Model Access Management Policies and Regulations for Florida Cities and Counties, 2nd Edition

Transcription

1 Model Access Management Policies and Regulations for Florida Cities and Counties, 2nd Edition Final Report September 2017 PROJECT NO. FDOT BDV25 Task Work Order # PREPARED FOR Florida Department of Transportation

2 Model Access Management Policies and Regulations for Florida Cities and Counties, 2nd Edition Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Gary Sokolow, Project Manager Prepared by: USF Center for Urban Transportation Research Kristine M. Williams, AICP Joshua Barber, Graduate Research Assistant September 2017

3 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. The Florida Department of Transportation assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. ii

4 Technical Report Documentation 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle Model Access Management Policies and Regulations for Florida Cities and Counties, 2nd Ed 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) Kristine M. Williams, AICP 9. Performing Organization Name and Address Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL Contract or Grant No. FDOT BDV25 TWO # Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL Sponsoring Agency Code 5. Report Date 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report updates the report Model Land Development & Subdivision Regulations that Support Access Management for Florida Cities and Counties (Model Regulations), which was completed for the Florida Department of Transportation in January 1994 to address safety and operational problems associated with unmanaged land division activity and development access along the state highway system. The Model Regulations have been an invaluable resource to local governments in Florida, as well as and nationally, and have advanced state and local coordination in access management. This research project updates the Model Regulations to incorporate contemporary national best practices and multimodal objectives. Additional information is also provided on the regulatory techniques, as well as guidance on implementation as obtained from supporting research and actual practice. 17. Key Words Access management, land development, subdivision regulations, multimodal, comprehensive planning 19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification (of this report) (of this page) Unclassified Unclassified 18. Distribution Statement 21. No. of Pages 22. Price iii

5 Executive Summary Access management addresses a broad array of quality of life issues fundamental to promoting livable, prospering communities. Land division and access controls: foster effective network planning and well-designed circulation systems that improve the safety, operation and character of transportation corridors; discourage subdivision practices that destroy the rural character of the landscape or essential natural resources; advance economic development goals by promoting more efficient use of land and transportation systems; and help control public service costs and the substantial public investment in infrastructure and services. Effective local access management requires planning as well as regulatory solutions. Local governments should establish a policy framework that supports access management in their local comprehensive plan, adopt access management plans for high priority routes or specific problem areas such as interchanges, and encourage good site planning techniques. Local governments are also strongly encouraged to prepare thoroughfare plans to guide development of the overall transportation network. Land development and subdivision regulations should be amended accordingly and local governments may consider a separate access management ordinance. Local access management programs should address commercial development along thoroughfares, as well as flag lots, residential strips, and other issues related to the division and subdivision of land. Comprehensive and subarea plans provide the rationale for access management programs and can serve as the legal basis for public policy decisions. Part 1 on this report discusses the various access management strategies suggested for local government application. Part 2 of the report provides model ordinance language for adoption into the local land development code. Local governments should obtain professional planning and legal assistance when adapting this model language to fit local needs. Because access management can be controversial, planning officials are also advised to develop strategies for addressing potential concerns before advancing recommendations. Be aware of the practical concerns of those most affected by proposed amendments and craft effective variance procedures and other strategies to provide flexibility where appropriate and ameliorate hardship. Public meetings, advisory committees, opinion surveys, and other techniques can be used to inform stakeholders and generate support. The TRB Access Management Manual, second ed. (2014) includes guidance on this topic in Chapter 5: Public Involvement in Access Management. iv

6 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... iv LIST OF FIGURES... vii LIST OF TABLES... viii PART 1: OVERVIEW OF THE MODEL REGULATIONS... 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN... 1 Thoroughfare Plans and Complete Streets... 3 Right-of-Way Needs Maps and Ordinances... 8 LAND DIVISION AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Issues in Subdivision Regulation Flag Lots Lot Split Requirements Private Road Ordinances Single Access Subdivisions (Length of Cul-de-sac) Continuation and Connectivity of Subdivision Streets ACCESS CONTROLS Driveway (Connection) Spacing Requirements Corner Clearance Access Design Joint Use (Shared) Driveways Joint and Cross Access Retrofitting Nonconforming Access Outparcel Requirements Service Roads ZONING Form Based Codes Transit Oriented Development Lot Frontage and Dimensional Requirements Corridor Overlay Zones IMPROVING COORDINATION ADMINISTERING REQUESTS FOR DEVIATION FROM STANDARDS PART 2: MODEL ACCESS MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 1 INTENT AND PURPOSE SECTION 2 APPLICABILITY SECTION 3 CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS, REGULATIONS, AND STATUTES SECTION 4 DEFINITIONS SECTION 5 ACCESS CATEGORY SYSTEM SECTION 6 DEVIATIONS AND WAIVERS SECTION 7 CORNER CLEARANCE AND SIDE STREET ACCESS SECTION 8 DRIVEWAY LOCATION AND DESIGN SECTION 9 NONCONFORMING ACCESS SECTION 10 JOINT AND CROSS ACCESS SECTION 11 OUTPARCELS AND PHASED DEVELOPMENT PLANS SECTION 12 STREET NETWORK AND CONNECTIVITY SECTION 13 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS SECTION 14 LOCATION AND PLACEMENT OF TRANSIT ACCESS SECTION 15 INTERCHANGE AREA ACCESS MANAGEMENT v

7 SECTION 16 MEDIANS SECTION 17 CORRIDOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLANS AND OVERLAYS SECTION 18 REVERSE FRONTAGE SECTION 19 FLAG LOT STANDARDS SECTION 20 LOT WIDTH-TO-DEPTH RATIOS SECTION 21 SMALL SUBDIVISIONS AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL ACCESS SECTION 22 REVIEW OF MINOR SUBDIVISIONS AND LOT SPLITS SECTION 23 PRIVATE ROADS SECTION 24 EMERGENCY ACCESS SECTION 25 SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES SECTION 26 VARIANCE STANDARDS REFERENCES APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE ACCESS MANAGEMENT POLICIES APPENDIX B: SITE PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR ACCESS APPENDIX C: CITRUS COUNTY US 19 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN ORDINANCE.. 83 APPENDIX D: EXAMPLE CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT S vi

8 List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual roadway functional hierarchy... 4 Figure 2: FDOT context classification system for complete streets Figure 3: Lot split activity that leads to access and circulation problems Figure 4: Flag lots connecting to a state highway Figure 5: Flag lots and alternative access Figure 6: Controlling lot splits Figure 7: Low connectivity of residential streets along a Florida highway Figure 8: Corner clearance of shopping center access Figure 9: Inadequate entry throat length Figure 10: Grocery store site with no pedestrian access into the site Figure 11: Pedestrian access from roadway to grocery store Figure 12: Joint and cross access Figure 13: Provide unified internal access to outparcels Figure 14: Frontage road serving single-family homes on arterial roadway Figure 15: Service roads on US 98 in Okaloosa County Figure 16: Proposed Ridge Manor service road realignment in Hernando County Figure 17: Access roads on Pine Island Road in Cape Coral Figure 18: Village and access road concept for Pine Island Road Figure 19: Transit oriented development concept Figure 20: Reverse frontage on arterial roadway Figure 21: Corner clearance and connection spacing Figure 22: Functional area of intersection Figure 23: Types of lots Figure 24: Examples of cross access corridor design Figure 25. Street network connectivity and access Figure 26: Schematic illustration of easement providing access to transit stop Figure 27: Building placement for ease of pedestrian access Figure 28: Interchange area with street network for circulation and access Figure 29: Corridor access management overlay Figure 30: Subdivision access on major roadways Figure 31: Shared residential access on rural thoroughfares vii

9 List of Tables Table 1: Regulatory Techniques that Support Access Management... 3 Table 2: Access Management Strategies for Different Land Use Contexts... 6 Table 3: Coordination Protocol for Local Governments Table 4: Example Access Classification of Roadways Table 5: Example Access Category System Table 6: Example Access Spacing by Posted Speed Table 7: Minimum Offset Distance between Connections on Opposite Sides of Undivided Roadways Table 8: Design Guidelines for Signalized or Divided Driveways Table 9: Design Guidelines for Undivided Driveways Table 10: Recommended Intersection Bus Stop Location Criteria Table 11: Recommended Far-side Bus Stop Placement viii

