It may seem
a precocious question for a third-grader, but I had my moments. My father, to his credit, wasn’t irritated by
the question and came up with a plausible, if unhelpful, answer, “We really
don’t know for sure if time is the fourth dimension.” It wasn’t a good answer, but it took me years
to understand that. And in the meantime,
it shut me up.
I mention
this because, fifty years later, I realize that time truly is the fourth
dimension in land use. Although we
grapple ineptly with that truth much as my father did.
Zoning codes,
and their urbanist cousin SmartCodes, are maps of how we want our community to eventually
look. But the word “eventually” is
key. We’re not able to move from today
to complete compliance in one giant step.
Our world, especially when it’s a world of free enterprise and personal
liberties, is a world of incremental change.
And so we
end up with uses in place, many of which are financially viable, but which
don’t comply with the ultimate goal. We
call these uses “non-conforming”. And we
struggle with how to handle non-conforming uses.
This problem
is true for all land uses. But it’s
particularly troublesome when the coming land use represents a major paradigm
adjustment. Such as transit-oriented
development (TOD).
In general,
we acknowledge the right of non-conforming uses to continue as they are until
financial realities allow the use envisioned in the zoning code or
SmartCode. But we don’t allow
non-conforming uses to expand, presumably for fear that the expanded use would perform
better financially and that the day of eventual transition would be deferred.
It seems a
reasonable policy, at least from an idealistic, non-site specific
viewpoint. Unfortunately, the real world
is practical and site-specific. A couple
of examples of this uncomfortable truth arose during the final meeting of the
Petaluma Station Area Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. The two examples served to illuminate the
role of time in land planning.
The first
was a gas station on Petaluma Boulevard South.
The station is within the area of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,
for which the SmartCode is the governing document. The station is within a transect (the
SmartCode equivalent of zones) for which gas stations aren’t permitted. It’s a reasonable prohibition. The site,
along an arterial along which transit service will likely increase, is best
suited for dense, multi-story use in an urban future. But that future isn’t yet here.
In the
interim, the station owner would like to improve his facility. He has a poorly used and outdated
do-it-yourself carwash, which he’d like to replace with a small convenience
store.
The
convenience store would be consistent with the SmartCode. But the gas station isn’t. And therefore the convenience store would be an
expansion of a non-conforming use, which is prohibited.
The proposed
convenience store posed a planning conundrum.
But before the committee could discuss it, another example shined an
even brighter light on the dilemma.
To the
northwest of the Petaluma Station Area, on the opposite side of E. Washington
Boulevard and mostly behind a row of streetfront retail, is a cluster of aging
industrial buildings. The area is accessed
by public rights-of-way, although most of the streets, if they were ever paved,
have long returned to a series of deep potholes.
The area,
which many in Petaluma have probably never visited, may seem derelict. But financially viable uses remain active.
The
SmartCode transect calls for mixed-use residential, similar to the station
area. And that’s the problem. The station area itself will provide a supply
of mixed-use residential that may be sufficient for twenty years. So the area on the other side of E.
Washington Boulevard will likely remain industrial for two decades. But it’s unlikely that any industrial area
can remain viable for that long without modifications. Modifications that are prohibited because the
uses are non-conforming.
The owner of
several of the buildings made exactly that point to the advisory
committee. He claimed that he must make
modifications to one of his buildings, but the SmartCode prohibits the
changes. He asked for relief.
I’m deeply
intrigued by the industrial area. In the
first advisory committee, almost two years ago, I invoked Jane Jacobs’ dicta that communities need low-cost
space for start-up businesses, which can’t afford space in new buildings, to take
root and to create new economic vitality.
I suggested that the industrial area could fill that need.
I’m unsure
what kinds of uses will make sense for the area over the next twenty
years. I find myself using the phrase
“artisanal industrial”, which might include wine-making, software backoffices,
beer-brewing, or custom iron work. Given
the location only a few blocks from a new train station, it seems a good place
to attract members of the “creative class”, who will deliver the new ideas that
a community needs.
Among the
committee members, I was perhaps most strongly in favor of giving some leeway
to non-conforming uses. Others were
legitimately concerned that additional flexibility might create loopholes through
which undesirable results could pass. In
the end, we only gave direction to City staff to consider the conundrum. It was the final committee meeting, so any
further discussion will happen at the Planning Commission or City Council. I’ll be watching with interest.
Regardless
of the results of this particular discussion, time will remain a key element in
land use, especially during times of transition. And there are few areas of land use for which
the transitions are more significant than the areas around TODs.
Even Dad would
agree that time is the fourth dimension for TOD land use.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment