[0:25] We'll call this regular meeting of the
[0:26] Walke City Council to order. Will
[0:28] everyone please rise for the pledge of
[0:29] >> allegiance
[0:33] to the flag of the United States of
[0:35] America and to the republic for which it
[0:38] stands. One nation under God,
[0:41] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:43] for all.
[0:47] [clears throat]
[0:47] >> Great. Thank you. We please roll call.
[0:49] Mayor Clark
[0:50] >> here.
[0:50] >> Council member Anderson
[0:52] >> here.
[0:53] >> Council member Cone
[0:54] >> here.
[0:54] >> Council member Grove
[0:56] >> here.
[0:56] >> Council member Lion
[0:57] >> here. Council member Pierce
[0:59] >> here.
[1:00] Right. Agenda item D is open forum. Open
[1:03] forum is the time for anyone here
[1:05] tonight to address the council on any
[1:06] subject over which the council has the
[1:08] authority to act or any item on the
[1:10] agenda other than a public hearing. If
[1:12] anyone here tonight wishes to address
[1:14] the council uh and voice your comments
[1:16] or questions, you can approach the
[1:17] podium or raise your hand. I want to uh
[1:20] highlight a couple of things. So, give
[1:22] me just a minute. Uh if you're
[1:23] participating via Zoom, you can click on
[1:25] the raise hand icon located in the
[1:27] reactions controls. So, go ahead and
[1:29] approach. But, uh it's the first hand
[1:32] that I saw. Yep. Um if you want to form
[1:34] a queue, you can. Want to highlight just
[1:36] a couple of things uh since we have some
[1:38] new faces here tonight. So, the only
[1:41] public hearing we have tonight is on
[1:42] disposal of property uh related to an
[1:44] IOD DOT thing. If you're here to speak
[1:47] on that tonight, you wait until that. If
[1:49] you're here to speak on anything else,
[1:50] now is your chance. We do limit comments
[1:53] to 3 minutes in order to get everybody
[1:54] through and be out before midnight. Uh
[1:57] so, if you could limit to three minutes,
[1:59] we would appreciate that. Um and then
[2:02] please make sure to address us. Thank
[2:04] you.
[2:05] >> I promise to keep it under three
[2:06] minutes. Perfect.
[2:07] >> Oh, and you do need to state your name
[2:08] and address for the record.
[2:10] >> Yes. My name is Steve Ridge, RGE, and
[2:13] I'm a new resident at the Center Stage
[2:16] Apartments. My permanent residence,
[2:18] however, is in Marian, Iowa. And uh I'm
[2:21] a licensed private investigator and I
[2:24] think some of you already may know me. I
[2:26] have been the lead investigator,
[2:28] private investigator on the Jodie
[2:30] Hussein missing person's case for nearly
[2:35] eight years and am responsible for most
[2:37] of the progress that's been made.
[2:40] However, I'm here because I had a rude
[2:42] awakening when I arrived at u uh my new
[2:46] residence and that was my car got towed
[2:49] all of a sudden. Uh and I'd never heard
[2:52] of Croto. Uh, and I guess they gave me a
[2:55] sticker and I didn't put it on. Uh,
[2:58] however, that was not my issue. My issue
[3:01] is the way the car was, uh, extracted
[3:04] from the parking spot. Uh, pulled in an
[3:07] angle and I did about $7,000 damage.
[3:11] Brand new car, 2,000 miles. So, I'm
[3:14] still evaluating the damage, but that's
[3:16] really minor. I have met now dozens of
[3:20] people that have been affected by this.
[3:22] And so I will be filing a class action
[3:26] lawsuit against Croto very soon. Uh but
[3:30] I also wanted to recommend that the city
[3:32] council consider looking at some actions
[3:35] that municipalities can take uh to curb
[3:39] this kind of predatory behavior. Uh and
[3:42] Marian Iowa happens to be one of the few
[3:45] communities in the nation that has taken
[3:48] action. I worked with the people over
[3:50] there on this uh three about three years
[3:53] ago. So, I created a document that you
[3:57] all can have refer to. I think you have
[3:59] bigger fish to fry tonight. Uh so, I'm
[4:02] going to get out of the way and sit
[4:04] down, but I hope you'll take a look and
[4:05] I will definitely be in touch. Uh it's a
[4:08] beautiful city. Uh my wife has been
[4:11] admitted over at Story Point Kettlestone
[4:13] in the memory care unit. Uh, and I'm
[4:17] here indefinitely even though I still
[4:19] have my condominium in in Marian. So,
[4:22] I'm here to support her. So, I want to
[4:24] thank you. It's a great city, great city
[4:27] council. I met a wonderful police chief
[4:30] back here and uh I just want to thank
[4:32] you for all for your time and
[4:34] consideration. Thank you very much.
[4:36] >> Thank you.
[4:36] Steve.
[4:38] >> Uh, go ahead. Next person can approach.
[4:40] I do want to add to the something that I
[4:43] didn't mention. If it is on the agenda
[4:44] tonight, we can speak about the topic.
[4:47] If it is not, we are not permitted by
[4:49] Iowa code since this is an open meeting
[4:51] and agenda had to be published ahead of
[4:54] time. So, if it is on the agenda, we can
[4:56] speak back. That one is not. So, um if
[4:58] you would like to speak to any of us
[4:59] after the council meeting, you're
[5:00] welcome to stay. Go ahead.
[5:03] >> Madame Mayor, members of the council, my
[5:04] name is Phil Hoy, 5820 West Parkway,
[5:07] West De Moines. I'm the vice president
[5:09] of sort development real estate with HY.
[5:11] Uh this item that I'm want to speak on
[5:12] is on the agenda regarding the new
[5:15] development uh being proposed at Alys's
[5:17] Road and and Hickman. Uh in particular,
[5:19] the the traffic uh study is really what
[5:22] I want to speak to and we did submit a
[5:25] letter to you earlier today. Uh we
[5:28] received a copy of the revised traffic
[5:30] study. Um we actually we received a copy
[5:32] of the original traffic study um last week and provided a letter to the
[5:38] planning commission with some concerns
[5:40] and presented those concerns to planning
[5:41] commission. Uh they they spoke about
[5:44] those concerns at the meeting um and the
[5:46] condition that planning commission gave
[5:48] was uh recommended approval with an
[5:50] updated traffic study. So we received
[5:52] that uh late Friday it would have been
[5:56] and so we u reviewed that as best we
[5:58] could and then submitted what we have
[6:00] for questions concerns remaining um will
[6:03] admit they did a tremendous job in a
[6:05] short amount of time from planning
[6:06] commission to last Friday to address
[6:08] some of those concerns that we had. So I
[6:10] want to acknowledge they did uh make
[6:12] some adjustments, changes,
[6:14] modifications, updates. Um a pretty
[6:17] meaningful accomplishment in a short
[6:18] amount of time. Obviously, staff then
[6:21] had to review those uh changes and turn
[6:23] around in a day, the comments um that
[6:26] they've provided to you likely in your
[6:28] staff report. We still have a few more
[6:30] which I highlighted in my letter. So,
[6:31] I'm not going to read the letter to you.
[6:32] I just want to pull out a few main items
[6:35] and just really make our position clear
[6:37] what we'd like to ask of you. Um, so the the study and some of the comments
[6:42] from the consultants uh addressed
[6:45] continued issues specifically the
[6:47] southbound turn movements on Alys's Road
[6:50] and Hickman. The Q links will back up
[6:53] longer than is provided for uh currently
[6:56] and there's really no solution provided
[6:58] for or discussed uh in that regard.
[7:00] There's an exhibit on page 13, similar
[7:03] to my concern I had on the planning
[7:05] commission evening that allocates 90% of
[7:07] the traffic generated, but leaves off
[7:10] the other 10, calls it local roads, but
[7:11] there are no local roads contributing to
[7:13] the traffic because there's no other
[7:15] local road access to that property. So,
[7:17] there's still 10% of the traffic that's
[7:18] missing from the study. Um, these might
[7:21] be small things, minor things. Um but in
[7:24] addition to those things, one of the
[7:26] other uh recommendations is a is some
[7:29] restriping on the H high property, our
[7:31] property. Um and while the developer did
[7:33] reach out uh when we sent the letter to
[7:35] the planning commission um and expressed
[7:38] a willingness to talk, um we have had no
[7:41] conversations about potential solutions
[7:43] to our site. And as you would all know,
[7:45] there's been lots of changes out on our
[7:48] property over the years. the signal
[7:49] that's there. We we paid for that signal
[7:52] a number of years ago. Um so we've been
[7:55] very invested in making sure that our
[7:57] customers and the community around that
[7:59] area can access the area safely and
[8:01] efficiently. And so we obviously have an
[8:03] interest that that continues. And so we
[8:06] respectfully ask that the city council
[8:08] consider a two four-week time frame here
[8:12] where we can actually really dig into
[8:14] the solutions that are being proposed
[8:16] and make sure that they do work for
[8:18] everybody. Um we would like to have a
[8:20] seat at the table at those solutions, a
[8:22] table that we've not yet been to. Um so
[8:24] that would be our ask. And if if the
[8:26] city council um does move forward
[8:30] regardless of our request um then we
[8:32] have some conditions that we've
[8:33] requested you make on the approval if
[8:36] you decide to go that direction as well
[8:37] which is provided for in the letter to
[8:39] you.
[8:40] >> Thank you.
[8:42] >> I believe that um Rudy will speak at
[8:44] length about the traffic study in a
[8:46] little bit and so we will hear more on
[8:47] that as well. Um
[8:50] another Yep. Go ahead.
[8:57] Uh, Mayor Clark, council members, good
[8:59] evening. My name is Robert Bell. I live
[9:01] at 135 Southeast Trillium Drive here in
[9:04] Walke.
[9:06] I'm here tonight as a Walke parent and
[9:08] resident to respectfully ask that you
[9:10] reconsider the proposed amendment to
[9:11] chapter 135 regarding children playing
[9:14] in the streets.
[9:16] Um, I want to make something clear. I
[9:18] support safe streets. I support
[9:20] responsible parenting and I support
[9:22] reasonable rules that protect our
[9:24] children's drivers and pedestrians. This
[9:26] is an argument about safety. It's an
[9:29] argument about proportionality.
[9:31] Lock key already has an ordinance
[9:33] prohibiting playing games in the streets
[9:34] and alleyways.
[9:36] The proposed amendment goes farther by
[9:38] making parents responsible for allowing
[9:40] that conduct and making violations of
[9:42] the code a misdemeanor.
[9:45] That's a significant escalation.
[9:49] My biggest concern is not what this
[9:50] ordinance is intended to do. It's what
[9:53] it could become in practice.
[9:55] Imagine a quiet residential street or
[9:57] culde-sac where neighborhood kids
[9:59] routinely play, ride bikes, kick a
[10:01] soccer ball, play street hockey.
[10:05] They're not running recklessly into
[10:07] traffic. They're not intentionally
[10:09] interfering with vehicles. They're
[10:11] simply playing outside with kids. They
[10:13] live around them.
[10:16] Now imagine a disagreement develops
[10:18] between neighbors. [clears throat]
[10:20] Under this ordinance, a neighbor could
[10:22] repeatedly report those children.
[10:25] Police could be called, parents
[10:26] contacted. Ultimately, those parents
[10:29] could potentially face criminal charges
[10:31] for what they believed is letting their
[10:33] kids use something that was ordinary
[10:35] neighborhood play.
[10:37] Now, a law doesn't have to be
[10:38] intentionally abused or create create
[10:40] the possibility of abuse. That's why I
[10:43] believe we need to be very clear about
[10:44] creating criminal liability around
[10:46] broadly defined conduct.
[10:49] And if safety is truly the objective,
[10:52] I believe we should regulate based on
[10:54] actual safety risk.
[10:57] The proposed language treats every every
[10:59] street essentially the same.
[11:02] It doesn't distinguish between a busy
[11:03] roadway and quiet residential
[11:05] culde-sacs.
[11:07] It simply prohibits playing games on
[11:08] streets and alleys.
[11:11] Why not consider measurable factors such
[11:12] as traffic volume, vehicle speeds,
[11:15] roadway classifications, visibility, or
[11:17] other legitimate safety concerns?
[11:20] A quiet neighborhood street with very
[11:23] little traffic presents a fundamentally different risk than a busy
[11:26] collector collector street or arterial
[11:28] road.
[11:30] If the concern is safety, let's measure
[11:33] the risk, not simply the existence of a
[11:35] street. There's something else worth
[11:38] considering.
[11:39] Neighborhood play isn't just kids
[11:41] occupying the street. It's children
[11:43] getting outside, getting physically
[11:45] active, learning to cooperate,
[11:48] developing independence, building
[11:50] relationships. We should be encouraging
[11:52] this behavior. I'm not asking to abandon
[11:55] safety.
[11:57] I'm [clears throat] asking you to write
[11:58] an ordinance that recognizes the
[12:00] difference between genu genuinely
[12:02] dangerous conduct and ordinary
[12:03] childhood.
[12:05] Protect our children. Respect parents.
[12:08] address real safety hazards, but don't
[12:11] create a criminal penalty that can turn
[12:13] ordinary neighborhood disagreements into
[12:15] legal problems. We can have safe streets
[12:17] without criminalizing normal childhood.
[12:21] >> Sir, your three minutes is up. Can you
[12:24] conclude, please?
[12:25] >> Yes. I I respectfully ask the council to
[12:27] reject the mis misdemeanor provision as
[12:30] it's currently written. Thank you.
[12:34] So, I've received a lot of emails on
[12:36] this topic as I believe most of council
[12:38] has when we've explained back the
[12:41] rationale and what is happening on a
[12:43] couple of streets in our in our
[12:45] community. Um, there's been very little
[12:47] concern after that. So, hopefully once
[12:49] you hear the chief speak on it, we'll be
[12:51] able to kind of assuage some of those
[12:53] concerns. Um, your your quest is valid.
[12:57] Uh, are there additional people who
[12:59] would like to speak? There is a hand
[13:02] raised in Zoom.
[13:03] >> Okay, we'll take the Zoom first and then
[13:04] you can come up. [clears throat]
[13:08] Just a moment.
[13:10] This would be Courtney.
[13:13] uh, it is your turn to speak.
[13:17] >> Good evening, Mayor Clark and members of
[13:18] the city council. My name is Courtney
[13:20] Mishepsky. I am a direct descendant of
[13:22] six pioneer families with deep roots in
[13:24] the history of this area.
[13:26] >> The Hammond address. Um, Courtney, I I
[13:29] do need you to state your address for
[13:30] the record, too.
[13:32] >> I live in Fredericksburg, Virginia
[13:33] currently. Um, but I am a direct
[13:36] descendant of six pioneer families with
[13:37] deep roots in the history of the area.
[13:39] The Hammond, Sprag, Reed, Gibler, Zuck,
[13:43] and Burkholder families.
[13:45] I am here to oppose the proposed
[13:47] amendment to city code section 135.04.
[13:51] I have read both the existing code and
[13:53] the proposed amendment. My objection is
[13:55] not based on a misunderstanding of
[13:56] either. I understand the city's concern
[13:59] about children playing in traffic. The
[14:01] issue is whether this amendment
[14:02] addresses that problem with the
[14:04] precision expected of a criminal
[14:05] ordinance.
[14:07] For context, Mayor Clark explained in an
[14:09] email to me, and I quote, "I want to
[14:10] give you some context that I think will
[14:12] help clarify things, stating that the
[14:14] amendment originated from one specific
[14:16] situation involving a child playing in
[14:18] the street where parents allegedly
[14:20] refused multiple requests to stop the
[14:21] conduct. That explains the motivation
[14:23] for the amendment. It does not justify
[14:25] creating a townwide criminal liability
[14:27] provision without clearly defining its
[14:29] limits. Mayor Clark also explained that
[14:32] enforcement will be limited to quote
[14:34] unquote extreme and rare circumstances
[14:36] after parental notice and refusal to
[14:38] correct the conduct. If those are the
[14:40] limits, they belong in the ordinance,
[14:42] not in an email explaining how the
[14:43] ordinance is intended to be enforced.
[14:46] The underlying prohibition may not be
[14:48] new. The legal consequence for parents
[14:50] is consider the Walke Cemetery.
[14:54] Sixth Street is a historic roadway and
[14:56] there is no protective barrier between
[14:57] the roadway and the graves along its
[14:59] edge. When I take my four-year-old
[15:01] daughter to visit our family graves,
[15:03] simply stepping out of our vehicle onto
[15:05] those public rights of way could
[15:06] technically expose me to a misdemeanor
[15:08] and a fine of up to $855.
[15:11] A parent could also have a vehicle
[15:13] emergency with children in the car and
[15:14] need to move those children into a safer
[15:16] position along a public ride ofway. That
[15:18] is not children playing in traffic. The
[15:20] ordinance should say so. If the city's
[15:23] actual objective is to address parents
[15:25] who knowingly allow dangerous street
[15:27] play after notice and refusal to correct
[15:29] it, then write that standard into the
[15:31] law. Do not enact broader criminal
[15:33] language and rely on enforcement
[15:35] discretion to narrow it afterward. I
[15:37] urge the council to reject this
[15:38] amendment and require a precise reddraft
[15:41] that addresses the actual safety problem
[15:42] without creating unnecessary criminal
[15:44] exposure for ordinary family activity.
[15:47] Thank you.
[15:49] >> Thank you. I uh I have to admit I've
[15:53] been a little bit surprised by some of
[15:54] the emails I've gotten that seem to
[15:56] think it's okay for children to play in
[15:57] the streets on the regular basis. I
[15:59] understand neighborhood play. Uh kids
[16:02] play in the streets all the time in my
[16:03] neighborhood. however they move when
[16:05] cars come down. What we're addressing
[16:07] today is that that is not happening.
[16:09] in a neighborhood.
[16:12] And in fact, it's caused police issues.
[16:15] Um I don't think we should be expending
[16:16] police resources to take multiple calls
[16:20] to the same neighborhoods again and again to address issues. Um so
[16:24] your your comments are appreciated.
[16:27] Go ahead.
[16:29] >> Okay.
[16:30] >> All right. Good evening. My name is
[16:32] Keith Seashore and I live at 2700
[16:35] Northwest 167th Court in Clive, Iowa and
[16:39] my lot butts directly up to the proposed
[16:42] Walmart. So I am heavily and negatively
[16:45] impacted by this potential placement.
[16:47] So, I'm here to share some concerns
[16:49] today that I have around the location
[16:52] and also suggest some potential changes
[16:54] that would really help maintain my
[16:56] property value as it does unfortunately,
[16:59] if it does unfortunately move forward.
[17:01] First, this is not the right location.
[17:03] There are very few Walmarts that back up
[17:06] to a residential area. Most Walmarts are
[17:08] fully surrounded by commercial areas all
[17:11] around and avoid any of the negative
[17:14] pitfalls of being close to residents. I
[17:16] will point out that there was a
[17:18] potential Ankeny Walmart that was
[17:19] proposed in 2024 backed up to
[17:22] residential area that did not move
[17:25] forward due to significant homeowner
[17:27] opposition. And I really see no
[17:29] difference here. Second is a homeowner
[17:31] who is impacted likely the most of
[17:34] anyone in the community and whose lot is
[17:36] the closest to the store. The location
[17:39] of the auto center along with the
[17:41] docking placement and trash will be very
[17:42] disruptive to my property and
[17:44] surrounding neighborhoods. Excessive
[17:46] noise from the auto center, Walmart's
[17:48] recycling bins and semis potentially
[17:52] dropping off shipments at all hours of
[17:54] the night on the northern end will be a
[17:55] major disruptive experience. At the very
[17:58] least, I would hope the following could
[18:01] be mandated by this council. There
[18:03] should be a requirement to ensure a
[18:05] planting of a significant number of
[18:07] mature evergreen trees in order to
[18:09] create a densely populated visual
[18:11] barrier between the back of the store
[18:13] and my property line. This is really
[18:15] important in the late fall winter when
[18:17] the leaves that currently exist fall off
[18:20] and you can have direct sight of line
[18:21] into that building. The plan does not
[18:24] show how many trees nor the size of the
[18:26] trees that will be planted. From other
[18:28] stores that I have seen where there is a
[18:30] tree barrier line, many times I see
[18:32] three-foot trees, half of them are dead
[18:34] in the middle of the summer. Doesn't do
[18:36] any good. I think Walmart could do much
[18:38] better and make sure that we have a
[18:40] large set of mature evergreen trees that
[18:43] are covering my my sightelines um in my
[18:46] property. And then secondly, light
[18:49] should be placed and controlled at a
[18:50] minimum glare to make sure there's no
[18:52] spill over spill over into my yard. And
[18:55] then finally, an 8- foot sound barrier
[18:57] wall on the segment, the segmental
[19:00] retaining wall between the store and my
[19:02] property on the northeast perimeter
[19:04] should be a reasonable and required
[19:06] element of the site plan versus what
[19:09] exists right now with just a cheap 4ft
[19:11] chain link fence. That could we could do
[19:13] much better there. And that type of wall
[19:16] would really help minimize it sounds
[19:18] from the store potentially coming into
[19:19] my property. Walmart's value is almost
[19:22] $1 trillion. These ass are very minimal.
[19:25] It won't have any impact on the
[19:28] profitability of this store, but would
[19:30] have a big impact on our property, the
[19:32] one that I own. And finally, I would
[19:34] just say if this was your property, any
[19:36] of you, I think you would ask for
[19:38] similar concessions and making sure that
[19:40] your value is protected the best that it
[19:43] could. And these couple things that I
[19:45] would request are very minimal and very
[19:48] affordable and would help me
[19:49] tremendously. Thank you.
[19:51] >> Thank you. You Thank you. Thank you. Uh
[19:53] your points are well taken. Um I I know
[19:56] that we've been in communication around
[19:59] buffering and so hopefully we'll speak
[20:01] to that tonight, but we will continue to
[20:03] work on that if it if it moves forward.
[20:06] Thank you.
[20:08] Any other comments?
[20:14] Interesting. Zoom. Okay.
[20:16] An open forum is closed.
[20:21] Agenda item E is agenda approval. Can I
[20:23] get a motion? Move to approve.
[20:25] >> Second.
[20:26] >> Any discussion?
[20:28] >> Please vote.
[20:30] >> Council member Cone,
[20:31] >> yes.
[20:31] >> Council member Grove,
[20:33] >> yes.
[20:33] >> Council member Lion,
[20:34] >> yes.
[20:34] >> Council member Anderson,
[20:36] >> yes.
[20:36] >> Council member Pierce,
[20:37] >> yes.
[20:39] Agenda item G1, it's a public hearing on
[20:41] the disposal of real estate in
[20:42] accordance with Iowa Code 364.7. I doubt
[20:45] declared this public hearing open.
[20:47] Becky, have we received any
[20:48] correspondence on this?
[20:49] >> No. and unreceived in the city clerk's
[20:50] office. Thank you, Rudy.
[20:53] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening,
[20:54] council members. Up on the screen is a
[20:56] map displaying um the rightway to be
[20:59] transferred to the state of Iowa,
[21:00] specifically even the Iowa Department of
[21:02] Transportation. Outlined in the red
[21:05] polygon up on that map, this is the
[21:06] interchange of Interstate 80 and Grand
[21:08] Prairie Parkway. Uh on the north, um the
[21:11] city of Walke on the south of this
[21:13] interchange, the city of West De Moines.
[21:15] Um working through our Grand Prairie
[21:17] Parkway corridor enhancement project. if
[21:19] you're familiar with that, we've
[21:20] discussed that at prior workshops. Um,
[21:22] recently just uh reviewed those bids um
[21:25] received um going through that rightway
[21:27] investigation. We noticed we did not
[21:29] transfer this to the Iowa DOT as we were
[21:32] anticipated to do, expected to do as
[21:34] part of that interchange construction
[21:35] project um several years ago. So this is
[21:38] really a cleanup item transferring the
[21:41] necessary rightway to the DOT so they
[21:43] can continue with their responsibility
[21:44] for maintenance of the interchange
[21:46] itself controlling access um distances
[21:48] and locations as well. Uh we've worked
[21:51] with the District 1 staff to verify the
[21:52] area outlined in red works for their
[21:55] continued and future maintenance efforts
[21:57] as well as it preserves our efforts in
[21:59] that northeast quadrant with our U
[22:01] monument signing that we're proposing
[22:02] with that enhancement project um and
[22:05] access to that area as well. So, uh,
[22:07] with that, happy to take any questions,
[22:09] but again, this is a transfer to the
[22:11] state of Iowa for that right away.
[22:13] >> Thank you. Does anyone here tonight,
[22:15] either in the council chambers or on
[22:16] Zoom, wish to speak on this public
[22:18] hearing item? If so, please approach the
[22:20] podium or click on the raise hand icon
[22:22] located in the reactions controls.
[22:29] There are no hands raised in Zoom. Does
[22:32] council have any questions at this time?
[22:35] Okay. Now, declare this public hearing
[22:37] closed. Agenda item H1, consideration of
[22:40] approval of a resolution authorizing the
[22:41] disposal of real estate in accordance
[22:43] with Iowa code 364.7. We have to
[22:45] approve.
[22:46] >> Second.
[22:47] >> Anything further, Rudy?
[22:49] >> Nothing to add. City staff did work with
[22:51] the city legal staff to um prepare the
[22:54] quick claim dee and so that's what we
[22:55] will be transferring over to the state
[22:56] of Iowa via that methodology. So, if
[22:58] there's any questions of that, happy to
[23:00] take those. But we again recommend
[23:02] approving the resolution.
[23:03] >> Thank you. Any questions?
[23:06] Please vote.
[23:08] >> Council member Pierce,
[23:09] >> yes.
[23:10] >> Council member Grove,
[23:11] >> yes.
[23:11] >> Council member Anderson,
[23:13] >> yes.
[23:13] >> Council member Lion,
[23:14] >> yes.
[23:15] >> Council member Cone,
[23:16] >> yes.
[23:18] Agenda item H1, consent agenda. Can I
[23:21] get a motion?
[23:22] >> Move to approve. Second.
[23:25] >> Any discussion?
[23:29] » Please vote. Council member Cone.
[23:31] >> Yes.
[23:32] >> Council member Lion.
[23:33] >> Yes. Council member Grove,
[23:34] >> yes.
[23:35] >> Council member Pierce,
[23:36] >> yes.
[23:37] >> Council member Anderson,
[23:38] >> yes.
[23:39] >> Item H2, consideration of approval of an
[23:42] ordinance for the division of revenues
[23:43] under section 403.19 code of Iowa for
[23:45] the North Walke residential urban
[23:47] renewal area 2026 ordinance parcels.
[23:49] This is a second reading. Move to
[23:51] approve the second reading of the
[23:52] ordinance and title only.
[23:55] >> Second,
[23:56] >> Jennifer.
[23:57] >> Good evening, mayor and councel. Um, as
[24:00] you just mentioned, this is the second
[24:01] reading of the 2026 uh, TIFF ordinance
[24:04] parcel in the North Walke uh,
[24:06] residential urban renewal area. These t
[24:09] parcels, excuse me, are are are
[24:12] highlighted here in green on the screen.
[24:14] Um, as you know, uh, this these uh, this
[24:17] tiff ordinances is due to the last uh,
[24:20] 12 months of development in this area
[24:22] and anticipated uh, development as well.
[24:25] Um the ordinance uh does establish the
[24:28] uh city's ability to capture uh tiff
[24:31] increment. Uh we would recommend um the
[24:34] second reading of the ordinance. If you
[24:36] have any questions, happy to answer
[24:37] them.
[24:38] >> Thank you. Uh any questions,
[24:45] » please vote.
[24:46] >> Council member Cone,
[24:47] >> yes.
[24:48] >> Council member Grove,
[24:49] >> yes.
[24:49] >> Council member Pierce,
[24:51] >> yes.
[24:51] >> Council member Anderson,
[24:52] >> yes. Council member Lion.
[24:54] >> Yes.
[24:55] >> Item H3, consideration of approval of an
[24:58] ordinance to amend chapter 135 of the
[24:59] Walke Municipal Code regarding playing
[25:01] in streets or alleys. This is also a
[25:03] second reading.
[25:04] >> I move to approve the second reading in
[25:06] the ordinance and title only.
[25:08] >> Second, Chief.
[25:11] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um,
[25:12] this ordinance was brought uh forth at
[25:15] the last council meeting for
[25:16] introduction and first reading. And as
[25:18] you may recall, even though one incident
[25:21] um made us realize the gap in the
[25:23] ordinance, as we grow um that gap is
[25:25] going to become wider. And what I mean
[25:27] by that is currently the way the code is
[25:30] written um if we have a problem with
[25:32] children playing in the street, our
[25:34] alternative is to charge that child with
[25:35] a simple misdemeanor. And we don't want
[25:37] to do that. Um so the amendment to this
[25:40] code takes that responsibility off of
[25:43] the kid and puts it back on the parents.
[25:45] Um the likelihood of us using this is
[25:48] slim and I know that's no comfort to
[25:50] some. However, uh our team uses uh good
[25:53] judgment every single day and they talk
[25:55] to people every single day and they
[25:56] educate people every single day on
[25:58] hundreds and hundreds of laws that we
[26:00] have at our disposal that we never
[26:01] charge. Um but the goal is if we did get
[26:05] into a situation where somebody just
[26:06] refuses to obey the law, we need to be
[26:09] able to enforce the law. and currently
[26:11] charging a child with a simple
[26:13] misdemeanor for playing in the street is
[26:15] not practical. Um, so this this
[26:19] amendment would take that to the parent.
[26:21] I do also want to be clear that the
[26:23] simple misdemeanor is a city code
[26:24] violation and it is no different than an
[26:27] animal at large ticket. There's no
[26:29] fingerprints, there's no mugsh shot,
[26:32] there's no um federal criminal history
[26:34] that goes with it. Um, yes, it would
[26:36] show up on Iowa courts as a city code
[26:38] violation, but it is the exact same
[26:40] charge as a dog at large ticket. And the
[26:43] reason for that is because our city code
[26:45] under section 1.14 defines a standard
[26:48] penalty of any city code violation as a
[26:50] simple misdemeanor just flat across the
[26:52] board. Um, and that's just the way that the law works. We have to have a
[26:56] penalty in our code and um, by our code,
[27:00] the standard penalty is a civil
[27:01] misdemeanor. So whether you get written
[27:03] a ticket for a dog at large or whether
[27:05] you get cited for allowing your kids to
[27:07] play on the street, it's the exact same
[27:08] thing.
[27:10] Along with that, um
[27:13] I [clears throat] also Mr. Bell's
[27:15] comments uh about there are there are
[27:17] different risks with different roadways.
[27:19] are. However, um number one, it's
[27:23] impractical to separate out specific
[27:25] streets and code, but number two, those
[27:27] vehicles backing out of driveways or
[27:29] pulling out of driveways in the streets
[27:31] actually create just as much problem as
[27:34] a uh you know, street that's heavily
[27:37] traveled. Now, certainly not to the
[27:39] level of Pikmin or University or Grand
[27:41] Prairie, right? Um, but those parents
[27:43] that back out of their driveway and um
[27:46] are used to doing that on a daily basis,
[27:48] I would argue are probably paying less
[27:50] attention uh than those kids, those
[27:51] parents that are driving down the street
[27:53] on maybe a collector street or something
[27:55] of that nature. So, um we do feel that the the amendment is necessary and
[28:01] we feel that it's justified.
[28:02] Additionally, to the comment online,
[28:06] I can't pronounce Courtney's last name.
[28:08] I apologize, Courtney. Um, but to your
[28:10] comment, the code is clear on what we're
[28:13] talking about, and that is it is
[28:15] unlawful for any person to coast, sled,
[28:17] or play games in streets or alleys. The
[28:19] code says nothing about stepping outside
[28:21] of a vehicle to cross a street or to get
[28:24] to a sidewalk or walking down the side
[28:26] of a street in the essentially in the
[28:28] gutter area where you're not in the
[28:30] travel lane. Uh, the code is very very
[28:32] clear on what is uh prohibited by this
[28:35] section. We're not changing that at all.
[28:38] Again, today if we were to enforce it, would be enforced against the child.
[28:42] And our preference is to change that to
[28:43] where we speak with the parents. If the
[28:46] parents refuse to comply after multiple
[28:48] times of talking to them, then we could
[28:50] charge that. Additionally, the court
[28:53] process is designed where we have to
[28:55] show our case and we have to go and
[28:57] prove our case beyond a reasonable
[28:58] doubt. So, a situation where a neighbor
[29:00] calls in on another neighbor, it we're
[29:02] not going to take something that's a he
[29:04] said, she said incident to court because
[29:05] we can't prove that beyond a reasonable
[29:07] doubt. We're going to have to have this
[29:08] the evidence sufficient to do that as we
[29:11] would with any other case. So, hopefully
[29:13] that quells a little bit of that. I know
[29:14] there's still some concerns. I
[29:16] understand that. But ultimately, streets
[29:18] are for vehicles. They're designed for
[29:20] cars. They're designed for traffic.
[29:21] They're not designed for people. And
[29:23] what we're trying to do is keep our kids
[29:25] safe. We're trying to keep Mr. Bell's
[29:26] kids safe. We're trying to keep other uh
[29:28] people in the community safe. So with
[29:30] that, I'll take any questions.
[29:32] >> Thank you. Any questions?
[29:34] >> Chad, to be clear, this is state law,
[29:38] correct?
[29:38] >> There is a state law that co that
[29:40] corresponds with this. Yes. State law
[29:42] says that cities are required to keep um
[29:44] streets free of um it defines it as
[29:47] nuisance. I believe um which is anything
[29:50] that prohibits or conflicts with vehicle
[29:52] traffic. So, there is a state law that
[29:54] this city code is based off of.
[29:56] Additionally, I would say that, and I
[29:59] haven't gone and looked, but if you
[30:02] researched any city in the United
[30:04] States, chances are you're going to find
[30:06] the exact same language. Uh, because
[30:08] when I was in Kansas, we had the exact
[30:10] same language. Windsor Heights has the
[30:11] exact same language. Clive, Urbandale,
[30:13] uh, we were talking at Chief's meeting,
[30:15] they have the exact same language. So,
[30:16] this is not an US thing.
[30:20] >> Thank you.
[30:21] >> Other questions? What is the difference
[30:23] um with the it just being ticketed like
[30:27] if you parked on the side of the road
[30:29] when you weren't supposed to during the
[30:30] snow to like a ticket that's a simple
[30:33] misdemeanor.
[30:34] >> So a traffic infraction um are things
[30:36] that are outlined by state code which we
[30:39] adopt as a city code. So like speeding
[30:41] and stuff of that nature. Those are
[30:43] traffic infractions that are specific to
[30:46] um the Iowa code 321 that deals with
[30:48] traffic. because this is a city code. Um
[30:51] that is something that the city adopts
[30:53] that we don't enforce under state code.
[30:55] And again, our uh code of ordinances
[30:58] under section 1.14 at the beginning
[31:00] defines any penalty for any violation of
[31:03] city code as a simple misdemeanor.
[31:08] » Anything else?
[31:12] » Please help.
[31:20] Council member Grove,
[31:21] >> yes.
[31:22] >> Council member Anderson,
[31:24] >> yes.
[31:24] >> Council member Cone,
[31:26] >> yes.
[31:26] >> Council member Lion,
[31:27] >> yes.
[31:28] >> Council member Pierce,
[31:29] >> yes.
[31:32] Agenda item H4, consideration of
[31:34] approval of an ordinance to amend
[31:36] chapter 26 park regulations by amending
[31:39] section 26.12 dogs restricted to rename
[31:42] section 21 26.12 as dogs and to include
[31:46] dog park rules and regulations. It's
[31:48] definitely a Monday. Uh third and final
[31:51] reading on this one. Go ahead.
[31:54] [laughter]
[31:55] Move to approve the third reading of the
[31:57] ordinance and title only and place it on
[31:58] final passage. Second, Matt,
[32:01] >> I have nothing further to add from the
[32:03] first two readings. As a reminder, this
[32:05] is a cleanup uh to put the dog park
[32:08] rules from a resolution into the
[32:10] ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any
[32:13] questions you might have.
[32:17] » Please vote.
[32:19] >> Council member Cone,
[32:20] >> yes.
[32:20] >> Council member Lion,
[32:21] >> yes.
[32:22] >> Council member Grove,
[32:23] >> yes.
[32:23] >> Council member Anderson,
[32:24] >> yes.
[32:25] >> Council member Pierce,
[32:26] >> yes.
[32:28] Item H5, consideration of approval of a
[32:30] resolution approving development
[32:31] agreement with Alderbrook LLC, Jay
[32:33] Lararsson Holmes LLC, and Walke Commons
[32:35] LLC at 310th Street, Can I get a motion?
[32:42] >> Move to approve.
[32:43] >> Second, Andy.
[32:44] >> All right. Good evening, Mayor Clark and
[32:46] council members. Uh, before you tonight
[32:48] is consideration of a developers
[32:49] agreement um with Alderbrook LLC, Jay
[32:52] Lararsson Holmes LLC, and Walke Commons
[32:55] LLC. Um really the driver of this
[32:58] development agreement is the um hotmix
[33:01] asphalt or HMA overlay of 310th Street.
[33:04] Uh it's about 1.15 miles worth of uh
[33:08] asphalt overlay of 310th Street. That
[33:10] would be just uh west of the southwest
[33:13] corner. So this property right here, if
[33:15] you can see on the screen where I've got
[33:16] my my little red dot, that's the
[33:18] southwest corner of the civic campus
[33:20] property that the city owns. Uh the city
[33:22] previously asked did an asphalt overlay
[33:24] of UP place and then the rest of 310
[33:27] street out towards Sixth Street. This
[33:29] would be an asphalt overlay of the
[33:31] remainder of 310 street over to T Avenue
[33:33] and then a short section of T Avenue to
[33:36] the northwest corner of the Alderbrook
[33:38] property. Um in addition uh the
[33:40] development agreement outlines the
[33:42] responsibility of uh inst installation
[33:45] of a public water man along this roadway
[33:47] as well. And really the whole purpose of
[33:49] this agreement is because there are
[33:51] several uh residential uh subdivisions
[33:54] um either under construction now um
[33:56] within this area or in the near future
[33:59] will be under construction. Uh they have
[34:01] a need to get this asphalt overlay
[34:04] completed probably sooner rather than
[34:05] later. Uh so that way we uh kind of quit
[34:08] getting some dust complaint uh dust
[34:10] complaints. And then in addition, there
[34:12] are uh these developments also need
[34:14] public water main um access to them for
[34:16] future fire flows and things like that.
[34:18] So um city staff has worked with uh the
[34:20] three different parties. Um they've all
[34:22] agreed to pay their fair share. Uh the
[34:25] agreement outlines the responsibilities
[34:27] um for this and the city attorney has
[34:29] prepared the agreement and staff
[34:31] recommends approval of the development
[34:32] agreement. Happy to take any questions.
[34:35] >> Thank you. Any questions?
[34:38] >> I have one quick question. Um, I
[34:40] remember we had um we had a couple of
[34:42] residents that came to us um about
[34:45] development in this area and had some
[34:47] concerns about the construction traffic
[34:49] creating dust in their house. Is that
[34:51] the same
[34:52] >> that this would be kind of the same
[34:53] area? Yep.
[34:54] >> Okay. Yep.
[34:55] >> Um Okay. I just wanted I was just
[34:56] curious if it was that resident that was
[34:58] impacted or if this was
[35:00] >> uh this would this would aid in some of
[35:02] those dust control complaints for
[35:04] several of those residents within this
[35:06] area.
[35:06] >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep.
[35:10] Please vote.
[35:13] >> Council member Grove,
[35:14] >> yes.
[35:14] >> Council member Cone,
[35:15] >> yes.
[35:16] >> Council member Pierce,
[35:17] >> yes.
[35:18] >> Council member Anderson,
[35:19] >> yes.
[35:19] >> Council member Lion,
[35:20] >> yes.
[35:22] >> Item H6, consideration of approval of a
[35:25] resolution approving construction
[35:26] drawings for 310th Street and T Avenue.
[35:29] Move to approve. Second, Andy. I I think
[35:32] I pretty much described what's all
[35:34] included in these plans, but uh this
[35:35] includes again about 1.15 mile worth of
[35:39] uh asphalt overlay of 310th Street.
[35:41] Again, west of UP Place and then over to
[35:43] T Avenue and then just south uh to the
[35:46] north northwest corner of the Alderbrook
[35:48] development, which is this area here
[35:49] that's shown on that I'm pointing to
[35:51] here with the red dot. Um the Alder
[35:54] Brook development would con continue to
[35:56] do phases of a asphalt overlay of um uh
[36:00] T Avenue as they continue to complete
[36:02] their various phases of that project. Um
[36:04] in addition, there's a 12-in water man
[36:06] that would be extended along 310th
[36:09] Street and then it would transition to
[36:10] an 18-in water man as it goes south
[36:12] along T Avenue. Uh staff is recommending
[36:15] approval of the construction plans for
[36:17] 310th Street and T Avenue. I'm happy to
[36:19] take any questions. Any questions?
[36:24] Please vote.
[36:26] >> Council member Cone,
[36:27] >> yes.
[36:27] >> Council member Pierce,
[36:28] >> yes.
[36:29] >> Council member Lion,
[36:30] >> yes.
[36:31] >> Council member Anderson,
[36:32] >> yes.
[36:32] >> Council member Grove,
[36:33] >> yes.
[36:35] >> Item H7, Allison Hickman Development.
[36:38] H7A, consideration of approval of a
[36:41] resolution approving preliminary plat.
[36:43] Can I get a motion?
[36:45] >> Move to approve.
[36:46] >> Second.
[36:48] >> All right. Um, so I'll present on items
[36:50] uh 7A and B here because they're
[36:53] essentially the same request just a
[36:55] little bit different document. Uh, but
[36:56] the owner is Herd Land Company uh LLC.
[36:59] The applicant is Orange Development LLC
[37:02] and the owner and applicant are
[37:03] requesting approval of a preliminary
[37:05] plat and a final plat for a commercial
[37:06] development. Uh, the property is
[37:08] outlined in blue on the screen. It's
[37:10] located at the northeast corner of
[37:11] Northeast Alys's Road and East Hickman
[37:14] Road. Uh and it's uh just over 33 and a
[37:18] half acres in area. Uh for those uh
[37:21] council members, uh you'll recall this
[37:23] property was reszoned earlier this year
[37:24] from the A1 agricultural zoning district
[37:27] to the C1 Community and Highway Service
[37:29] Commercial District.
[37:31] Uh the preliminary plat
[37:34] up here on the screen uh is kind of the
[37:36] cover sheet of the preliminary plat. Uh
[37:39] preliminary plat and final plat identify
[37:41] the creation of three lots again for
[37:43] commercial development. uh lot one,
[37:45] which is the largest lot, uh kind of
[37:47] takes up the north twothirds of the
[37:50] property and then kind of down all the
[37:51] way down into the southeast corner of
[37:53] it. That's 29.31 acres in area. Lot two,
[37:58] uh which is the larger lot at the corner
[38:00] of the at the southwest corner of the
[38:02] property, that's 3.19 acres in area. And
[38:04] lot three, which is kind of this small
[38:07] square right here, that is just over an
[38:10] acre in area. Uh all lots meet or exceed
[38:13] the minimum requirements of the C1 uh
[38:15] community and highway service commercial
[38:17] district. Um no new public streets are
[38:20] planned for this development. Uh private
[38:21] streets and utilities will serve um uh
[38:25] serve the development. Um those
[38:27] improvements are proposed as part of the
[38:29] uh uh site plan for the Walmart project
[38:32] which we'll discuss uh here in a little
[38:34] bit. Uh but that would include the
[38:35] extension of a private street. You can
[38:37] kind of see the outline of it. a private
[38:39] street that would uh access off of
[38:41] Hickman Road or excuse me, Northeast
[38:43] Alys's Road and then continue over to
[38:45] the existing access uh that shares that
[38:48] access point with the Westlike West
[38:50] Light apartment project that's directly
[38:51] to the east of this. In addition, there
[38:54] are two other access points shown uh one
[38:57] off of Northeast Alys's Road and one
[39:00] kind of in the center of the property on
[39:02] the south side to Hickman Road.
[39:05] A right turn lane is proposed to be
[39:07] added at the uh easternmost access off
[39:10] of uh off of Hickman Road. Um that was
[39:14] warranted as part of the traffic study
[39:15] that was submitted for the review of
[39:17] this project. Um this easternmost access
[39:20] point is a 3/4 access point off of
[39:23] Hickman Road. The center access off of
[39:26] Hickman is a restricted right in right
[39:27] out. Uh these two access points on
[39:30] Hickman Road, those are the under the
[39:31] Iowa DO's jurisdiction. Those are
[39:34] predetermined access points as part of a
[39:36] corridor agreement that the city and the
[39:37] DOT already have and have had for
[39:40] several years.
[39:42] There is an additional access as
[39:44] indicated previously uh just north of
[39:46] the intersection that is a right in
[39:48] right out. So you'll be able to turn
[39:49] right into that and come out of it and
[39:52] go right and go north on Alys's Road. Um
[39:55] the existing signalized intersection
[39:58] that's directly opposite of the H high-e
[40:00] uh grocery store just directly to the
[40:02] west that is a full signalized
[40:04] intersection. So you'll be able to go
[40:06] any direction north, south, east, west
[40:09] from that from that intersection.
[40:12] All proposed access points uh meet or
[40:14] exceed the minimum requirements of the
[40:16] street design guide. And as indicated,
[40:19] the DOT has already issued permits for
[40:22] the proposed access points off of East
[40:24] Hickman Road.
[40:28] [clears throat]
[40:29] Um, I would note there is an existing
[40:30] wetland area um within this development.
[40:34] You can kind of see it um here. It's
[40:36] kind of tough to see, but you can kind
[40:38] of see this small meandering
[40:42] wet area here. Um the developer and the
[40:45] property owner have secured the
[40:46] appropriate permits from the Army Corps
[40:48] of Engineers as well uh to mitigate any
[40:51] sort of impacts to the wetland areas and
[40:53] to purchase credits uh for wetland
[40:55] mitigation bank um uses.
[40:59] This wetland area will be rerouted via
[41:01] storm sewer pipe that will essentially
[41:03] there's already a storm sewer pipe there
[41:04] that outlets uh drainage from the Alys's
[41:07] road corridor and that pipe will be
[41:09] shortened a little bit and then we will
[41:12] be piped and then up and around the
[41:14] store and will outlet up into the ex
[41:16] existing wetland area. Probably the
[41:18] largest wetland area is up here in the
[41:20] norththeast corner of the property
[41:22] that's not being disturbed as part of
[41:23] this development.
[41:25] [snorts] 30-foot landscape buffer is
[41:28] required to be installed or required to
[41:31] be installed as part of the uh project.
[41:34] You can kind of see those conceptual
[41:36] plantings along the north and east
[41:38] boundaries. The purpose of that is to
[41:40] provide screening from the adjoining
[41:41] residential uses to the north and to the
[41:44] east.
[41:46] Uh the planning and zoning commission
[41:47] did recommend approval of the
[41:48] preliminary plat and final plat for
[41:50] Allison Hickman development um at their
[41:53] meeting on August 11th, 2026. Um I would
[41:57] note that um again this is this is
[42:00] essentially these documents would create
[42:02] the lots. They're not the they are not
[42:04] the documents that would authorize the
[42:06] construction of the proposed Walmart
[42:08] Super Center. We'll get to that here in
[42:09] a little bit. So, but with that being
[42:11] said, uh staff would recommend approval
[42:13] of the preliminary plat and final plat
[42:15] for Allison Hickman Development. Happy
[42:17] to take any questions.
[42:19] >> Thank you. Uh if there are questions
[42:21] about site plan, please reserve them for
[42:23] that item. Um can you speak just a
[42:26] little bit more about where exactly the
[42:28] right turn lanes are?
[42:29] >> Yep. So, the right turn lanes, this
[42:31] might be Well,
[42:34] so the right turn lane would be
[42:35] installed. So, here's the existing
[42:37] access point. Uh
[42:40] Yeah, it's in it.
[42:45] » Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, it's
[42:47] right here. Yes. Existing right turn
[42:49] lane at the center access point.
[42:53] >> Yep.
[42:53] >> The new one. Okay.
[42:54] >> Yep.
[42:55] >> Thank you.
[42:55] >> Misspoke.
[42:57] >> What other questions we have? Yep. Do we
[42:59] have a Walmart representative here?
[43:01] >> Uh there are applicants
[43:04] from the um applicant here tonight. I
[43:07] don't know if there's actually someone
[43:08] from Walmart corporate here tonight.
[43:10] >> Okay. Because I [clears throat] the
[43:12] question I have for whoever that is
[43:15] um
[43:17] is I was the thought process for this
[43:20] site instead of moving further south
[43:22] towards the interstate or even west
[43:27] where on Hickman where we've got tons of
[43:30] room and and looking for developments
[43:32] like that out there.
[43:36] I don't believe anybody from Walmart is
[43:38] on, but if anybody would like to address
[43:40] that.
[43:41] >> No, the applicant for this these
[43:43] >> Yeah, they're they're here.
[43:44] >> Okay.
[43:45] >> They can answer.
[43:46] >> Okay. I'm sure.
[43:55] » Joseph Parsley, Carlson Consulting
[43:57] Engineers, president of the company. uh
[44:00] 76 uh Ledgestone Commons, Bartlett,
[44:03] Tennessee 38133.
[44:05] I was certainly not part of the
[44:06] selection process. I'm the civil
[44:08] engineer on the project, so I can't
[44:10] speak to demographics or what led them
[44:14] to choose this piece of property. The
[44:15] developer was heavily involved with the
[44:18] selection of this piece of property. Um
[44:20] I just can't speak to why this one was
[44:22] the one that they chose.
[44:24] >> Okay.
[44:27] My question has to do with Sorry.
[44:30] >> Is there somebody online who's raised
[44:32] their hand to speak? Is that somebody
[44:33] from Walmart?
[44:37] » Okay. Okay. [laughter] Go ahead.
[44:39] >> Okay. Um, my question has to do with the seashores and the buffer that
[44:46] will be along the backside. I I agree. I
[44:48] wouldn't want the noise in my backyard.
[44:50] I wouldn't want the light in my
[44:51] backyard. And I would want as much
[44:53] buffer as possible.
[44:54] >> Yes, ma'am. What is the plan?
[44:56] >> Yes, we actually were 110 feet away from
[44:59] that back property line with our final
[45:01] grading. So, we have 110 ft of trees of
[45:04] existing trees in addition to the
[45:07] landscape buffer that we're planning.
[45:10] >> Tell me about that landscape buffer that
[45:11] you're planning.
[45:12] >> Yeah, I don't have we can get to think
[45:14] of landscape plan once we get to the
[45:15] site plan and show you some more details
[45:18] what that looks like. But it's a 30-foot
[45:20] evergreen. I mean, it's smoke trees. is
[45:23] a staggered landscape buffer in addition
[45:26] to the existing trees that are out there
[45:27] today. And again, that's another 110 ft
[45:30] from the property.
[45:31] >> Those leaves will drop in the
[45:33] wintertime, though. So, I'm I'm curious
[45:35] regarding their question about how tall
[45:37] these trees will be that you plant,
[45:39] >> right?
[45:40] >> Because if they're baby trees, it's
[45:41] going to take 20 years before they'll
[45:43] provide.
[45:44] >> No, we we certainly can get that
[45:45] landscape plan. I just don't have that
[45:46] in front of me to tell you what size
[45:48] those were. Okay.
[45:49] >> Yeah, it's it's not a three-foot. It's
[45:51] okay.
[45:52] >> Mayor, I would suggest um just based
[45:54] upon some of the the nature of these
[45:56] questions that it may be of value if
[45:59] staff would just go ahead and present on
[46:01] the site plan at this time and then we
[46:04] could follow up approval of um both
[46:07] items seven and eight.
[46:09] >> That would be fine.
[46:10] >> Thank you.
[46:16] » Gave [clears throat] me time to get a
[46:17] water a drink of water, I guess.
[46:23] All right.
[46:27] So, I will move on to uh item
[46:29] eight. Uh again, the owner is Herd Land
[46:32] Company LLC. The applicant is Orange
[46:35] Development LLC. Uh the property is
[46:37] outlined in blue on the screen here. Uh
[46:39] it's 33.53 acres in area and uh they are
[46:43] the owner and applicant are requesting
[46:45] approval of a site plan to complete
[46:46] private site improvements. assoc
[46:49] associated with infrastructure and
[46:51] private road uh for the development as
[46:53] well as to construct a Walmart Super
[46:54] Center store and a um fueling station at
[46:58] the southeast corner of the property.
[47:02] Uh [clears throat] the site plan
[47:04] identifies the construction of a 182,429
[47:08] foot retail store on the north side of
[47:10] the site. That's the uh large red box
[47:12] here on the screen on the top of the
[47:14] screen.
[47:16] uh within lot one of the Allison Hickman
[47:18] uh development subdivision that we just
[47:20] spoke about. [snorts] Uh the store is
[47:22] proposed to include homegoods,
[47:23] groceries, outdoor goods, a pharmacy, a
[47:26] drive-through prescription uh area is
[47:29] shown here on the west side of the
[47:30] building
[47:32] [clears throat] and auto service on the
[47:34] northeast side of the building. Uh so up
[47:36] here kind of where you can see my red
[47:38] pointer, the access into the auto
[47:40] service center would be from the east
[47:41] side of the building, not the north side
[47:43] of the building. In addition, there are
[47:45] five loading docks shown at the
[47:48] northwest corner of the building. And
[47:50] then um a uh trash enclosure and
[47:53] recycling area uh located, you can kind
[47:56] of see this long narrow rectangle here
[47:58] just south of these trees um that's
[48:01] proposed up on the north side of the
[48:02] site. The fueling station includes a
[48:05] fuel canopy with 10 fuel pumps. So both
[48:08] sides. So there'd be 20 fueling spots
[48:10] and uh 1,600 square foot um uh sea store
[48:15] building. They're directly north of the
[48:17] fuel canopy.
[48:20] [clears throat] Trash enclosure for the
[48:22] fuel station would be directly on the
[48:23] east side of the building.
[48:26] [clears throat] One monument sign is
[48:27] planned along Hickman Road and then
[48:29] there's one proposed along Northeast
[48:30] Alice's Road. Uh based on the proposed
[48:33] use of the site, 730 parking spaces are
[48:36] required and the site plan identifies
[48:38] just under 750 parking spaces.
[48:42] The 10- foot wide trail exists along uh
[48:44] East Hicken Road, Racken Road Valley
[48:46] Trail that we're all familiar with. And
[48:48] then as part of the site plan
[48:49] improvements, a 5 foot wide sidewalk
[48:51] would be constructed along the west side
[48:54] um along Northeast Alys's Road. In
[48:57] addition uh to you can see better
[48:59] outline of this private road network.
[49:02] There would be a five- foot wide
[49:03] sidewalk constructed on at least one
[49:05] side of the private road network to
[49:07] facilitate pedestrian movement
[49:08] throughout the throughout the
[49:10] development. [snorts]
[49:12] [clears throat] As we discussed, uh as
[49:13] far as access points, uh there's an
[49:15] existing 3/4er access point in the very
[49:18] southeast corner of the site. There is a
[49:20] ride in right out in the center of the
[49:22] site from Hickman Road. Uh there is a
[49:24] right in right out um just north of the
[49:27] intersection along Northeast Alice's
[49:29] road. The full access point would be
[49:31] here at the signalized intersection. And
[49:34] then this site plan does show an
[49:35] additional ride in right out access
[49:37] point uh just to the north or very at
[49:40] the very northwest corner of the site.
[49:42] Um the primary uh need for this access
[49:45] point is for um uh deliveries and truck
[49:49] deliveries and things like that. That's
[49:50] how deliveries would be facilitated to
[49:52] the site. Again, [clears throat]
[49:56] Iowa DOT has issued permit
[49:58] authorizations for the work within the
[50:00] DOT ride ofway. Um, as previously
[50:02] discussed, the right-hand turn lane
[50:04] would be installed at the center uh
[50:06] access point.
[50:10] Let's see here.
[50:12] The extension of the private streets
[50:13] also that are included with this are
[50:15] within the site plan improvements as
[50:18] well as uh um storm sewer, sanitary
[50:21] sewer and water main would be extended
[50:23] throughout the development to provide
[50:25] access to utilities. Storm water
[50:27] management would be accounted for in a
[50:30] regional storm water detention basin
[50:33] kind of up in the northeast corner of
[50:34] the site. Uh that pond would be owned
[50:36] and maintained by the owner of lot one.
[50:38] Um,
[50:40] so that [clears throat] would provide
[50:42] detention for lots two and three as well
[50:44] into the in the future when they do
[50:46] develop.
[50:48] A phototric plan has been submitted for
[50:50] review and demonstrates compliance with
[50:52] the lighting requirements. So I know
[50:53] there was a comment previously during
[50:54] the open forum. Um, so we reviewed that
[50:57] phototric plan. Um, there shouldn't be
[50:59] any light spill over to the north, east,
[51:02] or really into any perimeter boundary.
[51:05] Um maybe a little bit of lighting here
[51:07] kind of at these uh uh access points um
[51:11] just simply because you want to make
[51:12] sure you have some lighting there as
[51:13] well. But there shouldn't be any light
[51:15] spill over um along the north or east
[51:18] property boundaries certainly. Um all fixtures are required to be full cut
[51:24] off which basically means you have your
[51:26] plane of your fixture and basically so
[51:30] that no light light only goes down. It
[51:33] doesn't go out this way or go up this
[51:34] way. So there's no uplighting proposed
[51:37] as part of this.
