►
From YouTube: County Board Work Session with the Planning Commission
Description
County Board Work Session with the Planning Commission
A
A
A
All
right,
well,
let's
get
started.
Christian
is
here
he
should
walk
in
any
minute.
So
thanks
everybody
for
joining
us
today
and
I
know
in
the
audience
or
I,
see
a
number
of
our
planning.
Commissioners
thanks
for
joining
us
as
well
as
others
in
for
many
years.
What
we
have
met
once
twice
a
year
with
the
Planning
Commission,
for
various
reasons,
sometimes
to
look
at
the
work
plan
and
get
some
ideas,
thoughts
from
our
planning
commissioners
about
what
we
might
be
working
on.
A
We
obviously
see
many
of
you
through
the
course
of
the
year
at
our
work
sessions
when
we
have
planning
items
and
issues,
and
today
the
purpose
of
this
meeting
is
to
go
back
a
bit
to
the
discussions
that
have
been
held
the
last
couple
of
years
around
the
site
plan
review
process
and
see
what
in
fact,
we've
gotten
to
and
what
what
reforms?
What
changes
in
the
process
about
the
way
the
site
plan,
review,
process
works,
have
been
implemented
and
what
questions
and
issues
there
are
for
discussion
and
board
input
in
that
regard
as
well.
A
B
Right,
thank
you.
Mister
chair,
we're
pleased
to
be
here,
I
think
it's
actually
really
important
for
the
board
and
for
the
Commission
to
have
this
opportunity
to
kind
of
set
a
a
path
forward
for
where
the
Commission
is
going
to
go
as
we
continue
to
evolve
as
a
community
I.
Think
I'm,
mindful
of
the
fact
that
our
Commission
now
we
have
a
relatively
newer,
fresher
Commission
we've
got
four
members
appointed
just
in
the
last
couple
of
months
and
also
on
the
board.
Frankly,
with
your
retirement
next
year,
mr.
B
chair,
the
board,
four
of
the
five
members
of
the
board,
will
be
in
their
first
term,
so
there's
been
a
lot
evolving
in
the
community,
a
lot
of
kind
of
heavy,
deep
focus
on
the
role
of
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
role
of
long-term
planning
in
Arlington
and
how
we
can
respond
to
changing.
You
know,
market
conditions,
but
yet
hold
on
to
those
values
of
strong
planning
and
holding
to
our
planning
processes
and
documents.
B
I
think
that
the
commission,
from
from
my
time
on
the
Commission
I,
expect
this
to
continue
into
the
future,
is
very
eager
and
willing
to
adapt.
As
the
county
continued
continues
to
evolve
in
how
we
do
things,
but
also
eager
to
have
that
input
from
the
board
tonight
in
terms
of
what's
the
best
way
that
the
Commission
can
be
effective,
can
provide
good
advice
to
the
board
in
our
land,
use,
planning
and
decision-making
processes,
and
also
work
collaboratively
and
constructively
with
staff
with
other
Commission's
and
with
our
applicants
and
developer
community.
C
A
D
So
just
quickly,
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
that.
The
presentation
that
will
be
provided
by
Bob
Duffy
is
going
to
provide
just
a
framework
for
the
discussion
and
the
topics
that
have
been
listed
on
the
agenda
and
generally,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
over
the
last
several
years
about
site
plan,
process,
changes
and
improvements
to
the
review
process,
and
there
are
two
components
to
that
that
Bob
will
go
through
in
the
presentation
that
will
help
focus
the
discussion.
D
One
is
recommendations
that
were
established
by
the
site
plan
review
committee
working
group,
several
big
ideas
that
came
out
of
that
that
was
formed
in
2012
and
those
ideas
came
forward
a
number
of
years
later
and
then.
The
second
is
improvements
made
by
staff
to
its
administrative
review,
processes
related
to
site,
plan,
applications
and
review
of
those,
and
so
those
are
going
to
be
the
things
that
that
bob
focuses
on
and
they
the
second
component
of
that
the
staff
process
changes.
D
E
Assistant
county
manager,
bird
and
we're
fortunate
to
have
Samia
with
us
tonight,
because
former
role
she
was
very
actively
involved
and
really
played
a
leadership
role
throughout
her
her
career
to
date.
On
on
many
of
things,
will
this
cutting
will
touch
on
tonight
again,
as
Samia
is
indicated?
What
I'm
going
to
try
to
do?
E
County,
board
members
and
planning
commissioners
is
give
a
really
brief
overview
to
set
the
stage
for
your
discussion
in
terms
of
the
roles
and
organization,
the
Planning
Commission,
just
to
give
a
framework
as
Simmi
indicated,
and
then
I'll
give
an
overview
to
important
reports
that
were
completed
in
2014
and
15,
and
that's
the
report
of
the
site
plan
review
committees,
working
group
and
the
site
plan
application
and
administration
process
improvements
really
led
by
staff.
So,
let's
start,
and
just
very
briefly
we're
fortunate
in
Arlington
County
to
have
a
very
active
and
committed
planning.
E
A
A
A
E
Again,
Virginia
enables
communities
to
have
a
Planning
Commission.
We've
been
fortunate
since
1956
to
have
an
active
and
committed
Planning
Commission
who
focuses
on
our
comprehensive
plan
rep
strategies
for
implementation
of
that
plan,
the
review
five
years
periodically
of
our
comp
plan,
a
number
of
other
duties.
So
that's
the
basic
authority
and
again
the
Planning
Commission
establishes
a
set
of
bylaws
which
they
maintain
on
an
ongoing
basis.
E
It
was
last
their
bylaws
were
last
revised
in
July,
2nd
2013,
and
you
see
in
this
slide
an
outline
of
what
those
bylaws
cover,
and
this
is
really
really
the
guiding
principles,
if
you
will
of
the
Commission
at
a
promote
orderly
development.
Advise
the
county
board,
which
certainly
the
Commission,
does
defines
how
many
members
the
officers,
their
meetings,
the
three
committees
and
I'll
go
into
those
three
committees
in
a
little
more
detail.
E
How
records
are
kept
by
Giselle's
Anza
Johnson,
who
serves
as
the
clerk
of
the
Planning
Commission,
how
basic
public
notices
are
filed
and
how
periodic
amendments
are
handled.
So
the
bylaws
are
important
aspect
of
the
Planning
Commission
but,
most
importantly,
our
Planning
Commission
is
divided
into
three
standing
committees.
You
see
from
this
chart
and
the
chairs
of
each
of
these
committees
are
appointed
annually
by
the
Commission
chair.
E
One
thing,
I've
included
in
this
description
is
from
the
2016
annual
report,
the
number
of
meetings,
public
hearings
that
the
Commission
and
the
planning
committees
conduct
it's
a
tremendous
commitment
of
work.
It
is
just
tremendous
from
my
experience.
It's
just
an
outstanding
level
of
commitment
that
our
citizen
planters
provide.
So
we
have
three
committees,
the
site
plan
review
committee,
which
will
talk
a
lot
about
this
evening
as
part
of
their
mission
and
the
work
that's
been
done
to
date.
E
They
advise
the
Planning
Commission
on
all
site
plans,
major
and
minor
amendments,
neither
request
for
special
exception
and,
most
importantly,
they
provide
the
forum
for
reviewing
and
commenting
on
site
plans.
That's
the
site
plan
review
committee
process
2016.
They
held
23
meetings,
including
two
joint
meetings,
the
forum
basecoat
AAG.
E
The
long
range
planning
committee
advises
the
commission
on
land
use
urban
design
and
long-range
plans,
including
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
recently
they
provided
an
update
to
the
board
on
the
comp
plan,
which
is
required
every
five
years
in
lrpc
met
12
times
during
2016
and
finally
zoko.
