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
Notes de l'éditeur
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)
Created Nov 2017
We hope with PLUS to have a marker so we can identify and track these types of applications automatically
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
Additional Misc:
FY15 = 18 FY16 = 59 FY17 = 157
In the current budget metrics – we do RZs and SEs – should we also be doing all types?
This is JUST SE
NOT SEA…
High 2015 numbers are reflective of home child care
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
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
Cases scheduled for PC hearing in the noted FY
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