Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bettendorf planning commission discusses major rewrite of residential zoning chapter
Summary
Commissioners and staff reviewed proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the zoning ordinance, covering agricultural/septic‑compliant districts, an exurban residential category, a conservation subdivision option, consolidation of R‑1 and R‑2, duplexes, attached housing and accessory dwelling units.
At the Feb. 19 meeting, Bettendorf planning staff and the Plan and Zoning Commission began detailed discussion of Chapter 4 of the city's zoning ordinance, a proposed consolidation and rewrite of several residential zoning districts and associated use standards.
Staff said the proposed rewrite combines material from multiple existing chapters and aims to make districts easier to administer and to align zoning rules with the city's comprehensive plan and expected growth areas. Staff outlined several primary proposals: a septic‑compliant agricultural/rural district, a separate exurban residential district for subdivisions that do not meet typical urban standards, a conservation subdivision option to preserve ravines and natural streams in new development, consolidation of the existing R‑1 and R‑2 single‑family districts into a single low‑density category with a small‑lot historic preservation subset, and clearer standards for single‑family attached housing, duplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Staff said the agricultural district rewrite would explicitly account for on‑site septic systems where sewer is not available and align minimum lot sizes with Scott County and state separation standards in septic areas. Staff characterized an "exurban" category as intended for existing edge subdivisions and county subdivisions that may be annexed but lack sidewalks, curbs and other urban infrastructure; the category would reduce nonconformity by matching zoning to existing built conditions.
The conservation subdivision concept would allow developers to consolidate buildable area and preserve natural features—ravines, streams and forested areas—by trading some lot area for protected common open space, staff said. That option needs further testing with local developers, staff added, to ensure projects "pencil out" economically.
On residential form, staff said combining R‑1 and R‑2 into one low‑density district simplifies administration and recommended creating a preservation overlay or small‑lot district to protect pre‑1950s neighborhoods with narrow lot widths. The commission discussed whether duplexes, townhouses and other attached forms should be allowed in the new low‑density district by special use permit or require dedicated medium‑density districts; commissioners expressed varying views.
Accessory dwelling units drew discussion as a hot topic. Staff said the current code is unclear and that the commission must decide whether ADUs will be permitted by right in some districts, allowed by special use permit, or restricted. Commissioners noted examples where homeowners have added basement units or converted existing structures; staff said some ADU rules are under consideration at the state level.
Commissioners asked staff to refine the proposed district map so it is clear which existing parcels would move into which new districts, to test the conservation subdivision approach with developers, and to prepare draft permitted‑use tables for the next meeting. The commission did not take a vote on the ordinance language; the discussion will continue at a future meeting.
The commission began the zoning chapter review after completing plat items and expected to continue the chapter at the next meeting; staff said the rewrite is an important policy step because changes to district definitions could affect future rezonings and annexation decisions.
