USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An access management strategy for the US 19 highway corridor

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An access management strategy for the US 19 highway corridor
Physical Description:
27 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Williams, Kristine
Kramer, Jeffrey H
Nikitopoulos, Irene
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Express highways -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Land use -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Traffic congestion -- Prevention -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Kristine M. Williams, Jeffrey H. Kramer, Irene Nikitopoulos.
General Note:
"December 2000."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001927296
oclc - 46833651
usfldc doi - C01-00222
usfldc handle - c1.222
System ID:
SFS0032316:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200301Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001927296
005 20080327143813.0
008 010427s2000 flua 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00222
2 local
035
(OCoLC)46833651
040
TRL
c TRL
d OCLCQ
FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HE5633.F6
b W544 2000
1 100
Williams, Kristine.
3 245
An access management strategy for the US 19 highway corridor /
prepared by Kristine M. Williams, Jeffrey H. Kramer, Irene Nikitopoulos.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
2000.
300
27 p. :
ill. ;
28 cm.
500
"December 2000."
530
Also available online.
0 650
Express highways
z Florida
x Planning.
Land use
Florida
Planning.
Traffic congestion
Florida
Prevention.
Transportation
Florida
Planning.
700
Kramer, Jeffrey H.
Nikitopoulos, Irene.
710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
994
C0
FHM
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.222



PAGE 1

AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE US 1 9 ID GHW A Y CORRIDOR This researc h was supported by grants from Levy County/D epartm e n t of Community A ffairs, and the Fl orida D e p artme n t of Tr ansportation Th e recommenda tio n s co n taine d herein represen t the reco mmendations of t h e Center for U rban Trdnsp o rt atio n Research and ar e not n e cessarily t h e policies of the gr anti n g agencies Prepared by: Kris ti ne M. Williams, AICP J eff rey H. Kramer, AICP Ire n e Nik.it opou l os Ce nter for Urban Trans p ortation R esearch University of South Flo ri da, College of Engi neeri ng 4202 E. Fo w ler Ave., CUT 100 T ampa. FL 33620-5350 December 2000

PAGE 2

this page IS blank

PAGE 3

.. ............................ .... ........ . .... . ...... ......... ......... 1 BACKGRO UNI> .. ....... ... .. .. .. .............. ................ .................. .... ............ ......................... 2 S T ATEWI D E PLANS AND P O LICIES AFFECfiNG US 19 .................... .. .. .. ..... 4 ACCESS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR US 19 ...................... ..... ......... ......... ......... 4 US H!GHW AY 19 CORRIDOR ACTION PLAN (CAP) ............................................ .. .......... 6 PLANNED OR PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS .. .. .................................................... .. ....... 7 ASSESS1\1':ENT OF ClJRRENT PRACI'ICE ............................... ..... ....................... .... ... 8 l..EVY COUN'IT .............................................................. ..... ................ . ........................... 9 Comprehensive Plan ....... ............. ............................ .......... ......................... . ........... 9 Subdivision Regulations . .............. ....... ....... ... ...... ....... ................. ........... ............. ... 10 Access Management Regulations ... ..... ..... ..................... .............. ...... ................ .... 11 General Comments: ............................ ............... ....... ......... .............. ............... ...... 13 CITY OF FANNING SPRINGS ...... .. .. .. .. .. .............. .. .... ............ .................... .. ..... ......... 14 Comprehensive Plan .... ..... .... ................... ............ .. ....... ..... .............. ........... ............ 14 lAnd Developmellt and Subdivision Regulmions ........ .......................................... :. 14 Visioning Process ...................... ... : .... ...... ....... ................ .. ... ....... ............................ 15 General Comments: .... ....... .................. .... ................ ........... .................... . ..... ....... . 15 CITY OF Cl!lEFLAND ... ............. ..... ........................... ......... ........ .................................. 16 Comprehensive Plan ........ ....... ......... ...... .. ............ ....... .... ....... ........... .............. ....... 16 Subdivision Regulations ....................... ._ ........... ............. ............... .... ......... ....... .... 16 General Comments ........ .... .. ....... ............................ .... ...... ..... ......... ..... .... ... ... ......... 18 ACCESS MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP COMMENTS .................................... .. .... .. .......... .. 19 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. .. ............. .. .. ... .. .. ........ ... .. .. .......... ... .. .... 21 C ONCEPTUAL ACCESS :MANAGEMENT PLAN . ............... ............................... 22 APPENDI X A: DRAFT INTERGOVERNMEN TAL AGREEMENT ................... 25

PAGE 4

this page IS blank

PAGE 5

I N TRODU C TIO N US Highway 19 is a major north south hlghway of statewide importance that runs along lhe west coast of Florida. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDO'I) has designated all of US 19 as part of the Florida Intrastate Highway Sys t em (FIHS) the network of roadways essential to the state's economy, hurricane preparedness and overall transportation mobility. With this designation, lhe Florida Department of Transportation h as placed additional controls to accommodate both high-speed and high-volume traffic whil e providing access to abutting land. Land use along the corridor ranges from strip commercial along segment s in Pinellas and Pasco Counties to large expanses of agricultural and undeveloped land in central and northern Florida. Commercial development withln the urban counties has largely occurred without adequate access management, and has resulted in numerous curb cuts, entry signs, and median openings that have adverse! y affected the safety, efficiency, and character of this important highway US 19 also serves as lhe primary artery for co uunercial activity in some smaller cities and rural counties in west Figure 1: A farm along t he US 1 9 rorridor In Levy Cou nty. central Florida. The corridor remains largely rural in Levy County although development pressures arc occurring, particularl y along the 10-mile segment of US 19 that runs within and between the Cities of Chiefland and Fanning Springs. It is lhe desire of these communities to establish a proactive and mutually acceptable roadway access management plan for this segment of the corridor The purpose of the effort is to support the development potential of lhe corridor, while avoiding a proliferation of curb cuts !hat would adversely impact the corridor and the character of the area. The Center for Urban Transportat ion (CUTR), under a grant from Levy County and lhe Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and match ing funds from the FDOT was retained to assist Levy County in developing a conceptual access management plan and intergovernmental agreement for lhe section of US 19 between Chiefland and Fan nin g Springs. This effort has included a review of current access management practice s through interviews with local planning and engineering officials and a review of lo cal compre hensive plans and land development regulations. Presentations and workshops were also conducted with area policy makers and staff to raise awarenes s of the importance of access management, review potential access manag ement strategies for lhe I

