HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-07 Correspondence
Iowa City City Council
410 East Washington
Iowa City IA 52240
358 Magowan
Iowa City IA 52246
27 October 1995
To the City Council:
This is regarding the proposed widening of Melrose Ave. I do not believe that it is in
the best interests of Iowa City to degrade the quality of any neighborhood in that way.
Iowa city is so far a decent place to live largely because it is not choked with traffic as is
Los Angeles and because the size is manageable. Neighborhood quality should have a
higher priority than speeding up n'affic flow. Once one neighborhood is degraded, the door
is opened to degrade other neighborhoods. Further movement in this direction is likely to
lead to the major problems of pollution, crime, fear, social decay, and disease which
characterize oar large cities.
A sensible alternative to provide better access to the hospital would be a park and ride
system. A bus which delivers people to the hospital door would be preferable to a long
walk through the parking ramp.
I oppose any widening of Melrose Avenue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(Professor of Engineering)
C4eorge I~norr
;~q0 Kimball Pa'md
1ow~ Gity, k~wa 522A5
P~x: 310-.351-2952
Phone: .ql ~35L2052
31 O~tx~ber 1.995
The Mayor of kava City, Ms S. M. Horc~itz
¢Jity 11all
Washington Street
]'owe City, Iowa 522,i0
SIJlq. IF, CT: (?a-receipt., Towa City ^irport.
Dem' M~ 11orowit.g;
T at. tended the MeetinK of the City Council and the Roard of ,qnpervisora on Octalher 24,
6:30 k'.M., but had ao time to trak qu~tion~ about the pl~ojcct. I wt~s surprisc-d tat Lhc
Council and the 13oawl had already agreed in principle on t. he rehabilltation of tim fowa CitS,
Airport. I was rec~.ntly infonn~t abont the project by Mr. Jareld Searle, but T am ignorant
about. the ku'gcr picture. I tun c, mvinccxt that many people in the Iowa CiLy/¢.k~ralvillc area
would like tat have more informark'm, which yon, the Pa-~ard, and the (",t-alncil, undcmbt~dly/
have. it might well worth while to make this letter and your response available the pa'q~le in
this tu'ca~ The guiding principle fo~' such a project shouM be the cnhtmcemcnL c~f the qut~ky
of life for the people living in ¢nlr area.
WhaL growth do you ;mtidpatc for the Luwa City/(.k*r;dville aa'ea for the next 20 ~.~ 30
ye. am'?
Vgq~at fireetlon wi]] an airport play for that scenario'?
What is now ;he ~-exluency of hmdin._LVS trod take off and what tue the tmticipatcd figtu'cs
for the htture? Mr. $~arle gave me an order of magnitude estimate of 3 landinga and
3 take offs per hollr, but the axisting log book of the airp¢~. ahca~ld give more aceirate
an~we,~ for the prc~eat.
What is the nature of the aii'po~rL ' ' ?
activity. Is it. pleaain't and lcIsta-c flying (%?), spot ks
flying (%?), industrial c~m,m,mication, spht up into personal trtdllc (%?) and material
traffic (%?).
'lb: ~lhc M~*yor o£1ow~, C~y, NI~ $. M. 11orowi~z
31 O~o&z lg~ P~ge: 2
10.
Can ~he above mentioned act. ivity ~t, tire IC airport be justified in v~ew of the near-by
ai~o~, in C~r Rapid? A~ iliumration I mention t. hat, the 20-30 minut~ dri~ng
the U.S. (s.S.: Hou~.cm, TX). I beam that the m~ical ~d~fml of the l Jr is intev~t.~ in
the proj~. beamme of f~t. ert. rannl~wtation of donor organ t. ranaplant~. However I alfio
h~d t~at the t~c ~uv~, ~ cx~mpm'c~ to the ~c of the CI{ ~dtport ~ 8 minute.
In it wo~h
What is the c~st of disabling the North-South rtmway, the exter,.'qom sad upgrading of
the reruMnine crowaye, teldug out of Dann Ro~ w]m~ it intn~nr~ with the ]m~ding
approa~, ~tioa~ b~ etc.? Whist is t~e exit of sp~it~q ~Xl~pmeat? 11ow
mu~ Mc~mc ~ cxp~<~ to be e~fic~l by the ~dc of l~d ~o developemY 11ow mu~ of
the up~e will be paid by the PMerM (]ovemment, hmv muc]~ ~11 be pdd for by the
operation of the Mxptu-t trod ~y ~w much wi~ be piud by tt~x~? The latter way
of payment w~ be done m~tly by pt~*plc who do not ~rectly profit h'om the '~port
and ahon]d ha kept zero.
how fox is the airport uecc.-~uy to keep omd Lo attract industry which Iowa City
would like to keep or t,o attract.. T]us qum~ticm c~m be answered by the si, ndy o~ similar
citk~ m the U.S.A.
Hem would an enviaionened 'q'nduatrial Re:q~m'dr parld' far~ if *.he City ext. rapo]atm
from its data on the imJ. ustrial poxk existing now North of the city. What is the role
d the [InivemiW (e.g. engineering) to gttract. ind~mtriM r0~0arch centers? As is well
known, t. he ever ehanKing University ^dl'ninist. ration hns not. had a gc~'~d ]rand with
regurd k~ the ~.~-c'o. lkxi "b~cr ~c,~cr .
