HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-05 CorrespondenceFrom:
Dianna Harris <cwcrrr@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, June 20, 2016 10:48 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Animal shelter hours
Many things have improved at the Iowa City Animal Care and Adoption Center in the past several years: the web site has
been updated; a new director, Liz Ford, hired; and a new building planned and opened. One improvement that would
make the shelter more available to the public is to change its hours of operation to be open more hours for those who
work from 8am-5pm M -F. Currently the shelter is not open any evening and only on Saturday. Saturday hours end at
3pm, while weekday hours end at 5:30.
Because the shelter has a 24-hour waiting period between submitting an application to adopt, if an individual goes to
the shelter on Saturday and turns in the application, assuming the application is approved, the animal cannot be
adopted until Monday before the shelter closes at 5:30pm.
I suggest the shelter consider adjusting its hours to be open one evening during the week and on Sunday.
Thank you.
Diana Harris
523 Brown Street, IC
((Mis-)typed on small screen.)
Marian Karr
Subject: FW: Animal shelter hours
-------- Original message --------
From: Liz Ford <Liz-Ford@iowa-city.org>
Date: 06/21/2016 12:58 PM (GMT -06:00)
To: Dianna Harris <cwcrrr@yahoo.com>
Cc: Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fnrin@iowa-city.org>, Troy Kelsay <Troy-Kelsay@iowa-city.org>, Bill Campbell
<Bill-Campbell@iowa-city.org>, *Council Members <CouncilMembers@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Animal shelter hours
Hello Diana,
Thank you for making a suggestion you feel would improve the level of service at the Iowa City Animal
Center. I will discuss your suggestion with my supervisors at the Police Department. I will let you know
directly what transpires. As always I appreciate your support and all you do to make our community the great
place it is for animals and people too!
All Best,
Liz
Liz Ford
Animal Services Supervisor
Iowa City Animal Care & Adoption Center
3910 Napoleon Lane, Iowa City, IA 52240
Office: 319/356-5295
Online: www.icanimalcenter.ore
From:
Mike McKay <mike@keystoneit.com>
Sent:
Monday, June 20, 2016 4:19 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Geoff Fruin
Congratulations for your wise decision to appoint Geoff to the City Administrator position. It secures a
good man for the position and avoids a lot of unnecessary costs.
If this was a test of your decision making, you passed with flying colors!
--mlm
Mike McKay
General Manager/Co-Founder
Keystone IT, Inc.
IT experts you can depend on
w:319-688-9319
c: 319-530-6186
www.keystoneit.com
2U)
Marian Karr
From: Lynne Doxie <mtsnoopy2@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:47 AM
To: Council
Subject: RE: Response to propsed sidewalks on Douglass St & Douglass Court
Hi, my name is Lynne Doxie, I have been a home owner @ 334 Douglass Street since 1998. I am writing in
regards to the proposed installation of sidewalks in our neighborhood.
I am completely against this proposal for the following reasons:
1. There is no real need for sidewalks, there is very minimal traffic, in that the streets are not connected to any
other streets. The only traffic in the neighborhood is primarily from the residents that live there.
2. Ours is an older established neighborhood, with some beautiful mature trees. We live in small,
simple, humble homes, much of the value, character and enjoyment of our homes comes from the aesthetic
value that these mature trees provide. In the proposed plan at least 31 trees would be removed, some of those
being beautiful sugar maple trees, as well as others that provide shade & habitat for birds & wildlife that we
enjoy. I also believe the loss of these trees will have a major impact on increasing our energy bill. We lost one
of our mature trees in the tornado of 2010 and the temperature increased dramatically inside our house which in
turn lead to an increase in our energy bill. Being that Iowa City advertises itself as a "City of Trees" it seems a
bit contradictory that we are removing trees & replacing them with concrete in area where it is not really
necessary.
3. With the proposed sidewalk plan we will lose at least a third of the already very small front yards at our
homes. We would also lose the ability to park two cars end to end in our driveways, increasing the number of
cars that would need to be parked on the street.
4. I do not believe that any of the home owners in the neighborhood have asked for these sidewalks. I do
not believe these sidewalks would improve the value, safety or connectivity of the neighborhood. It seems to be
a waste of money to provide us with something that is neither warranted or wanted. Money that could be better
spent on other needed projects like sidewalks on Riverside Dr. that would indeed improve connectivity and
safety in that area.
I thank you for taking into consideration my concerns & opinions regarding this matter. I really hope that you
will listen to what the residents of this neighborhood truly want since we are the ones that live here.
Respectfully yours,
Lynne Doxie
Home owner of 334 Douglass Street
319-321-5624; mtsnoop /y2 a,vahoo.com
Suzanne and Joel Erenberger
204 Douglass Court
Iowa City, IA 52240
7-016 JUN 24 Pi°i I: DC'
June 21, 2016
:� 3�(3)
Iowa City Council Members . ate Handouts Distributed
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
'7 Is Ile
Dear Council Members: (Date)
We live on the corner of Douglass Street, Douglass Court and Orchard Street and it has come to our attention that
the City of Iowa City is intending to do some water main work on the north side of Douglass Street and proposing the
idea of putting sidewalks in on both sides of the Douglass neighborhood. We were contacted by Cook Appraisal to do
an impact appraisal on our property and their appraiser is the one who told us that the city wants to take out our
fence and many plantings that are in our yard for a five-foot temporary easement to put in sidewalks.
Suzanne grew up in Iowa City. Joel moved into Iowa City in the late 70's, and we both moved into our house in April
1980. We first rented our house before purchasing it in 1985. We decided to buy our home due to the convenience
for us to get to work and at the time it was a quiet, quaint and little known area that had no sidewalks that nettled
to be shoveled or maintained. Our house is one of two or three houses in Iowa City that has three sides with streets.
Putting in the proposed sidewalks around our home would mean we have sidewalks on three sides. Is that even
legal? Putting in unnecessary sidewalks is a physical burden to us and a financial obligation we did not want and
knew we would not have when we purchased our property. We would either have to physically remove the snow
ourselves or hire it done; and, there is the cost of salt. The same would be true for our neighbors.
We have spent incalculable hours working in our yard and we have always taken pride in it. Many neighbors
comment how much they enjoy it as well. Destroying 30 years of someone's heart- felt and joyful work is cruel and
unconscionable. Many of the plants in our yard have family history as well. On one occasion a child asked Suzanne
why we lived in a park.
The neighborhood was not designed for sidewalks and many homes are not set back as far as ours. If you put in
sidewalks many homes will have people looking in their front windows, which infringes on a person's privacy.
If your argument is "accessibility," there are a multitude of places in Iowa City that have sidewalks that need to be
repaired or built. For example, around 4th Avenue, 3rd Avenue, I Street, G Street ( etc.) do not have sidewalks,
sidewalks on one side, or incomplete sidewalks. There is also C Street near Friendship and Garden; the section on
Muscatine just south of Walgreens; and, the section on Prairie du Chien that is incomplete. These are streets that
connect and cross other streets, have measurably more vehicular and foot traffic, and lead to destinations where the
argument of "accessibility" would be justified. The Douglass neighborhood is a "court" and has only one inlet and
outlet and only T's with Orchard Street. People have walked in the street and children have played in the street for
50+ years and it has never been a problem. To our knowledge, no one has ever been hurt in the Douglass
neighborhood from the lack of sidewalks or found it inaccessible.
There are less people living in the Douglass neighborhood than there was when it was developed. Suzanne knows
this for a fact as her aunt and uncle lived in the neighborhood in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Back in the 70's there were
families with multiple children living in the homes; some of which she babysat for. There are just a few homes now
Iowa City Council Members
Page 2
6/21/16
that have multiple children. This area is now primarily single people or couples. Most of the homes in the
neighborhood are not up to "modern" standards In terms of square footage for a family.
Taking out 30+ trees to build sidewalks is certainly not the eco or earth -friendly thing to do. Removing that many
trees will affect plantings in people's yards and summer electric bills as one will need to use air conditioners more.
Adding the sidewalks will also increase the temperature as concrete retains heat. The carbon footprint for the
neighborhood and each home would increase. We had to remove a very large maple tree a few years ago in our
front yard because it became unsafe. Removing the tree impacted our yard, inside temperature of our home and
summer electric bill. Removing trees will also esthetically make the neighborhood look barren.
We received a letter in October of 2013 stating the "sidewalk" project on Orchard Street was to begin and would
take two weeks to complete. It was in June 2014 when the project was being finished. We endured many things,
including sewage in our basement on April 1st, 2014; and, that "sidewalk" continues to be a nuisance in our lives.
Bicyclists travel down the "sidewalk" at high rates of speed, it has increased traffic and noise, and shoveling 800
square feet of sidewalk is strenuous work. We still would like to know why the city did not finish connecting the
existing sidewalks on the east side of Orchard Street or use Riverside Drive. The open span between 920 and 1010
Orchard is only 100-200 feet, but instead the city spent thousands of dollars to put in an eightfoot wide "sidewalk"
on the west side. (We emphasis "sidewalk" as we were told it was to bean eight foot wide "sidewalk" rather than
ten foot wide "bike path" so we would be responsible for the maintenance.)
Have any of you visited this neighborhood to see how it truly functions or talked to the people who live in the
neighborhood? The "city" does not live in this neighborhood.
One cannot logically, or responsibly, apply a blanket pie -in- the -sky idea on neighborhoods. A neighborhood's history
and design need to be considered as well as the long-term impact on the neighborhood and people who live in the
neighborhood. No one can see into the future, but from what we have experienced, the City of Iowa City has proven
to be extremely short-sighted, uncaring, and improvident in the decisions they have made. It would be more
prudent and fiscally responsible to spend tax dollars in high traffic areas and make repairs to existing sidewalks
and/or add them where they are actually needed. (By the way, you should educate your employees that even when
the "city pays" or it is "government grant money", that is tax dollars from the tax -paying citizens; government 101.)
In terms of the affects on our neighborhood, the proposed sidewalks would create an invasion of privacy for many
residents; it would be a travesty to remove so many trees and other plantings; it would create a negative impact on
the environment increasing each homes carbon footprint; negatively change the esthetics of the neighborhood; and,
create a physical and/or financial burden on residents.
In regards to our own property, we do not want to maintain any more sidewalks and do not want to see, or watch,
our property be destroyed further. It is cruel and disrespectful for the city to think they should be allowed to
destroy our property.
Sincerely,
Suzanne and Joel Erenberger
The City of Iowa City does not have our permission to scan this letter or turn it into any electronic or digital format.
From:
Holden, Palmer J <pholden@iastate.edu>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:57 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Rose Hill
If you have $50,000 to GIVE to Rose Hill residents our taxes are too high. Loaning it is something I may support. Lots of
residents could use a bit of free money. Thanks for not supporting it.
Palmer
Palmer Holden
15 Mary Ct
Iowa City, IA 52245
515-231-5543
From:
Anita Ruppert <aruppert53@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:46 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Benton street
I am sorry, my first email was wrong. The overlay I referred to was from Orchard St to Greenwood (the top of
the hill). I don't think anything has been done from Greenwood to Sunset. I still feel the remainder of the email
is correct.
Thanks and sorry for my mistake.
Fred Ruppert
1135 Denbigh Dr IC
354-7778
Marian Karr
From:
Anita Ruppert <aruppert53@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:18 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Benton and other Westside streets
I have lived on Denbigh Dr. for 39 years. In this time Benton street has had one overlay from Orchard St. to
Sunset St. and it was ground (with Mormon Trek) from Sunset St. West. It is a very highly used street. It is now
so bad that you need to watch for cracks, potholes and patches more than the traffic. This is dangerous! Can
you please pay some attention to this area of OUR TOWN!
It seems, to my limited observation, you focus too much time and spend too much money on the Down town
and one way or to way streets and forget other areas.
Thanks for reading my opinion.
Fred Ruppert
1135 Denbigh Dr. IC
319-354-7778
Marian Karr 246)
From:
Simon Andrew
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 3:40 PM
To:
'HarryOT
Cc:
Council
Subject:
RE: Trash
Hi Harry,
Thank you for your email. I just wanted to pass on some contact information that may be helpful in the near term. Sara
Crosby is their local customer service representative. Her number is (319) 688-4246. As I understand it, their customer
service line dials out to an 877 number — but Sara Crosby is the local representative. Thanks again — have a good
afternoon!
Best,
Simon Andrew
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 356-5010
simon-andrew(M Iowa-citv.or¢
From: Harry03 [mailto:Harry03@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:35 PM
To: Council
Cc: Geoff Fruin; Kf!tch@press-citizen.com
Subject: Trash
I am tired of the Press Citizen marketing method of leaving papers in yellow plastic bags in neighbors
driveways that are not interested in getting the paper. Papers are littering the neighborhood because the home
owner doesn't pick them up. This issue has been going on for weeks. I would suggest that the city design an
ordinance that prohibits this type of activity. This marketing strategy obviously isn't working.
Harry Olmstead
319-338-2931
Marian Karr 2f(7)
From: Geoff Fruin
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 4:16 PM
To: Marian Karr; Eleanor M. Dilkes; John Yapp; Doug Boothroy; Simon Andrew
Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave
-----Original Message -----
From: Jim Throgmorton
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:46 PM
To: Geoff Fruin
Subject: FW: 101 Lusk Ave
Geoff,
Here's another email raising questions and concerns about the building on Lusk Ave.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At -Large
From: mhoetting@mchsi.com (mhoetting@mchsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:04 AM
To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Subject: 101 Lusk Ave
Dear Council Members -
Thank -you so much for respecting our concerns regarding the unusual structure proposed for 101 Lusk Ave.
I am very pleased that you have put this issue on your agenda for the next council meeting.
I am hopeful, as someone completely unfamiliar with this process, that you will ask those who approved the site plan to
go back and be sure their initial approval was accurate. In particular, I hope they will visit the site and be sure they do
not see anything about the lot that raises red flags. I have 5 areas of concern:
1. 1 hope the fire and safety access will be reviewed with thought to how many people this "home" is set up to host. 9
toilets is more than some of my favorite restaurants downtown such as Basta and Atlas. The infrastructure should be
adequate to handle what the "home" is capable of handling, not the number Mr. Carlson says he plans to host as his
thoughts may change over time.The fire marshall may have recommendations on the number of people who could be
allowed to use the home. There have been problems for rescue vehicles accessing this street for a neighborhood
resident in the past so please check this.
2. 1 hope the infrastructure such as street and sewer will be assessed to be sure it is adequate for the number of people
the house can hold. The building permit states it is currently on hold due to sewer inadequacies. Is this a reason to block
the project?
3. 1 hope that all regulations regarding tree grove removal will be respected as quite a few large trees will have to be cut
down to build this home. Unless the person approving the building permit has seen the property they will not realize
how many will be removed.
4. 1 hope the easement owned by Crandic railroad at the back of the property has been accurately surveyed and marked
accurately on the site plans.
S. I hope the green space to home square footage ratios have been respected. If the inner courtyard is counting as
qualifying green space I would argue this does not meet the spirit of the law.
I realize that we cannot regulate the look of everyone's home in our neighborhood. There are different opinions about
what is attractive. The structure of this building, does, however, make quite obvious that is set up to host many more
than would typically live in or visit a single family home, even one of 7400 sq feet, and I believe the city must look a
second time at the capacity of the home and be sure all the infrastructure is adequate given that this is an old
neighborhood with old infrastructure. Finding out after the fact that that the road is inadequate for an ambulance of fire
truck could lead to legal problems.
Thanks, Marguerite Oetting
723 Bayard St
Marian Karr
From:
connie cuttell <conniecuttell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:32 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Proposed home at 101 Lusk Ave
Hello, council members,
I am a resident of Manville Heights although not in close proximity to the proposed home on Lusk Ave. I attended the
informal neighborhood meeting on June 20th after being alerted by the website NextDoor Manville Heights. I am not
able to attend the council meeting on June 28th, so I am sending this letter in support of my affected neighbors.
The home is a folly for an out of town millionaire who is determined to build a potential tourist attraction in a well
established neighborhood, disrupting the lives of the neighbors in the mostly single family homes.
Bayard Street seems a narrower street than some and has no outlet. Lusk, off Bayard is a narrow 2 -block street (at best)
that dead -ends at the proposed house. It is not a great building site for a multimillion dollar "single family"home with
the property bordering on the train tracks and the highway but it would be a great place to have parties before and after
football and basketball games and wrestling matches. The layout of the proposed building is much more commercial
and crowd -oriented than would be expected from a single family residence with much of the square footage devoted to
recreation areas and bathrooms.
The construction of such a monstrosity will be disruptive enough to the neighborhood but if it is built, there is likely to
be a regular stream of gawkers in cars jamming the narrow streets with no outlets and few places to turn around.
It is certain to affect the comfort and safety of neighbors but will ultimately drive down property values. It is very out of
character for that neighborhood. I am also concerned that once Mr. and Mrs. Carlson become bored with their
playhouse, the next owner may take it steps further as a commercial enterprise.
I would encourage each of you to visit the site and imagine the impact that size and style of building would have on the
neighborhood.
Thanks for your time.
Connie Goeb
145 Oakridge Ave
Iowa City, IA 52246
310-938-0395
Marian Karr
From:
Joanne Madsen <JSMadsen@mchsi.com>
Sent:
Friday, June 24, 2016 12:53 PM
To:
Council
Cc:
Geoff Fruin; John Yapp; Doug Boothroy; Bob Miklo
Subject:
101 Lusk Avenue
Dear Council Members:
The city's approval of the Carlsons' proposed Kinnick Stadium replica feels like a betrayal of our
neighborhood. We have a wide variety of houses in Manville Heights, ranging from very expensive to quite
modest. In each case, the structure is readily identifiable from the exterior as a home, not a sports arena. The
city is choosing to ignore obvious signs that this proposed replica is more than just a family home. Don't you
think that the reported 9 toilets, 2 urinals, and 6 showers indicate something other than a quirky affinity for
plumbing? Mr. Carlson says this may be a permanent home in the future. However, usually when people retire,
they downsize rather than build a house that dwarfs any other home in the neighborhood.
