Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-22 Bd Comm minutesV-1 /1 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1980 7:30 PM CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lundquist, Blum, Vetter, Ogesen. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jakobsen, Kammermeyer, Lehman. STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Charbon, Ryan. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: V-8002. That the vacation of College Street right-of-way between Capitol and Madison Streets be approved. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Secretary Lundquist called the meeting to order and asked if anyone wished to discuss anything not included on the agenda. No one responded. V-8002. Discussion of vacating College Street right-of-way between Capitol and Madison Streets. (Council referral.) Commissioner Ogesen was concerned that there was no compensation given by the University of Iowa to the City. Commissioner Blum stated that this land should be given in the spirit of cooperation in hopes that the University would cooperate with the City at a later date. After some discussion by the Commission the Commission approved the vacation of College Street right-of-way between Capitol and Madison Streets, subject to the necessary utility easements. 5-8002. Discussion of a preliminary and final plat of Empire Addition, located at Highway 1 and Interstate 80; 45 -day limitation period: 4/4/80, 60 -day limitation period: 4/19/80. Commissioner Ogesen stated that he was concerned that the legal papers were not in order at this time. After some discussion by the Commission Ogesen moved, and Vetter seconded, that this be deferred until future dedication documents and storm water agreement with the owner of Lot 2 are completed. Motion passed unanimously. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAS CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES Planning & Zoning Commission. March 21, 1980 Page 2 OTHER BUSINESS: Future development of BOI trac@'and the extension of Heinz Road. Boothroy stated that this item will be on the agenda for the next meeting along with the Trafficways Plan. Status report on Council's action regarding Melrose Court Commissioner Lundquist stated that Jakobsen had talked with Vetter and Kammermeyer, and each had agreed to be on the task force for Melrose Court. Kammermeyer will be the Chairperson for this task force. It was then discussed by the Commission who should make up the time schedule for the task force. The Commission decided that the task force should do this when they convene. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Prepared by: riinG;C,n.,Q ("hr{A/,;rTti Marcia A. Charbon Senior Clerk Typist Approved by: ..� avid Lundquist Secretary to the elanning & Zoning Commission MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES n i MINUTES COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY NEEDS APRIL 2, 1980 12:00 NOON RLCREAIION CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Hall, Johnson, Jones, Amidon, McCormick, Bonney, Barker, Pecina, Haldeman (12:20) MEMBERS ABSENT: Draper, VanderZee STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Charbon, Laverty, Sandra, Hencin GUESTS PRESENT: John Galdner RECOMMENDATON TO CITY COUNCIL: The Committee on Community Needs recommends to the City Council that the Lower Ralston Creek Neighborhood Revitalization Project be finished before pursuing any new projects. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Chairperson Hall called the meeting to order and asked for consideration of the minutes of March 5, 1980. Johnson moved and Amidon seconded that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion passed unanimously. Second Year Small Cities Application: Jones reported on the Lower Ralston Creek Neighborhood meeting that had taken place on March 13, 1980. She stated that there had been a small representation and it was mainly a review of what had already been done in the area. The second year application for funding was also discussed as well as Phase II acquisition schedules. Milkman stated that at the second public hearing on the Second Year SmilII Cities Application Phil Cary, owner of a fence company located in the Small Cities Area, stated that he had been unhappy with the purchase. offer. Pecina asked if the land had already been appraised and maybe he could be relocated on the other side of Ralston Creek. Milkman stated that it had been appraised and the location mentioned would be considered. Milkman also stated that a resolution would go to the City Council for approval of the Second Year Small Cities Application, then the Small Cities Application will be sent to HUD. Small Cities Project Completion Budgeting: Jim Hencin, CDBG Program Coordinator, explained a memo that Don Schmeiser and he had sent to City Council. Hencin pointed out that Iowa City is now 4? MICROFILMED DY JORM MICR;LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES II n P i I I i MINUTES CCN - APRIL 2, 1980 Paye 2 an SMSA city, therefore, Iowa City is no longer eligible for Small Cities money. Hencin stated that Lower Ralston Creek could be completed in the fall of 1981 using the Metro Entitlement funds monies, or they could finish the second phase