PAGE 6

corridor, and increase intergovernmental coordination among the agencies with an interest in the corrido r This report summarizes key findings of this effort. BACKGROUND US 19 is a 4-lane divided highway running the entire length of Levy County. The section under study by CUTR begins in the City of Chiefland in the south crosses through unincorporated Levy County and ends in Fann ing Springs to the north. The corridor not only provides access to abutting land uses in the area, but serves as a connection for thousands of motorists traveling between northern and southern Florida. In northern Levy County, the roadway is also a heavily traveled route for tourists visiting the region's recreational areas and natural springs. In recent years, this area has seen an increase in the number of both residential and commercial developments abutting the corridor, including the construction of a major discount retail store in Chiefland that attracts traffic from surrounding counties. A difficult problem on the corridor is the presence of antiquated plats containing numerous deep lots with only 50 feet of frontage. The combination of poorly designed plats and development potential makes the corridor ri pe for future access problems if corridor access management policies are not adopted and implemented. In addition, discussions are underway as to the potential fo r Chiefland to enter an into agreement with Fann i ng Springs about extending utility service along the US 19 corridor. Should that occur, it would further reinforce development pressures on the corridor. ... .... ..... tSlASI .#' b .. u"" -! 0 !+: ... :::.. .. '"' ,;::; Figure 2: Narrow platted lots and commercial strip toning will lead to serious access problems on US 19, "'ithout remedial actlons. 2

PAGE 7

An opportunity on the corridor is the existence of a supporting street network along the US 19 corridor. These streets form the backbone of an access management plan for the corridor and can provide alternative access to future development along the corridor. f ,, 1.,/flA. . ,, .. OnCHitllf .. Figur
PAGE 8

STATEWIDE PLANS AND POLICIES AFFECTING US 19 Because the corridor is vital to the region's mobility and economy, many statewide plans and policies are aimed at improving the corridor's efficiency. As part of th e FIHS, the state has applied higher ac cess management standards to the roadway Another plan that affects the US 19 corridor is the US Highway 19 Corridor Action Plan that was prepared in 1997. Each of these plans and policies is described below. Also incl uded is a listing of the programmed improv e ments on US 19 between Chiefland and Fanning Springs an d other improvements in t he region th a t may impact this part of the US 19 corridor. Access Management Requirements for US 19 The FOOT has a 7-tier classification system established in Chapter 1 4 -97, Administrative Rules of the Department of Transportation, State Highway System Access Management Class i f ication System and Standards (R u le 1 4 97 ) that is a ss igned to state highways The classifications establish the access management standards for a segment of the state highway system re l ative to spacing s tandards for driveways median openings and signals. US 19 is designated as an Access C lass 3 between the Cities of Chiefland and Fan ning Springs in Levy County. Driveway spacing for Class 3 roadw ays is 660 feet in areas with posted speeds greater than 45 mph, and 440 feet in areas with posted speeds less than or equal to 45 mph. Ac c ess Class 1 is reserved for lim ited access freeways, whereas Ac c ess Class 7 is assigned to lower priority state highways in areas that are already highly urban ized. The standards for each classifica t ion are provided in Tab le I All developments accessing the State Highway System must obtain a pennit in accordance with Rule 14-96, Administrative Rules of the Department of Transportation, (Ru l e 14-96) which governs access permitting. The FOOT may stipu l ate conditions or additional req ui rem en ts that must be met by the applicant/property owner before an access permit is issued. US 19 is part of the FIHS -the system of limited access (freeways) and controlled access (at-grade arteria ls ) facilities that allow for high-speed and high volum e tra ffic mov emen t with in the state. Because of their imponance to regional mobili ty a higher access classification of 2 or 3 is assigned to FIHS highways, such as US 19, th a t are not limited access freeways This classification assigns more res t rictive access spacing requirements to preserve the safety and efficiency of highways of statewide importance (Table 1). 4

PAGE 9

T a ble 1: FDOT Access Classification System & Standa rd s Access M edian s Conned io n Media n Signa l a ... Spa cing Opening Spacing (feet ) Spacing <45 DirectFull 2 (FIHS) Reslrictlve 1320 660 2640 2640 4 5 6 7 w/ Non Restrictive Restrictive Non,. 440 Boll> Median Types 125 440 245 245 330 1320 : A "Restrictive" median phys lcnlly prevent s v ehicl e cro ssina. ac.ross any poin t A "Non-Restrictive-'" median allows turns : Posted speed limit Currently, the segment of US 19 between the Cities of Chiefland and Fanning Springs in Levy County is designated as an Access Class 3. However, several segments of US 19 within th e Cities of Chiefland a nd Fanning Springs were designated as Clas s 5 or 6 facilit i e s, due to existing development and subdivisio n patterns. Given the need for careful management of land development and access on FIHS highways, state and local coordination i s essenti a l. The FIHS program calls for roadway segments assigned a lower acces s classification to even tuall y be upgraded to a Class 2 or 3. Serious effort must be made to achieve the highest possible access classification along the entire corridor to preserve and enhance its viability as a major trade and tourist route. Although it is necessary to upgrade the access clas sification of those sections of US 19 in Chiefland an d Fanning Springs, full and complete compliance with the standards of a Class 2 or 3 facility may not be possib le. The FOO T is desirou s of restricting access along US 1 9 in each city, but rec ognizes limitatio n s t o full implementation. The b asic objective in already developed areas is to 5

PAGE 10

improve access to the maximum extent feasible and avoid creating additional access problems in the future . .'-----lt/.0' ... ' . ... / .. ;,%, .'' . . Figure 4: Map or t he FIHS. This map illustra tes the proposed extension of the Suncoast Parkway aod north-south highways or statewide importance, such as US 19 and US 27, which are not limited acoo;s rrways. Given the need for careful management of land developmen t and access on FIHS highways, state and loca l coordination is essential. The FIHS Plan emphas iz es the need for FDOT to coordinate access management decisions with local governments and calls for formal agreement s between FDOT and local governments that support the application of state access management standards to development in FIHS corridors. US Highway 19 Corridor Action Plan (CAP) In 1997, FDOT District Two prepared the US Highway 19 (State Road 25) Corridor Action Plan (CAP) for US 19 from Citrus County to the Florida Georgia state line. The plan grew out of a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study covering the 6

PAGE 11

same study area that was started in 1988, but never completed. The plan objective was to identify any needed improvements and environmental concerns along the study corridor. Although the CAP recommends several capacity improvement projects for US 19, no new projects were identified for the segment of US 19 between Chiefland and Fanning Springs. Instead, traffic projections noted that expected traffic volumes on that segment could not ju stify any major capacity improvements within the 20 year time frame of the study. The CAP does recommend that access management strategies be implemented in an effort to maximize the efficiency of the existing roadway. Planned or Programmed Improvements One projec t is currently progrlimmed in the FDOT Fiscal Year 2000/2001-2004/2005 Adopted Work Program between Chiefland and Fanning Springs. This is the resurfacing of US 19 from the Chiefland High School to County Road 55A. Although no additional capacity will be added for through traffic movements, operational improvements will be made inc l uding several new left-tum lanes, several new right tum lanes and a widened shoulder. Also, the median opening at NW 174m Street will be realigned to match the existing roadway opening. ConstrUct ion is currently scheduled to start in March 2001. Two other transportation projects currently under development may affect the US 19 corridor in the long term. The first is the widen ing of US 27 A, which connects Levy County to Interstate 75 in Marion County. US 27 A will be widened from two lanes to four lanes between Chiefland and Williston. Construction has begun on several sections of the roadway and will begin between Chiefland and County Road 339A in December 2000. Traffic volumes for US 19 in t he study area are projected to be 14,800 vehicles per day in the year 2005 and 16,400 in 2010 based on this project and on other regiona l changes such as the development of a W a!Mart store in Chiefland. This is an increase of approximately 2.4 percent per year over the next 10 years, a total of 24 percent. . "'*" -,.__r.----,,. "" Figure 5: Sun
PAGE 12

at the currently planned terminus of Suncoast Park way I at US 98 in Hernando County and e nd at Red Level on US 19 in Citrus County. The elltension of the Suncoas t Parkway would s u bstantially reduce the travel time between northern Florida and the Tampa Bay metropolitan area. The Suncoast Parkway Clltension may i mpact US 19 in Levy County by bringing additional trips into the area A PD&E study assess ing the feasibility of the project is expected to be completed in 2003. ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PRACTICE The Cities of Fanning Springs and Chiefland, along with Levy County, have in dividual plans and policies that govern land development and access controls along the US 19 corridor. Although each of the communities have some access management policies relative to US 19, their respective land development regulations currently do not contain adequate measures to assure effective access management on the corridor. Table 2 summarizes the current practices as they relate to access management in each community A detailed description follows. Table 2: Current Access Management Praclices Technique Levy County City of City of Chiefland Fanning Springs Join t Access YES NO NO Driveway Design PARTLY --PARTLY Corridor Overlay NO NO NO PUDZoning YES PARTLY YES Continuation of Streets YES YES YES Minor Subdivision Regulations NO YES NO Reverse Frontage YES YES YES Access Classification (State) PARTLY* YES PARTLY* Access Classification (Local) PARTLY* NO PARTLY* Driveway Spacing Standards PARTLY* NO YES Umits on Driveways NO YES NO Outparcel Regulations NO NO NO Flag Lot Standards NO NO NO Comer Clearance NO NO NO Minimum Lot Frontage** YES YES PARTLY Lot Width to Depth YES NO NO Retrofit Requirements NO NO NO The issue is addressed i n the Comprehensive. Plan, but not in the Land Development Regulations In Levy County, minimum lo t frontages range between 100 and 300 feet for commercial uses. The minimum lot frontage for all commercial land uses in the City of Fanning Springs is 20 feet There are no minimum lot frontages for commercial land uses in the City of Chiefland. 8

PAGE 13

L evy Count y The segment of US 1 9 that lies between the City of Fanning Springs in the north and the City of Chiefland to the sout h falls within unin corpora ted Levy County. Des ignated as a principal arterial in t h e Levy County Comprehensiv e Plan, existing land u ses along th e 4 l a ne divided road in clude commercial, residenti al, and agricultu ral. The future land use map h as designated land alo n g this segmen t as Commercial and Low Density R esiden t ial. Comprehensive Plan The Lev y County Comprehensive P lan was updated in 1999 and includes several poticies for managin g access to both county and state roadways. Policy 1.1 of the Transportation Eleme nt ass igns access management classes to roadways based on functional c lass. The acces s manag ement classes establis h minimum spacing stand ards for "connections and access points of drivew ays to the state, federal and local highway network" (see Table 3). T hese standards are ba sed on Rule 14-97 admini ste red by the FOOT. Policy 1.1 f urther states that "direct connection t o state and federal highways" i s regulated by Rul e 14-9 7. In the event a "co nflict develops, the more restrictive stan dard shall apply." Policy 2.4 directs the County to ame n d the Land Development Regulations to "establish minimum standards for curb cuts, setbacks, frontage roads, and access according to function classification of lhe roadway using Rules 1 4 -96 and 14-97." This project advances that objectiv e. Table 3: Minimum Connection Spacing Standards Functional Class Access Minimum Con n ection Spacing Management (Street and Driveways) Class Over 45 lllllh Uoder45 mob Principal Arterials 2 1,320 660 Minor Arterials 4 660 440 Major Collectors 6 440 245 Minor Co llector s 6 440 245 Local Street 7 125 125 Shared access is encouraged through the impl e ment atio n of Policy 1.2. This policy s tates that the Land Development Regulations (I.DRs ) must "req uire shared (dual) access and crossaccess agreements as a precondi tion to issuing develop ment permits for the highway frontage of pre-platted subdivisions." The County discourages commercial strip development along major highways and calls for "limiting community and regional level commercial development to areas and nodes designated for commercial land uses ." As ouUined in the Future Land Use Element, the US 19 corridor is considered one of these unodes. Additio nal ntinimum sta ndards that relate to access manage ment are addressed in P o licy 2.4, which states th ai, "The L and Developm ent Regulatio ns shall establi s h ntin imum 9

PAGE 14

standards for curb cuts, setbacks, frontage roads, and access according to functional classification of the roadway using Ru le 14-96 and 14-97 F.A.C. as a guideline." The Transportation Element also ensures that adequate right-of-way is preserved along corridors designated as part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, which includes US 19. Development must "include an additiona l fifty feet on each side of the setback centerline for the purpose of future right-of-way and frontage road needs." Policy 4.3 goes on to state t hat adequate right of-way along US 19 "shall be provided for by all development. As used here, 'prov ide d for' means right-of-way reservation." Subdivision Regulations Chapter 71. Article 3 25, Subdivision Regulations, Levy County Land Development Code defines a subdivision as: The division of a parcel of land into three (3) or more contiguous lots or parcels of land, any one of which is less than twenty (20) acres in size the purpose of which, whether immediate or fut ure, is the transfer of ownership, Any division of la nd when the establishment o f a new street is involved, or Any division of an existing lot of record provided that that the division conforms to the zoning ordinance and the lots created front on a paved street. The County allows a development to "i nclude a portion of the right of-way of an adjoining federal state county or city maintained road or easement to obtain the necessary area to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements." Limitations to this provision include the following : The right-of-way or easement cannot be greater than the fronting l ength of the tract being subdivided, The width cannot exceed 50 feet or go beyond the centerline of the right-of-way or easement, and The net area of each lot, tract, or parcel within the de v elopmen t must be at least 85% of the specified minimum lot area requirement. For developments with lots greater than 5 acres in size, "interior road right-of-way or easements may also be used to obtain the necessary area to satisfy the minimum lot area requirement.,. When subdividing a tract of land, the County requires that all newly created lots conform to the design standards identi f ied i n Chapter 78, Levy County Zoning Regulations. The majority of land abuuing US 19 is zoned as C-2 (Neighborhood Commerci a l ) and C-3 (Moderately Intensive Commercial). The minimum lot area and frontages for these districts, as well as the other zoning districts with in the county, are listed in Table 4 Chapter 71, Section 4.04, establishes lot width-to-depth ratios for all new lots. The 10

PAGE 15

"normal ratio" cannot exceed 1:2 1/2. For lots 10 acres in size or larger, the ratio may near 1:4. Table 4 : Minimum Lot Area and Width Requirements RR-2 Residential Per Plat Residential 1/2 acre 112 acre 100' C-3 1 acre 100 2 acres 200' acre 200' Connectivity between subdivisions is also addressed in the County's Subdivision Regulations. Unless the future extens io n of a street is clearly "impractical o r undesirable", right-of-way conidors should extend to the prope1ty line to allow for the future extension of a roadway. All subdivisions are also required to dedicate 50 feet on each side of all section lines "for the future needs of the Levy County Collector Roadway System." Privately owned and maintained roads, built in accordance with the County's lDRs, arc only allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). However, regulations prohibit private roads t o connect to one another, either within or outside the proposed subdivis i on Access Management Regulations In an effort to improve roadway efficiency and enhance safety, the County lDRs encourage the use of a variety of access management techniques when a subdivisi on abuts or contains an existing or proposed collector or other high service road Developers may be required to construct "frontage roads rear service alleys, reverse frontage Jots or other such treatment, as required ." Specifically, Chapter 71, Section 4.07 states that "subdivisions contiguous to designated arterial roads must conform to those standards for controlled access and frontage roads as contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations If properties are situated along US 19, a front setback of 175 fee t from the highway centerline is required for future traffic needs, including the possibility of frontage roads. 11

PAGE 16

Levy County has established a funding mechanism to finance the construction of frontage roads through the creation of a "municipal service taxing units." The County's zoning regulations ensure that the added financial burden will not become "a hardship on owners of unimproved parcels." When adopted the municipal service taxing units will: Only assess developed properties, E xempt property owners that have already constructed a frontage road, and Schedule "frontage road preliminary engineering, design, and construction to be completed after 50% of the highway frontage has been developed and before it reaches 75% developed." Section 79, Section 5 02, establishes future right-of-way w i dth for roadways based on the road's functional classification These widths are listed in Table 5. The LDRs also point out that some state roads designated as principal arterials or part of the FIHS are deficient in ROW width. The County Commissioners have determined "all such roads are intended ... to be pwvided with fwntage roads Along these roads, no change in zoning is considered unless the owner dedicates any ROW deficiency to FOOT and a frontage road reservation or dedication is provided. Table 5: Future Right-of-Way Widths Road Class Highway ROW so foot Frontage Total Roads (both sides) Principal Arterial 250 100 350 Minor Arterial 242 N/A 242 Collector 80 N/A 80 Local 60 N/A 60 As described in the Comprehensive Plan, the County seeks to limit community and regional level commercial development to nodes along major transportation wutes, including US 19. Chapter 79, Section 3.05, zOning Regulations, lists a number of criteria the County Commission must consider when a request for a rezoning is made to change a rural or residential land use to a commercial land use specifically when the property abuts a principal arterial or intrastate system. The property must be located within areas expressly designated for such development and be pan of a municipa l services district, with rights of-way and frontage road reservation or, outside such areas, shall be permitted only in Planned Unit Development (PUD). As pan of a PUD, the proposed use can only gain access through a local or collector road and must be located on an interior local road at least one mile away from the "commercial node" on the higher order road. 12

PAGE 17

General Comments: 1. The County's access classification system in the comprehensive plan would be best assigned to County roadways only, and the FOOT classification system and standards should be adopted by reference for the state highway system. This would avoid potential inconsistencies between functional classification of roadways and access classification. Thi s could be accomp li shed the next time the plan is updated 2 Access management requirements do not address outparcels, corner clearance, redevelopment or retrofit situations li mits on driveways, driveway design, or joi nt and cross access. 3. Frontage roa d requirements are not recommended as they can result in conflicts and unfamiliar movements where the fron tage road in tesects with other roadways. A preferred approach is a combination of interparcel connections, side street access, loc al s u bdivision roads, and service roads During interviews with County officials it was noted that the County has been preserving about 350 ft of right -o f-way in the conidor, with about a 1 75 ft. setback from the centerline of the med ian on either side. Although fifty feet of t ha t right-of-way was originally supposed to be a frontage road, that idea was dropped due to complexities of administration In a ddition there was no structural setback from the frontage road right-of-way making the frontage road concept in feas i ble. 4. Requirement s for connection of subdivision roads are beneficial to overall mobility in the neighbomoods abutting US 19 and also help to reduce the need to use the highway for short local trips between residential areas. These requirem ents should be active ly enforeed. 5. The County should revise the current subdivision regulations in order to avoid situations that may lead to access management probl em s. Among the access related issues associated with the current reg u la tions are the unregulated division (and subsequent redivision) of la nd into 10-acre lots and the exemption for family members, which is difficult to enforce as family members may simp ly sell the property after the lot has been recorded. 6. The County currently docs not have adequate restrictions on flag lots. Flag lots are useful in some circumstances, such as providing access to in terior lots as part of a planned subdivi sion. However, they are often used as a method of providing lots with access to a pub lic road through private easem ents, thereby avoiding the cost of p latting and provid ing a road. The Co unty shou l d adopt regulations to prevent the creation of flag lots and to regulate private access easements. In addition the Coun t y sho uld proh i bit the platting of flag lo ts a l ong US 19, with exceptions only for unique circumstances and through a variance or special exception proc ess. 13

PAGE 18

City of Fanning Springs The Ci ty of Fa nning Springs is located in northern Levy County. A 3-mile segment of US 19 runs through the entire City Within city limits, the predominant land use along t he corridor is commercial and low density residential. The posted speed limit varies between 30 and 65 miles per hour. Comprehensive Plan Current policies in the Comprehensive P lan address improving the efficiency of US 19 and applying access management techniques citywide. As stated in the Plan, the City requires the LDRs to include provisions to control access and protect future right-of-way corridors. These policies include the following: Policy 11.1.2.: The City's LDRs shall include provisions to control the number and frequency of c onn ect ions and access points of driveways and roads to arterial and collector roads. Policy ll.4.1: The City's LDRs sha ll include provisions that require all structures along new or realigned colle cto r or arterial roadways to provide additional setbacks for the future need of additional right-of-way. Land Development and Subdivision Regulations The Fanning Springs Land Development Regulations define a subdivision as the division of land into three or more lots or p arcels, for the purpose whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership or any division of land if the establishment o f a new s treet is in volved. The City's definition excludes the following: A division of land into parcels of more than ten (10) acres not invo lv ing any change in street lines, The transfer of property by the property owner to hi s or her spouse or lineal descendants, or The transfer of property between tenants in common for the purpose of dissolving the tenancy in common among those tenants. The LDRs further classify subdivisions into major and minor subd ivis ions. A minor subd i vision invo lves the creation of th ree lots or less fronting on an exist i ng road. To be classified as a minor subdivision, the process cannot involve the creation of a new street the extension of a local governmental facility, or the creation of public improvements. Additionally the remaining tract and/or adjacent properties cannot be adversely affected by the div ision. A major subdivision involves the creation of four (4) or more lots Additionally, a land division requiring a new street, an extension of local governm e nt al facilities or the creation of public improvements, is also considered a major subdivision. 14

PAGE 19

Lot dimensions m ust meet the nummum standards established within the land development regulations. Corner Jots should be sufficiently wider and large r to permit additional yard area. Double frontage and reverse frontage are prohibited, however, the City can allow the creation of these lots when they provide a separation between residential uses and ex i sting streets or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. If the property adjacent to a proposed subdivision is undeveloped, the City can require that that the street ROW be extended to the property line to ensure connectivity. For roadways that are part of the FIHS (US 19), Chapter 4.14, Fanning Springs Land Development Code, states that the number and location of curb breaks must be in accordance with Rules 14-96 and 14-97. For all other roadways, the City regulates the number and location of curb breaks relative to "the intensity or size of the property served and the amount of frontage which that property has on a given street." All single property developments are allowed at least one "curb break." Two curb breaks" are permitted if the minimum distance between the two curb breaks exceeds 20 feet. Three "curb breaks" are allowed i f the minimum distance between adjacent curb breaks exceeds 100 feet. Generally, no more than three "curb breaks" are permitted for a single development. But, for properties exceeding 1 0 acres in area or containing more than 1,000 parking spaces, additional curb breaks may be permitted provided all other requirements of the Code are met and the minimum distance between adjacent curb breaks exceeds 300 feeL Visioning Process The City o( Fanning Springs has undertaken a visioning process in which the City hopes to set a course for it's future. The vision will be implemented by public policy in the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Among the various items included in the vision is a provision for the management of access on US 1 9 to facilitate safety and efficiency and to enhance the scenic quality of the corridor. General Comments: 1. The City should revise provisions for "curb breaks" to eliminate the tiered thresholds that allow property owners to have up to three curb breaks depending upon frontage. Numerous driveways are rarely necessary on a single frontage when access points are properly designed. 2. Access management requirements do not address outparc els, comer clearance, redevelopment or retrofit situations, limits on driveways, d riveway design, or join t and cross access. 3 F anning Springs currently does not have adequate restrictions on flag lots, which could lead to the creation of stacked flag lot "plats" in the future and closely spaced driveways or substandard private easements. The City should adopt regulations to prohibit the platting of flag lots along US 19. with exceptions only for unique circumstances and through a variance or special exception p r ocess. 15

PAGE 20

4. Access management policies and requirements along the US 19 c orridor will support implementation of the City's vision City of Chiefland The 4-mile segment of US 19 crossing the City of Chiefland is a 4-lane principal arterial, which the city defines as "a route providing service which is relatively continuous and of relatively high traffic volume, long average trip length, high operating speed and high mobility importance." The land use designations along the corridor are generally h ighway-oriented commercial, community-oriented commercial and/or neighborhood oriented commercial. However. "much of the land along US 19 is still underdeveloped." A lengthy series of 50-foot wide lots abut much of the corridor through the City, many of which have been consolidated into 100-foot wide parcels. Comprehensive Plan Chiefland's Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1985 and last updated in 1989 The Plan notes that development along US 1 9 is desirable; however access points must be carefully planned "to preserve the integrity of the arterials as major thoroughfares." The Tmffic Circulation Element points out that during the development review process. special attention is given to access management concerns. The Plan describes several techniques that can be us ed to enhance safety while improving a highway's capacity. The Plan suggests the use of frontage roads or internal streets to control the number of driveways accessing major roads Policy !.I.a. addresses con nection and access point spacing to the state, federal and local highway network. The spacing standards established by the Traffic Circulation Element are listed in Table 6. Table 6 Minimum Connection Spacing Standards Functional Minimum Connection Class Spacing Arterial 600ft Collector 300ft Local 100ft Subdivision Regulations The Land Development Code defines a subdivision as any division or re-di vision of a lot, tract or parcel of land into two or more lots, building sites or other divisions for the purpose "whether immediate or future, or sale, legacy or building development, including all division of land involving the dedication change or abandonment of a street site easement or other right-of-way for any public use or facility." However, the C it y's 16

PAGE 21

Subdivision Regulations do exclude the division of hmd into parcels greater than 5 acres where no street right-of-way dedication is involved. These types of land divisions must front an existing paved, public stree t and the lot frontage must meet all zon ing provisions. Div i sion s of a contiguous lot, tract, or parcel of land into two pieces one or both of which would be smaller than 5 acres in area, may apply t o the City Planning Commis sio n for an exemption from the plat law of the City if all the following apply: The parent tract has not previously been subdivided, The two lots meet all zoning requirements and front on a public street or road, The resulting lots do not interfere with long-range developmem plans as determined by the Planning Commission or the City Commission, Property that lies within 500 feet of the exterior perimeter of the parent tmct would not be adversely affec ted by the divis ion, and No section lines are touched by or are within fifty feet of either parcel. Chapter 7, An:icle 3.03, City of Chiefland Subdivision Regulations, establishes minimum lot frontage guidelines for residential and non-residential lots. For lots within the boundaries of a residential zoning district, the lot must conform to the minimum dimension and area requirements of the zoning ordinance, as outlined in Table 7. Comer lots for residential uses must have an extra width of 10 feet to permit adequate building setback from side streets. Meanwhile, "depth and width of propert i es reserved or laid out for commercial use and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the offstreet services and parki ng facilities by the type of house and development contemplated." Zo n ing District R-1 (Single F amilv) R-2andR-2A A C-1 C-2 I-1 1-2 Tabl e 7 Minimum Lot Width Use Minimum Size 10,000 Single Family and 6,000 Mobile Homes Two-Farnilv 7,000 Multi Familv 10,000 A ali cultural I acre Commercial None Hi....s!:!.wav Commercial None Industrial None Industrial None Lot Minimum Lot Width 100' 50' 75' 100' None None None None None 17

PAGE 22

The Code states that residentia l lots must be wide enough to provide two tiers of lots of minimum depth Additional width is required when buffer strips are needed to separate residential development from traffic, railroad lines or other types of development. Double frontage and reverse frontage lots are prohibited except when they are needed to "separate residential development from traffic arteries .... "A 10-foot wide buffer must be set aside by reservation and no right of access to the higher order roadway is allowed. Through provisions contained in the Subdivision Regulations, the City can require developers to apply a variety of access management techniques when a development abuts or contains an existing or proposed major street. These measures may include the f ollowing: margina l access streets, double frontage lots with screen planting contained in a non-access reservation along the rear property lines, or deep lots with area service drives. General Comments 1. The City has policies m the local comprehensive plan that support access management, but does not have the basic requirements necessary to address outparcels, corner clearance, redevelopment or retrofit situations, limits on driveways, driveway design, or joint and cross access. 2. The C i ty's access spacing standards in the comprehensive plan should be assigned to City roadways only and the FDOT c l assification system and standards should be adopted by reference for the state h i ghway system. This will avoid potential inconsistencies between functional classifica!ion of roadways and access classification. This could be accomplished the next time the plan is updated. 3. The City should consider reducing the number of exemptions from the platting process, and instead institute a minor subdivision process for minor land division activity. This will help assure that land is div i ded in accordance with access management and other local requirements, without placing a hardship on property owners Too many subdivision exemptions result in incremental land divisions that lead to irregular or poorly designed subdivisions over time. The resu l ting "subdivisions" may rely heavily on highway access and often result in inefficient use of land, easement disputes, and poor connectivity. 4 The City currently does not have adequate restrictions on flag lots, which could lead to the creation of stacked flag lot "plats" in the future and closely spaced driveways or substandard private easements. The City should adopt regulations to prohibit the platting of flag l ots along U S 19, with exceptions for specific c ircumstances as noted in the CUTR report Model Land Development and Subdivision Regulations that Suppon Access Managemetzt. 5. Frontage road requirements are not recommended as they can result in conflicts and unfamiliar movements where the frontage road intersects with other roadways. A preferred approach is a combination of interparcel connections, side street access, local subdivision roads, and service roads. The City's Plan suggests the use of 18

PAGE 23

frontage roads to control the number of driveways accessing major roads As in the County, however, the City of Chiefland has found frontage roads to be administratively difficult and is not actively requiring them. Access Management Workshop Comments On October 5, 2000, a group of corridor stakeholders were brought together in a workshop environment to learn abo ut access management and to discuss approaches to improve access management on the US 19 corridor between Chiefland and Fanning Springs. Among others, participants included staff and pub lic officials from the Cities of Chiefland and Fanning Springs, Levy County, the FDOT's District 2 Office, and the Withlaeoochee and North Central Florida Regional Planning Councils. Each of the participants was asked to identify access managemen t concerns on the US 19 corridor between Chiefland and Fanning Springs. Partici pants were then divided into four groups and asked to list poten t ial strategies that could be used to man age access in th i s area. Many of the strategies involved coordinating between both local and state agencies, whether through a coordinating committee, a community redevelopment agency, or standardizing regulations within an overlay zone. Finally, individuals were asked to write down at least one strategy that would improve coordination in access management efforts among the agencies with j urisdiction along the corr idor. The specific responses are summarized below. Figure 6: Participants discuss cootdlnatlon strategies at tile Acxess Management Workshop in Chiefland. Access Management Concerns Identi fied at the Workshop Lack of standardized development regulations between neighboring jurisdictions, Protection of the nature trail to the west of the US 19 corridor, Parking within the state right -ofway, Need for appropriate set backs from the state right-of-way, Acceptable development within the state righ t-o f-way Old plats containing narrow l ot s abutting the US 19 corridor, and 19

PAGE 24

Difficulty in maintatntng agreements made with local governments due to turnover on the elected governing boards. Suggested Access Management Strategies Identified at the Workshop Create a community redevelopment area to facilitate the reassembly of the small platted lots and t he provision of additional off-street parking, Establish a special taxing and review district through an interlocal agreement to oversee development in the corridor and establish a funding stream to implement access management strategies, Amend the existing land development regulations to: I) increase minimum lot widths, 2) increase setback requirements, 3) increase la ndscap ing requirements, 4) require shared driveways for adjacent properties where applicable, and 5) strengthen the sign regula tion along the corridor, Improve the exi sting raised medians and add additional left tum lanes along the corridor, Develop new land development regulations to: I) preserve the existing nature trail to the west of the US 19 corridor by maintaining the limited number of access points that currently exist, 2) preserve and improve the scenic character of the corridor in general, and 3) improve pedestrian facilities throughout the corridor, Consider revising existing zoning to encourage the locat i on of offices and other "des t ina tion uses off of the corridor and into other areas of Chiefland and Fanning Springs where office development is desired. Require overflow parking at the rear of properties and shared parking with adjacent properties along the US 19 corridor, Increase public inv olv ement (business owners property owners, etc.) on access issues along the corridor, Develop standard a ccess management policies for each of the local governments (perhaps through an overlay district or joint planning district), but maintain flexibility with regard to implementation, Develop redevelopment regulations that require site improvements to meet access management standards. Suggested Coordination Strategies Identified at the Workshop Establish a corridor coordination committee or corridor access management team. that includes the cities of Chiefland and Fann ing Springs, Levy County and the FOOT, for the purpose of promoting coordination and intergovernmenta l dialogue on access management and other corridor managemen t issues, Cooperative l y develop a multi-jurisdic ti onal access management pian contain ing agreed upon broad standards and principles, 20

PAGE 25

Establish a consensus building process, incorporating networlcing and public inv o lvement activities, for s ett in g access management standards and sun t egies, Prom ote t h e benefits of a cc es s management to th e b u si n ess community and property own ers Es tablish a j oint moni toring process to monitor progress and revise stra t eg i es as needed Increase coordination between the FDOT imd the l ocal go v ern ments on access permitting and development penni tting, Invo l ve the regional p lanning council as a coordinato r of a corridor access man agement p l anning process. Summary and Con c lusions Key findings of the assessme nt of current pra c tice are as f o llows: I. Portions of the corridor have been subdiv i ded into long narro w lots that have the po t ential to create significant access problems on the corridor as they are developed. Commercial wning of these propert ies has further e x ru:etbated the problem and gre a tly increases the potential for sttip commercial deve l opmen t with closely spaced dri veways. 2. Beca u se s ome of t he f r o ntage on U S 19 h as a l ready been s ubdivide d int o n a tTow lots, pre v e n ting a ccess pr ob l ems will be cha ll en g in g Howeve r i mprov e m e nt s ca n be a c co mp li shed t h roug h a co mbination of polic y and regulat ory changes, int ergovernm en t a l coordin a ti on and p roperty owner c ooperation. In additio n opportunities to address the probl ems have not ye t been fo rec l o s ed as many of the plats are not developed ( e.g Suwannee H eights). Some of the easements provided for roads have been vacated but oth e rs remain ( e .g., "Alabama S treet" easement) and could be constructed 3 The review of loca l com prehensive p lans a n d l and de vel o pment re g ula t i ons indicate s that each of th e commu nities on the corrido r h as inco rporate d so m e poli cies rela tive to ac ce s s mana g emen t i n their comprehen s i ve pl a n s, but current regu l at ory measures are in adeq u a te to manage access a l ong th e US 19 corri d o r T his wiU, in time, red uce th e s afety and carrying cap acity o f th e f acility, as well as th e aesthet ic character of t h e overall corridor 4. The presence of a parallel and continuous County roadway and intersecting local roads offers an opportunity for p ro viding alternate access to co rri do r properties. O l d F anning R oad is a paved roadw a y with 80 feet of ROW t h at runs parallel to US 19. One mile w as u npaved b ut is programm ed to be pa ved by the Cou n ty. It will b e im p ortant that a n y s upporting road ne twork b e d e v e l o ped i n a manner that rninimi7.es disrup t i on of th e n a t ure trai l to the west of th e US 19 c orridor. 21

PAGE 26

5. All of the communities are interested in economic development of the corridor, although individual jurisdictions have varying objectives. Chiefland was described as the retail hub for the area and the recent Wallmart has crea ted additional growth potential on the northern edge of the City along US 19. Chiefland hopes to expand its retail area on th e corridor, and t o revitalize southern portions of the corridor outside of the study area that are experiencing decline. Fanning Springs was described as a bedroom community and is seeking to create a city center while capitalizing on itS recreational and environmental resources to position itself as an eco-tourism destination. The County hopes to attract additional light industry in to the c orri dor that would take advantage of area natural resources and bring additional employment into the area. 6. There is interest in preserving and enhancing the aesthetic character of the corridor, as well as implementing gateway treatments to enhance the image of area communities. There is some interest in pursuing a scenic byway designation in the future, which would further support corridor management objectives. 7. The segment of US 19 under study is within the jurisdiction of three loc al governments: Levy County t he City of Chiefland, and the City of Fanning Springs. Staff from each community noted that a set of uniform standards would assist their efforts to promote access management from a corridor-wide perspective. Effective implementation of the plan will also require active coordination with the FDOT on access permitting in accordance with the plan. It was also the desire of officials from each of the three local governments that the broader community be actively engaged in the process of refining the access management plan for US 19 prior to adoption. CONCEPTUAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN Based upon the assessment of current practice and workshop results, several key issues have emerged that form the basis of a conceptual access management plan for the US 19 corridor. These are summarized below. 1. The City of Fanning Springs, City of Chiefland, and Levy County should cooperatively adopt FOOT access managemen t requirements for US Highway 19 and reinforce these through broad policies and guidelines that support access management on US 19. Some suggested policies and guidelines are as follows: Establish minimum comer clearance requirementS for US 19 and crossroad intersections with US 19 that confonn with FOOT comer clearance requ irements. Establish that new lots may not be created on US 19 unless they meet the access spacing standards. 22

