HomeMy WebLinkAboutA005 - Letter from Keith Denner with comments and concerns about proposed ordinance, May 23, 1985 t
PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.
201 SOUTH FIFTIi •SUITE 202 •AMES, IOWA 50010•PHONE 232-5718
KEITH DENNER, President FILED
f_
May 23, 1985 MAY 2 31985
CITY CLERK
Dear City Council: CR OF AM IOWA
I'm writing in regard to the Ordinance that you're considering in regard to
paving of parking lots and driveways. First of all I personally believe that
hard surfaced lots are desirable and in most cases more economical in the long
run. Gravel or crushed rock lots are many times a mess, they require lots of
rock in the spring of the year and it's difficult to remove snow from. In the
process of removing snow many times rock and gravel is pushed onto yards, sidewalks
and other areas that is not desirable. Also because a hard surfaced lot can be
striped it's possible to get more cars in it then when people park carelessly
in a gravel lot.
One objection that I understand was raised was that requiring that the lots
be hard surfaced would discourage people from providing any more than minimum
parking. I'm not sure that's true, I generally try to provide as much parking
as I reasonably can balanced against a desire to preserve landscaping features.
At Gateway I provided over 20 above what the Code required because I didn't want
to have a parking problem. To address the concern that property owners will not
provide any more parking spaces than those required it might be reasonable to
require all spaces must be hard surfaced but that extra spaces, the spaces them-
selves could be gravel or crushed rock as long as the aisle that you drive onto
to reach the space is hard surfaced. That would mean that if you had a large
parking lot you could have a row of extra non-hard surfaced spaces along one side
of it.
A question comes to mind relating to the retroactive conversion program
that we've now undertaken. What if the code requires more parking than currently
is providing and so the landlord chooses to provide that additional parking, does
he need to hard surface the two additional spaces he provides or does he need to
resurface the entire lot? As I understand the new parking lot ordinance you're
not going to require it to be applied retroactively.
One argument that's given against hard surfacing lots is that it will increase
storm water runoff. I'm not sure that's a big problem with all the lots that I've
installed over the last few years I've been required to address storm water
retention. In a number of cases it was as simple putting a concrete curb on the
lower side with a regulated size slot that controlled the water that left the
lot so that it didn't contribute to storm water flooding.
I would ask that you consider an appeal process for relief from requiring
that a lot be hard surfaced. There are circumstances where the lot is not going
to be there for a very long time because of probable redevelopment. I put in a
lot last year that will be grandfathered, so I only raise it as an example but
if the same circumstance arose next year it would not be reasonable to require
Page 2
the lot to be hard surfaced. The property at 232 South Duff that used to be
the Walnut Motel site the elevation was considerably below the street and we put
in fill when the public library was built to bring it up closer to street level.
On that property currently is an old house which is rented. That value of that
land is definitely in the ground and hopefully soon we will see a commercial
development there, but because the house was being rented it was necessary to
provide someplace for the tenants to park and we put a gravel lot in there to
facilitate parking. This would be a circumstance where it would not be reasonable
to require a paved lot when it's reasonable to assume that the building will be
gone in the not too distant future. So I would hope that you would provide a
process to grant exceptions to paved parking lots when a hardship exists.
Sincerely,
Keith Denner