Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Is he going to stay?

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah.

Good evening and welcome to the June 4th meeting of the Des Moines City Planning and Zoning Commission. I will start by reading our rules and procedures. The Planning 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 from the public are then allowed to speak in that order with each speaker allowed a maximum of five minutes. The applicant is then allowed five 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 germane 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 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. Could we have a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting?

I'll move approval.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay, any abstentions? Okay, thank you. And we will move into our public hearing. There weren't any items on consent for this meeting. Item number one is a request from Monte Properties Inc. for the following regarding property located at 2006 Indianola Avenue. Determination as to whether the requested rezoning is in conformance with Plan DSM. Amend Plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from low density residential to neighborhood mixed use and rezone the property from N5 neighborhood district to MX1 mixed use district to allow the conversion of a retail sales use to a tobacco store use. And Bert will present this item for the city.

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the commission, I apologize. We're having some technical difficulties. presentation kept flickering, so I'm going to resort to using the document camera. Hopefully this works. But the item on our agenda tonight is a proposal to amend the comp plan and to rezone the property at 2006 Indianola Avenue from N5, which is a residential district, to MX1, which is a mixed-use district. So the subject property is located on the west side of Indianola Road or Avenue right there. A few months ago, we had a request to rezone the property just to the north, and that went to an RX1 district. which is one of the lighter, least intense commercial districts that we have in the city. The request tonight is for MX1, which is not a super intense commercial district, but it does allow for consideration of uses like tobacco stores and liquor stores that could have the propensity to have more impacts on surrounding residential properties. So I'm kind of giving a preview. Our recommendation is ultimately going to be for denial, just given the proximity of the houses immediately to the west and then to the south. The applicant provided this sketch that shows the floor plan for the building. I should also mention that they currently have been operating as a retail use, which is allowed as a legal non-conforming use. Prior to the adoption of the zoning code, the new zoning code in 2019, this property was zoned C1, which was the latest commercial district back then, and that did allow a retail use. So the use was established legally as a retail use. But as I'll show you next, the zoning enforcement officer has determined that the use has since slipped into the tobacco store category since they're deriving more than 40 percent of the sales from tobacco and tobacco related products. So. that's really what's driving the need for the rezoning. So if the commission and the council would ultimately rezone this property to MX one, their next step would be to seek a conditional use permit for a tobacco store. And I've just pointed out that as a limited retail store that they're currently allowed to operate as they could drive up to 40% of their sales from tobacco products. This is a photo of the site. I have several photos I'll slide through. There's two commercial buildings on this property. One is the La Pena restaurant and the other is the retail business. So that retail business is within this white building on the screen. This is just a couple more closer views. And then this is looking south You can see down Indianola Road, there's a bar on the next block. I think it's now called Tina's Rabbit Hole. And this is looking at the backside of the building from the residential property to the west. And then another look down that residential street. And then our staff recommendation, as you all were provided on Friday, is for recommending denial. Just given the closeness of all those residential uses and the smallness of this site, really, there's not much ability to provide a buffer. Tobacco stores can generate a lot of traffic, which can have impacts on surrounding areas. residential uses. Staff doesn't believe that this property is really in a location or of a size that can support a tobacco or a liquor store use. So we have recommended denial. The applicant did hold the required neighborhood meeting. This here is the invite that they mailed to the property owners. I believe this is the list of people who attended their neighborhood meeting. And then This is just a summary of the outcome of that neighborhood meeting. And then here's the consent map. We didn't get any comment cards back on this item. We did get one email from somebody who has concerns with the tobacco use, tobacco store use. That concludes my presentation, or are there any questions for me?

I have two. The first one, just out of curiosity, by sales, is it by actual number of sales or value of sales?

Value of sales.

And then number two, so right now you're saying that it is operating as a tobacco store, so we do actually, I mean, technically it is. We don't know how long it has been operating. Do we know how long it has been operating?

I don't. Earlier this year, I believe in January, some new signs went up on the property, like Des Moines Cloud, that the zoning inspectors noticed those signs went up without permits. So then the zoning inspectors did a little more digging, and I believe the applicant spoke with Chris Hilescove. That was that letter I showed at the beginning from the zoning enforcement officer, Chris Hilescove, just determining that, yes, this use has moved from a retail use to a tobacco store use.

So we do have, so with respect to, because one thing we always talk about is transportation issues, those sort of items or other types of problems in the neighborhood. We do now have six months of activity that demonstrates what the impact of being a tobacco shop would be, even though it isn't supposed to be. So we do have data on traffic, on parking, on operations of this use, meaning we do know what it's like. We don't have a hypothesis that's going to be different, right?

That's probably true. Yeah. Okay.

I just want to make sure I know which of the arguments we should be focusing on.

Yeah.

Any other questions? When did the property change hands?

That's a good question. I could probably look.

I'm sure the applicant knows too, so we can wait.

Looks like 2021, but remember this is two parts or a property with two buildings. I don't know, are you the, I don't know if the applicant's the actual property owner or just the tenant?

That's what I'm trying to understand is if this is a situation where there's a different entity running the business or if it's a business that the sales have changed over time.

My guess is that the applicant is just a tenant of the property and not the property owner itself. It's owned by Monty Properties Incorporated.

