Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The planning and zoning commission is generally an advisory body to city council. The city council will hold the public hearing and make the final decision on all matters before the commission other than site plans and subdivision plats 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 5 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 5 minutes for a rebuttal. The hearing will then be closed and the commission will discuss and vote on the issue. All items are to be ger uh excuse me, all comments are to be gerine to the item under consideration and speakers are to maintain a courteous manner. Items listed on the consent portion of the agenda will not be 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. Um first could we have a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting?

I'll move approval.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Abstensions. Thank you. Um I will now go through the consent public hearing items. Item number one is a city initiated request for the following regarding property located in the vicinity of 602 Robert D. Ray Drive, including the Argon Armory building and surface parking lot. A determination as to whether the requested resoning is in conformance with plan DSM. B, amend plan DSM to revise the future land use designation from public, semi-public, and parks and open space to downtown mixed use. and C resone the property from P2 public civic and industrial district and P1 public civic and institutional district to DX2 downtown district. Would anyone in the audience tonight like this item moved to the public hearing agenda? [clears throat] Anyone on the commission? Okay. Item number one will stay on consent. Item number two is a city initiated request for the following regarding property located in the vicinity of 12200 Locust Street. A determination as to whether the requested resoning is in conformance with plan DSM. B amend plan DSM to revise the future land use designation from downtown mixed use to public semic. and C, reszone the property from DX1 downtown district to P2 public civic and institutional district. 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 for item two?

Are you are you uh able to hear in the back? You see the blow up here. Okay. Thank you. Hard to hear it. You got to turn the speaker out. Is the Is the blower I don't hear it running. Oh, she's talking so fast. We can't understand what she's saying back there. Can you turn the speaker up? And and we don't have any control of that. We'll just be mindful. I'll be try to be louder. Yeah, the acoustics in this room aren't great.

Is anyone here to discuss item number two? Okay. Would anyone in the commission like this item pulled? Okay. Item number two will stay on the consent agenda. And could we get a motion to approve the consent agenda? I'll move.

Thank you. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay. Motion passes. We'll move to the public hearing agenda. The first item is item number three. This is a request from Bobby Brown and Casey Brown for the following regarding property located in the vicinity of 1233 10th Street. determination as to whether the requested reszoning is in conformance with planned DSM and reszone the property from N5 neighborhood district to NX1 neighborhood mix district to allow conversion of the three existing one household structures to two household residential structures and allow construction of a fourth two-household residential structure resulting in a total of eight residential dwelling units and Srioshi will present this item for the city.

Thank you, Madame Chair. Srihi Chakrabarti, planning staff. Item number three uh was continued from the November 6th plan and zoning commission meeting at the request of the applicant. Staff's recommendation at this time has not changed on the requested resoning. The reasoning was for a pro uh property in the vicinity of 123310th Street and the requested resoning is to change the zoning designation of the property from N5 neighborhood district to NX1 neighborhood mix district to allow additional units of on the property up to a total of eight residential dwelling units. This is the subject property. This is in the King Irving neighborhood. It's a it's just to the north of University Avenue and uh it's located along 10th Street. It is in close proximity to amenities along University Avenue which includes commercial, retail, institutional uses as well as in very close proximity to the DMAC campus along University Avenue as well. To the north, it's primarily low density and single family residential. I have some site photographs to give you context of the of the subject property. The subject property currently includes three residential structures. Here in the photograph, you can see the two structures that are along 10th Street. There's a third um residential structure that's to the back. You can see a little bit of it. There's a shared driveway in the middle. Here's a closeup of the of one of the structures. And this is the second one. There is also a driveway. It's not an improved driveway. It's just a gravel driveway that's to the south of the of

the buildings along the southern property line. [clears throat] A few more pictures just to give you some context. This is looking south towards downtown along 10th Street. Gives you an idea of the scale of the neighborhood and this is looking north along 10th Street as well. So with that, I'd like to talk a little bit about the applicant's proposal. When the application was submitted to staff, the proposal that the applicant had put forward is to convert the existing three residential one household residential structures into duplexes for a total of six dwelling units as well as to potentially add a house where you can see my cursor. A potential a future house um with an additional two dwelling units. that would put a total of eight residential dwelling units on this subject property. Uh there was also a proposal to add a shared driveway along the southern southern boundary of the property and to provide some parking um off streetet parking spaces on along the rear of the of the property. The proposal at that time was to um eliminate the shared driveway that is that you can see the existing shared driveway right. The applicant since then has modified their uh proposal slightly and staff was made aware of this um just this morning. Therefore um we were not able to incorporate that into our staff report discussion earlier in the agenda. However, I did want to um present this before you and the applicant will go over this as well. The the biggest difference with this updated proposal is

that the applicant is not proposing the additional fourth building, possible fourth building to the north as was proposed earlier. So the proposal right now is to just convert the existing three single family structures into duplexes for a total of six dwelling units. Um you can also see that uh the applicant is showing the required six off- streetet parking spaces um down here with a shared driveway. Also the proposal now is to retain the existing driveway that's in the middle of the two residential. So that's um that's the concept sketch and the propo and the project proposal. With that I wanted to move on to the staff rationale and the staff recommendation. So this um this subject property is within a community node centered around University Avenue and 6th Avenue corridor and therefore there is quite a bit of um uh mix of uses because it is within the north. So there's commercial, there's access to grocery stores, transit and other amenities. the uh the college campus. However, um staff does believe that the project as proposed um the number of units and the way the the um buildings are laid out on the subject property does not fit the context of the neighborhood and does not uh might have a detrimental impact on the on the existing neighborhood. the um the fact that it's within a community node does allow the high density u medium and high density. Therefore, it doesn't require a land use plan amendment, but staff does believe that it does not in this instance fit the character of the

neighborhood and is not sustainable as proposed. Therefore, staff is um recommending a limited approval of the NX requested NX1 neighborhood mix district subject to the following zoning condition. Staff is proposing that any use of the property which measures approximately.264 acres shall be limited to users that are permitted and in common by the N5 district which is the current uh zoning district of the property and household living with the maximum of three dwelling units. The second condition is that the subject property shall be brought into compliance with all applicable site plan and design regulations of the planning and design ordinance in in accordance with an approved site plan. So staff is recommending approval to a limited NX1 district subject to these two zoning conditions. The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting as is required for all resonings. Here is a summary of um of the of the neighborhood meeting that was done. This the sign-in sheets. We did receive uh letters in opposition to this project. This is from the King Urban Neighborhood Association and I will let you read through the letter. They are opposed to the reasoning.

I do also have a few emails that were received in opposition to the project and I will just um go over these Additionally, we we also received signed petition from some of the neighbors and here is a copy of that. And these are the comment cards. This comment card is from the uh Riverbend Neighborhood Associ. And this is the consent map showing the opposition percentage which is at 23.14% against the be happy to take any questions.

I have a question please. I'd like to understand what specifically staff means when they say that this proposal is not in line with the community character. What does that mean? Um the staff has concerns with the the amount of units that are proposed on the on the lot and because of the layout of the existing structures and um the uh provision of the required parking that creates significant impervious surface on the on the uh on the subject property. because of the way it's designed, it's not an efficient use of the of the property and it can create um impacts on the on the neighborhood. So, I mean the buildings are in pretty bad condition and what would happen if these buildings do not increase the available quality housing in this neighborhood but are instead undeveloped. What's what's the alternative?

So the um the subject property is right now zoned N5 district which only allows one dwelling unit per lot. Right now there is three and um the they do have legal non-conforming rights to the three units that are there. So the owner is able to retain those three units. However, we think that with the zoning condition, the applicant will be required to bring the site to compliance and make the necessary improvements and would bring the quality of the housing that's in dis in disrepair right now up to standards.

And just to add on to that, so the the property has legal non-conforming rights which allows that use to continue on um unless it's abandoned. But often uh we hear uh that it's easier for financing and for long-term security of a property marketability if they have the the right zoning. So it's kind of a compromise from our perspective. You know those three buildings are there. They're laid out on the lot. uh we are recommending approval of a reasonzoning to allow them the three units to be retained to them now become have a legal status so that it's easier uh you know there's a greater sense of security to invest in those properties forward so that that's the basis of our record

I see I think it um just language like community character can be really interpreted in many ways um and so think more specificity around that could be could be useful. I would hate for people to think that rental housing just because a unit becomes a rental unit. It's somehow Yeah. I don't um I think it's more about the physical layout. This is property is a little bit of an anomaly on that street. Mhm. But it's that way no matter what. It's already that way. So whether it's six units or three units, that's I mean the the lot is what it is. The buildings are what they are and they're located on the lot the way they are. Thank you.

Could you clarify when um you're allowed in the city to have a duplex by right? What what district that's in or you know some of those other criteria? So, uh, duplex would be allowed in a N5-2 district or any of the, um, other districts which allow more than like I'm trying to think of, uh, maybe NX1, um, would be another where you could have a duplex. it can allow more, but uh specifically if you're thinking about duplex, N5-2 would be the district that would um

Right. But and just to clarify, that wouldn't help here because that's two units on the property. This is one parcel with three houses on it. So, it already has three units on it. And I don't want this to get confused [clears throat] with the ADU legislation, you know, that we've had discussions about in the past that the state, you know, that the state changes uh that is specific to a single family, single house detach on a lot behind it. So, this isn't a situation where each one of these houses by right get their own, for example. That's um not at play here.

Johnny, did you have a question? Just to clarify, based on the percentage that of the neighbors that are against it, it requires a super majority of council. Correct? It's 20%. Yes, that's correct. Thanks. Um, quickly, so in that it's a contract buyer, are there any repercussions to be reszoned for contract buyer? Is there any concerns? Um, I don't know. I would defer that to Chad. I don't see um Yeah, I'm not sure how I'm not sure. Are you saying that um the basis of your is it a do they have legal standing or is it like

No, it's just like if we're going to spot reszone, which there it seems like that's a concern of the neighbors and then you're spot reszoning it to somebody that really doesn't own the property yet. Well, they have to have consent of the the current owner. Okay. And I and if um if they if they're um a contract legal contract buyer, they have rights to that. And Chaz might be able to speak to it more eloquently.

Correct. I mean, they they are able to request the reasoning themselves as as they have here. Um as far as any acceptance of the resoning, I believe from my recollection that it would still require the legal property owner to sign the acceptance of resoning. So, it does attach to the property. Um, I will have to check on that, but that will be something that is kind of just more of a procedural question, but again, yeah, it they they still have the right legal right there to request.

