City of Des Moines, Iowa 2022 Plan & Zoning Commission, 2 Jun 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 6-02-22 Plan & Zoning Commission

Description

Des Moines Plan & Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, June 2, 2022.

View the agenda: https://DSM.city/PZatHome

A

Three 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 plots 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 to present 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 will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal.

A

The hearing will then be closed and the commission will discuss and vote on the issue. All comments are to be germaine to the item under consideration and speakers are to maintain a courteous manner. 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 the individual present or member of the commission requests that the item be removed from consent and considered separately under the public hearing agenda.

A

Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of the may 19 2022 meeting.

A

Thank you all in favor, please raise your right hand.

A

And no one is calling in this evening.

A

I will now read the consent agenda items number one: a request from earl j crouch for vacation of the southernmost 265 lineal feet of southeast 2nd street right of way in the southernmost 178 lineal feet of southeast 4th street right of way south of scout avenue in the vicinity of 303 scott avenue.

A

Is there anyone in the public who wishes to hear this item tonight.

A

Anyone on the commission number one will stay on consent number two: a request from robert fuller owner 2513 high street for vacation of the easternmost 50 lineal street of the east west alley right of way within the block bounded by woodland ave to the north high street, to the south 24th street, to the east and 28th street to the west. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to hear this item tonight?

A

Anyone on the commission number two will stay on consent: number three request from food bank of iowa represented by michelle book for review and approval of public hearing site plan, food bank of iowa building edition for type 2 design, alternatives for property at east 2220e7 street to allow reduction from the required 12 transparency on a street facing facade to a 4.5 transparency.

A

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to hear this item tonight?

A

Anyone on the commission number three will stay on consent.

A

Number four: a request from cole of phoenix az llc represented by todd, weiss for a review and approval of a third amendment to the dolls on ingersoll pud conceptual plan for property, located at 3401 ingersoll ave to allow additional signage on the convenience store, including electronic signs.

A

Is there anyone in the public that wishes to hear this item this evening?

A

Okay, we will move this item to the public hearing, so I have number one two and three for consent this evening. Do I have a motion to move consent.

B

I'll move, consent.

A

Thank you todd all in favor. Please raise your right hand.

A

All right, thank you and we will move on to the public hearing we'll start with item number four, which I just read, I think frank will be presenting this item.

C

All right, uh good evening, chair members of the commission, my name is frank, dunyoung city planning staff.

C

The item in front of us today is located at 3401 ingersoll avenue. The request is for review and approval of a third third amendment to the dolls on ingersoll pud conceptual plan to allow additional signage on the convenience store, including electronic signage.

C

And I'm looking for the presentation to pull up.

D

Right there, and here yeah.

E

C

All right, let's give this another shot.

C

That's not what I wanted.

C

My apologies one moment.

D

C

There must be something wrong with the with adobe on.

C

All right there we are, and so the property. What you see here is the subject property, which contains a price chopper, grocery store, convenience store, canopy, car wash and a bank.

C

Here's the convenient or the grocery store car wash there's the canopy. This is the casey's convenience store, and then there is a bank on the corner.

C

The property is a little over six acres and it's on the north side of ingersoll in between 34th and 5th street. The property is located along a mixed-use corridor, surrounded by commercial and residential uses.

C

You can see the some of the commercial that you know, extends there to the west, and then there are mix of uh commercial residential uses. That begin to extend to the east as well, and then there's behind the pud itself. There is residential, and that would be to the north.

C

And there are some lovely photos here, but we cannot see.

C

Them so I'm going to open up another program uh to run the slide and it'll just take some adjustment when it comes to uh the scale of the images, and so uh this is a view of the property facing west, and so this would be the east wall of the convenience store you can see off behind. There is a canopy for the fueling islands.

C

Here is another image more from a southwest angle,.

C

And here is a image of the western wall where a sign is proposed.

C

And then here is another view more from a a northeast angle,.

C

And so the property is zoned beauty, plan, unit development, and so all the signage requirements specific to this property are within the pd itself.

C

And specifically, we are looking at the convenience store proposal.

C

I will zoom in on this, and so there is existing signage that is allowed and it is within the allowances, as noted in the pud.

C

In fact, some of the signage is equal to or less than what the pud allows, and so in this image, what specifically is being requested is the uh fuel pricing signage that would be located on the east wall and then along the west wall of the convenience store itself.

C

The signage proposed would include two three foot by 7.17 foot or 21.51 21.5151 square feet. Each led fuel pricing signs, the size and location of signs would be consistent with signage allowances, as earned in the mx2 use district, which is the predominant classification along the ingersoll avenue corridor surrounding area.

C

Furthermore, the existing signage on the store and car washer or, as I mentioned earlier, equal to or are less than what was allowed for, the existing pud staff, is recommending approval of the third amendment to allow the fuel pricing signage.

C

Based upon the 250 foot,.

C

Notification map we did not have any comment cards come back, however, we did have a few folks that have made comment outside of that area, and also the neighborhood association has made comment as well. Here are a couple. These are outside of the 250 foot radius.

C

And an email from the.

C

Director of the avenues on ingersoll grant, and so she had asked for clarification regarding the signs that were being requested and uh preference were to have any new signage beyond the building and not a pull sign. For instance,.

C

And here it here are the responses uh based upon the neighborhood meeting that took place.

C

Let me zoom in on that just a little bit I'll, let you read through it.

C

And this is their notification that they had sent out to the neighboring residents.

C

And I believe this list of the folks that were contacted.

C

What questions do you have for me.

F

I'm curious, as I was reading through this, is there a requirement on how bright the led light can be. I see that in here we identify that the area seems fine, and I assume we're talking about the the fuel price signs on the east and west ends. Not the casey sign will not be lit. I assume it mentions their leds. It mentions area-wise, but like is there a brightness requirement like if something is like a hyper bright led like those headlights on cars do do we have a restriction on that bert's.

