04-21-2007, 05:50 AM
Some Considerations for Developing Village Design Guidelines
A sub-group of the Land Use Working Group is seeking ways to preserve and enhance the physical qualities of villages in the Puna district. The most commonly mentioned existing villages for this attention are Volcano, Pähoa and Keäau. Mountain View and Kurtistown are other possible sites. Also, guidelines could be applied to the development of potential new village centers, such as the 40-acre areas set aside for public and commercial uses in Hawaiian Paradise Park.
These existing and potential villages represent a wide variety of conditions, so the first step is the make and inventory and assessment of each existing village.
Below are the existing conditions that would be useful to include in the inventory:
* Public places, focal points for community activity;
* Distinctive landscape features – water bodies, land forms;
* Distinctive street trees, stands of trees and other plantings;
* Prominent views to be preserved or enhanced;
* Historic structures or other sites;
* Building scale, type, exterior materials;
* Patterns or groupings of structures, and their placement in relation to the street;
* Distinctive architectural or streetscape details, including typical street cross sections and fixtures.
The inventory should include a map, supporting photographs and relevant data on structures and street conditions.
The second step is to identify objectives for each of those villages or potential new villages. Following are some considerations to address:
1. Would the design guidelines apply to residential as well as commercial and public buildings? If so, broad support for the guidelines among the residents is essential. Strict architectural design standards and/or a design review process for personal residences is often very controversial. It may be necessary to have more flexible standards for residential uses in order to develop support for the village design guidelines (see #6, below.)
2. What features should be preserved or enhanced? This could include certain buildings, landmark trees or other specific physical features. It could also include more general features, such as viewplanes, landscape character, streetscape design and architectural vocabulary.
3. What features are incompatible with the desired character of the village? This may include inappropriate building or street design, landscape treatment, or details such as signage and exterior materials and colors.
4. What should be the guidelines for infill development? What should new development look like? This may vary according to it’s location in the village. For example, if the development site is adjacent to a group of buildings with a distinctive design character, it would be particularly desirable for the new building to respect the scale and other design qualities of its neighbors.
5. Is it possible to prohibit undesirable uses? Use restrictions are typically applied in the underlying zoning district regulations rather than in “overlay” districts such as “village design guidelines.” Moreover, a categorical prohibition on uses such as “fast food establishments” and “national chain stores” would have difficulty withstanding a legal challenge. Nevertheless, village deign standards could either discourage such establishments or modify them to the point that greater reduces their “corporate identity” and visual incompatibility with the village setting. For example, it is possible to prohibit “drive-thru” facilities, limit the amount of floor area for an establishment, restrict the size and type of signage, and control façade treatment.
6. Would there be regulatory controls or voluntary guidelines? Regulatory standards are the better way to achieve compliance, but they would have great difficulty being adopted if broad community support is lacking. It may be necessary to rely partially or completely on voluntary guidelines, combined with a public education program and/or incentives (see #9, below.)
7. If regulatory controls, would there be specific, prescriptive design standards or more general design principles coupled with a design review process? Specific and detailed design standards are usually appropriate only when they is a very strong and well-defined existing design character in a district. Examples would be the historic districts of Honolulu’s Chinatown and Maui’s Lahaina. Where architectural styles are more eclectic or represent various historical periods, more general design standards are usually applied. The latter allow more flexibility, which also results in more subjectivity in the design review process (see comments below.)
8. Who would be responsible for design review and decisions? If design standards are adopted formally and have legal effect, some official body must be designated responsibility for making decisions or recommendations on design. Typically, there is a body appointed by the local government whose members have particular expertise in the planning and design professions and/or historic preservation. In most cases, this body makes only a recommendation to the Planning Director, who makes the final decision.
9. If the guidelines are voluntary, how will they be promoted? Voluntary guidelines can be effective if there is a strong public education program to support them. Not only should all landowners and business tenants be aware of them, but also realtors who are selling or leasing property in the district. The existence of such guidelines, in fact, is often a strong selling point for a prospective business or homeowner. Guidelines can also be promoted through community and business associations. Malama o Mänoa, for example, is a residential community organization that has widely disseminated a design guidebook to positive effect. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street program has been an effective means for organizing support for design guidelines among businesses in many towns and villages.
The above list is not meant to imply that Working Group needs to provide definitive answers to each of them, nor that they need to produce an inventory of potential “village design districts.” Its intended to stimulate thinking about where the community and the County government needs to go if the Puna Community Development Plan recommends that village design districts be established in Puna. The more clearly we can define the locations and objectives for potential village centers, the more likely that these recommendations will be implemented. The Working Group can assist greatly by assisting in the identification of locations and articulation of objectives for these village centers.
