Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the July 16th 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 City Council. City 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 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. Okay. Could I first 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. Thank you. Any abstentions? Thank you. And Chris, how do you vote?

Approved.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move into the consent agenda. I'm gonna go slightly out of order, starting with item number three, because this item can get continued to next week. So I'll read through it first. This is a request from farm co properties for review and approval of a public hearing site plan Cottage Grove Avenue mixed use for property located at 2511 Cottage Grove Avenue. And for a type two design alternative in accordance with city code to waive occupied space requirements to allow utility and storage areas within the front portions of the building. where a minimum of 30 feet in depth is required per code. So according to city staff, the applicant is still working through these type two design alternative requests and would like to move this item to our next meeting on August 6th. So could we have a motion from a commissioner to continue this item?

I just wanted to check. Was there anybody in the audience that was here for this item tonight? Okay.

So moved. Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. And Chris, how do you vote? Thank you. Okay, back to number one. On the consent agenda, item number one is a request from Evergreen LLC for review and approval of a public hearing site plan, Golden Scoop, for property located at 4540 Lower Beaver Avenue and for a type two design alternative in accordance with city code to allow a drive-through facility where not permitted in the RX1 zoning district per code. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this item move to the public hearing agenda and discussed? Anyone on the commission? Okay, item one will stay on consent. Item number two, this is a request from Brew Oil LLC for review and approval of a public hearing site plan, Mr. Taco, for property located at 4140 Park Avenue and for type two design alternatives in accordance with city code to allow a drive-through facility and stacking in the front and street side yard where required to be located in the rear or interior side yard per code. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this item moved to the public hearing agenda? Anyone on the commission? Okay. Item two will stay on consent. And item number four is a request from Broadlawn's Medical Center for vacation of a total of approximately $2,700. 2,792 square feet of an alley right of way, which includes 580 square feet north-south alleyway segment to the south of Hickman Road. and 2,212 square feet north-south alleyway segment, which also includes a portion of the right-of-way adjoining Francis Avenue, all in the vicinity of 1826 Hickman Road, to allow the vacated area to be assembled and maintained for a private surface parking lot. Would anyone in the audience like this item moved to the public hearing? Anyone on the commission? Okay. Item number four will stay on consent. And could we have a motion to move the consent agenda, which consists of items one, two, and four? Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Chris, how do you vote?

In favor.

Thanks. Okay. We'll move into public hearing. Item number five. This is a request from Adrian Strain and Laura Strain for the following regarding property located at 4027 Southwest 56th Street. 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 low-density residential. And rezone the property from EX mixed-use district to N2B neighborhood district to allow reconstruction of a one-household dwelling unit. And Sriyoshi will present the report.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Commission, Sriyoshi Chakraborty Planning staff. I will be presenting item five. This is a rezoning request for a property located at 4027 Southwest 56th Street. The request is to rezone the property from EX mixed-use district to a neighborhood district and to be, to allow the construction of a new one household dwelling unit and subsequent land use amendment from low density residential, from business park to low density residential. This is a subject property. It's located along Southwest 56th Street. This is the area that's to the east of Southwest 63rd Street, south of Park Avenue, kind of in an area which is primarily light industrial in nature with some residential uses mixed in. The area is primarily zoned EX as the land use plan envisions this area to be primarily business park and light industrial in terms of uses. The property here is right at the intersection of Watrous Avenue and Southwest 56th Street where Watrous Avenue currently dead ends into Southwest 56th Street. The area to the north and to the east of the subject property currently is undeveloped agricultural land. I have some side photos of the subject property. You can see the existing structure that's there on the property right now. The applicant is proposing to demolish this existing house and build a house that's set a little further back. Here's another view looking north on Southwest 56th Street where you can see the existing house and the driveway. This is where you can kind of see the, if you can follow my cursor, the area to the north of the subject property that is agricultural and undeveloped at the moment. And Southwest 56th Street here with Waters Avenue dead ending. And I just have a land use, future land use map. So I could give you a context of the larger area. So if you can see my cursor right here, this is the subject property. This is Watrous Avenue. It currently stops right here. the area in our future land use designation map is business park and with the ex zoning district designation this area is envisioned to be commercial and light industrial in nature within our future land use map there is some residential in the vicinity as you can see this area that's that's yellow highlighted in yellow color. So there is some residential mixed in. There's some existing, pre-existing residential uses as well, including the subject property that we are discussing tonight, which includes a pre-existing residential use. But the area primarily here, up here, is a light industrial business park. And then again to the south and along Southwest 63rd Street is primarily light industrial. This is a project description from the applicant that was submitted with the application, kind of lays out the plans of what they are intending on doing. And then this is a site sketch. So you can see here, this is the existing house. They're proposing a new house, which is set further back. And the submitted sketch shows a realigned driveway that is further north along the northwestern boundary of the property and curves back towards the house, essentially. So there's a couple things I wanted to talk about. Staff does believe that the requested rezoning to residential is appropriate in this location given that this is a pre-existing residential use and there is existing residential adjoining the site to the west. Therefore, the request to rezone and change the land use designation for this property is does fit with the character of the area and what's going on currently. I do want to talk a little bit about the extension of Watrous Avenue because this ties with the condition of approval that staff has recommended in the next section of the staff report. So as you saw in the maps that I showed you earlier and the pictures, Watrous Avenue currently dead ends at Southwest 56th Street. It's a local street. And right now, there is no need for Waters Avenue to be extended further east. However, if the area that's currently vacant and agricultural to the north and to the east of the subject property, if at any time it develops into a commercial slash light industrial use, a future road alignment would be needed to serve the development and therefore the extension of Waters Avenue would be necessary to be able to support the users, future users that would be upcoming in that area. Therefore staff believes that it is important to preserve that right of way should in the future that area develop. And therefore staff is recommending a couple zoning conditions. First of all is to provide a no-build easement along the northern 33 feet of the subject property to the satisfaction of the city engineer. And also a driveway access that shall be located to the south of the no-build easement in a location as approved by the city engineer and i do want to point out you'll see that this these numbers are highlighted in red that is because initially staff had recommended um 32 and a half foot of a no-build easement based on the fact that we were assuming that watrous avenue was a 65 foot right-of-way we did receive further confirmation from engineering department that the right-of-way is actually 66 feet So we updated the zoning conditions slightly and modified it from 32.5 to 33 feet. So I just wanted to put that into the public record that that was modified slightly and it's highlighted in red. Not a big change, but just wanted to note that. So staff is recommending approval of the rezoning subject to these two conditions in order to ensure that the future right of way for Waters Avenue is preserved in that area to allow future development. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting as required for rezonings, and this is a summary and supporting documentation that was submitted to our office shows the plan and some additional information elevation and so on. And the letters sent out to the neighbors, we did receive a comment card in support from a joining land owner. And here's the consent map showing, um, the property in favor properties in favor of the requested rezoning. So with that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to take them.

The new driveway they're proposing, does that satisfy your condition?

I'll just pull up here. So as you can see, the driveway is at the very northwest corner of the lot. So if we were to require a no-build easement, then the driveway would be on top of that no-build easement. So it would have to be moved a little further south in order to be out of the no-build area. So that will have to be modified. Okay.

Any other questions? Thank you. Is the applicant present? Please come forward. State your name and address for our records. You have up to 10 minutes, and then sign in. There should be a sign-in sheet there. Please sign in when you're done.

I'm Adrian Strain. My address is 4027 Southwest 56th Street. Good evening. Obviously, I'm Adrian. I'm here with my wife, Laura, and our son, Louis. I'm an engineer, and I work downtown. I've been fortunate enough to work on projects that help reshape Des Moines, like Principal Point at Scott Avenue. For the last four years, I've been a volunteer coach at Fort Des Moines Little League. Last night, I coached our 10U all-star team to a second-place finish in our district. Laura is a nurse manager at the trauma ICU at Mercy One downtown and served as the vice president of the Jefferson PTA for the last year. Des Moines is a community that we are invested in. We've lived at our property since May of 2015 and enjoyed our slice of Midwestern paradise. Since we've taken stewardship of our property, we have worked to create a space where our children can play safely with our neighbors and we can relax away from our careers. From backyard wiffle ball to slip and slides and daily fetch with our dog Bruce, we created a home that will provide lasting memories for more than just our family. We love our lot and it was the reason we purchased the property years ago. We love the mature trees and the creek running through the yard, but as our family continues to mature and progress through life, we've realized additional needs that our current house does not fulfill. This is why we started on the path to creating a new home on our existing property that will allow us to continue to grow in Des Moines. Our children have attended school here and our neighbors are second to none. For 11 years, we've been working toward our dream and each year comes closer to reality. The vision has always been to create a home that is truly personal to us. We've planned for a tree-lined driveway by planting trees that would give a unique character and a picturesque entrance to the property. We've designed a house layout that will allow us to enjoy the changing seasons of life with our version of comfort and peace. These components work in concert to provide the home we dreamed of in Des Moines. As we lived in our house, we've heard and seen plenty of changes in our neighborhood, from the proposed western runway expansion to the proposed southwest connector and the development of the estates across the street. Progress is a part of life and we're happy to support it, but we have concerns. We are concerned that when progress reaches at Watrous Avenue extension, the recommended easement and placement of the associated proposed concrete driveway would make our property feel more like a parking lot and not the tree-lined entrance we've been cultivating. We fully believe there's a path forward where we can work together and provide a plan that is beneficial to my family now and the city as they continue to shape our neighborhood. For now, we would like to be allowed to place a gravel driveway that connects to 56th and continues east in the proposed easement area as shown in our site plan, This will provide flexibility for the future progress and allow my family to live our dream a little bit longer. In the event of a roadway continuation, we would prefer to connect directly to Watrous Avenue. We see several benefits from this approach. This would allow us to exit our property on a road with a lower speed limit and better sight lines, and the proposed connection to Watrous Avenue provides a safety benefit and significantly reduces the impervious area on our property. We assume that sanitary utilities will be part of the Watrous Avenue extension and will provide an easier and more economical connection that we can plan for now. We understand the value of connecting to the sanitary system and support doing so in a manner that benefits us all. And lastly, the tax implications of building our proposed dream. The house we are working towards would more than double our assessed value, but complying with the city's recommendations would require us to reduce our home size and value for a roadway extension that hasn't been publicly discussed until this process. The recommendations would require us to put more money into infrastructure and utilities than a home that provides lasting taxable benefit to the city. Our vision provides flexibility and benefits to us all. We've been dreaming and working towards this moment for over a decade. We ask for your support to help make it come true. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do the commissioners have any questions for the applicant?

