URBANDALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES. July 11, 2016

Transcription

1 URBANDALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES The Urbandale Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Monday,, at the Urbandale City Hall, th Street. Chairperson Wayne Van Heuvelen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present were Jeff Hatfield, Julie Roethler, Bridget Montgomery, Kevin Gass, Paul Pick, and Wayne Van Heuvelen. Staff members present were Steve Franklin, Community Development Director, Kristi Bales, Community Development Manager/Chief Planner, and Cheryl Vander Linden, Administrative Specialist. The first item on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the June 27, 2016 meeting. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Pick, to approve the June 27, 2016 minutes. On roll call; Ayes: Gass, Pick, Montgomery, Roethler, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: Hatfield. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the Robel Property Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development District, Case No Mr. Van Heuvelen said he would dispense with reading the following official publication, if there were no objections: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: OFFICIAL PUBLICATION REVISED NOTICE Case No Notice is hereby given that the Urbandale Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Urbandale City Hall, th Street, Urbandale, Iowa at 6:00 p.m. on Monday,, to consider a petition from Linda Robel and Thomas Robel, owners, to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the following legally described property from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development District: The Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter and the North half of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 26, West of the 5 th P.M.; and Outlot Y in Bent Creek Estates Plat 2, all now included in and forming a party of the City of Urbandale, Dallas County, Iowa And

2 Page 2 The Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 26, West of the 5 th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa This property is located on the south side of Waterford Road between 142 nd Street and 156 th Street. The proposed rezoning would allow the property to be subdivided and developed into approximately acres of multi-family residential housing (which may also contain some limited neighborhood commercial uses within the residential structures), approximately 50.6 acres of single-family attached residential housing, and approximately 80.5 acres of single-family detached residential housing. More information on this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning can be obtained at the Department of Community Development, th Street, Urbandale, Iowa between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. All interested parties either for or against this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning will be heard at the time and place set forth above. There was no objection to the revised official notice as published. Mr. Franklin said this request pertains to a acre property located on the south side of Waterford Road between 142 nd Street and 156 th Street. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and does have two residences and other accessory buildings. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning have been requested in order to develop the property into approximately acres of single-family detached residential, acres of single-family attached residential, and acres of multifamily residential. The subject property has approximately 5,150 feet of frontage along Waterford Road, approximately 1,285 feet of frontage along 142 nd Street, and approximately 1,250 feet of frontage along 156 th Street. The electric substation is to the northeast in the City of Grimes. A conceptual development plan discussed with City staff proposes the subdivision of the property to create about 221 single-family detached residential lots, with approximately one-half of the lots having a minimum width of 65 feet and the other half having a minimum width of 75 feet. The single-family attached (townhouse) residential portion of the project would be developed in the northwest corner of the property and in the central/northeast portion of the property with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. The multi-family portion of the project would be developed in the northeast corner of the property with a maximum density of 20 units per acre. The developer proposes to include some limited neighborhood commercial uses within the multi-family residential structures. The commercial uses would be limited to a total area of 10,000 square feet.

3 Page 3 The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning to P.U.D. appear to be reasonable and appropriate, given the existing zoning of the Coyote Ridge single-family development and the existing zoning and proposed use of the Wheeler Property P.U.D., both across Waterford Road to the north. The future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan currently shows the potential for single-family attached dwellings at the intersection of 156 th Street and Waterford Road and 142 nd Street and Waterford Road. The multi-family portion of the development would be placed closest to the existing electric substation and then transition to the townhomes and then to the singlefamily development primarily in the center of the project. Waterford Road currently has two lanes of asphalt pavement along the northern frontage of this property. It is currently scheduled to be reconstructed with a four-lane cross-section plus turn lanes in th Street has recently undergone reconstruction and widening. 142 nd Street currently has two lanes of asphalt pavement. The timeframe for reconstruction and widening of 142 nd Street is currently unknown. Sanitary sewer service will be provided primarily from the trunk line along 156 th Street and then some additional service will be provided with extensions from the existing sewer service lines in the developments to the south. Water service will be provided from a new 12 main constructed along 142 nd Street and a new 16 main constructed along Waterford Road (up to the western edge of the Coyote Ridge development). The property across Waterford Road to the north is currently zoned A-1 Agricultural Reserve District, P.U.D for the Coyote Ridge and Waterford Pointe residential developments, and A-2 Estate Residential for a single-family residence. To the east is property used for agricultural purposes in the City of Grimes. Property to the south is zoned R-1S and includes the Bent Creek Meadows, Bent Creek Ridge, and Bent Creek Estates residential developments and property zoned A-2 for a single-family residence. Property to the west, across 156 th Street is zoned R-1S and is owned by the City of Urbandale for Waterford Park. The property is located in the Waukee School District and drains primarily to the west, eventually into Walnut Creek. Mr. Franklin said Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the rezoning of the property, subject to the attached Robel Property Planned Unit Development Master Plan. Mr. Van Heuvelen said you re anticipating the larger lots being at the south end there. Has the developer indicated that? The line of trees indicate that? Mr. Franklin said they ve done some conceptual drawings of how all this would lay out. And, really if you look at this parcel based on how some of these drainageways come

