AGENDA MEMORANDUM

 

 

MEETING DATE:   January 12, 2009        

 

FROM:                       Bill Wiley, AICP, Community Development Director

 

SUBJECT:                  Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances  - Chapter 25 Land Development Code, Article IX. Concurrency, Sections 25-772 and 25-774 for Traffic Analysis Requirements

 

 

Staff Recommendation:

The Planning staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the referenced amendment to the Code of Ordinances for Chapter 25 Land Development Code, Article IX. Concurrency, Sections 25-772 and 25-774 for Traffic Analysis Requirements.

 

Analysis:

On November 13, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment requested by staff, and, by a vote of 6 to 0, recommended approval of the amendment.

 

This amendment provides for a uniform method of reviewing developments for traffic impacts as part of the City’s concurrency requirements under the Land Development Code. The recommended review methodology has been adopted by Lake County and the Lake~Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is being adopted by the other municipalities in Lake County. The proposed amendment is required by the MPO interlocal agreement with the City. The MPO under the City interlocal agreement and state statues is the responsible entity for transportation concurrency management systems (TCMS) reviews for each of the local governments in Lake County January 1, 2008. 

 

Options:        

1.     Approve the recommended amendment to the Code of Ordinances Chapter 25 Land Development Code.

2.     Other such action as the Commission may deem appropriate.

 

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to the City.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submission Date and Time:    1/21/2009 4:23 PM____

 

Department: Community  Development

Prepared by:  Bill Wiley, AICP __                     

Attachments:         Yes_X___   No ______

Advertised:   ____Not Required ______                     

Dates:   __________________________                     

Attorney Review :       Yes_X__  No ____

                                                 

_________________________________           

Revised 6/10/04

 

Reviewed by: Dept. Head __BW______

 

Finance  Dept. ____________JB______                                     

                              

Deputy C.M. ___________________                                                                         

Submitted by:

City Manager ___________________

 

Account No. _________________

 

Project No. ___________________

 

WF No. ______________________

 

Budget  ______________________

 

Available _____________________


ORDINANCE NO. _____      

 

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF LEESBURG LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE IX. CONCURRENCY, SECTION 25-772  GENERAL PROVISIONS, (b) DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CONCURRENCY REVIEW BY REVISING THE CURRENT LANGUAGE; AND SECTION 25-774 FACILITY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, (A)  ROADS/TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, (1) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED AND (2)   VARIABLE RADII APPROACH FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS BY DELETING THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AND INSERTING THE REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY GUIDELINES; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

 

            BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA:

 

SECTION I.

 

Chapter 25, Article IX. Concurrency, Sections 25-772 and 25-774 for Traffic Analysis Requirements of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Leesburg, Florida, is hereby amended as follows:

 

ARTICLE IX. CONCURRENCY

Sec. 25-772  General provisions

            (b)     Development subject to concurrency review. Unless specifically exempted below, all final development orders shall be subject to concurrency review. A final development order means a permit which actually authorizes commencement of construction activity, and specifically includes building permits, final site plan approvals, final subdivision plat approvals, final zoning approvals for Planned Unit Developments (PUD), and development orders for developments of regional impact (DRI's). Additional development orders such as an order shall also mean any rezoning, variance, conditional final zoning approvals for Small Planned Unit Developments (SPUD) or change of use permit granted to a more intensive development activity which does not increase or have the potential to increase the traffic impacts of that development activity not otherwise requiring later building permits or site plan or subdivision approvals shall not be considered as a final development order subject to concurrency review.

 

Sec. 25-774 Facility specific requirements,

(a)  Roads/traffic circulation

 

(1)   Traffic analysis required.  Traffic analysis requirements shall be those required by the Leesburg Traffic Impact Study Methodology as adopted by the City of Leesburg and any future changes shall be through the amendment process as per the LDC requirements. All new commercial or industrial developments of ten thousand (10,000) or more square feet of gross floor area and all residential developments of one hundred (100) units or more shall submit a traffic analysis which identifies the development's impact on the city's and surrounding area's transportation system. The city may also require the submission of a traffic analysis for developments whose site location, anticipated total trip generation, circulation patterns, or other such factors warrant a more extensive review of traffic impacts. Such an analysis shall include the following: 

a.   Total projected average daily trip ends for the proposed development.

b.   Average projected peak-hour trip ends generated by the development.

c.   Design capacity of the accessed road(s).

d.   Analysis of traffic distribution on the road network including all links impacted by more than ten (10) percent of project traffic; or commercial or industrial developments of ten thousand (10,000) or more square feet of gross floor area and all residential developments of one hundred (100) units or more whichever is greater.

e.   Projected percentage of truck and automobile traffic.

f.   Necessary operational improvements to the city's transportation system in order to maintain the appropriate level of service for the roadway.

g.   Other related information as required by the city.

h.   The most current edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shall be used to calculate these estimates. Adjustments to these estimates may be made, based on special trip generation information supplied by the applicant.

i.   The analysis of traffic distribution shall use the variable radii approach for traffic analysis, as outlined in this section. Where appropriate, the study area radii may be expanded to include a nearby intersection, or otherwise modified to provide for a more accurate assessment of specific projects, including developments of regional impact (DRI's).

 

(2)   Variable radii approach for traffic analysis.   