10 Introduction Part 1: Overview of the Model Regulations Local governments are increasingly concerned about urban sprawl and the effects of sprawl development on transportation and public service costs, livability, and overall quality of life. Yet conventional planning and regulatory practice has played a role in perpetuating these problems. Nowhere is this more apparent than the cycle of functional obsolescence created by strip development of major arterials. The practice of strip zoning major roadway corridors for commercial use is widespread. The primary reasons are accessibility and the expedience of rezoning highway frontage for commercial use as additional land is needed. Extension of utilities along highway rights-of-way promotes this linear land use pattern, and commercial businesses favor corridor frontage locations due to high visibility to potential customers. As development continues, the growing number of driveways cause turning movements that disrupt the intended function of arterials to move people and goods safely, quickly, and efficiently. Unlike urban downtowns or activity centers, suburban-style commercial strips are rarely designed for pedestrians, bicyclists or transit. Commercial businesses, residential areas, and office parks are frequently sealed off from each other with walls, ditches, loading docks and a host of other barriers including the heavily traveled arterials that serve them. Disconnected street networks and poorly coordinated access and circulation systems force more trips onto the arterial, traffic conflicts multiply, and congestion increases. Businesses also suffer as accessibility deteriorates. Heavy traffic, difficult left turns, and poor sight distance at corners deter customers. Businesses may relocate to areas where accessibility is less impaired, vacancies increase, and property values decline. Eventually the corridor is transformed into an unattractive and confusing jumble of signs, curb cuts, utility lines, and asphalt. These are not inevitable results of development and growth. Rather, they relate to the lack of proper land division and access controls and inadequate thoroughfare and network planning. This report examines the role of the comprehensive plan in developing an access management program, aspects of conventional regulatory practice that contribute to access problems, and planning and regulatory techniques that support access management principles. The Comprehensive Plan The local comprehensive plan is the policy and physical guide for future development, transportation and capital improvement decisions of a local government. It summarizes transportation and development trends, identifies key planning issues, defines the local government s vision for the future, and establishes goals, objectives, policies, and strategies to achieve that future vision. Purposes of the plan are to: promote orderly and efficient development; protect property values; preserve community character, natural resources, and the environment; promote economic development; and increase public and private sector awareness of the locally desired future. 1

11 Chapter 163, F.S. requires local governments in Florida to coordinate the proposed transportation map or map series with the future land use map or map series in their comprehensive plan. This may be accomplished through a thoroughfare planning process that integrates land use context. Local comprehensive plans should define and functionally classify the roadway system, identify the desired level of access for each major roadway, and designate any corridors that require special treatment. Specific techniques for addressing access management in the local comprehensive plan include the following: Include a section that describes the general principles and benefits of access management in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan; Include specific goals, objectives, and policies related to access management that will be carried out through the local planning and regulatory program (see Appendix A); Establish a thoroughfare plan that identifies a system of planned roadways, classifies them according to function and land use context, and provides guidelines for each roadway type (e.g., general right of way needs, cross section alternatives, design guidance, access control). Include maps or lists that identify future right of way needs for planned roadways and that assign access classifications to major roadways, Establish activity centers and nodes in the future land use element and require internal street networks, access roads or unified site access and circulation plans in these areas (see Figure 17 for example). Discourage strip development of arterial frontage and address the need for a supporting street and pedestrian/bicycle network, including new collector roadways, in all developing commercial and residential areas. The comprehensive plan is also an opportunity to identify any areas that are or will be the subject of an access management plan. Access management plans may be developed for designated high priority corridors or the area around and roads leading up to growing interchanges. Special policies and regulations could also be applied to new bypasses or major thoroughfares intended to serve as highly controlled access highways. For example, the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan includes the following policy regarding its primary beltway, Capital Circle: Policy : [T] (Revised Effective 7/1/04) As Capital Circle is converted to a high capacity, multi-lane arterial, future accesspoints shall be limited so that the improved roadway will function more efficiently and safely for its intended purpose. In order to protect traffic capacity of the improved roadway and to assure public safety, the following policies will apply: a. No new parcel shall be platted nor created through subdivision that results in a parcel with sole access to Capital Circle. Consolidation of two or more parcels that currently have access to Capital Circle into a parcel with a single access to Capital Circle shall be permitted; b. New development abutting Capital Circle shall contribute to the development of a supporting system of local or collector roads, service roads, and/or shared access systems (e.g. joint use driveways), as an alternative to individual driveway access. c. Where individual driveways must be provided to preserve reasonable access to a development site, applicants shall enter an agreement to cooperate in any future project to consolidate access points or to share access with abutting properties as opportunities arise. 2

12 The City of Orlando includes this policy for major thoroughfares in the transportation element of its comprehensive plan: Policy The City shall preserve the movement function of the major thoroughfare system by requiring development of parallel roads or cross access easements to connect developments as they are permitted along major roadways. The importance of incorporating access management and right-of-way preservation strategies into the comprehensive plan cannot be overstated. In determining the validity of local regulatory actions, courts typically review whether the action is consistent with a local comprehensive plan (K. Williams and J. R. Forester ). Regulatory programs are more likely to be found reasonable where they are based upon a comprehensive plan that has been officially adopted in accordance with due process requirements. By establishing the relationship between regulatory strategies and local government objectives, including protection of public health, safety, and welfare, these plans provide the legal basis for access control. Table 1: Regulatory Techniques that Support Access Management Regulate driveway spacing, sight distance, and corner clearance. Limit the number of driveways per existing parcel on developing corridors. Address driveway throat length and pedestrian features in driveway design. Restrict driveways in the functional area of intersections and on right-turn lanes. Provide adequate minimum lot frontage along major roadways. Encourage joint access and interparcel cross access. Regulate lot splits to prevent future access problems. Regulate flag lots and lot width-to-depth. Avoid commercial strip zoning and promote mixed-use activity centers on internal street networks. Regulate private roads and require maintenance agreements. Establish reverse frontage requirements for subdivisions and residential lots abutting major thoroughfares. Adopt a thoroughfare plan and ordinance to manage future right-of-way. Require unified access and circulation plans for commercial developments. Thoroughfare Plans and Complete Streets Thoroughfare plans establish the framework for system-wide access management. A thoroughfare plan categorizes the major roadway network by function (e.g., arterial, collector), establishes appropriate access management and design criteria, and identifies future right-of-way needs for new, extended or widened streets or other public ways. A variety of design types, cross sections, and operational features can be provided for each conceptual roadway classification. 3

13 The planned function of a roadway in relation to through movement versus land access guides determinations as to the appropriate level of access control. Arterial highways and other primary roads require a higher level of access control to move vehicular traffic safely over long distances at the desired operating speed. Conversely, local streets and other minor roads provide frequent, direct property access. For local roadways, the movement function is curtailed to increase safety for low speed local circulation by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorized vehicles. Collector streets collect and distribute traffic on the local and regional network and should have moderate levels of access control, with major collectors requiring higher access management standards than minor collectors. Figure 1: Conceptual roadway functional hierarchy Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second Ed., Contemporary thoroughfare plans are increasingly context-sensitive in recognition that roadway design also varies by land use context and modal priority. Context zones are used to classify land use contexts from rural to urban core or district. These classification systems (also known as transects) provide transportation agencies with more refined understanding of design context than conventional rural and urban designations. Figure 2 shows the context classification system for complete streets applied by FDOT in determining appropriate design criteria for a given land use context. In addition, local governments and transportation agencies are developing new thoroughfare types and designations that expand upon traditional functional classifications (arterial, collector, local). Examples include boulevard, avenue, main street and alley, or special designations such as placemaking corridor or transit priority route. The thoroughfare types are defined by design characteristics including roadside elements (e.g., sidewalks and furniture zones), elements of the traveled way (e.g., bike lanes, traffic lanes, medians, on-street parking), and intersection spacing. Roadway design criteria and typical cross sections coded to context zone shape the desired outcome. Form based codes, discussed later in the report, may be applied to achieve the desired urban design outcome for a given context zone. 4

14 Figure 2: FDOT context classification system for complete streets. Source: FDOT Complete Streets Webinar Series, Also integral to context sensitive thoroughfare planning is complete streets a concept aimed at ensuring that the needs of all transportation system users are addressed in roadway planning, design and operation. Access management advances complete streets by maintaining safe and efficient roadway corridors for all intended users. The focus of access management is to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts and crashes within the traffic stream regardless of mode and to promote effective circulation planning for bicycles, pedestrians, transit and trucks in the development review process. Although access management policies and regulations tend to focus on the arterial system and managing vehicular interactions, they provide direct safety and operational benefits to non-auto users. Both context and roadway function guide the selection and application of access management strategies and design criteria. Designs are further refined according to anticipated roadway users and/or priority modes. Like conventional access classification systems, these context sensitive classifications can be used to apply access management standards and related design criteria to the major roadway system. To date, contemporary contextual systems have focused primarily on median type, street intersection spacing, parking location and access, and minimizing driveways. Table 2, developed for the second edition of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Access Management Manual, identifies access management strategies for different land use contexts along a major roadway corridor. Explanations of the strategies are provided in this section, with example regulations in Part 2. 5

15 Table 2: Access Management Strategies for Different Land Use Contexts 6

16 Table 2: cont. 7

17 Table 2: cont. Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second Ed., 2014, Exhibit Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board. Right-of-Way Needs Maps and Ordinances The purpose of a right-of-way needs map and ordinance is to prevent development from encroaching upon the future right-of-way of a planned roadway. These maps (also known as maps of reservation) and associated policies are typically contained in the transportation element of the local comprehensive plan. The thoroughfare right of way needs identification map and/or list categorizes the major roadway network by function and designates future rights-of-way for new, extended or widened streets or other public ways. Ideally, thoroughfare plans also integrate right-of-way provisions with example cross sections and access management and design criteria. Below are two examples of right-of-way policies to consider adapting for inclusion in the comprehensive plan: 8

