HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work Session* Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice.
Jeffrey Schneider, Chair Conference Room A
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair 281 N. College Avenue
Jennifer Carpenter Fort Collins, Colorado
Emily Heinz 80524
Michael Hobbs
Ruth Rollins
William Whitley
The regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held Thursday, May 17, 2018, at City Hall.
A Planning and Zoning Special Meeting will be held on Thursday, May 31, 2018, at City Hall.
Regular Work Session
May 11, 2018
281 N. College Avenue – Conference Room A
Noon - 4:00 pm
TOPICS:
ESTIMATED
LENGTH:
PROJECTED
TIMES:
Consent:
1. April 19, 2018, P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes
2. Affordable Self Storage (Frickey)
3. Ginger and Baker Temporary Parking Lot (Gloss)
4. Aweida Annexation (Wray)
---
5 m
10 m
10 m
12:00 -
12:25 pm
Discussion:
5. East Gateway Annexation (Kleer)
6. Country Club Reserve (Mapes)
7. Century WTF APU (Frickey)
Discussion for Special Meeting 5/31:
1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment
(Gloss)
2. Fort Collins Mennonite Church Storage Lockers Minor Amendment
(Frickey) – tentative
3. Oasis on Olive PDP (Wray) - tentative
20-30 m
25 m
30 m
30 m
20 m
15 m
12:25 -
2:55 pm
Policy and Legislation:
• Adequate Public Facilities (APF) ordinance amendment (Wilkinson) 40 m 2:55 -
3:45 pm
Board Topics:
• Oil and Gas Well Investigations – BFO Offer (Everette)
• City Plan Update (Mounce/Overton) – time permitting
10-15 m
10-15 m
3:45 –
4:05 pm
Planning and Zoning Board
Work Session Agenda
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Divisions 2.15 and 4.29
Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Master Plan Review Procedure
(A) Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more
complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design in return
for significant public benefits not available through traditional development
procedures.
(B) Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Master Plan is available to
properties of 50 acres or greater in size.
(C) Process.
(1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable.
(2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable.
(3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents
as described in the development application submittal master list
shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive or
modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and
circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement
would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise
unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application.
(4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable.
(5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable.
(6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable.
(7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows:
(1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to
PUD District applications between 50 and 640 acres;
(2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD District applications
greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning
Board recommendation.
Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of
Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to
Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable.
(8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to
Sections 4.29 (E) and (G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
all applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) and District
Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29.
(9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable.
(10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable.
(11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable.
(12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision
on a PUD Master Plan between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to City
Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Appeals of Project
Development Plans within PUD Districts are subject to the limitations
of Section 4.29(J).
(13) Optional Step A (Optional Preapplication Review): Applicants for
review of a PUD Master Plan between 50 and 640 acres are allowed
to participate in the following optional review procedure:
This optional review is available to applicants that have completed
their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting but have not
submitted a development application. Such review is intended to
provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual
information to the Planning and Zoning Board about the ways in
which they intend to respond to site constraints, issues of
controversy or opportunities related to the development project.
Applicants participating in such review procedure should present
specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any
issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and
the affected property owners. All preapplication sessions under
this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions
contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common
Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required
to be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the
scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days
prior to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be
required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment,
suggestion, or recommendation made by any Board member with
regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any
City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision
pertaining to the proposal. All information related to an optional
review shall be considered part of the record of any subsequent
PUD Master Plan review related to all or part of the property that
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
was the subject of the optional review. Only (1) optional review
session may be requested for any proposed PUD Master Plan.
Any proposal City Council has reviewed pursuant to Section
2.1.2(H) is ineligible for optional review.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District
(A) Purpose.
(1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final
Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved
PUD Master Plan.
(2) Substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan for
real property within an approved PUD District.
(3) Positions large areas of property for phased development.
(4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to
integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher
design, engineering and construction standards and other
community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under
the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of
adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards.
(5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses,
densities, and applicable development and zone district standards.
(B) Objectives.
(1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas.
(2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD
District must provide public benefits greater than those typically
achieved through the application of a standard zone district,
including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a
particular PUD Master Plan:
(a) Diversification in the use of land;
(b) Innovation in development;
(c) More efficient use of land and energy;
(d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the
development;
(e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and
(f) Development patterns consistent with the purpose and
objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
adopted plans and policies.
(3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive
development that takes advantage of site characteristics.
(4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real
property owners within a large area.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD District from
negative impacts.
(C) Applicability.
(1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50
acres in size is eligible for a PUD District provided all owners
authorize their respective property to be included.
(2) An approved PUD District will be shown upon the Zoning Map and
will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to
the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan.
