Arlington C County Planning C g Commission Site P Plan R Review Working g Group Poten ential R Revi visi sions t to t the S he Site P e Plan Revi view Process ss Preliminary Report May 2014 2014 1
Potential Changes to the Site Plan Review Process - Background - Goals - Review Process - Big Ideas 2
Background The Planning Commission’s site plan review process has been a central • part of Arlington’s development review for more than 40 years. Formed at the request of the Arlington County Board, the Site Plan • Review Committee (SPRC) is the primary public forum for reviewing and commenting on development proposals. SPRC involves civic organization and advisory commission represent- • atives in the review of development proposals prior to the public hearings and action by the Planning Commission and County Board. 3
Why Revise the Site Plan Review Process? • Last updated twelve years ago; chance to apply lessons learned • Opportunity to improve the quality of new developments • Address concerns that process is too time consuming and costly • Need to review multiple development proposals concurrently 4
Site Plan Review Process Goals The primary goals are to ensure site plans: - Reflect the highest quality of land use planning and design; - Generally comply with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and other plans and policies; - Consider community needs and respond to concerns; and - Are compatible with adjoining properties and neighborhoods. 5
Site Plan Review Working Group (SPRWG) The SPRWG includes: Current and Former Planning Commissioners • Transportation Commissioner • Civic Federation and Civic Association • Representatives County Staff • Developers • Development Consultants • Local Land Use Attorneys • 6
Charge to the SPRWG • To examine and assess the review process • To identify opportunities for improvement • To prepare preliminary recommendations for consideration by the Planning Commission, County Manager and County Board in 2014 7
SPRWG Process To Date The SPRWG has completed several phases including: Conducted Extensive interviews and panel discussions with key • development and community interests Reviewed current site plan regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, • administrative rules, and process guides Identified key opportunities for potential improvements • Formed of four committees to study/recommend process changes • Developed preliminary set of recommendations for comment by • interested parties 8
Summary of Big Ideas • Clarification of the role of other commissions and civic associations in site plan reviews and relationship to SPRC • Introduction of an Optional Preliminary Review • Introduction of a Streamlined (shorter) Review • Revisions to SPRC membership reducing duplication and enhancing review efficiency • Restructured review agenda/discussion item list • Revisions to submission requirements 9
Role of SPRC, other commissions, and civic associations in site plan reviews • SPRC would continue to be the County’s principal forum for site plan reviews • Other commissions and civic associations would be encouraged to time their initial reviews/discussions of site plan proposals so their SPRC could represent their interests effectively during a site plan reviews • Some Commissions (e.g., Transportation and Park and Recreation) would be standing members of SPRC; other Commissions (e.g., HALRB and Arts) would participate when issues of particular interest or relevance to them are part of a site plan proposal. • Civic Associations where a proposed site plan is located as well as adjacent civic associations will continue to participate • Final reviews of site plans by other commissions and civic associations should be scheduled to allow their advice to be considered by the Planning Commission and County Board 10
Optional Preliminary Review • Provides an opportunity for developers to get feedback about a proposal before they have made significant investments • Would occur at an early conceptual stage • Would involve a subset of SPRC – Commissioners, citizens, and staff • A one-time, two-hour meeting 11
Streamlined Review • New Streamlined Review opportunity for site plan proposals with few deviations from existing County policies and plans. • Participation in a preliminary review required to determine whether a streamlined review would be appropriate • Determination made jointly by review chair, planning staff and developer • Would be completed in three or fewer SPRC meetings • Same review agenda 12
Changes to SPRC Membership • Total potential membership for individual reviews would be reduced from more than 40 to about 30. Average participation would decline from about 15-18 to 12-15. • Civic associations where proposed development is located would continue to have two representatives • Adjacent civic associations would continue to be represented – but by a single representative • Commissions with an interest in all site plan proposals would be standing members of SPRC: Transportation, Park and Recreation, Energy and Environment Conservation, and Urban Forestry • Other Commissions would be represented whenever issues of importance to them are part of a site plan proposal: Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board, Arts, Housing, Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Advisory Committees, and others as appropriate. • Changes to at-large membership: (1) standing representative of Civic Federation; up to (3) at-large citizens for 2-year terms; up to (3) former Planning Commissioners for 2-year terms. • Final membership for a specific review determined by review chair 13
Changes to Review Agenda Proposed Agenda – Current Agenda – Major Issue Areas Major Issue Areas • Information Presentation • Overview and Analysis of Site Plan • Land Use and Zoning Proposal • Urban Design • Site Design and Characteristics • Site Design and Building Form • Architecture • Architecture • Transportation • Open Space • Sustainability • Community Benefits • Community Benefits • Other • Construction Issues 14
Changes to Submission Requirements • New checklist through which developer identifies requested zoning ordinance modifications and exceptions to other County policies and plans • New requirements for optional preliminary reviews • New requirements related to submission of materials for SPRC meetings 15
Other Changes • Clarification of roles of SPRC participants – especially review chair, staff and applicants • Review of PDSPs to be done by Long Range Planning Committee • Site plan review meetings to provide an opportunity for observers to make comments and ask questions • Incorporation of regular site visits at early review meeting 16
Next Steps • Review preliminary recommendations with the Planning Commission and incorporate changes • Brief County Board Members and the County Manager • Work Session with the County Board • Adoption of Recommendation by the Planning Commission • Development of Implementation Tools • Implementation Goal: January 2015 17
Recommend
More recommend
