http://nddc.org/weblog/post/804/

- Ross

My biggest concern with all the committee decisions and permit processes and applications of hundreds of rules is that they totally ignore the basic common sense of individuals. When someone is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, or possibly millions, on a facility, they most likely have a pretty good idea of how they want things to look. To tell someone that they have to change a tree or plant variety, change a paint color, or increase a private sidewalk width seems very arrogant to me. People will install landscaping to make their buildings presentable. They will ask for it to be painted a color they like. Those same people will own and operate the facility and they most likely know what their customers will expect for amenities.

I will never forget one evening several years ago I had to attend the DAB committee. Keith Covey was the Facilities Director at Carleton and was there presenting to the board for a building. He had window cladding selections, brick samples, mortar samples, roofing materials, etc. The DAB started picking on things. For quite a bit they focused on the brick color, wanting to change it from the one being presented. I could not believe that a city committee was actually proposing major changes to a private building, after architectural professionals had made the selections for the owner.

I don’t necessarily care for every bit of architecture I see in the world. The University of Minnesota has a ‘tin can’ art building, Seattle has a library formed completely with steel and glass diamond shapes, etc. But I want people to feel free to express designs of all kinds. I don’t care to have a committee in charge of so many of these subjective decisions.

I think the town could use a bit more belief in individuals and allow them to create buildings without overbearing committee involvement. We really can get by in many of these areas without having government ‘assistance’ to plan our projects. Is this an essential role of government?

The next issue was trees. Yes, I had 20-50 trees in the back of the lot but they didn’t count. I had street frontage and a cul-de-sac on the side (corner lot) and “the guidelines say I should plant 32 trees”. Ray did his best to convince them that while I may have plenty of frontage I did not have adequate space for even 15 trees. I remember Ray stating, “In 5 years she will have a severe tree problem if she must plant 15 trees.” After much discussion the “3 decision makers” allowed me to plant 12 trees. Later, when I wanted to put evergreens around the building I was told I needed to go back to the DAB for approval as “The plan listed deciduous shrubs”. I refused and planted evergreens. Honest-to-God building in Northfield was one of the worst experiences I’ve had. It was arbitrary…capricious…and ridiculous. I will NEVER build here again.

Again, re. commercial property taxes. When I built the CT building I was told commercial taxes would be “around $3,000 per year”. Dream on. They currently are $16,000. My assessed value increased $85,000 for 2007. UP Up Up! (It will be interesting to see if taxes DECREASE now that property values are falling.) Look at all the empty storefronts and empty buildings in Northfield. Small businesses are hanging by a thread & I don’t believe anyone really cares as NO ONE will take on the “elephant in the living room” which drives all of this. I believe the heroin issues, secrecy at city hall, blaming a police chief for stating a legitimate problem, secretly advocating for a municipal liquor store, should I go on??? There is too much secrecy about who or what really drives Northfield. And, it is killing small business.
Just watch us go.

What the Chamber has chosen to do is to work on initiatives - Highway 19, business park, and state issues (taxes, health insurance costs, infrastructure etc.). By focusing on individual business concerns, and the value to the overall community, we are hoping to change people’s minds one issue at a time.

But, I like your suggestion that we should try to get some concrete benchmarks to evaluate how the business community in Northfield compares to other communities, and if we are making progress.

We have one measure from the Retail Strategies Task Force - 49%. Northfield’s retail sales are 49% of what could be expected for a town our size.

I not only believe that Northfield has a reputation as anti-business, I also think that the reputation has been earned. One of my goals as Chamber President is to educate the public about the communal value of a healthy and vibrant business sector. One only has to look to Dundas to see the great disparity in attitude which exists in the Chamber’s service district.

The prime reason I supported the reorganization of the DAB (Design Advisory Board) several years ago was because that board, while sincere and knowledgeable, also had no accountability, stipulated standards nor any basis in the code for any of their demands to developers.

I agree that accountability (along with transparency & predictability) is crucial for all city decision-makers from staff to the council and now, when the land use regulations are being revised, is prime time for building as much accountability into the code as possible as well as removing barriers which may already exist.

By what rule and measure is an appeals/review process to judge the decisions made?
That is, how would the appeal process make the decision-makers more accountable?

If I’ve got this right, and I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong, then the business community could lobby to change the ordinance and reduce the burden of the regulations and reduce the slant of the playing field for DT business owners.

As well, as Bruce Morlan is doing in Dundas, I repeatedly advocated for a thoughtful review of the procedural requirements and fees to make a development checklist as short and clear as possible and that fees and regulations don’t penalize businesses. This should, obviously, take place with the input of business people who have experience with the city development process and can describe what works and what doesn’t.

