STAFF REPORT
Planning and Zoning Board, April 18, 2005

Community Appearance Manual Revisions-Architecture (PL05-040)
Consideration of proposed amendments to the “Statement of Architectural Compatibility” section of the Community
Appearance Manual

Speaker:  Angela Reincke, Senior Planner

From:  Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Prepared by:  Angela Reincke, ASLA, Senior Planner
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager  

HISTORY

The Community Appearance Manual (CAM) is made up of three sections.  Staff has been working since September of
2004 to revise the Statement of Architectural Compatibility (SAC) section of this document.  The SAC section currently requires buildings in specific areas and in close proximity to be similar in style and materials.  Christian Sottile, Sottile & Sottile, Savannah , Georgia , was hired to assist in the development of the guidelines which would be incorporated into
the CAM revisions.  A focus group made up of developers, architects and planning professionals met five times to review and comment on the draft proposal.  A work session was held with Town Council and Planning and Zoning Board members.  In addition, at Council’s request, a Public Information Session was held on March 15, 2005 to gather further input from residents as well as other Board members. The input from these various meetings has been incorporated into the draft.

PROCESS

Quality architecture, diversity in design, durable materials, ease of approval, human scale, longevity and reusability of structures were all considered to be primary goals of the revisions.  A draft consisting of nine elements was prepared and has been reviewed and revised based on input from the public, focus group and staff.  The nine elements are: Materials, Composition, Scale, Proportion, Rhythm, Transparency, Articulation, Expression, and Color. The proposed language will not regulate architectural style.  The revised manual would allow for increased diversity of architectural design while providing predictability in the review and approval process.  A more specific, less subjective, review and approval process for
architectural plans would be an outcome of the proposal.

INPUT/CONCERNS

Throughout the development and review of the proposed changes to the CAM there has been overwhelming support of the established goals.  Public and focus group input into this project has been positive and the subsequent drafts included items that directly addressed participant input.  Although changes have been made to address input, there are several areas that continue to raise concerns from the focus group and board members.  Staff feels that many of these concerns can be addressed in the following summary.   

The first area of concern is materials.  In the current proposal, 75 % of all applicable building elevations must be
constructed of masonry materials.  This percentage is established at 35% for multi-family residential projects.  There is a desire from the development community to have “Hardi-plank” added to the list of approved masonry materials due to the fact that it is manufactured out of concrete to look like wood.  Staff does not support this request and objects to the inclusion of “Hardi-plank” for the following reasons:

• “Hardi-plank” doesn’t send the perception of permanency. 
• It is not appropriate to support a single brand or trade name.
• If “Hardi-plank” is an acceptable product, then all similar products that are composites, and even wood, should be permitted since a clapboard or lap siding appearance results.

The other part of the materials debate is the increase in cost.  There is some financial short-term benefit achieved by not requiring durable, permanent materials, but this does not advance the long-term goal of creating a high-quality, long lasting sense of place, which provides a better community.  

Staff recognizes that there are special, identified areas within the Town where specific materials or architectural styles should be considered.  It may not be appropriate to measure these styles against all nine elements.  Examples of these areas may include Carpenter Village , Historic Green Level, and other historic or special area plan locations. Additionally, buildings outside of these areas where it may not be appropriate to use all nine elements for review may be eligible to either a 10 percent (staff) or 25 percent (Town Council) reduction to lessen the masonry material requirements.  Finally, there is a special exception in the Land Development Ordinance to address unique cases.  

There has also been concern expressed about the transparency requirements.  Although staff has addressed the focus group issues related to this item by providing varied percentage requirements for different use types or building sizes, there are some other issues that have been raised.  The use of spandrel glass or false windows has not been included as an acceptable alternative for transparency.    Glass allows passers-by to see inside the building.  This creates a synergy and draws our attention into the building, providing a human connection.  It enlivens the façade of a structure and provides the opportunity for additional signage and product display.  All of these will be an added incentive to retailers and the expanded window space makes buildings more flexible for reuse.  The adaptability of buildings will further move Cary from franchised designs which limit how existing buildings could be reused.  

CHANGES PROPOSED/REQUESTED

There are several changes which staff is recommending based on recent feedback.  1.  Inclusion of modern architecture.  This proposal will not restrict modern architectural styles from being developed.  In fact the testing of several recognized modern structures proved that the elements could be met.  Staff proposes the following language to be included in the Purpose section of the document.  The purpose of this manual is to create diverse design.  The manual encourages unique architectural expression and to not limit modernistic or other building styles.   It is understood that modernistic style buildings should meet the design principles; however, exceptions may be provided when the specific design circumstances justifies the exception.

2.  Exceptions on Material requirements.  Staff proposes adding an example reference to historic districts into the materials section as an exception to allow less masonry on a building.  “Curtain walls” would also be added to the list of excluded areas for calculating material percentages.   

There were several other requested changes that staff would not recommend.

1.  Multi-family material requirements.  Staff was also asked to consider modifying the requirements of masonry for multi-family units within the Town Center .  There were requests for both an increase to 100% and a complete elimination of the 35% masonry material requirements.  When there is a vertical mix of uses such as commercial/office and residential, the highest intensity use would dictate the requirement for these types of buildings providing 75% masonry materials.  If areas and/or uses had specific design requirements, then buildings could be designed with a fixed numerical standard creating a design formula which would hinder the diversity of projects.  To maintain flexibility in design and avoid confusion, staff would not support the creation of separate standards for areas throughout town.  

2.  Changes to LDO provisions.  As noted above, the focus group voiced its support for the CAM revisions with the exception of the Materials section related to “Hardi-plank” as an approved masonry product.  Related to that issue was the percentage of allowable reductions of any required element.  Staff used the Land Development Ordinance procedure to allow a reduction of 10% by staff and 25 % by Town Council.  Since this is a provision which is in the LDO, staff has suggested that a request to amend the LDO would need to be made by those interested in such a change.  

SUMMARY

The proposed amendments to the CAM will allow staff the opportunity to review architectural plans in an objective manner.  Input from architects and developers have indicated that this document would be a very beneficial tool in assisting in the design and approval process.  The opportunity for the applicant to know the defined requirements allows added flexibility in design, while having the nine elements as evaluation tools provides a simplified review process.  The revised CAM will allow for an increase in design diversity within a predictable process.  

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the Statement of Architectural Compatibility section of the Community Appearance Manual.