Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
HPB 02-03-1993
AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1993 6 :00 PM FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Historic Preservation Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, such persons will need a record of these proceedings, and for this purpose such persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The City does not provide or prepare such record. Pursuant to F.S.286 .0105. 1. Roll Call 2 . COA 8-180 A 401 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Robert Turner. Apartment house, contributing building, Del-Ida Park Historic District. A. Approval of modified site plan. B. Approval of landscape plan C. Approval of design elements 3. Reports from Historic Districts 4 . Unfinished Business 5. New Business 6. Approval of the minutes, January 20, 1993 7 . Adjournment MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1993 LOCATION: FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 100 N.W. 1ST AVENUE DELRAY BEACH, FL 33444 1 . ROLL CALL: The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 6 : 00 P.M. Board Members : Christine Bull Present Margie Miller Present Daniel Carter (Vice Chair) Present Sandy Jamison Present Pat Healy-Golembe Present Buck Miller (2nd Vice Chair) Absent Rose Sloan (Chair) Absent As the Chairperson (Rose Sloan) was absent Daniel Carter (Vice Chairperson) Chaired the meeting. Staff Members Present: Jeff Costello, Planning & Zoning Department Pat Cayce, Planning & Zoning Department Diana Mund, Planning & Zoning Department 2 . COA 8-180A: 401 N.E. 2nd Avenue; Lake Ida Historic District; Robert Turner, Owner. The Board moved to approve COA 8-180A (401 N.E. 4th Street) subject to the following conditions: A. Approve the non-impacting site plan modification subject to the following: 1. That a pedestrian connection be provided from the parking area to the front entrance. 2 . That a revised Engineering Plan which addresses staff comments be provided. B. Approve the modifications to the landscape plan based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4 . 6 . 16 . C. Approve the modification to the landscape plan based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4 . 6 . 18. Sandy Jamison moved for approval of COA 8-180A seconded by Pat Healy-Golembe. The vote was as follows : Christine Bull - Yes; Daniel Carter - Yes; Sandy Jamison - Yes; Pat Healy-Golembe - Yes; Margie Miller - Yes. Said motion passed 5-0 . 3. REPORTS FROM HISTORIC DISTRICTS: None. 4 . UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. 5. NEW BUSINESS: Mrs . Cayce informed the Board that the Twin Lakes High School was slated for demolition and there would be a meeting on February 4, 1993 at 6 :30 P.M. at the Harvey Building (224 Datoura Street, 19th Floor) to discuss alternative uses and strategies to save the buidling. 6 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 20, 1993 Meeting Christine Bull moved for approval of the minutes for the January 20, 1993 meeting, seconded by Margie Miller. The vote was as follows : Christine Bull - Yes; Daniel Carter - Yes; Sandy Jamison - Yes; Pat Healy-Golembe - Yes; Margie Miller - Yes . Said motion passed 5-0 . 7 . ADJOURNMENT: Pat Healy-Golembe moved for adjournment at 6 : 10 P.M. , seconded by Sandy Jamison. The vote was as follows : Christine Bull - Yes; Daniel Carter - Yes; Sandy Jamison - Yes; Pat Healy-Golembe - Yes; Margie Miller - Yes. Said motion passed 5-0 . The next meeting is scheduled for February 17, 1993. - 2 - 2/3/93 The undersigned is the Secretary of the Historic Preservation Board and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for February 3, 1993, which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on March 10, 1993 . 4ZA,/, Diana Mund If the Minutes that you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the Official Minutes . They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes . - 3 - 2/3/93 STAFF REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 3, 1993 AGENDA ITEM 2 COA 8-180A 401 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Robert Turner. Apartment house; Contributing Building in Del-Ida Park Historic District ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD: The item before the Board is approval of modifications to the site plan, landscape plan, and design elements of COA 8-180A (401 N.E. 2nd Avenue) . BACKGROUND: On June 3, 1992 the HPB approved a minor site plan modification for aN8 space asphalt parking lot and related landscaping for 401 N.E. 2nd Avenue (Bob Turner's Building) . On September 16, 1992, The HPB reviewed and denied a request for site plan approval to reconfigure the parking lot to accommodate 14 parking spaces and to convert 4 of the garage bays to offices. However, at that meeting a variance was granted to allow a pea rock parking surface. On January 19, 1993, a request for a non-impacting modification to COA 8-180 (site plan, landscape plan, design elements) was submitted and is now before the Board for action. Staff comments, which are minor in nature have been transmitted to the applicant. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development proposal includes the following aspects of COA 8-180A: Site Plan * Modification of the approved 8 space single loaded parking lot to an 11 space double loaded parking lot * Provision of a pea rock parking surface instead of the asphalt surface provided on the previously approved plan. An asphalt apron will be provided at the parking lot entrance to prevent pea rock from flowing into N.E. 2nd Avenue. Landscape Plan * Modifications of the approved landscape plan to accommodate the modified parking area. The landscape modifications occur chiefly at the southwest corner of the property (N.E. 4th Street and N.E. 2nd Avenue) . Staff Report COA 8-180A Page 2 Design Elements * Provision of a 3 ' high concrete block wall stuccoed and painted to match the existing structures versus the approved 3 ' high picket fence. ANALYSIS: The provision of the 3 additional parking spaces will further decrease the nonconforming parking situation with respect to design and number of spaces provided ( 18 required) . The proposed pea rock surface is more appropriate to the site than the asphalt surface. The proposed landscape plan provides more planting area at the entrance to the parking lot and at the southeast corner. The proposed masonry wall is more appropriate to the Mission Revival style of the buildings than the previously approved picket fence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve the non-impacting site plan modification for COA 8-180A (N.E. 4th Street) subject to the following conditions : 1. That a pedestrian connection be provided from the parking area to the front entrance. 