HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-20 Correspondence2e(1)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Nelson, Benjamin C <benjamin-nelson@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 10:50 AM
To: Council
Cc: Stewart, Gustave
Subject: Hawkeye Completion Grant
Council,
As mentioned last night during community comment, UISG is pushing a donation drive to fund the Hawkeye
Completion Grant which will help students pay off the remainder of their University Bill so that they may
graduate or register for the next semester.
We encourage donations of any amount, even something like $10 can go a long way. If you are unable to
financially support, we hope that you will push this through your circles or post on your Facebook.
Link to donate: https://goIdrush.uiowa.edu/project/9414
Benjamin Nelson
he/him/his
Economics & Philosophy I University of Iowa '19
City Liaison I University of Iowa Student Government
(319)457-0792
LKellie Fruehling 2e(2)
From:
Judy Buddenbaum <jandjbuddenbaum@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 07, 2018 2:26 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Addendum to Regina's sports facility sent 3.5.18 /Administrative Hearing - March 13,
2018
Dear City Council Member,
Owners of the Park Plaza Condo Building each received a letter from Mr. Tim Hennes, Acting Building Official
for Neighborhood and Development Services, on February 27, 2018, to inform us of a Minor Modification to the
Zoning Ordinance Regina is requesting. An administrative hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 13th at
11:00 am.
The problems we are having with this are: the concrete pads, duct work, electrical are already in place for
these condensers, a walk -around the building shows there may be as many as 5 of these air conditioner
condensers with the bulk of them being located on the east side of the facility, maybe 5 units, all facing 1st
Avenue. Regina's plan to provide screening will do little to protect the neighbors from the noise these
mechanicals will create. Questions we have are why did we, neighbors, not know this was the plan? Did the
plans you viewed and approved show this? Why would Regina go ahead and have everything ready unless
they knew it was going to be approved and this is just a formality to appease the neighbors?
If you have driven north on 1 st Avenue, past Regina's new drive, the sports facility is hard to miss, it's an
enormous, cavernous metal building that overwhelms; it has truly impacted our neighborhood, there is no way
to not see this structure. It will be hard to keep it cool during our summers no matter how well it is insulated.
The Park Plaza building, our building, has suffered mud and water run-off from this building site. This sludge
runs to the City's sewers, we have pictures of one of the drains filled to capacity with a grate being entirely
clogged with wet mud. And then there's the traffic coming and going from the new drive. First Avenue is a
heavily trafficked route and iced over during the winter. We have witnessed drivers cutting through using this
drive to avoid the light.
One of the many reasons we bought into this condo building was the very large decks at each corner. We all
use our decks, we love the location and that is why we all are willing to pay the nearly $4,000 in property tax it
takes to live here, together nearly $65,000. We would like to see the City take action to protect the neighbors.
Some considerations may be to put more of the condensers on the west side facing their parking lot where no
neighbors live, a solid sound reduction wall like those along expressways with green screening on the wall, the
side the neighbors see would be a solution .
There are more phrases to Regina's plan which means there will be ongoing construction for years to come.
This sports facility will be used only for hitting/batting, wrestling and weight lifting, these, typically, are done in
a heated environment, not necessarily a hardship, but for us, it would be a hardship for us to no longer be able
to enjoy our decks during the summer because of the noise. I think a fair question is: ask yourself how you
would feel about having generators running potentially all summer near your deck, balcony or patio. Please
consider this and provide the neighbors of Park Plaza with more protection than a living wall of greenery.
Presently, the existing forest does not shield or hide any part of the building and will not all winter long.
Sincerely,
Jim and Judy Buddenbaum
557 N 1 st Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245-3504
319-354-0846
U3-20-1
8
Kellie Fruehling 2e(3)
From:
Dina Bishara <iowadina@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, March 09, 2018 3:37 PM
To:
Derek Frank; Jody Matherly
Cc:
Council
Subject:
massage parlors and human trafficking
Dear Chief Matherly and Sergeant Frank,
I am writing to express my concerns about the recent proliferation of "massage parlors" in Iowa
City. I have noticed that several have appeared over the past year, and was very happy to see the
report on KCRG last night. Massage parlors are often involved in human trafficking, as reported
extensively here: hftps:Hpolarisproject.org/massage-parlor-trafficking
I am wondering what the ICPD is doing to monitor or investigate these businesses to insure that
young girls and vulnerable women are not being sex trafficked right under our noses.