(3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for
an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of
an approved PUD District may proceed directly to application for
Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s).
(D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure.
(1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone
district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the
Section 2.15 common review procedures.
(2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker
must find that the following criteria have been satisfied:
(a) Whether the PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and
objectives of Sections 4.29 (A) and (B);
(b)Whether the PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design
within the subject property or properties;
(c) Whether the PUD Master Plan will result in development
generally in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
adopted plans and policies.
(d)Whether the PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD District, result
in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and
services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and
utilities.
(e) Whether the PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable
Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3).
(E) Permitted Uses.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted
within an approved PUD District.
(2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be
requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of
review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development
Review. The applicant must enumerate in its application the
additional use being requested, the proposed type of review, and
how the use satisfies below criteria (a) through (d). The decision
maker shall grant an additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through
(d) and may grant a requested type of review if it would not be
contrary to the public good.
(a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD District
provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; and
(b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions
regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to
water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment.
(c) The use is compatible with existing and proposed uses within and
surrounding the proposed PUD District.
(d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the
PUD District.
(F) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved
PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be
permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited.
(G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards.
(1) The applicant must enumerate in its application the densities and
development standards proposed to be modified.
(a) The applicant shall describe the minimum and maximum densities
for permitted residential uses.
(b) The applicant shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article 3
development standards and Article 4 land use and development
standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of
each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
application of the modified standards to Project Development
Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance
with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan.
(2) The decision maker shall review requests for the modification of
densities and development standards against the following criteria,
as appropriate and applicable to the specific PUD Master Plan
application:
(a) Whether the modified densities and development standards
would be consistent with the purposes, and advance the
objectives of, the PUD District as described in Sections 4.29 (A)
and (B).
(b) Whether the modified densities and developments standards
would significantly advance the development objectives of the
application.
(c) Whether the modified densities and development standards
would be necessary to achieve the development objectives of
the application.
(d) Whether the modified densities and development standards
would be consistent with the City’s adopted plans and
policies.
(H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are
subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I)
and (J).
(I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment.
(1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in
accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Termination may be initiated by:
(i) The written request of all of the real property owners
within a PUD District; or
(ii) The City, provided no vested property right approved in
connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect
upon termination.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision
maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination
is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a
public hearing to address the issue.
(c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the
overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone
district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall
control.
(d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination
of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6.
(2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may
be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code
Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Amendments may be initiated by:
(i) The written request of all real property owners within the PUD
District.
(ii) The written request of the original applicant for the approved
PUD Master Plan provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal
control of real property within the PUD district; and
(2) The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan
without the consent of other owners of real property within
the PUD district has been memorialized in an approved
development agreement between the City and the applicant.
(iii) The City provided the amendment does not amend, modify,
or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection
with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the
beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right.
(b) Except as to real property within the PUD District owned or
otherwise under the control of the applicant, any approved
amendment requested by the applicant shall not apply to any real
property within the PUD District which:
(i) Is already developed;
(ii) Has development approval from the City; or
(iii) Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time
the applicant’s request for amendment is submitted to the
City.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
(J) Appeals.
(1) A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is
appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A).
(2) Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD District and
approved pursuant to a PUD Master Plan may be appealed pursuant to
Section 2.2.12(A). The validity of the uses, densities, and development
standards approved in a PUD Master Plan shall not be the subject of any
such appeal or considered in any appeal hearing, but the interpretation
and application of uses, densities, and development standards approved in
a PUD Master Plan may be addressed.
(K) Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Vested property rights for a PUD Master plan
shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments
Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall mean an area of land approved for
development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division
2.15. An approved PUD District overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and
restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for
development of an area within an approved PUD District, which identifies the
general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and
certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan
substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master
Plan is considered a site specific development plan solely with respect to (1)
vested property rights regarding specific uses, densities, and Land Use Code
development standards, and (2) amendments pursuant to Land Use Code Section
2.2.10.
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION
Proposed Application Requirements
(1) written explanation of the proposed development at a conceptual
level
(2) preliminary plans at concept review level
(3) submittal information from master list
(4) list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added,
modified, and/or vested pursuant to subsections 4.29(E) and 4.29(G)
(5) map of the proposed application boundaries including all lots, tracts,
out lots and rights-of-way
(6) list of all property owners
(7) written consent from all owners
(8) list of all current and proposed special districts serving the property
(9) Written statement explaining how the proposed PUD Master Plan
complies with the Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable,
adopted plans.
(10) PUD Master Plan specifying the type and extent of development
proposed including the following components:
• overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration
of the proposed uses
• transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and
pedestrian circulation
• location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways
and other areas designated for preservation
• architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs,
illustrations and supporting text describing architectural design
intent.
• phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase
• list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan
(11) listing of off-site infrastructure improvements and estimated costs
DRAFT PUD OVERLAY
MASTER PLAN LAND USE CODE
Traffic Operations
626 Linden
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6630
970.221.6282 - fax
www.fcgov.com/traffic
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 3, 2018
To: Planning and Zoning Board
From: Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
Martina Wilkinson, Assistant City Traffic Engineer
Re: Proposed changes to the transportation section of Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance and Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to discuss refinement of the transportation section of the Land Use
Code (LUC) Section 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and associated process for evaluating
intersections. The purpose is to create flexibility in the process.
In response to community interests and legal concerns, staff has been reviewing APF status. In August
2016, City Council provided direction at a Work Session to move forward with developing refinements.
Based on that guidance and input from Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board and the
development community, staff has developed proposed changes to the review of vehicular impacts
associated with development proposals:
Combine Level of Service (LOS) review into one process and update the standards to be current
and consistent.
Develop site-specific Alternative Mitigation Strategies in locations where APF thresholds are
exceeded and typical roadway improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or are not
proportional to the impacts of a proposed development. The strategies will be developed by staff
and identify localized transportation improvements considering holistic multi-modal review.
Implement the strategy for developments on a proportional basis to address their local impacts.
This can be used as a basis to allow proposals to move forward.
The outcome of the changes is they will address legal concerns and create a path forward for proposals
restricted by the current process while ensuring that new developments pay their proportional share of
infrastructure costs. City interests such as recognizing potential for infill developments, and supporting
multi-modal transportation options are better accommodated with the changes.
City Council reviewed the proposal at a Work Session April 24th, and expressed general support. Staff is
now completing the public outreach process and plans to bring Code and Standards changes to Planning
and Zoning and City Council for approval in the coming months.
DISCUSSION
History
In 1997, the City adopted Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code to establish a mechanism that ensures that
public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts
of such developments. The transportation element of the APF ordinance details the required vehicular
Page 1 of 3
APF ORDINANCE - STAFF MEMO & GRAPHICS
Page 2 of 3
Level of Service (LOS) at substantially impacted intersections. If the LOS is not met, then the
development is required to make improvements to reach an acceptable LOS, or the project cannot move
forward. There are several challenges with the current status:
APF was historically envisioned to address greenfield intersections on the fringes of the City, and
some of its restrictions are difficult to meet or may not be wanted in infill areas.
The evaluation for APF is in addition to other and different requirements within the City’s street
standards (i.e. there are currently two separate processes). (See Current Status Attachment)
The APF criteria is dated and not consistent with other standards
The City’s existing APF ordinance does not limit a developer’s responsibility to a “proportionate
share” of improvements, and does not offer any flexibility for alternative mitigation.
City staff previously identified the challenges noted above and presented opportunities for refinement to
City Council at a work session in August 2016. General direction from Council at that time was the
following:
Support to retain APF, but create flexibility to recognize alternative mitigation
Support to establish a mechanism for proportional share contributions
Support to better accommodate infill and re-development patterns in the city, as well as,
recognition of the multi-modal interests of the community
Support to update and consolidate the process with current standards, and make it consistent
across documents (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) and the Land Use
Code)
Since the initial work session, staff completed outreach to the Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning
Board, and had conversations with the development community to better understand the complexities and
important considerations to keep in mind as the proposal was developed.
APF Refinement Proposal
The refined process could be as generally outlined in Proposed Process Attachment. The following are
noted:
The APF element in the Land Use Code would be aligned with LCUASS.
Insignificant and/or nominal impact developments would be limited to those where traffic impact
studies (TIS) are waived due to their small size. The criteria for a TIS waiver will be consistent
with LCUASS.
Mitigation for Level of Service (LOS) issues remain the same if reasonable / proportional
mitigation is possible, or where Level of Service issues are limited to intersection approaches or
movements.
In locations where overall intersection LOS is not met (the current APF threshold), and typical roadway
improvements to meet LOS are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or not proportional, a site specific
Alternative Mitigation Strategy will be developed. This strategy:
Will be developed by a multi-disciplinary team composed of City Staff. The strategy can be pro-
actively developed in locations of known APF issues, or can be concurrently developed during a
development’s review process once impacts are known;
Identifies localized transportation improvements that the City supports and that helps mitigate the
development’s impact in the area of the APF constrained intersection;
Is site specific to each location;
May include roadway, intersection, signal, and/or multi-modal improvements (such as bicycle,
pedestrian or transit facilities)
Should be constructible within a three-year timeframe.
Examples of this might include alternate route improvements (i.e., Timberline/Vine) to address impacts at
Lemay/Vine, bike or transit infrastructure in the downtown area to address impacts at College/Mountain,
sidewalk improvements to address impacts in the vicinity of College/Harmony, etc.
Once the strategy is developed, and an applicant’s impact is known, staff will determine what portion (or
APF ORDINANCE - STAFF MEMO & GRAPHICS
Page 3 of 3
all) of the strategy a development must complete based upon anticipated vehicular trips through the APF
constrained location. The implementation could include either construction or proportional monetary
contribution towards a specific upcoming project (within three years).
If the applicant is willing to implement their portion of the strategy, then that is noted in the
recommendation of approval for the project, and memorialized in the development agreement. If the
developer is not willing to implement the strategy, they can appeal the strategy to the Planning and
Zoning Board prior to proceeding to hearing of the development.
Relationship of Alternative Mitigation Strategy to Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF)
The City has a Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) program (previously called the Street
Oversizing Program) which collects revenue from new developments to mitigate overall transportation
impacts of growth. The TCEF fees are predominantly based on the cost to add capacity to the existing
transportation network needed for growth and focus on funding roadway widening (complete streets)
along arterial and collector roadway segments. The fees also include a limited contribution toward city-
wide intersection and multi-modal improvements. The TCEF fees paid by a developer cannot be used to
address existing deficiencies.
The proposed Alternative Mitigation Strategy is intended to address a development’s impact on localized
transportation concerns that may not be funded (in full or part) by TCEF and/or able to be constructed
within a reasonable timeframe (i.e. three years). Therefore, the strategy will serve as a companion to
TCEF.
Outcomes
The outcome of the changes in Code, standards, and process include the following:
The overall basis of APF remains: improvements are required to meet standards.
If needed improvements are not proportional, not feasible, or not wanted by the City, then the
Alternative Mitigation Strategy provides a way forward while still having development mitigate
their impacts.
The strategy is implemented proportionally and addresses localized impact. It is separate from
yet complements the regional and city-wide TCEF fees.
The revisions will combine two processes into one, reflect current standards, be consistent across
documents, acknowledge changing development patterns (such as infill), and allow for
consideration of a holistic transportation review based on City interests.
Current and Next Steps
City Council reviewed the proposal at a Work Session on April 24th and provided general support for the
proposed process and the development of Alternative Mitigation Strategies in areas that are APF
constrained. Next steps include completion of outreach efforts with the development community and
additional boards/commissions, and then bringing proposed changes for Land Use Code and LCUASS to
Planning and Zoning and Council for consideration. Time frame for that would be in the next several
months.
ATTACHMENTS (Current Status and Proposed Approach)
APF ORDINANCE - STAFF MEMO & GRAPHICS
Intersection Review - Current
Make
Improvements?
Note:
• LCUASS also has volume warrants for
auxiliary turn lanes regardless of level of
service.
• Variance criteria is not specifically
outlined
YES
Challenges:
• Table II in MMLOS is dated, not consistent
with LCUASS and incomplete
• No variance procedures or flexibility
• Not proportional to impact
• No opportunities for alternative mitigation
(all or nothing)
NO
NO NO
YES
NO
YES
Does project meet
exception of 50 trips
in peak hour through
intersection?
YES
Project Can
Proceed
NO
Make
Improvements?
YES
LCUASS
APPROVED
NO
Check overall intersection as well
as approach and movement LOS
against Table 4-3 in LCUASS
Does it meet
MMLOS LOS?
Wait
Check overall intersection
LOS against Table II in
MMLOS manual
Request variance
– technical review
Is there a “significant
negative impact”? (Does
overall intersection delay
change by more than
2%?)
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
YES
Adequate Public Facilities
In the Land Use Code
Project Can
Proceed
Does it meet
Intersection Review - Proposed
Check overall intersection as well as approach and
movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
Does it meet
LOS?
Is it a minimal or
insignificant
impact?
APPROVED
Make
Improvements
Request variance
through LCUASS –
technical review
If Approach or Movement
LOS is problem
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
If Intersection
LOS is problem
NO
Is reasonable / proportional
mitigation possible that
addresses LOS?
City develops site specific
Alternative Mitigation Strategy.
Determines proportional
contribution.
Strategy appealable
to P and Z Board
Project Can
Proceed
YES Implement Development’s
portion of strategy
NO
Is applicant willing to
implement Strategy?
APF ORDINANCE - STAFF MEMO & GRAPHICS
LCUASS LOS?
APF ORDINANCE - STAFF MEMO & GRAPHICS