Especially disturbing in this situation is that no one—not you, not me—is any longer safe from this sort of
intrusion. The house next door to you, or one up the street, could be purchased by someone with big money,
and a replica of whatever "theme" appeals to him could be built, resulting in devaluation of neighborhood
property. The city's "anything goes" attitude as long as the owner says it's a second family home shows a
complete disregard for the neighbors who will bear the brunt of what Mr. Carlson regards as a place to tailgate
on several occasions a year, and it is certainly setting a dangerous precedent.
Joanne S. Madsen
244 Woolf Avenue
Marian Karr
From: John Yapp
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:43 AM
To: 'karin.southard@gmail.com'
Cc: Marian Karr; Ron Knoche; Jason Havel; Doug Boothroy; Simon Andrew; Geoff Fruin; Julie
Tallman; Tim Hennes
Subject: FW: address erosion at end of Lusk
Ms Southard - your email was forwarded to me for a response. I've discussed this with our City Engineer and Public
Works Director, who have been out to visit the site. The erosion that is being caused by run-off from Lusk Ave is an
existing condition unrelated to the proposed construction on 101 Lusk Ave, and is in City right of way. As the 101 Lusk
property is being constructed upon, staff will observe how runoff on the end of Lusk Ave is impacted. Staff is discussing
options for controlling erosion at the end of Lusk Ave such as revetment / riprap to control the existing erosion.
An issue like this in public right of way is not something that would cause the City to deny a building permit on an
existing private property. Thank you bringing this to our attention,
John Yapp
Development Services Coordinator I City of Iowa City, IA
319.356.5252 1 iohn-vaooCaiowa-city.orp
From: Karin Southard [karin.southard@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 7:59 AM
To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Cc: Geoff Fruin
Subject: address erosion at end of Lusk
Dear City Council Members,
In case you haven't been down to look at the end of Lusk Street in the last few days, there is very significant erosion at
the end of the street. This street drains a large area and it runs straight down to the ravine and Crandic railroad. The
city should not issue a building permit unless this erosion problem is addressed and improvements made to deal with
what will be a worsening problem with new construction.
Thank you.
Karin Southard
Marian Karr
From:
Eleanor M. Dilkes
Sent:
Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:15 AM
To:
'Karin Southard'; Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline
Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Cc:
'James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com'; Geoff Fruin; Simon Andrew; Doug Boothroy; John
Yapp; Council
Subject:
RE: Appeal to the Board of Adjustment, 101 Lusk Ave.
Ms. Southard,
Thank you for copying me on your email. I want to clarify the role, or lack thereof, of the City Council in this matter
particularly now that an appeal has been filed with the Board of Adjustment (BOA). While the correspondence received
by the Council on 101 Lusk Avenue is on the Council's formal agenda for July 5 and allows them to discuss the matter
without violating the Open Meetings law, I want to make sure you and the neighbors understand that there is no
decision for the Council to make. The matter is in the hands of the BOA.
As a matter of state law the appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue the building permit is to the BOA. The
Council has no role in this appeal and may not act to influence the decision of the BOA or communicate with the
members of the BOA about the matter. The appeal in front of the BOA is a quasi-judicial matter and as such the
members of the BOA may not communicate with interested persons about the substance and facts of the matter
outside of the public meeting which will be scheduled for them to hear the appeal. Once the BOA makes a decision any
appeal of that decision is to the District Court, not to the City Council. Given my office's involvement in this matter to
date outside counsel will be retained to represent the BOA.
have copied Mr. Larew on this email. If he is representing you I cannot ethically communicate with you without his
knowledge. He of course is free to contact me at any time if he has questions.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: As you know, to avoid an unintended open meetings violation, do not reply all to this email.
Contact me individually if you have any questions.
Eleanor
Eleanor M. Dilkes
City Attorney
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Email: eleanor-dilkesPiowa-citv.ore
Phone: (319)356-5030
Fax: (319)356-5008
-----Original Message -----
From: Karin Southard [mailto:karin.southard@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:37 PM
To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims;
Cc: Geoff Fruin; Eleanor M. Dilkes
Subject: Appeal to the Board of Adjustment, 101 Lusk Ave.
Dear Members of City Council,
Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Attached is a copy of the appeal to the Board of Adjustment regarding the proposed building at 101 Lusk Ave. We
members of the Neighbors of Manville Heights Association greatly appreciate your review of this Appeal. We look
forward to seeing you at the July 5 Council meeting.
Thank you,
Karin Southard
Marian Karr
From:
Eleanor M. Dilkes
Sent:
Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:08 AM
To:
Simon Andrew
Cc:
John Yapp; Doug Boothroy; Marian Karr
Subject:
FW: Appeal to the Board of Adjustment, 101 Lusk Ave.
Attachments:
Appeal to the Board of Adjustment 06292016.pdf
Marian - for packet
Eleanor M. Dilkes
City Attorney
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Email: eleanor-dilkes(aiowa-citv.ore
Phone: (319) 356-5030
Fax: (319) 356-5008
-----Original Message -----
From: Karin Southard [mailto:karin.southard@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:37 PM
To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Cc: Geoff Fruin; Eleanor M. Dilkes
Subject: Appeal to the Board of Adjustment, 101 Lusk Ave.
Dear Members of City Council,
Attached is a copy of the appeal to the Board of Adjustment regarding the proposed building at 101 Lusk Ave. We
members of the Neighbors of Manville Heights Association greatly appreciate your review of this Appeal. We look
forward to seeing you at the July 5 Council meeting.
Thank you,
Karin Southard
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL
DATE: 06/29/2016 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1009155004
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS: 101 LUSK AVE.
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: RS -5 APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 16.650 so, ft.
APPLICANTS
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
Neighbors of Manville Heights
Association, Karin Southard,
President
420 Lexington Ave.
(319) 337-6337
Anne Lahey
111 Lusk Ave.
(319) 339-6100
Craig Syrop & Anne Sadler
117 Lusk Ave.
(319) 621-2192
Bill & Karen Ackerman
631 Bayard St.
(319) 338-8449
Bradley & Catherine Erickson
11 Rowland Ct.
(319) 356-7221
CONTACT PERSON
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
James C. Larew 504 E. Bloomington St. (319) 541-4240
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Frederic & Sandra Carlson 101 Lusk Ave.
The Applicants: The Applicants are comprised of the following group and individuals: Neighbors of
Manville Heights Association, whose members are real property owners and electors who reside in
Manville Heights and who believe that proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue will adversely affect their
property and associational interests and rights; Anne Lahey, who owns and resides at 111 Lusk Avenue,
which is located immediately to north of 101 Lusk Avenue; Craig Syrop and Anne Sadler, who own a
rental property at 117 Lusk Avenue, which is immediately to the north of the Lahey property; Bill and
Karen Ackerman, who own a rental property at 631 Bayard Street, and whose entire southerly property
line is shared with a portion of the northerly property line of 101 Lusk Avenue; Bradley and Catherine
Erickson, who own and reside at 11 Rowland Court, which is just around the corner from 101 Lusk
Avenue.
The decisions being appealed: The Applicants allege that errors have been made by the following
administrative official: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, and/or others in his Department
during the week of June 26, 2016, pursuant to the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Code") , as
applied to a proposed structure to be located at 101 Lusk Avenue. The errors have been made in
dimensions:
• The City's wrongful misclassification of the proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue as a single
family residential structure, when, in fact, the structure has been designed for, and will be used
by, the owners as an entertainment venue for large tail -gate -type parties related to University of
Iowa sports events.
• The City's wrongful approval of the Site Plan for this proposed building which fails to comply
with provisions of the Code's Title related to Site Plans; and
• The City's wrongful approval of the Building Permit for this proposed building plans that fail to
comply with essential Code provisions.
Purpose of the Appeal: The Applicants challenge the above decision(s) based on the interpretation of
the following section(s) of the Zoning Code:
• The Applicants' appeal the City's misclassification decision arises under one or more of the
following Zoning Code Sections: 14 -1A -3A,14 -1B -1.A, 14 -2A -1.B, 14-4A-2, 14-4A-2.A.1.b,14-4A-
2.A.1.c,14-4A-2.A.1.h,14-4A-2.A.1.j,14-4A-2.A.1.a,14-4A-2.A-1.K,14-4A-Al.
• The Applicants' appeal the City's approval of the Site Plan arises under one or more of the
following Zoning Code Sections: 18 -3 -2,18 -3 -2.A,18 -3-2.C, 18 -3 -2.D,18 -3.2.F.
• The Applicants' appeal the City s approval of a Building Permit for the subject property violates
one or more of the following Zoning Code Sections: 14-lA-3.5, 14 -SA -3.B.1, 14-1-3.B.2,PI4-lA-
3.13.4,144A-3.13.8, 14-113-1.A, 14-1B-3.A,14-2A-4.B.3.e, 14 -2A -4.C.1,14 -2A-6./{'3, 14-48a.B.1-5,
14-4B-1.B.2.A.1-5, 14 -4B -3.A.1 -7,14-4E-4, 14 -4E -4.D, 16-3D-5, 16-3D-7.
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 1
i
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 1
Summary of the bases for the appeal, referring to the Code sections listed above and providing sound
reasons for overturning the decisions:
1. The provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code are "intended to implement the City of Iowa
City's comprehensive plan in a manner that promotes the health, safe, order, convenience,
prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City) Iowa City Zoning Code
(hereafter, " Code") § 14 -1A -3.A. (emphasis added). In this instance, material provisions of
the Zoning Code have been applied and interpreted in a manner that will be injurious to
citizens of Iowa City.
The City's Misclassification Decision
2. The proposed building at 101 Lusk Avenue has been misclassified as a Single Family
Residence whereas, in fact, it should be classified as a structure to be used in exactly the
manner that the owners have described: for large private group events—ones that the
owners describe as tailgating.
3. The City's characterization of property in the classification process must be based on use
definitions set forth in the Zoning Code. Code § 14-4A-2. Land uses are assigned to the use
category that most closely describes the nature of the principal use. Code § 14 -4A -A.1.
When a property has more than one use, then the City must determine whether a use is a
"principal" use or an "accessory" use. Code § 14 -4A -A.1. In determining a property's
principal use, the Zoning Code sets forth evaluative criteria to be applied to that property.
Those criteria include the following:
a. The description of the use or activities in comparison to the stated characteristics of
each use category. Code § 14-4A-2.A.1.a.
b. The intensity of the activity or use in comparison to the stated characteristics of
each use category. Code § 14-4A-2.A.l.b.
c. The amount of site or floor area and equipment devoted to the use or activity. Code
§ 14-4A-2.A.l.c.
d. The building site and arrangement. Code § 14-4A-2.A.l.h.
e. The number of vehicle trips generated by the use or activity. Code § 14-4A-2.A.l.j.
f. How the use advertises itself. Code § 14-4A-2.A.l.k.
One need not go much further than reviewing the planned uses of the various rooms of the
entertainment structure and the public statements made by the owners to determine that
the principal use of this building will not be as a single family residence for owners who do
not even reside in Iowa City. This is a venue designed to hold more than 200 people; its
owners describe it as a tailgate venue; its layout is intended to entertain crowds; its building
plans show a separate entrance for the "owners"; the structure will be equipped with
commercial -grade kitchen fixtures; its multiple toilets and urinals and showers far exceed in
number what a single family would normally use; a two-story basketball court will assure
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 2
that all of those who come will, in fact, be entertained—a viewing deck is provided In what
drawings depict as an interior "courtyard."
4. The Zoning Code's Scope provides that no use shall be "...established nor shall any structure
be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformity
with the regulations and standards of this title." Code § 14-113-3.A. The Code further
provides that the Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -5), "...is primarily intended
to provide housing opportunities for Individual households. The regulations are intended to
create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods." To the extent that non-residential
uses and structures are permitted in the RS -5 zone, they are to be "...planned and designed
to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development"
Code § 14 -2A -1.B. The proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue violates these provisions in
one or more of the following ways:
a. The properties immediately to the north of the proposed entertainment structure
are single family dwellings, early 20th century bungalows with front porches, located
at 111 Lusk Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue, respectively. Each of them are comprised
of well -under 1,000 square feet of living area.
b. According to the owners, Sandy and Reed Carlson, in one widely published account,
"...they live full time in Decorah, Iowa," and that if they are "going to build a house
to tailgate at, it should mimic the [Iowa Hawkeyes' Kinnick] stadium." ("Couple plans
to replicate University of Iowa's Kinnick Stadium with nearly 7500 square foot
house," http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/couple-plans-replicate-university-lowas-
ki nn ick-sta d i um-7500/story?id=40041402).
c. Mr. Carlson, describes himself "as a kind of a theme guy," and, so "thought it was a
great idea."
d. The structure, according to the Mr. Reed's own description, "includes touches like
pink restrooms to mimic Kinnick Stadium's famous pink locker room for visiting
teams. The home's 'press box' will be a "bunk room."
e. According to Mr. Carlson, the home's roof "...will be sloped down towards the
courtyard to resemble stadium seating."
f. In the middle of the entertainment venue will be an "inner courtyard" to "tailgate,"
a place where, according to Mr. Carlson, "no one else will see us. We're self-
contained."
g. The drawings submitted to the City have been changed from time to time; present
drawings continue to depict one set of doors, located at the back of the lot, as the
"owner's entrance."
The City's Site Plan Approval Error
5. The City has required, and, has approved, a Site Plan. Site Plan approval by the City is a pre-
requisite to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Site Plan, as approved by the City, fails to
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 3
conform to a number of minimum design standards of Title 18 of the Code, the only
provisions that address Site Plan criteria and review processes. Code § 18-3-2. The Site
Plan's deficiencies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
a. Drainage. The design of a proposed project must make adequate provision for
surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface
water to adjacent and downstream property and so that the project will not
substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream
property. Code § 18-3-2.A. The proposed building covers nearly the entirety of two
adjacent lots with impervious materials on the roof, courtyard and driveway areas.
The Site Plan offers no means to control storm water run-off. In fact, no provision is
made for the handling of surface water which will rapidly move awayfrom the
impervious surfaces (roofs, courtyard, driveways) that will cover almost all of this
sloping double -lot. There are no street storm water sewers in the vicinity. Large
quantities of storm water run-off will cover public right-of-ways (already subject to
erosion) and adjacent private property.
b. Fire Safety. A Site Plan must provide for adequate fire protection and other
measures to ensure fire safety. Code § 18-3-2.C. The narrow paved street (20 feet
wide, with curbs), with parking allowed on one side, and the absence of a turn-
around point at its dead end, will place the public at risk and prevent reasonable
access to, or egress from, this location by fire trucks, ambulances and police cars.
The City's failure to address this issue is particularly notable in light of its decision,
only a few years ago, to deny the construction of a residential home on the north
end of Woolf Avenue, less than four blocks away because that public right of way
did not have a safe place for emergency vehicles to turn around. Woolf Avenue, at
that location is wider than Lusk Avenue's twenty -foot width; there is no parking on
either side of Woolf Avenue, whereas parking is allowed on one -side of Lusk
Avenue; only low-density use was proposed for the Woolf Avenue project, whereas
here, the whole purpose of the proposed building is to high-density entertainment
events.
c. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. A Site Plan must provide for and comply with
standards for erosion and sedimentation control to protect adjoining or surrounding
property. The design must achieve the lowest potential for erosion. Code § 18-3-
2.D. The Site Plan submitted to, and approved by, the City makes no provision for
either erosion or sedimentation control.
d. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation. A Site Plan must be designed to allow for safe
and convenient flow of vehicles and the movement of pedestrians. Code § 18-3-
2.F. The approved Site Plan makes no such provision and, in fact, the intended use
of the property is to attract large numbers of people to an area of the City marked
by the intersection of two narrow, dead-end streets (Lusk Avenue and Rowland
Court) where parking is already extremely tight and lightly enforced by the City
normally, and virtually not -at -all on University of Iowa game and special event
occasions. The adjacent streets have sidewalks on only one side (Lusk Ave; Bayard
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment —101 Lusk Avenue Page 4
Street; Lexington Avenue] or not at all (Rowland Court; parts of Bayard Street).
Neither the vehicular nor pedestrian infrastructure is prepared for the large crowds
that this venue is designed to accommodate. Property owners who, on a daily basis,
walk in the neighborhood, including children, will be placed at added risk by the
construction of this project.
e. The Basis for a Fifteen Foot Front Yard Set -Back is Not Demonstrated. The Code
requires a minimum fifteen -foot front -yard set -back of a residential structure in the
RS -5 zone. In established neighborhoods where there are a variety of set -backs
used by various residential structures, the Code calls for an averaging of existing set-
backs to determine the appropriate set back to use when a new residential
structure is built. The City's file provides no rationale for the fifteen -foot setback
that is depicted in the approved Site Plan; no measurements of existing set -backs,
for existing homes on both sides of Lusk Avenue; no averaging computations are
presented.
f. Minimum Side Yard Requirements are Ignored. The Code requires a minimum of
five feet distance between the outside edge of a structure's exterior wall and the
location of a lot line. [CITE CODE SECTION] The revised Site Plan, approved by the
City, shows, at the Northwest Comer of the structure, a five-foot distance to the
property line shared with a private property easement. However, the building plans
depict a foundation whose buried feet extend outward from the base of the
foundation wall. if the documents approved by the City are accurate, the structure
will violate the five-foot distance requirement, or, the City intends to except the
owners from that obligation for reasons not supported by the Code.
g. Compliance with State and Federal Environmental Regulations is Not
Demonstrated. Applicable state and federal laws prohibit the felling of trees with
greater than a three-inch diameter after April 1 of each year to protect certain
endangered mammal species. See
http://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/CM/content/CM%206.10.htm. Yet, the Site
Plan for 101 Lusk Ave implicitly call for the cutting down of a significant number of
mature trees of that size to accommodate the footprint of the structure and Impose
no limitations upon when that cutting will occur.
