Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Would you buy that one? Yeah. And it was like eight stories above us. It's twice the size of an ordinary ship. It's crazy. That's right. Yep. [clears throat] Call the April 20th, 2026 Polk City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Roll call, please. Atkins Here. Brown Here. And Olsen [snorts] Here. Howell Here. Olsen Here. Howell Here. Olsen Here. Item three, approval of the agenda. I make motion we approve the agenda as written. Second. [clears throat]

All in favor? Aye. Opposed, same sign. Item passes. Item four, approval of P&Z Commission meeting minutes for March 16th, 2026. Make a motion to approve those minutes as written. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Item passes. Item five, discussion regarding future land use plan near the Polk City Regional Park. So, we've got developer report, city engineer report. Yeah, I should have looked at the agenda. We don't have a developer tonight. Um so, what we're going to do tonight is we've put together a several scenarios for the future land use plan update regarding um the Polk City Regional Park. So, as many of you may know, um one of the things that's pretty characteristic of these large regional park sports athletics focused parks is they oftentimes drive potential growth um if if cities can capture it. Um you have a lot of visitors, you have a lot of frequent traffic, and you have a lot of heavy traffic. And so, Polk City staff has asked us to kind of look at what the existing future land use plan looks like, and then some possible ways to kind of capture um this potential growth. With me tonight, I've brought Julie Cruise, um a planner for us at Snyder & Associates. Um Julie's got experience in the city of Ankeny, city of Ames, um and brings a lot of planning experience and future thinking as far as future land use plans. Um so, in your packets, um depending on when you downloaded or printed those, um we were made aware of an error. It was basically a It was tabulating multiple layers in GIS. Um so, we got that corrected. The updated packets are out there for download, but then I also printed

um a copy of those for your reference. Um you can look at those as Julie's walk walking through it. But at that point, I'll turn it over to Julie. Um the big thing is this is a discussion item. We're not expecting you to make any decisions tonight. Um we're looking for feedback. We're looking Do you like one scenario over the other? Do you have concerns about specific ones so that we can kind of shape and mold those. We would bring it back to P&Z as a formal comp plan amendment, um and then it would go to council after that. So, that's kind of what we're looking for, and I'll turn it over to Julie, and then we can have a discussion afterward. Good evening. Uh so, as Travis said, we have a few proposals for you. I do have um

[clears throat]

we can pull up an aerial, too, cuz I have Google Earth open, too, if you want to reference what's under the colors. But the one on the screen right now, or the existing land use, that is your current land use plan map. So, we've just kind of clipped It was kind of an arbitrary boundary. Um if you'll notice, if you've looked at the maps, the main areas where were we reviewed or we're proposing changes is along Northwest 126th Avenue, between there and the park, and then from North 3rd Street over to the west, or excuse me, the east. So, the north and south boundaries were kind of just an arbitrary um location for cutting [clears throat] off the rest of the community. Uh if you'll notice, there are some colors that we didn't in land uses we did not tabulate. Um water, parks and rec, and open space, and civic, and institutional, those land uses do not change the in any of the uh proposals or any of the exhibits. So, their amount of acreage and their uh designated location are consistent with your land use map today. So, this is what it looks like currently with the mixed use north of 126th, and then out east on the other side of the trail. And you can see it's low-density residential all around the park with some medium density in that northwest corner, and some industrial and high-density even north of there. So, that's uh really the main area that's changed in most of the exhibits. There's a few differences. Um again, none of these are like have a star on it like you should really consider this one. This is really some options. It's your community, so you obviously want to have a vision and know what you want to go for. Um we did a bold boundary, a black line around where we changed something. So, in this one, it really kind of increases the industrial, and it puts up in that

north kind of west area uh along 126th Street and some high-density, and then it also puts mixed use uh along the uh I think it would be Hugg if it gets extended. Uh yeah. We did that um all mixed use. The thought with this one mainly is uh [clears throat]

to get That's the closest you could probably want to put any type of commercial use next to that park, right between the park and that mixed use designated area. You already have homes going up. Uh but there will be a north connection out of the park. So, if you want to capture that interchange, it's close to the park. Maybe there's some smaller uses that are uh commercial uses that are there. The mixed use, I believe, will give the city a little more over more control over what those use types might be or how it might be laid out than if it was just your general commercial designation. So, that's really kind of the thought around that. Um [clears throat]

Low-density is thriving in Polk City. So, if there's an interest for housing diversity, housing affordability, if those are some concerns and priorities of the city, that was the thought behind adding some high-density up there, you know. I think It's always good to remind people that medium and high-density, just because the density is high, it doesn't mean they have to be four stories, three stories, 20-plexes, you know, there's different styles out there depending on who your developers are. Um so, that's really the big change uh big changes in option A. Option B, it's making again, it's that making that commercial all along what would be Hugg Street if it's extended, and then some more medium density, and then re- reducing that high-density back down and adding some low-density in there. So, that's really the only changes, and again, the thought behind that is what kind of commercials do you want use do you really want close to the park and those existing residential homes, and also knowing that there are some plats uh subdivisions that have already been approved for single-family homes in the area that aren't constructed yet. So, uh just another option of how you could build around those and promote those commercial uses or try to capture them. Option C um really puts the heavy use up along 126th Avenue. It connects you all the way out to the interstate. So, really out along the trail, we've taken some of that medium density away and put more commercial out there or more mixed use out there. Um and then we've still put a little commercial mixed use node down uh close to the park, but not as intense again, thinking just kind of depending on how much you commercial you may or may not want to

capture down close to the park and those existing single-family homes. Um and then increase the low-density residential along 126th Street from what's currently approved. Uh those are the three [clears throat] options. Those I just kind of quickly went over the biggest differences. Um [clears throat]

And then all of the land use is the uh calculations up in the top left corner is how many acres of that use is being proposed. So, you can see kind of compare and contrast, you're really not losing much of anything because they're all just kind of shifting around to a different location. I would say the biggest change is that commercial use, the general commercial use, but um otherwise, [clears throat]

they're pretty consistent. So, um you know, things to think about um that are at least in central Iowa, Norwalk has some commercial uses right up against their regional park. Um there are there's some residential around it, but then there's also a couple restaurants right in adjacent to it. Uh Grimes is similar. I think there it's a little set a little bit further off um just for context, the commercial area is, but there's commercial uses along adjacent to the new Grimes complex, but it's also close to their big commercial corridor right there with their Hy-Vee and Walmart and all of that as well. Um but depending [clears throat] on how Polk City grows in the future, I think it's a considerable um

[clears throat] to believe that 100 126th starts to develop commercially, right? As people come into town [clears throat] with that interstate access. So. I'm happy to answer questions or discuss anything in more detail. Do you have a aerial you can put up you mentioned there? Um from one of the other communities? Uh just a current aerial of this area or not?

Oh yeah, I do. Sorry. Just want to look at I mean how many houses are developed along this? So I just have Google Earth pulled up. Um if you go into I believe So the park would be over in this area. Yeah. And this area is already platted kind of for single family all around it, correct? Yeah. I believe yeah. It's already been final platted. Yeah, so as Julie was preparing these, the guidance that we took from our last meeting was capturing that growth cuz we had talked we've talked about this previously, but doing so in a manner that doesn't directly abut already existing platted lots. So everything Julie's showing um is happening adjacent to out lots or completely unplatted lots. And I went and drove out there today just to double-check on that the [clears throat] intersection closest to the water tower there uh on this would be the the north uh west of the new water tower. And on the northeast corner of that that at least does it is not built at all. Uh so if we did do anything north of that lot uh I think that's platted that particular lot, but no construction has taken place yet. So if we did some changes and those were done before someone purchased it uh you know, I would feel a lot better about that. I I uh on the I think it was December meeting when this topic was first brought up. The stretch uh on the block that's pretty well filled in between the uh storage the new storage uh location

uh and for the next block to the east on the north side most of those lots are built out. And so I would like to see something residential uh north of that. Doesn't need to be single family, but at least you know, you know, a row of a row of bi-attached townhomes or a street with on both sides with bi-attached townhomes. Uh just so that those folks know that they purchased them expecting residential, they built expecting residential cuz that's what the land use plan told them at that time if they did their homework. And uh would like to see that you know, kind of commitment held to those folks, but it doesn't need to be a wide strip in my opinion. It could even be just a street with townhomes on the south side of it. But if it was on both sides all the better. It wouldn't need to go all the way up to Huggins and uh Huggin in my opinion. And then I I guess also uh as I was reviewing these at home uh some another thing that I printed out was the the tran future transportation plan cuz related to look at what I thought could maybe possibly go where cuz we're just kind of brainstorming I think at this point in time uh is well, how do we think folks are going to be getting to the uh to the park facility. And at least on the uh on the current transportation plan we show them pretty much coming in from the north uh to the northwest corner of that intersection of the of the park. So really the intersection where I was talking where they uh Isn't it kind of like right here? Is this where you're talking? [laughter] Uh no, to the northwest.

Oh, northwest. And it's the same existing intersection. Yeah, the existing intersection. At least on the land or on the transportation plan that's posted online from uh 2024 uh that shows the primary corridor going uh to the uh to the park development. On the northeast corner of the regional park uh you can get there from 126, but you have to make a couple of corners and so that's likely not going to be the approach that people would take. And so you know, we'd think that any mixed use or commercial that we're going to be having supported would come in uh from the uh come into to the northwest corner of that area. Yeah, so right there.

and then here. Yeah. And yeah, I that's a good I'm glad you're talking about these road connections because um we did I didn't want to get down to like do math and like worry about of exact proposed acreage to make any assumptions. So if that shifts, you know, one way or another, I think that makes sense. Um my intent is to yeah, align it with the access uh where the proposed accesses are where future accesses will go. And so the when I saw the development uh of commercial or mixed use north of the northeast corner of the regional park those seemed less appealing to me just because the way to get into the park from there is kind of a dead end or a T intersection to where I don't think that would be a way that people would normally go. And so you wouldn't want your uh commercial locations in a spot where the traffic's not going to flow. And I do think it's worth noting though that the way that the park is master planned right now, that will be the primary baseball softball access.

Okay. So I we classify it as a collector versus a local. The re The only reason we're really doing that [clears throat] is its designation of like roadway width because that's going to be the connection between Northside Drive and um 126th Avenue. That eastern location [clears throat] that eastern access will serve the park in a fairly collective way. Um it just won't have that additional 5 ft of pavement. Okay.

Yeah. This was going to this would like a proc [laughter] like if I looked at one of the um plats for the park and this mixed use park not exactly, but it kind of splits the difference if that road that that north access to the park were to split it. Um it kind of splits the difference if [clears throat] you could think of if that road goes straight through the middle or maybe to the east a little.

So between it would be north northeast 7th is the collector, northeast 10th is the eastern access. Map is showing another street stubbing to the north. So that that's where Julie's kind of Yeah, I didn't know I was like when I was looking at maps, I was like wondering if it would be like northeast 9th approximately or 10th. Yeah, ish. Yeah. And on uh the the transportation map it shows further east of the park one that goes up to 126th another street. Uh but that has to go through some [clears throat]

significant portions of currently uh uh Well, the I don't think the final plat has been or those are final platted, aren't they? Uh there is a final plat out there and I think you are catching one of the lines that didn't get it got didn't get updated. Okay. Yeah, you what you're seeing is basically map took that easternmost connection and flipped it to be between the park access and northeast 7th. Okay. And does that go all the way to 126th or did they have to go go north to Huggin and then go east or west?

our thought would be that that northeast the park access will be the one that actually is running to. Okay. Is the tran the the the future streets map I guess just so that you guys are aware the the map itself doesn't say this, but the narrative does say that really what we're trying to show with that map is intent. Yeah. So basically we want that property to develop with a secondary connection to 126th. [clears throat] And that's kind of how we view future land use as well, but um a lot of these maps are just showing intent and then the actual [snorts] development plan will drive the exact layout of those. But for the what we're at tasked with tonight the location of 7th up to 126th is kind of key uh because in all likelihood that's where most of the traffic's going to be coming in. And also the way things are looking on the majority of these proposals anything west of 7th is going to be well, with the ex with the ex uh exception of C which you're showing there really doesn't have any single family east of 7th, or I'm sorry, west of 7th. And [clears throat] so that's its location is pretty important. And in fact, there's that curved line in there. Is that kind of a hand-drawn line of where 7th might run? Yes. I don't know why that carried through and other streets did not, but yes, because if you look at it's approximately the

Yeah, and that's what I was thinking when I saw it, but I Yeah. Um when you were just referring to the west side of 7th, this is 7th, correct, right here? So that is consistent though through with your existing So this is your existing land use plan. It's medium density uh along that along with when when if and when 7th continues north, um this is kept the medium density in that corner on option A, option B, it kept it the same as the existing land use, and then yeah, C and then C kept it the same, too. I think we're on based on the best information we have right now, we should assume, at least right now, northeast 7th is going straight north-south. Okay.

That that is the most We just didn't update it on the future road plan because we didn't want to update it and then have to go back, kind of thing. So, um we [clears throat] think that the future streets plan shows the intent of curvilinear roadways. But the most but this usage reflects, if you recall, the Gateway Crossing's rezoning, which took place probably 2 years ago at this point. Um that is the most recent information we have, and so your land We're kind of taking bites of different apples a little bit, where your future land use plan, I think, is going to reflect what our most recent development application [clears throat] is, whereas we're using the streets map more as a general guidance for you need to make that connection. So I think for the purposes of this conversation, we'll assume northeast 7th goes north-south, and then we'll under if we'll understand that whatever recommendations, discussion, thoughts the committee or the commission has is based on that alignment today, and then that we can adjust based on future development.

[clears throat and cough]

I saw the as in straight north-south for 7th, and then So what Julie's showing right now, that big bold black line that goes north-south, the reason that those land uses are shown that way in the existing condition is they exactly match the rezoning that took place. Yes. So you've got commercial along the entire frontage of Northwest 126th, you've got industrial in the southwest corner, and then you've got medium density or high density residential in the I think it's a mixture in the southeast corner, and that directly matches the rezoning plus the comprehensive And uh but it doesn't reflect the Whitetail alignment uh coming from the west and curving down. I thought that was the reason seven 7th curved over was to get Whitetail back down to 126th by that point.

It was, but what I will tell you is it we got far enough in the Gateway Crossing's conversation that they felt comfortable being able to tie that north-south street into Whitetail Parkway in an appropriate place. Okay. So I That's why I'm telling you to go that direction so we feel confident in our ability to be able to manage it that way. Okay. And I would say, too, you know, there is a method to the madness, but plan future land use is also a crystal ball, right? You don't know what developer's going to get options on what property. Um so these are kind of just kind of making some making some assumptions. This is your community. This is your you know, you know what development patterns you're seeing, [clears throat] what you know, what comes before you. If you think it's more likely that this goes to low density at some point, um you know, some I've worked with different communities over the years, and some are very it's very difficult to change your land use plan, and some are really open to changing it. So I don't know which side I haven't worked with Polk City enough to know which side you kind of fall on that. So if there's something that you don't see change like this that you think doesn't make sense, and you know, we let's talk about that, too. Yeah, historically, developers want us to be changing land to low density, uh even though the if they would hold on to it, it would likely have hold more value if it stayed commercial, but that's a coupon they'd have to clip later, and they want the the money now. That's my observation. And so with that in mind, uh you know, I prefer to go for as much non-single family residential as we can in a land use plan, knowing that we're going to be nitpicked all the way to try to do conversions.

