Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

REGUb\TORY ALTERNATIVES FGR CLASSII~ING AND COOING USES Regulatory Alternative Advantages Disadvantages L'onsolidates uses into a matrix. Abbreviates text, and reader may compare uses .Sc~t~ers district regulations. among districts. Uses !,IAICS/LaC$ to expand uses. improves thoroughness and allows local government to tailor districts more effectively to different situations. Complicates the ordinance. Uses L~CS structure classification to replace use cJassJfication. Allows zoning to focus on building form rather than uses, consistent with the mandate of the plan. Not likely to be acceptable to some neighborhood groups. Uses t. BCS :structure to supplement use classification. Preserves ability to regulate build[n§ form while providing control Over uses. More complicated than regulating by building type alone. F~pands Est of uses permitted by discretionary review (e.g., conditional use permit, special L, xception). Promotes mixed use by permittin§ wider ran§e of uses while preserving discretionary control. Lengthens the ordinance. Some mixing of uses consistent with plan polic(es could be discouraged by discretionary review or thwarted by politico[ opposition. E/,pann$ list of uses permitted by right in each district, but subiect to criteria prescribed in the ordinance. Preserves control over potential adverse impacts through the use of standards while allow[n§ streamlined perm[ti:lng. Eliminates case-by-case review at public hearings. CLA$SIFI(~.TION SYSTEMS EMPLOYED S~n Antonio, Text,s. In 2002, San Antonio undated its unified development code to /n,:orporate new urbanism and update the city's conventional zoning district categories: The dr'/combined two zoning regimes: an older one that included aging, traditional city neighborhoods, and a newer set of zoning districts adopted in ~987. In combining these districts, the city adopted an updated list of permitted uses based on LBCS and NAIC$. An early draft of the zoning district stan- dards included a streamlined list of uses based on !J3C-~J ~mJcture classifications and a few uses sei~,cted from the function category. The iisr was responsive to the city's master plan anlicies that directed a more design-based :ode dosed on principles of new urbanism. While the ~treamlined use classification sys- com was o[aised by ~he local media, partici- )ant'; in the steering committee charged with ipuatim; the ordinance found that a longer list Df ribes would be more administratively con- ve~ien~ in the long run. To avoid future inter- uretadcm pu]blems, the city ultimately adopted Io,~er, ,n~re comprehensive list of'uses. Hillsbnrough County, Florida. A design- ~;]sed !:odl~ could use a reference to building !,mn, rathm th}~n simp~v uses, in each zonin§ ,;i~;.m:t. :hm;e cc)des fi)cus on building design in each district rather than on the ~/pe of busi- ness occupying the building. Hillsborough County's traditional neighborhood develop- ment code divides new planned develop- ments into four subareas: greenspace, res[- dent[al neighborhoods, commercial, and core. Within each subarea, a zoning matrix using the LBCS structure classification controls building form. Frederick, Maryland, Frederick's land management code (LMC), adopted in July :zoos, divides permitted uses into zo major cate- gories, including residential; accommodations aqd group living; general sa[es or service; ZONINGPRACTICE o¢.os 75 AI~R~CAI¢ PLANI~ING ASSOC)A'JiON I p~ge 9