Our View - University Heights needs to evolve to survive as city

Printed in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Nov. 6, 2009

Our View - University Heights needs to evolve to survive as city

At the same time a near record low percentage of eligible voters came out to vote in Tuesday's Iowa City Council election, more than half of the voters on the rolls turned out in University Heights to determine who gets to lead that enclave city on the eve of its 75th anniversary.

A full slate of six incumbents (one mayor, five councilors) faced six challengers to see who gets to rewrite the city's already out-of-date, three-year-old comprehensive plan and thus help determine how (and whether) the city will develop in the next few years.

The percentages show an almost evenly divided city. (The mayor's race was 54-46, and the council percentage ranged from 35 percent to 52 percent -- with most hovering around 50 percent.) But the record level turnout elected five of the six candidates on the "progressive" slate: incumbent mayor Louise From, incumbent councilors Stan Laverman and Amy Moore as well as challengers Mike Haverkamp and Patricia Yeggy.

These are the candidates who either voted for (or otherwise supported) the final plan for One University Place, a proposed development of condominiums and commercial property that was to be located on land now owned by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church. Voters also elected one member from the opposing slate of candidates, incumbent councilor Brennan McGrath, who provided one of the two "no" votes that sent the proposed development back to the drawing board because a rezoning request failed to receive a required supermajority.

In public forums and other statements, candidates from both slates have acknowledged that University Heights is going to need to develop more commercial property if the city is going to survive and to continue to provide (or to contract out) services for its residents. But the candidates disagree over how big those developments should be and how fast they should come online.

Likewise, although the city's comprehensive plan was finished in 2006, it was written before:

• The University of Iowa bought the University Athletic Club (thus triggering the eventual removal of the city's biggest commercial property from the tax rolls), and

• St. Andrew announced the congregation was considering whether to relocate (which would allow for in-fill residential and commercial development in University Heights without the city having to tear down anyone's home).

In response to these major changes in the city's development strategies, a slight majority of voters have backed the candidates who want to see development sooner than later -- the candidates who would support a project like the final incarnation of One University Place in order to help diversify the city's tax base and to increase the number of "gathering spaces" in which University Heights residents can come together as a community.

"We have to view the election results ... as a divided community that is leaning progressive," said Haverkamp, the top vote-getter among the 10 council candidates. "We can't talk about a mandate. ... But I think it's clear from the people who spoke at the forum that we, as the entire community, need to look at things like the comprehensive plan and come up with some kind of consensus about the direction in which we want to go."

If residents of University Heights want their city to continue to be a separate municipality -- rather than evolving into just another neighborhood in the surrounding Iowa City -- then they need to be open to change. As residents prepare for next year's 75th anniversary celebrations, they can honor what the city has been in the past while re-imagining a University Heights that can survive until at least its 100th anniversary.

Our View - Development means changes for U. Heights

(Iowa City Press-Citizen "Our View," June 9, 2009)

Discussion about the controversial One University Place -- a residential and commercial development proposed to be located on land now occupied by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church -- reaches the University Heights City Council tonight.

Over the past few months, residents and the developer have gone back forth in three informational sessions about the project. On May 20, the University Heights Zoning Commission voted 3-2 against rezoning the property for the development. And now, because of significant opposition by the neighboring property owners, a supermajority of the council is required if the development is to go forward.

We think the developer, Jeff Maxwell, has proven responsive to the concerns raised by the city officials and residents. He seems to have recognized just how much his proposal would challenge the way the residents of University Heights view their city. And, after lengthy discussions, he has scaled back the project to a version we think the city council should approve.

Our main concern about the project -- the traffic it would add to the already congested Melrose Avenue -- has been addressed through plans to:

• Update the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Sunset Street to include more left-turn lanes and to straighten the north leg of the intersection to a more 90-degree angle and

• To add a left turn lane along Melrose in front of the new development.

John Yapp, executive director of the Johnson County Council of Governments, said those changes would "create a much safer situation from a traffic perspective than what is there now." We think the proposed changes also would help improve the traffic flow on this street enough to allow for the increased number of cars that a new commercial and residential development would bring.

And it's clear that increased traffic is an inevitable consequence of nearly any development plans for the St. Andrew's property.

Unless the church were to sell the land to another religious community -- or unless the church decided against relocating to the land it's already bought on Iowa City's western edge -- the traffic rate is going to change. Some projects might cause less of an increase than the residential and commercial mix offered in One University Place, but any feasible development of this property is going to bring more cars -- as well as alter University Heights' current mix of single-family homes, limited number of apartments and very limited number of public buildings.

It also seems the most likely way University Heights can survive as a distinct city is to alter its current character and allow for a development of this size:

• One big enough that tax increment financing might be a way to pay for needed infrastructure improvements on Melrose.

• One big enough that, after the period of tax incremental financing elapses, the development provides a needed infusion of residential and commercial property dollars into the city's coffers. Without such an infusion, University Heights may have to start cutting services or raising taxes to the point that residents wonder if they wouldn't be better off as an Iowa City neighborhood rather than as a separate city.

Other developers proposing a project of this size may not be as amenable to city and resident input as Maxwell has been. The University of Iowa, which already owns property adjacent to St. Andrew and has the right of first refusal on the church property, probably wouldn't be as cooperative in any development plans it might impose on the property.

Rather than view One University Place as a stark departure from what University Heights has represented in the past, the city council should recognize the proposed development as an example of what University Heights could be growing into if it is to survive as an independent city at all.