USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Right-of-way preservation policies, activities and strategies

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Right-of-way preservation policies, activities and strategies
Physical Description:
1 online resource (36 leaves) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Williams, Kristine
Marshall, Margaret
Nikitopoulos, Irene
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Roads -- Right of way -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Roads -- Environmental aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Roadside improvement -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Highway planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 35-36).
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Kristine M. Williams, Margaret Marshall, Irene Nikitopoulos.
General Note:
"March 1996."

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 - 029120291
oclc - 752938445
usfldc doi - C01-00245
usfldc handle - c1.245
System ID:
SFS0032335:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

RIGHT-OFW A Y P RESE RVATION POLICIES, ACTIVITIE S AND STRATE GIE S CUTR Prepared by: Kristine M. Williams, AICP Margaret Marshall Irene Nildtopoulos Center for Urba n Tra n s p o rtatlo n Re s earch Uni v ersity of South Florida, College of Engineering 4202 E Fowler Avenue, BNB 118 Tampa. F l oriila 33602-5350 March 1996

PAGE 2

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . 4 1995 Legislative Changes .................. .................. ... ...... ..... 4 Local Transportation Management Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FOOT Corridor Management and Monitoring Procedur e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CORRIDOR PRBSERVA TION TECHNIQUES .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 8 Property Acqui sition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Options to Purchase . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 8 Purchase of Development Rights . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . 8 Planning & Regulation .. .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . 8 Thoroughfare Plans and Maps of Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 8 Reservation ........................................... . .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 Dedications and Ex actio .ns . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 9 Building Setbacks. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. . 9 Interim Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overlay Zones ................................. ....................... 11 Do\\'Ilzoning ..... ... .... . .......... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 11 Mitigation Measures .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 Variance Procedure .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 11 On-site Transfer of Development Rights . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . II Relaxed Zoning .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. 11 Impact Fee Credits . ................ ................................... 12 T ax Abatement ............... .. ....... .. ............................... 12 Collaborative Approaches . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . 12 Informal Negotiations .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 12 Intergovernmental Coordination .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . 1 2 Public Involvement . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. 12 LOCAL RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 H ernando County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Recommendations to Heman do County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Pasco County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S Recommendations to Pasco County . . . .. . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . 1 7 Pinellas Count y . .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . 1 8 Recommendations to Pinellas County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 19 Models and Case Srud i es .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. 20 Flori da Department of Transportation Model Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Broward County, Florida . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . 20 Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Madera County, Ca)jfomia .............................................. 21 Maricopa County, Arizona .................... . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 21 Otay Mesa, Californ ia . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . 21 Palm Beach County, Florida . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 22 City of Phoe nix, Arizona .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . 22 City of San Jose California .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 23

PAGE 3

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Regulatory Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Police Power .................. .... , . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Eminent Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 RECOMMENDATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT S ................... ........... 27 GLOSSARY OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 APPENDIX AHernando County Frontage Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 APPENDIX B Phoenix, Arizona Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 1: Table2: Table3: Table 4 : Figure 1: Figure2: Figure 3: Figure4: F igu re 5: LIST OF TABLES Corridor Preservation Techniques .............................. . . . . . I 0 Pasco County Clear Zone Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Pasco County Minimum Right-of-Way for Subdivisio n Streets . . . . . . . . 17 Summary of Current Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 LIST O F FIGURES Inadequate Corridor Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Building Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 Pinellas County Sector Plan Right-of-Way Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 L o c ation of Frontage Roads Near Intersections ........................... 29 Continuous Right-Tum Lanes ..... .. ..................................... 30

PAGE 4

INTRODUCfiON Passageofthelntennoda l Surface Transpnrttiiion Efficiency Act of 1991 and corresponding requirements in Florida ISTEA established stronger policy support for corridor preservation on a state and federal level. In 1995, the legislature enacted additional corridor preservation l e gislation. As a resu lt, the Florida Department ofTransportation and local governments are now re-evaluating and strengthening their approach to right -of-w ay acquisition and corridor p r eservation. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, corridor preservation is ... the coordinated application of various measures to obtain control or otherwise protect the right-of-way for a planned transportation facility. Corridor preservation techniques should be applied as early as possible after the transportation corridor is identified either along a new alignment, or along an existing facility ... A comprehensive corridor preservation program also includes the application of access management techniques to promote appropriate and well-designed access systems that will provide reasonable access to land development, while preserving the level of service oftbe corridor in terms of safety, capac i ty, and speed of travel. The NCHRP Synthesis 197, Corridor Preservation: A Synthesis of Highway Praclice, goals of corridor preservation include: preventing inconsistent development, minimizing environmental, social and economic impacts, reducing displac ement, preventing the foreclosure of desirable location options, and permitting orderly project development, and reducing costs.' By enacting corridor preservation techniques, local governments may avoid unnecessary damage to homes and businesses. Inconsistent development within and along future corridors can b e reduced as well thereby avoiding the need to relocate corridors into more environmentally sensitive areas. Figure I, on page six, illustrates other problems that can arise if development is not adequately managed along major corridors, such as building setback non-conformities, parking nonconf ormities, and damage to storm water retention facilities. Inadequate management of corridor right-of-way needs has also caused right-of-way to consume a growing proportion of the highway construction budget. A Florida Senate report issued in 1988, indicated that then right-of-way costs varied fto!I) about $100,000 per mile in rural areas of northern Florida to as high as $77 ntillion per mile in so me urbanized areas of Southeast Florida.' The FDOT Office ofPolicy Planning reports that over the past 10 years, right-of-way costs bave ranged from as low as 14% of construction programs to more than 40%.' LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 1995 Legislative Changes In 1995, the Florida legislature amended the state's transportation planning legislation (Chapter 337, F S.) as well as the growth management act (Cbapter 163, F.S.), by adding new language related to corridor 4

PAGE 5

preservation' Chapter 337.273, F.S. states "investments in transportation corridors cannot be adequately coordinated with land-use decisions without timely preservation management, or acquisition of property." Additionally, amendments to Chapter 337.i73, F.S. that corridor preservation is a necessary component of the continued economic health, safety and welfare of the public. Accordingly, failure to adequately preserve or acquire property ncocssary to accommodate transportation facilities presents a public liability and seriously impedes the ability to plan for future growth. To carry out these provisions the legislation allows the Florida Department of Transportation to acquire any right-of-way within a des ignated transportation corridor at any time, but only where it is in the public interest to protect the corridor from development or when the corridor designation creates an undue hardship on the property owner. The amendments authorize local governments to adopt transportation management ordi nances to manage high priority corridors The changes to Chapter 163.3 1 77 F.S. allow local governments to designate future transportation corridors (for the purposes of preservation), in the traffic circulation element of the local comprehensive plan. If a designated corridor includes a facility on the State Highway Syst em, the local government is responsible for notifying the Florida Department ofTransportation before approving any zoning or subdivision plat change, or before issuing any building or development permits for a use within the corridor which cou l d substantially impair the corridor's future viability. This requirement does not apply to routine maintenance or emergency repairs to structures. Wben the Department is notified of pending development approval, it will determine whether to purchase the affected property or to initiate eminent domain proceedings. The legislation also raises new questions. For example, what constitutes a substantial change was not defined Also, although the legislation "requires the notification process, it does not hold the local government liable for 'failing to notify the Department of the described land use changes. To resolve this confusion it has been suggested that the FOOT be notified of all land use changes within the designated corridors. This issue is among several currently being considered by the FOOT Corridor Management Task Force, which was established by the FOOT Office of Policy Planning. Local Transportation Management Ordinances The changes t o Chapter 163.3164 (30), F.S. define transportation corridor management as, "the coordination ofthe planning of designated future transportation corridors with land-use planning within and adjacent to the corridor to promote orderly growth, to meet the requirements of this chapt er, and to mainta i n the integrity of the corridor for transportation purposes." It is recommended that any transportation management ordinance include the following : Criteria to manage the Jand uses witbjn and adiacen t tQ the corridor. This is to include a clear delineation of which land use management techniques are appropriate for use within the corridor, such as: setback limits, overlay provisions, or cluster zoning. Although not specified in statute, local governments should also consider techniques for managing access along the corridor as part of a comprehensive corridor management strategy. Restrictions on residential and nonresidential construction The ordinance should clearly delineate the types of residential and nonresidentia l uses which will be proscribed within the corridor, and strive to minimize high-intensity uses to the extent reasonable. 5

PAGE 6

idenJificatjon ofpennjtted uses wi!hiv the corrisfot. The ordinance should also identify !hose uses which will be allowed within !he corridor. This may include allowances for interim uses to mitigate Figure 1 -Well-planned corridors will minimize problems with building setback non-conformities and Parking non-conformities. the impacts of a property reservation upon a property ownersuch as parking or storm water retention -until the property is actually needed for construction. A public notification process. The transportation management ordinance should include a procedure for notifying affected property owners of the corridor designation, and for notifying the Florida Department of Transportation of any rezoning, building pennits, subdivision chang es, or other permitting activities which would substantially impair the future viability of !he corridor. A process for jntergovemmental QOQrdination. This provision will help local governments better manage corridors and facilities which cross jurisdictional boundaries. 6

PAGE 7

FDOT Corridor Management and Monitoring Procedure Chapter 337, F.S., Contracting; Acquisition, Disposal, and Use of Property, provided FDOT with statutory authority to designate priority corridors by designating the roadways in the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP). The Department was also vested with powers of eminent domain for designated corridors. In 1988, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 337, F.S., establishing a corridor designation process and setting forth the criteria for tbe advance pucchasc of right-of-way. The new 1995 legislative changes amended this process somewhat, shifting from "corridor protection," to "corridor management." The emphasis is now on managing the corridors with allowances for compatib l e land uses within or adjacent to the designated corridors, as opposed to emphasizing a strict limitation on all development. Also, the designation of corridors within the Florida Transportation Plan is no longer a specific provision of Chapter 337. Rather, the Department has shifted its focus to working with the loca l governments, recommending designation of corridors in local comprehensive plans consistent with the state's growth management principles. The basis for this change is a recognition that local governments have greater legal authority than the State to manage the land development process. As stated in the FOOT Corridor Directive: "The imposition of land use controls by a local government to ensure the adequate provi sion ofland needed for future transportation facilities has been found to be a legitimate exercise of the local government's police powers under Florida law."' T o carry out the legislative changes, the Florida Department of T ransportation (FDOT) has adopted a Corridor Management Directive that provides the Department with a clear set of guidelines to effectively manage high priority corridors. FOOT is also developing a training program for its District offices and local governments aimed at encouraging the adoption oflocal corridor management ordinances The Corridor Management Directive provides for: Preparation of a Corridor Management Report. This report, completed by each District, serves to identify high-priority corridors within each District and document the need for the corridors to be included on the Department's Corridor Management List. The report also provides the justification for the local government's designation of a given corridor within the comprehensive plan It is a prerequisite for designation on the Corridor Management List. Development of District Corridor Management Lists. These lists, based on approved Corridor Management Reports, allow the Districts to prioritize projects and begin development of District work programs Fulfillment ofreguirements for a&vance ROW acquisition. By designating corridors on the Corridor Management List, and developing the pciority work program, the D istricts may begin to conduct early Project Development & Environmental (PD & E) studies. The early initiation of these studies maximizes the opportunities for advance acquisition of right-of-way, including: Pm,ject Acquisition-eminent domain proceedings may be initiated along a corridor if the PD & E report is completed and right-of-way acquisition is scheduled; 7

