HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 10.20.16.pdfMINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 6, 2016 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL – CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Jann Ream, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT:Nancy Bird, Steve Long
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of City Code Section 14-5B, Sign
Regulations: Section 14- 3C, Design Review; and Section 14-9C, Sign Definitions to implement
amendments related to the Iowa City Downtown District Storefront Design and Signage
guidelines, and the Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) Supreme Court decision.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00002, a request to rezone
approximately 4.57 acres of property located at 1225 and 1301 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive
Commercial (Cl-1) and (P-1) to Riverfront Crossing-South Gilbert (RFC-SG) and to amend the
conditional zoning agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S.
Gilbert Street, be approved subject to a revised conditional zoning agreement for the property at
1201 S. Gilbert Street and a new conditional zoning agreement for the properties at 1225 S.
Gilbert Street and 1301 S. Gilbert Street or alternatively, a conditional zoning agreement that
addresses all three properties, as outlined in the "traffic and pedestrian circulation" section of
the Staff Report dated October 6, 2016.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Consider approval of amendments to City Code Section 14-5B, Sign Regulations: Section 14-
3C, Design Review; and Section 14-9C, Sign Definitions to implement amendments related to
the Iowa City Downtown District Storefront Design and Signage guidelines, and the Reed v.
Town of Gilbert (2015) Supreme Court decision.
Miklo introduced Jann Ream to the Commissioners, Ream issues all the sign permits for Iowa
City so she is the foremost expert in the sign code and was instrumental in putting these
amendments together.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 15
Ream stated two things came together to bring these amendments in front of the Commission.
One, about a year and a half ago the City worked with the Downtown District to hire an outside
design consultant to help come up with retail design and signage guidelines for the Downtown
District. Two, at the same time there was this Supreme Court decision relating to signage
stated that cites could not use content based signage to regulate. Ream said that with those
two things coming together it was a rather comprehensive review and rewriting of quite a bit of
the City’s Sign Code and this is likely the largest Sign Code package amendment the City has
brought before the Commission in awhile. Ream noted there are quite a few changes, some of
the Commissioners may not be aware of how the Sign Code was organized before but Ream
will try to go through this step by step.
Ream showed the Commissioners illustrations from the Iowa City Downtown District that were
designed, reviewed and accepted as the final guidelines. The objective is to create an avenue
downtown to promote creative new signage that is appropriate to the scale of the downtown
buildings and a pedestrian oriented clientele. The goal was to eliminate those types of signage
that are really more appropriate for buildings that are in auto-oriented areas. The downtown is
very different and a unique situation that is pedestrian oriented. The consultants that were hired
and other studies all emphasize the need for creative, pedestrian-scaled storefront signage in a
downtown setting. Ream stated one of the first major changes is that plastic trim cap letters and
cabinet signs where the entire face is internally illuminated would be prohibited. Ream showed
examples of such signage to the Commission. Ream stated this will be a big change and will
require quite a bit of education and discussion with downtown business owners to make them
understand this is not the most appropriate signage for their business.
Freerks asked about grandfathering current signage and Ream declared that all current signage
will be grandfathered.
Ream noted that in the previous ordinance the City has two types of canopy signs, canopy and
canopy roof, and really the only difference was where the letters were mounted on the canopy.
So part of this process was the result of a simpler signage ordinance. The City was able to
eliminate a lot of sign types and combine a lot of sign types. The canopy roof sign would be
eliminated as a separate sign type, and would be included in the general canopy sign
designation. A canopy sign could be mounted to the top, face of a canopy. Rather than a square
footage limitation on size (12sf), the size would be regulated by a maximum letter height (24
inches) for signs mounted to the top of the canopy and by the length of the canopy (no more
than 90%). Ream noted that awning signs are a different type and the City ordinance would
prohibit that much signage on an awning.
Ream declared the next one is a big change, fascia signs are mounted to the face of a building.
Fascia sign size would be reduced from 15% of the sign wall to 1.5x the length of the
street facing facade. So, for example, a storefront with 25ft of street facing facade, would
be allowed 37.5 sf of signage. This change would only apply to the CB zones. The other
commercial zones would remain at 15% of the sign wall. This 1.5x the length is found in
most Codes throughout the country, it is not a new concept and looking at the current
signage in the Downtown District, most of the current signage fits this standard.
