it. They're, you know, it's I'm not saying it's perfect. Um you know, lots of times these types of situations aren't there's no way to know about it until somebody comes and tell, you know, tells you about a plan that they want to do. And as part of that due diligence on their side, our side, you know, these things are found and once we know it doesn't comply with the code, we don't have a choice. But, um, you know, we do try to make information available if we're asked.

There is, uh, plenty of due diligence, uh, on the owner of the property to do when they buy property before, during, and after they own the property. So to blame the city on this is I don't think appropriate, but um the uh um I'm wondering are you going to put are you going to operate the business or are you going to put tenants in there or uh we were trying to put tenants in there? Yeah.

Okay. And have you not tried to you not talked to the city about putting it up to code or anything? This the first time you've done it then since you've owned it for 2 years. Uh when we first got the property, we were just going to straight up rent it out and they said that for anything we are allowed to do, we have to resubmit a a reszoning for anything. Right. Right. Okay. Can you share Can you share a little bit about your neighborhood meeting because it looks like um the people that are opposing were at the meeting and they talked to you.

Uh no. So at the meeting we had only two people showed up. They were okay with it. I had another three to four people call me. They were also okay with it. And I did speak with uh the guy from Invest InvestDSM and they seem to be okay. They just had a argument about we had some tennis in there before we knew any of this and then we had to kick him out because they had a mess and they had cars in the in the street and that's all he brought up to me but he never said he was opposed to it. They didn't happen to offer you to buy the lot from you? Uh, no, they did not. Okay. Thank you.

Um, one more question. So, just to confirm, you would not be the owner operator of the facility. You would just be the landlord and then try to find a mechanic tenant to rent it from you is what I heard you say just a minute ago. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, because we operate operate another uh construction business, so we can't do both at the same time.

Well, one last question. Would you um would you be okay with the zoning uh proposed by staff uh which was minimal uh mechanic uses rather than full-blown MX1. It was whatever it was. It's allows some mechanics shop stuff like she said. What were the uh restrictions there that she said?

Yeah. Um just to clarify, the um RX1 district wouldn't allow the the auto repair that the the district he has to have for that is the MX3. It's just that RX1 would allow other commercial uses. I think what you're thinking of is we talked about there are within the code, even if you're in the MX3 zoning district, there are performance um standards for auto repair uses across the city. And we were just trying to share those with you. So, you knew that those would apply here if it's reszoned

because that that seems like with those restrictions that would be real hard to make to do a mechanic shop because you can't have cars on the lot very much. You know, you can have it up to three or something. Um, can't block the driveway. Yeah, can't have tires outside. I don't Oh, yeah, there it is. Uh, that's just what I remember. But yeah, it seems like that would be tough even with the zoning to perform a mechanic shop. Correct.

Any other questions for the applicant? Do you plan to if if the reszoning doesn't go through, do you plan to go um seek a use variance through the zoning board of adjustment or do you have other plans for the property? Uh maybe we will come to see if we can do something else because for right now we don't have any any other plan for it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, any final questions? Thank you. Thank you.

Um, is there anyone in the audience tonight who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral or opposed? Okay, then I will close the public hearing. If I could, I just want to clarify. Um, we did double check this is in that urban renewal area. Um, Shreosh, she went back and double checked and we just wanted to clarify and make sure the record was correct.

Thank you. Um, I'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion and motions. What do we think? If this property is in the public is in the urban renewal area, is there an opportunity for staff to work with the applicant and figure out a use that complies with the city's vision that does not require um a reszoning to MX MX?

Yes. And actually um we've Shayoshi's had conversations. We'd uh discussed the idea of maybe if they were interested continuing it, we could renotice it for RX1 and we would I mean we've already said publicly we would support that. Um we just aren't willing to support MX3. Um, if you are going to make a motion of MX3, then I'd ask you to actually continue the item so we could come back with some zoning conditions that would at least limit the uses to what they're proposing and some of the things that are um, you know, not bars and some of the other stuff that allow MX3 that are a little more impactful on houses. Well, the reason why I asked about the urban renewal area is because the owner can benefit from some of those um the implications that the area itself uh brings with it. So, I would hate for them to not be aware of what that means with a project that does not comply with the current zoning, nor does it comply with what the city is looking for at this location. Yeah, I that's a great um a great perspective and I I think um we could have them sit down with our economic development staff. I I first thought it was the small business team, but anybody on that team would be may have something that would be of assistance to them.

If if we're open to that path, then I guess I would want to push for a continuence and I guess for a few reasons. Number one, um I do want to echo what I not to misspeak, but what I think was Jane's earlier concerns that, you know, the proposal here doesn't feel like we're supporting a long-standing community member from the neighborhood in, you know, in opposition to the interests of someone who's not from the community, not not from that neighborhood. So, that part I think is concerning. The other part now that we know it is in this area is I remember that when economic development came and was represented by Britney or Bridget or whoever was it who

Whitney I'm sorry. So when Whitney came, she expressly said and we repeatedly asked that what is the number one mission there and she seemed to indicate it was equity and ensuring that these types of businesses from these types of community business owners would not be getting pushed out of this area. And now we're seeing this business in this area that has been a long-standing business. When we say is economically viable, it was for years and years. There's plenty of other indications that this is a great type of business right by where it should be. It seems to fly directly counter to what Whitney promised us would not happen. That part's borderline enraging. So, I would really really hope that we do not uh deny the opportunity for MX3 here if a continuence is possible to learn more and see whether or not there's other options that could be better. Knowing that my primary leaning is to allow this to exist, which it has always existed, this always it's existed for a long time, is supported by actual community members, and the only vote against it is for people who aren't there. other perspectives.

I like the idea to make the uh what Johnny's saying about um it's in the urban design, urban renewal. So, let the um applicant know that there's possible city incentives to make it uh different zoning different uh than what your proposal is and still make the property uh which the city in the city's eyes the highest and best use is not MX zoning but a different type of zoning that could really help you build the property into a better use and um help you pay for it a little bit. Um seems to be appropriate uh in line with what the city's saying.

Um I'll say I agree with many of the comments I've heard tonight. Don't like to see a small business owner get uh railroaded or you know pushed out. Uh and I and I do remember a lot of what uh was said by uh the folks that were talking about the urban renewal district. So, I want to keep all that in mind. Um, but at the same time, uh, I my office is right there near there. Um, I remember back when that was the chopper shop there, uh, Church of Choppers, maybe 15 years ago. And, uh, that building's been vacant, I think, probably since then, or has had no use at least for 10, 12 years. So, um, that's why they have limits on that stuff. So if it was up and it was vacant for 6 months, year, 2, 3 years, that's why it loses that legal non-conforming status and that uh the rules and that's why. So uh a little torn here. I see a lot of good points of view. I think the best outcome would be is as uh Matt and Johnny said, maybe there could be some type of compromise to work with these guys. Uh I also do see, you know, these guys would not be owner operators of this facility. they would be leasing it for profit as a business uh to try to find a tenant, not using it for themselves. So, uh it's not a long-standing business in the neighborhood. Just to clarify that in my perspective. So, um I would love to hear from the rest of my fellow commissioners.

Well, um I guess it's a cool little building that I'd hate to see torn down and go into further disrepair. Um, I do think I would encourage it's got a little momentum behind it now that it hasn't had um for some time. So, I'd encourage the owners to work with the city to find a use to keep the building, you know, fix it up and make it viable for the neighborhood. I just I don't know that the auto repair use is one that um I'd like to see there, but I would like to see the building stay and a use that benefits the neighborhood. Um because that's what makes these neighborhoods interesting, vital, walkable, everything we want De Moine to be. Um this little building supports and um let's get the momentum behind it. Work with the city to find a business to get in there and the economics to work out for you guys. So in order to find those other options, it seems like our best path forward though would be a continuence. So, moving for a continuence in this case. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, I would um I think first we need to confirm with the applicant that they're willing to support a continuence um and that they're not going to really push to have you voted up or down one way or the other. But as staff, I would and we'd mentioned this to them before. I you know, we fully support continuing this uh finding a zoning ordinate or excuse me, district that we think makes sense for here. getting a new notice out to the neighbors so they understand what has changed. Um I think we can take the time to um introduce them to our economic development team whether that's something I mean I there's programs that are both associated with urban renewal areas but also some programs that aren't like the um facade repair program the small business it's a small business program that's um not tied to tiff and urban renewal areas that might be a great you know this might be a great candidate for it it's meant for kind of small buildings small properties like this So, and if that if the applicant's willing to work with us, um, then I would say let's continue it. Um, I would maybe say continue it indefinitely so we can send we'll send out new notices to the neighbors and then we'll get it back on an agenda once they've had time to meet with our economic development staff and we can get all the facts together.

Let me ask the applicant, would you be open to that path to continuing this item until you have a chance to visit with city staff more about the possible paths for the property. Okay. Uh for the record, the applicant responded yes that they would be willing to do that because there's resources available, right? That that'll be part of the process is letting folks know about resources. Yeah, I think um and that's why I'm suggesting we continue it indefinitely and do a new notice because I don't want to um like say put this out two weeks and not have enough time to set up meetings and stuff. So,

would someone like to make that motion? I will make the motion to move the item indefinitely. Give time to the applicant to work with city staff and the economic development department as well. Okay. Thanks, Johnny. Uh, all in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Um, are there any announcements, director's reports, committee reports?

Yeah. Well, I want to extend an invitation to you all. Um, I know this is short notice and I apologize, but um, we just, uh, have gotten caught up and have forgot to share with you. I don't know if all of you know or have worked with Mike Lewig over the years. Mike is the deputy development services director. Uh he was the planning administrator uh for quite some time prior to that serving he and I and others. Um Bert and Eric Lundy served the have served the PNZ commission for for decades together. But um his retirement party is tomorrow and it's uh here um in the the conference center from I think 2 to 4:00. I apologize. It's 1:34 o'clock. Um, so we're going to miss him and but if I know P&Z was really important to him and so any of you that know him that feel like you'd like to stop by would definitely like to see you. But thank you.

Is he old enough to retire? No, it's questionable but technically. Thanks everyone. Thank you.