Laserfiche WebLink
�■ Conx6ination of lot size and house value More complex srandazds;must cxafC caz�efully <br />- Creates more contexte�al;l; � developnaent ■ The �`rules" rre consiant�p chaugzug <br />Dif�icul� to undessraad r.�xi �ua-=r <br />Who defines e�C neighborhood (25€l`, A54', 750'?)— <br />some neighborhoods I�ave di£Fecent sizas <br />Pxoperties on the edge oP a�areiculaL development <br />would be tzcated d'zEfexe�t�y than chose in the center <br />Creates/pex�setuates class distinctions <br />Who deczdes wlzich neighborhoods are woz[lxy of <br />_ having luger lots? <br />I;un unsure of the iuiinYended co�sequences <br />• �Tezy difficult to �auderstand ai�d interpret <br />Cast�jr to im,plement <br />L{��I: I� I s�.�.: _x�'�, �ti+• :u:d u J• <br />.••vx:lia! ial Ir u7i i• •� 4::uu,:rr <br />�}..�i is •I�r �ia �o-E !la ur.l�:�.�:l:rixl= I�•m• � u <br />determined? <br />� Allows raziarion in lots sires. ■ Difficult (pol?ucal) to decide what goes where. <br />■ Likely uses objective stanciards fox application. iV�ay�e be viewed as condoning "exdusive" <br />■ Pxotects spme neig�6arhoods neighboxhoods. <br />' Implementarion easy to explain "Why not my neighborhood" <br />' Removes subjeceiritq May be perceived as ubi�x�ary <br />Allows for fair application of siandaxds Iaitial added coinplexitp <br />' Would help with disbursement of redevelopment �ventvat ease/unease ofmanagement <br />and identify ahead of � Qars that the coznsnunit� t� <br />would support May appexr to cxeate "special" neighborhoods in the <br />Allows n� development to meet �oxe needs of a Citp of Rosevi7le May be more difficultto <br />diverse coraamunitpwithout scgzegadng understand <br />�reiae ar'iv� z�nirl� diunns fcr neighborhoods More cesu.iciave of �roptrty deveiapcxaent iights <br />p�*++n��� ���� ��tir*+� • Could allow moxe opea space Ivloze complex stand�xds <br />�' ��[mt Qexibte, thus �� open to consu�c�cuve lVfap create impression of "haves" and "have o�x+" <br />change CteaCes/pe�e�vaces c3ass distinctions <br />�ot sure how this y di£fezent rlaa�z czeadng twa or Who decides which neighborhoods are wozthy of <br />more si�gie-iamilpzoning d'zst�icts, above? �� having3axger lots? <br />� happened to the "hybrict" zdea, which I thought %Ipw is this rxner than just having distinct zortir+g <br />- would blend featutes of the sliciu�g scaie appxoach districts? <br />with near tesidential zoning subdirmca?) "1>ermanency"—is overlay zoning easier to change <br />Easier to understaad than a slidin� scale. or i�_I rid of ov'ex tune� <br />■ pm <br />Could address additional design issues nol zegulated <br />in the eraezal zoning oxdinaace <br />.�,i;.�,�. ,�.� trs <br />