|
Neighborhood Outreach
<br />A mantra of form -based codes proponents
<br />is "make the good easy." In the form -based
<br />codes process, one way this is done is by
<br />front -loading the public involvement pro-
<br />cess. The regulating plan and conceptual
<br />design criteria are typically established
<br />through an on -site, open -invitation public
<br />charrette process. Members of the commu-
<br />nity are invited to provide feedback about
<br />preferred design options through visual
<br />preference surveys, design meetings, and
<br />workshops organized over a concentrated
<br />time frame, and then provide feedback on
<br />the draft regulating plan and form stan-
<br />dards. Then the governing body adopts the
<br />regulating plan and standards. In many com-
<br />munities that adopt form -based codes, this
<br />is the end of the public input process. Unless
<br />a proposed project is not in compliance with
<br />the regulations, the project is approved
<br />administratively, without any further notice
<br />to the neighbors.
<br />Neighbors, even though they may have
<br />participated in the charrettes and code -
<br />adoption process, understandably are the
<br />group most likely to react in unpleasant
<br />ways if they are not notified of new develop-
<br />ment. While the intention to limit additional
<br />input and comment for conforming projects
<br />is correct in terms of streamlining project
<br />approval, there is no legal requirement
<br />that the typically recommended, no -input
<br />form -based code procedures be adopted
<br />with the new form -based code. And indeed,
<br />as projects become more complicated and
<br />more code interpretation is required, there
<br />are more legal reasons to opt for a higher -
<br />level review process.
<br />Fort Worth, Texas, provides an
<br />example of how to maintain community
<br />involvement in both the FBC creation and
<br />application -review process. Fort Worth
<br />encourages the hands-on creation of new
<br />form -based regulations at the neigh-
<br />borhood level. When an application is
<br />submitted that is noncompliant with the
<br />specific FBC, the applicant is referred to
<br />community partners in the relevant neigh-
<br />borhood to discuss options for revising
<br />the application to address both the neigh-
<br />borhood's and developer's design and
<br />function requirements.
<br />Your community can decide to proceed
<br />in a variety of ways to allow public input in
<br />the development approval process. Maybe
<br />small or simple projects get administra-
<br />tive approval, but projects with community
<br />impact get a standard public hearing.
<br />Maybe general commercial development
<br />gets administrative approval, but down-
<br />town development gets a public hearing. Or
<br />maybe any project that includes significant
<br />changes to public infrastructure, such as
<br />street narrowing, requires a public hearing.
<br />The point of public involvement in any of
<br />these cases may not be to change the proj-
<br />ect design, but simply to inform the public
<br />of changes that will be taking place and
<br />gather input that may ultimately improve
<br />the process or the code —and possibly to
<br />also avoid a bitter referendum on the form -
<br />based code and the elected officials and
<br />staff who adopted it.
<br />TALKING ABOUT THE ADOPTED CODE
<br />Post -adoption is the time when the fun
<br />changes from "this new code is so excit-
<br />ing and will solve all of our problems" to
<br />"wait, this new code won't let me build my
<br />postmodern one-story, with a rusted -metal
<br />exterior indoor/outdoor building for a cat
<br />cafe and vintage roller rink downtown. I'm
<br />calling my council member." We need to talk
<br />up the code, talk about the code, and keep
<br />coming back to the code. At the outset we
<br />need to keep everybody moving forward
<br />with the code. At some point down the road,
<br />we can also start letting them know that the
<br />code is working. Dialogue is good; mono-
<br />logue may be necessary.
<br />It can be useful to liken a newly
<br />adopted form -based code to a smartphone.
<br />Most of us have heard of smartphones;
<br />many of us somehow decided that we
<br />needed a smartphone. And some of us,
<br />upon getting our smartphones, had no idea
<br />how to make it do all the things it could do.
<br />This is a recurring theme in discussions
<br />about form -based codes —not everybody
<br />who will be using the code really under-
<br />stands the code. If your community is
<br />considering preparing a form -based code,
<br />the very first step should be to make sure
<br />that people who are not experienced plan-
<br />ners, such as elected officials, development
<br />professionals, and residents, can get on
<br />board with this approach.
<br />And one conversation is most likely
<br />not enough. The new code must also be the
<br />subject of continuing education for the com-
<br />munity and its leaders and administrators.
<br />The basic understanding of the code needs
<br />to be maintained. The leadership involved
<br />in initial adoption and implementation will
<br />likely change over time. The materials and
<br />programs that explain the code and its "
<br />operation need to be kept up to date and in
<br />the community's awareness.
<br />Raleigh, North Carolina, is an example
<br />of a community that has undertaken an
<br />ongoing conversation about form -based
<br />regulations. Raleigh adopted a new form -
<br />centric code in February 2013 with a
<br />six-month window for applicants to submit
<br />projects under the old code. During that six-
<br />month window, Raleigh's city planning staff
<br />provided external outreach about the new
<br />regulations through three to six in -person
<br />presentations per week to design profes-
<br />sionals, civic groups, neighborhoods, and
<br />anybody else with an interest in how the
<br />code would work.
<br />Internally, the city's development ser-
<br />vices staff did formal training on the new
<br />code that still continues, as needed, to the
<br />current date.
<br />A structured approach, such as
<br />Raleigh's, is key to providing both staff and
<br />the design community with a similar under-
<br />standing of how to use the new regulations.
<br />The adoption of the form -based code
<br />ideally brings at least a brief "honeymoon"
<br />for the community as it celebrates the
<br />promise of better community development
<br />and peacemaking. Of course, "life hap-
<br />pens," and the challenges of implementing
<br />the code will continue.
<br />Code implementers can maintain the
<br />momentum by looking for and helping to
<br />create success stories to share.
<br />One of the reasons that form -based
<br />codes have gained popularity is the prom-
<br />ise that development results will be better
<br />for the public, the process more predictable
<br />and less costly for the developer, and that
<br />projects will add sustainable economic
<br />value to the community. The.development
<br />community can be an ally in delivering
<br />this promise if parties are willing to work
<br />together to create a success story. Those
<br />success stories need to be shared through
<br />various media, including both external and
<br />internal media sources. Arlington County,
<br />Virginia, keeps track of the projects built
<br />in the Columbia Pike form -based code area
<br />and shares on the project website details
<br />about the number of new residential units
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 4.18
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 6
<br />
|