This is the Thesen Islands Design Review Panel's response, written by Edu Lohann and addressed to the Trustees, to the the criticism of the decision to approve the wall:
My response to this letter, as well a Gray Rutherford's, are in following posts. However I have made a few comments within this letter.
-----------------------------------------
15 December 2015
HOUSE DAVIDSON P76: WALL
With reference to the letters received and with the input from the TIDRP architects the following:
The Thesen Islands Design Guidelines was drafted by CMAI [Chris and Steff Mulder]. Gray Rutherford had insight in the process but not the drafting of the guidelines. Both Steff and Chris Mulder supports and is in agreement with the explanation given by Eugene Marais on the New Urbanist approach below explaining the difference between streets and lanes.
COMMENT: Here is an extract from Gray Rutherford's letter: Edu Lohann was not around at the time of the drafting of the TI Design Guidelines so I assume he was given his information by a third party. The statement that the TI Design Guidelines were drafted by CMAI is incorrect. I not only drafted the Guidelines but I produced and had printed the entire original document. I also managed its updating until the time of my resignation as Chairman of the Design Review Panel in 2004. Input during these processes were given by both CMAI and architects Smuts and de Kock. An inspection of any edition of the Guidelines up to 2004 will show the name of my CC, The Fisch Group, at the top of the list of copyright holders of the Guidelines.
To date guidelines were amended to include additional information for clarity and as it is a working document, the guidelines were amended to allow more features Thesen Islands. However no changes were made to street and lanes from inception and numerous examples exist where interpretation was made by the TIDRP to allow certain features not spelled out in black and white in the guidelines. The guidelines make provision in D62 that allows the TIDRP to interpret the guidelines and makes decisions accordingly.
The TIDRP however goes to great lengths to ensure a consistent and accurate interpretation and application of the guidelines, keeping in mind the original spirit and intentions of the developers.
For that reason the TIDRP used the following principles in approving the wall on above property:
In terms of the guidelines (design concept p3) neighbourhood precincts on Thesen Islands such as the boathouses in Heritage Bay, the North Gantry units or the timber houses in Tide Water each typically display unique characteristics. This may affect approval of submissions or suggestions relating to a particular issue which is appropriate to the specific precinct. In this regard, homeowners should remember that every neighbourhood precinct has its own set of regulation plans, and many individual stands also have a regulation plan specific to it.
Each property has a specified building area (the Building Envelope Plan) within which construction must take place. (T6. Building Envelope and Building Lines). There is a specific Regulation Plan or Site Plan for every property which regulates the required usage of that property. For stands of less than 500 sq.metres or stands on a narrow lane some of these building lines may be less – refer to the Regulation Plan for that particular stand.
In this case the properties along the lane have zero building lines. This in fact means that it was designed to have solid walls along the lane to create a specific street scape. A zero building line means that the house, outbuildings(single or double storey) and any other structure like a wall can be positioned on the zero building line (property boundary). This brings us back to the design concept where different precincts were developed to create a certain look.
There are numerous properties on Thesen Islands with zero setbacks and the owners of these properties are within their rights to develop it up to the boundary. There are many examples where walls were built on the boundary.
Apart from their visual appeal, the Thesen Islands picket fences define the edge and scale of the streets (D35 Boundary fences). The pickets reinforce the vertical vernacular form. This relates to streets where as set out below a picket fence is a requirement. All houses facing streets have picket fences as required but on a lane you can have picket fencing, open property boundary or walls whatever the owner applied for and approved by the TIDRP. A street facing fence must be erected along the entire street and parkland boundary of the property or the outer estate lagoon facing boundary.
Lanes and Courtyards have site specific designs. In order to ensure variety, adjacent properties may not use the same design. (D35 Guidelines)
The guidelines (D8) make provision for free standing and yard walls not exceeding a height of 2m. The approved wall on P76 is only 1.8m high and with the allowed finish specified in the guidelines namely smooth plaster and natural dry packed roughly coursed stone matching waterway gabions laid without visible mortar joints on the plinths, comply.
With reference to definitions (D60) a lane is specified as an access court with combined pedestrian and vehicle use. It is designed for consistent slow speed. Size depends on architecture, sunlight, landscaping and parking requirements. Its scale and proportions should emphasize its character. It is a place rather than a transport route.
A street however is a residential access road that gives access to buildings and land within the development and link different neighbourhood cells. Access for vehicles is not the only function. They are used for work or leisure activities such as walking, jogging, playing as well as for the provision and maintenance of services to houses and management of storm water.
With above information in mind the TIDRP believed it acted within its mandate and the guidelines and approved the wall on P76. Some of the guidelines however are not so clear cut and this can lead to an interpretation not shared by all. As mentioned before the guidelines remain a working document and if a guideline is identified as insufficient or unclear, an amendment can be made in order to prevent a further occurrence.
Below also a very basic summary of some of the design principals that are applied on Thesen Islands.
COMMENT: Then follows a "cut and paste" on New Urbanism that has no relevance to the matter above. If you are interested in reading it, ask the HOA to send Lohann's complete letter to you.
Extract from Gray Rutherford's letter: I note the New Urbanist and Seaside motivation for the P76 wall. This is interesting! Seaside does not allow private (walled) front yards! Anywhere! Also, although Thesen Islands has some aspects of New Urbanism it cannot be called a New Urbanist development. The TI Guidelines were influenced by the Traditional Neighbourhood Development movement, and in particular the Seaside development in Florida, USA, which I visited for the first time in the early 1990's.
Kind regards
Edu Lohann
Chairman
No comments:
Post a Comment