Norwalk, Iowa

Committee lead

Nancy Kuehl, parks and recreation director, (515) 981-9206

Local government partner

Mark Miller, city administrator/clerk, (515) 981-0228

Trees Forever coordinator

Del Christensen, (515) 993-3422

Landscape architect

Chris Della Vedova and Ann Reinhart, Adamson Clark Landscape Architecture Inc., Des Moines, IA

Initial committee members

Mike Collins, Resha Goodrich, Jeff Halvorson, Richard Keul, Duane Sand, Diane Shivvers, Jerry Starkweather, Dean Yordi

Norwalk, Iowa, participated in the Community Visioning Program in 1997-1998. This report provides an overview of Norwalk’s visioning process and the lessons learned from it. Included are excerpts from Norwalk’s program application, the Visioning Program team’s response to the application, summaries of the community meetings and a progress report. Trees Forever coordinator Del Christensen also provided his observations and recommendations at the end of the process.

Proposal Narrative

Visioning Process

Phase 1: Program Initiation (Meeting One)

Phase 2: Needs Assessment and Goal Setting

• Meeting Two

• Meeting Three

• Meetings Four and Five

Phase 3: Developing a Concept Plan

• Meeting Six

• Meeting Seven

• Meeting Eight

Phase 4: Developing an Implementation Plan

• Meeting Nine

• Meeting Ten

Progress Report

Additional Observations/Recommendations

Proposal Narrative

Norwalk is a growing Des Moines suburb of about 6,800 people. It has changed from a farming community to a bedroom community and is working to become a small city with services and amenities that further enhance its quality of life.

Norwalk already has high-quality schools, churches, community groups, public services and outdoor recreation opportunities. Community volunteers provide fire protection, emergency medical assistance, educational services, youth programs, recreation services and many other activities. The community generally lacks a commercial and industrial base, which leads to tight city and school budgets and greater dependence upon volunteer activity.

Recent and current projects/improvements include:

• Development of a tax increment financing (TIF) district to better attract and manage new commercial and industrial development

• Dedication of a half-mile paved trail extension

• Norwalk received a 40-acre parcel of land for future park and recreation use and has adopted a park-land dedication ordinance to help meet future park, preservation and open-space needs

• Development of landscaping plans for City and Windflower parks

Norwalk believes it can benefit greatly from the Living Roadways Visioning Program as it plans for continued growth. Professional design assistance can help community leaders define reasonable expectations for developers and for government as part of the growing Des Moines metropolitan area. The visioning process will create a dialogue in which shortcomings can be discussed, opportunities identified and consensus reached on ways to beautify the community using available resources.

Areas in which the visioning committee desires assistance include:

• Revitalization and beautification of older commercial areas

• Creation of planning strategies for the north entryway, which is affected by the expansion of the Des Moines International Airport, and the southern beltway of Des Moines; also for the new 40-acre parcel and Lakewood neighborhood

• Landscape planning for intersection of relocated Highway 5 and Highway 28

• Development of uniform signage and landscape enhancements along trail system

Response from the Visioning Program Team

In selecting Norwalk to participate in the Community Visioning Program, the team recognized that the community already had done strategic planning and that this process identified community image, entryways and trail enhancement as important. The rapid growth of the community and the nearby major US Highway 5 project under way also pointed to a need for the Visioning Program at this particular time. The Visioning Program supports those community aspects well. It appeared that the community had identified needs and, given some design direction, would implement community improvements.

Back to Top

Visioning Process

Phase One: Program Initiation

The goal of this planning process is to organize the community participants and to clearly explain the planning process. It is particularly important that community members know how much time is required to produce a quality community vision. The facilitator and the initiating community committee assemble a community participant group that represents key stakeholders and decision makers.

Meeting One

At this introductory meeting, the facilitator introduces the visioning program process and partners involved and holds a discussion to identify problem areas or issues. He or she also addresses why the program is being requested by the community and what outcomes would satisfy the issues or needs expressed.

Date/Time: Oct. 25, 1997, 8 to 10 a.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Mary Andersen, Angie Breeser, Mike Collins, Resha Goodrich, Jeff Halvorson, Richard Keul, Nancy Kuehl, Mark Miller, Duane Sand, Diane Shivvers, Dean Yordi

Meeting goals

1. Introduce the ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) Visioning Program

2. Establish committee's initial motivations for and expectations of the program

3. Explain and begin the visual assessment process

4. Schedule meeting dates through the design charrette

Meeting description

Meeting goals were to introduce the ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) Visioning Program, establish the committee’s initial motivations and expectations, explain and begin the visual assessment process, and schedule meeting dates through the workshop process.

