City Council - Regular Meeting

We'll call this regular meeting of the Waukee City Council to order. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Thank you. Thank you. We're pleased to roll call.

Mayor Clark.

Mayor.

Councilmember Anderson.

Here.

Council Member Crone?

Here.

Council Member Grove? Here. Council Member Lyon?

Here.

Council Member Pierce? Here.

All right. 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 or on any item on the agenda other than a public hearing. If anyone here tonight wishes to address the council and voice your comments or questions, you can approach the podium or raise your hand. I want to highlight a couple of things. So give me just a minute. If you're participating via Zoom, you can click on the raise hand icon located in the reactions controls. So go ahead and approach, but the first hand that I saw it, yep. If you want to form a queue, you can. I want to highlight just a couple of things since we have some new faces here tonight. So the only public hearing we have tonight is on disposal of property related to an Iowa DOT thing. If you're here to speak on that tonight, you wait until that. If you're here to speak on anything else, now is your chance. We do limit comments to three minutes in order to get everybody through and be out before midnight. So if you could limit to three minutes, we would appreciate that. And then please make sure to address us. Thank you.

I promise to keep it under three minutes.

Oh, and you do need to state your name and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Steve Ridge, R-I-D-G-E, and I'm a new resident at the Center Stage Apartments. My permanent residence, however, is in Marion, Iowa, and I'm a licensed private investigator, and I think some of you already may know me. I have been the lead investigator, private investigator, on the Jody Husentruth missing persons case for nearly eight years and am responsible for most of the progress that's been made. However, I'm here because I had a rude awakening when I arrived at my new residence, and that was my car got towed all of a sudden, and I'd never heard of CrowTow. And I guess they gave me a sticker, and I didn't put it on. However, that's not my issue. My issue is the way the car was... extracted from the parking spot, pulled in an angle, and I did about $7,000 damage. Brand new car, 2,000 miles. So I'm still evaluating the damage, but that's really minor. I have met now dozens of people that have been affected by this. And so I will be filing a class action lawsuit against Croteau very soon. But I also wanted to recommend that the city council consider looking at some actions that municipalities can take to curb this kind of predatory behavior. And Marion, Iowa happens to be one of the few communities in the nation that has taken action. I worked with the people over there on this about three years ago. So I created a document that you all can have referred to. I think you have bigger fish to fry tonight, so I'm going to get out of the way and sit down, but I hope you'll take a look, and I will definitely be in touch. It's a beautiful city. My wife has been admitted over at StoryPoint Kettlestone in the memory care unit, and she I'm here indefinitely, even though I still have my condominium in Marion. So I'm here to support her. So I want to thank you. It's a great city, great city council. I met a wonderful police chief back here. And I just want to thank you all for your time and consideration. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Steve. Go ahead. Next person can approach. I do want to add to something that I didn't mention. If it is on the agenda tonight, we can speak about the topic. If it is not, we are not permitted by Iowa code since this is an open meeting and agenda had to be published ahead of time. So if it is on the agenda, we can speak back. That one is not. So if you would like to speak to any of us after the council meeting, you're welcome to stay.

Go ahead. Madam Mayor, my members of the council, my name is Phil Hoy, 5820 Westtown Parkway, West Des Moines. I'm the vice president of store development and real estate with Hy-Vee. This item that I want to speak on is on the agenda regarding the new development being proposed at Alice's Road and Hickman. In particular, the traffic study is really what I want to speak to. And we did submit a letter to you earlier today. We received a copy of the revised traffic study. We actually received a copy of the original traffic study last week and provided a letter to the Planning Commission with some concerns and presented those concerns to Planning Commission. They spoke about those concerns at the meeting and the condition that Planning Commission gave was recommended approval with an updated traffic study. So we received that late Friday, it would have been. And so we reviewed that as best we could and then submitted what we have for questions, concerns remaining. We'll admit they did a tremendous job in a short amount of time from planning commission to last Friday to address some of those concerns that we had. So I want to acknowledge they did make some adjustments, changes, modifications, updates, a pretty meaningful accomplishment in a short amount of time. obviously staff and head review those changes and turn around in a day, the comments that they've provided to you likely in your staff report. We still have a few more, which I highlighted in my letter, so I'm not going to read the letter to you. I just want to pull out a few main items and just really make our position clear on what we'd like to ask of you. So the The study and some of the comments from the consultants addressed continued issues, specifically the southbound turn movements on Alice's Road and Hickman. The queue lengths will back up longer than is provided for currently, and there's really no solution provided for or discussed. in that regard. There's an exhibit on page 13, similar to my concern I had on the Planning Commission evening that allocates 90% of the traffic generated, but leaves off the other 10, calls it local roads, but there are no local roads contributing to the traffic because there's no other local road access to that property. So there's still 10% of the traffic that's missing from the study. These might be small things, minor things, but in addition to those things, one of the other recommendations is some restriping on the Hy-Vee property, our property. And while the developer did reach out when we sent the letter to the Planning Commission and expressed a willingness to talk, we have had no conversations about potential solutions to our site. And as you would all know, there's been lots of changes out on our property over the years. The signal that's there, we paid for that signal a number of years ago. So we've been very invested in making sure that our customers and the community around that area can access. Area safely and efficiently and so we obviously have an interest that that continues and so we respectfully ask that the City Council consider two four week a time frame here where we can actually Really dig into the solutions that are being proposed and make sure that they do work for everybody We would like to have a seat at the table at those solutions a table that we've not yet been to so that would be our ask and if if the City Council does move forward regardless of our request, then we have some conditions that we've requested you make on the approval if you decide to go that direction as well, which is provided for in the letter to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe that Rudy will speak at length about the traffic study in a little bit, and so we will hear more on that as well.

Another? Yep, go ahead. Okay.

Mayor Clark, council members, good evening. My name is Robert Bell. I live at 135 Southeast Trillium Drive here in Waukee. I'm here tonight as a Waukee parent and resident to respectfully ask that you reconsider the proposed amendment to chapter 135 regarding children playing in the streets. I wanna make something clear. I support safe streets. I support responsible parenting and I support reasonable rules that protect our children's drivers and pedestrians. This is an argument about safety. It's an argument about proportionality. Waukee already has an ordinance prohibiting playing games in the streets and alleyways. The proposed amendment goes farther by making parents responsible for allowing that conduct and making violations of the code a misdemeanor. That's a significant escalation. My biggest concern is not what this ordinance is intended to do. It's what it could become in practice. Imagine a quiet residential street or cul-de-sac where neighborhood kids routinely play, ride bikes, kick a soccer ball, play street hockey. They're not running recklessly into traffic. They're not intentionally interfering with vehicles. They're simply playing outside with kids. They live around them. Now imagine a disagreement develops between neighbors under this ordinance, a neighbor could repeatedly report those children. Police could be called, parents contacted. Ultimately, those parents could potentially face criminal charges for what they believed is letting their kids do something that was ordinary neighborhood play. Now, a law doesn't have to be intentionally abused or create the possibility of abuse. That's why I believe we need to be very clear about creating criminal liability around broadly defined conduct. And if safety is truly the objective, I believe we should regulate based on actual safety risk The proposed language treats every street essentially the same. It doesn't distinguish between a busy roadway and quiet residential cul-de-sacs. It simply prohibits playing games on streets and alleys. Why not consider measurable factors such as traffic volume, vehicle speeds, roadway classifications, visibility, or other legitimate safety concerns? Quiet neighborhood street with very little traffic presents a fundamentally different risk than a busy collector street or arterial road. If the concern is safety, let's measure the risk, not simply the existence of street. There's something else worth considering. Neighborhood play isn't just kids occupying the street. It's children getting outside, getting physically active, learning to cooperate, developing independence, building relationships. We should be encouraging this behavior. I'm not asking Waukee to abandon safety. I'm asking you to write an ordinance that recognizes the difference between genuinely dangerous conduct and ordinary childhood. Protect our children, respect parents, address real safety hazards. but don't create a criminal penalty that can turn ordinary neighborhood disagreements into legal problems. We can have safe streets without criminalizing normal childhood.

Sir, your three minutes is up. Can you conclude, please?

Yes. I respectfully ask the council to reject the misdemeanor provision as it's currently written. Thank you.

