1997 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ee e. 3 February 1997 Jane Harper, Physical Development Planner Office of Administration, Washington County Government Center 14900 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 Dear Jane: As promised I have enclosed with this letter my suggestions for revisions to the draft of the Open Space Design Development Ordinance Provisions (OSD) currently under review. I have organized my recommendations in two parts: (1) a two-page listing of recommended changes keyed to the current OSD draft section numbers and (2) an eight page explanation of the rationale for the changes and an in-depth criticism of the provisions for which I have suggested changes. I hope this is helpful. As you know, development standards has been a focus of my research for many years. Last fall I took the draft OSD provisions into my graduate level studio on land development in our professional degree program. 17 graduate students took the provisions for what I like to call 'test drives' on an 80 acre site in New Scandia Township over a ten week quarter from September to December 1996. The students created about 20 site designs for subdivisions using the OSD provisions. Each design involved making a full site plan at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet, plus a full grading plan. The designs covered the full range of density options in the ordinance. Teaching with me in the studio was Greg Kopischke, a practicing landscape architect who specializes in residential subdivision design. Together we represent about 50 years of experience with residential subdivision design. We also had the benefit of assistance from 13 practicing planners and landscape architects (all specialists in subdivision design) who made guest visits to review student work. The recommendations and commentary I have provided represents a cross- section of the thinking of all these people, plus considerable research on my part with regard to the issues involved. I hope you will find them helpful. Please don't be discouraged by the length of the discussion under many of the points I discussed. It is not an indication of the magnitude of criticism, but rather the magnitude of my interest and how much I care about the important work this ordinance is attempting to do. I want to compliment you and everyone who has contributed to the draft OSD provisions. The ordinance is a really refreshing, modem approach to controlling subdivision design. With this ordinance, Washington County is leading the way to the future of residential development control in the Metropolitan Twin Cities. It has many outstanding features that give designers latitude to do the things they are capable of doing with subdivisions today. Further, I think it is exactly the right move for Washington County to make in order to help towns preserve the rural character they so prize. It shifts the focus from an historical preoccupation with density, to the nature of the design and how well it fits into the existing landscape. Again, I hope this helps. Best regards, Robert D. Sykes ASLA Associate Professor cc: Commissioners; Mary McGlothlin, Director, Health, Environment and Land Management; Brian McGinnis, Planning Advisory Commission Chair; Jim Schug, County Administrator.