4 Page 4 through here, you re going to have ridges. So it lends itself pretty well to having a street system come in and run through the property, and then take cul-de-sacs off of that main street that would have the bigger lots at the end of the cul-de-sacs. The developer is here and can certainly answer that question. Ms. Montgomery asked what s the park situation up here? Mr. Franklin asked as far as parkland dedication? We re still working through what that s going to look like. At this point, I don t believe they are looking at a land dedication. They re probably just going to volunteer to pay the fee, since we ve got a couple of pretty good-sized parks nearby. You might recall that right directly across the street here is the Waterford Landing Park. And then obviously just on the south side of Meredith, you ve got Walnut Creek Regional Park, which is very close as well. Again, that s something they can answer for you, if you want to ask them. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, as this is a public hearing, the Commission will hear comments from both proponents and opponents of this proposed zoning change. First we will hear from any proponents who wish to speak. Mr. Keven Crawford, Cooper Crawford & Associates, 475 S. 50 th Street, Suite 800, West Des Moines, said I m here representing Orton Development. I think Mr. Franklin laid out our position very well. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have or that maybe opponents might have. We concur with all of Staff s comments in the report. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked do you concur with Mr. Franklin s overall general comment that we can anticipate larger lots on the south part? Mr. Crawford said correct. With me today is Bruce Gates with Orton Development, as well. Mr. Bruce Gates, Orton Development Company, 2208 Woodlands Parkway, Clive, said as Mr. Crawford has said, I m happy to answer any questions you might have. Just to elaborate a little bit on the lot sizes, as has been said, the site really lends itself to more larger lot development on the south. There s some drainageways and some trees through there that we are looking at possibly running some cul-de-sacs down. As you go west and south on this site, that s where we anticipate the larger lots being. More north, up towards Waterford, will be the smaller lots. And then as the lots create the boundary with the townhome ground and the multi-family ground, those will be the smaller lots in that area. We ve left sufficient room on the single family development side that we ll have a way of getting through there, double-loaded on both sides. So there will at least be a road with double-loaded single family lots bordering all of the lots on the south.

5 Page 5 Mr. Franklin showed a drawing. He said this is what Mr. Gates is talking about, with a street coming in, Here from 142 nd Street you d have single family lots on either side of a street. Mr. Gates said right. Mr. Hatfield asked could you describe the amenities and what would happen with the multi-family? I mean, multi-family is scary to some people. How is it not scary to you and what do you plan to make it? Mr. Gates said we plan the multi-family to be market-rate multi-family. This isn t going to be any type of subsidized project, that s not our plan. We haven t really flushed out plans in any kind of detail, at this point, to let you know what the buildings would look like, what the amenity package would be. But when we re talking about putting commercial potentially on the first floor of some of those, they ll be upscale type multifamily units that accompany that. I just can t get any more specific than that, at this time. For the townhomes, we foresee a townhome development that incorporates both what you would maybe consider single family detached homes, we call them association homes. They re just on a postage stamp lot with common ground around them that s maintained by the association, to duplexes to four-plexes. So it will be a mix of those types of units throughout that area. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if there was anyone now who wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Jeff Tobin, Brookview Drive, said we live on Lot 1 of Bent Creek Meadows. We back up to the south side of this development. There s quite a bit of concern about drainage right now. My particular lot has a drainage issue, where the run-off from the field actually kind of converges from three directions, and drains right into the back of my lot. I think the association has notified the zoning commission perhaps, of the issues with that. My bigger point is there s quite a bit of elevation there, with those lots. What s the plan for addressing elevation differences between those houses, the existing houses right now that are on Brookview. And, second, why do you need apartments there? There are apartments right across the street there. Why? I don t understand that. The question is why, because since they ve been approved there, is there an unmet need? Because there are apartments down the road on 142 nd Street that I understand aren t filled to capacity. Why multi-family in that particular location? Mr. Van Heuvelen said the City of Urbandale wants to have a variety of different uses of property. And certainly we want to make sure that we have property available for young people, renters, certainly, older people certainly, and everything in between. We are actually a little bit below where we d like to be in terms of a percentage of how much stock we have for rentals at this stage. Not that that means they have to build it, but there is an unmet need, the City would like to have diversified housing stock, and it is on a corner which could be deemed relatively busy, as opposed to putting single family

