Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

,y;ked for tPeir opioions al)out code stan- dards, application requirements, process timelhle'J, ,~tc, Applicants, attorneys, plan preparer% and interested neighbors can offer informative comments, When this is done nn :] regular basis, themes become aoparem thai' shed light on the effective- ness at' dm ,:()de and its processes. Staff c:Jrnment:; cannot be underestimated. Ask them to keep regular notes about their expe- rien£es ir] ,~dministerin§ the code and to record recommendations for modification. This can be done informally or by using checklists. Interviews with board and cam- mission members provide another excellent source of feedback. These citizen volunteers see all ~'/l]er. of cases applied in many differ- eot circumstances. They are great observers of the process and a good gauge of your code's performance. For example, our city planning' commis- sion questioned the need for requiring a special permit to exceed the new parking' cap applied by the code. The commission had approved all the requests, possibly indi- cating that these actions should not require a special permit or that the cap was too iow. After a detailed analysis of each case, we found that while there was a need for adjustment, abolishing or chun§ins the cap was not yet warranted. You can also learn a great deal by studyin§ the case files, the approvals and denials, and the finding's and assessments. These are the written records of the code's performance. You can review each case fat special circumstances and influences that affect decisions and shed tight on the code's effectiveness. Overlaid on this basic approach is the need for continual public particfpation. In our case, we tried to ask everybody we had talked to in drafting the code, "How is it working?" Inviting the public to participate in the evaluation lends credibility to the results. The viewpoints and input from neig'hborhood groups and stakeholders, including local architects, engineers, land- scape architects, attorneys, planning groups, and developers, serve as checks and bal- ances ag'ainst the potentially skewed view- point of an in-house evaluator or one retained by the agehcy administering the code. Timse case studies were developed to assess Ihe effectiveness of the Center City design cri- teria and a process built to include both cer- tainty and flexibility. The Sagamore on East (Case Study t) is cur- renl:ly noder construction, and is an example of a proiect q]atwas desi§ned using the Center City Design Criteria. It reflects everything the plan and <ode intended to achieve in a major new Center City buildin§. It moved through the approval process tn fewer fhan 60 days. This project illustrates the effectiveness of the design criteria and the promise of fast-track p~ocessing for projects meeting' those criteria. At the ~]tlmr end of the ,spectrum are the additions to the Strong Museum. This 'project was handled using the same process as the Sa§amore on East project, yet it represents a complete deviation from the Center City design criteria and reflects the ability of the p¢ocess to accommodate unique architectural ' statements, the Stroh§ Museum is a unique use in a unique downtown setting', and the process and desig'n controls of the Center City District did not inhibit its creativity or extend the time it took to approve the project. Somewhere between those two cases is the r. oonecdng, infill building of Phoenix Gpaphics. This provided a much more subtle example o[the same regulation and process at work and illustrates the importance and comribution of ,,veil-designed, smaller infill i)~olecfs au ,:urnmercial frontages. Case Study ~: The mixed- use Sagamore on East is o prime example of-the type of building and design that the new code is intended to encourage. Case Study 2: The creative Strong 'Museum addition was achieved through a flexible design review. process. Case StudY3: Phoenix Graphics is an example of a well-designed infill proiect, that seamlessly blends old and new elements. PardiPa~nership ZONING PRACTICE 7.05 : AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION [ page 5 223 , ,:~::~-.,:: : : _ ; ~..~- - ' :;,:;~ ,:: - . _ , ; . ,.. t'~' .~.~