USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Model land development & subdivision regulations that support access management for Florida cities and counties

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Model land development & subdivision regulations that support access management for Florida cities and counties
Portion of title:
Model land development and subdivision regulations that support access management for Florida cities and counties
Physical Description:
1 online resource (11, 38, 9 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Williams, Kristine
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida
Florida Dept. of Transportation, Systems Planning Office
Place of Publication:
Tampa, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Real estate development -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Land subdivision -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
Report examines the role of the comprehensive plan in developing an access management program and also regulatory techniques that support access management principles. Appendix includes a sample cross access agreement from the city of Orlando, Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Kristine M. Williams ... et al..
General Note:
"January 1994."

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 - 029078450
oclc - 748861399
usfldc doi - C01-00242
usfldc handle - c1.242
System ID:
SFS0032332:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

: . ' . I :,:: .' ' . . ' > ... ... . .. . ., . . I : . : ... .. :. >:_.,M : o ... d . e :: 1 '. .. . . - ... : . : > .... . .. :. .. .. ... . :' : : ... .. ... : ; ... . . : ... . . .. . . . . . . .., ... : .. . .. .. . . : ... ... :, :: ,' :' ... : . "!' j i "' , ; , .. i : .. . . ... . -' . .. .. . Utnd : . -,., p .: .. . : .... _: . ... : : . ... .. .... .. ,'1 : ' ,.-.: : : .. .. : .' ..... .... , v, '- .. I ' : I',.; ';.. . ... ; '. . : : . . . . . . :: . '. .'; : .. . \ . ,, ; ':... { . .. ... . . . ' . . .... .: ... _; Cities;.and: Coti.tide s ... : ......... . < ... . ... ... . . : ... .. l . ... .' : .. ... ' . . ... : . . . . . .. . . . . ., ... . '. .S ... .. .. ,. ' : ... : .... .. .. . . . . . .. . : . .. . ..... : .... . :: .. ... ; . ... . . .. . :. .

PAGE 2

Model land Development & Subdivision Regulations That Support Access Management for Florida Cities and Counties Prepared by Kristine M. Williams, AICP Daniel E. Rudge CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering U n i versity of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB lt8 Tampa, FL 33620-5350 Cary Sokolow Kurt Eichin Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399.0450 January 1994

PAGE 3

Important Note to Users: The mode l ordinance language in this report is provided to local governments for incorporation into the local land development code. As a model, it addresses a range of circumstances that affect Florida communities both urban and rural, and therefore shou ld not be adopted verbatim. Rather, local governments are encouraged to modify the standards to fi t local conditions and administrative practice. Be aware, however, tha t som e definitions and standards were drafted for consistency with those prescribed by statute and administrative rule for the state highway system. Commentary was provided for guidance in interpreting the model language and to identify issues associated with some of the r egulatory standards. A l so note that text in parentheses and italics within the body of the regulatory language should be replaced with the appropriate information (i.e., name of city or county, numerical citation of applicable policies, and so on). It is strongly recommended that loca l governments obtain professional planning and legal assistance and coordin ate closely with FOOT District officials when adapting these regulations to fit loca l needs. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknow le dge Irene Nikitopoulos, Graduate Research Assistant who provided the primary research support and assisted with review of local codes, preparation of g raphics, and document design. Although a variety of codes and refe rences were consulted in the course of this research, some of these deserve special acknowledgement. The City of Orlando's comprehensive access management regulations were an invaluable source and served as a model for the joint access requirements; the Grand Traverse Bay Region Sample Regulations provided regulatory guidance on the model corridor overlay and private road standards; lot split regulations were adapted from the Florida Model Land Development Code; and some definitions were taken or adapted from the New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions.

PAGE 4

Model Land Development and Subdivision Regulations That Support Access Management Table of Contents Part 1 An Overview Part 2 Model Regulations Part 3 Model Corridor Agreement Appendix 1 Sample Cross Access Agreement (See Part 2 for a detailed table of contents for the model regulations.)

PAGE 5

Part 1: An Overview

PAGE 6

Land Development and Subdivision Regulations that Support Access Management Overview Effective local requires planning as 'N'tll as regulaJory .volulions. Co mmuni ties should e.$1ablish a policy framework !hat supports access management in the local comprehensive plan, prepare cor ridor or access management plans for specific problem areas, and encourage. good site planning techniques. Land development and subdivision regulations should be amended accordingly and communities may also consider a separate access management ordinance. Access management programs should address commercial development along thoroughfares, as well as flag lots, residential strips, and other il'SUi!S related to the d.Nision and subdivision of/and Comprehensive and subarea plans prov;de the rationale for access management programs and can serve as the legal basis for public pollc.y decisions. Communities are increasingly concerned about the effects of development on serviee costs, community character, and overall qualitY of life YCt conventional regulatory practice has played a role in perpetuating land development problems. Nowhere is this more apparent than the cycle of functional obsolescence created b y sttip commercial deve lopment along major anerials. Th e pra ctice of strip zoning major corrid ors for commercial use is widespread The primary reasons are accessibility and the expedience of rezoning highway frontage for commercial use-as additional land is needed. Extension o f utilities along highway rights-of-way promotes this linear land use pattern) Md comme-rcial businesses favor corridor locations because of the ready supply of customers. Yet as development int e nsifies the growing number of curb cuts and turning movements conflict with the intended function of arterials-to move people and goods safely, quickly and efficiently. Unlike urban down towns o r activ ity centers, commercial strips are rarely designed for pedestrians or transit. Commercial dors. residential areas. and oftice parks are frequently sealed off from each other with walls, ditches, Joading dO<:ks and a host of other barriers-including t he heavily traveled arterials that serve them. Poorly oootdinated access systems force more trips onto the arter i a l traffic conflicts multiply, and congestion increases. As the level of service declines. additional lanes. controlled medialis., and other expensive retrofit .. t ing measures are needed to maintain 1he capacity of the corridor for regional traffic. Businesses also suffer as accessibility deteriorates. Heavy traffic, difficult left turns, and poor sight clearan<:c at comers de ter ers. Businesse s may relocate to areas where accessibility is less impaired, vacancies increase, and property values decline. Eventually the corridor is transformed into an unattro.ctive and confusing jumble of signs, curb cuts, utility lines, and asphalt. These are not inevitable results of d evelopment and growth. Rather, they relate to the lack of adequate l and division and access contro l s and problems inherent in current planning and regulatory practice. This report examines the role of t he comprehensive plan in develop ing an access m anagement program. aspects of current regulatory practice that contribute to access problems, and regulatory techniques that support access ment principles. The Comprehensive Plan The local comprehensive plan is the policy and decision making guide for future development and capital improvements in the municipality. ft analyzes development identifies key planning issues; provides the policy fmmeworki and specifies strategies for catTYing out the plan. Purposes of the plan arc to: promote orderly and efficient development ; protect property value-s; 1-l preserve community character, natural resources, and the environment; promote economic development; and increase public awareness of the forces of community change. l-ocal comprehensive plans sho uld establish how the community will balance mobility with access. identify the desired access management approach and .designate co1ridors that will receive special treatment. This may be sup plemented t hrough functional plans, such as an access management o r t horoughfare plan, or t hrough subar e a plans. such as an interchangeor corridor plan. These

PAGE 7

plans evaluate long tenn trends ; prov i de data on traffic accidents and related considerations ; and establish the relationship berween access management and other community such as congestion management and transpOrtation level o f service. By establishing the relationship bei'veen regulatory Strategies and public health. safety, and welfare, these plans can serve as the leg al basis for access c ontrols. me comprehensive planning process is an opportu nity to inc rease community awareness of the forces of change and determine a strategic course of action What l evel of g10wth can the community expect? W hat are the future land use and capital improvement needs? And what type of land development patterns do cicizens prefer? Public opinion surveys, town meetings, and visioning workshops may be used to identifY citizen concerns and bui l d political suppon for regulatory change dissatisfaction with commercial strips. for example, can be trans la ted into policies for joint access, s h ared park ing, and sign regulation. When evaluating future land use needs-, com munities should account for vacancies and surplus land already available for t hat use (Cha pin and Kaiser, 1985). Many communities set aside far more land than required to accommo date reasonable estimates of growth, thereby encourag ing scattered development patterns and strip development lt i s not uncommon for communities to strip zone th e majority of their highway frontage for commercial use. Additional highway frontage should not be planned or rezone
PAGE 8

standards. Michigan has one of the more lenient creation of parcels larger than 10 acres from local review and allowing successive into four more parcels of 10 acres or Jess after a ten year period. Florida's Subdivision Statute Florida's Plat Act, Chapter 177, F.S. provides local governments in Florida with the authority to regulate the subdivision ofland and establishes minimum regulatory requirements. Chapter 117, F.S. defines su bdivis\pn as the division or platting of real property into three or rnore lots or parcels and includes resubdivision or establlshment of str eets or alleys. Under t hese requirements, division of land into two lots or parce l s is exempt from review. Although some state subdivision statutes preclude more restrictive requirements at the local level. Chap.ter 177 establishes minimum requirements and does not exclude additional provisions or regulations by local ordinance, laws or regulations." (Sec tion 177.011. F.S.) fn rum, state growth management require .ment.s mandate local adoption of subdivision regulations and the Florida Model Land Development Code provides a model framework for local subdivision regulation that goe s beyond statutory requirements to encourage local review of mi.nor subdivision activ ity (see Lot Spli t Require ments). The practice of allowing unregulated division of land produces results that are contrary to acce s s management and other important public goals Lots may be created that are unbuildable because they lack sufficient width or depth to meet lot dimension or setback requirements, are i n a wetland or floodplain, or have inadequate acce-ss to public roads Buyers may he unaware that the lot has been divided in a manner that is inconsistent with state or local regulations until they are denied a buil ding or d riveway permit At that point the community is often compelled to issuea variance due to the risk of a tory takings suit. A streamlined review process for s maller subdiv i sions and l ot splits helps assure tha[ new lots are builda b le under the regulatory framework and access is appropria t e, without placing an unnecessary review burden on the property owner. Lot Split Requirements Lot split regulations provide for local review 9f divisions of land that would otherWise be exempted from subdivision r eview. Types or lots that pose special a ccess concerns arc flag l ots through lots, and come r lots. A review process for lot splits is intended to prevent creation of unbuildabte lots, excessive flag lots, or other land division patterns that can lead to access problems. It further prevents creation. of lol$ with inadequate or inappropriate access to a public road. Florida's Model Land Development Code establishes a process for rev\ewm& lot spHts, eaUed minor replats. 1-3 Minor replat is defmed as: "The subdivision of a single lot or parcel of land into two (2) lots or parecls, or the su bdivision of a parcel into two or more lots solely for the purpose of lncreasing the area of two or more adjacent lots or parcels of land, where there are n o roadways drainage, or other required improvemencs, and where the resultant lots compl y with the standards of t his Code." Th. e Florida Model Land Development Code provides for review by the local Planning Department (and any other local departments); requires information regarding water or sewer service; requires a scaled drawing of the intended division an d any principal or accessory structures by a registered surveyor; provides for recording the replat in t he official county records; and requires conformance with the following standards: I Each proposed lot most conform to t he requirements of this Code. 2. Each l ot shall abut a public or privaoo street (except as he. reinatter provided) for the required minimum \ot width for the zoning distr i ct/category where the lots are l ocat ed. 3. If any lots abuts a s treet right-of-way that d oes not conform to the design specification pro vided in this Code, the owner may be required to dedicate one half the right-of-way width necessary to meet the minimum dc. sign req u i rements. Once a Minor Replat has been approved, the Code rcsrricts further division unless a development plan (or pia[) is prepared and submined for review. Local regulations shoul d also r equ ir e proof of l ot split approva l by the planning commission or zo n ing administrato r before a building perm it may be i ssued. Residences scattered along state and county roads can be more damc.1ging to the regional cransportation nenvOrk than commercial strips they may occupy hundreds of mHes ofhig.hway frontage. Over time such development patterns landlo c k interior l and school buses must make l onger trips, emergency services must cover a

