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 Julie Roethler, Bridget Montgomery, Kevin Gass, Joan Racki, Judy Ralston-Hansen, Wayne Van Heuvelen, Paul Pick, and Joe Wallace. Staff members present were 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 13, 2016 meeting. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Roethler, to approve the June 13, 2016 minutes. On roll call; Ayes: Montgomery, Pick, Gass, Roethler, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: Racki, Ralston-Hansen. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the Duck Dynasty 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 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 Robert Mills, Member, Duck Dynasty Developers, LLC, 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 North ¾ of the East ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 15, Township 79 North, Range 26 West of the 5 th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa And The NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 15, Township 79 North, Range 26 West of the 5 th P.M., Dallas County, Iowa This property is located in the northwest corner of 170 th Street and Meredith Drive. The proposed rezoning would allow the property to be subdivided and developed into approximately 11.1 acres of multi-family residential housing, approximately 11.8 acres
2 Page 2 of single-family attached residential housing, and approximately 74.5 acres of 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and 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 97.4-acre property located approximately 700 feet north of the intersection of 170 th Street and Meredith Drive, on the west side of 170 th Street. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and does not have any residences or other buildings. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development District have been requested in order to develop the property into approximately 74.5 acres of single-family detached residential, 11.8 acres of single-family attached residential, and 11.1 acres of multi-family residential. The subject property has approximately 1,990 feet of frontage along 170 th Street. 170 th Street currently has two lanes of asphalt pavement along the frontage of this property. The timeframe for reconstruction and widening of 170 th Street is currently unknown. Sanitary sewer service to the parcel will be provided with either a recent extension from the east or an extension from the south along 170 th Street depending on the final design. Water service will be provided from an existing 16 water main along 170 th Street. A conceptual development plan, discussed with City staff, projects the subdivision of the property to create about 210 single-family detached residential lots, with a minimum width of 65 feet and minimum lot area of 8,125 square feet, on the western portion of the property. The single-family attached (townhouse) residential portion of the project would be developed in the southeast corner of the property with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density for the proposed multi-family residential, along 170 th Street on the east side of the property, would be 20 units per acre. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning to P.U.D. appear to be reasonable and appropriate, given the existing designation within the Comprehensive Plan for attached and detached single-family development and the anticipated construction of a new elementary school on the west side of 170 th Street. The development would create a transition from the more dense multi-family residential uses near 170 th Street and the future school to lower density attached and detached dwellings farther from the school and 170 th Street.
3 Page 3 Property to the north is zoned A-1 and is currently vacant and used for agricultural purposes. Property to the east is zoned P.U.D. as part of the Fisher Planned Unit Development with neighborhood commercial at the intersection of Meredith Drive and 170 th Street and then single-family detached dwellings to the north and east of that. Property adjacent to the south is zoned A-1, R-1L Low Density Single Family District, and A-2 Estate Residential District and is used for large-lot residential purposes. Property to the west is zoned A-1 but the owners have petitioned the City for this property to be rezoned to P.U.D. (Case No ). The property is located in the Waukee School District and drains primarily to the south, eventually into Little Walnut Creek. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the rezoning of the property, subject to the attached Duck Dynasty Property Planned Unit Development Master Plan. Ms. Montgomery asked where s the school located approximately? Ms. Bales said it is right across from the water tower, so, it s right here (showed them on the aerial photo). Ms. Ralston-Hansen said I think I know the answer, but 65 feet, that always seems to be a number that s getting smaller and smaller and smaller. It just feels like we re going down a slippery slope. I m sure it s for transitional lots, and stuff like that, etc., but I need it on the record, why the small lots? Ms. Bales said we re supportive of the small lots, partially because you ve heard that the City Council has been re-emphasizing the need for some smaller lots. And then with the location of the school, that s the other reason we re supportive of some more dense housing near that resource. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what size are the lots by the Waukee school on 156 th Street? There are a lot of homes surrounding that particular elementary school. Ms. Bales said I don t know the answer to that question. Mr. Pick said it s not all Urbandale there, either. Ms. Bales said right, because doesn t it run into Clive? Mr. Pick said yes. Ms. Montgomery said at Walnut Hills Elementary, it s all Urbandale there until you re
4 Page 4 about six blocks away. Mr. Pick said but where on 156 th Street are you talking about, at 156 th and Douglas? Mr. Van Heuvelen said 156 th just south of Meredith. Ms. Montgomery said yes, that s Walnut Hills. It s all Urbandale. Mr. Van Heuvelen said okay, so that s all Urbandale. And I know we rezoned that. I know we purposely had smaller lots surrounding that elementary school for obvious reasons. Mr. Pick said they were bigger lots towards the back, smaller ones nearer the school. Mr. Van Heuvelen said near the elementary school, if I remember correctly, I believe they are 65-foot lots. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said so you feel that it s consistent. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I m not sure exactly how many we re talking about here, but I m just saying that smaller lots, looking at 65-foot lots, by an elementary school, we do have a precedent. And there s a really good reason why we d want to consider that. I m not sure how far this expands, and I don t think the developer knows for sure how far the 65-foot lots would expand, at this point, either. Another question, 170 th Street we just widened 156 th Street, as beautiful as it is, what are the plans for 170 th? Because this street is going to have a lot of traffic as well, particularly with the elementary school on it. I don t want to say the shortcut between Waukee and Granger is going to an interstate someday, but nonetheless this is the direct route. As 141 gets busier, people are going to be looking for other routes to go north. Ms. Bales said you are correct. The CIP, though, right now hasn t assigned a year for it. It s beyond the 5-year CIP window. They haven t moved it up. There s been some initial discussion about whether it s something that should be moved up with the school. I m sure it will be considered this fall, when they go through the CIP review process again. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so, as we look at this development of this land, right-of-way provisions are included to make sure that we have enough, at this time. Ms. Bales said correct. Right-of-way provisions and then the temporary construction easement beyond the right-of-way, so that 40-foot temporary construction easement will also be in place for the future widening, as well, for any finished grading. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so at least five years now, but we are contemplating this being a
5 Page 5 4-lane. Ms. Bales said yes. Ms. Montgomery said it s a 50mph speed limit north of Meredith. The school s going to be built before that 5-year CIP window, so I imagine that there will be some shuffling around of timing on street projects. I don t think Waukee has any plans, or Clive, to widen Alice s Road south of Meredith in that period. But I may be wrong. Ms. Bales said and they may consider that, as well, given the announcement. Mr. Van Heuvelen said south of Meredith in the Waukee and Clive area, that s already developed. This is our opportunity, where this is our first leap on the other side of 170th Street. Isn t it? This is the first time we ve gone west of 170 th? Ms. Bales said yes, it is. Mr. Van Heuvelen said that s something we should be thinking about. And hopefully you ll be able to mention that to the powers that be, in terms of the Capital Improvements Program. Ms. Bales said sounds good. You ve also got a representative on the Commission, I know that Ms. Montgomery has done it, so I think a representative usually comes from the P & Z Commission. So if it s not Ms. Montgomery, we ll be sure and mention it to the person who represents. Mr. Van Heuvelen said, as this is a public hearing, the Commission will hear comments from both proponents and opponents of this proposed rezoning. First we will hear from any proponents. Mr. Brent Culp, Snyder & Associates, 2727 SW Snyder Boulevard, Ankeny, said I m representing Duck Dynasty Developers, for their P.U.D. rezoning. In the audience with me tonight is Bob Mills, a representative with the development group. We ve been working with Ms. Bales, Planning, and Engineering on this parcel over the last few months, and kind of worked through a lot of the questions and issues. Along 170 th, Engineering s requesting a 60-foot half right-of-way. So by the time it s all said and done, it will be a 120-foot wide right-of-way. When we did the Wheeler property rezoning, that was the same width on that, as well. I m not sure how far Engineering s looked into that, but 120-foot wide right-of-way is pretty adequate for a lot of improvements. We d be happy to answer any questions. A lot of the lot sizing did pertain to the fact that the elementary school to the north, the land uses with the little higher density multi-family along 170 th also has to do with the expansion of the roadway and then transitioning to the west with the single family. Bob or I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
6 Page 6 Ms. Ralston-Hansen asked what are the properties just to the south of where the planned multi-family dwellings are going to be? Those look to be single family homes. Mr. Culp said on our concept, we were looking at a townhome development, which would be 8 units or less per acre. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said but they look to be butting up against a single family home? Right in the back yard of some fairly large single family homes? Mr. Culp asked the townhouses, the parcel C? Correct. Ms. Ralston-Hansen asked what are the single family homes saying? Have you heard anything from that group? Ms. Bales said no. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if there were any other proponents wishing to speak? Seeing no one, he asked for any opponents. Mr. Marvin Fisher, Hickman Road, said I have some questions. I have my name on a farm right across the road from where these people want to develop, which everything looks good. I m going to be matter-of-fact, protecting my own interests. I ve got some questions, is my property across the way Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if Ms. Bales could point out where Mr. Fisher s property was. Ms. Bales said his farm is here south of the water tower, on the east side of 170 th. Mr. Fisher said I think you re talking about putting houses in here, which is none of my business, except the fact that there s tremendous amount of interest in this whole corner here having some commercial to it, by way of a Casey s or that type of thing. And the demand is there, as Mr. Barry Bishop said years back, you just wait long enough, the demand is going to be there for those types of services. Anyway, regarding our land, this 14 acres here belongs to Jim Fisher and that is all zoned commercial. And along here, I have 20 acres and somewhere along the way, I read or heard that you re talking about 12 or 14 acres that I have zoned commercial, but I have 20 acres zoned commercial. The reason I brought it up before you people is because I don t want you making decisions without having all of the principle interests. This is fine, if the townhouses are going to be here, I can have townhouses over there, that s no problem, from my perspective. But I m just saying that I want what we ve got spoken for here, and Mr. Van Heuvelen will tell you maybe 15 years ago or 20 years ago, when we had Mr. Lillis come in and get this whole thing set and zoned before all this other development took place. I just want to make sure that that is still intact.
