Development Review Metrics: Zoning Evaluation Division
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like2,114 views
The document discusses development review metrics and initiatives to improve time to market for development projects in Fairfax County. It provides data on the time required to process different types of development cases, such as minor variations, single issue amendments, and interpretation requests. Charts show the percentage of cases handled within various time frames compared to budget goals. The document also outlines next steps to further improve internal tracking of case timelines and have staff-industry working groups to enhance the quality and effectiveness of submissions and reviews.
Development Review Metrics: Zoning Evaluation Division
- 1. Development Review Metrics: Zoning Evaluation Division Economic Advisory Commission - Implementation Committee Tracy Strunk, AICP; Director Zoning Evaluation Division, DPZ June 8, 2018
- 2. Overview • Time to Market Initiatives • Current Metrics • Next Steps 2
- 3. Time to Market Initiatives: Minor Variations Type of Request New Use Building Materials Height 3 Seven Requests • 2 Converted • 3 Approved • 2 in Process Commitment: First BOS date available NLT 2 months • 2 in 60 days • 2 in 70 days • 1 in 80 days
- 4. Time to Market Initiatives: Single Issue Amendments 4 • Commitment to process in 3-4 months • Commitment to keep review focused • Available for any type of zoning case • No automated way to track # at this time • Example at BOS this week: Rocks Tysons March 18 acceptance – June 5 BOS
- 5. Time to Market Initiatives: Booster Shot Positions • Two positions initially hired end of 2015 • 200 + internal ‘green sheets’ processed • 720 proffer compliance questions answered • Estimate 10% reduction in formal proffer interpretation requests 5
- 6. Current ZED Budget Metrics: Interpretation Requests 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0-30 days 30-60 days 60+ days Elapsed Time: Request Date to Letter Date FY15 FY16 FY17 Budget Goal = 30% in 30 days
- 7. Current ZED Budget Metrics: Rezoning Applications 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 less than 4 months 5-6 months 7-10 months >10 months Acceptance Date to 1st Scheduled PC Hearing FY15 FY16 FY17 Budget Goal = 80% in 9 months
- 8. Current ZED Budget Metrics: Special Exception Applications 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 less than 4 months 5-6 months 7-10 months >10 months Acceptance Date to 1st Scheduled PC Hearing FY15 FY16 FY17 Budget Goal = 75% in 8 months
- 9. Current ZED Budget Metrics: Acceptance Review 9 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 in 10 days 10-20 days 20-30 days over 30 days Business Days to Initial Review Letter FY15 FY16 FY17 Budget Goal = 60% in 10 business days
- 10. Additional ZED Metrics: Pre-application Meetings 10 0-10 days 15% 11-20 days 37% +20 days 21% NA 27% Days between Request and Internal Review Meeting: 2nd Half of FY2017
- 11. Additional ZED Metrics: PC Hearing Dates / SE 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 less than 1 month more than 1, less than 3 more than 3, less than 6 more than 6 1st Scheduled PC date to Actual PC Hearing FY15 FY16 FY17
- 12. Additional ZED Metrics: PC Hearing Dates / RZ 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 less than 1 month more than 1, less than 3 more than 3, less than 6 more than 6 1st Scheduled PC date to Actual PC Hearing FY15 FY16 FY17
- 13. Additional ZED Metrics: Staff Coordinator Assigned 13 Same day 17 17% Within 7 days 67 66% More than 7 days 18 17% FY17 Elapsed Time: Accept to Assign
- 14. Next Steps • ZED Staff working on internal date tracking for case review period • Focus in PLUS on getting trackable data points • Working on LTI re: Goal for Acceptance to Assignment • P7 Process Team: Suggested two Staff-Industry working groups on improving quality of submissions and effectiveness of review 14
Editor's Notes
- #3: Time to market initiatives – refer to some of the ZED initiatives that were mentioned in the April Budget Q&A What we are measuring – in Budget and other new stuff 3 FY (15, 16, 17) (get to the graphs soon)
- #4: Created Nov 2017
- #5: We hope with PLUS to have a marker so we can identify and track these types of applications automatically
- #6: As of March 2018 Note that goal isn’t just to reduce numbers, but to identify earlier in process so that interp can be concurrent with site plan, rather than holding it up
- #7: Additional Misc: FY15 = 18 FY16 = 59 FY17 = 157
- #8: In the current budget metrics – we do RZs and SEs – should we also be doing all types?
- #9: This is JUST SE NOT SEA… High 2015 numbers are reflective of home child care
- #10: Note that in FY14 we had only 36 w/in 10 days, 74 in 10-20, 124 20-30, 142 in 30-40, 183 over 40
- #11: Started new process with front counter in early 2015 Started new process with Staff same time Front Counter Database did not include ‘meeting date’ until beginning of 2017 Looking at PLUS for better tracking
- #13: Cases scheduled for PC hearing in the noted FY
- #15: Like LDS and site plans – some time is on our side and some on their side – historically each SC tracks schedule their own way (can usually recreate with some work but not standard, hard to get good data that way) Not sure that gets at the reason WHY, but it’s a start… P7 process improvement group identified TWO or THREE working groups for staff and industry to work on quality control, coordination CHECK THIS!! In ePlans and PLUS processes, focusing on how to effectively track, share and respond to comments The LTI about acceptance – assignment: came out of P7 work