The Block E fiasco and Chuck Leer's recent development experience (as highlighted in recent Strib editorial) are good examples of why the planning process needs to be fixed. I don't completely agree with how the McKinsey plan reorganizes the departments, but it's on the right track.
I find it very hard to believe that McCaffrey could get approval to remove the ground-floor public corridor (or alter the bus shelters) after simply meeting with staff. Either the system is very broken or McCaffrey forged ahead without approvals. These changes are the kind that should require a site plan amendment and council approval because 1) it removes a public benefit from the project and 2) it probably increases the amount of retail space beyond what was approved and subsequently reduces the parking ratio. The planning department needs to be responsible for reviewing projects, making small administrative approvals and making recommendations to the planning commission and the city council. Public works, the fire department, police department and other departments need to sign off on the plans, but the planning department needs to be in control and - ultimately -- it needs to be city council that approves all plans, all public financing (and all changes to the plans). Contrary to Britt Robson's City Pages article that states the changes recommended by McKinsey would weaken the council, I think the changes would strengthen the council because all development decisions (including all of the changes at Block E) should require a full council vote. The development process is supposed to go something like this: 1. Developer submits detailed plans (including construction documents) to the planning department, knowing the review process takes 90 days and the council will vote on the plan on X date. 2. Planning department reviews plans and gets recommendations from other departments. 3. Planning department works with developer to make necessary changes. 4. Planning department makes recommendation to planning commission. 5. Planning commission votes on plan. 6. City council votes on plan. 7. After plan is approved, developer submits construction documents to inspections department, which approves all aspects of plans before issuing any building permits. (This eliminates Leer's problem with steps and parking ramp - as well as Block E's outdoor elevator problem). 8. If the developer wishes to change anything, a site plan amendment is filed with the planning department and the process starts over. 9. Any public financing for the project follows the same path as the physical plans and the two get approved (or not) together. If you want to see a department organized similarly to McKinsey's recommendations, I suggest you check out Arlington, Virginia's Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development. The programmatic parts of McKinsey's plan (business and human development) are not in Arlington's department (and I don't think they belong in Minneapolis') but it does include Planning (current, comprehensive and zoning) Housing (housing services and housing development) Neighborhood Development (similar to our NRP) and Inspections (http://www.co.arlington.va.us/cphd/index.htm). Arlington is also a good example of how the development process is supposed to work, with clear guidelines and processes for everyone to follow (and no special council permits or TIF). John Rocker Calhoun _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