So I've received a lot of emails on this topic as I believe most of council has when we've explained back the rationale and what is happening on a couple of streets in our community. There's been very little concern after that. So hopefully once you hear the chief speak on it, we'll be able to kind of assuage some of those concerns. Your quest is valid. Are there additional people who would like to speak?

There's a hand raised in Zoom.

Okay, we'll take the Zoom first and then you can come up.

Just a moment. This would be Courtney.

Courtney, it is your turn to speak.

Good evening, Mayor Clark and members of the City Council. My name is Courtney Myshefsky. I'm a direct descendant of six pioneer families with deep roots in the history of this area.

Courtney, I do need you to state your address for the record, too.

I live in Fredericksburg, Virginia currently, but I am a direct descendant of six pioneer families with deep roots in the history of the area. The Hammond, Sprague, Reed, Givler, Zuck, and Burkholder families. I am here to oppose the proposed amendment to city code section 135.04. I have read both the existing code and the proposed amendment. My objection is not based on a misunderstanding of either. I understand the city's concern about children playing in traffic. The issue is whether this amendment addresses that problem with the precision expected of a criminal ordinance. For context, Mayor Clark explained in an email to me, and I quote, I want to give you some context that I think will help clarify things. Stating that the amendment originated from one specific situation involving a child playing in the street where parents allegedly refused multiple requests to stop the conduct. That explains the motivation for the amendment. It does not justify creating a town-wide criminal liability provision without clearly defining its limits. Mayor Clark also explained that enforcement will be limited to quote-unquote extreme and rare circumstances after parental notice and refusal to correct the conduct. If those are the limits, they belong in the ordinance, not in an email explaining how the ordinance is intended to be enforced. The underlying prohibition may not be new. The legal consequence for parents is. Consider the Waukee Cemetery. 6th Street is a historic roadway, and there is no protective barrier between the roadway and the graves along its edge. When I take my four-year-old daughter to visit our family graves, simply stepping out of our vehicle onto those public rights of way could technically expose me to a misdemeanor and a fine of up to $855. A parent could also have a vehicle emergency with children in the car and need to move those children into a safer position along a public right of way. That is not children playing in traffic. The ordinance should say so. If the city's actual objective is to address parents who knowingly allow dangerous street play after notice and refusal to correct it, then write that standard into the law. Do not enact broader criminal language and rely on enforcement discretion to narrow it afterward. I urge the council to reject this amendment and require a precise redraft that addresses the actual safety problem without creating unnecessary criminal exposure for ordinary family activity. Thank you.

Thank you. I have to admit, I've been a little bit surprised by some of the emails I've gotten that seem to think it's okay for children to play in the streets on a regular basis. I understand neighborhood play. Kids play in the streets all the time in my neighborhood. However, they move when cars come down. What we're addressing today is that that is not happening. That is not happening in a neighborhood. And in fact, it's caused police issues. I don't think we should be expending police resources to take multiple calls to the same neighborhoods again and again and again to address issues. So your comments are appreciated. Go ahead.

Okay.

All right, good evening. My name is Keith Seashore and I live at 2700 Northwest 167th Court in Clive, Iowa. And my lot butts directly up to the proposed Walmart. So I am heavily and negatively impacted by this potential placement. So I'm here to share some concerns today that I have around the location and also suggest some potential changes that would really help maintain my property value as it does, unfortunately, if it doesn't unfortunately move forward. First, this is not the right location. There are very few Walmarts that back up to a residential area. most walmarts are fully surrounded by commercial areas all around and avoid any of the negative pitfalls of being close to residents i will point out that there was a potential ankeny walmart that was proposed in 2024 backed up to residential area that did not move forward due to significant homeowner opposition and i really see no difference here Second is a homeowner who is impacted likely the most of anyone in the community and whose lot is the closest to the store. The location of the auto center, along with the docking placement and trash will be very disruptive to my property and surrounding neighbors. Excessive noise from the auto center, Walmart's recycling bins and semis potentially dropping off shipments at all hours of the night on the Northern end will be a major disruptive experience. At the very least, I would hope the following could be mandated by this council. There should be a requirement to ensure a planning of a significant number of mature evergreen trees in order to create a densely populated visual barrier between the back of the store and my property line. This is really important in the late fall winter when the leaves that currently exist fall off and you can have direct sight of line into that building. The plan does not show how many trees nor the size of the trees that will be planted. From other stores that I have seen where there is a tree barrier line, many times I see three foot trees, half of them are dead in the middle of the summer, doesn't do any good. I think Walmart could do much better and make sure that we have a large set of mature evergreen trees that are covering my sight lines in my property. And then secondly, light should be placed and controlled at a minimum glare to make sure there's no spillover into my yard. And then finally, an eight-foot sound barrier wall on the segment, the segmental retaining wall between the store and my property on the northeast perimeter should be a reasonable and required element of a site plan versus what exists right now with just a cheap four-foot chain link fence. We could do much better there. And that type of wall would really help minimize and sounds from the store potentially coming into my property. Walmart's value is almost $1 trillion. These asks are very minimal. It won't have any impact on the profitability of the store, but would have a big impact on our property, the one that I own. And finally, I would just say, if this was your property, any of you, I think you would ask for similar concessions and making sure that your value is protected the best that it could. And these couple things that I would request are very minimal and very affordable, and would help me tremendously. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Your points are well taken. I know that we've been in communication around buffering. And so hopefully, we'll speak to that tonight. But we will continue to work on that if it if it moves forward. Thank you. Any other comments?

Interested in Zoom?

Okay. An open forum is closed. Agenda item E is agenda approval. Can I get a motion? Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion? Please vote.

Councilmember Crone? Yes. Councilmember Grove?

Yes.

Councilmember Lyon? Yes. Councilmember Anderson?

Yes.

Councilmember Pierce?

Yes. Agenda item G1 is a public hearing on the disposal of real estate in accordance with Iowa Code 364.7. I now declare this public hearing open. Becky, have we received any correspondence on this?

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

Thank you. Rudy?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening, council members. Up on the screen is a map displaying the right-of-way to be transferred to the state of Iowa, specifically even the Iowa Department of Transportation. Outlined in the red polygon up on that map, this is the interchange of Interstate 80 and Grand Prairie Parkway on the north, the city of Waukee on the south of this interchange, the city of West Des Moines. Working through our Grand Prairie Parkway Corridor Enhancement Project, if you're familiar with that, we've discussed that at prior workshops, recently just reviewed those bids received. Going through that right away investigation, we noticed we did not transfer this to the Iowa DOT as we were anticipated to do, expected to do as part of that interchange construction project several years ago. So this is really a cleanup item. transferring the necessary right away to the DOT so they can continue with their responsibility for maintenance of the interchange itself, controlling access distances and locations as well. We've worked with the District 1 staff to verify the area outlined in red works for their continued and future maintenance efforts as well as it preserves our efforts in that northeast quadrant with our monument signing that we're proposing with that enhancement project and access to that area as well. So With that, happy to take any questions. But again, this is a transfer to the state of Iowa for that right away.

Thank you. Does anyone here tonight, either in the council chambers or on Zoom, wish to speak on this public hearing item? If so, please approach the podium or click on the raise hand icon located in the reactions controls. There are no hands raised in Zoom. Does council have any questions at this time? Now declare this public hearing closed. Agenda item H1, consideration of approval of a resolution authorizing the disposal of real estate in accordance with Iowa Code 364.7. Move to approve.

Second.

Anything further, Rudy?

Nothing to add. City staff did work with the city legal staff to prepare the quick claim deed, and so that's what we will be transferring over to the state of Iowa via that methodology. So if there's any questions of that, happy to take those. But we, again, recommend approving the resolution. Thank you.

Any questions? Please vote. Councilmember Pierce? Yes. Councilmember Grove? Yes. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Lyon?

Yes.

Councilmember Crone?

Yes. Agenda item H1, consent agenda. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussions? Please vote. Council Member Crone.

Yes.

Council Member Lyon. Yes. Council Member Grove.

Yes.

Council Member Pierce. Yes. Council Member Anderson.

Yes. Item H2, consideration of approval of an ordinance for the Division of Revenues under Section 403.19 Code of Iowa for the North Waukee Residential Urban Renewal Area 2026 ordinance parcels. This is a second reading.

