Arlington C County Planning C g Commission Site P Plan R Review - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• Background
• Goals
• Review Process
• Big Ideas

Potential Changes to the Site Plan Review Process

2

• 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.

Background

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

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
• ther plans and policies;
• Consider community needs and respond to concerns; and
• Are compatible with adjoining properties and neighborhoods.

Site Plan Review Process Goals

5

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

Site Plan Review Working Group (SPRWG)

6

• 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

Charge to the SPRWG

7

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

SPRWG Process To Date

8

• 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

Summary of Big Ideas

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
• f 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

Current Agenda – Major Issue Areas

• Information Presentation
• Land Use and Zoning
• Site Design and Characteristics
• Architecture
• Transportation
• Open Space
• Community Benefits
• Construction Issues

Proposed Agenda – Major Issue Areas

• Overview and Analysis of Site Plan

Proposal

• Urban Design
• Site Design and Building Form
• Architecture
• Sustainability
• Community Benefits
• Other

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
• bservers 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