No. I think I think the concern is that you're reszoning a property and so it somebody could come and go and there could be good owners and bad owners and so that it's like we're spot zoning reszoning and that's I think the concern of the neighbors. Um and then the ZBA the zoning board of adjustments there's no place for them in this position in this project as an option or relief. Okay. No. Okay. Thank you.

But right now with what they've said this morning where they're going to three buildings, right? Three buildings are allowed because there are three buildings right there now, aren't they? So, I mean, theoretically, if you'd known sooner, this could have just gone to consent. Is that right? Uh, just to clarify, um, three buildings, but they are proposing two units per building, which is a total of six dwelling units. So, um, that would still not be allowed in the in the zoning district. They have, uh, legal conform non-conforming rights to three units only on the property.

Uh, I have a question perhaps about the future, but in terms of the parking lot, how will that be surfaced?

It'd be required to be paved. I mean, they're for three units or more, they're going to have to do a this moves forward. Um, and they get, you know, the reasonzoning and the zoning conditions. Um, they'll have to do a site plan and make improvements. Uh, if the resoning's denied, I don't know. Um, we'd have to explore what kind of legal non-conforming rights they have to gravel parking, but um, that would be looked at. I I think they would have to pave the southern part because that's new, but we'd have to look into a little further.

So from staff perspective, even if it goes down to the three instead of the four buildings, so it's not eight units, it's just six within the existing buildings. You would still rational from staff. I know you haven't had a chance to look at this longer than today. remains the same as before.

Yes, our position has not changed. Um, we think that the the the way this property is configured, the availability of space for parking, for trash, for outdoor play, um, space is just it the best course of action is three units from our perspective in in the three separate buildings since we have existing buildings there that we're working with.

Any more questions for staff? Thank you. Is the applicant present? Okay. Uh if you'd like, please come forward. State your name and address for our records and sign in on the white sheet when you're done. And you have up to 10 minutes. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to talk tonight. We really do appreciate that. My name is Casey Brown. My husband is Bobby Brown. We live at 1443 Northwest 66th Avenue, De Mo, Iowa 50313.

Is there anything that you would like to add to the staff presentation that was just made? Yeah, there were a few Oh, you have slides.

I'm sorry, what' you say? Okay. There were a few points made um that are valid, but I'd like to acknowledge them. One of them um is the size of the lot. I don't think that we addressed this. It looks like a double lot compared to the houses around it. So, yes, it's three dwellings, but it's also much more space than the yards that are um touching surrounding that area. And so, that's one thing I'd just like to highlight about the property. It is a unique property. Um and another thing, it was discussed how we're buying this property on contract. That is true. We are in constant communication with our lender. It's contract exchange and they support this decision. So, just letting you guys know these are conversations that we have had. You guys have any more questions for me before I start? Thank you. Okay, so this property was built in 1916. Um, it's over 100 years old. That's likely how we got three structures with one address. Um, I've already gone through introductions. Just some, uh, background knowledge about me and my husband. We were born and raised in De Moines. We are very committed to this community and community improvements. Um I work currently for De Moines Public Schools. My husband, uh Blue Collar has done concrete for the last 20 years. So um community improvement is something that's at our core. We started New Edge Investments LLC last year. And that's just kind of our um ambition, right, to start something fresh for our families um and try to, you know, there's a lot of properties in our area that need improvements and it's something that we really thought that we could do well in. It's something I still hope to do well in. Uh we're working closely with contractors. Um so we're working with professional contracting, Bishop Engineering closely right now and so we are consulting experts and people who have more information than we have right now. Um I know you guys have already seen pictures of the property. I pulled these off Zillow so that way anybody can access them. Um the city of De Moine when we started working on improvements

with the yellow house, we encountered issues right away. Needed to pull permits. I think that's when it was noted that the zoning is not correct for three units, one property. Um it was set up as the um the single family. Yep. And so De Moine public or city of De Moine, excuse me, requested that we reszone this address because of the legal non-conforming right to the three detached units. We just purchased this property in January of this year. When we purchased it, we had no idea what we were in for. Um, and honestly, we were a little unaware of of the expense, right? We came in with one estimate. It's going to be much more to put everything together. Prior to this purchase, um, the dwellings at this address had transit to homeless people that were breaking in and squatting a lot. There was actually a fire in one of the dwellings. Luckily, it didn't get too extensive. Um, when we purchased it, we also encountered vandalism and things like that. And so that was an issue in this neighborhood that's no longer happening. That was um one improvement. We hope to bring many. Here's a picture of the yellow house. We have had to completely dig up the foundation and put in a new basement and foundation. We've also had to work on reconstructing or restructuring the property to make it safe. [clears throat] Excuse me. And we've had to completely get this home. Um we already have probably $100,000 and this is not a livable um structure yet. So, we have a long way to go. This is the second house in better condition. Um, it only has one bathroom. It's on the second floor. So, we're going to have to do some work with that. Same thing with the structure in the back. Um, it they're all just going to need they've been they're old. They need to be updated, reconstructed. This one, I think the bathroom is through a bedroom. So, no matter what, we're going to have to make improvements to these homes. And um the budget on that or what it's looking like the estimate is going

to be $150,000 for each one of the three. Um again, we do not have money for these things. The estimate is much higher than we were expecting. So when we talk about an investment that's going to be this heavy, we just have to find a way to recoup some of that investment in order to make it feasible. Um we're in we're invested. We have to go forward. And so now we're looking for ways to go forward, improve the community, and try to not lose everything that we have when we started. So um and to talk about that, we go about the N5 neighborhood district to the NX1 neighborhood mix district. Change in the resoning would help us, uh change the three existing one household structures to three two household residential structures or duplexes. We can also provide there's adequate space for the six off- streetet parking spaces. Um there's also that driveway in between the houses so even guests would have a place to park their car safely off of the street. Uh given the you know this the space we wouldn't be taking up the street parking at that point. Uh each of the two large houses are over 1600 square ft. Um I just did a really basic Google search. What's an average two-bedroom apartment or home square footage right now? Um 800 to a,000 square feet is typical. So there are room there is space in those two large houses already to uh do two-bedroom or onebedroom duplexes and and use that space in a way that could provide more and additional housing for the community. Um more affordable housing and it gives us an opportunity to again get that return on investment and hopefully not go bankrupt. I know Syria, she has already showed this picture. I just wanted to rehlight it. There is space between the two houses for guest parking. There's space for um the parking lot on the side. It would be our intention to pave that. Um

that is a conversation that we have already had as well. So the location um affordable housing in this neighborhood would benefit smaller families. It could also benefit D-Max students or any traveling medical professionals looking for temporary housing. Schools attended would be Molton, Harding, or North High School. All three of which are within a 2-m radius of this address. Um, and again, we've talked about this or Siri, she highlighted the fact that it is on um the Dart route. It's a 5-minute walk to Mercy Hospital or DMAC urban campus, making it a really good option for those traveling medical professionals who might need to stay close to Mercy Hospital or for college students who are just looking to room share and be really close to Urban Campus. Um, I graduated from Urban Campus myself. Um, I I think that there's a need in this area for more affordable housing. One thing that I would like to highlight is that this is not an abnormal request in the area. I drove around just today. I crossed university and within a half a block I was able to find this double duplex, forlex, whatever you might call it. I did not Google the zoning on this. I didn't look very far into it. Within the area, I found multiple duplexes, multifamily complexes, um, apartment buildings. And so, it's not outside of the character of the neighborhood. Nor do we want to change the look of these homes a ton. We just want to make improvements. We want to make adequate improvements. We want to create affordable housing. We want to just have an opportunity here and kind of grow. That's all I have to present right now. Open for questions.

What questions do we have for the applicant? Question. Um, how was your neighborhood meeting? What were some of the feedback that was provided to you all? And how did you incorporate that into your plans? They really didn't say a whole lot at the meeting. They were Could you Sorry. Could you speak into the mic just so everyone can hear? Sorry. They uh mainly just talked about the the neighbor talked about how she thought we were encroaching on her land next door. That was mainly everybody had a couple questions, but that was basically all they talked about.

The biggest concern that was brought up was where the poverty line was between where we have that driveway right now and where the neighbor's lot was. We have since paid bishop and got that marked out. Um there was confusion about where our land was, but we did have the space that we were using. What is the square footage of the smallest house in the back?

I don't have a great answer and I was asking Bishop about that today. I think probably 900 ft². That would require a different type of reconstruction. Um we just the zoning could be up to eight units. we don't want eight units anymore. I mean, just talking to engineers, and again, I'm new to this. I don't really know what we're asking for. Um, and so I think it's really easy to conceptualize the two front ones into duplexes. And if my engineers have a great way to make that third one a duplex, that's a goal. And if not, then we wouldn't go for it. But, um, I think we have to ask for the units that we could be thinking about. And so, that's why we're saying six. Any other questions? Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thanks for the opportunity. Okay, is there anyone in the audience here who would like to speak in favor of this project? Please come forward, state your name and address, and sign in when you're done. And you have up to 5 minutes.

Oh, I won't need all that time. My name is Christopher Schubert. I'm vice president of Contract Exchange Corporation. I represent uh the title holder and uh I've been working with uh uh Oh, you need my address? This is 3031 Circle Hill Court, Northeast, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 52402. Um, so I've been working with Bobby and Casey on a couple different projects, helping them get financing um to uh improve uh these properties, increase their portfolio, uh do some flips and and make some cash. So uh we love providing that service. They have been the pinnacle of good borrowers. Um and uh we're really happy to work with them. Um, I just wanted to address something that I heard as I was driving in, uh, while I was listening to the stream. Um, a contract owner is the legal owner of the real estate. A title holder only holds a personal property interest, which is to collect the payment price. So, when you're talking about who has the rights to this property or who can do with whatever, it is the contract buyer who has sole ownership of the real estate. So we just hold title as collateral. Um but yeah, I think that as to the nature of the project and uh the merits of it, I think that if it's in a node as staff said and you guys are looking to increase density and affordable housing, then approving this would be the right way to go.

Thank you. Thank you. Please do sign in. Thanks. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? or opposed. Please also state your name and address. Sign in when you're done, and you have up to 5 minutes.

