What a site plan consultant does here
Innowave Studio is a site plan studio for real estate developers. As your site plan consultant, the studio draws the preliminary site plan: a detailed, real first draft of the project, built to be read by a planner, a lender, a general contractor and, later, your engineer and architect of record. The sheet carries the site disposition and layout, the buildings with their rooms and floor plans, amenities, internal roads and drive aisles, parking, pads, sites or units, and the yield counts. A site data table organizes the numbers reviewers check first: acreage, zoning, density against the cap, setbacks, parking required against parking provided, and the unit mix.
The plan deliberately leaves out the engineering layer: no sewer and water pipe design, no electrical or utility engineering, no grading and drainage engineering. The studio holds no stamp. Your engineer of record does the engineering and seals it. That line is what lets the preliminary plan move through the stages where a jurisdiction decides whether the use, the layout and the yield work, before anyone pays for a sealed set.
Developers take the plan to the many cities and counties that accept an unsealed plan at the concept or pre-application stage, give it to a lender, give it to a general contractor to price, use it to decide on a site and raise capital, and then hand it to the engineer and architect of record, who build the sealed set on it. The preliminary site plan page describes the deliverable itself. Site plan consulting is the work around it: carrying the plan through each stage below, measured against what the jurisdictions themselves publish. For the terms, see what a site plan is and preliminary versus final site plans.
The pre-application meeting
Many approval paths open with a meeting before anything is filed. In some jurisdictions the meeting is a gate: without it, intake does not happen.
| Jurisdiction | What the jurisdiction requires or offers before filing |
|---|---|
| Williston, North Dakota | A meeting with a planner at least one week before any application; applications are not accepted without it [1] |
| Clark County, Washington | A pre-application conference, or an approved waiver, before any Type II or III submittal [7] |
| Bellingham, Washington | A conference for a defined list, including projects with more than 5,000 sq ft of new or replaced impervious surface, buildings of four or more stories, conditional uses and rezones (BMC 21.10.170) [8] |
| Arapahoe County, Colorado | No application accepted without a presubmittal or a waiver [9] |
| Larimer County, Colorado | Required and free; held Thursday mornings and scheduled 2 to 3 months out [10] |
| Colorado Springs, Colorado | Effectively required and free; the formal submittal must follow within 6 months [11] |
| Montgomery County, Maryland | A pre-submission meeting for sketch plans, under Section 4.B of the Manual of Development Review Procedures [12] |
| Kent County, Delaware | A pre-application conference; the site plan pre-application meeting fee is $400 [13] |
| Delaware, state level | PLUS review for projects over 50 residential units or 50,000 sf non-residential, among other triggers: meeting within 45 days, comment letter within 20 business days (29 Del. C. sections 9203 and 9204) [2] |
| Madison, Wisconsin | Written notice to the alder, the neighborhood association and business associations 30 days before filing [14] |
| San Antonio, Texas | An IEBC preliminary meeting with the Building Official, on request, at the pre-application stage (City Code Sec. 10-5(c)); it needs no seal, though the Building Official may require an evaluation by a registered design professional [15] |
| Riverhead, New York | A presubmission conference meant to produce a site plan acceptable for formal application and review (Town Code Article LVI) [16] |
| Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Missouri | A Basic or Detailed Conceptual Review at $470, with no project number assigned [17] |
What the plan carries into that meeting matters more than its polish. Staff need to see the use, where the buildings and the access sit, the parking count against the code and the density against the cap, because those are the questions a pre-application meeting can answer. The studio sets them out on the sheet and in the site data table, so the comments you leave with are about your site. Where the meeting costs a fee or a wait of months, as in Kent County or Larimer County, a plan that is complete on the first visit is the cheaper one.
Some jurisdictions add steps of their own. Fort Collins offers a free Conceptual Review or a Preliminary Design Review at $500, and requires a neighborhood meeting 10 or more days before application for larger projects, annexations and rezonings [18]. Baltimore City makes preliminary meetings before plan submittal available to project architects and engineers at $50 per half hour [19].
