Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Austin, I'm like well and I was on I thought it said call the May 19th, 2025 P City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Roll call. here. Here item three, approval of the agenda. So move. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Same sign. Item four, approval of PNZ commission meeting minutes for April 21st, 2025. I make a motion that we approve the minutes from the April 21st meeting. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Item five, Kaylor Golf reszoning and PUD amendment. Anybody from the developer side that like to speak? Would you like to come up the podium and name and address, please? [Applause] My name is Steven Kaylor. Address is 10325 Hidden Valley Drive, Johnston, Iowa. Business address is 1000 Tradition Drive, Pulk City, Iowa. Um, so I'm the owner of the Kaylor Golf Shop there on Third Street. And, um, from when we started the project, uh, to today, some things have changed, uh, within my business that at the time I only owned 25% of Tournament Club of Iowa. I now own 100% of Tournament Club

of Iowa. And no long so therefore, I have full access to our shop that's next door to it and no longer have the need that I did a couple years ago uh, when we started that project. So, uh, not looking to actually change the zoning as it's still C2, um, but looking to remove the PUD, um, portion of that that has it in conjunction with a golf course. Okay. Any questions at the current time for Stephen? What is your planned use for that? Um, storage. So originally the planned use, so I also manage a Manic Colonies golf club. So the original use was for some specialty pieces of equipment that it didn't necessarily make sense for Tournament Club of Iowa or a Manic Colonies golf club or any other golf courses to use outright. Um if you remember the do storm, we needed some forestry mulchers, grapple buckets, tractors, skid loaders, things of that nature. So, the original intention was to use it to store those pieces of equipment that we would then I would own under my Kaylor Golf umbrella and then we would rent back and forth between Tournament Club of Iowa, Amanda Colonies Golf Club if other golf courses wanted to use it as well. Um, now we no longer I could do that out of the shop that we have right next door to it. Um, and so that the building itself could be used for whatever is under the C2 umbrella, storage of some sort, um, or anything that would go for fall under the C2 umbrella. Which could be retail, it could be a litany of items. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes. And so when you purchased this land, you knew what the A through F restrictions were, correct? Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure that

Okay. Is a city engineer report. Yeah. So, um, as Stephen mentioned, um, the zoning is a PUB with specific restrictions related to uses, um, subservient to the operation, maintenance, and otherwise, um, associated with golf courses, specifically things like grandstands, um, maintenance equipment, things of that nature. Um, the proposal is to remove the C2 uh, or the restrictions on the C2. Um, and just because it's in a PUD, the operation for that is we would amend this lot out of the PUD and then reszone from PUD to C2. It all it would be all part of one action, but basically that's the the step-by-step mechanism by which we would be altering this. Um the developers approached um the property owners within the 250 foot buffer exclusive of a ride ofway and excluding city own the city on parcel to the south he has collected signatures on over 807% of the adjacent property owners as consenting um to this resoning. Um, from the city's perspective, um, if Stephen no longer has a need for it associated with the the golf course, um, we don't see a lot of issues in terms of removing those restrictions and reszoning it to C2. We would recommend approval of this resoning request. Um primarily because um any use that comes in behind this we'll have to either amend slightly amend the site plan based on what was previously approved or if there's a higher intensity use we would look at traffic generation access management things of that nature at that time. Um and then the other item, so the reason that this resoning isn't paired with a site plan amendment or something like that is the when this property was developed, we

have ingress egress easements as well as any other shared access easements for this property. So these lots as they were split as part of the Kaylor G flat one can be operated as separate entities and separate lots. Um, so all of this was taken was taken into account on the off chance that this exact situation happened. Um, and so staff is supportive of this this proposal. Okay. Any questions from the commission for um I might have some after the public. Okay. Yeah, I guess I have a a question. Uh we have a couple of other commercial uh properties around uh the city that uh developed as commercial after uh the surrounding area already had residential fully developed around it. And several of those properties have restrictions. And how we had that set up was if they want new as opposed to giving them full access to all of the commercial uh uses, we would have them come in say what they want the use to be. If we determined that to be okay, which I think we always have, uh then we add it to the list of acceptable uses and that prevents uh having a noisy impact uh or a late hour impact or use uh put into that just because it is a commercial use in the grid and gives us a little bit more uh ability to protect the uh the residential property around there that existed prior to the commercial property coming in. Uh generally if we have a

commercial property and somebody builds a house next to it, we look at that differently that they knew the commercial property was there. But this that isn't the case. So, I guess how this could work would be to change it to C2 uh restricted with all of the uses that they currently have. Have you tell us what additional uses you want? Uh we'll come up with the names for those and and talk about them, but with what you've talked about so far, I can't see that we'd have any issues. And then, uh add those acceptable uses. uh to the list. And I I guess my question first is to staff. Uh does that seem workable in a commercial property where we have longstanding residential that was there prior to the commercial? I think so. Um I think the way that we could do it is we could do it in a manner in which we do C2 restricted with those and then the most likely um so Stephen I don't know if you have I know you don't have it settled on but could you give us an idea of what the most likely purchaser I would say storage of some sort. Oh, so you're looking to sell potentially. Yes. Okay. Y storage of some sort is what? And keep in So, and I want to be clear, it was always C2. So, it was already commercial. Correct. It was already commercial. So, that hasn't So, the in my eyes, nothing's changing other than the fact that it may not be used in conjunction with a golf course operation anymore. So, the way I see it would be would be storage of some sort because that's that's what it is. And then obviously we own the property directly to the west as well as the north. And the the the issue is is uh if we reszone

it commercial uh and have it open to everything under that commercial umbrella 30 years from now that building could be torn down and something else can be put in. The counterpoint to that Ron would be is you've already so we have a site plan on file that currently restricts the uses to basically what the restrictions are now and any future use whether they use the building that was constructed or not will have to amend that site plan because you guys have approved a site plan that specifically restricted the uses to the current restrictions. Okay. So, I think that's the difference in that some of the historical lots that because I know what you're talking about some of them. Yeah. It's they're they're lots that have never had a site plan on them or there's a an existing structure that you risk somebody doing 49% worth of improvements on and then coming back and saying, "Well, no, I I I can still use it the way it was being used." For this one, you guys are going to have another action. Okay. Before anything other than a golf course related facility, you know, the city needs commercial. I'm all in for some use other than even storage going in there. I just want to be able to look at it and see how that's going to impact the residential uh folks around there. So because of the way that this one developed specifically, I'm not going to say that that this is an overarching sentiment, but because this is how this one specifically developed, I would say that you will you have the security of a site plan has to be approved if it's not a use that's already within the restrictions. Okay. So I I think you can rest assured in un in knowing that unless it's a golf I

mean right now basically what it can be used for without a site plan amendment is something associated with a golf course because that's what it says on the site plan. That's how the site plan and that was the intent of the PUD planned unit development when Yep. NAP properties put it together and that was the intent and the knowledge of the residents that lived around there too that it would be limited to the this purpose. So let's just be very clear with that. Right. Any further questions at this time? Thanks, Stephen. Will anyone in the audience like to have comment on this issue? Yes. State your name and address, please. I'm not near as tall as he is. Um, my name is Hannah Robertson. My address is 1340 Timber Valley Drive. So, we live just north of this situation. Um, and we do have a I just neighbors that I have spoken to and I'm kind of my husband's on our HOA, so I'm kind of here as a representative this evening of the whole um Big Creek neighborhood up there. Um, so right now as it stands with the roundabout that goes into Big Creek and then the proposed roundabout at what is it? North Side and Third Right there, 118th, whatever that is. Um, knowing that those two roundabouts are going to bookend that property, that makes me anyway very concerned about the flow of traffic through there, especially at school times of the day. Um, it's already scary out there. Um, with a lot of high school kids going to Alamin, kind of trying to get back through there. You know, they get they're coming through about the time that Big Creek, the line is getting long and letting out. And so that's obviously a super um and I know they've probably looked at that, but that's a concern for us because that one roundabout right now is already a little bit of a congestion

situation as well as it gets dangerous because people don't understand how to work it. So, um those two of those things right in a row with a commercial property in the middle that may have more entrances and more exits onto Third Street is a concern um that I've heard voiced several times. Um, another thing is between those two roundabouts, if somebody has to stop and turn into that property, um, if that's happening on a regular basis, if it is retail, if it is something that people are in and out of all the time, that turning in and out between the two roundabouts, I think would also cause more congestion, more of a problem, and a more dangerous situation, especially for our younger drivers. I have a 12-year-old. He's not driving yet, but will be shortly. And so, um, you know, that's just something that we've talked about and thought about at our house. Um, one of my other concerns is that I and I think Ron, you brought it up. Um, there are a lot of other commercial properties available in town. So, in my opinion, those probably are already zoned like they need to be zoned and should be filled first. Um, those are things that are already in commercial areas. They are already zoned for what they have said they're going to do with them. And so, I think that it makes more sense to draw business to town and put them in the existing commercial areas that are already available. Sorry. before we move on to reszoning things that may have other implications. Um, and then last, I I did have a logistical question which may not be able to be answered at this time cuz I don't think we're sure what's going to happen with it. Um, but if it is reszoned and it does become storage, is it something that then can be is it going to be like one large warehouse? Are we talking several storage units? I mean, I think that's something that has to be looked at, too, because several storage units already being put in out by Big Creek Elementary, right? So, that need to some degree has already been filled. Um, if it is like warehouse storage space, can that warehouse storage space be then turned into batting cages and things like that like a lot of other commercial spaces in

Grimes or Johnston or Urbanddale or Ankeny? Um, you know, is that an option? Because that's something we don't have around here. So, if that's something that could be, you know, presented down the line, I mean, I think that would make a difference. But either way, I mean, I think the logistical concerns are something that we are very concerned about and the fact that there are so many commercial properties already available. We just don't necessarily see the need to have another one reszoneed right now. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to Can I ask some questions of staff? Uh just in kind of following up uh we're talking about a 1.19 acre parcel uh and it has an existing building. Do we see that that could be substantially larger than the infrastructure that's there currently? Because of the the size or the required size of the detention basin, I don't foresee it being substantially larger. And what I will say is anything more than um as an example a contractor using it as a a garage space, it's going to require additional parking. So I think to be honest with you, the trip generation potential for this parcel is fairly low just based purely on the topography, the characteristics and the requirements of the parcel itself. Okay. And then back to the discussion earlier on access to the uh to the property. So really no additional access will be allowed. Is that my understanding or not? That would be the stance that we would take right now. We we required a shared access between those two parcels. Part of that is a topographical challenge that some the part part of the lot has, but then the other part of it too is the proximity to the North Side Drive intersection which will be around about the proximity to

the Madison Drive um intersection as well. Um I don't think this parcel is wide enough to meet DOT spacing requirements. I would have to double check on that, but my recollection is is that is the reason that these the two storage or the two maintenance shed parcels currently share a facility or an access point is they weren't big enough to facilitate a second access point and not violate spacing requirements with Madison. Okay. Thanks, Travis. He's right. Any other public comments? But he self, you know. Any other commission comments or questions? I do. I have a statement to read. Nearly 16 years ago, when we purchased our lot at TCI, we were warmly welcomed into what quickly became more than just a neighborhood. It became a community. From our neighbors to the golf course itself, the sense of belonging and shared stewardship was immediate and sincere. The Franklin's even offered their help before we had broken ground. When the planned unit development and TCI were originally established, NAP Properties took great care in looking uh took great care in designing a plan that would protect the long-term integrity and value of the development. This includes strict limitations on the types of commercial properties permitted and designed uh and designated of the golf course as dedicated community parkland, an essential and defining element of the TCI lifestyle. Several years ago, when the golf course owners proposed adding a hotel to support their wedding and event business, many of us who lived nearby had un understandable concerns. Such a development could have significant

impact the character and value of our homes. Yet, we came together as a community and reached a good faith compromise. Limitations were placed on signage, vehicular traffic was minimized, and pathway rather than a road was created to balance accessibility with neighborhood preservation. Unfortunately, that spirit of collaboration has eroded under the current ownership. The tone has become combative and exclusionary. The new owner has restricted residents access to the golf course, an amenity long shared with neighbors, going as far as to involve law enforcement and situations we believe were unwarranted and disrespectful to long-standing community members. It's important to remember this is not just a golf course. It has always been and was originally designed as a vital part of our community's open space and parkland. Mr. Keller now seeks a zoning change that would allow non-golf development or on land specifically protected by the original vision and design of the PUD. This stands in direct contradiction to what NAP properties in Pulk City intended and to what we as homeowners continue to value and want to preserve. In light of these concerns, I respectfully ask the commission to deny Mr. Keller's request for reasonzoning. Any other comments, questions? I have an opportunity to speak to that. Sure. Um, so first of all, I took over uh Nat Properties. Bill 2 is a great family friend of ours. he actually approached me um to take over the club because they