The City's Building Permit Approval Was Issued in Error
6. The City s approval of the owners' Building Permit for a building at 101 Lusk Ave,
mischaracterized by the City as a single family residential structure, is in error because
building plans do not conform to the minimum requirements of Titles 14 and 16 of the
Code. The Zoning Code is intended to achieve specific goals, including:
a. To conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city. Code § 14-1A-
3.13.1. However, Applicants' property values will be diminished by the presence of
the entertainment venue that has been planned for;construction at 101 Lusk
Avenue.
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 5
b. To encourage the most appropriate use of land and foster convenient, compatible
and efficient relationship among land uses. Code § 144A-3.8.2. By contrast, the
Site Plan makes no provision for storm water drainage (also called storm water
runoff) that will be gushing off of the property's impervious surfaces and either onto
the street and public right of way without any stream storm water sewer protection,
or onto adjoining private property. Further, Applicants believe that this property's
sanitary sewer is wrongfully and unlawfully tied to, and will cause burdens upon,
adjoining property owners, none of whom has been given formal notice of this
project and none of whom has granted permission for the use of the properties in
this manner.
c. To promote the economic stability of existing and future land uses that are
consistent with the comprehensive plan and protect them from intrusions by
incompatible land uses. Code § 14 -1A -3.B.4. Instead, the proposed structure at 101
Lusk Avenue, one designed to host tailgate parties and to accommodate up to 200
persons per event, is not consistent with the RS -5 low density single-family
residential zoning district that characterizes the Manville Heights neighborhood,
generally, nor with any of the properties that surround 101 Lusk Avenue.
d. To lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and effective access to
property. Code § 14-1A-3.5. The design of the proposed entertainment venue,
located at the far end of a dead end street, is completely antithetical to Code
provision. Lusk Avenue is one of the most narrowly -paved streets in all of Manville
Heights, if not Iowa City, with a width of 20 feet, six-inch curbs. It has sidewalks on
only one side of the public way. It connects to another narrowly -paved dead-end
street (Rowland Court). Parking, which is extremely scarce, generally, and on
University of Iowa athletic event days, in particular, is permitted on one side of the
street, only. Parking restrictions are poorly enforced—if at all—by the City on those
days and at those times. Emergency vehicles will not be able to pass safely through
this street to attend to calls from the event venue / party house. And, if such
vehicles do reach that destination, they will not be able to turn around safely and
efficiently, placing members of the public at great risk.
e. To conserve open space and protect natural scenic and historic resources.1§ 4-1A-
3.8.8. Although this property may not be subject to the sensitive areas provisions of
the Code, the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Avenue poses risks to mature trees
and will add to soil erosion and water pollution because no provision has been made
for storm water runoff from a large lot that will be nearly entirely covered with
impervious materials, ranging from roofing materials to large expanses of paved
surfaces, with no place for that water to go except for neighboring properties.
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 6
The Proposed Structure Does Not qualify as a Non -Conforming Use and Does Not qualify to Have
Exceptions to the Code "Grandfathered -In"
7. The City's issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed entertainment venue at 101 Lusk
Avenue violates the spirit and purpose of many of the Code's provisions; none of those
deviations can be rescued under the guise of so-called Non -Conforming Single -Family Uses
because the original home, characterized by some non -conforming uses, was demolished by
the owners. Code § 14-4E-4. A Non -Conforming Single -Family Use may be restored only
when a structure is destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God, or by a public
enemy. Code § 14-4E-4. D. In this instance, the owners demolished an existing home. They
may not, now, build upon or extend any non -conforming uses that characterized the prior,
much smaller, single family dwelling that they destroyed. For example:
a. The absence of street pavement alone the entire length of the lot does not conform
with and, therefore, violates the Code. Only approximately 40 feet of a 123 -foot
long property line along Lusk Avenue is paved, and cannot be grandfathered -in as a
non -conforming use after the owners demolished the original residential structure.
And, at the end of the pavement there is no storm water street sewer. The City
states that it has no intention to lengthen the street or to invest in infrastructure.
The City has approved a non -conforming use that threatens public health and safety
without any finding that the property is entitled to non -conforming status.
b. The Code requires the owner of every house or building used for human occupancy,
at the owners' expense, to install suitable toilet facilities and to connect such
facilities directly to the proper public sanitary sewer. Code § 16-3D-5. Here, the
absence of an independent sewer line running from the property at 101 Lusk
Avenue to the City's sewer main (instead of hooking onto and traveling under two
neighboring lots to the north, before reaching the City sewer main) violates Code
and cannot be grandfathered -in as a non -conforming use after the owners
demolished the original residential structure. Code § 14 -4E -4-D.
c. The Code requires that all storm water, groundwater and all other unpolluted water
shall be discharged only to such sewers as are specifically designated as storm
sewers or to a natural outlet approved by the City. Code § 16-3D-7. In this instance,
even though the owners of a double lot intend to cover almost all of it with
impervious materials, no plans are made for the discharge of the storm water and
ground water that will flow from those surfaces. The fact that the owners
demolished the prior residential structure precludes them from claiming any right to
grandfather earlier practices with respect to storm water run-off. Code § 14 -4E -4-D.
d. Any insufficiency of a front -yard set -back measurement characterizing the prior,
demolished home cannot provide a grandfathered -exception to the front -yard set
back requirement under the existing Code which calls for a minimum set back equal
to or greater than the average set -backs of the other residences on Lusk Avenue
8. The Scope of the Code requires that when any structure is "occupied, converted, enlarged,
re -constructed or structurally altered, the regulations and standards of the present Code
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 7
must be followed. Code § 14-113-3.A. Yet, in approving the Site Plan and in issuing a Building
Permit, the City has implicitly and inexplicably "grandfathered" in the use of non -conforming
practices in effect in the early part of the last century, even though the proposed structure
is massively larger, and is built for entirely different purposes, than the pre-existing single
family dwelling that the owners demolished to accommodate their planned amusement
venue. For example:
a. The Code requires residential structures to have their own direct access to the City's
sanitary sewers. This proposed entertainment venue violates that provision,
apparently the result of a wrongful -grandfathering in of conditions that
characterized the prior single family dwelling, built in the early 20`h century, before
the present owners demolished it. The property at 101 Lusk Avenue is unlawfully
connected to, and transverses over the back yards of two adjoining lots (111 Lusk
Avenue and 117 Lusk Avenue) without the permission or consent of those owners.
The proposed expansive entertainment structure, complete with multiple toilets,
urinals and showers, will be hooked to 4" sewer pipes installed in the early 21P
century, pipe dimensions normally used to accommodate one residential structure,
alone. Although the magnitude of the proposed entertainment structure dwarfs the
prior residential home that the owners demolished, the City had wrongfully
approved the now -unlawful use of the old residential sewer lines.
b. The Code requires a lot upon which a residence is built to have street pavement
alone the entire front of that lot. Although the easterly lot line for 101 Lusk Avenue
extends for 123 feet along the City's right-of-way, but only about one-third (about
40 feet) is a paved surface. The Site Plan documents submitted to, and approved
by, the City misrepresent the reality of the street frontage, making it appear as
though the City's entire Lusk Avenue right-of-way is paved to a point beyond the
lot's southeast property corner. Yet, the City makes no commitment to pave the
street—let alone install a storm water sewer to capture the significant quantity of
drainage that will flow from the impervious roof surfaces and driveway payment
that are planned for this entertainment venue.
c. The Code requires that a residential structure may not be closer to the street that
the average set -back of other residential structures on the same street. Code § 14-
2A-4.B.3.e. But, the proposed plans for this structure indicate a fifteen -foot set-
back from Lusk Avenue, which appears to be less than the average set -back for the
other two residential homes on the same side of the same street and the set -back
for the only existing residential structure on the other side of the street. At the very
least, nothing in the City s file for this project indicates that the owners have
complied with this averaging requirement.
9. Those who are empowered to interpret and apply provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Code
to specific instances are directed by the Code that such provisions "shall be held to be the
minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order,
prosperity and general welfare" of the citizens of Iowa City. Code § 14-113-1.A. In virtually
every objected -to instance cited by the Applicants, however, the City has interpreted and
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 8
applied the Code in a manner that has minimized requirements for the owners, contrary to
the public interest and the spirit of the Code. For example:
a. The Code prohibits three-story residential structures in low-density residential
neighborhoods to discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the
vicinity. Code § 14 -2A -4.C.1, table 2A-2. However, the drawings submitted by the
owners of 101 Lusk Avenue indicate that the structure is three -stories tall. A
basketball court located on the lowest level has no ceiling at that level; rather, the
ceiling is placed to the top of the next floor -22 feet above the basketball court's
floor surface. Elevation drawings taken from the southerly side of the structure
show a wall laid bare by the declining elevation of the lot (the same decline that will
result in significant storm water runoff to flow unlawfully into neighboring
properties and city right-of-way).
b. The Code limits the height of a residential structure to 35 feet. Code § 14 -2A -4.C.1,
table 2A-2. Yet, the drawings approved by the City when issuing a Building Permit
indicate that the structure is at least 37.5 feet tall—most visibly measured on the
structure's southerly side. The fully -finished lowest -level, complete with movie
theater and basketball court, is completely integrated with the middle floor: the
basketball court is two -floors high. Above the second floor are third -floor rooms
cast in the role as press box. While the Applicants believe that this is no residential
structure—and, on that basis, alone, should not be permitted for construction—the
building plans do not meet even the most basic rules applicable to residential
structures.
c. The Code establishes design standards for single family dwellings that are intended
to enhance the "...Pedestrian oriented character of the neighborhood by preventing
blank facades and large expanses of concrete along the street. Code § 14 -2A -6.A.3.
Yet, the approved plans depict the easterly end of the building as nearly 80 linear
feet of blank brick wall facade, a surface broken only by one door and two windows.
The Proposed Structure Cannot be Approved Under the "Minor Modifications" Provision of the Code
10. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify as a residential structure under the so-
called "Minor Modification" provisions of the Code. Code § 14-48-1.8.1-5. That is, no minor
modification to the plans would allow it properly to be categorized as a single family
residence. Even with minor modifications, the proposed structure would be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or be Injurious to other property in the Manville Heights
neighborhood, which is properly zoned as RS -5.
The Proposed Structure Cannot qualify Under any Variance
11. Nor can this property qualify for a variance from the RS -5 and other applicable zoning Code
provisions. Code § 14-48-1.13.2.A.1-5. The way that building Is designed and the project as
described in the Site Plan threaten the integrity of the Manville Heights neighborhood and
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment -101 Lusk Avenue Page 9
its presence will substantially adversely affect the uses and values of other properties in the
area adjacent to 101 Lusk Avenue. The proposed structure is not in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of the RS -5 zone. Any uniqueness or hardship to be suffered by
the owners as the result of the City's denial of the intended use of this property resides in
the poorjudgment of the owners and not in the fair, just, reasonable and efficient
application and interpretation of the Code.
The Proposed Structure Cannot Qualify as a Special Exception
12. The planned entertainment venue cannot qualify for a special exception to the provisions of
the Code. Code § 14 -4B -3.A.1-7. Any exception allowing construction of this building at 101
Lusk Avenue will be detrimental and/or endanger the public health, safety, comfort and/or
general welfare of those who reside in Manville Heights. Further, such use will injure the
enjoyment and use of property in the immediate vicinity and diminish the values of
properties in the neighborhood. The proposed building will cause substantial drainage
problems in an area of the neighborhood that is without adequate storm sewers and
significant erosion on adjacent City and private property already exists. The proposed
building will cause significant traffic congestion, dangerous roadway conditions and will
preclude emergency vehicles from accessing the property or, once there, from turning
around.
Remedies desired by Applicants:
• That the Board of Adjustment over -rule the City's mis-classification of this proposed project as a
single family residential structure and re-classify it according to the function(s) for which it has
been designed: an entertainment venue.
• That the Board of Adjustment make a series of factual findings as to the problems that this
structure will pose to the public if it is constructed pursuant to the present Site Plan and Building
Permit.
• That the Board of Adjustment determine that there is no exception for, or variance to, or special
accommodation under, the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance that should allow its construction to be
approved, or approved as proposed, or with conditions.
• That any approval of the structure's Site Plan be stayed.
• That any approval of the structure's Building Permit be stayed.
Appeal to Iowa City Board of Adjustment — 10 1 Lusk Avenue Page 10
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL
DATE:
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LAT SIZE:
APPLICANT: Name:
Address:
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
Address:
Phone:
The Board of Adjustment Is empowered to hear and decide appeals where R Is alleged there Is an
error In any order, requlremant, decision, or determination made by the City Manager or designee In
the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
Please ase 14 -BC -3 In the Zoning Code for detailed Information on the appeal procedure. Planning
staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and
standards In the code.
exceed au calendar days ager the action appealed f am. An appeal from a decision by the Building Inspector
to issue a permit shall not be deemed to have been filed within a reasonable time If such appeal Is filed more
than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to such permit Is observable from adjacent
properties of the public right of way or ten (10) days ager an alleged violation of the zoning code is stmilarty
observable. [Applicants may appeal an approval or dental of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission within a conservation district by filing a letter with the City Cleric within ten(10)
business days after a resolution 15 filed by the Commission.]
r
r��-,•p CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 29, 2016
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Re: 101 Lusk Ave Appeal
On Wednesday June 29, an appeal application was filed with the City Clerk related to the
proposed project at 101 Lusk Ave. The applicants are appealing the classification of the
proposed structure as a single family residential structure, the approval of the site plan, and the
approval of a building permit.
Per City Code, appeals are considered by the Board of Adjustment. Staff has put a 'Stop Work
Order' on the project pending the outcome of the appeal process. The next available regularly
scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting is August 10.
I !.:.®a CITY OF IOWA CITY
.. "�r 1VI E 1V[ O RA N D U M
Date: June 24, 2016
To: Bill Ackerman, 631 Bayard St
From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator7/ -r---
Re:
r✓
Re: 101 Lusk Ave
We had discussed the option of an appeal process if you and/or other residents wish to appeal
the issuance of a building permit for the 101 Lusk Ave property. This memo is to outline the
appeal process in more detail.
As you are aware, the decision regarding how to classify a use, the approval of a site plan, and
issuance of a building permit are administrative processes that do not involve the City Council.
The Iowa City Code of Ordinances, however, gives aggrieved persons the right to appeal those
decisions to the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The BOA is wholly independent from the City
Council, and further appeals from a BOA decision are taken to district court. I've attached the
application for an appeal — a link to an on-line application is here: htto://www.iowa-
city.oro/weblink/O/dcc/1512711 /Electron ic.asox
The process for aggrieved parties to appeal the approval of a building permit is fully set forth in
Iowa City Code Section 14-8C-3, which I've attached to this memo for your reference. The
Board of Adjustment holds hearings on such appeals, at which time Staff and the public can
speak. The BOA then has the authority to "affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify,
wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make
such order, requirement decision or determination as ought to be made..." (See Section 14-
8C-38(4)).
Staff has determined that the property is an existing lot and the proposed structure is a single
family dwelling. Staff anticipates a building permit will be issued next week. If an appeal is filed,
all proceedings in furtherance of the building permit are stayed (permit is suspended). See the
attached City Code Section 14 -BC -3C.
I hope you find this information helpful. I note that the deadline for the August 10 Board of
Adjustment meeting is July 15 — an appeal application received before July 15 would be
scheduled for the August 10 Board of Adjustment meeting.
14 -BC -2
14810-3
discuss basic intentions before investing time In detailed plans. The
purpose of the preapplication conference Is to. review the applicable
city standards and requirements and to ensure.that the applicant is
familiar .with the review and approval procedures for a special
exception.
C. Approval Procedures:
1, Once a complete application has been received, city staff shall
review the application .for compliance with the approval criteria
applicable to the specific proposed exception or variance and Issue a
report and recommendation to the board of adjustment.
2. At a public hearing; the board shall review all applicable evidence
presented regarding the proposed exception or variance.
3. The board of adjustment will approve, approve with conditions, or
deny an application based on the facts -presented In evidence. In
order to approve a special exception or variance, the board must find
that the specific proposed exception or variance meets the
applicable approval criteria as set forth in chapter 4, article B of this
title or as set forth elsewhere in this title.
4. In permitting a special exception or a variance, the board may
Impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, Including, but not
limited to, landscaping and screening; fencing, construction
commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational
controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access
restrictions, Increased minimum setback requirements, parking
requirements, limitations on the duration, of a use or ownership or
any other requirement which the board deems appropriate under the
circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to
fulfill the purpose and intent of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15.2005)
14 -SC -3: APPEALS:
A. Initiation Of Appeal:
1. Where it Is alleged there is error. in any order; requirement,
decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee in.
the enforcemeht of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant
thereto, any person aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision,
or determination may appeal sameto the board of adjustment.
lona city
14-8C-3
14-8C-3
2. Where it is alleged there is an error in any order; requirement,
decision, or determination made by the city manager or designee In
the enforcement of this title -or of any ordinance adopted pursuant
thereto, any officer, department or board of the city aggrieved by
such order, requirement, decision or determination may appeal same
to the board of adjustment.
B. Appeal Procedures:
1. The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the city clerk on
forms provided by the city, specifying the grounds of the appeal..
