The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA009 - Email correspondence re: Urban Revitalization Criteria for Tax Abatement for Enlarged North Parcel dated November 23, 2015 Page 1 of 5 Re Urban Revitalization Criteria for Tax Abatement for Enlarged North Parcel Sharon Guber to: Ann Campbell, Matthew Goodman, Peter Orazem, Gloria J Betcher, Amber Corrieri, Timothy L. Gartin, Chris Nelson, Samuel J. Schulte, Diane R. Voss 11/23/2015 12:13 PM Cc: Steve Schainker, Kelly Diekmann, Charles Kuester Hide Details From: Sharon Guber <sguber50014@yahoo.com> Sort List... To: Ann Campbell <acampbell@city.ames.ia.us>, Matthew Goodman <mg@fightingburrito.com>, Peter Orazem <pforazem@gmail.com>, Gloria J Betcher <gloriabetcherwardl @gmail.com>, Amber Corrieri <amber.corrieri @gmail.com>, "Timothy L. Gartin" <timothygartin@amesattorneys.com>, Chris Nelson <nelson.ames@outlook.com>, "Samuel J. Schulte" <schultes@iastate.edu>, "Diane R. Voss" <dvoss@city.ames.ia.us> Cc: Steve Schainker<sschainker@city.ames.ia.us>, Kelly Diekmann <kdiekmann@city.ames.ia.us>, Charles Kuester <ckuester@city.ames.ia.us> Please respond to Sharon Guber <sguber500l4@yahoo.com> Dear Mayor Campbell and Council members, When the Council voted 4-2 to accept the settlement with Breckenridge, dramatically changing the"Enlarged North Parcel'from low density to high density, with up to 422 students in apartments, Council talked about procedures such as"Contract Zoning"and "Urban Revitalization Criteria"to offer opportunities for Council to exert some controls on how the Aspen Heights project would transition with the existing neighborhood, protecting property and preserving some of the quality of life. On the "RH Site Evaluation Matrix" the only 2 out of 22 criteria, evaluated by Staff as LOW RH Project Consistency, were: "Support prior City sponsored neighborhood/district investments or sub-area planning" and "Creates character/identity/sense of place" Of three known Aspen Heights (AH) apartment projects (Charlotte NC, Lincoln NE, Albany NY), only AH Charlotte is open. Resident comments online, indicate the same issues have been occurring in the Charlotte student apartment project(now going into its 2nd year open), as at the previous AH locations, citing two below: Aspen Heights Charlotte Ryan Campbell 5 months ago "Like the other 1 stars (out of 5) have been saying, this is a cheap place that costs a lot to live in. Loud parties, riots or whatever, often and late into the night, the staff doesn'tseem interested to help with anything much," Hannah Booth 6 months ago "I especially love how big the balconies are because it gives you a lot of room to work with. Yes, it's student housing, so expect there to be some noise. Trust me, I live in probably the loudest building, but I still love Aspen and have already signed my lease for next year.!" A new occurrence was found in a May 22, 2015 news release posting re AH Charlotte apartments: "Tenants at student housing responsible for caved in floors, officials say" (and ceilings below) "...dire to a very large group of people jumping in unison. In reviewing video surveillance, over >00 people entered the buildings the nights of both incidents." httl)://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/tenants-student-hOUSi niZ-responsible-caved-floors-o/nmMfC/ There are reasons ISU puts staff members in off-campus apartments that they have been leasing. Breckenridge file:///C:/Users/diane.voss/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6932.htm 11/23/2015 Pabe 2 of 5 apartments are dorms without RA's. As I said in an earlier email, some processes include "requirements"while other processes offer merely "encouragements". Zoning includes "requirements". Urban Revitalization Criteria includes "requirements". Site Plan includes "considerations" and "encouragements". While most of the Urban Revitalization Criteria, in order for Breckenridge to receive tax abatement, seem to be for 'looks', the UR Criteria also offers an opportunity to require other features in the development, in exchange for very large tax savings for Breckenridge (eventhough Breckenridge, now with 422 renters, will take in at least over an additional $1.3 million in rent each a year(at$600/mo. rend on the Enlarged North Parcel alone, over what they would have earned without the settlement). There is no restriction on the number of criteria... have you considered all those that would in fact make this a better compatibility with the existing neighborhood? In consideration of a criteria that is in the Council's proposed UR Criteria... Currently the Council's proposed UR Criteria includes: #11. "The project shall provide landscape buffering with the L3 and F2 standards in a minimum of a 10-foot-wide planter along the perimeter property lines of the site." Under F2, this allows Breckenridge to determine the type of fencing... they would likely choose to use less durable, 'breachable'wooden or chainlink fencing, instead of the more permanent, less breachable, masonry. In addition, the Code for F2 states: "It is usually applied in nonresidential situations." (see complete text below) At the least, Council should specify masonry 'fencing that would offer more protection for properties sharing boundaries with Breckenridge in the existing neighborhood... i.e. fencing "intended to be used in special instances where extensive screening of both visual and noise impacts is needed to protect abutting uses"(see L4 below), ...also more protection from property damage and trespassing. These negative impacts have consistently occurred with Aspen Heights' homogeneous, undergraduate housing projects around the country. I would therefore urge the Council to specify one of the alternatives below to be written into UR Criteria# 11 a. F4 (see actual language in the City Code below) b. F2, specifically masonry c. Reiman Garden perimeter steel fence Thank you. ---Sharon Below are examples of the current problematic implementation of F2 near the Enlarged North Parcel (Thompson Apts., 3206 Lincoln Way), and suggested alternative fencing (more durable, less breachable) to be specifically stated in UR Criteria#11 as Alternatives to "F2": ARTICLE 4: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sec. 29.403. Landscaping and Screening Standards Staff recommended: (f) F2, Fully Sight-Obscuring Fence. "(i) Generally. The F2 fence standard provides a tall and complete visual separation and is primarily intended to be used in special instances where complete screening is needed to protect abutting uses and landscaping is not practical. It is usually applied in nonresidential situations." "(ii) Construction Standards. Fences must be 6 feet high and 100% sight-obscuring. Fences may be made of wood, metal, bricks, masonry or other permanent materials (not necessarily durable)." As written, Breckenridge would determine the type of fencing. Experience with such fencing (Thompson Apts. at 3206 Lincoln Way near Manning): Slats regularly kicked out to access off-site parking and pedestrian shortcuts (Lincoln Way & Manning, Lettie to south) file:///C:/Users/diane.voss/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6932.htm 11/23/2015 Page 3 of 5 CC IM d � L Y a �� 'An }}' Tern orar Re airs made with broken slats &what's available (lookin onto Mannin between L Wa and Lettie) Ilk 77 r .«r k f � rd N I NOUN t �` f, ?v+^�.n`alfi,�&n Looking toward Lettie through private properties to the south file:///C:/Users/diane.voss/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6932.htm 11/23/2015 Page 4 of 5 VOW AS all 'Al •� 'J ate, ` ' � � ,�" � ��, � �, a ��a i s• R t� �g ;..� - �•« ':�aa> at M (..a n q, ' ft IN �., .;� ,e.!�. ...gym rz ^A .n°�xM1m,,a,F M. ^.`d¢ a�:�' � ,,, n '7L� ,�, duw.,,ii 'd 1•,fk„ ,.. 3, , Alternatives: (d) 1-4, Fully Sight-Obscuring High Wall. (i) Generally. The L4 standard is intended to be used in special instances where extensive screening of both visual and noise impacts is needed to protect abutting uses in areas where there is little space for separation. (ii) Required Landscape Elements. The L4 standard requires a 8-foot-high masonry(but not concrete block) wall along the interior side of the landscape area. One Landscape Tree is required per 50 lineal feet of wall or as appropriate to provide a tree canopy over the landscaped area. In addition, 3 high shrubs or 6 low shrubs are required per 30 lineal feet of wall. Ground cover plants must fully cover the remainder of the landscaped area. or (f) F2, Fully Sight-Obscuring MASONRY Fence only file:///C:/Users/diane.voss/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6932.htm 11/23/2015 Page 5 of 5 or Reiman Gardens perimeter steel fence with 4' s acin € G° u , I J,Arm x MR E " N P �i a ry { t A 4' s The Grove and Wessex use similar design, but shorter and of lesser strength (aluminum(?)); not as durable, breathable < z� b. MR rM ��^3T/ 5Yd�1�7u39 y y. file:///C:/Users/diane.voss/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web6932.htm 11/23/2015