Table 1: Traffic Impact Study Area Radii (Miles)

TABLE INSET:

 

     

   

Review Distance*   

Land Use Residential   

Single Family

   

0--250 du's   

0.5   

251--499 du's   

1   

500--1,000 du's   

1.5   

1,001 + du's   

2   

Multi-Family

   

0--250 du's   

0.25   

251--499 du's   

0.5   

500--1,000 du's   

0.75   

1,001 + du's   

1   

Mobile Homes

   

0--250 du's   

0.5   

251--499 du's   

1   

500--1,000 du's   

1.5   

1,001 + du's   

2   

Retail   

0--49,000 sf   

0.5   

49,001--100,000 sf   

0.75   

100,001--200,000 sf   

1.25   

200,001 + sf   

2   

Office   

0--25,000 sf   

0.5   

25,001--49,000 sf   

1   

49,001--100,000 sf   

1.5   

100,001 + sf   

2   

Medical Office   

   

   

0--49,000 sf   

0.5   

49,001--100,000 sf   

1   

100,001 + sf   

1.5   

Hotels/Motels   

0--250 rooms   

0.5   

251--500 rooms   

1   

501 + rooms   

1.5   

Restaurants   

   

   

Fast food/Drive-through   

0.25   

Family restaurant   

0.5   

Quality restaurant   

0.75   

Industrial/Manufacturing   

   

   

0--250 employees   

1   

251--500 employees   

1.75   

501 + employees   

2.5   

Convenience Store with Gas Pumps   

0.25   

Drive-In Banks   

0.25   

Day Care Centers   

0.25   

* Distance is measured in miles along the road network from the borders of the applicant site, not as a radius from the project.

a.   The study area shall consist of those primary road sections which are located within the designated distance from the project's access points and are functionally classified in the growth management plan as principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, and minor collectors.

b.   Where a specific land use is not listed, the most similar land use as determined by the city planning and zoning department shall apply.

 

                                               

                                   

City of Leesburg

Transportation Concurrency

Management System

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

METHODOLOGY GUIDELINES

 

 

VOLUME 1:

LAKE COUNTY CHECKBOOK TCMS

 

 

 

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction. 7

2.  Background. 7

3.  Requirements for a TIS. 9

3.1. When is a TIS required?. 9

3.2. Levels of TIS. 9

3.2.1. Tier 1 TIS: 0-25 Net New Peak-Hour Trips 9

3.2.2. Tier 2 TIS: 26-100 Net New Peak-Hour Trips 9

3.2.3. Tier 3 TIS: 101+ Net New Peak-Hour Trips 10

3.3. Review Process 10

4.  Process Flow Chart. 12

5.  Request for Exemption and Methodology Letter. 13

5.1. Request for Exemption Letter 13

5.2. Methodology Letter 13

6.  Report Format. 15

7.  TIS Report Breakdown. 17

7.1. Table of Contents, List of Figures and List of Tables 17

7.2. Introduction. 17

7.2.1. Purpose. 17

7.2.2. Project Description. 17

7.2.3. Site Location and Site Plan. 17

7.2.4. Study Area/Area of Influence. 17

7.2.5. Planned and Programmed Improvements 18

7.2.6. Committed Development 18

7.3. Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions 19

7.3.1. Pertinent Existing Roadway Information. 20

7.3.2. Existing Segment Geometry. 20

7.3.3. Existing Intersection Geometry. 20

7.3.4. Existing Traffic Volumes 20

7.3.5. Existing Level of Service. 21

7.4. Future Roadway Conditions 21

7.4.1. Pertinent Future Roadway Information. 22

7.4.2. Future Segment Geometry. 22

7.4.3. Future Intersection Geometry. 22

7.5. Future Traffic Conditions 22

7.5.1. Background Traffic. 23

7.5.2. Trip Generation. 23

7.5.3. Trip Distribution and Assignment 23

7.5.4. Future Traffic Volumes 24

7.6. Transportation Assessment 24

7.6.1. Segment Analysis 24

7.6.2. Intersection Analysis 25

7.6.3. Turn Lane Analysis 25

7.6.4. Access Analysis 25

7.7. Mitigation Strategies 27

7.7.1. Recommended Improvements 27

7.7.2. Proportionate Share Calculation. 27

7.8. Summary/Conclusions 28

7.9. Appendix. 28

8. Literature Review.. 30

 

Appendix A.  List of Acronyms. 31

 

Appendix B.  Total Trip Lengths & New Trip Percentages. 32

 


Introduction

 

The Lake~Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) entered into an interlocal agreement in 2007 with Lake County, Sumter County, all fourteen (14) municipalities in Lake County and the City of Wildwood.  This interlocal agreement, effective January 1, 2008, designated the MPO as the administrator of the transportation concurrency management systems (TCMS) for each of these local governments. 

 

The MPO currently monitors the Lake County checkbook TCMS, which covers all of Lake County, incorporated and unincorporated, the Sumter County growth-rate TCMS and the Wildwood growth-rate TCMS.  In an effort to standardize the evaluation and mitigation of transportation impacts throughout Lake and Sumter Counties, the MPO embarked on the development of this methodology document.

 

Background

 

The Lake~Sumter MPO, in coordination with the City of Mount Dora Planning and Development Department, has developed a set of guidelines, presented herein, for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS).  The intent of this document is to provide a general “best practices” preparation guide for applicants and/or consulting planners/engineers assessing the potential traffic impacts of new developments, updates to previously approved developments, or changes in zoning and/or Comprehensive Plan Amendments.  These guidelines establish minimum standards for all TIS reports, in order to provide a clear, orderly and consistent basis on which traffic impacts are to be evaluated.

 

A TIS is an important tool in the overall development planning process.  It provides information which will allow local governments to evaluate the impact of a development, with respect to the need for roadway/intersection capacity, operational and safety improvements.  The TIS shall also identify mitigation measures for the impacts identified.

