91 page report is out from the Economic Development Commission on how the development process should be modified. I lost track of the process somewhere along the line, so I’m not sure what changes were all made. There are many, many (over 80!) attachments in legistar with lots and lots of input, but this is the final report. Of course, there will still be public input and there could be more changes, but I’m kind of doubtful much will change. Additionally, check out the input our new Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development gave . . .
First, the 91 page report along with over 80 attachments. The Economic Development Commission will be discussing this on February 16th. So, you have a week to read it.
Second, here’s the input of Steven Cover, our new Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development Director, that doesn’t know much about the Community Services end of things . . . looks like he has bit to learn about development as well.
THE GOOD
Page 12- Neighborhood Plans- I sensed there was a concern about Neighborhood Plans, and the report recommended that they remain advisory and subject to change and modification. I’m not sure what the concerns are, but here in Fulton County, we produced a Master Plan for a small community that was strongly supported by citizens and developers, and actually provided greater certainty and predictability for the developers in the area. It produced some terrific projects as well.
Page 26- E. GOAL 2.- Orientation and Training Program- This should include business and community groups as well. We had a Citizen’s University Program that worked quite well in educating citizens on what our processes were. Afterwards, they had a much better understanding of what staff and applicants went through. It was very productive!
Page 27- F. GOAL 2.- What is the super majority vote and how many times has it been used to overturn board and commission decisions? If not a lot, this may not be a big concern.
Page 29- G. GOAL 8.c.- Urban Design Districts- Overlay Districts can work extremely well. We used them a great deal in Georgia. Do these overlays need to be updated and be more definitive?
Page 30- G. GOAL 8.e.- One application and report- There should be one consolidated application and one report generated by staff, not multiples of applications and reports.
Page 30- G. GOAL 8.f.- There should be a 4th option. If rejection is recommended, there should be conditions recommended in case there is a reversal in decision in the final stage of the approval process.
Projects should not have to be returned to any Commissions after receiving Plan Commission and Common Council approvals. This compromises the review process.
Page 36- K. GOAL 2.d.- Funding for conferences and training. I can’t agree more and this should be provided department-wide. It’s my understanding that none of the planners attend the National American Planning Association Conference or the Wisconsin Planning Association Conference. There is a wealth of info available at these conferences. Not only should we attend, but we should be speaking at these conferences and be a leader in the State and nation in planning (just one example).
Page 36- K. GOAL 4.- Host annual meeting with professionals- I think this is a good move, but I think we should go two steps further. First, there should be an informal Development Advisory Committee made up of members of the development community established to get feedback on how the Department is doing on a monthly basis. This should also be done with citizens as well. By holding these informal, open sessions, the Department can get a continuous report card on its progress and get ideas on how to make things better. This worked extremely well in Fulton County.
WATCH THESE ITEMS
Page 17-18- A. GOAL 1. First Point of Contact with DPCED- I agree with these recommendations. I do have to ask why an application has to go through a 30-day notification and approval by the Commission/Council before a project can be submitted. I’ve never experienced this kind of process before. Why can’t an applicant submit and then everyone be notified by the City’s web network when the application is submitted and accepted as complete?
In addition, the City’s project managers for all applications should be a members of DPECD.
Page 19- A. GOAL 3.- Notifications- Increase printing and postage budget for notifying constituents- Why not notify everyone by the City’s website and through the Council members’ websites? This would save a lot of money and is a much more sustainable solution.
Page 25- D. GOAL 1.- New Zoning Code- What is your read on what’s being proposed in the new zoning code? I will start reviewing this soon, and just wanted to know your thoughts on the PUD process. It sounds like most of the projects go through the PUD process. This could be very tedious.
Page 27- F. GOAL 1.- Can the Landmarks and Urban Design Commissions be combined? This could make things much more efficient. I’m not sure of their workloads and I don’t know how well this would be accepted politically, but it’s a thought.
Page 28- G. GOAL- Streamline and clarify Commission review of projects- As with all reviewing bodies, whether agency, Commission or whatever, there should be “one shot” for review comments. The PM in DPCED can then collect all comments and then communicate these comments to the applicant. Unless there is a big change in the project, as determined by the PM, no new comments should be brought forward. I’m not sure if this could work in the current process , but it sure can bring some sanity to complicated processes. We did this in Maryland and Fulton County.
Page 29- G. GOAL 7.c.- Reviews by UDC and LC- If these two groups cannot be combined, can they do simultaneous reviews? This would save a great deal of time.
Is there a problem in the quality of Board and Commission members? If so, then maybe the process is not the problem. Just a thought.
Page 33- I. GOAL 3.- DAT- This may be consistent with one of the ideas I presented earlier (Major Projects Team). I’m not sure what expanding means in this section.
Another suggestion is to put maximum times for review (30 days for example) for each of the agencies/boards/commissions. This keeps projects from getting strung out and keeps the reviewers focused on what is really important on projects.
Page 35- K. GOAL1.- Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans- These plans should look further out. I recommend 20 years for both. They should be updated, at a minimum, every 5 years. Some cities have even explored doing 50 year plans. That can be a pretty cool process.
Page 38- M. GOAL 1.- Implement the Dev Rev and Permitting Center- We did this at both Fulton County and Atlanta and it made a huge difference in customer service, efficiency and employee morale. I know this is expensive, but it’s a great investment.
