RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Business » Local
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
|
||
Jim Benda
~ADVERTISING~
New strip mall plan meets old fate
By JON ERICSON, Courier Staff Writer
CEDAR FALLS --- A year ago Jim Benda's plans for a strip mall just east of Joker's was rejected by the slimmest of margins by the City Council.
On Monday, Benda came back with a revamped plan, but was served a dose of deja vu.
In both instances, Benda's plans received the backing of the majority of the City Council. However, as was the case a year ago, the 5-2 margin wasn't enough to meet the supermajority vote needed to approve rezoning over the objections of neighbors.
Susan deBuhr and Kamyar Enshayan cast the two votes against the proposal.
Benda had taken many of the comments of a year ago into consideration when forming the new plan. He had heard that neighbors didn't want one strip mall building and drew up plans for two smaller buildings. He listened to neighboring homeowners say the building was too big for the size of the property and he bought out one of the objectors' property and downsized the plan.
But in the end, arguments from neighbors that said the plan just caused too much disruption for people who own homes next to the property swayed the two council members who voted against it.
"What I'm hearing is that people are concerned we're eroding a well-established residential area," Enshayan said after an hour of arguments for and against the zoning change.
The property lies on University Avenue between Hillcrest and McClain drives. Benda proposed tearing down five house, most of them rentals, and replacing them with the two commercial buildings.
More than a decade ago the city amended its comprehensive land use map to plan for future commercial development up and down University Avenue. The planned zoning for that area would be a planned commercial classification, the type for which Benda had applied.
Gary Kelley lives across University Avenue from the property. He said the strip mall proposal would detract from the quality of life enjoyed by residents who had long owned homes in the neighborhood.
"You look out every day and see a strip mall. No matter how many plantings you put in, you can't block it," Kelley said of what he would see if the plan were approved.
Benda said the University Avenue corridor needs fresh development.
"I would urge you to consider what happens if you don't continue to develop that area and it becomes blighted," Benda said.
Some neighboring property owners had submitted objections to the proposal, some of them telling the council that many existing commercial properties in the city are sitting vacant, and that such a strip mall proposal would be better placed in one of those areas.
Before voting in favor of the project, Councilman Frank Darrah said he appreciated the efforts Benda made to change his plans to make the proposal more acceptable to neighbors.
Contact Jon Ericson at (319) 291-1402 or jonathan.ericson@wcfcourier.com.
On Monday, Benda came back with a revamped plan, but was served a dose of deja vu.
In both instances, Benda's plans received the backing of the majority of the City Council. However, as was the case a year ago, the 5-2 margin wasn't enough to meet the supermajority vote needed to approve rezoning over the objections of neighbors.
Susan deBuhr and Kamyar Enshayan cast the two votes against the proposal.
Benda had taken many of the comments of a year ago into consideration when forming the new plan. He had heard that neighbors didn't want one strip mall building and drew up plans for two smaller buildings. He listened to neighboring homeowners say the building was too big for the size of the property and he bought out one of the objectors' property and downsized the plan.
But in the end, arguments from neighbors that said the plan just caused too much disruption for people who own homes next to the property swayed the two council members who voted against it.
"What I'm hearing is that people are concerned we're eroding a well-established residential area," Enshayan said after an hour of arguments for and against the zoning change.
The property lies on University Avenue between Hillcrest and McClain drives. Benda proposed tearing down five house, most of them rentals, and replacing them with the two commercial buildings.
More than a decade ago the city amended its comprehensive land use map to plan for future commercial development up and down University Avenue. The planned zoning for that area would be a planned commercial classification, the type for which Benda had applied.
Gary Kelley lives across University Avenue from the property. He said the strip mall proposal would detract from the quality of life enjoyed by residents who had long owned homes in the neighborhood.
"You look out every day and see a strip mall. No matter how many plantings you put in, you can't block it," Kelley said of what he would see if the plan were approved.
Benda said the University Avenue corridor needs fresh development.
"I would urge you to consider what happens if you don't continue to develop that area and it becomes blighted," Benda said.
Some neighboring property owners had submitted objections to the proposal, some of them telling the council that many existing commercial properties in the city are sitting vacant, and that such a strip mall proposal would be better placed in one of those areas.
Before voting in favor of the project, Councilman Frank Darrah said he appreciated the efforts Benda made to change his plans to make the proposal more acceptable to neighbors.
Contact Jon Ericson at (319) 291-1402 or jonathan.ericson@wcfcourier.com.
