Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-DMemorandum WASHINGTON TO: Councilmember Lynn Norman, Chair, Planning & Community Development Committee Councilmember Nancy Backus, Vice Chair, Planning & Community Development Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Planning and Community Development Committee CC: Mayor Pete Lewis FROM: Jeff Tate, Development Services Manager, Planning & Development Department DATE: March 23, 2011 RE: DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION: Site Plan Review Procedures & Key Elements OVERVIEW On September 27, 2010 Planning and Development staff presented the concept of Site Plan Review to the Planning and Community Development Committee. The Committee asked staff to inquire with the City's Risk Management Department prior to developing the concept. Staff discussed the concept with Risk Management who indicated that they understood this process to exist in other jurisdictions and that incorporating this concept into City regulations did not present heightened risk. The committee provided direction to staff to develop draft procedures and key regulatory elements to assist its understanding of how a site plan review process in the City of Auburn might work. Subsequently, staff has conducted substantive research of other jurisdictions' regulations and experiences and has engaged in significant internal discussion and review that has resulted in the attached procedures and key elements presented for Committee review and input. BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City of Auburn commissioned an outside third party review by Shockey Brent, Inc. of its development approval process. This report recommended the City adopt a site plan review process. In 2007, the City commissioned the same firm to conduct a follow up analysis to review implementation of its 2003 recommendations and identify needed improvement areas. A key recommendation of both review efforts was the implementation of a site plan review process. Site plan review is a development review process used in many cities and counties to provide early on review of proposed development in advance of the preparation of detailed building and/or engineering plans. Site plan review can help identify and address key concerns and identify options pertaining to land use, environmental, transportation and utilities impacts. In most instances, site plan review is applied to commercial, industrial, institutional, multi-family and mixed use development. Often, local governments will establish size or scale thresholds for these types of projects that require site plan review. In many instances, site plan review is conducted as an administrative review process subject to public noticing. HIGHLIGHTS OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROACH: • Provides a greater level of service throughout the duration of the development process by establishing a partnership relationship with the project proponent from the early stages of project brainstorming through the commissioning and occupancy of a building. Establishes a review process that allows for the early exploration and identification of the big picture "make or break" issues that affect the feasibility of a project. Prior to developing the expensive civil, engineering, and architectural construction drawings the proponent's team and city staff have the opportunity to work through schematic designs and concepts. Once the schematic ideas are adequately refined the construction drawings can be prepared with a high level of confidence that expensive redesigns will be minimized. Site Plan Review service is proposed to be mandatory for all new development where 4,000 square feet or greater of new building coverage is proposed except for single family residential development. This applies to commercial, industrial, light manufacturing, warehousing, mixed-use, institutional, and multi-family. The draft proposal includes a feature that proposes to credit 50% of the cost of the Site Plan Review permit fees to civil and/or building permits that are subsequently submitted. • Service would be available for all other customers upon request. The draft proposal includes a feature that proposes to credit 80% of the cost of the Site Plan Review permit fees to civil and/or building permits that are subsequently submitted. Administrative or staff level process where decisions could be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Decisions are proposed to have an effective period of 3 years. Alternatively, a project proponent could request a phased development plan for as long as 5 years. Once the Site Plan Review decision is rendered the proponent would be required to submit a range of individual civil, building and land use applications. The applications that would be submitted in conjunction with an approved Site Plan Review would need to be reviewed and issued under the codes that are in effect under the Site Plan approval. • The procedures would conform with the State's minimum 120 day timeframe for project review, however, the process defined by the City is proposed to incorporate timelines that shorten the review process to approximately 60 days. QUESTIONS: To gain the Committee's input and guidance on the continued development of potential site plan review regulations, staff seeks input on the following questions: 1. Is the Committee still interested in having staff pursue development of site plan review regulations for the City of Auburn? 2. Does the Committee agree with staff's recommendation of a 4,000 square foot threshold for triggering mandatory site plan review? Please note that the basis for choosing this figure is that it is the same threshold used for SEPA. 3. What are the Committee's thoughts on the idea of providing future fee credits where the cost of Site Plan Review is partially credited towards future permit submittals? 4. Does the Committee support the idea of allowing a 5 year phased development approval opportunity? March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language Background and Intent • Land development typically proceeds through the following six basic steps. 