URBANDALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES The Urbandale Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Monday,, at the Urbandale City Hall, 3600 86 th Street. Chairperson Wayne Van Heuvelen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present were Jeff Hatfield, Wayne Van Heuvelen, Joan Racki, Judy Ralston-Hansen, and Joe Wallace. Bridget Montgomery arrived after roll call had been taken. Staff members present were Kristi Bales, Community Development Manager/Chief Planner, and Cheryl Vander Linden, Administrative Specialist. The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2016, minutes. Ms. Racki moved, and it was seconded by Ralston-Hansen, to approve the April 4, 2016 meeting minutes. On roll call; Ayes: Racki, Ralston-Hansen, Hatfield, Wallace, Van Heuvelen. Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the Lot 6, Stone Crest Subdivision Rezoning from A-2 Estate Residential to R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District, 3902 156 th Street. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, if there were no objections, he would dispense with reading the following official publication: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: OFFICIAL PUBLICATION Case No. 010-2016-01.02 Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Urbandale City Hall, 3600-86 th Street, Urbandale, Iowa at 6:00 p.m. on Monday,, to consider a petition from Gail Smith and Ginger Gadbaw-Smith, owners, to rezone the following legally described property from A-2 Estate Residential District to R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District: Lot 6, Stone Crest Subdivision, an Official Plat, City of Urbandale, Dallas County, Iowa, containing 1.745 acres more or less. This property is known locally as 3902 156 th Street. The rezoning is proposed to make the parcel legally conforming with respect to lot area and width. More information on this proposed rezoning from A-2 Estate Residential District to R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District can be obtained at the Department of Community Development, 3600-86 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.
Page 2 There were no objections to the official notice as published. Ms. Bales said this request pertains to a residential property in the Stone Crest subdivision located north of Douglas Parkway and west of 156 th Street, known locally as 3902 156 th Street. The parcel has 190 feet of frontage on 156 th Street and has a total area of 1.48 acres. The property is a residential estate and currently contains a singlefamily residence. The rezoning has been requested to make the existing single-family residence legally conforming with respect to lot area, lot width and setbacks. The R-1S District requires a 70-foot minimum lot width, an 8,750 square-foot minimum lot area, and 8-foot minimum side yard setbacks. In comparison, the A-2 District requires a 300-foot minimum lot width, 10-acre minimum lot area, and one side yard setback of 205 feet and one side yard setback of 30 feet. Therefore, because the existing house does not conform with the lot width, lot area, and minimum setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it currently could not be extended, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered. Also, the petitioner wishes to build a garage and is currently not able to do so because of the setback restrictions. The proposed rezoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The properties adjacent to the west and south are part of the Stone Crest Subdivision and are zoned A-2 Estate Residential District. The property adjacent to the north and to the east across 156 th Street in the Rolling Meadows Subdivision are also zoned A-2 Estate Residential District. The property is located in the Waukee School District and drains northeast to Little Walnut Creek. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from A-2 Estate Residential District to R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, as this is a public hearing, the Commission will hear comments from both proponents and opponents of the proposal. First we will hear from proponents. Mr. Gail Smith, 3902 156 th Street, Urbandale, said I want to build an additional garage on my property. There s adequate space to house a garage, with the specs that I have talked to the City about. There was no one present wishing to speak in opposition. Ms. Ralston-Hansen moved, and it was seconded by Racki, to close the public hearing. On roll call; Ayes: Ralston-Hansen, Racki, Hatfield, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried.