6 Page 6 homes there. Probably a good use might be more of a dense population, in terms of apartment complexes. I ll let anybody else give some thoughts. Mr. Hatfield said it s been a big discussion that we ve had in the last year with City Council and with our group. I think 25% has been the goal, and we re probably in the lower 20 s. Some of the stock that we have in our town is old, along Douglas and Hickman, and some of that s very attractive. So, having an attractive place for young people to come visit, live here, and the buy your house someday when you want to retire and move to Florida. Another thing is that other cities are finding great success, some of our peer cities in this town, are having lots of apartments. With the apartments, they re getting retail and office buildings growing out of that. Mr. Tobin asked when can we expect to see a proposed lot layout, because I see minimums listed, and 75-foot minimums and potentially cul-de-sacs. But when can we expect to see a full plat map with any covenants for house materials and things like that? Mr. Van Heuvelen said when we get to rebuttal, you re going to get the drainage question answered and the scheduling question answered. Mr. Adam Tillman, Brookview Drive, said we re also in Bent Creek Meadows. My biggest question is, and you can t see it on this map, but there s a natural retainage pond that sits year-round, pretty close to the north of our house. And we re curious, with the drainage, what the plan is for that? I think, as well, we would ask the question of the need for the high-density multi-family housing. Ms. Rose Schwartzweid, Northview Drive, said my property directly abuts the south side of the proposed development. My main question would be, those of us who live on the Northview Drive, have trees behind our lots. I haven t been able to decipher the survey completely, but I think most of the trees are technically on the Robel property. What I m wondering is whether that line of trees immediately to the north of the homes on Northview will be left? Or can we expect them to be taken down? Part of it, because of the beauty of it, and because we understood when we bought the property a couple of years ago, that a treed lot was pretty desirable and valuable. And we re wondering about our property value if those trees come down. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if anyone else wished to ask questions or speak? Seeing no one, he said we ll now hear rebuttal now from Mr. Crawford or Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates said this particular property has some unique issues that it has to deal with that many properties don t. It has major roads on the north, west and east that have to be dealt with. It has industrial development right to the northeast of it. There s a substation in Grimes, and that s all industrial that goes that way. Immediately across the street, on the east, is multi-family. So, in planning that from a land use standpoint, it

7 Page 7 only makes sense to put multi-family there. Residential would probably never happen there, but it would be very, very low scale type of residential development, if it did occur. So, in our mind, that is the appropriate land use decision to make, was to put multifamily there to help transition from that industrial and the other multi-family to the north. And then furthermore, putting townhomes around that, to provide another transition for the single family. So, that s why we did what we did, and made that decision. As far as the trees are concerned, at this point I can t tell you. The drainage issue s been brought up. To correct drainage problems and to handle that appropriately, you ve got to change a lot of grade. Usually when you change grades, you may be taking out trees. But it s way too early right now for me to make an educated guess as to what trees would be taken out, and which ones would remain. I can tell you, as a developer, many people think developers want to take all trees out. We d like to keep them because they do add value to your property and to our property. So, we ll save as many as we can. As soon as the zoning is finalized on this property, we ll begin work on the first preliminary plat, on the east 80 acres for the single family that goes in there. By the end of the summer, we d be in with that, or in September. Mr. Hatfield said so in the next couple of months, you plan to be back here to show us the plan. The neighbors would be invited back to see the plan. And then it goes to Council. Mr. Van Heuvelen said next year, is that when you re planning on putting in the streets? Mr. Gates said yes, the streets would be started next spring. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so that would be a site plan that we d be looking at later on this summer or early fall, right? Mr. Gates said I don t know for sure whether we ll move ahead on the multi-family next spring. Most likely we will move ahead on some of the townhome ground, which will require a site plan as well, so we ll be in for that. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I just want to make sure that everybody who s interested gets notice of meetings we have, because we ve got some very responsive people here tonight, and it d be great if they know exactly, since they ve expressed curiosity, when we re going to move ahead with certain things. So, if we could get a sign-up sheet, if they want to be notified, to make sure that anybody here gets notified of additional meetings on this matter. Would that be okay with the Commission and Staff? Mr. Pick said it would be the same notification requirements that it was for changing of zoning, correct? Mr. Franklin said yes. The City s typical procedure is to notify everybody within 200 feet for a rezoning. We typically do not do that for site plans and plats. However, if there s

8 Page 8 an interest to be notified when those come in, we can absolutely send out notice and let them know when that s going to be on the agenda. That s not a problem. Ms. Montgomery said if they re only doing the easternmost portion, the people that live on the west might not be notified, though, right? Mr. Franklin said if they want to be notified, we can notify them. We ll notify whoever wants to be notified. Just to clarify the process, for the single family residential portion, this main potion, that will be a preliminary plat which will show the streets, show all the lots, show the sizes of the lot, and then a final plat after that. For the townhomes, that s going to be a preliminary plat and site plan, which is going to show all of the streets in the townhome area and then it s also going to show where all the townhomes are going to be. For the multi-family, that s going to be a site plan, which would show parking, what the buildings look like, how tall the buildings would be, it would show exactly what all that looks like. That would be the process. Before Mr. Crawford addresses drainage, just from the City s standpoint, in regard to the multi-family question, Urbandale has, in our Comprehensive Plan, a goal to have 75% of our housing stock be single family homes and no more than 25% be multi-family. Someone mentioned, I think, we re right at about the 20-21%. Council has been vocal recently about trying to increase how many multi-family developments that we have. There s clearly an interest, if you look around the metro, to build multi-family. West Des Moines has close to 60% of their housing stock is multi-family, is renters. Urbandale is never going to be that, Urbandale does not want to be that. But there is clearly a directive from Council to try to get to that 25%. So that s one of the aspects involved with why to make some of this multi-family. Again, as I mentioned, this Wheeler property across to the north has been approved by Council to have some multi-family there. And with the difficulties of major intersection and this sub-station across the street, does seem like an appropriate place to have multi-family. From the drainage standpoint, Engineering is certainly aware of some drainage issues that have occurred along this north property line. The good news about this development, and I ll let Mr. Crawford get into some more specifics, but part of what that preliminary plat process will include is construction drawings from the engineer that will show our Engineering Department how all of this water is going to be detained, how water is going to flow and how drainage is going to work through here. They ve got a very specific set of criteria that they need to design for and show how all this is going to work. So that will be one of the things that our Engineering Department will be looking at. It would certainly be our thought that development will help the drainage issues along this north property line. Right now, you ve just got a bunch of water coming off that field. This is an opportunity to catch all of that and direct it to certain places, which is not being done now, obviously. Mr. Gass asked what are some of the other permitted uses on that corner, as opposed to multi-family? Mr. Franklin asked if it wasn t multi-family? They could do townhouses. They could do

9 Page 9 more single family. Mr. Gass asked could they do more commercial if they wanted then? Mr. Franklin said again, staff was struggling a little bit with the commercial, even though the Comp Plan would say it s appropriate, I think we would rather see, if there s going to be commercial there, have it be in more of a neighborhood setting. That s why we re working with them to maybe put it in the first floor of those multi-family buildings. So we don t have stand-alone commercial buildings there. They certainly could do more townhouses and more single family but, as Mr. Gates indicated, when you ve got a substation sitting right here, it s going to be pretty hard to get that done. So this is an opportunity based on the land uses and the existing traffic patterns and having to tie into three existing street connections here to the south, that probably makes sense to put some in there. If it s a market-rate upscale situation with some retail in there, I think it could be very beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Hatfield said the Comp Plan right now says it could be commercial. Mr. Franklin said it does, it would meet the 2-mile spacing. Mr. Hatfield said the City s preference is to say let s not put a grocery store, and a mall, and a bar and a stinky restaurant, and all of that stuff. Let s do something that s a little better for the neighbors. Mr. Franklin said yes, more upscale and better for the neighborhood, yes. Mr. Crawford said I think Mr. Franklin pretty well stole my thunder on the drainage issue. The only thing I would add is, right now if we get a 25-year storm, it s running off. Our task would be to restrict that down to a 5-year undeveloped during a one hundred-year event. So the quantity of the flow rate will be reduced down to the 5-year undeveloped release rate. I d be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Roethler asked is there anything you can say about the pond, at this point? Mr. Crawford said based on our concept plan that we ve got, that will be go away. But it will be relocated somewhere else on the property. We don t know exactly where that drainage is going to end up right now. When we get a preliminary plat in, we ll have all of that figured out. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked do you have any problems with the Staff recommendations? Mr. Crawford said no. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Roethler, to close the public hearing. On roll

