|
verted into an incentive
<br />by offering landowners
<br />something of value in
<br />exchange for voluntary
<br />wildfire mitigation.
<br />Site Plan Review
<br />Site plan review allows a "second
<br />look" at the proposed development
<br />(after subdivision and zoning) before
<br />issuing building permits. If zoning
<br />and subdivision approvals are not
<br />needed, site plan review can be used
<br />to ensure, for example, that high and
<br />extreme fire risk areas
<br />are avoided, that
<br />adequate and well -
<br />signed access is pro-
<br />vided, and (if possible)
<br />that defensible spaces are
<br />included.
<br />Transfer of
<br />Development Rights
<br />If the city or county uses a
<br />growth management system
<br />to ration development approv-
<br />als, it can ensure that avoidance
<br />of high and extreme fire risk areas is reflected
<br />in the criteria for evaluation of proposals or for
<br />admission to a lottery system.
<br />a Urban Wildland Interface
<br />Prescort Crty Limits
<br />,Major Roads
<br />Maintenance and Operation Standards
<br />Communities can include operating and
<br />maintenance standards in the zoning code
<br />that obligate all property owners subject
<br />to defensible space requirements. These
<br />standards may include provisions to ensure
<br />that vegetation is removed and the resulting
<br />debris disposed of safely on an annual basis
<br />and that required address or directional signs
<br />on the property be maintained in legible con-
<br />dition. Perhaps the simplest and most effec-
<br />tive strategy is to adopt a jurisdiction -wide
<br />"weed ordinance" that requires all properties
<br />to prevent the growth of vegetation that could
<br />become a wildfire hazard (or be deemed a
<br />public nuisance subject to corrective actions
<br />and fines). Alternatively, these types of
<br />requirements can be added to development
<br />agreements.
<br />Enforcement
<br />Cities and counties can ensure that the land -
<br />use code enforcement provisions clarify that
<br />failure to maintain required fire risk reduc-
<br />tion features is a violation of that code. List
<br />violations of the fire code as violations of
<br />the land -use code so they can (at the local
<br />ApN
<br />�rk
<br />P p
<br />react
<br />City of Prescott, Arizona
<br />® Prescott, Arizona, has some of the
<br />nation's most comprehensive WUI
<br />standards. The city entrusts primary
<br />enforcement responsibilities to its
<br />Wildfire Code Enforcement Officer, who
<br />has demonstrated expertise in WUI
<br />government's option) be enforced through
<br />administrative land -use enforcement proce-
<br />dures often available in land -use codes.
<br />CONCLUSION
<br />Although traditional roles may have dictated
<br />that the wildfire problem was someone
<br />else's responsibility, planners can and
<br />should have a significant role in protecting
<br />communities from this hazard. After all, the
<br />implementation.
<br />wildland-urban interface is not just a wild-
<br />fire problem, it is a development location
<br />problem, just as building in a floodplain is
<br />not just a flood problem but an issue with
<br />dangerously located development.
<br />If planners continue to assume that fire
<br />and building professionals will handle this
<br />issue, the result will be regulatory schemes that
<br />fail to address the underlying risks and costs
<br />created by the approval of development in high
<br />risk areas. In short, "planning" to prevent or
<br />minimize structures in the WUI is different than
<br />merely "bracing" structures for an impending
<br />wildfire event with regulatory controls.
<br />Instead of just deferring to fire and
<br />building officials, planners should embrace
<br />their role as being uniquely qualified and
<br />positioned to assist the public in creating a
<br />more comprehensive approach to wildfire
<br />risk —one that goes beyond traditional fire -
<br />centric mitigations and applies land -use
<br />planning tools and regulations to fundamen-
<br />tally change the location, design, and type
<br />of development in high wildfire zones. These
<br />actions can complement and augment the
<br />already well -proven techniques applied in
<br />local fire and building codes for addressing
<br />wildfire risk.
<br />VOL. 29, NO. 5
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $95 (U.S.) and $12o (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William R.
<br />Klein, AICP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) 1s produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors;
<br />Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, zo5 N.
<br />Michigan Ave., Suite izoo, Chicago, IL 6o6oi (3i2-43i-9ioo or customerservice@planning.org) within
<br />90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or
<br />month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright ©zoiz by American Planning Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite izoo, Chicago, IL
<br />6o6oi-5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at io3o i5th St., NW, Suite 75o West,
<br />Washington, DC z0005—i503; www.planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
<br />means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
<br />retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-7o % recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 5.12
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 7
<br />
|