Page 3 Mr. Hatfield moved, and it was seconded by Wallace, to approve the Lot 6, Stone Crest Subdivision Rezoning from A-2 to R-1S, subject to Staff recommendations. On roll call; Ayes: Hatfield, Wallace, Racki, Ralston-Hansen, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the Waterford Landing Plat 7 Preliminary Plat (163 rd Street and Waterford Road). Ms. Bales said this preliminary plat covers the next phase of the Waterford Landing Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the north side of Waterford Road. The Waterford Landing PUD was approved by the City Council in 2005, with one amendment in 2008 for lots of various widths. In 2008, the proposed distribution of lots were 55 lots with a minimum width of 60 feet; 65 lots with a minimum width of 70 feet; 50 lots with a minimum width of 75 feet; and, 30 lots with a minimum width of 80 feet for a total of 200 lots. This northern parcel of the Waterford Landing PUD has 1,946 feet of frontage on Waterford Road and 732 feet of frontage on 170 th Street, with approximately 95 total acres. Plat 7 has 438 feet of frontage on Waterford Road, with no direct access to Waterford Road. This plat will connect with Plat 6 to the west and with Urban Hills Plat 1 to the east via Goldenrod Drive. Goldenrod Drive and 163 rd Street will be local streets with a 30-foot front yard building setback. This plat proposes 27 single-family residential lots on 12.13 acres (2.23 lots/acre). The lots generally have widths of 70 feet, with the corner lots having an additional 20 feet of width, as required by the PUD. The minimum lot size for all lots is 8,750 square feet (the R-1S zone district criteria). A 100-foot wide easement for an overhead high-voltage transmission line runs along the northern edge of Plat 7 (Lots 12 and 13). Sanitary sewer service will be provided from an existing 8 line at the north edge of the PUD. Water service will be provided from a 16 water main along Waterford Road. Stormwater detention will be provided in Plat 6, along the existing tributary. 170 th Street and Waterford Road currently have temporary asphalt paving along the frontages of this PUD. Ultimately, both streets will have fourlane cross sections with turn lanes. To the west and north is additional property within the Waterford Landing P.U.D. To the east is the Urban Hills residential development (Plat 1 currently under construction) zoned R-1S Suburban Density Single Family District. Across Waterford Road to the South is the Waterford Glenn residential development (currently under construction) zoned R-1S. The property is located in the Waukee School District. The parcel drains to the north to a major tributary of Walnut Creek.
Page 4 Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to requiring the developer to: 1. Submit an Attorney's Opinion for approval. 2. Comply with the requirements of the Parkland Ordinance with the dedication of the parkland along 170 th Street/Walnut Creek tributary in a future plat of the Waterford Landing PUD and a trail connection near the western side of the detention pond; provide plan for buffer plantings within the 50-foot landscape setback along Waterford Road; provide bond for landscaping along Waterford Road at the time of the final plat. 3. Label 50-foot easement along Waterford Road as 50 Landscape and Temporary Construction Easement ; a 40 temporary easement will be required with the final plat. 4. Provide Minimum Basement Elevations (MBE) for all lots, and verify if an MOE is required for Lot 14 (these elevations will also be required on the final plat); revise easement label on the northern side of Lots 12/13; in the Bulk Regulations (Sheet 1): label all Minimum Lot Sizes as 8,750 square feet, remove reference to 60-foot lots, and revise 71-foot lots to 70-foot lots; add note Maintenance of all drainage tile lines is the responsibility of the Home Owner s Association ; add note No fences shall be allowed in the 50-foot landscape easement along Waterford Road ; relocate manhole at Lot 23 to avoid conflict with future approach/driveway; label 30- foot building lines; show dedication of right-of-way along Waterford Road (to be placed in a lettered lot). 5. Provide a detention basin maintenance agreement per the Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance; provide individual grading plans for each lot at the time of construction drawing approval; provide construction entrance and concrete washout (per SUDAS supplemental Spec 11,060). Additional silt fence may be needed to prevent erosion on to streets; provide necessary drainage calculations, including storm sewer and MOEs. 6. Provide verification that Mid-American has agreed to the proposed plan and that it does not violate their easement; and submit a street lighting plan (CAD file). 7. Call out paving and ROW radius transition to cul-de-sac; the existing construction access and pipe by Lot 22 will need to be removed once this plat is complete; show more contour information for the existing Waterford Road ditch and show how the berm ties into the existing grading and berm for Urban Hills; indicate that all sidewalk ramps and landings will need to be constructed with the rest of the public improvements. Spot elevation detail will be required with the construction drawings; revise Cover Sheet Note 6, to say Waterford Road.
