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, Bridget Montgomery, Kevin Gass, Joe Wallace, and Wayne Van Heuvelen. Staff members present were Kristi Bales, Community Development Manager/Chief Planner, Sheena Nuetzman, Planner I, and Cheryl Vander Linden, Administrative Specialist. The first item on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the September 6, 2016 meeting. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Hatfield, to approve the September 6, 2016 minutes. On roll call; Ayes: Gass, Hatfield, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: Montgomery, Wallace. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the Colby Woods Amendment to the P.U.D. Master Plan Lot 1, Colby Woods West Plat No. 6, Case No. 010-1973- 02.02.22, 3005-3035 86 th Street. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, if there were no objections, he would dispense with reading the following official publication: Case No. 010-1973-02.02.22 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: OFFICIAL PUBLICATION Notice is hereby given that the Urbandale Planning & 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 Mr. Marco Miranda, President of Andes Group, Inc., owner, to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to amend the Colby Woods Planned Unit Development Master Plan for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Colby Woods West Plat No. 6, an Official Plat, now included in and forming a part of the City of Urbandale, Polk County, Iowa. The property described above is known locally as 3001-3035 86 th Street. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Colby Woods Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan is proposed to allow a dog grooming business as a permitted use on the property. More information on this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Colby Woods PUD Master Plan can be obtained at the Department of Community Development, 3600-86 th Street, Urbandale, Iowa between
Page 2 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 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 property on the east side of 86 th Street, and south of North Walnut Creek. The parcel is known locally as 3005-3035 86 th Street and is legally described as Lot 1, Colby Woods West Plat No. 6, and is part of the office portion of the "Colby Woods" Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) District. The 2.23 acre site contains a partial two-story office building with 18,715 square feet, and associated parking constructed in 1999. The site plan was approved by the City Council on June 30, 1998. An amendment to the PUD was approved on January 12, 2010 to allow a 3,005 square foot veterinary clinic with animal boarding as a permitted use in within the building. This amendment has been requested to allow a dog grooming business as a permitted use. The business would occupy approximately 1,868 square feet, and would not include any daycare or boarding. The business model includes grooming services by appointment only, and the sale of some related retail items such as canine shampoo, collars and treats as an accessory use to the grooming services. Dog grooming is classified as a retail use, and is therefore not allowed in any of the City s office zoning districts, and accordingly is not allowed in this portion of the Colby Woods P.U.D. since its zoned only for office uses (very similar to the C-O Office- Service District). The property is zoned P.U.D. Planned Unit Development District and is part of the Colby Woods P.U.D., as are all of the surrounding properties east of 86 th Street. Public open space adjoins to the north, and existing offices to the south and east. There are single-family residences and a daycare to the west across 86 th Street, which are zoned R1-I Intermediate Density Single-Family District. The property is located in the Urbandale School District and drains northeast to the adjoining North Walnut Creek via a detention basin in the northeast corner of the site. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Colby Woods P.U.D. Master Plan Standards to allow a dog grooming business as a permitted use on the subject property. Mr. Hatfield asked did you receive any feedback from anybody? Ms. Bales said we did not. Mr. Gass asked the hours don t change at all, as far as operation?
Page 3 Ms. Bales said no. We don t limit the hours in this, but there is no boarding or day care. So there s really no overnight use. Ms. Montgomery said looking at what we approved back in 2010. Ms. Bales asked to allow the vet clinic? Ms. Montgomery said it lists animal boarding as permitted. Ms. Bales said yes, permitted for the vet clinic but not for this use. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, as this is a public hearing, the Commission will hear comments from both proponents and opponents of this proposed amendment. He asked if anybody was present to speak in favor? Seeing no one, he asked for anyone opposed. There was no one present wishing to speak in opposition. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Wallace, to close the public hearing. On roll call: Gass, Wallace, Hatfield, Montgomery, Van Heuvelen. Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. Ms. Montgomery moved, and it was seconded by Gass, to approve the Colby Woods Amendment to the P.U.D. Master Plan Lot 1 Colby Woods West Plat No. 6, subject to Staff recommendations. On roll call; Ayes: Montgomery, Gass, Hatfield, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the Urbandale Marketplace III Plat 3 Preliminary and Final Plats (NW Urbandale Drive and Meredith Drive). Ms. Bales said this preliminary plat and final plat cover 15.8 acres in the Urbandale Marketplace Phase III Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Master Plan area, known as Outlot Z, Urbandale Marketplace, Plat 2. In general, this plat is bounded by NW Urbandale Drive on the east, Meredith Drive on the south and the railroad right-of-way on the west. The property is currently vacant. This plat proposes three lots ranging in size from 1.46 acres to 3 acres, and one outlot totaling 8.85 acres. Future improvements will be submitted and reviewed during the site plan process for each of the individual lots. Access to the individual lots will be provided through a shared private ingress/egress easement. The Urbandale Marketplace III development is fully served by water mains in NW Urbandale Drive and Meredith Drive. Both streets are fully improved, with the exception of turn lanes for accesses into this property from both NW Urbandale Drive and Meredith Drive. All turn lanes serving this property are the developer s responsibility.
