My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2018
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:30:11 AM
Creation date
2/5/2018 12:08:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/01/2018
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
many of which are less than 5o years old. <br />Do we really need this "nanny state" <br />approach to the places we live in? Could <br />we have at least some portion of the <br />community with a mix of uses and <br />housing types? <br />TECHNIQUES FOR SIMPLIFICATION <br />The following are some potential ways to <br />achieve simplification in your community. <br />While you may not employ every technique, <br />we should all aspire to a constant whittling <br />away ofthe nanny, state aspects of ourzoning. <br />Managing Uses <br />Rethink your uses. Gather them into broad <br />categories whenever possible. Make a place <br />for every use somewhere in your community <br />(no, you don't have to accommodate nuclear <br />waste facilities, but almost everything else <br />should be allowed somewhere). Use your <br />planning processes to think through where <br />uses are allowed, then use conditions to <br />manage any remaining impacts likely to <br />be created by a use (stick to the real, not <br />perceived, impacts). Add only objective use - <br />specific standards; avoid "undesirability" if <br />it cannot be described in unique physical or <br />operational characteristics that trigger use - <br />specific standards. <br />Imposing Minimum Elements of Good Form <br />One of the most difficult conversations to <br />have with the community and developers <br />is what the rules ought to include. Focus- <br />ing on the minimal elements necessary to <br />achieve good developed form is critical. We <br />all too often control the tiniest details (such <br />as through "pattern books" or architectural <br />standards outside of historic districts). While <br />the architecture of by -right development <br />may not be the best, at least the building <br />will be in the right place. This approach has <br />improved the urban form in Nashville, <br />Tennessee, for example, while keeping its <br />hands off of architectural details. Would <br />we all be better off with the original 1986 <br />Seaside Urban Code consisting of one page <br />(albeit a very large page)? <br />Applying Scale <br />Doing a better job of prescriptively managing <br />the scale of our urban form allows disparate <br />elements to play nicely together. A small <br />Nashville's approach of imposing minimal elements of good form to <br />by -right development has helped to improve its urban form. <br />Managing the scale of the local urban form is an effective way of <br />managing disparate elements. The grocery store pictured here is the <br />ground floor of a contextual residential development. <br />ZONINGPRACTICE s.is <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.