More Stories from Business » Local
pure ..... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:55 AM:
" and utter selfishness. These two cities make me sick to my stomach. Thank god I moved! "
frustrated with this city wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:11 AM:
" once again...'not in my back yard'!! I am so frustrated with some of the residents of Cedar Valley. But, you will all be the first to ... that there is nothing to offer in this town!! Oh well, most of us already have our shopping trips planned to Cedar Rapids and Des Moines...they let them build things there..which brings in new stores and keeps their communities growing and thriving! Not here, god forbid we have something new...someone just might be able to see it out their window!! Give me a break....grow up...stop being so selfish and support new development in our community!! "
Anthony wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:29 AM:
" It's pretty bad that a 5-2 vote for this project was not enough for it to pass. What a load of crap. That's 71%. People better open their eyes soon, or nobody is going to want to develop here, and then they'll wonder why. "
Out-of-towner wrote on Apr 10, 2007 8:48 AM:
" How can the City(s) be PRO Economic Development and spend money for promoting the Cedar Valley then REJECT this project? How many times has this same scenario happened this year alone?
Am I glad I moved south. Even the hillbillies have more sense than to 'kick a gift horse in the teeth'. "
Jan wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:05 AM:
" Wait until a few years pass and your rentals get less than desireables living in them... I'd much rather look out my front window to see a strip mall than the "activity" we have to see every single day across from us, and we live in a nice area... The Cedar Valley loses out again, nothing to offer. The one speciality shop in CF for cooks has items that are 100% higher in price than the kitchen store in CR, so yeah, we shop there and enjoy the drive, the diversity of the CR/Coralville area. Oh well.... what can we do... "
What? wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:21 AM:
" So these people would rather look out their window and see crappy rental properties rather than a nice strip mall? Makes perfect sense to me... "
Mike and Michelle wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:39 AM:
" Susan and Kamyar have a serious issue of "small town disease" and need to change w/ the times. "
Had Enouf wrote on Apr 10, 2007 9:39 AM:
" Once again, a super minority of residents dictate to the majority of residents. Put things like this to a public vote, let the taxpayers decide if the mall should be built. BTW, last time I checked, a supermajority vote was 60%.....5-2 should have passed. "
Small town disease epidemic wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:18 AM:
" Kamyar needs to wake up. Animals belong in the country and Comercial growth needs to be intown. Kamyar your priorities are backwards. "
Small-town Shopper wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:24 PM:
" I think what really needs to happen is complete re-development of College Square Mall. Look at the stores that are left after Wal-Mart moved out. If it were to attract better-known stores that CR and DSM are able to, it would keep all you shoppers in the Cedar Valley. Heck, even if it got a quality anchor of Wal-Mart stature (and I'm not talking of Target...there's one in Waterloo; having two of everything is a completely separate topic altogether) it would be able to attract shoppers. That's something a measly strip mall isn't going to fix. "
JOKE wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:28 PM:
" Cedar Rapids/Coraville - get ready for my credit cards once again!! At least we don't have to drive too far to find some decent shopping, eating establishments and positive growth! "
To "Had Enouf" wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:49 PM:
" Last time I checked, a supermajority was 75%, of which the vote was only 71%, so it didn't pass..... "
Bill wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:05 PM:
" It would be nice if ALL the members of the CFCC had a spine instead of just 5! Pathetic. Why didn't they just say there would be no way they would change their narrow little minds, that would have saved everyone a lot of hassle over the past year. Why would anyone want to ever develop anything unless it's in Industrial Park. Either P & Z or the Council just shoots it down. Some of these idiots in office need to open their eyes and look at the big picture. The only way you will ever have residential growth is to allow commercial growth. That's not rocket science, that's the way it is. No jobs, no growth. Get a clue Kamyar and Susan!!! "
Materialistic wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:34 PM:
" I refuse to believe we need more shopping around here. Thats like saying we need more eating establishments. Shopping and eating is everywhere!!! What can you buy in DM or CR that you cannot buy here? Maybe my needs arent excessive, but I never have a problem finding things to buy locally as well as online. I seriously think a commercial strip mall that is placed in the middle of a neighborhood will kill progress...you dont even know what was going in the strip mall!!
