HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Comprehensive Plan Item
A public hearing to consider adoption of the Central District Plan as an element of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan. The Central District extends from the boundary of the Downtown District east to
First Avenue and from Dodge Street and Hickory Hill Park on the north to Highway 6 on the south. The
plan establishes a vision, goals, and objectives for improving housing and quality of life, streets and
transportation, parks and open space, and commercial areas in the Central District. Prior to the public
hearing, urban planning staff will present a slideshow highlighting the main goals and objectives of the
plan.
D. Review of Annual Report
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 18 and August 21, 2008
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
Commission Meetin s
October 13 November 3
October 16 November 6
November 17
November 20
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 29,2008
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Central District Plan
We hope you have had a chance to look over the draft of the Central District Plan. At your
formal meeting on Thursday, planning staff will make a presentation to the Commission and
the public focusing on the main themes and highlights of the Central District Plan before you
open the meeting to public comment.
For those of you who attended the last formal meeting, we distributed some substitute
pages for you to insert into your copy. These substitute pages included maps that were not
legible in the initial printing and revisions to the language in the Gilbert Street Commercial
Corridor section. Attached to this memo is a substitute page for p. 50, where the text was
inadvertently cut off at the bottom of the page. For those of you who were not at the last
formal meeting, I have attached the entire set of replacement pages.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 1S, 200S - 6:00 PM - INFORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
Preliminary
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik,
Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Karen Howard,
Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZOS-OOOOS: Discussion of an application submitted by the University of Iowa Community Credit
Union for a rezoning from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1)
zone for approximately 3.S7 acres of property south of Dodge Street, west of Scott Boulevard.
The 45-day limitation period ends September 14, 200S.
Kuecker stated that the intention of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union (UICCU) is to build a
corporate office building that houses the administrative headquarters and a bank branch building with a
drive-up through teller.
The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the proposed development at the corners of Dodge Street
and Scott Boulevard, Kuecker said. Kuecker said that the plan has the bank building located on the
corner of the property, screening the view of the parking lot from Dodge Street, a major entranceway into
Iowa City.
The current zoning, Research Development Park (RDP), allows office, research, production and
assembly firms, which would include the office functions of the proposed development; however, it would
not include the bank branch or the drive-through as allowable developments. The bank branch facility
would be permitted under a Commercial Office (CO-1) zoning, although drive-through facilities do require
a special exception through the Board of Adjustment in the CO-1 zone.
Kuecker said that the Comprehensive Plan does emphasize the need to preserve the natural beauty of
the Dodge Street entrance into Iowa City. Both the North District Plan and the Northeast District Plan
address this area as well, stating that this is a major entrance-way with environmental features that need
to be maintained.
Kuecker noted that there is a small residential town home development across the street from the
proposed site that would probably be the most visually impacted by the development. Kuecker noted that
by locating the building on the corner, the UICCU has ensured that those residents will not be looking out
onto a parking lot. The CO-1 zone has been indicated as a zoning that is appropriate between residential
and higher-intensity commercial uses. Across the street is a P-1 zone, which is the location of the new
city fire station. Adjacent is an RS-5 zone that currently has only one house, and is indicated by in
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 2
Comprehensive Plan as an area for further office and research development parks. Kuecker noted that
there is a substantial distance of approximately 150 feet between the site and the residential area just to
the south. In that area is a large ravine which will help in screening the two areas from each other's uses.
The adjacent RDP zoned property is the Press-Citizen building and campus.
Kuecker said that Staff believes the CO-1 zone is compatible to all of these uses, especially in light of all
of the landscaping that is required. Kuecker noted that between the parking lot and any residential area
there needs to be an S-3 screening: the highest level of screening.
This site does have environmentally sensitive areas, protected and critical steep slopes. The protected
slopes are indicated on the concept plan and have been buffered around. Less than 35% of the critical
slopes would be disturbed, which would require a level-1 sensitive areas review, to be administered by
Staff.
Kuecker said there are adequate sidewalks in the area to keep pedestrians safe, and Dodge Street has
been recently improved to increase its functionality. There is some concern, Kuecker noted, with the
access point for the development and its location on Scott Boulevard. However, Kuecker said, the
access point shown on the concept plan would be adequate for the amount of traffic circulation, and Staff
is recommending that that location be required as a condition of the rezoning.
Kuecker concluded by saying that the Comprehensive Plan considers this area an important entrance
way into Iowa City. When the Press Citizen was rezoned, there was concern about the protection of that
entrance way and the steep slopes in the area, Kuecker said. Staff feels that the CO-1 zone is
appropriate for this area of town. The issue of this area being an important entranceway to the city is
addressed in the concept plan by the installation of landscaping along Dodge Street, as well as between
the parking lot and the neighboring residential area. There is some question of what the wall of the
building facing Dodge Street will look like, but Staff believes an elevation showing what it would look like
will be presented prior to Thursday's formal meeting. Concern has been expressed about the
appropriateness of the new zoning to the area; however, because CO-1 has been determined to be
appropriate buffer between residential and higher intensity commercial, Staff feels it is appropriate. Staff
acknowledges that the vehicular access point at the busy intersection is an important issue, as well as the
sensitivity of the nearby environment. Nonetheless, Staff does support approval of the rezoning as
submitted subject to a conditional zoning agreement (CZA) that requires substantial compliance with the
concept plan as submitted, a requirement for the access point to be located as shown in the concept plan,
a detailed landscape plan that complies with screening requirements and provides for additional
landscaping on the Dodge Street frontage, and building elevations demonstrating appropriate articulation
of fenestration on the Dodge Street side of the building. Kuecker then shared several views of the
concept plan and site with the Commission.
Kuecker invited questions from the Commission.
Koppes noted that she frequently drives this stretch of road, and expressed concern for the access point
as shown on the site plan. She said that as cars turn left from Dodge onto Scott Boulevard, the
entranceway to the proposed site is at the exact point where Scott Boulevard becomes one-lane. Payne
noted that this concerned her as well. Koppes said she has seen accidents, near-misses, and people
having to stop right in the intersection because of the narrowing of the road there. She asked if there has
been any consideration of a right turn lane into the property. Koppes said that people often take that turn
too quickly trying to get through the stoplight before it turns, and all of these factors are a safety concern
for her. Miklo said that transportation planners had looked at it pretty closely, but he did not know if they
had specifically considered the need for a turning lane. Payne suggested perhaps moving the entrance
to the site down further, after the road has been one-lane for a bit. Payne said that currently, without the
access point to a large office and commercial building, it is a bad stretch of road. Freerks said she could
see the desire on the part of Staff and the UICCU to keep the entryway clean with Dubuque Road.
Eastham said he would be interested in hearing the transportation planners' viewpoints on the subject.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 3
Koppes asked if Staff knew how far the entrance was from the entrance to the Hickory Heights
subdivision nearby, as that was also an area of concern for her speed-wise. Miklo said he believed it was
several hundred feet. Koppes said that at 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. that area is very busy.
Eastham said that as he understands it, the purpose of the rezoning is to allow for a drive-through facility
on the site. He asked if it was possible to have a CO-1 rezoning revert back to the RPD zoning if the
Board of Adjustment did not approve the drive-through. Greenwood-Hektoen said that it could be viewed
as part of the substantial compliance with the concept plan that has been suggested as a condition for the
CZA. Miklo said he believed that the Commission would have to go through a formal process of rezoning
it. Freerks asked when the applicant was planning on going to the Board of Adjustment with the issue.
Miklo said that he had advised the applicant that they would need to have CO-1 zoning in place before
they could apply to the Board. Miklo asked if Eastham was concerned that the CO-1 zoning would not be
appropriate without a drive-through. Eastham said that the Commission had discussed before that once
a given zoning was implemented all of its possible uses inevitably become present. Freerks said that the
CZA would not have been adhered to if the property comes into other uses. Eastham said he was
comforted somewhat by that, but still wondered if there was any historical practice of reverting to original
zoning if the Board of Adjustment did not agree with a use. Miklo said that he believed that a drive-
through facility would be the most intense use possible under the CO-1 zone. If for some reason the
Board did not allow a drive-through, Miklo said, he did not see that there would be a real negative in
allowing the CO-1 zone to stand. Eastham asked if apartments could be built above the commercial
property in a CO-1 zone. Miklo acknowledged that they could, but said there is a 25 foot height limit that
would be limiting for that purpose. He noted that the same thing could happen with the current design,
and asked if that would necessarily be a bad thing. Other than office uses, which are also allowed in an
RDP zone, there are some fairly limited personal service uses allowed in a CO-1, such as beauty parlors.
Miklo asked if there was some discomfort with CO-1 zoning. Eastham said he had already talked through
his issues; he is more comfortable going to CO-1 with this owner for this particular use, than he is just
going to CO-1 in general. Miklo said that the next question to ask is: are there some CO-1 uses that
would be of concern? Miklo said he did not see any based on the level of intensity of those uses, but if
there are, it would be possible that the owner could sell the property immediately after rezoning and other
CO-1 uses were implemented for the property. Miklo advised the Commission that if they choose to
rezone the property, they should be comfortable going to CO-1 zoning regardless of who the owner is.
Miklo said Staff is comfortable with the CO-1 zoning for this location. Eastham noted that other uses
might have potential access issues. Miklo replied that is one reason why Staff wants to pin down the
access point, with the primary reason being to establish the best place to intersect Scott Boulevard. But if
you look at the uses allowed in CO-1, Miklo said, none of them are really high traffic generators, like
convenience stores or retailers. Koppes said she would be more concerned about putting a fire station
across from the proposed development because it generates more traffic, although the zoning for the fire
station is not CO-1. Miklo attempted to clarify the traffic concern, asking if the concern was because Scott
Boulevard moves to one lane. Plahutnik said that the access point makes the absolute most sense for
the bank, but might not make the most sense for free flow of traffic down Scott Boulevard. Payne
pointed out that people unfamiliar with the area may not know which lane to be in when turning from
Dodge onto Scott Boulevard. Miklo said that the other thing to keep in mind is that the applicant is aware
that they have to get a special exception; if the special exception does not go through for some reason,
they may still want to build a bank there. Busard said the way he understood the plans, the banking
operations would be secondary to the use of housing the administrative operations for the UICCU. Miklo
said that Staff understood the matter that way as well from early discussions with the applicant.
Payne said she had a question about the CZA. The only other CZA she was familiar with was the one for
the development at Rochester and Scott, and it concerned things such as sidewalk placement. By her
understanding, this CZA seems more tied to the applicant, and she asked if that was standard procedure;
if a CZA is tied to a specific applicant and then the applicant sells the property, the CZA means nothing.
Miklo replied that Staffs concern was the relationship to Dodge Street as an entrance-way to the city and
that the primary view from Dodge Street not be a parking lot; whether that building was a bank building or
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 4
another office building did not concern Staff. Miklo said that if this particular plan was not implemented,
the user, whoever it was, would have to come back to the Commission to amend the CZA. Payne asked
if there were no other rules or planning tools besides CZAs that forbade the placement of parking lots on
the street-side of a building. Miklo replied that there were not, as long as the setbacks were met. There
are some zones or structures, for example apartment buildings where the parking lot must be behind the
building; however, in a CO-1 zone, as long as all other applicable zoning regulations are followed, a
parking lot can be placed street-side.
Miklo noted that given the topography of the site, it is a challenging one. Having a concept plan showing
how a use would appropriately fit into the area gives Staff a level of comfort that a development can be
designed to fit the topography and address the Comprehensive Plans concerns about the entryway to the
city.
Freerks asked how the number of parking spaces provided compared to what might be expected of a
building of that size. Miklo said the site plan is based on the maximum number of parking spaces that
would be required for this structure. The applicant may actually need fewer spaces once their storage
areas are calculated.
Eastham asked if it was correct that the applicant would be submitting elevation drawings prior to the
formal meeting which show the appearance of the Dodge facing fayade. Kuecker said that the applicant
had indicated that was the case. Eastham said he personally did not feel comfortable voting on the
application until those elevations had been reviewed, especially in light of the extensive exchange on that
subject with the new Wal-Mart store. Freerks noted that there was certainly time to do two meetings prior
to the expiration of the 45-day limitation period.
Eastham asked what the elevations of the ground floor of the building and parking lot were, given the
steep slope in the area, and requested Kuecker provide that information at the formal meeting.
Eastham recalled that Kuecker had said that the parking lot should not be prominently visible from the
east or the south, and asked her to provide a little more detailed information on that as well. Payne noted
that the house on the other side of Scott Boulevard viewed the property from a hill and would likely be
able to look right down on it.
Eastham noted that the parking island shown on one of the illustrations is not shown on the schematic
drawing, and he asked if it was going to be included in the concept plan. Eastham said he would like to
suggest that the median should be at least an eight to nine feet width to allow for more green space in the
parking area. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she thought the more that the Commission can articulate
what they want, the better.
Eastham said that he agreed with Freerks in that he is much more comfortable when he knows exactly
what concept plan he is voting on, as opposed to differing versions floating around.
There were no further questions for Staff on this issue.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Consider setting a public hearing for September to consider adoption of the Central District Plan
as an element of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Karen Howard passed out a draft of the Central District Plan for the Commissioners to review. The plan,
Howard said, is to set the public hearing on the August 21st meeting, giving the Commission a couple of
weeks to review the document prior to the actual public hearing on September 4, 2008. Howard said that
Staff intends to do a presentation of the plan at the public hearing, just as Staff has done for all of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 5
other district plans. Howard asked if the Commission had any questions.
Koppes noted that the Commission had talked a lot about the commercial areas in the district and asked
if that was addressed. Howard said there was a whole section on that.
Howard asked Commissioners to call or e-mail her with any questions they might have prior to the public
hearing.
CODE AMENDEMENT ITEM:
Consideration of amendments to Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, to allow limited use of
freestanding signs in the CB-2 zone, add a definition and standards for entranceway signs, and to
clarify the regulations regarding signs on residential buildings.
Eastham said that he wished to make it known that he is the manager of a non-profit housing agency in
the city, and while they do not use yard signs to advertise vacancies, he wanted to announce his
relationship for the record and state that he did not believe it was a conflict in this case.
Howard stated that over the last six to eight months Staff had received several requests for changes to
the sign code and the zoning ordinance.
The first request for a change is in the CB-2 zone. When the new zoning code was created, Staff and the
Commission had intended to get rid of the CB-2 zone, but for various reasons decided to keep it. City
Council requested that the CB-2 zone be examined as a part of the Central District Plan, and to come up
with some good standards for that zone at that time. In the meantime, Howard said, the zone was
inserted back into the zoning ordinance in the easiest fashion possible, which was to group it in with the
other central business zones. In the other central business zones free-standing signs are not allowed.
Formerly, free-standing signs were allowed in the CB-2 zone; now, they are not. Howard stated that
problems were not anticipated due to the small number of free-standing signs in the CB-2 zone.
However, one property owner who needed to change their sign was affected. This particular property did
not have room on the property for the allowable monument sign, and as a gas station, is a little different
than most of the central district businesses that are located close to the street. There is very little CB-2
zoning, and as a result, very few examples where properties did not have an opportunity to put a sign
other than a free-standing sign that would be visible from the street. The proposal, Howard said, is to
insert a provision allowing free-standing signs under certain circumstances where other types of signs
would not be visible from the street.
Howard said that the issue of entrance-way signs came up as a result of the new Bread Garden bakery
and grocery store located downtown. There is a parking lot for this business, and to separate that parking
lot from the street and create a sort of urban street wall, a structure consisting of pillars and concrete
walls was constructed. The owner wished to put a sign up over the entrance-way advising that parking
was available for customers using the grocery store. Nothing in the sign ordinance allowed that type of
sign because it did not fit into any of the existing categories. Staff noted that there are entrance-way
signs in other parts of the city which serve useful purposes; the Elks Club has such a sign. This is a
useful sign type which the City does not currently address in its sign ordinance, and so Staff created a
new category for entrance-way signs.
Plahutnik noted that this was somewhat fitting since a new category was also created for the Bread
Garden parking lot when it was originally put in as Tait's Grocery.
Eastham said that as he understands it Staff is proposing to insert a definition for an entrance-way sign.