C

Gotta bring up the code.

E

These are the standards that would apply to any.

G

Other electronic.

E

Sign in the city, so there are regulations on display time the dwell time, meaning how frequently the numbers can change, but in this instance they're only displaying prices. So I don't think the display time is going to be an issue for the dwell time and then the illumination, which mr driver, I believe, is your concern. There are regulations down here on how bright the lights can be.

H

Just as a follow-up to that, I noticed in one of the letters that I was quickly trying to read. um There was a question as to whether or not the lights would turn off when the business was closed during the night. Was that answered.

C

In the letter- and it all asked the applicant to to speak to that- because it's their communication, but it's indicated that they had spoken with uh casey's, and uh there was uh that they would be shutting it off on hours that the convenience store is not in operation.

H

Okay and then I also saw some words as to being on the fuel canopy as well, but I didn't see any drawings that would indicate that it's.

C

H

The fuel canopy, so it's only on the building- is that.

C

That is correct. Just the two signs on the east and west facades.

A

So this was a gas station before I was at price choppers gas station. Where was their theirs? Where did they have their price, for they didn't.

C

I don't know that they had. It displayed um the much of the signage that's on. There is in the same locations and on the beauty itself. It did not have a uh a signage that showed the pricing itself. Okay,.

A

I didn't know if that was some kind of requirement, but it doesn't sound like it is. If they didn't have it.

C

Of course they they could take those earnings, the earnings are, you know, or something that they could have used and divided those uh differently, but but in front of us they're requesting that two additional signs to to be added on the east and west.

B

Yes, uh when the casey's built a new property on the northwest corner of merle, hay and franklin, uh this was four or five or maybe six years ago now, sometime like.

D

B

The the request was granted and on the canopy there was an electronic sign installed which had not been included in the application, and it's still there that's a concern for me. My question is: do the current? Does a current code actually allow on the building itself? This sign and the other question is: it looks like it's on a parapet above the building itself.

B

Is the parapet existing or is this going to be constructed? I.

C

I believe the the sign itself is on the face of the building both on the east and west facade, so there are no alterations to my knowledge that are taking taking place to the building itself.

B

So the parapet is already there.

C

A

And I think uh the applicant looks like he'll speak to that when he comes up correct, yeah yeah. Thank you just not to put you on the spot, frank.

C

Appreciate that.

A

Any other questions all right, um the applicant. Thank you frank. The applicant will have 10 minutes. Please state your name address and you can sign in when you're done speaking so.

I

I'm daniel willrick, with pell's design services, architect working with casey's on the project, we're located at 2323 dixon street in des moines and yeah. Really all the request is, is to be allowed to put an electronic sign on the building. Signage is already allowed on the building as a part of the pud. Just not the electronic pricing sign I mean we could put a non-electronic pricing sign, but casey's sort of typical approach is to have the electronic signs that they can.

I

Just you know, change from a computer rather than having to go out and get somebody on a ladder or whatever to change numbers. So that's really our requesting we're not making any changes to the structure of the building. As a part of this, like I said, the parapets are all there. That building shape is what was was built when dolls originally built it, and then, um of course, price chopper took it over and now casey's is just taking over the the c store, the fuel canopy and the car wash they are not.

I

I was taking it over the grocery store, that's not their business, so the request is like said, just the electronic sign on either end of the build the existing building. So the other question about uh the signage being turned off at night. That is. I did confirm that with the folks at casey's, that is their typical protocol with these signs is really all the exterior signage is turned off.

I

They just have a little bit of sort of emergency and security lighting that stays on at night just to for protection right so- um and I don't believe this is a 24 hour store prior to this, there was no.

I

There was no electronic signage on those ends. It was just a sign that said fuel and that was it so real, simple signage before so, um and that's what was allowed in the in the pud was just static, non-electronic signage. So, like I said, that's just the request. Is the ability to add these automatically changing electronic pricing signs on either end of the building? So we did have that neighborhood meeting um via zoom and we had a few people show up, and I think really it was just some fact-finding. Nobody was really opposed to it.

I

Just you know expressing some thoughts based on the pictures that were shown. You know that sign on the east that faces the neighborhood was really the one that anybody had some thoughts about, and you know with the tree there. I gotta believe that those uh concerns will be alleviated from the west side. Obviously we're facing more commercial. So that's probably less of a concern. Nobody really had an issue with the west side, so yeah there's those elevations.

G

The other signage.

I

On the building is already up and you know, complies with the pud, so we aren't asking for anything relative to that. So I think that was all the questions that you guys I kind of came in in the middle of the presentation. So hopefully I hit everything that you were wondering about.

J

It looks like the price chopper signage was quite a bit bigger than the casey signage yeah you have some color. To put to that, like is. Is this signage kind of within the footprint of what was there previously on the price chapter.

I

I believe so I think price chopper it just has a bigger, has a bigger logo. It's a longer word, I guess so. Yeah yeah and you can see on there. The original drawing the dolls is probably even a little bit bigger than what casey's put up so.

F

I'm curious on the tree that is on the east side, who owns that tree? Is that a city tree? Is that your tree? Because it is it it seems to completely block the sign. It almost makes the sign useless.

F

Will the tree be chopped down in for the sign.

I

I can't I mean I can't speak to their intent with that. We never really even talked about the tree when we were looking at the signage on this building. To be honest with you, you know, if that's in the right of way it's city tree, but casey's responsibility right, it's kind of the way that works, so I don't know that they have any ideas about removing the tree or thinning the tree or doing anything like like that.

I

I think they really just want to get their sign up and operate the store and just sort of be on their way.

A

Any further questions all right. Thank you.

A

Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to this item? You can come up jim, please state your name address and you have five minutes.

