►
From YouTube: 4-7-22 Plan & Zoning Commission
Description
Des Moines Plan & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, April 7, 2022.
View the agenda: https://DSM.city/PZatHome
A
First,
read
the
rules
and
procedures.
The
plan
and
zoning
commission
is
generally
an
advisory
body
to
the
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
a
public
hearing
and
make
the
final
decision
on
all
matters
before
the
commission
other
than
site
plans
and
subdivision
plats.
Unless
denials
or
conditional
approvals
thereof
are
appealed.
Please
contact
the
city,
clerk
or
development
services
department
staff
for
details
on
council
hearings.
A
Applicant
will
be
given
10
minutes
to
present
to
the
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
applicant
is
then
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal.
The
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
discuss
and
vote
on
the
issue.
All
comments
are
be
to
be
germaine
to
the
item
under
consideration
and
speakers
are
to
maintain
a
courteous
manner.
A
Items
listed
on
the
consent
portion
of
the
agenda
will
not
be
individually
discussed
and
will
be
considered
for
approval,
in
accordance
with
the
recommendation
in
the
staff
report,
unless
an
individual
president
or
member
of
the
commission
requests
that
the
item
be
removed
from
consent
and
considered
separately
under
the
public
hearing
agenda,
I
do
have
one
short
announcement,
which
is
jason
vanessa
who's.
Normally
right
here
beside
me
is
not
with
us
tonight.
A
A
A
A
All
right
that
will
remain
number
two
request
from
eric
frost
for
review
and
approval
of
a
public
hearing
site
plan
for
a
type
2
design
alternative
in
accordance
with
city
code
135
for
property
located
at
1125
63rd
street,
to
allow
for
a
driveway
expansion
that
exceeds
the
maximum
allowed
front
yard
impervious
area
25
of
front
yard.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
audience
who
wishes
to
hear
this
item
tonight.
A
A
Thank
you.
We
do
have
one
item
for
continuance.
I'll
read
it
quick
number
three
request
from
rm
madden
construction,
represented
by
michael
madden,
for
review
and
approval
of
a
public
hearing
site
plan
for
the
following
type:
2
design,
alternatives
in
accordance
with
chapter
135,
to
allow
construction
of
a
house
type
d
in
n5,
neighborhood
district,
a
and
b,
and
the
reason
we
need
to
to
continue.
This
is
that
the
address
was
incorrect,
and
so
we
have
to
redo
it.
Can
I
get
a
motion
to
continue
that
until
april
21st
2022.
A
All
right
on
to
the
public
hearing
items,
the
first
public
hearing
item
is
number
four:
a
request
from
gerardo
perez
for
review
and
approval
of
a
public
hearing
site
plan
for
the
following
type:
2
design,
alternatives
in
accordance
with
chapter
135
for
property
at
4120,
south
southeast
14th
street
and
4115
southeast
13th
street.
To
allow
construction
of
a
storefront
building
type
within
mx3v
district.
A
through
f
and
nick
tarpy
will
be
presenting
this
item.
C
Thank
you,
emily
nix,
harpy
planning
staff
so,
like
emily,
said,
there's
about
six
design,
alternatives
that
are
in
front
of
the
commission
tonight.
Staff
is
recommending
approval
of
for
them
and
then
there's
two
two
that
have
kind
of
a
hybrid
recommendation
or
one
that
has
a
hybrid
recommendation
and
then
one
of
them
that
staff
is
recommending
denial
of.
So
we
can
dig
into
those
a
little
bit
so
subject:
site
here:
4120
southeast
14th
street,
about
a
quarter
mile
south
of
watrus
on
the
west
side
of
the
street.
This
is
the
existing
sites.
C
How
it
looks
right
now
you
have
an
existing
clothing
store
known
as
modus
maryland.
What
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
do
is
demolish
the
store
and
construct
a
completely
new
building,
so
we'll
walk
through
the
plans.
Show
you
what
that
looks
like
there's,
also
a
single
family
dwelling
that
is
just
to
the
west.
