Latest One University Place Proposal

At Tuesday's regular council meeting we heard the latest site concept presentation from developer Jeff Maxwell and architect Kevin Monson. Here is the visual that accompanied their description:

You can download the PDF file HERE.

Let me give a bit of a summary here before we get to my thoughts.

The latest version of this project is similar to the version presented in September 2011. Like that plan the current proposal would have a 3 story mixed commercial/residential building in front and a five story residential building in the rear. This is a departure from the previous site concept shared in February 2014. That proposal had a one story commercial-only building in front and six plus stories of residential in back.

The major changes in the latest proposal, from the 2/14 one are these:

1. Increase residential units from 80 to 120 (same building footprints, smaller unit sizes)
2. 2 floors of residential above commercial in front building
3. Reduce commercial size from 20,000 to 15,000 square feet
4. Increase surface parking from 55 spaces to 108

Items number 1 and 4 would require a change to U-Heights Zoning Ordinance 180 this ordinance sets out maximum numbers for what could be constructed on the St. Andrew Church site. Major limits of the ordinance include:

UH Zoning Ordinance No.180

• 2 total buildings
• 80 residential units
• 20,000 sq/ft commercial space
• 45,000 sq/ft total building footprints
• 38' max front building height
• 76' max rear building height
• 185 parking spaces (min)
• 55 above ground parking spaces (max)

The increase in the number of residential units was to make the absorption rate (how quickly units sell) higher. It was stated at the meeting that it was hoped that 25% of residential units would be pre-sold. Smaller units will also carry a lower price tag, A ballpark number given was $200- $400K for units. The front building would consist of one bedroom units, while the back building would have 2 and 3 bedroom units. As has been true with all proposals, individual buyers could purchase more than one unit to combine into a larger condominium.

The reason for the increase in parking was explained as concerns by potential commercial owners that there wasn't enough customer parking. All residential parking will be underground in each building. It was noted that given the DECREASE in commercial space the total number of trips in and out of the property would likely remain similar to what was proposed before. I wrote about that here: Melrose Traffic.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
That's a rundown. Here are my thoughts.

I find it depressing that this project has had so many changes and turns and still has not been finalized. Every proposal we've had presented to us has had supporters and detractors.
 
I am not willing to reject this proposal out of hand. Since I have been on council I have been very clear that I support a mixed use commercial/residential development at the site of this project. Given this is the intersection of our only two arterial streets it just makes sense. Smart Growth development shows that mixed use, walkable projects are beneficial to citizens and their communities. I've said that in this space numerous times. 

A residential-only project could be built here without any support from the city. I DO NOT support a project like that. Yes, it would provide revenue that our city could greatly use, but it does not provide any of the other community enhancements that would truly improve our town, and the quality of life of the people who live here.

I'm not completely sold on greater number of residential units but understand why the developer is making that request. A greater number of smaller units means more income to the developer. Commercial space is at BEST revenue neutral and most likely a "loss leader" for this project, that's why the residential structure is so important. I have not talked to the developer specifically about this latest proposal yet, but will do so. I'm certain that this proposal is the result of conversations bank lenders, investors, and Tom Jackson of the National Development Council regarding what is a viable project. 

I see three potential markets for the front building units; graduate/professional students, UI Hospital employees, and sports fans. The first group has long been a part of our town, and given the UI's commitment to increase student enrollment, housing for all student demographics will remain tight. There were speakers at our council meeting criticizing that the front building would have many students. I would much rather have students in one bedroom small units designed for that purpose than have them in single family zoned neighborhoods where our infrastructure (parking, garbage, etc) are less able to handle higher density. I don't understand what appears to be complete dislike of students. The last group will be here infrequently at best.

It's hospital employees that I'm most intrigues me. Many UIHC workers (nurses, custodial, food service staff) could greatly benefit from nearby  work force housing, decreasing the need for vehicle parking at the hospital. One thing I want to explore more is how affordable housing plays into the development. Council has a work session tonight (1/19/15) to talk about his topic with the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition.

The dreamer in me supported reducing surface parking in Ordinance 180 down to 55 spaces in 2010. We wanted a maximum of green space. Today I have sadly come to the conclusion that if we want commercial we will need to increase surface parking. In the future, if that parking isn't needed it can be converted back to green space. Several speakers at the meeting referred back to former councilor Stan Laverman, who proposed those parking limits in 2010. I talked to Stan after the meeting and he readily agrees with me that the increased parking is a necessary concession to get commercial. He also is of the opinion that due to changes in the greater Iowa City metropolitan area since 2010, that a greater number of smaller units is warranted.

That's a first run at my opinions. I'm certain to expand on them more here in the weeks to come.

As always, I welcome comments or other feedback.