Concept review
Concept review is where a jurisdiction says whether the program fits before you buy the engineering. In Adams County, Colorado, the required pre-application step is a conceptual review [20]. Greeley opens with a Scoping Review, which is conceptual, alongside pre-application meetings [21]. Thurston County, Washington, tiers the step: a Planner Consultation, a Concept Review, and a Presubmission Conference required in specified circumstances [22]. In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, subdivisions start with a Sketch Plan under Article 17-3-201, used to test feasibility against existing conditions and Code requirements, followed by a Final Plan under Article 17-3-301; site development where no land is subdivided starts with a Preliminary Plan [23].
Whether the concept drawing needs a seal is written into some state rules, and the answer is no. Arizona's Board rule requires a registrant to seal before submitting to "any regulatory or review body," "unless the document is marked 'preliminary,' 'draft,' or 'not for construction'" (A.A.C. R4-30-304(D)) [6]. Missouri's statute provides that "Nothing in this section... shall require any professional to seal preliminary or incomplete documents" (RSMo 327.411) [24]. In Texas, the engineering board lets preliminary engineering documents go out unsealed when they are marked as not for construction, bidding or permit use and carry the firm name and registration number (22 TAC 137.33(e), (n)) [25]. New York's Town Law section 274-a leaves the plan's required elements to the local law and does not itself require a seal [26], and Gaston County, North Carolina encourages, but does not require, a site plan prepared by a licensed professional (UDO 5.2.1(A)) [27]. The wider list is in where unsealed site plans are accepted.
The records show the concept stage at work. Henrico County, Virginia took an industrial outdoor storage rezoning with proffers (REZ-2025-102340) forward on a "Conceptual Layout Plan" [28]. Howell Township, Michigan reviewed a preliminary site plan dated March 25, 2025 on April 15, 2025, in its Industrial Flex zone [29]. In San Antonio, the San Antonio Report reported that the Historic and Design Review Commission gave a restaurant at Maverick Plaza in La Villita conceptual approval on Aug 3, 2022, and final approval after it [30]; the restaurant conversion case study follows that city's path for a conversion.
At this stage the studio's work is to give the reviewer a plan that can be marked up, and to turn the markup into a revised plan. When comments come back, the studio redraws the layout, recounts the yield and updates the site data table, so you see what each comment costs in units, pads, keys or parking spaces before you decide how to answer it.
Staff comments, review rounds and resubmittal
Review clocks and resubmittal windows are published, and they belong in the schedule from the first day.
| Jurisdiction | Comment and resubmittal rule |
|---|---|
| Anne Arundel County, Maryland | County response in 45 to 60 days by a consolidated letter with agency comment memos; resubmittal within a maximum of 60 days; the county says first-submittal approval is rare and to assume at least 180 days per stage, at both stages [4] |
| Howard County, Maryland | 45 days to resubmit revised plans through ProjectDox [31] |
| Montgomery County, Maryland | Staff initial review of a sketch plan within 10 working days [12]; Planning Board hearing within 120 days of intake acceptance [32] |
| Weld County, Colorado | 28-day referral period; 120-day applicant correction window [33] |
| Adams County, Colorado | 21-day resubmittal review period [20] |
| Greeley, Colorado | Reviews usually completed within 2 to 3 weeks; 3 review rounds included, additional rounds cost extra [21] |
| City of Boulder, Colorado | Application fee covers up to 3 reviews; 60-day revision window [34] |
| Madison, Wisconsin | If one agency rejects a plan, revised plans go back for a new review by all agencies, with a resubmittal fee [14] |
| Nashville, Tennessee (specific plan zoning) | The preliminary SP plan "is the site plan and associated documents"; a corrected plan incorporating the conditions must be filed; minor modifications may be approved administratively, while major modifications require a Council ordinance [35, 36] |
Several statutes put the clock on the board instead. In New Jersey, a planning board must decide a preliminary site plan within 45 days when the site is 10 acres or less and 10 units or less, or within 95 days above either line, and a missed deadline is a default approval (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46) [3]. Where the county planning board reviews a site plan, it runs in parallel and has 30 days from receipt to report; if it does not, the site plan is deemed approved (N.J.S.A. 40:27-6.7) [37].
