New Business Zoning — Better Late Than Never

At the Geneva Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on October 29th, a discussion was started on amending the zoning in the State Street, B2 business district. This was, at least in part, as a result of findings in our Downtown/Station Area Master Plan with regards to retail availability and retail continuity. The intent of the change ... an amendment to the current zoning ... would be to dis-allow new bank and office use on the first floor street frontage. Central to the argument is that, in a pedestrian retail streetscape, non-retail uses create an impediment that reduces the likelihood that a shopper will walk past that bank/office to browse retail businesses on the other side. This hampers the ability of the City to grow our vital downtown retail corridors. Moreover bank/office tenants contribute nothing in the way of sales tax revenues to the City coffers.

I greeted the Staff’s zoning presentation with a mixture of relief and exasperation. It is no small irony that I vociferously argued against the use of the Pure Oil building as a bank drive-through for exactly this reason (to no avail). While the city scored a home run with the preservation of the historic Pure Oil building, we swung and missed on the municipal planning aspect. With the final outcome allowing the drive-through, I maintain that retail interests west of Fifth Street have been wronged and the Plan Commission has inadvertently stifled the future vitality of the downtown’s west end. With the soon-to-be Geneva Bank & Trust on the southwest corner and The Private Bank on the northwest corner, tourist shoppers have a formidable space to transit, before they can reach more retail shopping.

Given the timing; I speculate that the Pure Oil fracas might have been part of the impetus for city staff to bring this zoning change to the table. That’s good. We can can (and should) learn from our mistakes and put our ducks in a row so as not to shoot ourselves in our remaining good foot.

First the good stuff...

Property owners along State Street have sometimes taken a holistic, long term look at their tenant mix. Without naming names, some have recognized that retail tenants help bring pedestrian traffic to their properties making it more attractive for other retail tenants. Conversely, some property owners seem to operate as though each mailbox exists in a vacuum and will sign a lease with anyone with a checkbook and a credit rating with no consideration for neighboring tenants. Economics certainly do affect that calculus. When times are lean, those more-choosy landlords can be very tempted by a less-than-appealing tenant. Look at the under-utilized Geneva on the Dam property. This is an awesome and [partially] historic property with a fabulous interior courtyard. It has the makings of a bustling dining/shopping/office tenant space...if pedestrians troubled themselves to make the journey down the hill. A zoning tweak such as this would [in general] foster pedestrian-attractive retail and dining would help bring pedestrians closer to the river. That additional pedestrian traffic would make it increasingly attractive for tenants to sign leases down by the river. The property owners benefit by increased occupancy and the City benefits by increased tax revenue and all merchants benefit by Geneva becoming an even greater tourist destination.

Then the bad stuff....

At the request of the Committee of the Whole, staff presented text with the draft zoning amendment limited to, not the entire B2 zoning district (which extends past Crissey Ave. on the east side), but only properties west of River Lane. This would still allow for first-floor bank/office use from River Lane and across the river past Crissey Ave.. For as long as I can remember, we have been trying to pull the downtown economic vitality down toward and across the river. If the intent of the proposed zoning amendment is to foster pedestrian continuity and economic vitality and is recognized as good planning practice, then we need to give every advantage to those challenging areas immediately abutting the river and not limit the change to the west side.

Another aspect of the proposed amendment is the grandfathering clause. I agree that it is only fair that existing bank/office uses be permitted to run their business for as long as they exist. It can never be on the table that the city would eject a tenant by changing zoning underneath them. There is text in the proposed amendment, though, that would permit the [now] non-conforming bank/office use for future tenants forever. As it was presented, a bank/office property could lose its tenant and, if a new bank/office tenant signed a lease within 180 days, the property could continue its non-conforming, retail-unfriendly and revenue-unfriendly use. I understand and support that a property owner needs to recoup their build-out costs for a given tenant. I would argue, though, we should define a sunset on non-conforming use for new tenants. Clearly a one year sunset would be unfair to property owners. Conversely, a one hundred year sunset would be meaningless for righting a municipal planning mistake. The city’s deliberative bodies should entertain discussions as to what is a reasonable sunset in place of perpetual non-compliance. My sense would be that such a discussion would range somewhere between 10-20 years.

Summary...

Things are pretty squishy now and, so far as I know, no formal text has been presented to the Plan Commission for review and public hearing. Such zoning changes make complete sense in our pedestrian retail districts and are not uncommon amongst other municipalities. It remains to be seen what text might be presented to the Plan Commission and where the commission’s discussion and public comment might lead. The change makes business sense. The change helps our merchants. And the change helps our coffers. Now let’s discuss how to be fair to property owners while Geneva plays the long game to nurture the most vibrant downtown we can.