Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/24/2018 - PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION SECTION OFDATE: STAFF: April 24, 2018 Martina Wilkinson, Assistant City Traffic Engineer Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION 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, Council provided direction at a work session to move forward with developing refinements. Staff is proposing 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. If Council expresses support of the approach, staff will complete the public outreach process and bring Code and Standards changes to Council for consideration in the coming months. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Is Council comfortable with the implementation of Alternative Mitigation Strategies at currently APF constrained locations? 2. Is Council comfortable moving into the final outreach and implementation phase of the change? BACKGROUND / 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 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: April 24, 2018 Page 2 • 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). (Attachment 1) • 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 work session, staff has completed outreach to the Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and has 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 Attachment 2. 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 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). April 24, 2018 Page 3 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 citywide 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. Next Steps If the general concept for Alternative Mitigation Strategies in areas that are APF constrained is supported by Council, then 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 Council for consideration. Time frame for that would be in the next several months. ATTACHMENTS 1. Current Status (PDF) 2. Proposed Process (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 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 Does it meet LCUASS LOS? 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 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? ATTACHMENT 2 1 Adequate Public Facilities ATTACHMENT 3 Questions for Council 2 • Is Council comfortable with the implementation of Alternative Mitigation Strategies at currently APF constrained locations? • Is Council comfortable moving into the final outreach and implementation phase of the change? 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) Current Status and Opportunities 4 • APF was originally envisioned for greenfield development, and application to infill areas are problematic • No current mechanism to address impact in areas where typical road improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or not proportional to impact • There are two completely separate and different standards and review processes for Level of Service (LOS) • APF criteria needs to be updated and made consistent with LCUASS 5 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 Previous Work Session and Outreach 6 • Support to retain APF • Interest in refining APF in order to: – Create flexibility to accommodate City’s development patterns – Support establishment for proportional share contributions – Include multi-modal interests including transit • Create ability for development community to anticipate requirements prior to project hearings Proposed Alternative Mitigation Strategy 7 Applicable in areas where: 1. Overall intersection Level of Service is not met AND 2. Typical improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the City or not proportional to the impact The strategy is: 1. Developed by multi-disciplinary team of City staff 2. Site specific 3. Localized improvements that mitigate a development’s impact 4. May include roadway, intersection, signal, and/or multi-modal facilities 5. Proposed to be appealable to Planning and Zoning Board Examples of Potential Alternative Mitigation Strategies 8 Downtown where non-vehicular interests are prioritized Consider: – Sidewalk improvements – Bike parking Examples of Potential Alternative Mitigation Strategies 9 Fully built out intersections i.e. Harmony and College Consider: – Signal timing improvements (adaptive timing) – Completing sidewalk gaps – Improving bus stops Examples of Potential Alternative Mitigation Strategies 10 Severely constrained or “mega project” locations where mitigation cannot be proportional to impact Consider: – Alternate route improvements (signalization of Timberline / Vine) Examples of Potential Alternative Mitigation Strategies 11 Transit Oriented Development where mitigation may support alternative modes and/or transit instead of roadway improvements Consider: – Connections to MAX 12 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 APPROVED Request variance through LCUASS technical review Project Can Proceed City develops site specific Alternative Mitigation Strategy. Determines Proportional Contribution Strategy appealable to P and Z Board If Intersection LOS is problem If Approach or Movement LOS is problem NO NO NO Is reasonable / proportional mitigation possible that addresses LOS? Is applicant willing to implement strategy? YES Implement Development’s portion of Strategy Outcomes of Refined Approach 13 • Recognizes various types of development - infill, redevelopment and “greenfield” projects • 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 • Alternative Mitigation Strategy developed by staff and appealable to Planning and Zoning Board Next Steps 14 • Refinement based on Council feedback • Complete Outreach (Boards and Commissions, Development Community etc.) • Potential Approval Hearings in June (Planning and Zoning) and July (Council) Questions for Council 15 • Is Council comfortable with the implementation of Alternative Mitigation Strategies at currently APF constrained locations? • Is Council comfortable moving into the final outreach and implementation phase of the change? 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 Proceed ATTACHMENT 1