I have a question. You mentioned that if the easement is provided, that your house would have to be smaller. But it looks like from that plan that there are 80 feet right now set back from the property line to the house. How does the easement impact the size of your house if it's 80 feet away from the property line?

It's due to the extra expenses for a concrete surface, a hard surface for the driveway, and the sanitary connection that would have to go across and bore under watchers.

Other questions?

Just to clarify, if you were allowed to do a gravel driveway, are you in support of having the easement on your property for that future extension?

Yes, we'd be willing to consider that.

I don't think we get to talk about the gravel driveway, do we? Is that part of what we do here?

It's part of the recommendations in the staff report, so I think so.

Yeah, I mean, I would just maybe... I don't know if anybody else has any more questions for the applicant, but just on the... THE POINT OF THE CONDITION ABOUT NOT HAVING THE DRIVEWAY THERE IS JUST THE FUTURE EXPENSE OF RELOCATING THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THE ROAD COMES THROUGH. IF IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE AND ACCESSED OUT OF THE WAY THERE WOULD BE NO OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY TO MOVE IT. SO CERTAINLY GRAVEL IS A LITTLE EASIER TO DEAL WITH. STILL THERE WOULD BE AN EXPENSE TYPICALLY ON THE CITY SIDE IF WE DON'T PLAN FOR IT. The other, I mean, in the setting, I think a gravel driveway is reasonable. Most of the time we need to, you know, in most residential lots, we need a paved driveway all the way to the house. You can have gravel in a rear yard setting. This is obviously a unique setting that our codes aren't necessarily set up for. But anyway, that's just some additional information.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?

Maybe just a clarification from Jason there. So some of the concern there is, is that if the driveway was placed within the easement, the city would then be responsible for the replacement. If watch was ever happened, if it stayed to the South and it had to get moved or chose to get moved, it would, the expense would be borne by the homeowner. Yes, that's correct. Could there ever be something in here again, too, if the easement was granted, he agreed to it, it was allowed to have it out of gravel, that we could add in there that any expense for relocation would be borne by the homeowner? Or is that not really...

I think if we wanted to go down that path, maybe we'd craft our zoning condition language to be a little more open-ended and leave it to the city engineering department to negotiate some sort of work with legal department to see what's possible. Okay.

would be my suggestion is if you want to do if you want to leave the door open maybe we just kind of generalize the zoning condition language more yeah and again assuming the applicant is open to that i'm just trying to come up with some common ground here because it seems reasonable but i understand if the city then has to bear a 30 000 cost later to move a driveway let's take care of it now so if anybody else has any comments on that or if the applicant does

We see the benefit of being able to do gravel. That's an area that is going to have to be, there's going to be significant site work that's done there with all the tree removal. in that area, scraping off gravel from the top is already going to be part of the process in order to shape that, in order to put in sidewalks, the roadway, and the utilities. It provides a slightly more temporary solution when we're using that land and as it would eventually become part of that extension.

So maybe along those same lines, I just have a question. Has the city confirmed with you that this extension is happening at a particular point in time?

There's no set plans. This is just as this area develops, that's the logical extension of the road.

Okay. So I have more questions about that, but they're not for our discussion and not for the applicant. Thank you.

I have a question. Maybe I misunderstood you. Didn't you say if Watrous gets extended, you'd like your driveway to connect to Watrous?

Yes, that is correct.

So you'd be responsible for building it to the curb cut at that point anyways?

Yes, we are definitely open to that discussion and seeing how we can plan for that.

Okay, thanks.

I just have one question. Does the no build easement include utilities? Like, could utilities happen in that 33 feet or not?

No, the intent of the no-build easement is just to keep the applicant from, you know, construction structures that are going to have costs, you know. It's not an easement where all of a sudden it's a utility corridor. It's just to keep structures from being constructed there that then increase the cost to acquire down the road.

Okay. So could he install utilities to his house in that easement?

You know, I don't know the answer to that.

Two in the weeds.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Appreciate it. We also have our builder to answer any other questions if there are anything about the structure.

Are there any questions for the builder?

One question I had for the group, thank you for the time. My name is Matt Daniels, Director of Operations for Origin Homes. The term easement keeps coming up. I was curious as to if this could be resolved with a setback or if it has to stay as easement with the language. I know you mentioned that we'd have to get into the legalities down the road, but I didn't know if it could be accomplished with a setback versus an easement. Or if that's not a discussion for the group, then maybe that's later.

Yeah, I mean, a setback that's specified as a zoning condition that would apply to accessory structures in addition to the – I mean, that could be something that could be done as well. You know, if you had – the downside of that is typically setbacks don't apply to, like, fencing and that sort of thing where a no-build would. So it's a little more straightforward there. I think the answer for tonight, I mean, first we need to hear if there's anybody else in the audience here for this item, but is just to, why we do that, I'll think about the language, but it's just to maybe generalize the number two, because really, I think you can leave this idea of this easement in place and leave it to the city engineer to decide if a gravel road is, you know, a gravel drive, excuse me, in this factory. We could, it's really condition number two that's causing some angst as far as taking away the ability for the city engineer and the applicant to negotiate. Okay.

Thank you. Sorry, this is Chris.

Can I ask a question? Go ahead. Did I... Jason, did you just say that with this no-build, not even a fence could be built in there? Is that what was said?

It just depends on how it's drafted. It's possible that it may exclude fencing.

So right now, with the easement we're asking for right now, would not allow for a fence to be built in that area?

No.

That's not a fence. I, it would just depend on how the easement language is drafted. What I was getting at is a setback. The difference between an easement is that it gives, you know, the engineer city engineer would have control over what goes in there where a setbacks don't, although they apply to like houses and sheds, they don't necessarily apply to fencing.

What about utilities?

Well, it's a no-build easement. It's not a utility easement. So it just depends on how it's, you know, the way it would be drafted would be specific to, you know, the owner not being able to build, you know, like a structure. It's not a utility easement zone where utilities have access rights.

Okay. Any other discussion? Thank you. Thank you. Please do sign in if you didn't already. And is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Anyone opposed? Okay. Applicant, you would have had five minutes for rebuttal, but there was no conversation. You need any more time? no uh we do currently have a fence within that easement so problem solved okay thank you for that good info to know okay i will now close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions

I guess what I'm struggling with, and maybe this just isn't clear to me, is that the land is agricultural around it. And although it's part of the city's plan for it to become light industrial, nothing is in the works. So I'm... So I'm struggling with how to address that we're asking for them to make these changes because the city wants to save money in the future on something that isn't in the pipeline. So if other people can explain to me why that would be the right way to go, that would be helpful because I'm having a hard time with the differences in the chronology here.

That's just planning for the future. I mean, when you know where the road is going, if you don't, we have an opportunity to plan for it, so it makes sense to do so. It's true that, you know, that a person could continue to live in the house that's there today. Time could pass. The property to the north could develop. And, you know, either the city or, you know, or... you know, the future development may have to negotiate to acquire land, may have to use condemnation, may have to have an awkward curve in the road, if that's even possible, if they, you know, want to try to avoid that. But we have an opportunity today to plan for something that we know will happen someday. A time frame, I have no idea. I mean, I would not be surprised if I'm, you know, long retired by the time this area develops.

But yeah, that's, that's the part that I start with. So I guess given that I would be in favor of a lighter intervention. So It's also a little bit difficult because there aren't a lot of details that you like, we keep hearing a well, we go would need to decide that or maybe it could be this or the city engineer. And so kind of the easement versus the stricter restriction, maybe it'd be helpful to have a little bit more. And maybe other people can clarify that for me with how those two would be different. Because I think given the long time horizon, and I'm a planner, I get that we're looking at the future, but at the same time, it, you know, this could be, we could be talking about people's lifetimes, right? And so it might make sense then for a lighter intervention or the fewer restrictions still. So it makes sense not to have the building there, perhaps, but maybe backing off a little bit on some of the other restrictions.

Jason, I've got a question that goes right along with that. Currently, right now, there is no easement on that property, no build easement. If this gets changed, that would get enacted. Can you inform us a little bit, or maybe them, what does that mean by having that easement on their property? Have discussions been had with them so they understand that if Watrous ever came through, it is, because it does appear, is that on part of their land? Yes. So that Watrous could be built within that entire 30 feet of this family's property? Yes.

But the roadway, you know, and I'm sure I know she's visited with them about the intent of the easement. So, you know, we've, tonight isn't the first they're hearing of it.

I just want to make sure they're well informed.

Right.

Because if it was my home, I would be doing other things. So the. Politely.

Right. So the. road, you know, typically the pavement is centered, you know, so if this is a 65 foot right away, you know, the, and if half, if the center line is their North property line, the road, you know, that would be centered. So on their half would be half of the road, some green space, sidewalk, a green space or so. And, you know, that would be the, um, I don't know the exact dimensions off the top of my head, like how wide.

Yeah, sure. I just wanted to make sure that they were aware of what that language meant.

You could look at, I mean, if you stood on their, at their corner pen and looked down Watrous, it would just be.

Yep. Keep on going.

Just keep going straight through.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep. It seems to me like what they're really asking for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that they're willing to take the easement if we let them have a gravel driveway. That's like the brass tacks, because if they can have a gravel driveway, they save money and they can build a bigger house. I mean, that's, to me, the basics of it. So what you're asking for today is can you have a gravel driveway where you want it?

Can they have a gravel driveway that is on the far north side?

Right, where they're asking. And can it be gravel? Because we would require it to be paved normally, correct?

Yeah, and what I'm suggesting for tonight, if we can go to the, can you go to the conditions, is we just, to make it more generic. And so for condition two, I would just say, DRIVEWAY ACCESS SHALL BE IN A LOCATION APPROVED BY A CITY ENGINEER AND LEAVE IT AT THAT AND THEN WE CAN NEGOTIATE.

WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MOVE STAFF WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AS JUST NOTED BY MR. VAN ESSEN.

I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO SAY DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND MATERIALS?

No, materials are out of Chapter 135. We can't really use zoning conditions to grant a design alternative, but as staff, we can control that and we'll take this conversation.

Okay, thank you. So I don't need to make the friendly amendment friendlier.

So if that's on the record, I am making that amendment unless you want me to say it.

Can you clarify what the friendly amendment is?

I guess I'm going to say move staff and then with item number two, I guess would be built within, maybe built within the easement. And again, materiality doesn't really matter at this point. So technically, we could get rid of item number two, or how would you want to word that, Jason?

Well, what I suggested is you just strike some of the words in the middle. So it's driveway access shall be located in a location approved by a city engineer.

Okay. So item number two would say driveway access shall be located in a location approved by the city engineer within the entire.

Okay, I just leave it like that.

Yeah, perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay, and Chris, how do you vote? Thank you. Motion passes. That brings us to item number six. This is a request from Nelson Construction Services for the following regarding multiple parcels located in the vicinity of 1310 East Deal 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 community mixed use and low density residential within a neighborhood node and a regional node to high-density residential within a neighborhood node and a regional node. and rezone the property from N3A neighborhood district, MX35 mixed use district, and MX3 mixed use district to NX3 neighborhood mixed district to allow the construction of a multiple household senior living apartment building and future residential development. And Sreyoshi again will present this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Sriyasi Chakraborty Planning staff. I'm going to present item six, which was continued from the June 18, 2026 meeting. And I'm going to jump right in to the subject property. So this is a fairly large property, about 12 and a half acres, includes multiple parcels. And as you can see, includes several zoning districts. Part of it is N3A, MX3-V, and MX3. So the applicant is requesting to rezone all of this to the NX-3 district in order to do a senior living apartment building for a portion of this property. So the just to give you a little bit context about the land use and the zoning in this area this area is somewhat jammed in between the Intense more commercial highway oriented uses that are along southeast 14th There is a elementary school to the northwest right here That's zone p2 as you can see here in the map and then there is more lower density residential areas to the southwest of the property. So with that, I'm going to share a site concept. Because this is a fairly large site, over five acres, the applicant is required to do a large-scale development plan, which is what I'm sharing with you here. So the proposed project, the senior living project that was mentioned is just in this southeastern portion of the property. The rest of the area is potential future residential development. Nothing is proposed at the moment. If in the future the applicant is proposing to develop any of this area, an amendment to the large-scale development plan will be required at that time to reflect any of the new projects that would be forthcoming. This is a site sketch and it shows a little bit more detail than the large scale development plan. As you can see, the red area is approximately the orientation of the proposed residential building. It's proposed to be about five story with approximately 110 units. And then there's a surface parking lot to the south with approximately 60 parking spaces. And then there's generally the circulation. You can kind of see the circulation proposed. The primary access is off of East Deal. There's a shared... There's currently a shared driveway that provides access to the Aldi grocery store that's at Southeast 14th, so the primary access would be off of that. There could potentially, as the project, as future areas develop, there could be additional accesses off of East Porter Avenue as well as East Kenyon Avenue. I'll come back to this later. The applicant provided an updated site sketch. You can see that there's some additional landscaping shown here to the south of the parking area. This is after some of the discussions that the applicant had during their neighborhood meeting with the neighbors. and decided they were going to incorporate some additional buffering and landscaping for the benefit of the neighbors to the south. So we can come back to this later, but this is just the updated site sketch that was submitted to city staff. I have some site photos. This is the shared drive. This is the Aldi's grocery store building that you can see here. And here's the undeveloped looking towards the undeveloped land that is proposed for the senior living housing. Another view, a close up view of the land. This is looking south onto East Deal Avenue, the shared driveway into the subject property. There is higher intensity commercial uses further south. This is looking east on East Porter Avenue. Here to the north are the fields for the Lovejoy Elementary School and then there is residential uses. Currently East Porter dead ends right here. The applicant and their large scale development plan have proposed a future drive into the subject property from this street. This is another view. Because of the school, you can see that there's a striped crosswalk here. There are walking routes for the kids who live in the neighborhood and walk over to the elementary school. Here's another view. The primary majority of the children that are walking over to the school are from the residential area to the southwest. And you can see some of the striped signs and the crosswalks and so on. This is East Canyon. And you can, again, see the front driveway of the elementary school. There's a drop off area. There is a sidewalk that currently Extends all the way to the school and then stops here. This is a view looking further looking further east towards southeast 14 So the sidewalk stops right at the school and here you can see the subject property is here There's currently no sidewalks along East Canyon This is another view looking from the elementary school parking lot towards the subject property and So the applicant has proposed to amend the land use plan from low density residential within a neighborhood node and a regional node to high and community mixed use within the nodes to the high density residential within a regional node and a neighborhood node. The number of units proposed does require high density residential, although the subject property is partially within a couple different nodes, the regional node and the neighborhood node, which do allow mix of uses as well as medium and high density residential uses. So staff does support the rezoning request. The location provides, the location proposed for the high density senior living apartment provides a transition from the lower density residential uses as well as the school to the much more intense commercial uses along Southeast 14th. Additionally, the location is conducive to a development like this because it does provide easy access to amenities such as grocery stores, commercial gas stations, coffee shops, as well as transit, which could be of benefit to senior living use in that area. So taking all of those factors into consideration, staff does believe that the proposed rezoning and the land use is suitable for this area and does recommend approval of this request. There is some environmental history associated with this site. I provided a brief summary of this in your staff report. So this subject property was previously considered contaminated because of the operations of an adjoining site. site which is currently where the Aldi grocery store is located. That site was subsequently cleaned in the 1990s and we did confirm with the DNR, Iowa DNR, that they are not actively monitoring that site anymore since it was cleaned up. However, they as well as city staff do recommend that any property owner that's investing in a site like this that does have an environmental history do necessary due diligence and be prepared to do any remediation that might be necessary once they start construction and they do find any kind of contamination. Both the EPA and the DNR do provide assistance in the event that additional contamination is found and therefore it is in the benefit of the applicant should they find any contamination to make sure that they report that. And we reached out to the applicant. They are aware of this. They have done a phase one environmental assessment during the purchase of the property. They do understand that additional remediation might be needed once they begin work on the site. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the request to rezone and change the land use classification of the subject property. We received the summary of the neighborhood meeting and I'll let you scan through this. Additionally, we received an email from the president of the South Central Des Moines Neighborhood Association. I'm gonna zoom in a little bit here. But in summary, they outlined some of the concerns that we have talked earlier. And the neighborhood association does support the rezoning request and and support the senior living project that has been proposed as part of this rezoning request. I'm going to go through the comment cards that we have received, we received quite a few. So I will just go through those. Additionally, we also received a petition that has been signed by several of the property owners and they have also been included into Our consent map, which you can see right here, the opposition is at 11.5% currently. Before I end my presentation, I do want to go through the communications that staff received from the neighborhood specifically through a neighborhood task force that's representing the neighbors in this area. Because of the large volume of the emails that we received, I sent the emails out to you ahead of time so you can at least take a look at it. So please bear with me as I go through. We have about 60 pages worth of communication here. So at any point, if you want me to if you feel like you haven't seen anything, you want me to stop, please let me know. I will be scanning through these one by one.

So to be clear, the Neighborhood Association said they support it, but the neighbors don't.

That's correct. The Neighborhood Association supported it. We received comment cards from individual neighbors who are not in support, as well as the task force that represents the neighbors.

Yeah, and we're not really sure who all the task force is. It's a bid. We do have the petition that was signed. I assume there's probably some overlap.

Can I just confirm, when we say task force, that's their self-identified name or?

Yes. Yeah, that's their self-identified name, yes.

And so we don't know anything about the membership or how they were formed, simply that they're in opposition, is that correct?

That's correct. I have a question, please. It concerns the site. This is a very curious site indeed. I don't remember anything quite so complicated recently. Could you give us a brief... explanation of why this is just so haphazard. I mean, is this the result of laissez-faire planning, which was rife here in the city in the early 20th century and late 19th century? Or what's the reason? It seems like there's no logic to it.

Well, first, that's a long question. I would like to persuade Oshie to finish scrolling through these communications. I think we should focus our attention on that and then come to your question. That's fine.

Thank you.

And I do want to mention that with the environmental history, the task force sent us several environmental reports and documents, which I do have. And if the commission is interested in the details of any of those, I'm happy to pull those up as well, but they were sent as attachments to, to us for our information.

Thank you.

I believe that's the end of the emails. Like I mentioned, I do have, just for the public record, I'm just going to go through these environmental documents that...

I don't think we need to scan through those.

Okay.

We have them available for reference.

I have them right here if you're interested.

