Presentation on theme: "Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 1 Countywide Concurrency Management Program Pinellas County MPO A local government must coordinate with."— Presentation transcript:
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 1 Countywide Concurrency Management Program Pinellas County MPO 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 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
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 2 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" 2005 Growth Management Legislative Changes Affecting Transportation (cont’d)
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 3 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. 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 Purpose of Countywide Concurrency Initiative Timeline of Initiative
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 4 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 Timeline of Initiative (cont’d)
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 5 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 MPO Recommendations 1. Approve standard data sources for use in local concurrency management systems.
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 6 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-to- Capacity Ratio of 0.9 –Municipal Roads – Based on Local Comprehensive Plans 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. 3. Approve MPO methodology report for use by local governments in their site plan review processes.
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 7 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: 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. 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 8 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. Development Requirements on Concurrency Corridors (This topic was reviewed, but did not result in any recommendations) 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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) PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE MODEL ORDINANCE General Requirements Continued
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 15 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 16 US Highway 19, Countryside Blvd. to n/o Sunset Pt. Rd. and Gulf-To-Bay Blvd. to n/o Roosevelt Blvd. Ulmerton Road, 119 th St. to Seminole Bypass Canal and Wild Acres Road to El Centro Ranchero Sunset Point Road, Douglas Ave to Keene Rd. 102 nd Ave, 137 th St. to 125 th St. PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE APPLICATION IN PINELLAS COUNTY
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 17 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 PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE APPLICATION IN PINELLAS COUNTY
Countywide Concurrency Management Program Page 18 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 19 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