Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

----...-............,.............:..>...............~.~'""--.-'-~--.---.......-.;...:..-.___~__~.:.__~.'lIi---.:.,,---------:..:........,:---:.....~_________'--".....;.........:....:~~.~_...:....:-. typically on weekends, so that residents could understand the full range of issues being addres~ed and provide input into the different regulatory approaches. The village used visual preference surveys to gain a better under- standing of what residents did and did riot like. After th e new cod es were drafted, Riverside operied up all ordinance review meetings to the public to allow for continued input. For the residential revisions alone, more than 20 public meetings were held with the plan commission before the public hearing on the final ordinance. what is encouraged. The second task is to determine how specific or broad each stan- dard should be. It is often easierto tell an CiPplicantthat he or she mtlst do something, rather than attempt to persuade an applicant that adding a certain design element is recommended. The benefit of a requirement-a "mtist"-is that the expected form is more predictable and less review time is needed because it is an issue of compliance, rather than negotia- tion. The downside is that a requirement may be met with resistance from property owners, is expected and no cohesive look to the result- ing development. This negates the purpose of form-based controls. Finally, it is important for a community to remember the type of development it is plan- ning for and to ensure t~at regulations do not exclude specific development types that may be desired, even .if ~hey are not the predomi- nant form. If traditional residential develop- ment includes tall homes in the Victorian style, the code can be tailored to specifically address these architectural forms as excep- tions without setting a height limitthat leads to out-of-scale modem development that tow- ers over its neighbors. In order to preserve the historic develop- ment pattern within the village, Riverside established strict setback controls for both the CBD and the residential districts. In the CBD, the village created parcel-by-parcel setbacks for each zoning lot, Including a combination of minirilUm setbacks, maximum setbacks, and build-to lines, coLipled with buffer yard requirec ments where lots abutted residential uses. In residential districts, in order to maintain the historic variability of the front setback, thecbn- .~epf of a street yard was created. Prior to the ordinance update, the village used an averag- ing provision. The dimension of the street yard-whether a front yard or corner side yard in more ;traditional .zoning terms-is deter- mined by the closest dimension indicated on . the Works Progress Administration (WPA) House Setback Survey. The WPA undertook a House Setback Survey in Riverside between 1936 and 1953 to document building place- ment on Riverside's lots, The information con- tained in this survey, available from the Village building department, is used to determine the street yard dimension. Because Riverside his- torically has a Varied front setback, using the map allows the village to maintain the historic development pattern and front yard variability. Some districts were also more amenable to strict controls than others. Within the CBD, there are veiy specific design standards for new construction, including permitted building mate- rials and standards for scale, massing, and fen- estration; including an illustrative guide of con- textual architecture. Because the CBD is a concentrated area with a dearly established his- toric character, the majority of regulations are "musts." However, within the reSidential dis- tricts, the village drafted design standards to address only the specific elements that were identified as the mostvulnerable.to permitting out-of-character construction, such as building, 09 ZONING PRACTICE 5.08 With any design-oriented process, the use of illustrations and photos is necessary to communicate design concepts and policy ram- ifications. Openhousesprovide an important opportunity to illustrate what is currently per- mitted under existing regulations and to solicit input on proposed changes; For example, in Riverside, the controversy centered around the maximum building height for the CBD. Many residents believed that the proposed three- story height was too tall. Only after the village illustrated how that height matched existing development with.in the CBD was the issue resolved. Step 4: Balance the Regulations Once the various elements ofth.e desired form are identified, specific regulations can be drafted. First, planners need to balance what must (a requirement) be done versus @ 4' ornamental fence along surface parking lots . @ 2' min. width. for groundcover @4'widemin. Low Hedge row @Large Deciduous Trees 25' O.C. along surface parking lots @ Parking Structures @ Decorative paving pattern . @ 2' high min. Raised Planter with 4' wide min. Low Hedge row and 2' min. Width for groundoover @ Builciing .access points @$mallornamental Trees at Plaza Area entrance . developers, architects, and others during the code-drafting process, and may lead to in~reased variance applications after code adoption. When design elements are simply encouraged, the code provides more flexibility and tends to"calm the nerves of those who fear the "architecture police," but if too many eleme1)ts are only encouraged, communities have no way to guarantee the desired end product. The specificity of the controls, whether required or encouraged, is another difficult sit- uation for any community to navigate. If the contr~ls are very specific, the developer knowsexaWy what is expected and can plan accordingly. But if the standards are too spe- cific, with limited alternatives, the outcome can produce cookie-cutter development. On the other hand, if the standards are left too broad, then there can be confusion over what