PAGE 27

Establish that existing lots unable to meet the access spacing standards for US 19 must obtain access from platted side streets, parallel streets, service roads, joint and cross access, or the provision of easements. Allow temporary access where necessary until such time that al t erna t ive access can be obtained. Exc e ptions should n ot be granted unless the property owner provides for shared access by easement. Require properties to obtain s ide street access as an alternative to direct highway access where it is av ailable. Establish that lots in residential subdivisions must obtain access from internal subdivision streets, and shall not be permitted access to US 19. Require properties under t he same ownership or those consolidated for development to provide a unified access and circulation plan Such prop erties and any outparcels should be req u ired to obtain access from the unified access and circulation syst em. Establish redevelopment or retrofit require ments for nonconforming access situations. Existing access i s allowed to continue, bu t must be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the access managem ent plan, when t her e is a change in use, expansion or reconstruction of the site. Reduce reliance on US 19 for access by providing altematives, i ncluding parallel roadways, interparcel connections, and side stree ts for local circulation. Increase build ing setbacks outs id e municipal boundaries to preserve area for open space landscaped buffers and/or trees, pedestrian ways, and on-site circulation systems along the highway. Increased setbacks help to preserve public safety, maintain development flexibility, and minimize property damage if the highway is widened in the future. Upd ate driveway and int ersection design r eq ui rement s to assure that they pro vide adequate geometries for tuming vehicles and do not resu l t i n traffic conflicts at the entrance. These may be based upon the new r equ i rements curren tly being prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation. 2. Fro m this plan, the communities should collectively develop standard access management requirements as part of an overlay district for the co1Tidor that can be adopted by each loca l j urisdic tion and which are consistent w ith those of t h e Florida Department o f Transportation. The City of Fan ning Springs, City of Chiefland, Levy County, and the Florida Deparonent of Transportation should solidify commitment t o implementing t he access man agement plan for the US 1 9 corrido r through an intergovemmental agreement. A sampl e intergovern mental agreement is attached in Appendix A to assist in this process. 3. Establish a process for coordination of FOOT access permitting with local development permitting through a concurrent state/local {eview procedure. Each 23

PAGE 28

loca l government and t he FDOT should coordinate when reviewing proposed plats and development applicalions along the US 19 corridor to prevent access problems before they are created and assure conformance with the US 19 access management plan. This process sho u ld be formally established through interlocal agreemen t 4. Consider establishing a corridor management t eam made up of representatives of each local government, the FDOT and other interested parties, such as the Suwannee River Wate r Management District, the W it halocoochee Regional Planning Council, and selected commun i ty leaders. The respons i bilities o f the team would be to assure continued coordination and commitmen t in the implementation of the access management plan. Other responsibilities could include scenic byways designation, economi c deve l opment, or other areas of interest on the corridor. 24

PAGE 29

Appe n d i x A : Dr a ft Inte rgove rn me ntal Agreem ent INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA THE ClTY OF CHIEFLAND, FLORID A THE ClTY OF FANNING SPRINGS, FLORIDA AND THESTATBOFFLORIDADEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION This Agreement is entered into this day of 2001, by and between the City of Chiefland. Florida (hereinafter referred to as CHIEFLAND), the City of Panning Springs, Florida (hereinafter referred to as FANNING SPRINGS), the Levy County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY), and the State of Florida Department of T ransportation (hereinaf te r referred to as the DEPARTI'v!BNT). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the Segment of US 19 between FANNING SPRINGS and CHlEFLAND in the COUNTY and including the portion within the City limits of CHIEFLAND and FANNING SPRINGS (hereinafter referred to as the SEGMENT) is part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (hereinafter referred to as the FIHS), which is the statewide system of limited access and controlled access facilities for high-speed, high-volume traffic movement within the State of Florida that has been designated by the DEPARTMENT and adopted by the Legislature of the State of Florida as critical to statew ide economic prosperity, mobility, and quality of life; and \_VHEREAS, the COUNTY, CHIEFLAND, FANNING SPRINGS and the DEPARTMENT desire to reach a comprehensive and mutually acceptable roadway access management plan for the SEGMENT for the purpose of presel;Ving public safety, highway level of service and community character, while providing reasonable access to locally planned development; and WHEREAS regulation of vehicular access to US 19 is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by reducing the potential for traffic accide nts, maintaining the efficient flow of txaffic, and assuring that access to property is properly designed and spaced in relation to the function of the highway and the state access management requirement s ; NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from the participation in this agreement, the DEPARTMENT, the COUNTY, CHIEfLAND, and FANNING SPRINGS desire to enter into an coordinating local land use planning and regulation with state access standards for the SEGMENT of US 19 as follows: 25

PAGE 30

I. The COUNTY. CHIEFLAND, and FANNING SPRINGS agree to adopt and implement the protective planning and regulatory measures as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. Actions taken by the COUNTY, CHIEFLAND, FANNING SPRINGS, and the DEPARTI\IIENT with regard to transportation improvements, land development and access permitting within the area addressed by Exhibit A shall not be inconsistent with this agreement. 3 This Agreement constitutes the complete and final expression of the COUNTY, CHIEFLAND, FANNING SPRINGS, and the DEPARTMENT with respect to subject matter hereof, and incorporates and includes all proper negotiations, correspondence, conversations. agreements or commitments applicable to the matters contained herein as agreed to by the COUNTY, CHIEFLAND, F ANNING SPRINGS, and the DEPARTMENT. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation from the terms of this agreement shall be predicated upon any prior representation or agreements whether oral or written. 4. This Agreement may not be amended except by subsequent written agreement of the parties subject to the agreement. 5. The laws of the State of Florida shall govern this Agreement. Any provisions hereof found to be unlawful or unenforceable shall be severable and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. 6. By signing this Agreement, the parties acknowledge and represent to one another that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been performed and the persons signing for each of the parties have been duly authorized to do so. City of Chiefland, Florida ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Approved as to form City Attorney 26

PAGE 31

City of Fanning Springs, Florida ATTEST : Mayor City Clerk Approved as to form City Attorney County of Levy, Florida ATTEST: Mayor Cou nty Clerk Approved as to form County Attorney State of Florida Departmen t of Transporta t ion ATTEST: District Secretary Chief Clerk Approved as to form District Attorney 27