2.0 HPSR 09-13-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~'o. ensure success,. all four elements must be incorpo- rated into any effort, otherwise a community will run the risk of losing support and derailing the process. 1. Clear and Concise Standards ~``T"he most difficult task in design-based code prepa- ~" "ration is Qafting a standard that achieves a desired 'effect or outcome without over-manipulating the ~''`i'esign process. Design standards should be tied to measurable purposes and outcomes. An example of an outcome is inQeasing pedestrian activity across a building frontage (to reduce or prevent conges- tion in the public streets) or ensuring infill building compatibility (to fadlitate the creation of a conven- ient, attractive and harmonious community). This draws the "essential nexus" or required connection between the regulation and a valid public purpose. An example of this. is the desire to move residential buildings closer to the street to encourage ~' pedestrian activity while main- ` twining a commensurate level of privacy for occupant. To accom- plish this, residential buildings ~liistorically have been elevated from the grade of the sidewalk, usually approximately 11/z to 2 feet. This will allow the lower sill height of the fronting windows to be above eye-level for most passers, by, ensuring that the occupants can monitor the activ- ities of the street without sharing their evening meal selections with all of their neighbors. Codes should also avoid loose, highly subjective language such as "the project should be inter- esting" or "harmony in texture, lines, and masses [is] encouraged." Particularly in areas where the judiciary has not accepted aesthetic zoning, communities would do well to avoid such vagaries and consistently tie design standards to the purpose statements found in their enabling legisla- tion. ~. Style Neutral Pundits of design-based codes often categorize over-prescription as the encouragement of "Mickey Mouse architecture" in that buildings are expelled \ ~ ~, bw ~° ~~ ~ n1 a off, to adhere to a rigid, contrived Condition. Tn fa o 0 the opposite is usually the case. Most design-b codes, except for those written specifically for a his toric area, are usually much more permissive in style and detail. To that end, design-based codes outside of a his- toric district should refrain from specifically men- tioning aparticular architectural style. Most archi- tectural styles found in the United States can fit well within the context of an urban block. As a rule, good urbanism can trump bad architecture. Of course, there are some basic rules of pedestrian- scaled design techniques such as the requirement that all buildings have a definable base, middle, and top in fa4ade treatment as well as a require- ment for fenestration .(doors and windows) at the street level. A number of specific architectural styles do not meet this definition in the strict sense, particularly mod- ernist styles such as the,.intemation- al style and deconstructionist style. This does not prelude these styles from the urban environment, but special attention would need to be paid to ensure that such iconic architecture does not visually ; impact the pedestrian realm. 3. Easy to Read Format The format of the document that presents the design requirements is nearly as important as the standards themselves. Standards should be clear in their narrative as the legal standard will be tested by the interpretation of the text. Graphics, photos, and illustration should be generously inluded, but should be used only to supplement the tent, not supplant it. Other basic publishing rules should apply as well inluding a readable typeface, consistent martins, balanced white space, and a thorough index. Communities must also consider the prevalence of codifying ordinances through the Municipal Code Corporation (MCC) and similar. web-based Code clearinghouses. The format must not be so rigid as =~: o~ U, Facade detailing should prevail over all other site elemenu including parking standards