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:
I’ve gotten behind in my detailed logging of the weekly happenings. The last two weeks have primarily been about continued work on the review of the Land Development Code at the 2/11 work session and the 2/18 special meeting.
I also attended part of the business park Master Plan Steering Committee meeting on 2/18. Unfortunately, Thursday meetings now conflict with the Planning Commission meeting schedule, so I wasn’t able to attend the whole thing.
I hope to be able to post an update about the business park master planning process Real Soon Now.
The Planning Commission met on 2/4 to continue our review of the Land Development Code. I have some supporting materials to post, but won’t be able to do it for a couple of days; or perhaps I’ll include it with the update at the end of this week.
On 11/24/09, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request for annexation from two landowners in Bridgewater Township. The Commission discussed the request and its attendant issue at our 12/8/09 and 12/15/09 meetings. The links for the dates referenced contain the minutes from those meetings.
On 1/7/2010 the Planning Commission made its official recommendation, which will be presented to the City Council at their 2/9/2010 meeting.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Northfield City Council, along with its rationale, is as follows:
The vote of the Commission was five to one in favor of the request. The vote
against annexation was based on the position that it should be delayed until
completion of both the Land Development Code and the updated stormwater and
stream protection ordinances, both critical tools given the unique, sensitive
natural resources involved.
Commission members stated that they are unanimous in their support of the
annexation requests, but have significant concerns about the impact of future
development on the environmental resources, including the two streams in the
area and more particularly the Brook Trout habitat represented in Rice Creek.
The Planning Commission advises the City Council that development in this area
should preserve and enhance the environmental features of the annexation area,
while at the same time pursuing viable economic development for Northfield.
To accomplish this, the Commission encourages the Council to direct that any
eventual development on the site be informed by a complete hydrological and
biological work-up for both Rice Creek and Heath Creek, research needed to
ensure that these acres are developed in a manner that accords with the principles
of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, in accordance with the conditions
stated in Option #1, the Planning Commission encourages the Council to direct
City Staff to work closely and cooperatively with Bridgewater Township and to
engage the technical expertise of the Rice Creek (Spring Brook) Concerned
Citizens Group, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and other interested
groups, in the revision of storm-water and stream protection ordinances.
(Found on p. 17 of the 19-page Staff Report on the Gill-Prawer Annexation in the 2/9/2010 meeting packet.)