10 Page 10 call; Ayes: Gass, Roethler, Hatfield, Montgomery, Pick, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. Mr. Franklin said I would add one more thing about the trees. If any of the trees are on the Robel property, they would have the right to remove those if they find that that works and helps the drainage situation. Obviously any trees that are not on the Robel property, they can t touch. They have to stop at the property line. Mr. Hatfield said each tree is probably worth thousands of dollars in value to the developer, but if that s where the road is going, that s where the road is going to have to go. That s the tough part. Mr. Van Heuvelen said we have closed the public hearing, but we don t want to not allow citizens to speak. So if you ve got another thought, you re welcome to come to the podium, even though the public hearing s closed. Mr. Tillman said the statement about the grading just brought up another question. Right behind our house, which is right about there, it s about 4-1/2 or 5 feet up to the Robel property. Is that intended to stay at that level, or will it be graded down? Mr. Van Heuvelen said I think it s pretty clear that that sort of work has not even started, as to exactly what s going to go on with the specific grading and that sort of stuff. So, if you want to the engineer on his way out the door and mention your lot, or something like that, and make sure he notices, that s absolutely fine. Mr. Van Heuvelen said the public hearing has closed. I think we were real fair in allowing everybody to speak earlier. He asked do you have a specific issue to discuss? Mr. Tobin said I want to point something out to the Commission. I appreciate the need to look at the percentage of homes that are multi-family and the reasoning behind that. I point the Council to this and I m sure you re all aware of this, the fact that if you look up and down 142 nd Street, at 142 nd the southwest corner of 142 nd and Meredith, are townhomes. The northwest corner of 142 nd and Meredith are townhomes. To the south of that, on 142 nd Street are multi-family apartments with new units going in. On the opposite side, at 156 th and Meredith, there are also townhomes. South of that, in that commercial, there was multi-family at the southeast corner of 156 th and Meredith. I question again, if you look at that, it seems like we re getting very top-heavy here in that particular area. Again, I appreciate the 25%. I d like to know where you came up with that, but I trust that there was reason behind it. But when you look up and down that 142 nd Street corridor, and now additional ones are proposed across from Waterford on that, I contend, and I think my neighbors would probably agree, that we re seeing a lot more apartments out there than we are seeing development of single family. Even with this new development and we don t know what s to the east, I guess. You can probably tell me that. But I just wanted to pointed, just the sheer numbers that we re seeing

11 Page 11 developing there and continuing to grow there, versus single family. It s actually fairly hard sometimes to find a good lot. The situation we were in when we bought our house was we had a hard time finding a lot out there in the developed area. But there were plenty of apartments going up and plenty of townhomes, not what we were looking for. I don t speak for all my neighbors, in fact I intended to go up and down Brookview to talk to them just so that they knew about it, but I share with you the fact that our concern is that we re seeing a lot of high-density housing going in and really not a lot of other types right now, comparatively. And I guess we d voice our concerns too about the type of housing that will be going in there. We have three home show areas right in that area, and I m sure they d all agree, we re all about preserving value of our property. And I think that factors in, and that s one of the concerns that I think we ve had. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I think we ll see a lot more detail in terms of the lot sizes and where those lots are going to be in due time. And I reiterate though, too, that with that sub-station diagonally across from this particular parcel, it probably limits the available uses for that particular property, to some degree, as opposed to, say, your lot being the 75-foot backing into the trees, perhaps. This location catty-corner from the sub-station probably is not going to be quite as desirable for a single family home. I m pretty sure that the developer makes a valid point in that situation. Mr. Pick said I think it s a pretty well thought out site plan. To speak to the single family lot issue, the next item on the agenda is property just to the south. That s going to be single family lots. At our last meeting we approved the platting of two parcels on 170 th and Waterford Road that are going to be an additional 400 single family lots over the next few years. So I think that, to say that the City of Urbandale is not focused on putting in single family housing, even with that we also need to be mindful of 65-foot lots versus 70-foot lots and bigger lots. Everybody can t afford to purchase a lot that s 80 to 90 feet wide, and build that size of home on it. So we have to be cognizant of having a supply of various sizes of single family lots, in addition to multi-family and townhomes. Ms. Roethler said I would agree with your statements. Mr. Pick moved, and it was seconded by Montgomery, to approve the Robel Property Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning from A-1 to P.U.D., subject to Staff recommendations. On roll call; Ayes: Pick, Montgomery, Hatfield, Gass, Roethler, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. Mr. Van Heuvelen said if you want, make sure you check the agendas on the City of Urbandale s web site to make sure you re notified of when we have additional hearings, or plats or site plans, please do. Can we get a sign-up sheet so that if people want to get notified, then they can make sure when this item is going to be on the agenda again? Mr. Franklin said this rezoning request will go to City Council on August 16 th.

12 Page 12 Mr. Gass said I was just going to remind everybody, just as Mr. Van Heuvelen said in his opening statement, this is not binding on the City Council. This is just our recommendation. So if you feel very passionate that this is not the direction you want to see this area go, then you need to attend the City Council meeting on the date listed. The next item on the agenda was the Silkwood Crossing Rezoning from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District, case no , 4700 Block of 142 nd Street. Mr. Van Heuvelen said if there were no objections, he would dispense with reading the following official notice: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: OFFICIAL PUBLICATION Case No Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Urbandale City Hall, th Street, Urbandale, Iowa at 6:00 p.m. on Monday,, to consider a petition from Timothy Skeers, Managing Member, Harothage Farm, LLC, owner, to rezone the following legally described property from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District: The North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 26 West of the 5 th P.M., City of Urbandale, Dallas County, Iowa This property is generally located in the 4700 Block of the west side of 142 nd Street. The proposed rezoning would allow the property to be subdivided and developed into singlefamily detached residential housing. More information on this proposed rezoning can be obtained at the Department of Community Development, th Street, Urbandale, Iowa between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. All interested parties either for or against this proposed rezoning will be heard at the time and place set forth above There were no objections to the official notice as published. Ms. Bales said this request pertains to a 79-acre property that lies approximately 1,400 feet north of Meredith Drive on the west side of 142 nd Street. The subject property is owned by Harothage Farm, LLC and has direct access onto 142 nd Street. The property has a residence but is primarily used for agricultural purposes. The rezoning has been requested in order to allow the property to be developed into single-family detached residential lots. The R-1S Suburban Density Single-Family District requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet and minimum lot area of 8,750 square feet

13 Page 13 Currently, 142 nd Street has two lanes of asphalt pavement north of Meredith Drive, including along the frontage of the subject property. The timeframe for reconstruction and widening of 142 nd Street is currently unknown. It is anticipated that future platting of this property will include street connections to the existing 144 th Street and 148 th Street adjacent to the south. Sanitary sewer service can be provided from existing sanitary sewer lines located to the south of the property. Water service will be provided by an existing 12 water main along 142 nd Street. Property to the east, across 142 nd Street is zoned A-1 and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The properties to the north, west and south are zoned R-1S. Bent Creek Estates is adjacent to the west and Calvert Meadows, Meredith Heights, and Kuehl Estates are adjacent to the south all of which have been developed as single-family detached dwellings. The requested rezoning is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in the Waukee School District and drains primarily to the west into a drainageway towards Walnut Creek. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to R-1S Suburban Density Single-Family District, subject to the following conditions: 1. A 60-foot right-of-way shall be dedicated for 142 nd Street as measured from the centerline (i.e. one-half of a 120-foot right-of-way). 2. A 40-foot temporary construction easement shall be provided along the entire 142 nd Street frontage (in addition to the 60-foot right-of-way dedication) to facilitate the future paving of 142 nd Street and construction of related public improvements. 3. The development shall be responsible for one-half of a 31-foot pavement on 142 nd Street, and at the time of the final plat shall provide a cash escrow to be deposited with the City, or surety in the form of a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 4. No individual lot shall be allowed to access 142 nd Street. 5. A berm and buffer plantings shall be provided in a 50-foot landscape setback along 142 nd Street in accordance with the criteria of Section (D)(4b) of the Zoning Ordinance. At the time of the final plat a cash escrow or surety in the form of a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit, in an amount to be determined by the Department of Community Development, shall be deposited with the City for the required berm and buffer plantings within the 50-foot landscape setback along 142 nd Street.

14 Page 14 Ms. Montgomery asked I m wondering about this sliver of property to the north. What s the story there? Is that a farm building there? Ms. Bales said it is a single family house, formerly known as the goat farm. It s owned by Kevin Johnson. Mr. Pick said Kevin Johnson s personal residence is there. Ms. Bales said there s not an intention for it to be subdivided or developed. Ms. Montgomery said so there would be no connection? Ms. Bales said no. We will require the cross connection to the south, but not to the north or to the west. Mr. Van Heuvelen said this is a public hearing, so the Commission will hear commentary from proponents, as well as opponents. First we will hear from proponents. Mr. Doug Saltzgaver, Engineering Resource Group, 2413 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, said we ve read Staff s recommendation and the five conditions, and have no issues with those. I ll answer any questions you may have. It s all going to be single family, no apartments, no townhomes. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked do you have some sense of lot size and where they re going to be? Mr. Saltzgaver said probably in the 75 to 80-foot range on the south, and as we get closer to the wooded areas and to the west, probably 80 s, 90 s, potentially, depending on what the market s dictating. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if there was anybody wishing to speak in opposition. Mr. Ron Lilly, Hickory Drive, said my property is close to straddling the line between Meredith Heights and Calvert Meadows. In the packet I provided, there s a lot of talk tonight about drainage, what you ll see is not prospective drainage problems, there IS drainage problems. The water on that property runs east and west, and ends up between and Mr. Van Heuvelen asked which properties does it end up at? Mr. Lilly said in that first page, the property bordered by blue, that s my property. So, that house and then the house right to the west of it on the corner, which is So what happens is, you ll see by the pictures, the water comes and drains out of that field

