Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/14/2005 W March 14, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, March 14,2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission Transportation Concurrency Workshop in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a WORKSHOP SESSION in the Community Development and Environmental Services Conference Room 609/610 at 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Russell Budd, CCPC Donna Reed Caron, CCPC Bob Vigliotti, CCPC Kenneth Abernathy, CCPC Brad Schiffer, CCPC Lindy Adelstein, CCPC Paul Midney, CCPC Robert Murray, CCPC Mark Strain, CCPC (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. and Environmental Svc. Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Don Scott, Transportation Planning Director Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Alan EI-Urfali, Transportation Phil Tindall, Transportation ~ 1 .-.-"---...- March 14, 2005 I. The Workshop was called to order by Joe Schmitt at 9:00 AM. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. II. It was mentioned a quorum will be present for Wednesday night's meeting on the LDC. A. An overview of concurrency-current policies and staff application of those policies: Mr. Schmitt stated they were originally asked to review the ten versus twelve- month evaluation concurrency. It will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners later this month. He introduced the following: Norman Feder- Transportation Administrator, Stan Litsinger-Comprehensive Planning, Don Scott- Transportation Director, Patrick White-Assistant County Attorney, Nancy Linnan-outside Counsel, Nick Casalanguida, Phil Tindall and Alan El'Urfali, all from Transportation. Mr. Schmitt presented a Development Continuum tracing the Planning Commission's evaluation of a given project, beginning with the owner's preliminary planning, the Growth Management Plan, the zoning request, the Environmental Advisory Council, Planning Commission and then the Board of Zoning Appeals review. The review process can take six months to a year. The next phase of the timeline is the applicant's final designs, going through the Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District permitting, and then the final plat and plan review. The cycle can take up to 4 Yz years. Mr. Schmitt referred to the Validation of Consistency (Section 5.1 of the Growth Management Plan). Consistency is deemed from the start and then it goes through the zoning and applications. Consistency and Concurrency will be discussed. Concurrency begins at staff review. Mr. Schmitt referred to slides showing transportation concurrency Comp Plan to Rezoning; Site Plan; issuing of zoning permits to the project completion. Rezoning activity is deemed consistent and goes before the Board of Zoning Appeals. After site plan review and approval, concurrency assessment is made and 50 percent of the transportation impact fees are paid at that time. Mr. Schmitt went on to explain the process in issuing a building permit. The current concurrency system is designed so that roads will be constructed within two years of the site approval process. They can have rooftops appearing, but the Plan, and the Plan that they pursued, was five then three years. The agreement was two years out, and then zoning staff gets the input from Transportation in regard to whether or not they have versatility. 2 March 14,2005 Mr. Schmitt stated that at the issuing of the building permits, the remainder of the Transportation impact fees is paid. Mr. Schmitt discussed the Transportation Element - GMP. · The County will maintain the adopted Level of Service standard as provided for in Policy 1.3 by making the improvements identified on the Five Year Work Program. · The density or intensity of the development on the overall system is important. · They will not approve any such request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already in operation. · The LDC goes on to ensure that all development in the County is served by adequate public facilities. · They are directed to establish a management and monitoring system to evaluate and coordinate the timing of those public facilities. He emphasized they have to establish a regulatory program to ensure that the impacts are concurrent with the impacts of development. No approval of the final subdivision plat, improvement plans, or authorization to proceed with construction activities requires the County to issue a development order or building permit, if it can be shown that issuance of said orders will result in a reduction in the level of service for any public facility below the level of service established in the GMP. B. "Easter Sunday", the rationale behind the currently adopted LOSS (Level of Service Standard) basis, ten-month (250th highest hour) Mr. Schmitt referred to the Power Point slide presentation on Guidance in the LDC · The Significant Test repeats the GMP's three (3) percent adopted LOS for roadway segments directly accessed immediately adjacent, · Also a three (3) percent criteria level-of-service and adjacent segments where traffic is greater than five (5) percent. · At that time an approval process of the