2026-10-15 - Plan and Zoning Commission

00:06Applicant is then allowed 5 minutes for

00:07rebuttal.

00:09The hearing will then be closed and the

00:10commission will discuss and vote on the

00:12issue.

00:13All comments are to be germane to the

00:15item under consideration and speakers

00:17are to maintain a courteous manner.

00:20Items listed on the consent portion of

00:22the agenda will not be individually

00:24discussed and will be considered for

00:26approval in accordance with the

00:27recommendation in the staff report

00:30unless an individual present or a member

00:32of the commission requests that the item

00:34be removed from the consent agenda and

00:36considered separately under the public

00:38hearing agenda.

00:41Okay, first could we have a motion to

00:44approve the minutes from our last

00:45meeting?

00:47>> So moved.

00:48>> Thank you. All in favor, please raise

00:50your right hand.

00:54Thank you. Dominic, how do you vote?

00:58>> I.

00:59>> Thank you.

01:01Uh motion passes and we'll move to our

01:04only

01:06um item tonight, which is

01:09item one, a request from Timbercrest

01:11Homes for a second amendment to the

01:14Three Lakes Estates Phase Two PUD

01:16conceptual plan

01:18for property in the vicinity of 6480

01:21Sweetwater Drive to reconfigure six 16

01:24lots along the future southeasterly side

01:27of Sweetwater Drive for single-family

01:29dwelling units instead of single-family

01:32semi-detached dwelling units and to

01:34modify allowed building designs. And

01:36Sreyoshi will present tonight for staff.

01:40>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Sreyoshi

01:41Chakraborty, planning staff.

01:44Um this is a PUD amendment request for

01:47the Three Lakes Estates Phase Two PUD

01:50conceptual plan.

01:52And the request is to reconfigure 16

01:55lots along the future southeasterly side

01:58of Sweetwater Drive for single-family

02:00dwelling units instead of single-family

02:03semi-detached dwelling units and also to

02:06modify allowed building design.

02:12This is the

02:13Three Lakes Estate phase two PUD area.

02:17This is the

02:19PUD boundary in its entirety. It's about

02:22roughly

02:24little over 100 acres. It's

02:27partially platted and built out as you

02:29can see in the aerial here.

02:32The amendment only pertains to small

02:35portion in the northwestern portion of

02:38the PUD.

02:40And this is the uh

02:43particular area that's impacted and the

02:45amendment is proposed. It's roughly a

02:48little over 5 acres and you can see

02:51right here. This is where Sweetwater

02:55Drive currently dead ends. It is

02:57expected to continue, extend further to

03:01join Southeast 30th Street. And so the

03:06the amendment that's proposed pertains

03:08to the 16 lots

03:10that are to be to the south of this

03:12future Sweetwater

03:14Drive as well as a 16 lots that are to

03:18the north of the future Sweetwater

03:20Drive. The

03:22amendment that's proposed for the lots

03:25to the south is a little different from

03:27what's being proposed to the to the

03:29north and I'll go a little bit more into

03:32those details here in a minute when we

03:34talk about the

03:36the PUD conceptual plan.

03:39Here are some site photos. This is

03:42This is looking along the the road

03:46that's to the south, the the Lakehill

03:49Drive. So you can see some of the

03:52cons some of the

03:54semi-detached

03:56um

03:57single-family homes that have already

03:59been constructed.

04:02And this is looking at the proposed

04:06amendment area from Southeast 30th

04:08Street. You can see there's some grading

04:10currently going on.

04:12And this is where the Sweetwater Drive

04:16currently dead-ends, so it is expected

04:18to be extended

04:20east towards Southeast 30th Street, so

04:23um just some site context.

04:28I'll now

04:30dive into the the PUD conceptual plan

04:33itself, um the document and just give

04:37you an overview of of what's there and

04:40what's what's being proposed to be

04:41changed. So, the the PUD currently is

04:45broken out into sub areas.

04:48So, as you can see here in this area

04:50map, there is area A, B,

04:54C, and D, and there's the different

04:56housing products that are proposed in

04:57each of the sub areas. The amendment

05:00that's proposed is actually in this area

05:03E that is now broken out into two

05:06new areas, and so the area that's pink

05:10is being identified as sub area E, and

05:13that is where the amendment is

05:14occurring. The rest of area A still

05:17remains the same, and none of the

05:19proposed changes apply to any of the

05:21other sub areas. It is just um

05:25pertaining to the to the sub area E. And

05:28then just a overview of what the

05:30different sub areas include. So,

05:33area A is currently designated for

05:36semi-detached single-family dwellings or

05:39twin homes. Area B and and they're

05:42are on narrower lots, 45-ft lot most of

05:45them. Some of the corner lots are

05:47slightly wider.

05:48Area B is designated for 65 to 75-ft

05:52wide detached one household lots. Area C

05:55is designated for

05:5845-ft

06:00wide detached one household lots. And

06:03then area D

06:05is a

06:06area that's designated for four town

06:09homes.

06:10So, just some

06:11overview of how the

06:13beauty area is laid out. The beauty also

06:17currently includes

06:19the notes here, which are essentially

06:21bulk regulations that pertain to the

06:24architectural design,

06:26material, and

06:28standards pertaining to lot size, and

06:31square footage of the housing products,

06:33and so on. With this amendment, some of

06:36these

06:37these

06:38standards that have been set in the

06:41approved beauty concept plan are going

06:43to be minimized for this proposed area

06:47E. And just

06:49again, summarizing some of the key

06:51elements that that that would go away

06:54from this area E would be some of the

06:57requirements that pertain to maintaining

06:59variety in the in the in the

07:02adjacent facades of the of the houses,

07:06then provisions such as having a having

07:10a basement, and then also the provision

07:13of

07:14either a porch or masonry on the front

07:17facade, which is currently required in

07:19in these particular um

07:22bulk regulations that are identified

07:24here.

07:28Some um

07:30some more zooming in into the amendment

07:32area itself, area E. You can see the red

07:35dots here. This is where the

07:38proposal is to is to not do the

07:42the the semi-detached

07:45single-family home and instead do

07:47detached single-family homes. The

07:50detached single-family homes will still

07:52be in the narrow

07:5445 feet lot. As you can see the corner

07:58some of the corner lots are slightly

07:59wider. The the lots the 16 lots that are

08:03to the north of the proposed Sweetwater

08:05Drive that have the blue dots on them,

08:07they they will continue they're still

08:09continue they're proposed to continue as

08:11being

08:13um

08:13being the semi-detached twin homes.

08:16However, there's some there's an

08:18additional building design product that

08:21is being proposed for this particular

08:23area and I'll I'll I'll share that here

08:25in a second.

08:29So with this with this particular change

08:32the

08:34the applicant is also proposing some

08:35additional building types as mentioned.

08:39So here is one additional building

08:43product that you can see right here and

08:45it has the blue dot so it it will be

08:48applicable to the

08:50to the lots that are to the north of the

08:53future Sweetwater Drive. So

08:56on the other side you can see the

08:58existing building

09:00products that have that are part of the

09:03beauty concept plan. This is a new

09:06building type that is being added for

09:08those particular 16 lot to the north of

09:12future Sweetwater Drive.