PAGE 8

Parcel Acquisitionif enough infonnation has been collected (in a corridor management report, or other comparable document) to approve an acquisition along the corridor, negotiations may begin to acquire individual parcels. This method is usually only possible on projects which are not federally funded, as it does not require a completed PD&E study. Monitoring of land development activity. Tite purpose of monitoring land development activities within and along the corridors on tbe Corridor Management List is to allow the Department to take the necessary measures to preserve the functional integrity of the co rridor This may include the methods of acquisition described above. CORRIDOR PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES The following describes commonly practiced corridor preservation techniques. These tools are used to acquire or reserve right -o f-way for a future transportation facility or to widen an existing facility. Property Acquisition Options to Purchase. A sta te or local agency may establish an option to purchase future right-of-way. Also known as a "first right of refusal" clause, this enables the governing unit the first righ t to acquire mapped rights-of-way where the owner intends to build or sell. The agency must decide within a specified period of time, usually 30, 60, or 90 days. Another variation is to enter into a written agreement with a property owner which stipulates ihat the property owner cannot develop the area until the option expires. In this way, the state or local agency need not obtain full fee o wnership of the property during the option period, and the property also remains on the tax rolls.' Purchase of Development Rig his. When an agency purchases development rights, a development easement is placed on the property wbich remov es development rights but does not involve fee simple acquisition. Property owners may typically farm the land or use it for nondevelopment purposes. The benefits of th is method include the ability to preclude development and avoid a regulatory taking. while not incurring the higher costs of fee simple purchase of the property. The property also remains on the tax r olls and owners may continue any current use. PlanniDg & Regulation State and local agencies hav e found it increasingly difficult to fund corridor acquisition far in advance of project construction. The lag time between corr idor plannjog and property acquisition can result in much higher right-of-way cost due to increased development within and along the corridor. Planning and regulatory techniques can be employed to manage development along a future corridor until funds become available for acquisition. These techniques curb the escalation of right-of-way costs until money is programmed for acquisition. Thoroughfare Plans and Maps of Reservation. In Florida, the Traffic Circulation Element of the adopted Comprehensive Plan must include "the types, locations, and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares and transportation routes."' As explained in chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code part of this element requires that a Future Traffic Circulation Map be developed wbicb depicts the future 8

PAGE 9

collector, arterial, and limited access roadways, and identifies the proposed number of lanes for each road. To portray these future needs, local comprehensive plans include a future rights-of-way needs plan. This plan i s the foundation for a Thoroughfare Plan Map (or official map), which denotes the location and right of-way width of a proposed transportation corridor. Once a thoroughfare plan map is established, local governments can manage development along the co. rridor through regulations aimed at minimizing development withi. n the corridor. Reservation. In the context of corridor management, reservation involves the use of regulations and negotiation to reserve right-of-way for a future corridor This differs from dedications and exactions in that the land is not acquired by the public agency until the project nears construction. Dedications and Exactions. Payments or contributions of land may be exacted from an applicant by a government agen cy as a condition of development approval. Exactions may be monetary or involve land or other contributions to the public. For example, a property owner may be required to dedicate land in the future right-of-way along a designated corridor as a condition of development approval. Th ere are constitutional limitations on public use of this approach. Required dedications must be related both in nature and extent (i.e., roughly proportional) to the impact of the proposed development, in this case, on the. transportation network. Dedications may also occur on a voluntary basis. Building Setbacks. A building's location on a property is detennined by the setback requirements of a zoning district. Setback requirements are mainly used to promote safety and urban design but can also protect future right-of-way (see figure 2). Local governments can either increase their required setback from the existing right-of-way line or require tbe setback be measured from the future right-of -way line. Setbacks are most effective where the centerline of a facility is known or can be reasonably estimated. To offset the uncertainty as to the location of a new or proposed alignment some communities use "cl ear zones" in combination with setbacks (see for example, Pasco County, Maricopa County in the description of local practices). Legal experts advise caution, however, in application of setbacks for right-of-way reservation. Says Attorney Daniel Mandelker, "Most courts that have addressed the issue have held unconstitutional the use of building setback ordinances to acquire or reserve land for the construction or widening of streets."' For this reason, local govenunents should supplement setback requirements with mitigation measures, as well as short periods of reservation (see Legal Considerations.) 9

PAGE 10

SETBACK LINES B -----_,.,..... ___ ... t--------' i Pt.'BLIC iUGH T -OF'-WAY B ; slOA4;'< v n o w I" IIO PoSEO ft.o,w. --Ftgure 2: Building setbacks are established through zoning and are afimdamemal too/for corridor management. Interim Uses. Looal governments may allow interim uses to occur within a reserved COTTidor until the property is needed for the transportation filcility. Generally, interim uses have a relatively low investment in strucrural improvements to the site. Such uses may include storm water reletltion, overflow parl
PAGE 11

to land development. Access management techniques help preserve the safety and capacity of corridors by removing turning vehicles from through-traffic lane$ and oth erwise minimizing the potential for vehicular conflicts or crashes. This is achieved through a variety of techniques addressing issues such as driveway location and design, improved on-site circulation systems, service or shared access drives, comer clearance, tum lanes, signal spacing, medians, and spacing of median openings. Advance planning related to access systems and right-of-way needs furthers the orderly layout and use of land, enhances community character, avoids damage to homes and businesses, and protects the substantial public investment in the roadway network. Overlay Zones A Corridor Management Overlay works in conjunction with a local government's zoning regulations. The overlay district imposes special development regulations on areas near future transportation corridors. The affected areas are identified on the Future Transportatio n Map within the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map. The corridor overlay suggested in the Flori da DeparUnent of Transportation model corridor management ordinance, includes provisions for transfer of density and intensity, stricter setback requirements, and site plan review guidelines for projects within 1,000 feet of a future transportation corridor Another alternative would be establishing a Planned Unit Development(PUD) or flexible zoning overlay along designated corridors to allow increased flexibility of site design and clustering of units, thereby increasing opportunities to develop the site without disturbing the future corridor. Downzoning. As an alternative to denying all development within a future right-of-way,local governments may rezone the land in and around the corridor for a less intensive or lower density of use. Often, local governments apply agricultural zoning or low density residential zoning for this purpose. Mitigation Measures The following section describes some mitigation measures that can be employed by local governments to offset hardships imposed upon individual properties as a result of a corridor management ordinance. These include a variance procedure, transfer of development rights, relaxing zoning requirements, impact fee credits, and property tax break provisions. Varlanu Procedure. Corridor management ordinances should provide some administrative procedure for re viewing requests to develop within the right-of-way. A tiered process could be provided with a certain level of flexibility allowed through administrative approval. This provides an opportunity to avoid instances where the regulatory program could be conceived as a taking. Nonetheless, variances should not be granted until every option for avoiding the right-of-way has been pursued and deemed i mpractical. Below are additional measures that may be applied in an effort to achieve resolution of potential hardship. On-site Transfer of Development Riglts. Transfer of development rights involves the transfer of a right to develop, from one area to another. For corridor management, local governments may provide for an onsite density transfer from that portion of property reserved or dedicated for future right-of-way to the remainder of the property. Relaxed Zoning Land developmen t regulations prescribe a building envelop e for property through requirements that lots meet specified dimensions, impervious surface ratios, parking requirements and o ther standards. In some cases, relaxing these requirements somewhat can ameliorate constraints on a development site caused by the reservation or dedication of future right-of-way. In other words, this allows II

PAGE 12

for development of what otherwise m_ight be a nonconfonning site, or it provides some leeway in achieving a site design that avoids the future right-of-way. Nonetheless, this option should only be afforded to properties which ore constrained due to madequate lot dimensions. Instances where this might be applied, include exceptionally shallow lots. lmpllt Fee Credits. An impact fee is based on the number of new trips added to the transportation network. The value of the future right-of-way being dedicated or reserved is credit e d agains t the fees. Through an impact fee credit process, local governments can combine collecting the fee and purchasing the right-of-way into one transaction. Tax Abatement Some areas have used tax abatements as a financial incentive for dedication of future right of-way. When calculating property values for taxation purposes, the value of the reserved property would be deducted from the total amount of assessed value (seejor example, Mode l s and Case Studies: Otay Mesa) Thus, the property owner does not pay taxes on property within the right-of-way that is not available for development. However, use of this technique in Florida will likely require new legislation. Collaborative Approaches InjormolNegotlatwns. One of the most effective methods of protecting future corridors is through informal negotiations with developers and property owners that share the corridor. The negotiations may occur at the time of corridor designation, through special meetings and public involvement techniques Developers who participated in a focus group on corridor preservation techniques indicated that "the key to successful protection of future rights-of-way and the expansion of existing rights-of-way was advanced planning of corridor locations, early negotiations with land owners and involvement of both local government and FDOT in the proeess." "Negotiations may also occur during the site plan review process where loca l governments and developers can comprom ise on the location of structures, parking, and, in some cases, the future alignment of the corridor. Intergovernmental Coordination. There i s a need for in tergovernmental agreements among local governments, because designated corr idors may cover several jurisdictions. In addition, greater collaboration is required between FOOT Districts and local governments on managing future corridors. According to a study of corridor preservation techniques conducted by Henigar and Ray for the FDOT, "The development of partnerships between FDOT and local governments and a cooperative planning process are absolutely noocssary if improvements in the preservation and protection of future rights-of-way is expected."" Public Involvement. Local governments should engage in special meetings or workshops to inform property owners of the corridor designation process and to involve community leaders and interest groups in these decisions. This will help increase public awareness of the importance of the corridor and the benefits of corridor manag emc.nt. It will also inform affected persons as to bow the state and local governments involved plan to individual hardships posed by the regulatory framework. People are much more likely to accept a corridor management program as a necessary hardship, if they have been fully informed '\lid treated fairly in the decision making process. 12

PAGE 13

LOCAL RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION PRACTICES Hernando County The Metropolitan Planning Organization's Long Range Plan identifies considerable future rights-of-way needs in Hernando County along the Florida Turnpike and along state roads, but fewer right of-way needs on the County road system. In only a few areas has the County acquired land for future corridors Hernando County has historically pursued dedication and preservation of future rights-of-way; this practice has been most aggressive along US I 9 and SR 50. According to th e Hernando County Metropolitan Planning Organization, most future right-of-way dedications occur on a strictly voluntary basis, although this does not occur as frequently as the County woul d desire. In 1986, Hernando County adopted an ordinance to implement a system of frontage roads along major highways. The purpose of the ordinance was to reduce curb cuts alohg major arterials, separate local traffic from through traffic and thereby improve the safety and efficiency of travel on the arteria! system. The ordinance applies to US 301, US 98, US 41, US 19, CR 485, and SR 50. Developers of property adjacent to these highways are required to provide (at their expense) a frontage road from property line to property line paral lel to the highway, upon demonstration of need and demand by the County. This requirement applies to any development that would increase the traffic demand upon the arterial system by more than I 0 Average Daily Trips (ADT), either by constructing a new building expanding the capacity of an existing building, changing an existing use, or subdividing property to create additional buildable lots. The developer is resporisible for paying for the engineering and construction of the frontage roads to County specifications, as well as maintaining the frontage road to County standards. Exception to the maintenance requiremen t may be made if the property owner contracts wi. th the County to maintain t h e r oadway or dedicates the roadway and the right-of-way to the County for inclusion into the County roadway maintenance system. County specifications call for a two Jane frontage road (see Appendix A). County engineers s trongly recommend that frontage road connections be set back at least 75 ft. from intersections and up to 125ft. if feasible; in some cases, a 325 foot separation has been achieved. This separation distance is not always achieved due to inadequate lot dimensions or development constraints. According to the County, the 125ft. distance is reached approximately 75% of the time. Newer developments tend to meet the 125 ft. recommendation. The frontage road ordinance authorized the Board of County Commissioners to form an enforcement agency to issu e permits and conduct inspect i ons on the property to ensure compliance with this ordinance and, if necessary, initiate legal action if compliance is not reached. If the enforcing agency makes a determination that a person, finn, or corporation must construct and finance a frontage road, the developer has thirty (30) days to make an appeal before the Board of County Commissioners. To date, portions of the frontage road have been built along SR 50 and US 19. Hernando County struggles with efforts to maintain a continuous system of frontage roads along some of its major arterials. Where development is sporadic, as is true of many of the County's highways, land is not ded i cated for frontage roads, and many of the frontage roads dead-end without any connection to the overall road network. 13