G

My name is jim stavenick. I live at 637 41st street and I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this discussion as clarification. The tree on the east side would almost completely block that sign, so I'm not putting words in his mouth, but I think the tree would have to be removed if, if you're gonna make that sign visible.

G

I am president of the north of grand association, which the city of des moines recognizes, as the official neighborhood association for the area from 31st street to 42nd street and from grand avenue to I-235.

G

The casey store is located within this area.

G

The north of grands board consists of members who also live in close proximity to the ingersoll corridor and the casey store des moines has spent many millions of dollars to create a cutting-edge new commercial ingersoll corridor identified as a tranquil environment, pedestrian and bike friendly traffic calming street designs and softened with plantings along both sides of the street.

G

Ingersoll is designed to be the exact opposite of the high auto volume commercial streets found in other parts of the metro area. There are no commercial street. There is no commercial street in des moines like the ingersoll corridor and that's what makes it special.

G

We have all seen these electronic signs on other metro streets grabbing at the eyes and drivers as they pass by that's, certainly not the city's vision or environment being created with the ingersoll corridor.

G

North of grands board is supportive of business, but there's existing building guidelines for the ingersoll corridor that serves a purpose for maintaining its unique look and feel north of grands board worked hard to help establish the initial dolls on ingersoll pud conceptual plan and casey's. Amendment proposal is inconsistent with the plan's intent casey has. Our cases has already received changes or compromises that were worked out on the original zoning.

G

They already have signage, which is allowed under the current zoning, and the north of grand board is opposed to electronic signs for the ingersoll corridor. This will compromise what the city has worked so hard to achieve.

G

Neither of casey's electronic signs are necessary and definitely inappropriate across the street from an established residential apartment. Building variances beyond agreed upon standards are only appropriate if there's a real need, and it's hard to see one here.

G

Those using the ingersoll village center already know where the pumps are when the star gas station located further east on ingersoll goes away as it's currently planned. This casey's will be the only gas station all the way from 63rd street to sherman hills and having no competition.

G

Casey's definitely does not need to have aggressive signage beyond what the current zoning allows to compete in the market.

G

They are the only gas game on ingersoll and there are other less abrasive ways to communicate their gas prices to motorists.

G

Any electronic signage, including the ones being proposed by casey's, is a clear digital precedent that paves the way for further imitators, resulting in a slow erosion of ingersoll character.

G

Dolls and price chopper had operated this gas station for many years without electronic signage and they've never listed their price. You knew there were gas pumps there. I live real close to that and they've never had actually what the prices are.

G

People know where the gas station was located and they came to fill up without knowing prices until they reached the pumps said I am one of those customers.

G

The north. A grand board would encourage pnz to direct casey's to come back with a non-electronic signage proposal consistent with the existing zoning. Thank you for your time and thank you for serving our community thanks.

A

G

A

Like you might have some questions uh chris, I.

F

Got one so when you're looking at the requirement, that's within code and if they're, within the requirement of code right during the day time, they're allowed, essentially the brightness of the equivalent of basically two flat screen tvs and at night time, they're allowed basically equivalent of a tenth of a flat screen tv. Although it's going to be off right, if the brightness coming off of just a reflection of the casey sign itself is equivalent, is there still a problem? I mean if you're not going to be brighter than the equivalent of a static signs? Reflection?

F

Is that a problem where does electronic, which can be safely changed as price gases change a lot? Where does electronic become safe and appropriate?.

G

I walk by. I do a lot of walking near in the neighborhood and if you're familiar with uh 31st street between grand and ingersoll there's a laundromat gas and a car wash there and they've got what I believe just eyeballing it three foot by seven foot sign and it's lit up. I mean it's got those bright colors.

G

um So I don't know what casey's is saying if the picture is a real subtle price of gas on a subtle background, so that it's not obnoxious, probably a better term, then maybe it's equivalent to what you're asking about just the static sign.

G

I don't know what the end product of casey's would be, but if the two are equivalent in terms of reflection, et cetera, I guess I'd have to say that it's an either-or situation that I'm neutral on the issue. But I haven't seen personally signage.

G

In town that isn't on the bright side,.

F

So the example of the 31st and grand that electronic sign is it a suitable lumens for you to say, that's good, no.

G

You've seen that that's really bad, I mean it's just in your face, signage in terms of the colors um and I believe it's a billboard sign. So it shows not just static information like a gas price, but it it says: here's a car or here's a car wash here's a laundromat, so it's got a rolling or whatever they call it uh different sign different pictures. But that would be something that is just very abrasive to the eyes.

G

But I again, I can't really answer your question other than if the two are equivalent, which you're asking then that I'd become somewhat indifferent. I think the board would also become somewhat indifferent on it, but we're really going back to the ingersoll corridor and what does it represent and when you drive up and down there, do you feel like it's different than the rest of the streets in town?

G

I know we've seen a lot of money. The city has to make it different and I'd really like to see electronic signs stay out of there. I don't know if this opens up the door for the banks to say I want electric electronic signs, so I can advertise my interest rates and other things, so it just becomes another street from a in your face. Advertising are concerns.

A

Any other questions.

A

Thank you, jim. Are there any other members of the audience who wish to speak in opposition to this item.

A

Anyone wish to speak in favor or neutral.

A

The applicant will be given five minutes for rebuttal.

I

Yeah, I guess I was trying to find a an image of another location that had a similar sign.

I

I wasn't able to do that that quickly, but um yeah really I mean this is about casey's being able to maintain their um their mode of operation with the ability to change the price from you know, electronically, from the computer safely within the building, rather than having people have to go outside and climb ladders and change signs with a you know, an old school sort of sign where you put the numbers in um and really I think you know, without bringing up being able to bring a picture.

I

I think I'm sure a few folks have seen these kinds of signs on casey stores and other locations, but you know they're, you know they've got some color to them, so you see them but they're, not during the day they're, not necessarily any brighter than you know the sun out um and at night, like I said, there's a requirement to turn them down and then we turn them off. They turn them off at night. So um you know, I don't know that we're creating harm to the area by providing these signs.

I

um It's a it's a pretty typical thing that you see in a lot of locations so um yeah, I don't. I don't know.

I

Yeah, I I guess that's really all I could say in in in rebuttal to that. Is it's a it's a pretty common thing and um it's it's in you know. Casey's is certainly very interested in providing I mean they could provide the same sign with the same colors and it wouldn't be lit and you.

D

G

I

During the day, I would argue that it might look the same on a sunny day as if they had electronic signs, so that's kind of in the end. It really comes down to that safety thing for them too. I think the electronic versus a a placard type sign. So any other questions for me.

K

Good question um off here: oh.

I

K

Oftentimes led signs are dimmable. Do you know if this signage will be dimmable.

I

You know, I don't know that for sure. I think we could probably explore that if that makes a difference to I.

K

Was just imagining that if, if we approve the sign and it's dimmable, then potentially concerns from the neighbors could be alleviated if you tune it somewhat,.

I

Yeah, I would imagine casey's would be open to that versus not being able to do an electronic thing.

G

My question was along the same lines. I think code requires it to dim to 250 lumens in the evenings.

B

I

B

So I was just going to ask us if.

I

Well, yeah, I mean obviously, if that's what the code says, that's would be completely that's what you had just shown right burton was yeah.

G

I think code requires it and it does that. Then that's a good thing right, yeah.

I

So I guess, if that's a requirement, then the answer is they are difficult. So the question would just be fine-tuning that to make everybody as happy as we can.

F

Just to make sure we're clarifying swimming because I think the concern is that we have signs that we are allowing that because of the way we calculate, which is, you know, essentially lumens per square meter in the knits piece. We end up with these really bright signs, especially for large this one's interesting, because it's just numbers on a large square footage, so you're curious if whether or not you're already dimmer than those. So it's like highly likely it's going to be dimmer than that anyway.

F

But if the restriction says, we can't have this brighter than your worst case, reflectivity or worst case off the static sign. That seems both reasonable and should address the neighborhood. I would think so. If we, if we know hey, it, reflects off the sign of this amount.

F

This is going to be you know dimmer than that which is probably going to be dimmer than code. Depending on how you calculate it's gonna be important. That should be reasonable if it's dimmable that still hits what we're needing would something like that be a concern. We've said: hey this won't be brighter than a static sign. I.

I

Mean the only concern would be is if we got the point, we're so dim, you couldn't see it right, I mean, then it's not providing its function, but I mean I think again, like I said I would imagine. Cases would be open to working with the brightness of the sign versus not being able to do the sign at all right so and.

E

I guess one option would be if the board is or the commission is inclined to approve it. You could revise the staff recommendation to say any illumination shall be in accordance with the standards in chapter 134, 5.7.

E

With regards to the illumination, I guess so 5.7.6.

A

I have a question about that. So what if you think like, for example, jim's scenario on 31st street? If you think that something might not be meeting that standard, would you report it to city staff.

E

Yeah sure, when they're obtaining the sign permit the zoning inspectors that issue those sign permits will make sure that the specifications of the sign complies with these regulations. Here so and then, if jim or another neighbor would have concerns, they could definitely file a complaint with the zoning enforcement. Who would then take a look at it to make sure that the sign is operating in accordance with the approved specifications.

L

F

Doesn't that hit jim's issue that I think that if you're looking at especially sign on fluor, for example, is another one where that is again 5 000 nits is pretty bright like that's, that's a double! That's a double wide screen tv, so you're like coming down the street with like double bright white screen tv at you. So question is: if we have offensive signs that do comply with ordinance, I bet they probably do. What we're saying here is: can we not instead say look?

F

We've got a worst case, lumination study off of a static sign as long as you're. Within that fine, the case is red. When the sun hits it is already pretty bright. As long as we're below the brightness of the worst case case he signed during the day, we seem good 2 50 at night, still reasonably bright, it's behind a tree anyway, as long as the tree's. Still there you know, but if we I think the concern that jim has. If I'm understanding emily's concern as well, is we have offensive signs that meet ordinance.

D

F

This pud, we make sure the cap is the worst case. Illumination of the reflection off of a static sign.

E

Yeah you, the commission, could make that recommendation. I just I'm not an expert in lighting, so I wouldn't know what a reasonable number would be like if you're saying maybe the 5000 candelas is too bright.

E

It could be something else.

F

I'm just saying if we know that we have offensive signs that meet this ordinance yeah, it's probably a little too bright, so the question is, can we actually require studies, say hey? This is how much our static sign puts out we'll put out less than that, because I mean this is just.

D

I

Thing yeah, I think, yeah thinking through that. For me, the challenge is obviously the brightness of a sign can be subjective to the person who's viewing it. So we would definitely want to have some sort of finite measurement that says: okay, this is the allowed brightness whatever that is, and yes, we're complying with that, even though somebody thinks it's too bright in their eyes right, not trying to offend anybody, but that's just this is definitely a subjective thing right. That's how bright something is.

I

I think the other thing to keep that kind of comes to mind is, I think, maybe some of those signs, yeah they're, really big. They got a white background, so they do. I mean intentionally, are really bright to catch your attention. These signs are generally black with either green or red lettering. So you know just generally diced on design they're not going to be as bright as somebody who's got an electronic sign. That's just got a white background, that's flashing, and these aren't.

I

These are only moving one time a day or whatever they change the price right. It's not like a marquee, that's scrolling and the light levels are constantly changing. It's a yes, it's lit, but it's a static light right. So just a couple other things I mean: if we're going to go down the path of having a having a measurement, then I think we need to somehow figure out exactly what that measurement is. So if there is a complaint it can be measured. I.

L

Don't think we I have the authority to do that though, so I I don't I we.

I

Haven't even I mean if we're meaning the code as written, I feel like we should be okay,.

A

Yeah, I don't think we have the authority to change the code so.

M

Is the only thing that's going to be on the sign, the price of fuel.

I

Yeah, I mean the word: they usually have unleaded and super unleaded, and then the price is typically.

M

Like in the you know, in 10 years, if we're all driving electric cars and gas, doesn't you don't sell gas anymore? What will that will the sign say like cigarettes, ten bucks, that's.

L

A good question well.

I

No not to be flipping, but if it was happening ten years, I'd probably be in a different place right now, but no um these signs really are made. I mean the the let it the the words unleaded and super unleaded. I think are static. It's just the number that changes so they'd have to change the whole sign if it was going to be something else and they'd have to go through this process again, they'd have to go through a sign permit right. So the more serious answer, your question.

M

And one other clarifying question for uh frank- I think maybe burke, but if this were not a pud and it were just under the zoning that it would be, these would be by right.

E

uh The size and the placement would be by right, but if it were to be a digital sign, it technically would have to be on a monument sign. So when staff was looking at this, we realized that, but we thought putting it on the building is probably less of an impact than adding a monument sign which would add clutter to the ingersoll corridor. So we felt that this would probably be the lesser of the two impacts, but but typically yeah. The electronic signs are only allowed on monument signs or on billboard, science.

A

To be clear, that they'd still have to get approval to put one of those up. Yeah.

E

They would have to amend the pud to allow a monument sign for this fuel station.

J

I think we've all kind of identified that the tree might be at risk here because of this, and the site plan actually requires two trees at this location, because the streetscape can't really fit it in the right of way. So I don't think we should just like gloss over that.

J

I think we're kind of putting the landscape as intended in the pud at risk, with this approval, at least on the east side- and I don't know- maybe even a monument sign- that the drive might be a better solution in that way, because you are talking about now- we're going to potentially cut down trees on a pedestrian way. That's next to a residence and put a sign. That's going to put light into bedrooms on that frontage by use. You know.

B

I mean this is kind.

J

Of like our job.

B

J

Evaluating a pud, madam.

B

Chair, may I ask or make a statement I think we've gotten a little bit into the weeds on this, um not that the weeds are unimportant, but we're already beginning to discuss. I think what the commission should be discussing within the commission rather than asking the applicant questions.

A

Yeah I can close, I can close the public hearing and we can have this discussion. If, if we prefer, then you can sit down. Sir yeah. Thank you.

E

I just want to say the tree on the east side, though, is a city street tree, so they can't cut that tree down that has to stay. They might be able to creatively trim it. Maybe, but um it's a if it's a city tree they wouldn't be able to eliminate it.

J

It's behind their fence, okay on the site and there's supposed to be two there and there's only one: okay, it's yeah! So exactly thanks for pointing that out. Yeah.

A

Thank you bert. Thank you. If there's any other questions before I close the public hearing, okay, we're going to close it, and if you want to have further discussion now is the time.

J

I'll stop, but I think I'm interested in what you guys think.

F

I guess my first point here is that it, I think there are a lot of bright offensive signs that are going up. I mean even in places we didn't expect them. I mean sherman hill's got I mordor next to uh next to white sherman, which I don't know how that got through anything.

F

So I guess I think, while I don't think we have a number figuring out what the illumination of reflecting off a sign is valuable. I think making sure here for allowing for some things to change from that making sure it's not more offensive than what we would allow otherwise seems like it'd make a whole lot of sense. um So on that side I think it would be good for us to strategically identify okay. What are we actually protecting right?

F

These are pretty bright signs. We allow and I think, to the point we shouldn't just be allowing bright signs anywhere, seeing other gas light signs like this. This doesn't seem like it's going to be offensive. They can be dimmed, they can be, they can't be filtered on the front, but strategically having us actually have a standard of saying it's not going to be worse than the other would be something I think we we should probably should be thinking about than just saying. Oh, it's under 5250, that's still really really bright.

F

That leaves a lot of leeway, so I'd be my only thought on the brightness piece, I'm not actually fundamentally opposed to this. I do think having on the side, it seems odd because you are completely covered unless you cut the tree down and trim the tree very far back, so I don't know that one I'll, let you guys debate that one, but it seems like the tree is going to go.

F

If you allow the east side, one.

B

Madam chair, the I put chris says, makes perfect sense to me.

B

I I think that the the whole notion of one of these signs, the electronic signs on the on the east elevation of the building is just not a good idea for many reasons, including the tree, including the the streetscape uh to the to the east. With the neighborhood I mean I would be willing to consider perhaps a sign on the west side of the building, but I think to have one on the east side of the building is a mistake.

A

A

M

I think will's idea is good. I'd make a motion that we approve uh the electronic sign on the west side of the building and deny the one on the east.

B

As a friendly amendment, would you include the illumination situation that bert was talking about to me.

B

Or, were you thinking about not having an electronic sign there at all on the east.

M

On the west, on the west to approve the application for an electronic sign and on the east to deny.

A

And will's saying with friendly amendment to that is to also add this illumination standard uh I mean which they would just have to do anyway, but.

M

uh Eliminate in compliance with chapter 134, 576.

A

So he accepts your amendment.

B

F

Mike the public's question is whether or not 136 is excessive. So the question is: is it's illumination on the west side that is no greater than the impact of a static sign which would still need to be calculated? That is a calculable thing. You sit out there. Let's pull the light meter up and say: okay, it's this amount, and then you make sure that the other one isn't greater than that.

