Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-31 TranscriptionPage I Special Work Session Council Present: Botchway, Cole, Dickens (arrived 5:08 P.M.), Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton Staff Present: Fruin, Monroe, Andrew, O'Brien, Yapp, Bockenstedt, Boothroy, Rackis, Ford, Voparil, Dilkes Review of the Allen Homes Proiect involving the City Hall Parking Lot fIP# 3 & 4 of 1/26 packet]: Throgmorton/ All right, so we can begin our special work session for Tuesday, January 3151, 2017. We have one topic on our very complicated agenda, as you know. So we're gonna review the Allen Homes project involving City Hall's parking lot. Geoff, uh... uh, you and I communicated about this in advance. I wonder if you'd give us a brief overview of your memo and leading us to the final four questions that are at the end of your memo. Fruin/ Yeah, sure, be happy to! Um, hope you had a chance to, uh, review the memo, and Wendy Ford is here to, um .... uh, help fill in the details as needed, as well. Uh, so at your work session on January 17`h, uh, we presented, uh, an overview of what we call plan A and plan B for the site. Uh, in short, plan A, what was ... uh, was kind of the, uh, original intent, uh, when we first started these discussions over a year ago and our report to you was, uh, that plan A was not a financially viable option, and so plan B was, uh, our original attempt at trying to, uh.... uh, preserve the church, but bring the cost to the City down to a .... a more manageable level. Uh, in quick summary, uh, the difference between plan A and plan B, there was some... there were several differences, but the primary difference was the shift, uh, from a public parking facility, uh, to a private, uh, a privately owned, uh, parking deck that was, uh, more limited in scope and really simply met the needs of the, uh, the developer in providing the required parking units. In plan B, uh, there was also the Fire station bays, three drive-through bays, and the City, uh.... um.... uh, we determined the purchase price of those bays would be just under 2.2 million. It had one floor of office space remaining from the original concept of two, and it contained 15 affordable housing units, six of which would be purchased, uh, by the City with, uh, funds that are currently, um, in our Housing Authority. The developer, uh... um, would have provided nine affordable, uh, units on site under plan B. As we looked at the cost of plan B, um, the, uh... what we believe, uh, again, with all of these we don't have firm numbers. We ... we're using our .... our best estimates at this time, but uh, we ... assumed that we would have to invest all of the land sale proceeds. The land was appraised at 3.33 million and uh, we believed all that would have to be reinvested into, uh, the project. Uh, an additional 1.08 would be used to purchase these six .... I'm sorry, 1.08 million would be used to purchase the Housing Authority fund ... the Housing Authority units, the six units. And, uh, 4.94 million would be required in TIF assistance to fill the remaining, uh, gap on the project. In total that's about 9.35 million, uh, that would be required under plan B. Um, it's important to note that's not all a gap of 9.35 million. The City would be, uh, bringing back, uh, assets of value to us in the Fire station and six affordable housing units. After the meeting on the 17'h, uh, we sat down with the development team This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 2 Special Work Session and, uh, they approached us with a ... a couple of, uh, other options, which we have outlined in the memo that was provided to you in your packet. Um, I'll run through those briefly, and I suspect you'll have, uh, lots of questions on those that, uh, Wendy and I or ... or representatives of the development team could answer. Uh, and it's important to note as...as much caution as we gave you on plan B last time, I need to give you even more caution on plan C because we just really haven't had, uh, much time at all to consider actual numbers. These are just kind of the .... the feelings and ... and best guesses that we have at this time, after talking with the development team. Plan C would be to, um (mumbled) we have, uh, two components to plan C. Um, Cl would be the removal of the fire truck bays and the, uh, converting those units, uh, or that space, uh, to residential units. Um, at first blush, uh, the developer thought that, um, he could probably achieve nine units in there, but possibly more. Again, uh, he hasn't had a chance to really, uh, focus in on the design of that space, but um, looking at possibly nine units there. By doing so the City no longer needs to purchase the Fire station space at a cost of just under 2.2 million, and uh, thus we would be able to retain some of the land sale proceeds. So, urn ... uh, what the.... what.... what the, uh, memo details is that, um, of the $3.3 million that we would receive from the sale, we would invest approximately 1.5 million, ub, 1.57, to be, uh, back into the project, back to the developer, which really focuses on the gap of the church. So the land sale proceeds then would be split between the City and the, uh, gap, um, in, uh... uh... uh, bringing the church to a ... a marketable, uh, state. Plan C2 takes it one step further. Uh, C2 would allow the developer to provide affordable housing, uh, off-site, uh, from the property. So the City would still purchase the six affordable housing units. Um, but the remaining 10 units, um, would be provided off-site. Now the affordable housing number has creeped up from B to C because he was able to add more units into the, uh, former Fire station space. That's why, uh, the developer, uh, has to provide more affordable housing. Uh, but that affordable housing could be provided off- site, and again, uh, we think if that, uh, were to be permitted, and we do think there is flexibility in our economic development policies to do so, um, that it's possible, uh, that all of the land sale proceeds could be retained by the City and that the church gap, um, could also be covered by a tax increment financing agreement with the developer. Uh, so that's C1 and C2 on page 5 of your memo, uh, there's a table that, uh, summarizes, uh, plans, uh, C 1 and C2, but incrementally, they're taking away the need for the City to provide, uh, upfront dollars through the reinvestment of our land sale proceeds into the project. In both cases, CI and C2, the City purchases six affordable housing units and the developer provides 10 affordable housing units. The difference is what is provided on- site versus off-site. Plan D, um, can take things .... even a step further, and uh, this