 

A TIS allows a local government to make more informed decisions.  The requirements for the preparation of a TIS are in place to ensure that the local government is able to:

 

·         Identify, in advance, any potential adverse impacts to the existing transportation system, such that appropriate mitigation strategies can be developed.

 

·         Assist public and private sector entities in the early identification of issues related to traffic operations, including, but not limited to, driveway/access locations, traffic signals, and other elements of transportation facilities.

 

·         Support long term planning solutions that foster responsible growth of transportation infrastructure, consistent with the local government’s Comprehensive Plan and vision for the community.

 

A development application will not be deemed complete until a final, approved TIS is received and approved by the local government.  In addition, applicants should note that interagency and intergovernmental coordination is necessary for projects that impact transportation facilities maintained by the State (FDOT), County or adjacent/other local governments.

 

 

 

 

The Lake~Sumter MPO extends a special thanks to the City of Mount Dora and their consultant, Dyer Riddle Mills & Precourt, Inc. (DRMP), for their assistance in developing this methodology document.

 

City of Mount Dora                    DRMP 2 Color Logo (6 inches wide)


Requirements for a TIS

 

3.1. When is a TIS required?

 

The preparation of a TIS shall be necessary at the time a preliminary development plan application is submitted for all development projects.  The level of detail and type of TIS for each project will depend on the number of net new peak-hour trips generated, as detailed in Section 3.2.  The amount of net new peak-hour, project traffic/trips generated by the proposed development, which accounts for adjustments for internal capture and pass-by trips, if applicable, shall be based on its proposed land uses and calculated using the trip generation methodologies and guidelines contained herein (refer to Section 7).  

 

A TIS is also required for all aspects of site development and impact assessment within the local government’s jurisdiction.  This includes, but is not limited to, updates to previously approved developments, the development of the Local Government Comprehensive Plan (LGCP), LGCP amendments (particularly Future Land Use Map (FLUM) changes), as well as participation in Development of Regional Impact (DRIs) and Florida Quality Development (FQDs) review and approval.  This also includes zoning, reviews of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), subdivision ordinances, and related land activities, and Congestion Management Plans (CMPs), including subsequent Campus Development Agreements (CDAs).  In addition, a TIS shall be required for all updates or unapproved phases of a project/development.

 

3.2. Levels of TIS

 

3.2.1. Tier 1 TIS: 0-25 Net New Peak-Hour Trips

 

If the traffic impacts of a proposed development can be clearly determined without the submittal of a TIS, and all the parties involved (local government, MPO, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), applicant, etc.) are in agreement (including on any necessary mitigation), the submittal of a full TIS may not be necessary.  This would likely most often occur with smaller, less intense projects that generate negligible trips.  If an applicant believes that their project meets this criterion, the applicant must submit a Request for Exemption Letter.  

 

It should be noted that, ultimately, these trip thresholds are only guidelines and Exemptions are granted at the discretion of the local government.  The requirements for the Request for Exemption Letter are discussed in Sections 5 and 7.

 

3.2.2. Tier 2 TIS: 26-100 Net New Peak-Hour Trips

 

A project that generates between twenty-six (26) and one-hundred (100) net new peak-hour project trips shall require the preparation of a TIS unless the applicant believes their project is more in keeping with a Tier 1-type project.  In such a case, the applicant may submit a Request for Exemption Letter.  Approval and granting of this Exemption, however, is strictly at the discretion of the local government.  

 

In addition, as an option, applicants may submit a Methodology Letter prior to the submittal of the TIS.  The requirements for a Tier 2 TIS, Request for Exemption Letter and Methodology Letter are discussed in Sections 5, 6 and 7.  The classification of a project as a Tier 2 TIS is at the discretion of the local government.

 

As an example, developments of the following size, or larger, typically generate between twenty-six (26) and one-hundred (100), net new peak-hour project trips and would, thus, require a traffic study:

 

·         Retail – 1,000 square feet gross leasable area

·         Single Family Residential – 20 dwelling units

·         Apartment – 15 dwelling units

·         Office Building – 1,000 square feet gross floor area

 

3.2.3. Tier 3 TIS: 101+ Net New Peak-Hour Trips

 

A project that generates one-hundred and one (101) or more net new peak-hour project trips shall require the preparation of a more-detailed TIS than would normally be required for a Tier 2 project.  This requirement for additional detail will be at the discretion of local government and will be negotiated as part of the methodology review process which involves the submittal and review of a Methodology Letter, to be approved by the local government prior to the submittal of the TIS.  In general, a project requiring a Tier 3 TIS shall be required to utilize the Lake~Sumter MPO’s currently adopted travel demand model, presently the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District 5, Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM), Version 4.1, to evaluate future traffic conditions.  The requirements for a Tier 3 TIS and Methodology Letter are discussed in Sections 5, 6 and 7.  The classification of a project as requiring a Tier 3 TIS is at the discretion of the local government.

 

 

As an example, developments of the following size, or larger, typically generate one-hundred and one (101) or more net new peak-hour project trips and would thus require a traffic study:

 

·         Retail – 7,000 square feet gross leasable area

·         Single Family Residential – 100 dwelling units

·         Apartment – 160 dwelling units

·         Office Building – 30,000 square feet gross floor area

 

3.3. Review Process

 

The applicant shall submit three (3) hard copies and one (1) full PDF (electronic) copy of the TIS to the local government’s Development Review Coordinator, at the time of application or plan submittal.  One copy will be for the local government’s file, one for the local government’s review and one for the Lake~Sumter MPO’s review.  If the local government and MPO determine additional agency participation is warranted in the review, additional copies may be requested.  These additional agencies may include FDOT or the Florida Turnpike Enterprise, the County, or an impacted adjacent local government.  After review, the applicable local government, home to the proposed project, will provide the applicant with a memorandum which contains specific comments from all parties regarding the TIS.  These comments must be addressed and necessary mitigation agreed upon prior to final approval being granted.