Any other questions for staff? Thank you. This applicant present or the applicant. Um, you're welcome to come forward and you have up to 10 minutes to present your request. Please state your name and address for our records and sign in. There should be a sheet of paper there to sign in on when you're done.

Stand here and hope laptop.

Hi, my name is Suresh Ghazmir. The address is 5315. Do I have to say my residential address or the property that I'm applying for? Your business address. 2006 Indianola Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa. And we had a neighborhood meeting and there were like 18 people showed up. And we discussed about applying the new tobacco license to sell the tobacco product in the neighborhood located at 2026 Indianola Avenue. I'm sorry. This is my first time on the mic. I'm so sorry. Okay. So we discuss about our plans and we share our operational security measures. And we also discuss about our plans to ensure compliance with the local laws, including our strict policies for checking identification to prevent sales to minors. And I ask all the neighbors that if they have any problem opening up the tobacco store, in the neighborhood and there were not single neighbors, you know, they were unhappy to have the tobacco still in the, in the neighborhood. So that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, are there any questions for the applicant?

Uh, so are you, you're the tenant, you're the business owner, is that correct? Or are you the property owner?

I'm the business owner.

Okay, and not the... I'm a tenant. Okay, so you started your business in January, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, that's when you opened up. Yes. And do you operate smoke shops elsewhere in the city, or is this your only business?

I do have another smoke shop in the side of Des Moines. Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I guess my last question is, did the property owner indicate to you when you rented the property for this business that there would be limitations that zoning requirements that would make you unable to operate your business at this location?

So when I leased the property, I was just going to do the retail and clothing store. And, you know, when I realized there are When the customer started coming from the same neighborhood and they requested me, I can have this tobacco and their product in my store. And then that's what I, then I talked to the property owner that I can reason the property and they agreed on that. And I started the process.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Since there aren't any folks in the audience tonight, we'll bypass the public portion of the meeting and I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions, please.

I think that, you know, it sounds like it's unfortunate. This wasn't necessarily approved. There should have been more communication of it. I personally, I know we all have different opinions on alcohol and tobacco. I personally don't have a problem with it. So, I mean, I guess I'm sort of in favor of allowing this business, which is responding to the market, to operate in which would mean a move towards the zoning. The zoning doesn't seem like it's unreasonable here anyway. I'm fine if I lose on that item of that. I would want to push back a little bit on the argument of parking, of traffic, those items, because we do have history here that shows it can operate this way safely without impact. So if we are choosing not to approve, I hope we're choosing not to approve because of something else to do with the alcohol, tobacco or the conformance of this not being allowed before versus saying it's a transportation issue. Because I think we do have evidence that shows, sorry, we have indications that it's not that at least. So I would be in favor of the change of ordinance for a bunch of reasons. I understand if others are opposed to it for other reasons.

I would respond along the same line. Given that they had great attendance at the meeting, I think there were quite a few neighbors there, and given that the business has been in place for six months and nobody, even with the meeting, expressed any strong opinions about the business, and given that there's a bar on the next block, it's a little bit... I wouldn't, it seems to make sense to me. And given that the neighborhood, we did get the one card, but there was a meeting, it's been in place. There've been plenty of opportunities for folks to feel like this is having a negative impact on their neighborhood.

It feels to me like the, well, for me, the disconnect is why a vape shop has to be in like a more restrictive use category than a than this property would be suitable for. It's a small building, it's right on the street, the parking's a little bit weird, there's only so many businesses you could run out of there, and this feels like one that you could use just at a convenience store. So I guess I wish that you could allow the use in the RX1, because the RX1's probably the right type of district for the neighborhood.

I would move staff, Madam Chair.

Any discussion on that motion?

So moving staff would be to deny so this business would not be allowed to operate if we move staff. Is that correct? Oh, so we're saying they're denied on the zoning, but is a conditional use approved for this type of zoning that we have now?

No. They can't apply for conditional use without the zoning. I don't know if Todd was just trying to clarify that you're making a recommendation on the zoning to the city council. The city council would be the authority, the body to change the zoning. But even if they change the zoning after that, the applicant would not be guaranteed approval of the use. It would have to go on to the zoning board adjustment for a conditional use approval. So just kind of clarifying the steps. But the motion is for the staff recommendation which was denial of the request as a recommendation of the city council.

Given that there's been no discussion in support of accepting staff, I'd love to hear from anybody who, either from Will or from other folks who agree why we would go that direction.

Please. I will share why I approve the motion. I know that it's... I appreciate the arguments that have been made, but I do think when we're looking at a road and a corridor in an area that is primarily residential, tobacco and alcohol stores do start to change the feel and the character of a neighborhood. And I... I think there is justification to keep it and to move more towards an RX1 district that's focused on more neighborhood retail uses.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Any other thoughts? Okay. Let's vote on the motion. The motion is to approve the staff recommendation. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Opposed?

It's 6-5.

That's what I had as well, so the motion passes.

Okay, motion passes. Thank you. 6-5 or 6-4?

I think it's 5. Yeah. 5 minutes.

Okay, thank you. Are there any committee reports or director's reports tonight?

None this evening, thank you.

Okay, thanks very much. That concludes our meeting.