The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-03-26 Bd Comm minutesMINUTE5 = IOWA CITY -BOARD OF HOUSING_ APPEALS MARCH 19, 1974 EAST LAWN CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Brigham R. W. Pattschull Charles Ruppert Max 'Selzer Ken Wessels STAFF PRESENT: - Charles Gillett Doris Schornhorst LIST OF MATTERS PENDING --BOARD DISPOSITION 1. Hearing on sprinkler system at 22 East Court Street, law office. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN : - - Acting chairman Max Selzer asked for nominations for chairman. Ken Wessels nominated Charles Ruppert and -Dick`Pattschull Nominated Max _Selzer. -Votes were cast as follows: Charles Ruppert: Larry Brigham, Ken Wessels Max Selzer: Dick P_attschull, Charles Ruppert, -Max Serer. Max Selzer was electedChairman. Charles Ruppert was nominated Vice -Chairman. - It was decided by the Board to hold their meetings at S:oo a.m. on -.the first Thursday of every other month. The Building Official will have the -authority to call other meetings as are necessary. The next meeting will be on March 28 at 5:00 a.m. in the °East Lawn Conference Room.- The following meetin,e is, to be held on May 2. A__discussion followed regarding why appeals`: are made to the Board and how decisions are. reached by the Board. Mr. Gillett brought up some items of interest to_, the Board -concerning new items in the Code and also gave some back' ground information on how the Uniform Building Code.came=to be. MEMBERS'ABSENTc Amended section, Part XI =- Complaint, Grievance and Appeal Procedures of the Statement of Polic'-'Leased Housing Program submitted Fe ruary 7, 1974, 'waiting Council approval. Letter to ,the Congressmen concerning the Commission's position regarding the proposed rule changes--for-the-Section 23 program. tO be written by the, Chairman of the Housing Commission. SUMMARY OF'DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: 1. Vice-chairman Hamer called the meeting to order. Branson moved_ -the minutes of,February :20, -be approved as written. Frimml seconded the motion, motion passed 6/0. 2. There was,no public discussion. 3. Coordinator's Report -- All 209 units were leased and occupied. Four applications for Commission approval were presented and approved for placement'on the'.- waiting list. When asked what housing programs were not confined by the • moratorium, ;;,.Seydel responded the Section 23 program. another program that is active for -small communities -is -the program administered by the Farm -Home -Administration. Thouah the moratorium iS lifted,, -the Section 23;program `has -not received program rules nor funds for additional units. Sevdel-expects some word concerning the manuals and; funds by next month. MINUTES- MEMBERS'ABSENTc Amended section, Part XI =- Complaint, Grievance and Appeal Procedures of the Statement of Polic'-'Leased Housing Program submitted Fe ruary 7, 1974, 'waiting Council approval. Letter to ,the Congressmen concerning the Commission's position regarding the proposed rule changes--for-the-Section 23 program. tO be written by the, Chairman of the Housing Commission. SUMMARY OF'DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: 1. Vice-chairman Hamer called the meeting to order. Branson moved_ -the minutes of,February :20, -be approved as written. Frimml seconded the motion, motion passed 6/0. 2. There was,no public discussion. 3. Coordinator's Report -- All 209 units were leased and occupied. Four applications for Commission approval were presented and approved for placement'on the'.- waiting list. When asked what housing programs were not confined by the • moratorium, ;;,.Seydel responded the Section 23 program. another program that is active for -small communities -is -the program administered by the Farm -Home -Administration. Thouah the moratorium iS lifted,, -the Section 23;program `has -not received program rules nor funds for additional units. Sevdel-expects some word concerning the manuals and; funds by next month. • LIBRARY BOARD MEETING The regular meeting of the board of direc..ors was held February 21, _ 1974 at 4:00 p.m. in the -Director's office!.' MEMBERS PRESENT: Buchan, Bywater, Canter, Downer, Kirkman, Newsome,_Richers_on,_Tru mpp- -_ MEMBERS ABSENT: Farber STAFF PRESENT: Eggers, Carter, HurRett, Neafie, INfiite, Schweitzer, Spaziani OTHERS PRESENT: -None. Although ,City Counc-1 members had been specifically invited, none appeared. The meeting was called to order by President- Downer at _4_:05 p.m. Minutes of the regular meeting and special meeting of the board of directors were approved. (Canter/Newsome) _ _- The audit prepared -,by D">cG1adry, Hanson Dunn for Seven Rivers Library System financial report was approved, accepted, and _ placed on file • Memo received by finance department with reclassification and re - codification affecting --McNaughton and -lease plan was presented. A new budget report will'be presented at the,,next meeting. A motion to approve,the January bills was seconded and unanimously carried'. (Newsome/Buchan) President Downer reported his_inability,to contact Bob Burns (County Board of Supervisors) but stated he -had -sent the informa- tion requested and expected;s`ome action tob`e taken in the near future. It was moved, 'seconded, and unanimously approved that the 5B raise acrosz;_the board aswellas insurance benefits be granted to library employees retroactive- to January'1,`1974. (Canter/ Richerson) Director's Report: 1973 designated by City as a "planning year." 1974 will be a retrenchment year. Director su88ests this year will be one of !`recognition; (recognizing the things we have accomplished and will accomplish 'as well as recognizing the peo- ple responsible for -the -good work done so far). The Director stated the _number of libravremployees needs clarification with • the City inasmuch as -our -records have not been studied or utilized. Director's report was accepted by a motion 'unanimously carried. (Newsome/Richerson) 1 1 • MINUTES �. Design Review Committee March 14, 1974 Davis Building Conference Room - Members Present: Tom Wegman Brian Gutheinz Laurence`Lafore Bill Nusser Robert Alexander' Nancy Seiberling Bill_Nowysz Bruce Haupert Fritz. Louis Don Sinek Lloyd Berger Jack"[sbin Members Absent: Margaret Keyes -Joyce Summerwill Lyell Henry City Staff Present: Jack -Klaus Nancy Nelson Recommendations to City Council: 1. Publish questionnaire `in Iowa City PressCitizen. 2. Change name of "University, Mall" to Market or Washington Arcade; call "super block" Market ;Square. Requests to City Manager forInformationor. Staff Assistance: 1. The Urban Renewal staff was requested to compile some basic factual material about the Urban Renewal Pro'j'ect in general and the Old Capitol proposal specifically. 2. Committee wants immediate input on Washington - Street design. I List of Matters Pending Commission-Council Disposition:- None - STAFF REPORT Planning s Zoning Commission March 1974 4:000 p.m.. Civic Center CITY" Council Chambers l �r,,:�'j�i „�77777 ;r I n. r � , Iowa City. ;Iowa - March 26,;1974 -- 4:30 p.m. Dept. Community Development Conference Room A. - Call to Order by Chairman B. Roll Call C. Approval of Minutes 1. Meeting of March 14, 1974 D. Zoning Item 1. Z--7402. Request for rezoning a tract of land, RIA to R1B, filed by Dean Oakes (vic. contiguous to - and south of I-80 and east of'Prairie-du Chien - Road. -Amendatory request is for tractalongeast - side. of Prairie` -`du Chien Road and north of Virginia Avenue. Date filed: -2/6/74. Amendatory _.filed: 3/7/74`. 45 -day -limitation: waived. E. Discussion Items.- tems 1. 1. P-7317. University Zone District (U). 2. P-7315. Sidewalk Policy ;Study.: - F. Adjournment Next regular meeting --;April 11, 1974.__ a . • '� K Xt I i is F • STAFF REPORT Planning & Zoning Commission March 28, 1974 SUBJECT: Z-7402. Amendatory request to rezone a tract of land Vic. along e ( g the east side of. Prairie du Chien Road running north -from -Virginia Avenue) from an R1A to R1B Zone; submitted by Dean G. and Evelyn Oakes; date filed:_ 3/7/74; 45 -day limitation: waived.' STAFF The applicant has filed an COMMENT:_ amendment to an original rezoning request to rezone -°1-°48 acres -of an acre tract of land (Vic. south of _83.3 Interstate 80 and east of Prairie du Chien Road). Refer to Staff Report of February 28, 1974. • r _ I I .i •` Although there-are.no statistical data to support the widely held belief that sidewalks contribute to pedestrian safety, it is the consensus of most safety authorities that sidewalks _ are desirable in all areas where there is any appreciable pedestrian traffic. This would certainly apply in all residential developments. This viewpoint -is further elaborated in the 'National 'Committee for Traffic.Safety's booklet, BuildingTraffic Safety into Residential Developments.. Traffic safety -demands good sidewalks on each side of - ` every residential street.` Vehicular traffic and - pedestrians.should be segregated. It is unsafe, `unreasonable and often disagreeable to pedestrians to :be forced to walk on -the paved roadway. Parents do not want children playing in the roadway,-- yet if'they-have -roller.__skates, scooters, or other wheeled toys, they will: use-, the-, roadway unless a smooth side- walk is available. Mothers with baby carriages and elderly persons should have sidewalks. =.In numerous places state or county highway: -authorities -have become so - impressed .with their need that they are building`exten- sive.;mileages of highway sidewalks: How inappropriate it would be for new: residential developments not to provide them._"There ,may -be places; as -in estate -type developments,`where a sidewalk--only-on-one side, or even no sidewalks,;-oan`be justified, but this should be 'a- very` rare' exception. - The juxtaposition -of children and elderly to moving vehicles is - - - - - - 3- •Sidewalks as a Function of Density Given thedesirability of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods where the incidence of people and automobiles are high, can we draw a line between subdivisions where sidewalks -are neededand those-where they are not? And, finally, can we develop some kind of a measure that bears a reasonable relation to the factual situation? One of the measures of- sidewalk traffic is population_ density. Population density.is related, in -turn; to size of lot and type of dwelling. Consequently, -we can hypothesize that where the -average -lot size in -a single family development has a certain minimum value,--sidewalks-are-not needed_ The problem is to determine this minimum value. Listed below are certain specifications. 1. Lots are 'so Targe that children have no -inclination to play -in the street: 2.' Lots are so large and development so spread out that: - a. Distances between house and schools, stores, and publictransportationterminals are great enough to discourage walking and all but require travel by auto; - b. Frequent visiting back and forth among neighbors is not likely to _take place.' A residential' development that fits this criteria is often called an "open"_,:or large lot development. What are the lot dimensions that fit these terms? Sidewalks in residential neighborhoodsshould not be considers to be purely space for pedestrian' travel and access to buildings, and gounorganizedand unrespected as the uniquely vital and irreplaceable organs of city, safety and public life. No matter �1% 1A hP a safe glace -`for roller skating, • - SIDEWALKS RELATED TO �;;IDENTIAL DENSITY Sidewalk requirements Tyae of Area Association "of Washington Cities for SINGLE DWELLING 4 -foot sidewalks. Areas proposed UNIT homes. Proposed APARTMENT HOUSES, ROW - 8-foot sidewalks. _HOUSING GARDM APARTMENTS. Proposed COMMERCIAL, SHOPPING and 12 -foot sidewalks. RETAIL LAND;USES. - Fairfax County, --Virginia Subdivisions in which land use 4 -foot sidewalks "on both sides of major conforms to SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL thoroughfares and one (17,000 sq. ft.) or greater side= of local thorough - density. - fares." "Within a subdivision block where 4 -foot sidewalk "on one side of all streets." a PUBLIC SCHOOL OR SCHOOL`SITE is located and further, within the distance cflone block in any block wherein direction from such a public school;or school site is located." `- Greenwich, Connecticut - Large -lot RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDEN- - No sidewalks required. - TIAL -AGRICULTURAL ZONES (12,000 - sq. ft. to'4 acres). R-6 and R-7 ZONES (6,000 and 7,000 4 -foot sidewalks on at leas[ one side of streets_ sq._ft. respectively). . 4�_ 4 .,A�wAlks on both -movement and safety - afety.Lots-have-either'a t Lots have either awidth of :less 4 -foot sidewalks on both than 80 ft. at building line or sides of'a street. _area -is -less than '15 000 sq ft. Parsippany-Troy-Hills,New Jersey r - Table 1 - continued greater; frontage 200, ft. and greater). MEDIUM LOT '(151000-40-1000 sq, ft.; "Adequate graded shoulders frontages 100-200 ft.). Type of Area Sidewalk requirements each side -of -pavement." SMALL LOT (less than 15,000 sq. Howard County, Indiana - 4 -foot sidewalks on both frontages less than 100 ft.), sides of street. Passaic, -County, New Jersey -movement and safety - afety.Lots-have-either'a Lots have either awidth of :less 4 -foot sidewalks on both than 80 ft. at building line or sides of'a street. _area -is -less than '15 000 sq ft. Parsippany-Troy-Hills,New Jersey LARGE LOT (40,000 sq. ft. and No sidewalks required. greater; frontage 200, ft. and greater). MEDIUM LOT '(151000-40-1000 sq, ft.; "Adequate graded shoulders frontages 100-200 ft.). for pede:3trian trafficon --- each side -of -pavement." SMALL LOT (less than 15,000 sq. ft.; 4 -foot sidewalks on both frontages less than 100 ft.), sides of street. Passaic, -County, New Jersey OPEN DEVELOPMENT -(100 ft. x 200 ft.; No sidewalks required. -- maximum density, --2 families -per acre): ONE -FAMILY (60 ft. x 120 ft.. 4 -foot sidewalks. maximum density, 6 families per acre). Type of Area ;. Sidewalk requirements MULTI -FAMILY AND ROW (maximum 5 -foot _ sidewalks. density 25 families per _acre). BUSINESS. 12 -foot sidewalks. -' Washtenaw County, Michigan ACREAGE (5 acres; lot width 300"ft.; Sidewalks not required. persons per -acre -- 0.6*). LARGE SUBURBAN (l acre; `lot `width _ Sidewalks not required. 150',ft.;"persons per acre -- 3:6). SMALL SUBURBAN (1/2 acre; lot width Sidewalks not -required. 100 ft.; personsperacre--"5. WATERFRONT RESORT -,(1/3 acre;-- lot--- = Sidewalks not required. - width 75 ft.). LARGE SINGLE-FAMILY (1/4 acre; lot Sidewalks not required. width -75 ft.; persons -per acre -- MODERATE SINGLE-FAMILY (1/5 acre; lot Sidewalk one side or width 65 ft.; persons ;per acre --`11.2). street; 4 -foot minimuzz, prefer 5 ft. SMALL -SINGLE-FAMILY (1/6 acre; lot Sidewalks both sides of width 60 ft.; persons per acre -- street. MINIMUM SINGLE-FAMILY (1/7 acre; lot Sidewalks both sides of width 55 ft.; persons" per" acre -- 16) . street. MULTI -FAMILY,_ ROW, APARTMENTS - - Sidewalks both sides o, street. * Persons per, acre is simplified here, being an average of the "gross_ desirable persons per acre" and "net possible people per - acre" figures as given -in the source. I '• Sidewalks as a-Function of Traffic It has been shown that `the need for sidewalks is related- primarily to the number of pedestrians. The need for sidewalks is;also -related to the amount of vehicular traffic. Given a constant daily volume of pedestrian traffic in an area that might-not require sidewalks by other standards, we can say that _ there are certain-traffic conditions that in themselves justify building sidewalks. One attempt has been made by the American Association L•f State Highway gfficials.- Itsfindingson this subject are reproduced in Traffic Engineering Handbook (Institute of Traffic Engineers, New Haven, Connecticut, Third Edition, 1960) in a_table headed "Pedestrian and Vehicle Volumes for Which the Construction of sidewalks Might be Considered." In all examples, design speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles an hour are assumed. One sidewalk is justified if vehicles number 30 to 100 an hour and if there are 150 pedestrians a day, or more than 100 vehicles an hour and only 100 pedestrians a day. Two sidewalks are; justified if vehicles number 50 to 100 an hour and 500 pedestrians a day. A footnote reads, "Smaller pedestrian traffic densities may justify two-sidewalks-'to-avoid a con- siderable amount of pedestrian cross traffic". Another approach to the relating of sidewalk needs to traffic is found in`local-subdivision regulations-that specify sidewalks by . reference 'of-street to,type .- Examples are shown in Table 2. viil.caaily aesignazea mayor_streets Sidewalks may be required. and highways. Any minor street=where deemed essen- Sidewalks may be required. Minor streets -- SO ft.'R.O.W. Optional.* Collector residential streets.-- Concrete sidewalks required 60 ft. R.O.W. (4 ft. x=4 inches P,C.C.). - TABLE 2 -: SIDEWALKS RELATED-TO_TYPE OF STREET Type -of Street Sidewalk requirements viil.caaily aesignazea mayor_streets Sidewalks may be required. and highways. Any minor street=where deemed essen- Sidewalks may be required. Minor streets -- SO ft.'R.O.W. Optional.* Collector residential streets.-- Concrete sidewalks required 60 ft. R.O.W. (4 ft. x=4 inches P,C.C.). 3. A short street: Qi Acllrc".-:.. k j Y As._a result a. Lji LCL 1NL-waa.-._vuauav the night along all public walks. Any economic measures which ta,i,iA aPrv,P to rPducp-.or eliminate the -lighting during some part l As._a result a. Lji LCL 1NL-waa.-._vuauav the night along all public walks. Any economic measures which ta,i,iA aPrv,P to rPducp-.or eliminate the -lighting during some part 1 � l '� =T3- �' - .�. - • t Walks should be laid out:to.channel pedestrian traffic and force street crossing insofar; as possible at safe, regulated points. Where -a large volume of pedestrian traffic from the development will cross major arteries bounding the area, special safety measures should -be taken. Traffic lights: and stop signs will be sufficient -in some cases;in others, under or overpasses - may be desirable at heavy pedestrian crossings of major or minor streets. The width of walks should be.based on the volume of pedestrian - - traffic.--interest-walks to 'single dwellings should have a - minimum width_of-three feet, -so that two people may walk abreast. For entrances to group dwellings (up to approximately sixteen dwellings), the minimum width should be three feet, six inches and four feet is desirable.' Service walks and sidewalks along residential servicestreets should be -four feet wide, and five feet is desirable. Major walks and sidewalks carrying an appreciable load of traffic should have a minimum width of rive feet. The width should be -adequate -not just for passing pedestrians but--for-bicycles-and baby carriages as well. Approaches to schools, shopping centers and other community facilities may have to -be considerably wider than the minimum standards. Excessive height of curbs at street crossings sometimes constitutes a danger to children riding;bi.cycles,':to-wheeling baby carriages and to those who are confined to wheelchairs. Curb height should not exceed six -inches, --less is ;preferable. __Curb drops are • preferable at street crossings that have stop signs. However, -- , some distinct separation in ;grade between pavement and sidewalks is needed for proper drainage and to prevent bicycling or roller skating in the street without stop'. Private driveways should be designed and graded to eliminate _ accidents to pedestrians at :sidewalk crossings. This can be accomplished by design for visibility, minimizingthe. number of drivewaysand 'avoiding breaks -in --sidewalks. Sidewalks should go around, rather than be interrupted by, parking ways. Pedestrians will choose. the best walking surface available. There- fore, to discourage walking in the street, the walkways should be in those characteristics which affect walking, equal to or - better than, any other available surface including the street pavement. This means that they should be smooth, non-skid, well -drained, and hard surfaced. They should be suitable for children's wheel toys, including bicycles. In general, walks should have smooth -bituminous or concrete pavement.` Stepping stones may be used for walks to secondary dwelling entrances if one' -entrance has a- standard` walk.- -