VOCAL Neighbors

What you have to "look forward" to if landmarked.

One issue that has been raised vis. landmarking is that it will impose extra layers of bureaucracy on the building approval process, including requiring neighborhood association approval for some things. Some have suggested that this won't be a big deal; others have pointed to Old Town as an example of neighborhood associations run amok.

Here is something for you to consider:

Last night at the RANCH Triangle neighborhood association meeting, the following guidelines were handed out; these Residential Planning Guidelines were adopted unanimously by the 6-member RANCH planning board (which includes Bill Scott and Diane Levin, two of the people who have brought you the block or district-based landmarking proposal in the first instance). They have not yet been adopted by the full RANCH board. You may want to contact RANCH board members to express your thoughts once you read them. You can contact Rich Chehoven at president@ranchtriangle.org.

(Background: You may not be aware, but anyone who wants a zoning variance has to go before RANCH's planning board to attempt to get their approval for the variance; many other redevelopment proposals also go through the RANCH planning committee. This is Vi Daley's way of obtaining community blessing on the projects.)

These "guidelines" are supposed to be what you need to do to make the planning committee happy. What do they include?

-The planning committee will look "most favorably" on rehabs, not rebuilds.
-They want any new development to have comparable design, building materials, etc. consistent with the historic residential and commercial structures in the neighborhood.
-They want a facade that is "compatible" with the other buildings in the immediate area;
-They want your building materials to be compatible with other buildings, and "specifically discourage" any use of split face block, cinder block, and dryvit on any exterior surface;
-They want to require a minimum of two parking spaces per residential unit.

In other words, the RANCH planning committee is attempting to impose their personal design aesthetic and elements of landmarking on people by default via their review process.

Keep in mind, that the people sitting on this committee are not required to have any architectural/building experience or any other credentials that qualify them to decide what is or is not historically consistent, compatible, etc.

They also put in a whole laundry list of things that they want people to bring with them (floor plans, drawings of elevations, locations of trash receptacles, etc.) to even get the process of review started.

Anyone wanting a copy of these please email vocalneighbors@hotmail.com; I'll forward on a copy to you.

My two cents: I have no problem with establishing a process for securing the planning committee's approval if that is required to do a teardown, or seek a zoning variance.

But my question is this: why is the emphasis NOT on securing consent of the people who will have to live with the consequences of the variances on the block? I have a feeling that if you are the guy next door to the property seeking side-yard variances, you are going to care a lot more about the extent of the intrusion towards your house than whether the siding will be dryvit.

There are also some statements about you have to present a reason why you need the variance, but there are no criteria for what that "need" is. Wouldn't that be the better emphasis of this document for people seeking variances (and in spirit of deciding whether a variance is required or not) than whether the building facade is made up of brick?

Put another way, why aren't the criteria more along the lines of:

-if the requested variance is for reduction of side yard, we'll give approval if deviance is less than X%, with neighbor consent; if greater than X%, need neighbor consent, and have to justify expansion for building structural reasons (or to meet certain building code requirements, or because you are losing space on the other side because of drainage issues, etc. etc.)

-if the requested variance is for exemption to height restriction, we'll give approval if buildings on either side would already exceed your requested height; we will require neighbor consent side to side and front to back if you want to exceed by X feet or 10% of total, etc.

The above allows for objective, predictable standards that can actually be planned for. "Your facade isn't historical-looking enough without a window over the door" is NOT an objective standard, predictable in advance.

Maybe I am missing something. I would be interested in hearing what architects, builders and homeowners who have gone through this process have to say about these types of things.

posted by The Grants @ 10:46 AM