Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-15 Resolutionr "I RESOLUTION N0. 81--115 f / RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECO114EIlDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING CO644ISSION THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MELROSE CORRIDOR C0144ITTEE BE ACCEPTED. WHEREAS, the Melrose Corridor Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission, has made certain recommendations regarding traffic needs in the Melrose Avenue Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a regular meeting held April 16, 1981, recommended to dissolve said committee and by a unanimous vote to forward the following recommendations of the Melrose Corridor Committee for approval. The Committee finds, based on information presented to us including traffic counts and films, -and our ensuing discussionsthat there does not appear to , be an unacceptable traffic congestion in he that Corridor at this time. t Therefore, the Committee makes the following recommendations: 1. That the implementation of the Melrose traffic circle not be considered as a future option to solve traffic problems in the area. 2. That the currently planned widening of South Byington/Grand Avenue inter- section to two lanes would appear to be an adequate improvement to meet the current traffic needs. 3. That further improvements need to be considered to accommodate pedestrian traffic on Melrose Court and across Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court and to specifically reconsider our previous recommendations concerning these issues. 4. That if in the future increased traffic demands on the Melrose Corridor would necessitate a major new traffic facility, then the Committee would recommend that the Melrose diagonal without median should be 'included among the options considered to remedy the traffic congestion. This should be considered an acceptable option only at such time as there are no longer private properties fronting on Grand Avenue Court. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that the recommendations regarding traffic needs in the Melrose Avenue Corridor be approved. It was moved by Perret and seconded h resolution as rea e a opte-a, and upon roll cal tliiereeWere: that the AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Balmer Erdahl Lynch Neuhauser x Perret T � Abstain Roberts Vevera Passed and approved this lgthiay of Ma 1961. ATTEST: 'Ji , '. �.JJ,f/_.. , i2, Y R sy r%e�i..S..ar�/,a 1950 III CROF ILI•110 a1' i �F JORM MFC REIL AB I CEDAR RAPIDS DES !40INC S r L MINUTES MELROSE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE APRIL 1, 1981 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Perret, Kammermeyer, Turner, Gibson, Hart, Roberts, Wolraich, Vetter. MEMBERS ABSENT: Bezanson. STAFF PRESENT: Brachtel, Boothroy, Tyler. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO PLANNING AND ZONING The Committee finds, based on information presented to us including traffic counts and films, and our ensuing discussions, that there does not appear to be unacceptable traffic congestion in the Melrose Corridor at this time. Therefore the Committee makes the following recommendations: 1. That the implementation of the Melrose traffic circle not be considered as a future option to solve traffic problems in the area. 2. That the currently planned widening of the South Byington/Grand Avenue instersection to two lanes would appear to be an adequate improvement to meet the current traffic needs. 3. That further improvements need to be considered to accommodate pedestrian traffic an Melrose Court and across Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court and to specifically reconsider our previous recommendations concerning these issues. 4. That if in the future increased traffic demands on the Melrose Corridor would necessitate a major new traffic facility, then the Committee would recommend taht the Melrose Diagonal without median should be included among the options considered to remedy the traffic congestion. This should be considered an acceptable option only at such time as there are no longer private properties fronting on Grant Avenue Court. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The minutes of February 11, 1981 were amended as follows: Page 1 add "This would cover rounding the two corners to new lanes on Melrose Avenue, from South Grand to Wolf and a bus lane on South Grand." Page 2 - the time of the filming was from 3:45 to 4:45 P.M. 111CROPILMED BY JORM MICR4/LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOVIES 1950 1 k1 Melrose Corridor Committee April 1, 1981 Page 2 Page 4 write queue wherever que appears. Page 5, last paragraph, substitute Columbus, Ohio for Chicago. Minutes were approved as corrected. FILM STUDY ON BYINGTON AND GRAND AVENUE TRAFFIC FLOW Brachtel presented a film of traffic flow taken from the top of Reno dorm from 4:30 to 5:28 P.M., Thursday, May 3.9. Brachtel pointed out that the two lanes on Byington were inefficiently used and that widening will make a significant difference. He noted that after the widening takes place traffic engineering will have to study the flow, checking to see if there are more conflicts for traffic moving south on North Byington and attempting to cross Grand. Members indicated that the film appears to show that the traffic problem was not as great as they had anticipated. GRAND AVENUE -SOUTH GRAND-MELROSE ARTERIAL Boothroy noted that this plan was essentially the S-shaped alternative previously discussed by the Committee. He stated that both PPD and the University were opposed to the plan because it puts a major street betewen the dorms. This would require a pedestrian overpass. PPO considered it an undesirable land use. Gibson agreed saying that the University would consider this alternative a negative change. UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS Boothroy stated that University Heights plans to make some street improve- ments during the summer. This includes improving the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Koser, reconstruction of Golf View, and widening Melrose to three lanes throughout University Heights. In addition the intersection at Melrose Avenue and Koser will be wired for stop lights. GRADING PLANS Boothroy stated that the estimated grading needed for the diagonal would be less than originally anticipated. It would be an 8% grade with a 3h foot cut at the deepest point (this would be at Grand Avenue and Byington). A 3h foot cut would mean that no additional land would be needed to accommodate the cut; it could be done within the right-of-way. Brachtel noted that dirt would have to be purchased but that dirt was a relatively small cost of the project. PPO REPORT ON IMPACT OF THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES Boothroy pointed out that the report did not represent a cost -benefit analysis. He explained that he considered three alternatives in creating the report - the diagonal, the traffic circle, and doing nothing beyond the improvements at Grand and Byington planned for this summer. 1950 111CRUCILMED BY JORM MIC ROLAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS DCS MOINES Melrose Corridor Committee April 1, 1981 Page 3 He stated that his assumptions in compiling the report were: 1. Traffic in the area will increase. 2. The Law College will be constructed (Gibson noted that construction for next spring looked good). 3. Necessary additional right-of-way will be provided by the University if the diagonal is constructed. 4. Neighborhood integrity should be maintained and the residential environment kept intact. 5. A traffic problem does currently exist. 6. The corner of South Byington and Grand Avenue will be improved. 7. If the Melrose Diagonal is constructed, a pedestrian overpass will be built. 8. Two separate neighborhoods exist, one south of Melrose Avenue and one north of Melrose Avenue. 9. The alternatives were compared as to their impact regarding improve= ments proposed east of Melrose Court to Riverside Drive. 10. Byington Street (under diagonal alternative) would be filled in and revert to open space. Boothroy noted that the problem that existed in creating the matter was trying to weigh the benefits and costs and that the variables were ambiguous.Three locKnight worked eyitemwas equally weighed, which same people disagree with. The general conclusions which Boothroy stated were: That the traffic circle is only a slight improvement over doing nothing. It would benefit transit circulation some but would hinder internal circulation. It costs more than doing nothing, but on the other hand, is cheaper than the diagonal. The diagonal offers the greatest potential for improvement but also carries the highest cost. The Diagonal is preferable in terms of traffic circulation and environment, especially in regards to noise and air quality, and in land use. Its negative and p ssiblyopen e spaces* initial affects would cots we that 'illUbevhigh t but maintenanceparkin willbe lower than the other proposals. 195D rnCRUILMED BY JCRM MIC ROLA B j CEDAR RAPIDS •DCS MOVIES i' C Melrose Corridor Committee April 1, 1981 Page 4 The 00 Nothing option leaves no opportunity for improvement in the area. Given the increase in traffic, a negative impact on the environment and property values can be anticipated. Boothroy noted that the neighborhood would suffer from the maze of traffic. He summed up saying that he recommended that the Melrose Traffic Circle not be pursued because it did not provide the benefits sought and would be costly for the few beneifts which would accrue from its construction. The Diagonal will be very costly, it does have greater potential but the potential might not be that significant when weighed against the costs. Finally, he stated that the films indicated that the traffic problem is not accute. Boothroy added that with the Byington corner improvements scheduled for this summer, he saw no justification for the traffic circle. Perret stated that he had some disagreements with the matrix. Boothroy responded that he had tried to be objective but that some of the conculsion might be subjective. Kammermeyer pointed out that the Diagonal is a long-term solution. He stated that traffic problems are not great enough at the present time to justify construction of the Diagonal. However, in the future, with the building of the new Law College, the expansion of University Hospitals, the construction 518, etc., such a facility might be needed. By then the University will probably have acquired the necessary land. Wolraich expressed concern over approving a designated alignment for the Diagonal because of possible negative impact on property located in the proposed alignment. Gibson stated that he felt that being designated as property the University would like to acquire did not generally lower property value. Boothroy responded that the construction of the Diagonal would improve property value in some areas of the neighborhood and hurt it in other areas. Perret stated that the major goal of any facility is to move traffic smoothly and efficiently down Melrose Avenue to the river. Currently, the intersection at Riverside Drive is a major constraint. At optimum operating conditions, perhaps 40 cars can move through the intersection during a cycle. Whether the Diagonal or the Traffic Circle or nothing is done, still only 40 cars can move through the intersection. He asked why, under these circumstances, the Committee was even considering the Diagonal. The members discussed how much traffic could move through the intersection. Wolraich summarized saying that after this summer and the improvements of the Byington corner, they would have a better idea about how the intersection functions and what kind of improvements might be made. Kammermeyer moved and Turner seconded that the implementation of the i Melrose Traffic Circle not be considered as a future option to solve traffic problems in the area. IIICROf ILMEO By JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1950 r L' Melrose Corridor Committee April 1, 1981 Page 5 Perret stated that improvements from the improve traffic flow opposed to the motion and least disruptive improvements without Gibson agreed improvements. it mighbe presentedoinible to the TraffirckCircleeinsorderito ideas p without, that much cost. He stated that he was because the Traffic Circle was the least ex pensive option. He also stated that he feared p'pensive any overall plan in mind. be wasted in making incremental that money could Motion carried with ayes, Gibson abstaining, Perret voting nay - the ded *k of theed and South Byioberts gt n/GrandnAvenuehaintersection to twollanes would appear to be an adequate improvement to meet the current traffic needs. Motion carried with 7 ayes, Gibson abstaining. Wolraich moved and Perret seconded that further improvements need to be considered to accommodate pedestrian traffic on Melrose Court and across Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court and to specifically reconsider our ncerning these issues. Motion carried with 7 previous recommendations co ayes, Gibson abstaining. Members discussed recommending the Diagonal the loam h eHe stated that hasized that the University is not presently p 9 onas he saw no need to recommend the Diagonal in the future owners these adonly ed that short- term effect would be to needless worry the the Committee's official approval of the alis not have negative impacts. Perret added that the Diagonal was not in the land use and Plan. Previously, it had been rejected after considering the impact on the neighborhood. Hart stated that she could only support the Diagonal if the neighborhood is no longer in existence. on the Turner moved and seconded that if in the future increased demand then the Melrose Corridor would necessitate a major new traffic facility, Committee would recommend aiDiagonal aithout median should be included among tiPonsconsidered to rremdythe trafficcongeston. ion onlat such time This should be considered an acceptable op d Avenue Court.asMotion there are no longer private properties fronting on Gran carried, 7 ayes with Gibson abstaining. Turner recommended that the motions be preceded by the following preamble: The Committee finds, based on information pre en ed to there cluus e nogtraffic counts and films, and our ensuing appear to be unacceptable traffic congestion in the Melrose Corridor at this time. ralcaonu,[D Dr JORM MICROIAB CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES 19.504 1 J 1 Melrose Corridor Committee April 1. 1981 Page 6 The preamble was accepted by consensus. Meeting adjourned. Prepared by: L2 Qnn Andrea Tyler Q Minute Taker Approved by: Isabel Turner Secretary )r� VI ICROCILMED BY DORM I MICR6LAB � CEDAR RAPIDS DES I40INCS I r - 14sa r City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 12, 1982 To: Neal Berlin and City Council From: Frank Farmer, City Engineer, Re: Melrose Court Curb and Sidewalk Improvement Estimate The resolution approving Melrose Corridor Committee recommendations and a memo from Doug Boothroy to the City Council regarding Melrose Court recommendations are attached. The attached cost estimate refers to Item 3 of the resolution and Items 3 and 5 of Doug Boothroy's memo. For all practical purposes, it is necessary to do both curb and sidewalk repair at the same time north of Brookland Park Drive, therefore the estimate has not been broken down separately for curb work and sidewalk work and is based on doing the complete project. The preliminary estimate includes adding curb and gutter on both sides of Melrose Court south of Brookland Park Drive and replacing deteriorated curb as needed on the west side of Melrose Court north of Brookland Park Drive. The sidewalk would be replaced on the west side of Melrose Court north of Brookland Park Drive with addition and replacement of retaining walls and driveways as needed. The walk south of Brookland Park Drive on- both sides of Melrose Court would be -replaced as required to match curb or maintain the sidewalk four foot in width. -The-- cost Thercost estimate for the entire project is estimated at $85,000. • bdw5/1 Enclosure 1ICROf1LHED BY JORM MICR6LA6- CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOMES a� 1950 1 J r 1 RE-..,UTION NO. 81-115 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MELROSE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE BE ACCEPTED. WHEREAS, the Melrose Corridor Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission, has made certain recommendations regarding traffic needs in the Melrose Avenue Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a regular meeting held April 16, 1981, recommended to dissolve said committee and by a unanimous vote to forward the following recommendations of the Melrose Corridor Committee for approval. The Committee finds, based on information presented to us including traffic counts and films,•and our ensuing discussions, that there does not appear to be an unacceptable traffic congestion in the Melrose Corridor at this time. Therefore, the Committee makes the following recommendations: 1. That the implementation of the Melrose traffic circle not be considered as a future option to solve traffic problems in the area. 2. That the currently planned 'widening of South Byington/Grand Avenue inter- section to two lanes would appear to be an adequate improvement to meet the current traffic needs. 3. That further improvements need to be considered to accommodate pedestrian traffic on Melrose Court and across Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court and to specifically reconsider our previous recommendations concerning these issues. 4. That if in the future increased traffic demands on the Melrose Corridor. would necessitate a major new traffic facility, then the Committee would recommend that the Melrose diagonal without median should be 'included among the options considered to remedy the traffic congestion. This should be considered an acceptable option only at such time as there are no longer private properties fronting on Grand Avenue Court. NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that the recommendations regarding traffic needs in the Melrose Avenue 'Corridor be approved. It was moved by Perret and seconded by vevera that the resolution as rem a�opie3—,-and upon roll cal t11ere were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Balmer x Erdahl x _ Lynch x —Neuhauser x Perret —'— Abstain Roberts x Vevera Passed and approved this 19tiday of Ma 1981. YR ATTEST: �WJ�1 id 1 i� • • Rc�err�•I « :.;: �: / r9So mcmorILMED BY JORM MIC RCILAB CEDAR RAPIDSDCS MOVIES '. r City of Iowa City Ems. RVA0 .&HDURA DATE: June 25, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Doug Boothroy, Acting Senior Flanne� RE: Recommendations on Melrose Court Included in the Council's packet are recommendations from the Melrose Corridor Committee to reduce traffic levels on Melrose Court (specifically'1;000 to 1,500 cars daily). The Committee also recommended that these improvements be completed prior to the reopening of Melrose Court_ The Planning and Zoning Commission will review said recommendations at their informal meeting of June 30, 1980. Attached to this memo are comments from the staff regarding the implementation of the Committee's recommendations. Melrose Court was closed by ordinance, therefore, the Council should follow the same procedures in reopening Melrose Court, i.e., by passing an ordinance repealing the previous ordinance. MICROFILMED BY j JORM MICROLA8 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES J 90 1 A J r A r - of Melrose Court and Myrtle Avenue. The sight distance for turning cars would be significantly reduced. The grade for the connecting link between Greenwood Drive and Melrose. Court would be undesirably sharp. 5. The Committee recommends that the curve on Melrose Court be banked to the inner radius of the curve. Discussion: Superelevation is a design element used by highway engineers to allow vehicles to negotiate a curve at speed. Super - elevation may reduce the potential for cars sliding out -0f the curve into the park when ice is present on the surface. However, under dry pavement conditions it will allow cars to negotiate the curve at speed. A more appropriate remedy for the concern of cars sliding into the park during icy conditions would be the installation of a six inch curb on the outside of the curve. 1950 9 141CROFILMED B1' f { JORM MIC ROLAB 1 .� � CEDAR RAPIDS •DES 1,1014E5 I I I rp ---------------- ,, 0 Ul o- Location- CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA ESTI14ATE OF COST Date 1-ceb r a a t,•+ Project ilclrot� C�_,t S de.�. IY, •..d - Wca.r AlkoJE A' e- -z n—cl QJantiLV Unit Item Unit Price Cost /700 7 800 O L., t. S. ft. S. NJs. PC.,C. "P,b J 4 —,A PC -C. 6 .,:..;, P.C.0 Cr -i tin_ 51144�- lk Or,r•w- , /3 00 3, DO 20.00 'r 22,100. 00 23,440. 00 1,800. 00 200 Jj7.5'0 I 2So L. .'Fd. S. if. Fac. et..: ;_. W. l! 4.wt4 P.C.. S,'J, k e... t g',,/ 7o-00 O.So 7.00 /5000.00 2.3 1.00 , _.:1_..'.fo. 00 200 ZS. Ou 00a. Ou , L.. J.00 S 000. 0 i_ .. . /ade by .S:. %�•���''- Approved by fK� _. .. _ IdICROCILfdCG f51' JORM MICROI_AB CEDAR RAPIDS D[S 401•ICS l95 0 r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR CERTIFICATES OF STRUCTURE COMPLIANCE AND RENTAL PERMITS AS PART OF THE IOWA CITY HOUSING CODE. WHEREAS, on December 16, 1980, the City Council adopted a revised Iowa City Housing Code as Ordinance No. 80-3014, hereinafter referred to as the Code; and, WHEREAS, the Code provides for inspection and licensing of all multiple dwellings, rooming houses, duplexes, and single family rental dwellings; and, WHEREAS, the Code requires that a fee in an amount set by the City Council be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit; and, WHEREAS, said fees were originally established by Resolution 81-112; and, WHEREAS, it is now advisable to revise the original fee schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: The Rental Permit fees and one-time Certificate o duplexes, Co pliance fee for licensing multiple dwellings, 9 , ily rental dwellings shall be revised as follows: Certificate of Structure Compliance - $25.00 per structure Rental Permits Single Family Rental Dwellings - $35.00 Duplex structures - $35.00 Rooming Houses - $25.00 per structure plus $8.00 per rooming unit or dwelling unit contained within the structure. Multiple Dwellings - $25.00 per structure plus $8.00 per dwelling unit contained within the structure. Rental Permit fees shall be collected simultaneously with, and no more frequently than, the regular maintenance inspections of the premises, the frequency of which are set by resolution of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa. 111CROf ILMED BY JORM MIC REILA9 � CEDAR RAPIDS DES I401NE5 ' f I Iq, y 1 IF' W. '4 It was moved by and seconded by be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Balmer Dickson Erdahl Lynch McDonald Neuhauser Perret Passed and approved this day of 1982. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK the Resolution Roeelved A AporovaO By Tho Logo[ Doparlmont II 10 z 111CROEILMED BY I -JORM MICR6LAB f CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOVIES I i 195