Uh I'm Joanne Maldun. I'm I'm uh on the King Irving Neighborhood Association board. I live at 133818th Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today uh with you on behalf of King Irving. Our board met um on October 22nd and voted to not support the reszoning from N5 to uh NX1 from one single family house per lot to up to 8 maybe 10. I I don't know what the limit is on the other one. Um, we have not met again since staff recommendations came out, but um, our reasons for opposing the resoning are largely in sync with city staff uh, reasoning regarding their recommendations. 6 to 8 units could create off- streetet parking problems and demand. And I've talked to a couple of the neighbors in the 12,200 block of 10th and they've told me there already uh can be problems finding parking spaces on that block. Uh it's uh there's parking on only one side of the street and I guess this has changed in that uh there weren't going to be enough parking spaces for the eight units that they were proposing. But even if there are are only six units, they're going to be more than just six cars. And they'll, you know, there could be potentially 12 cars if there's two if there are two adults per per unit. Another issue is uh the the current character of uh King Irving and especially uh 10th Street, the 1200 block of uh 10th Street. Um, all of the lots in the 12200 block of 10th Street now are lots that have

just one single family home on them. And most of virtually all of King Irving except along Forest where there are a couple apartment buildings in 19th and the and the commercial corridor along University is zoned in five. And I I don't know of any other single lot that has more than one house on it throughout the whole neighborhood. So this would be to put three or or six units even on one lot would be not in not being in keeping character with the current um uh King Irving neighborhood. So 1220 1233 is an anomaly with three units. Uh one of which is very small. I guess 630 square ft. I I I don't know quite how that would be duplex. Um one of the houses was built in 1886. The other the other two units were built in 1916. And there's been a lot of neglect of those units over the uh decades. In talking with neighbors, I was informed that one of the units is currently occupied. And in talking with city zoning staff, I was told that none of the units have had a rental certificate for at least the past 6 years, for as far back as their records go. And that makes me wonder, you know, how good of a landlord do these do the people who want to put in the six units in our neighborhood, how, you know, they're not conforming to current city law apparently with regard to getting a rental certificate. And just what um you know, what is it that they want to provide that will make our neighborhood better if they go with six units rather than three? So, um, Kingard supports the two conditions that city staff has put on

their resoning, which is that it be limited to three units, the existing three units that are there, and that all the units be brought up to current uh building code. Um, I would like to see it be not reszoneed quite so far to NX1, but maybe to NX uh 5-4, which would allow up to four units. just the the the extra ability to add eight eight units. I mean, if though if the if two or three or four or five years down the road the developer decides, well, we really would like eight units there, uh what's the precedent for those conditions being put on a an NX1 or similar zone being uh uh true in the long run and being uh held up on petition. ition. I'm also concerned about the spot reszoning here and will it lead to more spot resoning in uh where developers want to come in and look at an old house and you know try and squeeze a couple two or three units onto it.

Your five minutes is up. If you could wrap up your thoughts, please. Okay. Well, that's pretty much what I wanted to say. We support staff recommendations. We'd like to see it maybe an N5-4 if it has to be reszoned rather than NX1, but other than that, um, uh, we agree with keeping it at three units and bringing it up to code. Thank you. [clears throat] Please do sign in before you sit down. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Please go forward. Can we go back? I mean, he can come and speak in in general. I mean, he could be a post or general.

And we're not going to limit his ability to speak. So, please come forward. Again, state your name, address, and you have up to five minutes.

Hi, my name is Chris Hayes. My address is 3068 Cottonwood Drive in Walke. Uh I am a contractor that's been working with the Browns on this project. Um so I'm invested in this project with them uh as the contractor. So when we first entered into this uh they bought the property, consulted me like, okay, yellow house is very dilapitated, had a fire. So first thing it needed was a foundation. So, we jacked the house up. We put a new foundation under, which has all been permitted through the city of De Mo. We set the house back down. We filed for more permits to try to update it for the mechanicals, electrical. They're going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this property to get it looking nice, livable, and they're just trying to maximize the units because of the cost. The cost is just spiraling out of control. So, if they could get two units per building, then they could help spread the cost out and in return get some of that money back that they've invested into the property. There's the site plan shows there would be enough off- streetet parking. Um, and it's just it just boils down to the mechanics of it just because of this cost. When we got the permit for the foundation, if they would have told us then that this property was not in the correct zoning, we wouldn't have spent $100,000 of putting a foundation under this house, but they didn't tell us that until after. So, it it's it's just a big spiral. And we didn't find out. We completed the foundation I think in 10 days. We jacked the house up, removed the old one. We was moving rapidly.

We submitted our plans to the city to get our building permits. We went through that process for about nine weeks before these like, "Hey, your zoning is not correct. We can't do anything until the zoning gets fixed." So, Bishop Engineering got involved because I know Bishop Engineering, they've worked on other projects. They said it's going to be a lot of money to do the resoning, but we have to do the resoning regardless because the city changed their zoning specifications throughout the whole city. So, the house the zoning has to be done regardless. We're just asking for or they're just asking for an additional unit per house because in the new zoning requirements, it's the zoning for five to eight units is the is you can max out on that many units. So that's why they was like, okay, well, if that's the max, let's try to zone it for the max. Not knowing that it wasn't feasible. So, that's the reason it got submitted that way. And that's my fault because I consulted them and I told them, "Well, if you can get eight units there, you'll be able to spread the cost out over eight units instead of three." So, I'm part to blame on that along with Bishop Engineering because they didn't consult me properly in that position. But, they're they got the money, they got the availability to get this project going, and it would just be a great help to them. and also the community to have extra affordable units in that area. If you've drove down the street, there's a big need all the way down the street for updating in people's homes and this is just going to add to that area and and also maybe some of the other people will be able to improve some of their properties also.

That's all I have. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Please come forward, state your name, address, you have up to 5 minutes, and please sign in when you're done.

Yes, my name is Mark Green. I live at 1224 10th Street and I oppose this in our neighborhood. As far as our neighborhood um needing upgrade, um we're pretty we're pretty much fine. And what we have not right now and the residents that live in those homes is pretty a nuisance to our block. We've been there for about four or five years and I think we're the only home uh my wife and I um we are the only ones that have uh garage and we're the only ones that pretty much have a driveway uh on the side of our block. Um, we don't want it because we have, first of all, number one, I work for the De Mo public schools and we have a lot of children that are run up and down that street. Um, the neighbors across the street, no one no one wants this. No one wants us in our neighborhood. And I don't know how it's going to beautify the neighborhood. I think the neighborhood is fine within itself. I grew up born here, raised here, and I've been in this area for a long time. And every time someone says they're going to do something in this community, it always backfire. You get all these homeless people, you get these people that come in and just deface the neighborhood. And we're trying to build it up for better living condition. And every time someone comes in and they come in with their big money, they invest, then it goes downhill later on down the road. No one in this neighborhood is getting younger. We all

getting to a point where we want to live in chill mode. And the problem is you have all these different apartments that running down Sixth Avenue. You got all these, you know, you got all these homeless people. And we've had professional people. We had my my former principal lived across the street from us who their their their house was squatted so many times, but it's it's it's back up the code now. But we don't we we don't need this. We really don't need this. And I oppose it with all my heart. You know, every time you put something you it's it's we got enough apartment buildings around this place as it is. You know, we got enough apartment buildings every time you every time I we live right next door to Corinthian Gardens. So, you only can imagine the parking spaces that and I live right next door to a a gentleman who owns a car lot and they have dealership tags on their car and take up half the block. So, when you talk about more uh putting eight more units on a block, again, like Joanne saying, you got, you know, two adults, two cars, that's just more cars you got on the street. It's not a neighborhood now. It's becoming a pretty much a parking lot. We The Mo is already known for a parking lot heaven. So, we don't we I I oppose it. So, and far as I'm concerned, our neighborhood is fine and it's coming up to pile. So that's all I have to say.

A question for you. Thank you. Oh, we have a question for you. Ann, please sign in when you're when you're done. Yes, ma'am. Will's got a question. My question is about um on the on the west side of uh 10th Street. Uh yeah, my question is on the west side of 10th Street, [clears throat] excuse me, it looks like these are um are new constructions. I'm wondering if this is a Habitat for Humanity project. I would say so.

Yes, I would say so. Uh, I asked because they do look no new and they look as you say there. Um, I don't see any garages there at all. I see sheds and so forth for you know yard equipment. Pardon? Yeah. Yes. Habitat. Yeah, that was my question. Um, and all these are all single family dwellings, are they not? Maybe I'm not shouldn't be asking you the question. They've just asked it for answered it for me and I appreciate your help.

Yeah, as you can see, I'm the only one on this side of the of the west side of 10th Street. I'm we're the only ones that have a garage. The rest of them have sheds in their uh in their backyards. Uh is your property shown on this map? Yeah, my property's right here. I don't know if you can uh 1224 right here. Okay, thank you. 1236 was maybe a habitat. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition to this item?

Okay. Applicant, you do have five minutes for a rebuttal if you'd like. Thank you. Um I I did hear a lot of valid concerns and I just want to say that we understand how important this neighborhood is to you. It's important to us as well. Um this community Sorry, please do speak into the mic. It's for a recording.

I'm sorry. Uh those there was valid concerns brought up and I just wanted to highlight the fact that they care a lot about this community. We do as well. Um there's no disrespect intended with this project. Again, we are looking to make improvements to the community. Um, affordable housing for college students. I know that when I was in college, when I was looking for housing, um, I didn't like the idea of an apartment complex. I liked the idea of duplexes myself. That's a personal preference, I know, but I I do think that there's a need in this neighborhood, again, close to public transportation, anemities, hospital, college, uh, area schools. And so I just wanted to validate those concerns, but also say we care as well. Um, we care about the neighborhood. We care about the potential students who could be walking on the streets. Um, we found ways to make parking available and also provide guest parking. I know one of the concerns brought up was that there would be one parking space where some families would have two cars. Uh, there are a lot of complexes where there's only one space per apartment or per unit. And so it's not abnormal to have one space per unit. Um and again, we did find guest parking within our um concept. Another thing that I'd like to highlight is the lack of a rental certificate. Again, we're brand new to this. I am learning as I go. Uh looking for mentors every day, so feel free to recommend them, but uh I read books and I got here just trying to break into this. We did not anticipate to move anybody into this property dealing with the transate population. Um, and he highlighted it as well. I didn't catch his name. People broke into our homes. They were kicking in, and I mean this, they kicked in a hole through the drywall. They went in through the basement and kicked a hole in through the drywall to vandalize and squat. Um, it wasn't a one-time occurrence. It was immediate. We have a family member who was looking for somewhere to stay, who

was able to move in, who's kept the property safe. Um, and and so and we appreciate him. I I will go get the rental certificate. Again, it's family. Um, and I'm new to this. I'm making mistakes. I hope to make improvements. I'm just trying to learn and grow with the community. Um, and so I wanted to address all of the concerns. Those are the ones on the top of my head, but I'm happy to provide my contact information um for anybody in the neighborhood who would like to connect after this. [clears throat] Thank you. Okay, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions.

