Press enter after choosing selection

Planners Examine Design Review Concept

Planners Examine Design Review Concept image
Parent Issue
Day
11
Month
February
Year
1970
Copyright
Copyright Protected
Rights Held By
Donated by the Ann Arbor News. © The Ann Arbor News.
OCR Text

Ann Arbor's City Planning Commission has taken an early step in what may lead to creation of a design review committee for the city. Commission members yesterday presented a 40-page document detailing the design review concept, its possibilities and its limitations. It is the limitations which will probably cause the commission most concern as it debates the issue during coming months. Design review is not founded in any deep legal basis and the planners will be t r e a d i n g largely untested grounds. Planning Director Michael R. Prochaska commented t h a t design review "is a complex issue. We'll have to look at it to see if we want to tackle it. It could be a Pandora's box." Prochaska suggested the commission discuss the concept at four working committee meetings, although it is expected there will be many more sessions if the commission decides to pursue the issue. The lengthy report emphasizes the importance of having the public involved in the design review process. In its introduction, the report states that many "seek positive measures to assure continued quality in new growth by preserving and protecting valuable existing features and inhibiting designs which may be unattractive, incompatible, insensitive or inept." It further states public sentiment in Ann Arbor is such that a concept of this type can gain support. Design review controls could cover four general áreas, the report s t a t e s : architectural continuity and discontinuity; historie buildings and areas; scenic, open space and landscape controls; and other items such as debris accumulation, signs, poles and other items. Some of these are already covered by new ordinances here, including the recently adopted landscape and land use buffer ordinance. It is suggested in the report that in return for amenities granted by the developer, the city could provide incentives for him - such as permitting greater intensity of use. Also, it said encouragement could come through the presentation of awards for design excellence, financial incentives and design services. Citing the legal problems in volved, the report notes "two recent cases which invalidated decisions of review boards help to illustrate the legal complex - ity of review and the necessity for a proper legal grounding of the review board's powers and procedures." "The Ann Arbor area . . . appears receptive to controls of greater strength over private development," the report states. "Community interest pressed for and supported the sign ordinance, the multiple family report, and the newly adopted landscape ordinance. This leads to the expectation that advisory design control, or review, would effectively secure compliance while avoiding legal difficulties." It added, however, that many persons i n the community doubtful of voluntary compliance would support mandatory controls or review. "For Ann Arbor, it is suggested that definite areas of review be selected and that all types of development, public and private, be subject to review within those areas." The report continúes by saying, "It must be frankly recognized that opinión and judment are intimately involved" in design review. Also, the report says, it is difficult legally to define design standards. "The increasing public concern for community appearance, however, demands that it , receive greater attention and higher priority. The only alternative is withdrawal from thej concern i t s e 1 f , ' ' the report] states. I