were in um significant financial challenges. Um and so my job was to come in and turn the facility around with that some very So number one, I had absolutely nothing to do with the hotel. That was back in 2012, well before my time frame. I had absolutely nothing to do with the hotel and whatever um arrangement would have been at the time. What I can share with you is that NAP approached me about helping turn the facility around, which is exactly what I've done over the last 5 years. I put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into that uh facility. And I'm now proud to say that I own it outright. I've put nearly $5 million of capital improvements into the club over the years. And um what some of your hard feelings towards me come about is trespassing. And we've asked you and your husband numerous times to stop trespassing on our property is a huge liability for us. I can't begin to tell you all the different I've been in the golf business for over 20 years. I can't begin to tell you all the different horror stories I've heard um and experienced myself at golf courses. This has to do with safety. We have skid loaders, forestry mult, tractors, excavators, you name it, throughout the facility all the time. I've heard tragic situations with walkers out there um getting hit by our maintenance equipment or or golf course maint equipment early on in the morning. Um as well as damage vandalism going to the golf course that might want to I respect your comments but maybe keep it more based on our item we have on the table or right well she she appro this this comes to a personal thing okay between the two of us. uh we had asked her and her husband to stop trespassing and they were reluctant to do so, failed to do so and so yes, we had to seek um police to to help uh with that. That's what it comes down to and that's where her comments come from. Okay. No, it's not just my comments come from that. Point of the matter is it's PUB. This is what was planned for and now you want to come and change that so that you can make a fast buck. That's interesting. I don't think you're interested in keeping TCI the way it is. I don't think you're

interested in working with the community. I don't think you're interested in um really protecting what Pulk City is. I'm not I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. I think I do. And we're not going to talk it anymore. Yeah. Let's keep it uh based upon the help out with all the all all the schools. Thank you for your time, Mr. Keller. It's Kaylor, too, by the way. Any other commission questions or comments or motion. I will make a motion to deny his request. Is there a second? So that that motion to deny would die on the dis. There's not a second. You still have the opportunity to motion to approve if you so choose. motion that we recommend to council uh that they approve the Kaylor Golf LLC reszoning request for 1.9 1 uh19 acres from uh C2 restricted PUD to C2. Is there a second for that motion? I'll second. Okay. Roll call. Uh, yes. Power Socks, yes. Fest, yes. Triplet, no. Yes. Abstain. All right. Motion passes. Item six, 900 South 3rd Street, Dollar Tree exterior

finish discussion. Item a development report. This is a unique situation. The developer is remote, but Mary has a mic for him. Okay, you're not okay. I'm bl I'm here with a your submission. Okay, we're going to try. Okay, sounds good. If you can start with name and address um can can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Is there any My name is Nick with United Development Group. I'm based out of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Um first of all, just wanted to say thank you for allowing me to attend this virtually. I apologize I'm not there, but I had a work trip scheduled. um a year in advance. So, uh was not able to be there in person. I've asked Blaine by contractor to be there on our behalf as well. Um just a quick quick synopsis of of kind of what we're the reason why we're here is uh we have an interest. I'm a small number. I've done probably 25 30 Dollar Tree stores throughout Iowa. Um Dollar Tree has in this parcel. We looked at it a couple years ago and started down this path and there were some changes in the u their movement at that time. So it was put on hold. We're bringing they brought it back to our attention to revisit and as part of our process when we look at these is we first identify a parcel. uh we take a look at it from a standpoint of a physical layout, put together a conceptual site plan uh to give us a a fairly reasonable uh understanding of whether or not we can fit on the site, which which we've done, recognize we

have site plan approvals and so forth to go through down the road. But that's kind of step number one. Step number two then becomes the economics um of the deal to evaluate whether or not uh it's something that uh makes sense uh to us financially, makes sense to as far as the cost of land uh for purchase and also what uh type of rent a Dollar Tree would be able to afford. So, that's essentially where we're at right now with step two of evaluating the economics of this deal. And in going through the materials of construction um portion of the code, um we just looking for our most economical option that will satisfy and meet the requirements in this city um and give us our best potential opportunity to to make the economics work out. So, um, I've been talking with Travis and put together, uh, this letter and and some pictures that I believe have been shared with all of you just to, um, basically have a conversation with you folks to understand, uh, and get your thoughts and opinions on on on what we we what we think and hope may be satisfactory and perhaps engage in conversation as to uh, what may what other alternatives we may have? Obviously, brick and block becomes a very expensive um option. So, we we've done some other things. One of which is this this new prototype that we built in as uh last year um that has architectural steel panel elements, some stone elements and so forth. So, um yeah, just to wrap it up, we're we're not looking approval at this time. We just want to engage in discussion um so that we can put

together something perhaps for approval based on the outcome of of this discussion. Yeah. You you want to go Travis? So, um, as we've done a couple of times here in the last several months, um, this is a discussion item from the commission. Um, included in the packet were several pictures, as Nick referenced, um, of the the store that they're kind of leaning towards in AIM or that was built in as that would that's kind of the direction they're leaning. Um, as I've talked through it with Nick, I think the biggest thing that we want to understand is a feedback concerns, other things on 900 South Third Street being a Dollar Tree. We would like those to be specifically based in code and concerns that you may have or things that you want to make sure that Nick specifically looks at as he puts together this plan. And then two would be where brick and stone are required in commercial districts per pulk city code. Architectural steel panels are an acceptable alternative. Our opinion is that architectural steel panels are those that are meant to be prof or higherend in design with concealed fasteners that are meant to simulate a polished stone or something like that which for the most part we feel a lot of the materials that are being proposed would meet that criteria. So, I think that those are really the two big things that we're asking for tonight from the the commission is your general feelings about the approach, your general feelings about the use and then and major concerns you may have about those

things or things that you want to make sure that are addressed or um your feeling on the architectural steel panels. The other thing is um Pulk City code specifically prohibits vertical steel sighting. My understanding and Ron you may have a better history of this than I do, but my understanding is the purpose for prohibiting that material was you didn't want Morton sheds. You did or Morton shedesque buildings in those commercial districts. Um my understanding is that there are some vertical steel elements to what is was proposed in Ames but they're concealed fasteners. And so that would be the other piece of feedback that we they would be looking for tonight as well is would you as a commission consider what they put in Ames as vertical steel sighting and is there a way that if you installed it horizontally if they broke it up with um some sort of other material columns would that help? Um just general feedback along those lines. Again, like Nick mentioned, not looking for approval, not looking for specific um I don't like this, I do like this, but just general feedback on the materials that are being proposed, your feelings on architectural steel panels, and can you as a commission give a better definition, and then how do you feel about the vertical steel elements that were included in the Ames store, and would what are your feelings on those? So, that would be what we're looking for from you guys. just want to fire off with questions. Uh yeah, I guess I uh you know have some you know observations and and opinions. I guess I guess that's what we're kind of looking for at this point in time. Uh first of all, uh I'd love to see a

Dollar Tree in our community and I think this would be a great location for one. So I certainly want to start off with that and and thank the folks for considering Poke City uh for this store as an option. Uh, as I look around the neighborhood out there and look at the new hardware store that's been built and the uh the office building just to the south and the uh multi-use uh kind of strip mall just to the south of that. Uh I don't see this particular architectural design fitting in with that neighborhood. And uh I I mean when I look at uh what went into the hardware store to make that they they tried to make that be a nicel looking building for our community and also the other two buildings that I cited. Uh I agree with staff and their opinion as to what a uh you know why we included a steel panel. That was something that we reviewed a while back. Uh and and that was pretty specific when we added that in on what we were uh trying to communicate. Perhaps we need to change our ordinance to make that be even more specific and tight so that it's less confusing uh to others in the in the future. Uh the the as I look around our community, I only see vertical siding and a couple of buildings and actually those are historic buildings that have been uh retrofitted at a later date and we allowed some vertical siding to remain on the building. We to my knowledge we have not allowed any vertical siding uh on any building built uh ground up uh in

the last you know 25 years uh would would be a fair statement and so given how that neighborhood has built out commercially I don't see the use of some of the elements that they have in the AI store being a good fit for the Pope City store at least in my opinion to clarify. Ron, is it material? Is it color? Can you can you elaborate? Well, I guess what I'm seeing is a lot of consistency and texture. Uh when I uh you know, when I look at even even a comeand go store that you might see around uh the community, you see uh elements that aren't wood but made to look like wood. you know, see different colors, uh, things of that nature. Uh, this looks to be mostly flat in texture. And what is uh brick in texture, which should which should want to be highlighted, uh has actually been kind of covered up uh in in colors very similar to the flat portions to make the brick uh portions less noticeable instead of more noticeable. If that makes any sense. I wasn't questioning. I just wanted to make sure we Yeah. got as much information. And that's uh and then in looking at the side and the back of the building uh you know that was that is just so not in keeping with the with the rest of the neighborhood. And uh and you know, just as a general note before we get into any kind of site plan discussions, the fence that's going around the garbage enclosure is is just kind of put the top on the

frosting on the cake there. I will tell you the trash enclosure would not apply here. Yeah, this looks horrible. Those are just some thoughts and opinions from from one individual. A little bit. I agree with Ron. I think it has to um all the buildings that are already on the road and the potential buildings that will be coming. I think we have to give some thought so that they all kind of blend well together. It's an opportunity for Poke City to have something that looks together. So, I guess my question for you to kind of clarify as well would be if they wanted to use some sort of architectural steel panel but use a tone or texture that mimic. So, you're not looking for are you looking for the same specific materials or are you looking for the same general character? Well, I I think what at least in my opinion uh was kind of getting back to what you alluded to uh at the beginning was when we added that we were looking for something that had the texture that that did mimic stone or concrete. Okay. That that had a texture to it and from a distance Yeah. You know, I fool you. Okay. Yeah, I would I would agree with that. I think to me that's just a high percentage of metal. I don't object to the architectural metal, but there's such a high percentage of it here in relation to brick or stone. Um, the one side would face the dental office, which is all and I think that would be would be an issue. I I would think breaking that up horizontally some with other materials would would be better. Um, so like I say, I don't object to the metal panel per se, but I just think there's too much of it.

Personally, I don't fully object to the metal panels, but I'd like to see more consistency with the similar materials just because if there's any decay or any issues with that existing materials that they propose, we might see long periods of maint maintenance. I'd also like to see something similar to what Pella does where they keep the consistency between each buildings and the materials. Can I ask a question? Sure. At this point. Okay. One one thing that we thought about as an alternative recognizing uh the look of the Ace Hardware store across the road is And this is where we get into this this this concept of of what what what can we do and what what what makes sense economically for us and I recognize that it was a discussion is economic should make a difference but at the end of the day we all recognize economics makes all the difference. So you know we're looking for an alternative that that might help our overall um the overall economics of the deal. One one thing that comes to mind is uh there are uh products out there that are a cement board material that has a brick or stone finish, brick or stone look to that, but it's it's a it's a cement board product which is an acceptable material for an exterior finish, but it doesn't fall in the category on under B um where it says acceptable alternative where brick is required. I guess my question would be because it it would be more effect more cost effective than than going with a with an actual stone or brick uh veneer is would that possibly be something that we could

look at using on on the sides and the rear to in conjunction with this um in lie of requiring this 50 or 60% brick or stone. If we had if we had this this this uh cement board that had the brick stone look. My comment goes right back to maintenance. I've delivered to several dollar general stores, Dollar Tree stores, trucking, they start to decay and then the upkeep of them just so I'd like to see some more information on what that material looks like um and what your maintenance plan looks like. Did you I was just I wanted to touch base on um some of what Nick just talked about in kind of that 50 to 60% you know masonry product and then you know the other 40 to 50% what would be considered an approved uh sighting material. I know we've we've talked about what we don't like on the architectural metal panel, but I guess what is considered an acceptable metal panel? If you guys have any insight there, so I guess do we have any uh can we think of any examples? I guess well this building has architectural metal panels on it. I think PNM apparel. Yeah, up high. Yeah, I think they have some up high. Um, so I think I think the big question is is there is there a characteristic with a steel panel that would make this commission go that's not an architectural steel panel? There's something that jumps out whether it be visible fasteners, um, ribbing, um, is there is there some characteristic that jumps out as like that's a no that is this commission would not accept that as an architectural steel deal? So, two examples on the Ames pictures