18 Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.4-d: The County shall require conveyance of roadway, intersection and interchange rights-of-way consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Right-of-Way Identification Map when there is a rational nexus between the required dedication of land, the needs of the community, and the impacts of the transportation network due to the development. Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, Policy 1.3.3A: [T]: All proposed development plans on designated future transportation corridors shall be reviewed for consistency with the Future Right-of-Way Needs Map, the Long Range Transportation Plan, and any specific alignment or engineering studies and shall be consistent with identified right-of-way needs for designated future transportation corridors as a condition of development approval. To carry out the transportation plan, local governments will need to adopt certain measures in their Code of Ordinances to manage corridor development. Depending upon state law, ordinances for right-of-way preservation could include the following (Williams and Frey, 2004): Restrictions on building in the right-of-way of a mapped transportation facility; Requirement to measure setbacks from the planned future right-of-way line, particularly where the right of way line has been clearly established; Criteria for right-of-way exactions and a process for determining the amount of rightof-way dedication that is roughly proportionate to the impact of the proposed development; An option for clustering developments by reducing setbacks or other site design requirements to avoid encroachment into the right-of-way; Allowances for some interim use of transportation right-of-way for uses having low structural impact through an agreement that requires the property owner to relocate or discontinue the use at their expense when the land is ultimately needed for the transportation facility; Allowances for on-site density transfer from the preserved right-of-way to the remainder of the parcel; Allowances for impact fee credits for transportation right-of-way dedication; and Standards for issuing variances or relief to severely restricted property; and Procedures for intergovernmental coordination between the local agency and state transportation agency for state maintained roadways. Disadvantages of maps of reservation include speculation on the corridor and the potential for a regulatory taking where a building permit is denied. To minimize regulatory takings exposure, the following strategies are recommended (Mandelker and Kolis, 1989): 1) Include provisions that compensate landowners for existing improvements within a mapped street; 2) Provide for short time periods for reservation of the right-of-way based on a public commitment to acquire the right-of-way (generally the shorter the better); 3) Provide remedial measures, including variances and an option for public acquisition of the property when a building permit is requested (similar to those noted above). Providing for variances and other remedial measures is crucial to avoiding a takings claim by providing due process to the property owner and avoiding unreasonable hardship posed 9

19 by the regulatory framework. Federal ripeness rules have established that property owners should first exhaust available administrative remedies, including appeals to the local board of adjustment, before the case may be heard in a court of law. If such appeal procedures exist and the property owner sues before first pursuing a variance or other remedial action, the case may be invalidated on this basis. Local governments should recognize the important contribution of developers that dedicate right-of-way in conformance with the local thoroughfare plan through impact fee credits, on-site density transfers or other incentives. For example regulations, see the Model Ordinance: Protection of Corridors and Rights-of-way (2001). Land Division and Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations guide the division and subdivision of land into lots, blocks, and streets. They complement zoning regulations, which establish development standards related to land use, parking and loading, building setbacks and lot dimensions. The subdivision ordinance establishes: the administrative review and evaluation procedure for processing conceptual, preliminary, and final plats; information that must be included on the plat; design principles and standards for lots, blocks, streets, public places, pedestrian ways, and utilities; required improvements, including streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, and curbs and gutters; and financing and maintenance responsibilities. Subdivision regulations provide local governments an opportunity to ensure proper street layout in relation to existing or planned roadways, provision of utilities and services, and appropriate site design. The subdivision review process should address a variety of issues, such as (Listokin and Walker, 1989): Is the road system designed to meet the projected traffic demand and does the road network consist of hierarchy of roads designed according to function? Is access properly placed in relation to sight distance, driveway spacing, and other related considerations? Do units front on residential access streets rather than major roadways? Does the project avoid areas unsuitable for development? Does the pedestrian path system link buildings to nearby sidewalks, parking areas, and entrances to the development? Have utilities been properly placed? See Section 25 of the model regulations for subdivision and site plan review regulations and Appendix B for a detailed checklist. Issues in Subdivision Regulation State subdivision statutes grant local governments authority to regulate subdivision of land and establish minimum requirements for subdividing and platting. These statutes often exempt division of land into larger parcels or creation of a small number of lots from review and conformance with subdivision standards. Florida's Plat Act, Chapter 177, F.S. defines subdivision as the division or platting of real property into three or more lots or parcels and includes resubdivision or establishment of streets or alleys (Sec (18)). Under these requirements, division of land into two lots or parcels is exempt from review. Additional exemptions are sometimes provided in local government subdivision ordinances. The intended purpose of subdivision exemptions is to allow property owners to engage in minor subdivision activity, such as dividing and transferring a lot to a family member, 10

20 without incurring the expense of platting. Yet the practice of allowing unregulated division of land can also produce results that are contrary to access management and other important public goals. Lots may be created that are unbuildable because they fail to meet lot dimension or setback requirements, are in a wetland or floodplain, or have inadequate access to public roads. Buyers may be unaware that the lot is inconsistent with state or local regulations until they are denied a building or driveway permit. The local government is then often compelled to issue a variance to avoid a regulatory taking. Lot split exemptions also provide an avenue for property owners to circumvent platting requirements by incrementally subdividing land to avoid the expense of platting and providing a road. The resulting ownerships may rely heavily on private access easements or flag lots with long access poles, or more commonly, they may be divided in strips along existing roads and highways, increasing demand for direct driveway access. In some cases, long narrow lots result in numerous residential lots on a single long cul-de-sac, with inadequate emergency access and lack of connectivity with the surrounding area. Figure 3 illustrates types of lots that lead to access and circulation problems. The lots were created in a single location along a major road, with lake frontage to the south. Figure 3: Lot split activity that leads to access and circulation problems. Source: Land Division and Access Controls, Flag lots are especially prevalent along lakes, rivers, cul-de-sacs, and rural highways. Landowners may stack flag lots when dividing a parcel to provide interior lots with direct access to a state or county road, thereby avoiding the expense of providing a public or private road. The narrow frontages afford inadequate spacing between driveways and increase safety hazards from vehicles turning on and off the high-speed roadway. Figure 4 shows flag lots created decades ago in Florida by the division of rural highway frontage into 3-acre lots to avoid local government subdivision review. The resulting flag lot plat creates long-term access problems on the state highway and the intersecting county roadway. 11

21 Figure 4: Flag lots connecting to a state highway. Source: FDOT District 2 Residences scattered along state and county roads are another common problem that sometimes can occupy hundreds of miles of highway frontage. This pattern of development can eventually land lock interior land, school buses must make longer trips, emergency services must cover a wider area, and the cost of extending utilities becomes prohibitive. As the number of driveways increase, the highway is gradually transformed into a high-speed version of a local road. The safety implications are obvious, as vehicles travelling 55 mph are mixed with residents entering and exiting their driveway. These undesirable development patterns are virtually prescribed by the combination of conventional zoning and unregulated land division. Flag lot regulations, lot split controls, and a streamlined review process for minor subdivisions and lot splits, such as that provided in Section 22, provides local governments an opportunity to ensure that new lots are buildable under the regulatory framework and that access is appropriate, without placing an unnecessary review burden on the property owner. Examples are discussed in the next sections. Flag Lots Local regulations should discourage creation of flag lots, except in unique circumstances. Exceptions could be provided where a site has unique physical constraints (e.g., wetlands, other natural features) that prevent access via a local street or to provide internal platted lots with access to a residential street, as shown in Figure 5. Moskowitz and Lindbloom (1993) suggest the following flag lot standards: a minimum lot area (often at least twice the area allowed in that zone, not including the access right-of-way); minimum front, side, and rear yard requirements for primary lot; a minimum of 20 feet and maximum of 50 feet for the access right-of-way; not more than one flag lot per private right-of-way; and a minimum separation distance of at least the minimum frontage requirement of that zoning district. (Note: Some communities also restrict the length of the access pole.) 12

22 Figure 5: Flag lots and alternative access Source: Victorian Code for Residential Development (Australia), The City of Orlando, Florida provides for flag lots when deemed necessary to achieve creative planning, to eliminate access to collector or thoroughfare streets, preservation of natural amenities or important historical or archaeological values...but only in residential developments approved in accordance with site plan review requirements and provided the following conditions are satisfied (Section ): no flag lot shall abut more than one other flag lot, nor shall flag lots be double stacked across a common street; in no instances shall flag lots constitute more than 10% of the total number of building sites in a given development, or 3 lots (whichever is more); the lot area occupied by the flag driveway shall not be counted as part of the required minimum lot area; flag lots shall not be permitted whenever their effect would be to increase the number of building sites taking driveway access to a collector or arterial street; and no flag driveway shall be longer than 150 feet The Hillsborough County, Florida land development code allows creation of a flag lot for a single parcel to serve a single dwelling unit in the context of a minor subdivision procedure called Certified Parcel Subdivision. The lot must be located in an agricultural district of the rural service area and the access pole serving as a private drive must connect to a publicly maintained roadway and be at least 20 feet wide and no more than 1000 feet long (Section B.4.a). See Section 19 of the model regulations for example flag lot regulations. Lot Split Requirements Lot split regulations provide for local review of land division activity that is otherwise exempt from subdivision review. Types of lots that pose special access concerns are flag lots, through lots, and corner lots. A review process for lot splits helps to prevent creation of unbuildable lots, excessive flag lots, or other land division patterns that can lead to access problems (see Figure 6). It further prevents creation of lots with inadequate or inappropriate access to a public road. Without this process, landowners may simply record the newly created lots with the County clerk and the regulating local government may not be aware they were created until later, when a development and access request is received. 13

