1999 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

`�l �:i ` PERFO�IVIAI�CE Z01�1�NG At the most fundamental level, zoning starts with the reco�nition that different types of land uses have widely different characteristics and activities associated with them. They vary widely in terms of their intensity and their relative effecf on adjacent properties. Historicaliy, zoning has sought to categorize sitnilar land uses and to group them tagether. Much of the focus of zoning has been or� the edges between incotnpatible land uses (those that vary ir► intensity) and to employing such reyuiremenis as setbacks, screening and buffering to render themr compatible. The syste�n has never been perfect for mat�y reasons, but particularly because the task of categorizing "similar uses" is so difficult. For instanae, it has been relatively comnnon to lump all manufacturing uses togetlaer in General or Heavy Industrial districts. In reality, manufach�ring businesses vary wideiy frotn light assetnbly, or fabrication that occurs totally within a huilding, to noisy, smelly, "smolce stack" businesses with extensive outdoor storage, rail unloaciing, truck traffic, etc. Obviously, the Iogic of treating these uses similarly from a land use �•egulation perspective brealcs down. When you add to this example similar and equally problematic ones from the other districts it becomes a�parent tlaat zoning has some inherent limitations. Because of these shortcomings, most local ordinances augment their basic district stanciards with additaonal re�ulations related to specific uses within the general district. Typically, older ordinances also tend to contain numerous provisions that were developed in response to speciftc problems encountered in the past. These problems may or may not still be an issue. More importantly, the cumulafiive effect of these piecemeal changes is an ordinance that is complicated, confusing and contains numerous internal inconsistencies. The practice of listing al( of the Types of businesses and activities that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the district is also cumbersome as some become obsolete, and others are arriving on the scene ail of the time. The idea behind performance zoning is to move away from simpiy lumping large groups of businesses or activities together based upon one or two factors or characteristics, and regulating them as though they ware the same. Performance zoning measures the relative intensity of ]and uses, based upon several characteristics or fea#ures. The eumulative iotal of the scores for each of these attributes or descriptors causes the use to be piaced in an intensity category. These categories in turn trigger different standards of mitigation in the form of setbacics, screening, landscaping and others. Performance zoning has gained popularify around the country and many planners feel that it offers distinct advantages over conventionai zoning. This is particularly true in iight of the increasingly strong movement toward mixed use developments. Performance zoning is not without its own chalienges. One of the most important is to make some rational sense of the intensity ranking system. Inevitably, this system demands that one measure such disparate factors as FAR, noise, t�°affic generation, height, and hours of operation and eguate their relative scores in terms of relative effect on adjacent uses. Based upon some established scale of intensity for each of these factors, a total score is assigned. It is almost impossible to avoid subj�ct�vity and some personal bias and values when assigning the relative importance of these various weighting factors. Another frec�uent criticism is that performance ordinances are sitnply too complicated. It is not ttnusual to find ordinances with I2 weighting factoi°s dividing uses into eight di�ferent intensity characteristics.