Small town shopper at least makes some sense here- "
JC wrote on Apr 10, 2007 1:37 PM:
" Finally give up on this location and set your sights on the College Square Mall area. Makes better sense to me! "
64 year resident wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:43 PM:
" Susan and Kamyar, please study some simple economics. "
house colors wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:45 PM:
" If I lived in the houses on the Black Hawk Village side of University Avenue, I would want the City to plant trees in the median too so we didn't have to look at the house of the neighbor opposing this project that has to most awful color scheme ever. Maybe the City needs to come up with an ordinance as to the color or colors your house can be. "
voter wrote on Apr 10, 2007 2:48 PM:
" I'm very disappointed in the way Frank Darrah has been voting I never would have guess it. "
Hillcrest Resident wrote on Apr 10, 2007 3:37 PM:
" I would also like to thank Susan and Kamyar - they took our comments to heart and time to talk with residents about our concerns. To all those who scorn the denial of this until you live in our area you cannot express a constructive opinion - our concerns are with an over abundance of traffic and traffic concerns - not only the matter of a strip mall. The amount of trash that we receive from the nearby shopping center and Wendy's and those who just like to drive by and dump it in our yards is outrageous. When people pull in your driveway to turn around half a a dozen times a week with their headlights blaring in your windows and sit there like they forgot where they are going - gets pretty annoying. There are alot of items that need to be addressed regarding any strip mall being built and the driveway accesses into and out of this are not desireable - as University Ave has a median that will not be cut to allow access from the east thereby causing residential streets to become thorougfares for more traffic and traffic congestion and hazards. Its funny too that at the Council meeting that there was no one there other than the developer that spoke in favor of this proposed strip mall. We will continue to fight to keep this out of our Residential Neighborhood. "
time for a lawsuit.... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:00 PM:
" is more shopping necessary, is a strip mall the best use? thats not the question. The question is, is the proposal in line with the City's comprehensive land use plan. the answer is yes. if the neighbors had objections to commercial property existing along university and nearby them, the time for them to speak about it was 10 years ago. Benda has already accomodated the neighbors with his revised plan and thats more than what he should have and legally had to do. If i were him i would sue the City for a takings. this decision by the city is basically saying this land you own, although it is intended to be commercial, you can't use it as commercial because some neighbors don't like it. and that my friends isn't legal. if the neighbors really don't want it to live next to commercial property, they should either move or buy the properties from Benda and change the land use plan back to residential or something elser. otherwise get used to the idea that it will be commerciall at some point. this attitutde by these neighbors is ridiculous. If benda started to whine to the City that he didn't want single family homes next to his commercial property how would people react...well its no different. these people should have done their research about the neighboring properties and what may happen there...because that conversation happened ten years ago. whats going on in CF that people feel like they are entitled to tell other fellow property owners what they can or can't do with their land? I don't like the color of your house...sounds ridiculous, but its the same argument. "
to hillcrest resident... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:10 PM:
" guess what, it's not just about you or your neighborhood. the elected officials are there to look out for the best interests of the City. Just because its not in my backyard...doesn't mean anything. first off, you chose to live in that area. second, you don't have to remain in that area. third, if the city designated the land as commercial ten years ago, you should have been aware of that and voiced your concerns at that time.
traffic is always an issue, but its a cop-out. its a public street and people have the right to use it. and trash, well unfortuantely there are lots people who don't care about littering, but its not exclusive to commercial properties. my nieghbors dog is annoying as well, but that doesn't mean any new houses shouldn't be built around me.
furthermore, your residential neighborhood is not just your residential neighborhood. its also owned by Benda. like it or not, he has the same property rights you have and has every right to develop his property in line with the City's plan...which is commercial. do your homework. "
feel bad for Benda wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:13 PM:
" this is exactly why developers go out of business. they buy property designated a certain way, design a project based upon the designation of the land and the neighbors don't like it. what right do the neighbors have to object? seriously? name one legitiment legal objection of why it shouldn't be approved, rather than because its change. "
If I was Benda wrote on Apr 10, 2007 4:49 PM:
" If I was Benda, i would go find myself some college kids to rent those houses to real fast. Woo hoo he could turn it into a smaller version of the hill and then the neighbors would be screaming for that strip mall to be put up. "
I can't believe it wrote on Apr 10, 2007 5:17 PM:
" Our city missed again an opportunity to bring more commercial development and take the tax burden off of the residential property. A 3 million dollar development generates almost 100k in taxes. OUCH! "
Lindsy wrote on Apr 10, 2007 6:27 PM:
" I am so frustrated with this city. Whenever someone wants to come in a help the community like this by adding jobs and more income into the city someone has a problem. Come on lets just let progress happen. I just moved back to the area from Honolulu AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED!! For crying out loud let the city expand. Everyone wonders why the young people leave FIGURE IT OUT its not that hard. "
David wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:08 PM:
" Why does anyone waste their time trying to develop this area, Waterloo or Cedar Falls? It took how long to build a decent library, they've been working on the riverfront since I was a kid, (I'm now 42) the airport has been a joke since the late seventies. The whole community has become kind of a joke, hey let's call it the Cedar Valley and everyone will think we're really cool. Hey Goober turn off the lights, ok?
Does the Cedar Valley have a wizard and if they do does he have a brain?
"
Wow.... wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:22 PM:
" As I was watching last evening on the public access channel, I was very disappointed by the want or "need" to build a commercial business in a residential area. No, I am not a 75 year old resident who wants to keep my property the way it is. But there are so many OTHER places that Benda could put this strip mall that would serve the same purpose WITHOUT ripping down people's houses and destroying a perfectly happy neighborhood. The mall is going down unless it gets something else big to pull business back up why not put something in there. Why not use the old Fogdall property that isn't being used? There are plenty of other places to put this new development without causing more problems with residents. Deal with it, move on, and find somewhere else to put the strip mall. "
Former CF'er. wrote on Apr 11, 2007 12:32 AM:
" I remember when College Square was a decent mall and now it is trash. Why not put your efforts there instead of trying to strech everything out?