is a... a, um, even a bit more, um, nebulous for us, but uh... uh, because we haven't had time to ... to study, and the developer certainly hasn't had time, uh, to invest in .... in design, but if the Council would be willing to support a parking code amendment that would either eliminate or significantly reduce required parking under this type of scenario, uh, the cost of the parking deck, uh, would go away or would be greatly reduced. Um, thus shrinking the need for TIF. It wouldn't necessarily make the TIF go away, but it would shrink the amount of rebates needed or the duration, um, of those rebates and .... and uh, probably more quickly allow us to, um, take the.... the..... the taxes produced by that development and distribute them all to the ... the taxing entities. Um, under this scenario D what we would be looking to achieve is a ... is a, some case in which the City retains ownership of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 3 special Work session the surface lot, and, urn ... provides a mechanism, uh, for the developer to, um .... construct a, whether it's a .... a one -floor deck, um, or, um .... just a .... a building on stilts, for lack of a better term, that would be screened by the surrounding townhomes, um, ability to build up, uh, from that. Again, under all the scenarios that we've considered, there were units on top of the parking. So it's important that we don't lose that. Um .... and .... and D, they would ... they would still be able to provide those units, uh, over, but they wouldn't have the, uh, obligation to provide parking. Uh, the developer's indicated that, urn ... in order to market the units the required parking, uh, that the Ci .... parking that the City requires isn't necessary. Obviously the site is, uh, located downtown, uh, several residents may choose not to own a car, um, others, uh, may be comfortable, um, in the downtown environment, parking in the, uh, a deck facility that may be nearby. We, uh, did offer, uh, a number of, uh, answers to questions that we received from the City Council. I won't go over those, uh, at this point. I'll skip to, um, our.....our staff recommendation at the end, and, um, kind of give you my thoughts on .... on all three of the scenarios and then we can turn to the ... the questions that are posed in the memo. Um, plan B, uh, as we presented to you, we think plan B is viable, but there's no question it comes at a .... a, it's a steep cost for the City. Uh, both in terms of the financial outlay and in terms of, urn ... uh, the opportunity costs of ..of selling our land. Uh, but again we .... we do think we can achieve that, uh, through the framework, uh, that we presented in plan B. Uh, to me, um, the City Council is the one that can put the value on the preservation of the church and that's the real question. Uh, the cost outlined in scenario B does that cost, um, match up to the value that you find in preserving the .... the church as a historic structure? Plan C, um, again would eliminate the, uh, Fire station component. Um, of course we've always targeted, um, from the outset this project to provide those drive-through bays. Uh, they would be a nice addition to the Fire station. Uh, but I feel much more comfortable putting a value on that type of improvement and frankly I don't think, um, that that, urn ... cost is worth the benefit that we get from our Fire operation. As I outlined in the .... in the memo, um, the drive-through... the bays are nice. They would eliminate the nuisance of backing, uh, in upon the return to a call, but .... um, it really doesn't affect response time at all for our firefighters, urn... the.... the time in which they're backing in is when they're returning from a call, not when they're going to a call. Um, if you were to ask the Fire Department what the most critical, um, improvement that could be made to Station #1, which is the downtown station here, it would be, um, allowing the firefighters which currently reside on the second floor of the building to, uh, find space on the ground floor next to the bay. If they .... if they lived in ... in that space on the ground floor, they could response to calls quicker, and it's certainly a much safer environment, um, than having to, uh.... uh, get from the second floor to the first floor, uh, in an emergency and try to get out those doors. Certainly plan B in which we'd have the drive-through bays would give us an opportunity to move those firefighters down to the ground floor. Um, and it would come at the expense of a .... a, the capital project to connect our existing fire station with the new bays. Um, I believe that that, urn... the... the more critical capital improvement of getting the firefighters downstairs could possibly be achieved, urn ... within the current footprint of the building, and thus the drive-through bays are not necessary to achieve the .... the primary goal of the Fire Department. Uh... that leads me to say that I think.... moving away from the Fire station, allowing the developer to put more residential units in that space, and... allowing the City to keep that 2.2 million, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 4 Special Work Session um .... instead of investing it back into the project, um, is a .... is a better deal, uh, for the City. I think, urn ... uh... you know, you all could find projects in this community that provide greater value, um, than those drive-through bays would of at that cost. Moving on to the affordable housing units, um ...uh, I .... I really don't have a hesitation at...at all on this. Uh, with the City investing, um, our own funds to purchase six units, the project will still have an affordable housing component to it. Um, units that would, um, be owned by the City in perpetuity and .... and would not expire until such time the City would decide to .... to sell those units, um, but it also, uh, saves a significant amount of cost by allowing the developer to provide that affordable housing in other areas of the community, urn ... uh, in .... in which our housing location model would permit affordable housing development. So you're still achieving the same number of affordable housing units in the .... in the ... in the broader Iowa City community. You're achieving them in the locations, um, that we've .... uh..... expressed to the community that we would like to see more affordable housing units. So I think it accomplishes those goals and in this case, again, brings the cost down for the City and, uh, potentially eliminating the need to reinvest any of those land sale proceeds. D, uh, comes to the parking requirements and I ... I really think it's something that, urn .... is .... is worth