Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Patio Alcohol Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves outdoor patio with alcohol service for Melly's Pancake House at Ridgepointe
Summary
The Bettendorf Board of Adjustment approved a special use permit for a 586-square-foot outdoor patio with alcohol service for Melly's Pancake House at a commercial site near Ridgepointe; staff recommended approval and the board voted unanimously among members present.
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Patio Alcohol Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Bettendorf City Board of Adjustment on March 13 approved a special use permit to allow outdoor dining with alcohol service for a restaurant tenant at the east end of a commercial building near Ridgepointe (case 25011SU).
Planning staff said the request covers a 586-square-foot outdoor patio on the east side of an existing building that will be the future home of Melly's Pancake House. The building sits on two lots, and the patio as drawn would occupy the area currently shown as three parking spaces in an older site plan. Staff said the site currently has roughly 44 parking spaces for the building and described the tenant mix (a physical therapy clinic and Mathnasium tutoring) as having offset peak hours from the proposed restaurant (Melly's planned hours: about 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.), so staff anticipated minimal parking conflict. Staff recommended approval and said the use is compatible with the community-commercial future land-use designation and the neighborhood-commercial (C-1) zoning.
Board members asked questions about on-street parking along Ridgepointe and whether parking is posted “no parking” in any portions of the nearby road. Planning staff responded that no-parking restrictions are enacted by the city engineer and public works when specific concerns (snow storage, sight lines) arise, and that in the immediate development area few no-parking signs had been posted. Staff also noted a roundabout-style circulation feature where parking is not allowed. No written or oral opposition was reported at the hearing.
After discussion the board voted by roll call: Gallagher — yes; Thornburg — yes; Vermillion — yes. The motion to approve case 25011SU passed. Staff noted that if a future building in the same site plan is developed, the patio could be removed or the owner could be required to redesign the second building to replace any lost parking as needed.
The planner described the proposed patio as primarily supporting indoor seating with roughly six outdoor tables and said the patio is intended for a breakfast‑and‑lunch operation with limited alcohol service. Staff recommended approval under the special-use standards in Section 11.15.9(e) of the municipal code and concluded that the patio would not negatively affect nearby properties given the surrounding commercial uses and the offset hours of existing tenants.