23 Florida s Model Code establishes a process for reviewing lot splits, called minor replats. Minor replat is defined as: "The subdivision of a single lot or parcel of land into two (2) lots or parcels, or the subdivision of a parcel into two or more lots solely for the purpose of increasing the area of two or more adjacent lots or parcels of land, where there are no roadways, drainage, or other required improvements, and where the resultant lots comply with the standards of this Code." The Model Code provides for review by the local Planning Department (and any other local departments); requires information regarding water or sewer service; requires a scaled drawing of the intended division and any principal or accessory structures by a registered surveyor; provides for recording the replat in the official county records; and requires conformance with the following standards: 1) Each proposed lot must conform to the requirements of this Code. 2) Each lot shall abut a public or private street (except as hereinafter provided) for the required minimum lot width for the zoning district/category where the lots are located. 3) If any lots abut a street right-of-way that does not conform to the design specification provided in this Code, the owner may be required to dedicate one-half the right-ofway width necessary to meet the minimum design requirements. Once a minor replat has been approved, the Code restricts further division unless a development plan (or plat) is prepared and submitted for review. Local regulations should also require proof of lot split approval by the planning commission or zoning administrator before a building permit may be issued. Figure 6: Controlling lot splits. Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second Ed., 2014, Exhibit 9-6. Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board. See Section 22 of the model regulations for example regulations for the review of lot splits and minor subdivisions. 14

24 Corridor access management plans can also include special lot split controls for the designated major roadways. Citrus County, Florida adopted access management plans for segments of U.S. 19 north and south of the City of Crystal River beginning in As stated in the plan, Access to US-19 is limited to one access per ownership existing as of the effective date of adoption of CPA-BCC 92-05, Ordinance 92-A72 (December 8, 1992), unless said ownership is of sufficient size to meet the spacing requirements. This also applies to multiple lots of record, as defined by Citrus County, such that only one access is granted per ownership. In addition, Ordinance 2003-A19 states, No new or additional access rights will be permitted for properties that are created as the result of parcel or lot splits subsequent to the enactment of this Ordinance. These lot split provisions and other subdivision measures have effectively stopped U.S. 19 from being stripped with individual lots (see Appendix C for additional details). See Section 17 for model corridor access management overlay regulations. For rural areas, lot split review provides an opportunity to discourage residential stripping of rural highways. A sliding scale or quarter/quarter zoning approach to land division in rural areas is preferable to conventional lot split exemptions. The former might permit division of one 2 acre lot per 10 acre parcel, and the latter may permit one nonfarm residential lot per 40 acres of farmland (Misseldine and Wyckoff, 1987). Flexible zoning techniques can also be especially effective at achieving access management and resource management objectives in rural areas. An innovative approach proposed by landscape planner Randall Arendt is the combination of subdivision review with site planning and cluster zoning techniques, known as conservation subdivisions. Arendt further recommends the following access standard for small rural subdivisions (Yaro, Arendt, et al. 1990): "Subdivisions with frontage on state-numbered highways shall be designed into shared access points to and from the highway. Normally a maximum of two accesses shall be allowed regardless of the number of lots or businesses served. See Section 21 of the model regulations for example access management regulations for small subdivisions and rural residential access. Private Road Ordinances Private roads offer an alternative means of access to small subdivisions in rural areas and to lots that are not subject to subdivision review. In the absence of provisions for private roads, common practice is the creation of multiple lots served by a common lot, easement, or multiple easements as in the example of stacked flag lots. The easement then becomes a private unpaved road serving several properties. Unregulated private roads raise several problems. They may be inaccessible to emergency vehicles or large delivery trucks, placing public safety and private property at risk. Substandard roads deteriorate quickly and without a maintenance agreement, the local government may be called upon to maintain it. Buyers may not be aware of the maintenance issues associated with the road. Narrow rights-of-way may impede placement of utilities and private roads can exacerbate inefficient land development patterns. 15

25 These problems can be avoided through private road regulations that address design, construction, joint maintenance agreements, signage, and review. Private roads should be permitted for residential uses only and standards should be tied to lot split (minor replat) or subdivision regulations. Limitations should be placed upon the number of residences that may be served by a single access to a public road. Many rural areas do not require paving if the roadway conforms to gravel road specifications, whereas others require paving after the number of dwelling units served exceeds a certain number. See Section 23 of the model regulations for example private road regulations. Single Access Subdivisions (Length of Cul-de-sac) Linear subdivisions served by a single access drive ending in a cul-de-sac may inhibit emergency access and increase traffic congestion during peak hours by providing only one point of ingress and egress. Single access problems may also result in phased subdivisions where additional access is proposed for future phases. If future phases are not built, the remaining subdivision may have insufficient access. Although this is not a problem where only a few dwelling units are served, how many lots is too many? Average daily trips for residential streets provide a baseline for access and cul-de-sac standards. Listokin and Walker (1989) recommend that when a subdivision on a single access rural road exceeds 20 lots or dwelling units, it should have at least two access points. Typical guidelines call for no greater than 20 to 25 single-family dwelling units per cul-de-sac ( trips per day) to control traffic volumes, and 1000 feet maximum length for low-density developments to control speeds (TRB Access Management Manual, 2014). The maximum number of dwelling units permitted for residential access streets would be about 50 per loop. A minimum turning radius that accommodates emergency vehicles should be required for cul-de-sacs. See Section 21 of the model regulations for example access management regulations for small subdivisions. Continuation and Connectivity of Subdivision Streets Continuation and extension of the existing local street system is important for a variety of reasons. Dead end streets, cul-de-sacs, and gated communities force more traffic to use major roadways even for short local trips. Fragmented street systems also impede emergency access and local bus transit service, and increase the number and length of automobile trips. Figure 7 depicts a developed area with poorly connected subdivision streets along a state highway in Florida. Most local governments have provisions in their subdivision regulations requiring new subdivisions to continue or extend planned streets or to connect to the surrounding street system. Another method of increasing street network connectivity is to apply a connectivity index in development review. A connectivity index is used to evaluate how well a roadway network connects destinations. A simple connectivity index is the number of roadway links divided by the number of nodes or link ends. A minimum connectivity index of 1.4 is suggested in the literature for local network planning purposes (Ewing, 1996). A higher index means that travelers have greater choice of routes between any two locations. 16

26 Figure 7: Poor connectivity of residential streets along a Florida highway. Source: Williams and Hopes, See Section 12 of the model regulations for example regulations to advance connectivity of subdivision streets. Access Controls Driveway (Connection) Spacing Requirements Spacing standards limit the number of driveways on a roadway by mandating a minimum separation distance between access connections. These standards reduce the potential for collisions by reducing the number of conflict points, separating conflict areas where drivers are entering or exiting the roadway, and encouraging sharing of access. For regulatory purposes, it is advantageous to use the term connection rather than driveway because the term connection encompasses both driveways and local street connections. The term access spacing encompasses both connections and median openings. For the state highway system, spacing standards applied by local governments need to be consistent with those of the state transportation agency (see for example Table 5 which is consistent with FDOT standards). Local governments may simply adopt state standards by reference in the appropriate section of their land development code. Driveway spacing standards on locally maintained roadways may be tied to an access category that is assigned to the roadway system, or simply assigned by posted speed limit and/or functional classification of the roadway, with the minimum distance between driveways greater as speed limits increase (see for example Table 6 of the regulations). Connection spacing standards may not be possible to achieve in some built areas along developed corridors. In these situations, the goal is to improve access to the extent feasible as redevelopment occurs. This issue is discussed further under Administering Requests for Deviation from Standards See Section 5 of the model regulations for access spacing standards. Corner Clearance Corner clearance is a special case of driveway spacing that refers to the separation of access connections from roadway intersections. Driveway spacing at intersections and corners should protect the functional area of the intersection (Figure 21) with the goal of maintaining adequate sight distance, response times, and space for vehicles to queue without frequently blocking the access. 17

27 It may be regulated through corner clearance standards for various types of roadways, with deviation criteria for nonconforming situations. Some contemporary policies establish that corner clearance is the same as the access spacing standards for that roadway (the approach used in this model and by FDOT), whereas others establish special standards or require applicants to retain a registered engineer to evaluate the functional intersection area and determine the impact of proposed connections on intersection operations. Still other policies use a combination of these methods, by stating that the spacing must meet standards or be located beyond the influence of standing queues. In some cases, the property frontage and the absence of alternative access offers the regulating agency little choice but to allow a driveway to be located within the functional area of an intersection. In such cases, consider the following regulatory strategies: 1) Require that the access connection be located as far from the intersection as possible (see Figure 8) 2) Limit driveway movements to right-in/right-out only and require construction of a nontraversable median or flexible pylons as conditions of the permit, if necessary to limit the movements. 3) Limit the maximum driveway volume (vehicles per hour and vehicles per day) as a condition of the permit. Figure 8: Corner clearance of shopping center access. Source: Google maps, See Section 7 of the model regulations for corner clearance regulations and Section 11 for regulations pertaining to outparcel access. 18