15 Page 15 during rains and ends up in my yard, runs into there. You can see by that nighttime picture that there is serious rainwater there. That s not small amounts for kids to jump around and splash in it. That s going to wash you away! That falling picture will show you the Century Link box, just how far that expanded. What you can t see in the picture is, that water goes over that manhole straight into the street. So, I m concerned about others, with more driveways, more sidewalks, more roads, puts all that water in my yard and my neighbor s yard. So that s my main concern. The tree line, to an extent, I m not sure what their intentions are on the tree line. Some of the tree line now probably soaks up some of that water, but you can see it doesn t soak it all up. So, in my opinion, that was underestimated. We talk about engineers, or this or that. There s proof that that was underestimated. That area can t take any more water. By blessing I haven t had water in our basement yet and neither has my neighbor, but it doesn t mean that the future project and more rain water, it could potentially end up right where it s going now. All this that you provided tonight, it says drains primarily to the west drainageway towards Walnut Creek. Well, in that aerial, Walnut Creek is way over there. I live right there. So, you tell me how that water is going to get to there, and bypass us. If it does, great. That s what I d like to see. But we can handle no more water over there. And it is a real problem. When we bought the house, we had no idea what that water was going to do. We only got surprised after we purchased that property, that that happened. So, it does go away, but it can t take any more. Mr. Van Heuvelen said thank you. We ll make sure the engineer addresses that. Any other issues? Mr. John Meyer, Hickory Drive, said we re basically in Calvert Meadows abutting to the property. Concerned, number one, by the square footage of the homes. Our home, what we paid for it, obviously, value, we back to the tree line, and that tree line is obviously on the farm, so we re concerned about losing that. We would like some privacy, we love the trees and it s got value, so that s one of our concerns, my wife and I. The second as far as the idea of what type of housing value they re proposing to put in. $250,000 or $350,000, and just interested in that type of feedback. To add on to Mr. Lilly s comment about drainage, we actually don t have a drainage problem, but my neighbor one door over to the west has a sewer in the back of his yard for drainage. And we saw last June of 2015 where water came across the back. We know the water has got to go somewhere. Mr. Mike Vance, Hickory Drive, said I live two doors away from Mr. Meyer. I have very similar questions and concerns. I measured the depth of the trees. I only have one or two trees on my property. I like them for the privacy and for what it does for my property value. About 20 feet of that is all trees that is going to be on this new property, and I m curious as to what is going to happen to those trees. I am right next to the drainage unit that he indicated, and whenever we have a heavy rain, that is very bad. It fills up quite a bit. Our neighbor, he s pretty much lost all of his landscaping because of the continuous water coming out of that farm field, so I m very curious as to

16 Page 16 that. And the final question that I have, with both the Robel property that we just talked about and this one, and what was just approved up there, that s a lot of traffic starting to travel on 142 nd. So, I m curious, at some point, what s the plan to address that traffic flow? It sounds like there s going to be a lot being added to that, and it s already starting to get heavy. Mr. Van Heuvelen said we ve got the drainage question covered, so if you re wondering about drainage, we re going to get the engineer back up here and ask him about that. Mr. Eric Hartman, Hickory Drive, said I echo the concerns of the tree line there. My tree line is about 20 feet deep or so there. It s good privacy and I would hate to see it go extensively. Another thing my concern is, now that you re suggesting that the traffic can only go out to 142 nd or into my neighborhood there, I would be concerned with the amount of traffic that s being dumped into my neighborhood, potentially, out of there. I don t know what the site plan s going to look like, obviously, and what kind of encouragement they would have to encourage those neighbors in that development to use 142 nd as opposed to traverse through the neighborhood to the south. And then of course that leads up to the inevitable question of when 142 nd is closed and widened, how much traffic is going to get dumped onto those side streets. I know that is somewhat out of your control but I know at least thinking about it or planning for it. The last thing I would caution is, at least when I built my home there, we did run into at least one drain tile that was broken during excavation and it was unknown to anybody where it went, where it started, and where it ended. So we patched it back together, but I guess I would just say, for the developer s sake, there are drain tiles running throughout there. Mr. Van Heuvelen said through the property in question? Mr. Vance said correct, that s taking water through our yards, 10 feet deep or whatever. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, seeing no one else wishing to speak, it s time for rebuttal. He asked for City Staff to answer the question bout 142 nd, what s on the agenda in terms of widening that. Mr. Franklin said our Capital Improvements Program looks at those types of projects every year and identifies projects that will happen in the next five years, and then what s called an out year, five years out. Right now, as it stands today, 142 nd Street is in an out year. It s a little bit more interesting, I guess I would say, because we have Grimes adjacent to the east, for a good portion of 142 nd Street. The Capital Improvements committee generally is made up of citizens, some P & Z Commissioners and some City Council members. So they re certainly tracking all of this development that s occurring out west. And if they deem discussing this with our Engineering Department, that that project needs to get moved up, then that s always a possibility, to move that up and make those improvements if Council decides to do so. I can tell you that arterial streets

17 Page 17 like 142 nd Street have a much larger carrying capacity than most people think that they do. As far as the connectivity within neighborhoods, you can see the streets in some of these other surrounding neighborhoods. We require connectivity. That s why these two street stubs were here adjacent to the south. The reality is some people are going to go to 142 nd Street, some people are going to drive through the neighborhood. But you can t have every neighborhood be self-contained and not be able to go somewhere else. That s addressed in our Comprehensive Plan as well. It requires connectivity through neighborhoods and so that s what we try and make sure is going to happen. Again, from the City s standpoint as far as drainage is concerned, a very similar situation here as to the Robel property. Right now when it rains, all of this water is coming off of this field into these lots. The development is going to catch all of that water, it s going to pipe it to detention which is down here, and then get it into the creek. I ll let Mr. Saltzgaver get more specific, if he wants to get more specific, but part of the preliminary plat would be to show those drainage calculations, show all those pipes, show how that water is going to be caught and taken out so that it s not going into these parcels, and again I believe when they re all said and done with it, it should make a vast improvement in how some of the drainage occurs out there now. Because it s pretty hard to contain very, very heavy rains, like we had last summer, running off of a farm field. And, trees, if the trees are on this property, the Skeers property, the developer has a right to take those down. It would be up to them, when they get into their grading, to see if that something that s going to be necessary or not. But they are a property owner, as well, and if they deem those trees need to come down, then they re probably going to come down. Mr. Hatfield said clarification for you, number 4 says no individual lot shall be allowed to have access to 142 nd. Do you anticipate there will be one or two streets? Mr. Franklin said correct. Mr. Hatfield said so, not all the traffic is going through your development. Some will, but there will still be one or two options. Mr. Franklin said no driveway to a house is going to be off of 142 nd Street. But there will be streets. Mr. Hatfield said so there will be a couple of streets that connect to 142 nd that will take those folks out. Mr. Franklin said yes, and then to the south as well. Mr. Van Heuvelen said just to add a thought on those trees, just as several people have mentioned that it adds value to their property, the developers are never blind to that as well. They aren t interested in just knocking down trees for the sake of knocking down trees. They want to preserve every one possible. But sometimes it conflicts with

18 Page 18 drainage issues and these sorts of things, and there s no choice. But they re not anxious to destroy every tree, I m sure of that. He asked if Mr. Saltzgaver wanted to talk about drainage a little bit, square footage of the homes, if you can give us some idea? Mr. Saltzgaver said square footage of the homes, I don t know if I can tell you much about that, but based on the zoning which the Staff mentioned is the same as everything surrounding, I would assume the home are going to be very typical to what s in the surrounding developments. Mr. Van Heuvelen said is it safe to say that with the 80, 85 or 90 foot lots, these are not going to be small homes? Mr. Saltzgaver said correct. Some developments are in the 60 or 65 foot lot width, and that s not what this is. They re going to be nicer homes. The drainage, I think Mr. Franklin explained it pretty well. Our intent is on the far south side of the development, to lower the grade along the property line so we collect any water that s coming off the back yards of future homes, collect that, put it in the storm sewer and take it to the detention basin. So we re going to stop all water that s currently coming off the fields and running south, we re going to collect that and then run it through our detention and storm water management systems, so that should alleviate some of the concerns the existing homes have. Ms. Montgomery said so, to clarify for my un-engineering mind, potentially we re requiring you to actually improve the situation for these neighbors to the south. Mr. Saltzgaver said yes. Mr. Pick said I guess I would argue that putting a development in is going to be better for water than, like Mr. Franklin said, heavy rains running off of an agricultural field with no ability to stop it or direct it anywhere. Mr. Saltzgaver said I m not sure I m interpreting the photos right, but it appears that some of the back yards might be lower than the north property line of these existing lots. There s nothing we can do about that. But we can certainly eliminate any water that s coming off the Silkwood property from entering those rear yards. So that in itself is going to be a ppositive for the neighbors. Yes, we are aware that this site has numerous farm tiles. We found evidence of quite a few of them, the majority of them running towards the center of the property into the waterway that s there now. During construction, we ll certainly try to find those and deal with them as we go. The trees, the developer agrees with the neighbors to the south that those are trees are an amenity to the properties and to the best extent possible, we plan on trying to leave the majority of the trees along the property line. There may be a few that have to come out for grading or some utilities or something, but the intent is to leave those trees in.