Page 4 Sanitary sewer service is available at the property boundaries and will need to be extended as necessary to serve individual parcels within the property, depending on the development s ultimate layout. The property is currently zoned P.U.D. Adjacent to the north are existing retail uses (Kum & Go, Firestone and McDonald s) that are all part of the same Urbandale Marketplace III P.U.D. To the east across NW Urbandale Drive is the Etchen Property P.U.D. which is currently designed for office/flex and limited retail uses. To the south, across Meredith Drive, are vacant lots zoned C-G General Commercial District. To the east, across the railroad tracks, are commercial and light-industrial uses zoned M-2 Business Park Industrial. In general, the property drains to the eastward through a drainageway that eventually runs into North Walnut Creek. The property is located in the Johnston School District. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to requiring the developer to: 1. Add note Lot 3 shall not have individual access to Meredith Drive. ; provide 20 landscape buffer along Meredith Drive and NW Urbandale Drive; sidewalk required on one side of private drive; revise/compare legal description with final plat; revise southeast property boundary callouts on Sheet 02; 2. Remove private improvements from preliminary plat (they can be shown on separate construction drawings and individual site plans); revise book/page numbers for existing SWFE to Book 13509, Page 455; revise legal description of existing SWFE to correct error in existing legal description; install Blow-off on the dead ends of the water main. 3. Sheet 01: Both scales appear to be off. Update the engineer s license renewal date; What is the proposed outlet for the temporary sediment basin in the SE corner of the site? Provide calculations for basin; A portion of the Parcel 2016-79 is in Lot 1 was this intentional?; Callout for Lot 1 west setback is obscured; show erosion control measures; add an ingress/egress easement to the roadway; provide copy of NPDES Permit prior to final approval of preliminary plat; provide construction drawings for the public sanitary sewer. Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject to requiring the developer to: 1. Submit signed copies of an Attorney's Opinion and all other plat documents as found to be necessary for approval; provide verification that the sanitary sewer assessments to Polk County have been paid; pay sidewalk fee of $5,104.
Page 5 2. Add note Lot 3 shall not have individual access to Meredith Drive. ; add lot addresses (to be provided by Community Development Department). 3. Legal Description should be updated to include Parcel 2016-79. Technically, this is a replat of Outlot Z, but since the Parcel 2016-79 plat of survey is more recent, shouldn t that be mentioned? Or is the new parcel still considered part of Outlot Z?; a portion of the Parcel 2016-79 is in Lot 1 was this intentional?; setbacks don t match preliminary plat (west side of Lot 1, for example); provide Easement Description; add Book and Page for existing gas main Easement. 4. 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. Van Heuvelen said you mentioned that that s a private street, non-dedicated? Ms. Bales said it will be in a shared ingress-egress easement, so not dedicated as rightof-way. Mr. Van Heuvelen said and they ll be totally responsible then for all maintenance? Ms. Bales said yes. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked will it be a named street? Ms. Bales said that s what we re trying to figure out, we don t know yet. Because of that parcel in the middle, we don t know yet. Mr. Gass asked whether to name it? Ms. Bales said yes. Because most properties are going to be addressed off of NW Urbandale Drive or Meredith Drive, because they have frontage. But this one in the middle is a little bit different in that it doesn t have street frontage, so we re trying to figure out how to address that without it being confusing for patrons who want to go there. Mr. Hatfield asked do you agree with the Staff recommendations, as they are written?