11ow dot~ the p,c~cat ~d~po~t pltm c~mp~uc with "Meh'o Noith" ecoa' ~cay, IA?
C~ Iowa City be ~ $ier,il:~' mabel foi md~Lry ~ Lhe Dt~ Mdu~ Metxopoht~ ~ea.
It is public ~owl~gn that ~ame Fo~]ne 500 ~ampanim have ai~ up for "M~.ro
North". But is it Gllin~ up f~b?
?inally, what. is the idea1 size for the lows City/Coralville area whid~ maximizes the
query of ~c for i~ citizen? It m~t be ~omcwhc~e between a h~ct and ~ big city,
the latter hnlng well ~o~ t~ be di~cult t,o manage.
lb: 2he M~'or o1'1ow~ City, ~ $. M. 11oro~i;z
1995
ff ~ thee quaffohs can be tta~wci-zxt positively, Mi'. Set~d~'s ttirpoz'L c~onccpt may vexy
well be a very gca~d ide~, worfl~ ;virile to adopt and exe~nte it. In my underatanding the
plan is well LhuughL out, it is pwf~iuaai, it ha~ a broad divcz~iLy of differcat uses and may
well rcpr~cnt tm asset for Lhc fuLm'c of the City.
T am looking forward t~o your rmpon~.
(qeorga Knorr
IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
1801 SOuth R~vers~de Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Othce Phone (319) 356-5045
MEMO
DATE: October 31, 1995
TO: Ms. Susan Horowitz, Mayor
FROM: Ron O'Neil, Airport Manager
RE: Airport Master Plan Study
This is in response to the letter you forwarded to me from Mr.
George Knoor, concerning the Airport Master Plan. Mr. Knoor said
he attended the October 24 City/County meeting and was surprised
that the Council and Board had already agreed on the rehabilitation
of the Airport.
The October 24 meeting was for the singular purpose of discussing
a design concept for off site areas. This is critical so that off
site development will not be in conflict with the development that
will be proposed for the Airport in the Master Plan. The on site
Master Plan design has not been completed and will be discussed by
the Airport Commission at a later date. The Master Plan Study is
scheduled to be completed in April, 1996.
The off site concept design was presented to the Board of
Supervisors at their work session on September 19 and to the
Council at their work session on September 25. In addition, the
Master Plan Study has been an agenda item at the monthly Airport
Commission meetings since April of this year.
There have been two public meetings, August 8 and October 19, to
discuss the Master Plan. Press releases were distributed to the
local radio and television stations, to several newspapers and to
the neighborhood groups. Notices of upcoming meetings were
distributed in the news letter that is included with all City water
bills. At the October 19 public meeting, the concept design for
off site development was discussed in detail, with Howard Horan,
from the Airport Commission, Jerry Searle, from McClure
Engineering, and myself, available to answer questions.
It has been a goal of the Airport Commission and McClure
Engineering to ensure everyone is given an opportunity to discuss
the Master Plan. Many of you have seen and heard the off site
concept explained several times. Everyone has been encouraged to
express comments and concerns.
I will address as many of Mr. Knoor's comments as I can. Many of
the issues he raises will be addressed at a later time in the
Master Plan Study and have not been addressed at this time because
the off site design concept issue has not been completed.
1. Mr. Knoor asked for an estimate of the growth of the Iowa
City/Coralville area for the next 20 to 30 years. I would direct
him to the comprehensive plans for Iowa City and Coralville. If
the area continues as in the past, Johnson County will see a steady
growth in population.
2. The function of the Airport will continue to be the same as
it always has been. That function is to provide the community with
a safe, available, general aviation facility. Specific uses have
changed over time, from a fueling stop for the transcontinental
mail route beginning in 1918, to a civilian pilot training facility
for the Navy in the 1930's and 1940's, to it's present use as an
important part of the state and federal aviation systems. Iowa
City was the commercial service airport for the area until Cedar
Rapids built their present municipal airport in the 1950's. This
is a general aviation airport and there are no plans that I am
aware of to change back to a commercial service airport. The Iowa
City Municipal Airport compliments the Cedar Rapids Airport, as
opposed to being in competition with it.
3. The number of daily operations given to Mr. Knoor by Jerry
Searle is correct. Because this is a non-towered airport, there is
no log book or recording of who operates to or from the Airport.
The Airport is available to aircraft 24 hours a day.
4. The activity of the Airport is documented in the Master Plan
Feasibility Study completed for the Airport Commission in 1993. A
copy is available at the Iowa City Public Library or I have a copy
I could lend to Mr. Knoor. The information is more extensive than
can be covered in this memo. Past, current, and forecasted number
of operations are discussed.
5. I am not aware of any contact or specific interest from the
University of Iowa Medical School. I spoke with Jerry Searle and
he has not been contacted by anyone from the Medical School.
University Hospitals does use the Airport on a regular basis for
patient transfers and donor organ flights. Proposed changes would
not make transportation of those flights any faster but it would
provide for a safer aviation facility. There are representatives
from the University on the Master Plan Resource Group committee.
The rest of the questions are either beyond the scope of the study
or will be answered when on site issues are addressed. The
objective of the Master Plan is to outline a blueprint for
providing aviation services for the next twenty years. Attempting
to determine what these services should be will be based on
information from the Iowa Department of Transportation, the Federal
Aviation Administration, aviation industry trends and standards,
and any other available information.