A sub-group of the Land Use Working Group is seeking ways to preserve and enhance the physical qualities of villages in the Puna district. The most commonly mentioned existing villages for this attention are Volcano, Pähoa and Keäau. Mountain View and Kurtistown are other possible sites. Also, guidelines could be applied to the development of potential new village centers, such as the 40-acre areas set aside for public and commercial uses in Hawaiian Paradise Park.
These existing and potential villages represent a wide variety of conditions, so the first step is the make and inventory and assessment of each existing village.
Below are the existing conditions that would be useful to include in the inventory:
* Public places, focal points for community activity;
* Distinctive landscape features – water bodies, land forms;
* Distinctive street trees, stands of trees and other plantings;
* Prominent views to be preserved or enhanced;
* Historic structures or other sites;
* Building scale, type, exterior materials;
* Patterns or groupings of structures, and their placement in relation to the street;
* Distinctive architectural or streetscape details, including typical street cross sections and fixtures.
The inventory should include a map, supporting photographs and relevant data on structures and street conditions.
The second step is to identify objectives for each of those villages or potential new villages. Following are some considerations to address:
1. Would the design guidelines apply to residential as well as commercial and public buildings? If so, broad support for the guidelines among the residents is essential. Strict architectural design standards and/or a design review process for personal residences is often very controversial. It may be necessary to have more flexible standards for residential uses in order to develop support for the village design guidelines (see #6, below.)
2. What features should be preserved or enhanced? This could include certain buildings, landmark trees or other specific physical features. It could also include more general features, such as viewplanes, landscape character, streetscape design and architectural vocabulary.
3. What features are incompatible with the desired character of the village? This may include inappropriate building or street design, landscape treatment, or details such as signage and exterior materials and colors.
4. What should be the guidelines for infill development? What should new development look like? This may vary according to it’s location in the village. For example, if the development site is adjacent to a group of buildings with a distinctive design character, it would be particularly desirable for the new building to respect the scale and other design qualities of its neighbors.
5. Is it possible to prohibit undesirable uses? Use restrictions are typically applied in the underlying zoning district regulations rather than in “overlay” districts such as “village design guidelines.” Moreover, a categorical prohibition on uses such as “fast food establishments” and “national chain stores” would have difficulty withstanding a legal challenge. Nevertheless, village deign standards could either discourage such establishments or modify them to the point that greater reduces their “corporate identity” and visual incompatibility with the village setting. For example, it is possible to prohibit “drive-thru” facilities, limit the amount of floor area for an establishment, restrict the size and type of signage, and control façade treatment.
6. Would there be regulatory controls or voluntary guidelines? Regulatory standards are the better way to achieve compliance, but they would have great difficulty being adopted if broad community support is lacking. It may be necessary to rely partially or completely on voluntary guidelines, combined with a public education program and/or incentives (see #9, below.)
7. If regulatory controls, would there be specific, prescriptive design standards or more general design principles coupled with a design review process? Specific and detailed design standards are usually appropriate only when they is a very strong and well-defined existing design character in a district. Examples would be the historic districts of Honolulu’s Chinatown and Maui’s Lahaina. Where architectural styles are more eclectic or represent various historical periods, more general design standards are usually applied. The latter allow more flexibility, which also results in more subjectivity in the design review process (see comments below.)
8. Who would be responsible for design review and decisions? If design standards are adopted formally and have legal effect, some official body must be designated responsibility for making decisions or recommendations on design. Typically, there is a body appointed by the local government whose members have particular expertise in the planning and design professions and/or historic preservation. In most cases, this body makes only a recommendation to the Planning Director, who makes the final decision.
9. If the guidelines are voluntary, how will they be promoted? Voluntary guidelines can be effective if there is a strong public education program to support them. Not only should all landowners and business tenants be aware of them, but also realtors who are selling or leasing property in the district. The existence of such guidelines, in fact, is often a strong selling point for a prospective business or homeowner. Guidelines can also be promoted through community and business associations. Malama o Mänoa, for example, is a residential community organization that has widely disseminated a design guidebook to positive effect. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street program has been an effective means for organizing support for design guidelines among businesses in many towns and villages.
The above list is not meant to imply that Working Group needs to provide definitive answers to each of them, nor that they need to produce an inventory of potential “village design districts.” Its intended to stimulate thinking about where the community and the County government needs to go if the Puna Community Development Plan recommends that village design districts be established in Puna. The more clearly we can define the locations and objectives for potential village centers, the more likely that these recommendations will be implemented. The Working Group can assist greatly by assisting in the identification of locations and articulation of objectives for these village centers.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator