►
From YouTube: 8-5-21 Plan & Zoning Commission
Description
Des Moines Plan & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 5, 2021.
View the agenda: https://DSM.city/plan_and_zoning_commission_meeting_schedule.php
A
A
Applicants
will
be
given
10
minutes
to
present
their
request
proponents,
and
then
opponents
from
the
public
are
then
allowed
to
speak
in
that
order
with
each
speaker
allowed
a
maximum
of
five
minutes.
The
applicant
is
then
allowed
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal.
The
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
discuss
and
vote
on
the
issue.
A
Please
notify
us
at
least
three
business
days
in
advance
at
515-283-4209
should
special
accommodations
be
required
plan
and
zoning
commission
meetings
are
broadcast,
live
on,
mediacom
government
access,
channel,
7
or
777
for
customers
with
that
local
cable
service
or
online
through
the
youtube
application
at
the
following
internet
link,
www
www.youtube.com
city
of
des
moines,
iowa
and
roll
call.
Please.
A
C
A
A
A
Anyone
on
the
commission,
okay
item
number
four
will
remain
on
consent.
Item
number:
five
is
a
request
from
gary
randa
for
review
and
approval
of
a
site
plan
for
a
type
2
design
alternative
for
property
at
3029
walcott
avenue
to
allow
a
38-foot
tall
deck
to
be
constructed
within
two
feet
of
the
north
interior
side,
property
line,
which
is
five
feet
less
than
the
minimum
seven
foot
yard
for
a
house
type
b.
A
A
And
we
do
have
item
number
nine
on
the
agenda,
which
has
staff
approval
and
agreement
of
the
applicant
I'll
read
that
item
request
from
wrong.
Wong
me
long
incorporated
by
ling,
wong
for
review
and
approval
of
a
public
hearing
site
plan,
2611
ingersoll
avenue
site
remodel
for
a
type
2
design,
alternatives
for
property
at
2611
ingersoll
avenue
to
allow
conversion
of
office
space
for
restaurant
use,
triggering
site
compliance.
A
E
C
Yes,
chair
members
of
the
board,
jason
vanessa
and
the
planning
staff
item
six.
The
applicant
has
requested
a
continuance
to
the
next
meeting
and
evaluating
their
project.
Further
they've
realized
that
they
need
to
seek
rezoning
to
i1
of
the
entire
site,
so
we're
supportive
of
that
we'll
get
out
of
new
notice
and
they'll
be
on
the
next
agenda.
A
A
G
G
G
G
Here
are
some
photos
that
show
how
the
streets
are
currently
stubbed
and
along
the
southerly
one.
There
is
a
trail
that
would
be
retained
and
then
here
is
a
or
here's
the
plant
that
they're
proposing
it
does
comply
with
the
recently
approved
pud
conceptual
plan.
So
the
commission's
charged
with
reviewing
this
plat
against
that
conceptual
plan
that
was
recently
approved
and
it
does
meet
all
of
those
requirements.
So
staff
has
recommended
approval.
G
So
if
staff
has
recommended
approval
just
subject
to
a
few
conditions
and
I'll
read
to
those
quickly
number
one
is
compliance
with
all
the
administrative
review
comments.
Two
is
compliance
with
all
requirements
of
the
riverwoods
pud
conceptual
plan,
as
amended
by
city
council
on
june
21st,
and
then
provision
of
the
following
notes
on
the
preliminary
plot,
and
these
notes
are
technically
required
by
the
pud.
But
we
just
wanted
to.
G
A
H
Applicant
good
evening,
everyone
doug
saltscape
for
engineering
resource
group
2413
grand
avenue
also
here
tonight-
is
eric
bonenkamp
from
hubble
realty
company.
If
I
can't
answer
a
question,
I'm
sure
he
can
we're
in
agreement
with
staff
recommendation,
I'm
here
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
and
any
questions
the
parent
neighbor
may
have
for
us.
A
C
C
I
Good
evening,
I'm
walter
anderson,
I
live
at
2605
bedridge
court,
which
is
in
the
proximity
of
where
the
addition
is
being
made.
I
have
three
questions
in
the
map
that
I
looked
at
yesterday
or
the
layout.
It
shows
that
there's
going
to
be
a
retention
pond
for
overflow,
coming
from
the
sewers,
not
the
sewer
system,
but
the
storm
storm
drain
system
and
who's
going
to
own.
I
It
could
be
that
I
just
didn't
misread
it
and
then
the
other
I
had
one
other
comment
was
that
on
a
adjoining
property,
the
first
lots
of
new
lots
off
of
the
joint
property
are
much
smaller
than
the
existing
lots
and
it
should
probably
be
considered
if
they're
going
to
narrow
them
down,
which
I
can
see
why
they
want
to.
But
there
should
be
something
that
narrows
it
down,
not
just
blank.
I
G
Sure
yeah
and
I
can
try
to
answer
some
of
his
questions
and
when
I
leave
out
doug
saltscaper
can
fill
in
after
me,
but
the
pod
does
require
them
to
have
a
minimum
lot
width
of
60
feet.
If
you
remember
that
was
a
point
of
discussion
during
the
review.
Originally
their
plans
showed
50
feet,
but
they
ended
up
increasing
that
to
60
feet.
So
all
of
the
new
lots
will
be
at
least
60
feet
wide.
I
believe
some
of
them
are
even
wider
than
60
feet
as
far
as
the
storm
basins
go.
G
G
Yes,
it's
everybody
six
feet
away,
so
thank
you.
The
storm
water
basins
would
be
have
to
be
placed
in
a.
I
guess.
We
called
a
horizontal
property
regime
that
will
be
owned
by
a
homeowners
association,
so
the
22
lots
would,
in
common,
be
responsible
for
owning
and
maintaining
those
two
storm
water
basins.
G
E
C
K
Is
this
working
there
we
go
there
we
go.
I
think
there
might
be
a
little
bit
of
if
I'm
understanding
the
questions
right.
I
think
there
might
be
a
little
confusion
about
the
stormwater
runoff
areas
and
whether
or
not
that's
going
to
be
a
standing
water
pond
or
if
that's
generally,
a
dry
area
that
is
used
to
absorb
storm
water.
G
H
H
It
is
a
dry
bottom
basin,
so
the
99
of
the
time
it
is
going
to
be
dry
when
it
does
have
water
in
it.
It
will
drain
out
probably
within
majority
of
it
four
to
six
hours,
normally
very
large
storms.
Is
there
going
to
be
any
significant
depth
in
the
basin
so
also
yes,
the
homeowners
association
will
own
and
maintain
it,
and
the
association
is
going
to
be
including
those
lots
that
were
developed
in
plot
10
about
two
years
ago,
so
it'll
be
and
flat.
H
J
H
Things
I'm
saying
10
and
plot
11..
There
were
nine
other
plots
done
before.
Hubble
realty
purchased
the
property,
those
are
all
contained
in
a
separate
homeowners
association
and
what
hubble
has
developed
the
comprises
two
plats,
so
these
two
plats
will
take
over
ownership
of
the
stormwater
basins
on
these
two
plats
and
be
responsible
for
them.
H
H
E
M
M
Some
photos
of
the
site
visit
I
conducted
last
week.
You
can
see
the
existing
deck
coming
off
of
the
house.
The
applicant
is
requesting
to
extend
the
deck
into
that
area.
Where
you
see
that
vegetation,
the
deck
would
extend
all
the
way
to
that
wood
privacy
fence,
which
is
a
approximately
five
feet,
and
then
there
would
be
an
additional
two
feet
to
the
property
line
on
the
other
side
of
the
fence.
M
M
B
A
A
A
O
O
I
visited
every
house
up
and
down
southwest
31st
street
the
neighbors
across
from
john
and
lisa
on
the
west
side
about
seven
houses
on
the
north
side,
seven
houses
went
down
further
south
from
my
house
on
walcott
on
both
sides
of
the
street
and
even
approached
the
new
neighbor
that
just
moved
in
behind
me
that
can
look
into
our
day
and
neither
nobody
had
any
problem
with
it.
