Early and frequent interaction with municipal planning staff is the key to making sure plan reviews and project approvals happen as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The theme of engagement and communication was the most frequently touched upon in this week’s BEX Leading Market Series presentation: Expediting Project Success: Mastering Municipal Approvals, held Wednesday at SkySong – The ASU Scottsdale Innovation Center. The event was a rare joint offering presented by BEX Companies and the Phoenix Metro Chapter of AIA.
The panel consisted of:
- Moderator Shawn Swisher, Senior Associate, Jones Studio;
- Joshua Bednarek, Planning and Development Director, City of Phoenix;
- Brian Craig, Development Services Director, City of Buckeye;
- Michael Clack, Building Official, City of Scottsdale, and
- Ryan Levesque, Deputy Community Development Director – Planning, City of Tempe.
The amount of time and number of revisions necessary to get projects through the review and approval processes have been a point of frustration for many in the development community for quite some time. That stress has only increased in the high-volume post-pandemic era.
The LMS session was put together to give attendees input from officials with major area jurisdictions on how to expedite the process and make the experience smoother for all involved.
Changes Post-COVID
After introducing the panel, Swisher led off by asking the panelists what has changed in their processes since COVID and inviting them to discuss their current staffing and review time issues.
Bednarek said Phoenix is largely meeting its current review time goals and praised City officials for increasing staff pay in an effort to improve retention. He said of approximately 540 positions, Phoenix currently has 512 staffed.
With Buckeye experiencing some of the nation’s fastest growth in the last several years, Craig expressed pride that the City’s planning and review positions are also nearly fully staffed and maintaining a rate of approximately 90% for meeting expected review times on time or early.
Clack said Scottsdale created two positions to help meet performance challenges arising from the City’s recent move to require International Green Construction Code compliance in new developments. Scottsdale was the first Valley city and one of the first in the U.S. to require IGCC compliance, and integration with existing processes is ongoing but, on the whole, successful.
Levesque complimented Scottsdale’s efforts and said Tempe is watching the IGCC issue closely. Tempe currently has a voluntary IGCC compliance process in place and is considering making it mandatory, he said.
All the panelists said during and after the pandemic, their submittal and review processes have moved much more online than they had been, and that the change has presented both opportunities and challenges they have had to work to address both internally and with submitters.
Quality Impacts Timelines
One comment heard during past events with municipal officials is that the quality of submittals has decreased as the volume and pace of development has increased across the Valley.
Swisher asked the panel to comment on the quality of submittals they have been seeing lately in their departments.
Clack said the quality of received materials varies, but Scottsdale has raised its standards and requirements to help ensure a better baseline of submittals.
“When I first got to Scottsdale,” Clack said, “we were accepting almost anything. I was really shocked at what was being submitted that didn’t have even the basics on there… Staff felt compelled to give them a thorough review, and I told them to stop. I said, ‘If they can’t give us complete information, then you just mark it as incomplete, give some examples of why it’s incomplete, and let’s move on to the people who are taking the time to do quality submittals and give us the information we need to do that.’ That is a real time waste.”
He added that incomplete or insufficient submittals also generate additional comments and frustrations between development teams and staff later in the process. He explained there will be complaints from the development teams when comments come back on second reviews that had not been included in the initial round. “Many times, it’s because you gave us additional information that wasn’t on the first review, and now we’re compelled to make that change at this point.”
Bednarek said he has been seeing consistent improvement in the quality of submittals from most firms in the last few years. He credited the improvement to efforts from the development community and local staff to develop and improve relationships and familiarity with each other. He said the more that the parties can establish and maintain relationships, the better it will be for both sides because informal questions and interactions can lead to greater efficiencies in both creating and reviewing project materials.
Reducing Ongoing ‘Back and Forth’ and Streamlining Processes
As moderator and the design community’s representative at the event, Swisher told the panel a common source of frustration in the design and development team is when items that had not received comments in earlier reviews are subsequently marked for changes later in the process or when inspectors in the field override previously agreed upon items. He asked them how they were dealing with that ongoing issue in their departments.
Clack said Scottsdale has a preliminary plan review where architects are invited to come in and meet with staff to share early iterations of plans and answer code-related questions for resolution before submittal and first reviews.
“By the same token,” he said, “if we see any red flags out there, we try to identify those and let you know, ‘Hey, this isn’t going to work out because you have a violation of the code here or you need to think about this for compliance with the code.” He added that, depending on the complexity of the project, staff could go over preliminary items two or three times—using the same staff members—before the formal submittal.
Using preliminary reviews to identify and resolve issues early greatly speeds up the process, Clack said.
He also said it is important to keep staff on track to ensure they are only reviewing according to code requirements and not inserting personal preferences. “We also communicate to our inspectors, ‘You are to inspect in accordance with the approved plan, and unless you see something that maybe somebody missed, and it is a true life and safety situation, you get with the plans examiner first and make sure that there wasn’t any kind of agreement as to how this was going to be handled.’”
Craig said the goal in Buckeye is to be more thorough early on and to front-load the comment process. “I really appreciate the opportunity to do informal. We have a formal side to what we do. We have the pre-application process, and we’ve been tinkering with that to make it more efficient, but really the invitation to get people to participate informally… I think that saves a lot of time on the back end.”
Relationship Management is Key
While some attendees were heard to comment on the “Kumbaya” nature of the repeated references to the importance of relationships between designers, developers and municipal staff, panelists consistently stressed relationship development and maintenance as a key component to streamlined reviews and approvals.
As one example, Bednarek explained Phoenix staff had discussions with process partners and explained what they wanted to do to advance relationship building, including creating a directory document with staff pictures, names and titles to help development professionals identify the right people to speak with about specific issues and items.
He also said staff did “road shows” to get in front of service users and introduce as many people to each other as possible to promote familiarity.
Clack also stressed direct approaches, saying his advice is to encourage people to get their issues resolved at the lowest level possible and to communicate in real-time whenever they can.
Staying Current with Changes
Coming to the end of the event, Swisher asked panelists to comment on what changes are coming that designers need to be aware of for future submittals.
The panelists all said local codes are evolving to reflect recent legislative changes and their own shifting local needs. Designers and builders were urged to make sure they understand requirements for new housing types—such as Accessory Dwelling Units, revisions to fire and safety codes, and more frequent and encompassing updates to local general plans.
Along with those needs, the panelists also once again reminded attendees to maintain and expand their communications management. “Reach out whenever you need to,” Bednarek said. “We’re here to help, but let us know.”
STEVE BOSCHEN
WENDY COHEN
ERIC FROBERG