 

 


Process Flow Chart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Request for Exemption and Methodology Letter

 

5.1. Request for Exemption Letter

 

A Request for Exemption Letter is sometimes applicable, as discussed in Section 3.2.  At a minimum, the Request for Exemption Letter, based on the guidelines stated herein, shall provide the following information:

 

·         Purpose (also include grounds for exemption)

·         Project Description

·         Site Location/Site Plan

·         Area of Influence/Study Area

·         Trip Generation – Based on Guidelines Set Forth in Section 7

·         Trip Distribution/Assignment – Required to determine availability of capacity, and, for Lake County projects, to update the Lake County Checkbook TCMS

 

Details regarding the requirements for each bulleted item listed above are provided in Section 7. 

 

Sample Request for Exemption Letter(s) may be added to the appendix of this document, or to the MPO and/or local government websites, at a later time, for reference.

 

5.2. Methodology Letter

 

A Methodology Letter, applicable as discussed in Section 3.2, shall be submitted to the local government, prior to submittal of the TIS, for any project that generates one-hundred and one (101) or more net new peak-hour project trips.  The Methodology Letter, also optional prior to submittal of a Tier 2 TIS, is required to: 

 

·         Identify whether the project will require a Tier 2 or Tier 3 TIS.

·         Identify any critical issues such as, but not limited to, trip generation, trip distribution, the extent of the study, the area of influence, the horizon years, specific time periods to be analyzed, and data sources.

·         Ensure that all relevant issues are adequately addressed in the TIS and that no extraneous elements are included in the study.

·         Help the applicant understand the local government's expectations should further studies be required.

 

 

 

At a minimum the Methodology Letter, based on the guidelines stated herein, shall provide the following information:

 

·         Purpose

·         Project Description

·         Site Location/Site Plan

·         Area of Influence/Study Area *

·         TCMS Data for Study Area Roadways *

·         Intersections to be Analyzed

·         Planned and Programmed Improvements

·         Trip Generation

·         Trip Distribution

·         Trip Assignment

·         Future Traffic Volumes

·         Future Intersection Volumes

 

* Prior to submitting the Methodology Letter, the applicant should request the local government/MPO provide a study area report, generated by the Lake County TCMS software, based on location, and proposed land uses.  This shall include a study area map and current TCMS data spreadsheet, including existing volumes, existing Level of Service (LOS), LOS standards, service volumes, and committed/reserved trips (background).

 

Details regarding the requirements for each bulleted item listed above are provided in Section 7.

 

Sample Methodology Letter(s) may be added to the appendix of this document, at a later time, for reference.

 

Report Format

 

In order to provide consistency and facilitate review of the TIS, the following outline shall be followed to the extent possible:

           

Table of Contents

 

List of Figures

 

List of Tables

 

1.    Introduction

·         Purpose

·         Project Description

·         Site Location and Site Plan

·         Study Area/Area of Influence *

·         Planned and Programmed Improvements

·         Committed Development

 

2.    Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions

·         Pertinent Existing Roadway Information *

·         Existing Segment Geometry

·         Existing Intersection Geometry

·         Existing Traffic Volumes *

·         Existing Level of Service *

 

3.    Future Roadway Conditions

·         Pertinent Future Roadway Information

·         Future Segment Geometry

·         Future Intersection Geometry

 

4.    Future Traffic Conditions

·         Background Traffic *

·         Trip Generation

·         Trip Distribution and Assignment

·         Future Traffic Volumes

 

5.    Transportation Assessment

·         Segment Analysis

·         Intersection Analysis

·         Turn Lane Analysis

·         Access Analysis

 

6.    Mitigation Strategies

·         Recommended Improvements

·         Proportionate Share calculation (if applicable)

 

7.    Summary/Conclusions

·        A brief discussion (one or two paragraphs) shall be provided to highlight the TIS Tier classification (Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3), methodology followed and general results.

·        Action requested (e.g., approval of mitigation strategy) of local government shall be specified.

 

            8.  Appendix

                        A.  Traffic Count Data

                                              i.        Average Daily 24-Hour or Peak-Hour Traffic Counts (collected, as necessary)

                                            ii.        Peak-Hour Turning Movement Counts (A.M., P.M., Mid-day, Weekend (collected, as necessary)

b.    Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets

                                              i.        Existing Conditions

                                            ii.        Future Conditions (per phase, if required)

                                           iii.        Future Mitigated Condition (per phase, if required)

c.    Lake County TCMS Spreadsheet

d.    Trip Distribution plot from the MPO Travel Demand Model (Tier 2, if necessary, and Tier 3 TIS)

 

* Prior to submitting the Methodology Letter, the applicant should request the local government/MPO provide a study area report, generated by the Lake County TCMS software, based on location, and proposed land uses.  This shall include a study area map and current TCMS data spreadsheet, including existing volumes, existing LOS, LOS standards, service volumes, and committed/reserved trips (background).

 

TIS Report Breakdown

 

The following section describes the minimum content/information that shall be included in each chapter or section of the TIS based on the outline provided in Section 6.

7.1. Table of Contents, List of Figures and List of Tables

 

A Table of Contents, List of Figures and List of Tables shall be provided as part of the TIS report.

7.2. Introduction

 

This chapter, or section, shall contain pertinent information about the proposed project.  The information that shall be provided is discussed below.

 

7.2.1. Purpose

 

The tier (1, 2 or 3) of TIS and reason for the submittal of the TIS shall be stated.  For example, it shall be stated if the TIS is being submitted for a development plan approval, zoning change, etc.  Another example would be if the TIS is being submitted as an update to a previously approved development/phase.

 

7.2.2. Project Description

 

A brief description of the proposed project shall be provided. The following information shall be provided and can be presented as a bulleted list or table:

 

 

 

7.2.3. Site Location and Site Plan

 

An area figure/map shall be provided to show the location of the project in relation to the surrounding region.  This figure shall show the area of influence of the project, as discussed in the following section.  In addition, a site plan shall be included in this section to provide an overview of the project site and site access.

 

7.2.4. Study Area/Area of Influence

 

The study area to be addressed by the applicant shall be regional in nature and shall include all roadways and major intersections affected by the proposed development.  For those projects requiring a Methodology Letter, the study area will be defined prior to submittal of the TIS.  The applicant should request the local government/MPO provide the study area based on location and proposed land use (provided by applicant).

 

The extent of the study impact area shall be determined by the area of influence of the project.  The area of influence shall be established as one-half (1/2) the total trip length associated with the land use of the proposed development, based upon the Lake County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report (see table in Appendix A, column “E”).  The area of influence shall be based on the “as the car drives” distance as opposed to the “as the bird flies” distance.  The roadway segments and intersections within the area of influence shall be considered for further study.  In cases where the proposed project involves multiple land uses, the study area shall be defined as one-half the total trip length associated with the land use having the longest total trip length.

 

It should be noted that once the study area has been established based on the previously described methodology, there is the potential that not all intersections and segments within the study area will require full analysis. The intersections requiring full data collection and analysis will be determined by the anticipated effect of the proposed development at each location.  The principal factors in this determination include the project trip distribution on the study area network and existing LOS and operations on the study area roadways and at the subject intersections.  As the affect of the project traffic on more distant segments and intersections diminishes, specific locations may be removed from further consideration.  Additionally, factors that could also influence the area of influence are the existing and future land uses in the area, and the existing and future transportation network.   

The study area roadways and intersections may be discussed during the methodology review process, but ultimately, it is at the discretion of the local government to reduce or expand the study area, as deemed necessary.

7.2.5. Planned and Programmed Improvements

 

This section shall identify and discuss all planned and programmed roadway improvements relevant to the study area.  This includes all local, state and federal projects that have been planned or funded.  The section shall include a list of planned or programmed improvements, location/limits, programmed phases with years, and the name of the agency responsible for implementing the project.  Only those programmed improvements contained in the first three (3) years of the relevant work program, and funded for construction, shall be considered as capacity “in-place.”  If no programmed or planned improvements are relevant to the study area, the applicant shall indicate that there are no planned or programmed improvements within the project study area within the next three years.  In general, the Lake County TCMS will be kept up to date with planned and programmed improvements from the first three years of the work program.

 

7.2.6. Committed Development

 

This section shall include discussion and figures pertaining to Approved/Committed Development.  In general, the Lake County TCMS will be kept updated with committed/reserved trips relevant to the study area.  If no information is available then an appropriate growth rate, as approved by the local government, shall be used. 

7.3. Existing Roadway and Traffic Conditions

 

The applicant is responsible for collecting or obtaining the existing conditions data required to effectively produce a TIS that meets the local government’s requirements.  The existing conditions data will include information on existing roadway geometry, existing traffic control, existing traffic volumes and existing LOS. This information shall be from field observations and the Lake County TCMS spreadsheet and may be presented collectively using tables and/or figures. 

 

7.3.1. Pertinent Existing Roadway Information

 

Any information that does not fall strictly into the existing segment and intersection categories shall be documented. This may include discussion and figures pertaining to Access Management (e.g., restricted, unrestricted), Functional Classification (e.g., arterial, collector, local road), Area Type (e.g., urban, urban transitioning, or rural/undeveloped), etc.

 

7.3.2. Existing Segment Geometry

 

Information shall be provided about the existing geometry or laneage of the study segments. Typically this information is depicted in a figure or listed in a table.

 

7.3.3. Existing Intersection Geometry

 

Information shall be provided about the existing geometry or laneage of the study intersections. Typically this information is depicted in a figure or listed in a table.

 

7.3.4. Existing Traffic Volumes

 

A discussion and appropriate tables/figures shall be provided to present existing year Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and peak-hour directional volumes on study area roadway segments, and existing year peak-hour turning movement counts (TMCs) at the study area intersections.

 

P.M. peak-hour directional volumes are provided in the Lake County TCMS spreadsheet, provided at or before methodology.  In cases where no information exists in the TCMS for a particular segment (zeroes in the TCMS), manual/tube counts shall be required.  For such a situation, count data from the most recent FDOT Traffic Information DVD and/or the Lake County Annual Traffic Counts program may also be utilized to obtain segment volumes.  Historical TMC data collected by others that is less than one (1) year old may also be utilized, with prior local government approval, provided that the counts are grown to present day volumes using an accepted growth rate.

 

7.3.5. Existing Level of Service

 

Existing LOS analyses shall be conducted for segments and intersections based on currently accepted traffic engineering principles. Methods that incorporate and apply appropriate techniques from the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) are acceptable. These methods may include the use of the latest available versions of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), Synchro, LOSPLAN and the FDOT Generalized Service tables.

 

The existing LOS shall be compared to the adopted LOS standards used for concurrency determination and shall be consistent with the Transportation Element of the local government’s Comprehensive Plan. The LOS standards for an intersection analysis shall be the conservative adopted roadway LOS standard of the intersecting roadways. For the majority of facilities, the Lake County TCMS will be kept up to date with the adopted LOS standards, area type, facility type, maximum service volume, etc. as they apply to the transportation network.

 

When an applicant is utilizing the FDOT Generalized Service tables, particular attention shall be given to the appropriate selection of criteria based on Access Management (e.g., restricted, unrestricted), Functional Classification (e.g., arterial, collector, local road), Area Type (e.g., urban, urban transitioning, or rural/undeveloped), etc.

 

Before conducting an analysis utilizing LOSPLAN, the applicant shall verify with the Lake County TCMS that an analysis on the affected segments has not already been developed, and is being applied in the TCMS, within the past year.  If an approved LOSPLAN analysis, less than one (1) year old, exists within the Lake County TCMS, the applicant shall utilize these results for the applicable segments of the system within the study area.

7.4. Future Roadway Conditions

 

This section shall contain information pertaining to the future (build-out year) roadway conditions. Generally, if the future roadway conditions are not substantially different from the existing year (as would be the case when there are no pertinent planned and programmed improvements) then this section may not be necessary and a brief statement to that effect shall be provided.

 

7.4.1. Pertinent Future Roadway Information

 

Any information that does not fall strictly into the existing segment and intersection categories shall be documented. This may include discussion and figures pertaining to Access Management (e.g., restricted, unrestricted), Functional Classification (e.g., arterial, collector, local road), Area Type (e.g., urban, urban transitioning, or rural/undeveloped), etc. If the pertinent roadway information does not differ from that of the then this may be stated in lieu of tables or figures.

 

7.4.2. Future Segment Geometry

 

This section shall include information about the future geometry or laneage of the study segments.  Typically this information can be depicted in a figure or listed in a table.  If the future segment geometry does not differ from the existing segment geometry, then this may be stated in lieu of tables or figures.

 

7.4.3. Future Intersection Geometry

 

This section shall include information about the future geometry or laneage of the study intersections. Typically this information can be depicted in a figure or listed in a table. If the future intersection geometry does not differ from the existing intersection geometry, then this information may be stated in lieu of any tables or figures.

7.5. Future Traffic Conditions

 

The applicant shall provide a graphical summary or table of the future year background traffic, plus the proposed development traffic for the A.M. peak-hour, P.M. peak-hour, Mid-day peak-hour or weekend peak-hour (whichever is applicable).  These volumes shall include both segment and turning movements within the study area.

 

Note that deminimis impacts are defined by Florida Statute as project impacts equating to less than 1% of the maximum service volume for the impacted roadway segment.  Cumulative deminimis impacts may not exceed 110% of the maximum service volume for non-hurricane evacuation routes or 100% of the maximum service volume for designated hurricane evacuation routes.

 

7.5.1. Background Traffic

 

Background (committed/reserved) traffic from approved developments in the area shall be tracked and is maintained within the Lake County TCMS.  As such, in most cases, a separate determination of background traffic will not be required.

 

7.5.2. Trip Generation

 

Trip generation involves estimating the number of trips that will be produced from or attracted to the proposed development. The latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual (currently the 7th Edition, as of the writing of this document) shall be used to determine proposed project trip estimates.  The estimates obtained from this source must be used with good judgment as they are based on national data and may not take into account any special features that the local subject site might have.

 

Opportunities are available for reducing the estimated trips to derive net, new, external trips and include:

 

·         INTERNAL CAPTURE – Internal capture refers to the percentage of trips generated by a multiple land use development (e.g., having a combination of retail, office and/or residential uses) that take place entirely within that development.  Deductions may be made to the total site-generated trip estimates of a multi-use development by estimating the amount of internal capture for individual land uses.  The ITE Trip Generation Handbook contains the recommended procedure for estimating internal capture deductions.

 

·         PASS-BY TRIPS – Retail land uses experience pass-by trip "capture" from the adjacent traffic stream.  Pass-by trips are those already on the network making intermediate stops en-route between an origin and a primary trip destination, without route diversion.  These trips shall not be included in the new trip estimates.  In general, pass-by trips should not exceed 10% of the background traffic on the adjacent roadway, nor 25% of total trip generation.  However, fast-food restaurants, gas stations/convenience stores, pharmacies/drug stores and drive-in banks, due to their high pass-by nature, may exceed 25% of the total, with permission from the local government.  New trip percentages, by land use, are provided in the Lake County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Final Report (see table in Appendix A, column “F”).

 

The use of internal capture and pass-by rates shall be approved at the discretion of the local government.

 

7.5.3. Trip Distribution and Assignment

 

Trip distribution is a process by which the trips generated in one traffic analysis zone (TAZ), or by one land use, are allocated to other TAZs, or other land uses, in the study area.  Trip assignment is the process of numerically assigning the distributed trips to specific transportation facilities.  The term “trip distribution” is sometimes used to define both procedures of trip distribution and assignment.

 

Trip distribution and assignment may be based on the Lake~Sumter MPO’s currently adopted travel demand model (presently CFRPM), market analysis, existing traffic flows, applied census data, or professional judgment (manually distributed).  In general, this section shall present the forecasted trip assignment based on the development’s trip generation and distribution estimates. This typically takes the form of figures providing the percentage of total proposed project trips on the individual roadways in the transportation study network.  The procedures and logic for estimating the trip distributions must be well documented. The trip distribution and assignment patterns shall be presented for each phase of the development or as requested by the local government. Unless otherwise agreed at Methodology, proposed projects which are projected to generate one-hundred and one (101) or more net new peak-hour project trips (Tier 3 TIS) should utilize the Lake~Sumter MPO’s currently adopted travel demand model (presently CFRPM) to derive trip assignment percentages.

 

7.5.4. Future Traffic Volumes

 

This section shall include discussion and figures presenting future year ADT on study roadway segments and future year peak-hour TMCs at the study intersections. Typically, this information can be depicted in a figure or listed in a table. This estimate of future year traffic volumes on the study area transportation network would result from the summation of the proposed project volumes, determined after the processes of trip generation (including adjustment for internal capture and pass-by trips), trip distribution and assignment, committed/reserved trips from the Lake County TCMS, and existing traffic volumes.

 

 

 

 


7.6. Transportation Assessment

 

LOS analyses shall be conducted and utilize the future and projected traffic volumes, as obtained following the guidance provided in Section 7.5. The analysis shall be based on currently accepted traffic engineering principles. Methods that incorporate and apply appropriate techniques from the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual are acceptable. These methods may include the use of HCS, Synchro 6 and higher, LOSPLAN and FDOT Generalized Service tables.

 

The LOS standards used for concurrency determination shall be consistent with the Transportation Element of the local government’s Comprehensive Plan. The LOS standards for an intersection shall be the most conservative adopted roadway LOS standard of the intersecting roadways. For the majority of facilities, the Lake County TCMS will be kept up to date with the adopted LOS standards, area types, facility types, maximum service volumes, etc., as they apply to the transportation network.

 

7.6.1. Segment Analysis

 

A roadway segment analysis shall be performed on each of the study segments. If the analysis indicates that the future segment LOS will be below the adopted LOS standard, potential mitigation measures shall be developed, as well as a fair share calculation for these measures.  The latest version of LOSPLAN can also be used to develop an alternative capacity/service volume based on corridor-specific data.  The LOSPLAN analyses must be approved by the local government and shall be applied in the TCMS as the new capacity.

 

7.6.2. Intersection Analysis

 

A signalized or unsignalized intersection analysis shall be performed on each of the study intersections. The procedure shall utilize Highway Capacity Manual techniques, as previously mentioned in Section 7.6.  The existing LOS shall be compared to the adopted LOS standards, used for concurrency determination, and shall be consistent with the Transportation Element of the local government’s Comprehensive Plan. The LOS standards for an intersection shall be the most conservative adopted roadway LOS standard of the intersecting roadways.

 

 

 

A summary of the analysis results shall be tabulated with the software output included in the Appendix section. If the analysis determines that the future intersection LOS will be below the adopted LOS standard, potential mitigation measures shall be developed as well as fair share calculation for these measures.

 

7.6.3. Turn Lane Analysis

 

For intersections with failing turning movements, the need for additional turn lanes and an analysis of turn lane storage length adequacy shall be conducted.  Information regarding the methodologies to conduct this analysis is available in References 21, 22 and 23.

 

7.6.4. Access Analysis

 

The TIS shall include an assessment of on-site and off-site turn lane adequacy, required storage, potential for signalization, sight distance and other intersection safety aspects, and on-site circulation as it may affect access. Use of joint access driveways is encouraged to reduce the total number of connections to the roadway network.

 

The following points should be considered in determining the need for turn lanes:

 

·         The total traffic generated by the anticipated traffic distribution, the number of access points and the projected turning movement volumes.

·         A traffic analysis indicates that turn lanes would be necessary to maintain capacity on fronting roads and/or at adjacent or nearby intersections.

·         Entrances are proposed at locations where grade, topography, site distance, traffic, or other unusual conditions indicate that turn lanes would be needed to improve safety.

 

Land development regulations will govern when access to the County Road network is involved.  Lake County typically requires turn lanes projects generating 50+ peak hour trips.  For access to the State Highway System, normal procedures with FDOT apply.

7.7. Mitigation Strategies

 

If the transportation assessment reveals that the potential project will not result in a deficiency in the existing roadway network then no project-related improvements are required. However, mitigation strategies must be developed if the transportation assessment determines that the proposed project will potentially result in a deficiency in the LOS of transportation facilities. This process involves addressing the extent of the mitigation strategies/solutions as well as calculation of fair share cost.

 

7.7.1. Recommended Improvements

 

Mitigation strategies must be developed if the transportation assessment determines that the proposed project will potentially result in a deficiency in the Level of Service of transportation facilities. Mitigation measures for segments, intersections, turn lanes and site access shall be developed to allow the build condition to operate above the local government’s acceptable Level of Service standards. These measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to:

 

·         Revised striping

·         Addition of turn lanes

·         Addition of travel lanes

·         Addition of storage lanes

·         Lengthening of storage lanes

·         Installation of traffic signals

·         Installation of traffic control signs

·         Restriction of turning movements

·         Adjustment of cycle lengths

·         Introduction of additional signal phases

 

Improvements must be concurrent with the impacts of development. Concurrency is a state requirement that development is not to proceed unless infrastructure capacity and specific urban services are in place to service the new development.

 

If reasonable mitigation measures cannot be implemented to assure that traffic will operate in an efficient way, a more detailed evaluation of project size, land use types, and development phasing may be required. If viable transportation improvements cannot be recommended, then steps must be taken to reduce the project’s impact on the adjacent roadway network to acceptable levels.

 

7.7.2. Proportionate Share Calculation

 

The intent of the proportionate share option is to provide applicants an opportunity to proceed under certain conditions, notwithstanding the failure of transportation concurrency, by contributing their share of the cost of improving the impacted transportation facility. However, the ability of local governments to fund improvements is subject to budget constraints.

 

Consequently, it should be noted that the determination of a project’s proportionate share cost and the applicant’s ability to pay that cost is not a guarantee the project will be approved. In addition, there is no guarantee of a funding match by the local government to facilitate implementation of the proposed mitigation strategy unless it is formalized in an agreement.