It's
on
a
separate
parcel
that
will
come
into
play
a
little
bit
later
with
some
of
the
site,
improvements
that
are
proposed.
C
C
C
So
digging
into
some
of
the
relief
here,
that's
being
requested
part
a
per
city
code.
The
applicant
is
required
to
have
a
primary
frontage
entrance
or
a
primary
engine,
a
principal
entrance
along
the
primary
frontage.
So
that
means
it
would
face
southeast
14th
street,
as
proposed.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
have
its
primary
entrance
or
its
principal
entrance
facing
the
north
towards
the
parking
lot,
so
that
would
require
relief.
In
that
sense,
staff
has
been
supportive
of
that
design.
C
Alternative
request,
because
they're
proposing
this
large
vestibule
that
faces
the
north
really
is
a
focal
point
and
really
is
allowing
both
access
from
the
street
side,
as
well
as
the
parking
lot
side
to
join
together
in
a
principal
entrance.
It
doesn't
necessarily
face
the
street,
but
it
still
really
meets
the
intent
of
the
design
ordinance
part
b.
C
This
is
for
the
building
elevation,
so
we're
going
to
dig
into
the
site
a
little
bit
here
and
you'll
see,
show
some
photos.
So,
as
you
can
see,
there's
this
is
the
existing
site.
There's
some
major
grade
changes
at
the
site
and
you
can
see
that
it
would
be
kind
of
difficult
to
site
a
building
flat
so
as
proposed,
the
main
entrance
to
the
building
is
actually
gonna,
be
two
feet
above
the
sidewalk
elevation.
C
C
Part
c,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
setback
of
about
eight
feet
from
the
property
line.
This
this
building
is
being
constructed
in
mx3
zoning
district,
which
would
require
that
the
bill
two
zone
for
the
building
be
between
zero
and
five
feet.
So
it
is
three
about
three
feet
outside
of
there
again,
citing
some
of
the
gray
changes
at
the
site.
Staff
recognizes
that
it
was
kind
of
difficult
to
sight.
The
building,
some
of
the
retaining
walls,
the
parking
area
that
needed
to
be
constructed,
and
so
staff
is
generally
supportive
of
that
type.
C
2
design,
alternative
request.
Staff
has
also
noted
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
front
walkway
as
well
as
some
street
skating,
streetscape
improvements
and
a
really
transparent
front
facade
that
really
activate
the
street
in
a
way
that's
really
similar
to.
If
you
would
have
cited
it
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
property
line,
so
staff
is
supportive
of
that
request.
C
You
can
see
some
of
that.
If
we
go
back
to
the
the
site
sketch
here,
you
can
see,
they
have
that
front.
Walkway,
that's
being
proposed
some
streetscape
elements
and
then,
if
we
go
back
to
the
building,
elevations
you'll
see
that
they
have
a
pretty
transparent
front,
facade
that
really
engages
with
the
street
pretty
well
part
d
of
the
relief.
This
is
really
related
to
part
c.
C
C
So
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
new
driveway
that
would
serve
the
the
parking
needs
for
the
single
family
dwelling
here
right
now
and
I'll
show
the
aerial
so
right
now,
as
you
can
see,
there's
an
existing
driveway
that
comes
off
the
southeast,
14th
frontage
and
the
for
the
vehicle
parking,
the
applicants.
They
use
this
area
coming
off
southeast
14th
to
the
east
of
the
house
for
a
lot
of
their
parking
needs
where
they
have
an
existing
garage
with
the
site
improvements.
This
is
all
going
to
be
demoed
and
it's
really
going
to
be
reconfigured.
C
The
driveways
at
least
extend
through
the
house
and
oftentimes
into
the
rear
of
the
properties,
so
a
staff.
We
would
really
request
that
the
applicant
would
do
the
same
to
be
in
conformance
with
the
existing
neighborhood
and
then
the
final
piece
of
the
design
alternative
requests
was
the
request
to
waive
the
underground
of
the
utility
lines.
