Rezoning draws debate over growth, neighborhood impacts
Supervisors hear concerns, development plans for land along Hwy. 20
Trending
SUGGESTED HEAD:
SUGGESTED SUB:
By KELLI BLOOMQUIST
For more than an hour Tuesday, Webster County Supervisors heard competing visions for land near travel center Marker 126 on U.S. Highway 20 east of Fort Dodge.
Supporters of a rezoning project for the land discussed new businesses bringing jobs and tax revenue to the U.S. Highway 20 corridor, while neighbors voiced concerns about increased traffic, noise and uncertainty over the water supply.
The positions were voiced at the supervisors' regular meeting during a second public hearing on the potential rezoning of approximately 63.9 acres around Marker 126 from agricultural preservation to light industrial.
Webster County Planning and Zoning Administrator Jeff Johnson presented a revised layout intended to move development farther from nearby homes.
However, Ted Dubois, of Evergreen Engineering, of Fort Dodge, representing property owners Kevin and Sheila Stumpf and the development, said they preferred the layout presented at the previous meeting.
The original proposal called for an 11-lot subdivision. Discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission resulted in a nine-lot layout that reduced development on the western 40-acre tract to approximately half of that acreage.
Johnson's latest option would reduce the subdivision to eight lots and limit development on the western tract to approximately one-third of its acreage, keeping construction farther south and using an existing tree buffer.
Dubois clarified that the latest map was an option for consideration, rather than an agreed-upon revision.
"We would prefer to stick with this one if that's possible," he said of the earlier layout.
Dubois said an earthen berm and evergreen trees could provide additional screening along the northern edge of the development.
According to Dubois, there is currently no list of businesses committed to purchasing property.
The first step, he said, is securing the rezoning so the land can be marketed for development. Although the types of businesses are not yet known, he estimated that development could conservatively bring 200 to 400 jobs to the area.
According to Dubois, each individual project would still go through the county's building permit review process, including consideration of water, sanitary service, electrical infrastructure, roads and lot layouts.
Attorney Fred Dorr, of West Des Moines, who represents Kevin and Sheila Stumpf, who own the property, told the packed room that construction would remain subject to county review and approvals.
Neighbors of the potential development voiced concerns about the availability of water and wells with added businesses in the area.
Dorr said the Stumpfs intend to use Xenia Rural Water District water service as long as it can meet the development's needs. If that service proved insufficient, they would want the opportunity to seek approval for a well or wells.
He acknowledged that questions about effects on existing wells and the aquifer were legitimate, but said the developers could not simply drill wells and withdraw unlimited amounts of water.
Dubois added that water infrastructure would be part of the review required for individual projects.
Traffic safety also drew objections from neighboring residents.
In a written comment read during the hearing, Mary Holstein said she purchased her acreage because she wanted to live in the country. While she expected noise from U.S. Highway 20, she was concerned about additional traffic moving through the surrounding neighborhood.
Holstein said some truck drivers already travel around the section past her property rather than use the U.S. Highway 20 turnaround, and she feared that traffic would increase with development.
Michelle Holstein, who spoke at the meeting and lives approximately one-half mile from Marker 126, also described concerns about speeding vehicles, gravel-road dust and the safety of grandchildren crossing between family properties.
She said her opposition was not a criticism of the Stumpfs' operation of the travel center.
During the public hearing, Dorr presented what he described as Iowa Department of Transportation crash data showing nine incidents near the intersection over approximately four years. He argued that most involved animals, driver behavior or other circumstances rather than the intersection's design.
Sheila Stumpf defended the intersection and said safety is a priority at Marker 126. Employees are trained to help customers understand how to navigate it, she said, and the business provides DOT educational materials as well.
Stumpf also described her family's ties to Webster County, noting that they have lived and farmed in the county for more than 50 years.
"We personally chose to invest heavily in Webster County when we located our business here," said Stumpf. "We definitely have a lot of skin in the game."
Dorr said the Stumpfs have invested more than $11 million at the location and have a financial interest in ensuring that neighboring development complements the travel center.
According to Dorr, the Stumpfs currently pay approximately $53,000 annually in property taxes at the location and expect that amount to reach $83,000 in three years.
"Very few people or entities in this area are paying $83,000 in taxes," said Dorr. "That's what economic development does to your tax base, and it benefits all county representatives and members."
Dorr repeatedly warned that denying the rezoning could discourage other developers and economic development organizations from considering Webster County.
"Most counties and communities are pursuing opportunities of this kind," said Dorr.
Bruce Nuzum, president of the Iowa Area Development Group, echoed the importance of attracting development and said Webster County has an advantage in having private investors willing to undertake the project.
In other communities, Nuzum said, development organizations, electric cooperatives or public entities often must acquire land, arrange financing and install infrastructure before a business park can be marketed.
Nuzum said his organization is not currently marketing the proposed site because it does not consider it ready. If the project moves forward, it could be included in efforts to promote business parks along U.S. Highway 20.
A written comment from Jamie Reed, of Badger, also supported the proposal, citing the potential to attract businesses, create jobs and strengthen the regional economy.
Sheila Stumpf urged the supervisors to consider the proposal's potential benefits for the county as a whole.
"Development along the Highway 20 corridor presents an opportunity for Webster County that could provide jobs and growth that we all know can be difficult to attract in rural areas," said Stumpf. "We face issues in retaining our young people, providing good paying jobs, tax burdens, and quality of living that can all be addressed through growth in our county."
The third and final public hearing on the rezoning of the land surrounding Marker 126 will be held at 10 a,m. Nov. 3 at the Webster County Courthouse. The supervisors have not indicated when they will vote on the proposal.