PAGE 14

Recommendations for Hernando County Frontage roads can be a useful tool for elimina ting driveway connections along high-speed arterials., and to thereby separate local, residential traffic and high-speed through -traffic. Despite the advantages of frontag e roads, they are also associated with certain operational problems. Frontage roads tend to increase the number of conflict points where the frontage road connects with a cross road, thereby increasing the potential for automobile or pedestrian accidents. They can also increase the number of possible crossing and turning movements onto and off an arterial. These potential impacts are even greater with two-way frontage roads, and higher traffic volumes associated with commercial and higher density residential areas. The operational problems associated with frontage roads can be overcome through careful attention to design and placement of the road. Below are some considerations in managing the impacts of frontage roads on traffic operations. _,Avoid frontage road connections within the functional area of an intersection. This can be accomplished by "belling out'' the frontage road to increase the separation between the frontage road connection and the intersection. According to AASHTO, Traffi c operations are improved if the frontage roads are located a considerable distance from the main line at the intersecting cross roads in order to lengthen the spacing between successive intersections along the crossroads." 1 AASHTO suggests a minimum separation of 150 feet in urban areas and 300 feet in rural areas. However, a recent study by the NCHRP indicates the distan ce should be a minimum of300 feet: "The spacings of at least 300 feet (preferably more) enable turning movements to be made from the main lanes onto the frontage roads without seriously disrupting arterial traffic and, thereby minimize the poten tial of wrong-way entry onto the through lanes of the predominant ./ Increasing the separation is especially important in areas intended for commercial development, or locations where the frontage road and arterial are heavily traveled. In areas with light density and/or traffic volumes, left turns can be allowed, but with an appropriate separation distance from the intersection ,/ A reduction in conflicts at the intersection could also be achieved by restricting left turns into and out of the frontage road. In other words, the system could be designed to allow right-in and right-out movements only. _,Consider a shift from two-way frontage roads to one-way frontage roads. According to AASHTO: "Fr om an operational and safety standpoint, one-way frontage roads are much to two-way. One-way operation inconveniences local traffic t o some degree, but the advantages in reduction i n vehicu lar and pedestrian conflicts at intersecting streets often fully compensate for this inconvenience. "'2 1 AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, p. 371 2 AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Sb:eets, p. 37t 14

PAGE 15

.I Maintain the outer separation, or strip of land between the frontage road and the future right-of-way line. The National Highway Institute reoommends a distance of at least eight feet for pedestrian refuge and landscaping Other experts recommend a minimum outer separation of20 feet .I Consider a system of joint and cross access, where frontage roads prove impractical. For further infonnation on joint and cross access drives, refer to the Model Land Development Regulations that Support Access Management .I Provide for administrative approval of variances from setback or lot dimensional requirements where needed to achieve right-of-way reservation objectives. Thi s helps streamline the approval procedures for property owners, by avoiding the lengthy formal variance review process .I Adopt minimum right-of-way requirements for the future transportation network and a corridor management ordinance (see also General Recommendations). Pasco County Pasco County bas integrated right-of-way protection requirements into their Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Roadways are classified and mapped according to function in the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan 2010 Roadway Network. This allows for regulation of access, street and right-of-way widths, circulation pattems, design speed, and construction standards. Pasco County's Traffic Circulation Element requires the adoption of a Right-ofWay Pro tecti on Ordinance and Rights-of -Way Reservation Ordinance and Map tliat identifie s the right-of-way necessary to develop the planned future roadway network. Protected areas inc lu de "required right-of-way on either side of the centerline of an existing or planned roadway and/or required right-of-way for roadway or other transportation corridors for which no centerline has been established." In the event a centerlin e has not been established, the new facility's location is de term ined during the site plan review process. The stated purpose of these provisions is to ensure compliance with long range level of service standards The Rights-ofWay Reservation Ordinance and Map prohibits the development of structures or parking within the planned ri ght-of-way and "provide(s) for the dedication or acquisition of the reserved right-of way upon issuance of a development order. Targeted properties include those encompassing future right of-way des ign ated for improvement within the five year capital improvement program. The County can reserve these areas for five years. However, the Board of County Commissioners can extend this period for up to an additiona l five years. The goals, policies, and objectives regarding right-of-way preservation are implemented through clear zone requirem e nts in. the Pasco Cowtty Land Development Code. The ultima te right-of-way width for roadways 'National Highway Institute Course No. IS2SS: Access Management, Location and Design, p. 5-12 'NCHRP Report 348, "Access Management Guidelines for Activity Centers," Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1992, p. 68. I S

PAGE 16

classified in the 2010 Future Traffic Circulation Map is established in the Code and varies in width from 300 feet for an expressway to 100 feet for a minor collector (see Table 2). These rights-of-way (or those identified through engineering studies) are designated as clear zones, with the centerline of each corridor established at one-half the required right-of-way. Table 2: Pasco County clear zone Functional Classification Required (ft.)t Expressway 300 Principal Rural Arterials 250 Principal Urban Arterials 200 Minor Rural Arterials 210 Minor Urban Arterials !50 Major Urban Collector 120 Major Rural Collector 140 Minor Collector 100 t Building setbacks are established in zoning and measured from the established clear zone line. Structures are prohibited within clear zone areas and building setbacks established in the respective zoning district must be measured from the designated clear zone line. Interim uses may be allowed within the clear zone follows: on-site signs, on-site storm water retention facilities, landscaping and buff eri ng, and parking facilities provided the minimum required parking cannot be accommodated without placing spaces within the clear zone. Pasco County subdivision regulations establish minimum righ t-of-way requirements for lo cal streets not functionally classified in the county comprehensive plan. The right-of-way requirements for these streets vary by street type (residential units served) and whether the area is urban or rural, and may be modified subject to preliminary plan approval (see Table 3). Discretionary standards also require such streets to provide sufficient right-of-way to: 1) Allow development of the full cross section including medians and roadside clear zones. 2) Provide for the layout of intersections and access points. 3) Allow for sight distances at all points, particularly on horizontal curves, at intersections, and other access points. 4) Provide space for placement of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 16

PAGE 17

Table 3: Pasco County minimnm right-of-way for subdivision streets. Street Type Required Right-of-Way (ft.) Urban Rural l A (601+ equi v. units) 100 120 IB (20 1 -600 equiv. units) 60 80 2 (101200 equiv. u n its) 50 70 J (51-100 equiv. units) 50 70 4 (up to 50 equiv. units) 50 70 5 (alleys) 20 N / A Developers ar e reqoire
PAGE 18

and "good collaborative working relationships in achieving desired right-of-way standards. (See Otay Mesa, California In the Case Studies to see how intergovernmental coordination and informal negotiations between public agencies and developers were used to protect future righJ-of-way.) ./ Provide for administrative approva l of variances from setback or lot dimensional requirements where needed to achieve right-of-way reservation objectives. This helps streamline th e approval procedures for property owners by avoiding the lengthy, formal variance review process ./ See also, General Recomme ndations. Pinella s County Pinellas County's Traffic Circulation Eleme nt provides Objectives and Policies guiding right-of-way protection procedures Tbe Element. requires the County to maintain a "Subdivision Regulation Sector Plan, T raffic Corridors Plan, and Right-of-Way Requirements." Thi s plan, commonly known as the "Sector Plan", identifies the location and right-of-way widths of future transportation improvements (see Figure 3). According to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Sector Plan must be consistent with the Future Traffic I ....... SECTOR 1-GIIEAlEII TARPON SPRINGS AREA Pin&llas Col.ny Plan ... or,....,,,_ COUIITY "-"111*10 Oti,..-y'CifT Figure 3 -This excetpt ftom Sector I County way widths required in the Tarpon Springs area 18 REQUIREMENTS .... .... llllntniiiiiiiiUIIU 12:0' )0000000C 115' 110' .... ------... .......................... Plan illustrates the right-of-

PAGE 19

Circulation Map and lbe County must enforce the Sector P l an "to ensure dte availability of needed right-of-way." The County's Land Development Regulations include provisions for increased setback requirements for future transportation corridors depicted on the Sector Plan The Code requires developers to set back from the future right-ofw ay line rather than from the existing property line. According to P i n e llas County staff, setback requirements have been administered on a voluntary basis on futur e transportation corridors which lack funding, unless the County has funds to purchase the right-of-way. Tit i s practice may hamper the intent of tbe regulations if they are only imposed when funding i s ava i lable T h e n ature of construction of transportation facilities and the high costs of acquirin g right-of w a y may limit the ability of the County to purchase the land under these circwnstances, thereby reducing th e chance the corridor w ill be protected In P i nellas County however i f the Board of County Commissi oners designates a roadway on its five>-year Capital Improvements Plan, the County may require a dedication ; if i t is no t designated the County may not. Recommendations for County ./ Consider developing a ''rough proportionality" standard for requiring right-of way dadications and improve m ents, similar to that of Phoenix Arizona. (See Appendix A) ./ Consider the development and adoption of a trafficways plan and program under the P i n ellas Planni ng Council that includes consultations with deve l opers to negotiate dedications of right -ofway and is flexible i n allowing adjustments to the trafficways plan. (For additional information see Broward County F lorida in the Model Case Studies.) ./ Implement a public involvement process for r i ght-of way reservation and prov i de fo r flexib il ity in the administrative process. Pinellas County is cwrently grappling with a fundamental dilemma in right of-way reservation practice-a lengthy, unce rtain roadway planning and d evelopme nt process, and legal prohibitions on long periods of right-of-way reservation where acquisition is uncertain. This dilemma is not easily resolved However, communities may still achieve right-of-way reservation objectives. The way to deal with this uncertainty is to establish effective public involvement mechanisms and mitigation measures. In other words, the program will be generally more effective in communities w i th a proactive and sound-planning program and early and continuing public involvement. It will be less effective i n co!1lmunities with a reactive approach to planning and public invo l vement (ie, reliance on public notices and hearings). In addition, although the courts have not established an aceeptable duration of reservation, courts will clearly penalize communities that attempt to impose long periods of reservation where there is little evidence of p r oject support and few, if any, mitigation measures to offs e t hardship s upon p r operty owners. However, courts do not rely solely on the duration of reservation in evaluating the legitimacy of reservation programs. Daniel Mandelker, in bis l andmark analysis of highway reservation laws, explains: "Just how short a reservation period must be is not clear and one court held that even an one year reservation perio d required compensation The courts have upheld zoning moratoria tha t lasted for several years, but would probably balk at a highway reservation that remained in effect for so long a time ... The inclusioo of remedial prov i s i ons tha t m itigate the butden of a reservation on a landowner should help resolve the uncertainty 1 9