The
zoning
ordinance
committee,
which
advises
the
commission
and
certainly
on
to
the
county
board
and
all
amendments
related
to
our
zoning
ordinance
and
again,
they're
very
active
as
well.
It's
important
to
note
that
the
site
plan
review
committee
was
created
by
the
County
Board
in
1972.
E
E
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
provide
an
update
and,
as
a
chairman
indicated,
just
go
back
a
bit
and
give
them
an
update
on
the
two
reps
of
recommendations
that
have
been
provided
previously
to
to
the
county
board
the
Planning
Commission.
The
first
stems
from
the
site
plan
review
committee
working
group.
You
may
recall
that
this
group
was
established
back
in
April
2013
by
the
site
plan
review
committee.
E
There
were
18
members
of
the
community
that
served
on
this
committee
from
the
business
planning
commission
other
boards
and
commissions
were
represented,
and
there
were
three
staff
miss
bird
myself
and
Lisa
Marr
from
des
in
the
September
16th
2014.
They
conducted
a
work
session
like
we're
having
tonight
to
review
those
conclusions
and
preliminary
recommendations.
The
second
thing
I'll
go
through
tonight
is
actually
the
administrative
process
improvements
that
staff
developed,
while
this
was
certainly
an
independent
effort
by
staff
that
focused
on
our
administrative
regulation,
4.1,
which
governs
a
submittal
of
site
plans
or
County.
E
It
was
sort
of
influenced,
certainly
by
what
we
heard
from
the
working
group
and
again
as
you'll,
see
in
our
presentation,
plays
a
key
role
in
the
site
plan
process.
Just
very
briefly,
I
think
it's
important
to
review
the
site
plan
process
and
this
diagram
shows
the
six
phases
today
of
the
site
plan
review
process.
E
That
begin
with
a
very
early
concept
and
preliminary
submission
running
to
final
submission
to
the
actual
site
plan
review
process,
and
it's
here
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
its
site
plan
review
committee
and
there
are
operating
guides
that
are
very
important
as
part
of
the
help,
inform
and
influence
that
process
and
we'll
talk
about
those
this
evening
and
again,
final
plant
submission
before
the
public
hearings
and
post
approval.
The
other
element
that
I
mentioned
before
is
the
administrative
regulation
four
point,
one
that
the
county
manager
approves.
E
You
just
want
to
give
a
quick
overview
of
what
exists
today,
and
these
were
last
revised
in
2010
and
historically
it's
the
Planning
Commission
members
who
have
maintained
and
updated
these
guides,
and
you
can
see
there
are
two
parts,
one
that
deals
with
a
site
plan
review
committee,
the
other
with
a
site
plan
chair.
They
cover
everything
from
the
scope
when
a
site
plan
review
is
required.
The
members,
the
roles
of
the
chair,
the
meetings
and,
most
importantly,
the
agenda
for
a
site
plan,
review
process.
E
There's
some
ground
rule
discussion
and
what
materials
are
submitted
for
the
meeting
and
a
brief
outline
of
what
a
site
plan
report
from
the
committee
in
the
chair
would
consist
of
and
again
there's
a
second
part
of
this
that
lays
out
the
responsibilities
and
the
guides
the
chair
in
his
or
her
role
through
that
process.
So
this
is
critically
important
for
the
Planning
Commission
again.
The
second
part
of
this,
which
is
distinctly
different
in
this,
stems
from
the
zoning
ordinance.
E
Article
15
of
the
ordinance
are
the
administrative
regulations
that
the
county
manager
approves
that
deal
with
plans,
the
middle
process
and
requirements
from
the
concept,
the
preliminary
final
filing.
It
defines
what
types
of
plans
what
checklists
are
used,
how
various
calculations
are
performed,
it's
very
technical
and
essential
for
our
professional
staff
to
utilize
that
and
have
a
common
framework
if
you
will
to
guide
that
effort
on
a
day
to
day
basis.
E
That
regulation
also
covers
how
we
administer
a
review
phase,
develop
and
site
plans,
the
Crystal
City
block
plan,
which
is
a
new
type
of
phased
development
site
plan.
If
you
will
that
the
Crystal
City
sector
plan
brought
forward
how
we
advertised
and
most
importantly,
the
55
state
or
standard
site
plan
conditions
that
are
reviewed
on
an
annual
basis,
so
again,
those
are
the
two
core
elements
that
guide
staff
and
certainly
guide
the
Planning
Commission
to
the
site
plan
review
process.
I.
E
Think
it's
important
to
note
that
when
you
look
back
over
the
many
reports
and
the
work
that
was
done
both
by
the
site
plan
review
committee
as
well
as
by
staff,
these
objectives
came
through,
and
certainly
they're
still
prominent
today
and
is
no
less
important
today.
In
terms
of
ensuring
that
our
processes
improve
site,
plan,
review,
efficiency,
effectiveness
and
timeliness,
they
introduce
greater
consistency
and
clarity
of
the
process,
reduce
applicant
costs
and
uncertainty.
E
Facilitate
early,
timely
and
coordinated
review,
facilitate
effective,
productive
response
of
an
inclusive
community
participation.
One
of
the
key
roles
of
the
site
plan
review
committee,
timely
communication
and,
most
importantly,
provide
high
quality
redevelop
that
advances,
County
goals,
policies
and
plans.
I
think
I,
said
objectives
that
was
true
in
2014
and
15
and
certainly
know
that's
true
today.
E
So
in
2015,
at
a
work
session
by
the
county
board
after
the
site
plan
review
committee,
work
group
completed
their
work.
The
chair
of
that
group,
commissioner
Cole
made
a
presentation
at
the
work
session
and
in
the
recommendation,
define
a
series
of
big
ideas
or
recommendations
and
I'll
summarize
them
that
we
can
come
back
to
these
in
more
detail,
as
your
work
session
continues,
but
first
was
to
clarify
the
roles
of
other
Advisory
Commission's
committees
and
boards
and
civic
associations
and
site
plan
reviews.
Today
there
are
at
least
in
the
past.
E
There
been
at
least
40
individuals
representing
various
civic
associations,
committees,
boards
and
commissions
that
sometimes
are
at
that
table.
That's
a
tough
job
to
manage
a
large
number
of
interested
parties,
but
again
the
site
plan
review
committee
brings
the
various
stakeholders,
together
with
staff
and
to
review
projects
with
the
applicant,
and
the
Commission
want
to
be
sure
that
there
was
clarity
in
what
those
roles
were
of
those
committees
and
commissions
and
how
they
work
together
and,
most
importantly,
how
they
would
submit
their
reports
and
advice
to
both
the
Commission
and
the
county
board.
E
The
agenda
was
a
major
point
of
consideration
in
terms
of
how
to
structure
that
to
better
serve
both
the
committee,
the
community
and
the
applicants,
and
we're
still
having
that
discussion.
In
fact,
the
chair
of
the
SPRC
we've
been
discussing
that
over
the
last
several
weeks
in
anticipation
of
moving
forward
clarifying
the
role
the
site
plan
review
chair
is
again
providing
clarity
and
possibly
updating
those
operating
guy
to
support
the
committee
and
support
the
chair
would
be
very
important.
E
At
the
time
there
there
was
an
evenness
I
think
to
the
how
the
committee
agendas
were
structured
and
managed
and
led
and
I
think
that's
improved,
significantly,
I
think
as
you'll
hear
tonight
and
finally
establish
clear
expectations
for
materials,
particularly
related
to
the
preliminary
site
plan
review.
So
there
were
these
eight
big
ideas
that
the
site
plan
review
committee
advanced
and
we
can
come
back
and
talk
about
those
in
more
detail.
E
The
next
slide
really
are
the
are
the
improvements
that
staff,
both
in
planning
des
the
department's,
worked
on
again,
certainly
influenced
by
the
work
of
the
Saipan
review
court,
but
also
to
improve
our
performance
as
well
and
based
on
the
work
that
we
did.