Currently storefront projecting signs are allowed up to the first story. They are pedestrian-
scaled, but underutilized downtown. In terms of trends in signage, Ream stated they are finding
nationally projecting signs are coming back into vogue and are an appropriate storefront
signage from a pedestrian visibility standpoint. In addition, some of the new larger buildings are
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 15
proposing projecting signs and the City wanted to be able to allow them under certain
circumstances. Therefore, projecting signs would be divided into three categories: Storefront,
Upper level and Banner. The storefront projecting signs would be reduced in size from 12sf to
9sf but there would still be an allowance for a storefront projecting sign to be larger if the
storefront is taller (has a ground to ceiling height of 18ft or more) and the sign is vertically
proportioned. Storefront signs are allowed on the first floor facade up to the bottom of window
sills on 2nd floor. Upper level projecting signs can be placed anywhere above the ground floor
but below the top roofline or cornice of the building. They can be larger than storefront
projecting signs - size is proportional to the height of the building. These would be allowed
under certain circumstances. Banner projecting signs are proposed to be allowed on large multi-
tenant buildings such as Old Capitol Mall and size is proportional to the building. Ream shared
examples of each of these with the Commission.
Next Ream discussed window signs. The current ordinance just allows window signs that
cannot be more than 25% of the storefront window, and can’t obstruct views into the store. The
Consultants in their guidelines prohibit window signs or only allow them in first floor windows,
and Ream doesn’t see that being an issue.
Ream stated that currently the City prohibits painted signs, a business is not allowed to paint a
sign directly onto a façade. This is especially important for brick facades. However, the
proposal is to make some allowance for these types of signs when incorporated into a wall
mural on non-street-facing facades, such as an alley or along the side of a building. A wall mural
can be very effective in brightening up these types of areas and make them less dreary.
Additionally having the wall murals can discourage graffiti on those alley walls and side walls.
Ream noted one change, that really doesn’t have anything to do with the Downtown District, but
the City has had request from some of the large manufacturing facilities, is that currently
directional signs are only allowed up to three square feet and in Industrial zones, the size of
directional signs would be increased to 15 square feet per side. This is proposed to address
existing operational issues with semi-truck deliveries in industrial zones, and the limitation on
directional signs causing difficulty with out-of-town drivers being able to find delivery locations.
Freerks asked if those directional signs would be illuminated and Ream replied they would not.
There could be ambient light or landscape lightening.
Ream noted a few things, not necessarily related to sign categories that they are proposing.
Larger integral signs, some are downtown already (such on the Jefferson Building), can be used
to create a sense of identity for a whole building.
Freerks asked for more detail on integral signs and if they are allowed in other areas, such as
RS-5. Ream replied that they have always been allowed up to two square feet in a residential
zone, so if one wanted to have a stone plaque indicating a historic home on their house they
could. Integral means the sign is part of the building and generally letters carved into stone
blocks.
Reams continued and said that the City has never allowed animated signs in any way, but
thought for the storefront projecting signs (that will be small, nine square feet) that if there was
some sort of interesting sign and some rotation that could give it a little interest then the City will
allow that. One other change, for window signs the City will allow electronic changeable copy
which is specifically to allow changing signage for a movie theater listing different movies and
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 15
times every week.
Parsons asked if the current bank signs (Midwest One and US Bank) would be conforming, they
flash the time and temperature. Reams said that time and temperature signs have always been
allowed and are regulated separately.
Reams continued with the second part of the Sign Code amendments which are related to the
Supreme Court decision and the relation to content based signs now being declared
unconstitutional. The Court decision was based on a town in Arizona that regulated temporary
signs and depending on what the sign said, determined if the sign could be placed in city right-
of-way. There was a church that was advertising their church services that received fines while
other organizations and businesses were not fined. As Iowa City went through the sign
ordinance and all of the sign categories they realized they had a lot of content based sign types.
For instance the City has real estate signs, development signs, construction signs, going out of
business signs, etc. So the question is how to regulate such signs, as they are legitimate signs.
What the City decided was to make them all temporary signs and rather than categorizing them
by what they denoted or advertised, it was stated that in certain situations these types of signs,
in certain sizes, would be allowed for certain lengths of time. Therefore it became time, place
and manner rather than the content of the sign. For instance, instead of calling something a
real estate sign, now the ordinance would allow for a parcel sign located on a lot or parcel when
the lot is being advertised for sale, up to 4 square feet in size for residential zones and up to 32
square feet in other zones. Ream stated they went through each of those types of signs to find
a way to accommodate them in the Sign Code without them being defined by their content.
Hektoen noted that it was a very broad Supreme Court decision and there were dissenting
opinions and concurring opinions, it was a very convoluted decision. Therefore there has been
some subsequent litigation trying to figure out what it all means. Since the breadth of decision
is still being defined, the City took a very conservative approach. Ream asserted it really did
help streamline and clean up the Code. Hektoen stated the Court said in their decision that
aesthetics can be compelling and significant but not always. Therefore the City is taking a
conservative, cautious approach. Ream elaborated and said that was one of the reasons to
eliminate all references requiring design review for signage as that often involves some
subjectivity.
Freerks noted that the City does have restrictions for lighting and noise, and Ream agreed
stating that is then how the City will address design issues.
Ream continued and acknowledged that political signs would basically be unregulated. The
City’s policy in the past was to not regulate political signs, the only stipulation was to say they
could not be in City right-of-way. With regards to residential leasing signs, that type would be
eliminated. This type of sign advertises the name and contact information of the company who
owns or manages a property. A Residential Leasing Sign is a sign permanently affixed to the
building and it does not advertise a particular unit for sale or lease. It is only allowed in multi-
family residential zones and commercial zones and only on buildings of eight units or more. This
sign type was created several years ago as a compromise with apartment owners and
management companies in order to eliminate all of the signage on single family, duplexes and
small unit buildings (original single family houses that had been converted into multi-family
buildings). Previously, these types of signs were considered real estate signs and were allowed
on any building. An issue raised in the past by the Northside Neighborhood is that these signs
were permanent and detracted from the residential character of the neighborhood. So this new
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 15
sign type was created and its use was restricted. This sign type is truly content based and no
accommodation could be found that could allow it to remain as a sign type. “For rent” signs
would still be permitted under the temporary sign rules and regulations, but would then only be
used when an actual dwelling or dwelling units on the property were for rent.
Freerks asked how the Residential Leasing Signs would be weeded-out over time. Ream said
the current ones will be grandfathered in, but if the building changes hands it will be considered
non-conforming. Freerks asked if the signs become rusty or damaged, can they be removed
and not repaired. Reams replied that there is an ordinance in the Sign Code that states signs
must be maintained and if they become obsolete they have to be removed, and the City will just
approach that as situations arise.
Reams stated that private signs in the public right-of-way will continue to not be permitted.
Currently the City has a very tolerant policy for charitable organizations (run for the schools,
March of Dimes walk, etc.) and the City will have to not allow that tolerant policy anymore.
Therefore the City will work with the organizations to make them understand those signs cannot
be in the right-of-ways.
The impact on this new ordinance will be felt in the Downtown District. There are obviously
some signs that are non-conforming, but they will be grandfathered in. Overtime as businesses
change, the nonconforming signs will be replaced with conforming signs. The City hopes to
partner with the Downtown District and business owners on education and obtaining the correct
signage. Ream stated by eliminating all the content based signage the City will bring the Sign
Code into compliance with Supreme Court law.
Freerks asked about temporary signs, no more than 14 days and 2 occasions a year, noting that
some signs people do put in their yards for a good portion of the year (school cross country,
etc.), not in the public right-of-way, that can be an important communication tool. Ream noted
that it will be a matter of enforcement and City Staff enforcement. Even under the current Code
those type of signs are not to be permanent, so as long as the homeowners are not keeping
them up permanently that is what the City is looking for.
Freerks asked about flags in residential zones. In table 5-B-1 it was eliminated (public flags
were stated as no permit was required) but some of the later tables it stated one was allowed.
Ream said public flags were eliminated completely because citizens are always allowed to fly a
public flag, and in the commercial zones they are stating they can have one additional flag (such
as company flag).
Signs asked about the trim cap and cabinet signs and if those were only being eliminated in the
Downtown District or city-wide. Ream replied that they are only being eliminated in the
Downtown District. Signs asked the same question in regards to pole-mounted banners. Ream
stated they eliminated all those because a sign is only a sign if it is readable and legible from a
city right-of-way. Therefore things like menu boards for restaurants, pole-mounted banner signs
in private parking lots of shopping centers, were eliminated from the sign code because you can
only see them once you are in the parking lot or drive-thru lane, so are not considered signs and
are therefore not regulated. In the entire time Ream has been doing sign enforcement she has
never issued a permit for those types of signs. Hektoen stated they are not by definition
considered signs. Ream stated the City’s compelling interest is what can be seen from public
ways, so they aren’t saying businesses can’t have banners on poles, the City just isn’t
regulating it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 15
Freerks asked about realtor signs and if there was a time limit on those signs. Ream said the
limit is for as long as the property is for sale. Freerks noted that some buildings may have for
lease signs up for years if some portion of the building is constantly for lease. Ream stated that
is okay, as long as there is space available in the building for lease.
Dyer asked about the illustration Ream showed for the temporary sign for property for sale,
would that also apply for property for lease. Ream said lease is the same as for sale.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Nancy Bird (Executive Director, Iowa City Downtown District) first expressed her appreciation
for this thoughtful conversation and review and a special thank you to Ream, Karen Howard and
John Yapp who all worked closely with the Downtown District through this process. Bird
acknowledged this process was very important and that there is a lot of data that indicates if one
changes a sign so it is more visible on the street, it improves the business operations. Bird
stated they currently have 335 businesses downtown and when someone comes into town as a
visitor and cannot see down the street, and all the signs are flush against the buildings, it is
losing opportunities for those businesses. It is the goal of the Downtown District to help support
all the businesses and to retain them and keep them downtown and improve the environment.
Signage is a really interesting thing because as Ream mentioned there are changes in the
signage world. There are a lot of things that a long time ago were cut down (which the City did)
due to fear of a world of restaurants and bars and all that signage. But things are turning and
the Downtown District really wants to make sure they can capture the essence of the downtown
identity by looking for local artists and local sign fabricators to get really authentic and creative
signs out there. Bird noted that when they first approached the City with this project the
Downtown District put their own funds out there and the City matched it. Bird stated that she
feels good that parts of this new Sign Code will improve other parts of the City as well. Bird
stated their three primary goals (1) to encourage best practices which are included, the
consultant not only had a signage background but also an urban design and retail background
and understood how important it really is for businesses to extend their brand out into the
streets. (2) Allow room for creativity, this is not an auto-oriented environment, it is pedestrian-
oriented environment which means the signage downtown has special needs. (3) Flexibility in
knowing that one sign may not be right for all places. Flexibility is always the challenge for
regulations, one blanket regulation that has to apply to everybody, so it was important to see
how design guidelines could help support the process. On that note Bird stated the Downtown
District is very appreciative of the Code efforts today, they feel they are really strong and are
going to (in tandem with the design guidelines) really encourage more opportunities that aren’t
available now (especially with the projecting signs) so it really compels one to walk down the
street. Bird noted that when a regulatory environment changes, it doesn’t just happen so Bird
forward information to the Commission about a new program called “Cosign” that they applied
for earlier this year and they have accepted the Downtown District to look at the program. What
will happen is the Downtown District will get applications from several businesses (10-15) to join
this program, then get designers involved and look for fabricators and see what kind of built
signs that they can create within this Code. Bird asserted that the Code right now is really
important and this program will really encourage other businesses to renovate or re-do their
signage based on the result of others they see. The importance of the Code at this juncture is to
work with City Staff and this program so the businesses comply. In that vein the design review
component continues to be important because there is a path forward for design review. Bird
noted one of the things that was recommended is that while currently the City uses a third party
consultant to look at development projects in the Gap Analysis (the National Development
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 15
Council) and it is a process that has worked really well for the City because it allows them to
utilize and support professionals that understand that environment. It is not someone local so
there is not a conflict of interest and the staff can rely on unbiased feedback to drive those
projects. This is the same kind of process where a third party consultant could provide for signs
that may not fit “in the box” provided by the sign regulations and take a look at a sign that
maybe (because of its location, not content) would be appropriate in certain settings. Bird
shared with the Commission an exhibit that showed three examples of what a rooftop signage
looks like. It is not in the current Code right now, and probably shouldn’t be added because it is
not something you would want to proliferate all over downtown, but there are really cool
opportunities in other cities where they have allowed this in certain circumstances. Bird
stressed this is not about the content, and noted there is a piece of the Supreme Court case that
states it is similar to a when a building has unique aesthetics. Signs can be the same. The
content can be read differently but where the sign is located matters and what it can look like
matters. Bird recognizes that the legal advice from the City is there to ensure no risk for any
kind of litigation. Bird would encourages this Commission to think about it a bit differently and to
say it is good input and it might open the door for some sort of risk but it would be worth it
because she feels there are some opportunities for the Cosign program to see some very cool
wayfinding signage that is a little “outside of the box” the City currently has. Bird again thanked
the Commission for allowing her to speak and noted it is true that signs change over time but
the whole point of opening up this conversation with the City was to reduce the amount of times
the local businesses would have to come to Staff to make a call about amending the Sign Code
again. That is a ton of time for Staff and can create then a Code that is layered and layered and
then really doesn’t work. Now it is streamlined, but with a design review process it would
eliminate the need to amend for individual ideas (such as the rooftop sign) that is not in the
Code. Bird hopes the Commission’s consideration can be passed onto Council and then this
discussion of how design review can happen could be considered in a future amendment
process.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Signs stated he tends to agree that not having some mechanism in place for alternatives
sounds like it will lead to problems very quickly.
Theobald moved to approve City Code Section 14-5B, Sign Regulations: Section 14- 3C,
Design Review; and Section 14-9C, Sign Definitions to implement amendments related to
the Iowa City Downtown District Storefront Design and Signage guidelines, and the Reed
v. Town of Gilbert (2015) Supreme Court decision.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs stated he liked the idea of third party design review, doesn’t really understand it or how it
would work but having lived in Iowa City for a long time now he has seen the evolution of
signage changes (like fashion) and sees the advantages of being a little fluid.
Freerks stated she is okay with adopting this as it is now, and it will be okay to revisit because
new things do come about and need amended. She does feel this is a lot more streamlined and
is not sure how design review would work, but likes the idea of having lots of opportunities for
creative signage in the downtown area and across the area as a whole. Freerks asked Ream if
the Staff discussed rooftop signage. Ream said they did not discuss rooftop signage a whole
lot, not in this particular context, and there is an entire history of rooftop signage. Freerks
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 15
acknowledged that one thing she has learned over time that allowing something that is perfectly
manageable in one spot can be absolutely hideous and awful in another and feels that design
review doesn’t always catch that because people feel they are obliged to be able to have
something when it is allowed. Freerks believes rooftop signage would have to be an issue on
its own due to so many concerns (illumination, height, residential areas around, etc.). It’s not to
say it can’t occur but it needs more conversation.
Hektoen noted her concerns with design review is in looking at whether the City is going to pass
strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny you must really justify the Government’s interests in the
regulation and the City can’t say if it looks a certain way the regulation then doesn’t really
matter. It is really difficult to go to a court and justify the regulation when the City allows
deviations from it. The interest is much less compelling or tailored when deviation is allowed.
So the question then becomes why do we even have that regulation and should we just
eliminate it. Hektoen said that design review really undermines the interest the City is trying to
promote with the regulation.
Hensch stated that sounds logical and agrees with what Hektoen said but the definition of Iowa
City is this dynamic small metropolis that is being creative and does this then stifle how Iowa
City is defined.
Theobald feels this updated Sign Code allows for that creativity better.
Freerks agreed stating there are a lot of possibilities here and if there is something someone
doesn’t see then bring it back to the City for discussion.
Ream noted that some of the more commonly requested creative designs are three dimensional
signs and those will now be allowed by this proposed Sign Code. So there is flexibility added
into the proposed ordinance.
Martin expressed that she really enjoyed hearing about the collaboration the City had with the
Downtown District and feels this looks very nice and understandable and is excited to see what
happens with this.
Signs noted that he feels they did a very good job of eliminating the content based issue. He
wanted to note he is very intrigued by the rooftop idea and can think of many cities where such
signs are iconic to that city (such as the Traveler’s umbrella in Des Moines) and it defines those
areas and feels there could be a place for rooftop signage in Iowa City.
Hensch asked if this sign policy allows for things that don’t fit neatly “into a box”, is there any
discretion. Ream said if the City can’t fit it into a category then it doesn’t work and that is when
the City would have to come back to the Commission for amendments.
Dyer asked if the new sign on the Midwest One Bank fit into this new Sign Code. Ream replied
that yes it would. It would be classified likely as an integral sign.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 15
REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00002):
Discussion of an application submitted by 1225 Gilbert, LLC & 1301 Gilbert, LLC for a rezoning
from Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert District (RFC-
SG) zone for approximately 3.25-acres of property located at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and
approximately 1.3-acres of property located at 1301 S. Gilbert Street.
Howard began the staff report noting that there is part of the description that should have been
included which is “to amend the conditional zoning agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of
property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street” that is the former Nagle Lumber site. Howard
explained that the application was subsequently amended to include that because it is all part of
the same redevelopment plan. Howard showed a map of the area which is the very southern
portion of the Riverfront Crossings District. The area where the wastewater treatment plant was
has been demolished and turned into green space for the future Riverfront Crossings Park.
Ralston Creek is on the western portion of the subject properties for the rezoning. Howard
noted that S. Gilbert Street is not a very pedestrian oriented street currently, but the Riverfront
Crossings plan is all about transforming these areas into a walkable neighborhood with a
riverfront park instead of a sewer plant. The area is currently low-density, land intensive
commercial uses (lumberyard, nursery, etc.) with front parking lots and not a lot of defined traffic
circulation. Howard pointed out an older building that has been vacant for a while but is now
being repurposed into a craft brewery with a restaurant. That project will need to be
incorporated into the redeveloped area in a manner that best meets the vision outlined
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The property at 1301 S. Gilbert and a portion of the property
at 1225 S. Gilbert are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (Cl-1). The westernmost portion of
the property at 1225 S. Gilbert Street is currently zoned Neighborhood Public (P1). Since this
property is not currently owned by a public entity, it is unclear when or why this area was zoned
Public. Regardless, the requested rezoning is an opportunity to clear up this matter. The
property at 1201 S. Gilbert (former Nagle Lumber) was conditionally rezoned to Riverfront
Crossings South Gilbert (RFC-SG) last year before the idea of repurposing the building at 1225
S. Gilbert into a brewery was proposed. The subject rezoning includes a request to amend the
conditional zoning agreement to shift the required pedestrian street alignment north to allow the
existing building at 1225 S. Gilbert to be repurposed as a brewery.
Howard stated the subject properties are located within the South Gilbert Subdistrict of
Riverfront Crossings, so rezoning the properties to this designation would be consistent with the
plan. Howard shared an excerpt of the regulating plan that is in the Zoning Code for this district,
some of the parameters for this zoning are that on the primary streets the buildings have to be
built oriented towards those streets and built close to those streets. There are two pedestrian
streets that lead over to the new park that are also listed as required primary streets and the
Ralston Creek frontage is also considered a required pedestrian street. With regards to the
Comprehensive Plan, Howard explained that the South Gilbert Subdistrict master plan
objectives talk about capitalizing on Highway 6 access and visibility in this location, leveraging
the riverfront area of the new park, improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and restoring
and enhancing conditions along Ralston Creek. The development character of the new
neighborhood should be a mix of residential and commercial uses in this location, having urban
frontage conditions (meaning the buildings are built close to the street with parking located
behind), and a street and block pattern that emphasizes connections to the park and providing
public access to the park. The maximum building height in this zone is 6 stories, but an airport
overlay zone affects the allowed building heights in some locations on the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 15
Howard read from a section from the sub-area plan (that was adopted in 2011) that specifically
focuses on enhancements to the public realm, which includes the streets and public open space
and how the buildings frame that space. This section of the plan describes the improvements to
the public realm that will be necessary to create the walkable pedestrian oriented environment
that is envisioned for this area. Currently pedestrians and bicyclists are an afterthought. The
existing environment is an uninviting place for pedestrians. The plan states that the design of
the public realm including streets and the placement of buildings will greatly affect the quality of
place for Riverfront Crossings. Pedestrian comfort and safety should be placed at a premium
during the design phases. The circulation pattern should continue the gridded network of
streets already in place while connecting to the larger trail network along the Iowa River. To
connect residents and visitors along the Gilbert Street corridor to the park, east/west
connections with pedestrian bridges across Ralston Creek should be developed. Consideration
should be taken to provide amenities for pedestrians including landscaping, street furniture and
other amenities. Howard pointed out that the form-based code with the new required east-west
pedestrian streets is intended to provide a means to implement the vision of the Riverfront
Crossings Plan. Currently these properties do not have a street grid in place and traffic and
pedestrian circulation is confusing and undefined. First Street used to extend from Gilbert Street
west to Ralston Creek, but was vacated and sold to Aero Rental. Second and Third Streets
also do not extend west to Ralston Creek. In order to have urban development and a walkable
neighborhood, smaller blocks with new street extensions over to the creek will be necessary.
New smaller blocks will provide more street frontage that will increase the development potential
for the properties as well as improving connectivity and pedestrian orientation for a new
neighborhood to grow in the future.
Howard reiterated that while this is a rezoning application it should be noted that a subsequent
subdivision platting will need to occur to establish these new required streets. Otherwise the
properties will not be able to develop as envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Martin asked about the current speed limit on the southern part of Gilbert Street. It is currently
30 m.p.h and wondered if that would be reduced. Howard was uncertain about the speed limit,
but that would be something to look into in the future as this corridor redevelops into a more
urban, high density neighborhood.
Howard showed another map from the Riverfront Crossings Plan that indicated all the
pedestrian connections that would be beneficial to a new neighborhood. Moving onto Gilbert
Street itself Howard showed a cross section of Gilbert Street envisioned in the plan and it shows
a wider right-of-way for better pedestrian movement, comfort, and safety, and an attractive
street frontage for new businesses. Dedication of land for this wider right-of-way will be
necessary. Street trees are a very important buffer for shade and pedestrian comfort and safety,
and should not just be an afterthought. The street cross section in the plan also indicates
parallel parking along Gilbert Street, which would activate businesses and buffer the
pedestrians from the travel lanes along the street. There is also a desire to accommodate
bicycles along Gilbert Street and there would be parallel north-south bicycle routes through the
park as well.
Next Howard showed a map showing the green space and the pedestrian streets to access the
green spaces. Howard explained that not only are these pedestrian streets for access to the
park, but also could be used for stormwater management more appropriate to this urban setting
rather than providing a stormwater basin in this area, more typical of lower density areas of the
city. Green space along the pedestrian streets could be used as stormwater management to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 15
capture the water in bioswales and then direct it over to the creek. The City will be investing
considerable resources to restoring Ralston Creek in this area so there is a need for careful
stormwater management plan for the private development so that run-off will not degrade the
stream corridor over time. Howard notes the plan does mention quite a few options for green
infrastructure that might be appropriate for this setting. The developers have indicated an
interest in exploring these options.
Howard discussed the concept plan the developer submitted with their application which shows
a basic street and building layout that is generally consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
One of the variations from the plan, however, is the repurposing of the building at 1225 S.
Gilbert into a brewery, which makes it necessary to shift the pedestrian street north. Staff notes
that the benefit of shifting it to the north is that it will align with Second Street, which usually
benefits traffic circulation and creates a logical street pattern. Howard showed the
Commissioners several views of the concept plan.
In summary, Staff is recommending approval with a number of conditions:
(1) Dedication of 40 feet of land along Gilbert Street, some additional land may be
necessary nearthe intersection with Highway 6 to accommodate turn lanes. These
improvements must be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for
the brewery at 1225 S. Gilbert Street.
(2) Dedication of 30 feet of land along Ralston Creek as measured from the top of the bank
prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the brewery. The City anticipates working
closely with the property owners during restoration of Ralston Creek to ensure that
existing and future development is enhanced by the creek and park improvements.
(3) Prior to issuance of a building permit for any new building on any of the subject
properties, a subdivision plat must be approved that establishes a private street that
extends west from Gilbert Street to the 30-foot Ralston Creek pedestrian street. This
street should align with 2nd Street and have a minimum 60-foot right-of-way for the
pedestrian street portion and 80 feet for the vehicular portion to provide adequate space
for on-street parking. In addition, the subdivision plat should establish a 30-foot wide
cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street in a manner
that will provide safe and adequate traffic circulation and access to parking according to
the Riverfront Crossings Plan. At the time of redevelopment this public cross-access
easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking
areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00002, a request to rezone approximately 4.57 acres of
property located at 1225 and 1301 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) and (P-1)
to Riverfront Crossing-South Gilbert (RFC-SG) and to amend the conditional zoning agreement
for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street, be approved subject
to a revised conditional zoning agreement for the property at 1201 S. Gilbert Street and a new
conditional zoning agreement for the properties at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and 1301 S. Gilbert
Street or alternatively, a conditional zoning agreement that addresses all three properties, as
outlined in the "traffic and pedestrian circulation" section of the Staff Report dated October 6,
2016.
Hensch asked how the issue of the 100 or 500 year flood plains will be addressed, since this is
at the delta of Iowa River and Ralston Creek. Parsons commented that it looked like on the
maps that all the buildings were located outside the 100 year flood plain but a few buildings
were in the 500 year flood plain. Howard agreed that buildings will have to be built above the
500-year flood plain. She noted that none of the subject buildings were flooded in 2008 and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 15
flood plain generally follows close to the eastern edge of the creek. The park will generally be
lower and will help provide additional flood capacity.
Hensch asked if the railroad truss that goes over Ralston Creek would be taken out. Howard
said that is a question the City has for the park consultants. They need to examine that from an
engineering and park design standpoint. Crandic Railway doesn’t want it as it is an unutilized
spur, so they said the City could have the bridge if they wanted it or they can take it out.
Freerks stated that the developer’s plan was moving in the right direction, but noted a concern
that in the original Riverfront Crossings concept plan it appeared there was a stronger
pedestrian draw from Gilbert Street into the area that will be public park land. She doesn’t feel
this concept reflects that, so she hoped that they would continue to refine this aspect and hoped
to see it better defined when they bring in a subdivision plat.
Signs agreed and said he was struggling because the concept of reusing an existing building
from an environmental and sustainability standpoint is excellent but it then seems like the north
half of the plan follows the Comprehensive Plan and then it’s lost on the south half because of
the building remaining and the way the traffic will be rerouted. Someone driving by on Highway
6 will just see a big parking lot. Freerks said proposed concept doesn’t carry the pedestrians
from Gilbert Street to the park as well as what is shown in the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Howard said that will need to be addressed in the subdivision process. Once the streets get laid
out it will become apparent where the sidewalks should be and where the parking should be
located. Freerks just wanted to make sure since a lot of public money is going into to be
invested in this area, so there needs to be good access for the public to get to the park and not
just those that will be living in the area.
Signs commented on the width of Gilbert Street and that there would be 50 or 60 feet added to
that corridor. Is that coming from these properties? Howard said that the plan showed most of
the additional right-of-way would be from the west side of the street because of the larger
properties and greater likelihood these would redevelop first. On the east side of the street there
are a lot of smaller properties so being able to acquire and consolidate properties enough to
redevelop would be a lot tougher. Signs questioned then what happens with the Aero Rental
building, since it is already close to the street, will that hinder when this streetscape can be
redone. Howard agreed that will likely be an issue. The Gilbert Street improvements are not yet
in the 5-year Capital Improvements Plan, but will likely be included as part of the discussion this
year due to the pending redevelopment. It is up to the City Council to decide how they wish to
allocate the City funds to the various projects around the city. Howard believes this
redevelopment will be completed in phases taking into account the Gilbert Street improvements
may not happen right away.