1. Project Inception: initial project brainstorming, market analysis, site selection, exploring financing alternatives 2. Programmatic Planning: Procuring financing, developing project timelines, assembling consulting teams, detailed site reconnaissance 3. Schematic Planning: initial site planning, architectural schematics, preparation of site specific reports 4. Project Design: engineered level design, project permitting 5. Project Construction: site development 6. Commissioning: securing site/building tenants • Existing city permit procedures are structured such that the city/developer relationship begins somewhere in the middle of step 3 and concludes at the end of step 5. • In order to effectively formulate a legitimate city/developer partnership it is appropriate to develop procedures and practices that ensure the City is supporting the developer through all steps of the development process from project inception through commissioning. • Various City departments have a role in this relationship through the duration of a project, e.g. business recruitment efforts by staff dedicated to economic development efforts, planning and permitting staff that help shepherd the customer through the regulatory process, inspectors that work together with contractors to ensure that buildings and infrastructure are safe and functional, etc. • There already exists a culture amongst City staff to offer as much early and continuous assistance to customers during any stage of the development process. Many customers take advantage of this service offering long before they submit a formal application. Planning and Development receives consistent positive feedback from customers who seek partnership opportunities in advance of formal permit submittals. It is evident that customers benefit from this service offering because it allows big picture issues to be vetted early, expensive redesigns are eliminated, and initial permit submittals are more complete and focused on the key issues which help expedite the review process. • Further, it is a disservice to customers who proceed through the project inception, programmatic planning, and schematic planning without establishing a relationship with the City during these important early steps. The most common disservice that is created under the current permitting system is that it lacks structure for how a customer can interact with the City prior to submittal of applications for civil and building permits. Because submittal of civil and building applications necessitates that they be accompanied by detailed civil and structural plans, it is very common that significant capital has already been expended by the applicant before ever engaging City staff on the project. • There are a number of reasons why some customers seek to initiate early involvement with the City and others choose not to, e.g. awareness (or lack thereof) of the service, varying levels of trust/distrust with government. March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language • Planning and Development would like to minimize this disservice by establishing a practices that foster the City/developer relationship through all phases of land development. One of the practices that will assist in this goal is to create a structured sequence of development review that helps formulate the City/developer relationship earlier in the planning and design phases of site development. • The Site Plan Review procedures described in this outline are intended to provide a value-added service to applicants that will shorten permit review timeframes for the customer, eliminate costly large scale redesigns, enhance the efficiency of permit review performed by staff, reduce the likelihood of expensive and time consuming land use appeals, and to provide the applicant with certainty (e.g. once approved, the developer will have a blue print for development that is insulated from code changes for a prescribed period of time). These procedures are intended to create a relationship between City and developer for the duration of steps 2 through 5. Other non-regulatory practices are appropriate for steps 1 and 6. • Another value-added benefit of this proposal is to offer greater regulatory certainty to project proponents. In the absence of an approval process that evaluates the overall project concept, the applicant is offered little or no certainty that future code changes will not impact their ability to complete a project. The nature of the current process is to require that an applicant submit a wide variety of specific permit applications that cover individual elements of a project, e.g. grading permit, building permit, environmental review, facility extensions, utility permits, etc. None of the individual applications or review procedures evaluate the overall project. A site plan review process will allow an applicant to receive a decision that provides certainty for a prescribed period of time under which all of the individual permit applications may be submitted and reviewed against - irrespective of code changes that may have occurred during this period. • The site plan review service should be available to any and all applicants; however, projects that exceed a defined threshold should automatically trigger this type of early involvement. Goals • To establish practices that create better City/developer relationships through the duration of the land development process. • To provide an opportunity for early conceptual review and approval of a development proposal in advance of the preparation and review of detailed engineering plans, architectural plans, construction documents, and environmental documents or reports. • It is the City's intent to improve business vitality by reducing expensive redesigns of projects that occur when detailed plans are submitted in conjunction with building permit applications and engineering applications. • To expedite review of the individual building and civil construction plans that support a project. • Allow for early identification of significant development challenges and issues prior to an applicant spending significant time and money on a development proposal. • Provide for early public notice so that input on projects is received before investment into final site designs are made. March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language • Allow for an opportunity to refine the project peforma through early determination of likely project costs. For example, site construction costs, impact fees, mitigation fees, permit fees, utility fees, etc. • To offer certainty to project proponents that future rule changes will not affect project design efforts that have already occurred. Certainty is created by establishing a window in which individual development submittals may be submitted after the site plan concept is approved. If could changes occur during this window they will not affect the individual submittals. Applicability • While available to all clients upon request, Site Plan Review shall be required for all new development where 4,000 square feet or greater of new building coverage is proposed except for single family residential development. On an annual basis a landowner or tenant may increase the size of an existing building by up to 10%, up to 12,000 square feet, without triggering the Site Plan Review process. • Non-Residential development includes commercial, industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, mixed-use, institutional, and multi-family residential. • The Planning Director has the authority to waive the Site Plan Review process upon a written request by an applicant. Such a determination shall be based upon written findings that demonstrate the scope of a proposal is modest relative to the context in which it lies, that the overall impact of the proposal is insignificant, that the proposal has already been contemplated in a prior land use decision, and an evaluation of the setting in which the proposal is located, and the potential impacts/lack of impact that could be caused as a result of the proposal. • Additionally, the Planning Director may determine that a proposal that falls below the 4,000 square foot threshold necessitates Site Plan Review. Such a determination shall be based upon written findings that outline the need for Site Plan Review considering such factors as: the setting in which the proposal is located, the potential impacts that could be caused as a result of the proposal, proposed uses that are not listed in the code or where there are significant conflicts in adopted code, and specific deviations from code that have been requested. • Any project proponent that falls under the threshold of required Site Plan Review may elect to voluntarily request the service in order to ensure early and continuous involvement and to add certainty to their overall project outcome. Definitions • Department means the Planning and Development Department • Director means the Director of Planning and Development Department or their designee Application Requirements and Fees • The Department shall establish a Site Plan Review application form, checklist, and instructions. The form shall be filled out by the applicant and submitted with each proposal. The checklist and instructions shall identify the application requirements outlined below and be used at the March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language time of application submittal as a method of defining project scope and/or determining application completeness. The checklist and instructions shall state that the following types of project elements should be considered and described during early programmatic and/or schematic planning and design: o Existing Conditions - Natural Environment o Existing Conditions - Built Environment o Proposed Site Plan Development Concept o Architectural Plan o Signage Plan o Lighting Plan o Access and Circulation Plan o Infrastructure Plan o General Grading Concepts (estimated areas of cut, fill and vegetation removal) o Phasing Plan (if applicable) o Environmental Checklist (if applicable) • 80% of the fee charged in conjunction with a voluntary Site Plan Review should be credited towards future permit submittals. • For mandatory Site Plan Review: 0 25% of the fee should be credited towards future permits necessary in conjunction with the extension of public facilities and/or grading applications. 0 25% of the fee should be credited towards future building permit applications. Modification of Application Requirements • The Planning Director may waive or modify any of the application requirements upon a finding that they are deemed unnecessary, redundant, or excessive relative to the scale of the project. Review Process, Decision Making Authority, Notice, and Decision • Administrative review process where decisions are rendered by the Director. • Site Plan Review is a substantive review of a proposal that evaluates conformity with City Codes and Policy Plans. Conditions are established in Site Plan Review approval that define specific items that must be finalized, approved, recorded, etc. and the sequence in which the detailed elements of the project shall be reviewed, approved, constructed, and inspected. • Public notification shall be required for all Site Plan Review applications. • While Site Plan Review typically occurs in advance of the preparation, submittal and review of specific permits (e.g. building, grading, utilities, etc.), an applicant may request review of all materials concurrently. While submittal and review may occur concurrently, issuance of the various decisions and permits may occur in a sequenced fashion over time. • Following review of a Site Plan, the Director shall issue a decision. The decision may be denial, approval, or approval with conditions. All decisions shall be supported by written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and, if applicable, conditions of approval. The Director shall affix their March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language signature and the approval date in an appropriate place upon the decision document and upon the Site Plan along with a reference to any conditions of approval. • Site Plan Review is a discretionary decision. In addition to satisfying compliance with all development regulations established in Auburn City Code, the project shall also meet the intent of the goals and policies established in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. • Site Plan Review will include concurrent review for conformity with applicable federal, state and local regulations for those regulatory programs where the City is designated as the responsible agency for permit issuance (e.g. State Environmental Policy Act and the Shoreline Management Act). The City will provide notification to the applicant of other regulatory programs that may apply that are administered by other agencies (e.g. Army Corps of Engineer permitting, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). Appeals • Decisions rendered through the Site Plan Approval process may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to the procedures outlined in Chapter 18.70. Development in Conformity with Site Plan and SEPA • Where the approving authority approves a Site Plan, any and all development and use of the land to which the Site Plan pertains shall be in conformity with the Site Plan as finally approved. Further, no development pursuant to an approved Site Plan shall be undertaken without meeting the requirements of all other Chapters of City Ordinance. • All development shall conform with conditions and requirements established through SEPA review and decision making. Site Plan Amendments (that occur after the administrative decision is rendered) • Amendments to Site Plan Approval shall be classified as minor or major amendments. • Minor amendments may be processed upon written request and are subject to administrative review and are not subject to further public notification. Minor amendments are classified as any of the following types of modifications: o Modifications that do not increase any numerical measurement by 25% or less, e.g. building height, parking, building size, etc. o Modifications do not result in a substantial change in use. o Modifications do not substantially modify the layout of the site. o Modifications do not substantially alter the layout or size of utilities. o Modifications to an approved phasing plan provided no phase is extended more than 6 months beyond that which was originally approved. • Major amendments are classified as any modification that is not minor. Major amendments are processed in the same manner as the original site plan review approval. Examples of major modifications include: o Modification of a condition established through SEPA. March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language o Modifications of conditions established by the Hearing Examiner as a result of an appeal. o Modifications that increase a numerical measurement by more than 10%. o Modifications that establish new types of uses, e.g. adding a light industrial use to a development where light industrial was never contemplated. o Modifications that substantially alter layouts for utilities, circulation, building locations. Expiration of Site Plan Approval • Site Plan Approval shall remain valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. • As an alternative to the three year expiration timeline, an applicant may propose a phased development plan. Phased development plans must outline specific phases, the activities that will occur during each phase, and the duration of each phase. The overall phasing plan cannot exceed 5 years in duration. Because the 5 year phasing plan shall begin on the date of site plan approval, the duration of each phase shall be defined in a specific number of months rather than the specific months. Phases may overlap. • Whether the standard three year period is established or a phased five year period, all necessary development submittals that support the approved project will be reviewed under the standards that were in place during the site plan review approval process. All necessary permits for all aspects of the approved development proposal shall have been secured from all approving authorities, e.g. utility permits, building permits, state and federal permits, etc. Individual permits may remain valid and open beyond the Site Plan expiration date provided site work began prior to the expiration date. • Up to two one year extensions may be granted provided that a written request for such extension is submitted at least 30 days in advance of the Site Plan expiration date. The extension shall be granted upon a finding that one of the following circumstances exist: o Substantial progress has been made on the development proposal, or; o Unforeseen economic conditions have resulted in the inability of a project to move forward • Whether phased or not, under no circumstance shall the Site Plan Review expiration date extend beyond five years from the date of issuance. March 28, 2011 Draft - Site Plan Review Language SITE PLAN REVIEW FLOW CHART Optional Pre-Application Conference - 14 days (ACC 14.06.010.D) Site Plan Review A Application is v Develop procedures that Submitted. E R shorten this timeframe by A determining completeness at Determination of s intake. Completeness - E Application Routed to v E 14 da s ACC 14.07.020 Y (ACC 14.07.020) Planning, Engineering, R Building, VRFA, Traffic A - L L Application Noticed (15 day comment period) T i Reviewing a conceptual Application Reviewed M E proposal for major issues. for Compliance F R A M Additional Information 28 days (Not codified - a goal. This gives E the reviewer 13 days from the date that Needed? the date that the comment period ends No s 6 to issue the permit.) Es suance of Threshold D Determination A Y Administrative Decision s - Rendered 14 days (ACC 14.13.010) Appeal Period Reviewing the detailed Submittal of Specific elements of a proposal. Permits (Building, Utilities, Construction, etc.) New Information Submitted Yes Write Letter Requesting Information Yes I Appeal Process