Assuming that there had been a pot of gold for Norman from which he could have installed new windows in accordance with the HPC’s regulatory order, installation of HPC windows may have been an ill-conceived idea. If installation of the windows was a bad business decision for Norman, then having someone else pay for it doesn’t make it a better decision; it only makes it more fair.

What I have been unable to detect in my limited dealings with the HPC and other preservationist efforts is any discernable objective standard to judge the merit of a preservationist proposal, or to judge the merit of one proposal against another. In other words, we can’t do everything. So, how do we prioritize projects like Norman’s window project?

Mary Rossing put her finger on the heart of this issue, there is a significant economic challenge to historic preservation. Kiffi Summa put her finger on the soul of this issue, talk is cheap, financial incentive programs are what is needed.

For the last two years , the city council, at their retreats, have named the Downtown as one of their most urgent priorities to support….. But when it comes to action, or dollars, to support that worthy goal, I don’t see a strong , consistent policy effort.

For instance, the Downtown Revolving Loan Fund exists to support DT businesses with lower interest loans, but it is constantly looked to as a source of funds for other causes. The EDA, which doesn’t always seem to heed the advice of their own (was it $90,000.00 ? ) TIP Strategies study, when it cites the DT as an economic development strength……… looks to the DRLF $$ as a source of funding for a $50,000. forgiveable loan for a newly recruited business coming to town. I agree we need to work hard to recruit appropriate new business, and find incentives for their encouragement.
BUT…….Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought those DRLF $ were for the existing businesses in the DT, which admittedly operate under the most layers of restrictions of any commercial area, as they are also subject to the overlay of the HPC/Historic District; carrying with that both the pride and the problems that Norman and Mary have mentioned.

What’s the true, operative policy here?

Norm implies that the standards are subjective to the point of arbitrary, and the standards are being used in a regulatory, rather than a facilitative, manner. He says that this attitude makes it even more difficult to be downtown then out on the strip.

Perhaps this is an issue that the NDDC should address.

I visited one new mixed-use development: NorthWest Crossing, created by two large developers: Brooks Resources and Tennant Developments.

Here is some verbiage from their page on “Sustainability”. Remember, this is written by developers, not professional environmentalists:

At NorthWest Crossing, environmental responsibility is very important to our community. That’s why we employ several practices to ensure sensitivity to Mother Earth.

Every home in NorthWest Crossing is required to be Earth Advantage™ Certified, a program that addresses building issues such as energy efficiency, recycling, building materials, landscaping, water and indoor air quality. Two of NorthWest Crossing’s newest commercial buildings are in the process to be LEED-Certified, a national green building rating system for commercial buildings. For more information on these programs, visit http://www.earthadvantage.com and http://www.usgbc.org.

And because what we put on Mother Earth is just as important as what we don’t take away from her, we give tremendous attention to preserving natural landscape-even if it means locating a road around existing stands of pines-and maintaining the natural beauty of our community.

NorthWest Crossing’s interconnected street, sidewalk and trail system encourages residents to rely less on vehicles thereby reducing hazardous emissions. Commercial areas, schools and parks are located right in the neighborhood to provide easy access for local residents. And on those rare occasions when leaving NorthWest Crossing is a necessity, residents can easily get on the Bend Area Transit bus system. Mother Earth couldn’t be more pleased.

The prices at Northwest Crossing are high by Northfield standards, but the area there is booming. Also, presumably energy costs would be lower there for renters and homeowners due to the building quality; transportation costs would also likely be somewhat lower due to alternative transportation options. (I won’t even get into the health advantages.)

I was told that the Chamber of Commerce there endorses the concept of creating a multi-modal transportation system in which people can get where they want by driving, walking, biking, or taking transit - in short, a full range of choices.

Bend is planning an even more ambitious mixed-use development, Juniper Ridge, which would include a university and research park. It’s had some problems but may be promising.

As for the process, I am working with the Dundas city staff, city council and planning commission to create checklists that will make the process of development, upgrading and downtown development more transparent to all the players. Putting together such checklists at the beginning of the process would help everyone involved know where we are in the process. Eventually I hope to have checklist “on the shelf” to be modified as needed, especially to help businesses who want to work with our downtown development plan (when we get there).

What I would envision in the future is that a Chamber member who is having the kind of difficulty to which you refer could call the Chamber and turn himself or herself from a “naive, under-capitalized enthusiast” into a “savvy, well-heeled professional” for the price of Chamber membership.

Tracy has thrown out two thoughts: look at the existing regulations, and establish a downtown preservation fund. Is there any merit to those ideas? Who would do the work?

You had your own thoughts - but no specifics. How will an attitude change happen?