Transcript Slide 1

Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Pinellas County MPO
Concurrency Management
Backbone of 1985 Omnibus Growth Management Act requiring local governments to
ensure public services and facilities are in place to accommodate the impacts of new
development before such development is approved
2005 Growth Management Legislative Changes Affecting
Transportation
•
A local government must coordinate with
adjacent jurisdictions when setting level
of service on arterial and connector
roads that cross multiple jurisdictions
•
Introduction of proportionate fair share
ordinance provisions
•
Requires committed funding sources for
first 3 years of 5 year capital
improvements program
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 1
2005 Growth Management Legislative
Changes Affecting Transportation (cont’d)
•
Needed transportation improvements must
be “in place or under actual construction
within three years after the local government
approves a building permit, or its functional
equivalent, that results in traffic generation”
•
Florida Department of Transportation (DOT)
sets level of service standard on Strategic
Intermodal System (SIS) facilities, and roads
funded in accordance with the Transportation
Regional Incentive Program
•
Creation of Transportation Regional Incentive
Program (TRIP), which provides funds to
improve regionally significant transportation
facilities in "regional transportation areas"
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 2
Purpose of Countywide Concurrency Initiative
•
Develop a coordinated approach to concurrency management by the local
governments in Pinellas County
•
Establish a common methodology for establishing level of service standards and
for application of concurrency management requirements on facilities operating at
deficient level of service conditions.
Timeline of Initiative
•
September 2005 – MPO staff, working with Technical Coordinating Committee
(TCC), began to develop countywide concurrency standards.
•
October to January 2005 - Survey of local government concurrency programs
and related procedures was conducted. Level of service standards and
methodologies currently employed by the local jurisdictions on State, County
and local roads were reviewed.
•
February 2006 - TCC workgroup formed to discuss application of local LOS
standards, concurrency management requirements, review of consultant traffic
studies and development of procedural standards. Workgroup met in February
and March and presented recommendations to TCC
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 3
Timeline of Initiative (cont’d)
•
May 2006 - MPO adopted TCC recommendations including request to local
governments to amend concurrency systems and comprehensive plans, as
appropriate to address countywide concurrency recommendations
•
June to October, 2006 - Local governments approve countywide concurrency
resolutions and adopt amendments to concurrency management systems and
comprehensive plans as appropriate
•
December 2006 - Local governments required to adopt proportionate fair share
mitigation ordinances/provisions by this month in accordance with Chapter 163,
F.S., as amended
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 4
MPO Recommendations
1.
Approve standard data sources for use in local concurrency
management systems.
•
Data Sources
– MPO Level of Service Report
– Independent study data approved by affected
local governments) and MPO
– FDOT-based level of service data or report
recognized by the MPO
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 5
2. Approve level of service standards for use in local concurrency
management systems. This will require amendments to some local
comprehensive plans as well as to concurrency management
requirements in land development codes.
Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard
–
State Roads and Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP)
funded roads – LOS D Peak Hour
–
County Roads – LOS C Average Daily/D Peak Hour and Volume-toCapacity Ratio of 0.9
–
Municipal Roads – Based on Local Comprehensive Plans
3. Approve MPO methodology report for use by local governments in
their site plan review processes.
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 6
4. Approve methodology for identifying constrained roads and annual
adoption of a countywide constrained corridor map. The map will
be reviewed by the local governments through the TCC.
Designation of Constrained Roads
•
Constrained facilities operate below adopted
level of service standards and cannot be
improved as necessary to mitigate the
deficient operating conditions.
•
A countywide map of constrained facilities
shall be adopted annually with the MPO
Level of Service Report. The criteria for
designating a facility as constrained shall
include the following:
•
•
Existing level of service conditions are below adopted LOS
standards; or
Substandard level of service conditions existed within the previous
three years.
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 7
Development Requirements on Concurrency Corridors (This topic
was reviewed, but did not result in any recommendations)
•
Floor area/dwelling unit restrictions with provisions for mitigation through
transportation management plan or implementation of mitigating
improvements identified in developer-sponsored traffic impact study.
•
Requirement of traffic impact study.
•
Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance -Local governments required to adopt
Proportionate Fair Share Ordinances in their land development codes by
December 2006.
Items A and B reflect current procedures and
requirements.
Regarding item C, draft
language based on the model Proportionate
Fair Share Ordinance prepared by the Center
for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at
USF is currently being reviewed by the TCC.
Resulting recommendations will be submitted to
the MPO and, subsequently, to the local
governments.
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 8
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE REQUIREMENT
By December, 2006: Local governments shall adopt
by ordinance a methodology for assessing
proportionate fair-share options and include
methodologies within their transportation concurrency
management system (CMS) that will be applied to
calculate proportionate fair share mitigation
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 9
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
WHAT IS IT?
• Provides method by which development impacts can
be mitigated by cooperative efforts of public and
private sectors
• Provides mechanism for developers to satisfy
concurrency requirements and move forward by
improving a transportation facility that will mitigate
the impact of their development
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 10
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
MODEL ORDINANCE
General Requirements
• Provides conditions for proportionate share option:
– Project consistent with comprehensive plan and
applicable LDRs
– Project included in 5-year Capital Improvement
Element (CIE) or Long-Term Concurrency
Management System (developer right)
– Mutually agreed upon improvement that mitigates
development impacts (government option)
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 11
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
MODEL ORDINANCE
General Requirements Continued
• Transportation improvement(s) provided that will
mitigate additional traffic
• Options include:
– Transit improvements
– New corridors or reliever roadways
– System-wide Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) projects
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 12
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
MODEL ORDINANCE
General Requirements Continued
• Require meeting prior to application
– Determine eligibility
– Discuss submittal requirements
– Outline mitigation options
– Engage FDOT if Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)
facility impacted
• Mitigation implemented through binding agreement
– Provide evidence of agreement with FDOT for SIS
facilities
• Proportionate fair-share agreement approved by council
or commission
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 13
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
MODEL ORDINANCE
General Requirements Continued
• Impact fee credit applied to developer’s
proportionate fair share cost
• Execution of agreement results in certificate of
concurrency approval
– Developer must apply for permit within (1) year or
lose certificate
• Payment of contribution is due prior to issuance of
Development Order or recording of final plat
– Costs within agreement may be adjusted if
payment is beyond 12 months of issuance of
concurrency certificate (early payment incentive)
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 14
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE ORDINANCE
Development of Pinellas County Model
• August – MPO Technical Coordinating Committee
(TCC) Workgroup formed
• Sept. - Workgroup prepared draft ordinance
• Sept. – TCC review/approval of draft ordinance
• Oct. – MPO review/approval of draft ordinance
• Oct./Nov. – Local governments adopt ordinance
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 15
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE APPLICATION
IN PINELLAS COUNTY
• US Highway 19, Countryside Blvd. to n/o Sunset Pt.
Rd. and Gulf-To-Bay Blvd. to n/o Roosevelt Blvd.
• Ulmerton Road, 119th St. to Seminole Bypass Canal
and Wild Acres Road to El Centro Ranchero
• Sunset Point Road, Douglas Ave to Keene Rd.
• 102nd Ave, 137th St. to 125th St.
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 16
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE APPLICATION
IN PINELLAS COUNTY
• Major concerns of TCC workgroup
– Determination of site impact area
– Inter-jurisdictional impacts
– Determination of categorical exclusions to
consideration of prop. Share option
– Equitable application of prop. Share provisions in
terms of improvement costs
– Consideration of mitigating projects not in CIE
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 17
PROPORTATION FAIR SHARE
PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE
• Based on CUTR Model Ordinance
• Key Changes
– Prop. Share obligation based on impact
development has on transportation facility as
determined by impact analysis that assesses
the traffic volume and distribution generated by
project
– Facility considered impacted when trips
generated by project meet or exceed 5% of
facility’s peak hour capacity
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 18
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE
CALCULATION – LOCAL EXAMPLES
• 6,500 square foot retail project impacting Ulmerton
Rd, 119th St. to Seminole Bypass Canal:
Prop. Share cost less trans. impact fees =
$304,000
• 100 unit town home project impacting 102nd Ave,
137th St. to 125th St.:
Prop. Share cost less trans. impact fees = $87,000
Countywide Concurrency Management Program
Page 19