One example of the unequal relationship

I’ve been blogging about bicycle lanes and other bike/ped infrastructure (as well as funding for constructing it), but here’s another strategy for increasing cyclists’ relative importance in the transportation system: strict liability.  This means, when a motor vehicle and bicycle collide, the motorist is presumed to be at fault and the bike/ped victim entitled to compensation unless the motorist can prove the cyclist or pedestrian caused the crash.

In any contact between car and cyclist, the cyclist loses.  The bigger, heavier, faster motor vehicles will do more damage (and its driver is protected by the vehicle body, seatbelt, air bags, etc.) to the unprotected lighter, slower rider   And, since driving requires a license (hence drivers have to meet knowledge as well as skill standards) and insurance (thus drivers have some protection from the monetary impact), why not have the law recognize the already unequal status?

Really, it's not about the garages

Last week, I was live-blogging the Planning Commission meeting as they considered whether the “new” (about 6 months old now) land development regulations applied to subdivisions which had been approved under the former code.

On Monday, the Council accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation to allow a broad exemption for lots subject to a development agreement – allowing the projects at or near the building permit stage to move forward – but also directing the Commission to consider how to resolve the issue in the longer term.

The issue is not, as some commenters over on the local newspaper site believe, about permitting 3 car garages.  Nothing in the code says 3 car garages are prohibited.  What’s changed is where the garage can be placed and the proportion of the front facade of the house occupied by garage doors.  The problem is, all the lots were platted (and many graded) on the assumption that the 3 stall, garage out in front, style of home would be built.  Since the platted lots are on wide suburban streets in residential only areas, allowing big front garages on the remaining lots (many of which are zoned as planned unit developments which are clearly exempt from the regulations) does not seem to point toward many problems, or many more problems than are inherent in the subdivision.

Because really, the new code is not about garages at all, but about trying to reverse the rapid horizontal development which makes it more expensive to maintain streets and pipes, manage stormwater, plan transit routes, or walk to school.  To accomplish these goals and save your tax dollars, we’ll have to change streets, setbacks, lot sizes, and larger scale issues than the garage doors.  Garages are just one extremely visible symptom of a development pattern which is economically unsustainable.

7:37 pm.  Richard Schulte is describing the process for the meeting which is focused on interpreting section 3.5.3 of the land development code.  First, some background, then trying to frame “What have we been asked to do here?” followed by a staff report, a report by the city attorney, the landowner and builder making tonight’s request, public comments, and commission discussion.  “After a suitable amount of discussion,” Chair Schulte will ask for a motion for action on the interpretation of the code.  Some action will be taken and then a discussion of what further action might be needed.

7:42 pm.  Some background.  First, the code section in question:

Section 3.5.3 The following forms of development shall be exempt from the standards of this section:

(A) Accessory buildings;

(B) Development subject to an approved master plan, development agreement, variance, or planned unit development protected by a PD-O district;

(C) Existing nonresidential or mixed-use development lawfully established prior to the effective date of this LDC;

(D) A change of use, with no structural changes, that is permitted in the base zoning district.

7:46 pm.  Section (B) is the issue – does the existence of a development agreement create the exemption and framing the question as “Does the Planning Commission find that the section should NOT be applied and thus the garage massing regulations should be applied to the project in question?”

7:47 pm.  When the new land development code was adopted there were a handful of subdivisions around the city which had been platted under the former code with lot sizes, building placement, and design regulations which are more suburban.  In particular, the regulations for garages had no restriction on where the garage should be placed relative to the front facade of the house or how much of the facade the garage could occupy.  The new code seeks to make streets more inviting for pedestrians by bringing homes closer to the street, recessing garages and limiting the amount of the facade devoted to the garage door.  Earlier building code applications for homes to be built by Johnson-Reiland homes on lots platted under the old code were rejected because the garage occupied too much of the front facade.  Johnson-Reiland changed the plans and the building permit was issues.  The current case concerns a lot at the southern edge of Northfield with a customer working with builder Steve Schmidt.  Again, the problem is the garage.  Rather than change the plans, the landowner/home building customer has asked for an interpretation of the code which allows.