[51:39] Uh the landscaping and open space
[51:41] requirements are being met. A total of
[51:44] 20% of open space is required and the
[51:47] site plan indicates that 43.9% is being
[51:50] provided. Uh as we previously discussed,
[51:54] um a 30-foot landscape buffer is
[51:56] required along the north and east
[51:57] boundaries.
[51:59] um which the site plan does demonstrate
[52:01] compliance with that. I would note um as
[52:04] I believe Mr. Parsley uh indicated,
[52:06] there's a pretty good stand of existing
[52:08] mature trees along that north boundary.
[52:10] Um in fact uh took a trip out there last
[52:14] week just to kind of go take a look at
[52:16] it. Um Heard Herd Land Company, the
[52:18] current property owner, has done some
[52:20] tree clearing on that property already.
[52:22] Um and for the most part, they've
[52:23] removed the trees that need to be
[52:25] removed for this development. So, um,
[52:27] there's a pretty good stand of trees out
[52:29] there already. Um, so we'll certainly
[52:32] have to evaluate, um, based on what
[52:34] additional plantings may be required as
[52:36] part of this buffer, um, depending on if
[52:39] any other additional removals happen
[52:41] throughout construction. Um, but
[52:43] currently the, uh, the site plan does
[52:45] demonstrate compliance with the buffer
[52:46] requirement. Um those tree plantings,
[52:51] sorry,
[52:52] uh those tree plantings, our code
[52:54] requires a minimum of a 6ft high
[52:57] evergreen tree, um 6 foot high
[53:00] ornamental tree, and then a minimum of 8
[53:03] foot uh um overstory tree when they're
[53:06] planted. So, um, you know, while they're
[53:08] not giant mature trees at the time they
[53:12] get planted, they are meeting the code
[53:14] minimums as it relates to, um, minimum
[53:16] heights and things like that at the time
[53:18] of planting. As far as species are
[53:20] concerned, I'd have to really dive into
[53:22] the landscape plan to tell you what
[53:24] species and things like that. But what I
[53:26] can tell you is our landscape buffer
[53:28] requirements require uh for a 30-foot
[53:31] buffer, I believe it's two evergreen
[53:33] trees and uh two ornamental trees and
[53:36] one overstory tree for every 50 lineal
[53:39] foot of buffer. So every 50 ft they need
[53:42] to be providing every 50 ft of that
[53:44] buffer area they have to provide so many
[53:47] trees of those different types of
[53:49] species. Now, whether they're [sighs] a
[53:51] blue spruce or, you know, some other
[53:54] type of evergreen tree, that's not
[53:55] necessarily up for us to decide. That's
[53:57] up for a landscape architect to design
[53:59] and make sure that it's compliant with
[54:00] our code.
[54:03] Um, [clears throat]
[54:05] the elevations of the proposed building
[54:08] to that here.
[54:10] And I've got some renderings that show the rent the elevations a
[54:14] little better. Uh the proposed building
[54:16] is proposed to be constructed primarily
[54:18] of pre-cast concrete panels of various
[54:21] textures. So there's kind of some smooth
[54:23] panels. There's some textured panels
[54:25] that kind of have a brick look to them.
[54:27] Uh some masonry. Uh architectural metal
[54:30] paneling and glazing are shown on the
[54:32] elevations. Uh fencing used for accents
[54:35] and screening is shown to be an
[54:36] ornamental style fencing. So kind of
[54:38] like your row iron looking type fencing.
[54:42] [snorts]
[54:43] Here's a elevation of the proposed uh
[54:45] fueling station building. Again, very
[54:47] similar materials to the proposed super
[54:50] center store.
[54:53] Uh here's the fuel canopy elevation. Um
[54:56] they have, as we've seen, uh with a lot
[54:59] of our most recent uh convenience stores
[55:02] that have been constructed, the columns
[55:04] for the fuel canopy have been wrapped in
[55:06] brick.
[55:08] >> [snorts]
[55:09] >> Here's just an elevation of that uh uh
[55:12] trash enclosure area that's on the just
[55:14] to the north of the building. Uh those
[55:16] are pre-cast concrete panels with a
[55:18] texture.
[55:20] So the back side of this would face
[55:22] north. Uh so the very north line of the
[55:25] property. And here's kind of some
[55:27] renderings of that. This gives you a
[55:28] little bit better perspective and
[55:33] see kind of some of the textures, the
[55:34] articulation of the building.
[55:39] So this would be the souththeast corner
[55:42] of the building. So they kind of have
[55:44] their outdoor good area within this
[55:47] area.
[55:51] There's the autocare area.
[56:01] Uh staff did receive uh some
[56:03] correspondence prior to the planning and
[56:04] zoning commission meeting. Uh that
[56:06] correspondence was passed on to the
[56:07] commission as well as was included in
[56:10] your packet um here tonight. Um in
[56:13] addition uh staff also received some
[56:15] correspondence from uh HY as uh the
[56:17] gentleman uh previously uh spoke tonight
[56:21] uh regarding some of their concerns
[56:22] related to the initial traffic study. Uh
[56:25] staff did um present that to the uh
[56:28] planning and zoning commission at their
[56:29] meeting on August 11th. Uh the
[56:31] commission did recommend approval uh
[56:33] subject to addressing um some of those
[56:35] concerns within the traffic study. Uh
[56:37] staff did request that the applicant
[56:40] prior to being placed on a city council
[56:42] agenda uh to address uh some of those
[56:44] deficiencies in the traffic report. Um
[56:47] the applicant's engineer was able to um
[56:50] uh address those deficiencies. Uh Rudy
[56:54] and his team have reviewed the traffic
[56:55] study. Um, in addition, we did have uh
[56:58] two third-party engineering firms review
[57:01] that traffic study late last week. Uh,
[57:03] Snyder and Associates as well as both.
[57:05] Um, their correspondence was included in
[57:07] the packet uh packet here tonight. Um,
[57:11] they did agree with the uh methodologies
[57:13] that the way that the study was done um
[57:15] the way that the numbers were updated to
[57:17] reflect more current traffic um and did
[57:20] agree with the recommendations as a
[57:22] result of or what was resulted in the
[57:24] traffic study. And I would note that um
[57:26] the recommendations between the initial
[57:29] traffic study and then the traffic study
[57:30] that was provided late last week, the
[57:32] recommendations of that essentially did
[57:34] not change. So um while it was it was a
[57:37] good exercise to update that, make sure
[57:40] we had current numbers, the
[57:41] recommendations of the traffic study did
[57:43] not change. Um so I just want to make
[57:45] sure that the council is aware of that.
[57:48] [clears throat]
[57:50] Um,
[57:52] not to reiterate uh what's already been
[57:54] said here tonight, um, IV did submit a
[57:56] letter today, uh, which I believe I had
[57:58] asked Becky to print out for all of you
[58:00] to have up there tonight. Uh, just some
[58:03] of their concerns related to, um,
[58:05] inadequate turn lane length at the
[58:07] southbound left turns at the
[58:08] intersection of Alyses and Hickman. Um,
[58:11] striping on their property uh, that's,
[58:14] um, not in the public rideway. Uh, truck
[58:17] traffic and deliveries. um one of their
[58:19] issues was truck traffic and deliveries
[58:21] were not analyzed by the study and then
[58:24] um uh noted that the analysis of
[58:28] Northeast Horizon Drive did not take
[58:30] into account the widening of Northeast
[58:31] Alys's road. So, our current widening
[58:34] project that we have going on right now.
[58:37] um specifics related to the traffic
[58:39] study. I'd be happy to have my
[58:42] knowledgeable colleague Rudy Caster um
[58:44] answer as well, but uh um happy to take
[58:49] any questions uh that
[58:52] >> Rudy, do you have slides to present on
[58:53] the traffic study? Something to present
[58:57] comments, please make them.
[59:03] » Thank you, mayor. Um just a few comments
[59:05] there. Thanks Andy for that summary. Um
[59:08] really um thorough and certainly covered
[59:11] all the five access points into and out
[59:13] of the site. Um I will note that
[59:15] southbound left dual left turn lane and
[59:17] the defic deficiency shown there in the
[59:20] 10 year and 20 year lookout. Um we're
[59:22] talking about 35 ft um of a deficiency.
[59:25] There's about 80 um about 90 feet of um
[59:29] a full single lane in the taper of that.
[59:32] So, if you read in the report, 240 is
[59:35] the uh official full length width, but
[59:38] there's another 90 ft in the taper that
[59:40] accounts for one full lane. So, if you
[59:42] divide that over two, we're talking
[59:43] about 35 ft of a deficiency on those
[59:45] southbound lanes um per lane. Um that's
[59:48] about a car and a half each. Um 20 ft is
[59:51] about approximately your car length. Um
[59:53] so, again, staff reviewing that,
[59:54] understanding it. Um really in the
[59:56] conversations I've had with um KLA
[59:59] um their engineers that were working
[1:00:02] with um um Joseph here um their
[1:00:06] assumption for the eastbound traffic
[1:00:08] heading east on Hickman Road. Um there's
[1:00:10] a lot to be realized in the next 5 years
[1:00:12] on the Alys's Road corridor improvements
[1:00:14] as well as the Douglas Parkway corridor
[1:00:16] improvements and how traffic will likely
[1:00:18] find its way to the north and east via
[1:00:20] those improved corridors. um the
[1:00:23] assumption of 40% of the the Walmart
[1:00:25] generated traffic or the the sites
[1:00:27] generated traffic going back to the east
[1:00:29] when you have three stores within seven
[1:00:32] miles [clears throat] or less to the
[1:00:33] northeast east and southeast is highly
[1:00:35] conservative. Um we feel that that um
[1:00:38] conservatism really just benefits that
[1:00:40] southbound left turn lane deficiency
[1:00:42] shown in this report. So, um, we have
[1:00:44] the ability to capture the real-time
[1:00:46] traffic data, and we look forward to
[1:00:48] capturing that as as this project moves
[1:00:50] forward, if this project moves forward,
[1:00:52] as well as the remaining growth in the
[1:00:54] community. We took a percent and a half
[1:00:55] growth um through this area for
[1:00:57] background traffic. That's really the
[1:00:59] driving number behind um some of these Q
[1:01:01] lengths that we're seeing in that 10 and
[1:01:03] 20 year lookout. So, again, um it is a crystal ball here. This this
[1:01:10] methodology is, but it is sound. uh it
[1:01:12] has been vetted by two other outside
[1:01:13] engineers that we work with and have
[1:01:15] confidence in their and trust in their
[1:01:17] um understanding. So um so there's that
[1:01:20] on the southbound Q links. I mentioned
[1:01:22] the stores in proximity to the east,
[1:01:24] northeast and southeast um likely um
[1:01:27] driving down that east movement traffic.
[1:01:30] Um there is one turn lane on the west
[1:01:33] leg of the signalized H high and
[1:01:36] proposed developments intersection. uh
[1:01:39] it's it's within the public facilities
[1:01:41] and use easement that's out there or
[1:01:42] that was given to the city when this
[1:01:44] traffic signal was constructed in 2018.
[1:01:47] That's the only striping modifications
[1:01:48] that's being um noted on the site
[1:01:51] planned um that the developer is
[1:01:53] showing. So nothing further into this
[1:01:55] the HY um site at this point that I've
[1:01:58] seen or understand from their
[1:02:00] improvements. So, it's really removing
[1:02:02] that that right turn arrow because that
[1:02:04] becomes now a through and right turn
[1:02:05] lane as you're heading eastbound out of
[1:02:07] the H high store. Um removing that or
[1:02:09] modifying it to a through and right
[1:02:11] arrow is really the modifications there.
[1:02:13] So, um staff um um the engineering
[1:02:17] staff, Joseph and his team did share
[1:02:20] turning or truck turning templates
[1:02:21] coming out of that signalized
[1:02:22] intersection um out of the Walmart site,
[1:02:24] out of the Hi- ve site. Um there are
[1:02:26] median modifications on Alys's road to
[1:02:28] pull those noses back to accommodate
[1:02:30] those um semi-trailers. So it's a
[1:02:32] semi-tractor with a 50-ft trailer coming
[1:02:34] out of those entrances east and west. Um
[1:02:37] we have to pull those median noses back
[1:02:39] 5 to 10 feet. Um pretty typical or
[1:02:42] anticipated modification there. Um
[1:02:45] something we hoped that we had figured
[1:02:47] out when we originally constructed
[1:02:49] Alys's Road in phase 5 about um seven
[1:02:52] years ago, but um we just didn't quite
[1:02:54] get those right. So, um those are those
[1:02:56] modifications are part of the site plan
[1:02:57] improvement shown um with the Walmart
[1:03:00] Super Center.
[1:03:02] Um as I mentioned uh or as was
[1:03:05] mentioned, the configuration and
[1:03:06] analysis at um Northeast um Horizon
[1:03:10] Drive and Alice Road that revision of
[1:03:12] the lane configuration of Alison Road
[1:03:14] was included in the updated TSI. Um I
[1:03:16] had that specific conversation and did
[1:03:18] verify that later this um today as well.
[1:03:21] So that that did update that. It
[1:03:23] actually improved that eastbound left
[1:03:25] turn um on Horizon Drive as you were to
[1:03:27] turn left to go north on Analysis Road.
[1:03:29] Having those multiple lanes provides
[1:03:31] more of a gap opportunity um as well as
[1:03:33] a vehicle that may be crossing the
[1:03:36] southbound too, stopping in kind of that
[1:03:38] middle island um area and then
[1:03:40] proceeding with that left turn. So um
[1:03:43] again all levels of services are um a
[1:03:45] level of D or higher at our um five
[1:03:48] intersections or five entrances or um
[1:03:51] yeah entrances into the development. So
[1:03:53] again to summarize it all staff has
[1:03:56] confidence and certainly myself I have
[1:03:58] confidence after um going over this
[1:04:00] traffic impact study the original the
[1:04:03] revisions um as to what we're presenting
[1:04:06] here and the recommendations presented.
[1:04:08] So happy to take any questions uh and
[1:04:10] any of those points if you have any. So
[1:04:13] >> okay, for just a second let's keep any
[1:04:14] questions to traffic. We'll go back to
[1:04:16] buffering in a minute. Um are there
[1:04:18] questions related to traffic before we
[1:04:21] let Rudy sit down?
[1:04:25] >> I don't think so.
[1:04:27] >> And I will add one more point. Sorry
[1:04:29] >> comment.
[1:04:30] >> There was going to be a comment. Um when
[1:04:31] this signal was constructed in 2018, it
[1:04:34] was paid by both the HY um ownership as
[1:04:37] well as the east owner at the time,
[1:04:39] which I believe was Right Tree Service.
[1:04:41] Um so they paid for this intersection
[1:04:44] 50/50. Um and so the city owns and
[1:04:47] operates it today, but certainly we are
[1:04:50] um there are modifications to some of
[1:04:51] those signal heads that are being
[1:04:53] proposed again being paid for by the
[1:04:55] developer um that will be modified at
[1:04:57] their expense um this time and or for
[1:05:00] this effort. So, um, certainly if
[1:05:01] there's continued conversation with, um,
[1:05:04] as the letter and that HY presented
[1:05:07] today about continued discussion about
[1:05:09] an access agreement, we're happy to have
[1:05:11] those between the two parties and
[1:05:13] ourselves. Um, we want to be a party of
[1:05:15] that if that does come to fruition as
[1:05:17] well as um, yeah, that that was one thing. And
[1:05:23] then a couple other items that they
[1:05:25] mentioned on, we did hit on the horizon
[1:05:26] drive analysis was corrected. Um the
[1:05:28] truck circulation Andy indicated that
[1:05:30] north right in right out is their
[1:05:32] intended ingress egress for delivery
[1:05:34] semis. Um so it is set up appropriately
[1:05:37] for that. Um three subject the city
[1:05:39] reviewer identified as not being
[1:05:41] discussed. Um crash history, site
[1:05:44] distance, proposed access, multimmo
[1:05:46] accommodations. Really looking at the
[1:05:48] global corridor of Alice's and Hickman
[1:05:51] were treating this this development no
[1:05:53] different than priors had been treated.
[1:05:54] So looking into those aspects really
[1:05:56] wasn't justified from staff's
[1:05:58] perspective. So diving into that effort
[1:06:02] um certainly under the time crunch we
[1:06:03] were looking at here um wasn't warranted
[1:06:06] to be discussed and included in the TSI
[1:06:08] at this point. So um and then lastly
[1:06:11] that postopening traffic study um we'll
[1:06:13] be conducting that ourselves. Again we
[1:06:16] have traffic equipment out there. We're
[1:06:17] collecting traffic data 247 days a week
[1:06:20] 365 days a year. So, we'll be looking at
[1:06:23] um those real-time traffic datas as
[1:06:25] they're realized in the next 5, 10, 20
[1:06:28] years and modifying timing plans for
[1:06:30] this intersection as well as the Alyses
[1:06:33] and Hickman corridors. Um so that we are
[1:06:35] being as efficient as we can. Um if
[1:06:38] that's taking it to the next level of
[1:06:39] adaptive equipment or whatnot, um we'll see if that's warranted at that
[1:06:44] time when traffic um traffic volumes
[1:06:46] warrant that and that discussion and
[1:06:48] analysis. So, um, I think that's all I
[1:06:51] have and again, happy to take any
[1:06:53] follow-up questions if you have any on
[1:06:54] this traffic analysis.
[1:06:56] >> Thank you.
[1:06:57] >> Should you had a comment?
[1:06:59] >> Do Rudy, stay there for a second.
[1:07:01] [laughter]
[1:07:03] >> Was this traffic study done like you
[1:07:06] said three years ago? Were we still in
[1:07:09] the middle of
[1:07:11] our Alys's Road project at that point?
[1:07:14] Was was this done at any point when
[1:07:16] Alice's Road was closed? So, the traffic
[1:07:19] data that they utilized was December of
[1:07:21] 2023. And one comment that was brought
[1:07:23] up at the PNZ meeting um in the prior HY
[1:07:26] letter was it didn't realize or didn't
[1:07:29] take account for Target opening um after
[1:07:32] the fact. Um which Target wasn't open in
[1:07:34] December of 23. Um, so I provided them
[1:07:37] February of 26 data that when Alys's
[1:07:40] Road was open north of Hickman Road um,
[1:07:43] through those winter months when we had
[1:07:44] a few uh, opened months there with that
[1:07:47] project um, to realize what is reality
[1:07:50] and what traffic is. And so we were
[1:07:51] within a percent on Hickman Road and
[1:07:53] within a few percent on Alyss Road.
[1:07:55] Actually the the traffic data they were
[1:07:58] assuming was actually higher than what
[1:08:00] uh, the real-time data was. So, we
[1:08:02] looked at a week in February that was a
[1:08:03] typical week u with school in session,
[1:08:06] with Alys's Road open, with Target open.
[1:08:09] Um,
[1:08:11] >> and you said this is a bit like a
[1:08:12] crystal ball where we're kind of trying
[1:08:14] to guess. Do we know what sort of
[1:08:18] development will be happening in
[1:08:20] Urbandale Grimes all the way up Alice's
[1:08:23] Road? How much more traffic could we get
[1:08:26] on Alys's?
[1:08:27] >> We I have an answer for that, mayor.
[1:08:29] Yep. Um, we did about I want to say
[1:08:35] probably been six years, maybe five
[1:08:36] years. We did a northwest area study
[1:08:39] with between the cities of Clive,
[1:08:41] Urbanddale, and Walke. Clive was the
[1:08:43] lead agency on that, but we looked at
[1:08:44] all of those undeveloped land uses in
[1:08:46] all three communities to the north of
[1:08:48] Alys's Road Corridor as well as to the
[1:08:50] west. Um, and really that was to size
[1:08:53] our corridors appropriately. So, with
[1:08:55] that, what was realized was Alys's Road,
[1:08:57] we have six lanes south of Pikmin Road.
[1:08:59] We tapered down to the four north of
[1:09:01] Hickman Road or at Horizon. Um, and that
[1:09:05] I think at that time we [clears throat]
[1:09:06] did
[1:09:07] >> we did a we did our
[1:09:12] » Can everybody online mute themselves,
[1:09:14] please?
[1:09:19] » Not entirely sure why we're unmuted to
[1:09:22] begin with, but we will deal with that.
[1:09:23] >> Yeah.
[1:09:24] >> So, we did three communities. We did a
[1:09:27] traffic forecasting outlook at those um
[1:09:30] land uses. We didn't look at every
[1:09:32] parcel. We just took our land use maps
[1:09:34] um and applied appropriate um traffic
[1:09:36] methodology for trip generations based
[1:09:39] on those land uses. So with that that
[1:09:41] helped us size our corridors, Douglas,
[1:09:44] Alys's Road, Meredith, um Waterford and
[1:09:48] uh from that really what was another
[1:09:50] document that solidified what we were
[1:09:52] projecting for volumes on Alys's Road.
[1:09:54] So
[1:09:57] >> other questions.
[1:10:00] >> Okay, not on traffic. Thank you, Rudy.
[1:10:03] Uh
[1:10:04] go back to buffering. Uh and any other
[1:10:07] questions um related [clears throat] to
[1:10:09] site plan or platting, although I want
[1:10:11] to be clear, those are two separate
[1:10:12] votes and two separate well three
[1:10:14] separate actually, but um and three
[1:10:16] separate decision points. But uh any
[1:10:20] questions related to the site plan that
[1:10:22] was presented?
[1:10:24] the seashores,
[1:10:27] is that correct? It just didn't feel
[1:10:29] right,
[1:10:30] had mentioned um an 8 foot sound
[1:10:33] barrier.
[1:10:34] >> Mhm.
[1:10:35] >> That Walmart would would put the bill
[1:10:37] for. Is that something that we've ever had on any of our other buildings?
[1:10:43] Um, I'm not aware in my time with the
[1:10:46] city that um either staff or uh the
[1:10:49] council has ever required a specific
[1:10:52] going above and beyond what the code
[1:10:54] requires. Um, uh, technically our code
[1:10:57] doesn't allow 8ft fences um, in a
[1:11:01] commercial commercially zoned district.
[1:11:03] >> Um, they could have up to a six foot
[1:11:05] high fence in the in a commercial area.
[1:11:08] Um, but I'm not aware that that's um
[1:11:10] that the council has ever required that
[1:11:14] something an additional barrier beyond
[1:11:16] the uh landscape buffer requirement. And
[1:11:19] I would note that the 30-foot buffer
[1:11:22] actually requires two overstory trees,
[1:11:24] three evergreen trees, and two
[1:11:25] ornamental trees. So, um, per 50 lineal
[1:11:29] foot of the buffer,
[1:11:31] >> seven trees. Um in terms of the uh site
[1:11:34] plan that you've shown uh you are this
[1:11:37] is in addition to the existing tree
[1:11:41] canopy that is out there.
[1:11:42] >> It would be an addition. Yes.
[1:11:44] >> Okay. So this would be an additional
[1:11:46] seven trees per 50 ft uh per per 50
[1:11:50] lineal feet uh linear.
[1:11:53] >> Yep.
[1:11:54] >> It's been a long day already. Um along
[1:11:57] both the north and east corridor. Okay.
[1:12:01] >> But I just want to remind the council
[1:12:02] that again there's several mature trees
[1:12:06] that would that are proposed to remain
[1:12:08] to be kept um along that north property
[1:12:11] line as well. So um
[1:12:14] again uh as as I previously said uh
[1:12:17] that's something that we would have to
[1:12:19] address, you know, as they continue to
[1:12:21] further uh if if this project were to
[1:12:24] move forward and they um get under
[1:12:25] construction that uh we might have to
[1:12:27] re-evaluate that based on what's being
[1:12:29] kept. um can they get a credit for some
[1:12:32] of those trees being kept as well? So,
[1:12:35] >> I think from the council perspective,
[1:12:38] what I'm hearing is more the better.
[1:12:40] >> Sure.
[1:12:40] >> Uh and that that should be the
[1:12:42] communication back. Uh
[1:12:46] >> can anyone in the room speak to whether
[1:12:48] or not there would be an ability to
[1:12:50] discuss a some sort of sound barrier?
[1:12:59] Yeah, since my client has gone beyond
[1:13:02] his 30-foot buffer, like I said,
[1:13:04] essentially in that piece of property in
[1:13:06] this, you know, in question, it's 110 ft
[1:13:09] of existing landscaping we're keeping
[1:13:11] and then putting in all these trees that
[1:13:13] we're talking about to infill in between
[1:13:15] those gaps to help when the leaves fall
[1:13:18] to help buffer it. So again, an 8 or 6t
[1:13:22] tall wall along that property line
[1:13:25] really won't do much because the
[1:13:27] elevation change is about 30 ft down
[1:13:30] from the finished floor at the Walmart
[1:13:32] Super Center down to that creek.
[1:13:34] >> So then it does climb back up about 10
[1:13:36] ft, but a 6ft wall
[1:13:38] >> not going to
[1:13:39] >> it's not really going to help it. It's
[1:13:40] the trees, it's the landscaping, it's
[1:13:42] those leaves and those needles.
[1:13:45] >> Thank you.
[1:13:46] >> Yes.
[1:13:46] >> Are there other questions? It's not a
[1:13:48] public comment item. Um I'm after
[1:13:52] afterward.
[1:13:54] Um I'm going to ask if there are other
[1:13:56] questions for now. Not questions, just
[1:13:59] comments.
[1:13:59] >> I just
[1:14:01] >> Go ahead, Chris.
[1:14:02] >> Have you received any any um complaints
[1:14:06] from the people on the west side of
[1:14:08] Target, that neighborhood?
[1:14:11] >> Um not necessarily complaints about
[1:14:14] noise or anything like that. Um or light
[1:14:16] pollution. Um I'm I'm not aware that
[1:14:18] we've had um any complaints regarding
[1:14:21] that. Um okay
[1:14:22] >> I know we've had some you know
[1:14:24] complaints about you know mowing and
[1:14:26] things like that but that's something
[1:14:28] that our co- compliance office officer
[1:14:30] has addressed and we're not getting
[1:14:32] those complaints anymore.
[1:14:33] >> Thank you.
[1:14:35] >> Questions I have are for Walmart
[1:14:37] specifically. So, I won't ask them, but
[1:14:40] if that can get to them somehow,
[1:14:43] >> same, right?
[1:14:44] >> I I might have some information to share
[1:14:46] if you want to.
[1:14:48] >> Perfect.
[1:14:49] >> Um, do we know what the store hours are
[1:14:51] going to be?
[1:14:53] >> Uh, I do have some information as it
[1:14:55] relates to store hours.
[1:15:01] Oh, here we go. Uh, anticipated
[1:15:03] customerf facing hours for the store are
[1:15:05] 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week.
[1:15:08] uh which is consistent with with typical
[1:15:11] Walmart store operating hours. Um
[1:15:14] obviously um that's a little bit
[1:15:17] different for like pharmacy and the auto
[1:15:19] service center. Um I know I I looked up
[1:15:22] before the P&Z meeting as it relates to
[1:15:23] the auto service center. It appears that
[1:15:26] all of our or most of the local uh
[1:15:29] Walmart ser auto service centers are
[1:15:31] from like 7 am to 7 pm. So those
[1:15:33] wouldn't be open till 11 p.m. is is at
[1:15:36] least what my understanding is based on
[1:15:38] other local stores. Um Walmart indicated
[1:15:42] these hours are designed to provide
[1:15:43] Walke residents with convenient [clears throat] access to
[1:15:46] groceries, pharmacy and health and
[1:15:49] wellness offerings, household essentials
[1:15:51] and other everyday products.
[1:15:53] Final hours will be established as the
[1:15:55] store approaches opening and will be
[1:15:57] subject to applicable local
[1:15:58] requirements.
[1:16:01] >> So for the Walmart store, the main
[1:16:04] store, and then the convenience center
[1:16:06] or convenience store, do we know how
[1:16:09] many full-time employees were expecting?
[1:16:10] How many part-time employees were
[1:16:12] expecting?
[1:16:14] >> Let's see here. [clears throat]
[1:16:17] Excuse me. Uh the super center is
[1:16:19] expected to create approximately 250 to
[1:16:22] 300 local jobs providing a mix of full
[1:16:25] and part-time opportunities for Walke
[1:16:27] and the surrounding area.
[1:16:29] Um I think this is just a general
[1:16:32] corporate uh statistic, but it says
[1:16:34] approximately twothirds of Walmart's US
[1:16:36] hourly store roles are full-time
[1:16:39] and staffing will depend on the store's
[1:16:41] final operations, customer demand, and
[1:16:43] services offered.
[1:16:46] And then just [clears throat] one more
[1:16:47] question. Um, as far as being active in
[1:16:50] the community, do they plan on like
[1:16:53] joining the Chamber of Commerce,
[1:16:55] regularly donating to Waypoint, helping
[1:16:58] out with Hera, being involved with the
[1:17:00] school foundation, those types of
[1:17:01] things?
[1:17:02] >> Sure.
