Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/09/2016 - STATUS OF THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCEDATE: STAFF: August 9, 2016 Martina Wilkinson, Civil Engineer Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Status of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to propose updates to the transportation requirements of Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.7.3 - Adequate Public Facilities (APF) because of conflicting standards with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), gaps in applicability, and changing development patterns. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What feedback does Council have regarding: 1. The concept of combining transportation requirements of APF and Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) into one set of standards? 2. The concept of creating a “Modification of Standard” that allows consideration of alternative mitigation be established for the transportation requirements? 3. The concept of having transportation related Modifications of Standard be heard by Planning and Zoning Board (as other modifications are) and be subject to appeal? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Bottom Line The transportation component of the Adequate Public Facilities ordinance has been in place for almost 20 years and is intended to ensure that adequate roadway infrastructure is in place as development occurs. Staff is increasingly reviewing infill and redevelopment projects that fit within planning efforts yet conflict with existing transportation requirements. Therefore, staff reviewed the ordinance for potential changes. The primary reasons to update the Code are to:  ensure the technical analysis requirements are meeting best practices  create a single review criteria  incorporate the City’s changing development patterns including multi-modal interests. The proposed revisions would also recognize that there are some locations in Fort Collins that are not suited to significant roadway improvements (such as widening roads in downtown or fully built-out intersections). Therefore staff recommends adding a component of flexibility in the ordinance to allow consideration of alternative mitigation (Modifications of Standards) measures. Background The City adopted Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code in 1997 in order to establish an ongoing mechanism that ensured that public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such development. The Transportation element of the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) ordinance August 9, 2016 Page 2 details the required vehicular 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 until such improvements are made. These APF provisions are in addition to other and different requirements within the City’s street standards for infrastructure needed to serve a particular development and only apply to the intersections themselves, not ramps or other approaches. (Attachment 1) The APF ordinance was intended to strengthen the existing Street Oversizing Program (SOP), a capital expansion fee program that collects revenue from new development specifically to mitigate communitywide transportation system impacts. The fees paid by a developer cannot be used to address existing deficiencies unrelated to their development. The City’s ordinance does not currently limit a developer’s responsibility to a “proportionate share” of improvements, and does not offer any flexibility for alternative mitigation. Need for Refinement Staff began reviewing the APF Ordinance for potential changes for a number of reasons:  In the almost 20 years since the ordinance was adopted, the land use development patterns within the City have shifted from mostly greenfield development on the edge of the City to infill and redevelopment within the developed community. Some of these developments are in locations where vehicular improvements may not be desired or logical (such as downtown Fort Collins or fully built-out intersections).  The City has fully embraced multi-modal and alternative transportation solutions; perhaps the ordinance should allow flexibility to consider alternative mitigation for impacts.  The standards utilized in the ordinance are incomplete and/or no longer current, they are inconsistent with engineering standards, and the development review procedure has two separate but different processes with differing standards.  The ordinance has no mechanism to address proportional impacts of development without requiring correction of existing deficiencies by a single development. Proposed Approach Given the challenges noted above, staff developed a proposed approach for potential refinements to the ordinance. This includes the following:  Combine the Level Of Service (LOS) review for APF and for the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) into one process  Make the LOS requirements consistent, current, and inclusive of all intersections  Develop criteria to identify appropriate mitigation for proportional share of impact by a development  Develop a Modification of Standard process for transportation similar to what exists for other aspects of development review. Those modifications would consider locations in Fort Collins where vehicular mitigation may not be desired (such as Old Town) or requirements that were not included in the street oversizing plan, such as grade-separated railroad crossings. Staff suggests any modification process would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and decisions appealable to Council. Staff suggests an updated process as outlined in Attachment 2. The anticipated results of this update would be a single process that utilizes current standards, allows for consideration of a broader, multi-modal transportation review, and includes application of mitigation based on proportional share of impact. Staff believes it is important to retain a strong review of transportation impact and mitigation, establish a clear and consistent process for doing so, and implement an approach that accommodates the City’s current multi-modal interests, and its evolving land use development patterns. August 9, 2016 Page 3 Potential Next Steps If the general concepts for updates are supported by Council, staff will begin to prepare the technical criteria for insignificant threshhold and proportional mitigation as well as development of review criteria for Modifications of Standard. Language changes for LUC and LCUASS will be needed, and a public engagement process would be undertaken. Depending upon public engagement, a potential timeline for adoption of changes is likely by the end of 2016. ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Processes (PDF) 2. Proposed Approach (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Attachment 1 Current Status Adequate Public Facilities In the Land Use Code Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Check overall intersection, approach and movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS Does it meet LCUASS LOS? Is there a “significant negative impact”? (Does overall intersection delay change by more than 2%?) Make Improvements? Request variance – technical review YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES Project Can Proceed APPROVED RECOMMEND DENIAL NO Does project meet exception of 50 trips in peak hour through intersection? NO Wait Project Can Proceed YES Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) NO YES YES Project Can Proceed APPROVED NO Is there a “significant negative impact”? (Does overall intersection delay change by more than 2%?) RECOMMEND DENIAL Check overall intersection, approach and movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS Attachment 2 Proposed Approach YES YES YES Make Improvements Check overall intersection, approach and movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS Does it meet LOS? NO Is it a minimal or insignificant impact”? RECOMMEND DENIAL Request variance APPROVED through LCUASS technical review Project Can Proceed NO Is reasonable / proportional mitigation possible? Request Modification of Standard in LUC through P and Z DENIED APPROVED Appealable to City Council If Intersection LOS is problem If Approach or Movement LOS is problem NO 1 Adequate Public Facilities ATTACHMENT 3 Questions for Council 2 What feedback does Council have regarding: 1. The concept of combining transportation requirements of APF and LCUASS into one set of standards? 2. The concept of creating a “Modification of Standard” that allows consideration of alternative mitigation be established for transportation requirements? 3. The concept of having transportation related Modification of Standard be heard by Planning and Zoning and be subject to appeal? Background 3 • Adequate Public Facilities (APF) adopted in 1997 to accompany Street Oversizing Program. • Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) first adopted in 2001 • Both have standards and processes for vehicular Level of Service (LOS) Background 4 • APF criteria needs to be updated and made consistent with LCUASS • APF could benefit from a mechanism for proportional impact especially if only mitigation is a ‘mega’ project to address existing deficiencies • The two completely separate and different standards and review process for Level of Service (LOS) could be combined. A Changing Context 5 • City’s development patterns are evolving from mostly “greenfield” to also include infill and redevelopment where vehicular mitigation may not be desired. – Downtown Fort Collins – Fully built out intersections • Multi-modal interests including transit not considered in APF • APF could provide flexibility, or modification opportunities to consider alternative mitigation 6 Current Status Adequate Public Facilities In the Land Use Code Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Check overall intersection, approach and movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS Does it meet LCUASS LOS? Is there a “significant negative impact”? (Does overall intersection delay change by more than 2%?) Make Improvements? Request variance – technical review YES NO YES NO YES NO YES YES Project Can Proceed APPROVED RECOMMEND DENIAL NO Does project meet exception of 50 trips in peak hour through intersection? NO Wait Project Can Proceed YES Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) NO YES YES Project Can Proceed APPROVED NO Is there a “significant negative impact”? (Does overall intersection delay change by more than 2%?) RECOMMEND DENIAL Check overall intersection, approach and movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS Does it meet 7 Proposed YES Approach YES YES Make Improvements Check overall intersection, approach and movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS Does it meet LOS? NO Is it a minimal or insignificant impact”? RECOMMEND DENIAL Request variance APPROVED through LCUASS technical review Project Can Proceed NO Is reasonable / proportional mitigation possible? Request Modification of Standard in LUC through P and Z DENIED APPROVED Appealable to City Council If Intersection LOS is problem If Approach or Movement LOS is problem NO Considerations for Modification of Standards 8 • Downtown where non-vehicular interests are prioritized Considerations for Modification of Standards 9 • Transit Oriented Development where mitigation may support alternative modes and/or transit instead of roadway improvements Considerations for Modification of Standards 10 • Fully built out intersections i.e., Harmony and College Considerations for Modification of Standards 11 • Severely constrained or “mega project” locations where mitigation cannot be proportional to impact Modification of Standards Criteria and Review 12 • Similar to planning related Modification of Standard – Not detrimental to the public good – By reason of exceptional physical conditions or situations – The plan submitted promotes general purpose of standard equally well or better than…. • Decision made by Planning and Zoning Board – not a hearing officer or administratively Anticipated Results of Refined Approach 13 • Recognizes varies types of development - infill, redevelopment and “greenfield” projects • Modification of Standard allows consideration of alternative mitigation (multi-modal, transit, other area improvements) • Creates current and consistent standards within LCUASS • Appropriate and enforceable standards still in place • Development still pays it proportional share • Modification of Standard voted on by P and Z and appealable to Council Potential Next Steps 14 • Refinement based on Council feedback • Outreach (Boards and Commissions, Chamber, etc.) • Develop details – what constitutes ‘insignificant’, how to calculate proportional share, and identify modification of standard review criteria • Draft language changes in Land Use Code and LCUASS Questions for Council 15 What feedback does Council have regarding: 1. The concept of combining transportation requirements of APF and LCUASS into one set of standards? 2. The concept of creating a “Modification of Standard” that allows consideration of alternative mitigation be established for transportation requirements? 3. The concept of having transportation related Modification of Standard be heard by Planning and Zoning and be subject to appeal? LCUASS LOS? YES Make Improvements? NO Request variance – technical review Check overall intersection LOS against Table II in Multi Modal LOS manual Does it meet MMLOS LOS? Make Improvements? NO Does it meet LCUASS LOS? YES Make Improvements? NO Request variance – technical review Check overall intersection LOS against Table II in Multi Modal LOS manual Does it meet MMLOS LOS? Make Improvements? NO