If
you
were
to
ask
kyle
and
john,
he
had
a
lot
of
people
that
called
and
requesting
approval.
O
A
P
Okay,
hi,
my
name
is
lisa
hamilton
and
my
address
is
3425
southwest
31st.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
address
the
commission
tonight.
I
grew
up
on
southwest
31st.
My
parents
built
the
house
that
I
live
in
now
in
1961
and
it's
right
next
door
to
mr
randa's
house,
and
you
can
see
it
up
here.
On
the
top
of
that
picture.
I
truly
enjoy
living
on
the
southwest
side
because
of
the
distance
between
the
houses,
the
mature
trees,
the
privacy.
It
allows
us
and
easy
access
to
downtown.
P
Those
are
the
reasons
I
bought
the
house
for
my
father
in
2006,
and
also
because
I
love
the
house
they
built
now
to
the
point.
I
live
next
door
to
mr
renda
and
he
and
his
wife
connie
are
lovely
people.
However,
this
request
for
variants
to
expand
expand
their
deck.
I
oppose,
as
you
know,
setback
requirements
should
not
result
in
adverse
impact
on
other
property,
and
I'm
going
to
give
you
multiple
examples
of
negative
impacts
of
this
deck
extension
have
on
our
property.
P
P
He
built
the
tall
fence,
the
10-foot
tall
fence
near
the
property
line,
so
if
the
deck
was
extended,
all
the
way
up
to
that
it'd
be
like
being
in
a
hotel
room
where
the
walls
are
too
thin
and
you
can
hear
everything
the
proposed
deck
faces
directly
the
side
of
our
house,
where
we
have
two
bedrooms
you
can
see.
This
is
our
roof
line
right
here,
where
we
have
two
bedrooms:
three
bathrooms
and
multiple
windows,
and
already
we
feel
like
our
privacy
is
invaded
and
can't
open
our
windows
or
open
our
curtains
fully.
P
P
P
P
P
Whatever
on
the
west
side
of
his
lot
that
he
built
with
large
brick
pillars
and
horse
statues
and
he
built
it
on
city
property,
so
he
had
to
retroactively,
get
the
city
to
agree
that
he
could
purchase
that
property.
Otherwise
he
would
have
had
to
tear
down
and
rebuild
it.
A
few
years
ago
he
put
a
shed
on
the
corner
of
his
deck
for
his
cats,
air-conditioned
shed
and
didn't
get
a
permit
and
he
built
it
right
against
the
fence.
P
So
close,
my
husband
he's
here
he's
not
going
to
repeat
what
I
said,
but
he
fully
agrees
with
everything
and
supports
what
I've
said:
setback
requirements
exist
to
protect
our
privacy
and
our
property,
and
there
are
no
reasons
why
mr
randa
cannot
comply
with
the
setback
regulations
he's
doing
so
now,
so
I
respectfully
ask
the
commission
to
deny
this
request.
Thank
you
and
I
appreciate
your
time.
A
A
O
I
don't
see
very
well
anyway,
you
can
see
the
roof
of
their
home
next
to
us
in
order
for
her
to
see
what's
going
on
and
our
deck
she'd
have
to
be
on
top
of
the
roof,
and
I
have
to
commend
her.
She
knows
a
lot
about
our
property
and
she's
right.
Our
fence
was
built
25
years
ago.
The
builder
that
built
the
fence
had
a
permit
to
do
it
and
got
permission
from
the
city.
O
O
Neighbors,
I
did,
I
talked
to
all
the
neighbors
and
went
around
and
asked
them
what
their
feelings
were.
Everybody
on
the
the
other
side
of
the
street,
which
would
be
on
the
west
side
of
southwest
34th
street
I
went
down.
Eight
houses
gave
er
left
everyone,
a
picture
with
the
phone
number
for
to
help
me
get
this
thing
passed
and
they
were
all
very
nice
and
very
receptive.
O
I
went
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
next
to
john
and
lisa
talked
to
the
neighbors
there
on
the
corner
lot.
He
said
gary.
We
have
no
problem
with
that
and
I
don't
think
anybody
would.
I
mean
this.
I
can't
see
where
this
ambition
or
this
forefoot,
that
we're
adding
on
is
going
to
hurt
any
better.
Oh
I'm
sorry
there's
four
feet,
but
you
can
see
the
address
there
or
that
phone
number
and
I
went
down
to
a
new
neighbor's
house
that
just
bought
who's
adjacent
to
them
and
adjacent
to
mine.
He
says
gary.
O
This
looks
nice
compared
to
what
it
looks
like
now
after
that
tree
blew
down
and
just
wiped
out
all
the
beautiful
flowers
that
we
had
and
we
had
to
come
up
with
something
that
would
look
nice.
We
plan
on
putting
pots
and
the
trees
and
stuff
on
it,
and
my
wife
and
I
go
out
there
and
sit
in
the
morning-
maybe
have
coffee
or
maybe
a
cocktail
or
a
glass
of
wine
in
the
afternoon,
and
I
can't
see
where
this
is
going
to
bother
anybody.
O
O
No,
I
knew
her
feelings
about
it
and
she
had
already
filed
a
complaint,
and
so
that's
when
I
decided
I
better
go
call
on
some
other
neighbors
and
see
how
they
feel
so.
I
went
up
and
down
the
street.
I
went
up
and
down
the
street
on
both
sides
behind
us.
I
called
on
20
people
and
left
a
copy
of
this,
and
no
one
filed
a
complaint.
In
fact
they
all
called
in
john.
I
forgot
john's
last
name
and
kyle,
and
he
got
phone
calls
in
support
everybody.
O
I
talked
to
had
support
and
they're
the
only
ones
that
don't
that
didn't
support
it.
But
again
I
can't
see
where
I'm
going
to
intrude
on
their
neighbors
or
their
they
have
to.
You
can
just
see
the
roof
of
their
house.
Their
house
is
much
lower
than
mine,
so
they
can't
they
can't
possibly
see
what's
going
on
the
deck,
but
they
do
and
I
like
to
get
along
with
them
better,
but
I
hope
to
in
the
future.
O
But
no,
I
I
didn't
talk
to
lisa
about
it.
We
just
did
it
and
that
we
shouldn't
have
and-
and
I
found
that
out,
but
we
tore
it
back
down
put
it
like.
It
was
and
then
took
some
pictures
to
present
to
you,
folks,
on
planning
and
zoning
and
in
the
staff,
and
I
was
grateful
that
they
gave
us
a
recommendation
and
I
hope
you'll
adhere
to
that.
And
thank
you
very
much.
C
Is
well
is
that
a
question
from
a
the
building
code
perspective
that
we
wouldn't
have
railing,
or
I
guess
I
need
more
more
detail
to
understand
so
they,
if
they're,
if
the
fence
is
not
there,
they
would
be
required
to
put
a
railing
across
there,
because
that
that
is
their
railing.
So
if
that's
the
the
concern
that
would
be
the
solution
to
that.
L
I
have
a
similar
concern,
so
maybe
getting
to
what
will
is
addressing
they'd
still,
it's
not
like.
They
would
be
obligated
to
pull
it
back.
If
we
approve
this,
it's
approved
forever.
Even
if
someone
new
buys
it
and
tears
down
the
fence,
it's
not
like
they
have
to
build
a
new
one.
They
just
have
to
put
up
the
railing
and
then
they're
still
only
two
feet.
C
Right
yeah,
I
mean
if
the
element,
if
the
deck
is
destroyed,
the
relief
would
go
away.
So,
but
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
you
know
there
could
be
repairs
that
extend
the
life
of
it.
The
fence
could
be
removed
and
circumstance
could
change,
and
so
I
mean
I
understand
what
you're
what
you're
getting
at.
I
don't
know
that
I
have
like
a
perfect
answer
for
the
question.
Q
C
Yeah,
absolutely
the
commission
can
apply
different
conditions,
you
it's
it's
understood.
