Item 6.2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 2. Design Review 33 tillimage might receive a "+10" from one person who responds very posi- tively,and a"-4"from another person who responds somewhat negatively. Average scores for each image summarize the types of development most acceptable to all participants. In communities in which such techniques have been used, such as Metuchen, New Jersey, the results have been dramatic, with some images rating almost 100 percent positive and others rating almost 100 percent i negative. The survey in Metuchen thus confirmed that some types of de- velopment were very acceptable to a large number of local residents,while others were not. Across various communities that have used such a process,images typ- DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES ically scoring very high include pristine natural areas, established neigh- 1. Employ community-based efforts s3 borhoods, and new development designed according to neotraditional to identify what is special,unique, j3' principles (e.g., narrow streets, mixed uses, pedestrian-friendly features). or worthy of conserving in an area. x' Images that tend to score negatively include parking lots, large-scale roads, industrial facilities, and deteriorating urban centers. Traditional 2. Ensure administration by a well- ii suburban development tends to score poorly when presented alongside qualified board supported by ad- neotraditional development. equate staff and resources, espe- ti Advocates of the process note that the technique can be a powerful tool cially if detailed design review is for bringing together disparate interests in the pursuit of a "common vi- to take place. sion," which in turn can lay the political groundwork for support of what 3. Supplement written design stan- can often be a contentious regulatory process. Critics of the process,how- dards with visual aids and ever, note that such slide presentations can be prohibitively expensive in guidebooks to make clear what 5 many small-and mid-scale planning projects. the community desires, thus re- ducing uncertainty for prospec- t. Ensure administration by a well-qualified board supported by adequate staff tive developers. 4 and resources,especially if detailed design review is to take place. As noted,sev- 4. Do not concentrate solely or even eral court decisions make clear that the application of review standards by primarily on detailed building de- an expert board will go a long way towards supporting the reasonableness sign review. of the regulatory process. Including architects and other design profes- Carefully integrate design review j sionals on such a board comforts the judiciary when claims are made that with other planning goals for the review standards are vague and the process subjective. area. Of equal importance, the review board must have resources available to establish and administer design standards. A background study and ade 6. Keep records. quate continuing staff support are essential to effective and equitable de 7 Draft efficient procedural require sign review. Communities should seek professional assistance either in- n'e'ts. house or through consulting firms to ensure that the review board gets 8. Be sure sufficient political will ex competent advice and that design restrictions are followed in practice. ists to enforce and maintain a de- sign review program. 3. Supplement written design standards with visual aids and guidebooks to make clear what the community desires,thus reducing uncertainty for prospective developers. An increasing number of communities are publishing illus- trated design books and are undertaking educational efforts in the devel- opment community to help reduce delays when applications are submit- ted. Visual design guides might graphically illustrate, for example, what constitutes a "compatible" or"harmonious" design. Computerized visual simulation tools also can be, as noted above, excellent tools to clarify de- sired aspects of new construction to potential developers.18 4. Do not concentrate solely or even primarily on detailed building design re- view. Commissions and preservationists are slowly learning the impor- tance of concentrating their efforts and attention on major cases and avoid- 411.,11 ing extended review of minor items, such as spacing of pickets in a fence, design of wrought iron gates,and similar issues that have led to heated po- litical controversy in the past. Experience shows that government design regulations are most effective in dealing with issues like building height,