The Planning Commission is currently working on the commercial zoning regulations of the draft Land Development Code, and in addition to meeting with stakeholder groups, we’ve been trying to review and reference existing work that previous Commissions and Councils have done.
This helps us to maintain continuity wherever possible; avoid reinventing the wheel; and honor the many hours of work that have been put into some of these visioning documents and the tax dollars that have been spent on plans and supporting studies.
I’ve taken pains to get electronic copies of these documents (not always easy) and have included them on my Northfield Resources page. The recently added documents are:
I’ll keep adding more chewy planning goodness as I find it.
Continuing my weekly roundups, here’s the best of what I found/read last week:
The Planning Commissioners Journal continued its Planning ABCs series with “R is for Regional”, which had some interesting highlights of prescient planning in America over the past few centuries. I particularly enjoyed reading about Ogilthorpe’s plan for Savannah, which
set a framework for growth by providing for development by planned neighborhood units, focused on public squares, and edged by through streets. A key feature of the plan was the provision of public land reserves for future neighborhood additions.
The plan also provided for Savannah’s urban center to be bounded by small allotment gardens for growing food for family consumption. These gardens were, in turn, rimmed by a network of larger farm plots. Each grouping of ten farms shared a wood lot, providing fuel and game. Oglethorpe’s recognition of the connection between agricultural production and urban vitality remains instructive for planners today.
Since planners sometimes
don’t get it right, in contrast to the examples above, the Sustainable Cities Collective post
Ecological Urbanism: Redesigning the City urges us to
learn from past mistakes:
Related to that is another point of concern deriving from the narrow interpretation of sustainability. Quite frequently, particularly during the last couple of years, sustainability is equated with minimising energy and resource use. I am afraid that applied to the urban realm, the dictate of resource efficiency can produce similar outcomes to those generated by the push for greater functionality which dominated modernist city planning during the previous century. Following such rationale, for instance, one can easily make the argument for the wholesale replacement of the energy inefficient historic housing stock of many cities around the world.
There were good ideas and examples of real-life applications in Mashable’s
How Social Media is changing government agencies. “While many government agencies still tend to employ the “broadcast” model when using social media, some are engaging…”
At the local law enforcement level, Web 2.0 technology has been implemented in some departments to give people details about what officers have been up to. At the Bellevue Police Department in Nebraska, Twitter is used to solicit help from the public and Facebook is used as a comment and complaint board for residents. In Great Britain, the Merseyside Police website personalizes information according to neighborhood, also appealing to the public for help as needed.
Finally, a thought-provoking
article in The Atlantic tells about a program to address “food deserts”, urban areas in which there is literally no access to fresh food and people are confined to a diet of Cheetos and Big Gulp soft drinks. We’re very fortunate in our choices here, but many poorer areas have been denied that.
When I first began working. . . we had to spend a lot of time showing people maps, showing them the evidence. Of course, when we spoke to the folks who actually lived in those neighborhoods, they were acutely aware that there was no fresh food available. . . The areas where there was no access to fresh food also had the highest rates of diet-related deaths. After we launched our first report, showing a connection between health and food access, people started to pay attention here. City council members and state representatives were surprised. They hadn’t seen anything like that. So we started to feel some movement and some mobilization.
More next week. This is fun.
Here are my choices of the best of the best of my perusals last week. I don’t necessarily agree with everything here, but each post or article below did an excellent job of framing questions, brainstorming solutions, or just providing a different take from conventional wisdom.
Let’s kick off with this post by Strong Towns about the real costs of auto-centric planning. Wouldn’t it be great if Northfield adopted this version of a community branding or market positioning pitch?
Anywhere, USA, is yesterday’s town. Move to Someplace, USA, where we have abundant housing that is well priced along with neighborhood schools, parks, churches and shopping all within walking distance. Spend your money on a better way of life. Avoid the costly commute. You can even live with only one car. In Someplace, USA, we cater to the discriminating consumer – the one that understands living better should actually cost less.
Read the whole article for more.
Continuing along transportation lines (yes, pun intended),
End of the Road: A Short History of Our Obsession with Freeways focuses on the Pacific Northwest, but much of it is relevant to the rest of the country:
[L]eaders . . . have their work cut out for them. . . Closing the Sustainability Gap is going to require some serious changes in the thinking of a lot of people. . . Politicians and highway advocates need to read the memo—reducing driving means putting fewer cars on the road, which means we shouldn’t be investing scarce resources in more highways.
This
article in Atlantic Monthly implies that some of our real estate and economic woes are due in large part to stupid building and land use practices.