Parsons asked about the idea of parallel parking on Gilbert Street and he is wondering outside
of the downtown area, where else on a major street in Iowa City is parallel parking allowed.
Howard believes there are quite a few arterial streets that have on-street parking.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Steve Long (HBK Engineering) spoke representing the owner. He acknowledged that the
partnership is excited to be part of Riverfront Crossings and also being part of the planning
process. He appreciates the City inviting them to be part of that process. Long noted that it
was seven years ago tomorrow that there was a large public kick-off for Riverfront Crossings
planning effort and now the idea of what could really happen here is materializing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 15
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to approve REZ16-00002, a request to rezone approximately 4.57 acres of
property located at 1225 and 1301 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) and
(P-1) to Riverfront Crossing-South Gilbert (RFC-SG) and to amend the conditional zoning
agreement for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street, be
approved subject to a revised conditional zoning agreement for the property at 1201 S.
Gilbert Street and a new conditional zoning agreement for the properties at 1225 S.
Gilbert Street and 1301 S. Gilbert Street or alternatively, a conditional zoning agreement
that addresses all three properties, as outlined in the "traffic and pedestrian circulation"
section of the Staff Report dated October 6, 2016.
Signs seconded the motion.
Parsons stated he likes the idea of pedestrian connectivity and feels the placement of the
buildings and all that will come into place when they come up for review. He really likes (a) the
restoration of Ralston Creek as an asset to the area and also (b) blending Gilbert Street into the
area, right now it is just kind of a four-lane speedway to people to get from one place to another.
Cutting off those small driveways and making it a four-lane landscaped street with a median will
really make it an asset to the area.
Martin commented that she is loving where this area is going, but as a bicyclist the idea of all
the parking spaces along Gilbert Street frightens her as cars will be backing in and out, so
conceptually she is not seeing super pedestrian or bicycle friendly and hopes it will be improved
as the plan is refined.
Hensch believes this is all very exciting especially the idea of Ralston Creek redevelopment,
particularly the overview of Riverfront Crossings park. This will be a premier area that will have
a lot of interest for people to live, recreate and shop in that area.
Signs agrees with everyone and likes the direction this project is going, and appreciates the
development group’s willingness to dedicate space to this nice new street and to orient their
buildings to the park and the Ralston Creek walkway area. The fact that one group is looking at
such a large area at one time is a great way to start a major redevelopment in that area.
Dyer likes the idea but commented it scares her that it is one builder and that all the buildings
may then look the same. Different owners might have different visions.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 1, 2016
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 1, 2016.
Hensch seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2016 – Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 15
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo shared a flyer for two upcoming learn at lunch events being sponsored by the
Human Rights Commission.
Howard noted that the City has invited Jeff Speck, a nationally recognized urban
designer and advocate for walkability, to speak in Iowa City on October 24. More
information will be provided at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Hensch seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
&
Z
O
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
AT
T
E
N
D
A
N
C
E
R
E
C
O
R
D
20
1
5
-
2
0
1
6
10
/
1
5
1
1
/
5
1
1
/
1
9
1
2
/
3
1
/
7
1
/
2
1
2
/
1
9
3
/
3
3
/
1
7
4
/
7
4
/
2
1
5
/
5
5
/
1
9
6
/
2
7
/
7
7
/
2
1
8
/
4
9
/
1
1
0
/
6
DY
E
R
,
C
A
R
O
L
Y
N
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EA
S
T
H
A
M
,
C
H
A
R
L
I
E
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FR
E
E
R
K
S
,
A
N
N
X
O
/
E
X
X
X
O
/
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
/
E
X
O
/
E
X
X
X
X
HE
N
S
C
H
,
M
I
K
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
O/
E
X
X
X
MA
R
T
I
N
,
P
H
O
E
B
E
X
O
/
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
/
E
X
X
X
PA
R
S
O
N
S
,
M
A
X
X
X
O/
E
X
X
X
X
X
O/
E
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SI
G
N
S
,
M
A
R
K
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
TH
E
O
B
A
L
D
,
J
O
D
I
E
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KE
Y
:
X
=
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
O
=
A
b
s
e
n
t
O
/
E
=
A
b
s
e
n
t
/
E
x
c
u
s
e
d
-
-
-
=
N
o
t
a
M
e
m
b
e
r