Page 5 8. All swales with subdrain will need a SWFE. Extend the SWFE for the subdrain north of Lot 11; add a storm sewer and SWFE on Lot 22; provide a Storm Sewer Easement for Lots 24-26 and make sure the storm sewer pipe is outside of the pavement in this general area.; revise easement on Lots 13 & 14 to be a 35 Storm Sewer, Sanitary. ; adjust storm sewer alignment to keep storm flows from making a sharp bend in structure at the back lot line of 13/14.; there is currently a storm sewer stub and FES to the north from the Waterford Landing Plat 6 manhole at the corner of Lots 13 & 14. Will this stub remain in place, or be removed with this construction?; the maintenance of the existing tile line on Lots 1 through 7 is to be the joint responsibility of Waterford Landing Plat 7 and Urban Hills Plat 1 (this was noted on the Urban Hills Plat 1 final plat). Remove the tile line outlet at Lot 7 and tie in the subdrain for Lots 7-11 to the existing cleanout. Move this tile on Lots 7-11 to the bottom of the swale. 9. The hydrants shall be placed behind the sidewalk in a water main easement; show sanitary sewer connection to Waterford Landing Plat 6; revise scale on Sheet 2 & 3. Change the label for the property to the east to say Urban Hills. In the general notes remove the word hammerhead from notes 1 & 2. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so immediately to the north is the easement for the power lines? Ms. Bales said yes. The back part of those lots are under 50 feet, half of the easement. This shows the overall development. You can see Waterford Landing 6 is outlined here. This is 7 and Urban Hills is here to the east. Waterford Road is here on the south and then that cul-de-sac, 163 rd Street, extends up to the north. So, to answer your question, you ll see right here where the mouse is, that s where that easement is on the back part of Lots 12 and 13. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked eventually that will probably be park, at some point in time, underneath that? Ms. Bales said no, not underneath this, in this area. They ve got some park land shown in their overall P.U.D. north along the creek. But this won t be a park under this part. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what will it be? Ms. Bales said part of their lots. Mr. Van Heuvelen said all the way extending, that will be their land as well, underneath the power lines? Ms. Bales said yes. 50 feet of the 100 feet.
Page 6 Mr. Dan Rittel, Engineering Resource Group, 2413 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, said I m not the engineer on the project, but the engineer told me today that I think he s pretty comfortable with the staff comments and just kind of working through those now. So, I m sure they ll be good to go. Ms. Ralston-Hansen moved, and it was seconded by Racki, to approve Waterford Landing Plat 7 Preliminary Plat, subject to Staff recommendations. On roll call; Ayes: Ralston-Hansen, Racki, Hatfield, Montgomery, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the Urbandale Marketplace Plat 3 Preliminary & Final Plats (100 th Street and Plum Drive). Ms. Bales said this preliminary and final plat covers one parcel in the Urbandale Marketplace Phase II Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Master Plan area, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 100 th Street and Plum Drive. The property totals 30.50 acres. The City Council approved the rezoning form A-2 Estate Residential District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development District on March 25, 2008. This plat proposes three lots ranging in size from 7.77 acres to 11.93 acres. The proposed lots will not be developed at this time. Improvements will be submitted and reviewed during the site plan process for each of the individual lots. No grading, street or utility extensions are proposed. Access to the individual lots will be provided through shared ingress/egress easements as identified on the plat. This property is currently zoned PUD. Adjacent to the west is the Home Depot and across Plum Drive to the north is vacant land both of which are zoned P.U.D. To the south are the existing Foxfire and Foxdale residential developments zoned P.U.D. Across 100 th Street to the east is the Glen Eagles North residential development zoned R-1S. The property drains towards the center of the parcel into a drainageway and then eastward towards North Walnut Creek and is located in the Johnston School District. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to requiring the developer to: 1. Remove NW from street label; add note No lot shall have access to 100 th Street ; add easement for the 50-foot buffer yard along the southern boundary. 2. Submit easement descriptions; show sidewalks along 100 th Street and Plum Drive; show the existing water lines that will ultimately serve the lots. Currently Lot 1 does not have a water service and would need to be an outlot; show all existing storm sewer structures; revise typo in Note #1 at bottom of page; revise legal description to read the southeast corner of Outlot C, instead of Lot 1; show