PAGE 20

problem and support the use of a highway reservation early in d!e plBlllling process. m2 ./ Provide for administrative approval of variances from setback or Jot dimensional requirements where needed to achieve right-of-way reservation objectives. This helps streamline th e approval procedures for property owners, by avoiding the lengd!y, fonnal variance review process ./ Sec also, General Recommendations. Models and Case Studies Florida Department of Transportarlon Model Ordintmce. A team of planning and legal consultants prepared a model transportation corridor ordinance for the Florida Department of Transportation designed to, "preserve, protect, and/or acquire rights-of-way in transportation corridors."" The model recommends regulatory techniques local governments can use to manage development within futuro corridors, and suggests FDOT increase its involvement in the local government development approval process to ensure that FDOT projects are coordinated with local planning efforts . The ordinance employs building setbacks to protect the future right-of-way. Structural, parking, and drainage setbacks are measured from the approximate alignment of the future right-of-way. If a reduction in setbacks is warranted after engineering studies establish the fmal alignment, then the setback may be reduced up to 10"/o by administrative approval. Mandatory dedications are targeted for projects adjace nt to roadways planned for improvements within the next five years. To offset tbe impacts of more stringent setback requirements, the ordinance includes provisions for flexibility in site design, and developers are encouraged to cluster structures. Administrative approval can be sought for building-to-building setbacks as well as for buffer reductions. In addition, the ordinance provides for transfer of density or intensity rights within the site. The model ordinance also incorporates provisions for interim uses -such as parking, nurseries, gate-houses, or stonn-water retention pondswithin the future right-of-way. In exchange for use of the property, the developer must agree to relocate the use beyond tho required setback area when requested by the local government. The model ordinance encourages the use of transportation impact fee credits in exchange for a right-of-way protection. The study calls for FDOT to init iate intergovernmental agreements with local governments to set out procedures and provisions for exchange of right-of-way protection for impact fee credits. The developer would receive a transportation impact fee credit equivalent to the right-of-way value. Local governments may also vest the project for the necessary "transportation capacity Brow/Ud County, Florida. Broward County has established the Broward County Plarming Council that oversees 29 1ocal governments. The Council's role is "to promote coordinated, comprehensive, long-range planning throughout Broward County through the joint cooperation and participation of all local governments, public officials, and private citizens." One primary component of the Council is the administration of the Broward County Trafficways Plan. The Trafficways Plan is a roadway right-of-way preservation plan. Although first adopted in 1962, the Trafficways Plan was incorporated into the Countywide planning program in the mid-1970s. The plan is 20

PAGE 21

implemented through the County and municipal development review process. Parcels undergoing platting are reviewed by the Council to assure that they dedicate right-of-way in accordance with the Trafficways Plan. Although dedication is now administered on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis, the Council has been highly successful due to early consultations with developers and flexibility in allowing reasonable adjustments to the plan. Requests to modifY the plan must be approved by the Council staff. After review, the amendments are then reviewed by the Broward County Trafficways Review Group, which is comprised of County technical staff, the Florida Department o f Transportation, and the South Florida Regional Planning Council. After presentation from the affected local governments and reviewing all pretiminary materials, the Trafficways Review Group submits written comments to Council staff which in turn submits a recommendation to the Council's Land Uselfrafficways Committee. The committee subsequently makes a recommendation to the full Council which takes final action." DelawareDelaware established a project to protect tbe capacity of one of its major north-south links to the state highway system .., De!DOT and the affected local governments devised a capacity protection strategy and associated short-term preservation policy plan to protect Relief Route 13. As required by state law DeiDOT reviewed all county rezoning applications and subdivisions along the corridor. The review included approaching developers to reserve right-<>f-way and apply design/access standards to new developments. To encourage reservations, DeiDOT allowed interim uses on the reserved property and negotiated with property owners to sell development rights of corridor right-of-way. These techniques have aided th e State to gradually acquire right -ofway for needed expansion of the corridor Madera County, California-Due to the increases in development in eastern Madera County, Caltrans and the County proposed the expansion of the region's two main roads. These roads, State Route I and State Route 49 travel through alternating developed and undeveloped areas. A lthough funds for conslruction or improvement were not yet programmed, Madera County and Caltrans were detennined to protect the future corridor. Preservation efforts focused o n informal negotiations with developers and property owners Property owners were encouraged to volwttarily dedicate property or sell future rights-<>fway located within their development. 16 As a resul t of these actions, the public has become increasingly aware of the future highway plans and supportive of the need for additional right-of-way. Maricopa County, Arizona. Maricopa Cowtty uses a combination of clear zones and s et back requirements to protect future right-of-way from development_ The ordinance divides the street network according to functional classification. It requires a lOS foot clear zone on either side of the centerline of its two designated thoroughtilres; a 75 foot clear zone on either side of the centerline of existing or proposed Major Streets, Section Line Roads, State and Fede .ral Highway with service roads, and a 55 foot clear zone for those without service roads. A clear zone of 40 feet is required from the centerline of existing or proposed Collector and Mid-Section Line Roads and a clear zone of 25 feet from the centerline of existing or proposed local streets,. This is increased to 30 feet where the local street is zoned for multiple family residential, commercia l or industrial use, depending on the adjacent zoning district, a distance of2S-30 feet_ Building setbacks established in the zoning district are then measured frcm the respective clear zone setback line, unless a written report is received from the County Highway Department stating no future street is recommended along the subject setback line Otay Mesa, CaliforniiJ. The Otay Mesa area is located in southern California and under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and San Diego County. With projections of high growth, 21

PAGE 22

the need for additional highway corridors was great Two corridors were planned for the area, State Road 905 and State Road 125, however, corridor acquisition and construction remained unfunded. Without money to acquire property, techniques such as coordination between local and state agencies and infonnal negotiations between public agencies and developers were used to protect future right of-way. In California, Caltrans organized the Advance Transportation Systems Development (ATSD) program which oversees the planning, preservation, and financing of future right-of-way projects ATSD's major goals include achieving public and private sector cooperation, early invol vement in land use development activities, and establishing "good collaborative working relationships with local govenunents To achieve these goals, Caltrans must review and approve all local goverrunent plans and development proposals. Furthennore, ATSD is involved in educating the public on the transportation planning process by serving as representatives at seminars, public and private forums, and on task forces and committees A TSD joined the City of San Diego and San Diego County in devising a variety of techniques to protect the SR 905 corridor. First, A TSD and the City of San Diego devised a method to plat the future-right-of-way within a subdivision as a separate lot With the property owner's approval, the l ot'' would remain reserved and undeveloped until property acquisition commenced. Secondly, interim uses were allowed within the future corridor. Finally, because San Diego County factors Iarld use encumbrances when calculating property value, property owners received a tax benefit when reserving property. On-site density transfers were pennitted from reserved right-of-way to the remainder of the property, but this option was not available from dedicated property or property overlaid with a development easement. These techniques proved successful and the majority of SR 905 right -of-way was reserved. Palm Beach County, Florida. Palm Beach County identifies its future rights-of-way on the "Right-of-Way Identification Map." To protect future corridors, the County has instituted a 40 foot setback requirement, measured from the future right -of-way, for properties located along all roadways identified on the "Right-of Way Identification Map." In the past, the county also imposed a mandatory dedication requirement as a condition of development approval, but now pursues voluntary dedication, due to concern over the implications of the Dolan case (see Legal Considerations) on mandatory dedications (see also Phoenix, Arizona). Transfer of density from the dedicated area to another portion of the site is offered to developers who voluntarily dedicate property CUy of Phoenix, Arizona. In earlY 1995, the City of Phoenix developed a "proportionality process that standardized right-of-way dedication and improvement requirements, in response to the Dolan case (see Legal Considerations). Historically, proportionality was informally determined with administrative discretionary oversight." The revamped procedure ensures "the principles of connectivity and proportionality are publicly known and documented." The process establishes "progressive tiers of requirements based on m inimum standards health and safety factors, development impacts, and exactions that can be supported by individualized analyses." The first tier requires that every developed site should be adjacent to a paved public street, served by sewer and water, and meet drainage requirements. Improvements can include construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights. If any item is missing from a proposed development, the applicant must provide the missing elements. In the event a development abuts a street not paved to its ultimate width, the developer must "contribute cash or donated right-of-way equal to the value of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk." The second tier of exactions involves potential health or safety hazards the development may create in the right22

PAGE 23

of-way. An individualized analysis determines whether the developer must provide a mecha n ism to abate the hazards. Among other things, second tier exactions can include right-of-way for turning lanes paving connection to nearest paved street, and/or curbs for access control. The th .ird tier of exactions addresses the number of new trips generated by a new project. For this grouping, improvements may comprise right-of-way dedication for a major street, street paving, and/or contribution of funds in lieu of paving. Finally, a discretionary item that contributes to the aesthetic value and functionality of the project comprises the fourth tier of exactions. Fourth tier exactions are on a voluntary basis, unless an individualized analysis states otherwise. Fourth tier requests include right-of-way dedication for a local or collector street, paving, landscaping, and/or multi-trail easements. As opposed to the new standardized procedures, the former exaction process was based on "informal exaction formulas" and proportionality "was regarded more as a financial equity issue." According to the City of Phoenix Devel opment Services Department, the administration of the standardized proportionality procedures will reduce the amount of right-of-way dedications and improvements. The City estimates the loss at $2.8 million annually." City of$<111 Jose, California. Within their General Plan, the City of San Jose includes a future right -of-way map which shows the location and width of right-of-way corridors Preservation of these corridors is handled during the site plan review process. Historically, the City of San Jose bas worked closely with developers regarding future rights-of-way. Developers are encouraged to locate outside the future corridor and future setback area. Rarely do cases arise when developers refuse to avoid these areas. In these few instances, if an area outside the corridor is su itable for the structure's construction the City can require the developer to comply through the discretionary review process. According to City staff, informal negotiations are very successful and developers routinely agree to locate structures outside the future corridor and setback area. The partnership between the City of San Jose and developers to preserve future corridors is exemplified in the development of State Route 85, which was originally planned in the late 1950s as a major freeway through Santa Clara County. The corridor was placed on the County and City general plans and corridor acquisition soon began However, the project lost political support on the state leve l and property aequisition ceased. The City of San Jose and Santa Clara County maintained that the freeway was imperative to the southwestern development of the City. Soon, the Chamber of Commerce, developers, and citizen groups joined the City and County's position in support of the facility Eventually, developers began to seek approval of projects that impacted State Route 85's right-of-way corridor. Without funds to aequire property, the City relied on informal negotiations and incentives to prevent property owners from developing the corridor. The City allowed density transfers from the proposed right-of-way to other locations within the project site. Additionally, developers could place interim uses, such as nurseries, overflow parking, and golf ranges, within the corridor In the 1980s, after the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement supporting the project and endorsement by a citizen task force, property acquisition for State Route 85 continued and the freeway was completed in 1994. 19 23

PAGE 24

Tabl e 4 : S ummary of Currea t Practice FuaueROW Thorougbfilre Setbacks Interim Tiansferof Impact Subdivision Needs or Trallicways Measwed From U=AUowed Dev. Rlghts Fee Rep Identification Plan FuaueROW Credits Require Dedication Hernando yes n o no no no no no County Pasco ye s yes yes yes no yes yes County Pinellas yes yes partly' no no yes0 partly' County Broward yes yes yes yes yes yes yes County Palm Beach yes yes yes no yes partly' yes County Maricopa yes yes yes no yes nla' yes County City of San yes yes yes yes partly' yes yes Diego City of San yes yes yes yes yes nla' yes Jose Strongly enCOIIIllged, but not n:quired. Credits are available to developments along che future ROW programmed fO< improvement In the TIP or C!P. Dedications are n:quired whe n transponation improvements are imminent. 1 Provided to developers dedicating ROW, but credit must be used at a location other than whore the dedication was made; if dedicaling on-site property, a density tnlnsfe r is offered. No impact fee O
PAGE 25

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Legal concerns surrounding right-of -way preservation programs relate to due process issues and the potential for a regulatory taking claim. This section revie\vs key l egal considerations of which local governments should be aware when developing a right-of-way protection program. ReguJatory Taking Concerns over the potential for regulatory taking are paramount in programs aimed at preserving future right of-way for transportation corridors. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, "private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment is designed to preclude government from requiring individuals to bear the costs of recognized public burdens. Despite the power of eminent domain and police power, taking private property to advance a legitimate public good can still constitute a taking. As the courts have stated, "if a regulation goes too fur, it will be recognized as a taking," Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 US. 393, 41S (1922). But what is too fur? To answer this question, the United States Supreme Court developed various principles to detennine when loca l governments must compensate property owners for a taking of private property. One of these principles is whether the regulation denies "all economically beneficial and productive use of land," Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Ccnmcil 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992) at 813. 815. Although "economically beneficial" must be dcfmed on a case by case basis, a regulation which denies all economically beneficial use will be considered a taking requiring the payment of compensation to tbe landowner. An exception to this rule is made when the use proscribed by the regulation is also prohibited by the state law regarding property and nuisance." Another issue relates to the appropriate unit of property against which a taking claim can be applied. The nonsegmentation rule has traditionally been applied, requiring that a taking claim must be reflective of the "parcel as a whole," and not "segments of the parcel," Penn Central Transporta tion Co. v. City of New York, 438, U.S. 104 (1978). This issue is critical to corridor preservation when determining whether a taking bas occurred as se ldom does an affected property fall entirely within the mapped right-of-way." Police Power Through tbe use of the police power, local governments can employ various regulatory tools to regulate land use, and protect and advance the public health, safety, and welfure. For example, zoning ordinances limit and regulate uses to certain districts, provide for front and sideyard setbacks, lot dimensional requirements, Jot coverage, and establish de sired density or intensity of development. Subdivision regulations control the division and subdivision of land into. lots blocks, and public ways. Because :zoning and subdivision controls are interdependent, contemporary practice calls for combining them into a unified land development code Local codes may also provide for exactions and fees to offset the impacts of development. These types of regulatory tools are generally upheld if they are used to achieve a legitimate exercise of the police power. However, as stated by AASHTO, these regulations "hav e limitations when invoked for corridor preservation." Local governments are aware of the legal challenges to corridor preservation and are "generally cautious to avoid activities that approach a taking without just compensation." 22 Courts are more likely to find a right-of-way reservation program is reasonable, where it is based on a comprehensive plan and where the regulatory framework includes a process for ameliorating hardship 25

PAGE 26

imposed on individual properties The validity of protecting futnre right-of-way through the planning and r eg ulatory process was reeently addressed in Palm Beach County v. Wright, 641 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1994). The Florida Supreme Court upheld the thoroughfare map calling it "an invaluable tool for planning purposes" and a proper subject of the local police power. In its analysis, the court stated that the thoroughfare map outlines generalized corridors, and therefore a taking claim can not be detennined until the property owner submits an aetna! development appl ication. At this point an aggrieved owner could bring an inverse condemnation proceeding to determine if a taking had occurred. This represented a departure from previous opinions related to state efforts to reserve futnre right-of-way. In Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Florida Department of Transportation, 563 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1990) the Florida Supreme Court weighed a state statute prohibiting issuance of development permits within mapped right of way for five years after recording an official map for the state highway system. The Court concluded that the statute was "a thinly veiled attempt to 'acquire' land by avoiding the legislatively mandated procedural and substantive protection," and a deliberate attempt to "depress land values in anticipation of eminent domain proceedings. In Dolan v. CIJy of Tigard, 114 U.S. 2309 (1994), the Supreme Court ruled local government exactions must be roughly proportional to the impacts of the project in ques tion. In this case, the City of Tigard had conditionally approved a development permit for the Dolans tO double the size of their hard ware store and enlarge their parking lot The conditions were that they must dedicate a portion of their property to tbe city for improvement of a stonn drainage system, and dedicate a strip of land adjacent to the floodplain for a pedestrian/bicycle path. The Dolans appealed, arguing that there was no relationship between the proposed development and the conditions placed on the permit. The Court found that mitigation of flooding and traffic bore the necessary nexus to the deve lopment conditions, but that the city had failed to demonslrate whether the degree of the exaction related to the impact of the development. The Court ruled that the required dedication must be, "related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Eminent Domain One of the emerging i ssues surrounding the extent of eminent domain in right-of-way taking cases is that of business damages. In the State of Florida, one of the few state to pay business damages, payments are made to a business owner who has operated a business on the same site for at least five years, to mitigate any impacts caused to the business as a result of a taking of property under eminent domain proceedings A property owner can make a claim t o receive busin ess damages for a number of circumstances including, relocation costs, loss of profit, losses from sale of equipment, and loss of goodwill (e.g., which may occur during a relocation, damaging a long-standing reputation in the community, specific client base, etc ). These payments are different from severance damages, which are paid to a property owner when the property is split in two, due to an eminent domain proceeding, to compensate for damage to the value of the remainder of the property. The legislation provides few guidelines by which to determine tbe extent or duration of tbe impact on the property owner, making it difficult to detennine an accurate monetary award. Often, business damages are so high that they cause the state to invoke a statntory provision for a whole taking (in which the amount of the claim exceeds the value of the remaining property)." According to the Florida Transportation Commission's year end report for 1995, Florida spent a total of$303.5 miUion on right-of-way expenditures during the year." Of that total 4% or $12.4 miUion was spent on business damages. 26

PAGE 27

In Florida, the state government is responsible for paying all fees in an eminent domain case, including the attorneys fees incurred by the property owner and any independent appraisals requested by the property owner. In 1995 th e State paid $34. 9 million in attorneys' fees and $7.6 million in appraisal fees for right-of way cases alone The increasing costs associated with acquiring right-of way in Flo rida are beco.rung prohibitive, and many local governments are reeoriitneh dihg the business damages procedures be amended at the state level. Conclusions Based on past and recent case law, legal experts have identified the following guidelines for local governments to reduce th e potential for taking claims resulting from the corridor designation process in Florida:= Establish a fo1mdation in the comprehensive plap. In determining the validity of local regulatory actions, courts review whether the action is consistent with and based upon a local comprehensive plan Regulatory programs are more likely to be found reasonable where they are based on a comprehensive plan which has been official adopted in accordance with due process requirements. The comprehensive plan is a legislative tool that serves as a land u se "constitution by establishing policies and d.irections for future development. In addition, planning studies establish the factual basis and need for corridor management efforts. Corridors intended for management should b e designated in the comprehensive plan and development regulations should be enacted pursuant to the plan. Include a clear statement of pumose and intent in the corridor maoa2ement ordinance. The regulation must have been clearly designed to achieve a legi timate public purpose. Regulations which have a clearly stated purpose to further legitimate planning and growth objectives are more likely to be upheld as valid than regulations whose purpose is unclear or which appear to be aimed primarily at reducing condemnation costs. Proyide mitigation measures to off..,t hardship. Local goverrunents should include in their transportation management ordinances, measures for mitigating hardships on affected property owners. At a minimum this should include variance provisions for property owners that are denied reasonable use of their property under the setback requirements. Other measures include allowances for interim uses in the right-of-way, on-site density transfers, or relaxed lot dimensional requirements. Financial incentives could also be used to offSet hardship, such as tax abatements or impact fee credits. Local governments should also gauge whether the regulation impacts only a portion of the property, lea ving the owner with a reasonable amount of developabl e land, and whether the regulation denies all reasonable use of th e land. If all reasonable use is denied, then the op tions should be to purchase, condemn, or issue a building penn it. Apply a short period of reservation. preferably tied to the Capitallmproyem ents Plan. The duration of tlte reservation should be for a short time period, based on a public commitment by the local government to acquire th e right-of-way. It is more likely that the courts will invatidate a regulation with an u nlimited o r lengthy p eriod oftime than one which delineates a shorter length of the reservation. For example, communities could provide for a five year reservation period, tied to a capital improvements plan and program, with an option to extend the period after that time pursuant to a public hearing. RECOMMENDATIONS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Initiate a spe<:ial project to update planning and regulatory tools used to preserve right-of way for existing and future corridors. Local plans and land development regulations should be 27

PAGE 28

updated to reflect changes in legislation, case law, and current practice. More specific guidance regarding suggested changes is indicated below. Designate transportation corridors intended for rigbt-of-way preservation in tbe comprehensive plan. Local governments sliould desigJJate all transportation corridors intended for right-of-way preservation by including the corridors in the traffic circulation or transportation element of the comprehensive plan. This should be accomplished through the goals, objectives and policies, the future needs assessment, and a corridor map that depicts tbe location and width of designated corridor rights-of-way. Corridors designated for this purpose must be consistent with the Corridor Management Report and List of the respective FDOT District. Under the statutory changes, designation of corridors is a precondition to adoption of a transportation-management ordinance. Adopt a corridor management ordinance. Local governments have been authorized by the recent changes to the transportation planning legislation to adopt transportation corridor management ordinances, whose purpose is to preserve and acquire needed right-of-way and protect transportation corridors for future growth or expansion of the transportation network. The ordinance should include: criteria and regulations for managing land development in designated corridors; descriptions of pennitted and restricted uses within the corridor; a public notice procedure and a provision for notifYing FDOT of"substantial" land use changes with i n the corridor; mitigation measures t o offset hardship posed by the regulatory program; a variance and appeal process; and an intergovernmental coordination process for management of corridors wlrich transce n d jurisdict io nal boundaries. For sample ordinance language, refer to the Model Ordinance: Protection of Corridors and Rights-of Way prepared for the FOOT Office of Policy Planning and the CUTR/FDOT Model Land Development and Subdivision Regulations that Support Access Management available from the FOOT Systems Planning Office." Provide mitigation measures to reduce taking liability and to offset hardship imposed by the corridor management program, sucb as: Allow interim uses in the corridor. Allowable uses might include parking. stonn water retention, signage, golfing ranges, nurseries, or other temporary uses. Provide impacJ fee credits for mandatory or voluntary dedication of righi-
PAGE 29

Recognize reset'Ved righl-of-way when assessing property value and reduce property taxes accordingly. This technique was used in the Otay Mesa region of California. Review the adequacy oflot dimensional requirements along designated corridors. Minimwn lot size, minimum lot frontage, setbacks, and loi width-to-depth ratios are established in land development regu lations for various zoning districts. Minimum lot frontage requirements set the minimum lot width or frontage on a public road. Setback requirements establis h minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks to separate buildings from each other and set them back from the roadways for a desired distance. Lot width-to-depth ratios s pecify the maximum depth for a particular lot width and prevent the creation of long and narrow or irregularly shaped lots that increase the number and length of private access drives. These tools should be carefully coordinated with corridor management objectives. For examp le, minimwn lot frontage requirements should be higher on designated corridors to prevent creation of lots with small frontages that lead to access problems. Minimum lot frontage could be tied to minimwn connection spacing standards and varied according to provision of shared access. Lots should be generally deeper along arterials with adequate setbacks to allow for future road widening, as well as installation of shared service drives Therefore, lot width-to-depth ratios could be somewhat higher along corridors (i.e. 1:4, I :5) than the typical ratios for urban or suburban areas (1:2.5 or 1:3) A 1:4 rati o means that lots or parcels with I 00 feet of frontage may not be deep er than 400 feet. Carefully manage frontage road connections. If not carefully mana ged, frontage roads can create operational problems at intersections.11 If frontage road connections are too close to major intersections, especially when combined with high traffic volwnes, the result may be severe congestion, long delays, and high acciden t rates. Therefore it is essential to "boll out" frontage road connections from the intersection (see Figure 4). One-way frontage roads generate fewer conflicts, although traffic problems are stiU prevalent, even with decreased traffic volumes I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rs--1 ; Seporotion (S) Absolute Minimum ;e 150 ft. [)nlroble Minimum 250 ft. Figure 4 -It is essential to increase the separation between the frontage road and the arterial. Source : Nalional Highway Institute CollrSe # I 5255, October I 991. AASHTO, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,"l990: pp. 370-376. 29

