The Tuesday Common Council agenda is not long, but there are two items on it that are fascinating in light of the recent flooding of the city.
The first is the proposal to amend the developer agreement terms for the Akcess waterfront project. Essentially, Akcess now wants until 2012 to meet their "valuation thresholds" and until 2014 to complete all project activities. What's fascinating is the sheer amount of parking space that would exist in the development area should the Akcess proposal become a reality. Check it out here.
Parking lots represent one of the major "impervious surfaces" that contribute to urban flooding. To pass such developments without addressing the serious potential consequences of water runoff from them is, at this point, at best misguided and at worst legislative negligence.
The second item is a proposal to eliminate all parking on Ohio St. from the Fox River to South Park Ave. The new Wisconsin St. bridge will have 4 lanes of traffic, and planners apparently believe that as traffic from the bridge empties on to Ohio St., it would be "safer" for that street to itself be 4 lanes. (Anyone ever seen a "safe" 4 lane highway running through a mixed-use neighborhood?).
There are small businesses on Ohio St. that have benefited from the on-street parking. The message to them, and really to most businesses outside of some sections of downtown, is that they need to be prepared to provide parking for their customers. As a practical matter, this means creating the biggest parking lot possible. I understand that most cities have had policies in place for years to discourage on-street parking and encourage parking lots, but now such policies (at least in Oshkosh) ought to be seen as "pre-flood thinking."
After the floods (and in the now permanent era of high gas prices), we ought to be planning for fewer and smaller parking lots (i.e. less impervious surfaces), slower traffic, expanded mass transit service, and greatly expanded bike lanes and street walkability.
My guess is that the Akcess extension and the elimination of the parking on Ohio will pass the council (with at least 4 and maybe 5 or 6 votes for each), which will only prove that the beat goes on no matter how high the flood waters.
5 comments:
The questions I have are in regard to infrastructure and DNR shoreline requirements.
Is there sufficient storm sewer infrastructure in place to accomodate the additional parking run-off and prevent over flow into the waterway?
What is the minimum setback required by the DNR on shorleine development?
What types of buffers are required?
Have placed several calls in to the DNR regarding shoreline setbacks. Am still awaiting them to return calls.
some ref. info regarding setbacks:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/dsfm/shore/documents/watersedge.pdf
"Several state and county laws and rules
protect shoreland and shallow water areas.
For example, statewide, it is illegal to build
most structures within 75 feet of the shore,
or to place fill on lake beds. Shoreland
Management is a partnership between state
and local government. Each county has its
own shoreland zoning ordinance that
regulates development near navigable lakes
and streams, in compliance with statewide
minimum standards. Additionally, many of
the counties’ ordinances are more
protective than the minimum state
standards, so check with your local county
zoning office before cutting or removing
shoreland vegetation. To learn which
shoreline alterations are prohibited or
require a permit, call your local DNR or
County Zoning Office."
I don't know if or how it would apply to the current development proposal, but it might be interesting to ask what the shoreline setback for the development is.
CJ,
I believe all questions about setbacks and storm sewers were answered in the affirmative quite a while ago, both at the Plan Commission and Council meetings. I don't think affirmative responses are too reassuring, however, given that the DNR requirements in this area are quite weak. 75 foot setbacks are sufficient? Heck, it's 90 feet from home plate to first base!
Thanks for trying to get information.
Spoke with Kristy Rodgers, Aquatic Habitat Specialist at the DNR this morning. When discussing minimum setbacks, she informed me that the city sets the miminum setback and buffer standards for the development and must follow the Wisconsin City and Village Protection Program guidlines. She also stated that the DNR has been working closely with the city regarding site grading, piers and dredging, all which require permits.
You may have to contact city staff to secure the city's minimum setback standards.
I haven't had a chance to read through them but I do have pdf. links that she graciously forwarded to me. There are listed below.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr117.pdf
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr216.pdf
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr151.pdf
I thought I'd share the information with anyone who's interested.
--------------
The only suggestion I have at this point (since I've not read the links yet) is to berm the green strip to divert water away from the shoreline and add additional plant materials along with the grass and tree planting to inhibit run-off. Simple steps like that can greatly improve site protection.
I thought shoreline setbacks were there to protect from erosion from rooftop runoff. With the already established buttress along the shoreline, are setbacks a necessary part of the equation?
Post a Comment