Such appeal must be submitted within a reasonable time from the
date of the action appealed from as provided by the rules of the
board. A duplicate copy of such notice shall be filed with the
secretary of the board of adjustment. .
2. The city manager or designee shall forthwith transmit to the board
all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed
from was taken.
3. At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence
presented regarding the subject appeal.
4. in exercising the above mentioned powers; the .board of
adjustment may, in conformity with the provisions of this title or
ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error,
reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision
-or determination appealed from and may make such order,
requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to
that end, shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the
appeal Is taken.
C. Stay Of Proceedings: An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance
of the action appealed from, including, without limitation, the right of
the permittee to proceed with development or other activities
authorized under a building permit, the Issuance of which Is a
subject of the appeal, unless the city manager or designee certifies
to the board after the notice of appeal has been filed that, by reason
of facts stated In the certificate, a stay would, In the city manager's
or designee's opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In
such case, proceedings or development shall not be stayed
otherwise than by a restraining order, which may be granted by the
board of adjustment or by a court of record and on notice to the city
manager or designee for due cause shown. (Ord. 054186,
12-15-2005)
Iowa City
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE:
APPEAL PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY PARCEL NO.
APPEAL PROPERTY ZONE: APPEAL PROPERTY LOT SIZE:
APPLICANT: Name:
Address:
Phone:
CONTACT PERSON: Name:
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OWNER: Name:
Address:
Phone:
The Board of Adjustment Is empowered to hear and decide appeals where It is alleged there is an
error In any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the City Manager or designee in
the enforcement of the Zoning Code or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
Please see 1"C-3 In the Zoning Code for detailed information on the appeal procedure. Planning
staff are available to assist applicants with questions about the appeal process or regulations and
standards In the code.
exceed 30 calendar days after the action appealed from. An appeal from a decision by the Building Inspector
to issue a permit shall not be deemed to have been filed within a reasonable time if such appeal is filed more
than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to such permit is observable from adjacent
properties of the public right of way or ten (10) days after an alleged violation of the zoning code is similarly
observable. [Applicants may appeal an approval or denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic
Preservation Commission within a conservation district by filing a letter with the City Clerk within ten(10)
business days after a resolution is filed by the Commission.]
-2 -
Decision being appealed: The applicant alleges that an error has been made by the
following administrative official (list title)
on (date) In enforcing the Zoning Ordinance in
relation to the property listed above.
Please Indicate the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited in the official's decision:
Purpose of the Appeal: The applicant wishes to challenge the above decision based on the
Interpretation of the following section(s) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. (This section
of the code may or may not be different from the section cited In the decision being
challenged.)
Summary: In the space provided below or on a separate sheet, summarize the basis for
your appeal referring to the code sections listed above and providing sound reason(s) for
overturning the decision. (Provide evidence demonstrating that the decision was based on
an Improper or erroneous interpretation of the Zoning Code.
Remedy desired:
Board of Adjustment: Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Board of Adjustment?
The Board of Adjustment is panel made
up of Iowa City citizens appointed by
the City Council. The board reviews
and grants special exceptions and
variances and also considers appeals
when there is a disagreement about an
administrative zoning decision made by
the City. Members of the board act like
judges, making decisions about
individual properties and uses that may
have difficulty meeting a specific
zoning regulation or to resolve disputes
about administrative zoning decisions.
The actions and decisions of the Board
of Adjustment are binding upon all
parties unless overturned upon appeal
to District Court.
What 1s a special exception?
There are two types of special
exceptions.
1. Within the zoning code a number
of land uses are set apart as special
exceptions that may be permitted
in certain zones. Rather than
permitting these uses outright,
each is reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to ensure that they do not
negatively affect surrounding
properties. For example, daycare
centers are permitted in residential
zones by special exception. The
same is true of churches and
private schools. All may be
appropriate uses in residential
zones, if certain criteria such as
parking, screening, and other
requirements are met.
2. Adjustments to specific zoning
requirements in cases where there
are unique circumstances. Again,
the opportunity to adjust these
requirements and the criteria for
allowing such adjustments are
described in the Zoning Code. For
example, a homeowner may apply
for a reduction in a building
setback in order to accommodate
an addition or other improvement
to their property.
The Zoning Code lists explicitly each
use and standard for which a special
exception may be considered. In other
words, you can't request a special
exception for everything—only those
things called out as special exceptions
In the Code. The Code also provides
criteria specific to each request.
Applicants must provide evidence that
they satisfy each of these criteria, and
the Board must consider these criteria
when making a determination as to
whether to grant a special exception.
What is a variance?
A variance grants a legal right to an
owner to develop property in a manner
that deviates from a specific provision
of the Zoning Code and for which a
special exception is not expressly
allowed. In seeking relief from the
restrictions in the Zoning Code, the
property owner applying for the
variance must show that the strict
application of the Zoning Code would
cause and unnecessary hardship such
that the property in question is
unusable or that a literal
Interpretation of the ordinance would
deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties
in the zoning district. In addition the
circumstances that create this
hardship must be unique to the
property In question and must not be
of the property owner's own making.
What is an appeal?
The Board considers and rules an
appeals from any citizen who believes
there is an error in any decision,
determination, or interpretation made
by the City or its designee in the
administration of the Zoning Code. As
with their other decisions, the Board's
ruling is binding on all parties unless
overturned on appeal to the District
Court.
How does the review process
work?
An application requesting a special
exception, variance, or an appeal is a
request. The Board makes a decision
on whether to grant a specific request
only after City staff have provided a
review of an application and the public
has had an opportunity to make its
concerns known. The Board not only
has the right to approve or deny
requests, but may also choose to
approve request subject to certain
conditions.
In making decisions, the Board may
only consider comments and evidence
relevant to the specific standards
provided in the code. City
Development Staff provide reports to
the Board for each application on the
agenda. The Staff Report provides
background information on the
application, informs the Board of all
the criteria in the Code that a
particular application must satisfy, and
interprets whether and how an
application has satisfied these criteria.
How can I participate in the
process?
Because most applications will be
reviewed and decided upon at a single
public hearing, it is important for
Interested parties to respond In a
timely and informed manner. Those
who wish to speak for or against an
application are given an opportunity to
be heard by the Board at the hearing,
but may also submit written comments
prior to the meeting.
Written comments must be delivered
to the Department of Neighborhood &
Development Services at City Hall no
later than 5 days before the hearing in
order to be included with the Staff
Report. All correspondence submitted
after that time will be delivered to the
Board at the time of the hearing.
The Board considers the application,
the recommendation of staff (In the
staff report) and any additional
information, correspondence, or
testimony provided at the hearing.
Board of Adjustment hearings are
usually held on the second Wednesday
of each month at 5;15 p.m. in Emma J.
Harvat Hall in City Hall.
The Staff Report can be very useful to
anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA
process or with the Zoning Code and
Wit provide an understanding of the
criteria that the Board must consider
in rendering its decision. Staff Reports
may be obtained from the Department
of Neighborhood & Development
Services. E-mail sarah-walz@iowa-
city.org to request a copy of a report.
If you have questions about an
application or if you simply want more
information about issues related to the
Board of Adjustment, please feel free
to contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or
e-mail sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
To submit comments to the Board of
Adjustment write to the Board of
Adjustment c/o the Department of
Neighborhood & Development Services,
410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA
52240 or e-mail boa@iowa-clty.org.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Board of Adjustment
2016 Application Deadlines
APPLICATION DEADLINE (12:00 p.m.) MEETING DATE
December 10, 201 S..................................................................................January 13, 2016
January 14, 2016......................................................................
February11, 2016....................................................................
February 10, 2016
March 9, 2016
March 11, 2016.............................................................................................April 13, 2016
April 15, 2016.................................................................................................May 11, 2016
May 13, 2016.................................................................................................... June 8, 2016
June 10, 2016...................................................................................................July 13, 2016
July 15, 2016...............................................................................................August 10, 2016
August 12, 2016................................................................................. September 14, 2016
September 16, 2016...............................................................................October 12, 2016
October 14, 2016................................................................................. November 9, 2016
November 10, 2016............................................................................December 14, 2016
December 9, 2016....................................................................................January 11, 2017
APPLICATION FEES*
Special Exception, Variance, or Appeal $425
Combination BOA Actions $495
'These fees will be updated in February 2017 to reflect changes In the ram of inflation.
Meeting time and location
Board of Adjustment meetings are scheduled ac 5:15 p.m. on the second Wednesday of each month in Emma Harm Hall, City
Hall, 410 East Washington Street Attendees are advised to check the meeting agenda at www.icgov.oretboa or contact the
Department of Development Services at 319-356.5230 for possible change In a meeting agenda.
For more Information
Contact Sarah Walz at 319-356.5239 or sarah-walz@lowa-city.org.
Submit Application by Noon to:
City Clerkts Office, City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
r
- -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 30, 2016
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Bob Mikli{ Senior Planner
Re: Manville Heights Historic District Study
Mayor Throgmorton requested information related to past historic preservation discussions for
the Manville Heights Neighborhood. The Historic Preservation Commission conducted a study
of Manville Heights in 2008/2009 and concluded that large parts of the neighborhood are eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places and also local historic district designation. The
study identified three potential historic districts shown on the attached map. These three
portions of Manville Heights are historically significant due to development associated with the
establishment of a West Campus for the University of Iowa in the 1920s. Location of
professional schools for medical, dental and law students on the West Campus provided a
strong anchor for the neighborhood. Creation of a West Side fraternity district west of Riverside
Drive on the eve of the Great Depression signaled a shift in student housing patterns affording
the Manville Heights Neighborhood some of its most significant large-scale buildings.
The neighborhood is also historically significant as having been the home of several notable
Iowans, including James Van Allen, professor and head of the University of Iowa Department of
Physics and Astronomy, Nile Kinnick, a member of Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, 363 Riverside
Drive and five men who went on to become university presidents, including three at the
University of Iowa (Hancher, Bowen and Boyd). The residences of these notable figures still
exist and generally retain their historic design.
Local Historic District designation is an overlay zoning district requiring a rezoning action. As
such, if owners of 20% of the affected properties object to the rezoning, a super majority vote
of City Council (6 of 7) is required. A Historic District Overlay zone provides for the
management of exterior changes that require a building permit to ensure that they are
compatible with the historic character of the individual buildings and the neighborhood.
Demolitions, additions and new construction are reviewed for compliance with historic
preservation design guidelines. Staff reviews minor changes, while more significant changes
require review and approval of the Historic Preservation Commission. Historic designation also
makes a property eligible for certain zoning incentives and State tax credits.
In February 2010 the findings of the study were presented at a Manville Heights Neighborhood
meeting. There was some neighborhood support for historic district designation, but there was
also some vocal opposition. The Historic Preservation Commission concluded that the
Commission would only move forward with a district if it was requested to do so by the
neighborhood association.
Cc. Ginalie Swaim, Chair Historic Preservation Commission
June 30, 2016
Page 2
Manville Heights Eligible Historic Districts
WILLIS DR
GOULD ST <K
z r J
O Q-
0 s
PARK
RDfn
oQ =
*
*
T
*
Jv cy *
�OOO
a
QQ
*
y
z
MCLEA o¢
ST
z
z
�
o
?
3
O O
W
O
*W
* W
J
Z
X
=
�
O
O
to 0
in
w W �
*
�-P * ST
JD
=
<L m W cc
RIVER
0 S
*
rn
OTTO STir
T
�pG
w
*W
� O
S
RIDERST 3
BAYARD
ST ST
**
D r
m
RO K2
p
G -----
v\oi
t^ f1z
Nqwk/ryS
OR (vp
Nr`0
Manville Addition Historic Disaict
— Manville Heights Historic District
West Side Fraternity Historic Dishict
K/J, ,fir\y
VIVV
�K Key buildings outside districts
Manville Heights Eligible Historic Districts
Marian Karr
From:
Eleanor M. Dilkes
Sent:
Friday, July 01, 2016 3:25 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
101 Lusk Avenue
Council,
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date) Ae f( 7)
As you know, your consent calendar for July 5 includes letters regarding 101 Lusk Avenue that would allow Council to
discuss the matter without violating the Open Meetings Act. However, in light of the developments since your last
meeting (neighbors' appeal of Building Official's decision to Board of Adjustment) it is my advice that you do not discuss
the matter or respond to public comments made to you at the meeting. Earlier today, after consultation with the
Mayor, I contacted the attorneys for the neighbors and property owner to let them know how I intend to advise the
Council so that their clients have this information in advance of Tuesday night's meeting.
Please give me a call if you have questions.
Eleanor
Eleanor M. Dilkes
City Attorney
City Hall
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5030
319-356-5008 Fax
eleanor-dilkes@iowa-ci1y.org
Notice: Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the internet,
the City Attorney's Office cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to the City
Attorney's Office that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to
communicate with the City Attorney's Office. Without written notification that you do not wish to communicate with the City
Attorney's Office via e-mail communication, the City Attorney's Office will assume you assent to such communication. This message
is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to
whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege. It should not be
forwarded to anyone else without consultation with the originating attorney. If you received this message and are not the addressee,
you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you.
Marian Karr
From:
Juli Seydell-Johnson
Sent:
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:39 PM
To:
'jefbek07@gmail.com'
Cc:
Joyce Carroll; Council
Subject:
Recreation Center Pottery studio
Bonnie,
Thank you for email concerning the fees for use of the pottery studio at the Robert A Lee Recreation Center. Like you, I
also believe that working in the pottery studio is good for the soul and body. I am sorry to hear your story of you pieces
likely being stolen from the kiln and understand your frustration.
We are committed to having the pottery studio open during most of the hours that the recreation center is open. Our
fee structure is a bit different from other studios as it includes firing of the pottery, basic equipment and the glazes used
on the pieces before they are fired. The fee charged offsets the cost for the purchase and repairs to pottery room
equipment, the purchase of pottery supplies other than clay, and a staff member who maintains the studio, fires the
kiln, and mixes the glazes.
I wasn't able to quickly compare fees as far back as 1985, however, I did find that fees for the studio have only increased
slightly since 2011. Comparing year to year may have been confusing since the length of session often varies based on
the time of year. The 2011 fee was $90 for an 8 week session ($11.25/week). The 2016 fee is $200 for a 16 week
session ($12.50/week).
Please contact Joyce Carroll if you are still interested in using the studio. Although we are unable to waive the fee, we
can workout a payment plan if that would be helpful. I hope we can work with you so that can return to the pottery
studio.
Sincerely,
Juli Seydell Johnson
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Iowa City
319-356-5104
Juli-siohnsonCla iowa-citv.or¢
www.ic¢ov.ora/or
From: Bonnie larsen-dooley <jefbek07Cna)=ail.com>
Date: June 22, 2016 at 8:13:08 PM CDT
To: <council(ct�,iowa-city.ore>
Subject: Recreation Center Pottery studio
To Whom it may concern,
Yesterday, Tuesday, June 21 st 2016, I was determined to purchase a user's card for the pottery
studio at Iowa City Recreation Center to feed my soul and strengthen my upper body because I
am 56 and starting to experience pain from arthritis. I needed to better myself through healthy
activities. I'd started working at this studio back in 1985 when the price was $8.00 for a "four
month" term. I stuck with it while the price went up and up. Pretty soon it was $50.00 and I still
could afford it barely but by 2000 or 2001 the price had reached $85.00 and I just couldn't afford
it any more so I applied for a half price discount for poor people. I did that for about two years
and then was informed that the pottery studio would not qualify for the half price any
longer. Grudgingly I paid the full price and made some lovely plates. I am not into production
and money making as my interest is in experimenting with slip and glaze combinations and
creating in new and different ways. I'm all about experimentation. That is where my joy comes
from. I knew my work was in the kiln and it was firing. It would be done soon but I was not
there when they emptied the kiln. I came to pick up my finished plates and they must have
turned out well because they were not there. I asked Joyce where they might be and she had no
idea and she was very upset. They were probably stolen... needless to say I was crushed! In all
of those years I'd never had that happen. To me it was a kick in the head because I really
couldn't afford to pay the full price. I've never sold my work and only gave it away. I wasn't out
to profit off the city. I cannot function like that. I'm not prolific. I only like to experiment, that
is my joy. I was told that I would need to be there when the kiln was unloaded to ensure nothing
would be stolen. Needless to say I was deflated. It was too much of a burden to pay such high
prices. I quit for thirteen years.
I went to the recenter after work yesterday intending to purchase a user's card. I asked for the
price and whether Joyce was there because I had questions I needed answered. Joyce had gone
home or maybe was sick and the woman in the office upstairs said she didn't know but could
assume that she would be back the next day. The woman also said she didn't know the price but
I could find it in the activities guide so I picked one up on the way out. I looked at it when I
reached home and my jaw fell to the floor! $200.00! Really? The cost of maintenance and
glazes has risen to 25 times the amount from 1985?!? Something is seriously wrong, folks. This
is a community recreation center, right? Or might the new name be Let Them Eat Cake Pottery
Studio? I'm sorry but this expresses my horror at prices that the average Family cannot
afford! The Community cannot afford that price. Only an elite few. I am on a fixed income and
I can't use a "community" studio.
It ought not to be too much to ask that there be some transparency here. Exactly how much have
the costs of maintaining the studio risen to merit such an astounding increase in fees??? Where
does the extra money go? Why must the majority of the population be cut off from doing
something to help their mental and physical health? One user make a sizable profit from using
the studio and suddenly what? All users are making a profit? I think we know who this person
is ... I need not say. I am and so are most people unable to produce prolifically. It is purely for
the love of art, function and expression. Working the wheel is great exercise for the upper -body
and helps for arthritic pain. But the city reserves access to only an elite group who can afford
it. By the way, I'm assuming that they still don't offer reduced prices.