Those
administrative
requirements
were
updated
in
July
of
2016
and
before
we
came
to
the
manager
to
seek
those
those
revisions,
we
presented
them
and
review
them
with
a
site
plan
review
committee
on
may
19th
of
2016.
E
So
in
this
slide,
you'll
see
the
staff
recommendations
and
those
that
are
in
bold
and
underlined
are
those
that
we've
implemented.
We've
introduced
an
optional
concept,
site
plan
review
process
for
decades.
This
process
has
been
underway,
but
there
were
no
clear
rules.
The
coordination
between
departments
needed
to
be
called
out.
What
type
of
report
we
provide
to
an
applicant,
and
so
we
work
through
a
series
of.
E
Modifications
to
make
this
an
actual
part
of
the
site
plan,
application,
administration,
guidelines
or
standards,
and
it
was
adopted
again
in
July
of
2016.
So
we
now
have
an
optional
concept
plan
review
that's
completed
before
the
preliminary
filing.
It
deals
with
everything
from
the
various
technical
requirements
to
the
basic
issues
related
to
our
our
plans
and
policy.
In
Arlington,
there
was
discussion
about
a
streamline
or
shorter
review
of
certain
sign
plant
applications.
E
We've
not
moved
forward
with
that,
because
looking
back
to
2014-15
when
we
were
tracking
the
number
of
days
that
it
would
were
required
to
move
a
site
plan
from
the
preliminary
stage
to
actual
consideration
by
the
board.
At
that
time
it
was
almost
306
days
and
through
a
number
of
the
improvements
in
work.
We've
done
with
the
site
plan
review
committee
and
recommendations.
E
The
Planning
Division
considered
the
idea
of
bringing
the
acceptance
of
the
actual
applications
from
the
10th
floor
zoning
office
to
our
office
of
the
7th
floor.
However,
we
step
back
from
that,
because
a
new
permitting
system,
it's
underway
in
the
one-stop
Arlington
effort,
that's
underway
and
we'll
need
to
revisit
that
and
what
our
role
roles
are,
respectively,
with
zoning
once
the
new
permitting
system
is
in
place.
E
We
discussed
the
possibility
of
creating
a
standard
site
plan
condition
to
amend
to
enable
more
administrative
amendments
during
project
construction.
We
haven't
gotten
there
with
that.
In
fact,
there
are
some
issues
with
that.
Some
of
them
illegal
that
we
discussed
with
the
county
attorney
and
we
also
discussed
whether
it
was
possible
to
take
the
55
standard
site
plan
conditions
and
creating
more
of
an
administrative
guide
or
requirements
to
that.
But
again
with
a
new
permitting
system
and
I.
E
Think
Arlington's
history,
with
I
planned
special
exception
process,
presented
some
issues
for
that,
and
so
we
have
not
pursued
that.
At
this
point
we
have
revised
the
format
and
content
of
the
letter
from
the
Planning
Commission
of
the
County
Board.
After
a
great
deal
of
research
and
discussion,
we
recommended
to
review
and
revise
the
SPC
Chair
report,
format,
content
and
presentation.
That's
part
of
the
operating
guides
that
we'll
discuss
further
tonight
and
we
think
that
will
be
very
important
again
for
the
SPR
C
and
certainly
for
the
plate.
Commission
board,
moving
forward.
E
And
lastly,
and
we'll
talk
about
this
further
tonight
in
the
work
session,
training
is
going
to
be
utmost.
Important
importance
for
the
Planning
Commission
SPR
Cheers
chairs
chairmen
gut
Shaw
mentioned
the
four
new
commissioners
and
it's
it's
imperative
that
we
continue
to
provide
training,
resources,
orientation
and
development
resources
with
the
Commission.
So
mr.
chair,
that
is
my
overview.
I'll
be
happy
to
come
back
with
more
details
if
there
are
questions
but
I,
think
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
the
areas
of
discussion.
A
G
Certain
question
I
know:
we've
talked
a
lot
about
the
the
concept
review
process
and
the
administrative
level,
but
I
noted
in
the
in
the
summary
of
working
group
recommendations.
You
noted
an
optional
preliminary
review
there
as
well.
It
would
that
be
an
optional
preliminary
review
by
SPRC
or
Planning
Commission.
In
addition
to
the
the
pre
plans
of
mental
review
concept,.
E
From
the
working
group
was
to
have
a
optional
review
would
be
elected
by
the
applicant
to
convene
the
full
site
plan
review
committee
and
to
get
an
early
read
before
they
start
the
SPRC
process,
and
the
intention
was
that
that
could
help
set
the
agenda
narrow
the
field
of
various
policy
and
planning
issues
at
the
concept
level
for
staff.
That's
before
the
applicant
gets
to
even
luminary
filing,
and
it
provides
us
with
an
opportunity
to
give
them
early
guidance,
as
we
have
done
for
many
years.
E
H
D
Can
I
just
want
to
clarify
on
the
staff
conceptual
review?
That
was
something
that
we
were
already
doing.
So
all
we
did
was
formalize,
something
that
was
already
happening.
So
typically,
applicants
would
come
in
prior
to
making
a
submission
or
preliminary
filing
and
they
wanted
to
review
some
concepts
for
a
proposal
with
staff
and
they
were
doing
that
with
a
lot
of
different
departments
individually.
A
A
How
could
we
bring
that
element
to
the
picture
and
one
of
the
suggestions
from
the
development
community
as
well
as
others,
was
that
too
often,
they
had
already
invested
a
significant
amount
of
money
in
their
architectural
design
before
they
even
really
got
into
the
process,
and
so
the
suggestion
from
some
of
these
groups
was
give
them
an
opportunity
to
come
in
earlier
without
having
made
that
big
investment.
That
is
sometimes
hard
to
change
and
look
at
things
in
a
more
conceptual
way.
A
What
what
would
be
the
massing
and
the
step
downs
and
the
density
questions
more
in
block
form
so
that
some
of
the
and
then
the
other
big
thing
which
was
to
you
know,
hire
really
top
quality
architects
at
the
front
end
and
in
fact
people
did
start
doing
that
and
it
started
changed.
But
this
piece
was
also
driven.
E
Includes
two
levels:
it
does
include
that
technical
level,
but
we
do
through
the
new
standards,
ask
the
applicants
to
submit
massing
diagrams
to
begin
to
think
about
height
and
how
building
step
backs
transition
to
neighborhoods
the
edge
conditions,
and
so
on
that
many
of
our
plans
address.
So
we
do
ask
them
to
do
that,
and
sometimes
it
requires
several
iterations
to
get
there.
But,
mr.
chairman,
it's
both
of
those
things.
It's
dealing
with
the
nuts
and
bolts
the
technical
aspects
of
our
zoning
ordinance,
but
also
begin
to
think
about
urban
design
in
urban
form.
When.
A
F
F
E
We
define
what
we
require
the
applicant
to
submit
what
the
basic
procedures
are
and
how
the
departmental
team
will
we'll
consider
that
it's
when
we
get
to
phase
three
after
the
preliminary
plan
has
been
accepted
and
the
applicants
filed
for
the
final
site
plan
review
does
the
Planning
Commission
site
the
interview
committee
kickoff,
and
so
this
concept
review
occurs
very
early
in
the
process
and
that
again,
it's
been
very
helpful,
I
think
to
to
the
applicants
to
date.
Mr.
F
E
E
They
could
learn
something
from
the
concept
plan
review
that
would
indicate
I,
don't
think
I'm
ready
to
go
there
yet
and
and
so
until
we
have
a
site
plan
accepted.
The
final
has
been
submitted
and
we're
ready
to
proceed
and
meet
with
the
chair
of
the
site
plan
review
committee.
