►
From YouTube: 9-19-19 Plan & Zoning Commission
Description
Des Moines Plan & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, September 19, 2019.
Help us caption & translate this video!
https://amara.org/v/C0stw/
A
These
six
calls
for
chips
will
be
accepted
up
until
5:00
p.m.
of
the
day.
Prior
to
the
meeting,
please
be
sure
to
mention
in
your
request
that
you
require
transportation
for
the
City
of
Des
Moines
meetings
at
this
location.
This
notice
is
intended
to
comply
with
the
accessibility
requirements
of
the
Americans
with
Disability
Act.
B
A
Since
and
of
course,
anyways
sing
them,
thank
you
at
this
time
before
every
to
consent
items.
It's
my
understanding
on
the
public.
Only
public
hearing
item
that
we
have
tonight,
which
is
a
request
from
come
and
go
for
property
located
at
3104,
University
and
1134
31st
Street,
that
the
applicant
has
agreed
to
the
conditions
and
the
staff
recommendations
and
the
Neighborhood
Association,
which
is
Drake
neighborhood,
is
also
in
agreement.
Is
that
correct
that.
A
Is
there
anybody
here
from
either
of
those
the
applicant
or
the
Drake
neighborhood,
to
affirm
that
so?
Is
that
correct
that
the
neighborhood
association
is
in
agreement
all
right?
Thank
you
so
seeing
that
commission
is
their
recommendation
to
move
this
item
to
consent,
also
Dory,
all
those
in
favor
moving
item
number
five
from
public
hearing
to
our
consent
agenda
tonight.
Please
signify
by
raising
your
hand.
A
Thank
you.
So
thank
you
for
coming.
It's
like
the
item
has
been
well.
It's
moot
the
concilium
voted
on
it.
Yet
alright,
so
the
consent
agenda
tonight,
item
number
one:
is
a
city
initiated
request
to
vacate
segments
of
South,
Street,
South
3rd
7th
Street
south
of
Indiana
Avenue
to
allow
it
to
be
assembled
with
existing
adjoining
property
at
12:33,
7th
Street.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
that
wished
us
to
remove
this
item
from
Kim
sent
all
right?
A
C
A
A
Seeing
none?
Is
there
anyone
on
the
Commission
that
was
near
this
item,
all
right,
seeing
them
an
item
will
remain
on
consent.
Item
number:
four:
it's
a
request
from
Meyer
LLC
for
property
located
in
the
vicinity
of
650
southeast
30th
Street.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
that
wishes
to
remove
this
item
from
Kim
said
tonight?
A
A
A
C
Chairmembers,
the
commission,
Jason
Van,
Ness
and
city
planning
staff
item
2
is
a
vacation
request,
excess
right
away,
not
a
street
or
an
alley,
but
along
the
trail
system,
see
the
outline
of
the
right
away.
This
notice
response
cards
going
around
this
is
the
response
map.
The
gentleman
that's
with
us
tonight
that
requested
item
be
discussed
and
taken
off
the
consent
agenda.
It
owns
this
property
and
in
visiting
with
him
he
has
interest
inquiring
kind
of
the
triangle.
That's
behind
him.
I'll
show
a
couple
of
photographs.
I
think
we
can
resolve
this
fairly
quickly.
C
This
is
subject
property
the
applicant
in
talking
to
the
applicant.
He
has
no
problem
with
working
with
real
estate
and
the
neighbor
and
not
acquiring
this
part
and
letting
the
other
neighbor
acquire.
It
seems
seems
a
fine
thing
to
do.
This,
I
think
we
can
work
that
out
the
one
thing
that
wasn't
able
to
resolve
and
with
the
neighbor
prior
to
the
hearing
starting
was.
He
also
has
some
interest
in
acquiring
a
little
bit
more
land
than
what
was
noticed
and
so
I
just
wanted
to.
C
C
That
the
applicant,
once
he
acquires
this
land
server
habit
adjoined.
So
we
didn't
have
an
orphan
parcel,
that's
condition
number
three
and
then
four
there
has
been
some
enforcement.
The
applicants
acquired
the
property
renovated,
it
has
has
some
deterioration.
Issues
has
been
the
public
nuisance
processes
started,
and
so
condition
for
is
just
to
make
sure
that,
prior
to
the
sell
of
the
land
that
that's
addressed
so
I
think
the
applicants
agree
with
all
these
things.
It's
really
a
matter
of
coordinating
with
the
neighbor
and
trying
to
figure
out.
E
A
E
C
The
response
map
of
the
cards
I
was
just
pointing
out
that
one
of
the
neighbors
in
opposition
is
here
tonight
right
and
that
his
concern
is
really
about
acquiring
he's
not
opposed
to
the
vacation.
He
would
just
like
to
acquire
square
off
the
back
end
of
his
property,
which
the
applicants
agreeable
to
and
if
both,
if
from
the
city's
perspective
from
your
perspective,
you're
just
making
the
recommendation
on
if
this
is
needed
for
a
public
purpose
who
would
get
sold
to
is
not
not
really
a
problem
for
you.
C
F
Ooh,
hello,
Danbury,
the
owner
of
the
property
and
also
designed
built
incorporated
the
company.
That's
done
the
planning
and
stuff
I
think
Jason's
pretty
well
covered
everything
I'm,
not
sure.
If
there's
a
whole
lot
for
me
to
say
here,
I
mean
my
intention
is
to
fix
up
the
house
and
move
my
family
there
and
I
think
it's
consistent
with
the
oh,
the
the
city's
plan
to
sell
these
parcels
off
to
really
relieve
the
city
of
burden
and
additionally
put
them
on
the
tax
roll
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
fairly
consistent
with
that
plan.
I
think.
F
The
only
reason
we've
come
to
discussion
is
because
maybe
my
application
had
spawned
a
neighbor's
interest
in
possibly
some
of
the
land,
but
there's
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
big
hill
in
it
I
initially,
maybe
wasn't
even
interested
in
the
triangle.
He's
asking
about
that
city
real
estate
had
suggested
that
I
simplified
my
request
and
request
at
all.
So
that's
really
the
reason
why
it
ended
up
that
way.
F
F
E
E
F
Know,
I
hope,
I'm
not
sure
about
serious,
but
that's
a
matter
of
opinion.
But
if
you
know
rare
regardless
of
that,
you
know
the
attention
is
to
fix
up
the
house
and
certainly
the
city's
even
got
it
a
nuisance.
Well,
they've
actually
released
that
until
December,
but
because
they're
aware
that
I
have
some
architects
working
on
doing
an
addition
planning
and
such.
But
you
know
this
city
will
require
at
this
point
something
to
happen
with
the
properties
and
I
think
it's
maybe
irrelevant,
but.
F
Absolutely
yeah,
there's
I
mean
it's
the
part
part
of
it.
Even
the
part
that
I
suggested
its
less
desirable
is
all
trees,
and
it's
in
its
you
know
the
bottom
side
of
a
hill
that
my
as
I
stated
as
not
really
even
very
desirable.
For
me,
my
biggest
goal
would
be
to
have
an
opportunity
than
defense
in
the
yard.
F
E
F
A
H
And
then
my
name
is
e.
Sartre
told
us.
This
is
my
43rd
year
as
of
this
month.
Living
at
6031,
North,
Waterbury,
Road
I
have
absolutely
no
objection
to
the
proponent
acquiring
the
land.
Next
to
his
property
on
Ron
would
I
absolutely
object
to
the
proponent
acquiring
the
real
estate
behind
lot.
7
Waterbury
part
plat
2,
which
is
6031
North,
Waterbury,
Road
I,
did
not
know.
H
The
city
was
interested
in
selling
the
right-of-way
I
would
have
been
here
long
time
ago,
if
I
knew
that
you
were
I
will
follow
as
I
told
your
representative
and
remember.
The
staff
I
will
follow
all
the
requirements
of
the
City
of
Des
Moines
in
its
legal
department,
in
getting
a
legal
description
to
that
property
that
your
right
of
way
and
filing
all
the
necessary
papers,
with
the
City
of
Des
Moines
to
acquire
that
real
estate,
but
I
have
no
objection
to
the
proponent
acquiring
the
right-of-way
by
his
property.
H
C
C
C
Yeah
chair
members,
the
Commission
I
did
speak
with
the
neighbor
outside
he's.
He's
aware,
made
him
aware
that
he's
gonna
need
to
submit
an
application
and
you'll
see
a
future
case.
Assuming
engineering
supports
this,
but
he
has
interested
in
acquiring
a
little
bit
more
than
what's
been
noticed,
so
we
will
take
in
an
application
from
him,
bring
that
back
to
you
and
then
partner
with
the
real
estate.
C
C
E
Pusseh
Jason
I'm
unclear.
If,
if
mr
pilis
becomes
an
applicant
appropriately
and
there's
a
triangle
of
land
which
is
part
of
this
tract,
that
would
fit
with
his
property
line
there
do
we
have
to
come
back
and
do
this
all
again.
Is
that
what
you're
saying
unfortunately
well,
should
we
just
do
that
and
abandon
this
for
the
evening
and
see
if.
C
A
E
B
D
There's
no
reason
for
the
city
to
need
the
right-of-way,
because
that's
what
we're
here
to
decide,
then
it
goes
on
to
real
estate
and
wherever
it
goes
for
them
to
figure
out
between
mr
pilis
and
mr.
berry.
However,
it's
divided
that
yellow
piece
that
we
see
will
be
chopped
into
potentially.
The
little
triangle
that
mr
pilis
is
also
interested
in
is
a
separate
issue
to
me
and
it'll
come
back
as
a
little
triangle.
If
engineering
decides
that
it
can
be
foregone
as
right
of
way,
otherwise
that'll
will
carry
on
so
I.
A
E
E
Now
it's
been
extended
and
extended,
but
say
it
Waveland
golf
course
and
drops
down
in
here
along
walnut,
creek
and
heads
out
past
McDonald's
back
around
behind
Pal
Joey's
and
on
into
the
to
the
waterworks
park,
but
right
I
just
hate
to
see
it
given
over
a
private
ownership.
Under
the
circumstances,
that's
my
only
thought
it's
a
park-like
area,
though,
and
you
know
where
do
we
stop
it's
not
a
park?
B
D
B
C
C
B
I,
say
is:
is
I
have
the
same
problem,
so
we
can
talk
about.
Another
is,
is
what
Jay
did
you
hear
what
Jason
had
to
say?
If
we
approve,
what's
here
presented
by
staff
recommendation,
the
process
will
go
forward
and
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
state
your
case
at
a
later
time
and
offer
your
you
know
if
you
wish
to
buy
the
property.
G
As
you
know,
the
city
can't
your
Commission
can't
guarantee
to
whom
any
of
the
property
will
be
sold
or
if
it
will
be
sold.
One
other
point
I'd
like
to
make
my
understanding
of
this
property
is
that
it
is
right-of-way.
It
is
not
parkland
parkland,
including
that
little
triangle
to
the
south
would
have
to
go
to
the
park
and
recreation
board
first
for
approval
of
vacation,
as
well
as
to
your
commission.
So
there's
been
some
discussion
about
the
public
purpose.
It's
not
a
general
public
purpose
in
this
instance.
E
D
E
G
G
Once
you've
made
that
determination,
whether
the
property
is
needed
or
not
for
that
purpose,
then
the
real
estate
staff
works
with
the
applicant
in
any
adjoining
owners
that
in
this
case
they
will
work
with
mr.
hilda's
on
the
portion
that
that
he
wants
to
purchase
as
well
as
mr.
berry.
We
have
had
some
items
where
you
have.
G
This
has
been
quite
some
time,
but
you
have
approved
of
the
vacation
and
it
has
gotten
to
the
point
where
council
is
at
the
hearing
stage
and
someone
else
comes
in
with
a
completely
different
offer
for
the
property
for
a
different
amount
of
money
and
council
approves
that
offer
when
they
had
never
even
shown
up
at
the
pnz
level.
So
so
really
you
you
don't
need
to
to
make
a
determination
as
to
whom
the
property
will
be
sold.
I
But
this
discussion
will
be
forwarded
to
the
council
when
they
set
their
hearing
and
the
Matt
letter
gets
sent
to
the
real
estate
division
and
our
staff
will
also
contact
the
real
estate
division
to.
Let
them
know
there's
at
least
two
parties
interested
in
acquiring
portions
of
the
property,
and
then
they
can
work
and
resolve
that
prior
to
council.
E
D
E
E
A
Number
three
are
contiguous.
Parcels
owned
by
the
applicant
shall
be
combined
into
one
farce.
All
recorded
with
Polk,
County
and
number
for
any
conveyance
of
the
requested
right
away
shall
not
occur
until
any
public
nuisance
status
has
been
abated
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
zoning
enforcement
officer.
That's
the
motion.
All
of
those
may.
B
A
A
I
Just
two
quick
items:
second:
a
reading
of
the
ordinance
for
the
new
zoning
code
will
be
held
on
Monday
night.
The
23rd
of
September
council
meeting
starts
at
4:30
and
so
I
know.
If
you
didn't
have
a
chance
to
watch
the
hearing,
it
was
about
a
four
and
a
half
hour
hearing
on
the
zoning
ordinance
at
Council
for
the
public
hearing
they
did
close
to
hearing
them
voted
702,
recommend
approval
of
the
ordinance
so
I
hope
all
right.
Five.
I
Thank
you
the
so
the
second
reading
will
be
held
on
Monday
night,
the
23rd
and
then
third
reading
is
tentatively
set
for
October
14th,
the
effective
date
that
has
been
listed
in
the
roll
call
setting
the
hearing
and
everything
is
anticipated
to
be
December
15th.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
to
get
everything
in
place
and
have
staff
trained
up
and
everything
else
to
implement
that,
but
we're
going
to
get
there
and
then
the
final
thing
is
there.