I
know,
as
the
commission,
you
guys
have
seen
a
lot
of
that
the
last
couple
years
and
you're
pretty
familiar
with
that.
This
was
an
interesting
project
where
we,
as
planning
staff.
C
C
C
C
The
undergrounding
of
the
street
line
that
runs
across
southeast
14th
street
and
running
it
to
the
existing
street
light
would
cost
about
five
to
seven
thousand
dollars,
and
so
in
total
staff
has
recommended
that
the
new
service
line
of
the
building
be
installed
underground.
The
street
light
line
that
runs
from
the
other
side
of
southeast
14th.
C
I'm
just-
and
I
just
want
to
run
through
a
couple
photos
just
to
show
some
of
the
site
context
here.
So
this
is
the
existing
building.
The
new
building
is
pretty
much
going
to
be
in
its
place,
and
so,
as
as
staff
has
recommended,
the
line
that
comes
across
southeast
14th
street
that
would
be
undergrounded
as
part
of
the
site
improvements
this
the
street
light
here,
that's
currently
wooden
would
be
converted
into
a
steel
pole.
C
The
service
line
into
the
building
would
be
installed
underground,
with
a
new
transformer
that
would
be
offset
by
mid-american's
revenue
credit
program
and
then
the
line
that
comes
from
the
street
light
that
feeds
to
this
utility
pole
here.
That
would
also
be
undergrounded
as
part
of
that
five
to
seven
thousand
dollar
mid-american
estimate
that
they
gave
us.
C
And
then
here
is
the
rear
of
the
property.
It's
some
photos
more
related
to
what
we
were
talking
about
with
the
driveway
conversation
a
little
bit
earlier.
You
can
see
there
is
a
great
change
here,
but
then
you
can
also
see
the
neighbor
next
door
is
dealing
with
a
very
similar
great
change
and
they
were
able
to
extend
the
driveway
down
into
the
site
and
leading
to
a
garage
one
last
item.
I
did
want
to
pull
up.
C
No,
I
don't
think
that
was
included.
Okay
and
then
this
is
a
map.
That's
the
context,
map
that
shows
notification,
the
neighbors
that
were
notified.
We
did
not
receive
any
comments.
I
did
get
a
phone
call
this
afternoon,
just
inquiring
about
the
project,
but
nothing
more
formal
than
that.
So
with
that,
I
will
take
any
questions
at
this
time.
D
C
C
C
So,
with
these
site
improvements,
they're
they're
proposing
a
new
parking
lot
here,
and
it's
really
different
than
this
drive
that
juts
out
right
now,
and
so
with
this
parking
lot
and
the
new
building,
it
really
would
not
be
feasible
for
them
to
to
maintain
that
access,
and
so
the
applicants
are
requesting
that.
Okay,
we
close
this
off,
because
this
this
part
of
the
property,
this
part
of
the
site,
is
really
going
to
be
used
for
the
store,
and
so
we
like
to
use
the
southeast
13th
street
access,
and
so
they
propose
a
driveway.
D
D
Okay
and
number
two
but
yeah
it's
my
challenge
is
here
so
we're
saying
that
they're
hitting
this
requirement,
because
we're
also
saying
that
they're
now
agreeing
that
they've
switched
where
the
front
of
their
house
is
because
right
now,
what
we're
saying
if
this
construction
didn't
go
up
and
it's
right
now,
a
rear
driveway
and
they
just
wanted
to
put
in
a
pad
to
a
rear,
driveway
and
had
no
other
driveway
or
other
driveway's
gone.
This
would
not
be
an
issue.
Is
that
right?
It's
only
because
we
flopped
where
we
believe
the
front
is.
C
D
D
Got
okay,
so
five
sustain
the
same
place:
okay,
so
the
other
piece
cost
differential.
So,
let's,
let's
assume
that
we
are
okay,
forcing
them
to
flip
their
concept
of
their
house.
Fine!
Next,
because
down
there
that
there
is
a
lot
of
change
in
grade
there,
and
I
agree
that
the
house
next
to
them
does
have
something
all
the
way
to
the
to
the
house.
However,
we're
saying
that
our
engineering
staff
has
said
that
that
isn't
a
problem
have
they
provided
engineering
opinions,
otherwise.
C
So
and
that's
kind
of
leads
me
into
a
good
point,
so
we've
consulted
with
our
engineering
staff-
and
I
have
talked
with
the
applicant
a
little
bit
and
they
actually
might
you
know
I've
invited
them.
You
know
if
you
can
prove
necessarily
that
hey
this
would
not
necessarily
be
feasible
in
the
situation.
You're
welcome
to
come
to
the
commission,
but
we
have
not
received
documentation,
otherwise
that
this
would
really
be
infeasible.
D
Oh,
I
thought
earlier
on.
We
said
that
okay,
then
I
misheard,
I'm
sorry.
I
took
a
note
there
that
I
thought
that
we
said
that
there
was
a
there
shouldn't,
be
an
extra
cost.
I
was
curious.
What
the
cost
difference
was:
that's
fine
and
then
the
last
one
will
sort
of
last
sorry
the
revenue
credit
system,
so
the
five
to
seven
k
is
not
eligible
under
the
revenue
credit
system.
Why?
Because.
C
It
doesn't
provide
service
to
the
building,
so
that
would
if
the
revenue
credit
is
for
new
constructions
of
buildings,
specifically,
so
the
five
to
seven
k
is
for
undergrounding,
the
line
to
the
streetlight
and
that
that's
not
a
new
service
necessarily
into
a
building.
The
revenue
credit
is
for
you're
constructing
a
new
building
mid-ams
like
we.
We
understand
how
much
energy
you're
going
to
use.
We
can
project
that
out
and
so
over
a
period
of
three
to
five
years,
we
can
reimburse
you
for
those
costs.
D
Gotcha,
okay,
so
the
theory
is
that
the
poll
so
the
new
metal
pole
that
goes
in
that's
a
city
pole
and
that's
a
city
cost
of
that
city.
Pole
and
even
though
we're
still
going
to
be
trenching
a
line
in
we're
going
to
be
dropping
a
line
in
and
then
it's
no
cost
to
the
applicant,
because
it's
a
new
service
on
the
one
line,
the
same
trench
or
the
same
bore.
That's
taking
that
other
line.
C
So
there's
one
so
there's
the
initial
boring,
that's
going
to
be
going
under
southeast
14th
to
the
streetlight
and
then
there's
a
separate
boring
that
would
be,
for
they
have
to
cite
a
new
transformer
on
the
property
to
accommodate
the
service
into
the
building,
so
yeah
yeah
there
would
be
two
separate
underground
jobs.
We.
C
A
C
D
And
actually
last
question
is
through
our
curiosity,
with
the
ordinance
change
that
came
through
and
granted.
While
I
wasn't
necessarily
a
fan
of
where
we
ended
up,
even
though
you
know
I'm
obviously
a
fan
of
having
something
is
this?
Actually,
if
all
we
say
is,
this
is
actually
poses
a
significant
impact.
D
So
we
we
again,
I
I
know
I
was
aggressively
painful
to
birds
and
everyone
else
on
this
right
to
say,
let's
get
an
actual,
defensible
process
for
identifying
when
we
need
to
underground.
We
passed
one,
I'm
not
a
fan
of
what
we
ended
up
with,
but
if
I'm
understanding
what
we
ended
up
with,
if
also
the
applicant
just
says,
I
now
have
a
significant
impact
as
a
result
of
this
undergrounding
significant
not
being
defined
yet
then,
because
this
is
not
within
an
undergrounding
overlay,
we
actually
can't
require.
It
is
that
right.
F
I
believe,
if
I
understand
you
correctly,
you
could
use
that
as
your
rationale
to
grant
the
type
2
design
alternative
when
staff
considered
it
as
a
type
1.
We
didn't,
we
felt
because
there's
a
new
building
involved.