2 . That a revised Engineering Plan which addresses staff comments be provided. B. Approve the modifications to the landscape plan for COA 8-180A (401 N.E. 4th Street) based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4.6. 16 . C. Approve the modification to the design elements for COA 8-180A (401 N.E. 4th Street) based upon positive findings with respect to Section 4 .6. 18. • . j 11' .�.��- �- . 1 ,f... _......1, . . . i, . .. .•. . . __._ :. acoAuti( , • .... � Fah e. ,ropa/I.nn ✓/' • ... _• r+(, r tI..1: .01 . I /.:tcfar.ti(14 I. J 1 • MI .•..._ �_ j: •� • Ir 1.I (Ctr.1 r.W Luw.1 �• .r• 'f {r` -SAGO Iµ•1 I I _,_.r MT/T.L Mt1. ,k.:..g. • �' •.1 i— Vw .1J.710 •.T1LVa•n(40 -� 1 -I- ..[RJ c•141a_C 1 .• •:f-.:-•.' • t = M1 1 4.) / • . .J \t‘..,,,,..k.L. . .... i . 't ,•I• .�, �� .iCY11rte C� `- '. �. I it.•t.cIAY•, I I mnm1 uaul. •aw. J •1 V .. r .IV wr.w•lTo fM'�tn• • <U 1k IJ tl71' t• . • I�. ...a.1•G•N•.( /►.M• {•,, c«� , t- L.1 Y Stitt,I • IM•S••..O ttyl 14.••14..•rryN• 1•r•.••IJt T•vt'r " .• �_�.C.u/..ir7 I . r�JZ•LI 'r iJ _ c 4..owl' M1tr4 ._tS•t.rwo nit!. • Jlr 12 1111 .. • I , r AN� • ryNINGiI0N1NG ONI\ • I I r I wlt)S_019 :• 7. I. , • •\ '.I �.•I - 1111., .11..III +. .1111 II▪ • —�.— �y • \\ .. 1. •-.-1• \ —•� - • • r/ . �D T/D/�5 • (I E. .91A�.S�(� 1( ' u�. ►Ro�vetic.n�.: :f�; r; �!;?\';�`.:�,j; •" , • • � '1� •ft ;:t::.: I`•-••:. .''•.itii.':e•••�.•,r,,r J...M,..'i:'.":1:7 1. .:�5�':1 . • • . . 1 �OU '7 • ` • .. ,{` � .i •- 'r: "ii.*!.}•ai;t:l.r•\r17t i.1 •:12 N4u:'u`t;::i,'•• -,1,;...+ 1/4::, •�•.:'1 . • ; 7#°T nie)r:A.,A0,2.-_-.i y /(�� •JV •t.T•1•• ter• 1• 4... '.hn • �• :.Y7wR••-•'*"�it':� • :• IIV�• l;.- • •1. ._ter .w iyy'./rI• -, • , • GI 0.. , : _ _ . + ��.. IiiiV,, . OP (1 w 4i1i1i C2 A •t 9! 469 1 IK[J Oitlod 4 �' I ) , . r i f-X{L IFICa IWO S- Y r:+wZ fil A . i Aftf-Triar MI LPItifs (I i ED.;.4‘ '• --• . la p _ Is '`›* re' 0 t I ,: ell J 'clig_n. T� ��. �� roll • r___17) •••........4 64.21, 44' o•- • Oil - 1 • , n ..r . , 1 . , . . .. __.________ , 1 . . Lerr IQ I ' ,e,.... . • . , •N 174 . • 4 ----4g • l 1 1 •I _ .f.0 t 41 .. FlP ;•-1 PP" ; • 1 \i I , I •l'iL. . -- • ' C.) • \\ t‘\.1 • - r — - —44 • 4. : .j. ZP_ , - ` `l; 4. 't. 1./. ,— a•. • jr0 .I - k , • PLANT LIST SHRU S,gROUNDCOVERS,&ACCENTS • 401 N E 2nd Avenue • .BF :iL;3 , Nea'rokos mitts (won Fein) 1r M..17'spa..kl. a,tr o.c.sun gr KEY OTY PLANT SPECIFICATION • eo 20 Bougakwldea spectatAs(Purple mixed) PALMS 48"K.24'spa.,staked.train over time carpus Me scans(Are Palm) a lsj, rxr .. Ctxysobtat taco"RedTtp' (C000p►xn) • trhltul«' •d Area Palm) min S pales full M. 2r Iy..24•spa..30"ae. CH 3 Cocos nuclera•idaytapm Dwarf(Coccnrt Piki CR 2 ' Cycas row***part Sago Pakn) C(LW..eight bend. 22 o.a.It min..beaYy.tin 36•spr•.T oz.TREES • EU 40 Eugenia umbra (Stain=Cherry) _ Oman Vininlana Pre Oak) 30'ht..24•spa,24•04. 12 ti..8'spa..B8B..S C.L A • 30 • Jasrnhan lfciolun(Star Amine) Kg >) tibboln sm.'Serrllnott Pirif gibbon Standard)' 111'arc.24'oz..301.cans . 8'tit..4'spa..3'C.t.standard •''Pip 24 Pttosponum lobira Yarieglduq . IL . .1 Ltgustnrm tlxidur►(t_igurirtlrn kN) 20'spr..20"N.24'oz. ' r ti..8'spa.4'c-I..B&B.outi-kudc trio type RP0 2 Rebcsted Pododcarpus oolxm 1 • 8'hi.4�spa,sheared • • - • /9/°,e.a) —"6'' S)/T�`,c�/y4SC4PC • g, e 2 rou+d precas!oorx slirpvtq a«+es bolt Wilton,ttntsk / she on corroded sand bast. • APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 'CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA ' • 100 N.W. 1ST AVENUE • ' DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444 . The Historic Preservation Board meets on the first and third Wednesday of each month. This application must be filed ' 15 days prior to the next available meeting. • Address of Property yo1 N•g. Z"r' Avf . _. . cOl.q e /SO f} Affix One Clear Picture - Tffi) �-frN.t ter: J t' J N n ttin.• • ~ i. �' - i :-1' t. •, • • PLANNING 8: ZONING T,ilill'iiidll gel '• -" x :, 4,.. ,� - '4 .urYt x - Y •�• _• ate=•t�, •=a . � , . •y fist�i�L': ( �•'• , ...1•.a . ��:'4 1i win+; ,-- ' `?s,�.� a't. .• 'tom+�.1s� •,, :.:'1:— ... -„ •1••*.\'.r;.1: i• ••f • , •• ., .,'..,,,i,ait=".....-te_ . I '1:-'• -1 • • • i .... _ ti 11.". 'i a i i',/...rr. •••-; ••• : f - • r ,4 . :;t k •l ' - )•••• : ., . ..• . ''''........-.,..,„ .,..- • . •• . • . • .66 . • t g • • ( • 221 • ••-•-•-•." • 3 • i .. t 4 . +•••''..1 :. • ' • ' • - • . .. .. v1. 01,..-,ir%..0.•:, .t.........: .. - . .- 1.•-•..,,, etk - ~ •rmog . .....Ai,.., ece,.....f.-:.-,-..-. ,...:„..-1, ••• • • •". • .f.•••0..i•-•-: ''.Z•t4,'‘i*.1.4 . • • •. '..• tt•Ne I Ziita 4.1. .1 titi .:.•.y.ki.4.6 .i ,.. t....' • . „., . .,„„fe...•,...,,_....4-41.74•0102.-"liwri. ,•'• 1r t.`'...,::-`•.01. .4-•'4"sv,%..-• -I- ,/ It , ••.:' •.;,...-1,4k"-•lt' ilop•=otFA I- ; -• 2 .. • I , • . 4',•,?,,,,.`,...f i,•;ht..t t ;•2:I ,, .,,, . .r ii ••er $•,;1•;,.:‘. .i p,,..!-=•=,--,•,.;, - •• -tit•A••1•1*-fi•••4?13r:.*2 t'lf•t:'•••:!,4 • • ' ,: .. :` .--•'; :r•..1.••‘• s- 1•••• e. .;.-,..,:.*•.2•-•-: . • •,.. •1_,i-,:.,1,.4,1‘.•.?•,i......-1..e- li- ••;,•,--1,-', • ., . • ;• --• t2a• •7'.- •: .'A-;-•;•':-...:'`..-••••` - - - • ' • fr...,•,•-r...f.i.,,,I.te.1-..v 4 44 - ' , ., .- • •-•• '• _• , • •,.:.,:_ .• .., . ,,._. _ , .... .,te.:.••--..-.•••' • " ' -• • , • ' • .•' • -- __ - -11.:.--.• ', ''.• . .:.S s '4. •••••• •Ii sip.r44.1 . r .•:'3 • • - --oastyvaz,,=10011ggils.".--j"-.. ...-• ' -../.4.isw w- j ••• .-•''r.. - 'v. " -••441 ..--s ' t , ..- '' '7,-441.4%.*Xre.,. -itypt;•;,,,, rif,-----r- - -•-flt..:-.. - .,...+2*---1-': •rr:.4.•:72 .2,4 far,",...2......t... ,,,„e.,,,A • '.. .,'t#2,2•••'.ri....i.:10,....q.."..,..,--•,'_._,1_,I..* 4.%•.... • iikik*„..t,....,,,,p02.2.142.2114•44,k42.1‘,.1*,,,- 44,44,,,,,,,,,, •--..--1.• • ' .- _.2-'...,.'1:../-••••-r•-.",t••2 :....atwr;si•NU-47-.n5:-1•2„:,3 •'"*.' ••• • ' • -'" - -•-•-*--; 411: 4.4:111:,,,11...;,:rgr,te -:.44f.FItir:il.',..;..1,,•... .4.! 4.7,..•*".ez........--t-. t•-, .,..,_,., . •_ .„ -' It.i.•••- k:i.. -k-44-r• T•''-'4"..-...* 4-,41:44-1.--4.:, ;,•••L. i- ii•ilve•tiA ;•2-1!•;•1•44 ••••t•-',—..z-•,4--ktv•-•-..-- . -, . , • •••-- i tr..-.e.4_%•4;-rt, ,4-••irt-.:.•••,,, -.•:,,,-,:t,- ,....:„....24•pt:m•r..-..- - ..- • 1„f•• •;•;•-sylsk.,,r,w..::•-: ..t.. 1 ,v..k. ...,..„,_4: -• I...4. eM,„•-"rr`2,.%.kl'ic"htiii'; ',.•'-',24A-•-z...1z."•'7A. ,2:t.,?-=•*•ir•ei !' - .'"' • •••-•'-•ti-,•;-i,.,.1'-----,1-A1:-•••34 --- 2, - .4'.'1 iN's-;: •-741.'': _ ' .. -.'" 13`-. ..tlir.tPr•"ZP- ....'_••••",?..:_r''', .;:1-'••- 414.•-. :4„,.. ,- -,..,-,--2c..'!"..'!!•' ''''• '••-;.:. f-,7-....:.:,f;--- .:-:-.'ts---i: ..•.'1:i.X, •4:2.*•42..yitit:',;'.... ,‘,17;r'..'4.!..Tt*..',4,f..1,t;......e.:'Lt- v... . ..,4.---,-,4,. .te:Akiztija.-4.4 ..,„,.„-.1..,-.....,, .........r.-1-._!- . ,,•.-4.::,s.---if.4„.. - e,,- . --... Lav• - -- - - - • e vot.,/1 if.w 0 r. (-t-rz_. . . . . .., .. ._ . _. . . . 4 . •• ..„-••,-4.-0,,,,:- -, ,.„ . • ........,,,..., i .... , ......_..,.. i, , .,..,. ...„),„.. .. .,,„..„...,....,,A,..* • -:. '.-.422....•:•., • •••• ...,;•:,• . ,z, .. . .-2, - - t • •••••-2..4-.4:: • , • - - . •,..."2„..,-..1 • . ... -2‘....,,, '' ;' -,••.•' t , •."-• .. ••.„.7.'., • 4 '...-•;.-1::.2...-.; ..• ; • .-....-4‘. ' ., 7 ...:." • ,if• _____.. .1 ilk:, _-• • 1 .i.' . • • •A"?.. :. -i‘b •:e .- 44...4-,4 -M /72.4.-.••.-.•• .. • - - - •,1.•..-,2..•-•.•. •-- --. ..0l-•a•-c .f4--. .I4 „ - ,• 1K- ., ,1191 ir4 'J..- •- As 1 . 2 , a A . 11P e..-- ,... -• .5;•-, •1,.- it .-i • r• t. t• •• • ,. _ . 4.41''L•,.i'i..:11 -': f• 1 IV-, i - ----1.-:'r- - -:;,- ,'•• - • ,, „...t.......,„ ..„: ._ . . . '3' iii....;1 ,--.--.. , ,,..,.•-•,•5-1.! . . • . • .:••;..? • t. • -. -•........v...... • Z... . 4,•• ,-.C.i.V..1:•1. ;`7` ,--- , i'_-- ' - ..7- - • ...... - •ligt„ , . -'''. I.::-!F*3; .1! ' --..---.-..:•"-:.•-•.-- , -.N.,;:::_ . 4 3. i"..0 • -'• - ....-.-- - . ••• ,. • 4--tr.•••••••--;-...-t•- - •-'4.-..-''' r: .'•:`14.0- .• if,' , ..... 1 ••••e • - ';'..'.i.;il: : : /.***% - • ,•...*:....,St•r:r•''li;4t•It.*..• - !,.?,'1...-' .: . •.•'1*: - '' .':•Vt1,;'"1.• ,'„ •••_;1•Vit.'..t:s ..,...o.c....;7'4'.. • ' . • . " v.....•••••••... .....:......_......,... ...... A e".‘' 4-;.:- .4,a.c3.---"--' ..,.'''' -fr.W‘..::';‘,...---• • Is -•-•`' '1 '. - '• . i'31"..r.1 11;••4 i-ziiii.-A..'st -c.,` ---,'..."1•'"....1-. • '*1•1 •* ' - * Lal•••-•6•4•••••••,••-t•ge.:•• ..t•.:k •ftb-0•40•44 ••.'" r.. ` • -i• -•-:.,i.!-:-t. - • • — . , •. - • 1, . ...a .. %.4 .-•i . ..VYA.,k;A:es11:Apirevi.s,rz.•• . hit 4 4/.•...I,...".•10-. le.1\. . '''.0.'•Wk,t.,..;'..•-• ' '..'. •••-•• . • • 1 .47 7 r.-- -...___._... . . .• ...• Z.;i••., ,-• k • • t ' ':•, i • 411- - •-:•-.....-.... '...ip:•...1V.140•VI.,‘•,F•..!..4x.s,•• . .. e;, .- f,.-- i. 4.'.` ' •. . '.1. ••••,.i. . i„,!:- .0.0 1. - --- _. i..:.•.„ . l ; • . , . . . . ';'•'.•-' - . ' .1.1 , • . . , : i'' '. . • •..-.. 4,447 - - - e.._ . . • . .. . . ...t. ,all II W•1.-i. . I--3 g III g- . , Ar - - •• • . •- it,...- I id ,,.. . IVIt 1 1,111 II i is ' • • ro: T2.V7-..-', • • •• ' ••••••.• •z,': . ..--- _,.. 4rAg' - . r,..• • • .;-• ....' '7,. ; •--.r':• ' . ' .$. • - , •-...- • i'' f‘?".... ;:il' ',..:1'.l• "• : -...-•:'' . . 7,..7•. . t j 1'1 ' 1. (.'• ....•7: '*1 i • ; '•• •.' !.. .'• '• • ..c't • :A 1 t• .• ' - : ' ''' - • -.C,:i• • ' • •• - ' .., • 1... '--• • . •:*;Illi"• ' ' .... f•-•••1,-'•• . .....• •• i •• .. _ '.' .'' :".... ''•••.r • -1. ,,,,,"..... , .„la*1:.-' . ;-... F.',..-.:11-,-;,-,-.:-..-• i •-- .....-.4.,,,,,,:-..t.t., . . -- - •-••••••"rf .. •-•• •• -.,., .-•• ..: ••• ..... ---=-- -.....o.,..,. •.. ' e•-•.-'t•'•.......-- .-• ' A.A6.iur. - -•_;:. esa g•Ca•-•S•'''',..15...';'...."-.t.f...".. -'.... . ''-'-'---- ..'-• -• : .1-....- ---4 • -- - --L! ••• -. --- -:.-••.,.• - -..'-1-.'--- -•P•, :. -•••.r.e;*' '7'1 lk *-•••••••••••••:•,:- '.''''•••"--4.14 Q."ii,444.- .••4.4).7.1....•f''.-;'•...".-1,?1"4-•!!..:,• ' • -- -------------------------- - • - • - .... -. ....".. . . , • ;.. • ..• . • • , 1 , ..., V.'-•••••"5.•••-•••'•••.'._.• 1 ' .. . .• ii.:4, -........ :fix . . ", . . ,...„,?7,4/4. --,---, •• - .?1 - - ,.-o, eu-rii L,f,vaTici-1 ci- - --:., .....,-.'. ...,-- t s,,,,.. :- - • -.- ..,..• .,,,1 • ..,.... .,, ..:... ,., • - lir r:P-..!,..-: • :... \it • --. •••:-.34--•;--ji,:,1-;•;•:.?:---.1 - ....t.::".„'--:-.k-.:-,.•.;:.I-.. ..".. ..,::-• -i---r 4..! .., f lr ' i I • - • 4 -•.,--3::.:".,,. • -"..*•: •• % - r.--•- ;.:.i,-L.: • .: I I.'' •••• :-... •:-- ' - 1 -r.,,,_2-t. f...-..L.........0.. .i,- .'- ,,,..-• :. .. ..., .:•-•': ."-"::16F,. ...f;* 7.-• ::•-•1:.--. :4,""••••'4 -. I.".P•:- 2t.i., ..1.,.-. . • ip....,0 . ... . f "f3 •• -1,-.-1.11-.. •-,•,' 4' • -- - - ,. id •- ., ;-:,: ix.''' AM •, g--- I•t:,_ .,i,, A ... - 4. .........%, .,I.r.-7., --- 1.. ...„-.1...: , •7-.z.trr 1:., .::_i :-.). - . .,.-01 :4.-3:,-:-;•,.. . • .. •,.....e,.„,.. f-,-....,,,., 1-...%,-Pri :: .•• ... _ . . . ,.ra.r.-:, .: .:A.i...',. . '.' - • *A-* - • :- 111.Ui01.rtyr!';...i•,-..:4;•-:' 4i 41- ... '• l'-`ii '------".- • ' '7.•-• .0:- • t.. .''` * - '' '. - . s;. *** -,- :-..:2:..--'-'...-.:- •' ''.:., . .,. .„,.. 44-' • .- • . . ;- -z.r.v..'y ,,,i,1.;:!..,,14-„...,.--;_•;;;,f,-,:,•e..-'?:-.;:i•sf• r--:-? :;4'.-.-V,:'•1-„:_'•••-.."t-f;!.......•'.:-:..' l*"..N.4..'•.%"_2.. ..-' :- -, .•• ;4: 7.-r ki•-•t4-:.-4=..I" ` . '-.•;:it'S:e:.7.....- -. . .•'• . ';'` :,.. it,".;,--,-• -• ,-: - .,:...-..... _ • . '•-..,:-,,---. ' ..;., :/...:,.:. ..-- ' 2.:,,..,.,. • ' .- - .• .:..-. ; . i-,-. 214,,101! -.-Y-,_r). -.. • 'ot,...1..4‘• • .i.7.:'••••• .77 ,...,.....;.. i ..,..- -'''.... •:-:.!..1-.....f,..:1-0. . • _ - . _ -------.---..- .. . ---- --- ---- •..t.- 's. .;- .