Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-01 CorrespondenceDate: October 20, 2005 To: City Clerk From: Anissa Williams, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner Re: Item for November 1, 2005 City Council Meeting: Installation of 15 MINUTE LIMIT PARKING 8AM - 5 PM MON - FRI signs on the east side of Teeters Court. Move NO PARKING ANY TIME signs from the east side of Teeters Court to the west side. As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), installation of 15 MINUTE LIMIT PARKING 8AM - 5 PM MON - FRI signs on the east side of Teeters Court. Move NO PARKING ANY TIME signs from the east side of Teeters Court to the west side. Comment: This action is being taken at the request of Lincoln School. Pick-up and drop-off parking is needed for parents. The east side of the street is the preferred loading zone side so that children do not have to cross the street. This forces the existing No Parking Any Time designation to be moved to the west side of Teeters Court. jccogt p/mem/aw-teetersct.doc 11-01-0E 4f(2) Greetings. My name is Kevin Schuman. I am a junior at the University of Iowa, and am writing in regards to a problem I feel needs consideration. I realize that by law bicycles are now required to be ridden on the street only. This has been brought to my attention by my friend who recently received a hefty fine for riding on the sidewalk. However, before this incident I have always been under the sensible impression that only motorized vehicles belong on the street. In lieu of my own experiences with cyclists on the road, I think my friend should have been anything buy penalized for not be a detriment to society while riding on the sidewalk. To get to the point, my main concern is that a bicyclist riding down the middle of the lane- even median- in 35mph of traffic is a tremendous danger. Not only have I almost hit these cyclists on a number of occasions, but I have also been stuck behind them along with the fifteen cars in front of me. A recent poll suggests the amount of bike-auto accidents, over the past year, have gone up about 10% (www.weitzlux.com). Needless to say, I think bicycles should be ridden where they were meant to be, on the sidewalk and bike paths. I don't understand how one could argue that an accident involving a 2,000 lb. piece of steel traveling at 40mph and a 751b bicycle is less devastating than a bike vs. pedestrian. Overall, I believe the road is no place for a bicycle, and the appropriate revisions should be heeded. I truly appreciate your time and concern of my unease and hope to hear from you. CD Thanks Kevin Schuman :~. r= i~ ill 11-01-05 Council Members CD ~ 410 E. Washington Street ~ ~ ~ Iowa City, IA 52240 C) '-~ vo Dear Council Members: ~ ~ ~ Low-income housing is designed to bring families and individuals off the streets ~ and help them afford a place to live. I have recently found out that many students and athletes are occupying the apartments that are usually available to these people in need. Pheasant Ridge, the only multifamily Section 8 projects, has only 248 apartments available. That is not enough to cover the needy families, students and individuals that are struggling to afford a place to live. Living expenses in the Iowa City area is a great concern for not only college students but those who do not have enough money to afford a place that accommodates the needs of their families. In college towns, there needs to be more funding to expand the amount of low-income housing available. The combination of students and Iowa City residents that need funding to help pay for housing is much greater than the amount of help that is given to them. I do not believe that students should not be eligible for low-income apartments but I do believe that action needs to be taken in order to assure that the few apartments available are going to the fight people. Those who are able to afford living elsewhere should not be qualified to live in these apartments. Individuals with children should be a priority for the housing available. There are many students that are on their own and struggling to make it through school and any help that can be given to them should. One way to decrease the amount of students occupying the low-income housing available is to regulate the amount of rent charged by housing departments. Excessive rent is a problem that increases every year. Regulation needs to be imposed on these housing apartments in order to insure that students can afford to stay in school and live in a place that can accommodates their basic needs. I appreciate the time that you have taken to read my letter and I thank you for listening to my concerns. Sincerely, Angela Flynn 4f(4) FILED October 20, 2005 CiTY CLESK ~TV M~Day 10W,& C.,,, 10WA 1186 Bd~ Dr. Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 Iowa Ci~ Co,oil 410 E~t W~¢on S~eet Iowa Ci~, Iowa 52240 I ~ ~tk8 to voice my ophon on ~e ~en~ene ordk~ce ~t ~e co~cil is di~sks. I do a~ee ~ ~e co,oil ~at ~g ~ Iowa Ci~ h~ become a problem mong ~e college ~dents. However, I feel ~at problem. ~le ~e ord~ce would keep yo~ger ~M s~den~ out of ~e bm, ~ese s~dents wo~d o~y fred o~er ways to ~. ~e bm offer rome ~d of order to ~e ~g done by ~e~ s~den~ ~d ~e ~lice maa~ order ~ ~e domtom ~a. By moving ·ese s~den~ out of a enrolled ~ea to homes ~d ap~en~ wo~d ~ a ~ave mis~e. ~s is o~y gong to cau~ more problems for ~e s~n~ ~d ci~. Ho~e pmies ~e gokg to get out of enml ~d more s~dents ~11 8et hm ~s way. Not o~y ~11 Ss ord~ce ca~e more problems by mov~g pmies into houses, it ~11 h~ ~e economy of do,tom Iowa Ci~. S~den~, ~der ~e leg~ ~g age, accost for over h~f o¢~e domtom bm' ~come for ~e en~e ye~. ~at is co~cil's idea for com~t~g ~ese bus~esses losses.'? I fel ~e co,oil needs to s~ wor~g M~ ~e s~den~ ~ ~s endeavor to consol ~cohol me in ~e city. The president of~e U~versi~ of Iowa's s~dent co,oil is to work on ~s issue ~so. I ~ coning to find ~temafives for s~dents ~d educat~g ~co~g s~den~ on ~cohol ~e ~e be~er ~lufions ~en moving ~em to ~controlled enviro~ents. A sugsestion wo~d be to section off ~e b~s so that ~e ~demge s~den~ co~d go .d~cing ~d the bm would not lose revenue. I just ~k you to reconsider yo~ decision before vot~g of ~s issue. Sin~rely yom, Mary Daly 10/20/05 Ernest W. Lehman 20 5 q: 36 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 0]]"¥~-JLErI~,'-': r-~ IOWA CITY, !OWA Dear Mayor Lehman, I am writing you concerning the issue of the age limit of nineteen to enter bars. As a twenty-one year old, I assur~e you that I am not trying to better my own position. However, I wish to exPress my opinion on the matter. I see an opportunity for revenue for Iowa City while having little to no effect on illegal behavior. Speaking from experience, I can say that raising the age for entering the bar has had no effect on whether or not under-aged people drink. For most kids under 21, this new ordinance has only changed where kids drink instead of preventing them from drinking. Instead of going to the bar, they get an older friend to buy it for them, or they go to parties. It is impossible to stop drinking in Iowa city, so the city should profit from it. If the city retracted the ordinance preventing those under nineteen from entering bars, more money would be spent. More revenue for bars would turn into