Planning commission recommends conditional approval for Indianola Veterinary Clinic parking expansion

The Indianola Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024, of a site plan to expand the parking lot at Indianola Veterinary Clinic, contingent on staff review and outstanding technical items.

The recommendation covers a major site plan filed by IVC Properties LLC and represented at the meeting by Wally Peltz of Peltz Design Services. The project would rework the clinic's existing paved area on about 4.5 acres on the west side of Jefferson Way, north of the Trailridge Avenue extension, increasing impervious surface and adding a second driveway to tie into planned nearby development.

Commission staff told the panel the project will increase impervious surface on the site from about 33,000 square feet to roughly 76,000 square feet (an increase staff characterized as about 21.8 percent, or roughly 1.75 acres). The plan requires 41 parking spaces; the applicant proposes 61 or 62 spaces including three accessible spaces. The work will take place across multiple parcels owned by the veterinary clinic and will cross into adjoining zoning districts, which staff said triggers a rezoning application.

City planning staff flagged several open issues. "The applicant has not yet provided stormwater calculations," staff said at the hearing, noting the city engineer must review detention-basin sizing and drainage details. Staff also said no landscape plan was submitted with the application and that the parking expansion encroaches into parcels zoned A-1, which does not permit veterinary clinics and therefore will require rezoning or an equivalent land-use action.

Applicant representatives said the project has been the subject of extended negotiations tied to a larger, adjacent development (Emerald Bay) and the realignment of the intersection by the Iowa Department of Transportation. "This is not our preferred method either; we usually like to have complete sets," said Wally Peltz, the applicant's engineer, explaining why some documents were still pending. Developer Jesse Ragnes told the commission the work is tied to private transactions and access agreements needed to finalize the road and driveway alignments. "I'm at the point with QuickStar where they're like, are they gonna get this road or not?" Ragnes said, describing timing pressure from a prospective tenant.

Commission members debated whether to table, deny or recommend the project with conditions. Some members cautioned that approving incomplete packages could set an unfavorable precedent; others emphasized economic opportunity and the interconnected nature of the vet clinic improvements, a developer's planned QuickStar facility, and a separate landlocked subdivision (Fair Acres) the developer said he is trying to resolve. Commissioner Al asked pointedly, "They're applying to do a project on land they don't own?" — raising ownership and parcelization concerns that staff and the applicant said they were working to resolve.

After discussion commissioners settled on a recommendation "subject to all remaining staff comments." The recorded roll call vote was: Marvin — yes; Harris — yes; Wertman — yes; Darling — yes; Decker — yes; Vice — yes; Nate — yes; Piper — yes. The commission's vote is advisory; final approval and any rezoning would require city council action.

The commission and applicants identified four specific outstanding items during the hearing: a rezoning application or equivalent boundary consolidation/tie to resolve mixed zoning; stormwater calculations and a formal stormwater management plan; a landscaping plan meeting city code; and documentation to consolidate / tie the multiple parcels (plat/lot consolidation). Staff said contingencies must be met before construction permits would be issued and that the developer cannot begin grading or site work until required permits, utilities and right-of-way improvements are in place.

Applicant representatives and several commissioners said the developer expects to return quickly with revised materials. The applicant also described a draft development-agreement approach in which the city would reimburse infrastructure work via urban renewal tax-increment funds (TIF) as part of a broader package tied to the Emerald Bay/QuickStar development; city staff confirmed the city is negotiating a development agreement but said public hearings and additional reviews remain.

Next steps: the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will go to the Indianola City Council, which will hold public hearings and consider rezoning and any development agreement. City staff emphasized that building permits and actual construction will not proceed until the listed contingencies are satisfied and required permits are issued.