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

Second. Second.

Jennifer. Good evening, Mayor and Council. As you just mentioned, this is the second reading of the 2026 TIF ordinance parcel in the North Waukee Residential Urban Renewal Area. These parcels, excuse me, are highlighted here in green on the screen. As you know, this TIF ordinance is due to the last 12 months of development in this area and anticipated development as well. The ordinance does establish the city's ability to capture TIF increment. We would recommend the second reading of the ordinance. If you have any questions, happy to answer.

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. Item H3, consideration of approval of an ordinance to amend Chapter 135 of the Waukee Municipal Code regarding playing in streets or alleys. This is also a second reading.

I move to approve the second reading in the ordinance entitled only.

Second.

Chief. Good evening, Mayor and Council. This ordinance was brought forth at the last council meeting for introduction and first reading. and as you may recall even though one incident made us realize the gap in the ordinance as we grow that gap is going to become wider and what i mean by that is currently the way the code is written if we have a problem with children playing in the street our alternative is to charge that child with a simple misdemeanor and we don't want to do that so the amendment to this code takes that responsibility off of the kid and puts it back on the parents um The likelihood of us using this is slim, and I know that's no comfort to some. However, our team uses good judgment every single day, and they talk to people every single day, and they educate people every single day on hundreds and hundreds of laws that we have at our disposal that we never charge. But the goal is, if we did get into a situation where somebody just refuses to obey the law, we need to be able to enforce the law. And currently, charging a child with a simple misdemeanor for playing in the street is not practical um so this this amendment would take that to the parent i do also want to be clear that the simple misdemeanor is a city code violation and it is no different than an animal at large ticket there's no fingerprints there's no mugshot There's no federal criminal history that goes with it. Yes, it would show up on Iowa courts as a city code violation, but it is the exact same charge as a dog at large ticket. And the reason for that is because our city code under Section 1.14 defines a standard penalty of any city code violation as a civil misdemeanor. Just flat across the board. And that's just the way that the law works. We have to have a penalty in our code. And by our code, the standard penalty is a civil misdemeanor. So whether you get written a ticket for a dog at large or whether you get cited for allowing your kids to play in the street, it's the exact same thing. Along with that, I also, Mr. Bell's comments about there are different risks with different roadways. There are. However, number one, it's impractical to separate out specific streets and code. But number two, those vehicles backing out of driveways or pulling out of driveways in the streets actually create just as much problem as a street that's heavily traveled. Now, certainly not to the level of Hickman or University or Grand Prairie, right? But those parents that back out of their driveway and are used to doing that on a daily basis, I would argue are probably paying less attention than those kids, those parents that are driving down the street on maybe a collector street or something of that nature. So we do feel that the amendment is necessary and we feel that it's justified. Additionally, to the comment online... I can't pronounce Courtney's last name. I apologize, Courtney. But to your comment, the code is clear on what we're talking about, and that is it is unlawful for any person to coast, sled, or play games in streets or alleys. The code says nothing about stepping outside of a vehicle to cross a street or to get to a sidewalk or walking down the side of a street essentially in the gutter area where you're not in the travel lane. The code is very, very clear on what is prohibited by this section. We're not changing that at all. Again, today, if we were to enforce it, it would be enforced against the child. And our preference is to change that to where we speak with the parents. If the parents refuse to comply after multiple times of talking to them, then we could charge that. Additionally, the court process is designed where we have to show our case and we have to go and prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt. So a situation where a neighbor calls in on another neighbor, we're not going to take something that's a he said, she said, and said to court because we can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. We're going to have to have the evidence sufficient to do that as we would with any other case. So hopefully that quells a little bit of that. I know there's still some concerns. I understand that. But ultimately, streets are for vehicles. They're designed for cars. They're designed for traffic. They're not designed for people. And what we're trying to do is keep our kids safe. We're trying to keep Mr. Bell's kids safe. We're trying to keep other people in the community safe. So with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions? Chad, to be clear, this is state law, correct?

There is a state law that corresponds with this, yes. State law says that cities are required to keep streets free of, it defines it as nuisance, I believe, which is anything that prohibits or conflicts with vehicle traffic. So there is a state law that the city code is based off of. Additionally, I would say that And I haven't gone and looked, but if you researched any city in the United States, chances are you're going to find the exact same language. Because when I was in Kansas, we had the exact same language. Windsor Heights has the exact same language. Clyde, Urbandale, we were talking at a chief's meeting, they have the exact same language. So this is not an us thing.

Thank you.

Other questions?

What is the difference with the... It just being ticketed, like if you parked on the side of the road when you weren't supposed to during the snow to like a ticket, that's a simple misdemeanor.

So a traffic infraction are things that are outlined by state code, which we adopt as a city code. So like speeding and stuff of that nature. Those are traffic infractions that are specific to the Iowa Code 321 that deals with traffic. Because this is a city code, that is something that the city adopts that we don't enforce under state code. And again, our code of ordinances under Section 1.1 before the beginning defines any penalty for any violation of city code as a simple misdemeanor.

Thank you. Anything else? Please vote.

Council member Grove.

Yes.

Council member Anderson.

Yes.

Council member Crone.

Yes.

Council member Lyon.

Yes.

Council member Pierce.

Yes. Agenda item H4, consideration of approval of an ordinance from in chapter 26, park regulations by amending section 26.12, dogs restricted to rename section 26.12 as dogs and to include dog park rules and regulations. It's definitely a Monday. Third and final reading on this one. Go ahead.

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

Matt. I have nothing further to add from the first two readings. As a reminder, this is a cleanup to put the dog park rules from a resolution into the ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right.

Please vote.

Council Member Crone?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes.

Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce?

Yes. Item H5, consideration of approval of a resolution approving development agreement with Alderbrook LLC, J. Larson Homes LLC, and Waukee Commons LLC at 310th Street. 310th Street.

Can I get a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Second.

Good evening, Mayor Clark and council members. Before you tonight is consideration of a developer's agreement with Alderbrook LLC, J. Larson Homes LLC, and Waukee Commons LLC. Really the driver of this development agreement is the hot mix asphalt or HMA overlay of 310th Street. It's about 1.15 miles worth of asphalt overlay of 310th Street that would be just west of the southwest corner. So this property right here, if you can see on the screen where I've got my little red dot, that's the southwest corner of the Civic Campus property that the city owns. The city previously did an asphalt overlay of U Place and then the rest of 310th Street out towards 6th Street. This would be an asphalt overlay of the remainder of 310th Street over to T Avenue and then a short section of T Avenue to the northwest corner of the Alderbrook property. In addition, the development agreement outlines the responsibility of installation of a public water main along this roadway as well. And really the whole purpose of this agreement is because there are several residential subdivisions either under construction now within this area or in the near future will be under construction. They have a need to get this asphalt overlay completed probably sooner rather than later. So that way we kind of quit getting some dust complaints. And then in addition, these developments also need public water main access to them for future fire flows and things like that. City staff has worked with the three different parties. They've all agreed to pay their fair share. The agreement outlines the responsibilities for this and the city attorney has prepared the agreement and staff recommends approval of the development agreement. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions? One quick question. I remember we had a couple of residents that to us about development in this area and had some concerns about the construction traffic creating dust in the house. Is that the same area? This would be kind of the same area. Okay. I was just curious if it was that resident that was impacted or if this was...

This would aid in some of those dust control complaints for several of those residents within this area. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Please vote.

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

Yes. Item H6, consideration of approval of a resolution approving construction drawings for 310th Street and T Avenue. Move to approve. Second.

Andy? I think I pretty much described what's all included in these plans, but this includes, again, about 1.15 mile worth of asphalt overlay of 310th Street, again, west of U Place, and then over to T Avenue, and then just south to the northwest corner of the Alderbrook development, which is this area here that's shown on, that I'm pointing to here with the red dot. The Alderbrook development would continue to do phases of asphalt overlay of T Avenue as they continue to complete their various phases of that project. In addition, there's a 12-inch water main that would be extended along 310th Street, and then it would transition to an 18-inch water main as it goes south along T Avenue. Staff is recommending approval of the construction plans for 310th Street and T Avenue. I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions?

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

Yes.

Council Member Lyon?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Grove? Yes.

Item H7, Allison Hickman Development. H7A, consideration of approval of a resolution approving preliminary plat.

Can I get a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

All right. So I'll present on items 7A and B here because they're essentially the same request, just a little bit different document. But the owner is Heard Land Company, LLC. The applicant is Orange Development, LLC. And the owner and applicant are requesting approval of a preliminary plat and a final plat for a commercial development. The property is outlined in blue on the screen. It's located at the northeast corner of Northeast Alice's Road and East Hickman Road. And it's just over 33 1⁄2 acres in area. For those council members, you'll recall this property was rezoned earlier this year from the A1 Agricultural Zoning District to the C1 Community and Highway Service Commercial District. The preliminary plat and final plat, this up here on the screen, is kind of the cover sheet of the preliminary plat. Preliminary plat and final plat identified the creation of three lots, again, for commercial development. Lot 1, which is the largest lot, kind of takes up the north two-thirds of the property and then kind of all the way down into the southeast corner of it. That's 29.31 acres in area. Lot 2, which is the larger lot at the southwest corner of the property, that's 3.19 acres in area. And Lot 3, which is kind of the small square right here, that is just over an acre in area. All lots meter exceed the minimum requirements of the C1 Community and Highway Service Commercial District. No new public streets are planned for this development. Private streets and utilities will serve SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT. THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE WALMART PROJECT, WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. BUT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE EXTENSION OF A PRIVATE STREET. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE OUTLINE OF IT. A PRIVATE STREET THAT WOULD ACCESS OFF OF HICKMAN ROAD, OR EXCUSE ME, NORTHEAST ALLISON'S ROAD, AND THEN CONTINUE OVER TO THE EXISTING ACCESS THAT SHARES THAT ACCESS POINT WITH THE WESTLIGHT APARTMENT PROJECT THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THIS In addition, there are two other access points shown, one off of Northeast Allises Road and one kind of in the center of the property on the south side to Hickman Road. A right turn lane is proposed to be added at the easternmost access off of Hickman Road. That was warranted as part of the traffic study that was submitted for the review of this project. This easternmost access point is a three-quarter access point. Off of Hickman Road, the center access off of Hickman is a restricted right in, right out. These two access points on Hickman Road, those are under the Iowa DOT's jurisdiction. Those are predetermined access points as part of a corridor agreement that the city and the DOT already have and have had for several years. There is an additional access, as indicated previously, just north of the intersection. That is a right-in, right-out, so you'll be able to turn right into that and come out of it and go right and go north on Alice's Road. The existing signalized intersection that's directly opposite of the Hy-Vee grocery store, just directly to the west, that is a full signalized intersection, so you'll be able to go any direction, north, south, east, west, from that intersection. All proposed access points meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the street design guide. And as indicated, the DOT has already issued permits for the proposed access points off of East Hickman Road. I would note there is an existing wetland area within this development. You can kind of see it. Here it's kind of tough to see, but you can kind of see this small meandering area. But area here, the developer and the property owner have secured the appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers as well to mitigate any sort of impacts to the wetland areas and to purchase credits for wetland mitigation bank uses. This wetland area will be rerouted via a storm sewer pipe that will essentially, there's already a storm sewer pipe there that outlets drainage from the Alice's Road corridor. And that pipe will be shortened a little bit And then we'll be piped and then up and around the store and we'll outlet up into the existing wetland area. Probably the largest wetland area is up here in the northeast corner of the property that's not being disturbed as part of this development. 30-foot landscape buffer is required to be installed as part of the project. You can kind of see those conceptual plantings along the north and east boundaries. The purpose of that is to provide screening from the adjoining residential uses to the north and to the east. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the preliminary plat and final plat for Allison-Hickman development. AT THEIR MEETING ON AUGUST 11, 2026. I WOULD NOTE THAT, AGAIN, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD CREATE THE LOTS. THEY'RE NOT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED WALMART SUPERCENTER. WE'LL GET TO THAT HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR ALLISON HICKMAN DEVELOPMENT. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

Thank you. If there are questions about site plan, please reserve them for that item. Can you speak just a little bit more about where exactly the right turn lanes are?

Yeah, so the right turn lanes, this might be, so the right turn lane would be installed. So here's the existing access point. Yeah, it's an Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, it's right here. Yes. Existing right turn lane at the center access point. Okay. Yep. Okay. Yep. Thank you.

What other questions?

Yep.

Do we have a Walmart representative here?

There are, or there are representatives from the applicant here tonight. I don't know if there's actually someone from Walmart corporate here tonight.

Okay. Cause I, the question I have for whoever that is, Is the thought process for this site, instead of moving further south towards the interstate or even west where on Hickman, where we've got tons of room and looking for developments like that out there.

I don't believe anybody from Walmart is on, but if anybody would like to address that. No, an applicant for this is, yeah, they're here.

they can answer. Okay, I'm sure.

Joseph Parsley, Cross Consulting Engineers, president of the company, 76 Lightstone Commons, Bartlett, Tennessee, 38133. I was certainly not part of the selection process. I'm the civil engineer on the project, so I can't speak to demographics or What led them to choose this piece of property? The developer was heavily involved with the selection of this piece of property. I just can't speak to why this one was the one that they chose.

Okay.

My question has to do with, sorry, is there somebody online who's raised their hand to speak?

Is that somebody from Walmart?

Okay.

Okay. Go ahead.

Okay.

um my question has to do with with the seashores and the buffer that will be along the back side i i agree i wouldn't want the noise in my backyard i wouldn't want the light in my backyard and i would want as much buffer as possible what is the plan yes we actually we're 110 feet away from that back property line with our final grading so we have 110 feet of trees of existing trees in addition to the landscape buffer that we're planning Tell me about that landscape buffer that you're planning.

Yeah, I don't have, we can get to think the landscape plan once we get to the site plan and show you some more details of what that looks like. But it's a 30 foot evergreen. I mean, it's smoked trees. It's a staggered landscape buffer in addition to the existing trees that are out there today. And, again, that's another 110 feet from the property.

Those leaves will drop in the wintertime, though, so I'm curious regarding their question about how tall these trees will be that you plant.

Right.

Because if they're baby trees, it's going to take 20 years before they'll provide.

No, we certainly can get that landscape planted. I just don't have that in front of me to tell you what size those were.

Okay, good. It's not a three-foot. Okay. Mayor, I would suggest, just based upon some of the nature of these questions, that it may be of value if staff would just go ahead and present on the site plan at this time, and then we could follow up with approval of both items seven and eight.

That would be fine.

Thank you.