site development plan, fifty percent of the estimated transportation impact fees will be paid. · Impact fees for all other Category "A" facilities and improvements are paid at the issuance time. C. Demonstration of the previous twelve-month traffic count on the "2004 AUIR Transportation Database" Mr. Schmitt stated this is concurrency from a zoning perspective. They understand where concurrency is in regards to the review process and today they will debate as to where they want to move that evaluation, and do they want to move it? 3 March 14, 2005 D. TCMA (Transportation Concurrency Management Areas) and the traffic count basis. What is a TCMA? How does the count basis impact concurrency within a TCMA? E. "Checkbook" balance impact of the application of the twelve-month count basis today. Mr. Schmitt repeated the staff review process of a project in response to a question requesting clarification on certification and concurrency assessing. Rezoning is already done by the time transportation concurrency occurs. If the BCC approves a project, what is the obligation of government to provide growth network to sustain or to provide and support that development? That is what they will discuss. Mr. Schmitt asked the Commissioners to consider the impact of previously approved projects prior to the implementation of concurrency and the impact they have. Mr. Feder spoke on the importance of consistency with the Growth Management Plan. He stated the established system is working. Questions were raised as to whether or not we truly have a transportation problem, referring to an "Easter Sunday" comparison of isolated heavy traffic days, and the rationale behind the currently adopted LOS basis, ten-month (250th highest hour). Mr. Feder continued to discuss the road lane issues. F. The balanced compromise approach to roads concurrency, "Ten-month traffic count, 2-year project reliance, and 50% impact fees at SDP or plat?" A question was raised as to the difference between the 100th hour and the 30th hour. Rural areas are analyzed differently. A question was raised as to how the Transportation Department determines the 30th, 100th and 250th highest hours on all these roads, without constantly monitoring the roads. Response was: traffic is monitored in the P.M. hours, since these hours include all kinds of traffic that they may not necessarily have at other hours, however, complaints are coming from A.M. traffic where economic bases are tied in. Discussion was had as to what can be done with the knowledge they have when considering adjusting for development. Changes are determined from data. 4 March 14, 2005 The following slides were presented: Transportation Concurrency Management/Exception Areas · Alternative concurrency management approaches authorized by Rule 9J-5, F AC · Promote infill/redevelopment & mobility alternatives such as public transportation · Avoid conflict between concurrency and other goals/policies · Provide additional management flexibility · Encourage wide range of management strategies corresponding with local circumstances Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA) · Compact geographical area · Multiple routes/modes for common trips · Area-wide LOS standard · 85% ofN-S/E-W lane miles at or above LOS · Proportionate share payments · Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (e.g., variable work hours, ride sharing) Maps of the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) and East Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) were presented. Slides developing the following concepts were shown: · Designated area must contain no more than 10% developable vacant land · Promotes/enhances redevelopment · Development exempt from concurrency unless it would reduce LOS on FIHS roadways (i.e., I-75) by more than 5% · Commercial development must utilize at least 4 approved TDM strategies · Residential development must utilize at least 3 approved TDM strategies Transparencies depicting maps of the South u.s. 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and Projected Collier County Deficient Roads FY 2004/05 - FY 2008/09 were shown. Traffic counts are taken four times a year. There is no standardized system, with various counties using different methods. It was mentioned there is not a large difference between ten and twelve-month traffic analyses. There is an issue when building a road to take care of concurrency; they are going to have a problem in the Estates as it is growing and will lend itselfto commercial development. The area will grow, which means more and more traffic is coming in. You are faced with 70% to 90% at some points, and yet they can't build until Easter Sunday. It is an insurmountable problem, when maxing out at six lanes. If that starts to fail, they can ask the businesses to stagger out. Norm Feder gave his views in response to the problem. 5 March 14, 2005 Mr. Schmitt commented on the special districts and the eastern part of the estates. They are doing about 1,000 units a year. Participants raised questions as to how many vehicles are applied to the 118 figure and how does the County plan on creating jobs out in the Estates. Mr. Feder responded there has been a lot of debate on that. Stan Litsinger was asked to address the issue on the estates. Mr. Schmitt commented that has been an issue for years. Mr. Litsinger has the latest rendition on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy. He hopes to see more village-type development in the Estates. Mr. Schmitt commented on building the lots up to make them acceptable. There are 45,000 lots and about 90,000 residents built up on septic and wells. This is part of the east of 951 studies. They will be looking at this in regard to the traffic study. The growth is adding to traffic coming from the east and heading west. There are little services, which compounds the problem. People are heading west for shopping, jobs and other activities. Commissioner Coyle has talked about what used to be traffic on Golden Gate is now traffic on 951 as they build commercial centers and other activities on 951. An audience participant commented that there is not enough capacity to move. Mr. Schmitt compared the landmass to the District of Columbia. Mr. Feder commented that while it will not be easy, they will address each issue, including environmental. Mr. Schmitt responded to comments on land-use by stating that we are dealing with vested and property rights. People purchased those properties many years ago, for possibly $20 down. Nancy Linnan was asked to comment. She and Mr. Feder stated that from an economic standpoint, they will have to attempt to purchase some land out there. Mr. Scott presented a synopsis of the history and how they got to the real time system, essentially the Growth Management Comprehensive Plan. · In 2002 had a moratorium on some sections of roadway · Asked what they will look like in five and ten years · Some areas will present a problem when analyzed on a standard link-by-link basis · People are using other corridors to make the same trips · Livingston Road is an alternative to Airport Pulling Road 6 March 14,2005 . Certain criteria must be followed; we must keep the area working. Eighty-five percent of the lane miles must be operating . Issue came up regarding Golden Gate Parkway, and commented they can serve some of the same trips from the Estates coming on Davis onto Green Blvd Mr. Feder explained that people want to get to their destination, but cannot continue. Economically, we have to depend on the quality of the roadway. Mr. Scott discussed the TCMA and the possible use of more transit. There will be a 20 percent improvement. Mr. Feder stated that right now 951, South of US. 41 by the concurrency, based on not just a trip has sufficient improvements. North of 41 and 951, will add two more lanes and go to six lanes. It is controlled access and means consistency and concurrency. Since Livingston was not extended to 41 they need to look at all the alternatives, and make sure that the future with the high growth rate has sufficient capacity on into the future. Mr. Feder elaborated that they are trying to promote joint access in the 951 area, where they get everyone off at one point, where they're phased and can get a signal system with digression over a half-mile. It's not just units. It's an impact on that individual link and the overall network. Each area is site-specific, so that's why they're going to apply the site-specifics analysis. G. Outline of current Florida concurrency statutes and regulations. What have the courts said? Ms. Linnan discussed in detail the legislature and concurrency. (Inaudible on tape) H. How and when are "vested development rights" established? What are the time factors? Such that: What development rights are being vested? What constitutes a vested development in Collier County? Follow-up actions: 1. EAR-based amendments. Density bonuses elimination 2. PUD Retirement and Expiration Ordinance. Working discussion draft provided, entitled: PUD Retirement and Expiration 3. Declaration of no vesting by the BCC for density or concurrency for currently approved but not built (no final local development order) PUD's. PUD owners may assert and reestablish any vested rights through available processes: 7 March 14, 2005 a. LDC Sections 9.02.00-09. Vested Rights & Takings Determinations. Unbui/t units and/or concurrency. b. LDC Section 10.02.07B.6. Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy Roads Concurrency COA Mr. Schmitt commented that there are some glitches in the plan. Mr. Feder further explained and summarized typical applications. Follow-up actions were described with the general consensus that a lot had been accomplished. The moderator thanked all those in attendance for coming. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 PM. CCPC TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP Russell Budd, Chairman The followinf! charts and information was distributed: 12 Month (100th Highest Hour) Collier County 2004 Annual Update Inventory Report, Collier County Transportation Division Collier County 2004 Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) - Collier County Transportation Database Density Reduction Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-Based Amendments Revision of Subsection 3.X. Amendments to Section 9.02.00 Vested Rights 8