7 Page 7 Mr. Van Heuvelen asked what is your land zoned currently? Or maybe Ms. Bales can help us We ve had the commercial but I think you re referring on north, you were looking at some townhouse uses? Mr. Fisher said yes, we added zoning for townhouses. As a matter of fact, we wanted to go all the way to the tower with townhouses, we did have it zoned one time that way, all the way to the tower. This guy who owned the farm north here, came in with his son in from Texas and said he didn t want townhouses there because it was going to destroy the value of his property. I don t know where he was coming from, he s long ago sold the property. The point is we had it zoned at one time all the way along the line here, this here of course is commercial. We had that whole thing zoned commercial, 20 acres. Instead, and we can look back at the charts, I think they took a little bit off of it here, because I had the 20 acres, and made it more depth here, because they said it would not be adequate depth for townhouses, with the way it was originally laid out, to go the distance of the land. Instead we gave them back some of that, they could do with it what they want, but we put it so there would be more depth here. Mr. Van Heuvelen said we welcome your input and your comments, but we re going to be looking at the rezoning of the property to the west of you tonight. Mr. Fisher said right, my point is, I want to protect my interests, before a decision is made, is ramrodded through, and I m left in the dark. See what I m saying? I understand your point, but I ve got my point too. I m a long-term investor out there. I m not one of these guys who buys land and develops it and sells it. I want to protect my interests. I just want to make sure that this is correct. I could have brought all my stuff with me tonight, but I didn t anticipate that I d have to. That s my point. I want Staff to check that out first, before you go making commitments. I ve been treated, I ve got to tell you frankly about Urbandale. I was here for a hearing for the farm east of us, when it was developed, and we had zoning commercial there. And lo and behold some lady from across the street, not in Urbandale, came in and asked why that was zoned commercial, and it was explained that the Fisher property was zoned commercial. And they were going to put townhouses in there. The hearing was closed, and the Commission was talking about it, and she talked them into going from three stories to two stories. I could not have any input because the meeting was closed, to me! What I m saying, I just want a fair shake. Mr. Gass said, if I understand what you re saying, obviously whatever it s zoned now will stay the way it is until it comes before this group here. Mr. Fisher said as far as I m concerned, if it remains the way it was, that s fine. But what I read here didn t tell me that! It says that the property to the north, on page 2 here, is developed for single family detached housing.
8 Page 8 Mr. Gass said that s north of the property that we re talking about. Mr. Fisher said then I read it wrong. I m not politically correct, but I want to defend my interests. I appreciate your time. Mr. Gass said I respect that. Mr. Fisher said as a matter of fact, if you want to think about townhouses for my place, you can! Ms. Montgomery said you come back to us, and we ll think about it. Mr. Jim Steinberger, Meredith Drive, said my property is one of the four properties to the south, mine is the one here with the small pond. So obviously the discussion is about how we re going to cram a bunch of houses in right above me, on the old sod farm. And so obviously I have particular concerns about that. We obviously invested in that property back in 2000, when it was split into 4-acre lots so that you d have spacious living, etc. So I have a big concern concerning the high density housing, whether it be townhomes or whether it be apartments. If in fact you were really supporting the smaller lot size for the school, why are we not moving that stuff up next to the school? I question why all of the nice lots, the bigger lots, are going to be pushed to the back, and then everything else tucked up front. To me, that s going to be a matter of the people that aren t going to want to buy big houses in the front, they re going to want to stay away from the small lots, as well. So, I have that issue. Then I have even a bigger issue, probably, which pertains to when I built the house, I added drainage. When I first built construction, Urbandale was more than happy to have me have a pond there, as long as I didn t redirect flow or stop flow or do anything as far as restricting or changing the flow of water. Obviously with the new buildings behind us, this is not an objection on my part, but it is to know that I would expect somehow that we have water control because as soon as you put pavement up there, the water s going to flow faster. So we have to have some way of knowing that we re going to control that water flow down through my property, and yet not get rid of it, because I do have a pond. And I would expect that pond to be able to sustain itself, even after we make adjustments to the north. He said I m well aware, and I fully expected it at some point, that the land to my north would be sold, and it will be developed. Certainly when we heard about the school, my hope was that the school was behind us, because then we d have a lot of green, open grass and it wouldn t be a matter of having a bunch of people backed up to our property line. So I guess all I d ask, I m not against the development of the property, I would hope that you would at least make it so that the lots that are backing up to Grayceland Estates, which is actually those four lots right below that southern piece. Grayceland Estates is actually pieces of five lots here, mine is the farthest to the west. But I would hope that we would try to make whatever s north of that for myself and for my neighbors, who I don t see here tonight, in Grayceland Estates, keep their property value. Because I think to put apartments up behind there,
9 Page 9 it s not fair to the homeowners that are all sitting on 4 acres of land. That s really it, I don t know if you have any questions pertaining to my property? It s really about water, and how we control that, and as my other neighbors who are here that are one step to the west with much larger property and the bigger pond, they have some of the same issues with how to control the water. For that matter, the liabilities involved with having a bunch of apartments with kids and no place to go play, and then ending up down in our water, causing us liability questions. So I guess that s really all I have to say. Just trying to protect my interests, as well. We ve been there for sixteen years and would like to continue to be there. Mr. Pick asked Ms. Bales if she could speak to the water run-off question. Ms. Bales said do you want to have anybody wishing to speak to go through first, and then I can respond to a couple of different things? Mr. Don Cramer, Meredith Drive, said I own that pond and 40 acres there. We ve been out there about 40 years. Of course everything s changed a little bit. We could barely see lights from the city when we moved out there, but now they re down at the corner. Anyway, I m pretty much opposed to the multi-family just because of the liability to my property. I don t know how I d keep the kids out of the pond. I d have to put a fence up! I guess that s a problem we ll have to face when it comes to it. I understand they ll build retainage ponds up in the developed area to slow the water down. Over the years that we ve been there, I ve had water over my emergency overflow probably less than 10 times in heavy rains. But I can see if we have multiponds or a bigger pond above us, it s going to take an awful big pond to handle the amount of water that comes from the west and the north down to my place. I pick up drainage probably roughly 50% of the east, maybe 60%, and probably 50% from the north, it drains all into my pond. So, unless they can control that, it will wash my pond out. I have another question on Meredith Drive, what s in the plan there for either paving or widening? Mr. Van Heuvelen said I think in 2018, it goes 4-lane up to 170 th, from 156 th? Is that right? Ms. Bales said I think so. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I think it s Beyond that, I m sure there s no provisions at this point. Mr. Cramer said even if they develop, they re not going to blacktop the next half-mile there or anything? Ms. Bales said no, because it s paved right now.
10 Page 10 Mr. Cramer said it s paved up to my place. But it s gravel from there on. Ms. Bales said okay, they ll have to pave beyond that but they won t have to fill it to the widened size. Mr. Cramer said so it won t be curb and gutter, it will just be blacktop? Ms. Bales said not yet, right. Mr. Cramer asked is that in the plan in the future, to curb and gutter that whole section? Ms. Bales said probably sometime in the far, far future, but not in the next five years. Mr. Cramer said I probably won t be around then to see that. That s all I have to say. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked if Ms. Bales would like to address some of the issues raised. Ms. Bales said first of all, the Comprehensive Plan designates this depth, two lots here along 170 th Street, as townhomes already. I know Commissioner Hansen had some questions about townhomes next to single family. Eventually this corner is designated as multi-family. Mr. Fisher s property is commercial land uses in a P.U.D. zoned district. So it doesn t have a commercial district designation, but it is P.U.D. and those uses are set forth in the P.U.D. for commercial. So, the Comprehensive Plan is multi-family and then townhomes, and so they are actually in conformance right here with the Comprehensive Plan for townhomes right there. The Comprehensive Plan then says townhomes further up to the north, and this is the area they want to change to multifamily. So the Comp Plan says multi-family, townhome, and these folks want to do townhome in the middle, as it s designated, and multi-family where it s designated as townhomes. The developer will be required to do detention. They know there s a lot of water coming through here, and so they are looking at detention along the south edge, along Mr. Steinberger s property, here and then here as well. So you ll see those areas designated for detention in the preliminary plat, when more of the engineering work is done with some definition. But they have taken some preliminary looks at that. And they know they ll have to detain the detention so as not to flood out their neighbors downstream. We talked about the 170 th Street widening, and the Meredith Drive widening. Any other questions? Ms. Ralston-Hansen said so, just to clarify, where you have your pointer at, that was already designated for townhomes? Ms., Bales yes, it is. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said then I misunderstood that.
11 Page 11 Mr. Steinberger asked what piece are you talking about? Ms. Bales said so this is the property we re discussing. The yellow is single family designation, and the orange is townhomes. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said that s how it exists today. Ms. Bales said that s the existing future land use map for the city. Ms. Ralston-Hansen asked but is it approved to be townhomes today? Ms. Bales said no, that s today s request. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said so, it s not zoned for that currently. Ms. Bales said no, it s designated for that on the future land use map. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said my question would be why that section for townhomes, why there and not closer to the school? If that s the rationale that you want to put multifamily dwellings closer to schools, why is it not closer to the school? Ms. Bale said you mean clear on up to the north? I actually don t know the answer to that question. I think they were looking at some designs and they ve got single family kind of laid out that way. So they wanted to put the multi-family and the townhouses closer to the main street, so that you had less traffic driving through the back part of the neighborhood. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said you could still go straight up 170 th Street, that little rectangle is right up to the top of that area. It s not my design, I m just asking the question. Mr. Pick said there are two rectangles there. So the one further down, that s going to be townhome, and then above that is the multi-family. Ms. Bales said right. Mr. Steinberger asked which one did you say is the townhomes? Ms. Bales said orange, and that s here. Mr. Steinberger asked what s right below that? Ms. Bales said this is designated as multi-family on the future land use map. Mr. Steinberger asked isn t that part of Grayceland Estates?
12 Page 12 Ms. Bales said this is the 2007 version of the Future Land Use Map, it is the most recent. It s okay if it never develops that way, and it s okay if it s single family. I don t know the history behind that being designated as multi-family. I don t know if it s because there is commercial across the street. I don t know which came first. Mr. Pick said that s already designated as multi-family, though. Ms. Bales said yes, but it s not zoned that way. Ms. Ralston-Hansen said perhaps Mr. Culp can address why, instead of putting the two rectangles closest to the single family, why you didn t just pop those up? Mr. Culp said we put townhomes down there, a lot of it was based on the Future Land Use maps, in our first discussion. That was identified in our pre-app meeting with the City. Also a lot of it has to do with 170 th and doing transitional uses from 170 th and the commercial. I mean, we ve got commercial on the other side of the street, a major arterial in the future, north-south, and then the transitional use of townhomes. I m going to throw a concept up here that kind of shows what our ideas are at this time. I always kind of hesitate of throwing concepts up because as we get into the actual design, things may change. But you can see the townhomes kind of mimicking, to some degree, the future land use, and then the single family on the west side, and then the detention basin north of the pond that the gentleman was speaking about here. Then we also identified detention basins north of the Cramer pond, and then cul-de-sacs. But as far as this would be the higher density, the multi-family, across from the commercial, across from the arterial road, transitioning into the single family as we go to the west. And the townhomes were kind of, instead of a higher density, it was a lower density multi-family, following the future land use plan, and then down to the south to the east-west collector. He said so that was kind of our thought process behind it, is that we had a future land use plan that we were kind of guiding our concept and layout on, and based off of that. This area we kind of upgraded a little bit, increased the density because of the commercial across the street. We felt that that would be a good transitional use. Mr. Pick said so it looks like there are a few larger single family lots to the side of the townhomes to the south there. Mr. Culp said yes, these are cul-de-sac lots where they get wider. And the same thing over here for this parcel. We had a cul-de-sac here and through a pre-app meeting with the City, they wanted a future connection to the south property, looking into the future, so we changed that. But you can kind of see in regards to the properties to the south, with the detention areas designated, it creates a lot of open space adjacent to those properties. Ms. Montgomery asked are there any trails that you re planning?
13 Page 13 Mr. Culp said I can t remember if we had that discussion with Staff in the pre-app meeting. Ms. Montgomery said I m assuming that there s some sort of parkland dedication required. I know it s so close to the school. Ms. Bales said that s what we ve talked about. Parkland dedication will be required. There may be some requirements for some wider sidewalks in some of the sections, especially closer to the north side, closer to the school. We actually talked to them about not doing any land dedication because of the proximity to the school and the school has expressed a desire to have a park next to it, like they ve done with Webster Elementary on Aurora, similar to that with the school complex and then an adjacent park. They ve talked about doing the same concept here. So instead of having multiple small parks, we ve talked about them doing the money in lieu of land dedication in building that park up with infrastructure. Ms. Montgomery said I would just want to see the wider sidewalks. There are trails to the south, I know. Just to make sure that there s plenty of access. It just looks like a lot of houses! I understand that you wouldn t want or need any parks in there, but the sidewalks was something I d want to see. Ms. Bales said the other thing is there s also a larger park proposed in Highland Meadows, which is up and kind of northeast of the water tower. So it may be that funds can be used over there, as well, instead of pocket park kind of thing. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I ve drive by this property. It s a sod farm currently, an old sod farm? Mr. Culp said correct. Mr. Van Heuvelen said so I know the terrain is extremely flat. There are no trees, from what I can see, from 170 th Street. Is that the reason we aren t seeing the larger lots, that you re proposing smaller lots? That this is not necessarily tree-filled valleys? Mr. Culp said there is some relief on the site, it s not completely flat. But yes, it was used as a sod farm, so it s got a little relief. I don t think it has any trees on it. And a lot of the lot sizes are kind of influenced by the elementary school being in close proximity. Everybody wants to live next to an elementary, starter families and stuff. When it comes to a high school, people kind of want to avoid it, I believe. So we looked at more starter homes that folks can afford and have the younger families. Mr. Pick asked so approximately what size home can be built? Two-car garage homes on these?
14 Page 14 Mr. Culp said it could be a 55-foot wide home, and it seems like the lots were more around 145 feet deep, instead of the 125 s. So, we made the backyards larger. The front yards would be 30-foot setback except for along arterials, it would be 35. So a 55- foot wide buildable space on the minimum lot size. Mr. Bob Mills said we did think about this. We had been encouraged by staff, and based upon Council recommendations, to get some more affordable type housing. We don t feel we ve postage-stamped this. We looked at a number of plans. We can go to 55-foot. We feel that 3-car garage plans, even ranches, will fit on this. We re aware that we re still in Urbandale, we re aware of where we re at. And we think that that s where the market is. But we re on a busy road and we re near a school, so we feel that this is where the market is. We also, if I may, in going to the townhomes on the south end of the property as opposed to apartments and that cul-de-sac that Mr. Culp showed you, we feel that we are trying to be sensitive to the neighbors to the south. And that s why we put the multi-family in the middle, which is right on 170 th, which as we know, it s going to be a busy road. Mr. Steinberger said it s obvious that there s money to be made to the north here. It s obviously a prime place, you build a school, all of a sudden everybody s going to pay good money to have these houses. I still raise that question, if you have a half-million dollar house that you re paying $8,000 a year of taxes for, would you want somebody to some put multi-housing right behind you? I think the obvious answer to that to anybody is going to be no. So, I would still say in support to what I ve said before, if it s really about the school, go put all of your stuff up by the school. Put it on the edge of the school property so the person that buys that property next time, they know what they re buying into. Don t put it in a place where somebody s already invested their time and their efforts and their life into. That s not the place to make the change. The other question I had pertained to this little section down here, and Ms. Bales I think was saying that this was actually multi-family? Ms. Bales said designated on the land use map, but not zoned that way. Mr. Steinberger said I don t know the difference between zoned and designated. Ms. Bales said so designated is planned for the future. Zoned is what can go there today based on permitted uses in that zoned district. Mr. Steinberger said okay. So designated would still have to pass through zoning to change? Ms. Bales said yes - just like what they re doing here, so this is designated as single family. But it s zoned agricultural. So in order to develop it, they have to rezone it.
15 Page 15 Mr. Steinberger said which is what will happen there as well? Ms. Bales said not necessarily. It may never happen. Mr. Steinberger said no, but if somebody wanted to put commercial or multi-family there, there would have to be a zone change. Ms. Bales said yes. Mr. Steinberger said that s my concern. This is actually part of what you re talking about, multi-family is part of Grayceland Estates, which was supposed to be five lots of multi-acre residential. So, now for me to hear that it s going to be potentially multifamily, I would have a problem with that, and I guess I will come back, when that happens. Ms. Bales and your covenants and restrictions may prevent that, or something like that. But it s not zoned that way. They couldn t come in today and say I m ready to build. They d have to rezone it, like they re doing here. Mr. Steinberger said so I guess basically I m just kind of back to where I was before. And I agree that by putting the townhouses and a little cul-de-sac, you ve given me some thought. And I truly appreciate that. But that s only half of my lot. I believe the other half of the lot is going to be butted up against the high density. Is that not true? Mr. Pick said there are larger lots down on that cul-de-sac to help create that buffer from your lot. Ms. Bales showed him a drawing of what is proposed adjacent to his property. Mr. Steinberger said I acknowledge that they ve made some effort to try to help me out with that, and I appreciate that. Because obviously we re used to living out in the country. Mr. Van Heuvelen said you re satisfied then? Mr. Steinberger said yes, I think so. If I was Waukee School District, I wouldn t be happy about the multi-housing, but that s up to them. Because the taxes continue to go up because we keep having to supply all these people. As soon as you put apartments in, that s more kids per square foot, which that s a whole other story. But I won t defend that, or fight that battle, today. Mr. Van Heuvelen said this is a public hearing. We ve heard from proponents and opponents. Anything that anybody would like to add at all, before we close the public hearing?
16 Page 16 Ms. Montgomery moved, and it was seconded by Racki, to close the public hearing. On roll call; Ayes: Montgomery, Racki, Roethler, Gass, Pick, Ralston-Hansen, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. Mr. Gass asked is the multi-family part of the 25% that we re trying to get to? Ms. Bales said yes. Mr. Gass said so that parcel there is included in that number then? Ms. Bales said yes. You ll recall we re a little bit short of that 25% and this would get us closer to that, but not over. Mr. Van Heuvelen said I don t know if we fully covered the drainage issue for either the Cramers or for Mr. Steinberger, but I m guessing that the engineers will be addressing that. I saw the detention ponds, but I think you ve heard the concerns they ve expressed, so I m hoping as you continue your plans, that you ll be cognizant of that. Other thoughts? Mr. Gass said any time, for example the Cramers and Mr. Steinberger who has lived there for 16 years, for me personally this is always a tough decision, because it s just something that they figured it was going to be this way, even though I m glad that you re open-minded and you knew it was going to be developed at some point in time. And this doesn t seem to be out of the ordinary, as far as anything we d want in that particular area. Especially the school is driving that, no doubt about it. It s still tough. Ms. Racki said I think the landscaping plan that backs up to the subdivision that Mr. Steinberger was talking about becomes critical when we see the site plan and what kind of buffer there is, so that they re not backed up, literally, against each other. Mr. Pick asked you re okay with all of the staff recommendations that have been made? Mr. Gass said right now, this is just to provide for the multi-family, is that correct? Ms. Bales said no, this is for all of it. This is the multi-family, the townhomes, and the single family. The first part is they have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. It s all one motion, usually, and there s a zone change component. But the zone change component, the A-1 to P.U.D., is for all three types of housing. It isn t just about multifamily. Mr. Van Heuvelen asked would you like to help us structure this motion, then, to make sure we comply with this two-pronged proposal?
17 Page 17 Ms. Bales said on the second page of the staff report, where it says staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning of the property subject to the attached Duck Dynasty Planned Unit Development master plan. That s what your motion, should you wish to move for approval, would look very similar to that. Mr. Gass moved, and it was seconded by Montgomery, to approve the Duck Dynasty Property Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning from A-1 to P.U.D., subject to the Duck Dynasty Property Planned Unit Development Master Plan and subject to Staff recommendations. On roll all; Ayes: Gass, Montgomery, Roethler, Racki, Pick, Ralston-Hansen, Wallace, Van Heuvelen; Nays: none. Passes: none. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the Waukee Land Development Rezoning from A-1 to P.U.D., Case No , 170 th Street and Meredith Drive. 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 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 John Larson, Manager, Waukee Land Development, LLC, to rezone the following legally described property from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development District: The East ½ of the SW ¼ of Section 15, Township 79 North, Range 26 West of the 5 th P.M., City of Urbandale, Dallas County, Iowa This property is located in the northwest corner of 170 th Street and Meredith Drive. The proposed rezoning would allow the property to be subdivided and developed into approximately 80.2 acres of single-family 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 was no objection to the official notice as published. Ms. Bales said this request pertains to an 80.2-acre property located approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection of 170 th Street and Meredith Drive, on the north side
18 Page 18 of Meredith Drive. The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and does not have any residences or other buildings. The rezoning from A-1 Agricultural Reserve District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development has been requested in order to develop the property for single-family detached residential dwellings. A conceptual development plan, discussed with City staff, projects the subdivision of the property to create about 206 single-family detached residential lots. The proposal includes a combination of lots with minimum widths of 65 feet and 70 feet. The southern 1,100 feet, containing approximately 30.4 acres, would include the 70-foot wide lots, with a minimum lot size of 8,750 square feet. The northern 1,540 feet, containing approximately 49.8 acres, would include the 65-foot wide lots, with a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet. The subject property has approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along Meredith Drive. Meredith Drive currently has two lanes of asphalt pavement along the frontage of this property. The timeframe for reconstruction and widening of Meredith Drive is currently unknown. Sanitary sewer service to the parcel will be provided with either an extension from the east or an extension from the south across Meredith Drive depending on the final design. Water service will be provided from an existing 16 water main along Meredith Drive. The proposed rezoning to P.U.D. appears to be reasonable and appropriate, given the designation of the single-family land use in the Comprehensive Plan and the anticipated construction of a new elementary school on the west side of 170 th Street. Property to the north and west is zoned A-1 and is currently vacant and used for agricultural purposes. The northern portion of the property adjacent to the east is zoned A-1 but the owners have petitioned the City for this to be rezoned to P.U.D. (Case No ). The southern portion of the property adjacent to the east is zoned A-1 and has one residence and a large lake. Property to the south is within the City of Clive and is used for agricultural and rural residential purposes. The property is located in the Waukee School District and drains primarily to the south, eventually into Little Walnut Creek. Ms. Bales said Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the property, subject to the attached Waukee Land Development Planned Unit Development Master Plan. Ms. Montgomery said my initial concerns would be about Meredith. Is it all asphalt west of 170 th, or Alice s Road? Because they just did some work there because it was so bad, the Urbandale portion of it. I would just hate to see, because it s not in the 5-year CIP plan, the work that had been done ruined because of increased traffic. So I don t know what their development timeframe is, but again, this is something we need to loop into the CIP planning process. Just anecdotally, we had some friends that went to