Even more background – many meetings were held with builders and the public and questions about what happens to the previously platted lots.  At times, the discussions seemed to suggest that previously platted lots would be allowed to continue to be developed under the rules under the rules when platted.  However, the code as adopted exempts lots platted under the old code are exempt from meeting the lot requirements, but the code is silent on regulations applying to any structure built on the lot.

In the section above, the question is whether the existence of a development agreement is sufficient to exempt previously platted lots and the structures to be built upon them are exempt from the regulations.

7:58 pm  Robert Scott, attorney with Flaherty and Hood, one of the city attorneys.  “I think what I have come to appreciate” in reviewing the code is a clear intent to apply new rules to all lots except those projects with building plans approved before the regulations were approved. Having spent a great deal of time with this code, I’d say that there is a tension between infill development being compatible with (and similar to) surrounding development and wanting to change the development pattern of the city going forward.

8:08 pm This section is inconsistent with the overall intent, says Mr. Scott, and he advocates for a narrow interpretation of the section which would not exempt the current project from the code.  Questions from the Commission press him on this interpretation and he reiterates his belief, but also repeats that it is ambiguous.

8:14 pm  We pause our reporting for a bit of editorializing…if the city had really done things right, knowing that there were about 40 lots yet to be built in existing subdivisions, would have been clear about the new code’s effect on the platted lots – dealing with street layout, infrastructure placement, lot size, and other physical development issues – and distinguished this from the building permit issues like setbacks, garage placement, accessory buildings, etc.  Then, the city would have communicated what had been decided about these two distinct features of development to the local building community and other places like building permit applications, city web site, etc.   Unfortunately, verbal meetings and understandings occurring when the code was still under development created the perception that existing subdivisions could be built under the previous code and this perception has been relied upon by builders and their customers.  As a result, money has been invested relying on that perception and much more would have to be spent to make the Schmidt plans comply with the new code.

In real life economic terms, issuing the building permit is a wise move.  Obviously, it would be good for the builder and his customer who have already spent money.  But in economic development terms, creating obstacles to new home construction (which has been almost non-existent in the current economy) is not advisable – a new home increases the tax base incrementally, brings in development fees, gives the builder business which includes work for local construction workers, etc.

In land use terms, allowing the exemption would not change much in terms of the character of the built environment.  Allowing a prominent 3-car garage in a neighborhood with many similar garages would simply continue the development pattern in that area and prohibiting the garage massing would not change the overall suburban character of the neighborhood.

In legal terms, the Commission needs to find an acceptable justification for its interpretation.

8:29 pm. Steve Schmidt and his customer go to the microphone and asks for a quick resolution of the problem.  Using variations of my economic development description, he asks for a two stage resolution – first, let projects in process go forward.  Then, take the time to review the code and find the best long-term solution.  The impact on the customer is also being described – uncertainty with mortgage rates, bank fees incurred, moving dates, needing to find new temporary housing.

8:46 pm “An offense against the spirit of what we were trying to do” says Chair Schulte, about allowing the garage massing in this case – that spirit being the pedestrian friendly, non-automobile dominant, smart growth model.

8:51 pm Now the fun part – the roomful of builders has a chance to speak:

Jay Jasnoch: Questions the intent of the code, given his participation in the code development process.  Zeroes in on the planning commission objecting to a particular kind of “product” (builders call homes “products” – this term has always seemed strange to me), that is, the 3 car garage home typical in the existing subdivisions.  And, he notes that the subdivision design – its lot sizes, etc. – anticipated certain types of homes

Mark Gergen, Rosewood Estates: has 6 lots sold but not built.   Also has building permits under review where the garage is an issue.  “As a building community, we can address these issues and make it better” but asks for flexibility in rules rather than specific dimensional limitations.