PAGE 30

Avoid continuous rigbt-turn lanes. Auxiliary lanes are helpful in removing turning vehicles from through-traffic movement. However, if right-tum lanes are not broken by pbyscial barriers. drivers may use them as throughl anes, causing confusiOn as to where cars wilt tum. Frequent cu r b cuts and unpredictable turning and weaving movements result in hazardous driving conditions. Painted islands typically do little to discourage such manuevors (see Figure 5). CONTINUOUS RIGHT TURN LANES May encourage use as a through-lane May lead to confusion Where cats will tum right Into driveway or street? Figure 5Source: !,and Development RegulaJions that Support Access Management. For these reasons, the Florida Deparbnent of Transportation now discourages use of frontage roads and continuous right-tum lanes for access management. Instead, communities are encouraged to i mprove subdivision and site design practices and apply access management standards along key corridors. Objectives are to coordinate vehicular and pedestrian access across adjacent properties and assure adequate separation and comer clearance of access points Attention should be given to intemal circulation, as well as opportunities for shared entrances and service drives Local governments 8Jid MPOs should work closely with FDOT on corridor management issues. Corridor management practice is changing both on a stat e and local level. Therefore, it is crucial that local goverrnnents work closely with their respective FOOT District on corridor management and engage in a dialogue to clarify respective agency roles and commitments. According to a study of corridor preservation techniques conducted for the FOOT "The development of partnerships between FDOT and local governments and a cooperative planning process is absolut e ly necessary if improvements in the preservation and protection of future rights-of-way is expected ."" Establishment of a special task force or program, such as the Advance Transportation Systems Development program organized by Caltrans (Otay Mesa case study), is one possibility for improving interagency collaboration on corridor management Consider establishing a Planned Unit Development or cluster zoning overlay along future corridors. The advantage of this technique is that it allows for flexibility in site des ign and c l ustering of units to achieve a variety of public pueposes, including right-of-way protection and access management. 30

PAGE 31

Engage io early negotiations with landowners and inform community leaders to increase awareness of the need for managing development along the corridor. Local govenunents should engage in special meetings or workshops to inform property owners of the corridor designation process and 10 involve community leaders and interest groups in these decisions. This will help increase public awareness of the importance of the com dot and the benefits of corridor management. It will also inforotaffected persons as to how the state and local governments involved, plan to alleviate individual hardships posed by the regulatory framework. People are much more likely to accept a corridor management program as a necessary hardship, if they have been fully informed and treated fairly in the decision making process. 31

PAGE 32

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Dedication -a conveyance of property by a private owner to the public Easementa right-of-way granted but not dedicated, for limited use of private land for a public or quasi public purpose and within which the owner of the property shall not erect any permanent structures. Exactionscontri.butions or payments required as an authori7.ed precondition for receiving a development permit. (Exactions may refer to mandatory dedications ofland for road widening, or monetary assessments, such as transportation impact fees. In all cases there must be a nexus and rough proportionality between the amount of the exaction and the purpose for which it i s used.) Traffic Circulation Map a map in the Traffic Cir<:ulation Element tha t depicts the general location of future collector, arterial, and limited access roads and related transportation facilities. The map must depict functional classifications of roads as principal, major, or minor and must identify the proposed number of lanes for future roadways. Inverse C(}lu/emnatwnthe taking or reduction in the value of private property as a result of governmental activity without any formal direct exercise of eminent domain. Offlc/Jd Map -an o rdinance in map form adopted by the governing body that shows the location and width of propos e d streets, public facilities, public areas, and drainage right-of-way (the purpose of which is to prevent private development from encroaching on si t es for proposed public improvement) Reservation a) a provision in a deed or other real estate conveyance that retains a right for the existing owner if other property rights are transferred; b) a method of holding land for a public use by designating public areas on a plat, map, or site plan as a condition of approval. Right-of-Waya str i p of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a street, sidewalk, crosswalk, railroad, road, electric transmission line, gas pipeline, water main, sanitary or storm water main, shade trees, or for another special use. (Land in which the state a county, or a municipality owns the fee simple title or has an easement dedicated o r required for a transportation or utility use) Thoroughfare P lan Map a map which depicts all roadways contained on the long range traffic cireulation map and identifies the rig)lt-of-way widths for each roadway. The thoroughfare plan map is the official listing of rights-of-way to be reserved Traffic Cir c uladon Element-the portion of a comprehensive plan designed to establish the desired and projected transportation system in local jurisdictions and plan for future motorized and non-motorized traffic cireulation systems. 32

PAGE 33

! -; -< n l> r (/) ,f'l n -; ...... CJ z . .. HSINANDO COtMTY IMGIIRR1NG OI' .. CII JONM* t ..,__ ..... f 0 1llt i ; d I l '\ "' 33 'il-; M eJ> t::l . I'

PAGE 34

Appendix B: Phoenix, Arizona Code 34

PAGE 35

t:. ';****::"***f':"'****lir*"*****"****************************************************** ::.; .. ,: ..... ........................................................................ ... ...... '10: April 17. 1995 Raymrd F. Bladine Dep.lty City Manager FR:M: George Flores Services Director InM: ***************************************** 'Ibis repatt informs the City C\:lUneil a1:1out the revise::! pt ooess used to ensure the appropriate application of connectivity and proporticnality to right of way dedication and i11!pt0V211ellt reqltirements placed bj the Oevelcpaent Services Oepa.ra!lent as a oon::litian of 'develqtlll!llt petmit issuan:le. It is estiJoata:l that this revisec1 ptooedure will in forgone right of dedications and illprovements in the of $2.11 millim annually. 'lhis reflects an estimated IIJ"liNal reduction of 3. 7 JUles of major and collector street right of fot'!Mrly dedicated ard/or pe;rmit arplic::ants. 'llle Oevelcpnent Services Department has always practiced a farm of rough ptqXJLtionality for right of way de:Uc::ation ard iJrprovement Nquirements. 'Ihis was ari informl ptooedure administered by staff Jlle!llhers with discretionary oversight pt"cllided at the diVision manager leYel. oonoems have been expressed bj the City <:o.n:il that this infCil'IILll method of prcportionality 111ay nat be consistent fran staff 1D"'Ilbe.r to staff I!!!>!Dber, individual custaners may be unaware of their entitlement to ptoportionallty decisials, there is no p.lblic docnmentatia'l to dem:w;:txate ClOllPliaro! with ll:JUrt decisiCXlS en ptoportionality and ccnnectivity. In to this ooncem, the Oevelcpaent Services OepartJDent has urdertaken a revi&M of its ptooess to forlllllate right of way dedication and illprovelrent requirements and revised this p:roess to that adhereJloe to t:he principles of calllECtivity and ptO(XILtionality are p.lblicly laxJWn and doC' ""B'tted. HMlB81r 'llle Devel.q"ent Services Oeparblent is
PAGE 36

Raymcnd F. Bladine April ]./' 1995 Page 2 'l1le former PJ:OOOS" of applying prcportiona1ity ard cxuiBCtivity reliEd on applicant lcnowled;!e of acoess or staff infarming the applicant of this process. staff \o'tlUld apply prcportiona1ity usirq unpublished guide! ines. If the applicant disagreed, a;peals 'W'E!re available for a fee to a staff -.her as the City Manager's Representative ard then to the City OluncU. An awroximate two week lead time was required for each type of aroeaJ.. 'lhis PJ:OOOSS was time efficient because it reliEd a.. f0l:111llaic exactia.. reEd site in Emenix should conform to a basic urban standal:d. Every site should be adjacent to a paye:l p.ll)lic sl:teet, shculd be served by sewer and water, and shculd drain without beirJ;J flooded or creat:.irq a flood hazard far nearby PJ:c:prly. If a developtent site is selected that does .I1Ct bave these minillum elements present, the applicant will be required to provide the m.isainr;J itell&. FQr exanple, if a site is selected adjacent to a sl:teet pawci to its ultimate width b1t missin; OJrb, gutter, sidewalk and sl:teet lights, the applicant will be required to ptQVide these items even if the new trip generatia.. does not warnnt right of way dedication and stteet widenin:J. If strip paving exists not to the ultimate width, the applicant would nat l:e nquired to i.n5tall the OJrb, gutter, and sidewalk that woold be destroyed with fUture street wic:lenin;J b1t would be nquired to ooutxib.lte cas!\ 6r donated right of way (if any is needed) equal to the value of OJrb, gutter, and sidewalk for the length of his street tra1tage. 'lhe second tier of exactions is premised an the l:elief that if a new clevelcpnent creates a health or safety hazard in the public of way the owner is responsible for abat:.irq this hazard thiQ1gh clevelq:ment requirements. An irdividualizEd analysis will be cxnb:ted for every case in this category. 'lhe third tier of exactions is basEd an new activity or intensity generated by the new project. For right of way dedications and ilipl:o\lelllel'lts trip generaticn tables .will be used that are clevelq:>Ed by the Institute of Transportation D"qineers (l'l'E) ard are reoogn.ized as national standards. '11lese tables relate ecpEICted trips per square foot to various types.

PAGE 37

Raym::n:l F. Bladine April 17, 1995 Page 3 Water arrl sewer requirements for the thi:rli tier of exactials Will be l:asl on in:tividual izei analyses in eveey c:asa. 'nlese analyses will use operational performance data, CXIlplter IIX'ldels, ard water Services master planninq re:so.tt'OilS. 'nle fc:urth tier of exactions contains IMinly discretionary items that would oont:dbrt:e to the aesthetic value an:i flm:::tionality of the project blt may not be able to meet the tests of connectivity arrl propcatiooality. Staff my request these items blt theY cannot l:le rrs. PllblicatiCil of the WOrllsheet will do::ument the department's J;nilosq:ily ard intelpretatim of exaction ptc:portionality arxl connectivity. Distribltial of this worksheet to the plblie will inform emOJStaners abo.lt hew propcationality ard connectivity are ar:pliGd to tlleir specific projects in forlllllatin; right of way 8X2lctiCil requirements ard requests. ':the sllad.ing in the boxeS of tlle matrix in:iicates in Widl cases in:ii vidual items of exactim will liJcely be required or nat required. 'lhis will prwpt staff to foc::us on the awropr.iate areas for potential exactim requirements. For items that cannot be required based Cl\ prcporticnUity and ocnneetivity, b.rt: are still desirable to enhance the aesthetics anclfor the fllncticnality of the project, staff may rEqUeSt inclusiCil of these items. SeiDe c:ustc:mers may voluntarily agree to these requests because they will see the benefits to their project, theY want to make a oontr.ll:utiCil to the cxmunity, or they may be able to realize a tax deduction. APPE7J.S QlstaDers ..no disagree with staff awlicaticn of propcationality and ocnneetivity can exercise an administrative appeal to a senior manager in the Developnent Services [)epar1:Ji<. 'lhis appeal will be beard within ane \leelt and there will be oo filirq fee. 'l1le next level of appeal if the aJSt:aDer remains in disagreelllent will be hearo:l by a hearing officer appointed by the City o:ucll. Ultimate recourse if the Ol6taner remaim in disagreement would be to 9Jperior CXJurt. It is anticipated that the hearing officer cxW.d be prepared with a \o'e8k notific:aticn pericxl. An appeal fee WOlld be charged to X'I!CCJVer the cost of the hearing officer. Applying precise exaction requirements and requests as di scnssed aballe relies m havinq specific data fran the c:\lStaller :relatin; to type arrl intensity of use for the prqa;ec1 new develcpnent project. 'Jhis .informatiCil is frequently not available at the preapplicatiat Oa\feren:lll Wich is the point at Wich -'-.. __ ,_...+-.-...ui.n!uent:s are ora:ently awliect.

PAGE 38

Jlaymcnd F. Bl ad! ne Aptill7, 1995 Page 4 'lbe level of detailed i.nf0l1111ltion Jlef'decl frail the o.JStaner to clriva the revised exaction process is D>Ore t:ypkaUy received at the preliminary stage of the project. 'Ibis ueans that the OISI:aDer woulcl not receive film exaction requ.irelrents at the prBaR>licaticn ocnferenoe stage as is currently done. But wculd get a potential rarge of exactioos to be finalized at the preliminaey point. 'nle develcpnent awroval ptooess for lilrl;le projects may beo:>"lle l<:nJer. Far any exaction al:x:lve the minimJm Wividualized analyses have to be perfatmed by the Water Services Deparbnent and i less than a fllll traffic lane is indicated by the trip generation tables the cash equivalent of a partial right of way dedication and :inprollenent wculd have to be calo.tlate:l. No new staff will be aQded in Develop!ellt Services to perform Wividua1ized analyses. Plan review staff will aSSime this workload. 'lhis may cause SCIDe clegradatioo to current plan review tumaroun:i times. Mere reliance will have to be placed m Water Services and St:r:eet Transportation staff for Wividuali.ze:i analyses. 'lhis will dilute the one stQp Shop aspect of Develqxletlt Services. state legislation in its form prchlbits cities fran recovering costs of performirg Wividualized analyses for exaction requi.t-enents. '1his means that the staff cast for this work will have to be distril::uted aver the entire fee pay in; base of the Develq:ment Services Depai tnent to ll!aintain loot cast recaYeiy, unless gE!llE!tal pn:p:lSe fln3s are appropriated.

PAGE 39

Raymond F. Bladjne April 171 1995 Page 5 '!be lleVel.cpment: Services DepaL t:lhmt is cxmnitted to adheri.r9 to the prin::iples of ptoportionality and connectivity through a process that is pll>Ucly docuneuted and 'known to custaDers. A timely and convenient arpea] ptOC'E'SS will be provided. '!be Department's intetpretation of pt:qxationality and connectivity as well as the prcposad inplementation ptooess has been dlsmssed with key custaner 9J:'OlllS and a general plblic session was advertised and offered an I!UQust 18. pt.:;' lilplell'elltation of this process will use existin:J plan review staff and assistance of departlllents outside of lleVel.cpment: Services to perf0I1D individualized analyses. 'lhis rra.y cause saue de;Jradation of plan review turnarcurd time in the Site Plann.ing and Project Eh;Jineeri.r9 Divisions. 'lhe overall fee sdledl1l.e my have to be increased to recover the oost:s of individualized analyses siJlce rusta11ers cannot be directly c:har9ed '!be annmt of right of way dedications and obtained fran permit holders will decline, unless rusta11ers are amenable to volrmtaey ded.i.cations and iltprovements. Develcpment: Services will ueasure this decline as part of periodic inplementation rep:>rts that will be sl11:mitted.. JEW:mls:950210AS

PAGE 40

Proportionate Development tl\:) vv"""'' Tier A Minimum requirements for Urban Standards that all developments are expected to meet -No individualized analysis performed. Tier B Health and safety requirements supported by individualized analysis. c Activity impact requirements supported by National Standards and individualized analysis. Jjer 0 Discretionary. requests or supported by inrHvidualized analysis.

PAGE 41

George Flores Development Services Director March 15, 1995 1on E. Wendt Assistant Development Services Director RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF PROPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW PROJECfS This memo sets forth the rationale lind methodology for the approach to development proportionality used by the Development Services Department This approach is intended to ensure that the tenets of the Dolan ys. City of Dgard decision are observed consistently and equitably in the approval of development plans and issuance of permits. Ratio.nale In the Dolan v. City of Tigard decision, the U.S. Supreme Court established that development exactions imposed by governmental entities must be proportionate to the level of new activity generated by the development. The Development Services Department must adhere to this decision. It is a goal of the Development Services Department to provide a timely, convenient, coherent and predictable development approval process. Achievement of this goal necessitates a certain level of standardization to efficiently process the volume of work submitted to the Department in an economical manner The provisions of the Dolap decision could be met by conducting an individualized assessment for each development project to determine its impacts and to formulate proportionate development requirements to address these impacts. Since upwards of 30,000 development permits are processed by the Department each year, the individualized impact assessment approach would militate against our goal of a timely and convenient development approval process. Methodology To efficiently deal with 30,000 permits annually while providing acceptable standards of service and adhering to the Polan decision necessitates a threshold level of standardization that addresses development exaction proportionality for the bulk of our permit-applications iD a timely manner. This threshold level of exaction which would apply to aU permit applications involves. the concept of minimum standards.

PAGE 42

Geo111e Flores Rationale & Methodology for Determination of Proportionate Dev. Reqrmts for New Projects March 15, 1995 Page3 new activity generated by the new development project For street improvements this level of development exaction would be llased on a matrix relating to degradation of service level on abutting streets and nearby illterseetions caused by the number of daily trips generated by the new development projects. Some projects may have a measurable service level impact on e:tisting major and collector streets, but not enough to meet the criteria for dedication and improvement of a full lane. In these cases we would compute the percentage of a traffic lane beillg added by the trips generated from the new development and c:Dllect funds ill escrow equal to the percentage of right of way and improvements reflected by these trips. U preferred, the developer could dedicate right of way equal to the value of funds ill escrow. AZJ illclividualized analysis will be conducted for each project that may require watermain looping, watermain/sewermain oversizing, or contribution to regional drainage or transportation facilities. Diseretiopazy Off-Site Improvements Staff may illform new project owners about off-site improvements missing from their site that are above the minimum requirements ancf cannot be imposed under the activity generation criteria. Construction of these items cannot be conditions of plan approval or permit issuance. They may be illcluded ill the project solely at the discretion of the owner. Some owners may decide to illclude discretionary items ill their projects because they improve the functionality or marketability of the site, the owner wants to make a contribution to the community that is over and above mandatory requirements, or the owner may want a tax deduction Some examples of discretionary items could illclude: dedication and improvement of multiple use trails dedication of for future improvements by the City street widening to improve site aocess or appearance right of way landseapillg to enhance site aesthetics and marketability dedication and improvement of bus bays to improve site aocessibllity to transit users detachillg sidewalks from curb to improve pedestrian safety and enhance site aesthetics

PAGE 43

il'#iM ,, f'1l!'ril fmlli_ Jl(j(ff l.onp. M4.:dlutn ISI'JJJli'J + sq.O. 4fJJif0 II') l(ll,fOJ lq.f l orr-siTE 0-n In . ... . hy Cur lltJSSitl(\! rcquirt"mcnl. Unlikely tu he rec1uin'tl :a.n tft '1Lrminilliruu I inti:< Cotm,_treittf/Rttail ,,,,.,., .. l.ar,e (lfi,OCIJ .. sqJf Snutll ... l.utpc 90HkdUn.J Units (lJU) M t.dfum I"JXI} fo ltJ.C.m 5qJI .WJII.l, t:tfll. DfNitol'fdtiiT n rrJotrACT MAHUFACTURIHV/INI)USTRIAI. t:OMMERCIA.IJRF.TAIL MWium zo 10 IIOUV RESIDENTIAL Sftllllll U on .'01 IIU R I CIIT Of' WAY IR0\\1 ) DEDICATIONS/ IMPROVEMENT S lARUE llitoMUM I MAo o I LARt:6 I otWIUM I Au. I LARc:r. 1 MFJ>JUM 1 UtALL A. MINIMUM REQUIR il.MllN"I'S OR i\1. n ow&. ooll..:tor/luc:d I reel "-here .., .. proposed (I<& I Slrt /\2. Dnlirme.c eascnu:nl necJet.l rur ons ite AJ Drainage dwinageway of required drainage}JJ i\4. Utility casements tu serve property 115. l'nving/curb &UIIcal wilh 117. lnslallatioft of lire hydrnnl if spacingltoctical slandared W111Cf system Wh
PAGE 44

PROPORTIONA1E DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT STUDY February 17,-1995 Level of Service Two Lane Roadway Four Lane Roadway Six Lane Roadway Assumptions : LANE CAPACITY AT INTERSECTION ADT/PEAK HOUR A B c D 8500/800 9500/900 10500/1000 11500/1100 17000/1600 19000/!800 21000/2000 23000/2200 25500/2400 2850012700 3150013000 3450013300 E 12500/1200 2500012400 37500/3600 650 vehicles per day per lane at LOS C D factor= 0 6 K factor= 0.08 Lane capacity adjusted for 60/40 directional ADT SOO vehicles per day per Peak Hour 50 vebicl1 Low Medium High not cause a degradation in level of service on adjacent il}!ifsel:tio1ns serving the site. The full extent of traffic; impacts of development is expected to occur immediately . A land use causing a degradation in the level of service on adjacent streets and intersections and may contribute to a reduction in level of service at close-by intersections that are not adjacent to the site. Some traffic impacts are expected immediately, but the fuU extent is not anticipated for one to three years after the development is initially opened. A land use causing a degradation in two or more levels of service on adjacent streets and intersections and contributes to a reduction in level of service at locations that are not adjacent to the site. Some traffic impacts .are expected upon the opening of each development phase. The fuU extent

PAGE 45

PORPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT STUDY February 17, 1995 ---. ---... Pagc2 of traffic impacts is not expected until all future phases are completed. PROPORTIONATE TRAFFIC IMP ACT THRESHOLDS Low Development Medium Development High Development Four Lane Roadway 0 2000 vpd 1------'---+-0 -200 peak hr trips Six Lane Roadway' vpd over400 hour over 6000 vpd

PAGE 46

PORPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT STUDY Febi)I8!Y 17, 1995 Pagel SELECTED LAND USES TRIP GENERATION RATES: (Trio ($neratio!L 5th Edition. 1991. ITE.) INDUSTRIAL: General Light Industrial (110) Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate -..... ---------------. -..... General Heavy Industrial (120) Average Weekday Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Industrial Park (130) RESIDENTIAL : Single Family Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Apartments (220) Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate 6. 97 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Aiea 0 92 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Aiea 0.98 1000 SF Gross Floor Aiea 000 SF Gross Floor Aiea S I per 1000 SF Gross Floor Aiea per 1000 SF Gross Floor Aiea 6.97 per lOOO.SF Gross Floor Area 0 88 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 0.91 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Aiea 9.55 per dwelling unit 0.74 per dwelling unit 1.01 per dwelling unit 6 47 per dwelling unit 0.56 per dwelling unit 0 69 per dwelling unit

PAGE 47

PORPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT STIJDY February 17, 1995 ----Page4 Residential Condominiumfl'ownhouse (230) Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate omcE: General Oflice Building100, 000 SF (710) -AverageWeekday Trip AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation .Ka' te Medical/Dental Office Building (720) Average Wcelcday AM Peak Hour Trip PM Peak Hour Trip C Office Park (7SO) Average Weekd AM Peak PM Peak Business Park ;Mraticn Rate Rate Rate Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate 5.86 per dwelling unit 0.44 per dwelling unit 0 55 per dwelling unit 1000 SF Gross Floor Alea SF Gross Floor Area SF Gross Floor Alea 7 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Alea 2.69 per 1000 SF Gross Floor A1ea 4 08 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Alea 11.42 per 1000 SF Gross Floor A1ea 1.&4 per 1000 SF Gross Floor A1ea U 1 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Alea 14.37 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Alea 1.62 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 1.48 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Alea

PAGE 48

PORPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT STIJDY __ Jebnuuy_l'Z...lm---PageS RET An.: Shopping CenterSO,OOO SF (820) Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Shopping Center100,000 SF (820) Average Weekday Trip Generation---. AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Shopping Center500,000 SF (820) Average Weekday Trip AM Peak Hour Trip Genen PM Peak Hour Trip Gene 91.65 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 2.16 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 8.44 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area per I 000 SF Gross Floor Area SF Gross Floor Area SF Gro5s Floor Area per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 0 .84 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 3.66 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area Fast Food Re!itawrantl W'mdow (834) Service Station Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate Convenience Market Open 24 Hours (85 I) Average Weekday Trip Generation Rate AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate PM Pqk Hour Trip Generation Rate 632.12 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area SS.S6 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 36 .S3 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 737.99 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 65.39 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 53.73 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 737.99 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 65.39 per 1000 SF Gross Floor Area 53.73 per I 000 SF Gross Floor Area

