Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the June 18th meeting of the Des 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 city council. The council will hold a public hearing and make the final decision on all matters before the commission, other than site plans and subdivision plots, 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 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 president or a member of the commission requests that the item be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately under the public hearing agenda. First, could we have a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting if there are no comments on those?

I'll move approval.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Any abstentions? Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. And I will start by going through our consent items. Item number one is a request from Brooke and Joshua Golden for review and approval of a public hearing site plan for property located at 3701 Lincoln Place Drive and for a type 2 design alternative in accordance with city code to allow construction of an accessory structure in the front yard where accessory structures are only allowed in the side or rear yards per city code. Is there anyone in the audience tonight who would like this item removed from consent and discussed in the public hearing? Anyone on the commission? Okay, item one will stay on consent. Item number two is a request from Waisam Yassin for review and approval of a public hearing site plan and for a type two design alternatives in accordance with city code. for property located at 1035 63rd street to allow construction of an accessory structure in the front yard area where accessory structures are only allowed in the side or rear yard areas per city code and would anyone in the audience tonight like this item removed from consent and discussed under the public hearing anyone on the commission Okay, item two will also stay on consent. Item number three is a request from Joppa for review and approval of a public hearing site plan, Joppa-Maury Street Village, phase one, for property located at 2501 Maury Street, and for the following type two design alternatives in accordance with city code. Allow one and two unit structures where a minimum of three unit structures are required. A unit width of 12 feet where a minimum of 16 feet of width is required. And buildings with width of 12 and 24 feet where a minimum of 49 feet of width is required per code. Allow 0% frontline lot coverage where a minimum 80% is required per code. Allow a 355 foot primary frontage setback where a front setback of 12 to 25 feet is required for code and allow a 177 foot street side yard setback or a setback of 10 to 15 feet is required per code. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this item discussed in the public hearing agenda? Anyone on the commission? Okay, item three will stay on consent. And there's the potential for item four to move to consent. So I'm going to read through that. Item four is a request from Lee Mitchell Trust and Margaret Mitchell Trust, represented by Laura Mitchell Jorgensen and NDMP Holdings, represented by Adam Peterson, for the following regarding two irregular parcels in the vicinity of 1111 Southeast 30th Street and one irregular parcel located at 3400 Granger Avenue. Determination as to whether the requested rezone is in conformance with Plan DSM. Amend Plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from business park to industrial and rezone the properties from limited I-2 industrial district and EX business park district to I-2 industrial district to allow the expansion of an existing fabrication and production intensive use. The city staff has a set of zoning conditions and the applicant is in agreement with those conditions. So let me ask if there's anyone in the audience tonight who would like this item discussed in the public hearing? Anyone on the commission? Okay, seeing none, could we get a motion to move item four to consent?

I'll move item four moving to consent.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay.

And I think we need to check with Chris online. Chris, how do you vote? In favor as well. Okay, that was understood. In favor.

Okay, thank you. Then the consent agenda then consists of items one through four. Could we have a motion to move the consent agenda?

So moved.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. And Chris, how do you vote?

Yes, four.

Thank you. Okay. Then we'll move into the public hearing items, starting with item number five. This is a request from Premier Construction represented by Adam Ciernan for review and approval of a public hearing site plan to Summit Townhomes for property located at 16 Indianola Road and for the following type two design alternatives in accordance with city code. Allow for a waiver of requirement to underground utilities per code. Allow for three driveways where only one driveway is allowed per code. Allow for surface parking in a street side yard where surface parking is only allowed in a rear yard per code. Allow 0% front lot line coverage where a minimum 80% is required per code. Allow primary frontage setbacks between 22 and 58 feet where a setback between 12 and 25 feet is required per code. and allow a 90-foot street side yards street side yard setback where a street side yard setback between 10 and 15 feet is required per code and kyle is going to present for the city good evening madam chair members of the commission kyle larson planning staff uh

The project address here is 16 Indianola Avenue, or excuse me, Indianola Road. The proposed project is Summit Townhomes, which includes 32 units. The applicant is requesting six different design alternatives. So I'll go through that here in my presentation. Just to give you a little bit of context where the site's located, it's here along Indianola Road where it intersects Indianola Avenue, just south of St. Anthony's Church School. I was out at the site this morning and took a few photographs here to kind of set the table for you. This is a view looking at the hillside from St. Anthony's parking lot. So this is looking across Indianola Road. Just off of the screen to the left is where the quick trip gas station is located. This is panning a little bit to the west. You can kind of see the hillside and some site prep that's happening there. This is at the intersection of Indianola Road and Southwest First Street, which would be toward the west side of the development with the church just across Indianola Road there. This is looking back Excuse me looking up Southwest First Street giving you a little bit more flavor for the west side of the site and kind of see the hillside and the slope that the site is presenting This is back on the east side of the site at South Union and Indianola Road looking toward the west This is moving south along South Union, along the east kind of perimeter of the site. Still kind of see some of the slope and conditions there. Continuing a little bit further south yet, looking west into the site from South Union. And this is just a shot looking north into downtown from South Union with the subject property to the left of the screen here. Here are some building renderings that have been supplied by the applicant with the site plan case. You can kind of see the three-story concept that they're going for with the townhouse project. The upper image is what you would see from Indianola Road, kind of that first row of buildings. There will be, as you'll see here on the site plan, there's three different rows of buildings as you work your way up the grade. But this building here in particular is what you would see kind of on that primary street frontage. These are the floor plans for the units. THEY ALL INCLUDE ATTACHED GARAGES. AND GETTING INTO THE SITE PLAN SPECIFICS HERE, EXISTING CONDITIONS, THERE IS A PREVIOUS PREEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. JUST THAT DEMO PLAN. This page is the proposed layout of the site for the townhouse project. You can see there's six individual buildings. They're kind of tiered or terraced, if you will, kind of as you go up the grade of the site from north to south, so they'll kind of overlook each other, similar to the Elevate project that's just down the road to the west side. You can see here the proposed driveways that are coming in. The applicant is proposing two driveways from Southwest First Street and then a single drive lane that would be one way providing egress down to South Union Street. This is showing the landscape plan, landscaping around the site. Getting into the specific design alternatives that are being requested here. The first is waiver of the requirement to underground utilities The second is to allow for three drive entrances where only one is allowed The second is allows service parking in the street side yard Where only service parking is allowed in the rear yard and then lot line frontage coverage and setback Requirements they're asking waiver of those as well Terms of our staff recommendation staff is recommending denial of the under undergrounding of utilities. That's a requirement of all new construction looking at the mid American energy cost estimate for the undergrounding staff believes that the The estimate to underground those utilities is within reason, considering the overall project cost is $8 million. The estimate provided by MidAmerican Energy put the undergrounding between 75,000 and 100,000. In terms of the remaining five design alternatives, staff is recommending approval of the remaining five design alternative requests. There's a map of the notice area. We did not receive any comments for or against this project from neighbors. That concludes my presentations. Are there any questions for me?

