Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Design Manual Draft (Sections 1, 2, 3)

Staff from the City of Portland Planning and Urban Development Department invite the general public to review and comment on the draft Design Manual document. Members of the public can read the draft of the first three sections (Administration, Process, Context) and leave comments and feedback directly in the document as well as see comments from others by using an interactive online civic engagement tool. There will be additional opportunities to review and comment on other sections as they are developed in the future.

Staff is seeking feedback on the following:

Graphic Design
Content
Illustrations
Document Usability
General Comments

For any questions, please email ccameron@portlandmaine.gov

Comments

Commenting is closed for this document.

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

in reply to Barbara Vestal's comment

Eamonn Dundon Apr 22 2021 at 1:01PM on page 7

Agreed, "guide" or "inform" seem like better choices.

0 replies

in reply to Barbara Vestal's comment

Eamonn Dundon Apr 22 2021 at 12:57PM on page 5

Content

Who establishes "positive" or "valued"? The document needs to clearly lay out a standardized process. Should there be a static list of "positive and valued" elements? That does not seem to meet the moment in terms of streamlining our code and design review process. New developments DO help modify the baseline of ever changing neighborhood context and that should be expected. Basing all new development off of the context as it exists in 2021 is not wise for a document that we hope to be relevant for decades into the future.

0 replies

in reply to Peter L. Murray's comment

Eamonn Dundon Apr 22 2021 at 12:50PM on page 4

Content

I think that's made clear with the "starting point" sentence. Adding "neighborhood circumstances" into the document is too poorly defined and raising many more questions, rather than clarifying that the envelope is only the starting point.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:51AM on page 10

To me, this demonstrates the flaw of the "two-block" context. Would a flat-roofed four-story building be appropriate between the two-pitched roof buildings on India Street (shown in the upper right photo)? Should the flat-roofed office building across the street (corner of India and Congress) be regarded as an anomaly, not a "context setter"?

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:42AM on page 9

Perhaps use 104 Grant Street, without citing it specifically, as a very successful example of respecting the content within its block: height, massing, materials, parking at rear (accessed by wider side setback, no garage door opening on n facade), etc.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:36AM on page 7

There are only a few "neighborhoods plans" and staff tells us there is no intent for the City to create more . How will "neighborhood-developed" neighborhood plans be considered in the review process?

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:32AM on page 7

Garage door openings on front facades should NOT be permitted if they are not the common practice in the existing context .

0 replies

in reply to Barbara Vestal's comment

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:30AM on page 7

I like the idea of the DM stating a neighborhood by neighborhood analysis rather than having the applicant conduct the analysis.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:26AM on page 7

As I have noted several times, a two-block radius is not the correct definition of "context", as the development pattern two blocks away may be very different from the immediate context.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:23AM on page 7

The "surrounding development pattern" emphasizes my view that the context should be within the same block, not a few blocks over...

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:22AM on page 7

I like the guidance of "strengthen and enhance".

0 replies

in reply to Barbara Vestal's comment

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:20AM on page 7

I agree!

0 replies

in reply to Jim Hall's comment

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:19AM on page 6

I agree that text is too small!

0 replies

in reply to Barbara Vestal's comment

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:17AM on page 5

I totally agree with this comment, which does not suggest replication but sensitivity to he existing context.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:15AM on page 5

I like the requirement for review by multiple people, with the objective stated.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:12AM on page 4

Is "neighborhood" defined somewhere? I continue to feel it should be the immediate context, on both sides of the street within the same or two blocks of the subject property.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:06AM on page 4

I like this clear expression of the intended purpose of the design progression.

0 replies

Anne Pringle Apr 21 2021 at 11:03AM on page 3

I totally agree with all comments made that this section, and the "flexibility" it intends to convey", could undermine the design standards and their intent.

0 replies

Peter L. Murray Apr 21 2021 at 9:07AM on page 4

Content

This is cryptic - How about simply dropping the sentence with the reference to Goal and Vision?

0 replies

Peter L. Murray Apr 21 2021 at 9:05AM on page 4

Content

How about adding something like, "The design standards may require building dimensions less than those permitted by the zoning envelope under particular neighborhood circumstances."

1 reply

Peter L. Murray Apr 21 2021 at 9:03AM on page 3

Content

This section potentially guts the effectiveness of the design standards. It says, in essence, that a developer does not need to comply if it has a good reason not to. The "policy" of the design standards is too mushy a standard for a backup. This paragraph should simply be deleted.

0 replies

Peter L. Murray Apr 21 2021 at 9:00AM on page 3

Content

Suggest drop "or address" as being too weak and inviting non-compliance.

0 replies

Peter L. Murray Apr 21 2021 at 8:59AM on page 3

Content

Suggest add,\, "Nothing said by planning staff at a pre-application meeting is binding on the planning authority during the actual design review process."

0 replies

Peter L. Murray Apr 21 2021 at 8:58AM on page 2

Content

The tone of this sentence suggests that the design review process might be slanted or prioritized to favor developer objectives. Not all developer objectives should be fostered by the design review. For instance, developers' objectives to evade the zoning ordinances, should not be given any consideration.

0 replies

Cynthia Cochran Apr 18 2021 at 6:51PM on page 3

Content

How is it determined that a project impacts a neighborhood, or not?

0 replies

Cynthia Cochran Apr 18 2021 at 6:48PM on page 3

This section, as it is currently written, undermines compliance with, and enforcement of, the design standards. Is that the intent of this section? If not, perhaps it would be helpful to further examine what you are trying to accomplish with this section.

0 replies

Cynthia Cochran Apr 18 2021 at 6:35PM on page 2

Content

Did you mean to include the IS-FBC in this table, as well?

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 6:06AM on page 7

Graphic Design

The simplicity of this stylized map is really helpful to highlight the specific information that’s relevant in the current context. I know this one is more illustrative, but the contrast to many annotated city maps is telling, as they often suffer from unclear labeling &/o overlapping information. It seems to be an unfortunate reality that zones / districts / precincts / parcels / census blocks / whatnot never quite line up – but the kind of “less is more” approach to presenting information in context that’s demonstrated here can really improve any visualization.

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 5:45AM on page 10

Document Usability

This map is reminding me that the existing manual, and many other municipal documents, include things like full-page maps that cause the orientation to flip – which may presents as a “sideways” page, one that overflows the viewport, or one that shrinks and becomes unreadable without adjusting zoom back and forth. The current draft commits to a single landscape orientation throughout, which makes it more usable overall, and I feel this is a better choice even if certain specific content (e.g. workflows) may individually seem to indicate a need to maximize vertical space.

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 5:25AM on page 9

Content

Actual photographic examples to illustrate ambiguous concepts like “context” are very helpful, not just from a document-user perspective, but also would seem to support reviewing bodies, as well as anyone wondering how they can make a persuasive case about a given application.

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 5:21AM on page 6

Graphic Design

Flowchart seems an appropriate way to present a complex workflow, and the different node types are clearly differentiated… though in terms of “content” I’m sure many would wish for less complexity in the first place. It may just be the embedded web interface, but this text is too small to be readable, at least as a raster image (i.e. zooming only reveals pixelated letters that appear blurry). I’m not sure the inclusion of two almost identical flows makes sense, though it’s probably better than introducing even more complexity by trying to indicate different gates in one diagram

1 reply

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 5:10AM on page 5

Graphic Design

Really helpful to use ideograms such as the Harvey blls in this matrix, which present an intuitive visual analog to indicate level or phase. Consistent use across related docs will make city code even more user-friendly (e.g. allowable uses per zone already shown in refactored land use code)

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:59AM on page 4

Illustrations

Examples and illustrations are super helpful to illustrate jargon that’s often vague or incomprehensible in the absence of guidance. The minimal renderings themselves feel clean, and also consistent with surround elements (e.g. font color)

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:54AM on page 7

Graphic Design

Consistency in layout creates a “learnable” interface that reduces mental load in trying to parse such dense & complex information. Once I get to this page I’ve already seen several presentations of textual information on the left, visual information on the right, and I don’t have to think about where to look.

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:50AM on page 3

Graphic Design

The use of slightly different table layouts appears to serve individual content while while still sharing a single design framework. This type of flexibility within consistency definitely contributes to the usability of the document.

