Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Process (March 22, 2017)
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•901 vistas
The current and the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program process are explained. This presentation describes: • Why the county amends the plan • What is the current process • What was learned from the evaluation of the process • What was the outcome of that evaluation? The Comprehensive Plan is Fairfax County’s policy guide for making land use decisions and is amended on a regular basis to ensure that its goals and objectives support sound land used decision making.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (12)
Destacado
Destacado (20)
Similar a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Process (March 22, 2017)
Similar a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Process (March 22, 2017) (20)
Más de Fairfax County
Más de Fairfax County (20)
Último
Último (20)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Process (March 22, 2017)
- 2. Overview 1. Why the Plan Should Be Amended? 2. Summary of Current Review Process - Fairfax Forward 3. Two-year Evaluation Results 4. Proposed Changes to the Planning Process 2
- 3. Why the Plan Should Be Amended? • Ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies within the Plan are able to guide sound decision-making • Engage the community and other stakeholders in the planning process • Meet state code requirements • Evaluate impacts of any proposed change 3
- 4. Current Process - Fairfax Forward Activity Center Studies Neighborhood Planning Studies Countywide/Policy Plan Amendments Board-authorized Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Adopted July 2013 – Replaced Area Plans Review process Comprehensive Plan Review based on a Plan Amendment Work Program - Reviewed every two years by the Planning Commission 4
- 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/fairfaxforward 5
- 6. Activity Center Studies - Concept For Future Development 6
- 7. Neighborhood Planning Studies – Planning Districts 7
- 8. Two year Evaluation – Common Themes Spring 2016 - • Better communication through online channels - Internet & Social Media • Difficult transition from APR to Fairfax Forward • Outstanding questions about community participation in process • Impact on Schedule from Board Authorized Plan Amendments 8
- 9. Proposed Changes to the Planning Process Countywide/Policy Plan Amendments Activity Center/ Neighborhood Planning Studies Site-Specific Amendments (North/South County Cycle) Board-authorized Amendments Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program Comprehensive Plan Review based on a Plan Amendment Work Program – Reviewed annually by the Planning Commission New! Goal of proposed changes - Address concerns raised by community about participation, and increased number of Board -authorizations 9
- 10. Site-Specific Plan Amendment Process • 4-year review process • North/South County cycle: – North County: Hunter Mill, Dranesville, Sully, Providence – South County: Lee, Mount Vernon, Springfield, Mason, Braddock • Nomination-based • Anyone can submit • Task force reviewed New! 10
- 11. Education and Nomination Process Screening Process Work Program Review Process - Expedited and Standard Review Plan Monitoring Site-Specific Plan Amendment Process - Staff and task force process - High level review – merits and urgency - Recommendations to PC add to work program or not add - PC adopts changes to the work program and IDs expedited and standard review - PC establishes parameters of cycle – e.g., timing, eligibility - 3-month nomination period; nomination acceptance - Task forces are appointed and receive a Planning 101 - Formal agency review and impact analysis - Standard or expedited (w/o complex analysis or significant outreach) - Task force and staff review - Public hearings – PC and BOS (those receive favorable rec.) - Quantitative and qualitative measurement of Plan amendments 5 months 3 months 6-10 months 11 7 months
- 12. Only one nomination for a particular site per nominator. May consist of one or many parcels. Not propose new residential uses or developments subject to the 2016 Proffer Reform Bill (15.2-2303.4). Not propose changes to the Policy Plan. Not included in any Plan amendment adopted within the past 5 years. Not subject to any pending Plan amendment or special study scheduled on the work program. Not affect countywide systems 12Eligible Nomination Eligibility - Site-specific Amendments
- 13. 13Eligible Nomination Eligibility - Site-Specific Plan Amendments What is a proffer? • A developer volunteers a proffer as part of a rezoning application. • A proffer is typically designed to offset development impacts and provide community benefits. What is the 2016 Proffer Reform Bill (15.2- 2303.4)? • Took effect July 1, 2016. • Applies to proffered conditions and proffered condition amendments related to new residential development, including residential part of mixed-use development. • Restricts the ability of the county to request or accept proffers to those that are specifically attributable to the impact of the proposed development and further restricts offsite proffers. • Does not apply to certain specified areas: • A small area plan that is designated as a revitalization area, encompasses mass transit, includes mixed use and allows a density of at least 3.0 FAR, or • A small area plan that encompasses an existing or planned transit station (or is adjacent to station in neighboring locality) and is planned for additional density near station, or • A service district created pursuant to Va. Code 15.2-2400 that encompasses an existing or planned transit station area. What is the effect of the legislation on Plan amendments? • May limit Plan conditions that would otherwise be recommended in nonexempt areas.