And we did go over these documents. These are what we visited with the... DNR staff about and confirm that this, the documents that we have here conclude, you know, they are the record of what they had, so there's nothing missing. But to answer Will's question, you know, quickly looking at aerials just to, you know, over the decades, you know, this land just was never developed. I believe it was owned in common with, you know, things that were happening on the corridor, and that's part of the reason why, you know, the contamination, which was, there was a factory or industrial use mostly centered where the grocery store is today. But there was some, some activity behind that was on some of this land. So just the short answer to your question is, is just, you know, it's just never developed.

Yeah, it's just the nature of info.

Yeah.

What other questions do we have for DAF?

I have a couple questions. Is there going to be a traffic study triggered by this?

So with the current proposal of the 110 dwelling units, it did not trigger the whole concept. If the applicant is developing anything beyond this apartment, that would trigger the need to do additional traffic analysis.

So if we get a site plan, a large-scale development plan, we get a large-scale development plan amendment and a site plan for anything in the future, a traffic study will have to be done with that application before anything else can be built.

A follow-up to that, will East Porter be expanded with the 110-unit proposal?

Expanded as in would it be connected to Southeast 14th as shown in the

Master plan?

Correct. That would be the long-term.

So not with phase one?

No, not with phase one, but with future phases, the eventual long-term plan would be to connect.

Sorry. Why don't we clarify that with the applicant? They may need that for access, but we'll let them...

Yeah, because it looks like there's future retail, so that'd be good to get that clarified. And so, Shiroshi, the initial project is in the southeast corner right there?

Yep.

Okay. And I'm just going to ask this question. There's no way to rezone all these independently or in a less combined manner?

Yeah, I mean, I would defer that question to the applicant. They submitted their application to rezone the entire site. We reviewed it and processed it in its entirety and are comfortable with it.

I would also like to point out that this in the corner here, the potential future retail, that would require a separate rezoning because that would not be allowed in the requested NX3 district. So that would require perhaps one of the MX districts. So at that point, if that is developed as a retail, that would require it to be rezoned.

I had a question related to the future land use plan and the comp plan. Is that something you'd be able to pull up and show? It sounds like there's overlapping nodes and multiple different future land use designations in this area. Curious how they fall on the property.

So yeah, it's a little difficult to see with all the different land uses, but it's low density residential community mixed use.

Can you turn on the node layer? And again, while you're doing that, remind everybody that the nodes are not a firm edge. They're a concept for a general area.

Yeah, and as you can see, the nodes, they intersect part of the subject property, not entirely. So portions of the subject property fall into the nodes.

So the larger circle to the south, that's the regional...

Right.

And then you have the smaller one. And so that's why it's kind of hard for us to describe it for this application because, again, the edges of those nodes are soft. And then you have two different scales of nodes that both are overlapping. And where exactly that line really is is up for interpretation.

I have another question, please. Is this all held by one title holder, or are there multiple title holders?

Currently, it's held by one title holder.

Is there street parking on East Deal there between Southeast 8th and 14th?

There is on-street parking on the north side of the street, but not on the south.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Please come forward, state your name and address for a record, sign in when you are done, and you have up to 10 minutes.

Hi, Alexander Gugarich, Nelson Construction and Development. I'm just going to give a quick intro into kind of our history at the site and our plans for the site, and then I'll turn it over to our civil engineer and architect if needed. They can probably break down a little more of the technical stuff better. So for those that maybe haven't heard of us, we've been around 26 years, done projects in Des Moines, a lot of apartments, a lot of senior living. We've recently expanded in the last few years around the Midwest, but we're active commercial real estate developers. In Des Moines, a Zombie Burger building. Across the street, the Breakfast Club, that new building. We have all the new stuff at Drake. So we're definitely community members that are active developers here and used to dealing with neighborhoods and the concerns with everyone in the community. We've owned two of the four parcels for eight to ten years, roughly, on the south side of the site. We recently had the ability to acquire the final two parcels that create that assemblage that you're looking at. And that is allowing us to move forward with multifamily development. When we talked to elected officials, community members, et cetera, we heard that there was a definite need for senior housing and And we are pursuing low-income housing tax credits, so we're getting this rezoned as part of that application. We heard from the Neighborhood Association. They're in full support of this. In those documents, they enumerated multiple reasons why they met and discussed. I do want to call attention to one note, though, that their support hinges on making sure that there's a condition that this is age 55 and up senior. We've heard repeatedly that there's no support in this ward for low income housing tax credits unless it's age restricted. So we are voluntarily, although there's no conditions by staff for our approval, we are voluntarily saying put that condition on us. One thing that came up over and over and over in the neighborhood meeting and in discussions with everyone is is across East 14th, Melbourne Apartments. It got rezoned without any of those conditions. I believe it was Hubbell, the developer, talked about senior housing and low-income housing tax credits there. They did one project that was senior low-income, and then every phase after was market rate. So the neighbors felt burnt by that bait and switch. I don't blame them. And so to make sure, I don't expect anybody to trust me, just based on our word, we are more than happy to have that condition applied to every and any low-income housing tax credit project on the site to be age-restricted. That way there's no chance that we will do what Melbourne Apartments did, or if we sold it, that no one down the line could. So we're voluntarily saying, put that condition on us. But yes, so timeline-wise, our goal is to get this rezoned, submit for low-income housing tax credits, hopefully receive them next year, and then start the project. Part of why we're going... Well, main reason why we're going for rezoning for the whole area is... really development has been disjointed not just here but in a lot of places that we want to get the zoning squared away so we can lay out the site and make decisions for this project as well as future projects to know so there's continuity there and that's really just responsible planning i think in in our eyes we are not asking for the most intensive use that's already on the site we're asking for a step below Other things that got brought up in the neighborhood meeting. So we hosted it at Bolorama right nearby. That way it would be as close to the site as possible. We held it in an open house format so people could come and go as their schedules would allow. Again, the Neighborhood Association, they met, they discussed, they full support and enumerated why. The opposition is coming from neighbors, but specifically from neighbors who are expressing not in my backyard. They don't want this in their backyard. I can... be empathetic to that and we listen to their concerns and at length. And as a result, we're willing to go above and beyond and add additional conditions that instead of the five foot setback required, we're willing to quadruple that to 20 feet. uh voluntarily attach that to the approval and then we also are willing to double the plant material the planting requirement um any more than doubling we probably end up hurting the ability of those plants to thrive and survive um so we're going to go with double any questions for me before i kind of keep going on and on and turn it over to the engineers for more specifics

I have a quick question. You mentioned being willing to have a restriction that buildings using low income tax credits would be age restricted. What about if you decide not to use those low income tax credits? Then you could build any market rate.

We could. If you feel like you'd like to put the age restriction on market rate as well, we're open to that. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

I have a question about parking. This is for older people, and I know older people don't necessarily drive as much as younger people do. Are there any statistics, national statistics or something here local, that could give us an idea out of 110 units, the number you would expect that would be habitating the building, and in what... number you would think that people would be actually driving. Are there statistics that show us that number in terms of age?

So there's ranges, and they vary dramatically based on where it's at. But we size the ratio based on what we've seen in our experience. We have done a lot of senior living, both in Des Moines as well as outside Des Moines. Those are market rates, so we size that accordingly based on our experience. We do think there will be even fewer... car owners um for the low-income housing senior than our market rate projects that we've done um but i don't have any uh national statistics and um data for you on right now yeah are these one bedrooms two bedrooms combination of two bedroom and one bedroom but nothing bigger than that correct

Will you have sidewalk access on that access road, like to the Aldi and to the gas station?

Can I pull up Eric Cannon from Snyder & Associates just to dive a little further? In the interim, I neglected to talk about the environmental, and that's a really big thing. That did come up over and over. We are very, very... very well versed in dealing with contaminated sites, having done projects. The best thing, if people are concerned about environmental issues on the site, the best thing that can happen is our project because we will be required to follow every remediation step. People will be watching. You know, you can get in a lot of trouble for not following those things. So if you have interest in the environmental concerns, the best thing that can happen is our project.

Eric Cannon, 2727 Southwest Snyder Boulevard, here on behalf of Snyder & Associates, a consulting civil engineer. So we did attend the meeting, walked through all of these items with the neighborhood. Specifically to your question, that's part of the reason we think there's a good value here on bringing this type of development. There's a huge benefit of the elementary school here with seniors. We think there's an opportunity for some partnering there. But then there is a dark bus stop right outside of this stop, which I think is also key and speaks to the parking conversation and the opportunity for someone who doesn't have a car, can't afford a car. They can live here. They can have that connectivity through DART. There's a gas station right next door. There's a grocery store right next door. So when you think of all those things from the viability of the project and the success, those are very essential things. um to that so to your question um dominic connectivity is essential here and there was a question about the connectivity of porter so the initial phase of this project would provide that connection would provide that extension and again i know there's traffic concerns you're going to hear it we heard it the more connectivity you can make here the better the more connections for the school for parents for drop off for pickup the better the more sidewalk connections the more pedestrian connectivity the better So again, I know there's concerns in the neighborhood, but there are also a lot of positives. And I think that's where we're trying to focus our energy and efforts is on that. To some of the questions on the zoning, you know, obviously we worked a ton with staff on this. This has not happened overnight. We felt bringing one project together, a consolidated zoning, limiting residential and the entire piece, not pursuing any commercial upfront or anything like that was a clear commitment to not just this initial project, but the project as a whole. In the future, we want to be as transparent as possible. We want you to understand what is the big picture here. While we don't have every single building and parking stall laid out, I think you can take pretty well kind of as this is successful, more buildings will come online. But again, they're all going to be residential. I know it does say future potential retail there that would require a separate rezoning the only thought is if a scooters or I mean that parcels like 50 feet wide so you you really can't do much on it maybe a scooters or something or some kind of you see the hyper going to old parking lots and stuff like that there may be a potential for that in the future but nothing immediate nothing's proposed just knowing the frontage on 14th Street Really, that's what you're going to see there potentially someday. Otherwise, it'll be green space. It's just the reality of it. A couple of things I just wanted to note here. You know, there are concerns about homeless and illegal dumping out here as well. A lot of feedback from the neighborhood. Again, developing this site is the best thing you can do to mitigate those issues. Along with all the environmental concerns, developing this site is the best way to mitigate those issues because they have to follow standards. They have to follow requirements as part of that. Okay. Another big challenge on this is, as you see, it's a very irregular shaped parcel. That's probably the reason it has sat vacant for all these years. It is challenging. There's about 40 feet of elevation change from south to north as well. There is also utility restrictions to this. There's a sanitary sewer in Porter. that we can use to extend and do the initial phase of the development on the south, there is no sewer service to the north currently. So we've already been talking with engineering on how we solve that. That's going to have to come from the north through private property. It's going to take time. So again, this is going to be a phased project. This is going to take time to develop. But we need to get started. And really that's why we wanted to be in front of you with a big plan, a big picture, but knowing that this is going to take some time.