I want to hear real answers. I don't want you to explain that it is just the way it is and nothing
can be done. You need to provide me with specifics, Transparency on the costs. Give me a
history of all of the increases and explain in detail just what accounts for what. I don't want to
hear, let them eat cake! This bites at my very soul. I will readily admit that I did chose not to
use the studio after my devastation and hardship. I chose all of that and I don't blame anyone
else for my choices. I only wanted to give you my story in order to make an honest impact. I am
not out to profit off the city!!! I shouldn't have to be "rich" in order to pay such extravagant
prices. Please hear my words and outrage without taking what I say personally. I am
community!
Thank you for hearing me out, honestly.
Sincerely, -Bonnie Larsen -Dooley
z
Marian Karr
From:
Juli Seydell-Johnson
Sent:
Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:26 PM
To:
'b.ney@mchsi.com'
Cc:
Council
Subject:
tree trimming in historic neighborhood
Bobbie,
I have received your email with concerns about MidAmerican trimming the trees in your historic neighbor. I understand
your frustration as the trees are pruned. MidAmerican has the authority to hire a contractor to do this in order to
ensure safe and reliable electric service to the area. Often, either because the trees have grown or the utility
safety/clearance standards have changed, what was allowed even a few years ago is no long acceptable. I am also sorry
to see trees being trimmed or cut, but understand that having reliable electricity takes precedence.
Juli Seydell Johnson
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Iowa City
319-356-5104
Juli-siohnson@iowa-city.orR
www.icgov.org/pr
-----Original Message -----
From: Jim Throgmorton
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:40 PM
To: Geoff Fruin
Subject: FW: tree trimming in historic neighborhood
Geoff
Can anything be done about this (see below)? Whatever the answer, would you please have the appropriate staff
person respond to Bobbie Ney.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At -Large
From: b.ney@mchsi.com [b.ney@mchsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:58 PM
To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Subject: tree trimming in historic neighborhood
I live in a historical neighborhood on Grant St. Mid American Energy has hired Davey tree cutters to cut tree branches
from the wires. My neighbor and I have stopped previous tree trimmers several years ago from butchering the trees
near u by getting them to cut a U shape in the tree. This new tree service doesn't care what you have to say and are
ruining many trees in a historical area. If you were to drive down Sheridan Ave heading East from Summit St, you will
see what they have done. Speaking with mid america doesn't help at all and the forestry hasn't helped in the past. I
can't reach the forestry dept. right now because the person is gone for the week. Can anyone do something to prevent
the destruction of our trees? Bobbie Ney
Marian Karr 2f(10)
From:
Angie <angiesmith3310@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:48 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Bike lanes
I am an avid cyclist and commute regularly to work daily most of the year. My commute is four miles to UIHC one way.
With the recent death of a cyclist this weekend in a charity ride in Iowa bike safety weighs heavily in my mind. I enjoy
riding for leisure and also like to take my family on leisure bike rides. Last weekend we drove to Decorah to enjoy this 16
mile loop. I noticed many other families doing the same thing and many people seem to travel to that area just to ride.
I'd like to know what I can do to help our community have better bike commuting safety options while also discussing
plans to possibly promote more leisure bike trails in our community. Thanks for letting me know how I can help, and
thank you for your support in improving bike safety in our community. I am sure Iowa City has many areas to improve
bike safety but also bike leisure could also positively impact our community.
Angie Smith
Sent from my iPhone
Marian Karr
From:
Tom Rutkowski <dtrutk@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, June 26, 2016 7:31 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Mormon Trek road diet
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my support for a "road diet" to be implemented on Mormon Trek between Melrose and
Hwy 1. As both a resident of that area of town (Weber neighborhood) and a cyclist, such an improvement
would benefit both motorists and cyclists, and should be pursued.
The road diet would benefit motorists because traffic on Mormon Trek is often congested and unsafe due to cars
turning left at several points without the benefit of a protected lane. This includes turning into the shopping
center with Farweay/Java House/UICCU, into the Kum and Go, Rohret, and, to a lesser extent, into Pheasant
Ridge from the northbound lanes. Likewise, drivers turning left onto Benton St. and, to a lesser extent, Cae
from the southbound lanes. These maneuvers not only block traffic in the left lane but also lead to cars swerving
from the left lane into the right lane, creating an unsafe situation.
Likewise, a road diet would benefit cyclists greatly. Both Rohret Road west of Mormon Trek and Mormon
Trek/McCollister south of Hwy 1 are heavily trafficked by cyclists, but there is currently no good bike route
connecting the two, requiring cyclists to either ride on Mormon Trek or on the sidewalk --either or which is
dangerous (the former, for cyclists; the latter, for pedestrians).
I recognize that there is a tremendous amount of outright hostility toward cyclists in the area, but I encourage
you not to be dissuaded by this, but instead to recognize that a road diet would benefit both cyclists and
motorists.
Thank you,
Tom Rutkowski
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From:
Amaris Hanson <Amaris.Nicolette@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2016 9:08 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Road Diet
Dear City Council Members,
As a cyclist and driver I support the road diets. I know road diets have been successful in other cities and I am
excited to see Iowa City taking action to make the roads more efficient and safer for cyclists.
Sincerely,
Amaris Hanson
Marian Karr
From: Berkowitz, Dan <dan-berkowitz@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:02 PM
To: Council
Subject: Mormon Trek road diet
Dear Council members:
I am writing to give my strong support to the proposed road diet project on Mormon Trek. I live near Weber
School and feel that the project has safety benefits for both motorists and bicyclists. For motorists, the current
lack of a turning lane in places like the Fareway shopping center both clogs traffic and raises the potential for
rear -end accidents from less -than -attentive drivers. For bicyclists, the road diet would provide a safe place to
ride and would encourage more people to ride to work at UIHC and the rest of the UI campus. Recreational
cyclists would also have a safe route to Trueblood Park and beyond.
I urge you to support the Mormon Trek project, as well as the project proposed for First Avenue.
Sincerely,
Dan Berkowitz
40 Gallup Place
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From: Nate VanDerWeide <natev@comp-sol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Council
Subject: road diet feedback
Council members,
I am writing to provide support for the considerations of road diets in the Iowa City area. In other cities I've
ridden in, I've found that these road diets increase safety and encourage people to ride their bikes more
often. The people who are against them, typically don't understand the overall impact of a road diet (or the
concept of them at all).
-Nate
+++++++++I+++
Nate Van Der Weide
15 Hickory Heights Ln
Iowa City, IA
319-430-9941
Marian Karr
From:
Bouschlicher Murray <mrbousch@mediacombb.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:39 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
In favor of road diets
I think the proposed road diets are a good idea and those who are in opposition do not understand the concept. If fully
explained, I think there would be less opposition to the proposed plans. There are far too many instances of cars
squeezing by bikes rather than changing lanes or allowing sufficient space when passing bikes with existing 4 lane roads.
There have been 5 overtaking fatalities so far this year in the state of Iowa and adopting this strategy is a good step
towards preventing that type of tragedy in Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration.
Murray Bouschlicher
5 Quincent Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Marian Karr
From:
Ryan Kinser <kinser@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:38 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
In support of road modifications that will enhance bike commuting and safety
Dear City Council,
I'm writing in support of the proposed road modifications that would create a safer bicycling environment,
specifically on south Mormon Trek and on 1 st Ave on the eastside. I highly encourage the city
to actively continue increasing the variety of commuting options, especially alternatives to personal auto.
Sincerely,
Ryan Kinser
1201 Marcy St., Iowa City
Marian Karr
From:
Tom Carsner <carsner@mchsi.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:49 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Support Road Diets
Iowa City will benefit from road diets on First Avenue and Mormon Trek.
Though Iowa City has a relatively high number of bicycle riders, there are still concerns about safety when riding. Road
diets will significantly improve the visible and psychological standing of bicyclers as having significant rights to be on the
road. Road diets are also demonstrably safer for automobiles and can move traffic more efficiently with the turn lanes.
As both a cyclist and a a driver, I support the implementation of road diets as a worthy endeavor for our town.
Tom Carsner
1627 College Court Place
Iowa City
carsner@mchsi.com
319-338-9335
Iowa City,lowa 52245
Marian Karr
From: Swenson, Bjorn <bjorn-swenson@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:09 PM
To: Council
Subject: Support safe bicycling routes on Mormon Trek and 1st Avenue!
Council,
Bicycling in Iowa City is somewhat unsafe along main arterials, but things can be better. I strongly support
taking bold action and re -stripe Mormon Trek and 1 st Avenue to have bicycle and tum lanes, even if it is
necessary to reduce thru motor -vehicle lanes.
Do support safe bicycling routes on Mormon Trek and 1 st Avenue!
Bjorn Swenson
bion-swensonAuiowa.edu
970-692-3363
Marian Karr
From: Nick Maddix <moonlightrose44@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:29 AM
To: Council
Subject: I Support "Road Diets" on 1st Ave and Mormon Trek
Nick Maddix
2812 Sterling Drive
Dear IC City Council:
I am writing to show my support for the pending "road diets" (4 lane to 3 lane conversions) for 1st
Avenue and Mormon Trek Blvd in Iowa City. As many of you are already aware, road diets provide
many safety benefits by providing a dedicated middle turning lane and by slowing traffic down by
allowing a single motorist to control the overall speed of traffic. Speeding in general in Iowa City is
already a problem. Also it makes it easier for emergency vehicles to pass travel lanes. The addition of the
bike lanes allows the city to move forward on its adoption of the Complete Streets policy it enacted many
years ago and encourages more bicyclists to use the streets instead of the sidewalks. In many road diets
outside of Iowa City, such as Cedar Rapids and Des Moines (Ingersoll Ave), often opponents were very
vocal about the changes, but after the road diets were put into place and a survey was taken as well as
safety data provided, many people switched side. Basically DSM said that if the number of accidents
increased or delays were more significant than quoted that they would reverse the road diet. In the end,
that didn't happen. I would expect that to happen with Iowa City's situation as well. Iowa City is one of
the most bike friendliest cities in the state and the country.
http://www.desmoinesrepister.com/storylmonevtbusinessldevelopmenV2015/09/10/hu bbell-inIzersoll-
show-challenges-bike-lanes-des-moines/32431957/
I am an avid bicyclist, but I do have some concerns with the proposed road diets. For starters, I know the
lanes in question are 12 ft wide x 4 = 48 ft. I would advise the bike lanes be 6 ft wide, the travel lanes be
11, and the middle turning lane be 14. In addition, bike lanes on downhills is not a good idea as many
bicyclists can exceed 25mph (or even 35mph on Mormon Trek). In this case, I would recommend the bike
lanes becoming a sharrow instead (This is why Sycamore Street has sharrows and benefits from them vs
bike lanes, except the later sections where the hills flatten out). On the uphill sections, bike lanes are
perfect since it will take them extra time to go uphill and motorists will be able to safely pass them).
Having signs that say "Bikes can use full lane" is also critical. This may be a slight problem on 1st Ave as
well since there will be a descent from Bradford. The 4 to 3 lane conversion on Lower Muscatine did not
come with bike lanes (it could have, it is the same width as 1st Ave to Kirkwood) and it functions fine
with the 3 lanes and sharrows, though of course, it has lower traffic than 1st Ave does. In general, I do
feel bike lanes will function better on 1st Ave than Mormon Trek.
In short, I do support the conversion from 4 lanes to 3, but please take into consideration the arguments
of bike lanes vs sharrows especially on downhills. Ask yourself if you'd be comfortable biking at 25mph
on a 4 to 6 ft wide lane, especially if it has debris in it (I wouldn't). Just as with Dodge Street, use
sharrows on down hills and bike lanes on uphills and flats (if they didn't have curves, it would be safer,
like with Sycamore St). One alternative could be a two way protected bikeway on the east side of
Mormon Trek, however, this would be more expensive to implement.
On a side note, Dodge Street south of Bowery could benefit from a road diet as well and it's already low
traffic so it should face very little opposition. Keokuk Street south of Hwy 6 is another one, and of course,
the hotly contested Gilbert St (more so for starters south of Hwy 6). I also support returning Dodge,
Governor, Market, and Jefferson to two way, though I do like the bike lanes still on the left side, but this
would be a perfect way to put in a buffered/protected bike lane, which is what Cedar Rapids has started
to do.
Thank you for your continued commitment to make Iowa City a safer place to bike and drive. The safety
benefits of road diets outweighs the public's outcry for an extra 30 to 60 seconds delay. If it doesn't prove
as successful as we hope, well, then it's just the cost of paint. Still it's well worth trying and I do think it
will stick around, just as past projects have.
Sincerely,
Nick Maddix
Marian Karr
From:
Karen Parrott <keparrott@mchsi.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 3:21 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Road diet
Hello- thank you for supporting the road diet plan for 1st avenue and Mormon trek . Please continue to present and
support the facts behind this plan for the sake of safety for all drivers and cyclists. People will resist change but the facts
need to support the decision and but the emotions of the day. Thank you for your work! Best wishes, Karen Parrott, 728
13 th ave, coralville, la
Sent from my iPhone
Marian Karr
From:
Jason B. Lassner <jblpsyched@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:28 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Road Diets
Dear Members of the Iowa City Council,
I attended the meeting last night about the proposed road diet on Mormon Trek Blvd. I have lived in Iowa City
for 22 years, the last 15 of those on the west side. I drive on Mormon Trek every day, my wife drives on
Mormon Trek every day, and my oldest child just turned 16 so she will soon be joining the crowd. I am very
much in favor of the proposed road diet. I have read the science online, I listened closely to the presentation by
Snyder & Associates and city staff, and I believe that the evidence is clear that reducing 4 lanes to 3 lanes on
this busy road will make it safer for everyone.
I believe that the existence of a dedicated center turn lane will clearly differentiate through traffic from turning
traffic and the lane reduction will slow everybody down overall, which is a good thing. As a dedicated cyclist I
also support the idea of bike lanes on both sides of the road. Despite the existence of a bike trail on the east side
of Mormon Trek, commuter cyclists prefer to ride in bike lanes (where possible) because pedestrians, dogs,
strollers, and students with ear buds don't are hazards.
Despite the incredibly vocal antagonism in the room last night, many of us are in favor of this proposal. The
vocal majority in the room last night does not represent an overall majority against this proposal. I'm sure that
some of those who support the road diet chose not to speak up because of the hostjjty. The idea expressed by
several of those against the proposal that a less than 30 second delay will cause more driver frustration and
more accidents doesn't make any sense at all (I'm a psychologist and behavior change expert, FWIW). The few
drivers who decide they can't tolerate the new traffic pattern are much more likely to take an alternate route than
face their frustration on a daily basis.
Please feel free to contact me for finther input or with any questions.
Thank you for your time,
Jason B. Lassner
1801 Flanigan Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52246
ibbllpsvchedna,ernail.com
Marian Karr
From:
Karen Fashimpaur <katetf66@icloud.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:29 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Street diet Melrose -pro
Hello,
I currently live in Cedar Rapids but work at the University of lowa,travel frequently to IC and hope to make it my home
when my last child leaves for college. I have been driving around IC for twenty plus years and in the last five years have
added bicycling around Iowa City.
I encourage the city council to vote in favor of the road diet. It is true that until residents experience a designated third
lane it can be hard for them to wrap their mind around how all the traffic from four lanes can fit into three. But because
citizens don't comprehend something or haven't experienced it is not a reason for the city council to not lead in a wise
new direction. The point of leadership, I feel, is to often suggest or enact things that are proven better and introduce
citizens to them. I was part of the design team for the first fenced off leash area in Iowa (in CR) and citizens couldn't
understand it "a park for dogs?!" And REAP in Des Moines laughed "you mean your city council approves this?" They
visialized dogs figting non-stop and chaos. But we had done our research and we pushed through and it has turned out
wonderfully.
A road diet is consistent with the environmentally friendly Philosophy of most residents in Iowa City by reducing
concrete.
It is consistent with safety and ease of crossing for pedestrians.
It is probably better for bicyclists. Surely it is to the advantage of the city to encourage something that is good for the
environment and encourages walking and riding bicycles while still maintaining convenient and adequate traffic flow.
Please know that while you might be hearing a lot of loud voices in meetings, just like we did about the off leash areas,
there are many of us who you used Iowa City roads and live in Iowa City who support this type of visionary leadership.
We can't all attend meetings and some don't write or come to the meetings because they assume this kind of thing will
pass easily because it seems so reasonable. But I want to take the time to write and let you know that I am grateful for
your consideration of the road diet. I hope you will vote for it or for a one year temp version that would begin in a
season other than winter.
Sincerely,
Karen Torno Fashimpaur
Cedar Rapids,lowa
Employee- Univ of Iowa
Alum -Univ of Iowa
Sent from Kate's phone
Marian Karr
From:
H Pedelty <hpedelty@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:14 AM
To:
Council
Cc:
H Pedelty
Subject:
Lane Conversion - Best Idea Ever!
Hello,
I was unable to attend the first forum on the two possible lane conversion projects and will not be at the 2nd. I
understand that there was vocal opposition to the project on Mormon Trek. I urge the Council to not abandon
these projects! I'm about a 50 - 50 bike/car person. I ride my bike to work and downtown year round but also
drive quite a bit for other activities. If anything, I think the City needs more projects such as these. Personally I
think 20mph is plenty and on some of our four lane roads I'm pretty sure the posted limit is being exceeded by
at least 5mph. Reduce the lanes and slow the traffic a bit, safer for everyone. Drivers will adjust and leave for
their destinations a few minutes earlier.
Lane Conversion
Thank you for listening! ! !
H J Pedelty
Iowa City, IA and proud of it.
Let's play two!
Marian Karr
From: Think Bicycles Johnson County <thinkbicycles@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 12:19 PM
To: Council
Cc: bfall@snyder-associates.com; Mark Wyatt
Subject: Proposed 4 -to -3 -lane conversions
Dear Mayor Throgmorton and Council Members,
Last night's public meeting about a "road diet" on Mormon Trek was a success in that it
brought together a large number of people to talk about transportation issues. Staff
should be commended for successfully reaching out to residents. Unfortunately, the
loudest among them were the least likely to consider the facts.
It's all about safety; Safety for all. As the DOT Federal Highway Administration noted in
its recent study of successful conversions around the country, "Four -lane undivided
highways have a history of increased crashes as traffic volumes rise, due to motorists
sharing the inside lane for higher speed through movements and left turns."
Road diets are a proven safety countermeasure that are shown time and again to
drastically reduce collisions, and improve safety and livability. Your staff has noted a
possible reduction in crashes of 25 percent. In fact, communities in the report found at
least a 50 percent reduction.
Road diets are nothing new, in Iowa or the nation. If anything, Iowa City is coming late
to the party. The DOT report
(http safety fhwa dot gov/road diets/case stud ies/roaddiet cs pdf) looked at 24
communities that put in road diets. One of them, the conversion of Ingersoll Avenue in
Des Moines, was hotly opposed but after a six month test conversion, the City Council
voted to make the changes permanent. Why? Because there was a 50 percent reduction
in crashes, traffic was calmed, it improved bicycle, transit, and pedestrian access, and
enhanced the business environment.
Please use these facts in your consideration of the proposed 4 -to -3 -lane conversions on
Mormon Trek and First Avenue.
Sincerely,
Anne Duggan
Think Bicycles of Johnson County
1
Marian Karr
From:
Amanda McFadden <amwilson03@gmaii.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:41 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Fwd: Bike lanes on Mormon Trek and 1 st Ave
Hello,
I am writing to record my support for the road diet/ bike lanes on Mormon Trek and 1 st Ave. Reducing crashes
would be especially beneficial. I hope it would be safer for all modes of transportation.
Thank you,
Amanda McFadden
Marian Karr
From: Brown, Grant D <grant-brown@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:20 AM
To: Council
Subject: Support for Proposed Road Diets
Good morning,
I'm writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed road diets on First Avenue and Mormon Trek. I
was not able to attend the recent informational meeting, but was dismayed to hear that the proposals elicited
vocal opposition from some in the community. I do not believe that the angry defenders of the status quo
present yesterday are a representative sample of Iowa City residents, and want to let you know that I appreciate
the efforts of the City Council to improve road safety for all users.
Thank you for your work on this issue,
-Grant
Grant Brown, PhD
Assistant Professor
Department of Biostatistics
N314 CPHB
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
319-384-1599
Marian Karr
From: Quinn <quinnstamp@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:05 AM
To: bfall@snyder-associates.com; Council
Subject: Support of Road Diet Projects
I am writing in strong support of the City of Iowa City's proposed "road diet" projects. The City, County, and
surrounding communities have made great progress in improving bike trails that serve the recreational cyclist
quite well (though we still fall far behind many other urban areas - look no further than the City of Des
Moines); however, Iowa City still comes up far short in terms of providing recognizable, safe pathways for
those utilizing their bikes as a form of transportation. Bicycle transportation and recreation are two very
different things and should be addressed as such. As a City, I feel Iowa City does a good job in promoting
themselves as a "Bike Friendly Community", but I feel we have come up short in backing up that
philosophy. The road diet projects are a step in the right direction. I would like to see the City continue to push
and progress in providing "complete streets" - safe pathways for all. I believe we have a Council in place
committed to seeing projects like the ones proposed move forward, and my hope is they will take into
consideration what is best for all in this community and not cave to the outspoken minority.
Quinn Stamp
957 Canton Street
Iowa City, IA
Marian Karr
From:
Kevin Burgess <kevindburgess@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 9:59 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Mormon Trek Blvd safety improvements
Dear City Council, I was unable to attend the Public meeting Tuesday, June 28th where a discussion took place
on the proposed safety improvements for Mormon Trek Boulevard. I would like you to know that this proposal
is very important for our city and I would like you to know I am very much in favor of making these safety
improvements to this stretch of roadway.
I sincerely hope that neighbors and drivers who use this road take into consideration that the modifications
proposed simply make the roadway safer for those who might be using it - drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians
who might cross. I sincerely hope that drivers realize that if their average speeds are reduced by any amount due
to the lane reduction that this will not significantly impact their time to/from their destination, it just doesn't
amount to much of a difference at all. Also, I sincerely hope that we continue to take into consideration
alternative modes of transportation within our city and neighborhoods in an effort to reduce pollution and the
admittance of CO2 caused by driving a car. If somehow this update to the road encourages a few to ride their
bike for commuting purposes or for leisure and encourages neighbors to walk through their neighborhood
enjoying a more human scaled experience we will have enhanced the livability of our neighborhood and city
greatly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kevin Burgess
Iowa City
H=l Virus -free. www.avast.com
Marian Karr
From: Donald Baxter <donald.baxter@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:22 PM
To: Council
Subject: Re: Support Road Diets for Iowa City
(This reflects a correction of the speed limit on Mormon Trek of 25 to 35 mph)
To the Iowa City City Council,
I am writing to support the proposals to create road diets on Mormon Trek Blvd (MTB) and 1 st Ave.
The technique of road diets has been researched by the F14WA and has been shown to make streets safer for car
drivers, reducing automobile accidents from 20-50%.
Roads reduced to three lanes have a marginal impact on traffic flow with a reduction in throughput seen in the
5-10% range (also as reported by the FHWA).
What road diets will do is help reduce speed on Mormon Trek Blvd to something closer to the 35 mph speed
limit which would be a definite positive change to MTB which is often an unregulated speedway with hills,
curves and limited sight distance areas. Reducing MTB to three lanes will also make the signalized
intersections at Benton Street and Walden Place Shopping Center safer with dedicated left turn lanes provided
from the center lane.
And, as an added side benefit cyclists get a bike lane that could prove to be a significant addition to encourage
more members of our community to use their bikes for commuting, shopping and recreation.
Respectfully,
Donald Baxter
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Donald Baxter <donald.baxterAgmail.com> wrote:
To the Iowa City City Council,
I am writing to support the proposals to create road diets on Mormon Trek Blvd (MTB) and 1 st Ave.
The technique of road diets has been researched by the FHWA and has been shown to make streets safer for car
drivers, reducing automobile accidents from 20-50%.
Roads reduced to three lanes have a marginal impact on traffic flow with a reduction in throughput seen in the
5-10% range (also as reported by the FHWA).
What road diets will do is help reduce speed on Mormon Trek Blvd to something closer to the 25 mph speed
limit which would be a definite positive change to MTB which is often an unregulated speedway with hills,
curves and limited sight distance areas. Reducing MTB to three lanes will also make the signalized
intersections at Benton Street and Walden Place Shopping Center safer with dedicated left turn lanes provided
from the center lane.
And, as an added side benefit cyclists get a bike lane that could prove to be a significant addition to encourage
more members of our community to use their bikes for commuting, shopping and recreation.
Respectfully,
Donald Baxter
Donald Baxter
316 Ridgeview Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
319/337-0494
413/294-1280 (e -fax)
homepage:
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.
—Gaylord Nelson
Donald Baxter
316 Ridgeview Avenue
University Heights, Iowa 52246
319/337-0494
413/294-1280 (e -fax)
homepage: www.onanov.com
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.
—Gaylord Nelson
Marian Karr
From:
Donald Baxter <donald.baxter@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:14 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Support Road Diets for Iowa City
To the Iowa City City Council,
I am writing to support the proposals to create road diets on Mormon Trek Blvd (MTB) and 1 st Ave.
The technique of road diets has been researched by the FHWA and has been shown to make streets safer for car
drivers, reducing automobile accidents from 20-50%.
Roads reduced to three lanes have a marginal impact on traffic flow with a reduction in throughput seen in the
5-10% range (also as reported by the FHWA).
What road diets will do is help reduce speed on Mormon Trek Blvd to something closer to the 25 mph speed
limit which would be a definite positive change to MTB which is often an unregulated speedway with hills,
curves and limited sight distance areas. Reducing MTB to three lanes will also make the signalized
intersections at Benton Street and Walden Place Shopping Center safer with dedicated left turn lanes provided
from the center lane.
And, as an added side benefit cyclists get a bike lane that could prove to be a significant addition to encourage
more members of our community to use their bikes for commuting, shopping and recreation.
Respectfully,
Donald Baxter
Donald Baxter
316 Ridgeview Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
319/337-0494
413/294-1280 (e -fax)
homepage: www.onanov.com
The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.
—Gaylord Nelson
Marian Karr
From:
Tim R. Sissel <saxfan_98@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 30, 2016 2:43 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Regarding proposed ordinance to change Mormon Trek from 4 lanes to 3 lanes
Hi. My name is Tim Sissel. I've lived at Westwinds Condominiums for 38 yrs. During this time I've seen an
increase in vehicle traffic, but not a corresponding increase in bicycle traffic. I've seen this area grow
dramatically over the years. I expect to continue seeing the area grow. And now with the new street from Hwy.
I to Old Hwy. 218 S, I expect to see a further increase in development. Thus I expect to see an ever increasing
number of vehicles on Mormon Trek.
My other thought is that bicycling is effected by weather even more so than vehicle traffic. I'm sure you have
also observed less bicyclists during inclement weather.
I can not in good conscience support this proposed ordinance. However, I do have a suggestion for roads in the
future based on my observations in other cities with heavy traffic, and that is to have a bike path and sidewalk
separate from the street. This is a much safer solution for all involved.
Respectfully,
Tim R. Sissel, Retired All About Cancun, CARM, and Cancun Blog
Late Handouts Distributed
Marian Karr % — / — //i
From: Virginia Miller <virginiamiller@uwalumni.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:39 PM (Date) O�W(/O>
To: bfall@snyder-associates.com; Scott Sovers; Council
Subject: please give road diets a try
Hello Engineers and Council - I write to you today in support of converting Mormon Trek from 4 lanes down to
3 lanes with a center turning land and bike lanes on the side. I live on the west side of town and frequently shop
at the Fairway on Mormon Trek. It is a fairly adventurous bike ride to get there from my house, as the bike
lanes on Benton end and I have to transfer to the sidewalk, where turning traffic isn't looking for something
moving at the speed of a bike. Having bike lanes on the road would help significantly.
Another hazard I encounter on a daily basis on this road is in the car. Cars that are turning left or right to get
into the neighborhoods and shops that line Mormon Trek don't have their own lane, and as such they slow down
significantly in the 35 mph lane. Cars behind them often swerve wildly to go around them and avoid having to
hit their brakes. It would be a huge safety improvement to have the turning traffic moving out of the way of
continuing traffic. Anyone who thinks you should prioritize 32 seconds over serious safety concerns is
nuts. Please, at least give this 3 lane conversion a try.
best,
Virginia Miller
Marian Karr
From: Forrest Meyer <ftmeyer@me.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 12:05 PM Late Handouts Distnbuteu
To: Council
Cc: bfall@snyder-associates.com
Subject: in favor of road diets on First Avenue and Mormon Trek Blvd S 1 10
Dear Mayor Throgmorton and Council Members, (Date)
Almost of all of what I include below was first and best expressed by Anne Duggan in an email to you. I could
not possibly have said it better, and indeed I am happy to let her speak for me.
Last week's public meetings about a "road diet" on Mormon Trek Boulevard and on First Avenue was a success
in that it brought together a large number of people to talk about transportation issues. Staff should be
commended for successfully reaching out to residents. Unfortunately, the loudest among them were the least
likely to consider the facts.
It's all about safety; Safety for all. As the DOT Federal Highway Administration noted in its recent study of
successful conversions around the country, "Four -lane undivided highways have a history of increased crashes
as traffic volumes rise, due to motorists sharing the inside lane for higher speed through movements and left
turns."
Road diets are a proven safety countermeasure that are shown time and again to drastically reduce collisions,
and improve safety and livability. Your staff has noted a possible reduction in crashes of 25 percent. In fact,
communities in the report found at least a 50 percent reduction.
Road diets are nothing new, in Iowa or the nation. If anything, Iowa City is coming late to the party. The DOT
report ao://safetv.fhwa.dot.gov/roa.../case studies/roaddiet cs.ndfl looked at 24 communities that put in road
diets. One of them, the conversion of Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines, was hotly opposed but after a six month
test conversion, the City Council voted to make the changes permanent. Why? Because there was a 50 percent
reduction in crashes, traffic was calmed, it improved bicycle, transit, and pedestrian access, and enhanced the
business environment.
Please use these facts in your consideration of the proposed 4 -to -3 -lane conversions on Monson Trek and First
Avenue.
Sincerely,
Forrest T. Meyer
132 S. Mt. Vernon Drive, Iowa City, 52245
Secretary, Executive Committee, Board of Directors
Bicyclists of Iowa City
a -V (1 0-)
Marian Karr
From: Jennifer Lessner <jenlassner@gmail.com> Late Handouts Distnbutet.
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:58 PM
To: Council
Subject: Improvements to Mormon Trek
(Date)
Dear Members of Iowa City Council,
I have lived on the west side of Iowa City for the last fifteen years and drive on Mormon Trek every day. I
am in favor of the proposed road diet. I have read the information which suggests that reducing 4 lanes to 3
lanes on this busy road will make it safer for everyone.
I believe that the existence of a dedicated center turn lane will clearly differentiate through traffic from turning
traffic and the lane reduction will slow everybody down overall. I also support the idea of creating bike lanes
on both sides of the road.
Please feel free to contact me for further input or with any questions.
Thank you for your time,
Jennifer Lassner
1801 Flanigan Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52246
07-05-16
Marian Karr 2f(11)
From:
Simon Andrew
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2016 3:52 PM
To:
'Michael Caligiuri'
Cc:
Marian Karr
Subject:
RE: UIDM's 3rd Annual FTK Day
Thanks, Michael!
From: Michael Calig!uri[maito:dm.development@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:52 PM
To: Simon Andrew
Subject: Re: UIDM's 3rd Annual FTK Day
Ok thanks Simon!
I was just worried there was still more paperwork I needed to submit or if the application I sent got lost
somewhere.
Thanks for your help and I will work on sending you a new, updated route soon!
On Monday, June 27, 2016, Simon Andrew <Simon-Andrewna,iowa-citv.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,
I apologize for not getting back to you on Thursday. I forwarded your voicemail to the Gateway project staff
last week — the challenge with the route is not so much the other events in town that day, but the construction on
Park Road. The section of the race that uses the Park Road sidewalk may need rerouted to keep the entire event
within the Park and Normandy Dr. neighborhood. I will keep you posted on the project timeline as the project
progresses — please submit an alternate route that avoids Park Road and I will get you the approved permit. We
will then have two routes to choose from based on the progress of the construction.
Ian has moved on to a position with the City of Madison — I will be the main contact going forward. Thank you
for your email.
Have a good afternoon!
Best regards,
Simon Andrew
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 356-5010
simon-andrewO.iowa-citv.ore
From: Michael Caligiuri [mailto:dm.development@email.coml
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:30 PM
To: Council
Subject: UIDM's 3rd Annual FTK Day
To whom it may concern,
My name is Michael Caligiuri and I am the Development Director for this year's University of Iowa Dance
Marathon (UIDM). Over the last couple of weeks, I was in contact with Ian Korpel regarding our 3rd annual
For The Kids Day 5k race and family picnic event. This event is always a huge success and we currently have
the date Saturday, September 24th in mind to host this year's FTK Day. This date was chosen to avoid
scheduling conflicts with other Dance Marathon events, Homecoming, and Hawkeye football.
So far, we have the pavilion area in Lower City Park reserved for this Saturday, September 24th date. Our event
begins at 10 AM with a 5k race, then includes activities, games, and food provided for the families that we help
support at the University's Children's Hospital before ending at 2 PM. In my conversations with Ian, I received
the Application for Parade/Public Assembly Permit. I filled this document out and have also attached this filled
out copy in this email, along with pictures of our idea for the 5k race route (which is also the same route that the
Zeta Tau Alpha sorority used for their 5k charity event in Lower City Park last October). Ian told me that he
would pass along this completed application to the necessary people who would then get back to me if this
application has been approved or not.
I am sending this email today because I still have not heard back from anyone regarding the status of this
application for our FTK Day event. I now have realized that Ian was an intern, but I still have not heard back
from anyone in the Iowa City Council, even after multiple attempts trying to contact Simon Andrew via phone.
I understand that Saturday, September 24th is already a busy date within Iowa City because of previously
planned events, but I am willing to work around these events and make the necessary adjustments for our FTK
Day event as needed.
I would greatly appreciate any feedback regarding the completed application in this email and the opportunity to
answer any questions about the specific details for our event.
My phone number is 515-577-3621 and also this is the best email address to contact me.
Thank you so much for reading this email!
Always For The Kids,
Michael Caligiuri I Development Director
University of Iowa Dance Marathon 23
Phone: 515.577.36211 Website: dancemarathon.ora
University of Iowa Dance Marathon creates and sustains special projects to provide emotional and financial
support for pediatric oncology and bone marrow transplant patients and their families treated at University of
Iowa Children's Hospital
Always For The Kids,
Michael Caligiuri I Development Director
University of Iowa Dance Marathon 23
Phone: 515.577.3621 1 Website: dancemarathon.ore
University of Iowa Dance Marathon creates and sustains special projects to provide emotional and financial
support for pediatric oncology and bone marrow transplant patients and their families treated at University of
Iowa Children's Hospital
Windsor Ridge Homeowners Association
Iowa City Council
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
City Council:
'f4
1016 JU^ 27 P1.1 3: Qi
-,. ,
Lo
.1
2f(12)
nmm�
This letter a formal request to study traffic speeds in the Windsor Ridge Neighborhood, including, but
not limited to, the entirety of Arlington Drive and Barrington Drive. Furthermore, if speeds are
determined to be in excess of posted limits, the WRHA requests that the city take action by
implementing traffic calming measures.
The WRHA Board is in agreement that speeds on these streets are excessive and dangerous. Both
streets, especially Arlington, are used as a thoroughfare to reach American Legion Road from Court
Street and further North. Estimated speeds of 40 miles per hour are not uncommon, especially during
commuting hours.
Our neighborhood is home to many small children. Both Elementary and Secondary school buses stop
at multiple locations in the morning and afternoon along both streets. The high speeds coupled with
short sight lines for drivers exacerbates the danger to the children during the school year and summer.
The danger will increase substantially in 2017 when the new Hoover Elementary School opens and
children walk to school instead of riding the bus.
Thank you for your consideration and time,
Windsor Ridge Homeowners Association Board
Scott McGill WRHA President
scott.mceill n,edwardiones.com
319-887-2115
Adam Herrig, WRHA Traffic Committee
adam.herrigAgmail.com
What is Traffic Calming?
Traffic calming is the practice of
managing speeds and/or volumes of
traffic on residential streets using
one or more approaches: Increased
police enforcement, driver
education, or physical changes
to the roadway. Each of these
approaches has its appropriate
application and can help reduce
speeds and/or unwanted cut -
through traffic on neighborhood streets.
ENFORCEMENT
Increased police enforcement is effective at targeting
high speeds during specific times. However, the police
department does not have sufficient resources to
provide continuous enforcement over a sustained
period of time. While motorists may slow down when
an officer is present, they often return to previous
speeds when targeted enforcement moves to other
neighborhoods.
EDUCATION
Education is the process of making motorists aware
of their speeds in relation to the neighborhoods
they are traveling in. The City uses several methods
to notify motorists of their responsibility to obey
traffic laws. One example is the "Share the Road"
sign program used to remind M'
motorists that bicyclists have a ".
right to be on the road and that
both parties need to share the
road and operate their vehicles
responsibly. Another program
is the "Check Your Speed" sign
program used to alert motorists
to watch their speeds in targeted
residential areas.
PHYSICAL CHANGES
To help control excessive speeds or unwanted cut -
through traffic, physical modifications can be made to
a roadway to slow cars down, or to deter unnecessary
traffic. These changes can be as simple as adding on -
street parking within a corridor, or as complex as
constructing speed humps or chicanes in the roadway.
Other alternatives are available and each application
is custom-designed to meet the individual needs of a
particular neighborhood.
TYPICALTRAFFIC CALMING METHODS
uoR. PRvs,cu LwuN
I
oma_ o
EPEFD RWP
IAVEYEMI WIICNf 11ME 1MRYONWG
—JI
T—
0�—
c�
rnurc crone
9YfeD [YONW4V
IIRMfD VfDW11ilAV0
—
_
T
CROSSWELRPffUGf
CHKA.E
The most impo
thing to rememb
is that neighbor hoo
residents need toa
,
be involved in the
process.
The traffic calming
program is driven _
by neighborhood request. The program is not
intended to impose unwanted traffic calming
devices in neighborhoods.
GettinWhe Process Started
To initiate a traffic study of the roadway proposed
for traffic calming, a formal request is required
from the neighborhood association that includes
the street proposed for traffic calming, OR a
petition from residents along the street proposed
for traffic calming is needed.
Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Process & Evaluation Criteria
In 1996 the Iowa City City Council adopted a traffic
calming program to help neighborhoods manage
rising traffic speeds and volumes.
The street considered for traffic calming
measures must be classified either a local street
or collector street -
:Z Traffic volumes on a local street should exceed
500 vehicles per day and on a collector street
exceed 1,000 vehicles per day, or
Z The measured comfortable speed of drivers
(85th percentile speed) should exceed 5 m.p.h.
over the posted speed limit
Z Staff will meet with the
neighborhood to discuss
which traffic calming
measures are reasonable
for evaluation. Staff will
conduct a traffic study
including an evaluation of
potential traffic problems,
roadway geometry, and the
impact the proposed traffic
calming measures may have
on adjacent streets.
:Z Staff will solicit comments on the proposed
street modification from the Police, Fire, Public
Works, and Transit Departments, as well as local
ambulance service.
If the traffic study shows that traffic calming
measures can be implemented safely, a mail -
back survey of all abutting properties will then
be conducted. The proposal for traffic calming
must be supported by 60% of those responding
to the questionnaire in order to be considered
for implementation.
�D No minimum number of responses to the mail -
back survey is required, but a low response rate
will be taken into account by the City Council.
The City Council makes final decisions on the
implementation of all traffic calming projects.
Typical Traffic Calming Applications
in Iowa City:
Speed Humps
Teg Drive
Morningside Drive
Kennedy Parkway
Traffic Circles
Z) College Street & Summit Street
:) Washington Street & Summit Street
Raised Median Islands
College Street near Muscatine Avenue
Chokers
:) Shannon Drive
Raised Crosswalks
:D Newton Road
For More Information Contact:
Iowa City Planning Department
Traffic Engineering Planning: 356-5254
Neighborhood Services: 356-5237
410 E.Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
I !
CITY Of IOWA CITY
it7iil.�' 21
O O
M
n W n
D
y n N
N S O 4
n>� 3 0
A�3o
(n,
CD ID
0
o
v m
3
M
City of Iowa City
-r�s 't J011. tJrf)>f► ;
July 2008
Marian Karr
From:
Kent Ralston
Sent:
Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:22 PM
To:
'scott.mcgill@edwardjones.com'; adam.herrig@gmail.com
Cc:
Sarah Walz; Doug Boothroy; *City Council
Subject:
Windsor Ridge HOA - Traffic Calming Request
Hello Mr. McGill & Mr. Herrig — Your request for consideration of traffic calming on Arlington and Barrington Drives was
forwarded to me for response. While the City has an adopted traffic calming policy (attached to your original
correspondence), the City is currently reviewing the traffic calming criteria to ensure its effectiveness. Until the City
Council reviews the criteria, we are currently not conducting further traffic studies as part of the traffic calming
process. I anticipate that the City Council will discuss this issue sometime in the August timeframe. The good news is
that this should not delay any potential projects for your neighborhood as we would not typically collect traffic
speed/volume data until school is back in session —as this typically yields higher speeds and volumes. Please know that
staff will file your request and be in touch later this summer to begin the process.
Thank you for sharing your concerns. Please don't hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions.
Best regards,
Kent Ralston, AICP
Executive Director I Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
Transportation Planner I City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240
319.356.5253
Marian Karr
From: Susan Mims
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Council
Subject: FW: Traffic on Ridge Road / Gateway Project
For packet
From: Kruse, Diana L [mailto:diana-kruse@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 1:32 PM
To: Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton
Cc: Kruse, Diana L; Debra Kruse
Subject: Traffic on Ridge Road / Gateway Project
Dear City Council Members,
There is a huge increase in traffic on Ridge Road with the Gateway Project lane reduction on Dubuque Street
that now includes closures to both Kimball Road and Brown Street. The traffic on Dubuque is horrible anyway,
and this morning the inbound traffic was backed up as far as I could see both north and south. The outbound
traffic jam yesterday evening forced many drivers to take Ridge Road to avoid the standstill traffic on Dubuque.
There is a significant turnover of residents on Ridge Road and the surrounding neighborhood the past few years,
and there are now many new small children living in the area. As I'm sure you are also aware, there is a large
wildlife population in this area unaccustomed to high volume traffic. Additionally, there is an ongoing
resurfacing project on Whiting Avenue, at times reducing traffic on Whiting to a single lane.
The volume and speed of the traffic on Ridge Road is untenable, especially with the construction on the
Gateway Project is slated to continue for the next two years; the Kimball Road and Brown Street accesses are
not scheduled to resume until mid-September. Therefore, we request that the city council act to install either
permanent or temporary speed bumps at intervals along Ridge Road until the Gateway Project is complete.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Diana Kruse
1686 Ridge Road
Iowa City, IA 52245
diana-krusena,uiowa.edu
335-1058 / 354-1265
r
.�pa7 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 24rd, 2016
-MM-
2f(14)
To: City Clerk
From: Darian Nagle-Gamm, Senior Transportation Engineering Planner
Re: Item for July 5d' City Council meeting; Installation of (2) NO PARKING BETWEEN
SIGNS signs along the outside of the Hollywood Court cul-de-sac.
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); Install (2) NO PARKING BETWEEN SIGNS signs on the along
the outside edge of the cul-de-sac at the end of Hollywood Court.
Comment:
This action is being taken to provide more space and better access for trash collection service
and emergency vehicles in this neighborhood.
Late Handouts Distributed
Marian Karr
From: David Robertson <davidl 101 @msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:13 PM
To: Council (Date)a
Subject: Fw: Crime in the Wetherby Park area T
From: David Robertson <david 1101@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 201611:00 PM
To: rockne-cote@iowa-city.org
Subject: Fw: Crime in the Wetherby Park area
From: David Robertson <david1101@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 201610:54 PM
To: kingsley-botchway@iowa-city.org
Subject: Crime in the Wetherby Park area
Last year I contacted the city council and met with Officers Mebus and Cash, Marcia Bollinger, several
neighborhood association heads, Parks and Recreation (Zach), and multiple others. I met with Henri Harper too.
The problems in the Wetherby area are escalating again. I have continually been confronted by juveniles. At
time there are 20 plus kids at the park fighting and being disorderly in the evening and night. I have contacted
the police when I followed the kids and they attempted to break into vehicles on Briar Drive. At times they are
harassing vehicles on the corners of Burns and Taylor, and Sandusky and Taylor. I have multiple duplexes in
this area. I also live on Balsam Court. Last year my efforts were futile until the kids had a gun at the park. Why
do we not give the police officers the tools to deal with this problem? Some of the neighborhood put in a lot of
time and effort last year to get this problem solved. The people that I have talked to do not want to get involved
again, feeling that our efforts are useless. The promise of installing more lights and cameras just hasn't
happened. More chin music. At some point, someone is going to get seriously injured. How can we get the city
to take this problem seriously?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Late Handouts Distributee
Marian Karr 7- / - le-
From:
G
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Nate —
Melissa Clow
Friday, July 01, 2016 1:41 PM (Date)
'Nate Kaeding'; Simon Andrew; Geoff Fruin
Neal Llewellyn; Hualing Engle; Dmitriy Vanchugov; yule park; 'City Council
RE: Gateway Project I Communication and Traffic Mitigation
'0'1-(/6)
You are correct—the Gateway project has arrived. We are very excited to finally see work happening on site, but as
with most construction projects, things are slow and bumpy in the beginning. Since the initial shift on Tuesday, I have
been working with the Streets Department and Traffic Engineering to analyze traffic patterns and adjust the timing of
the traffic lights at Park and Dubuque. I have also been working with the Iowa DOT to allow us to post messages on their
new, automated boards located on 1-80. We will continue to work with them to push traffic toward Dodge Street / Hwy
1 rather than Dubuque Street and will be using those signs during special events and when our traffic staging is moved
into another configuration. Please see my additional responses to your comments below and if you have any
comments, questions or concerns regarding Dubuque Street / Gateway, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Melissa Clow, EI, LEED AP
City of Iowa City, Engineering
319-356-5413 phone
319-330-1420 cell
APlease consider the environment and do not print this email unless necessary
From: Nate Kaeding [mailto:nkaeding@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:24 AM
To: Melissa Clow; Simon Andrew; Geoff Fruin; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Kingsley Botchway; James Throgmorton
Cc: Neal Llewellyn; Hualing Engle; Dmitriy Vanchugov; yule park
Subject: Gateway Project I Communication and Traffic Mitigation
Hello Geoff and Melissa,
As you know, we live on a private drive (along with 3 neighbors. some of whom are elderly and others have
young infant children) that connects with Dubuque St. just to the south of Mayflower dorm.
The Gateway Project has finally arrived and the effects have been immediate.
Yesterday (June 28th) Dubuque St. was reduced to one lane for the first time around 5:00 pm, with no specific
advanced notice to residents or the community at large, and there was zero attempt to increase efficiency at the
make -shift traffic light on the intersection of Park Rd/Dubuque St.
A few questions/recommendations regarding the City s communication and traffic flow strategy during this
monumental 2-3 year infrastructure improvement program:
Is there a City staff member dedicated to this project who will be on-site on a daily basis? Scott Sovers
is on site at the Washington St. construction project Downtown daily and communicates directly with
those impacted by the construction on a regular basis. Who is providing this on-site oversight for the
Gateway and what are their duties and responsibilities? I will be coordinating the project on a daily
basis, being on site as much as I can. Due to the size of the project, we have three additional City staff
on site doing inspections and working directly with the contractor. I am working directly with the City's
communications office to push out press releases and post information to social media. I have shared
the contact list with them that I previously used during the planning process, including all adjacent
property owner email addresses. These contacts have now been added to their correspondence that goes
out when there are new updates.
What is the City's strategy for communicating lane closures, major disruptions, milestones, or general
updates? Can there be an email list to opt into? Twitter account for time sensitive updates? The
communications office will have staff attending our weekly construction meetings to keep up to date on
any new changes that need to be communicated to the public and will work with me to verify the
specifics of the information. The City has taken over control of the website that was created for the
project during the planning process and it can be viewed here: www.icRov.org/RatewayproJe . We are
currently working to redirect the old website (www.iowacity ag teway.ore) to this new address, add an
option to opt in to receive emails and notifications and make the page easirt to find from the City's
homepage.
Is there a plan by the city to implement way finding and notifications on I-80 and other arterial roads, to
encourage drivers to take alternative routes? We continue to encourage people to take alternate routes
with every press release. The difficulty is that we do not have a dedicated detour route since the road is
still open. We did coordinate with the Iowa DOT to use the message boards on I-80 this weekend for
Jazz Fest to encourage traffic to take Dodge Street. We will continue to work with them for similar
event traffic, when traffic control switches to different stages, etc. I am meeting with our contractor
early next week to review the signage and, based on the traffic this week, determine where additional
signage is needed. The fewer cars using Dubuque Street also creates a safer situation for them to work
in as well.
Marketing dollars dedicated to promoting alternative routes?
Most importantly, what is the City's strategy for managing the traffic light and seeking maximum
efficiency at the traffic light during peak hours? (7:00 am -9:00 am) (4:00 pm -6:00 pm). Manual control
of the light or someone dedicated to directing traffic at these hours seems to be a necessity. We have
been monitoring that light all week. With every change, we find another problem is created as one is
solved. The Street Department, Traffic Engineering and our Traffic Control Contractor are putting their
heads together today to discuss our options to optimize this intersection. Given that we are so tight on
space currently and the only option to make more room would be to close the bike path, we may be
stuck with this configuration until the contractor has moved farther north out of this intersection. This
portion of the bike path is the busiest in town and we have made it a priority to maintain pedestrian
traffic in the corridor throughout the duration of the project.
Our mailboxes, unbeknownst to us until the night before, were scheduled to be moved a 1/2
mile without any coordination with the Postal Service or (more importantly) the residents. Given the
importance and assets being put towards this project, this lack of communication and consideration of
the impacted residents is concerning. See below for update on a solution we've scrambled to attain this
morning. Given the simplicity of the note to "relocate mailboxes" on the plans, the contractor typically
contacts the US Postal Service for direction. I had not been informed of the new location until I
received your email, but was very happy to see that there was better location to be agreed on.
Some of these suggestions may already be in place or planned but I'm just unaware of them.
Thanks for your attention to these matters and I look forward to seeing the results. We all know this is a major
undertaking and are prepared for the disruption it will cause our day-to-day lives, but need to know the City is
allocating time, money, and attention in the attempt to mitigate the negative impact.
Nate Kaeding
Talked with the postman this morning and discussed alternatives to the relocation of our mailboxes to
B yaysville Road.
Our driveway will be accessible for the foreseeable future (probably until 2018) and moving our mailboxes to
that location would be inconvenient for us AND the postal service.
The postman said he would talk to the project manager to see if they would, instead, relocate our mailboxes at
the confluence of Kaeding's, Hualing's and Llewellyn's drives until the project is complete. This would benefit
the postal service and be much more convenient for us.
I talked to a Mr. Vaugn Miller, who sent the notice, and he said he was quite sure something could be worked
out.
(D_
134e /e_r
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
We, the undersigned property owners and voters, petition the City of Iowa City to halt the
construction of the proposed structure at 101 Lusk Ave. for many reasons, including:
1. It will not be a residence; it will be an entertainment venue for large tailgating
functions.
Based on the size (over 7400 sq. ft.) and design (commercial kitchen, 9 toilets, 2 urinals, an
indoor basketball court, and central atrium), this structure is not designed as a residence. It
will have an estimated capacity of 200 people and is described by its owners as a place to
have game -day events related to University athletic teams.
2. Taxpayers will be required to subsidize this private scheme because of needed
infrastructure.
The city street is narrow and infrastructure of the location is very old and woefully
inadequate with regard to fire, safety, and rescue efforts; parking; congestion; and
watershed. This proposed building overburdens the streets and utilities. Taxpayers will
eventually be asked to widen streets, improve storm sewers, guard fragile areas against water
erosion, and provide safe means to get to and from this location.
3. The use of this facility will threaten public safety.
Lusk Ave. is a dead-end, 20 -foot wide street; there are few, if any, paved streets in all of Iowa
City that are more narrow. Fire trucks are ten feet wide. Parking is allowed on one side.
Fire trucks and emergency vehicles called to the site will not be able to turn around. The
public is placed at risk when response times to real emergencies are slowed. Pedestrians,
including neighborhood children, will be at risk due to increased traffic congestion.
