At Civic Review, we’ve seen a number of approaches to organizing the plan review process. We want to share what we’ve learned and how you might be able to create a workflow for your organization that works for you.
Before we dive in…
What is a Plan Review?
When an applicant submits plans to a municipality, usually for a permit, the municipality needs to approve the plans or other documents submitted. The plan review is the process where the jurisdiction will review the documents and, more often than not, send feedback to the applicant to allow them to make changes and updates. These changes are resubmitted for review. This is often referred to as the “review cycle”. (Heads up that the number of plan review cycles allowed might vary based on your location!)
How to Avoid the Dumpster Fire
Nobody wants to describe their own procedure this way. But it’s possible you’re feeling the symptoms without knowing all it takes is a rework of procedures around how you handle plan reviews at your city or county. Here are some signs that you may be dealing with a plan review dumpster fire:
- You aren’t really sure which plans need to be reviewed next
- You don’t know which documents are the most recent ones - or who has the most recent version
- You aren’t sure who is finished redlining, and who is not
- You’re constantly late getting feedback to the applicant
What Does a Plan Review Dumpster Fire Look Like?
Here’s the problem a lot of municipalities face. An applicant submits a set of plans - just one document. Sounds easy enough, right? Let’s say this document needs to be reviewed by 2 people: the city planner, and the city engineer.
The city planner has a planning commission meeting tonight so she’s busy preparing for that and doesn’t have time to get to reviewing the plans today.
Meanwhile, the engineer takes the plans, does some redlining, and sends them back to the applicant (without telling the planner). The applicant makes their adjustments and sends version 2 back to the engineer.
Fast forward to the next day, and the engineer is now reviewing version 2 while the planner is reviewing version 1 without even knowing that v2 exists. How messy would this be if you had a third reviewer, say the fire department? You could end up with 3 or more versions of the same plans, and nobody knows about any of the others. And that, my friends, is a true dumpster fire. 🔥
At Bare Minimum: Implement and Enforce Strict Plan Review Cycles
The secret to achieving this is to make sure nobody contacts the applicant until all feedback is collected from all reviewers. Doing so prevents the dumpster fire mentioned above where you end up with all kinds of documents all over the place. Instead, everyone will have the exact same version of a document at the same time.
Ideally, you’d have a designated coordinator - a person who is responsible for sending feedback back to the applicant. This might be a permit tech, or permit administrator, whose job is to make sure documents are routed to the right people and all feedback is collected before sending any form of response to the applicant.
Two Workflows for Tracking Plan Review Cycles
Any process is better than no process. We’ve interviewed a lot of our customers and have seen a few different approaches.
We’ve come up with two workflows that we feel lead to the best results. Let’s look at how both workflows apply to the same scenario.
For Example:
Let’s say you receive 3 documents with a building permit application:
- Site Plan
- RES Check
- Construction Plans
We’ll go through both workflows with these 3 documents. Of course, some types of projects, like a major commercial or residential development, might include 20 or more documents - we’re keeping it simple so our illustrations aren’t overwhelming.
Workflow 1: One-by-One Review
In this workflow you track individual documents separately, creating a separate “plan review process” for each document. This way, the plan review cycle runs parallel for each document.
As soon as one document has finished redlining (and of course has been reviewed by all reviewers in the cycle), send it back to the applicant right away - even while the other documents are still being reviewed.
This method allows you to move really quickly through each document because you can send feedback or receive updated documents pretty much immediately without needing to wait for all other documents to be done.
PROS:
- Faster turnaround times for each document
- Overall, the whole plan review process can be done faster because no single document is “stuck” waiting on other documents
CONS:
- More complexity - it’s possible applicants and staff alike might respond to one document review, but forget about the others; this becomes a bigger problem if you have more than 4 documents to review
- Harder to track and enforce overall turnaround times, if this is a requirement
- Harder to track the number of review cycles, if this is a requirement
Workflow 2: “Packet” Review
This workflow consolidates multiple documents into a single “packet” for plan review. So, you’ve received the site plan, RES check, and construction plans - you would then wrap those 3 documents together as a packet and review them all at one time - don’t send feedback to the applicant for any one document until they’re all done being reviewed.
Once all documents have been reviewed, send the whole packet back to the applicant. Instruct them to send new versions of all 3 documents - do not accept a partial packet. So each review cycle is done with a group of documents, rather than individually.
PROS:
- Better organization if you have many documents to review
- Better tracking of turnaround times for a whole permit
- Better tracking of number of review cycles
CONS:
- Each review cycle will take more time because you may end up waiting for just that one remaining document to be finished
- As a result, overall plan review for the whole permit may take a little longer
Which workflow is better? As always with complex processes, it depends.
Factors to Consider When Picking Your Plan Review Workflow
Regulations or State Requirements
Your jurisdiction may be subject to regulations handed down by the state. If so, this should make your decision easy. For example, in Utah there are legal requirements around subdivisions which state the following:
- Maximum of 4 plan review cycles
- Final subdivision land use review time must not exceed 20 days (20 days per review cycle)
With a capped number of review cycles, the Packet Review workflow is clearly the right choice because you’re able to lock all feedback and communication from all reviewers down within a single cycle. If you’re using the One-by-one Review workflow, you’d likely run out of review cycles pretty quickly.
Staff Capability
If you use the One-by-one Review workflow, you’ll want to be sure staff is not easily overwhelmed by multiple requests to conduct a plan review or respond with feedback. They should be mentally able to organize the status of each individual document - even if that means they’re doing so with the assistance of notes or spreadsheets - it’s not for everyone.
If you use the Packet Review workflow, you should be sure staff is able to play as a team and follow procedures strictly. This workflow breaks down when one reviewer decides to go rogue and starts talking with the applicant directly without going through the proper channels.
Complexity of the Type of Permit
A commercial development is going to involve many many separate documents. As such, using the One-by-one Review workflow might be overwhelming for anybody if you end up with 20 different plan review cycles running concurrently. You might consider using the Packet Review workflow in order to preserve mental composure!
Residential building permits, on the other hand, usually have a pretty straightforward set of plans, and a short list of documents submitted. This makes it easier to use the One-by-one Review workflow (but the Packet Review workflow would still work just fine).
The Most Important (Dumpster) Fire-Resistant Factor
Most importantly, you should do what works for you and your team. You’ll want to get buy-in on the process from everyone involved. Procedures can break down pretty quickly if you have one or two individuals who aren’t on board with the plan. As a team, you may look at these workflows and decide to create your own hybrid approach - and that’s completely okay!
Get Help with Software Tools
No matter what workflow you come up with, managing this process will be pretty difficult if you don’t have software to help. The most effective solutions should make it easy to enforce your workflow. Civic Review takes a flexible approach and gives you the tools to use whatever workflow you wish when it comes to plan reviews.