At this first meeting, Del Christensen discovered that survey maps had included only the Old Town portion of Norwalk and not the newer Lakewood Village. The committee would need both groups for the city to be well represented, and this presented one of the biggest challenges at the beginning of the visioning process.

Also at this meeting, Christensen sensed a subtle split in the committee between Lakewood Village residents and the Old Town residents. The two locations are separated by about one-fourth mile of empty space, which seemed to translate into a distance between residents’ perspectives. To counteract this potential obstacle, Christensen had all the committee members participate in a landscape memory exercise, which proved useful in allowing everyone to find common ground by relating similar feelings about landscapes they remembered from their childhoods. This also helped the committee identify important features of Norwalk and childhood landscapes. The exercise showed them how present landscape features can be emphasized or downplayed, depending upon whether they’re visually appealing or not. It was important from the beginning to work toward agreement by everyone on what direction Norwalk wanted to go.

Motivations

• To avoid being a typical “sterile” community
• To meet the visual needs of a growing community
• To preserve the quality of life in the community
• To seize the opportunity for long-range planning
• To seize opportunities for outdoor classrooms (prairie, historic trees)
• To clean up the appearance of certain areas of the community

Christensen then explained the visual quality assessment project in which committee members would take pictures of what they each considered to be positive and negative images or views of the community. He finished the meeting by scheduling subsequent meeting dates through the design charrette. The committee chose to meet every other Monday evening beginning at 5 p.m., with a charrette tentatively scheduled for Saturday, Jan. 10, 1998.

Phase Two: Needs Assessment and Goal Setting

The goal of phase two is to identify areas that should be addressed in the landscape concept plan and to describe performance standards for those areas to meet the community’s needs. This phase uses mapping and focused discussion to identify relevant resources, opportunities and constraints for design. At the conclusion of this phase, the community should have a strong sense of those physical issues facing it and have an idea about what physical changes would address those issues. Through this process, the concerns and motivations expressed in phase one are explored and translated into a statement about physical landscape change. This statement leads into the next phase, developing solutions through planning and design.

Back to Top

Meeting Two

At the second meeting, the facilitator introduces and initiates the needs assessment process. The needs assessments describe three dimensions of landscapes: ecological, cultural and representational. Community members are introduced to the concepts, assigned to working teams and given base materials to complete the assigned tasks.

Date/Time: Nov. 3, 1997, 5 to 7 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Mary Andersen, Angie Breeser, Mike Collins, Resha Goodrich, Richard Keul, Nancy Keuhl, Mark Miller, Duane Sand, Diane Shivvers, Dean Yordi

Meeting goals

1. Compile results of the visual assessment (assigned at the first meeting) onto a map

2. Introduce historic/cultural and bioregional assessment processes

3. Create working teams for the latter two assessment processes

4. Schedule an alternative meeting date for the charrette

Meeting description

The group began with basic introductions. Christensen then gave a brief overview of the evening’s agenda.

Following a review of the committee’s initial program motivations as stated in the first meeting, the group began compiling results of the visual quality survey. Each member briefly discussed their photos and the reasons for each, and they showed each photographed location on a map overlay. A total of 72 photos were taken, 36 showing “good” visual aspects and 36 showing “bad” visual aspects of locations in the community. Christensen touched on how the visual, historical/cultural and bioregional assessment surveys would be analyzed. He gathered the photos to be scanned into the computer for future reference at ISU Landscape Architecture Extension and returned at the next meeting.

Back to Top

Meeting Three

The purpose of the third meeting is to present the results of the community inventory and discuss the results from each team. The discussion should lead to how the discoveries made by each team present opportunities or constraints for landscape change. All documentation should be recorded and made readily available for the visiting landscape architect.

Date/Time: Nov. 17, 1997, 5 to 7 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Mary Andersen, Resha Goodrich, Richard Keul, Nancy Keuhl, Mark Miller, Diane Shivvers, Dean Yordi

Meeting goals

1. Schedule an alternative meeting date for the charrette

2. Compile results of the bioregional and historic/cultural assessments onto map overlays

3. Discuss conclusions and linkages of all three assessments conducted

Meeting description

The committee began the meeting by choosing Jan. 24 and the new charrette date, as Jan. 10 did not work for all parties. Christensen returned to the group the photos from the visual assessment project. He then gave an overview of the evening’s agenda and proceeded into the working portion of the meeting.

Findings

1. features are seen as a multi-beneficial, natural resource for the community.

2. An urban tree inventory noted open areas as well as areas of very mature trees, both of which could benefit from new plantings.

3. Review of geological and vegetative history of the area resulted in a desire to incorporate glacial boulders, prairie and savannah features into the design.

4. The close proximity to orchards, nurseries, gardens and other agricultural land was also noted, and the team would like to continue promoting local food source opportunities.

The historical/cultural survey team mapped the Fourth of July parade route, bike trail, parks and business district. It noted that as the town does not have a community center, the school and six churches play an active role in serving as cultural meeting places. Cultural activities in town include Thanksgiving Festival, Spit & Whittle Days, Fourth of July celebration, Cultural Dish Exchange and the annual Barn Party fundraiser. Mary Andersen noted from her research that many of the town’s historical features (buildings, districts, etc.) no longer exist. Additionally the historical events that appear most predominantly (i.e. murders) are not necessarily what the community wants to be remembered for. Dean Yordi remarked that “historic preservation just isn’t something we’ve considered a major priority here.”

Back to Top

Meetings Four and Five

The purpose of this fourth meeting is to set goals for the concept plan. Discussion should emphasize areas to be addressed and defining performance standards for those areas. Look for synergy between inventory results presented in meeting three, set priorities for action and identify issues to be addressed. Proceedings of this meeting, as with meeting three, should be recorded and made available for the visiting landscape architect.

Date/Time: Dec. 1, 1997, 5 to 7 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Mary Andersen, Angie Breeser, Nancy Kuehl, Mark Miller, Duane Sand, Dianne Shivvers, Dean Yordi

Landscape architect: Chris Della Vedova

Also attending: Jeff Benson (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension)

Meeting goals

1. Establish an understanding of communitywide landscape issues

2. Hold focused discussion on opportunities and constraints

3. Develop a consensus of shared goals and visions

4. Introduce the charrette process

5. Plan the charrette day

Meeting description

The meeting began with an overview of the evening’s agenda and a review of the past meeting’s survey results. This session combined meetings four and five.

1. Using prairie species (on trails and in Windflower Park)

2. Water resources (take advantage of these opportunities)

3. Greenbelt from lagoon to Highway 28

4. Greenbelt along river

5. Trail enhancement

6. Visual enhancement of school and cemetery areas

7. Encourage foot traffic to and in commercial areas

8. Visual enhancement of the Old Town area

9. Redevelopment focus to Old Town area

10. Pedestrian-oriented Main Street

11. Parking behind east lots on Main Street

12. New business park on the east side of Highway 28 and south of Beardsley Road

13. Accommodations for vehicles

14. Pedestrian-friendly areas

15. People-friendly areas

16. Better link between Lakewood and the rest of Norwalk

17. Use of Five-fingers Lake to link the two community areas

The committee then reviewed its initial motivations and expectations from meeting one. This was followed by a focused discussion to identify opportunities and constraints to design that would meet these goals/needs. The opportunities and constraints identified area as follows.

Opportunities

1. Trail enhancement

2. Encourage foot traffic (pedestrian-friendly linkages)

3. Visual enhancement of school and cemetery areas

4. Using prairie species (on trails and in Windflower Park)

5. Focus on water resources

6. Development of additional water resources

7. New business park on the east side of Highway 28 and south of Beardsley Road

8. Park enhancement and development

9. Greenbelt along river

10. Cleanup of visually poor areas

11. Need for place to congregate

12. Old library building

13. Long-range planning

14. Urban forest diversification

15. Fields and gardens in open spaces

16. Trail along gas line easement

17. Trail along old railroad area

18. Park development in lagoon area

19. Enhance areas along Highway 28

20. Enhance water tower area

21. Old water tower site (removal in three years)

22. Visually appealing new water tower site

Constraints

1. Funding

2. Public buy-in

The committee was then asked to choose its top five choices from the list of opportunities. Some of the overlapping opportunities first were combined, and from this selection the following five opportunities were identified as goals for the overall landscape plan:

Top Five Opportunities

1. Trail enhancement

2. Development of additional water resources

3. Cleanup of visually poor areas

4. Park enhancement and development

5. Enhance areas along Highway 28

Del Christensen and Chris Della Vedova finished by discussing the charrette day process, and the group planned the charrette schedule (see meeting six).

Back to Top

Phase Three: Developing a Concept Plan

The purpose of this phase is to develop a conceptual landscape plan and define strategies for realizing the concept plan. With the assistance of a registered landscape architect, communities develop an approach to changing the physical landscape. The landscape architect coordinates with the community  coordinator in the planning and design of a one-day intensive workshop, called the “charrette.” The community approves the concept plan in a follow-up meeting with the landscape architect. The community’s needs, articulated and defined in the previous phases, become the foundation for the design process. Facilitating the partnership with private-sector landscape architects is crucial in the creation of the conceptual plan and the definition of phasing.

Back to Top

Meeting Six – Charrette

This meeting/workshop is held to create a community concept plan with participation of local community participants. The landscape architect is a guest in the community and is introduced to the community and its needs at this meeting. The landscape architect directs the production of the concept plan with the assistance of the community coordinator. At the conclusion of the charrette, the landscape architect leaves with materials generated during the workshop in addition to support materials as needed.

Date/Time: Jan. 24, 1998, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen and Cheri Grauer

Committee members attending

Mary Andersen, Angie Breeser, Richard Keul, Nancy Keuhl, Mark Miller, Duane Sand, Dean Yordi

Other Norwalk residents attending evening presentation

George Meinecke, Joe Zerfas, Dan Whitmore

Also attending

• Chris Della Vedova (Adamson Clark Landscape Architecture, Des Moines, IA)

• Ann Reinhart (Adamson Clark)

• Brett Douglas (Adamson Clark)

• Jeff Benson (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension, Ames, IA)

• Chad Oppenhuizen  (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension)

• Chris Seeger (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension)

Meeting goals

1. Allow committee to communicate goals to the landscape architect

2. Develop design approaches and solutions to address issues and further the community vision

3. Allow broader community participation in the planning process

4. Improve community awareness and appreciation for the visioning process

Meeting description

After brief introductions, the visioning committee presented the results of its community assessments to the landscape architects and the ISU design team. Committee members also discussed some of the areas of the community that present opportunities for landscape design enhancement.

The committee then took the landscape architects and the design team on a vehicle tour of the community. The group viewed the three entrances to the community, the Lakewood District, the Main Street area, the school entrance and the city parks. It then returned to the city, where Chris Della Vedova sought additional public input from the group. A second hour of public input was available after lunch, after which the landscape architects began to work on design ideas. A number of opportunities were brought up during the discussions:

• Enhancement of the G-14 corridor coming from the west into town

• Enhancement of the intersection next to the school entrance

• Enhancement of the commercial corridor of Highway 28

• Possibilities for landscape design at the future entrance on the north side of town

The landscape architects and the design team spent the afternoon putting together design ideas. At 7 p.m., they presented some design concepts in the form of plans, sketches and digital enhancements of photos of Norwalk. By projecting a present image of Norwalk (e.g., a major street corridor) and an enhanced version that contains strategically placed plant groupings to soften harsh views and enhance attractive views, the design team helped community residents begin to understand what the possibilities for enhancements of Norwalk may include.

Back to Top

Meeting Seven

The purpose of this meeting is to review the community landscape concept plan prepared by the landscape architect and to learn about the expected costs associated with proposed phased development. This presentation includes a review of community needs and goals, the plan, illustrated image edits and detailed plan as needed, and phases with costs. It is packaged as a series of presentation boards, which are left with the community at the meeting’s conclusion.

Date/Time/Location: April 28, 1998, 6 to 7 p.m., Norwalk City Hall

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Landscape architects: Chris Della Vedova (Adamson Clark Landscape Architecture, Des Moines, IA), Ann Reinhart (Adamson Clark)

Committee and community members attending

Doris Flexsenhar, Luree Kisor, Nancy Kuehl, Roxie Menke, Mark Miller, Duane Sand, Diane Ford-Shivvers, Dean Yordi, Joe Zerfas

Meeting goals

1. Review the community landscape concept plan

2. Opportunity for public feedback to the landscape architect about the plan

3. Review implementation techniques and the next phase of the program

4. Celebrate the accomplishments of the local committee

Meeting description

Del Christensen began the meeting with brief introductions. The local committee was recognized and given an opportunity to discuss their review of the charrette process. Everyone seemed happy with the process, but disappointed at the low attendance for the public presentation.

Chris Della Vedova and Ann Reinhart then explained in detail the designs that were created from the charrette day input. They noted that two of the display boards will be remanufactured after the discovery of minor errors on them, and that one of the boards has yet to be made. The main areas highlighted on the finished boards are:

1. Peripheral corridor plantings
2. Community entryway features
3. Commercial corridor treatments
4. Proposed commercial spine
5. Intersection enhancement utilizing node on each quadrant
6. Civic and community center designs

Della Vedova then outlined typical phasing processes for projects and estimated costs for each of the six highlighted projects. He then opened up the floor for discussion and comment. The public seemed pleased with the results of the finished display boards. Concern over project costs was the main discussion topic. The group decided that it should develop an implementation plan and have external resources identified before approaching the city council for approval.

Back to Top

Meeting Eight

The purpose of the eighth meeting is to debrief with the landscape architect, particularly with regard to implementation issues. Types of additional design services required to implement the plan, the cost of design, and the type of fee structure for those services are particularly important to discuss and note.

Because the material prepared by the landscape architect and discussed with the community included information about implementation issues as well as recommendations and costs of design services, the committee members decided that they would request the landscape architect to return after they had determined which projects would be implemented first. At that time they could discuss landscape architectural involvement in doing those specific projects.

Back to Top

Phase Four: Developing an Implementation Plan

The purpose of this phase is to develop strategies for achieving the vision developed with the landscape architect in the community concept plan. One significant threat to the success of the program is a belief that the work is done once presentation boards are in hand. Careful analysis of actions required to achieve each phase of the plan is essential, as is determining methods for measuring progress and gaining continued support for local authorities and agency stakeholders. The community must now become the leader in involving a broader community volunteer group and in building support for a long-range plan.

Meeting Nine

The purpose of this meeting is to reorient community participants to the task ahead. An overview of the process of community landscape building is provided. Each phase of the plan is discussed, with emphasis on the first phase and the need for implementation planning.

Date/Time: May 20, 1998, 6 to 8 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Nancy Kuehl, Mark Miller, Duane Sand

Meeting goals

1. Review community plan and cost estimates

2. Discuss a viable method of phasing in projects

3. Identify design and implementation resources

4. Pick and achievable first project

5. Develop and implementation strategy

Meeting description

After a review of the community plan and cost estimates, the committee discussed viable methods of phasing in the projects and identified possible design and implementation resources. Once this was accomplished, the group developed an implementation strategy.

The six main project areas and possible resources are shown below:

The following local and external resources were identified:

1. Norwalk Trees Forever

2. Master Gardeners—volunteer labor

3. Scout troops—volunteer labor

4. 4-H groups—volunteer labor

5. High school service projects—volunteer labor

6. Norwalk Area Chamber of Commerce (NACC)—volunteer labor and possible money

7. NADC—volunteer labor and possible money

8. LRTF design dollars—$2,000 for design work

9. LRTF project grant—money for roadside plantings

10. ISTEA project grant—70/30 match, grant up to $15,000

11. REAP grant—money for lake project

12. Trees from the Des Moines Waterworks

13. Trees, shrubs and plants from a future community nursery

14. Warren County Conservation Department—assistance with roadside plantings (design, equipment, etc.)

15. Warren County Pheasants Forever Chapter—possible money for roadside plantings of native grasses

16. Television station KCCI Project Main Street—money

17. Iowa Department of Economic Development—possible money

18. Central Iowa Tourism Region—possible money for signage

19. School grants—possible money for school projects or projects involving students

It was noted during discussion that some work already has begun on two of the six main project areas. Design work already has begun on the peripheral corridor at Warren County Conservation, and local landowners already have begun on the Five-fingers Lake project. The committee agreed that this work needs to continue, but that this group needs to identify a highly visible project to gain public support for the overall plan. After discussion, it was determined that a good, achievable first project would be an intersection node enhancement.

1. School corner

2. Highway 28 and Wright Road

3. Highway 28 and Beardsley Road

4. R-57 and G-14

5. Highway 28 and Main Street

Of these five intersections, the group agreed that the school corner was the most achievable, as three of the four corners were under public jurisdiction. The school is on one corner, the cemetery is on another, and the city owns property on a third corner. Only one corner involves a private landowner. This also would help insure solid maintenance of the first visible project and allow public entities to show leadership for the overall plan.

1. Develop working committees

2. Approach the city council to make sure all the projects are included in the city’s capital improvement budget process

3. Make certain the Dunbar-Jones corridor plan is integrated with the visioning plan

4. Make presentations about the visioning results to the following groups: city council, NACC, NADC, school board, cemetery trustees, Warren County Conservation Board, both Lakewood Association groups, and the Parks and Recreation Board

The committee decided it needed to schedule a strategic planning meeting, then approach the entities identified in Task 4 for presentations. It was agreed that the final visioning meeting should be a time of celebration and a passing of the torch from the visioning committee to an implementation committee. That final visioning meeting will be scheduled later.

Del Christensen wrapped up the meeting by reminding the group about the Iowa’s Living Roadways celebration event on May 27, 1998. He also mentioned that he would be putting the final touches on the community visioning binder and giving that to the committee in June.

Back to Top

Meeting 10

The purpose of this meeting is to develop methods for initiating action and sustaining action through time. Maintaining action over time is challenging when compelling new issues and challenges face community leaders and demand attention. Planning now for long-term implementation is essential to avoid this conflict. Participants use implementation information generated in the previous meeting to form a project timeline, assigning roles and responsibilities within the group. Methods for measuring progress and maintaining interest and commitment in the project are discussed and documented. At the conclusion of this meeting, the group should be prepared to successfully implement the community concept plan.

Norwalk’s meeting 10 had not yet taken place as of October 1998. In the meantime, individual members of the committee had taken on leadership roles for each element of the concept plan and are pursuing the plan with the appropriate resource groups.

Back to Top

Progress Report

In October 1998, Norwalk was in the process of implementing its conceptual plan. Trees Forever coordinator Del Christensen, who facilitated the committee’s visioning meetings provided a report, as of July 1998, for the four goals identified in the community’s original proposal narrative.

Goal 1: Revitalization and beautification of older commercial areas.

This goal was addressed in the final concept plan. The corridor of Highway 28 is being addressed in detailed design at this time. Detailed design work is still needed for the strip malls as well as the original downtown area. One idea that seemed to appeal to the committee was to develop the city’s original Main Street into a pedestrian mall. This idea was not listed as a high priority for immediate implementation, however.

Goal 2: Creation of planning strategies for the north entryway, which is affected by the expansion of the Des Moines International Airport, and the southern beltway of Des Moines; also for new 40-acre parcel and Lakewood neighborhood.

The concept plan proposed strategies and presented some typical images that might grow from the strategies along this Highway 28 corridor. These strategies are being addressed at this time. Public education is being done and local support is being sought for these developments. A number of funding opportunities also are being researched. These potential funds include REAP, ISTEA and TIF dollars.

Goal 3: Landscape planning for intersection of relocated Highway 5 and Highway 28.

The concept plan identified a location, scale and style for an entry feature in this area. The group is working closely with the IDOT designers on this intersection. Upon the completion of the intersection, ISTEA grants will be applied for to enhance the beginning of the corridor into Norwalk at that intersection.

Goal 4: Development of uniform signage and landscape enhancements along trail system.

Although this goal was addressed early in the group discussions, as the visioning process continued, it did not rise to the top as a priority area. It is being addressed in the detailed corridor design, however, and will probably depend on the support of the adjacent local landowners to encourage its funding and implementation.

Back to Top

Additional observations/recommendations

Del Christensen observed that meeting attendance was high throughout the first phases of the visioning process, up until the charrette day. He attributes the low turnout for the charrette to bad timing; many people had schedule conflicts, and the meeting was held close to the winter holidays. He encourages other groups to complete the charrette process prior to the holidays and to bring as many new faces as possible to the formal presentation; this has a strong impact on public participation in the implementation phase. After the charrette, Christensen recommends showing residents the “big picture,” breaking it down into manageable parts and identifying resources that can help them achieve their goals. In Norwalk’s case, few members of the public attended the charrette and presentation, and few people showed up for initial meetings in the implementation phase. In an unexpected and positive twist, however, those who did attend not only provided solid input for concept design, but also realized that they needed to provide leadership and established their own working committees to address the six priority areas.

Christensen also indicated that strong city council support from the beginning was important for the success of the program. A letter of support from the city was part of the committee’s original application to the Visioning Program. Committee members who are leading efforts in each element of the concept plan are now using the information and designs from the visioning process to reinforce that city support and involvement.

Back