Memorandum

City of Lawrence

NR, PW, and PLNG Departments

TO:	Business Retention Task Force Members
FROM:	City Staff
Date:	April 6, 2005
RE:	BRTF Survey Responses and Commissioner Hack’s email to staff for  Suggested Improvements in the Development Review/Approval Process

The survey developed and conducted by BRTF focused on receiving responses from a variety of respondents who had submitted site plans, development plans, rezoning requests, plats, etc. within the last two years.  Specifically, the survey dealt with three distinct quality of service areas:

1. Staff Support – Planning Department

2. Staff Support – Neighborhood Resources Department

3. Consistency and Fairness in Process

This third area of the survey presumably addressed interactions with the four City Departments (Planning, Neighborhood Resources, Utilities, Public Works) that make up the core group of departments involved in the development process.

Background Information.  Before addressing recommendations for improvements, it seems appropriate to provide a quick summary of the efforts these departments currently utilize to address coordination, communication, and pre-applications for development projects.

          Planning:       

§ Hold weekly interdepartmental & public utility plan review meetings

§ Coordinate multi-department pre-submittal meetings for large development proposals

§ Provide weekly list of new submittals to City Manager’s office

§ Hold weekly current planner project update/coordination meetings

§ (new) Development Code proposes administrative process for those items that are permitted by existing zoning [ex. site plans and final development plans]

§ (new) Development Code requires pre-application meetings and establishes a process for determination of application completeness within 5 business days

          Neighborhood Resources:

§ Hold weekly department meetings to review all building permit applications and discuss where they are in the development process

§ Hold weekly department meetings to review site plans and formulate review comments for weekly interdepartmental/agencies plan review meeting

§ Attend and participate in weekly interdepartmental/agencies plan review meeting

§ Meet with applicants on as-needed basis to review code or other pertinent building requirements

§ Hold pre-construction meetings with engineers, architects, and contractors for large commercial projects

          Public Works/Utilities:

§ Hold monthly meetings with all utilities to coordinate public & private utility installations for projects

§ Coordinates review and approval of public improvements plans for projects with separate city divisions and outside agencies [DWR, KDOT, KDHE]

§ Review on weekly or bi-weekly basis plat and plan submittals for compliance with city codes and policies related to transportation/traffic, public improvements, and stormwater requirements

§ Attend and participate in weekly interdepartmental/agencies plan review meeting

Recommendations.  In response to Commissioner Hack’s request for suggestions, City staff from Planning, Public Works, and Neighborhood Resources met and discussed survey responses to the quality of service questions asked about the Planning and Neighborhood Resources departments.  We also reviewed the responses to the five general questions asked regarding consistency and fairness for an applicant during the development process.  Because responses to these five general questions appear to capture the essence of the comments made regarding individual departments, our recommendations focus on the consistent themes raised in these responses, those being:

§ a more transparent, definable development process

§ greater delineation and public understanding of the steps in the development process

§ improved communication between staff and owner/applicant throughout the review process

§ consistency in implementation of codes and policies within and across City departments

The table that follows identifies recommendations for addressing the four main outcomes for improvement as identified in the survey.  It is staff’s intent that the areas identified in the table are a starting point for continued discussion.  Before costs or staffing implications can be assessed to each of these, a more thorough review and analysis of each is needed.  The outcome of this review would bring specific recommendations for implementation of each suggestion with proposed budgetary costs.

Issue or Concern	Recommended Improvement	Departments to include in solution
Development  Process:   More Transparent Process for Public	§ Create a City Development Process website with links to each step in the process. § Create a flow chart for specific project types: new development, infill development, commercial redevelop, and, centrally locate information from multiple department websites.	§ Neighborhood Res. § City/County Planning § Public Works § Parks & Recreation § Utilities § City/County Fire & Medical § CMO
Development Process:  More Definable Process for Public –  BusinessLink concept	§ Designate staff within core departments that work with development and permitting as BusinessLink contacts § Institutionalize this concept via regular meetings of the BusinessLink contacts as a work group to review status of development projects and “hot spots” § Establish link on website identifying BusinessLink contacts and basic info, i.e. “Locating expanding, or building your small business in Lawrence”	§ Neighborhood Res. § City/County Planning § Public Works § Utilities § CMO § Chamber (as appropriate)
Public Expectations:   Greater Understanding of the   Process	§ Complete Development Handbook and Developer’s Guide for steps in the process.   § Create dedicated site for Development Process & FAQs. § Require pre-application meetings before submittals so steps and process are ‘customized’ to meet project needs.	§ Neighborhood Res. § City/County Planning § Public Works § Parks & Recreation § Utilities
Public Expectations:   Education and Outreach Programs	§ Enhance website and interactive abilities to use website and retrieve information on specific projects. § Provide training sessions on a quarterly or semi-annual basis on the development process, new or revised policies, and new codes.	§ Neighborhood Res. § City/County Planning § Public Works § Parks & Recreation § Utilities § City/County Fire & Medical
Communication:   Improve communication channels   between staff and the   applicant	§ Adopt a standard for all departments for phone and email response times. § Establish consistent “drop in” office hours for each department. § Adopt a process of surveying owners of recently completed projects for feedback § Communicate early to applicant and CMO on “hot spot” issues.	§ Neighborhood Res. § City/County Planning § Public Works § Utilities
Consistency in Implementation:   Internal coordination of development   review departments, CMO, interested   parties, etc.	§ See previous recommendation re: BusinessLink concept § Establish a web-based trackable program for review of each development project submittal. § Avoid inconsistencies and interpretations not consistent with regulations.	§ Neighborhood Res. § City/County Planning § Public Works § Utilities § Fire/Medical § CMO