They
have
to
build
it
to
building
code,
and
so
I
mean
part
of
part
of
the
reason
they
had
to
tear
it
out
in
advance
is
because
I
don't
think
they
could
demonstrate
that
what
they
had
initially
did
complied,
and
so
they
have
had
correspondence
with
our
permit
staff
to
kind
of
sort
out
that
part
of
it.
But
okay.
D
D
J
Jan,
I
can
ask
a
quick
clarification:
that's
a
clarification
of
greg's
point
earlier,
so
I
mean
if
this
was
just
a
ground
patio
that
happened
to
be
38
inches
tall,
there's
nothing
that
could
be
done
here
right.
I
mean
the
fact
is
they're
trying
to
attach
it
to
the
fence.
The
fence
is
now
a
structural
element,
so
we
have
a
patio.
R
Yeah,
so
we
actually
in
our
most
recent
overall
amendment
to
the
code,
addressed
this
issue
and
we
ended
up
changing
the
definition
of
yard
and
adding
a
definition
in
article
13512
to
address
this,
and
so
no
there
any
obstruction
on
the
ground.
That
would
go
all
the
way
into
the
into
the
setback
as
this
would
or
even
a
patio
would
would
no
longer
be
allowed
under
the
code.
A
patio
even
under
you
know,
36
inches,
for
example.
N
R
C
L
C
Yes,
you
can
move
to
deny
the
type
2
design
alternative.
I
would
move.
I
would
include
approval
of
their
public
hearing
site
plan.
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
confusing,
but
the
way
we
consider
a
type
2
design
alternative
is
through
the
public
hearing
site
plan
process.
Okay,
so
we
don't
want
to
do
anything
to
mess
up
any
permit
requests
or
anything,
but
I
would
just
move
denial
to
type
2..
Okay,
approval.
A
S
A
M
Marco
vascara
who's,
the
homeowner
at
50
earth,
3523,
wolcott
avenue,
seeking
a
type
2
design
alternative
to
allow
a
total
of
1
372.5
square
feet
or
40
47
percent
of
impervious
surface
in
the
front
yard
area,
which
is
89
more
than
the
maximum
allowed
725
square
feet
or
25
percent
for
an
eredin
progress
area
for
house
type.
A.
M
Psych
photos
that
I
took
last
week
of
the
subject
property.
You
can
see
the
pre-existing
driveway
in
the
center
kind
of
the
darker
shaded
concrete.
I
believe,
the
dimension
of
that
previous
existing
driveway
was
16
feet.
Four
inches
wide,
which
met
up
with
the
curb
cut
that
you
see
or
drive
approach
into
the
street.
M
M
T
M
Our
concerns
with
this
is
that,
with
this
taper
coming
back
and
not
meeting
up
with
the
drive
approach
that
this
four
inch
thick
sidewalk
will
be
driven
upon
and
it
will
create
a
trip
hazard
in
the
future.
If
that's
continued,
to
allowed
to
be
in
place,
this
area
on
the
right
side
of
the
driveway
leading
up
to
the
front
door
is
considered
a
walkway.
M
M
M
J
M
C
If
I
could
add,
I
think
the
reality
is
if
it's
left,
as
is
not
only
are
you
going
to
see
the
sidewalk
break
up
and
that
that,
for
that
square,
but
you're
also
going
to
see
vehicles
drive
over
the
corner
of
the
right-of-way?
That's
right
now,
grass,
so
that
by
default
you
know
that's
going
to
be
kind
of
a
dead
zone
in
the
right
of
way
and
possibly
a
spot
where
makeshift,
pavement
or
gravel
is
thrown
down
to
try
to
compensate
for
that
and
just
kind
of
an
ongoing
maintenance
issue.
C
U
Good
evening
I
we
added
the
parking
pad,
not
knowing
that
the
new
ordinance
was
even
with
my
contractor,
was
just
came
into
effect,
maybe
a
year
or
two
ago
about
the
25,
and
so
it
was
my
fault
for
not
researching
that.
To
answer
your
question
earlier,
we
did
talk
to
a
cit,
my
contractor.
We
met
with
a
city
inspector,
they
looked
over
the
house
and
he
said
if
we
were
allowed
to
keep
the
the
new
addition.
U
What
we
would
need
to
do
is
exactly
change
that
one
piece
and
increase
the
approach
to
make
sure
that
that
piece
of
concrete
wouldn't
get
run
over
and
crack
and
that's
and
he
said
he
would
approve
that
permit.
If
again,
if
I
applied
for
it,
if
we
were
allowed
to
keep
that
piece,
pretty
much.
There's
three
drivers
in
my
house
and
a
couple
years
will
be
a
fourth
I'm
trying
to
avoid
parking
on
the
street.
U
Again,
I
didn't
want
to
make
the
neighborhood
look
ugly.
I
didn't
want
to
park
on
the
street.
I
intentionally
didn't
take
out
the
trees,
so
we
went
around
them
and
that's
why
the
grade
or
excuse
me
the
taper
is
weird,
as
it
is
just
to
make
room
for
the
automobiles
to
go
around
the
tree,
but
again
I
can.
I
can
request
the
permit
and
it's
my
fault
again.
I
was
my
fault
for
not
researching
it.
A
A
G
Yes,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
bert
ross
planning
staff
for
the
city
of
des
moines
item
number.
Eight
is
a
request
for
a
site
plan
at
the
property
at
1929
southeast
14th
court
as
you'll
see
shortly.
It's
really
along
hartford
avenue
more
than
southeast
14th
court,
but
they
are
requesting
five
different
type,
2
design
alternatives
that
I'll
be
going
through
here
shortly.
G
Here
is
the
aerial
map
of
the
site.
It's
a
c-shape!
You
can
see
that
it's
on
the
north
side
of
hartford
avenue
in
between
southeast
14th
court
and
southeast
15th
street.
The
site
is
comprised
of
multiple
parcels.
However,
I'll
point
out
that
the
site
plan
before
you
tonight
is
really
here
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
site.
So
that's
really.
Where
we'll
be
focusing
our
discussion,
the
next
slide.
It
gives
you
some
context
of
the
site.
It's
the
area
outlined
in
blue
again.
Hartford
avenue
goes
along
here.
G
G
The
next
slide
shows
the
is
a
take
it
from
google
street
view
of
hartford
avenue.
You
can
see
that
in
front
of
the
site
they've,
the
city
has
recently
planted
a
number
of
trees,
and
then
you
can
also
start
to
see
the
subject
property
where
they're
in
the
site
plan.
I'm
about
to
show
you
there
will
be
a
storm
water,
detention
basin
right
along
hartford.
G
G
The
site
plan,
as
I
mentioned,
really
is
just
encompasses
the
southwest
corner
of
the
site.
You
can
see
they're
proposing
a
warehouse
type
building
that
would
be
accessed
by
a
driveway
off
southeast
14th
court
and
they're,
proposing
a
stormwater
basin
here
along
the
southern
site
boundary
again.
They
are
requesting
five
design
alternatives.
The
first
is
waiver
of
the
sidewalks
along
the
public
streets,
that
being
southeast
14th
court,
hartford
avenue,
and
also
over
here
on
east
15th
street
they're,
also
asking
for
waiver
of
a
landscaping
fence
buffer,
and
it's
for
a
very
small
area
right
here.
G
G
This
is
the
south
facade
facing
hartford
avenue.
It
does
not
meet
our
transparency
requirements.
There's
no
windows
on
that
facade
and
they're.
The
next
design
alternative
they're
requesting
is
for
building
materials.
Sixty
percent
of
the
primary
facade
needs
to
be
cited
with
an
allowable
building
material
and
they're,
not
meeting
that
requirement
and
then
the
fifth
design
alternative
the
requesting
is
for
burial
of
overhead
utilities
and
they
have
not
provided
with
us,
provided
us
with
any
cost
estimates.
So
staff
has
recommended
denial
of
that
one.
G
G
Removal
of
all
references
to
future
plans
on
the
site.
You
may
have
noticed
that
it's
a
pretty
large
parcel
they're
only
proposing
to
develop
the
southwest
corner
and
the
site
plan
had
noted
some
future
phases
which
they
need
to
remove
those
future
phases
until
they're
ready
to
develop
those
phases
and
then
two
they
need
to
comply
with
all
administrative
review
comments.
So
I.
G
G
So
that
leaves
me
well.
We
are
recommending
approval
of
we've
recommended
approval
of
that
landscape
buffer.
Along
that
west
side
property
line,
we've
recommended
waiver
of
the
sidewalks
along
southeast
14th
court
and
southeast
15th
street
we've
recommended
waiver
of
the
transparency
requirements
along
southeast
14th
court
and
we've
recommended
an
alternative.
G
Design
alternative
to
allow
them
to
reduce
the
major
materials
along
hartford-
I'm
sorry
along
southeast
14th
street.
So
it's
not.
They
don't
have
to
provide
the
20-foot
wrap
around
on
that
facade
and
then
we've
also
recommended
that
the
transparency
requirement
be
reduced.
We
weren't
supportive
of
the
full
waiver,
but
we
have
recommended
that
they
have
windows
on
the
upper
portions
of
that
facade.
J
J
C
I
think
you're,
probably
thinking
back
to
that
picture
with
the
trees,
they're
kind
of
set
back,
and
so
the
thought
was
the
it
could
be
that
sidewalk
could
be
constructed
in
front
where
you
have
some
flat
land
and
it
could
be
kind
of
an
alternative
at
least
get
you
out
of
the
travel
path.
If
you're
a
pedestrian.
G
C
And
I-
and
I
I
go
back
to
the
the
concept
of
the
alternative
design
of
basically
just
kind
of
an
asphalt
like
a
paved
surface,
is
similar
to
the
street
surface.
That's
in
on
the
shoulder
that'd
be
a
I'm,
not
saying
that
that's
in
any
plan
right
now,
but
that's
something
I
think
is
achievable
in
the
near
term,
traditional
sidewalk,
with
this
rural
cross
section
isn't.
C
Is
we
debated
on
what
to
recommend
here
and
once
we
spoke
with
our
traffic
transportation
division
about
that
concept,
we
were
of
the
opinion
that
you
know
that
they
should
do
their
part.
I
know
it's
a
long
process
to
get
these
areas
phased
in
over
time,
but
that
that
was
where
we
landed,
because
of
that
certainly
we
would
not
be
asking
for
a
traditional
sidewalk
and
a
rural
cross
section
with
you
know
circumstance
otherwise,.
V
Good
evening,
I'm
daniel
willrick,
with
paul's
design
services,
2323
dixon
street
in
des
moines,
and
I'm
here
with
john
and
matt
caramanless,
the
property
owners,
and
I
guess
we
want
to
address
the
recommendation
of
staff.
Obviously
we're
pleased
at
the
recommendation
to
accept
waiver
items
a
b,
c
and
b
in
the
staff
report
in
terms
of
item
e,
the
reduction
of
transparency.
I
think
we
would
ask
that
we
still
consider
waiving
that
completely
because,
with
the
use
of
this
building,
mr
caramanlus
is
going
to
be
storing
equipment
for
his
company
in
there.
V
So
there's
some
expensive
things
and
equipment
and
items,
and
just
we
feel
like
the
transparency.
The
windows
provide
a
security
issue.
Potentially
glass
is
a
really
easy
entry
point
I
mean,
I
think
the
recommendation
that
putting
it
at
10
feet
or
above
certainly
helps,
but
it
is
still
the
easy
point
to
get
into
the
building.
You
know
if
somebody
had
some
desire
to
steal
some
things
out
of
this
facility
so
and
then
talking
about
the
items
that
staff
is
recommending.
Denial
of
item
a
the
waiver
of
the
sidewalk
along
hartford
got
a
picture.
V
V
I
know
everybody
makes
but
it's
valid
here,
especially
because
there
is
nothing
to
14th
street
and
nothing
all
the
way
down
to
the
complex.
So
I
think
really
we
just
questioned
one
at
the
shoulder
sidewalk.
Is
that
really
safe
here
and
two?
If
that's
not,
where
you
put
it,
where
do
you
put
it
on
this
site?
There
really
is
no
place
to
put
it.
So
we
would
ask
for
the
waiver
along
hartford,
as
well,
for
the
sidewalk
item
b
in
terms
of
the
reduction
of
the
major
facade
material.
V
V
M
V
I
guess
we'd
like
to
potentially
leave
that
one
open
we're
still
waiting
for
mid-american
energy
to
give
us
a
cost
to
put
that
underground
and
as
you
can
see,
that
part
of
that
discussion
is
if
we
can
present
a
cost
that
maybe
there's
opportunity
to
waive
that,
but
since
we
don't
have
that
cost
yet
I
guess
we'd
like
to
potentially
leave
that
item
open
for
discussion
once
that
does
you
know
end
up
in
our
hands
so
yeah?
I
think
that's
really
what
we
have
for
you
guys
tonight
for
your
our
request.
A
V
R
A
N
N
R
I
think
that
would
be
tough
in
terms
of
underground
and
utilities,
because
it
requires
a
type
2
design
alternative
and
the
code
is
structured
that
that
can
only
be
approved
by
the
plan
and
zoning
commission.
So
I'm
I'm
not
confident
that
that
can
be
assigned
back
to
the
planning
and
urban
design
administrator.
T
T
C
Yeah
it'd
be
another
public
hearing,
so
it'd
be
another
200
application
fee,
plus
the
notification
fee.
My
recommendation
would
be
just
continue
the
item
because
it's
just
hard
for
us
to
act.
I
mean
hard
for
the
commission
to
act
without
information
and
it's
hard
for
staff
to
make
a
recommendation
one
way
or
the
other.
S
L
I
don't
like
the
idea
of
having
a
sidewalk.
That
goes.
I
mean
I
understand
that
we
don't
want
to
approve
that
all
the
time,
because
then
no
one's
ever
going
to
have
a
sidewalk,
but
it
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
here,
since
there
is
the
trail,
but
I
don't.
How
far
is
that
from
there
to
the
trail
from
hartford.
B
I
I
would
like
to
to
underline
what
emily
was
saying.
I
think
if
there's
we're
talking
about
some
kind
of
asphalt.
Okay,
I
think
that's
a
misapprehension
for
a
driver.
You
know
to
see
a
shoulder
with
a
with
a
some
asphalt
for
just
a
little
bit
stretch
of
a
road.
I
think
that's
asking
for
confusion
on
the
part
of
a
motorist.
K
K
D
N
N
A
G
Yes,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
bert
ross
planning
staff
for
the
city
of
des
moines.
The
item
before
you
is
a
site
plan.
That's
requesting
two
type,
two
design
alternatives.
Staff
has
recommended
approval
of
both,
but
there
is
a
member
in
the
audience
tonight
who
has
questions
so
I'll
go
through
the
presentation
here
quickly.
So
the
subject
property
is
located
at
2611
ingersoll
avenue
on
the
north
side
of
ingersoll
kind
of
in
a
big
block
between
24th
street
and
28th
street.
It
contains
several
businesses,
most
notably
that's
safari.
G
They
have
an
existing
parking
lot.
That's
located
behind
the
building,
so
kind
of
fronts,
linden
street
here
to
the
north
as
part
of
the
site
plan,
they're
asking
for
waiver
of
screening
of
all
of
the
rooftop
mechanical
equipment
and
then
also
waiver
of
the
burial
of
utilities
along
the
rear
of
the
property.
So
they're
not
asking
for
it
along
ingersoll,
just
along
the
rear
property
line.
G
The
permit
they've
submitted
a
estimate
for
mid-american
that
shows
it
would
cost
forty
thousand
dollars
to
bury
these
utilities.
Their
overall
project
cost
is
a
hundred
thousand
so
that
utility
burial
would
represent
a
forty
percent
overrun
of
cost.
So
staff
has
also
recommended
approval
of
that
design.
Alternative
here's
another
photo
that
shows
the
rear
of
the
building.
G
Here's
the
picture
of
this
or
the
picture,
the
actual
site
plan
that
shows
the
building
along
ingersoll,
as
well
as
the
existing
parking
lot
to
the
north.
That
would
be
improved
with
part
of
this
site
improvement
and
here
are
some
photos
that
they've
submitted
to
kind
of
show
sight
lines
for
the
overhead
utilities
zoom
in
on
that.
G
N
G
K
J
G
C
C
Yeah
I
mean
we
don't
have
an
exact.
It's
everything
you
know
is
a
judgment.
I
think
the
couple
things
that
we
took
into
account
is
that
this
is
the
the
back
side.
You
know
the
ingersoll
primary
street
side,
where
we
are
more
focused
on
the
underground
utilities,
has
been
taken
care
of
with
the
streetscape
project.
The
other
thing
that
took
into
play
with
this
broad
property
is
that,
for
both
of
the
items
is
that
there's
actually
multiple
tenant,
bays
and
all
of
them,
but
one
is
occupied
and
so
doing
either.
C
One
of
these
projects
is
going
to
impact
existing
businesses
because
they
would
have
to
move
their
services
while
also
operating,
and
if
they
were
to
do
reinforcement
for
the
screening,
then
they
would
have
to
open
up
the
ceiling
and
some
of
the
tenant
spaces,
and
so
as
staff.
We
took
that
into
account,
along
with
understanding
the
the
character
of
the
area
or
or
our
goal.
You
know
what,
what's
that
character,
the
linden
street
behind
and
then
also
incorporated
cost
as
it
relates
to
the
overall
and
that's
the
basis
for
our
recommendation.
C
J
G
Sure
our
site,
plane,
ordinance
actually
or
chapter
135,
actually
says
that
all
utilities
have
to
be
buried
wherever
practicable.
So
anytime
we
have
a
site
plan,
it's
kind
of
like
the
same
concept
with
sidewalks.
We
try
to
get
a
piece
mealed
you're
right,
that
we
are
creating
a
lot
of
situations
where
overhead
utilities
that
goes
underground
for
a
property.
Then
it
comes
back
up
again,
which
does
look
odd,
but
the
idea
is
over
time
as
properties
improve
and
redevelop
that
we'll
eventually
get
there
so
just
kind
of
a
piecemeal
process.
J
C
C
A
W
W
The
cost,
for
my
client
is
a
hundred
and
nine
thousand
dollars
somewhere
along
that
line,
to
bring
it
underground
from
the
new
spot
there
to
a
new
transformer
on
the
ground,
then
to
the
building
that
109
000
does
not
include
adding
a
transformer
pad.
That
would
be
another
10
000
to
add
that
transform
pad.
Then
there
is
additional
cost
to
rework
the
electrical
system
inside
the
building
for
mid-americans
requirements.
W
W
A
A
X
X
Then
the
screening,
the
the
air
conditioner
units
and
stuff
like
that
up
there
I
mean
they
can
get
kind
of
loud,
especially
in
july
and
august.
When
they're
running,
I
don't
really
have
a
problem
with
that,
the
only
problem
I
really
have,
I
mean
I
got
little
little
issues
that
aren't
a
big
deal
really,
but.
X
X
X
The
amount
of
traffic
that
this
is
going
to
be
coming
through
there
is
going
to
be
pretty
good.
There's
a
pizza
place
there.
They
you
know
they
could
do
100
runs.
You
know.
Pizza
runs
on
a
saturday
friday,
friday
or
whatever.
So
that's
that's
a
hundred
times
they're
pulling
through
there
plus
the
traffic
from
the
bar
and
all
the
different
businesses
there
pulling
through
there.
So
we're
going
from
12
cars,
15
cars
to
115
cars.
X
X
Possibly
I
talked
to
somebody
from
the
city
and
they
said
that
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
anything
about
it
for
for
years,
for
at
least
a
few
years,
but
yeah
I
just
I
don't
know
my
concern
is
the
dust
like
I,
you
know:
I'm
gonna
have
people
that
are
intoxicated
pulling
through
there,
maybe
rendering
my
car.
If
it's
on
the
street
I've
watched
it
happen
numerous
times
on
my
street,
that's
just
living
by
a
bar,
you
know,
but
I
don't
not
that
big
a
deal
to
me.
X
I
drive
older
cars
but
yeah
just
the
dust.
If
I'm
sitting
on
my
front
porch,
I
don't
want
that
dust.
I
don't
want
to
be
breathing
in
that
dust.
I
do
construction
and
I'm
around
dust
all
day
at
work,
and
it's
just
it's.
I
don't
know
it'd
be
it's
disheartening.
When
I'm
sitting
on
my
front
porch
and
I
get
dust
at
home
too,
but
I
don't
want
to
stop
the
project.
You
know.
X
X
Yeah,
I
just
don't
like
the
dust
that's
going
to
be
created
and
if
the
wongs
can
come
up
with
a
solution
to
that,
to
maybe
pave
that
it's
about
60
75
feet
there
that
needs
paving.
There
is
the
car
wash
there.
They
have
a
gravel
parking
lot
and
it's
illegally
connected
to
linden
street
and
I've
informed
enforcement
about
it
and
they're
going
to
be
talking
to
the
carwash
people
about
that.
X
Two
months
prior,
I
did
own
the
street
in
front
of
my
house,
and
that's
so
I
mean
I
at
two
months
ago.
I
could
have
said
no
to
them
pulling
through
there.
The
city
took
my
property
without
progression,
but
I
guess
that's
a
moot
point,
but
I'll
conclude
here,
I
I
do
not
want
to
impede
him
from
getting
done
what
he
needs
to
get
done,
but
I
just
I
don't
want
the
dust.
B
G
C
C
If
there's
concern
about
the
vehicle
movement,
it
is
set
up
for
one
way,
a
one-way
pattern,
so
you
know
folks
are
going
to
be
exiting
it
out
and
there
is
that
short
segment
of
gravel.
I
mean
if
we,
I
think
of
when
smokey
row
came
through
up
in
sherman
hill
there's
a
19th
place,
which
looks
a
little
bit
more
like
an
alley
than
a
street,
but
we
had
them
as
part
of
their
project,
pave
that
because
we
knew
we'd
get
a
lot
of
vehicles
from
their
their
development.
N
C
N
J
C
C
J
What
is
the
cost
of
fixing
the
problem
by
actually
paving
it?
Do
we
have
any
estimate
of
how
much
it
would
cost?
I
mean,
because
I
guess
we're
saying
is
we
now
have
sort
of
a
cul-de-sac
here
that
cul-de-sac
is
actually
now
being
turned
into
a
high-traffic
u-turn,
and
I'm,
assuming
that
we
aren't
usually
in
high
traffic
areas,
is
going
to
leave
gravel.
C
I
would
I
would
assume
that
they
would.
You
know
the
the
kind
of
material
I'm
thinking
of
would
be
more
like
a
asphalt.
I
don't
think
that
this
would
be
a
full-on
urban
cross-section
if
you
were
to
be
asking
the
applicant
to
make
this
improvement,
but
we
couldn't
provide
you
cost
estimates
as
planning
staff.
We
were,
you
know
we
circulate
this
amongst
engineering
and
public
works
and
we
count
on
them
to
provide
us
feedback.
We
didn't
spend
time
doing
an
analysis
on
you
know:
payment
or
cost.
B
Q
C
B
J
A
W
W
W
Somewhat
of
the
early
on
design
issues
is
that
the
current
parking
lot
that
we
have
is
hard
surface.
It
does
have
an
entrance.
On
the
hard
surface,
the
meeting
the
current
zoning
requirements
of
the
setback
in
the
north
lot
line.
We
are
required
to
tear
out
some
of
we're
replacing
all
of
the
concrete
and
we're
not
allowed
to
get
the
60
foot.
I
need
for
a
two-way
street,
so
that's
why
we
have
a
one-way
end.
One
way
out
that
does
place
us
on
the
dirt,
as
the
person
was
saying.
W
W
W
C
W
W
C
C
Q
N
Madam
chair,
is
it
possible,
I
think,
what
I'm
kind
of
hearing
instead
of
trying
to
redesign
this
all
here
tonight
I
mean
if,
if
the
applicant's
willing
to
sort
of
take
this
back
and
work
with
staff,
I
I
think
there's
some
flavor
here.
Maybe
I
don't
know
about
the
rest
of
the
board,
but
to
get
back
to
a
single
in
and
out,
because
the
city
has
not
completed
the
road
and
see
what
things
can
be
adjusted
and
edited
and
waived
at
staff
level.
C
And
the
commission
could
actually
just
move
the
staff
recommendation,
which
is
approval
and
we
really
focus
on
those
two
type
twos
which
tonight's
discussion
isn't
anything
to.
Do.
I
mean
sorry,
that's
okay,
so
you
know
really
tonight
they're
here
to
get
waiver,
the
utilities
and
the
screenings,
so
you
guys
could
move
the
staff
recommendation.
We
can
work
with
them
on
these
other
things,
I'm
shaving
off
a
few
feet
of
the
things
here
and
there
are
not
going
to
take
a
type
2..
C
J
C
I
don't
believe
that
they're
at
any,
you
know
issue.
I
don't
believe,
we've
already
issued
any
type
ones
on
this,
but
we
would
look
at
that.
I
mean
the
new
code
was
set
up
to
be
flexible,
so
we
could
deal
effectively
with
these.
You
know
historic
areas.
The
infield
development
tried
to
have
reasonable
responses
to
them.
So
I
I'm
not
aware
of
there
being
a
particular
issue
here.
C
J
Okay,
I
have
one
last
stupid
question.
I'm
sorry
on
the
utilities
I'm
not
opposed
to
bearing
utilities.
I
guess
I
am
opposed
to
people
paying
extra
for
them
or
us
waving
them
without
any
recourse.
Is
there
anything
that's
been
considered
of
looking
at
putting
an
amount
that
makes
sense
on
a
larger
project
and
escrow
or
something
like
that?
Is
that
something
is
possible
or
how
does
that
actually
work?
J
And
I'm
not
saying
that
we
change
what's
going
here,
because
I
know
work
has
been
put
in
here
as
long
as
we're
not
dumping
a
whole
lot
of
extra
traffic
onto
dirt.
That
doesn't
seem
very
good
of
us,
but
I
am
curious
on
the
undergrounding
issue.
It
doesn't
seem
like
setting
a
precedent
where
we
keep
out
either
asking
for
a
really
expensive
job
or
just
waving
future
consideration.
That
seems
problematic.
C
R
R
So
so
we
do
have
that
structure
that
we
can
rely
on.
That's
something
that
for
utilities,
the
commission
would
have
to
suggest
and
recommend
at
this
point,
because
that's
not
codified
now
as
to
utilities,
but
we
could
do
that
and
I
think
jason's
right
we've
done
that
at
least
once,
if
not
twice
for
undergrounding
of
utilities.
I
think
we
had
about
a
10-year
window
on
the
escrow
agreement.
R
C
Well,
I
think
the
other
part
we
have
to
recognize,
though,
is
the
limited
time
span
of
the
escrow
agreements
that
they're
not
a
end-all
solution,
because
they
they
they're,
relying
as
glena
said
on
the
city
to
come
back
with
the
master
project
and
so
in
the
inter
in
utility
burial.
The
city
hasn't
typically
done
that
you
know
it's
usually
development.
When
development
happens,
they
deal
with
the
utilities.
C
You
know
where
the
sidewalk
program
is
a
little
bit
different
in
the
sense
that
we
have
an
established
cip.
You
know
budget
item
we're
building
sidewalks
trying
to
fill
the
gaps,
so
we
have
a
mechanism
in
place
that
will
go
out
and
build
it.
So
we
we
think,
there's
a
there's,
a
reasonable
expectation
that
we'll
be
able
to
pull
the
money
of
escrow
and
use
it
where,
with
the
utility
part
at
this
point,
we
don't
really
have
a
structure
to
execute
it
in
streetscape
projects
potentially,
but
this
wouldn't
be
an
area.
You
know.
A
Nana's
vote,
so
thank
you.
We're
now
ready
for
item
number
10
request
from
goodrich
des
moines
for
a
plan
on
hubble
avenue
self
storage
for
a
type
2
design
alternative
for
property
at
2590
hubble
avenue
to
allow
loading
entrances
on
the
primary
facade
of
the
proposed
storefront
type
building,
which
is
only
allowed
on
any
non-primary
street
or
rear
facade.
G
Yes,
yes,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
bert
drost
planning
staff
for
the
city
of
des
moines
on
this
item.
We
do
have
a
member
in
the
audience
who
is
hearing
impaired,
so
I
would
ask
that
everybody
be
extra,
cautious
and
speak
clearly
into
the
microphones.
For,
for
her
sake,
item
number
10
is
a
request
for
a
public
hearing
site
plan
for
a
new
self-storage
facility
that
is
being
converted
or
being
constructed
within
the
former
gordman's
department
store
at
2590
hubble
avenue.
G
The
question
before
you
tonight
is
only
regarding
whether
or
not
to
allow
two
overhead
garage
doors
on
the
primary
facade,
not
the
specific
use.
Back
in
march,
the
board
of
adjustment
had
granted
the
conditional
use
that
allowed
use
of
the
building
or
use
of
the
property
for
this
use
and
that
the
30-day
appeal
period
of
that
determination
or
that
decision
of
the
board
has
already
passed.
So
the
use
has
already
been
approved
really
tonight.
G
So,
as
I
mentioned
the
subject,
property
is
the
former
gordman's
department
store
on
the
west
side
of
hubble
avenue
it's
just
across
hubble
from
the
teachout
pool
and
from
the
east
side.
Library
just
to
the
south
is
the
this
or
is
it
the
hospital
anyway,
the
property
just
across
from
the
former
kmart,
which
is
also
recently
converted
to
over
to
self-storage?
G
We
had
a
photo
submitted
of
that
property
there
kmart
that
does
show
it
has
what
appears
to
be
overhead
doors
on
the
front
facade.
So
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
with
you
quickly.
But
again
the
site
is
located
here.
It's
just
outside
of
the
flood
plain
you
can
see.
This
blue
line
is
this
zoning
boundary
the
site's
primarily
zoned
mx3,
but
there
is
some
flood
district
immediately
to
the
north
into
the
east.
G
So
here
are
some
site
photos.
This
is
the
existing
primary
facade
facing
east.
This
is
the
north
facade
and
then
this
is
the
rear
facade.
So
it's
part
of
their
site
plan.
They
have
proposed
two
overhead
doors
on
that
east
facade.
It's
best
denoted
here.
This
is
that
east
building
elevation.
You
can
see
the
two
overhead
doors
here.
Our
design,
ordinance
or
urban
design
ordinance
requires
any
overhead
doors
for
self
storage
in
the
mx3
district
to
be
located
on
a
side
or
rear
facade.
G
As
I
mentioned,
a
staff
has
recommended
denial
of
the
requested
type
2
design
alternative,
but
approval
of
the
public
hearing
site
plan,
and
we
did
not
receive
any
comments
or
comment
cards
from
the
neighbors.
But
I
do
know
there
is
a
woman
in
the
audience
who
wants
to
speak
in
opposition
to
this
tonight.
Any
questions
for
me.
J
C
I
think
if,
if
I
could
enter
jack
bert,
because
I
have
a
little
more
background,
the
our
considerate,
their
appeal-
was
focused
on
the
back
side,
which
is
the
west
side
which
is
close
proximity
to
the
houses.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
go
back
to
the
aerial,
so
we're
supportive
of
that.
We
don't.
We
think
it's
a
good
idea
not
to
have
the
overhead
doors
back
there.
