Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Letter from Professsional Property Management, comments to share with Commission Sentlfby: PPM INC 5152260817; 01 /19/99 13:18; ,/gfflax #938;Page 2/3 , t �.,,,\ONAL p4,0 Professional Property Management, Inc 5901 Vista Drive'West Des Moines, IA'50266 (515)226-0000 by ac, January 19, 1999 Brian O'Connell City of Ames Ames IA 50010 Dear Brian, I am unable to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting due to prior commitments, but I would like you to share this letter with the commission. As a developer and property manager, I appreciate the assistance tax abatement provides. It is a catalyst that helps cities develop quality projects that otherwise might not have been built. I support your proposal to be parking to tax abatement. However, I am not sure you have gone far enough. When neighbors complain about apartments in their neighborhood, they are usually referring to how they look and are maintained, as well as the amount of cars. You have dealt with the car issue, but I do not think you have dealt with the appearance or the impact upon the neighbors. I think there are two additional items you should consider requiring before abatement is provided. The first item is the exterior of the building should be maintenance free. This should include at a minimum, exterior siding of brick, aluminum, steel or vinyl, clad windows and aluminum or steel overhangs. My observation is this would not cause a hardship. Most buildings already have these features because it is economical. The marginal cost of vinyl siding and clad windows over masonite siding is recovered after the building is painted two or three times. The difference in how a neighbor perceives the project is whether it is painted when appropriate or two years late. Permanent siding avoids this potential problem. The second item is the intensity of landscaping. This has a dramatic impact upon people's perception of a project especially when there are evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year round landscaping. I think the landscaping requirement in our current code is fairly minimal. I think you should consider a clear and objective standard that a developer can review to make a determination of whether he wants to meet the higher requirement. You might consider a higher level before abatement is provided. Although I may not have the support of all developers, I think tax abatement should not be considered an entitlement, but a reward for meeting the city's requirements including building in a targeted area. If the City feels the development, per se, is important enough no additional standards need to be applied. It is my observation and the City can confirm it, that the value of land in some areas with tax abatement has increased very dramatically in value sometimes doubling or tripling. To make their projects work, the developer's need the tax abatement because the prices are so high. In some cases, the City has not gotten anything extra. The only person rewarded is the property owner who can let his property deteriorate until only a run down building is left standing. If you adopt the above Senj by: PPM INC 5152260817; 01 /19/99 13:19; ,Jeffix #936;Page 3/3 standards as a condition of abatement, I feel confident that parking, permanent exteriors and landscaping with be provided. Another item you might consider is energy efficiency which has a dramatic impact upon the tenants_ I have addressed this separately because it does not have an impact upon the neighborhood. I do not want to imply that the above items do not also affect the tenants because they do. All tenants want to live in a place where it has an attractive appearance and adequate parking. I want to suggest considering a higher standard for energy efficiency than what the building code requires. Some examples: R-25 instead of R-13 insulation (this can be accomplished by 2 x 6 studs and an inch of rigid insulation); thermopaned windows with lower then average air infiltration; R-50 attic insulation; and efficiency ratings for refrigerators, water heaters and air conditioners should be in the top one-third of the range of energy efficiency available for that particular appliance. The difference between an inefficient appliance bought based upon price and one bought in the top of its range might be a difference of 100% in operating costs. The marginal cost of buying the better appliance might only be 15-20% more. The examples I have given apply primarily to multifamily which is my area of expertise having developed over 2500 units in 6 cities, but can also be applied conceptually to commercial and industrial properties. The concept of expecting something above normal in exchange for abatement is something I think you should consider. I am not suggesting the building codes be changed to require permanent exterior, increased landscaping or higher energy efficient products. I do think these items are measures of a quality project that you should expect if you are going to provide abatement. Sincerely, * 1 "d Keith Denner lisatiamesp8z.doc