With regard to the Form Based Code (FBC) for the East Street corridor, my plea to City elected and appointed officials is to place a moratorium on all development in the corridor until FBC has been enacted. I’m aware (as are most residents) of plans for development along the corridor submitted, at least in concept, during the back and forth process required to assure that FBC is “just right” before it is passed. However, doing so, creates a gap through which non-FBC developments can (and likely will) be initiated. The result? A meaningless FBC as major sections of the corridor will be developed to LMC standards which do not incorporate the concept iterated in the draft Resolution of providing “a link from defining character of each gateway’s neighborhood to the City’s defining historic downtown…” Future builders would cite developments initiated during this interim period under the LMC as their allowance to follow those directives. That said, if development is allowed during this period, developers must be held to the points in Table 6-7 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This can be accomplished by stating in the FBC ordinance that “compliance with the criteria set forth is required” not just “desirable but not required.” Marjorie Rosensweig, Citizens Way
"Compliance is desirable but not required" -- a meme for continuous contention
The resolution highlights the problem at the important Brick Works (BW) site with this: "Until a small area plan and corresponding regulations are adopted, the existing...regulations as set forth in City Code, including the Land Management Code, remain in full effect... Compliance with the criteria set forth (in the Comp Plan) is desirable but not required." (Exec Summary p1)
Ten years ago the City began discussing a Form-Based Code (FBC) for the East St Corridor including the BW site. In 2017 the City adopted the East St Corridor Small Area Plan needing a Form-Based code (FBC.) The City's 2020 Comp Plan has FBC design tables.
None of these plans impressed the BW site owner who lodged a site plan for big-boxes-in-a-sea-of-parking totally at odds with the plans -- as the City staff comments detail.
Why would the BW developers submit such a jarring plan? Perhaps a lawyer told them: "Compliance is desirable but not required."
Standing alone, this resolution provides a future of contention between two regimes. Regime #1 will be City Code, the law -- compliance required. Regime #2: the many City Plans, the Comp Plan, various Small Area Plans -- compliance desirable but not required.
This is a future of harsh political and legal contention. Angry confrontational meetings ad nauseam. People see the City planning one thing, and then giving permits for the opposite. And cynicism and disengagement among citizens.
They know that the City has an adopted Plan for the BW site as an extension of the historic downtown, compatible in character, small scale, walkable, parked cars concealed, a worthy 'gateway to the historic core' etc. Yet citizens see a strip-mall/big-box type proposal now being advanced for the BW site. Yet this atrocity against City plans and public sentiment is in conformity with City Code, and liable to gain approval. Some react: "Don't be fooled. The plans, the public hearings, the votes are all window dressing. The consultants are a waste. Follow the $s. It's a fix. Michael, Kelly, Ben, Derek, Katie etc, they're just figureheads. The real decisions are made... (Insert gossip conspiracy)"
This compliance only 'desirable' is an abdication of responsibility. You City legislators must legislate. Legislate now, please, a 6-month moratorium on permitting in the East St Corridor. Then legislate the FBC for this corridor with clear rules and required compliance.
With regard to the Form Based Code (FBC) for the East Street corridor, my plea to City elected and appointed officials is to place a moratorium on all development in the corridor until FBC has been enacted. I’m aware (as are most residents) of plans for development along the corridor submitted, at least in concept, during the back and forth process required to assure that FBC is “just right” before it is passed. However, doing so, creates a gap through which non-FBC developments can (and likely will) be initiated. The result? A meaningless FBC as major sections of the corridor will be developed to LMC standards which do not incorporate the concept iterated in the draft Resolution of providing “a link from defining character of each gateway’s neighborhood to the City’s defining historic downtown…” Future builders would cite developments initiated during this interim period under the LMC as their allowance to follow those directives. That said, if development is allowed during this period, developers must be held to the points in Table 6-7 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This can be accomplished by stating in the FBC ordinance that “compliance with the criteria set forth is required” not just “desirable but not required.” Marjorie Rosensweig, Citizens Way
"Compliance is desirable but not required" -- a meme for continuous contention
The resolution highlights the problem at the important Brick Works (BW) site with this: "Until a small area plan and corresponding regulations are adopted, the existing...regulations as set forth in City Code, including the Land Management Code, remain in full effect... Compliance with the criteria set forth (in the Comp Plan) is desirable but not required." (Exec Summary p1)
Ten years ago the City began discussing a Form-Based Code (FBC) for the East St Corridor including the BW site. In 2017 the City adopted the East St Corridor Small Area Plan needing a Form-Based code (FBC.) The City's 2020 Comp Plan has FBC design tables.
None of these plans impressed the BW site owner who lodged a site plan for big-boxes-in-a-sea-of-parking totally at odds with the plans -- as the City staff comments detail.
Why would the BW developers submit such a jarring plan? Perhaps a lawyer told them: "Compliance is desirable but not required."
Standing alone, this resolution provides a future of contention between two regimes. Regime #1 will be City Code, the law -- compliance required. Regime #2: the many City Plans, the Comp Plan, various Small Area Plans -- compliance desirable but not required.
This is a future of harsh political and legal contention. Angry confrontational meetings ad nauseam. People see the City planning one thing, and then giving permits for the opposite. And cynicism and disengagement among citizens.
They know that the City has an adopted Plan for the BW site as an extension of the historic downtown, compatible in character, small scale, walkable, parked cars concealed, a worthy 'gateway to the historic core' etc. Yet citizens see a strip-mall/big-box type proposal now being advanced for the BW site. Yet this atrocity against City plans and public sentiment is in conformity with City Code, and liable to gain approval. Some react: "Don't be fooled. The plans, the public hearings, the votes are all window dressing. The consultants are a waste. Follow the $s. It's a fix. Michael, Kelly, Ben, Derek, Katie etc, they're just figureheads. The real decisions are made... (Insert gossip conspiracy)"
This compliance only 'desirable' is an abdication of responsibility. You City legislators must legislate. Legislate now, please, a 6-month moratorium on permitting in the East St Corridor. Then legislate the FBC for this corridor with clear rules and required compliance.