that you're looking at. If you're looking at the the front facade and also the we've got the the return on each side as well as the corners on the back. So, those are a a macroy marking lock uh flush panel. So, concealed fastener flush metal panel. Um if you're looking at the side, the majority of the sides in the rear, those are a what we call like a they'd be a flat pan standing seam profile. Uh still a concealed fastener. Um, but obviously we've got, you know, the the low pan and a high rib, so a much different look. Um, so just trying to maybe clarify between those two products. Well, on the sides and the back of the building, there's no way that you can bring me along having those included on the building. Sure. Uh, in the we we had mentioned the uh the uh PNM uh building here in town. Uh I I think what they have there for the architectural steel was not included in the percent counted as brick. It was in the percent not counted as brick or stone. So it's just some architectural elements of high. Sure. So it wasn't as a replacement if I recall. I think you're right. the way the building looks correctly. When I look at the uh the front of the building, to me, it looks like, you know, aluminum slats. It does not look like a a stone replacement. you know, you know, I don't see how that sighting, whether it's vertical or horizontal uh could be confused with uh a stone or concrete texturized product. Sure. So, beyond so we fulfill our 50 to 60% based on on storefront location uh side facing views. the other

40 to 50% product though that that's kind of what we're trying to hammer down here as far as what is that approved product for the other 40 to 50 once we fulfill the theious masonry product. So then it I guess would this vertical steel paneling would you consider it vertical seal sighting is really the question as prohibited by code or does that fulfill the need. uh what is on the front of the building here in the small section that is vertical. Uh I do not have a problem with that if it was not a huge element of the front. I mean if if it was that all the way across the front, it's going to end up looking more like vertical sighting. The way you have it here, uh it is not a huge element. you just have it on the one end uh vertical and to me uh you know this wouldn't meet our stone and masonary requirement when you when you look at the front of it as far as a percent but that element being a non stone or masonary element as a very small percentage I personally don't have an issue with appreciate that and then so then uh like Nick mentioned a lot of it comes down to the economics of it and um when we're looking at say the sides and rears and truly looking at what is approved per code. Um, we understand the the vertical issue, but a concealed fastener panel in a horizontal application, how does that change things? So, it would be like the the horizontal elements on the front, what we're seeing on the sides, the vertical, using that a horizontal

application for our non masonry products, the 40 to 50% I guess the big thing we understand that it still looks like steel sighting. Yeah. Looks like just trying to get a better understanding of of actual code and how that reads and let me let me interject a little something here also on this. So the where we're going with this is as an example here. Now, if let's just for the sake of argument here, if if we're going to meet the 50% on the sides of and say we've got to be a stone or brick and I take that weight score and I run it halfway up the wall, right? And I'm going to meet my 50%. And again, I'm I'm not being facitious, but I'm just saying as an example, if I bring that up to meet, I've got 50% of that wall, the bottom 50% of that wall is brick and maybe I run a column or something up in between to break that up. So the remainder of that by code is architectural steel panel would be allowed um as would um cement board. Um so we're looking at that that if we would rotate that and make that a horizontal um is that number one acceptable? And then the second thing that I would I would be asking is getting back to my question about in an effort to try and give you the brick or block look if we did that in a cement board product. Is there a way that we can get around this 50 to 60%. because that's really that's where the biggest cost is is and we're trying to we're trying to use something in a s acceptable alternative

um with with with a veneer system or with a cement board or whatever we're trying to get a feel on what we can come back to and I recognize that next door has got you know a lot of brick on it and so you know the idea would be try and bring something with within character that we can still keep a prototypical look for the store identity That's obviously important for national for a national retailer is they have a they have a a prototype that they're trying to maintain for identity purposes. So going back to what Blaine said is is if we if we turn this stuff horizontal that acceptable which product is it talking about horizontal? We'd be looking at the the concealed faster standing scene profile which would be on the sides and the rear of the AIM store. Okay. The sides and rear horizontal. It'd be the tan panel that you I I guess I would ask staff their opinion and I would certainly not grant an exception for it or in my opinion. I I uh and and just kind of historically when it comes to architectural standards, this commission has been very hesitant to grant exceptions to our architectural standards. If we find something uh that is pointed out to us where we are out of touch with other cities in the metro, we try to then modify our AR architectural standards so that not only that applicant but everybody else after them can be treated fairly and equally. And uh so far that's what we've done with the commercial other commercial uh properties here in town and the other

businesses that have built those and moved into those. And so for yeah for us to look at an exception that's something that we normally don't do I guess is the way to word it. Okay. So then again, just to get to this idea, if I take that, if I take that brick and stone along the bottom, let's just say again for the side, I take that up to 50% of the sidewall. And then I use a architectural steel panel. And I guess that's part of what we're still looking for is is that is somewhat of a subjective and arbitrary. And I don't mean to be rude here, but that that's a subjective what what is the definition of that? And I heard someone say earlier, you know, if you had a metal panel that looked like brick or stone. Well, I'm not really familiar with a with a metal panel that looks like brick or stone. Most of metal panels look like a metal panel of some some nature. So that's that's the next question then is is what do you consider as an acceptable architectural steel panel for the remainder of this thing because that's what we got to put across. In reviewing this, staff has kind of believes that this meets the criteria for an acceptable material for non stone at least for the non for the percentage of non masonary or stone. The interpretation or the feedback that we were looking for is would you consider it a stone alternative? My my opinion in looking at the materials that Nick has provided would be that these would definitely meet the criteria for a non- stone element. It was just do you guys consider it an acceptable alternative for steel or for stone the stone

