Item 6.2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

32 Aesthetics, Community Character,and the Law The size and proportion of windows and wall openings should be related to one another and to the spaces between them within the overall facade. A group of structures should be designed as a single architectural entity, rather than as a collection of unrelated facades.Architectural character and detailing is required for all sides of structures in the public view. Efforts must be made to reduce the overall visual impact of large structures by using berming, landscaping, or architectural solutions to give the illusion of an apparently smaller mass. Building siting and orientation must take into account the relationship of new buildings to the street,parking areas, and other buildings, and must minimize disturbance of vegetation, wet- lands, woodlands, riparian corridors, and other natural features. Land- As design review becomes more commonplace,local scaping and screening requirements provide an opportunity to create and governments will need to take preserve an identity for the specific site, while also relating the site to the it all possible steps to anticipate community as a whole. criticism that design review procedures are overly IMPLEMENTING AND ADMINISTERING DESIGN REVIEW burdensome and that the entire As the law relating to design review both inside and outside historic areas process is inherently becomes more settled, efficient and effective administration of design re- subjective. view ordinances is becoming increasingly important. Because local plan- ners often are responsible for acting as staff to local review bodies,they are in a position to help improve the administrative and procedural aspects of design review. Below are some general guidelines that communities should keep in mind when drafting and implementing design review reg- ulations (Shirvani 1981; Erickson 1986). As design review becomes more commonplace,local governments will need to take all possible steps to an- ticipate criticism that design review procedures are overly burdensome and that the entire process is inherently subjective.15 1. Employ community-based efforts to identify what is special,unique,or wor- thy of conserving in an area. As noted above,design review programs in his- toric areas that feature consistent building styles usually feature the com- mon architectural heritage as a reference point. Because newer neighborhoods do not always have a distinctive architectural style, how- ever,it is particularly important that such areas attempt to reach a consen- • sus on what matters to citizens in the way of design elements. Invariably, Invariably,as experience is as experience is showing, review that goes beyond a primary focus on showing,review that goes building design is most effective. beyond asigfocus on Recent advances in computer technology have made the difficult building deesignn is most process of defining a community "vision" much simpler and less expen- effective. sive.Computerized visual simulations are being used heavily in a variety of contexts to assist planners and elected officials in determining what pro- posed land-use activities will look like if approved. The Minnesota De- partment of Transportation, for instance, uses computerized visual simu- lations to help people understand how roads will look using different design options (e.g., different widths, various shoulder treatments, witr bike trails versus without bike trails). Other communities are using visua simulations to determine what proposed subdivisions will look like, tc show the effect of burying utility wires, and the benefits of tree conserva tion, among other things.16 One particular type of simulation,known as a Visual Preference Surve} is a trademarked technique that allows members of a community to jointl: determine what type of development they find most acceptable.17 A visua simulation generally consists of a series of slides featuring different type of physical environments shown to a group of people who then rate th images they see on a sliding scale, usually "+10" (best) to "-10" (worst Each participant provides a personal rating for each image;thus,the sam