Gave me time to get a drink of water, I guess. All right. All right, so I will move on to item eight. Again, the owner is Heard Land Company, LLC. The applicant is Orange Development, LLC. The property's outlined in blue on the screen here. It's 33.53 acres in area. And the owner and applicant are requesting approval of a site plan to complete private site improvements. associated with infrastructure and private road for the development, as well as to construct a Walmart Supercenter store and a fueling station at the southeast corner of the property. The site plan identifies the construction of a 182,429 square foot retail store on the north side of the site. That's the large red box here on the screen, on the top of the screen. within lot one of the Allison Hickman development subdivision that we just spoke about. The store is proposed to include home goods, groceries, outdoor goods, a pharmacy, a drive-through prescription area is shown here on the west side of the building, and auto service on the northeast side of the building. So up here, kind of where you can see my red pointer, the access into the auto service center would be from the east side of the building, not the north side of the building. In addition, there are five loading docks shown at the northwest corner of the building, and then a trash enclosure and recycling area located. You can kind of see this long, narrow rectangle here just south of these trees that's proposed up on the north side of the site. The fueling station includes a fuel canopy with 10 fuel pumps, so both sides, so there'd be 20 fueling spots, and 1,600 square foot, Sea store building there directly north of the fuel canopy Trash enclosure for the fuel station would be directly on the east side of the building One monument sign is planned along Hickman Road, and then there's one proposed along Northeast Alice's Road Based on the proposed use of the site 730 parking spaces are required and the site plan identifies just under 750 parking spaces The 10-foot-wide trail exists along East Hickman Road, Reckon River Valley Trail that we're all familiar with. And then as part of the site plan improvements, a five-foot-wide sidewalk would be constructed along the west side, along Northeast Alice's Road. In addition to, you can see a better outline of this private road network, there would be a five-foot-wide sidewalk constructed on at least one side of the private road network to facilitate pedestrian movement throughout the development process. As we discussed, as far as access points, there's an existing three-quarter access point in the very southeast corner of the site. There is a right-in, right-out in the center of the site from Hickman Road. There is a right-in, right-out just north of the intersection along Northeast Alice's Road. The full access point would be here at the signalized intersection. And then this site plan does show an additional right-in, right-out access point just to the north or at the very northwest corner of the site. The primary need for this access point is for deliveries and truck deliveries and things like that. That's how deliveries would be facilitated to the site. Again, Iowa DOT has issued permit authorizations for the work within the DOT right-of-way. As previously discussed, the right-hand turn lane would be installed at the center access point. The extension of the private streets that are included with this are within the site plan improvements, as well as... Storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main would be extended throughout the development to provide access to utilities. Stormwater management would be accounted for in a regional stormwater detention basin, kind of up in the northeast corner of the site. That pond would be owned and maintained by the owner of lot one. So that would provide detention for lots two and three as well in the future when they do develop. A photometric plan has been submitted for review and demonstrates compliance with the lighting requirements. So I know there was a comment previously during the open forum. So we reviewed that photometric plan. There shouldn't be any light spillover to the northeast or really into any perimeter boundary. Maybe a little bit of lighting here kind of at these access points, just simply because you want to make sure you have some lighting there as well. But there shouldn't be any light spillover along the north or east property boundaries, certainly. All fixtures are required to be full cutoff, which basically means you have your plane of your fixture and basically so that no light only goes down. It doesn't go out this way or go up this way. So there's no up lighting proposed as part of this. The landscaping and open space requirements are being met. A total of 20% of open space is required, and the site plan indicates that 43.9% is being provided. As we previously discussed, a 30-foot landscape buffer is required along the north and east boundaries. which the site plan does demonstrate compliance with that. I would note, as I believe Mr. Parsley indicated, there's a pretty good stand of existing mature trees along that north boundary. In fact, took a trip out there last week just to kind of go take a look at it. Herd Land Company, the current property owner, has done some tree clearing on that property already. And for the most part, they've removed the trees that need to be removed for this development. So There's a pretty good stand of trees out there already. So we'll certainly have to evaluate based on what additional plantings may be required as part of this buffer, depending on if any other additional removals happen throughout construction. But currently the site plan does demonstrate compliance with the buffer requirement. Those tree plantings... Those tree plantings, our code requires a minimum of a six foot high evergreen tree, six foot high ornamental tree, and then a minimum of eight foot overstory tree when they're planted. So, you know, while they're not giant mature trees at the time they get planted, they are meeting the code minimums as it relates to minimum heights and things like that at the time of planting. As far as species are concerned, I'd have to really dive into the landscape plan to tell you what species and things like that. But what I can tell you is our landscape buffer requirements require for a 30 foot buffer. I believe it's two evergreen trees and two ornamental trees and one overstory tree for every 50 lineal foot of buffer. So every 50 feet. They need to be providing every 50 feet of that buffer area. They have to provide so many trees of those different types of species. Now, whether they're a blue spruce or some other type of evergreen tree, that's not necessarily up for us to decide. That's up for a landscape architect to design and make sure that it's compliant with our code. The elevations of the proposed building to that here. And I've got some renderings that show the elevations a little better. The proposed building is proposed to be constructed primarily of precast concrete panels of various textures. So there's kind of some smooth panels. There's some textured panels that kind of have a brick look to them. Some masonry, architectural metal paneling and glazing are shown on the elevations. Fencing used for accents and screening is shown to be an ornamental style fencing. So kind of like your wrought iron looking type fencing. Here's an elevation of the proposed fueling station building. Again, very similar materials to the proposed Supercenter store. Here's the fuel canopy elevation. They have, as we've seen with a lot of our most recent convenience stores that have been constructed, the columns for the fuel canopy have been wrapped in brick. Here's just an elevation of that trash enclosure area that's just to the north of the building. Those are precast concrete panels with a texture. So the backside of this would face north, so the very north line of the property. And here's kind of some renderings of that. This gives you a little bit better perspective and see kind of some of the textures, the articulation of the building. So this would be the southeast corner of the building. So they kind of have their outdoor good area within this area. There's the auto care area. Staff did receive some correspondence prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. That correspondence was passed on to the Commission, as well as was included in your packet here tonight. In addition, staff also received some correspondence from Hy-Vee, as the gentleman previously spoke tonight, regarding some of their concerns related to the initial traffic study. Staff did present that to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on August 11th. The commission did recommend approval subject to addressing some of those concerns within the traffic study. Staff did request that the applicant prior to being placed on a city council agenda to address some of those deficiencies in the traffic report. The applicants engineer was able to address those deficiencies. Rudy and his team have reviewed the traffic study. In addition, we did have two third-party engineering firms review that traffic study late last week, Snyder and Associates, as well as Foth. Their correspondence was included in the packet here tonight. They did agree with the methodologies that the way that the study was done, the way that the numbers were updated to reflect more current traffic. and did agree with the recommendations as a result of, or what was resulted in the traffic study. And I would note that the recommendations between the initial traffic study and then the traffic study that was provided late last week, the recommendations of that essentially did not change. So while it was a good exercise to update that, make sure we had current numbers, the recommendations of the traffic study did not change.

So I just want to make sure that the council is aware of that.

Not to reiterate what's already been said here tonight, Hy-Vee did submit a letter today, which I believe I had asked Becky to print out for all of you to have up there tonight. Just some of their concerns related to inadequate turn lane length at the southbound left turns at the intersection of Alice's and Hickman, striping on their property that's not in the public right-of-way. truck traffic and deliveries. One of their issues was truck traffic and deliveries were not analyzed by the study. And then noted that the analysis of Northeast Horizon Drive did not take into account the widening of Northeast Alice's Road. So our current widening project that we have going on right now. Specifics related to the traffic study, I'd be happy to have my knowledgeable colleague, Rudy Castor, answer as well, but happy to take any questions.

Rudy, do you have slides to present on the traffic study? Something to present? Comments, please make them.

Thank you, Mayor. Just a few comments there. Thanks, Andy, for that summary. really thorough and certainly covered all the five access points into and out of the site. I will note that southbound left dual left turn lane and the deficiencies shown there in the 10-year and 20-year lookout, we're talking about 35 feet of a deficiency. There's about 80, about 90 feet of a full single lane in the taper of that. So if you read in the report, 240 is the official full length width, but there's another 90 feet in the taper that accounts for one full lane. So if you divide that over two, we're talking about 35 feet of a deficiency on those southbound lanes per lane. That's about a car and a half each. 20 feet is about approximately your car length. So again, staff reviewing that, understanding it really in the conversations I've had with KLOA, their engineers that were working with Joseph here, Their assumption for the eastbound traffic heading east on Hickman Road. There's a lot to be realized in the next five years on the Alice's Road corridor improvements as well as the Douglas Parkway corridor improvements and how traffic will likely find its way to the north and east via those improved corridors. The assumption of 40% of the Walmart-generated traffic or the sites-generated traffic going back to the east when you have three stores within seven miles or less to the northeast, east, and southeast is highly conservative. We feel that that... conservatism really just benefits that southbound left turn lane deficiency shown in this report so we have the ability to capture the real-time traffic data and we look forward to capturing that as as this project moves forward if this project moved forward as well as the remaining growth in the community we took a percent and a half growth through this area for background traffic that's really the driving number behind some of these queue lengths that we're seeing in that 10 and 20 year lookout so Again, it is a crystal ball here, this methodology is, but it is sound. It has been vetted by two other outside engineers that we work with and have confidence in their and trust in their understanding. So there's that on the southbound Q links. I mentioned the stores in proximity to the east, northeast and southeast likely driving down that east movement traffic. There is one turn lane on the west leg of the signalized Hy-Vee and proposed developments intersection. It's within the public facilities and use easement that's out there or that was given to the city when this traffic signal was constructed in 2018. That's the only striping modifications that's being noted on the site plan that the developer is showing. So nothing further into the Hy-Vee site at this point that I've seen or understand from their improvements. So it's really removing that that right turn arrow because that becomes now a through and right turn lane as you're heading eastbound out of the Hy-Vee store. Removing that or modifying it to a through and right arrow is really the modifications there. Staff, the engineering staff, Joseph and his team did share truck turning templates coming out of that signalized intersection, out of the Walmart site, out of the Hy-Vee site. There are median modifications on Alice's Road to pull those noses back to accommodate those semi-trailers. So it's a semi-tractor with a 50-foot trailer coming out of those entrances east and west. We have to pull those median noses back to 5 to 10 feet. Pretty typical or anticipated modification there. Something we hoped that we had figured out when we originally constructed Alice's Road in Phase 5 about seven years ago, but we just didn't quite get those right. So those modifications are part of the site plan improvement shown with the Walmart Supercenter. As I mentioned, or as was mentioned, the configuration and analysis at Northeast Horizon Drive and Alice Road, that revision of the lane configuration of Alice Road was included in the updated TSI. I had that specific conversation and did verify that later today as well. So that did update that. It actually improved that eastbound left turn on Horizon Drive as you were to turn left to go north on Alice Road. Having those multiple lanes provides more of a gap opportunity, as well as a vehicle that may be crossing the southbound to stopping in kind of that middle island area and then proceeding with that left turn. So again, all levels of services are a level of D or higher at our five intersections or five entrances or entrances into the development area. So again, to summarize it all, staff has confidence, and certainly myself, I have confidence after going over this traffic impact study, the original, the revisions, as to what we're presenting here and the recommendations presented. So happy to take any questions and any of those points if you have any.

Okay, for just a second, let's keep any questions to traffic. We'll go back to buffering in a minute. Are there questions related to traffic?

Before we let Rudy sit down.

And I will add one more point.

Sorry.

There was going to be a comment. When this signal was constructed in 2018, it was paid by both the Hy-Vee ownership as well as the East owner at the time, which I believe was Wright Tree Service. So they paid for this intersection 50-50. And so the city owns and operates it today, but certainly there are modifications to some of those signal heads that are being proposed, again, being paid for by the developer that will be modified at their expense for this effort. So certainly if there's continued conversation with Um, as the letter that Hy-Vee presented today about continued discussion about an access agreement, we're happy to have those between the two parties and ourselves. Um, we want to be a party of that if that does come to fruition, as well as, um, Yeah, that was one thing. And then a couple other items that they mentioned on we did hit on the horizon drive analysis was corrected. The truck circulation Andy indicated that north right in right out is their intended ingress egress for delivery semis. So it is set up appropriately for that. Three subjects the city reviewer identified as not being discussed. crash history, site distance, proposed access, multimodal accommodations. Really looking at the global corridor of Alice's and Hickman, we're treating this development no different than priors had been treated. So looking into those aspects really wasn't justified from staff's perspective. So diving into that effort, certainly under the time crunch we were looking at here, wasn't warranted to be discussed and included in the TSI at this point. So- And then lastly, that post-opening traffic study, we'll be conducting that ourselves. Again, we have traffic equipment out there. We're collecting traffic data 24-7, seven days a week, 365 days a year. So we'll be looking at those real-time traffic data as they're realized in the next 5, 10, 20 years and modifying timing plans for this intersection as well as the Allises and Hickman corridors so that we are being as efficient as we can if that's taking it to the next level of adaptive equipment or whatnot, we'll, we'll see if that's warranted at that time when traffic traffic volumes warrant that and that discussion and analysis. So I think that's all I have. And again, happy to take any follow-up questions if you have any on this traffic analysis.

Thank you. Did you have a comment?

Do Rudy stay there for a second? Was this traffic study done? Like, You said that it was three years ago. Were we still in the middle of our Alice's Road project at that point? Was this done at any point when Alice's Road was closed?

So the traffic data that they utilized was December of 2023. And one comment that was brought up at the P&Z meeting in the prior Hy-Vee letter was it didn't realize or didn't take account for Target opening after the fact, which Target wasn't open in December of 23. So I provided them February of 26 data that when Alice's Road was open north of Hickman Road through those winter months when we had a few opened months there with that project to realize what is reality and what traffic is. And so we were within a percent on Hickman Road and within a few percent on Alice's Road. Actually, the traffic data they were assuming was actually higher than what the real time data was. So we looked at a week in February. That was a typical week. with school in session, with Alice's Road open, with Target open.

And you said this is a bit like a crystal ball where we're kind of trying to guess. Do we know what sort of development will be happening in Urbandale slash Grimes all the way up Alice's Road? How much more traffic could we get on Alice's?

We, I have an answer for that, Mayor. Yep. We did about, I want to say five, probably been six years, maybe five years. We did a Northwest area study with, between the cities of Clive, Urbandale and Waukee. Clive was the lead agency on that, but we looked at all of those undeveloped land uses in all three communities to the North of Alice's road corridor, as well as to the West. And really that was to size our corridors appropriately. So with that, what was realized was Alice's road, we have six lanes South of Hickman road. We tapered down to the Ford North of Hickman road or at horizon. And that, I think at that time we did our... Can everybody online mute themselves, please?

I'm not entirely sure why we're unmuted to begin with, but we will deal with that.

Yeah, so we did a... three communities, we did a traffic forecasting outlook at those land uses. We didn't look at every parcel. We just took our land use maps and applied appropriate traffic methodology for trip generations based on those land uses. So with that, that helped us size our corridors, Douglas, Alice's Road, Meredith, Waterford. And from that really what was another document that solidified what we were projecting for volumes on Alice's Road. So.

Other questions? Okay. Not on traffic. Thank you, Rudy. Go back to buffering. And any other questions related to site plan or platting? Although I want to be clear, those are two separate votes and two separate, well, three separate actually, and three separate decision points. But any questions related to the site plan that was presented?

The seashore's Is that correct? It just didn't feel right. I mentioned an eight-foot sound barrier that Walmart would put the bill for. Is that something that we've ever had on any of our other buildings?

I'm not aware in my time with the city that either staff or the council has ever required a specific going above and beyond what the code requires. Technically, our code doesn't allow eight-foot fences in a commercially zoned district. They could have up to a six-foot high fence in a commercial area, but I'm not aware that the council has ever required that, something, an additional barrier beyond the landscape buffer requirement. And I would note that The 30-foot buffer actually requires two overstory trees, three evergreen trees, and two ornamental trees, so per 50 lineal foot of the buffer.

In terms of the site plan that you've shown, this is in addition to the existing tree canopy that is out there?

It would be in addition, yes.

Okay. So this would be an additional seven trees per 50 feet, uh, per 50 lineal feet, uh, linear.

Yeah.

Been a long day already. Um, along both the North and East corridor. Okay.

But I just want to remind the council that again, there's several mature trees that would, that are proposed to remain to be kept, um, along that North property line as well. So, um, Again, as I previously said, that's something that we would have to address as they continue to further, if this project were to move forward and they get under construction, that we might have to reevaluate that based on what's being kept. Can they get a credit for some of those trees being kept as well?

I think from the council perspective... What I'm hearing is more the better. Sure. And that that should be the communication back. Can anyone in the room speak to whether or not there would be an ability to discuss some sort of sound barrier? Thank you.

Yeah, since my client has gone beyond this 30-foot buffer, it's like I said, essentially in that piece of property in question, it's 110 feet of existing landscaping we're keeping, and then putting in all these trees that we're talking about to infill in between those gaps to help when the leaves fall, to help buffer it. So again, an eight or six-foot tall wall along that property line really won't do much because The elevation change is about 30 feet down from the finished floor at the Walmart Supercenter down to that creek. So then it does climb back up about 10 feet, but a six-foot wall is not really going to help it. It's the trees, it's the landscaping, it's those leaves and those needles.

Thank you. Are there other questions? It's not a public comment item. I am after Richard Gannon.

I'm going to ask if there are other questions for now.

Not questions, just comments. Go ahead. Have you received any complaints from the people on the west side of Target, that neighborhood?

Not necessarily complaints about noise or anything like that or light pollution. I'm not aware that we've had any complaints regarding that. I know we've had some complaints about mowing and things like that, but that's something that our co-compliance officer has addressed and we're not getting those complaints anymore.

Thank you.

Questions I have are for Walmart specifically, so I will ask them, but if that can get to them somehow.

Same.

I might have some information to share if you want to. Perfect.

Do we know what the store hours are going to be?

I do have some information as it relates to store hours. Oh, here we go. Anticipated customer-facing hours for the store are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, which is consistent with typical Walmart store operating hours. Obviously, that's a little bit different for pharmacy and the auto service center. I know I looked up before the P&Z meeting as it relates to the auto service center. It appears that most of the local Walmart auto service centers are from like 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., so those wouldn't be open until 11 p.m. is at least what my understanding is based on other local stores. Walmart indicated these hours are designed to provide walkie residents with convenient access to groceries, pharmacy and health and wellness offerings, household essentials, and other everyday products. Final hours will be established as the store approaches opening and will be subject to applicable local requirements.

So for the Walmart store, the main store, and then the convenience store, do we know how many full-time employees we're expecting and how many part-time employees we're expecting?

Let's see here. Excuse me. The Supercenter is expected to create approximately 250 to 300 local jobs, providing a mix of full and part-time opportunities for Waukee and the surrounding area. I think this is just a general corporate statistic, but it says approximately two-thirds of Walmart's U.S. hourly store roles are full-time, and staffing will depend on the store's final operations, customer demand, and services offered. And then just one more question.

As far as being active in the community, do they plan on like joining the Chamber of Commerce, regularly donating to Waypoint, helping out with HERDA, being involved with the school foundation, those types of things?

Sure. Walmart desires to become a long-term member and partner of the community. Walmart has a long history of supporting the communities where they live and work, including through relationships with local nonprofit organizations, schools, food security organizations, first responders, and other community partners. As the Waukee store moves towards opening, local store and market leadership would look for opportunities to develop similar relationships with organizations serving the Waukee community. They indicate that they would also welcome the opportunity to engage with the Waukee Area Chamber of Commerce and other local businesses and civic organizations.

Good questions. Yeah, I do have a few questions. So the existing trees that you're referencing, the 110 feet of existing trees, is that all on what is proposed to be Walmart's property?

Yes.

Okay. So then... The 30 extra feet that we're requiring then. So we're closer to 140 feet of trees. Perhaps because I'm kind of getting some wishy-washy answers on that. So I'm not exactly sure. Not from you, Andy. So I'm not exactly sure what we're referencing. We're talking about filling in some gaps, but then also talking about we already have 110 feet of trees. landscaping buffer is a landscaping buffer. I think we need to be especially clear on what we're talking about and exactly how many feet of trees are going to be not just planted, but maintained permanently. Walmart isn't here, so I guess I have to ask you.

My landscape architect prepared this plan. As you can see on here, There's a lot of trees along this northern half, so we're going to have to not just plant in a straight row all of these trees every 50 feet. You're going to have to pick a spot where you can get some sunlight in there. So, yes, we're committed to plant all the trees that's shown on this drawing right here, right now. Will they be on a nice straight lawn? You can't promise that just because you're going to have to pick some areas to get some sunlight for these trees.

But that's in addition, which that's an addition to the tree buffer that already exists. Right.

Is there 110 feet everywhere? No. There's 110 feet where the residential properties are in clot. And then it kind of gets a little bit less as you move west. But there's still a significant tree buffer there. Just not exactly 110 feet. I want to be clear on that. Sure. But we're still doing the buffer there also.

but the 110 feet will be maintained where it exists today. Yes. The trees will be maintained. Okay. Um, and then my question then is for Andy then. So, um, once, and I know I've asked this before, so forgive me, but it's been a while since we've revisited this. So once, because we require a landscaping buffer to be planted at the time, um, at the time of planting or site planning, um, Our requirements are in place then, not the trees are going in place then. How does the process work for maintenance of that landscaping buffer? What happens if it becomes depleted, trees are dying off, they're being intentionally cut down? What does that look like?

um so before a certificate of occupancy is issued by the building department planning staff would go out and you know just like a building inspector would go out to make sure that you know the building is meeting building codes planning staff would go out and do a site inspection so we make sure their parking lot is striped we make sure the building looks like the way it was approved we make sure their light fixtures are in but we also count we count trees. Um, so if there's just for the sake of simplicity, if there's 200 trees required on this site plan, we're going to go out there and we're going to count. And if it's 198 trees, we're going to say, where's your, where's tree one 99, where's tree 200. Um, and so as far as from a maintenance perspective, um, Something related to this site, and really any commercial site, you know, if staff were to see someone completely remove their landscape buffer, I mean, that'd be either a phone call from me or a letter from Paul Carpenter, our code compliance officer, saying, hey, what's going on with your landscape buffer? You need to replace those plantings because it's a code requirement. So if we started to see, you know, several trees being removed, trees are dying off, generally... You know, these types of sites, there's a one to two year warranty period for those trees, no different than when you buy a tree at your house that you get planted. So typically, I would think most property owners go out there and let their landscape contractor know, say, hey, I've got six trees dead out here, please get out and replace them. It's not uncommon for the landscape company that installed the plantings to come back one year later to do a revisit to see what needs to be warrantied and what doesn't. So I know that that's not uncommon for commercial sites, multifamily sites, things like that.

And then what happens if they don't? maintain the landscaping buffer.

If they don't maintain it and the trees start dying off, then that would become a co-compliance issue that we would have to work through with the property. And enforce just like any other co-compliance issue.

And then I have one last question. There are several lots here. The intent for Walmart, I haven't seen the purchase agreement, so I don't know. Is Walmart purchasing all of these lots?

Walmart is purchasing lot one and then the remaining two lots, my understanding, would be retained by the current property owner, Herdland Company.

Okay. So, I mean, it's a sizable, it's a sizable development within our community. I'm a little bit surprised that we don't have a representative from Walmart here tonight. I'm a little disappointed to be completely honest with you because this is a significant development. We obviously have a lot of questions for them. It would have been really helpful to have a representative here. here. It's an important development. If it were important enough to them, I thought they would have been here to answer our questions. So I am a little disappointed that they chose not to do that, especially if in writing on black and white paper, they're intending to be good community partners. I don't think this is a very good first start.

And that's exactly the comment. One of the comments that I was going to make is in sitting on city council, And thinking about this particular project, there are two questions that I had to ask myself. Number one, how is this going to affect our residents? And number two, how is it going to affect our current businesses that we already have and retain in Waukee? And when it comes to affecting our residents, I think probably the biggest challenge that we would have in this particular location is traffic. and people getting through that intersection, people getting to work in the mornings, people getting home at the end of the day, and the additional truck traffic that may be incurred because of the new development. The other is in terms of people and the inconveniences that we would have, I'm very concerned about noise and what type of accommodations we can make as far as noise goes and we can talk about the plantings and all of that and it sounds great but there will still be people who are inconvenienced by noise and what we haven't heard from Walmart is how they're going to handle unloading trucks. Are they going to be unloading trucks in the middle of the night? Are we going to be waking people up in the middle of the night or in the early morning hours to unload freight from these trucks. So that's a concern that I have. The hours of loading and unloading have not been addressed at all. We want Walmart to be a good neighbor. And right now I'm not certain that I have the answers that I need. And with the traffic issues, the truck noise, I don't think at this point that it's a good addition for us in Waukee and I will be voting no.

I'm going to propose something and, and we can discuss whether the council would like to move on it. Platting is a separate conversation. Platting is right. Dividing the land into developable components is a separate issue from site plan. It sounds like we have some pretty, some outstanding questions. I think from a site plan perspective that council would like to see answered. potentially from a Walmart representative at some point. So what I would recommend is that we still hold the vote tonight on the platting of the site in terms of just dividing it into developable areas and pose for consideration the delay of the plan approval, the site plan approval until the next voting meeting.

And one of the other things that I'd like to see is each of the email that we got from Mr. Hay from Hy-Bee and the list of things that they had concerns about. I'd like to see us type something up that the council gets so that we can see exactly how each of those areas are addressed.

You answered most of that, Rudy, tonight, but if that could be... Yeah, I'd rather have it written down so I can digest it a little bit.

Yeah. Okay.

One thing I do want to... Yeah, I'm going to be done for the moment. Are people comfortable with that plan of approach? Yes.

