Northfield neighbors from 1^st to 7^th & Washington to Prairie Streets :

Join your neighbors and friends for the

The Annual All-Neighborhood Meeting of the East Side Neighborhood Association

Next Sunday, March 14, 2010, 2 to 4 PM, at First United Church of Christ, Sanctuary, 300 Union Street

This meeting will provide an opportunity to hear updates on important neighborhood issues, and to join in small group discussions with neighbors about issues of interest to you!

Social Reception to follow, 4 to 5 PM, Church Social Hall

On behalf of the NESNA Board,   Michael Harper  (President), Lisa Ash, Ed Lufkin (Publicity)

IMPORTANT NOTE:  Carleton strongly encourages you to share their views by coming to this meeting, and by responding to the questions posted on the Arts Union Project  web site http://carletonneighbors.pbwiki.com/ (also available at www.northfieldeastside.org).

No project in the foreseeable future will have as great an impact on our residential neighborhood as the proposed Arts Union. Please take the time to share your views with the project planners.

Child care will be provided on-site.

We look forward to seeing you on Sunday, March 14!  Thank you.

To contribute refreshments for the reception, contact Grace Clark, 645-6330

The NESNA Board

A Quick Primer Regarding Skateparks and Memorial Park
1. History. The City has been working to determine a location for a possible skatepark,
responding to a request made in 2006 by the Skatepark Coalition (associated with The Key).
After the Park Board failed to recommend a site that was acceptable to the Council, the Council
relieved the Park Board of this responsibility. After discussions within the Council (at work
sessions and formal meetings), the Council has reduced possible locations to three candidate
parks sites, of which Memorial Park and Babcock Park are generally considered the most likely
contenders, and with Memorial Park strongly favored by some members of the Skateboard
Coalition and apparently favored by some members of the Council.  
So far the Council has not announced what additional opportunities for public input, if any, will
be provided. There is also no clear timetable for deciding on a location. It would appear that the
best chance citizens have to make their opinions known is by a) writing Council members, b)
speaking with Council members, c) attending Council meetings dealing with these issues, and d)
speaking at Council meetings.
2. Concerns & Objections. Many residents in the Memorial Park neighborhood have
expressed concerns or opposition to the siting of a park in Memorial Park, usually evoking the
following reasons:
• Loss of green space. A master plan (concept plan) for Memorial Park was devised in
2006, at the time the new swimming pool was constructed. While a master plan is no
guarantee of future development, the consultant hired by the City at that time was
categorical, indicating that no additional amenities (after the pool) should be added to this
park; any more would leave the park with too little green space. (This recommendation
was recorded in the City Council’s minutes.)
• Noise and disturbance. While there are surprisingly few guidelines available for the
construction of skateparks, there is some consensus that residential areas are not
suitable locations:
o A pamphelet by the State of Pennsylvania
(http://carrollcitizens.com/files/SkatePark.pdf) recommends a setback from
residential property of at least 150 yards (which is impossible in the dimensions
of Memorial Park).
o Certain pro-skating websites concur: On the site
http://www.skateparkdesign.com/general.html they recommend that skateparks
be constructed “Away from residential areas —The noise of skateboarding isn’t
compatible with a residential development” (italics added).
o Even the director of Skateboard Development at Spohn Ranch Skateparks (the
outfit that may provide the Northfield park) has suggested a 50-yard setback
from residential property — which is very tight for Memorial Park. A greater
setback could be necessary depending on materials. (Souce: e-mail exchange.)
• Lack of information. The City will not yet provide indications of size, materials,
design, or even the probable location for a skatepark within the candidate parks for the
skatepark. All experts agree that design, materials and location have a large impact on
the “sound footprint” of a park, and it is hard to imagine determining a location before
having this information.
• Past Practice. For the sake of comparison, neighbors of Memorial Park have tried to
find existing skateparks elsewhere in the metro area that are nestled in residential areas.
If assertions that such a location is appropriate are right, such comparable sites should
exist. We have found none, and our request to the Skateboard Coalition to point us to
any such sites has not been responded to.
3. The City’s Guidelines. The City does have some guidelines that would seem to make
Memorial Park a curious choice for a skatepark. These guidelines are found in the Northfield
Parks, Open Spaces, and Trail System Plan (NPOSTSP), presented by the Northfield Planning
Commission and formally adopted by the Northfield City Council.
The NPOSTSP specifically defines a Community Park thus:
Community parks serve a broader purpose than neighborhood parks. Focus is on
meeting community-based recreational needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes,
and open spaces. Size varies, depending on function. 20 acres minimum preferred,
with 40 or more acres optimal. Service area can be community-wide or several
neighborhoods in a given area of the city. (NPOSTSP, 3.2)
The above description would make Memorial Park a curious candidate for a community park (it
is only a little over 10 acres — the preferred size the NPOSTSP cites for neighborhood parks).
Indeed, on p. 3.9 of the NPOSTSP, it is not included in the main list of community parks. Later,
on page 3.10, it is added with special status — as a mix of community park and neighborhood
park:
In addition to the downtown parks, the successful development of the outdoor pool at
Memorial Park establishes it as a community park, although it also functions as a
neighborhood park for the surrounding neighborhood. (NPOSTSP, 3.9)
Appendix A (A.37) of the NPOSTSP provides information on the kinds of locations where a skate
park would be appropriate. ”Community Park” locations are given two diamonds for this, which
is defined as “Appropriate on a limited basis (desirable only if need is documented and/or if a
more desirable location is not available).” Of course, as we see above, Memorial Park is not even
fully a community park (in part because it is too small, in part because it needs to also serve as a
neighborhood park). As a comparison, it may be useful to see what other kinds of activities are
more desirable (three stars) than a skatepark in a Community Park according to this chart —
such as an “archery range” (NPOSTSP, A.37)!
The same appendix indicates the most appropriate locations (three diamonds) for a skate park
are “Youth Athletic Complex” or “Special Use” areas. On the NPOSTSP map, Babcock and
Sechlar are referred to as athletic complexes.
On page 3.10 of the NPOSTSP, the description of Babcock Park states that “this park is underutilized.”
Note that Babcock Park (North and South together) measure some 58 acres — over
five times the size of Memorial.
Provided by:
Scott Carpenter
602 Prairie St.
Northfield, MN 55057
scarpent@carleton.edu

