City Council - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Jackie, will you please do roll call?

Mayor Clark?

Here.

Councilmember Anderson?

Here.

Councilmember Crone?

Here.

Councilmember Grove? Here. Councilmember Lyon?

Here.

Councilmember Pierce?

Agenda item D is open forum. Open forum is the time for anyone here tonight to address the council on any subject over which the council has the authority to act on any item on the agenda other than a public hearing. If anyone here tonight either in the council chambers or on Zoom wishes to address the council at this time, they may approach the podium or raise their hand. If you're participating via Zoom, please click on the raise hand icon located in the reaction controls. As a reminder, we do regularly limit public comment to three minutes. Also, as a reminder, after you are recognized, please clearly state your name and address before making your comment.

Good evening. Alex Rice, 2111 48th Street in Des Moines. And I am here today as executive director of the Street Collective, a nonprofit that works to make the Des Moines Metro an amazing place to walk and bike. So we've been working with you over the last few months on this bike ordinance, which is why I'm speaking here today. We really appreciate all the changes that have been made. It's really substantially improved since we got involved a couple months ago. We really appreciate Chief McCluskey for taking so much of our feedback to heart. I know we sent him another round of feedback at the end of June, and he's integrated some of those changes as well. So we really appreciate that. There are two things we'd still like to see get cleaned up in the ordinance before it passes. One of those is as an organization that cares about pedestrian safety, we're concerned about the provision that says that e-scooters going up to 20 miles per hour must be on the sidewalk if there's no bike trail available. So what that means is in a sleepy subdivision like my sister's here in Waukee, where the roads are 25 miles per hour and there's almost no car traffic, you're going to force these e-scooters going 20 miles per hour on the sidewalk. with your pedestrians, your elderly, little kids, people pushing strollers. It's a lot to put on a sidewalk when there's a road that isn't going very fast and doesn't have very many cars on it where someone can make the choice and make a good choice for themselves. So we'd like to see that change to create the option of being able to be in a street in a situation like that, knowing that the ordinance already says e-scooters wouldn't be allowed on streets going more than 25 miles per hour. And then the other thing is just cleaning up the way that the term e-moto is used in the ordinance. As Chief McCluskey pointed out, we frequently talk about e-motos of the street collective because that's a really important part of the education piece. We just want to make sure that it's accurately defined in the ordinance. Right now, the way the ordinance definition reads, it looks like a high-speed pedestrian commands is exactly the same as an e-moto. but there are high-speed pedestrian conveyances that are not e-motos. And a great example of that is an electric skateboard, which, believe it or not, can go 40 miles an hour. So that is a high-speed pedestrian conveyance, but it's not an e-motos. We'd just like to see that cleaned up because ultimately the goal of this ordinance, a big piece of it is education, and we want to make sure that that education message is really clear as people are looking at it. So we appreciate all the hard work you've done. We're just asking for these last two things, and thank you so much for taking our feedback into account throughout this process.

Thank you.

Thank you. I do want to make just one comment on that. I have gotten some other emails about people being concerned about the street versus the sidewalk issue. On my way here tonight, I had three kids. I was on a 25 mile an hour road. I had three kids pull out of a driveway right in front of me on sidewalks. various electric conveyances and swerve all the way through the road in front of me as I was going down the street, not on their side, not wearing helmets. Our focus with this ordinance is really to protect safety across a lot of different areas. These kids, they need their safety protected too, and they should not be on the road acting like that. And so that's a large part of what we're trying to correct with this. But we appreciate your comments very much.

Veronica. Education is a good thing for those kids. But I'm here, Veronica Lack, as a former soil and water conservation commissioner. I got kicked off the board because I did these tests that the state and the city of Waukee has failed to do in the proper yearly manner. And I had to take warm out of my own pocket because they have not been done. And the results are scary. They're the results of my suit against the state of Iowa and Iowa DNR. These particular herbicide and pesticide chemicals are testing 22 of them now over the maximum content levels, starting with 2,4-D choline, ending at the bottom of the list with the organophosphate. I'm sorry, my tremor is really bad. It affects my heart rate and it's from these different herbicide and pesticide chemicals. But in my suit, you can look it up online. It's recorded in the Iowa Supreme Court.

Veronica, I'd like for you to address us, please.