Okay, I'm going to speak really quickly about the spot resoning. Um, I also am I try to lean on the what the neighborhood wants and I've also walked past this property for the last 26 years and and I respect um the gentleman about the neighborhood doesn't need help. And then also I it frustrates me when owners go in, inexperienced owners go in and buy these properties without doing their research. And so then they bring that problem to us for us to fix and reszone. So that's just quick general topics. Thank you. Um I respectfully of course disagree. Um, I think that we want to encourage investment in these types of properties, especially when the homes are in the condition that these homes are in. And I feel like the goals of the city are being met with more density and affordable housing. So, I would actually be supportive of it sounds like six units instead of eight is maybe the the actual request, but I would be in support of that. Um, I have a couple of things. Um, first of all, I think it's important when we're talking about a neighborhood with potential rental units that anyone who holds who owns rental properties in that neighborhood disclose that because of potential conflict of interest. Um, I also think that I just I feel like the city I wanted more in this when there's a property that's abandoned and derelic, it does not benefit a neighborhood.

It doesn't benefit the neighbors, doesn't keep anyone safe. It only brings down property. And so I feel like this is a property that's already nonconforming. So I for me the spot zoning argument doesn't fit here because it's a non-conforming property. So, here's an opportunity to work with the neighbors and the neighborhood to bring units that are off the market onto the market to take a property that's distressed and make it functional again. And we dropped the ball on this. I mean, at some point, we need to be realistic about the costs of development as a city. I mean, I do we do we want to have housing in this city is my question for all of us. Every neighborhood needs to address life cycle. Folks who have big houses might benefit from having apartments in the neighborhood that they can move into. Kids want to move out of the home. It's nice to have highquality rental units in in the neighborhood. And as far as I can tell, if we're protecting the buildings, then we're protecting neighborhood character. So, I feel like this was really a a misstep on the part of the city and I'm I hope that we can write that here today.

Being conscious of the fact that we need a super majority anyway at city council I think is right, isn't it? So, because we're over that threshold and it's not a net anyway, but I do think I agree aggressively with Jane and with uh um I'm sorry, I'm blank. Sorry, Emily. I just was going to call you Courtney. I I'm sorry. So I agree [laughter] aggressively with I agree aggressively with those who spoke before that the right thing to do is to support density and I think that in for that reason I'd make a motion to vote for approving what was been requested which is the three houses with duplex potential for six units. Now, I understand it may be a vote that it isn't going to matter, but I think that we really should be on the record is supporting what I think Jane is pointing rightfully is we need highquality more rental units in places where they're already there. They make a lot of sense. We're in this node. Why would we care about nodes if we don't provide the actions to support them? So, I put a motion on motion on to deny staff to move what the applicant is wanting. Um, may I make a comment, please? Um, when there's when there's a question of some concern and debate that's required, uh, I think it's appropriate instead of making a motion sort of I think it's better to complete the debate first before making a motion and sort of confusing the process. That's my opinion. Any discussion on the motion that's on the table, which is to approve the applicant request? Uh, I'd like to add a few comments. I'm in agreement that with a lot said here, I think the uh the inexperienced uh property owners are really u have gone out on a limb from this and I don't know whose fault that is uh whether they did the proper due diligence. At the same time, we have a need for housing here in

uh De Moine. So, this for me is a difficult situation. Uh I would suggest that the third house, the smaller one should not be included into two units. It's too small looking at it. So, therefore, I would offer a friendly amen amendment to limit it to five units. Except I agree with Francis. That's what I was thinking too when I asked the question of how big that house was that maybe five is a better number. Any further discussion?

Just to clarify the motion on the table and this is to clarify which zoning district we're going with. Um it looks like we're looking at the limited NX1 with the five units on the property. Correct. And that would um really resemble what staff has presented as one but with the maximum of five dwelling units. I just want to clarify that's the the motion on the table. I agree that's the motion with the acceptance. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I agree too.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to answer Katie's question on the square footage of the the house in the back. So according to the assessor site it's 702 square foot and in comparison the other two are about 1632 and 1636 square. Thank you. Okay we have a motion on the table. Let's take a vote on that. All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Okay. All opposed. Thank you. Motion passes. We will now move to item number four. Item four is a request from Adam Cernin for the following regarding two parcels located at 16 Indianola Road and 1947 Southwest First Street. Properties are owned by Gregory Peterson and Ramona Peterson and Trent Olsen. A determination as to whether the requested reszone is in conformance with plan DSM. B. Amen. Amend plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from low density residential to high density residential. And C, reszone the property from NX1 neighborhood mixed district and N5 neighborhood district to RX1 mixed use district to allow the construction of approximately 34 threestory rowhouse dwelling units. And Bert will present for the city. Right, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Bert Dross, planning staff for the city. Uh, as Leia mentioned, the um item before you is a resoning to allow up to 34 town home

units. The subject property is currently um splitzoned between NX1, which is already a multi- household residential district, and then the there's a smaller parcel to the southwest that zoned N5. there's a one household uh dwelling on that lot and then there's a uh which is vacant on the larger lot. So combined it's almost two acres and so the proposed density of 34 units represents about 17 units an acre which requires the high density designation on the land use map. So just to give you some context uh to the north is the St. Anony's um school and church. Immediately to the east is the quick trip and there's Indianola road also to the north, southwest 1 street to the west and then south union street to the east. Uh this is just a conceptual sketch that the applicant submitted with the resoning. Remind the commission that uh the item before you tonight is just the resoning. It's not the site plan. Um but the applicant or the developer has previously developed the elevate town homes about a/4 mile to the west. So, these would be similar to those. You can see this conceptual sketch shows two driveways off of Southwest First and then two off of the South Union to the east. Um, I'd also mention, like I said earlier, it's currently predominantly zoned NX1, which is already a multi-house dwelling, but the RX1 district gives them greater relief on setbacks. The NX1 is more of an urban district, which requires the buildings to be pushed up two front property lines. It also only allows up to eight units per lot. So, they would have to do some replanting to just have the eight units per lot. Here are some photos. You can see it's largely undeveloped. And this is looking um south down South

Union. Again, the site is to the right of this narrow street. And this is looking more towards the east at site to the right of the St. Anony's Church and School to the left. You can see in this photo here that there is a school drop off lane. I've heard from neighbors that the school doesn't really have buses. So, the parents are dropping their students off in this drop off lane here. So, there's some congestion at drop off and um pickup times. One more photo. And this is just an example of the elevate town homes that are um just to the west of this. Um, one difference being these garages face the um, Indianola road where on the site um, that we're looking at tonight, the garages could face to the rear to the backside. The staff does believe that the RX1 district is appropriate for the site. We believe the proposed density is also the high density would allow is also appropriate. Indianola Road is uh one of the busier streets in the area, so it could accommodate these 34 units. This is just the letter that the applicant sent to the neighbors for their neighborhood outreach meeting. And then this is just a summary they provide to the applicants here so they can go more in depth. And then we did not receive any comment cards back, but I know there are some people here to speak. So, any questions for me? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant present?

Please come forward. State your name, address, sign in when you're done, and you've got up to 10 minutes. Hello, my name is Adam Sirin, uh, 3315 Waco Court, De Mo, Iowa. Um, I'm here today just to, uh, present this development. Um, it's going to be very similar to the development down the street that was very successful. Um, 34 units, as the city said, uh, I don't have much to add. If anyone has any questions, um I do have a few things to state once if this is approved. You know, I intend to possibly come back to PNZ for some um relief on this site. We were working through the city to try to find some additional funding to help um get this out of the ground. This is a $10 million project and this topographical constraints make it very difficult to develop. Um, so I really want as much relief as possible because I think this is a benefit to this area. I think we all can agree that the the momentum on this corridor has been um very positive for the city. If we think 5 years ago the the the development over here, we would probably not think that it would be here. But we've got multiple townhouse developments along this corridor now. and uh city invested 2 and a.5 million into the road and three million into McCrae Park and the momentum is good and I want to see it continue. Um so there are a [clears throat] few things I might come back and ask for some relief um as we move through the design site plan process but that's jumping ahead I understand. Um but anyway any questions for me? Are you providing any affordable units with this development?

No affordable units. We I went for a um great field application that was denied and also workforce housing tax credit that it was denied. Um so these units will rent for 2400 and 2200. So the lower units um down at the bottom are going to be kind of like a mixture of brick top and elevate. So, the front row is going to have a front door, which will be really nice. And you'll you'll pull in on the second level. Um, so that'll be really nice. A city likes that because we don't have a garage facing the road. And then the rear four buildings will be very similar in style to elevate. We'll we'll change the um exterior elevation, but um very similar.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone in the audience tonight like to speak in favor of this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for our records. Sign in when you're done. And you have up to 5 minutes. My name is Michael Amado. It's spelled A M A D E Oo. I live at 15 Indianola Road which is directly across the street from this property. The zip code is 50315. Uh I come here before you in support of this project um primarily because it's an eyesore right now. It's an absolute eyesore on that corner. And by developing property there, it will enhance the neighborhood. It will enhance our look. It will also draw in young people, which is a concern of mine to bring in uh I'm looking to bring in young people. Uh because I have a school and I have a parish. Uh and so this would be very attractive to us. Um my only concern is traffic. And specifically, I want to clarify this is not a drop zone for students. It's actually it's a line that forms that goes around the block to the back side of the property where students are then dropped off or picked up. So students are not being picked up or dropped off on Indianola Road. I want to clarify that. The other concern about traffic is that um this intersection of Indianola Road and uh Southwest First there um I've been living here for 15 months and we've had three major accidents at that

intersection. They've all occurred though late at night. It becomes a very dark intersection. There's no traffic light there and we've actually had accidents where cars hit telephone poles. So, I'm concerned about that. But overall, I am very supportive of this project. I would recommend that you approve this project. Thank you. I'm open to any questions. Father Amado, thank you for appearing today. I'm going to have to read uh

Thank you. Please do sign in. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this item? Again, please state your name and address and and sign in when you're done.

