Search Entire Article Tip - Hold CTRL + F
Article 12
Traffic Performance Standards
The BCC finds that safe,
convenient, and orderly flow of vehicular traffic is necessary for the health,
safety, welfare, and convenience of the public. It is the intent of this
Article to ensure that roadways are in place and adequate to provide a Level of
Service (LOS) that will provide
safe, convenient, and orderly traffic flow.
It is the intent of this
Article to implement the goals, objectives, policies, and standards of the Plan
by amending and readopting the TPS Ordinance No. 90-40.
The BCC finds that the
safe, convenient, and orderly flow of traffic will be achieved by the standards
set forth herein.
Nothing in this Article
shall preclude the BCC or other authority with the responsibility of issuing
Development Orders from considering traffic, roadway, or Project conditions not
specifically required by this Article or which are peculiar to the location,
size, configuration, use, or relationship to the area of the proposed Project
or the proposed Project itself; and to impose conditions necessary to serve the
public interest.
The BCC has the authority
to adopt this Article pursuant to Art. VII, § 1(g), Fla. Const. and to Art. VIII,
§ 1, Fla. Const., the PBC
Charter, F.S.
§ 125.01 et seq., F.S.
§ 163.3161, and F.S.
§ 163.3202 et seq. [2019-005]
See Art.
1.H, Definitions and Acronyms.
1. For purposes of
this Article, except as specifically provided herein or unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise, the terms defined in the Code of PBC, Florida, and
the Plan shall have the meaning therein. In the event of a conflict between the
Code and the Plan, the Plan shall prevail. The capitalization of defined terms
herein is for the reader's convenience only. Failure to capitalize shall not be
construed as an intent not to use the term in its defined meaning.
1. Unless
otherwise provided herein, this Article shall apply to all Site Specific
Development Orders or any other official action of a Local Government having
the effect of permitting the development of land.
The PBC Charter provides authorization to the BCC to adopt this
Article for roads which are “not the responsibility of any municipality.” The
major thoroughfare system identified in the Plan includes some roads which are
the responsibility of a Municipality. The Charter precludes the applicability
of this Article to roads that, while being on the Major Thoroughfare system,
are the responsibility of a Municipality. Accordingly, in the case of setting
the LOS this Article shall not apply so as to restrict the issuance of
Development Orders adding traffic to roads which are the responsibility of a
Municipality.
This Section establishes a method for calculating credits
against Project Traffic that may apply when seeking to amend a Previously
Approved Development Order, or when applying for a Site Specific Development
Order on property, which has an existing use. The burden shall be on the Applicant
to demonstrate the eligibility and the amount of credit for a proposed Project.
[Ord. 2011-016]
1. Any proposed
amendment to a Previously Approved Development Order shall receive a credit for
Project Traffic subject to the provisions of this Section. The credit shall be
calculated by applying current trip generation rates and pass-by rates to the
land use or uses previously approved by the Site Specific Development Order. The
credit shall be adjusted as necessary to account for changes in traffic
distribution resulting from modifications to the Previously Approved
Development Order. The credit shall be reduced as applicable based on any
subsequent reduction of square footage or number of units built pursuant to Master
Plan or Site Plan amendment, and in accordance with any subsequent amendment to
applicable Municipal rules, policies, or land development regulations.
2. Any application
for a Site Specific Development Order on property on which there is an existing
use shall receive a credit against Project Traffic subject to the provisions of
this Section. The credit shall be calculated by applying current trip
generation rates and pass-by rates that would be generated by the most recent
existing use at the time of application. The credit shall be adjusted as
necessary to account for changes in traffic distribution as a result of the
proposed Project. A proposed Project shall not be eligible for an existing use
credit if the structure or land on the property has been discontinued or
abandoned for more than five years prior to the time of application.
3. A Project shall
be eligible for a 100-percent credit against Project Traffic if the Previously
Captured non-residential Project has received CO for interior tenant
improvements for at least 80 percent of the gross leasable area for more than
five years or the Previously Captured residential Project has received Building
Permits for 80 percent of the units as set forth in the Master Plan or Site Plan
as applicable. [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2011-016]
4. An urban
redevelopment project located within a defined and mapped existing urban
service area shall not be subject to the standards of Art. 12.B, Standard,
for up to 110 percent of the traffic generation of the previously existing
development. The credit shall be calculated by applying current trip generation
rates and pass-by rates that would be generated by the most recent existing use
at the time of application. The credit shall be adjusted as necessary to
account for changes in traffic distribution as a result of the proposed Project.
A proposed Project shall not be eligible for an existing use credit if the
structure or land on the property has been discontinued or abandoned for more
than five years prior to the time of application. [Ord. 2007-013]
The standards of this Section shall not apply to Local
Government-initiated district boundary changes as part of an area-wide review
and district boundary-change program, or any district boundary changes to
conform with the Local Government Plan which does not authorize development.
This Section shall not apply to PBC-initiated petitions to lower
density/intensity under Development Order Time Limit Criteria in Art. 2.E,
Monitoring of Development Orders (DOs) and Conditions of Approval, of the
Code. Nothing herein shall preclude the review of approvals under Development
Order Time Limit Criteria, for consistency with this Section.
The standards of this Section shall not apply to Site Specific
Development Orders not exceeding entitlement densities/intensities established
in the Plan or Art. 12.E,
Entitlement.
The standards of this Section shall not apply to Site Specific
Development Orders issued for special events as described below:
a. For purposes of
this Section, a special event is an activity which does not exceed three consecutive
weeks a year, occurs no more frequently than once a year, and is open to the
general public. It includes auto races, Fourth of July activities, parades, and
festivals. It does not include recurring events such as baseball games,
football games, concerts, races, and the like held in stadiums, amphitheaters,
or other permanent facilities even if such facilities are used for special
events. Each special event shall constitute a separate special event for
purposes of calculating the number of weeks of the event. If the Plan is
amended to provide more stringent provisions as to this exception, the Plan
shall control.
b. For the
purposes of this Section, a special part-time demand event is a development
that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during any calendar year and
does not put traffic on the roadway system during the 100 highest traffic
hours.
1) The 100 highest
traffic hours for the area of the special part-time demand shall be determined
by the County Engineer based on information from permanent count stations.
2) The development
shall not be permitted if the daily traffic generated during a scheduled event
has an impact that exceeds five percent of the LOS D Standard Volume on a
roadway on the Florida Intrastate Roadway System.
3) The development
shall be restricted to areas identified as urban infill, urban redevelopment,
existing urban service, or downtown revitalization areas in the Local
Government’s Comprehensive Plan.
4) A traffic
report shall be prepared that identifies the trip generation of the
development, the modal split (if any), the location of the development, and the
month and time of day of scheduled events. The Development Order for the
development shall include monitoring and enforcement provisions restricting the
development to the number and timing of the events.
a. Subsequent Implementing
Development Orders
The standards of this Article shall not apply to Site Specific
Development Orders which are subsequent implementing Development Orders to
Previously Approved Site Specific Development Orders which were captured by
this Section or Ord. No. 90-6 (Traffic Performance Standards Municipal
Implementation Ordinance), but which are required by Local Government as part
of the development approved under the captured or Previously Approved Site
Specific Development Order. Examples of these subsequent implementing Site
Specific Development Orders are subdivision approvals and Building Permits
issued in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) where the PUD is a Previous Approval
or met the requirements of this Article (either directly or through the Traffic
Performance Standards Municipal Implementation Ordinance).
b. Amendments to Previously Captured
Approvals
Amendments to Site Specific Development Orders which were
captured by this Article or Ord. No. 90-6 (Traffic Performance Standards
Municipal Implementation Ordinance) which do not increase the captured Site
Specific Development Order’s Net Trips or Net Peak Hour Trips on any Link or Major
Intersection (including increases resulting from redistribution) shall not be
subject to the standards of this Article. For purposes of this determination,
the generation rates and capture rates of the captured Site Specific
Development Order shall be updated to current generation and capture rates, if
applicable, and shall be used to calculate whether there is any increase. If
there is an increase, Net Trips shall be subject to the standards of this
Article. In making this determination, all parcels or lots in their entirety taken
together of any Previously Captured Approval shall be considered if it was
approved as a single Project. [Ord.
2010-022]
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article to the contrary,
the requirements of this Article shall not apply in any manner to impair vested
rights established pursuant to Florida law, to the extent that any Project, or
portion thereof, is vested as against the requirements of this Article.
The standards of this Article shall not apply to Site Specific
Development Orders for the Coastal Residential use as set forth in Art. 12.I, Coastal Residential Exception
and the special events, as set forth in Art. 12.A.3.C.4,
Special Events. [Ord.
2011-016]
The exceptions to the standards of this Article (LOS Standards)
do not obviate the requirement to report the Site Specific Development Order,
or provide the Traffic Impact Study (where required), to the County Engineer.
Only Valid Site Specific Development Orders which meet the
definition of Previous Approval shall be considered Valid Previous Approvals.
The Municipality shall establish procedures for determining what
Previous Approvals have been granted. The procedures shall be at the sole
discretion of the Municipality. The Municipality shall send its determination
as to each Previous Approval to the Traffic Division of the County Engineer
within 15 days of its determination.
The County Engineer shall have ten working days, exclusive of
tolled days, from the receipt of the determination of the Municipality to
review and determine if additional information is required.
If the County Engineer requests additional information, he shall
have 30 days, exclusive of tolled days, from the receipt of the additional
information to notify the Property Owner and Municipality as to, and file, an
action for judicial review.
The Municipality's determination shall not be effective, and the
period to file an action shall not commence, until either: (1) the County Engineer
has not requested additional information within the ten day period or, (2) if
additional information is requested, the County Engineer has received all
additional information requested.
The documents sent pursuant to Art. 12.A.3.D.2,
Procedures and Art.
12.A.3.D.4, Additional Information, shall be sent certified mail, return
receipt requested, or hand delivered.
The appeal or review shall be to a Court of competent
jurisdiction and may be filed by any substantially affected person, including
any Local Government.
a. The time frames
set forth in Art.
12.A.3.D.3, Timing, and Art. 12.A.3.D.4,
Additional Information, above as to PBC are jurisdictional. Any failure on
the part of PBC to timely send the notification shall result in the Municipality's
determination being conclusive and binding.
b. Clerical errors
in long-standing otherwise Valid Site Specific Development Orders on which
development commenced prior to February 1, 1990 shall not be grounds for appeal
or review.
c. Any Municipal
determination that there is a Previous Approval on a Lot upon which building
construction or infrastructure improvements have been made within the last
three years which are consistent with the Development Order considered to be
the Previous Approval shall not be appealed by PBC.
d. Any Municipal
determination that a Valid Site Specific Development Order (as determined by
PBC) issued prior to February 1, 1990, and within three years prior to February
1, 1990, is a Previous Approval and shall not be appealed by PBC.
The Municipality shall complete its review and determination of
all properties within its jurisdiction as to Previous Approvals by July 1, 1991.
A Municipality may, with
the consent of PBC, enter into an intergovernmental agreement with PBC whereby
the Municipality, by a concurrency management ordinance, implements the
standards and requirements of this Article at different points in the land
development approval process than those set forth in this Article. The
agreement and ordinance shall ensure that all development is subject to the
standards and requirements of this Article, and that data is forwarded to PBC
for capacity management and review consistent with this Article.
There is hereby established a TPS for all Major
Thoroughfares within PBC. Except as specifically provided in this Article, no
Site Specific Development Order shall be issued for a proposed Project which
would violate this standard. This standard consists of two tests. The first
test relates to the Buildout Period of the Project and requires that the
Project not add Traffic in the Radius of Development Influence which would have
Total Traffic exceeding the Adopted LOS at the end of the Buildout Period. The
second test relates to the evaluation of traffic five years in the future and
requires that the Project not add Traffic in the Radius of Development
Influence which would have Total Traffic exceeding the Adopted LOS at the end
of the Five-Year Analysis Period. Total Traffic for Test 2 is based in part
upon Background Traffic information from the TPS Database. Where a CRALLS
service volume has been adopted, those volumes shall apply. Where a CRALLS
service volume has been adopted for one or more of the LINKS that constitute
the legs of the intersection, the allowable service volume for the intersection
shall be calculated as follows: Allowable CRALLS intersection volume = [sum of
CRALLS Link volume(s) or Link LOS D volumes (for those LINKS without CRALLS),
whichever is applicable, for all legs of intersection / (sum of Link LOS D
volume(s) for all legs of intersection)] x 1,400. For Test 2 purposes, LOS E
volumes and a 1,500 critical sum shall be used in the preceding formula for
determination of the allowable CRALLS intersection volumes. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord.
2009-040]
No Project shall be approved for Site Specific Development Order
unless it can be shown to satisfy the requirement of Parts One and Two of Test
1 as outlined below. [Ord. 2009-040]
This Part requires analysis of Major Intersections, within or
beyond the Radius of Development Influence, where a Project’s traffic is
significant on a Link within the Radius of Development of Influence. For
purposes of this Part One, Major Intersections also includes intersections of a
Major Thoroughfare and a non-thoroughfare road or other point of access where: (1)
the intersection is signalized or where projected traffic volumes warrant a
signal; and (2) the non-thoroughfare approach is projected to carry at least 200
two-way, peak hour trips; and (3) the non-thoroughfare approach represents 20
percent or more of the intersection critical sum volume. [Ord. 2005-002]
a. The following Major Intersections shall be
analyzed: [Ord. 2007-013]
1) The Major
Intersections in each direction nearest to the point at which the Project’s
Traffic enters each Project Accessed Link, and where the Project Traffic
entering or exiting the intersection from/to the Project Accessed Link is
significant. The intersections analyzed shall not exceed two intersections per
Project Accessed Link. [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2011-016]
2) For the
Projects on Southern Boulevard, the Urban Interchange(s) when it is the nearest
Major Intersection to the point at which the Project’s Traffic enters the
Project Accessed Link and when the Project Traffic entering and exiting the
intersection is significant. For purposes of determining significance of the
traffic entering and exiting the interchange, the traffic entering and exiting
the ramps shall be considered against a directional ramp LOS D Service Volume
of 2,100 vehicles per hour per lane. [Ord.
2007-013] [Ord. 2009-040] [Ord. 2014-025]
3) All Major
Intersections where the Project Traffic comprises ten percent or more of the
Total Traffic on at least one approach. [Ord. 2005-002] [Ord. 2007-013]
b. For signalized
intersections that are not part of the SIS, SIS Connectors, FIHS, TRIP-funded
facilities, or grade-separated interchanges, analyze the Major Intersections
using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1985 Planning Methodology (CMA). In the
event that one or more intersections exceed the Critical Volume threshold
identified in Table
12.B.2.C-2 1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds, are grade-separated
interchanges, or the intersections are part of the SIS, SIS Connectors, FIHS,
or TRIP-funded facilities, the Applicant shall conduct the intersection
analysis of those intersections using the HCM Operational Analysis using the
most recent version of the HCM. [Ord.
2007-013] [Ord. 2009-040] [Ord. 2011-016]
1) The HCM CMA and
Operational Analysis shall comply with the default input values published by
the County Engineer no more frequently than twice per year. Revisions to the
input values may be made subject to approval by the County Engineer to reflect
actual or projected field conditions where substantial differences from the
published values can be demonstrated. [Ord.
2009-040]
2) If the
intersection average total delay or the Critical Volume is at or below the
thresholds identified in Table
12.B.2.C-2 1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds, the Project passes Part One
of Test 1 and continues with the Part Two – Link Analysis. If the intersection
average total delay or the Critical Volume exceeds the thresholds identified in
Table
12.B.2.C-2 1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds, the Project fails Part One of
Test 1. [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2009-040]
c. For
unsignalized Major Intersections, the intersections shall be analyzed using the
most recent version of the HCM Unsignalized Intersection Analysis and all minor
movements of Rank 2 or higher shall operate at LOS E or better. In addition, a
signal warrant analysis with Total Traffic for the intersection may be required
by the County Engineer. [Ord. 2009-040]
1) If a minor
movement is not projected to operate at LOS E or better, then the Applicant may
make intersection improvements in accordance with applicable Palm Beach County
or FDOT Design Standards to satisfy the LOS standard. If these improvements
require signalization of the intersection and if signalization is expected to
be warranted at any time up to 24 months after the Project’s final certificate
of occupancy, then the Project may also be required to fund signalization. If,
with these improvements, all minor movements of Rank 2 or higher will operate
at LOS E or better, the Project passes Part One of Test 1. [Ord. 2009-040]
2) If no geometric
intersection improvements are determined to be feasible by the County Engineer,
then the Applicant shall agree to fund signalization of the intersection if
warranted at any time up to 24 months after the Project’s final Certificate of Occupancy.
If the Applicant is not willing to agree to fund signalization of the
intersection if warranted, the Project fails Part One of Test 1. [Ord. 2009-040]
a. This Part
requires analysis of Links and Major Intersections as necessary within or
beyond the Radius of Development Influence, where a Project’s traffic is
significant on a Link within the Radius of Development Influence. The Total
Traffic in the peak hour on the Link shall be compared to applicable thresholds
in Table
12.B.2.C-1 1A, LOS D Link Service Volumes, Peak Hour Traffic; Peak Direction
volume threshold. The applicable facility class for each Link shall be determined
on the basis of the number of traffic signals per mile anticipated by the
County Engineer to be in place by the buildout time frame of the proposed
Project being evaluated. Additionally, for all Links where the Total Traffic
peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold and for all Links
where the uninterrupted flow service volume has been utilized, the Major
Intersections on each end of the Link shall be analyzed. If the Link is on
Southern Boulevard, the at-grade intersection created by an Urban Interchange
shall not be considered the intersection at the end of the Link since the
intersection is actually not on Southern Boulevard. The Project shall include
the next intersection with Southern Boulevard for analysis and compliance. [Ord. 2010-022]
The project shall pass Part Two of Test 1 if: [Ord. 2010-022]
1) The Total
Traffic peak hour directional volume on the Link is less than the applicable
thresholds in Table
12.B.2.C-1 1A, LOS D Link Service Volumes; and [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord.
2010-022]
2) For Links
utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volume, the intersections are below
the 1,400 Critical Volume or below the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-2
1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds. [Ord.