I have a question. The quick trip that's right next to the site, did they have to underground utilities? Because that was recently built.

Jason, do you recall if they did?

Yeah, I believe that the utilities were buried there. I'm looking at Google Street View and I don't see any.

That's a good question.

Thank you. I've got a question on the undergrounding of utilities also. Is what your intent is undergrounding the existing transformers that are on that utility pole as well as the

secondary lines if you will that go from those transformers or from the poles to the units all of it that's correct yep that was what um an american provided the cost estimate for um there is a line that crosses indianola road um that goes over to the church um so there would have to be uh an overhead POLL REMAINING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INDIANOLA ROAD TO ACCEPT THAT. THAT FEEDS THE CHURCH.

THEN IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE SOME OF THOSE ALSO, DO THEY HAVE A STREET LIGHT ON IT AS WELL? OR IS THAT STREET LIGHT BEHIND IT? IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THAT PICTURE.

IT HAS A STREET LIGHT ON IT, YEAH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

I just had one more just to follow on that. So we're saying that we're not requiring undergrounding under the road, just on the property, there will be a one above ground connection across to the street cross Indian all road. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's, that's correct.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for me?

Thank you. Is the applicant present? Yep, please come forward if you'd like. Please state your name and address for our records and sign in on that white sheet when you're done and you have up to 10 minutes.

I'm Adam Serin, owner of Premier Construction, an applicant. Thanks for your time on this. Maybe this view coming down by St. Anthony's so you can see the another one and I can go back to one more. Never mind. I got a picture. So the undergrounding here is something that staff has to deny based upon a percentage of project cost. In meeting with an economic development department prior to this development, meeting with Kerry Cruz and Nick Tarpey, we were trying to find ways to help reduce costs on this site because we want to see it developed as we've had successful projects along this corridor. And they really worked really hard at trying to find ways to find money to help with the topography constraints on this site. And they worked really, really hard at trying to be creative, but it kind of ran into a dead end. So I kind of asked staff, said, hey, is there any way we can be lenient on landscaping potentially to just try to find some way to offset the cost of building into this hill? Because I think we all can agree that we want to continue to see the development along this corridor. because it's been successful. And there's just been no real way to help pick up any additional cost savings building into these hills. I understand I'm the one that's a glutton for punishment building into these hills, but it's really difficult and expensive. And it's all expansive soil, so we've got over $300,000 in over-dig and over-excavation that these foundations have to sit on. So those are just costs that we don't get to enjoy as aesthetically. So I understand staff has to deny this, but $100,000 is a lot of money. You know, even though it's a small percentage or a certain percentage of the total project cost, it's just, I would like to see through the whole course of this project, the city coming alongside and saying, hey, any way we can do to help with costs on this due to the constraints, topographical constraints, and this site's sat vacant for decades. many years. The old church used to be there. We got denied a grayfield. It's a grayfield site. We were not able to get the workforce housing tax credit or the grayfield tax credit on this particular one. Those have tightened up quite a bit. So it's just the undergrounding here is definitely a cost that we would like to have waived just to help the project. And it's a... shows that the city and staff is appreciative of what's going on in that area and to continue to see the development push forward over here. And I mean, you asked me five years ago if this corridor was going to look like this, and I don't think anyone in this room could say that it would be that way. So this is going to be another great project, kind of complete the townhouse row of Des Moines, I suppose. And I just ask that you guys really consider to waive this undergrounding because $100,000 is real money. And we still have the overhead going over to St. Anthony's. I talked to the pastor there. He's in, or the priest, I'm sorry. He's in favor of the project and he would love to get it on his transformer sat. And then it kind of fizzled, but, but I've explored it and it's just a really expensive. So, and that's only a cost estimation. It could actually be more than that having to deal with that. And to answer your question, we are undergrounding everything from MidAmerican. We have an approved design for our transformers, and we're going to have three transformers on this site. And they'll go down the pole, and we'll install the conduits to three transformer locations to have everything on site undergrounded. So I would really appreciate some relief here if you could. Any questions?

I have a question. Yeah. The project on Cortland Townhomes, did they have two underground utilities?