Matt Reiland, Johnson-Reiland.  Notes that changes are being made in the building community which are in line with the new code like bringing the living space closer to the street rather than the garage the farthest forward.  Some debate with Michele Merxbauer about “primary facade” as part of how much garage one can build relative to the primary facade and much detail about the features of homes and facades.  I’m trying to learn to think like a builder, here.

Paul Smith, asks the Commission not to shut down growth which the city needs.

9:10 pm Public comments closed.

9:11 pm Attorney Scott clarified what standards could not be enforced with broad interpretation of 3.5.3: garages, and lot coverage.  Commission member emphasizes wanting to address the current pending applications as soon as possible.  Another Commissioner suggests interpreting the code as the builders ask and the words of the ordinance state – a development agreement (regardless of the content of the agreement) is sufficient to exempt projects from the code…although she doesn’t think that was the overall intent and that should be addressed as Plan B.  One commissioner suggests builders (and everyone else) should have known no exemption exists since the code is available on the city website and has been in development for 4 or 5 years, but still would like to resolve the issue on the table – suggests a variance.

9:18 pm  An interlude with questions about variances…the law on variances has shifted several times in the last few years and this is recounted by Mr. Scott.

9:21 pm Memories of code drafting process and meetings when the “what happens to platted lots?” discussions were held and understanding “platted lots exempt” but no distinction between lots and structures is remembered.

9:27 pm Chair Schulte states his position as not wanting to punish the current project, so the broad exemption should be created…but the long term fix needs to be worked on later.  “Take care of today’s problem today” says Schulte because there will be more problems later.  Also notes there are 14 amendments currently “under construction” on the code which had been identified as problems.

9:31 pm  What’s fastest?  Option 1- recommend interpreting the exemption broadly and sending it to the Council. Not clear why this goes to the Council – code interpretation is administrative followed by zoning board of appeals.   Option 2 – variance takes 6-8 weeks because of public hearing, notice, etc.  Motion for Option 1 allowing the exemption and issuing building permit and exploring code amendments to clarify later.  Unanimous vote. Stay tuned; Council meets Monday, 2/6.

Act now!

Just when I think we’re making progress toward a transportation system that meets the needs of more than SUVs, something bad happens.  Tomorrow, February 2, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will vote on John Mica’s (R-FL) American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act which eliminates Safe Routes to School funding, makes Transportation Enhancements optional, and other steps to remove non-motorized transportation from transportation planning and funding.

Read more at Streetsblog DC, Transit for Livable Communities, Bicycle Alliance of MN, and/or League of American Bicyclists.  Contact your legislators now – the League of American Bicyclists will even help you find your representative on their handy dandy form.

February 2: Amendment fails by 2 votes and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood blasts the bill as “the worst.”

Erica has been leading efforts to establish a commercial PACE program in Northfield working with representatives from many of the groups above.  The Council agreed to put it on their workplan for 2012, so I’m looking forward to more discussion very soon.

How it works:

State law (adopted 2010) authorized local governments to “establish a program to finance energy improvements to enable owners of qualifying real property to pay for cost-effective energy improvements to the qualifying real property.”  Very briefly, if Northfield created such a program, a commercial property owner could secure financing for energy improvements through a local financial institution (or, alternatively, the city could issue revenue bonds); the loan would be repaid by a special assessment on property taxes.  PACE leverages the property tax collection system for repayment which can provide better rates and longer repayment terms.  Assuming private financing is used, there is no upfront cost to the city except setting up the process for the special assessments.

PACE and other programs aim to make retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency easier with an immediate positive impact on cash flow for business and government.  Northfield has the policy infrastructure directing us to move in this direction with the Comprehensive Plan, GreenStep Cities program, and the Energy Task Force plan.  Indeed, Northfield has already taken steps in this direction with the Johnson Controls contract initiated which is financed by the energy savings created by the improvements to various city facilities.

These are not just tree-hugging amenities: the goal for the building owner is long-term cost savings as well as creating jobs in the building trades/energy industries (yes, critics, this IS about economic development).

“The best streets to cycle down are illegal to build in the majority of North America’s suburbs, because they’re too narrow, too pedestrian-oriented, too enclosed. Even the ones that are very pedestrian-oriented often restrict cyclists to bike lanes when they’d be safer mixing with cars” writes Placeshaker Hazel Borys with links to more bike stats (like Grist’s Bikenomics series) and this great video about bike lanes.

And Jay Walljasper’s Winter? Schminter! in MinnPost providing some corroboration for my assertion that there is no bad weather (for bicycling, running, walking or anything else outside) just inappropriate clothing.  Walljasper’s companion piece Bike Boom by the Numbers documents the increase in cycling in Minneapolis.

Finally, what all cyclists really want to know: How not to get hit by cars

The goal is balanced, accessible representation for the residents of Northfield.  Dividing the city into geographic wards is one way to try to meet that goal, but not the only way.

The big advantage of the ward system is giving designated representation to each quadrant of the city by a resident of that ward.  Ward residents know who to call if they have a problem.  2nd Ward residents have needed help with or had questions about street lights, snow-plowing (not this year, obviously), beavers, parks, mowing (or rather non-mowing of vacant lots), trees, city maintenance, and traffic near the soccer fields at Spring Creek Park.  In turn, I keep closer track of what happens in the 2nd Ward and if ward-specific issues show up on the agenda – street projects are the most obvious – I have a special interest in making the best choice for the ward as well as knowing more about my home territory.  Erica Zweifel has consistently advocated for her 3rd Ward constituents in the siting of the Safety Center, improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity across Highway 3, and working with St. Olaf College.

But, consider some other factors:

Geography is often not relevant: most issues are not specific to one ward and it is difficult to identify a ward-specific perspective. This was one of 4th Ward Councilor Patrick Ganey’s reasons for raising the question.

No geographic division will cut cleanly: Neighborhoods cut across ward boundaries and there are multiple neighborhoods within each ward. As well, some constituencies are better defined than others.  Would it make more sense to assign Council members to represent the colleges, retirement communities, non-English speaking residents, or any other identifiable group?

Some Council members are more responsive than others; wards with conscientious representatives get much better representation and conscientious reps get more work.  Prior to the last election, I got a significant number of calls from two other wards because their own ward representative could not be reached.

Council members tend to have particular issues they care about, know about, and work to advance; we could each represent areas of government rather than areas of town.  Have a land use problem?  Call me.

The school board elects at-large representatives with the top vote-getters from the pool being elected (4 seats open, for example, then the top 4 win).  If the Council adopted this system, we might imagine it could broaden the candidate pool – if there are openings on the Council, a candidate would not have to wait for the right ward opening, two strong candidates who live in the same area might both be elected, candidates might find it less daunting to run as part of a group knowing they didn’t have to get the most votes.   On the flip side, campaigning only in one ward might seem simpler than a city-wide effort.

In practice, some of my time goes to ward-related constituent service while more of it goes to general city business like tax levies, policy-making, etc.  For the city business part, wards are less important.  But, when calls to city hall can’t get streetlights fixed or residents have questions about city issues and services that’s when having ward representatives or some other easy way to know who to call is crucial.  Wards, whatever their shortcomings, make it easy: if you know where you live, you can figure out your ward representative.

The decennial redistricting is at least an opportunity to ask if we can do a better job of representing Northfield residents than the current system and, if we think we’ve found a better system, then we need to ask voters if they agree.  It’s a discussion, not a decision at this point.

Would this work on Bridge Square?

Public policy and politics can get so serious; planning sparks passionate, often opposing, opinions.  Why not think about how we can make cities fun?  For more trends for 2012, see PopUp City’s Top 10 list.