I'm Mark White. Uh, my address is 2926 Southeast Fifth Street. I am a member of Indianola Hills Neighborhood Association. Although I'm not on the board, I understand the board did receive a a postcard that they were supposed to mark how the association wanted to what position the association wanted to take. I think I was the only one who offered any comments. Um, but I want to emphasize I'm not here uh representing the association because I'm just a member and and I don't know how the I don't even know how the board marked the card. Maybe you could tell me if you received um I do have some concern. I'll just uh and a lot of these probably are not going to be addressed by this uh commission, but but I'll go through them anyway. Uh the first thing I thought of was the traffic problem with uh the parish and the school. Father Amado has already addressed that so I won't spend any more time on it. U the uh the first gentleman who spoke uh said that he might be asking for some relief from the city. Uh to me that means Gotham. Uh, and uh, what what [clears throat] what's that relief going to consist of? He probably doesn't know yet, but I'm concerned about it. Uh, I'd also like to know if this is reszoned as he's requested and this project doesn't go through, if he doesn't get his relief, if this project doesn't go through, will the zoning stay there? And if it does, then what other sort of project might take over that piece of ground? Uh because once the zoning's changed then it's it just much takes just as much more effort to change it to something different and and like know

what what that might be that would go in there if this project failed. Um I think everything else has been covered by father. Okay. Thank you. I think city staff can address your question about the reszoning duration.

The Yeah, I mean the the reasonzoning request is approved. It does run with the land. It's not um if if project doesn't move forward um you know the zoning's there but regardless of what project comes in goes forward they have to go through the site plan review process. That's what Adam was referring to was I have no idea what he might think he needs relief of at this point because we don't have design. But um any project that would come forward would have to meet the city standards for site plan and building materials and uh there would be a process for that. It's not a um blanket like this approval for reasonzoning isn't a blanket approval for anything that happen.

I I think I understand that. My question really was what what other sort of project would qualify for that type of zoning. Um I mean a multitude of other you know just multi- you know mediumsiz multifamily I mean town homes I can't remember if um maybe smaller apartment but we call them flats I think might be a a building type that's allowed there but multifamily of limited size. If this gentleman can't make it work probably nobody can. I have confidence and I I've watched the development down the street and I confidence what he's trying to do and and I uh I give up my okey dokie. Okay. All right.

Provided that the traffic situation be handled by the city. Thank you. The okie dokie is on the record. Um would anyone else like to speak in favor of this item? Anyone neutral? Anyone opposed? Please come forward one at a time. State your name, address, sign in when you're finished, and you have up to 5 minutes.

My name is Robert Thomasson. I live on [clears throat] Southeast First Street there in 1940 Southwest Street, right across the street from the property where he wants to buy. I'm on the west, excuse me, [clears throat] on the west side. I oppose this because uh it's taking parking away from my family come visit me and plus when they start building and get all the dust come through my windows, I won't be able to, you know, and I'm losing privacy. and he's starting this creep upon me coming across the street wanting to buy properties taking my view profit somebody else's view and not you know I'm against that he's creeping on me he wants to buy the people he's waiting for old Charlie Penelli to move on for he can move that property he's trying to get the property behind me he's boxed me in and you know I've lived there 40 years and had no trouble Even the homeless people come through there. I'm not speaking for the homeless people. They don't bother me. But the place is like the reverend said, it is an eyesore, but I'm giving up a lot for these people to make profits and I don't like it. And how is it possible that a guy can build a building in front of somebody else's viewing that's going to lower my property and raise my property taxes? How's this possible? That's all I got to say. You people have any generation, don't let him take my sight. Thank you.

Thank you. If there are others who would like to speak in opposition, please come forward.

State your name, address, sign in when you're done. You have up to five minutes. I'm part of uh Safe at Home, so I'm not going to list my address, but my name is Sally and I'm in the area. Um, one of the things if you look at number five, it says that um South is one house residential, one household residential. That's not true. The south side is St. Anony's. Um, also where the and also, um, sorry, I had my things. Also to the west before we have the new town homes, there's a bunch of bars. And so if I had the magic wand and I could fix this for everybody, I believe, yes, something needs to go there. And maybe we could make it cheaper and he wouldn't need extra financing by having the city buy some of that lot, some of Indianola. It is so narrow. I'm an avid cyclist. I don't go down that road. And if you zoom out, this is the only way living in that area. This is the only way to get to floor. This turns into Thomas Beck turns into Bell. This is the only way to go east west from Indianola. This is just horrific to There is no shoulder on the road. There's no place to walk. There are no sidewalks. And so since this property is available, I just think gosh, can we just widen out Indianola? Just take a chunk of that. It is a really wonky elevation. The other thing that needs to be addressed is the elevation. Yes. Um the watershed, it's ice. You can't even make it up southwest. That is sheer ice at Southwest First and um Indianola is sheer ice. Um, one other thing that I

just needed to mention is that I am a paid member of McKinley Columbus McKinley School, Columbus Park Neighborhood Association. We're never notified. Sending a postcard to Jim does not mean anything. I have requested for years that we are notified as the neighborhood association members. And I think that's wonderful that puts here in writing that you know addressed, but all it does is go on a postcard in somebody's mailbox and it doesn't ever the residents never know about it. So, I think great, fine, build something. But where are the bikes going to ride? Where are the people going to walk? And also, as far as zoning goes, I don't know if St. Anony's is allowed to not have a school bus. I don't know why they got rid of it, but it's hell. I mean, I took a video today. I could show you if you feel like it. Just trying to drive through there is insane. And it's not just people dropping off their kids, it's kids, people walking their kids across the street. And there's they back up Indianola Road all the way to Indianola Avenue. And then also when there's a funeral, it they park on both sides of the street, which I respect. The church has been there forever. They need the kids need to get to school, blah blah blah. but it's already unsafe for the kids and for the weddings and all the other things that happen there. So, I just think if there was a way to widen that road, that would be my thoughts. Any questions? Thank Thank you. Uh, [clears throat] my name is Brian Little. I live at 1946 Southwest First

Street, which is just a couple up from Robert here. Um, I think it's uh this house on the uh picture here. Um, and I've lived there since 2014. I am opposed to reszoning this parcel or this land. Um I believe it's already like correctly zoned as it is as it appears more suitable to a lower density multif family property uh similar to others that are in the area except for the elevate and those uh apartment buildings they re did. Um uh so I think part of the issue it appears that these will use Southwest First Street as uh for access. And when we look at South Union, this is essentially an alley beyond that. And so you're probably going to have and I know this is a little speculation, but this is after living there for 10 years. you probably have if people are going out to the east side the or the west you're still going on to Indianola Avenue and there's already been expressed the traffic issues on here um and uh um part of the traffic um with coming down southwest first the people who attend the church particularly on Sundays but when there are funerals or other events They are parking on both sides of the road, but they park past almost up to, not quite to, but enough that you can't see oncoming traffic from the east on Indianola Road uh coming from uh this direction. And this there's this curve and uh it just creates a blind spot. So, increasing the traffic in this is most

likely going to make it a lot uh less safe. Um, and I get that maybe traffic improvements down the road might happen, but you know that it's hard to say when that stuff would actually be. Um, you know, and this is a relatively besides Indian Road, a relatively quiet neighborhood and dropping in 34 families. And if we're talking twocar garages, that's essentially, you know, uh, times that by two, you know, what, 68 people and 68 uh or uh, you know, two cars per thing. That's a lot of traffic moving back and forth, a lot of noise. Um, it just, uh, kind of disrupts the piece. And I think in one article, um, it was talked about the view of the capital and how beautiful that is. And I would absolutely agree that the view of the capital is nice. It's a little obstructed during the uh summertime. You know, you got to because the trees fill in, but it uh that is a beautiful view and to have that obstructed with these would be very sad uh for us. Um but um furthermore, let's see where I'm at my thing here. Um, my main concern is how the project would affect the population and the property values of the neighborhood due to the proposed prices of the units. While a possible increase of values might seem like a good thing, I feel like it would decimate the ability for the lower to middle class citizens be homeowners in this neighborhood. uh in an appraisal that we received for a home improvement loan, it was noted that the appraisal was a little difficult because of the number of long-term owners in the neighborhood. Um uh and so the level of density doesn't fit within this neighborhood. And I think if it fit, you wouldn't have to tear down a house that

has been there to put these things in. You wouldn't have to go to other neighbors and try to get rid of their houses to put in more of these things. that takes away from what the actual neighborhood is, you know, in the immediate areas. And so I think an alternative to that is more of the lower density. I get that we do have to develop things and that, you know, we need more dense housing, but the uh and in the area in different blocks, you know, there's been developments that are uh maybe four or five units. There's um some like quad plexes or whatever you call them in like over on Southwest 9th, but those sort of things appear to appear that they would fit better with the houses, you know, the bungalows, the ranch, stuff like that. But these luxury condos, which at first were 285,000, I think they said in an article from a couple years ago, but now 22 to what did he say? 2400 a month. that is not obviously as he said affordable housing and you know as a person who cares deeply about social justice I don't want our neighborhood to be used for more gentrification in De Moine which is obviously becoming an issue as well

sir your your five minutes is up if you could wrap up your thoughts please. Well, I'll wrap them up. They're wrapped. So, what questions do you have? Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition to this item,

Chaz? I'm looking at you. I speak one more time. I'm predominantly I believe we we've reserved the time. Yeah. One time to speak and you utilize our time at that. Um I will check on the rules and get you back to you if there's anything that would allow such um discussion. Okay. So I'm sorry the answer is no. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition though? Please come forward. State your name, address, sign in when you're done, and you have up to five minutes.

I'll be very short and sweet. My name is Erica Little. I live at 1946 Southwest First Street. Uh my husband just spoke a lot more eloquently than I will be able to. Um I am not opposed to developing this area because I agree with the father that this is an eyesore. However, I think it needs to be done responsibly and effectively so that it's not affecting the entire neighborhood in a negative way. I do think that some additional like affordable housing is definitely a benefit to the area, especially being located near a bus line near downtown. However, I don't think that 34 units is going to be effective in this area because of the increased traffic. There's been several times coming down Southwest First Street that I've personally almost gotten into a car accident, and don't even get me started on the winter because the the road maintenance is crazy. Um, we both have all-wheel drive vehicles just for this purpose. And so, the increased traffic on our street, I think, is going to be a safety concern. And I, like I said, I don't mind something getting built there. I think that it would be a beautiful property for people to enjoy. I do not think that 34 units is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like the opportunity to speak in opposition to this item?

