Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/1999

Home

approach toward addressing such details as placement of buildings; specifying the type of land uses that can be located on specific sites; and addressing a myriad of small but significant requirements for parking spaces, sign location and design, and tolerable noise, vibration, and dust levels through site uses. The guidelines and policies required to provide such direction are extensive, and their development is very demanding. While many of the detailed standards, such as those for parking, should result from national best practice research, it is clear that some of the more particular community-based rules must emerge through local policy. This includes rules pertaining to administration, district and land-use structure, and development standards. For example, current revision activities tend to consider the following administrative questions: · How do we streamline the development review process? · Should we utilize hearing officers? · What are the hearing and decision responsibilities of the zoning board of appeals, plan commission, and city council? · Should the community move to site plan review or even further into design review as part of the zoning approval process? Zoning use and bulk policy questions are often quite specific and related to development problems raised within the community. For example, one of the key questions asked in many communities is how to adjust the zoning ordinance to address the ~teardown" and ~mega-house" development trends occurring in established neighborhoods around the country. Other questions might include: · Are the present commercial districts encouraging or discouraging the desired urban design character? · Are more districts needed to carry out the plan policies and reflect community desires for specific control in one area and more flexibility in another? Depending on the answers to these and similar questions, it will be clear whether changes in district structure are needed. Policies need to be established to guide the drafting of new districts. Development standards always need attention in the revision process. Do the present standards require too much or too little parking? Do the community's urban design concerns suggest a need for additional or modified landscape and site design standards? Does the 5ommunity need to be more flexible in accommodating accessory uses such as home occupations and day care? Are the environmental standards, addressing noise, lighting, vibration, odor, and dust useful and applied properly? Much of the research into these standards or policies may be directed toward best practices. However, best practices vary depending upon how aggressive the community wants to be in implementation and measurement, and how restrictive it wants to be regarding on-site development. Answers to these and similar questions go to the heart of regulatory control. In many respects, it is better to agree early on the scope of the changes to the ordinance rather than debate the proposed changes when the ordinance is completed. To that end, it is useful to suggest policy alternatives for resolving the key issues identified early in this stage to encourage debate and discussion by the groups that raised the issues. It is also important to secure adoption of these policy decisions by the entity responsible for the revision prior to undertaking the redraft. The adopted policies list resulting from this discussion becomes not only the guide to ordinance drafting, but the key tool in supporting the revised zoning ordinance during the hearing and adoption process. ZONING NEWS BRIEFS Lake Tahoe Preservation Case The Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council (TSPC) is claiming partial victory in a lawsuit against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The lawsuit, filed in 1984 by approximately 449 people who own property in the Lake Tahoe area, alleged that the planning agency's zoning regulations had taken away all viable economic use of their property. The water clarity, of Lake Tahoe has been decreasing since the early 1950s because of increased development and more impervious surface coverage. Stormwater runoffand high algae growth in the lake (a consequence of development) is causing the lake's color to change from clear blue to Uopaque green." In 1980, an amendment in the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact required the agency to protect Lake Tahoe and its environment by developing a new regional plan and environmental threshold carrying capacities. Following that decision, TRPA passed strict land-use regulations, eventually issuing a moratorium on all new construction in the area. The moratorium was in effect until a new regional plan was adopted. The regional plan, adopted in 1984, classified land into ~land capability districts" based on how prone the lake was to environmental damage. Vacant land was placed into districts ranging from one (the least suitable for development) to seven (the most suitable). Virtually no development was allowed in districts below three because of the high risk of erosion in these areas. Development in stream environment zones, which are areas that act as filters for stormwater runoff, was restricted. In the recent U.S. District Court ruling, Judge Ed Reed found that a taking had occurred during the moratorium of 1981, but stopped when the regional plan was adopted in 1984. The next step is Jo go back to court to determine how much compensation each property owner will receive. Mary Gilkanfarr, executive director of TSPC, says: "It will probably come out in the range of Ia total of] $20 to $50 million." John Marshall, council for TRPA, has already begun to appeal the decision. The Planning Advisory Service can provide PAS subscribers with the U.S. District Court decision. Becki Retzla~