Date SUBMITTED: September 13, 2006
DATE
OF WORKSHOP SESSION: September 20, 2006
date
of public MEETING: N/A
To: MAYOR & Board of ALDERMEN
From: Chuck Boyd,
Deputy Director for Planning
RE: Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)
PURPOSE: This is a continuation of the
discussion of the APFO. At this
workshop, staff will present discussion on the allocation aspect of an APFO.
HISTORY: This workshop is a follow up to the 7/19/06, 8/2/06, 8/9/06, 8/23/06 and 8/30/06 workshops. These workshops were intended to provide the Mayor & Board of Aldermen background information about two different APFO models. Listed below is a summation of the previous workshops:
At the 7/19/06 workshop, staff presented basic information on what is an APFO, the facilities that can be associated with an APFO and the City’s history with the APFO.
At the 8/2/06 workshop, Mayor Jones & Rick Stup
presented information concerning
At the 8/9/06 workshop, Jeff Bronow presented information on
At the 8/23/06 workshop, staff presented the Mayor & Board of the components of an allocation system including: sub regions, special allocations and development projections.
At the 8/30/06, Ray Barnes from the FCPS presented information on CIP process, School Construction Process and State Rate Capacity.
Staff believes that
an allocation process would work well for the City of
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this
meeting is to discuss the allocation component of an APFO. Staff has worked through an example scenario
of how the process could work. The
following are the basic assumptions used for this scenario:
1)
That 650
units will be allocated each year
2)
That 25%
(150 units) will be allocated to special set asides
3)
That 30%
(174 units) will be allocated equally among all developments
4)
That 45%
(276 units) will be allocated on a pro rata share among all developments
5)
For the
first 2 years projects that have final approval by 12/05 will be allocated
6)
For
years 3 & 4 projects that have final approval by 12/06 will be allocated
All of these
assumptions will be decisions that the
There are several
interesting aspects to the allocation method.
1)
The
number of projects drops from 19 (Year 1) to 14 projects in (Year 4)
2)
In the
first year 6 projects are eliminated from the list
3)
The
number of units in the pipeline remains about constant for all four years.
4)
Without
changing the total unit allocation, the City would have a building inventory
for 10 years (6,000 units in the pipeline divided by 600 units = 10 years).
Maryland
Department of Planning
Attached is a copy
of the Maryland Department of Planning Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs).
While some of this information has been discussed, there are some
interesting items in the report. Staff
will scan this document and post it on the APFO website.
Fire & Rescue
Staff did forward
the PowerPoint presentation presented by Commissioner Gardner to the Board of
County Commissioners. The fire &
rescue component of the County’s APFO did not move forward due to a lack of
consensus.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no recommendations at this time.
BACKUP INCLUDED: Example of allocation system
at 650 units
Adequate Public Ordinances, Maryland Department of Planning
REVIEWED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD: Charles W. Boyd
CONCURRENCE BY:
Date Date
FINANCE ________ _______ LEGAL ________ ________
CITIZEN SERVICES ________ _______ FPD ________ ________
DEPT. PUBLIC
WORKS ________ _______
PLANNING ________ ________
ENGINEERING
________ _______ CIP ________ ________
ARTICLE 2: ROADS
2.1 Thresholds:
A. Except where an APFO escrow account (Section 1.12D) has already been established, this article exempts developments which generate or are expected to generate less than one hundred (100) total vehicle trips during the highest daily peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, as defined by the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Trip Generation Manual”, for the use category determined by the Zoning Administrator. Said trips are driveway volumes in and out and may be a combination of “new” trips and “intercept” trips.
B. In determining whether or not a total of one hundred (100) peak hour vehicle trips will be generated during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, all land at one location within the City under common ownership or control by a developer shall be included. The phrase “at one location” means all adjacent land of the developer, the property lines of which are contiguous or nearly contiguous at any point. A developer shall not avoid the intent of this section by submitting piecemeal applications for preliminary plats or site plans. A developer may seek approval of only a portion of a subdivision or development which generates less trips than the criteria, provided that upon seeking approval of the remaining subdivision or development which generates trips greater than the criteria, including that approved previously under this subsection, the development will comply with the requirements of this section.
2.2 Determination of Adequacy:
A. For all development applications meeting the threshold criteria outlined in Section 2.1, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the City Planning and Zoning Department which will review it along with the City Engineer. The portion of existing road(s) required to be adequate shall be determined by the City Planner in consultation with the City Engineer based on a pre-study conference or documented correspondence between the County, the City, and the developer. The City Engineer shall use as guidelines the criteria set forth in (1) and (2) below, but may, in consultation with the developer, adopt a reasonable study area based on sound traffic engineering knowledge of the site and the situation. Any disputes regarding study area or scope shall be rsolved by the Planning Commission.
1. The portion of the existing road(s) required to be adequate for a proposed development shall be from the site’s planned entrance(s) to the nearest intersection of an arterial road or freeway/expressway with an arterial road, in the directions of traffic flow anticipated by the City Engineer unless the pre-study conference determines otherwise.
2. All primary and interstate highways shall be exempt from the requirements herein.
B. The TIS shall be prepared for the design hours, which are defined as the peak hours which will be most affected by the proposed development, i.e., any combination of morning, afternoon, evening, or weekend hours as determined via the pre-study agreement. The TIS will include, but not be limited to:
1. A written description of the site boundaries and characteristics which the study has been based upon, including, but not limited to, development size, land usage, and proposed parking, a graphical depiction of the site location, and, where helpful, a graphical summarization of any unique site-plan characteristics;
2. Existing conditions including existing traffic volumes recorded during specific times, for example, when school is in session (unless in the opinion of the planning staff or the Department of Public Works significant circumstances preclude this), existing lane usage, existing levels of service (LOS), and a thorough study area descriptive narrative of the physical roadway conditions, including all controls, constraints, and deficiencies;
3. Vehicle
trip generation and design hour volumes generated by the proposed development
and traffic expected to be generated by approved development in the study areas
as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
For minor commercial/industrial subdivisions the developer shall have
the option to specify particular uses for traffic analysis, to use the highest
traffic generating use, or limit the property usage to a traffic level below
the APFO threshold. Such restrictions
shall be noted on the plat. The latest
edition of the ITE “Trip Generation Manual” is to be used unless specifically
applicable rates (
4. Trip distribution and traffic assignment based upon sound planning judgment of the future conditions;
5. Growth in through-traffic as determined from historical data or other planning factors affecting future traffic volumes (growth rates will be applied only to the “through” trips at the intersection);
6. LOS capacity analysis of all required intersections and links (where necessary) for existing conditions, and all intermediate and ultimate future conditions with and without the proposed development;
7. In cases where traffic safety is identified as an issue at the pre-study conference, reported traffic accidents for the last five years;
8. Roadway and bridge improvements programmed or currently funded for construction in the most recent City or County Capital Budget or second year of CIP;
9. Improvements funded in the current or second budget year of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) Consolidated Transportation Program; and
10. Any other information that may reasonably be required by the City Planning and Zoning Department to effectively evaluate the road network or application.
C. All traffic studies shall use the Critical Lane Method (CLM) of analysis at intersections and when required the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for roadway links capacity at peak hour traffic flow. Additionally, at signalized intersections, the HCM method must also be employed. The developer is responsible for confirming and using the existing signal timings when analyzing existing conditions. A technical description of the CLM is given in the January 1971 issue of Traffic Engineering, and staff will have available copies. The following specific treatments will e applied to the CLM analysis:
1. All non-signalized intersections will e modeled as simple two-phased operations, i.e., run N-S together, and then E-W together.
2. The following lane use factors (LUF) will be used:
NUMBER OF APPROACH LANES LUF
1 1.00
2 0.55 (through lanes)
0.60 (turn lanes)
3 0.40 (through lanes)
0.45 (turn lanes)
>4 0.30
3. “Free right turns” (which are not analyzed in the CLM) are defined as movements typically isolated by channelization and controlled by a yield sign. Only if the right-turning vehicles are isolated from the queue of through vehicles on the approach leg, and there is sufficient exclusive acceleration opportunity on the turn leg, can they be excluded from the analysis.
4. Right-turn-on-red (RTOR) “credits” generally will not be allowed unless it can be demonstrated/documented that RTORs are occurring at the intersection; even then, only low-volume intersections will be considered as candidate intersections.
5. Where no separate left turn lanes occur at high volume intersections, the left-most approach lane should be assumed to handle all the lefts, with the other lanes carrying the through traffic and rights, etc. Actual observations/documentation of other conditions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
6. On one-lane approaches where a bypass of left-turning vehicles exists, a separate left turn lane can be assumed. Otherwise, the volumes should be combined.
7. The following CLM LOS criteria shall be used:
CRITICAL LANE VOLUME LOS GRADES
<977 A
978-1022 A/B
1023-1127 B
1128-1172 B/C
1173-1277 C
1278-1322 C/D
1323-1427 D
1428-1472 D/E
1473-1577 E
1578-1622 E/F
>1623 F
8. Passby/intercept trips may be assumed when the tested street traffic volume is greater than 10,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Otherwise, all trips must be modeled as “new” trips. Unless otherwise supported by first-hand data the maximum allowable credits for primary “passby/intercept” trips for a particular land use shall be as follows:*
Sit-Down Restaurant 30%
Fast Food Restaurant 60%
Day-Care (on collector or arterial street) 20%
Day-Care (in a PUD) **
Service Station 60%
Convenience Store 60%
Retail less than 40,000 square feet (S.F.) 50%
Retail 40,000 S.F. or greater but less than 100,000 S.F. 35%
Retail 100,000 S.F. or greater 25%
*Secondary and diverted trips from parallel networks shall not be considered.
**80% of trips assumed to originate within the PUD; 20% assigned to outside the PUD.
9. Where a project is testing a state highway and the specific factors of Subsection C are different from those used by the State Highway Administration (SHA), then the SHA factors shall be used.
D. The following LOS criteria shall be met to determine road adequacy:
1. Roads and intersections shall be considered adequate if a LOS “D” or better is maintained using the CLM. Further, for signalized intersections only, which are also required to be analyzed using the HCM method, the overall intersection LOS must be “D” or better to be considered adequate. Required mitigations, if any, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
2. Roadway links when required by staff and, based on sound traffic engineering principles, shall be determined to be acceptable if actual capacity does not exceed 80% of rated capacity. ADT counts will be required by staff at both link-ends when mid-block intersections are present.
E. If a future condition is determined to be inadequate to accommodate the traffic flow projected by the TIS, the preliminary plat or site plan approval shall be denied, except as provided for in Section 1.10.
F. Road improvements necessary to meet the standards herein shall be determined by the Planning Commission after reviewing the entire record including TIS, road volume capacity, structural adequacy of the pavement, alignment, sight distance, structural conditions, design, lane width, and SHA comments. Improvements may be provided by the developer as prescribed in Section 1.11.
G. Upon completion of construction of APFO road improvements for a development, the APFO road approval shall be vested for the capacity created by the improvements and shall not be subject to further APFO roadway testing unless the density or intensity of the development increases.