Page 6 Mr. Dave Little, Buyers Realty, 3101 Ingersoll Avenue, Des Moines, said I m here on behalf of the applicant and we do agree. Ms. Montgomery asked we approved the multi-story storage, was that on lot 2? Ms. Bales said you approved the P.U.D. to add it as a use, you have not seen the site plan yet though. He had the concept here that night, but the parcel has to be created in order for them to put the site plan on it and know what they re buying and everything. Mr. Hatfield said that s anticipated that that would be lot 2? Ms. Bales said yes, that s what they re planning. Mr. Hatfield moved, and it was seconded by Wallace, to approve the Urbandale Marketplace III Plat 3 Preliminary and Final Plats, subject to Staff recommendations. On roll call; Ayes: Hatfield, Wallace, Montgomery, Gass, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the Mister Car Wash Site Plan No. 012-2016-13.00 (12035 Hickman Road). Ms. Bales said this site plan proposes the construction of a car wash on Lot 4 of Heritage Park Plat 1. The parcel is 1.76 acres in size and has 414.93 feet of frontage on Hickman Road and 459.5 feet of frontage on the private internal drive. The parcel is currently vacant. The Heritage Park P.U.D. allows car washes as a permitted use. The proposed car wash building totals 5,125 square feet of floor area with an additional 25 vacuum stations. The exterior materials are proposed to be a combination of brick and porcelain tile, which is compliant with the requirements of the P.U.D. Master Plan. Access to the parcel will be primarily from the existing signalized intersection on Hickman Road, which currently provides access to the other tenants within the Heritage Park development, and the Love s Travel Plaza and Menards in the City of Clive. Secondary access will be provided from a full access, non-signalized intersection on the west side of this property. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking space per employee plus 1 parking space for the manager plus parking spaces equaling 5 times the vehicle capacity of the car wash. The site is designed to have three cashier stations in order to accommodate customers. A minimum of 20% of the lot area is required to be maintained as open space and a minimum of 5% of the parking lot area is required to be landscaped. Trees and shrubs are to be provided at a minimum ratio of two trees and six shrubs for every 2,500
Page 7 square feet of required open space. A continuous row of shrubs will be required along the private internal drive of Heritage Park in order to screen the lower portions of parked vehicles. To the north are the Lifetime Fitness facility and vacant lots that are all a part of the same Heritage Park P.U.D. To the east is Lot 5 developed as the Kum & Go convenience store. To the south, across Hickman Road is the Menards home improvement store in the City of Clive. To the west, across the private internal drive, is the Stew Hansen auto dealership. The property drains to the south, via an existing drainageway that flows through the property and southeasterly along the Love s Travel Plaza and into Walnut Creek. The property is located in the West Des Moines School District. Staff recommends approval, subject to requiring the developer to: 1. Building permit with structural engineering is required for all retaining walls more than 4 feet in height; Sheet C3.1-add dimension from retaining wall to property line to confirm a 1 to 1 setback requirement is maintained; pay hook-on fee of $2,829.76 at time of building permit; domestic backflow prevention installation is required; provide approval from Des Moines Water Works for this design in relation to their easement. 2. Sheet C0.1: Fill in who completed the survey in Survey Notes; Sheet C0.1: Revise rear yard setback to be 0. If one is provided 10 minimum ; Sheet C1.1: Is there a set pin in the SE corner of the Lot? If not, one needs to be set; Sheet C2.1: Hatch the ramps and portions of sidewalks that are to be completed with these improvements. The existing sidewalk panels adjacent to the proposed ramps will need to have a max slope of 2.0% in both directions or they will need to be replaced. Provide spot elevations for sidewalk panels adjacent to ramps; existing sidewalk appears to be 4 wide, provide a 5 x5 minimum passing space in the sidewalk between the two entrances. 3. Provide engineer s certification that underground detention has been installed per approved plans; remove 35 rear building setback line; Sheet C5.1 - provide a continuous row of shrubs with a minimum mature height of 3.5 feet along the parking spaces along internal drive and the southern side of the employee parking spaces, revise landscape requirements to 2,500 square feet (not 3,000 square feet), and provide verification 5% parking lot is maintained as open space; provide light pole detail (maximum height is 25 feet). 4. Provide at least one designated ADA employee parking space and above-ground signage; vacuum stations and cashier controls must be accessible; provide vehicle capacity of the car wash (in order to verify parking spaces); signage will
Page 8 be reviewed separately with sign permit application (no signage is permitted on eastern side of the building); identify location of ground mechanical units and other utility/service pedestals (to be treated with landscaping berms, or walls to mitigate appearance form public ways). 5. Sheet C3.1: In the general notes adjust all topsoil notes to reference an 8 minimum topsoil requirement; there is a large impervious area of the site in the NE that is not captured by storm intakes onsite. Would it be better to move intakes STR-101 and STR-102 just inside the entrance to catch all this runoff?; Sheet C7.1: Add a note to install intake protection in the private road east of the site. Show construction entrance and concrete washout location(s). Label the bar scale. 6. Provide a Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement for the detention cells per the Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance (template to be provided by Community Development Department); provide NPDES Permit; provide SWPPP; provide 1/3 recycling for the car wash (requirement of the Urbandale Sanitary Sewer District). 7. Stormwater Management Plan - The areas being graded on the south portion of the lot should be treated as undetained (the northeast portion of the area labeled as ST-201DA). The entire site should be accounted for in both the pre- and postcondition, either as detained, undetained, or undisturbed (for the south ditch). Provide a table and maps to summarize the pre- and post-conditions; the exit lane on the east end of ST-103DA doesn t drain to the intake STR-103 and should be treated as undetained. As noted above, we suggest that STR-101 and STR-102 be moved to the driveway entrance to capture more of the parking lot flow; an intake could also be placed on the Access Road upstream of the existing access to capture additional runoff; the undetained areas include paving and therefore shouldn t have a value of C=0.25; provide calculations for C values for each area that does not assume a fully-paved condition; current rainfall rates should be used for all calculations. For example, the storage calculations use old rates; revise Narrative Section 2.F and Detention Required Calculations (2- Year) worksheet so that the 2-year allowable release rate does not exceed the 100-year allowable release rate; check that all values have been updated for current calculations. For example, the 5-year rate in Sec. 1.E.vi does not match Sec. 2.F. The Undetained Area in Sec. 2.F s table does not match the narrative in that section. The table in Sec. 2.F does not match the developed conditions in the Detention Required Calculations worksheet; provide Elevation-Storage table for underground tanks. Ms. Montgomery said I am a frequent patron of the Mister Car Wash over on University and I don t quite understand where all of the waiting is going to happen.
Page 9 Ms. Bales said the waiting will mostly happen here, in these three approaches to the pay stations. They re going to try to get as much as they can off of that internal drive, and have it here. Ms. Montgomery asked do you know how many cars that will accommodate? Mr. Chuck Bishop, Bishop Engineering, 3501 104 th Street, Urbandale, said I m here tonight representing Agree Realty, who s the developer for the project. As indicated, we have three lanes coming in. They ll have stacking for at least 12 to 15 cars, in those three lanes there, without getting into the access road out front. And then you ll have the actual kiosks where you just pay and go, and then you ll wait your turn to go through the one single-lane drive-through and they ll just run you through. Then you can either choose to get out of your car and wait in the waiting area, or you can ride through. Ms. Montgomery said I think this a huge need on this side of town, but I don t know that that, on a big day, is enough stacking. Since it s really an access road, it s not like it s a public street. Mr. Bishop said it s a private drive, so I mean they could back up onto the private drive in front of their site. I guess it s not really going to be adverse. We made the drive 31 feet wide, so there s enough room to get around cars if they re stacked in there and still get through there. Mr. Gass said and that will happen. There will be stacking out on that road. Ms. Montgomery said that s my only concern, but I think that because it s a private drive and not stacking on Hickman Road. Mr. Bishop said if you look at the site, you can see how far the building is shoved to the north. The reason why is that 36-inch water main. We have a big easement there through Des Moines Waterworks, and it s right there. The south edge of that building is right on the water main easement line, so I can t move it any farther south and I couldn t get any more stacking distance out of this site. We would love to have that further south, closer to Hickman, but because of that easement there was no availability to do that. So, we got as much as we could. We have a bypass lane so if somebody wants to get out and not go through the carwash, they can go through that lane, right before you get in there and take off and go back out. We have, again, three lanes in, and we have two lanes out on your exit here. It s mainly just a clockwise circulation for the whole thing, you know, so if you come out the exit, you go to the vacuum stations there. There s a possibility that you could stack up through the vacuum stations, on a busy day. We could bring people in that way and have that inside lane be a stacking lane through the vacuum stations. But, that s going to block people from getting out, too, out of those vacuum stations, so they re probably most likely be stacking back up into that access road. But, again, it s a private drive and right now, there s nobody across the
Page 10 street on these lots. I don t think you get a lot of use coming in from the Stew Hansen drive side, and that would be the side that most people would be coming in to go to this facility now, once they get forked up on the circulation pattern for it. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so that paving leaving the building, you re paving over top of that 36-inch water main. Mr. Bishop said we can pave over it. They ll let us pave over it, but you can t build a structure and you can t change the grade above it. So we had to match the existing grade of the ground there. So yes, they ll let you pave over it. They weren t going to. I finally got them to agree to do that, but it s been very difficult. They made us jump through a few hoops. They made us look at flipping the building and doing the entrance on the other side, but then we had the pay kiosk in their easement. And they said no, we don t want those pay kiosks in our easement because we don t want to have to rip those out if we have to work on the water main. So this was the only option that we could come up with that everybody was acceptable to. Mr. Van Heuvelen said did we find out if these recommendations are okay? Mr. Hatfield asked Mr. Bishop if he is in agreement with the 7 staff recommendations? Mr. Bishop said yes, we re working with Staff. A lot of the comments have to do with the storm water detention. We re kind of working through those issues. The other issue is adding a handicap stall for one of the employee parking spaces, so we have to do that. Those are located right here. We had 3 spaces here, we re just going to add one more space off to the west side here. So we ll make one of these a handicap stall then for the employees. Mr. Wallace moved, and it was seconded by Montgomery, to approve the Mister Car Wash site plan, subject to Staff recommendations. On roll call; Ayes: Wallace, Montgomery, Gass, Van Heuvelen; Nays: Hatfield; Passes: none. Motion carried. Mr. Hatfield said, to explain the reason for my no vote, I am a fine customer of Mister Car Wash and they have great service. I think there s too much density at that location, which I ve said for about five years. Hickman Road is a mess. The next item on the agenda was the Silkwood Crossing Preliminary Plat (4700 Block of 142 nd Street). Ms. Nuetzman said this preliminary plat pertains to a 76 acre property that lies approximately 1,400 feet north of Meredith Drive on the west side of 142 nd St. On August 16, 2016, the City Council approved a rezoning of the property from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to R-1S Suburban Density Single-Family District requiring a minimum lot width of 70 feet.
Page 11 This property has approximately 1,325 feet of frontage along 142 nd Street. This plat will have two street connections to the south; one at 144 th Street in Calvert Meadows Plat 1 and the other at 148 th Street in Meredith Heights Plat 2, both having access to Meredith Drive. This plat proposes 173 single-family residential lots. The lots generally have widths of 75 to 80 feet, with the corner lots having an additional 20 feet of width. The minimum lot size for all lots is 8,750 square feet (per the R-1S district criteria). 142 nd Street will serve as a collector street (no individual lot has access to 142 nd St.) where a 50-foot berm and buffer landscape setback will be required. All other streets will have a 30-foot front yard setback. This plat is shown to be constructed in three phases Phase 1 to the southeast between 148 th Street and 142 nd Street; Phase 2 will be constructed southwest of 148 th Street and the center of the plat between 148 th Street and 142 nd ; and Phase 3 will be the north section of the plat. The plat currently includes 5.54 acres, shown as Lot P, for parkland dedication. An additional 2.36 acres of land or equivalent infrastructure will be needed to satisfy the requirements of the Parks and Open Space Code. The project was approved on September 13, 2016 by the Urbandale Sanitary Sewer District with the stipulation that only the 43 lots in the first phase can go to the south; the rest of the development will need to flow to the west. Water service is provided by an existing 16 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 property is located in the Waukee School District and drains primarily to the west into a drainageway, eventually into Walnut Creek. Ms. Nuetzman said Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to requiring the developer to: 1. Submit an Attorney's Opinion for approval; show the names, addresses and zoning of adjoining lots; revise the east and west street names (to be provided by the Community Development Dept.); revise Sheet 1 to include the School District (Waukee); revise Sheet 1 to include the area and density of the plat as well as the benchmark; provide a street lighting plan for the plat; revise the subdivision
Page 12 boundary to be bold and show phase lines; label the right-of-way dedication lot(s) along 142 nd Street; verify sight distance at lot 116. 2. Ensure all lots are labeled with dimensions; revise the grading plan to show the required berm/landscaping along the entire stretch of 142 nd Street and verify elevations with preliminary roadway profile (the tie-in elevation for South Street is a little high, and the grading along Lots 103 and 120-122 is too low); label right-ofway and pavement widths on all streets; revise Sheet 5 with labeling of the right-ofway dedication along 142 nd Street; revise Sheet 6 to show the proposed grading for 148 th Street north of Center Street; revise Sheet 8 to clean up grading in Lots 64-66 and along 148 th Street between Center Street and North Street; revise Sheet 4 to provide a storm sewer easement for Lot 66; lots 77 and 78 will need a water main easement; revise Sheet 4 to show water and sewer placed on the opposite sides of the street, or separated by at least 10 ; revise the utility layout for the South Street cul-de-sac; verify that future (2 nd and 3 rd Phase) sanitary sewer construction in the detention area can be met after the detention is constructed for Phase 1. 3. Provide cleanouts for all subdrains; revise to show where the subdrain in lots 86-102 will lead to; for lots 6-21: move the swale and subdrain to the south end of the lots to avoid cutting the backyards in half (this will be a problems with decks); any existing wells or septic tanks will need to be removed or abandoned; during construction all of the existing driveway connections to 142 nd Street will need to be removed; Sheet 9: there is no overflow for several low spots in Lots 111/112; a 60 right-of-way will allow hydrants to be placed in the parking strip; place structures on property lines (along South Street for example). 4. Comply with the Parks and Open Space Code; Outlot Z will need to be a Surface Water Flowage Easement; remove the debris (old cars, etc.) from the property. 5. Provide Minimum Basement Elevations (M.B.E.) for all lots; provide Minimum Opening Elevations (M.O.E.) for lots that require them (we no longer require Minimum at Grade Structure (M.G.S.) elevations); add right-of-way radius for South and North Street at 142 nd Street; revise to widen the pavement to 37 B/B at 142 nd Street (this will require the right-of-way to be wider); call out paving and right-of-way radius transition to cul-de-sac. 6. Show erosion control measures; provide silt fence as ditch checks in swales; provide perimeter controls where runoff can exit site; provide sediment barrier along contours at spacing specified in SUDAS (i.e. SUDAS 7E-14 for silt fence); provide construction entrance and concrete washout (per SUDAS supplemental Spec 11,060); additional silt fence may be needed to prevent erosion on to streets; standpipes will be required in the detention area; provide erosion control/dissipation at all storm sewer outlets; show grading for the detention; provide concrete flume to outlet in the bottom of the detention basin; the drainage channel from the outlet pipe
Page 13 at 148 th Street to the basin will need to be engineered to prevent erosion and cutting; there will need to be access constructed to allow for future maintenance of the detention area; a bond will be required at the time of the final plat to ensure the detention area is cleaned out prior to it being turned over to the homeowner s association; a detention basin maintenance agreement per the Post Construction Stormwater Ordinance will be required; provide a copy of the NPDES Permit prior to final approval of the preliminary plat. 7. Provide individual grading plans for each lot at the time of construction drawing approval; a bond or cash will be required for the future paving on 142 nd Street including the left turn lanes; show existing grading in Lot P and label; verify proposed grading is shown where grading is required; verify grading on Lots 52-71 and show how they will tie into existing ground (the rear yards are 15-25 above existing ground); verify how much of Outlot Z will be graded; verify grading in the north lots, specifically Lots 94-104 and 117 (which have 15-20 of fall from BSL to the back- verify that swale is intended to be this low); tie the rear yard contours into existing ground; verify whether the swale along Lot 103-107 can be raised. 8. Drainage Report- provide calculations in the format outlined in SUDAS section 2A- 4; calculations are required for detention, overflow routes, intakes, storm sewer and any undetained drainage leaving the site; include calculations as necessary to show the 100-year storm is conveyed to the detention basin and all 100- year flows are contained within a SWFE. 9. Revise the water main line along 148 th Street to be a 12 main; water main reimbursement will be $33,730.18 Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what exactly is going to transpire in that open space, the parkland dedication? Ms. Nuetzman said we re still discussing that, but Staff is recommending a trail loop around this area. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked a paved walking path? Ms. Nuetzman said yes, an 8-foot walking trail. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked would that extend then to the west? Ms. Nuetzman said it would come up this way and then come through here. That s what is shown now. But the loop would kind of come in like this. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what about the open space to the west?
Page 14 Ms. Nuetzman said that s detention. Ms. Montgomery said so this would connect into the Walnut Creek trail? Or, there s no connection? Ms. Nuetzman said it would connect along the future trail along 142 nd. Ms. Bales probably has a little bit more information on that, but I believe that there would be a trail connection along 142 nd. Ms. Bales said it doesn t go over as far west as the Walnut Creek Trail, so won t connect with it. Mr. Hatfield said so Outlot A, that s just green space, it s not a real park, doesn t have jungle gym and swings or anything like that? Just green space? Ms. Nuetzman said yes, just green space. Mr. Van Heuvelen said but it will be maintained by the City? Mowed or whatever needs to be done, as a city park? Ms. Nuetzman said yes. Mr. Doug Salzgaver, Engineering Resource Group, 2413 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, said we ve read the Staff recommendations. We do have a small issue with one, I believe it s item # 3. It is a comment about moving a proposed swale we have in the rear yard, along with a subdrain, moving to the far south end of those lots, the back of the lots. We don t want to do that. The reason that swale and subdrain are located where they are is to preserve the existing trees that are on the south side of this property, that abut the adjoining developments to the south. We are probably going to take some trees out in there, just because they do meander out further north than what we first thought. But we want to leave a minimum of 20 feet of tree cover in there, and if we move that swale further south, we ll have to remove all of those trees. The developer does not want to do that, he sees value in those trees, and I know the neighbors to the south want to see those trees left. I think there are probably some neighbors here tonight that also have an opinion on that. All the lots on the south side of what we ve so far called South Street, which is not a very imaginative name, those are extra depth. They re all at least 160 foot depth, compared to some of the other lots, as we move north, that are 135. So we ve accounted for that 20-some feet of trees that are remaining, and then some of the slope to get down to the swale. He said I think all the other items we can sit down and work through with Staff, but this one we want to make sure we re clear on. We don t want to remove those trees, and moving that swale would do that. So, hopefully, you see our reasoning behind that. Mr. Van Heuvelen said it looks as if the City s reasoning is that this will be problems with
Page 15 the decks. It looks as if the City s concerned about the decks on the backs of the homes on South Street. Mr. Salzgaver said well, again, we ve made those lots extra deep. They re 160 feet instead of 130 or 135, so we ve taken that into consideration by making those lots deep. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so you re saying that it wouldn t be a problem at all for the decks? Mr. Salzgaver said if you have a very, very deep house that you re putting on the lot, it probably would be. But I think typical home construction that we see for this size of lot, we think it will be fine. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked Ms. Bales to address that third recommendation. Ms. Bales said that recommendation comes from our Engineering Department from their review. Because oftentimes if someone has to build a deck in an easement, they re asked to review and can they get away with it by doing a hold-harmless agreement and that extra review. So, what I would recommend, because we aren t the ones who wrote it, is leave it as is, but in your motion if you decide to approve, note that, and we ll follow up with Engineering Staff in the morning to see if their house plans are going to work, and not every one of them is going to have to have, essentially, a holdharmless and try to encroach on that easement. Because that s what we want to protect is the easement and the ability to maintain it and make sure it diverts the stormwater, instead of sheet flowing all the way to the south. Because Mr. Salzgaver s right, that s one of the major concerns you heard at the zone change. We understand his intent, but if we can leave it in for right now and we ll address it with Engineering in the morning, that would be great. Then we ll clear it up before we get to Council. Ms. Montgomery said I have a concern about the parkland dedication. I think there s a lot of houses in this area and there s not a lot of active play space, just from my recollection. While I think a trail loop is nice, I think active play space is also needed in this area, especially since this seems relatively not connected to the trail system. Ms. Bales said the Parks Department has taken a close look at this. What I wanted to do was show you the grading, because the area where they ve shown the park is not flat. This is the Outlot P that s shown and you ll see those grades. So what we ve talked to them about is a sidewalk would come up 148 th Street here on the west, a 5- foot sidewalk, and then we ve talked about having a trail come in and split, and Ms. Nuetzman s right, it will come down here, go out and then there s also a loop around here, to avoid most of these grading and thick lines. There was one proposal to actually give us more parkland, but it got even steeper towards the detention at the west end. And no, we really didn t want that because the Parks Department does not want stormwater detention as part of their daily workload. So, I understand your concern, but
Page 16 they ve actually taken a very close look at this, and haven t asked for any play area or anything like that. Ms. Montgomery said I would defer to their judgment but I just think there s not adequate active play space in that portion of the neighborhood. Ms. Bales said you ve got the Robel property which is coming in with the multi-family, duplex and single family to the north. So there will be that, hopefully, as an option. Ms. Montgomery asked so there will be a park in there? Ms. Bales said we haven t seen it yet, so we don t know, but we ll certainly keep that in mind. Ms. Montgomery said then there will be sidewalk access on 142 nd Street? Ms. Bales said 142 nd Street will have the 10-foot paved trail that you see along the arterial streets, and it will likely be on the west side. I can t make any promises on the Robel property because we haven t seen it yet, but that s sort of in the back of their mind. The other part is, in Coyote Ridge, which is across Waterford Road to the north, there was enough parkland in there, outside of the overhead easement, to have a flat playground space. And so they talked about one up there, as well. So, they re thinking about that, but the Parks Department took a close look at that, because of the topography, they don t anticipate doing a tot lot or a playground in this area. They ll just do the trail system, and then have a little bit wider sidewalk to get out to the 142 nd Street. Ms. Montgomery said so on the north-south streets, would those sidewalks connect down to Meredith, ultimately? Ms. Bales said yes, they ll connect to the sidewalks in the subdivision to the south. So they ll make sidewalk connections here and here. Now, the new rule is for a 5-foot sidewalk, the old rule was for a 4-foot sidewalk, so they ll transition from a 5 to a 4 in this spot. But these will have the wider 5-foots, and like I said, it will be 6 to get out to 142 nd Street. Mr. Van Heuvelen said it looks like you re due another 2-1/3 acres of park, following up on the park discussion? Do we know where that s going to be? Ms. Bales said it won t be as land. What we ve talked to Mr. Salzgaver a little bit about is getting some preliminary numbers and having the developer make up that portion with an infrastructure contribution, similar to what Waterford Pointe is going to do further to the north. They had that proposed trail under the easement, but no other parkland, so they re actually looking at the numbers to construct that trail instead of waiting for the
Page 17 Parks Department and put the trail and the land as their contribution. So, this is the land shape but the balance will made through as work through cost estimates on that trail. It may be that they can do part or all of it, depending on the value. Mr. Van Heuvelen said we see some interested people here tonight. If you d care to ask a question, you re certainly welcome to. It s not a public hearing, but we aren t going to restrict you from speaking, if you d like to. Mr. Ron Lilly, 14619 Hickory Drive, said essentially my home is that Meredith Heights Plat 2 that s right there on the bottom there. He may have addressed it, back to the water issue, that I provided you with a packet at a previous meeting, that came between my plat and the plat to the west of me. I just want to make sure that that was addressed. I see that it provides for retention way at the very end, and I m wondering how is that water which is coming from the east to the west going to ever make that retention pond, when it s got to go by my house and then up to the same place that s already got water coming through? Mr. Van Heuvelen said we ll have Mr. Salzgaver address that. Do you have any other questions? Mr. Lilly said no, I don t think so. Mr. Salzgaver said with the lots we re talking about in trying to preserve the trees, that swale that we re putting in, that is to catch the stormwater that currently flows south toward those existing homes. We re going to pick that up all through this area, pick it up in a storm sewer and then get it down to the detention basin. So we really have to have that swale there in order to do that, and if I remember right, there are about 7 acres that currently drains southerly toward the existing developments. And the only thing that we re going to have draining that way when we re done is whatever area that the trees are remaining in. So, I know it s less than half an acre. So we re going to have a substantial improvement with the amount of land that drains that way now to what it will when we re finished, so they should see a tremendous reduction in the amount of water that runs through their properties. Mr. Gass asked do you promise? Mr. Salzgaver said yes. Mr. Hatfield asked have you done any calculations? What would the numbers look like, current to future? Mr. Salzgaver said yes. On the acres involved, we re reducing it by a factor by about 14. So, going from 7 acres down to less than a half. What remains that would drain in that direction is tree-covered, so it s not hard surface. As long as we don t have a 20-