The estimated cost of the needed intersection and roadway improvements shall be calculated for the stage or phase of the project under review using guidance provided in FS 163.3180 (16) and FAC 9J-2.045. The formula below is provided as guidance:

 

                                                                                                                                          

 

where,

 

·         Increase in Service Volume is the change in peak-hour maximum service volume of the roadway that would result from the construction of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS.

·         Cost of Improvement is the cost of construction, at the time of developer payment, of an improvement necessary to maintain the adopted level of service. Construction cost includes all improvement associated costs, including engineering design, right-of-way acquisition, planning, engineering, inspection, and other associated physical development costs directly required and associated with the construction of the improvement, as determined by the governmental agency having maintenance authority over the roadway.

·         Project Trips are the trips from the stage or phase of the project under review that are assigned to a roadway segment and have triggered a deficiency based upon comparison to the adopted LOS.

 

7.8. Summary/Conclusions

 

A brief discussion (one or two paragraphs) shall be provided to highlight the TIS Tier classification (Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3), methodology followed and general results. In addition the action requested (e.g., approval of mitigation strategy) of local government shall be specified.

 

7.9. Appendix

 

A. Traffic Count Data

i.       Average Daily 24-Hour Traffic Volumes (as necessary)

ii.         Peak-hour Turning Movement Volumes (A.M./P.M./Mid-day, as necessary)

 

B. Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets

i.       Existing Conditions

ii.      Future Conditions (per phase if required)

iii.      Future Mitigated Condition (per phase if required)

 

C. Lake County TCMS spreadsheet (relevant sections)

 

8. Literature Review

 

1.      City of American Canyon, California. (2006). Draft Impact Traffic Study Guidelines.

2.      Bedford County, Virginia. (2004). Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

3.      Hendry County, Florida. (2004). Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and Procedures.

4.      Indiana Dept. of Transportation. (1993). Applicant’s Guide to Traffic Impact Studies.

5.      City of Lexington, South Carolina. (1999). Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

6.      Missouri Dept. of Transportation. (2006). Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

7.      North Carolina Dept. of Transportation. (2003). Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

8.      City of Sedro-Woolley, Washington. (2005). Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.

9.      City of Winter Garden, Florida. (2006). Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements.

10.   California Dept. of Transportation. (2002). Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.

11.   City of Pasadena, California. (1999). Traffic Impact Report Preparation Guidelines.

12.   Harris County, Texas. (2002). Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.

13.   City of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (2001). Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis.

14.   City of Berkeley, California. (2005). Guidelines for Development of Traffic Impact Reports.

15.   Citrus County, Florida. (2000). Traffic Impact Guidelines.

16.   Riverside County, California. (2005). Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide.

17.   Florida Dept. of Transportation. (1997). Site Impact Handbook.   

18.   Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2003). Trip Generation.  (7th ed.)  Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

19.   Garber, J. N. & Hoel, A. L. (1988). Traffic and Highway Engineering.  St. Paul: West Publishing Company.

20.    Mcshane, R, W., Prassas, S. E., Roess, P. R. (2004). Traffic Engineering.  (3rd ed.)  Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. 

21.   Florida Dept. of Transportation. (2006). Roadway and Traffic Design Standards.

22.   Florida Dept. of Transportation. (2006). Plans Preparation Manual - Volume 1.

23.   National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2001). NCHRP Report 457 -Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

24.   Florida Dept. of Transportation. (2006). Model Ordinance for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation of Development Impacts On Transportation Corridors. 

25.   Florida Legislature. (2008). The 2007 Florida Statutes.  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/

26.   Florida Administrative Weekly & Florida Administrative Code. (2008).  Transportation Uniform Standard Rule.  https://www.flrules.org/

27.   Florida Dept. of Transportation. (2007). 2007 LOS Issue Papers.

 

Appendix A.  List of Acronyms

 

ADT                Average Daily Traffic

CDA               Campus Development Agreement

CFRPM          Central Florida Regional Planning Model

CMP               Congestion Management System

DRI                 Development of Regional Impact

FDOT             Florida Department of Transportation

FLUM             Future Land Use Map

FQD                Florida Quality Development

HCM               Highway Capacity Manual

HCS               Highway Capacity Software

ITE                  Institute of Transportation Engineers

LGCP             Local Government Comprehensive Plan

LOS                Level of Service

MPO               Metropolitan Planning Organization

PDF                Portable Document Format

PUD               Planned Unit Development

TAZ                 Traffic Analysis Zone

TCMS             Transportation Concurrency Management System

TIS                  Traffic Impact Study

TMC                Turning Movement Count

 

Appendix B.  Total Trip Lengths & New Trip Percentages

 

Source:          Lake County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study

Final Report – Table 9.1

 

SECTION II.

 

If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable, then to the extent it is possible to do so without destroying the overall intent and effect of this ordinance, the portion deemed invalid or unenforceable shall be severed herefrom and the remainder of this ordinance shall continue in full force and effect as if it were enacted without including the portion found to be invalid or unenforceable.

 

SECTION III.

 

All ordinances or parts of ordinances which are in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed, to the extent necessary to alleviate the conflict, but shall continue in effect insofar as they are not in conflict herewith, unless repeal of the conflicting portion destroys the overall intent and effect of any of  the conflicting ordinances, in which case those ordinances so affected shall be hereby repealed in their entirety.

 

SECTION IV.

 

This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and adoption according to law.

 

 

PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Commission of the City of Leesburg, Florida, held on the                    day of                                    , 2009.

 

 

THE CITY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA

 

 

BY:                                                                 

Mayor

 

 

Attest:                                                                        

City Clerk

 

 

 

Note: In the amendments, strike throughs are deletions with additions following.