The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFebruary 08, 2000 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Febmary 8, 2000 Agenda No._ 0 Agendaltem . %'7-- ..... After determining that a quorum is present and convening in an Open Meeting, the City Council will convene in a Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, February 8, 2000 at 5:15 p.m. in the City of Denton Council Work Session Room, Denton City Hall, at 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas to consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. When items for consideration are not listed under the Closed Meeting section of the agenda, the City Council will not conduct a Closed Meeting at 5:15 p.m. and will convene at the time listed below for its regular or special called meeting. The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, as set forth below. 1. Closed Meeting mo Deliberations Regarding Real Property --- Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE Section 551.072. Discuss, deliberate, consider, receive information from Staff, and provide Staff with direction, pertaining to the location of, the purchase price of, the possible terms of sale of, and valuation issues respecting the possible acquisition of an approximate 1.7 acre tract of real property by the City of Denton Municipal Utilities Department for a public purpose; which real property lies within the BBB-CRR Survey, Abstract No. 141, in Denton County, Texas, and is located near the intersection of Loop 288 and Interstate Highway 35. Consider the value of approximately .2 acre of property at the comer of Parkway and Carroll. [The City Council may convene in open session to consider the sale of said property.] ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. GOV'T. CODE CH. 551. THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE SEC. 551.001, ET SEQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION SECTIONS 551.071-551.086 OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. Special Called Session of the City of Denton City Council on February 8, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: Hold a joint City Council/Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing to receive public input, consider, make recommendations and/or take appropriate action concerning an ordinance adopting nonresidential interim regulations implementing policies contained within the new Comprehensive Plan. City of Denton City Council Agenda February 8, 2000 Page 2 Consider adopting an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, voluntarily annexing approximately 18 acres of land contiguous and adjacent to the City of Denton, Texas, located north of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 in southeast Denton in the County of Denton, Texas; approving a service plan for the annexed property; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. The property is the Denton Municipal Electric generation plant. First Reading, A-98. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). Receive a report, conduct deliberations, and determine appropriate actions to be taken, including approval of understandings or agreements between the City and developer/owner and/or potential initiation of rezoning, regarding a development project considered to be inconsistent with the City of Denton Comprehensive Plan, identified as follows: RNW Addition: an approximate 8.3-acre commercial site included within the boundaries of PD-16, an approximate l l.2-acre tract located on the southwest comer of Teasley and Teasley. Consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 98-293 prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Police Officer; prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Fire Fighter; providing a savings clause; providing a severability clause; and declaring an effective date. Following the completion of the Special Called Session, the Council will convene into a Work Session to consider the following: NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more City Council Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input, City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a Work Session, the City Council generally receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials, members of City committees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if invited by City Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to public input. Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being explored. Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Teasley Lane Corridor Traffic Study. City of Denton City Council Agenda February 8, 2000 Page 3 Receive a report and hold a discussion on the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant and Hartlee Field Road Pump Station preliminary design studies. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on the City's Employee Healthcare Plan. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction concerning Intellisys Streaming Media System, which will enable Internet broadcasts of council meetings. o Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the proposed Letter of Understanding (LOU) between the City of Denton and the Robson Developers, for the provision of water/wastewater services. o Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the "Raise the Bar" campaign. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the replacement of Mr. Hudspeth's trees and related issues. 8. Receive information and give the City Manager direction regarding a bond rating trip. CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of ,2000 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND WORK SESSION ROOM ARE ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AgendaNo. Agenda Item. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CMfDCM~CM: February 8th, 2000 Planning & Developmen~ Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Hold a joint City Council / Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing to receive public input, consider, make recommendations and/or take appropriate action concerning an ordinance adopting nonresidential interim regulations implementing policies contained within the new Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND A joint City Council / Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing has been scheduled to hear public comments regarding the draft nonresidential interim ordinance. This agenda item has been advertised to allow for deliberations, recommendations, and/or formal action, but the primary function to be served on February 8th is to hear public comments. The Planning & Zoning Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss the ordinance and make a recommendation to Council a day later, on th .... th February 9 . Council has scheduled conmderat~on of ordinance adoption for February 15 . During the December 14th, 1999 work session, Council members instructed staff to prepare an interim ordinance designed to guide development decision-making for nonresidential development applications until the city's development code is rewritten. Until then, efforts had focused on the preparation of interim development standards for residential applications only. The interim residential ordinance, which was adopted and became effective on February 1st, 2000, and the interim nonresidential ordinance are similar in structure. A copy of the draft nonresidential ordinance is attached. At the December 14th meeting, Council also enacted a General Retail and Commercial moratorium, Ordinance 99-474. The moratorium affects most nonresidential land uses permitted by the city. Ordinance 2000-017 amended the moratorium requirements on January 4th, 2000 to exempt public projects and certain institutional land uses. The draft interim nonresidential ordinance requires a Zoning Plan and Project Plan, with many similar information submittal requirements similar to those required by the interim residential ordinance. However, because nonresidential uses can vary so widely in terms of characteristics and impacts, the evaluation criteria are more broadly defined than for residential uses. Another significant feature of the draft ordinance is the evaluation of Comprehensive Plan Consistency, which requires a check of all new and pending PD Detailed Plan or plat applications for consistency with the Future Land Use Plan and intensity standards contained in the comprehensive plan. The interim nonresidential ordinance was reviewed during City Council's January 11th and January 25th work sessions, and was discussed briefly during the Planning & Zoning Commission's January 26th work session. No changes have been made to the Interim Nonresidential Ordinance as drafted and reviewed on January 25th, 2000. OPTIONS 1. Accept the draft ordinances in their current form. 2. Make revisions to the ordinances as necessary. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. If adopted, the ordinance will become effective immediately, and the Commercial and Retail moratorium restrictions will be lifted for all applications except those that are subject to the comprehensive plan consistency review process. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE February 8th, 2000 Joint City Council / P&Z public hearing February 9th, 2000 P&Z recommendation February 15th, 2000 City Council action PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW December 14th, 1999 City December 14th, 1999 January 11th, 2000 January 25th, 2000 January 26th, 2000 Council work session review GR & C moratorium ordinance adopted by City Council City Council work session review City Council work session P&Z work session FISCAL INFORMATION The draft ordinance will increase the cost of residential development, in terms of both development review processing and actual construction. Until the new development code in ready for adoption, the interim code provides a transition toward higher expectations of development quality as indicated in the comprehensive plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Interim Nonresidential Ordinance Respectfully submi~e '~ A~i~tant City Manager, Development Services ORDINANCE NO. Attachment #1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING INTERIM STANDARDS FOR APPLYING POLICIES OF THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REQUESTS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS AND CERTAIN SPECIFIED NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS PENDING ADOPTION OF A REVISED DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton has enacted by Ordinance No. 99-439 a new Comprehensive Plan for the City of Denton on December 7, 1999, and superceding the Denton Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains policies, goals and strategies related to the location and intensity of retail and commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the City intends to comprehensively amend its Code of Ordinances, including inter alia its zoning and subdivision regulations, in order to implement such polices, goals and strategies; and WHEREAS, it appears that substantial applications for approval of nonresidential developments are likely to occur in the intervening time period; and WHEREAS, it further appears that approval of such development applications inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Plan is contrary to the intent and purposes of the plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton has enacted Ordinance 99-474 and Ordinance 2000-017, establishing and amending a moratorium pending the adoption of interim standards for applying the policies of the comprehensive plan for certain specified commercial development applications; and WHEREAS, Chapter 219 of the Texas Local Government Code authorizes municipalities to enact regulations defining the consistency between comprehensive plan proposals and development regulations; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing between City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 8, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City is desirous of allowing property owners to proceed with development applications for nonresidential uses pending the adoption of permanent revisions to the Land Development Code, subject to interim standards that safeguard the health, safety and general welfare of the community; and THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, HEREBY ORDAINS: Section I. Interim Development Regulations. The following provisions hereby are incorporated as interim development standards pending the adoption of permanent revisions to the City's Code of Ordinances that implement the policies, goals and strategies contained in the adopted Comprehensive Plan concerning nonresidential land uses. Pending adoption of such permanent revisions, these interim development regulations shall supersede conflicting provisions of the City Code of Ordinances, including in particular and without limitation Chapter 34, Subdivisions, and Chapter 35, Zoning, and shall read as follows: SECTION A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Intent and Purposes. It is the intent and purpose of these regulations: ao to facilitate proper and detailed evaluation of nonresidential zoning and rezoning applications within city limits in order to render such applications consistent with the policies, goals and strategies concerning land use, land use intensity, and related growth management objectives set forth in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, pending adoption of revisions to Chapters 34 and 35 and other applicable provisions of the City's Code of Ordinances (which changes hereinafter collectively are referred to as the "Development Code") that implement such policies, goals and strategies; bo to facilitate proper and detailed evaluation of nonresidential preliminary and final plat applications within city limits in order to render such applications, to the extent allowed by law, consistent with the policies, goals and strategies concerning land use, land use intensity, and related growth management objectives set forth in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, pending adoption of revisions to Chapters 34 and 35 and other applicable provisions of the City's Code of Ordinances (which changes hereinafter collectively are referred to as the "Development Code") that implement such policies, goals and strategies; to permit property owners to submit applications for nonresidential development during such interim period, in order to receive preliminary or final approval from the City for such projects, subject to limitations herein set forth; and do to integrate the limitations and standards herein imposed with the City's existing development regulations governing retail and commercial land uses during the pendency of this ordinance. 2. Applicability. These interim regulations apply to the following types of nonresidential development applications. Requirements of this ordinance vary according to the type of application submitted for approval: Standards for zoning plans and project plans apply to the following types of development applications and must be satisfied prior to approval of such applications. Standards for zoning plans and project plans apply to the following types of development applications. Standards for zoning plans must be satisfied prior to approval of such applications. Standards for project plans may be satisfied at the same time or may be deferred, with City Council approval, for satisfaction at a later time, but no later than prior to or contemporaneous with preliminary plat approval: (1) an application to amend the City's zoning map to a nonresidential zoning district classification provided for in the existing City Code of Ordinances, including a Planned Development District containing nonresidential land use classifications; (2) an application to amend a Concept Plan or Development Plan containing nonresidential land use classifications in an existing Planned Development District, (3) an application to amend a Detailed Plan for nonresidential land use classifications in an existing Planned Development District, where the proposed changes to the detailed plan involve land use, lot size, lot dimensions, lot coverage, or building size; or (4) an application to approve a zoning application proposing nonresidential land use classifications accompanying an annexation agreement; Standards for project plans apply to the following types of development applications and must be satisfied prior to approval of such applications: (1) an application to approve a Detailed Plan for nonresidential land use classifications in an existing Planned Development District, in which a Concept Plan or Development Plan was approved for the property and which does not propose changes to such Concept plan or Development plan; (2) an application to amend a Detailed Plan for nonresidential land use classifications in an existing Planned Development District, in which a Concept Plan or Development Plan was approved for the property and which does not propose changes that involve land use, lot size, lot dimensions, lot coverage, or building size; or (3) an application to approve development on undeveloped land involving an existing nonresidential zoning district; or (4) an application to replat land within an existing nonresidential zoning district, that increases the intensity of proposed land uses, through increases in building size, lot coverage, or traffic generation. All new and pending nonresidential Planned Development Detailed Plan, preliminary plat or final plat applications that are not required to submit a Zoning Plan as per Section A.2.a., shall be evaluated for Comprehensive Plan Consistency, subject to the standards and limitations as herein set forth. Any application to amend a Concept Plan, Development Plan or Detailed Plan in a Planned Development District(s) must include all contiguous, undeveloped land in unified ownership within such District(s), and all such land is subject to the requirements of this ordinance. Exemptions. This ordinance does not apply to: a. any nonresidential development application accepted for filing prior to December 15, 1999 for which Concept Plan, Development Plan, or Detailed Plan approval occurred on or after April 7, 1998; or b. any final plat that has been approved. Duration. This ordinance shall remain in effect until such time as the City enacts its Development Code, as reflected in Section 1.2.a, to implement the policies, goals and strategies concerning nonresidential land uses and related growth management objectives set forth in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Effect on Other Regulations. It is the intent of this ordinance that the standards set forth herein supercede any conflicting standards under existing development regulations that apply to the development application. It is the further intent of this ordinance that provisions of existing development regulations not in conflict with provisions of this ordinance remain in effect and that such provisions apply with full force and effect to the development authorized under this ordinance. SECTION B. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms are defined to mean: Accepted for filing means the status of a development application following submission and acceptance as complete by the Director of all application materials and documents required by the City Code of Ordinances. In addition, a development application shall not be considered accepted for filing if there is a condition precedent to the filing that has not been fulfilled. City means the City of Denton, Texas. Communitl~ Activit~ Center means the area defined and described in the City o_£ Denton Comprehensive Plan. Concept plan means a general concept plan as provided for in Chapter 35, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Detailed plan means a detailed plan as provided for in Chapter 35, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Development application means the application form and all accompanying documents and exhibits required of the applicant by the City for development review purposes and includes any of the following applications for nonresidential uses: zonings, rezonings, planned developments, concept plans, detailed plans, development plans, preliminary and final plats. Development plan means a development plan as provided for in Chapter 35, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Director means the Director of Planning and Development or his designate. Downtown Universit~ Core District means the area defined and described in the City of Denton Comprehensive Plan. DRC means the city's Development Review Committee. Environmentallv Sensitive Areas (ESAs) means a feature of the landscape in its natural condition before any grading, excavation, filling or other man-made alteration, that is shown on the City of Denton Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map. These areas may include, but are not limited to, floodway, floodplain fringe, riparian area, wetlands, ponds, lakes, rivers, wooded area, and topography that exceeds 7% slope. Finalplat means a final plat as defined in Section 34-11 and as provided for in Section 34-15 of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Floodplain means the area designated as subject to flooding from the base flood (one-hundred-year flood) on the flood insurance rate map. The floodplain includes the floodway. Floodway means a river, channel or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Normally, the floodway will include the stream channel and that portion of the adjacent land areas required to pass the base flood (one-hundred-year flood) discharge without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation any point more than one (1) foot above that of the pre-floodway condition, including those designated on the flood insurance rate map. Floodway fringe means the area located within the floodplain and outside the floodway. Neighborhood Center means the area defined and described in the City o£Denton Comprehensive Plan. Nonresidential, nonresidential goning district or nonresidential uses means any land use that is not a multi-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, one-family dwelling, attached, and one-family dwelling, detached uses. This definition includes all land uses listed in Section 35-77 of the City of Denton Code except all uses listed under "B. Primary Residential Uses" and "d. Agricultural Type Uses - Farm or Ranch." Planned development means a planned development district as defined in Chapter 35, Article IV of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Preliminarvplat means a preliminary plat as defined in Section 34-11 and as provided for in Section 34-18 of the Code of Ordinances of the City. Property owner means an all inclusive term denoting the person with primary responsibility toward the city to see that these development rules and regulations and the ordinances of the city are complied with. The term includes person, firm, corporation, partnership or agent, attorney-in-fact, manager or director, developer. Such term as used in this chapter always includes one (1) or more of the persons enumerated in this section who own all or any part of the land which is contemplated to be developed. Qualified masonry product means brick, stone, stucco or masonry material that replicates brick, stone or stucco. RegionalActivitv Center means the area defmed and described in the CiO/of Denton Comprehensive .Plan. Rezonine means an application for amendment, supplement or change to zoning as provided for in Section 35-7 of the Code of Ordinances of the City and includes an application to amend or approve a concept plan, development plan or detailed plan. Street tree means a tree that is listed on the city's list of eligible street trees adjacent to a public right-of-way. Zoning means an application for thc first zoning classification and land use conditions applicable to real property as provided for in Chapter 35 of the Code of Ordinances of the City the establishment of a planned development and approval of a concept plan, development plan or detailed plan. Zonin~ approval means the adoption of an ordinance approval zoning or rezoning and includes approval of a concept plan, development plan or detailed plan. Zoning map means zoning district map as defined in Section 35-3 of the Code of Ordinances of the City. SECTION C. ZONING PLANS 1. Zoning Plan Requirements. Every nonresidential development application identified in Section A.2.a shall be accompanied by a zoning plan. The zoning plan shall be the basis for the City Council's decision whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the nonresidential development application, based upon the standards set forth in this section; provided that all other standards applicable to the nonresidential development application have been met. If the development application already contains the information and documents set forth in this section, then such application may be treated as a zoning plan and shall be evaluated under the standards in this section. If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the zoning plan shall be incorporated as a part of the approval. A zoning plan shall contain the following: Project name, vicinity map, scale, north arrow, and date. A general layout of the development, showing the general configuration and location of proposed land uses for the property to be developed for nonresidential land use and any contiguous property in unified ownership. Any reservations or dedications proposed. Location of all Environmentally Sensitive Areas, including any field inspection information that provides more detail for clarification purposes, and an indication of any planned mitigation to changes to natural features. All open space to be preserved consistent with standards set forth in this ordinance. An assessment of public facilities, demonstrating the adequacy of or provision for public facilities serving the proposed development. Proposed compatibility measures to be incorporated into the project design, including adjacent density, building materials, or buffering and screening from adjacent uses. Zoning designations adjacent to the proposed development. The proposed method, connection, provider, and location of: (1) The proposed water system. (2) The proposed wastewater system. (3) The proposed method of drainage of the property. Oo (4) The proposed method of erosion and sedimentation control. Location of drainage ways, environmentally sensitive areas, or public utility easements in and adjacent to the proposed development. Location and size of existing utilities along or within any easement. Limits of 100-year floodplain and floodway. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be required for any proposed site development that can be reasonably expected to generate more than 1,000 vehicle trip ends during a single day and/or more than 100 vehicle trip ends during a single hour. Vehicular linkages, if any, to adjacent properties in accordance with access management principles. Drainage Study. Water and Wastewater Demand Calculations. Location of existing utilities. Any other information deemed necessary by the Director to analyze the project. Standards Applicable to Zoning Plans. a. Nature of Standards The standards contained in this section governing zoning plans are minimum standards. These interim development regulations are not intended to limit the discretion of the City Council to deny a residential development application that achieves the minimum standards contained in this section, or to condition the application based upon overall considerations of health, safety and general welfare. b. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Standards. (1) Land Use Plan and Land Use Intensity. Zoning plans for nonresidential uses must demonstrate consistency with the standards set forth in the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan and district designations. (2) Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) shall be indicated on the Zoning Plan and preserved to the fullest extent possible. Zoning Plan applications shall indicate the extent to which ESAs have been preserved, alternatives that have been evaluated to avoid detrimental impacts, and proposed methods to mitigate disturbances deemed unavoidable. O) Compatibility Standards. Zoning plans must demonstrate that the proposed development is compatible with the existing and planned adjoining uses and the character of the area in which the project is located. (a) Masonry. If 50% of the structures located within 500 feet of the 10. boundary of the project have at least 50% of all elevations (excluding windows and doors) comprised of qualified masonry products, then all structures within the project should have elevations comprised of no less than 75% qualified masonry products. (b) Landscaping and Screening. Landscaping and screening shall be used to ensure compatibility with adjoining uses according to the following standards: (1) For existing single~family residential land uses adjacent to proposed nonresidential development: i. Minimum bufferyard width of 20 feet: ii. Minimum number of canopy trees equal to 1 per 15 linear feet of bufferyard; and iii. Minimum number ofunderstory trees equal to 2 for each canopy tree. (2) For existing multi-family residential land uses adjacent to proposed nonresidential development: i. Minimum bufferyard width of 15 feet: ii. Minimum number of canopy trees equal to 1 per 20 linear feet of bufferyard; and iii. Minimum number of understory trees equal to 1½ for each canopy tree. (3) For existing nonresidential land uses considered to be lower in land use intensity adjacent to proposed nonresidential development considered to be higher in land use intensity: i. Minimum bufferyard width of 10 feet: ii. Minimum number of canopy trees equal to 1 per 25 linear feet of bufferyard; and iii. Minimum number ofunderstory trees equal to 1 for each canopy tree. (4) Adequate Public Facilities The land proposed for development must be served adequately by essential public facilities and services. No development application subject to these interim development regulations may be approved unless and until adequate public facilities exist or provision has been made for water facilities, wastewater facilities, drainage facilities and transportation facilities which are necessary to serve the development proposed, whether or not such facilities are to be located within the property being developed or offsite. (a) (1) Proposed public improvements shall conform to and be properly related to the City's subdivision regulations, 11. (2) applicable master plans and capital improvement plans. The City may require the phasing of development or improvements in order to maintain current levels of service for existing public services and facilities or for other reasons based upon maintaining the health, safety and general welfare. SECTION D. PROJECT PLANS 1. Pro|ect Plan Requirements. Every nonresidential development application identified in Section A.2.b and which is not exempt under Section A.3 shall be accompanied by a project plan. In addition, every development application identified in Section A.2.a which deferred satisfaction of project plan requirements at the time of approval of the zoning plan must receive project plan approval prior to or contemporaneous with preliminary plat approval. The project plan shall be the basis for the City Council's decision whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the residential development application, based upon the standards set forth in this section; provided that all other standards applicable to the residential development application have been met. If the development application already contains the information and documents set forth in this section, then such application may be treated as a project plan and shall be evaluated under the standards in this section. If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the project plan shall be incorporated as a part of the approval. A project plan shall contain the following: Co All of the information contained in a zoning plan. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the boundary of the proposed development, right-of-way, pavement widths, sidewalks, and bikeways. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines and lot area. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, driveways, fences and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed. Area calculations: (1) The total area in the development. (2) The gross floor area of all existing and proposed strucures. (3) Area and percentage of the total project area coverage by: i. Structures. ii. Streets, roads, and alleys. iii. Sidewalks. iv. Recreation areas. v. Landscaping. vi. The total area covered by tree canopy at maturity of the trees. 12, vii. Parking areas. Location and size of all existing and proposed public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed development with the locations shown of: (1) Water lines and diameters. (2) Sewers, manholes and cleanouts. (3) Storm drains and catch basins. (4) Fire hydrants. (5) Access, location, and screening of all dumpsters. (6) Location and size of all public utility easements. Location, size, and use of contemplated and existing public areas within the proposed development. A topographic map of the site at a two-foot contour interval. Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation. Use designations for all areas not covered by buildings, parking, or landscaping. Locations of all Environmentally Sensitive Areas including, but not limited to, any existing healthy trees of a caliber greater than six (6) inches, generally forested areas, and creeks, wetlands, 100 year floodplains, or ponds existing on the site. Indicate any planned mitigation to changes of a natural feature. A landscape plan showing in detail the location, type, and size of the proposed landscaping and plantings, and all calculations necessary to indicate compliance with Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances. The elevations, surface area in sq. ft., illumination type, height, and construction (material and style), and locations of all proposed signs for the development. The typical architectural elevations for all structures proposed on the property. All project plans shall indicate the material, color, texture, windows, doors, and other design features of proposed structures, including all visible mechanical equipment, such as for heating and cooling. Elevations shall be submitted drawn to scale of one (1) inch equals ten (10) feet or greater. Any other information deemed necessary to analyze the project. Project Plan Standards. Minimum Project Plan Standards The following minimum standards of project design shall be addressed in the project plan: (1) (2) (3) Underground Utilities - All developments must provide for underground utility installation, excepting electrical main sub-station feeders. Interconnected streets - Where applicable, all streets must connect to other streets at both ends, or provide for the future connection when adjacent to undeveloped property. Architecture - Architectural design should be appropriate for the use and location of the proposed land use. Building orientation should be toward the street, with prominent major entrances designed to be attractive and 13. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) functional also facing the street. Building scale should be compatible with nearby structures in terms of height, mass, and bulk. Mechanical equipment or storage areas should not be visible from the street. Facades should incorporate windows, offsets, jogs, or other distinctive changes to avoid visual monotony. Where appropriate, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and/or awnings should be used for pedestrian climate protection. Building materials should be appropriate for the use and location of the development. Garage door orientation and setbacks - Garage doors should not face any adjacent street frontages, except alleys. Where site limitations preclude the opportunity to orient garage doors away from the street, other design measures should be employed to screen or minimize visibility from public rights-of-way. Access management principles should be employed to minimize traffic flow disruptions on collector and arterial streets. Street trees - One (1) street tree per 50 linear feet of lot boundary adjacent to a street. Pedestrian Circulation and Linkages - The Project Plan should provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation appropriate to the proposed land use. Pedestrian linkages to adjacent properties should be facilitated in appropriate locations. Parking Visibili _ty - Parking areas should be screened from public rights-of- way to the extent possible. When visible from public rights-of-way, parking areas should be organized in smaller sub-lots to avoid lage, uninterrupted expanses of pavement. Lighting - Lighting shall be designed in a manner that will not shine upward, minimizing the diffusion of light into the atmosphere, and shall not shine on adjacent properties. Traffic calming devices - Approved traffic calming devices should incorporated into the street pattems where appropriate. Fences - Fencing should be treated as a design element, and be visually appropriate for its proposed location. Attention should be paid to details such as use of qualified masonry products and design features as accent columns, articulation, or caps. If used along an arterial and collector streets, consideration should be given to openings in fences to provide visual entry into the project area. The use ofberms is encouraged. Landscaped area or art - Landscaped features such as fountains, gardens, or other features that enhance the project are encouraged. Art such as monuments or other sculptural objects that enhance the project may also be considered. Such elements should be visible and/or accessible to the public. Transit facilities - the provision of bus tm-outs and covered seating areas for bus riders should be considered, depending on site location, levels of activity, and type of site visitation. SECTION E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY 14. 1. Requirements. Every nonresidential development application identified in Section A.2.b or Section A.2.c, which does not require the submittal of a Zoning Plan pursuant to Section C, and which is not exempt under Section A.3, shall be subject to a separate evaluation of Comprehensive Plan Consistency. No such development application shall be accepted for filing until the requirements of this Section E have been satisfied. Such development applications shall be considered incomplete until such requirements are satisfied. a. New Applications Prior to filing a nonresidential development application consisting of a Planned Development Detailed Plan, preliminary plat, or final plat that is not subject to Section C - Zoning Plan requirements, a petition shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development requesting an evaluation of Comprehensive Plan Consistency. Upon making a finding of consistency, the Director shall in writing notify the petitioner that the development application shall be reviewed in accordance with regularly scheduled procedures. Upon making a finding of inconsistency, the Director shall place the application on the next available City Council agenda, whereupon the City Council shall determine if a rezoning petition will be initiated on behalf of the City. Ifa rezoning petition is not initiated, the petitioner shall be notified in writing that the development application review process will be resumed in accordance with regularly scheduled procedures. In such case the development application will be accepted for filing. b. Pending Applications Pending Planned Development Detailed Plans, preliminary plats, or final plats that have been filed before the effective date of this ordinance, and are not subject to Section C - Zoning Plan requirements, must be evaluated for Comprehensive Plan Consistency before any further processing of the application is allowed. The Director of Planning and Development shall prepare an evaluation of Comprehensive Plan Consistency for each individual application within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this ordinance. Upon making a finding of consistency, the Director shall in writing notify the petitioner that the development application shall be reviewed in accordance with regularly scheduled procedures. Upon making a finding of inconsistency, the Director shall place the application on the next available City Council agenda. The City Attorney shall prepare a determination and advise the City Council of the status of vested rights with respect to the application. The City Council shall then determine if a rezoning petition will be initiated on behalf of the City. If a rezoning petition is not initiated, the petitioner shall be notified in writing that the development application review process will be resumed in accordance with regularly scheduled procedures. 15. SECTION F. PROCEDURES 1. Application requirements. No development application subject to these interim development regulations shall be approved without submission and approval ora zoning plan or a project plan, as provided herein, consistent with the standards in this ordinance. If the application is approved, the approved zoning plan or project plan shall be incorporated as an element of the approval. 2. Processing of and decision on plans. (a) Zoning Plans Zoning plans shall be processed and decided by the City Council in accordance with the same procedures designated in existing development regulations for processing and decision set forth in Section 35-7 of the City Code of Ordinances. (b) Project Plans Project plan applications may be submitted, reviewed, and decided by City Council concurrently with Zoning plan applications or as independently reviewed development applications. Review and decision on Project plan applications shall be made by City Council, upon notice to residents of property located within 500 feet of the Project plan property, in accordance with established Courtesy Notice procedures. (c) Comprehensive Plan Consistency Comprehensive Plan Consistency evaluations shall be conducted by the Planning and Development Department, and the Director of Planning and Development shall make an administrative determination of consistency in accordance with Section E. Should the Director make a determination that requires referral to City Council for further consideration due to Comprehensive Plan inconsistency, the City Council shall decide by simple majority whether to allow the development application to be accepted for filing and/or continue the review process as regularly scheduled, or whether to initiate a rezoning of the subject property determined to be inconsistent. 3. Decision on application. The City Council shall determine whether to approve, approve conditionally or deny the development application based upon its decision on the zoning plan or project plan in accordance with the standards in these interim development regulations and pursuant to the discretion vested in it by state law and city charter. 3. Project timing a. The property owner may elect to reserve portions of the property for future 16. nonresidential development for development approval after the adoption of the City's Development Code. Such tracts shall be clearly indicated on the zoning plan. The City Council may modify or condition zoning plan approval on the reservation of portions of the proposed development until the City has adopted the Development Code that implements the policies, goals and strategies concerning residential land use, and related growth management, housing and open space objectives set forth in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Relief requests The applicant may petition the City Council for relief from these interim development regulations by requesting such relief in writing. The request for relief shall be considered by the City Council in conjunction with action on the project plan and development application. bo The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from the requirements of this ordinance, unless the applicant first presents credible evidence from which the City Council can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the nonresidential development standards deprives the applicant of a vested property right or deprives the applicant of the economically viable use of his land. In deciding whether to grant relief to the applicant, the City Council shall take into consideration the following: (1) whether granting relief from the nonresidential standards contained in these interim development regulations, in the absence of permanent revisions to the City's Land Development Code that implement the provisions of the comprehensive plan jeopardizes the City's best interests in preventing such effects; (2) the suitability of the proposed nonresidential uses in light of land uses allowed in the zoning districts on property adjacent to the proposed site; (3) the impact of the proposed nonresidential use on the transportation and other public facilities systems affected by the development; (4) the measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding properties; (5) the likelihood that sufficient relief will be provided to the applicant following adoption of the City's Development Code; (6) the total expenditures made in connection with the proposed nonresidential development in reliance on prior regulations, including the costs of installing infrastructure to serve the project; (7) any fees reasonably paid in connection with the proposed use; and (8) any representations made by the City conceming the project and reasonably relied upon to the detriment of the applicant. d. The City Council may take the following actions: (1) deny the relief request; (2) grant the relief request; or (3) grant the relief request subject to conditions consistent with the criteria set forth in this section. Minimum relief. Any relief granted by the City Council shall be the minimum deviation from ordinance requirements necessary to prevent deprivation of a vested property right. Section II. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map, attached hereto to Exhibit A, is hereby incorporated into this ordinance, and shall be used to evaluate development applications as stipulated in all references to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Section III. Amendment of Chapter 34 Section 34-13 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to add the following paragraph (d): (d) No plat shall be accepted for filing until the zoning of the property has met Comprehensive Plan consistency requirements if such consistency requirements are required by the City of Denton's Interim Nonresidential Development Regulations, adopted by Ordinance No. Section IV. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. 3.8. Section V. Recission of Moratorium Ordinance 99-474, adopted by the City Council on December 14, 1999, and Ordinance 2000- 017, adopted by City Cotmcil on January 4, 2000, shall be rescinded and repealed on the effective date of this ordinance, except as follows: The moratorium shall be extended beyond the original expiration date and shall continue for all pending development applications which are subject to the Comprehensive Plan consistency requirements as provided in Section E.b. The moratorium for such development applications shall continue until such time as the requirements of Section E are satisfied. Section VI. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon the date of its passage and approval. Section VII. Savings Clause. Save and except provisions hereby amended or superseded, all remaining sections, sentences and paragraphs of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton shall remain in full force and effect. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of February, 2000. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY JACK MILLER, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERB PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 19. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agenda Item Date ~/~'/~ AGENDA DATE: February 8, 2000 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department ,~ DCM: David Hill, 349-8314 ~ SUBJECT - DME Spencer Road Generation Plant (A-98) Consider adopting an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, voluntarily annexing approximately 18 acres of land contiguous and adjacent to the City of Denton, Texas, located north of Spencer Road between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288 in southeast Denton in the County of Denton, Texas; approving a service plan for the annexed property; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. The property is the Denton Municipal Electric generation plant. First Reading, A-98. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0). BACKGROUND Denton Municipal Electric, on behalf of the City of Denton, has voluntarily submitted a petition for annexation of its Spencer Road electric generation plant. The 18 acre property is located on the north side of Spencer Road, between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. The applicant has requested Light Industrial (LI) zoning designation. An electric generation plant is a use by right within the City's LI zoning designation. It is also a use by right within the Heavy Industrial (HI) and Planned Development (PD) zoning designations and allowed with a Specific Use Permit (SLIP) within the Agicultural (A), Commercial (C) and Central Business (CB) zoning designations. The existing electric generation facility would become a legal non-conforming use in any zone district that does not allow it as a use by right. The property is located within an area designated as an "Employment Center" in the Land Use Plan adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. Employment Centers are intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including limited light manufacturing uses, research and development activities, corporate facilities, offices and institutions. Under current zoning regulations, an LI, HI, or PD zoning designation is required to allow light manufacturing uses. The Council has conducted two public hearings. The Council is scheduled to consider this ordinance on second reading at its March 21, 2000 meeting. OPTIONS The Council may choose to approve or deny the annexation petition. It may approve, deny, change or add conditions to the request for Light Industrial zoning designation. RECOMMENDATION · The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed annexation at its January 26, 1999 meeting. It continued the zoning public heating, requesting staff to strike 1. several uses from those allowed within the Light Industrial zoning classification. The Commission is expected to make a recommendation regarding zoning at its February 9 meeting. PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) · First public hearing was conducted Sanuary 11,2000. · Second public hearing was conducted January 18, 2000. · The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed annexation at its January 26, 2000 meeting, and continued the zoning public heating to its February 9 meeting. FISCAL INFORMATION The annexation will bring into the city a facility that has significant property value. An increase in the cost of public facilities and services may result from any significant redevelopment of the area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map. 2. Site Map. 3. Draft Ordinance. 4. Schedule. Respectfully.~ubmitted: Do[ug~Po ell~'~\ Director, Planning and Development 2. ~,-98 ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH · SITE LOCATION MAP Agenda Date: January 11,2000 Scale: None ATTACHMENT 2 ~"00 ,ZO'~'ll 000 OOO, ~° .~0 N t~ ! .~-95o DM£ Spe~wer Plant, lst PH, doc ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, VOLUNTARILY ANNEXING 17.751 ACRES OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, LOCATED NORTH OF SPENCER ROAD BETWEEN WOODROW LANE AND LOOP 288 IN SOUTHEAST DENTON IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS; APPROVING A SERVICE PLAN FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (A-98) WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes to extend its city limits line to annex 17.751 acres of land described herein; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2000 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the petition for annexation; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on January 11, 2000 and January 18, 2000, (both days being on or after the 40th day but before the 20th day before the date of the institution of the proceedings) to allow all interested persons to state their views and present evidence bearing upon this annexation; and WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at a meeting of the City Council on February 8, 2000; and WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in the official newspaper of the City of Denton on June 13, 1999, after annexation proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City Council taking final action, as required by City Charter; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the tract of land described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 2. That the service plan attached as Exhibit "B", and incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of this ordinance. SECTION 3: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance and the City Council hereby declares it to be its purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real property described in Exhibit "A" regardless of whether any other part of the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City. If any part of the real property annexed is already included within the city limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's jurisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were not expressly described in this ordinance. Page 1 of 2 5. SECTION 4: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FIELD NOTES 17.751 ACRES BEING oll that Certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the Mary Austin Survey Abstract Number 4, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, being a port of Lot 1, Block 2 of Municipal Utility Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to 'lhe Plat thereof recorded in Cabinet G, Page 346, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at an iron rod found for corner in the north I/ne of Spencer Road, o public roadway having o right-of-way of 60.0 feet, said point being the southwest corner of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed to N. Alex Bickley, Trustee recorded in Volume 987, Page 548, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 88' $9' 46" Pi, 150.00 feet with sold north line of said Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for PLACE OF BEGINNG; THENCE N 88' .79' 46" W, 299.8.7 feet w/th sold north I/ne of said Spencer Road to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE dong the arc of o curve to the right having o central angle of .72' 15' 19; a radius of 520.00 feet, a,n arc length of 292.74 feet, whose chord bears N 72' 52' 06 W, 288.89' feet w/th sold north line of said Spencer Road to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' 50' 00" W, 281.92 feet with said north line of said Spencer Rood to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 52' .76' 00" W, 111.50 feet with said north line of said Spencer Road to an iron rod set for corner; . THENCE N 20' 02' 44" E, 92.00 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 02' 2.7' $6" Pi, 267.94 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 88' 09' 17" E, 48.91 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 01' 50' 44" W, 206.45 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE N `78' 22, 2`7" E, 161.`7`7 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE N 88' 0`7' 45" E, 749.08 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 44' 06' 44" E, 5,7.08 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 00' 5`7' 14" W, 562.85 feet to an iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 87' 46' 24" W, 258.02 feet to o fence corner for corner; THENCE S 02' 25' 18" E, 114.07 feet to on iron rod set for corner: THENCE $ 86' 24' 16" W, 68.28 feet to on iron rod set for corner; THENCE S 02' `72' 00" E, 151.2`7 feet to a fence corner for corner; THENCE N 87' 55' ,34" E, 294.01 feet to o fence corner for corner; THENCE S 09' 41' 28" W, 180.28 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING .m'~d c~.,~to;n/nq ;7.751 ccreo of .'.~nd. o ANNE J ,TION SERVICE PLAN (A-98) EXHIBIT B ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN EXHIBIT B CASE NUMBER: AREA: ~ ' LOCATION: A-98 (DlVlE Spencer electric generation plant) 17.751 acres North Spencer Road, between Woodrow Lane and Loop 288. of Municipal services to the site described above shall be furnished by or on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, at the following levels and in accordance with the following schedule: A. Police Protection Police service, including patrolling, response to calls, and other routine functions, will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. B. Fire Protection Fire protection (within the limits of existing hydrants) and emergency medical services will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Solid Waste Collection Solid waste collection service will be provided to the property within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment De Water/Wastewater Facilities Maintenance of water and wastewater facilities in the area to be annexed that are not within the service area of another water or wastewater utility will be begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. ROads and Streets Maintenance of roads and streets, including road and street lighting, in the area to be annexed will begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. F. Parks and Recreation Facilities Maintenance of parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in the area to be annexed will begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. .4-98.4~%~'EX.4TION SER FICE P£AN. doc ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN (A-98) '-:-7. However, there are no existing parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in the area. G. Electric ~aeilities Electric utility service will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date. of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. H. Library Services 1. Library services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Je Code Enforcement, Building Inspections and Consumer Health Services 1. Code enforcement, building inspections and consumer health services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. Planning and Development Services 1. Planning and development services will be provided within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation using existing personnel and equipment. The Planning and Development Department currently provides services this property by way of administration of Chapter 34 of the Code of Ordinances, concerning subdivision and land development regulations. Capital Improvements Program (ClP) The ClP of the city is prioritized according to the following guidelines: (1) Provision of Capital Improvements as compared to other areas will be based on characteristics of topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies. (2) The overall cost effectiveness of providing a specific facility or improvement. The annexed area will be considered for CIP improvements in the upcoming CIP plan. This property will be considered aCcording to the established guidelines. .4-98.4.~5'VEX~T'ION SERF'ICE P.I~IN. doc ATTACHMENT 4 PROPOSED ANNEXATION SCHEDULE A-98 '- DME Spencer Generati'(~ffPlant December 14, 1999 January 1, 2000 January 11, 2000 January 6, 2000 January 16,' 2000 January 18, 2000 January 26, 2000 February 8, 2000 February 12, 2000 March 21,2000 City Council receives a preliminary assessment, gives direction to staff and considers approval of a schedule for public heatings regarding the proposed annexation. n PreliminaryAnnexation Assessment prepared. Notice published in Denton Record-Chronicle for first public hearing. ca Annexation Study prepared and available for public review. ca Service Plan prepared and available for public review. City Council conducts first public hearing. · Public notice must be no less than 10 days and no more than 20 days before public hearing. Notice published in Denton Record-Chronicle for second public hearing. Notice published in Denton Record-Chronicle for P & Z public hearing. City Council conducts second public hearing. · Public notice must be no less than 10 days and no more than 20 days before public heating. Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing and considers making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed .annexation and the proposed zoning. * Public notice must be no less than 10 days before public hearing. City Council by a four-fifths vote institutes annexation proceedings. First reading of annexation ordinance. SPECIAL CALL MEETING. · Action must be more than 20 days after the second public heating but less than 40 days fxom the first public hearing. Publication of annexation ordinance in Denton Record-Chronicle. City Council by a four-fifths vote takes final action. SecOnd reading and ' adoption of the annexation ordinance. City Council considers approval of zoning request. · Council action must be more than 30 days after publication of ordinance and less than 90 days after council instituted annexation proceedings. C:IMy DocumentslCC R~'portslCC t~'orkshop[4.98, DME G~'neratian Planl. doe AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 8th, 2000 Planning & Developm~ Dave Hill, 349-8314~ ~/~--~ Aoend Aoend SUBJECT Receive a report, conduct deliberations, and determine appropriate actions to be taken, including approval of understandings or agreements between the city and developer/owner and/or potential initiation of rezoning, regarding a development project considered to be inconsistent with the City of Denton Comprehensive Plan, identified as follows: RNW Addition: an approximate 8.3-acre commercial site included within the boundaries of PD-16, an approximate l 1.2-acre tract located on the southwest comer of Teasley and Teasley. BACKGROUND The subject property was identified during the January 11th Council work session as potentially inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Background information regarding PD-16 was provided during the January 25th Council meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission staff report for this property (attached) indicated that specific aspects of the PD Detailed Plan associated with the plat application were not consistent with land use and intensity objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. On January 25th, Council continued its deliberations until February 1st, allowing more time for staff analysis of potential actions that could be taken to address the observed inconsistencies. On February 8th, the possibility of opening a period of negotiation during which the City of Denton would agree to postpone initiation of a rezoning and the developer would agree to postpone any further processing of the plat application was discussed. The developer cited three conditions that would be necessary to open the negotiations: 1. The grocery store and pharmacy uses would have to be maintained; 2. Building size for the grocery store would be no less than 41,600 square feet and for the pharmacy would be no less than 11,000 square feet; and 3. The schedule for review of a new PD Detailed Plan amendment would include: a. Development Review Committee - March 15th, 2000 b. Planning & Zoning Commission - March 22nd, 2000 c. City Council - April 4th, 2000 After extensive discussion, the matter was postponed for another week, until February 8th, to allow both city and the developer's representatives more time to examine all issues related to the terms of potential negotiation. The current status of PD-16 is as follows: An application to amend the approved Detailed Plan for the 8.3 retail portion of the site was heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission on November l0th, 1999. The P&Z recommended denial, 7-0, and the property owners declined to appeal to City Council. The property owners then filed an application for a preliminary plat on December 7th, 1999, in accordance with the PD Detailed Plan approved in January 1991 (Ordinance No. 91-007). The plat application was then suspended upon adoption of the Commercial and Retail Moratorium Ordinance on December 14th, 1999. OPTIONS 1. Continue to consider opening negotiations, assuming mutual agreement can be reached regarding the aforementioned conditions. Staff has not met with the developer's representatives as of the date of this report. If additional information becomes available, Council will be updated at the February 8th meeting. 2. Initiate a rezoning for the property assuming that building size will not be changed. Potential land use classifications more consistent with a Neighborhood Centers comprehensive plan designation would be Office (O) or Neighborhood Services (NS). Residential zoning appears to be difficult to include as an option due to the building size limitation. 3. Take no action at this time. The interim nonresidential standards ordinance as currently drafted would apply to this property. The ordinance would require a Comprehensive Plan consistency review, during which time the plat application could not be processed. A similar review resulted in this matter being brought before you at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the possible period of negotiation be evaluated carefully. Any attempt to reach a compromise solution should include neighborhood consultation and input. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE No project schedule has been determined for the subject properties. If rezoning is pursued, the review process would be the same as for other zoning cases, including proper notification, public hearings, Planning & Zoning Commission review and recommendation, and City Council action. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Each property has been reviewed previously. The attached staff report provides further detail. FISCAL INFORMATION None ATTACHMENTS 1. PD-16 Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report Respectfully sub~ Assistant City Manager, Development Services PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT .Sub|ect: PD-16 Detailed Plan .Staff: Larry Reichhart, Development Review .Manager' Case Number: Z-99-081 Agenda Date: November 10, 1999 Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a Detailed Plan for 8.3 acres located at the southwest corner of Teasley and Lillian Miller. The proposal is to develop a retail center. · .Golden THangle Mall SITE LOCATION MAP Location: Size: Filename Southwest corner of Teasley and Lillian Miller approximately 8.3 acres ~. i Applicant: The Sheldon Development Co. Owner: 14643 Dallas Parkway, Suite 910 Dallas, TX 75240 Alexander Management Co. 4811 Bluffview Dallas, TX 75209 Planned development zoning districts (PD) are intended to provide forthe development of land as an integral unit for single or mixed use in accordance with a plan that may vary from the established regulations of other zoning districts forsimilarland uses. They are also meant to encourage flexible and creative planning to ensure the compatibility of land uses, to allow for the adjustment of changing demands to meet the current needs of the community, and to provide for a development that is superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts by meeting one or more of the following purposes: (1) Provides for the design of lots or building; increased recreation, common or open space for .private or public use; berms, greenbelts, trees, shrubs or other landscaping features; parking areas, street design or access; or other development plans, amenities or features that would be of special benefit to the property users or community; (2) Protects or preserves topographical features, such as trees, creeks, ponds, floodplains, slopes or hills; or (3) Protects Or preserves existing historical: buildings, strUctures, features or places. There are three (3) types of plans that may be used in the planned development precess; concept plan, development plan and detailed plan. CONCEPT PLAN ~- This plan is intended to be the first step in the PD process for larger or long term developments. It establishes the most general guidelines, identifying the land use types, approximate thoreughfare locations within the boundaries of the district. DEVELOPMENT PLAN - This plan is intended to be used most often as a second step in the PD process. It includes the same information that is provided on the concept plan, plus details as to the specific land uses and their boundaries. ~:~:~=.;~i:~:~i;~::.Tj~-iS pl~'~:.;i~!ii~ ~i~=:i~: !~::~!:~: ~n:d.=ii~:. re_~:i~= ~iO~:~';any ~!~'~!! ', ~ :~al'iPr ~:::0t~:~!~: ~d~6 prior ~~ ~[ ~ ~ai~ :~ia" Plan All detailed plans should be in substantial compliance with landscape, sign, subdivision and other regulations of the COde of Ordinances. When concessions from these regulations are requested by a developer, there needs to be corresponding benefits that merit deviation from those regulations. Filename The applicant is requesting approval of an amended Detailed Plan for an 8.3 acre portion of the Planned Development 16 (PD-16) zoning district located at the southwest corner of Teasley (FM 2181) and Lillian Miller (See Enclosure 2). The proposed detailed plan would allow the construction of an 11,347 square foot retail/pharmacy store and a 52,816 square foot grocery store. (See Enclosure 1.). A Detailed Plan.for this corner, approved by City council as Ordinance 91~007 on January 22, 1991, currentlY provides for the development of a 80,200 square foot main building and a 6,000 square foot pad site on this property. (See Enclosure 11) The proposed Detailed Plan, if approved, would replace the Detailed Plan currently in effect for this property. The property is bordered to the west by Sam Houston Elementary School and to the south by the Denton South Branch Library and a fire station. Directly to the north of the .property across Teasley is vacant property zoned SF-10 and owned by the Chumh of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Directly to the east of the property across FM 2181 is vacant land zoned Office Conditioned (O[c]). (See Enclosure 3) The existing approved detailed plan could be developed without additional zoning approvals. The following compr, ehensive plan analysis was conducted on the proposed detailed plan. For all intensive purposes, this analysis holds true for the existing approved detailed plan. By comparison, the existing detailed Plan would allow for the development of more retail space, prodUce higher traffic and provide less open space (see Staff Analysis for a more detailed comparison). 1988 Denton Development Plan Analysis The 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) shows this area to be within a Low Intensity Area. The~_ ~?as are intended to be developed primarilY for ~[~gle fa~ residential d~elo~,~,p~. e~ ~.borhooBs-ar~ ~6~s~ ~c, e8 ~of:sm~ommerc~al/~e aceO a ;~8 ~ m~le:~nt~~ ~t ~ Veh cular tr p generation due to development within Low Intensity Areas is restricted to 60 trips per day per acm in order to balance land use with mad capacity. Staff finds the proposed zoning to be somewhat consistent with the 1988 DDP objective of providing retail centers within Iow intensity residential areas at % mile inte~als, and somewhat inconsistent with the trip intensity standards of the 1988 DDP (see Enclosure 8) 1998 Denton Plan Policies Analysis The 1998 Denton Plan (DP) is to be used in conjunction with the 1988 Denton Development Plan in evaluating the consistency of proposed development with the long range vision for the city. Staff finds the proposed zoning to be inconsistent with the policies of the 1998 DP (see Enclosure 9). Filename Although a comprehensive plan analysis is nOt required for a Detailed Plan, one is provided for informational purposes. The land use component of the pending-comprehensiVe plan identifies this site as an area of existing neighborhoods with infill compatibility. As such, the proposed uses are compatible with the type of service expected within a neighborhood center. The size and design compatibility, however, need to be appropriate with a neighborhood character. 1. Transportation A. Trip generation The proposed development would generate approximately 2,610 trips per day if built out as retail (see Table 1). This is 2112 more trips or three hundred twenty-four pement (324%) more than the allowed trip generation in a Low Intensity Area. The 1988 DDP states that if a specific request violated the general policy of proportionate allocation a determination should then be made whether there are planning considerations that would warrant approval of a disproportionate allocation of intensity, such as the location of the proposed development in reference to existing public facilities such as the existing street pattern and designation. Table t. Proposed Retail Trip Generation Land Use Average Trip Acres Estimated Total Trip Generation* Sq. Ft. Generation General Retail 40.67 trips/I,000 sq. ft. -- 64,163 sq. ft. 2609.51 I DDP Allowed Trip 60 trips/day/acreS · 8.3 '-- 498 Generation Difference 21'12 * Calculations provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. B. Access Access to the proposed development will be provided to the east-west and the north-south legs of Teasley Lane (FM 2181). C. Road Capacity Teasley (FM 2181) is identified as a primary major arterial road by the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan. Teasley is currently constructed as a four (4) lane divided street without parking. As such, its designed traffic capacity currently allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 19,100 trips per day. The most recent traffic counts for Teasley indicate that there is adequate capacity to handle the calculated tdps that could be generated by the proposed development. A traffic count on Teasley west of Lillian Miller taken on January 6, 1999 indicated a traffic volume of 9,561 vehicle trips per day. This leaves an excess capacity of 9,539 trips, indicating that adequate capacity exists for the proposed development. Another traffic count on Teasley south of the intersection indicated a traffic volume o~ 4,299 vehicle trips per day. This leaves an excess capacity of 14,801. Rlename Because Teasley is identified as a primary major artedal road by the 1998 Denton Mobility Plan, it is eventually intended to be designed as a six (6) lane divided street without parking, providing six (6) lanes of through traffic. Once expanded, Teasley's designed traffic capacitYallows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day. m A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required of the developers at the time of platting. The aPplicant has informed staff that a TIA is currently under preparation. D. Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all public streets are required. Linkages from sidewalks to all building entrances on the interior of the site are required per Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Utilities This site has access to existing water and sanitary sewer lines (See Enclosure 4). The existing 8- inch water line running through the property will have to be relocated to the frontage of the property along Teasley. Additional fire hydrants will be required to be installed at time of construction. Drainage and Topography New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study must include calculations of the 100-year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property. The developer must indicate the method by which the run- off will be carried across the property or Stored on the property, Signs The proposed detailed plan identifies four monument signs. All signs should be compatible with the overall architectural theme of the development. Sa Off-Street Parking New development must provide parking according to the regulations of Chapter 35 (35-301) of the Code of Ordinances. The proposed Detailed Plan is in compliance with Code. Landscaping This property will have to COmply with the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). The proposed Detailed Plan is in compliance with Code. 7. Open Space and Recreational Areas Nonresidential properties are not required to participate in the development of public recreational areas. Il' Rlename 8. Lighting Lighting on the property should be designed and maintained ~0 as not to shine on or otherwise disturb surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the 'diffusion into the night sky. This restriction will need to be written in as a condition of the Ordinance approving the Detailed Plan. 9. Environmental .Quality impacts No major impacts are anticipated. October '16, 1973 - The subject property was annexed into the City of Denton and placed in the Single Family Dwelling (SF-10)zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 73-27. The property was intended to be zoned PD, but was erroneously zoned SF-10 by the wording of the ordinance. December 18, 1988 - The subject property's erroneous zoning was corrected by Ordinance 88- 205. The subject property was legally rezoned from Single Family Dwelling (SF~10) to Planned Development 16 (PD-16). January 22, 1991 -A Detailed Plan for the subject property was approved by Ordinance 91-007. The subject proPerty is not platted, and would need tO be: platted prior to any development. Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on Sunday, October 31, 1999. Eleven (11) property owners within two hundred feet were mailed legal notices and Eight-two (82) residents within five hundred feet were sent courtesy notices informing them of the request (See Enclosure 5). As of this writing, there has been one (1) response opposed to request. A neighborhood meeting was held on the evening of Wednesday, November 3, 1999 at the South Branch Library. Neighbors voiced a variety of concerns regarding the proposed amended detailed plan (See Enclosures 6 and 7) and as a whole were clearly in opposition to the detailed plan as presented. A second neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for Monday, November 8, at 6 pm at Houston Elementary cafeteria. Rlename What follows is a comparison of the proposed Detail Plan with the Detailed Plan that is currently in effect for the subject property: · Current Detail Proposed Detail Plan Plan Difference Total Building Coverage86,200 ft2 64,163 ft2 22,037 fl= reduction (25%) Maximum Building Height24' 35' 9' increase Total Parking Spaces 469_+ 321+ 148 less Plantable Area * 40,000 ft=*± (11%±)75,041 ft= (21%_+) 35,041 ft= more Traffic Generation** 3,306± triPs/day 2,610± trips/day 696+ trips/day less Trees*** 58 159 101 more * approximate ** using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' 1991 Trip Generation Manual standard for general retail of 40.67 trips per 1,000 ft2 *** 125 trees would be required per code An analysis between the existing detailed plan and the proposed detailed plan shows that the proposed site plan is superior. Not only for the reasons identified in the table above, but the proposed plan also eliminates three curb cuts (two curb cuts along the northern property line and one 'along the western), and increases the buffer to the school site. Although neither the existing detailed plan nor the proposed detailed plan is in total compliance with the 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP)or the 1998 Denton Plan Policies (DPP), nor would they be in compliance with the 1999 Draft Denton Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that an analysis of the detailed plans must be tempered with the understanding that the detailed plan approved in 1991 provided for the construction of the fire station and the library; thereby providing a public benefit associated with the PD. Given that the applicant is asking to amend the detailed plan, staff believes that further analysis of the proPosal is appropriate. Given the recommendations of the 1988 DDP, the 1998 DPP and the Draft Comp Plan, staff believes that the size of the proposed grocery store is inappropriate for this site. An inventory of existing grocery stores (see. Enclosure 10) reveals that a clear split exists between stores that can be categorized as serving a neighborhood (20,00 _+ sq. ft. to 35,000_+ sq. ft.) and stores serving a larger region (43,000-+ sq. ft. to 66,000-+ sq. ft.). Staff believes that the size of the grocery store should be reduced to an area' less than 35,000 sq, ff.. A 30,000 sq. ft. to 35,000 sq. ft. grocery store is appropriate for servicing a neighborhood as identified in the Draft Comprehensive plan. Other issues that were raised during the neighborhood meetings that need to be addressed include: · Architecture (amount of brick, unifying elements between the proposed buildings, including site amenities and design details) Filenarr~ Traffic (the applicant has indicated that a Traffic Impact Analysis is being conducted and should be completed prior to the P&Z hearing) Safety (Ho,~/.to prevent cars from traveling into the school site bus loop, pedestrian' Safety, especially school children along Teasley) · Preserving existing site vegetation. · Storm Drainage Due to the amount of public concern and the number of issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, staff recommends that Z-99-081 be continued to provide the applicant time to provide additional information related to a floor plan of the proposed grocery store, signage details, architectural details, safety issues, traffic, drainage and other concerns raised by the board or citizens. Conditions that could be placed on an approval of Z-99-081 include: 2. 3. 4. 5. That the amount of square footage allocated towards grocery sales be limited to a maximum of 35,000 square feet. That 80% of all exteriors be brick masonry. That signage be limited to a monument style with architectural details to.blend with the proposed buildings. That the northwestern most parking lot be reduced in size to proVide 'additional buffering to the school site and to preserve as many existing trees as possible. Lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. I move to continue Z-99-081 to the next scheduled meeting. 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3, Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. Rlename iij 1. Proposed Detailed' Plan 2. Vicinity Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Utility Map 5. 200'-500' Notification Map' 6. Neighborhood Meeting Sign-in Sheets for November 3, 1999 (6 pages) 7, List of Concerns Expressed By Citizens at Neighborhood Meeting (2 pages) 8. 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) Policies 9. 1998 Denton Plan (DP) Policies (2 pages) 10. Inventory of Grocery Stores 11. Existing Ordinance with existing Detailed Plan (8 pages) 12.Site Photographs Filename ~ ~,ENCLOSURE 1 I .ii . De~le~ Site 'ENCLOSURE 2 ~-99-081 (PD-i6 Detailed Plan) NORTH VICINITY MAP Agenda Date: November 10, 1999 Scale: None 11. ENCLOSURE 3 Z-99-081 (PD-16 Detailed Plan) NORTH ZONING MAP Agenda Date: November 10, 1999 Scale: None ENCLOSURE 4 ~-99-081 (PD-16 Detailed Plan) NORTH UTILITIES MAP Hydrants Water Line (W. L.) Sewer Line (S. L.) Agenda Date: November 10, 1999 Scale: None 13. ENCLOSURE 5 Z-99-081 (PD-16 Detailed Plan) NORTH Elementary School 200'-500' NOTICE MAP Agenda Date: November 10, 1999 Scale: None Z ENCLOSURE 6 '" ~ 17. I ENCLOSURE 7 Z-99-081 (PD-16 Detailed Plan) Comments and concerns raised at the November 3, 1999 neighborhood meeting Site Issues · What about lighting? I don't want the glare from all those lights shining into my bedroom. · You should use footlighting or lighting bollards instead of light poles. · We want the buildings to have a brick exterior. · The design of the site needs to be unified; the Eckerds and the Wal'Mart need to have the same architectural look. · We want monument signs instead of pole signs. · What affect will this development have on drainage and flooding? · Why are all the trees being bulldozed? Why can't some of the trees be saved? Operational Issues · What about smells and noise coming from truck loading dock? · A 24-hour store will generate noise and traffic at all hours of the night and it might attract crime as well. We do not want a 24-hour store operating in our neighborhood. ' · Since Wal'Mart is a discount operation, is this going to be a discount grocery store? What kind of people will this business attract? Use & Zoning Issues · This "Neighborhood Market" concept has been identified as part of a year- long test marketing scheme by the Dallas Morning News. What happens if the store fails or if Wal'Mart decides to pull the plug on this concept? We do not want to be stuck with an empty building. · Wal'Mart is a high-volume retail operation. I don't think their business philosophy is applicable to a grocery store. I think their concept is destined to fail. · Why would' Eckerd's build where another pharmacy is located? · Why can't the zoning at this corner be changed by the city? · Why are these old PD plans still valid? The city needs to go back and do some rezoning. · Why not other uses, such as an office complex? Why does it have to be retail? · This is not an appropriate development next to an elementary school. November 3, 1999 neighborhood meeting (continued) Traffic & Safety Issues · How much new traffic will this development generate? · What about congestion caused by people entering and exiting the development? · Where shOuld the driveways go? · Why can't the number of driveways be reduced? · What about children being run over by the increased traffic this will bring? · What about shoppers pulling out into the bus loop? Other Issues · What kind of effect will the development have on my property values? · Why can't Wal'Mart try this concept in one of the empty Food Lion stores on the north side of town? · There is nothing we need from this development that we don't already have. The 1988 Denton DevelOpment Plan (DDP)-shows this area to be Within a Low Intensity Area. These areas are intended to be developed primarily for single family residential development. Neighborhoods are to be serviced by a network of small commemial/retail centers spaced at about ~ mile intervals with direct access to a collector type street or larger thoroughfare. Vehicular trip generation due to development within Low Intensity Areas is restricted to 60 triPs per day per acre in order to balance land use with road capacity, Staff finds the proposed zoning to be inconsistent with both the policies and trip intensity standards of the 1988 DDP, The table below provides a summary of the 1988 Denton Development Plan policies applicable to this project: Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low Intensity Area Development Rating vs. Policy Stgnificant¥ Somewhat POLZCY COMMENTS Inconsistent Inconsistent Consistent xntent. These areas represent primary housing areas within the City with small retail centers at Yz mile Intervals. X ][ntenslty. To be consistent with the Allowed Intensity = 60 trips/acre Plan, a development should not exceed its Allocated Intensity = ~,98 trips/site allocated Intensity. (the location next to two Primary Major : ' Arterials allows for Increased intensity) X Site Plan Control, Strict proPerty. PD provides site plan control development control within 1,600 feet of exl~ng Iow density residential areas. X Traffic Design. Access should be provided to ensure that multi-family or non-residential uses have access to collectors or larger arterials with no direct access through residential streets. X Open Space. Suffident green space, Hoots landscape ordinance recreational fadlities and diversity of parks are provided. X Public Participation. Input Into planning by neighborhood assodations and coundls Is encouraged. X Land Use Diversity, Non-residential and . · multi-family development is encouraged to a limited degree. X Hanufactured Housing. This form of Not applicable. single-family housing may be compatible with developments In the Iow Intensity areas subject to conditions. Strip Commerdal. Any form of The proposed plan Is not Identified as continuous strip commerdal Is strongly "strip" commerdal discouraged In/er near Iow Intensity areas. X Rlename 23. The '1008 Denton Plan (DP) is to bo used iri'conjunction with tho 1088 Denton D°velopmont Plan in evaluatin[l the consistency of proposed deYelopment with the Ion[l mn[lo vision for the city. Staff finds tho proposed zonin[l to b, inconsistent with the policies o[ the 1008 DP. The table below provides a summary of the 1998 Denton Plan Policies applicable to this project: Denton Plan Policy Analysis Summary Development Rating vs. Policy CATEGORY POL]:CY inconsistent ~~ Consistent Transportation, Compliments Denton's Long-Range Thoroughfare Plan. ~T-~! X Promotes Access Nanagement Practices ~;~;~:!~ X Optimizes operations for emergency service providers and other public service providers. Promotes public transportation system. con.bates to the oenton ra,s ne o . Stormwatar Dralnage. Protects 100-year floodplain areas in accordance with Denton's watershed management plans, Conforms to local subdivision regulations. Contributes to regional detention fadlities. Provides for natural riparian environment along floodplain. Upgrades existing substandard drainage systems as infill and redevelopment occur. X Water and Develops and maintains property and private Wastewater, infrastrudcure. ~i '~ ; ~ X Creates opportunity for oversizing water and wastewater lines to meet future development demands. Provides review of proposed water and wastewater Infrastructure to ensure public safety and health. , X Promotes Intill Improvements over new line extensions, i X Elecbtc, Provides underground electric service for new residential ~ .' and nonresidential development. ! X Solid Waste, Promotes effident access to all development for solid waste service delivery. X Parks and Recreation. Locates parks and recreation fadlities In accordance with ~' '=' the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. '. Enhances parks and recreation opportunities for residents. Preserves floodplain for parks and open space to aid In floodplain conservation efforts. Allows combining of parks with other public fadlities to achieve cost-effective delivery of public services. Residential development should dedicate land or fees in ~' lieu of land for neighborhood parks. Environmental quality. Promotes preservation of natural resources. ]ntegrates environmental protection with economic growth and community development. Filename Denton Plan Policy Analysis Summary Development Rating vs. Policy Not CATEGORY POLI~CY Inconsistent Applicable Consistent Neighborhoods. Provides access to public and community f-adlities for Encourages a mixture of land uses that benefit residents. : i!'~;~,'."~ X Protects and preserves existing neighborhoods. X Promotes bio/de and pedestrian traffic within and between neighborhoods to reduce vehicular trips. Housing. Provides a range of housing types that appeal to diffedng economlc and individual life-styles. Offers a vadety of single-family lot sizes, building sizes, and pdce ranges. Preserves existing housing, Induding affordable housing. Increases Infill housing opportunities. Economic Contributes to a strong and diversified local economy by Diversification. Increasing employment and expanding the tax base. X Government. Encourages intergovernmental coordinatJon to provide cost-effective public services. . ~ ~ ' X Urban Design. Addresses community appearance In a comprehensive manner. X Diversifies architectural appearance of built environment. X Neighborhood tnfill development should be compatible with existing land uses and buildings. X ProteCts and preserves Denton's architectural, cultural and historical resources. Enhances the appearance along major entranceways, i ~ X Promotes the preservation of trees and landscaping. X Public Znvolvement. Pro{4des an opportunity for public opinion during the planning process. X IIRlename ENCLOSURE 10 :[nventory of Grocery Stores Store Wal-Mart ' Albertsons Albertsons Address Size (Sq. Ft.) Classification Loop 288 Large Regional 2434 S. 1-35E 66,800 2321 W. University 61,000 2231S. Loop 288 500 W. University 719 S. 1-35E 48,000 46,700 45,000 Community Community Community Community Community Kroger Kroger Winn-Dixie Sac-N-Save 1500 N. 1-35E 43,600 Community Piggly Wiggly 619 E. Sherman 33,500 Neighborhoods Food Lion 1505 E. McKinney 31,100 (Vacant) .NeighborhoOds Food Lion 3020 N. Locust 28,400 (Va.cant) Winn-Dixie 600 W. University 27,300 (Converted) Piggly Wiggly 3601 E. McKinney 21,300 Piggly Wiggly Acme @ Ft. Worth 20,300 (Vacant) The Cupboard Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Congress @ Elm Telephone survey, October 25, 1999 · City of Denton GIS building· Source: 15,900 Specialty Rlename ENcLoSURE 11 0o7 ........ "' ',' " -- ORDINANCE NO. , - . ".AN. ORDINANCE 0~: THE CITY OF DENTON, "TEXAS'~ AMENDING. THE DETAILED PLAN FOR .1'1.20 .ACRES'OF -THE 'PLANNED DEVELOPMENT'DISTRiCT LOCATED .AT R' SOUTHWEST-CORNER OF LIr.T.TAN MILLER PARKWAY AND TEASLEy owDXN FOR A IN ANO WHEREAS, NCNB Texas National Bank and the City of Denton have petitioned for the approval of a new detailed plan for 11.20 acres of.a planned development district; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 1991, ' the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the new plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY bF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That for the property described in Exhibit A, attached to and incorporated into this ordinance by reference,.the new detailed plan shown as Exhibit B, also attached to and incorporated into this ordinance by reference, is approved for the district in accordance with article 11 of Appendix B-zoning of the Code of Ordinances. : .... · ' SECTION II. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate .and distinct offense. SECTION III. That this Ordinance' shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the~day'of ~,m'I~A', 1991. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY DEBRAA. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTOR~Y BY: ~ 27. EXHIBIT A FIELD NOTES ~ ALL that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land situated in Denton · County, Texas in the C. Poulallier Survey A-1006 and being all of .a tract shown by deed to FIRST NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE recorded in Volume 718,'Page .57 Deed Records of Denton Coun'ty. Texas and' part of a tract.'deeded 'to' the State Of Texas recorded in Volume 400, Page 334 Deed Records and also part of a tract shown by deed to the City of Denton, Texas recorded in Volume 2423, Page 154 Real Property Records and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of said First National Bank tract and in the existing southerly right-of-way line of F.M. 2181 and in a curve to the right whose radius is 671.2' and central angle is 4° 55' 27"; , THENCE easterly along said curve and right-of-way an arc distance of 57.68' to a point; THENCE north 70° 14' 16" east and crossing the State of Texas tract 62.74' to a point; THENCE south 89° 43' 04' east a distance of 422.60, to a point for a corner; THENCE soUth' 1o 04''i7" east a di~tance .of ·290.74' to a Point in the northerly right-of-way line~'6f ~.M.'2181; THENCE south 1o 46' 45" east and crossing F.M. 2181 a distance of 366.43' to a point for a corner; THENCE south 1o 10' 05" east a distance 'of 293.21' to the southeast corner of said First National Bank tract; THENCE south 88° 49' 55' west with the south line of said First National Bank tract 493.17' to its southwest corner; THENCE north 1O 10' 05" west a distance of 504.7' for a corner; THENCE north 24° 23' 00" west'a distance of 123.63, for a corner; THENCE north 1o 10' 05" west a distance of 334.0' to of Beginning and containing 11.20 acres of land. to a point to a point the Point 0707E/58 DEYELO~MENT STANDARDS ..- CONCEPT PLAN EXHIBIT DETAILED PLAN Statement of Intent of Owner= Redesign existin~ PD 16 which is for retail use; tO include the southwest cnrner of Lillian Miller Parkway and Teasle~ Lane and include a tract to be used for a new libYary and fire station. There is.'no increase in square footaRe for retail uses and the size of the retail tract has decrease? by almost an acre. Statement Indicating Relation to Denton Development Guide: Development standards are stated on the site plan and conditions. If not other- wise stated, than the appropriate standards in the Denton Development Guide prevail 3. Total Number of Acres in Proposed District: 11.2056 acres 4. Land Uses and Total Number of Acres in Each Parcel or Tract: a. Single Family Detached'. b. Single Family Attached (townhouses, cluster, etc.) c. Attached Patio/Garden/Zero Lot Line d. Duplex e. Multi-Family f. Office g. Neighborhood Service h, General Retail i, commercial Light %~dustrial k, Heavy Industrial 1, Other (specify) Institutional Total Proposed Acreage 8.37~2 29. . -~. ~age 2 ¢? Off-Site Information - adjacent or surrounding land uses, zoning, streets, drai~a"ge facilities, and other existing or proposed improvements. (Shown on concept oc detailed plan.) 6. Traffic and Transportation - indicate existing and proposed streets, parking lots, loading areas, access Points.. (Shown on con. cept or. detailed plan.) e Projected Traffic Generation. (Based on traffic study, if required.) 6,467 trips Note: The only increase is 1,295 trips attributed to the institutio~ uses since the retail exist in PD 16. Buildings: a. Approximate location. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) b. Maximum height: one story, 24 feet c. Minimum setbacks: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) Per Code de Maximum gross floor area (square feet) for nonresidential: Library -.30,.000 sq. ft.'{ fire station ?t000 sq. ft.; retail-office u~es 86,200 sq. ft, Se Residential Subdivision: a. Number of units per acre (density): N/A b. Number and location of lots: (Shown on concept o[ detailed plan.) c. Minimum size, width and depth of lots~ (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) d. Minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) Dav~iopment Standacds~.? -.~ Page 3 Water and Drainage - approximate location of all existing or proposed creeks, ponds, lakes, floodplains, other water retention ~ major drainage facilities and improvements. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) 10. Utilities - location of all major sewer, water or electrical lines and [acilities. · (Shown on concept or detailed Plan.) ' ' il. Location of trees 3" in diameter - six (6) feet from ground level. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) 12. Open Space - location and size of greenbelts, packs, common and recreational areas. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) Per Plan 13. Screening - location, type and size of all fences, becms or screening features. (Shown on concept or ~etailed plan.) Per Plan 14. Development Schedule (concept plan) - showing specific date detailed plan will be submitted, date to start construction and complete construction, and rate of development. Ali dates should indicate month and year. Detail Plan submitted 15. ADDITIONAL REQUIRE~NTS FOR. A DETAILED PLAN Landscaping Plan - major features and types of landscaping to be used. See Plan · ~...gevei°pment4 ot..anaa,:ds~' ,.., ir-...; 16. Signs - show locatton, typ? and size on detailed plan~ otherw£se, signs must conform to A~tiCle 17 oE the Zoning Ordinance. Wi1[ conform Co ArCfcle [7 17, Sidewalks. (Shown.on detailed' plan.) 18. Ail info~mation regui~ed for preliminary plat 'in accordance with Appendix A (Denton Development Code) of the Code of O~dinances. (A separate plat is required.) 19. Development Schedule (detailed plan) - indicating start and completion of construction and the ~ate of development. Ail dates should indicate month and yea~. ab 3/87 32' -- ' Z-90-016 TABLE OF PERMITTED USES RETAIL SAT.~S ESTABLISHMENT: Any establishment wherein the primary occupation is'the'Sale or rental'of merchandise or goods in small quantities, in broken lbts or parcels, not in bulk, for use or consumption by the immediate purchaser. For the purpose of this Ordinance, however, retail sales establishments shall not be deemed to include mortuary or funeral parlor, off-premise sale of beer and wine, paWn shop, second-hand stores,' used furniture or rummage sale, animal clinic or hospital with outside runs or pens. PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT: Any building wherein the primary occupation is the repair, care of, maintenance or customizing of personal properties that are worn or carried about the person or are a physical component of the person. For the purpose of this ordinance, personal service establishments shall include but need not be limited to barber shops, beauty parlors, pet grooming establishments, ~ndering, clea~ing and other garment servici?g establishments, =allors, dressmaking shops, shoe Cleaning or repair shops, and other similar places of business. OTHER PERMITTED USES Eating Establishments Safe Deposit Boxes Business Schools Medical Offices Health Studios Auto Laundry Fire Station or Similar~Public Safety B~ilding Gasoline Service Station Day Nursery or Kindergarten School Public Library Theater less than 500 seats Financial Institutions Travel Agency Professional Offices Small Appliance Repair Shops 34. ENCLOSURE 12 " Z-99-081 (PD-16 Detailed Plan) PHOTOS hoto 1. A view of the site from the northwest )rner of Teasley and Lillian Miller. Photo 2. Looking north from the site across Teasley, ]oto 3. Looking east from the site across ~asley. Photo 4. Looking west from the site at Sam Houston Elementary School. 5. A view of the site from the South Library, - 16 Dehlihtd Pla~t Phe~tos Photo 6. Looking south from the site at the South Branch Library. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 8, 2000 DEPARTMENT: Fire Department CM: Michael W. Jez, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 98-293 prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Police Officer; prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Fire Fighter; providing a savings clause; providing a severability clause; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND: Civil Service law requires the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the authorized number of Civil Service positions in the Police Department and Fire Department. A new ordinance must be adopted whenever there are changes in the numbers of authorized civil service positions. In the past year, the Fire Department has made several approved changes to their authorized number of Civil Service positions. Therefore, this ordinance amends the last ordinance (98-293) by changing the numbers as follows: Eliminate (one) 1 Deputy Chief Add two (2) Battalion Chiefs Add two (2) Captains Add five (5) Drivers Add twelve (12) Fire fighters The total of authorized positions increases from 104 to 125. The Police Department's authorized positions have not changed. FISCAL INFORMATION: All authorized positions are approved and funded in the current City of Denton budget. Respectfu~lly Submitted: Fire Chief ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 98-293 PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER .OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE OFFICER; PRESCRIlqING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE FIGHTER; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on September 15, 1998, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 98- 293 to implement the recommendation of the Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of Denton, Texas, upon the recommendation and request of the Director of Civil Service, Denton Police Depathnent, and Denton Fire Depaxtment, adopting and approving a schedule of Authorized Positions which relates to compensation and classification ofp°lice officers and fire fighters; and WHEREAS, since the passage of Ordinance No. 98~293, the Fire Department has detemfined that this ordinance needs to be amended to more correctly reflect the total number of Fire Department positions to eliminate one (1) Deputy Fire Chief position, and add two (2) Battalion Chief positions, and add two Captain positions, and add five (5) Driver positions, and twelve (12) fire fighter positions; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1: That Ordinance No. 98-293 is hereby amended by adopting the schedule prescribing the number of positions for each classification of police officer and fire fighter in the City of Denton, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 2: That Ordinance 98-124 and all prior ordinances or resolutions of the' City of Denton in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION 3. That if any provision of this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2000. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF DENTON SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS POLICE DEPARTMENT The Police Department is authorized 131 positions as follows: Chief of Police 1 Captain 2 Lieutenant 8 Sergeant 11 Police Officer (and Recruits) 109 FIRE DEPARTMENT The Fire Department is authorized 125 positions as follows: Fire Chief 1 Battalion Chief 6 Captain 22 Driver 36 Fire Fighter (and Recruits) 60 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. <2~" ~@.~ Agenda Item t,,a'~ -~, / Date AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: February 8th, 2000 Engineering & Transpo~. Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Teasley Lane Corridor Traffic Study. BACKGROUND Teasley Lane, technically designated FM 2181 as part of the state highway system, is the primary transportation arterial for the fastest growing area in the City of Denton. In the last three years, a majority of the zoning, platting, and home construction activity in the city has occurred within the Teasley Corridor (see map, Attachment 1 - page 2), and has begun to significantly affect the function of this major thoroughfare. Teasley Lane is the most heavily traveled roadway in the city for which no capital funds have been programmed for capacity improvements. Staff anticipates that Teasley Lane will suffer unacceptable deterioration in its functional ability to handle future traffic demands if current growth rates in home construction continue. Council approved funding for the Teasley Lane Corridor Study (Attachment 1) in January 1999. Extensive traffic counts were taken in spring 1999, and the actual land use and traffic analyses were conducted in summer and fall 1999. Further adjustments were made in response to the comprehensive plan review process, and the study was completed in December 1999. An enlargement of the Denton Mobility Plan Roadway Component (Attachment 2) provides information regarding future thoroughfare improvements anticipated within the area of concern. A summary of conclusions has been prepared in response to the Teasley Lane Corridor Study: Future travel demand will exceed Teasley Lane's current capacity. At current construction rates, Teasley Lane will experience serious safety and traffic congestion problems before necessary roadway improvements can be programmed and constructed. Minimum Level of Service ("LOS") A minimum Level of Service "D" should be designated for Teasley Lane, and the rate of building permit issuance should be regulated to match Teasley Lane's ability to accommodate increased traffic demand. o Lillian Miller Parkway improvement options are severely limited. Lillian Miller Parkway is a four-lane divided arterial that would normally be expanded to six lanes, but because of right-of-way cost constraints, will likely not be expanded. The Teasley Corridor improvement strategy should use a variety of methods to reduce travel to shopping destinations and to the 1-35E connection through Lillian Miller Parkway. Investigate Adequate Public Facilities Requirements. The issuance of building permits may need to be regulated using "Adequate Public Facilities" requirements. Such an approach would create a"window" of time to allow public improvements to catch up with anticipated traffic demand. A Community Activity Center would divert trips from 1-35E intersections. The designation of a "Community Activity Center" in a central location within the Teasley Study Area that reduces shopping trips, particularly during P.M. peak hour traffic, should be considered. Teasley Lane expansion from 2 lanes to 6 lanes should be expedited. An aggressive capital improvements strategy should be developed to expand Teasley Lane to its ultimate design capacity as indicated in the Roadway Component of the Denton Mobility Plan. The City of Denton ($143,000) is prepared to participate with Denton County (143,000) and the City of Corinth ($100,000) in the first stages of project design, Environmental Assessment and Design. Expansion from a two-lane rural roadway to a six-lane divided arterial, from the Lillian Miller intersection south to the Denton / Corinth city line, should be pursued. To expedite completion of the expansion, the City of Denton may have to consider removing F.M. 2181 (Teasley Lane) from the state highway system and assume long-term maintenance of the roadway. The City of Corinth, Denton County, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), and the state should be strongly encouraged to extend the six-lane improvements to the 1-35E Swisher Road exit. Denton County and the City of Corinth intend to expand F.M. 2181 from the Swisher Road exit to Parkridge. Teasley Lane feeder roads should also be programmed and funded for expansions. A longer term strategy should be developed to improve Hobson Lane, Ryan Road, Robinson Road, Nowlin Road, and Lake Sharon Drive. Of existing feeder roads that connect to Teasley Lane, only Hickory Creek Road is currently programmed for expansion to a four-lane collector by 2003 using Denton County CIP funding. Construction of two new roads within the Teasley Study Area should be considered within the next ten years. Two new roadways should be considered during the next two CIP bond elections. The first road is F.M. 2499, which is identified on thc Denton Mobility Plan as a primary arterial intended to traverse the eastern side of the Teaslcy Study Area. The second road, which is not part of the Denton Mobility Plan, would connect the subdivisions east of Teasley to State School Road. These roadways need to be considered as the Study Area approaches build-out. Teasley should be carefully evaluated and monitored to insure that it functions efficiently. Most of the development in the area is developed or platted as single family residential land use. Most of the destinations for this area are along 1-35E, including the Southridge Village Center, Golden Triangle Mall, and the Denton Regional Medical Center. Many destination-based trips taken in this area use Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller to reach the 1-35E corridor. The lack of services, employment, retail stores, and other destinations in the neighborhoods has created a heavy burden on Teasley and Lillian Miller. Several complex policy issues must be faced as transportation solutions for the Teasley Area are considered. For this reason, staffhas divided the Teasley Corridor Study discussion into two parts: 1. February 8th, 2000: Part 1 - Teasley Lane Traffic Study - Land Use Assumptions and Capacity Impacts (Items #1 through #4) 2. March 28th or April 11th, 2000: Part 2 - Regulatory & Capital Improvements Solution Options (Items #5 through #8) Part I - Teasley Lane Traffic Study - Land Use Assumptions and Capacity_ Impacts The Teasley Lane Corridor Study (Attachment 1) is the emphasis of this staffreport. The methodology employed in the development of the traffic study is important in understanding the nature and tree extent of transportation problems the area will face. Study Approach The first step involved the selection of the "base year" for the study. The base year represents pre-growth Denton as a starting point. The year 1997 was selected because existing traffic count data was available that allowed the pre-growth conditions to be defined. The next step was to measure the growth of traffic in the corridor. This was accomplished by comparing traffic counts taken in late 1998 and early 1999 with the early 1997 traffic counts set as the base in this study. Table 2 (page 13) in the study shows growth in vehicle counts that ranges from 15% to 116% on different roadway segments by the end of the 18-month period. One specific item of interest was the distinction between traffic generated by new development in the immediate area versus the amount of local and "pass through" traffic generated by other parts of Denton or neighboring communities such as Corinth, Argyle, Bartonville. Therefore, license plate surveys were completed as part of the study fieldwork and the samples were applied proportionally to the traffic count data. Projections of"base" versus "thru" versus" development-related" traffic were calculated for even years between2000 and 2008 (see Table 4, pages 24-25). Estimates of furore construction ofnonresidential facilities such as schools and businesses were used to make adjustments in future travel pattems. Increased home construction is predicted to have the effect of discouraging pass-through traffic. As the study area's roads become more congested, outside motorists that would normally enter the study area will find services elsewhere by seeking destinations with less obstructed travel routes. Therefore, while internally generated traffic increases in proportion to growth, pass4hrough traffic grows only modestly. For example, from Table 4, pass-through traff'lC percentages decrease significantly from 42% (2000) to 14% (2008) on Teasley between Lillian Miller and Robinson, even though through traffic increased by almost 2,000 vehicles per day. Most of the other roadway segments decrease between 20 and 30 percent except Teasley Lane near 1-35E, where the patterns are primarily local. It is important to remember that pass-through traffic is still a significant percentage of the traffic impacting the study area, but its impact as a percentage total traffic volume drops significantly. The impact of new development starts at 0% in the base year (1997) and ranges from 33% on Teasley between 1-35E and Londonderry to 83% on Hickory Creek Road by the year 2008. Most of the impact from development is in the 50 to 80 percent range by 2008 within the study area. Levels of Service The measure of effectiveness for a roadway is defined as the "Level of Service (LOS)". The LOS standard is used nationally to describe the relationship between travel demand (how many people want to travel on a specific roadway) and roadway capacity (how many vehicles can be accommodated safely and conveniently) at any given point in time. LOS measurement units refer to "Average Daily Traffic" (ADT), noting that vehicular activity can vary significantly during a daily cycle. A poor LOS will likely be most evident during times when peak traffic occurs, such as AM peak hours (7:00 - 9:00 AM) or PM peak hours (4:00 - 6:00 PM). The last two pages of the study provide a written and pictorial description of levels of service (LOS) A, B, C, D, E, and F. LOS A indicates very light use and level of service F is heavily congested, with complete gridlock a likely outcome. The limits for certain standard types of roadways as to the average daily traffic or peak hour traffic that they can carry for each specified level of service is provided in Attachment 3. The Level of Service D is the standard of minimum acceptability recommended within the North Texas region by the North Central Texas Council Of Govemments (NCTCOG) and most agencies that work in the field or transportation, and is recommended by staffas the LOS Denton should use to determine acceptability as well. A detailed analysis of the NCTCOG study making this recommendation will be available at the work session for Council review. The Level of Service standard is a benchmark that should be used to determine the point at which travel demand exceeds a roadway's capacity to accommodate more vehicles. The Teasley Lane Corridor Study provides detailed data that projects points in time when a LOS D is exceeded. The City of Denton should begin to identify other areas of concem that could experience transportation problems and initiate studies to assist in identifying concurrency needs. Eventually, a computer model operated by city staff should be acquired to develop the capability to evaluate all areas of the city. Two sections of the roadways listed previously are of primary concem. By 2008, Lillian Miller Parkway is projected to carry 39,850 cars per day, which is the maximum capacity of a six-lane divided arterial. By 2008, Teasley Lane is projected to carry 43,500 cars per day between Lillian Miller and Robinson, which is results in a level of service E/F, a standard that should be considered unacceptable. Many of the roadway segments shown in Table 5 (page 27) will experience timing problems, meaning that needed improvements will not be made in time to accommodate projected rates of new home construction. However, the two sections noted above will not operate at acceptable levels of service even if the timing problems can be solved. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing condition of major roadways within the study area is as follows: - Lillian Miller i~ a four lane divided from 1-35E to Tcaslcy Lane - Teasley Lane is four lanes divided from 1-35E to Bent Oaks Drive - Teasley Lane is two lanes (undivided rural) from Bent Oaks to 1-35E (SWISHER) - Hobson Lane is two lanes(undivided rural) from FM 1830 to Teasley Lane - Robinson Road is two lanes rural from Teasley to Corinth City Limits - Hickory Creek is two lanes rural in most cases from FM 1830 to Teasley - Ryan Road is two lanes rural from FM 1830 to Teasley The study shows that the roadway improvements for Wind River and the section of Teasley from Londonderry to Lillian Miller are and will remain of adequate capacity throughout growth and build-out within the study area, based on projected land use densities. Programmed Capital Improvements Texas Department of Transportation (rXDOT) TXDOT has recently added 3-foot wide shoulders and rebuilt the pavement on FM 1830 south of Hickory Creek Road. The section north of Hickory Creek Road to US 377 is not scheduled for improvement at this time. TXDOT is planning a pavement overlay and a 3-£oot wide shoulder expansion for Teasley from Bent Oaks South. Details of the project are not available at the present time. Denton County/City of Denton Denton County programmed limited funding for improvement within the Teasley Study Area through the Better, Safer Roads Bond Program that was passed on October 14, 1998. The funding will provide for some improvements on the south end of Teasley in Corinth, from Parkridge to 1-35E. Funding is also being coordinated to prepare required Environmental Assessments and Design Schematics for the entire length of Teasley Lane from Lillian Miller to 1-35E in Corinth. Funding participants will include the City of Denton ($143,000), Denton County ($143,000), and the City of Corinth ($100,000). The county is also providing $1,200,000 towards Hickory Creek Road, projected for construction in 2003. The City of Denton will contribute $700,000 toward the Hickory Creek Road project using 2000-2004 bond funds. The county also proposes to invest $1,000,000 toward an expansion of US 377 between 1-35E and the second railroad overpass (Santa Fe). The City of Denton has provided $1,000,000 toward the project, also part of the recently approved bond issue. City staff continues to work with the county traffic consultants to obtain funding for development of engineering plans for FM 1830 in Denton that would provide adequate capacity for future growth. OPTIONS Option #1: Do Nothing The City of Denton can walt until Teasley Lane vehicular activity and the incidence of accidents warrant high prioritization for state funding to expand FM 2181. FM 2181 traffic congestion may seem to be intolerable at times, but competition for state and federal roadway funding is fierce, and many other roads in North Texas are considered to be in greater need for improvements. Reliance on traditional state (TXDOT) procedures for programming and funding typically result in delays in construction of improvements that can amount to 20 years or more. As property continues to develop, some off-site exactions would be imposed to contribute for turn lanes, traffic signals, and other elements that contribute to capacity or safety. Option//2: Address Concurrency Issues As can be noted in Table 5, many roadway segments will experience lane needs in excess of the number of lanes currently available. When the roadway is buik to ultimate design capacity, most roadway segments will operate at acceptable Levels of Service. The challenge is to build capacity improvements (new lanes or new roads) concurrent with the traffic load the roadway is expected to carry. Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements are relatively new, and provide an optional regulatory tool that has been used in other part of the country to address concurrency issues. If used in the Teasley Area, APF requirements would likely slow construction activity considerably until major capacity improvements are installed. The 1999 comprehensive plan indicates that APF requirements will be explored by the City of Denton. An explanatory publication has been provided as Attachment 4. The use of a moratorium is another option to consider. A moratorium would "freeze" construction activity and reduce anticipated increases in traffic volume until necessary roadway improvements are built. The use of a long-term moratorium could also cause negative effects such as disinvestment, stagnation of partially completed infrastructure systems, or leap-frog interest in undeveloped areas outside the area subject to the moratorium. Option//3: Increase Roadway Capacity The City of Denton has already demonstrated a limited level of commitment to Teasley area capacity increases by virtue of adoption of the Denton Mobility Plan in 1999 (see Attachment 3). The Plan is used to offically designate the approximate location of new roadways and to identify existing roadways expected to be expanded (or widened). During subdivision and plat review, right-of-way dedications are made by developers to fix the location of future improvements, and in many instances the developer installs roadway improvements as part of a private development project. This approach depends upon the timing of private development, and as is the case of the Teasley Lane Corridor, home construction is anticipated to occur faster than Mobility Plan roadway improvements. The need for capacity improvements ultimately becomes a question of funding. Several potential funding participants include private developers, property taxpayers, sales taxpayers, city, county, state, and/or federal governments. The funding options available will be discussed in detail when the second part of Teasley Corridor Study is prepared for Council review on March 22nd or April 11th. Option//4: Alter build-out densiW of undeveloped land. The Denton Mobility Plan is a transportation master plan intended to be guide by and coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan. I£the Comprehensive Plan contains land use recommendations that cannot be supported by the Mobility Plan, two options exist: (1) amend the Mobility Plan to accommodate Comprehensive Plan land use projections, or (2) amend the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the stress placed upon the Mobility Plan. The Teasley Corridor Study contains a finding that Teasley from Lillian Miller to Robinson will function at an LOS "F" at build-out even if six lanes are built. However, on page 21, the impact of FM 2499 is evaluated, although the study assumed this new thoroughfare would not be built by the year 2008. When FM 2499 is built from Teasley Lane to 1-35E (connecting at the State School Road interchange), the study indicates that ail roads within the study area would operate at an LOS "D". Therefore, the relationship b~twe~n the Comprehensive Plan and Mobility Plan i~ compatible, which rai~e~ i~ue~ of concurrency rather than mismatched plans. Lillian Miller Parkway exceeds its 4-lane capacity by 2004, and remains a difficult problem to solve. The construction of FM 2181 reduces projected traffic from 39,850 ADT to 31,900 ADT, so other methods should be explored to reduce trips. A new roadway connecting subdivisions such as Sundown Ranch to State School Road may be needed to provide another outlet for connections to 1-35E. Other travel demand management techniques may also have to be considered to develop a strategy to avoid expansion of Lillian Miller. Option #5: Travel Demand Management Many municipalities have made the policy choice to evaluate travel demand management techniques rather than automatically opting to employ a traditional capacity increase approach. Roadway construction is extremely expensive, and many innovative approaches have been implemented to make more efficient use of facilities that are often overloaded during short periods of a 24-hour day. Council has discussed Smart Growth, Mixed Use, Sustainable Development, and other concepts that link land use and transportation systems to save money and enhance quality of life. One of the aitematives suggested by staff is the designation of a new Community Activity Center in a location in the Teasley Study Area that would divert trips for shopping and services away from Lillian Miller Parkway. Staff is prepared to calculate the projected trip reduction that would be realized should this alternative be endorsed by Council for further study. Other travel demand management techniques include reallocation of peak hour trips (such as staggered work hour shifts), ridesharing, the use of transit or other aitemative modes of transportation, or commuter parking lots. These techniques can be used to reduce vehicle trip associated with employment, services, school, and recreational activities. Travel demand management becomes an attractive and efficient altemative to solving traffic congestion problems when capacity improvements (such as widening Lillian Miller) become financially constrained. RECOMMENDATION The primary goal on February 8~' should be to evaluate the land use assumptions and traffic study conclusions to determine if the conclusions reached are appropriate, if further data should be provided, or additional research should be conducted. The solution options describe the general direction of continuing work being prepared for a March 28th or April 11m work session. Staff believes that an aggressive capital improvements strategy is needed to program several roadway improvements in the area, and that Denton County and TXDOT should be consulted and asked to participate financially. Ifa minimum LOS "D" is to be maintained on roads in the study area, the rate of construction activity will have to be regulated for an as yet undetermined period of time. Potential solution options will be explored in detail pending Council comments. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Unless instructed otherwise, staffwill continue to develop detailed information regarding capacity improvements and concurrency options. A work session will be scheduled to continue discussion on these topics for either March 28th, or April 11th. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The first scheduled review of the Teasley Lane Corridor Study will take place on February 8m, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION Financial options will be discussed when thc second phase of the Teasley Study is scheduled for Council work session review. ATTACHMENTS 1. Teasley Lane Corridor Traffic Study 2. Denton Mobility Plan Roadway Component- Teasley Corridor Area 3. Recommended Maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes by Facility and by Level of Service 4. PAS Report: "Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation Management" Traffic Study Prepared By: C & P Enginnering, Ltd. 3501 FM 2181, Suite 230 Corinth, Texas 76205 StaffReport P epared By: irector of Transportation & Engineering Respectfully su.hbmitted'~/ Assistant City Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared for CITY OF DENTON Prepared by C&P Engineering, Ltd. 3501 F.M. 2181 · Suite 230 · Corinth, Texas 76205 · (940)270-0602 TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF DENTON PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to address the traffic impact of future developments along the Teasley Lane Corridor. This corridor includes the influence area affecting two specific street segments: Teasley Lane from IH 35E on the north to the Corinth city limit on the east; and Lillian Miller from IH 35E on the north to Teasley Lane on the south. Figure 1 has been developed to depict the influence area that will create the future traffic impact on the streets and roads in the Teasley Corridor. This area was identified by the City's Planning Department in a document entitled "The South Denton Project". Page 1 THE SOUTH DENTON STUDY AREA The study area contains approximately 3,217 acres and includes a variety of land uses. Table 1 has been prepared to summarize the various land uses as well as the proposed density of development for each use. The table also includes the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) code associated with each land use. ITE data will be utilized to determine the trip ends calculated to be generated by the South Denton area. It should be noted that Table 1 does not include the 85 acres that was designated as Civic Uses in Figure 1. This area was excluded since all trips assodated with this land use are expected to be short intemaily satisfied trips. The residential land uses in Table 1 account for 93.4% of the total acreage that makes up the South Denton area. The majority of the residents that will. live in this study area will have no nearby work or shopping destinations, but will be required to travel significant distances to satisfy these needs. Most of the retail zoning will occur in Unicom Lake which is located in dose proximity to IH 35E. As a result, much of its trip attraction will be from the IH 35 corridor. TABLE 1 Trip Generation Data Residential 210 single family homes 8,600 units (2,778 acres) Residential 220 multi-family apartments 1,030 units (69 acres) Residential 250 retirement community 1,170 units (157 acres) Day Care 565 square feet of gross floor area 20,000 s.f. (2 acres) General Office 710 square feet of gross floor area 185,130 s.f. (17 acres) Commercial 820 square feet of gross floor area 969,210 s.f. (89 acres) (for retail and light industrial) Communication N/A towers 1 tower Tower (20 acres) Page 3 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA The completion of this study involved a cooperative effort between the Consultant and the City's staff in terms of developing appropriate assumptions regarding several traffic and land use related issues in the corridor. Much of this information was developed by the Planning Department and was included in "The South Denton Project" document. The key assumptions and data used in this study have been listed below. Key Assumptions All undeveloped agriculturally zoned or unzoned property in the study area is assumed to be converted to single-family residential development at an average gross density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The study area is assumed to be completely "built-out" by the year 2008, resulting in approximately 10,800 new dwelling units (8,600 single-family units and 2,200 multi-family units) with approximately 28,000 new population (24,000 in single-family units and 4,000 in multi-family units). The annual population growth rate for the study period is assumed to be about 4 percent per year, corresponding to the Comprehensive Plan population estimates. Traffic traveling through the study area is assumed to increase at a rate of 4 percent per year. Commercially zoned sites are assumed to develop with a floor to area ratio of 0.25 :1. K~y Data The City's Comprehensive Plan estimates a city-wide population increase of approximately 33,000 from 1999 through 2008, the study period. City-wide, during 1998 and 1999, single-family building permits were issued at an average rate of 70 per month, or 840 per year, Multi-family building permits were issued at an average rate of 42 units per month, or 504 per year. This represents an annual growth rate of approximately 4 percent per year for the city as a whole. Assumed study area population growth and the number of new single-family dwelling units represents about 85% of the estimated city-wide population growth and new single-family building permits. Page 4 SCHOOL AREAS Concern has been expressed regarding the impact of school related traffic on the South Denton area street system - especially as it relates to school related trips that originate in the City of Corinth. Figure 2 has been prepared to depict the relative locations of the existing and proposed schools that may influence the South Denton area. Estimates of the level of influence on Denton schools have suggested the following percentages of Corinth students at schools in the South Denton area. McMath Middle School 30% Houston Elementary School 50% McNair Elementary School 90% Vehicular school related traffic from Corinth has a definite impact on Denton streets especially in the morning commuter peak period. Studies have shown that the peaking characteristics around schools are different in two ways from peak period conditions that would typically be encountered on the way to work each morning. School area peak period traffic volumes are two to three time higher than the typical peak period volumes on non-school area streets. The time period during which the school peak period occurs is typically 20 minutes in length while the typical non-school area peak period duration is 60 minutes. A number of new schools have been planned for construction in the City of Corinth. This is a direct result of the significant population growth in both Corinth and Denton. These new schools will certainly relieve the Corinth school related traffic impact on Denton streets. However, the decline in the Corinth population in Denton schools will be simply replaced by an increase in students from the South Denton area. In completing this corridor study we have interpreted this shift in the school populations in the following manner. The peak period traffic patterns will show a change from a definitive orientation to and from the southeast to a more centralized local area pattern. The overall daily traffic volumes and patterns will not reflect as significant a change as will the peak periods. This is due to the influence of other major components of the typical traffic stream: the home to work traffic; the work to home traffic; and the retail/commercial traffic generated by the projected 10,800 residential units in the South Denton area. Page 5 McMATH MS HOBSON RYAN I ROBINSON SCHOOL LOCATIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS HS/ES AREA SCHOOLS FUTURE STREETS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 2 E ]: ~Figl EXISTING CONDITIONS A number of traffic related data collection efforts was undertaken to establish the existing conditions for this study. These efforts resulted in the collection of the following information. The Consultant collected peak hour turning movement counts at eight key intersection locations within and adjacent to the South Denton area. These locations have been identified in Figure 3 and the count summary sheets have been included in a separate attachment to this report. The City collected 24-hour traffic counts at 12 locations in the study area. Figure 4 has been prepared to depict these daily traffic volumes. This 24-hour data was recorded by 60 minute periods and the computer print out for each location has been included in a separate attachment to this report. Field data with regard to the number of traffic lanes on the major streets in the study area and the locations oftraffc signal installations was collected by the Consultant. This data has been recorded on Figures 5 and 6. A license plate survey was conducted for the South Denton area. In this effort the license plate numbers of all traffic entering and exiting the study area were recorded during the morning peak period of 6:45 - 8:45 am and during the afternoon peak period of 4:30 - 6:30 pm. The purpose of the license plate survey was to collect data that would allow the Consultant to quantify the amount of "through" traffic in the study area. In other words, the amount of the traffic that passes through the area - it has no origin or destination within the area. This information was determined for traffic entering and exiting the South Denton study area as follows: along Lillian Miller on the north; along Teasley Lane on the north; along Ryan Road on the west; along Hickory Creek Road on the west; along Robinson Road on the east; and along Teasley lane on the south. The results of the license plate survey have been depicted on Figures C 1 ~ C6 and Figures D1 - D6 which have been recorded in a separate attachment to this report. A table has also been included in a following section (Analysis of Traffic Stream Components) of this report that summarizes the "through" traffic results. Page 7 HOBSON RYAN ~CREEK PEAK HOUR COUNT LOCATIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS ROBINSON TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 3450 HOBSON ~ 4264 4299 5262 706 J RYAN 1761 1803 1575 1422 ROBINSON 1920 (EST.) CREEK = 1125 24--HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 4 4D d 4D 4D HOBSON 2U 4D 4U TRANSI~ON AT BENT OAKS 2U RYAN 2U 2U TRANSITION AT CORINTH CITY LIMIT ROBINSON 2U ~CREEK .L 2U EXISTING STREET SECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS i 2u LEGEND 2U 2 LANE UNDIVIDED 4U 4 LANE UNDIVIDED ~ LANE DIVIDED 6D 6 LANE DIVIDED TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 5 ~0~'04~ HOBSON RYAN ROBINSON CREEK TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS LEGEND · EXISTING SIGNALS 0 FUTURE SIGNALS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 6 PROGRAMMED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS A number of capital improvements are planned for the general study area. These improvement projects vary as to size and scope as well as to the level of impact they will have on the traffic volumes and patterns on the existing South Denton area street system. These capital improvement projects have been listed below along with their scheduled/estimated construction dates. Wind River Extension... The extension of Wind River from its intersection with Teasley/Lillian Miller east to intersect with the southbound IH 35E frontage road was accomplished during 1999. This project has created an alternative route for area residents that seek to travel southbound on IH 35E and want to bypass the IH 35E and Loop 288/Lillian Miller interchange. IH 35E Ramp Reversals... The existing ramp configuration at IH 35E and Loop 288/Lillian Miller is estimated to be reconstructed by the year 2003. This improvement should reduce the traffic volumes on both Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane through the South Denton area, but its most significant impact will be to improve traffic operations and safety at the interchange itself. Hickory Creek Extension... This project will result in the extension of Hickory Creek from its intersection with Teasley Lane east to intersect with the future FM 2499 roadway. This project is scheduled to be completed by the year 2005. The impact of this project will be minimal until the future constmetion of FM 2499. Until that project occurs the extension of Hickory Creek will serve only to collect local traffic and deliver it to and from Teasley Lane. FM 2499.., This project will result in the construction of a major arterial road from the south over Lake Lewisville that will intersect IH 35E at the State School/Mayhill Road interchange. This project has been estimated to be constructed by the year 2012. This project will allow residents east of Teasley Lane an alternative to access IH 35E other than using the existing route of Teasley Lane/Lillian Miller. The City's current Mobility Plan depicts the projected road system including these four projects that affect the South Denton area. Page 12 INITIAL SOUTH DENTON AREA GROWTH In this section of the report we have responded to concerns expressed by City staffthat the initial traffic growth in the South Denton area may have been quite significant. We determined that the initial growth that has precipitated the concerns regarding the South Denton area began in 1997. In order to quantify the initial growth, we obtained a 1997 count map and compared that count data with the corresponding count data we collected in 1998 for this study. Table 2 has been prepared to summarize the results of this comparison. TABLE 2 Initial Growth Evaluation Lillian Miller: 12,672 vpd 14,668 vpd 15.6% IH 35 - Southridge Teasley: 6,433 vpd 9,923 vpd 54.3% Londonderry - Hobson Teasley: 7,983 vpd 9,561 vpd 19.8 % Hobson - Lillian Miller Teasley: 3,471 vpd 7,510 vpd 116.4 % Lillian Miller - Robinson As can be seen, the traffic growth over the South Denton area was significant - especially on Teasley Lane south of Lillian Miller. Our assumption for this study was an average annual growth rate of four percent, but during the 1997 to 1998 period the growth rate averaged approximately 36%. It should be noted that during 1997 to 1998 there were virtually no new residential units completed in Denton. Most of the new housing did not come on line until late in 1998. As a result, the average 36% growth in the South Denton area traffic during that time period may be due to the influence of the Corinth related growth as well as the growth in Denton jobs and retail sells. Page 13 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Estimated vehicle trip ends to and from the study area were calculated utilizing trip generation rates and characteristics collected and compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 3 has been prepared to summarize the associated trip generation data and the calculated trips that are anticipated to be generated by the South Denton study area as depicted in Figure 1. TABLE 2t Calculated Trip Ends S.F. Residential 82,302 1,613 4,837 5,559 3,127 (8,600 units) M.F. Residential 6,828 84 441 428 211 (1,030 units) Retirement Community 3,030 90 109 177 139 (1,170 units) Day Care 1,586 135 119 124 140 (20,000 s.f.) General Office 2,038 254 35 47 229 (185,130 s.f.) General Retail 41,598 609 389 1,740 1,885 (969,210 s.f.) Communication Tower 50 5 5 5 5 (1 tower) ADT = average dally trips; vpd = vehicles per day; vph = vehicles per hour; in = vehicles entering the site; out = vehicles exiting the site; and s.f. = square feet. The trip ends in Table 3 were distributed to and from the study site based on the site's location with respect to area development, nearby streets and roadways, and existing traffic patterns. It should be noted that the actual number of trips distributed was adjusted (by an average of 8.6%) to account for two types of trips: short internal trips between residential units and retail sites that do not reach any of the major study streets; and work related trips that include a stop at a retail site on the way to or from work. Page 14 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES In order to conduct our analyses of the study area's traffic impact on the streets and roads serving the South Denton area, the Consultant developed projected traffic volumes. As previously stated, a 10 year design period was used in this study with the total build out of the South Denton area anticipated to occur by the year 2008. Traffic volume projections were developed for each two year period during the ten year build out. Figures 7 through 11 have been developed to depict the projected traffic volumes along the major streets within the South Denton study area. Two pieces of information are provided for each street: the projected traffic volume for that design year; and the street cross section required to support the projected volume. These projected volumes consist of three components: the 1998 traffic volume (base traffic) for that street; the through traffic volume (background traffic) as determined from the license plate survey; and the trip ends generated by the South Denton area (site traffic in Table 3) and distributed along the streets within the study area. In order to account for the average annual growth in traffic due to the growth in the county's population, the through traffic volumes were increased by an annual growth rate of 4.0%. Page 15 21,600 4D l 12,200 4U 18,950 4U HOBSON 9,550 4U 6,550 RYAN 2U 12,900 4U 3,200 2U 400 4U 5,050 2U ROBINSON 6,050 -%°~Lc~ .L:~ YEAR 2000 PROJECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS ~_~250 I 9,400 4U [ LEGEND 24-HR, VOLUME LANE REQUIREMENTS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 7 _::: 5 ? F' ~ .f 24,050 4D 14,650 4U 23,600 4D HOBSON,~, RYAN 11,550 J 4U 16,550 4U 5,250 2U 21,650 4D 9,850 7,250 2U '~O'?...~CREEK 9,250 YEAR 2002 PROJECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUBY DENTON, TEXAS ROBINSON N15,550 ~'4U I 9,400 4U LEGEND 24-HR. VOLUME LANE REQUIREMENTS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 8 26,700 6U 17,300 4U 28,700 6U HOBSON~, 13,700T 4U RYAN 13,350 4u.L 20,450 4D 7,500 2U 350 6U 9,650 J ROBINSON ~CREEK 12,750 YEAR 2004 PROJECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS ~_~&300 ~ ~"4D I 9,400 4U LEGEND 24-HR. VOLUME LANE REQUIREMENTS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 9 29,600 20,200 4D 54,000 6D HOBSON,~,, 16,050T 4U 24,700 4D 9,900 4U 6O0 6D 17,150 RYAN 4U ,~L 16,500 YEAR 2006 PROJECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS 12,250 27,450 J LEGEND 9,400 4U ROBINSON 24-HR. VOLUME LANE REQUIREMENTS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 1[ ] - ~ .~F;.: ? 