My Elevate project, I have pictures here, and the project, can we turn this on? Thanks for asking that, by the way.

And while you're pulling that up, a question for staff is, this project would qualify for tax abatement, wouldn't it? So that's city assistance right there?

Yes, it does qualify for tax abatement. Thank you.

probably just getting by by the skin of our teeth on the tax abatement. So that's a good thing. So this is the project down the street that I'm sure you're all familiar with. We did not have to underground overhead on that project. And this is going to be very, very similar in style to the project down the street.

Isn't that overhead on the side street, right? Yeah. And I think we've already given you relief on this site for overhead on a side street. We just, it's just not on this part of the, in front of that commission.

So the Indianola side was not waived. That's what I'm hearing.

Well, on this, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head if this had any overhead. Did it have existing overhead on Enola? It might have not been a spot. I could look in Google Street View.

We didn't have to underground, so I'm not sure what.

I just wanted to clarify that in this particular site, I think we've already waived the requirement for overhead on Southwest First Street. There's overhead along that staff we've waived already. And I think what you're seeing here is a side street.

Mona Avenue. So this one is kind of the view that I was on this, showing the overhead coming over to St. Anthony's. And they've just got, sorry, St. Anthony's just got the mess on site with their overhead stuff going on. But yeah, mainly it just feeds this frontage and then it loops over to St. Anthony's. So I'm not sure if we just leave those overhead transformers or how much of an impact it'd be for the cost. SO.

ADAM, JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS. READING HERE, 34 UNITS?

YES, 34 UNITS.

JUST DOING SOME QUICK MATH, IT'S JUST UNDER 3 GRAND PER UNIT IF YOU DIVIDE IT OUT $100,000 IN COSTS AND I DEFINITELY GET IT AND I'VE BEEN IN SPOTS BEFORE IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS TRYING TO CUT COSTS. THE ONE THING I WOULD MAYBE SAY when you're looking back, if you do end up underground in it, A couple of years from now, you're going to think that was the right decision because your people aren't going to be looking at power lines is the only thing that I'm kind of torn on because I definitely understand the dollars and you've got to stretch to make it happen in this economy. So that's just one word I have. And then did we say that there are some light poles that are attached to those power lines?

There was at least one in one of the photos.

So did we know what Mid-Am was proposing to do? Did that include putting like a new light bulb up or what all were you responsible for? And was that quote directly from Mid-American, not through your electrician or somebody who then marked it up 20% or anything goofy like that?

Right. So what staff does now is they take me completely out of it, which is kind of nice because I don't have to... Previously, I would email MidAmerican, have them get a quote, get it over to the city. Well, now the city bypasses the developer and they go direct to MidAmerican. And I don't know if that's a newer-ish... Well, yeah.

I mean, we tried to do that as both courtesy for applicants and for, quite frankly, for Mid-Am staff just to have a coordinated communication chain. I would... I believe that that would include, you know, that there's a light on there that's going to be factored into that and switching to an underground fed metal pole. And that's not necessarily in that case, when you when it comes just to streetlight poles, you're not necessarily paying like the full cost you're paying. THE DIFFERENCE IN GETTING IT TO THE WOULD PULL RATE THERE'S LIKE YOU KNOW THE CITY PAYS MONTHLY CHARGES OR FEES TO FOR STREET LIGHTS IT'S A LITTLE THE COST OF THAT IS NOT USUALLY TERRIBLY HIGH COMPARED TO THE OVERALL UTILITY WORK IN GENERAL AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THE QUOTE SO THEY DON'T FORWARD THAT ON TO THE APPLICANT SO

And I understand aesthetics. I mean, I've really tried to clean this area up. And as much as I want to see these undergrounded, I mean, cost is a major factor. I mean, we're seeing price reductions in townhouses across Des Moines massively right now. So it's it's tight, you know, and build into this hill and cleaning this up. I mean, I think that everyone will be really pleased with the final project.

What about the third driveway, the driveway to South Union? You know, it it's going down a steep slope. It's providing secondary access. It's not the main access. Is that actually needed? That might be a cost savings.

Well, I know you guys have really pushed back on that, but managing Elevate, I have a six-unit dead end. And to have a 12-unit dead end there would be just – massively inconvenient for that tenant on the on the end there to have um that dead end there so that's just going to be a one-way exit through there and it would just be it would be terrible to have 12 units i mean if one guy at unit six decides to block that lane you've got six residents that are you know in a bad spot there so it's nice to have that safety exit um getting out that other end. So we really pushed hard. I mean, I've probably got eight grand in engineering costs just trying to figure out how to get that road in there. So it was just something that we really wanted to have from a functionality standpoint. So I know it's not necessary, but from a management standpoint, it is.

So any other questions for the applicant?

Can we see the site plan again? The overall site plan?

I need to go back, yeah, to the computer.

The other way? I can get it pulled up.

Kyle will help you. He's going to have to get it read. Flip it. Maybe go to the topography sheet. There you go.

So there is going to be a sidewalk along Indianola Road. Is that a trail or a sidewalk? Do we know?

That'd be a sidewalk. I have to remove and replace that sidewalk.

Those power poles look like they're right in that sidewalk. If I can...

These are designed around...

These are the design plans?

Yeah, they're designed around the sidewalk. The poles are still in, I believe, are still in this... Site plan. That's detention basin in the front there.

OK. And I don't know Adam, you you had mentioned the. side access road out of there and 12 units, but you kind of got a dead end down there with shoot. I don't know what 24 units, right? I mean, those are bad spot there too.