C
I
do
recognize
what
you're
saying
that,
if
they're
on
the
front
that
that
would
be
further
away,
but
from
our
perspective
we
were
looking
for
more
dialogue
at
the
meeting
and
just
kind
of
see
what
the
commission
thought
see
what
the
applicant
had
to
say.
I
think
that's
a
great
observation,
but
that
wasn't
you
know,
I
think
the
the
more
dialogue
was
what
we
were
looking
for.
B
S
Goodrich
is
no
longer
the
owner
of
this
property.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
they
were
when
this
process
started
back
in
february
and
march,
but
the
new
ownership,
which
is
2590
investors,
they
have
closed
on
the
project.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
I
don't
know
if
it's
that
critical,
but
just
wanted
to,
let
you
guys
know
the
way.
S
I
want
to
point
out
to
you
like
I
said
it
seems
like
the
intent
of
this
regulation
is
for
buildings
that
are
nearer
the
street
frontage
and
if
you
look
at
that
little
sketch,
that's
in
the
ordinance,
it
shows
a
building
that
is
right
up
against
the
streets
and
for
better
or
for
worse.
I
brought
this.
Q
T
S
Yeah,
as
you
can
see,
the
intent
of
what
they're,
showing
as
an
illustration
to
which
all
those
requirements
apply,
is
a
building,
that's
sitting
there
at
the
corner,
and
it's
got
frontage
really
close
to
the
street
and
all
of
those
requirements
make
a
ton
of
sense
in
that
situation.
In
an
existing
situation
like
we
have,
we've
got
this
building
that
is
400
feet
back
at
the
closest
and
where
those
doors
are
designed.
S
S
S
These
are
not
semi-loading
places.
These
are
storage
units,
so
you're
not
going
to
have
the
large
trucks
and
a
lot
of
traffic.
It's
intermittent
traffic
in
these
kind
of
uses,
and
so
there's
not
going
to
be
a
constant
busy
loading
back.
You
know
loading
off
of
big
trucks
like
you
would,
at
the
back
of
a
grocery
store
or
something
like
that.
Q
A
A
T
S
F
F
I
guess
it
really
comes
down
to
east
side
or
north
side
versus
the
east
side.
The
front
from
our
point
of
view.
From
an
operational
standpoint,
the
north
side
just
is
comes
down
to,
in
our
view,
a
life
safety
issue
and
being
a
good
neighbor
to
our
residential
neighbors
on
one
side
or
the
other
residences.
On
the
back
side,
which
you've
already
determined,
doesn't
work,
and
on
the
north
side
it
appears
we're
about
150
feet
from
a
large
senior
housing
community.
F
Furthermore,
as
you
can
see,
there's
an
access
drive
that
is
used.
Quite
often,
we
own
a
little.
What
used
to
be
a
residential
lot
here
on
the
north
side
and
people
do
buzz
through
there.
Sometimes
too
fast,
our
construction
manager
was
saying
they
saw
a
guy
the
other
day
going
50
miles
an
hour
through
there.
F
F
Furthermore,
our
office
will
be
located
in
the
middle
of
the
front
side
of
the
building
adjacent
to
our
proposed
garage
door,
location,
we're
we're
building
these
garages
interior
because
of
the
weather.
Here
I
mean
even
in
summers,
you
know
it
gets
warm,
so
we're
getting
people
out
of
the
elements
again
for
safety
and
comfort.
F
F
Another
convenience,
but
also
safety
issue
is,
is
if
we
try
to
load
from
the
north
side
and
they're
going
to
the
south
side,
it's
a
very
long,
walk
and
they're
pulling
pushing
carrying
large
heavy
items.
Potentially,
that's
why
we
want
to
load
from
the
middle
of
the
building.
So
we
reduce
the
walking
distance
by
half
so
from
operational
standpoint.
Much
better.
F
F
The
gentleman
that
we
worked
with
was
on
a
flight,
but
here's
what
he
had
to
say.
Self
storage
is
a
very
low
transaction
business,
with
an
average
of
one
new
rental
per
day.
Self
storage
customers
then
frequently
access
their
storage
units,
but
it's
important
that
the
primary
entry
points
are
in
a
safe,
well-lit,
secure
area
and
not
hidden
behind
the
side
of
the
building.
It's
ideal
for
the
entry
air
be
close
to
the
rental
office,
which
is
staffed
seven
days
a
week,
so
that
is
important.
F
E
I
have
a
question
about
the
accessible
parking
stalls
that
are
located
adjacent
to
the
building
that
appear
to
be
just
north
of
the
loading
doors.
What's
the
kind
of
safe
pathway
for
those
customers
to
get
from
those
stalls
to
the
office
doors,
it
looks
like
they
have
to
cross
in
front
of
the
loading
doors
to
get
there.
Is
that
correct.
S
S
Well,
it's
not
showing
up
much
better
here.
Actually
there
are
a
number
there's
four
different
accessible
stalls
here,
there's
two
right
here
and
there's
two
over
here
and
in
all
cases
there's
the
gradients
are
well
within
ada
requirements
along
this
area.
Here
there
is
there's
a
curb
along
here,
there's
actually
a
ramp
right
in
here
which
will
serve
these
guys.
This
one,
the
sidewalk,
that's
right
in
front
of
the
building
slopes
down
to
become
flush
with
the
pavement
right
here.
So
that's
how
these
stalls
would.
T
S
F
F
If
there's,
if
there's
not
a
safety
arm,
and
so
they
are
going
to
be
required
to
stop
and
and
same
on
the
way
out,
so
we're
doing
it
because
they
usually
just
run
right
through
the
doors
that
are
coming
down
and
it's
a
problem.
But
I
think
that
we'll
have
the
impact
of
stopping
people
there'll
be
a
full
stop,
and
so
I
think,
it'll
be
slightly
more
safe.
S
If
I
can
I'd
like
to
add
another
comment
regarding
safety
issues,
one
of
the
issues
about
having
that
access
here
is
this
area
is
really
not
visible
from
hubble
at
all
or
or
from
25th
over.
Here
it's
really
kind
of
hidden,
it's
it's
hidden
by
that
senior
living
complex
here,
as
well
as
some
a
lot
of
the
existing
trees
there.
A
B
B
H
F
A
C
Y
Y
Y
Y
They
said
we
won't
mention
hi-v,
but
how
they
have
a
monopoly.
Okay,
we
don't
like
cash
saver.
I
went
to
cash
saver,
they
have
old
food,
so
I
mean
a
grocery
store
would
be
really
nice
there
as
they.
The
gentleman
pointed
out.
You
have
the
living
facilities,
village
valley
view
valley
view
over
there.
I
have
people
tell
me
they
go
to
ankeny,
altoona
or
pleasant
hill.
Now
we
should
live
in
des
moines
and
have
to
go
to
other
towns
to
go
to
the
grocery
store.
T
F
Sorry
they
had
to
tell
me
I
heard
I
heard
most
of
what
you're
saying
and
I
I
can
appreciate
wanting
retail.
I
was
a
retail
developer
for
25
years
in
denver,
texas,
all
over
the
place,
mostly
grocery
anchor
stores,
kroger
safeway
albertsons
a
couple
walmarts
last
year,
like
13
000
stores
closed
nationally
individual
stores.
F
This
is
one
case
an
exam
example,
gordman's
parent
company
stage
inc,
went
bankrupt
and
closed
every
and
liquidated
every
store.
You
probably
read
the
paper
that's
over
and
over
and
over
I
mean
people
getting
their
groceries,
delivered
everything
delivered
by
amazon
ups,
whatever
else.
So,
if
there
was
a
grocery
grocery
store
demand,
we
would
have
rather
done
that,
but
there
isn't
a
grocery
store
that
wants
to
be
here
in
this
location
and
the
prior
owner.
The
broker
for
them
is
a
retail
broker.
David
wolf
he's
not
here.
F
F
So
while
we
wish
that
would
we
could
have
done
that,
it's
just
it's
just
not
available
in
today's
marketplace,
so
we
switched
as
a
company.
We
don't
even
do
retail
anymore,
because
it's
really
in
a
tail
spin
as
an
entire
segment
of
the
commercial
real
estate
business.
So
we
don't
do
office.
Buildings,
they're
difficult,
particularly
post,
covet
people
working
from
home,
so
we
switched
to
storage
five
six
years
ago.
We've
done
12
of
them.
We
feel
like.
F
We
know
what
we're
doing
and
in
terms
of
there
is
some
other
storage
units
nearby,
but
we
have
various
software
ones
called
radius
software
strictly
for
storage.
It
tells
us
in
everything
about
the
demographics.
We
need
to
know
tells
us
how
many
people
where
they
went
to
school.
I
mean
everything
their
income
and
also
how
many
square
feet
there
is
per
capita,
including
the
new
u-haul.
So
it
meets
our
metrics.
I
think
it
meets
the
national
metrics.
I
think
it's
a
good
site
for
that.
So
thank
you.
Y
Y
D
A
B
When
the
staff
was
talking,
they
they
talked
about
the
aesthetics
of
the
property,
and
no
one
has
mentioned
that
yet
and
I'd
like
to
to
address
that
for
a
minute
or
two,
you
know
we're
looking
at
the
east
facade
of
a
basically
a
big
box
store,
okay
and
it
has,
in
terms
of
it,
has
a
couple
of
characteristics.
One,
of
course,
is
the
horizontal
length,
but
the
other
thing
is
the
very
high
parapet.
B
Okay
and
that's
the
thing
that
immediately
catches
your
attention,
that's
a
commercial
welcome
and
that
that's
his
point
and
we
could
talk
about.
Perhaps
you
know
better
on
the
north
and
that
kind
of
thing.
Personally,
if
I
had
a
storage
here,
I
wouldn't
want
to
have
to
enter
on
the
north
during
a
blizzard,
snow
and
ice
here
in
des
moines.
S
A
A
Okay
item
11
is
a
request
for
monarch
creek
community
church
for
a
public
hearing
site
plan
walnut
creek
church
south
for
protect
two
design;
alternatives
for
property
at
3516,
southeast
14th
street,
to
allow
development
of
a
civic
type
building
in
a
p2
public,
civic
and
institutional
district
for
assembly.
Place
of
worship
use.
G
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
bert
ross
planning
staff
for
the
city
of
des
moines,
another
site
plan
before
you
tonight.
This
site
plan
is
requesting
two
design
alternatives.
The
site
is
located
on
the
west
side
of
southeast
14th
street.
It's
an
existing
religious
assembly,
use
that
is
being
renovated
and
they're
doing
site
improvements
that
are
triggering
the
need
for
them
to
come
into
compliance
with
our
current
standards.
G
We
feel
that
there's
ways
the
church
could
be
designed
to
allow
for
some
sort
of
entrance
or
entry
feature
on
that
east
facade.
However,
we
have
recommended
approval
of
the
design
alternative
to
allow
the
parking
to
remain
in
the
side
yard.
We
do
feel
that
there's
a
practical
difficulty
there
for
them
to
move
the
parking
lot,
so
it's
entirely
behind
the
building.
We
didn't
feel
that
would
be
reasonable,
so
we
are
supportive
of
that
design
alternative,
but
here's
the
consent
map.
We
did
not
receive
any
comment
cards
in
support
or
in
opposition.
Z
Z
But
it's
very
limiting
with
in
between
services
to
try
to
get
people
in
and
out
of
the
building,
and
so
we're
looking
to
put
a
little
atrium
in
to
meet
in
between
and
yeah
we're
excited
about,
175
people
and
so
we're
thrilled
to
get
a
little
bigger,
make
a
little
space
and
be
able
to
spread
out,
especially
with
all
the
uncertainty
with
covid
and
give
people
room
to
to
me
each
week.
So
that's
what
we're
doing
but
I'll
give
it
to
josh
a
little
more
about
it.
AA
Yeah
yeah,
like
john
said,
I'm
josh
williams,
I'm
a
slingshot
architecture
yeah.
We
we're
really
excited
to
engage
with
the
church
on
kind
of
helping
them
expand
the
smaller
church
building.
That's
really
set
back
on
the
site,
quite
quite
a
long
distance.
You
know,
I
think
I
probably
have
driven
past
that
building.
You
know
20
30
times
and
never
noticed
it
until
until
I
got
the
call
so
yeah
we
were
we're
excited
to
to
look
at.
How
can
we
increase
the
presence?
AA
AA
AA
You
know
if
we
were
designing
this
building
fresh.
You
know
we
might
do
it
a
lot
closer
to
the
to
the
public
way,
and
you
know
hopefully
encourage
that
walkability,
but
really
we
kind
of
had
to
think
about
the
walkability
of
the
current
parking
lot
and
just
where
it
made
sense
to
push
the
parking
lot
to
the
rear
end
of
the
site
versus
bringing
it
forward.
AA
T
AA
It's
really
working
against
you
and
so
by
putting
it
on
the
west,
we're
really
able
to
minimize
how
much
ramp
and
how
much
stairs
for
users
that
they
already
have
to
climb
up
quite
a
bit
yeah,
and
I
think
the
other
thing
is
just
keeping
you
know
it's
kind
of
an
object
building
with
where
it
is
on
the
site,
you
know,
and
so
by
by
installing
ramps
and
stairs
it.
You
know
it
just
look
complex
and.
T
AA
T
A
AB
Good
evening
reinhardt
c3405
southeast
crosswords
drive
grimes
iowa,
I'm
the
civil
engineer
on
the
project.
We
are
in
agreement
with
staff's
recommendation
to
approve
the
parking
within
the
side
yard
on
the
site.
So
as
you've
seen
with
some
of
the
exhibits
in
the
staff
report,
existing
parking
is,
in
the
side
yard
the
existing
parking
it's
about
28
thousand
square
feet,
so
you
know
to
move
and
replace
that
parking.
It's
a
200,
000
cost.
T
AB
As
joshua
stated,
you
know
this
is
inside
grades,
it's
pretty
flat
on
the
on
the
top
of
the
hill
to
the
south
of
that
building,
relocating
that
around
to
the
rear
yard
it
would.
It
would
cause
quite
a
bit
of
additional
dirt
work
to
do
that
work
and
then
the
pedestrian
route
to
that
building
entrance
would
be
quite
a
lot
greater
distance.
So
we
agree
with
staff
that
we
should
be
granted
a
type
2
design
alternative
for
this
proposed
parking
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
J
C
C
A
K
K
J
I
guess
I'm
sort
of
of
a
counter
a
bit
which
is
if
there
is,
I
mean
it's
even
a
church
which
is
supposed
to
be
going
towards
opening
to
the
community.
The
community
goes
across
that
sidewalk
we're
adding
a
sidewalk.
I
don't
see
why
we
need
to
have
extra
ramps
up
there,
you're
talking
about
a
door
with
steps
that
opens
on
to
hopefully
along
with
a
lot
of
families
playing
in
the
lawn,
because
I
I
don't
see
the
point
in
going
against
staff
recommendation
in
this
case.
Q
Q
There
are
many
many
precedents,
old
and
new
in
church
design.
That
are
a
precedent
for
that
again.
The
large
window
facing
east
to
a
very
busy
street
and
a
very
large
front
lawn
is
above
and
beyond,
is
is
a
nice
gesture
and
just
being
able
to
see
that
activity
is
something,
but
not
many
churches,
do
they.
They
sink.
These
activity
halls
into
the
ground,
hide
that
activity
and,
and
these
these
guys
are
showcasing.
It.
A
L
A
T
T
C
No
other
than
I
appreciate
everybody
muddling
through
this
with
us,
we
haven't
been
together
for
well
over
a
year
done
a
public
hearing
in
person.
So
I
know
it's
for
me.
It's
in
staff.
It's
been
nerve-wracking,
but
I
will
say
I
did
get
a
request
from
jan
that
after
the
meeting
closes
there's
a
lot
of
new
faces,
so
people
could
just
hang
out
and
introduce
themselves.
We
don't
need
to
do
that
during
the
meeting.