I'm going to interrupt you real quick. We went a little over our 10 minutes because our commissioners had some questions. But if you could wrap up your comments, that would be great. Thanks.

Yeah, I guess the last thing I would just note is there's a 100-foot setback here for any structure away, which we would meet that requirement. And Alexander's already committed to the conditions. know quadrupling the setback requirement from a buffer standpoint and doubling the plant material again we want to work with the neighborhood as well as the city be a good partner and i hope that good faith effort shows that that's there thank you okay is there anyone in the audience tonight who would like to speak in favor of this project anyone neutral

Anyone opposed? And I know there's going to be a lot of folks. Please come up one by one. State your name and address for a record. Sign in on that sheet when you're done. And I would, since there's a lot of folks, encourage people to consider not repeating comments. You have five minutes and you can do what you want, but I'll put that out there for consideration. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of Planning and Zone and Commission. My name is Michelle Ogorichelli, and I have lived in my house on Dale Avenue for over 55 years. Naturally, my parents and my brother were there a bit before me. We are the Jordan Task Force Group. People have asked who we are. It's just most of us have lived on that street. I mean, our oldest Task Force Group member turns 98 next month. So a lot of people watched me grow up. We've been around, if you go back and look at old city council notes, planning and zoning, one of our last big things that we worked on together as a community was the Menards and some of the Melbourne apartments. So that's who we are. We're the ones that received the cards to vote. And it's just our neighborhood. It's our life. So the first thing, or the thing that I would like to talk about tonight is the environmental due diligence and the importance of the complete public record. And like you, I did work with the Iowa DNR. They shared links of the public information, and then they also went on the microfiche and sent older reports to us as well. And then currently with the EPA, we... have the Freedom Information Act request, and they did reach out to us, EPA Region 7, and said that they hoped to have more information to us before August 7, 2006. And I know people say, oh, it's fine now, whatever, but it is still listed as a contaminated site. And growing up in that neighborhood, I remember, I mean, it's before my time a little bit, CODA industry, or what EPA calls CODA drum. And what you're seeing tonight is just a small portion. And that used to be owned by Van Patten, who was a good neighbors of ours. He passed away a few years ago and then Nelson's acquired the property. Um, whether it's true or not, he believed that it went onto his area. We don't know, not making any assumptions, but, It wasn't just a small bill where Aldi's building was. If you go and you look at the pictures, they're horrible pictures. Hopefully the EPA has the original color photos or photos, but you can see it goes across that whole 10 acres. You can see Lovejoy Elementary in the background of the photos. You got people wearing their whole hazmat outfits and everything. Hundreds of drums were found in the building. underground, and one thing that's important to know is the last report, which I'm sure that you've seen as well, is the 2009 report, and it clearly says, quote, unquote, however, there has been no underground or no groundwater assessment, and it is possible there may be significant subsurface contamination with paint solvents. Drum disposal areas remain in place. Not all of them were digged up. Now, do some of them deteriorate? What happens if you dig them up? Does the vapor come up? And I know that it was said that a phase one was done. But was that done on just that small little portion over there in the corner? Or was that done on all 12 acres? And then where's phase two? Where's the underground or the water assessment? Like we're just thinking before such something can be voted on to move forward, changing a plan rezoning. We just felt like there needs to be more of an environmental study completed because like you did say, once you start construction on four, apartment buildings, we were told three to five stories high. That's a lot of work if you start hitting something and you're by a school, you're by the residents. I mean, the report showed that some of the levels like mercury and other serious contaminants were like eight to ten times the the legal size, I mean the size that it should be. And so even though it stopped after spending, I don't remember how much, 140 some odd thousand dollars, it wasn't finished though. So we just have concerns about that. And honestly, as a little girl growing up in that neighborhood and down the street, you're always told, don't go back there and play, don't go back there and play. In fact, if I can recall, I was younger, but I remember like a sign that says dangerous And then the walls or the windows were broken out and then report articles. And I did go onto newspaper.com that talked about people breaking in, kids getting contamination. So just, it's a safety issue. I just feel like there needs to be more of an environmental study done and more than just a phase one. Was it on the small portion or was it the 12 acres in whole?

Thank you. Your five minutes is up. Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate it. Do you have any questions for me? No. Thank you. Thanks.

I'm Jonathan Toddhunter. Me and my family of six live on Deal Avenue 1006. We've been there almost two decades. One of the reasons we love that neighborhood is most of my neighbors, when I moved in, were there when the homes were built in the 60s. So to me, it's a little community, and I appreciate it. I do not oppose development of that land. I've always expected it to be developed in one fashion or another. I expected it to mirror very much what I have on my block, to see a five-story, apartment of any sort was not Not what I saw coming the result that I Oppose the rezoning for the reasons to me. It just doesn't fit or complement the neighborhood or the city facilities, which mainly is Lovejoy If it is to be rezoned it should complement what's around it for the most part and Moreover, I've not heard the developer mention covenant restrictions. He's talked about being willing to, but he hasn't added that to the property, which would commit him to it. Their presentation only shows the road leading up to Deal Avenue. And one of our neighborhood big concerns has been traffic, always has been. For an example, I have a council communication from April 20th of 2009. It mentions our task force. It talks about traffic in our areas from 2000, excuse me, 1996. We had 1,997 cars. In 2009, that was up to 2,900 cars. And a study, or a traffic study, the last one that was done on our road was 2016, and we were up to 3,210 cars, with 67 of those vehicles being trucks that would be potentially in violation of the restriction on a road for no truck traffic, which was part of our concern when Menards was expanded twice. So, thank you.

May I ask a quick question? Yes, you may. Related to the truck traffic, just looking at the aerial photo of the area, is most of that truck traffic coming in from Southeast 14th and then turning onto that first access drive?

It's mainly coming from Menards. And they're using the access from Bollorama. And they have put the city did put up a sign that no lap turns. Nobody pays attention to that. And even if they did, they can cut around the building of all Rama and come out their secondary entrance and come right onto our road.

Thank you.

Um, kind of further your, your talk about traffic. The Ogles have had their vehicles struck four times since I've been there. I've had one of my vehicles struck on the road. We're barely a two-lane road with parking, and with that volume of traffic we're getting, we're getting a lot of congestion, a lot of frustrated drivers. I've had a car up in my yard. One of my neighbors has had a car up in their yard. We've never let our kids play in the front yard because of the traffic, and it's only continued to get worse.

Good evening. My name is Amy Seamer and I'm a paraeducator for Des Moines Public Schools. And I also have a close family connection to Lovejoy Elementary. My sister works there also. I am speaking tonight as a concerned citizen, a neighbor, and as someone who understands the importance of creating safe, well-planned environments where children can learn, succeed, pause, and, excuse me, and thrive. Tonight, I would like to focus on one issue that I believe deserves careful consideration before any recommendations is made, and that is Lovejoy. At the outset, I think it is important to recognize exactly what is before the commission. The question tonight is not whether senior housing is a worthwhile concept, The question is whether the city could permanently or should permanently amend its comprehensive plan and permanently rezone approximately 12.36 acres immediately adjacent to Lovejoy School. Those land use rights do not expire with this developer or its proposal. Once granted, they remained with the property regardless of future ownership, future market conditions, or future development plans. That is why this decision is about much more than a single apartment building. It is about the long-term planning for our community. Iowa law does recognize that importance. Under Iowa Code Section 414.3, zoning decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and are intended to lessen congestion in the streets, promote public health and safety, and general welfare. Avoid undue concentration of population and facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, schools, parks and other public requirements. Because this property is immediately adjacent to Lovejoy Elementary, I respectfully ask of the Commission to carefully consider those responsibilities. Each school day, children arrive at Lovejoy not only by bus, family vehicle, on foot, and by bicycle. Parents, teachers, and school staff, delivery vehicles, and emergency responders all rely on safe and efficient access to the school. Elementary schools are among a community's most important long-term public investments and decision planning affecting the land surrounding those schools do deserve thoughtful planning and careful evaluation. Throughout this process, our neighborhood has asked several straightforward questions. Has the school impact analysis been completed? Has a traffic impact study evaluated traffic during school arrival and dismissal times? Has a pedestrian safety study evaluated the routes children use to walk and bike to school? Has the Des Moines Public School District been formally consulted regarding the potential impacts on the school operations? Have emergency vehicle access, school bus circulation, parent pickup and drop-off operations, and neighborhood traffic patterns been fully evaluated? If these studies have been completed, we respectfully ask that they be shared with the commission and with the public. If they have not been completed, I respectfully ask again whether the record before this commission contains sufficient information to conclude that this comprehensive planned amendment and rezoning are consistent with the planning objectives the commission is charged with considering. During the neighborhood open house, there was a discussion about the possibility of Lovejoy students participating in integrational reading activities with residents of the proposed development. Integrational programs can certainly be valuable educational opportunities when they are thoughtfully developed by educators, school administrators, and the families. However, educational programming should not be presented as a community benefit of a rezoning request before the school district has the opportunity to evaluate whether such programs are appropriate, safe, and consistent with the educational mission.

Ma'am, your five minutes is up. If you could wrap up your thoughts, please. Thanks.

Okay. As someone who works in education, I just know that the school must plan years into the future. We do plan for enrollment. We plan for staffing. We plan for transportation, capacity, emergency preparedness, safe walking routes, and that should reflect the same long-term perspective. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Chad Ogle Richelli. I'm Michelle's husband, a proud member of the Jordan Task Force group. And I have a speech here, some of it I don't want to be redundant, so I'm just going to kind of touch some quick bases. Again, thank you for the time tonight to be here, and thank every one of you for serving our community. A few things come to mind here, and one question is that, you know, what has changed in the city adopted plan DSM that justifies changing this property from low density to high density? There's been no studies to prove that that infrastructure, whether it's traffic, whether it's sewage, whether it's congestion, that this is appropriate. A few things here I could go on with. I mean the 414.3 document, I mean it gives a lot of information there, but I'd just rather speak a little from my heart here for a moment. I've lived there close to 20 years. And as Mr. Todd Hunter, we didn't let our kids play in the front yard. Traffic's gotten horrible. It's gotten worse. And that study that he shared with you was before Olive Garden, well, what is it? Not Culver's, but pardon me. Starbucks, Tasty Tacos. I mean, we've added more in things. And that's nice. That's great for the community. But it's dumping a lot onto our street. 20 feet, just so you guys know, that's a generous buffer. Thank you for offering. And we're not against development, not at all, as John said. But the apartment complex is a little bit maybe extreme. And this whole project, rezoning this tonight, all of this is just common sense. I don't know if anybody's ever heard the six Ps, and I apologize for this, but proper planning prevents piss-poor production, right? We're just giving the keys to the motorcycle here at full speed, full throttle, and we've done no planning, no looking at these, doing some reports, some studies saying what will make sense. We're dumping 60 parking spots out on the deal, maybe a little bit on the porter, right? 55 and over don't drive, half of them don't. I'm 52 years old. My wife is 28, right? We all, there's many 55-year-olds that still have family, kids, and still drive. So I get it, right? But we need to think about that stuff. And 20 feet away from the back of our yard, I mean, give me an idea. 20 feet from Madam Chair to me? I got a parking lot? five-story apartment. This is one story. I mean, I don't know. I don't want to sound like condescending like this sucks, right? Development's good, right? We all want to grow business, do good for our communities. I mean, we're here for that. We will support that. But we can not accept that type of term. And Alexander, if I may, you know, he said, hey, you know, we can put houses back there right now. That's great. Hey, we have no argument with that. As just like Mr. Todd said, I mean, we're really looking for an apartment back there. Housing makes sense, right? And could the apartments then go back on the other property?

I don't know.

Those are all business decisions, but does that apartment complex fit the DSM plan and the comprehensive plan that is laid out? You pulled it up earlier, didn't look like it when you had the nodes, which that's all news to me in Greek, but I could see it was kind of half. Does that make sense to rezone all of this? Maybe there's a portion that does make sense to rezone, and maybe there's a portion that still should say low density. Right? I don't know. Those are my thoughts. I represent 40 people in the Jordan Task Force. I've personally talked to every one of them. They're good people. We just want to make sure that the studies are done. It makes sense. Traffic is a huge one. And, you know, the environmental thing. If you have to clean it up, that is a good thing. I agree with that. I'm not opposed to that. That makes sense. But is there a way that apartments could be pushed back? We could just have residential houses behind us. Or could there be a more sensible buffer? Menards has 100 feet, and then they have the tree lines, the shrubbage, and that is on the north side. The west side of Menards has 200 feet buffer. Just food for thought.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Please state your name and address for the record and sign in on that sheet when you're done. You have up to five minutes.

Okay, my name is Teresa Dahl. I live at 1016 East Deal Avenue, and I will be the very first house that is behind my backyard. I'm just speaking generally as one of the neighbors, and this is how I think a lot of us feel. My parents built this house in 1963. I was nine years old then at the time. We were able to play in the street in the front yard, Now I'm 72, and I'm a second generation to live in this house. I loved growing up on Deal Avenue, but a lot of it has changed now since then. Our street has a lot of busy traffic, as everyone has said. There's a lot of noise coming from Menards and people dropping trash in our front yards. walking from the gas station, they're done eating whatever they purchased and they throw it in our yard. So we have to deal with that too. But I've said many times, well at least we have our quiet and peaceful backyard. And now this new 55 plus low income apartments will be directly behind my backyard. I don't understand the 60 space parking lot for 110 apartments because I volunteer at the Pope County Senior Center. These people are in their 80s and 90s and they still drive. So I don't see how these people aren't. Some people are going to have cars and they're going to be parking on my street. So I'm not... So I'm really not for this proposed idea. It should be researched a little more. I understand progress, but please think of the neighbors and Lovejoy School because I want the kids to be safe before making this a permanent plan. I thank you for listening to us and your consideration towards this. Thank you.

Thank you. Where do I sign this?

I don't know what to sign. I think it's coming back to me. Oh, gosh.

Okay, hold on.

Right here. You talk and I'll go.

Please come forward next person. I'm sorry. Please state your name and address when you get up there and sign in when you're done. You have up to 5 minutes.

My name is Gabriella and I live at 816 East deal Avenue. I am 1 of the newer neighbors in the area. I bought my house back in 2020 and this house that I bought. is my forever home. I'm young. I could have gone west to West Des Moines, but I decided to stay on the south side. I was born and raised on the south side. I don't want to leave the south side. This is my home. This is my heart. And the community has been very welcoming throughout the past seven years. I am expecting, so obviously some of the concerns are the traffic and my kid not being able to play in the front yard. But I also love the green space. There's nothing against green space that I see in my backyard. So I oppose against it just because of the safety and the security of my future family. When I think about... the safety of these 55 year and older. Like they said, it's so congested. How is 911 gonna be able to get around and save a life for the senior people when literally the streets is just one way, there's always traffic. I'm not sure how they're gonna be able to get inside the building or get through these streets that are not gonna be fully developed. So I mean, that would be a concern as a citizen. And also the care of if my mom or dad were to live in that facility, like how are they going to get emergency into this facility when there's really limited access streets in the area? If you were to build something else, not the 55 plus, I mean, I am a mortgage lender. I understand your guys' thought process. I understand money. I understand business. I understand we all want to, you know, make something out of life. But, I mean, if you want to build something else, residential homes or something, but not like a 55-year-old building where it's going to be six feet high or however floors tall. So there's other opportunities for you to develop other things or just leave it green and whatever. let the deers live there if they as they come and go as, as we've seen throughout the past years.

Thank you. Come on forward. Please state your name and address and sign in when you're done. You have up to five minutes.

My name is Dakota Buttram. I live at 810 East Deal. I have lived there since I was in Lovejoy. Bought the house for my mom. I don't really want to touch on all this stuff that everyone else already does you guys said so I don't have to really have a lot I guess one of my big concerns or one of the things I feel like hasn't been maybe even brushed over is the access Until Porter is extended and what we were told at the meeting was that it would never connect to 14th As far as I know almost all the traffic is gonna go through that access road on Deal right there So I just wanted to make sure that that was kind of reiterated because I felt like it was breezed over. But that's about all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. You can come on forward. Please state your name and address for the records. And you have up to five minutes. Sign them when you're done.

My name is Allison Stewart. I actually do not live in the Deal neighborhood. I live in the Drake neighborhood at 1050 25th Street. So we were here for the Black Cat building. We had a letter from that, but it sounds like it's moved to the next meeting. But I did think it was pertinent to the point that these folks were making about maybe taking our time. when we're developing and not just ramming things through I feel like we are very familiar with the building that Nelson has constructed in our neighborhood because it's been dropping bricks and there's been scaffolding up for like I want to say over a year because of that and so I feel like that's just a good reason to make sure that we are doing things in a safe manner and I making sure that buildings are going to benefit the neighborhood and not do the opposite. So thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Again, please state your name and address, and you have up to five minutes to sign in when you're done.

I'm Cheryl Mills at 1010 East Steel Avenue. The traffic comes from Army Post Road, Southeast 14th, Southeast 5th, and Dale gets it all.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Okay. Applicant, you do have five minutes for a rebuttal if you'd like to address any of the concerns that were brought up. Topics like the extent of the phase one environmental assessment, school impact, infrastructure capacity, anything else that you've heard?

Yeah, I guess just regarding the school, To be honest with you, the best thing that could happen here is senior housing when it comes to the demand on an elementary school, which is the demographics that come with seniors. So I think that is something that should be thoughtful. Again, when it comes to noise and all those things that come, seniors are about the best neighbor you can get. And I know there's concerns about everybody getting you know, this going in the backyard, but I think that should be part of the process. As far as the connectivity goes, we are going to connect Porter as part of phase one. They need that access. They need that connectivity. Again, that is a benefit. That is a commitment that's being made. There is also the connection out to 14th street through all these to that existing drive that you can see there. So, I mean, it's not just a connection to deal. Obviously that intersection at 14th street is pretty tricky to get out there during peak hours. There's a lot of traffic. Um, deal does have a light. Um, so you are going to see distribution all over through here, but, um, connectivity is something we understand in there. There is a lot of need for that. So, um, yeah, I guess just want to make sure we're clear on those items. Oh, as far as the environmental, you mentioned that, I mean, from a lending standpoint, this will get lenders are going to require all that environmental work gets done too. So it's not like they're just saying we're going to take care of it. Trust me, this won't be fine for anybody who's in lending or in mortgages or anything like that. That's all, all that red tape that comes with the history here, they will be absolutely bulletproof on that before they will loan a dollar to this because they don't want to run the risk. And so that's just another level of assurance that that will be taken care of. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay. I will close the public hearing now and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions. What do we think? Jane, you want to start?

I was trying not to. Go ahead. I think that it's an exciting opportunity when five acres are assembled for a development like this. I one thing I really appreciate sitting on this commission is getting to hear our very passionate neighbors who have great love for their communities and our cities our city and so it's always It's always a place of tension, I think, for us on this commission as we're looking at projects like this. For me, I do try to, as you all know, remember the people who aren't here, right? So future tenants of this building, people who would like to age in the neighborhood but can't, for whatever reason, continue to age in place in their own home, the families that might then have access to those homes that wouldn't otherwise. And I... You know, in some of the materials that were submitted about, for example, multifamily affects my property taxes in a negative way, research has shown time and time again that's not true. So I see here infrastructure improvements. I'm excited about the sidewalks being extended. I'm excited about the new roads that would be part of it. I'm excited about the opportunities for seniors to have more housing. With this question that came up in our discussion a little bit, why are we being asked to approve the whole lot and not project by project? There's a significant cost that I do think that we need to be mindful of. There's delays and costs that come with these hearings, and so there's an opportunity here for responsible... developers to really think holistically about the site, which I think is what we want. And I think the neighborhood is going to benefit from that as well. So I am in favor of staff's recommendation, but I'd love to hear from folks who might have different perspectives.

I am also going to be in favor of it. I do think, you know, my son used to work at the splash pool down in Jordan Park. several years ago, and you know, a deal is a busy street, but I do think Porter's gonna take a lot of stress off a deal, because then I can get from 5th over to 14th much quicker. I do wish the city would do something about the cut through Bolarama lanes from Menards, because that is very dangerous. And I think that whenever we can clean a site like this up, when we have a developer willing to take that on, And that risk with the lenders, I think it's a good thing, just getting that cleaned up and adding any housing in Des Moines is a positive thing, regardless of the age restrictions. With that said I will be supporting the rezoning and the rezoning is just the first step that gives these guys Confidence that they can start to develop a site plan more in more detail Working with the city and you to make sure the parking is resolved the setbacks are resolved And all of these things they won't do that if they don't get the zoning request through so That's my two cents worth

I'd like to say something in follow-up of what Jane has said in terms of a responsible developer. I think that I need a piece of drink of water. A long time ago, Nelson Construction came to Des Moines and started working They were responsible actually for redeveloping the Des Moines building downtown on Locust and Sixth Street. It's 33, big, tall building, right? And they did a very good job of it. And I think when, you know, you have something, a project like this that's exceedingly difficult just because, you know, look at the site that you're working with, the trust has something to do with a decision as well. And from what I've seen with Nelson and what they have done, and also they've expanded, you know, across outside the metro, that they've done a credible job. And so I think that needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about moving forward with this project.

I think one thing I wanted to add as well is that I do believe that some of the neighborhood's concerns can be addressed through design decisions. And unfortunately at this stage, we don't get to see those things, but what, I mean, I'd love to see Invest DSM engage with the community as much as these folks did. Am I allowed to say that? And so I think as long as those conversations continue, that it can get to a place where folks see, can see that some of the negative impact that they're concerned about can be remediated through good design decisions.

I'd also like to just, number one, I am going to be in favor of this. I do commend the neighborhood for being really thoughtful and how you showed up tonight and came together for your community. So I hope you do stay involved in your neighborhood. I do think as it relates to good questions about the comprehensive plan and what this is for. I think the nodes are an important aspect as we think about this area and that the comprehensive plan for Des Moines is not just a map. It's also a set of goals that think about many of the things people have expressed related to diversity of housing for many generations, thinking about where those things go in relationship to transit and thinking about those seniors that can now if they can't drive in the future maybe they can today but they can walk to the grocery store so this all of those together when we think as a commission about changing a land use designation uh or zoning area that plays into it too beyond just the hard lines on a map that we have to grapple with i just want to say something i agree with everything that has been said and

In addition to the banking piece that Eric, the engineer mentioned, tax credit process is also an extremely difficult process to go through. So some of the environmental things will come up through there. So going back to what some of the commissioners have already said, a lot of the concerns from the neighborhoods, from the neighbors will be taken care of as this process goes through.

I'll just make a couple of quick comments. I had some concerns as I heard all of this. And as I read this before the meeting, I was somewhat assured when I heard, you know, the 55 plus being restricted or the owner being open to that, whether or not it is a LIHTC project or market rate, makes me feel better about it. Again, I just want to say to the neighborhood, definitely commend you guys and appreciate what you did. And if this does pass, I really hope and recommend that you do continue to work with Alexander and his team to try to get the best project out of it. Again, maybe listening to the neighbors, is there an opportunity for some lower density on a smaller piece of it? I'll let you guys figure that out. But just keep in mind, I think everybody wants to work together and figure out what's best for the neighborhood and for the development. So continue to keep open dialogue. So thank you for everybody for being here, and I do appreciate Nelson making those comments. So just to be sure that if this does pass, that that does get put on the record to go to 55 plus throughout the property. Thank you.

Yeah, and I agree with Rick, and I'll support the project and the zoning. But the three conditions discussed, I'd like those to be incorporated into whatever motion is made.

Would you like to go ahead and make that motion?

I move we approve the rezoning as stated by staff in its report with the conditions that both LIHTC and market rate market rent properties are restricted to 55 plus in age that the south side of the property maintain a 20 foot setback and the double or the planting requirements in the code are doubled.

Thank you. Well done. Any discussion on the motion?

I guess, just to clarify this 55 plus for the entire site, or is it just for the phase one? So what applicants is comfortable with? Okay.

And that applies to any housing product, I think the way the motion was written, or agree.

Okay. Is any restating needed? Looking at our attorney?

If they did do some single-family homes, that would not apply to single-family or what?

Well, I'd like that clarified in the motion if that's the intent. How it was phrased, I would say it applies to any residence. So if that's the intent, we can just put it away the other way.

My intent was not to have, if there was single-family housing on there, my intent would not to have the 55-plus restriction on single-family housing.

Not to complicate this, but what about duplexes, triplexes?

How about non-multifamily housing? Could you define multi? I would define multifamily as a duplex and above.

Okay, so two units or above would be senior housing.

Five plus units would be multifamily.

I think the gentleman that's made the motion.

I'll restate the motion. Move to approve the zoning request with the condition that any multifamily property, which would be defined as... anything that's a duplex and above LIHTC or market rate is restricted to age 55 plus, that there's a 20-foot setback from the south side of the property on deal, and that double the planting requirements from the current zoning or the current code is put in place.

Yeah, and I'll just clarify that as... I think your motion is fine, but just for everybody's sake, what applies currently is the medium buffer standards in 135, so doubling that will be doubling the medium buffer standards, so.

Thank you. All in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Thank you, and Chris, how do you vote? okay okay thank you motion passes and we will move to item number seven This is a request from Pibble properties regarding the subdivision of a lot located at 41 20 Southeast 15th court into two parcels for the following consideration of the following denied type one design alternatives in accordance with city code one type one design alternative to allow a lot width of 42 feet where the minimum width required is 60 feet for a house B type building per code. Two, a type one design alternative to allow a minimum lot size of 6,174.87 square feet, where 7,500 square feet is required for a house B building type per code. And appeal of a denied plat of survey in accordance with city code. And Jasmine is going to present for staff tonight.

Good evening. Thank you, Madam Commissioner. We have two separate requests today. I just want to remind everyone we'll have. There's also different voting and I'll touch on that at the end, but the one appeal of the denied type one design alternatives for the lot width and lot size. And then we have the appeal of the denied plot of survey. So this property is located on a dead end street. This would be south of East Watchers Avenue between Southeast 14th Street and west of Indianola Avenue. We have some pictures of the property here. It is slightly on a hill. As you go north, it's going uphill. So approximately where that truck is and sort of where that yellow dash line, you can see where it's semi-unmowed there. That is the area that we are talking about here. This is the proposed plot of survey. The plot of survey was requested to construct an approximately 1,200 square foot single family home with an ADU in the basement. The lot widths along the street currently are approximately 80 feet in width with a lot of the homes. All of the homes along that street are ranch-style homes. They're wider than they are narrow, which would meet our House B building type regulations. that is what we'd be looking at this new house for those regulations we have the site plan proposed here with the driveway to the north and then here are the proposed elevations for the home so the proposed lot is approximately half of what would be in the existing neighborhood Again, most of the homes are the ranch style, wider, not narrow home styles, which would not be in the characteristic. This proposed plan is not in the same characteristic as the existing homes today. This is the basement for where the ADU would be, and then a floor plan for the first floor. A more appropriate way to increase the density in this neighborhood would be to either rezone the property in its entirety for, in addition for a duplex or a triplex, or gaining 30 feet to the north. The property owner to the north obtains 30 feet. I'll go back to the plot of survey. They have 30 feet. If that was added to... This proposal would give it at least 70 feet in width and be more appropriate as far as increasing density to this area. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the type 2 design alternatives and the plot of survey. This is the consent map. Um, and then Emily, I just want to pass it to you to reminder of the vote.

Yes. So the, the plot of survey requires eight affirmative votes in order to overturn the development services directors decision. So just so everyone's aware, I would prefer if we vote on a and then vote on B so we can kind of keep those separated.

We do have an applicant here with us today, and I'm here for any questions that you may have.

Before we switch over to questions, just to give a little more context, could you go back to the early aerial? I know I found it interesting just to try to understand why there was A LARGER LOT AND THIS NARROW LOT. WHEN THIS WAS PLATTED OFF AND MAYBE THE 60s OR 50s, I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE YEAR OF THE PLATT, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY ENVISIONED THAT A ROAD, EAST WEST ROAD WOULD COME FROM THE EAST AND RUN INTO HERE AND THEN TEE INTO SOUTHEAST 15th COURT. And so that that road never happened. You can see the cul de sac to the. West developed and that that what was a 60 foot wide right away was split. And half of it was acquired by the property to the north. The other half was incorporated into this parcel. So that's why there's kind of this weird. size of land here, because initially I would have thought what happened was there was a true development lot here, an 80-foot lot that was split, but that's not the case. It was a 60-foot right away.

I guess I'm looking for a little more detail in the explanation for why staff doesn't think it's appropriate for the neighborhood.

The If you go back to the aerial, the street subdivision was all 80 to 84 foot wide lots. All the houses are oriented in a wider ranch style. Part of the definition or description in the code as to when to grant relief is to look at the character around it. And so it doesn't, we denied the request because it doesn't, a 40 foot lot WITH A NARROW HOUSE DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY IN OUR MIND TO ADD DENSITY WOULD BE TO EITHER ACQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL LAND FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH OR ACTUALLY TO SEEK A REZONING TO ALLOW LIKE A DUPLEX OR A TRIPLEX AND ADD ON TO THE HOUSE THAT'S THERE TODAY, CREATING A BUILDING RHYTHM ALONG THE STREET THAT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THERE TODAY.

ISN'T THIS THE PURPOSE FOR THE opportunity to be able to, you know, it, like, sure, build, buy another lot, be able to build a bigger building, but that is would be not similar project. I guess I just don't understand.

Maybe you could be added to the building that's there today. Right.

So there is because it's so is the opposition the ADU or is the opposition the the style of the building?

The lots lot split. Okay, new building.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you. Yeah, yeah.

We that makes sense.

Yeah, obviously, they can do ADU today. No review.

And yeah, yeah, yeah.

or if you wanted to get towards like three units or, you know, we would support a staff rezoning this. We think that's more appropriate. You know, it's a big lot and then adding on, but just the splitting off onto about a 42 foot lot with a house that's just kind of squeezed in there. It doesn't really fit the character of the area. We had a concern with that. Thank you.

Thanks. Any other questions for staff, Johnny?

Yeah, I have a question. Because it was mentioned that preferably it would be a rezoning process to a duplex or a triplex. So are there duplexes and triplexes that are part of the neighborhood?

I don't believe so, that there's any existing. There might be some ADUs. I have not researched that. But that thought is more so with the lot size that it currently exists today. It makes more sense to increase density through a rezoning process. utilizing the existing property. I believe this is a rental, a single family rental currently. Does that sort of lead your answer?

So a duplex or a triplex would not meet the character of the neighborhood? Well, we're trying to...

Correct? Well, there's... What we're trying to describe as staff is that there's a way to add density to neighborhoods and there's a way not to. And... it is the way to do it is to fit it, to fit it in, to fit it into the character of the area, whether it's in, we have approved duplexes in areas that don't have duplexes already. You know, we've rezoned to like the dash two zoning district and it's really about the form of the building. And that's part of the whole basis of the new code is to focus more on the form and not necessarily exactly numbers of units and that sort of thing. So what we were saying is, If you want to fit into the form of this neighborhood, the way to do that would be to have a single building that looks more like the buildings around it, but have.

2, maybe 3 units in it this is probably 2. This might be too detail-oriented, but just from the sketches that are included in their submittal, it looks like the house, the geometry of the house is very similar to these other homes that are on the street. It's rectangular with a gable roof. It looks like it's rotated 90 degrees to kind of adapt to the narrowness of the proposed site. But just in terms of the form of the building, it seems like it is pretty consistent with the other houses.

I may be confused. I'm sorry. I need some clarification. Why are we calling it an ADU? They want to add a building onto their lot off to that vacant portion to the north?

Yeah. The purpose is for construction of a new home. They need the lot split that they want to have another home. they wanted to plan an ADU in the basement of this home. So essentially two units on this 40-foot lot.

Just to clarify, they have informed us that they're doing the ADU, but at the end of the day, we're reviewing, do we add in a house here?

Is this the front of the house?

Correct, yeah.

And there's no architectural drawings besides these available?

Not at this time, no.

Can you show the site plan again? Sorry. Go ahead.

So are we deciding whether to split the lot? Yes. Okay. So we're just simply deciding whether or not to split the lot because they can build a single, once they, they can build a single family home and an ADU on it once they split it. So you're just anticipating what they're going to do with it and you're not happy with that? Is that the?

It's, it's the type, it's the house B building regulations. So to split a lot, it's essentially, do we allow the 40 foot instead of the 60 foot lot and, and the alternatives with that? Yeah.

that so that's the issue we're getting caught in the i know i'm getting thinking about the house but this is really just a question of whether splitting the lot makes sense well i think the house is relevant and thinking about how it sits on the lot how you're anticipating what can be built on a 42 foot wide lot when the rest of the lots of the neighborhood are 80 feet wide and oriented differently

One point of clarity, if this lot wasn't split, and they did just just add an ad you a single ad you there would be a maximum size for that ad you correct and what would be that 1000 feet or 1000 square feet? Sorry, thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you. As applicant present. Okay. In that case, would anyone in the audience like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Please come forward, state your name and address, sign in when you're done, and you have up to five minutes.

My name is Justin Sigmund. I'm at 4095 Southeast 15th Court. Most of those photos were taken right in front of my property. Not that one, but those. My biggest concern with this property, I don't think they should be able to add that unit there unless they buy that other parcel. Mainly, it's not like all the other units on that street. I was also curious, you guys were mentioning multifamily housing or duplexes, triplexes. None of those are within four blocks on the other side of 14th. Doesn't really fit in the neighborhood. But yeah. If anything would be done, I would prefer they have to buy that other lot to build a house that resembles something located in the neighborhood. That's more or less all I have to say on it.

Thank you. Thanks for sitting through a long meeting.

Yeah, I kept it short.

Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Please come forward. State your name and address. Sign in when you're done and you have up to five minutes.

Hi, my name is Abigail Scott. I am the house to the north, so I own the other half of that parcel. They did offer to buy that. I declined because when I bought that house, this is my first home. I've owned it for almost a year now. I have a few dogs and they love to run around and play. My plan is to build a privacy fence over and extend onto that parcel. SO THAT I HAVE MORE ROOM FOR MY ANIMALS FOR FUTURE CHILDREN IF I HAVE ANY TO BE ABLE TO just use all of my property that I can. And I bought it because of the space in between me and the neighbor. I do like that. It's not so much of a privacy encroacher over on that one side, whereas everybody's kind of packed in together. And I feel like it would pack us all in more together. And as well as what he said, it wouldn't match within the neighborhood of what the houses that they have. I do not plan on selling that parcel. I want to keep it and I want to build the privacy fence up as far as I can. And if they were to put that driveway there and the house and whatnot, it would, I'm trying to think of the word here. I would not be able to use the entirety of the property that I could if they were to build there. And I feel like it would encroach on my privacy as well. So thank you guys very much for the opportunity to speak. I do appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. Would anyone else like to speak? All right. I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions. I'll remind everybody that we are going to vote on this as part a and part B, the type one design alternatives and the plot of survey.

I like it. I think that utilizing a lot like this is a good idea, and it's an infill lot where Des Moines has been developed, and beggars can't be choosers, and to add more – buildings to a neighborhood. I mean, I live in Beaverdale and there's small buildings like this all over the place. I mean, there's big buildings, small buildings, medium buildings. So I don't see the problem with this being built, uh, uh, just less than the minimum square footage, uh, uh, lot size. And, uh, I mean, it's still got to abide by the, um,

setbacks i'm sure and um i think you give them give them the go i agree i think this adds an opportunity for that missing middle housing 1200 square foot home smaller on a smaller lot and i think it fits the neighborhood even if the house is a little bit different i'll note that just up the street there's three or four plex large house split up for multiple tenants. So I would support that.

And so what would that look like in terms of a motion? So would we be voting against staff or what?

We'd never do that.

Sorry. I don't even know how to make the motion.

Well, you you move approval of Part A. That's what sure. Yeah. If somebody wants to do that, that's what you would do. We only make recommendations.

All right, then I'll move that.

Move approval of Part A.

Okay.

Any discussion on that motion?

I'M MOVING TO APPROVE PART A WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE SPLIT.

PART A IS THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES NECESSARY FOR THE PLAT TO BE APPROVED? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

SO WE'RE APPROVING TO GIVE THEM THE GO AHEAD?

YOU'RE APPROVING THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THEM TO DO A LOT THAT'S SMALLER THAN WHAT'S PERMITTED BY THE Chapter 135. So you need because the voting numbers are ones a simple majority of those other one is set at eight minimum, you have to vote on this twice. But in the second one, you're gonna have to have eight people. So well, whatever we have 13.

So vote in favor is a go ahead.

Correct. Okay, so there is a motion on the table to approve Part A, which is the lot width and the minimum size lot exceptions. All in favor, please raise your right hand. All opposed? Thank you. Part A passes. We'll move to Part B, which is the denied plat of survey. This does take eight affirmative votes. on our part. Would anyone like to make a motion for Part B?

Sure, I'll make that motion as well.

To approve.

So we're approving to reject, or we're rejecting the approval?

You are approving, you're moving to approve the Plata survey.

Okay, so go ahead.

I would say subject to any administrative review comments. Sure, sure, sure.

Okay, so that's what I'm moving.

Okay, all in favor? Thank you. All opposed? Thank you. Part B passes as well. That concludes our meeting. Are there any director's reports or other comments?

I don't think I have anything to report. Nope. Okay. I'm getting a head shake no from the table. I often forget and Bert's like, you need to do this. But I don't have anything to report. Thank you. Thank you.