Okay.

Okay. Then we are going to go ahead and hold the vote on item H7, H7A, which I have already read and has been first and seconded, although quite a while ago, and I forgot who first and seconded it.

But the motion was made by Council Member Grove and seconded by Council Member Lyon. I knew you'd be on it.

So I'm going to go ahead and have us vote on that one, on I7A and I7B, and then we will have a motion to table. on I-7, on I-H-8. Wow. It's been a day. Okay. Any final comments on H-7A? No. Okay.

All right. Please vote. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Council Member Lyon? No. Council Member Crone?

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes.

Council Member Pierce?

Yes. All right, item H7B, consideration of approval of a resolution approving final plat, which makes it sound very final.

However, as we know, those have changed in the past.

But can I get a motion on that?

Move to approve.

Second. Any final discussion on the platting? Please vote.

So just to clarify quickly, the plotting is, again, just this breaking up?

Yes. It's subdividing the property into multiple parcels.

Okay.

So it's not approving the site plan. Okay.

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

Yes.

Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Lyon? No. Council Member Pierce?

Yes. All right. We have item H8, which is consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan for Walmart Supercenter 09872-1000 at 1165 East Hickman Road. Can I get a motion to table?

I make a motion to table this resolution. Do I need to add more to that? Next regular meeting is September 8th, if that's helpful. Sure. Make a motion to table the resolution until September 8th.

Second.

Any discussion on that?

Tabling it.

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

Yes.

Council Member Anderson?

Yes. Item H9, consideration of approval of a resolution approving final plat for Spring Meadows platform.

Can I get a motion?

Move to approve. Second. Second. Melissa.

Can we wait for just a minute? Because there's a lot of commotion here from people leaving. So if we can just let them depart so we can concentrate on our meeting, that would be great.

All right. Go ahead, Melissa. Good evening, Mayor and Council. The owner and applicant is Waukee Partnership LLC. The property is located south of Hickman Road and east of 20th Street. It contains a little over 10 acres in area. It is outlined in pink on the screen kind of at the northwest corner of that colored area shown. The property is zoned R-2 1 and 2 Family Residential District and R-2 1 and 2 Family Residential District with a planned development overlay. The final plot includes 44 lots for single family residential. 22 lots are zoned R-2 PD-1 and then 22 lots are zoned R-2. All lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the R-2 and R-2 PD-1 zoning districts. The plot includes extensions to both Locust Street and Cedar Street. Five foot wide sidewalks will be provided along both sides of both streets with individual lot development. Public utilities will be provided to each lot. Park land dedication requirements have been met or will be met with previous and future phases of the overall Spring Meadows development. The park land is in the green, kind of just to the southeast of that, and there's also a little section right here, that first phase of Spring Meadows. Staff recommends approval of the final plot, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Please vote. Council Member Crone? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Lyon? Yes. Council Member Pierce? Yes. Council Member Grove?

Yes.

Item H10, consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan for discount tire at 215 West Hickman Road. Can I get a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

Melissa?

The owner is Waukee Crossing LLC. The applicant is Holly Properties LLC. This property is located north of West Hickman Road and west of Northwest 2nd Street. It contains a little over an acre. The property is Zone C1 Community and Highway Service Commercial District. The project includes the construction of a single-story building that is 7,320 square feet in area and 24 feet in height. A trash enclosure is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Two access points will be provided into the site from the private drive along the north. That private drive is accessed off of Northwest Second Street into the Guadalajara site, and that is a shared access for the overall development. A pedestrian connection will be provided into the site from the public trail along West Hickman Road. Parking and landscaping requirements are being met. All utilities will be provided to the site. Stormwater detention will be provided in the existing regional detention basin, which is located to the northwest of the site, you can see it on the screen just up here so that's the detention for the overall development. let's go to the building elevations. So the building elevations are proposed to be constructed mostly of brick, aluminum composite panels, split-face CMU, and storefront system. Overhead doors are shown on the east elevation. The trash enclosure will be constructed of the same split-face CMU to match the building. Staff recommends approval of the site plan, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions? Please vote.

Council member Lyon. Yes. Council member Pierce. Yes. Council member Anderson.

Yes.

Council member Grove. Yes.

Council member Crone.

Yes.

Item I-11, Stratford Crossing Commercial Plat 3, Stratford Crossing Retail. I-11A, consideration of approval of a resolution approving preliminary plat.

Move to approve.

Second.

And I'll go ahead and present on 11A through C together. The owner and applicant is Sherman Hills Real Estate Partnership, LLC. The property is located west of Northwest 10th Street and south of Northwest Stratford Drive. It contains 8.86 acres. The property is zoned C1 Community and Highway Service Commercial District. The preliminary plot and final plot include one lot and one outlot. Lot one is at the north side of the site. It is 1.87 acres in area, and then the rest of it is outlot X, and that's 6.99 acres in area. The site plan is for lot one. It includes the construction of a single-story multi-tenant building. The building is 10,000 square feet in area and 27 feet in height. Go to the next slide here. A drive-thru is proposed at the south side of the building. A trash enclosure is shown just to the west of the building. Two accesses will be provided into the site from the public streets, one off of Northwest 10th Street and one off of Northwest Stratford Drive. Five foot wide sidewalks will be provided along the public streets adjacent to the site. Pedestrian connections will be provided into the site from both the north and the east. Parking, lighting, and landscaping requirements are being met. Public utilities are provided to the site. Utilities within the development will be privately owned and maintained. Stormwater detention will be provided with a large pond located at the northwest corner of the overall development. Building elevations. The building elevations are proposed to be constructed mostly of brick, stone, and fiber cement. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plot, final plot, and site plan, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

I may have missed it in the notes. The drive-thru, I assume that's intended to be like for like a restaurant type user or like a coffee shop or something like that.

Yeah, I'm unsure at the time what it is. But yeah, so the drive-thru would start at the west side of the building and then work its way to the south side. And I guess you can go out. So the access point at Northwest 10th is a ride in, ride out. So they could go technically go out here if they're going south or they'd have to go back up to the north to get out. They're going to try to go north.

Other questions?

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

Yes. Item 11B, consideration of approval of a resolution approving final plat. Vote to approve. Second. Melissa? I have nothing further to add.

Any questions on the final plat? Please vote. Council member Pierce.

Yes.

Council member Crone.

Yes.

Council member Lyon.

Yes.

Council member Grove. Yes. Council member Anderson.

Yes. Item 11C, consideration of approval of a resolution approving site plan at 616 Northwest 10th Street.

Move to approve.

Second.

I have nothing further to add.

Any questions? Please vote. Council member Grove. Yes. Council member Crone. Yes. Council member Pierce.

Yes.

Council member Anderson.

Yes.

Council member Lyon.

Yes. And the NMJ reports.

Thank you, Mayor. Believe it or not, school starts next week. So I would just encourage the public and our mayor and council to be patient with us. As school starts up, the first couple of weeks are always a little traumatic when it comes to traffic and new traffic patterns and new schools where kids are trying to get to so we will continue to monitor that but just realize the next couple weeks are always a little bit hectic i know there was a question relative to some improvements are being done on university avenue Those are associated with the school administration's building and the extension of Parkview Crossing to the south. Those improvements do include the extension of the median through so that there's no through movement between Parkview Crossing and Prairie View School. We have been diligently working with that contractor. I would say they're a little behind, but the goal is to get as much of that buttoned up prior to Monday, and anything that's not completed prior to Monday, there will be limited working hours to allow for traffic to get in and out of those schools. So bear with us. We'll do the best we can, but just know we'll have some traffic jams here in the next couple weeks.

Steve? No report. No report?

No report.

I want to thank everybody who emailed the council. We received tons of emails this week on many different topics. And though we were not able to reply to all of them, just know that we do open them. We do read them.

I replied to every single one. Did you really? I did. I didn't. There were some I missed. I would say I'm very thankful. However, there were a couple that... Let's just say my mom didn't raise me to talk like that to somebody, but that's fine. I did reply. I appreciate staff's time and the detailed explanations for everything tonight. I really do. I know you guys do a lot of work in preparation for these meetings and a lot of work through the entire process. It's not easy. So thank you. And with that, I will take a motion to adjourn. All those in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you.