28 Access Design Driveway design considerations that relate to access management include turning radius or flare, width, number of lanes, throat length, auxiliary turn lanes, and directional controls (e.g., right-turn only). The appropriate width and radius of a driveway is a function of the volume of traffic served, as well as the need to provide for efficient movement of vehicles off a major thoroughfare. If driveways are too narrow or have an inadequate turning radius, then vehicles will be unable to conveniently maneuver off the roadway and into the site. This could expose the driver to a rear end collision. Excessive radius and width could pose safety hazards for pedestrians, bicycles, or vehicles on site. In addition, driveway width and radius are interdependent aspects of driveway design. Table 8 and Table 9 of the model regulations provide example guidelines. The protected (storage) length of driveways or "throat length" is another important element of the overall safety and operation of driveway connections. This length separates the junction of the driveway with that of the abutting roadway, as well as the intersection of the driveway with the on-site circulation system in larger developments. Inadequate throat length leads to on-site circulation hazards and congestion at the entrance that could conflict with through movement on the abutting roadway (see Figure 9). Standards for throat length vary according to the projected volume of the driveway and whether it is the principal access or a secondary driveway (see Table 9). Figure 9: Inadequate entry throat length Source: Transportation and Land Development, Consideration must also be given to how pedestrians will access a development from the street and how best to integrate the pedestrian access. Figure 10 shows a driveway entrance to a grocery store with no sidewalk connection from the street, placing pedestrians in the driveway when entering the site. This exposes pedestrians to driveway traffic and potential collisions. Figure 11 shows a safe and convenient pedestrian access system that includes a clearly marked midblock crossing protected by a median island, with a marked path through the parking aisles separated from traffic with yellow posts. 19

29 Figure 10: Grocery store site with no pedestrian access into the site. Source: Google, 2017 Figure 11: Pedestrian access from roadway to grocery store. Source: Kittelson and Associates See Section 8 of the model regulations for example driveway location and design regulations and criteria. 20

30 Joint Use (Shared) Driveways Sometimes the opportunity arises during the subdivision process to require two adjacent properties to share a single access connection (driveway) that is generally, but not necessarily, centered on the property line. Applications may include: Where property frontage is less than the minimum access connection spacing, Small commercial developments, often in conjunction with interparcel cross access (see also Joint and Cross Access). Local governments can implement joint use driveways through the subdivision process. The boundaries of the reciprocal easement are shown on the subdivision plat. A separate agreement, approved by the local governments, states the responsibilities for construction and maintenance, its use for entering into and departing the properties, and prohibiting encroachments. This agreement is filed with the plat and runs with the property. A performance bond and inspection can be used to ensure that the access connection is properly located, designed, and constructed in conformance with permit requirements. Local governments can withhold the certificate of occupancy until they are fully assured that joint access, any interparcel circulation, and other features are located and constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. Accomplishing joint use driveways through a regulatory approach does have certain challenges. For example, it can be difficult to anticipate the volume of traffic to be served by a joint use driveway where future developments will connect via an internal cross access system. Access permit conditions could be imposed that limit use of the connection to an appropriate volume for that design. The owner would then be required to apply for a new permit and redesign the access if that volume is exceeded. In addition, property owners may be reluctant to close a temporary driveway in exchange for a joint use driveway on a nearby site. Some agencies opt to reconstruct the access at their own expense to increase property owner cooperation. Joint and Cross Access Small commercially zoned lots under separate ownership that front upon a major roadway can result in numerous, closely-spaced driveways as they develop. Joint and cross access policies are a method for accomplishing unified access and circulation plans to adjacent commercial properties under separate ownership. The resulting system of cross access easements allows traffic to circulate from one site to another without reentering the abutting public roadway. NOTE: Commercial properties under common ownership or consolidated for development can be readily required to develop a unified access and circulation plan, and any cross access easements are incorporated into parcel deeds and leases (see Outparcel Regulations). Joint and cross access policies are applied when properties are developing or a change in use occurs as provided in Section 9. Where properties adjacent to the development site are already developed and under different ownership, cooperation is encouraged but may not be required. These abutting properties can only be brought into compliance if a change in use occurs. In the meantime, the building site under review would be required to provide for cross access and may be permitted a driveway. This driveway could be treated in one of two ways: a) considered temporary with an agreement stipulating its closure upon completion of the unified access and circulation system serving the site under consideration and adjacent sites, or b) considered permanent and located at or near the property line for future use as a joint use driveway (see Figure 12). 21

31 Figure 12: Joint and cross access. Source: City of Orlando, as adapted. Cross access policies may also be used to require vehicular, and/or bicycle and pedestrian easements connecting compatible uses. For example, a residential area could be connected with an adjacent neighborhood shopping center by a circulation system that encourages pedestrian and vehicular circulation without using the major street system. Commercial uses that benefit from cross access connections due to substantial interparcel traffic include (TRB Access Management Manual, 2014): High turnover restaurants and gas stations especially those serving travelers or located in tourist/recreational areas; A discount store and a large shopping mall in close proximity; A specialty store and a shopping mall that are located in close proximity; Shopping centers anchored by competitive supermarkets or which have complementary shops; Neighborhood shopping centers and gas stations; and Neighborhood shopping centers and branch banks. If properties are unable to meet driveway spacing requirements, local policies could enable the reviewing official to waive the requirements and provide for less restrictive spacing where joint use driveways, cross access easements, and a unified parking and circulation plan are established. Some agencies provide an incentive for combining access points or relax parking and dimensional requirements where necessary to achieve shared access. Model regulations of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in Lansing, Michigan allow reduction of the minimum lot size and frontage requirement, as well as the required number of parking spaces, by 15% for adjacent property owners that agree to establish a common driveway. The City of Orlando may require interparcel cross access between adjacent developments or designate cross-access corridors on properties adjacent to arterial and major collector roadways. This may be accomplished in connection with subdivision or site plan approval, or as part of an overall planning program. Joint use driveways and cross access easements must then be established in these areas and the building site must incorporate a unified access and circulation system. Orlando s cross access standards require: 22

32 a) Continuous linear travel corridor extending the entire length of each block it serves, or at least 1,000 feet of linear frontage along the thoroughfare, and having a design speed of 10 mph. b) Sufficient width to accommodate two-way travel aisles designed to accommodate automobiles, service vehicles and loading vehicles in accordance with [design] requirements; c) Stub-outs and other design features that make it visually obvious that the abutting properties may be tied in to provide cross-access; d) Linkage to other cross-access corridors in the area. Standards also address coordinated or joint parking design, and joint maintenance agreements must be recorded with the deed. All plats, site plans, and other development must meet these standards on designated thoroughfares and property owners must record an easement with the deed allowing cross access to and from other properties in that affected area. The property owner must also enter an agreement to dedicate remaining access rights along the thoroughfare to the City and enter an agreement to be recorded with the deed that pre-existing driveways will be closed and eliminated after construction of the joint-use driveway. Cross-access corridors are indicated on the zoning map by dashed or dotted lines and distinguish those portions of the corridor where easements have been recorded. These standards are applied to phased development in the same ownership and leasing situations. Where abutting properties are in different ownership, cooperation is encouraged but not required. Only the building site under consideration is subject to the requirements, which are recorded as a Binding Lot Agreement prior to issuing a building permit. As abutting properties are developed or initiate retrofitting requirements then they must abide by the standards (see Retrofitting Nonconforming Access). The model regulations in Section 10 are modelled after those of the City of Orlando. See Section 10 of the model regulations for example joint and cross access regulations. Retrofitting Nonconforming Access Land development regulations are not retroactive. Existing properties that do not meet newly adopted requirements are designated as nonconforming a process commonly known as grandfathering. Nonconformities may relate to land use or dimensional requirements, as well as to access. Nonconforming properties may continue in the same manner as they existed before land development regulations were adopted. These requirements protect the substantial investment of property owners and recognize the expense of bringing those properties into conformance. Nonetheless, the negative impacts of nonconforming properties may be substantial. Nonconforming properties may pose significant safety hazards, increase traffic congestion, reduce property values, degrade the environment, or undermine community character. To address the public interest in these matters, land development regulations include conditions or circumstances where nonconforming access features may be brought into conformance. For access management, such conditions may include: when new driveway permits are requested; an increase in land use intensity; 23

33 substantial enlargements or improvements; significant change in trip generation; and as changes to roadway design allow. Opportunities to bring nonconforming features into compliance typically occur after a change of ownership when the costs of required improvements may be amortized in the business loan or mortgage. Alternatively, state transportation agencies may propose site access changes as a roadway is being reconstructed. In this situation, the property owner must agree. In these cases, the agency may have funds to assist a property owner in closing excess driveways or even redesigning site access and circulation. If properties undergoing development or redevelopment are unable to meet driveway spacing requirements, the regulating official may also choose to waive the requirements and provide for less restrictive spacing. The waiver is based on the condition that joint use driveways, cross access easements, and a unified parking a circulation plan must be established wherever feasible. Where unified access and circulation is not practical, the local government may provide a variance. Other options are discussed under Administering Requests for Deviation from Standards. See Section 9 of the model regulations for example retrofit requirements for nonconforming property access. Outparcel Requirements Outparcels are lots on the perimeter of a larger parcel that its frontage along a roadway. These lots are highly marketable and often created along thoroughfare frontage of shopping center sites and leased or sold separately. If outparcels are not regulated, each new owner or tenant may qualify for a separate access permit (see Figure 13). Outparcel regulations foster unified on-site circulation systems that serve outparcels as well as interior development, thereby reducing driveways on an arterial and increasing land available for landscaping. Outparcel regulations may include standards governing: the number of outparcels; minimum lot frontage; access; unified parking and circulation; landscaping and pedestrian amenities; building height, coverage, and setback requirements; and signage. Figure 13: Provide unified internal access to outparcels. Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second Ed., 2014, Exhibit 9-7. Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board. 24

34 Contemporary practice is to establish in regulation that development sites under the same ownership, phased development plans, or properties consolidated for development, shall be considered one property for the purposes of access and circulation design. Require that all access to outparcels be internalized using the main access drive of the principal retail center. The number of connections permitted would be the minimum number of connections necessary to provide reasonable access to the site, and not the maximum allowed by driveway spacing standards. The number of outparcels can also be controlled through a fixed density ratio governing the number of outparcels that may be created per site area and a corresponding lot frontage requirement if access is not internalized. Additional options for local agencies include: a) increasing the minimum lot frontage requirements for outparcels; b) establishing a minimum frontage requirement between outparcels; and c) limiting the number of outparcels that may be created per a given number of acres. Consolidated signage and directional signs at site access points are helpful for directing customers to businesses that are accessed internally. See Section 11 for model regulations pertaining to outparcel access. Service Roads Service roads are local or collector roads that generally provide alternative access to commercial tracts along a major roadway. Frontage roads are a type of service road that generally parallel an arterial roadway or freeway between the travelled way of the major roadway and the abutting property. Frontage roads can work well for light office or singlefamily residential developments, where they begin and end between major road intersections as shown in Figure 14. Figure 14: Frontage road serving single-family homes on arterial roadway. Source: Photo by Gary Sokolow, FDOT Continuous frontage roads can cause safety and operational problems at major roadway intersections unless sufficient distance is provided between cross road connections and the major roadway intersection. Therefore, it is desirable to provide buildable sites between the service road and road right-of-way and to move the service road to the rear of individual sites so it can provide access to properties on either side. 25

35 Service roads can be implemented in a variety of ways, but are most readily accomplished when land is being subdivided or consolidated for development. For example, developers could be required to set aside right-of-way needed for the road as a condition of development approval, and the local government could construct and maintain the road. In some cases, developers may construct a portion of the road. In other cases, a local government may opt to complete undeveloped segments of the road where needed to maintain continuity or as an incentive for private participation. Several of these techniques were employed to promote the development of a service road along US 98 in Okaloosa County, Florida (Figure 15). In one portion of the corridor, developers were required to consolidate access onto a service road to mitigate traffic impacts on US 98, which was operating below adopted level of service standards. The service road was accomplished through individual development agreements, and the County constructed one segment to complete the road. Figure 15: Service roads on US 98 in Okaloosa County Source: Google, 2017 Hernando County, FL has had a frontage road ordinance since The ordinance has effectively promoted a supporting network of service roads in front of, behind or in zigzag configurations along the applicable highways. As properties develop and redevelop, the configuration of the service roads continues to be enhanced (see Figure 16). 26

36 Figure 16: Proposed Ridge Manor service road realignment in Hernando County. Source: Hernando County, Office of Public Information Media Release April 13, 2017 The City of Cape Coral is working to implement access roads parallel to Pine Island Road (SR 78) as part of the Pine Island Road Corridor Master Plan (Figure 17). The plan promotes a land use framework with mixed-use village and corridor districts supported by a secondary access road system (Figure 18). The access road system is intended to parallel Pine Island Road through a variety of means, including: The use of existing roads where feasible; New four lane divided roads principally along the north side of Pine Island where deep, extensive parcels exist; and Interconnected parking lots and/or two lane access drives along the south side of Pine Island where parcels are not deep. Service roads may also be implemented when roadways are being improved. MPOs and state transportation agencies may contribute to local road improvements where this would advance corridor improvement objectives or reduce safety and operational problems on a state highway. The Kansas Department of Transportation has a small budget designated for off-system improvements, such as local street extensions, that would advance a state highway corridor access management plan. The Colorado Department of Transportation engages in targeted local street improvements during highway reconstruction projects to advance its access management program. 27

37 Figure 17: Access roads on Pine Island Road in Cape Coral. Source: Google, 2017 Figure 18: Village and access road concept for Pine Island Road. Source: Pine Island Road Corridor Master Plan 18, City of Cape Coral, See Section 17 for model regulations pertaining to service roads. 28

38 Zoning Form Based Codes Form based codes are unified development codes that aim to achieve a desired urban form These codes address all aspects of development, including the form and mass of buildings, their relationship to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks (Form Based Codes Institute. Definition of a Form-Based Code, Form based codes link building form and street and block development to a specific regulating plan. The appropriate coding varies by context (e.g., district, neighborhood, corridor) or context zone (Figure 2). The associated codes may be mandatory throughout a community, applied only in specific districts, or applied as an overlay on top of existing regulations. These codes are highly prescriptive and therefore have clear, predictable implications for access design. For example, they may reinforce urban or village block patterns and require buildings to locate at the street line, with on-street and garage parking and access via alleys in certain districts. They also can organize a diverse land use mix onto a street network in activity centers or districts. The resulting proximity of uses on dense, connected networks encourages walking and cycling and creates destinations that can be effectively served by transit. The codes can also be readily adapted to provide for appropriate levels of access control on major roadways as they transition from one context zone to another. Transit Oriented Development Transit oriented development (TOD) is a compact mix of moderate to high density housing, public parks and plazas, jobs and services located at strategic points along the regional transit system (Calthorpe Associates, 1992). The TOD design integrates transit access into site design and improves pedestrian access to transit. It also helps reduce demand for direct arterial access by integrating uses onto a street network, as illustrated in Figure 19. Figure 19: Transit oriented development concept. Source: Calthorpe Associates,

39 The TOD is a type of activity center that places emphasis on the pedestrian, with relatively dense, walkable networks and pedestrian amenities. Low density, auto oriented uses may surround the TOD. TODs can be mandated through zoning at specific locations or allowed as a floating zone that may be applied to a development site upon request. Many guidelines have been produced on the topic of TODs. Those developed for the City of San Diego, California by the concept s originator, Peter Calthorpe, are instructive and include the following access-related guidelines (Calthorpe Associates, 1992): Arterials and other thoroughfares should allow efficient conveyance of through traffic and must not pass through TODs; nor should TODs be designed to straddle arterials. Portions of Secondary Areas may be located across an arterial from a TOD. (The Secondary Area is the low density, auto oriented area surrounding the TOD.) Convenient pedestrian and bicycle crossings should be provided wherever crossarterial connections are made, consistent with State guidelines and local policy. On-street parking is encouraged in all TOD and Secondary Area streets, except arterials. The pedestrian and bicycle system must provide clear, comfortable and direct access to the core commercial area and transit stop the configuration of parking, shopping, and pedestrian routes should reinforce access to transit. Intersections within TODs and Secondary Areas should be designed to facilitate both pedestrian and vehicular movement. Intersection dimensions should be minimized, while providing adequate levels of service. Transit stops should, wherever possible, be centrally located within a TOD and adjacent to the core commercial area. (Alternatively, on some high frequency bus routes, transit stop could be located on the major road and the core commercial area could be a pedestrian-oriented frontage with TOD housing behind.) At a minimum, TOD transit stops shall provide shelter for pedestrians, convenient passenger loading zones, adequate lighting and secure bike storage. Connector streets should provide connections within TODS and Secondary Areas to core commercial areas, schools and parks without requiring the use of the arterial A network of connectors should provide many frequent alternative paths through neighborhoods [and] should not provide an efficient through route alternative for arterial traffic.driveways along connectors should be limited to minimize conflicts among autos and bicyclists. TOD policies can be used to require or encourage certain developments served by transit to be highly walkable, dense, and with a compatible mix of uses. Providing TOD along transit corridors creates walkable destinations at key transit stops and stations and helps to reinforce transit ridership. See Section 14 for model regulations pertaining to the location and placement of transit access. Examples of TOD policies and regulations in Florida may be found in local government mobility plans, such as those of Alachua County and Pasco County. Lot Frontage and Dimensional Requirements Minimum lot frontage requirements are established in zoning and set the minimum lot width or frontage on a public road. Minimum lot frontage standards can be set higher on arterials and collectors to allow for greater spacing between commercial or residential driveways. The 30

40 frontage requirement will vary depending upon the minimum lot size in that zoning district and other dimensional requirements, such as a width-to-depth ratio. Although driveway spacing standards may limit driveways along rural or developing highways, land division controls and higher minimum lot frontage requirements can be more effective. These can be coupled with allowances for smaller frontages and additional lots where access is provided on an internal street. When a residential subdivision is proposed that would abut an arterial or major collector roadway, current practice is to design it such that lots along the thoroughfare obtain access from an interior local road (Figure 19). This technique is known as reverse frontage, because highway frontage becomes the rear yard and buildings are reversed to front on a local access road. This approach separates residences from the adverse impacts of arterial traffic. When this strategy is used, direct property access between individual lots and the abutting arterial or collector is denied. The denial is recorded with the property records so the restriction runs with the land and applies to subsequent owners. Sarasota County, Florida provides that when a new subdivision is created, lots abutting an arterial are prohibited from having direct access to that arterial. Instead, access to these lots must be from an interior local street or frontage street and access rights to the arterial must be dedicated to the County and run with the land (Sarasota County Land Development Regulations, Section B3.3(j)). Figure 20 illustrates a typical reverse frontage configuration for a high volume suburban roadway. Similar standards have been applied to double frontage lots, which are lots with frontage on two streets. In this case, local codes typically require such lots to obtain access on the street with the lower functional classification, unless this poses a safety hazard or would otherwise be impractical. Another strategy for residential areas is to ensure that corner residences are oriented so the side of the property faces a major collector with the front on a minor collector or local street. Figure 20: Reverse frontage on arterial roadway Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second Ed., 2014, Exhibit 9-3. Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board. See Section 18 for model regulations related to reverse frontage or double frontage lots and Section 20 for example lot width-to-depth ratio requirements. 31

41 Corridor Overlay Zones Overlay zones are a versatile method for managing access along commercial corridors. The technique is used to overlay a special set of requirements onto an existing zoning district, while retaining the underlying zoning and its associated requirements. Text that specifies standards for the access management overlay district is included in the land development (or zoning) code and corridors are designated on the zoning map. Overlay requirements may address any issues of concern, such as joint access, parking lot cross access, reverse frontage, driveway spacing, and limitations on new driveways. An overlay concept for developing corridors freezes the number of connections on a designated corridor to one per existing parcel having a single tax code number at the date of the amendment. When subsequently divided, all parcels must obtain access via subdivision roads, other private or public roads, interparcel cross access, or by service drives in conformance with specified design requirements. Parcels with larger frontages could be permitted more than one driveway and additional driveways could be permitted by special permit. The access management provisions applied by Citrus County, Florida on U.S. Highway 19 are an example of this technique (see Appendix C for additional details). See Section 17 for model corridor overlay zone regulations. Improving Coordination Consistent standards and frequent communication are key to effective state and local government coordination in access management (See Table 3 for example actions). An example of effective coordination is that between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Hernando County, Florida. FDOT is a partner in the implementation of the County s frontage road ordinance through the state highway access permitting process. (NOTE: Although the ordinance uses the term frontage roads, the roads may be built to the front of a site, the rear, or in a zigzag configuration.) The process is as follows: FDOT reviews each access permit request to determine if the property abuts a highway where frontage roads are required. If it does and a frontage road exists, access is permitted on the frontage road only. If the property abuts a highway where a frontage road is required but does not yet exist, an interim permit is issued that includes conditions requiring the property owner to remove the driveway connection to the frontage road when it is constructed. Any permitted connections are required to share access with adjacent properties. FDOT also requires the applicant to submit a site plan acceptable to the local government then checks with the County to ensure that each agency is reviewing identical plans from the applicant. Any site plan or development proposal received by one of the parties is shared with the other as soon as possible. Coordination with the applicant is also important. An effective method of coordinating review and approval is a tiered review process that begins with an informal meeting and concept review. The informal review allows officials to advise the applicant on information needed to process the application before the preliminary plat or site plan has been drafted. This may include state and local permit requirements and special considerations of the development site. When later submitted, the preliminary plan is checked to determine if additional conditions are required for approval and the final plan should require only administrative review. A parallel review process should be established in the state DOT district office where an application involves access to the state highway system. 32

42 A last line of defense to ensure conformance with land division and access requirements, is to establish the building permit (or certificate of occupancy) as the lead permit during development review. Property owners may then be required to submit the necessary permits or certificates of approval from regulatory agencies involved in subdivision or site plan review before issuing a building permit. This should include the state transportation agency where the state highway system is involved to assure conformance with state access management and driveway permitting requirements. Table 3: Coordination Protocol for Local Governments Source: Marshall and Williams, Upon adoption of new access management requirements, planners should also proactively educate planning commissioners, development administrators, and the zoning board of adjustment on the purpose and administration of the new standards. It is essential that the regulations be applied consistently especially in relation to deviations or variances from access management standards, as discussed below. 33

43 Administering Requests for Deviation from Standards Clear procedures are needed for considering deviations from access management standards to promote fair and consistent decisions. An effective approach is to establish a threshold for minor and major deviations from standards, where minor deviations (typically 10% of the standard) may be decided by administrative staff, and major deviations require more extensive review and justification. This streamlines the permit process for minor deviations, while discouraging frivolous requests for major deviations through more rigorous review. The process for handling major deviations could begin with an internal committee of upper level staff from key divisions (engineering, planning, zoning, etc.), with the option for further appeals to the appropriate decision-making body, such as the planning commission. Local government staff may also ask to be notified regarding any requests for deviation from standards on a state highway within their jurisdiction to be reviewed by the FDOT District Access Management Review Committee. These FDOT committees meet regularly to review disputed access management issues within their respective Districts not resolved at the staff level. The committees hear requests that arise in both permitting and reconstruction projects. They are comprised of high-level representatives from key divisions, such as Design, Operations, and Maintenance. An official procedure guides the review of requests for median openings and connections to promote a consistent review and to clarify the technical and policy parameters that guide access management decisions. Within the local government, major deviation requests could be reviewed by the development review committee or upper level staff from key internal divisions. Local recommendations could be provided to the FDOT District permit engineer, who makes a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the FDOT District Access Management Review Committee, which has the final decision-making authority relative to major deviations on the state highway system. Applicants can appeal the decision to an administrative hearing officer. A fair and professional committee review process, such as this, can improve compliance and enforcement Because land division and access controls can be controversial, local planning officials are advised to develop strategies for addressing potential concerns before advancing recommendations. Be aware of the practical concerns of those most affected by proposed amendments and craft effective variance procedures and other strategies to provide flexibility where appropriate and ameliorate hardship. Public meetings, advisory committees, opinion surveys, and other techniques can be used to inform stakeholders and generate support. 34

44 Part 2: Model Access Management Regulations Commentary: The following model ordinance language is provided for adoption into the local land development code. Local governments should obtain professional planning and legal assistance when adapting this model language to fit local needs. Although a regulatory program is essential, local governments are strongly encouraged to prepare thoroughfare plans to guide development of the transportation network, as well as subarea or corridor management plans to promote network development and manage access along high priority corridors and near interchanges that are experiencing development pressure. Section 1 Intent and Purpose The intent of this ordinance is to manage access to land development in a manner that preserves the safe and efficient movement of people and goods and reduces the potential for traffic conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. To achieve this intent, major roadways in (city/county) are categorized for access management according to their planned functions, with the highest level of access control applied to Florida Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) highways and other principal arterial roadways. This ordinance regulates access spacing and design, auxiliary lanes, and medians in order to separate areas of potential traffic conflict on major roadways and guide turning movements to safe and predictable locations. Requirements for unified site access and circulation, interparcel cross access, service roads, and network connectivity serve to enhance the accessibility of developed areas. In so doing, these regulations and standards protect public safety and general welfare, provide for the mobility of people and goods, further the orderly layout and use of land, protect community character and preserve the function of major roadways. This ordinance balances the right of reasonable access to private property, with the right of the public to safe and efficient travel. Section 2 Applicability This ordinance shall apply to all roadways functionally classified as arterials and collectors within (city/county) and to all properties that abut these roadways. The access classification system and standards of the Florida Department of Transportation shall apply to all roadways on the State Highway System. Special access management standards may apply to certain high priority roadways, corridors with an adopted access management plan, or in areas with an adopted overlay district. Access legally established as of the effective date of this ordinance will not be subject to these regulations until a change in use occurs as provided in Section 9 or as changes to the roadway design allow. Section 3 Conformance with Plans, Regulations, and Statutes This ordinance implements (cite specific policies or the Transportation Element ) of the (city/county comprehensive plan). The ordinance also advances and conforms with (cite specific policies) of the (Metropolitan Planning Organization long range transportation plan); Section (Notification of land use changes in designated transportation corridors), Section , F.S. (Transportation Corridors), Section , F.S. (Access Management), and Rules and 14-97, FAC, of the Florida Department of Transportation. Commentary: The link between regulations and public policy has undergone intense legal scrutiny over the years. Demonstrating conformance with publicly adopted plans and state law and regulations strengthens the legal basis for any local regulatory program. To establish this link, local governments should clearly identify the intent and 35

45 purpose of the regulatory program, and specify any plans, state and federal regulations, or statutes that are carried out through the regulatory standards. Consider also citing specific planning objectives or policies advanced through the regulations. Section 4 Definitions Access - A way or means of approach to provide vehicular or pedestrian entrance or exit to a property. Access Roads See Service Roads. Accessibility - The number of travel opportunities or destinations within a particular travel radius, measured in terms of either travel time or distance. Access Classification - A ranking system for roadways used to determine the appropriate degree of access management. Factors considered include functional classification, the appropriate local government's adopted plan for the roadway, subdivision of abutting properties, and existing level of access control. Access Connection - Any driveway, street, turnout or other means of providing for the movement of vehicles to or from the public roadway system. Access Management - The coordinated planning, regulation, and design of access between roadways and land development to preserve the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Access Management Plan (Corridor or Interchange) - A plan illustrating the design of access for lots and parcels on a highway segment or within an interchange area that may be developed jointly by the state, the metropolitan planning organization, and the affected jurisdiction(s). Alley - A service road that is designed to provide access to properties abutting another street and that is not intended for general traffic circulation. Cartway - That area of road surface from curb line to curb line or between the edges of the paved or hard surface of the roadway, which may include travel lanes, parking lanes, and deceleration or acceleration lanes. Circulation system The collection of public roadways and paths and private on-site facilities for the movement of automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles, trucks and buses. Complete Streets Streets that serve the transportation needs of transportation system users of all ages and abilities, including but not limited to: cyclists, freight handlers, motorists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Conflict (traffic) A traffic event that causes evasive action by a driver to avoid colliding with another vehicle. Conflict point An area in which intersecting traffic merges, diverges or crosses. Connection - Driveways, streets, turnouts, or other means of providing for the right of reasonable access to or from the roadway system. Connection Spacing - The distance between connections, measured from the closest edge of pavement of the first connection to the closest edge of pavement of the second connection along the edge of the traveled way. 36