further discussions with ... with the developer. Um, I just think in this environment, um, that we can, um.....reduce those parking requirements without, um, significant impact. Now, people will .... people will have cars, um, we're not sayin' that anybody in these units won't own cars. Some'll choose to park in the deck, some may choose to park in neighborhoods, and I know that's a concern that's been brought up before. I think for this particular case, um, we can .... uh, narrowly tar .... tailor an ordinance, uh.... uh, to ... um, I guess to ..... to express that the reason that we're doing this is to, um.....uh, preserve the historic property. Um ... and we can come up with enough unique factors, um, to, um, delineate this particular project from... from.... from other projects and .... I know that.....1 know that the broader issue of, uh, parking downtown has come up before and I think you can move forward with this narrow amendment and still leave yourself room, uh, when you're ready to take up the broader question of...of parking requirements in the downtown area. With that I'll, uh... turn it back over to you, Mayor, and we can walk through the, uh, four questions that we outlined in the memo, um, or ... answer questions from other, uh, other, uh.... parts of the memo as well. Throgmorton/ Okay, we could do it that way. Uh, first of all thanks, Geoff, for the overview, and I want to praise you... Wendy, development team for ... for working hard, uh, to devise a ... a development proposal that would meet the City's, and the developer's, objectives. That's great! You brought us a lot closer to, uh, a mutually satisfactory outcome. So I'm very happy about that! I was hoping actually to begin our discussion by answering your four questions (laughs) So, maybe I'll just do that. Uh, I'm gonna assume that everybody knows what the questions are (laughs) Fruin/ Wendy, would you mind puttin' `em up on the screen for the audience (both talking) Throgmorton/ Yeah, that would be helpful! Thanks. Fruin/ Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 5 Special Work Session Throgmorton/ So I ... I'd like to provide my answers to your questions and then say a little bit more about the parking part of it. Yeah, I can see it fine. So the ... the first one, uh, I would support removal of the Fire bay component.....no, I do not want to move ahead with plan B. It's too costly. I would support removal of the Fire bay component. I guess that's the second question. I would allow the developer retained affordable housing units to be located off-site. So we're now through the first three questions. Those are my answers to those three questions. And with one qualification, I would support a narrowly tailored code amendment that would eliminate parking requirements for the residential components of the project, in exchange for the designation of the church as a landmark building. I think that's really crucial to establish that connection. So ... eliminating the parking requirements, for me that's, uh, what we ... in my judgment, that's what we need to focus on tonight. So eliminating those requirements either partially or fully would help us fulfill several strategic plan priorities. I won't go through them. I .... I could if anybody wanted me to. But preservation of the historic church building and providing affordable housing in the development are explicitly... or especially, important, uh, components or contributions. So, I'm very happy about that. So my main concern has to do with the parking part of it. So based on communications with Wendy, and Wendy, you, uh, sent me an email earlier today, uh, please do put it up on .... on the screen. Ford/ Okay. Throgmorton/ Uh, and noting that Wendy had to make several ... uh, assumptions in putting this chart together. It's a little bit different, I guess, from what I saw (laughs) in the email, but that ... that's good. Ford/ Can you see that well enough? Throgmorton/ Yeah. I understand that under plan Dl, a 133 parking spaces would have to be provided off-site. Plan D2 would reduce that number to 60 spaces, but I'm guessing that would also cau.... cause the cost to the City to go up somewhat. So I'm inclined to support plan D2, largely because I think long-term residents would want immediate access to parking spaces. That said, I would not rule out Dl or something in between. So then the last thing I want to say, and there's plenty of room for discussion, um, I think it's crucial for us to ensure that nearby residential neighborhoods benefit from any spillover parking that occurs in their neighborhoods. So that leads me to think we should commit to begin creating a neighborhood parking improvement district for affected neighborhoods. That would help, I think, with the whole constellation of things here. So anyhow, those are my thoughts, and I'm sure y'all have your own views and things you want to say, so .... here we go! Fruin/ Can I clarify one point, Mayor, before (both talking) Throgmorton/ Sure! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 6 Special Work Session Fruin/ ...before we move on. Um, when we're talking about plan D, D 1 and D2, and the required public ... or I'm sorry, the required parking spaces, um, the code amendment would eliminate the requirements. So what we're trying to show on this slide up here is how many, uh, how many spaces that were formerly required, would be kind of spilling out. The ... the developer would not be required to provide those off-site. He wouldn't necessarily be required to, um, purchase permits from the City. Um, those requirements just go away, and what we're trying to say here is there's 133 ... uh, potential vehicles that filter out into the market somewhere. Some choose... some.... some of those may not exist. Some people may just not own a car. Some may seek street parking. Some may seek deck parking, but there's no requirement of the developer to locate physical (both talking) Throgmorton/ Right. Thanks for the clarification, and there would be no requirement for payment in lieu of... Fruin/ Correct! Throgmorton/ Yeah. Okay. Yeah, understood, and that's what leads me to the neighborhood parking benefit district idea. Yeah. Thomas/ Well I .... I'm in pretty much complete agreement with what Jim just laid out there. I (clears throat) I would just add some comment. I think .... you know, this project has been a very interesting experience and I think in part because of the complexity of it, which I support. I think when we're designing in cities, we .... we need to approach things holistically and in a complex way, and uh, you know, the last two weeks there have been some additional layers to the complexity, and ... and solutions to that complexity, and I think the, um .... the response to the question of how do we accommodate the affordable housing is actually a better solution because it, uh, you know, we do get some units that are .... for perpetuity, ensured to be, uh, affordable, and then we have 10 units where, you know, the cost of providing those is reduced because we're not providing them in the teeth of what is the most expensive housing... area within Iowa City. We're .... we're putting them out in an area where they won't cost so much, and .... I think that's a benefit, uh, as well. Not .... not only in the short-term, but in the long-term because I ... my concern in the long-term is that once the .... the subsidy sunsets, they will most likely revert back to market rate housing. So I think there's less of a likelihood of that if they're not in such a strong rental market. Um ... so I think this is .... this is offering improvements, uh, to how we've typically framed, uh, these projects in the past and then as Jim said, the ... the, one of the key issues left is how do we address the parking, and I think having some flexibility particularly on this site, which I think is really well situated in terms of, uh, you know, the ramps. There are two ... two ramps very close by. (clears throat) And... and so I think there's certainly, uh, it's worthwhile pursuing the D options. I'm inclined, urn .... at the moment to support D2, just in part because I feel, uh, providing some on-site parking, uh, would be useful, uh, partly because I do think, uh, this project has, uh, some real potential for long-term residency, and I think that may be a key element in promoting that idea of the ... of residents living long-term there. (clears throat) One comparison... that I'm .... I'm interested in seeing how .... how it plays out is the Sabin townhouses This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 7 Special Work Session because they....they have parking, uh, that's kind of (mumbled) built right into the ... to the units, and ... and so I'm very interested to see how those market. You know, who ... who actually ends up residing in them, because I do think they offer an opportunity for long-term residency, and I'm .... I'm very interested to see if that actually takes place, but... you know, as Jim said, I'd like to thank staff, uh, the development team, um, comments from the community. I think there's been a lot ... there's a lot of support for this project. (laughs) I think that actually .... is all the more reason why we ... this .... this thing, I've always felt needed to move forward, but again, the complexity I think was a challenge, and I think we've reached a point where we've accomplished, um, a ... a viable project. Mims/ Well I would pretty much agree with both, uh, Jim and John. I think as everybody knows from our meeting two weeks ago, um, I was pretty outspoken that I could not support the option B. It was just way too expensive, um, I thought for the City for what we were getting. So I'm really pleased the development team and staff have had.... and... had taken the opportunity over the last couple weeks to come up with some other options that, as you said, Jim, hopefully are mutually beneficial. Certainly, uh, beneficial to the City and ... and I think as well to the developer. Um, so to kind of go straight through, um, if B, number one, if B was the only viable path I still would say no. I ... it's just way too much money, urn ... I think for the City. Um, removing the Fire station, number two, yes. I think it's, again, I think that's too expensive, um, in terms of built ... buying the bays and the build -out and then extending City Hall to connect to those bays is just ... is way too expensive a project. So I would agree with removing that. Um ... the, uh, off-site housing, number three, to be located off-site, I would say yes. Like John just said, I think we still get the units but we get them in a less expensive market than downtown. Um, so I would say yes on number three. Um, I also am concerned about, in number four, the parking. Um, I guess .... from looking at .... and I realize we don't have specific details. You guys haven't had time to work that out. I think my initial preference would be D2 to at least have some developer -provided parking, um, there. My concern is even though we can tie this to a historic structure, I think we're carving out something very different than we've done for any other developer and I'm concerned about the response to that. So I think ... I would like to see the effort to have at least some of that re .... required. I'll just add one final comment that's... related to this and yet more general. I am .... I'm very, very concerned about the price that developers are paying for property either downtown or in Riverfrom Crossings, with the expectation that they're gonna come back to the City to fill the gap on their projects. And so this is something that Michelle Payne said two years ago, I think. The land owners are the ones that are making out on these issues, you know, they're rollin' in the dough because they're selling these properties for, in some cases, exorbitant amounts of money and the developers, of course, are expecting to make a profit. Totally get that and understand that. But ... then it's an incredible amount of pressure that is coming back on the City to fill that gap. And I .... and I don't, again, I said this two weeks ago, I don't think we would necessarily be sitting here, certainly not in the same frame of mind, if there were not this historic church involved. I get that. I appreciate the church. I want to see it preserved as well. But I just want to send that public message to all the developers out there, and I think it's something as a Council and staff that we have to be keeping in mind that we cannot just be sitting here saying we're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 8 Special Work Session gonna .... we're gonna TIF or we're gonna give taxpayer support to these projects.... regardless of how much money they spend on property. They need to be really taking that into account on the front end and not assuming they're just gonna come to us to fill a gap because they have maybe overpaid for the property. So ... I just want to lay that out there. Throgmorton/ That's a very good point! Yeah, very good point. So, how bout the rest of you? Taylor/ I'd first like to say that I ... I really admire, uh, Mr. Allen's patience, uh, during this process and his ability to, uh, work together with City staff, uh, and the planners to come up with a solution that, uh, that's appealing to all persons. That's very difficult. It's hard to please everybody all the time, and especially in this community. (laughter) That's difficult! Uh, so I do admire that. Um, and I echo what, um, everyone else has said as far as, uh, plan B, uh, in answer to question number one being too costly and, uh, jef...definitely not an option, and until we got C and D, I was really trying to wrap my head around that and how I would make a decision on ... on those because to me it is important to preserve the church. Uh, obviously the faith community has been a very major part of the history in this community. If you look just within a few blocks of here, many, many churches of, uh, with a lot of character and a lot of different architecture, uh, that's played a big part in our history, so I think it is important to do what we can to preserve that. Uh, and... and as far as, uh... number two question, again as everyone else has said, obviously the fire bays are not that important to the Fire Department itself, uh, and it is ... does add that extra cost. Uh, the off-site affordable housing, uh, we do need. We've talked about that over and over again, and .... and as Jim said, um, in .... in our plans for the City we want to see it, uh, more, an increase downtown, or not just in the downtown area, uh, so that would be true, and urn .... so I would go with also D2, uh, it seems to be the best, uh, solution for ... for everyone. Botchway/ So I'm generally supportive of, um ... what people have said previously. Um, I also want to thank, um, Mr. Allen for, you know ... not only the considerable amount of patience, but the concern about money you put in the project. Um, I ... I do want to kind of. ... highlight that, just because, you know, again .... when we talked about this, uh, however many months ago, urn ... and this isn't necessarily gen ... it's not necessarily to Susan's point, but it may be somewhat separate. We need to be clear from a Council perspective, um, cause I guess for my answer for ... A, or excuse me, for one, I ... I would be supportive. Um, now I had a different kind of B1 that I won't necessarily get into because I think it, urn.... uh.....(mumbled) ruffle some feathers, but .... uh, for me I ... I think that, urn .... I guess I'm ... my issue is when the developer asks, um, ahead of time for our thoughts and feelings on a particular project, I think we need to take some serious deliberation. I did at the time, um, and I .... I felt comfortable, you know, knowing whatever that number may be coming back, moving forward, um, that I would be moving forward on, you know, I feel like .... I feel like I gave that "stamp of approval" and so I ... I would just caution us as we .....as we kind of go down this particular process where the developer is coming to us and asking us these questions, especially ahead of time, because we want to be able to vet these different procedures and processes, that we spend that time thinking about how many .... how much money would be associated with it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 9 Special Work Session Now nobody knew what the money was going to be, don't get me wrong, but ... um, you know, I .... I, at that time I felt like I made the, um, the, um.....decision in my mind that this project was important enough, um, for the historic preservation of the church that we would have to .... we'd have to, you know, give up some money to make sure that was going to happen. So, I would just say, you know, again, for the developers that are putting considerable amount of money in it, and time, that we ... we think about that. I also want to thank staff. Kudos on the ... the quick turnaround for making sure that we had a bunch of different initiatives and make the decision, um, even easier. Um, I would say, uh, I would be supportive, I think Jim already mentioned, D1, D2, um, you know, D2 I kind of would agree with as well, just having some type of parking being the .... I think the expert car, um, driver on Council myself, um ... I did have a question.... Throgmorton/ Don't brag! (laughter) Botchway/ (laughing) Uh, I did have a couple questions in relation to, um, the housing, um, because I, um, I would agree. I'm in favor, kind of in John's comments about housing being moved off-site. Um, what that could mean for the potential after the .... cause these hous... these housing units aren't going to be in perpetuity and so what that would mean for the marketability afterwards and whether or not folks would be able to afford `em later on. Where would that housing be? The reason why I ask that is ... I know that we're talking about our affordable housing model, but .... is there any type of general thought or feeling about where they might be? Fruin/ Well, I think to be determined, unless the developer has, you know, specific locations now, but .... um, we've .... we've looked at the housing model and where his units are and where he feels like he can, uh, place those, but I'm not sure he's willing to.....to commit to locations now. Again, I think there's some more time needed to .... to run some numbers and for him to, uh, consider the, you know, the specific aspects of each of the properties that he owns. Botchway/ Okay. My concern is just oversat... I mean oversaturization, you know, I don't necessarily ... I think our housing model speaks to that, but that would just be something that I would be thinking about ensuring that we were, not putting more affordable housing in some of those same affordable housing areas, and then I know this ... I don't necessarily know if this was .... I might have missed it, was... so there's no parking costs for D1 or D2, because we still retain our surface parking. Fruin/ There's no park .... no annual leasing of (both talking) Botchway/ Right! Fruin/ You know, we hope to avoid any type of annual lease requirement for ... for parking, but until that space can really be designed, we don't know exactly what it'll be. You know, we'll lose ... even under the scenario D1 where the developer may not provide any parking, you still have the liner townhomes that take up a good portion of our existing parking deck, and then you're gonna have piers that are supporting the residential above, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 10 Special Work Session coming down at different places in the deck. So our 118 spaces will be greatly reduced. I don't know exactly where that number will land, and if we need to lease additional spaces under like a D2 type of scenario, then that's... that's what we'll have to do, but .... there's no way we could have projected that for ya tonight. Botchway/ (mumbled) ...that's understandable. I just was .... it wasn't a ... it's not a huge cost in the grand scheme of things but it....it is like a 10,000....I think it was a $10,000 cost every year that if we didn't have to pay would be nice not to pay. Mims/ But we could potentially move those staff members to one of the local, one of the other ramps. Botchway/ Yeah (several talking) Fruin/ Our target, um, and, um, I think, you know, minimum we were lookin' at was 47 to 50 vehicles that we really need to have on-site. Those were the public safety vehicles that, uh.... uh, need quick access, employees need quick access to them. Um, the balance, the staff and other, uh, you know, kind of. ... uh.... pool car type stuff can be moved into the decks too. That was it! Botchway/ Cool! I'm excited! Great job, staff. Great job, developer. Dickens/ I'd like to thank Jesse and his group, uh.... for being patient with us, cause I know it's been a long process, going back and forth. Um ... I'll be supportive of ...DI or D2. I'm just a little worried about the parking. I realize this is a special piece of property and we're tryin' to save this, the church, but I ... you hear from some of the other developers in Riverfront Crossing who are worried about .... what about them, or you know, we're building this parking ramp down on south Dubuque and .... it's four or five stories and we usually have a setback, if it's over a certain height, and we don't have that on that ramp, and I understand because it's a ramp that may be a little different, but .... that's my big concern is ... are we setting, we're not setting precedent because we put some caveats in here that are specific to this building, but I think we do need to be careful because we... got a lot of development that is going to happen and continue to happen, and if this sets a precedent, we're, you know, just want to step lightly I guess (laughs) and make sure that it's all documented why we're doin' it and what we're doing, but .... and I like the fact that the....some of the affordable housing is not downtown, cause the jobs aren't all downtown. I mean we've got a lot of jobs in the outskirts and I think havin' affordable housing in other areas is actually very important. Yeah, a lot of people want to be downtown because the ... most of the buses and most of the services are in this area, but there ... a lot of the jobs are not all located here. So I think it's a ... it's a good plan. Cole/ I would agree with the Mayor on points one through three, but I think as to point four, I think Susan brings up a really, really good point. I mean this question of TIFs, Riverfront Crossings, um ... is .... is a big issue. Um, the only thing I would say relating to that is I think we really do, whether it's this project which I think we're looking at a .... I would support completely eliminating the parking requirement, um, we've had a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page l l Special Work Session conversations about the parking requirement and I understand that there are benefits to the parking requirement, um, downtown, um, and that we have a parking study in our... in our neighborhoods not for the downtown area, um, but one of the reasons why I'm supportive of the, uh, complete elimination of the parking requirement is I think, uh, one I think given its location, but two, um, you know, we've ... not only the reason, but I think as almost a pilot project concept of using this particular, um, space to determine what is the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Um, I like the concept of the parking district. Um, I think we do have to be careful, and I think there's a lot of people that would not be driving, um, if they had to pay for those areas. They might be biking. They might be walking. They might be taking the bus. Um, but I think over and over and over again it does seem like the parking is what's driving the TIF and if it's not driven by the market, I think it really begs the question as to whether we need to look at reviewin' our parking policy. Um, you know, Susan brought up the Buffalo article, and I don't know that we're Buffalo (laughs) um, but I think we are feeling a lot of the similar pressures, you know, millennials aren't using their cars as much. I think a lot of our ... people of all ages aren't using the cars, and now with Uber and Lyft and all those other services, it's a live discussion as to the amount of parking we need to require. So I would support eliminating it. It doesn't seem like we have the votes for that. I think a more modest parking requirement seems to be the consensus, and I wouldn't object on that basis, but I think we really do need to ... in the immediate future, really look at our parking policy, cause it's not fair, cause we want to try to be as fair as we can to all the developers. I would say this particular site, I think of Iowa, and I think of Iowa City, we love Iowa City so much. Iowa Avenue, that's a pretty signature avenue and this particular structure is cornerstone. So I don't think this ... this is going to repeat itself in a lot of other areas, but I'm ... but I'm really thrilled that we all were able to work together to make a cost- effective project. Um, the other final thought is is in terms of the infrastructure, you know I know that we were, um, trying to come up with a project that would make sense financially, but I do have a little bit concerns — it doesn't even seem like we really, um, you know, we came with a mandate to try to get to preserve the church and you guys did that, and you did a really good job, but it seems like the Fire Department really didn't even really need that, and so I don't mean that as a .... concern, but I think that's something we have to look at to make sure that our infrastructure building isn't done to sort of ...facilitate a development. It should sort of be the other way around, that if we have an infrastructure need and the developer can help us meet that, then maybe we discuss that. So I'm glad that we came to the consensus on that. So I think great work all around. And, um, I'm looking forward to the first day this, uh, facility is remodeled and we get to all go there and cut the ribbon! Throgmorton/ Yeah with regard (both talking) Mims/ I (both talking) Throgmorton/ ...fire bays, I think we saw an opportunity and simply weren't able to take advantage of it really because it's so costly. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 12 Special Work Session Cole/ And we communicated that to staff as well, so I mean I think that's as much as Kingsley talked about. Mims/ The only follow up I would say to your comment, Rockne, is .... I heard a number of people say they preferred D2. I don't know if I heard anybody say that they absolutely wouldn't do D1. I'm open. It ... it, to me it depends on the numbers that come back, I mean, as the staff and development team look at this, I'm .... I'm flexible. I'm not, I mean, I'm not saying set in stone I would only go with D2, with them providing some parking. So I just ... I want to lay that out there because I'm not sure exactly what other people feel and I want to make sure staff knows, if in fact there's a majority of us that are flexible on that, that staff and the development team are aware of that, so ... I mean I'm flexible. Throgmorton/ Yeah, I certainly tried to signal that I'm flexible about that too. Mims/ Yeah. Throgmorton/ I ... I do know I....I'll also express some concern that ... long-term residents would want to have access, immediate access, to a place, uh, to park their car. So that's the only reason I was kind of. ... inclined toward D2, I guess, but (several talking) Taylor/ I think parking wouldn't be I think the ... the last straw kind of thing and I think we've been talking about parking even before this project came up, and I was surprised John didn't bring up again, cause usually his little pet peeve is (laughter) Sorry, John! (laughs) Talk about having permits for ... for the parking, especially, you know, in your neighborhood. Your area. So there are options that .... that we can ... we can look at for that, so I think it shouldn't be the like final straw. Throgmorton/ Well this is where this neighborhood, uh, parking benefit district idea comes to play, so am I right in thinking there are ... there's substantial support for.... Mims/ Well my assumption was we were going to get to that at some point anyways once the parking study was done. (several talking) Fruin/ Uh, Opticos has been hired, um, and they're kickin' off in February, and part of their engagement is the parking analysis of the Northside. Mims/ Yeah. Botchway/ I had a couple quick questions. Um.... Dilkes/ I'm sorry, can I just make sure for the record that we've got seven nodding heads for flexibility with D1? (several responding and laughing) Botchway/ Um, so ... just so I'm clear. Under the scenario, either D1 or D2, we would be retaining all the proceeds? Possibly? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 13 Special Work Session Fruin/ I can't say that for sure. Um, that .... that we think is within reach, um, but it's gonna take several weeks of work with the development team to .... to know exactly that for sure. Botchway/ But some! It's not all but some. Fruin/ I think what I'd like to know, I mean if the Council's gonna take a hard line and say no proceeds can be reinvested back into this, um, that would be good to know. Um, if you're, you know, I guess what we're really hoping for is for you to .... to give staff the .... the ability with this general framework to go and execute a development agreement and bring that back to ya. Um, I can't promise that any of these numbers hold true, but it's our ... it's our best guess at this time. Tbrogmorton/ Well I think what you're hearing from us is a plan D (laughs) uh, maybe Dl, maybe D2, maybe somethin' in between, uh, and you're gonna have to talk with Jesse about that, and I, you know, I don't .... I think it would be appropriate to see if Jesse has anything he feels like he needs to say as part of this discussion. So instead of just listening to us talk and making all sorts of assumptions, but, Jesse, would you like to provide some feedback about it? Allen/ Yeah, so, uh, the one thing I wanted to add kind of to the parking, that's somethin' that me and Geoff and Wendy and our team has kind of been discussing too, what is the need for this site for parking. Somethin' we kinda threw out, and I looked for some nods from you guys, is ... if we provided like, uh, six zi... six to 10 Zip cars that could be used for the residents only, and we feel that would reduce the need of parking requirements because a lot of the people that could potentially be livin' there long-term or short-term, whether it's three to five years or 10 to 20 years, um, in this location, there's two ramps on both sides of us, and if they .... if we're talkin' about just storing your car, but if you just want to go grab somethin' quick, we .... we felt that that would be a good place to try out and see if there's a benefit there (both talking) Throgmorton/ I'd be very supportive of that. Allen/ Instead of payin' for parking, drivin' the gap up, so that's just somethin' that we're discussin' with staff and I guess that was my main question tonight if ..if that's somethin' you want us to look at, maybe we can come up with a form .... a formula of how this works and tie that into the .... the, uh, amendment to the parking guidelines and maybe we can come up with a way to reduce it, but still have some on-site, and tie that into the design of the building so that it looks good and still meets all the needs that staff have for parking on-site as well. So that's just trying .... what we're tryin' to achieve there. So, you guys are in favor of that we'll .... we'll kind of go down that road (both talking) Throgmorton/ Yeah, I think you're stein' nodding heads on that. Allen/ Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 14 Special Work Session Thomas/ Zip car and bicycle accommodations both. Allen/ Yeah, and also do a lot more, uh, bicycle storage. We've been starting to hang those up in our storage areas, like in front of cars, so there's a lot more room for stored bikes and they can lock `em up, so we've kind of designed it in a lot of our new buildings, a neat system for that, to where they can be hung up right next to the car where you can pull in and a lot of the tenants that we're finding, um, the newest building that we have out at Eastberg Flats is some of `em are calling the office and saying they want two now, can they request another one cause they have two bikes, or you know ... one just isn't enough (several talking) Throgmorton /A two -bike household! (laughter) Allen/ Yep! (laughter) That's definitely something that we want to (both talking) Throgmorton /Yeah, that sounds great! Allen/ ...can add more to that. Thanks, guys. Throgmorton/ (both talking) Mims/ I was just going to say, from my perspective kind of the question that Geoff was asking, I would say given what staff has heard from us, I personally am comfortable saying to staff you know what we're looking for, go do the best you can do, you know what our preference is, bring us back a development agreement. Does that.... Throgmorton /I would too, as long as there's no questions that Geoff needs to pose to us right now, but otherwise, yeah. Fruin/ No, I ... I think I've got a good comfort level with where you're at, so ... so just to be, um, crystal