Page 7 missing storm easement at the southeast corner of the site (Bk 8039, Pg 781); verify location and alignment of storm and sanitary pipes. The pipes need to be surveyed and not map based. Any easement modification required to adequately access the pipes will be required with the final plat. A sanitary sewer easement will be needed by 100 th Street; a portion of the sanitary sewer easement was vacated by Bk 14095 Pg 330. Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to requiring the developer to: 10. Submit signed copies of an Attorney's Opinion and all other plat documents as found to be necessary for approval; pay sewer collection fee of $1500; provide verification that the sanitary sewer assessments to Polk County have been paid; provide payment or bond for sidewalk in the amount of $41,739.20 11. Remove NW from street label; add note No lot shall have access to 100 th Street. ; add lot addresses (to be provided by Community Development Department); revise legal description to read the southeast corner of Outlot C, instead of Lot 1; show missing storm easement at the southeast corner of the site (Bk 8039, Pg 781); revise easements based on comments on preliminary plat. Add a sanitary sewer easement by 100 th Street; a portion of the sanitary sewer easement was vacated by Bk 14095 Pg 330. 12. Add the following statement to the plat In any area where a public utility easement (PUE) overlaps, or is coincident with, a designated utility easement for sanitary sewer, water main or storm sewer, the use of the PUE is subordinate to the use of a designated easement for sanitary sewer, water main or storm sewer purposes. Utilities located in the PUE that are in conflict with the use of a designated easement for sanitary sewer, water main or storm sewer purpose must relocate without expense to the owner of the sanitary sewer, water main or storm sewer. The use of the PUE is subordinate in perpetuity including any future use of the easement designated for sanitary sewer, water main or storm sewer purposes. Mr. Hatfield asked is there a road that s parallel to Plum Drive? Or, what are those three lines that are going almost parallel there? Ms. Bales asked through here? I think it s an easement. It s a sanitary sewer easement. Mr. Hatfield said it looked like a funny road. Ms. Ralston-Hansen asked will there be a frontage road off of Plum, or will they access directly from Plum?
Page 8 Ms. Bales said there are some ingress/egress easements. They ll access through shared ingress/egress easements directly onto Plum. If you look right here, it talks about the ingress/egress there, and then there s one over here as well. Mr. Eric Cannon, Snyder & Associates, 2727 SW Snyder Boulevard, Ankeny, said here on behalf of Snyder & Associates, the consulting engineer, and Temple Holdings, developer of the property. I appreciate Ms. Bales report here. There were a couple of things I wanted to cover with you. We have a little bit of concern or question related to the staff report. In essence, what we re doing, as she mentioned before, is creating a parcel for the Van Wall development, which will be Lot 2 as shown on the plat here. The initial discussion with the city was, how do we get to the point where we create that parcel for Van Wall? One of the options was to do a plat of survey, just to create that parcel, transfer the ground to them. But they would need to do a plat to create a platted lot to be able to develop the property. So we didn t want to do the same thing twice, do a plat of survey then come in and do a one-lot plat. We decided at this point it made sense to just do a plat now. This area is all a remnant parcel from when Plum Drive was put in. It was put in with an acquisition plat by the City. So this area hasn t been platted before. So the legal description is quite long for this area out here. So we thought it would be cleaner for the attorney and everybody else involved if we could go ahead and plat this area now. We were just going to do a one-lot plat for the Van Wall parcel, but it ended up creating two remnant parcels on either side. Since we re already drawing lines for Van Wall on both sides, it made sense just to plat all three lots out there for the development. Mr. Cannon continued and said when we got to the point where the City said okay, let s do a plat, part of the requirement with a plat, based on the ordinance, is also to do a preliminary plat even though we re not doing any improvements with the project. We re not building anything with the project. In essence, we re just doing a paper survey to create this lot for Van Wall. So we talked with the City because a preliminary plat requires topo survey and all this other information on there. Because typically when you re doing a subdivision or something like that, you re going to be grading the site, you re going to be building roads, all those things. So you want to know where everything s at to make sure you re not going to cause any problems. Here we re strictly just doing a paper survey to create a lot. So