Mhm. Is that a fair statement for Mhm. And I think naturally, too, the heavier that your commercial is or the more intense and dense your commercial developments is, you're also, you know, you're seeing you'll see more of that higher density indust- or excuse me, residential, whether it's medium density, town home, row home, condos, or high density apartments, you know. I think they just Right? I mean, it's natural to kind of step back to your single family um anyway. Um you know, and also, if you and again, not being super familiar with the zoning codes, but if you'd have a developer agreement or PUD or anything like that, you can also, you know, bring in buffers, whether those are, you know, what those look like, berms, landscape, trees, you know, buffering uses is always um an option as well. As a mom of a baseball player,

[laughter] I uh um [clears throat]

you know, at least this mixed use here and the have and more commercial up here makes sense to me because it's easier, right? If you I don't know what kind of use this ballpark will get, but or um what Polk City sees, right? But if you're getting a regional tournament or you're getting like the USSSA games, most people are coming from out of town. So [clears throat] they'll come either from Ankeny or they'll come from 35. It's kind of nice to be able to run up to the gas station to get ice, to get Band-Aids, water, Gatorade, whatever, without having to drive all the way through town. Um you know, so what does that look like here? Or go get a sandwich between games. So um that's Those are kind of things I thought about, too, and what I development patterns I see I've seen uh in other commercial in other cities that were successful when I thought through some of these, as well as your mix of acreage in your community and what the demands tend to how they tend to be trending right now. Question four, I guess maybe Chelsea, do you know with any of these plans all the land north of the park, are any of the owners of that land right now, are they having any conversations with developers or anything like that that we know of? Um I would say the only active conversation we've had is with Gateway Crossing. If you go back to your map of existing This is a This is existing land use. Do you want the area Yep. Okay. So Gateway Crossing is a development that has been rezoned the 80-acre parcel

of property. Um it's a combination of commercial, industrial, and R3. Um there seems to be legitimate interest from the developer on that parcel, but that development's kind of stalled. Um I could potentially see that um ramping back up in the near future. It just kind of depends. Other than that, no, we've not had a ton of interest from developers. I do wonder if construction of the Polk City Junction Trail might spearhead some development talk um where that trail is going to connect to the Oasis, but that won't be done until the end of this year, so that's about That's what I can share with you today. Okay. [clears throat] So what's most helpful here if we talk about each option and go through things we like, don't like? That will work. Um yeah, or if you want to be as blunt as do not propose, you know, commercial at this location on in, you know, in any situation. Um yeah. Why don't we just start by going through each concept?

Okay. This is existing, so option A, again, the changes the changes are and have the bold outline around them. I guess is are there things about A that the commission likes, dislikes. I guess I kind of look there in the middle with the kind of on an island, the low-density residential right below the industrial. Mhm. If I would flip-flop that maybe and put the residential down below and Mhm. And Ron, as far as going So, you said you're okay adjacent to existing homes. Are you okay with going to a lower intensity if we were to make that flip? Oh, oh, I I'm would be fine with a medium-density residential. In fact, uh just in talking about those four the four squares there where that's kind of bisected by Hug and then by I don't know what that street would be. Fifth or something that would north and south. Is that Fifth? I think it is. Uh so, just in talking about those five blocks or uh four blocks rather, uh with the exception of the strip of medium-density residential uh just north of the existing homes, I would think that whole group should have no more residential other than that. [clears throat] Uh so, when you look to the north of it, it is commercial, industrial, or mixed-use. When you look to the southwest of it, it's commercial. And so, it's really just that little tiny piece of

residential that's north of the school currently. So, then, you know, if that was all switched, those four sections with the exception of the strip of medium-density, that would really be a non-residential use from the school property north to north of Whitetail for that whole stretch of non-residential use. And then on the west or east side of Seventh, uh I do like what you're showing here with the mixed-use, but I wish it the last third of it to the east would be converted back to single-family residential. So, essentially, where that street goes north from the east side of the regional park, uh east of that be uh uh be low-density residential, but everything north of the the park, north of the residences that are north of the park would be uh mixed-use. So, basically, take the eastern third of the mixed-use and flip it. Correct. Of the other two-thirds? And then, when you end up doing that, you would end up seeing that you have a sliver of uh single-family residential kind of going over to Seventh and might as well convert it to mixed-use or to expand the high-density residential. Or actually, we're also getting I guess with what I talked about earlier, getting a lot rid of a lot of uh uh mid-range uh residential, so could fill that in with that. Uh and and just uh a couple of general comments uh on 126th, where you see that pond on the north side, I don't see that being developed as anything but single-family residential.

Right here. North and south of the road, just because of terrain. I don't it's I don't see that developing as industrial, commercial, mixed-use. I just think it would be a parking and drainage nightmare with the hills in that area. So, you know, looking on a map, it seems like that's going to be a busy road and we could do something, but it's I I I don't And then with the hills the way they are right there, I don't wouldn't want to see a lot of turning traffic even. Yeah, I agree there. I think that's kind of why we've leaned towards the way we show it, A, because of that big purple blob that everybody's super familiar with now. Yeah. And B, um because of exactly what you're talking about. So, I think that's why we're showing that mixed-use northeast of the trail, cuz we want to capture that trail traffic.

Mhm. It's just a matter of we can't do it on the other side. Okay. [clears throat] And then just kind of the last, I think, comment, which goes on all three of the plans, is uh when you go to Shelldahl Drive and 126th, that intersection, and we have Whitetail coming across Yeah, there and angling down, that whole section south of Whitetail, I think, should be commercial to match the property to the south. Yes. And so, that that can develop as hopefully one entity. I'll get you that one. Well, that complex is according to You're saying just to the north of the Whitetail alignment, actually just to the south of the Whitetail.

it. Yeah, up to it. Yeah, up to the Whitetail. even see if you had a stretch on the north and then industrial behind it. Yeah. Possibly. Correct. Whitetail learns, I don't know. Whitetail is on Do we have concerns about the amount of industrial she's shown on this option? [cough and clears throat]

Cuz I do think because of the specific challenges that the whole city has relative to its proximity to interstates, I think we have to be really strategic in where we put our industrial. Um because industrial wants access. Do they want visibility or just access? Access. Access. Yeah. I guess Yeah, I don't know if I was thinking industrial like heavier commercial flex space kind of, maybe not like warehouse here. I don't know warehouse here, but um but then I also driving it today, I don't know if that much. Again, it was just kind of Yeah. Because today in your existing land use plan, it's all mixed-use. So, um In that uh section where I started my rambling, uh north of the school and the four the four quadrants where you're you already have a a note written about that. Yeah. Uh for the three that are going to not have any uh uh residential at all, you know, I had talked about switching it to be something. That could be switched to industrial there, which would match what's in north of it. And then perhaps this big block you're talking at the further up wouldn't need to be as large. Wouldn't that be an issue though when it comes to access? I mean, isn't 126th the best place for access for industrial? Yeah, I think So, I think what you want to do is if you were to do some sort of industrial, I think having access via that extension of Hug Drive may be helpful, but it's going to be 126th, Seventh, and Hug

Drive. I mean, those are really going to be your options. And once we, quote unquote, retire Hug Drive as a through street, um Whitetail is going to take the place of that. So, I think we just have to be careful about Yeah. where we place that industrial usage. Cuz what I will tell you is with the Gateway Crossings, specifically the industrial he's got shown in there, it's mini storage. And it's the example he gave us is like countertop cutting. Yeah. Where it's it's not They're not manufacturing anything. They're not bringing in heavy trucks. It's going to be like single-unit trucks that are delivering to count to Not massive buildings. Right. It all And what he's talked about with us is like the idea he has in his head is like all it almost looks like an office space until you walk in. And then it's almost like a countertop showroom, carpet showroom, that kind of thing. So, it's a little more intensive in terms of the aesthetics, but really from a traffic generation standpoint, it's not. Mhm. What is Is this a residential use or an industrial use?

existing residential. Okay, they just have a big some big buildings and a farmstead.

Cuz when you drive by, I feel like you can't tell. Yes. Yeah, it's it's a farmstead. Would it make sense to tuck all of our commercial in the intersection of 126th and uh Shelldahl? Shelldahl? Well, something to think about if you do that is then you have a a corridor of commercial uses. And um depending on how that develops out, traffic and access could be you know, I don't know. Again, it's I personally like more of a node person, breaking it up. Um You know, that gives you the opportunity for less traffic conflicts, less backup. It also gives you the option for a more walkable neighborhood, you know, depending on what those uses are. Are we wanting people from the park to exit from the north, or are we looking which way do we want to lead them out? I think because of the specific traffic concerns we have on 3rd Street, IE capacity, I think we would want we would want people to be want to come into town, but not be forced to. I think it'll be the best way to put it. Where we're protecting that capacity, we [clears throat] aren't discouraging those uses, but we're being smart in the under

[cough]

You know, if a team from Ames is coming down, this is where they're going to come through. They're not coming from Ames. So, I I think I think really what we're looking for is we're trying to capture the folks from north of the metro. Okay. I think moving that high-density residential in the north right on 126 Street, changing that to option B with just a mixed use. We talked a little bit about the gas stations. I think that'd be a prime location, increase the flow of traffic to the north, capture people from the interstate stopping off. And make it walkable, like we said. And I agree with Ron on the um townhomes. Doing that medium-density. Cuz yeah, the thing that's worth noting, too, is where Julie just dropped that note, that's where the trail is going to cross that property. It's basically the eastern portion of that currently shown high-density residential. That's another option as far as we talk about, you know, roadway connections, but then I mean, there we've done economic studies for the Raccoon River Valley Trail that suggests that cyclists spend on average $60 a day on bike trails. And we're projecting 100,000 cyclists to use the Polk City trail. I think a lot of that comes down to access to. We just completed a study for the snowmobile association. With these trails, there's just so limited stops, and I think if we increase those stops and allow easy access, things like mixed mixed use, you're going to get more dollars increase, and more people will then lead into town afterwards.

And it's not especially in central Iowa, I don't think it's it's not uncommon for people to prospect development where trails are going and trailheads are going, especially in the smaller communities. So, [clears throat]

yeah. Any other comments on option A? I guess I kind of like what Ron was saying with that mixed use just north of the park. Doing it almost like 2/3 as opposed to that entire block. And keeping the I guess the furthest east more of the single-family or some sort of residential, but 2/3 of it maybe mixed use. I did not save that note. Did I not save it? I think you put it in the first one. Oh, okay. I was like, [clears throat] where did it go? Yeah, that was going to be my same comment. I do like that mixed use there to be able to provide some services for the park and access. But pulling it back, I don't know if we think we need that much. Getting some of that back to residential. Yeah. And that's where the bike path crosses, too, right?

Yeah. It's right now it's shown basically one block width east of where 10th goes through. Exactly where you're putting the comment. I'd like to see that more like option C. In case you're looking for a reference where I wrote that. [clears throat] The east boundary? Is that what you're saying? Um right where she's writing the comment on the screen [clears throat] here. Are you saying these two mixed use and Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, these boundaries

keeps Yeah, yeah. Option C, basically. The one on the left, make that mixed use and keep the one on the right as residential. Mhm. [snorts] So, flip-flop these two. And then keep these boundaries and extend the rest of the ones. So, the mixed use goes family mixed use to the left. All the way to 7th. Okay. [clears throat]

Any others on A? Okay. How about B? Anything you like, dislike? Cuz I think where we're probably headed with this is we're probably going to present a hybrid based on some of the ideas we put together here. So, is there anything about B you love, anything you absolutely hate? Uh I I guess I dislike the commercial straight north of the park as opposed to mixed use. just going to write that.

I think we will have more control if it's mixed use as far as what might go in there. And Alex, did I understand that you like the Gateway Crossings layout of this one a little bit better with that mixed use up in that northeast corner of it. Correct. All right, up here. Got you. No. To the right. That right there. He likes that better. Yeah, straight commercial. The the the high-density residential seems small where it is. I think that parcel there is not large enough for what I would like to see in that area as an alternative.

I I almost wonder if maybe as we leave the western half of Gateway Crossings the way it is with that commercial fronting the industrial below, cuz that's kind of the way he's got to rezone. And then we take the the high-density residential and it it like almost blends into the mixed use, cuz that's kind of what mixed use lends itself to is the the apartment complexes, the the row homes, that kind of stuff. It kind of blends really nicely into that mixed use facility. So, I think we probably can marry A and B so that it plays a little nicer. Yeah. Yeah, if you think this because of topography would not be conducive to mixed use, then really yeah, I think this commercial maybe this commercial stays, but I don't know. I thought I had high-density up here, but I have medium-density. Would it be possible just for simplicity and ease work forward if we stuck with option A, the comments, and then worked off of option B and place those any comments we made that we liked or disliked onto the option A? I like that idea.

Yeah, instead of jumping. Yeah. So, this should be cuz this is option Huh? I I think we leave those three right there. These three as is. Okay. [clears throat] And we already have this as mixed use. Yeah, it's like option A. And then you want this high-density. I [clears throat and cough] think when we make the change from mixed the mixed use and bring it up, we may I think we call this like the whole high-density kind of blends itself into the mixed [clears throat] use.

Mhm. I agree. So, for option C, Julie had shown where that industrial section is just to the east of it a mixture of commercial and medium-density. Is that a change that the commission would be interested in? Or do you think that's too much? On option C. Say that again. So, this the where my cursor is on option C, this is kind of split in half with commercial along 126 and medium-density behind it. But if we're keeping this medium-density, then maybe it doesn't make sense to Well, no, that's staying That's going to stay single-family or Oh, yeah, that's right. So, yeah, it was medium-density on the top half and commercial on the bottom half on option C.

[sighs and gasps] Can we do mixed use and high-density to kind of mirror what we did on the other side of the street? Yeah. Yeah, I like that. I um Yeah. The only thing I would just just throwing again, just throwing this out here for sake of discussion, then you're really reducing just your regular commercial land use to right here and down here if that's of concern or thought.

still and we'll have it on the southwest side of the Whitetail crossing of that big industrial area. over here. through the door. This pink or this pink Oh, this one you're going to add commercial up here. Up to the alignment of the curve there. Okay. All right. Okay. Like does the Do we want to add the mixed-use on the north side with the high density behind it? I I Yes, I I believe so. So, yeah, more like option C. Mixed-use in place of commercial, though? And high density instead of low medium density, right? Splitting it up, applying with it.

[laughter]

Any other thoughts? So, I [snorts] think the next steps will be we'll take the feedback. I'm sure Julian will wind up watching this recording just to make sure we caught everything. Um we'll basically create an option and then at a future meeting we'll consider that for recommendation to city council. And with that So, you bring the hybrid back to us and then go forward. Bring it back to them. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, you'll Yeah, you'll We'll bring it back. I I don't want to promise in which meeting cuz I think some of this also is driven by some of the other conversations we'll have, but you'll see it at a future meeting and then you'll make your recommendation cuz this would This would qualify as a comp plan amendment. If you're modifying the future land use plan. Yes, kind of the other question if north of the park if those are already platted you know, our developer who has those platted [cough] Nobody's living there, but how do they feel about what goes behind there? Uh is your land use amendment process public meeting public hearing? Yes. So, then um they would likely get notified. And we have a lot We have lots of conversations with them. Yeah, just thinking something that would be better up front than Yep. have them run into it, but Okay. Any more feedback? All right. Item six, reports and particulars, council liaison. Good evening.

[clears throat]

All right. Thank you, city manager. Thank you, staff. Any thing from the commission? [snorts] All right. Item seven, do we have a motion to adjourn? I'll move. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.

[snorts]