The Comprehensive Plan draft goes before City Council on Nov. 17. The most recent draft (PDF, broken down by chapter) can be found on the City website?

http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/projects/pczba/2008/11/17/draft_comprehensive_plan_august_2008

Posted by the Webmaster at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments(0)

Below are all comments received at the Sept. 18 open house, grouped into categories. The original design boards showing the categories and objectives can be viewed in the previous blog entry.

1. Comments of Concern: Needs strong statement regarding economics of central business district. The City Council has for two years ______ it’s _________ emphasized the importance of the core downtown to the entire community – the EDA’s consultant (TIP) did the same.
General Comments: The downtown cannot remain anything but the visual core if it isn’t economically strong. We cannot have a “museum” central business district – the highway business, big boxes and all the infill franchises can be “loss/eaters” for their corporate group --- they are mostly a “marketing presence for their brand” – The historic business district is “Brand Northfield.”

2. Comments of Concern: 2.1: what about floodplain? Where is protection of agricultural land? It’s an economic resource. 2.3 and 1.4: Where is protection of Heath Creek and Spring Brook?

3. Comments of Support: I’m very glad to see the emphasis on pedestrian friendly development.

4. Comments of Concern: Objective 2: We need to make sure that existing businesses/commercial properties along the Cannon River are evaluated; i.e., the mall that contains Ace Hardware, Used a Bit Shop, etc. is an eyesore and much better commercial and recreational use could be made of this property. Perhaps this goes under Land Use 6.9?

5. Comments of Support: We have a long way to go. The EDA seems to be doing an OK job so far. Do more advertising on the Internet, paper, etc.
Comments of Concern: We need to get new businesses interested in Northfield. We have got to get our taxes reduced – new industry will help that.
General Comments: We love Northfield and would not live any place but here.

6. Comments of Support: Again – good start.
Comments of Concern: No statement encouraging existing homes to become “greener.”

7. Comments of Concern: The overall impression created by the Comprehensive Plan (looking across all the sections) is that we have decided to make downtown Northfield a museum. No longer does it play a significant role in the community’s economic life.

8. Comments of Concern: There is no sense here in the plan regarding any thinking regards the importance of agriculture as an economic resource or part of economic development. This is totally blind and ignoring a major economic resource.

9. Comments of Support: It is important to recognize growth. Great position on Riverside Development! But, consider environmental impact.
Comments of Concern: Land use should be considered before annexation.

10. Comments of Support: Great Objective 2

11. Comments of Concern: Objective 1.4 directly contradicts the spirit of the rest of the plan. West of the Hospital is too far away.

12. Comments of Support: Infill good, River focus good.
Comments of Concern: 2.4: Something needs to be added with respect for “Arts and Culture activities and facilities for them”!
General Comments: You infer something of the above within the “goal”…”talent attraction and retention” – consider the history of the arts and their potential and vital contribution to economic development. Provide the language to give it greater shift. What about encouraging tourism?

13. Comments of Support: Good
Comments of Concern: 2.3 Encourage further orientation of businesses to the river – open up a riverwalk, have restaurants, use the area along the river.

14. Comments of Concern: I disagree with 1.4 under Objective 1. This seems contrary to 1.2. There is no infrastructure there – isn’t this “leap-frogging?” Note: “ewer and water infrastructure Objective 1, 1.1”
General Comments: Land Use Objective 12, 12.1: No mention is made about tax base. We haven’t expanded our non-residential tax base sufficiently in the past 20 or so years – The residential property is bearing a disproportionate burden for public services. Add language to goal to reflect tax base issues, please.

15. Comments of Concern: Not enough emphasis on existing businesses.

16. Comments of Support: OK: But importance of these not shown: Creative economy – arts and culture, local agriculture surrounding us.

17. Comments of Concern: I’m very concerned that my new home identified for industrial/business park use be as contiguous as possible – Armstrong Road area is more preferable in every way – not just infrastructure costs – we should not again make the mistake of leap-frogging – the infill is always disastrous. True infill is great; don’t make mistake is what I mean.