Okay. I got to the meeting, my meeting on May 21st. And the Attorney General of Iowa, Bird, had sent another attorney from Idols Over Dirt to make sure they kicked me off the board because I did these tests. And I had to pay ahead $2,317 for these tests that you guys are supposed to have done. And they reveal that issues that we need to know what's in our water. And I really wish everybody could look at the results of my test. And they told me in that meeting that they could sue me for doing the test. The state and the city could sue me for doing the test. Well, those test results are on my door and you can come to my house, take a picture

Just as a reminder, we're not allowed to speak about something that is not on our agenda in terms of responding back. However, during my comments tonight, I will have some comments about water quality. Are you the next? Yeah, go ahead. Yep. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name's Rich Peters. I'm a retired medical doctor. I live at 110 Abigail here in Glen Village. And Mary, just to your point, remember when I would write on RegBriar, responsible bike riders or people in streets will ride right, as far right as they can. Not back and forth. That's not responsible. Those people need education. I will speak also as a pedestrian who likes to walk on your sidewalks here in the city with two Shih Tzu puppy dogs. Just the idea of 20 mile per hour electric vehicles all around on sidewalks. That's just crazy. You go through your city park, Centennial Park, that's plainly marked it's 10 miles per hour for vehicles on your roadway through the park. To think that you should allow anything going faster than five or 10 miles per hour on a sidewalk is crazy. It's crazy and it's going to get people hurt. A lot of people hurt. And so you need education. I think we need prayers. You guys need prayer for common sense. And again, a lot of these sidewalks in town, England Village, are blinded. So somebody going 20 miles per hour around a blinded corner. you're going to be running into people, pedestrians, cars. Again, a lot of, you're going to be running into a lot of, my puppies are only like 15 pounds. I would also mention, I know Mayor, you have someone in your family who's blind, who likes to walk on the sidewalks. How are you going to take that into consideration? So you need common sense. And I think I'm looking at a lot of people with common sense, else you wouldn't be on this council. I'd pray for common sense. I was getting into this. I don't know how many lawyers. Could anybody please raise their hand who's a lawyer here?

Sorry about that.

Not to pick on you, but I read those 10 pages that you're coming up with trying to get to a common, reasonable. But it is a lot of lawyer stuff. You need some common sense in there. And you know what I'm saying. It should make sense. And to have a, it's okay to go no more than 10 miles per hour on your city street through your park. And you're saying it's going to be 20 miles per hour on the sidewalks. Does anybody think that that's common sense? You're looking for major problems. I think the problem is getting parents involved on this. Parents, I just don't see where the parents are involved in telling their kids to drive safely, responsibly. Where's that in there? Thank you. Yeah.

You're not wrong in that there's a lot of education that's going to be required around this ordinance and absolutely education, not just for students and children, but for parents, because that's absolutely needed. You're not wrong. Hi.

Hi. Joan Ross, 450 Southeast Rosencrantz Drive. And I'm glad someone is here with the bike and the sidewalks and things. One of the things that I find, and I'm just going to say, since I've had surgery, walking on the sidewalks, and I'm supposed to be doing walking, and when I meet bicyclists and any of these motorized, whatever you want to call them, motorbikes, e-bikes, what have you, I'm here to say I'm not going to yield to them. And I take my stick with me. And what I'm saying is I think there needs to be education somewhere, whether it's parent. And I think parents really need to take the lead on this because I don't think it should be the police. I don't think it should be the school that takes the majority of this. And if your kids don't know how to operate and Ride the sidewalk safely and also take into account pedestrians, then don't buy them that type of a vehicle, whatever you want to call that. So my thought is why, as I meet these bicyclists and like I said, the motor, whatever you want to call them, it's like I'm supposed to yield to them. To me, they should slow down, first of all, and take into account that both of us can share that sidewalk if they're going at a proper. And I have said to a couple of kids, you know, slow down. Of course, they look at me like, you know, I'm crazy or what have you and that they should have it. But I will say there was one little guy the other day. There were three of them riding together. He was the second one in line, the youngest of the three. He pulled over and stopped for me. and i says thank you for being considerate he says oh you're welcome ma'am have a great day so that that doesn't exist well that to me says his parents or someone is taking uh the responsibility to say how do you ride safely and still share with the pedestrians thank you there are no hands raised in zoom

All right. An open forum is closed. Agenda item E is agenda approval. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Grove? Yes. Council Member Pierce?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes. Agenda item G1 is a public hearing on an ordinance to amend chapter 169 zoning ordinance city of Waukee, Iowa by rezoning certain property from KMFSM to KMFSM slash PD1, a property to be known as the Wren. I now declare this public hearing open. Becky, have we received any correspondence?

No, none received in the city clerk's office. Thank you.

Melissa. Good evening, Mayor and Council. The owner is AP North LLC. The applicant is Axiom Consultants LLC. This property is located east of Grand Prairie Parkway and north of Southeast Ashworth Road. Contains 5.78 acres in area. The property was zoned to K-MF Stacked Medium District in 2016 as part of the initial overall rezoning for the Ashworth North development program. The request is to rezone the property to apply a plan development overlay in order to allow for a height of four stories rather than a maximum of three stories. So right now the KMF stack medium district allows for a maximum of three stories and they are wanting to put in four stories maximum. Notification of the rezoning request was sent out on June 12th. The rezoning sign was placed on the property by the required deadline. Staff have not received any correspondence for or against the request. Let me go to, I think there's a zoomed in concept plan here. So the concept plan shows the development of an active adult living community with an underground parking structure and then four four-story towers attached to it. Each tower would have between 19 and 21 dwelling units for an overall total of 80 units. The dwelling units would range in size between 1,100 and approximately 1,500 square feet and have two or three bedrooms per unit. The proposed density of the overall site would be 13.84 units per acre, which is less than the maximum allowed of 14 units per acre for KMF stacked medium. The concept plan also shows a clubhouse welcome center, a swimming pool, and then some sport courts. Again, the reason for the rezoning request is for the proposed height for four towers that are four stories each. As I've stated previously, KMF SAC medium allows for up to three stories, and the proposed plan development will allow for a maximum of up to four stories on the property. Access to the property, they're showing off of, from the west, it would be off of Southeast Glacier Trail, and then from the south, off of Southeast Esker Ridge Drive. Parkland dedication will apply to the project based on what they're showing on the concept plan. The required parkland is just under its 0.91 acres. The concept plan does not identify any public parkland. The applicant is proposing to provide a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The underlying zoning and proposed plan development are consistent with the land uses identified in the Kettlestone Master Plan. There are some building elevations that they provided, conceptual building elevations. So this is what they are proposing as far as the look of the buildings. And then in that little circle area would be the clubhouse slash welcome center.

I think that might be it.

Staff recommends holding the public hearing, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Does anyone here tonight, either in the council chambers or on Zoom, wish to address the council and voice their comments or questions on this particular public hearing item? If so, please approach the podium, or if participating via Zoom, please click on the raise hand icon located in the reactions controls.

Could I ask a question? Is that a retention pond? Can you please step forward to that? Former Soil and Water Conservation Commissioner Veronica Lack, is that a retention pond, that lake-like area?

There is a significant retention pond that covers the entire area, yes.

And it's not over any designated national wetland? No.

There is a hand raised in Zoom. Okay. It is Denny Dolmage.

Denny, if you would like to speak, you may do so.

Yeah question is going east on esker is to 88th Street. What's the exit and entrance to this development, I mean is the only way glacier trail and going West on esker is the exit and interest to this development. Can you hear me.

Yes, we can. I am looking at Melissa to see if she can respond. We can hear you.

So this is what's shown on the screen is the area map. So there are some of those streets are actually in adjacent to it, Glacier Trail. And Esker Ridge Drive. So you could go out to Grand Prairie Parkway. You could go north to Tallgrass. I mean, there's a couple of different ways that you could get out. Eventually in the future, there's probably more ways. But as of now, those would be the two ways out to the main street to Grand Prairie Parkway.

Yeah, but is Glacier Trail going east to 88th Street in the proposal on this development?

East to 88th. So do you? Glacier Trail would be the north-south.

Right, I understand that. My question is, going east on Esker Riz Drive to 88th Street, it says an extended road going there. Is that in part of this development?

So as part of this development, they would be required to put in the road adjacent to it. Here's a better, so you can see it goes to the east. As of now, nothing is there, obviously. But with this development, they would be required to put in that for now. In the future, eventually it'll go to the east. But no, right now it does not go all the way out.

So this development doesn't require Southeast Esker Riz Drive to be extended east to 88th Street. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Are there any questions from council? No. I now declare this public hearing closed. Agenda item H1, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend chapter 169 zoning ordinance city of Waukee, Iowa by rezoning certain property for SM slash PD1, a property to be known as the REN. This is an introduction and a first reading.

