HomeMy WebLinkAboutA018 - Email letter to Council from Duane Jensen dated January 27, 2015 Page 1 of 2
RE: Roosevelt URA Amendment
Duane Jensen
to:
dean Jensen, bobanncamp@aol.com, gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com, GartlnFOrAmeS@gmail.com,
pforazem@grnail.com, nel son.ames@outlook.com, mg@fightingburrito.com,
amber.corricriggmail.com, lvilla ci)iastate.edu, dvoss@city.ames.ia.us
01/27/2015 06:42 AM
Show Details
Dear Honorable Mayor and Ames City Council,
After a somewhat sleepless night of processing the e-mail I wrote to all of you, I do apologize for the tone
presented in several of my statements and have redlined over a few of them below. I have worked on hundreds
of projects in the City of Ames over the last 19 years since moving back from Kansas City. I know well the three
staff I have identified in my previous e-rnail and certainly have worked through many difficult projects and
situations with both Ray and Steve, not so many with Kelly. At the end of the day, we have accomplished
improvements together in the City that we all live in/near and have committed much of our lives to and will
continue to do so. I have no vengeance to take out on anyone, but rather am frustrated with the seeming
digression of the process we have all worked hard to promote and participate in as it relates to positive
communication with the Planning Department. It has been refreshing over the last several years to have a
developers advocate in Seana Perkins and Bob Kindred guiding our projects through and working hard to _
remove roadblocks and barriers in the process. I do not know what has happened here, perhaps Ray and I<elly
felt we were trying to slide something by them and became overly frustrated with our communication to them
in these changes, again I do not know. This was never our intention, Ray has been involved in many/most of our
hurdles and changes and certainly the Building Inspections Division has been involved in all of them. No doubt
we need to be better communicators as well. It is my intention that we get through this tonight with as little of
contention as possible and take opportunity to continue to learn how.o improve the process, each project
;rings is own new set of challenges. Again, I apologize for the words and sentences of contentious tone that I
h, ve "struck thru" in my redlined e-mail below.
Duane E. Jensen I ./Corp,inc. I p: 515.597.5457 1 c: 515.290.3400 ! wwwJcorp.biz
From: Duane Jensen
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:18 PM
To: 'dean jensen'; bobanncamp@aol.com; gloriabetcherwardi@gmail.com; GartinForAmes@gmail.com;
pforazem@gmail.com; nelson.ames@outlook.com; mg@fightingburrito.com; amber.corrieri@gmail.com;
lvilla@iastate.edu; dvoss@city.ames.ia.us
Subject: RE: Roosevelt URA Amendment
Dear Honorable Mayor and Ames City Council,
I have refrained from responding until now by deleting several e-mail attempts but feel compelled to echo
Dean's disappointment and dismay in the Roosevelt situation before us.
It can be said that "staff did theirjob . . . they found discrepancies to the Qualifying Criteria . . .they accepted
some of them . . . but could not get past others. They have given Council options and have made a
recommendation that would bring the closest resolve to the original approved elevation."
Or it can be said "staff misapplied Qualifying Criteria for "renovation
and remodeling of structures"to a NEW construction atrium and garage . . . staff worked through and resolved
some of the criteria to be no issue . . . but could not get past others because the as-built garage just did not fit
file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web8681... 1/27/2015
Page 2 of 2
the Criteria of whether it destroyed/obscured or enhanced essential architectural features because there are
none . . . it's a NEW garage". they I could have compared it to
the previous north elevation(see attachment)that too had a louver in the wall and only minor windows
into the library area over the expansive blank wall of the gym and stair tower much the same as
the new garage architectural features or lack thereof. So the last of the criteria gives the developer freedom to
enhance "to the extent that is feasible and prudent to do so". Dean has clearly stated in the design teams
professional opinion it became apparent that it was not prudent to place the windows as originally shown but
rather place them more appropriately in the highly viewed east and west garage elevations that relate well to
the existing School elevations having the large windows. This decision was subjective and did leave the north
elevation void of windows . . . windows that would have been low enough to not block headlights and would
have required 5' tall shrubs in front of them . . . no prudence in that.
More importantly, I can say "staff failed communicat Ray Anderson talked to Dean on-
site at the time of verification and discovery . . . no staff(Ray Anderson, Kelly Diekmann or Steve Schainker)
contacted Dean thereafter to discuss their concern nor their solution options . . . Dean's son Luke while at City
Hall for other reasons was told by Kelly what their recommendation was going to be and Luke told him that will
be an issue . . . Kelly went ahead and moved forward and gained Steve's approval without communication by
either of them to Dean". To me,this decision goes against several years of what we developers have been told
is a high priority effort by staff to communicate proactively with developers to avoid/clear conflict/controversy.
Dean has been referred to by several of you and others involved in this project as a model developer that has
communicated in every possible way with every neighbor, community organization, city department and staff,
P&Z member, Council member, etc. his intentions, his hurdles, his compromises, his commitments and has
worked with an open set of plans and jobsite to any and all that have inspected or simply shown an interest. I
know that on this upcoming Tuesday night Dean had every intention of coming before you with a crescendo
celebration of the success of the project :.t now is left in confusion as to its Urban Revitalization success.
I don't know what can be done between now and when item #34 hits your Agenda tomorrow night but I ask that
you consider your options so as to turn this agenda item towards a positive rather than a disgusting negative to
end this projects exposure in its last Council Meeting. Bottom line to the question that should have foremost
been considered by staff and now is left for you to consider is "does the project substantially conform to the
approved URA plan". You will need to define "substantially conform" and pull in to or disregard from the details
found upon a site investigation noted by Ray Anderson or perhaps yourself on this upcoming beautiful January
day. We have ordered a great day for you to go take a look at Rosie(as we call her) if you haven't done so
already. Please consider seriously how this matter will unfold tomorrow night . . . time for me to watch the
CYCLONES beat Texas ! ! !
./Corp,inc. I p: 515.597.5457 1 c: 515.290.3400 ! www.jcorp.biz
file://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesElEF34\—web8681... 1/27/2015