Comments on: Planning Commission OKs Design Review http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/04/09/planning-commission-oks-design-review/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=planning-commission-oks-design-review it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Martin Schwartz http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/04/09/planning-commission-oks-design-review/comment-page-1/#comment-64511 Martin Schwartz Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:12:13 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=61195#comment-64511 The real planning problem in Ann Arbor is that there isn’t any. This leaves the DDA and City Council in charge and their approach to planning is to proceed one parcel at a time, which results, inevitably, in incoherence and dissatisfaction. Similarly, design guidelines for individual buildings are essentially irrelevant; if there were a formula for good building design, we’d already be using it.

]]> By: Tom Whitaker http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/04/09/planning-commission-oks-design-review/comment-page-1/#comment-64446 Tom Whitaker Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:49:59 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=61195#comment-64446 I’m glad to see this finally getting through the approval process and moving forward to Council. Two relatively simple changes that I’d like to see Council consider:

1. While the make-up of the board is well specified in that it SHALL be made up of architects and other professionals (as it should), the first part states that it is to be made up of those with an “interest” in design, etc. Certainly design and development professionals have an interest, but too often this term gets interpreted as including those who are merely “interested” in the topic. The result has been some very questionable appointments of political friends to City commissions who were wholly unqualified. I hope Council will replace the term “interest” with something a bit more compatible with the second part–like “stake” or “professional interest.”

2. Since the design review board will issue a report BEFORE the public participation meeting, it ought to be required that the petitioner have the findings of this report available at that meeting so the public can see exactly where the petitioner is following the review board’s recommendations, and where he is not.

]]>