requirement? And what I'm hearing is if it looks like a steel panel, it in a vertical application, you don't view it as a stone alternative, but you would is it safe to say you would view it as an I I guess I don't ever view that steel, this particular steel, as a stone alternative. I don't see how that looks like stone or masonery at all. Uh, is that is that the intent of having that comment in the the the code that's saying you can use an architectural steel panel as long as long as it looks like brick or stone? I guess that's what I'm struggling with cuz would would the intent be cuz like the the architectural steel panels that went on this building were in larger I mean they were larger panels versus a almost a a slat or a siding. I mean is that would that be maybe maybe we're digging into do we I think we probably need to clarify what we're looking for in an architectural steel panel. Correct. Um, and whether or not we're looking for it to mimic the look and feel of a stone or masonry. I mean, the way that the code is written, what I would say is that the panels on this building probably meet the intent of the code. Would the commission agree with that in terms of the panels on this building being an alternative to masonry or stone? I I personally would to me they they are of the scale or they almost look like a big sheet of of you know granite or something up there from a distance or or something that may be even if even if you acknowledge it's steel it's more of a

natural looking slab of steel or slab of metal versus a siding product. Correct. So, I think that's where we're landing is if it looks like a siding product, it's not really it's an acceptable material, but not an alternative to stone. But if you do larger steel panel type architectural things, that would be your your stone and masonry alternative that we're talking about. Yeah. A as a as a portion of the requirement. Yeah. You know, I you know, I wouldn't want to see a row of those across the bottom and call it good, right? Yeah. Okay. What you need? I think so. Okay. The only thought thought I had was because it is somewhat of a residential area up there as well. If they could find something and I've seen these panels that they run horizontal, but they look like wood. They're they're metal panel. Sir, like Heritage Bank and Grimes as an example has a bunch of it on there and they look very nice and I think it would blend in better. Um, and I've seen metal panels that have uh like sand or pebble almost like a pre-cast look to it, but they are wider as you mentioned. They're bigger than 16 inch or 12 inch pieces. So, I don't know what the cost are on those. I'm just saying the looks of those are are good and I think they hold up well. Yeah. So, you know, not being architects up here, I think there's there's probably some products out there, but I don't know what specifically to recommend. I personally don't have an objection to uh hardy plank kind of material that looks um like brick for the smaller percent, not not the big we are talking approved fiber cement for the non masonry product. Is that what you're looking at? Fiber, not a modular 48 panel, right? the lap side and fiber that look I think on the like the back side of the building. I think we have to be careful

on the two sides too because one's facing a business, the other's facing residential. I can't remember exactly what the back faces, but I think there's just a lot of trees back there if I remember right currently. All right. This would end up I mean I'm assuming it's going to be deep enough in the lot it'll be up against I mean its buffer will be up against the buffer and I wouldn't be surprised if it was commercial on the on both sides of it at some point in time. Right. That's what the future land use plans. Correct. Um but with what I'm hearing, you know, we're this is exactly the conversation we wanted to have and certainly appreciate the feedback. Um is I'm just thinking out loud in terms of timing and so forth. Is there an opportunity uh between now and the next meeting that if we if we we kicked around just a couple of sketches saying you know what if we did this and what if we did that and maybe send some additional cut sheets back. Is there an opportunity that we could get some some uh additional unofficial per se feedback on on us offering based on our conversation here of offering some other ideas because what I'm trying to get to folks is is a something that I can put a price to so that I can evaluate the economics and and I really need to I I understand it won't be an official approval but just kind of working towards um working towards something that's that's more uh along the lines of what what uh the feedback that you've given us here today. Uh Nick, I'm going to weigh in here. This is Chelsea Houston. I'm the city manager for the city of Pulk City. I think you can work with the city staff. Um we have some clarity on that piece that we were questioning

tonight. So, your opportunity would be to work with the city staff and we will um we will direct you we can based off of what's in the code. If we need to go to a future planning and zoning meeting, we can do that. That's that's great. That's Yeah, that was kind of the objective here was to just work collaborative collaboratively with with you guys to to understand, you know, we can read things in the code and kind of have our own ideas saying, "Hey, we think this would meet code." But certainly have you there's thoughts there locally in terms of what you want to see. And that's what we really needed to understand as far as how what what we need to put together that's that that works for everybody and and try and uh Bla and I'll try and come up with package that that we'll put our best foot forward and you know try and get a little bit more in line with the character of the neighborhood that you've expressed. Okay. Is there any public comment on this item at all. Okay. Any further commission comments, questions? No. Everybody have what they need? All right. Uh move on to item number seven, architectural design standards discussion. All right. So, in the commission's packet tonight, um Jenny Coffin, the city clerk, put together a nice little spreadsheet for you guys to kind of compare some of the or several of the communities here in the metro um and the um architectural standards that you see there in. Um, generally speaking, what I what we're seeing is Pulk

City is competitive, if not a little bit low on their brick percentages. Um, in the C district specifically. Um, so I think that's kind of the first piece of it is I would say that the architectural standards you guys have don't exceed very many communities and the communities they do exceed Bondant Johnston um I would say are in a are a little bit different. So I don't know that we would make a recommendation to change those architectural standards as they currently exist um in terms of percentages. But then the bigger conversation and kind of why we did this deep dive a little bit was Ron had mentioned at one point um specifying or otherwise controlling what accessory structures on multifamily developments look like. Um and what we're finding is pretty vague in terms of what these other communities look at. Um specifically you'll see if as you look through some of the um accessory structure standards it's they use terms like character in general design thought or like those kinds of sentiments where design compatibility that was the word I was trying to come up with um where it's very vague in terms of what that exactly means. It leaves a lot up to interpretation. And what I will tell you is I think it's Urban Dales is pretty much like it's written in a manner that's like if we don't like it, we're going to reject it. And I think because they're, you know, in the center of the metro that that works for them. Um I think some of these though, um one in particular, I I actually like the way that Bond has theirs written in terms of design compatibility required and then

detached garages and accessory structures. and they list out all the things that they're talking about have architectural detail, scale and color similar to the the multif family structure that they are associated with. So I think I think generally speaking we would like feedback thoughts um from the commission on are there any specific requirements you want? You know do you want windows on these? Do you want it to generally match the character? Do you want do you want to be really prescriptive with this code write up? Do you want to be more interpretive and you know allow us the flexibility to kind of have some flexibility and does it meet the general nature of the primary structure. Um just kind of looking for feedback so that we can get a better idea of what kind of architectural standards we want to propose to the commission so that we don't have to you know go through four or five reading or meetings trying to get it honed in. Um I guess is there a community you really like their standards? Um is there something you specifically don't like? kind of give us the guidance for writing these accessory structures and then taking feedback as well on modification other other modifications of the architectural design standards. And I I want to add a few things here, Travis. I notice in the Excel spreadsheet we don't have Poke City's standards listed, correct? Can we go over those really quickly so the commission understands what the standards are for Poke City? Um yeah, I'm sorry to hit you on the spot. Cody, would you pull the residential ones? Those I don't have memorized, but um commercial is um 60% of frontages facing public rideways or shared access points are to be masonry or stone or the