Does
all
that
really
become
part
of
the
public
domain?
Okay,.
B
That
that
gets
cleared
up
at
the
staff
level
and
works
through
I'd
certainly
see
the
benefit
to
our
overall
process.
In
that,
however,
the
perhaps
unintended
consequence
that
can
sometimes
happen
is
that
by
the
time
it
gets
to
phase
three
where
we
have
the
where
we
actually
enter
the
SPRC
process.
They
have
all.
They
have
now
worked
through
some
basic
decisions
about
circulation,
general,
massing,
etc,
because
it
comes
to
the
site,
the
SPRC,
having
made
that
investment
in
the
architect
and
the
architecture
generally.
B
Don't
know
that
this
is
the
was
the
exact
issue
in
terms
of
the
concept
review,
but
I
think
it's
a
lustrated
nonetheless,
because
I
remember
what
a
great
comment:
it
was
from
a
former
Commissioner
of
rosemary
CID
at
the
Blue
Goose
for
marymount,
where
there
was
a
fundamental
issue
that
had
to
do
with
the
level
of
the
plazas
and
they
were
multi-level
and
she
was
advocating
strongly
in
SPRC.
They
need
to
all
be
the
same
level.
You
ought
to
be
able
to
do
this,
and
the
pushback
was
what
we've
already
designed.
B
You
know,
we've
already
laid
out
all
the
garages
and
we've
already
done
all
that
in
the
end
the
applicant
was
able
to
make
that
work.
So
all
you
could
say
all's
well
that
ends
well,
but
I
think
that's
a
lesser
tip
of
kind
of
what
I'm
talking
about
where
you
get
past
a
certain
point
and
investment
from
the
from
the
from
our
applicants
and
there's
a
sense
of
vestige
ER.
That
is
sometimes
at
odds
with
with
community
review.
So.
E
We
don't
see
it
as
competing
I
think
because
we're
operating
with
the
same
set
of
policies
and
plans
that
the
board
has
adopted
and
commissions
been
engaged
with,
and
so
to
date,
as
we've
we've
utilized
this
new
tool,
we
think
it's.
It's
helped
refine
the
application
as
it
gets
to
the
SPR
C
so
I
from
staffs
perspective
and
again
from
what
we've
heard
from
the
applicants.
It's
been
well-received.
Many,
as
the
chairman
indicated
something
that's
been
sought
after
four
years
and
we've
got
it
in
place
and
and
again
I
just.
A
E
Iii
I
think
there
there
certainly
is
a
way
to
do
that.
Again.
That's
the
importance
of
having
a
staff
working
closely
with
the
citizen
planners
who
serve
on
the
Planning,
Commission
and
certainly
I,
think.
One
of
the
reasons
we're
here
tonight
is
is
to
look
for
direction
from
the
board
in
that
area,
but
again.
G
I,
just
to
that
end,
right
as
we've
sort
of
moved
into
areas
for
topic
for
discussion
Epic's
for
discussion,
it
would
strike
me
right
that
that
the
idea
of
reintroducing
or
following
up
on
the
optional
preliminary
review
at
the
SPR
sea
level
or
with
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
recipe
RC,
might
make
sense
here.
I'm,
you
know
of
the
mind
we
we
see
often
times,
applicants
will
come
not
just
for
pre
plan
review,
but
we'll
go
to
civic
associations
right.
G
So
there
is
some
desire
to
have
these
touch
points
with
the
community
as
long
as
it
is
optional.
One
way
to
mediate
or
alleviate
some
of
those
issues
that
mr.
Vyse
I
just
raised
or
put
a
point
on
that
were
raised
by
mr.
Getchell
I
might
think
would
be
to
reintroduce
this
additional
optional
step
in
the
process.
G
So
I
suppose
that
leads
me
to
the
question
of
you
know:
is
it
this
hasn't
been
followed
up
or
implemented
yet
because
the
planning
commissioners
are
busy
and
there
are
elements
of
those
working
group
recommendations
or
has
there
been
some
reason?
This
idea
of
an
optional
SPRC,
pre
pre
meeting
conversation
hasn't
been
achieved
yet.
B
Mr.
Duffy
might
be
able
to
give
a
more
full
answer
from,
from
my
perspective,
implement
I'm
not
actually
sure
what
embodies
implementation.
There
was
a
when
one
of
the
Raps
site
plans
was
first
starting
to
come
forward.
I
actually
asked
the
applicant,
perhaps
because
that
was
also
thinking
of
the
timing
of
when
we
had
sort
of
promulgated
these
desired
changes
and
I
thought
that
it
was
actually
agreed
upon
that
these
were
changes
so
sort
of,
like
we
say
we're
going
to
do
it.
B
Let's
do
it
and
I
asked
one
of
the
applicants
whether
they
were
and
intended
on,
taking
advantage
of
that
and
coming
to
the
SPR
C,
with
that
this
pre
review
before
there
4.1
filing,
and
they
told
me
that
they
had.
They
were
not
at
all
aware
that
that
was
an
option
that
was
available
to
them
and
then
I
never
heard
any
more
about
it
until
we
until
we
well
until
they
came
forward
with
a
full
4.1.
B
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
as
simple
as
putting
out
to
our
developer
community,
that
the
applicants
that,
if
you
desire
to
to
convene
with
the
SPR
C
that
I,
would
certainly
feel
very
comfortable
right
at
the
SPR
C
would
be
more
than
willing
to
meet
with
with
any
applicant
and
take
a
look
at
how
that
fits.
How
that
you
know
works
with
I
think
there
is
a
little
bit
I
can
respect
where
stuff
is
coming
from
that
what
they
are
trying
to
review
for
is
not
always
the
same
thing.
B
So
I
think
it's
it's
not
so
much
that
the
processes
need
to
be
melded
together.
I
think
that
there
is
there's
a
role
that
staff
is
playing
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
there
that
the
application
meets
all
of
the
requirements
that
it
needs,
but
I
think
that
if
we
put
it
out
there
with
applicants,
take
advantage
of
it
I
think
so.
But
I
don't
I,
don't
know
what
it
takes
to
say:
hey
here's,
an
option
just.
E
From
Jen
from
staffs
perspective,
one
of
the
recommendations
that
we
made
I
think
it
was,
it
was
supported
by
those
working
groups.
Recommendations
as
well
is
that,
again
and
again
this
is
going
to
come
up
in
your
discussion.
These
operating
guides
are
really
important.
They
really
do
lay
out
the
agenda.
E
A
I
I'm
listening
anyway,
okay,
so
trying
to
figure
out
what
exact
problem
we're
trying
to
solve.
I'm
hearing
that
we
want
to
prevent
on
some
level
the
expenditure
of
resources
unnecessarily.
That
need
to
be
changed
as
a
result
of
the
natural
process
that
we
desire
and
I
think
you
know,
part
of
that
is,
is
certainly
noble,
but
we
have
to
understand.
I
Often
on
their
own
initiative,
people
seek
to
develop
a
political
constituency,
as
Katie
mentioned,
with
civic
associations,
so
sometimes,
despite
our
own
desires
and
best
interests
on
their
own
initiative,
people
come
with
a
significant
expenditure
of
resources
just
to
try
and
and
garner
the
support,
that's
needed
to
either
move
forward,
or
they
think
is
politically
savvy
to
do
so.
So
I
think
we
need
to
segregate
what
it
is
we
require
versus
what
it
is.
People
may
decide
to
do
based
on
their
own,
and
you
know
caveat
emptor.
I
If
they
expend
that,
based
on
their
own
desires,
we're
not
responsible
for
that,
but
to
the
end
of
figuring
out,
what
exactly
we
require,
while
I
think
always
engaging
people
early
makes
sense.