| State | Statutory clock |
|---|---|
| Utah | After a reasonable time, the applicant may request in writing that the land use authority take final action within 45 days, and may appeal to district court within 30 days if it does not; a city confirms completeness within 30 days of a written request (Utah Code 10-20-905) [38] |
| Oregon | A city decides within 120 days of a complete application, including local appeals, and refunds the greater of unexpended fees or 50 percent if it misses the deadline (ORS 227.178) [39] |
| Arizona | A municipality posts its time frames, may make "one comprehensive written or electronic request for corrections," and refunds the fees if it misses the overall time frame (A.R.S. 9-835) [40] |
| Florida | Completeness review within 30 days; a decision within 120 days of a complete application, or 180 days where a hearing is required; refunds of 10 to 100 percent of the fee when the city runs late (F.S. 166.033) [41] |
| Texas | A city approves, approves with conditions or disapproves a plat within 30 days after filing, or the plat is approved (Local Government Code 212.009(a)) [42] |
A clock helps only if the application is complete when it starts. That is the practical case for settling layout comments on the preliminary plan, where a change costs a redraw, and not on the sealed set.
Approval paths the plan has to fit
The approval path decides which of these stages exist for your project. These patterns recur across the asset classes the studio plans, each documented in a real jurisdiction:
| Path | Documented example |
|---|---|
| By right in a use district | Los Angeles: a car wash "permitted by right in the C2-1VL Zone," with a conditional use requested only for deviations [43] |
| Conditional or special use | St. Charles, Illinois: a car wash permitted in the BR district, with Special Use approval and a public hearing for the drive-through component [44] |
| Master plan | Coconino County, Arizona: RV parks over 12 per acre only through a Board-approved master plan [45] |
| County preliminary stage | Jefferson County, Texas: a preliminary site plan stage before construction plans [46] |
| State health plan review | Georgia: Department of Public Health Rule 511-6-2 requires plans 14 days before construction [47] |
| Wastewater-driven state review | Texas: an on-site system treating over 5,000 gpd needs a TCEQ domestic wastewater permit [48] |
In each path the first question is whether the use, the layout and the yield fit the rule, and the preliminary plan is the drawing that answers it. The guide to RV park approval in Texas counties works through the county path in detail.
Where a seal enters, and the handoff
A preliminary plan is unsealed by design. State rules put the seal, and the engineered permits, at specific points, and the preliminary plan works up to them:
- Colorado lets any person prepare plans for one- to four-family dwellings and for one-story garages, industrial buildings, offices and warehouses not designed for occupancy by more than ten persons (C.R.S. 12-120-403(1)) [49].
- Florida requires plans for a new RV park to be drawn to scale, while existing-park and consolidation drawings "do not have to be drawn to scale or completed by an engineer" if dimensions are shown (Fla. Admin. Code R. 64E-15.010) [50].
- North Carolina lets the local health department approve on-site wastewater systems up to 1,500 gpd; above that a PE is required, and above 3,000 gpd or with a dump station the state reviews (15A NCAC 18E) [5].
- Texas requires Construction General Permit TXR150000 when a project disturbs 1 acre or more [48]. Its engineering board requires the final version of engineering documents to be sealed, signed and dated before release (22 TAC 137.33(f)) [25], and in San Antonio construction documents by a registered design professional are mandatory for Group A (City Code Sec. 10-8(a)(1)) [15].
- Arizona puts the seal and signature on each drawing sheet of a sealed set (R4-30-304(A)) [6].
- Missouri puts the seal on "all final technical submissions" (RSMo 327.411) [24], and the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District starts project review with "One set of plans prepared and sealed by an engineer registered in the State of Missouri" [51].
- North Carolina's NCDOT Division 10 driveway permit package requires traffic impact analyses, signal studies and drainage studies to be prepared under the direct charge of, and sealed by, a North Carolina licensed professional [52].
The handoff is the last consulting step. The engineer of record takes the reviewed layout, adds what the preliminary plan leaves out (grading and drainage, stormwater, sewer and water, electrical and utility design) and seals the engineering. The architect of record seals the building design where the state requires it. Because the layout, the counts and the site data table already carry the jurisdiction's comments, the sealed set starts from a plan the reviewing staff have seen. The site plan architect page sets out who prepares and seals what, state by state, and the guide to who prepares a site plan covers the roles.
Asset classes, model projects and states
The stages above apply across asset classes; the numbers that shape the layout differ. The asset hubs carry them: RV parks, campgrounds, glamping, car washes, gas stations, self storage, hotels and industrial. Model projects show an approval path end to end in a real jurisdiction, among them the RV resort in Bandera County, Texas, the express car wash in Hillsborough County, Florida and the self storage project in Apex, North Carolina; the full set is on case studies.
State pages carry each state's approval layers: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, with the full list on service areas. See the studio's process and site plan cost, and on the blog, the commercial site plan process. To start, send the site and the program.
Frequently asked questions
What does a site plan consultant do for a developer?
Here the consultant is a site plan studio working for the developer. It draws the preliminary site plan, with the layout, the yield counts and a site data table, for the pre-application meeting and concept review; redraws it as staff comments come in; and hands it to the engineer and architect of record, who build the sealed set on it. The studio holds no stamp and does not do the engineering.
Is a pre-application meeting required?
It depends on the jurisdiction. Williston, North Dakota, accepts no application without a meeting with a planner at least one week ahead [1]. Clark County, Washington, requires a conference or an approved waiver before any Type II or III submittal [7], and Arapahoe County, Colorado, accepts no application without a presubmittal or a waiver [9].
Where does a seal come into the process?
Where state law puts it. Arizona's Board rule lets a concept drawing go to a review body unsealed when it is marked "preliminary," "draft" or "not for construction" [6], and Missouri requires no professional to seal preliminary or incomplete documents while final technical submissions carry the seal [24]. Colorado lets any person prepare plans for one- to four-family dwellings and for one-story garages, offices, industrial buildings and warehouses not designed for more than ten persons [49]. North Carolina requires a PE for on-site wastewater systems above 1,500 gpd [5], and in Texas an on-site system over 5,000 gpd needs a TCEQ domestic wastewater permit [48]. The engineer of record seals the engineering.
Can I force a decision if the city sits on the application?
In some states. Utah lets an applicant request in writing that the land use authority take final action within 45 days, with an appeal to district court if it does not [38]. Oregon cities must decide within 120 days of a complete application and refund the greater of unexpended fees or 50 percent if they miss it [39]. Florida cities owe refunds of 10 to 100 percent of the fee when they run past the statutory deadlines [41].
How many review rounds should I plan for?
What happens if the board misses its deadline?
What does the engineer of record add?
The engineering layer the preliminary plan leaves out: grading and drainage, stormwater, sewer and water, and electrical and utility design, sealed where the jurisdiction requires it. North Carolina, for example, puts on-site wastewater systems above 1,500 gpd in the hands of a PE [5].
Sources
- 1)Planning and Zoning (cityofwilliston.com), City of Williston, North Dakota. Accessed 2026-09-01.
- 2)29 Del. C. Chapter 92, Preliminary Land Use Service (delcode.delaware.gov), State of Delaware (Delaware Code). Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 3)N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46 (Municipal Land Use Law), State of New Jersey (New Jersey Statutes).