2010-022]
For Links not utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes:
where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable
threshold, where the Buildout Period is five years or fewer, and where the
intersections at the end of the failing Link are less than or equal to the
1,400 Critical Volume or less than or equal to the Delay Threshold in Table
12.B.2.C-2 1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds a more detailed analysis as
outlined in the Optional Analysis may be completed to demonstrate compliance
with Part Two. [Ord. 2010-022]
For Links not utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes:
where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable threshold
and where the Buildout Period is greater than five years or where the
intersections at the end of the failing Link are greater than the 1,400
Critical Volume or greater than the Delay Threshold in Table
12.B.2.C-2 1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds, the Project fails Part Two of
Test 1. [Ord. 2010-022]
For Links utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes,
where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable
threshold, the Project fails Part Two of Test 1. [Ord. 2005-002] [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
b. Optional Analysis
– The HCM Arterial Analysis Operational methodology shall be conducted. For
these Links, the Project shall demonstrate that the Total Traffic peak hour
directional volumes do not result in an average speed on the Segment that is
lower than the speed thresholds for LOS D as defined in Table
12.B.2.C-3 1C, LOS D Speed Thresholds. If the speed is equal to or higher
than the LOS D speed threshold, then the Project shall pass Part Two of Test 1.
If the speed is lower than the LOS D speed threshold, then the Project fails
Part Two of Test 1. [Ord. 2005-002]
[Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
c. The Applicant
may make Link or intersection improvements in accordance with published Palm Beach
County or Florida Department of Transportation Design and Traffic Engineering
Standards, as applicable, in order to satisfy Part Two of Test 1. [Ord. 2010-022]
No project shall be approved for a Site Specific Development Order
unless it can be shown to satisfy the requirements of Test 2. This test
requires analysis of Links and Major Intersections as necessary within or
beyond the Radius of Development Influence, where a Project’s traffic is
Significant on a Link within the Radius of Development Influence. This analysis
shall address the Total Traffic anticipated to be in place at the end of the
fifth year of the Florida Department of Transportation Five-Year Transportation
Improvement Program in effect at the time of traffic analysis submittal. The
existing road network and State and County Five-Year Road Program improvements
with construction scheduled to commence before the end of the Five-Year
Analysis Period shall be the Test 2 Road Network assumed in the analysis. [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2010-022]
1. The Total
Traffic peak hour directional volumes shall be compared to the applicable
thresholds in Table
12.B.2.C-4 2A, LOS E Link Service Volumes. The applicable facility class
for each Link shall be determined on the basis of the number of traffic signals
per mile anticipated to be in place at the five- year analysis time frame. Additionally,
for all Links where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the
applicable threshold and for all Links where the uninterrupted flow service
volume has been utilized, the Major Intersections on each end of the Link shall
be analyzed. If the Link is on Southern Boulevard, the at-grade intersection
created by an Urban Interchange shall not be considered the intersection at the
end of the Link since the intersection is actually not on Southern Boulevard.
The Project shall include the next intersection with Southern Boulevard for
analysis and compliance. The Project shall pass Test 2 if: [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
a. the Total
Traffic peak hour directional volume on the Link is less than the applicable
thresholds in Table
12.B.2.C-4 2A, LOS E Link Service Volumes; and [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2010-022]
b. For Links
utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volume, the intersections are below
the 1,500 Critical Volume or below the Delay Threshold in Table 12.B.2.C-5
2B, LOS E Intersection Thresholds. [Ord.
2010-022]
For Links not utilizing the uninterrupted flow service volumes,
where the Total Traffic peak hour directional volumes exceed the applicable
threshold but the intersections at the end of the failing Link are below the
1,500 Critical Volume or below the Delay Threshold in Table
12.B.2.C-5 2B, LOS E Intersection Thresholds a more detailed analysis as
outlined in the Optional Analysis may be completed to demonstrate compliance
with Test 2. Otherwise, the Project fails Test 2. [Ord. 2010-022]
2. Optional
Analysis – The HCM Arterial Analysis Operational methodology shall be
conducted. For these Links, the project shall demonstrate that the Total
Traffic peak hour directional volumes do not result in an average speed on the
Segment that is lower than the speed thresholds for LOS E as defined in Table
12.B.2.C-6 2C, LOS E Speed Thresholds. If the speed is lower than LOS E,
then the project fails Test 2. If the speed is equal to or higher than the LOS
E speed threshold, then the project shall pass Test 2. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
3. The Applicant
may make Link or intersection improvements in accordance with published Palm
Beach County or Florida Department of Transportation Design and Traffic
Engineering Standards, as applicable, in order to satisfy Test 2. [Ord. 2010-022]
1. The LOS D
Standard Service Volumes as to Average Daily Traffic, Peak Hour Traffic two-way
and Peak Season, Peak Direction (Test 1 for Links are set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-1 1A, LOS D Link Service Volumes. The LOS D thresholds relative to
intersections are set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-2 1B, LOS D Intersection Thresholds. The LOS D threshold
associated with the HCM arterial analysis in terms of speed is provided in Table
12.B.2.C-3 1C, LOS D Speed Thresholds.
2. The LOS E
Standard Service Volumes for Average Daily Traffic, Peak Hour Traffic two-way
and Peak Season, Peak Direction (Test 2 for Links) are set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-4 2A, LOS E Link Service Volumes, The LOS E thresholds relative to
intersections are set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-5 2B, LOS E Intersection Thresholds. The LOS E thresholds
associated with the HCM arterial analysis in terms of speed are provided in Table
12.B.2.C-6 2C, LOS E Speed Thresholds. [Ord. 2006-043]
3. For roads on
the SIS, SIS Connectors, FIHS, and TRIP-funded facilities, the LOS standard
shall be LOS D in Urban Areas, LOS C in Transitioning Urban Areas, Urban Areas,
or Communities; and LOS B in Rural Areas as adopted by the FDOT. This standard
must be met for roadways on a Peak Hour, Peak Direction basis, in accordance
with the methodologies specified in FDOT Rule 14-94. [Ord. 2007-013]
4. A different
service volume may be adopted for a specific road or intersection as part of
the Plan as a CRALLS. A required roadway improvement that is the subject of a
Development Order condition may not be necessary due to the adoption of a
CRALLS. An Applicant with a Project that has a Development Order condition for
a roadway improvement or is phased to the unnecessary roadway improvement may
request the appropriate governing body to remove the applicable roadway phasing
condition. The application may be approved provided that the Concurrency Reservation
(for Unincorporated Projects) or determination of the County Engineer (for Municipal
Projects) has been amended to delete the applicable roadway phasing condition. If
a Project has relied upon a CRALLS volume on a roadway and/or intersection to
meet the standard, the subsequent subdivision of that Project into separate
lots shall still require all parcels or lots in their entirety taken together
of that subdivision to be addressed against the standard and any required
CRALLS mitigation for the overall Project to be completed by the developers of
the separate lots. [Ord. 2010-022]
Table 12.B.2.C-1 1A – LOS D Link
Service Volumes
|
Facility Type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 lanes undivided (1)
|
2L
|
15,200
|
1,480
|
880
|
810
|
1,140
|
2 lanes one-way
|
2LO
|
19,900
|
|
2,350
|
2,120
|
|
3 lanes two-way
|
3L
|
15,200
|
1,480
|
880
|
810
|
|
3 lanes one-way
|
3LO
|
30,200
|
|
3,530
|
3,220
|
|
4 lanes undivided (1)
|
4L
|
31,500
|
3,060
|
1,860
|
1,680
|
3,150
|
4 lanes divided
|
4LD
|
33,200
|
3,220
|
1,960
|
1,770
|
3,320
|
5 lanes two-way
|
5L
|
33,200
|
3,220
|
1,960
|
1,770
|
|
6 lanes divided
|
6LD
|
50,300
|
4,880
|
2,940
|
2,680
|
4,980
|
8 lanes divided
|
8LD
|
67,300
|
6,530
|
3,940
|
3,590
|
|
4 lanes expressway
|
4LX
|
73,600
|
6,770
|
3,720
|
6 lanes expressway
|
6LX
|
110,300
|
10,150
|
5,580
|
8 lanes expressway
|
8LX
|
146,500
|
13,480
|
7,420
|
10 lanes expressway
|
10LX
|
184,000
|
16,930
|
9,320
|
[Ord. 2005-002] [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord.
2010-022]
|
Notes:
|
Based on the 2009 FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook.
|
1.
|
Service volumes for “undivided” roadways assume
exclusive left-turn lanes are provided at signalized intersections. If there
are no left-turn lanes, reduce these values by 20 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 12.B.2.C-3 1C – LOS D Speed
Thresholds
|
Urban Street Class
|
|
|
|
Range of Free Flow
Speeds (FFS)
|
55 to 45 miles per hour
|
45 to 35 miles per hour
|
35 to 30 miles per hour
|
Typical FFS
|
50 miles per hour
|
40 miles per hour
|
35 miles per hour
|
LOS
|
|
D
|
Greater than 21 to 27
|
Greater than 17 to 22
|
Greater than 14 to 18
|
Notes:
|
Speed values refer to a “range” of values that
will achieve LOS D. For example speeds greater than 21 but less than or equal
to 27 miles per hour will all be LOS D for a Class I roadway.
|
Table 12.B.2.C-4 2A – LOS E Link
Service Volumes
|
Facility Type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 lanes undivided
(1)
|
2L
|
16,200
|
1,570
|
880
|
860
|
1,440
|
2 lanes one-way
|
2LO
|
21,100
|
|
2,350
|
2,240
|
|
3 lanes two-way
|
3L
|
16,200
|
1,570
|
880
|
860
|
|
3 lanes one-way
|
3LO
|
31,900
|
|
3,530
|
3,400
|
|
4 lanes undivided (1)
|
4L
|
33,300
|
3,230
|
1,860
|
1,780
|
3,570
|
4 lanes divided
|
4LD
|
35,100
|
3,400
|
1,960
|
1,870
|
3,760
|
5 lanes two-way
|
5L
|
35,100
|
3,400
|
1,960
|
1,870
|
|
6 lanes divided
|
6LD
|
53,100
|
5,150
|
2,940
|
2,830
|
5,650
|
8 lanes divided
|
8LD
|
70,900
|
6,880
|
3,940
|
3,780
|
|
4 lanes expressway
|
4LX
|
79,400
|
7,300
|
4,020
|
6 lanes expressway
|
6LX
|
122,700
|
11,290
|
6,200
|
8 lanes expressway
|
8LX
|
166,000
|
15,270
|
8,400
|
10 lanes expressway
|
10LX
|
209,200
|
19,250
|
10,580
|
[Ord. 2005-002] [Ord.
2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
|
Notes:
|
Based on the 2009 FDOT Quality/LOS Handbook.
|
1.
|
Service volumes for “undivided” roadways assume
exclusive left-turn lanes are provided at signalized intersections. If there
are no left- turn lanes, reduce these values by 20 percent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 12.B.2.C-6 2C – LOS E
Speed Thresholds
|
Urban Street Class
|
|
|
|
Range of Free Flow Speeds
(FFS)
|
55 to 45 miles per hour
|
45 to 35 miles per hour
|
35 to 30 miles per hour
|
Typical FFS
|
50 miles per hour
|
40 miles per hour
|
35 miles per hour
|
LOS
|
|
E
|
Greater than 16 to 21
|
Greater than 13 to 17
|
Greater than 10 to 14
|
Notes:
|
Speed values refer to a “range” of values that
will achieve LOS D. For example speeds greater than 21 but less than or equal
to 27 miles per hour will all be LOS D for a Class I roadway.
|
Table
12.B.2.D-7 3A represents the Radius of Development Influence for the
specific volume of the proposed Project’s Net Trips. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2007-013]
Table 12.B.2.D-7 3A – Radius of
Development Influence
|
Net External Peak
Hour
|
|
Two-Way Trip
Generation
|
|
1
|
through
|
20
|
Directly accessed Link(s)
|
21
|
through
|
50
|
0.5 miles
|
51
|
through
|
100
|
1 mile
|
101
|
through
|
500
|
2 miles
|
501
|
through
|
1,000
|
3 miles
|
1,001
|
through
|
2,000
|
4 miles
|
2,001
|
and
|
Up
|
5 miles
|
[Ord. 2005-002] [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
|
1. For Test 1, a
Project must address those Links within the Radius of Development Influence on
which its Net Trips are greater than one percent of the LOS D of the Link
affected on a peak hour peak direction basis AND those Links outside the Radius
of Development Influence on which its Net Trips are greater than five percent
of the LOS D of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the
limits set forth in Table 12.B.2.C-1
1A, LOS D Link Service Volumes. Provided, in all cases, I-95 and Florida’s
Turnpike shall be addressed only if Net Trips on these facilities are greater
than five percent of the LOS D of the Link affected on a peak hour peak
direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-1 1A, LOS D Link Service Volumes. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
2. For Test 2, a
Project must address those Links within the Radius of Development Influence on
which its Net Trips are greater than three percent of the LOS E of the Link
affected on a peak hour peak direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-4 2A, LOS E Link Service Volumes AND those Links outside the
Radius of Development Influence on which its Net Trips are greater than five
percent of the LOS E of the Link affected on a peak hour peak direction basis
up to the limits set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-4 2A, LOS E Link Service Volumes. Provided, in all cases, I-95 and
Florida’s Turnpike shall be addressed only if Net Trips on these facilities are
greater than five percent of the LOS E of the Link affected on a peak hour peak
direction basis up to the limits set forth in Table
12.B.2.C-4 2A, LOS E Link Service Volumes. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2007-013] [Ord. 2010-022]
3. Pursuant to F.S.
§ 163.3180(6), any Project which is below the significance level identified
in Table
12.B.2.D-9 3C, Test 1 Levels of Significance on a Link within its Radius of
Development Influence that has been identified as ineligible for de minimis exception by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) must still meet the requirements of Test 1
for that Link. This Subsection shall not apply to a Project that consists of
one Single Family home on an existing lot. [Ord. 2007-013] [Ord. 2008-003]
Phasing may be utilized by the Applicant to establish compliance
with this standard if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The proposed
Project is able to comply with all the other Concurrency Requirements of the
Plan in the Unincorporated Area.
2. The proposed
phasing results in the proposed Project complying with the standards set forth
in this Chapter.
3. The proposed
phasing comports with the extent and timing of the Assured Construction.
4. The County
Engineer confirms that construction is in fact Assured Construction.
5. For any Assured
Construction which is to be completed by the Applicant as to the Unincorporated
Area, the Applicant must agree in writing prior to approval of the Traffic
Impact Study that a Condition of Approval must be imposed or an Agreement
executed and sufficient Performance Security must be required; and as to the
Incorporated Area either an Agreement must be executed by all parties prior to
or concurrent with the issuance of the Site Specific Development Order, or the
Site Specific Development Order must have as a condition the completion of the
Assured Construction and timely posting of Performance Security. [Ord.
2007-013]
6. Building
Permits for that portion of a Project approved with phasing which if standing
alone would be the Entitlement phase of the Project may be issued
notwithstanding the standards in this Chapter.
7. Conditions of
the Development Order are imposed or an Agreement is entered which ensure
permits are restricted in accordance with the phasing.
8. Phasing shall
be controlled by the non-issuance of Building Permits. Phasing may not occur by
issuing Building Permits for any of the phased units or square feet and
withholding the CO, inspections, or other items subsequent to the issuance of Building
Permits. Local Government may control phasing by a means prior to the issuance
of Building Permits.
9. For any Project
that has an approved buildout time frame of 20 years or greater (including
buildout time extensions) and is required to phase to intersection improvements
more than three miles from the Project site, the Level of Service at the
intersection may be reevaluated in light of existing and projected turning movement
volumes from the TPS Database after the Project has received Certificates of Occupancy
for development generating more than 50 percent of its Approved Trips on a peak
hour basis. If it is projected that the adopted LOS can be maintained at
buildout of the Project, then the Project may continue to pull Building Permits
past the intersection improvement phasing threshold and the improvement no
longer needs to be assured. The Project shall be required to monitor the
intersection on a biennial basis until two years after the final Certificate of
Occupancy to determine the need for any improvements to maintain the adopted Level
of Service. If subsequent monitoring shows that the originally-required
intersection improvement or an alternative improvement is necessary to maintain
the adopted LOS at the originally-required intersection, then the phasing
condition in the Project Development Order for the intersection improvement
shall be administratively amended to include the new phasing threshold, after
which no Building Permits may be issued until construction of the improvement
has commenced. Construction of the intersection improvement shall be assured
within six months of the date of the amended Project Development Order. If,
however, it is a DRI with a Project Buildout of more than five years, then
construction of the improvement shall be assured no less than three years prior
to the date of the new phasing threshold. [Ord.
2010-022]
If a Project is approved or phased based on Assured
Construction, Building Permits shall be granted for the phase or portion of the
Project approved based on the Assured Construction no sooner than the award of
a contract by a governmental agency for the construction of the improvement, or
commencement of construction, subject to the following:
1. If intersection improvements are required to
meet Test 1 and there is a scheduled road construction Project which would
incorporate all or a portion of such intersection improvements, then the County
Engineer, in his/her sole and exclusive discretion, may require payment for the
cost of such intersection improvement provided all other requirements of the
TPS have been satisfied. In that event, upon receipt of the payment, Building
Permits shall be granted for a portion of the Project which is phased to such
intersection improvements. The payment shall be based on a certified
engineering estimate accepted by the County Engineer.
2. If the Assured
Construction is in PBC’s Five-Year Road Program Ordinance as construction, or
the FDOT’s Adopted Work Program for construction, and was relied upon for the
issuance of the Site Specific Development Order and the construction is subsequently
deleted from the PBC Five-Year Road Program Ordinance, or the FDOT’s Adopted
Work Program, Building Permits for development that was phased to that Assured Construction
shall be issued, but not sooner than the end of the fiscal year construction was
to commence. For purposes of this paragraph, “deleted” shall mean the
elimination of the construction project, the material reduction in the scope of
construction work or funding thereof (as it affects the construction project),
the postponement of the construction project for more than two years (one year
for projects approved prior to June 16, 1992) beyond the year the construction
was originally programmed in PBC’s Five-Year Road Program or the FDOT’s Adopted
Work Program. [Ord. 2007-013]
3. Three-Year
Grace Period notwithstanding the requirements in this Subsection, a Project may
receive a Building Permit if the required roadway improvements are in the first
three years of PBC’s Five-Year Road Program, and the Project is one of the
following:
a. located in the
residential exception area per Transportation Element Policy 1.2-a;
b. located in the
Glades communities, delineated as the areas in the Urban/Suburban (U/S) Tier
immediately east of Lake Okeechobee, and the areas with urban densities in the
rural towns of Lake Harbor and Canal Point;
c. located in the
Redevelopment and Revitalization Overlay; or,
d. the Project is
a facility that is wholly owned and operated by State or Local Government, or a
public or private school as defined in the Introduction and Administration
Element of the Plan.
Development Orders for a DRI with a Project Buildout of more
than five years may meet Test 1 based on Development Order conditions that
phase Building Permits to the commencement of Assured Construction for the
first five years of the Project and the construction of identified roadway
Links in the 2020 Plan Network beyond the first five years of the Project. Any
roadway improvement required beyond the first five years must be Assured
Construction not less than three years before the date that the roadway
improvement is required. No Building Permits within the DRI that are phased to
a roadway improvement may be issued until the roadway improvement that the Building
Permits are phased to is under construction. Notwithstanding the provisions
above, any Project which is a DRI, located east of I-95, which is phased to any
single roadway Project costing in excess of 15 million dollars, may consider
that roadway project to be under construction for the purpose of issuing Building
Permits if the roadway project is in the first three years of an adopted work
program. The DRI Development Order must include a condition that the roadway
project must be under construction no more than three years after the CO (or
functional equivalent) for the portion of the development that precipitated the
need for the roadway project.
A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for any proposed
Project, except as set forth in Art. 12.D.1.C, No Study Needed. It
shall be presented concisely using maps whenever practicable; and shall state
all assumptions and sources of information. [Ord. 2007-013]
The following criteria shall be addressed:
The Adopted LOS for Test 1 and Test 2, as applicable, for all
Major Thoroughfares within the applicable Radius of Development Influence shall
be used.
The traffic study shall use
the Radius of Development Influence for Test 1 and Test 2. [Ord. 2007-013]
a. Assumption
The Buildout Period of the Project shall be set forth in the
Traffic Impact Study and shall be subject to the review and approval of the
County Engineer, based on the following criteria: [Ord. 2007-013]
1) The size, type,
and location of the proposed Project. [Ord. 2007-013]
2) Customary
Buildout Periods for Projects of similar size, type, and location. [Ord.
2007-013]
3) Any other
factors or conditions relevant to the specific Project, including special
market conditions and schedules of Assured Construction. [Ord. 2007-013]
b. Enforcement
For enforcement purposes, the Buildout Period of the Project
shall be deemed complete if any of the following is true: [Ord. 2007-013]
1) In the case of
a non-residential project, final COs have been issued for interior tenant
improvements for 80 percent of the gross leasable area. [Ord. 2007-013]
2) In the case of
residential projects with: [Ord. 2007-013]
a)
a Development Order issued on or before August
27, 2007; [Ord. 2007-013]
b)
a Project Buildout Condition of Approval in the
Development Order; and, [Ord. 2007-013]
c) 80 percent or
more of the total lots platted not more than four years after the expiration of
the Project Buildout Condition of Approval in the Development Order, the
completion of the proposed project shall be issuance of Building Permits for 50
percent plus one of the total project units as set forth in the Master Plan or Site
Plan as applicable. [Ord. 2007-013]
3) In the case of
residential projects with: [Ord. 2007-013]
a) a Development
Order issued on or before August 27, 2007; [Ord.
2007-013]
b) a Project
Buildout Condition of Approval in the Development Order; and, [Ord. 2007-013]
c) less than 80
percent of the total lots platted no more than four years after the expiration
of the Project Buildout Condition of Approval in the Development Order, the
completion of the propose project shall be issuance of Building Permits for 80
percent of the total project units as set forth in the Master Plan or Site Plan
as applicable. [Ord. 2007-013]
4) In the case of
residential projects with: [Ord. 2007-013]
a) a Development
Order issued on or before August 27, 2007; [Ord.
2007-013]
b) that do not
have a Project Buildout Condition of Approval in the Development Order; and, [Ord. 2007-013]
c) that have
received Building Permits for 80 percent of the total project units as set forth
in the Master Plan or Site Plan as applicable the project shall be deemed
complete for the purposes of this Section. [Ord.
2007-013]
5) In the case of
residential projects with: [Ord. 2007-013]
a) a Development
Order issued after August 27, 2007; and [Ord.
2007-013]
b) a buildout Condition
of Approval in the Development Order, the completion of the proposed project
shall be the issuance of Building Permits for 80 percent of the total project
units as set forth in the Master Plan or Site Plan as applicable. [Ord. 2007-013]
6) For the purpose
of implementing the aforementioned rules: [Ord. 2007-013]
a) residential
projects which have received Building Permits for 50 percent or less of the
total project units (as set forth in the Master Plan or Site Plan as
applicable) as of the date of expiration of the buildout Condition of Approval
shall not receive any additional Building Permits until such time as a time
extension for the buildout Condition of Approval is approved by the County Engineer
based upon an approved traffic study which complies with Mandatory Traffic
Performance Standards in place at the time of the request; [Ord. 2007-013]
b) residential
projects which have received Building Permits for 80 percent or more of the
total project units (as set forth in the Master Plan or Site Plan as
applicable) as of the date of expiration of the buildout Condition of Approval
shall be considered complete; [Ord.
2007-013]
c)
residential projects which have received Building
Permits for at least 50 percent plus one, but less than 80 percent, of the
total projects units (as set for in the Master Plan or Site Plan as applicable)
as of the date of expiration of the buildout Condition of Approval shall not
receive any additional Building Permits until either: [Ord. 2007-013]
(1) 80 percent or
more of the total lots have been platted no more than four years after the
expiration of the Project Buildout Condition of Approval in the Development
Order, in which case the project shall be deemed complete; [Ord. 2007-013]
(2) a time
extension for the buildout Condition of Approval is approved by the County Engineer
based upon an approved traffic study which complies with Mandatory Traffic
Performance Standards in place at the time of the request. [Ord. 2007-013]
The traffic study may reflect a proposed phasing schedule for
the development of the proposed Project. This schedule shall address the time
at which each phase will place traffic impacts on the Major Thoroughfares
within the Radius of Development Influence and shall include the following:
a. Generation
Project Traffic figures and assignments for each proposed phase;
and
b. Assured Construction
Where the evaluation of
phased traffic impact includes the effect of Assured Construction, sufficient information
regarding the proposed construction to ensure that the roadways realistically
will be constructed at the times stated.
Generally, the study shall address the a.m. and p.m. peak hours,
total Peak Hour Traffic, unless traffic characteristics dictate that only one
of the peak hours is analyzed. In some cases, the County Engineer, may still
require analysis of other peak hours where indicated by accepted traffic
engineering principles. The total peak hours analyzed shall not exceed two in
number.
a. The afternoon peak
hour between four and seven p.m. during the Peak Season shall be studied in all
cases. Generally, the morning peak hour between six and nine a.m. during the
Peak Season shall be also studied, unless higher volumes occur outside of the
six to nine a.m. period at the intersection are observed. In that case other
peak hours outside of the six to nine a.m. period during the Peak Season shall
be used.
b. Each a.m. and
p.m. peak hour shall be the highest sum of the volume on the approaches to the
intersection. It shall be the highest sum of four continuous 15-minute periods.
c. Once the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours are established, the Peak Hour Net Trips shall be assigned
to the Major Intersection and Link for the peak hours studied.
Off-Peak to Peak Season factors shall be established by the
County Engineer for various areas of PBC based upon the best available data and
generally accepted traffic engineering principles. Other factors based on
generally accepted traffic engineering principles shall be used to update data
where newer data cannot be obtained.
The analysis must demonstrate compliance with the standards
contained in Test 1 and Test 2.
The traffic study shall be prepared, sealed, and signed by a
qualified professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Florida
and practicing traffic engineering.
A list of Municipalities within the proposed Project's Radius of
Development Influence.
In addition to the Link and
intersection standards and studies, all peak hour(s) turning movements
(including Pass-by Trips) shall be shown and analyzed for all points where the
Project's traffic meets the Project Accessed Links and other roads where
traffic control or geometric changes may be needed, as determined by the County
Engineer. Recommendations shall be made concerning signalization, turn lanes,
or other improvements. PBC may require such improvements in the Unincorporated
Areas to ensure the safe and orderly flow of traffic.
The Traffic Impact Study shall address the Total Traffic volumes
at the Project Buildout Year and the Five-Year Analysis Period as outlined for
Test 1 and Test 2. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2007-013]
Peak Hour Traffic, two-way and directional shall be counted by
PBC during the Peak Season as defined in this Article. Where current data
(collected no more than 30 months prior to submittal of the Traffic Impact
Study) are not available the Project shall conduct counts or upon approval by
the County Engineer may establish the Peak Hour Traffic using approved K and D
factors. [Ord. 2007-013]
a. Counts
The Applicant may provide traffic counts in accordance with
accepted traffic engineering principles. Counts shall be made during any
continuous two-hour period on a weekday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. for any
a.m. counts and 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. for p.m. counts. There shall be no
counts on Fridays and legal holidays, unless otherwise authorized or required
by the County Engineer, in accordance with accepted traffic engineering
principles. All data are subject to review and acceptance by the County
Engineer based upon accepted traffic engineering principles.
b. Factors
Where a Peak Season, Off-Peak Season, or directional traffic
count is not readily available, the count for the Link or Intersection may be
established using factors established by the County Engineer for various areas
of PBC based on the best available data and generally accepted traffic
engineering principles. [Ord. 2007-013]
Traffic generated by the Project shall be computed in the
following manner:
a. Rates
To estimate daily and peak hour trips generated from the
Project, trip rates published on the PBC Traffic Engineering website shall be
used. If the use in the proposed Project is not listed in the PBC Traffic
Engineering website Trip Generation tables, then the latest available Trip Generation
Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) shall be
used. A prior consultation with the County Traffic Engineer is required before
using trip rates, other than that published on the PBC Traffic Engineering website.
If the Applicant feels that any other method to estimate trips would provide
more realistic trip estimate for the proposed Project, prior consultation and
approval from the County Engineer is required. [Ord. 2014-025]
b. Local Conditions
The County Engineer shall
publish, and update from time to time, trip generation rates for local
conditions and, if applicable, these rates shall be used instead of the ITE
rates.
c. Similar Developments
Actual traffic counts which establish the generation rate at
three similar developments located in similar areas as the one proposed may be
used if approved by the County Engineer in accordance with accepted traffic
engineering principles. These counts shall be made for the weekdays (excluding
legal holidays) as set forth in Art. 12.C.1.B.5, Peak
Hours, for each site and averaged.
d. Internal Traffic
It is acknowledged that some trips generated by mixed use
Projects do not exit the Project or enter the Major Thoroughfare system. Unless
approved by the County Engineer, credit against the trip generation of a proposed
Project shall not exceed ten percent of the gross trip generation of the
Project, not including internalization between Service Station and Convenience
Store uses. Additionally, credit for any individual land use within the proposed
Project shall not exceed ten percent of the gross trip generation for the land
use, except as provided herein. Internalization between Service Station and
Convenience Store uses is established at 32 percent of the gross trip
generation of the Convenience Store use.
It is acknowledged that
some trips generated by a proposed non-residential Project are from existing
traffic passing the proposed Project and are not newly-generated trips. Credit
against the trip generation of the proposed Project may be taken for these
trips as published on the PBC Traffic Engineering website Trip Generation
tables or in the latest Trip Generation Handbook, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), or as approved by the County Engineer. The
study must detail: (1) all traffic generated from the Project; and (2) the
number of Pass-By Trips subtracted from the traffic generated by the Project
during the Buildout Period of the Project. Pass-by rates for uses other than
those listed in the PBC Traffic Engineering website or the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, and any percentage credit proposed to be taken in excess of that
mentioned in this Article, must be justified based on accepted traffic
engineering principles to the satisfaction of the County Engineer as part of
the required traffic study, based upon the peculiar characteristics and
location of the proposed Project. Factors which should be considered in
determining a different pass-by rate include type and size of land use,
location with respect to service population, location with respect to competing
uses, location with respect to the surrounding Major Thoroughfare system, and
existing and projected traffic volumes. In no case shall the number of Pass-By
Trips exceed 25 percent of Existing Traffic plus Background Traffic on the
Link, unless demonstrated otherwise to the satisfaction of the County Engineer
based on generally accepted traffic engineering principles. [Ord. 2014-025]
Total Traffic shall be computed, and traffic assignments of the
Net Trips made, for each Link and Major Intersection within the Projects Radius
of Development Influence and Test 2 Radius of Development Influence in conformity
with accepted traffic engineering principles for both Test 1, and Test 2. The
assignments shall address phasing and cover the Buildout Period of the Project
for Test 1 and a five-year period for Test 2. [Ord. 2006-043]
a. General
Existing traffic volumes will likely change during the Buildout
Period of the proposed Project and during the five-year Test 2 analysis period.
The traffic study must account for this change in traffic based on Background
Traffic during the Buildout Period of the proposed Project and five-year Test 2
analysis periods. The Projection of Background Traffic shall generally be based
upon the information set forth in the TPS Database, and shall be established in
accordance with the requirements set forth in this Article and accepted
engineering principles. It is recognized that errors and omissions may occur in
the TPS Database which may need to be accounted for in a traffic study. The
traffic study shall be amended to include any correction of errors or omissions
in the TPS Database, so long as either the engineer preparing the traffic study
or the County notifies the other party within 30 days of the initial submission
of the traffic study and the error or omission should have been included in the
database prior to the date of the initial submission of the traffic study. This
change in traffic shall be shown as it relates to the proposed phasing. The
Projection of Background Traffic during the Buildout Period of the proposed
Project and five-year Test 2 analysis period shall generally be based upon the
TPS Database, and subject to the review and approval of the County Engineer,
using the following criteria: [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2011-016]
1) Historical
growth shown on tables of County Engineer;
2) Characteristics
of growth in the Radius of Development Influence;
3) Extent of
existing, approved, and anticipated development in the Radius of Development
Influence;
4) Types and sizes
of development in the area;
5) Traffic
circulation in the area;
6) Major Projects'
impact;
7) New and assured
road construction.
b. Historical Growth Tables
Using the Historical
Traffic Growth Tables of the County Engineer, the study shall forecast the
change in traffic volumes based on Background Traffic within the proposed
Project's Radius of Development Influence during the Buildout Period of the proposed
Project. The Historical Growth Tables shall be based on historical daily
traffic volumes. However, this change shall be applied on an average peak hour
basis and a Peak Season, Peak Hours, Peak Direction basis if optional analyses
are selected. The effect of residential and non-residential projects shall be
considered in projecting the increase or decrease in traffic volumes so as to
ensure that there is no double counting or omission in Background Traffic. In
using the Historical Growth Tables, engineering judgment shall be used to take
into account special circumstances such as the opening of a parallel road or a
high traffic generation that may distort the growth trend. For Projects with a
lengthy buildout time (five years or more) an area-wide growth rate using a
number of locations in the tables may be appropriate. No growth rate less than
zero percent may be used without approval of the County Engineer when the
growth rate is a negative. Zero percent shall be used unless approved by the
County Engineer. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2007-013]
Using the TPS Database, all traffic from the unbuilt portion of
Projects which have received a concurrency reservation prior to the County
Engineer's approval of the proposed Project’s traffic study which will add
significant trips to any Link within the proposed Project's Radius of
Development Influence during the Buildout Period of proposed Project shall be
specifically accounted for in projecting Traffic for Test 1. For Major Intersections,
the TPS Database shall specifically account for all Project Traffic volumes if
at least one approach to the intersection has a Project Traffic volume greater
than or equal to one percent of the adopted LOS D. No double counting of trips
shall occur. For Test 2, only the traffic generated from the unbuilt portions
of the Projects as set forth above which are projected to be built during the
Five-Year Analysis Period shall be considered. [Ord. 2005-002] [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2009-040]
Assured Construction shall be considered completed as scheduled
at the time of submittal of the Traffic Impact Study for the purpose of
preparation of the study. Whether it is in fact Assured Construction and the
timing of the Assured Construction shall be subject to the confirmation of the
County Engineer. The Traffic Impact Study shall specifically identify the need
for phasing based on Assured Construction. [Ord. 2007-013]
The Concurrency Reservation or Site Specific Development
Order shall contain such conditions as are necessary to ensure compliance with
this Article. The Local Governments, including the legislative and
administrative boards, the DRO, and officials, issuing Concurrency Reservations
or Site Specific Development Orders are authorized to, and shall, impose such
conditions. The Local Governments including the legislative and administrative
boards, the DRO, and officials shall require where necessary to ensure
compliance with this Section that an Agreement be executed prior to the
issuance of the Site Specific Development Order. Performance Security shall be
required to ensure compliance with the conditions or performance under the
Agreement or Condition of Approval. The Agreement or Conditions of Approval
shall be binding on the owner, its successors, assigns, and heirs; and it, or
notice thereof, shall be recorded in the Official Records of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court in and for PBC, Florida.
Prior to acceptance of any application for a Site Specific
Development Order in the Unincorporated Area, or issuance of a Site Specific
Development Order in the Incorporated Area, a non-refundable application fee
established by the BCC from time to time to defray the actual cost for
processing the application, shall be submitted along with the Traffic Impact
Study or documentation sufficient to establish that the application is not
subject to the standards of this Article.
In order to receive a time extension pursuant to Art. 2.E,
Monitoring of Development Orders (DOs) and Conditions of Approval, the Applicant
shall be required to submit either: [Ord.
2007-013]
1. A new Traffic
Impact Study that meets the standards of this Article in effect at the time the
extension is requested; or [Ord. 2007-013]
2. Documentation
sufficient to establish that the Project with the additional time provided by
the extension meets the standards of this Article in effect at the time the
extension is requested. [Ord. 2007-013]
The County Engineer or Municipal Engineer, as applicable, shall
review the information submitted pursuant to this Article and determine whether
the proposed Project complies with this Article. In the Unincorporated Area the
County Engineer shall coordinate with the Planning Division whether the Site
Specific Development Order meets the other Concurrency Requirements of the
Plan. The procedures set forth in the Adequate Public Facilities Chapter, shall
control; except as to any appeals from this Article, in which case Art. 12.F, Appeals, of this Article shall control. Nothing
herein or in the Adequate Public Facilities Chapter shall preclude direct
informal communication between the County Engineer and the Applicant or his
agents. In the Unincorporated Area, a statement that an application for a Site
Specific Development Order is being considered shall be sent to any
Municipality within the proposed Project's Radius of Development Influence 30
days prior to the issuance of the Site Specific Development Order for all proposed
Projects generating more than 100 Gross Peak Hour Trips. The statement shall be
sent by U.S. Mail, or hand delivered.
New residential Projects generating fewer than or equal to 20
Gross Peak Hour Trips based on PBC’s adopted trip generation rates shall not be
required to submit a Traffic Impact Study. The Net Trips shall be distributed
over the Major Thoroughfare system by the County Engineer in accordance with
generally accepted traffic engineering principles.
Non-residential Projects generating less than or equal to 20
Gross Peak Hour Trips based on PBC’s adopted trip generation’s rates shall not
be required to submit a Traffic Impact Study. The Net Trips shall be
distributed over the Major Thoroughfare system by the County Engineer or in
accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering principles.
Projects generating less than or equal to 20 Gross Peak Hour
Trips based on PBC’s adopted trip generations rates shall not be required to
submit a Traffic Impact Study for an amendment, provided the total Project,
including the amendment, does not exceed 20 Gross Peak Hour Trips. The Net
Trips shall be distributed over the Major Thoroughfare system by the County
Engineer in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering principles.
On all proposed Projects having more than 100 Gross Peak Hour
Trips, the County Engineer shall have sole authority for reviewing Traffic
Impact Studies for purposes of determining compliance with this Article.
On all other proposed Projects the Municipality shall perform
such review unless the Municipality provides in writing, delivered to the
County, that the Municipality elects to require review by the County Engineer.
If the Municipality elects to perform the review, it shall be done by a
Municipal Engineer. The review shall be in accordance with the requirements of
this Article. In the case of Municipal review, 30 days prior to approval of the
application for the Site Specific Development Order, the Traffic Impact Study,
along with the determination of the reviewing traffic engineer, shall be sent
to the County Engineer, c/o Traffic Division, 2300 North Jog Road, West Palm
Beach, Florida, 33411. A statement that the Municipality is considering an
application for a Site Specific Development Order shall also be sent to any
Municipality within the Project's Radius of Development Influence involved 30
days prior to issuance of the Site Specific Development Order for all proposed
Projects generating more than one 100 Gross Peak Hour Trips. All documents
under this Article shall be sent by U.S. Mail, or hand delivered.
1. In the case of
all Site Specific Development Orders issued by the DRO, no application shall be
certified for inclusion on the DRO agenda if issuance of the Site Specific
Development Order would be prohibited by this Article.
2. In the case of
all other Site Specific Development Orders in the Unincorporated Area, no
application shall be accepted if issuance of the Site Specific Development
Order would be prohibited by this Article.
3. In all cases in
the Unincorporated Area if the Site Specific Development Order does not meet
the other Concurrency Requirements of the Plan, no application shall be
certified for inclusion on an agenda of a reviewing body or accepted, as the
case may be, except as otherwise provided by Art. 2.F,
Concurrency (Adequate Public Facility Standards).
4. In the case of
all Site Specific Development Order in the Incorporated Area, no Site Specific
Development Order shall be issued if such issuance would be prohibited by this
Article. In no case shall the Site Specific Development Order be issued prior
to 30 days following delivery of the notice in accordance with Art. 12.D.2.B,
Municipal Review.
Determinations of the County Engineer or Municipal Engineer must
be in writing and any denial shall state the reasons thereof. Determinations of
denial may be appealed pursuant to Art. 12.F, Appeals.
When the County Engineer has found the proposed Traffic
Impact Study to comply with the requirements of this Article, the County
Engineer shall issue an approval letter to the Applicant with copies to the
appropriate local governing bodies. This approval letter shall contain, at a
minimum, a summary of the project, its impacts on the surrounding roadway
network, and any Conditions of Approval necessary to ensure compliance with
this Article. The approval letter shall be valid no longer than one year from
date of issuance, unless an application for a Site Specific Development Order
has been approved, an application for a Site Specific Development Order has
been submitted, or the approval letter has been superseded by another approval
letter for the same property. [Ord.
2007-013] [Ord. 2009-040]
The BCC recognizes that a reasonable and beneficial economic
use of property should be afforded a Property Owner. This Section is intended
to implement the provisions in the Plan that allows a reasonable and beneficial
economic use of property while minimizing trip generation.
As to the Unincorporated Area, a Site Specific Development
Order may be issued for a Project not exceeding entitlement density or
intensity set forth in the Plan, provided the order is otherwise consistent
with the requirements of the Plan and land development regulations of PBC.
As to the Incorporated Area, a Site Specific Development
Order may be issued for a Project not exceeding entitlement density or
intensity as set forth in the Plan. As to residential land uses it shall be
based on the densities set forth in Figure 2 of the Land Use Element of the
Plan, that correspond to the Municipal density in its Comprehensive Plan, with
any density exceeding 18 dwelling units per acre receiving the entitlement level
set forth in the five to 18 dwelling unit-per-acre range. As to commercial and
industrial, entitlement shall be two and one-half percent of the maximum square
footage of floor area allowed under the land use category or zoning district of
the Municipality.
The BCC may exceed the limitations set forth in the Plan
upon a determination by the Board that the limitations permitted by the Article
would likely constitute a taking of land for public use for which compensation
would have to be paid pursuant to law. This Section may only be exercised upon
the special petition of the Property Owner to the BCC which affirmatively
demonstrates by substantial competent evidence that no other economically-feasible
land use which would generate less traffic for the subject property is
available because of: (1) this Article; (2) the nature of the land uses in the
area; (3) the size and configuration of the property; and, (4) other relevant
factors. The BCC shall receive the advice of the County Attorney and the County
Administrator, and any other person it deems appropriate in exercising its
discretion under this Section. If the subject lot is in the Incorporated Area,
the BCC shall consider the advice, if any, of the Municipality in which the lot
is located.
Except as specifically
provided in this Article, appeals from the decisions of the County Engineer or
Municipal Engineer, and from all traffic engineering decisions made pursuant to
this Article, shall be taken to the TPSAB. Appeals may be brought by the
Applicant, any Municipality within the Project's Radius of Development
Influence, and the County. The TPSAB shall consist of the Director of the MPO,
a professional traffic engineer employed by a Municipality as a traffic
engineer, a professional traffic engineer employed by another Florida county, a
professional traffic engineer employed by the FDOT, District IV, and a
professional traffic engineer who generally represents developers. Any
individual serving on the TPSAB shall not be a person who participated in the
decision being appealed, or who works for or is retained by a party to the
appeal or a person who would be directly affected by the matter being appealed
or the proposed Project to which the appeal relates. [Ord. 2011-016]
The appeal shall be requested in writing within 30 days of
the decision of the County Engineer or Municipal Engineer, as applicable. The
written request for the appeal shall state the grounds for objection. The
appellant shall be given written notice of the date, time, and place of the
TPSAB’s consideration of the appeal. The appeal shall be limited to the issues
raised in the objection.
The appellant shall present all relevant information to the
TPSAB. The appellant shall have the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that
the decision of the County Engineer or Municipal Engineer was in error. The County
Engineer or Municipal Engineer shall be entitled to present information.
Members shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed
in accordance with PBC rules and regulations.
A quorum shall consist of three members and a decision shall be
made by affirmative vote of a majority of the members.
The TPSAB shall base its decision on the requirements of this
Section and accepted traffic engineering principles. It shall state the reasons
for the decision. A decision shall be rendered within 60 days of receipt of the
written request for appeal.
The decision of the TPSAB may be appealed by Petition for Writ
of Certiorari to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court by either the Applicant
or a Local Government within 30 days of the decision. Consideration shall be
limited to the record established before the TPSAB.
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as a limitation
on the rights or remedies of any person. Appeals from decision of persons other
than the County Engineer or Municipal Engineer, and traffic engineering
decisions, shall be by appropriate action to a court of competent jurisdiction,
except as provided otherwise by law, including this Section.
It is recognized by the BCC that some Links and Major
Intersections are not planned to be widened to width, laneage, or geometrics
that can accommodate Traffic from the density/intensity and location of land
uses at the Generally Adopted LOS. The BCC may determine that additional
traffic impacts from new development should be permitted on these Constrained
Links and Major Intersections which are improved (or presumed to be improved
under Test 2) to their ultimate width, laneage, and geometrics as contemplated
by the Thoroughfare R-O-W Identification Map, Future Roadway System by Number
of Lanes Map, and/or MPO Cost Feasible Long-Range Plan. In some cases, the BCC
may designate a Link or Major Intersection as a temporary CRALLS in order to
allow development to occur prior to a planned roadway improvement project. When
the BCC makes a determination that a reduced LOS is appropriate on a
Constrained Facility, it shall be designated a Constrained Roadway at Lower
Level of Service (CRALLS). A County amendment to consider a CRALLS designation
will rely upon, as appropriate, the data and analysis provided by the Local Government
requesting the CRALLS designation. This Section establishes the procedures by
which a proposed CRALLS amendment is reviewed in order to ensure an appropriate
level of review. [Ord. 2011-016]
Constrained Facilities shall not automatically receive a reduced
LOS. Determinations of whether a reduced LOS shall be set on a Constrained
Facility, and what that LOS should be, shall be made by the BCC as part of a
text amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The BCC
may adopt a reduced LOS and shall specifically establish the LOS on the
Constrained Facility, if reduced. The CRALLS may be available for all Project Applicants
to utilize, or it may be limited for use by a Project or Projects specified by
the BCC. Implementation of mitigation strategies shall be a requirement for use
of the CRALLS by a Project. Any proposed reduction in the LOS on a SIS or FIHS
Roadway shall be reviewed and approved by the State if required by Florida law,
and the applying Local Government shall be responsible for coordinating with
and obtaining State approval that may be required. [Ord. 2011-016]
Local Governments shall request a reduced LOS on a Constrained
Facility by letter of intent up to 60 days and no later than 30 days prior to
the window closing date for the applicable Amendment Round. At least ten days
prior to delivering the letter of intent, the Local Government shall provide
written notice to the County Commissioner for the Commission District in which
the Facility is located. Proof of such written notice provided to the District
Commissioner, and the letter of intent, shall be delivered to the County
Engineer and Planning Director and shall contain supporting information
relating to the Determination Criteria of this Section. Upon receiving the
letter of intent, the Planning Director shall schedule a pre-application conference
prior to the Planning Commission meeting at which initiations for the next
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Round will be discussed. [Ord. 2011-001] [Ord.
2011-016]
Representatives from the following agencies shall be invited to
attend the pre-application conference: (1) Local Government making application;
(2) County including the Planning Division and County Engineering; (3) FDOT,
District IV; (4) Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; (5) MPO; and, (6)
Other Impacted Local Governments as determined by the County Engineer. Other
interested governmental agencies may also attend the pre-application conference
at their option. The purpose of the pre-application conference shall be to
identify the issues for consideration, the likely impact of the proposal, the
assumptions and changes made in socio-economic data (including justification
for such), the application requirements (including which should be waived, if
any), and to coordinate review. [Ord. 2011-016]
Within 30 days after BCC initiation, the applying Local
Government shall, unless it has already done so, submit a complete CRALLS
application, including data and analysis which addresses the Determination
Criteria listed herein. The level of data and study needed for existing and
Future Land Use to review an application for a CRALLS designation shall be
determined in the pre-application conference. The decision shall be made by the
County Engineer based upon the Major Thoroughfare Links and Major Intersections
involved, (whether they are or will be Collectors, minor Arterials, or
principal Arterials), the extent of the proposed lowering of the LOS, the size
of the area affected, the extent to which the affected area is built out to its
ultimate FLU, and the amount and quality of existing data and planning. The
application shall be forwarded to all affected Local Governments, the County
Engineer, the FDOT, District IV, in the case of State Highways, and the MPO for
review. The advice of the MPO shall be considered by the PLC and the BCC when
considering an application for a reduced LOS. [Ord. 2011-016]
In
determining whether a Constrained Facility shall have a reduced LOS and, if so,
what that LOS should be, and any conditions that shall be imposed, the Applicant,
PLC, and the BCC shall consider the following public policy criteria. The
Application and Amendment staff report shall include an analysis of the
proposed CRALLS against these criteria: [Ord.
2011-001] [Ord. 2011-016]
A. Cause of the constraint; e.g., whether the
laneage or geometrics are insufficient to accommodate projected traffic as a
result of concerns relating to physical limitations, fiscal limitations,
environmental areas, aesthetics, historically-significant development, or the
character-of-area or neighborhood and the impact of adding lanes or changing the
geometrics on such concerns. [Ord.
2011-016]
B. When more than one cause is identified, the extent to which each
contributes to the constraint shall be considered.
C. Existence of, or proposed, “reliever”
facilities and the proximity and continuity of such, and the extent to which
they presently, or are projected to, relieve the Constrained Link.
D. The existing and projected volume-to-capacity ratio given the
adopted FLUE of Local Governments' Comprehensive Plans.
E. The extent of vested Development Orders, and non-vested land use, zoning
district designations, or Development Orders.
F. The impact on the ability of Local Governments to allow development
consistent with their comprehensive plans; and the interjurisdictional
compatibility of the various Local Government Comprehensive Plans as related to
the Constrained Facility.
G. The practicability of adjusting land uses, zoning districts, and
uses therein.
H. The impact on the ability of the overall Major Thoroughfare system
in the area affected to function at the Generally Adopted LOS.
I. The length of the Constrained Link(s).
J. The option of modifying the Plan, including the Thoroughfare R-O-W
Identification Map, or other regulations to add lanes, improve geometrics or
reliever facilities.
K. Whether modifications can be made that would add capacity, and how
much capacity would be added.
L. A description of mitigation measures required to be implemented by
the Project(s) that would benefit from the proposed CRALLS. These include
vehicular and non-vehicular travel options to alleviate traffic congestion that
is anticipated to result from exceedance of the adopted LOS on the CRALLS Link
or Major Intersection. [Ord. 2011-016]
Only a Local Government may apply to the BCC to amend the
adopted width, proposed geometrics, or number of lanes of, or to eliminate a
Link or Major Intersection improvements. [Ord. 2011-016]
The application shall contain a detailed and comprehensive
traffic evaluation of all affected Links and Major Intersections, taking into
account existing, committed, and FLU development. [Ord. 2011-016]
The following criteria shall be considered by the BCC in
considering whether a Link's lanes, proposed geometrics, a Major Intersection's
proposed geometrics, or the R-O-W width adopted in the Plan should be amended
or a Link should be eliminated: [Ord. 2011-016]
1. Whether
improvements are proposed to the Link or Major Intersection under
consideration. [Ord. 2011-016]
2. Whether
improvements are proposed to reliever Links or Major Intersections and the
extent that such a reliever would impact traffic on the Link under consideration.
[Ord. 2011-016]
3. The physical
characteristics of the property adjacent to the Link or Major Intersection
under consideration. [Ord. 2011-016]
4. The character
of the area businesses or neighborhood adjacent to the Link or Major
Intersection under consideration, and the extent of impact on such. [Ord. 2011-016]
5. The projected
cost of adding additional capacity to the Link or Major Intersection, or
reliever facilities and the amount of capacity that would be added. [Ord. 2011-016]
6. The existing
and projected volume-to-capacity of the Link and the surrounding Major
Thoroughfares before and after the proposed modification. [Ord. 2011-016]
7. The projected
revenue for improving the Major Thoroughfare system and the likely priority of
various improvements to the Major Thoroughfare system. [Ord. 2011-016]
8. Environmental
character and the extent of impact on such. [Ord. 2011-016]
9. Historical
significance and the extent of impact on such. [Ord. 2011-016]
10. Aesthetics and
the extent of impact on such. [Ord.
2011-016]
11. Amount of
existing R-O-W, and cost to obtain additional R-O-W. [Ord. 2011-016]
12. Impact on the
provision of other public facilities. [Ord.
2011-016]
1. When an
application is made to eliminate a Link, narrow the adopted width of a Link,
modify the proposed geometrics of a Link, or Major Intersection, in a manner
that would reduce capacity, or reduce the number of lanes in the Plan, and that
elimination, narrowing, modification, or reduction would materially impede: (1)
the ability to achieve the Adopted LOS on the particular Link or Major
Intersection, or the Major Thoroughfare system; or (2) the ability of Local
Governments to allow development consistent with their FLU Elements of their
plans; the BCC shall require a review and determination of whether a reduced
LOS (CRALLS designation) should be set on the Link or other Links before the
BCC's eliminating the Link, narrowing the R-O-W width, modifying the proposed
geometrics, or reducing the number of lanes. In such a case, eliminating the
Link, narrowing the width or reducing the number of lanes shall require a
majority-plus-one vote of the members of the BCC. No elimination of the Link,
narrowing of the width, or modifying of the proposed geometrics in a manner
that would reduce capacity, or reducing the number of lanes on a Link shall be
effected until any necessary adjustments are made to: (1) the Major
Thoroughfare system (including capacity improvements or lower the levels of
service, as appropriate); (2) or the land uses have been made to accommodate
the elimination, narrowing, modification, or reduction. [Ord. 2011-016]
2. If it is clear
that no impediment to: (1) achieving the adopted LOS; or (2) Local Governments
allowing development consistent with the FLUE of their plans would result, the
BCC may, by a majority vote of its members narrow the adopted width, modify the
proposed geometrics of a Link, or Major Intersection, or reduce the number of
lanes in the Plan without PLC review. Nothing herein shall require CRALLS
review, application to the PLC, or notice to any Local Government for minor
modifications to the proposed Major Thoroughfare system which do not reduce
capacity of the Link, Major Intersection, or Major Thoroughfare System. Nothing
herein shall require PLC review for waivers of expanded intersection
requirements or R-O-W protection pursuant to Policy 2-d of the Transportation
Element of the Plan. [Ord. 2011-001]
[Ord. 2011-016]
The
Coastal Residential exception to the LOS requirements of this Article promotes
urban infill and deters urban sprawl. It also promotes redevelopment. It
provides closer proximity of residential uses to commercial uses and employment
bases, thereby reducing the impact on the overall Major Thoroughfare system,
pollution, the use of fossil fuels and other resources, and the travel time and
needs of the public. Because it applies only to the Incorporated Area, it also
promotes annexation of Unincorporated Areas. Therefore, the public benefits of
an uncrowded and efficient road system promoted by this Article are also
promoted generally (but not necessarily on a specific Link or Major
Intersection) by the creation of a Coastal Residential exception to the LOS
requirements of this Article. The Coastal Residential exception may also result
in more integration in the PBC School system.
Because of these public
benefits, there is hereby established pursuant to Policy 1.2-a of the Transportation
Element of the Plan a Coastal Residential exception which shall be within the
Incorporated Area east of I-95, north of the Broward County line, west of the
Atlantic Ocean (excluding the barrier island), and south and east of a boundary
from I-95 along PGA Boulevard to Prosperity Farms Road, then north to the
western prolongation of the northern boundary of Juno Isles, then east to a
point 600 feet west of U.S. Highway One, then north to the northern boundary of
Juno Beach, then east to the Atlantic Ocean. It shall also be the Incorporated Area
bounded on the south by the north boundary of the Jupiter Hospital, and its
eastern and western prolongation between the Atlantic Ocean and Military Trail;
bounded on the west by Military Trail and its northern prolongation to the
North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, then meandering northwest along the
northeast shore of the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River to the Martin County
Line; bounded on the north by the Martin County Line; and, bounded on the east
by the Atlantic Ocean, excluding the barrier island. It shall allow such
residential Projects, and the residential portion of mixed use Projects that
otherwise meet the standards of this Article, in Incorporated Areas to receive
a Site Specific Development Order notwithstanding the standards of this
Article. The Coastal Residential Exception shall not apply to conditions or
limitations placed on residential Projects or the residential component of
mixed use projects that are located within the boundaries of a Transportation
Concurrency Exemption Area as designated pursuant to Art. 12.L,
Transportation Concurrency Exemption for Projects That Promote Public
Transportation. [Ord. 2005-002]
The Applicant shall submit a traffic study providing Traffic
Generation, Assignment throughout the Test 1 Radius of Development Influence,
and Projections of future traffic at the site access. Traffic Impact Studies
for mixed use Projects must provide separate distributions and assignments for
the residential and non-residential components.
Nothing in this Article shall be construed as derogating the
requirement under F.S.
ch. 163 that Municipalities set the LOS on PBC and State roads consistent
with the PBC and State LOS to the maximum extent feasible. [Ord. 2019-005]
The purpose and intent of this optional alternative
transportation concurrency approach is to promote infill development within
selection portions of urban areas in a manner that supports the provision of
more efficient mobility alternatives, including public transit. As a
coordinated approach to land use and transportation development, the use of an
area-wide LOS standard and an accommodation and management of traffic
congestion may be employed. A TCMA is a compact geographic area within existing
or proposed multiple, viable alternative travel paths, or modes for common
trips.
An area-wide LOS standard may be established for specific
facilities in common corridors within a TCMA. The area-wide Level of Service
standard must be maintained, as a basis for the issuance of Development Orders
and permits within the TCMA. The area-wide LOS standard may only be established
for facilities on common corridors with similar functions, serving common
origins and destinations.
A. The designation of a TCMA and the establishment of an area-wide
LOS standard must be supported by data and analysis which:
1. Demonstrate
that the TCMA is compatible with and furthers the various portions and Elements
of the Plan. When in a Municipality, the data and analysis shall also
demonstrate that the TCMA is compatible with and furthers the various portions
and elements of the Local Government's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Provide
justification for the size and boundary of the TCMA for consistency with the
purpose of promoting the stated purpose of a TCMA.
3. Demonstrate
that the TCMA contains an integrated and connected network of roads and
provides multiple, viable alternative travel paths, or modes for common trips.
4. Demonstrate the
basis for establishing the area-wide LOS standard and determine the existing
and projected transportation facilities and services requirements that will
support the requested area-wide LOS standards.
5. Demonstrate
that the area-wide LOS standard and other transportation services and programs
will support infill development and redevelopment.
6... Demonstrate that the planned roadway
improvements and other transportation services and programs will accomplish
mobility within and through the TCMA. The programs may include, but not be
limited to Transportation System Management (TSM), Transportation Demand
Management (TDM), and incentives to promote public transit such as parking
policies and provisions for intermodal transfer.
7. Identify the
impacts on other Local Governments, if any.
B. The Local Government shall establish and maintain an internally
consistent transportation, land use, and capital improvement planning program.
These programs shall be sufficient to meet and maintain the established area-wide
LOS standard.
A. At least 30 days prior to a Local Government submitting a Plan
Amendment for a TCMA, a pre-application conference shall be held. This
pre-application meeting will be coordinated with the Planning Director. It will
include representatives from the Local Government initiating the Plan
Amendment, the County Traffic Division and Planning Division, the MPO, the
FDOT, District IV, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
B. Another conference shall be held with the representatives
identified above within 30 days of receipt by the initiating Local Government
of the State planning agency's Objection, Recommendation and Comments Report.
C. The TCMA shall not become effective until the following actions
are taken:
1. The BCC finds
the designation of the TCMA to be consistent with the Plan.
2. The BCC finds
the area-wide LOS standard to be appropriate, and can be maintained.
3. The BCC adopts
an amendment to the Plan establishing the TCMA.
4. A Final Order
is issued by the DCA finding the amendment or amendments in compliance.
The purpose and intent of this flexible transportation
concurrency option approach is to reduce the adverse impact transportation
concurrency may have on urban infill development and redevelopment and the
achievement of other goals and policies of the State comprehensive plan, such
as promoting the development of public transportation. Under limited
circumstances, it allows exceptions to the standards of this Article in defined
urban areas. The exceptions provide flexibility for concurrency management in
order to encourage the application of a wide range of planning strategies that
correspond with the local circumstances of a specific geographic area. The
exceptions apply to all land uses and development and types of facilities
within the expressly excepted area.
A Local Government must designate a TCEA in its
comprehensive plan. A TCEA will be allowed only in one of the following areas:
A. A specific geographic area delineated in the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan for urban infill development. Such an area shall meet the
following requirements:
1. The area shall
contain no more than ten percent developable vacant land. Developable vacant
land shall not include water bodies and land designated for conservation use,
natural reservations, public road R-O-W, public recreation sites, or other areas
or uses designated in the Local Government's Comprehensive Plan as unavailable
for development.
2. For
areas where residential uses are the dominant types of uses, comprising greater
than 60 percent of the developed land, the average residential density shall be
at least five dwelling units per gross residentially developed acre of land.
3. For
areas where non-residential uses are the dominant types of uses, comprising
greater than 60 percent of the developed land, the average non-residential
intensity shall be at least a FAR of 1.0 per gross non-residentially developed
acre of land.
4. If neither
residential nor non-residential uses comprise more than 60 percent of the
developed land, then both the existing residential uses and non-residential
uses shall meet the appropriate density and intensity criteria prescribed in Art. 12.K.2.A.2 and Art. 12.K.2.A.3 above.
The term “gross developed acre” shall include all uses associated with the
predominant land use including roads, parking, drainage, open space,
landscaping, and other support facilities.
B. A specific geographic area delineated in the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan for urban redevelopment. The urban redevelopment area must
be within an urban infill area or within an existing urban service area that
does not contain more than 40 percent developable land.
C. A specific geographic area delineated in the Local Government Plan
for downtown revitalization within the designated central business district.
A. The designation of a TCEA must be supported by data and analysis which:
1. Demonstrate
that the TCEA is compatible with and furthers the various portions and Elements
of the Plan. When in a Municipality, it shall also demonstrate that the TCEA is
compatible with and furthers the various portions and elements of the Local Government's
Plan.
2. Provide
justification for the size and boundary of the TCEA for consistency with the
purpose of promoting the stated purpose of a TCEA.
3. Identify the
impacts on other Local Governments, if any.
B. To implement the TCEA, the Local Government's Comprehensive Plan
must contain guidelines and policies which specify programs to meet the
transportation needs of the TCEA. The guidelines may contain a wide range of
strategies that include: timing and staging plans, parking control and pricing
policies, TSM, TDM, incentives to promote public transit, and the utilization
of creative financing tools for the provision of transportation services and
facilities.
C. The guidelines and policies and programs to implement the TCEA
must demonstrate by supporting data and analysis, including short and
long-range traffic analysis, that consideration has been given to the impacts
of the proposed development within the TCEA on the FIHS and SIS. [Ord. 2009-040]
A. At least 30 days prior to a Local Government transmitting a Plan
Amendment for a TCEA to the DCA, a pre-application conference shall be held.
This pre-application meeting will be coordinated with the Planning Director. It
will include representatives from the Local Government initiating the Plan
amendment, PBC Traffic Division and Planning Division, the MPO, the FDOT,
District IV, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
B. Another conference shall be held with the representatives
identified above within 30 days of receipt by the initiating Local Government
of the State planning agency's Objection, Recommendation and Comments Report.
C. The TCEA shall not become effective until the following actions
are taken:
1. The BCC finds
the designation of the TCEA to be consistent with the Plan.
2. The BCC adopts
an amendment to the Plan establishing the TCEA.
3. A Final Order
is issued by the DCA finding the amendment or amendments in compliance.
A
traffic study providing Traffic Generation, Assignment throughout the Test 1
Radius of Development Influence and Projections of future traffic at the site
access must be submitted to PBC for proposed Project within the limits of a
TCEA.
The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow a Local Government
to grant an exception from the concurrency requirements for transportation
facilities for Projects which promote public transportation. F.S.
§ 163.3164(28) defines Projects that promote public transportation as those
that “directly affect the provisions of public transit, including transit
terminals, transit lines and routes, separate lanes for the exclusive use of
public transit services, transit stops (shelters and stations), office
buildings or projects that include fixed-rail or transit terminals as part of
the building, and projects which are transit oriented and designed to
complement reasonably proximate planned or existing public facilities.” Under
limited circumstances, it allows exceptions to the standards of this Article in
defined urban areas. The exception requires that Projects establish meaningful
facilities and programs that promote public transportation.
This exception is limited to Projects that meet the
requirements of Art.
12.L.2.A and Art.
12.L.2.B, below:
A. The Project must be determined to be a Project which
promote economic development through job creation. At a minimum, the Project
shall be 200 acres in size, and create, at Project Buildout, not less than
5,000 jobs at the Project site.
1. For a Project
located in the Unincorporated Area, the BCC shall make a determination that the
jobs created shall be of a type and within a salary range that promote economic
development.
2. For a Project
located in the Incorporated Area, the BCC and the Municipal Commission shall
make determinations that the jobs created shall be of a type and within a
salary range that promote economic development.
B. The Project must be developed, owned, and operated by
a not-for-profit agency. The Project and agency shall provide essential public services.
At a minimum, the Project shall be 20 acres in size, and create, at build-out,
not less than 2,000 jobs at the Project site.
1. For a Project
located in the Unincorporated Area, the BCC shall make a determination that the
Project and agency provide essential public services.
2. For a Project located in the Incorporated Area,
the BCC and the Municipal Commission shall make determinations that the Project
and agency provide essential public services.
C. A Project that meets the requirements of Art. 12.L.2.A or Art. 12.L.2.B above may
be a mixed use Project, incorporating residential and/or commercial components.
However, in no event shall residential and/or commercial retail uses combine to
comprise more than 45 percent of the square footage of the GFA.
This exception is limited to Project that meet the following
location criteria:
A. The Project shall not be located within the Coastal High Hazard
Area.
B. All Projects must be located within PBC’s U/S Tier and be adjacent
to (i.e., abutting or separated only by other public or governmental R-O-W) the
Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority line, or be adjacent to a street which is
served by Palm Tran.
All Projects shall, at a minimum, provide all of the
following transportation amenities:
A. The Project shall provide a site to Tri-Rail at the
Project site, adjacent to the Tri-Rail tracks, for a station platform, ticket
booth, and parking for at least 400 automobiles. When a Project is not adjacent
to Tri-Rail, it shall provide a bus stop facility capable of handling two or
more Palm Tran buses at a time with a covered waiting area of sufficient size
to accommodate at least two percent of its employees.
B. The Project shall provide a financial incentive in the
form of a subsidy of at least 50 percent of the annual ticket cost to at least
five percent of the persons employed at the Project site for riding Tri-Rail
and/or Palm Tran to and from the Project site for a minimum of 200 working days
per year. As an alternative, the development may provide equivalent funds
directly to Palm Tran to subsidize this service.
C. The Project shall provide a ridesharing information
service to persons employed at the Project site.
D. The Project shall provide emergency transportation to
those employees using mass transit, ridesharing, or other alternative modes of
transportation (i.e. bicycles or pedestrian).
E. The Project shall apply access management techniques along all
roadways fronting the Project.
F. The Project shall provide external pedestrian access to the
Project, as well as an internal pedestrian system, accommodating persons with
disabilities, as well as persons using alternative modes of transportation to
the automobile.
G. The Project shall enter into an agreement with PBC to provide the
provisions to promote public transportation detailed in Art. 12.L.4.A, Art. 12.L.4.B, Art. 12.L.4.C, and Art. 12.L.4.D above, in
perpetuity. The Project will submit an annual monitoring report to the Palm
Beach Planning Director that demonstrates that the requirements in Art. 12.L.4.A, Art. 12.L.4.B, Art. 12.L.4.C, and Art. 12.L.4.D above are
being met. Each annual report shall be due on the anniversary of the first CO.
Projects utilizing this exemption will submit a traffic
study that is consistent with all of the provisions of this Article. They shall
also provide a transportation analysis that illustrates their impact on the
FIHS and SIS to ensure that those impacts are considered in the approval
process. [Ord. 2009-040]
Projects utilizing this exemption may be required to provide
roadway, intersection, and/or signalization improvements to minimize their
impact on the road network. These improvement will be determined by the County
Engineer.
Projects meeting the above requirements may apply for
parking reductions pursuant to applicable codes.
The BCC of PBC Florida finds that the 1990 Traffic
Performance Code adopted by Art. 12.A, General,
through Art.
12.L, Transportation Concurrency Exemption for Projects That Promote Public
Transportation is premised on PBC’s commitment to adhere to and implement
the adopted PBC Five-Year Program Ordinance, referred to as “Five-Year Road
Program” in this Article and the 1989 PBC Plan, as amended, (referred to as “Plan”
in this Section). PBC’s failure to maintain its commitment to adhere to and
implement its adopted Five-Year Road Program as set forth in this Section,
shall result in a review and reconsideration of the adopted LOS contained in this
Article, and in the Plan.
The Five-Year Road
Program was adopted by the BCC of PBC by Ord.
No. 85-40. In that Ordinance, as amended, and in the Plan, PBC adopted a
reasonably attainable program of roadway construction for a five-year period
and matched the construction of Projects with projected funding. Ord.
No. 85-40, as amended, further provides that prior to December of each
year, the BCC shall consider the Ordinance to modify the list of Projects to
create a viable list of funded Projects for the succeeding five years. The
modification to the Five-Year Road Program shall continue to include, at a
minimum, a description of the Road Project, the type of road construction
required, and the amount of money to be spent each fiscal year for plan
preparation, R-O-W acquisition, and actual construction.
The deletion of construction Projects from the Five-Year Road
Program may be done no more frequently than twice a year. For purposes of this
Section, “deletion of a construction Project” shall mean the elimination of the
construction Project, the failure to let a road construction contract, the
removal of or failure to establish funding of the construction Project, the
material reduction in the scope of work or funding (as it affects the
construction Project), or the postponement of the construction Project in the
Five-Year Road Program for more than two years beyond the year the construction
was originally programmed in the 1988-92 Five-Year Road Program or in the
Five-Year Road Program in which the construction was first added after 1987. It
does not include delays associated with R-O-W acquisition as a result of
judicial decision, redesign after the contract has been let, construction, or
other delays not under the control of PBC.
Prior to approving the
deletion of any construction Project from the County's Five-Year Road Program,
the BCC must find; (1) that the deletion of the construction Project will not
result in any Link or intersection on the road network operating at greater
than the Adopted LOS as defined in this Article if such Link would not have
operated at greater than the Adopted LOS as defined in this Article had the
Project been constructed as originally programmed in the adopted Five-Year Road
Program; and (2) that no Project which was approved and phased based upon such
Assured Construction would be denied Building Permits because of the deletion
of the construction. If both findings can be made, then the construction
Project may be eliminated by a majority vote except, if the Project is in the
current fiscal year, in which case a majority plus one vote is required. If
only the second finding can be made, then a Project not in the current fiscal
year could be deleted by a majority plus one vote. However, in no case may a
Project be deleted when the second finding cannot be made.
Notwithstanding the above, a Project may be deleted if an
equivalent substitute Project replaces the original Project, in the same fiscal
year. An equivalent substitute Project is a roadway Project in the same area
that will serve substantially the same trips as the original Project. This
substitution may be made by a majority plus one vote.
Concurrent with the adoption of the annual Five-Year Road
Program, the BCC shall determine whether PBC has adhered to and implemented its
Five-Year Road Program. In order to make the determination that PBC had adhered
to and implemented its adopted Five-Year Road Program, the BCC must find the
following based upon substantial competent evidence:
The amount of funding of the current fiscal year of the
Five-Year Road Program is, at a minimum, as contemplated in the Plan and the
Five-Year Road Program.
The new fifth year being added to the Five-Year Road Program
with Projects added to the Five-Year Road Program at a rate contemplated in the
Plan.
Fewer than 20 percent of the programmed road construction
Projects (on a line-item basis) from the preceding fiscal year over which PBC
has control are more than 12 months behind schedule.
If the BCC does not continue to fund the Five-Year Road
Program in accordance with the Plan, or does not continue to add Projects to
the Five-Year Road Program at a rate contemplated in the Plan, as corrected,
updated, or modified as permissible in F.S.
§ 163.3177(3)(b); or construction Projects consisting of 20 percent or more
of the programmed construction Projects (on a line-item basis) from the
preceding fiscal year over which PBC has control are more than 12 months behind
schedule as determined after the effective date of this Section, above, the BCC
shall review the adopted LOS to determine whether it is realistic, adequate,
and financially feasible.
PBC shall undertake data collection and review of such
regarding Major Intersection capacity and peak hour Link capacity, along with
ADT capacity. It shall use this information in programming Major Thoroughfare
system improvements in the Five-Year Road Program.
The objective shall be to effectively spend available funds
so as to maximize capacity, balancing the amount of capacity added, the cost of
improvements, the time the improvements will be utilized, and the “expandability”
of those improvements to the ultimate section of road. Volume to ADT capacity
ratios shall be the preliminary criterion for prioritizing funding of
improvements. Due consideration shall be given to the amount of area opened up
for development as a result of the various improvements. Deferral or
elimination of Link improvements made unnecessary as a result of: (1) other
Major Thoroughfare system improvements, such as intersection improvements; or
(2) refined capacity analysis, shall not be considered the deletion of a road
improvement, unless the deletion is of a Project scheduled for construction of
the first year of the Five-Year Road Program or was scheduled for construction
in the first year of a previous Five-Year Road Program. When evaluating whether
a particular improvement should be deleted from the Five-Year Road Improvement
Program, due consideration shall be given to previous reliance of improvements
scheduled in the Five-Year Road Program.
In addition, the analysis shall identify improvements to
relieve traffic demands on all deficient facilities which are not included in
the Five-Year Road Program. PBC shall estimate traffic volumes to be on the
roadway network at the end of the last year in the Five-Year Road Program and
determine what additional improvements will be needed to meet those future
traffic demands. These plans will be developed initially in 1991 and presented
to the BCC annually in conjunction with the review and approval of the
Five-Year Road Program, beginning in 1992. Consideration will be given to
staging improvements by constructing intersection improvements or other spot
roadway improvements such that maximum roadway system and funding efficiency
are achieved. These improvements shall be included in the analysis but will not
be required to be identified for construction in a certain year.
This Chapter concerning Project aggregation shall apply only
to a Lot in existence on or after March 31, 2003 or to a Project with a
Development Order, an Agreement, or both, approved after March 31, 2003 that is
subject to a Condition of Approval that expressly provides for Project
aggregation. This Subsection shall not apply to Developments located within a
designated Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) or “urban infill” area as defined
in F.S.
§ 163.3164.
Two or more land uses, or group of land uses, or land
development activity or activities, or amendment(s) thereto (hereafter “Developments”),
which require a Development Order(s), represented by their owners or developers
to be separate Developments, shall be aggregated and treated as a single Project
when each of the following criteria in paragraphs (1) through (3) is met.
A. The Developments generate more than 500 peak hour, two-way trips
when aggregated.
B. The same Person owns or has a significant legal or equitable
interest or an option to obtain significant legal or equitable interest in each
Development. A “significant legal or equitable interest” means that the same
Person has an interest or an option to obtain an interest of more than 25
percent in each Development for the following types of interests: (1) a fee
simple estate; (2) a leasehold estate of more than 30 years duration; (3) a
life estate, or (4) similar equitable, beneficial, or real property interests
in the Developments. A lessor’s interest in a lease of more than 30 years is not
a significant legal or equitable interest
C. The Developments are part of a unified plan of development as
evidenced by meeting at least two of the following:
1. There is a
period of two years or less between the issuance of the first Building Permit,
or issuance of a Development Order if the first Building Permit has not been
issued, for one Development and subsequent traffic concurrency application for
another Development. This subparagraph shall apply only if any portion of the
parcels that contain the Developments: a) presently share a common boundary; or
b) previously shared a common boundary or existed as a single parcel within two
years from the date the earliest of the Developments received traffic
concurrency approval.
2. The Developments are physically proximate to
one other. Two or more Developments shall be considered “physically proximate”
when any portion of two or more Developments is contiguous or separated by a
road R-O-W or public canal easement of 140 feet or less.
3. A Master Plan
or series of plans or drawings exists covering the Developments sought to be
aggregated which have been submitted to a local general-purpose government,
SFWMD, local drainage or improvement special district, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the FDEP, or the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and
Mobile Homes for authorization to commence development. The existence or
implementation of a utility's master utility plan required by the Public
Service Commission or general-purpose Local Government or a master drainage
plan shall not be the sole determinant of the existence of a Master Plan which
aggregates Developments; or,
4. The voluntary
sharing of infrastructure that is indicative of a common development effort or
is designated specifically to accommodate the Developments sought to be
aggregated, except that which was implemented because it was required by a
local general-purpose government, SFWMD, local drainage or improvement special
district, the Army Corps of Engineers, the FDEP, the Division of Florida Land
Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, or the Public Service Commission. “Sharing
of infrastructure” means the voluntary joint use by two or more Developments of
internal roadways, internal recreational facilities or parks, amenities, or
water, sewage, or drainage facilities specifically constructed to accommodate
the Developments sought to be aggregated. Shared infrastructure does not
include:
a... Any joint or shared use of private or
public infrastructure specifically required under an established policy of
general applicability as set forth under a comprehensive plan adopted pursuant
to F.S.
ch. 163, an adopted Local Government ordinance or resolution, State Statute,
or by adopted rule of regional or State regulatory agencies;
b. Any joint or
shared use of public recreational facilities or parks so long as they were not
conveyed by a person with a significant legal or equitable interest in the
Developments sought to be aggregated;
c. Any joint or
shared use of publicly financed drainage or stormwater management facilities,
roadways, or water or sewer facilities which were not constructed or financed
specifically to accommodate the Developments considered for aggregation;
d... Design features, financial
arrangements, donations, or construction that is specified in and required by
an Agreement between PBC and two or more Developments; or,
e. Cross access or
shared driveways.
5. There is a
common advertising scheme or promotional plan in effect for the Developments
sought to be aggregated. “Common advertising scheme or promotional plan” means
any depiction, illustration, or announcement which indicates a shared
commercial promotion of two or more Developments as components of a single
Development and is designed to encourage sales or leases of property.
This Chapter concerning Project Aggregation is intended to
prevent the division of one large Project into several smaller Projects in
order to circumvent the purpose of this Article, not to aggregate separate and
discrete Projects. Certain activities and circumstances, including the
following, shall not be used by the County Engineer to aggregate two or more
Developments:
A. Activities undertaken leading to the adoption or amendment of any
Plan element described in F.S.
ch. 163, pt. II.
B. The sale of unimproved parcels of land, where the seller does not
retain significant legal or equitable interest in the future development of the
parcels.
C. The fact that the same lender has a financial interest, including
one acquired through foreclosure, in two or more parcels, so long as the lender
is not an active participant in the planning, management, or development of the
parcels in which it has an interest.
D. Drainage improvements that are not designed to specifically
accommodate the Developments sought to be aggregated.
E. Use of the same real estate broker to market and sell two or more
Developments.
F. Agreements to authorize owners or developers to pool impact fees
or impact fee credits, or to enter into front-end agreements or other financing
arrangements by which they collectively agree to design, finance, donate, or
build such public infrastructure, facilities, or services.
G. Nothing herein shall prevent the development of a portion of a
parcel owned by one Person where no unified plan of development for the
remainder of the parcel, or portion thereof, is evidenced.
A. In order to aggregate two or more Developments pursuant to this
Chapter, the County Engineer shall provide written notice of intent to
aggregate. This notice shall be delivered by certified mail to all affected Applicants
seeking traffic concurrency approval. The notice of intent to aggregate shall:
identify the Developments sought to be aggregated; explain the effect of
aggregation on the Developments in the event a final determination has been
made by PBC to aggregate the Developments; and, indicate that an affected
current owner may appeal the decision of the County Engineer pursuant to Art. 12.D, Procedure,
of this Article.
B. If the County Engineer’s notice of intent to aggregate is not
appealed, or if the TPSAB, or a court of competent jurisdiction, ultimately
affirms the decision of the County Engineer to aggregate, the Developments
shall be considered a single Project for the purposes of traffic concurrency. Once
aggregated, the Applicant or Applicants seeking traffic concurrency approval
shall prepare and submit to the County Engineer a single Traffic Impact Study
that analyzes the aggregated Developments as a single Project. The Traffic
Impact Study shall be subject to the review and procedural standards set forth
in Art. 12.A.1.A,
Intent, of this Code. Such review and procedural standards shall not affect
the terms and conditions of an already approved Development Order, a prior
Agreement, or both, related to traffic concurrency approval of an aggregated
Development.
This Chapter shall be applied only for the purpose of
evaluating the traffic impacts of a Project pursuant to the requirements of this Article.
Section 6 Traffic Concurrency
The application materials used for traffic concurrency
approval shall be amended to require an Applicant to state whether or not the
Project is subject to aggregation as set forth in this Chapter.
Portions
of this Chapter concerning aggregation are based on the aggregation regulations
for DRI, codified in F.S. § 380.0651. Unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise, the terms used in this Chapter shall have the same meaning
and application as those terms that are provided for in the State regulation.
The purpose of the Okeechobee Boulevard CRALLS Point System
is to provide a means for approving new land development/redevelopment projects
that will have significant traffic impacts on Okeechobee Boulevard, but will
provide acceptable mitigation for those impacts. In the case of Okeechobee
Boulevard, there are few undeveloped properties without development approvals
that could still have significant traffic impact on the roadway. To allow for
reasonable and beneficial economic use of these properties, the PBC BCC has
determined that Okeechobee Boulevard from Military Trail to Jog Road is a constrained
roadway facility where significant traffic impacts from new development can be
evaluated at a lower LOS standard than what is normally allowed. The mitigation
of impacts for Okeechobee Boulevard by the Strategies contained in this Point
System will be accomplished in the following ways: [Ord. 2006-036] [Ord.
2010-022]
A. Reduction of single-occupant vehicle trips by encouraging
ridesharing, diversion to alternate travel modes, and telecommuting. [Ord.
2006-036]
B. Reduction of peak hour vehicle trips by shifting these trips to
other time periods. [Ord. 2006-036]
C. Reduction of land use densities and intensities for proposed
development/redevelopment. [Ord. 2006-036]
D. Increase in land use densities and intensities for proposed
development/redevelopment only in cases where land use mix maximizes internal
trip capture and promotes feasibility of mass transit modes. [Ord. 2006-036]
In addition to the standards imposed by this Article, all proposed
Projects with significant Project Traffic on the Okeechobee Boulevard corridor
from Jog Road to Military Trail shall be subject to the Okeechobee Boulevard
CRALLS Point System. [Ord. 2006-036] [Ord. 2010-022]
Applicants must choose from 14 mitigation strategies set forth
in this Chapter to accumulate points necessary for Development Order approval. Point
totals shall be calculated pursuant to the Point System methodology. Applicants
meeting the minimum required point totals will receive traffic concurrency
approval provided all of the other standards of this Article have been met. [Ord. 2006-036]
Applications must include a traffic study demonstrating
compliance with Test 1 and Test 2 of this Article. Applications must also include
a study identifying the mitigation strategies to be used by the Project, and a
calculation of total points earned as a result. Applications shall initially be
submitted to the County Engineer for review and comment to determine
completeness. An application shall be found complete if it contains sufficient
and accurate data and analysis for the County Engineer to determine whether or
not the application complies with this Chapter. Any deficiencies in the
completeness of an application identified by the County Engineer must be
corrected and resubmitted in order for the application to be considered. [Ord. 2006-036]
PBC shall impose Conditions of Approval and the recording of
restrictive covenants as necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements
of this Chapter. All Conditions of Approval shall be made part of the traffic concurrency
and Development Order approved by the County or Municipality, as the case may
be. [Ord. 2006-036]
Development Order conditions imposed upon projects in the Unincorporated
Area will be monitored by the County Engineer. For Development Orders imposed
upon projects within Municipalities, monitoring reports with prescribed format
and documentation shall be submitted to the relevant Municipality, as well as
the County Engineer as required in Art. 12.P, Mitigation
Strategies. Failure to meet the requirements of any strategy, any Condition
of Approval imposed pursuant to this Chapter, or any monitoring report required
by this Chapter, may result in enforcement action including but not limited to
Code Enforcement actions and actions to modify or revoke the concurrency
approval, Development Order, or both. [Ord.
2006-036]
If the Property Owner wishes to alter an existing strategy or
substitute another mitigation strategy or strategies after receiving initial
Development Order Conditions of Approval for qualification under the Point
System, then an application for a Development Order Amendment must be filed for
approval by PBC. For Projects located in Municipalities, alteration or
substitution of alternative strategies must be reviewed and approved by the
County Engineer before the application for Development Order Amendment is
submitted to the Municipality. If an approvable mitigation strategy of
equivalent or greater points is substituted, or if the County Engineer determines
that an alteration of an existing strategy provides mitigation equal to or
greater than originally approved, the development will not need to qualify
again for approval under the Point System. [Ord.
2006-036]
Each approval shall be subject to specific time limitations. Expiration
of the concurrency or failure to commence development as set forth in Art. 2.E.2.C, Time
Limitations for Commencement, will result in actions to modify or revoke
the concurrency approval, Development Order, or both. If revoked, the capacity
reserved will be returned to the system. [Ord.
2006-036]
Notwithstanding the peak hour trip threshold set forth in Art. 12.D, Procedure,
projects located in Municipalities that require the Okeechobee Boulevard CRALLS
in order to meet the County Traffic Performance Standards shall be subject to
the requirements of this Chapter. Additional land use regulations may be
imposed by the Municipality in conjunction with Point System review. [Ord. 2006-036]
This strategy consists of providing a mixed use development near
a transit corridor. (This strategy cannot be combined with Strategy 2, Mixed
Use Development around Transit Centers.) [Ord. 2006-036]
a. The transit
corridor must be no more than one-quarter mile walking distance from the
nearest building entrance, and must include ADA accessible pedestrian pathways
and provide access to transit services and adjoining uses. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Off-street
parking areas shall be located and designed in a manner that supports and does
not conflict with pedestrian activity. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. A Master Plan
or Site Plan must be developed to show how parcels will integrate with one
another, and to dictate the build-out timeframe. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Uses must be
identified within the Master Plan or Site Plan. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. The Master Plan
or Site Plan shall be approved as part of the Development Order. [Ord.
2006-036]
f. Minimum floor
area ratio must be 0.5 per net acre. [Ord. 2006-036]
g. Minimum
residential floor area must equal 60 percent of total and net residential trips
must constitute at least one-quarter of total net a.m. or p.m. trips for the
development. [Ord. 2006-036]
h. Non-residential
land uses shall include retail or a combination of retail and office or
industrial, with retail constituting a minimum of ten percent of the total
floor area for all land uses. Retail uses shall constitute a limited commercial
facility of a convenience nature, serving residential neighborhoods within a
one-half mile radius, located on a Local, Collector, or Arterial Street. [Ord.
2006-036]
The implementation timeframe will be defined as part of the
Master Plan/Development Order. Master Plans and Development Orders for phased
developments must include interim qualifying criteria consistent with the above
criteria. At each phase of development, before CO will be granted, the interim
criteria must be met. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. At the conclusion
of each phase of development, the County Engineer must confirm that the interim
or final criteria are met prior to issuance of the first CO for the following
phase. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. As part of the
development approval process, a restrictive covenant must be recorded against
all parcels of the development indicating the minimum and maximum percentages
allowed for each land use. PBC shall be granted the authority to enforce the
covenants, along with other parties, if any, to be determined during development
review. PBC shall not allow the conversion of uses that would result in a
project’s failure to meet specified requirements. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. By April 1 of
each year, starting April 1 after the first full year after the first CO, the
developer, or their agent, must supply a service report to the County Engineer
as well as Municipality if applicable, identifying the uses on site and the
percentage or square footage each use encompasses. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Two years
following Project Buildout, the developer, owner, or agent as appropriate may
request alteration of existing strategy or substitution of alternative
strategies pursuant to Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. 0.4 for FAR 0.5
or higher per net acre, and at least 60 percent of the total square footage
must be dedicated to residential use; [Ord. 2006-036]
b. 0.6 for FAR
0.75 or higher per net acre, and at least 70 percent of the total square footage
must be dedicated to residential use; or, [Ord. 2006-036]
c. 0.8 for FAR 1.0
or higher per net acre, and at least 80 percent of the total square footage
must be dedicated to residential use. [Ord. 2006-036]
This strategy consists of developing a mixed use project near a
transit center located on a transit corridor as either a unified or parcelized
development. This strategy cannot be combined with Strategy 1, Mixed Use
Development around Transit Corridors. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. The transit
center must be no more than one-quarter mile walking distance from the nearest
building entrance, and must include ADA accessible pedestrian pathways and
provide access to transit services and adjoining uses. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Off-street
parking areas shall be located and designed in a manner that supports and does
not conflict with pedestrian activity. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. A Master Plan
must be developed to show how parcels will integrate with one another, and to
dictate the build-out timeframe. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Uses must be
identified within the Master Plan. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. Minimum floor
area ratio must be 0.5 per net acre. [Ord. 2006-036]
f. Minimum
residential floor area must equal 60 percent of total and net residential trips
must constitute at least one-quarter of total net a.m. or p.m. trips for the
development. [Ord. 2006-036]
g. Non-residential
land use shall include retail or a combination of retail and office or
industrial, with retail constituting a minimum of ten percent of the total
floor area for all land uses. Retail uses shall constitute a limited commercial
facility of a convenience nature, serving residential neighborhoods within a
one-half mile radius, located on a Local, Collector, or Arterial Street. [Ord.
2006-036]
The implementation timeframe will be defined as part of the
Master Plan or Development Order. Master Plans and Development Orders for
phased developments must include interim qualifying criteria consistent with
the above criteria. At each phase of development, before CO will be granted,
the interim criteria must be met. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. At the
conclusion of each phase of development, the County Engineer must confirm that
the interim or final criteria are met prior to issuance of the first CO for the
following phase. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. As part of the
development approval process, a restrictive covenant must be recorded against
all parcels of the development indicating the minimum and maximum densities and
intensities allowed for each land use. PBC shall be granted the authority to
enforce the covenants, along with other parties, if any, to be determined
during development review. PBC shall not allow the conversion of uses that
would result in a project’s failure to meet specified requirements. [Ord.
2006-036]
c. By April 1 of
each year, starting April 1 after the first full year after the first CO, the
developer, or their agent, must supply a service report to the County Engineer
as well as Municipality if applicable, identifying the uses on site and the
percentage or square footage each use encompasses. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Two years following
Project Buildout, the developer, agent, or Property Owner as appropriate may
request alteration of existing strategies or substitution of alternative
strategies pursuant to Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. 0.6 for FAR of
0.5 or higher per net acre, and at least 60 percent of the total square footage
must be dedicated to residential use; [Ord. 2006-036]
b. 0.8 for FAR of
0.75 or higher per net acre, and at least 70 percent of the total square
footage must be dedicated to residential use; or, [Ord. 2006-036]
c. 1.0 for FAR of
1.0 or higher per net acre, and at least 80 percent of the total square footage
must be dedicated to residential use. [Ord. 2006-036]
This strategy consists of providing feeder service between the
project site and a rail station or multi-modal transit center, providing new
commuter bus service between the project site and residential areas, providing
local or shuttle bus service between the project site and major employers in
the Okeechobee Boulevard corridor, or offering all employees free transit
passes for commuting to and from work. [Ord.
2006-036]
a. Developers must
specify dedicated funding commitments to provide for direct costs of feeder
services or transit passes for a minimum of two years, or make a fair-share
contribution to be determined by and paid to the appropriate local transit
agency for new or expanded services. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Vehicles must
be classified as either buses or minibuses. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. The transit
service must be no more than one-quarter mile walking distance from the nearest
building entrance. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. The Project
Site Plan must include provisions for transit service infrastructure, including
pick-up/drop-off areas, and transit circulation plans. Additionally, pedestrian
connectivity between the transit stop infrastructure and the primary use of the
development that complies with ADA criteria must be specified. [Ord.
2006-036]
e. Off-street
parking areas shall be located and designed in a manner that supports and does
not conflict with pedestrian activity. [Ord. 2006-036]
f. Combining this
strategy with Strategy 4, Parking Management, is encouraged. [Ord. 2006-036]
g. Proposed
route(s) shall be subject to approval by PBC in consultation with Palm Tran. [Ord.
2006-036]
h. Proposed
service associated with a non-residential site shall be operated at a minimum
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours during which the majority of site employees
commute to and from work on all weekdays that the business(es) at the project
site is open. Proposed service associated with a residential site shall be
operated at a minimum during the highest a.m. peak hour and highest p.m. peak
hour on all weekdays that major employment centers along the Okeechobee
corridor are open. [Ord. 2006-036]
This strategy must be in place one year from date of issuance of
final Certificate of Occupancy for a single-building project and one year from
date of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy equaling 50-percent completion of
a multiple-building project. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. The transit
service is specified as part of a Master Plan or Site Plan, and the Development
Order. Annual documentation of marketing efforts, funding, and participation
for the free transit pass program shall be provided to the Palm Beach County
Engineer. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Two years
following Project Buildout, the project’s developer, owner, or agent as
appropriate, may request alteration or substitution of the strategy pursuant Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. By April 1 of
each year, starting April 1 after the first full year after initiation of the
transit service, the developer, or their agent, must supply a report to the
County Engineer as well as Municipality if applicable, identifying average
daily and weekly ridership, the number of employees from the project using the
service, fees charged and revenues collected, and an evaluation of service
operation with potential recommendations to increase the use of the service. [Ord.
2006-036]
a. 0.05 for
subscription bus service that operates with at least 50-percent employer
subsidy; [Ord. 2006-036]
b. 0.05 for feeder
service/transit passes on routes with 30-minute peak hour headways; [Ord.
2006-036]
c. 0.10 for feeder
service/transit passes on routes with 20-minute peak hour headways; [Ord.
2006-036]
d. 0.15 for feeder
service/transit passes on routes with 10-minute peak hour headways; or, [Ord.
2006-036]
e. A 50-percent credit
bonus will be given for feeder service that is operated with a peak headway as
shown above and at least one-hour non-peak hour headways for a total period of
at least 12 hours each weekday. The credit will double for feeder services
offered free to the general public (not just site employees or residents). [Ord.
2006-036]
Parking Management Strategy applies only to employee parking for
non-residential projects of at least 50,000 square feet of building area and
mixed use projects with non-residential components of at least 50,000 square
feet of building area. This strategy consists of the following: [Ord.
2006-036]
a. Parking lot
must clearly identify separate parking areas for employees and customers, if
any. Separate parking areas, including areas for employee preferred parking,
shall be delineated on the Site Plan. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Notwithstanding
Art. 6, Parking,
Loading, and Circulation, or other jurisdiction parking requirements, at
least ten percent of the minimum number of parking spaces required by the
applicable County or Municipal code must be eliminated from the portion of the
lot reserved for employees. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. Employees who
drive to work must pay a daily fee of six dollars to park in the lot. The
parking spaces for these employees must be located at the most remote point from
the nearest building entrance relative to all other parking spaces. Employees
who fail to pay the fee or park in an unauthorized space shall be subject to
penalties including a fine equal to double the daily fee imposed, and in cases
of repeated violations, towing. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. All fees and
penalties collected from the employees who pay to park must be deposited in a
separate parking fee fund. Moneys in the fund shall be used to reduce traffic
impacts by offering payments to employees who use public transportation or
Vanpools in accordance with Strategy 5, Ridesharing Programs, offering payments
to provide or fund in part shuttle service for employees in accordance with Strategy
3, Feeder Transit Service to Rail Stations or Multi-Modal Transit Centers; New
Commuter Bus Service; Local Bus/Shuttle Service; Employee Transit Passes, or
both. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. Employees who
rideshare do not pay a daily fee to park and may park in spaces designated for
ridesharing participants. Because of the above relationships, this Strategy
should be combined with Strategy 5, Ridesharing Programs. [Ord. 2006-036]
f. Applicant must
specify a dedicated funding commitment from a source other than the parking fee
to provide on-site monitoring and parking fee fund management. [Ord.
2006-036]
Parking lot configuration must be in place at the time of CO for
any phase of the project. Implementation timeframes for parking fees and use of
parking fees to reduce traffic impacts shall be specified in the Development
Order but in no event shall full implementation occur more than six months
after Project Buildout. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Beginning April
1 after the first full year of program, and every April 1 thereafter, the Applicant,
or successor in interest, must provide to the County Engineer an annual report.
The annual report shall at a minimum contain monthly and cumulative statistics
providing: [Ord. 2006-036]
1) The number of
total employees employed during each month and average number for the calendar
year; [Ord. 2006-036]
2) The number of
employees who paid parking fees; [Ord. 2006-036]
3) The number of
employees who participated in ridesharing or shuttle programs; [Ord.
2006-036]
4) The amount of
fees collected; [Ord. 2006-036]
5) A report on the
expenditure of the fees and fund balance at the end of each month and calendar
year; [Ord. 2006-036]
6) An on-site
monitoring report providing average number of rideshare vehicles and paid
parking vehicles in the lot each month, and the number of vehicles cited for
improperly parking or parking without paying a fee per month.
The report
shall also include copies of all materials used in the project informing
employees of the strategy including lot regulations, daily fees, and
opportunities for ridesharing, public transportation, and shuttle service as
appropriate. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Two years
following Project Buildout, the developer, owner, or agent as appropriate may
request alteration of existing strategy or substitution of alternative strategies
pursuant to Art.
12.P.3.F, Time Limits. In the event a substitution is authorized, all funds
collected under this Strategy shall be deposited in the Okeechobee Boulevard
Mitigation Fee Trust Fund established in Strategy 14, Additional Mitigation Fee
Payment. [Ord. 2006-036]
Credit factor shall be calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.D-13, Strategy 4 Credit Factor Calculation.
Ridesharing Programs shall apply only to non-residential
projects and non-residential portions of mixed use projects with 20 or more
employees. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. At least 15
percent of the project employees must participate in ridesharing within nine
months of Project Buildout or as otherwise specified in the Master Plan. The
Master Plan shall specify an alternate, backup mitigation strategy or
corrective/incentive plan to be implemented if after nine months, 15 percent of
the project employees do not participate in ridesharing. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Projects must
identify and fund a ridesharing coordinator to assist participants, promote,
and facilitate the Ridesharing Program, and track performance of the
Ridesharing Program for monitoring purposes. As an alternative, the Project may
elect to participate in the existing South Florida Commuter Services
Ridesharing Program by paying an annual membership fee. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. Applicants must
identify a dedicated funding commitment to fund all aspects of the Ridesharing
Program. This funding commitment shall include a commitment to provide at least
a 50-percent subsidy of the out-of-pocket cost of any employee vanpool utilizing
the South Florida Vanpool Program. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Preferential
parking must be allocated for Ridesharing Program participants. Preferential
parking spaces must be located closest to building entrances, with the
exception of reserved spaces required by the ADA and delineated on the Site
Plan. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. Combining this
strategy with Strategy 4, Parking Management, is encouraged. [Ord. 2006-036]
f. No credit
shall be received for Strategy 5, Ridesharing Programs, for those employees
qualifying for credit under the non-peak hour work hours part of Strategy 13,
Compressed Work Week/Non-Peak Hour Work Hours. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Beginning April
1 after the first full year of program, and every April 1 thereafter, the Applicant,
or successor in interest, must provide to the County Engineer an annual report.
The annual report must be certified by an independent financial auditor and
shall at a minimum contain monthly and cumulative statistics providing: [Ord.
2006-036]
1) The number of
total employees employed during each month and average number for the calendar
year; [Ord. 2006-036]
2) The number of
employees who participated in ridesharing; [Ord. 2006-036]
3) The number of
days each employee participated in ridesharing per reporting period; and, [Ord.
2006-036]
4) An accounting
detailing the amount expended to fund the Ridesharing Program, including
coordinator salary and amounts spent on promoting and monitoring the
Ridesharing Program.
The report
shall also include copies of all materials used in promoting the Ridesharing
Program. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Two years
following Project Buildout, the developer, owner, or agent as appropriate may
request alteration or substitution of strategies pursuant to Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
This Strategy must be fully implemented within nine months of
Project Buildout, or as otherwise set forth in the Master Plan or Site Plan. [Ord.
2006-036]
Credit factor shall be calculated in accordance with Table 12.P.4.E-14,
Strategy 5 Credit Factor Calculation.
Table 12.P.4.E-14 – Strategy 5 Credit
Factor Calculation
|
Credit Factor =
|
E x 2 x D / 5
|
|
50 x (√S)
|
|
E
|
= number
of on-site employees that are required to participate
|
D
|
= number
of weekdays per week that employees are required to participate
|
S
|
= number
total size of non-residential building area in 1,000 sq. ft.
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
|
|
|
|
This strategy applies only to larger employers implementing
formal policies, based on specific criteria, to allow and encourage employees
to telecommute. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Project must be
an employer of at least 20 people. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Project must
develop a formal policy and contract between employees and managers. The Policy
shall identify which job categories are suitable for telecommuting, and what
employees must do to participate. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. Employees must
participate in the telecommuting program an average of at least two weekdays
per week. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. The projected
level of participation, i.e., the number of employees participating and days
per week telecommuting, must be established in the Master Plan or Site Plan and
maintained. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. Combining this
strategy with Strategy 5, Ridesharing Programs, is encouraged. [Ord.
2006-036]
One year from Project Buildout to meet projected level of
participation, or as otherwise specified in the Master Plan or Site Plan. [Ord.
2006-036]
a. By April 1 of
each year, starting April 1 after the first full year after initiating the
program, the owner, developer, or their agent, must supply a service report to
the County Engineer, identifying the number of employees from the development
participating in the program and the number of days each employee telecommutes.
This monitoring report shall also include a copy of the telecommuting policy
and copies of each of the signed telecommuting contracts entered during the
reporting period. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Two years
following initiation of this strategy, the project’s developer, owner, or agent
as appropriate, may request alteration or substitution of the strategy pursuant
Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
Credit factor shall be calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.F-15, Strategy 6 Credit Factor Calculation.
Table 12.P.4.F-15 – Strategy 6
Credit Factor Calculation
|
Credit Factor =
|
E x 2 x D / 5
|
|
50 x (√S)
|
|
E
|
= number
of on-site based employees that telecommute
|
D
|
= number
of weekdays per week that employees telecommute
|
S
|
= number
total size of non-residential building area in 1,000 sq. ft.
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
|
|
|
|
This strategy consists of providing secure bicycle parking at
residential and non-residential developments. [Ord. 2006-036]
Minimum requirements for bicycle parking facility shall be in
accordance with the Table below:
a. The secure
bicycle parking facility must be provided within 75 feet of the entrance to
buildings that cyclists will most likely use. Where there is more than one
building on a site, or where a building has more than one main entrance, the
parking must be distributed to serve all buildings or main entrances. All
bicycle parking facilities shall be covered and may be fully enclosed. [Ord.
2006-036]
b. Combining this
strategy with Strategy 4, Parking Management, is encouraged. [Ord. 2006-036]
Secured bicycle facility must be completed prior to issuance of
the first CO. [Ord. 2006-036]
When this strategy is used, the provision of bicycle facilities,
including the number and general location, shall be included in the Development
Order/Master Plan. [Ord. 2006-036]
Credit factor shall be calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.G-17, Strategy 7 Credit Factor Calculation, below:
Table 12.P.4.G-17 – Strategy
7 Credit Factor Calculation
|
Credit Factor =
|
0.5 (PB )
|
|
2 (PT) + 9 (RU)
|
|
PB
|
= number
of bicycle parking spaces created per above qualifying criteria a) and b)
|
PT
|
= total
number of non-residential parking spaces
|
RU
|
= total
number of residential housing units
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
|
|
|
|
a. This strategy
applies to vehicle and pedestrian connections between adjacent Projects and
encourages the use of such interconnections to reduce the need to access
abutting roadways. The credit factor is based on the standard internalization
criteria used by the Traffic Division. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. For projects on
a CRALLS roadway, the credit will be based on the reduction of trips on the
CRALLS roadway. Projects not directly on a CRALLS roadway will receive one-half
the credit amount. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. The connection
between the adjacent parcels must be conveniently located and designed to
accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. The pedestrian
connection must be ADA accessible. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. Pedestrian
connections between adjacent parcels or between building clusters within a
single parcel shall be provided at a minimum of every 500 feet of building
frontage or property line, and should be designed and located to maximize
access to roadway corridors, transit stops, and parking areas. [Ord.
2006-036]
d. The cross-access
easement shall be shown on the parcel’s plat, or recorded as a restrictive
covenant, to ensure the access will remain should redevelopment of the site
occur. A letter of agreement from the adjacent Property Owner shall be provided
at the time of application in order to initially qualify for use of this
strategy. If the Project is subsequently approved conditioned upon
implementation of this strategy, the condition shall require a reciprocal
cross-access easement at the same location on the adjacent property be recorded
prior to the issuance of the first CO for the Project. Pedestrian crossings
should incorporate treatments that provide the highest degree of visibility and
safety for pedestrians. Recommended treatments include countdown signals,
in-pavement lighting at crosswalks, raised pedestrian crosswalks, curb
bulb-outs, and other traffic calming measures. These treatments should be
applied where suitable, with special emphasis given in locations where
pedestrians will cross Collector and Arterial roadways, and in parking and
circulation areas of large developments. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. The cross
access must be provided in addition to any other cross access required by
government land development regulations or driveway permit conditions. [Ord.
2006-036]
f. Access for
pedestrian use only will receive a reduced credit factor as set forth in Art. 12.P.4.H.5,
Credit Factor, below. [Ord. 2006-036]
The precise timetable shall be determined as part of the
Development Order approval process but the cross-access easements on both
properties must be in place, as depicted on the plat or in the restrictive
covenant, prior to issuance of the first CO for the Project. [Ord. 2006-036]
Since providing access between developments is part of the
Development Order/Master Plan, Code Enforcement or the Metropolitan Planning
Organization Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, or other County Departments, as
appropriate, shall be able to inspect the cross-access connection at any time. [Ord.
2006-036]
a. Project where the
first directly accessed Link is a CRALLS roadway: [Ord. 2006-036]
1) 0.1 of smaller
retail for retail to retail; [Ord. 2006-036]
2) 0.1 of
residential for residential to retail; [Ord. 2006-036]
3) 0.1 of office
for office to retail; and, [Ord. 2006-036]
4) 0.05 of office
for office to residential [Ord. 200-036]
b. Project where the
first directly accessed Link is not on CRALLS roadway: [Ord. 2006-036]
1) 0.05 of smaller
retail for retail to retail; [Ord. 2006-036]
2) 0.05 of
residential for residential to retail; [Ord. 2006-036]
3) 0.05 of office
for office to retail; and, [Ord. 2006-036]
4) 0.025 of office
for office to residential [Ord. 2006-036]
c. The credit
factor for pedestrian-only connections shall be one-tenth of the above numbers.
[Ord. 2006-036]
a. This strategy
applies to properties that have access to two or more thoroughfare roadways,
either directly, via non-thoroughfare roadways, or via shared access with an
adjacent property. It is intended to allow better distribution of traffic onto
the major roadway system as compared to projects with single access. [Ord.
2006-036]
b. For Projects
that directly access a CRALLS roadway, the credit is associated with the
reduction of trips on the CRALLS roadway. The secondary access must be an alternative
to access to a CRALLS roadway. For Projects that do not directly access a
CRALLS roadway, the access must be on two or more thoroughfare roadways. These
projects will receive a lesser credit. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Secondary access
must be at an existing median opening to qualify for the full credit. If there
is no median opening, the credit will be 50 percent less. Full credit shall be
given if a median opening will be established concurrent with development. [Ord.
2006-036]
b. The secondary
access must be designed to accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians. [Ord.
2006-036]
c. The secondary
access for the pedestrian connection must be ADA accessible. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. The access
easement should be shown on the parcel’s plat, or recorded as a restrictive
covenant, to ensure the access will remain should redevelopment of the site
occur. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. The secondary
access must be provided in addition to any secondary access required by
government land development regulations or driveway permit. [Ord. 2006-036]
f. For projects
not on CRALLS roadways, the secondary access will not necessarily reduce
traffic on the CRALLS roadway, but will better distribute Project Traffic on
the roadway system. The credit factor is reduced by 50 percent in these cases. [Ord.
2006-036]
g. Secondary
access shall meet the access management requirements of the Municipality,
County, or FDOT, as applicable; if not, then it must have been granted a
variance from the access management requirements prior to qualifying for
credit. [Ord. 2006-036]
h. The secondary
access may be an access point onto the CRALLS roadway that aligns with another
thoroughfare and thus allows dispersion of some Project Traffic without
impacting the CRALLS roadway except at the intersection. [Ord. 2006-036]
The precise timetable shall be determined as part of the
Development Order approval process but the easement must be in place, as
depicted on the plat or in the restrictive covenant, no later than issuance of
the first CO for the Project. [Ord. 2006-036]
The project’s developer, owner, or agent as appropriate, may
request alteration or substitution of the strategy pursuant Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. 1.0 at median
opening for access to thoroughfare secondary to CRALLS roadway; [Ord.
2006-036]
b. 0.5 not at
median openings for access to thoroughfare secondary to CRALLS roadway; [Ord.
2006-036]
c. 0.2 at median
opening to another thoroughfare for projects not on CRALLS roadway; [Ord.
2006-036]
d. 0.1 not at
median opening to another thoroughfare for projects not on CRALLS roadway; or, [Ord.
2006-036]
e. 0.4 for access
onto CRALLS roadway that aligns with full median opening with another
thoroughfare. [Ord. 2006-036]
This strategy consists of developing the project with a low
generation traffic sensitive use, with the intent of reducing traffic
congestion. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Credit will be
given for this Strategy only if credit is also earned from one of the following
Strategies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Restrictive
covenants on the parcel shall be filed describing the uses and associated
densities and intensities that are allowed. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. The Master Plan
or Site Plan shall identify, on a building and parcel basis, the building areas
allocated to specific land uses for the development. [Ord. 2006-036]
Determined during concurrency review. [Ord. 2006-036]
By April 1 of each year, starting April 1 after the first full year
after occupying the site, the developer, or their agent, must supply a use
report to the County Engineer, identifying uses, and their densities and
intensities, active on the site.
Two years following Project Buildout, the project’s developer,
owner, or agent as appropriate, may request alteration or substitution of the
strategy pursuant Art.
12.P.3.F, Time Limits. [Ord.
2006-036]
a. Credit shall be
determined by multiplying by three the percent reduction (expressed as a
decimal) in two-way peak hour trips as compared to the typical average net
external two-way peak hour trips per gross acre for development in the area per
the land use designation as of the effective date of adoption of this Section. The
typical development density and intensities based on an analysis of existing
developments in area of CRALLS are as follows: [Ord. 2006-036]
1) Residential: as
per maximum allowable under land use designation. [Ord. 2006-036]
2) Retail
Commercial: 0.18 gross lot area coverage by buildings. [Ord. 2006-036]
3) Office: 0.16
gross lot area coverage by buildings. [Ord. 2006-036]
4) Industrial:
0.22 gross lot area coverage by buildings. [Ord. 2006-036]
5) Institutional: 0.09
gross lot area coverage by buildings. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. It is further
assumed that, for purposes of calculation and comparison, the typical gross lot
area coverage intensities are based upon single-story buildings occupying the
parcels. Also, for purposes of comparison, the typical density/intensity for
the land use designations listed above shall be calculated using the general
trip generation rate for that designation as published by PBC Engineering and
Public Works Department/Traffic Division, whereas the proposed Project shall be
calculated using the specific trip generation rate for the proposed use if it
is a Conditional Use under the applicable zoning district. [Ord. 2006-036]
[Ord. 2017-007]
c. Credit factor
shall be calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.J-18, Strategy 10 Credit Factor Calculation, below:
a. Proposed self-storage
development of 60,000 square feet on ten-acre parcel with industrial land use
designation = 0.14 gross lot area coverage [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Average
industrial gross lot area coverage = 0.22 [Ord. 2006-036]
c. Project net
external two-way p.m. peak hour trips per gross acre = (60 x 0.26)/10 = 1.56
trips/gross acre [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Average net
two-way p.m. peak hour trips per gross acre = 0.98 x (0.22 x 10 x 43,560/1,000)/10
= 9.39 trips/gross acre [Ord. 2006-036]
e. Credit Factor =
3 x [(9.39 - 1.56) / 9.39] = 2.5 [Ord. 2006-036]
This strategy consists of improvements to signalized
intersections on the CRALLS roadway. The intersection modification can include
additional turn lanes or additional through lanes. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. This strategy
applies only to intersections projected to exceed a critical sum of 1,200
during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour by Project Buildout. [Ord.
2006-036]
b. Credit will
only be given for this Strategy if a credit is also earned from one of the
following Strategies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. Credit will not
be given for that portion of the intersection modification that is required to
mitigate just the traffic impacts of the proposed development. [Ord. 2006-036]
The intersection will be analyzed using the “sum of critical
movements” approach as detailed in Art. 12.B, Standard. [Ord.
2006-036]
Determined during Site Plan review. [Ord. 2006-036]
When this strategy is used, the provision of intersection
modifications shall be included in the Development Order as well as the Master
Plan or Site Plan. The project’s developer, owner, or agent as appropriate, may
request alteration or substitution of the strategy pursuant Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
Equal to five times the percentage reduction (expressed as a
decimal) of the “sum of critical movement” in the operation of the intersection
during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The reduction in the critical
movement sum is calculated without considering the component of traffic
attributable to the proposed development itself. Credit factor shall be
calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.K-19, Strategy 11 Credit Factor Calculation, below:
Multiple developments may pool their resources to implement an
intersection improvement if the combined trips from the developments do not
exceed the improvement to the intersection. In this case, the credit will be
given proportionately according to each development’s contribution. [Ord.
2006-036]
An intersection has an existing “sum of critical movements” of 1,500.
A proposed improvement will result in a “sum of critical movements” of 1,350. The
improvement is 5 x [1 - (1,350 / 1,500)] = 5 x (1 - 0.9) = 0.5. [Ord.
2006-036]
This strategy consists of dedicating R-O-W for a proposed grade
separated interchange or interchange modification. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. The interchange
improvement must be approved by the Florida Department of Transportation
District 4, PBC and/or Florida’s Turnpike District, as appropriate. [Ord.
2006-036]
b. Credit will
only be given for this Strategy if a credit is also earned from one of the
following Strategies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. The dedication
of R-O-W must be in addition to what is required by government land development
regulations and must not be site-related. [Ord. 2006-036]
Determined during Site Plan review. [Ord. 2006-036]
When this strategy is used, the provision of grade-separated
interchange improvements shall be included in the Palm Beach County
Comprehensive Plan on either the Thoroughfare Right-of-Way Identification Map
or Adopted Long Range Plan Map and the area to be dedicated shall be designated
in the project’s Development Order/Master Plan. The project’s developer, owner,
or agent as appropriate, may request alteration or substitution of the strategy
pursuant to Art.
12.P.3.F, Time Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
(Percentage of total required grade separated interchange
improvement R-O-W dedicated by developer expressed as a decimal). [Ord.
2006-036]
A work site policy implementing a work schedule for full-time
(i.e. working at least 35 hours per week) employees for a less than five-day
work week by extending hours of work during the remaining work days, with start
and end work times that fall outside the normal a.m. (seven to nine a.m.) and
p.m. (four to six p.m.) peak hours. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. 20 percent or
more of on-site employees must be working the compressed work week schedule. [Ord.
2006-036]
b. Either the
start or end work time or both must fall outside the normal a.m. and p.m. peak
hours of on-street traffic. [Ord. 2006-036]
c. The work
schedules for the affected on-site employees need to be documented on an annual
basis. [Ord. 2006-036]
d. Projects must
include an on-site coordinator to assist participants in the program, as well
as to facilitate program performance tracking and reporting. [Ord. 2006-036]
e. Project must
develop a formal policy and contract between employees and managers that shall
identify which job categories are eligible for the compressed work
week/non-peak work hours option. [Ord. 2006-036]
f. Project must
be an employer of 20 or more people. [Ord. 2006-036]
g. For those
employees qualifying for credit under the non-peak hour work hours part of
Strategy 13, Compressed Work Week/Non-Peak Work Hours, no credit shall be
received for Strategy 5, Ridesharing Programs. [Ord. 2006-036]
One year from date of issuance of the first CO for the Project. [Ord.
2006-036]
a. By April 1 of
each year, starting April 1 after the first full year after initiating the
program, the owner, developer, or their agent, must supply a report to the
County Engineer identifying the number of employees from the development
participating in the program and the total number of employees employed during
the reporting period, and the work schedules of each participant. This
monitoring report shall also include a copy of the compressed work week policy
and copies of each of the signed compressed work week contracts entered during
the reporting period. The County Engineer shall analyze the data for compliance
with the Development Order. If the program fails to meet the plan’s specified
criteria within one year of Project Buildout, the owner, developer, or agent
shall undertake remedial action, or institute an alternate mitigation strategy.
[Ord. 2006-036]
b. Two years
following initiation of the strategy, the project’s developer, owner, or agent
as appropriate, may request alteration or substitution of the strategy pursuant
Art. 12.P.3.F, Time
Limits. [Ord. 2006-036]
Credit factor shall be calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.M-20, Strategy 13 Credit Factor Calculation, below:
Table 12.P.4.M-20 – Strategy 13 Credit
Factor Calculation
|
Credit Factor =
|
E x (D + H / (5 - D))
|
|
50 x (√S)
|
|
E
|
= number
of on-site based employees that participate in program
|
D
|
= number
of weekdays per week that the employees do not have to drive to work due to
their participation in program
|
H
|
= number
of peak hours per week on workdays during which participating employees will
not drive to work
|
S
|
= size
of project in 1,000 sq. ft.
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
|
|
|
|
This strategy involves the payment of mitigation fees in excess
of the amount required by the Code for Road Impact Fees. These fees shall be
deposited in a separate Okeechobee Boulevard Mitigation Fee Account and shall
be used by the BCC to fund road improvements or other Programs designed to
improve traffic flow in the Okeechobee Boulevard corridor. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Prepayment of
the additional mitigation fees shall be required prior to issuance of the first
Building Permit. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Credit will
only be given for this Strategy if a credit is also earned from one of the
following Strategies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. [Ord. 2006-036]
Credit factor shall be calculated in accordance with Table
12.P.4.N-21, Strategy 14 Credit Factor Calculation, below:
A project with a Road Impact Fee of 132,000 dollars agrees to
pay 100 percent of its fee as an additional mitigation fee payment. The project
will thus qualify for a credit factor of (0.001 x 132) + (0.005 x 100) = 0.632.
[Ord. 2006-036]
The following section outlines the methodology for a
preliminary Point System to be used in conjunction with CRALLS Mitigation
Strategies. This system operates within the context of PBC’s Traffic
Performance Standards, in that it assigns trips impacting CRALLS facilities as
part of the overall trip generation function. CRALLS Facilities Assigned Trips
are defined to include the highest number of Project Net Trips that pass
through any single point (intersection or Link) along the Okeechobee Corridor
that is within the Project’s Radius of Development Influence (RDI). For
example, this would include Project trips assigned to all approaches to an
Okeechobee intersection that lies within the RDI, including U-turn movements
that must occur at the intersection. Once those assigned trips are understood
and classified, a weighting factor can be applied to reflect the intensity of
mitigation required by the developer. The “credit factor” used in this system
corresponds to the sum of the credit factors derived from the mitigation
strategies utilized. [Ord. 2010-022]
Table 12.P.5-22 – Point System Methodology
|
CRALLS Facilities Assigned
Trips
(Net 2-way peak hour trips)
|
|
|
1-100
|
5
|
≤ 10
|
101-200
|
10
|
11-20
|
201-400
|
20
|
21-40
|
401-800
|
40
|
41-80
|
801-1,000 (1)
|
80
|
81-100
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
Notes:
|
1.
|
Net
2-way peak hour trips in excess of this number shall be categorized and
assigned weighting factors in a proportionate manner to the above Table. [Ord.
2006-036]
|
|
|
|
|
The method of calculation to determine mitigation shall be in
accordance with Table
12.P.5.A-23, Calculation to Determine Mitigation, below:
Table 12.P.5.A-23 – Calculation
to Determine Mitigation
|
|
Number of assigned trips1 x credit factor
|
= Points earned
|
Weighting factor
|
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
Notes:
|
1.
|
The assigned trips include only those trips that
are impacted by the specific mitigation strategy.
|
|
All credit factor calculations for each strategy
are to be rounded off to the nearest one-hundredth prior to summing them to
derive total points. [Ord. 2006-036]
|
|
|
|
|
a. Development
will impact 100 trips onto CRALLS facility. [Ord. 2006-036]
b. Developer needs
10 points to achieve CRALLS mitigation. [Ord. 2006-036]
a. Developer chose
to implement an access to thoroughfare secondary to CRALLS roadway: [Ord.
2006-036]
100 x 0.10
|
|
|
= 20 points
|
0.5
|
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
b. Developer chose
to implement a feeder route with 30-minute headways: [Ord. 2006-036]
100 x 0.05
|
|
|
= 10 points
|
0.5
|
|
[Ord. 2006-036]
|
The purpose of this
Chapter is to establish a program that meets the requirements of to F.S.
§ 163.3180(5)(h), as may be
amended, by allowing an Applicant to satisfy the traffic concurrency
requirements of the ULDC and Plan by entering into a binding agreement to pay
for or construct its proportionate share of required improvements [Ord. 2006-043]
[Ord. 2018-018]
The Proportionate Share Program shall apply to all Projects
that fail to meet the standards of this Article on a Collector or Arterial Road
that is not the responsibility of a Municipality, or that fail to meet the
standards of this Article on a transportation facility maintained by FDOT. The
Proportionate Share Program does not apply to Developments of Regional Impact
(DRIs) using proportionate share under to F.S.
§ 163.3180(12), or to Projects exempted from this Article. [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
A. An Applicant may satisfy the transportation concurrency
requirements of Palm Beach County by making a proportionate share contribution,
pursuant to the following requirements: [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
1. The proposed
development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land
development regulations. [Ord. 2006-043]
2. Any improvement
project proposed to meet the developer’s share obligation must meet Palm Beach
County’s design standards for locally-maintained roadways and those of the FDOT
for the State highway system. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
3. The
proportionate share contribution is applied toward one or more mobility
improvements that will benefit a regionally significant transportation
facility. [Ord. 2018-018]
4. For Projects
located within a Municipality, any Proportionate Share Agreement required by an
Applicant in order to meet traffic concurrency must be entered into by the Applicant
and PBC prior to receiving a DO from the Municipality. The County Engineer may
rescind a traffic concurrency approval in the event the Project receives a Municipal
DO prior to entering into a Proportionate Share Agreement with PBC. [Ord. 2018-018]
Pursuant to policies in the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element of the Plan, Palm Beach County shall coordinate with affected
jurisdictions, including FDOT, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities not
under the jurisdiction of the Local Government receiving the application for
proportionate share mitigation. An interlocal agreement may be established with
other affected jurisdictions for this purpose. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2018-018]
A. In the event of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation
concurrency, the Applicant shall have the opportunity to satisfy transportation
concurrency through the Proportionate Share Program pursuant to the
requirements of Art.
12.Q.3, General Requirements. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
B. Eligible Applicants shall submit an application to the County
Engineer. The County may establish an application fee that does not exceed the
cost to the County of reviewing the application. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2018-018]
C. The County Engineer shall review and evaluate the application as
part of the Traffic Impact Study as set forth in Art. 12.D, Procedure. [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
D. When an application is deemed sufficient, complete, and eligible,
a proposed proportionate share obligation and binding agreement will be
prepared by the County Engineer or the Applicant and delivered to the
appropriate parties for review. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
E. No Proportionate Share Agreement will be effective until approved
by the County. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
A. Proportionate share mitigation for
concurrency impacts may include, without limitation, separately or
collectively, private funds, and construction and contribution of facilities. [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
B. A Project eligible for participation under the Proportionate Share
Program shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate share. The
fair market value of the proportionate share mitigation for the impacted
facilities shall not differ regardless of the method of mitigation. [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
C. The methodology used to calculate a Project’s proportionate share
obligation shall be as provided for in F.S.
§ 163.3180(5)(h), as follows: [Ord.
2018-018]
The cumulative
number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways
during peak hours from the complete build-out of a stage or phase being
approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service volume (MSV)
of roadways resulting from construction of an improvement necessary to
maintain the adopted LOS, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of
developer payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS.
|
OR
|
Proportionate
Share = Σ [[(Development Tripsi) / (SV Increasei)]
x Costi]
|
Where:
|
Development Trips =
|
Those trips from
the stage or phase of development under review that are assigned to roadway
segment “i” and have triggered a deficiency per TPS.
|
SV Increase =
|
Service volume
increase provided by the eligible improvement to roadway segment “i” per Art. 12.Q.3, General Requirements.
|
Cost =
|
Adjusted cost of
the improvement to segment “i.” Cost shall include all improvements and
associated costs, such as design, right-of-way acquisition, planning,
engineering review, inspection, administration, and physical development
costs directly associated with construction at the anticipated cost,
including contingencies, in the year it will be incurred. [Ord. 2006-043]
|
D. For the purposes of determining proportionate share obligations,
the County Engineer shall determine costs
of the improvement at the time of application, but shall be subject to an adjustment
calculation to account for changes in road development costs that may occur
between the date of Proportionate Share Agreement and the date each
Proportionate Share Payment is due. The method of calculating said adjustment
and appropriate Producer Price Index for Commodities shall be included in the
Proportionate Share Agreement. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
E. If the County has accepted an improvement proposed by the Applicant,
then the value of the improvement shall be based on an engineer’s certified
cost estimate provided by the Applicant and approved by the County Engineer or
other method approved by the County Engineer. [Ord. 2006-043]
A. Proportionate share contributions shall be applied as a credit
against impact fees to the extent that all or a portion of the proportionate
share mitigation is used to address the same capital infrastructure
improvements contemplated by Art. 13, Impact Fees. [Ord.
2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
B. Impact fee credits for the proportionate share contribution will
be determined when the transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for
the proposed development. Impact fees owed by the Applicant will be reduced per
the Proportionate Share Agreement as they become due pursuant to Art. 13, Impact Fees. Once
the credit has been exhausted, payment of Road Impact Fees shall be required
for each permit issued. The impact fee credit shall be established when the
proportionate share contribution is received by the County, or when the share
amount is secured by Performance Security. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
C. The proportionate share obligation is intended to mitigate the
transportation impacts of a proposed Project. As a result, any Road Impact Fee
credit based upon proportionate share contributions for a proposed Project
cannot be transferred to any other Project. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
A. Upon execution of a Proportionate Share Agreement (“Agreement”),
the Applicant shall receive a certificate of concurrency approval. Should the Applicant
fail to apply for a Development Permit within 12 months, then the Agreement
shall be considered null and void, and the Applicant shall be required to
reapply. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2018-018]
B. Payment of the proportionate share contribution shall be
non-refundable. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord.
2018-018]
C. In the event an Agreement requires the Applicant to build one or
more road improvements, all such improvements must be commenced prior to
issuance of a Development Permit and assured by a binding agreement that is
accompanied by a Performance Security sufficient to ensure the completion of
all required improvements. It is the intent of this Section that any required
improvements be completed before issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. [Ord.
2006-043]
D. Any requested change to a development Project subsequent to a
Development Order may be subject to additional proportionate share
contributions to the extent the change would generate additional traffic that
would require mitigation. [Ord. 2006-043]
E. Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the Proportionate
Share Agreement at any time prior to the execution of the Agreement. The
application fee and any associated advertising costs paid to Palm Beach County
will be non-refundable. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
F. Palm Beach County may enter into Proportionate Share Agreements
for selected corridor improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple Applicants
on improvements to a shared transportation facility. [Ord. 2006-043] [Ord. 2018-018]
Amendment History:
[Ord. 2003-067; January 1,
2004] [Ord. 2005-002; February 2, 2005] [Ord. 2006-036; August 29, 2006] [Ord.
2006-043; September 1, 2006] [Ord. 2006-055; December 1, 2006] [Ord. 2007-013;
September 4, 2007] [Ord. 2008-003; January 30, 2008] [Ord. 2010-005; February
2, 2010] [Ord. 2010-022; September 1, 2010] [Ord. 2011-001; February 4, 2011]
[Ord. 2011-016, September 6, 2011] [Ord. 2014-025; September 3, 2014] [Ord.
2017-007; March 2, 2017] [Ord. 2018-018; August 29, 2018] [Ord.
2019-005; January 29, 2019] [Ord. 2020-001; January 28, 2020]