Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2017

Home

Development Review Process - The Bookends Conceptual Review that our system (and yours, too) has leverage points where relatively small changes can cre- ate huge improvement. This leveraging is best identified by the 8o/2o rule, a phenomenon where 8o percent of your system's activity is influenced by 20 percent of the total system. In terms of volume, building permit review consumes the majority of our review activity since it is the back -end process for all projects (nearly 5,00o cases in 2016). In terms of front-end impact, the conceptual review process best ensures a smooth flow with all other functions that operate downstream. Simply put, these are the critical bookends (i.e., the 20 percent). Finding the Value With the two processes identified, we applied our principles for improving each. To illustrate, let's consider conceptual review. We start with value: what is the value of this meeting? We define it from our standpoint as well as the client's: In both instances, value is generally defined by the quality of what we produce and the time in which it is delivered. In terms of quality, the value of these meetings comes not just from the guidance we Subdivision Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Special Use Permit Administrative Waiver Other Review Permits 5 provide in the meeting but also, most espe- cially, from the formal comments we provide afterward in document form. These meetings often generate a lot of information for an ap- plicant. It can be hard to follow our message completely in the 3o-minute window we pro- vide. So our staff often tried to consolidate the comments into a document that was sent after the meeting —typically via email. That letter then represents the essential recipe for how the applicant can accomplish the project in accordance with our zoning regulations. So again, the letter is the highest piece of value from this process. For the client and for us. In the past, however, our process didn't ensure that all the proper experts attended the meeting. The idea of "consolidated com- ments" was often a non -starter since we seldom had a building official, engineer, or code enforcement officer in the meeting. Even when members were in attendance, we didn't always ensure that our comments were con- sistent, clear, and in chronological order. So quality was often far less than what we knew it could, and should, be. And as mentioned before, the value of these meetings is also built on time. If we Building Permit failed to send these comments to applicants in a timely fashion, their experiences —and their projects —suffered. Traditionally, we told customers they would receive comments within 14 days. This was the hope but not the internal expectation. Thus the 14 days was seldom met. The time tine was more like 7o days on average, which is embarrassing to consider. There were even instances where we didn't send the comments at all! Mapping the Value On paper, conceptual review is a small pro- cess. But when mapped through the rest of the value chain, it has a tremendous effect on the success of a project. If applicants do not receive a document of consolidated comments in a timely fashion after a conceptual meeting, they often fail to follow the rest of our process effectively. If the applicant does get com- ments, but they are inaccurate or incomplete or inscrutable, the plight is just as bad. In every instance, this creates the classic problem of "garbage in, garbage out." Poor guidance leads to poor submittals and poor outcomes. Every planner is keen to this fact, and it makes more work for everyone. It begs the question: How could some- thing so simple as a conceptual review pro- cess be so inconsistent? Was our staff lazy? Irresponsible? Negligent? Like so many facets of work in large organizations, the truth of the ZONINGPRACTICE 5.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 4