Herschlag: Your Money Flushed

The city council just voted to flush hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding for the Master Plan, Form Based zoning and the 20/20 plan, down the drain. This doesn’t include countless staff hours and the hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of your input at meetings and charettes. All for a Starbucks with a drive through.

Brixmor, who owns the Capital Shopping Center on Storrs Street, has proposed a Starbucks, 110 Grill and a third storefront at the corner of the main entrance to their shopping center and heading south on Storrs Street. Until last night zoning in the Opportunity Corridor Performance District (OCP) did not allow for drive through businesses.

Additionally, the proposed businesses will be a single story, even though city plans have shown multi story mixed use development for Storrs Street. Brixmor says current leases with their tenants don’t allow new construction to block the existing stores. But the proposed Starbucks although only having one floor, is shown to be 24 feet high and the 110 Grill in the concept plan is the same height. That’s tall enough for a 2 1/2 story building. And yes it is tall enough to block the existing stores behind them.

Yet Brixmor claims two stories would violate their current leases. Did Brixor even approach the current stores in their shopping center and ask if they would be willing to discuss an amended lease to allow two stories? Did Brixmor approach the city and ask if they were able to amend the leases would the city be willing to consider additional signage for the existing storefronts?

This is what the city planner writes in the next to last paragraph in her report to the city council:

“As this report demonstrates, the amendment proposed by staff is not generally consistent with the four master plans recommendations for density, though considering the petitioners constraints, may be seen as a phased approach to accomplishing those goals. The proposal would not likely have a significant effect on the City’s municipal services, capital facilities, or the environmental or historic resources. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed ordinance could negatively affect downtown neighborhoods with regard to traffic generation and possibly pedestrian safety. Finally, while the proposed development would bring additional tax revenue to the City, this may be at the expense of greater revenues generated by more intense redevelopment, as envisioned by City master plans.

At the June 17, 2020 meeting of the Planning Board, the petitioner presented their concept plan for the site. They noted that lease agreements in place until 2035 prevented them from implementation of density in this location, but stated that Brixmor would be open to constructing the buildings to accommodate additional stories in the future. The Board was sensitive to the lease constraints and felt that waiting until 2035 to develop the site would not be in the best interest of the City.”

This doesn’t sound to me like a glowing endorsement for this project and the zoning amendment change. In fact the city planner cautions that the short term revenue gain from this project could cause long term pain as this project (and the zoning change needed to move the project forward) can lead to development that would be far from what is envisioned by our community.

When the city planner was asked if a financial evaluation of the project had been done, the response was it was too difficult. Other communities require a financial study to provide guidance to revenue versus expenses for new projects. Why not Concord?

Not only isn’t there an estimate of the revenue this project would generate, there also isn’t any information to indicate the projected differences in revenue between the current proposed project and the preferred development options as outlined in city plans.

A city council member also asked what would prevent other drive through businesses from building in the OCP if the zoning amendment was approved? The answer was the businesses need to front the sidewalk and no drive throughs would be allowed between the building and the street. But there is nothing to prevent a business to do exactly what the proposed Starbucks is doing. Have your drive through in back or on the side of a building.

Here’s what I think. Our city is so desperate for development (any development) that we are willing to flush all our plans down the drain for short term gain. And even when we get the type of development we envision, it all too often comes at the expense of the rest of the community and our schools because of special tax districts and tax incentives.

I believe I am as strong an advocate of economic development for our community as anyone. But that doesn’t mean I (or you) should allow and encourage development just for the sake of development, when we don’t know what the true costs will be.

Should we work with developers and even be open to amending our zoning? Of course we should. But it shouldn’t smack of spot zoning. And it shouldn’t circumvent the normal process of bringing a project forward. And it shouldn’t in one fell swoop throw out years of community input and planning.

It was incredible to listen to councilors talk about how the zoning amendment may not meet the goals of the city and then cast a vote to approve the amendment.

There is some very limited good news. After reviewing the city planners report and listening to public testimony two councilors voted against the proposed zoning amendment.

A final thought. If we are going to let developers dictate to us, do we really need to spend another $100,000 to update our zoning ordinances? Do we really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars on updating our Master plan? Are we allowing certain types of development to occur to pad resumes at the future expense of our city? Having a plan doesn’t mean you can’t be flexible, but that doesn’t mean you have to fold.