www.pressville.org.

Again, our appreciation to Suzie for this information.       Ed

Here is a photo to show the considerable progress made since then.    The biologs are in place, creating a wall about four feet high at the new perimeters of the islands, and the littoral zone has been filled in with large amounts of mixed compost, sand and soil, and tamped down.    Also the new prairie plantings have been placed.

Meanwhile, new visitors have appeared on the shores in these recent weeks of reclamation:   little green herons (Butorides virescens) have taken advantage of the new shallow zones to feed on minnows.        Ed

Some features of these buildings:   Cassat Hall contains 52,160 square feet, stands four stories, and will house 138 students in all class years.   There are 56 double occupancy and 26 single occupancy rooms.

Memorial Hall:           39,376                                   four stories                              92   juniors and seniors.     21 suites:  8 with 5 students, 13 with four.

The history behind these buildings is extensive, and a good place to find this history, in text and illustrations, is at http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/facilities/ where most of Carleton’s buildings are described;     and at http://www.acad.carleton.edu/campus/archives/history/index.html.    This history began with the founding of Northfield College in 1866, and the campus wasn’t much to look at.   At least 10 years ago a need was seen for new student dormitories, and in fact an accreditation committee, including Robert Oden, then-president of Kenyon college, made that recomendation .   Today’s buildings are predicted to earn a LEED gold rating by complying with the US Green Building council’s standards in sustainable design, construction, and  operation.    At least 20 features of these buildings are considered to be improvements in green technology;    here are some of the most important features:

• Water conservation:   The halls are designed to reduce water consumption by at least 30%.   Restrooms have automatic dual-flush toilets and 1.6 gpm showerheads.
• Efficient Lights and Controls:  energy efficiency limits the harmful environmental side effects of energy generation, distribution, and consumption.
• Efficient Appliances:  Energy Star-labeled appliances are certified by the US Department of Energy to use less energy and water than standard odels.
• In-floor Heating:  Building heat is provided through an energy efficient in-floor radiant sysstem that allows residents to feel warmer at a lower temperature setting.
• Ceiling Fans:  In lieu of an energy-intensive air conditioning system, each room is provided with a ceiling fan on an occupancy sensor.   Since the building manager will be on duty in the summer, the manager’s office is air conditioned.

• Energy Monitors:  The halls are designed to use 28% less energy than typical construction.  Actual energy use is dependent on resident behavior, and computer monitoring of energy use, with touch screens, will allow dorm residents to compare energy use on a floor-by-floor basis——which is guaranteed to encourage competition as an incentive in energy conservation! Shown here is an architect, Maureen Ness, at one of these monitor screens.
• LOw-VOC  (Volatile Organic Compounds) Products:  All paints, primer, adhesives, sealants,and finishes used in these dorms meet the low-VOC requirement of the LEED rating system.
• PVC-Free Flooring:  PVC  (polyvinyl chloride) plastic, commonly referred to as vinyl, can be hazardous to human health;  therefore flooring in student rooms and game rooms is of PVC-free resilient tile.
• Ventilation Systems:  Superior indoor air quality is required the the comfort and well-being of residents.   Deviations from superior air quality will trigger an alarm in the building automation system.
• Solar roof panels:   Cassat Hall has solar roof panels for heating water, which can save at least 30% of the amount of gas or electric heating required in its absence.   Memorial Hall has solar roof panels with photovoltaic cells, which generate electricity and reduce the use of this external supplies of this important source of energy.

The construction of these buildings was great fun to watch, and you can do this all over again. thanks to these time-lapse videos.    Click here to open them.    http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/facilities/residence_halls/webcams/timelapse/

For a short story of the extraordinary generosity of George and Pat Cassat, go here:    http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/development/givingstories/?story_id=61483 Not only have these donors enabled the construction of these two buildings, but they have also made possible the renovation of Nourse Hall, the dormitory closest to these new ones in both style and distance.