the City said that they would allow us to use LIDAR Survey out here which is more or less radar survey that s available through the University of Northern Iowa s GIS database. They re okay with that. One comment that did come back is they wanted us to survey all of the pipes out here. We have shown all the pipes based on the design drawings from Foth, the design drawings that the City had for when all that infrastructure was put in. But considering what we re doing, which is just creating a paper lot, we didn t feel it was necessary to go out and survey all of this information at the time. When Van Wall does their project, they re going to have to survey the property. Why should the developer have to survey the property to be able to split out the ground and then have Van Wall come in three months from now and survey the property again? We felt that was pretty inefficient and
Page 9 a waste of funds, to be honest with you. Mr. Cannon continued and said there has been a discussion with Staff. We just got the comments Friday and that was one of the comments we were concerned with, was asking this developer to survey all of this ground, even though he s not going to do anything out here. We didn t think it made a whole lot of sense. So that s something where Staff has said we re sorry, we feel that we need to have this survey done. Our opinion is all we re doing is creating a platted lot here, why do we need to survey all the ground? We re not going to be grading or doing any improvements. That stuff would all be done with Van Wall or anybody else that buys the ground out here. So I guess I would ask your consideration on that point to not require the field survey be done of all the ground, to just allow the information we have on the preliminary plat, which is just mapped information, be used. Because when Van Wall comes in, or whoever, they re going to have to do that as part of their site development. So that s why we would ask consideration from you guys. The second item is they re requesting a sidewalk bond be posted in the amount of a little over $41,000 for the project. Typically sidewalks are required with development, so again, when Van Wall or somebody comes in, they re going to have to bring a site plan to you guys, they re going to have to show a sidewalk on it, and they re going to have to install a sidewalk as part of their improvements. Why should the develop have to post $41,000 for a sidewalk that someone else will have to put in, just so they can create a lot for the development? So I guess those are two points that we would ask you guys to consider tonight. They re two items that Ms. Bales and I disagree on, respectively. So we ask for your consideration on those matters. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if Ms. Bales would address those issues. Ms. Bales said I talked to the Engineering staff about Mr. Cannon s request to not have to survey the pipes. They want the plat to reflect the accurate field data on the utilities. So if the easements reflect the accurate location of those pipes when they go to do the final plat, and we re not moving easements later because we didn t know where the pipes were. Regarding the sidewalk, it was after 5:00 and I didn t ask the Engineering staff because they were gone. So they re the ones who gave us the sidewalk bond amount. Sidewalks come in with development, and common improvements for the overall development. So I would ask you certainly not to change that one. If the developer and the engineer want to talk to the City Engineering staff about that more in detail, but I got the request after 5:00 and they were gone, so I don t feel comfortable answering on their behalf. Except to say it s something they require of everyone. That sewer connection fee that you ve seen several times, sidewalk bond, street assessments, left turn lane assessments, all those standard things that come in with a development, are provided by the Engineering staff and they want those common improvements. They can negotiate differently how they want to, who installs it and that sort of thing. We just want to make sure the sidewalk gets in there along Plum Drive. Mr. Cannon said in regards to the sidewalk bond, I totally agree that sidewalks need to
Page 10 get installed with the development. Our point would be that you would not approve a site plan for Van Wall or anybody else along there without a sidewalk. They re not going to get a Certificate of Occupancy for the project without a sidewalk. I will say that most communities in the metro used to require sidewalk bonds on their developments to make sure that they got installed someday. It s pretty antiquated. I don t know any communities left that require sidewalk bonds. Ankeny got rid of it last year. They were the last ones in the metro, outside of Urbandale, that required it. I know that may be a bigger conversation for your guys, but, like I said, I wanted to make sure that you guys were aware of that. I figured that was information that was relevant to this conversation. Mr. Van Heuvelen said as it concerns the sidewalk