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:42AM on page 2

Graphic Design

I believe the typography here is consistent with the new land use document, but If not it should be :) And I can’t wait for all municipal documentation to match this type of layout, which is really clean, and much easier to parse than the “plaintext” format of the existing design manual

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:37AM on page 2

Document Usability

Bringing disparate information together in one table (or section etc) is really helpful for finding applicable items. I’m not even sure how I would go about assembling this particular table from the outgoing doc (a search on “exempt” only found 2 hits, one about historic preservation & the other about vision glass).

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:30AM on page 1

Graphic Design

I’m unclear whether the colors of the bullets are intended to be substantive, for instance to indicate topics which will be similarly tagged throughout. I would recommend limiting decoration of components that are also functional (whereas the “watermark” background map for instance is inviting without also suggesting its meaning needs to be parsed).

0 replies

Jim Hall Apr 14 2021 at 4:29AM on page 1

General Comment

Overall the type of improvements in layout, readability, consistency, and visualization presented here are great for usability. Very similar to the (mostly) non-substantive adjustments achieved on land use code during recode I. Even just comparing the “table of contents” to the existing document, this draft is already easier to use from a visual perspective.

0 replies

Carol De Tine Apr 8 2021 at 10:29AM on page 6

Content

This appears to be a detour. The answer is not yes or no but somewhere in between? What sends an application along this path?

0 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 1:47PM on page 10

Document Usability

See my comment on "example analysis 1". It seems like to be useful this needs to be brought down to a 2 block radius analysis for a hypothetical proposed site. This is more like a designation report I was suggesting for each neighborhood, rather than an illustration of a site plan context analysis. I am also not clear on what of this would come from the applicant and what would be generated by City staff.

0 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 1:44PM on page 9

Document Usability

This and the next analysis seem to be much larger than the 2 block radius you refer to in the "context definition." This seems to be a broader neighborhood analysis, not a Neighborhood context as you have defined it. Can you elaborate upon these two analyses by picking a site in each for a hypothetical proposed development and then illustrating how this broader analysis would be applied to a 2 block radius analysis?

0 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 1:34PM on page 5

General Comment

It seems like this should be modified so that you are identifying major POSITIVE or VALUED character-defining elements, based upon a section to be appended to the design manual identifying for each general neighborhood (e.g. Parkside, Munjoy Hill, etc.) what architectural elements characterize the neighborhood and are valued by the City as positive character-defining elements. This would help establish a baseline, inform applicants, and keep the context analysis from being a race to the bottom. New "big box condos" of poor design which are not respectful of existing structures should not be able to establish their own context so they become self-perpetuating.

2 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 1:23PM on page 7

Content

Under what circumstances would the Planning Authority/Board "determine other considerations for the proposed building in relation to the Neighborhood"? Didn't this used to say you could determine a greater radius (which didn't seem appropriate)? But what is now meant by determining other considerations? Another geographic definition of context? Other criteria for measuring context?? What criteria would need to exist before this could be invoked?

0 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 1:17PM on page 7

Document Usability

I think this could benefit from clarification that there are buildings that do contribute to the positive character-defining architectural features that should be emulated, or at least valued. The goal isn't to just fit in with what is there if what is there is not a positive role model. There is some of this discussion, but it is not clear how one identifies the positive "predominant character-defining architectural features." Shouldn't as part of the Design Manual be a neighborhood by neighborhood analysis that identifies what is valued about the neighborhood and what establishes that context. This would be similar to a designation report for a historic district.

1 reply

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 1:10PM on page 7

Content

"expose" seems like the wrong word choice.

1 reply

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 11:52AM on page 7

General Comment

I am not sure this is sufficient to capture what neighborhood representatives are concerned about. True, there need to be "visual linkages". But isn't it also worth mentioning that designing in context requires being respectful and not overwhelming the scale and massing of existing structures?

1 reply

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 11:46AM on page 5

Document Usability

I think this is a useful explanation.

0 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 11:43AM on page 4

General Comment

I generally like this page and think it is useful to illustrate the relationship between zoning minimums and what is added by design standards.

0 replies

Barbara Vestal Apr 7 2021 at 11:37AM on page 4

Document Usability

What do you mean by "adopted policy documents"? Does this mean the comprehensive plan (eg Portland 2030?) and neighborhood plans (if any). If so, it would be useful to say that. If you intend more, please say that as well.

0 replies

Leave this field blank

View all