Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design And Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates 'appropriate' vs. 'unobtrusive' for building-height objective
Summary
Members questioned whether to use the subjective term 'appropriate' or the more descriptive 'unobtrusive' in a building-height objective and noted that detailed standards may belong in ordinance text rather than the comprehensive plan.
Early in the session the steering committee reviewed objective language addressing building height, mass and scale relative to surrounding properties. The original draft used the word “unobtrusive” to describe preferred nonresidential building scale; committee members later replaced that with “appropriate,” prompting debate.
One member said “unobtrusive at least has the connotation of less scale,” while another countered that some buildings (for example, a bank or restaurant) might appropriately be more prominent. The committee discussed whether to use “promote appropriate” or “promote unobtrusive” and whether more detailed, enforceable standards should be placed in zoning ordinances rather than in the comprehensive plan.
Members agreed the comprehensive plan should provide guidance but that specificity (such as height, massing and signage limits) is better handled in ordinance language that can be enforced and defended in court.
Staff will leave the plan language flexible and flag where ordinance-level specifics are required as part of the implementation matrix.