What about the old Ace Fogdall property? Do something there if it is still available. There are too many empty buildings and lots in CF, fix-up these places. If you can do this and attract all these new companies, jobs and stores to the area, then maybe the citizens will be more accepting of some developer wanting to build brand new buildings in the area.
What about the old Stebs location on the hill? Talk about an eye-sore.
Thunder-Ridge Mall could probably benefit from a developer coming in and fixing that place up, right?
I grew up in CF and lived there for 23 years and I would not mind coming back and living there again someday. I applaud all the work going on in downtown CF. Everytime I come back to CF and drive downtown there is something different there. Just some ideas. "
john c brandt wrote on Apr 11, 2007 1:32 AM:
" good the council voted against / maybe they ran out of tif tax breaks / tnks jcb "
you don't get it........ wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:19 AM:
" the fact of the matter is, yes there are other places Benda could build a strip mall that are also designated commercial...but simply put, he as the right to build it in the location he is proposing. the city doesn't develop properties, for those of you who can't quite figure that out. the city designates properties to be of a certain land use classification, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. the city designated the property in question as commercial 10 years ago. so when someone owns property and wants to use it as it was intended to be used by the city...why shouldn't they be able to? thats the question for the two members of the council who voted against it and to the neighbors who aren't in support as well as others. the market for new commercial opportunities unfortunately is a seperate issue according to land use law. think about it this way, for all or you NIMBY people out there, if you were to buy five acres of residential land to subdivide into a lot for yourself and a family member, and the neighbors showed up at the city up in arms about how this was going to disturb their way of life becuase you would be cutting down trees, creating more traffic, creating more garbage and other disturbances, how would your feel? how would you feel if you trying to build a garage or a new house and the neighbors didn't like the design...would you care what they thought, do they have any right to say otherwise. legally no, unless you aren't meeting the city's requirements, and it sounds like Benda is and has been more than accomodating. Time for a lawsuit and some neighbors greed will cost the entire city becuase you have taken the right to use the land as it as designated (COMMERCIAL).....way to go Hillcrest. "
if neighbors didn't want commercial.... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:26 AM:
" if the neighbors didn't want commercial they should have acted 10 years ago when the plan was adopted. If they still don't want commercial, I bet Benda would be willing to sell his commercial designated land for a pretty penny back to the neighbors. Just as they point out different commercial areas, he can point out different residential areas they could relocate. Property rights are equal whether its commercial or residentially designated land or if you live on the property or rent/lease the property. Its not your exclusive nieghborhood. Just as someone as the right to buy residential properties and build new homes, someone has the right to buy commercial property and build commercial buildings. Its a property right they have. If you don't want to see it. Build a fence on your yard or plant some trees...its your issue to deal with not the other property owners. "
10 years ago wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:43 AM:
" what about the people that have owned there homes for less than 10 years ago. Voicing and opinion now is ridiculous, other than to try to shoot it down. I dont live anywhere near this (I chose to live outside both W'loo and CF city limits on an acreage with no rules), anyway, people still own there property and have a right to voice opinions. Cedar Falls has a lot more problems on their hands to worry about like College Square (which is almost empty), empty HY vee, Ace building- why not develop these areas? A strip mall in a residential area seems ridiculous compared to all the other problems... "
Economics people wrote on Apr 11, 2007 9:32 AM:
" It is great to see the concern for all the blighted areas, but to say take this development to those areas...He doesnt own those other areas. You act as if the land in those areas is free and he can just go in and build on them. It doesnt work this way. Mr. Benda Has done all he can in his power to alleviate the burden on the neighborhood and yet again a few squeaky wheels get the attention. as I looked at the people that spoke that evening the first thing that came to my mind is we are going to let people who will most likely not be here 5,10,15 years down the road stop a project that will affect the community for 40-50-60 years. No economic sense to me. Good work Kamyar and Susan. "
lifetimer wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:06 AM:
" Thank you so much Susan and Kamyar. I am disappointed in Mr. Darrah, he was a member of that neighborhood and should know about the traffic concerns of the area. If you have driven around CR and Des Moines you will see strip malls vacant, and shopping malls in trouble. Lets get the mall back where it belongs (maybe a manager that works a little harder to bring businesses in) and fill up the present strip mall vacancies. As far as Mr. Benda - clean up "your properties" and get with the good neighbor program. Benda mentioned Ace Fogdall - it was a wonderful neighbor, but perhaps that is because Mr. Fogdall lived behind his business and is a professional business man. I am a resident of that area and plan on being there another 40 years, not 5 or 10. "
strip mall wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:42 AM:
" I still cannot believe people think that because a strip mall was turned down in a residential area, it now means the end of the Cedar Valley as we know it. People talk about jobs, what are thinking (strip mall), maybe a little more than minimum wage for the little bit of jobs that would be added. Tax base would not shift the burden from residential, TRUST ME. Why doesnt Mr Benda rezone back to residential and build a couple of new homes there. He wouldnt lose any money and they would sell.
