Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 18, 2007 Page 1
The following are minutes of the Bettendorf Planning and Zoning Commission and are a synopsis of the discussion that took place at this meeting and as such may not include the entirety of each statement made. The minutes of each meeting do not become official until approved at the next meeting.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 18, 2007
5:30 P.M.
The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 18, 2007 was called to order by Chairman Gallagher at 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1609 State Street.
1.Roll Call
MEMBERS PRESENT:Bennett, Gallagher, Kappeler, Laas, Rafferty, Stoltenberg, Wennlund
MEMBERS ABSENT:None
OTHERS PRESENT:Greg Beck, City Planner; Bill Connors, Community Development Director; Steve Knorrek - Fire Captain; Denny Snyder, City Engineer; Lisa Fuhrman, Secretary - Community Development
2.Approval of minutes of the meeting of June 20, 2007.
On motion by Kappeler, seconded by Stoltenberg, that the minutes of the meeting of June 20, 2007 be approved as submitted.
ALL AYES
Motion carried.
3.Review of Commission procedures.
Land Use Amendment/Rezoning
4.Case 07-010; SW corner of Interstate 80 and Middle Road, Office/Research Campus to Commercial, submitted by McDonald Properties, L.L.C.
5.Case 07-011; SW corner of Interstate 80 and Middle Road, A-1 Agricultural to C-2 Community Shopping District, submitted by McDonald Properties, L.L.C.
Gallagher announced that he would abstain from discussion and voting regarding Case 07-010 and Case 07-011, but would continue to chair the meeting.
Beck reviewed the staff reports.
Connors commented that a development agreement between the developer and the city which details the standards with which the applicant must comply including design, conditional uses, and initial construction has been drafted.
Wennlund asked for clarification regarding the disposition of the portion of the property located at the southwest corner of the proposed development. Beck stated that he is unsure of the plans for the part of the parcel, adding that the conditions in the development agreement would apply to the entire property along with the typical ordinance requirements.
Kappeler asked if a gas station would be allowed in a C-2 zoning district. Beck stated that a special use permit would be required.
Curtis McDonald, the applicant, stated that his primary business is land development. He indicated that the concept plan that he submitted is merely that, adding that he cannot guarantee that the property will develop in exactly that manner or that the project will be completed within a predetermined time frame. McDonald stated that he is also in the process of acquiring the JoeVan property for redevelopment.
Kappeler stated that it appears as though the concept plan could be for an outlet mall. McDonald confirmed this.
Kappeler asked if the applicant could elaborate on the projects in progress that are shown on his firm’s website. McDonald stated that most recently he acquired 120 acres of land in Rapid City, South Dakota which is being developed with anchor tenants such as Dillard’s and Target. He indicated that after he had calculated the cost and necessity of infrastructure improvements and organized the public/private partnerships required, he involved a venture partner who will complete the vertical construction. McDonald stated that the infrastructure for the project is under construction, while the vertical construction should begin in the fall. He stated that he often recruits other developers whose expertise is in areas for which they are uniquely suited.
Rafferty asked if a timetable has been established. McDonald explained that it would be impossible to ascertain, adding that this type of development is market-driven. He added that he will try to identify what is available to be built in this particular market, adding that because of the large number of homes that are being constructed in the northern parts of the city a certain amount of retail businesses will be needed. He stated that he would like to provide a large destination retail development on the property.
Heidi Harris-Thomas, 5727 Joshua Street, asked what types of retail stores are anticipated for the development. McDonald explained that he always attempts to find the most interesting, glamorous retail tenants, but most likely there will be the typical outlet mall stores such as Polo, Coach, Osh Kosh B’Gosh, and Carter’s. He stated that the retail center will be developed with high-end architectural finishes, adding that because of the design standards incorporated into the project, most types of retailers will fit into the development.
Steve Van Dyke, Economic Development Director, submitted a letter from the Bettendorf Development Corporation indicating support of the project.
Kappeler asked if the applicant currently owns the property involved. McDonald explained that he has an option to purchase the property subject to approval of the land use amendment and rezoning requests.
On motion by Rafferty, seconded by Bennett, that the land use amendment for property located at the SW corner of Interstate 80 and Middle Road, Office/Research Campus to Commercial, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
ROLL CALL ON MOTION
AYE:Bennett, Kappeler, Laas, Rafferty, Stoltenberg, Wennlund
NAY:None
ABSTAIN:Gallagher
Motion carried.
On motion by Laas, seconded by Stoltenberg, that the rezoning of property located at the SW corner of Interstate 80 and Middle Road, A-1 to C-2, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
ROLL CALL ON MOTION
AYE:Bennett, Kappeler, Laas, Rafferty, Stoltenberg, Wennlund
NAY:None
ABSTAIN:Gallagher
Motion carried.
Rezoning
6.Case 07-024; NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to C-2, submitted by Dial Land Development Co. (Deferred from meeting of June 20, 2007)
7.Case 07-024; NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to C-1, submitted by Dial Land Development Co. (Deferred from meeting of June 20, 2007)
8.Case 07-024; NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to R-1, submitted by Dial Land Development Co. (Deferred from meeting of June 20, 2007)
9.Case 07-024; NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to C-5, submitted by Dial Land Development Co. (Deferred from meeting of June 20, 2007)
Connors stated that because notification signs had not been posted regarding these cases which were reviewed at the June 20, 2007 meeting and subsequently acted upon, the decision has been made to provide another opportunity for public comment.
Merlin Lawrence, representing the developer, apologized for the inconvenience caused by the fact that the signs were not posted. He indicated that he has ensured that the signs have been posted properly for this meeting.
Beck reviewed the staff reports.
Gallagher stated that it is his understanding that the rezoning requests are now in compliance with the land use plan. Beck confirmed this.
Rafferty asked if any consideration had been given to the difficult topography of the property involved as it relates to other commercial intersections in the city. Beck stated that staff had considered the large average daily traffic count along the service corridors in the city, including the intersection in question. Connors added that staff does not believe that the property in question is suitable for single-family residential development as consumers typically wish to have basements in their homes.
Rafferty asked if the impact a commercial development would have on the remaining portion of 53rd Avenue between Devils Glen Road and Middle Road had been considered. Beck stated that there is the potential for a continuation of the commercial uses along that corridor, adding that staff does not feel that it would be appropriate to have residential uses along major arterial streets. He indicated that it is more desirable to have the most intense uses along those streets followed by a transition such as office/transitional and then residential uses. Rafferty stated that he does not believe that the proposed plan follows those principles. Beck explained that the conditions listed in the development agreement address the issue of buffering between the proposed C-2 and R-1 zoning districts. He added that there is no ordinance prohibiting the development as proposed. Beck indicated that the landscape ordinance anticipates potential developments such as this.
Rafferty stated that he feels that the landscape ordinance is lax with regard to the provision of open space between C-2 and R-1 districts. He indicated that he believes that the Commission should request additional buffering in addition to what is required by the ordinance. Connors commented that the development agreement addresses many of those buffering issues.
Beck stated that it is anticipated that the commercial development will occur first, reiterating that the development agreement addresses the buffer between the C-2 and R-1 districts. Rafferty stated that if the residential properties are developed prior to the commercial ones, it is likely that those residents will be opposed to a commercial development’s being placed adjacent to a residential one. He reiterated that he does not believe that the proposed separation between the C-2 district and the R-1 district is adequate. Connors stated that frequently duplex housing has been used as a buffer, adding that the proposed residential development is not traditional single-family housing. He explained that the developer plans to build detached condominiums. Rafferty asked if the developer has consented in the development agreement to limit the residential construction to detached condominiums. Connors stated that he has not.
Bill Barker, 4017 Charles Court, stated that the property’s topography does not lend itself to the type of development proposed. He expressed concern about the lack of buffering between the proposed C-2 and R-1 districts. He stated that he does not believe that the developer will be able to market residential properties situated next to a commercial development for more than $100,000 which will negatively affect his property’s value.
Andy Nutt, 4016 Thunder Ridge Road, expressed concern about the negative impact the traffic generated by the development will have on the elementary school that is proposed to be located on Hopewell Avenue and Devils Glen Road. Snyder explained that staff anticipates that there will be left- and right-turn lanes at the entrance to the school which will be adequate to handle the additional traffic.
Wennlund asked if the traffic generated by the proposed development is anticipated to travel north on Devils Glen Road. Snyder explained that that is unlikely.
Gary Buettner, 4005 Charles Court, stated that representatives of the neighbors had submitted several alternatives to the developer’s proposed plan but that their suggestions had not been taken. He stated that after the Commission had recommended that approval of the developer’s plan be denied, the City Council had disregarded the Commission’s position. He added that the plan that was approved differed very slightly from the original one. Buettner stated that he does not feel that it makes sense for the Commission and city staff to spend such a large amount of time on the project only to have the City Council overturn the Commission’s recommendation. He expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed C-2 district to the existing residential properties and the proposed R-1 district.
Jim Stokes, 4108 Charles Court, submitted a petition containing signatures of neighbors in opposition to the proposed development. He questioned the rationale behind the Commission’s vote in favor of the request at the June meeting. He stated that while he understands that the Commission members have likely been counseled by the City Administrator and City Council, the project has not changed and still will not have a positive impact. Stokes stated that he and his wife had attended a presentation by Jeff Speck, a noted urban planner. He indicated that the presenter had advocated against urban sprawl.
Bill Fischer, 5540 Joshua Street, expressed concern about the fact that there is only one access point leading to the proposed residential development. He stated that all of the residents will have only one way in and one way out, adding that he feels that there will be a safety issue.
Jackie Stokes, 4108 Charles Court, expressed her disappointment at the City Council’s disregard of the Commission’s earlier recommendation for denial of the project. She stated that she does not believe that the proposed buffering solutions are adequate, adding that she does not feel that the future residents should have to contend with the noise and lights caused by the commercial development. Stokes requested that the Commission members who plan to vote in favor of the request justify their position to her.
Nancy Carson, 4102 Charles Court, asked why the developer is in such a rush to rezone the property.
Lawrence stated that the process of developing the property in question began in September of 2006. He indicated that he believes that the plan is a good one and requested that the Commission approve the rezoning requests.
Rafferty asked why the developer had chosen not to extend the C-5 district along the north side of Alameda Boulevard. Lawrence stated that he would like the Commission to consider the plan as submitted.
Gallagher commented that because of the land use amendments that were approved by the City Council, the issues involved are different as they are now in accordance with the land use map. He added that the developer will be required to submit a site development plan which will detail the specifics of the project including building placement, buffering, etc.
Barker stated that he believes that prudent zoning principles would preclude the Commission from recommending approval of the request regardless of how the land use map has changed.
On motion by Kappeler, seconded by Bennett, that the rezoning of property located at the NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to C-2, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
Rafferty commented that he would vote against the motion as he believes that the property involved should be rezoned to C-5, not C-2.
Kappeler stated that several years ago a decision was made to allow the residential development in which many of the residents opposed to the project live by rezoning the area to C-5. She indicated that if that decision had not been made, this rezoning request would not be an issue. Kappeler explained that since that time, the lengthy process of revising the comprehensive plan has been undertaken. She commented that she believes that the Commission is bound by the decision of the City Council to revise the land use map which was made prior to the future adoption of a revised one.
Stoltenberg stated that while he is still opposed to the rezoning of the property to C-2, he feels that the proposed buffering of the existing residences from the property proposed to be rezoned to C-1 is adequate.
ROLL CALL ON MOTION
AYE:Bennett, Gallagher, Kappeler, Laas, Wennlund
NAY:Rafferty, Stoltenberg
ABSTAIN:None
Motion carried.
On motion by Laas, seconded by Wennlund, that the rezoning of property located at the NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to C-1, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
ROLL CALL ON MOTION
AYE:Bennett, Gallagher, Kappeler, Laas, Rafferty, Stoltenberg, Wennlund
NAY:None
ABSTAIN:None
Motion carried.
On motion by Kappeler, seconded by Stoltenberg, that the rezoning of property located at the NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to R-1, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
Rafferty stated that he would vote against the motion as he does not believe it is appropriate for a C-2 district to be located directly adjacent to an R-1 district.
Wennlund stated that while he does not believe that it is ideal, he will support the motion as he plans to rely on the provisions of the ordinance with regard to site development plan approval to properly address the transitional area between the two districts. He commented that he does not believe that the possible negative aspects of the C-2 development outweigh the benefits of the remainder of the development.
ROLL CALL ON MOTION
AYE:Bennett, Gallagher, Kappeler, Laas, Stoltenberg, Wennlund
NAY:Rafferty
ABSTAIN:None
Motion carried.
On motion by Wennlund, seconded by Rafferty, that the rezoning of property located at the NE corner of Devils Glen Road and 53rd Avenue, A-1 to C-5, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
ROLL CALL ON MOTION
AYE:Bennett, Gallagher, Kappeler, Laas, Rafferty, Stoltenberg, Wennlund
NAY:None
ABSTAIN:None
Motion carried.
Preliminary Plat
10.Case 07-067; Riverview Meadows, submitted by Jeff Hartman.
Beck reviewed the staff report.
Kappeler asked why the detention basin is not located on an outlot. Beck explained that staff does not object to locating the basin on Lot 1 as long as the burden of maintenance is shared by the individual lot owners.
Kappeler stated that if the northern portion of the lot is built upon, there would be no access to it. Beck stated that there could be a replatting to allow access to that location. Connors stated that Lot 1 is intended for use as a proprietor’s residence, adding that the ‘lake’ in question is a water feature, not a detention area. Kappeler asked if it would contain water at all times. Connors confirmed this.