« The developer as thwarted hero: Are suburban Unified Development Ordinances preventing sustainable, smart growth development? | Main | On the Road Again: Driving Decline Ends »

February 24, 2010


Steve O.

You'll recall that I was (am) supportive of your presentation that we should encourage smarter development that you've outlined above.

You'll also recall that I don't believe in a two tiered approach to our development process. ALL applicants need to be treated well, in a timely manner with a documented, predictable path and timeline.

I also pointed out that the method to accomplish you (our) goals is to properly zone areas of the city based on market based indicators and apply legitimate and delineated design standards.

John Michlig

I appreciate your support, but I recall you only having time to say that the city should put ALL projects on a "Fast Track," the practicality of which I would have enjoyed debating further. That discussion did not occur, however.

The linchpin of my suggested approach is that the "Fast Track" is a legitimate carrot that is in fact used successfully in other communities. Mark Carstensen mentioned it at the first Ad Hoc Dev. Review meeting. But we didn't discuss that.

One of the Targets I specify is locational: We should roll up our sleeves and map development priorities. There are, frankly, a range of growth options from smartest to dumbest. This hierarchy should appear as prioritized development sectors on a regional plan map (which we already do to some extent) that is regularly reviewed (which we do not do). But we didn't discuss that. We didn't touch on ANY of the nine points I made on page two of my proposal.

The MAGIC happens when you make it known that you are indeed able to offer incentives at multiple levels (in this case, PROCESS incentives). Just having a map in a dusty closet somewhere doesn't do much more than satisfy the state's Comprehensive Plan mandate. We didn't discuss that, either.

As I noted: Franklin Automotive came before the Commission with a poor site plan and single-purpose buildings (I believe you were absent). We had an opportunity to incentivize a better, market-enhancing project, but could/did not -- for lack of TOOLS and, frankly, AMBITION to do so.

The comments to this entry are closed.