PAGE 9

Flgurt 1: Flag Lots on a State H igh way ... This area i n northern Florida was divided into 3 aa-e lotS to avoid subdivi sion review. The resuhi ng flag lot "p lat'" creates long tenn access problems on a state highway and county road. Problems such as this can be prevented with Oag lot restrictions and a review process for m i nor subd ivis ions an d lot splits wider area. and the cost of extending utilities becomes prohibitive. As the number of driveways increase, the h ighway is gradually transformed into a high speed version of a local road. The safety imp lic ations are obv ious, as vehicles travelling 55 mph are mixed with r es i de nts entering and exiting thei r driveway. Yet lhis development pattern is virtually prescribed by t he combination of conventiona l zoning and unregu l ated land division. Despite authority to monitor creation of new lots. many communities continue to exempt lot s p lits. Sarasota Florida, for example, goes beyond the exempt ions prescribed in statute to exempt l ots of S acres or larger from review or division Qf land into two parcels. The division of agriculturalla.n
PAGE 10

private road. Landowners may stack flag l ots when a parcel t o provide interior l ots with direct access to a state or county road. thereby avoiding the expense of providing a pub lic or private road. The narrow frontages afford inadequ ate spacing between driveways and increase safety he roadway confonns to gravel road specifications, whereas others require paving afte r the number of dwetting unitS cxtceds a certain number. Some ordinances provide a s liding sca l e approach, allowing grave l roads of about 12 feet to 18

PAGE 11

feet wide for '2-1 parcels: and requiring county toad specifications for larger developments (Bloom. 1990). See Section 21 of tire 1'Aode/ Regulations for private road standDrds. Single Act-ess Subdivisions Linear subdivisions served by a single access drive ending in a cul -de--sac may inhibit emergency access and inc.rease traffic congestion during peak hours by i ng only one point of ingress and egress. Single aece$S problems may also result in phased subdivisions where additional access is proposed for future phases Jf future phases are not built, the remaining subdivision may have insufficient access Although this is not a problem where only a few dwelling units are served. how many lotS is too many'? Average daily trips for residential streets provide a baseline for access and cul-de-sac: standards. Listokin and Walker ( 1989) recommend that when a subciivision on a single access rural road exceeds 20 lots (or 20 dwelling units). it sho uld have at least two access points The maximum number of dwelling units pennitted for residential access streets would be ab
PAGE 12

roadway, encourage sharing of access for smaller parcels, and can improve. community character by diScouraging haphuard placement of driveways along conldors. Driveway spacing at intersections and comers: should provide adequate sight distance and response times and permit adequate stackiog space. Driveway spacing Slalldards should be tied to the state DOt access classificatioo and driveway permitting standards for the state highway system. Driveway spacing standards on other roadways may be ned to the posted speed IUnit or functional classUlcation of the roadway, with the minimum distance between driveways greater as speed limits increase. Some communlties also provide variable spacing depeoding upon the land use intensity of the sire served and that of adjacent sites. See Sections Sand 6 of the Model Regulalions for recommmded driVeway $pacing Slll!ldard$. Joint Access Joint access requirements provide for a unified on site circulation plan and adequate driveway spacing along developing commercial corridoro. Orlando, Florida has a comprehensive program for minimizing cwl> cuts through joint access and U:)'. Cross-access corridors arc indicated on the zoning map by dashed or dotted lines and distinguish those portions of the corridor where easements have been recorded Standards are included for coordinated or joint parking design and joint maintenance agreements must also be recorded wilh the deed. These standards are applied to phased development in the same ownerohip and leasing situations. Where abutting properties are in different ownership, cooperation is encouraged but not required. Only the building site under consideration is subject to the requirements, which are recorded as a Binding Lot Agreement prior to issuing a building permit As abutting properties are developed or initiate retrofitting requirements then \hey must abide by the standards (see Retrofitting). If properties are unable to meet drivewa y spacing requirements of the Access Management Classification System, the Public Works Director may waive the requirements and provide for less restrictive spacing (see Figure 3). The waiver is based on the condition that joint usc driveways, cross access easements, and a unified parking and circulation plan must be established wb.er ever feasible. Where unified access and circulation is not practical, the City may provide a variance. 1-7 Figure 3: Joint Access .. . t .. . .... < t .r : ' See Section 7 of the Model RegulatiotiS for joint and cross access req1dnments. Retrofitting Noneonrorming Properties Land development regulations are not retroactive. Existing properties that do not meet land development

PAGE 13

requlrements must be designated as nonconforming-a pro<:hare driveways. use service drives, cross access, and even rear access drives in some instances to maintain appropriate access. Limitations on new driveways may be established wing a corridor overlay approach. See Section U of the Modd Regulations/or corridor overllly standards based on this technique. Outparcel Requirements Qutparcels are lots on the perimeter of a larger parcel that abut a roadway. Outparcel regulations are adopted for conunercial corridors to foster coordinated on-site circulation systems that serve outparcels as well as in terior thereby reducing the need for driveways on an arterial. Outparcel regulations may include standards governing: the number of outparcels; minimwn l ot frontage; access; unified parking and circulation; landscaping and pedestrian amenities; building height, coverage, and setback requirements; and signage. The City of Pembroke Pines, Florida lirnils the number of outparcels to one per ten acres of site area, with a minimum frontage requirement of 500 lineal feet per outparcel. Standards also call for a minimum of 300 lineal feet of open space between outparcels. Roadways separating adjacent parcels may be included with open space in meeting this requirement. The ordinance prohibits more than one building per outparcel. Each parcel must provide all required parking on site and conform to all landscaping and setback req uire ments of that zoning district. Access requirements are as follows: Access to the outparcel shall be as direct as pos.sible avoiding exce$Sive movement across parking aisles and queuing across surrounding parking and driving aisles. All access to the outparcel must be internalized utilizing the main access drive ofdte principal retail center ... Drive-in facilities shall be provided on the outparce l site exclusively. In no instance shall the circulation and access of the principal commercial facilty and its parking and service be impaired." In addition, covenants imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board and ArchitectuJlll Review Board must be added to the deed if title to the outparcel is transferred after the site p lan is approved. The seller must notify the buyer, who is bound by the restrictions. Ste Section 10 of th e Model Regu/Qiions for ourparcel slandards.

PAGE 14

CorTidor Overlay ZonH Overlay zones are a growin& method for m-anaging access along eommaeial corridors. The technique is used to overlay a special set ofrequirtmenls onto an exi>ting zoning district, while retaining the underlying zoning and its associated requirements. TeJCithat spec ifies standards for the access management overlay disll'lct Is included in the land development (or zoning) code and then corridors are designated on the zoning map. Overlay requirtments may address any i>sues of concern, such as joint access, parking lot ClO$$ aceess, reverse frontage, driveway spocing, and limitations on new Sample regulations for the Grand 'Inverse Bay Region in Michigan apply to the area 300 feet on either side of the designated corridor, establish minimum lot frontage of 400 and permit only one access per 400 fool lot (Wyckoff, M Sept. 1992). Service drive provisions freeze the number of driveways on a designoted corridor to one per eruting parcel having .. single tax code number at the dat e of the amendment When subsequendy subdivided, all parcels must provide access via subdivision roads, other private or public roads, or by service drives in conformance with specified design requirements. Commercial driveway location an d spacing slandards arc provided for regional arterials and other typeS of roa ds. Parcels with less than I 00 feet of frontage may be pennitted a driveway, but in certain cases a shared driveway or a1ternative means or access may be required Requirements for minirnUlll,intersect!on or com er sight distance are tied to AASHTO guidelines and somewhat lower standards ti ed to the posted ope! limit arc pro vided for special eircutnsQnCC$, such u inadequate frontqe. See Sectio n U of the Mode/ Regulatio11s for co rridor overlil)' standard$. Improving Coordination An effective method of coordinating review and approval i> through a tiered review process that begins with an informal meeting and concept review. The informal review aUows official$ to advise the developer "'prdlng information needed to ptrict office where an application involves access to lho state highway sy tem, as is done in O"'gon (Falconl1991) and in many Florida DOT Distrie1S. To ensure conform= with land ell vision and access requirementS, the building permit should be established as the lead pennit during development review. Properly owners may then be required to submit the necessary penn its or certificares of approval from regulatory agencies involved in subdivision or site plan review before issuing a building penni!. In Flori da, thi> should I nclude a not iceofintentto pennlt" an access connection from the Florida Departmen t of Transporta tlon where the state highway system is inv olved. to assure eonfonnance with state access m.anaaement and driveway permitting requirements. In tum FOOT will not issue the adUal access permit until the local covemment givH fmal development approvaL Upon adoption of new access manll!gtment requirements, planners should also initiate a training program to educate planning commissioners, the zoning admini strator, and the zoning board of adjustment on the purpose and administration of the new standards. It is e ssentia l that the regulations be applied consiotently -

PAGE 15

especially when oppommities arise for retrofitting noncon(onning features Variance requests should be judiciously evaluated according to specified review proeedures and discretionary standards to avoid inconsistency. See Section 23 of the Modd Regulations for procLihlrts 011 coordinating access reviLw wiilt the Florida Department of Transportation on the Sta,. Highway Conclusion Access management addresses a broad anay of qua1iry of1ife issues fundamental to promoting livable, prospering communities. Land division and access controls: foster well designed ciroulation systems that improve the safety and character of commercial conidors; discourage subdivision practices that destroy the rural character of the landscape or essential natural resources; advance economic development goals by promoting more efficient use of land and transportation systems; and help control public service costs and the substantial public investment in infrastructure and services. Effective local access management requires both planning and regulat<>cy solutions. CommWlities sbould establish a policy framework that supports access managc-.ment in the local comprehensive-plan, prepare corridor or access management plans for specific problem areas, and encourage good site planning techniques. Zoning and subdivision regulations should be amended accordingly and communities could consider a separate access managerneot ordinance. Comprehen .. sive and subarea plans provide the rationale for access management programs and can serve as the legal basis for public policy decisions. Because land division and access controls are politically charged, planning officials arc advised 10 develop strategies for diffusing opposition before advancing recommendations. Be aware of the practical i:oncems of those most affected by proposed amend ments and devise strategies for ameliorating hardship. Town meetings, attitude surveys, and other techniques should be used to educate stakeholders and generate political suppon. Refereaces Bloom, Clifford H. Rs:!Wiatinll Private Roads Planning and Zoning News. Vol. 8, No.3, January 1990: 7-10. Brough, Michael B. A Unified Development Ordinance Washington, D.C.: Planners Press American Planning Association, 1985. Chapin, F., Kaiser E. Urban Land Use Plannine. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985. Falconi, Xavier R .... Access Management: Relationship Between Developers, Local Government and State Government." liE 1991 Compendium ofTecbnjcal Papea. 1991. Koepke, F J., Levinson H.S. Access Manaeement Guidelines for ActivitY Cepters. NCHRP Report 348, Wasb.lngton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992. Listokin, D. and Walker, C. The Sybdjvjsion and Sjte Plan Handbook. New Jersey: The State University of New Jersey 1989. McPherson, J.K., Coffey D., Easley, G. Land Deyelap ment Rezulatjons. Iechnjcal Assistance Manual for Florida Cjties and Counties. Prepared for the Depart ment of Community Affairs. August28, 1989. McPherson, J.K., Coffey D ., Easley, G Model Land Deyelomnent Code for Florida Ci ties and Counties. Prepared for the Department of Community Affairs. December 1989. Misseldine, C WyckoffM. Plannine and Zonine for Farmland Protection: A Commupily Based Approach. American Farmland Trust, 1987. H., Lindbloom C. The New Illustrated Book ofDeyelopmeot Definjtioos. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1993. Stover, V.G. and F.J. Koepke. TnmSllonarion and Land DeyeiOJ!ment. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988. Williams, Kristine M. "Reserving Right-of-Way with Official Maps". Planoine and Zonine July 1991: 14-18. Williams, K.M., McCauley, T.J., Wyckoff, M.A ..Lmu1 Djvisjon and Access Controls, Lansing: Planning and Zoning Center Inc., April 1990. 1 -10

PAGE 16

WyckoffM, Williams K., Armscrong M, et al. Commu njty P!Mning HQndbook: Topl$ and IechnjQtle$ for Gujdjog Commynitf Cbani. Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. March 1992. Wyckoff Grand Traverse Bay Re&ion Dcyclqpnu;pt Guidebook. P lanning&. Zoning Center, Inc. September 1992 . Wyckoff M., Grand Trayerse Bay Sample Regul ations. Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., September 1992. Yaro, R., Arendt, R. Dodson, H., Bnlbec, E. Deal iDa with Chane in the Connecticut River Valley: A Pesian Manual for Conservation and Pcvelo,pnumt Amherst: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Environmental Law Foundation, 1988. 1-11

PAGE 17

Part 2: Model Regulations

PAGE 18

Settion 1. Section 2. Section l. Section 4. Section 5 Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. Section 9. Section 1 0. Section 11. Section 12. Section 13. Section 1 4. Section 1 5. Section S 6. Section 17. Section 18. Section 19. Section 20. Sectinn 21. Section 22. Section 23. Section 24 Model Land Development and Subdivision Regulations That Support Access Management Intent and l'ulJ)ose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Applicability ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Conformance with Plans, RegulatiO!lS, and Statutes .. . . . . 2-2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Access Management Classification System and Standards . . . . . 2 Comer Clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 Joint and C!'O$s Access . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 Interchange Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2l 6 Access Connection and Driveway Design ............... : ..... 2-17 Requirements for Outparccls and Phased Development Plans . . . 2-20 Emergency Access .. ......... ................ . . . 2-21 Transit Access ......... . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 Nonconfonning Aecess Features . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 Corrido r Access Management Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2.3 Reve.l'$e Frontage .................... .. . . . 2-26 Flag L<>t Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27 Lot Width-to-Depth Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28 Shared Access ................. .... .... .......... 2-2.8 Co . nnect1vtty ......... . . ....... ............. 2-30 Minor Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30 Private Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -32 Regulatory Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35 Site Plan R...,iew Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 2-35 Variance Standards ......... . . . . . . . . . 2-38 2-1

PAGE 19

The following model ordinance language is provided for adi>ption i nto the local land development code. Local governments should obtain professional planning and legal assistance when adapting this model language lo jll local needs. Although a regulatory program is essential it is further recommended thai local governments prepare subarea plans for high priority co,.fdors that are experiencing tkvelopment pressure. Section 1. Intent and Purpose The intent of this ordinance is to provide and manage access to land development, while preserving the regional flow of traffic in tenns of safety, capacity, and speed. Major thoroughfares, including highways and other arterials serve as the primary network for moving people and goods These transportation corridors also provide access to businesses and homes and have served as the focus for commercial and residential development. If access systems are not properly designed, these thoroughfares will be unable to accommodate the access needs of development and retain their primary transportation function. This ordinance balances the right of reasonable access to private property, with the right of the citi=s of the (ciry/cmmty} and the State of Florida to safe and efficient travel. To achieve this policy intent, state and local thoroughfares have been categoriud by function and classified for access purposes based upon their level of imponance, with highest priority on the Florida Intrastate Highway System and secondary priority on the primary network of regional arterials. Regulations have been applied to these thoroughfares for the purpose of reducing traffic personal injury, and property damage attributable to poorly designed access systems, ani! to thereby improve the safety and operation of the roadway netWork. This will protect the substantial public investment in the existing transportation system and reduce the need for expens i ve remedial measures. These regulations also further the ordetly layout and use of land, protect community character, and conserve natural resowces by promoting welldesigned road and access systems and discouraging the unplanned subdivision of land. Section 2. Applicability This ordinance shall apply to all arterials and selected collectors within (ciry/cmmty), as identified in Table 1, and to all properties that abut these roadways. The access classification SYstem and standards of the Florida Department of Transportation shall apply to all 1'03dways on th e State Highway System. Sec:tioa 3. Coafonnaace with Plans, and Slatntes This ordinance is adopted to imple ment (cite specific policies) of the (city/county} as set forth i n the (name local comprehenswe plan) In addition, this ordinance conforms with (cite specific policies) of the Metropolitan Planning Organlz:alion (MPO) as specified in the (name of long range lransportalion plan}, and the planning policies of the Florida Department of Transportation set forth in the Florida Transportation Plan. The ordinance also conforms with the access classification SYStem and standards of the Florida Department of Transportation the access management requirements of the Florida Intrastate Highway System Program, and policy and planning directives of the federallntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 2

PAGE 20

Commmtary: The link between regulations and public policy has undergone intense legal scrutin:y in recent To establish this/ink. local governments should clearly ltkntify the intent and purpose of the regulatory progrom, and specify any plans, state and federal regulations, or statutes that will be carried out through the regulatory standards. It is also Important to cite specific planning polfcies thot ore being advanced through these regulations. Local gG\Iernments in designated transportation management areas may a/so cite accas management as a congestion managemUJt measwe in accordance with the federallntermodal S14face Transportal/on Efficiency Act of 1991. Communities thot do not lfe within the planning area boundaries of a Meuopolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would $Imply leave out the reference to MPOs In thl.< section. Demonstrating conformance with state and federal law, and with the local comprehensive plan, is Important in strengthening the legal basis for any local regulatory program. Section 4. Definitions Access A way or means of approach to provide vehicular or pedestrian entrance or exit to a property. Aess Classification A ranking system for roadways used to demminc the appropriate degree of access management. Factors considered include functional classification, the appropriate local government's adopted plan for the roadway, subdivision of abutting properties, and existing level of access contrOl. Access Connection Any driveway, street, turnout or other means of providing for the movement o f vehicles to or from the public roadway system. Access Managemont -The process of providing and managing access to l and development while preserving the regionlll flow of ttaffic in tenns of safety, capacity, and speed. Access Management Pian (Corridor) A plan illustrating the design of access for lots on a highway segment or an interchange area that is developed jointly by the state, the metropolitan p lanning organization, and the affected jurisdiction(s). CartwayThat area of road surface from curb line to curb line or between the edges oftbe paved or hard surface of the roadway, whicll may includetravellanes, parking lanes, and deoele.-ation or aeeelc:ration lanes. Connection Spacing The distance between connections, measured from the closest edge of p avement of the first connection to the closest edge of pavement of the second connection along the edge of the traveled way. Corner Clearauce-The distance from an intersection of a public or private road to the nearest access connection, measured from the closest edge of tho pavement of the intersecting road to the closest edge of the pavement of the connection lllong the traveled way. (see Figwe I) 2-3

PAGE 21

Figure 1 : C o mer Clearaace a od Coooectio o Spacio g . CORNER C LEARANCE <( .. ... CORNER 1( DISTANCE i w iii CL.EAAANCE BETWEEN ... O ISTA.NC DRIVEWAY "' C0NNECT10NS Q u cr Q . . . : i Corridor Over lay Z oneSpecial requirement s added onto e x isting land development requirements al ong designated ponio ns of a public thoroughfare CrO$$ Aeees.s A service drive providing vehicular access between two or mor e contiguous sites so the driver need not ente r the public street system. (see Fi gure 4) Deed -A l e gal document co n veying owners h ip of real property. Directional M tdlan An opening in a restrictive median which provides for specific movements and physically restricts other movements. Directi o nal median openings for two opposing left or "U-tum' movements along a road segment are considered one directional median opening Easemeo t -A gr11nt of one or more property rights by a property o wner t o or for use b y the public, or another person o r entity. Florida Intrastate Hig h way Sys t e m The specially des i gnated statewi d e sy s tem of lim it ed access and controlled acces s facilities, as designated by F OOT and adopted by the legis l ature, that allows for high-speed an d h i gh-v o lume tmffic movement within the sta t e Fro atage Roa d -A p u blic or private drive which generally parallels a public street between the right of-way an d the front building set b ack line. The frontage roa d p rovides ac c ess to priva t e properties while separating them from the arterial street. (see a l so Service Roads) Full Medlaa O pening -An opening in a r e strictive median that allows a ll ruming movem e nts from the roadway and the intersecting roa d or access cOMection. 2-4

PAGE 22

Functional Area (lntmedion) That area beyond the physical intersection of two controlled &C(CSS facilities that comprises decision and maneuver distance, plus any required vehicle storage let>gth, and is protected through comer clearance standards aod driveway connedion spacing standards (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Functional Area of Intersection BOUNDARY OF INTERSECTION I ':<1:11 Physical Area FunctloMI Area Functional Classilicati9nA system used to group public roadways into classes according to their purpose in moving vehicles ao. d providing access. Greon Book, The Florida (Manual of Uniform Minimum Standard for Design, Construction, and Maintenance) A manual produced by the Florida Department of Transportation which provides for uniform standards and criteria for transportation facilities for both state and l ocal roads. Intrastate Highway System (see Florida Intrastate Highway System) Joint (or Shared Access) A driveway CO!IDecting two or more contiguous sites to the public street system. Lot A parcel tract, or area of land whose boundaries have been established by some le gal instrument, which is recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title, has frontage upon a public or private and complies with the dimensional requirements of this code. 2-5

PAGE 23

Figure 3: Types of Lots ---------C..#'T" --P-tcTAC$.. -l I I I I I _,_J I / ,/ --L.OT c..r ...... Reprinted with perm.l1sion fiorn tl. Moskowitz and C. Lindbloom. The New 1Uus0'3Ud Book o f Development Definitions. New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Urban PoH<:y Researc:l\, Rutgers Univel"5i1y. 0 1993. Comer -Any lot having at leas t two (2) contiguous sides abutting upon one or more streets. provided that the interior angle at the intersection of such two sides is less than one hundred thirtyfive (135} degrees. Commentary: C orner lots can create confusion in relation to dimensional requirements. The recommended approach is to designate one frontage as the ':front and the re01 lot line would be that opposite the tksignated frontage. Both portions of the lot with street frontage should still be required to meet the require dfrontyard setback to ensure adequate sight distance and consistency of setback with abutting properties. A lot abuJting a curved street (s) Is typically considered a corner lot if the arc ha.J a radius less than one hundred and fifty (ISO) feet. Lot Depth The average distance measured from the front lot line to t he rear lot 1ine. Lot, Flae -A large lot not meeting minimum ftontage requirements and where access to the public road i s by a narrow, private right-of-way or Lot, NonconfonningA lot that does not meet the dimens i onal requirements of the district in which it is locate d and that existed before these requirements became effective. Lot, Through (also called a double frontage lot) A lot that fronts upon two parallel streets or that fronts upon two streets that do not intei'Sect at the boundaries of the lot. Lot Frontage That ponio n of a lot extending along a street right-of-way line. 2-6