- 14. Justification: • Addresses an emerging community concern(s); • Better implements the Concept for Future Development, and is not contrary to long- standing policies established in the Concept for Future Development; • Advances major policy objectives: – environmental protection, – revitalization of designated areas, – economic development, – preserving open space, – affordable housing, or – balancing transportation infrastructure and public facilities with growth and development. • Responds to actions by others, such as Federal, State, or adjacent jurisdictions; • Reflects implementation of Comprehensive Plan guidance • Responds to or incorporates research derived from technical planning or transportation studies; Nomination Form - Site-Specific Plan Amendment Process 14
- 15. • Adopted Plan describes criteria for when Plan amendments should be authorized outside the regular review cycle: – Emergency situation, threat to public health, safety, welfare, sound planning – Encourage concurrent Plan amendment and Rezoning process in Commercial Revitalizations Districts; • Scheduled on the work program automatically; • Under discussion: – Pre-authorization: staff to provide guidance about the current Plan recommendations and preliminary considerations, including work program impact. – Staff to work with BOS and PC to develop additional guidance for Board-authorized amendments. Board-authorized Plan Amendments Locations of Recently Adopted Board-authorizations 15
- 16. Timing of the Proposed Changes January – February 2017 April 2017 April 19, 2017 May 16, 2017 • PC Review of Concept • Public Comment • Staff Review and Recommendation • Publication of Staff Report • PC and BOS Public Hearings • Roll out of New Process 16
- 17. Benefits of the Proposed Changes • Familiar process due to similarities to APR; • Clearer process for citizen participation and review schedule; • All parts of the county would be eligible for review once every four years; • Enhanced screening process necessary to manage expected volume of nominations; • Public education about process and expectations for screening process critical to success; • Planning Commission would review the PA work program more frequently; and, • Board-authorization process remains available for nominations not eligible for site-specific process, or others of greater urgency 17
Notas del editor
- This presentation will explain the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program process and the proposed changes to it.
- The presentation will cover four different topics: why the county amends the Plan, what is the current process, what was learned from the evaluation of the process, and what was the outcome of that evaluation?
- The Comprehensive Plan is the county’s policy guide for making land use decisions and is amended on a regular basis to ensure that its goals and objectives support sound land used decision making. Planning policies relate to land use, transportation, environmental protection and preservation, heritage resources, among others. Amending the Plan ensures that the county’s goals and objectives remain relevant as a basis for sound land use decision making. The process is designed to engage the community and incorporate their concerns into the county’s analysis. An evaluation of such elements as transportation and public facilities is also completed with any proposed land use change to understand the impacts.
- The current process for amending the Plan Fairfax Forward emphasized holistic planning and analyzing cumulative impacts of changes to the Plan. Adopted in July 2013, Fairfax Forward centers on a Plan amendment work program that schedules amendments and studies. The work program consists of activity center studies, neighborhood planning studies, countywide and policy Plan amendments, and Board authorized amendments. Further explanation of these studies follows on the next few slides. The review and adoption of a new work program by the Planning Commission has been postponed.
- This is a screen shot of the Plan Amendment Work Program and website link where you can view the work program. The work program contains the following information: the Plan amendment or study name, when it was authorized by the Board of Supervisors, the type of study, and a short description of the scope of work.
- Activity center studies are based on the mixed-use and industrial areas identified in the Concept for Future Development. The Concept for Future Development is part of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is the county’s conceptual plan for where future growth should be concentrated near services and amenities such as public transportation. These include the Tysons Urban Center, suburban centers, transit station areas, community business centers, and industrial areas.
- Neighborhood planning studies are based on the 14 planning districts as defined in the county’s Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood planning studies focus on the areas outside of the activity centers – which are the low density, stable residential areas of the county. Minimal change is expected in these areas, however editorial updates are needed over time to recognize when planned development and/or public facilities have been built, and to update tax map numbers, dates and other factual data.
- Two years after the initiation of Fairfax Forward the county conducted an evaluation of the process. A number of themes emerged from this evaluation: Enhanced online channels including the use of list-serves, individual Plan amendment web pages, a Facebook land use page and a Planning 101 Youtube video were a benefit to communication techniques. The transition from the previous Area Plans Review process to Fairfax Forward was difficult because of the magnitude of the changes. There was a difference between the community participation in the APR process and Fairfax Forward, which raised concerns about the amount of community participation in the new process. Finally, a large number of Board of Supervisors authorized Plan amendments had a substantial impact on the timelines of other items scheduled Work Program; these also impacted the ability to perform Plan monitoring and maintenance.
- As a result of this feedback a new Site-Specific Plan Amendment process is proposed to be incorporated into the work program. Activity center studies, neighborhood planning studies, countywide and policy amendments would remain as part of the work program, and the Board retains the ability to authorize individual Plan amendments outside the regular review of the work program. The Planning Commission would review the work program on an annual basis. The goal of the proposed is to addressed concerns raised by the community and provide another avenue for site-specific amendments to be reviewed other than Board authorizations.
- The site-specific process would be a four-year process that is divided into two 2-year cycles. The first two years would focus on the four Supervisor districts in the North County (Hunter Mill, Dranesville, Sully and Providence), and the second two years would focus on the five districts in the South County (Mount Vernon, Lee, Mason, Braddock and Springfield). The process would be nomination based, and anyone can submit a nomination during the nomination period. Community task forces appointed by the District supervisor would assist in the review of the nominations.
- This slide has more details of the new site specific process. The first phase begins with a 5-month education and nomination process. The nomination submission period is included within this process when anyone can fill out a form and submit to the Planning Commission office. A Supervisor district level community task force will be appointed by the Supervisor at this point. The task forces would be educated about the Comprehensive Plan and the nomination process. Afterwards a high level screening process, 6 months in duration, would take place with the community task force to evaluate how the nomination compares to long-standing county policy and the merits and urgency of the nominations. Staff and the task force would make recommendations to the Planning Commission about which nominations should be added to the work program and for those that are recommended for the work program. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing at which they would review these task force and staff recommendations and decide either to add a nomination to the work program, or not to add a nomination to the work program. If a nomination is not added, it would be removed from the Site-Specific process. These nominations could either be resubmitted during the next cycle. The Planning Commission also would identify whether a nomination should follow an expedited or standard evaluation process. The next phase would include a formal review and impacts analysis by staff. Nominations scheduled on an expedited track are expected to be reviewed in approximately 6 months, for those that are relatively straight forward or do not propose major substantive changes. All other nominations on the Standard track nominations would be expected to be reviewed in approximately 9-10 months. The impacts analyses conducted during this phase would be presented to the task force for their review. Both staff and the task force would make recommendations to adopt or modify the nomination, or to retain the Plan to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to adopt or modify the nomination, or to retain the Plan. Only those nomination that are supported as proposed or an alternative is supported would move forward to the Board of Supervisors. The Board would hold a public hearing and take action on the nomination or an alternative. Finally, a three-month Plan monitoring phase is proposed during which the quantitative and qualitative changes to the Plan made as a result of adoption of the nominations, is assessed. This would include an assessment of the county’s planned development potential and any planning trends that emerged from the amendments.
- Nominations submitted for the Site-Specific process would be eligible for consideration if they meet certain criteria, as shown on this slide. The final criteria for the Proffer Reform Bill will be explained in the next slide.
- A proffer is typically volunteered by a developer during a rezoning application process, and is designed to offset development impacts and provide community benefits. The 2016 Proffer Reform Bill limits the types of proffers that the county can accept for new residential development in certain areas, and in those areas, only non-residential use nominations would be accepted for the Site-Specific process. This slide defines those areas. The Board of Supervisors can still authorize consideration for amendments in these areas through a motion, if needed.
- A nomination form would be drafted, similar to that shown on this slide. The nominator would need to complete this form to submit a nomination, and submit before the deadline. The form asks for information about the site location, the current Plan recommendations, and proposed change, including the merits and urgency of the proposed change. One or more of the criteria listed on this slide should be used as the explanation for the merits of the proposed changes.
- The Board will retain the ability to authorize amendments outside of this process. The Comprehensive Plan has guidance related to when these authorizations are appropriate such as an emergency situation, threat to public health, safety, welfare, sound planning, encourage concurrent Plan amendment and Rezoning process in Commercial Revitalizations Districts. These amendments are scheduled on the work program automatically. As part of the proposed changes additional guidance would be provided to Board members prior to the authorization of a Plan amendment including the impact onto the work program.
- Public hearings are anticipated in April and May of this year. And if the Board adopts the proposed changes, the process would begin as early as July 2017.
- The benefits of the proposed changes are as follows: familiar process due to similarities to APR, clearer process for citizen participation and review schedule, all parts of the county would be eligible for review once every four years, enhanced screening process necessary to manage expected volume of nominations, public education about the process and expectations for screening process critical to success, the Planning Commission would review the PA work program more frequently; and, Board-authorization process remains available for nominations not eligible for site-specific process, or others of greater urgency.
- If you have any questions or comments, please visit the project webpage or contact us with the information provide on this slide.