votewojcik.org

I look forward to being able to make radical decisions on Broadway that MN-DOT would not allow.  Putting an “M” up on a skyway, for example…  I think as we reclaim our roadway we should shut it down to cars for a day and hold a celebration.  This is a key step towards making the East side of Broadway prosper.

Details on getting Broadway back are below.  This is not final.  I would not that this delays payments to Rochester more that I had expected.   I expect that this will happen in 3Q 2013

I am excited to share that today the bill to provide funding for our TH 63 release to the City and County per Agreements 00522 and 00523 will be passed and is expected to be signed into law by the Governor soon.  MnDOT is processing documents to accomplish the permanent release of TH 63 to you before the month ends, and after MSAS and CSAH designations occur, turnback payments can follow.

It is our intention make payment of $3,000,000 to the City of Rochester and $10,000,000 to Olmsted County in July of this year.  It is also our intention to make payments for years 2014 ($13,000,000 to the City and $10,000,000 to the County) and 2015 ($10,000,000 to the City).  If for any unforeseen reason funding becomes unavailable or delayed, I assure you that MnDOT will work to amend our agreements in order to resolve issues to our mutual satisfaction.

I am as supportive of this as one can be.

Edit: wasn’t the best cut and paste, tried to fix

FROM:                 Phil Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director

Mitzi A. Baker, AICP, Assistant Planning Director

RE:                        Rochester Planning & Policy Initiative:  Funding the Urban New Normal (F.U.N.N.)

Over the past year, our staff has addressed the needs, inputs, and process for a review of local policies that impact land use and transportation patterns. As mentioned in staff presentations at separate meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments in January, the demographic and fiscal changes affecting our community necessitate a new approach to development and redevelopment. Assessing our policies and their impact on the future of Rochester is an essential step in updating, or developing, local land use and transportation plans and policies.  Expected growth provides great opportunity, but unless we plan – and plan to succeed –the City could fail to capture the best of the opportunities that lie ahead and could jeopardize the long term financial sustainability of the City. Read the rest of this entry »

Here is a great note I recieved explaining the history and reasons for passing Core Neighborhood Zoning.  I am glad that it passed, but 4-2 was disappointing.  I remain disappointed in some of the statements associating density with crime coming from the Eastside Neighborhood.

I will be unable to attend tonight’s meeting because of family obligations, so I thought I would send out an e-mail with my thoughts. Sean and/or Kellie from IK will be in attendance and will probably speak to this issue.

I ask that you support this tonight. It’s the first and an important step toward making a real change in our neighborhood.

The reason Imagine Kutzky was started back in 2004 was because of all the development pressure we were experiencing. Because the zoning code was created to address primarily cornfield and auto dependent development, it doesn’t fit with the urban style of development in the city’s core that was built pre- WW II. Then and still now, every new development requires an Incentive or Restricted Development, multiple variances and design modifications….because they are following these “rules” (zoning). The neighborhoods want walkability, good urban design, quality materials, landscaping, etc and the rules don’t mention that. So developers get mixed messages – the city rules say this and the neighborhoods say something different. It’s a frustrating process for everyone.

So that’s why we started Imagine Kutzky – To create a new set of rules that everyone can live with and make the process more predictable and efficient.

In 2006 we amended the Land Use Plan which is necessary if you are going to revise the zoning.

In 2005 we created Urban Design Guidelines, but since the city was not interested in a design review process/board, that idea was abandoned.

In 2007, we developed a comprehensive Form Based Zoning Ordinance – that means regulating what things actually look like – where the building go on the lot, where the parking goes, where the doors and windows should be, etc. It was full of pictures, graphics, plans and is meant to be easy to understand. Our goal was to make an ordinance that is simple to read, comprehensive (signage, lighting, landscaping, parking, etc) that would make development more predictable. It was not perfect. From 2007-2010, we met over 40 times with the planning staff to discuss and amend the specific language.

In late 2007 – 2008, we decided to move forward with the 2nd st. corridor study. This study re-enforced many of the Imagine Kutzky principles, and is also now a part of the city’s comprehensive plan.