52,700 6D t 23,300 4D 39,850 6D* HOBSON ~ 18,600'~r 4U RYAN 21,250 29,300 6U 11,300 4U 43,500 6D* J 0 0 15,050 ROBINSON ~'~'%0-~CREEK 20,600 ~[ 4D YEAR 2008 PROJECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS 34,200 I 9,400 4U LEGEND 24-HR. VOLUME LANE REQUIREMENTS * EXCEEDS LOS D TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 11 1MPACT OF FM 2499 ON THE TEASLEY LANE CORR1DOR The capital improvements discussed in a previous section are needed improvements and will be constructed at varying points in the future. However, the FM 2499 project has a significant amount of uncertainty with regard to its construction date. In this study we have assumed that it would be constructed after the 10 year build out of the South Denton area (as reflected in Figures 7 - 11). Since this is a very important as well as political project, the construction date could occur well beyond or well before the build out of the study area. As a result, we have developed Figure 12 to illustrate the impact of FM 2499 on the study area streffts assuming a year 2008 construction date for FM 2499. We have identified three key components of the study area traffic stream that would utilize FM 2499. The first component would be the South Denton area traffic located in the area bounded by IH 35 on the north, State School Road on the east, Teasley Lane on the west, and the City of Corinth on the south. This would be the most likely source to use FM 2499. However, since the alignment of this road is on the very east edge of the South Denton area, some of the study area traffic would still seek to utilize Teasley Lane. The second component would be the background traffic that passes through the South Denton area. Our analysis assumed that approximately 50% of the possible north/south through traffic would utilize FM 2499. The third component would include those motorists that would seek a less congested north/south route like FM 2499 rather than face the congested traffic operations along Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane. As traffic volumes steadily increase and the ability of the street system to carry and move the vehicular traffic decreases, there will be a greater tendency for motorists to seek nearby less congested routes. This will become very evident when capacity levels exceed the City's established acceptable level of service "D". Our analysis of the traffic data in Table 3 indicated that the construction of FM 2499 would result in a reduction of the projected traffic volumes on Lillian Miller/Teasley Lane between IH 35 and the Corinth City Limit by 15 - 20%. This reduction would result in acceptable levels of service on the streets and roads within the study area. All service levels would be at a level of"D" or better. Page 21 31,050 22,150 4D 51,900 6D HOBSON~ 18,600T 4u 27,85o 6u 11,000 4U 54,800 6D J 21,250 RYAN 4D ~b 12,050 4U ROBINSON '~¢~CREEK 20,600 4D IMPACT OF FM 2499 YEAR 2008 PROJECTIONS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS 29,050 I 9,400 4U [ LEGEND 24-HR. VOLUME LANE REQUIREMENTS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 12 _-- - :. ~Fi911 ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC STREAM COMPONENTS For this report we have prepared Table 4 to summarize the three basic components of the traffic volumes and projections that have been prepared for this study. The three components have been previously identified in this report and are described as follows. "Base" - These values represent the existing local traffic that was counted in our traffic counts in 1998. They were derived by removing the '`thru" traffic volumes (obtained in the license plate surveys) from the 1998 counts. '°rhm" - These values are indicated in red and represent the through traffic volumes obtained in the license plate surveys, When added to the "base" values the results equal the existing 1998 volumes. "Dev." - These values represent the new development traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development in the South Denton Area. When added to the "base" and "thru" traffic values, the results equal the projected volumes. These three values as well as their percentage of the total traffic (represented in the table by the "all" value) have been included in Table 4, As can be seen in the table, the "thru" traffic volumes in the existing (1998) conditions represent a significant percentage of the total traffic. As the South Denton area develops over the 10 year study period, the percentage of the "thru" traffic significantly decreases in some cases while the percentage of the "development" traffic significantly increases in all cases. Page 23 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our analyses and the findings presented in Figures 7 ~ 11, we have developed recommendations regarding potential intersection mm lane requirements as well as the ultimate street and roadway lane requirements. Table 5 has been developed to present the street/road lane needs based on the projected traffic volumes in Tables 3 and 4. The table summarizes each street/roadway segment with its lane requirement needs identified by the year in which the lane needs are required. For those transition years at which changes in the lane requirements are necessitated, the recommended cross sections (2U, 4U, 4D, 6U, or 6D) have been highlighted by a bold italicized format. It should be noted that the schedule for implementation in Table 5 is based on the assumptions presented earlier in this report and assumes a uniform growth pattern over the 10 year build out period. Table 5 also includes the "level of service" associated with each street over the 10 year study period. Levels of service begin with "A" which suggests light, free flowing traffic with negligible interruptions and proceed to "F" which suggests heavy, nearly stopped traffic with many interruptions. Typically the desirable levels of service are "A" through "D" with "E" and "F" being undesirable. We have attached a detailed description of the six possible levels of service as well as a figure that illustrates the level of traffic congestion and vehicular density associated with each service level. As urbanization from the Dallas metroplex area creeps northward towards Denton, citizens of this area are going to gradually experience more and more "big city" type traffic congestion problems on the City's streets. The "B" and "C" levels of service that were typically the norm in the past are going to be replaced with "D", "E", and even "F" service levels in the future. The need to address these future traffic congestion problems is real and should not be minimized or ignored. It should also be noted that the levels of service presented in this report reflect the traffic operations that are projected to occur during the peak periods of operation on each street and road. These peak periods will typically last for one to two hours during the morning and evening commuter time periods. The service levels during the non-peak periods are expected to occur at acceptable levels. A review of Table 5 suggests that an aggressive approach to the funding of street improvements for the South Denton study area may be needed. If the City of Denton continues to grow as has been suggested in the South Denton Project report prepared by the City's Planning Department and then expanded upon in this study, then major street widening improvements will be necessary within the next two years. Page 26 TABLE 5 Street/Roadway Lane Needs iiiE~is[~gii[iiiii2000! Ii ~02 [ 2004 [ i~006 [ 2008 Lillian Miller: 4D 4U 4D 6U 6D 6D IH 35 - Teasley "B" "C" "D" "D" "D' '~E" Teasley: 4D 4D 4D 6U 6D 6D IH 35 - Londonderry '~B .... C" '~D/E" "C' "C" "C" Teasley: 4D 4U 4U 4U 4D 4D Londonderry - Hobson "A .... A" "B" "B .... C" "D" Teasley: 4D 4U 4U 4D 4D 6U Hobson - Lillian Miller "A" "A" "B" "C" "D/E" "D" Teasley: 2U 4U 4D 6U 6D 6D Lillian Miller - Robinson "D/E" "B' "C" "D' "D/E" "F" Teasley: 2U 4U 4U 4D 6U 6D Robinson - City Limit "B" "B" "C" "C' "D' "D' i Hobson: 2U 2U 4U 4U 4U 4U Country Club - Teasley "C .... D/E" "B' "B .... C" "D" Wind River: 4U 2U 2U 2U 4U 4U Teasley - IH 35 "A" "A" "A" "A" "A" "B" Ryan: 2U 2U 4U 4U 4U 4D Country Club - Teasley "A" "B" "B' "B" "C" "C" Robinson: 2U 2U 2U 4U 4U 4U Teasley - City Limit "A" "B" "C" "A' "B" "B" Hickory Creek: 2U 2U 2U 4U 4U 4D City Limit - Teasley "A" "B" "D/E" "B" "C" "C" NOTE: For those transition years at which changes in the lane requirements are necessitated, the recommended cross sections (2U, 4U, 4D, 6U, or 6D) and service levels have been highlighted by a bold italicized format. Page 27 The City should be aware that widening projects on Lillian Miller will require the attainment of additional right-of-way because the existing right-of-way is only 80 feet, Ultimate sections of Lillian Miller are shown to require a six lane divided cross section. The minimum right-of-way width for such a section is 93 fe~ while the desired width is 102 feet. Existing sites will lose parking and/or portions of their side yards with significant screening walls possibly required. However, the City has done well on several of the streets in this area and has designed and constructed them to satisfy the anticipated growth for many years to come. These streets are listed below. Wind River between Lillian Miller and IH 35 will be able to adequately serve the City's traffic demands in its present condition for the next 15 years if not indefinitely. Teasley Lane between Londonderry and Hobson will be able to adequately serve the City's traffic demands in its present condition for the next 10 years. Teasley Lane between Hobson and Lillian Miller will be able to adequately serve the City's traffic demands in its present condition for the next 8 years. Figure 13 depicts the potential turn lane requirement needs at the key intersections within the South Denton area. These lane needs will be highly dependent on the development of adjacent and nearby land parcels. Because of this it is difficult to identify a forecast year by which the intersection lane needs should be implemented. The City should continue to review and evaluate each development site in this area for its impact on nearby intersections. Continued developer participation should be sought in the construction of needed intersection improvements. In this manner the ultimate intersection lane requirements will be accomplished in a manner consistent with the traffic impact at that point in time. Page 28 INSET "A" HOBSON SEE INSET "A" SEE INSET "B" J o o RYAN ROBINSON ~CREEK POTENTIAL TURN LANE NEEDS TEASLEY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY DENTON, TEXAS TEASLEY (FM2181) FIGURE 13 ~.~:. ~ - CLOSING C&P Engineering, Ltd. has conducted a comprehensive traffic study to assess the future infrastructure needs with regard to the major streets and roads within the South Denton area. Based on the results of our study Table 5 has been developed to identify those infrastructure needs as well as a projected year in which we estimate that the infrastructure improvements will be required. A review of Tables 4 and 5 indicates that by the end of the 10 year study period the development traffic will constitute the major portion of the typical traffic stream within the study area. The current system of funding and constructing needed capital improvements consists of three main methods: 1. City and County bond programs that rely on a majority vote of registered voters; TxDOT 20 year plan which is continually being modified and revised with projects being constantly re-prioritized at the apparent whim of TxDOT; and Isolated developer funded intersection improvements. The City has control of its own local streets and can utilize its bond monies and developer assessments to schedule infrastructure improvements based upon traffic growth studies such as this one. The City does not have control of determining or scheduling needed infrastructure improvements on state and federal roadways. Although the funding available for improving such routes is extremely large, all the Cities within the state compete for these monies. As a result, the perceived need for and priority of improvements by the leaders of the City of Denton are not necessarily seen as such by TxDOT. Teasley Lane is a state facility (F.M. 2181) and is therefore under state control. The only near future improvement planned for Teasley Lane by TxDOT is the addition of shoulders. While this improvement will certainly aid traffic flow along this corridor, it will fall immeasurably short of providing the street capacity needed to adequately serve the forecasted traffic volumes. As a result, the County and the City are working with the State to create a more permanent solution. To address the infi'astructure needs identified in Table 5, especially on the state's facility Teasley Lane, will require new and aggressive funding mechanisms. It is imperative that the City establish the process to create these fimding mechanisms as quickly as possible in order to implement the Table 5 recommendations in a timely manner. With the appropriate process in place the City's growth can be maintained rather than halted or stagnated and traffic flow throughout the South Denton area can be provided in a manner acceptable to Denton residents. Page30 LEVEL OF SERVICE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS LOS DESCRIPTION Aand B D E No delays at intersections with smooth progression of traffic. Uncongested operations; at signalized intersections all vehicles clear in a single signal cycle. Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory to good progression of traffic. Light congestion; occasional back-ups on critical approaches. 40 percent probability of delays of one cycle or more at every signalized intersection. No progression of traffic along the roadway with 90 percent probability of being significantly stopped at every intersection experiencing "D" condition. Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks at signalized intersections. No long standing lines formed. Heavy traffic flow condition. Delays of two or more cycles probable at signalized intersections. No progression. 1 O0 percent probability of being significantly stopped at intersection. Limit of stable flow. Blockage of signalized intersections may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic moves in forced flow condition. Three of more cycles required to pass through signalized intersections. Total breakdown with stop-and-go operation. 3 - 10 FREEWAYS Illustration 3-5. LOS A. Illustration 3-8. LOS D. Illustration 3-6. LOS B. Illustration 3-9. LOS E. lihtstration 3-7~ LOS C. Illustration 3~10. LOS F. ~ vdated October 1994 ATTACHMENT 2 I DENTON MOBILITY PLAN I '~-LL LANDFILL MOBILITY PLAN CiTY LiMi?B ~t)ND~R¥ O INTERCHANGE, ON ¢ONTE OI.L ACCE,, DENTON R~JL ,OAD, . .ItOaD$ DO N~r E~T -FUT,H! ROADWAY COMPONENT C~ OF ~ON.~ Attachment 3 RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM AVERAGE DALLY TRAFFIC (ADT) VOLUMES BY FACILITY AND BY LEVEL OF SERVICE ROAD' ~ WAY LOS B LOS D LOS F CLASS Urban Freeways 4-lane ~ 48,400 ~ 58,600 I~ 70,200 6-lane ~ 72,600 ~ 87,900 ~ 105,300 S-lane ~ 96,800 ~ 117,200 ~ Urban Divided Streets 4-lane ~ 17,600 ~ 21,050 ~ 24,950 6-lane~ 25,700 ~ 30,450 ~ 35,550 8-lane ~ 32,150 ~ 38,450 ~ 45,550 Urban Undivided Streets 2-lane ~ 8,400 ~ 10,050 ~ 11,950 4-lane ~ 13,750 ~ 16,450 ~ 19,550 6-lane ~ 21,650 ~ 25,900 ~ 30,700 Rural Freeways 4-lane ~ 26,200 ~ 36,800 ~ 47,200 6-lane ~ 39,300 ~ 55,200 ~ 70,800 Rural Divided Highways 4-lane ~ 17,950 ~ 24,800 ~ 34,200 S-lane ~ 26,600 ~ 36,600 ~ 50,200 Rural Undivided Highways: Rolling Terrain 2-lane ~ 3,000 ~ 6,900 ~ 13,100 Rural Undivided Highways: Level Terrain 2-lane ~ 4,250 ~ 9,400 ~ 17,600 4-lane ~ 11,250 ~ 15,300 ~ 19,900 S-lane 17,250 23,300 ~ 30,900 The figures above were interpolated by City of Denton staff using a Texas Department of Transportation document presented to the North Central Texas Council of Governments. ATTACHMENT 4 S. Mark White, AICP, is a partner with the law firm of Freilich, Leitner, and Carlisle in its Kansas City office. The firm specializes in zoning and subdivision law, land-use and takings litigation, and the development of comprehensive plans and implementation systems for state, county, and local governments, He is the author of numerous articles and Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning Strategies, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 441 (December 1992). White is also the president of the board of directors of the Westside Housing Or§anization, a nonprofit community development organization, in Kansas City. This report was sponsored, in part, by a grant from the American Planning Association, s Transportation Planning Division. Cover design by Toni Thanasouras Ellis. This report is printed on recycled paper. The Planning Advisory Service is a subscription service offered by the Research Department of the American Planning Association. Eight reports are produced each year. Subscribers also receive the PAS Memo each month and have use of the Inquiry Answering Service. Frank S. So, Executive Director; Sylvia Lewis, Publications Director; William Klein, Director of Research. Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA. James Hecimovich, Editor; Marya Morris, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design Associate. © August 1996 by the American Planning Association. APA's publications office is at 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. E-mail: pasrepor ts~planning.org. APA headquarters office is at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation Management $. MARK WHITE~ AICP TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Defining the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ......................................................... 5 Traditional Adequate Public Facilities Controls ........................................................................................ 5 From Zoning to Concurrency ....................................................................................................................... 7 Measuring Adequacy and Availability of Public Facilities ...................................................................... 7 Chapter 2. Legal Issues ................................................................................................................................. 9 Enabling Legislation ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Takings .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Equal Protection ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Substantive Due prOcess .............................................................................................................................. 13 Regional General Welfare ............................................................................................................................ 14 The Role of Planning .................................................................................................................................... 14 Timing Growth and Facilities Through the CIP ...................................................................................... 15 Chapter 3. Designing the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ..................................................... 17 Approval Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Impact Analysis ................................ : ........................................................................................................... 22 Allocating Capacity ......................................................................................................................... ~ ............ 24 Concurrency Review Procedures ............................................................................................................... 25 Enforcement .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Reservation of Capacity ............................................................................................................................... 27 Related Legal and Policy Issues ................................................................................................................. 28 Chapter 4. Case Studies ............................................................. : ................................................................ 33 Montgomery County, Maryland ................................................................................................................ 33 Florida ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A. Notes ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix B. Appendix C. Table C-1. Table C-2. Table C-3. Table C-4. Table C-5. Table C-6. Table C-7. Table C-8. Table C-9. Table C-10. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 41 Concurrency ............... : ......................................................................................................... 45 Minimum Requirements ........... ~ .................................................................................... ~.., 45 Minimum Requirements by Stage in Development Process or Type of Authorization .................................................................................................... 46 Impact/Demand Evaluation .............................................................................................. 47 Evaluation of Capacity ........................................................................................................ 48 Deferral Areas ...................................................................................................................... 50 Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................................... 51 Concurrency Review Procedure ........................................................................................ 52 Appeals Processes ............................................................................................................... 56 Effect of Concurrency Determination ............................................................................... 57 Development Monitoring ................................................................................................... 60 Appendix D. Concurrency Management Regulations for Florida and Washington State ............................................................................................................... 63 Appendix E. The Douglas County, Colorado, Concurrency Management Ordinance ................................................................................................ 73 Preface For the current American way of life is founded not just on motor transportation but on the religion of the motorcar, and the sacrifices that people are prepared to make for this religion stand outside the realm of rational criticism. Perhaps the only thing that could bring Americans to their.senses would be a clear demonstration of the fact that their highway program will, eventually, wipe out the very area of freedom that the private motorcar promised to retain for them .... In using the motorcar to escape the metropolis, 'the motorist finds that he has merely transferred congestion to the highway and thereby doubled it. There is no purely local engineering solution to the problem of transportation in our age... we cannot have an efficient form for our transportation system until we can envisage a better permanent structure for our cities. --LEWIS MUMFORD, THE HIGHWAY AND THE CITY (1963) This report analyzes a technique for the management and control of traffic congestion by local governments known as "adequate public facilities" or "concurrency management" ordinances. Concurrency management combines land-use controls with capital facilities planning in order to coordinate the traffic generated by new development with the availability of transportation facilities. The cornerstone of concurrency management is the development of an appropriate level of service (LOS) standard for the transportation network. Local governments then use their powers to regulate the timing and sequencing of development and to provide capital facilities in order to achieve the balance between transportation demand and supply embodied in the adopted LOS standard. Concurrency management is one tool of many that have been-explored by planning professionals to control traffic congestion in recent years. There are numerous publications addressing the causes of traffic congestion and the various solutions to alleviate or to control congestion. Several recent studies have espoused controls over travel behavior--such as congestion pricing and transportation demand management--as solutions to traffic congestion (Downs 1992; Moore and Thorsnes 1994). These controls rely primarily on regional taxes or fees (congestion pricing) or employer-sponsored ridesharing programs (transportation demand management) to discourage single-occupant automobile travel during peak travel hours. While these solutions are ambitious and, if fully implemented, could have a measurable impact on travel behavior, they have rarely been implemented in the United States. By contrast, concurrency relies on two major regulatory techniques already exercised by local governments across the United States. First, almost all local governments have the ability to withhold development permits where traffic congestion would reach intolerable levels. Second, state and local governments routinely use their capital budgeting powers to provide the transportation improvements needed to accommodate anticipated growth. Concurrency is a unifying concept that combines these powers under a comprehensive planning framework. In addition, concurrency can be used to supplement congestion pricing and transportation demand management in order to ensure that travel behavior is consistent with, and reinforces, land-use patterns adopted in the local comprehensive plan. However, concurrency is not a panacea for unclogging crowded roadways and intersections. It is simply a planning tool that provides a basis for development permitting and capital investments by identifying tolerable levels of congestion as defined in the comprehensive plan. While concurrency management is an effective tool for regulating traffic congestion, it raises many issues that merit ~onsideration as the regulatory system is proposed and implemented. First, the local government must be cognizant of its legal authority to withhold permits and the constitutional issues raised by the timing and sequencing of development approvals. The proliferation of adequate public facilities ordinances (APFOs) was stimulated by the watershed decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291,334 N.Y.S,2d 138, appeal diss'd, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972), and such ordinances are now required or authorized in a number of states. The constitutional principle announced by the Ramapo decision--that timing and sequencing controls are valid if a landowner is given a reasonable use of his/her property over a reasonable period of time has withstood the test of time. Second, local governments must identify an LOS standard that is realistic and achievable. It is important to keep in mind that concurrency addresses only those impacts on traffic congestion created by new development. Local governments must carefully inventory existing demand and transportation facilities in order to determine what improvements are needed, where those improvements will be provided, and how much those improvements will cost. When the impacts of new development are factored into the planning Concurrency management combines /and-use controls with capital facilities plan- ning in order to coordinate the traffic generated by new development with the availability of transportation facilities. The cornerstone of concurrency management is the development ofan appropriate L OS standard forthe transpor- tation network. equation, the local government should consider the capacity available from existing improvements, the capacity that may be provided over the planning horizon, and how much capacity is or will become available for new development. The LOS standard adopted by the local government will dictate the results of each of these analyses. Finally, the local government must consider a variety of administrative and procedural issues in developing an ordinance that can be enforced and administered. The ordinance should provide an effective mechanism for tracking transportation impacts while affording reasonable certainty to landowners as to when development may occur. Developers may also be given several alternatives to compensate for inadequate performance of the transportation system. This report provides a survey of numerous jurisdictions in order to illustrate the various alternatives for structuring the regulatory system. (See Appendix C.) CAUSES OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION Essentially, traffic congestion is a function of the supply of transportation facilities and the demand for those facilities at a given location (Freilich and White 1991; Freilich and White 1994). Governmental agencies can attempt to alleviate congestion by increasing the quantity or efficiency of the transportation network ("structural" solutions) or by attempting to control the amount, location, or timing of demand ("regulatory" solutions) (Freilich and White 199!). The traditional response to traffic congestion problems has been the construction of new roadways. However, this solution is no longer viable, especially when used in isolation, because of financial constraints, environmental restrictions, community opposition to roadway expansion, and changing traffic patterns (Kozlak 1989). In fact, it is well-established that the construction of additional roadways often exacerbates congestion by making travel by automobile more accessible and road usage less efficient from an economic perspective (Moore and Thorsnes 1994). The amount, location, and timing of land-use development has a profound impact on travel behavior and which modes of transportation are used. The major contributors to congestion are urban decentralization and the imbalance between jobs and housing. Population growth on the urban fringe increases trip lengths to job destinations in the urban core and has introduced congestion to once-quiet suburban locations. The imbalance between jobs and housing has forced travelers to increase automobile trip lengths on freeways (Cervero 1986)2 The design of "suburban employment centers," with their liberal parking availability and auto-intensive commercial and retail uses, has created an incentive for congestion by making automobile commuting more attractive relative to public transit (Cervero 1989).- By controlling land-use decisions, local govern- ments can limit the degree to which new roadway capacity is consumed by motorists. However, the timing and location of major transportation improve- ments also influences development decisions (Moore and Thorsnes 1994). New roadways are a major stimulant of new development (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974). The construction of new roadways in outlying urban areas has fostered urban sprawl, an inefficient growth pattern that has imposed enormous economic, housing, and environmental costs, and which has induced the consumption of natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands. Theoretically, the use of concurrency could contain urban sprawl by requiring development to occur where capacity is already available before permitting new development in outlying areas. GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND THE TIMING OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT The advent of growth management2 over the past several decades has added a new dimension to land-use controls. Judicial recognition of growth management as a legitimate police power objective (in Golden v. Ramapo) has given communities the power to control the timing, as well as the location and quality, of development (Freilich 1974). The power to control development timing has expanded the purview of land-use planning tools, allowing the integration of comprehensive planning objectives with all aspects of the urban fabric. Courts have also approved the power of local governments to incorporate quality-of-life objectives into land-use controls. This recognition has encouraged the planning profession to devise development management systems premised on the view of communities as ecological systems with natural, political, economic, and governmental components (D. Godschalk and N. Axler 1977). Rapid development is problematic for two reasons: location and timing. The locational problem is caused by decentralization or "leapfrog development," which is an inefficient and costly land-use pattern. Leapfrog The ordinance should provide an effective mechanism for tracking transportation impacts while affording reasonable certainty to/and- owners as to when development may occur. development imposes increased community fiscal costs for utility extensions, environmental and health costs from air pollution caused by longer automobile trip lengths, and economic costs through the erosion of the tax base in central city areas.3 Cities are forced by sprawl to extend utilities over undeveloped areas, encouraging premature urbanization and higher densities in outlying areas. The extension of water, sewer, and transportation facilities to vacant areas encourages inefficient densities and further decentralization. By tying development approval to the community's public investment decisions, premature subdivision is discouraged. Even where growth occurs in favorable locations contiguous to existing development, highly concentrated growth spurts can threaten the community's ability to provide sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the needs of a new population. This is essentially a timing issue. This report describes how timing and sequencing controls can be combined with capital improvements programming in order to regulate traffic congestion. Chapter 1 describes and defines adequate public facilities or concurrency ordinances, introducing the reader to the broad policy and planning basis for this planning technique. Chapter 2 provides an overview of various legal issues associated with concurrency management, with an emphasis on the "takings" issue. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the various policy issues that must be resolved when designing a transportation concurrency program. Finally, Chapter 4 provides an overview of the programs in Montgomery County, Maryland--the jurisdiction with the nation's longest experience in administering transportation concurrency--and Florida, which has legislated concurrency for nearly a decade. The advent of growth management over the past several decades has added a new dimension to land-use controls. Judicialrecognition ofgrowth manage- ment as a legitimate police power objective has given communities the powerto control the timing, as well as the location and quality, of development. This power has expanded the purview of land-use planning tools, allowing the integration of comprehensive planning objectives with afl aspects of the urban fabric. Chapter 1. Defining the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance A concurrency management system or an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) ties or conditions development approvals to the availability and adequacy of public facilities2 APFOs are primarily intended to regulate the timing, and not the location or quality of development. While timing ordinances will have an incidental effect on the location and quality of new development, other land-use controls are more appropriate for dealing with those characteristics. Subdivision controls, zoning techniques, and performance controls may be used to address the end- state characteristics of future development, such as use, location, bulk, and density; Employing land-use controls to promote "orderly growth" or to ensure the provision of adequate public facilities is not a new concept in land-use planning. The innovative feature of APFOs is the means adopted to accomplish that objective. Because individual development proposals will often be denied pending the extension of services or addition of capacity at some future date, these devices are often referred to as "timing" or "staging" controls. These ordinances reverse the normal pattern of land development, whereby facilities and public investments respond to private- sector decisions and population growth. An APFO forces the private sector to react to public facility investments through the use of the police and purse powers. The concept of using land-use controls to stage growth originated in the 1950s (Fagin 1955). Henry Fagin suggested that staging could be used for the following purposes: · To economize on the costs of public facilities and services · To retain governmental control over the eventual character of development · To maintain a desirable degree of balance among the various uses of land · To achieve greater detail and specificity in development regulafion · To maintain a high quality of public services and facilities Early staging controls used "urban and rural service areas" to regulate growth, designating outlying areas as special use districts where developers would be required to demonstrate the adequacy of specified facilities as a condition of subdivision or special use permit approval (Freilich 1974, 178-83; Burrows 1978, 95). While detailed facility and service standards were used to distinguish developable from nondevelopable areas (Burrows 1978), the "adequacy" determination occurred on a project-specific basis and was often couched in very broad terms. The Ramapo plan (see discussion below) brought this concept around full circle by combining locational controls with project- specific analysis and linking land-use controls directly to the capital improvements program (CIP). TRADITIONAL ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES CONTROLS Most communities 'already apply concurrency by using traditional land-use controls (such as zoning and subdivision approval) to regulate congestion on a reactive or indirect basis. If a specific development proposal would create intolerable congestion, the request for rezoning or the development permit is denied. The traditional approach does not tie develop- ment approval directly to the availability of specified facilities or to specified level of service (LOS) standards for facilities in the vicinity of the project, nor does not it involve affirmative steps to identify those facilities needed to serve new growth at the adopted LOS standards. Instead, traffic congestion is controlled by limiting the type, location, and density of development, or by using moratoria to temporarily halt development in response to severe congestion problems. Most courts recognize the ability to control congestion as a legitimate exercise of the police power and will uphold the denial of a rezoning or development permit based upon traffic concerns.2 However, some courts have ruled that an increase in traffic will not support the denial of a zoning permit unless the traffic generated by a proposed development would increase congestion.3 Traditional public facilities controls include the use of zoning and other techniques (e.g., urban growth A PFOs areprimarilyintendedto regulate thetiming--not the location orquality--of development. While timing ordinances will have an incidental effect on the locat/on and qual/ty of new development, other land-use controls are more appropriate for dealing with those characteristics. boundaries4 and building permit limits) to manage development while infrastructure capacity is increased. A commonly used method is the creation of large-lot, "holding" zones on the urban fringe (Brower et al. 1974, 51-63; Gleeson et al. 1975, 12-13). The infrastructure adequacy evaluation occurs when the zoning regulations are revised or when urban growth boundaries are established. As undeveloped areas or areas close to the urban fringe become serviced, fringe area zoning restrictions are relaxed or the urban growth boundaries are extended outward. Unlike direct controls, however, the impact of each project vis-a-vis existing facilities and services is not measured for each development proposal. Instead, the adequacy of public facilities and services is measured against projected development and incorporated into areawide standards or a timing control (e.g., an annual limit on the number of building permits issued) designed to prevent the overtaxing of facility capacity or inefficient development patterns. Consequently, each new development proposal must comply with only the location and density standards that already reflect facility standards, or apply for a building permit in a timely manner. These techniques have enjoyed mixed success in the courts. Techniques such as "holding zones" employ . land-use control concepts familiar to planners and the courts, and are clearly within the scope of even rudimentary zoning enabling acts. Therefore, the use of large-lot controls were among the earliest techniques to control growth. These attempts coincided with conservative judicial attit-udes towards growth that predated the decision in Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291, app. diss'd, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972). Large-lot growth controls in high-growth Suburban jurisdictions have been invalidated in several decisions under the rationale that cities cannot "stand in the way" of natural forces of growth.5 While not disapproving the concept of adequate public facilities requirements, several Virginia cases in the early 1970s invalidated attempts by Fairfax County, Virginia, to deny rezonings based on the inadequacy of schools, fire stations, libraries, and sewers on the grounds that the county had failed to prove that the facilities were inadequate.6 However, more recent decisions favor the use of rezoning denials based on inadequate public facilities when such decisions are in accordance with staged growth plans expressed in adopted comprehensive plans.7 Courts have recognized that holding zones have potential exclusionary effects. While such controls may be effective urban containment devices, the use of large- lot zoning favors upscale development patterns while excluding the creation of shelter accessible to persons of low or moderate income, such as apartments,s Courts have been more solicitous of attempts to control growth in resort or environmentally sensitive areas where growth pressures have been induced by upscale, second-home developments as opposed to suburban residential areas with primary residences? Subdivision approval is the basic control for addressing the adequacy of public facilities for residential projects. Subdivision standards relating to off-site factors, for example, have been sustained pursuant to enabling legislation authorizing the use of subdivision controls to avoid "premature subdivision.''~° Many of these controls are employed on a case-by-case basis, lacking a systematic focus. First- generation direct controls were often based on broad standards, such as a finding that facilities are "existing," "planned," or "reasonably expected to expand in a manner adequate to support future residents.'u Moratoria may also be used to halt growth while the community devises plans to increase infrastructure capacity. Service moratoria enacted in response to shortfalls in specific utility or municipal services have been upheld? Absolute bans on construction have also been upheld where enacted in response to environmental or public safety concerns? While moratoria halt growth while they are in effect, they are not comprehensive or permanent systems. When lifted, the community loses the power to control or to stage APFOs reverse the normal pa#em of land development, whereby facilities and public investments respond to private-sector decisions and population growth. An APFO forces the private sector to react to public facility investments through the use of the po/ice and purse powers. growth affected by the moratorium, unless a permanent growth management system was prepared during the moratorium. The traditional approach to land-use controls and traffic congestion does not tie development approval to a CIP. Instead, the jurisdiction reacts to congestion issues in response to specific development proposals. The next section describes how concurrency relates to the traditional forms of land-use control employed by most jurisdictions. An example of the regulation of private property rights in order to mitigate congestion is found in the well-established authority of state transportation departments and local governments to regulate access to public roads. Reasonable access to public roadways is considered a property right in most jurisdictions. However, state or local transportation agencies may interfere with access in a number of ways, including employing legislation that minimizes driveway openings, closing off abutting streets in one direction (thereby creating a cul-de-sac), closing streets beyond an abutting street, imposing traffic regulations, raising or lowering the grade of abutting streets, or narrowing an abutting street. In some states (e.g., Florida--see Florida Statutes Sec. 335.181(c)), access management programs are designed not only to protect public safety, but also to promote economic development, growth management goals, reduction in highway maintenance costs, and environmental protection. Access management reduces highway maintenance costs and increases the effective life of transportation facilities. Public safety objectives include a reduction in traffic accidents and personal injuries, prevention of delays in public evacuations for emergencies, and shortening the response time for emergency vehicles. Most courts have recognized the strong public safety justification for the regulation of access and, accordingly, have rejected ta.kings challenges to reasonable access regulations. Access is subject to regulation pursuant to a state's police power. Accordingly, access permits may be denied or revoked in order to eliminate the undue disruption of traffic or the creation of safety hazards. Because transportation concurrency regulations serve the same purpose as access management regulations (i.e., the regulation of land-use impacts on public road capacity), they are arguably supported by the same public safety rationale in many instances. FROM ZONING TO CONCURRENCY Concurrency controls the timing of new development by linking development approval to the CIP. Traditional land-use controls most often affect the type, location, and density of development, with an incidental effect on timing. For example, while development outside of a service area may be staged because of a lack of services, the ability to control development within a service area due to infrastructure capacity is limited. While moratoria address the timing issue, they do so on a temporary basis. By directly imposing facilities adequacy requirements on each project subject to review, the two primary causes of facilities inadequacy are addressed. First, development cannot proceed where, because of its location, facilities are not yet available to serve it. This problem is also dealt with by the indirect controls listed above. However, even where development is favorably located, facility capacity may become overtaxed by virtue of its timing. Concurrency addresses this issue; indirect controls do not. Concurrency conditions all development on the adequacy of public facilities regardless of location. APFOs are an example of a permanent system subjecting all development proposals to adequacy evaluation. The use of a systematic approach to control growth by tying development approvals to the adequacy of facilities was pioneered by the Town of Ramapo, New York. The Ramapo system used an ordinal point scale to evaluate development proposals. The system required all residential projects to obtain a special use permit, the issuance of which was based on the adequacy of sewers, drainage facilities, parks/ recreation, roads, and firehouses. An 18-year CIP demonstrated the town's commitment to provide facilities in an expedient manner. The system was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals in the Ramapo decision. By rejecting a challenge to the ordinance as an unconstitutional exercise of the town's police powers, the decision "represent[ed] the first time that any court in the United States ha[d] upheld the concept of restricting development in metropolitan areas through comprehensive planning, coupled with an exercise of the zoning power, without compensation" (Freilich 1975). By combining the police powers with planning efforts and capital budgeting, Ramapo was the first systematic attempt to employ direct controls relating the adequacy of public facilities to development approvals. The Ramapo concept has since been refined for large metro- politan areas through the use of "tier" systems that adopt increasingly stringent development controls from the urban core to outlying, exurban areas (Callies and Freilich 1987, 837-38; Freilich and Leitner 1979; Freilich and Ragsdale 1974, 1045-82). In these tiered systems, growth is actively encouraged in Urbanizing Areas, which generally includes the downtown and central city. Development in Planned Urbanizing Areas is staged through the use of capital improvements planning, special use permits, official mapping, and other innova- tive land-use controls. Future Urbanizing Areas are held in reserve and redesignated Planned Urbanizing as land in the Planned Urbanizing Area is developed. MEASURING ADEQUACY AND AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Ramapo used a point system that based the adequacy of public facilities upon distance from specified capital improvements. To arrive at a point score for each type of facility, overlay maps were prepared depicting the level of infrastructure capacity by location within the town (Emanuel 1974). Within each category of facilities, a trial-and-error process was used to forecast the amount of land consumption for each area over time under different point score scenarios. An ordinal scale was used, assigning a maximum of five points each to sewer, drainage, parks, and roads, and three points to firehouses. For parks, roads, and firehouses, points were assigned on the basis of the project's distance from existing facilities. Later systems have built on the Ramapo model by tying development approvals to LOS standards. LOS standards measure the ratio of public facility capacity to the need for the facility24 This deceptively simple concept incorporates several features missing from the point systeml First, the LOS measure takes into account all demand for the facilities, including existing demand as well as the additional population added by new development proposals. By contrast, the point system only accounts for those facilities available to the project under review. Second, an adopted LOS standard reflects a policy decision concerning the appropriate equilibrium between population and public facilities that may be applied to new development in standard setting and in permit review, and to the public sector in the capital budgeting process. Finally, LOS standards provide a convenient benchmark for the monitoring of the growth management system. While points are generally used to evaluate individual projects in relation to nearby (if any) facilities, the LOS standard relates capital improvements to communitywide (even areawide) population and development. LOS is also a more flexible standard than a rigid point system. Because LOS is performance oriented, developers can mitigate the effects of their projects through project design, roadway exactions, or other techniques (e.g., the provision of transit facilities) that would alleviate the demand for roads. This concept is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. LOS standards incorporate features missing from the point system. First, LOS measures take into account afl demand for facilities. Second, an' LOS standard reflects a policy decision concerning the appropriate equilib- rium betWeen population and public facilities that may be applied to new development in standard setting and in permit review, and to the public sector in the cap#al budgeting process. Final/y, LOS standards provide a conve- nient benchmark for monitoring a growth management system. Chapter 2. Legal Issues The use of innovative development controls requires enabling legislation and compliance with constitutional standards regarding takings, equal protection, and due process. This chapter covers those issues as well as the legal bases governing the concept of regional general welfare, the role of planning, the timing of growth, and the provision of public facilities using the capital improvements program (CIP). ENABLING LEGISLATION Enabling legislation is the threshold issue in most litigation concerning innovative land-use controls. Because local governments are creatures of the state, the authority to'adopt land-use regulations must be granted by the state, which is usually accomplished through general enabling legislation.~ Because explicit enabling legislation for adequate public facility ordinances (APFOs) is rare, authority is often implied under more traditional zoning or subdivision enabling legislation. The authority to deny development approval based on inadequate facilities is often found under subdivision or zoning enabling legislation or home rule powers. The decision in Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291,334 N.Y.S.2d 138, appeal diss'd, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972), found the requisite authority under the Standard Zoning Enabling Act. An ordinance requiring a special permit based on a determination that facilities were existing, planned, or reasonably expected to expand to adequately support future residents was upheld as applied in Matter of Joseph v. Town Board of Town of Clarkstown, 24 Misc.2d 366, 198 N.Y.S.2d 695 (Supreme Ct. 1960). The court rejected a challenge that denial of the permit based on inadequate school facilities was arbitrary and capricious, holding that the Standard Zoning Enabling Act authorized measures designed to prevent overcrowding. The court also found that the town was doing "everything possible" to provide the schools and that the ordinance was a legitimate attempt to stabilize the overcrowding of schools caused by an influx of new residents. Maryland is the only state that explicitly authorizes APFOs.2 New Hampshire has adopted enabling legislation for development "timing" ordinances, subject to the preparation of a master plan and capital improvements program (CIP)? The states of Florida and Washington mandate concurrency by prohibiting the issuance of a development permits where the impact of development would cause deficiencies in specified facilities or a reduction in adopted level of service (LOS) standards? (See Appendix D for the concurrency management regulations of Florida and Washington.) TAKINGS Because most of the litigation arising with regard to timing and sequencing regulations involves the takings clauses of the federal and state constitutions, this section will concentrate primarily on takings issues. There are three separate analytical frameworks under which a regulation may require compensation as a taking: physical, title, and economic? A physical invasion of property is typically referred to as a "possessory' or "trespassory' taking. Closely akin to the physical take is a "title" take, in which the government acquires incidents of ownership or title to the property or an exaction in lieu of the dedication of land. The third type, an "economic" taking, occurs when governmental action confiscates a property owner's economic interest. The determination of which of the three types of taking is at issue is critical because the analysis of the constitutionality of the regulation is different for each. Because concurrency regulations typically do not involve a physical invasion of property, the following sections focus on the economic takings and title takings aspects of concurrency regulations. Economic Takings A regulation may give rise to compensation6 under the provisions of the federal and/or state constitutions where "it imposes too heavy a burden on property rights to be sustained as a police power regulation? To avoid characterization as a taking, an APFO must leave the property owner with a reasonable use of the property for a reasonable period of time (Freilich and Chlnn 1988). The question of reasonableness will turn on whether (1) the regulation substantially advances a legitimate public purpose, or (2) it denies a landowner economically viable use of the property.8 The "substantial advancement" test balances the interests asserted by the government against the economic impact of the regulation? The second test focuses on whether the landowner has been deprived of substantially all reasonable use of the property. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, __ U.S. __, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992), the United States Supreme Court held that a regulation which confiscates all permanent use and value of the property of the landowner is a taking unless the regulation is based on antecedent common law nuisance principles. Under the analysis in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978), if the regulation leaves the landowner with any value in the property, the court will apply the following factors on a case-by-case basis: (1) the economic impact of the regulation; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action. In determining economic impact, the property interest must be viewed in its totality. This inquiry focuses only on the reasonableness of the remaining use, and not the amount of deprivation.TM Because explicit enabling/egis/at/on for APFOs is rare, authority is often implied under more traditional zoning or subdivision enabling /egis/at/on. The decision in Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo found the requisite authority under the Standard Zoning Enabling Act. The relative weight assigned to the government's interest will be tested against two factors: (1) the nature of the government's action and (2) the "reciprocity of advantage" conferred by the ordinance? Uses deemed "injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community," such as a public nuisance, may be regulated notwithstanding an almost complete deprivation of property value or use since no one has the right to create a nuisance in the first place22 Where the local government demonstrates that an APFO is designed to prevent a public harm, such as the failure of a sewer treatment plant or the avoidance of flood-prone conditions through the requirement of adequate drainage facilities, the extent of deprivation allowed under this inquiry is great. However, the lesser the relation of the required facilities to public health or safety, the lesser the deprivation allowed before the regulation is invalidated. A concurrency regulation may be challenged as an economic taking where development is deferred pending the availability of transportation facilities needed to meet the LOS standard. Because the economic hardship is not permanent, landowners have argued that this scenario results in a "temporary taking" of property. In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), the United States Supreme Court decided for the first time that a regulation that fails the takings analysis is subject to the Fifth Amendment's compensation requirement even if it is in effect for only a temporary period of time (e.g., the local government repeals the regulation). First English involved a 12-year moratorium in a flood-prone area. The Supreme Court rejected the local government's arguments that the compensation requirement of the takings clause does not apply to regulatory takings. The Court ruled that the landowner is owed compensation if a taking is found, even where the local government later repeals the offending regulations. On remand, the California courts found that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action despite the outright prohibition of construction on their property, finding that the regulatory taking issues presented did not even present a "close issue.''~3 Its discussion of the balance between public necessity and private deprivation is particularly relevant to the issues raised by APFOs. The First English decision distinguished the goal of "preventing premature urbanization'--which has been recognized as a significant purposelY--from the goal under consideration in that case, which was the preservation of lives and health. The court stated that the latter goal would support the deprivation of all use of a landowner's property, while the former would not. If there is a hierarchy of interests the police power serves--and both logic and prior cases suggest there is-- then the preservation of life must rank at the top. Zoning restrictions seldom serve public interests so far up on the scale. More often these laws guard against things like "premature urbanization" or contribut[ion] to orderly development and the mitigation of environmental impacts. When land-use regulations seek to advance what are deemed lesser interests, such as aesthetic values of the community, they frequently are outweighed by constitutional property rights. Nonetheless, it should be noted [that] even these lesser public interests have been deemed sufficient to justify zoning which diminishes-- without compensation--the value of individual properties. (First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 210 Cal.App.3d 1353, 258 Cal. Rptr. 893 (Cal. App. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1056 (1990)) APFOs serve a number of purposes related to public health and safety as well as "minor" concerns related to urban design. Tying the level of growth to the adequacy of transportation facilities inhibits the deleterious effects of traffic congestion, such as accidents. "Premature urbanization" relating to urban form, which, in Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), was an aesthetic goal, is not the primary justification for adequate public facilities concerns. Instead, the concern is over the ability of communities to provide public facilities and services essential to individual health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain a balance between development and infrastructure that ensures the overall economic, environmental, and psychological well-being of a community. This multiplicity of purposes should rank higher than the zoning restrictions mentioned in First English. Cases decided since the Supreme Court's 1987 takings trilogy indicate that the denial of all use for a reasonable, temporary period of time does not result in a taking under First English. In Woodbury Place Partners 10 v. City of Woodbury, 492 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. App. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2929 (1993), the city adopted a two- year moratorium following an access improvement study along a highway interchange. The developer on the corner of an interchange filed a preliminary plat, site plan, and special use permit for an 80,000-square-foot retail center and 18,000~square-foot office building. The permits were withheld due to the moratorium. At trial, the plaintiff stipulated that all economically viable use of the property had been denied during the moratorium. The court ruled that there was no Lucas taking, reasoning that the deprivation was "qualified by its defined duration." Takings analysis does not divide a parcel into defined segments, and fluctuations in value are considered to be merely an incident of ownership. Furthermore, the court rejected an argument that there was a temporary taking under First English~ The court noted that First English is remedial only, governing only retrospectively temporary takings (e.g., ordinances declared invalid), not prospectively temporary An area moratorium had been imposed based upon the average LOS C, which was based upon a volume-to- capacity ratio of 55 percent. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion and definition of transportation LOS standards.) The court ruled that it was legitimate to deny development approval in some areas where 45 percent capacity was available, even though development could be approved with only 12 percent remaining capacity in other areas, because greater congestion may occur where transit is available. Responding to the takings challenge, the court found that there were viable alternative uses for the property, including commercial uses, such as mini-warehouses. Furthermore, the APFO left open the prospect for more intensive development in the future. In Albany Area Builders v. Clifton Park, 576 NYS2d 932 (Sup Ct 1991), the town adopted a Phased Growth Law limiting permits to 20 percent of total approved units until a proposed interchange was completed or five years passed, whichever occurred first, in order to relieve traffic congestion. The court ruled that the Premature urbanization, which in Ag ins was an aesthetic goal, is not the primary justification for adequate public facilities concerns. Instead, the concern is over the ability of communities to provide public facilities and services essential to individual health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain a balance between development and. infrastructure that ensures the overall economic, environmental, and psychological well-being of a community. regulations. The court remanded for an analysis under the standards set forth in Penn Central (economic impact, investmel~t-backed expectations, and character of the regulation). In Schneider v. Montgomery County, 328 Md 239, 614 A2d 84 (1991), the court expressly rejected a challenge to the county's APFO. The challenge claimed that the property had been taken and raised a number of other constitutional issues. In Schneider, the county denied the plaintiff's preliminary subdivision plat due to lack of adequate transportation facilities under the APFO. The county used an "average" LOS approach, which assigns a "Standard Transportation Level of Service" to policy areas that correspond to planning area boundaries. The approach is described here. [The] levels of service standards represent a statistical average over the whole policy area. They are used in the calculation in the traffic simulation model .... In general, the average level of service standards posted for each policy area are based on a policy that it is appropriate to permit greater congestion to occur in areas in which greater transit availability provides an alternative mode of travel for many travelers in the area. In that way, there is an opportunity for an approximately equivalent overall transportation level of service to residents and employees throughout the county. (Montgomery County, Maryland, FY90 Annual Growth Policy, adopted June 27, 1989) ordinance served a valid public purpose, noting substantial evidence of a traffic problem. The court found that congestion creates an increased risk of injury and death, and noted favorably that the ordinance charted a moderate course between moratorium and uncontrolled growth. The takings issue was not ripe because no variance had been filed. In Palm Beach County v. Wright, 641 So.2d 50 (Fla 1994), the county designated a number of road corridors in the traffic circulation element of its comprehensive plan. No land-use activity was permitted that would impede future construction of the roadway. The court found that the designation was in the nature of an unrecorded long-range planning tool that does not define an exact route, but only general corridors, and was not enacted to reduce the cost of right-of-way acquisition. The court rejected a challenge alleging that the corridor designations effectuated a taking. The court reasoned that no taking could occur until the development plan was submitted. At that point, the landowner could use cluster development, increases in densities off the corridors, alternative uses, TDR/impact fee credits, or changes in the road patterns. The court noted that the corridor designation might actually provide an economic benefit to prospective developers by increasing property values. The court also noted that 11 the state's concurrency requirement would impede development unless the roads were made available. Several California cases have found constitutional infirmities in concurrency requirements that required developers to improve existing deficiencies in the transportation network. In Marblehead v. San Clemente (1988), the Orange County Superior Court found an initiative ordinance defective when it required the landowner to not only mitigate impact of development, but also to improve the existing LOS. The Court of Appeals affirmed on alternative, nonconstitutional grounds. In McGavran v. Costa Mesa, the same court struck down an ordinance that required a "measurable improvement" to existing transportation deficiencies under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a regulation may be considered a taking-- without an inquiry into the factors considered in a Penn Central takings analysis--where the landowner is required to sacrifice "all economically beneficial use" of its property as a result of the regulation. However, Lucas provides that a regulation depriving a landowner of all economic use of its property will not be considered a taking where the proposed use would be considered a nuisance under the common law, or where the proposed use was not part of the landowner's property interest to begin with. A concurrency management ordinance will often require the landowner to defer development pending the availability of transportation facilities needed to meet the community's adopted LOS standards. Does this period of deferral constitute a deprivation of all economically beneficial use under the Lucas inquiry? Most cases considering timing and sequencing ordinances have held that it does not (see discussion of Woodbury Place Partners v. Town of Woodbury, above). In order to avoid Lucas claims, local governments should keep the following in mind when drafting a concurrency management ordinance (Morgan 1993): · Allow the landowner to substitute different types of uses in order to minimize a development's impacts on the transportation network, thereby allowing potential uses A concurrency management ordinance will often require the landowner to defer devel- opment pending the availability of transporta- tion facilities needed to meet the community's adopted LOS standards. Does this period of deferral constitute a deprivation of all economi- cally beneficial use under the Lucas inquiry? Most cases considering timing and sequencing ordinances have held that it does not. · Consider the use of performance standards, where applicable, and a site plan review process · Use "hard" criteria that consider existing property and nuisance regulations and the basis of the regulation in the preservation of public health or welfare · Allow relief in all regulations (e.g., variances, special permits, or conditional uses) · Keep any moratorium as short as possible and no longer than necessary to achieve the necessary balance between transportation impacts and the capacity of anticipated public facilities Title Takings and Permit Exactions Concurrency management ordinances are enforced by withholding development permits until transportation facilities are available at the adopted LOS standard, as shown in the community's CIP. The ordinances often allow developers to "buy time" by providing facilities before their scheduled date in the CIP. Normally, an APFO is subject to attack only as a regulatory taking, since its only effect is to use the police power of the local government to preclude (temporarily) the development of land. However, if a court is convinced that the ordinance is simply a form of "extortion" designed to shift a disproportionate amount of public facilities costs to a developer, the ordinance may be considered a taking. The U.S. Supreme Court has established two analytical frameworks for these types of exactions. First, the exaction must bear an essential nexus to the types of impacts created by the proposed development and the public concerns underlying the APFO, as prescribed in Nollan. While the "essential nexus" test must be carefully considered when drafting an exactions alternative, cases decided since Nollan indicate that the standard is fairly deferential. Accordingly, while the ordinance must allow facilities that address the types of impacts created by the proposed development, it may also allow the developer to provide a wide range of facilities and alternatives to relieve congestion. For example, a developer proposing a subdivision that generates additional roadway traffic may be allowed to provide, in addition to or in lieu of additional roadway facilities, public transit or pedestrian facilities that relieve the demand on the roadway network occasioned by the proposed development. In addition to the essential nexus test, the exaction must be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the proposed development where the ordinance requires the developer to transfer a property interest as a condition of approval, as prescribed in Dolan v. City of Tigard, __ U.S., 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994), 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (1994). In Dolan, the city required an eight-foot easement strip for construction of a pedestrian and bicycle pathway as a condition for construction of a commercial building. The condition was based on the city's pedestrian/bicycle pathway plan, which called for alternatives to roadway travel. The Supreme Court found that there was an essential nexus between the 12 city's attempt to reduce traffic congestion and the requirement that a bicycle path be provided as an alternative means of transportation. However, the city's failure to quantify the relationship between the additional trip generation of the proposed building and the quantum of additional pedestrian/bicycle facilities needed to offset those impacts resulted in a taking. While the Court did not decide whether the "rough proportionality" standard applies to fees, as opposed to dedications or other forms of property interests, many states have applied similar principles to impact fees and other forms of monetary exactions? In order to minimize potential Dolan challenges, the concurrency management system should include the following components: · Allow the denial or deferral of approval where the project would degrade the adopted LOS standard (both Nollan and Dolan recognized that a project may be denied without compensation where the local government's legitimate land-use criteria are not met) · Ensure that any mitigation alternatives will actually expedite the construction of the public facilities so as to insure reasonable concurrency between the impacts of the development and the availability of the facilities, (e.g., the mitigation could be tied to a specific improvement where the date of construction is shown in an adopted CIP) · Quantify the amount and cost of additional roadway facilities or mitigation alternatives needed per unit of demand · Develop forms and procedures for the preparation of an impact analysis by the proposed developer · Require that developers employing this alternative sign a form stating that the provision of the facilities is voluntary and that the facilities are being provided only to expedite project approval while maintaining the balance between the timing of public improvements and private development (courts have indicated that voluntary exactions may not be subject to constitutional challenge)~6 · Base the ordinance on an improvements program with realistic projected funding sources EQUAL PROTECTION Equal protection issues may arise from adequate public facilities requirements when different standards are imposed on different properties that are similarly situated. Thus, equal protection claims may be raised when different standards are imposed: on different types of new development; by geographic area; or on both current and new residents (i.e., where the community has made no attempt to resolve existing deficiencies). In the context of land-use regulation, unless a suspect class (e.g., race) or a fundamental interest (e.g., the right to vote) is involved, the courts will sustain the regulation if it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate public purpose. This is a very deferential standard. Most decisions have recognized that developers are not a suspect class Normally, an APFO is subject to attack only as a regulatory taking since its only effect is to use the police power of the Iocal government to preclude (temporarily) the development of land. However, ifa court is convinced that the ordinance is simply ~a form of "extortion" designed to shift a disproportionate amount of public facilities costs to a developer, the ordi- nance may be considered a taking. and that land development is not a fundamental interest,i? Thus, the underlying studies should establish the need for variable standards and should justify the effect that adopted service standards will have on the city's spatial structure. Where the studies establish the relationship of the APFO to orderly development and public health and welfare, equal protection challenges should not prove successful. However, any distinction made within a classification, such as between types of residential development, must bear a rational relationship to the purpose of the statute. In Begin v. Town of Sabattus, 409 A,2d 1269 (Me. 1979), the court invalidated an annual building permit limit for manufactured housing under a slow-growth ordinance, because limiting manufactured housing construction and not other residential uses was not rationally related to the purpose of slowing growth to alleviate strains on services and congestion. Thus, LOS standards should apply uniformly within classes of development unless a logical reason is presented that (1) the particular subclass of development imposes a higher demand on public facilities and services than do other types of development, or (2) a legitimate public purpose is offered for imposing a stricter or looser restriction on a particular type of development and the variable restriction is rationally related to that purpose. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland, exempts low- or moderate-income projects from growth limits based on adopted LOS standards in certain instances in order to promote the legitimate public purpose of encouraging the development of affordable housing. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Substantive due process requires that land-use regulations bear a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare. This is a two-tiered requirement. First, the land-use regulation must address a legitimate public purpose. Second, the means selected to achieve that purpose must further the purpose selected. Judicial review for substantive due process violations is very lenient; only truly egregious or extraordinary cases will give rise to a substantive due process violation? The legitimacy of growth control objectives has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court for many years. 13 A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land use project addressed to family needs. ~.. The police power is not confined to the elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion, and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people? Because local regulations that slow the rate of growth allegedly interfere with the ability of citizens to relocate there, right-to-travel2° challenges are often asserted against growth controls, although they are generally unsuccessful. If an interference with the right to travel can be successfully asserted, a compelling government interest must be presented to justify that interference.2~ Because growth management systems are rarely, if ever, challenged by those seeking entry into the community, the argument that an interference is present is usually rejected on standing grounds? Several courts have actually used the rationale that growth is not stopped but merely temporarily shifted elsewhere to reject right- to-travel challenges? REGIONAL GENERAL WELFARE Regional general welfare requires communities to consider the regional interests affected by growth control ordinances?4 The regional general welfare standard requires a locality to consider the effect of its land-use controls on regional housing and environmental needs. This essentially requires a balancing test between the benefits of growth controls and regional housing needs--and the courts have split on this balance? While APFOs have been criticized for their potential exclusionary effects (Bosselman 1973), these criticisms have been directed primarily toward rudimentary ordinances excluding only residential development having a large impact on community facilities and services, such as schools, while not affecting commercial or office projects, which tend to carry a positive net benefit to municipal revenues (F. Herbert 1973). Most concurrency ordinances now apply to commercial as well as residential development (Skaggs 1988). Courts in states with strong regional general welfare standards have declined to hold development timing ordinances per se invalid?6 THE ROLE OF PLANNING The foregoing analysis indicates that the most important consideration in the preparation of an APFO is the presence of underlying studies establishing a strong public need for tying the rate of growth to infrastructure capacities. The studies should address: 1) the causal relationship between new growth and the need for additional facilities or capacity to support that growth; 2) the relationship of adequate public infrastructure to public health, safety, and welfare; and 3) the steps being taken by the municipality to ensure that those needs are accommodated, such as through a CIP. These issues must be considered against existing infrastructure capacity and needs. In Wincamp Partnership OTC v. Anne Arundel Co., 458 F.Supp 1009 (D. Md. 1978), a Maryland statute prevented the issuance of a building permit for a development that would cause an overtaxing of the capacity of area sewers. Arguments that the State Department of Health officials abused their discretion by not ordering the exPansion of a county sewage treatment plant (thereby creating more capacity for the issuance of building permits), and constitutional claims against the county based on the takings clause, right to travel, and substantive due process were rejected. The court noted that the county had budgeted more than $20 million and programmed more than $100 million for wastewater treatment in its CIP. Rejecting a challenge that the failure to expand treatment capacity was exclusionary, the court noted that "[e]ven an ordinance with exclusionary effects is valid if it serves a legitimate government interest such as preservation of a town's rural environment or small town character." The most important consideration in the preparation of an APFO is the presence of underlying studies establishing a strong public need for tying the rate of growth to infrastructure capacities. Numerous growth control cases have commented on the need for underlying plans and have approved grow~i~controls supported by studies demonstrating the need for restrictions. The courts have also shown a willingness to invalidate those controls unsupported by sufficient data? In the context of holding zones, several recent cases have also upheld rezoning denials despite the presence of nearby or adjacent land zoned high density and nearby service access where the denial implemented a comprehensive plan to prevent urban sprawl? The New Hampshire legislature has explicitly authorized timed development controls, but only after "adoption... Of a master and a capital improvement program and.., based on a growth management process intended to assess and balance community development needs and consider regional development needs.''~9 A case decided under the statute invalidated a 3 percent growth rate imposed by the town's master plan because a CIP and growth management ordinance had not been adopted according to the statute. The court applied a "test of reasonableness" for the determination of the municipal services needed to support the growth management ordinance. The test considers: 1) the cost of extending services; 2) citizen capacity to adjust to an increased tax rate needed to support municipal services; 3) whether the new residences would be primary residences or resort homes; 4) the availability and suitability of undeveloped land; and 5) overall regional growth?° Concurrency may be used to resolve existing infrastructure deficiencies over time or to maintain a desired LOS standard. The courts have supported the concept of denying development approval, thus holding land development in abeyance pending the resolution of existing deficiencies, so long as the jurisdiction is making real and substantial efforts to resolve those deficiencies?~ In addition, preventing the exacerbation of existing congestion or overcrowding is a valid public purpose? When infrastructure is sufficient to serve current needs, careful planning studies must be undertaken to demonstrate that the allocation serves a legitimate public health, safety, and welfare interest and is not a "veiled effort at exclusion?~ In the context of moratoria and other growth-limiting devices, contemporary decisions generally hold that withholding development approval may be valid even where the infrastructure has excess capacity. In Tisei v. Town of Ogunquit, 491 A.2d 564 (Me. 1985), a municipal sewer district adopted a sewer permit allocation system to avoid the overtaxing of capacity at a future date. A moratorium was also enacted to give the town time to study the problem and to determine the most appropriate method to bolster capacity. A three-part test was applied to determine whether the moratorium was a valid exercise of the town's police powers. The test asked: 1) whether the object of the moratorium was to further the public welfare; 2) whether the means were appropriate to the ends; and 3) whether the manner in which it was implemented was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the sewer allocation ordinance under the town's home rule powers, stating in a footnote that "[w]hile it would be possible for the trustees [of the Ogunquit Sewer District] to avoid overburdening the system by denying permits once the sewers had reached capacity, this would certainly be an inefficient method of planning." Post-Ramapo decisions have affirmed the legitimacy of "staged growth" objectives. In Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6, 10 (Minn. App. 1986)?4 the court upheld a rezoning denial based on inadequacy of public facilities in light of the city's "staged growth" plan, which indicated that the parcel would not be ready for development, as a matter of public policy, until 1985- 1990. Despite evidence, which the court accepted as true, that adjacent lands were developed and that the parcel would not constitute "leapfrog" development, the court upheld the denial because of clearly articulated "fiscal, ecological, and safety" concerns expressed in its plan. Numerous growth control cases have commented on the need for underlying plans and have approved growth controls supported by studies demonstrating the need for restric- tions. The courts have also Shown a willingness to invalidate those controls unsupported by sufficient data. TIMING GROWTH AND FACILITIES THROUGH THE CIP The CIP is an essential part of a concurrency management system. The CIP is a "multiyear schedule of public physical improvements" that usually spans a period of five or six years (Bowyer 1993). The CIP should include a schedule showing when necessary facilities will be available, the capacity of the facilities to accommodate new growth, and how those facilities will be financed. Because concurrency ties development approval directly to the CIP, the CIP will have a significant impact on the amount and rate of growth in a jurisdiction using concurrency. CIPs are critical in order to (1) coordinate the provision of public services with the advent of new development and (2) to demonstrate that adequate provisions are being made to support growth in the future. Lack of a CIP may result in the invalidation of an ordinance or the invalidation of permit decisions on a case-by-case basis as arbitrary and capricious?s However, the formulation of clear definitions and standards is critical:-Whe_re "adequacy" is left undefined or vague, courts may use the CIP to determine that facilities are adequate despite the drafters' intent?6 The ability to use LOS standards to guide growth depends on the degree of control that the jurisdiction has over relevant facilities and services. There are two major reasons why this issue must be addressed. First, the lack of control over the timing of public facilities causes a loss of control over the timing of development. APFOs depend on the ability to deny development approval where specified facilities are inadequate to serve new development. Therefore, the ability to control the timing of development depends on the ability to determine when those facilities will be Because concurrency ties development approval directly to the capital improvements program, the CIP will have a significant impact on the amount and rate of growth in a jurisdiction using concurrency. 15 extended? The most common problem is the control of facilities by special purpose governmental entities, such as state highway departments, many of which view their mission as the provision of all utilities needed to serve future development regardless of the effect of these decisions on other community objectives. These entities cannot be expected to share the more holistic view of the relationship between utility extension and urban growth held by their general purpose gOvernment counterparts. Another obstacle to control over facilities is funding. Where local governments schedule capital improvements needed to accommodate new growth, adequate funds must be found to finance these facilities. Second, noncompliance by the facility or service provider could result in a de facto moratorium on development. The Ramapo ordinance was defended successfully because the city was able to demonstrate, through an adopted CIP, when those facilities would be provided. Courts may invalidate development permit denials based on infrastructure or facility inadequacies if the local government cannot demonstrate when those services will be provided.~ How can cities account for the control of services and infrastructure by special purpose, independent governments? The most obvious mechanisms would be intergovernmental agreements, such as regional plans or joint planning arrangements (Burby n.d.; Paterson 1988, 20-27). Interjurisdictional controls over utility extensions have been upheld against constitutional and antitrust challenges? Interjurisdictional fragmentation has been addressed by local area formation commissions and regional planning agencies (Getzels and Thurow 1980, 41-46). Florida's groundbreaking state planning legislation requires a comprehensive planning element dealing with the coordination of local comprehensive plans with special purpose governments "providing services but not having regulatory authority.'40 Several fallback positions would be the staging of growth according to the plans adopted by service providers, or the staging of growth according to those services and facilities over which the city has control. However, the former option does not provide any real control for the city, while the ability to demonstrate a need over the latter may be limited. Cities may also employ indirect controls, such as building permit limits, to stage growth in accordance with forecasted service availability (Macris 1986, 26). 16 Chapter 3. Designing the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance This chapter illustrates the various policy decisions that must be resolved in the design and implementation of an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO). In describing each policy issue, the discussion draws upon examples of concurrency/adequate public facilities legislation from various jurisdictions based upon a study conducted by the author for a jurisdiction in Florida and the preparation of a local concurrency management ordinance for Douglas County, Colorado. (See Appendices C and E.) By synthesizing the structure and mechanics of other programs, the reader will become familiar with the design, administration, and structure of APFOs. The author does not endorse the legality, equity, or administrative feasibility of any particular approach. Instead, the various approaches serve as examples of how other jurisdictions have addressed the issues associated with designing a concurrency management system. Based upon the author's experience with the preparation of APFOs on a national level, the following issues have been identified as the most critical to the preparation of an APFO. · Determinationofwhichfacilitieswillberequiredasa condition of development approval. In most jurisdictions, only roadways and intersections are evaluated for purposes of concurrency. In addition; facilities that can provide alternative modes of travel--such as public transit or pedestrian facilities--may also be evaluated or allowed as an alternative to the inclusion of roadways in the capacity equation. · The stage in the development process at which adequacy is determined. The local government must determine the point or points in the development approval process at which a determination is made of whether facilities are adequate to accommodate the impacts of the development. · Developments or categories of development to which the APFO is applicable. The ordinance should specify the categories of development that must seek an adequate facilities determination. Exempt developments. The agency should determine which, if any, categories of development are to be exempt from the ordinance. Exemptions create legal and administrative issues that are addressed in this chapter. LOS standards. An LOS standard is a measurement standard that describes the capacity and performance characteristics of each facility included in the APFO. The adopted LOS standard governs the rate and amount of development approvals, the quality of infrastructure, and the magnitude of capital investments for new facilities to correct existing deficiencies and to accommodate new growth. The agency should establish an LOS for each facility covered by the APFO. Inclusion of state/federal facilities. The ordinance should specify whether facilities funded and constructed within its jurisdiction by state or federal agencies-- such as interstate highways--will be required as a condition of development approval and for compliance with the APFO. Delineation of impact area. The ordinance should delineate the geographic area within which facilities will be counted in the determination of facility capacity needed to serve the development. Flexibility of impact area delineation. The ordinance should specify whether the impact area will vary according to the type of development, type of facilities available, and geographic location, or whether the impact areas will be applied on a uniform basis for all types of development. Administrative waivers. If the jurisdiction wants to waive the application of the concurrency requirements for certain types of projects, it must determine whether the waiver will be granted administratively or through legislative action. The ordinance must include standards for waivers and assign decision-making responsibility. 17 · Reservations of capacity. As developments are approved or exempted, the demand for public facilities and services created by those developments will be "debited" or "charged" against available facility capacity. Accordingly, the ordinance should specify the duration for which facility capacity may be debited and should include other regulations governing capacity reservation. · Point System. If the agency wishes, the ordinance can determine how the criteria for the measurement of facility capacity among all facilities will be weighted for purposes of development approval. · Official(s)responsibleforconductingadequacyreview. The ordinance should make clear who is responsible for determining whether facilities are adequate to serve new developments. · Appeals process. The ordinance should create a mechanism to handle appeals from decisions regarding project approvals, conditional approvals, and disapprovals, pursuant to the APFO. · Possibilityformitigation/abatement. Developersdenied approval under the concurrency provisions may want to advance those facilities needed in order to allow the project to proceed or to mitigate the impacts of the project on the relevant facilities and services. The ordinance should include criteria to evaluate a developer's willingness to advance facilities and developer-proposed mitigation measures, as well as regulations governing the reservation of capacity as facilities are adVanced. · Differential LOS standards. LOS standards may vary based on location, stage in development approval process, size of developments, or other criteria. · Developer reimbursement mechanisms. Developers advancing and/or oversizing facilities in order to receive development approval or permission to build at an earlier date may seek reimbursement from the agency or other developers. The ordinance should set forth those situations where such reimbursement is necessary and, if so, how reimbursed amounts are determined, and a mechanism to effectuate the reimbursement. · RelationshipofAPFOtoimpactfees. Theordinance should determine how facility capacity constructed from revenues derived from impact fees will be factored into the determination of adequacy for each developer. · Extent to which "planned" improvements are included in the determination of what constitutes adequate public facilities. The ordinance should specify whether only existing facilities will be used to determine whether development may proceed, or whether facilities that are planned in the CIP may be counted. The ordinance should also specify which projects may include developer-contributed facilities in the adequacy determination. · Effect of failing adequate public facilities test. Projects may be denied or conditionally approved where 18 facilities are determined to be inadequate. The ordinance should stipulate whether projects will be denied or conditioned, and specify appropriate mitigation procedures. Relation of adeq~tate public facilities determination to development monitoring. A procedure should be developed to determine the demand for public facilities included in the APFO, what types of . de~,elopment will be included when determining the demand on public facilities, and the frequency of evaluation. APPROVAL STANDARDS This section explains the substantive standards that form the basis of a concurrency management system. Matrices are included which explain how these standards are measured and implemented in jurisdictions that have adopted APFOs. LOS Standards The cornerstone of a concurrency management system is the adoption of an LOS standard for transportation facilities. The Florida Department of Community Affairs defines LOS as follows: "Level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility. (Florida Administrative Code Sec. 9J- 5.003(45)) As a means of measuring performance, an LOS standard should take into consideration both the capacity of a public facility and the demand currently placed and potentially placed on the public facility from existing development, approved developments, and projected future growth. By comparing the demand to the capacity of a public facility, local governments can determine how much of the capacity of a given facility may be allocated to development within a designated area following project approval. The adopted LOS will govern the amount of growth and development allowed by the APFO and the level of public investment needed to achieve that standard. In addition, the LOS standard will determine the extent to which planned infrastructure capacity, as set forth in the CIP, is attributable to new growth as opposed to existing demand. As a condition of development approval, the costs of the former may be shifted to developers through impact fees and exactions, while the latter may be borne only through general funding sources. For example, if existing roadways are operating at LOS D, and the jurisdiction adopts an LOS standard C for concurrency, the local government cannot require a developer to upgrade the transportation network from D to C. However, if the local government adopts an LOS standard of D, a significant proportion of new capacity will be attributable to new development. The LOS will then provide a basis for adding new capacity to the transportation network and allocating Figure 1. Concurrency Planning Process I Identify Existing Service Levels 1< 1 Identify Capacity Needs · new construction · TSM · multi-modal Identify Existing Deficiences Identify Facilities Needed to ~,ccommodate New Development Identify Funding Sources (general revenues, special assessments, excise taxes, state/federal allocations, public/private ventures, asset management) Identify Funding Sources from New Development (impact fees, mandatory dedications) Prepare CIP · funding sources · schedule of improvements · timing of improvements · priodtization I Identify and Allocate Available Capacity for Development 1 Monitor impact of New and Vested Development The Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (1985) defines LOS as a "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passengers." Traffic engineers rate roadway LOS on a scale ranging from A (free-flow conditions) to F (forced or breakdown flow). The Highway Capacity Manual generally defines LOS in terms of direct operational characteristics (e.g., speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety). Density (passenger cars per lane-mile) and speed are the parameters used by the Board to describe the performance characteristics of roads. At the development permitting stage, it is difficult to link a specific development proposal to a change in speed for a particular roadway. However, traffic engineers can compute the traffic generated by a proposed development by applying the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation manual, distributing estimated trips to affected roadways and comparing the resulting traffic volumes to the design volume of the affected roadways. The result is a volume-to-capacityratio (v/c ratio), which can be translated into an LOS standard. Table 1. Sample LOS Standards Based on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios LOS Highway Capacity ManuaP FDCA~ A 0.33 0.30 B 0.50 0;50 C 0.65 0.75 D 0.80 0.90 E 1.00 1.00 F Highly Variable >1.00 1Highway Capacity Manual standard for multilane highways with design speed of 60 mich. 2Florida Department of Communily AIfaiCs, Mode/Transportation Element, ¢. that capacity to new development. The process of planning for concurrency is summarized in Figure 1. The adopted LOS standard is a policy decision regarding the appropriate equilibrium between private development and public infrastructure. The time required to plan and to construct major public facilities generally exceeds the time required to build private projects, and the construction of additional facilities or capacity is normally intended to serve both existing and future needs (i.e., investment in major public facilities tends to be "lumpy") (Montgomery County Planning Board, Oct. 1977, 1-9). As private development pressures and existing public infrastructure reach equilibrium, a method must be in place to allocate excess capacity and to define existing deficiencies for development permitting purposes. LOS standards are used to define this equilibrium by determining what proportion of population to specified public facilities or infrastructure capacity constitutes the appropriate LOS for an.area. Based on this policy decision, the carrying capacity of existing, planned, and budgeted facilities may be determined for purposes of allocating excess capacity on a temporal basis, and applications for subdivision approval or rezoning may be denied where LOS is exceeded. It is essential that the APFO contain standards that have some relationship or relevance to new growth and development. The LOS standard should not simply recite the demand created by a new development or the capacity of a particular facility. Instead, the standard should relate the demand for the public facility to the capacity of the facility through a ratio, since the ratio will change with new growth and development. For example, an LOS standard defined simply as the volume of traffic that a particular road segment can handle (i.e., the capacity of the segment) is not really a "level of service" standard since that capacity will not change with new growth and development. Similarly, simply referring to the LOS as the volume of traffic generated by a project is not a useful standard for concurrency review purposes. To do so does not result in a comparison of that demand to the capacity of new and existing facilities to support it. Instead, a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is preferable, since the reviewing agency can determine how the ratio changes as new growth occurs and as new facilities are added. (See Table 1.) For concurrency purposes, the following factors should be considered when choosing an LOS: · The relationship of the standard to health, safety, and welfare · Whether the standard is attainable given: available funding sources; the feasibility of construction and right-of-way acquisition; factors beyond the control of the local government (e.g., externally generated traffic); and the period of time over which the standard is to be achieved · Consistency with state standards or standards adopted by other service providers~ · Consumer behavior, including peaking characteristics, whether use is increasing or decreasing, and substitution principles (e.g., substitution of mass transit for automobile use; recycling; or water conservation) Few jurisdictions have developed useful standards for multimodal systems that include public transit. In Florida, most standards embodied in the comprehensive plan relate solely to performance characteristics of the system and are probably not intended to be enforced through the development approval process (e.g., "nine passenger miles per capita," "0.75 percent of all county transportation trips"). For example, in Palm Beach County, Florida, the APFO provides that new development permits shall not cause the county's total mass transit capacity to fall below "that which can accommodate three quarters of one percent (0.75%) of the total County transportation trips." In Dade County, 20 Florida, the LOS standard is based on a policy that public transit services have 60-minute headways and an average route spacing of one mile in areas with resident and employment populations of 10,000 persons per square mile. The LOS standard is calculated on the basis of "traffic analysis districts." Transit service is not required if densities within the traffic analysis district fall below this standard. If the standard is met, the developer must estimate the additional vehicle miles, vehicle hours, and vehicles needed to operate additional transit service. If the service is considered economically feasible, based on transit district ridership forecasts, the ridership projections are applied to the population and employment figures to determine whether increased transit is needed. These standards are difficult to link to proposals for new development. There are several policy and operational issues associated with applying a transit LOS. First, transit facilities are often underutilized and require high densities in surrounding areas to achieve feasible ridership levels, Second, limitations on growth and density in transit corridors may encourage growth to occur first in areas with existing excess roadway capacity. This may have the effect of undermining the overall people-carrying capacity of the transportation system by encouraging the use of transportation facilities (such as roadways) that have lower volume capacities than most public transit facilities.2 Some jurisdictions have developed innovative approaches to multimodal systems by either aggregating LOS standards on an area or corridor basis by adjusting LOS to reflect the availability of transit or by combining roadway and transit or high-occupant-vehicle (HOV) facilities to develop a carrying capacity for the overall system (KJS Associates 1995). Minimum Requirements Assigned by Stage in Development Review Process Once the applicable LOS for purposes of issuing development permits and initiating capital investment and budgeting strategies has been identified, the decision maker must resolve the issue of when' the LOS must be attained in older for development to proceed. In other words, how much "lag time" will the agency tolerate between the construction and occupancy of the development and the availability of the facilities needed to serve the development? The question of when facilities must be available and how they will be guaranteed is referred to by the Florida Department of Community Affairs regulations as the "minimum requirements" for concurrency. Figure 2 illustrates how the consideration of programmed facility capacity may vary according to a project's stage in the approval process. It should also be kept in mind that the minimum requirements issue is distinguishable from the LOS that must be attained when those facilities are available. While the adopted LOS could affect an agency's policy decision regarding the minimum requirements imposed for availability--and vice versa--the standards are distinguishable. The former refers to the capacity and/or quality of the facilities while the latter refers to when the facilities must be available, the stage in the planning process that the facilities must have proceeded to in Figure 2. Measuring Development Progress Against Facility Availability Gestation Period for Public Facilities: Planning Included in CIP T Included in CIP Right-of-Way Acquisition Construction I Construction Complete M Contract Let E : Gestation Period for Private Development: T Building Permit/ I Final Plat Certificate of M Preliminary Plat Final Occupancy E Application for Development Rezoning/ Conditional Use Plan Plan Approval Amendment 21 order to be considered available for purposes of calculating the LOS, and how the facilities will be guaranteed or provided at the time of concurrency evaluation or permit issuance. Minimum requirements depend primarily on two factors: (1) the stage in the development process at which the project is reviewed and (2) the type of facility involved. The first variable relates directly to the "lag time" issue. Early in the development process, for example, it is not essential for purposes of concurrency that public facilities be in existence. The need for public facilities to be in place is greatest when the impacts of the development are imminent--such as at the building permit stage. Planned improvements, however, may be counted when the evaluation occurs early in the development process. Minimum requirements may also vary depending on the type of facility involved. The rationale is that (1) some facilities are more directly related to public health, safety, and welfare than others, and (2) some facilities may require a longer or more unpredictable acquisition and planning process than others. For example, the Florida regulations have historically permitted a three- year lag time for transportation facilities, while the Washington legislation provides that transportation facilities must be in place within six years of permit issuance. IMPACT ANALYSIS The standard of review for concurrency involves a determination of whether there is available facility capacity to serve a proposed development by comparing total facility capacity in the impact area to current demand and projected demand for those facilities. Standard engineering and planning procedures exist for estimating the impacts of a land development project. Evaluation of those impacts within the context of a concurrency management system, however, raises important administrative questions. For example, while it is obvious that the impacts of existing residents and employees and the project subject to review must be considered, the impacts created by approved but unbuilt projects should also be considered. Failing to measure the impacts of approved but unbuilt projects may result in an overestimation of the capacity available to serve new development. However, counting the impacts created by approved but unbuilt projects may underestimate the actual net capacity of a facility (total capacity less amount allocated to existing and approved development). Some proportion of those projects can be expected not to proceed to construction. The procedures for measuring available capacity differ primarily in their treatment of background growth (i.e., the demand created by approved but unbuilt development as well as demand created by other sources, such as traffic generated outside of the jurisdiction and from natural increase). In general terms, the determination of concurrency may take one of the two basic forms, described in the following sections. Alternative 1: Project-Specific Tracking. This alternative requires the reviewing agency to 22 account for all development that is approved under the ordinance as permits are approved. The demand for public facilities that will be created by each approved development will be "debited" against available capacity. Under this system, some permits can be excluded where they occur early in the approval process and where facility capacity has not been reserved. For example, approved preliminary plats may be excluded from the tracking system, since only a small proportion will ever proceed to final approval and construction. On the other hand, a designated percentage of all permits can be counted based upon the proportion of such permits that have historically proceeded to construction and occupancy (e.g., 50 percent of preliminary plats, 75 percent of final plats, and 95 percent of building permits). (See Figure 3 for formula.) Alternative 2: Generalized Determination of Background Growth. Under this system, the permitting agency would account for approved but unbuilt development by estimating the amount of new demand that has been created for public facilities from the jurisdiction's historic and projected growth rates, rather than through a permit-by-permit tracking system. This system is easier to administer but is less accurate, and could create problems where development activity is much higher than normal. (See Figure 4 for the formula.) The difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 discussed above lies in the procedure for tracking that portion of background growth attributable to new development and permitting activity. In order to obtain a true picture of the demand on public facilities and services that will exist when the impacts of a development occur, the agency should develop a mechanism for counting background growth. The alternatives for estimating background growth include: 1) tabulating projects that have proceeded to a certain stage of the approval process and entering the demand created by those developments into the tabulation as those permits are granted (which will require a policy decision by the agency as to which development permits to track, based upon the likelihood of project completion and administrative capabilities); 2) developing an adjusted growth rate on a periodic basis, based upon the rate of permit issuance over a given time period; or 3) tracking the demand for public facilities created externally, including the demand for public facilities created by natural increase. In addition, the procedure for measuring capacity can take several forms. First, the agency could measure the LOS for each public facility as each new development is reviewed. This is the most common approach. Second, the agency could predetermine the "carrying capacity" of the area within its jurisdiction or of Figure 3. Accounting for Capacity for All Approved Development Using Permit Tracking Formula: AC -- (Ce + Cn) ' (D. + Dp + D, + Dfdo) AC = capacity available to serve new development C. = capacity provided by existing facilities at the adopted LOS W C. = capacity of new or planned facilities, as determined by the U minimum requirements E D. = demand created by existing and vested development R D, = demand created by the project under consideration E Dr = demand created by developments with capacity reservations D~do = demand created by other developments with approved permits particular areas within its jurisdiction, based on the LOS standards adopted for each public facility. An areawide growth limit could then be imposed that limits population and employment to that amount that can be supported by existing and planned public facilities. Several counties in Florida have combined the case-by- case approach with the second approach by creating "deferral areas." A "deferral area" is a specifically designated area where facilities are deficient. New development within those areas is either deferred until the facilities needed to rectify the deficiencies are available, or it is subject to special review procedures and minimum requirements. Third, the agency could adopt a "point system" that enables the reviewing agency to balance concurrency review with other public policies and that could include a "weighting system" on the capacity and availability of public facilities for purposes of concurrency review. For example, the agency could assign point scores for the availability of a specified amount of capacity for each public facility and for the achievement of other public policies, such as the provision of affordable housing. Thus, a project that would create a deficiency in one public facility, such as transportation, could receive approval if a compensating point score is achieved for other public facilities or for the provision of other public benefits. Finally, the projected impact of a development project could be reduced by incorporating mitigation measures. The most common example is Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, which may be used to reduce the traffic- generating impacts of a development through ridesharing, transit subsidies, and staggered work hours. If this approach is taken, it is critical that mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms be established to ensure that the measures are actually implemented following project approval. Compliance with the applicable LOS is determined by comparing the projected impacts of a project with the capacity of those facilities affected by the project. Thus, the agency must address two issues. Figure 4. Estimating New Demand for Facilities Based on Historic and Projected Growth 'Rates Formula: AC = (Co + C.) - (Do + D, + Do) AC = capacity available to serve new development Ce = capacity provided by existing facilities at the adopted LOS W H c. = capacity of new or planned facilities, as determined by the minimum requirements E D~ = demand created by existing and vested development R E D, = demand created by the project under consideration Do = demand created by the developments with capacity reservations and approved development orders based upon generalized background growth rate 23 1) The geographic area affected by the project, known as the "impact area" or "evaluation area." All facilities within that area must be available at the designated LOS. Jerry Weitz, an Urban Growth Management Specialist with the Transportation and Growth Management Program of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, identifies the following four approaches to impact area measurement: parcel level, district/zone level plan level, and regional level (Weitz 1996). A parcel-level analysis measures abutting or nearby streets, and involves a fairly simple computational approach for transportation engineers. However, this method tends to understate the true areas of impact created by larger developments. The district- or zone-level approach, employed by Montgomery County, Maryland, uses an areawide LOS or a summation of volumes and capacities ("summing") within a designated policy area (Savage 1993). Some jurisdictions also use "screenlines" across parallel corridor routes coupled with a sophisticated modelling analysis within the zones. The plan approach loads the traffic resulting from the buildout of the plan horizon onto the existing and proposed roadway system, using summing, LOS averages weighted by lane miles or VMT, or performance summaries that specify lane miles or VMT which exceed the LOS. While the regional-level approach is often used for analytical purposes by Metropolitan Planning Organizations, it is rarely employed in an enforceable concurrency management system. The State of Washington requires local LOS to conform to the regional transportation plan prepared by the MPO. 2) Whether facilities will be excluded because of the jurisdictional responsibility for their provision (e.g., state or federal highways). In some states, like Florida, federal or state facilities are sometimes excluded on the grounds that the local government lacks authority to provide or to expand the facilities. The failure of another entity to expand the facility when needed to secure development approval could result in a de facto moratorium, thus creating possible legal challenges and interfering with the agency's timing and sequencing goals. Intergovernmental agreements can alleviate this problem. The agency should also consider whether facilities provided by other governmental entities are to be included in the measurement of capacity. In addition, the agency may wish to vary the LOS standards applicable to each public facility by geographic area, over time, or by type of project. LOS standards may vary by geographic area in order to allow flexibility in the achievement of other public objectives, such as promoting infill development. LOS standards may also vary by geographic area where substantial deficiencies exist or where environmental or other constraints prevent facility expansion (these are sometimes referred to as "backlogged" or "constrained" facilities). For example, the Florida regulations provide that LOS standards may be "tiered" over time in order to avoid the harsh effect of an immediate, high LOS on the growth and development in a jurisdiction. To achieve this result, one standard can be set for purposes of review for some specified period of time subsequent to adoption of the APFO, with a higher standard taking effect at a specified future date. The use of standard procedures for traffic impact analysis has become fairly common in jurisdictions with APFOs. These procedures are a prime example of the application of impact areas and impact evaluation principles discussed in the previous sections. Because roadways are a networked, open-ended facility; it is essential to establish clear criteria for the establishment of impact areas. Traffic impact analyses are generally required of the applicant for development approval as a part of the application process. Flexible provisions should be included in order to account for factors beyond the control of the developer and the agency, such as regional pass-through traffic. Special provisions may be included for the implementation of measures that mitigate traffic generation, such as mixed uses and TDM. If the agency does not wish to undertake a full- blown review for all projects, a compliance threshold should be established. For roads, the ordinance should indicate whether intersections, or links, or both, should be evaluated. ALLOCATING CAPACITY Once available transportation capacity has been determined, a procedure might be devised for allocating such capacity to competing development proposals. Most concurrency management ordinances fail to address this issue. In general capacity is allocated on a first-come, first-served basis as development applications are processed. However, where the threshold of available capacity is constricted by new development, the agency might wisl~ to consider allocating capacity only to projects that achieve important goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan or that should be granted preferential treatment for hardship or other reasons (Chinn and Garvin 1992). The first alternative for allocating capacity would be the use of a set aside. Under this system, a percentage of available capacity is reserved for certain types or categories of development. For example, in Montgomery County, Maryland, projects defined as affordable housing may be approved where the available capacity threshold in the applicable impact area has been exceeded, provided, however, that such projects must be reviewed for their impacts on localized facilities (nearby intersections and roadway links). A similar policy is authorized by New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing, which administers that state's housing policies for local governments. In addition, Montgomery County's program allocates capacity to residential and nonresidential projects within each impact area in such a manner as to maintain a favorable ratio between jobs and housing. This is accomplished by computing a separate development threshold within each area for employment and housing. A second alternative would be a point system that enables the reviewing agency to balance concurrency review with other public policies and that could include a "weighting system" for determining the capacity and availability of public facilities for purposes of 24 concurrency review. For example, the agency could assign point scores for the availability of a specified amount of capacity for each public facility and/or for the achievement of other public policies, such as the provision of affordable housing. Thus, a project that would create a deficiency in one public facility, such as transportation, could receive approval if a compensating point score is achieved for other public facilities and/or for the provision of other public benefits. Care must be taken that the minimum requirements set forth in the regulations are not violated and that the evaluation criteria are specifically delineated. A point system or set-aside can be tailored in a nearly infinite number of ways. Development orders can be "batched' during an annual allocation process and ranked under the point system, with development orders issued only to those projects earning the highest scores. The two alternatives could also be combined. A certain proportion of available capacity could be set aside for those projects earning the highest ranking under a point system. The alternative methodologies for ranking and allocating projects are limited only by the agency's imagination. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCEDURES Provisions should be included in the ordinance to inform applicants for development approval and the reviewing agencies of the procedures and scope of the concurrency provisions. These provisions are discussed in the following paragraphs. Defining When to Test and Enforce Concurrency The ordinance must make clear the stage in the development review process at which concurrency is tested and the stage in the development review process at which concurrency is enforced. The stage at which adequacy is tested refers to any stage in the development process at which the current and projected capacity of public facilities is compared to the current and projected demand for public facilities. This evaluation may occur more than once during the entire development review process. The evaluation need not show that facilities are currently adeqUate to serve the development so long as facilities will be adequate when the impacts of the development occur. The stage in the development process at which concurrency is enforced refers to the stage at which the adequacy evaluation must indicate that facilities are adequate to serve the development in order for the permit to be approved or issued. For example, a nonbinding adequacy review may occur at the preliminary plat stage, subject to the condition that facilities will be adequate at the final plat and building permit stage. Under that type of review process, a preliminary plat could be issued even if the adequacy evaluation indicates that facilities are not currently adequate to accommodate the impacts of the development. However, the applicant would not receive final plat approval or building permit issuance until a later evaluation indicates that facilities are adequate to accommodate the development. Concurrency evaluation and enforcement may occur at the same stage in the development approval process. (See the discussion of "Minimum Requirements Assigned by Stage in Development Review Process," above.) For example, the evaluation and enforcement of concurrency could be deferred to the building permit stage. This approach provides the advantage of administrative convenience, yet may offer little certainty in the development approval process. Conversely, concurrency could be tested and enforced at the preliminary plat stage. This approach provides certainty to subdividers who pass the concurrency test. However, it could result in the consumption of significant amounts of capacity by speculative plats that may never proceed to final approval. As an alternative, the agency may test for concurrency at a relatively early stage in the develop- ment approval process, while enforcing the concurrency standards at the final approval stage. For example, the adequacy evaluation could be made at the preliminary plat stage. The agency would then require the developer to demonstrate that facilities are "adequate," as demon- strated at the preliminary plat stage, in order for the developer to receive a final plat and/or building permit. Testing for the adequacy of public facilities may occur prior to the final development approval stage in order to provide greater certainty for developers and to deny approval or impose conditions before substantial investments have been made. The agency should specify whether approval is binding and set a time limit by which subsequent approvals must be secured or by which construction must proceed in order to prevent the hoarding of capacity. Figure 5 illustrates the advan- tages and disadvantages of enforcing concurrency at an early stage in the development process. Designating Responsibility for Review The local government should dearly designate which agency is responsible for conducting the concurrency review and the procedure for seeking approval. Gener- ally, the planning staff assumes responsibility for concurrency review and permit issuance. However, the agency may also wish to include those departments with primary responsibility for the mandated facilities. The specific administrative and technical methodology for conducting concurrency review should be set forth in the ordinance and/or in a procedural manual. Some jurisdic- tions use a procedural manual to explain the technical aspects of concurrency review, including both technical and procedural requirements, in layman's terms. Exemptions and Waivers Exemptions may be considered for purposes of administrative efficiency where projects have minimal effect on public facilities. However, care must be taken to ensure that exemptions do not result in a degradation of LOS for public facilities. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that building permits are often required for construction activities that do not affect public facilities, such as signs and accessory structures. In addition, exemptions may also be used to encourage development activities that promote other public benefits, although the criteria or categorization of such projects should be carefully delineated and supported by planning data. 25 ~:~: Figure 5.:$ta'ge inthe DeVelopment prOcesS at which TeSt f°r concur~e~cylS Enf0re~d ':': :. Option Advantages Disadvantages Comments Amount of committed Time limits may be imposed capacity clearly delineated, to prevent hoarding. providing greater assurance Developers may be required for developers and a clearer Potential for hoarding of to prepay impact fees or to Preliminary Plat (early) basis upon which to project capacity provide other assurances in future demand for public facilities Need to monitor commi(ted order to reserve capacity. capacity There is a stronger equity Enhances ability to put argument for including conditions on development planned improvements in proposals adequacy evaluation. Concurrency can be enforced Closer relationship between at a late stage in the process facility construction and while offering developers a Final Plat, Final Development development impacts Greater financial risk/less nonbinding adequacy review Plan, or Buidling Permit Administrative convenience; predictability for developers early in the development process. Developers could eliminates need to monitor then "reserve" capacity by committed capacity providing the requisite assurances. The effect of the evaluation-- whether to provide a Facilitates monitoring of "preview" of available Enforcement at more than relationship between facility Greater administrative over- capacity at a later stage in the one stage capacity and capacity sight needed process or as a requirement committed to development for permit issuance--should be established clearly in the ordinance. The agency might also consider the use of waivers for projects that have minimal impact on public facilities. Unlike an exemption, to which the landowner is entitled if its project meets the criteria set forth in the ordinance, a waiver requires administrative action. If waivers are used, the criteria for the waiver should be set forth with particularity, and the justification for the waiver should be supported by planning data. If either waivers or exemptions are used, the agency should carefully monitor those projects using an exemption or waiver in order to assess their cumulative impact on public facilities. ENFORCEMENT It is essential that the ordinance clearly set forth what happens when facilities are not adequate at the time of evaluation. If capacity is found inadequate, the agency has the following options: · Deny approval · Condition approval on the adequacy of public facilities at the time at which final approval is received · Impose phasing conditions so that development is timed and sequenced to occur with the availability of planned facilities. When facilities are found adequate before a final development order is issued, it must be determined whether this finding "reserves" that capacity for the development or whether a new finding must be secured at a later stage in the development approval process. If planned facilities are included in the earlier finding, the ordinance must specify whether the reservation remains valid in the event that the facilities do not proceed to construction. In addition, reservations of capacity must be integrated with the development monitoring proce- dures in order to prevent the overallocation of capacity. Procedures also should be developed to prevent the "hoarding" of capacity by approved but unbuilt projects. Some concurrency ordinances allow developers to construct the necessary facilities and services needed to reach the adopted LOS where the development would otherwise be delayed or denied. If such a provision results in the construction of facilities beyond those required by the development, it must be determined whether the developer will receive reimbursement for the excess capacity provided and whether the excess capacity may be allocated to other projects. Thus, where facilities are currently operating below the adopted LOS, the local government has five options: 1. For deficient roadways, the agency may allow development to proceed if it will not cause the 26 existing LOS to be degraded. This requirement would be satisfied by the construction of facilities or payment of an in-lieu fee by a developer sufficient to accommodate the full impacts of the development. 2. The agency could require the denial of development approval or the deferral of development approval until the facilities are operating at the adopted LOS. Thus, development would be delayed until the necessary : improvements are scheduled in the CIP. In addition, no mechanism would be created to allow a developer to correct the roadway deficiency so that the development could proceed at an earlier date than anticipated in the CIP. This approach could delay development for indefinite periods of time, thereby subjecting the agency to takings liability. 3. The agency could deny or defer development, as discussed above, but add a provision allowing the developer to construct the facilities necessary to meet the adopted LOS standard. This is known as the "mitigation" or "abatement" of existing deficiencies. If the developer provides facilities in addition to those made necessary by the impacts created by the development proposed, is the developer entitled to reimbursement? The courts have not resolved this issue. The theory for not providing reimbursement is that the developer has voluntarily corrected the deficiencies, since the developer could have deferred construction pending public construction of the facilities as scheduled in the CIP. 4. The agency could adopt a denial or deferral procedure with a provision for mitigation or abatement, as discussed above. However, reimbursement would be provided according to a procedure adopted in the ordinance. 5. Finally, a monitoring system should be devised in order to determine the amount of capacity for each facility, the amount of capacity absorbed by existing development, and the amount of capacity that will be absorbed by approved but unbuilt projects. The critical decisions in establishing a development monitoring system include: · Deciding which permits to monitor. Monitoring only building permits could underestimate potential demand on the jurisdiction's public facilities and services, since development permits occurring earlier in the approval process--such as subdivision plats and conditional use permits-- will have already been issued. Conversely, monitoring all subdivision plats, conditional use permits, and building permits issued will overstate demand, since only a fraction of those permits issued early in the approval process will proceed to construction. A better approach is to count all permits approved late in the approval process (e.g., building permits and certificates of occupancy), and only that fraction of permits occurring earlier in the process that historically proceed to construction. This will provide a fairly accurate estimate of potential demand for public facilities and services although the vagaries of the real estate market prohibit pinpoint accuracy. · Deciding how often to produce monitoring reports. Monitoring reports are generally employed to estimate available capacity for each facility and to provide a basis for the budgeting, scheduling, and pri0ritizjng of capital facilities. Some jurisdictions (e.g., Monroe County, Florida, and Montgomery County, Maryland) provide monitoring reports on an annual basis. If staffing is sufficient, monitoring reports could be performed on a more frequent basis. As an alternative, monitoring could occur when the CIP is updated. · Deciding which agency will be responsible for monitoring. Responsible agencies may include the planning staff, departments with jurisdictional responsibility for public facilities, or both, under the supervision of a designated department head. RESERVATION OF CAPACITY When a determination of concurrency is made at one stage of the development approval process, intervening development approvals or adjustments in the background growth rate could absorb the remaining available capacity. Consequently, if the developer proceeds to a stage in the development approval process, capacity might not be available. For example, assume that developer A has submitted a preliminary plat for the construction of 10 single-family dwelling units (DUs). If the affected roadways can accommodate 200 average daily trips (ADTs), the developer would receive a certificate of concurrency since the development consumes only half of all available capacity (10 DUs X 10 trips per day = 100 ADTs). However, subsequent to the preliminary plat approval, assume that final plats are approved for two additional 10-dwelling unit subdivisions within the same impact area (this analysis assumes that the monitoring program does not count approved preliminary plats). These two developments would consume all the capacity available within the applicable impact area. Therefore, there would be no favorable concurrency determination at the final plat stage of approval unless the developer agrees to defer building permits Or to provide the facilities necessary to avoid a degradation in the applicable LOS: If the agency determines that facilities are available at the adopted LOS standards at a particular stage of the development approval process, the determination should indicate whether capacity is reserved for subsequent stages of the approval process. In order to address this issue, some jurisdictions have developed "capacity reservation" policies to ensure that a determination of concurrency remains valid through successive stages of the development approval process (i.e., the available facility capacity is set aside for that project). If capacity is "reserved," facility capacity is "debited" against the capacity remaining for subsequent development approvals, and the developer receives assurance that financial commitments made at one stage of the approval process will not be jeopardized by a finding that 27 adequate facilities do not exist at a subsequent stage of the approval process. The capacity reservation policy may affect the viability and, consequently, the level of development within the jurisdiction. From the individual developer's perspective, the most favorable policy tests concurrency early in the process and automatically reserves capacity throughout the approval process. However, this practice may not be favorable to the development industry in the aggregate nor the agency's planning process. Under this procedure, developers who are first in line for initial approval could hoard capacity for speculative projects that may never proceed to construction. In addition, staff would be required to track committed capacity for initial development orders, such as preliminary plats, in order to ensure that it is not reallocated. This could create a waste of county resources with respect to the evaluation of projects that may never proceed to construction and occupancy. The strictest policy requires a new evaluation of concurrency at each step of the approval process, without a capacity reservation policy. This would avoid some administrative costs associated with granting and tracking the reservation of capacity but may also be opposed by developers and landowners. For example, the agency could test concurrency at the preliminary plat, final plat, and building permit stages of approval, while monitoring only building permits issued. Therefore, a developer could meet the concurrency test at preliminary plat but not at the building permit stage due to intervening building permit approvals. This presents a risky scenario for developers but a Somewhat less burdensome permit-tracking procedure for staff. The possibility of unanticipated delays late in the approval process increases the risk factor associated with development, which inhibits project financing and can be capitalized into higher home prices. Some jurisdictions have adopted a policy that falls within one of these two extremes by reserving capacity only at an intermediate stage of the approval process (e.g., at the final plat stage or at final conditional use approval). However, if a developer has demonstrated a financial commitment to proceed to construction early in the approval process through the payment of impact fees or other commitments to capacity, the concurrency provisions should not present an obstacle at subsequent stages of the approval process. Conversely, developers who have proceeded to the final permitting stage, but who cannot proceed to construction, should have their capacity reallocated in order to allow subsequent applications to proceed. Each alternative for testing concurrency and reserving capacity at various stages of the approval process has its advantages and disadvantages. (See Figure 6.) Capacity may be reserved automatically or upon the payment of an appropriate fee. The jurisdiction may also use a combination of automatic reservation or fee polices. For example, the agency may want to reserve capacity automatically for a specified period of time and extend the capacity reservation for an additional period of time upon the payment of an appropriate fee. However, requiring the payment of an impact fee, construction of facilities, or some other commitment prior to reserving capacity (rather than reserving capacity automatically) ensures that (1) only those developers committed to following through with construction will be allocated capacity, and (2) that funding will be available to provide the necessary facilities at that point in the development process at which the impacts of the development occur. The ordinance may set forth a fixed time limit for · reserved capacity, criteria by which abandonment may be determined, and provisions for reserving capacity in a development agreement. However, for developments in the approval pipeline, the period of time for which capacity is reserved could vary by its stage in the approval process. For example, the agency may wish to reserve capacity for the period of time needed to apply for the next permit in the approval process, with prepayment of impact fees needed to reserve capacity early in the process. RELATED LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES Vested Rights The effect of the concurrency requirements on property owners that have received some form of development approval, but who have not completed the approval process, is often the most hotly debated topic during the adoption of an APFO. For most land development regulations, there are many methods for dealing with vested rights, including leaving the entire issue to the courts, creating an administrative process for determining vested rights claims, grandfather!ng certain classes of development based upon how far they have proceeded through the process, or a combination of the above (Carlisle and White 1993). In addition, the agency may choose to "divest" graffdfathered projects after a period of years if no construction has commenced, with the underlying theory being that the vested rights acquired, if not used for a long period of time, are deemed abandoned. Many jurisdictions have adopted vested rights determination (VRD) procedures tailored specifically to concurrency regulations. The VRD procedure allows the decision maker to determine whether rights have vested and, if so, the scope of those rights. Some courts have ruled that vested rights as to the use, density, and configuration of development do not apply to different types of regulatory requirements, such as development timing or the payment of impact fees? If rights have vested, the procedure allows the local government to place a time limit on construction ("use it or lose it" requirements) in order to avoid the indefinite consump- tion of capacity by vested projects. In addition, some courts have upheld time limits on applications for vested rights or nonconforming use determinations? This allows the agency to track the demand for trans- portation capacity anticipated by vested developments. The issue of divestment is politically controversial and raises some tough questions of constitutionality and statutory authority. While the legality of such a procedure has not been litigated in the concurrency context, some courts have allowed local governments to amortize nonconforming uses, which can be viewed as a form of "divestment" of vested rights. Amortization , Figure 6. Alternatives for Testing Concurrency and Reserving CaPacity Stage at which Stage at Method for Concurrency which Capacity for Reserving Is Tested* Is Reserved Capacity Advantages/Disadvantages Maximizes certainty in the approval process, at least for Early Automatic those projects entering the process while capacity is still available. However, capacity may be hoarded bY speculative developments. Reduces possibility of speculative hoarding; however, more capacity is reserved for development that may Early Reservation fee never proceed to construction. The early payment of fees allows jurisdiction to provide those facilities needed for development to proceed. Developments that have proceeded to this stage of the approval process are probably not speculative. However, reservation fees may be needed to fund facilities needed Early Late Automatic for development to proceed. Conversely, the late payment of fees enhances the developer's financial position, which reduces development costs. Reserving capacity late in the approval process provides less certainty for developers, since unanticipated delays may be experienced after funds have been committed to secure early development approvals. However, late reservations minimize the amount of staff time and resources needed for permit tracking and also minimize Late Reservation fee the possibility of lengthy hoarding of capacity that might otherwise be allocated to 'other developments. Requiring a reservation fee provides funding needed for develop- ment to proceed, although not in as timely a fashion as early payment of reservation fees. ' Automatic Testing concurrency and reserving capacity late in the approval process provides the least amount of certainty Intermediate** Intermediate for developers. This can be minimized somewhat by or late reserving capacity even without requiring the payment of Reservation fee reservation fees. However, money may still be needed to provide necessary facilities in a timely manner. Notes: * Stages in the approval process include: Early stages in the approval process = rezoning, preliminary plat, or application for conditional use approval Intermediate stages of approval process = final plat, final development plan approval (conditional use permit), certificate of compliance Late stages of approval process = building permit or certificate of occupancy ** Permits must be tested at early stages also if a specific plan of development is presented does not deprive a landowner of all use of the property, but requires the property owner to demolish existing uses after a reasonable period of time and to replace them with a legally conforming use. By comparison, the application of an APFO to a property owner with vested rights does not deprive the owner of the right to build but requires the owner to submit to concurrency review. Unlike amortization, the requirement to submit to concurrency review over a period of time does not mandate the destruction of a building or other land use.. Therefore, application of a concurrency requirement should have a minimal effect on a landowner's investment-backed expectations. Urban Sprawl and Transportation Concurrency Management Areas It is commonly believed that, where LOS standards are deficient or stringent, concurrency policies force development pressures outside of the enforcing jurisdiction because developers will seek approval in 29 areas in which traffic capacity is adequate. Accordingly, critics argue that transportation concurrency has the effect of increasing trip lengths and exacerbating the congestion problem that the concurrency standard was intended to resolve. Further, critics argue that concurrency has the effect of inducing urban sprawl and hindering the development or redevelopment of urban areas. Often, this argument is generally directed toward moratoria rather than APFOs (Cervero 1986; "Traffic-Linked Growth Control" 1989)~ The author is aware of no empirical research that bears out these concerns. Furthermore, it is not clear that concurrency policies alone will completely alter the site location decisions of many developers. The presence of traffic is an indicator of the relative attractiveness of the jurisdiction for real estate development. Numerous site location decisions are based on the presence of increased traffic demands, rendering a site more marketable. For a developer to simply relocate as a result of concurrency policies would often mean that the developer has opted to trade the marketability of a tract of land for the right to build sooner. On the other hand, given the length of time it takes to secure financing and other governmental approvals, a developer might use the delay to his or her advantage. Timing and sequencing mechanisms are no more restrictive than the traditional land-use controls normally used to respond to traffic congestion. In fact, timing and sequencing mechanisms can--and often are coupled with less restrictive underlying zoning schemes, as evidenced by numerous development agreements calling for the phasing of development over time. Moreover, outlying jurisdictions may not have the public facilities and services or complementary businesses needed to render the project buildable or marketable. To the extent that these concerns are valid, they can be remedied by varying the LOS standards applied by the jurisdiction. First, lower LOS standards may be applied to areas close to the urban core, where traffic congestion is heaviest during the peak hour. This approach is realistic, consistent with other comprehensive planning goals in most jurisdictions, and reflective of consumer expectations. After all, concurrency is not designed to eliminate congestion but to regulate it. Second, separate growth ceilings may be calculated for employment and housing in order to minimize the effect of decentralized development on trip lengths and to try to maintain a balance between jobs and housing. Both of these approaches are used by Montgomery County, Maryland. (See Chapter 4.) Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) are a framework for using concurrency management in a manner conducive to mass transit, economic development, and a desirable urban form. A TCMA is a discrete, functional area in which regulatory incentives and increased capital investment are applied through the concurrency management system. A TCMA may be used for the following purposes: · Limiting sprawl development and concentrating important economic development opportunities · Revitalizing built-up areas · Protecting natural resources · Providing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses The TCMA approach has been adopted by the Florida legislature. (See Chapter 4.) Mechanisms for structuring a TCMA include capacity allocations, exemptions, and regulatory incentives. For example, capacity could be allocated to designated nodes and centers. Identification of service levels and regional transportation improvements may be used to establish a transportation carmding capacity, which is then allocated to centers or TCMAs. The carrying capacity would establish a ceiling on development. This would provide a basis for the allocation of capacity to centers/TCMAs and, because the capacity measure is regional, would also require that capacity used in centers be debited from the outlying areas. This would ensure that (1) capacity for regional centers is accorded a priority for use by developers, and (2) capacity is taken away from areas where development is assigned a low priority by the public sector, thereby ensuring that the goals and objectives of development in the regional centers are not thwarted by competition from outlying areas. Capacity in TCMAs could be allocated on a first- come, first-served basis or be subject to certain allocation criteria. The growth limit could apply only to outlying areas. In essence, capacity is allocated to TCMAs or growth centers solely by the free market--a concept acceptable to the business community. However, the total growth limit is (theoretically) not exceeded, since it is assumed that most of the trips generated in TCMAs will be transit oriented. As an alternative, TCMAs or growth centers could be exempt from the system. The capacity not "used" by the exemption areas is reallocated to other centers. This places a ceiling on growth in the other TCMAs or growth centers; however, the ceiling would be higher than in the first example. The TCMA approach relies on a flexible interpretation of concurrency requirements. The system may employ a two-tiered LOS standard. Instead of mandating compliance with a uniform LOS for every node, intersection, and link of the transportation system, the tiered system focuses on the transportation system as an entire network. An areawide LOS may be established, which provides a basis for the allocation of capacity, coupled with a localized evaluation or incentive system for particular areas. Rural service levels can be employed in outlying areas to prevent sprawl. Other zoning and land-use controls may be used to complement the urban form promoted by the TCMA. Development in TCMAs may use innovative and flexible land-use techniques, such as bonus/incentive zoning, cluster development, planned unit development, transfers of development rights, and others. Densities in the range of 9-12 residential dwelling units per acre in designated growth centers can provide opportunities for the use of transit facilities without jeopardizing the character of established neighborhoods. Neotraditional development and pedestrian pockets involve the use of attractive, single-family neighborhoods arranged in a traditional, grid street pattern clustered in proximity to transit facilities. These developments provide opportunities for pedestrian access to retail, office, and commercial facilities while blending into existing single-family neighborhood areas. Duplexes and townhouses Can be located in proximity to transit facilities to provide housing opportunities to potential transit users. Streamlined permit processing and master environmental impact statements may be used to expedite approval for qualifying developments. Development agreements may be used to "reserve" an allocation of transportation/transit system capacity. A significant body of literature is now available to demonstrate how village and neotraditional design principles may be incorporated into zoning standards and project design (Calthorpe 1993; Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1991; Katz 1994; Kelbaugh 1989; Mohney and Easterling 1991; Sutro 1991; Unwin 1909). CIP priority should be given to facilities in TCMAs. State bonding subsidies, such as general obligation bond backing for transit bonds, could be used to reduce interest rates and the tax burdens associated with financing transportation systems. TCMAs could be given preferential allocation of federal monies under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enabling Act (ISTEA). TCMAs should be geographically compact in order to focus development and to preserve the integrity and the carrying capacity of the transportation/transit system. Obviously, overuse has the potential of swallowing the concurrency system and minimizing the incentive for developers to build in the urban core. Deficiencies In many jurisdictions, concurrency is not applied until the transportation network is over capacity; that is, it is applied in response to overcrowded roads and intersections. However, significant reductions in congestion cannot be achieved overnight. The APFO should be based on a realistic LOS that is attainable over a specified period of time. Implementing an APFO involves a comprehensive planning process that recognizes that LOS deficiencies cannot be resolved by simply stopping growth or adding capacity. The two must be brought into sync over time. Because the presence and degree of deficiencies are functions of how LOS is defined, some jurisdictions have taken a flexible approach to LOS that establishes long-term goals that account for the complexity of resolving congestion. In Florida, the original state concurrency regulations authorized a two-tiered LOS whereby a lower LOS would apply for purposes of development permitting, with the desired LOS becoming effective at date certain identified in the comprehensive plan. Florida has now adopted a procedure for a "long-term transportation concurrency management system," which is described in greater detail in Chapter 4. Housing Critics of concurrency often argue that the timing and sequencing mechanisms will drive up the cost of housing. In fact, however, most local governments already use traffic congestion concerns to deny or to delay proposed developments on an ad-hoc basis. By contrast, concurrency creates an entire planning process for providing the facilities needed to serve new housing and provides a numerical basis for evaluating development proposals. Accordingly, while the policies could have strict consequences, many developers report that the rules of the game are more definite and certain under a concurrency management system than under traditional zoning. Some jurisdictions, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, (see Chapter 4) use housing as a key ingredi- ent in the congestion equation. One of the primary reasons for urban decentralization has been the pres- ence of affordable housing on the urban fringe due to the abundance of vacant, low-cost land. In Southern California, this situation has forced many commuters to travel for up to two hours for home-to-work trips (Fulton 1990). The lack of affordable housing is a major reason for the jobs-housing imbalance irt many urban areas. Housing affordability can be promoted through adequate public facilities policies by creating exemp- tions or preferential treatment for qualified affordable housing projects ("Development Fees" 1990). A recent study of California cities indicates that there is no relationship between housing prices in communities with growth management programs and those without growth management programs (Glickfield and Levine 1992, 53-56). Because the concurrency management system may limit the timing and amount of housing construction, it may adversely affect affordable housing objectives by limiting the supply of housing (thus effectuating a general increase in housing prices~ and by directly deferring the construction of housing for low- or very- low-income persons. Several jurisdictions have adopted specific measures to address this issue. The Florida Department of Community Affairs has indicated that the following alternatives may be pursued in order to soften any impact of the concurrency management system on the construction of affordable housing, so long as the minimum requirements in the state regulations are satisfied: · Reservation of capacity for affordable housing projects · Targeting infrastructure for areas with sites designated for affordable housing · Adoption of different concurrency standards for affordable housing · Refund of fees that exceed the reasonable cost of administering the APFO (Florida Department of Community Affairs 1990) Montgomery County, Maryland, and the State of New Jersey have also implemented capacity allocation or set- aside policies to address housing issues (see discussion under "Allocating Capacity," above). 31 Chapter 4. Case Studies MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND The use of carrying capacity as a foundation upon which to build an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) was pioneered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery County, which enjoys a tradition of comprehensive planning, developed a "wedges" and "corridors" plan to focus growth around major transportation corridors during the 1960s (Montgomery County Planning Board, Oct. 1974, 48; D. Godschalk et al. 1979, 310), a concept which has since become widely accepted among planning professionals (Freilich and Chinn 1987). The concept of development timing received judicial support in an early decision upholding a staged growth plan. In Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 254 Md. 59, 254 A.2d 700 (1969), a downzoning on the fringe of a new town to promote a staged growth pattern was upheld against constitutional and arbitrary administration challenges. Upholding the rezoning, the court stated: The Olney Plan, in conformity with the General Plan, was a carefully thought out, carefully implemented policy of preserving a portion of Montgomery County, suitable (by reason of its geographical setting and natural amenities which encouraged the planned growth concept) for preservation as a self-identifiable community with its own hospitals, schools, community area, and theater as a relatively low-density area which would break and hold back the spreading urban intrusion into the County. The Plan sought to encourage growth along the interstate... rather than the... Watershed, thereby protecting the basin from pollution.., the Olney area roads, sewers, school, and fire and police protection will not presently support urban or intense development, and to install the additional facilities that would be necessary to support a changed pattern would place a burden on the taxpayers that the County legislative body thinks is unwarranted and beyond its present reasonable capability. To implement its growth management policies, an APFO was adopted in 1973, patterned loosely after the Ramapo model. The APFO provided for an "adequacy" review for transportation, water/sewer, schools, and police/health clinics at the preliminary plat stage. The adequacy review takes into account approved but unbuilt projects, and also uses a two- tiered "policy area review" and "local area review" to limit the geographic service areas where LOS standards must be satisfied. "Staging ceilings" for population and employment growth are established throughout transportation policy areas, based on areawide LOS standards (Montgomery County Planning Board 1989, 45; Montgomery County Planning Board 1990, 57). Where the staging ceiling is exceeded, applications for preliminary plat approval are denied. Local area review is triggered when subdivisions generating more than 50 peak-hour automobile trips are either (1) proposed when total development in the policy area is within 5 percent of the staging ceiling or (2) located near a congested area. If local area review is triggered, projects may be approved only where peak- hour levels of service would be maintained, taking into account mass transit and developer improvements. The ordinance assigns a lower LOS to areas where transit is available, on the theory that: (1) where roadways become congested, travelers may shift to mass transit or forgo certain trips, reducing demand on the roadway system; or (2) where mass transit is available, the capacity of the roadway may be increased in the face of population growth, without a corresponding reduction of LOS. The APFO is monitored annually through the adoption of an "annual growth policy" in which various political subdivisions of the county interested in its enforcement review the staging ceilings and suggest methods for administrative reform.~ Montgomery County, Maryland, combines transportation demand management (TDM) with its development staging approach in certain areas. For example, in the Silver Spring redevelopment area, the county has established a special staging ceiling, relying on TDM measures to facilitate its commuting goals within the area. All new development and employers exceeding 25 employees are required to submit a traffic mitigation plan. Transportation system management (TSM) measures include alternative work-hour programs (including compressed work weeks, staggered work hours, and flexible work hours), car pools, van pools, subsidized transit passes, preferential parking, and peak-hour parking charges. An advisory 33 The use of carrying capacity as a foundation upon which to build an APFO was pioneered by Montgomery County, Maryland. committee, whose voting members consist entirely of businesses, is appointed to administer the program. The program is combined with incentives in the form of subsidized alternatives to auto travel, such as transit and bus passes and taxi vouchers, and preferential treatment for car poolers/van poolers. No successful legal challenges have been raised against the APFO. The state's highest court rejected a challenge to the county's differential LOS standards based on takings, due process, and equal protection theories in the Schneider decision (discussed in Chapter 2). Application of the local area review was sustained in an unpublished opinion (Davidson 1986). An earlier decision had invalidated the denial of a preliminary plat under Prince George's County's APFO.2 While the court noted that the ordinance "may have an inherent deficiency which the [Ratnapo] court would have frowned upon," the court refused to invalidate the ordinance, basing its decision on the lack of evidence that school facilities would be overburdened by the applicant's project. FLORIDA Florida's concurrency requirement, adopted as a component of its 1985 statewide planning legislation, forbids the issuance of a development permit by a local government where the impacts of the development permitted would cause a reduction in adopted LOS standards. Under Florida's horizontally and vertically integrated state planning legislation, local governments are required to prepare a comprehensive plan with a capital improvements element, including "standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service.''3 The state act requires the adoption of "land development regulations" to implement the comprehensive plan, including: concurrency regulations that provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in the capital improvements element.., and are available when needed for the development, or that development orders and permits are conditioned on the availability of these public facilities and services necessary to serve the proposed development. Not later than one year after its due date [for the submission of its comprehensive plan for review by state land planning agency], a local government shall not issue a development order or permit which results in a reduction in the level of service for the affected public facilities below the level of services provided in the comprehensive plan of the local government. (Sec. 163.3202(2)(g)) A Model Capital Improvements Element promulgated by the Department of Community Affairs, 34 which administers the act, suggests the adoption of countywide APFOs as a mechanism to implement the concurrency requirement (Department of Community Affairs 1987, 24). The concurrency requirement was further refined by 1986 amendments to the state planning legislation: It is the intent of the Legislature that public facilities and services needed to support development shall be available concurrent with the impacts of such development. In meeting this intent, public facility and service availability shall be deemed sufficient if the public facilities and services for a development are phased, or the development is phased, so that the public facilities and those related services which are deemed necessary by the local government to operate the facilities necessitated by that development, are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. (Sec. 3177(10)(h)) The Department of Community Affairs has adopted a "reasonable" interpretation of this requirement to avoid its potentially burdensome effect on the development industry. In a letter from the Chairman of the Department to a state senator, the agency's position is that the concurrency requirement is satisfied where the relevant facilities are in place, under construction, or budgeted, or where a binding construction contract has been entered into for the construction of the facilities (Taub 1988, 5,8). As in Montgomery County, the establishment of LOS standards is recognized as a policy decision that will affect the timing of development.. The Department of Community Affairs defines "level of service" as an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. LOS indicates the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility.4 An LOS standard must be adopted for each public facility to be addressed in the comprehensive plan, including transportation, sewer, drainage, potable water systems, education, and recreation. Standards for concurrency purposes are limited to those facilities over which local government has control or for which an LOS has been coordinated with another agency. In addition, the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan must distinguish between existing deficiencies and future needs. Under Florida's horizontally and verti- cally integrated state planning legislation, local governments are required to prepare a com- prehensive plan with a capital improvements element, including "standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service.' The Florida legislature significantly revised the transportation concurrency requirements in 1993. The legislation now allows a lag time for the availability of transportation facilities of three years from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and has incorporated the transportation concurrency management area (TCMA) concept. (See Chapter 3.) Finding that concurrency may sometimes discourage urban infill development and redevelopment, Florida authorizes exemptions from transportation concurrency if a project is otherwise consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the project either promotes public transportation or is located within a designated urban infill development, urban redevelopment, or downtown revitalization area in the comprehensive plan. Projects creating special part-time demands in these areas (less than 200 scheduled annual events or demand that does not affect the 100 highest traffic-volume hours) may be exempted from concurrency. "Downtown revitalization" means the "physical and economic renewal of a central business district" and includes downtown development and redevelopment. "Urban redevelopment" includes the demolition and reconstruction or substantial renovation of existing buildings or infrastructure within urban infill areas or existing urban service areas. "Urban infill' includes the development of vacant parcels in built- up areas where public facilities, such as sewer, roads, schools, and recreation, are already in place and the average residential density is at least five dwelling units per acre, the average nonresidential intensity is at 1.0 FAR, and vacant, development land does not constitute more than 10 percent of the area. One or more TCMAs may be designated to promote infill development and redevelopment. The TCMA must be a "compact geographic area within existing network of roads where multiple, viable alternative 'travel paths or modes are available for common trips." An areawide LOS may be used, based upon an analysis that justifies the LOS, describes how infill or redevelopment will be promoted, and how mobility will be accomplished within the TCMA. To account for the impacts of redevelopment within an existing urban service area, 110 percent of the actual impact of previously existing development must be reserved for the redevelopment. Redevelopment that requires less than 110 percent of the previously existing capacity cannot be prohibited due to a reduction in the adopted LOS. However, the local government may assess fees or account for the impacts within the concurrency management system (CMS) and CIP. For example, assume that total existing development in the redevelopment area generates 20,000 trips and assume further that this results in LOS C. The jurisdiction has adopted LOS D for the area. An additional 22,000 (110% of 20,000) trips must be reserved for additional development. A proposed development resulting in 21,000 trips cannot be denied on the basis of transportation concurrency, even if this causes the LOS to drop to E. However, a development generating 23,000 trips (115% of capacity) could be denied. The language of this requirement has not been construed. Local governments may adopt a long-term transportation concurrency management system (LTTCMS) with a planning period of up to 10 years in specially designated districts where significant backlogs exist. An interim LOS may be used for certain facilities, and the local government may use the 10-year CIP as a basis for issuing permits. The LTTCMS must be designed to correct existing deficiencies and to set priorities to address backlogged facilities. It must be financially feasible and consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan. The Department of Community Affairs may allow up to 15 years based upon the extent of the backlog, whether the backlog occurs on state or local roads, the cost of eliminating the backlog, and the local government's tax and other revenue-raising efforts. Finding that concurrency may sometimes discourage urban infill development and redevelopment, Florida authorizes exemptions from transportation concurrency if a project is otherwise cons/stent with the comprehensive plan and the project either promotes public transportation or is Iocated within a designated urban infi/I development, urban redevelopment, or downtown revitalization area in the compre- hensive plan. In order to "limit the liability" of local governments, the local government may allow development to proceed, notwithstanding the transportation LOS, if: 1) the jurisdiction has an approved comprehensive plan; 2) the development is consistent with the future land- use plan; 3) the CIP is financially'feasible and includes facilities adequate to serve the development; 4) a fair share of the cost of transportation facilities is assessed against the landowner; and 5) the landowner has made a binding commitment to pay these costs. To date, no reported Florida court decision has directly considered the concurrency requirement. Florida decisions have supported the concept of adequate public facilities requirements while guarding against the application of ad-hoc, capricious administration. Density caps supported by vigilant planning and studies relating to traffic congestion, environmental preservation, and aesthetic considerations have been upheld? Denial of site plan 35 approval has also been upheld where based on inadequate access and where no water supply was available to serve the subdivision.6 In City National Bank v. City of Coral Springs, 475 So.2d 984 (Fla. App. 1985), the city approved a plat subject to the condition that no building permit would be issued until an adjacent roadway had been widened to a four-lane roadway. The trial court struck the condition since no indication had been made as to when the road would be improved, thus raising the possibility that the landowner could be deprived of "any reasonable use of [the] property indefinitely." The appellate court affirmed on other grounds, holding that the condition operated as a de facto "building moratorium" against the property without compliance with formal procedures for the adoption of a moratorium. An interesting factual setting was presented in Southern Co-op Development Fund v. Driggers, 696 F.2d 1347 (llth Cir. 1983). In that case, a county commission denied a plat approval for a low-income agricultural cooperative development that had been deemed in compliance with the county's subdivision regulations by the planning department. The cooperative sued, and the district court directed the county to consider the application again. Between denial of the plat application and the court's decision,. a consolidated Land Development Code was adopted pursuant to Florida's mandatory planning legislation. On reconsideration, the application was again denied, based on findings that road, public school facilities, sewers, and public services were inadequate, and that the subdivision would constitute "urban sprawl" and "leapfrog development." The plaintiffs sued again and were awarded summary judgement on a Section 1983 cause of action. The federal court affirmed, ruling that the later-enacted development code did not apply to the subdivision by its terms, and that the preamble to the original subdivision regulations providing for "harmonious development" and the "adequate provision for light, air, open space, Despite criticisms of development t/ming as a planning or development management control, the use of LOS standards to guide growth has much to commend it. The integrity of the planning process is protected over time. · .. LOS standards re/ate the amount of infrastructure needed to serve community res/dents in a readily understandable format that may be adjusted as conditions change. 36 Appendix A. Notes PREFACE 1. Mean travel time to work for the nation increased from 21.7 minutes in 1980 to 22.4 minutes in 1990 according to 1995 National Transportation Statistics (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Table 130, p. 231). The percentage of commute trips to work made by private vehicle, as opposed to public transit and walking (taking into account people who work in home occupations), increased from 69 percent in 1960 to 88 percent in 1990. Furthermore, while persons per household declined from 3.2 in 1960 to 2.6 in 1990, annual vehicle trips per household and annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per household have both increased by 22 percent according to the 1993 National Transportation Statistics (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Section 3, '1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey," 196). 2. The phrase "growth management" is used in a broad sense, encompassing police power, planning, and public investment efforts to regulate the amount, type, timing, character, and location of growth. See D. Godschalk, D. Brower, L. McBennett, and B. Vestal, Constitutional Issues of Growth Management 8 (1979). The phrase "growth control" is used in a narrower sense, referring only to regulatory or police power efforts to accomplish these ends. While growth management is rooted in the environmental movement of the late 1960s, recent efforts have been directed to the preservation of "quality of life" and the prevention of strains on infrastructure. Of particular concern has been the increase in traffic congestion caused by new suburban growth. See, for example, DeGrove (1988) concerning state-level controls; Powell (1989); O'Reilly (1988) concerning growth in Southern California; and Nicholson (1989). A vivid example is the increase in suburban traffic congestion caused by suburban office parks, whose generous parking accommodations induce reliance on automobiles and create little incentive to use mass transit. A recent study shows that roadways near most suburban office parks are operating at LOS D and E, and that 85 percent of all commuters are solo drivers (Cervero 1986, 38, 50-53, 65). CHAPTER 1. DEFINING THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE 1. A "concurrency management system" and an "adequate public facilities ordinance" are essentially the same and are used interchangeably in this report. 2. See, for example, Chevron Oil v. Beaver County, 22 Utah 143, 449 P.2d 989 (1969). 3. P. Rohan~ Zoning and Land Use Controls (1994); Grace Commnnity Church v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 42 Conn. Supp. 256, 615 A.2d 1092, 1097 (1992). 4. Urban growth boundaries generally couple urban service areas (areas beyond which utilities will not be extended) with land-use controls that prohibit urban-scale development beyond the urban growth boundary. 5. See National Land and Investment v. Kohn, 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597 (1965); In re Concord Township Appeal (Kit-Mar Builders), 268 A.2d 765 (Pa. 1970). 6. See Board of Supervisors v. Allman, 215 Va. 434, 211 S.E.2d 48 (1975) and Board of Supervisors v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33 (1975). The policy of staged rezoning had been adopted by Fairfax County as an alternative to a Ramapo-type adequate public facilities ordinance. G. Dawson, No Little Plans: Fairfax County's PLUS Program for Managing Growth 45-49, 114 (1977). The courts expressed a concern over the accommodation of adequate housing for low- or moderate-income persons. Allman, 211 S.E.2d at 49-50 (citing Board of Supervisors v. Carper, 200 Va. 653, 107 S.E.2d 390 (1959), which invalidated large-lot zoning as exclusionary; Fairfax County v. DeGroff, 214 Va. 235, 198 S.E.2d 600 (1973), which invalidated an inclusionary housing program; Williams, 216 S.E.2d at 39-40). While the concept of requiring adequate public facilities as a condition of rezoning was not rejected, Fairfax County's attempts to do so were rejected on an as-applied basis. The Virginia courts are, however, noted for their restrictive attitude toward land-use controls. See, for example, Board of Supervisors v. Rowe, 216 Va. 128, 216 S.E.2d 199 (1975), which invalidated mandatory exactions. See Compare Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. App. 1986), in which the court upheld a refusal to rezone that was in accordance with an adopted "staged growth" plan, which indicated that development was not planned on that parcel for several more years. Unlike Allman or Williams, the presence of a plan allowed the court to uphold the denials despite the presence of adjacent developed parcels. See Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41, 52, 55, 557 P.2d 473, 18 Cal.3d 582 (1976), which distinguished between large-lot zoning, which favors the wealthy, and even-handed adequate public facilities requirements. See, for example, Steel Hill Development, Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton, 469 F.2d 956 (lst Cir. 1972); see also Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 402 N.E.2d 1346 (Mass. 1980), which upheld a rate-of-growth ordinance. 10. See, for example, Garipay v. Town of Hanover, 116 N.H. 34, 351 A.2d 64 (1976). 11. See, for example, Matter of Joseph v. Town Board of Town of Clarkstown, 24 Misc.2d 366, 198 N.Y.S.2d 695 (Supreme Ct. 1960). 37 12. Smoke Rise, Inc. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 400 F.Supp. 1369 (D. Md. 1975) upheld a sewer connection moratoria adopted by the regional sewer authority in response to system inadequacies. 13. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 210 Cal. App.3d 1353, 258 Ca. Rptr. 893 (Cal. App. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1056 (1990) upheld a ban on construction in a floodplain. 14. See Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Oct. 1977), 1-5, which discusses the ratio of public facilities and services to population and the Fla. Admin. Code Sec. 9J-5.003(41) (1988), which designates capacity per unit of demand. CHAPTER 2. LEGAL ISSUES 1. In some states, special legislation may be sought on a case- by-case basis where the authority to act is not conferred by general legislation. The flip side of the coin is home rule, which allows local governments to adopt a wide range of legislation so long as the legislation is not specifically preempted by state legislation. 2. Md. Ann. Code Art. 66B, section 10.01 (1978); Md. Health- Envtl. Code Ann. section 9.512(b)(1)(1987 and Supp. 1989)(wastewater facilities). 3. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 674:22 (1986 and Supp. 1988). 4. Fla~ Stat. Ann. Secs. 163.3177(10)(h), 163.3202(2)(g), 163.3180 (West Supp. 1989), RCW Sec. 36.70A.70(6)(e). Florida also authorizes the use of "innovative land-use regulations" to implement comprehensive plans. (See Section 163.3202(3).) Washington Session Laws 1990, Chapter 17, S.H.B. No. 2929. 5. See. Freilich and Garvine (1993) and Freilich and Doyle (1994). 6. A regulation effectuating a permanent physical occupation is also a categorical taking. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Corp,, 458 U.S. 419 (1982). However, concurrency regulations rarely involve a physical occupation. 7. Hagman and Juergensmeyer (1986, Sec. 10.7). The classic statement of this facet of the takings analysis is that "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking" (Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)). 8. Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass' n v. De Benedictus, 480 U.S. 470, 486 (1987); Estate of Friedman v. Pierce County, 112 Wash.2d 68, 768 P.2d 462 (1989). 9. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. De Benedictus, 480 U.S. 470, 492 (1987)(quoting Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260-61 (1980)). 10. Estate of Friedman v. Pierce County, 112 Wash.2d 68, 768 P.2d 462 (1989); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978), reh. denied, 439 U.S. 883 (1978). Of course, the amount of deprivation is relevant to the remedy issue. It is, however, not relevant to a determination of liability where a reasonable use remains. 11. Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass' n v. De Benedictus, 480 U.S. 470, 488-92 (1987). 12. Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. De Benedictus, 480 U.S. 470, 491 (1987); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992). 13. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 210 Cal. App. 3d 1353, 258 Cal. Rprt. 893 (Cal. App. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1056 (1990). 14. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). 15. The United States Supreme Court vacated a decision upholding a mitigation and public art fee and remanded the case in light of the Dolan decision. Ehrlich v. Culver City, 19 Cal. Rptr 2d 468 (Cai. App. 1993), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 114 S.Ct. 2731 (1994). 16. Leroy Land v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 939 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1991). 17. Russ Building Partnership v. City of San Francisco, 199 Cal.App.3d 1506, 1507, 246 Cal.Rptr. 21, 26 (App. 1987)(citing Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 39 Cal.3d 878, 890, 218 Cal.Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876 (1985)); Loup-Miller Const. Co. v. City and County of Denver, 676 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Colo~ 1984). 18. Chesterfield Development Corp. v. City of Chesterfield, 963 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1992); Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook, 680 F.2d 822 (lst Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 989, 103 S.Ct. 345, 74 L.Ed.2d 385 (1982); PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 928 F.2d 28 (lst Cir. 1991), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 112 S.Ct. 1151 (1992), 19. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)(upholding single-family zoning ordinance with occupancy restrictions having the effect of permanently restricting town's population ); see also Construction Industry Association v. City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934 (1976). 20. Unlike due process, equal protection, or takings, the constitution does not protect the right to travel. 21. D. Brower, D. Owens, R. ROsenberg, I. Botvinick and M. Mandel, Growth Management Through Development Timing 45-48 (1974)(collecting cases). 22. See, for example, Construction Industry Association v. City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934 (1976). 23. See Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41,557 P.2d 473, 18 Cal.3d 582 (1976); Builders Ass'n of Santa Clara-Santa Cruz Co. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Co., 529 P.2d 582, 118 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1974), diss'd, 427 U.S. 901. See, for example, Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151,336 A.2d 713, app. diss'd and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 808 (1975); Southern Burlington 38 County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983); Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41,557 P.2d 473, 18 Cal.3d 582 (1976). Some states impose similar standards by statute, directly addressing growth controls. See, for example, California Evid. Code section 669.5 (creating presumption in land-use litigation that building permit limits affect regional housing needs); Cal. Govt. Code section 65302.8 (annual residential construction limits imposed through general plan amendments must be accompanied by findings regarding regional housing needs); N.H. Rev. Stat. 674:22 (requires consideration of "regional development needs" prior to adoption of adequate public facilities ordinance). 25. Compare Wincamp Partnership OTC v. Anne Arundel Co., 458 F.Supp. 1009 (D. Md. 1978)(upholding refusal to expand capacity of sewage treatment plant that, coupled with state statute preventing issuance of building permit which would cause sewer capacity to become inadequate, would cause reduction in growth, against regional general welfare challenge) with Urban League of Essex County v. Mahwah Tp., 207 N.J. Super. 169, 504 A.2d 66 (N.J. Super. 1984), which rejected a planning expert's testimony that preservation of "community character" justified the postponement of phasing in the community's Mt. Laurel obligations: The time measure of community impact is the capacity of infrastructure to absorb new construction. Clearly, Mahwah's roads, sewers, utilities, schools and water supply system are all capable of accommodating the required [fair-share] development. (79-81). 26. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 188 n.20, 336 A.2d 713, 732 n.20, app. diss'd and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 808 (1975); Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41,557 P.2d 473, 18 Cal.3d 582 (1976). 27. Sturges v. Town of Chilmark, 402 N.E.2d 1346 (Mass. 1980)(balancing test favored preservation of town's histori- cal and cultural ~eatures through rate-of-growth ordinance). In Beck v. Town of Raymond, 394 A.2d 847, 852 (N.H. 1978), the court held an annual building permit allocation valid only as a temporary measure under the city's general police powers. The court was critical of the city's failure to base the ordinance on a comprehensive plan: Growth controls must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory. They should be the product of careful study and should be reexamined constantly with a view toward relaxing or ending them .... Good faith efforts to increase the capacity of municipal services should accompany growth controls. (citing Petaluma, Ramapo). See also Stoney-Brook Development Corp. v. Town of Pembroke, 394 A.2d 853 (N.H. 1978). 28. Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. App. 1986); Larsen v. County of Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. App. 1986). 29. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 674:22 (see Stoney-Brook Development Corp. v. Town of Fremont, 474 A.2d 561 (N.H. 1984)(invalidating 3 percent growth rate)). 30. Rancourt v. Town of Barnstead, 523 A.2d 55 (N.H. 1986). 31. Beck v. Town of Raymond, 394 A.2d 847, 852 (N.H. 1978); Charles v. Diamond, 41 N.Y.2d 318, 360 N.E.2d 1295, 392 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. N.Y.S.2d 594 (1977)(refusal to allow connection to village sewer system pending resolution of deficiencies remanded to determine reason for delay). See Builders Ass' n of Santa Clara-Santa Cruz Co. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Co., 529 P.2d 582, 586-87, 118 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1974), diss'd, 427 U.S. 901; Matter of Joseph v. Town Board of Town of Clarkstown, 24 Misc.2d 366, 198 N.Y.S.2d 695, 699 (Supreme Ct. 1960)(denial of special permit in order to avoid further overcrowding of schools); see Kennedy Park Homes Assn. v. City of Lackawanna, 436 F.2d 108, 114 (2d Cir. 1970)(moratorium on subdivision approvals and rezoning by city because of asserted sewer inadequacies invalidated where racially motivated, and where city made no attempt to resolve existing deficiencies); La Salle Nat. Bank and Trust v. Cook County, 82 Ill. App.3d 264, 37 III.Dec. 685, 402 N.E.2d 687, 699 (1980)(upholding denial of rezoning from single-family to multifamily, court stated that "existing roads, police protection, and fire-fighting capabilities are all inadequate to serve the proposed PUD. The fact that they are already inadequate is no justification for making them worse.") Golden v. Ramapo Planning Board, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, __ n. 1, app. diss'd, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972). The Ramapo court commented on the town's allegations that the town's growth management system addressed existing infrastructure deficiencies, reasoning from there that the capital improvements program was addressed to "legitimate community needs and [was] not Iai veiled effort at exclusion." The statement seemed to imply hostility to efforts directed to the allocation of excess capacity. See also Larsen v. County of Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. App. 1986). See, for example, Board of Supervisors v. Allman, 215 Va. 434, 211 S.E.2d 48, 51-52 (1975); Board of Supervisors v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33, 46 (1975)(dissenting) (distinguishing Willia~ns from Allman on grounds that, in latter case, no timetable had been set for construction of facilities). See, for example, Board of Supervisors v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33, 39 (1975)(denial of rezoning in holding zone arbitrary and capricious because facilities would soon be available). The courts have expressed an increasing acceptance of the ability Of cities to control the timing of facility extensions in order to accomplish growth management objectives. Compare Robinson v. City of Boulder, 190 Colo. 357, 547 P.2d 228 (1976) and Delmarva Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Dover, 282 A.2d 601 (Del. 1971) with Dateline Builders, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa, 146 Cal. App.3d 520, 194 Cal. Rptr. 258 (1983). Whether a city may use planning criteria as a basis upon which to extend facilities depends upon whether the decision is characterized as governmental or ministerial, which depends on state law. See, generally, "Comment, Utility Extensions" (1977); "Note, Public Utility Land Use Control" (1978); "Public Utility Regulation" (1978). (Full cites appear in the bibliography.) City National Bank of Miami v. City of Coral Springs, 475 So.2d 984 (Fla. App. 1985)(invalidating condition of plat 39 approval that no building permit would issue until adjacent roadway improved to four lanes, on grounds that there was no indication when the roadway would be improved, which, therefore, operated as a moratorium on specific property without compliance with formal requirements); see also Batch v. Town of Chapel Hill 376 S.E.2d 22, 32 (N.C. App. 1989)(roadway dedication invalidated where plans for timing and financing of roadway extension was indefinite). 39. Unity Ventures v. Lake Co., 631 F.Supp. 181 (N.D. Ill. 1986). 40. Fla. Stat. Ann. section 163.3177(5)(h) (Supp. 1989); Fla. Admin. Code section 9J-5.015(1)(a)(1988). CHAPTER 3. DESIGNING THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE 1. For example, Florida requires that the LOS standard for state roads must, "to the maximum extent feasible," be consistent with the LOS standards established by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). If the local LOS standards differ from the state standards, the local government must (1) provide a justification for the variance and (2) demonstrate that it is taking actions to achieve the goals justifying the variance (Florida Administrative Code Sec. 9J~5.0055(1)(d)). Factors that may justify a ~ariance from FDOT standards include the achievement of other policies in the local comprehensive plan and the achievement of other goals in the state comprehensive plan (Florida Statutes Sec. 187.201). Examples given in the administrative regulations include discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the use of mass transit. 2. An environmental impact statement issued by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle illustrates this point. "Higher capacity facilities, such as HOV lanes and rapid transit, are more effective in moving high volumes of people than general purpose roadways. Freeway lanes remain effective up to volumes of about 2,000 vehicles per hour passing a single point .... With an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle, one general purpose freeway lane can effectively carry up to 2,400 people per hour. Depending on the mix of vehicles (buses, vanpools, and carpools), one HOV lane can effectively carry between 4,800 and 5,700 persons per hour. A busway or barrier-separated lane for exclusive use of buses can carry up to 9,400 persons per hour. A light rail line operating in exclusive right-of-way has the capacity to carry over 22,000 persons per hour" (Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Regional Transit System Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (October 12, 1992), xvi). Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465, 208 Cal. Rptr. 228 (1984)(timing and sequencing); City of Key West v. R.L.J.S. Corp., 537 So.2d 641 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1989). 4. Lichte v. Heidlage, 536 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. App. 1976). CHAPTER 4. CASE STUDIES 1. Annual growth policy reports were issued on a yearly basis following the adoption of the APFO to explain the rationale behind the ordinance and to bring suggested -' administrative changes to the fore. The reports were prepared by the cqunty planning department. In 1986, the process was formalized into legislation requiring the input of the County Executive, County Board of Education, and Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission into the preparation of the report, and its adoption by the County Council. Bill No. 11-86, codified at Montgomery County Code, Chapter 33A, reprinted in The Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, FY1990 Annual Growth Policy, Montgomery County, Maryland (Final Report) (Appendix 3). 2. Maryland-National Capital Park and blanning Comm'n v. Rosenberg, 307 A.2d 704 (Md. App. 1973). 3. Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 163.3177(3) (West SuPp. 1989). 4. Fla. Admin. Code section 9J-5.003(41) (1988). 5. City of Hollywood v. Hollywood, Inc., 432 So.2d 1332 (Fla. App. 1983), rev. denied, 441 So.2d 632 (1983)(upholding beachfront density cap with transferable development rights as reasonable and not confiscatory); compare City of Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corp., 371 So.2d 154 (Fla. App. 1979)(building unit cap adopted by initiative stricken as arbitrary where justified only by ex post facto studies). 6. Chase Manhattan Mortgage and Realty Trust w Wacha, 402 So.2d 61 (Fla. App. 1981). 40 Appendix B. Bibliography Audirac, I., W. O'Dell, and A. Shermyen. March 1992. Concurrency Management Systems in Florida: A Catalog and Analysis. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic & Business Research, Monograph No. 7. Bishop, ~.B., et al. 1974. Carrying Capacity in Regiona~ Environ- mental Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Boggs, W., and R. Apgar. 1991. "Concurrency and Growth Management: A Lawyer's Primer." Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 7: 1. Bosselman, F. 1973. "Can the Town of Ramapo Pass a Law to Bind the Rights of the Whole World?" Florida State University Law Review 1: 234. Bowyer, R. 1993. Capital Improvements Programs: Linking Budgeting and Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report No: 442. Chicago: American Planning Association. Brower, D., et al. 1974. Growth Management Through Development Timing. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, Center for Urban and Regional Studies. Burby, R. n.d. "Coordinating Water and Sewer System Expansion With Community Planning and Growth Management--The State of Practice." In R. Burby, D. Moreau, and E. Kaiser, eds. Financing Water and Sewer Extension in Urban Growth Areas: Current Practices and Policy Alternatives. Report No. 232. Charlotte, N.C.: Water Resources Institute, University of North Carolina. Burrows, L.B. 1978. Growth Management: Issues, Techniques and Policy Implications. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research. California Department of Transportation. November 1990. Congestion Management Programs Resource Handbook. Sacramento: CDOT. Callies, D., and R. Freilich. 1986. Cases and Materials on Land Use. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. Calthorpe, P. 1993. The Next American Metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Carlisle, R.G., and $.M. White. 1993. "Administrative and Legislative Techniques for Resolving Vested Rights and Condemnation Issues." In Nichols on Eminent Domain, vol. 6, chapter 25. Cervero, R. 1989. America's Suburban Centers: The Land-Use Transportation Link. Unwin and Hyman. · 1986. "Unlocking Suburban Gridlock.' Journal of the American Planning Association 52: 389-406. · 1986. Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research. Chinn, S.P. and E.A. Garvin. 1992. "Designing Development Allocation Systems." Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 44, no. 2: 3-9. Clark, J. 1976. The Sanibel Report: Formulation ora Comprehensive Plan Based on Natural Systems. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation. "Comment. Utility Extensions: An Untested Control on Wisconsin's Urban Sprawl." 1977. Wisconsin Law Review: 1132, 1142-46. The Conservation Foundation. June 1974. "Carrying Capacity Analysis Is Useful--But Limited." Conservation Foundation Newsletter. Davidson, J.M. "Infrastructure Controls: Essential Tool for Community Development Planning." In J. Benjamin Gailey, ed., 1986 Zoning and Planning Law Report. New York: Clark Boardman Ltd., 151-65. DeGrove, J. May1988. "The Battle Over Land Use: A Second Wave Emerges." State Govermnent News 31, no. 5: 8. , and L. deHaven-Smith. 1988. "Forging Ahead in Growth Management: The Challenge of Concurrence." In W.J. deHaven-Smith, Growth Management Innovations in Florida. Ft. Lauderdale, Fla·: Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University Joint Center for Environment and Urban Problems. Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida. May 1987. Model Capital Improvements Elements. · October 1990. "Affordable Housing Deserves Careful Treatment in Comprehensive Plans." Technical Memorandum, no. 9, 19. Department of the Environment, United Kingdom. 1993. Reducing Transport Emissions Through Planning. London. Downs, A. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute. Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 1991: Towns and Town-Making Principles. New York: Rizzoli. Eggert, J. 1989. "Traffic-Linked Growth Control in California." Ecology Law Quarterly 16: 481, 496-97. Emanual, R. October 1974. "Ramapo's Managed Growth Program: A Close Look at Ramapo After Five Years Experience." Planners Notebook 4, no. 5: 3. Fagin, H. 1955. "Regulating the Timing of Urban Development." Law and Contemporary Problems 20: 298. Freilich, R. "Development Timing, Moratoria, and Controlling Growth." 1974 Institute on Planning, Zoning, and Eminent Domain 147, 160-64 · 1975. "Comments in The Ramapo Case: Five ZD Commentaries." In R. Scott, ed., Management and Control of Growth. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Freilich, R.~ and S. P. Chinn. 1987. "Transportation Corridors: Shaping and Financing Urbanization Through Integration of Eminent Domain, Zoning and Growth Management Techniques." University of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review 55: 153. · 1988. "Finetuning the Takings Equation: Applying it to Development Exactions: Part 1.' Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 40, no. 2. Freilich, R., and R. Doyle. 1994. "Takings Legislation: Misguided and Dangerous." Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 46, no. 10. Freilich, R., and E.A. Garvin. 1993. "Takings After Lucas: Growth Management, Planning, and Regulatory Implementation Will Work Better Than Before." Stetson Law Review 22:409 41 Freilich, R. H., E.A. Garvin, and S.M. White. 1994. ;'Economic Development and Public Transit: Making the Most of the Washington Growth Management Act." University of Puget Sound Law Review 16: 1091. Freilich and Leitner, Legal Consultants. 1979. San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan, Guidelines for Future Development (adopted February 26, 1979). Freilich, R., and F. Ragsdale. 1974. "Timing and Sequential Controls--The Essential Basis for Effective Regional Planning: An Analysis of the New Directions for Land Use Control in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Region." University of Minnesota Law Review 58: 1009. Freilich, R., and S. M. White. 1991. "Effective Transportation Congestion Management." Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 43, no. 6. . 1994. "The Interaction of Land Use Planning and Transportation Management." Transport Policy (U.K.) 1: 101. · 1991. "Transportation Congestion and Growth Management: Comprehensive Approaches to Resolving America's Major Quality of Life Crisis." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 24: 915. Fulton, William. "The Long Commute." Planning, July 1990, 4-10. Getzels, J., and C. Thurow. June 1980. Local Capital Improvements and Development Management: Analysis and Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Gleeson, M., et al. 1975. Urban Growth Management Systems-- An Evaluation of Policy-Related Research. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 309/310. Chicago: American Planning Association. Glickfeld, M., and N. Levine. 1992. Regional Growth... Local Reaction: The Enactment and Effects of Local Growth Control and Management Measures in California. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Godschalk, D., and N. Axler. July 1977. Carrying Capacity Applications in Growth Management: A Reconnaissance. (A report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Chapel Hill, N.C. Godschalk, D., et al. 1979. Constitutional Issues of Growth Management. Washington, D.C.: APA Planners Press. Greater Princeton Transportation Management Association. 1989. Traffic Management Techniques: A Planning Guide. Princeton, N.J. Hagman, D., and J. Juergensmeyer. 1986. Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., Sec. 9.9. Herbert, F. 1973. Controlling Growth: But for Whom? Washington, D.C.: Potomac Institute. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1989. A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: ITE. Katz, Peter. 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw Hill. Kelbaugh, D. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Kelly, E. D. 1993. Planning, Growth, and Public Facilities: A Primer for Local Officials. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 447. Chicago: American Planning Association. KJS Associates, Inc. 1995. Transportation Level of Service Definitions and Application· Draft Technical Memo, Salem, Oregon, Department of Land Conservation and Development· Kozlak, C. 1989. "Traffic Congestion: A Major Public Policy Issue in the Twin Cities Area." HamlineJournal of Public Law. and Policy 10: 219. MacHarg, I. 1991. Design with Nature. rev. ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Macris, D. 1986. "New Growth Management Underway in Marin County·" Practicing Planner (September): 23. Mohney, D. and K. Easterling. eds. 1991. Seaside: Making a Town in America. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Montgomery County Planning Board of the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission. October 1974. Framework for Action: The First Annual Growth Policy Report for Montgomery County. Silver Spring, Maryland. · September 1975. Fiscal Impact Analysis: Second Annual Growth Policy Report. Silver Spring, Maryland· · October 1977. Carrying Capacity and Adequate Public Facilities. Silver Spring, Maryland. · June 1979. Fifth Growth Policy Report: Planning, Staging and Regulating. Silver Spring, Maryland. · FY1989 Annual Growth Policy, Montgomery County, Maryland. (Final Report)· Silver Spring, Maryland. · FY1990 Annual Growth Policy, Montgomery County, Maryland. (Final Report). Silver Spring, Maryland. Moore, T., and P. Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation/Land Use Connection. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association· Morgan, T. 1993. "Takings Law: Strategies for Dealing with Lucas : Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 45, no. 1. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1992. Regional ~Fransit System Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle. October 12. The National Commission on Urban Problems (Douglas Commission). 1968. Building theAmerican City. Washington, D.C.: U.S· Government Printing Office. New Jersey Department of Transportation. 1989. Managing Transportation in Your Community: A Municipal Handbook. Trenton, New Jersey· Nicholson, B., and B. Pulman. 1989. "The Impact of Slow Growth: Journal of Property Management 54, no. 2 (March/ April): 57. "Note· Public Utility Land Use Control on the Urban Fringe." 1978. Iowa Law Review 63: 889. O'Reilly, B. 1988. "The War Against Growth Heats Up." Fortune, December 12. Paterson, R. 1988. "Coordinating Local Government Comprehensive Planning: A Mandate and a Necessity·" In W.J. deHaven-Smith, Growth Management Innovations in Florida 11, 20-27. Porter, D.R. May 1989. "San Diego's Brand of Growth Management: A for Effort, C for Accomplishment." Urban Land, 21. Powell, M. 1989. "The Slide toward Slow Growth." American City and County 104, no. 4 (April): 61. 42 "Public Utility Regulation of Growth Management." 1978. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 30, no. 10: 4-8. Puget Sound Council of Governments. October 1990. Vision 2020 Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region. Seattle, Washington. Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential Development Pattersn at the Urban Fringe. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Rhodes, R.M. December 1988. "Controversial 'Concurrency' in Florida." Urban Land, 12. Rohan, P. 1994. Zoning and Land-Use Controls. New York: Matthew Bender and Co. Savage, J.P., Jr. January 1993. "LOS Leaders," Planning, 16. $chaenman and Miller. 1975. "Land Development: Measuring the Impacts." In R. Scott, ed., Management and Control of Growth. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1975. Schneider, D., D. Godschalk, and N. Axler. 1978. Tl~e Carrying Capacity Concept as a Planning Tool. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 338. Chicago: American Planning Assocation. Skaggs, S. October 1988. "Walnut Creek Says 'Nuts' To Growth." Urban Land, 34. Sutro, Suzanne. 1991. Reinventing the Village. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 430. Chicago: American Planning Association. Taub, T. 1988. "Florida's Growth Management Concurrency Doctrine Moratorium or Impetus Needed Infrastructure?" Florida Environmental and Urban Issues 16, no. 1 (Fall): 5, 8. "Traffic-Linked Growth Control in California." 1989. Ecology Law Review 16: 481,496-97. Unwin, Robert. 1909. Town Planning in Practice. New York: Scribner. Urban Land Institute. 1989. Myths and Facts about Transportation and Growth. Washington, D.C.: ULI. Weitz, J. 1995. The Methodological Challenges and Future Prospects of Transportation Concurrency. Unpublished report for the School of Urban and Public Affairs, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, December. White, S. Mark. 1990. "Development Fees and Exemptions for Affordable Housing: Tailoring Regulations to Achieve Multiple Public Objectives." Florida State Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law. 43 Appendix C. Concurrency The tables presented in this appendix are taken from a national survey conducted in 1990 by the author for St. Johns County, Florida, to assist that county in preparing a concurrency management system: The survey was used to help the decision-making process in drafting a concurrency management ordinance. The county adopted the ordinance prepared by the author in 1991 and updated it in 1995 to reflect changes in state law. The tables should help other jurisdictions consider the options they have in developing an adequate public facilities ordinance or a concurrency management ordinance. Table C-1. Minimum Requirements Facilities must be subject to Facilities may Facilities may Facilities must Facilities must a binding Facilities must be provided for be guaranteed be existing be under contract for be scheduled in development as condition Jurisdiction or in place construction construction in CIP agreement of approval Anne Arundel County, Maryland no date specified Yes allowable if ClP shows that facility will be subject to Broward County, binding contract Yes Yes Florida within one year of permit issuance Hillsborough Yes--at certificate Yes--at certificate Yes Yes County, Florida of occupancy of occupancy Howard County, years 3-6 Maryland permissible within first three indian River years if project is County, Florida Within urban service area Palm Beach Yes, if develop- County, Florida merit phased City of Palmetto, Florida Yes Yes Pinellas County, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Florida City of Sarasota, I wihin one year of Florida Yes Yes permit issuance Yes Sarasota County, wihin one year of Florida Yes Yes permit issuance Yes City of Tampa, within first three Florida Yes Yes years Yes 45 Table C-2. Minimum Requirements by Stage in DevelOPment Process Or Type of Authorization Jurisdiction Type of Permit or Brevard County, Hillsborough County, Palm Beach County, Montgomery County, Other Authorization Florida Florida Florida Mary[and Sketch Plat or CIP Preliminary Development Planned improvements Conceptual Review Order may be issued may be considered when without a certificate, applying for an "adequate subject to condition that public facilities "Revised Test at a certificate must be determination" that Subdivision" proposed by obtained at Final precedes issuance of a special committee would Preliminary Plat CIP Development Order, certificate, count 6th/year of CIP in some areas Final Plat ClP Preliminary Site Plan ClP Same as sketch plat Final Site Plan CIP Appropriate Zoning CIP Same as sketch plat Rezoning CIP Included in capital budget; binding contract for con- Building permit is Final Building Permit struction, under construc- Development Order, which requires a tion, developer construction certificate of improvements Special Use Permit Same as sketch plat Variance Same as sketch plat Special Exception Preliminary Development Same as sketch plat Water/Sewer Commitment Order may be issued without a certificate, Grading Permit subject to condition that a certificate must be Varies according to obtained at Final whether development is Development Order. Other within an area of inadequate, marginally adequate, or adequate capacity. Table C-4. EvaluatiOn of Capacity Impact Area Delineation Differential LOS Standards or Jurisdiction State/Federal Facilities and Adjustments Minimum Requirements State roads may be counted if 30% of Anne Arundel construction funds are appropriated Access Roads: first point of ingress/ County, with remainder in current ClP or CTP or egress to first county arterial or state No Maryland . if developer-constructed road has public road. works agreement. Road LOS standards vary for rural and urban areas. Brevard County, Temporary LOS for state urban roads Not addressed Creates "planned temporary" LOS for Florida designated facilities, which is effective for up to 12 years and which confers priority in CIP. "Constrained" roadways (deficient and not in 20-year CIP) = 110% of actual and committed trips. Roadways planned in ClP = "110% State roads may be included in Action "Compact Deferral Area" extending one maintain" requiring a finding that the mile from centerline of road segment Broward County, Plan. DOT representatives are invited to (both directions) and mile from development would not prevent Florida assist in review process, achievement of adopted LOS. endpoints. Special transportation areas (STA) may be created to encourage redevelopment, inner-city revitalization, and to control urban sprawl. Area of Significant Influence for Urban versus rural areas for roads. Uses Collier County, State roads included in Maior Road deficient or potentially deficient roads "tiered" minimum requirements, with Florida Network. State five-year work program [see deferralareas in Table C-5 in this more stringent requirements taking effect included in determination of LOS. PAS Report]. on designated date. Projects subject to review if first point Hillsborough Evaluates impact on state roads and of contact is with roadway assigned a Not applicable or not available County, Florida includes DOT facilities. LOS or is within 1/4 mile of a deficient road segment. At Preliminary Plat Approvat. Two miles in all directions up to second State roads may be counted if open to intersection with major collector or Howard County, traffic within two years or if developer higher road classification. Maryland constructed with Major Facilities At Final Plat Approval: One mile in all No Agreement and bonded, directions up to second intersection with major collector or higher road c ass f cation Smallpro]ect~. In accordance with special mapping system; Some areas of County may be Scheduled road improvements within the preapproved for single-family third year of the ClP may be counted if Indian River residential and minor site plan project in urban service area, as per Not addressed Florida Administrative Code Sec. 9J- County, Florida approvals. Roads = segments receiving 5% of 5.0055(2)(c) average daily traffic. Road LOS lower for rural areas. Tiered LOS standards, with higher standards effective on designated date. Manatee County, Short-term, five-year, and long-term See Traffic Impact Anatysis Matrix LOS divided into current standards, five- Florida LOS standards specified for specific [Table C-6 in this PAS Report] year standards, and 20-year (long-term) state roadway segments, standards, for each segment. Special requirements for roads at LOS F. (Continued Table C-3, Impact/Demand EValuation Measurement/Allocation Procedures and Flexibility Provisions Evaluation of Demand to Growth Limit be Created by Approved Case-by-Case Based on Carrying Jurisdiction but Unbuilt Projects Analysis Point System Capacity Flexibility of Analysis For most facilities, other final Must have TDM required; subdivider Anne Arundel plat approvals, minimum score may demonstrate that traffic County, Maryland Sketch plans also evaluated Yes on County road No primarily attributable to for roads, rating system, regional traffic patterns Projects with no impact on public facilities not subject to Brevard County, Not applicable or Not applicable or concurrency review; study of Florida Not addressed Yes not available not available TDM or intersection improvements must precede inclusion of "planned" improvements in evaluation. Developer may show that no impact is placed on local 8roward County, Building permit and reserved Yes. Aisc uses Not applicable or Not applicable or road network; action plan for Florida capacity deferral areas, not available not available deferral areas may include TDM. Infill, single-family residential, and special situations factored into transportation model; Hillsborough Not applicable or Not applicable or developer may show on County, Florida Not addressed Yes not available not available appeal that project will not have projected impact (e.g., nonPeak traffic generation or use of Iow-water-volume wastewater systems). Counts developments that Howard County, have been granted a temporary reservation of Yes ~ Yes Not applicable or Maryland capacity at Preliminary Plat not available Approval. Yes. Time limit placed on certificate in order to account Manatee County, for changes in LOS between Yes Not applicable or Not applicable or Florida project review and not available not available construction. ,Corrective plan" may propose transit, carpools, or Pinellas County, Yes--see development NOt applicable or Not applicable Or Not applicable or on-site improvements to Florida monitoring system not available not available not available reduce vehicular use [see deferral areas in Table C-5 in this PAS ReponS. Sarasota County, "Anticipated completion" of Not applicable or Not applicable or No adjustment for internal Florida other development approvals Yes not available not available capture or passerby trips. 47 Table C-4. Evaluation of Capacity (continued) Impact Area Delineation Differential LOS Standards or Jurisdiction State/Federal Facilities and Adjustments Minimum Requirements Designated primary arterials: Three Monroe County, LOS applies to specified state and miles Threshold traffic impact where facilities Florida federal highways. Secondary arterials: Direct access in;~dequate. Bridges along primary arterial. Six miles Bifurcated: 1. Policy Area Reviewtest reviews for State roads may be counted if planned compliance with LOS for policy area, Montgomery CTP or CIP improvement is 100% through establishment of "staging Varies by policy areas based on similar County, Maryland funded and construction to start in two ceiling." traffic patterns. Standard set Iow in some years or if developer improvement 2. Local Area Review tests impact on urbanized areas to reflect availability of bonded, nearby roadway links and public transit. intersections where (a) project above threshold size; or (b) policy area within 5% of staging ceiling. LOS for state highways/expressways Palm Beach references Florida Highway System Plan Not addressed for roads, parks Differs for urban and rural areas County, Florida Level of Service Standards and Infiil (water, sewer facilities) Guidelines Manual. Adequate areas pre-designated. Roads: LOS varies for county and state Pinellas County, DOT LOS and CIP considered in [See deferral areas, Table C-5 in this roads Florida concurrency determination. PAS Report.] Water/sewer: varies by service area State roads may be counted if CTP or Negotiated between the developer and Prince George's CIP project 100% funding, although this Maryland-National Capital Park and No County, Maryland requirement may be waived pursuant to Planning Commission staff, with administrative guidelines. Planning Board approval. City of Sarasota, Not addressed See Traffic Impact Analysis Matrix Not addressed Florida [Table C-6 in this PAS Report] State roadway segments assigned LOS Roads = segments impacted at 4:5% of Sarasota County, standards in accordance with DOT LOS C [See Traffic Impact Analysis Adjustments for constrained and back- Florida standards. Matrix, Table C-6 in this PAS Report] logged road facilities · ' : ' Table C-5. DeferralAreas .. Criteria for Review and Effect of Duration/ Jurisdiction Establishment Boundaries Mapping or Listing Approval Designation Dissolution Two-mile band with centeriine coincident to Action Plan reviewed congested link and Yes. May also be deter- by Transportation Broward extending 1/2 mile mined where project Planning Director or Development not ~ermitted in deferral Congested links Action Plan Review County, (< LOSE or F ) beyond end pOints; may causes reduction in area unless Action Plan Not applicable Or not Florida be adjusted based on capacity for adjacent Committee; concept available physical barriers, roadway links, and final approval of i or Development location, access control, Action Plan by Agreement approved roadway alignment, etc. Governing Board. Deficient or potential deficient road segments identified in annual monitoring report. Roads with LOS D classification Recommendation of One year for area may operate at E for twoBased on traffic "Areas of Significant designation and fiscalyears before beinoconditions as identified Influence" and "Annual Based on remaining allocation of capacity; Collier designated deficient, in Highway Capacity Residual Capacity capacity; 30% of eliminated when County, Classification considersManual, including Yes Trips" by Growth capacity reserved for ~mprovements needed Florida road improvements: "traffic control, signal Management Director, projects generating to remedy deficiency are (1) under construction; < one peak-hour trip added to Capital (2) contracted for spacing, timing and with public hearing/ - construction; (3) included phasing." approval by Governing per day. Improvements Element in State or County Board of comprehensive plan or funded budgets; or (3) included in CIP and based on existing revenue sources. Factors = spacing of Transportation Man- parallel facilities; agement Plan requires: operational character- density/intensity reduc- istics of alignments tion; phasing; outparcel LOS deficient (deferral deletion; access man- Pinellas areas); County/State internal to recognized agement; Transportation County; Roads at 75% of travel corridors; Listing of back-logged Systems Management; Florida capacity (Service frequency of cross roadways Governing Board may Protection Areas) streets; special or man- find that benefits out- made access constraints; weigh impacts; auto- trip distribution; type/ matic 25% density/ intensity of land use intensity reduction in within corridor deferral areas 50 Table C,6. Traffic Analysis Impact Area Consideration Adjustment for Flexibility Compliance Intersection Link of Background Internal Capture, Trip Distribution Provisions and Jurisdiction Threshold Analysis Analysis Traffic Pass-by Trips Analysis Usage Anne County will Arundel > 10 peak hour tripsNot applicable or Required at All approved sketch Not applicable or Not applicable or coordinate forma- County, not available county's option I and final plans not available not available tion of road clubs. Maryland Counts traffic attrib- utable to (1)increases in population, income, and new Howard Included in impact Included in impact development; (2) Road clubs provided County, > 10 peakhour trips area determination area determination Not addressed Not addressed Maryland and evaluation and evaluation trips originating and for in point system. ending outside of county; and (3) trips attributable to increased auto use. All roads where Development of project traffic >1% If road is designated Regional Impact; LOS F and operating Manatee Planned Unit Oevel- of LOS C capacity; at LOS F, parallel County, opment projects withNot addressed (0.5% for small Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed facilities supporting Florida more than one Future projects); Or most direct functionally diverted trips may Land Use category; classified project be considered. phased developments access roadway. Not normally required for Montgomery >_50 peak-hour Not applicable or individual projects, Allapproved County, trips, generally not available although factored projects not yet Not applicable or Not applicable or Not applicable or Maryland into staging ceiling constructed not available not available not available determination Palm Beach County, 200 trips Data requirements submitted in accordance with separate Traffic Performance Standards Code. Florida Roads impacted at Cousiders major No adjustment for If_< 100 trips gen- 4.5% of LOS D; P.M. projects approved threshold determina-erated, similar proj-Alternative demand City of Turning movement pcak/LOS for all col- since traffic countsused to determine 0rarity model or tion but may be ects may be used; calculations may be Palmetto, 50 trips volumes approved by city Florida lectors and arterials conducted. must be provided, adequacy, computerized models clerk. Road club participa- Prince All approved George's > 50 peak hour trips Not applicable or Required at projects plus Not applicable or Not applicable or tion may be included County, - not available county's option historic growth rate not available not available as a condition of Maryland development, City of Not applicable or Not applicable or Sarasota, >50 trips Yes Roads impacted at Not applicable or No Florida 4.5% of LOS D, not available not available not available Development gen- erates: < 2% LOS D Existing volumes volume and link has Noncritical links multiplied by If project creates no capacity;_< 2% where project growth factor. <_ 100 peak-hour City of LOS D volume on creates > 5% of Applicant-generatedNot applicable or trips--similar Tampa, critical link (_> 95% Not applicable or traffic. Not applicable or not Florida v/c ratio); _> 2% LOS not available and city-approved not available projects; gravity available D volume on non- Critical links where growth factor based model; computer project creates _> on actual data. model critical link (site- 2% of traffic. specific analysis); Computer models. >5% LOS D volume on noncritical link, 51 Table C-7. Concurrency Review Procedure Stage in Process StaDe in Process at at which which APF Test APF Requirements ReviewinD Jurisdiction Is Applied Are Enforced Exemptions Waivers Agency/Officials Commercial uses not in Anne subdivision (except Shop- Yes. Variance-type relief. .Arundel Not applicable or not Final Plat ping centers); sheltered Requires planning staff No legislative review or County, available housing; "grandfathered" recommendation and public hearings required. Maryland projects planning board approval. All rezonings, site plan subdivisions, and build- ing permits are evaluated. Adequacy evaluation remains valid for follow- ing time periods: Generally, 45 days Brevard Rezonin¢. Governing All development permit County, Board action applications (rezonings, Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Florida Sitepla~ 18 months site plan, subdivisions) available available available (unless increase in intensity) Subdivision:. 60 months Building permit Construc- tion and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or life of permit Maintenance/improvement Final Development of runways, taxiways, or Permit (building aprons by airports; bus Existing procedures Broward Plats, replats; site plan; permit); application to stop shelters; sculptures/ generally; special review County, building permit; certain preplatted property; fountains outside of Not applicable or not Florida preapproved development water, sewer must be trafficways; signs; available committee agencies created for review of seeking a plat notation met prior to certificate reduction in size or action plans of occupancy demolition of a structure; canal maintenance Certificate must be Projects with no impact Collier obtained at final plat, final on facilities (requires site plan, or building All development orders determination by Growth Not applicable or not Growth Management County, permit; certificate may be unless exempted Management Director); available Director Florida applied for at any point in repair or replacement; the development process, temporary permits Projects deemed vested; Development of Regional Impact approved before Preliminary Plat Approval; 2-1-90 and subject to Final Plat Approval; adequate public facilities Hillsborough changes in density/ Certificate of Concur- requirements; develop- County, intensity; redevelopment; rency must be issued merits already subject to Not applicable or not Development Review Florida mining/excavation along with building a certificate; building available Department permits; building permit permit, pormitJflnal development (single-family or two- permit, or redevelopment family residences) projects approved prior to effective date; develop- ments with development agreement (Continued 52 Table C-7. Concurrency Review Procedure (continued) Stage in Process Stage in Process at at which which APF Test APF Requirements Reviewing Jurisdiction Is Applied Are Enforced Exemptions Waivers Agency/Officials Recorded lots for single- family development; Planning board reviews Howard Preliminary, final or Site sheltered housing; bulk adequate public facilities County, development plan, Subdivision or site plan parcel division; Not applicable or not depending on plan review government uses; one- available determination in some Maryland status in review process acre lots pursuant to zoning districts (public intrafamily transfer in hearing required) agriculture district Tentative concurrency determined for "con- Final Certificate must ceptual development occur before issuance of orders" (plan amendment, building permit; agree- Community Development rezoning, Planned Unit merits regarding project Department (CDD) Development concept plan phasing and prepayment Repair and replacement designated single agency Indian River approved); Concurrency of impact fees to reserve that does not increase for concurrency review Determination Certificate capacity may be accom- intensity; vested final Not applicable or not purposes; evaluation County, required by "Initial Devel- plished at preliminary subdivision plats; available performed by Utilities Florida opment Orders" (sub- plat approval, final plat projects with Final Dept. (solid waste, water, division plats, site plans, approval, site plan, Development Orders sewer), Public Works Planned Unit Develop- Planned Unit Develop- Dept. (roads, drainage), ments, Developments of merit, Development of and CDD (parks) Regional Impact); queuing Regional Impact stage of allocation process, first- review come, first-served Adequacy evaluation will Certificate required for: 1) not be performed for the Development of Regional following permits, which Impact/Florida Quality do not authorize "devel- Development; 2) prelim- opment": 1) zoning/ inary or final land comprehensive plan development approvals; designation or redesign- . 3.) administrative or Single-family residential . Completeness review: ation; 2) ~ariances; special permits for land lots of record as of Planning and Zoning; Development review: 3) conceptual plat development approvals; comprehensive plan Manatee approval; 4) flag lot 4) earthmoving permits; adoption date; vested Not applicable or not Departments with County, approval; 5) flood hazard 5) manufactured hous- projects (judicially available responsibility for Florida variance; 6) private street ing/RV plans (applicant determined); _< 500 s.f. various facilities during approval; 7) tree removal must apply for exemp- nonresidential; dwelling development process permit; and 8) adult tion); 6) off-street parking unit additions (very detailed entertainment permit, plan; 7) building permit application procedures) However, if an additional for_> 500 s.f. nonresi- permit is needed for final dential or dwelling unit construction, a certiticate (whole unit); 8) request may be needed at that for water/wastewater point, service Single-family recon- struction or restoration, Monroe Does not distinguish Enforced at building fences, slabs, (existing Not applicable or not Planning Director; County, between testing and permit buildings), driveways, available applicant must submit Florida enforcement docks, seawalls, tanks, facilities report. swimming pools, storm shutters (Continued 53 Table C-7. ConCUrrency Review Procedure (cOntinued) Stage in Process Stage in Process at at which which APF Test APF Requirements Reviewing Jurisdiction Is Applied Are Enforced Exemptions Waivers Agency/Officials As determined by County Preliminary Plan Council; government Plan approval lies with Montgomery generally, with uses (generallY); special Yes (by Planning Board, Planning Board; Council County, abatement required Subdivision review "staging ceiling" is estab- subject to Council addresses appeals; Pub- Maryland before building permit fished for projects pro- approval) lic hearings required for viding Iow- or moderate- legislative review. income housing. Certificate required for Exemptions apply to park Final Development LOS only: 1) dwelling unit Orders authorizing con- alterations; 2) accessory Rezoning; special excep- struction; developers buildings;3) replace- ment of dwelling unit; Palm Beach tion; special permit; site holding development 4) mobile home tie-down Not applicable or not Planning Director County, plan; subdivision plat; orders may be able to permit if park impact fees available Florida building permit establish an exemption following administrative paid; 5) nonresidential review and/or an appeal development; 6) develop- to a hearings officer, ments not impacting public facilities Building permit (new construction); site plan; Certificate of concur- City of rezoning; subdivision rency issued with Single-family residential and nonresidential Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Palmetto, plat; conditional use; building permit and structures/additions available available Florida Development of Regional valid for life of building Impact Development permit. <1,500 s.f. Order Site plan; building permit; zoning clearance; rezoning; special Governing board may Pinellas exception; variance; Certificate of concur- find that project bane- County, conditional use (tree and rency required for any Vested rights; no fits outweigh impacts in Zoning Division of Florida grubbing permits development order impact deferral areas. Planning Dept excluded; preliminary, nonbinding review may be sought) Prince Grandfathered projects, Planning board may review subdivisions and Georges All review stages, agricultural land, public Yes (by planning board, county council may County, including rezoning Subdivision review utility conveyances, subject to county review zoning; public Maryland building additions of guidelines) < 5,000 s.f. hearings required for legislative review Developments that Building permits issued "Phasing schedule" provide housing for San Diego, pursuant to a "phasing must be received prior Iow/very-low-income Not applicable or not Planning department schedule," which must tO issuance of a persons or farm available California be secured before building permit issuance building permit, workers; reconstruction or remodeling Certificate of Concur- Single-family residen- fancy required prior to tial, two-family residen- issuance of any building tial dwelling units and City of permit, site plan, develop- structures <_ 1,500 Not specified, but Sarasota, Not applicable or not ment plan, rezoning, sub- square feet deemed "de Not applicable or not certificate is required as Florida available division approval, special minimus"; requires available condition of receiving exception, variance, or issuance of certificate; other land development PRI Development Order final local development approvals (must be secured at first permits are step in process) grandfathered. 54 (Continued Table C-7. COncurrency- Review Procedure (continued) . Stage in Process Stage in Process at at which which APF Test APF Requirements Reviewing Jurisdiction Is Applied Are Enforced Exemptions Waivers agency/officials 1) Preliminary plat approval; zoning permit; subdivision approval; site Coordinating depart- plani rezoning; certifi- merits are Planning cation; special exception; (Development of variance; environmental Regional Impact) permit; or any other action Single-family residential critical area [facility] Sarasota permitting land develop- on platted and recorded studies, rezoning, County, ment (test at an early All development orders lots presumed concur- Not applicable or not special exceptions); stage does not guarantee except where exempt available Florida rent except for water Building and Zoning capacity at later stage), and sewer. (preliminary plan, site 2) Drainage concurrency plan, building permit); analysis may be defined Transportation (engi- for rezoning or special neering plans, final exception petitions, plans) 3) Concurrency review varies by type of permit and stage in process. Certificate required with final development per- mit (building permit, site plan, final plat approval, Development Existing practice City of Rezoning; special use permit; preliminary plat of Regional ImpacV Projects generating Not applicable or not retained; departments Tampa, (preliminary develop- Florida Quality Develop- _< 5 peak hour trips available responsible for facilities Florida ment Development reserve and monitor merit permits) Order); impact analysis capacity. required if facility is at 90% of capacity; change of use requires review for net increase 1) Commercial build- ings up to 10,000 s.f. or reconstruction of com- mercial building; 2) Housing projects up to 30 units on single Unclear: "no buildings parcel in core area, or Walnut and structures shall be 10 units outside core Creek, built" unless volume-to- Not applicable or not area; 3) Parking struc- Not applicable or not Not applicable or not California capacity ratio at available tures; 4) Senior citizen available available (Measure H) designatedlevel housing;5) Health, safety, welfare facilities; 6) Cultural/recreational/ religious facilities; 7) Residential construc- tion not increasing the number of permanent units 55 Table C-8. Appeals Processes Criteria or Grounds for Review Jurisdiction Decisionmaker(s) Variance/General Site-Specific Public Hearings Growth Management Director determination may be appealed to "Public Collier County, Facilities Determination Florida Appeal Committee" Not applicable or not available Not applicable or not available Not applicable or not available consisting of an assistant to County Manager, MPO coordinator, and Project Review Services Manager. Indian River Errors in concurrency County, Florida Governing Board Not applicable or not available determination; vested rights Yes Palm Beach Concurrency review board Detailed criteria for vested (planning director, county Not applicable or not available rights determination Not applicable or not available County, Florida attorney, and engineer) City of Palmetto, Florida Board of Adjustment Plot applicable or not available Not applicable or not available Not applicable or not available 1) Concurrency Review and Variance Hearing Board (county administrator, Effect on level of service; attorney, and planning, No special privilege would be proximity to highway links/ engineering, and environ- conferred; not detrimental to intersections; feasibility of mental management depart- health, safety, and welfare; transportation systems management; availability of Pinellas County, ments) and Hearing development not in conflict Yes (at both stages) Florida Administrator; 2) Board of with any other county alternative locations (except Adjustment; 3) Circuit Court ordinance or comprehensive deferral or service protec- (writ of certification; Con- plan; supported by evidence tion); minimum intensitY/ · currency Review and Vari- density increase necessary to ance Hearing Board; further allow reasonable use review by Governing Board) Error in technical determina- City of Sarasota, Appeal to planning board Not applicable ~ not available tion or one or more of the Yes (for. both planning board Florida and city commission minimum requirements were and city commission) met. City of Tampa, Florida Mayor Not applicable or not available Not applicable or not available Yes 56 Table C-9. Effect of Concurrency Determination Effect of Failing Adequate Public Reservation Relationship to Jurisdiction Facilities Test of Capacity Mitigation/Abatement Reimbursement Impact Fees Permitted. Mitigation only required for site Impact fees are Anne traffic impacts if the credited for construc- Arundel Deny or defer approvat facility does not have Yes (credit against tion of of Fsite facilities County, of final plat No an origin or destination impact fee) that meet the same Maryland in county. May be needs as the impact accomplished as a fee. waiver. Deny approval; defer Projects not considered Developer may con- If project would create Brevard issuance; modify proj- vested as to capacity of struct all improvements a deficiency, it may County, ect; process as con- planned improvements necessary to accom- Not applicable or not proceed upon payment Florida ditional development that are later dropped in modate impacts of available of impact fees or fees- order priority development, in-lieu-of. 1) Developer may prepare an "action plan," which is schedule of improvements that at a Denial; finding that Plat approval does not minimum accommo- For regional roads, Broward facilities will be ade- guarantee reservation of dates the capacity applicant may construct County, quate upon occupancy; capacity; approved but deficit. Action plan Not applicable or not needed improvements or Florida mitigation through unbuilt projects are review by an Action Plan available deposit money in a action plan or construc- counted against Review Committee and "road fund." tion of improvements capacity approved by governing board. 2) Applicants may develop an "Action Plan" to improve capac- ity or reduce demand. Three years, generally. For certain large-scale Collier Certificate of Public projects, certificate valid Impact fees must be County, Facility Adequacy must for 5 years if: 1) final . paid prior to issuance of Florida be provided for sub- approval obtained within Not applicable or not Not applicabie or not certificate of adequacy division, site plan, and/ 12 months; 2) construc- available available and are credited towards or building permit tion commences within fees paid at final approval. 24 months; and 3) infra- development order. structure completed within 36 months. Approve; deny; reduce intensity/density; delay Capacity reserved at any Hillsborough APDFdetermination; point after appropriate Not applicable or not Not applicable or not County, preliminary development zoning upon payment of Equal mitigation available available Florida order may be issued reservation of capacity without certificate, fee, subject to conditions Tentative allocation at Howard preliminary plat ap- Permitted; must be suf- Not applicable or not Denial; project phasing; proval, which expires ficient to meet points No reimbursement County, mitigation available Maryland after 2 years; final threshold allocation at final plat (Continued 57 ' · Table C!9. Effect of COncurrency Determination (continUed) Effect of Failing Adequate Public Reservation Relationship to Jurisdiction Facilities Test of Capacity Mitigation/Abatement Reimbursement Impact Fees 1) Final development order may be issued if initial development order has not expired, impacts are more fully accounted for, conditions have not changed, and timing or phasing has been com- plied with. However, initial development order Indian River Developer's option: does not guarantee May be paid at early County, reduction in project size availability of capacity at Not applicable or not Not applicable or not review stages (concep- Florida or denial final development order, available available tual review) to reserve 2) Reservation at concep- capacity tual review on payment of impact fees. 3) Reserva- tion valid for one year, and may be extended to 5 years, on initial deter- mination. 4) Final deter- mination valid for 6 months pending building permit issuance, then for life of building permit. 1) Development or 1) Certificate generally Impact fees not collected facilities phasing; denial; reserves capacity for 3 before certificate unless development agreement; years, without renewal or fees are collected on count additional pro- extension. Development phases for which level of Manatee grammed capacity, agreement/Development Mitigation may be pro- service compliance is County, 2) For traffic analysis, of Regional Impact may vided through a devel- Not applicable or not established or prepay- Florida change access; change negotiate time limits, opment agreement, available ment called for in devel- intensity; development 2) Capacity set-aside is opment agreement or agreement; phasing; or used for estimating Development of Regional plan amendment impact of vested projects. Impact order. Permitted subject to Montgomery planning board Yes. Typically only for large, funded capital County, Denial; mitigation No approval; transporta- projects for which Not applicable or not Maryland tion system manage- available ment may be used to developer is refunded a offset traffic increases, portion of the cost. 1) Certificate valid until development order Denial; issuance of expires so long as "dcvel- conditional certificate opment is not altered to on execution of increase the number of development the development on public agreement; on facilities." 2) Capacity may demand, developer be "conditionally" Applicant has 90 days to Palm Beach reserved in situations remedy level of service County, may keep application alive by applying for an where all existing capacity deficiencies on applica- Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Florida "entitlement density," has been reserved up to tion for certificate in available available which must be the amount needed for the order to proceed with followed by development, and devel- processing application. development within 2 oper agrees to provide years, balance through devel- opment agreement. 3) If certificate denied, devel- oper may apply for "entitlement density." 58 (Continued Table C-9. Effect of Concurrency DeterminatiOn (continued) Effect of Failing Adequate Public Reservation Relationship to Jurisdiction Facilities Test of Capacity Mitigation/Abatement Reimbursement Impact Fees Intensity or density reduc- tion; phasing; outparcel deletion; access reduc- Generally, certificate tion; impact reduction vested for life of permit Pinellas through "corrective plan";if construction com- County, governing board approves mences and continues Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Florida based on project benefits in good faith. Limited to available available available that outweigh impacts; 6 months for develop- automatic 25% reduction merit order authorizing in densityAntensity in construction. designated "service protection areas" Partial reimbursement through road club. Re- gional planning agency Prince Permitted subject to may recommend via George's Denial of plat approval; No planning board planning board that Not applicable or not County, mitigation/abatement approval subsequent developer in available Marytand an impact area partici- pate in bonded private sector improvements. Allocation on first-come, first-served basis within categories; certain proj- ects are placed in "pref- Applicant may provide 1) Denial, Applicant may erence categories" and Fully payable when San Diego, reapply when facilities receive first allocation, facilities needed to May receive reimburse~ building permits are California are adequate. 2) Miti- including enterprise attain the adopted LOS ment through creation issued. Voluntary zone/redevelopment either by construction of a special district advance payment is in gation/abatement, projects, projects within or through a "voluntary addition to impact fees. 1/4 mile from a fixed-railadvance payment." transit station, and proj- ects with $1 million net fiscal impact. Finding of concurrency at early stage of process does not guarantee con- currency at later stage Denial (issuance of unless: 1) previous Sarasota development order development order Development agree- Not applicable or not Not applicable or not County, contingent upon finding unexpired; 2) impact is merit, generally available available Florida of concurrency) fully accounted for; 3) conditions have not changed; or 4) timing and phasing conditions have been satisfied. 1) Evaluation at prelim- inary development permit does not reserve capac~. 2) Certificate at final City of Final development development permit Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Tampa, permit is "returned" to reserves capacity and available available available Florida applicant, expires with the permit, 3) Capacity returns to system if denied, rejected, invalidated, or abandoned. Volusia Prepayment of impact County, Not applicable or not fees in cash or letter of Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Not applicable or not Florida available credit available available available 59 Table C-10. Development Monitoring Jurisdiction Frequency Responsible Party Report? Use of Reports Permits Monitored Other Planning Agency, assisted by Technical Improvements are piaced Advisory Committee No. However, capital in capital improvements Brevard (county administrator, Budgeting/ projects forming County, Annual comptroller, and Not applicable or not scheduling/ basis for permit element of compre- hensive plan when Florida department directors), available prioritizing capital approval cannot be designafed % of capacity makes recommenda- improvements delayed more than is reached; detailed tions to governing once. evaluation criteria board. Growth Management "Annual Update and Director presents Inventory Report" report to council. Annual report forms None in annual forecasts capacity of basis for formation of report. Based on Collier existing facilities, Growth Management deferral areas, addi- BEBR data, facility Not applicable or not County, Annual (May 1) facilities in 5-year Florida Director capital improvements tigris to capital inventories, unit available element of compre- improvements element costs, and traffic hensive plan, and 10 of comprehensive counts. succeeding years, plan, and projects included in tentative annual budget. Utilities Dept. (water, sewer); Solid Waste Cumulative effects of Disposal District permits and/or actual Indian Quarterly (water, (solid waste); Public level of service or sower, parks, roads); Works and Commu- flows, depending on River Monitor available facilities; concurrency Not applicable or not County, annually (drainage). nity Development Yes Concurrency database Departments (roads); capacity database monitors available Florida "updated regularly." Public Works Dept. existing and corn- (drainage); Planning mitred supply and Division (concurrency demand, and duration database), of committed capacity. Lee Yes. Reviewed and County, Annually pivision of Concur- approved by govern- Establish available Not applicable or not Not applicable oi not Florida rency Management lng board, capacity (binds county) available available Must be approved by Determine areas of governing board; Monroe adequate, inadequate, increase in develop- County, Annual Planning Director Yes, to governing and marginally Not applicable or not ment capacity requires Florida board adequate capacity by available finding of reason for service area increase and source of funds. Growth Policy Report Establishes' "staging submitted by plan- ceilings," or maxi- Recent trends in real ning department to mum amount of estate transactions, Montgomery county executive, population and Preliminary plats public facility level of County, Annual Report receives com- Yes employment growth and facilities; sewer authorizations; rec- service conditions, Maryland ments from agencies in each policy area and population, house- with responsibility for based on capacity of ord plats; building hold, and employment providing public facil- public facilities and permit growth also monitored. ities and is adopted adopted level of by governing board, service. I Palm Existing conditions and capacity of public Beach Annually Planning Director Yes facilities, including the Not applicable or not Not applicable or not County, available available cost of capacity to be Florida added by CIP (Continued) 6O Table C-10. Development Monitoring (continued) Jurisdiction Frequency Responsible Party Report? Use of Reports Permits Monitored Other Evaluates the remain- Pinellas Planning department; Determine facility level ing capacity of public One-year duration; County, Annual county administrator of service; determine facility based upon may be amended due Florida recommends approval Yes deferral and service the anticipated com- to change in status Of pletion of "multi-year, project in state or to govern ng board, protection areas phased development local CIP proposals." Annual. "Tiered" level Initially, all existing Sarasota of review increases development and County, data collection require- Planning department Yes Inventory available final development Not applicable or not Florida merits after 1 year, 5 capacity orders; eventually available years, and 20 years, requires projection of anticipated demand 1) Permit-by-permit when demand for a facility reaches 90%. 2) For each facility: a) adopted LOS; b) total City of capacity; c) reserved Tampa, Annual Department in charge Determine available Not applicable or not Florida of facility Yes capacity capacity; d) vested capacity; e) available available capacity; f) capacity used since previous statement; and g) whether facility at 90% of capacity. Volusia Monitor capacity County, Annual (fiscal year) Not applicable or not Determine available Not applicable or not Florida available Yes capacity allocated to vested available developments Appendix D. Concurrency Management Regulations for Florida and Washington State Rule 9J-5.0055 Concurrency Management System. The purpose of the concurrency management system is to establish an ongoing mechanism which ensures that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. (1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. Each local government shall adopt, as a component of the comprehensive plan, objectives, policies, and standards for the establishment of a concurrency management system. The concurrency management system will ensure that issuance of a development order or development permit is conditioned upon the availability of public facilities and services necessary to serve new development, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and this Rule. The concurrency management system shall include: (a) A requirement that the local government shall maintain the adopted level of service standards for roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, and mass transit, if applicable. (b) A requirement that the local government Capital Improvements Element, as provided by Section 9J-5.016 of this Chapter, shall set forth a financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the adopted level of service standards will be achieved and maintained. (c) A system for monitoring and ensuring adherence to the adopted level of service standards, the schedule of capital improvements, and the availability of public facility capacity. (d) Guidelines for interpreting and applying level of service standards to applications for development orders and development permits, and determining when the test for concurrency must be met. The latest point in the application process for the determination of concurrency is prior to the approval of an application for a development order or permit which contains a specific plan for development, including the densities and intensities of development. (e) A requirement that the local government shall adopt land development regulations which specify and implement provisions of the concurrency management system and, at a minimum, provide a program that ensures that development orders and development permits are issued in a manner that will not result in a reduction in the levels of service below the adopted level of service standards for the affected facility. (2) LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS (a) For the purpose of the issuance of development orders and development permits, local governments mus~ adopt level of service standards for public facilities and services located within the area for which such local government has authority to issue development orders and development permits. For the purposes of concurrency, public facilities and services include the following for which level of service standards must be adopted under Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C.: 1. Roads, Rule 9J-5.007(3)(c)1. 2. Sanitary sewer, Rule 9J-5.011(2)(c)2.a. 3. Solid waste, Rule 9J-5.011 (2)(c)2.b. 4. Drainage, Rule 9J-5.011(2)(c)2.c. 5. Potable water, Rule 9J-5.011 (2)(c)2.d. 6. Parks and Recreation, Rule 9J-5.014(3)(c)4. 7. Mass transit, Rule 9J-5.008(3)(c)1., if applicable. 8. Roads and public transit, Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)1. (b) A local government, at its option, may make additional public facilities and services subject to the concurrency management system. Level of service standards of such additional facilities must be adopted in the local government comprehensive plan. If a local government desires to extend the concurrency requirement to public schools, it should first complete a study to determine how the concurrency requirement is to be addressed and implemented by the local government, school board and all other parties responsible for school facilities. (Section 163.3180(1), Florida Statutes) (c) For facilities on the Florida Intrastate Highway System as defined in s. 338.001, Florida Statutes, the local governments shall adopt the level of service standards established by the Department of Transportation by rule. For other roads local governments shall adopt adequate level of service standards. Theoe level of oervice otandardo ohall be adopted to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided to serve the existing and future land uses as demonstrated by the supporting data and analysis in the comprehensive plan. (Section 163.3180(10), Florida Statutes) (d) A local government may desire to have a tiered, two-level approach for the level of service standard. To utilize a tiered approach, the local government must adopt an initial level of service standard as a policy to be utilized for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and development permits. A second policy may be included which adopts a higher level of service standard by a date certain to be utilized for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits. The 63 specific date for this second policy to become effective must be included in the plan. The plan must set forth the specific actions and programs for attaining the higher level of service by the specified date. If the identified actions and programs are not attained by the specified date, the local government comprehensive plan must be amended to specify the level of service standard that will be utilized and be binding for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits. (3) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCURRENCY. Every jurisdiction shall maintain a concurrency management system to ensure that public facilities and services to support development are available concurrent with the impact of development, consistent with the provisions of this Chapter. c) For transportation facilities (roads and mass transit designated in the adopted lOcal government comprehensive plan), a't a minimum, a local government shall meet the following standards to satisfy the concurrency requirement, except as otherwise provided in subsections (4)-(7) of thi~ Section. 1. At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are in place or under construction; or 2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the conditions that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent as provided in the adopted local government five-year schedule of capital improvements. The schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the applicable, adopted Florida Department of Transportation five-year work program. The Capital Improvements Element must include the following policies: a. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion. b. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate, defer, or delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the five- year schedule of capital improvements; or 3. At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or 4. At the time a development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section 163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. (Section 163.3180(2)(c), Florida Statutes) 5. For the purpose of issuing a development order or permit, a proposed urban redevelopment project located within a defined and mapped Existing Urban Service Area as established in the local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Section 163.3164(29), Florida Statutes, shall not be subject to the concurrency requirements of Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(c)1.--4. of this Chapter for up to 110 percent of the transportation impact generated by the previously existing development. For the purposes of this provision, a previously existing development is the actual previous built use which was occupied and active within a time period established in the local government comprehensive plan. (Section 163.3180(8), Florida Statutes) 6. For the purpose of issuing a development order or permit, a proposed development may be deemed to have a de minimis impact and may not be subject to the concurrency requirements of Rules 9J-5.0055(3)(c)1.--4. of this Chapter, only if all of the following conditions are met: a. The development proposal is for an increase in density or intensity of less than or equal to twice the density or intensity of the existing development, or for the development of a vacant parcel of land, at a residential density of less than four dwelling units per acre or, for nonresidential uses, at an intensity of less than 0.1 floor area ratio. Isolated vacant lots in predominantly built residential areas where construction of a single-family house would be the most suitable use, may be developed for single-family residential under the de mtnimis exception even if smaller than one-quarter acre in size. b. The transportation impact of the proposed development alone does not exceed 0.1 percent of the maximum service volume at the adopted level of service standard for the peak hour of the affected transportation facility. c. The cumulative total transportation impact from the de minimis exemptions does not exceed 3 percent of the maximum service volume at the adopted level of service standard of the affected transportation facility if the facility does not meet the minimum level of service standard. d. The local government has adopted within its comprehensive plan policies for granting such exemptions. (Section 163.3180(6), Florida Statutes) (4) LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. To correct existing deficiencies in transportation facilities and to set priorities for reducing the backlog on transportation facilities, local governments are authorized to adopt, as a part of the comprehensive plan, a long-term transportation concurrency management system with a planning period of up to 10 years that meets the following requirements: (a) To implement a long-term transportation concurrency management system, a local government must designate in the comprehensive plan specific areas where significant backlogs presently exist. These areas must be delineated on an 64 adopted comprehensive plan map and must be consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan including the future land-use map. (b) The long-term concurrency management system must be a financially feasible system to ensure that existing deficiencies are corrected within the 10-year period and establish priorities for addressing backlogged facilities. This may be accomplished by adopting a long-term schedule of capital improvements for transportation facilities for up to 10 years for the special concurrency districts or areas. The long-term schedule of capital improvements must include the transportation facilities required to correct existing deficiencies as well as to accommodate new development, and shall provide a realistic, financially feasible funding system based on currently available revenue sources which must be adequate to fund the scheduled improvements. The schedule must also include the estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion. This schedule may be relied on as a basis for issuing development permits which meet concurrency requirements in lieu of the provision of Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(c)1.-4. of this Chapter. (c) A policy in the local comprehensive plan that a plan amendment shall be required to eliminate, defer, or delay construction of any road or public transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the long-term schedule of capital improvements, if established. (d) As part of a long-term transportation concurrency management system, a local government may adopt policies in its comprehensive plan to establish interim level of service standards on certain facilities in long-term concurrency areas for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits in these districts. The local government may establish a schedule for achieving specified improvements in the interim level of service standards for intervals of time in the future. The plan should set forth specific actions and programs including a monitoring program for achieving the scheduled improvements in the interim levels of service. This monitoring program should require that, in the event that the identified actions and programs are not attained as scheduled, the local government comprehensive plan should be amended to specify the default level of service standards that will be utilized and be binding for the purpose of the issuance of development orders and permits. (e) Local governments with a severe backlog of transportation facilities may request the Department's approval for a planning period of up to 15 years for establishing a long-term transportation concurrency management system which meets the requirements of Subparagraph 9J-5.0055(4) of this Chapter. A local government seeking such an approval must demonstrate that its transportation backlog for existing development cannot be adequately addressed with a 10-year plan. In considering such a request, the department's analysis shall include a comparison of the circumstances of the requesting local government with the general situation facing similarly situated jurisdictions, using the following criteria: 1. The extent of the backlog 2. Whether the backlog is on local or state roads 3. The cost of eliminating the backlog 4. The local government's tax and other revenue raising efforts (Section 163.3180(9), Florida Statutes) (5) TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS. The purpose of this optional alternative tr~insportation concurrency approach is to promote infill development or redevelopment within selected portions of urban areas in a manner that supports the provision of more efficient mobility alternatives, including public transit. As a coordinated approach to land- use and transportation development, it may employ the use of an areawide level of service standard and an accommodation and management of traffic congestion. A transportation concurrency management area is a compact geographic area with existing or proposed multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. (a) An areawide level of service standard may be established for specified facilities, and must be maintained, as a basis for the issuance of development orders and permits within one or tgmore designated transportation concurrency management areas. Areawide level of service standards may only be established for facilities with similar functions serving common origins and destinations. Designation of each transportation concurrency management area and establishment of areawide level of service standards within such areas must be supported by data and analysis in the local government comprehensive plan support document which: 1. Demonstrate that the transportation concurrency management areas, as designated, are compatible with and further the various portions and elements of the local comprehensive plan. 2. Provide a justification of the size and boundaries of each transportation concurrency management area for consistency with the purpose of this Subsection. 3. Demonstrate that transportation concurrency management areas as designated contain an integrated and connected network of roads and provide multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips. 4. Demonstrate the basis for establishing the areawide level of service standards and determine existing and projected transportation service and facility requirements that will support the established areawide level of service standard. 5. Demonstrate that the established areawide level of service and other transportation services and programs will support infill development or redevelopment. 6. Demonstrate that the planned roadway improvements and other services and programs, such as transportation system management (TSM) and/or transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and incentives to use public transit (such as parking policies and provision of intermodal transfers), will accomplish mobility within and through each concurrency management area. (b) Transportation concurrency management areas established pursuant to this subsection shall be delineated on the future conditions maps, including the future traffic circulation map or transportation map, as applicable, of a local government 65 comprehensive plan consistent with this Subsection. The areawide level of service standards and associated maximum service volumes must be established as policies in the comprehensive plan. Transportation concurrency management areas may transcend jurisdictional boundaries when appropriate and must be designated in each applicable comprehensive plan consistent with the provisions of this Subsection. A local government should coordinate with the Department of Transportation and, if applicable, the metropolitan planning organization when designating transportation concurrency management area boundaries. (c) The local comprehensive plan shall contain objectives and policies which specify actions and programs to promote infill development and redevelopment. A local government shall adopt and maintain an integrated and internally consistent transportation, land-use, and capital improvement planning program for each concurrency management area to maintain the established areawide level of service standard. (6) TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS. The purpose of this flexible transportation concurrency option approach is to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill development and redevelopment and the achievement of other goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan, such as promoting the development of public transportation. Under limited circumstances, it allows exceptions to the transportation concurrency requirement in specifically defined urban areas of a jurisdiction. The exceptions provide flexibility for concurrency management in order to encourage the application of a wide range of planning strategies that correspond with local circumstances of a specific geographic area. The exceptions apply to all land uses and development and types of facilities within expressly excepted areas. Local governments must specifically consider the impacts of the exception areas on the Florida Intrastate Highway System. (a) In order to exercise the option of establishing a transportation concurrency exception area, a local government must designate in its comprehensive plan a specific geographic area, or areas, of transportation concurrency exception, consistent with the purpose of this Subsection. A proposed development located in a designated exception area shall not be subject to the requirements of Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(c)1.--4. of this Chapter. The designation of a transportation concurrency exception area may include: 1. A specific geographic area, or areas, delineated in the local government comprehensive plan for urban infill development pursuant to Section 163.3164(27), Florida Statutes. The local comprehensive plan shall contain objectives and policies which specify actions and programs to promote urban infill development. An area delineated for urban infill development shall meet the following requirements. a. The area contains not more than 10 percent developable vacant land. The developable vacant land shall not include water bodies and land designated for conservation use, natural reservations, public road rights-of-way, public recreation sites, or related activities or uses designated in the local government's comprehensive plan as unavailable for development. b. For areas where residential use is the predominant type of use comprising greater than 60 percent Of the developed land, the average residential density shall be at least five dwelling units per gross residentially developed acre of land use. For areas where nonresidential use is the predominate type of use comprising greate, r than 60 percent of the developed land, the average nonresidential density shall be at least a floor area ratio of 1.0 per gross nonresidentially developed acre of land use. If neither residential nor nonresidential uses comprise greater than 60 percent of the developed land, then both the existing residential use and nonresidential use shall meet the appropriate density and intensity criteria prescribed above. The term "gross develope~l acre" shall include all uses associated with the predominant land use including parking, drainage, open space, landscaping and other support facilities. 2. A specific geographic area, or areas, delineated in the local government comprehensive plan for urban redevelopment pursuant to Section 163.3164(26), Florida Statutes. The plan must show that the urban redevelopment area is within an urban infill area which meets the criteria of Rule 9J-5.0055(6)(a)l.a. and b., which is established as a specific geographic area in the plan, or within an existing urban service area pursuant to Section 163.3164(29), Florida Statutes, established in the plan as a specific geographic area which does not contain more than 40 percent developable vacant land. The local comprehensive plan shall contain objectives and policies which specify actions and programs to promote urban redevelopment. A designated urban redevelopment area may include a Community Redevelopment Area established pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 when these areas exist within an urban in fill area or an Existing Urban Service Area as designated in the local comprehensive plan. 3. A specific geographic area delineated in the local government comprehensive plan for downtown revitalization within the designated central business district pursuant to Section 163.3164(25), Florida Statutes. The comprehensive plan shall contain objectives and policies which specify actions and programs to promote downtown revitalization. (b) To implement the transportation concurrency exception areas, the following requirements must be met: 1. The transportation concurrency exception areas, as designated, must be compatible with and further the various portions and elements of the local comprehensive plan. 2. The size and boundaries of each transportation concurrency exception area must be supported by data and analysis in the local government's plan support document which demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this Subsection. A local government should coordinate with the Department of Transportation and the local metropolitan planning organization when designating transportation concurrency exception area boundaries. 3. Transportation concurrency exception areas may transcend jurisdictional boundaries when appropriate and must be designated in each applicable comprehensive plan consistent with the provisions of this Subsection. (c) To implement the transportation concurrency exceptions, a local government should adopt as an amendment to its comprehensive plan, guidelines and/or policies which specify programs to address transportation needs of such areas. The 66 guidelines may incorporate a wide range of strategies including timing and staging plans, parking control and pricing policies, transportation demand management programs, transportation system management programs, availability of public transportation, and utilization of creative financing tools for the provision of transportation services and facilities. (d) The guidelines and/or policies and programs implementing a transportation concurrency exception area as required in the above paragraph (c), if applicable, must demonstrate by supporting data and analysis, including short- and long-range traffic analysis, that consideration has been given to the impact of proposed development within the concurrency exception area on the Florida Intrastate Highway System. (7) CONCURRENCY EXCEpTION--FOR PROJECTS THAT PROMOTE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. The purpose of this flexible transportation concurrency option is to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on the promotion of public transportation including goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan~ Local governments may exempt projects that promote public transportation as defined in Section 163.3164(28), Florida Statutes, by establishing in the local comprehensive plan, guidelines and/or policies for the granting of such exceptions. Those guidelines must demonstrate by supporting data and analysis, that consideration has been given to the impact of the projects on the Florida Interstate Highway System. The guidelines must establish how a project will qualify as a project that promotes public transportation. (8) PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING. In order to exercise the option of issuing a development order or permit pursuant to Section 163.3180(11), a local government must identify in the comprehensive plan a process for assessing, receiving, and applying a fair share of the cost of providing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed development. The transportation facilities must be included in a financially feasible five-year Capital Improvement Schedule adopted pursuant to Section 9J-5.016 of this Chapter. The assessment shall have a reasonable relationship to the transportation impact that is generated by the proposed development. 365-195-070 INTERPRETATIONS The following represent the department's interpretation of several critical concepts about which the express terms of the act are not clear. While not necessarily the only appropriate way to view the concepts involved, these interpretations appear to be supported by the overall statutory context. (3) Concurrency: The achievement of concurrency should besought with respect to public facilities in addition to transportation facilities. The list of such additional facilities should be locally defined. The department recommends that at least domestic water systems and sanitary sewer systems be added to concurrency lists applicable within urban growth areas, and that at least domestic water systems be added for lands outside urban growth areas. Concurrency describes the situation i.n which adequate facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. With respect to facilities other than transportation facilities and water systems, local jurisdictions may fashion their own regulatory responses and are not limited to imposing moratoria on development during periods when concurrency is not maintained. (5) l~lrban Growth Areas. The adoption of urban growth areas by counties should reflect a cooperative effort among jurisdictions to accomplish the requirements of the act on a regional basis. As growth occurs, most lands within urban growth areas should ultimately be provided with local urban services by cities, either directly or by contract. Other service providers are appropriate within urban growth areas for regional or countywide services, or for isolated unincorporated pockets characterized by urban growth. Provisions should be made for the phasing of development within each urban growth area to ensure that services are provided as growth occurs. In proposing urban growth areas, cities should endeavor to accommodate projected urban growth through infill within existing municipal boundaries. But in some cases expansion will be logical. Interlocal agreements should be negotiated regarding land-use management and the provision of services to such potential expansion areas so that such growth can occur in a manner consistent with the cities' comprehensive plans and development regulations. 365-195-210 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER The following are definitions of terms which are not defined in RCW 36.70A.030 but which are defined here for purposes of these procedural criteria. The department recommends that counties and cities planning under the act adopt these definitions in their plans: "Adequate public facilities" means facilities which have the capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums. "Available public facilities" means that facilities or services are in place or that a financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified time. In the case of transportation, the specified time is six years from the time of development. "Concurrency'' means that adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur. This definition includes the two concepts or "adequate public facilities" and of "available public facilities" as defined above. 67 "Demand management strategies," or "transportation demand management strategies (TDM)' means strategies aimed at changing travel behavior rather than at expanding the transportation network to meet travel demand. Such strategies can include the promotion of work-hour changes, ride-sharing options, parking policies, telecommuting. "Financial commitment" means that sources of public or private funds or combinations thereof have been identified which will be sufficient to finance public facilities necessary to support development and that there is reasonable assurance that such funds will be timely put to that end. o o o "Level of service" means an established minimum capacity of public facilities or services that must be provided per unit of demand or other appropriate measure of need. "Public service obligations" means obligations imposed by law on utilities to furnish facilities and supply service to all who may apply for and be reasonably entitled to service. "Regional transportation plan" means the transportation plan for the regionally designated transportation system which is produced by the regional transportation planning organization. "Regional transportation planning organization (RTPO)' means the voluntary organization conforming to RCW 47.80.020, consisting of local governments within a region containing one or more counties which have common transportation interests. "Transportation facilities" includes capital facilities related to air, water, or land transportation. "Transportation level of service standards" means a measure which describes the operational condition of the travel stream and acceptable adequacy requirements. Such standards may be expressed irt terms such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, geographic accessibility, and safety. "Transportation system management (TSM)' means the use of low capital expenditures to increase the capacity of the transportation system. TSM strategies include but are not limited to signalization, channelization, and bus turn-outs. 365-195-315 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT (1) Requirements. This element shall contain at least the following features: (a) 'An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities (b) A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities (c) The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities (d) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes (e) A requirement to reassess the land-use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land-use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent (2) Recommendations for Meeting Requirements. The capital facilities element should serve as a check on the practicality of achieving other elements of the plan. The following steps are recommended in preparing the capital facilities element: (a) Inventory of existing capital facilities showing locations and capacities, including an inventory of the extent to which existing facilities possess presently unused capacity. Capital facilities involved should include water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection facilities. (b) The selection of levels of service or planning assumptions for the various facilities to apply during the planning period (20 years or more) and which reflect community goals. (c) A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities based on the levels of service or planning assumptions selected and consistent with the growth, densities, and distribution of growth anticipated in the land-use element. (d) The creation of a six-year capital facilities plan for financing capital facilities needed within that time frame. Projected funding capacities are to be evaluated, followed by the identification of sources of public or private funds for which there is reasonable assurance of availability. The six-year plan should be updated at least biennially so that financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the present for concurrency to be evaluated. (e) The needs for capital facilifie~ should be dictated by the phasing schedule set forth in the land-use element. (f) Provision should be made to reassess the land-use element and other elements of the plan periodically in light of the evolving capital facilities plan. If the probable funding for capital facilities at any time is insufficient to meet existing needs, the land-use element must be reassessed. At the same time, funding possibilities and levels of service might also be reassessed. The plan should require that, as a result of such reassessment, appropriate action must be taken to ensure the internal consistency of the land-use and capital facilities portions of the plan. The plan should set forth how, if at all, pending applications for development will be affected while such a reassessment is being undertaken. 68 365-195-325 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (1) Requirements. This element shall contain at least the following subelements: (a) Land-use assumptions used in estimating travel; (b) Facilities and services needs, including: (i) An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; (ii) Level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge performance'of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated; (iii) Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; (iv) Forecasts of traffic for at least 10 years based on the adopted land-use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; (v) Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet current and future demands; (c) Finance, including: (i) An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; (ii) A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities, RCW 36.81.121 for counties, and RCW 35.58.2795 for public transportation systems; (iii) If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised or how land-use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; (d) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land-use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions; (e) Demand-management strategies. (2) Recommendations for Meeting Requirements. The following steps are recommended in preparing the transportation element: (a) Local and regional transportation goals and policies for the following transportation modes, where applicable: (i) Roadways (ii) Transit: Fixed route and demand response (iii) Nonmotorized travel: Bicycle and pedestrian (iv) Port and intermodal facilities: kVa. ter, rail, air, and industrial (v) Rail: Passenger and freight (vi) Freight mobility: Truck, rail, and barge (b) A discussion of how the transportation element implements the land-use element, how the transportation and land-use elements are consistent, and how the transportation element is consistent with the regional transportation plan. Discussion concerning regional development strategies which promote the regional transportation plan and an efficient transportation system should be included. (c) Inventories, incorporating the level of detail appropriate for the planning jurisdiction: (iii) Inventory of land transportation can include but not necessarily be limited to: (A) A map of arterials and limited access facilities; a description of the general travel market (i.e., commuter, tourist, farm to market, etc.) served by the transportation network; traffic volumes, functional classification, ownership and physical and operational condition. Consideration of current and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current and projected transportation needs. (B) A map of the rail lines and intermodal facilities; a description of ownership, condition, and identification of whether the rail lines are for passenger and/or freight movement. Consideration of current and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current and future projected land transportation needs. (iv) Inventory of transit facilities and services within the planning area can include, but not necessarily be limited to, a description of the service, service area, routes, major transfer centers, population base, passengers carried, number of vehicles including seating capacity, miles of route and vehicle hours within the local jurisdiction's boundaries. Analysis of projected transit needs should be made based on projected land-use assumptions. For example, transit improvements should be planned in areas of projected residential and/or employment centers. Consideration of current and projected surrounding land use should be made with respect to uses that are compatible and available for current and projected transit needs. 69 (d) If the planning area is within a National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment area, compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is required. The following should be included in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan as applicable to locally generated mobile sources of pollutants: A map of the area designated as the nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM10); a discussion of the severity of the violation(s) contributed by transportation-related sources causing nonattainment and a description of measures that will be implemented consistent with the state implementation plan for air quality, in order to comply with the national standards for the air, land, water, and transit sections of the transportation element. Local jurisdictions should refer to local air- quality agencies and metropolitan planning organizations for assistance. (e) Provide a definition of the level of service (LOS) to be adopted for the transportation system that includes at least arterials and transit routes. The definition of level of service is not restricted to the t?aditional Highway Capacity Manual approach, but could include district, areawide, corridor, or other nontraditional level of service standards. Provide an inventory of the current level of service of at least arterial and transit routes. Adopted level of service standards should reflect access, mobility, mode-split, or capacity goals for the transportation facility depending upon the surrounding development density and community goals, and should be developed in consultation with transit agencies serving the planning area. (f) System expansion needs should include considerations for: Repair, replacement, or enhancement, and/or expansion. (g) Transportation system management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) implementation measures can include, but not necessarily be limited to: Signal coordination, channelization, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, ridesharing, trip substitution, trip shifting, increased public transportation, parking policies, and high occupancy subsidy programs. Provision should be made for evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies, and funding sources should be identified. (h) The finance subelement should include, but not necessarily be limited to: (i) Results of the identification study of current and projected deficiencies; (ii) Development of cost estimates to alleviate deficiencies; (iii) Assessment of revenue forecasts/shortfalls; (iv) Development of financing policies; and (v) Development of a financing schedule which matches projects and funding availability. If sufficient public and/or private funding cannot be found, land-use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met, or level of service standards will be adjusted. (i) Intergovernmental coordination. (i) Jurisdictions should assess the impacts of their transportation and land-use decisions on adjacent jurisdictions. Impacts of those decisions should be identified and discussion of strategies to address inconsistencies should be included. (A) A discussion of how the local transportation and land-use goals relate to adjacent jurisdictions' transportation and land-use goals, countywide policies, regional land-use and transportation strategies, and statewide goals outlined in the act. (B) Local jurisdictions should refer to the Washington state transportation policy plan for guidance on statewide transportation policy. (C) Local jurisdictions should refer to the regional transportation plan produced by the regional transportation planning organization for guidance concerning the designated regional transportation system. Local jurisdictions should also define their community's role in the regional transportation and land-use strategy and produce transportation and land-use plansand development regulations which promote that role. (D) Local jurisdictions should refer to the responsible transportation agencies for information concerning current and projected plans for air, land, and Water transportation facilities and services. Local jurisdictions and agencies responsible for air, land, and water transportation facilities and services should cooperate in identifying and resolving land-use and transportation linkage issues. (ii) All transportation projects which have an impact on the regional transportation system must be consistent with the regional transportation plan as defined by RCW 47.80.030. A regional transportation planning organization shall certify that the transportation elements of the adopted county, city, and town comprehensive plans within the region conform with RCW 36.70A.070. Regional transportation plans, state transportation plans, and county and city comprehensive plans shall be consistent with one another. (iii) Traffic forecasts should be based on adopted regional growth strategies, the regional transportation plan, and comprehensive plans within the region to ensure consistency between jurisdictions. The forecast of at least 10 years of travel demand should include vehicular, transit, and nonmotorized modes of transportation. (iv) The state department of transportation and the transportation commission will develop a state transportation plan as required by RCW 47.01.071, and identify and jointly plan improvements and strategies within corridors of regional or statewide significance coordinated and consistent with the RTPO's. Local jurisdictions should refer to the Systems Plan produced by the department of transportation for service objectives on state-owned transportation facilities, proposed improvements, and identification of deficiencies for the state-owned transportation facilities. 70 The department of transportation should be involved with the regionally coordinated effort to set level of service standards for arterials and transit routes. (v) Key coordination efforts between interested public, private, and citizen groups should include: Transportation plan development; identification of needs; land-use coordination; capital program development; prioritization of projects, financial plan, LOS standards development; capacity accounting procedures; development review process; timing of concurrency review; analysis methods; legal requirements (vesting, appeals); concurrency management system ordinance; LOS monitoring. 365-195-510 CONCURRENCY (1) Transportation. The aim of transportation planning for local jurisdictions is to achieve concurrency for transportation facilities. If concurrency for transportation facilities is not achieved, development may not be approved. (2) Other public facilities. Each comprehensive plan should designate those public facilities in addition to transportation facilities for which concurrency is required. (3) Levels of service. The concept of concurrency is based on the maintenance of specified levels of service with respect to each of the public facilities to which concurrency applies. For all such facilities, planning jurisdictions should designate appropriate levels of service. (a) Transportation. The designation of levels of service in the transportation area will be influenced by regional considerations. For transportation facilities subject to regional transportation plans under RCW 47.80.030, local levels of service should conform to the regional plan. Other transportation facilities, however, may reflect local priorities. (b) Levels of service should be set to reflect realistic expectations consistent with the achievement of growth aims. Setting such levels too high could, under some regulatory strategies, result in no growth. As a deliberate policy, this would be contrary to the act. (4) Regulatory response to the absence of concurrency. The plan should provide a strategy for what happens when approval of any particular development would cause levels of service for concurrency to fall below the locally adopted standards. Denial of approval is statutorily required only in the area of transportation facilities. To the extent that any jurisdiction uses denial of development as its regulatory response to the absence of concurrency, consideration should be given to defining this as an emergency for the purposes of the ability to amend or revise the comprehensive plan. 365-195-835 CONCURRENCY REGULATIONS (1) Each planning jurisdiction should produce a regulation or series of regulations which govern the operation of that jurisdiction's concurrency management system. This regulatory scheme will set forth the procedures and processes to be used to determine whether relevant public facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a proposed development. In addition, the scheme should identify the responses to be taken when it is determined that capacity is not adequate to accommodate a proposal. Relevant public facilities for these purposes are those to which concurrency applies under the comprehensive'plan. Adequate capacity refers to the maintenance of concurrency. (2) Compliance with applicable environmental requirements, such as ambient air-quality standards or water-quality standards, should have been built into the determination of the facility capacities needed to accommodate anticipated growth. (3) The variations possible in designing a concurrency management system are many. However, such a system could include the following features: (a) Capacity monitoring--a process for collecting and maintaining real world data on use for comparison with evolving public facility capacities in order to show at any moment how much of the capacity of public facilities is being used. (b) Capacity allocation procedures--a process for determining whether proposed new development can be accommodated within the existing or programmed capacity of public facilities. This can include preassignlng amounts of capacity to specific zones, corridors, or areas on the basis of planned growth. For any individual development, this may involve: (i) A determination of anticipated total capacity at the time the impacts of development occur. (ii) Calculation of how much of that capacity will be used by existing developments and other Planned developments at the time the impacts of development occur. (iii) Calculation of the amount of capacity available for the proposed development. (iv) Calculation of the impact on capacity of the proposed development, minus the effects of any mitigation provided by the applicant. (Standardized smaller developments can be analyzed based on predetermined capacity impact values.) (v) Comparison of available capacity with project impact. (c) Provisions for reserving capacity--a process of prioritizing the allocation of capacity to proposed developments. This might include: (i) Setting aside a block or blocks of available or anticipated capacity for specified types of development fulfilling an identified public interest. (ii) Adopting a first-come, first-served system of allocation, dedicating capacity to applications in the order received. (iii) Adopting a preference system giving certain categories or specified types of development preference over others in the allocation of available capacity. 71 (d) Provisions specifying the response when there is insufficient available capacity to accommodate development. (i) In the case of transportation, an ordinance must prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service of a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan unless improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with development. (ii) If the proposed development is consistent with the land-use element, relevant levels of service should be reevaluated. (iii) Other responses could include: (A) Development of a system of deferrals, approving proposed developments in advance but deferring authority to construct until adequate public facilities become available at the location in question. Such a system should conform to and help to implement the growth- phasing schedule contemplated in the land-use and capital facilities elements of the plan. (B) Conditional approval through which the developer agrees to mitigate the impacts. (C) Denial of the development, subject to resubmission when adequate public facilities are made available. (e) Form, timing, and duration of concurrency approvals. The system should include provisions for how to show that a project has met the concurrency requirement, whether as part of another approval document (e.g., permit, platting decisions, planned unit development) or as a separate certificate of concurrency, possibly a transferable document. This choice, of necessity, involves determining when in the approval process the concurrency issue is evaluated and decided. Approvals, however made, should specify the length of time that a concurrency determination will remain effective, including requirements for development progress necessary to maintain approval. (f) Provisions for interjurisdictional coordination. (4) Planning jurisdictions should consider integrating SEPA compliance on the project-specific level with the case-by-case process for concurrency management. 72 Appendix E. The Douglas County, Colorado, Concurrency Management Ordinance [Editor's Note: The following provisions are taken from Section 25, Rezoning, of the Douglas County, Colorado, land development code. This example will prove useful to those interested in composing a concurrency management ordinance. This appendix also describes the county's level of service (LOS) standards for streets. This concurrency resolution was prepared by Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, the firm in which the author is a partner, and adopted by Douglas County in Jaly 1995 as an amendment to its code.] 2516 CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION 2516.01 Purpose and Intent 2516.01.1 To ensure that public facilities needed to support new development meet or exceed the adopted level of service standards established by the Douglas County Master Plan and this Resolution .... 2516.01.2 To ensure that no residential rezonings are approved which would cause a reduction in the levels of service for any public facilities below the adopted level of service established in the Douglas County Master Plan and this Resolution; 2516.01.3 To ensure that adequate public facilities needed to support new residential development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development; 2516.01.4 To establish uniform procedures for the review of residential rezoning applications subject to the concurrency management standards and requirements; 2516.01.5 To facilitate implementation of goals and policies set forth in the Douglas County Master Plan relating to adequacy of public facilities, level of service standards and concurrency; and 2516.01.6 To ensure that all applicable legal standards and criteria are properly incorporated in these procedures and requirements. 2516.02 Applicability 2516.02.1 This Section 2516 shall not apply to any use, development, project, structure, fence, sign, or activity which does not result in a new residential dwelling unit. 2516.02.2 The provisions of this Section 2516 shall aPPly to all applications for development approval requesting a residential use, or those portions of applications for development approval requesting a residential use, within the unincorporated area of Douglas County, Colorado. It is the intent of this Section 2516 that no Development Order shall be granted, approved, or issued unless accompanied by a Concurrency Data Form which has received a positive concurrency determination or a positive concurrency determination subject to conditions. 2516.02.3 No application for development approval requesting a residential use shall be approved unless it has received a positive concurrency determination as set out in Section 2516.07.1, or a positive concurrency determination subject to conditions, as set out in Section 2516.07.3. 2516.02.4 Vested Rights (1) Nothing in this Concurrency Management Resolution shall limit or modify the rights of an applicant to complete any development authorized by an approved Site Specific Development Plan for a period extending three (3) years following the approval thereof or the expiration date set forth in the Site Specific Development Plan. (2) If a developer has, by his actions in reliance on prior regulations, obtained vested rights that by law would have prevented Douglas County from changing those regulations in a manner adverse to his interests, nothing in this Concurrency Management Resolution authorizes Douglas County or any official thereof to abridge those rights. 2516.02.5 The determination of concurrency shall not affect the otherwise operable and applicable provisions of the Douglas County Zoning Resolution or the Douglas County Subdivision Resolution, all of which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation. 2516.02.6 A Concurrency Data Form shall not be required for proposed residential development in municipalities in Douglas County unless the municipality and the County have mutually executed an intergovernmental agreement providing for the County to undertake this function on behalf of the municipality. 2516.03 General Provisions--Monitoring 2516.0~.1 Concurrency Information Database The Department shall develop, maintain, and update a Concurrency Information Database which shall provide support to County officials and departments responsible for concurrency review, monitoring, and planning for public facilities. At a minimum, the database shall contain the following information: (1) existing dwelling units and nonresidential development; (2) committed development; 73 (3) the capacity of existing public facilities provided by Douglas County, based on adopted level of service; and (4) the capacity created by the completion of public facilities to be provided by Douglas County, and which are included in the capital improvements program. 2516.03.2 Annual Review The Director shall, not less frequently than annually, prepare and submit to the Board an annual Concurrency Management Report. The report shall include: (1) growth trends and projections; (2) proposed changes to the boundaries of impact areas for any public facility; (3) proposed changes to existing or adopted level of service standards; (4) proposed changes in concurrency analysis methodologies; (5) recommendations on amendments to the Concurrency Management Resolution, if appropriate; and (6) other data, analysis, or recommendations as the Director may deem appropriate, or as may be requested by the Board. 2516.03.3 Effect of Annual Review The Annual Review may, in whole or in part, form the basis for recommendations to the Board or Board actions to repeal, amend, or modify this Section 2516. Other data, reports, analyses, and documents relevant to such decisions as may be available may also be used. 2516.03.4 Amendments Nothing herein precludes the Board or limits its discretion to amend this Section at such other times as may be deemed necessary or desirable. 2516.04 Procedures for the Processing of Concurrency Data Form 2516.04.1 Submittal Requirements All applications for development approval shall be accompanied by a Concurrency Data Form which includes sufficient information to allow the County to determine the impact of the proposed residential development on public facilities pursuant to the concurrency determination procedures. The Concurrency Data Form shall be a form prepared by the Department. The information required shall include, but shall not be limited to: (1) the total number, type of dwelling units, and gross density of proposed residential development; (2) the location of the proposed residential development; (3) an identification of the public facilities impacted by the proposed residential develol;ment; and (4) any other appropriate information as may be required by the County consistent with the provisions...herein. 2516.04.2 Fee for Review of Concurrency Data Form Each application for development approval shall be accompanied by the required Concurrency review fees, as may be established by the Board. 2516.05 Procedures for Concurrency Review and Recommendation by Department 2516.05.1 Department Review The Department (acting by and through the staff planner) shall determine whether the Concurrency Data Form complies with the submittal requirements set forth in subsection 2516.04.1 herein .... If the Concurrency Data Form is incomplete or the submittal requirements have not been complied with, the Department shall so notify the applicant, specifying the deficiencies. If the Concurrency Data Form is complete and the submittal requirements have been complied with, the Department shall evaluate the proposed residential development for compliance with the adopted levels of service and shall submit a Concurrency Recommendation pursuant to subsection 2516.05.2 herein. 2516.05.2 Department Recommendation If the Department concludes that each public facility will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed residential development at the adopted levels of service, the Department shall make a positive Concurrency Recommendation in its staff report. If the Department determines that any public facility will not be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed residential development at the adopted levels of service based upon existing public facilities, the Department shall make a negative Concurrency Recommendation in the staff report or a positive Concurrency Recommendation with appropriate conditions consistent with the criteria ~et forth in ~ubsection~ 2516.10.2 and 2516.07.3 of this Section. If the Department recommends that the application be conditionally approved, the staff report shall recommend conditions or stipulations that may address the density of the proposed residential development, the timing and phasing of the proposed residential development, the provision of public facilities by the applicant or any other reasonable conditions to ensure that all public facilities will be adequate and available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed residential development. The staff report shall, at a minimum, include the following, based upon staff and referral agency concurrency management recommendations: 74 (1) the number of residential dwelling units proposed by the applicant, by type, and the resulting number of Equivalent Residential Units (ERU's) for each public facility; (2) the timing and phasing of the proposed residential development, if applicable; (3) the specific public facilities impacted by the proposed residential development; (4) the extent of the impact of the proposed residential development in the applicable impact areas; (5) the capacity of existing public facilities in the impact areas which will be impacted by the proposed residential development, based on adopted level of service; (6) the demand on existing publid facilities in the impact areas from all existing and approved development; (7) the availability of existing capacity to accommodate the proposed residential development; and (8) if existing capacity is not available, planned capacity and the year in which such planned capacity is projected to be available to serve the proposed residential development. 2516.06 Withdrawal of Concurrency Data Form The applicant may withdraw the Concurrency Data Form at any time by submitting a written request to the Director. Withdrawal may result in the forfeiture of some or all fees paid by the applicant for the processing of the Concurrency Data Form. 2516.07 Concurrency Determination by Board--Criteria A proposed residential rezoning and a residential use by special review which could result in a range of potential impacts shall be reviewed as if the greatest impact would result. The concurrency review shall compare the capacity of public facilities to the maximum projected demand which may result from the proposed residential rezoning or residential use by special review based upon the maximum potential density of the affected area pursuant to the residential rezoning or residential use by special review. Nothing herein shall authorize a residential rezoning or the issuance of a residential use by special review that would otherwise be inconsistent with the Douglas County Master Plan or the Douglas County Master Plan Land Use Map. Upon receipt of the staff report, and subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of approval for a Development Order, the Board may determine: 2516.07.1 A positive Concurrency Determination 2516.07.2 A negative Concurrency Determination 2516.07.3 A positive Concurrency Determination subject to one or more of the following conditions: (1) Deferral of further Development Orders until all public facilities are available and adequate if public facilities in the impact area are not adequate to meet the adopted levels of service for the. residential development proposal, consistent with the requirements of subsection 2516.10.2 herein. (2) Reduction of the density or intensity of the proposed residential development, including phasing of development, to a level consistent with the available cabacity of public facilities. (3) Provision by the applicant of the public facilities necessary to provide capacity to accommodate the proposed residential development at the adopted levels of service and at the time that the impact of the proposed residential development will occur. 2516.08 Expiration of Concurrency Determination 2516.08.1 A Concurrency Determination issued pursuant to subsection 2516.07 of this Section shall be deemed to expire when the Development Order to which it is attached expires, lapses, or is waived or revoked, or if the applicant has not complied with conditions attached to its issuance. 2516.08.2 If a Concurrency Determination attached to a rezoning expires, the County may initiate proceedings to rezone the property. 2516.09 Effect of Positive Concurrency Determination 2516.09.1 A Positive Concurrency Determination for a Development Order shall be deemed to indicate that public facilities are available as determined in Section 2516.10.2 herein at the time of issuance of the Concurrency Determination. 2516.09.2 The Concurrency Determination shall expire and become null and void upon the expiration of the Development Order to which it is attached or the time frame for submitting a subsequent application for approval, unless an application for a subsequent Development Order is submitted within the time frames set forth in the Douglas County Zoning Resolution. If no expiration date is provided in the Douglas County Zoning Resolution, in the conditions of the Concurrency Determination or in the conditions of permit approval, the Concurrency Determination shall expire within two (2) years after approval of the Development Order. 2516.09.3 A Concurrency Determination shall not be deemed as evidence supporting a request for a Douglas County Master Plan Land Use Map amendment from the Nonurban Area to the Planned Urbanization Areas or to the Separated Urbanization Areas, nor shall it affect the need for the applicant for a rezoning to meet all other requirements as set forth in this Resolution. 75 2516.10 25~6.09.4 Advancement of Capacity No advancement of capacity for public facilities needed to avoid a deterioration in the adopted levels of service shall be accepted by the Board unless the proposed public facility is a planned capital improvement or appropriate conditions are included to ensure that the applicant will obtain all necessary approvals for such .planned capital improvement from any governmental agency having jurisdiction over such planned capital improvement prior to or concurrent with the issuance of a final residential subdivision plat or, if subdivision approval is not required, a building permit. If such planned capital improvement requires the approval of a governmental agency, such approval shall authorize the full capacity upon which the Concurrency Determination was rendered. The commitment to construction of public facilities prior to the issuance of a building permit shall be included as a condition of the COncurrency Determination and Shall contain, at a minimum, the following: (1) for planned capital improvements, a finding that the planned capital improvement is included within the capital improvements program of the applicable service provider; (2) an estimate of the total funding needed to construct the planned capital improvement and a description of the cost participation associated therewith; (3) a schedule for commencement and completion of construction of the planned capital improvement with specific target dates for multiphase or large-scale capital improvement projects; (4) a statement, based on analysis, that the planned capital improvement is consistent with the Douglas County Master Plan; and (5) at the option of the County, and only if the planned capital improvement will pro~ide capacity exceeding the demand generated by the proposed residential development, reimbursement to the applicant for the pro rata cost of the excess capacity. Methodology and Criteria for Determining Availability and Adequacy of Public Facilities 2516.10.1 Level of Service Standards Compliance with level of service standards shall be measured in accordance with the standards set forth in Appendices A and B hereto, as the same may be amended from time to time, and which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in its entirety herein. 2516.10.2 Availability of Public Facilities Public facilities shall be deemed to be available within the applicable impact area if they meet the following standards: (1) Water Facilities, Wastewater Facilities, and Fire Protection Facilities (a) The public facilities are currently in place or will be in place when the Development Order is granted; or (b) provision of the public facilities are a condition of the Development Order and are guaranteed to be provided at or before the approval of a final plat or issuance of a building permit for proposed residential development on the subject property; or (c) the public facilities are under construction and will be available at the time that the impactg of the proposed residential development will occur; or (d) the public facilities are guaranteed by an enforceable development agreement which ensures that the public facilities will be in place at the time that the impacts of the proposed residential development will occur. (2) Regional Parks and Public Schools (a) One of the criteria set forth in subsection 2516.10.2(1) is met, or (b) the public facilities are the subject of a written agreement or an enforceable development agreement which provides for the commencement of construction of the required Regional Parks or Public Schools, or (c) the public facilities are planned capital improvements. (3) Streets (a) one of the criteria set forth in subsections 2516.10.2(1) or 2516.10.2(2), above, is met, or (b) proposed residential development is located in a traffic impact area in which the streets or intersections needed to achieve the adopted level of service are included in the capital improvements program, and the Board makes the following specific findings: (i) the streets identified in this subsection are financially feasible; and (ii) the capital improvements program provides for the construction of public facilities or improvements to streets within the traffic impact area that are necessary to maintain the adopted level of service standards; and (iii) the capital improvements program contains a financially feasible funding system based on currently available revenue sources which are adequate to fund the streets required to serve the development authorized by the Development Order; and 76 (iv) the applicable provisions of the capital improvements program show (1) the estimated date of the commencement of construction and (2) the estimated date of project completion for needed streets; and (v) the concurrency information database includes sufficient data to ensure that proposed residential developments approved subject to this subsection do not cause a reduction of the level of service below the adopted level of service. 2516.10.3 Adequacy of Public Facilities Public facilities shall be deemed to be adequate if it is demonstrated that they have available capacity to accOmmodate the demand generated by the proposed residential development in accordance with the following calculation methodology, unless otherwise indicated herein: (1) Calculate capacity for each public facility within an impact area by adding together: (a) the capacity of water facilities, wastewater facilities, and fire protection facilities consistent with subsection 2516.10.2(1) herein; (b) the capacity of public schools and regional parks consistent with subsection 2516.10.2(2) herein; and (c) the capacity of streets consistent with subsection 2516.10.2(3) herein. (2) Calculate available capacity by subtracting from the capacity the sum of: (a) the existing demand for each public facility; and (b) the demand for each public facility created by the anticipated completion of committed development; and (c) the demand for each public facility created by the anticipated completion of the proposed residential development under consideration for concurrency determination. 2516.10.4 Public Facilities Affecting Areas Outside of Unincorporated Area of County (1) General. Availability and adequacy of streets shall be determined only with respect to streets located within the unincorporated area of Doffglas County. If part of the applicable traffic impact area lies in an adjacent county or in a municipality within Douglas County, absent an intergovernmental agreement with the county or municipality, availability and adequacy may be determined only with respect to that portion of the streets located within the unincorporated area of the County. (2) Intergovernmental Agreement. If the County has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with an adjacent county or with a municipality in Douglas County to evaluate public facilities in such areas, an applicant will be subject to the evaluation of the level of service standard for the facility as adopted by the adjacent county or municipality. Prior to the determination of concurrency, Douglas Co.unty shall require that the adjacent county or municipality certify that issuance of a Development Order for the proposed residential development will not cause a reduction in the level of service standards in Douglas County with respect to those public facilities lying within the adjacent county or the municipality. (3) Available capacity for fire protection facilities, water facilities, wastewater facilities, and public schools shall include municipally based demand and municipally based facilities. 2516.11 Administration 2516.11.1 Rules and Regulations The Board may adopt, by resolution, any necessary rules, regulations, administrative guidelines, forms, worksheets and processes to efficiently and fairly administer and implement this Section. 2516.11.2 Fees The Board may establish, by resolution, a fee schedule for each of the procedures, determinations, approvals and certifications required by this Resolution. 2516.12 Conflict To the extent of any conflict between other County resolutions or regulations and this Section, the more restrictive is deemed to be controlling. This Section is not intended to amend or repeal any existing County resolution or regulation. 2516.13 Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board that if any provision of this Section is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Section. DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO, LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR STREETS [APPENDIX A, PARTS A AND B-6 OF THE COUNTY'S ZONING RESOLUTION] A. GENERALLY 1. Pursuant to the Concurrency Management Resolution, this Appendix provides specific submittal requirements and measurement criteria to allow the County to determine concurrency with respect to specific public facilities. 2. The "Submlttal Requirements" set forth herein are in addition to the submittal requirements established in the Concurrency Management Resolution, except where otherwise indicated. The staff planner may require additional information if needed to determine compliance with the adopted level of service for a public facility. The Department shall maintain on file Concurrency Information Base Maps depicting the applicable impact areas for public facilities, or shall direct applicants to appropriate service providers to obtain information. The available Concurrency Information Base Maps should contain the service areas of water, wastewater, and fire protection districts; high school feeder areas for public schools; and Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) and Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). 4. The "concurrency determination'' describes how, and:pursuant to what methodology, the County will determine whether a proposed residential development complies with the adopted level of service standards with respect to the availability and adequacy of public facility capacity. Included are standard units of demand for each public facility and procedures for estimating demand. If the evaluation is to be performed by another agency with jurisdiction over the applicable public facility, a description of the documentation needed from the agency is provided. 5. The criteria established in Part B herein shall apply to the following types of Development Orders: a resolution of the Board approving a residential rezoning, and the approval of a residential use by special review. 6. For purposes of this Appendix, words and phrases shall have the same meaning as the same words and phrases in the Douglas County Zoning Resolution, except where a specific definition is provided herein. SPECIFIC PUBLIC FACILITIES The concurrency submittal and evaluation procedures for specific public facilities and services are as follows: Streets a. Submittal Requirements (1) All applicants shall submit a traffic impact analysis prepared by a qualified traffic engineer who is a licensed engineer in the State of Colorado, containing the following information for all major roadways within the impact area: (a) Identification of all Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) and Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) within ~hich the proposed residential development lies. (b) A detailed description and map of the roadway network within the traffic impact area including all major intersections, all proposed and existing ingress and egress locations, all existing street widths and rights-of- ' way, all existing traffic signals and traffic control devices, and all existing and proposed public transportation services and facilities serving the traffic impact area. (c) Planned capital improvements proposed by any governmental agency, including the specific items listed in (a). above, and any other proposed construction project that would alter the width or alignment of streets affected by the proposed residential development. (d) Trip generation and pass-by trip estimates for the proposed residential development on all local and collector streets in the traffic impact area based upon the report entitled Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation (5th Ed. 1991), as the same may be amended from time to time. (e) Trip length and trip distribution assumptions, which shall be determined jointly by the applicant and the County staff. The distribution of trips to major roadways within the traffic impact area shall be based upon a gravity model in conformity with accepted traffic engineering principles, taking into consideration the land- use categories of the proposed residential development; the area from which the proposed residential development will attract traffic; competing developments (if applicable); the size of the proposed residential development; development phasing; surrounding land uses, population and employment; and existing traffic conditions identified pursuant to subsections (a) and (b). (f) A 24-hour traffic count conducted for a period of five weekdays (Monday-Friday) on all major roadways which have direct access to the proposed residential development site. The existing average daily traffic volume and the highest average peak-hour volume for any weekday hour between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. shall be recorded. These traffic volumes shall be averaged to determine the average hourly peak traffic volume for the five days between Monday and Friday. Major roadway service volumes shall be calculated at the adopted level of service, based upon the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1985) as the same may be amended from time to time. The calculation of level of service shall take into consideration lane width; number of lanes; restricted lateral clearance; service volume-to-capacity ratio; percentage of site passing distance greater than 1,500 feet; percentage of trucks; grade; and operating and average roadway speeds. The level of service calculation for each roadway link shall be based upon ideal conditions. (g) The portions of the proposed residential development and the impact area lying within urban areas and within nonurban areas, including the level of service within the urban area and nonurban area portions of the impact area resulting from the proposed residential development. 78 bo Adopted Level of Service. The adopted level of service for streets is D in urban areas and C in nonurban areas. The level of service shall be based upon the "volume-to-capacity" (V/C) ratio as defined by the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1985), which is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein, and as further modified below: LOS Volume-to-Capacity Ratio A <- 0.59 B < 0.69 C < 0.79 D _< 0.89 E < 0.99 F > 1.00 c. Concurrency Analysis and Verification. The County staff shall verify that the proposed residential development will not cause a decline in the adopted level of service for streets within the defined impact area. 1) If existing capacity for all major roadway links and intersections less committed development and the proposed residential development results in a V/C ratio not exceeding the adopted level of service, adequate street capacity exists to accommodate the trips projected to be generated by the proposed residential development. (2) If available capacity for all major roadway links and intersections (taking into consideration only those capital improvements under construction) results in a V/C ratio not exceeding the adopted level of service, adequate street capacity shall be deemed to exist to accommodate the trips projected to be generated by the proposed residential development. (3) If available capacity (taking into consideration capital improvements under construction or projects, authorized and budgeted to be provided within two years, or included in a current five-year transportation improvements program, based on existing funding projections and commitments made by the Board of County Commissioners) for all Major Roadway links and intersections results in a V/C ratio not exceeding the adopted level of service, the proposed residential development may be approved, or approved with conditions, and the applicant will be permitted to proceed through the development approval process. (4) If available capacity (taking into consideration the planned capital improvements set forth in subsection (3), above, plus planned capital improvements that may be included in a future transportation improvements program) for all major roadway links and intersections results in a V/C ratio not exceeding the adopted level of service, the County may approve the concurrency determination with the condition that the applicant cannot apply for the next Development Order until the public facilities needed to meet the adopted level of service meet the criteria set forth in Section 2516.10.2(3) of the Douglas County Zoning Resolution. (5) Developers may propose mitigation measures to overcome a failure to meet street concurrency management standards. In nonurban areas, all County streets from the proposed residential development to the nearest principal state highway or interstate highway shall be paved. d. Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (1) Capacity: The maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by a given major roadway during a specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions at the adopted level of service. (2) Interstate Highway: 1-25, Douglas County. (3) Prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions: the maximum traffic volume during the peak hour at the adopted level of service. (4) Principal State Highway: State Highways 67, 83, 85, 86, C-470 and E-470 in Douglas County. (5) Major Roadways: All County-owned and County-operated streets, including minor and major collectors, minor and major arterials, traffic signals and ancillary facilities pursuant to the County's adopted transportation and circulation plans. Major roadways do not include the interstate highway or the principal state highways. e. Waiver. A waiver may be requested by an applicant for any submittal requirement set forth in part B.6.a herein. County staff may waive any of the submittal requirements set forth in part B.6.a herein for Development Orders which generate fewer than 20 trips per day and which information is not needed to determine compliance with the adopted level of service. In addition, County staff may recommend a waiver of the traffic analysis based upon previous findinss of the Douglas County Transportation ~tudy, as amended, or other relevant and recognized studies. 79 RECENT PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE REPORTS 409 Enforcing Zoning and Land-Use Controls. August 1988. 30 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 410 Zoning Bonuses in Central Cities. September 1988. 30 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 411 The Aesthetics of Parking. November 1988. 42 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 412/413 Protecting Nontidal .Wetlands. December 1988. 76 pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16. 416 Responding to the Takings Challenge. May 1989. 40 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 417 Reaching Consensus in Land-Use Negotiations. July 1989. 14 pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13. 418 Designing Urban Corridors. September 1989. 38 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 419 Sign Regulation for Small and Midsize Communities: A Planners Guide and a Model Ordinance. November 1989. 42 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 420 Community-Based Housing for the Elderly: A Zoning Guide for Planners and Municipal Officials. December 1989. 30 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 421 A Survey of Zoning Definitions. December 1989. 36 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 422 Zoning for Child Care. December 1989. 30 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 424/425 Solid Waste Management: Planning Issues and Opportunities. September 1990. 71 pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16. 426 Private Funding for Roads. October 1990. 30 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 427/428 Planning Software Survey, 1990. December 1990.55 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 429 Preserving Rural Character. December 1990. 20 pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13. 430 Reinventing the Village: Planning, Zoning, and Design Strategies. December 1990. 44 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 431 Preparing a Landscape Ordinance. December 1990. 26 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 432 Off-Street Parking Requirements: A National Review of Standards. May 1991. 27 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 434 Personnel Practices in Planning Offices. August 1991. 32 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 435 Electromagnetic Fields and Land-Use Controls. December 1991. 20 pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13. 437 Airport Noise Regulations. May 1992. 16 pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13. 438 Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation. September 1992. 44 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 439 Planners' Salaries and Employment Trends, 1991. October 1992. 44 pp. $26; PAS subscribers $13. 440 Staying Inside the Lines: Urban Growth Boundaries. November 1992. 32 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 441 Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning Strategies. December 1992. 76 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 442 Capital Improvements Programs: Linking Budgeting and Planning. January 1993. 56 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 443 Selecting and Retaining a Planning Consultant: RFQs, RFPs, COntracts, and Project Management. February 1993. 44 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 444 Industrial Performance Standards for a New Century. March 1993. 68 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 445 Manufactured Housing Site Development Guide. April 1993. 46 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 446 Tree Conservation Ordinances: Land-Use Regulations Go Green. August 1993. 108 pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16. 447 Planning, Growth, and Public Facilities: A Primer for Local Officials. September 1993. 32 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 448/449 The Transportation/Land Use Connection: A Framework for Practical Policy. January 1994. 140 pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16. 450 Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan. March 1994. 58 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 451 Planning for an Aging Society. April 1994. 64 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 452 Saving Face: HoW Corporate Franchise Design Can Respect Community Identity. June 1994. 72 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 453 Presentation Graphics. January 1~95.80 pp. $30; PAS subscribers $15. 454 Design Review. February 1995.34 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 455 Neighborhood-Based Planning: Five Case Studies. March 1995.34 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 456 Traffic Calming. July 1995.28 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 457/458 A Guide to Wellhead Protection. August 1995. 104 pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17. 459 Bicycle Facility Planning. October 1995.44pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16. 460 Preparing a Conventional Zoning Ordinance. December 1995.61 pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17. 461 Performance Standards for Growth Management. February 1996. 44 pp. $32; PAS subscribers $16. 462/463 Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing SmartTM Working Papers. Vol. 1. ' March 1996. 190 pp. $24; PAS subscribers $12. 464 Planners Salaries and Employment Trends, 1995. July 1996.25 pp. $28; PAS subscribers $14. 465 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation Management. August 1996. 80 pp. $34; PAS subscribers $17. Agenda No.--~-.~,,~ ~ Date_ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: February 8, 2000 Utility Administration Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT: Receive a' report and hold a discussion on the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant and Hardee Field Road Pump Station preliminary design studies. BACKGROUND: The consulting firm Freese and Nichols, Inc. is providing professional engineering services for the preliminary design of the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant (LRRWTP), and Hartlee Field Road Booster Pump Station (HFBPS). In the preliminary design process, the consultant has developed technical memorandums and alternates, and staff has participated in two design workshops through December. As a result of these workshops and evaluations, the Consultant has made two major recommendations as shown below: 1. For lowest overall cost and highest reliability of compliance with respect to the USEPA's Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products (D/DBP) rule, the Lake Ray Roberts WTP should provide ozonation for primary disinfection and chloramines for residual disinfection of the treated water (See Exhibit II - Freese and Nichols Memorandum). 2. Eliminate construction of the Hardee Field Road BPS and ground storage tanks, and instead locate the High Service Pump Station and ground storage at the Lake Ray Roberts WTP. The present worth savings is estimated to be 5.2 million dollars (See Exhibit III - Freese and Nichols Memorandum). Consultant Recommendation No. 1 A key impact on the Lake Ray Roberts WTP design is the USEPA D/DBP rule which is part of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This rule sets the maximum contaminant level for a variety of disinfection by products including Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM's) and Halo-Acetic Acids (HAA's). The rule has two stages of compliance: Stage Limits Status 1 80 ppb TTHM Final Rule Promulgated 40 ppb HAA 40 ppb TTHM 30 ppb HAA Proposed Rule due November 2000 Final Rule anticipated 2004-05 Two treatment techniques are commonly used to comply with the D/DBP rule. These are Enhanced Coagulation and Ozonation. Based on historical data and lab tests on Lake Ray Roberts water, it is expected that using Enhanced Coagulation, the City would consistently comply with the Stage 1 D/DBP rule, but would not consistently comply with the Stage 2 rules as proposed. However, with ozone the City would consistently comply with both Stage 1 and Stage 2 D/DBP rules. The Consultant contacted the Texas based member of the USEPA SDWA Technical Work Group to obtain the most current information concerning the development of the D/DBP rule and the anticipated implementation Schedule for Stage II regulations. Based upon this investigation, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed Stage 2 rules will be adopted as is and will be promulgated in the Year 2004-05 time frame. It is always possible that the Stage 2 D/DBP rules implementation could be delayed. To account for this possibility, Staff directed the Consultant to do a cost sensitivity analysis based on two scenarios as listed below. 1. Enhanced Coagulation initially through the years 2002-2005, with ozone facility added in the Year 2006. 2. Ozone facility constructed with the initial Plant construction in Year 2002. The economic comparison of the two scenarios (See Exhibit II) shows that the Scenario 1 would have an annualized cost (capital and O&M) of $706,000 per year, and Scenario 2 would have an annualized cost of $519,000 per year. Scenario 2, which is ozone facility construction in Year 2002 costs $187,000 per year less than Scenario 1. By deferring the construction of ozone facility based on Scenario 1, initial capital costs would be less. So, if the Stage 2 D/DBP implementation was delayed, there is time value of money savings in the Scenario 1, as initially it costs less to install it. However, Scenario 1 has higher O & M costs associated with the time period the WTP runs in an Enhanced Coagulation mode. To determine at what point the capital savings associated with Scenario 1 would benefit the City, a cost sensitivity analysis was performed (See Exhibit II). The analysis shows that the required timeline for implementation of Stage 2 D/DBP rule would have to be delayed in excess of 30 years for economics to favor the City to build facilities for Scenario 1 only. Based upon the analysis completed to date, staff is recommending the construction of ozone disinfection facilities with the initial plant construction. Consultant Recommendation No. 2 In the 1980's when the City decided to build the Lake Ray Roberts WTP, the concept was that the plant would be a regional provider of treated water in the Denton County area. This dictated that the ground storage and high service pump station facilities needed to meet the specific needs of customer cities, including the City of Denton, be located near the customer city. In Denton's case the storage and pumping was located on Hartlee Field Road, about 7 miles from the plant. Site parameters specific to the Hartlee Field Road site requires expensive construction of the ground storage and high service pump station facilities. In the current concept, the City of Denton would be the largest and possibly the only user of the treated water from the Lake Ray Roberts WTP. In light of the current concept and considering the expensive construction of ground storage and pumping facilities at Hartlee Field Road, the Consultant suggested that there could be cost savings in having the City of Denton's storage and 60 MGD High Service Pumping facilities at the plant as opposed to the Hartlee Field Road location. Staff asked the Consultant to prepare an economic evaluation of the two alternatives. The economic evaluation (See Exhibit III) shows a present worth cost savings of $5.2 million by eliminating the Hartlee Field Road Pump Station and ground storage and locating the 60 MGD pump station and ground storage at the Lake Ray Roberts WTP. These savings include an initial capital savings of 4.06 million dollars. The potential capital savings of this concept warrants further investigation and consideration by staff. On the short term, the relocation of the ground storage and booster pump station has major benefits associated with capital savings but introduces drawbacks relating to system reliability. These drawbacks are offset to some degree by the existing capacity of the ground storage and booster pump facilities at the Lake Lewisville (Spencer Road) water treatment plant. On the long term, the relocation of these facilities provides an economical means of expanding water distribution service to the area between the Lake Ray Roberts WTP and the current city limits. Staff is currently evaluating the alternative from an operations, capital, and strategic perspective and will incorporate their recommendations into the final preliminary design report. OPTIONS: Option I: Construct the pumping and storage facilities at Hartlee Field Road and Enhanced Coagulation in Year 2002 and ozone facility possibly in Year 2006. Option 2: Construct the pumping and storage facilities at the Lake Ray Roberts WTP and ozone facility in Year 2002. RECOMMENDATIONS: The analysis indicates that construction of ozone facility in Year 2002, and high service pumping and ground storage facilities at the Lake Ray Roberts WTP will be favorable to the City. Staff is presenting this information as an update on the preliminary design studies currently in progress. Staff will continue to analyze these recommendations and provide the consultant with direction on the preferred alternatives to be incorporated into the final preliminary design report. This report will be presented to the City Council upon completion and will Provide the basis for defining the scope for the engineering services contract to design the plant facilities. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSION) · October 4, 1999 - PUB approval of professional services agreement with Freese and Nichols, Inc. · November 2, 1999 - City Council approval of professional services agreement with Freese and Nichols, Inc. · January 24, 2000 - PUB Update on preliminary design. MAP: See Exhibit I Respectfully submitted: Tim Fisher Assistant Director Water Utilities Prepared by: P.S. Arora Engineering Administrator Exhibit I Exhibit II Exhibit III Location Map Recommendation for compliance with the D/DBP regulations - Freese & Nichols Memorandum Recommendation for relocation of the LRRWTP clearwell storage and high service pump station - Freese and Nichols Memorandum Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant Site Hartlee Field Road Booster Pump Station DENTON Location Map Ray Rob.e. rts Water Treatment PI.ant Hartlee Field Booster Pump Station EXHIBIT 1 FREESE o NICHOLS Simon W. Freese, P.E.1900~1990 Marvin C. Nichols, P.E. 1896-1969 CITY OF DENTON LAKE RAY ROBERTS SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Memorandum TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: P. S. Aurora, P.E. Ray Longoria, P.E. Recommendation for Compliance with the D/DBP Regulations DTN99479/2.10 January 10, 2000 Recommendation The technical and economic evaluations performed by Freese and Nichols, Inc. for the City of Denton Lake Ray Roberts SWTP suggest the lowest overall cost and highest reliability of compliance with respect to the USEPA's Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products (D/DBP) role is to provide ozonation for primary disinfection and chloramines for residual disinfection of the treated water. Background Review of the current and proposed USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations relating to surface water treatment plants and their impact on the proposed 20 MGD Lake Ray Roberts SWTP has been completed. The overall review information was submitted to DWU staff as TM-! SDWA Regulation Review. A key impact was associated with the Disinfectant-Disinfection By- Products (D/DBP) rule. This rule sets the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM's) and Halo-acetic Acids (HAA's). The rule has two stages of compliance: Stage Limits Status 1 80 ppb TTHM 40 ppb HAA Final Rule Promulgated 40 ppb TTHM 30 ppb HAA Proposed Rule due November 2000 (Final Rule anticipated for 2004-05) T:XIVIEM\COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED SDWA REGULATIONS.DOC I= X H I B I T I I Stage 1 of the D/DBP rule also included a treatment technique, enhanced coagulation, for removing set percentages of the organic matter in the raw water, measured as total organic carbon (TOC). TOC when combined with free chlorine, a common disinfectant in the water treatment industry, forms TTHMs and HAAs, as well as other disinfection by-products that have not yet been identified or regulated. The objective of the requirement is to limit the formation of both known and unknown DBPs. The City of Denton's existing Surface Water Treatment Plant uses the Conventional Coagulation treatment technique with free chlorine as the primary disinfectant. The original 1991 design of the proposed Lake Ray Roberts SWTP also used this treatment and disinfection strategy. Two candidate processes that were evaluated which would allow the LRR Surface Water Treatment Plant to comply with the regulations included 1) Enhanced Coagulation with Chlorine Disinfection and 2) Ozone Disinfection. The detailed evaluations and background information are attached as: Attachment A) Current Status of S DWA Proposed Regulations (16DEC99); Attachment B) TM-2 Alternative Chemical Treatment Evaluation; and Attachment C) Ozone Installation Sensitivity Analysis (16DEC99) A summary of the findings and results of the alternative evaluation are summarized below. Compliance Based on historical performance of the existing City of Denton Lake Lewisville Surface Water Treatment Plant and the results of bench scale lab tests on the Lake Ray Roberts raw water it is expected that the City would consistently comply with the Stage 1 D/DBP rule using Enhanced Coagulation and a chlorine based disinfection strategy, but would not consistently comply with the Stage 2 rules as proposed. Overall compliance will require an alternate treatment and/or disinfection process. This statement is based on the presumption that the proposed Stage 2 MCL's are adopted as proposed (40ppb TTHM/30 ppb HAA). AttachmentA documents a teleconference with one of the Texas based members of the USEPA SDWA Technical Work Group. The best available information suggests that it is reasonable to assume that the proposed Stage 2 rules will be adopted as is and that they will be promulgated in the 2004-05 time frame. Since the timeline for adoption of the Stage 2 rules falls close to the anticipated completion of the initial construction of the LRRWTP (2002-03) it is appropriate to consider two scenarios for implementing the alternate treatment/disinfection process. The first scenario would phase the construction to coincide with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 rule implementation schedule. The second would include it as part of the initial LRRWTP construction. The first scenario would initially employ Enhanced Coagulation and chlorine as the primary disinfectant initially (year 2003-06) with ozone disinfection facilities added in the year 2006. The second scenario would include ozone as part of the initial construction. T:klvlEM\COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED SDWA REGULATIONS.DOC 2 Economic Comparison The economic comparison of the two scenario~ is presented in Table-4 of Attachment B. The first scenario - Phased Ozone Construction- is estimated to have an annualized cost (capital and O&M) of $3,516,000/yr. The second scenario - Initial Ozone Construction - is estimated at $3,329,000/yr. Constructing the ozone facilities as part of the initial construction as opposed to deferring the construction of the ozone facilities until 2006 would result in a savings of $187,000/yr. Even though there is a cost savings associated with deferring the capital cost of the ozone construction, it is less than the added cost of providing the facilities for the initial Enhanced Coagulation operating mode and the O&M cost associated with the initial years of operation as an Enhanced Coagulation plant. To determine how closely this result is tied to the assumed timeline of rule promulgation in 2004-5, a cost sensitivity analysis was performed to determine at what point the savings would disappear. The analysis is included as Attachment C. The required timeline for promulgation of the Stage 2 rule would have to be delayed in excess of 30 years for the economics to favor deferring the construction. Additional Factors Considered If the Stage 2 DBP's rules that are promulgated are more stringent than the 40/30 levels, ozonation of the drinking water with follow up biological treatment in the filters will have a higher probability of complying than will the Enhanced Coagulation/Free Chlorine Disinfection approach. This is also correct if the proposed Microbial regulations (Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule) are made more stringent. Ozone also is highly effective in reducing or removing the type of taste and odor problems that occur seasonally in North Texas water supply systems. An additional reason to consider ozone for the LRRWTP is water quality parity. Most of the major water utilities in the Metroplex have made a commitment to ozone treatment as their chosen strategy to continue to provide a superior drinking water to their customers, now and in the future. This includes the cities of Arlington, Dallas, Ft. Worth and the Upper Trinity River Authority. Denton would be able to provide water of equal or better quality (due to the presumed higher raw water quality from Lake Ray Roberts) to their customers. Drawbacks associated with ozone include high capital cost, lack of operator experience with the process and equipment, and the potential production of bromate in the drinking water. As discussed in Attachment B, even though there is a high capital cost it is still the lowest overall cost approach for Denton. With four operating ozone plants in the Metroplex and four more due on-line in the near term, an adequate basis for operating history and local resources is in place. The potential for formation of bromate, another regulated DBP, is a function of the concentration of the bromide ion in the raw water and the ozone concentration. The bromide ion levels encountered and the required ozone dosages required by the other ozone facilities in the Metroplex suggest this likely will not be a problem. It is recommended that bromide be added to the list of Lake Ray Robert raw water quality parameters that the City tests. - END - T:LMEM\COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED SDWA REGULATIONS.DOC 3 ATTACHMENT A FREESE - NICHOLS Simon W. Freese, P.E.1900-1990 Marvin C. Nichols, P.E. 1896-1969 CITY OF DENTON LAKE RAY ROBERTS SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Memorandum TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: P. S. Aurora, P.E. Ray Longoria, P.E. Current Status of SDWA Proposed Regulgtions January 10, 2000 I spoke with Sarah Clark (Government Affairs Coordinator City of Austin Water and Wastewater Department) who serves on the Technical Work Group for the Safe Drinking Water Act driven regulations. The work group met last week to receive the recently completed 12 month ICR data report. The information on the EPA web site (available at www.epa, gov/envir/html/icr) is based on only the first 6 months of data. Selected graphs from the web site are attached. The 18 month ICR data report is supposed to be presented to them in January. I asked for the workgroup's current position on the Stage 2 DBP's and the LTESWTR. She noted they are at the point of identifying the range of actions based on the ICR data. Unfortunately there is still a wide divergence of opinions. Stage 2 DBPs Rule From her interpretation of the data she is of the opinion that they support the place holder values that had been stated earlier in the roles (40ppb for TTHMs and 30ppb for the HAA's). The discussions at the workgroup however still ranged from a position of doing nothing (maintaining the Stage 1 levels) to setting individual MCL's for each of the TTHM components. There was also discussion on the MCL's, whether as TTHM or as the individual components, that the determination change from RAA to individual sample limits. Too early to make a call. Microbial Rule FREESE AND NICHOLS · 1341 W. MOCKINGBIRD LANE, SUITE 230-E · DALLAS, TEXAS 75247-4922 TELEPHONE: 214-920-2500 · FAX: 214-920-2565 Memorandum to January 10, 2000 She noted that on the microbial for the Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule that a lot of the discussion has been on moving towards a requirement for specific removal of C. parvum of anywhere from 1 to 3 log removal by disinfection (on top of the 2 log credit for conventional treatment). She stated that the requirement for utilities that would have to achieve a specific removal could be tied to a water quality type. That is, a water that has certain characteristics that suggest that that utility would be at risk. It would not necessarily be limited only to historical positive occurrence of Cryptospiridium waters, but possibly ones with certain levels of coliform in the raw water. In general, it appeared that the DBP Stage 2 place holder values would wind up sticking. On the microbial, certain raw waters are likely to be required to achieve a specific Crypto removal. The 6 month ICR data on Texas showed no positive occurrences of Crypto. Whether this would remove Texas from the requirement of specific Crypto removal is not certain. EPA had asked the workgroup for their input by April 2000. They indicated that it was not a reasonable timeline. They agreed on June 2000. She noted that the work group is at a point that they are meeting every 2 to 3 weeks and that they are open to the public. She encouraged anyone with an interest to attend. T:\MEM\S_CLARK_REG_UPDATE.WPD END - FREESE AND NICHOLS ® 1341 W. MOCKINGBIRD LANE, SUITE 230-E · DALLAS, TEXAS 75247-4922 TELEPHONE: 214-920-2500 · FAX: 214-920-2565 ATTACNMENT B TABLE-4 COMPARISON BETWEEN ENHANCED COAGULATION AND OZONATION TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES COST ABOVE BASE CASE FOR 20-MGD WTP LAKE RAY ROBERTS WTP, CITY OF DENTON ' · ATTA~ C Ozone Installation Sensitivity Analysis 12/16/99 Assumptions: Interest Rate: 7% Inflation: 4% · Capital costs and O&M costs were affected by both inflation and interest rate. Present Worth Costs include capital costs and O&M costs during the entire projection time. · All alternatives assume that the ozone facility is built. · All costs are additional to base case, based on Table 4 of Tech. Memorandum 2 Analyzed Costs · Enhanced Coagulation Capital Cost.- $742,000 Yearly O&M Cost .- $166,800 · Ozone Capital Cost.- $5,100,000 Yearly O&M Cost .- $47,908 20 Year Projection Total P.W. cost of operating and building ozone facility on year 0.- $5,812,000 Total P.W. Cost of operating and building ozone facility on year 20.- $6,047,000 50 Year Projection Total P.W. Cost of operating and building ozone facility on year 0.- $6,333,000 Total P.W. Cost of operating and building ozone facility on year 20.- $6,567,000 Total P.W. Cost of operating and building ozone facility on year 38.- $6,330,000 Total P.W. Cost of operating and building ozone facility on year 50.- $6,197,000 IL ....... ] I1' 2052 2O50 2048 2046 2044 2O42 2040 '..~ 2o3s cn 2036 ' 2O34 .-- 2032 2026 2022 12o2o '~ 2018 2012 2010 2OO8 2OO6 2OO4 20O2 (SJ~llOO to suolll)lAI) )soo le)ol q)JOAA )uoso~cl 0 0 0 0 0 Simon W. Freese, P.E. 1900-1990 Marvin C. Nichols, P.E. 1896-1969 FEEESE o NICHOLS CITY OF DENTON LAKE RAY ROBERTS SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT Memorandum TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: P. S. Aurora, P.E. Ray Longoria, P.E. Recommendation for Relocation of the LRRWTP Clearwell Storage and High Service Pump Station DTN99479/2.10 January 10, 2000 Recommendation The technical and economic evaluations performed by Freese and Nichols, Inc. for the City of Denton Lake Ray Roberts water supply project suggest the lowest overall cost for the project is for the Clearwell storage and High Service Pumping be located at the LRRWTP site as opposed to the separate Hartlee Field Road location. Background The initial concept of the LRRWTP was that it was to be the major regional provider of treated water in the Denton County area. This dictated that the on ground storage and high service pump station facilities needed to meet the needs specific customer city, including the City of Denton, be located near the customer city. In Denton's case the storage and pumping was to be located on Hartlee Field Road in far northwest Denton, about 7 miles from the LRR plant site. This approach was more energy efficient in that customer cities with lower pressure delivery requirements would not need to reduce the pressure before accepting the water. In the current concept, the City of Denton would be the largest and possibly the only user of the treated water from the LRRWTP. In light of the current concept, Freese and Nichols, Inc. suggested that there could be a cost savings in having the City of Denton's storage and 60 MGD High Service Pumping facilities at the plant site as opposed to the Hartlee Field Road location. At the request of DWU staff we prepared an economic evaluation of the two alternatives. T:~MEMXRELOCATION OF CLEARWELL STORAGE AND HSPS.DOC E X H I B I T I I I The detailed evaluation is attached as: Attachment A) Memorandum to P.S. Arora on "Cost Comparison of HFR vs LRR" (20DEC99) A summary of the findings and results of the alternative evaluation are summarized below. Economic Comparison The economic comparisons of the two scenarios are presented in the cost table of Attachment A. We estimate a savings of $5.2 million by eliminating the Hartlee Field Road Pump Station and locating the 60 MGD high service pump station at the Lake Ray Roberts Treatment Plant. Although this approach requires a larger diameter pipeline (between the plant site and the distribution system) and larger HS pumps, these costs are more than offset by the combination of: · Elimination of the LRR on site below grade storage basin and transfer pump station · Elimination of the need to isolate the below grade basin from the groundwater · Elimination of the electrical substation at the HFR site · Elimination of the chlorine and ammonia storage and feed and scrubber facilities at the HFR site · Significantly lower construction cost of the storage tanks and pump station building due to the remote location (the cost savings increases with the addition of each future tank) · Lower non-power O&M costs associated with one site versus two sites · Lower project costs associated with one construction contract versus two. Additional Factors Considered An additional significant benefit associated with the facilities being located at the LRRWTP site is the reduction of the number of City of Denton properties with hazardous materials on site. The presence of chlorine and ammonia at the HFR site would have required containment and treatment facilities, and would have been subject to the USEPA's Risk Management Program. Two drawbacks to the single site approach include overall distribution system supply reliability; and delayed completion of needed storage and pumping facilities. A failure, or accidental disruption of service from the LRR site would mean that the utility would have only the Lake Lewisville WTP and existing system storage as back up. With the HFR PS alternative, disruption of service of the LRRWTP would be easier to handle given the 6/18 MG of current/future storage at that site. It is conceivable to have the HFR PS operational by the peak water demand period of 2001. The additional storage would make it easier to handle peak demands and emergencies. The LRRWTP project is estimated to be substantially complete by mid 2002. - END - T:'uMEMLRELOCATION OF CLEARWELL STORAGE AND HSPS.DOC 2 A~I~ACHIqElqT A FREESE ' NICHOLS Simon W. Fr~csc, P.E. Mar~n C. Nicho~, P.E. 1900-1990 1896-1969 MEMORANDUM To: From: Re: Date: P.S. Arora City of Denton Rusty Gibson, P.E., Alan Hutson, E.I.T. Cost Comparison of Hartlee Field Road vs. Lake Ray Roberts Hartlee Field Road Pump Station - DTN99351 January 8, 2000 Freese and Nichols (F&N) has compared the costs associated with locating the City of Denton's High Service Pump Station at the Hartlee Field Road site or at the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant (LRRWTP). Option A describes the original concept of building a transfer pump station at the water treatment plant with a high service pump station and storage at the Hartlee Field Road Site. Option B describes the new concept of constructing the pump station and ground storage at LRRWTP therby eliminating the Hartlee Field Road Pump Station (HFRPS). Attached is a spreadsheet detailing the costs of both options, a schematic of the two concepts, and spreadsheets comparing the operational costs at the pump station for both the 2002 and 2020 conditions. The following describes the assumptions made for the cost comparison. Option A, the original design concept, includes a 1 MG clearwell at the LRRWTP with a 50 MGD transfer pump station. The seven mile, 48" diameter pipeline, will have a capacity of 50 MGD. The I-IFRPS will include two 3 MG below grade tanks and a 60 MGD pump station. The cost estimate includes an electrical substation and chlorine facilities at the Hartlee Field Road Site. It is assumed that the discharge piping from the HFRPS to the High School tank will remain the same for both options. Option A requires more design and inspection services for the Hartlee Field Road Pump Station due to the remote site and more complex desing. A lump sum cost was also added for the slurry trench system around the filters, reclamation basin, and 1 MG clearwell. Option B, the new design concept, eliminates the I-~RP S thus requiting 60 MGD to be pumped from LRRWTP to the distribution system. This option includes a 6 MG pre-stressed concrete ground storage tank and a 60 MGD pump station at the treatment plant. F&N assumed that a 54" pipeline will be required to transmit the peak flow of 60 MGD. A 54" pipeline will have a head loss of 1.68 feet per thousand as compared to a 2.93 head loss for a 48" diameter pipe. There is an approximate $15 difference per LF for using the larger diameter pipe. Operational Costs for the two Options were also studied. It was assumed that the average pumping rate in 2002 would be approximately 10 ACH:[DTN99351 ]T:~IEM~HFRV SLRRCOSTS. WPD January 8, 2000 page 2 MGD and grow to 30 MGD by the year 2020. The tables attached show that the new design concept would average approximately $18,600 more in energy costs per year. Over a 20 year period, this would equate to a present day worth of approximately $197,000. This additional cost has been added to Option B. In order to have above ground storage at LRRWTP, an intermediate pump station will be required at the plant. The estimated cost for this facility has been added to Option B along with the cost of a shorter slurry trench around only the filters and remediation basins. A pressure reducing valve will be needed for diverting water to the 745 pressure plane. Savings will be realized in the future for Option B as additional storage is added. This savings has been determined to have a present worth value of $1,360,000. Some additional items were not included in this study. Option A does not include additional cost to provide an electric transmission line to the Hartlee Field Road Site. In turn, Option B does not include costs for increasing the substation size at the Water Treatment Plant Site. In conclusion, Freese and Nichols estimates a savings of $5,224,000 by eliminating the Hartlee Field Road Pump Station and locating the 60 MGD high service pump station at the Lake Ray Roberts Treatment Plant. ACH: [DTN99351 ]T:XMElvI~HYRV SLR.RCOST S.WPD City of Denton - Hartlee Field Road Pump Station Pump Station Location Study OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OPTION A - ORIGINAL CONCEPT DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 50 MGD Transfer P.S. @WTP LS 1 2,600,000 2,600,000 and 1 MG Clearwell 2 48" Pipeline LF 37,000 150 5,550,000 3 60 MGD Hartlee Field Road P.S. LS 1 4,720,000 4,720,000 4 3 MG Below Ground Storage Tank LS 2 1,400,000 2,800,000 5 Electrical Substation LS 1 500,000 500,000 6 Chlorine Facilities LS 1 200,000 200,000 7 Additional Engineering & Inspection LS 1 450,000 450,000 8 Slurry Trench (Filters, Basin & Clearwell) LS 1 422,000 422,000 OPTION A TOTAL 17,242,000 OPTION B - NEW CONCEPT ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT I 60 MGD Pump Station @WTP LS 1 4,300,000 4,300,000 2 6 MG Storage LS 1 1,600,000 1,600,000 3 54" Pipeline LF 37,000 165 6,105,000 4 Additional Operational Costs (Present Worth) LS 1 197,000 197,000 5 :Pressure Reducing Valve for 745 Pressure Plan LS 1 30,000 30,000 6 Intermediate Pump Station within WTP LS 1 808,000 ' 808,000 7 Slurry Trench (Filters & Reclamation Basin) LS 1 338,000 338,000 8 Present Worth Savings for Future Storage Tanks* LS 1 (1,360,000) (1,360,000) OPTION B TOTAL 12,018,000 ESTIMATED DIFFERENCE 5,224,000 Present Worth Tank Savings is based on adding a 6 MG storage tank in year 2010 and a 6 MG storage tank in year 2020 with inflation of 3% per year and a 7% interest rate. [DTN99351]T:~VlEM\HARTLEE VS WTP.XLS Cost Estimate 1/10100 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 8, 2000 Fiscal Operations Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager ~ Fiscal and Municipal Services ~\7 AgendaNo. , ~-~,~ , Agenda Item. /--~ ~'~,~ SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on the City's Employee Healthcare Plan. BACKGROUND Based on prior correspondence received from Mr. Tom Atkins, Councilmember Durrance has requested that this item be placed on the agenda. OPTIONS Provide direction to staff regarding this request to discuss the City's healthcare plan at a future work session. RECOMMENDATION N/A PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council. Boards, Commision) Council previously approved a one-year contract with AETNA for employee healthcare beginning on January 1, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION N/A Respectfully submitted: Max Blackburn Risk Manager 01/11/00 16:30 F..L~. 9?2 490 $$4? TUCKER ~ool/oo~ TUCKER & CLARK,/blC, / GROWP RI~SOI. TRCIgS ]/~TC, 5757 Alpha Road, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75240 Voice 972 980-2222 Voice 800 334-1844 Fax 972 980-2221 (Distributed through Safeco Life Insurance) Stipulations: Actively-At-Work waived with disclosure; prior to approval, paid claims and enrollment, by month, to the effective date are required. Updated shock claimant information to the effective date is also required prior to approval. Quoted rated reflect a full service hospital / physician PPO plan of benefits utilizing the PHC$ network. There must be a minimum out-of-pocket .. differential (including deductibles) of $1,000 in and out of network benefits. These rates reflect the assumption that 100% of the employees have access to this PPO Network. Any change in the PPO Network or plan de/sign will require a re-pricing of the Specific Rates. *if this group is contributory, we will require at least 6,5% of the eligible employees to participate in this plan. *Please provide a list of claims over $30,000 for our review including diagnosis, prognosis, working status and treatment so that we may assess any individual liability. Detailed attending physician statement(s) for ongoing conditions may be required to properly evaluate this risk. *If the enrollment listed on the application varies by more than 5% of what was quoted we reserve the right to re-price our Specific numbers. These rates and factors reflect the assumption that the percentage of fire / police personnel does nor exceed 40%. We will require confirmation of the exact percentage. 1909 Hotlyhill Lane ~4160 D~ ~kway Sui~ DenOn, ~ 76205 (940) 382-6374 ~ Tom Atkl-=~ L~GF ~ce Broker John W. Cla~k, CLU President & CEO TUCKER & CLARK, INC. 5757 Alpha Road 972.392.2930 ext. 123 Suite 300 800.334.1844 ext. 123 Dallas, TX 75240 Mobile 972.672.6644 john~t-c.com Fax 972.490.6347 k, OST COMPARISON-. " City of Denton Excess Ins Carrier Specific Deductible Basis Aggregate Corridor Basis Covers preferred Provider Drug Card Ph~vider Otrter Provider Fixed Expenses Administration Annual I start-up Utilization Review Preferred Provider Prescription Card Other Broker Excess Insurance , Specific Single Rate Family Rate Aggregate ...... Employee Rate "T~i~i Premium Total Fixed Expenses Single L Family Variable Expenses Aggregate Deductible Single Factor Family Factor Maximum Claims Expected Claims Single . Family IM~ximum Plan Cost Single . Family ~/~F_~ected Plan Cost Single Family Estimate:--> Need u~dated Experience to filth up the numbem. Slng. le 'Reeomm, ended Safer~ Ufe Ins. 2/12 Aedical, Rx PHCS Express S~ip$ $100,000! 125% per Unit AnnUal 12.35' .143,161 3,500 1.90 22,025 4.05 46,948 2.00 23,184 9.61 47,397 23,87 158,974 4.oq .... 46,~66 491,556 33.91 I;'1150.00 739.800 E1375.oo ~ ,. 3,237,300 2,589,e, to 120.00 300.00 183.91 423.!7 · 'V/~ 153.91 · 348.17 Claims experience is only through Jun 1999. In order to firm up mese numbers we will need fie last 6. months of elaims experience broken down an a monthly basis. 3,728:856[.. 3',081,3961 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda No. Agendaltem AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: February 8, 2000 Technology Services Questions concerning this item may be directed to Alex Pettit at 349-8595. Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT: Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction concerning Intellisys Streaming Media System. BACKGROUND: Early in 1999, management recognized that providing the ability to view city council meetings over the intemet would provide the citizenry with the ability to access City of Denton City Council and/or Planning and Zoning Commission meetings from anywhere. Additionally, this simultaneous broadcast would need to be available to low bandwidth connections (below 1 mb/s) as well as high bandwidth (1 mb/s or faster), necessitating multiple video formats. Substantial research and analysis confirmed the need of a scalable multimedia delivery system that serves the gamut of real world endpoints easy to use and administer. This system is a culmination of this effort toward deriving solutions for the current and future needs of the City of Denton. Further exploration and discussion of this ability identified some other features to the core service of simultaneous broadcasting of the meetings. The ability to view them on demand (to view a meeting from last month today) would have great value. To have the quality of the picture be of acceptable quality if a citizen is viewing a council meeting from a City of Denton library pc, senior center pc, at a recreation center, or from any public building. Finally, to be able to request the video segments when a specific issue was discussed and sort them in chronological order to simplify the review of how an issue went from beginning to end would be of great benefit. This, then, is what this solution is designed to address. The system could be used to catalogue and reproduce any or all of the material broadcast through Channel 26, to capture distance learning sessions, or any other audio/video traffic deemed valuable and desirable to retain and reproduce. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: At the Council Meeting on January 18, 2000, the Council requested that this item be brought back for a Work Session report. FISCAL INFORMATION: The system cost of $170,279 is available in the Technology Fund. EXHIBITS: 1. Attachment Respectfully submitted: Director of Technology Services Scalable Multimedia System Implementation Intellisys Group was selected to help provide a streaming media system, to include equipment and materials, submittals, testing, training and warranty. Installation includes engineering, labor and hardware for display, audio, video, control systems and related equipment rack, equipment mounting, plates, panels, connectors, and cables. Scope of Work: Installation of Analog Distribution and Source Switching System--The first order of business is to install a analog audio/video distribution and switching system and equipment rack in thc city Council Chambers video control room. A single distribution amplifier will be inserted into the signal path directly in front of thc existing Cable Television head end modulator. The signal will be distributed and routed back to the Cable TV head end as well as a new matrix switcher. The audio/visual matrix switcher will be the selection point for all sources that feed the encoding stations. Analog signals from up to 7 other sources may be routed through this switcher in the future (VTR, VHS, Beta, DVD, Other Live Feeds). If other analog audio/video sources (in addition to the existing Cable Television feed) are desirable and available for dedicated use within this single equipment rack space at time of installation, Intellisys Group will provide connections from this additional equipment to the matrix switcher. This capability will be useful for routing audio/video sources (other than the live Cable TV feed) for encoding off line for storage and retrieval on demand. If additional sources or distribution equipment are purchased from Intellisys Group for this purpose before installation commences, these sources will be incorporated into the system with no additional labor charges. Installation of Live Mpeg Streaming Center--A live MPEG streaming device will be installed in the same vertical rack space as the matrix switcher. The MPEG streaming device will take one of the analog audio/video outputs from the matrix switcher as an input signal. The MPEG encoding device will output an MPEG stream over a single 100T connection to be provided by customer. Installation of QuickTime Encoding Center A live QuickTime Streaming computer will be installed in the same vertical rack space as the matrix switcher. The QuickTime streaming device will take one of the analog audio/video outputs from the matrix switcher as an input signal. The QuickTime device will output a QuickTime stream over a single 100T connection to be provided by customer. Installation of REAL G2 Encoding Center An NT Server with REAL G2 encoding hardware and software will be installed in the same vertical rack space as the matrix switcher. The REAL G2 streaming device will take one of the analog audio/video outputs from the matrix switcher as an input signal. The REAL G2 device will output a REAL G2 stream over a single 100T connection to be provided by customer. Installation of Monitor and Switching A single rack mount monitor and 2 keyboard/mouse trays will be provided for installation in the same rack space as thc Encoding devices. The monitor will be capable of switching between the two computer sources. Installation of SGI Origin200 Server Hardware One SGI Origin 200 server with 256mb of RAM, 2 processors and 100G of disk space will be installed in either the same rack as the matrix video switcher or rack space in computer server room to be supplied by customer. Installation of Media Base Softwarv Media Base software will be installed on the SGI Origin 200 server. The Media Base will enable the capture of live digital video streams to file or distribution over enabled networks provided by customer. The platform will serve 100 simultaneous Intranet, Extranet, WAN, and LAN clients. Licensing for more client connections is available from Intellisys Group at an additional charge at the time of installation without added installation costs. Installation REAL Server Software REAL Video Server software will be installed on the SGI Origin 200 server. This 100-seat server license will enable G2 streams to be served from the SGI Media Base platform to 100 simultaneous client connections. Training--The City of Denton will be trained by Intellisys Group and it's designated training resources on the SCI Origin 200 platform, Media Base, G2 Encoding and REAL Server, QuickTime encoding and MPEG encoding machines. An advanced level of UNIS, Macintosh, NT and Networking proficiency will be assumed. Each device has it's own personality and technical requirements, which will be addressed in the training. Assistance Intellisys Group will provide customization services to the Media Base platform. A single Graphic Logo of the customers choosing will be added to the dynamic web pages of the Media Base platform to personalize the web pages for an enhanced client experience. Intellisys Group will provide the City of Denton assistance in the development of a log file export routine. The City of Denton will be responsible for any and all third party costs associated with the development of such a routine. City of Denton will Provide: Space for Equipment and Rack Space The City of Denton will provide a space within the City Council Chambers Video Control room for the installation of rack equipment. The space will have at least 2' of clearance to any surface of the rack for workspace and ventilation. Other equipment rack space for SGI Origin 200 equipment will be supplied by the customer in a location deemed appropriate by the client due to the critical operations and support of the equipment. Environmental Control at Equil~ment Location All equipment locations provided by the client should be environmentally and physically secure for the operation of electronic equipment. Climate control, ventilation and security should be provided for the space where any and all equipment is housed on a 24 hour 7 day a week basis. All spaces should be free of humidity, dust, and other environmental concerns that affect the operation of sensitive electronic equipment. Power--All equipment must receive clean power with dedicated ground and ample isolation from mechanical devices. UPS is a desirable option. Intellisys Group can provide UPS units at an additional cost. Suitable Network Connections Network connections will be provided by the customer for all installed equipment. The connections should be switched Ethernet auto sensing ports of 10/100T or better. Intellisys Group can provide network equipment and cabling at an additional cost for a total end to end solution and ensured quality of service to the equipment location. Guaranteed Network Quality of Service The City of Denton is responsible for providing an ideal network and end to end quality of service for all network segments enabled for distributed media. The City of Denton is responsible for all costs associated with updating or upgrading network hardware to ensure multimedia traffic capability. Intellisys Group can provide network equipment support, updates and upgrades to guarantee these capabilities at an additional cost. End to End Network Technical Knowledge and Configuration Support--Network capability and knowledge is paramount to the success of this project. The City of Denton will provide network experts and labor with comprehensive network skills and knowledge base for this network and any attached network segments including, but not limited to, WAN, LAN, MAN, HAN, Extranet, Intranet and any other attached network. These experts should have complete command of the network equipment from end to end. Intellisys Group can provide these experts on an ongoing basis at an additional cost. Extensive Network Diagram and Documentation The City of Denton will provide Intellisys Group all documentation to support existing and future network structures. These documents will describe and document the network architecture, structure, equipment and operations in detail. If this documentation is not available, Intellisys Group can provide a service to compile this information at an additional cost. Extensive Computer Platform support and Maintenance Labor The City of Denton will provide expert labor to maintain and support the installed equipment. This expert labor will be proficient in the operations and maintenance of NT, Macintosh, UNIX, Telnet, HTML, WEB Server and Network Equipment. These experts will be trained comprehensively on the operation of the installed equipment. Intellisys Group can provide a service to staff and support these systems at an additional cost. Multimedia Content--The City of Denton will provide any and all content for distribution by this system. The City of Denton assumes all liability for the capture, storage, distribution and issuance of content from the system. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: Feb. 8, 2000 DEPARTMENT: General Government/CMO CM/DCM/ACM: Michael W. Jez, City Manage/~ SUBJECT: Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the "Raise the Bar" campaign. BACKGROUND: Beginning November 8 through December 10, 1999, city staff surveyed several hundred residents in an effort to gain input from the citizen's perspective regarding work activities that could positively impact the appearance of our community. During this work session, you will receive a report summarizing the results of the survey and the staff's proposed response. OPTIONS: Respond to the survey data and give staff direction regarding "Raise the Bar". RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the plan of action proposed by staff. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: On going pRIOR. ACTION/REVIEW {Couneii~ Bo, ,ards~ Commission): None FISCAL INFORMATION: This program does have future fiscal requirements. These will be presented to you in appropriate budgets, or as each selected project is brought forward. BID INFORMATION: Not applicable MAP: Not Applicable Respectfully submitted: Chief Mike Jez · How did we get here? OUR MISSION To be a leader among cities in delivering outstanding quality services and products through: ~' citizen involvement, ~ innovation, ~ and efficiont use of resources. A philosophy of ~vice deliverg that test~ on tluee ~seni/al elements: Consultation Adaptation Mobilization 1 Chief Mike Jez · All Employees must consult with citizens to determine the seroice delivery priorities. ® Neighborhood meetings. ® Surveys. · Telephone. · One on onel · Departments and personnel must be willing to change in order to address priorities identified in the Consultation process. · Challenge ~he traditional! · New Methods! MOBILIZATION ~ I · We must identify all the stakeholders and resources and bring them to the table. · Look both internally and externally[ · We serve as a catalyst to drive them to actionl 2 Chief Mike Jez EMPOggr~RMENT AsA Yourself... Is it the right thing for the community? Is it the right thing for the organization? Is it ethical and Legal? Is it something you are wlfling to be accountable for? lf the answer ts YES to ali of these questions, don't ask permission... ~I JUST DO IT! · Total surveys 944 · Individual responses 3740 Litter 829 Code Enl. 686 Parks 687 Facilitles/bldg 563 R.O.W.'$ 418 Streets 558 Rain~ ~h~ Bar ~ ~J I II I;;; ;; j · Six cross representative committees, · Comprehensive. · Litter. · Code en~rcement. · Streets & R.O.W. ® Public facilities & Bldgs. · Parks. 3 Chief Mike Jez · The Committees then identified and divided the ~elected projects into the following categories: [mmediale Short Term Long Term Projects that Projects that Projects that ~an be done are targeted for require policy NOW! FY 99-00 direclion or · Litter */Container Consolidation Policy. ,/Do we want to supplement TXDOT funding for abatemen on State R.O.W.'s. ,/Policy direction concerning the future role of Keep Dento~ Beautiful and other private partners. · Public Buildings and Facilities ,/Design comprehanstve policy for all public signage. *"Design paint scheme for ali public buildings. · Streets and R.O.W.'s `/Consider removal of Dallas Drive, Teasley Lane, Elm St. Locust St. from the TXDOT system and begin city Maintenance of these roadways. `/Increased funding for street maintenance. *Code Enforcement ,/How do we achieve a balance of interests, given the overwhelming demand for increased code enforcement? 4 Chief Mike Jez v' Strategy for procurement and placement of public art in Parks and public spaces. ¢' Security lighting standards for public parks. Raima ~h~ Bar ~ 5 Raise the Bar Litter Abatement Issues ISSUE: Litter at Educational InstitUtions ' : TARGET PERSON iMMEDiATE (in Progress) DATE RESPONSIBLE Solicit help for litter collections at institutions. (UNTFI-WU/DISD) Feb-00 Lancine Bentley Liaison with UNT for enhanced services for move-in/out at UNT. Done Charlie Watkins :. ~ TARGET PERSON ~ SHORTTERM start/Finish b sept 2000)~ ~ i i DATE RESpONSiBLE Code Enforcement Enforce litter ordinances. Apr-00 Police Dept. Increase judicial awareness. Apr-00 Mike Jez · Provide enforcement training. Mar-00 Stephanie Berry KDB/Utilities implement "Waste in Place" into DISD curriculum, Mar-00 Joe lalenti Additonal containers to be ordered by UNT May-00 Mike Perkins ~ ; ,:: : : TARGET; PERSON i LONGER :TERM (subsequent Fy s) :DATE RESPONS!BEE i Cooperative education campaign with UNT/TWU. Advertising geared toward move-in and move-outs. Oct-00 Kiersten Dierterle ISSUE:Fugitive litter at Retail Centers · : i ' ' ' : ' TARGET .PERSO.N IMMEDIATE (in:Progress) DATE . RESPONSIBLE..: . Educate and solicit direct help and support from involved businesses. Feb-00 Lancine Bentley : . ' : TARGET' PERSON':'i'i SHORT TERM(start :iFinish by S~pt 2000) ' DATE REsPONSiBLE Solicit Chamber of Commerce support. May-00 Lancine Bentley Enforce litter-related ordinances on private property. Mar-00 Doug Powell ':~:ii,::: · : ' ' : :'" - ~ ' ' : ' ' ' : : ': :. :- : i:'i~"~::i:::~!! ~ ~ .LONGER TERM_(Subsequenti.FYs). : :" i 'DATE.: , :REsPONsiBLE : :'i : i. '. :., : :TARGET·' ...PERSON: :i · . · · :.i... : '. ' :Se' uentFy,s' ' ' : ::DATE:':' .RESPONSiBlE · LONGER:T,ERM:(Sub .,q., !: .. ~.~ .)':~". :. ~ :. -. .... Revise and stren~Ithen ordinances. Jan-01 Charlie Watkins ISSUE: Litter on the.Square .and at .Fry Street . TARGET' · PERSON: (I DATE RESPONSIBLE : IMMEDIATE n Progress) Letter to businesses on square re: dumpster consolidation Done 12-99 Charlie Watkins Solicit support from UNT sororities and fraternities to adopt Fry St. Feb-00 Lancine Bentley Consolidate litter barrell collections on the Square. Done Jan-00 Mike Perkins Consolidate litter barrell collections on Fry St. Done Jan-00 Billy Sprabeary Require Solid Waste Contract with issuance of Building/Remodel permit. Feb-00 Greg Mitchell . : .TARGET i SHORT TERM (Start/Finish by:Sept. 2000) : ~. DA~E: 'REsPONSiBLE.:=" Continue to work with Downtown Improvement Group at square. Apr-00 Mike Perkins Consolidate container service on Fry St. Apr-00 Billy Sprabeary Consolidate container service on the Square. Apr-00 Mike Perkins Enforce dumpster requirements. On-goin~l Liza Good Complete Fry St. contract for $20K to ensure dumpster consolidation. Jan-00 Mike Copeland ~ .' · : ~ ! ' i. ': ::~:i. : ' ' . ''~ ~ 'i. ~ . i' :.' ' .::.~ . .-' ' .' :"~:~iii~:.';'i -:.:':' : : ' .:. · . : . 'TARGET; :: PE~S0~:~.i:i~ ' ' ' : ent FY's : ' DA~E'" :: REsPONsiBLE::-: · LONGER TERM (Subsequ .. ). .. : Revise and strengthen ordinances. Jan-01 Charlie Watkins ISSUE: Litter at· Recycling sites , ARGET . PERSON · R SpONSiBLE · IMMEDIATE(In Progress) DATE. E· :: . · Assign employee to clean sites on weekends. Done Mike Perkins Hold public meetings to determine recycling preferences of the citizens. Feb-00 Joe lalenti .. · TARGE? :' pERSO i.:.':.' SHORT TERM (Rtnrt/FiniSh by:Sept,, 2000): .. :DATE . :' RESPONSIBLE ~:.' Man the sites periodically with volunteers, May-00 Joe lalenti Re-sign sites, Jun-00 Joe lalenti Enforce contamination ordinance. Jun-00 Joe lalenti Enlist public support to turn in violators. Jun-00 Joe lalenti Upgrade oil sites, Jul-00 Joe lalenti ~ . : LONGER TERM (SubsequentFY's). ' : i · : ·DATE·: RESpoNsiBLE;.;:: Buy land and build enhanced sites, Jun-01 Joe lalenti Man the large multi-material site periodically, Oct-00 Joe lalenti Advertise prosecutions. Mar-00 Kiersten Dierterle Implement recycling preferences identified in Public Meetings. Aug-01 Joe lalenti ISSUE: Litter around dumpsters and dumpSters visibility. "' TARGET · PERSON IMMEDIATE (In progress) i , ' DATE RESPONSIBLE Continue existing program of reporting, collection, and billing by Solid Waste and Code Enforcement. Done Billy Sprabeary Solid Waste Driver collects extra waste on the spot and bills for service. Feb-00 Mike Perkins Restaurant inspections to include waste handling as part of rating. Feb-00 Greg Mitchell ~ ': :' ' ~ : ':' · . · ·: TARGET~ :~ :.PERSON i i i ...!. SHORTTERMi(Start.iFinish by SePt;2000)' DATE: ~ .RESPONSIBLE:::i Move all dumpster off ri~ht-of-wa~/whenever feasible. Apr-O0 Mike Perkins Project plans to include dumpster revetments, pads, and aprons. Apr-00 Doug Powell Promulgate specifications for dumpster revetments, pads, and aprons. Apr-00 Charlie Watkins ~:~'. · ~ .,. LONGER TERM (subSeqUentFy~S)~I: . ~ ~ ~ ~ . :. iDATEi: ' .~RESPONSiBLE:: Revise ordinance as needed. Dec-00 Charlie Watkins Develop ordinance which requires revetment for all dumpsters on right-of-way. Dec-00 Charlie Watkins Develop ordinance to provide dumpster loading zones/no-parking zones when container is on street. Dec-00 Jerry Clark Dumpster in right-of-way user fees to PUB and CC. Dec-00 Greg Mitchell Dumpster site retrofit ordinance to PUB and CC. Dec-00 Jerry Clark Container consolidation incentives to PUB and CC. Dec-00 Charlie Watkins ~dditional funds for dumpster maintenance. Oct-00 Charlie Watkins ISSUE:: Litter in' curb/gUtter: TARGET PERSON· i i, . iMMEDiA-FE.(in progress) ' DATE ' REsPONSiBLE Expedite purchase of sweeper. Feb-00 Jim Coulter = ;i ' i SHORT~TERM :(Start/Finish by. Sept,::2:000): :. · : DATE: .! :. REsPONSiBLE :: Litter collection in drainage ditches scheduled for March. Mar-00 Kiersten Dieterle Increase sweeping frequency in selected areas. Apr-00 Jim Coulter Consider instituting Adopt-a-Spot for Drainage. Apr-00 Kiersten Dieterle :'. ::: : : LONGER·TERM (SUbSequent'Fy s) : ' · ' : DATE::-:- ' 'RESPONSIBLE :1 Litter education. Oct-00 Kiersten Dieterle Public Facilities Issues ISSUE: Public Facilities -Signage- provide neTM to-designed, architecturally.pleasing informatiVe exter or and inter or direct onal signage at a I City of Denton public facilities. ' PERSON! : TARGET IMMEDIATE (In Progress) . DATE REsPoNSlBEE Establish a design committee to set the policy on types of signs needed (exterior and interior). March Kathy DuBose : i TARGET i .: :: PERSo. Ni.: i' SHORT TERM (FiniSh by Sept.2000) · DATE. i : RESPONSIBLE. Construct and install one exterior sign, per design committee, )ossibly at City Hall. May Bruce Henington ~ .: :...... :' :. TARGET: ~PERS0'~:::-: :: : ·: .LONGiTERM(~UDseqUent. FiScaIYears). · :. :.: DATE· . · RESPO~iBLE. Budget and install new exterior signs at all 26 public facilitiesFY 2001 Department buildings. Budget Year Directors Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 1/18/00 ISSUE: Public Fa~!ii~ies ~ Side~alksi parking L0tS,~ndFlags ~ Pr0vide quaiitY mainte~:: ~nd b!~ahing of Sid~Walk~ :~hd p~rEihg ors at ali Cty 0f oeht~n pabiib fabilitibS: provide quality~care ~f existing;flags, displaying them in acc0rdance With the City °f Denton: i)OliCY. ~ ;; ; iMMEDiaTE (in ProgreSS) : DATE: ~ESp~NsiB~E Resolve operational and maintenance issues concerning sidewalks parking lots and flags at all public buildings, including all Fire IStations. March Janet Simpson : TARGET::: PERSON :SHORT TERM (FiniSh bY Sept 2000) : :: DATE: RESP0~i~EE Provide ongoing daily system for cleaning the parking lots/sidewalks and picking up liEer around the buildings. March Janet Simpson Redesign, renovate or repair, and maintain parking lots and sidewalks at one downtown building. June Janet Simpson Enforce City policy regarding flags. March Janet Simpson Construct one new sidewalk at City Hall East. May Janet Simpson ; :: LONG ~ERM(SUbsequentFiSCalYears):: :: :: :DATE :: ;;RESPONSIBLE: Redesign, renovate or repair, and maintain parking lots and FY 2001 sidewalks at all other public facilities buildings. Budget Year Janet Simpson Continue to maintain flags on a monthly basis, per established policy. Ongoing Janet Simpson Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 1/18/00 : ISSUE:PUbliC FaCilities ~ smoking, provide a Systemt0 c0ntrol :exterior tobacco smoking at : :entrah~es of all City bf D~nt0h :~ ~!i:b faCil ities by ins{ira{lng a: ne~ exte~i0r smoking P~iicy a nd n&w architecturally PleaSing smoking Shelters for employees:and : citizens . ; ::;: · : TARGET ;PERSON : IMMEDIATE (In ProgresS): DATE : RESPONSIBLE Establish a policy on exterior smoking at public facilities buildings. May Carla Romine ~i : : SHORT TERM (Finish by SePt 2000): : :' DATE; RESPONSIBCE Enforce the exterior smoking policy. May Carla Romine Construct one exterior smoking shelter at City Hall East. June Ed Hodney 21 :: eONGTERi(SabsequentFiSCalYears) :: : iDATE "ESPON:~i~LE FY 2001 'Construct exterior smoking shelters at all public facilities buildings. Budget Year Ed Hodney Continue to enforce exterior smoking policy. On-going Carla Romine Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 1/18/00 ISSUE:.' PUblic· FaCilities; LandSCaping C tY.of Dent°n :pUbiiCl~a~iJit,es and:inSUre quality maintenance through°ut, future yearsl ' " TARGET· PERSON · : IMMEDIATE (In Progress) DATE RESPONSIBLE Establish a landscaping design policy for public facilities. May Ed Hodney · TARGET PERSON ' ,,i: .: SHORT.TERM(FinishbySepti2000):' :i :i DATE RESpoNSIBLE Landscape sign at City Hall. June Ed Hodney Resolve who maintains landscaping and grass cutting of all buildings including Fire Stations. June Ed Hodney ~::':: . ' .'.::.!~:::.. :.' : : · : LoNGTERM {S~ibSequent Fiscal:.y~arS). '::.: · :!:. DATE 'REsPONSiBLE::' FY 2001 Landscape around City Hall East and City Hall West. Budget Year Janet Simpson Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 1/18/00 ~ .IssUE:.. PubliC.FaCilities- Cleaning :(Exterior & Interior) :-: Provide'quality cleaning :and increase frequency of cleaning at c ty of DentOn Pub iC buildings, interiOr and exterior entries,.parking i°ts.ahd: ~round these buildings. .~. ' TARGET PERSON :i IMMEDIATE (In Progress) DATE :. RESPONSIBLE:: Inspect all buildings at night with overtime pay. March Bruce Henington Resolve operational and maintain issues concerning exterior cleaning of public entries, parking lots, litter around all buildings including Fire Stations. March Janet Simpson '.:i .' :'' :' ':'. :':'. TARGET .:.. :.SHORT. TERM (Finish sePt 2000) :! :: ::~ DATE::: :REsP0~iBLE;:~: Clean all public entrances inside of all buildings. June Bruce Henington Provide an on-going daily system for cleaning exterior public entries of all public facilities buildings. Pick up litter at each building on a weekly basis. March Janet Simpson : :.. :. ': TARGET' ': PERS.O.N:::~:;: ' LONG~TERM(subsequent Fiscal years): i :DATE '.RESPON'SiBLE ;~ Establish a departmental committee to resolve the issue of what department cleans each building (long term) and how to have an on- FY 2001 Department going exterior cleaning system. Budget Year Directors Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 1/18/00 ISSUE: Public Facilities - Lighting and Christmas Lights - Prov de qua ty, safe.lighting arOund: ity of Denton pub c fac it es:and parking lOts. Establish a policy regarding Christmas lights on all:City~ f DentOn public facilities` '-~' . '- : · TARGET PERSON :~· DATE REsPONsIBLE IMMEDIATE(In Progress) · Establish a policy committee for Christmas lighting on public facilities buildings. March Howard Martin Install dusk to dawn lights at all public facilities entrances and exits as needed per directors. June Howard Martin :::~ ;' .: ::. TARGET :. ::pERSON:.:.. · :: . sHoRT TERM (FiniSh :by semi2000) . : : .DA~E: 'RESPONSiBLE:::i Enforce lighting policy. Determine answers to: who takes down lights, do we leave lights on the buildings, do we leave lights lighted all year, March Howard Martin :.' , : · : : : ' :i' ; ;; .:' '" TARGET": :.: : LONGTE.RM(subsequent FiSCalYears).-' DATE:..RES:p~SiBEE Install and remove Christmas lights in a timely manner and/or follow the new policy. Yearly Howard Martin Maintain dusk to dawn lighting at entrances and exits. Yearly Howard Martin Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 01/18/00 :ISSUE: Public Facilities ~'Paintin..~ g: and Art/Murals - Estab sh a co Or se ect on comm. rtee..:::to prov de al;ch tectural y pleasing paint SChemes throughout all City· of Denton public·faCilities. Enhance ~nd.:installl new art/murais' ~: .' : :.::. '~!-: ... · ' TARGET · IMMEDIATE (In Progress) . DATE RESPONSIBLE Establish a color selection committee. May Linda Ratliff Select a color scheme to be used for one building. May Linda Ratliff Establish a policy on art/murals. May Linda Ratliff TARGET; :.: SHORT TERM (Finish by Sept 2000) .: DATE· '. REsPO~$i.~'LE:: Dean Hartley Paint one older historical building, possibly Civic Center. July Linda Ratliff Select the color scheme for all buildings and paint the interior of all Dean Hartley ~ublic entrances. July Linda Ratliff Take art/murals policy and acquire one mural to be painted on one building. July Linda Ratliff Paint interior of Denia and North Lakes gyms. July Dean Hartley ;~i TARGET:.: :. LONG TERM (Subsequent Fiscal Years) DATE RESP'0:~~$iB~E.II Paint City Hall and City Hall West using new color. December Linda Ratliff Select or continue to institute the color selection by painting three FY 2001 Dean Hartley buildings per year. Budget Year Linda Ratliff Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 01/18/00 'Is:SUE; Public; Fa~i!ities =-N0'n,city :Buildings-:DetermineWhat istO ;be done with.th'ese threehon~ city bUi'idings (DepOt ba~n at 604. E. HickorY :'street :and the steam Plant). All are pOSsibl:y Unsafe°r not . . TARGET PERSON : (In ) DATE I RESPONSIBLE: . : IMMEDIATE Progress Determine what is to be done with each of these buildings. March Greg Mitchell SHORT TERM (Finish by sept 2000) · = DATE :: '~. RESPONSI:BEE Condemn or don't condemn these buildings. March Greg Mitchell FY 2001 Possible demolition of these buildings. Budget Year Greg Mitchell Public Facilities Summary 1-20-00.xls 1/1 §/00 Public Right-of-Ways Issues ISSUE: improve appearance and maintenance of R.O-W and private frOntages On city and TXDOT r0ads. . TARGET· PERSON IMMEDIATE (In prOgreSs) DATE RESPONSIBLE: Use existing code enforcement code to enforce and remedy the existing violations. This will include high weeds, construction signs and general February Donna Bateman Continue to mow and enhance the frequency of mowing on right-of-ways and medians. February Ed Hodney · :. : : · . :. . :' &:'= :~ TARGET · SHORT TERM (start/Finish by'Sept. 2000) ' DATE RESPONSIBLE Use existing ordinance to enforce longer term projects including demolition of more buildings, October Donna Bateman Encourage and promote a high profile for Keep Denton Beautiful including their drive for :ommeroial and governmental task forces to address such isses as recognizing and awarding #ell maintained and groomed property and buildings and education programs for retail and commercial businesses, October Donna Bateman Have Code Enforcement and Keep Denton Beautiful develop a policy position for Council review ~het would allow more stringent specifications for color and maintenance of private property including buildings, fencing, screening and landscaping, October Donna Bateman Continue to expand and improve landscaping maintenance along major thoroughfares. March Ed Hodney Use the new ClP money to expand the median system on major thoroughfares. May Ed Hodney To develop a policy position for Council review to address more frequent mowing and litter collection along major roadways (TXDOT) in Denton. January Ed Hodney Develop long term plans for converting overhead electric facilities to underground along the major entry ways. March Sharon Mays increase the manpower and efforts to improve street marking and paving and buttoning system within the city. May Jerry Clark Develop new prototypes and present new design of all street name signs. Such a system should be compatible and concurrent with overall signage system of the city. June Jerry Clark Develop comprehensive plans for the improvement of major entrances into the city that would involve citizens businesses and all stakeholders. Such a plan would include improving the looks Dave Hill, Jemj of buildings, right-of-way medians and utilities and the actual street itself. These roads should Clark, Ed Hodney, include Fort Worth Drive? Dallas Drive, University, IH-35. May Howard Martin Implement the program for improvement to the square to include rebuilding improvements, also include review of dumpster location and enclosures. May Ed Hodney Develop a directional sign component of signage program plan to help people get to the major buildings or destinations within the city. September Jerry Clark :' · : :~'~ i.:..' :' ~:::'~::~' . . :~ ..'::: . · : :. · ~ .: · .' :~': :: ":i' : i:.:.:' i.:' i "',': 'r RGE · iSSUE: ·Improve the ridability and maintenanCe of roadways within the City. : · : TARGET: PERSON · . ' IMMEDIATE (In ProgreSs) DATE RESPONSIBLE Continue to maintain and enhance the ridability and appearance of streets in Denton Jerry Clark Continue to respond within 48 hours to request for pothole elimination. Feb-00 Jerry Clark : .::::: .. . ~ :: . .~ TARGET.' : ' sHORT TERM. (starUFinish.by Sept~ 2:000) ": i ": DATE:"' ~RE$~ONSi:BEE' Provide policy position to enhance and expand this system to enhance the response time and expand the program (i.e., increased funding). Jun-00 Jerry Clark Provide policy position for council review to enhance the maintenance system to enhance the response time and expand the program (I.e., increased funding). Jun-00 Jerry Clark Increase the street marking and buttoning pro~lrams. Jun-00 Jerry Clark : ' , i ' ' , ~ : ·" : : . ' . · · , :. ,:: : .i.i.i. ~ARGET'~ ' ' :.~i':: i.': . LONG:TERM:(s~b~equent FisCal YearS) ::' : BATE Execute the newly funded CIP program through the remainder of the program. Oct-00 Jerry Clark To devise new funding program to rehabilitate existing road system (I.e., separate street CIP bond election). 01-Oct-00 Jerry Clark Devise a policy position and present options to the Council to consider funding maintenance and rebuilding activities needed partially, or in whole, on state Jerry Clark, system roads including Dallas Drive, Teasle¥ Lane, Elm and Locust streets, l-Jan-00 Dave Hill Parks Issues : : : :: :: TARGET PERS~ · IMMEDiATE (In progreSs) : : : DATE : RESPONSIBLE Inspect specific parks mentioned in RTB survey for excessive litter; ensure Randy Petterson compliance with current service standards 1/31/00 Curt Sto~isdill Review trash can placement and numbers in identified parks; adjust as appropriate to Randy Petterson ensure convenience for customers 2/15/00 Curt Sto~lsdill SHORT TERM (Start/Finish bY sept~ 200:0) : : : DATE RESPONSlBEE Organize litter "sweeps" in Mack, Denia, Fred Moore, North Lakes, Evers, South Lancine Bentley, Lakes parks to abate litter collected alon~l perimeters and fences 3/15/00 Cathy Aver}/ !In conJunction w~tn litter abatement task force, oevelop strategies rot ~mproveo I~tter abatement; make adjustments in current resources and schedules where feasible; Janet Simpson, identify need for additional resource 3/15/00 Lancine Bentley Identify appropriate location for North Lakes Park recycling center in the North Lakes Park Master Plan; develop relocation and/or screening strate~lies 3/1/00 Bob Tickner FY 2001- Bob Tickner, Relocate and/or screen recyclin~ center at No~h Lakes, in accordance with park plan 02 Charlie Watkins ISSUE:'Parks -. Li~lhtin~-and Security - Add.li~lhtin~. in parking] lot alon~ trails: make.park safer. TARGET.· PERSON · IMMEDIATE (In Progress) ' · ·DATE RESPONSIBEE::. Curt Stogsdill, Inspect lighting at facilities specified in RTB survey; service as Allen Lubbers, necessary 2/15~00 Randy Petterson :. : : ~ .:. ~.. :. ~TARGET SHORT TERM :(Start/Finish ~by.Sept. 2000)' i DATE: In conjunction with master plans for ClP improvements at South Lakes and North Lakes parks, assess adequacy of park security Bob Tickner, li~lhtin~l; make adjustments where feasible 3/1/00 Janet Simpson · i.' '.'..~ i ' ~ i ' . : . :.. iTARGET:. ~.. · i :'~' ' LoNGTERMi(SubseqUent.Fiscai yea~s) :'. : -:DATE:. RE~ONSir~LE.i Review park security lighting standards for adequacy; develop Bob Tickner, strategies to address capital and operational costs FY2000-01 Kathy Mosby ISSUE: Parks - Improve'General Appearance of Landscaping and Trees - Improve care of existing landscape. Add trees:and landscape. TARGET PERsoN: IMMEDIATE (In Progress) DATE RESPONSIBLE'.. Install new trees and landscaping at Evers, North Lakes, Denia parks in conjunction with completed capital projects 3/31/00 Janet Simpson Plant trees purchased through Park Foundation for Legacy and Millennium groves in South Lakes Park 3/1/00 Randy Petterson Establish multi-department team to review existing landscaping schemes for public planting areas; recommend adjustments and Janet Simpson, resource requirements 4/15/00 Lancine Bentley Randy Petterson, Review irrigation schedules for all areas; adjust as necessary to Curt Stogsdill, ensure adopted service standards 3/1/00 Shane Landers · · sHORT:TERM(Start/FinishbySept. 12000).. DATE' :RESPON:$iBLE:: Install new landscaping and trees in accordance with planned bond Janet Simpson, i=und projects for North Lakes, South Lakes, Milam, Avondale, Skiles, Bob Tickner, Civic Center, Phoenix, Mack parks 9/30/00 Lancine Bentley ~/ork with Water Department and Southeast Denton community to design and install drought-tolerant landscape demonstration area at Lancine Bentley, corner of Bell/Robertson 5/1/00 Tim Fisher LONG TERM (Subsequent. Fiscal Years) DATE RESPONSIBLE Plant trees and landscaping at various parks, in accordance with )ark master plans and landscape requirements FY2000/01 Ed Hodney ISSUE: Parks - Improve GeneralAppearance / Repairand Maintenance of Existing FaCilities- Increase frequenCy :of service: Miscellaneous repairs to existin~ favilities~ i TARGET pERsON; IMMEDIATE (In Progress) : DATE RESPONSIBLE Inspect reported repair needs at various parks; respond in accordance with priority system Varies Janet Simpson Complete winter work plan items in various parks, related to repairs, paintin~h brush and dead tree removal 3/15/00 Park Supervisors : : :: : : TARGET ~~ PERSON :: SHORT TERM (start/Finish bY sept~ 2000) : DATE RESPONSIBLE Replace fence around Civic Center pool 3/15/00 Cathy Avery Janet Simpson, Establish multi-department team to review grounds maintenance Lancine Bentley, standards; recommend adjustments and resources as appropriate 3/15/00 Bruce Henin~ton Review restroom service levels; develop strategies for increasing the frequency of service 3/1/00 Randy Petterson ~ ~ TARGET i PERSO~ ~ ~ LoNGTERM (SUbsequent FiSCal Years) ~ DATE ~ RESPONS!BEE ISSUE: Parks - New/Miscellaneous Improvements: Including playgrounds Paved parking lots, trails, ballfields, new park benches .and tables. Also, public art/monuments/fountains. TARGET · PERSON sS) IMMEDIATE (In-Progre DATE RESPONSIBLE Complete Parks/Trails Master Plan, including specific recommendations for short-term and long-term proJects 3/15/00 Ed Hodney Assess need for additional benches and picnic tables; develop recommedations for purchase and installation 4/1/00 Ed Hodne¥ . : TARGET. PERSON: : : SHORT TERM (startJF.inish by SePt. 2000) · DATE RESPONSIBLE· Complete installation of play equipment at Phoenix, Fred Moore, Milam, North Lakes, Mack and Skiles parks 8/30/00 Bob Tickner Work with multi-department team to review park signage standards; recommend new design/graphics standards and implementation Janet Simpson, strategies 3/30/00 Kathy Dubose Pave Avondale Park parking lot 8/30/00 Bob Tickner Work with Arts Council and various departments to develop a public arts policy and strategied to place art/monuments/fountains on public property 9/30/00 Ed Hodney i : : TARGET · .PERSON · i · · LoNG TERMs(SubSequent: Fiscal years) . i DATE REsPONSiBLE Assess need for additional public restrooms in parks; develop capital and operational funding strategies as appropriate FY2000-2001 Bob Tickner Pave/resurface existing parking lots at North Lakes, Evers, South FY 2000- Lakes, Mack, Denia parks Der CIP 2004 Bob Tickner Acquire park in accordance with Park Master Plan and park FY 2001- dedication requirement. 2004 Ed Hodney Code Enforcement Issues ISSUE: ANIMAL'CONTROL-Enforcement of Leash Laws ' TARGET ' PERSONI · IMMEDIATE (In Progress). ' DATE: REsPONsIBLE Increased consultation with citizens. Directed patrol and enforcement action of sites identified in the RTB survey. February Bradley Wilcox · · :' : i'. .: · ' TARGET PERSON: 'SHORT TERM (Start/Finish Sept. 2000) DATE ' RESpO~I~EE:! :. Implement educational programs as prevention strategy. June Bradley Wilcox i : i i · i TARGET ~ PERSO'N ' LoNG TERM (SUbsequent Fiscal Years) .: DATE 'RESPONSIBLE Evaluate eduacational and preventative strategies Sept.2000 Bradley Wilcox iSSUE: sUBsTANDARD BUlL. DING . ..: · TARGET ·pERsoN · IMMEDIATE(In Progress) DATE : RESPONSIBLE:` The majority of sites identified the RTB survey are already being )rocessed for demolition. January Donna Bateman The remaining sites identified in the RTB survey will be inspected and processed for compliance with the provisions of the City Code ot Ordinances. February Donna Bateman 'i' ' :' : :. !' ': 'i ::'i: ~.;I. TARGET' .' ·SHORT TERM (star~/Finish.$ePt. 2000) : . . DATE: ..' . RESPON~iBLEi, Develop informational brochure to educate the public on existing enforcement methods and procedures. April Donna Bateman i '." · :. ' .:*-i': i. · .'.: : ~: :: . "' i ' ' :"' : * i : TARGET PERS. O"':~. LONG TERM(Subsequent. Fiscal Years:):" : DATE· . REsPONSiBLE : :iSSUE= SAVING./ PROTECTING EXISTING TREES . · TARGET i PERSON. · IMMEDIATE (In Progress) DATE RESPONSIBLE. ,~ · · TARGET PERSON '~'= SHORTTERM (start/Finish.Sept,2000) DATE i .RESPoNsiBLE:.: Development and adoption of the new Development Code. September Dou~l Powell ; .:. '- i~ .::: ':..: .': :i:' . ': i: ': . :. · · · · '' ': i':': .:i:¥:~ · ' :':: ": '~ : ' : . : :TARGET.: :PE,SO":i.::i!.. : .. LONG:TERM:(subsequent Fiscal YearS)· . : . ·DATE· :RESPONsiBLE?~ ISSUE: IMPROVED COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN TARGET PERSON' i . · IMMEDIATE (In Progress) DATE RESPONSIBLE SHORT TERM· (Start/Finish Sept. 2000) DATE RESPONSlBI:E Development and adoption of the new Development Code. September Doug Powell LONG TERM (Subsequent FisCal Years) .' : · DATE REs'PoNSiBLE: · ISSUE: TEMPORARY SIGNS ' : i ", · : TARGET pERsON ~ IMM EDiATE {In Progress).' i DATE· RESpONS!BEE: Conduct weekend code enforcement blitzes. January Donna Bateman · i'i'i: : ::. :: : :' : TARGET. ! .-: PERSON:i~:::'~;~ 'sHORT:TERM(Start/Finish Septl 2000): : ' ;DATE' : RESP:ONS:iB~E:I Draft and adopt ordinance that allows, with restrictions and with a fee, the use of temporary directional signage. May Donna Bateman ~ · . :' ::.':~:· ':' '.. :i:i ;'; · ' . ;TARGET '. :PERSoN;;.;;::i_~i:· LON:G;TERMi(s u bseqUent Fiscal~yearS): : ';:.' DATE' ~RESi~NsiBI~Ei~:'! ·iSSUE: WEEDS ' '. · ' TARGET ':pERSoN .:' · IMMEDIATE '(In Progress) DATE REsPONsIBLE:· Directed enforcement of sites identified in the RTB survey. February Donna Bateman ' :': . * ' .:i:: ·' i ' : ' 'TARGET ipERsON:i ... sHORTTERM.(Sta~t/Finish Sept: 2000).. : .DA.i:E:' RESpiONSiBLE:,~i Draft and adopt a more restrictive ordinance. June Donna Bateman ~: , ....:: ~ : .: :. :::..:::: ...:::.i 'i'., ?: ." .: : .. : '.. : . TARGET' · LONG:TERM (Subsequent'FisCal:Year~) ·' RESP:oN:SiBi~Ei~: ISSUE: JUNK/. ABANDONED'VEHICLES TARGET: pERsoN., i'.: .IMMEDIATE(In.Progress) .DATE :RESpONSiBLE: Directed enforcement of sites identified in the RTB survey. February Donna Bateman :-.:ii. i. · S"ORTiTERM.{Sta~t/FinishSepti2000) ' ' ' i:.:' : RESiP'ONS::iB~Ei! Clarify the current interpretation of the Code of Ordinances that allows the use of a car cover to se~e as "screening" of such vehicles. March Donna Bateman Draft and adopt a more restrictive ordinance. June Donna Bateman :. : LONG TERi:(Subsequent:.FiScal years): · :. DATE 'RES'PoNs:IB~E:.~:, · ISsUE:.SPEEDING/TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS ' ' ~.. :~ T^RGET :PERSo. ii:. . · ,iMMEDiATE(irt prOgreSs) · DAntE.· . REsPON$11BEE :, Directed patrols of the sites identified in the RTB survey. February Paul Abbott · ' ' ...' .: ' :..' : :. .. TARGET : . :PERSON[::i . ' . SHORT,TERM(stattJFinishSePt:2000)..: :DATE·I': RES~ONs:ii~Ei! :i:. ~..:' :: :'":, ::""*:', .: ::. ~.:::::.~.:i' :i:: .~ :::: :: ::..~..::.: .'.¥: '~.:: ::[ ::. :::?::.[: . LoNGTERM (S;ubSequentFiScal years) ~ : : : :DA~E:' RESPONS'iBEE~~= Evaluate impact of directed patrol. Sept. 2000 Paul Abboff .ISSUE: HOMELESS I:TRANSIENTS .. -' · · TARGET'~ . PERSON': : : IMMEDIATE (In ProgreSs) DATE : :REspONSiBLE- Directed patrols of the sites identified in the RTB survey. February Paul Abbott ~ . · : . . .. ' .: : TARGET:.' .. :.:pERsONi?~.~:.~ . SHORTTERM'(startJFinish Sept; 2000) ': DA-EE:: :.-.~ REsPONs'iBLE~:.i Work with Family Services to provide shelters and housing. May Paul Abbott · :'-.;.' .' :::i: '.' .:.': :- '' :.. ' ': .: . : ::: ;:'"" : ':':"i~:.' · ::' :' i:::: ' -' . ': : TARGET ·' ':. LoNGTERM:($Ubsequent FiScaiyearS)!: · ' :. ::: ::. "D~TE' :.. : :RESP:.ONS'j~LEi:~: Evaluate need for more long term shelter/housing accomodations. Sept,2000 Paul Abbott ISSUE: PUBLIC DRINKING I UNDERAGE DRINKING · ' pERsoN : TARGET · IMMEDIATE (in Progress) :DATE ' REsPONsiBLE. .. Directed patrols of the sites identified in the RTB survey. The Police Department maintains on-going enforcement of laws related to alcohol, dru[Is and youth "cruising".. February Paul Abbott · · sHORT.TERM.(start/FiniShSept. 2000): i::. i' : : : · bA~E':':i :RESPON~!i~LEi: ': .': 'Lo'NGl~ERM(SubsequentFiSCaly~ars)il. ·' :":= i i iDATE .:. 'REs:PONS'i~LEiii:I ISSUE.: Litter on State & Federal:Highways &' Local:Streets :&: Right-of-Ways. ' · ~ ~ · · · · TARGET · PERSON gresS) · IMMEDIATE.(In Pro DATE. RESPONSIBLE Cl~arlie WatKins Ed Hodney Lancine Bentley Preliminary assessment of litter abatement needs to develop a RossChadwick comprehensive litter abatement program. Feb-00 Doug Powell Hire temporary personnel in January 2000 on a temporary basis for litter collection.* Done Jan-00 Bob Murray Use probationers for litter collection. Done Jan-00 David Dugger SHORT TERM(Start/Finish bY sepL 20.00)' .: DATE. :' ' RESPONSiB~E:i Charlie Watkins Ed Hodney Develop strategies for litter abatement. Apr-00 Lancine Bentley Charlie Watkins Ed Hodney Identify and request resources required to address litter abatement Lancine Bentley needs. Apr-00 RossChadwick Begin implementation of litter abatement programs. Nov-00 Charlie Watkins *Only able to fund for a couple of months. Backups f~° 'r- g C C ° o o o o ,,.,o o o o o~-o o o o o o o o o 0 C C mm, 0 o ~ o o ~ 0 o ~ '~ '~ E E E E ~ E 0 C o 'F~ C .~ § o ~ o o tm z .~ m c c ~ c ~ c o ~ C d c o ~ o o o ~ ~- ~ ~ 0 C m o 0 o cO cO I~0 cO fill Mmm 0 C m 8 C =o ~ o o ~o c Imm o 'r' E 8 ~. .~ o.c: ~. 0 ~ o ..o C o o. C '0 C o, o, m 'i o > ~ Z °~ o 'F-, '7 8.° o ~ 'r- ~ o ~ o C Agenda No, Agenda Item ate AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: February 8, 2000 Utility Administration Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT: Receive a report hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the replacement of Mr. Hudspeth's trees and related issues. BACKGROUND: In a letter to Mr. Hudspeth, the City proposed to plant 34 trees along the drainage project on Mr. Hudspeth's property and provide a one year survival warranty. In addition, the City proposed a 48,300 gallon water credit to Mr. Hudspeth's bill to compensate Mr. Hudspeth for irrigation water used on trees. Mr. Hudspeth brought up three issues concerning the replacement during his citizen's report at the 2/1/00 Council Meeting: 1.) 2.) 3.) The City warranting the trees for a two year period The liability issues associated with digging the holes for the trees The City physically watering the trees At the same meeting, Councilman Young requested that the issues associated with tree replacement on Mr. Hudspeth's property be brought back to a council worksession for further discussion and consideration. OPTIONS: 1.) Maintain the current course of action proposed in the January 25th letter Consider additional options to resolve the issue RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the concerns expressed by Mr. Hudspeth and subsequent meetings with the landscaping company, the following recommendations are being proposed for council consideration: 1.) The City will provide an additional 1-year warranty period and will replace trees that do not survive through the two year warranty period. The City will accept no responsibility for tree replacement past the two year warranty period. 2.) The Drainage Division will accept responsibility for damages that might occur to underground structures during the actual digging of the holes for the trees. 3.) The City will purchase 20-gallon "Tree Gators", which will aid in watering the trees. ("Tree Gators" are slow release water devices that would require filling approximately one to two times per week during summertime conditions.) These "Tree Gators" will be installed when the trees are planted. 4.) The City will commit to crediting Mr. Hudspeth's account for 48,300 gallons/per year for the two year warranty period provided that Mr. Hudspeth will sign a letter of understanding. Denton will not utilize city staff to water these trees for the two year warranty period. In addition, it is the Drainage Division's recommendation that the Council discuss and provide future policy direction regarding tree replacement and general landscaping issues in public easements. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: The Drainage Division stands ready to act on direction from the Council. Steve Smith Landscaping is ready to plant the trees as soon as instructed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission): City Council has reviewed this issue and provided staff direction over the last year. FISCAL INFORMATION: The bid cost for tree replacement (34 trees) and a one year warranty was $7,800. The "Tree Gators" were purchased at a cost of $509.66. Two years of watering is estimated to use 81,600 gallons of water at a cost of $212.16. BID INFORMATION: N/A Respectfully submitted: Ho~ar(] Matin, Assis'h~t City Manager / Utilities '~ Prepared by Coulter A~sistant Director of Wastewater Utilities AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 8, 2000 Fiscal and Municipal Services Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager ~ Fiscal and Municipal Services Agenda No.~~ Agendaltern_ /'~ ~'? .- SUBJECT Receive information and give the City Manager direction regarding a bond rating trip. BACKGROUND After the successful Capital Improvement bond election, staff is moving forward with the current year's bond sale. The City will issue General Obligation (GO) and Certificate of Obligation (CO) bonds as well as Utility System Revenue bonds. As indicated in the attached memorandum, presentations to bond rating and insurance agencies are scheduled for March 1, 2, and 3, 2000. In order to finalize the necessary arrangements associated with these presentations, the City Manager seeks direction from the City Council. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards. Commision) The Capital Improvement Plan bond election was approved by voters on January 15, 2000. The City Council has approved the Capital Improvement Program for General Government as well as Utilities for the current fiscal year. FISCAL INFORMATION The upcoming bond issues are included in the first year (1999-2000) of the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. Respectfully submitted: Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager Fiscal and Municipal Services Attachment: Memo 1/28/00 Fiscal Operations * 215 E. McKinney * Denton, Texas 76201 Telephone (940) 349-8531 * DFW Metro (972) 434-2259 * Fax (940) 349-7206 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council THRU: Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager Fiscal and Municipal Services FROM: Diana Ortiz, Director of Fiscal Operations DATE: January 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Upcoming Bond Sales Once again it is time to issue bonds for the upcoming year's Capital Improvement Program. Not only will we issue General Government General Obligation (GO) and Certificate of Obligation (CO) bonds, we will also issue Utility System Revenue bonds. Below you wilt find a calendar detailing the associated events: Feb. 15 Tuesday Council considers resolution authorizing Notice of Intent to Sell March 1 - 3 Wednesday - Friday Bond rating and insurance agencies presentations March 10 Friday Receive credit ratings March 21 Tuesday (11 a.m.) Special called Council meeting to award Utility System bonds April 4 Tuesday (11 a.m.) Special called Council meeting to award bids - GO's and CO's We will actually receive bond proceeds in late April. Please be sure to mark your calendars for the two special called Council meetings for March 21 and April 4. These meetings will be held at 11:00 a.m. solely to receive and award bids. Allowing the bidder to close on a rate the same day that the Council awards the bid enables them to offer a more competitive proposal. When a bidder must close the day after a bid is awarded (if we open bids at night at the regular Council meeting), this forces them to inflate the proposed rate to cover possible changes that may happen in the market overnight. The regular Council meetings for these evenings will be held as scheduled. Please let me know if you need additional information. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET oenda Item,,, . AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: February 8, 2000 Utility Administration Howard Martin, 349-8232-~"-,,~ SUBJECT: Receive a report and provide staff direction regarding the Proposed Letter of Understanding (LOU) between the City of Denton and the Robson Developers. BACKGROUND: The City of Denton and the Robson Development have been working to finalized points of agreement related to water and wastewater utility service to the Robson community. The proposed Letter of Understanding (LOU) between the City of Denton and Robson Development is included in Exhibit I. The LOU outlines the pertinent points for temporary and permanent water and wastewater service. Temporary Water Service Temporary water service will be provided from groundwater wells that Robson will build and the City will operate for an interim period (June 2000 through June of 2003). City of Denton will pay Robson $1.50 per 1,000 gallons on all retail sales volumes. Robson will construct and Denton will operate a temporary ground storage (500,000 gallon) and booster pump station (located on Robson property) until such time as an elevated storage tank is constructed. The City will postpone the collection of impact fees on all units constructed during the temporary water service period. Payment of postponed impact fees will occur over a two year period once permanent water service is provided. Permanent Water Service · The City upon the completion of the Ray Robert Water Treatment Plant and the southern service area Ground Storage and Booster Pump Facility (GS&BPF) will provide surface water service to the Robson community. Robson agrees to construct the necessary waterline infrastructure to serve the ultimate capacity of the Robson community and to connect to the Denton water system at the GS&BPF upon completion of these facilities. Robson will terminate groundwater service and all well facilities will revert back to Robson's ownership and operation for golf course irrigation only. · Robson agrees to pay all impact fees applicable to Denton water system customers. Robson agrees to donate a two-acre elevated storage tank site on Robson property north of H. Lively Road and to build the necessary waterline infrastructure necessary to connect the elevated storage tank to the existing Denton water system. Wastewater Service Robson agrees to construct and donate a new wastewater treatment plant and all expansions necessary to serve each phase of the Robson development. The City agrees to own and operate the wastewater treatment plant and to secure the necessary discharge permit for all permit renewals and plant expansions. · The City agrees to waive all wastewater treatment impact fees. Robson agrees to fund all capital improvements over $7,500 as a result of design deficiencies resulting in regulatory non-compliance and/or to abate plant odors. The City agrees to provide Robson with treated wastewater effluent for irrigation of the Robson golf courses and greenbelts at no charge during the period of development. The Letter of Understanding outlines the staff's points of agreement but is subject to Board & City Council review. The points of agreement will be crafted into a contract that will be prepared by the Legal Department for Council consideration at a later date. There are a number of issues associated with the water and wastewater service to the Robson development. These issues include the following: Denton and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (District) have been working on the development of an interim water service agreement through Argyle Water Supply Corporation (AWSC). This contract would provide retail water service to Robson from the District through the current project with AWSC. Currently the LOU contemplates Robson's use of groundwater instead of water service provided by the District and AWSC. Thc District would like to utilize thc excess waterline capacity of thc Robson development to pass water through the Denton system to Ponder as long as excess capacity exists. The City of Ponder is being required to build a new wastewater treatment plant to meet Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) regulatory requirements. The District and Ponder have approach Denton about utilizing the Robson treatment plant for permanent wastewater service. Denton is currently renegotiating a wastewater treatment contract with the District for the City of Argyle and Denton County Development District ~t4 that will expire June 30, 2000. This contract could include Ponder and other neighboring cities in the Hickory Creek drainage basin. All of these issues require cooperation and contract negotiations between Denton and the District and/or the individual entities to accomplish. While Denton and the District are working diligently to complete these negotiations, there are still significant contract issues that must be addressed. As you can imagine, all interested parties want commitments from Denton as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING The Letter of Understanding between Robson Denton Development, LP ("Robson") and the City of Denton, Texas ("City") Identifies essential areas of agreement between Robson and the City for the provision oi' water and sewer service by the City to the Robson development near Denton, Texas and provides the components for a udlity se~ces agreement to be entered into by Robson and the City. TEivIP-ORARY WATER SERVIC~ Temporary Water Service shall be defined as the time period beginning at the start of the Robson development which Is estimated to be early or mid year 2000 and ending at the date that both the City's Lake Pay Roberts Water Treatment facility and the City's ground storage and booster pump station facility ("GSezBPS") generally located on or near the Intersection of Crawford Road and ]ohn Payne Road East of Interstate :~SW start up. The City of Denton agrees to provkle Temporary Water Service [or the Robson development through an on site groundwater supply system. Robson shall make wells available on the Robson development to be operated by the City for Temporary Water Service at sites selected by Robson. The water shall meet the quality standards Imposed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, or under the- requirements of the Texas Natural Resource Conserva~lon Commission, whichever Is more stringent, at the polnt of entry into the water distribution system. All water quality compliance testing shall be performed by the City. Robson agrees that at least two wells shall be available with combined pumping ca~clty o[ l t200 g~m [or the first i~OSO connections and that at least three wells with a combined pumping capacity of 1~8OO ~m shall be available when there are more than I,O50 connections. It' the water system demands of the Robson development exceed the combined cai~acity of these wells during the period of Temporary Water Service, Robson shall provide addltional wells as needed to serve the Robson development (collectively, all or these wells are referred to as the "Wells"). City agrees to o~erate and maintain the Wells during the period that Temporary Water Service Is provided, and shall return the Wells to Robson afZer the Temporary Water Service Is terminated In good worldng condition, subject to normal wear and tear. City shall pay the o~ration and ma/ntenance costs o[ the Wells USed for delivery o[ potable water to the Robson development during the ~erlod o1' Temporary Water Service, and all repai~ to the Wells shall be made promptly by the City. Robson shall be permitted to use the Wells for delivery to its 8o!1' course and for construction water as long as it does not interfere with the City's delivery of potable water, and City shall be permitted to use other Robson wells ('Additional Wellsa) for its potable delivery. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Robson IS under no obligation to make Additional Wells available to the Qty. If the WelLs or any Additional Wells are shared by ~e City and Robson for water deliveries, the costs for operating the Wells and Addi~lonal Wells shall be proportional based on the City's and R°bson~s respective use. Durin~ the I~eriod o[ Temporary Water Servtce, City shall 602 895 4347 P. 3 purchase water delivered for retail sales from the Wells and the Additional Wells at a rate o[ $1.50 per I,O00 gallons, payable monthly upon presentation o[ an invoice by Robson. Robson and City shall cooperate to allow for appropriate metering of all re[all sales to the City. Robson shall not be charged by City for any golf course or construction water delivered fi-om the Wells other than Its proportionate share of operatJng costs, and City shall not pay Robson the $1.50 per 1,0OO gallons for water delivered to Robson from the Wells for use on the golf course and for construction water. City shall charge the residents or' the Robson development its customary rates and charges for water service. Robson shall grant City all necessary rights to ingress and egress from the well sites. In order to meet peak demand for potable service as well as to meet tire requirements, Robson shall construct up to a 500,OOO-gallon interim groundwater storage and booster pump station fadlity on the Robson development. Qty agrees to operate and maintain the water storage and booster pump facility until the earlier o[ the date the elevated storage facility is operational or within one year after 1,250 connections are sensed in the Robson development, in accordance with applicable rules Imposed by the State of Texas, and shall return the storage and booster pump station i'acllity to Robson a~ter the Temporary Water Service is terminated In good woridng condition, subject to normal wear and tear. City shall pay the operation and maintenance costs o[ these facilldes during the period of Temporary Water Service, and all repairs to these facilities shall be made promptly by the City. In consideration for designing and constructing the on-site ground storage and booster pump station and the on-site wells for use by the City during the period of Temix)rary Water Service, City agrees to postpone the collection of all water impact fees for the water system connections permitted during the period the Robson development is receiving Temporary Water Service. The total of the impact fees postponed shall be paid by Robson to the City in equal annual installments over a 3-year period, with the first installment payment due within 30 days of when the Permanent Water Service commences. ?ERiffANEN¥ WAT_ R EF:L~: The City agrees to provide Permanent Water Servlce to the Robson development from the City's Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant and the City's GSs[iIPS("Permanent Water Service Facllkles"). Robson a~rees to terminate Temporary Service and commence Permanent Water Service from the City when both the Permanent Water Service Facilities are placed into service. The City of Denton will construct the Permanent Water Service Facilities in phases with adequate capacity to meet the service needs of the southwest upper pressure plane Including the Robson development. The City oi' Denton agrees to finance and construct the Permanent Water Service Facilities at its expense as a Dan of the Water Utilities Capital Improvements Program. Robson will pay for Its share o[ these facilities through the payment or Impact lees applicable to all of the water system customers In the Robson development. Robson agrees to extend the water dlstrlbul'Jon line from ~he din:barge or the GS6[gPS west along Crawrord Road to the Robson development with construction to be completed by the end of the period of Temporary Water Service. The waterline shall be sized to meet the ultimate water service needs of the Robson development at future build-out and be ~Ax l~. ~02 8~5 4~47 P. 4 financed and paid for by Robson. The City of Denton reserves the right to participate In ovenlzing the waterline at Denton's exl~ense in accordance with the City's subdivision ordinances at the time of construction. The cost of this waterline shall not be credited towards any existing or future Impact fees. Robson recognizes that the Highway 377 waterline (to be constructed and paid for by the City of Denton) has limited capacity and will not support the ultimate service needs of the Robson development. Robson has the rlght to connect to available capacity In the Highway 377 waterline on a first come first serve basis. The City agrees to provide water service to the Robson deveiol~ment that cannot be served from the Highway 377 waterline from a waterline to be cons~ucted by the City along Interstate 35W (or an alternate route). In the event that the City of Denton does not Implement line impact fees by the time the capacity in the Highway 377 waterline has been utilized by Robson or other developments in the area, Robson agrees to financially par~cl~te in the cost of the Interstate 35W waterline prolect. Robson shall pay Its propo~onate share of the cost of the Interstate 35W waterline i~rolect on a capacity share basis. An elevated water storage tank will be required in the future to provide adequate water sYstem pressure and fire protection to the Robson development. Robson agrees to donate a two-acre elevated storage tank site to the City of Denton to be located at the Robson property north o1' H. Lively Road. This site shall be at or above a ground surface elevation of 785 ~t I~SL and shall be provided with suitable road access for the initlal construction and future maintenance of this facility. The timing of the construction of the elevated storage tank will be based upon the overall system growth on the City of Denton's southwest upper pressure Diane water distribution system, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Comm~lon Rules and Regulations for Public Water Supply Systems (Section 290.45) and the firefiow requirements of the City of Denton's subclM~ton rules and regulatlons and unlt'o,~ fire code. The City of Denton agrees to finance and construct this elevated storage rank at Its expense as a part of the Water Utilities Capital Improvements Program. Robson will pay for Its share of the elevated water storage tank through the Payment of Impact fees charged to ali of its water system customers. Any waterlines constructed through the Interior of the Robson development to connect to the elevated water storage tank shall be constructed at a size to serve the needs of the Robson development. It is understood that Robson will finance and construct all waterlines that are built within the Robson development. This includes the supply line to the elevated storage tank. Robson agrees to construct a new wastewater treatment plant with capacity sufficient to serve the Robson development during the period of development bulidout and the necessary plant expansions and upgrades required to meet ali discharge standards imposed by the State of Texas. Robson shall be responsible i~or all capital improvements over $?,S00 required as a result of deficiencies in the design of the wastewater treatment Diane that result In non-compliant discharges or are necessary to meet legal requirements for odor control. ~^x ~O, 502 895 4347 P. 5 Denton agrees to own and operate the wastewater plant in accordance with applicable rules Imposed by the State of Texas. Robson asrees to phase the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant according to the TNRCC capacity design and construction standards (?5/90 rule). Denton agrees to secure discharge permits for phased I~lant expanslom and permit renewals. The City shall waive all wastewater treatment Impact fees and provide to Robson credits for the effluent delivered to the Robson development that Is based on the calculation of the effluent credits provided on Exhlblt 1 to this Letter of Understanding. The credits for effluent delivered to the Robson development shall cease after all of the dwelling units in the Robson develol~ment have been sold and constructed even If all of the effluent credits calculated on Exhibit I have not been utilized. Robson agrees to pay I~umping costs for the transfer of effluent to its inlgation facilities. The City shall provide effluent required to Robson up to the total daily discharge levels from the plant to water its golf courses and greenbelt areas during the time Robson Is selling and constructing homes In the Robson development, subject to restrictions of the reuse of effluent Imposed under Texas law that requires the return of effluent from the plant located on the Robson development to Lake Grapevine. The Clty reserves the dght to use the remaining effluent for its own effluent reuse program. Robson Denton Development, LP City Of Denton, Texas Subject to Council APl ~roval 012 lOOt.doc o Z 0 0 I- I- 0 Z 'I- g feb 07 O0 05:58p~ NcNa~t Properties HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 2/8/00 McNatt Properties, L.C. 608-B N. Bell Avenue Denton, Texas 76201 940.382.1020(off.) 940.382.1546(fax) Facsimile Cover Sheet Date: February 7, 2000 Number ofPages: 1 TO: City Manager City Council Members Planning and Zoning Members Fax: 349.8596 From: A1McNatt Re: Proposed "Interim Non-Residential Development Standards" I will out of town Tuesday evening and wish to express my opinion concerning the above: I would like tO formally object to the immediately implementation of the "Interim Non-Residential Development Standards". It is my opinion that the business community and property owners of Denton have not had adequate opportunity to discuss and study these standards among themselves and with the city planners, P&Z, and City Council. It is my request that the moratorium be extended until these discussions can take place. Sincerely, Al McNatt President McNatt Properties, L.C.