09:15And then these are another additional

09:19five building types that are being

09:22proposed for these

09:24detached single-family homes that are

09:26being proposed to the south of

09:28Sweetwater

09:30Drive and there's five different

09:33five different building types just to

09:35summarize.

09:37Um

09:38they um these are all proposed to be

09:41built um on slab on grade without

09:44basement. So, none of them have

09:45basement.

09:47Uh just a um

09:49just a quick reminder that currently the

09:51uh PUD design standard does require all

09:55detached single-family homes to have

09:57basements. So, this that with this with

09:59these new building products that does

10:02eliminate that uh requirement.

10:05Additionally, the the um size of the

10:08houses range from about 1,166 sq ft to

10:13uh 1,657 sq ft. So, the um current

10:18design standards do require that that uh

10:21one-story houses

10:23be a minimum of 1,250 sq ft um of above

10:26grade finished area. So,

10:28um

10:29there are some

10:30there is uh some discrepancy in terms of

10:33what is required in the in the um design

10:37regulations versus what is here provided

10:40in the in the uh building types that are

10:44shown here.

10:46In addition, the um amendment proposes

10:49to um

10:50proposes to

10:52exclude or reduce several of the PUD

10:55design standards, which I summarized uh

10:59briefly before I went through some of

11:01those. So, it does um take away some of

11:03those uh design elements.

11:06So, with that um I will I can come back

11:10to if you have any further questions on

11:12the beauty concept plan, but I'll move

11:13on to the um

11:16staff rationale.

11:19Staff rationale and the staff

11:21recommendation.

11:24So, um the um

11:27just uh before before I move on, I do

11:29want to remind um the commissioners uh a

11:32little bit on the zoning history. So,

11:34this beauty concept plan

11:36was um

11:40was established in May of 2001. And then

11:45there has subsequently been the first

11:47amendment in 2019,

11:50which laid out the

11:51the the street as well as the concept

11:54for the for the lot within the within

11:57the beauty and also set some of the

11:59design standards that we are talking

12:01about that are

12:03that sets the design vision, if you

12:07will, for for that area and how that

12:09area is expected to

12:11expected to build out.

12:14And also in your staff report,

12:17we did summarize some of the key some of

12:21these key design components that I have

12:23been talking about here that

12:26that

12:28will

12:29will

12:30um cease to apply to this amendment area

12:34area E.

12:36So,

12:37with this

12:39with this particular amendment,

12:42staff does support the idea of having

12:47some flexibility and variety in terms of

12:51in terms of the housing products as well

12:53as the lot sizes and house sizes and so

12:57on. But staff does believe that with the

13:00establishment of the beauty concept

13:02plan, a vision for the area was

13:05established with the identification of

13:09design standards, building materials,

13:11layout, and and so on. This area is

13:16already partially built out and so there

13:20there is existing development there that

13:23looks a certain way and staff does think

13:26it's important that even with the with

13:29the variety and the flexibility that the

13:32that the housing products that continue

13:34to be built there continue to meet those

13:36expectations and those those and that

13:39design vision that has been identified

13:41for this for this particular area.

13:43If this area was not zoned or within a

13:47PUD, it would likely be zoned an N2B

13:50district within our within our zoning

13:52code. And so with the N2B district, the

13:55house type regulations that would apply

13:59to this area would be a house type A.

14:02And some of the things I just wanted to

14:03highlight some of the things with with

14:05with this particular district. The

14:07requirements would be like minimum lot

14:09width of 60 ft.

14:11House size ranges from 1,300 to 1,600 sq

14:14ft. There is

14:17the option

14:18to not have a basement, but then that

14:22would have to be offset by additional

14:24living space square footage of of area

14:28fuel of the house. Additionally, there

14:30are other design elements to that that

14:32apply such as transparency like the

14:36number of windows and also like how much

14:39percentage the garage door occupies on

14:42the front facade. So with the with the

14:44proposed amendment, staff does feel like

14:46if if you were to compare some of these

14:51proposed housing the building types that

14:53have been proposed in the in the PUD

14:56concept concept plan would not meet some

14:59of those

15:00those standards that are set for house

15:03type A in an N2B district. So with that,

15:06staff does support the proposed PUD

15:08conceptual plan amendment subject to a

15:11couple conditions.

15:14First, that the area A shall comply with

15:16all applicable building design standards

15:19including but not limited to the

15:20provision of basements, materials,

15:23sizes, and so on.

15:25And the

15:26the second condition is additional

15:28principal building designs

15:31both for detached and semi-detached may

15:32be utilized if the planning and urban

15:35design administrator define determines

15:37they are comparable in quality to the

15:40design standards approved by the first

15:43amendment to the PUD concept plan.

15:46So, the elements could include things

15:49like transparency,

15:51uh percent of front facade occupied by

15:54garage space, and so on. So, this in in

15:56to summarize, the second condition is

15:58essentially

16:00um allowing staff and the developer the

16:03flexibility to work on

16:06on building designs because what's

16:08submitted in the PUD concept plan

16:11uh

16:12is is not something that would currently

16:15meet those standards and therefore some

16:18some additional work may be required and

16:21staff is willing to work with the

16:22applicant to to um

16:25to come up with other designs that could

16:28meet those those design requirements.

16:34With that, um the applicant did conduct

16:37a neighborhood meeting. They scheduled

16:39it. This is the mailer that went out to

16:42the the

16:44to the entire PUD notification area.

16:49And

16:50this was additional material that the

16:53applicant provided, but um they did not

16:56have any any neighbors that attended the

16:59the neighborhood meeting, the scheduled

17:01neighborhood meeting.

17:03Additionally, we did not receive any

17:05comment cards either in support or in

17:07opposition to the project. So, this is

17:09the

17:10consent map showing the percentages.

17:17And that concludes my presentation. I'll

17:18take any questions if you have.

17:25>> I'm sorry for being slightly confused.

17:26So,

17:27we're looking at a proposed amendment

17:30and that proposed amendment has two

17:32pieces, which is dividing the lots, but

17:34then also asking to approve these house

17:38types and we're basically saying that we

17:41will not approve the house types as they

17:42are because they need to have basements

17:45and other features, but the rest of the

17:47amendment

17:49is fine.

17:50>> Yes, so there's there's the amendment is

17:53two part. The first part is

17:56the the area and let me just

17:59>> Is the actual amendment in here

18:00somewhere or is it

18:01>> Yeah, I I I think your summary, Chris,

18:04is is correct.

18:05>> I'll just go back to

18:07um

18:08to the amendment um

18:11drawing right here.

18:16So, yes, um this this the entire this

18:20this area right here

18:22if you can see my cursor

18:24um is currently area A

18:26and the uh amendment is to is to break

18:30out this area A into two sub areas and

18:32then the the new standards are applying

18:35to just this area E, which includes um

18:38getting rid of this this this these 16

18:42lots that were initially were going

18:45proposed for town uh twin homes, just uh

18:49changing that to detached single-family

18:52homes. So, essentially, not twin homes,

18:54but um detached single-family homes. And

18:57then, um adding some building design

19:01products to that area, which staff is

19:03saying the what has been proposed

19:06doesn't meet the the design standards

19:08that are established in in in the

19:10current PUD.

