HomeMy WebLinkAboutA020 - Email letter to Council from Duane Jensen dated January 26, 2015 Page 1 of 2
RE: Roosevelt URA Amendment
Duane Jensen
to:
dean Jensen, bobanncamp@aol.com, gloriabetcherwardl@gmail.com, Gart111F01-Ante@gmail.com,
pforazem givail.com, nelson.ames@outlook.com, mg@fightingburrito.com,
amber.corrieri gmail.com, lvilla@iastate.edu, dvoss@city.ames.ia.us
01/26/2015 09:37 PM
Show Details
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 their job . . . 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 failed at doing their job . . . they 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 the
Criteria of whether it destroyed/obscured or enhanced essential architectural features because there are none .
. . it's a NEW garage". The only features they could have compared it to would have been those of 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. Hmmmm . . . 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 at doing their job . . . 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. Staff instead has
taken a position of no communication on a sensitive interpretation with a costly recommended solution that
they knew would cause conflict and great heartburn with Dean.
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
tile://C:ADocuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesE 1 EF34\—web5255... 1/27/2015
Page 2 of 2
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 rather than being crushed by staff that have yet again elected to not
communicate and instead have postured turmoil into your Council Agenda.
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 ! ! !
Duane E. Jensen I ./Corp,;nc. I p: 515.597.5457 1 c: 515.290.3400 i www.jcorp.biz
file://C:ADOCuments and Settings\diane.voss\Local Settings\Temp\notesE I EF34\—web5255... 1/27/2015