Source: https://floridaldrs.com/2011/06/06/concurrency/?share=google-plus-1
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 06:39:57
Document Index: 587652159

Matched Legal Cases: ['§163', '§163', '§ 9', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§ 163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163']

Concurrency | Florida Land Development Regulations
← Requirements for Florida comprehensive plans
Other, non-statute, changes made by HB 7207 →
The local comprehensive plan must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, to guide the application of concurrency to the facility or service. (§163.3180(1)(a), F.S.)
To rescind any optional concurrency provisions, a comprehensive plan amendment is required, but the amendment is not subject to state review. (§163.3180(1)(a), F.S.)
Provisions addressing transmittal to or review of concurrency provisions by the State, formerly throughout the section, are deleted.
References to § 9J-5, F.A.C. throughout the section are deleted.
For all concurrency provisions, required or optional, the local comprehensive plan must:
Include principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the establishment of a concurrency management system.
Demonstrate that the levels of service adopted can be reasonably met.
Identify the infrastructure needed to ensure the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period of the capital improvement schedule, pursuant to the requirements of §163.3177(3). (§163.3180(1)(b), F.S.)
There are no changes to the timing requirements for sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, water supplies and potable water facilities. (§163.3180(2), F.S.)
The specific waiver of concurrency requirements for urban infill and redevelopment areas of previous §163.3180(4)(c) is eliminated.
Transportation concurrency. (new language) If local governments adopts concurrency requirements for transportations facilities:
The local comprehensive plan must provide principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service to guide the application of transportation concurrency. (§163.3180(5)(a), F.S.) This repeats the wording of §163.3180(1)(a), which applies to all concurrency programs.
When evaluating and setting the appropriate levels of service, the local government must use professionally accepted studies and must consider the number of facilities that will be necessary to meet level-of-service demands. (§163.3180(5)(b), F.S.)
The local government is encouraged (but not required) to develop policy guidelines and techniques to address potential negative impacts on future development:
In urban infill and redevelopment, and urban service areas.
With special part-time demands on the transportation system.
With de minimis impacts.
On community desired types of development, such as redevelopment, or job creation projects. (§163.3180(5)(e), F.S.)
The local government is encouraged (but not required) to develop tools and techniques to complement the application of transportation concurrency such as:
Long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal solutions, including urban design, and appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and density.
An area-wide level of service not dependent on the function of any single road segment.
Exempting or discounting transportation impacts of locally desired development, such as development in urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use.
Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient interconnection to transit.
Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non-vehicular modes of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of mobility.
Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas, multimodal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed use development in certain areas or districts, or for affordable or workforce housing.
(§163.3180(5)(f), F.S.)
Local governments are encouraged to coordinate with adjacent local governments for the purpose of using common methodologies for measuring impacts on transportation facilities.
(§163.3180(5)(g), F.S.)
The capital improvement element must
Contain provisions consistent with the requirements of §163.3177(3). (§163.3180(5)(d), F.S.)
Identify facilities necessary to meet adopted levels of service during a 5-year period. (§163.3180(5)(d), F.S.)
Reflect the schedule of facilities that are necessary to meet the adopted level of service. (§163.3180(5)(b), F.S.)
The transportation concurrency program must exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. (§163.3180(5)(h)2., F.S.) The list of what is considered public transit facilities is the same as the deleted provisions of the previous §163.3180(4)(b).
When considering plan amendments that affect facilities on the strategic intermodal system, the Department of Transportation must be consulted. (§163.3180(5)(h)1., F.S.)
In applying transportation concurrency to proposed development, professionally accepted techniques for measuring levels of service must be used when evaluating potential impacts of a proposed development. (§163.3180(5)(c), F.S.)
Applicants for development orders and development permits (including DRI applicants) must be “allowed” [found?] to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements if the applicant enters into a binding agreement to pay for or construct its proportionate share of required improvements that addresses the following: (§163.3180(5)(h)3.a., F.S.)
The proportionate-share contribution or construction must be sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements that will benefit a regionally significant transportation facility. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.b., F.S.)
The local government must have provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a proportionate share of the cost of providing the transportation facilities necessary to serve the proposed development. (§163.3180(5)(h)3c.I., F.S.)
The means may not require payment or construction of transportation facilities whose costs are greater than a development’s proportionate share of the improvements necessary to mitigate the development’s impacts.
(§163.3180(5)(h)3c.II., F.S.)
Proportionate-share formula. The proportionate-share contribution is calculated based upon the expected number of the development phase peak hour trips divided by the change in the peak hour roadway maximum service volume from construction of an improvement necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of development payment, of the necessary improvement. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.c.II.A., F.S.)
The proportionate-share formula is to be applied only to the facilities determined to be significantly impacted by the project traffic under review. (§163.3180(5)(h)3c.II.B., F.S.) It is unclear what constitutes “significantly impacted.”
As used in the transportation concurrency provisions, the term “transportation deficiency” means “a facility or facilities on which the adopted level-of-service standard is exceeded by the existing, committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected background trips from any source other than the development project under review, and trips that are forecast by established traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium population projections. Additional projected background trips are to be coincident with the particular stage or phase of development under review.” (§163.3180(5)(h)3.e., F.S.)
In using the proportionate-share formula, the applicant’s traffic analysis must identify those roads or facilities with a transportation deficiency. (§163.3180(5)(h)3c.II.B., F.S.)
The applicant is not held responsible for the additional cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies. (§163.3180(5)(h)3c.I., F.S.)
If any road is determined to be transportation deficient without the project traffic under review, the costs of correcting that deficiency must be removed from the project’s proportionate-share calculation and the necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency must be considered to be in place for purposes of the proportionate-share calculation. The improvement necessary to correct the transportation deficiency is the funding responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility for the facility. The development’s proportionate share must be calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that are greater than the identified deficiency. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.c.II.B., F.S.)
When transportation impact mitigation has been provided for a particular phase of development, that phase must be deemed fully mitigated in any subsequent phase transportation analysis. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.c.II.C., F.S.)
Unmitigated trips from a previous phase may be cumulatively analyzed with trips from a subsequent phase to determine whether mitigation is required for the subsequent phase. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.c.II.C., F.S.)
In projecting the number of trips to be generated by the development under review, trips assigned to a toll-financed facility are eliminated from the analysis. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.c.II.D., F.S.)
The applicant receives a credit on a dollar-for-dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees, and other transportation concurrency mitigation requirements paid or payable in the future for the project. The credit must be reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the project’s traffic represents of the added capacity of the selected improvement, or by the amount specified by local ordinance, whichever yields the greater credit. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.c.II.E., F.S.)
The statute does not require a local government to approve a development that is not otherwise qualified for approval pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and land development regulations. (§163.3180(5)(h)3.d.)
The transportation facilities timing provisions in previous §163.3180(2)(c) are deleted.
The provisions addressing transportation concurrency exceptions in previous §§ 163.3180(5), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions defining and addressing de minimis transportation impacts in previous § 163.3180(6), F.S. are deleted. As the concept of de minimis impacts is not completely deleted from the statutes (see §163.3180(5)(e)), apparently each local government that adopts transportation concurrency is expected to define what de minimis means.
The provisions addressing transportation concurrency management areas in previous § 163.3180(7), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing reservation of capacity for redevelopment in previous § 163.3180(8), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing long-term transportation and school concurrency management systems in previous § 163.3180(9), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing transportation concurrency standards on State controlled roads in previous § 163.3180(10), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing waiver of the transportation concurrency requirements in certain situations in previous § 163.3180(11), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing satisfaction of transportation concurrency requirements by a DRI in previous § 163.3180(12), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing multimodal transportation districts in previous § 163.3180(15), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing proportionate fair-share mitigation in previous § 163.3180(16), F.S. are deleted.
The provisions addressing transportation concurrency exemptions for certain affordable workforce housing units in previous § 163.3180(17), F.S. are deleted.
If concurrency is to be applied to public education facilities, all of the local governments in the county must address it in their comprehensive plans and through an interlocal agreement. If the local governments in the county that represent at least 80 percent of the total countywide population comply, the failure of other municipalities in the county to do so does not preclude the implementation of school concurrency in the complying local governments. (§ 163.3180(6)(a), F.S.)
Having a school concurrency program no longer requires a public school facilities element. (evidenced by deleted language in § 163.3180(6)(a), F.S.)
The provisions of former §163.3180(13)(c), F.S. addressing school concurrency service areas for all jurisdictions, are deleted.
Section 163.3180(6)(h)(1), F.S., borrows heavily from the provisions of previous §163.3180(11), which addressed exceptions from transportation concurrency, to allow development to proceed despite failing to satisfy school concurrency if certain factors are met. One key difference is that the school concurrency exception does not require a binding commitment to pay the fair share (proportionate share) amount.
Section 163.3182, F.S. – Transportation deficiencies.
The term “transportation concurrency backlog area” is changed to “transportation deficiency area.” (§163.3182(1)(a), F.S.)
The term “transportation concurrency backlog authority” is changed to “transportation development authority.” (§163.3182(1)(b), F.S.)
The term “transportation concurrency backlog” is changed to “transportation deficiency” and defined to include existing and projected traffic volume. (§163.3182(1)(d), F.S.)
The term “transportation concurrency backlog plan” is changed to “transportation sufficiency plan.” (§163.3182(1)(e), F.S.)
The term “transportation concurrency backlog project” is changed to “transportation project.” (§163.3182(1)(f), F.S.)
This entry was posted in 2011 Florida Statute Amendments of Development Regulations and tagged 163.3180, 163.3182, Community planning act, Comprehensive plan, Concurrency, Florida Statutes, Growth management, HB 7207. Bookmark the permalink.
2 responses to “Concurrency”
Pingback: Don’t Blame Housing Affordability Problems on the Free Market | The Antiplanner