acceptable alternatives is defined by code. Then the other 40% or um is acceptable building materials that demonstrate permanency and um durability. All sides not facing a public rideway or shared access is 50/50 with brick and stone and then those acceptable building alternatives. Um M the M districts are a little less um strict in that there's no brick requirement um but that they those districts are still driven by permanency and durability. So the prohibited um materials vertical steel sighting plywood um there's a I think there's three other materials are specifically prohibited. Those are not allowed in any zoning district in the city. Um, [Music] very close. So, plywood, particle board, concrete block, and vertical steel siding are your prohibited materials. And then um and then you've got the for commercial structures um that brick and the brick requirements and stone requirements. And then I think the residential it's like 15%. It's 15% for residential. So single family residential and then um I I think it's 30 for multi. Yep. So 30% stone and brick for multif family, 15% for single family. 60% for commercial that faces a rightaway or shared access, 50% for all other sides and then the M1 is purely acceptable materials, no stone and brick. So I think that would be the one thing that if this commission wanted to go

down that path, it looks like a lot of communities step down their M1 requirements, but they still have those brick and stone requirements as part of the M1 or the M districts. So I we've been working on the accessory structure component for a few months and I just wanted to add um how we got to kind of looking at just architectural standards in general. Um within the last few months the city council has prioritized doing and receiving development feedback through a survey. Um, so the city partnered with Go Poke City to kind of collect feedback from some recent developments that have occurred in Poke City. One of the pieces of feedback we've received was that we had really high architectural standards for commercial districts. So, um, we thought this could be a good opportunity for us to take a holistic view of architectural standards for not just residential and accessory structures, but the commercial component as well. and um get you all talking about what you do like and what you don't like about our architectural standards. From a city staff perspective, I will tell you that the clearer the code is, the easier it is for the city staff. So, obviously, we had the uh discussion point tonight regarding acceptable materials. So, from a from the city staff, I might ask the planning and zoning commission to put some time and effort into this process to see if we could maybe um clear up our code and what we define as acceptable materials because it just makes it so much easier when the city staff does meet with developers. So, I just wanted to add that piece before you all offered your feedback on what you have in front of you

tonight. If we're looking at winds or heights, C2C, C3, C4, um, where they're given being very specific with the linear frontage, I I prefer that just having that definite size parameter, but still being a little bit flexible to say it doesn't need to be if there might be something that comes up or we might need to change five feet or so one direction or another. And and that's something I should mention as the the commission thinks about this too is a lot of communities, so it won't be reflected here per se, um, but a lot of communities do what we call overlay districts. So you don't apply specific architectural standards to specific zoning districts, but you say, and the example I'm going to give is, so like on along 126th where we're the city's going to grow, we have a commercial hub there at 26th and 44th when the city gets to that point. Well, that may be make sense to do an overlay district where you have a specific architectural look or a specific look that you're looking for in that area. Um, it would be similar to um what we've done in like a lot of communities do these town square or downtown districts and the city has adopted some general architectural guidance for the CTS district. But basically what it would do is it would allow us to not have six or eight C districts, but you have a C2 district with the 44th Street overlay district on top of it. So I think that would be another thing that we could go down that path of as well um if the commission would want to do that. And are you expecting this tonight or just wanting us to think more about it?

Okay, we can certainly um allow an opportunity to review the information. We could redisuss in a few months from now. Um if that works for everybody, we're just looking for some general feedback. We wanted to start with planning and zoning to see if there was any opportunity to make changes to the standards. Is there an opportunity to um maybe provide a listing of materials that have and their longevity to kind of to your point to making sure especially in commercial areas that you know that they don't deteriorate quickly. you know, we want to make sure that you do put in investment and yet if there is some provisions that we um allow some variance in that type of thing that might be helpful too or what other communities have done to address that. I don't know if that's I mean just if you've had that opportunity that would be very helpful are in the metro I don't think we should be at the leading edge of yeah of development of terms and ideas when it comes to that. I'm curious to see what words others have used for their their material types and things of that nature. However, uh when I start looking at commercial aspects of our community, uh since we are on the edge of the metro, I would like our commercial architectural standards to be more like the metro and less like rural areas or communities not all that far from us. I you know I really want us to even though we we are a smaller town and uh not that long ago had a very very very small town

feel uh we need to start thinking of us as a uh as a member of the metro and what I will say too in reviewing some of these I didn't realize how many communities in like specify how many window or how much window space you have to have on frontages and on elevations. Um, I don't know that the way that you guys do it being with those percentages being exclusive of glass. I think it to be honest with you without specifying the specific proportion, it encourages glass because if they can put glass in place of brick, they're going to put glass in place of brick. And so the way that your code's currently written, I think it actually drives people towards glass. So that's another thing to consider too. Um, you know, if you have is that a bad thing or a good thing. I just I I think that's a matter of opinion. I like glass. Yeah. I mean, it can be it can be nice. It can be well done. Yeah. Yeah. But if you get something like the Krauss building downtown, I think that would be a little too modern for what you guys are after as an architectural standard. So maybe capping it is actually the way we want to go. Yeah. Yeah. How much time would you like to review this um these materials? next meeting be acceptable? I would think so. And just back to the the uh the question that we had about uh you know what do other communities specify what the other architectural um you know what other kind of elements are acceptable for uh you know for brick and stone and you know how specific are

they and what can we glean from that. Okay. I had the Oh, we'll have to do some digging because we we were strictly looking percentages and proportions. We uh had a good lesson tonight on how uh having uh words that are more generic and less specific can uh can be a bad thing. You know, sometimes th those kinds of words give you flexibility, but other times uh you know, people will try to push your flexibility into the uh into things that weren't uh contemplated when you came up with those words. Well, and I what I will tell you is building materials change so frequently. So, like to Deanna's point about like the permanency and the durability, where my mind naturally goes is let's pick a a design lifespan because almost all of those materials are going to have some rating for how long they're supposed to last. And so maybe that's the path we go down versus saying it has to be a 2-in stone slab or a 3-in steel panel or it has to have this specific glazing. We put it the onus on the developer of like you need to demonstrate that your manufacturer will support this for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, whatever that number is. And then we can kind of back check that against some of the cut sheets that we've had in the past in terms of is that information we can routinely get or is that some you know is 20 years too much but 10 years isn't enough? We can kind of find that sweet spot. That's naturally where when Diana what you said that's where my head went is um provide us a cut sheet and those suppliers you know that's a marketing tool they're going to tell you you know I've got a warranty on this for 10 years but I the life the design lifespan's 20 you know and so can can we get that documented because that that obviously

demonstrates the durability and the permanency and the comfort level that the commission can have with that material. So can we also ask or um require that uh what is being built along that on third street along in that area kind of resemble what's already been built. So that would be actually the opportunity we have with the overlay district particularly because the future land use plan along third is all commercial and you know once you get north of the the property we were talking about tonight there's really not a lot of commercial there and so that would be the opportunity that I think we have for an overlay district where we specifically look at the elements that you want to carry through you know is it the the stucco on the the Ace Hardware or Is it the the the amount of brick in that area? Is it the color of the brick? Is it the grout color, the grout size? That kind of stuff. Just some of the elements that we, you know, when when we say cuz, you know, carrying the character of the things around it, that's a very broad general term that I think a lot of people kind of understand, but there's still that interpretation. So, I think that the the the corridors that we're thinking about from like an overlay district perspective are that 44th and 126th intersection, the Northwest 44th corridor and then the third street corridor as well. Um, bridge, we probably could do something, but the fact of the matter is is a lot of those lots are already developed and so does it is it worth the squeeze to kind of put that put that out there? Um, you know, we still have one property that's open. We've got some buildings that are potentially aging out. Um, as far as like the maintenance cycle on those things. Um, so it may be worth going into that path. Um, and does the commission want to suggest some sort of overlay district on the town square that

supplements the CTS district or that one is probably easier just to say the CTS district architectural standards are now this. But um kind of thinking in that frame of mind where we have the flexibility of specific neighborhoods being driven by specific standards on Third Street in that area, we have the buildings that are there. We have a nice thing going. Yep. 100%. And I think a lot of architects like their their standard of care is to not stick out like a sore thumb. And so I think that naturally lends itself to kind of those characteristics. But I think from a staff perspective, it'd be a lot easier if we could just say, "Yeah, these are the things that you have to hit." And that's what character of the neighborhood means. All right. Got homework. You got homework. Deal. So, just I guess a bit of a followup on the uh on the large structure garages or the accessory uh structures. Uh on the the back page of the packet, I actually took some photographs when I was driving around town of things that I thought looked appealing to me. and uh but you know seeing something that you know does that mean that that developer wanted his property to look nice and and better than the rest and so we did this or is this something that the city came up with an architectural design to say these are the things that are required but I thought there were some uh some good examples there of uh structures that ordinarily would look long that have been broken up by having the uh you know a few units of the garage to kick out a little bit in the front. Same in

the backside to have some kickouts, some roof line changes and things of that nature. uh as opposed to, you know, I think we only have one example of uh of a large of large garage structures in Poke City, and that isn't even for an apartment complex. It's actually for a more of a town home uh kind of a complex, but it's it certainly has a different look than what we uh than what I see in other communities. And I guess I just wanted to with with us seeing apartments coming at us in the future, uh, wanted to have some idea of what we wanted those to look like. Yeah. So, I think I think that would be another thing that we would ask the commission to kind of be prepared for, thoughts on that. Um, that final column in that spreadsheet that was in the packet refers to that's the information we had on accessory structures, which is what those garages would um, qualify as. What I will tell you is the the example you gave that started this whole conversation was the one on Grimes and we actually called the city of Grimes and that was a that was a developer choice based on the PU PUD restrictions that they put in there. Okay. So that is the heritage PUB and I've looked through that PUD document and they they actually did something very similar like what Big Creek Technology campus was where NAP has a design review committee. That's the heritage PUD is kind of held to the standard of the the heritage design committee. I don't know if it's actually called that per se, but that's kind of the same concept of something similar you guys have experienced. So like Lakes Early Learning Center, your review of the architectural design standards was only the first step. Um and your approval was actually subject to the the the design review committee approving that layout or that design. So that that's what um the one specifically Ron

that you had referenced in Grimes. Yeah. That that one is controlled by PUB, but there are several communities that it looks like specifically dictate and control what those accessory structures look like. And the Grimes building on those photos is number four and number eight are actually the front and back of some of the same buildings in the complex versus what we have. So, I think we have the opportunity that if if if there is a specific look that PNZ likes, um, we could definitely mimic that. Um, and you can kind of get some of the language that other communities use, but I think we have the ability to kind of do that. Okay. All right. Okay. We'll talk in a month. Sounds good. Item number eight, uh, reports and particulars. No council leaison, city manager, don't have anything. Thank you. Nothing. You bet. Staff commission. I just had one question. um our storm water and I don't this probably isn't maybe even a P&Z but more for staff is we have our storm water management inspections that have to be performed by a licensed engineer every year which gets expensive and I think council just passed that recently year or so I guess the question is can it be done without a licensed engineer can it be photographed a report filled in inspected by the property owner or what drives it to a a PE because it does get expensive for the property owner developer. I think this would be year three or four maybe of that requirement.

Um the reason for a professional engineer is well it's the expertise. Um what we've seen typically from the development side is that the the the design engineer is typically the one inspecting that and the idea would be is that they're supposed to be looking at the storm water management plan and making sure that that um that detention facility is um functioning in general conformance with that storm water management plan. The history on that is with subdivisions and site plans. Um we require the engineer to provide a certified letter stating that that that grading and that um stormwater management facility was constructed in accordance with their plan so that we have a snapshot in time for that functionality. Um, what I will tell you is I think if if there is a concern about cost, um, if the professional engineer that the the developer is talking to is willing to send out an unlicensed engineer that is under their direct supervision, as long as the licensed professional can certify that they are agreeable to the inspection results, that would meet the criteria um because that that's the way that licensed engineers operate in the state of Iowa. Um work done under their direct supervision to be certified under their seal. Okay. Any other comments? All right. Make a motion to seconded. probably should, He's gonna

has in the world.