Thanks so much for any information you can provide,
Best wishes,
Dina Bishara
03-20-18
- 2e(4)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Diaz -Arnold, Ana M <ana-arnold@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:14 AM
To: parksandrecreation; Council
Subject: Concern regarding deer in Hickory Hill park
Attachments: IMG_5388 jpg
Dear Sirs,
The attached photo was taken this morning outside the window of our home: 445 N 7th Avenue. We counted
11 deer.
Is there anything you can do regarding the deer population in Hickory Hill park? They are crossing our 7th
Avenue Street and Rochester (woods south of Regina) in reasonably large numbers.
If this is not the correct office to report this, please forward to the Iowa DNR or whoever would be responsible
for deer control.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ana Arnold
445 N7th Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
,
4
0
WFI
�i
03-20-15
2e(5)
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Karin Southard <karin.southard@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 12:01 PM
To:
Council; Kellie Fruehling; Kingsley Botchway; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih;
Pauline Taylor; Jim Throgmorton; John Thomas
Cc:
Karin Southard
Subject: follow-up to Lusk Ave Work Session
Attachments: lusk ave.pdf
Dear Mayor Throgmorton and City Councilors,
I noticed your February 20, 2018 Work Session Agenda Item 3c involves follow-up on commitments made during the
Lusk Ave November 21, 2017 work session. This work session was devoted to review the problems related to the issuing
of the building permit for the "Kinnick House" so that a similar situation cannot happen again in Iowa City. While I
support proposed changes to existing City Code that would protect residential neighborhoods, I ask you to consider one
compelling fact: if City staff had enforced existing mandatory City Code provisions, the building permit for the Kinnick
House, never would have been approved. The failure to enforce at least four Code provisions was a critical error, the
result of decisions made by City staff not to apply mandatory City Code provisions to infill development. We know from
testimony at the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Appeals that failure to enforce certain City Codes for infill
development has gone on for up to 30 years (see below). The result is that City staff is legislating away local law
designed to protect the health, safety, property and overall well-being of our Citizens. No new ordinances can correct
this unsettling reality, a reality that I hope the City Council will acknowledge and change.
A visit to the Kinnick House, now being constructed, will confirm for you my neighbors' concerns. At the Boards of
Adjustment and Appeals, and then, in legal proceedings, members of our neighborhood pointed out that at least four
separate City Codes were not met prior to the issuing the building permit. However, we have been told repeatedly (and
are still being told) by City staff that "all Codes were met". In particular, we contested the owner's unlawful intent (with
the City staffs approval) to connect upstream to a non -Code -compliant, shared private sewer that would force
neighbors, without prior notice or prior approval, and without maintenance/easement agreements, to have that new
building's sewerage run through their properties. Since our complaints and litigation, we have now witnessed the
installation of a massive sewer project in and around Lusk Ave (plan attached below). We are told this project was
financed by the property owner. We stand in disbelief that we were repeatedly told that "all City Codes were met" only
to find that the owner of the property is now forced to build a sewer because all Codes were, in fact, not met. That
event is only the most recent and most visible indication of our contention that the Kinnick House building permit would
not have been allowed had City staff enforced four City Code provisions:
16 -3D -6D Separate and Independent Sewer for All Buildings. The issuing of a building permit for 101 Lusk Ave
disregarded this requirement for all new construction. The City's position was that at the owners of 101 Lusk Ave had
the right to connect upstream to an old, non -conforming, circa -1927, private sewer that served two other
residences. The building permit was issued with the approval of connection to that sewer without the knowledge of, or
maintenance/easement agreements with, the property owners downstream. Neighbors, who learned by hearsay after
the permit was issued, had to hire their own engineering firm to confirm the conditional issues and location of this
sewer, information that was held by the City but not shared with neighbors who use that sewer.
14-51-2C-3 Sensitive Lands and Features - Applicability - Exemptions. This exemption reads: "Construction of Single -
Family Residential Uses: Grading, clearing or development activities on a tract of land for the purpose of construction,
landscaping or associated improvements for one single-family use or one two-family use are exempt from the
requirements of this article, provided the development activities do not exceed a maximum total of twenty thousand
(20,000) square feet in area, and provided there is no encroachment by said activities into a jurisdictional wetland, a
designated sensitive areas conservation tract or protected sensitive area." (underline and bold emphasis added). Thie
exemption has two provisions that must be met, as stated clearly with the conjunction "and". When considering
exemptions for parcels for single-family and two-family residences, City staff routinely interprets this provision in a
manner that ignores the conjunction "and" and that ignores the second provision regarding consideration of
encroachment of sensitive lands. By City staffs own admission (Board of Adjustment Transcripts 9-21-16, p. 168), the
City, when exempting parcels not exceeding 20,000 square feet, has NEVER considered whether the development could
encroach on protected sensitive areas that may exist on adjacent properties.