more revenue in terms of taxes. If repealing the ordinance is out of the question, then perhaps changing it would be possible. If the city were to charge a bar a fee for the privilege of allowing 18 year olds to enter, it could be a great source of extra revenue for Iowa City. In addition to generating greater tax revenue, the police would have greater opportunity to catch and fine individuals for PAULA violations. Last year, the city raised the fine for PAULA to $294. This' wasa great business move for the city. Raising the fines will do absolutely nothing to prevent PAULA infractions, but each infraction will now bring in over one hundred dollars more. If you wanted to, you could raise it to $325. It makes no difference. The bottom line is that eighteen year old freshman are stupid when it comes to drinking. Therefore, the police department and the city should benefit from their stupidity. Your intention in passing this ordinance was obviously to prevent underage drinking. In reality, the kids will always be able to find another way. The only thing that I have noticed working is actually receiving a drinking ticket. Anything short of getting caught simply does not work. Therefore, if eighteen year olds are allowed into bars, the police can go back to cracking down on them. From experience, I know that it is easy to spot freshman in the bars. It is much harder to catch underage people at parties, so we should make it easy for the police to catch them by allowing them back into the bars. Overall, it is likely that many more kids will be caught if the ordinance is repealed rather than left on record. Overall, I understand that the city was attempting to project a positive image by passing the ordinance. However, repealing the ordinance will turn out to be much more profitable for the city. If you are concerned about the image of the city, let me assure you that reasonable people would understand why the city repealed it. I am not a politician, but I can see that the greater good will come from allowing eighteen year olds to enter bars in Iowa City. There will be more cash for the city and it will not change the illegal activity of freshman. In my humble opinion, it is the logical course of action. Sincerely, Stephen French Megan Hansmann 401 Emerald Apt. E9 20~]~ O~T ~ ! Iowa City, IA 52246 PPI [~9:50 ,, IOWA October 18, 2005 City Council Members 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 City Council members of Iowa City: Although the city council probably receives considerable input about the 21 only bar ordinance, I would like to express my concerns about this issue. First, it is important to understand a little about me to understand my opinions. Since I am 22 years old, this decision would not significantly impact me. In addition, I rarely drink or go to bars. My main concern is the safety of students and I think only allowing 21 year olds to enter the bars will increase sexual assault, violence, and binge drinking. It is important for the City Council to recognize that enacting the 21 only bar ordinance will not decrease alcohol consumption about the University of Iowa. Underage students who want alcohol will do so at any length or cost to themselves. If alcohol-abuse was to decrease at the University, parents would need to teach their children responsibility surrounding alcohol consumption. Underage students will resort to attending house parties where rape is a too frequent occurrence. I have a friend who was raped at a house party 4 years ago even though both she and the rapist were sober. For this reason alone, I think the bars need to admit underage students. At house parties, there is no one at the party to protect people. I am terrified about this ordinance passes because I know rape will be prevalent. If this ordinance passes, it will be difficult to see because too many females do not report sexual assault or rape to the authorities. In addition, not all underage individuals drink at the bars. They may enjoy dancing and socializing with their friends in a bar. Students who live in the dorms should not have to go to house parties to socialize with their friends or to meet new people. Also, bars provide more protection because they have more legal liability to monitor alcohol consumption than parties. The largest advantages of going to the bars over house parties are the location and bouncers. Downtown Iowa City is a central location for University students; therefore, most people probably do not have to walk too far to go downtown. In contrast, house parties occur all over Iowa City and I think more people will drive home drunk. My apartment complex has parties at least every weekend and I hear verbal arguments between numerous people. I am afraid that someday their arguments may get out of control and someone could get seriously injured. Bouncers will provide protection when arguments escalate. Earlier this fall, a drunken student fell from a balcony and died. Last Spring, when I was in Panama City Beach, Florida another University of Iowa fell from a balcony and was seriously injured. I think by passing the 21 only bar ordinance more harmful accidents will occur. The article, "Binge Drinking on American College Campuses: A New Look at an Old Problem, August 1995," is an alcohol-use study conducted by The Harvard School of Public Health. One aspect of the study examined the relationship between binge drinking and fraternities and sororities. Researchers concluded, "Many fraternities and sororities are functional saloons. Fully 86% of men and 80% of women who live in fraternities and sororities are binge drinkers." Although it is unclear where these individuals drank, this research suggests that individual in sororities and fraternities will binge drink regardless of location. An Article in the Daily Iowan also supports my beliefs about the 21 only bar ordinance. The article, "Underage drinking would not be curbed by 21-only bar ordinance" stated, "The control provided by bartenders, bouncers, and regular police patrols, the downtown bars are a relatively safe environment ..... downtown is close enough for most people to walk home after closing time. Outside the bar environment, however, drinking can be deadly." For ail of these reasons, it is imperative to vote against the 21 only bar ordinance. Sincerely, Megan Hansmann The Daily Iowan. "Underage drinking would not be curbed by 21-only bar ordinance." 10 Feb. 2003. The Harvard School of Public Health. "Binge Drinking on American College Campuses: A New Look at an Old Problem, August 2005." 18 Oct. 2005. College Alcohol Study. <http://www.hsph. harvard.edu/cas/rpt 1994/CAS 1994rpt. shtml.> FILED City Council Members 41o East Washington Street 2005 06T 2 I 12: Iowa City, IA 52240 IO'vYA IOWA Dear Council Members, I am writing your council in regards to the nineteen ordinances in bars and the newly doubled Possession of Alcohol under the Legal Age (PAULA) ticket. I am currently a junior at the University of Iowa. Although these ordinances no longer directly affect me, since I am twenty-one years of age, I still find them to be completely unnecessary and ineffective. First and foremost, I would like to address the negative reputation the University of Iowa student body has been given. There have been many ignorant articles published and comments expressed about the underage drinking issue in Iowa City. Many of these comments and articles were made by people who seem to confuse speculation and hear- say with hard fact. It may appear that the University of Iowa's students consume large amounts of alcohol in Iowa City's bars, and my point is not to write this letter and dispute this. However, the only reason the student alcohol consumption has gained such notoriety is because the consumption takes place in the public eye, which is the bar scene. I have visited many other Big Ten universities, and they consume alcohol just as much, and quite possibly even more that Iowa, yet they do not get negative criticism or media attention for it. This is because the places in which they consume the alcohol are mainly private places, such as fraternities or private homes. They too might have a bar scene, but since their campus and Greek houses are not dry, than their bars are not as popular. Since the University of Iowa is a dry campus, the students are basically forced to find a venue to consume alcohol in, and these venues are the bars. I find it humorous how quickly some political/media figures in Iowa are so quick to criticize the UI's students and their drinking habits, when in actuality it is the students that undoubtedly make Iowa City prosperous and thrive. It is no secret that the city collects millions of dollars a year from underage drinking tickets, etc. It is these millions of dollars coupled with the rising tuition fees that keep the city alive. I believe the nineteen drinking ordinance has had no great effect on the combatance of underage drinking in bars. When the youth are given rules, they will just find ways to get around them. Instead of being allowed to be safely monitored in bars, underage drinkers are now binge drinking in the privacy of their own dormitories and apartments, so that when they arrive at the bars (many with fake ID in hand) they will not have to drink in fear of getting a ticket. However, this leads to students becoming quickly obliterated to a point of danger. The nineteen ordinances and doubled PAULA fine has only added to the misuse of alcohol by underage drinkers. It is not too long ago when I use to participate in the same practice. I would "pregame" with my friends in the privacy of my apartment and consume as much alcohol as possible before entering the bars, this way I would not have to hold a drink in the bar in fear of receiving a ticket. This is a very common practice, and the laws need to be reevaluated. Are officials actually worded about the student's health or just the amount of income they're receiving from the pricey PAULAs and public intoxes? One thing is for sure, college students want to drink and no matter how many laws tell them they cannot, they will always find a way. Cordially, Brigitte Knezevich Dear Iowa City Council Members, Hello, my name is Kelly Abba. I am a sophomore at the University of Iowa and have been living in Iowa for the past 9 years. In regards to a class project that I received, I am writing to you about a suggestion that I have to make Iowa City a better living community for all. In my opinion, Iowa City should adopt a Smoke-Free environment. As a person who suffers from asthma I am particularly aware of the hazards of second hand smoke and I hope to convince you to take action on this issue. Second hand smoke ranks third as a major preventable cause of death behind only active smoking and alcohol. This smoke is all around you; it can be found in our restaurants, our malls, and our stores. It is not only polluting our earth, but it is intoxicating our bodies. Second hand smoke can lead to a laundry list of problems including lung cancer and heart disease. Small children can become more susceptible to ear infections, asthma, and an increase in breathing problems. Obviously this is a serious health concern for not just the people lighting up, but for everyone around them. This problem may seem like it is too big of a challenge to handle. However, one needs only to look at New York City as a shining example of how to fix this dilemma. In 2002, NYC passed its Smoke-Free Air Act. It prevents smoking in major public areas (restaurants, theatres, bars, etc) and enforces harsh punishments for businesses that don't comply. They were the pioneers in the war on second hand smoke and it will hopefully pave the way for such up and coming towns as Iowa City to follow in their footsteps. Iowa is known for its beautiful landscape, charming people, and home like a~osphe~. It would be very sad if that beautiful landscape had a thick h Hopefully those charming people don't suffer from a reoccurring cough that plagu~.~eir taa~milv~-~, I would also hope that our home like atmosphere doesn't turn into a bar in some generic town out in the middle of nowhere. I want Iowa to be a better place. I want Iowa to be a place of class and distinction. Taking steps to eliminate smoke in our environment can only improve our lives, and make Iowa City a better place to live. I hope that I have at least started the ball rolling on this topic and that you will give the issue further consideration. Thank you for your time and concern. Sincerely, Kelly Abba FILED Z005r 2_ I ? 112:! 9 41o E. Washington St. 0{7¥ (];L.~?t( Iowa City, IA 52240 10WA CiTi'; IOWA M~or Le~n: I ~ wfitin~ to ~ou tod~y in red,ds to ~ ve~ serious social ~robl~m. That is ~mokin~ of tobacco ~ro~u~ts in rest~ur~ts ~nd b~rs in the Iow~ Citf ~r~. Cle~l~, 1~ ~n~er is ~ ~i~mi~ in o~ ~ountw that t~k~s ~ount~s~ li~ ~W fear. It i~ r~ilf ~tt~in~l~ t~ou~h secondhand smok~. M~ ~on~em is not onlf for ~trons but n~lf for employees. If ~om~on~ i~ workin~ ~t ~ ~r ~ nights ~ week t~e~ ~re expo~e~ to ~ m~ssive ~mount of ~on~h~ ~mok~ on ~ r~ul~r ~i~. I ~o not thi~ it i~ too ~i~ of ~ h~le to h~ve smokers t~e ~ step outside when the~ w~t to in~ul~ in their h~bit. C~lifomi~ h~s h~ ~ smokin~ b~n in ~1~ of s~wn fe~r~ that ~li~s to most (www.smokefreeworM.~om/~s~.shtml) Th~ eff~t ofthi~ b~n h~ ~n ~o~iti~. M~f were ~oneemed that ~ smokin6 b~ would hu~ the revenues of such e~t~blis~ents but when th~ ~ i~ ~nfor~ e~r~h~r~, thi~ i~ not the ~. A~or~in~ to the C~C, 22.~% of~efi~ smok~. This i~ ~ ~ti~ improvement over ~fior y~r~. A~ thi~ number ~ontinue~ to ~win~l~ b~in~ smokin~ in ~ubli~ ~l~s will h~w le~s ~nd less of ~n im~t. In a~ition th~ C~C r~o~ that ther~ ~re 44~,~ ~u~l ~e~t~ that ~r~ ~so~i~t~d with ~mokin~. Thi~ i~ f~r too m~f li~es to i~ore the problem. The World Health Organization stated that by the year 2020 smoking is estimated to cause 10 million deaths worldwide. I feel this number really puts things in perspective. If more and more communities move towards public ban it will become more acceptable and catch on worldwide. As a result the perception of smokers will be a negative one and people will likely curtail their smoking. Lastly, I would like to discuss my personal experiences in Iowa City dealing with smoke filled establishments. I wake up in the morning sometimes after a night out and have a little cough due to secondhand smoke. I do not believe it is fair to subject innocent regular people to the harms of cigarette smoke. ~ , ~'/'") /1 /~,~ ~.._ A~ ~- 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Council Members, A law to ban smoking in public places could save more lives more quickly than the development of a single new anti-cancer drug - according to Cancer Research UK. There needs to be something done in our community to ban smoking in public places. Many places in the country have already taken steps to resolve this problem. San Francisco bans smoking in public-city owned property. Enforcement of this policy would need little oversight and this ban would protect thousands of people and help save lives. It is estimated by the American Cancer Society that 73,020 women will die of lung cancer this year more than those who will die from breast, ovarian and uterine cancers combined. Of this disturbing number 10-15 percent are non-smokers and this percentage is on the rise. As we have seen in the news lately more non-smokers are being diagnosed with lung cancer such as Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana. According to Medical News today, "it is estimated that non- smokers, exposed to smoke in the workplace, increase their lung cancer risk by up to 19 percent." Citizens of our community should not be exposed to second hand smoke when walking down the street or in a public park. Also, Iowa City should follow in Florida and Minneapolis's footsteps to eliminate smoke in restaurants and bars. If we can prevent just one less person of dying from lung cancer this would be a success. Let's not wait for a new drug to come out to cure lung disease, but stop this horrible killer at the beginning by exposing fewer people to the harsh effects of lung cancer. CD Cindy Egan 627 Iowa Ave #4 Iowa City, IA 52240 525 S. Johnson Apt. 6 Iowa City, IA 52242 October 18, 2005 Council Members 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members, I am opposed to smoking in Iowa City restaurants and should be prohibited. Smoking in restaurants not only is rude to others, it is also very dangerous. There are many people who die from secondhand smoke, one of whom was my grandmother. While sitting at a restaurant, only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker, while the other 85% lingers in the air for others to breathe. Around 85% of non-smokers in America, including children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke contains more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons. Why would you want people eating at an Iowa City restaurant to inhale such things? Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. Women who are exposed to secondhand smoke during their pregnancy have higher rates of birth defects and miscarriages. Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to suffer from asthma, colds, bronchitis, and other lung diseases. It is unfair to women and children who can easily suffer just by sitting at an Iowa City restaurant. Secondhand smoke is a serious issue that effects innocent patrons. Smoking should be banned in Iowa City restaurants. It would do more good than harm if smoking was banned. Sincerely, Brian Gabriel D Aaron Guetzlaff Iowa City, IA 52245 ULcRK October 19, 2005 iOWA 0~ IOWA Council Members 410 E Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: My name is Aaron Guetzlaff and I am currently a junior at the University of Iowa. As part of my Perspectives on Leisure and Play class, I am writing to you to discuss an issue that I feel is problematic in Iowa City. I believe that allowing people to smoke in our bars and restaurants is something that should not be allowed. As most people know, smoking is an activity that is extremely detrimental to one's health. About 1 out of every 5 deaths in the US can be attributed to tobacco products, killing more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined. Not only is smoking deadly for the person doing the smoking, but it can also be deadly for people who have made the decision to not smoke at all. It is estimated that over 50,000 people die a year from secondhand smoke related diseases in the U.S. alone. It's for this reason that I feel smoking should not be allowed in Iowa City bars and restaurants. People who have made the decision to not smoke still have to deal with the by-products created by those who do smoke. This is not something that non-smokers should have to tolerate when they go downtown to try and have a good time. As a non-smoker myself, I find it rather unpleasant to always have to breath in other people's smoke and end up smelling like an ashtray whenever I go to a bar or restaurant. A smoking ban would not only benefit non- smokers, but the employees of each respective establishment as well. It may also help people to quit their smoking habits, as going outside to have a cigarette becomes a major inconvenience. If a complete smoking ban is not widely accepted by restaurants, bars, and the people of Iowa City right away, I think there are things that can be done to test out the effects a smoking ban would have if enacted. Bars and restaurants could go through a rotation of each establishment not allowing smoking for the week. That way, non-smokers would always have a place to go where smoking is not allowed. Another related idea is to require bars and restaurants to be non-smoking every other week. Establishments that feel like they are similar to each other could team up and have opposite weeks of the smoking ban. In this situation, the bar or restaurant would be able to make strong observations on the effects the smoking ban has on business. If they find that more people always go to the place with the smoking ban, a permanent ban would seem like a good idea. Also, if there are places that still want to hold out on the ban, they could be required to purchase a special smoking license to be exempt. This would in effect only allow smoking in establishments where smokers tend to go to in the first place, as the owner would not want to pay for a license unless he or she knew that business would continue as usual. Anything else that can be done to begin or test a city-wide smoking ban should come as a welcome idea as well. Thank you for your time, and I hope you strongly consider the idea of enacting a smoking ban in Iowa City. Patrons and employees of our bars and restaurants would no longer be exposed to the many health risks created by smoking, and much more pleasant and enjoyable experience could be had by all. Sincerely, Aaron Guetzlaff ~f¢(¢ ~ Pagelofl Marian Kart From: Mark Patton [markpatton@ivhfh.org] Sent: Monday, October 31,2005 10:18 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Cc: Mark Patton Subject: Change in CDBG funding terms for Habitat for Humanity Dear Council Members: The Council voted this past year to change the terms of CDBG funding for non-profit housing groups. The change requires full repayment to the city of CDBG funding unless a Land Trust is created. This change has given the Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors pause (see attachment). Due to a tight timeframe this spring to make the change, Mayor Lehman commented that the matter could be revisited for reconsideration in the future. We are now asking you to reconsider the decision as it impacts the Habitat for Humanity program: we request that you take action to change back to the former policy of a 15 year forgivable loan so that our home owners can better afford their home and so Habitat can continue to build homes in Iowa City. Thank you for your concern and interest in creating affordable home ownership opportunities locally. Peace, Mark Patton Executive Director (319) 337.8949 *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders 10/31/2005 CDBG/HOME Funding History Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity has received funding over the past few years to purchase lots in Iowa City utilizing the CDBG/HOME competitive funding. Up until this fiscal year the funding had been a forgivable loan over 15 years: we guarantee the family living in the home was at or below 50% of area median income. The average cost for a home to the family recently has averaged less than $85,000 and combined with a 0% interest mortgage (all mortgage payments go into the Fund for Humanity to build more homes: we now have enough coming back from 12 years of building that we can build one home per year without fund raising). The change in award policy from a forgivable loan to a 0% loan this past year has caused the Habitat board to reconsider use of the CDBG/HOME funds. The board of directors is faced with three choices: 1) Pay the loan back to the city in full, thereby diverting funding from future builds via our Fund for Humanity. It is estimated that repayment of CDBG/HOME funding would prevent $2400 per year per home for 20 years from going back into future Habitat homes in Iowa City. 2) Create a Land Trust and not have to pay back the loan. This means the family does not have ownership of the land and presents some troubling long-term concerns. Does the value of the home lag behind its neighbors since it has to remain affordable for 99 years? If the value lags, what incentives do the owners have to keep it up properly or improve it? Will conventional financing be available to low/moderate income qualified families to purchase a home on leased land in the future? In addition, there is a $15-$25 per month cost to administer the Land Trust in perpetuity: a cost borne fully by the homeowner. 3) Forego use of CDBG/HOME funding altogether since choices listed in #1 and #2 above and stop building in Iowa City since soaring lot prices make it nearly prohibitive. This is not desirable from Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity's perspective. The city would have one less avenue through which affordable homes could be created. Habitat for Humanity has been building homes in the Iowa City area for eleven years. The homes built prior to 2005 pay more than $14,000 per year in property taxes; that amount will increase by an additional $4,500-$5,000 per year with the completion of the four homes under construction this year. Habitat for Humanity is the only non-profit group in the area that provides those earning less than 50% of area median income with home ownership opportunities. In add n: -We don't require on-going public subsidies to maintain the homes, c-~ -Our families pay 100% of the property taxes due on the home. ~ -And we involve hundreds of volunteers from churches, service clubs and busine~__v~ho-- want to build homes in partnership with families in need. C3 7< .~. Proposal ¢ We are asking the City Council to reconsider their action to change the CDBG/HOME award from a loan back to a forgivable loan so that Habitat can continue to build affordable homes in Iowa City. Note: the following is wording from HUD regarding the intent of CDBG funding decisions: HUD CDBG Target Requirements "Over a 1, 2, or 3 year period selected by the grantee not less than 70% of the CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons. All activities must meet one of the following national objectives for the program: benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevention or elimination of slums or blight, community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community." ~ ~.. (~l)Pagel°fl Marian Karr From: Greater lC Housing Fellowship [gichf@avalon.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:43 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: HOME/CDBG Investment Policy To Members of the City Council: I write to express my support for the request from Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity to change the terms of HOME/CDBG awards to a forgivable loan for Habitat to acquire land. I have reviewed the information that Habitat will submit at tonight's meeting and I also want to respond to the statement by Habitat regarding Land Trusts. Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship has established and implemented a successful Land Trust in Iowa City to offer affordable homeownership to income-targeted, first time buyers. I don't understand Habitat's long term concerns, because a Community Land Trust is a proven strategy here and in many parts of the United States. Our Land Trust is a result of lots of consultation with experts and much careful planning. Land Trust home owners pay full property taxes on the land and home. The efforts of Habitat and the Housing Fellowship are complementary - we offer different strategies for affordable homeownership to different income groups. The Housing Fellowship supports all local efforts to assist with affordable homeownership. Sincerely, Maryann Dennis Executive Director Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship 11/1/2005 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney DATE: October 24, 2005 RE: Appeal from Historic Preservation Commission's denial of application for Certificate of Appropriateness; 517 Grant Street (Maria A. Duarte) The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the rules that govern your consideration of the above-referenced appeal. In deciding the appeal you must first determine: 1. Whether the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law and the Historic Preservation regulations of the City Code; and 2. Whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. You will receive a memo from Planning staff regarding the appeal, outlining the applicable guidelines that govern the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. Element No. 1 above requires you to determine whether the Commission followed (used/relied on) these guidelines. Element No. 2 requires you to determine whether the Commission's decision to deny the application was patently arbitrary and capricious. A decision is "arbitrary" or "capricious" when it is made without regard to the law or the facts of the case. Arora v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, 564 N.W. 2d 4, 7 (Iowa 1997). The above-stated "standard of review" is a narrow one. Council is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the Commission. In other words, you may not reverse the Commission's decision merely because you disagree with it. Rather, if you find that the Commission exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, and that its decision was not patently arbitrary or capricious then you must affirm the Commission's decision. If you find that the Commission did not exercise its powers and follow the guidelines established by law or did act patently arbitrarily and capriciously you may, in conformity with the provisions of the Historic Preservation regulations, affirm (for a different reason), wholly or partly; reverse, wholly or partly; or, modify the decision of the Commission to deny the application. You may make such decision as ought to have been made, and to that end you will have the powers of the Commission. In other words, you will stand in the shoes of the Commission and are bound by all the guidelines and rules that govern the Commission's decisions on applications for certificates of appropriateness and may make a decision in accordance with those guidelines and rules. With respect to your deliberations in connection with the above, it is essential that you read the entire record of the proceedings before the Commission and all information submitted to you as part of the public hearing process. You are required to decide the appeal within a "reasonable time." If, at Tuesday night's meeting, you are in need of any additional information in order to make a decision then you should continue the public hearing and October 24, 2005 Page 2 defer a decision. The agenda is only intended to give notice that a motion to decide the appeal may be made. The substance of that motion is, of course, unknown at this point. If, on Tuesday night, you decide that you have all the information you need and no further time for deliberation is necessary you should close the public hearing and decide the appeal. The motion to decide the appeal will be in the form of a motion to affirm or reverse, wholly or partly, or modify the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission concerning the application. The reasons for your decision must be clearly articulated. If you have any questions, please contact me. cc: Sunil Terdalkar Bob Miklo Karin Franklin Doug Boothroy Steve Atkins Marian Karr Mitch/BIHPC- Duarte Appeal/EMD memo City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Richard Carlson, Vice-Chair HPC and Sunil Terd~Associate Planner DATE: October 18, 2005 RE: Pertinent guidelines regarding the appeal of Historic Preservation Commission denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for covering the built-in gutters for the roof at 517 Grant Street At its meeting held on September 08, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the applicant, Maria Duarte. The request for approval was for covering the built-in gutters on the north and south elevations of the house, an action partially carried out with no prior permit. The property is designated as a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. The Historic Preservation Commission found that this alteration did not comply with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines or the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines (Section 4.11) state the following: Disallowed: Roof slope * Altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering historic built-in gutters. The guidelines allow covering the built-in gutters and applying exterior gutters only if the roof slope at the gutters is not altered. In this case, the CommisSion found that the gutters will be covered with a wooden plank and roofing material such that the roof slopes and the overall roof profile will be changed. Copies of the following documentation relating to the application for certificate of appropriateness for 517 Grant Street are attached to this memorandum: Application for Historic Review and accompanying photographs; Staff Report; Minutes of September 8, 2005 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting; Resolution / Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness; and Maria A. Duarte letter appealing to City Council and accompanying pictures. Application for located in a histori Code Section the process and Handbook, which is available in - ~ icgov, orgtHPhondbook. · ~: ' Meeting During the summer months Applications are due in the PCD Offi~,e by noon on Wednesday the week prior ,El Minor review to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact Address of ~1[ Owner ..~.~,l~[ ..... Phone .,.....~.,..~.,.~,, .2~....~...~.~....~_.. ............................................ Address email HistOrli= atiOn F1 C~' This pro~|s: a'ioCal~ht~coric landmark Address .......................................................................................... OR ' ' Phone ......................................................................... email ............................................................................................. [3Consultant ............................................................................... Address .......................................................................................... Phone ............................................................................................. CI Clark Street ~,~s~r~don District ....................................................................................................... C3 District email .......................................................... ................................... District Application Requirements Attached are the following items:. ~' CI Site plan , ~ C3 Floor pla'ns ~ Building elevations ~ Pho'togna~l~hs CI Product information FI Other .......................................................................... If a significant alteration ~ please . Provide a written descrip~on c~f tl~ prOpOSe~ prO~e~t'~sn the~ second page ,e~ts ~aldi~ation. Project Materials to be used Staff Report Septemb~ 02, 2005 Distxict: Classification: Contributing The applicant, Maria Duart. ~ addition at 517 Grant Street, the cxtsting built-in gutters on the house toremedy:the existing problems. Applicable R _egulafions ,atld s: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iovga Ci(y GtU'deh~es £ar~tlterations 4.11 Gutters and Downspouts StatY Comments The guidehnes allow covering of the built-in gutters, provided the roofsl0pe atthe gutters is maintained. The apphcant intends to cove~ the gutters such that the slope at the gutter ~ill b~ Changed. staff ~ecommends using alternative method to cover the gutters. Alternatives to remedy the problems ~th gutters should also be explored as this would prove be the long-term solution. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 8 can go to staff for final approval. Ponto said that the Commission has already agreed in principle, and the details just need to be worked out. 517 Grant Street. Weitzel recused himself as Chair and from consideration of this item. Carlson led the meeting at this point as Vice Chair. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said that the application is to cover the built-in gutters on the existing house. Terdalkar said that the proposal is to do it in such a way that the roof slope at the end of the gutters will be changed. Duarte, the owner of the house, said that the main problem is on the south side of the house, where she has been fighting leaks for years. She said that the built-in gutters are very attractive. Duarte said she has tried different ways of fixing the gutters. Duarte said that the awning is the bump out in the dining room, which is the problem area, because there is also a dormer right above that. Duarte said that from the information she has been able to gather, putting some kind of membrane lining there would work for perhaps five years. She said she did not think she should constantly have to worry about whether or not she would have a leaky ceiling because she lives in a historic district. Duarte said that all of the roofing contractors she has spoken with have recommended this as the most practical and secure way to take care of these problems. Duarte said that she would like to also do the north side, for symmetry with the south side. Duarte said she has driven around the neighborhood and does realize that some things were grandfathered in. She said it does seem, however, that this is indeed the preferred method. Duarte said that what she proposes may be against her original structure of the house but is certainly consistent with the historical way of solving a problem. She said that while these gutters may aesthetically be very pleasing, she thinks that functionally it is a design flaw. Duarte said she hopes that common sense overrules strict adherence to a historical artifact. She said that neither Grant Street nor much of the Longfellow District has anything architecturally that is really all that wonderful. Duarte said she would like to have her house not leak and would like to be able to do it in the simplest way. Duarte said that this change is small and is pervasive in the neighborhood. McCallum asked if there would be an endcap, and Duarte confirmed this. Carlson said that the DRS discussed this project, and, unfortunately, it seems very cut and dried. He said that under disallowed, the guidelines include "altering the roof slope near the gutter when covering historic built-in gutters." He stated that the Commission actually does not have any leeway to allow this. Carlson said the question for the Commission is what other alternatives it can come up with. Duarte said that if the Commission will not consider anykind of exception, then basically what is there is the fiat solution. Weitzel said that on the north side of his house, he put in a membrane roof and an ice barrier product sufficiently far up the slope so that there will not be snow or ice damage back up there underneath the shingles on the roof, where he suspected the problem was. He said that before he bought the house, there was a slope put on the south side where snow collects. Weitzel said that snow sits there for three or four days and then all comes off at once. He said that on the north side, where he installed the membrane and ice guard over five years ago, he has never had a leak. Duarte said that her house has the original gutters. She said she also has an avalanche of snow coming off on the south side but does not have one on the north side. Duarte said she was disappointed that the Commission would not make an exception for this. She said she feels her only choice is to enclose them with a fiat solution, although she was not convinced that this is not going to continue to create some problems in the long run. Duarte asked, if she were inclined to go ahead with her project, what the consequences would be of her being in violation. Brennan said that technically each day that this is in non-compliance would be a separate violation, theoretically, although he did not know if it ever went that far. McCallum said that if the change were voted down, this could be appealed to the City Council. Weitzel said it could be overturned only if the decision were arbitrary or capricious, and this is clearly in the guidelines. Enloe agreed that the guidelines are very clear on this point. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 8, 2005 Page 9 Duarte said she finds maintaining the gutters that she currently has to be unacceptable and sees this proposal as her best option. She said she should be able to know what the penalty is for continuing with the project. Terdalkar said that the City would impose any penalty, and the Building Department would decide if there would be a penalty. He said he believed that it would be double the price of the building permit, which would depend on the construction estimates. Duarte asked if the fine would be imposed per day. Brennan suggested that Duarte call the Building Department and/or the Legal Department to get information about the fine. Enloe suggested that Duarte consider looking at alternatives. He said that there may be higher technology solutions to the problems that she is currently experiencing. Enloe said there are more options, and the options of flat solutions may be greater than Duarte is currently aware of. He said they might not be so onerous to install and they may be quite effective, so that it would be worth exploring with roofing contractors. Gunn said that his porches have internal gutters and they're fine. He said that the internal gutters have sometimes been covered with a very Iow pitch, essentially flat, and then the external gutter is applied. Gunn said it is not a full internal gutter, but it does retain the roof lines, and there is a gutter applied on the outside. Duarte said that she is certainly willing to consider the idea of a flat cover if it will keep her house dry. She asked if the Commission would approve some kind of flat cover. McCallum said that would not change the appearance of the house. Maharry said that if the appearance is not changed, there is no material effect. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 517 Grant Street, as proposed. Enloe seconded the motion. Enloe stated that it is clear to him that the guidelines forbid this. McCallum said that he did not feel that it was that big of a modification and said he would support it. Brennan said he did see anything wrong with the proposal. He said, however, that the guidelines are clear on this subject, and the City Council adopted them, so he had no option other than to vote against this. Enloe called the question. Maharry seconded. The motion failed on a vote of 1-6, with McCallum voting in favor. Carlson relinquished chairmanship of the meeting back to Weitzel. 415 Clark Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the College Street Conservation District. He said that the Commission had recently previously approved an addition proposed for this property, with certain conditions. However the applicants have a new proposal and he added that the proposal is, in general, consistent with the guidelines. McCafferty said that the addition has been revised will be detached from the garage to get rid of the roof issue. She said that the eaves may have to be a little deeper than what is on the house in order to get appropriate ventilation but will still generally look similar to the house. McCafferty said the two double hung windows on the south elevation are much wider than the applicants wanted on that side. McCafferty said that there is actually an existing window on the dining room side right in front of the garage. She said the owners would like to have windows of that dimension, but because this will be used for sleeping, it would not meet egress to do a double hung window of that width. McCafferty said the applicants therefore request to install windows of that same dimension as the one in the dining room, but they would have to be casement windows to meet egress. McCafferty said that because of the [revised] roofline, the owners likely won't have to take out the second story dormer window. She said she would ask the Commission to approve an alternative to allow the shortening of the window minimally probably about four inches, if necessary, ~o accommodate the pitch of the roof on the addition. McCafferty said she would have to change the roof and thought she could get the window in just below, but she wanted that option if things turned out differently during construction. She said that the roof on the existing addition then can get to three/twelve and still get in just below that Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City 1 Jail, 410 I'; \X.'ashington Street, Iowa City. I:\. 52240 RESOLUTION DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS $17 Grant Street A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held at the City Hall on September 8, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, and Tim Weitzel. By a vote of 1-6 with Weitzel recused, the Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness, for the proposed alteration at 517 Grant Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The Commission denied the Certificate for the covering of built-in gutters on the house in a manner such that it would change slope of the roof at the gutters. The Commission found that the alteration is. specifically disallowed by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines and is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The decision may be appealed to the City Council, who will consider whether the Historic Preservation Commission has exercised its powers, and followed the guidelines established by law, this article of code, and shall determine if said commission has acted in a manner that was arbitrary or capricious (Iowa City Code, Article 14-4C-7G). To appeal, a written letter requesting the appeal must be fried with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after the date of this resolution. · ~ma Weitzel, Chair IoWa City Historic Preservation Commission ~' S~nil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Iowa Ci~ Planning & Community Development Date 517 Grant Street SE}~ 2 8 2005 Iowa City,, IA 52240 September 26, 2005 ~ear Co~cil ~mb~rs: I am writing to appeal the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny me a Cel~tificate of Appropriateness that would allow me to enclose the gutters on my house and to ask for a variance on the basis of undue hardship. As part ofa reshingling job to repair hail damage to my roof, I decided to enclose the built-in gutters on my home. After consulting a number of roofing contractors over the past fifteen years about a recurring leak on the south side of my house, I xvas convinced that the most effective long-term solution to the problem would be to enclose the gutters. To maintain symmetry, I decided to enclose both the south and the north gutters. When the roofers began the work, Tim Weitzel, chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and next-door neighbor, came over and informed them that they could not proceed with the work to enclose the gutters. (They happened to have stm~ed the job on the no~th side of the roof.) After speaking with Mr. Weitzel, and meeting with the building inspector, I petitioned the Historic Prese~wation Commission for permission to enclose the gutters. At the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, Mr. Weitzel mcused himself and did not vote, but he remained for the discussion and took an active role in it. DmSng the discussion, Shelley McCaffe~3', who happened to be in attendance, handed me a card suggesting I contact Emerson Adrishok. Several commission members indicated this would be a good idea. The Commission's stated reason for denying my request was the fact that historic preservation guidelines specifically disallow enclosing built-in gutters when such enclosures alter the pitch of the roof near the gutters. Instead, they recommend blocking them horizontally. When I consulted Emerson Anddshot, he advised me that because of the steep pitch of my roof above the gutter, horizontal blocking would cause problems in the winter because of the weight of the snow/ice that would collect on the horizontal surface. The other solution recommended by the histOrical presen, ation guidelines, relining the gutters, would provide only a short-term solution because of the age of the gutters and the number of repairs done over the years. The angle of the trough within the gutters has been decreased by repeated recoatings over the years, and the only long-tetxn solution that would allow proper drainage with the built-in gutters would be to rebuild them. I did not inquire about the cost of relining the gutters because I have been repairing the gutters (eve~3' couple of years) for the past twenty years and am now looking for a long-term solution, not another short-term solution. I discussed the cost of rebuilding the gutters with Emerson Andiishok, and he informed me that assuming no unexpected hidden damage, which he would not be able to see until he began to tear down the gutters, rebuilding the gutters xvould cost about $3,000. I am now faced with two long-term solutions to the problem--rebuilding the gutters for at least $3,000, or enclosing them at an angle, causing the roof to flare slightly at the bottom for $600. I believe, and hope you will agree, that being forced to spend at least five times the amount necessary to maintain my home leak fi'ce and prevent further damage, represents an undue hardship. This burden seems especially um'easonable in view of the fact that the solution I am seeking to apply is the one that has been used historically in the neighborhood. Although I had not noticed how prevalent flared roofs were in the neighborhood before this started, in the past couple of' weeks I have been looking at rooflines as I drive around the Summit Street and Longfellow historic districts and have found that most of the houses that originally had built-in gutters now have the "tell-tale" flared roof lines. I have not done a complete survey, but in the course of my normal driving in and out of the neighborhood (on Summit between Burlington and Sheridan, Count between Summit and Grant, and Grant between Coral and Center), I found the following houses with gutters enclosed in the way I propose to enclose mine: 435, 507/509'? (no visible number on house; located between 503 and 513), 523 (Tim Weitzel's house, south side only) Grant Street; 1110, 1111, 1112, 1117, 1118, 1120, 1133, 1154 Court Street; 330, 430, 508, 705, 709, 710, 715 Summit Street. In addition to photos of my house (work inten-upted after notification of problem), I am enclosing photos of 435, and 507/509? Grant Street, and 705 Summit Street. I selected these three as examples becaUse the), represent three different styles of homes in the neighborhood. Even if all of these changes to original roof pitches were done before the area received the historic district designation, the fact is that this was clearly the neighborhood wa)' of dealing with a common problem associated with built-in gutters. On these same streets, I saw only a couple of homes that still had open built-in gutters and none that appeared to have had built-in gutters enclosed with horizontal blocking. In view of this neighborhood histol3,, I believe the Historic Preservation Commission's decision represents not only the imposition of an undue hardship on me, but also an arbitrary and unreasonable action that does not take into account the specific history of the neighborhood. Sincerely, ~ ~rl J ·