Version 06-26-05 Master Planning Process – Regent Neighborhood George Hall & Greg Miller – NPST

-DRAFT 6-26-05-

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GOALS FROM THE WISCONSIN LAND COUNCIL

Under Section 66.1001, Wisconsin Statutes, Wisconsin municipalities and counties intending to engage in land use planning and regulation after the year 2010 are encouraged to adopt a comprehensive plan by that date. Those municipalities and counties receiving grant funding from the state for comprehensive plan preparation are asked to consider and illustrate how their comprehensive plans address the following 14 goals adopted by the Wisconsin Land Council.

As the City of Madison completes its comprehensive plan this fall, the Plan Commission, Common Council and city staff are considering how the city’s comprehensive plan can best address these goals.

Briefly the 14 goals for municipal comprehensive plans are:

1. Promote redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure.

2. Encourage neighborhood designs that promote transportation choice.

3. Protect natural areas, etc.

4. Protect economically productive farms and forests.

5. Encourage land uses that promote efficient development patterns.

6. Preserve cultural, historic, archaeological sites.

7. Encourage coordination and cooperation with neighboring units of government.

8. Build community identity through reinforcing main streets and implementing design standards.

9. Provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for all income ranges.

10 Provide adequate infrastructure, public services, and developable land to meet existing and future market demand.

11. Promote expansion/stabilization of economic base.

12. Balance individual property rights.

13. Plan and develop land uses that result in creation/preservation of unique and varied urban and rural communities.

14. Provide integrated and efficient transportation systems that meets the needs of all citizens including disabled and transit-dependent.

How might these goals apply to the Regent Neighborhood Plan

(1) These are general goals that can guide our thinking about how we contribute to their satisfaction insofar as the neighborhood plan is one of the building blocks for the city's comprehensive plan.

(2) These goals admittedly apply to jurisdictions with home rule powers. Nevertheless at the neighborhood and parcel scale they suggest a potential range of options and outcomes to consider as participants and other stakeholders collectively develop a vision for the neighborhood.

(3) In our Regent Neighborhood Plan, we could consider using and expanding upon these goals in various ways as plan participants and stakeholders identify and explore pertinent issues, such as recreational opportunity, and community stability, and by identifying issues relating to social equity; land use variety; efficient development patterns & densities (locations & uses); architectural & design specific criteria; the character and enhancement of the “public realm” (streetscapes, parks, and other open spaces); livability, pedestrian orientation and scale; neighborhood infrastructure deficiencies; preservation & rehabilitation; neighborhood cohesion; traffic flow (bicycle & auto); consideration of external influences and conditions at our neighborhood boundary; development of buffer and transition zones; etc.