In 2011 we (city planning staff and IK) decided to move forward with the “low hanging fruit”, which is the low density, single family areas – the CN-NR – which is before you tonight. This has been thoroughly vetted with numerous neighborhood meetings and dozens of IK meetings. It’s not perfect, but no ordinance is. We ask that you approve this tonight and support actually mapping it in the very near future (in Kutzky Park)….and then request that the Planning Dept. move forward with both the UR (urban residential) and the MS (main street) zoning ordinances ASAP. These are the edges and where the real development is occurring.

I’ve attached just a couple of pages from a Form Based Code, so that you can start to understand what that means. Imagine Kutzky, the 2nd st. Corridor Study and the Downtown Master Plan all call for Form Based Codes to be developed.

Thank you for your support.

I actually get this question quite a bit.  Basically there is a population that opposes smart growth, land use planning, neighborhood planning, and this concept has been a rallying cry.

Here is a good look at the controversy: Agenda 21

As always I like to be very clear about where I stand on the issues:

• I support social justice.
• I support smart growth.
• I support green space.
• I support energy / water / resource  conservation.
• I support safe walking, biking, and transit routes.
• I support transit oriented development.
• I support walkable communities.
• I support quality construction.
• I support quality affordable housing.
• I oppose sprawl.
• I oppose low quality construction.
• I oppose automobile only development.
• I oppose concentrations of poverty.

I always like to ask a simple question.  Which is smarter a mile of infrastructure that serves 5 homes or 50?  Which is more likely to raise you taxes?

Congrats Wayne Flock and team!

1) Uptown moves on
2) Forcing a homeowner to take financial responsibility
3) Slatterly Park Vision Plan passes

Wild conspiracy theories aside, I am a champion for smart growth.  The fact that we are approaching the geographic size of Minneapolis with less that 1/3 of the population speaks of our poor development patterns.  Our suburban sprawl hurts those in need of affordable housing, ties us to automobiles, and will cost us a fortune in future infrastructure maintenance.  In short, sprawl is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst.

EPA: Economic Success with Smart Growth

Fortunately we are changing.  There is greater interest in downtown living, transit oriented living, and walkable neighborhoods.  I have led a charge for years to get the city council to stop subsidizing sprawl.  Just like a smart investor wants to maximize the return on investment, a smart city leader wants to maximize the return on infrastructure.

Here is a great video showing how a good transit system helps to build a community.

Here is a great article from Streets MN on why the 4 to 3 road diet makes sense.  While this is controversial, it is clearly good policy for those willing to study the facts.  We recently did this on 19th Street NW, and will do it on part of 2nd street SW this year.  The city council voted 4-3 to override staff and not do it on 16th street which was at best a dumb decision.

Elton Hills Drive, 16th Street South, 4th St. SE, and 3rd Ave SE are perfect examples of places where we should do this if we can muster the political backbone.

For any 4-lane street under about 20,000 cars per day, cities should re-stripe the street to have one traffic lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and improved pedestrian and bicycling space. The costs of doing this are minimal, but the benefits for cities and the people who live in them are immense.

Read the rest of this entry »

Many were surprised to learn that I supported adding a billboard along West Circle Drive.  I think that is in part because media coverage has focused on adding a sign along West Circle Drive and not what we are getting in return.

I didn’t support the intitial language, but offered an amendment which passed 6-0, the final vote was then 5-1 approving the sign.

As always let me know if I am crazy…

In my amendment:

• We permanently remove a large number of signs in more urban, pedestrian areas.
• We use best practices for dark sky lighting or similar, taken from other communities.
• Signs can only be put in if 250% of the sign size is removed elsewhere.
• We only allow signs on West Circle Drive between 19th and Highway 14.
• Sign spacing is such that this only allows for 1 sign.

Here is a great article with picture that explanis how the build environment affects walk-ability and desirability.

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/steve-mouzon/18645/walk-appeal

Walk Appeal promises to be a major new tool for understanding and building walkable places, and it explains several things that were heretofore either contradictory or mysterious. It begins with the assertion that the quarter-mile radius (or 5-minute walk,) which has been held up for a century as the distance Americans will walk before driving, is actually a myth.

When people walk more, property values and economic activity go up while obesity and healthcare costs go down.