It
seems
to
me
that
if
you
do
that
optional
SPRC
convening
early
on
the
concept
level,
you're
just
changing
shifting
the
SPR
SPRC
process
to
happen
a
little
earlier,
I'm,
not
sure
it's
functionally
any
different
than
having
another
layer
of
meetings,
but
I'm
sure
you
could
work
out
those
details
in
a
in
a
way
that
makes
sense.
I
What
exactly
we
are
looking
for
at
the
stage
of
citizen
review
and
what
exactly
we
are
expecting
you
to
receive
input
on
and
based
on
feedback
to
adjust
your
projects
accordingly,
if
it
makes
sense,
can
we
do
a
better
job
of
communicating
those
outcomes
or
those
desires
in
advance,
so
we
we
make
very
clear
what
it
is.
This
is
what
you
need
to
show
us
in
order
to
have
us
be
able
to
review
your
project,
and
if
you
go
above
and
beyond,
that's
that's
on
you.
If
I'm,
if
I'm,
making
myself
clear,
thank.
E
You
caddy
board
member,
and
we
do
that
in
these
4.1
Administrative
regs
that
we
adopt
in
these
regs
are
the
specific
types
of
studies
drawings
from
an
engineering
perspective
from
an
architectural
standpoint,
landscape
architecture,
traffic
engineering
and
so
on.
It
lays
those
out
for
the
various
phases
of
that
site
plan
process
and
that's
really
the
starting
point.
E
When
we
introduce
the
concept
level
review,
we
wanted
to
take
it
back
even
further
so
that,
before
that,
investment
was
be
made,
because
quite
often,
if
we're
starting
to
make
changes
in,
let's
say
Commissioner
got
Shaw
mentioned
the
loading
dock.
Sometimes
a
change
in
just
a
simple
sounds
like
a
loading
dock
can
ripple
through
tens
and
hundreds
of
drawings
and
specs
and
sheets
to
the
plan
process.
E
So
we're
looking
for
a
very
basic
set
of
drawings
and
look
at
massing
form
basic
orientation
and
access
to
ensure
that
at
an
early
stage
we're
giving
additional
guidance
in
conjunction
with
this
document
once
they
file
their
preliminary
and
ultimately,
their
final
to
start
through
the
plan.
The
formal
plan
review
process.
Mr.
B
Chairman
respond,
thank
you,
mr.
Dorsey
I.
Think.
Actually,
you
know
you're
asking
the
question
I
think.
Fundamentally,
how
do
we?
We
want
good
architecture?
We
want
good
urban
design,
so
how
do
we
out
of
the
process?
So
how
do
you
lay
that
out
in
terms
of
what
we're
looking
for
I
actually
would
submit
to
you
that
that's
the
whole
point
of
the
process,
because
it's
it
can
be
very
subjective,
there's
competing
goals,
there's
trade-offs,
you're
constantly.
Looking
at
all
of
that,
and
it's
my
understanding,
an
impression
that
what
we
value
in
Arlington
is.
B
We
have
valued
citizen
input
in
that
in
terms
of
if
you've
got
a
trade
off
to
be
made
between
a
loading,
dock,
location
and
and
and
the
ease
and
the
circulation,
but
the
pedestrian
friendliness,
and
are
you
looking
at
you
know,
you
know
where
you're
loading
the
parking
versus
where
you're
doing
other
things,
those
are
all
trade
offs
and
that's
part
of
the
conversation
that
we
have
so
your
point
about
that.
Are
we
just
if
we
allow
the
SPRC
to
have
some
input
earlier
optional
or
not
earlier
in
the
process?
Does
that
move
things
up?
B
I
think
maybe
it
does,
but
that's
probably
a
good
thing,
because
that's
the
whole
point.
We
started
this
whole
effort
back
in
2013
because
we
accepted
the
feedback
from
our
developer
community
that
we
were
taking
too
long.
We
were
getting
too
far
down
with
a
set
of
drawings
or
whatever
and
then
trying
to
circle
back
on
fundamental
issues
so
that
the
diagrams
that
Commissioner
Siegel
has
been
talking
about
with
you
and
all
those
are
all
efforts,
I
think
to
have
less
cost
for
our
developers
and
more
opportunity
for
people
to
see
things.
B
Not
the
pretty
pictures
and
I
get
that
you
know.
Developers
may
still
need
to
do
the
pretty
pictures
to,
for
their
other
reasons,
but
but
more
opportunity
to
really
look
at
how
does
this
application
fit
into
all
of
these
things
that
we
are
trying
to
balance.
So
to
me,
the
bottom
line
is
it's
all
a
balancing
act
and
it's
trade-offs
and
that's
why
the
community
input
is
is
so
valuable
in
my
view
earlier,
rather
than
later
and.
I
I,
don't
think
I
disagree,
I,
just
think
if
it's
a
convening
of
the
full
SPRC
with
no
change
into
what
you
require
and
what
you're
looking
for.
As
part
of
that,
you
haven't
added
a
level
of
what
you're
describing
to
the
process.
You've
just
moved
it
which
I
would
I
would
encourage
if
there's
a
way
move
this
forward,
that
it'd
be
fundamentally
different
than
what
a
developer
would
experience
once
they
mr.
F
John
yeah,
so
the
bottom
line
is
that
all
of
this
is
ultimately
at
an
applicant's
own
risk
substantially.
So
it
it
strikes
me
that
I
mean
it
would
be
my
perspective
that
through
the
operating
guide,
maybe
we
beefed
up
a
reference
to
the
the
and
encouraged
the
option
of
an
early
reach
out
to
you
to
the
SPRC,
not
make
it
mandatory,
not
requirement
but
encourage
it
and
and
ended.
F
You
know
in
the
applicant
can
let
ultimately
the
chips
fall
where
they
may
I,
if
we're
ready
to
move
on,
I
have
another
question,
but
you're
probably
going
to
make
the
rounds
right.
Okay,
sure,
let
me
just
say
I
know,
excuse
me.
Mister
frazzetti
I
had
a
statistical
question.
How
many
applicants
are
taking
advantage
of
this
right
now
for
it
over
in
overall
percentage
terms?
Mr.
Duffy,
would
you
say,
and
if
they
are
taking
advantage
of
it
of
that
subset,
how
many
are
not
going
forward
with
their
full
application?
F
E
We've
had
five,
possibly
six
applicants
that
have
gone
through
the
process
to
date.
We
currently
have
three
that
are
in
in
the
process
today,
and
two
of
them
are
in
in
are
in
rosslyn
involving
very,
very
complex
sites
and
what
is
in
Shirlington
terms
of
the
three
that
we're
currently
in
the
midst
of.
So
what
about.
A
E
The
three
that
we
have
today
are
currently
in
the
concept
level
review.
We
have
had
I
believe,
probably
six,
six
or
seven
that
have
completed
the
process
to
date
and
not
all
of
them
have
filed
based
on
the
preliminary
review
and
keep
in
mind.
Currently
this
preliminary
review
there
is
no
fee,
and
so
it
it
is
advantageous
to
the
applicant
to
seek
that
early,
a
consultation.
J
E
Had
one
case
recently
where
I
think
the
applicant
would
have
benefited
significantly
from
the
concept
level
review
and
realized
that
well
I
think
there
were
a
number
of
circumstances
that
had
contributed
to
the
process
they
chose,
but
I
think
the
concept
review
phase
would
abate
a
significant
difference
in
in
the
project.
Is
it
got
to
the
Commission
to
the
SPRC
and
again
ultimately
to
the
board?
Let.
A
Me
just
comment
that,
as
we
move,
maybe
on
to
another
topic,
I
was
taken
by
a
couple
of
these
comments,
which
are
very
good
and
we're
here
to
give
some
guidance,
but
I
think
maybe
just
some
feedback
is
a
better
way
to
say
it,
because
unless
we
all
felt
really
strongly
about
something
that
should
happen,
I
think
what
we're
hoping
is.
You
just
hear
our
questions,
hear
our
conversation
and
then
take
it
into
account
as
you
work
on
the
operating
guide
and
refining
the
processes
that
you've
begun
to
put
in
place.
A
I
was
taken
by
Eric's
example
because
well
cited
as
a
potential
issue.
It
also
was
a
success
in
that
in
this
case,
despite
the
preliminary
discussion
it
got
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
staff
and
the
applicant
still
were
open
enough
to
respond
to
the
Planning
Commission
input.
The
problem
would
have
been
had
that
not
been
the
case.
So,
okay,
then
the
idea-
that's
popped
up
from
some
here
about
having
this
optional
reach
out
optional.
E
E
This
fall
and
it
happens
to
be
in
Clarendon
and
there's
been
a
great
deal
of
discussion
out
in
the
community
about
that
case
and
while
we've
been
providing
early
guidance,
you
know
that
was
an
issue
that
the
Planning
Commission,
the
cyclin
review
committee
of
the
working
group,
discussed
somewhat
at
length
as
they
were,
putting
their
recommendations
forward.
So
it's
a
good
point
and.
D
A
D
G
Think
that's
such
a
fair
point
and
I
think
that
really
becomes
why
it's
really
important
to
codify
and
this
operating
guide
or
wherever
else
that
none
of
this
is
binding.
None
of
this
is
an
approval.
None
of
this
is
a
commitment
of
support
from
our
staff,
from
our
planning
commission
from
the
neighborhood.
But
I
do
you
know
I,
just
I'm
nodding
vigorously
as
Jane
makes
that
point,
because
I
think
it's
exactly
right
and
we
find
ourselves.
G
So
just
really
wanted
to
vigorously
agree
and
also
say
you
know,
I'm
and,
and
we
obviously
have
a
role
to
play,
as
well
as
reinforcing
those
commitments
as
County
board
members
just
because
an
applicant
went
through
pre-plan
review
or
an
option
area
optional.
Preliminary
review.
None
of
that
represents
a
binding
commitment
and.
A
So,
at
least
for
me
tying
up
my
thinking
on
this,
taking
into
account
what
Samiha
just
said
as
well,
which
is
true,
this
is
a
dynamic
process.
You
and
you
can't
say
to
an
applicant.
You
can't
go
to
the
neighborhood.
Of
course
they
can
go
wherever
they
want,
that's
part
of
their
own
strategy
or
thinking
or
sometimes
very
helpful
to
them
right.
A
But
the
main
focus
here
and
tonight
is
the
roles
of
the
folks
at
the
table,
which
is
the
staff,
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
the
board,
and
at
this
port
the
point
the
board
is
the
least
of
the
players.
I
mean
honestly
we're
not
really
involved,
though
an
applicant
may
come
to
us
as
well.
They
aren't
going
to
get
much
out
of
that
honestly.
A
So
it
just
strikes
me
that,
with
that
neighbourhood
point
in
mind
that
some
some
option
needs
to
be
understood
about
how
to
better,
integrate
or
better
inform
or
better
somehow
engage
allow
for
the
Planning
Commission.
And
that
could
be
that.
Even
when
you
do
your
work,
you
have
the
the
chair
of
the
SPRC
task
to
this
project
in
the
room
with
you
to
be
a
liaison,
or
it's
that
optional
review
to
the
SPRC.
A
There
may
be
numerous
ways
to
try
to
not
put
the
Planning
Commission
at
a
quote
disadvantage,
but
in
but
be
aware
at
a
minimum.
It's
the
awareness
and
maybe
some
modest
input
that
comes
at
an
earlier
place,
and
that's
that's
because
I
respect
to
what
Christian
said
is
that
if
you
just
back
this
up,
you're
just
backing
the
whole
thing
up
and
that
that
isn't
the
point
either.
A
So
is
there
a
way
to
allow
a
better
integration
and
awareness
by
the
Planning
Commission
to
be
informed
and
not
feel
that
they're
just
handed
something
that's
fete
accompli
or
de
facto
done
when
in
fact
some
citizens
may
have
had
more
input
into
it,
then
than
they
did
so
so
I
think
we
can
move
on
from.
If
that
sort
of
captures.
Some
of
the
conversation.
I
And
just
one
final
editorial
comment:
I
know
years
ago,
when
I
was
on
the
Planning
Commission,
if
I'm
remembering
it
correctly
and
it
just
might
be
miss
Byrd
you're
now
in
this
exalted
role,
but
I,
remember
very
specifically
that
you
in
your
role,
then
would,
as
you're,
preparing
SPRC
chairs
would
essentially
relay
all
of
that
information
that
took
place
in
the
informal
concept
review
at
that
time
is
preparation
for
us.
Sbrt,
see
chairs
to
go
ahead
and
lead
a
process.
I
A
Let's
go
to
the
next
I
think
folks
were
on
Pitt
on
the
slide.
12
right,
we
Bob
are
there
other
and
I'm
asking
anyone
on
the
board
as
well.
Are
there
other
site
plan
review
committee,
working
group
recommendations,
we've
just
focused
on
the
optional
concept
site
plan
review
and
and
the
optional
preliminary
review?
Are
there
others
that
we
should
look
at
and
give
you
any
advice,
feedback
about.
A
E
Going
to
go
back
to
the
operating
guide
said,
I
think
both
chair
guts,
all
and
this
presentation
have
gone
through
as
many
of
those
points
really
go
back,
I
think
the
content
of
the
operating
guys.
We
have
the
vice
chair
of
the
Planning
Commission
here
this
evening,
who
also
chairs
this
I
plant
review
committee
and
Miss
Commissioner,
Siegel
and
I've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
agenda
and
and
which
is
a
big
part
of
the
operating
guides
and
so
I
think.
E
One
other
thing
that
we're
looking
forward
to
working
through
with
the
Commission,
the
SPRC
is
and
again
part
of
the
operating
guide
is:
how
can
that
agenda?
That's
be
organized
and
adapted
to
a
specific
application,
and
what
materials
should
the
applicant
in?
Should
staff
be
able
to
provide
to
ensure
that
we
can
support
that
important
public
process
that
has
been
in
place
now
for
for
several
decades
and
led
about.
E
K
Thank
You
mr.
chair
one
of
the
issues
that
struck
me
as
very
key,
most
important
to
address.
First,
when
I
compared
the
standard
agenda
that
we
now
use
and
the
revised
agenda
that
was
a
posed
at
the
end
of
I,
think
it
was
16
at
the
end
of
15.
Sorry
is
that
and
having
just
recently
reviewed
the
operating
guide
again
the
thrust
of
the
review
or
the
beginning
of
the
review,
the
review,
the
SPRC
review
begins
with
the
building
the
proposal,
which
I
think
that's
common
sense.
K
However,
because
the
Planning
Commission
is
charged
with
representing
the
public
interest,
that
would
mean
it
the
interest
in
the
creation
of
the
public
space
that
a
building
creates.
We
had
a
very
interesting
seminar
with
the
urban
planning
group
in
the
staff,
starting
with
a
description
of
what
is
public
space.
K
You
public
space
is
created
between
two
buildings,
so
I
thought
that
what
the
revised
agenda
suggests
is
to
start
a
review
with
the
context
of
where
a
new
building
would
be
is
being
proposed
or
redeveloping
context
in
terms
of
the
built
environment,
the
the
plans,
the
entitlements,
the
environmental
circumstances
is
there.
Is
there
an
RPA
involved,
things
like
that,
so.
A
A
E
The
operating
guide,
which
was
last
revised
in
2010
and
that
time
it
was
it,
was
a
product
or
an
effort
by
one
or
more
planning
commissioners.
They
created
it,
they
created
it
and
they've,
been
revising
it
for
some
time,
and
so
it
really
has
been
an
effort
in
the
past,
led
by
the
Commission,
okay
gotcha.
Mr.
B
Chair
the
individual
site
plan
chairs,
so
each
project
have
the
prerogative
and
if
exercise
in
consultation
with
staff
to
to
adjust,
you
know
based
on
the
project,
because
not
all
projects
are,
you
know,
have
all
of
the
the
same
elements
or
some
things
are
I.
Think
a
great
example
that
recently
was
wraps
right
that
was
wraps
was
being
in
particular
the
Penzance.
So
I
was
being
you
know,
reviewed
in
a
different
context,
because
we
had
a
very.
K
I
would
just
add
that
the
revised
agenda
that
the
Planning
Commission
worked
on
in
14
to
16
I
think
it
was,
does
make
a
significant
change
to
the
the
unfolding
of
information.
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
one
way
to
put
it.
What
do
you
look
at?
First,
you,
you
look
and
and
I
feel
this
is
a
having
read
it
and
thought
about
it.
We
have
not
discussed
it.
This
Planning
Commission
has
not
yet
discussed
it.
A
E
K
Have
I
just
have
one
more
point,
while
it's
true
that
the
traditionally
in
practice
has
been
this
is
the
SPR
C's
agenda
has
been
developed
by
the
SPR
C
used
by
the
SPR
C.
There's,
no
doubt
that
a
good,
constructive
collaboration
with
staff
is
key
and
critical.
We
should
not
be
operating
independently
and
we
don't
so
redoubling
our
efforts
of.
F
B
H
B
F
G
Comment
and
mr.
Vyse
Ted
is
looking
to
me
as
the
liaison
to
that
process.
I
have
many
thoughts
on
my
own,
but
I
also
just
wanted
to
note
that
we
did
task
staff
with
and
asked
them
to
as
part
of
the
approval
of
the
use
permit
for
Thomas
Jefferson
to
please
come
back
to
us
with
some
reflections
having
done
sort
of
an
informal
set
of
conversations
with
the
chairs
of
the
various
processes
about
takeaways
and
I,
know
we're
eager
to
receive
that
and
one
of
those
takeaways
to
be.
G
You
know
whether
we
ought
to
consider
this
blended
model
going
forward,
so
we
talked
about
potentially
having
that
in
the
context
of
our
work
session
week
after
next
with
the
school
board,
that
is
becoming
a
very
crowded
work
session.
So
you
know
if
we
don't
get
to
it.
I
know
it
remains
an
item
for
for
keen
discussion.
Mr.
F
E
I
think
it's
too
preliminary
is
County
board.
Member
crystal
indicated
we're
working
very
closely
with
the
county
to
manage
it
off.
It's
really
in
a
departmental
team
that
works
with
ApS
staff,
and
so
it's
important.
We
have
the
opportunity
to
do
that
and
provide
the
manager
with
a
report,
so
we're
still
working
on
that
I'm.
I
Just
well
mr.
chairman,
before
mr.
Frodo's,
not
that
I
don't
want
to
hear
from
you
James.
But
can
we
get
some
clarity
as
to
what
are
the
topics
that
we
are
going
to
hit
in
the
remaining
time
that
we
have
and
what
the
desired
feedback
or
points
of
feedback
from
the
board
are?
So
you
can
think
of
that,
while
misters
role.
H
Mr.
Vyse
said
I'm
the
P
FRC
chair
and
my
predecessor,
commissioner
Stockwell
led
most
the
qi
j
process.
It
will
he
let
it
in
its
entirety,
with
his
colleague
on
the
b,
LPC,
Megan
or
sorry,
Megan
and
I.
Think
generally,
the
takeaway,
as
we've
been
talking
about,
was
that
it
was
a
positive
process.
The
collaboration
was
was
generally
positive,
I
think
going
forward.
I
think
my
recommendation
would
be
that
the
size
of
the
group
needs
to
be
smaller,
especially
the
smaller
ya,
be
LPC
is
a
large
group.
H
It
also
kind
of
became
one
of
those
things
where
everything's
been
said
by
not
by
everybody,
and
so
that
can
kind
of
become
difficult
in
a
meeting,
but
I
do
think
it
was
positive.
I
do
think
what
we
face
in
other
PF
RCS,
where
a
b
LPC
or
a
couple
Beals
PC
meetings
would
happen
before
the
next
P
FRC.
So
the
building
got
designed
more
rapidly
on
the
inside,
which
affected
how
the
exterior
and
the
public
realm
was
designed.
D
Not
not
to
take
away
from
the
discussion
about
be
LPC
and
P
FRC,
which
we
are
going
to
try
to
debrief
when
we
have
the
work
session
on
the
27th
about
that,
but
in
terms
of
SPR
SC,
and
we're
talking
about
reviewing
specific
site
plan
projects
and
applications.
The
way
the
committee
is
designed
is
that
it
includes
a
number
of
different
Commission's
entities
and,
as
each
project
is
established,
to
go
forward
through
the
process
staff
and
the
SPRC
chair
work
together
to
determine
who
would
be
additional
members
to
include
on
that
committee.
D
So
I
don't
know
that
it's
necessary
to
have
another
committee,
that's
with
SPRC,
jointly
reviewing
something,
because
the
way
that
structure
is
set
up
all
of
the
people
will
be
at
the
table
necessary
to
weigh
in
on
the
application.
So,
for
instance,
if
there
is
a
school's
related
aspect
to
a
project,
there
could
be
discussion
with
the
SPRC
chair
and
staff
and
the
applicant
as
to
whether
or
not
we
should
include
someone
from
ApS
on
the
SPRC
committee
to
help
review
the
project.
D
B
Honestly,
no
I
think
I
think
we
I
feel
like
as
a
community.
We
know
what
we
need
to
do
and
we're
very
committed
now
and
varied
and
ready
to
set
out
to
do
it.
We
need,
which
is
to
develop
a
comprehensive
plan
of
how
we're
going
to
meet
all
of
the
facility
needs,
not
just
schools
but
fire
stations
and
looking
for
those
opportunities
to
co-locate
things
so
I
feel
like
we
know
what
we
need
to
do.
It's
and
I
think
that
staff
is
on
the
right
track
here.
Okay,
let.
A
Me
take
you
to
answer
Christians
question
looking
at
the
last
slide,
and
this
is
why
unbe,
which
is
now
that
we
are
all
aware
part
of
this
is
educating,
is
a
little
different.
We're
not
being
asked
to
give
specific
direction
on
various
questions
like
we
wouldn't
a
planning
process,
but
this
was
part
to
educate.
A
All
of
us
ask
for
feedback
on
some
of
the
next
steps,
you're
taking
which
or
around
updating
your
operating
guide,
hopefully
by
the
end
of
the
year
or
shortly
thereafter,
and
then
the
orientation
and
training
so
I
would
just
a
sit
in
the
last
and
and
I
think
we'd
all
be
happy
if
we
ended
a
little
early
tonight
so
under
B.
If
there
are
any
other
elements
of
the
operating
guide
revisions
that
you
would
like
to
highlight.
A
Number
one,
then
we'll
go
to
the
last
item,
which
is
just
updating
us
and
looking
for
any
feedback
necessary
about
your
suggestions,
around
orientation
and
training
which
have
been
nominal
to
date
and
that
that's
really
the
rest
of
the
agenda.
And
if
we
finish
that
in
the
next
ten
minutes
and
then
we
can
go
watch
election
returns.
A
A
B
E
Just
just
briefly,
we
certainly
concur
with
the
chair,
but
just
looking
back,
if
you
remember
my
first
comment
on
slide
six,
when
we
started
this
process,
it
looked
at
the
site
plan
review
committee
process
in
2000
from
2012
to
14.
We
were
seeing
from
the
filing
day
to
the
county
board
action
306
days
and
since
after
we
completed
both
of
these
efforts,
we've
been
able
to
reduce
that
least
looking
back
at
2016
and
17
265
120
days
and
we've
achieved
the
same
comprehensive
process.
E
We've
been
able
to
engage
the
community
effectively
and
it's
it's
made
a
significant
difference.
We
can
always
do
more
and
we're
looking
forward
to
working
with
the
Planning
Commission
on
the
operating
guide
continue
to
improve
the
process,
but
we
have
come
a
long
way
in
the
last
couple
of
years
and
I
I
think
that
should
be
noted
in
a
large
part.
It's
really
due
to
the
work
of
our
citizen
planters
who
serve
was.
A
E
A
A
A
Let
me
leave
it
at
that
and
just
say
that
to
the
degree
as
we
look
at
accomplishing
other
goals
in
the
community,
whether
it's
affordable
housing
goals
or
certain
priority
redevelopment
people
always
look
energy
goals.
You
know
solar.
A
lot
of
people
are
looking
for
ways
to
expedite
processes
to
accomplish
various
policy
goals.
It's
always
out
there
as
an
option.
One
of
my
things
is
you
hear
it
all
the
time.
Everyone
wants
an
expedited
process
for
everything,
so
you
obviously
have
to
do
it
in
a
very
focused.
A
A
E
You
know
looking
for
many
years
our
staff
has
provided
new
and
certainly
long
term
planning,
commissioners,
with
with
a
a
number
of
resources
and
Michelle
stolid
who's
there
tonight,
as
well
as
Giselle
who's.
Our
clerk
have
played
a
critical
role
in
that
and
we've
just
briefed
over
the
last
several
months
for
new
planning.
Commissioners,
we
maintain
I
think
a
great
sort
of
introductory
and
onboarding
guide,
with
a
lot
of
good
material.
E
We've
recently
updated
as
part
of
the
county's
commitment
to
our
webpage
to
provide
additional
resource
for
the
Commission
and
something
that
I
think
purely
gets
overlooked.
That
we've
done
about
18
months
ago.
Is
we
created
a
planning
resource
library
not
only
for
the
Planning
Commission,
but
for
the
community
at
large
on
a
number
of
new
issues
and
ideas
that
are
coming
forward,
related
to
planning
transportation
and
so
on,
and
we
keep
that
up
to
date.
E
So
we
have
this
work,
that's
certainly
important,
but,
as
we
discussed
with
several
of
our
new
planning
commissioners,
their
onboarding,
they
really
would
like
to
have
what
I'll
call
a
planning
101
course
we
have.
We
have
that
we've
utilized
that
in
the
past
I
we
have
indicated
that
we're
going
to
update
that
and
provide
that
to
all
the
commissioners,
but
certainly
provide
that
sort
of
tutorial.
E
If
you
will
or
background
piece
for
the
new
commissioners
going
forward,
including
a
strong
piece
that
looks
at
our
site
plan
review
process,
what
the
basis
for
that
is
under
the
incentive
based
zoning
and
special
exception
site
plan
process.
That
underpins
all
of
that.
So
we
are
going
to
develop
those
tools
and
that
will
be
in-house
that'll
be
in-house.
But
one
area
that
I
think
is
so
important,
and
we
also
heard
this
from
several.
A
Throw
in
here
that
I
think
that
we've
heard
that's
the
kind
of
skill
that
is
to
be
used
for
many
of
our
commissions.
Many
of
our
planning
processes
are
ad
hoc
processes,
so
whatever
is
developed
here,
I
think
goes
well
beyond
the
Planning
Commission
in
terms
of
its
usefulness,
I'm
going
to
turn
to
Christian.
I
Yeah
I
would
just
say,
amen
to
both
of
these
initiatives.
I
think
you
know,
when
you
look
at
the
materials
that
you
prepared,
if
a
planning
Commissioner
were
to
do
all
of
the
all
of
the
meetings
of
the
Planning
Commission
that'd
be
about
96
for
the
year,
not
to
mention
liaison
assignments
that
one
may
be
assigned
to.
This
would
be
one
small
bit
of
added
value.
I
We
could
give
to
them
some
successful,
tangible,
exportable
skills
and
chairing
meetings
and
dealing
with
difficult
conversations,
not
to
mention
the
benefit
that
it
would
have
to
making
the
processes
work
question
is
the
the
training
101,
the
planning
101.
How
are
you
envisioning
doing
that?
Is
that
going
to
be
convene
people
and
and
have
them-
you
know,
be
be
lectured
to
by
a
number
of
staff?
Are
you
thinking
about
sort
of
a
webinar
based
product
that
maybe
could
be
exportable
to
people
in
the
community?
I
E
If
we're
going
to
invest
resources
and
updating
what
is
a
pretty
good
101
guide
we
had
today
and
to
bring
our
expert
staff
team
to
bear
on
this,
that
we
can
record
it
and
update
it
and
make
it
available
across
the
board,
and
so
it
will
be
a
new
resource.
We'll
call
it
a
key
part
of
our
our
planning,
library
and
resources
support
the
community.
So
we're
going
to
be
committed
to
doing
that.
It
will
take
a
little
time,
but
we're
going
to
try
to
make
progress
by
the
end
of
the
year.
On
that
perfect.
F
Mike,
my
only
comment
is
I
just
wanted
to
say
how
much
I
appreciate
the
planning
commission's
letters
for
each
of
the
site
plans
and
whatever,
whatever
else
work
you
do,
because
it
shows
not
only
your
final
recommendation
but
how
you
got
there
and
I
also
like
like
the
fact
that
we
can
see
how
individual
planning
commissioners
think
and
what
their
perspectives
are,
including
minority
views.
So
I
would
hope
that
we
could
continue
that
robust
communication
back
to
us
in
the
future.
Thank
you
all.
J
Just
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
as
well,
because
yeah
I
came
on
in
2012,
and
a
lot
of
changes
have
happened
and
I
heard
a
lot
of
concerns
from
the
particularly
development
community
and
a
number
of
people
actually
on
the
Commission
and
every
you
really
have
been
addressing
it.
Both
staff
and
the
commissioners
and
I
really
do
appreciate
it,
and
now
I
need
to
walk
out
the.
G
Get
a
little
head
start
I
do.
I
will
just
wanted
to
add
my
support
for
this
idea.
Brazilian
facilitation
training,
which
I
think
echo,
is
a
comment
that
mr.
Vyse,
that
I
heard
when
we
convened
all
of
the
Commission's
last
year,
so
very
supportive.
The
idea
of
looking
for
ways
to
export
that,
in
some
form
of
module
or
via
our
fabulous
network
of
staff,
liaisons
to
different
Commission's
as
well
and
add
my
thanks
to
the
work
that
you
all
do,
including
being
with
us
here
tonight
on
an
exciting
night,
where
you
could
be
elsewhere.
Signal.
K
To
say
that
I
really
do
believe
in
apprenticeships
as
a
learning
tool,
and
just
to
assure
you
that
we
do
that
by
appointing
co-chairs
to
the
SPRC
who
perhaps
our
new
Commissioner
I've
been
sort
of
pushing
inviting
cajoling,
goading
new
planning
commissioners
to
do
that
they
can
have
the
title
of
co-chair
or
assist
whatever
it
is
and
work
through
the
whole
process.
That's
the
framework
of
learning
is
the
process,
so
I
just
wanted
to
reassure
you
that
we
are
doing
that
as
well.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
and
let
me
again
express
my
thanks
and
the
board's
thanks
to
all
the
planning
commissioners
that
are
here,
the
staff
that
work
collaboratively
with
the
Planning
Commission.
It's
the
best
way
forward
and
I
think
we're
all
encouraged
by
by
the
conversation
today.
So
thank
you
very
much.
We're
adjourned.