PAGE 24

Lot or Record A lot or parcel that exists as shown or described on a plat or deed in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Lot Width The horizontal distance between side lot lines measured parallel to the front lot line at tbe minimum required front setback line Manual of UDiform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)A Federal document adopted by the Florida Department of Transpo!Uiion that provides standMds for traffic control devices Florida Administrative Rule 14-110 establishes the MUTCD to be Florida's Standard for traffic control devices Minor Subdivision A subdivision of land into not more than two (2) lots where there are no roadways, drainage, or other r.qulred improvements. NonconCormi.og Featurt$Features of the access system of a property that existed prior to the date of ordinance adoption and do not contonn with the requirements of this code or requisements of the Administrative Rule 14-97 of the Florida Department of Transportation Nonrestrictive Median A median or painted centerline that does not provide a physical barrier between traffic traveling in opposite directions or tuming left, including continuous center turn lanes and undivided roads. Outparcel A parcel of land abutting and external to the larger, main parcel, which is under separate ownership and bas roadway frontage. A division of land comprised of one or more lots in contiguous ownership. PlatAn exact and detailed map of the subdivision of land. Private Road -Any road or thoroughfare for vehicular travel which is privately owned and maintained and which provides the principal means of access to abutting propenies Public Road A road under the jwisdiction of a public body that provides the princ ipal means of access to an abutting property. Reasonable Aeeess: The m.ioirnwn number of access connections. direct or indirect, necessary to provide safe access to and from the thoroughfare, as consistent with the purpose and intent of Ibis code and any applicable plans and policies of the (city/county). Restrictive Median -A physical barrier in the roadway that separates traffic traveling in opposite directions, such as a concrete ban'ier or landscaped island. Right-or-WayLand reserved, used, or to be used for a highway, street, alley, walkway, drainage facility, or other public purpose. Service Road -A public or private street or road, auxiliary to and nortn;l]ly located parallel to a controlled access facility, that maintalos local road continuity and provides access to parcels adjacent to the controlled access facility. 2-7

PAGE 25

Sigoilicaol Cbaoge io Trip Geoeralioo A change in the use of the property, including land, structUreS or fadllties., or an expansion oftbe size of the structures or facilities causing an increase in the trip genmtion of the property exceeding 10 pm:eo1 more trip generation (either peak or cbily) and 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use for all roads under local jurisdiction; or c
PAGE 26

Section 5. Access Classitioation System and Standards I. The following access classifications have been assigned to major thoroughfares under State and local jurisdiction as provided !I) Table I in acguished by a S)'Sitlll of existing or planned service roads, a highly controlled limited numbet of median openings and in&.quent traffic signals. Access Class 3 These facilities are controlled access facilities where direct access to abutting land will be controlled to maximize the through movement of traffic. This class will be used where existU>g land use and roadway sections have not been built out to the maximum land use or roadway capacity or where the probability of significant land use change in the near future is high. These highways are distinguished by existing or planned restrictive medians and maximum distance between signals and driveway connections. Local land use planning, zoning and subdivision regulations should be such to support the restrictive spacings of this designation. Access Class 4 These facilities are controlled access highways where direct aceess to abutting land will be
PAGE 27

Example Table 1 : Acss Classification of State and County Roadways Jurisdiction Segme ot Access Class Stille Ragds: SR 400 (1-4) County Line to County Line I SR 500 (US 192-441) Kissimmee CL to St. Cloud CL 2 SR 530 (US 192) World Dr. to 1-4 I SR 5 3 5 (Vineland Rd.) US 192 to County Line 2 County RMds: Bennuda A venue Emmeu St. to Vine St. 7 Dan Blvd. l-4 to Florida's Thmpike 2 Hoagland Blvd. Zaheed Ave. to Canoll St. 5 Neptune R d. S!l'()upe Rd. to 13th St. 6 Note: The information in thi s table was adapted from a draft acc.es.s managemenJ ordinance and is provided as an example of a format. Commmtary: These access cla.ssificaJions reflect those of the Fl orida Department of Transportation for the State Highway System and run from the mos t resu l ctive (clas s /) to the/east restrictive (class 7). Access classifications are assigned to r()Qdway segments based vpon the currenJ condition of the roadway and any planmd improvements. Access Class 2 s egments u s ually have access suppo rted by local ordinances and agreements with FDOT and Classes 2 4 are generally imerukdfor roadways without e:
PAGE 28

2. All connections on facil i ty segments that have been assigned an access classifica t ion shal l meet or cxoeed the minimum connection spaeing requiretnents of that aocess classification, as specified in 2 {Note: These standards are coMistent wflh those of the Florida Department ofTransportation. Chapter 14, Administratf>-e Rules. Jfthe rules are amendad at a future date then these stondards should be amendad accordingly ] Table 2: Access Classificatio n System & Standards FuccdooaJ Clau Arterials Co1kcton Residc:atial ColteetOrs Acetss Oass 3 4 5 6 7 RestricUvc w/ service !load$ R.c:stneti\'t N o .. Re$trieti.\'e Restrictive Non Restrictive Both Median !)'pes For roads wi1h posted spetd 4Smph Coonc:etioo Sign I Spaciog 1320 660 440 440 125 660 440 440 245 24S iona.l 1320 330 Full 2640 660 264 0 2640 26-terials under local jurisdiction that have not been assigned an access c lassi fi cation sha ll be based upon the posted speed limit in accor45 440 any road havilt$ a speed limit over 4 5 mph should be gi\'tn an aooess ooanasement classification. 2-11

PAGE 29

4. Driveway spa<;ing shall be measured from the closest edge of the pavement to the n ext closest edge of the pavement (see Definition section and Figu,. 1). The projected furure edge of the pavement of the interSecting road shall be used in measuring comer clearance, where widening, relocation, or other improvement is indicated in an adopted local thoroughfare plan or five year transporwion plan of the metropolitan planning organiz.uion. S The (permitting may reduce the connection spacing requirements in situations where they prove impractical, but in no case shall the permitted spacing be less than 80% of the applicable standard, except as provided in Section 24. 6. If the connection spacing of this code cannot be achieved, then a system of joint use driveways and cross access easements may be required in accordance with Section 7 . 1 Variation from these standards shall be permined at the discretion of the Planning Commission where the effect would be to enhance the safety or operation of the roadway. Examples might include a pair of oneway driveways in lieu of a twcrway driveway, or alignment of median openings with existing access connections. Applicants may be required to submit a study prepared by a registered engineer to assist the (citylcouniy} in determining whether the proposed change would exceed roadway safety or operat i onal benefits of the prescribed standard. Commenttuy: Driveway spacing standards limit the number of driveways on a roadway by mandallng a minimum separaJion distance between driwway.r This reduces the pcte.nrialfor collisions as travellers enter or exit the roadway and encourages sharing of where appropriate Driveway SPing at intersections and corners should pr(l'Vide adequate sight distance and response times and permit adequate stacking space. Driveway spacing on nonclassified arterials and collectors may be tied to posted limit, as shown here, with the minimum dist(111ce between driveways greater as speed limits imrease. The method used to regulate driveway spacing does, however, vary wi
PAGE 30

. b) Tho (pmnirting deparrmem) dftermines th.u tho COM eel ion does not create a safery or operational.' problem upoa: review of a site specific: study of tho propcnal CODDecrion prepared by a rqimred enainoor and sub!nin.d by lhe opp!ic;aoL Where no olhcr altUI\IIives exi$1. lbe (permitting departmml) mil)' allow constrUctiOil of an acceSs COIIIIcctioo along lhe property line taztllest from tile Jn svcb eases, connections (I.e. righ t in/out, right in only, or right out only) may be required. In addition to the required minimum l o t size, all comer lou shall be of adequate size to provide for required frontyard setbacks and corner clearance on street frontage. o n 1 : Jo!Dt and c ..... Access Adjacent commercial or office properties cwsified as major traffic generaiors (Le. shopping pluas, office parks), shall provide a aoss aecess drive and podeSirian access to allow circulolion between sites. Adjacent ,.laoppiltg centers or office parks an oftm not conntt:d by a smlcc tlriw and sidewalk. As a cusromen who wish to shop In bo
PAGE 31

Figure 4: Examples of Cross AccC5s Corridor Design /REAR CROSS ACCESS ORJV y I I I :J .. ... .. ' ',...... -- .......,,.,..,I I I Pf'OCierty ..... 'C>"<1 OI:OS.s-A.COSS DRM Source: City of OrtaDdo + GOOD SEI'AitAT10N -... "' eooo SPARAT10N ... X ACCEPT AilE stPAlAnON y This illustration shows t ha t sufficient separation is needed between side street access to the property and t he major road. 2-14

PAGE 32

Figure 5: Jolut aud Cross Access ._: --.. i -0 )ource: Clty of Orlando. TtMI"ORARY DRIVEWAYS / 1><1 I ) l l ll!J'IVI L ) / I .--I "'I I 1 .. I . Shared parking areas shall be permitted a reduction in required parking spaces if peak demand periods for proposed laud uses do not occur a t the same time periods Commentary: For example, a bank and a movie theater need parking for their patrons at two distinclly different times. Pursuant to this section, property owners shall: a) Record an easement with the deed allowing cross access to and from other properties served by the joint use driveways and cross access or service drive; b) Record an agreemeot with the deed that remaining access rigbts along the thoroughfare will be dedicated to the (city/county) and pre-existing driveways will be closed and eliminated after construction of the joint-use driveway; c) Record a joint main t enanoc 31!l"ement with the deed defining maintenance responsibilities of property owners. Commentary: See Appendix 1 for a sample cross access agreement from the City of Orkmdo. T/iese agreements must be prepared with the assistance of an Qltorney. The joint acce!s provisions aho>-e were adapted from the City of Orlando Code of Ordinances, Land Development Code, Chapter 61, Roadway Design and Access Management. These provisions should be mandatory for local segment s of the Florida Intrastate Highway System and all other major thoroughfares zoned for in:emhoe commercial or offwe dWeiopment. Another 2-15

PAGE 33

option is t.hat used by the City of Orlando, who ties joint access requirements to specific zoning districts. S. The (permitting department) may reduce required separation distance of access points where they prove impractical, provided all of the following requirements are met: a) Joint acce.s driveways and cross acce.s easements are provided wherever feasible in accordance with this section b) The site plan incorporates a unified access and circulation system in accordance with this section. c) The property owner shall enter a written agreement with the (city/county), recorded with the deed, that connections on the site will be closed and eliminated after construction of each side of tbe joint u.se driveway. 6. The (permitting departmelll) may modify or waive the requirements of this section where the characteristics or l ayout of abutting properties would make development of a unified or shared access and circulation system impractical. Commmtary: This model provides that where propenies are unable to meel driveway spacing requiremenJ.s, then the planning or pubic works official may provide for len restrictive spacing. based o n the condit ions that joint use driveways and cross access easements must be established wherever feasible. A variance is provided only where joint and cross acce.ss is not practical. Variances and other remedial actions such as those described above are necessary to prevent unusual hardship on property owners and other situations that could Incur a regulatory taking. (Note: Vmiances and special condilions, like standards for rwnconforming [eatlll'eS, must be consistently and rigorously applied) These standards are als() applied to phased development in the same ownership and leasing situations. Where abutting properties are in different ownership, coOper(llion is encouraged but not required. But the building site under consideration is subject to the requb-ements, which are recorded as a Blnding Agreement prior to issuing a building permit. Abutting properties will be brought into compliance as they are developed or initiate retrofitting requirements, as provided in Section 13. in the meantime, the property owner will be permitted a temporary curb cut and driveway that will be closed upon development of the joint use driveway. Section 8. Intercbange Areas I New interchanges or significant modification of an existing interchange will be subject to special access management requirements to protect the safety and operational efficiency of the limited access facility and the interchange area, pursuant to the preparation and adoption of an access management plan. The plan shall address current and filrure connections and median openings within 1/4 mile of an interchange area (measured from the end of the taper of the ramp furthest from the interchange) or up to the fllSt intersection with an arterial road, whichever is tess. 2-16

PAGE 34

2. The distance to the first connection shali be at least 660 feet where the posted speed limit is greater than 45 mph or 440 feet where tbe posted speed limit is 45 mph or less. This distance shall be measured from the end of the taper for that quadrant of the interchange. 3. The minimum distance to the flCSI median opeolng shall be at least 1320 feet as measured from the eod of the taper of the egress ramp. Commmlilry: New highway can have sul>ttantial impacts on land development patterns around the interchange area. In turn, if/and development is not properly planned it can create safety hazards and interfere with the flow of traffic onto and off of the interchange. An ace= management plan would identify the appropriate access system around the interchange area, in accordance with a desired land development plan. Such a plan would a4o lnccrporaJe m.inimum spacing reqYirementsfor new Interchanges required by the Florida a/Transportation. These standards are prtJVided above for incorporation into the local c()(/e. Sectioo 9. Access Coooectioo and Driveway Design I. Driveway width shall meet the following guidelines: a) If the driveway is a one way in or one way out drive, then t he driveway. shall be a minimum width of 16 feet and shall have appropriate signage designating the driveway as a one way connection b) For two-way access, eacb lane shall have a width of 12 feet and a maximum of four lanes shall be allowed. Whenever more than two Janes are proposed, entrance and exit lanes shall be divided by a median. The median shall be I 0 feet wide if three lanes are being proposed or 16 feet wide if fout lanes are proposed. c) Driveways that enter the major thoroughfare at traffic signals must have at least two outbOWld tan .. (one for eaeb turning direction) of at least 12 feet width, and one inbound lane with a 14 feet width. 2. Driveway grades shall conform to the requirements ofFDOT Standard Index, Roadways and Traffic Design Standard Indices, latest edition. 3. Driveway approaches must be designed and located to provide an exiting vehicle with an unobstructed view. Consttuction of driveways along aooeleration or deceleration Janes and tapers is discouraged du e to the potential for vehicular weaving conflicts (see Figure 6). 4. Driveway width and flair shall be adequate to serve the volume of traffic and provide for rapid movement of vehicles off of the major thoroughfare, but standards shall not be so excessive as to pose safety hazards for pedestrians, bicycles, or other vehic .les. (Suggested standards appear in Table 4). 2-17

PAGE 35

Figure 6: Driveway Location Table 4: Suggested Ae<:ess Connection Design From FDOT Stan d ard I ndex Tripi/Day 1-20 21.@ 601-4000 Tripa/Hour o
PAGE 36

Commentary: The Florida Department of Transportation requires local governments to adhere to cerlaif! minimum design standards in the design and location of access connections or other rrafjic control features. These standards are conJoined in thr ee separate but relaJed technical documenJs: the Standard Index (Roadway and Traffic Design Standards): the "Florida Green Book" (Manual of Uniform Minimum Standard for Design, Construction. and Mai ntenance); and the MUI'CD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The standards shown In Tobie 4 were adapted from the latest edition of the Standard Index 5. The length of driveways or "Throat Length" (see Figure 7) shall be designed in accordance with the anticipated storage length for entering and exi ting vebicles to prevent vehicles from backing into the flow of traffic on the public street or causing unsafe conflicts with on-site circulation General standards appear in Table 5 but these requirements will vary according to the projected volume of the individual driveway. These measures generally are acceptable fo r the principle aeee$S t o a property aod are not intended for minor driveways. Variation from these shall be permitted for good cause upon approval of the (city/counJy Traffic Engineer or Public Works Official). Table 5: Gellerally Adequate Driveway Throat Lengths Shopping Centers 200' > 200,000 GLA Smaller Developments 75'' 200,000 GLA Unsignali:zed driveways 40';60' Source: Vergil G. Stover. Comnrmtary: The throal lengths in Table S are provided to assure adequate stacking space wilhln driveways far general land use Intensities. This helps prevent vehicles from stacking Into the thorouglrfare as they a/tempt to access the site. High traffic generators. such as large shopping plazil!, need much greater throat length than smaller developments or those with unsignalized driveways. The guidelines here jar larger refer to the primary access drive. Lesser throat lengths may be permitted for secondary access drives serving large developmeniS. 2-\9

PAGE 37

Figure 7: Driveway Throat Le ngth Section 10. Requirements for Outparcels and Phased Development Plans I. In the interest of promoting unified access and circula!ion S)'$tetnS, development sites Wlder the same ownership or consolida!ed for the purposes of develo p ment and comprised of more than one bui l ding site shall not be considered separate properties in relation to the access standa!ds of this code. Tlie number of connections permitted shal l be the minimum number necessary to provide reasonable aess to these properties, not the maximum available for that frontage. All necessary easements. agreements. and stipulations required under Section 7 shall be met This shall also apply to phased development plans. The owner and all lessees within the affected area are responsible for compliance with the requirements of this code and both shall be ci ted for any violation. 2 All access to the outparcel must be internalized using the shared circulation system of the principle development or retail center. Access to outpartels shall be designed to avoid excessive movement across parl
PAGE 38

the applica111 can show the Department that the two properties should have sepal'ate acce.rs due to safety corn:erns (for example, a concrete plant next to a child care center). Marketing oi the two properties Is not a valid re030n to have them treated as separate properties. The rule also states that leasehold interests in existerrce before February 12, 1991 (the effective dale of Rule 14-97) may be considered separate properties. Section 11. Emergency Access I. In addition to minimum side, front, and rear yard setback and building spacing requirements specified in this code, all buildings and other development activities sucb as landscaping, shall be arranged on site so as to provide safe and convenient access for emergency vehicles. Section 12 Transit A
PAGE 39

convenient transit occess. Bus turnarounds are also weful in circumstances whue circulation via the internal strw system of a development would be impractical based on CO$/, design can.ttraints, ()f' tM nted ta maintain timely urvice. These bus lurnartnmds are based upon the turning radius of a standard 40 f{)()l bus. Section 13. Nonconforming Access Features I. Pennitted access connections in place as of (dale of adept/on) !hal do not conform with !he s
PAGE 40

definllion does not provide gu id ance on when a property that has been out of service for a long period of time should be required to undergo reevaluation and obtain a new permit The Florida Department df Transportation is currently trying to further clmify when a vacant Qr a.Oarv:loned propef'fy mtlSC obroj" o new permit due to a Significant Change in property use. What is being proposed for the new Administrative Rule 14-96 (Access Permit Procedures) is a definition that requires a new permit if the I ntended use of property is $topped for onf! year. Local governments ma}l ch o ose tq dtJ the Jome for consr'sttncy or be more restricrive and prOYide only a 180 day grace periC>d. Section 1 4. Corridor Access Mauagmcnt Overlay I The minimum lot frontage for all parcels wit h frontage on (name a/ftcted segments of thoroughfares here or refer to a list) shall not be less than the minimum connection spacing standard$ ofthac thorough.fart except as o c herwisc prov ided in thi s Section. F lag lots shall not be \)e required ro obtai n access via a public or private access road in accordance with lht requiremellts o f this Code Commtntttry : Owrlay zones are an method for managing access alo11g commerr:iol corridors. The techniq-ue is used 10 odd a special set of requirem(mts to those of an existing zoning district or districls Section 14{1) is for those major thoroughfares or portions of major thoroughfares under state or local jurisdiction t hut are not already ex.te.n.sively subdillided and are not planned for commercial or intensive development ir. the near future. This approach requ i res that any lot fronting designated thoroughfares (llsua/ly those with an assigned access c/assljication) have a minimum lot frontage that metts or exceeds the m i nimum eonnection Jpacing standard for thcrouglifares. Thit may be as as 660 feet on Access Cla:ss J Jhotoughfares with a speed ljmit g,eater than 45 mph, or as low as )45 feet for Access Class 6 thoroughfares with a speed limit less than 45 mph. Existing lots with less frontage would continue as nonconfor111ing lots Section 14(1) Jtandards impose large minimum lot frontage rtqulremenu to COnling on (define segment of affected thoroughfare or refe, to a Tab/43 defining affected segments), shall be encirled one: ( l} dri,ewoylconnet\ion per parcel a.s of r'tghl on public thoroughfare(s). When subsequently subdivid e d, ei ther as metes and bounds parcels c;,r as a recorded plat, parcels designated herei n shall provide access to all newly created l ots via the pennined aceess connection This may be achieved. through s ubdivis ion roads. join t and cross access, servic e drives, and octter reasonabte means of and egs-e.s.s \n wlth the requirement< of this Code. The following standards shall also apply: 2 -23

PAGE 41

a) Parcels with large frontages may be permitted additional driveways at the time of adoption of these requirements provided they are c o nsistent with the applicable driveway spacing standards. b) E x isting parcels with frontage less t han the minimum connec tion spac ing for that corridor may not be permitted a direct connection to the thoroughfare under this Section where the Planning Commission determines altemruive reasonable a ccess is avail a ble to t he site {Note: The Planning Commission could allow for a t emporary drive>.t-ay as pro vided in Section 7 with the 1tipulation rhat joint and cross access be est ablished as adjacent properties develop.] c) Additional access connec tions may be allowe d where the property owner demonsrrates tha t s a fety and efficiency o f t ravel on t he thoroughfare will be improved by providing mo r e than one access to t he si te. d) No parking or structure o t her than signs sh all be permin e d within (10-50) fee t of t he roadway righ t -of-way. The (10-50) foo t b u ffer shall be landscaped with p lants suitable co the soil and in a manne r that provides adequat e sight visibility for v e hicles exiting t he site. Property owners shall be penni ned t o landscape t he right -ofway, pursuant to an approved l andsca ping pJan. e) Permitted connections shall be ident i fied on a map that shall be adopted by reference and that portion of a corri d or affected by these overlay requirements shall be delinea t ed o n the (city/county) zoni n g map with hatch marks. CommentiJry: The r egulatiOn$ in Section 14{2) are inrended for corridors thai are planned for co m mercial or i nlensi .. e dtNelopment and have not already been e:xJensively subdivided into small lot frontages. Such corridors may o r may not be zoned for commercial or mixed use development, but may already be uperiencing development pre$Sure This approach focuses . rather than disper1es, deYelopment along corridors while maintaining regiona l mobility through access management The Stion 14{2) overlay jreezes" allowable access ro one connection by righl per existing lot or parcel a/the time of a doption. Lots or parcels may be extensively subdivided. but all future lots must obtain access via the access connec t ions permiued at the time of overlay adoption. This overlay approach allows for continued subdi v ision and development of land while stimula1ing joint access, local roods and ether alternatives to direct thoroughfare accels in the site design process (see Figure 9) These permitted connections must be designated on a map and adopted wilh the O\er/ay requirements For flex i billty addilional driveways may be permitted for large parcels chat me.et Qr exceed th e minimum access spacing standards for t hat thoroughfare or w here safety would be i n creased Parcels with small frontages a/the time o f adoption are not permiued a driveway o n the thoroughfa r e where this would create a safety hazard or where alu rnatil--e reasonable a ccess i f available. In such cases a temporary driveway could be permitted under joint access requ i rements 2-24

PAGE 42

I I I Figure 9: Corridor Access Management Overlay I I I 2S Perm i tted access c o nnectio ns for Corrid o r A at tim e o f O v e rlay adoptio n Pote nti al subdiv ision and access on Corridor A a fter adoption Potential subdivision and access on Corridor A without overlay standards

PAGE 43

Local governments are also enc o uraged to apply design guidelines that enhance communitychar(Jcter, including standards for pedestrian access and landscaping Secti o n / 4(1){d) above is one potential standard for improving the visual quality of c ommercial corridors through landscaping and setbacks. The seJback between the rightof-way and the parking area or structure should at a minimum be 10 feet. Some communities require as mu c h as jQ feet The appropriaJe standard will \ary according to local preferences and existing right of-way. If the existing right-of-way is very small, f o r example, then the buffer should be increased and vice versa Some communities a r e aho promoting side and rear parking, or shared parking areas t o reduce the appearance of from the street and provide for a more pleasing site design. Section 15. R everse Frontage I. Access to double frontage lo t s shall be required on the street with the l ower funct i onal classifica ti on 2 When a residen tial subdivision is p r oposed that would abut an arterial, it shall be designed to provide through lot s al ong the arterial wilh access from a frontage road or inter ior l o c al road (see Figure 10) Access righ t s of these lots t o t he arterial shall be dedicated to the (city!c
PAGE 44

Seetion 16. Flag Lot Standards J. Flag lots shall not be penniued w hen their effect would be to increase the number of properties requiring direct and individual access connections to the Sta te Highway System or other major thoroughfares. 2. Flag lots may be pemrittcd forresidential when deemed necessary to achieve planning objectives, such as reducing direct access to thoroughfares, providing internal planed lots with access to a residential street, or prese-rving n atural or historic resources. under the following conditions: a) Flag lot driveways shall be by at least twice the minimum frontage requirement of that zoning district. b) The flag driveway shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and maximum width of 50 feet. c) In no instance shall flag lots constirute more than 10% of the total number of building sites in a recorded or unrecorded plat. or three lots or more., whichever is greater. d) The l ot area occupied by the flag driveway shall not be counted as part of the required minimum lot area of that zoning district. e) No more than one flag l ot shal l be pennitted per private rightof-way or access easement Figure 11: Flag Lots and Alternative Access Avoid I PltiVATE ROAD 0 Preferred Priv'ale road acc:es.s Is an alternative to flag lots. S<>urce: K. Willlams, i McCauky. and M. Wyckoff .. l:t.nd Division and Ac:oess Controts. Soc.i) of P lUming Officials, Lansing: Planning and Zoning Center Inc., April 1990. 2-27

PAGE 45

Commentary: Local plat maps often revectl lots shaped like flags with long narrow access "poles': Flag Jots me especially prevalent along lakes. rivers. cui-de-sa cs, and roral highwayS. Although they can be useful where natural features or land division patterns create access problems, they are subject c o abuses. Flag lots proliferate in some areas where property owners use the technique to avoid plat review and further subdivide land The result is a subdivision that lacks adequate access an d creates long term problems for the community and those who purc hase the lots. Where the narrow frontages abut a thoro ughfare they afford inadequate spacing bemoeen drivtN. ays and increase safety hazards from vehicles turning on and off the high speed roadway. Because fla g lots oft e n ,lfolate driveway spacing standards on the s tat e highway system . they also create problems for the buyer who laier attempts to build o n the property and obtain a driveway permit U n der these standards existing flag lots wo uld be nonconforming and allowed to conanue. In areas where flag l ots proliferate on a state or county thoroughfare. property owners should be contacted and strongly encouraged to consolidate access with adjacent properties---especially in the case of abutti n g flag lots. Section 17. Lot W idtb -to-D c p tb Ratios I To provide for proper s i te design and prevent t he creacion of irregu l arl y shaped parcels t he dept h of any lot or parce l shall not ex c eed 3 times its width (or 4 t imes it widlh in rural areas) The pennined depth s hall be higher in coastal areas subject to erosion. Cqmmentary: Minimum lot frontage and maximum lot width to-dept h ratios prevent the creation of long and narrow or irr egularly shaped lots that can lead to acce..ts and circulation problems Thl$ standard is especially useful in rural areas, to govern the dimensions of newly created lots and parcels. Note: Rural areas may adopt a maxlmum width to-depth ratio of 1:4, meaning that parcels with 100 feet of frontage may not be deeper than 400 feel. Urban or suburban aretll may use maximum rat idS of I : 2.5 or J: 3 Width to-depth ratios could be set as high as J: 7 in coastal areas that have a high risk of eros;on and somewhat deeper lots may be permitted a/eng arterials IO provlde for berms ()r buffer yards in reverse frontage $ituatiOI1S. Section 18. Shared Access I Subd i visions with froncage on t h e s t ate h i ghway system shall be de-Signed i nto s h ared acce s s point s t o and from t he highway NormaJiy a ma.ximum of two accesses shall be allowed regardless of the number of lots or businesses served (see Figure 12). 2. Direct ac c ess t o indiv i dua l one and t wo family dwellings s h all be prohibited o n the Florida Intrasta t e Highway System. 3 Subdivisions on a sing l e resi den tial access street ending in a cul de-sac shall not exceed 25 lots or dwelling units, a n d the cu l d esac shall have a min imum cartway radius of 3 0 feet. 2

PAGE 46

Figure 12: Shared Access on Major Thoroughfares Avoid Rep rinted with pennisslon from th e The lUg Kill S D oble and M McCulloch. Communitv Oest1n Guidelines Manual. New York: The New York S1a1e Tug Hill Comn'lls:sion, 13.1\uary J99J Commentary: Subdivisions served b y a single access ending in a cul-de-sac may inhibit emerg ency access and increase traffic congestion during peak hours by providing only one point o f ingresl and egress. Single access problems may also re&ult t'n phaud subdivisions where additional acc e ss is proposed for future phases. If future phases are not built, the remaining subdivision may have Insufficient acce:,s. Although thl:i is not a pr o blem where only a few dwelling unils are served, how many lots I s too many? Average daily tr f ps for residential streets provide a bascfinq for ClC(X!SS and cul-de-sac standards. Listokin and Walker (1989} recommend that when a subdivision on a single access residential ac c ess s treet exceeds 25 l o ts ( or 25 dwelling units}, it should have at leO$/ two acc ess p oints. A minimum turning radius that accommodates emergency vehicles should b e required f o r cul-de .. sacs. The above provisions for shar e d access are intended to preo.it.tit a prolifcrcuion of driveways on the s tate highway system -a cominon problem in somt semi rural and rural areas Prov is i o ns for s hared acces.s also promote land development patterns that are more compatible with the rural character oft he lam;bcape The shared access standard in Section I 8(1 2} was taken from the landmark guidebook Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley. and can be used together with conservation easements and clustering provis ions to preserve n a tural resources (see Yare, Arendt, et a/., Dealing with Change in the Cgnnecticut Riyer A Design Manual for Conser.ation and Amher st: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 1988 .) 2-29

PAGE 47

Section 19. Connectivity 1. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed to coordinate with existing, proposed, and planned streets outside of the subdivision as provided in th i s Section 2. Wherever a proposed development abuts unplaned land or a future development phase of t he same deve l opment, street srubs shall be provi ded as deemed necessary by the ( cirylcounry) to provide access to abutting properties or to logicatly extend the stree t system into the Stm'ounding area. All street stubs shall be provided with temporary tum around or cul-de-sac S unless specifically exempted by the Public Works Director, and the restoration and extension of the street shall be the responsibility of any future develope r of the abutting land. 3. Collector streets shall intersect with colltor or arterial streets at safe and convenient locations. 4 Subcolleetor and local residcntiaJ access streets shall coMcct with surrounding streets t o permit the convenient movement of traffic bet\veen residential neighborhoods or facilitate emergency access and evacuation, b ut such connee1ions shall not be permitted where the effe<;t would be to encourage the use of such streets by s.ubstantial t hrough traffic Commentary: Loc()/ governments must m()intain a tenuous balance between enhancing acce3Sibi/ity and limiting excessive through traffic in residential areas These standards srrive to address both considerations. Section 20. Minor Subdivisions I The (approving Department) may approve a Minor Subdivis i on that conforms to the followi n g standards: a) Each proposed lot must be buildable in confomtance with the requirements of t h is Code and all other applicable rtgulations b) Each l o t shall abut a public or private street for the required minimum Lot frontage for dte zoning district where the lot s are located. c ) if any lot abuts a street right-of-way that does not conform to the design specifications of this Code the owner may be required to dedicate o n e-half the right-of-way width necessary to meet minimum design requirements 2. Further subdivision of the property shall be prohibited unless applicants submit a plat or development plan in accordance with requirements for major subdivisions in t his Code. Commentary: This standard prohibits property owners from ln<:rementally subdividing land to avoid review 2-30

PAGE 48

3. The (approving Department) shall consider a proposed M inor Subdivision upon the subminal of t he following materiaJs: a) An application fonn provided by the (citylcoumy) ; b)_ ()copies of the proposed Minor Subdivis ion p lat; [Note: The number of copies required should be based on number of entities that will review the plan under adopted procedures.} c) A statemen t indicating whether water and/or sanitary sewer serv i ce is avai l able to the property; and d) Land descrip t ions and acreage or square footage of the original and proposed lots and a scaled drawing showing the intended divisions shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Florida tn the event a lot contains any principal or accessory structures, a survey showing t h e structures on the lot shall accompany the application. 4. Review Procedure a) The (approving official) shall transmit a copy of the proposed Minor Subd i vision to the appropriate (deparlments or ojflclals) for review and comment. b) If the proposed Minor Subdivision meets the conditions of this section and otherwise complies with all applicable laws and ordinances the (approving official) shall approve the Minor Subdivision by signing the application form. c) Upon approva l of the Minor Subdivision, t he (approving official) shall record the plat on the app r opriate maps and documents, and shall, at the applicant's expense, record the plat in the official county records. Comme11tary: These requiremenls for minor subdivisions are adapted fro m Flo rida's Model Land /).cycfopmenl Code and provided here to emphasize the importance of adequate la n d division controls in access management They provide for local review of divisions of land or "lot splits" that would otherwise be exempted from subdivision review and plalling requiremenJs. A review process for lo1 splits prevents creation of lots that are not in conformance wilh land development regula/ions and thus could be rendered unbuildable. It further pre>;ents creation of lots with Inadequate or inappropriate access to a public road. This allows local governments to prevenr access problems attributable lo flag lots, s hrough lots, and corner lots TMs review pr:ccess is streamlined and plaulng requi rements are less costly than those of a major subdivision.. so as not to create a hardship for property owners engaged in only minor subdivision activity. Local governments are strongly advised n o t ro provide exemptions from public review of land division activity based on lot size or number of lots, because shis creates long term problems that can seriously undermine the local planning and regulatory program. 2-31

PAGE 49

Section 21. Priva te Roads I Priv ate roads may be perm i ned ;n a<:cordance with the requiremen t s of thi s Section an d t he following general standards sh a n app l y: a) All (city/county) roads shall be constructed t o publ i c specifications and have an easement of a minimum of sixty six feet in width, except as o t herwise prov i ded in Section 21 (2). b) Priva te roads that by t h eir existence invit e the pu b lic in sh all have a n traffi c control features, such as striping o r markers, i n conformance with the Manual of U nifonn Traffic Con tr o l De vices c) The minimum di s tance between private road outlets on a single side of a public road sh all be 660 or less where provided by acc ess classification and standards for state roads and Socal thoroughfares. d ) All properties served by t he private road s hall provide a d equate access for e mergency vehicles and shall conform to t he approved local Street numbe r ing system. e) All pr iv a t e roads shall b e designated as such an d w i ll be required to have ad equate signage indicating the road is a priva te road and n o t publicly maintained. 0 All private roads shall have a pb-sted spe ed limit not to exceed twent y miles an h our. g) AU private roa ds shaH ha ve adequate provisions for drainage and s tormwater runoff as provided in Section (refor to appropr iate secti on of the local subdivision reguiOJions) h ) A second access con nection to a pub l ic r oad s h all be require d fo r private roads greater than 2000 feet in l ength 2 Pr i vate r oads in rural and semirural areas may be pennilte d reductio n s i n easement and roadway widt h and pavement standards to p rovide for ade qu.at e access while r e t aini n g the rural character of t he lands cape and design nexibility At a minimum, the private -r oad shall mee t the (c irykounty) specifications for gravel roadw a y c o nstruc tion. Othe r standards shall a pply in accorda nce with the following schedu le: a) A pr ivate road serving up to two lots shal\ have a minimum right -of way easement of 30 fe<:t and a roadbed of at leas t I 2 feet. b) A priv a t e road intended to serve no more t h an t hr ee to six lots shall have a minimum right-of-way easement of 3 0 feet and a roadbed of a t least 16 feet. c) A private roa d inte nded t o serve no more than seven t O twe l ve l ots s h all have a minimum right of-way easement of 66 feet and a roadbed of at leas1 20 feet. Paving sh all be r equired for all areas with grades of 2-32

PAGE 50

greater than three (3%) percent. Such pavement shall be a minimum or 18 feet in width. d) A private road inte n ded to serv e no more than 13 t o 2 4 l ots sh all h ave a minimum right of-way easement of 66 feet, a roadbed of at least 24 feet and s ha ll be paved e) A private road intended to se r ve 2S or more lots or parcels s haH provide al least fWO access connections to a pubUc road and shall meet the minimwn design requirements for public roads. Commentary: This section provides a sliding scale approach. a llowing gr(Ne{ r
PAGE 51

d) A provision that the majority vote of aJl property owners on the road shall detennine how the road is maintained except in the case of emergency repairs as outlined above; e) A statement that no pub lie funds shaH be used to construct repair or maintain the road; f) A provision requiring mandatory upgrading of the roadway if additional parcels are added to reach the specified thresholds; and g) A provision that property owners along that road are prohibited from restricting or in any manner interfering with nonnal ingn:ss and egress by any other owners or persons needing to access properties with frontage on that road. 7 NO privlte road shall be incorporated into the public road system unless it is built to public road specifications of the (cirylcounry). The property owners shall be responsible for bringing the road into conformance. 8 All private roads shall have a sign and name meeting (city/county) standards and shall include the following notice: "Private Road" "Not maintained by the (city/county)". 9. An application fee will be established by the Director of Public Works to cover administrative, processing, and inspection costs. 10. All purchasers of propeny served by a private road shall, prior to final sale, be notified that the property receives access from a private road that sltaJI be maintained collectively by all property owners along that road; that the (city/county) shall not be held respons i b le for maintaining or improving t he private road; and that a rightofway ease -me.n.t to provide the only access to that property has been recorded in the deed f o r that property. 11. The United States postal service and the local school (board/district) is not required to use the private road for access to the parcels abutting the private road and may require that service be provided only at t he elose .st public access point. Commentary : private road standards were adapted from sample regulations prepared for the Grand Traverse Bay Region (Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., Lansing, Michigan. September 1992). Some communWes prohibit private r()tld$ altogether or req11ire all private rOads serving more lhan one dwelling unit to be built to public specifications and paved. This is because of problems associated with private roads, such as pressure to adopt the private road into the public road system in the future Yet if properly regulated. private roads can a/for an effective means of access to small subdivisions in rural areas. In the absence of private rcad regulations. common practice is the creation of multiple lots served by a common lot, easement, or multiple easements as in the example of stacked flag lots. The easement then becomes a private unpaved road serving several properties Unregulated private roads raise several problems. They may he lnaccessihle to emergency vehicles Qr large delivery /rucks. placing pubUc safety and private property a/ risk. Substandard roads deteri()rate q-uickly and without a 2-34

PAGE 52

mainltnance agreement, the local government may be called upcn to ma i nlain it. Buyers may not be aware of the malrnenance Issues associated with the road until after pun;hasing the properl)' Narrow righls-cf-way may impede placement of utilt'ti ts. and private roads can exacerbate inefll clen t ltmd developmeru patterns. These problems can be avoided through private road regulations that address design, construction, joint maintenance agreements, s ignage and rtNiew Private roads shculd be pirmilledfor residenl ial uses only and standards sho uld be lied to lot split (minor rep/at) or subd iv ision Limitations should be p(oced upf>n the number of residences lhar may be served by a s ingle access to a public road A.f in othe r land development regula1ions, private road provisions must bt tnade for grandfarhering exis ring nonconforming sita.liaru. Some ordinances address the situation by providing a different seJ of standards far nonconforming privale access or by pr(]Viding for expansion of existing substandard prfvate roads or easement s pursuan t to the s pecial use permit process. Section 22. Regulatory Flexibility I. The Planning Commission may pecmit deparrure from dimensional lot, yard, and bulk requirementS of \he zoning district where a subdivision or oth.er development plan is proposed to encourage creativity in site design, protect natural resources. and advance 1 he access objec tives ofthis Code. Such regulatory modificatioos under this section are not subject to variance approval by the Board of Adjustment. Section 23. Site Plan Review Procedures l. Applicants s hall submit a preliminary site plan for revi ew (na me of department responsible for conducting revieliY). At a minimum, the site plan shall show: a) l
PAGE 53

h) A detailed desaipc:ion o( any rrqucstcd variance and the reason the variance i s requested. 2 Subdiv i s io n and site p l an n:view shall addms the following access oons i derati ons : a ) Is the road system desi gned 10 meet 1be projected traffic demand and docs the road network consist of hierarchy of roads designed according to function? b) Does tile road ne1work follow the natural topography and preserve nat-ural features of t h e site as much &$possible? Have alignments been planned so that grading requirements are minimized? c) Is access properly pla ced In relation to sight diSiance, dr iveway spacing. and other related considerations. including opportunities for joint and cross acces s? Are entry roads clearly visible from lhe major arterials ? d) Do units front on residaltial access stn:e
PAGE 54

4. After 30 days from filing t h e application, appli cants must be notified b y the (permitting dcp<4rlment) i f any additional infonnation is needed to complete the applicat ion. 5. Upon review of the access th e (permilling department ) may approve the access application approve with condition s, or deny the application. This must be done within 90 days of receiving the complete applica tion. 6. Any application tha t involves access to the State Highwa y System shall be reviewed by the Florida Department of Transporta tion for confonnance with state access management standards. Where the applicant requires access to the State Highway System, and a zoning c h ange, or subdivision or site plan review is a l so r equired, development review shaH be coordinated witll the Florida Department of Transportation, as f ollows : a) An access management/site plan review comminee th a t includes representatives of FOOT traffic operations, access permitting, and t h e local government shall review the application. The committee shall inform the developer what information will be required for access review. Informat ion required of the applicant may vary depending upon the size and timing of the de.velopment, but shall at a minimum meet the requirements of this section. b) Upon review of the-application, the a<:cess management review commiuee shall advise the (permitting department) whet h er to approve t he access applicat i on, approve with conditions. or deny the application. 7. if the application i s approved with conditions, the applica n t shall resubmit the plan with the conditional changes made. The p l an with submitted changes, will be reviewed w i thin I 0 working days and approved or rejected. Second applications may only be rejected i f conditional changes are not made. 8. If the access permit i s denied, the (city/county) shall provide an it emized letter detai ling why the application has been 9 All applicants W hose application is approved. or appr oved with conditions. have t hirty days to accept the pennit. Applicants whose permits are rejecte d or approv e d w it h conditions have 60 days to appeal. Commentary: Effective coordinOJion with the Florida Department of Transportati o n, the local traffic engineer transportation pla12ner. and/or public works official is essential to ensure conformance with land divi s ion and acces s requirements One method ofimprovlng coordination is to establish the building permit as the lead permit during development review In this way, property owners would be required to submit the necessary permits or c ertificate.t o f approval from regulatory agen c ies lnvo/'1--ed in development review before issuing a building permit. This should include a notice of i ntent to approve the prop osed access connection from the Plorida Department ofTransportalian where the state highway S)l$1em is irrvolved to O .';Sure c onformance with the State Highway System Access Management Act and administrative rules. The above revlew process would be incorporated info the communll y 's o"-era/1 subdivision and site plan review process. A conceptual review, b e fore submission of the preliminary sit e 2 -37

PAGE 55

plan or plat, is highly recommended Communilies should also set foes and develop the necessary forms to carry out che provisions ()/this code. Section 24. Variance Standards l. The granting of the variation shall be in hannony with the purpose and intent of these regulations and shaH not be considered until every feasible option for meeting a cc ess standards is explored. 2. Applicants for a variance from these standards must provide proof of unique or spec.ial conditions that make strict application of the provisions impractical. This shall include proof that: a) indirect or restricted access cannot be obtained; b) no engineering or construction solutions can be applied t o mitigate the condition ; and c) no alternative access is ava i lable from a strt with a lower functional classification than the primary roadway. 3. Under no circumstances shaH a variance be granted. unless not granting the variance would deny all reasonable access, endanger pub lic health welfare or safety, or cause an exceptional and undue hardship on the applicant. No variance shall be granted where such hardship is self..:reated. CommentiU): E(Jch local government has its own process for handling appeals and variances. The standards above should be incorporated to this process. Providing for varian ces and other remed ial measures is crucial to (lyOiding a takings claim by providhlg due process to the property owner and avoiding unreasonable. harcbhi p tha i may arise in relalion to the regulatory framework. Federal case law has established chat propcrry owners should first exhaust tn-ailaiJie administrative r emedies, including appeals to the local board of adjustmenr, before the case may be heard i n a court of law. If /()Cal appeal procedures exist and the property o wner sues before first pursuing a variance or other remedial action, rhe case may be invalidated on chis basiS. 2-38

PAGE 56

Part 3: Model Corridor Agreement for the Florida Intrastate Highway System

PAGE 57

MODEL CORRIDOR AGREEMENT FOR THE FLORIDA INTRASTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM This C orridor Agreement, hereinafter called the Agreement, is made and entered into this =-=-day of __ 19_, by and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTiv!ENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of Florida, h ereinafte r called the "Department", AND a body corporate and a political subdivision of the State of Florida, its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as the ("CITY" or "COUNTY"). WHEREAS, the Florida I ntrastat e Highway System hereinafter called the "FlHS" i s the statewide system of limited access and controlled access facilities that allow for high-speed, high volume traffic movement withio the State tha t has been designated by the Department and adopted by the Legislature; WHEREAS, the State Highway System has been classified for access purposes, with highest priority given to preservin g mobi li ty on the FIRS. WHEREAS the FIHS program requires strict access management standards for all portions of the FIHS and requires all segments to be broug ht i n to co mpliance with system criteria and st andards wi thin a 20 year p eriod; WHEREAS, the FIHS Plan em pha sizes the need for coordination between the Department and local governments on managing access to those porti ons of the FJHS that are not lim ited access facilities; WHEREAS, the FIHS Plan calls for the Department to enter agreements with loca l governments for coordinating land use planning and regulation with state acc ess standards for controlled access facilities; WHEREAS, managi ng access to land development enhances mobility by preserving the regional flow of traffic io terms of safety, capaci ty, and speed and enhances development patterns. WHEREAS, access management balances the right of reaso nabl e access to private property, with the right of the c itizens of the ("CITY" or "COUNTY") and the State of Florida to safe and efficient travel. . WHEREAS, the functional integr it y of the FIRS relies on local land development and subdivision reg ula tio n s that support state access standards for controlled access facilities; WHEREAS, land development and subdivision regulations that support access management ca n be a p pl ie d to the FJHS to achieve the following state and loca l objectives:

PAGE 58

a) reduce traffic accidents, personal injury, and property damage attributable to poorly designed access systems; b) protect the substantial public investment in the existing transportation system and reduce the need for expensive r emedial measures ; c) further the orderly layout and use of land; and d) promote well-designed road and access systems that help protect community character and conserve natural resources. NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions, promised and covenants hereinafter set forth, the Department and the ("CITY" or "COUNTY") agree as follows: I. Attached h ereto and made a part of this Agreement is Exhibit A which denotes those portions of the FIHS affected by this agreements, hereinafter called the "Designated Corridors11 2. On behalf of the Department, the ("CITY" or "COUNTY") agrees to implement the following protective plarming and regulatory measures within (specifY lime frame), in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as provided in Attachment l. [list all regulatory measures including corrido r overlay standards to be applied in Attachment 1] 3. The responsibilities of each party for the development of an access management plan to manage current and future access to the "Designated Corridors" are specified in Attachment 2; [include this stipulation only where all affected parties agree to prepare an access management plan.] 4. T h is Agreement is made in accordance with the Florida Intrastate Highway System program, Section 338.001, Florida Statutes; the State Highway System Access Management Act, Chapter 335.18, Florida Statutes, as amended; Chapter 14-96 and 14-97 Rules of the Department of Transportation; and policy and planning directives of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 5. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by all parties hereto and filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in each county w here the parties to this agreement are located. To be signed and approved by authorized agents of each party.

PAGE 59

Appendix 1: Sample Cross Access Agreement

PAGE 60

APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT Background: The following is an example of a cross access agreement from the City of Orlando. It is provided as an example only. Local governments should consult their attorney for advice in preparing these agreements. TillS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this (date) by (owner's name), a corporation authorized to transact business in the Stale of Florida ( 'OWNER"") and the City of Orlando, a muoic ipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida CITY'. RECITALS I. OWNER owns eenain real property ('"Parcel A") located (legal descriptio11 of property). 2. As a pan of its land use approvals from the CITY, the OWNER has been requested by CITY to provide cross access to adjacent properties to (locaJ/on of abu11ing properties), subject to the terms aod conditions set forth below. 3. Tbe CITY has a health safety aod welfare interest in providing for the cross access easement 4. Tbe OWNER acknowledges the CITY's health, safety aod wel fare interest and agrees to provide said cross access subject to the terms and conditions set fonh in lhis Agreement. NOW, TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the obl igations contained herein, and in good and valuable consideration, the receip t and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, t he OWNER and t he CITY he r eby agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The recitals are acknowledged by both parties and incorporated herein and have been relied upon by bo_th panics in the execution of this Agreement. Section 2. Grant of Easement in Escrow. Subject t o the terms set forth in this agreement, the OWNER hereby grants a cross access ease m ent to the CITY to be hel4 in escrow for the benefit of the owner of tha t parcel located (local/on of abulling properry Ill). The cross access easemenl is described in (Exhibit #) attached t o and incorporated in this Agreement. Said cross access easement sha11 be Creely assignable to said Owner; provided, however that the CITY shall not assign said easement until the Owner of (abutring property Ill) applies for or is issued any of the following land development approvals as defined in the City Code. (I) conditional use permit; (2) rezoning; (3) master plan approval; (4) plat approval; (5) variance; (6) bui lding permit for a substantial enlargement or substantial improvement; (7) building permit which generates automobi1e uaffic trips in excess of current improvements; (8) driveway pennit; or (9) paving and/or drainage permit. Li kewise, the OWNER hereby grants a cross access easement to t he CITY to be held in escrow for the benefit of the owner of that parcel located (location of abUJting propeny #2). This cross access easement area shall be of a size similar to t hai of the one granted for use by the Owner of (adjacent property #I) and said location shall be later determined by the CITY and OWNER. Said cross access easement shall be freely assignable to said Owner. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein however, the CITY shall not asslgf\ a cross access easement to either Owner unless the land use proposed for that Owner's parcel is consistent and compatible with the land use on the OWNER's property.

PAGE 61

Ses:tion 3. Conditions of the Use of the Cross Access Easement Agreement. The use of 1wo cross access easermnts to be granted to the CITY and held in escrow pursuant to Section 2 hereof is subject to the following terms and conditions: (I) The Owner of (adjaetnt properry #1) slull equally share with OWNER in the maintenance and repair of the cross access easement area as designated in the attached (Exhibil #); (2) The Owner of (adjacent property #2) shall equally share with OWNER in the maintenance and repair of the cross access easement area to be designated by CITY and OWNER; (1) The Owners of (both adjacent propenies) to receive such cross access agree to pay the cost of two (2) signs placed on their respective parcels at each side of the pavement of the easement area and the common boundary line of their respective parcel with Parcel A (facing those parcels) which signs slull state thai the parking in Parcel A is limited to the guests of the OWNER and the vehicles of unauthoriZ
PAGE 62

Section 10. Recording. Thi s Agreement shall be recorded by the OWNER at its sole expense in the public records ofOrangc: County, Florida. Section 1 1 J Joinder and Consent. The OWNER hereby .-grees to obtain the Joinder and Consent [0 this Agreement from any superio r interest, right Iitle, lien, encumbrance 10 Parcel A. The Joinder and Consent shall Subordinate tbe panicular interest to this Agreement. Section 12. Obligation of CITY. The CITY agrees that it will condition the iss u ance of any of the penxrits Listed in Section 2, above, to the Owner of paroel adjacent to Parcel A upon the condition that said owner enter into the Cross Access Easement Agreem ent. Section 13. No Easement Rights o r Other Rights. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein (b()lh adjactnt properties) shal l have no rights to, on in or over the Easement Area until the Cross Access Easemen t Agreement is agreed upon between the part i es, executed b y the appropriate entities and recorded in the public records of Orange County, Florida. Sectjon 14. Severabilit. If any term, provi sion, clause sentence or other poni o n of this Agreement shall become or be determined to be illegal, null or void for any reason, or shall be hel d by any coun of competent jurisdiction to be so the remaining portions thereof s hall rem ain in full force and effect Section 1 5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes t h e entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any previous discussi ons, understandings, and agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement t o be executed on the date first stated above.

PAGE 63

References Bay C o unty Bay County Land Development Regulations. November 1990. B l oom, C Regulatin< Private Roads. P l anning and Zoning News, Vol. 8, No.3 January 1990: 7-10. Brough. M. A Unified Development Ordinance. Washing ton D.C.: Planners Press American Planni n g Assoc i ation. 1985. Chapin F and E. Kaiser. Urban l v and Use Planning. Chicago : Unive r s i ty of 'illinois Press, 1 985. Doble S. and G McCulloch. C ommunirv Design Guidelines Manuat New York : Tit e New Y o r k State Tug HiU Co mmission, J anuary 1991. Falcon i X "Access Management: Rel a tionship Between Dev e lopers, Local Governmen t and State Government." JTE l99l Compendium of Technical Papers. 1991. Hillsbo rough County. Hillsborough County Land [)eo, .. lopment Regulations. March 1992. Koepke F and H. Levinson Access Management Guidelines for Activicv Centers. NCHRP Report 348 Washington, D.C.: Na ti onal Academy Press . 1992. Listokin D. and C. Walker. The Subd ivision and Site Pla n Handbook New Jersey: The Sta t e U nivers ity of Ne w Jersey 1989. McPh erson J . D Coffey and G. Easley. Land Develo p ment Technical Assistance M a nua l for Florida Cities and Counties. Prepared for the Department of Community .Affairs. A u gust 28, 1 989 McPherson. J. D. and G. Easley Model Land Develo pment Code for Florida Cities and Counti es. Prepaced for the Deparrment of Commun i t y Affairs. December 1989. M i sseldine, C. and M. Wyckoff. Pfanni M and Zoning for Fannland Protecti o n : A Commun itv Based A r m r oadl Ame r ican Fannland Trust 1987. MoskowitZ. H. and C. Lindb loom The New lllustrat<:d Book of Development Definitions New Brunsw ick, New J ersey: Center for Urban Policy Research. 1993. Orlando. City of. Orlando Code of Ordinances. Land Development Code, Chapter 60, Subdivision and Landscaping. 1991 Orlando City of. Orlando Code of Ordinances Land Development Code. Chapter 61. Design tmd Aer:ess Management. 1991 Pembroke Pines City of. City of Pembroke Pines Land Development Regulations. I 986 Saras
PAGE 64

WytkoffM., K. Williams., M. Armstrong. et a J W?mmunitv Planning Handbook: Tools and Techniques io r Gui ding C]1anee. Planning & Zoning Cemer, Inc. Mart:h 1992. Wyc\coff. M . Grand. B.av Gu'tdePot}k. &. Center, lnc September Wyckoff, M . Grand Trav-erse Bav Samnle Pluming & Zoning (nc., Septembtr J 992. Yarr>, R . R Arendt, H. Dodton and E &rabec. Dealif'lt; with t;hange in t he Connecticut River VaJlev. A Desiszn M,anual for Conservation and Oc.velopme.J!!. Amherst: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Environmental Law F o undation, 1988.


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 nam 2200373Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029078450
005 20110902180931.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110902s1994 flua ob l000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00242
035
(OCoLC)748861399
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HD266.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Model land development & subdivision regulations that support access management for Florida cities and counties
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Kristine M. Williams ... [et al.].
3 246
Model land development and subdivision regulations that support access management for Florida cities and counties
260
Tampa, FL :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ;
Tallahassee, FL :
Florida Dept. of Transportation, Systems Planning Office,
1994.
300
1 online resource (11, 38, 9 p.) :
ill.
500
"January 1994."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references.
520
Report examines the role of the comprehensive plan in developing an access management program and also regulatory techniques that support access management principles. Appendix includes a sample cross access agreement from the city of Orlando, Florida.
588
Description based on print version record.
650
Real estate development
z Florida
x Planning.
Land subdivision
Florida
Planning.
1 700
Williams, Kristine.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
776
i Print version record:
t Model land development & subdivision regulations that support access management for Florida cities and counties.
d Tampa, FL : Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; Tallahassee, FL : Florida Dept. of Transportation, Systems Planning Office, 1994
w (OCoLC)36080946
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.242
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001960125;
FTS