18. Comments of Support: What’s here is fine.
Comments of Concern: What’s missing – Any comment about the downtown – the economic management of this community.

19. Comments of Support: 1.1 and 1.2: Use existing facilities that can be utilized/converted.
Comments of Concern: Avoid building outside of the City and annexing!

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

1. Comments of Concern: Objective 2 needs to be much stronger: Suggested language: 2.1 “Require energy efficiency and on-site renewable ____________ generation via energy performance standards for new construction and for existing buildings upon change of ownership.” 2.2 “All City building projects (new or major renovations) will meet LEED Platinum standards.”

2. Comments of Support: Objective 7: Absolutely!!
Comments of Concern: City should subsidize the planting of large trees of varying varieties.
Comments of Comments: For trees that are removed – two trees should be planted – large healthy and tended to so they thrive!!!

3. Comments of Concern: There is nothing in their goal that treats the land as an environmental resource. If you talk about water and trees but not the land that does not make sense. I notice it talks about reforesting, replanting, restoring, but not about preserving the land nearby.

4. Comments of Support: Trees along City streets – including downtown – are very important.

5. General Comments: Is developing City owned and controlled energy independence part of our City’s goals? I think it would be a wise move.

6. Comments of Support: Objective 5: We need to care about air quality.
Comments of Concern: Until we have regulation on wood-burners we will have degraded quality of air.

7. Comments of Support: Let’s build another wind generator for the City. Maybe more people would get on the band wagon if we had the windmill it would prove we are serious.
Comments of Concern: I really don’t feel we do enough in this department.
General Comments: Need to get more new people involved, not the same old “group”!

8. Comments of Support: Strong support for LEED – certified building and redevelopment. Strong support for preservation of urban forest.
General Comments: Objective 1.6 – replace “original vegetation” with “native vegetation.” The “original” vegetation of a developed site could be weeds and/or non-native vegetation. Objective 1.1 – New development should be required to implement practice that infiltrates stormwater on site. Objective 1.5 – Not only preserve open space for wildlife, but identify and preserve connections/corridors between them. Objective 7.1 (7.2?) Develop standards for conservation (enhancement) of native dominated forested areas.

9. Comments of Concern: 1.6: What the heck is “original vegetation”?

10. Comments of Concern: Parkway trees should be protected from being butchered by Xcel and City during infrastructure and such.

11. Comments of Support: Very good.
Comments of Concern: Protect roadway trees from Xcel during infrastructure renewal.

12. Comments of Concern: Objective 2 – need to include the Solar Access Ordinance and put teeth into it.
General Comments: Objective 4.2 – include the household hazardous waste collection site at the landfill. Objective 6.1 – can’t noisy cars be picked up on a “public nuisance” basis?

13. Comments of Support: 2.1 Needs to be expanded to address and 2.2 the work and goals of the energy task force the City created.

14. Comments of Support: 1.5 Very important.
Comments of Concern: Please reference the past surface water management plans – good work was done then and not to be forgotten – maintain protection of Heath Creek and Spring Brook watershed protection with specifics.
General Comments: Need to develop policies on non-use of chemicals and City green spaces – if legally possible should also have ordinance protecting neighbors from lawn spraying and private companies who use chemicals.

15. Comments of Concern: More focus on water quality in objectives.

LAND USE

1. Comments of Concern: Conservation and Development Map: I’m concerned about the yellow areas – Let’s not again make the mistake of “leap-frog” development – from the center out –only, please!!!!

2. Comments of Concern: Conservation and Development Map: The width of the “Preserve Area” along Spring Brook seems narrow with “mixed use” alongside. Should it be wider? Especially, if “mixed use” includes gas stations and dry cleaners?

3. Comments of Support: I like the fact that on this map Objectives 1 and 2 both deal with the core aspect of the community – these statements are quite simply, to my mind – the base of the pyramid.

4. General Comments: Please make the type at least four times as big – not all folks can hardly read what’s on these signs.

5. Comments of Support: Conservation and Development Map: Consider park improvements for the donated Hauberg 37 acres in NW Northfield.

6. Comments of Support: Objective 6 and 9 – very important – bike paths – please remember to west side – how are we to get across Hwy #19 and #3?

7. Comments of Support: These principles look good in general.
Comments of Concern: The devil is in the details. We need to have some protection for the identity of the historic neighborhoods.

8. Comments of Concern: Mill Towns trail met with Jeff Schoenbauer. He put different lines on the map than what we have worked toward for many years. – Peg Prowe.

9. Comments of Concern: Environmentally significant areas: The language “should” here implies hedging and uncertainty. Eliminate the hedging or consider striking the language entirely.
General Comments: People like clarity. Documents like this should be clear and direct. Otherwise they tend to be ignored.

10. Comments of Support: Good general directive.
Comments of Concern: No Westside development for “necessities”: banks, grocery stores, etc. Means less walking more driving.

11. Comments of Support: I like the trails (pedestrian and bike).
Comments of Concern: But wish they were better marked.

12. Comments of Support: Objective 1 – Fully support. Objective 3: Fully support.

13. Comments of Support: I’m glad you are looking at redevelopment of the Hwy #3 corridor – one of the ugliest stretches of road – horrible architecture and an awful welcome into Northfield.

14. Comments of Concern: Adopt green building practices (perhaps this should go elsewhere?) for public and commercial buildings.

15. Comments of Concern: Missing: Factor the needs of pedestrians and bicycles, as well as the safety of adjacent residents and crossability, into all road improvements and planning. (All too often, “planning for the future” means planning for future traffic volumes; and the needs of neighbors, who must do simple things like cross the street, are ignored or made a lower priority. If you factor both sets of needs in, you can accommodate everyone. Maybe all that‘s needed is a simple traffic _____________ measure.)

16. General Comments: Rental ordinances seem to conflict with 3.1, 4.5, 4.6, etc.

17. Comments of Concern: Objective 4, 4.5, doesn’t contain any reference to low income as part of housing mix. See emphasis in housing section.
General Comments: Do we want to use the same language in all the sections across the plan that talk about the same subject. For instance, Stormwater is mentioned in sewer and water 2.1, housing 3.2, environmental Objective 1 – are these all commensurate?

18. Comments of Concern: Not much about reuse and redevelopment.

19. Comments of Support: Support infill and redevelopment. Support sustainable planning and building.
General Comments: Language in this section is insufficient to support and motivate the realization of the Greenway Corridor. In short, where development may potentially occur along a segment of the Greenway Corridor, the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance MUST compel the developer to incorporate the Corridor segment into the site plan. Objective 4.1 is a good place. Objective 7.4 – Language regarding preservation of agricultural land, greenways and environmentally significant areas is weak. This needs emphasis.

20. Comments of Concern: Objective 4 – Neighborhood quality “and identities.”

21. Comments of Concern: Objective 8 – Arts and Culture are proven economic drivers – attention needs to be given and encouragement provided and incentives identified for this kind of economic development besides purely commercial, industrial offices, and business parks. Talk to Arts and Culture Commission.

22. Comments of Concern: In LU 7.3 is it proper to say “noxious odors” or should it be “objectionable” or something like that. Things can smell bad but not be injurious. Does “noxious” have the right meaning?

23. Comments of Support: Objective 1: 1.5, 1.6 opportunity for creation of Arts and Culture District. Good. Can it be strengthened somehow through wording?
Comments of Concern: Objective 2.3 add “and enhance its visual appearance.” Objective 2 – something needs to be added concerning Arts and Culture facilities and an Arts and Culture District per se. It is part of Northfield’s reality…Give it focus and greater promotion.

24. Comments of Support: Greenway corridor is very important. Protect valuable land.
Comments of Concern: Bike path needs to be placed not in the residential area just because it can be done. Not because it is the best for all or even the bike path. Farm land needs to be preserved.

25. Comments of Support: Conservation and Development Map
Comments of Concern: Needs to Code 5th –7th Street along Division NOT as neighborhood conservation but as core enhancement.
General Comments: Need to preserve and conserve farm land on the City’s border – Otherwise, there will just be continuous expansion.

26. Comments of Support: Good but make parks more accessible.
Comments of Concern: Need to clarify the definitions of what zoning means in R-1 and R-2 community sections – Make sure historic buildings are not torn down for McMansions. Delete the 4th Street bike trail.

27. Comments of Support: Sidewalks everywhere would make me happy as well as a lot of people. We need to walk more. Bike trails, etc.
Comments of Concern: I’m concerned about all the development on the strip. We need to make sure our downtown expands south down Division Street and Washington Street.
General Comments: We have enough parks – we can afford much more in terms of upkeep, etc.

28. Comments of Concern: Objective 8: I have not found a redevelopment/reuse statement that is analogous - Objective 8’s statements about new development. There are/will be a number of opportunities for such development that are not in the downtown or downtown fringe.

29. General Comments: Add information to encourage ‘big ideas’ in redevelopment of existing business areas – like the movie theater.

30. Comments of Support: Objective 12: a municipal service area edge. Doesn’t go far enough to define a growth edge.
Comments of Concern: Add 12.1b: The MUSA Boundary shall be guided by a determination of urban/town growth edge that is also the natural environment and/or agricultural edge of the town.

31. Comments of Support: Objective 1: Good,, but also not character as being “on the prairie” or in an “agricultural and Big Woods” surrounding context. Eg: add to 1.9.
Comments of Concern: Add: 7.5 - Require development that would replace surrounding agricultural uses to provide sustainability based environmental impact reports that indicate the long-term costs to the community and to the natural environment.

32. Comments of Support: Conservation and Development Map: OK – But full of “mistakes” or unclear categories, i.e. “pipeline”, “developed areas.”
Comments of Concern: Show land to be “preserved” as green space around the edges – the urban growth “limit” to encourage “densification” within.

33. Comments of Concern: There are statements about “water resources” but I did not find any principles or goals about the River, itself, as a valuable community resource that should be treated as an integral element of this plan and especially the parks plan.

34. Comments of Support: Okay – but –
Comments of Concern: The expansion and development of the downtown is essential – better use of the Riverfront must happen – as the downtown goes, so goes Northfield!!

35. General Comments: Include Greenway Corridor Plan on Conservation and Development Map.

36. Comments of Support: This map doesn’t live with the text provided at left – work needed. Where is the Greenway Corridor? Can you provide link to Greenway Corridor Plan this map or as a link.

37. Comments of Concern: Where is T.H. 19 traffic to travel in town after it is constructed to four lanes east to I-35W?
General Comments: How was the North Urban Expansion Boundary established?

38. Comments of Support: Like buffers along Cannon River!!!!
Comments of Concern: 7.3: does not make sense. Need more general retailers downtown and less brick-a-brac.
General Comments: Overall good. Like objective 3, 4. Add statements use of low impact development designs would fit well with neighborhood themes. Objective 6 is good. What is a conservation subdivision? 6.5 – Please follow through!!!! Purchase land around Spring Brook stream. Put Greenway Corridor on Conservation and Development Map. Spring Brook corridor should be in preserve category on Map.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

1. Comments of Support: I’m concerned about the driving forces behind all the expressed desires – the Library seems most legitimate because we serve a large (outside Northfield proper) area that does not have a lot of City services. We need to hear more from Police/Fire about the specificity of their needs. I don’t want to embark on a new area of “resume buildup.”

2. Comments of Concern: Objective 2.3 should be much stronger and explicit (e.g. “all new construction or major renovations shall meet LEED Platinum standards.”)

3. Comments of Support: Great to hear these things are a priority.
Comments of Concern: 2.2 put more teeth in it. What does it mean to strive for something?
General Comments: Support for the renovation of existing structures.

4. Comments of Support: Locate facilities within the downtown.
Comments of Concern: Locating City offices that serve the citizenry should be conveniently located – not require public transportation.

5. General Comments: I hope every effort is made to keep our Library downtown. I think it is a vital component of a thriving downtown.

6. General Comments: There facilities should also, when possible, incorporate Arts and Culture events into their design/architecture, public art, murals, etc.)

7. Comments of Support: Objective 2, 2.2: Retaining public facilities in downtown is important in many ways.
Comments of Concern: Objective 2, 2.1: States negatively what could/should be summed up in three words “Good design matters.”

8. Comments of Concern: I know a new Parks Plan is in the works, but the absence of any reference to parks and park development in the Common Facilities goals is troubling. The quality of park land and the design of parks and public spaces is really important to the quality of neighborhoods and even downtown and other commercial and industrial area.

9. Comments of Support: We have a great town. People are friendly and willing to help make Northfield even a better place.
Comments of Concern: We are doing an OK job so far. We do need to do more work on river beautification. The riverwalk needs work. We need to keep the weeds down.
General Comments: A lot of talk – we need more doers. We have a lot of critics – we need for people to speak up and let their views be heard.

10. Comments of Support: I like the recognition that facilities Downtown are beneficial. Energy efficiency -- good!

11. Comments of Support: I think that facilities should be in the City (downtown)
12. Comments of Support: Good.
General Comments: Place athletic facility in the queue.

13. Comments of Support: I wholeheartedly support Objective #2 – I would like stronger focus on locating facilities in “infill” areas wherever possible especially in downtown (both historic and Highway #3 North) and S. Division.
Comments of Concern: Does “Community Facilities” mean only City-owned facilities? Other privately owned facilities like churches or other publicly-owned facilities “community facilities” (e.g. schools)?
General Comments: If by community facilities, City-owned facilities is implied, I’m surprised that the plan has as its first objective concern about funding.

14. Comments of Support: 2.3 Construction or renovation
Comments of Concern: 2.3 Add… energy efficiency, and architectural excellence to aid in community pride of place.

15. Comments of Support: Very Good 2.2 and 2.3.
Comments of Concern: Goal: The most cost-effective manner possible “is not always the most ultimately effective procedure. Consider – build for 50 years at least. Objective #1 and 2 – There is nothing here that is truly visionary – so conservative – we need Development of non-existing facilities especially the consideration of an Arts and Culture Center as part of an Arts and Culture District downtown – Library, Grand, NAG, Art org, Historical Society, Carleton New Arts Building.

16. Comments of Concern: 1.2 Library adequate should have high priority.

HOUSING

1. Comments of Concern: We’re creating “ghettos” of sameness.
General Comments: Neighborhoods must have mixed income housing in order to create varied populations, which support each other’s needs.

2. Comments of Support: Good in general!
Comments of Concern: Objective 3 needs to be stronger. Require rigorous energy performance standards for new construction, energy audits and energy upgrades to existing buildings when sold. Need to go way beyond MN Building Code for energy standards in a way that remains cost-effective.

3. Comments of Concern: No statement encouraging the renovation of existing houses to become “greener.”

4. Comments of Support: Great emphasis on mix of housing types. Good to enforce rental ordinances – landlord upkeep.

5. Comments of Support: Standards for homes going into existing neighborhoods is a good idea but I hope doesn’t become onerous for those trying to build. (Particularly in exterior appearance – I don’t see a problem with regulating scale.)
Comments of Concern: What can we do to encourage full occupancy of existing houses (i.e. not over-building new construction) and get standards for energy efficient homes (includes the scale of new homes – maximum square footage per resident?)

6. Comments of Support: Objective 1.2 is good as far as it goes.
Comments of Concern: But we must protect older homes from conversion into industrial/commercial rentals, esp. near colleges.

7. General Comments: Rental ordinances in process seem to contradict mixed use, infill, alternate housing types, etc.

8. Comments of Support: I support sidewalks on both sides of the street. All over town new and old parts.
General Comments: Looks to me like you are doing a great job on the new Comprehensive Guide. These meetings help us all understand better what is happening. Keep up the good work!

9. Comments of Concern: Objective 2: The City should will assist…”

10. Comments of Concern: Objective 3? 3.1 What are the implementation plans for this kind of “encouraging.” In this whole area of housing how the “encouraging” might happen is missing.

11. Comments of Concern: Strong guidelines for character of infill projects are needed soon. Respecting surrounding development.
12. Comments of Support: Overall good.
Comments of Concern: On Objective 1, keep the historic neighborhood quality to minimize the changing of streets – particularly in terms of widths in the older part of town.

13. Comments of Support: Hurrah for 1.4 and 1.8.
Comments of Concern: 1.1: Don’t be too specific (1.3) so creativity is ruled out. Size should be addressed though – not too large for the lot.
General Comments: How is “encourage” expressed in ordinances?

14. Comments of Concern: I am concerned that Items 1.3 and 1.4 seem to invite “variety.” Does that mean no regulation?

15. Comments of Concern: Mixed-use neighborhoods must be carefully designed to enhance and enrich the essential character of Northfield’s existing neighborhoods.
General Concerns: The City should assist in some manner in the preservation of historic homes and neighborhoods. Ensure rental ordinances are enforced with regard to number of residents and maintenance issues.

SEWER AND WATER UTILITIES

1. #3 should be before #2; Education of the public (#2) will then _____________ the public demand for #3 to be the preferred mode.

2. Comments of Support: In general – great job encouraging.
Comments of Concern: What teeth do these measures have?

3. Comments of Support: I like Objective 3 – should be fleshed out to explicitly mention water conservation measures (low-flow slower leads; low water use and dual flush toilets, water-saving clothes dryers) and stormwater runoff reduction measures (i.e. rain gardens and rain barrels, swales, etc.)

4. Comments of Concern: Is it Northfield’s plan to continue treating and accepting waste water from Dundas?

5. Comments of Concern: I’m concerned about adding sewer services to new areas before it is needed, growth follows the sewer.
General Comments: Water and sewer costs are too high.

6. General Comments: Objective 3.2 – look into/develop changes in City standards for parkway vegetation to encourage (allow) rain gardens to enhance infiltration prior to stormwater runoff into sewers. Enable City Engineer to identify streets where curb cuts and parkway regrades/excavations could facilitate rain gardens.

7. Comments of Concern: Objective 1 – Unless things change, City expansion will be halted by the phosphorus levels in Lake Byllesby – therefore, phosphorus lowering should be emphasized.

8. Comments of Concern: 1.6 Storm sewers in new developments should decrease substantially if rain gardens and low impact methods are required by the Planning Commission.

9. General Comments: Item 2.3: Consider/encourage stormwater management for every project – rain gardens can be constructed downtown, after all.

10. Comments of Support: You all have done a great job!

11. Comments of Support: Like focus on 2.2 upstream pollutant reduction. Good public ed and outreach as part of NPDES.
Comments of Concern: City should REQUIRE LID unless it is not technically possible (2.3).
General Comments: 3.1: City use rain gardens, pervious pavers, etc. on City property whenever possible. City should commit to locate NO new stormwater ponds in floodplain. City commit reduce flows, sediment, stormwater runoff.

12. Comments of Concern: On sewer and water 1.4 “recommend” means nothing to a developer or lawyer – best eliminate 1.4 or make it actually say something specific like “preference will be given” or possibly consult a City Attorney.

TRANSPORTATION

1. Comments of Concern: Please, Please, Please emphasize non-motorized transportation (pedestrian/bicycle) along with motorized!!!!!

2. Comments of Support: I agree with the objective.
Comments of Concern: Let’s be a model and utilize buses/vehicles that are energy efficient.
General Comments: Consider sponsoring an “auto rental” by the hour. Energy efficient or electric cars that can be used by citizens to go to Cub, Dr.’s appointments, etc.

3. Comments of Concern: Recognize importance of connections across Hwy #3 by foot and bike!

4. Comments of Support: Follow the policy of width of roads and sidewalks and don’t continue to change.
Comments of Concern: Do not reinvent the wheel.

5. Comments of Concern: Make sure the bike ways are on the larger feeder streets and are 5 feet wide on each side of the road.
General Comments: Link the Transportation Plan to the larger road development plan.

6. Comments of Support: 1.1 Yes a transportation plan.
Comments of Concern: 1.1 Plan should define: a hierarchy of street uses, reduce “garden city” planned developments in favor of “old town” organizations to encourage non-vehicle travel.

7. Comments of Concern: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

8. General Comments: Didn’t know we had a Transportation Plan.

COMMUNITY IDENTITY

1. Comments of Concern: Objective 4 should be ahead of Objective 2 which is to me dependent on #4 – Objective #7 should be #1 and all else should follow.

2. Comments of Concern: Objective 4: Take part of downtown back from the automobile: create a pedestrian mall with public art, al fresco dining, biking, etc. between the Archer Hotel and Bridge Square (Replace lost parking spaces within two blocks by making more efficient use of existing surface parking.)

3. Comments of Support: #7 traditional development important – encourage.

4. Comments of Concern: Number 7.6: “Encourage” is pretty vague. Can we be more specific, using language that could be converted into a statute or that might help decide things in a competitive bidding situation? If vague wording can’t be fixed, drop the clause.

5. Comments of Concern: Objective 2: Verb needs to be stronger than continue – such expand energize…local arts and cultural activities.

6. Comments of Support: Transportation
Comments of Concern: Mass evaluation routes and coordination agencies?

7. Comments of Support: City Streets.
Comments of Concern: Update Chamber of Commerce maps and directions.

8. General Comments: Sidewalks are important, as is a mix of different house sizes and styles. No more Mayflower Hill.

9. Comments of Support: More Arts support!!! Glad you support small local agricultural. Arts center – more performance sites.

10. Comments of Support: Objective 1: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 – fully support. Objective 2: All – we need to consider the Arts as a positive economic development asset.
Comments of Concern: Create an overall – Arts council to select funding for the arts (formats, dance, etc.) and distribute the money. To not have the City manage it. Make sure it has citizens and artists on the Board. Make EVERY EFFORT for the Arts to be self-funding (% of hotel/taxes/go to fund the Arts) – not dependent on grants and foundations outside Northfield. Consider creating an Arts Foundation to fund the arts.

11. Comments of Support: Objectives 6 & 7 are very important. We need to consider special zoning to preserve historic neighborhoods.

12. Comments of Concern: The City needs to provide financial support to the Northfield Arts Guild.

13. Comments of Support: Please see and incorporate as you see fit the amendments submitted by the Arts and Culture Commission --- too many to write here!

14. Comments of Support: The town should do more to promote the colleges. We have two of the top 20 in the U.S., why not tell the world.
Comments of Concern: The colleges should attract new industry to the town.
General Comments: Great place to start a new business – we need to tell people of this fact.

15. Comments of Support: Traditional development patterns (from Who’s Traditions?) Good!
Comments of Concern: What about preserving “successful” development patterns? I.e. Downtown, east, west side historical neighborhoods? (I see this is addressed on the map!)

16. General Comments: Objective 1.1: If we really want to “enhance” or “improve” the gateway to the City, we need to consider relocating the DJJD carnival out of Ames Park so that we can enhance the park as a statement of Northfield environmental values. Currently, the park is 51 week of ugly just to have 1 week of carnival. What does that say about us?

17. Comments of Support: Great start – please collaborate with the new Arts and Culture Commission in further developing objective No. 2.

18. Comments of Concern: Objective 2 – for “continue” I suggest “enhance”. Good for objective itself and 2.8.

19. Comments of Support: 6.2: change “Northfield Historical Society” to “Northfield Heritage Commission.” (its role). 2.1: public arts program?
Comments of Concern: 2.1: other public arts programs are noted (2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5). Change to: Develop public supported initiatives that support and promote this as an Arts and Culture Center. Good job!

20. Comments of Support: Good start.
Comments of Concern: Objective 2 (______4?) use the new Arts and Cultural Commission to shepherd these proposals and develop ways to accommodate.

21. Comments of Support: Level objective 7.
Comments of Concern: Objective 2: no mention of the new Arts Commission. 5.1: Route 19 West should remain rural.

22. Comments of Support: *Love the “percent for the arts” requirement (2.5). Thanks!; *The “Active” verbs in 1st 2.1 through 2.5, plus 2.6 are good. Take out “explore regulations” in 2nd 2.5 and begin “Implement...” Exploration will naturally follow: Be bold!
Comments of Concern: *Add to goal: “Artistic and Cultural landmarks…”; *Add to 4.3 “..artistic, cultural, educational and recreational activities…”; *Objective 2: “Continue to” does not seem dynamic. Little has been done to “continue”… it suggests doing it in the same minimal way; *Not sure what 2.1 means – can it be more specific? I know things have to be general but not sure intent of this – what it refers to. Is this support for Northfield’s identity as an Arts town? Can the wording be strengthened, therefore?; *4.2: Add: while protecting the river and enhancing its visual appearance. (Not enough to just integrate.)

23. Comments of Support: Like focus on Cannon River. More canoe access/portage location. How about information displays on water quality?
General Comments: Like sidewalks in new neighborhoods and encourage traditional development pattern.

VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. Comments to Support: Good work but little is said here about Northfield’s rich artistic heritage and identity, nor about the Art Plan 06 process funded by the City, which provided a clear vision for Northfield.
Comments of Concern: Can you insert something here with respect to that City sought input; also perhaps seek further advice from our new exciting Arts and Culture Commission. Thank you.

Posted by the Webmaster at 08:22 PM | Permalink | Comments(0)

The display boards from Tuesday's Open House are available below as PDF files. The boards are not shown in any order of priority. Some of the boards contain elements from more than one chapter, but this does not necessarily indicate connections between those chapters.

Overview (3MB)
Land Use Framework/map (1.9MB)
Land Use part 2 (1MB)
Infrastructure ~ Community Identity (1.3MB)
Economic Development ~ Housing (1.5MB)
Conservation & Development (1.7MB)
Community Facilities ~ Environment (1.4MB)

These display boards can also be viewed LIVE at City Hall on the first floor through the end of next week. Paper comment cards are provided at City Hall, and you can also comment online.

Posted by the Webmaster at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments(0)

The extremely rough draft of proposed revisions to various Comprehensive Plan chapters can now be seen on our Resources page (here's the shortcut).

We had a very respectable turnout at tonight's Open House and are looking forward to reading the comments once they're compiled and transcribed. We want to welcome comments as long as possible during the document's formative stage, so please use our Comment Box if you have concerns or suggestions.

Posted by the Webmaster at 09:35 PM | Permalink | Comments(0)

WHAT: Open House for the public to review a draft of the City’s new Comprehensive Plan.
Presentation boards with a summary of each Comprehensive Plan chapter will be placed at the Armory for the public to review and provide written comments. These boards will also be on display at City Hall, 801 Washington Street, from September 19th until September 30th.

WHEN: Tuesday, September 18, 2007, from 6 – 9 PM. This is a “come and go” type event with a short presentation to be held at 7 P.M. City Staff and Planning Commission members will be on hand to answer any questions and receive input.

WHERE: Northfield Armory, 519 Division Street (corner of 6th and Division Streets) in downtown Northfield. Parking is available in the Econofoods lot.

WHO: All ages welcome!

WHY: Northfield city planners are in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. These documents help guide City leaders in how Northfield should develop over the next several years. For further information, contact Dan Olson, City Planner, at 507-645-3056 or dan.olson@ci.northfield.mn.us.

“PUT YOUR FINGERPRINTS ON NORTHFIELD’S BLUEPRINTS”

Posted by the Webmaster at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments(0)

Work on revision of Northfield's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations continues at a decent pace. Significant progress is being made by the Planning Commission, City staff, consultants, various commissions, task forces, and advisory groups.

Below is a status summary of the Comp Plan revision update by chapter, along with the relevant City commission working on the task, and the proposed schedule for the process through the end of this year.

Click here to see the Revision Update. Microsoft won't play nice so it was too much hassle to reformat the Excel table to display properly online.

Continue reading "Plan Revision Update and Proposed Schedule" »

Posted by the Webmaster at 07:48 AM | Permalink | Comments(0)

On Monday night, the City Council endosed the draft Principles with a couple of small clarifications.

This latest version of the document can be found here .

Posted by the Webmaster at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments(0)