“… what we face today is not just a cyclical housing problem, but a structural one as well. Over the past decade, most house building occurred on the suburban fringe, in large part because that’s where houses could be built most easily and quickly. But now that the bubble has popped, we can clearly see that underlying demand in these areas is extremely weak, and oversupply is massive.
Urban-style housing in walkable neighborhoods—including those in the inner suburbs—is what’s in demand today. And for a variety of reasons, that demand will intensify in the coming years. Only by serving it can the country kick-start growth in an enormous and essential part of the economy.
Finally, I’ll conclude with urban analyst Aaron Renn (a/k/a
The Urbanophile) and his review of
Richard Florida‘s latest book,
“The Great Reset”.
Florida’s recipe for cities is to favor grass roots change over big, top down redevelopment initiatives like stadiums, and investing in quality of life and place making. But he, like Glaeser, says that the primary focus of investments ought to be people, not places. This isn’t a matter of writing off cities or not writing off cities, but rather a political or philosophical question about where the focus of our investments ought to be.
It’s a great review of the book, as well as a balanced critique of Florida’s whole Creative Class thing.
Happy reading! And of course I’d welcome your thoughts and comments on any of the above.
I find most of these articles and sites through RSS feeds I monitor or links sent via Twitter. (By the way, my new account there is @TracyDavis.) I’m sharing them here because, if I don’t, many local readers may not see them, and they’re too good to miss.
From the Associated Press (Madison, WI):
On the 10th anniversary of the state’s Smart Growth law, leaders of the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Realtors Association gave the innovative comprehensive planning initiative a qualified endorsement.
At a conclave sponsored by 1000 Friends of Wisconsin called Smart Growth@10, Jerry Deschane, Builders Association executive vice president, said his organization went into the legislative process “kicking and screaming” a decade ago, but participated in the drafting of the law, which he now regards as “a good planning statute.”
Read more here.
My hero of the week is U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who addressed a Senate subcommittee on the subject of “livability”.
I think by now it’s pretty clear that Americans want the kind of communities that are walkable, that offer a sense of connection to their neighbors. Everywhere I’ve been in the US during the past 16 months–and I’ve been to more than 80 communities in 35 states–people have been telling me they want more public transportation and walkability with less congestion and sprawl.
Read Secretary LaHood’s blog entry, Livability works for rural communities, for more.
And perhaps my favorite this week, from The American Conservative, “Sprawling Misconceptions“:
For the 101st time: sprawl — an umbrella term for the pattern of development seen virtually everywhere in the United States — is not caused by the free market. It is, rather, mandated by a vast and seemingly intractable network of government regulations, from zoning laws and building codes to street design regulations. . . It’s odd that self-described libertarians such as Stossel are so slow to grasp that government planning makes sprawl ubiquitous. . . First of all, with a depressingly few exceptions, virtually every town in America looks the same. That is, it has the same landscape of arterial roads, strip malls, and residential subdivisions, accessibly only by car.
I got a real kick out of the original post’s hyper-hyperlinks when remarking on the tired accusation that sprawl’s opponents are inflicting their own views and choices on the free market by ‘limiting where they can build’ (author’s quote): “The fallacy of this view has been pointed out about 100 times.”
And in the “Could Be Worse” department, Strong Towns’ report on Minnesota’s “most vulnerable cities” puts Northfield at #573 out of 855. (Dundas is #678.)
The League of Minnesota Cities announced yesterday the appointments to MNDoT’s Complete Streets Advisory Group. I’ve been selected as the alternate to represent outstate/rural cities. I’m looking forward to working with this group of people from across the State to help pave the way (pun intended) for streets designed for people, not only for large motorized vehicles.
In celebration of my appointment, and inspired by some of the bikes I saw on my trip to Belgium and the Netherlands a few months ago, I decided to pimp my ride for the spring. Here’s “Rosebud II”.
MNDoT’s summary page about Complete Streets says,
Complete Streets does not mean “all modes on all roads”; rather, the goal of Complete Streets should be to
1) develop a balanced transportation system that integrates all modes via planning inclusive of each mode of transportation (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian) and
2) include transportation users of all types, ages and abilities.
Being one of the first DOTs to adopt a policy requiring Context Sensitive Solutions and with its new Strategic Vision, Mn/DOT is already well positioned to support Minnesota in a Complete Streets approach to transportation investment. Three local agencies (Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Rochester) in Minnesota have already adopted their own resolutions for Complete Streets, indicating that Complete Streets are achievable at a local level.
Mn/DOT needs to be prepared to assist local agencies in developing their local Complete Streets approach and to assist their specific project development needs.
To learn more about the idea behind complete streets, see also:
I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this as time goes on.
The most significant event of the month was Greg Colby’s resignation from the Planning Commission. (Et tu, Colby?)
Seriously, though, while we’re sorry to see Greg go, we know all good things must come to an end, and we wish him well in his future endeavors. Since Greg spent time in the 90s on the City Council, and a good chunk of the aughties on the Planning Commission, his commitment to the community is well known, and I suspect Northfield hasn’t seen the last of Greg Colby.
In terms of Planning Commission business, March’s weekly meetings and work sessions continued the Commission review of the draft Land Development Code. The first portion of the final draft of the LDC (as it relates to current/built residential districts) will be presented to the City Council at their April 13 work session.
The meeting dates and materials for March were:
The most current version of LDC (3/4/2010) can be found here.
There was substantial public comment at Tuesday’s City Council meeting regarding the Fourth Street reconstruction project plan to replace the vulnerable ash trees between Washington and Division with hanging baskets and planters, rather than with new trees. (You can watch the comments and discussion of the issue at the City Council meeting beginning at time marker 01:19:02 on the KYMN video of the meeting.)
At Tuesday’s meeting, the Council directed City staff to “have staff put trees back in the sidewalk area”, “as much, as many as possible”. Several times the issue of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was brought up as the reason why sidewalk trees were not possible. No one at the meeting, including City Attorney Chris Hood, seemed to know for sure what those regulations actually are.
Another objection to sidewalk trees is that they would apparently make it impossible to have the same sort of treatment/pavers as were used in the Fifth Street project last summer due to the difference in the sidewalk widths. (I’ll bet most residents, if given the choice, would prefer trees and different sidewalk treatment over no trees but with uniformity of pavers.)
Of course, there’s a discussion of this issue on Locally Grown.
As this year’s Keeper of the Keys to the Comprehensive Plan, I thought it would be appropriate for me to post some of the mentions of street trees in the Comp Plan, just to keep Northfield’s guiding document in people’s minds as it relates to this issue.
Street/sidewalk/boulevard trees are referred to in several different areas of the Comprehensive Plan. They’re mentioned as a part of community identity; as part of land use policy; and also in the environmental resources chapter, to name a few. For example:
CI (Community Identity) 4.4: Require new neighborhoods to create neighborhood scaled streets, with street trees and sidewalks (see Figure 4.4).
LU (Land Use) 4.4: Create regulations that require high-quality pedestrian streets with sidewalks, street trees, and adequate lighting, where appropriate.
ER (Environmental Resources) 9.1: The City will develop an urban forest management policy that addresses protection or replacement of significant trees on developed property and all land scheduled for development. This management policy will also establish standards for tree species and location within and near public right-of-way and easements.
ER (Environmental Resources) 10.2: Develop land use policies to manage and reduce urban heat island effects, including promoting shading of streets and parking lots with more trees.
Some of the benefits of street trees were stated in the 2006 Streetscape Framework Plan:
Overstory street trees increase the desirability of pedestrian activity, enhance the civic status of the street, and increase adjacent property values. Along with the overall width of the street, trees are a primary element in providing a sense of safe separation from traffic.
You can see from the examples above that street trees in Northfield are not just a nice amenity; they also represent our history, our values, and our identity as an historic town with an eye toward a sustainable future.
I’m very glad that the City Council took the action it did on Tuesday. It’s not a trivial issue, or one of micromanagement, for the Council to get involved when a plan is brought forward which does not give adequate weight to existing plans, recommendations, studies, governing documents, and long-term expression of citizen preference.
Oops…. I forgot to publish this.
There’s not much to report for the rest of February; the Planning Commission continued its weekly review of the draft LDC. From the Planning Commission portion of the February Boards & Commissions report:
As noted in last month’s report, in February the Planning Commission continued its arduous weekly meetings on the review of the draft Land Development Code. The Commission is now finalizing the site development standards for residential zones which apply to the current built environment (not standards for currently undeveloped areas, which will be different). We hope to get this section finished and on the council’s agenda for their work session in April.
During the review process we’ve had the benefit of some excellent research and information provided by City staff, including statistical analysis of the current built area ratios on residential lots, and estimates of lot coverage of impervious service; information on performance standards and best practices for managing surface water runoff; and examples from different cities around the country as to how they handle various aspects of neighborhood compatibility standards.
We’re tired, but hopeful.
Here are the meeting agendas, materials, and minutes for February:
