Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-09-23 Bd Comm minutes_3_ SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: - -2- 3. SUGGESTIONS AND/OR PROBLFMS: A. In most ordinances, a'building permit will not be issued without the `plans ;having first been submitted to and approved by theDesign Review Committee. B. Makeup of Design Review Committee.—of the ordinances that I -read, members.were required to have been 'citizens, ;architects, City Planning Commission members, _real. estate brokers,.bui.lding inspectors, historical . society members, museum members, at -large members, etc. It would be my suggestion that -a land use planning member and perhaps a zoning member be considered. C. Name of the Board should be considered. For some reason, most ordinances ; call it the "Board of Architectural -Review". - D. -Meeting times -'these vary from once-a`week to once a month.'' :- _ E. Terms - these varied, but most were staggeredterms with renewal options. F. How members are selected some were 'appointed by the Mayor, some were voted by the City Council, some consideration should be given to the election of members from the:Design.Review Committee:Probably a'safc - -method would be to -make recomnendations from`the Design Review Committee to the City; Council -for -its approval. G. Area of the city which should be covered - should it be confined to.the ' urban renewal area, or the entire.City limits? ,What problems might arise in Coralville or University Heights over which -City control would be fruitless? H. What must builders submit to the Review Committee? Elevations, building plans, sections, scales, models, sample materials written statement of proposal, time schedule for construction, location of walks, driveways, parking, service areas, and landscape features, pedestrian and vehicular - -- flow,rsurrounding- land -development, ' specific plantings, lighting,: parking spaces, perspective sketch ;roof elevations, exposed mechanical equipment, vents and roof-protrusions-,-etc-.-_- oofprotrusions,etc._I. 1. Advance notice to DRC for plenty of consideration time. J. Changes required in time limitations.' -K. Area of DRC interest -'exterior architectural` features, old buildings - reconstructed, new construction, any, alteration s, restorations, -lighting within he City, bridges, gates, fences, street changes, plantings, changes in texture, changes in design, changes in color, pay, etc.-' L. Open meetings. _ M. _ Appeal procedure: L- N. Timeframefor re -consideration by, DRC after refusal 0. Number of refusals needed for total rejection. P. It is'imperative that we develop a`complete set of design objectives for dissemination to all developers and -owners, and to publicize to the'comunity. We should also prepare a`checklist for things which we desire and for which they might prepare and consider -during the preparation of the package for submission to the DRC. Q. We should keep all procedures to a minimum for ease of dealing with planners and` developers. -- R. Enforcement 1) Requires complete support of City Administration. 2) Requires adequate City staff. 3) Requires --close communication with Building Department and City Attorney's Office. 4) Join construction, removal of same orcriminalsanctions? EPARTMENT 'OF CON mcil'Chamber II A' II II ` � I Ir- [ —_."cgtLL II L [1. 17 J � J,y,. f!!.•!i iii. �• A _ soot«uv �, �, �� %$:�J/,�•n;�{%iy:•viJ WLiJ.,+�j.��• .�.rc« .�. .,.� 3f J: -MO sEeT. YC �_• t• �lJl��� c• d;4 AREA 7 t.Re ___� 45 Acne e «o- Ir- [ —_."cgtLL II L [1. 17 J � J,y,. f!!.•!i iii. �• A _ soot«uv �, �, �� %$:�J/,�•n;�{%iy:•viJ WLiJ.,+�j.��• .�.rc« .�. .,.� 3f J: -MO sEeT. YC �_• t• �lJl��� c• d;4 AREA 7 t.Re ___� 45 Acne _Z_: -- - Form Appm,d OMB No. 63-RI i; _ - U.S. DEPARTMENT_ OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN - _ TABLE I - SURVEY OF- HOUSING CONDITIONS ORIGINAL 2. APPLICATION NUMBER a [3'OENDMENT - 1. NAME OF APPLICANT - 4.-PROGRAM YEAR - From-... To: -" NUMBERS OFYEAR•ROUND HOUSING UNITS- --' - A. OCCUPANCY STATUS AND OWNER TYPE RENTAL -TYPE =. OP_HOVSINO. UNITS TOTAL =.CONDITION -- 6,775 7,991 _ 1. •. OCCUPIED UNITS: TOTAL 14,766 ---- 65 863 b. gijoarANDARD 928 — _ __ --- -- 6 710 7 128' C. ALL DTHFR 13:838_. �`�.--- 87 '426 2. e, VACANT UNITS: TOTAL. - - 413 _— -- ----- - - 0 97 - b. SUBSTANDARD -" _ - 97 1 i 87 229 c ALL OTHER 316 - 7.-TOTAL OCCUPIED AND VACANT 317 ' UNITS' -15 B. SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATION 85 85 1. OCCUPIED UNITS - 170 -O_ -0_ 1 - 7, VACANT UNITS -0- -- _ .1. TRIAL SUITABLE FOR. REIIABIL- 170 - -__ 85 -. iTATION - _._ C.DATA SOURCES AND METHODS _ -- (See attached sheet) 123 7 7 -. � ]:[ : i[-fC][-.:.;.}?.--• - is ; ... ......: .-.. © ,.. •.: 4:Ljiiii:.i:...:...-..•. f:}+}:`jr-'''�.!':>.ii:[:f?�::;L�i; ;: :., ' i :.:. _ :::.:...::::::.ii .:F 0° s1 61 O 53 LOCATIONS , DES I G � - .;:;;:::;:•;:;:•:::%<:;;;:::;c•:i;2;:: ::�;:;:;;::::::::;::::';:•::;:;:-:;::;;:ai;i;:S:�Gi:;»:;:;:::yrs:<:i: ;i:::; ;:;:i;;;: � 2•:. ...._ ASSISTED HO USING "FEDERALLY r -HOUSING-FOR THE ELDERLY EVALUATIONCRITERIA SITE EVALUATION 1. Are utilities available? (10)` 2. Is the site compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? (10)•. 3. --Does--zoning-ordinance need to be amended? (10) Will the amendment be controversial? 4. Is the site within easy walking distance` (3 blocks) of: . (5) Grocery Store (5) -Medical Facilities (5) Park Area ' (2) Restaurant - (2), Drug-Store '- (2) Church (2) Library (2) Recreation Facilities (2) Movie Theater -i (2) Bank' ` - - (2) Government Offices (2) Post Office d (2) Variety Shopping For each of the above deduct 1 point per each factor for each additional '3 blocks. Do not use negative figures.- (35)" 5. Is the site free-of noise-creating factors such as-excessive vehicular noises, factory noises, airplane-take-offs/landings and trains? - ( 5) 6 Is the topography suitable for elderly - housing? -- ( 5) - 7:Does the site provide-a wide range of active and passive activities, i.e. may the tenant observe and/or participate in. animated activities and situations, or simply enjoy the_quiet>privacy of his home? (10) 8.::_Would the.developme_nt have an adverse impact on the natural environment,-- i.e. would it be ecologically detri- mental? ( 5) 9.c Is the site accessible by more than one paved street? (10) siala. -L'N. A FF "'ESS ,n:Tn SIE, AVE �-C N.D L------------------ e � Q� cn AX/ - STAFFIMPORT Planning E Zoning Commission - September 11,-1975 `= SUBJECT: S-7515. Final plat of a replat - i or subdivision of Tract B of Towncrest.Addition, Part 4 located west of Dover Street, north of Bradford Drive, and east of Baker Street; -date filed:- 8/11/75; 45 -day -limitation: 9/26/75. — - - - STAFF The prelimi.nary plat of the ANALYSIS: subjectaddition submitted,by ` M. I1. Enterprises was analyzed in a Staff Report dated June 2G, 1975. The Planning and Engineering Divisions of the City have reviewed the final plat and find -it to be in •substantial compliance with -the previously approved preliminary plat and the requirements of the Subdivision Code for a final plat.- -STAFF It is the -staff's recommendation ,- RLCOFtiti1ENDATIONc` the subject plat be approved as presented.,, CITY R-TMENT OF COMMUNITY OEVELOPMEN. p � _ __: _.. -; �.,��, - - __ `. ,• � - i ,..