He asked if there was currently a definition for entrance-way arch. Howard said there would be an
illustration included in the ordinance which should help clarify. Howard said it was best to avoid
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 6
specifically defining things unless necessary. She said that sometimes someone will come up with
something that is perfectly logical and fitting, but that doesn't fall into the narrow scope of a previously
determined definition and so must be denied. Eastham said if Staff was comfortable leaving it undefined
he was too. Plahutnik said that it might be helpful to come up with the worst possible version of what
could come from saying that entrance-way signs were allowed, and then work backward from there in
defining it. Howard said this had been done somewhat in determining the standards for an entrance-way
sign. One of the things Staff had considered was if someone bought a property with an existing archway
sign and then attempted to simply cover it with an ill-fitting, disproportional sign. To avoid this, Staff has
proposed that design-review be required for any sign going beyond the edges of the archway. Eastham
said that the term that is being defined is "entrance-way sign." He asked if it was Staff's thinking that
these signs would only be allowed on an entrance-way arch. Eastham said that it seemed to him that if
the intent is to define the sign for an entrance-way arch, then the wording should be very clear through-
out that the standards apply to an entrance-way arch and not to an entrance-way only. Busard asked if
the word "arch" could be removed and changed to simply "overhead" or terminology that applied to any
overhead structure underneath which one passes. Howard pointed out that the structure used in Staff's
illustration is not actually an arch. Freerks noted that some businesses would be very well-served by
such overhead identifiers. Busard asked if the size of letters for the ach or the setbacks were addressed
in the ordinance. Eastham said this went back to the definition of what an arch is exactly. Howard said
that any kind of structure on the property would have to meet the setbacks for that zone, and then the
sign, which would be adhered to the structure would have to meet the requirements of the entrance-way
sign ordinance. Busard asked if the structure was free-standing and not attached to any other building if
it would still be required to meet the setback requirements. Howard said that the sign would be required
to be proportional to the size of the structure to which it is adhered; there is a connection between how
big the sign is and how big the arch is. Payne gave ACT as an example, and asked if their sign would be
ineligible for an arch because it would be too big, and would not fit the specified dimensions. Howard
said she could not say for sure. Howard said that Staff would provide photographic examples and
additional information at the formal meeting.
The final issue concerning sign regulations regarded clarification of regulations for signs on residential
buildings. Howard said that earlier in the year Staff had received an e-mail from the Northside
Neighborhood Association expressing concern about the proliferation of signs on rental properties.
Howard said that the signs in question were signs that had been permanently affixed to the property and
sometimes gave only generic contact information or advertisement information for the property manager.
Howard said that there are a number of regulations governing real estate signs and identification signs,
and the signs in question do not readily fall into either of those categories. The signs really are
advertising an off-site business, rather than merely identifying a given property by name. Off-site
business advertisement signs are not allowed in residential zones. Temporary real estate signs are
allowed and are typically found in the yard or window of a property. The concern is that the signs in
question are permanently affixed to the building, and are neither real estate signs nor identification signs
for a particular building. It is not uncommon upon looking at a particular website to find that all of the
properties on that website have been leased for the following year; this demonstrates that the sign stays
up all of the time, not just when there are vacancies. The concern about these types of signs is that they
are often found in neighborhoods near the downtown area where there is a mix of housing types.
Howard said that what Staff has done is to try to clarify the existing ordinance by clarifying the definition of
real estate sign to clearly show that the signs should be temporary, and adding that the signs should only
be yard or window signs. Howard said that a new sign definition was also created, a residential leasing
company sign; Staff felt there was some merit in having these type of signs on larger, multi-family
buildings in multi-family zones that may have more regular turn-over and are not necessarily in single-
family neighborhoods. Howard said that this was determined by both zone and by use; only buildings
containing eight or more dwelling units in a multi-family zone would eligible for this kind of sign. Howard
said that Housing Inspection Services (HIS) had recommended a time of four months from the vacancy as
adequate time to have a yard sign up. Easthan said that the way he reads it, there is no actual time limit
on how long the sign can be up so long as the unit is available.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 7
Eastham said that the language states that an identification sign is not allowed if a company has a
residential leasing sign. Eastham asked if a leasing company was required to combine an identification
sign and a residential leasing sign into one sign if they wished to have both. Howard said that this was
not the case.
Payne asked about the language in documents provided by Staff. She asked if a sign permit is required
unless otherwise stated in the language. Howard confirmed that this was correct.
Busard asked if a "small apartment building" was defined anywhere in the code. Howard said that there
was nothing in the ordinance that defined that term, that it was just a term used in her memo. Howard
said that in the table they somewhat defined "small" by defining "larger" apartment buildings as those
containing eight or more dwelling units.
Busard asked if four months was adequate lee-way to give for renting apartments. He noted that many
leases end on August 1st, and that not allowing for a sign until April 1st seemed like not very much time to
allow landlords to find a renter for their unit. Howard said that the general idea was that there are other
means of advertising one's building other than posting signs on their buildings. Freerks said that if there
is a unit available, it is permissible to have a sign; if there is no available unit, then there will be no sign.
Busard asked if the person owning a six-unit apartment building was not at a disadvantage to a person
with an eight-unit building.
Howard pointed out that there were two different issues at play: 1) real estate signs and 2) leasing
company signs. Anyone, Howard said, can put up a real estate sign, regardless of how many apartments
are in your building. You cannot do the leasing company signs unless you have eight units, but you can
do the yard and window signs, Howard said. The yard signs have a four month limit. The leasing
company signs are permanently affixed to the building.
Freerks pointed out that these leasing company signs are not supposed to be happening at all right now
in residential zones. Freerks said that she felt the Commission had been clear about what they had
intended and wanted when the code was revised, and that she felt that the current proliferation of leasing
company signs is due to a loophole.
Payne said that, lately, she had been noticing more and more of these leasing company signs being put
up. Freerks said she believed that someone felt they got a green light on these and now they are
multiplying. Miklo added that currently it was difficult for HIS to enforce, because what they would have to
do is to call and see if the property owner really had availabilities or check their website. Freerks said
that she had checked websites herself before and found that there were no availabilities. Miklo said that
the new language will provide a timeframe so it will be easier to enforce in the event of complaints.
Koppes noted that the new code only disallows leasing company signs from residential, not multi-family
areas. Eastham pointed out that not only the timeframe for which a sign can be up is outlined in the code,
but also the type of sign; the new code makes it clear that a sign affixed to a building in a single-family
residential zone is not allowed. Plahutnik noted that if there are availabilities, landlords may put signs up
to fill those vacancies. Miklo said that in most cases, property managers send out letters to current
tenants in January or February asking if they wish to renew for the following year, and put it on the market
shortly after the tenant responds to the inquiry.
Eastham asked Miklo to address e-mails received the previous week about vandalism of temporary signs.
Freerks noted that one option for addressing this concern was to place signs in the window of the
property. Howard said that she did not know what to say to this exactly. She said she understands the
property owner's concerns and that vandalism is a problem. Miklo said that attached signs are less prone
to vandalism. Plahutnik countered that attached signs change the feel of a neighborhood from residential
to commercial; he added that he would love to rent his window out to McDonald's too, but that also is not
allowed. Plahutnik said the point is that there are many other ways of advertising. Freerks said she
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2008 - Informal
Page 8
remembers many conversations regarding this issue and that the intention behind the current sign
ordinance was not to allow these permanently affixed leasing company signs. She said the
Commissioners would have to decide amongst themselves if they wish to change the code so that it
matches the original intention, or do something that might be a compromise.
Miklo said that real estate signs in student-rental neighborhoods may be more susceptible to
disappearing. Miklo said that some creative solutions had been used by property owners, such as bike
locking the signs to a tree or a railing to ensure they are not stolen.
Howard said that another point raised bye-mails received by Staff was that there is some information on
leasing company signs that make the property manager more accessible if there are nuisance problems.
Miklo said that there was some discussion when the nuisance ordinance was adopted four or five years
ago that some cities require the property owners to put their phone number directly on the building in
some fashion. That was an aspect that was never implemented in the City's nuisance ordinance, Miklo
said. Freerks added that what was really supported in that ordinance was requiring documentation in the
rental unit that had a copy of the permit and landlord contact information; that did not even get
implemented in the end. Miklo said he believed that some people are confusing the original proposal with
these leasing company signs.
There was no further discussion on this topic.
Miklo discussed an updated rotation schedule for Commission members to attend City Council meetings
so that it reflected the two newest members, Busard and Payne.
Koppes announced that she would not be at the formal meeting on Thursday. Payne said that she had a
meeting in Des Moines that day and that she plans on being at the Commission meeting but cannot
guarantee it.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 21,2008 -7:30 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charlie Eastham, Josh Busard, Ann Freerks,
Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel,
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dick Noble, Dwight Doberstein, Judith Pasco, Will Jennings,
Anna Buss, Mark Holtkamp, Helen Burford, Marshall Poe,
Jackie Briggs, Chris Henso
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. Recommend on a vote of 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent) that REZ08-00008, an application
submitted by the University of Iowa Community Credit Union for a rezoning from Research
Development Park (RDP) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 3.87
acres of property at the south corner of Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard, be approved
subject to a conditional zoning agreement that includes;
. substantial compliance with the concept plan most recently presented to the
Commission, any substantial deviation from which would require approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, including locating the building on Dodge Street
with no parking being located between Dodge Street and the building;
. the driveway access point to be located as shown in the concept plan;
. additional landscape to the S-2 level provided along the Dodge Street frontage;
. and building elevations articulating appropriate fenestration of the Dodge Street
elevation suitable for its position as a property at the entranceway into the city,
defined as a building having a brick veneer with limestone-based sills and banding
to break-up the fac;ade, and windows on at least 30% of that fac;ade.
2. Recommend on a vote of 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent) amendments to Article 14-5B,
Sign Regulations, to allow for use of freestanding signs in the CB-2 zone, add a definition
and standards for entranceway signs, and to clarify the regulations regarding signs on
residential buildings.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 2
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ08-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by the University of Iowa Community Credit
Union for a rezoning from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1)
zone for approximately 3.87 acres of property south of Dodge Street, west of Scott Boulevard.
The 45-day limitation period ends September 14, 2008.
Kuecker stated that the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan which she has forwarded to the
Commission. This concept plan was submitted in order to show sensitivity to the importance of this
entranceway into Iowa City. The current zoning of Research Development Park (RDP) provides areas for
office, research, production and assembly firms. Personal service orientated retail uses such as retail
banking and drive-through facilities are not allowed in this zone. In the CO-1 zone, similar uses to the
RDP zone are allowed. Additionally, personal service retail and drive-through facilities are allowed by
special exception through the Board of Adjustment. The Comprehensive Plan does address the area.
Both the North District Plan and the Northeast District Plan note the two primary employers of the area as
ACT and the Press Citizen, and also note the area as a natural, beautiful entranceway into Iowa City that
should be maintained. Staff finds that the proposed concept plan addresses the appearance of the
development as it relates to the Dodge Street entranceway by locating the building on the corner rather
than the parking.
To the north of the property is a row of five townhomes that would be most visually impacted by the
development; by placing the building on the corner, these townhomes are buffered from the view of the
parking lot. Landscaping has also been proposed for the Dodge Street side to help buffer the view.
Across Scott Boulevard is a public zone which is the future location of the new Iowa City fire station. The
RS-5 zone beyond that has only one home currently and has been noted by the Comprehensive Plan as
a future RDP or ORP area. The residential zone to the south is buffered by approximately 150 feet of
ravine space between the parking lot and the nearest property line. S-3 screening is also required in this
area to provide additional buffer. To the west of the development is the Press Citizen complex, located in
an RDP zone. There is future development in store for the area with the proposed fire station, and the
likelihood that the RS-5 zone will be rezoned in the future based on the Comprehensive Plan.
Kuecker said that Staff believes this area is appropriate for the CO-1 zone, as this zone has been
determined to be an appropriate buffer between residential and higher-intensity commercial uses. The
branch bank and the drive-through will generate some increase in traffic; however, the roads currently are
designed to handle that traffic.
Kuecker noted that this site does have environmentally sensitive areas. The protected slopes have been
buffered around as required by code, and since less than 35% of the critical slopes are being disturbed, a
sensitive areas review will be done at the level 1 , which is administrative review by Staff.
There are already adequate sidewalks along Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard in this location.
There was some concern on Staff's part regarding where to locate the access point on this property. It
was determined that across from the Dubuque Road turn-off would be the most appropriate location.
The access point is removed enough form the intersection of Dodge and Scott that any traffic congestion
would be mitigated. Kuecker noted that concern was expressed by Commissioners at the informal
meeting regarding the placement of the access point and a memo from John Yapp, Transportation
Planner, addressing this concern had been handed out.
Kuecker summarized the primary issues with this redevelopment. She said that one issue was that
Dodge Street is a major entranceway into the city, and as such should remain attractive. Kuecker said
this had been addressed by the provided concept plan locating the building near the corner and keeping
the parking away from Dodge Street. Staff feels the required screening and additional screening on
Dodge Street will ensure that the development is compatible with the area and buffered from the nearby
residential and commercial areas. The issue of vehicular access is addressed by locating the access
point away from the intersection of Dodge and Scott Boulevard by a sufficient distance. Sensitive areas
will be addressed during a sensitive areas review, Kuecker noted.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 3
Kuecker stated that Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning subject to a conditional zoning
agreement. Kuecker said that she had handed out a revised recommendation which addresses some of
the issues brought up in the Commission's informal meeting. The new conditions for the zoning
agreement include: a requirement for substantial compliance with the concept plan most recently
presented to the Commission, any substantial deviation from which would require approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, including locating the building on Dodge Street with no parking being
located between Dodge Street and the building; a requirement for the access point to be located as
shown in the concept plan; additional landscape to the S-2 level provided along the Dodge Street
frontage; and building elevations articulating appropriate fenestration of the Dodge Street elevation
suitable for its position as a property at the entranceway into the city, defined as a building having a brick
veneer with limestone base, sills, and banding to break up the fa<;:ade, and windows on at least 30% of
that fa<;:ade.
Kuecker shared several photographs from varying viewpoints of the property. She noted that a concern
had been expressed at the informal meeting of what the elevation differential would be between the
parking area and the street and how that might affect the view of the lot from the road. The street
elevation, Kuecker said, is currently at 770 feet; the parking elevation would begin at 769 and would drop
down to 766. The parking lot will slope away from the street, and will be screened from the street by S-3
screening. The ground level of the building will be at 771 feet, Kuecker said, slightly above the street
level.
Kuecker presented a photograph of the residential area to the south of the proposed site and stated that
there would be quite a bit of buffer between the two properties given the distance between the parking
area and the property lines of the homes, the steepness of the ravine between them, and the level of
landscape screening that will be required.
The applicant provided a video with schematic design drawings to illustrate their proposal. Kuecker noted
that the building design in the video was not the final design so it could change somewhat.
Freerks asked if Kuecker could point out the primary differences between the new concept plan and the
concept plan presented to the Commission at the informal session on Monday. Freerks said she saw the
additional island in the parking area, but wondered if the trees in the steep an critical slopes were trees
that were already present in that area. Kuecker said she was not certain about the trees, and directed
Freerks to the applicant for that information. Kuecker said that there had been a discrepancy as to where
the overhang for the drive-through would be in the previous plan and that there is a slightly different
parking configuration in this plan.
Miklo stated that trees in a steep and critical slopes area would remain undisturbed, and would be
addressed specifically with the sensitive areas review.
Plahutnik asked what the screening requirement for the front of the building was. Kuecker replied that
there is no code requirement for screening at in that area, but that Staff is recommending at least an S-2
screening along the Dodge Street frontage. Busard and Eastham asked if the concept plan would be for
S-2 screening or S-3 screening in that area. Miklo stated that Staff recommends S-2screening for that
area rather than S-3, as S-3 is intended to be five to six feet tall and more of a solid hedge type of
screening. Miklo said it was probably better not to screen the building from Dodge Street. Staff feels that
S-2 screening, generally a two to four foot hedge or flowering bushes, often has more color in it and
would be more appropriate for that location.
Plahutnik asked when S-3 screening was required as opposed to S-2. Kuecker said that code requires S-
3 screening between a parking lot and a residential area, and S-2 between a parking lot and the street.
Freerks noted that Koppes had brought up the issue of possibly installing a turning lane into the property
at the informal meeting, and asked if there had been discussion about that. Kuecker said that Staff
consulted John Yapp, the transportation planner, and that he provided a memo stating that he does not
feel a right-turn lane would be warranted in this case because a right turn is a free movement for which
one does not need to slow down substantially. Kuecker said that Yapp was more concerned about what
would happen with people heading northbound on Scott and turning left, and how that might affect traffic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 4
As of right now, Kuecker said, they do not foresee any sort of traffic control needed though they will
continue to monitor the situation. Miklo said that one thing to recognize is that as development occurs
and traffic increases, traffic tends to slow down. This may alleviate concerns expressed about people
taking the turn form Dodge onto Scott.
Eastham said that his quick reading of the memo from John Yapp, transportation planner, seems to
address traffic coming to and from this site as it pertains to its office use, and not as its banking use.
Eastham asked if he was misreading the memo. Kuecker said that Yapp's feeling was that the office use
would generate more traffic at the peak hours than the bank traffic, which would occur at off-peak hours.
There were no further questions for Staff and the public hearing was opened.
Freerks invited the applicant to speak first.
Dick Noble, 173 Glenn Drive, Vice-President of Operations with UICCU, thanked the Commission for the
opportunity to be there. Noble said that the UICCU purchased the parcel in 2002 with the idea that at
some point in the future additional administrative and operational space would be needed. Noble said
that the UICCU did look throughout the entire area, but they chose this parcel in part because it was
important to them to keep an Iowa City address. He thanked Staff in general and Miklo in particular for
guiding them through the Comprehensive Plan and the details of zoning ordinances and bringing them to
the point they are at today. Noble stated that the UICCU did not have any particular design or occupancy
plans at this point, but that the idea is that this facility would handle growth over time, and that the facility
would not be filled to capacity when initially occupied. Noble said that while he would be happy to answer
any questions the Commission might have, he imagined their interest was primarily in the site plan, which
would be best explained by Dwight Doberstein of Neumann-Monson Architects.
Dwight Doberstein of Neumann-Monson Architects thanked Staff for their guidance, and the Commission
for the feedback that resulted from their informal meeting. Doberstein stated that there were changes
made to the concept plan as a result of that feedback. He noted that there would be a canopy over the
drive-through as the sketch-up model shows. He said that more landscaping had been added to the
island in the parking lot and in other areas. The parking lot had also been shortened up a bit on the south
side to minimize impact on the steep slope area. The trees that had been asked about by Freerks,
Doberstein noted, are existing trees and would be left in place to the fullest extent possible. Doberstein
said that the design will be done with the goal of maintaining the current state of the ravine and the views
as much as possible. He said that the model being shown is rather generic, and that they are hesitant to
share it as they do not know what the building will actually look like yet. The interior uses of the building
have not been determined exactly, although it is estimated that it will be approximately 32,000 square
feet, with only about 5,000 square feet of that going to member services area, with the rest of it going to
office space. Doberstein said the UICCU is committed to a pitched roof which will fit in nicely with the
residential buildings in the area. Doberstein said that as the program develops and decisions are made
about the uses of the space, features can be added, such as a glass lobby or conference rooms that are
projected out, things of that nature. Doberstein said they expect the building to look a lot more interesting
than this, but that they are sharing this generic building to give the Commission a level of comfort about
the site plans. He said he would be happy to answer any questions and hear any comments the
Commission might have.
Freerks asked if it was correct that the height limitation for a CO-1 zone would be 25 feet, as opposed to
45 feet in the current zoning. Doberstein said that was correct and that the plans call for a basement plus
two floors, a configuration which stays under the 25-foot limit. Doberstein said the building had been
setback further than the required setbacks in order to get some additional height from the slopes to allow
for the pitched roof.
Eastham said the he understood from Doberstein's comments that the building design was not yet pinned
down because the uses had not been fully determined. Eastham asked if the plan is to build the building
in phases or in one construction cycle. Doberstein replied that the idea is to at least get the shell built as
well as some interior spaces inside, and then as the UICCU grows into it, to finish off the rest of the
interior. Doberstein said that Neumann-Monson's recommendation is that it would be cheaper to build it
all at once rather than to have phases. Eastham asked if the same idea would apply to the parking lot.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 5
Doberstein said that UICCU would not want to build a big parking lot and then have it sit empty. He said
if it was agreeable to the City, that aspect of the project might be phased in.
There were no further questions for Doberstein.
As there was no one else present wishing to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed.
Freerks stated that she would entertain a motion. She noted that the option existed to vote on this tonight
or defer it until the next meeting.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ08-00008, an application submitted by the University of Iowa Community
Credit Union for a rezoning from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1)
zone for approximately 3.87 acres of property south of Dodge Street, west of Scott Boulevard, subject to
a conditional zoning agreement requiring:
. substantial compliance with the concept plan most recently presented to the Commission, any
substantial deviation from which would require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
including locating the building on Dodge Street with no parking being located between Dodge
Street and the building;
. the driveway access point to be located as shown in the concept plan;
. additional landscape to the S-2 level provided along the Dodge Street frontage;
. and building elevations articulating appropriate fenestration of the Dodge Street elevation suitable
for its position as a property at the entranceway into the city, defined as a building having a brick
veneer with limestone-based sills and banding to break-up the fa9ade, and windows on at least
30% of that fa9ade.
Plahutnik seconded the motion.
Freerks opened the floor for discussion from the Commission.
Weitzel stated that he felt this was a good project which had taken into account site and neighborhood
factors, and looks like a well-designed and attractive building on the entryway to the city. He stated that
he would be voting in favor of it.
Eastham stated that his understanding is that this proposal does comply with the Comprehensive Plan for
this district. Eastham said that the only qualification he had was that the Commission would be approving
a concept plan that includes a site plan and a verbal description of the design of the north side of the
building. Eastham said he realized that it was alright to do that, but because this is an important entrance
way into the city, he would feel a little more comfortable with an elevation to look at as part of the concept
plan. Eastham said that nevertheless he did feel it made some sense to go ahead with the information
that has been presented.
Eastham said he also raised at the informal meeting the possibility of including as a part of the conditional
zoning agreement a condition that if the applicant does not follow-through with the approved site plan, the
zoning would revert back to its present level of RDP. Eastham said that discussions, led by Staff, had
resulted in the conclusion that having a plan of this detail that was not implemented would have the same
effect. Eastham said his reservations about going ahead with the CO-1 zoning had been put to rest, and
that he believed he would vote in favor of the project.
Plahutnik said that he would also vote in favor of the proposal. He said that UICCU gets what it wants out
of the proposal and the city gets am improvement to public view along Dodge Street.
Busard said he felt UICCU had done a good job of not disturbing sensitive areas, and of providing an
attractive entrance-way into the city. He said that he supports the project.
Freerks said she thought this would be a nice addition to an important intersection and a good use of this
area. She said she was happy to see how carefully the applicant had done its homework regarding the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as in working with the topography of the area. Freerks said she would vote
for the measure.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 6
Busard said he would like to add that he did like the idea of phasing in the parking lot.
Freerks called for a vote.
The motion carried 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Consider setting a public hearing for September 4th to consider adoption of the Central District
Plan as an element of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Freerks said there would not be discussion on this item tonight, and that the Commission is merely wants
to get the public hearing set.
Miklo pointed out that the Central District runs approximately from just north of Brown Street south to
Highway 6, and from the Iowa River east to 15t Avenue, excluding the downtown and the University
campus. Basically, Miklo said, it is the area surrounding downtown and the Central business District and
includes most of the older neighborhoods such as Northside, Longfellow, the Kirkwood Avenue area, and
South Gilbert Street. Miklo said there have been a series of meetings over the past couple of years to
illicit public input and concepts for the plan. Most of those are in the reports, Miklo said. Miklo said that
Staff would be attempting to get a lot of press coverage so that the public is aware that this is going on,
because it is probably one of the more detailed plans that the Commission will be considering.
Freerks asked if this needed to be voted on in some way. Miklo said that he believed a motion to set the
public hearing would be appropriate.
Eastham motioned to set a public hearing for September 4th for consideration of the Central District Plan
as an element of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Busard asked if September 4th was a good day to have the public hearing since there would be no
September 15t work session due to the holiday.
Freerks noted that it might be better to have as much time as possible to read it all too.
Miklo stated that Staff would not expect the Commission to vote on September 4th. He said the
Commission could vote on the matter on the 18th or even later if more time was required. The idea of
September 4th is to get public input as well as Commission input. The Commission could take its time to
get into details of changes that might be necessary.
Freerks said it might be nice to have an informal meeting prior to the public hearing. Weitzel said he
believed the Commission would have plenty of time to work on this.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent).
CODE AMENDEMENT ITEM:
Consideration of amendments to Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, to allow limited use of
freestanding signs in the CB-2 Zone, to add a definition and standards for entranceway signs, and
to clarify the regulations regarding signs on residential buildings.
Miklo stated that the zoning code contains provisions regarding free-standing signs, often known as pole
signs. In the parts of the city where they are allowed, free-standing signs are generally on a pole and can
be as high as 25 feet. Miklo said that these signs were allowed in the CB-2 zone, the zone just north and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 7
east of downtown which includes the area near the Hamburg Inn, Market Street and John's Grocery.
When the new zoning code was adopted, the original intent was to drop the CB-2 zoning code, however,
after considerable discussion, the decision was made to keep the zone but to make it more like the
downtown zone, a more urban zone with buildings built to the street and parking lots in the back. As a
result of that decision, the same sign regulations that apply to downtown were also adopted for this zone.
In most cases, Miklo said, Staff feels that is appropriate because some of the infill development that will
be seen will be more pedestrian in nature. There are a few businesses that will continue to be set back
from the street and it will be difficult to provide the kind of signage required in the downtown zone. Russ's
Service Station is one such business, and they recently were unable to change their sign-face as they
had wished because of the sign regulations now in place for the CB-2 zone.
Miklo said Staff is proposing basically taking a step back and reinstate free-standing signs for the CB-2.
These regulations would be more restrictive than elsewhere in the city as they would only allow the signs
to be 20 feet tall, rather than the usual 25. Miklo said that there would be provisions governing what
businesses would be allowed to have these signs, businesses that were set back from the street by their
nature and are not conducive to the fascia signs. Staff is recommending this change, Miklo said.
One element of the sign ordinance that Staff wishes to review concerns entrance-way signs. The specific
example is of the Bread Garden bakery and grocery store downtown. The Bread Garden's concern was
that they have a parking facility which was not easily identifiable as their parking under current sign code.
In most of the city's zones, signs have to be attached to buildings or free-standing. In this case, Miklo
said, there was a structure designed to help screen parking from the street, and there was not a good
way to provide signage other than on this structure. Miklo said Staff is proposing a new entrance-way
sign to be added to the sign code, which Staff feels could also be used outside of the downtown zone.
Miklo showed examples of a public sign in a park and a historic sign that use the entrance-way design.
Miklo said Staff is recommending approval of this.
The final aspect of the sign code has to do with clarifying current regulations pertaining to real estate
signs. A neighborhood group brought to Staff's attention that real estate signs are starting to become
permanently affixed to homes in various neighborhoods, particularly those near the campus. Current sign
code has a prohibition of signs being permanently affixed to single family homes and duplexes. Miklo
read from the code: "single family and two-family uses are not allowed to install permanent signs except
one small identification sign." An identification sign is a sign that states the name of the occupant of the
building; it is not allowed to have advertising on it. Real estate signs are allowed as temporary signs in
our residential zones. The intent of these signs is that they are advertising the properties that they are
placed on as being for sale or rent.
The difficulty is, Miklo said, that these signs are being placed on rental properties and then are not being
removed when the unit is rented; they become permanent. This is in conflict with the zoning code.
Some of these signs do not actually advertise the property to which they are attached. The neighborhood
association making the complaints actually did some research and found that if one goes to the
advertised web addresses the properties are actually leased a year or two in advance, but the website is
used to direct the viewer to other properties that the company has for rent. The code makes it clear,
Miklo said, that a real estate sign has to be advertising the property to which it is attached. Miklo said
there are various problems with these signs and the way they violate the sign code as it is currently
written.
Miklo stated that in the city's residential zones the sign ordinances are intentionally strict to protect and
preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods. In discussions with Housing Inspection Services
(HIS), Miklo said, it was pointed out that there are enforcement difficulties with the ordinance, especially
in multi-family buildings where there might be several units and at any given time one might be for rent.
To make the ordinance clear and to provide more latitude to multi-family buildings that might have
reoccurring vacancies, Staff has proposed a new sign class, allowing landlords to attach a 3-foot square
sign to their property known as a residential leasing company sign, and which could contain a phone
number or a website for that property management company. These signs would only be allowed in
multi-family zones in buildings with more than eight or more units.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 8
Miklo stated that the intent of the sign ordinance is to preserve the residential character of the
neighborhood and to avoid a proliferation of signs.
Currently identification signs are allowed which name the building or complex. With the new ordinance,
the identification sign would still be allowed and an additional residential leasing company sign would also
be allowed. The ordinance requires that within 48 hours of a property being leased, rental signs must be
removed. This requirement is currently in the code for real estate signs for the sale of homes, so this will
clarify that this applies to rentals as well. There is a proposed timeframe of a four month window from the
lease effective date during which time a "for rent" sign would be allowable. The new code will state that
"for rent" signs can be placed in a yard or a window, but cannot be attached to the building. This will
make it more likely that the signs will actually be taken down after the unit is rented, and will make
enforcement easier. Staff recommends the approval of this change.
Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Plahutnik asked who would be the arbiter of who could get a free-standing pole sign and who does not in
the CB-2 zone. Miklo replied that Staff and HIS would determine that based on the criteria in the code.
Plahutnik asked if there was an appeal process in place for that. Miklo said an appeal could be filed with
the Board of Adjustment.
Plahutnik asked if the provision for allowing identification signs could be manipulated to allow advertising
signs too, for example: if "Pine Ridge Apartments" had an indentifying sign of "Pine Ridge
Apartments.com", would that be allowable? Miklo replied that the building itself would have to be named
"Pine Ridge.com" in order for that to be permissible as an identification sign; however, if it represents a
company it would not be allowed.
Plahutnik asked if the 48-hour deadline for removing a rental sign upon lease was intended to mean 48
hours from when the lease is signed, or 48 hours from the move-in date. Miklo replied that it was 48
hours from when the lease was signed.
Eastham asked if the 48-hour limitation for property being purchased was also from the time the offer is
accepted, or if it is from the time of closing on the property.
Eastham asked how these provisions would be enforced. Miklo said that these provisions would be
enforced on a complaint basis. If the neighborhood noticed there was a proliferation of illegal signs they
could call HIS and report them. Eastham asked if code enforcement has been successful at having the
signs removed. Miklo replied that he did not believe there has been a real effort at enforcement recently.
In fact, Miklo said, Staff had wanted to do these code amendments before there were any enforcement
actions. One of the reasons for the window signs and the yard signs, Miklo said, is that those tend to be
self-enforcing; people want to remove things that block their windows or have to be picked up each time
one mows, so once the unit is rented these signs are quickly removed.
There were no further questions for Staff.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Judith Pasco, 317 Fairchild Street, stated that she is the coordinator for the Northside Neighborhood
Association, and she thanked everyone who worked on these code clarifications. Pasco said that there
have been a lot of people throughout the city government who worked very hard on these amendments to
address the issues in an equitable way. The neighborhood association, she said, really appreciates this
clarification of they believe to be the original intent of the sign code. Pasco said the Northside
Neighborhood Association is more than happy to work cooperatively with the city to enforce these
ordinances. She said that she is aware that enforcement issues could place a burden on area-inspectors.
Pasco said that the City's efforts to reduce sign-clutter are greatly appreciated. Pasco noted that this
clarification of the code is not a change but that there has nevertheless been a proliferation of these
permanently affixed signs in recent years.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 9
Pasco concluded by inviting members of the Commission to the Northside Neighborhood Associations
Alley Walk and garage Sale Day, which takes place on Saturday from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Pasco said that the
event is free, but that they are hoping to raise money for the Wetherby Park splash pad.