bond, but since Ms. Bales didn t have an opportunity to talk to Engineering and they re the ones that came up with it, I d like to leave that as-is, would be my thought, and if you want to work with Engineering before Council because of it being antiquated and we re living in the Dark Ages, you can make your case with the Engineering Department, but I d be kind of uncomfortable taking that out now, since she didn t have a chance to talk to Engineering Department. Anybody have any other thoughts? Ms. Ralston-Hansen said it really is up to Council. I have a feeling if you talk to Engineering and state your case, they ll listen to you. Mr. Cannon said I just wanted to be on the record, more than anything. Because we just got the staff report on Friday and that doesn t give us a lot of time. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what about the other issue? Any thoughts, or questions? Pipes, you mean, sewer, water, that sort of stuff? Is that what we re talking about? Ms. Bales said to make sure that the easements are where they should be. Mr. Hatfield said I think what Ms. Bales was saying is we can go off the plan, but the plans might not be 100% accurate. So she s requesting that the developer find exactly where they are buried so that as we define where the lot lines are, and all the easements and these shared accesses, that they are truly accurate and that s where they were built. Because you can take a plan out and say they re supposed to be here, but where are they actually? So we know where the divisions are. Mr. Cannon said I guess is related to the sanitary pipes and the storm pipes? So it doesn t have anything to do with lot lines, it doesn t have anything to do with the shared access drives. Those are really two separate issues. And the easements that are on there are existing easements, so we re not creating anything new related to the sewer pipes or the storm pipes. We re showing all the recorded documentation that was done with the previous projects based on the Polk County Recorder s office. That s part of our frustrations. We re not proposing anything new here. We re just showing existing, recorded information that s available that is subject to this property. If we were adding
Page 11 new storm sewer pipe or adding new sanitary pipe, or proposing to tie into the existing pipes, knowing where the existing pipes are would be very important. And Van Wall may do that with his development, so in my opinion, at the time that they re impacting that existing infrastructure, that s when you would do that investigation. That s when you would survey the property. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so what you re saying is, it s going to be done, either by you or Van Wall, but it s a matter of who s going to pay for it. Is that what really the issue is? Mr. Cannon said I think the issue here is that the developer is just creating a lot for Van Wall to buy. Van Wall is going to be the one who comes in and does the improvements, creates the property, changes the ground, ties into the storm sewer. Mr. Van Heuvelen said but if you give him this benefit, i.e. the survey has already been done, a complete survey already been completed, unless the price has already been set, can t you say, oh, by the way, we took care of some of your expenses for you? Mr. Cannon said the purchase agreement is already done. In essence, we would have to survey it now for the developer. If Van Wall decided to use us for that work, or they renegotiated their deal to buy that survey, at that point. To me it doesn t make a whole lot of sense to force something to be done now, when it has to be done later at the time it develops. Mr. Wallace said it s more akin to going off the survey, where you re just getting the legal descriptions and using those? Mr. Cannon said yes. One option we could do here is just to do a plat of survey, which would accomplish the same thing. But I just think, from a legal standpoint, it makes it awfully messy. We re trying to clean it up, and I think Staff appreciates that, as well, that by creating a legal lot, now your legal description is Lot 1, Marketplace Plat 3, versus this metes and bounds legal description that s so long, and the easements are all convoluted and everything like that. So, I guess if we get pushed to go spend $10,000 to accomplish this $2,000 survey, I think we d probably end up doing a plat of survey instead of having to go survey the whole property. Because we don t have to do it. We re just doing the plat because it s a cleaner version from a legal standpoint. So I guess if we re pushed to go survey pipes and do all that type of work, we ll just say okay, Van Wall, you can do that when you get there and we ll just do a plat of survey and transfer the ground that way. Because we don t have to do the plat, we re just trying to do the plat to clean things up better. Mr. Hatfield said to Ms. Bales, you ve heard argument and we re not engineers, is there some flexibility? Would you please counsel us as to what your opinion is of why Staff is asking them to do this.
Page 12 Ms. Bales said when you see site plans, you see existing easements and future easements, if needed, on site plans. So, we re just asking for the existing easements that are out there to be sure they re in the right place and follow the pipes. If they need to be widened or if they re in the wrong place, for example the manhole is here but the easement is here, we just want to follow it and make sure that the easement covers the improvement before we get to the site plan phase, and we have buildings, and parking lots, in places where they can t be. Ms. Ralston-Hansen asked what about the comments that Van Wall will have to do it at a second time? That does seem redundant and kind of a waste of time, effort and money. Ms. Bales said if they have an accurate plat, that shows the accurate easements, they may have to do some work with their own proposal. But they should be able to take that recorded and accurate information that s on the plat that s recorded, start there, and then put their improvements on. So I m not sure why they would do a second survey if the easements are recorded and are accurate. Ms. Montgomery said if the situation was that this was not negotiated as part of the purchase agreement, is that the biggest factor? In my mind, that s what it comes down to is that they don t want to have to pay for it. I m not an engineer, and your argument makes sense. But so does Ms. Bales and the City s argument, so I m at a loss on this line. Mr. Scott Temple, 2400 86 th Street, Urbandale, said the easements are already recorded. You can t change them now. So, they are what they are. And yes, it s a money issue on that point, it definitely is. Usually if you come to this point, you get the as-builts from the City. I have all the CD plans in my office for it. You just use those. I don t know why this is an issue. It was a city project, the pipes are there, they didn t move, they re 20 feet down. So typically you d get the as-builts, but the City can t find the as-builts. Right? Ms. Bales said that s what I was told. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I would think this is kind of a policy and procedure issue. It s really not a planning and zoning issue. It really is a policy in terms of our Engineering Department, and I don t know if this board is authorized to overrule our engineering department. If this is standard operating procedure, that would be my question. What you re asking for, is this standard operating procedure? Ms. Bales said it isn t standard because it isn t typical. We don t typically have a lot of pipes in the ground already with easements. You re aren t dealing with virgin ground, that sort of thing. So, here s what the staff report says, Verify location and alignment of storm and sanitary pipes. The pipes need to be surveyed and not map-based. Any
Page 13 easement modification required to adequately access the pipes will be required with the final plat. Mr. Wallace asked when were those easements described, or recorded? Mr. Temple said it was in 2008, I believe. Mr. Wallace asked is there any reason to think that they re not accurately described? My experiences as an attorney that deals with development and title examination, if I see an easement and it s described a certain way, I m going to tend to believe it s described correctly. I ve run into issues where they have been described wrong on a plat, versus where they actually happen. That has occurred a few times. Ms. Bales said it s a good question, and I don t know if they re 20 feet deep in some places and a 20-foot wide easement isn t wide enough to get to the pipe if they have to go down that far. Maybe it s too narrow. I m not sure of the driving comment behind the Engineering Department s note on this one. I don t know if they know something s an issue, or they just know it s not wide enough if they have to go to repair it, if it s that deep. Ms. Montgomery asked what is your timeframe? Could we defer this to get more information from Engineering, or for you to have some sort of negotiation with Engineering? Mr. Temple said we re running out of time. We have to close by July 15. And it has to go to Council. So even with moving it back 2 more weeks. Ms. Montgomery said I m at a loss here and I feel like we need more information from Engineering, or we punt it to the Council, and make you guys figure it out between now and then. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I would suggest that if you can t get it worked out with the Engineering Department between now and Council, that we make sure that Engineering is at the Council meeting, to address these issues. Ms. Bales said they usually are. Mr. Van Heuvelen said Dave McKay would be there to address this on a level that perhaps could bring some clarity to the situation. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said I agree. It feels like we re trying to mediate an argument that I don t have any information to base a decision on. Mr. Hatfield said it seems onerous, but there s got to be a reason by Mr. McKay and his
Page 14 staff did this. It doesn t seem reasonable. Mr. Cannon said I d be happy to him about it. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said you make very valid points. It does seem like, if it s in the ground, it hasn t moved, there have not been any earthquakes that I m aware of, so I d flip it back and invite you gentlemen to go talk to Engineering. I don t know where that leaves us from a procedural standpoint. Ms. Montgomery asked what should our option be? Mr. Van Heuvelen said there s no problem with lot 1, 2, and 3 and cleaning up what was metes and bounds before. That s the essence of it, right? And shorten these legal descriptions. I think it s fine to do that. But in terms of waiving the $41,000 bond or deciding as to how deep these pipes are, and whether that s a problem. And Mr. Wallace indicated that it has been a problem in the past, but it s something that s going to be done. It s just a matter of which party is going to pay for it. Ms. Bales said at which stage. We don t really care who pays for it - it s an at which stage thing. Mr. Cannon said our point is that easements were created by the City, the pipe was put in by the City, and now you re asking us to clarify the information that was done by the City. I guess our biggest concern and the main reason why I think we should wait is, let s say we go out there, the pipe s 20 feet deep and there s only a 30-foot easement that the City put on, and they say ooops, we should have put a bigger one and now we want you to do the bigger easement because we didn t do it right the first time, let s say. And let s say Van Wall comes in a month from now and wants to put 10 feet of fill in this spot to make their site level out because it s really slopey out there, now Van Wall has to remodify that easement. We just modified a month ago. Why not just wait until Van Wall knows what they re going to do, they come in here, figure out the design of the project, where the buildings are going to set, where the easements need to be, all that stuff gets looked at by Engineering as part of the site design. I honestly feel like it s a waste of money to do it now and then likely have to deal with this again as part of that development. That s just the point we re trying to make. I m fine deferring this to Engineering and having that conversation with them prior to Council. Ms. Montgomery said so would you suggest that we approve this, as is, with the Staff recommendations? Then have them talk to Engineering before Council? Mr. Van Heuvelen said I m certainly in favor of that. I don t want to hold this up. That s something that we don t want to do because I don t think any of us are against the three lots, if I m reading correctly. That s not the problem. But it seems to me there are some procedural, or policy, or technical issues, that Engineering should be involved in. Both
Page 15 the sidewalk as well as the easement. Mr. Wallace said we don t have jurisdiction to even change that one particular item. Mr. Van Heuvelen said you re talking about the sidewalk in particular? Mr. Wallace said no, about the easements themselves. Yes, and the sidewalk. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I m leery about both of them. That we really don t control much as it concerns the purse strings of the City. So I m in favor of approving it. Mr. Hatfield said with a strong recommendation that both parties meet and talk about the timing. Mr. Van Heuvelen said we re not approving the $41,000 or the whole easement issue, that s to be worked out with Engineering prior to the meeting with Council or at Council. That s my thoughts. Ms. Montgomery moved, and it was seconded by Hatfield, to approve the Urbandale Marketplace Plat 3 Preliminary and Final Plats, subject to Staff recommendations, with the further recommendation that the City talk to the developer and work through the issues with the sidewalk and the easements, and explain to them, at least, why it s important to the City. On roll call; Ayes: Montgomery, Hatfield, Racki, Ralston-Hansen, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. Regarding Staff reports, Ms. Bales said we will have your meeting on May 16. There s been one more public hearing that s added, so you ll have four public hearings and a preliminary plat, and a school addition at Des Moines Christian there on Douglas Parkway. The Waterford Pointe Preliminary Plat that you saw earlier as Wheeler P.U.D. Amendment, it s there at 142 nd and Waterford Road, across from the big sub-station in Grimes. So it s right at our border there. They are coming in with that preliminary plat. And we will have your meeting on May 31, which I realize is the day after Memorial Day. So plan ahead on that one, too, please. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what s the Wheeler Addition going to be? Ms. Bales said that s the one where they re proposing multi-family near the intersection and then some single-family cross under the power lines with some more single-family and some townhouses there along 142 nd. So it s just east of Coyote Ridge. Coyote Ridge is where the home show is taking place. Those homes are quickly under construction for the home show, later this summer. The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.