of the Small Cities (mainly engineering and design, utility relocation, and the new Benton Street culvert) during 1981 and begin new projects with the Metro Entitlement Funds. Pecina asked Hencin what would happen if the Metro Entitlement Funds did not cover the rest of the Lower Ralston Creek improvements. Hencin replied that the City was fairly certain that they were ,going to receive sufficient money from the Metro Entitlement Funds to complete the project. Johnson stated that the disposition fees could be used if there is not enough money in the Metro Entitlement Funds to cover the completion of the Lower Ralston Creek improvements. Johnson also stated he felt that the Lower Ralston Creek improvements should be finished before any new projects are started. Johnson explained that this would give the City more time to pursue new projects and goals in the years ahead. Hall felt that the Lower Ralston Creek improvements should be set up in phases so that if money was not available, construction could be stopped. Haldeman asked if any projects were to be dropped. Milkman replied no. Johnson moved, and Pecina seconded that the Committee on Community Needs recommend to the City Council that the Lower Ralston Creek Neighborhood Improvements Project be finished before pursuing any new projects. Motion passed unanimously. Johnson asked if it would be possible that the Crandic Railroad abandon the bridge over Ralston Creek so that repairs would not be needed. Johnson also stated that the railroad tracks on Maiden Lane could be abandoned and the new track be built behind Nagle Lumber Company. Milkman said she would look into these matters. future Community Development Funds: Milkman explained that in 1981 the Lower Ralston Creek impruvemenL,, would be finished and new neighborhood projects could be undertaken. Milkman stated that there were two guidelines to be followed: 1) projects must benefit persons with low- to moderate -income; 2) one or more neighborhoods can be identified for 3 year comprehensive projects. CCN members then suggested various areas for community development improvements as follows: 1) 900 block of Iowa Avenue is deteriorating (make a Chinatown); 2) make a greenbelt on Iowa Avenue; 3) storm sewer on the corner of Center and Dearborn; 4) Ralston Creek - other elements; 5) Maiden Lane - beautify community; 6) bikeways in neighborhoods; 7) acquire more land around Hickory Hill for future park; 8) Northsirin neighborhood. MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC R;LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES WINES e o D MINUTES CCN - APRIL 2, 1980 Page 3 Johnson stated that new projects should be coordinated with the City's long range goals. McCormick asked what types of projects this money could be used for. Milkman gave each member a copy of the handbook which describes in general what this money could be used for. i Haldeman questioned whether or not any housing inspectors could be funded j through this money. Hencin explained that the project using the housing inspectors was finished and that CDBG money could not finance housing inspectors unless it was concerned with a new CDBG project. Johnson asked if this money could possibly be used to original platted City. It was replied that this would be cons There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Prepared by: I'IQILLLIh W•i Marcia A. Charbo Senior Clerk-Typ MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR�ILA9 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES ■ MINUTES BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1980 CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM i MEMBERS PRESENT: Washburn, Terry, Pepper, Madsen, Eskin MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Boshart from Daily Iowan; Sparks from University of Iowa Urban and Regional a� Planning Department; Smith from KXIC; Blough, Dahm and Kalergis from Hawkeye CableVision; Olive STAFF PRESENT: Shaffer, Scholten, Tiffany, Melling RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Pertaining to Hawkeye CableVision's request to extend the ordinance required April 18th deadline 120 days for 25 percent of Iowa City to be wired so as to offer full network services, the BTC recommends no extension be granted. Further, the BTC recommends Hawkeye CableVision be assessed from the joint security fund fifty dollars ($50) per day for the first 30 days past the April 18th deadline and one hundred dollars ($100) per day thereafter until 25 percent activation is obtained. MATTERS PENDING COMMISSION -COUNCIL DISPOSITION: According to the "Broadband Telecommunications Franchise Enabling Ordinance" the City Council shall hold a public hearing (on the Hawkeye extension at Afterthe hearing) and lupon deliberatingrconsiderationsublished �theoCity hCouncil shall determine what response should be given Hawkeye CableVision's 120 day extension request. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: The BTC's recommendation to City Council was made after much deliberation and cnteed an the fat Hawkeye decisionsrand act onscaffecting dIowadCity. ens heavily e resultingeno extensioon ATC in Dnver for n recommendation is suggested as a strong message to gain ATC's attention, to express Iowa City's dissatisfaction in Denver's performance in guidance, service and action in their capacity as decision -maker and advisor to the local Hawkeye office. Although Hawkeye CableVision has progressed in construction plans and developments they have not met, and say they cannot meet, the stated commitment to have 25 percent of the cable system activated by April 18, 1980. MICROFILMED DY JORM MICR�ILAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES i I i I I MINUTES BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1980 CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM i MEMBERS PRESENT: Washburn, Terry, Pepper, Madsen, Eskin MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Boshart from Daily Iowan; Sparks from University of Iowa Urban and Regional a� Planning Department; Smith from KXIC; Blough, Dahm and Kalergis from Hawkeye CableVision; Olive STAFF PRESENT: Shaffer, Scholten, Tiffany, Melling RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Pertaining to Hawkeye CableVision's request to extend the ordinance required April 18th deadline 120 days for 25 percent of Iowa City to be wired so as to offer full network services, the BTC recommends no extension be granted. Further, the BTC recommends Hawkeye CableVision be assessed from the joint security fund fifty dollars ($50) per day for the first 30 days past the April 18th deadline and one hundred dollars ($100) per day thereafter until 25 percent activation is obtained. MATTERS PENDING COMMISSION -COUNCIL DISPOSITION: According to the "Broadband Telecommunications Franchise Enabling Ordinance" the City Council shall hold a public hearing (on the Hawkeye extension at Afterthe hearing) and lupon deliberatingrconsiderationsublished �theoCity hCouncil shall determine what response should be given Hawkeye CableVision's 120 day extension request. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: The BTC's recommendation to City Council was made after much deliberation and cnteed an the fat Hawkeye decisionsrand act onscaffecting dIowadCity. ens heavily e resultingeno extensioon ATC in Dnver for n recommendation is suggested as a strong message to gain ATC's attention, to express Iowa City's dissatisfaction in Denver's performance in guidance, service and action in their capacity as decision -maker and advisor to the local Hawkeye office. Although Hawkeye CableVision has progressed in construction plans and developments they have not met, and say they cannot meet, the stated commitment to have 25 percent of the cable system activated by April 18, 1980. MICROFILMED DY JORM MICR�ILAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES Broadband Telecommunications Commission Tuesday, April 1, 1980 Page 2 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 4:40 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The 8TC will hold its next regular meeting April 15, 1980, 4:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Conference Room. Pepper declared the public hearing in session. Hawkeye gave a brief presentation supporting the reasons and need for the 120 day extension period. Hawkeye has supplied correspondence, schedules and maps to document two reasons for the extension request. First, locating the tower site in Iowa City has involved delays beyond Hawkeye's control. Secondly, contract negotiations with ATC's selected turnkey manufacturer for Iowa City (American Electronics Laboratories or AEL) fell through giving rise to additional delays. NOTE: A turnkey manufacturer is one that supplies the hardware necessary to build a cable system, and actually builds the cable system as well. Hawkeye believes there is no way they can meet the April 18, 1980 deadline. Blough projected a loss of approximately 60 days due to tower site problems and approximately 60 days loss due to the abandoned AEL contract. The BTC proceeded to ask questions of Hawkeye gathering the following information: there are five steps in the construction process including stranding, cabling, splicing, activation and proofing. The six week delay between the beginning of stranding and the cabling in Hawkeye's proposed construction schedule is partly caused by a need for lead time to keep the two crews (stranding and cabling) out of each other's way, but largely caused by the inability to obtain the necessary cabling material. In addition, the stranding and cabling process takes so long because of the unavailability of trained labor to build the system (nationally). There are currently two stranding crews working in Iowa City. CIt was alleged that AEL and ATC had a contract on or about November 4, ity wasn$170,1000 more than agreed on980 AEL ninitially. Ad their TC was not woillingoto Pay this amount. It was understood ATC had a blanket contract with AEL, contracting AEL to do several ATC systems. AEL was allowed to drop the Iowa City bid, apparently without any litigation on ATC's part to recoup their potential losses (in both time lost and money lost) caused by AEL's move. It appears such an agreement may have been reached at Iowa City's expense. Because AEL was allowed to drop the contract in Iowa City, ATC had to develop an in-house division to design and build the Iowa City system and thus cause further time delays (ATC decided to go with an in - MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR;LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES J i Broadband Telecommunications Commission Tuesday, April 1, 1980 Page 3 house operation because there are few turnkey manufacturers willing to do a system the size of Iowa City and because of closer control over the whole operation). It was asked how much control or local decision-making power Hawkeye has over what happens in Iowa City. Hawkeye reported ATC in Denver makes most of the decisions. Matters such as turnkey manufacturer selection, clearing tower sites, construction scheduling and equipment purchases appear to be made by ATC's Denver offices. Concerns were expressed that this may be the crux of the local problems, i.e., that Denver makes the decisions and has approximately 120 systems to be concerned with at the same time. Iowa City, being a smaller system, is getting less attention, service and action than the larger systems. To compound the problems there are frequent management shifts in ATC's regional and home offices. Pepper asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Olive said he wanted to see the cable system get built quickly. Public hearing closed. 'S Two issues needed to be decided. Should an extension be granted? If so, What should the duration of the extension be? If not, what fine should be assessed (from the performance bond or the security fund)? Points of clarification: If any extension is granted it would not affect any future ordinance deadlines unless specifically stating so in the Council's final determination. A fine of up to one hundered dollars ($100) per day may be assessed. Whatever the BTC decides is sent as a recommendation to the City Council for final determination. Some Commissioners stated it was inconceivable how a contract with AEL could have been lost in such a matter. (It was believed either ATC did not push the issue in order to save the AEL relationship so AEL would continue building several other ATC systems, or that ATC simply lost Iowa City in . the shuffle because there are so many systems to keep track of and because of frequent management shifts). There were concerns expressed that there must be some mismanagement problems (or lack of consistent management) in the Denver offices that caused this and other problems leading to ,the time delays being experienced. One Commissioner stated the City may incur a loss of revenue if any extension is granted (the City's three percent fee from revenues that were expected to start accruing by April 19, 1980). Another concern expressed was the BTC's responsibility to the citizens who voted for this cable company, i.e., to hold the cable company to what they said they would do. As for the tower site issue, a quiry regarding why Hawkeye or ATC did not choose several sites and file all with the FAA, instead of filing one at a time, and filing all the approved site with the MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR+LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 11 I_,._. Broadband Telecommunications Commission Tuesday, April 1, 1980 Page 4 Planning and Zoning Department, and thus, potentially avoiding such time delays as have been experienced with the tower site problem. However, the method used by ATC is apparently standard industry practice. Other Commissioners expressed concerns about the cable company already being penalized by having a full staff and having invested over a million dollars and still having no revenue themselves. Also, that the local cable people were being cooperative in trying to stay on schedule. Granting noextension could cause further damages in the form of bad public relations and publicity and loss of additional revenue to Hawkeye and ATC. Finally, would no extension cause the cable company to speed up their construction produce the system in haste (resulting in City'srocess to Iowa tsystem of less cause or ess thanacceptable quality)? Terry made a motion to grant a 30 day extension with a one hundered dollar ($10wa daas n0)o fine after that until the 25 motion did not pnsscent activation was obtained. Ther Further discussion ensued. Terry made a motion to recommend the City Council grant no extension. Further, that the BTC recommend to the Council that a fine of fifty dollars ($50) per day be assessed the first 30 days, and one hundered dollars ($100) per day thereafter until 25 percent activation is obtained. Seconded by Washburn. Unanimously approved. It should be noted the recommendation of no extension was agreed upon (after much discussion) because it was generally believed Hawkeye has to rely on Denver for many of its functions and that Hawkeye (and Iowa City) are not receiving the best service, guidance and action it could (from Denver). The no extension vote was seen as a method of alerting ATC and gaining their attention (to Iowa City's dissatisfaction) so that Iowa City would not be first 30 days)ewasoked seenaas a messan The ge of good duated ine faith of in0therlocalfor cable peoples' efforts. ADJOURN: Moved by Washburn, seconded by Terry to adjourn. Unanimously approved. Adjournment at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submit ed, Drew hnffer, SP46iRiist MICROFILMED BY JORM MIC RI�LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES