Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the September 17th meeting of the Des Moines City Planning and Zoning Commission. I'll start by reading our rules and procedures. The Planning and Zoning Commission is generally an advisory body to City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing and make the final decision on all matters before the Commission, other than site plans and subdivision plots, unless denials or conditional approvals thereof are appealed. The applicant will be given 10 minutes to present the request. Proponents and then opponents from the public are then allowed to speak in that order with each speaker allowed a maximum of five minutes. The applicant is then allowed five minutes for rebuttal. The hearing will then be closed and the commission will discuss and vote on the issue. All comments are to be germane to the item under consideration and speakers are to maintain a courteous manner. items listed on the consent portion of the agenda will not be individually discussed, and will be considered for approval in accordance with the recommendation in the staff report, unless an individual 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. So we'll start, could we get a motion to move to approve the minutes from our last meeting, please? Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Any abstentions? Okay, thank you. Motion passes. And we'll move into the consent agenda. Item number one is a request from Sarah and Christopher Davis represented by Steve Wilkie Shapiro for review and approval of a public hearing site plan and for a type two design alternative in accordance with city code. for property located at 1707 East 8th Street to allow construction of a 1300 square foot residential addition with an eight foot rear yard setback, which is 22 feet less than the required 30 foot rear yard setback 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 number one will stay on consent. Item number two is a request from Collins Community Credit Union represented by Benjamin Wickham for review and approval of a public hearing siteman Merle Hay Road Dutch Brothers for property located at 4019 Merle Hay Road and for the following type two design alternatives in accordance with city code. A, waive primary frontage coverage where the minimum required is 60% per code. B, allow a setback of 51.9 feet along Merle Hay Road where the required primary frontage build to zone is zero to five feet per code. C, allow surface parking in the front yard where required to be in the rear or limited side yard per code. D, waive occupied space requirements where a minimum of 30 feet in depth on primary frontages is required per code. E, waive the requirement for a principal entrance on the primary front facade per code. And F, allow a drive-through facility to be located 11 feet from the rear lot line where 70 feet is required since the rear of the lot abuts an N district per code. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this item removed from the consent agenda and discussed under the public hearing agenda? Anyone on the commission other than me? The city received a letter from the neighborhood association with some of their concerns. So city staff would like to hear our feedback on this. So I'm going to request removing this from the consent agenda. So number 2 moves. Number 3 is a request from Scott Dorough for review and approval of a public hearing site plan and for a type 2 design alternative in accordance with city code for property located at 4550 East Spring Street to allow for construction of a 960 square foot garage in the front yard where accessory structures are only allowed in the side or rear yard per code. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this item removed from consent and discussed? Anyone on the commission? Okay, item three will stay on consent. And item four is a request from Donnie Bensley for review and approval of a public hearing site plan and for a type two design alternative in accordance with city code for property located at 2480 Easter Lake Drive to allow for construction of a 1200 square foot pole building that is 19 feet tall, where accessory structures are only allowed to be 17 feet tall per code. Would anyone in the audience like this item removed from the consent agenda and discussed? Anyone on the commission? Okay. Item number four will stay on consent. So the consent agenda consists of items one, three, and four. Could we have a motion to move that agenda?

I'll move approval.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Any opposed? Anyone passing?

Given Council's prior stated perception that I exhibit an appearance of bias with respect to a party relevancy application, I'm recusing myself from two.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so let's move into the public hearing agenda, starting with item number two, which I read, and Jasmine will present this for us.

If I could, before we get started, I just wanted, the folks who just joined us, are they here for item two or one of the other items that we just, or do you know which item you're here for? Okay, all right, we're just about ready to start. I just wanted to make sure you weren't here for an item we'd already covered. Thank you. What's that? Is there anybody here that's for item five, the rezoning? Are you the applicant?

Yes.

Okay. But there's nobody else since there's nobody else, we could vote to continue that and let them Yes.

Okay, we'll switch gears here for a moment. So item number five, do I need to read it?

Yes, please.

Okay, I'll go through it. And then we're going to request to continue this item. So item number five is a request from Maria Jimenez and Alejandro Balo. I apologize if I pronounce those wrong. for the following regarding property located at 1850 Easton Boulevard. A, determination as to whether the requested rezoning is in conformance with plan DSM. B, amend plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from business park to low medium density residential. and c rezone the property from ex business park district to rx1 mixed use district to allow reuse of an existing building for a two household residential duplex use so this item is being requested to be continued to the october 1st meeting the applicant is weighing the idea of changing their zoning type requests. So this will need to be re noticed as well. So could we get an motion to continue this item to October 1?

To continue it.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. And Chris in the back as well. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. So you guys don't need to stay if you're not interested in the other item. Okay, and we will go back to the public hearing item number two with Jasmine.

Thank you. So we have a request here today from Collins Community Credit Union. The developer, Dutch Bros, is requesting some Type 2 design alternatives and review and approval of a public hearing site plan for primary frontage coverage. I'll touch through some of the requests, but the very typical of a standalone drive-through beverage shop for the specific property, 4019 Merle Hay Road. This property is situated south of Aurora Avenue, north of Madison Avenue on the east side of Merle Hay Road. This is approximately northwest of Merle Hay Mall, just across from the Water Tower. The property is situated in between a KFC to the south and a U.S. Bank to the north. This is a photo of the property taken across the street looking east. Here is the site plan. Kind of zoom in for you guys here. So the requests are for their model for a small coffee shop. Waivers are being requested for frontage coverage, front setback, occupied space, and a principal entrance, and some surface parking in the front yard. As you can see, there's a sidewalk that's kind of on their property that connects both properties to the north and south. So they're exit drive is in front of the building and then the building's kind of pushed back. They have a walk-up window to the south of the building there. And then their other request is in reference to their their drive-through. We require 70 feet from an end district or a drive-through facility. They're proposing a double drive-through. There's about 11 feet to the pavement from that rear property line there. They are proposing a heavy buffer, which is required for that separation. This is their proposed elevations, very similar to what you see at Southeast 14's location. And then just due to the nature of the corridor and the commercial uses, it's very similar to what is existing on Merle Hay Road. So staff is recommending approval of the public hearing site plan and the requested type two design alternatives subject to compliance with all administrative review comments. We did receive a letter from the Neighborhood Association. And I'll kind of give you a second to read through this. But they are essentially concerned about the traffic addition to Merle Hay Road and just the impact it has to the neighbors. So I'll give a second to read through this.

Any questions? I think? Yeah.

Anything else that we also got a letter of support or essentially no, no issues with the requested type twos from the KFC to the south.

But that is all any questions for Justin?

Could you put the polar side plan back up?

Thanks. I think the one before that's even more clearer. Is this at the top of the north? Is that the second lane coming in or not?

Yeah, so this is their entrance off of Merle Hay, and then this is where the dual drive-through is. You come in and then around to the front, back to the front. and exit out of this drive lane.

And then there's the cross-access point to KFC, right? Mm-hmm.

Jasmine, a question. Right now, that's a vacant lot, it appears? Correct. Do you know what any of the past uses there has been?

It was a mattress firm, a Levita.

Okay, that's what I thought. Levita was there. Okay. Thanks.

Jasmine, from the letter, it seems like most of the neighbors, the neighborhood association concerns are traffic related. Is this triggering any sort of traffic study or anything like that?

No. From the 2019, the changes that were made for traffic studies, anywhere between 50 to 100 trips does not require a traffic study. So this would not be meeting that requirement.

And did traffic have any, engineering and traffic have any concerns with the proposed layout?

They generally always talk about just having better queuing. So having that cross access with KFC helps just always trying to add additional queuing where you can. Not necessarily any comments for how it impacts pedestrians or things of that nature.

I do recall, Jasmine, I think that that they were concerned about necessarily traffic impacts to Merle Hay Road itself as far as additional trips. Is that my memory in that correct? It was more about what we heard from them is more about how to handle the queuing.

Yeah.

Wasn't necessarily just the total number of trips.

Correct. Yeah. Any other questions? We do have someone from the design team as well. So to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Excuse me, I have another question, please. In terms of the buffer, could you explain here on the east side of the property what the city is recommending?

Yeah, the required buffer is a heavy buffer. So for every 100 lineal feet, it requires essentially two canopy trees, three ornamental trees and three evergreen trees within a hundred millennial feet. And then it requires the six foot, six foot fence, privacy fence.

Yes. It's 10 foot buffer. So they're providing 11 feet. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone in the audience tonight? Oh, sorry. Applicant, are you present? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for our records and sign in on that white sheet to your right when you're done. And you have up to five minutes.

Thank you.

Excuse me, up to 10 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Landon Brack with Positive Street Partners. We're the developer for this project. First, I'm just going to ask, do you guys have any concerns with the initial alternatives that we were proposing? If not, I can strictly address the HOA's letter. So point one on the HOA letter was primarily towards the traffic for the project. So first, I'm going to address the queuing area. Right now in that queuing area, there are 14 queuing spaces. And a unique thing about Dutch Brothers is it doesn't have your standard microphone. or like menu board area, all of the orders are taken via iPad with individuals standing at each car. So you have reduced noise from those orders, as well as you have a more efficient drive-through space. We can kind of see with other quick service restaurants, they've involved more individuals within the drive-through queuing area just to speed up speed up the process of those individuals, of the customers. With that being said, the two main things that are going to alleviate the traffic are the cross access to the south with KFC, and then also the double drive through lanes with multiple customer service representatives out there taking care of those customers to get customers through there as quickly as possible. The other thing I want to point out, Dutch Brothers, for openings, you can get increased traffic. And they work with the local jurisdiction law enforcement to have additional workers out there just to navigate the traffic plan. It won't be your normal traffic plan that you would see during operations six months from now. It's just to alleviate that initial influx of new customers for a new project and to This is the second Dutch Brothers in the state of Iowa. The first one did see increased traffic, but the traffic plan worked great there without having any backup onto the main thoroughfare. So the traffic plan will alleviate any backup onto Merle Hay during opening. And then long term, I know that The HOA was mainly concerned with overall traffic impact. We developed a project up in Ankeny where they did require a traffic study. And the average, the hours for the Dutch Brothers is 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. Friday and Saturday, it's 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. Throughout the average of all of those hours, you're looking at 40 trips per hour generated and with a maximum of 60 trips per hour generated. And those maximum, you're typically going to see between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., specifically on Fridays and Saturdays. To further address the HOA second point, it kind of goes back through the drive-through. First, just with the noise, again, we have customer service reps out there working face-to-face with the customers. You're not going to have loudspeakers during operations at all. And then for the headlight concern, as you can see, the only time the headlights would truly shine towards the residential area are when they are making that turn into the stacking area. And with that, as previously discussed, we have a very dense landscaping area on top of a six-foot privacy fence. Are there any questions that I could further address?

Yeah, explain this about the light, and particularly, I think, viewing to the east and the property behind that. Can you give me a sort of a scientific, technological notion about how that might affect these properties or not? Sure.

So in terms of headlights, that's going to be completely screened. So there should be zero impact from headlights. There could be some, I don't want to call it bleed because it's not going to illuminate the houses, but there could be some glow, if you will, from those headlights from early morning, but it's not going to directly illuminate a window or anything like that. In terms of site lighting, we designed the site to only have 0.5 lumens or 0.5 candles at the property line, which is well under the threshold. There's going to be no bleeding of site lighting to those neighboring residential properties. Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant? Thank you so much, Commissioners. Please do sign in. Is there anyone in the audience tonight who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Anyone opposed? Would you all like to speak on this item at all? Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, with no comments, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up to the Commission for discussion and motions.

I have a question for the city, and I don't mean that question to the sound the way the question sounds, but I'll ask the question nonetheless. About the issue with the lights, there aren't any number of drive-throughs here in the city, of course. So my question is, within the proposed lights, illumination blockage as it were with other of these drive-thrus, drive-ins across the city. Will this actually be as effective as we have heard?

Yeah, I'm not sure if I have an answer for that question. We haven't really, you know, it's not something we've gone out to look at other sites during nighttime situations to see, but I just, I do think fencing mixed with landscaping does do a good job of light. I would be... I'm not worried about the light. I think sound is more likely to travel than light in an impactful way in this situation.

I would just comment. I was looking at the map. There seems to be a half dozen or so other convenient fast food restaurants and McDonald's further south of Fazoli's. a few others with the drive-thru, and obviously you have the tasty Kentucky fried chicken there next door. So it kind of goes with the neighborhood, goes with what's going on there. I do understand the residents' concerns, but I think it's for the betterment of the community to get some more businesses in there. So I would love to hear from any of my colleagues up here, but if nobody else has any comments, I'm happy to make a motion to approve.

Discussion on the motion to approve the staff recommendation?

I wanted to ask this might be an aside but I think we'll ask an important question about the lights and the buffer and I would vote I was about to say that to complement the extent of the buffer and I'm just wondering if we have any system for assessing whether or not I'm assuming the city is recommending this buffer and that we're doing it because we believe it's effective but do we ever go back and check those things update those codes?

Yeah, I actually think that what's being proposed is based off of the standards in the code. Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't think it's – we haven't negotiated this. They're just meeting our standards. But, you know, we went through – you know, during my career, you know, we developed – there was landscaping standards developed, you know, 20-some years ago. And then we wrote the new code, updated those, got perspective of, you know, a – um, national level consultant and made some adjustments. Um, but since the new code has been adopted, we haven't done any spot checking to check the effectiveness of it. Um, I would actually say just anecdotally that the bigger challenge isn't so much that our standards are off. It's just whether or not people maintain them, the plant material. And when it dies, there isn't always a mechanism to get replacement in quickly. So we start losing some of that growth cycle and getting them bigger. That's where I see the bigger challenge in general with landscaping.

Okay, that's helpful. So that so these standards are in place, there's been a lot of knowledge and research that went into creating them. And so we have every reason to have confidence in them.

Yes.

Any other questions or discussion on the motion? Okay, all in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Motion passes. And that's the end of our agenda. Are there any committee or directors' reports?

No reports. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks very much.