People pushing for this have a big shopping problem! "
the audacity... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:54 AM:
" Holy crap...the audacity of Lifetimer is simply mind blowing.
"As far as Mr. Benda - clean up "your properties" and get with the good neighbor program." Lifetimer
where do you get off? what makes you think you are entitled to tell someone what and how they should use their properties? people like you make me sick.
if you want to get the mall back where it belongs so be it. its not Benda's responsibility. He owns that land, this has nothing to do with the rest of the city...get it straight bud!
"
What part don't the neighbors get? wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:58 AM:
" "More than a decade ago the city amended its comprehensive land use map to plan for future commercial development up and down University Avenue. The planned zoning for that area would be a planned commercial classification, the type for which Benda had applied."
Why didn't this get approved? Just goes to show, the bigger the stink you make, the more you get your way...whether you are right or WRONG in this case. "
Small-town Shopper wrote on Apr 11, 2007 12:52 PM:
" Does the development have to be a "strip mall"? Can it be one or two quality stores that will actually generate business? "Strip mall" still carries with it some negative stereotypes. What about "shopping plaza" or "retail center"? Those terms mean the same thing, but carry with them different connotations.
I haven't been following the details but has Benda met with the affected neighbors to discuss what they would like to see? Yes, it has to be understood that this is commercial-zoned property and that something will eventually be built there. Getting the neighbors involved with the actual planning process will make them feel like a part of the process and they will take a little ownership in the project and help it progress. The project now is beyond simple economics...it's reached the realm of building and establishing strong community relations. Instead of being the "I've redesigned my property to what I think you will like" developer, maybe he can turn into the "This is what we came up with in regards to our neighborhood" developer. I think that has been what puts developers out of business...a reluctance to involve the immediate community members. It's just good planning practices. And it's what we're taught in planning courses.
(For the record, I'm not accusing Benda of being an evil developer. Just looking for clarification if he has met with and involved the immediate residents in the planning process and what can come of it).
There is a way to make this a win-win situation for everyone involved. Name calling (which is awfully prevalent on the Courier comment pages) will get you nowhere. "
And wrote on Apr 11, 2007 2:06 PM:
" A lot of these posts mention getting more stores in College Square, the old Hy-Vee and Ace Fogdall store. What also needs to happen is fixing University Avenue. Who wants to drive that to go shopping? I'll go somewhere else where I won't have to fix my tires and shocks from all the bumps. Get a decent road and maybe development will come. "
invloving neighbors... wrote on Apr 11, 2007 2:29 PM:
" i don't disagree that involving the neighbors from the get go is probably the best case scenario. but the simple fact of the matter is, the neighbors don't care what it looks like, they care about the intangibles of development and progress...more simply put change. why should he have to waste time, effort, money, etc, etc. to attempt to satisfy a group that won't be satisified unless the project doesn't get built.
i know planning 101, but a text book is a lot different than reality. the only way these people would be happy is either they were unfairly compensated monetarily or the project didn't happen. but i also understand that the city has requirements in place that are meant to alleviate the concerns of citizens, so when a site plan is proposed the requirements are in place to protect the neighboring properties. if thats not the case, shame on the city, but its not Benda's problem. nor is it right that the neighbors impose additional requirements because 'they' don't like it. 'they' won't be there forever, 'they' don't own the property in question, 'they' don't have any more privelages than Benda when it comes to property rights or what goes on in "their" neighborhood. "
Bill Kelley wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:39 PM:
" That area has been a blight for so long. Now someone wants to clean it up, and he gets shot down. The elites have had their say, and their 2 toadies on the council shut the door.
Perhaps Gary Kelley should buy the property in question and put an art gallery there. Paint the outside the same scheme as your house. Would that all right with you susie and kammie? "
questions wrote on Apr 11, 2007 7:23 PM:
" The problem in Cedar Falls seems that no one can make any plans to buy and improve a property as they can be stopped by Planning and Zoning and City Council who ignore the codes and long term plans. What is the purpose of the codes and plans if someone can meet all the requirements and still be turned down? There are numerous empty commercial areas in town, but I can't image a developer sinking any money into planning improvements as there is no guide to tell him what will be approved. If people want to control the land around them, they should buy it. Downtown Cedar Falls looks pretty good, but seems to have a lot of turnover in businesses. It looks like CF did years ago when it was the only commercial area in town, so this is hardly progress. The Industrial Park was to create jobs that would bring new people to town. That hasn't happened. A Courier article a few days ago indicated that Cedar Falls/Waterloo and area around it was growing only a little and that growth, according to another article in the Courier, was in Bremer County. If development is discouraged here, there will be no reason for people to come here. Is Cedar Falls determined to remain a small town? You don’t have to remain provincial to have “quality of life.” Let’s not get left behind. "
Good Decision wrote on Apr 11, 2007 10:03 PM:
" This is a horrible place for another strip mall. Period. Looks like Bendover's business partners and agents are on here crying boo hoo. Remember how bad Blackhawk Village looked for years until someone brought in Kohl's, etc? The same will happen to these little strip malls. I see it in other towns all the time (I travel a lot). Traffic will not turn into that strip from both sides of Uni anyway, so it's a bad location for that, too. Benda just doesn't want to swallow his bad idea and continue to rent out the houses he bought thinking he'd get his commercial development. Someone needs to quit acting like a spoiled little boy and grow up, move on, sell his rental houses and find a more appropriate place to put his stores. Go spread out on the NW side of town with your other stores. Gary Kelley's house looks fantastic and to pound on him here is just childish and no doubt from a Bendover fan who has no clue about color, style and class. "
good decision has no concept of reality... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 8:17 AM:
" i for one am not for or against Benda's project, but simply for property rights. he has every right to build commercial buildings in an area that has been designated commercial for ten years. if the neighbors can't except that, they need to read a book on law, or move. is the project a bad idea, maybe its probably not ideal due to its location to residential and the median, however most would say having a single family home along a commercial corridor isn't ideal either. these properties will never be anything more than rentals or what they should be commercial...lets be realistic people, its a matter of taste, just as some say kelley's house is in bad taste others say it is art, same can hold true for the commercial project being proposed. some of the neighbors may hate it, but future neighbors may love it. why should he a fellow property owner have to swallow his property rights and walk away...why don't the neighbors swallow theirs? its not about find a more appropriate place, the City already determined this is an appropriate place, and lets be honest, the only people acting like spoiled brats are the neighbors. benda has already modified a plan to alleviate previous concerns...they need to grow up and realize if they dont' want to be by commercial they can move, but i would guess trying to sell a home along university ave is fairly difficult....ironic. "
think about it this way.... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 8:55 AM:
" if this was reversed in that it was commercial buildings being proposed to be torn down to build residential properties and the neighboring commercial properties complained and acted like spoiled brats....we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation. the fact of the matter is people living in single family homes have a false sense of entitlement and believe their property rights trump those of neighboring property owners and especially commercial property owners...thats the the real issue. and its an issue that needs to stop. the same thing could be said if he was proposing to build a small apartment building rather than commerical buildings. its the same arguments. the neighbors care because its not their taste, its differnet from their property and they think are entitled because they were their first and they own a single family home. news flash people, property rights aren't exclusive to single family homeowners...change is the real issue and a fear of decreased property values, which i would guess isn't an issue becaues the homes are already in a commercial corridor along a major arterial roadway. "
anti-nimby wrote on Apr 12, 2007 9:40 AM:
" This is for the people bashing Kamyar and Susan for voting this process down. You need to remember a bulk of the current council voted down a much larger project a few years ago. There was going to be a Walmart and Lowes project off of Greenhill between 58 and Hudson Rd. However, the nimby's in the residential area to the far west cried about it, and council didn't approve for that project to continue. Now we don't have a home improvement center (that so many readers want). So let's not target just a few council members when all of them have been guilty in the past of not supporting larger projects that would have benefited the entire community. "
question... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:05 AM:
" but was that proposal in accordance with the City's land use plan...? if it wasn't i could see why the poeple complained. if i lived by area designated residential and wall-mart and lowes proposed to change the plan to allow their stores to be built, i would be against it as well. the differnece is, this proposal isn't changing the land use designation. if it was designated as commercail then they should keep thier mouths shut like the hillcrest neighbors should be doing... "
To Anti-nimby wrote on Apr 12, 2007 11:16 AM:
" You are laughable! The Super Walmart is exactly where it should be! Lowe's or anyone else could go right next to it or across the road. Greenhill Rd between 58 and Hudson Road would have been a dead area for those big stores because UNI owns the property across Greenhill and it would just sit empty and catch all the trash that blows from those big box stores. The appropriate development of commercial properties isn't always what the land owners want!!!!!! It takes time to lay things out and luckily Walmart DIDN'T get their way and they should be thrilled with where they are. Leave University alone, it's got enough going on. In fact a few homes here and there fit in well, use those homes for offices like Insurance, Dental, etc. There's a need for spaces like that. Another strip mall is NOT what we want or need. Black Hawk Village is enough in that area. "
20 something wrote on Apr 12, 2007 1:03 PM:
" Another reason very little 20 somethings are moving back to the area. "
laughable yourself... wrote on Apr 12, 2007 1:04 PM:
" you just said there is a need for commercial space. can a dentist not go into a strip mall? can a insurance company not go into a strip mall? it costs a lot of money to convert homes to commercial properties to meet building, fire and accessibility codes.