PAGE 49

TRANSPORTATION DEv'El.oPMENT THRESHOLDS IOO,OOOSF 200,000 SP OYer 200,000 SP 150,000 SF JOO,OOOSF OYer 300 ,000 Sf' 100,000 SF 200,000 SF Over 200,000 SF Sillalo Ft.mlly Dolacbed IOODU 200DU OvorlOODU A putmeDII 150 DU JOODU Over JOO DU Coodom!Aiiiiiii'I'DW11bouse 17SDU 3SODU Over 350 DU . . .. ,, .--... -, '' om .. Bulldillc 50,000 SF JOO,OOOSF Over 100,000 $1' Medlcai/Doalll Office 25,000 SF 50,000 SF Over 50,000 SF ... ildla Oll'i .. Patlc 50 ,000 SF 100,000 SF Over 100,000 SF lkllillooo htt 60,000 SF 120,000 SF Over 2AO,OOO SF .. IU!TAIL Sboppilla 12,000 SF 24,000 SF Over 24,000 SF 100,000 SF Sboppi.Da C...ser NA NA Over 500 ,000 SF >500,000 SF Foot Food wilb 1,500 SF 3,000 SF Over 3,000 SF Dri-Tbtou,i.WIIIdow Scrvi .. Slalioa wilb J,SOOSF 3,000 Sf' Over 3,000 SF eca...,;-. Mutet CollVCIIIOD .. 1,500 SF 3,000 SF Over 3,000 SF ... ti014 .D.\Iol llllltl

PAGE 50

INTRODUCTION TRANSIT REQUIREMENTS BASED ON TRIP GENERATION DATA The Trans it Department has been requested to develop a proportionanty approach to requests for transit improvemenls at developments. In particular bus stop pads benches and shelters The intent is that a method be developed which is consistent with the Dolan y Cily of decis i on by the U .S. Supreme Court. This decision states that development exactions impoaed by governmental entities must be proportionate to the level of new activity generated by the development METHOD The following table shows the requiremenls for each type and size of develop menllo provide either a bench/bus stop pad or a shelter/bus stop pad. The development categories and vehicle trip generation rates are those compiled by the Street Transportation Department from the Jrjp Generation Manual, 5th Edition, 19 91, ITE The transit generation rates by selected land use was compiled by the Transportation Research Board (TR8) based upon a number of reports and studies from around the cOuntry In 1978 The data provided by this table &haws the dai ly bus percentage of total trips to and from selected land use generators. The generators exam i ned to build this databaw were located outside the oentral business districts of major cities and do not reflect dense uri>an cores. The report prepared by TRB states that the trjp rates provided are representative of a wide range of values for each generator and suggests that the collection of local dat a to augment this study might be useful. Therefore, Transit is retrieving data from the Maricopa County Travel Reduction Program offloe, which holds the results of mode split surveys for each business site which employs 50 personnel or more Within Maricopa County For instance 9% of the City of Phoenix employees utilize the bus and 6% of Maricopa County employees Utilize the bus, according to most recent surveys. A statistically valid sample of these survey results, In addition to results from the Tra nsit Department's Fall1995 On-Board OriginiOestlnation Survey, w ill provide region specific data to test the TRB results. Fina lly, the predicted total trips generated by a site Is multiplied by the percentage of bus trips to lind the predicted number of bus trips. The percentage of a bench/bus stop pad or shelter/bus stop pad improvements is determined based upon the transit warra nt system The warrant system states that the use of a bus stop by 50 or more people per day warrants a bench and the use of a bus stop by 100 people or more per day warrants a transit shelter. Cop ies of the PropOJ1lonate Deve!Pilment Bequii)IJ!ellt Study prepared by Street Transportation the relevant table from the TRB Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation TechniQues and Transferable Parametm. and the copy of the Bus Stop Warrants Tab(e from the Yalley Metro Bus Stop Handbook are attached

PAGE 51

TRANSIT PROPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Mardl15, 1995 DaUyTrip TRB Bus % of Bench/Bus Generation Guide : Trij)s Stop Pad Costs Day (50 bus trips/_day=1 Bus% bus atop pad) of Trips" GenU lfldustrial-100 000 SF 697 5 35 70% (6.97 per 1000 SF) Gen Lt lndustrial-200,000 SF 1394 5 70 NA Gen Lt lndustrial-300,000 SF 2091 5 105 NA Gen Hvy lfldustrial-150 ,000 SF 225 (1 .. 5 per 5 11 22% 1000SF) Gen Hvy lnduatrial-300,000 SF 450 5 23 46% Gen Hvy lfldustrial-450 ,000 SF 675 5 34 68% Industrial Park-100,000 SF 697 5 35 70% (6.97 per 1000SF) lfldustrial Park-200,000 SF 1394 5 70 NA Single Family Oe!aehecl-100 DU 96 3.2 3 6% (9.55 per DU) Single Family Oelaehed-200 DU 192 3.2 6 12% Single Famy De!ached-300 OU 288 3.2 9 18% Apartments-150 DU 971 (6.47 per 12.4 120 NA DU) Apartments-300 ou 1941 12.4 241 NA ; Apattments-450 OU . 2912 12.4 381 NA Res CondofTnhse-175 DU 1026 5.6 57 100% (5.86 per OU) Res CondofTnhse-350 DU 2051 5.6 115 NA Rea CondofTnllse-525 OU 3on 5.6 172 NA Gen Oftlce Bklng-50,000 SF 702 5 35 70% (14.03 per 1000SF) Gen Office Bklng 100,000 SF 1403 5 70 NA % of Bus Shelter/Bus Stop Pad Costs (100.200 lripe/day=1 bus shelter) NA 70".4 100% NA NA NA NA 70% NA NA NA 100% 100% 150% NA 100% 100% NA 70%

PAGE 52

Gen Office Bldng-150,000 SF 2105 5 105 NA 100% Med/Dental Olllee-25,000 SF 854 5 43 86% NA (34.17 per 1000 SF) Med1Den181 01fic&.50,000 SF 1709 5 85 NA 85% Med/Dental Ollice-75 000 SF 2563 5 128 NA 100% Office Park-50,000 SF 571 5 29 58% NA (11. 42 per 1000SF) Office PBrlt-100,000 SF 1142 5 57 100% NA Ollice Parlt-150,000 SF 1713 5 86 NA 86% Business Parlt-60,000 SF 862 5 43 86% NA (14 .37 pel' 1000 SF) PBrlt-120,000 SF 1n4 5 86 NA 86% Business Parlt-240,000 SF. 34-19 5 1n NA 100% Shop Clr at 12,000 SF 1100 3 55 100% NA {91.65 per 1000SF) Shop Ctr at 24,000 SF 2200 3 110 NA 100% Shop Ctr at 50,000 SF 4583 3 229 NA 100% Shop Ctr over 100, 000 SF 7067 3 212 NA 100% (70.67 per 1000SF) Shop Ctr over 500,000 SF 19325 3 580 NA 290% {38.65 per 1000 SF) Fast Food Rest1 ,500 SF 948 9 18% NA (632.12 per 1000SF) Fast Food Rest-3,000 SF 1896 1 19 38% NA Fast Food Rest-4 500 SF 2845 1 28 56% NA Convenience Market-1,500 SF 1107 1 11 22% NA (737.99 per . 1000SF) . Convenience Market-3,000 SF 2214 1 22 44% NA Convenience Market-4,500 SF 3321 1 33 68% NA Denotes csata gathered from the Ouick=BesooD!I U!ban Travel Estimation Teehniaues and Transferable Earameters. Transportation Resean:h Boanl, 1978.

PAGE 53

' American Association of State Highway and Ttansportation Officials, Report of the AASHTO Task FOI'Ce on Corridor Preservation, Washington, D.C., July 1990, 1-2. Report of the Senate Select Commltlee on Advancqd IDght-of-Way Acquisition and Transportation Corridor Development, March 1988. FOOT Office of Policy Planning, Supplementary Information: 2020 Transportation Revenue Forecast, State and Federal Sources, May26, 1994 Florid a Senate, Committee on Transportation: CS for SB 510, number 306-1870-95. 1995. Corridor Management Directive, Florida Deportment of Transportation, October 26, 1995: p 28. Transportation Research Board, National Research CounciL National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice 197, Corridor Preservation, Washington, D.C., 1994: p. 9. 1. Chapter 163.3177 (6) (b), Florida Statutes. Mandelker, D., "Interim Development Controls in Highway Programs: The Taking Issue," Journal of Land Use & Enviromnental Law, Vol. 4, No.2, 188-189 (1989) Florida Department ofl"ransportation, Transportation Corridor Protection p. 52. Henigar & Ray. et. al., Corridor Pf'()tection Techniques: Implementation of Recommendalions;' June 23, 1994: p. 19. II. Henigar & Ray, et. al, Corridor Protection Techniques: Implementation a/Recommendations, June23, 1994: p. 52. 12 Mandelker, D., "loterim Development Controls in Highwey Programs: The Taking Issue," Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, Vol. 4, No.2, p. 211 (1989). FDOT Studies Corridor Land Use Regulation, Communicy Planning; Fall 1994, pages 3-7 .. Browatd Councy Planning Council, Broward County Planning Council Annual Report, 1992, 6-15. Rivkin Associates, CoJTidor Preservation, Case Studies and Analysis ofFaetots in Decision-Making, December 1993,22-28 - Rivkin Associates, CoJTidor Preservatio11, Case Studies and Analysis of Factors in Decision-Making, December 1993,33-35. Maricopa County, Arizona, Maricopa County Development Code, 23-4-23-5 ... City of Phoenix, Arizona. City Council Report Regarding Proportionality. April 1995. RlvldnAssociates, Corridor Preserwulon, Case Studies and Analysis ofF(l{)tors in Decision-Making, December 1993, 49-55. Henigar & Ray, et. al, Corridor Protection Techniques, June 23, 1994. 21. Henigar & Ray, et. al, Corridor Protection Techniques, June 23, 1994. 22 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Report of the AASHTO Task Force on Corridor Preservation, Washington, D.C., July 1990, p. 8. 35

PAGE 54

23 "S1affRcport on Business Damages in Eminent Domain Proceedings," Spring Hili!Hemando County Metropolitan Planning Organization, January 1996. 24 "Performance and Production Review of the Department of Transportation: Year End FY 1994/1995," Florida Transportation Commission, October 1995, p. I 5. Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque, Corridor Protection Techniques: Implement(]). iOn of Recommendmions, June 23 1994: pp. 40-41. ,. Mandelker, Daniel R., "Interim Development Controls in Highway Programs: The Taking Issue," Journal of Land Use and E11Vironmenta/ Law. VoL 4, No.2 \V"mter 1989, pp. 16 7-213. "' Henigar & Ray, et. al., Model Ordinance: Protection of Corridors and Rights-of-Way, prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, J1me, 1994 2l Nicholas, James, et a!. A Guide to Development Jmpoct Fees, Chicago, AP A Planner's Press, 1991. Henigar &. Ray, et. at, Corridor Protection Techniques: Implementation of Recommendations, June 23, 1994: p. 52. 36


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 2200385Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029120291
005 20110916111904.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110916s1996 flua ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00245
035
(OCoLC)752938445
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE336.U74 (ONLINE)
1 100
Williams, Kristine.
0 245
Right-of-way preservation policies, activities and strategies
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by Kristine M. Williams, Margaret Marshall, Irene Nikitopoulos.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1996]
300
1 online resource (36 leaves) :
ill.
500
"March 1996."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 35-36).
588
Description based on print version record.
650
Roads
x Right of way
z Florida.
Roads
Environmental aspects
Florida.
Roadside improvement
Florida.
Highway planning
Florida.
700
Marshall, Margaret.
Nikitopoulos, Irene.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
i Print version:
Williams, Kristine.
t Right-of-way preservation policies, activities and strategies.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, [1996]
w (OCoLC)34556174
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.245
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001963448;
FTS