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
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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 Potential Changes to the Site


slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Background
  • Goals
  • Review Process
  • Big Ideas

Potential Changes to the Site Plan Review Process

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • 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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 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

slide-8
SLIDE 8

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

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • 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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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

slide-11
SLIDE 11

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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

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

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

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

slide-15
SLIDE 15

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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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

slide-17
SLIDE 17

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