Will Jennings, 311 Fairchild Street, has been the owner/occupier of his home for the last ten years.
Jennings said he wanted to reiterate what Pasco had said about honoring the original intent of the sign
ordinance. Part of that intent, Jennings said, is to keep residential and mixed flavor of the neighborhoods.
When these signs began to accumulate, Jennings said, sign clutter begins to build an impression on
those who drive through a given neighborhood. Jennings said that those who work and live on the north
side of town take a great deal of pride in the way the neighborhoods look. A great deal of satisfaction is
also taken from the fact that the neighborhood is a mix of working class, professionals, and students,
Jennings said.
Larger issues faced by the neighborhood include: wear and tear on properties, high turnover, and general
issues of maintenance such as snow removal, parking problems and over-occupancy. Jennings said
neighbors are faced with a list of things that area already complaint driven. It is the vigilance of neighbors
who have to call and initiate enforcement of a lot of things. Jennings said that when zoning addresses
the spirit and aesthetic of neighborhood, it goes a long way to clarify enforcement. Jennings asked what
was being a good neighbor and what was not. Plastering your building with signs certainly makes a
certain amount of sense from a landlord perspective, Jennings said, and provides a permanent
advertisement. Jennings said that he did not feel that was the intent of the original zoning, and it
definitely goes against the look and feel of the neighborhood.
Jennings said that the neighborhood was doing all it could to make the north side a stable, welcoming,
gateway community to the downtown. He said that he felt like the upkeep and efforts neighbors put into
their homes tries to speak to that desire. Jennings said he would very much appreciate whatever
assistance the Commission could provide.
Anna Buss, 525 W. Benton Street, stated that the City has put out a brochure about neighborhood
calming, which mentions many of the things Jennings mentioned: parties, furniture, cars, grass, and
messes. Everyone who lives in Iowa City knows that if the area in a direct circle from the Old Capitol
Building is considered the "miracle rental mile," Buss said. She stated that while the Northside
Neighborhood Association is well-meaning in their efforts to eradicate signs, Buss believes that this
should be re-thought. Buss said that the City should consider forcing rental property owners to have a
small sign indicating who the property is managed by. The sign would be a benefit for the neighbors
because they would know exactly who to call if there were problems at the property. Buss said that the
police department would also know instantly who to get a hold of if there is a problem. Another benefit,
Buss said, is that property owners would know about any problems that arise at their rental properties.
The signs would also give the fire department easy access to the property manager. Buss said that most
property managers and owners send the police and fire departments lists of the properties that they own,
manage, or take care of for someone. Buss said that there are a lot of absentee owners who have no
one taking care of their property locally, which Buss said she believed was a violation of HIS rules. If
property owners were required to have a sign with a phone number for someone to call locally, this
violation would be cleared up, Buss said.
Buss said that some of the signs shown at the meeting were much larger than what she had in mind. She
stated that they would be suitable perhaps for rental season, but not acceptable to be posted on a house
permanently. The sample sign which Buss brought with her is approximately 12x18 inches, she said, and
could be posted to the right of the entry, or in some other clearly visible spot. Buss said that with the
police and fire departments this would help clarify who the local contact is when needed after business
hours.
Buss said she checks the police reports every day to see if there were any problems at her properties.
She said that she believed most property owners would appreciate a call from the police if there were
problems with their tenants. Buss said there are also owners who do not care if their tenants cause
problems, and would not want to know. Buss said that in her neighborhood there are two such landlords,
and she and her tenants call them each time there is a problem at their property regardless of the time of
day.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 10
Buss said that her phone number is posted on all of her buildings, and that the previously stated reasons
are the primary reasons why. She said she does have one building with a sign that lists the rent, but said
that it is not an issue, and that she could take it down if it was not allowed.
Buss thanked the Commission, and stated that her idea was worth considering.
Mark Holtcamp, 1175 Kyle Drive, stated that he owned rental properties throughout town. The biggest
problem that he has with the proposed changes is the provision in which a property cannot have a rental
sign until four months prior to the availability date. Holtcamp said that most of the houses close to
downtown begin leasing up in December and January for the lease term beginning August 15t. By the
time the owner of a rental house would be allowed to put out a sign, the house will already have been
leased for three to four months. Holtcamp said enforcement will be an issue for that provision, and that
the provision is not practical for the local rental market.
Freerks asked if Holtcamp had signs on his rental properties. Holtcamp said that he did. Freerks asked
how long he has had them up. Holtcamp replied that he had had them up for approximately three years.
Freerks asked if Holtcamp had had problems renting his properties prior to installing the signs. Holtcamp
said no, but that he had had to do more advertising in the newspaper. Holtcamp said that if a landlord is
renting out a one or two bedroom unit, it can be leased later in the year, but that anything bigger requiring
larger groups of people need to be leased up a lot earlier. Holtcamp said that signs that he puts in the
yards get beat up or damaged or vandalized whereas signs attached to the houses do not. He said he
did not have a problem taking down his signs once the property was leased, but thought the prohibition
against affixing signs to the house should be reconsidered.
Helen Burford, 528 E. College Street, said that she appreciates the effort that has been made, but that
she wished to bring up the fact that the zoning changes had been made to reflect a more urban feel for
the area. She noted that in urban areas these signs are not present; one does not walk down Park
Avenue in New York City and see signs advertising www.trump.com. The signage that has appeared
seems to be taking advantage of their property as an investment rather than recognizing the structure as
a part of the community and the neighborhood. These signs change the nature of the community, Burford
said.
Marshall Poe, 416 N. Linn Street, said that he would like to speak to the issue of what happens to a
neighborhood once these signs are affixed to houses. Poe said he lived in Ann Arbor for a time, where
apparently there is no city code against these signs, and realtors had signs up all over the homes in the
neighborhood in which he lived. Poe stated that once these signs go up, single-family households do not
want to live in that area anymore because it looks as though the neighborhood has been completely
taken over by student rentals. Poe said that he did not meant any disrespect, but he does not believe it is
necessary to advertise student living on Linn Street or Davenport Street because they are the houses that
are trashed. Poe said that he has had people actually come to his door, although he keeps his home up
quite well, and ask if his house is for rent simply because of the neighborhood it is in. The prevalence of
these signs increases the notion that any home near the downtown area must be for rent. Poe's
experience in Ann Arbor is that once these signs start to go up and remain permanently, the phenomenon
spreads, and changes the character of the neighborhood and the market for potential buyers. Poe said
that it is pretty well known that residences within that general area are largely for rent whether there is
any signage at all. He said that such signs do not add to the probability that a given unit will be rented,
although they do drive business to property owner's websites. Poe said that he did have to call owners
from time to time in his neighborhood in Ann Arbor, and at that time he was glad their phone numbers
were listed on the building. However, he said, he has since learned that all he has to do is call HIS and
they will tell him exactly who owns the building.
Freerks noted that the same information is available online as well.
Jackie Briggs, 328 Brown Street, said that she is also in favor of limiting signage. She said that she
wanted to attest to the fact that the character of the neighborhood is changed by these signs. Although
she can understand the benefit of these signs for landlords, the affect on the neighborhood is real. Briggs
said she enjoys living in a neighborhood that houses both students and single-family homes, but she said
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 11
she wanted to see the balance maintained.
Chris Vincent-Haler, 715 E. Market Street, said that she is in an interesting juxtaposition because she is a
homeowner, but she also rents a portion of her home. What she has realized is that no signs are actually
necessary at all to attract renters. And while she thinks it is premature to suggest that signs should be
eliminated from the neighborhood altogether, she thinks moving in the direction of limiting signage makes
a lot of sense. In this day of internet advertising, she said, she has found that a more selective student
renter is savvy to things like Craig's List and other kinds of marketing tools that require no signage at all.
From her perspective as an investor in this community, she wishes to see everything possible to upscale
the community. Signage, she said, is visually detracting. Everything the Commission can do to limit
signage does increase the monetary value of the property, raise property taxes, and increase the quality
of life in the property for the renter. As a person who is partly renting and partly owning a house, she
would urge property owners to rethink how they attract renters. The real answer here, she said, is to
attract people who are not going to abuse the property. In her experience using the more selective
advertising model of the internet provides a screening mechanism that is not invited by signage. She
urged property owners to think more creatively than to use signage. Limiting signage and moving into a
more residential look ultimately enhances property values and rental values.
Freerks noted that as everyone who wished to had spoken once already, those wishing for another
opportunity could come to the podium.
Will Jennings, 311 Fairchild, stated that he wished to clarify that he is also a landlord, in addition to being
a property owner in the neighborhood. He said he wished to honor the idea that property managers
placed these signs on their buildings in case there was an issue with the property. Jennings said that if
the phone number on the A&B Property Management sign shown by Anna Buss really does connect to a
real person at two or three o'clock in the morning, then she has his utmost respect and condolences for
having to deal with that. He said he appreciates anyone who takes a hands-on approach to their
investment property and realizes that their investment exists within a larger community. Jennings said
that he must point out, however, that a law on signage must take into account both the hands-on, kind
and generous landlord, and the hands-off, less kind and less generous landlord. The phone numbers on
those landlords' signs might very well go to answering machines.
Jennings said he also wished to clarify that when a policy is complaint-driven, whether it is signage or
snow shoveling or occupancy or parking, it is not the property management company's job to enforce
these things, but that of the City. Jennings said he would not expect a property-management company to
go in and break up a drunken party in the middle of the night; that's a job for the police, trained
professionals not property-managers. Jennings said that while he appreciates that property managers
want to be notified when there are problems with their property, all of the information proposed for a sign
is readily available on the net. Jennings said if he needed to report a disturbance in the night, he would
not walk down to the disturbance and call the landlord listed on a sign on the property, he would call the
police from his home. He said the most helpful signage possible for these properties would be clearly
visible address numbers.
Anna Buss, 525 W. Benton Street, noted that parties do not happen between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
when HIS is open. Buss also noted that while some landlords do have answering services, the City could
easily require a local contact number that was available 24/7. Buss said that while it may happen
sometimes that good renters are found without advertising, her best tenants have come from people
driving around neighborhoods who have seen her for rent signs. Buss said she would like to see some
sort of requirement to identify the property manager put on rental properties.
Freerks asked Miklo and Greenwood-Hektoen if they knew whether or not police officers have laptop
computers in their vehicles. Greenwood-Hektoen replied that they do but that she did not know what
programs were on there. She said if they read a phone number of a property owner they could probably
get it from dispatch.
There were no further comments for the public, and Freerks closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 12
Freerks stated that she would entertain a motion. She said that the matter could be voted on presently or
deferred to a later date.
Eastham motioned to approve amendments to Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, to allow limited use of
freestanding signs in the CB-2 Zone, to add a definition and standards for entranceway signs, and to
clarify the regulations regarding signs on residential buildings as proposed by the memo from Karen
Howard to the Commission dated August 15, 2008.
Weitzel seconded the motion.
Freerks invited discussion.
Plahutnik clarified that this amendment does not eliminate window signs. He stated that when the
apartments are rented, the signs must come down. Plahutnik noted that there are other options for
advertising, and that the names and phone numbers for property owners are readily available. This
amendment is a great way to keep the stability of the neighborhood apparent. When there are a lot of
signs it increases the perception of rapid turnover. A neighborhood which appears stable is a nicer
environment for both students and those wishing to buy homes in the area.
Weitzel said what he believed was being discussed was actually a leveling of the playing field. The signs
were intended as a means to facilitate real estate transactions, not advertisement, and that is what they
should remain. Aesthetics and quality of life are affected by these signs. It is not a hardship for a
property owner not to be able to have a sign on their house, although it is an eyesore for neighbors. A
neighborhood that has a lot of permanently attached signs sets the wrong tone for the city. Weitzel said
he did not see any reason not to approve.
Busard said he was at first uncomfortable with restricting yard signs until four months prior to the
availability date. However, he said, as he considered the matter further he has come to the conclusion
that there are a number of other ways to find available property. Busard said ultimately the stability of the
neighborhood far outweighs the potential additional advertising cost for landlords.
Eastham said that he agrees that this is a reasonable extension of current regulations for signage in
residential areas. As he understands it, it is an extension of the ability to use permanent real estate signs
in some zones, and a clarification of the limitation of those signs in residential zones. He said that he
thinks it is a good amendment to the current code.
Eastham said that he also feels the provisions for free-standing signs in the CB-2 zone and entranceway
signs are fairly well-crafted to meet specific problems that have emerged since the adoption of the new
zoning code. Eastham said that he would like to suggest to the staff that as this goes forward to City
Council, special provisions to address enforcement burdens should be made, as that is an issue that will
be raised by Council.
Freerks stated that all three of the changes to sign codes are good things. Freerks noted that the issue of
permanently affixed signs was really a loophole that needed to be addressed. She said that when code
revisions were worked on there were many conversations about this issue, and the signage being seen in
these neighborhoods is not at all the direction the Commission had wished to go. She said she wished to
be clear that what the Commission is doing is clarifying something that should never have happened in
the first place. She thinks there has been some compromise involved. While the four-month period does
not work perfectly for everyone, she does feel it is a fairly generous time-period. Freerks stated her
support for the motion.
A vote was taken. The motion carried 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 21, 2008 - Formal
Page 13
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 7. 2008:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of August 7, 2008.
Plahutnik seconded.
The motion carried 5-0 (Koppes and Payne absent).
OTHER:
Miklo advised the Commission that the pages that had been distributed regarding the Central District Plan
were replacement pages where typos had been found, and could be inserted into their copies of the plan.
Miklo encouraged Commissioners to read the document over the next few weeks.
Miklo also passed out a new rotation schedule for the Council meetings.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
I:
o
.iij
.!!!
E
E
o
0'0
...
010
I: U
-- CI)
g~
NCI)~
~Uc
I:N
01 III
1:'0
-- I:
I: CI)
1:-
~~
D..
>-
;!:::
o
III
~
~
~XXX~~XX
......~XXX IXX
CO 0 I
...... I
~XXXX:XX
...... I
M ill I
j:::OXXXI
x X
0) ,
....XXXX :XX
CO '
10 '
CO ; XXX
I~X
10
10 , I
.... 'XXX ,XX
it; I I
~
z
i=
w
w
:a:
..J
<(
:a:
~
o
u.
....
in
,
:XXX
,
I~X
10
...... I I I
.... I X X X : X :
':;i I I I
CO') I X X X
:;j: I
, ,
: >< I
, I
o ,
~ : X X X
CO') ,
, ,
; X ;
...... ,
~ : X X X
.... '
, ,
: X :
, ,
~ I X X X
.... I
I >< I
I ,
I ,
en
EQ)..-..-MNOOM
L...~T"""T"""T"""T"""T"""T"""
Q) "OX i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3
I-WOOOOOOO
~
EIIlIll 1:_
'01ll~CI)CI)-CI)
....c...Q....::::IN
Ill_ CI) ~.c""
CI) ~ lQ e g.1ll~-(ij
EtXlWU.~D..D..3:
~-;O<(u.i:E3:~
ClC) w
;;XXXXXXO
"lit WI~X
i::XXXOIO
~
z
i=
w
w
:a:
<r!
:a:
~
o
u.
~
C I
!:2XXXX:XX
CD '
Nl
CDI
xxx
,
:xx
I
N'
....'
- ,
It) I
xxx
,
:XX
I
"lit I
....'
~:
xxx
, ,
: X :
, ,
~ I 1 W I
~IXXXIOI
...... 1
N I
I ill I
101
XXX
en
EQ)..-..-MNOOM
L...T"""T"""T"""T"""T"""T"""T"""
Q) "aX i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3 i?3
I-WOOOOOOO
~
'O~1Il1ll :5-
"'.c~~CI)::::Il!:l
Ill_ CI) Ci,E..c....
Q) III III CI) 0 ::;' III -(ij
::::I Ill... "';:;-:>
EtXlWu.~D.."":>
~-;o<cu.i:E;:~
"0
Q)
en
::l
u
X
W
:;:,
cc~
Q) Q) en
en enD
~D<(
0..<(11
>. II II W
Q) -
~xOO