And finally, to see a short slideshow of the Open House, go here:   Click on  photo to bring up slideshow;    mouse over each photo to view its caption.      Ed

New Dorms

Any owner of midwestern lake property is only too familiar with the effects of wind, ice, wave action, and other insults upon lake properties.     Lyman Lakes, a jewel in the Carleton campus, is no exception.     Despite a major rehab project in 1999-2000, shown in this poster now standing at the site,  (click to enlarge)———–

erosion of the banks of the two islands continued.    The intent and the technologies were not to blame;    they were the best known at the time.     The problem seems to have been that after biologs were put in place and reseeding was done,     ———–  the reseeding was done in turf grass, whose roots go only two inches deep or so.     And so it was not a great surprise,  as time went on, that bank erosion continued at  the rate of about one foot per year. Consequently the two islands have lost 16-20 feet in diameter over the years since the year 2000.

If you’ve been near the Lyman Lakes this past week, you’ve noticed that the lakes have been drained and that restoration of the eroded shorelines is in progress.  The main contractors involved are from Inver Grove Heights, and I was impressed with their technology and understanding of what’s at stake.     The process, as I understand it,  is to  1)  drain the two lakes down to a level which permits the restoration to proceed.       This is done,  and reveals a remarkable number of large fish and shore birds we don’t usually see when the lakes are full.    It also reveals some astonishing garbage,  as shown here.2)   Create new biologs around the perimeter of the islands.      These are synthesized from polymer tubes, about one foot in diameter, into which a mixture of compost and sand are blown by large trucks which you see here.

3)  Just one row of these biologs around the islands would be puny.       So several courses of biologs are being planned, to create a new wall at least four feet high, to hold the soil and plantings which will go into the desolated, slanting perimeter of the islands.

4)  What will these plantings be?    Well, certainly not the turf grass again.    Instead, prairie flora, similar to that seen in many other areas of the campus and arboretum, will be used;     their roots often go down several feet, and it’s hoped this will offer a great deal more stability to the landscape than the previous plan.       It certainly sounds good to me;    how about you?        Ed

NOTICE OF CITY PUBLIC MEETING THIS WEEK

– IMPORTANT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS

What:  The City of Northfield is holding a public meeting to obtain input on the zoning

regulations currently being drafted.

After a short presentation by city staff, you will have a chance to ask questions

and provide input.  This is your chance to ask, “Does the draft code cover …?” ,

“What in the draft code will protect our neighborhood from …?”, “I’d like the

regulations to cover . . .”

When: Next Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Time:            7:00 p.m.

Where: Northfield Armory

Why:  The draft of the zoning regulations is being reviewed by several city

commissions/committees.  A broader input from the general public is needed.

There will be a public hearing after the regulations are drafted, but this is the time to make a difference!

We need your voice.   Many of our neighbors are on vacation – this makes your attendance particularly critical.

***************************************************************

Note: If interested, but not necessary for the meeting, you can check the regulations which are located on the web at either

http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/government/boards/planningcommissionzba

click on

Planning Commission Meeting of 5/26/09, Packet Addendum.

or

http://northfieldldc.posterous.com/

click on

LDC-5-26-09-with-indexTRACKED.pdf (3733 KB)

This is Tracy Davis’ site that also contains some good information about city planning.

Alice Thomas

418 College St.

From: Steven K. Spehn [mailto:sspehn@carleton.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:09 PM
To: Joe A. Hargis, II
Cc: frogers@carleton.edu; Harper, Michael H.
Subject: Re: What’s Going On at the Middle School

Mike, Joe and others,

Carleton College is re-roofing the 1910 building at the former middle school.  The roof is in poor condition and is leaking.  We need to perform this work to protect the structure and this wonderful building.

The entire building will have scaffolding placed around it.  This work started yesterday.  They will be starting the tear off of the existing roof tomorrow (8/12).  A dumpster will be placed on the south east corner of the site.  The contractor will use a chute to remove materials from the roof and to place into the dumpster.  This will minimize the amount of dust at the site.  The dumpster will have a tarp placed over it each night to prevent materials from blowing out.  A crane will visit the site for a few days early in the project to place materials on top of the scaffolding.  Gutters are being replaced as part of this project as well.  Work is scheduled to be complete prior to Defeat of Jesse James Days.

The contractor is Berwald Roofing out of St. Paul.  They expect to have 5-8 people on site performing the work.  They have been instructed to park at the middle school lot on the east side of the site adjacent to Central Park.

We are also in the process of scheduling a limited amount masonry repairs that we believe are becoming critical to prevent additional decay to the building.  Most of this work is located at the northwest corner of the site associated with the 1934 Auditorium entrance.  McGough is the contractor who will be performing this work and we will let others know of this schedule once it has been developed.

If there are any other questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

Steven Spehn
Director of Facilities
Carleton College
507.222.4271
507.222.5464 fax
sspehn@carleton.edu