According to extensive testimony provided by an expert on hydrology and landslides from our community and who
voluntarily came forward after studying the Lusk Ave site (Board of Adjustment, 9-21-16), "the City erred in not requiring
specific slope and woodland grove requirements that are specifically addressed in the Sensitive Lands and Features
requirements of the Iowa City Zoning Code" and "based on a review of the relevant slope and woodland grove
requirements, a swath land consisting of a minimum of a 50 -foot buffer onto northerly side of the south property line
shared with the CRANDIC railway right-of-way must be established and nothing should be built upon it." This expert
further explained that incorrect interpretation on the part of City staff completely eviscerates the Sensitive Lands and
Features Ordinance. After this Board of Adjustment testimony, no further consideration of Sensitive Lands and Features
was allowed; there was no deliberation by the Board, no voting.... nothing (Plaintiffs' Brief 3-2-17). The ill -sited Kinnick
House, whose footprint required not only the removal of very old oaks, but virtually all foliage from the entire lot, with
cuts into a steep embankment, stands as evidence that the City staff chooses not to enforce its provisions when it comes
to infill development. If that is what the City Council intends, then the City Code should be amended, and citizens
should know that the sensitive lands and features within the City's boundaries are intentionally not protected against
aggressive development.
14-4A-2 Use Classification Analysis. City files obtained through the Iowa open records law, Iowa Code chapter 22, and
Board of Adjustment testimony document clearly that many City staff members acknowledged the controversy
surrounding, and questioned the intended use of, the building planned for 101 Lusk Ave. Furthermore at the Board of
Adjustment, City staff did not dispute the estimated capacity of 200 people for this tailgating venue. Nonetheless, City
staff failed to perform a mandated Use Classification Analysis that clearly delineates procedures to determine whether
the principal use of the proposed structure is truly residential or something closer to an entertainment venue. This
analysis should have been performed by a panel of independent reviewers and the outcome was actually requested by
the City staff administrator for the Board of Adjustment (see below). This Code mandates an inductive, fact-finding
process to determine the Use Classification. Instead, City staff concluded, deductively, at the front end, that the
structure was residential because it had components of a residence (bedrooms, kitchen, etc.) and, therefore, the City
performed no Use Classification Analysis. The predictable result of the City staffs failure to follow the correct process is
that buildings not allowed in a particular zone will be permitted. The Kinnick House stands as Exhibit A for this
erroneous approach, one that begs for the City to utilize the existing City Code provision, rather than re -writing Code.
Section D 103.1 International Fire Code "shall" requirement for turnaround for dead-end streets longer than 150
feet. The International Fire Code gives the Fire Chief discretion in applying this requirement when it is
impractical. However, the City's position is that it never enforces this mandate for infill development. At the Board of
Appeals, City staff confirmed that for infill development on an existing lot, the mandate has not been enforced for 30
years (Board of Appeals Transcript 12-7-16, p.118). In effect, City staff has legislated a critical amendment to the Fire
Code, a task that Iowa law delegates to the City Council. Soon, 101 Lusk Ave. will host crowds of tailgaters in a 7400
square foot building at a location with limited access, past the end of a very narrow, dead-end street, without full street
frontage or an emergency turnaround. Enforcement of adopted Fire Code provisions seems to be a small price to pay
to prevent possible tragedies.
I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. My neighbors and I urge you to consider these issues
carefully. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Karin Southard
2
President, Neighbors of Manville Heights Assn.
Lusk Ave sewer plan (in green)
Request for the outcome of a mandated, but never -performed, Use Classification Analysis
Sue Dulek
From: Sarah Wall <Sarahvk@lowxiry,org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Sue Duld; An Yap
Cc: Sara Greenwood HeMoen; Eleanor M, DiRes
Subject: RE: Lusk Appeal
Question:
In the Use Regulation chapter of the code (Section 144-201 the code indicates that in cases of dispute, "the Zoning
Code Interpretation Panel will issue a written use determination. Such determination may be appealed to the Board of
Adjustment;'
Do we have a written opinion of the classification process in 14.4-20
I 612 Boprd St.
i-COpsd 3LINSTALL 29 SY PGC PAVEMENT WTH 4
INTEGRAL CURB AND GUTTER MINIMUM
' PCC THICNNEiS SHALL BE 7. IF EMSDNG -690 - - - - _
i r ' PAVING IS GREATER THAN 7• MATCH - -
'00E."" ROCK ACC AND PTHICKSS
NE -
PROVIDE 'BT -5' JOINT WITH EIDSTING
3 . `PAVEMENT PER SODAS FlGM 7010.101 - - 695
_._ T-. --- ---- 301
T T T T -ONE - -'. ONE - =. =DRE -DHE
- _ _ _ 690
68J
_ 0 OJ
NSTALL AND MAINTAIN 1 pF-WA - _ SAFETY FENCE KONG RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO, ADJACENT PROPERTY ERTRT WAY
- -
117 Lusk Aw. ' I I \ \ CORE DRILL Tp MAIM Cpf1wcTi IN _
PROPOSED 20' SANITARY
2 �J LQt 1
SEWER EASEMENT \ SEE NOSTE N MANHOLE
PROgE YFN.
(SW -301 A67 i - i _ / /
ALL {' SERVICE \ LOT 11`
PER SAMG. 401AS MG. {OIQ201
r I;—IE-]03.62 j
I 7
...,P ' i r N 5-301 M-) /
111 Link A. �E \ I I I (S._ �.; N SO9&601
1 i I
INSTALL 16 SY PGC SIDEWALK n 'I 1 •. \ '.
INSTALL 6' VALVE AND Yah' REDUCER—
AND 90• KNID WIN THRUST &DOC
TO CONVECT W EIOSTTMG 6'0 DIP.
INSTALL {' SANITARY SERVICE
715 - PER SODAS FTG. 4010.201.
MAINTAIN MN. 16' WPARATI011
B/W SEWER AND WATER MAN
E -]O6.{2
101 Lusk Aw. 7
PROPDSED RESIDENn AL WATER SERVICE TAP.
INSTALL DEAD END FIRE HYDRANT
WTH AUIOLARY DATE VALVE.
�—
701
G )Da 6 \ \
NSTALL {' SANITARY SERVICEp_
PER SOFIG,FIG,401
DAS 0.201
IE-]0?13 ` \2
FENCE OAND PROTECT
350' ORANGE SAFETY LOT A
FENCE TO PROTECT MAINTAIN
5 G TREE Y
O - I RPWmd Ct _
IN
41 Li 6'0 DR -16 PVC WATER MAN. -
. ALL JOINTS SMALL BE RESTRAINED. SEWER SERVICE I / 708 LOT -5
r
IOWA CANNABIS COMP Zeis;
400 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Date: 03/14/2018
Iowa Cannabis Company
400 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
To:
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Council Members,
My name is Aaron Boshart and I represent the Iowa Cannabis Company. We are
applying for a medical cannabidiol dispensary license in response to RFP #58819004 of the
Iowa Department of Public Health, Office of Medical Cannabidiol. The IDPH will license 5
(five) medical cannabidiol dispensaries in the State of Iowa. Many municipalities have issued
letters of support, either from the Mayor's office or via resolution from City Council. To date
these cities include: Sioux City, Council Bluffs, Des Moines, West Des Moines, Coralville,
Davenport.
We have acquired proper zoning forms from the City of Iowa City and submitted an
application to the IDPH for a location at 32 Sturgis Corner Dr. in Iowa City. We believe that
this location is well suited to serve the patients of Iowa City and Eastern Iowa. I am writing
today to request a letter of support for a medical cannabidiol dispensary in Iowa City. We
strongly believe that without a letter of support from the City of Iowa City, the IDPH will not
award a license in Iowa City. We are not asking for a letter of support specific to our
organization or our application, but a general letter of support to locate one of the five
medical cannabidiol dispensaries in Iowa City. Application winners will be announced on
March 26th, 2018. Your decision to support a medical cannabidiol dispensary in Iowa City
could be the deciding factor in being awarded a license in our community.
Sincerely,
Aaron Boshart
CCO
Iowa Cannabis Company, Inc
319-573-2337
FILE®
MAR 14 1010
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa