Download
1 / 17
170 likes | 313 Vues
Role of Site Plan Review in Erosion Prevention. The City of Spartanburg Site Plan Review Process Bob Klute, Community Enhancement Manager September 23, 2004. Previous Review Problems.
E N D
Role of Site Plan Review in Erosion Prevention The City of Spartanburg Site Plan Review Process Bob Klute, Community Enhancement Manager September 23, 2004
Previous Review Problems • In the City of Spartanburg, the challenges of increasing urbanism and increasing Federal regulations have changed the way the City reviews development issues, including storm water and erosion control. • Until recently, City ordinances affecting development, including the storm water and erosion control ordinance, were administered by various City agencies with only occasional interaction between them. Usually the interaction was driven by a problem created by the lack of initial communication.
Examples of Lack of Coordination • For instance, in the review of a major new shopping center (Dorman Centre), lack of coordination between city engineering and city planning resulted in confusion in terms of the placement of required detention ponds relative to a natural area to be preserved and a natural buffer. • Confusion resulted in costly delays for the developer and a number of ad hoc changes during both review and construction. • Initial coordination and agreement on objectives to be met would have resulted in a better (more functional and aesthetic) system for both aesthetic buffering and storm water control.
Current Review Process • An interdisciplinary review is now in place including representatives of all City agencies involved in development review: building official; planning and zoning; engineering; public works; fire marshal.
Two Step Process • This is a two step process: • First, the City Manager’s Development Team (which consists of the City Manager and senior City staff) meets once a week and provides a forum for developers to present and discuss conceptual plans for development projects. This part of the process acquaints the developer’s team with the City team, City regulations and expectations and identifies possible issue areas to work on through the review process.
Coordination • Second, once projects are filed: the Site Plan Review Team (consists of a subset of the Development Team) meets once a week and reviews formal filings for technical issues. • Planning staff coordinates the site plan review: serves as clearinghouse for comments back to the developer and distributes revised drawings and developer responses to the Site Plan Review Team. The Site Plan Review is intended to be a fast track process, with review and approval possible within a one week time frame.
Continuous Commitment • The coordination is continuous and very time consuming but helps ensure that conflicts are resolved jointly and not in isolation. • Have gotten a good response from local development community.
Examples of the benefits: • Allows developers and staff to think outside the typical review box, seek solutions that cut across professional lines • (for instance: currently working with two groups of doctor’s who will share a storm water detention pond and incorporate it into a landscaped buffer next to a single family neighborhood; a third property owner now wishes to join the first two and utilize the proposed detention pond which is being redesigned to accommodate a greater capacity. • The advantages to the property owners: less cost and hassle; the advantages to the community: only need one well designed pond where otherwise would have three.
Example • This example came out of a presentation to the Development Team by the architect for the first group of doctor’s, and is an example of the staff working with the architect to broaden the scope as well as staff contacting the third property owner to explain the benefits of a joint approach to development.
Benefits • Other benefits: the staff gets used to working together as team, becomes aware of each others perspectives and issues. • Benefits to developers: a process that they can count on, but that has some flexibility and is supportive of innovative solutions. Also, the developer does not have to “go shopping” for the answer to an issue; the developer knows that the answer back from the City on an issue does represent the entire City position and won’t be countermanded by another agency.
Federal Requirements • As federally mandated regulations for storm water and erosion control become more pervasive and complex, this type of approach will be necessary for the City of Spartanburg to ensure that these requirements are met, not at the expense of other issues.
Riparian Buffer Ordinance • City Council passed last year a Riparian Buffer Ordinance which staff is currently administering, as part of the storm water management system required in response to the Federal Post Construction Runoff Control Measures required for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). The staff review process was used to develop and review the ordinance. • This ordinance prohibits removal of existing vegetation within buffers associated with major streams within the City and provides for a Revegetation Standard for replacement where vegetation is removed in violation of the ordinance.
Future Challenges • The City of Spartanburg represents only a small portion of the total watershed comprising Spartanburg County; • Also, the Revegetation Standard in the Riparian Buffer should ideally be extended to retrofit existing sites to add vegetation to stream banks where there currently is none; • A great deal of work to be done in public education; linking natural areas with public open space needs; • Increase functional open space to avoid construction of costly storm water control facilities.