As towhat is the ideal size for the Iowa City/Coralville area, the
answer to that is well beyond the scope of an airport master plan
study. If you took a survey in Iowa City, you would likely get at
least 60,000 different answers.
It is my understanding that Jerry Searle has met with Mr. Knoor and
some of the other owners of property immediately west and south of
the Airport. The concept design was discussed in detail. Jerry
and I would be very willing to meet with Mr. Knoor to discuss any
additional questions he may have concerning the Master Plan Study.
The preliminary plan has been supported by City and County
officials, adjacent property owners and the Airport Commission.
When completed, this should provide the Airport with a plan to
safely meet the aviation needs and enhance an asset of the
community, while providing an opportunity for landowners near the
Airport who may want to develop their property.
cc:
City Council
Airport Commission
Jerry Searle, McClure Engineering
Dear Members of the Iowa City, City Council:
I was very concerned last evening, during a public hearing,
the question uas asked, "Whether anyone else uished to
address Council, other than PATV." It was my understanding
that during a public hearing the pub]ic was encouraged to
provide input to the Council, regardless of their position on
the issue, or how ¢requent]y that view may be reiterated by
other members o¢ the community.
I became acquainted oith public access ohen Mr. Jerry Nixon
asked ?or assistance in coordinating the Midwest Regional
Conference, in May o~ 94. I soon discovered an environment
of unconditional acceptance where the parameters o? my
disability were completely removed,
There is no question that the city stands to bene?it a
great deal ?tom the proposed contract, but where is the
mandate ?or public access. There is nothing that stipulates
the inherent value o? individual perspective. What was once
a tool ?or the public to present their individual perspective
has become a public service under the guise of "community
programming" which presents in?ormation to the community ?tom
the singular perspective o? the star?.
Members o? the BTC, have encouraged the Council to wait
before allocating money because we don't know uhere
technology is going to be in the ~uture. What does this have
to do with the City's commitment to the principles upon which
public access is based? Whether the City continues to
utilize cable or moves to ?iber-optics ?or its'
telecommunication service. public access must continue to
play an integral part in our community.
Public access is important to our community because it allows
the freedom ?or individuality to be expressed, and it is a
living example of the principles embodied in the ?irst
amendment. I strongly believe these principles are essential
and well worth maintaining. Thank you ?or your prompt
attention to this matter.
a e. Wed, 25 Oct 1995 16:59:44 -0500
(CDT)
From: Robert Sayre <rsayre@blue.weeg.uiowa~edu>
To: Mkarr@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Cc: patv@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Subject: Public Access TV
Just wanted to say a quick word in its support. It is a really good
means of helping people find out what is going on in Iowa City.
Iowa City City Council
Civic Center
410 East Washington St.
Iowa City, 1A 52240
^CCE.S. S2
Public Access Television
Your Neighborhood Network
November 2, 1995
Dear Council Members:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Public Access Television, Inc., we wish first to
thank you for listening to our concerns, as well as to the comments of others, during the
public hearing held October 24.
We are, of course, very pleased to note the city's continuing commitment to public
access, as reflected in the proposed Cable Franchise Agreement Between the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, and Cablevision VII, Inc., and in the draft Cable Television Franchise Enabling
Ordinance. We recognize the wisdom that led the city staff, Council, Broadband
Telecommunications Commission, and others some five years ago to establish an
independent, nonprofit organization to operate public access; and we appreciate the effort
and care which has been taken to preserve this arrangement during the long and difficult
refranchisement negotiations.
The purpose of this letter is to summarize, and perhaps to clarify, our concerns with
regard to language pertaining to public access contained in the proposed franchise
agreement and draft ordinance. As indicated by Councilor Throgmorton, we will also
suggest changes that would address these concerns.
Beginning with the proposed franchise agreement, we have two comments
regarding Section XI, "Access channels, equipment, facilities, and services," subsection C,
"Access services" (page 11). The first sentence of this subsection reads, "Franchisee agrees to
continue to provide to the nonprofit corporation designated by the City and/or other
entities designated by the City, including the City itself, to carry out the day-to-day
operations of public access and community programming, annual payments based on
$149,554.66 annual payment in year one of the Franchise term" (underlined phrases are
those which concern us).
First, inclusion of other entities, including the city, in the list of organizations
authorized to receive funding heretofore devoted to public access appears to open the
possibility that the city could designate more than one such entity, including itself, to
receive this funding at any given time during the term of the franchise. We understand
this language is intended to assure that the city would continue to receive funding for
123 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone (319) 338-7035 Fax (319) 356-5494
e-mail: patv@avalon.net
public access in the unlikely event that the designated nonprofit organization dissolved,
disbanded, or ceased to function. Unfortunately, this phrase could also permit a splintering
of public access funding in the equally unlikely event that future policy makers lost sight of
the importance of designating and fully funding a single entity to carry out the day-to-day
operations of public access.
Second, inclusion of the phrase "and community programming" in the passage cited
above concerns us because the term "community programming" carries a very specific
meaning that falls outside the current mission and capacity of PATV, the current public
access provider designated by the city. As written, then, the franchise agreement appears to
permit the use of funds historically intended for public access for a different purpose.
This contradiction will become clearer with a brief explanation. On February 20,
1995, the Broadband Telecommunications Commission endorsed a proposal by the city's
Cable Division staff to initiate a community programming effort under Cable Division
auspices. This followed two years of discussions regarding community programming
among local access entities, including the city, the Iowa City Public Library, the Iowa City
Community School District, and PATV. That process had led PATV to submit its own
community programming proposal, one that segregated public access and community
programming functions; the BTC then asked the city to submit a proposal, and it was this
proposal the commission endorsed in February 1995. According to the meeting minutes,
"There was consensus that the city is better suited to coordinate community programming
given PATV's mission and the additional strain on their administrative responsibilities
and resources" (BTC minutes, Feb. 20, 1995).
Thus the BTC recognized community programming did not fit well with PATV's
current mission and would place an undue strain on PATV's administrative and financial
resources. Moreover, the term connotes a "tangible new service" (ibid.) carried out under
the administrative aegis of the city's Cable Division.
We hasten to add that PATV stands ready to cooperate in those aspects of a
coordinated community programming effort that do fall within its mission and available
resources. Representatives of PATV have clearly stated this willingness to cooperate on
various occasions; see, for example, BTC minutes of Feb. 20, 1995.
Had PATV been given an earlier opportunity to suggest changes that would address
these concerns, we might have proposed substituting the following passage for that portion
of Section XI, subsection C, quoted above:
"Franchisee agrees to continue to provide to the nonprofit corporation designated by the
City annual payments based on $149,554.66 annual payment in year one of the Franchise
term to carry out the day-to-day operations of public access. In the event that the
nonprofit corporation designated by the City to operate public access is unable to carry
out this function, Franchisee agrees to continue to provide to other entities designated
by the City, including the City itself, an equal amount for the continued operation of
public access."
Turning now to the draft ordinance implementing the proposed franchise
agreement, we note that Section 12-4-27, "Channels to be provided," subsection D, "Access
channels," states in part: "The Broadband Telecommunications Commission shall, in
cooperation with the entities operating access channels, develop rules for such channels."
123 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone (319) 338-7035 Fax (319) 356-5494
e-mail: patv@avalon.net
If public access is to be administered by an independent nonprofit organization, we
are uncomfortable at the prospect of delegating to a city commission the authority to
develop rules for such an organization. This appears to compromise what many have
termed the "arm's length" relationship deemed proper between goverranent and quasi-
public, but none the less independent, nonprofit organizations. We understand city staff
have already proposed amending this passage to stipulate that access entities will, in
cooperation with the BTC, develop rules for operating their respective access channels. We
heartily concur with this proposed change.
Thank you very much for receiving these comments in the cooperative and
constructive spirit which moves us to offer them.
Respectfully,
Chairman
Steve Wurtzler
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Copies:
Broadband Teleconununications Commission
Mr. Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager
Mr. Drew Shaffer, Cable Television Administrator
Mr. James Larew, Attorney
123 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone (319) 338-7035 Fax (319) 356-5494
e-mail: patv@avalon.net
October 26, 1995
Dee Vanderhoe¢, Chairperson
Neighborhood Open Space Action Plan
and Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Ms. Vanderhoef and Council Members:
It has come to the attention of the Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Association
that there are two land acquisition possibilities located close to, but not
directly in, our neighborhood.
We, the Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Association, ask that our area be
made a priority over others that have existing nearby park space since
our area has an open space deficit of 7.35 acres. It is out' hope that the
City will concentrate efforts on acquiring land closet- to us to help reduce
this deficit. The neighborhood is very interested in havin9 open/park
space to enjoy.
The two land acquisition possibilities referred to are the Jensen property
on Harlocke Street and the Neuzil property neat- the Meh'ose Court area
(Olive Street). We understand there has been agreement between the
Parks and Recreation Committee to go ahead and have an appraisal of the
Jensen land and then make an appropriate offer on this property. We
would encourage these acquisitions if it would not interfere with any
acquisitions for the Miller/Orchard neighborhood area.
We would favor the Hatlocke Street (Jensen) acquisition over the Olive
Street (Neuzil) ~cquJsition sJpce we are aware that if an appropriaf¢
action pla~ is devised, there is land that could possibly be acquired, by
donation, from William and Barbara Buss. The land to the east of the
Buss property, bordering Miller Avenue, and tile Jenseu land on Harlocke
Street could then be linked together, perhaps by a trail systetn, creating
a very adequate and useful open space for the area.
We would greatly appreciate your consideration in making the
Miller/Orchard neighborhood a "priority area" ~or any open space
acquisitions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have
any questions, we would be more than happy to visit with you.
Sincerely,
M. S. Erenbe~jer, Representative
Miller/Orchard Neighborhood Association
204 Douglass Court
Iowa City, Iowa 522,10
November 2, 1995
Karen Kubby & Members of the I.C. City Council
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Karen Kubby & Members of the l.C. City Council:
I am writing this letter in regards to the matter that I spoke to Karen Kubby about on
Friday, October 27, 1995; Joe Fowler and Beth (from the Parking Dept.) are also aware
of this situation.
On three separate occasions, I received parking tickets, while I was parked in the
Chauncey Parking Ramp (located across from the Civil Center), when I shouldn't have
received these tickets. For instance, a week or so ago I put my money in the machine at
about 2:26 P.M.--yet I received a ticket at 2:39 P.M. when I was paid up until about 3:50
P.M. There were two other occasions (that happened about a week before this incident)
where I also received tickets that I obviously shouldn't have. By the way, I was able to
prove to the cashier, Ellen (in the Civic Center), that I was paid for the times I mentioned
by showing her my parking receipts (that are given by the machine). By the way, I gave
my tickets and parking receipts to Ellen.)
Naturally, the cashier dismissed all 3 tickets-I should expect so! However, it is
outrageous and unacceptable that I should receive 3 parking tickets-when I obviously
did not deserve to get these tickets!
I am proposing that the City of Iowa City adopt a new policy: When a ticket is unfairly
given to a person, that person should receive some form of reparation. For instance, my
3 tickets were fines at $3 a piece, totaling $9: therefore, I should receive either $9 or $9
worth of parking credit in the Chauncey Ramp.
Certainly, l'd like to see some system implemented so that such errors NEVER occur
again in the future. For instance, maybe there could be a 10 min. grace period or-better
yet-the meter mind could double-check to make sure whether he/she is being accurate
when givmg out a ticket. However, just in case errors are made, I still feel that some
reparation policy MUST be implemented.
Let me note that the tu-st time this happened, I shrugged off this urffortunate incident.
But, it is completely unacceptable for this to happen 3_ times: I SHOULD NOT
HAVE RECEIVED 3 SEPARATE PARKING TICKETS, 14rl--IEN I OBVIOUSLY DID
NOT DESERVE TO. ~
I sincerely appreciate your prompt attention to this bothersome matter. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if questions should arise.
Sincerely,
Eric D. Miller
1102 Hollywood Blvd. #1
Iowa City, IA 52240
319/339-1173
City of iowa City
MEIV1ORANDU M
Date: October 23, 1995
To: The Honorable Mayor, City Council and City Clerk
From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Re: Parking Prohibition on Jensen Street
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3 of the City Code, this is to advise you of the following
action:
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A.10 of the City Code, the City Traffic Engineer will direct the installation
of NO PARKING, 8 AM TO 5 PM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY on the east side of Jensen
Street from its intersection with Walden Road north to the north end of Jensen Street. This action
will take place on or shortly after November 8, 1995.
COMMENT:
This action is being taken upon the completion of a postcard survey of the residents affected by
this proposed change. Twenty-one questionnaires were sent out to the abutting property owners,
15 responded with 13 of the respondents requesting that the action be taken. This action is being
taken to provide for the delivery of mail at curbside mailboxes.
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
NOTICE: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT
In accordance with Iowa. Code Section 28E.20 JOINT PURCHASES OF EQUIPMENT,
the City of Iowa City is giving notice of in~ent to purchase one or more items or
accessories or attachments to equipment, the total cost of which is estimated to be
$50,000 or more.
The following political subdivisions have been contacted:
City of Coralville o City Clerk
Johnson County Board of Supervlslors - Chalr
iowa City Community School Distdct - Business Office
NOTICE WAS MAILED:
EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED:
4(four) 1(one) ton trucks
1(one) recycle truck
1(one) medium tractor
1(one) small sweeper
7(seven) snow plows
1(one) motor grader
1(one) jetter/vac
City of Iowa City
Finance Department
Central Procurement & Services Division
6(six) marked squads
1(one) endloader
cc: City Council
David Bailie
Real Estate Manager
5820 Westlawn Parkway
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Dan Dakins
710 ]st Ave. S.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear Mr. Bailie:
This letter is regarding the proposed site plan for the New
Hy-Vee on First Ave. in Iowa City. I have serious concerns
with a couple of issues on this plan.
First, the placement of the loading docks on the northeast
corner of the building is unacceptable. The houses in the
700 block of First Avenue are your only neighbors, as far
as single family dwellings and you want to put the dock
right in our faces! This is not a neighborly act and I was
surprised that a company like Hy-Vee didn't take this into
account when the plan was drawn up.
Please consider moving the docks to the east side of the
building. You could then bring the truck traffic down the
east side of your lot off of Muscatine Ave. Scott Blvd. is a
designated truck route for the East side of Town. Muscatine
connects with Scott and Muscatine is not nearly as heavily
lived on or trav~as First Ave. Traffic studies back
this up.
At the least, move the dock to the northeast corner of the
building. This could be fed from either the east or the
north, but at least we, as neighbors, would be buffered from
the noise and sight a little more than if the dock is on
the northwest corner.
The other concern is the lack of screening between us and
the back of the building as the plan is now. An arborvatae
hedge only%is not enough to screen a 65,000
sq. ft. superstore. Please consider giving up 25 ft. wide
strip between the bike path and any concrete that would be
on the north side of the building. This small amount of land
would not displace many parking spaces in front of your
building, but by planting three black hills spruce and some
ash trees in this strip, a softening on the back side of
your building would be achieved and would be aestetically
appealing for the neighborhood and for traffic coming upon
Hy-Vee on First Ave. Seedles Green Ash or Lindens would be
fast-growing) clean trees that would be relatively
maintenance free.
I hope these concerns will be taken seriously. This
neighborhood is not against Hy-Vee coming in, and we will be
good neighbors. We hope you will be a good neighbor, too. I'm
sure these concerns can be resolved with minimum amount of
change to your overall site plan.
Sincerely
CC:
Robert Milko
Karen Frankin
City of Iowa
City
Daniel E.Dakins
4659 Lower West Branch Road
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November I, 1995
Ms. Susan Horowitz, Mayor
1129 Kirkwood Ave.
Io~va City, 1a.52240
Dear Ms. Horowitz,
I am writing you to ask if city council members and/or city officials would be interested in
participating in a project with me and my eighth grade students at South East Junior High. l
created this project, and we did it with some senior citizens through the senior center last school
year. I would like to enlarge the project to include other members of the community this school
year.
l,ast year I called the project Partners in Reading. This year I call it Community Reading
Partners. Here is the way the project worked last year. Students in one of my classes individually
chose books to read. I found duplicate books, some in our school library or the public library;
some had to be bought. I took the duplicate books to the senior center, and the senior volunteers
each chose one of the books to read. In this way reading partnerships were formed. The seniors
and my students then wrote back and forth to their panners in notebooks (which I provided)
weekly for one month. I provided weekly ideas on different aspects of the book to write about;
however, 1 encouraged seniors and students to write about anything they wanted to, both about the
book and other things, like their lives, interests, etc. And write they did. I can't emphasize
enough how successful this project was.
My students wrote more than they ever had before in my class. They thought and wrote in
more depth about their books than they ever had for their teacher. They thrived with the individual
attention while getting to know their partners. Many stereotypes were broken on both sides. My
students learned about seniors, and they became attached to them. The seniors learned that teens
aren't so bad filer all. The seniors enjoyed sharing thoughts about books with teenagers while
getting to know a teen individually. Some of the partners still keep in touch.
I feel thal the students benefitted so much from this projecT. They tell me that they feel
isolated from the community in so many ways. l could tell after this project that the bridges created
by writing to a senior made a big difference to the students beyond just sharing thoughts about a
book.
1 ~vould like to create more links between my students and other people in the community.
Only one of my classes participated with the seniors last year. 1 would like to find a reading
partner for each of my students. l have four classes, and I would like city officials and/or council
members to work with one of my classes, so it would involve approximately 27 people. I hope
there will be people involved in city government who would enjoy working with junior high kids
in this way. I have also written to the police chief to see if police officers would be interested in
participating in this project. Maybe we could combine city council members, city officials and
police officers to get enought people to do the project with one class. Each person's commitment
would be to read a book chosen by the student and then write to the student once a week for four
weeks. It would be a wonderful way for each of them to contribute to the education of an
individual eighth grader and make a real difference in that student's life.
There are details to figure out if we decide to do this together. l would love to talk to you
about it. I would like to do the project either in the winter during January or February or in the
spring during late March and April. With the seniors we had a social event at the end, so the
partners could meet. I would like to do that with the your group also.
I hope l've described my idea clearly. Please call me at 351-2876 at my home or 3394~'23
at South East to discuss it further if you are interested. This is a unique opportunity for both my
students and people involved in city government.
Thanks for your attention.
Sincerely,
Pat Schnack
November 7, 1995
To: Members of the City Council
Re: Parking limitations in the CN-1 District
and..the restaurant at SCOTT BLVD & C0URT ST.
Subject .....
I am enclosing a list of signatures obtained at the MID TOWN
RESTAURANT supporting the establishment of another restaurant
at Scott Blvd and Court Streets.
FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE patrons signed this petition.
Only one objection was received and that was a letter to
the editor with no address given.
The only other objections came from staff and from the
Board of Adjustment. This board indicated that they could not
over rule the staff on anything in this case. The board
declined to read any letters from patrons approving
of this restaurant.
We have listened to hours of political broadcasting stating
that this council listens, asks hard questions, gets the
public involved in all matters and then makes decisions
based on information given to them by the public.
I tend to doubt these statements. I have two CN-1 zones
this alledged ordinance was adopted without my knowledge
or input.
and
The restaurant odds were 571 for and 1 against.
It would seem that we have government for the
staff rather than government for the people.
I ask the this council investigate the change in the parking
regulations and --especially--the limitation of parking in the
CN-1 ZONE. These ordinance changes were not done in a legal
manner. AND..the parking limitation is stupid.
.i~rely
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
October 15, 1995
John and Ada Streit
1512 First Avenue N, D-203
Coralville, IA 52241
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Streit:
At our work session the other evening, the City Council discussed the press reports
concerning your effort to secure a Scott Boulevard/Court Street area location for a proposed
new restaurant. Council is most supportive of neighborhood-type development/commercial
activity and has taken steps to encourage such development in our neighborhoods. However,
we do have an obligation to provide zoning for such activities, and then the neighbors,
particularly those in newer neighborhoods will not have any false expectations about
neighborhood-related commercial development activity which can and will probably occur.
As we understand, you chose to seek a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow the
restaurant construction you proposed. As you may know, the Board of Adjustment is a group
of Iowa City citizens appointed by the City Council to review such matters. They are
appointed and serve based upon their interest in our community's development. Your
restaurant was to have had additional parking and was of a size that it did not meet the
neighborhood commercial zoning. The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial body and
therefore their decisions are reviewable only by the courts and not the City Council; however,
it does appear that their decision upheld the neighborhood commercial zoning concept. We,
the City Council, hold strongly to our citizen boards and therefore their advice is most
important.
The Council hopes you will pursue your interest in the construction of a restaurant and, as we
understand, other possible locations where the proper zoning exists have been mentioned to
you. We feel strongly that the intent of the zoning in that particular neighborhood was to
meet neighborhood interests and not the larger scale development you propose. As I said
before I am sure you can appreciate that neighbors purchase their properties and expect to
see development occur in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. To dramatically change the
zoning regulations and/or antend those, as would be a decision of the Board of Adjustment,
is a disservice to the surrounding neighbors.
I wanted to take a moment to write and explain to you that we continue to have interest in
the restaurant development activity you propose and hope you are successful in finding a
location that best serves your interest and those of your customers. While Council cannot be
a "broker" entity we are in agreement that we hope your restaurant can stay in Iowa Cityl
Sincerely,
Mayor
EAST WASHIN~0TON STR££T e IOWA CITY. IOV~A J~40-1~6 · (319) 3J6-Se00 ~' TAX 1319) ~J6-J009
r. Rental agencies, ~'qbipment
and supplies
s. Restaurants and establish-
merits dispensing food or bever-
tage for consumption on the pre-
miSeS
Principal Use
t. Restaurants, drive-in or carry-
out
u. Retail stores and shops (oth-
er than those listed)
v. Studios and stations, radio
and television
Where permitted
1. Where permitted except
CB-5, RFBH and CN-1
Zone
2. CB-5
3. RFBH
Where permitted
1. Where permitted excepf
CB-5, RFBH and CN-1
2. CB-5
3. RFBH and CN-1
1. Where permitted except
CB-5
One space ~or each five hundred (500)
square feet of interior and exterior storage ,-"~
area for rental supplies and equipment
One parking space for each one hundred
fifty (150) square feet of floor area, or park-
ing spaces equal in number to one-third
the occupant load of the seating area,
whichever is less
Number of Spaces
One parking space for each one thousand
two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor
area
One parking space for each three hundred
(300) square feet of floor area
One parking space for each two hundred
twenty five (225) square feet of floor area, or
parking spaces equal in number to one-
fourth (1/4) the occupant load of the seating
area, whichever is less
One parking space for each fifty (50) square
feet of floor area, but not less than frye (5)
spaces
One parking space for each two hundred
(200) square feet of retail floor area
One parking space for each one thousand
two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor
area
One parking space for each three hundred
(300) square feet of floor area
One parking space for each four hundred
(400) square feet of floor area
14-6N-1
(
J.
banking, or setting aside sufficient
land area on-site to provide for the
future construction of a parking area,
may be approved for up to thirty per-
cent (30%) of the otherwise required
parking. If an enforcement official
determines at some point in the future
the additional parking spaces are
needed, the property owner will be
required to construct parking on the
land banked area. A written agree-
ment, properly executed by the owner
of the property on which the land
banked area Is located, assuring the
installation of parking within the land
banked area by the owner if so or-
dered by the enforcement official, and
binding upon their successors and
assigns, shall be recorded as a cove-
nant running with the land;
3. The location of parking spaces
along drives rather than aisles, as
required in subsection B2k, when the
location of parking along a drive(s) is
determined to be an integral part of
the design of the development.
Required Number of Off-Street Park-
ing Spaces: In all zones, except in the
CB-10 Zone unless specifically re-
quired, and in the CN-1 Zone where
the use of land banking ts approved
as provided in subsection 11, prior to
the occupation of a building or com-
mencement of a principal use, a mini-
mum number of off-street parking and
stacking spaces shall be provided, In
the CN-1 Zone, In order to avoid ex-
cessive amounts ot paving, not more
than one hundred ten percent (110%)
of the required amount of off-street
parking may be provided without ap-
proval of a special exception by the
Board of Adjustment. The minimum
number of off-street parking and
895
14-6N-1
stacking spaces shall be as follows:
(Ord. 95-3677, 5-23-95)
(See following page for off-street parking
schedules)
Iowa City
..¢.,2 -z
i
---c- ..Z ~ if.0
, .,,,,t ! .'
I
MI~IORAN DUM
l~,om:
Date:
City Council, Iowa City
Bob Welsh
Franchise Agreemenb Cable Television
November 7, 1995
I believe, as I did in 1973, that Iowa City should have a '%roadband communications
system that will provide educational, cultural, and social services to all of the
residents of this community." unfortunately, we do not have this type of system in
1995. We should take steps now to make sure that we have such a system in 21105.
I have reviewed the proposed Franchise Agreement. Let me express to you my
disappointment. When I examine the two-page summary that lists the "city's request"
and the "proposed franchise" I conclude that T.C.I. was very unreeeptive to the city's
reasonable requests. I am disappointed in what T.C.I. is offering and I think citizens
need to express this opinion. Citizens need to know T.C.I. makes a profit of over a
million do]Jars each year off the franchise we gave away.
The city should not have granted the franchise it did, and I don't think it should grant
this one as it is presented to you. In no way do I wish to express disapproval with the
staff or commission who have worked on this agreement. I am expressing disapproval of
the action of T.CoI.
I have read the staff Memorandum dated, October 27, 1995, addressed to the City
Council and Broadband Teleeommun|cations Commission. Let me comment about
statements made in this memorandum.
Item #7: I do not balieve that an "acceptable renewal agreement" has been reached.
What we have is what T.C.I. is willing to offer. I think we need to say that this is not
acceptable.
Item #85 I can aeeept this rationale. I do think persons need to know that T.C.I. will
not agree to this provision. The public needs to know what profit T.C.I. is making and
I think finanieal disclosure is something we should require.
Page 2
Item #9: I am pleased that the Ordinance has a section on "Termination." I suggest
that you make this a part of the franchise agreement. As I understand the current
situation, T.CoI.'s failure to comply with the current franchise agreement has not and
is not grounds to deny it being granted a new franchise. The only protection we have is
that which we have in this agreement. We need this protection so we will not be faced
with the same situation in ten years. And we need protection that if the franchise is
revoked or not renewed, that T.C.I. will continue to operate the system at current
standards for two years while the city secures another delivery system.
Please include words in the franchise Agreement such as.. "If the franehisee falls to
fulfill any part of this agreement, the franehisee agrees that it shall be just cause for
the city to revoke and/or to decline to renew the franchise."
The only reason ToC.I. might not agree to this being a part of the franchise is
that they either are not sure they can provide what they have agreed to or that
they do plan to comply. If neither of these is the ease, then they should not have
any problem with this provision in the franchise agreement.
#10 I can accept this rationale. It is, however, unforunate that we are in this
position.
#1~1 I believe that VIII-H should be changed. The city should not pay a maximum
"equal to the lowest rate provided." The city should pay no more than actual cost.
ToC.I. is making sufficient profit from what the city has given it. The city should
expect that T.C.I. will give it at cost the use of upstream capacity for city use°
#13 I believe that T.CoI. needs to provide Iowa City with a state-of-the-art system. I
believe ToC.I. should be required to update the system in the fourth and seventh years.
I believe the state-of-the-art system could be defined as one that has the features
equal to those being introduced during the same year in any other system owned by
ToC.I. Iowa City is not an average city . We should expect and require ToColo to give
us the b~;t that it has to offer°
#14 I can accept this rationale. It is however of interst that in this ease they must
comply as ~al] public utilities" and yet are not subject to utility regulations.
Page 3
If ToC.I, does not agree:
1) to a provision that failure to comply is just cause to revoke and/or decline to
renew the franchise;
2) to eity's use of upstream eapaeity at eest;
3) to providing Iowa City with a system equal to it's best~
then I think Iowa City needs to look at other alternatives.
I hope you will say to T.C.I. that the present agreement is not acceptable and needs
to be changed before we approve the agreement.
3
PATV NEEDS MORE CHANNELS. The new agreement provides for increased channel
allocation based on future need as triggered by the amount of new programming on the
then existing public access channel(s).
THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO DENY RENEWAL OF THE FRANCHISE o
Denial would result in lengthy and costly litigation with unknown results. Our consultant
has advised against that alternative if..~a_n acceptable ,r,enewal a_~ could be
reached. Based on that recommendation, and in consideration of the dsks inherent in
this type of litigation, we believe that the consultant's recommendation is sound and
should be followed.
LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT (OF THE CABLE COMPANY) - Local rate regulation
based on percent of return on investment ts no longer permitted by federal law. This
could only be accomplished if the cable company were willing to voluntarily agree to
such regulation. They made it very clear from the outset that they are not,
PROVIDE THAT FAILURE TO CARRY OUT ANY PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
IS GROUNDS FOR DENYING RENEWAL - This represents a very stdct standard to
which the cable company was not willing to agree. It is commonly recognized that the
law allowed them some flexibility in this regard, We have attempted to define as cleady
as possible what will be required of the company under the renewed franchise, and
have included specific liquidated damages in some instances. It will be Incumbent upon
the City to monitor the performance of the franchisee and to provide for proper
documentation and notification in the event of non-compliance. We intend to do this, and
have advised the company of our intent.
10.
BUY-OUT PROVISION AT END OF THE FRANCHISE -We cannot require this of the
company and they are not willing to agree to such a provision as it would seriously
erode their renewal rights granted under federal law. We tded!
NO CHARGE FOR CITY SERVICES USING THE FIBER NE'[~NORK - The company
was not willing to make such a concession and we cannot deny renewal on that basis.
A portion of the capacity in the rebuilt system will be made available to the City upon
request for its own uses and the cost would be negotiated if and when we opt to utilize
that capacity.
12.
78 CHANNELS NOT ENOUGH - The system designed is comparable to those being
constructed in a majodty of cities today. It is upgradable to 100 analog channels and
digital compression technology will increase that capacity fourfold or more. We are
confident that upgrades will occur if the company is to remain competitive in the market.
The agreement guarantees digital technology for our local system If tt is introduced in
comparable sized cities in Iowa.
13.
14.
STATE-OF-THE-ART DEFINITION - It is not possible to define state-ofuthe-art in terms
of future, unknown technologies, We have attempted to tie it to other systems (see #12
above) to ensure that Iowa City will not be left behind technologically. We feel the best
way to ensure state-or-the-art is to provide that new technologies will be utilized here
within a reasonable amount of time after they are introduced in comparable jurisdictions.
ONLY 40% OF SYSTEM UNDERGROUND. The cable company must comply with the
same local regulations for undergrounding as all public utilities.
15.
FUTURE SPACE FOR PATV - This is an issue which will need to be addressed once
funding has been secured and the allocation of those funds is considered. It may
involve the Library as well as the City and PATV.
16.
SENIOR CENTER (SCTV) SUPPORT -Making more Senior Center activities available
to the broader community is certainly a part of the enhanced community programming
effort proposed. What form support for SCTV takes in the future will be a product of
resource allocation decisions to be made by Council.
Note: It has always been the intent of staff to meet again with the programmers of all the
access channels to discuss needs and the best allocation of resources. once those resources