Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Monitoring and Evaluating a Zoning Code By Arthur lenteiucci, AICP Practical Suggestions to Ensure Qua[Ky in Code Performance 220 The City of Rochester, New York, adopted a new zoning code in the fei[ of 2ooz, which took effect on January t, 2oo3. The code included several new approaches to land-use regulation. 'Cib/wide design guidelines and standards were applied for the first time. Land use [n the cen- ter city was regulated entireiy by design crite- ria, foregoing traditional use controls. The city took'an entirety unconventional approach to the regulation of nonconformities. Finally, there was a t8o-de§ree shift in the regulation of off- street parking. Significant public debate attended these new approaches amid some uncertainty as to whether the new regulations would or could be effective. The city decided to inject as much flexibility and discretion into the code as possi- ble so that it would not always be necessary to amend the code to adiust to new circum- stances. Increased flexibility and dis~;retion often lead to concerns regarding the potential for discretionary abuse as welt as possible arb'i- trary decision making', In spite of the inherent checks and balances built into the code, there was an obvious need for oversight. tn order to assure proponents and detractors as well, the mayor and the city council decided to require a report on the effectiveness and performance of the new code 2,4 months after its adoption. They included this mandate in the code as one of the responsibilities of the director of zonin§. The experience of conducting this evaluation provided me with the basis of this article. This is not a scientific or technical method- elegy, either in terms of the type of research or the means of extracting and organizing informa- tion. Rather, it is a report on an experience to share with other practitioners, it stresses [he importance of making a commitment to evaluate the tools we use in regulating ~.he use of land, especially when the limits of/egulation are being questioned across the country--a fact poi§handy illustrated by the passage of Measure 37 in Oregon iast fall. WHY DO WE NEED TO EVALUATE? The need to monitor and evaluate code per- formance has often been an afterthought or a "neverthought." Traditional planning and zen- lng practice had relied on the "rightness" of plans and codes.and deferred to Ion§er-term evaluation; most often in retrospect lo, 15, or 2.o years down the road. This was the length of time it would take for the plan anti code to be realized, and it was thought that any eadier comprehensive analysis and evaluation would be somewhat premature. Codes became sacrosanct as the regulatory expression of To remain pertinent and effective, contemporary codes need to adapt and adjust frequently to accommodate changes, particularly those associated with technology. long-term plans. When amendments did occur, they were often incremental and reac- tive, sometimes addressing individual situa- lions, sometimes correcting flaws, and some- times bearing no relationship at all to sound piannin§ and land-use practice, Many older codes were adopted under this long-range view of planning at a time when societal change occurred at a consider- ably slower/ate than today. To remain perti- nent and effective, contemporary codes need to adapt and adiust frequently to accommo- date changes, particularly those associated with :tei:hnology. Zoning' codes do not cause action or change, but zoning can accommo- date change and adjust to fluctuating mar- kets. In terms of process, zoning can also facilitate change. In its most traditional guise it can prevent, proscribe, and prohibit with ~mazing ease and exactitude, indeed, one of !he popular criticisms of ~onin§ is that over time it has been counterproductive. Zoning codes often discourage, if not prevent, the very things that make cities vibrant and liv- able, like mixed use, high density, and reEance on public transport, But what is desir- able to accommodate, facilitate, or prevent is subiect to change, not only in technologies but in market preference. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be poised to make such adjust. moots without knowing how the cod~ is work- ing; the result is a dire need for quality evalu- ation of code performance and effectiveness. At the same time, drafting and adopting a zoning code is anything but an exact sci- ence, especially when considered in the con- text of a constantly and rapidly changing world. New approaches effectively become ' trial bal(oons. We consider problems we would like to fix, situations we would like to address, or changes we would like to accommodate. We then think of alternative ways to accomplish these things and choose one. Then we experi- ment. The written code is but a theoretical blueprint that accrues meaning and has effect . only as it is PUt into use. At that point, the feedback on the experiment begins and moni- toring becomes ne[essay', A more common view of codes might espouse that, after months of drafting, discussion, and perhaps consultant input, there should be no doubt that the code is a finely tuned mechanism and destined for future success. Review and cri- tique would be needed only at some future time by a new group of designers with the tat- est ideas or trends. Today, however, there is a need to plan for change. One way is to include adequate monitodn§ and evaluation systems as integral parts of a code revision project. ZONINGPRA£TICE 7.0S AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION j pdge 2