F

That isn't something that is impossible, so it would be so I think what the public is saying as 576 is not sufficient for preventing offensive signs. If the question is the static sign was appropriate, they're fine, that bright red casey sign that will capture the sun it'll shine brightly. I'd almost be so surprised. If this this sign is going to be brighter than the reflection off of that red casey sign off the south side during the daytime.

F

But if we're saying from a from a precedent standard, you know what we're going to allow this as long as it's not more offensive than the reflection off of the case, you sign the south side that seems like it should be fair and prevent the problem that that the actual public is talking about.

F

I'm sorry, frank, sorry that the northern grant association is talking about.

M

I I understand what you're saying and I think that there's some wisdom in it, but I'm not comfortable adding that to the amendment, because I'm worried about setting that standard. I don't know that we have the authority in this body. I don't think we do.

M

Without that change,.

A

Okay, there's emotion: motion on the floor. um All in favor, please raise your right hand.

A

All opposed, please raise your right hand.

A

I think it passes right. The path oh and then motion carries thank you for that lively discussion. I think we have some things to think about here and thanks to casey's and to jim for coming as well.

A

We have one more item this evening: number five: a request from exodus group investments, llc represented by jarrett koenig for the following property at 1717: east army, post road 1825, east army post road in 1895, east army post road, a determination as to whether the requested rezoning is in conformance with plan dsm, b, amend the plan dsm.

A

Future land use, classification from business park and medium density, residential to industrial use, c reasoned property from ex mixed use; district to i1 industrial district, to allow use of the property for warehouse, wholesale and distribution, equipment and material storage, outdoor fabrication and production general thanks, bert.

E

All right, the chair members of the commission, bert ross planning staff for the city of des moines. As emily mentioned. The item is for rezoning in the 17 and 1800 block of east army post road. So it's a pretty significant site located just to the west, I'm sorry to the east of the intersection with southeast 14th street.

E

They have about 1980 feet of lineal frontage along east army post road.

E

It's zoned ex right now, which would allow for indus, I'm sorry for warehouse uses, but the building types in ex don't match their desired building heights so they're or allow for any limited outdoor storage. So they have requested an i1 industrial district that would allow for taller warehouses and for some outdoor storage.

E

Great, it's going to give me fits too.

E

So I have to use the same program. Frank did sorry about this.

E

All right so, as as you probably know, any rezoning request over five acres in area requires the middle of a large scale development plan. The large-scale development plans can be improved administratively, but since this is part of a rezoning, we are presenting it to the commission tonight.

E

This next page probably shows that a little bit better, so they're proposing three separate large buildings. uh These two here to the west would be new and then on the east end where there's 1825 in 1895 army post road there's an existing building here. That would be significantly expanded, with an l-shaped edition and as I'll get to later. In my presentation, there are some zoning violations right now on these two existing parcels here that we're hoping to speed or help speed up the mitigation of the zoning enforcement through some zoning conditions.

E

So here's some elevations that they've, provided that shows what these warehouse structures would look like. You can tell see that they are proposing some pretty tall warehouses.

E

And as part of the rezoning application, they were required to have the city do a traffic study and the biggest finding of the traffic study was that there needs to be some limitations on the drive approaches from east army post road. You can see that they're proposing six different drive approaches.

E

The traffic study came back and said there should really only be a total of three drive access points to this site, with two of them lining up to southeast 16th street and southeast ninth street, when those would be full full movement, inner sections and then the third access point would be a right and right out only somewhere here uh near 1825 army post road.

E

So the traffic study is still in the draft form, but in speaking with our engineering staff, they don't believe that that requirement of the traffic study is going to change or that suggestion from the traffic study. So as you'll see in our recommendation, we do recommend that the zoning hold them two, no more than three drive approaches from army post road. I believe they're going to be I'm trying to make their case for that.

E

But I'd also point out that the large-scale development plan that goes along with this rezoning in order for staff to approve it it's going to have to comply with that traffic study, which the traffic study right now is saying. No more than three drive approaches.

E

So again, staff does believe it's a great project.

E

The traffic study shows that the roads can accommodate the traffic that would be generated by this use, but we're just recommending, but the traffic study just again limiting it to those three vehicle access point.

E

So our recommendation just has five we're recommending approval subject to these five conditions, the first being those um access points again, the two full access points being aligned with southeast 16th court and southeast 19th street, and then the third one being a right and right out only near the intersection or near the entrance to the existing commercial building at 1825 east army post road. Another zoning condition that really goes without saying it's. Just all. Outdoor storage within the site shall comply with chapter 135-8.2.2.

E

Which is the section that deals with screening and whatnot for outdoor storage and we've said number three any use on the subject. Property shall be in accordance with an approved site plan again, that goes without saying, and then the last two are intended to address the current zoning violations that have been issued back in february for the two easternmost parcels.

E

And that's just that they need to submit a site plan for approval by july of this year and then obtain approval for that no later than october, 31st and then number five is that they shall bring the site into conformance with that approved site plan by may of next year. These.

D

Next communications.

E

I just wanted to show you uh are from cory: bogan reef, he's a city's principal traffic engineer, he's just more rational for why it's reasonable to limit it to three access points. Again, it really comes down to safety. Since east army post road is a high speed corridor.

E

There's some safety concerns if the if the proposed use would have those six drive approaches that they would like.

E

And then this email was just confirming that, since the traffic study is still in the draft form, saroshi had just wanted to get confirmation that that aspect of the traffic study is not going to change when it's um when it is formally approved by the engineering department and cory. Bogan reef said that it's he thinks it's okay to include this condition staff report.

E

But he doesn't believe that that aspect of the traffic study is going to change and.

D

E

This is just a letter summarizing the neighborhood outreach that was required as part of the rezoning I'll. Let dan refer to this. If he wants to and then the consent map, we did not get any cards back in support or opposition.

D

E

Yeah and then this page here, I included just in case the applicant or the commission, wanted to see. This is the page taken out of that traffic impact study that talks about access spacing, and then they say that on the corridor such as southeast or east army post road, the recommended spacing is a fourth mile so and that's for the full access intersections again being aligned with uh southeast 16th court and southeast 19th street. That would meet that one-fourth mile spacing that are there any questions for me.

F

I got two, so what is the what's the peak morning trip and peak afternoon trip impacts these driveways.

F

Do we know what that page of the traffic study? I don't I don't know, do we know if that volume of traffic is sufficient for actually resulting in signage or lighting of these two intersections, then 19th and 16th.

E

I believe uh the conclusion of the traffic study was that the proposed development could be adequately served by uh these two controlled intersections and the third right and right out only.

F

Oh so be two controlled intersections, as in there's going to be signage, there.

E

Likely dude, I don't know if there'd be stop lights or not, but it would be the main entrances from east army coast.

F

So a minimum of 250 trips per hour out of each of these driveways.

F

According to mutcd.

E

Yeah I mean the traffic study didn't indicate that was going to be an issue.

F

A

Any other questions for bert.

A

Thanks bert, is the applicant present.

A

um You can come up, say your name address and you have 10 minutes.

I

Let me scroll this back to the picture: there's a site plan, so I'm again daniel willrick, with pell's design services working with exodus direct to get this rezoning done for their project, and we did read the staff recommendation or the staff report. We do maybe have a couple of concerns with a couple of the recommendations. A couple of contingencies item one the number of entrances.

I

Yes, we show six entrances, um you know two of those are existing. That would be uh this one here and this one here, but we did. You know in talking with staff, make an effort to align two of our entrances with the existing roads which, as you can see, results in a slightly tricky approach for tractor trailers.

I

You know we obviously will design it to make it work, but you know a straight shot would be better so, um but we also wanted to try and separate some of the parking entrances uh from the truck traffic for the safety of people moving about on the on the site. So that's part of why you know we would advocate for more than just three entrances onto the site.

I

I think too, if we look at this whole site as 57 acres, if it was developed in a different way, would we be would that development be restricted to just three access points? I don't know we never really talked through that, but I got to believe if this was five or six or seven different parcels. Maybe it might be, there might be a different discussion about access.

I

I think we'd like to also ask that that continues to be removed, because we really didn't have a. We didn't get the opportunity to work through the recommendation with the traffic engineers. Maybe six is too many, but maybe three is not enough. Is there a happy medium that we can work together? We didn't get the chance to do that and we really think that that is more appropriate during site planning approval process, not rezoning.

I

We still, I mean you guys know. We still come back to you with our final site plan. This is just a concept to get the discussion going on on zoning. We have to come back with a final site plan for approval that we'll have to work through.

I

All of this stuff with the um with staff and then with you guys and council again, so I think we would like to see that number one uh component sort of be removed from the recommendation from pnz, knowing that we can address it during the site plan approval and giving our team the opportunity to work more with the city's team to really to validate.

I

You know we're kind of at two extremes: three versus six is the right answer really in the middle, um so that would be our one of our sort of uh items that we would like to to talk about and then um numbers four and five. um We understand that there's some things happening on those sites.

I

Clearly, the intent is to do work on those sites, but 1825 and 1895, and the scheme of the approach to getting this whole project done is phase three we're focusing right now on the building in the middle is phase one um and just with timing, to get through the site plan for 1717.

I

um You know we just don't see that having a site plan ready to go for those other two parcels and that timeline is pro is adequate. You know there is intent to do work there. We would be coming back to this body with the site plan on that, assuming the zoning goes through, but probably more likely towards the beginning of next year uh versus in six weeks or eight weeks or whatever it is.

I

So um I guess we would ask that either four and five maybe be, I don't know if they can be taken out, but at least maybe that date be pushed out to a set of july 22 at six months of that, so maybe it's january of 23 or something out in that range, so just push everything back, six or twelve months or whatever. So um beyond that, we also understand, there's going to be some work to do when we come back with our site plan on the building, elevations and a lot of other things.

I

So um you know that's just part of of the of the process and again the access, I think, is part of that process as well. So we're excited to uh to see these go through. We we're really just asking for the rezone approval tonight and then we can get to work on our site plan and come back to you guys with that and a little more information, a little more work with the city staff. So any questions for me.

F

What's your projected uh peak trips in in peak trips afternoon, peak trips, we.

I

Were just trying to remember that it's in it there it's in the traffic report, I feel like it was something like uh 50 semis in a day in those same 50 out in the day so in the morning and out in the evening. Potentially, so it's it's nowhere near the so there. I think there were two two by the book standards for studying traffic. It was nowhere near the higher one. It was a little bit closer to the lower one, um so that was our truck traffic.

I

Our employee traffic, I think we're talking about potentially a full build out right. This is, after all, buildings are built, something like I think it was 400 employees over three shifts.

I

So call it: what would that be 175 a shift.

F

I

F

I

So, okay, so 60 vehicles.

C

I know I'm sorry 60 employees.

I

60 employees per 100, 000 square foot of building is sort of the way that their operation works. For these types of buildings.

F

So you're, roughly at 100, plus per on your on your peak hour when you've got them coming in as a shift and going out as a shift and you've got theoretically 50 semis going out over the course of 24 hours. Is that right.

I

No, did you say three, how many semis are just we have 50 50. yeah.

F

50 and 50 out, so the justification for the less lesser driveways right now is clearly just the quarter mile separation. Is that we're talking about or is it traffic based? What was the justification for reducing driveways.

I

From what I remember is reading in the traffic study, um just on the basis, regardless of access, the feeling was that at full build out. It would not negatively impact traffic flow on army post beyond what would be expected? Were this built out some other way.

I

So, in other words, you know this this this project is not necessarily causing any infrastructure improvement to army posts that wasn't already expected by this property being developed.

I

That makes sense this that was developed. I don't they didn't give specific.

I

Examples of other types of development that they were considering when they said that they just well. I do remember, there's a quote in there somewhere that says that this development is not adversely impacting army post in a way, that's different from some other development on this site.

I

So you know we don't need turn lanes just because of this project. If turn lanes are needed, they were going to be needed anyway, when this site was developed by if it was developed by somebody else was sort of the way.

I

I read that so I I guess I don't know where the the number of act like access point com came into play in their report other than just this sort of standard of we want full access every quarter mile and you know maybe we'll give you a write-in right out halfway in between it's sort of the way.

I

I I feel about the way it reads I don't remember any sort of I mean finite data that suggests that that makes the road safer other than just maybe some experience and from the traffic engineer, and maybe I'm forgetting something in the report but yeah. I don't remember them tying it to, because you have 50 trucks coming in and 100 people coming in. That requires.

I

You only need three entrances. We feel like. We need more than that just to keep the traffic onto the off the site separate for a safety standpoint, because you know generally we'd rather have not have cars and semi sort of interacting. I know we've got one entrance that does that, but when we don't have to do that, it certainly makes it safer on-site um and I don't think we're necessarily asking for all six of those to be full access.

I

I mean certainly the two that are crossing the other roads and maybe, if we've got one that aligns with the east side of our middle building, those two being full access would be at a minimum from our standpoint and if we still get the ones that are for the parking you know, maybe those can be right in right out.

I

I think that's part of what we want to work with staff and engineering on to sort of work with ideas about how we can sort of meet in the middle, and we just haven't had a chance to do that before this meeting. Just because of timing everybody's pushing to try great project, everybody wants to see it done so we're all pushing hard to get it done. So the traffic study came in middle last week we reviewed it. We sent some comments back and then the staff report came out. We have this meeting.

I

We just haven't had a chance to sort of get together with staff again and sort of walk through it, and so that's I mean that's another reason we'd like to see that be struck from the zoning approval and you know knowing that we'll have to work through it over the next six eight weeks, while we try and get our site plan approval.

A

Any other questions.

A

Thank you, yep.

I

Ready to sign it again.

A

Yeah, uh I don't act bert, that's a question for you, I'm gonna grab my notebook. Does he need to? He doesn't need to sign in again. Does he know yeah?

A

Are there any members of the audience that wish to speak in opposition to this item any in favor any neutral.

A

All right any other questions before I close the public hearing right the public hearing is closed. What do we think.

F

I guess I I don't see making c1 a part of the zoning here, since the study isn't even done. We aren't really even sure the logic I mean it seems like we have another shot to make sure it becomes a safe location. I mean everything else seems to make sense, but the c1, which is we're going to make changes the number of entries without any data that we know of and without it sounds like a logic to what the quarter mile fully is, seems sort of premature and sets a bad precedent.

F

We're going to be making traffic decisions without actually finalized report.

A

I tend to agree with that, and I also- and maybe I'm missing something I don't see a lot of concern in um pushing out the dates as requested and unless someone points out to me why that would under number four and five he asked for the dates to be pushed out.

A

Yeah, if you want to answer that, I didn't know if I missed them, I.

E

Mean number four and five: we were purposely being aggressive just to make sure they their toes were held to the fire to get the zoning violations mitigated. But if you wanted to loosen it by a few months or I don't think, staff would strenuously object to that. Okay.

L

A

A

Any one want to make a motion.

F

So if we make a motion that actually moves staff but strikes c1 and removes the dates from four and five, does that get what we're talking about? I, I guess I didn't understand. We say by a few months what how far is a few months relative to what the plan is.

E

Well um so the dates and our recommendation just say they have to have a site plan prepared and submitted to the city by july 31st and then have that site plan formally approved by october 31st, because with the site plan, there's a submittal and then staff sends out comments. And then applicants can often sit on those comments for several months.

E

So we were wanting to have that second date as a stop gap, just to make sure that they don't submit it by july 31st, but then sit on it for another 6 or 12 months before resubmitting it for approval. So our recommendation is that there'd be some sort of date on here, just to make sure that they follow through with taking care of the zoning violations and again.

G

E

Site plan mentioned in four and five, isn't necessarily the site plan for the new warehouse building, which would be 1717 east army post road. This is just submitting a site plan for 1825 and 1995 east army post, where they've expanded the existing use to do some truck rentals and some other things that they've never had a site plan for though so again, the site plan mentioned in four and five is not necessarily the large site plan for the entire development.

E

It's just uh more or less to take care of the existing buildings, while the site is awaiting redevelopment. Does that make sense.

F

So we're in some ways requiring that they comply with what would really be an enforcement action. Otherwise, on four and five in order to actually develop the larger site. Is that the logic.

E

It's just giving incentive, or some I guess, giving the zoning enforcement some leverage to get the violations, mitigated. It's really what four and five are but you're right. If four and five weren't there, the zoning enforcement would still continue to do their viola to do their enforcement and would continue to push on them as normal.

F

Is it normal that we would couple the actions of zoning enforcement with a future development approval.

E

Yeah, if you remember last meeting, I think we had the rezoning on east 18th street. There was some of that in there as well, but they have the site plan prepared in the short term, to address some zoning violations going on there.

F

I guess I would okay, so my motion, which is open for friendly amendment, would be to move staff but strike c one four and five, but I'm open to friendly amendment if there's a rationale for bundling enforcement. So so my motion is move staff striking c145 pending someone else saying they have a strong argument. Otherwise,.

A

Any amendments.

A

All right there's a motion on the floor. All in favor, please raise your right hand.

A

And I think that is unanimous.

A

Thank you. Everyone are there any committee or directors reports all right. Our next meeting is in two weeks thanks. Everyone.

A