Changes to the
Minor Site Plan Requirements
NVBIA/NAIOP/Fairfax Committee
Jerry Stonefield, Site Code Research and Development
Permitting and Code Administration
Land Development Services
May 21, 2020
Proposed Minor Site Plan Changes
Two changes proposed with zMOD Consolidated Draft
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zmod.
Amend 17-105.2 (Submission Requirements) to Require:
1. Licensed Professional Certification, aligning with 17-106, added as determined
by the Director.
2. Existing & Proposed Topo- Replace current practice of pointing to the “general”
requirement with a stand-alone requirement to give clarity and speed up
reviews. Add an exception for improvements that don’t impact drainage.
Next Steps: Public Review of Consolidated Draft - Summer/Fall 2020
2
3
Proposed text:
Minor site plans must include the following:
(11) Existing and proposed topography except where proposed
improvements do not impact drainage, as determined by the Director.
If required, the topography must be shown with a maximum contour
interval of two feet, except that where the existing ground has a slope
of less than two percent, either one-foot contours or spot elevations
must be provided where necessary, but no more than 50 feet apart in
both directions .
(13) If minor site plans or any portion of such plan involve engineering,
architecture, landscape architecture, or land surveying, then such
design must be respectively certified by an engineer, architect,
landscape architect, or land surveyor authorized by the State to
practice as such, as determined by the Director.

Changes to the Minor Site Plan Requirements: NVBIA/NAIOP/Fairfax Committee: May 21, 2020

  • 1.
    Changes to the MinorSite Plan Requirements NVBIA/NAIOP/Fairfax Committee Jerry Stonefield, Site Code Research and Development Permitting and Code Administration Land Development Services May 21, 2020
  • 2.
    Proposed Minor SitePlan Changes Two changes proposed with zMOD Consolidated Draft https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/planning-development/zmod. Amend 17-105.2 (Submission Requirements) to Require: 1. Licensed Professional Certification, aligning with 17-106, added as determined by the Director. 2. Existing & Proposed Topo- Replace current practice of pointing to the “general” requirement with a stand-alone requirement to give clarity and speed up reviews. Add an exception for improvements that don’t impact drainage. Next Steps: Public Review of Consolidated Draft - Summer/Fall 2020 2
  • 3.
    3 Proposed text: Minor siteplans must include the following: (11) Existing and proposed topography except where proposed improvements do not impact drainage, as determined by the Director. If required, the topography must be shown with a maximum contour interval of two feet, except that where the existing ground has a slope of less than two percent, either one-foot contours or spot elevations must be provided where necessary, but no more than 50 feet apart in both directions . (13) If minor site plans or any portion of such plan involve engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, or land surveying, then such design must be respectively certified by an engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor authorized by the State to practice as such, as determined by the Director.

Editor's Notes

  • #3 In the preparation of the zMOD Consolidated Draft, LDS staff has proposed two clarifications, in order to establish, up-front, clear and predictable expectations of information is be required for submitted Minor Site Plans. These additions will specify information that has routinely been required by the Director, exercising existing authorities.  MSP must be signed by the appropriate licensed design professional, if such design includes engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, or land surveying, as determined by the Director. The Professional signature requirement is the same text as in the Site Plan submission requirements (first part of Paragraph 1 of Section 17-106). The “as determined by the Director” is added to address when seal would/would not be required (based on proposed improvements). (not stated in ZO, but also applicable, are state requirements regarding when “professional work” must be signed & sealed) Second, existing and proposed topography must be shown if the Director determines that the proposed improvements may impact drainage patterns on the site. SDID is currently requiring topo on majority of the MSPs in order to evaluate drainage and adequate outfall. They make this comment referencing the existing general authority, the “any other information as may be required by the Director in order to evaluate the plan” (in 17-105.2.K). The goal is to specify the requirements, so that the necessary topographic information is included on the first submission. If it isn’t, then staff must request it as a plan review comment, and the corrected plan must resubmitted. The exception is the phrase “as determined by the Director”, and included to accommodate those MSPs (10-20% ) where the proposed project would not impact drainage. The text describing the level of detailed topo required is pulled from site plans requirements (17-106.9) Next steps: DPD will post the Consolidated Draft of the new ZO, for public review and comment (not yet posted – latest I heard is it is expected to be posted in June) with public hearings in winter 2020/2021 (please note that the schedule is, obviously, subject to change). Questions? In case asked: Range of MSPs for What types do not need topo (small storage structure on existing paving) Outdoor seating for restaurants. (impact parking) Interior renovations that add GFA Generator pads Topo needed for building additions that would block /alter drainage E.g., 100,000 ex bldg. with proposed 25,000 addition (most common) Why now? – SWMO emphasis on adequate outfall, drainage patterns Out of town firms may not know
  • #4 Paragraph numbers based on zMOD numbering, not current Zoning Ordinance 17-105.2