clear, um, the, uh... plan B is off the table, and if for some reason C does not materialize, we'll come back and report that to ya, but.... marching orders are forget about B, focus in on .... on C and D at this point. Um.... Throgmorton/ By that you mean, I ... I understand D2 include C. Fruin/ Correct, yes. Um, I just want to be clear because our .... our discussions on D, uh, which includes C with the developer have been very limited. They have not had a whole lot of chance to, um, put numbers to these scenarios. We .... we all strongly think they're viable, but if for some reason we missed something completely, I ... I'm understanding you to say .... plan, you know, that's too bad I guess. Plan B's off the table. (several responding) Um, I ... I don't want to put ... you know, unnecessary scare in there. I just want to make sure I'm clear on that. Um .... so what we will do is we'll sit down with, um, the development team and our Planning staff and... and start to work on a code amendment, um, and we will run that code amendment through the typical process. As soon as it's ready it'll go to P&Z and come back to Council, um, but we plan to do that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 15 Special Work Session simultaneously, um, as we're negotiating the development agreement with ... with Jesse. So, urn .... uh, this project, um, will come back to you in two forms. One with a parking code amendment if we ... if we pursue that, and two the development agreement and as per past practice, we'll take the development agreement to the EEC Committee first and then we'll bring that to the Council at the following meeting. Throgmorton/ Uh huh. Fruin/ Does that sound .... (several talking) everybody? Okay. Throgmorton/ I would ... I'd want to emphasize that I personally see the, um, the parking code amendment. very narrowly tailored one, as an incentive.... to preserve the historic church. Fruin/ Understood. Throgmorton/ Yeah. Fruin/ Yes. Throgmorton/ So, could I mention a couple wishes or desires that I don't think would have any bearing on the cost or anything, but I want to kind of toss `em out because, uh.... uh, Jesse's really good to work with (laughs) so anyhow .... so just sort of address this to Jesse, urn .... I.....I'd love to see your new building designed in a way to be architecturally harmonious with City Hall. You know, so maybe your architect can be thinking about that and, you know, I'm not trying to be specific, cause it's up to an architect and you, but I think that would be terrific. Also if there's a way to make sure that the Gilbert Street part of the building enhances the streetscape and really enhances the, um, you know, our desire to make Gilbert Street and the downtown, etc., more walkable, more interesting, and that kind of thing. That would be great. And the last thing on my wish list is, uh, an array of PV panels on the roof. (laughs) You know, which would contribute to our carbon emission reduction goals. And I think from a business point of view, that'd be a very smart thing to do anyhow, but you know, you're the business guy, I'm not, so.... Thomas/ Can I add my wish list? (several talking and laughing) Since you left out, uh, Iowa Avenue and... and Van Buren, and you know, I mentioned this the last time this came to us. Uh, but...it....it has to do again with this complexity issue, and that is the relationship of the townhouses to the public right-of-way, and .... you know, I love the concept of the townhouses. I think that's a .... a really beautiful housing type, particularly in this kind of interface zone between the single-family and the downtown. But that ... that dimension between how someone walking along the sidewalk, uh.... relates to the privacy of the townhouse units is .... is a very subtle one, and .... and so the question of the distance between the sidewalk and the entries, I think, is critical, you know, and I talked about how we have a certain amount of flexibility with the placement of the sidewalk on our side, um, but I ... I, you know, I just encourage looking at that very carefully because it...it is something that, you know, if. ... if the townhouses are too close to the .... the flow of pedestrians, especially in Iowa City (laughs) you know, I'm thinking worst-case scenario, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017. Page 16 Special Work Session uh, you know, it could be disruptive to the privacy of..of the residents there. So, um, it's just, you know, this complexity carrying through now to the next phase of the project, assuming we move forward. Botchway/ One quick question. I have a .... it's not a wish list, but what's the, do we still keep the, or do you still keep the office space, class A office space? Fruin/ No. Um, one of the floors, um .... I .... I don't know if the developer's determined that both floors can be converted to residential, uh, last time the ... we talked I think there was still question on ... on whether one had to, um, be a ... a different use, but I think the ... the hope and intention of the developer would be that they could design a way for it to be 100% residential in that building. Botchway/ If there's any consideration for that, I mean obviously I know that we've moved on but I know this is something that's always in need. Thanks. Throgmorton/ Do you need anything else from us? Fruin/ No, I'll kind of look at the development team — do you have anything that, uh, you'd need from the Council? Holland/ I think probably (clears throat) uh, the critical thing at this point is to push forward on the parking ordinance. Um, that's gonna do a lot to drive the design of the building, and while we have a preferred outcome, what we really need is certainty of outcome because there's been sort of a variety of opinion about no parking, limited parking, and I think if the Council can do its best to expedite that process, I think it'll help in the design phase. Jesse would like to get started with the construction, well he said this spring. I'm thinkin' probably this summer, but we're on a fairly tight time table. He's been, uh, essentially sitting on this property since last April, something needs to happen. So anything you can do to expedite that process with some certainty and an answer to that parking question. It's gonna drive the design of a lot of the building, so .... if you can, uh, encourage, uh... P&Z, encourage staff and, uh.... uh, consider collapsing readings of an ordinance when the time comes, that'd be very helpful. Frain/ I'm good! Throgmorton/ All right! I think we're done! Thanks to everyone. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council special work session of January 31, 2017.