Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

now to .~tructure a system of uses. ~uris- dictions ,'hat want conventional zonin§ will ~leed a [on~er list of uses to maintain the integrity of the districting scheme, avoid ,mwanted intrusions into residential districts, .]nd reserve land for higher economic uses. ~'hnse d~a/focus on design can ~et by with i much ~horter list of uses or an abbreviated ]i5[ based un the structure classification '~ys~em of LBCS. Moji code updates today include a hybrid of conventional and form-based zonin~ c~m:ept~. Wh[~e c~mprehensive p~ans fre- nuendy recite a desire for better design and new urbanism, neighborhoods and develop- ers 'Nant to maintain some [orm of use dis- tricdn~. Because updates must 3o through the legislative ~rocess, most jurisdictions end up with a combination of districtin$ alon~ with design standards such as build-lo lines and buildim~ fenestration. [lie organizational framework wilt deter- mine ~he m]mber of levels employed in the land-use classification system. A jurisdiction that is interested in tightly controlling land u~e witl ~pically use levels to the fi~h or sixth ~eve{ of d~ssification. Those with greater design interests and with less of an interest in the range ,~f permitted uses may use one or ~vo [eve~ classifications in the use matrix. Develop an initial list of uses. Based upon ~taff experience and identified land- use ~rends, ~urisd~ctions typically develop m~ initial Ii~t ~f permitted uses. These uses ~hotdd ~nr:[ude exist/n~ uses or use categories, uses currendy ~oing through the permittin~ process, uses for which' ~he st~ff expects [o receive applications, and uses 'the juNsdiction would like to encourage. II is ~ood practice ~o be~in with ,~ comprehensive list of uses, such as the L~C5 function and structure categories, and then pare down the list [o conform ~o Imai conditions. The list should no[ be simply cu~ ami pasted, but should instead reflect Distribute uses to zoning distich. Once :h~ ~nit~;l( [i~ of uses is developed, they should he .listribu[ed to individual zonin$ districts. As a 5{ar{in~ pomL consul[ the comprehensive plan ¢~)iicies ,md, (¢ applicable, the existing zoning svsrenh ideally, the uses should conform [o the noiich~fi exp[es~ed in the jurisdictJon's future :and-dso rnap or tra[]secbbased plan. However, ']laurlim~ ;tail ~.;hould be aware of where uses ire ,:ummriv ¢~ermi/ted before taking the use list through the legislative process. Landowners are likely to object if uses currently perm'itt'ed are no longer permitted when the list ts updated. In practice, most zoning code updates include the addition of new uses and removal of others. Also, uses can be reassigned to a discretionary process instead of removing them completely, Display, Finally, the code drafter must decide how to display the list of permitted uses. The alternatives are a use matrix or a list of uses in individual districts. A matrix consoli- dates the Listing of permitted uses. ~hortening the ordinance and allowing the reader to quickly d'etermine what uses are allowed and where they are permitted. The disadvantage of the matrix is that it requires the reader to shuf- fie between the zoning district dimensional regulations and the list of permitted uses. Conversely, displaying the uses in ind[- vidual districts has the advantage of consoli- dating all of the district regulations, including the use regulations. The disadvantage is that uses must be repeated in each district where they are permitted. This adds to/he length of the ordinance and can create a rather cumber- some display. Controversial uses. In preparing use matrices, code drafters may be tempted to exclude some uses to shorten and streamline the list. While this may create the appearance of a user-friendly ordinance, it can create problems in practice. If uses are omitted, staff time can be consumed in preparing adminis- trative interpretations or processin§ requests for use variances or rezonings. Because many ordinances provide that uses not listed are prohibited, from the zoning districts, omitting a use can exclude it from a jurisdiction entirely. As' mentioned earlier, federal and state law prohibit many uses from being excluded from an entire jurisdict[on..In addi- tion, excluding a use entirely could invalidate the ordinance on preemption ground~. For example, environmental reguJations in many states create licensing schemes for certain uses, such as landfills, hazardous waste facili- ties, and concentrated animal feeding opera- lions. Under the doctrine of preemption, a local government cannot prohibit what the state permits. Unusual uses. Despite the best efforts and long hours of national experts in produc- ing land-use and industry code startdards, some uses will invariably fall through the cracks. Tattoo parlors and adult uses are two such examples, neither of which is listed ZONINGPRACTICE 09.05 73 AI~ERICAN ~LA~NING ASSOCIATI(gN I page 7