|
least costly way of achieving a given outcome.
<br />Can zoning go beyond noise and shadow per-
<br />formance standards to demand excellence,
<br />without specifying to the private developer how
<br />to get there?
<br />
<br />MAKING THE CIT;',~' BEAUTIFUL
<br />A[on§ with technological evolutions, market
<br />preferences, cultural proclivities, and artistic
<br />creativity, zoning' has a si§nificant impact on
<br />the physical appearance of the built environ-
<br />ment. That impact may be intentional, in the
<br />sense that public planners intend to produce a
<br />certain visual outcome that they believe is
<br />
<br />attractive, comfortin§, stimulating, or even chal-
<br />len§ing. That impact may be unintentional, in
<br />the sense that it is not the purpose, but is sure-
<br />[y the effect, of zonin§ to influence physica[
<br />appearance. In recent years, zoning has
<br />become more aggressive about intentionally
<br />re§ulating the physical appearance of the built
<br />environment. Through design review proce-
<br />dures, o['ten accompanied by design
<br />~uideiines, planners have exercised authority
<br />over the art, as well as science, of architecture.
<br /> Specifically, desi§n review ts normally
<br />an aspect of zoning review where a local gov-
<br />ernment body exercises discretional/review
<br />
<br />over'the physical appearance of a proposed
<br />development. That §overnment body may be
<br />a stand-alone, specially constituted body
<br />made up of appointed members who repre-
<br />sent articulated disciplines, professions,
<br />expertises, associations, or§anizations,
<br />and/or §eographic areas; or it may be part of
<br />an existing' planning' or zoning' body with the
<br />design review function embedded as part of
<br />its overall responsibilities. The desi§n review
<br />body assesses proposed developments case
<br />by case, and issues decisions that can be
<br />enforced, or that simply may be recommenda-
<br />tions advanced up the food chain to the local
<br />[e§islative body or mayor.
<br />
<br /> Design-review decision makers across the
<br />c~untry are §uided by a remarkably similar set
<br />of [e§a~ standards. The standards do not claim
<br />to pursue beauty as such, nor would they, to
<br />the extent that beauty is perceived to be in the
<br />eye of the beholder. Instead, the standards
<br />demand that proposed development be in con-
<br />formity, compatible, harmonious, consistent, or
<br />not incongruous with the context or character of
<br />the surroundin§ neighborhood. Oesi§n-review
<br />laws commonly list design attributes against
<br />which to measure such conformity, including.
<br />architectural style, material, ~a(;ade treatment,
<br />color, proportion, scale, setbacks, hei§ht, mass-
<br />ing', roof Jine, building tops, cornice lines, orna-
<br />mentation, and fenestration.
<br /> From a legal point of view, aesthetics-
<br />based zonin§ is almost universally accepted.
<br />The U.S..Supreme Court has approved aesthet-
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE ol.o4
<br />AMERICAN PL~,NNIN6 ASSOClAnON I paO~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|