19 Page 19 Walnut Hills, that the school bus that went through there, it was horrible for the school bus through this portion of Meredith. I know they improved it to make it a little bit better, but I would hate to see the increase in traffic hurt that. So I will have objections right now to the development, but that s my overall concern. I m sure they have equally large right-of-way easements. But just as the road is right now, it s tenuous at best. Ms. Bales said we can certainly ask the developer to speak on his timeline that you mentioned. Mr. Van Heuvelen said as this is a public hearing, the Commission will hear comments from both proponents and opponents of this proposal. He asked first for anyone in favor to speak. Mr. Brent Culp, Snyder and Associates, 2727 SW Snyder Boulevard, Ankeny, said I m representing Waukee Land Company. In the audience with me tonight is John Larson, representing the development group. I m just going to throw the concept out and bounce it around. I know there s a lot of concern about the amount of water coming down through here. That designation line is right about here, between the 70- and 60- foot lots. A lot of it was established off of this roadway, where these would be the larger lots, down to the south here, and our pre-determined access locations, kind of make these lots really, really deep up against the existing home. We kept this area as an open space area, which would be a detention area for water quality and water quantity/volumes, prior to going into the lake. What this area will do would be, right now the property to the east would probably see some pretty high peaks, with it being a cultivated field during high rain events. What our detention area will do is to kind of shave off those peaks and they ll extend it over time, but they ll take those big peaks of the basin, or what they see without a basin now. They should be experiencing less dramatic peaks in their storm water events. The overall layout kind of had predetermined access locations provided by Engineering. We also looked at the additional right-of-way that Engineering indicated, and kind of an access north and south with the larger pavement width, for the 31-foot back to back, to tie to the north, with, once again, with the school up to the top. He said I know Mr. Larson wanted to talk on some of the lot sizes. Mr. John Larson, Dallenbach Larson, 5721 Merle Hay Road, Johnston, said I know there s been some talk about the lots widths as far as 65 and 70. And actually with a 65-foot lot width, you get a wider house because the setbacks go to 5 and 5, which means you have 5 feet on both sides of the house. And we go to a 70-foot lot width, you have 8 and 8, so you can actually have a wider house, a little bit bigger house, on a smaller lot width, if that makes any sense. Right now there is a demand in Urbandale and on the western side suburbs, for the what we call starter homes, which is kind of scary when these starter homes start out around $250,000 and goes up to maybe $350,000. There s not a lot of lots right now in this area, and the market is really screaming for that. The cost of the development and land itself has gone up quite a bit,
20 Page 20 which has caused the initial lot prices to go up from maybe five years ago you could get a lot in the $45,000 to $50,000; now these are going to be in that $65,000 to $70,000 range, for just the lot itself. I d be happy to answer other questions, too, that you have. Mr. Gass asked will the detention basin, I guess, tie into the Cramer s lake? Mr. Larson said eventually the water will flow downhill. The way I understand this, the detention area will basically hold any water on-site for 24 to 48 hours. We re basically slowing down the water that leaves the property. Whereas right now, it all goes right down. There are some waterways in there to slow it down, but the water is going to be held in a detention basin and then slowly let out. So the idea is to slow the water out of the area to prevent erosion. These will be sized appropriately. I think we ve already started on the hydraulics, to see the amount of water that will be coming off of the property. Ms. Racki said between Waukee Land Development and Duck Dynasty, how many families, individuals, are going to be accessing either 170 th or Meredith? I know we haven t gotten to site plan, but traffic, as Ms. Montgomery indicated, is in excess on the roads. I know I ve jumped ahead to the site plan, but I m just thinking, with the density of these, that you re going to have a lot traffic and access in the two plats. I don t know if you ve gotten that far in your conceptual thinking, as to where they re going to access the main thoroughfares? Mr. Culp said I think this is a collector street through here, isn t it? These roads are designated through the City Engineering Staff as east-west collectors, and then this one here is a north-south collector. We have this exhibit and this discussion with Engineering, and with the future designation of the roadways, they didn t really express a concern with the densities. Ms. Montgomery asked they didn t? Mr. Culp said they did not, no. Mr. Pick said the flow of the traffic and the ability to handle the traffic is on us, the City engineers. That s not on the developer. That s on us at the City. So I guess we have to have faith that the engineers in our city have thought that out properly and that roads that we currently have or will have in the future, when these developments go in, are going to be able to handle that traffic flow. Ms. Montgomery asked could you answer Ms. Racki s question about, big picture, the number of houses or units, in these two? Mr. Pick said I think Duck Dynasty is 220 or 210 single family.