|
Review Criteria
<br />Deemed Vague by
<br />WA ashington
<br /> ppeais Court
<br />
<br /> t c t/~ppeaJs ruk-d m ~\lay [hat thc cin. nf]ssaquah's
<br /> design review criteria are "nnconsr~muonalh, va~uc '~ The ciD, of
<br /> 8,000 on the otuskJrts ofSearde Jl~s had a ~csign review proces~
<br /> conducted by a Jay body, the/ssaquah Development Commission,
<br /> smcc 1983. Wbu~; thc c(,rnnfisskm denied a rccem development
<br /> proposal ~br a 6.800-s~uare-tbo~, mukkenam retail structure a~er
<br /> several reviews, developer Brace Anderson sued in ~n~ Counn.
<br /> Superior Court. ~
<br /> The cour~ ruled in the ciw's ~n or cirhw -roce ....
<br /> · ' o g aural V~Olarions.
<br /> k~.~en Anderson appealed, however, attention was focused on the
<br /> criteria and thc commission's actions in applying them. The appeals
<br /> court decided in Anderson's favor, stating that he had met ~1 ~he
<br /> ci9"s hnd-use requirements "except for those unwritten and
<br /> therefore uneq~vcabk (emph~is added) requirements reiafng ro
<br /> building design which thc Development Commission unsuccess-
<br /> ~1t), tried to arrJcula[e during the course of several hearings." The
<br /> ciu' subsequently chose not to appeN the ~e ro the W~hmgron
<br /> Supreme Court. '
<br /> Like mare' small towns, Issaquah uses design review criteria that
<br /> are genera and apply ciu~vide' The following is u'pical: "The
<br /> proposed development is to be compatible w/th existing, permitted
<br /> land uses adjacent m the site and in ha:mom, with the surround-
<br /> ings, both man-made and nature." Drawin~ on an amici curiae
<br /> brief provided by the Ameri~n institute of&chkecrs' W ' ,
<br /> Council and Seattle chanter ~ w,,ll -- .L~ ~x .... , ~hm~on
<br /> r *,. ~ tu¢ wasmn~on chapter of
<br /> the ~eri~n Socie~, of~nds~pe &chkects, the cou~ concluded
<br /> that lssaquah's desig~ review criteria do nor give effective or
<br /> meaning~J guidance to appli~nts, professionals, or public o~ci~s
<br /> and are therefore unreasonable and violate due process.
<br />,, The taw stlt~ that statures must be written so that a person of
<br />common intelligence" does not have ro gu~s at their meaning.
<br />M~ning ~n be established through commonly understood
<br />techni~l re:ms or words that have a "se:tied common law mean-
<br />ing.'' Quoting wot& from the code such as "interesting," "monoto-
<br />
<br /> Zoning A,'eu,~ is a monchh, newslcner published by ~he American Planning Association.
<br /> Subscrip6ons ate ava ab r for S45 I'U S ) and $5~
<br /> lsrae Sro mnn r,.. · ~ ' '' (foreignj.
<br /> I ....... xecum.e w~tec~or: Frank S. So. Depun. Execu6ve D/rector.
<br /> Zon/ng A>u,t is produced ac APA. Jim Schwab, Editor: Michael Bar:erie Dan Biver,
<br /> Sa:aR Bohlen. Fay Do/nick. Michellr Gregory. Sanjay jeer. ~O'~ '
<br /> Morris. Reporters:
<br /> Cvnth a Cheski. ~ssi*~ant Edhor: Lisa Barton. Design and Ptoduchon.
<br /> Copyri~h 01993 by American Phuning Association, 1313 E. 60~h St., Chicago. IL
<br /> 60637. The American Planning Associ~6on has headquarters offices at 1776
<br /> M~ssachuse~ts Ave., N.W,, Washington, DC 20036.
<br /> ~ll rights reserved. No par~ of thix publication may be reproduced or utilized in
<br />
<br /> American Planning Association, · ..... -~ permission m writing from the
<br /> Primed on reg,c/ed paper, includin~ 50-70% te~'cled fiber
<br />· nd 10% poscconsumer waste. '
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br /> roms." "harmonious "and "compafibk.," thc. court concluded tba~
<br /> thc' intcrp~ctaucm and applic,i:~on of such term:, made h nccessaU
<br /> for lssaquah's commissioners m rely on their own subjecm,e
<br /> about thc c n:~ image and whether a proiect was compatible
<br /> that imagr. Thc court ruled that the commissioners' actions with
<br /> regard ro this ~se were "the yen, epitome of discredonaw, arbitran.
<br /> enforcement of the Jaw." ' .
<br /> The decision's impact is likely to he felt ~hroughout the recion.
<br /> ~cal phnning agencies are closely scrutinizing their codes, a~d
<br />
<br /> commuomes. Mark Hinshaw, an urban ~esi~n consultam whose
<br />entbqvay design guiddines plan Jbr Bozemam Montana. was used
<br />~s an exhibit in d~e amici curiae 8rie~ characwrized the ~e ~s
<br />having m,o important effects: "The appeals court has established
<br />design review as a legitimate extension of zoning. If communities do
<br />adopt design review guidelines, however, they have to be expJick.
<br />In the end, Hinshaw says, "h is jus~ good planning."
<br />
<br /> Impact Fees in Hawaii:
<br /> Implementing the
<br /> State Law
<br /> James C A')chok~s and Dan Davidson. Land Use Research ~oun~n'on
<br /> of Hawahl 700 B~Shop St., Suite ~928, A,~c Bulging, ~ono]uht.
<br /> ~] 968]3. December 1~2. 46pp. $20.
<br /> The ] 992 Hawaii state legislature, in p~sing Act 282. estab-
<br />lished a Oamework for financing infr~rrucrure through impact fees
<br />in 1o~ zoning ordinances. This repo~ examines the hisro~ and
<br />rarion~e of impact fees and the specific means of implementing
<br />legislation, in pa~ ~ing Hawaii CounD;s experience wkh a zoning
<br />
<br /> specific ink--tincture needs.
<br />
<br /> The Adoption and
<br /> Stability of Agricultural
<br /> Protection Zoning in
<br /> York County,
<br /> Pennsylvania
<br /> Rvbe;~ ~. Cough/in. De?arrment of City and Re~iona/ ?/an;:in~,
<br /> Graduate School of Fine Aris, L/),ive;'si~, of Pe,mo,/vanzT~' ]>hi/add-
<br />phia, PA 19104. .June ]0, ]993. 467p. ,gO.
<br />Coughlin surveyed York Court ,ty officials and found that the
<br />.count), had actuall,~, taken the Icad sratewide in farmland protection
<br />m many ways. Farmers Wished to remain in farming and feared the
<br />impacts o£scattered development, while count,,- planning staff
<br />provided leadership on the issue. The counn, gas also been an
<br />:onr°Var°r' {nrr°ducing such measures as reo~irino thel .... :-_ _c
<br />omes on mos5 softs least suttable for farming = ....... or
<br />
<br />Correction
<br />The Bay Area Council report, -Paths toA?prova~ ]listed as flee in the
<br />September issue actually costs $5.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|