*. t ... ..•_ . . .• ,...-----. '. al i - •-- - A'•••'.• ••i•-:•••••.y.'' ..•••_. .. •-• ' •' ....... . . ' - 'i •..... •0 I . I 4 . .i. 4'Li% • . - - • . . . . . • .. ,,,'4. ii; •:,-' ' - ,,,. .:,...-. „ ,„.,,, . 11-'w;* - .-. ,'. • 11„71 . ' El 4.-!- 7 - --•• • zli• ;:.- • I . 4 0 • ' 1 11 i 'Ai... .•'- -- „. •.1.••••' 4,1'..r;••••o 111 ...' '4'', . "" , ' - t . L .. alli , - •• . 65 WO ' L \/6•T 141 1.4 • .b - ---. . 0 . ....... . . 11111111101111111111I k 4-. 4.t. '- ' • •• b.• ... ***S.A. 310 i: .: -,-- -. . . •,..- si, - . _ . ,- - • ',Age..'1.: ••1:.:' ' f-..-•-•,'-,-- '.-- • ..‘._. r7 ..-...,4 '• • • i•4 i • - .* '• • Ve.7.'1 ';'•'•'•':''''''.-'. -.•._••:'-',!,•• • ''•• i I i..,1 i i i.c. . !- ". ,.... .._ 1.--- . ,. .--a-:::---f. •,,_ ...AT; .. -.-. ...... . ,,,,,..f..- - . - *.. - . -: -- --• - • ;::IEN _....._ • • - . - ::--, •,.-..,-.- ...., •_, .... A ' - • ' 's• b. 1w I ' • '.....•i•.% 1 .: .' ".•. •' .'....•. ''''rA.•...'?S''.:s.' .•.4°95 i%a'..'•!:,,".'I 7.;>,. •.-e----1. - - .- ,_ S-:7- • • ."' .c74•1=0/Mili ,....., . ._,- -. •:•••-41,Wif,i....,T1 .''••---.:,, , •Itifi,:e.,.. • -. . . •7-4-aik--.. '''=•?...,-:.......7.:,,4.1-":". .--r-r-r.:.:- , - v.... . . . % . • :, --,,-.• :..--.-,A5,j' ;:!.•:,;:e t -**.--- ..c.:--1!--k2....u.i.AP,------ -•- t • --.i.,..7 --:,..--..--, A i. ...r •.4 -• .,,.-, . ."a...--.4 " ......›l';'9,q,••..F.Or•',.t.,_. . •C .! .,1 4...c-'4. , -.,•.1--,,Eal,•..s...,r..!!,f•• . •. .. ..•• • ''' • • rw `Y.• - `- --4 1 t ••••••..t ii••• 1., —ir:1111".• . I A!' A - e• . - . .- ' ---- • illgjj 11Li fill •4• - _ :' •• , „ :„ - 1'(o{t- 11 f L5 VZ -TI O • -., 1; . ...•• 1.1 , frii-4-• lig ,. ri. . ".. ., . 'ri • , w • 1 • •.4 syy� i.4 1•1 :f-! .• • •*.... I •�.• * < . : , .r � l.. `' IVj W • % ;i ;--• 12,1 1 - Ai f-ft-ock-11-0. oiilli t i!_rti4% -i�i : l '• h • j :• i ,,,,..„• .wy , ' .0-`;t '` I ' • mo -!• • .,.. •:.w. "r'j ti!g, j' `-' -' - r' i • • • • • WVS-1" V-1, vxTioF-I G • i'St _:-1. • ?i �y te • ��- t. y 4ti, • t,.. .0„,....k... .. ..,,T.t...4.: .„.,..i..e.,,,,e„„..„1:..,...4,4,....)...„..r....,.. . „„ . . :____ , r_... . . ...,...., ...,......:Ievy,.71 . ,-:;•••.:f....,-;',...7ty".-,y,.../ • - -- --...F.--''.:• -I..., ..i..: 1:. ‘ , , A } Cwt cr .1 rt. I.: i%Ya # ` • J f v 3A,• .y� Y r. . ) ' t •x. ..`. .': . ^'�-?y am+ K! .Oti_ I • .•• • r A y,•,lri4`,,-' i. Li L 'fit': _ - bM% • _� Jl .YY�S \ RR � .., 1: .. i 4' �< 0 ±� 4 `. ei 1_11 Jay/.I/� 1 C/T }fie i ...fy:•fr y py?L ;Yr S F 4 • y .1 l •,; • r /—N 1 •i►�v•V�{ON �/1 • K `-'S' 4. - .i•fµ 2 f;l •3/.:• %,,r..l� 4*•,-7f„}_1 4; a -F ' `1 .0.1 'vet; sA T.- ' •,. ,t, . 0..i;..0 2 s'''''.t -1:'''.77. .. .;'' ,> • -.4, r -'• "' 'L 4•t i + {s i. 0" # .4-ws--- a .K, ,•arc 1.r y ?h't::ita5. s .„,- .:i...' .-` Fs7•,r�,+'d'�+ �`1•••.is Ry M+ ! 1,.j„t '' w c s. 'l"r'•l 1f 1' ^1 ` 11 • j 4.-,.. --.,.4:,.. ., ,... . . t.. A. iy-..•,.-... - . ,. . . ... k.,.,. . , . ,.- ...a, ... • ig- it• . . ,--etfil'r.c.- '.•••,'VW.,,,i7 .,V...*JO ,,, ,i•••••• •jei , , . ,.F:d•. ,,• - ''� ` esT EL N4(61'1oF� or- c-,orLw� _> 1'«' 71 i3�1 ii =�i.-2 a"S/ =fir l '• I fy•' �joy• _ .. t-+�. = `'.•sit — .i1. � .•i- � •• z.a4 — - J 'r,•,.4—,.., tom• M.i.),Mpt„,..,,,,4„ .i �.� ,L /.r - • • t': r.T.' . ..f', . �. - • 1 1 i fM%-/t -1t,{ or f y __i , I ` •y .r d d1ZALj . . 1i ...e4r, I:ti. Simeoffia , :,....„-: till.. .:.11.1, 1,Itielkl . i ,,; 1111,1 1,.•:I F.a - .r.. F, j • - "1•♦ e-•.„ -i • , • _ ' •fir:`+, •.t,' 1 .ti .. , PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID J. KOVACS, PLANNING DI -TOR FROM: DIANE DOMINGUEZ, PLANNER III SUBJECT: HPB CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED OSSHAD TEXT AME ENT DATE: JANUARY 21, 1993 At last night's meeting of the Historic Preservation Board, the Board moved to approve the proposed OSSHAD amendment, subject to the following changes: Provide a list of permitted retail uses instead of referring back to the CBD zoning district; said list to consist of all of those retail uses permitted in the GC district, excluding the following items: Automotive parts Lawn care equipment Appliances and changing "Electrical fixtures and supplies" to "Lighting fixtures and supplies. " The Board also expressed some concern over the elimination of the words "arts related" from the Purpose and Intent section; perhaps this could be changed to read " . . .arts related and other commercial activities. . " c: Pat Cayce, Historic Preservation Planner Jeff Costello, Planning Tech `' C ‘ y PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ITY COMMISSION FRO . DAVI J. OVACS, DIRE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 SUBJECT: OSSHAD TEXT AMENDMENTS, 1ST READING CONSIDERATION The Planning and Zoning Board completed its review of this item at its meeting of January 25, 1993. It has been forwarded with a recommendation of approval subject to the following modifications : 1. REVISION of the first paragraph of the Purpose/ Statement to read (per HPB request) : * Provide for mixed uses of residential, office, and Aitt$ tOUtOd commercial activities, with an emphasis on the arts, that will encourage the restoration or preservation of historic structures and, yet, maintain and enhance the historic and pedestrian scale of the OX¢! WWI $411 ttO HX t Z Ofigtti¢tt area. 2 . NOT TO CHANGE Sub-Section (B) (3) --- allowable use of retail sales. (The Board felt that since there was not any known problem with the language as it presently exists, there was not a demonstrable need to change it. There had been some controversy as to going to general retail but still prohibiting certain uses . The P&Z Board staff report provides a complete discussion of this subject. ) 3. REINSTATEMENT of the provisions of existing Sub-Section (B) ( 10) , but renumbered as (B) (9) . [This is necessary due to the action in not changing (B) (3) ] . All other proposed changes were recommended for approval. The Board did discuss the concerns raised by the City Manager about the change in required parking for restaurant use; however, they continued its support for the uniform requirement throughout OSSHAD. City Commission OSSHAD Text Amenuments 1st Reading