19:13And staff desires that the those those

19:15standards do be maintained, that they

19:17not be changed.

19:22>> Sriyash, can you help me understand the

19:24city's

19:26thinking about basements?

19:29Right? The the twin homes were not

19:31required to have basements, correct? Or

19:34not Is that right or not right?

19:36>> I believe the twin homes have basements.

19:38>> Yeah, they I believe they do.

19:41>> Okay.

19:42>> I'll go back here to the

19:46>> And a house type A

19:48would also need to have a basement.

19:51The

19:52>> In I I In most of the zoning districts,

19:55house type A does require to have a

19:57basement. There is one zoning district

19:59N2B, which um there is some land nearby

20:03here

20:04that is the one kind of suburban style

20:07zoning district that does provide an

20:09option

20:10if you But if you go the non-basement

20:13route, then you have to have a larger

20:15square footage.

20:17>> Okay.

20:17>> And so our thinking here is the the PUD

20:20is established for detached

20:22You know, this PUD predates our current

20:24code.

20:25It established the need or the

20:27requirement to have a basement.

20:29And it also established um square

20:32footage requirements.

20:34The square footage requirements in the

20:35PUD are are less than what our current

20:38code would require.

20:39>> Mhm.

20:40>> Um so in some ways this PUD has is a

20:44little more restrictive than our current

20:45code, but in other ways it's more

20:46flexible with regard to some lot sizes

20:49and and uh house sizes. And so

20:53our perspective is is let's let's

20:56keep that

20:58the balance that's already there

21:00that was already established with this

21:01PUD that's partially more flexible than

21:03current code, but also partially more

21:05restrictive. It's kind of this hybrid.

21:07Let's not get in the middle of that.

21:09Let's let it be.

21:11We bring in the new product type on this

21:13one side of the road.

21:15>> Thank you.

21:18Other questions for Srioshi.

21:21>> I uh want to follow up on

21:24the prior question about the basements.

21:27Um if we have 16

21:29homes, single-family homes that are

21:31being proposed

21:32without a basement, how does that affect

21:35the entire PUD? What's the staff

21:37rationale for requiring those?

21:41>> The uh the PUD currently requires all um

21:46deta- detached single-family homes to

21:49have a basement.

21:52>> So, that's the only reason why we want

21:54to see them as well

21:55for this.

21:57>> Yeah, so the Yes, the

22:00I think the two things here is this is

22:02greenfield development and the city has

22:04set we've established a set

22:07set of expectations in our current code

22:09for

22:10um

22:11what we expect for greenfield

22:13development.

22:14And the PUD predates those, but actually

22:19is very similar to the current code.

22:21And so, they're they're switching the

22:24you know, we're fine from our

22:26perspective of a narrow lot product

22:28here. This PUD actually already has an

22:29area that's 45-to-55-foot-wide

22:31lots.

22:33And

22:35it We're trying I think it's twofold.

22:37It's you know, we the PUD's half built

22:39out, so we have people that have

22:41bought into a vision.

22:43And then on top of that, we have design

22:47expectations for greenfield development

22:49with the expansion of service areas.

22:52Um and so, that's the basis of what our

22:54current standards are.

22:56We're not saying let's erase the PUD and

23:00just go 100% with what our current code

23:02require.

23:04But we're also keeping the

23:06point of view in mind that what what

23:09would we expect for Greenfield

23:11development in a suburban zoning

23:13district.

23:18>> Other questions?

23:22Uh is the city stance that essentially

23:25all of the standards from the original

23:27PUD need to be

23:29uh retained

23:31including the lot size or the lot widths

23:35and the building sizes?

23:37>> Yeah, I I and I can clarify um

23:41the

23:43the lot sizes that so there there there

23:45is some um

23:47minimum lot direct a lot dimensions and

23:49so on. Those would those would have to

23:52um change with the amendment to allow

23:54the variability in the lot sizes. I I

23:57staff is

23:58um with the zoning condition staff is uh

24:01looking at the general notes which have

24:04the

24:05the regulations that relate mostly to

24:07architectural design standards and um

24:12the uh layout and materials and so on.

24:17>> If I can maybe ask it in in another way,

24:20is the only thing the city essentially

24:22agrees

24:23with is the change in use

24:27from

24:28attached to detached in this area?

24:32>> Yes, staff is supportive of the of that

24:34change in use.

24:35>> And is that essentially the only change

24:37of the PUD that this

24:39city the staff is

24:41comfortable with?

24:43>> Correct.

24:44>> Okay, thank you.

24:48>> What is happening to the north

24:51west corner that seems to be part of the

24:53property but not part of the

24:56PUD amendment. Those six

24:59>> Of the

25:00>> or seven lots.

25:01>> These right here?

25:02>> Yes.

25:06Oh, I can let the applicant speak

25:08whenever he gets to

25:09>> Yeah.

25:09>> Those are I believe that are required to

25:11be detached. They're not part of the

25:13amendment, but we can let them go into

25:14greater detail.

25:18>> Any other questions?

25:24Thank you.

25:25Is the applicant present?

25:30Um please state your name and address

25:33for our records. And you have up to 10

25:35minutes, and when you're done, if you

25:37could sign in, there should be a sign-in

25:39sheet up there by your podium. Okay?

25:42>> Um Melissa Hills with Civil Engineering

25:45Consultants at 2486 Street in Urbandale.

25:49Um

25:50the

25:52seven lots that you were referring to

25:55uh in the northwest corner, that those

25:57lots are actually part of the original

25:59Three Lakes Estates PUD, not the phase

26:02two PUD.

26:04Um so, those aren't included in that

26:06this amendment area. So,

26:09um

26:10I do have uh

26:12representatives with the home builder

26:15and the developer here

26:18uh that can maybe answer some more

26:19questions for you regarding

26:22um

26:23the buildings themselves.

26:25Uh if you have any questions for me on

26:27the layout or otherwise or lot sizes, I

26:30can I can certainly answer those

26:31questions for you.

26:36>> I'm interested in hearing why

26:38the uh developer and is proposing the

26:41changes in the building design.

26:45>> I think part of the part of the reason

26:47is um this site has significant slope to

26:51it and uh

26:53uh

26:54that this street in particular has

26:57um the lots on the

27:00south side of Sweetwater Drive uh are

27:02back-to-front draining.

27:04Uh and then we have uh steeper walk-outs

27:07on the opposite side. So, the townhomes

27:10uh will have basements with a walk-out.

27:13Um and then the thought is that the

27:15single-family on the other side would be

27:17slab-on-grade and reduce um

27:20um the excavation needed for a basement

27:23there. So,

27:25that was kind of part of the thoughts on

27:27doing the slab-on-grade. And then I can

27:30I can let them speak to uh

27:33the rationale for

27:36for the way they wanted to design the

27:37homes. So,

27:39with that, I will pass it off to

27:42uh

27:43Lou or John.

27:55>> Thank you. Uh my name is Lou Lamoreaux.

27:57I'm actually the land acquisition

27:58project manager for D.R. Horton in the

28:00Des Moines metro. Um

28:03I just had a a quick statement that I

28:05wanted to make, kind of go over some

28:08kind of reasons why we're looking to do

28:09this. Um the big thing for me um is that

28:13our goal isn't to

28:16change the housing completely. We want

28:18to give uh a lot of new home buyers,

28:22your working-class people, and your

28:24people that are looking to downsize

28:26different variety of homes that they can

28:28get into. Um now, with these homes doing

28:32the slab-on-grade, um

28:33you know, there is a significant

28:36decrease in cost on building vertically.

28:38Um we're allowed to

28:40pass that off to the home buyer. Um so,

28:43we're able to bring these homes in the

28:44market sub-300s

28:47um for these homeowners. And I think

28:49with the way that the market is

28:51dictating these smaller houses

28:54are going to be very big in a lot of our

28:58communities.

28:59We've seen an influx in the Minnesota

29:01market, Minneapolis market

29:03with these smaller homes that

29:06people are looking for.

29:08The big thing is we understand

29:10that, you know, we want to work with the

29:12city if it's more of architectural

29:14things going on like landscaping,

29:17you know, if it's having to do hardy

29:18siding instead of vinyl siding.

29:21These are things that we're willing to

29:22work with the city on to really make

29:24sure that we bring

29:26a

29:26a great product to these people.

29:28The other thing that I would like to

29:30bring up is

29:32you know, with this we're trying to kind

29:34of hit all of the markets, right? You're

29:36trying to get your first home buyers.

29:38In the same area we have houses that go

29:40from 3 to 400,000.

29:42And then just south of that we do have

29:44houses that are in the 5 to 600. So

29:47we're trying to give a little variety to

29:49everybody.

29:50Um

29:52that's kind of all I had. I mean, my big

29:54thing, like I said, is just our shared

29:56goal of a quality product to bring to

29:58everybody in Delano.

30:00>> Could you talk in more detail about the

30:02basements and why that's a choice that

30:04you're you're proposing to save money?

30:07>> I mean, for that, I mean

30:11it's roughly around a 30K difference

30:14that we can pass off to the homeowner.

30:16Um

30:17from a safety standpoint, you know,

30:19there are townhomes to the south there

30:21that are slab-on-grade. Um I don't think

30:24that the safety concern is much of it.

30:27You can't tell the difference from

30:28aesthetically from the outside any

30:30difference. Um and a lot of times, you

30:32know, for that

30:34you know, if people are looking for

30:35these smaller homes, they're not looking

30:37for basements.

30:42>> What What's the safety concern? I'm

30:44sorry, I don't understand that.

30:45>> Um some people have safety concern with

30:48I mean, we do live in Iowa, hurricanes.

30:52Um I think that's usually kind of the

30:53safety concern, but

30:56with being slab-on-grade, I mean, you're

30:58still it's the home is safe,

31:00structurally sound, and you guys have

31:02building requirements for that as well.

31:06>> I haven't seen a hurricane in a while.

31:07Are we talking about tornadoes?

31:08>> Tornadoes, yeah, sorry. I'm from the

31:09East Coast.

31:11>> No problem. We haven't been hit by a

31:12hurricane, but derecho

31:14>> Yeah, the derecho, yeah.

31:15>> which seems like a basement would be

31:16better. So, if the argument is for cost,

31:19and you're saying that your

31:20single-family home, you're able to save

31:2230 and get 300 at a price point, what

31:25would your price point be if these

31:26actually were the duplex if these were

31:29semi-detached with basements? Is that

31:31scenario if cost is your driver? How

31:34does that work?

31:35>> You're looking at roughly, I mean, for

31:37instance, those twin homes would sell

31:39for 350.

31:41So, your 370 would be kind of that area.

31:45So, it would be roughly a a

31:48significant savings for the homeowner as

31:49well.

31:53>> What do you mean? I'm sorry, that sounds

31:54like that's more expensive.

31:56>> Well, the the the twin homes would be

31:57more expensive.

32:00>> What's that?

32:01>> Each side.

32:02>> Each side is not going to be more

32:03expensive if I have a basement than a

32:05single home with no basement.

32:08>> Yes.

32:08>> And that single home with a basement,

32:10you're still saying it's only 30K off?

32:13>> Um so, from the the twin home, so from

32:17us building the single-family home to

32:19what we had for the twin home, that's

32:21going to be across the street, there's

32:23roughly a a 30 grand

32:25vertical cost to it.

32:28But with that, you're going to save

32:30there would be more savings for the

32:31homeowner

32:33cuz we'd be able to sell it at a lower

32:34price.

32:39>> I'm sorry, I'm not in the residential

32:40market much. I'm just not understanding

32:42your math in some of these items, but if

32:43I put two completely independent

32:45structures there that are going to be It

32:48doesn't matter. I'm sorry.

32:49>> No, but basically you're saying we're

32:50only saving 30 grand by getting rid of a

32:52basement as per ordinance, and that

32:55amount is like a 10% on what your price

32:58point is, right?

32:59>> What's uh 15% savings on

33:03on the stick and brick on the vertical,

33:05um and then

33:07Yeah, it would be roughly, you know,

33:08yeah, 10%.

33:10>> Okay.

33:13>> Other questions for the applicant?

33:16>> Did you say there were already some of

33:18these

33:19um

33:21twin homes, or whatever you want to call

33:22them, already with no basement?

33:25>> So, the the twin home

33:28has a basement, but there are townhomes

33:30in the area that are slab-on-grade.

33:32>> Townhomes?

33:33>> Yeah.

33:33>> Thanks.

33:41>> Any other questions?

33:43>> How many units were uh proposed for the

33:47twin homes compared to how many units

33:50>> It'd be the same amount. It'd be 16,

33:52yeah.

33:53>> Yeah. So,

33:58Okay. So, the the value of the 16 units

34:02is going to be significantly less

34:05with

34:07detached than

34:09the twin homes bi-attached.

34:13>> The value of the home, yes.

34:15>> And so, 16 units with bi-attached are

34:19going to be significantly

34:21more

34:22than 16 detached units.

34:25>> It would It would be roughly anywhere

34:26from like It could be 50 to 70, could be

34:29more.

34:30>> Each unit?

34:31>> Each unit, yes.

34:32>> That's what I mean. So, that's

34:32significant. That's 16 * 50.

34:35>> Yep.

34:36>> Yeah. So, you're you're doing

34:38single-family detached to allow the

34:40first-time homeowner to go sub-300,

34:43which

34:44>> Absolutely.

34:44>> is not very common.

34:46>> Yep.

34:46>> Hard to do.

34:49>> Uh like I said, our goal is to be able

34:51to

34:53allow those new home buyers, people that

34:54want to downsize, your hardworking, you

34:56know,

34:57working-class people be able to afford a

35:00a new construction home.

35:04>> Have you had any trouble selling the

35:06townhomes that have no basement in this

35:09neighborhood?

35:11>> That was We didn't We didn't build

35:13those. I

35:15let John speak on that when he talks.

35:20>> So, just to confirm,

35:22you're okay with staff recommendations

35:25except for the basement.

35:28>> We're like I said, we're willing to work

35:29with the city on, you know, really

35:32trying to if it like I said, hardie

35:34siding, landscaping, you know, things of

35:37that nature.

35:38Um

35:39You know, the the big thing yeah would

35:40be the the slab-on-grade.

35:43>> Okay. You guys have about 2 minutes left

35:46if the other gentleman has any

35:49comments he'd like to add.

35:50>> Thank you.

35:51>> Thanks.

35:57>> My name is John Larson, I'm the

35:58developer. Couple things I do believe

36:00that with the twin homes we were allowed

36:02to do slab-on-grade. I'm trying to read

36:04through that and I'm I'm not seeing it,

36:06but I believe that was the case. So,

36:08going to the single-family house

36:10slab-on-grade

36:12um won't be a big change compared to the

36:15twin homes. Um letter D up there, that's

36:18where we did 81

36:20uh townhomes that were slab-on-grade.

36:22Those are all two-story. Out of the 81,

36:24we have six left to sell that we just

36:26finished in the last 3 months. So, the

36:28absorption rate has been pretty good. We

36:30started those I believe in '22 or '23.

36:33So, we've gone through those pretty

36:34fast. So, been pleased with that.

36:37Open for any other questions that you

36:38have.

36:44>> Do you think that the lack of basements

36:46will affect the ability of

36:49the houses to be sold? Like, will the

36:52market accept houses with no basements?

36:54>> Yes.

36:55They will. We're doing this in Grimes.

36:57Uh we've been at 89 um unit complex

37:00there. I'd say a third of those are

37:01going to be slab on grade. And then also

37:03in Waukee, an area called Commonwealth,

37:05there's 119 lots. And right now that

37:08builder has proposed I think 25 of the

37:10119 to be slab on grade.

37:12So,

37:13um here up the I believe there's 230

37:16lots left to be built on on E, B,

37:22and C.

37:24And to have just a few variety of as a

37:26slab on grade, I think it's a good way

37:27to mix it up a little bit.

37:29And then like you said, you know, from

37:31the exterior, you're really not going to

37:32see a difference when you drive down the

37:34street.

37:35Uh the other issue in this area, there

37:37is a lot of soil issues. It's some

37:39unstable soils. So, we've had to either

37:41treat the soils or excavate 2 or 3 ft

37:44each basement. Um so, it's it's

37:47something this time of year that you

37:49worry about when it starts to get cold.

37:51Um it's easier to do a slab on grade

37:53than a basement.

37:55So.

37:57>> Thank you.

38:00Okay, is there anyone in the audience

38:01here tonight who would like to speak in

38:03favor of this item?

38:07Anyone opposed? Excuse me, anyone

38:08neutral?

38:11Okay, and opposed? Please come forward.

38:16Uh also state your name and address for

38:18our records and sign in when When done.

38:20You have up to 5 minutes.

38:22>> that speaks need to put their address

38:23in? Do they their address in?

38:24>> Yeah, they will. We'll get them

38:25afterwards.

38:26>> Got it.

38:35>> Yeah, and feel free to do that after you

38:36speak, especially if we're going to have

38:37multiple.

38:38>> All right.

38:39>> Yeah, no worries.

38:40>> Captain, very legible.

38:42Chad Saline, 2822 Sweetwater Drive. I

38:45live at the part that is that little

38:47kitty-corner before we get to E that is

38:49currently not built out. Um in doing

38:52some research and some of the concerns I

38:53have about this project, one, I do

38:56remember Mr. Larson speaking to us uh

38:58about 2019 and we got the when it

39:00replatted and there was a lot of no one

39:02wants a big house, no one likes big

39:04lots. And I think a lot of the issue we

39:06have now where this is coming to

39:07fruition is, you know, that passed, the

39:09lots have now been compressed, so now

39:11we're fitting in what we can fit in.

39:13The other, you know, big thing I have

39:14with this slab-on-grade with no basement

39:17and I think about is like, is that

39:18anywhere in the development?

39:20And I didn't think I've seen any of

39:22those. Where it is does exist is on the

39:24other side of Indianola on 20 Southeast

39:2719th Court and Street. There's 34

39:30properties there. And when I hear about

39:32making it affordable for homeowners, I

39:34looked up some of those and I got tired

39:36of looking them up cuz every one of them

39:37was owned by a management company. So,

39:39every slab-on-grade home

39:41within a mile and a half, give or take a

39:44throw of a baseball, is all owned by a

39:46management company. So, it's not really

39:49a homeowner getting those. It is a

39:50rental company getting those. Now, is

39:52someone living in them? Absolutely.

39:53Someone's able to get that. However,

39:56the reality is it's not a homeowner in

39:57the sense of a home.

39:59So, I'm really kind of questioning like,

40:01who is coming to buy as a homeowner,

40:03first time, downsize, etc.

40:05In Iowa, with our hurricanes, who wants

40:08a not have a basement?

40:11Believe me, we've had a tornado hit out

40:12there. It was terrifying. I've had to

40:14get my roof replaced from it. We headed

40:16right down to that basement. So, the

40:18last thing I want to think about is

40:20you know, it's probably a myth, but the

40:21lake does prevent them from coming down

40:23all the way, but I mean it hit into

40:25Brockway. It was tearing roofs off,

40:27pulling siding. You've got 16 homes

40:29without a basement.

40:31If you're not used to this, that's going

40:32to leave scars on your kids when they

40:35can't go to a basement and you have uh

40:37siding ripping off. So, that's my big uh

40:40slab on grade concern is just their

40:42safety issue. I get the sand, the

40:45uh soil sucks,

40:47but it seems as like you have to dig 2

40:48ft deeper. You know, it just seems like

40:51I didn't hear anything about flooding

40:52concerns. I heard more about it's a cost

40:55to us. It's a

40:56problem for us to build. I haven't heard

40:59anything about we're adding to the

41:00neighborhood. It looks like we're

41:01pulling everything away from these

41:02houses. We're not

41:04we're going to do this to make this

41:05better. We have five selections for 16

41:07lots, so every third lot you might see

41:09the same house. You know, it just seems

41:10like there's a lot of

41:12as a resident for me, it doesn't seem

41:15like a gain. Yes, you know, a

41:17neighborhood will get built out. This

41:19thing's been sitting empty for a long

41:20time, so it will eventually become a

41:21neighborhood, but again, we're throwing

41:23stuff that isn't even consistent with

41:25what's already there. And I get the

41:27platting of it affects that, but it's

41:28like all Sweetwater Drive is

41:29single-family homes. You run all the way

41:32to the other D.R. Horton construction

41:34area when you cross 30th, single-family

41:36homes. This would be the one enclave

41:38where you have on Sweetwater the

41:40multi-families and the single-family

41:43detached or the single-family detached

41:45and then you'd have the uh on slab

41:47single families. So, it's not consistent

41:49with what that neighborhood was always

41:50kind of hopefully intended to be or

41:52built out as.

41:55I'm done.

41:56>> Thank you.

41:57Next speaker, please come forward.

42:00State your name and address for our

42:01records. You have up to 5 minutes and

42:03then you can sign in when you're done.

42:05>> My name is Stacy Hunt. I live at 2922

42:08Lakehill Drive. I'm actually in the

42:11section A there. I was the first one in

42:15the development for the twin homes.

42:19And I purposely did my research. My

42:21realtor talked to the builder's realtor

42:23because I wanted to know what behind me

42:26was going to be zoned because

42:28one,

42:30I moved my mother in with me and I she

42:32has a view. I knew putting in one-story

42:35twin homes would take some of the view,

42:38but not all of the view.

42:40And that zoning was a huge decision and

42:44why I purchased this townhome.

42:47Now you go to single family, you're

42:49going to put two stories in,

42:51my view is totally gone.

42:54I would have never purchased this home

42:58had I known that. And I did my research

43:00ahead of time.

43:02The no basements are west of us. I don't

43:06consider that in our area. I don't want

43:09my property value lowered because now

43:12there's going to be changes made that

43:13might

43:14slightly impact

43:16what the builder can get for a house

43:19and what they can save.

43:21So, I'm asking that this remain the way

43:25it was zoned when I decided to purchase

43:28because that was the top of my list

43:31as as buying into that section as the

43:33first person.

43:36Thank you.

43:38>> Thank you.

43:40Would anyone else like to speak in

43:41opposition? Please come forward.

43:48>> Hi.

43:49I'm Lana Paul and I live at 2934 Lake

43:52Hill Drive, so also in section A.

43:55Um like Stacy said, we bought the home

43:57with the view. It was the one thing that

43:59really sold us. We looked at multiple

44:01townhomes

44:03um from Pleasant Hill, Altoona, Ankeny,

44:06Des Moines. And this was the one area

44:08that we felt like we had a little bit of

44:10a country out there. Um I had lived in

44:12Pleasant Hill for a little while, lived

44:14in a a nice home there, but we wanted a

44:16town home. I had lived previously in

44:19Florida.

44:20Um big concern what I have with what

44:22they're talking about um from Mr.

44:25that was with DR Horton was we had the

44:27same thing in Florida. We built a brand

44:29new house down there 3 years ago.

44:31Beautiful neighborhood. I spent $700,000

44:34on this home.

44:36We ended up with some custom or

44:39non-custom builders coming in building

44:41cheaper homes, selling them um to

44:44investors, renting out homes, destroyed

44:47a beautiful 2,800

44:50home neighborhood because of what they

44:52brought in. They brought in cheaper

44:54housing.

44:55Doesn't always mean bad, but I'll tell

44:57you what what it did to my home in in

44:59our neighborhood in Florida was

45:01horrible. So I have some concerns about

45:03lowering the prices where we're at right

45:05now. We're in, you know, the 400,000,

45:08you know, but when we start lowering and

45:10doing that, what's that going to bring

45:12in for families to our neighborhood? So

45:14we're losing sight. We're possibly

45:16losing the connectivity of what we have

45:19in our neighborhood now.

45:21Um we are hoping that we have an HOA and

45:24we are hoping that our our street

45:25especially would stay the same. You

45:27know, the mowing would be all the way

45:29across. Now we're already fighting that

45:32we won't have one HOA, we'll probably

45:34have multiple. And so just worried about

45:37what that's going to degrade

45:40the neighborhood, you know, and what's

45:41already there. Uh we felt we had a

45:43beautiful street to live on. We felt the

45:45townhomes were nice, well-built.

45:49And so just big concerns about what this

45:51is going to do behind us. And like I

45:53say, you put a two-story right behind

45:54our house, we'll we just lost all of our

45:57view of everything. We knew we'd have

45:59one, but we We think we'd have two

46:01stories tall, so just asking for a

46:03reconsideration of that.

46:06Um just don't want to get into where I

46:07lost $100,000 on my house in Florida

46:10because the devaluation.

46:12And I thought we were safe here. We

46:14looked into, just as Stacy said, to make

46:16sure everything was already platted

46:18already and we knew what was going to be

46:20behind us. So, just ask for your

46:22consideration on that matter. Thank you.

46:25>> Real Real quick, you You're in a town

46:26home. Do you have a basement?

46:28>> Yes, we have a basement. Mhm. We have a

46:30walk-out. We're in a twin home on on

46:32Lake Hill drives. So, we would back up

46:35to where they're wanting to put in the

46:36two-story without the basements on the

46:39slabs.

46:43>> Thank you. Would anyone else like to

46:44speak in opposition?

46:56>> Marla Scheffler, I live at 2926 Lake

46:59Hill Drive. I really don't have anything

47:01to add. I just wanted to record my

47:03opposition. I think everything's been

47:05said that I needed to say.

47:07Thank you.

47:09>> Would anyone else like to speak?

47:13Okay. Uh the applicant, you do have 5

47:15minutes for a rebuttal if there's any

47:17comments you'd like to make

47:19in response.

47:37Okay. Would you Would you like to say

47:39anything? Come on up.

47:47>> I mean later, but

47:48>> In listening to their concerns, I

47:49understand those. And when they bought,

47:51I agree uh E was going to be duplexes.

47:53So, in talking with with builder, I

47:56think everything Most of their homes are

47:57on the far southwest.

48:00Uh he would agree to do ranch

48:02style homes there instead of the

48:04two-story, and we can keep the

48:06two-stories behind what they're already

48:07building right now on the east side of

48:10A. So, farther east on Lake Hill Drive.

48:12So, I think that'd be a good compromise

48:14to capture your views to keep them the

48:16same.

48:19>> That's nice. I

48:21uh wonder if

48:22um

48:24uh

48:28the

48:30Is there any chance these are going to

48:31get sold? This might be a question for

48:33DR Horton.

48:35Um

48:36like as a grip or a package to uh

48:39investment group for

48:41single family? Are these

48:42>> That is That is not the plan.

48:44>> I understand, but is that an option?

48:46Like maybe they build them, no one buys

48:47them, and they can sell them to a

48:49management company or or investment

48:51company that can buy them?

48:51>> I'd say no, because there is always a

48:53chance. I'm not going to say

48:55>> Sure.

48:55>> but um

48:57there is certain people that buy single

48:58family rentals. I think the piece that

49:00he's talking about is on Indianola. It

49:02was a planned neighborhood where there's

49:03a lot of uh module homes that they

49:05brought in. Is that what you're

49:06referring to?

49:07>> No, they are actual slab on grade single

49:09family residences. They are modular in

49:11nature. There's mobile homes the other

49:13side. So, they may have been modular and

49:14they're just dropped in there. I don't

49:15know if they constructed them or not. I

49:17don't

49:18>> Yeah, right at the corner of Pine.

49:19>> know where I'm You We're talking the

49:20same area.

49:20>> Yeah, that's the same, but I think

49:22they're all owned They It's kind of like

49:23a trailer park association where the

49:25management owns it, and you lease it

49:27from them.

49:28>> But, it's not in the

49:29It's not in the area of Indianola.

49:32>> Let's keep the conversation like with

49:34the people with the microphones and up

49:36here cuz it's tough for

49:38our recording to capture what's going on

49:40if there's a larger conversation

49:41happening.

49:43>> I'm going to tell you it's highly

49:44unlikely that these will sold, because

49:46usually those are sold in more than 40

49:48at a time.

49:50And these are only 16. So.

49:52I'm not going to guarantee they never

49:54will because I won't ever do that, but

49:56highly unlikely.

50:00>> Thank you.

50:03Okay, I'll close the public hearing now

50:05and open it up to the commission for

50:06discussion and motions, please.

50:09What do we think?

50:13>> Um maybe I just wanted some

50:14clarification on what he just said. The

50:17last thing was they would agree to just

50:19go single story

50:21on

50:22>> I think for a a part of the

50:26beige colored um

50:29area A, but I think we could get some

50:31clarity.

50:31>> that just kind of getting thrown out and

50:33not really getting discussed, it was

50:34kind of hard to

50:36understand without looking at it on a

50:38plan.

50:38>> Yeah, Shreyas, why don't you get us to I

50:41would actually even go to the um

50:43go to the aerial

50:46because it was um

50:48those that exist today.

50:51So, anything it would be all the lots

50:53that back up to basically there's

50:56six units or three by attached.

51:01So, the commitment would be to back one

51:04stories up to those

51:06is what what the offer was.

51:12That's that's how I took the offer, yes.

51:17Yes, I would kind of

51:20>> The first houses on the southwest

51:22west, they already have the single

51:24family lots.

51:25>> Can you go ahead and go to the

51:25microphone, please?

51:26>> Sorry.

51:28The first lots on the far

51:30if you keep there, those already back up

51:32to single family lots that aren't even

51:33in this PUD. So,

51:36a two-story house can be built there

51:38and this doesn't affect it

51:40not of what you vote on tonight cuz

51:43that's in a separate plat, a separate

51:45PUD from years ago. So, that's not a

51:48concern to you. We can't do anything

51:49about your view.

51:53>> So, there are five

51:54>> understand why?

51:55>> There are five single-family homes that

51:56are what currently back into these

51:59houses. So, you're saying you would go

52:01to 11 instead of 16?

52:04>> It's at a different PUD.

52:06>> No, I'm I'm talking about the ones

52:08you're proposing, the single-family

52:09homes.

52:11>> I understand. So, the farthest ones I

52:13don't know how they address is, but the

52:14ones to the southwest, the first five,

52:16could only be ranches. Is that Am I

52:18interpreting the same thing?

52:20>> Yeah, I I I see six units that back up

52:23It's three bi-attached or six actual

52:26units when you look at the aerial. Can

52:27you zoom in on that so people can

52:29>> Probably six would be right. It'd have

52:30to be an even even number.

52:31>> Yeah, so I think

52:33it's um

52:35You're

52:36Yeah, we're almost there, but

52:39So, the first

52:40>> two back up to single-family lots in a

52:43different PUD, so we cannot guarantee

52:45>> Right. It's It's the the northern

52:48>> Those are single-family lots. They could

52:49be two-story, they could be a ranch.

52:51>> Right. The the northern are

52:54>> I just want you to understand that. What

52:55we're voting on tonight won't affect you

52:56at all.

52:59Yes, it's true.

52:59>> But, let's Yeah.

53:02>> So, what you're saying is the offer you

53:03offered actually doesn't help at all? Is

53:05that what you're claiming now?

53:06>> For where she lives.

53:08>> That seems disingenuous.

53:10>> Well, it's it's outside of the area that

53:11we're talking about tonight. I think

53:13he's just trying to be clear, but I

53:14let's

53:16>> I think what Johnny said is correct.

53:19If we go to the

53:21>> If you go to the PUD

53:22>> map with the red dots.

53:24>> Mhm.

53:33>> So, the

53:36the westernmost

53:39the five westernmost

53:42lots

53:45would only be allowed to be

53:49single story.

53:54Are we

53:55Are we

53:55>> You are correct. I just want to clarify

53:59the first one in yellow

54:01from B to A, the first one on A right

54:03there.

54:05If you go If you go to the north on your

54:07in your arrow,

54:09those lots are not what we're talking

54:11about tonight. And that's what she's

54:12concerned about with her view.

54:13>> Yes.

54:14>> to make sure that's on the record.

54:15>> Okay.

54:16>> But we cannot guarantee what's built

54:18there.

54:19It's a house.

54:20>> understood by the commission.

54:23>> It is part of our development, but it's

54:24not part of this PUD.

54:36>> It might just have to be covered somehow

54:38in a different conversation outside of

54:40this.

54:41So, I I

54:42>> Nothing is changing on on those lots is

54:44what I'm trying to say. I don't want to

54:46be called back up here in a few months

54:47and say that I was

54:49misled. I want to point that out. But

54:51however, the next four lots or six

54:55>> Five.

54:57>> Five five above, six below.

55:01>> We had those addresses, which they're

55:02not assigned yet. They're still in the

55:03construction. We can classify those as

55:06not only to be single story residences.

55:10>> Okay.

55:10>> that'd be a good proposal.

55:15>> Thank you.

55:19Okay.

55:19>> to address the other concern about um

55:21Reynolds um

55:24that uh

55:25um neighbors had. So,

55:29yes, it's probably not going to be one

55:31big investment group to buy them, but um

55:34the possibility lies with

55:39single family investors buying them.

55:42But I'll say that a $300,000 house

55:45doesn't pencil as a rental.

55:47You know, so there's not there's not

55:49going to be rental product next year

55:52there.

55:52It's um

55:55that's my take on it. There's

55:57no one's going to invest $300,000 and

55:59get $3,000 a month rent cuz they're not

56:02going to get them there.

56:07>> Okay, other comments?

56:16Uh sorry, we don't

56:18>> I'm generally in favor of the staff

56:20recommendation.

56:22I would actually support removing the

56:24requirement for a basement.

56:27I think it when you look at the whole

56:28property, it's almost 400

56:30units that are being developed here.

56:33We're talking about 11 single-family

56:35homes.

56:36Uh I agree with the assessment about the

56:39market that more of the

56:42starter [snorts] homes are needed.

56:45And I think that would help with the

56:47diversity of the product in this

56:49neighborhood.

56:57>> I'm personally not in favor, especially

57:00with

57:01I'm I'm not in favor holistically here

57:03of removing the requirement for the

57:05garage, but I also strongly agree with

57:06Johnny's position on what's needed as

57:08far as housing go. I wouldn't oppose the

57:11majority going that direction, but I

57:13don't really necessarily understand

57:15fully the point of $300,000 of changing

57:1810% of that price there, which we can't

57:20even guarantee actually passes back to

57:22anyone anyway for this housing product

57:24when basements are

57:26um more standard here, but I would I

57:28would not oppose the majority if they're

57:31wanting to be okay with the no basement.

57:38>> Um so by if if we were to approve staff,

57:42that doesn't do anything about the

57:45two-story.

57:47They could still build the two-story.

57:48>> Yeah, if you'd um

57:50you'd want to include

57:52>> an amendment.

57:52>> Yes.

57:53>> Yep.

57:54>> Okay.

57:55Um well, I'd like to hear from all of

57:57you if you're willing to uh speak up.

57:59So, uh please do so.

58:03>> I would support the no basements as

58:04well.

58:07>> Same.

58:10>> I support the no basements, but I

58:12appreciate the um

58:14compromise proposed to build just a

58:16single family stories

58:18story homes behind the existing homes,

58:20and so I'd like to see that added to any

58:22motion.

58:24>> I agree with Katie. I also want to add

58:26and at least clarify that if we

58:29move staff with the adjustments

58:31proposed,

58:33that we would not be requiring larger

58:35lot widths

58:37and larger square footages.

58:41The staff's recommendation

58:44>> Well,

58:45>> suggesting that.

58:47>> Net um

58:49only one of the house plans that they

58:51submitted is below the square footage

58:53threshold.

58:54And

58:57so I I think they've shown they have

58:59houses that will fit on the the lot that

59:02will meet the minimum square footage

59:04requirements. So, I don't think that's

59:06an issue.

59:08That makes sense?

59:09>> Yes, and then the lot width requirement

59:12approving staff with the adjustments

59:15would still allow the 45-ft

59:18lots.

59:18>> Yeah, I mean that was the premise of our

59:19recommendation.

59:20>> Okay, thank you.

59:21>> And we get into the platting, but

59:23they're you know, it may not pan out

59:24that every lot's 40 you know, there

59:26might be

59:27a few that are this size and that size,

59:29but in general

59:30um lot I don't I don't think that was

59:33ever a

59:34point of contention.

59:37>> Would you like to compose a motion?

59:44>> Yeah, on what those amendments would be.

59:46So,

59:47one amendment would be is

59:49the basement provision would be

59:51excluded.

59:53And the other one would be

59:56um behind any existing homes within

1:00:01this PUD

1:00:03would need to be single story.

1:00:06Does that sound good to everybody?

1:00:08Legal, everyone?

1:00:11>> I just want to clarify that, too.

1:00:13There is already some homes being built

1:00:15on the far east side

1:00:17that we talked about could be two-story,

1:00:19but they're not being lived in, they're

1:00:20under construction.

1:00:21>> Within this PUD, though.

1:00:23>> Yeah, there already is.

1:00:24Yeah, but DR Horton is building those,

1:00:26also.

1:00:27Lakehill Drive.

1:00:29>> So, should we

1:00:30>> that you heard specify sub-area E?

1:00:33>> What are we talking about in E? Are we

1:00:36>> No.

1:00:37So, like a few like the words DR up

1:00:39there

1:00:40on Lakehill Drive.

1:00:43There is homes being built there now

1:00:44currently.

1:00:46>> Yeah, I was only referencing behind the

1:00:48>> I just want to clarify that.

1:00:49>> Behind any existing

1:00:51>> Yeah, the front basically

1:00:53>> existing five houses.

1:00:55>> There you go.

1:00:56>> Perfect.

1:00:56>> Right.

1:00:57>> Okay.

1:00:58>> Okay, so

1:00:59>> And I don't know the addresses of them,

1:01:00but we will

1:01:01>> I think we've adequately described them

1:01:03in the record.

1:01:04>> So, one would be removing the basement

1:01:07provisions, and then two

1:01:10um

1:01:11>> one-story max for those

1:01:13>> one-story max within the PUD at those

1:01:17five residences.

1:01:18>> Okay, the westernmost five lots on the

1:01:21south side of Sweetwater Drive within

1:01:24the

1:01:25E area. So.

1:01:27>> A lot going on in this.

1:01:28>> Can we clarify cuz I'm sorry. I'm seeing

1:01:31four or am I just confused?

1:01:34Are there four or five?

1:01:36>> Go back to the um

1:01:37>> dots

1:01:38>> Yeah, the dots. There's actually five

1:01:40dots. So.

1:01:47So

1:01:48the five

1:01:50westernmost red dots

1:01:52>> Mhm.

1:01:53>> So basically the the lots on the south

1:01:55side of Sweetwater Drive

1:01:57would have to be one-story buildings.

1:02:00>> Okay, so you're saying those five lots

1:02:03that are behind the four currently built

1:02:05houses.

1:02:06>> Yeah.

1:02:06>> Cuz there's not five currently built

1:02:08houses, are there?

1:02:09>> Yeah.

1:02:10>> five

1:02:11>> I would just It's It's the five

1:02:13>> new lots on

1:02:17Sweetwater Drive.

1:02:18>> I'm just wanting to make I thought we

1:02:19said it's behind the five built houses.

1:02:21There's only four built houses.

1:02:23>> six

1:02:24six town houses

1:02:26>> Sorry.

1:02:32It looks like there's four there. That

1:02:33means I got eight.

1:02:37>> Yeah.

1:02:41>> See how the one on the

1:02:42>> They're They're outside of the amendment

1:02:43area. They're not

1:02:45That That area that's not in the orange

1:02:48is not part of the proposal. It's

1:02:50already approved for single-family

1:02:52development.

1:02:53>> Okay, so um Okay, cool. So it's any

1:02:55houses behind these three built the

1:02:58duplicates. So the six houses

1:03:00>> It's the

1:03:00>> that are built that are three buildings.

1:03:03Okay.

1:03:04>> five

1:03:04>> I want you to clarify all that.

1:03:06>> five western

1:03:08westernmost lots on the south side of

1:03:10Sweetwater Drive within the amendment

1:03:12area.

1:03:14>> Um I did have one comment. I know Laura

1:03:16brought up square footage. Um one of the

1:03:18house plans is 34 square feet smaller

1:03:22than your minimum minimal requirement.

1:03:24That is a ranch plan.

1:03:26And so

1:03:28that would be

1:03:30a concern for would be that I

1:03:32uh a dare.

1:03:35>> I think under this under this proposal

1:03:38that plan would not be compliant.

1:03:40>> Right. So, you'd have to pick something

1:03:41else.

1:03:42>> So, we do have the other plan, the Olson

1:03:44plan.

1:03:45Um

1:03:47but I mean, as a I'm

1:03:50want to be consistent here.

1:03:52I'm sure nobody wants to see five of the

1:03:54same house

1:03:56back-to-back-to-back-to-back.

1:03:58>> Well,

1:04:00I mean, scroll back over to the other

1:04:02one. What's the the difference?

1:04:04>> There's a different elevation to it. I

1:04:05mean, we can't do different elevations.

1:04:07>> Uh hip roof versus a gable.

1:04:08>> Different roof, different, you know,

1:04:10pitching like so there are different

1:04:12>> I think you could do a get Can't you do

1:04:13a gable on the Now get it. Now it's

1:04:15scroll back.

1:04:20>> We do have different elevations of the

1:04:22Olson that we could do. I just wanted to

1:04:24bring con- concern of

1:04:27doing one house

1:04:28all consistently.

1:04:30>> Right. We would just expect a different

1:04:31elevation.

1:04:32>> Yep.

1:04:32>> So, you you know, mix mix up the hip

1:04:34versus the a gable you know, tweak we

1:04:37would tweak the materials a little bit.

1:04:39>> Absolutely.

1:04:40>> Something like that. Maybe one's brick,

1:04:42one's stone. I think that'd be fine.

1:04:44>> Absolutely.

1:04:47>> Thank you. We do have a motion on the

1:04:48table. Any discussion on that motion?

1:04:54Okay. All in favor, please raise your

1:04:55right hand.

1:04:59Any opposed?

1:05:02Anyone passing?

1:05:03>> No, wait.

1:05:04Online.

1:05:05>> And Dominic, how do you vote?

1:05:09>> Yeah. Yes.

1:05:11>> Okay. thank you.

1:05:14Um

1:05:16that concludes our agenda. Do we have

1:05:18any committee or directors reports

1:05:19tonight?

1:05:20>> Uh nothing to report. Thank you.

1:05:21>> Okay, thanks everyone.