4. Storm -water runoff will cause environmental harm by threatening bordering property
with large amounts of runoff.
A very large tot will be covered with a massive structure and hard -pavement surfaces. There
are no storm -water sewers on either Lusk Ave. or Bayard St., which also drains to Lusk. The
proposed structure will add significant runoff to Lusk Ave., which ends abruptly on the slope
of the ravine. There is significant erosion at this site already. Except for the property of
others, including the City's property, the storm- water runoff has nowhere else to go, and the
erosion will worsen substantially.
5. The proposed structure is out of character with our neighborhood.
The RS -5 zone that covers Lusk Ave. is for residential homes, not entertainment venues. This
planned 7400 square foot entertainment structure is roughly 10 times larger than the 3
abutting residential properties. Property values and privacy of neighboring properties are
threatened when the City does not enforce minimum expectations created by our zoning
laws.
We believe that the City's reasonable interpretation and application of our zoning laws
will cause it to stop, and not to approve, this project.
ti®
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS 7JEny,
E
�ara►-�a � Belltu� c'13c� �}utcln�n5vr, p�L AbD ItOtChlrr,�lfl w—
��� 24 44 Ksow Avc
�i ll1Tcllr&AoW4
P
z 1�-
3Sv
ftita�r�w 1}J -e
Lf2q-- -f'n fA
26
/
E �� �00v a� Q Ct
i� 6-eu0bwLt L111- V`
gC
�T w�E� 4u {,
Jaye. �����
Z� ;ev�.0,-, k\fe—
�z3 �e,rso, Me-
J JZgty 4---)Jyjy?
7
af� JoS.a� Zh7Z -,tx{�I�►
� w1�
1!
/ ► � �� �Q hNN�
0 NaZ/ 11 w1
."s
.4S sY�,•.y��r
�E Sprb49 tv
6OZ
(iota
A
\4)?�I-1,,1(� ��Q1
Zai %1OsgO\d 14S 14
/X105 L�cZ �ro.�Cb��� Yaigt#\ Pa
J4� AW- baM qvA-Tl
3sumoIS SS3aaaV (pa;uud) 9WVN
'3AV NSfll LOL 1V u3snoH" wniaViS HDINNIA j0 NOIL:)nVISN03 dOlS
p
/y STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNATURE h2�
1
f-�s0# k<-
Iowa 6 /.,f sz2 Y�
Ll (o wn >wG,n 422_L;�. f It $ (�
3Y3 at[da, -, Vq
Cl T`AS-r1e/617A 5�25G
ItD
� ), A Y&I
�4� L
IC✓�s-�ne- A- S+al(c-
-j "
L s A Ot mLj
'1 F
c� rv�_
i21 - 535 � S7�
7Z3 9,110,y,� *
9411(��lr�s S�
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
q5c �e�e�- cf -)3qi�it c-w(wm-x, "
Q �✓l 23 � /-4Nkk;aso� He Dennis 6eFc(ar
/ry �G�iti
` DIv e��H 63)
�4nq,
(fie 11 d COMMA
�j C{ (vN co a le..
Id,' = � wad eQ 5 r
� 6 �rd s
11 21 �i-�ii�-Nor► � .�
San S 310 HQfCl\0&50A AVE. P_➢"rJCAL�� qa 2�
pJ,�lli-s d
lJ f u3,2�i
'1�� �Uy /�ufC�fiylvu /r�z-1/er� N. Sfzce�
J 3d 1 �f�%icefees.�nter'1��
AV,
v-
v- ij f -f o t�c.1� l l�so�
/9V Os Z 4 2 mlz, k,�n
1�
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed)
Else 51nn4lPl
M ►eh-eI� Cie,
ADDRESS
�� -
Via,-F--ef�
SIRE
2�
Lu S C--.3 c,r•crC,_
%® Fe (Sa , /frit vY1
��,�etin�,�unc;n�1-C�e1�S��,'th Say f3 C,ldcr%1�.�
ff c \ 3 �p rtrs61, .Avg "i,
1 fj �u
z f t��
� S 6 -kg
rtC twit
WA
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS ,SIGNATURE I c/
CjG�C�I� ��• �o.i b��'�� oif
��uNn✓ %a�
uj-j
JA -Ac,- "t7c� �3 �n`
ST
C V
d�v✓0 3Y'X-e 4
16 N" lvm T o��N '3) 5- Lee
- 155t
0
I,�� N�S��A �76 wed
a-2 L
z z
d'Ay 3100M 1zZ
p -'?-1 I "!ol 0f/&/
,h5,,anq? 000l
-13 manly eao�
J a, 41
4„ u. a-rb
ub,�aa�1.nv
r74/ �'is
'rW 1 ti�SII�
o �n�v���"V✓ i�� 1tiau. Q���a� rIJ
3mniLvN91S SSMGOV (paluud) 3WHN
'3Ad NS(ll LO IV « 3snoH» wmav1S NJINNIN -40 NOIJ,f1a1SNOD dO.LS
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed)
��
v e7ItUG-wr A k�
329kr) lrloyers
ADDRESS SIGNATIRE
4-25 M6wo's9y) )G
td , roe.
Ch4-S f�lzlA,:n�>N ��
`egg, ae- �,q�
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
+y�NAME (printed) . ADDRESS
^7
Wonq -7t'3 RAW sl
%12. fmver S-�
W, 11 i�A� 1arr�� cmc!( -) l l�-
--�FTAL7 S-rr AAAC2 `7 f G K l &7 Si.
SIGNATURE
sq(� 6� 1 Z r- ( l�a�
LA- tirev, Jemsevn
Kra IM1i e-
C Tofw
SP065
C-1 -
f A,11cl
8a3 -7
yot fgc4 flln 0iw %
�-�,d J yvlwl I�kad�, /-
. �,
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
ssCA- %-c��1�nc L94I 4��gcn
LAvtwi5-:' H41 NAGnvlv-�
&YDd a 9,ri r1r A, .j 4-4- 1110,
l�
b"
L t1 ca 1� . Kc r % e. r ''i 2 $ GH �•- JC • j-'
4' 1(,, R I v&--4' Sl-.
(66 ►-
4\1--� Qk
g?l % R (Ile�-
ply iuCL��in
42 t Cpe S-
yZS (fe 5f
4��- �,"S�
6,
Z s�
Ov-
GC
Rein
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
67-43
��
,s�a���,✓sS� �1 v�s�l��vcvu�
Cl,i�gal[���Sp�,��s
` zv � Uk
& h q 1,-jcL^ J
AI( vl Allll4r5e,,,x
%Y , /mvwith
j��2N�1� �^^^' 33°l /vlal owe n Jam.
ti
Av
/-1146-GW/gN i9
AT-111� 1411"
�(7 pv- yb- �-N
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
Q wi i C- c91,av/4 fi3O
Mona,u 50,wcu `77G
calv
Ao,ror-\� CcAe/r
zilvf- Stw
,� usw-�- CQ--,� le
Cecilia UJh;rte-g�
144k1jr
-Fo Avt � C�
39� '�V% Ave,
wutti- qvE.
.10/// k/'vew-- S
a b iecsak A -k
X24
2� %10
�3 s L
fi)c.
�6��
Vr s?w .
r1 ('cl
1
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGNAT RE
S�'tii 3jc�X1 23o f1J4cLinSon �v
E(e, > 3/0 phi/�=/V iia/s'�/Vy
Lc jr tm' Dor{ 3/ 4 c-w*-�� ,. do.�.eu-wT
Pt (9IsUK�357-/4t+got�..
w/`�
A� e � �qa 1l1
`k -,I, Lt'),
A
oh o� p<oza
)At&
A/140,4
NW, Txv cas�
G(,IfT 4�
r Z Lo,�
X46// �fkfi raw
��cl2
� g
(ol h�R
H30
201
Larl,jtz)y-N A -,e-
269
h vr,ch-,AV-4—
ZZ�i
/✓�,,,,w
3
2 5-6
�2/ce/;rviti
+ Av-c
'J
(ol h�R
H30
i
M#00q lie
y�
/t9a��o� ,¢✓�
3
Lem, J. ut-
4oco
+ Av-c
a 19
ee je-
zi q
Lee SfILL#
2yf $ Ftutch i n Sova
F oq piece,- 3+
RAN
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSKAVE-
NAME (printed)
6&�IrIL/,J�p
ADDRESS
,ly�6 ,y
��
�&41k
/,,`7-iM QJ 5AILOeZ
�—1
CA), `�-t 4 3,11
aov 0 OLw�zGk�Y-1. V1 � W,
nfchard PC Puna-
&' ar-olyn Rus4on
6AAy n, 4�Ik c
uef
Qv.ry
.105Hi1A KOZA
j�
L
1401 Hu-Oc L„son A✓e
A) 5 L.zXin.44on
)-so L��c.��to�. ry.t.Az—
2s -v Legg ; ^ y-6 ,��t'At
q
77 J L""
3 ST 4 FX/.V 617 SAA � �� �,f,Kc�►e
Ate-
e23.f (tx� N-Aut IlA4zx,,l
00
L�
l l5 R1Y 'R, S' j
allmyNDIS
YY
1/%,j M q
SSaIQ(Iv
WMHAV XSf1'I 101 IV
«MfIOH» WMCIVJLS 31DRiAIIN 40 MOIZOIIMISM03 dOZS
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed)
RO,9 et, .� eery a� -
AkhA,-
Q� Jtiyuh Pr..uk
g o(. t\A5
ADDRESS
L31 Wcac��-
SIGNATURE
LCQi
2c
30
--)°C Y Alm, .
yso SNocE p2.
ql C-1 A &Z�E"
sq
fry
- / W A /j I r �1 h�� .
k0 1(2
f C w
0
STOP CONSTRUCTION OF KINNICK STADIUM "HOUSE" AT 101 LUSK AVE.
NAME (printed) ADDRESS SIGN
tee..
yw&n
�� AAl LL•`(�� "J pl4Uri ��t �l �y J
Vi L irry s2(�(i C I
pa"-gA vu
LA S4 *� ESS
r4 c, �)feyaR,,-
d--� wry, -Tl� T� ¢ �
Z55 No y 53-/ tc` S L2 44 �
2z ss. �14 sz-e t ,
MO�� �I�� Sfire�fi 1G�vclCi�,.�6�5Z2�itp ��-�°lzl�
Sawa `�
D
MO�� �I�� Sfire�fi 1G�vclCi�,.�6�5Z2�itp ��-�°lzl�
t�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 3S6-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
LATE HANDOUTS
Information submitted after distribution of packet on Thursday.
Agenda
ITEM 2f(7) 101 LUSK AVE. —Email from City Attorney
ITEM 2f(10) BIKE LANES AND ROAD DIETS - See additional correspondence
ITEM 2f(15) David Robertson: Crime in the Wetherby Park area
ITEM 2f(16) Nate Kaeding: Gateway Project / Communication and Traffic
ITEM 12 EVALUATIONS - Memo from City Clerk J
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
�- ='��MEMORANDUM
Late Handouts Distributed
Date: June 30, 2016
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk (Date)
Re: Evaluations / Reviews of City Council Appointees
The Mayor has requested the following information for the July 5 meeting:
➢ Summary of past salary compensations
➢ City of Iowa City wage settlements
FY17 administrative /confidential pay plan
u/eval.17
City Council Appointments
Base Salary History
[FY1O-FY15]
MANAGER ATTORNEY CLERK
Incumbent Hire Date: 12/10 Incumbent Hire Date: 9/97 Incumbent Hire Date: 4/83
# equivalent to 2% raise
** equivalent to 1.54% raise (FY14); 3.84% raise (FY16)
*60% time
Salary
Add'[ Benefit
Salary
Add1 Benefit
Salary
Add'I Benefit
FY10
Interim/Acting
2%
2%
2009
$160,000
$75,329.28*
$97,115.20
FY11
2.87%
2.87%
2010
$160,000
$77,488.32*
$99.902.40
FY12
2%
2%
2011
$160,000
$79,035.84*
$101,899.20
FY13
6%
3%
3%
2012
$170,000
$81,406.92*
$104,956.80
FY14
2.50%
2.50%
2013
$170,000
4 personal
83441.28*......
$107,577.60
days**
$139,068.80
FY15
2%
5personal
cash value
2014
$173,409.60
$139,068.80
days#
$107,577.60
deferred comp#
FY16
5 personal days &
5 vacation
2%
FY15
$173,409.60
5 vacation days"
$139,068.80
days#
$109,720.00
# equivalent to 2% raise
** equivalent to 1.54% raise (FY14); 3.84% raise (FY16)
*60% time
City of Iowa City Wage Settlements
*FYI 2-FY14 Mid -year ATB for Police used to create and then increasea ten-year step.
AFSCME
Police Fire
Admin/Cont
FYI
2.00%
2.75%
2.00%
2.00%
FYI
2.20%
2.20%
2.20%
2.20%
FYI
1.25%-1.25%
1.25%-1.25%'
1.25%-1.25%
1.25%-1.25%
FYI
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%'
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%
FYI
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%'
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%
FYI
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%
1.35%-1.5%
FYI
3.10%
3.10%
3.05%
3.10%
FY09
3.30%
3.30%
3.30%
3.30%
FY08
3.25%
3.25%
3.25%
3.25%
FY07
2.85%
3.10%
3.10%
2.85%
FY06
2.75%
3%
2.75%
2.75%
FY05
2.65%
2.50%
2.75%
2.65%
*FYI 2-FY14 Mid -year ATB for Police used to create and then increasea ten-year step.
PAYGRADE:
30
Battalion Chief
Library Coordinator
Police Lieutenant
Wastewater Superintendent
Senior Center Coordinator
Senior Planner
Superintendent of Parks & Forestry
Supedntendant of Streets
Water Superintendent
Housing Administrator
Equipment Superintendent
Economic Development Coordinator
31
MPOJC Director
Human Resources Administrator
Police Captain
Recreation Superintendent
ITS Coordinator
Deputy Fire Chief
First Assistant City Attorney
Associate Director - Transportaficn Services
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Development Services Coordinator
Assistant to the City Manager
32
City Engineer
Economic Development Administrator
STEP 1
$ 33.90
$ 2,712.00
$ 70,512.00
BC-24hr
$ 24.2143
$ 2,712.00
$ 70,512.00
$ 36.77
$ 2,941.60
$ 76,481.60
$ 39.73
$ 3,178.40
$ 82,638.40
MAX.
$ 52.27
$ 4,181.60
$ 108,721.60
$ 37.3357
$ 4,181.60
$ 108,721.60
$ 57.13
$ 4,570.40
$ 118,830.40
$ 62.38
$ 4,990.40
$ 129,750.40
EXECUTIVE PAY PLAN- FY17(JuIy3, 2016)
PAYGRADE:
33
Fre Chief
Library Dimctor
Parks & Recmatlan Olrectar
35
Finance Dkector
P.N. Chief
Public Works Dindor
Assists tCity M..W,
Neighborhood end Development Services Director
TrensNotdion and Reswrce Management Dimdm
MNIMUM
$ 43.03
$ 3,442.40
$ 89,502.40
$ 48.90
$ 3,728.00
$ 96,928.00
MAXIMUM
$ 60.19
5 6,455.20
5 141,83520
s 74.56
5 5,964.80
5 155,065.60
PAYGRADE:
Late Handouts Distributed
7-
(Date)
STEP 1-
MA%.'
EREWTNE PAY PIAN- FY17(July3,2016)
PAYGRADE:
W
Maintain
MA%IMUM•
Ba9albn ChM
BC -24M (fire Only)
$ 3].335] dourly
]]
FIn CMM
$ d3.01 /hourry
S 86.1H /hourly
Library CpwdinaMr
$ 26.2143 /hourly
It 4,181.60 /maMhly
L11nry DirerlPr
S 3,442b/monthly
S SAW.=/maMhry
Polite Lieutenant
$ 2,712.DD /monthly
$ 108,T21.60 /yearly
P.Ae B Rberea6on Mead.
$ ae.W2.b/yearly
$ 141,11M.20 /yearly
Wastewater Superintendent
$ 70,512.00 lyeady
Senbr Center Caortlinator
Senbr Planner
$ 33.90 Awnuty
$ 52.27 8xwdy,
x
Superintendent of Pains B Forestry
$ 2,712.00 MmMhly
$ 4,181.W /monthly
Finmae Dirwim,
S 46.80 /hourly
S 74.68 /hourly
Superintendent of Streets
$ 70,512.00 /yearly
dY
$ 108)21.60 /yearly
Price Chief
S 3,]28.1111 /monthly
$ 5.964.610 /monthly
Water Superintendent
Public Works Director
Assehorn Cry, Manager
$ BS8R00/yearly
$ 155,064.W /yearly
Housing Adminlsmaue
i
NehWmeM anndD b
B Services DireatPr
EOulpment SupedntendeM
ttensponrbn and Reawmrce Ma ManaPment Director
Ec nnlc Development CwMinator
31
MPOJC Director
$ 369] mount
S 57.13 /hourly
Human Resaumes Administrator
$ 2,941. W /monthly
S 4,570.40 ImoMhly
Pdice Capwin
$ 78,481.60 /yearly
S 118,830.40 Aearly,
Recreation Superintendent
ITS Cwminator
DeWty Fire Chief
Fyst Ass1aMM CNy ANomey
Assodate Director- TransporMgon Services
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
Development Services Coordinator
Assistant to the Ciry Manager
32
City Engineer
$ 39.]3 /hourly
$ 52.38 (hourly
Ero mic Development Atlmimmaktr
$ 3,178.40 Imonthly
S 4,990.40 /manthly
$ 82,638.40 IyeaM
$ 129,7W.40 /yearly
-AN ranges (Step 1 My. to Max.) refer to all emphryees wdhln that pa,rad.
(modified ]/5/16)