[1:17:03] >> Uh, [clears throat]
[1:17:07] uh, Walmart desires to become a long a
[1:17:09] long-term member and partner the
[1:17:11] community. Um, Walmart has a long
[1:17:14] history of supporting the communities
[1:17:16] where they live and work, including
[1:17:18] through relationships with local
[1:17:19] nonprofit organizations,
[1:17:21] schools, food security organizations,
[1:17:23] first responders, and other community
[1:17:25] partners. Uh, as the Walke Store moves
[1:17:28] towards opening, local store, and market
[1:17:30] leadership would look for opportunities
[1:17:31] to develop similar relationships with
[1:17:33] organizations serving the Walke
[1:17:35] community.
[1:17:37] [snorts]
[1:17:39] uh
[1:17:41] they indicate that they would also
[1:17:42] welcome the opportunity to engage with
[1:17:44] the Walke Area Chamber of Commerce and
[1:17:46] other local businesses and civic
[1:17:47] organizations.
[1:17:51] » Other questions?
[1:17:53] >> Yeah, I do have a few questions. Um so,
[1:17:56] um the existing trees that you're
[1:17:57] referencing, the 110 ft of existing
[1:18:00] trees, is that all on what is go what is
[1:18:02] proposed to be Walmart's property?
[1:18:04] >> Yes.
[1:18:05] >> Okay. Um, so then the 30 extra feet that
[1:18:10] we're requiring then, so we're closer to
[1:18:14] 140 ft of trees, correct? Because I'm
[1:18:17] kind of getting some wishy-washy answers
[1:18:18] on that. So I'm not exactly sure, not
[1:18:20] from you, Andy. Um Um, so I'm not
[1:18:23] exactly sure what we're referencing.
[1:18:24] We're talking about filling in some
[1:18:26] gaps, but then also talking about we
[1:18:27] already have 110 ft of trees.
[1:18:31] The landscaping buffer is a landscaping
[1:18:32] buffer. I think we need to be especially
[1:18:34] clear on what we're talking about and
[1:18:36] exactly how many feet of trees are going
[1:18:38] to be not just planted but maintained
[1:18:41] permanently.
[1:18:45] » Go ahead.
[1:18:46] >> I mean, Walmart isn't here, so I guess I
[1:18:48] have to ask you.
[1:18:48] >> Yes, we my landscape architect prepared
[1:18:51] this plan. So,
[1:18:52] >> as you can see on here,
[1:18:54] >> there's a lot of trees along this
[1:18:56] northern half. So, we're going to have
[1:18:57] to not just plant in a straight row all
[1:19:00] of these trees every 50 ft. you're going
[1:19:02] to have to pick a spot where you can get
[1:19:04] some sunlight in there. So, yes, we're committed to plant all the trees
[1:19:08] that's shown on this drawing right here
[1:19:10] right now. Now, will they be in a nice
[1:19:12] straight line? We can't promise that
[1:19:14] just because you're going to have to
[1:19:15] pick some some areas to get some
[1:19:17] sunlight for these trees.
[1:19:19] >> But [clears throat] that's in addition,
[1:19:20] what she's asking, that's in addition to
[1:19:21] the tree buffer that already exists,
[1:19:23] >> right? Is there 110 ft everywhere? No,
[1:19:25] there's 110 ft where the residential
[1:19:28] properties are in CL. And then it kind
[1:19:31] of gets a little bit less as you move
[1:19:32] west,
[1:19:33] >> but there's still a significant tree
[1:19:35] buffer there. Just not exactly 110 feet.
[1:19:38] Want to be clear on that.
[1:19:39] >> Sure.
[1:19:39] >> But we're still doing the buffer there
[1:19:41] also.
[1:19:41] >> But the 110 ft will be maintained where
[1:19:43] it exists today.
[1:19:44] >> Yes.
[1:19:45] >> The trees will be maintained.
[1:19:46] >> Yes, ma'am.
[1:19:47] >> Okay. Um and then my question then is
[1:19:51] for Andy then. So, um once, and I know
[1:19:54] we've asked this before, so forgive me,
[1:19:55] but it's been a while since we've
[1:19:56] revisited this. So once because we
[1:19:58] require a landscaping buffer to be
[1:20:00] planted at the time um at the time of
[1:20:02] planning or site planning. Um well our
[1:20:06] requirements are in place then not the
[1:20:07] trees are going in place then. Um what
[1:20:10] is how does how does the process work
[1:20:12] for maintenance of that landscaping
[1:20:14] buffer? Like what happens if it becomes
[1:20:16] depleted? Trees are dying off. They're
[1:20:18] being intentionally cut down. What does
[1:20:20] that what does that look like
[1:20:21] >> for us? Um so before a certificate of
[1:20:24] occupancy is issued by the uh building
[1:20:27] department um planning staff would go
[1:20:29] out and you know just like a building
[1:20:32] inspector would go out to make sure that
[1:20:34] you know the building is meeting
[1:20:35] building codes. Planning staff would go
[1:20:37] out and do a site inspection. So we make
[1:20:39] sure their parking lot is striped. We
[1:20:41] make sure the building looks like the
[1:20:43] way it was approved. We make sure their
[1:20:46] light fixtures are in. But we also count
[1:20:48] we count trees. Um, so if there's just
[1:20:51] for the sake of simplicity, if there's
[1:20:53] 200 trees required on this site plan,
[1:20:55] we're going to go out there and we're
[1:20:56] going to count.
[1:20:57] >> And if it's 198 trees, we're going to
[1:20:59] say, "Where's your where's tree 199?
[1:21:03] Where's tree 200?" Mhm.
[1:21:04] >> Um and so as far as from a maintenance
[1:21:06] perspective, um something related to
[1:21:10] this site, um and really any commercial
[1:21:13] site, you know, if if staff were to see
[1:21:15] someone completely remove their
[1:21:17] landscape buffer. I mean, that'd be
[1:21:18] either a phone call from me or a letter
[1:21:20] from Paul Carpenter, our code compliance
[1:21:22] officer, saying, "Hey, what's going on
[1:21:24] with your landscape buffer? Um you need
[1:21:26] to replace those plantings because it's
[1:21:28] a code requirement." Um so if we started
[1:21:30] to see, you know, several um trees being
[1:21:34] removed, trees are dying off, generally
[1:21:37] um you know, these types of sites,
[1:21:38] there's a one to two year warranty
[1:21:41] period for those trees. No different
[1:21:42] than when you buy a tree at your house
[1:21:44] that you get planted. Um so typically,
[1:21:47] um I would uh think most property owners
[1:21:50] go out there and let their landscape
[1:21:52] contractor know, say, "Hey, um I've got
[1:21:55] six trees dead out here. Please get out
[1:21:57] and replace them." Uh it's not uncommon
[1:21:59] for the landscape company that installed
[1:22:01] the plantings to come back one year
[1:22:03] later to do a revisit to see what what
[1:22:07] needs to be warrantied and what doesn't.
[1:22:09] Um so I know that that's not uncommon
[1:22:11] for commercial sites, multifamily sites,
[1:22:14] things like that.
[1:22:15] >> And then what happens if they don't
[1:22:17] maintain the landscaping buffer? If they
[1:22:20] don't maintain it and the trees start
[1:22:21] dying off, then that would become a
[1:22:23] co-mp compliance issue that we would
[1:22:25] have to work through with the property
[1:22:26] owner
[1:22:26] >> and enforce just like any other code
[1:22:28] compliance issue. Okay.
[1:22:30] >> Um and then I have one last question. Um
[1:22:32] there are several lots here. The intent
[1:22:33] for Walmart I don't I haven't seen the
[1:22:35] purchase agreement so I don't know. Um
[1:22:37] is Walmart purchasing all of these lots?
[1:22:39] >> Walmart is purchasing lots lot one and
[1:22:42] then the remaining two lots my
[1:22:43] understanding would be retained by the
[1:22:45] current property owner Herd Land
[1:22:46] Company.
[1:22:47] >> Okay.
[1:22:49] Um, okay. So, I mean, it's a sizable development um within our
[1:22:56] community. I'm a little bit surprised
[1:22:57] that we don't have a representative from
[1:22:58] Walmart here tonight. Um,
[1:23:01] a little disappointed to be completely
[1:23:02] honest with you. Um, because this is a
[1:23:04] significant development. Uh, we have
[1:23:06] obviously have a lot of questions for
[1:23:08] them. Um, it would have been really
[1:23:09] helpful to have a representative here.
[1:23:12] Um, it's an important development. If it
[1:23:14] were important enough to them, I thought
[1:23:15] they would have been here to answer our
[1:23:17] questions. So, I am um a little
[1:23:20] disappointed that they chose not to do
[1:23:21] that, especially if um in writing on
[1:23:23] black and white paper they're intending
[1:23:25] to be good community partners. I don't
[1:23:27] think this is a very good first start.
[1:23:29] And that's exactly the comment, one of
[1:23:32] the comments that I was going to make is
[1:23:35] in sitting on city council
[1:23:38] and thinking about this particular
[1:23:41] project, there are two questions that I
[1:23:42] had to ask myself. Number one, how is
[1:23:44] this going to affect our residents?
[1:23:48] And number two, how is it going to
[1:23:49] affect our current businesses that we
[1:23:52] already have and retain in Walke? And
[1:23:54] when it comes to affecting our
[1:23:56] residents, I think the probably the
[1:23:59] biggest challenge that we would have in
[1:24:02] this particular location is traffic and
[1:24:06] people getting through that
[1:24:08] intersection, people getting to work in
[1:24:10] the mornings, people getting home at the
[1:24:13] end of the day and the additional truck
[1:24:15] traffic that may be incurred because of
[1:24:20] um the new development. The other is in terms of people and the
[1:24:28] inconveniences that we would have. I'm
[1:24:31] very concerned about noise and what
[1:24:35] type of um accommodations we can make as
[1:24:39] far as noise goes. And we can talk about
[1:24:42] the plantings and all of that and it
[1:24:44] sounds great, but there will still be
[1:24:46] people who are inconvenienced by noise.
[1:24:49] And what we haven't heard from Walmart
[1:24:51] is
[1:24:52] how they're going to um handle
[1:24:56] unloading trucks. Are they going to be
[1:24:58] unloading trucks in the middle of the
[1:25:00] night? Are we going to be waking people
[1:25:01] up in the middle of the night or in the
[1:25:03] early morning hours to unload freight um
[1:25:08] from these trucks? So, that's a concern
[1:25:10] that I have. The hours of loading and
[1:25:11] unloading have not been addressed at
[1:25:13] all. Um,
[1:25:17] we want Walmart to be a good neighbor.
[1:25:21] And right now, I'm not certain that I
[1:25:24] have the answers that I need. And with
[1:25:26] the traffic issues, the truck noise, I
[1:25:29] don't think at this point that it's a
[1:25:31] good addition for us in Walke. And I
[1:25:33] will be voting no.
[1:25:35] So, I'm going to um propose something
[1:25:38] and uh and we can discuss whether the
[1:25:40] council uh would like to move on it.
[1:25:43] Platting is a separate conversation.
[1:25:45] Platting is right. Dividing the land
[1:25:47] into developable components um is a
[1:25:50] separate issue from site plan. It sounds
[1:25:52] like we have some pretty uh some
[1:25:54] outstanding questions I think uh from a
[1:25:57] site plan perspective that council would
[1:25:59] like to see answered potentially from a
[1:26:02] Walmart representative uh at some point.
[1:26:05] Um, so what I would recommend is that we
[1:26:09] uh still hold the vote tonight on uh the
[1:26:14] platting of the site in terms of just uh
[1:26:18] dividing it into developable areas and
[1:26:22] propose uh for consideration the uh
[1:26:26] delay of the plan approval, the site
[1:26:29] plan approval until the next voting
[1:26:32] meeting.
[1:26:35] And one of the other things that I'd
[1:26:37] like to see is each of um
[1:26:41] the email that we got from Mr. H from
[1:26:44] Hib I and the list of things that they
[1:26:48] had concerns about. I'd like to see us
[1:26:51] type something up that the council gets
[1:26:54] so that we can see exactly how each of
[1:26:56] those areas are addressed.
[1:26:58] You answered most of that, Rudy,
[1:27:00] tonight, but if that could be
[1:27:00] >> Yeah, I'd rather have it written down so
[1:27:02] I can digest it a little bit. Yeah.
[1:27:06] >> One thing I do want to um
[1:27:11] Yeah, I'm I'm going to be done for the
[1:27:12] moment. Are do people comfortable with
[1:27:16] that plan of approach?
[1:27:18] >> Yes.
[1:27:20] >> Okay. Uh then we are going to go ahead
[1:27:22] and hold the vote on item H7. H7A uh
[1:27:28] which I have already read and has been
[1:27:29] first and seconded although quite a
[1:27:31] while ago and I forgot who first and
[1:27:32] seconded it was the motion was made by
[1:27:35] council member Grove and seconded by
[1:27:36] council member Lion.
[1:27:37] >> I knew you'd be on it. Um so I'm going
[1:27:40] to go ahead and uh have us vote on that
[1:27:45] one on I7A and I7B and then we will have
[1:27:48] a motion to table on I7 on I H8. Wow,
[1:27:54] it's been a day. Okay.
[1:27:56] Any final comments on H7A? No.
[1:28:02] Okay. All right. Please vote.
[1:28:04] >> Council member Grove,
[1:28:05] >> yes.
[1:28:05] >> Council member Lion,
[1:28:07] >> no.
[1:28:08] >> Council member Cone,
[1:28:10] >> yes.
[1:28:10] >> Council member Anderson,
[1:28:12] >> yes.
[1:28:12] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:28:13] >> yes.
[1:28:15] >> All right. Item H7B, consideration of
[1:28:17] approval of a resolution of fin
[1:28:19] approving final plat uh which makes it
[1:28:22] sound very final. However, as we know,
[1:28:24] those have changed in the past. But, um,
[1:28:27] well, can I get a motion on that?
[1:28:29] >> Move to approve.
[1:28:32] >> Second.
[1:28:34] >> Any final discussion on the platting?
[1:28:37] >> Please vote. So, just to clarify
[1:28:39] quickly, the platting is again just this
[1:28:42] breaking up. Yes.
[1:28:44] >> It's subdividing the property into into
[1:28:47] multiple parcels. Okay.
[1:28:49] >> So, it's not approving the site plan.
[1:28:51] Okay.
[1:28:51] >> Thank you.
[1:28:53] Right. Please vote.
[1:28:55] >> Council member Grove,
[1:28:56] >> yes.
[1:28:56] >> Council member Anderson,
[1:28:58] >> yes.
[1:28:58] >> Council member Cone,
[1:28:59] >> yes.
[1:29:00] >> Council member Lion,
[1:29:01] >> no.
[1:29:02] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:29:03] >> yes.
[1:29:05] >> All right, we have item H8, which is
[1:29:08] consideration of approval of a
[1:29:09] resolution approving site plan for
[1:29:11] Walmart Super Center
[1:29:13] 09872-000
[1:29:15] at 1165 East Hickman Road. Uh, can I get
[1:29:19] a motion to table? I make a motion to
[1:29:22] table this resolution. Do I need to add
[1:29:26] to that?
[1:29:28] >> Next regular meeting is September 8th if
[1:29:30] that's helpful.
[1:29:31] >> Sure.
[1:29:32] >> Make a motion to table the resolution
[1:29:34] till September 8th.
[1:29:35] >> Second.
[1:29:37] >> Any discussion on that? Tableing it.
[1:29:41] Okay. Please vote.
[1:29:43] >> Council member Cone.
[1:29:44] >> Yes.
[1:29:44] >> Council member [snorts] Grove.
[1:29:46] >> Yes.
[1:29:46] >> Council member Lion,
[1:29:47] >> yes.
[1:29:48] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:29:49] >> yes. Council member Anderson.
[1:29:51] >> Yes.
[1:29:54] » Item H9, consideration of approval of a
[1:29:56] resolution approving final plat for
[1:29:58] Spring Meadows Plat 4.
[1:30:01] Can I get a motion? Move to approve.
[1:30:04] Second.
[1:30:09] Melissa,
[1:30:10] >> can we wait for just a minute? And
[1:30:11] because there's a lot of commotion here
[1:30:12] from people leaving, so if we can just
[1:30:14] let them depart so we can concentrate on
[1:30:16] our meeting, that would be great. All
[1:30:18] right. Go ahead, Melissa.
[1:30:20] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, the
[1:30:23] owner and applicant is Walke Partnership
[1:30:25] LLC. The property is located south of
[1:30:27] Hikman Road and east of 20th Street. It
[1:30:30] contains a little over 10 acres in area.
[1:30:33] Um, it is outlined in pink on the screen
[1:30:35] kind of at the northwest corner of that
[1:30:37] colored area shown. Um, the property is
[1:30:40] zoned R-21
[1:30:42] and2 family residential district and R21
[1:30:44] and2 family residential district with a
[1:30:45] plan development overlay. The final plat
[1:30:48] includes 44 lots for single family
[1:30:50] residential. 22 lots are zoned R2PD1 and
[1:30:53] then 22 lots are zoned R2. All lots meet
[1:30:56] or exceed the minimum requirements of
[1:30:57] the R2 and R2PD1 zoning districts. Uh
[1:31:00] the plat includes extensions to both
[1:31:01] Locust Street and Cedar Street. 5 foot
[1:31:04] wide sidewalks will be provided along
[1:31:05] both sides of both streets with
[1:31:06] individual lot development. Public
[1:31:08] utilities will be provided to each lot.
[1:31:11] uh parkland dedication requirements have
[1:31:12] been met or will be met with previous
[1:31:14] and future phases of the overall Spring
[1:31:16] Meadows uh development. Um the parkland
[1:31:19] is in the green kind of just to the
[1:31:21] souththeast of that and there's also a
[1:31:23] little section right here um that first
[1:31:25] phase of Spring um Spring Meadows.
[1:31:28] Um
[1:31:30] staff recommends approval of the final
[1:31:31] plat and I would be happy to answer any
[1:31:33] questions.
[1:31:34] >> Thank you. Are there any questions?
[1:31:38] >> Please vote.
[1:31:39] >> Council member Cone.
[1:31:40] >> Yes. Council member Anderson,
[1:31:41] >> yes.
[1:31:42] >> Council member Lion,
[1:31:42] >> yes.
[1:31:43] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:31:44] >> yes.
[1:31:45] >> Council member Grove,
[1:31:46] >> yes.
[1:31:47] >> Item H10, consideration of approval of a
[1:31:50] resolution approving site plan for
[1:31:51] Discount Tire at 215 West Hickman Road.
[1:31:54] Can I get a motion?
[1:31:56] >> Move to approve. Second,
[1:31:59] Melissa.
[1:32:00] >> The owner is Walke Crossing LLC. The
[1:32:03] applicant is Holly Properties LLC. This
[1:32:06] property is located north of West
[1:32:07] Hickman Road and west of Northwest
[1:32:09] Second Street. contains a little over an
[1:32:10] acre. The property is zone C1 Community
[1:32:13] and Highway Service Commercial District.
[1:32:16] Uh the project includes uh the
[1:32:18] construction of a singlestory building
[1:32:20] that is 7,320
[1:32:22] ft in area and 24 ft in height. A trash
[1:32:24] enclosure is proposed at the northeast
[1:32:26] corner of the site. Two access points
[1:32:28] will be provided into the site from the
[1:32:30] private drive along the north. Uh that
[1:32:32] private drive is accessed off of
[1:32:34] Northwest Second Street into the
[1:32:36] Guadalajara site and that is a shared
[1:32:38] access for the overall development. A
[1:32:40] pedestrian connection will be provided
[1:32:42] into the site from the public trail
[1:32:43] along West Hickman Road.
[1:32:46] Um parking and landscaping requirements
[1:32:49] are being met. All utilities will be
[1:32:51] provided to the site. Storm water
[1:32:53] detention will be provided in the
[1:32:55] existing regional detention basin which
[1:32:56] is located to the northwest of the site.
[1:32:58] You can see it on this screen um just up
[1:33:01] here. So that's the detention for the
[1:33:03] overall development.
[1:33:04] Uh let's go to the building elevations.
[1:33:09] So the building elevations are proposed
[1:33:11] to be constructed mostly a brick
[1:33:13] aluminum um composite panels split face
[1:33:16] CMU and storefront system. Overhead
[1:33:19] doors are shown on the east elevation.
[1:33:21] Uh the trash enclosure will be
[1:33:23] constructed of the same splitface CMU to
[1:33:25] match the building. stock staff
[1:33:27] recommends approval of the site plan and
[1:33:28] I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[1:33:31] >> Thank you. Are there any questions?
[1:33:38] » Please vote.
[1:33:39] >> Council member Lion,
[1:33:40] >> yes.
[1:33:40] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:33:42] >> yes.
[1:33:42] >> Council member Anderson,
[1:33:43] >> yes.
[1:33:44] >> Council member Grove,
[1:33:45] >> yes.
[1:33:45] >> Council member Cone,
[1:33:46] >> yes.
[1:33:48] >> Item I 11, Stratford Crossing Commercial
[1:33:50] Plat 3, Stratford Crossing Retail. 11 A
[1:33:54] consideration of approval of a
[1:33:55] resolution approving preliminary plat
[1:33:57] move to approve.
[1:33:58] >> Second
[1:34:01] >> and I'll go ahead and present on 11 A
[1:34:03] through C together. Uh the owner and
[1:34:06] applicant is Sherman Hills Real Estate
[1:34:07] Partnership LLC. The property is located
[1:34:10] west of Northwest 10th Street and south
[1:34:12] of Northwest Strapford Drive. It
[1:34:13] contains 8.86 acres. The property is
[1:34:17] zoned C1 Community and Highway Service
[1:34:19] Commercial District. The preliminary
[1:34:21] plat and final plat include one lot and
[1:34:22] one outlot. Uh lot one is at the north
[1:34:25] side of the site. Um it is 1.87 acres in
[1:34:28] area and then the rest of it is outlot X
[1:34:30] and that's 6.99 acres in area. The site
[1:34:34] plan is for lot one. It includes the
[1:34:36] construction of a singlestory
[1:34:37] multi-tenant building. The building is
[1:34:39] 10,000 square feet in area and 27 feet
[1:34:41] in height. Go to the next slide here.
[1:34:46] Um, a drive-through is proposed at the
[1:34:48] south side of the building. A trash
[1:34:50] enclosure is shown just to the west of
[1:34:52] the building. Uh, two accesses will be
[1:34:55] provided into the site from the public
[1:34:56] streets, one off of Northwest 10th
[1:34:58] Street and one off of Northwest
[1:34:59] Stratford Drive. 5 foot wide sidewalks
[1:35:01] will be provided along the public
[1:35:03] streets adjacent to the site. Pedestrian
[1:35:05] connections will be provided into the
[1:35:06] site from both the north and the east.
[1:35:09] Uh, parking, lighting, and landscaping
[1:35:11] requirements are being met. Public
[1:35:13] utilities are provided to the site.
[1:35:15] Utilities within the development will be
[1:35:17] privately owned and maintained. Storm
[1:35:19] water detention will be provided with a
[1:35:21] large pond located at the northwest
[1:35:22] corner of the overall development.
[1:35:25] Uh building elevations.
[1:35:28] The building elevations are proposed to
[1:35:29] be constructed mostly of brick, stone,
[1:35:31] and fiber cement. Staff recommends
[1:35:34] approval of the preliminary plat, final
[1:35:35] plat, and site plan. And I'd be happy to
[1:35:37] answer any questions.
[1:35:39] >> Thank you. Are there any questions?
[1:35:42] Um I may have missed it in the notes. Uh
[1:35:44] the drive-thru, I assume that's intended
[1:35:46] to be like for like a restaurant type
[1:35:48] user or like a coffee shop or something
[1:35:50] like that.
[1:35:50] >> Yeah, I'm unsure at the time what it is,
[1:35:52] but um yeah, so the drive-thru would
[1:35:55] start at the um west side of the
[1:35:56] building and then work its way to the
[1:35:58] south side. And
[1:35:59] >> I guess you can go out. So the access
[1:36:01] point at Northwest 10th is a ride in
[1:36:03] right out. So they could go technically
[1:36:05] go out here if they're going south or
[1:36:06] they'd have to go back up to the north
[1:36:08] to get out. They're going to try to go
[1:36:10] north.
[1:36:12] Other
[1:36:15] questions?
[1:36:19] Please vote. Council member Cone,
[1:36:21] >> yes.
[1:36:21] >> Council member Grove,
[1:36:22] >> yes.
[1:36:23] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:36:24] >> yes.
[1:36:25] >> Council member Anderson,
[1:36:26] >> yes.
[1:36:26] >> Council member Lion,
[1:36:27] >> yes.
[1:36:28] >> Item I 11B, consideration of approval of
[1:36:31] a resolution approving final plat.
[1:36:34] >> Move to approve.
[1:36:35] >> Second.
[1:36:36] >> Melissa,
[1:36:37] >> I have nothing further to add. Any
[1:36:39] questions on the final plat?
[1:36:42] >> Please vote.
[1:36:44] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:36:45] >> yes.
[1:36:45] >> Council member Cone,
[1:36:46] >> yes.
[1:36:47] >> Council member Lion,
[1:36:48] >> yes.
[1:36:48] >> Council member Grove,
[1:36:49] >> yes.
[1:36:50] >> Council member Anderson,
[1:36:51] >> yes.
[1:36:53] >> Item I 11 C, consideration of approval
[1:36:55] of a resolution approving site plan at
[1:36:57] 660 Northwest 10th Street.
[1:36:59] >> Move to approve.
[1:37:01] >> Second.
[1:37:03] >> I have nothing further to add.
[1:37:06] >> Any questions?
[1:37:09] Please help.
[1:37:10] >> Council member Grove,
[1:37:12] >> yes.
[1:37:12] >> Council member Cron,
[1:37:13] >> yes.
[1:37:14] >> Council member Pierce,
[1:37:15] >> yes.
[1:37:15] >> Council member Anderson,
[1:37:17] >> yes.
[1:37:17] >> Council member Lion,
[1:37:18] >> yes.
[1:37:20] >> Agenda item J. Reports.
[1:37:23] >> Thank you, Mayor. Believe it or not,
[1:37:25] school starts next week. Um, so I would
[1:37:27] just encourage the public and uh our
[1:37:30] mayor and council to be patient with us.
[1:37:32] uh as schools starts up, the first
[1:37:34] couple of weeks are always a little
[1:37:36] traumatic when it comes to traffic and
[1:37:38] new traffic patterns and new schools
[1:37:40] where uh kids are trying to get to. So,
[1:37:43] um we will continue to monitor that, but
[1:37:46] uh just realize the next couple weeks
[1:37:48] are always a little bit hectic. I know
[1:37:49] there was a question relative to some um
[1:37:53] improvements that are being done on
[1:37:54] University Avenue. Um those are
[1:37:56] associated with the school
[1:37:58] administration's building and the
[1:38:00] extension of Parkview Crossing to the
[1:38:02] south. Those improvements do include the
[1:38:04] extension of the median through so that
[1:38:06] there's no um through movement between
[1:38:09] Parkview Crossing and Prairie View
[1:38:11] School. Um we have been diligently
[1:38:14] working with that contractor. I would
[1:38:16] say they're um a little behind. Um, but
[1:38:19] the goal is to get as much of that
[1:38:20] buttoned up prior to Monday. And, um,
[1:38:24] anything that's not completed prior to
[1:38:26] Monday, there will be limited working
[1:38:27] hours to allow for traffic to get in and
[1:38:30] out of those schools. So, uh, bear with
[1:38:32] us. We'll do the best we can, but just
[1:38:34] know we'll have some traffic jams here
[1:38:37] in the next couple weeks.
[1:38:40] >> No report.
[1:38:47] I want to thank everybody who emailed
[1:38:48] the council. We received tons of emails
[1:38:52] this week on many different topics and
[1:38:55] um though we were not able to reply to all of them. Just know that we do
[1:39:00] open them, we do read them.
[1:39:02] >> I replied to every single one.
[1:39:04] >> Did you really?
[1:39:05] >> I did. I didn't. There were some I
[1:39:07] missed.
[1:39:08] >> I would say I'm very thankful. However,
[1:39:10] there were a couple that uh
[1:39:14] let's just say my mom didn't raise me to
[1:39:16] talk like that to somebody, but uh um
[1:39:18] that's fine. I [clears throat] uh I did
[1:39:21] reply. Uh I appreciate staff's time and
[1:39:24] the detailed explanations for everything
[1:39:26] tonight. I really do. I know you guys do
[1:39:28] a lot of work in preparation for these
[1:39:30] meetings and a lot of work through the
[1:39:32] entire process. It's not easy. So, thank
[1:39:35] you. Um and with that, I will take a
[1:39:37] motion to adjurnn. Move to
[1:39:40] >> second.
[1:39:40] [laughter]
[1:39:42] >> All those in favor? I
[1:39:43] >> I
[1:39:45] >> Thank you.