Yeah. I mean, those have got, it's a little wider through there and we have that parking, which is part of the, the design alternative and that's a bigger turnaround down there. So it's just a little bit less of a pinch point. I mean, you've got a small pinch point with those three units, but I think there's enough maneuvering that we can get around, uh, If anyone was to block that because it's so wide in there. So that was kind of the thought on that. It's a tough site. I mean, it's, you know, essentially we're taking all the grade from the northwest and we're shifting it to the east where that house sat. And there's about 11 foot of fill on this southeast building. And then these lower units are more like the ones at Bricktop that Caliber did, uh, which is nice. Cause we don't have garages facing the street. So they're going to be that reverse kind of front door walkout with the garages on the second level. So that'll be nice.

These are going to be for sale, right?

Uh, for rent rent. Yep. It's a rental product. I wouldn't build a for sale townhouse in Des Moines right now for it's it's rough, but you still have units up the hill for sale. Yes. It's rough.

So any other questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience tonight who would like to speak in favor of this item?

Hi, my name is Carol Maher. I live in downtown Des Moines in Ward 3. And I'm in favor, generally, of most housing. But I do have some observations. And Commissioner Garner mentioned, asked about sidewalks. I'm a civilian. I don't read site plans for a living. But I wasn't sure if there were sidewalks on all faces. It wasn't clear to me that sidewalks were being provided. I hope to heck they are. And if this corridor is really great and it's getting better, that's really awesome. I think that's one more reason to underground the Utilities and it's also more sustainable Based on what's happening with storms and things like that these days. It's really Ups the safety in that three curb car cuts is too too many as a bicycle and pedestrian safety person we shouldn't add more curb cuts than necessary and I I certainly think that third one should really strongly be considered. And again, I don't read those plans for a living. I wasn't clear if there was guest bike parking provided on the site. And I hope it is being contemplated. Thank you.

Thank you. Please do sign in if you didn't already. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Anyone opposed? Okay. Applicant, you do have five additional minutes if you'd like to address any of the comments that were just made. Okay. Applicant waived that. So I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions, please.

What do we think? Ms. Chris, can I have a comment? Go ahead. I think it'd be very hypocritical of me if not to say something on this, given my level of, I'm sure, frustration with Jason and my support of undergrounding. I echo Carol's comment that undergrounding is really a public safety and social resiliency measure. And I think that it's not necessarily our role, as I've been told before, to be doing value engineering. On this site, I'm very, very happy about this project. I think the site is awesome. I think it's going to be great. It's going to be for rental. I think everything about it is awesome. but I do think it would be, I'm strongly in favor of, especially given the fact that this may be the cheapest mid-American estimate for undergrounding I think we've ever seen come through here, that we should be supporting staff and the requirement for undergrounding in this case, especially when we've even waived the portion of the undergrounding already. So the major undergrounding, I'm aggressively in support of continuing and keeping that requirement. So supporting staff in that regard.

Thank you.

Jason, you said that you always require underground. And then he said down the street that he didn't have to go underground. What are the percentages of people getting relief from having to go underground?

You know, I don't know the percentages of people. But I can tell you about the things that we take into account, and it's about the feasibility of doing the project, how feasible is it, and its impact on neighbors, its project cost. We use 10% as a good rule of thumb. Are we under 10% of the total project cost? Uh, is it new development versus, you know, where we're clearing a site versus, you know, like a very large addition or, um, in the past, you know, we saw more renovation work with the changes in the code. We don't see many renovation projects. Uh, the other is, you know, is it a, you know, is it the primary street? Is it the side street? Um, just the character, you know, the setting, um, those are the kinds of things that we look at. I mean, obviously the, the most scientific or numeric, you know, the, the value of it is, you know, is fairly straightforward, but the rest of it is more about like, what's the character of the area and how feasible it's project.

What other comments or emotions do we have?

Madam Chair, I'll just maybe say I do appreciate everything that Mr. Searon's doing there on that site. As a Southside resident, I drive by there every day, saw the condition it was in for 30-plus years, and seeing what's going on there today, you've got a major undertaking. So I commend you and say bravo. But I would have to say I agree with staff on that one item. LOOK AT IT. MR. SEAREN HAS A WIN ON FIVE OUT OF SIX ITEMS AND NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.

WHAT IS YOUR MOTION? OH. OKAY. COMMISSIONER STRAUER MOVES STAFF. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. Opposed? Thank you. And Chris, how do you vote?

In favor.

Thank you. Motion passes. The next item is item number six. There's a request to continue this item to the July 16th meeting. Do I need to read this into the record? Okay. Um, so item number six needs to, the applicant needs to hold their neighborhood meeting.

So should we just, I just want to, is there anybody in the audience that's here for this item? This is the rezoning on a deal, right? East deal. Yes, that's correct. Okay.

I'm just with sling trap design team. If there's questions, but

Not, you're not a neighbor. Okay. Yeah, they were going to, they're just a little behind on getting their neighborhood meeting scheduled. They were going to get word out and hold it. So that's the point of the request to continue.

Okay. So could we get a motion to continue item six to the July 16th meeting?

So moved.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. Right hand. OK, motion passes and we will. Sorry Chris, how do you vote in favor favor?

Thank you.

Uhm? Lastly, item number 7. This is a request from Heart of America. For review and approval of a public hearing site plan hyper energy bar for property located in the vicinity of 100 Southwest 11th Street and for the following type 2 design alternatives in accordance with city code. A, waive the primary frontage coverage where the minimum required is 95% per code. b allow a setback of 140 feet along southwest 11th street where the required primary frontage build 2 zone is 0 to 5 feet per code c allow a setback of 45 feet along west martin luther king jr parkway where the required non-primary frontage build 2 zone is 0 to 15 feet per code d allow a one-story building where the required minimum overall height is three stories per code E, we've got till J here. E, waive occupied space requirements where a minimum of 30 feet in depth on primary frontage is required per code. F, allow 3% transparency along Southwest 11th Street where a minimum of 70% measured between 2 feet and 10 feet is required for the primary frontage ground story per code. g allow 15 transparency and blank walls along west martin luther king jr parkway where a minimum of 18 is required per code h waive the requirement for a principal entrance along on the primary frontage facade per code i Allow surface parking where prohibited in a DX2 district per code. And J, allow a drive-through facility where not permitted in a DX2 district per code. We can see that this is a challenging site to develop, and Jasmine is going to present for the city. Thank you, Madam Chair, for doing the heavy lifting.

Jasmine Kamani, planning staff. We have a list of 10 type two design alternatives being requested by Heart of America, which I'll break down into three sections in a minute. To give you a little more context to the site, the site's located at 100 Southwest 11th Street on the northwest corner of West Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway and Southwest 11th Street. is located just south of the railroad tracks and just south of this building here. This is a photo taken unfortunately yesterday morning looking west at the property along Southwest 11th Street. This is a view taken on the north side of the railroad tracks looking south-southwest and this is one TAKEN LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE WOULD BE. The request of design alternatives can be grouped into three sections. Requests A through D relate to the building size and location. E through H relate to components of the building. And I and J relate to the audio-oriented components of the site. The building, it's not placed close to the property lines. It's not three stories tall. It's not meeting primary entrance or occupied space requirements and proposing a drive-through and surface parking where it's not allowed by right. The site does offer constraints itself. It's irregularly long and narrow. It has a significant mid-American easement that limits buildability. Proximity to the railroad and the intersection isolates the parcel and it creates challenges for access. The shape of the property and the site constraints limit options for the development and make a traditional urban development typical of downtown difficult here. Staff is recommending approval of the public hearing site plan and requested type two design alternatives subject to compliance with all administrative comments. This is also the imagery of the renderings that they've provided here. and this is our consent map. Staff will stand for any questions and we also have the developer here to answer any of your questions as well as the design team.

Thank you. Any questions for staff?

It looks like the pictures are for across the street on MLK and not on this site. Am I wrong?

The photos?

The photos.

Site photos?

Yeah.

No, I am standing on Southwest 11th Street And if I'm looking towards MLK where it...

Okay, this is a city-owned parcel, right?

Correct.

Yeah. Okay. It just looked like that picture right there looks like it's next to Link where... Oh, Link's across. Yep, yep. Okay, got it.

This is looking south.

Yeah, got it. Okay, got it.

This is Chris. I got one question. I apologize. So this is like a drive-thru restaurant, like a Bebop's or is this like a bar with a drive-thru?

It is a beverage shop, hyper energy bar. They sell like energy drink beverages. But correct, it is a drive-thru.

Oh, so it's like a drive-thru. Yeah, Seven Brew or Dutch Brothers, but more focused on energy drinks with some coffee aspects too.

Caffeine, not liquor.

Okay, so it's basically like a scooters or something. We're basically putting a scooter. Yeah, scooters is good.

Right here.

Okay, that makes more sense. I just can't figure out what this business was. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. Any other questions? Okay, applicant present. Please state your name and address for records and sign in on the white sheet when you're done and you have up to 10 minutes.

Hi, Nikki Neal, 4121 Northwest Urbandale Drive. I'm with Civil Design Advantage. We are the civil engineers on the project. So what you have today in front of you is Hyper Energy Bar. So with this site there, yes, I think I heard that this is a tough little site, isn't it? So it is a city-owned property. What this property has always kind of been intended and used today is for detention and So it truly is a very large detention basin. So what we're doing with the restrictions that are in place, we have, I want to say it's 100 foot wide overhead electric easement that runs through this property that really does not allow any buildings to get pulled up to these frontages like what would be your typical development within downtown. So some things we can have under that is something like drive aisles. So that's where knowing this is a unique site, this is kind of a really good fit for it. Also knowing that the bike trail, so what we're doing here too is we are extending just shy of 1,200 linear feet of 10-foot wide bike trail along the north edge of MLK, which is the south side of our property. What we're doing with that is really allowing to pull pedestrians into this space. So as we've kind of spoke here today, Hyper is primarily a drive-through facility. That is their business. But the idea here is really to promote that bike and pedestrian traffic. So that is what they're truly encouraging here, but still not really stepping away from their core as a business. So some things we're doing here with that is allowing multiple access points off of these improved sidewalks. We also have improved sidewalks off of Southwest 11th Street. There is patio space that is provided really even away from the prime site and really more focused towards that trail and pedestrian space. We have some additional patio space that's right outside of their walk-up window. So there's still a walk-up window that is being provided on top of what is, like I said, their prime business of drive-through. Parking stalls that are provided on the site, really the intention there is for staff. So what we provided there is really kind of to provide that overlap of staff, you know, when your peak happens. We are providing detention on this site, so we are maintaining the existing detention that is already on the site, and we're expanding upon it to meet for hyper. And then Oh Southwest 11th, so there is some proposed Restriping to Southwest 11th So the existing bike trail that we kind of are seeing and green today that is on Southwest 11th that is being maintained So we're really just looking at that southbound left turn lane on Southwest 11th to really look at utilizing it also for a turn-in to allow those coming off of MLK to be able to safely access this facility. So we do have, with the double drive-throughs, there is a pedestrian pickup, or not a pedestrian, we do have a pedestrian pickup, but we have, oh my gosh, why am I blanking? Help me here. Yes. Thank you. Driver side and passenger side. There we go. So with that, that's just to really restrict the stacking into the property. So I'm trying to think if I missed anything else. I'm sure you guys will come up with a question that hopefully I can gladly answer. But we do have the owner of Hyper here as well who will gladly provide any information for you.

Thank you. I have one question to get started. That new bike path that's being provided on the north side of MLK. Is that intended to extend all the way down to 15th? Or how far west does that go?

Um, I don't know if I have a nice clean aerial, but I want to say it is I believe, pretty close to there. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. What other questions for the applicant?

you please point out where that easement is on the diagram the 100 foot easement yeah so if you even just looking at the screen here too um if you see the building the building is almost set right on that north edge of that easement and basically takes up almost the whole frontage and even to the right away so if you can kind of tell in there i assume you can see so it encumbers the southern PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. YES, AND THEN IT WILL ANGLE UP AND KIND OF GOES OFF THE GREEN. CORRECT. WE CANNOT UNDERGROUND THOSE.

Is there truly a need for the double-sided drive-thrus? I mean, isn't there like one? I feel like if you just had one, you would cut half of the pavement that you're proposing on this site. Is there the market demand for two drive-thrus on the one side?

And I would say yes. So there truly is. And they do have other examples where they have used this dual-sided drive-thru with both the driver and that passenger pickup. And what that's going to do is it's going to really allow the stacking to maintain in that property. So if you imagine you're coming in and you're restricted to, say, one drive-thru, that's just automatically going to – ultimately stack you back even farther. So what it does is that's a relief that there is two windows field access to truly restrict that stacking into that property and never have it back up to Southwest 11. So we're really trying to keep that in mind.

This may be a question for the owner, but I'm aware that there's a hyper energy bar in Ames campus town that doesn't have a drive through, appears to be very pedestrian oriented. Is that an option that can be explored instead?

You're welcome to come up and answer that if you'd like. Please do state your name and address as well for our records.

Chris Whalen, owner and CEO of Hyper Energy Bar. To address that question, I have looked into it. I mean, the Ames and our Iowa City that are, you know, walk-in cafe style, it is that density of the urban campus. You know, downtown has pedestrian, but, you know, still is primarily car accessed and, you know, It's a commuter-based town. So this is really the demand that we're getting. I mean, I've been working on downtown for a few years now, and we've spent a lot of time on this project because it is, you know, we have south side, we have east side residents that are really saying downtown would be really the spot that we'd love to see. So this gives them access to get down and enjoy Hyper and closer to them.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I hope you're as wildly successful as you think you'll be. But if you are and you've got that many cars on both sides of this building, pulling out onto Southwest 11th at that curve, if you've ever been there at the busiest times of day, even at the not busiest times of day, that's one dangerous curve.

Correct. The way that we designed the stack, I mean, we kind of went to our peak times at any of our current locations. I'm sorry? What are those? That would be your breakfast or your coffee, your prior to work, and then a post-school. That's our peak times in the suburban locations. But we designed this so that This would be sufficient for even our busiest times. We should not be seeing any stacking out into 11th, and we ran these traffic studies. So this really, it would be pretty monumentous day if we were to see stacking any day at any given time start to kind of bulge the site plan. It would be unexpected.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor? Neutral or opposed?

Sure.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Carol Maher. I'm a renter and I live in downtown Des Moines in Ward 3. Des Moines is not Ankeny. Downtown Des Moines is not the rest of Des Moines. There are approximately 30 lanes of bike lanes in the city. There are approximately 1,900 street miles. That means there are 1.5% of streets have bike lanes. I just want you to keep those points in your mind. This is zone downtown. And part of downtown is the vitality that comes with downtown. The walkability, the bikeability, festivals, farmers market, marathons. And you cannot square this round peg in a square hole or however it's supposed to go. It doesn't work. We are not a suburb and this is not Des Moines. This is downtown Des Moines. We don't want to encourage more people to come with their cars and do drive-thrus. There's a reason why we don't have drive-thrus downtown. There's a Starbucks right down the street from this location. Guess what? No drive-thru. They're not allowed. From when the applicant met with the staff, the first comment letter from 12-18-2025 to the second comment letter on 5-12-2026, to today's request, there have been 10 type 2 design alternatives. Ten. They've existed the whole time. There's been no effort to make it a downtown product. This is not Ankeny. You mentioned that you want to have a lot of cars going through there, you want to have them go through fast, but you want to have a lot of pedestrians and bikes there, too. That is disaster waiting to happen. You don't encourage all of that to the same place. I'm a bicyclist who rides on the Ingersoll red bike lanes multiple times a day, pretty much every darn day. And there's one place where you white knuckle it going down Ingersoll, and that's at the Starbucks, Taco John's, Mr. Mr. area. The Starbucks folks coming out of there, the most dangerous time is right after they get their drink because they're farting around with the straw. They're putting the change back in their purse, their credit card. They're not looking to what they're doing, and that's right where the bike lane. right when they do that. It's a very dangerous time. And if you look at the site plan, the pedestrian crosswalks they put in there are right after both of those double drive-through drivers get their drink. And it's not safe. It's just not safe. I can't stress that enough. And the fact that we have only 1.5% of our streets with a bike lane means that when we have a bike lane, like we do here, we have one, we only get it 1.5% of the time. Now you're going to encourage people to turn into it from both the right and the left. There is a traffic study. The engineering and traffic and transportation department pushed back hard and nothing has been finalized on that. And to approve this site plan without the finalized traffic requirements is not right.