I introduce the ordinance and move to approve the first reading and title only.

Second.

Thank you.

Melissa? I have nothing further to add at this time. Staff recommends approval of the first consideration of the rezoning.

Any questions?

All right. Please vote. Councilmember Cron, yes. Councilmember Grove, yes. Councilmember Anderson, yes. Councilmember Pierce, yes. Councilmember Lyon, yes.

Agenda item I-1, consent agenda. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Please vote. Councilmember Pierce, yes. Councilmember Grove, yes. Councilmember Cron, yes. Councilmember Anderson, yes.

Yes.

Council Member Lyon? Yes.

Agenda item I2, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 76 Waukee Municipal Code bicycle regulations to rename Chapter 76 as personal transportation device regulations to update the ordinance and include the regulation of personal transportation devices and upon the effective date repealing Chapter 77 Waukee Municipal Code skateboards. This is a second reading.

Move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

Second.

Chief.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. As you remember, we conducted the first reading on this. On the second reading, we did make a couple of minor changes, specifically page eight and nine that have to do with other powered devices. That thing, thank you very much, Alex. Other power-driven mobility devices. Sorry, this all runs together in my head. to ensure that we were not restricting those mobility devices further than what we thought we were. So under number two on page eight, we struck both in A and B, that phrase, as well as in C. And then we struck section E, which talked about the use of those devices as long as they do not risk damage on sidewalks surrounding environments. And we'll deal with that on a one-on-one basis should that be a problem. To address Alex's concerns, I totally agree that e-scooters on sidewalks create a problem for pedestrians. However, that same logic says that bicycles, electric bicycles, e-motos, skateboards, anything that's not foot pedestrian creates that same problem. And the alternative to that is to push those things into the street. And of course, the chance of serious injury or death goes up dramatically when we move things to the street. So I do think that we've found a good balance in how we've written this based on council goals and priorities of safety. With regards to the term e-moto and high-speed pedestrian conveyance, they are the same. High-speed pedestrian conveyance was a term that was requested by some of the bicycle groups that was included. E-moto is the term that's nationally recognized right now. Everything you see has e-moto in it. And that is simply... If you look at our definition, over 750 watts and in excess of the 20 mile an hour, I believe. powered solely by a motor. And then we go a step further and say that if they're up to 39, they would fall under the regulations of motorized bicycle. If they're over 39, they'd follow the regulations of motorcycle. The reason that that's important is because motorized bicycle and motorcycle require a seat or saddle. And some of these devices do not have that. And so we need to be able to capture that. And so I believe that we've got our e-moto definition where we need to be. Mr. Peter's concerns, again, valid concerns. I appreciate that he's a doctor and understands the complexity of these things. One thing I would note on his comments was he was talking about Centennial Park. where it's posted 10 miles an hour, our code actually does allow for us to post at a lower speed limit than what the 20 mile an hour is. And if no speed limit is posted, then it defaults to 20. That also has some already use language in state code with regards to class three electric bicycles, where state code already says a class three electric bicycle cannot go more than 20 miles an hour on a trail or sidewalk. And so we already have that language for class three electric bicycle. This aligns perfectly with that. The 750 watt piece aligns well with the class one, two, and three electric bicycle as well. So none of these things are things we just came up with on our own. And then finally, to Ms. Ross's point, this does have a section, number seven on page seven, which requires yield of right-of-way to pedestrians. So we have addressed that as well. With all that said, excuse me, I think that we're on the right path. I think our ordinance is very well written. We've listened to a lot of input. We've taken a lot of that into consideration. We made a lot of changes. And I would recommend that we pass the second reading of the ordinance.

Thank you, Chief.

Any questions? I'd just like to thank Chief McCluskey and Alex and everyone else that's had input on this. And I know how much time you've put onto it. So thank you.

The only thing I would say is we appreciate all of you being here and voicing, giving us feedback, giving us good information, reporting what you're seeing on the sidewalks and the trails because it is important. It does matter. We're out and about. We see things as well. And what I want to say is for as many comments that we've had about safety, We've also gotten the opposite end of the spectrum. We've also gotten people complaining that we're restricting anything at all. So I want you to know, you know, safety is the most important priority. The state does not allow us to ban these devices. If it were up to me, we would, but it's not up to me because we don't sit at the state legislature. They make those decisions and then we get handed those decisions. We can't have them on the street anymore. Someone's going to get hurt or killed. We can't have kids with these devices on the street. They're all over the place on the street. The only other option is to move them. We cannot get rid of them. Not the kids, the devices. So we have to relocate them. I also have those concerns about being on a sidewalk. I think, though, however, what we're going to be able to do now if we pass this ordinance is we're going to give our officers the ability to enforce something. Right now, they cannot enforce anything. So we're going to give them the ability to enforce. And we've already been educating. We will continue to educate. But we have to have that enforcement mechanism. And then by doing that, we're going to make it really uncomfortable for them to continue this dangerous activity. because they will be confined to smaller spaces. They'll have to yield to pedestrians as required by the ordinance. We'll be able to enforce something, and it's going to be much more difficult for them to continue the dangerous behavior that they're doing, and hopefully that will make things safer for everyone. However, we will be paying really close attention. to this ordinance and really close attention to what our officers are reporting, what you guys are reporting, what we're seeing. It's all going to be really critical, you know, especially over the next few months, while this is new and then, you know, paying attention to it next summer, we'll, you know, we usually do a yearly review of any new ordinance anyway. This one will most certainly be reviewed pretty frequently. So, so I just want, I want you to know that we really appreciate all of the feedback that we get on this. It is important. The ultimate goal is to make things safer. We have to get these kids off the street. That is what we're doing now. And then we're handing our officers the ability to enforce something because right now they can't do anything. We have to give them the tools that they need.

I also want to add that we recognize this is not going to address the problem overnight. However, this is a process and we are doing what we can now to really ramp up our ability to, as you said, enforce things throughout our community. So please keep reporting as you see any behavior that should not be occurring. We do need to know that and we appreciate your engagement in the process. This is not a public hearing, Veronica. Are there any other comments or questions?

Mayor, one additional comment, if I may. Sorry. But to the education piece, as you mentioned, we have been doing that. But passing the ordinance gives us the framework to support the education. And without the ordinance, basically what we're saying is parents, please pay attention to what your kids are on. Kids, please be responsible. Once the ordinance passes, then the education turns to this is now against the law. We need you to comply. And so it is critical that we get something that's framework passed where we can use that as well.

Agreed. Thank you.

Any other comments? Mayor Clark, I have a comment. This is Lori. This is Lori online. You mentioned that reporting was going to be vital in terms of enforcement and education. How do we want residents to go about that? Is there a certain way that chief would like us like to have residents report? I'm just wondering what's the easiest method for residents to actually do that?

That's a great question. If it's a safety issue, then we need them to call dispatch because through email, through the citizen problem reporter, through any other method, complain on Facebook, none of that gets an officer dispatched immediately. Calling dispatch does. So that's number one if it's a safety problem. If there's other issues where they have input or, you know, think that there needs to be extra focus, extra enforcement in one area or another, then certainly they can email police at walkie.org, and that'll get to the right location. But dispatch is the default.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. All right. Please vote. Council Member Crone?

Yes.

Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce? Yes.

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon? Yes.

Item I3, consideration of approval of an ordinance for the Division of Revenues under Section 403.19, Code of Iowa for the Waukee Consolidated Urban Renewal Area 2026 Ordinance Parcels. This is a second reading.

Move to approve the second reading of the ordinance and title only.

Second. Brad? Second.

Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and Council, this is the second consideration of the ordinance relative to the parcels that we have identified to incorporate in the 2026 tax increment financing district. Those are the parcels that are represented on this map in yellow, which I recognize for the audience is extremely difficult to see. This does include parcels that I've seen development over the last 12 to 18 months, as well as several parcels occurring over the next 12 to 24 months, staff would recommend approval of the second consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions? Please vote. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce? Yes. Council Member Lyon? Yes. Council Member Crone?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes. Item I-4, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 169 Zoning Ordinance, City of Waukee, Iowa, by rezoning certain property from A1 to R1, R2, R3, and R4, a property to be known as Sugar Creek Landing. This is a third and final reading.

Move to approve the third reading of the ordinance in title only and place it on final passage. Second. Melissa.

This property is located south of 310th Street and west of T Avenue. It contains approximately 81 acres in area. The request is to resell the property from A1 to R1, R2, R3, and R4. Let me just refresh your... Here, this one's a little bit better to look at. I don't have anything further to add from the last time you looked at this. Staff recommends approval of the final reading of the resoning.

Thank you. Any questions?

Okay. Please vote. Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce? Yes. Council Member Grove? Yes. Council Member Lyon? Yes.

Item I-5, consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan for South Waukee vertical expansion at 1025 Southeast Tallgrass Lane. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second. Melissa.

The owner and applicant is TIC Properties LLC. The property is located north of Southeast Tallgrass Lane and west of Grand Prairie Parkway. It contains 7.53 acres in area. The property is zoned K-RC, Kettlestone Retail Community District. Site plan was originally approved for the site in October of 2022. The original site plan included a medical office building for the Iowa Clinic. The building was 57,000 square feet in area. The applicant is now requesting approval of a site plan for an addition to the existing building and parking lot. Go to the next one. That one maybe. So the project involves a 20,592 square foot addition to the existing building. Most of it includes vertical expansion along the east side of the building, but it also includes a 1,000 square foot addition for the building envelope, which includes a stair egress at the northeast corner of the building. The overall building area with the proposed addition will be 77,660 square feet and The building will be about 28 feet in height at the tallest point. The proposed site plan also includes adding parking at the southeast corner of the site. This includes nine additional spaces. That's what the left side of this sheet is showing or the slide is showing. No new accesses are proposed. Just going back here, there's four total, two at the north and two at the south already. Those will remain. Parking, landscaping and lighting requirements are being met. Public utilities are already provided to the site. Stormwater management is provided with the existing detention. It's located along the west side of the site. You can kind of see it here better. The building elevations for the addition are proposed to be constructed mainly of metal wall panels, porcelain wall panels, brick veneer, stone veneer, fiber cement wall panels and aluminum storefront system, which matches the existing building. I'll go to that.

so um staff recommends approval of the site plan and i'd be happy to answer any questions thank you very much are there any questions please vote councilmember grove yes councilmember crone yes councilmember anderson yes councilmember pierce yes councilmember lyon yes

Item I-6 for Hamilton Ridge, Plat 11. I-6A, consideration of approval of a resolution approving preliminary plat. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Melissa. The owner is Hamilton Ridge, LLC. The applicant is Landmark Development Services. This property is located south of Ashworth Road and east of View Place. It contains 28.21 acres in area. The property is zoned R2, one and two family residential. Maybe go to the next slide. The preliminary plot includes 16 lots for single-family residential development. The lots range in size from 0.22 acres to 0.64 acres in area. All lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the R2 zoning district. The preliminary plot also includes several out lots for the creek along the north side of the plot. Those outlots will be tied to the adjacent property owners, but they will not be buildable. Outlots W and X at the north side of the plot will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. And then outlot P, which is at the east side, it's kind of hard to see on here, it's at the far east side of the plot. This outlot, that'll be for parkland dedication, which will eventually be owned and maintained by the city of Waukee. A 25 foot landscape buffer will be provided along the west side of the development adjacent to U Place. Two public streets will be provided, both being cul-de-sacs. A five foot wide sidewalk will be provided along the east side of U Place. And then five foot wide sidewalks will also be provided adjacent to both of the cul-de-sacs with individual lot development. Trail easements will be provided in order to provide public trail connections in the future through the greenway areas. It's really hard to see on here, but you can kind of see it. There's a trail easement here that will be provided, and then there will also be a trail easement that will run along kind of the southern east side of the plot, which will run through our parkland as well. Public utilities will serve all the lots. Stormwater detention will be provided within detention basins located throughout the proposed plat. Let's see if there's anything else in here. I think that's it. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? I have one question. Several years ago, we had a conversation regarding this development in this creek area about preservation and restoration of the creek area and the trees associated therewith. These outlots, I understand, are going to be tied to the homeowner lots next to them, are there going to be, and obviously they're not buildable because they're not buildable, but are there going to be any sort of restrictions, requirements on maintaining the trees and preservation of that area?

As far as I know, we have not discussed that. I just know that they cannot build anything on it, including like accessory structures or anything. I mean, I think our idea is that it would remain as natural, but I don't know as far as like not allowing someone to take down a tree or something. I don't think we've actually put a restriction on that.

Right. Okay. I mean, yeah, and I get that. You know, like six years ago when this first came up, I think we were pretty clear with the developer that this area would need to be preserved in its natural state and maintained as much as possible. I don't know the best way to do that other than with these being outlots, I assume there's going to be, there will be some sort of HOA that probably could address that privately as well. I don't know that we, the city itself needs to have the regulations, but I think there needs to be something in place

We did have those conversations, and I agree with you. While it doesn't necessarily make sense to restrict any tree removal, there are obviously trees that are dead or bad or causing issues. We all get that. But if we could have a conversation with the developer about ways to encourage preservation and what we need to do to support that conversation.

We can certainly address that as a part of a final plot approval, any restrictive covenants and so forth. So we can start working towards that. Obviously tonight we're just really approving the layout, but very valid questions. And in addition, Melissa, are there other easements beyond just the trail easement anticipated within these outlaws?

Within the owl lots, I mean, there's sanitary sewer within there.

So there's no like overland floors or anything because it wouldn't necessarily require it there. Generally speaking, in similar situations we've had in the past, painted woods would be a good example. There are restrictions on essentially nothing can be built in these areas. So we can work from a covenant standpoint to address that as a part of a final plot.

I think that would be desired.

Thanks for remembering that. I don't think we want junk trees everywhere or anything like that, but I think we wanted this to be maintained in green space.

Yes, absolutely. Any other questions? This is not a public comment item. Please vote.

Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes. Yes. Item I-6B, consideration of approval of a resolution approving construction drawings.

Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Melissa?

I don't have a whole lot to add for this one. They're including all 16 lots and what's shown on the screen with the preliminary plot for the construction drawings for plot 11. Staff recommends approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions?

I would only reiterate that whatever restrictions we want to apply to eventual homeowners, we'd want to have that discussion with the property developer as well in terms of how they construct these lots.

Okay. All right. Please vote. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Pierce? Yes. Council Member Lyon?

Yes. Item I-7 for Alderbrook. I-7A, consideration of approval of a resolution approving preliminary plat. Can I get a motion? Move to approve. Second. Melissa.

The owner is D. Young Properties, LLC. The applicant is Landmark Companies, Inc. This property is located north of Ashworth Road and east of T. Avenue. It contains 331 acres. The property is zoned R-2. R2, PD1, R4, and C-1A. The preliminary plot includes 692 single-family lots. A total of 492 lots are zoned R2, and the remaining 200 single-family lots are proposed to be smaller single-family that are planned development lots. Outlots V and T are zoned R4. So they're kind of a gray on the screen. Those are for future townhome development. Outlot V is 6.82 acres and Outlot T is 23.18 acres. Outlots W and X are zone C-1A. Those are the red ones on the screen kind of at the southwest corner. That's for future neighborhood commercial development. Outlot W is 2.04 acres, and Outlot X is 8.2 acres. Outlots L, O, and S will provide stormwater detention on the north side of the plat. And then Outlot K is located along the west side of the plat, and that is for city park land. It's hard to see the labels on the screen, but it's right kind of in the center on the west side. And then several new public streets will be provided as part of this development. A 10 foot wide trail will be provided along the west side of T Avenue and then along the north side of Ashworth Road. Daybreak Drive will also include a 10 foot wide trail along the south side. Five foot wide sidewalks will be provided along all other sides of all streets. Public utilities will service all lots. Stormwater detention, again, will be provided in those detention basins located throughout the plat. Those ponds will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. Several landscape buffer easements will be provided between the different zoning districts and then also along T Avenue and Ashworth Road. The total required amount of parkland is just over 17 acres. based upon the proposed number of lots shown and what the allowable maximum density is for the R4 zoned area. The applicant is providing just under 15 acres of parkland with that outlot. So that will satisfy the parkland dedication requirements for the single family residential portion and then also a portion of the medium density residential areas and then any remaining required parkland. With future development, the R4 areas will need to be satisfied with other methods. Let me see if I have anything else in here. So that is it for the preliminary plot. The preliminary plot is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plot and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Please vote. Council member Pierce?

Yes.

Council member Crone?

Yes.

Council member Grove?

Yes.

Council member Anderson?

Yes.

Council member Lyon?

Yes. Item I7B, consideration of approval of a resolution approving construction drawings for Alderbrook Flat 1. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

And I'm going to go ahead and present on B, C, and D at the same time as I have them all up on the screen. The construction drawings for Platts 1 through 3 include public improvements, including water main extensions, storm sewer extensions, sanitary sewer extensions, and extensions of public streets. Platts 1 is at the very north side. It includes 25 single-family lots. Plat 2 includes 34 single-family lots and then the parkland outlot. Plat 3 includes 30 single-family lots. For a total between the three plats, it's 89 single-family lots. Staff recommends approval of the construction drawings, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Please vote. Council Member Crone? Yes.

Council Member Grove? Yes. Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes. Item I7C, consideration of approval of a resolution approving construction drawings for Alderbrook Platte 2. I need a motion. Move to approve.

Second.

I have nothing further to add. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Please vote. Council Member Pierce? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes. Item I7D, consideration of approval of a resolution approving construction drawings for Alderbrook Flat 3. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second. Second.

I have nothing further to add. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Any questions? Please vote. Council Member Crone?

Yes.

Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes. All right. Item I-8. Melissa finally gets to sit down. Consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing renewal with Iowa communities assurance pool ICAP for July 1st, 2026 through July 1st, 2027 for property auto professional liability insurance. Can I get a motion to approve?

Second.

Rachel. Good evening, mayor and council. Uh, before you tonight is a resolution authorizing the renewal of our property auto professional and liability insurance with Iowa community assurance pool or ICAP for fiscal year 2027. Uh, the reports attached in your packet provide a listing of all the covered property and their values along with the breakdown of the premium. Um, Just a couple of changes to note this year. We increased our deductibles slightly on property and on auto physical damage. Our deductible on property is now $10,000. It was $5,000 before. And our auto physical damage is now $1,000 for comprehensive and $2,500 for collision for all types of vehicles. Some of the savings that we got from those changes were used for a slight increase in our excess liability insurance coverage. This one's probably even harder to see, but it compares our exposure, our total values, and our premiums from fiscal 26 to fiscal 27. Over the course of the year, we added just under $2.5 million worth of vehicles to and then just over $6 million in property to our list of assets. So fortunately, we had a great year for claims. And even with the increased property values, our premium increase is only 4%. So it was a great increase or a great premium there, which makes the total premium $669,559 for fiscal 27. Staff recommends approval of the resolution, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Are there any questions? All right. Please vote. Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce? Yes. Council Member Lyon?

Yes. All right. Item J, reports. Brad?

I have nothing to report.

Oh.

No report.

No report. I have a fun fact. Oh, sure. This month marks 10 years that I've been on city council.

What? Just crazy. Oh, we don't need to clap about it. It's just crazy.

When we are talking about Hamilton Ridge. I spent 10 years this month, which makes me feel very old.

So there's that. The first time we talked about that development. Oh. Me too. Me too.

I just want to thank all the staff who are working hard this past weekend for the 4th of July. Our city puts on an amazing presentation and show, and it's to the dedication and hard work of a lot of folks. Also would like to recognize the Waukee Rotarian of the Year, which is Brad Dietz.

I'm nothing after that. Lori, anything? Nope.

Well, I do want to make just a couple of comments as well. I want to add my thanks to Rob's and I'm sure to everybody else's up here. Our staff puts in a tremendous amount of work to get ready for the 3rd and 4th of July. And unfortunately, we did have to cancel Friday due to uncertainty around storm activity, which I think was the right decision, even though the storms ended up holding off till later. But you never know. And having people be unsafe out in our parks is not a good solution. but they were out all day on Saturday in the heat trying to make sure our residents had a good time. And we just are so appreciative of their dedication. The other thing I wanted to mention is that as most of you probably saw, we did start to start to ease watering restrictions last week due to just improved nitrate levels, as well as some lower watering and lower water usage numbers that we've seen, which is all very positive. And so that's huge, huge positive for our community and for all of our metro community. And I want to thank everybody that The win-ahead end did reduce watering during this period. I also want to comment that we have not, Central Iowa Water Works and Waukee Water, as a customer of Central Iowa Water Works, as now a joint owner of Central Iowa Water Works, has never violated a clean water drinking standard. Never. All of the tests that are done on a regular basis, whether they're required annually, every two, three, five years have been provided to, and I have seen them. They are also available for anyone that would have that question and can be shared as well. It is publicly available information. And so I just want to reiterate that. From all of us up here, we also appreciate that you guys come out and share your thoughts with us. And with that, I will take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Thank you, Becky.

You're welcome.