• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Zoning classifications tied to future land use categories in Master Plan

Stanley

Member
Messages
3
Points
0
Has anyone ever heard of a community having their Future Land Use categories defined (named)the same as their Zoning Classifications. A client community has requested that we assemble language to address this and I have never heard of such a practice. I know that typically FLU categories are fairly broad in context, whereas Zoning classifications attempt to narrow the "focus" of differing land use types. Need some help...Thanks !!!
 

mike gurnee

Cyburbian
Messages
3,066
Points
30
Tying future land use map categories to zoning removes a lot of the smoke and mirrors from the plan. When explaining the comp plan to citizens, they always want to know what a certain category means in real life. We planners spend considerable time explaining how it relates to zoning. And when preparing plans, we look at the current zoning. If zones designate 8, 6, and 4 units per acre, we intentionally put 5,7, & 9 in the plan to show that plans and zoning maps are different. We go to great lengths to show that a plan map is not zoning, but we implement the plan through zoning.

If a community is comfotable with the zoning categories, what is really wrong with making the plan map understandable to the general citizenry? Perhaps to avoid a legal pitfall, Uprite's idea for a cross reference has merit. And as been said, every community is different.
 
Messages
3
Points
0
Try reaching Taylorsville and Draper communities in Utah. Perhaps some others. What they've done, however, is not exactly what you suggest (naming land uses the same as zoning categories). Rather, they've made their zoning categories the same as their future land uses. These are built-out communties (somewhat to almost totally) so I think the focus normally given by zoning designations is needed less than for broadly-planned-for vacant land. I do not know if these cities attempts to adopt their zoning ordinance overhauls have been successful. Working for one of these cities, I know it was a drawn out process (as it probably should be), but I have moved away and don't know the latest since I worked there almost one year ago.
 
Messages
3
Points
0
Also, I should mention, rather than list out every use in each zoning classification, Taylorsville developed a Land Use Table that lists uses cross-referenced to the zones. Any related parcel sizes, setbacks, heights, landscape requirements, etc. for particular uses in particular situations/conditions were also listed (with the use).
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
The City of Fairfield (California) uses General Plan Land Use Categories that are largely tied to Zoning Classifications (vice versa, maybe). For example, in Residential, we have a Low-Medium Residential General Plan category and a Zoning classification. The specificity comes from minimum lot sizes (RLM: 6 for example, is 6,000 sf minimum lot sizes.

Check out http://www.ci.fairfield.ca.us
 

Stanley

Member
Messages
3
Points
0
Is there a way to obtain a copy of the Future Land Use Classification descriptions from the City's General Plan document from you (fax, mail, etc.)? I got on the City's website and was able to download and print it. However, they do not have any General Plan text available to read.

This looks similiar to what I believe the Township I'm working with wants to do. Actually, they really want to see the same name of the Zoning district to be shown on the Future LAnd Use map. I've yet to find a community that has done this though. Thanks for your input...
 

Bruce Chapman

Member
Messages
2
Points
0
Wow, you must be working for one stupid community. Why would anyone want to mirror their zoning categories to their master plan categories! Good luck man
 

Brent

Cyburbian
Messages
107
Points
6
No need to be a jerk about it Bruce. What works for you may not work for everybody else.
 

Stanley

Member
Messages
3
Points
0
No. Bruce kinda has it pretty close to the mark. We've tried to show them that what they're trying to do may open doors that they'll be sorry they did. Oh well, the client is always right (LOL)
 

Bruce Chapman

Member
Messages
2
Points
0
Look here Brent...I know my liquor....I've been a township supervisor since 19...19...1962, and wha...wha...we did things how we wanted to...Maybe the laws were different back then my friend.....
 
Top