Page 18 inch rain in a day or something, we should be fine. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I suppose maybe even part of the reason for wanting to preserve those trees is it would absorb more water than if you d have it barren? Mr. Salzgaver said yes. And with the swale we ve got through there, I did recently do some calculations on that, and I m thinking that the high water depth in that is something like 6 or 8 inches, so we ve got a nice wide swale back there to carry that, and a lot of great depth. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Hatfield, to approve the Silkwood Crossing Preliminary Plat, subject to Staff recommendations as noted, specifically recommendation # 3 which include a note about the swale and asking Staff to follow up with the Engineering Department prior to the Council meeting. On roll call; Ayes: Gass, Hatfield, Montgomery, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. Regarding Staff reports, Ms. Bales said your two meetings in October, we will have them both and they re both on Tuesdays. So if Tuesdays are a problem for you in October, let me know as soon as possible because we weren t quite sure we had a quorum for a little bit this morning. Tuesdays, October 4 and October 18, will be your meetings. You will have two cases on October 4. One has already been withdrawn, it was a public hearing, but we had already published for it, so that night you ll need to open and close the public hearing but take no further action because it has been withdrawn. You will have a P.U.D. amendment and then a final plat for Acadia Plat 2. Then we ll have your meeting on October 18, also. Ms. Montgomery said Tuesday nights are bad for me. Things may change, but everybody has dance on Tuesdays. Ms. Bales said okay, thanks for letting me know. Mr. Hatfield asked is it a special holiday, those two Mondays? Ms. Bales said yes, they re Jewish holidays that we needed to work around. That was the planning that went into the schedule change for the meetings. Mr. Franklin had sent everybody an e-mail late this afternoon about looking at Monday, October 17 or Monday, October 24, to have the joint meeting with the Council. So, as soon as you can, please respond to Mr. Franklin and let him know if one or both of those work or don t work for you. The 17 th would have been your normal meeting night, but we had to move it to the 18 th for public meeting reasons, but we can still have our committee meeting. So the 17 th is already on your schedule normally, so you can think about that and please respond to him as soon as possible, as they re trying to find a date that works for as many people as possible. That s all I have.
Page 19 Mr. Van Heuvelen asked this is just going to be a work meeting with City Council and P & Z? Ms. Bales said yes, it is not a public hearing. It s that work meeting to talk about the sub-committee s recommendations on some minor changes that were made on the Comp Plan. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I m just wondering if the dates you proposed didn t work, would October 3, when we normally would meet, if no one s offended by that particular date? Just as other options. Ms. Bales said I ll mention that to Mr. Franklin. I haven t been in on this conversation, but I will mention that to him, as that is an option if everybody can t do the 17 th or the 24 th. It would be nicer to have that meeting sooner rather than later. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked is there any relief in sight for the Hickman Road congestion issue? Ms. Bales said I don t know of any relief being planned. It s a state highway. I ll keep my ears open, though, and let you know. Ms. Montgomery said I noticed on my travels out in my neighborhood that the Hatches that came in just recently to subdivide their property on the north side of Meredith, west of 156 th Street, have a sign up now with a map showing where the lots are going to be for sale. And then I think it s the next lot to the west where there s a little acreage, there s a lot for sale sign. Did we approve a subdivision on that property or were they already approved? Ms. Bales said so to the west, between the Hatches and Acadia, there are actually two parcels. The existing house is on the front parcel and then there s a flag lot that goes up the west side of the property and then has the back half of the property. So that lot already exists. Ms. Montgomery said okay, so the for sale sign must be for that lot. Ms. Bales said yes, I believe so. There have been some inquiries on that, such as can we split it off. Each of the three lots on the Hatch property had to have three frontages, even though the one was really small for the flagpole of the flat lot. Ms. Montgomery said as it stands right now, someone could buy that lot and build a house on it. And they d be able to have, at least, access on Meredith. Ms. Bales said yes. There s a short width leg that comes straight to Meredith.
Page 20 The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m.