Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over I-35/Grand comprehensive plan change; staff told to bring proposal to subcommittee
Summary
Neighbors at the southeast corner of I-35 and Grand raised concerns about a comprehensive-plan classification change that will remove single-family zoning from a large parcel. The council closed the hearing but did not approve a repeal; staff was asked to bring the matter to the Development and Planning subcommittee and to improve notification.
Several West Des Moines residents told the council on April 21 they were surprised and upset that a portion of land near the I-35/Grand interchange was reclassified in the citywide comprehensive-plan update as "multi use medium" and that single-family residential zoning on part of the property would be repealed.
Judy Geer, who said she has lived at 5020 Grand Avenue 32 years and served previously on the Plan and Zoning Commission, told the council she and neighbors were not adequately notified about the change. "Pave paradise and put up a parking lot," Geer said, summarizing her worry that the designation could invite high-intensity commercial uses. "I just pray that this is not the intention of the city or any developer."
Craig Pepper, a nearby resident, echoed concerns about notification and asked the council to consider a lower-intensity designation. He noted the area immediately north already has estate and low-density lots and argued for an approach that would better match adjacent neighborhoods.
What the city proposed: City staff explained the comprehensive plan already designates the parcel near the interchange as multi use medium, a category that allows a mix of attached residential (townhomes, apartments), office, retail and limited-impact industrial uses. The implementation step before the council was a zoning map amendment to repeal single-family zoning on the parcel so the comp-plan classification and zoning would be consistent.
Council action and next steps: The public hearing closed with no council motion to approve the zoning repeal. Staff said the repeal as drafted would "sit unzoned" until a developer brings a proposal and that any future rezoning would trigger the standard 370-foot notification to nearby property owners. Council members directed staff to place the item on the Development and Planning subcommittee agenda for further discussion and to improve follow-up notification for residents who engaged during outreach. Lynn Tweed, Director of Development Services, said staff had mailed broad outreach postcards and had a project webpage but will follow the council's request to reconvene with the subcommittee and to ensure people who provided contact information are re-notified.
Why neighbors object: Residents told the council they understood an interchange could attract development but objected to the timing and to the idea that a broad designation now could leave the neighborhood exposed to high-intensity uses without clearer buffering or committed design standards. Several speakers asked for comp-plan options that preserve detached residential near their homes or that limit commercial intensity.
What's next: Council directed staff to bring the matter to the Development and Planning subcommittee and to re-notify residents who participated in the outreach; the council did not adopt the zoning repeal at this meeting.