Okay, applicant, you do have five minutes for rebuttal if you'd like. Just want to note a couple things. Um, [clears throat] talking about traffic, there's obviously down the street we have a proven development of 29 units. Um, this is on substantially less land than these 34 units. Um, I currently manage the HOA that is fully occupied, 29 units on that site and not one call, not one police call, not one neighborhood call. there's been no issues uh with respect to disrupting the neighborhood or additional traffic concerns from the 29 units that are right down the street. Um so I just wanted to note that as well as there is zero parking on Elevate. It was a challenge selling those units because of the lack of parking and there's been no concerns and no phone calls or no complaints from the lack of off uh street parking over there as well. um to speak to the relief that I would potentially be asking for. There's type two design alternatives such as um undergrounding the overhead wire uh the overhead electrical. I'm going to ask for a type two there. This project needs assistance with helping this happen because we all know that that the the city wants this and they like what's happened in the area. Um, and the continuation of this would be a benefit to this area and the city. And it toographically it's difficult. It's all expansive soil. So, we've got 175,000 just an excavation over excavation for these buildings. Um, and uh just some certain relief, maybe some landscaping relief potentially and uh some maybe

some setback relief as well. So, those would be the the relief that I'd be asking for. So, any questions? Uh, the staff report um here says the applicant can provide a summary of the neighborhood meeting at the public hearing. I didn't hear that during the first discussion. Could you did you have the public hearing and if so, could you summarize what occurred?

Yes. So, there was three owners there. One would be the subject property on 1947 Southwest First. Um, the other owner is not here tonight. That would be on Hillside directly behind the property. Their concern the the it's been in the family since 1979. Their concern was their view and I went over to the property this week and she's way above our buildings so it won't impede her view. And then the other applicant or the other concern was uh Mr. Thompson here that I've discussed with and he's the neighbor of the property to the west.

Any other questions? Thank you. Okay, I'll close the public hearing then and open it up to the commission for discussion and motions.

Um, go ahead.

I'll just say I I grew up on the south side. Uh, went to St. Anony's as a as a kid. Um I think there was a church there back in the 80s and up into the '9s. Then since then it's been an eyesore, an overgrown lot. Um still live in the neighborhood, drive down that street on my way to and from work. Um I know the area well. Uh I'm glad to see there's a development going there. Uh Mr. Sirin has done some successful projects uh in the neighborhood. Um, I'm definitely understanding of uh the neighbors concerns. Uh, I'm pro neighborhood, but I think this project needs to happen. It'll be good for the city, be good for the neighborhood. Um, so those are my comments and uh want you guys to hear. Thanks.

I agree 100% with what just was just said. I also live in this neighborhood. I have seen the town homes go up on Elevate. The same some of the same concerns and I acknowledge that the neighborhood is worried. Some of the same concerns were brought up for Elevate. I had those concerns myself. Uh living on the hills, especially in the winter times with traffic, it's been a great addition to the neighborhood. I'm hoping that this would be the same. I would like to see that price drop a little bit for affordability, but that's a different conversation. And I would encourage if it does go through that the city look at that intersection because it is it does need some um additional study or even potentially a stop sign. I know a lot of people don't like stop signs, but anyway, uh I will be supporting this project and I would move staff unless there's additional conversation.

Is there any additional conversation on that motion?

Okay. All in favor, please raise your right hand. Motion passes. Thank you. We will move to item number five. This is a request from Amen Corner represented by Daniel Doyle for the following regarding property located at 821 Southeast 7th Street. Determination as to whether the requested resoning is in conformance with plan DSM. Amending plan DSM to revise the future land use classification of the property from low medium density residential to high density residential and reszoning the property from N3C neighborhood district to NX2 neighborhood mix district to allow construction of a 12unit multiple housing residential building and Srioshi will present for us. Thank you madame chair Sri Chakraorti planning staff. I will be presenting item five which is a resoning request for property at 821 Southeast 7th Street. The um applicant is proposing a multiple household residential building project. This requires the current zoning district of N3C neighborhood district to be amended to NX2 to allow the additional units as well as a land use plan amendment from lowmedium density residential to highdensity residential. So with that I'll uh give a little context of the subject property. This is located uh at uh Southeast 7th Street. So this is um um fairly close to downtown. It's south of uh the MLK corridor. It is to the east of the De

Moine River. So um it is an area that is currently experiencing uh changes and um does have examples of other multiple household uh uses within close proximity both existing as well as proposed. The adjoining area currently is uh mostly resone mostly zoned in 3C and other low um density residential districts. There is um higher density uh district just to the south where there's a proposed project coming up as well as u some P1 um uses as well. This is the um subject property. It's a vacant lot. It did have a uh a couple structures which um have since been demolished. It's um here we are looking north from Whale Street. Another view of the subject property. This is looking northeastish and you can see there's some mature trees on the site. This is looking east and this is the intersection. The subject property is right here. This is the intersection of uh Whale and Southeast 7. And this is looking north towards Maria Street. This is looking west towards the river. The regional bike trail is right here. And then um just another view of the street and just gives you a character of the of the neighborhood in general. This is the alley to the east of the property. So with that, I'd uh like to go um into the project concept that was submitted by the applicant with this reasonzoning.

Um again, at the resoning stage, we are looking at a highle um concept. However, in this instance, this is a fairly um smalls size lot for what's proposed. It's about 8,400 um square foot. The applicant has provided a um slightly unique concept in uh which as you can see they are uh proposing six dwelling units fronting Veil Street and then there are another six units that are um to the back. They're kind of stacked. They are oriented east west between uh Southeast 7th Street and Bale Street. And the applicant will probably go a little bit more into their their design concept, but essentially they are trying to come up with a design concept that that uh fits the development pattern in the in the neighborhood. And therefore, they have been looking into this narrow lot concept which some of the other lots have been um have had a pattern of subdividing into narrower lots generally in the vicinity of [snorts] this this area. You can also see up here a cross-section of what this looks like. So the the the units that are to the front, they are one-bedroom units and then the the the back the rear side has two bedroom. They are um slightly offset which allows these the tuck under parking on the back of the property which leads to a 3 and 1/2 story maximum height because the backside of the building will go up a half a story to allow that parking in the back of the property. This allows them to create nine off- streetet parking spaces um within the lot. That is uh still less than what they need. they will need 12 off streetet parking

spaces. The applicant is currently working on some concepts um to um to work to to create additional parking opportunities if you will. And again, this is just uh something that the applicant did consider and provide uh with their application. You can see there are some uh lots here that are narrower. And so that is kind of the that led to the origin of looking at a narrow lot development concept for this particular property. And here's some character elevations. This is looking at the at the property from Southeast 7th. You can see the height variation of the the two um units that are stacked front and back. There's some color variation in the materiality. And then uh this is looking at the front of the building from Wale Street. There is a common entrance which is more characteristic of uh multiple family residential buildings in the older established neighborhoods. So it creates a single entry point for all the all the units rather than creating separate entries. So um I um would like to move on to staff rationale and um staff is recommending approval of this request subject to conditions. The reason staff is supportive of this um uh project is because of the concept and the design that the applicant has provided. We believe that the applicant has been has taken into consideration the um generally the development pattern and the context of the neighborhood and tried to come up with a design that um

is is more um suited to u an area that is experiencing development at the edge of the downtown. So, it's not right in downtown. It's not away from downtown. It's in in an area that is starting to experience some of those um um development opportunities. And so, it does take that into consideration while looking at also looking at the existing development pattern in in the area. The design is also something that staff um thinks will work so long as the applicant um ensures that there's substantial compliance with the with the design and the concept and character that they have provided. So staff is recommending approval subject to the condition that there shall be no more than the 12 units as proposed on the subject area which measures.1 93 acres and any development on the property shall be in substantial compliance with the concept and the form in character as submitted to the satisfaction of the planning and urban design administrator. And I have some information about uh the applicants neighborhood meeting. Here's their sign-in sheet. Um a summary. I'd like to just uh let you read through this which uh summarizes the some of the concerns that the neighbors who were in attendance um brought up. And you can just take a look through these. I'm happy to come back to these if you if you would like some more time. These were a couple uh cards that uh were returned back. Didn't make it to the

to the residents. We did receive a few comment cards. This is an opposition and this is a a consent map. I would like to point out that we uh received although we received few comment cards, one of the property owners as you can see owns several uh properties here which is why the consent p percentage in opposition is at uh 30.5%. So this is also um a reasonzoning request which will require the supermajority vote from city council for approval because of the opposition percentage with that I can answer any questions.

Uh can you go back to the photo? Is is it only two floors? It is three floors. Three floors. Okay. Yes. I will uh but it's still only 12 dwelling units.

It is 12. So um so if you can imagine there's um there's going to be three three units here, three units on this side and then three kind of mirroring on the back and there there three levels but because the back side is offset half a story it goes up to three and a half for a total. Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant present? Please come forward. State your name and address and sign in when you're done. You have up to 10 minutes.

Daniel Doyle, 601 Forest Avenue. We held a neighborhood meeting and it was really great to meet the neighbors and obviously it's it's exciting to be a part of a development where you have a neighborhood that cares so much. Obviously is in the spirit of tonight and hearing what the city is aiming for and the mission. We think that this complies with that and that we're bringing more affordable housing to the area. Some of their concerns were taxes, vandalism, homelessness. Uh, and I think that what we're going to provide is more like-minded neighbors that care about the the area and want to protect it and and preserve what we really appreciate about it. So, I can answer any questions you guys have.

Any questions for the applicant? Uh, I'm sorry I missed it. Is this I may have missed this. Uh, are they going to be rental units or um condos? Yeah, that'll be market rate. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this project? Sorry, I had one more thing. My uh architect and engineer are here and they're going to share a couple words.

Okay. Yeah. Hey, Dan Drenle, uh Slingshot Architecture, 400 Locust Street in De Moines. Um good to be here. Um, we're excited about this project. Um, both for what Daniel outlined and staff's uh, solution or description of the project is uh, was very thoughtful and accurate. Um just a couple of highlights on what we're thinking about um just beyond just kind of um working within the the zoning code to come up with a creative solution that that hits market rates and limits uh um uh circulation and things on a small unit development like this. So the main building or the main entrance for the upper level units um the uh eight I should say 10 units that are in the stair does come off of Veil Street in the middle. Um we're actually working through and the the imagery um suggests kind of current thinking where we'll actually have um the entry for the Veil Street facing ground level units off of 7th Street and off of the the end of Veil Street kind of on the alley side. Um one of them will be the accessible unit and provide accessibility to that unit. Um but the the other big part of that is just activating as much of the block as we can and also making sure that we have street frontage on the seventh street facade um where we have entry there um that'll follow the neighborhood pattern of the home the couple homes next to us. Um, the other strategies that we think are are going to be really successful here, the the one-way driveway is going to be basically the thinnest uh uh driveway we can make to kind of make the the parking geometry work out. Um, so one way through the through the block to the alley um on the same side of the parcel as the adjacent house. So kind of

cars next to cars um people next to people uh good way to go. Um the parking on the back side will will be grouped in in um four diagonal spaces and kind of one at the end for the accessible unit. Um so not really big groups of parking. Um and then also just the the massing if you want to go into slide 12 there. Um as we as we uh face Seventh Street there. um letting the the con completely concealing the parking um with a screen wall that matches the um either slate or masonry on the gray mass. And then um dividing up that facade into two pieces vertically like this kind of gives us um that narrow lot development house scale um uh similar to some of the develop uh homes that we're seeing in the neighborhood. So, um you know, a thoughtful missing middle um insertion of of residential density hopefully at scale to the um neighborhood and the changing neighborhood um and um you know, similar scale to what's uh being proposed across the street as well. So, kind of a nice neighborhood feel. Um any questions on the design or the concept or what we're intending? We're super early on. We just put this together to try to, you know, explore this with uh staff, but um pretty pleased with the outcome. Um anybody who's champions of single stair buildings, this is still within code, not an exception or anything, but kind of pushing us to explore that in the city a little bit.

Thank you. Thank you.

Jeff Gatis, civil engineering consultants at 2400 86th Street, Unit 12, Erdale, Iowa. Um, obviously uh working with Daniel and we looked at the site, developed a figured out what the boundary was and then what he kind of envisioned and uh I knew immediately that everybody stole my thunder. I needed we needed an architect to bring in something as this is very narrow and compressed regardless of whatever was placed on there. Even if we looked at what zoning would currently allow, which would be a duplex plus an auxiliary housing unit, even at that, that is still a relatively compressed site. Um, obviously bringing in Slingshot brought something that's even more unique and I think it's very cool for the whole neighborhood and still fits on the lot. Increases our density for the um for low cost or lower cost living near the De Mo area which is really close [clears throat] to all the the amenities that many enjoy in this area. Um obviously our site plan will have to meet all the current ordinances and staff requirements. Uh obviously we have some parking at least a couple stall parking issue. We've already kind of begun this process to talk to the city about hey we'll help improve some of this if you'll give us some couple parking sp stalls along there. Do some things to to offset that parking or lack of space on the site. Um, if you have any questions when it comes to especially the stuff outside the building, I can definitely answer that.

I've got a question for you. Is there any storm sewer in the neighborhood? Uh, there is some storm sewer, but we may have to bring it from uh a little ways away, but there is some there. There's just not a lot cuz we are right by the river there. So, uh, that will be a challenging part on our side, but nothing we haven't ran across before. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you.

Would anyone in the audience tonight like to speak in favor of this project? Anyone neutral? And those who are opposed, please come forward. Little bit of a log jam, but please state your name, address, and sign in when you're done. And you have up to 500.

Okay. Hi, I'm Michael Cortez, and I grew up in that area. And I'm opposed to this. Uh this area is all single family homes in the area. Now, there's only a couple duplexes in the area. There's not enough parking for the space. the drawing that he has here uh is completely offscale because it doesn't have a frontage like that. Once you get these trees and stuff in there, we got a problem in that area with homelessness. Uh everyone else that's applied for something according to this has been has three times the land that they have at the spot. Um there is no storm sewer in that area and there is no runoff in this building. If this building was built, it'd have to have a certain amount of runoff and there's would be none with what they have in the scale of this picture. There's enough going on north of this property in the Martin Luther King uh north of Martin Luther King area now and we we don't know we don't need this. Everyone that's lived down there has been there for all of our lives. Uh that's about it. taxes are going to go up. And I'm just I'm just saying that the the property is not big enough to take on 12 places. So if each person had two cars, that's 24 cars. That's correct. So that's where I post. Thank

you. Anyone else like to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Please state your name, address.

Bonita Herd Harris, 806 Southeast 7th Street. Um, I oppose this. I was at the the meeting the other night. Um, was asking about the the demographics who's going to be, you know, tenants there, the affordability. I guess the one bedroom is going to run 1,200. What's the two-bedroom run? I was just curious about that. Um, I'm concerned about the higher taxes again. And then, uh, I went and Googled like the kids do and Google, they got some bad reviews. You know, there was some tenant complaints and there's lawsuits and I'm I'm concerned about that. I've lived in a neighborhood all my life. My grandmother, the whole we had the whole block around there. So, I just I'm opposed to this. I think it's it's the neighborhood's not ready for that. Yeah. Any questions? Thank you. Yeah. Please come forward, sir.

Again, state your name, address, and sign in when you're done. And you have up to five minutes as well. Jesse Cortez, 817 Southeast 7. This house is right next door to me. Uh, I had plans to buy it. I mowed it, shovel snow, and everything for about 5 years and uh, thinking that they would sell it to me and I could demo the house, plus take all the trees out. I wanted to incorporate it with my land to make it bigger where I could build a garage. It's um I don't know. It's just uh putting something like that and there's no room for it. They're building new houses down there. Everything's looking nice and with something like that and walking out and see a great big building. I wouldn't be happy with that. So, I'm opposed to to it. That's about it.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Greg Wilson's 725 Murray. I own the two pieces of property right next to this. the two empty lots that their construction is there now. I couldn't even imagine 12 families trying to get down my alley to get into their apartment down there. We've got construction going down 8th Street. They're putting a storm sewer in down to the river from MLK to the river. It has been tore up for two and a half to three months right now. And every time we come out of our driveway into that alley, the traffic, you got to watch the people come down that alley 30 m an hour just flying. And we've never I've lived down there for 58 years and never had traffic in my alley. I maintain it basically. I rock it and take care of it 99% of the time. And the city once in a while will come in there and grade it. If I get a hold of the right person and wait 3 months, they'll put something in that alley and try to grade it. But they take this I don't know. I it it's it's a stupidest thing I ever seen to try to build a building like that on a 56 by 150 lot. It it's just atrocious. I don't know how

many of you people would like to wake up in the morning, walk out the door and look up and see something like that. You couldn't even see the sky. It'll be so high beside your house. And Jesse's my neighbor. I've known him all my life. His that house is not going to be any farther. And right here, that wall his his and he's got no he's got nowhere to look but right out there and look at the sight of that building and it it's just it's pathetic to even think that they could put a building like that. We put they put them up on Sixth in Murray AC across on on the west side of six southeast 6. They built the high-rise apartments there. And ever since the high-rise apartments come in, they put them in there. They put them over there by Sect Taylor Stadium. They got a bunch of them over there. We have had riff raff galore in our area. We've had thievery. We We never used to have to lock our doors for nothing hardly down there. And the people are breaking in almost nightly down there. That's stealing anything they can. And I I am greatly opposed to any any type of anything down there but a single family dwelling like the rest of the neighborhood that I've been in for the last 60 years.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Please come forward. Hi, my name is Lois Robbins. I live at 925 Southeast 8th Street. Um, like you said, that construction going on down there is just terrible. Before that, we have five houses in that neighborhood there that are empty. One's boarded up using it as a chicken coupe. Um the other ones we got kids climbing on the roofs. You know, they're going to get hurt. These houses need tore down. You know, straighten up our neighborhood first before you decide to put something in down there. And these apartments that's not going to work. We need houses down there, not apartment buildings. And that's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? My name is Curtis Forny. I live at 1010 Southeast Murray Street. And uh I'm opposed to this uh for a number of reasons. I live right on Murray Street. I don't know if you've driven down Murray Street. It's basically a racetrack now. And I can't imagine putting more families down there and and having it uh get what much worse. Um about 15 years ago, somebody proposed putting a nursing home right across the street from us where the Habitat homes are and they denied it because it was three stories high. Said it wouldn't fit in with the rest of the neighborhood and uh so he didn't get to do that. I think that would have been better than apartment house but with the lack of uh elderly housing. But uh and the other thing is I guess just um I think our taxes will go up. Um one thing that they did cuz right it's right across the street where they built the Habitat homes which I'm in favor of. That's good. It's a good uh you know ministry and stuff. But we were assured that it wouldn't change anything down there. Well, like I say, I live on the one side of Murray. These habitat homes on the other side of Murray and I've lived down there since uh 2004 and never had flooding down there. Not to the extent that we had it after they built those homes. The grade went up just enough, I guess, to make it u a flood plane because we I've got pictures on my phone where we've got just got a crawl space. Thank goodness we don't have a basement, but the crawl space would uh was so flooded and the street Murray Street was flooded all the way up to the mailboxes. I don't know if you ever been there, but that that's pretty deep. We had cars stuck out there all the time. It was quite a show. But um anyway, that was after they assured us it won't change anything. Well, it did

change things and uh I guess I'm just thinking of all the I mean I'm I'm all for more housing and that kind of stuff. I know we need it, but when I think about in that area, a three-story building in the midst of all those homes, I felt like the city was going in a good direction that Habitat down there built there's other builders down there, but it's all single family homes and they built quite a few down there. that thing that place has changed since I became associated with it back in 1973 that area and it's for the better and they're good-looking homes. I just think that this would be completely out of place if you put a three-story building down there. It won't even look right. But uh but anyway, any questions?

Thank you for your time.

Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? Okay, applicant, you do have 5 minutes for a rebuttal if you'd like that time. As I shared earlier, I think it's it's really great. They have such a great neighborhood and obviously with the turnout, they obviously really care about their their homes in the neighborhood. So, I think that's we're looking to bring the same uh the same to the neighborhood in terms of who's going to rent these homes and these these units. So, I think what's important to note is obviously across the street on veil 24 units got approved. So, I think that's obviously important to note in terms of what the city has approved in the mission uh and how that fits into this lot. So, thanks for your guys' time.

Thank you. I'll close I need to close the public hearing, sir. I lived down there all my life for 80 years, sir. Sorry. And um we don't need none of that stuff. And there's a lot of good people down there. The streets are jammed with cars parked. And then again, u with they have 12 room things. Everyone's going to have one or two cars and there's not going to be no room for cars to park. Nothing like that. So I just assume drop it. I'm against it. And that's it.

Chaz, do we need I I think we probably need an advocate rebuttal. Yeah, I guess just open it up again if if they do have any other additional comments to that comment is is fine. Does the applicant have any anything any rebuttal based off this? Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing then and open it up to the commission. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Could you talk a little bit more somebody from the city about what's going in across the street again across bail? Yeah. To the to the uh south is um um trying remember how many buildings. It's two two flat buildings. I'm trying to remember how many 24 units. It's a it is a I believe it's a two-story project. It kind of looks a little bit like town homes, but it's actually a flat system, you know, where flats. So, you have some some units are just on one floor. So, it's more of a multif family, not a row home. And that's at the 901. Yeah. So, it's that whole You see where it says NX2? That's the whole the whole area. Yeah.

How did that zone come to be zoned NX2 in the middle of the um It was It's been reszoned some time ago. I'm trying to remember if that was even before the code changed. Let me know. B, do you have a quick way to figure out when that was? So there so there are 24 units that have been approved at this location just south of to the south. Yeah. Do you know when that was reszoned? That was just after the zone. Okay. The code was And are those um three stories you

No, they're twotory. I need to look really quick. I don't They might have been able to go up taller, but they they chose to do a two-story project. So to address the audience once we close the public hearing we we do keep it closed. Well he mentioned bail at the meeting that there were already

that's what we're discussing here and sorry we do keep the public hearing closed once we've closed it. So this time is just for the commission to discuss.

Thanks. U I'd like to build on some of the comments that the residents have raised. Um and people here on the commission have already raised a couple of the points as well. Um in in a in a report there's a section called urban design. Uh and the city uses urban design as a means of justifying this application. And I'd like to read what uh this justification says. It says this. It it talks about a um narrow lot development concept and indeed this is a narrow lot development concept. But the justification actually goes on to say that this design, this particular design supports a massing and scale that complements the adjoining one household residential uses. Does a three-story building support a one-story one household residential use? It seems to me a stretch. Wow.

And I asked the question um because if if that's actually what the city uh thinks and is going to use additionally, you know, for other projects like this, I I think the city needs to rethink how it uh expresses what its position is because this simply at least in my mind is a contradiction of terms. It also goes on to say um Veil Street frontages are similar to small-scale multifamily infill developments in established neighborhoods using a main central door. All of that's in other neighborhoods. The whole concept of this narrow lot development is antithetical to what's there now. So my point is if the city wants to use this as an argument to put this building in, they'd better in my opinion rethink the argument. Um Will's comments make me uh remind gives me some other thoughts like when you were saying that um that it the the scale of it is too large I immediately thought of like what the scale of a multif family residential building could be and I'm thinking about podium type buildings that are five and six stories tall and 400 150 ft long. And I think the ability to put 12 units on a on a small lot um provides a a solution to density that that does respect sort of the the block structure and the neighborhood structure and the alley structure and the streetscape that we associate with neighborhood character. I

think it's a I think it's a really creative and forwardthinking way to develop in an established neighborhood. And um I think that the the massing also is going to help break up the scale um relative to the neighbors. And there's a lot of green space in that neighborhood, too. There's a lot of open space. And I think it's a I think it's a interesting and uh thoughtful solution. I'm going to support it. I agree with what has been said so far, the comments uh from the commissioners, both Will and Andrew. Um I actually I I really love this product that's been shown in front of us today. It's a solution to smaller lots that are not typically developed other than single family homes or duplexes. Um, my concern was the neighborhood character. We started the meeting today with our first public hearing item talking about three existing houses that were becoming duplexes and staff recommended denial because of the neighborhood character. That said, for this one, it doesn't appear to meet the neighborhood character. I'm not really sure what's happening across the street. It sounds like there are 24 units going in. I'm not familiar with that project, but if that's the case, then it is meeting the neighborhood character. So, that's why I wanted to say to the neighbors that I will be in support of it because of that reasoning that I wasn't aware of until somebody mentioned it just now.

Yeah, Johnny, I hear exactly what you're saying. And that's where I was having a tough time with some rationale was just about an hour ago we denied a project or approved it to have five units on about.3 acres and now we're talking about 12 on just under2. So and and that barely got approved or there was some concerns with that. So I do like the project. Uh, I do think the lot's a little too small. Me personally, if it was, you know, double the size, I think it would work, but, you know, there's, uh, tight and then there's tight. Um, so I think it's a a nice project. Um, just not sure that is the right size lot for it. And again, it doesn't really fit the character of the neighborhood, which is what Will brought up, which is what the city lays out. So really having a tough time. I'd really like to hear from the rest of you guys if you do have something because I think I support the project, but I'm having some con concerns uh that are contradicting things that we just said earlier today. And I do appreciate hearing from the neighbors. Um if this was south of Grand, I think it would have been dead on arrival by the time it hit Mr. Vaness's desk. Thank you. I think this is different than South of Grand though because it is downtown adjacent kind of the next what I call like the next frontier. Um I love this neighborhood. My daughter goes to school at Konigo over there and so we're frequently over there and I envision my parents moving to De Moine and moving into that neighborhood someday. Um, and I I like the project because it it is a little bit like downtown, but it's a

lighter version, which is exactly what this neighborhood is, a lighter version adjacent to downtown. So, I will be supporting it. If I could just clarif I Emily, [clears throat] you did a great job of in in a different way summarizing the staff perspective. This is an area in transition. This is a different area than the other case. So, um I'm not going to elaborate, you know, keep going and and appear to be defensive, but there is a any other thoughts. Jane,

I will repeat what I said earlier, which is that I think we need to be careful how we use community character. It's hard for me to not do air quotes because it it can mean so many different things. And so maybe this the discussion we're having right now points out to an opportunity to be more specific um in support or opposition to projects. Given the additional development that's happening across the street, I think a development like the one that's proposed here can be a really nice transition um from increasing density into residential. I think as a city we need to find a way to work more effectively with neighbors. I I mean these folks have obviously have a very deep community. They've been together and in this place for a long time. It makes sense that they're going to feel a deep sense of place. And I think we want them to help us guide what comm and define what community character is. At the same time, you all know I'm in we we need more we need more housing in this city and and I'm in support of that, but I don't feel good about often making the these decisions with the neighborhood kind of on the outside. And I just wonder if isn't there some some way we can do this that helps engage neighbors more in design or in ways where it feels like everyone's benefiting. Um that we can get the housing that we need with a innovative and sensitive project like this, but where neighborhoods and neighbors don't feel like they're losing something important about the place where they live. I I have concerns that Rick has about the tightness of the spot. Um obviously we don't have a detailed site plan yet. If they are unable to come up with three

more three additional parking spaces I mean are we locked into the 12? Can we if they can't accommodate that? What will that look like? I've just kind of got questions about

Yeah. Yeah, I mean the way we drafted the zoning conditions is that obviously the 12 would be immaculate. Um and the the second one is to basically say you're going to this is um to do this from our perspective takes a very unique solution which I think they have offered. So we're only willing to support 12 units here if you're actually going to build a unique solution. And that's the point of the second condition of it has to you know what comes forward has to generally match your concept. If it doesn't matter at all

if if they can't match that they could certainly build eight or 10 or something like that under this scenario. They could go down. They could never go up but they could go definitely go down. Y from a practical manner though aren't we at 30% opposition? So this is essentially dead on arrival without significant pressure by city council overturning. Is that part right? Well, it's a supermajority. Yes, if that's what you're asking.

Super majority. Yep. So we need a supermajority to council. And so again, I think that while I echo Jane's sentiment aggressively that in this one, it sounds like there wasn't significant neighbor diligence that made everyone feel good about this situation. The balance is I aggressively agree that we should be in favor of these types of developments of these scale and we should be giving votes towards being positive towards this as a good solution even though in this case it's it's not going through is there's a practical nature of this right well yeah I can't I don't think we speculate on how the council I'll speculate I don't think it's going through

so I I did have a question so the Five. There's one owner of five unit of five pieces of property. Is that what happened? And are those and then I heard from the neighbors that there's some vacancies. So what's vacant lots? Yeah. Yeah. I guess I'm not sure what the question is. I guess I'm just trying to understand because it it it affected the percentage but also Yeah, the percentage is based off the land area. These two these two lots are vacant. They're currently vacant. Um, but it's the same property owner for all of these. But I think what Shyoshi was trying to get at in the presentation is that the opposition is high

even though like numerically the number of cards returned is small. It's just that we're dealing with a small number of owners in the notice area. Okay? Because it it I mean this is so the vacant lots here would be the same as the house is vacant in the last one. doesn't benefit a neighborhood to have it invites crime and other problems when you have vacant lots. Right. Any other comments, Todd?

I'll just um I I tend to agree with what everybody said tonight. My my biggest concern is um is the parking requirements for a density like this in a neighborhood. Like Emily said, it's an edge urban neighborhood. Um, I think they're stretching getting some parking in in the rideway with access right off of Veil Street. Um, but I I these developments are necessary, you know, going forward for the city of De Mo and the density we want. It's the parking that's the issue. Um, we have a challenged um public transit system right now. This is very near public transit. um not close enough. Um and that's my biggest concern is every time we do one of these, we're always talking about a one car per unit um requirement. I think that's what it is. And as we start to see smaller and smaller sites with denser and denser things with parking requirements, um it's going to be more and more challenging. And I I'd rather see developments like this have some type of support for the dart system and money to that rather than parking. Um and it's super close to bike lanes. Um we need to encourage people to walk. We need to encourage less cars. And I think we've heard about the challenge down here of cars um and parking. So um I'm generally supportive. I just wish we'd find a solution for um parking in the future and the requirement for that.

Any other discussion or would anyone like to make a motion? I'll move staff.

Any discussion on that? All in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you everyone. Um I do have one bit of business before we all close which is that we're getting towards the end of the year and we need to put together a slate of officials for next year. So I would like to ask someone to Okay, Emily will lead a committee

with Johnny and Todd, the dream team. And if you guys could bring a proposal to our next meeting, that would be great. Any other business? No, I don't have anything else to I'm trying to remember the timing of when we um if we have did we vote in December last year or the first meeting in January? Was this January? I'll check the bylaws to see when because I think they say when to vote when we vote. Yeah. So, it may not be next meeting, I guess. Okay. Very good. Anything else? No. Thank you.