Sorry, I'm kind of upset about this.

But also there's a bike rack in there, a serpentine bike rack that is not compliant with what city requires. The city requires inverted U bike racks with ADA crossbars. That is sort of a simple thing. And when you can't even include that in your site plan, it just shows disrespect for vulnerable road users like pedestrians and bicyclists. Your model is drive-through, getting people to drive there. This is downtown. It is not drive-through. And I really hope the Commission considers denying this request. Deny it, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, applicant, you do have five minutes for rebuttal if you'd like to address these concerns.

I think I can at least speak to the bike rack concern. I guess we haven't received a comment that that is not allowed, and we will gladly modify a bike rack that would be allowed per city staff. So I know for us that's not a concern. I think like I've stated here, at least for that bike lane that is existing, we are not proposing to touch that or modify that. Trying to think of the... But, yeah. I think we are adding some additional bike space even with the trails and trying to pull in some of that pedestrian space with the different patios. So.

Thank you. Yeah.

Can I ask a question real quickly? So the bike trail along the south, is that new?

Did you guys hear that? Chris, could you repeat your question?

the bike trail along the south is that new so that's an added added benefit along the south on the bike path and we're talking about the traffic issues across the bike lane yeah yeah there is um the north side of mlk right now doesn't have a sidewalk or uh trail and so the project would install um trail segment

along the frontage, getting down close to Southwest 14th. So you'd be able to cross there, connect.

It would stop at 14th. You'd have to cross MLK and then come back again to get to 15th again, you mean, or it's connecting through to 15th?

No, this project wouldn't get you all the way to 15th. Someday in the future, there might be an extension, but their frontage doesn't go all the way to 15th. So I think their project, it's kind of like installing sidewalks. You do what's your frontage.

that's fine i just wasn't sure where the edge was sorry thank you sure no problem thank you okay i will close the public hearing then and um open it up to the commission for discussion and motions what do you all think i'm sure i have a comment um

It's more a procedural comment than anything else because this was city-owned land and the city decided to sell it for this specific purpose so we kind of put the carriage in front of the horse or whatever the saying is. I have a background in city planning so I will not be voting for this because this is not in line with downtown planning. city planning, urban spaces type of development. When I used to work for this city, I think the first thing I learned was there are no drive-throughs allowed downtown. So it's very surprising to see the recommendation for support of this. But I understand that the site has a lot of issues. It's going to be hard to develop no matter what. This is the project that we're going to end up with, and I just wanted to state that for the record. I will be voting no, but I do appreciate that the applicant has done as much as possible for that corner to activate that corner, as well as the bike trail.

Thank you.

Laura, please. If I may, I agree with Johnny. And I do understand the relief from the parking requirements in part. There is no street parking on the two adjacent streets. However, I feel like we are compromising a lot of our other principles for our site plans here in this location. It's been mentioned a lot about how constrained this site is. And I do see with the easement and detention and access, it is tricky. But it is 2.1 acres. And if we look at some comparable urban sites around that are beloved sites, whether it's just in the quarter mile, half mile area around this, we've got Secret Admirer, a little tiny bar. THAT'S ON .07 ACRES WITH NO DEDICATED PARKING AND KIND OF A SIMILAR TYPE OF SITUATION NORTH OF MLK. WE HAVE THE HORIZON LINE COFFEE SHOP BUILDING I HAPPEN TO LIVE IN. IT IS ON .11 ACRES WITH NO DEDICATED PARKING. You can look at places like eatery a that's on half an acre So we could certainly I think be more creative about the use of this land if we tried a little bit harder This also is on a really major pedestrian bike future corridors We already have bike lanes on 12th Street going down into the gray station area which will take you directly across the river and As well as the bike traffic and pedestrian traffic east-west so to make a very Auto dominated move here IS REALLY COMPROMISING A LOT OF PRINCIPLES. SO AT MINIMUM I THINK WE NEED TO STRIKE THE DRIVE-THROUGH ALLOWANCE AT A VERY MINIMUM.

THANK YOU.

This is Chris. I guess I agree with both of those comments on the fact that the drive-through piece for me is a challenge, although I do really, really like activating this site, which is where I guess I have challenges. I don't know how many other things can activate this site, but I will be voting. I will be actually passing on this one because of it. But I do like the use, it seems that we've got nothing else on no other way to do something. Awesome. It's great to use this land, but I do agree with the reason I'll be passing is because of that compromise piece. So I won't be against I will be.

Thank you, Matt.

So. The pedestrian-friendly comment, with all respect, is like I've been to the Iowa City one, and that's appropriate. There's people walking everywhere all the time. There's not people walking. I mean, as much as we want to be a downtown pedestrian-friendly Neighborhood, it's just as this is the homeless people live right next door So they're walking but there's not a lot of other people walking around as much biking and jogging a little bit here on the trails is Activating this site with Patios is a nice touch. I mean downtown would love a nice vibrant spot in the community here and I am very much in favor of this site being developed by hyper. And, um, I think that, uh, you know, add an, add an social gathering spot. I mean, this is a, and Chris, you hadn't heard of these guys before, but this is a hip, cool local spot. These guys are, uh, uh, very popular and exactly what downtown needs as far as creating some, uh, Vibrancy in this area downtown, the lots close by will be developed over time. There'll be retail, there'll be more apartments, there'll be more people. I've been with developers on this site, the city-owned site, and it is extremely hard to develop anything like this. This might be the only thing that could actually go there. And I think that... it's, I think they're putting together a great plan here. And in court, it touches on all aspects of being bike friendly, being walk friendly, being car friendly, not stacking into the street is a nice touch. Especially getting people in and out of there with two lanes is very appropriate. And if no one else wants to make a motion to pass staff recommendation, I'll do it.

Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, yeah, it does have a very suburban feel to it. But I think that the only reason I would maybe lean towards supporting it is, again, that site's been, quote, unquote, abandoned. for as long as I remember. And I don't ever see anything else being able to go there. It's this or a scooters. So, um, you know, facing the reality of the situation of that remaining abandoned lot for the rest of my life or seeing a, uh, uh, hyper or a scooters there. Um, I may be able to live with that. Um, I'm probably not a big fan of the double drive-through lane. So maybe that's something that could get worked through to, to maybe, uh, tone down some of that, uh, feel, but, uh, otherwise I think I, uh, uh, would have to support it.

Are we not? But we're aware that there's going to be more development going on down there. And I think that we're being short-sighted. And I think it's going to look like an anomaly in a couple of years from now. And that's why I won't support it.

To kick in again, if someone is not hip and vibrant per Matt's point, I guess I do wonder if there is a redesign that could actually allow for a single drive-through that would, to Carolyn's point, also be more forward-thinking of where the building is positioned. So once the hipsters and vibrant people do come down there, it is actually appropriate for them.

I think I'm Ignorant of whatever you're talking about? With the development?

Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah, got it.

That part. So there's a couple of things that I think about with this. One is that Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway's right-of-way is probably 120 feet wide there. So it's a little bit It causes some friction in my mind to say that we want it to be pedestrian oriented. While 20 or 25 years ago, we built basically almost a highway infrastructure cutting across there. And I won't belabor the point that the site is really almost undevelopable. It takes enormous effort to even get this far with a site plan and the amount of uses that it would support are very limited. It probably shouldn't have been zoned as if it expected to one day be a three-story building. So I think that's probably just a little weird corner of the zoning ordinance. It doesn't quite match the reality on the ground. also just to the east of it, or maybe a half or three quarters of a mile of six or 700 foot wide abandoned parking lots. And I think we all hope that in our lifetime that looks like a city, but it doesn't now. I think the perfect is the enemy of the good on this site. I think we have to show development. We have to be able to tell people that things can succeed along this corridor for new development to come and for like a hyper walkable hyper, like they have an aims to be a viable candidate down here, but you would never just stick a walk-in hyper right here. Like there's, there's no, there's no market study that could support that. I mean, I think the fact that they're putting in a thousand feet of trail is great and a huge concession, especially when there's already a multi-use trail on the other side, that that's what people will use for, for, the foreseeable future. So I'm in support of this, not because I think it's like the best, but because I think it is a very pragmatic kind of solution for a really challenging site that reflects market conditions and Shows that were open to development. I remember one time somebody told me that Chick-fil-A has like a standing desire to have a downtown restaurant and they just can't find a site. And it's like. why don't we want a Chick-fil-A downtown? Like, I love Chick-fil-A. I'd happily go to Chick-fil-A. So, I mean, I think getting a Hyper in town is a huge win. I've driven out and looked at the one that's by Trader Joe's and Urbandale and the Ankeny, and they're packed. I mean, there's always people buying Hyper. And so, yeah, let's get in on it. This is a great site for it. It's not going to be anything else ever.

Can I just make one more comment on the drive-thru situation? So Piper definitely needs both drive-thrus. It's more of a business strategy, I think, and it's also ideal for getting stacked in, like she's saying, into the street. One drive-thru would not work either. I mean, it would slow down business enough to hurt their business because the idea, in my mind as a consumer, is to get people in and out of there and not be waiting until you're stacked way out in the street. And it is a good business and a good consumer-friendly strategy to have both drive-thrus. It would be some of their... locations I think have two driver's side drive-throughs. This one, I think she said one's a passenger side drive-through. So that should work just fine. Maybe in my mind, not as good, but I think it's very necessary to have both drive-throughs. And yeah, I'd like to make a motion to move staff's recommendations.

Okay. Any discussion on that motion? All right, all in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you, all opposed? And any passes?

Pass, Chris.

Thank you.

I had 551. YEAH. OKAY.

MOTION FAILS. MOTION FAILS. WILL BE HEARD BY COUNCIL, WILL BE HEARD BY COUNCIL, THOUGH. THOUGH. NO, THIS WASN'T A SITE NO, THIS WASN'T A SITE PLAN. PLAN.

THIS IS A SITE PLAN SO IT THIS IS A SITE PLAN SO IT WON'T GO ON COUNCIL UNLESS THEY WON'T GO ON COUNCIL UNLESS THEY APPEAL THE DECISION SO THE APPEAL THE DECISION SO THE RELIEF WAS NOT GRANTED SO RELIEF WAS NOT GRANTED SO ESSENTIALLY A DENIAL. ESSENTIALLY A DENIAL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE JUST HAVE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT WE JUST HAVE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT WHICH IS THAT OUR NEXT meeting would have been on July 2nd. That one is not happening because of the holiday. So our actual next meeting is on July 16th. Any additional announcements?

No, I just wanted to confirm with the staff that's tracking the voting. Did we, that was, you know, five, five, it's a lot of names to write down. Do we feel, did we get everybody? We good? Or anybody leaves? We do have the video. We can always go. Okay. Well, as long as we got that half of it, we're, we're set. All right. Thank you. Okay.