what benda should do is propose to build two office condo buildings rather than for just retail. however its still possible for office uses to go into a commercial district if am not mistaken. office uses, especially small ones, typically make great neighbors and would have good visibility from University. win for everyone. "
To most of you wrote on Apr 13, 2007 11:09 AM:
" Lets be realistic. A strip mall in a residental neighborhood will not keep younger people here. This may be a newsflash, but weather, types of people, and what surroundings are what people are interested in as well as JOBS! People are not going to college to work at a strip mall!! Lets be honest, some of my sisters friends that are in california have no idea where Iowa is. Iowa is not going to have cities like Chicago, San Diego, Miami etc. There isnt one pro team here, the weather is crazy, and other than cornfields and bean fields, Iowa doesnt have much to offer...other than a few select like Des Moines, Iowa City etc, compared to cities that bring in young people. Even then, saying your living in Des Moines is still in Iowa. This problem is a lot bigger than a simple strip mall in a residential neighborhood. Think outside the box and dont get sucked into everybody elses thoughts. "
Independent wrote on Apr 13, 2007 1:57 PM:
" Does this have anything to do with S Jordan's plan to renovate the Blackhawk Village shopping strip area? I think so! "
the issue is.... wrote on Apr 13, 2007 3:50 PM:
" its not about new jobs, commercial growth, etc, etc; its about a property owner who wants to develop commercial property on land that has residential homes in a commercially designated area and their efforts to not reckognize that fact. Is it going to disrupt their neighborhood...quite possibly, but that is subjective. And by no means is that more important than residential homes disrupting his commercially designated property. He has rights, thats the issue and that isn't being addressed. "
EscapedtoArizona wrote on Apr 14, 2007 1:01 PM:
" All this controversy over a small strip mall? Funny! "
Something Greater wrote on Apr 14, 2007 2:24 PM:
" Thanks for a thoughtful proposal that made a lot of sense, Jim. This is a setback, but you - along with the other developers/property owners in the University Ave. corridor - are making a positive differnece in the Cedar Valley. Keep looking for new places to bring more shopping choices so these shoppers can stay in the Cedar Valley. "
Jeremy wrote on Apr 14, 2007 6:12 PM:
" Oh good! Another strip mall, I can't wait. I hope there's ANOTHER sub shop, a cell phone store, and a haircut place. "
Wondering wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:04 PM:
" Do you suppose IF a "nice young man" wanted to put a "new Ford Store" in this area, it would pass? "
Jeremy's right wrote on Apr 15, 2007 2:22 PM:
" That's all strip malls turn out to be initially, then the realization sets in that the area already has enough sub shops, cell phone stores, etc. and they close down, leaving another vacant store front. Honestly, can anyone tell me what the benefits are to having so many strip malls that offer so little? "
pwned wrote on Apr 16, 2007 12:01 AM:
" Some of you recent posters obviously don't get it. If strip malls are such a terrible thing, why are so many going up? Newsflash, it isn't because they lose money. If this land is specified for commercial purposes and Mr. Benda purchased the land/homes with the intent to put up a commercial structure AND the city council says no; then the city of Cedar Falls owes Mr. Benda quite a large chunk of change... I guess that the city and/or the neighbors should buy all of these rentals back at similar or higher prices than Benda paid since they don't want progress in the area. This is just like the guy in North Cedar who wanted to develop some land with trees and the neighbors complained because it would have ruined their views. Boo hoo people...if you want a good view, buy the land yourself! "
Anonymous wrote on Apr 16, 2007 12:11 AM:
" Guess what, I am an acquaintance of Gary Kelley, AND Jim Benda. Everyone can't ahve their way. The reality of the situation is this: Change happens. Gary, you can see Joker's and 30,000 cars a day out your door as well. A strip mall won't change anything. I understand you are among the political elite of Cedar Falls, but that DOES NOT give Cedar Falls City Council the right to tread on people's property rights. Jim Benda, you need to sue the pants off of the City of Cedar Falls, and make these irrational bleeding heart city council members realize there are very serious consequences to breaking the law. Taxpayer's money pays council members (measly) salaries AND the attorney fees and court costs for the city's defense. If the general public had any idea of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars the CITY OF CEDAR FALLS spends on FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS it brings forth against citizens, and for defense it must put forth after BLATANTLY TREADING ON CITIZEN'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, they would start acting like adults. The 'social elite' of Cedar Falls use the council to do their bidding, and basically get every taxpayer in cedar falls to handle the legal costs. It's disgusting. JIM, sue the pants off of the CITY of CEDAR FALLS!!!!!!!! "
To Anonymous wrote on Apr 16, 2007 6:50 AM:
" You're not nearly as Anonymous as you think you are. Be careful here talking about suing Cedar Falls. Trees block Gary's constant view of Jokers. Strip malls are good when they're out away from so much other shopping. If they were ALL so good, then look at the one on Melrose, the one behind Bishops, the Chalet, down University by Falls Ave; they all may have some off and on again tenants, but they're not 'all that' you ... agents make them out to be. This particular area in CF could be commercial with some softer, more residential-friendly buildings, like some of the home-style professional buildings that still have landscaping, trees, etc. It's amazing when people are just SO ...-bent on tearing down homes and trees to put up something that is already everywhere in town. Remember the song about taking out a park and putting up a parking lot? This is a nice little break from the constant store-front and large-signed businesses that flood University. Keep it green! Go strip-mall somewhere else. "
Dan wrote on Apr 16, 2007 8:02 AM:
" University is a major thoroughfare in your city. It is utterly ridiculous that folks choose to live on that street. If you want to blend commerce with homes, then you should look at some of the "new urban" designs. Iowa City is a great example, with a blend of retail, professional, and residential that looks great! People should not fear change, they should embrace it and work with it, rather than against it. Your city leaders need to focus on one thing right now and in the future, R-E-V-E-N-U-E! Commercial development can be a great thing if done correctly, but simply refusing to allow it to occur is only helping the Cedar Valley sign it's own death certificate. "
Anonymous is right... wrote on Apr 16, 2007 8:30 AM:
" i wrote it earlier. "time for a lawsuit" what the neighbors and a majortiy of people don't understand is land use law. first off, the neighbors as much as they like to think so, have zero rights to the subject property. whether a tree gets cut down or a house is painted a certain way, etc. etc, so long as it meets the city's requirements. if the city doesn't have requirements, thats another issue. that being said, a comprehensive plan, specifically a land use plan isn't an ordinance such as the zoning map, however the land use plan is meant to dictate how the property is zoned. so if the land is planned for commercial, which is the obvious land use designation given the relationship to university, the city should approve a rezoning, regardless of the neighbors complaints about traffic, etc, etc. the conversation regarding whether or not commercial development was appropriate for the subject land occured over ten years ago. if the neighbors lived their then and opposed it, i can understand their frustration, if they didn't live their at the time, tough ... the information was and is available do your research. if the city does not approve a rezoning, there needs to be a specific reason why a commercial zoning wouldn't be allowed in a commercially planned area. if the the city approves a rezoning, it doesn't mean the project is necessarily approved. a site plan would need to be approved and the issues of the design of the project are addressed in relationship to the city's measurable standards. if it meets those standards, the project should be approved. if the city doesn't approve a rezoning and/or site plan for the project, without reason, in effect the city is taking away the property rights of the property owner and that is considered a "takings" requiring just compensation (i.e. lawsuit). In my opinion the city is on a thin line with this one. remember the success of the project is up to the developer, not the city. if the stores are vacant, so be it. that is not a reason to not allow a commercial use in a commercially designated properties. the market is something is not controlable, if the city feels like there is too much commercial land, they should ammend the land use plan, which they have the right to do. if they don't, this property will be commercial at some point in the future, whether it takes a lawsuit to make it happen or not. Furthermore, a 'strip mall' is not a negative thing. a strip mall is called that because the stores are arranged in a row. additionally, because this project would have two seperate commercial buildings, it could be debated whether or not it is in fact a "strip mall"....a concern from the neighbors Benda took into account from the firts go-around. "
Jim wrote on Apr 16, 2007 11:31 AM:
" I think the real issue here is Kamyar. I have only lived here 3 years and he is against everything that is positive for Cedar Falls. How did such an unintelligent man get to be on the council? The swill him and his wife write nonstop as letters to the editors and guest columns makes one wonder if they are capable of forming a thought of their own. They are really out there and I do hope the residents of his ward will work to remove him. I go to the Waterloo farmer's market after I found out he has his fingers in that also. The man is trying to bring the repression of his country to Cedar Falls. If it was so great there why did he leave and come here? This person really scares me as he has no one but his own interests at heart. Please think about that. "
Sorry... wrote on Apr 18, 2007 3:47 PM:
" Jim Benda is trying to help turn the not so nice looking parts of the community into something. If i were living close to the proposed shopping area, i would get tired of looking at a raggedy dump of a building with a run down parking lot! "
Anonymous...again wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:02 PM:
" Change is constant. University is a commercial corridor. My business is just off University....yep, the same corridor...in, God forbid, close proximity to....residential homes! Look at what has happened to the crossroads area in the last 20 years? Where do people go now to shop? What municipality gets all of those taxes? Not CF! Attitudes have got to change, does anyone have logic anymore? "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
60 year resident wrote on Apr 10, 2007 7:02 AM: