Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2009

Home

c. Architectural compatibility d. Arrangement of the components of the structure e. Appearance of mass from the street or from any perspective visible to the public or ad- joining property owners f. Diversity of design that is complementary with size ond massing of adjacent properties g. Design features that will avoid the oppear-" once of mass through improper proportions h. Design elements that protect the privacy of neighboring property ." o .: . ~ u o > U Comment: While some of the factors can be determined, others are very subjective, such as "quality of architectural design" and "ar- chitectural compatibility." What does "exces- sively dissimilar" mean in relation to another structure with regard to "diversity of design that is complementary with size and massing of adjacent properties"? There must be a clearer way to express whatever is intended by this criterion. Alteniative language: If a cata logue of ac- ceptable and unacceptable styles, elements, materials, massing, detailing1landscaping, and relationships to street frontages and abut- ting properties is adopted, then criterion (6) is not necessary. However, concerns for too much similarity could still be valid. In that regard, criterion (s) could be recast to read as sug- gested above. (7) The proposed building oTstructure is ap- propriate in relation to the established chor- acter of other structures in the immediate area or neighboring areas in respect to significant design features such as material or quality or architectural design ~s viewed trom any public or private way (except alleys). Comment: If a design passes the tests under (5) and (6), then criterion 0') would be sat- isfied also. There must be some o'bjective description of the established character of the immediate area or neighboring areas, and there must be objective standards to determine what renders a proposed structure "appropriate." These factors in~ite subjective determinations based on the personal prefer- ences of board members. Alternative language: This criterion is unneces- sary with the revised criteria (1), (3), and (6). @The City of Clearwater. Florida. uses dozens of photographs and illustrations in its Downtown Design Guidelines to show appropriate and inappropriate examples of architecture and site design. This illustration shows an"example of inappropriate infill that does not match existing buildings. (8) The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other ap- plicable ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. Comment: Presumably this refers to various other.standards regarding such aspects as lot coverage, setbacks, building height, drain- age, etc., all items that can be calculated for compliance. Alternative language: This criterion is accept- able as written. (9) The project's location and design ade- quately protect unique site characteristics such as those related to scenic views, rock outcrop- pings, natural vistas, waterways, and similar features. Comment: What is the standard for determin- ing "unique"? Whose interests in these unique characteristics are to be protected? If it is the public's, then the implementation in a given instance with site development limitations might result in a regulatory taking. Alternative language: This criterion should be deleted and addressed by other ordinances or regulations as part of a comprehensive policy, not on an ad hoc"basis. CONCLUSIONS The architectural review process is more ef- fective if a photographic catalogue illustrates styles, elements, materials, massing, detailing, landscaping, and relationships to street front- ages and abutting properties that the commu- nity considers acceptable, along with a written narrative explaining what makes them accept- able. The photographs respond to the "I'll know it when I see it" inclination that we aU possess. ZONING PRACTICE 7.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION jpQge 5 167