- 4)Development: residential (aacounty.org), Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning. Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 5)RV Parks guidance, On-Site Water Protection Branch (15A NCAC 18E), August 21, 2024, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 6)A.A.C. R4-30-304, Use of Seals, Arizona State Board of Technical Registration. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 7)Pre-Application Conference (PAC), Clark County, Washington, Community Development. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 8)BMC 21.10.170 (Bellingham Municipal Code), City of Bellingham, Washington. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 9)Arapahoe County development review (arapahoeco.gov), Arapahoe County, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 10)Larimer County development review (larimer.gov), Larimer County, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 11)Colorado Springs land use review (coloradosprings.gov), City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 12)Sketch plan submission requirements, Montgomery Planning (M-NCPPC). Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 13)Kent County planning services and adopted planning fee schedule (kentcountyde.gov, planning-fees.pdf), Kent County, Delaware, Department of Planning Services. Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 14)Conditional use (cityofmadison.com), City of Madison, Wisconsin, Development Services Center. Accessed 2026-08-30.
- 15)Chapter 10, Building-Related Codes (effective May 1, 2025), City of San Antonio, Development Services Department. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 16)Town of Riverhead Code, Article LVI, Site Plan Review, Town of Riverhead, New York (eCode360). Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 17)Development review fees, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 18)Fort Collins development review (fcgov.com), City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 19)Apply for an ePlans Permit, Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development. Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 20)Adams County development review (adamscountyco.gov), Adams County, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 21)Greeley development review (greeleyco.gov), City of Greeley, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 22)Thurston County Code, Chapter 14.48 (Municode), Thurston County, Washington. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 23)Application Process for Development, Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning. Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 24)RSMo 327.411, seals of licensees, Missouri Revisor of Statutes. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 25)22 Tex. Admin. Code 137.33, Sealing Procedures, Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (via Cornell LII). Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 26)New York Town Law section 274-a, site plan review, New York State Legislature (via Justia). Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 27)Gaston County Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 5, Permit Approval, Gaston County, North Carolina (Municode library). Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 28)REZ-2025-102340 staff report, DRB III Trucking LLC, Henrico County, Virginia, Planning Department. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 29)Site Plan Review for Howell Township, Michigan (Planning Commission addendum), Howell Township, Michigan. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 30)San Antonio has new rooftop dining coming with familiar flavors, San Antonio Report. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 31)Site development plan process, 2025, Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 32)Site Plan, Montgomery Planning (M-NCPPC). Accessed 2026-08-31.
- 33)Weld County site plan review (weld.gov), Weld County, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 34)City of Boulder development review (bouldercolorado.gov), City of Boulder, Colorado. Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 35)Specific Plan 2024SP-045-001, plan sheet and standard SP text, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 36)File BL2024-574, Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 37)N.J.S.A. 40:27-6.7 (County Planning Enabling Act), State of New Jersey (New Jersey Statutes).
- 38)Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 20, Part 9 (effective November 6, 2025), Utah Legislature. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 39)ORS Chapter 227, Cities (2025 edition), Oregon State Legislature. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 40)A.R.S. 9-835, licensing time frames, Arizona State Legislature. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 41)F.S. 166.033, development permits and orders (2025 Florida Statutes), The Florida Senate. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 42)Texas Local Government Code 212.009, approval procedure, Texas Legislature (via FindLaw). Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 43)APCSV-2022-6080-ZC-CU staff report, May 25, 2023, Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 44)Staff Report, Plan Commission meeting of May 5, 2026, City of St. Charles, Illinois. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 45)RV Parks in Commercial Zoning Districts (Section 3.18), Coconino County, Arizona. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 46)Appendix 7, Recreational Vehicle Park Development Regulations, Jefferson County, Texas. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 47)Tourist Accommodations rules and regulations, Rule 511-6-2, Georgia Department of Public Health. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 48)TCEQ publication RG-499 (revised February 2024), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 49)C.R.S. 12-120-403, architectural practice exemptions (law.justia.com), Colorado Revised Statutes (via Justia). Accessed 2026-08-02.
- 50)Chapter 64E-15, F.A.C., Mobile Home, Lodging, and Recreational Vehicle Parks (2018 version), Florida Department of Health. Accessed 2026-10-09.
- 51)Development review, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District. Accessed 2026-10-10.
- 52)NCDOT Division 10, District 2 driveway permit application package (October 14, 2025), North Carolina Department of Transportation (posted by the City of Charlotte). Accessed 2026-10-10.