We
thought
it
was
reasonable
for
them
to
bury
the
service
to
the
building,
but
it's
definitely
within
the
commission's
purview.
If
you
feel
that
that
criteria
has
been
met
to
go
ahead
and
grant
it.
D
C
And
I
would
also
just
like
to
add
too,
there
are
under
other
lines
on
the
site
that
staff
is
okay
with
them
waving
the
underground.
It's
the
there's,
a
pole,
that's
going
to
be
allowed
to
remain
and
then
aligned
to
the
billboard
to
the
south
and
and
staff
saw
that
we
were
like
this
is
outside
of
the
project
scope.
This
would
be
okay
to
remain
so.
We
tried
to
offer
a
hybrid
recommendation.
There.
G
H
E
I
A
H
Okay,
so
when
it
comes
to
the
parking
originally,
when
we
were
looking
at
it,
we
saw
the
initial
grade
on
the
property.
So
that's
why
we
were
wanting
to
waive
the
parking
requirement
to
go
farther
back
than
what
it
was
just
because
there
would
be
a
lot
of
demo
work
with
the
grade,
but
looking
at
the
how
it
flattens
out
at
the
back,
I
think
we'd
be
able
to
accept
that
we
could
push
the
driveway
farther
back
to
accommodate
that
and
get
it
outside
the
front.
Build
zone.
J
H
D
While
we're
waiting
for
that,
can
we
ask
a
question
while
we're
waiting
for
this
part?
Is
that
all
right
sure?
So
I
want
to
make
sure
you
mention
on
the
parking
item
right.
So
if,
if
staff,
if
staff
recommendation
is
approved,
that
would
mean
that
you
would
have
to
have
a
parking
pad
that
is
farther
east
than
the
far
west
corner
of
the
house
right,
which
would
indicate
that
you'd
have
to
have
enough
room
there
for
the
parking
that
you
would
need.
D
K
A
H
D
So
this
is
the
part
of
the
impact
I'm
curious
about
right,
so
sub
e
means
you
would
have
to
put
a
parking
pad
forward
onto
the
yard
where
we
know
we
have
a
grade
change
and
it
sounds
like
we
aren't
entirely
clear.
It
sounds
like
there
may
be
access
to
difference
of
opinion
as
to
whether
or
not
there's
a
significant
cost
in
moving
an
actual
impervious
pad
up
there,
with
everything
from
runoff
to
grade
change
and
everything
else.
D
It
seems
like
there's
access
to
that
being
expensive,
which
I
don't
think
it
sounds
like
we
have
any
knowledge
of
it
right
now.
That's
where
I
guess
where
my
concern
is
so,
if
we're
saying
yep
we're
good
with
e,
that
means
you
can't
move
that
pad
further
back.
Unless
I'm
misunderstanding,
therefore,
okay.
H
I'm
sorry
before
I
came
on
the
project,
the
prop
on
the
on
the
map,
where
it
shows
the
property
it
was
only.
The
original
driveway
was
only
being
placed
24
foot
onto
the
property,
and
once
I
got
onto
the
project,
I
was
looking
at
the
images
and
seeing
the
site.
I
saw
that
that
was
a
lot
of
a
great
change
to
it,
and
so
we
moved
it
farther
back
in
consultation
with
nick.
H
D
For
the
confusion,
oh
no
problem,
I
say
I
haven't,
walked
the
site.
I
understand
I
mean,
but
as
a
pe
I
guess
I
have
concerns
to
make
sure
that
we
actually
do
know
full
cost
before
we
agree
to
something
that
we
don't
really
know
impact
on.
That's
that's!
That's
my
only
personal
concern.
I
just
that's.
That's
the
one
where
I'm
not
entirely
sure
I
understand
what
we're
debating
if
we're
all
fully
clear
on
what
prices
we're
debating
there.
That's
that's
just
my
concern
why
I
asked
about
e.
D
The
f
was
yes
definitely
to
this
street
piece
and
I
guess
I'm
I'm
reading
this
I
get.
Unfortunately,
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
I
guess
or
luckily-
and
I
I
guess
I
don't
entirely
it's
not
entirely
clear
to
me.
I
understand
the
cost
here
either,
which
means
this
also
looks
a
little
confusing.
It's
not
clear
that
we
actually
understand
the
impacts
of
f
either
or
why.
G
F
I
guess
the
other
option
for
them
would
be
to
just
not
add
that
new
driveway
from
southwest
13th
to
southeast
13th
street
to
just
extend
a
new
driveway
from
the
new
parking
lot.
So
the
driveway
and
the
off
required
off
street
parking
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
the
house.
But
I
think
from
a
business
perspective.
They
don't
want
to
have
somebody's
residential
driveway
going
through
their
parking
lot.
So
they're
wanting
to
move
that
driveway
to
south
east
13th
street.
F
To
do
that
and
what
I'm
hearing
them
say
is
they
they
knew
they
had
to
do
a
24
foot
paving
pad,
but
they
didn't
realize
that
that
had
to
be
out
of
the
front
yard
setback.
So
once
they
heard
that
he
said
they
were
willing
to
extend
it
further
to
the
east,
and
I
know
you're
concerned
that
they
don't
necessarily
know
how
much
extra
that's
going
to
cost.
But
does
that
cost
concern
you
to
do
the
extra
paving
further
east.
D
F
There
would
be
another
option
for
them:
they
don't
have
to
have
it
be
a
full
20
or
20
feet
24
feet
wide.
They
could
narrow
it
down
to
eight
feet
wide
to
just
so.
It
might
even
be
the
same
amount
of
concrete
just
in
one
longer
stretch.
So
that's
another
option
for
them,
because
all
they're
required
to
provide
is
one
off
street
parking
space
outside
of
the
front
yard
area.
D
And
I
I
know
I've
caused
something
would
probably
cause
jason
to
completely
go
bonkers
by
now.
I
know
I've
gone
way
out
of
process
here,
but
I
think
where
I'm
wanting
to
go
is
probably
where
jan
is
recommended,
which
is
it
doesn't
sound
like
we
have
all
the
numbers
here.
I'd
be
very
uncomfortable
voting
on
something
where
we
don't
have
everyone
clear
on
what
everything
is,
because
this
is
an
interesting
paragraph
in
itself.
I
guess
I
would
sorry.
I
know
we
have
a
process.
Oh
wait.
Sorry.
I
I
F
F
L
I
C
You
have
to
be
able
to
fit
a
vehicle,
but
in
that
you
know
behind
that
front
yard
setback,
so
the
standard
length
is
17
feet.
So
you
have
to
pay
17
feet
from
that
the
front
of
the
house
to
fit
to
fit
a
car
length
so
8
by
17
8
by
17
is
the
standard
space.
So
you
have
to
have
at
least
that
type
of
pad
behind
that
front
yard.
C
It's
I
think
it's
about
48
feet
roughly
so
right
as
you
have
it
extended
now,
it's
about
goes
extends
about
24
feet
into
the
yard.
You
need
to
extend
it
at
least
another.
You
know
24
to
get
to
the
edge
of
the
house
and
then
another
17
beyond
that
to
be
able
to
fit
our
standard
car
length,
standard
parking
spot.
D
D
J
J
M
N
C
That's
correct
yes,
so
in
the
long
term,
so
we
from
mid-american
they
have
their
revenue
credit
program,
which
is
something
that
funds
in
terms
of
reimbursement,
services
into
new
construction
buildings
and
so
over
a
period
of
three
to
five
years
per
conversation
with
an
american.
Typically,
they
see
three
to
four
thousand
square
foot
buildings,
retail
type
buildings.
They
have
an
idea
of
how
much
energy
those
buildings
consume,
and
so
through
that
they
can
project
out.
You
know
up
front.
C
The
applicant
would
have
to
front
this
cost
or
burden
this
cost
and
then
over
a
roughly
three
to
five
year
period,
typical
of
most
projects.
They
didn't.
They
couldn't
really
pencil
it
out
for
this
specific
project,
but
typically
they
see
similar
projects.
They
can
make
an
estimate
over
time
through
the
revenue
credit
program.
They
would
be
reimbursed
for
that.
Okay,.
N
C
D
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding,
so
the
the
line
underground,
which
is
the
five
to
seven,
which
is
not
eligible
for
the
revenue
piece
right.
Fine,
that's
five
to
seven,
but
I
thought
what
you
just
said:
there
was
slightly
different
where
you're
saying
that,
actually
the
applicant
has
to
front
load
the
cost,
the
new
transform
and
the
under
grounding,
but
then
they
get
reversed
through
their
bill.
C
We
we
did
not
get
that
from
an
american
because
they
they
couldn't
tell
the
building
hadn't
been
constructed
yet,
and
so
they
they
didn't
know
how
much
it
would
cost
when
we
were
asking
them
kind
of
preliminary
in
the
site
plan
process.
So
they
couldn't
give
us
an
estimate
for
that
for
installing
the
new
transformer,
no.
D
C
Asking
for
the
relief
entirely
so
they
they
want
to
install
the
new
electrical
service
into
the
building,
wants
to
be
above
ground
as
opposed
to
installing
a
new
transformer
and
then
also
the
five
to
seven
that
you
were
talking
about.
They
just
want
to.
Basically,
you
saw
the
existing
conditions
and
they
want
to
with
the
new
building,
retain
that
condition.
E
I
I
A
I
I
I
mean
it's
a
complete
new
look
building
compared
to
what
we
have
there
now,
but
I
think
it's
a
lot
of
renovations,
there's
a
lot
of
grading
issues
that
we
we're
working
with,
and
we've
probably
been
working
on
this
project
now,
a
year
year
and
a
half
with
different
architects
and
engineers
trying
to
make
it
work
and
civil
engineers.
So.
I
D
I
D
D
A
A
It
carries
eight
to
one
it's
like
eight
zero
one.
Thank
you
all
right.
Number.
Five
is
our
final
item
this
evening:
request
from
pridecraft
custom
homes
represented
by
jason,
jurin
for
review
and
approval
of
a
public
hearing
site
plan
for
following
type
2
design,
alternatives
in
accordance
with
chapter
135
for
property,
located
at
1524,
east
pleasantview
drive
to
allow
construction
of
house
type
b
in
n3a
neighborhood
district,
a
and
b
and
kyle
will
be
presenting
this
item.
Thank
you.
K
K
There's
a
map
of
the
subject:
property
lies
on
the
north
side
of
east
pleasant
view
drive.
This
is
just
east
of
southeast
14th
street.
On
the
south
side
of
des
moines.
It's
currently
a
vacant
lot.
There
is
a
remnant
of
a
former
home
there,
a
standing,
detached
garage
that
will
be
demolished
for
to
make
way
for
the
new
home.
K
K
K
G
K
K
K
A
K
E
D
B
K
A
A
K
D
K
O
K
K
K
O
B
So-
and
I
think
I'm
sort
of
messing
this
up
with
case
number
three,
which
was
continued,
but
this
is
a
priority
one
area
for
sidewalks
in
the
city.
I
think,
like
in
case
number
three.
I
think
that
they
said
it
was
going
to
be
installed
on
the
north
side.
Do
we
know
what
the
plans
are
for
the
city
of
ins
of
that
priority
one
street?
Is
it
going
to
be
on
both
sides
or
one
side
or
the
other.
A
P
P
P
The
closest
school
here
is
weeks
middle
school
and,
as
you
can
see,
you'd
have
to
cross
14th
street
park
avenue
and
indianola
to
get
to
that
school.
So
I
I
mean
I
just
don't
think
it's
very
likely
that
people
are
gonna,
be
walking
that
route
to
and
from
school
and
then
they're
like
we
already
talked
about
earlier.
I
don't
don't
need
to
go
into
that
again.
There's
really
not
a
whole
lot
of
sidewalks
in
this
neighborhood
right
now
doesn't
sound
like
that.
P
A
E
O
O
K
Yeah,
I
know
the
commission
obviously
looks
at
each
item
case
by
case
to
see
what
you
know.
Different
context
of
the
neighborhood
might
be
in
terms
of
that
sidewalk
network
being
more
predominant
or
not,
but
there
have
been
a
few
cases
where
I
believe
the
sidewalk
has
been
waived
in
residential
areas.
K
K
G
I
guess
I'll
just
add
some
input
here,
because
I've
been
on
this
for
a
few
years.
I
thought
we
had
a
sidewalk
task
force
and
somebody
was
going
to
make
some
work.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
sidewalks
and
I
think
on
this
case
you
know
we
have
to
start
somewhere
and
you
know
we've
even
joked
about
you
know
sidewalk
to
nowhere.
You
know
when
we
were
talking
about
industrial
parks
like,
but
I
personally
believe
that
we
have
to.
G
O
Is
the
applicant's
still
here
right
now
will
if
we
do
require
the
sidewalk,
will
it
significantly
increase
where
you
build
the
site
where
you
build
the
driveway,
would
it
have
to
shift
any
of
the
housing
back?
I
guess,
if
is
there
any
logistical
concerns
that
the
sidewalk
would
affect
affect
you?
I
guess.
P
As
far
as
logistical
concerns,
no,
I
mean
basically,
if
the
sidewalks
are
there
or
not
there,
it's
pretty
much
the
same
logistical
for
me
as
far
as
doing
that
earlier,
when
you
were
talking
about
waving
sidewalks,
I
don't
know
if
you
were
just
specifically
talking
about
priority
one
or,
if
you're,
just
talking
about
in
general
yeah,
because
I've
had
three
houses
I've
built
before
where
they
have
waved
the
sidewalks
for
that.
So,
but
then
I
think
they
tried
to
streamline
streamlined
a
little
bit
more
coming
up
with
the
priorities.
P
One
two
three
levels
here
and
like
I
was
pointing
out
before
my
reference
is
that
okay,
even
though
this
is
labeled
priority
one,
I
think
it's
probably
because
it's
within
a
certain
radius
of
a
school
is
why
it's
level
one.
I
can't
really
test
the
fact
why
this
is
level
one
to
be
honest
with
you,
because
you
know
to
me,
like
I
said
it's
not
close,
where
anybody
be
walking
to
and
from
that
school.
P
D
D
We
do
like
if
we
push
for
a
policy
and
we
get
one,
we
should
then
follow
it
and
we're
talking
about
less
than
half
a
percent
of
cost
we're
looking
at
something
that
is,
you
know
I
don't
go
to
school
and
I
still
use
a
sidewalk,
so
I
do
think
that
you
know
those
pieces
it
seems
like
it
would
be
harder
to
be
outside
of
the
recommendation.
Staff
recommendation
looks
like
it's
well,
reasoned
and
thoughtful,
and
in
line
with
everything
that
we've
done,
with
no
significant
cost,
no
operational
cost.
P
D
You
know
I'd
like
to
move
staff.
I
guess
I'm
open
to
men
if
we
want,
but
I
mean
this
is
consistent
with
what
we've
done.
There
is
no
sniffing
cost
impact,
even
though
we're
not
even
supposed
to
be
considering
cost
impact.
In
this
case
it
is,
it
is
getting
us
on
the
right
path.
I
guess
I
would
move
staff
on
this.
I
don't.
I
don't
see
a
reason.
Why
there's
a
you
know
impeding
anyone
by
not.
A
A
F
Yeah,
the
only
thing
I
was
going
to
mention
is
that
for
our
next
two
meetings
there
will
be
a
5
30
session,
so
at
before
the
april
21st
meeting
we're
going
to
have
a
presentation
on
the
southwest
infrastructure
study
that
the
city's
engineering
department
is
doing
and
then,
before
the
may
5th
planets.
Only
commission
we're
going
to
have
a
presentation
from
the
finance
director
on
tiff
and
urban
renewal.