Consideration Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold first reading and direct that changes be made, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, prior to second reading. GJ/z , A-4e 9 ` 3 T:\OSSHADPZ ^.;:f1 M II' .1 AMERICAN ge:- `- PLANNING P .:A SMemo - ASSOCIATION v. JANUARY 1993 Survey of What Projects are Subject to Design Review Design Review All10,0 over g Jurisdictions 100,000 pop. Practices Special Districts Subject to Design Review By Brenda Case Lightner Historic districts 60% 79% Waterfront or other scenic areas 17 21 The practice of design review is expanding at a rate comparable to Environmentally sensitive areas 19 14 the adoption of zoning ordinances in the 1920s and'30s.It has Downtown or center 31 46 - - been fueled by ever-greater acceptance by the courts of a local y government's interest in controlling aesthetic quality.Design review Residential neighborhoods 19 19 is the local government practice of scrutinizing private and public Neighborhood commercial districts 22 25 projects for their design,aesthetic or urban design quality,or fitness. s' It includes historic district review,but not subdivision controls or Special Cases Subject to Design Review 4. review by a client of an architect's work This report describes the results of a survey of design review Zoning variances 19% 19% practice conducted in April 1992.Surveys were mailed to 700 city PUD Approvals 56 49 1.'-' and county planning departments that subscribe to the Planning ,, Advisory Service,plus all nonsubscribing planning departments in Very large projects 28 24 cities of greater than 100,000 population.The rate of return was Public buildings 24 44 exceptional:371 responses,369 of which proved usable(a return Public infrastructure 18 26 • rate of about 52 percent). The survey was designed to find out what kinds of projects are In those jurisdictions where design review varies,respondents subject to review and the scope of design review across the country; were asked what areas of the city or what types of projects are to discover who participates in design review decisions;to describe subject to review.Multiple answers were allowed.As shown above, and categorize standard review processes;and to determine what the most prevalent use of design review reported was in historic principles of design were being used to evaluate projects.The latter districts,followed closely by planned unit development(PUD) proved to be the most elusive. approval.Further analysis revealed that very few jurisdictions(three One of the most interesting findings is the rate of growth at percent)limited design review to historic districts.Most which design review has been adopted.Sixty percent of jurisdictions respondents said that they applied design review in more than one with design review have adopted it since 1980,and only three type of circumstance(often with separate criteria for each).This i. percent had some form of design review prior to 1960. suggests a fragmented series of design review systems rather than an Furthermore,one-fourth of the 22 percent of jurisdictions that do across-the-board mechanism.Large cities were more likely to have not have design review are currently considering adopting it. many different review systems. The survey sample was limited to cities and counties of greater When asked to categorize their reviews as voluntary or than 10,000 population.Because the PAS list was augmented with mandatory,60 percent of the respondents using design review large cities,the sample is more likely to reflect the activities of the claimed that it is mandatory and said the recommendations must be large cities and towns.Selective analysis has revealed few differences followed for zoning or subdivision approval or building permits. between the responses of large cities and responses of cities under Only four percent of the respondents with design review use a ,-, 100,000 population.Where they are significant,they are noted. voluntary process,in which review is not a requirement but a show More than 100 respondents also sent copies of their design of good faith by a developer.Some 21 percent use an"advisory" guidelines,providing a tremendous resource for further research. process that,upon closer examination,is nearly mandatory. .a The Scope of Design Review Design Guidelines ,, Of the 369 respondents,78 percent claimed to be using some form Design guidelines are often mentioned in the same breath as design of design review.When counties were eliminated,this increased to review.Indeed,written guidelines do accompany the majority of 83 percent.Large cities(more than 100,000)were even more likely review processes.However,22 percent of the respondents with •h to use design review,with 93 percent using some form of it. design review do not publish guidelines,relying instead on a general The 285 jurisdictions with design review were asked whether consensus of the reviewers.For another 15 percent,guidelines are '• review was consistent for all projects or if it varied with just that:recommendations,not mandatory rules.For 48 percent of . circumstances.Of these,only 18 percent of jurisdictions subjected the respondents with design review,guidelines are mandatory or r.. all projects to the same design review process;while 82 percent regulatory,making them more precisely"design laws"or standards, noted that the process they applied varies with the circumstances, rather than guides.Another five percent develop guidelines on a , for example,the location or type of project. project-by-project basis. There is no consensus on the form written guidelines should Why Writes Design Guidelines? ' take.Twenty percent use quantifiable rules(such as limiting sign areas or stating specific amounts of landscaping), 13 percent use Agency staff with planning background 73% drawings and diagrams to illustrate what is desirable rather than providing quantifiable language,21 percent are general(describing Agency staff with design background 55% principles and goals and giving examples rather than specifics),and 36 percent fall between or combine two or more of these forms. Design guidelines generally were composed by agency staff with Community residents,leaders 32% help from community residents or attorneys(see table at right). Most of the guidelines were assembled from several sources(52 Attorneys,on staff or consultant 24% percent)or created new(16 percent).Very few were modeled on another jurisdiction's guidelines(five percent),suggesting that guidelines usually are specifically tailored by local agency planners. Elected officials 22% This specificity of place is probably related to the use of context as a measure of design quality,which will be discussed later. Planning consultant 21 Who Reviews Projects? The survey indicated that planning agency staff(with and without Architect consultant 16% design backgrounds)and planning commissions and zoning boards were the most likely to review projects.Design review boards were present in only 36 percent of places with review.Where they do Other 14% exist,they are highly influential in the outcome of the review.Large cities were more likely than small cities to have design review boards Number;are a percentage of those rapondentt who said they use design review (47 percent).In places without design review boards,the review outcome was influenced primarily by agency staff(especially those Who Participates in Design Review? with design background) rather than any other participating body. Who Is.Most Influential? Remarkably,citizen participation in design review is relatively Who participates Who has most rare:this occurs in only 18 percent of places and only two in review? influence respondents claimed that citizen groups exerted the primary Agency staff with design background 71% 36% influence on the outcome of the review.This suKests two distinct an Commission/zoning board/ patterns of review:review by agency staff,with the imprimatur,but Plan and of appeal g 60 16 little influence,of the zoning board or commission;and review by design review boards,which are more likely to make judgments Agency staff without without being influenced by agency staff. specific design background 57 14 Given the two patterns of review and the range of possible Special design review panel or board 36 26 — - outcomes,and given the diversity of individuals who approve and Elected officials 28 4 disapprove of design,the author thought it would be interesting to discover what architects think of the design decisions being made. Volunteer citizens/residents In a recent survey(separate from this design review study)that through public process 18 1 Wolfgang Preiser and I conducted in cooperation with the Professional consultant 10 2 American Institute of Architects Memo,architects declared Other 5 2 themselves fairly unsatisfied with design review.Twenty-five percent of the respondents found it perry,meddling,and useless," What is Being Reviewed? and 50 percent said it was"a good idea with serious flaws."The In this section of the survey,respondents using design review were bi .est complaint of the architect-respondents was the lack of asked to detail which project elements are reviewed.Respondents qualified professional reviewers—in other words,the lack of were asked to check one of three options for 39 elements under two architects on review boards and staffs.Thus the composition of categories:site planning and building design.Respondents checked review bodies or staff may become the critical issue in architects' whether.a)the element was covered by a guideline,b)the element acceptance of design review.Indeed,the controversy often revolves was not covered by a guideline,but was reviewed anyway,or c)the around the question of whose tastes will prevail,who has the right element was not reviewed. to determine"good design." There was a lot of consensus among respondents in the site Although architects are more likely than any other professional planning category.More than 90 percent of all jurisdictions said to be found on a review board,44 percent of all review boards do they review parking lot landscaping,fences and buffers,setbacks, not have a single architect.Community representatives were the screening trash areas,and parking configuration.Fifty percent of next most likely to be found on a board.Lawyers were the least jurisdictions have written guidelines covering these five elements. likely to have a seat at the design review table.Not surprisingly, Environmental issues ranked lowest on the list,with fewer than 30 reviewing bodies are dominated by white males.Statistically,the average board of 7.1 people includes only 1.8 females and.6 percent of the jurisdictions claiming to review sunlight and shadows or response to microclimatic issues.Perhaps this is because these are persons of color. not strictly"aesthetic"issues. There was less consensus among respondents on the building design elements reviewed."Building height"and Brenda Lightner is an assistant professor at the School of Planning at "on-premise signs"were the two most common elements the University of Cincinnati. scrutinized.In both cases,written design guidelines were present 2 in more than 70 percent of all jurisdictions. one-fourth regularly use context.For large cities,the percentage Overall,most of the elements of building design that were listed increases significantly. were reviewed by more than half of the jurisdictions.Only four of Respondents who claimed CO use context as a guiding principle the 19 elements were reviewed by fewer than 60 percent of the were asked to agree or disagree with statements about jurisdictions with design review.This suggests that building design, contextualism.The greatest level of agreement(82 percent) in all its pieces and parts,is thoroughly reviewed in most places. followed two statements:"new buildings should respect the existing The discrepancy between site planning and building design urban pattern of buildings and open space,"and"designs which elements covered by guidelines and those that are reviewed without diverge widely from the surroundings should not be allowed."Next guidelines is interesting.Every respondent routinely reviews items most common(73 percent agreed)was"new and rehabbed for which there are no guidelines,suggesting that guidelines do not buildings should not stand out noticeably."Statements drawing the significantly limit the scope of design review.This was especially lowest level of agreement were those that queried about using true for building design,where written guidelines were common for stylistic resemblances or similar derails.This suggests that cities are only the four most prevalent elements.Perhaps this is because of the looking for buildings that are imitative of existing urban patterns difficulty of writing objective guidelines for building design issues. and sit quietly in their places,but need not always look like the buildings next door. Context and Design Review It should be noted that there was not a significant level of In this section and the next,the common principles that underlie disagreement with any statement except on the issue of style(38 design review decisions will be described.The author assumed that percent dicigree),and respondents were likely to answer"not most review systems depended primarily on context to guide the applicable"instead of actually disagreeing.The suspicion is that review process.That is,most review decisions and changes are based respondents were reluctant to actually dicagree with a reasonable on making a project fit into the"context"of its surroundings.Since sounding principle,a phenomenon also encountered in the context is a word with multiple meanings for planners and archi- responses in the section on design principles discussed below. tects,it was nececcnry to delve a little deeper into what"fit with the context"means to agencies that use it as a principle of urban design. Principles of Good Design The assumption that the notion of context is widely applied in • Respondents using design review were asked to agree or disagree design review decision-making is based on a study conducted 10 with several"principles"of good architectural design and urban years ago by Wolfgang Preiser.Every city surveyed for that study design.These principles were really restatements of common design claimed to be using context as the primary urban design guide. guidelines.They cannot be described precisely as principles in the In 1992,the picture is different.Twenty-three percent of the sense of Vitruvius's"firmness,commodity,and delight."Rather, respondents with design review claim not to use"fit with context"as they represent the usually banal bur occasionally profound rules that a principle.About half use context"sometimes,"and more than are being promoted as good design in cities.In general,these are Specific Site Plan Elements Reviewed Building Design Elements Reviewed Covered by Not Covered by Not Guidelines Reviewed Both Reviewed Guidelines Reviewed Both Reviewed Fences and buffers 68% 27% 95% 3% Building height 72% 22% 94% 4% Parking lot landscaping 67 27 94 4 On-premise signs 74 18 92 6 Screening of loading,trash 59 34 93 5 Building bulk 49 38 87 10 Distance from the street 67 26 93 5 Mechanical equipment Location of parking lots 52 40 92 6 screening 50 36 86 12 Exterior lighting 51 37 88 9 Materials 41 43 84 15 Disturbance of Building dimensions 40 42 82 15 natural landscape 37 42 79 17 Service areas 39 42 81 15 Pedestrian amenities 34 42 76 21 Facade articulation 39 37 76 21 Conservation of vegetation 35 40 75 20 Location of entrances 22 49 71 25 Utilities 39 35 74 20 Color of materials 25 46 71 26 Public open spaces 28 43 71 24 Roof profile 23 47 70 27 Off-premise signs 56 15 71 20 Details 26 41 67 30 Obstruction of views 20 43 63 32 Horizontal or Visual privacy 22 40 62 34 vertical proportions 23 41 64 31 Street furniture 19 34 53 42 Window size,shape 23 39 62 35 Security 9 38 47 47 Style or character 23 37 60 36 Outdoor art or fountains 13 30 43 51 Ground floor activities 14 32 46 49 Generation of pollution 17 26 43 50 Maintenance 16 27 43 52 Sunlight,shadows 10 18 28 C6 Energy efficiency 12 18 30 64 Response to microclimate 7 17 24 70 Interior lobbies 7 17 24 71 3 operational and direct,("reduce the variety of signs"),rather than mentioned by one-third who had one or more improvements to t -,;' aesthetic or design-oriented("use harmonious proportion from one suggest,was to make existing guidelines more explicit,clearer,or it part to another").Aesthetic principles were left out of this survey stronger.The second most common suggestion(18 percent)was to '. ', because they are generally missing from design guidelines,and,in create design guidelines or standards,apparently in places that have any case,there is very little agreement over such principles in today's none.Other suggestions for improvement mentioned by more than ±,' — pluralistic architectural world. 10 percent of those responding were:to broaden the review process `-- We have already noted how little agreement there is that"fit by including more types,uses,areas,or sizes of projects(12 with context"means"stylistic similarity."Planners,like architects, percent);and CO consolidate the process,reduce delay,or reduce steer leanly away from making rules about style or aesthetic issues overlapping jurisdictions(10 percent).Other improvements that ./ whenever possible.However,this does not mean planners have no received 10 or more mentions were to give staff(as opposed to 'fa.v opinions about style or aesthetic issues,or that they refrain from boards)more control,to use more professionals on review boards, reviewing these issues in a normal design review process,as we have and to give design review more authority or"teeth." , ,. seen in our discussion of the elements reviewed.It does mean that these principles are seldom explicitly stated.To be fair,it is Conclusions t rt extremely difficult if not impossible to devise principles of good One of my hypotheses about design review is that it is being applied design and aesthetics.Most people rightly evaluate works of a and somewhat universally across the country,since so many guidelines architecture on their singular response to an individual project seem to be similar from place to place.I feared the coming of a day Kra rather than measuring it against universal principles.This is why the when all cities would be modeled on quaint townscape ideas or �: issue of who reviews projects always will be critical. other EuroDisney ideas of urbanism.The data fortunately do not 3' Having said that,we can offer what may be the"top nine" support such fears,although the universal themes they do suggest design guidelines explicitly stated by localities("fit and context" are somewhat disturbing.There is a huge agreement about the use makes it 10).The top nine on this list were named by more than 63 of certain guidelines,none of which are very profound or constitute try` percent of the localities,with the non-glamorous"screen service and what might be thought of as an urban design theory or a set of I, utility activities and uses"coming in at a whopping 92 percent. consistent principles.Most of these have to do with hiding or s t. Roughly three-quarters of respondents listed"encourage signs • tidying up the most blatant environmental offenses:screening '` `. integrated with building facades,""encourage retention of existing equipment,landscaping parking lots,and regularizing signs. - vegetation,""reduce the variety of signs,""minimize disturbance of Compared to a real urban design idea such as those represented by environmentally sensitive land,""favor site-specific response to London's Regent Street or Sixtus V's plan for Rome or even Seaside topography,""limit the visibility of parking from the street,"and (distant cousins though they are),these guidelines cannot be said to _ "discourage boxy,unadorned buildings."A majority(63 percent) constitute urban design at all. also chose"encourage facade offsets to break up the mass of large or More interesting are the cities that use context as a principle of Y. continuous buildings." good urban design.Here,the ideas that draw greatest agreement As in the statements about context,respondents were reluctant actually do begin to suggest a kind of universal idea about good ,' to actually disagree with any principle.One exception is the urban design:let new buildings augment the existing pattern r ' ';- principle,ac or lased with Traditional Neighborhood Design wherever possible,let them be quiet and noncontroversial,let them (TND),of favoring narrow lots and grid street arrangements over be similar to their neighbors without actually copying them. wide lots and cul-de-sacs.Planners rejected this principle Disquieting as this vision of urban conformity is,perhaps the resoundingly(40 percent disagreed;41 percent said not applicable) greatest disappointment in this universal theme is the newly limited i' which may be interesting to those who believe TND is a significant definition of context,that is,context as the man-built environment I.-' influence in planning today.Another principle that drew in the immediate vicinity of the site CO be built upon.Context disagreement was"favoring traditional over modern styles"(31 might be used to mean the whole array of ideas of a place:its =?f percent diPfeed;38 percent said not applicable).Again,planners history,its culture,its politics,its weather,its ecology.Without this 1.` arc reluctant to say that they prefer certain styles. perspective of context,the universal theme of conformity promotes a simplistic and one-dimensional interpretation in new design. Improving the Process Although the theme of urban conformity is widely embraced,it k: In an open-ended question,respondents were asked to suggest is not universal in the sense of yielding similar environments across - revisions in their design review process.A little more than 50 the country.Because places are essentially different,the same se percent of those with design review responded,suggesting a general guidelines about urban conformity can lead to broad variations . level of satisfaction with the status quo.The most popular revision, from place to place.Perhaps the idea of context will even be s rt reopened and expanded in planning at some moment,as it has been • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • in architecture through the ideas of critical regionalism.At that The PAS Memo is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory Scnice.a subscription research service of the American Planning Association: point,of course,simplistic and rigid guidelines will have to be Israel Stollman,Executive Director;Frank S.So,Deputy Executive Director. discarded and reviewers will need an ever-increasing degree of The PAS Memo is produced by APA staff in Chicago.Research and writing by Research sophistication. Department staff:Marys Morris,Editor.Production by Publications Department staff In any rice,what is demonstrated through the principles widely Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor;Dennis McClendon.Design Director. used by design reviewers is that design review is not overwhelmingly Copyright©1993 by American Planning Association,1313 E.60th St., supportive of or helpful to urban design,per se.Design review, Chicago,IL 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters 1 ` offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington.DC 20036. while essentially harmless in its principles of tidying and hiding, ti \i f All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any does not speak to urban form or the importance of streets or axes or form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying.recording, formal arrangements.In its theme of conformity,design review is or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. more influential and perhaps damaging.It is not concerned with ' Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber ® urban design,but a kind of automatic,replicating urban non- 'P. and 10%postconsumer waste. design. 4 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 AT 6 :00 PM IN THE FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM HAS BEEN CANCELLED. The next meeting of the Historic Preservation Board will be held on Wednesday, March 3, 1993 at 6 :00 PM in the First Floor Conference Room. Patricia Cayce Historic Preservation Planner