46 Corner Clearance - The distance from an intersection of a public or private road to the nearest access connection, measured from the closest edge of the pavement of the intersecting road to the closest edge of the pavement of the connection along the traveled way (see Figure 21). Figure 21: Corner clearance and connection spacing Source: FDOT Driveway Handbook, 2008 Corridor Access Management Plan A plan that defines site-specific access management and traffic control features for a particular roadway segment, developed in coordination with the affected local government and adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation in cooperation with the (city/county) and other affected local government(s). Corridor Overlay District - Special requirements added onto existing land development requirements along designated portions of a public thoroughfare. Cross Access An easement or service drive providing vehicular access between two or more contiguous sites so the driver need not reenter the public street system. Deed - A legal document conveying ownership of real property. Deviation A departure from an adopted standard. Directional Median Opening - An opening in a restrictive median that provides for specific movements and physically restricts other movements. Directional median openings for two opposing left or "U-turn" movements along a road segment are considered one directional median opening. Driveway The physical connection for vehicular traffic between a roadway and abutting land. Driveway Flare - A triangular pavement surface at the intersection of a driveway with a public street that facilitates turning movements and is used to replicate turning radius in areas with curb and gutter construction. Easement - A grant of one or more property rights by a property owner to or for use by the public, or another person or entity. Frontage - The distance or width of a parcel of land abutting a public right-of-way and as measured upon such right-of-way. A corner property at a roadway intersection has a separate frontage along each roadway. 37

47 Frontage Road (see also Service Road) - A public or private drive which generally parallels a public street between the right-of-way and the front building setback line. The frontage road provides access to private properties while separating them from the arterial street. Full Median Opening - An opening in a restrictive median that allows all turning movements from the roadway and the intersecting road or access connection. Functional Area (Intersection) - That area beyond the physical intersection of two controlled access facilities that comprises decision and maneuver distance, plus any required vehicle storage length, and where access should be avoided to protect the safety and operation of the intersection (see Figure 22). Figure 22: Functional area of intersection. Source: Transportation and Land Development, Functional Classification - A system used to group public roadways into classes according to their purpose in moving vehicles and providing access. Green Book, The Florida (Manual of Uniform Minimum Standard for Design, Construction, and Maintenance) - A manual produced by the Florida Department of Transportation which provides for uniform standards and criteria for transportation facilities for both state and local roads. Joint Access (or Shared Access) - A driveway connecting two or more contiguous sites to the public street system. Lot - A parcel, tract, or area of land whose boundaries have been established by some legal instrument, which is recognized as a separate legal entity for purposes of transfer of title, has frontage upon a public or private street, and complies with the dimensional requirements of this code. 38

48 Figure 23: Types of lots Reprinted with permission from H. Moskowitz and C. Lindbloom. The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University Lot, Corner - Any lot having at least two (2) contiguous sides abutting upon one or more streets, provided that the interior angle at the intersection of such two sides is less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. Commentary: Corner lots can create confusion in relation to dimensional requirements. The recommended approach is to designate one frontage as the "front" and the rear lot line would be that opposite the designated frontage. Both portions of the lot with street frontage should still be required to meet the required front yard setback to ensure adequate sight distance and consistency of setback with abutting properties. A lot abutting a curved street(s) is typically considered a corner lot if the arc has a radius less than one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Lot Depth - The average distance measured from the front lot line to the rear lot line. Lot, Flag - A large lot not meeting minimum frontage requirements and where access to the public road is by a narrow, private right-of-way or driveway. Lot, Nonconforming - A lot that does not meet the dimensional requirements of the district in which it is located and that existed before these requirements became effective. Lot, Through (also called a double frontage lot) - A lot that fronts upon two parallel streets or that fronts upon two streets that do not intersect at the boundaries of the lot. Lot Frontage - That portion of a lot extending along a street right-of-way line. Lot of Record - A lot or parcel that exists as shown or described on a plat or deed in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Lot Width - The horizontal distance between side lot lines measured parallel to the front lot line at the minimum required front setback line. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) - A Federal document adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation that provides standards for traffic control devices. 39

49 Florida Administrative Rule establishes the MUTCD to be Florida's Standard for traffic control devices. Minor Subdivision - A subdivision of land into not more than two (2) lots where there are no roadways, drainage, or other required improvements. Nonconforming Access Features - Features of the access system of a property that existed prior to the date of ordinance adoption and do not conform with the requirements of this code or requirements of the Administrative Rule of the Florida Department of Transportation. Nonrestrictive Median - A median or painted centerline that does not provide a physical barrier between traffic traveling in opposite directions or turning left, including continuous center turn lanes and undivided roads. Outparcel - A parcel of land abutting and external to the larger, main parcel, which is under separate ownership and has roadway frontage. Parcel - A division of land comprised of one or more lots in contiguous ownership. Plat - An exact and detailed map of the subdivision of land. Private Road - Any road or thoroughfare for vehicular travel which is privately owned and maintained and which provides the principal means of access to abutting properties. Public Road - A road under the jurisdiction of a public body that provides the principal means of access to an abutting property. Reasonable Access: The minimum number of access connections, direct or indirect, necessary to provide safe access to and from the thoroughfare, as consistent with the purpose and intent of this code and any applicable plans and policies of the [local government]. Restrictive Median - A physical barrier in the roadway that separates traffic traveling in opposite directions, such as a concrete barrier or landscaped island. Right-of-Way - Land reserved, used, or to be used for a highway, street, alley, walkway, drainage facility, or other public purpose. Service Road - A public or private street or road, auxiliary to and normally located parallel to a controlled access facility that maintains local road continuity and provides access to parcels adjacent to a controlled access facility. Sight Distance - The distance of unobstructed view for the driver of a vehicle, as measured along the normal travel path of a roadway to a specified height above the roadway. Sight Triangle - An area of unobstructed sight distance along both approaches of an access connection. Significant Change in Trip Generation - A change in the use of the property, including land, structures or facilities, or an expansion of the size of the structures or facilities causing an increase in the trip generation of the property exceeding 25 percent more trip generation (either peak or daily) and 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use, as defined in , F.S. Commentary: In 1992, the legislature amended the State Highway System Access Management Act to alter the definition of "significant change" from a 10% threshold to 40

50 25%, as shown above. This diminished the ability of the State to require properties with nonconforming access to the State Highway System to mitigate their nonconformity. This definition is provided for consistency with state highway access permitting practices. Unlike state transportation agencies, local governments have broad authority over land development and may choose to review all development activity for opportunities to improve access location and design for the purpose of mitigating adverse safety and operational impacts on the transportation system (see for example, Section 9: Nonconforming Access). Standard Index (Roadway and Traffic Design Standards) - A Florida Department of Transportation document with detailed standards for the construction of connections. State Highway System (SHS) - limited access and controlled access highways that have been functionally classified and are under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida. Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) - The specially designated statewide transportation system, as designated in s (3) F.S., composed of facilities and services of statewide and interregional significance to the state s economy and mobility, as designated by FDOT and adopted by the legislature. Stub-out (Stub-street) - A portion of a street or cross access drive used as an extension to an abutting property that may be developed in the future. Subdivision - Is the process and the result of any of the following: a) The platting of land into lots, building sites, blocks, open space, public areas, or any other division of land; b) Establishment or dedication of a road, highway, street or alley through a tract of land, by the owner thereof, regardless of area; c) The re-subdivision of land heretofore subdivided (however, the sale or exchange of small parcels of land to or between adjoining property owners, where such sale or exchange does not create additional lots and does not result in a nonconforming lot, building, structure or landscape area, shall not be considered a subdivision of land); d) The platting of the boundaries of a previously unplatted parcel or parcels. Substantial Enlargements or Improvements A 10% increase in existing square footage or 50% increase in assessed valuation of the structure. Commentary: this definition sets typical thresholds used for determining when nonconforming situations must be brought into compliance with current standards. Check these thresholds for consistency with those of your code. Temporary Access - Provision of direct access to the controlled access facility until that time when adjacent properties develop, in accordance with a joint access agreement or frontage road plan. Throat Length - The distance parallel to the centerline of a driveway to the first on-site location at which a driver can make a right turn or a left turn. On roadways with curb and gutter, the throat length shall be measured from the face of the curb. On roadways without a curb and gutter, the throat length shall be measured from the edge of the paved shoulder. Throat Width - The distance edge-to-edge of a driveway measured at the right-of-way line. 41

51 Section 5 Access Category System 1) The following access categories have been assigned to major roadways as shown in Table 4, based upon the primary role of the roadway in the overall thoroughfare system and the nature of the land use context: Category A: These are highly access-controlled roadways that function as principal arterials and have the greatest continuity in the thoroughfare system. Direct access to abutting land is controlled to preserve safe and efficient through traffic movement. Posted speeds are typically 45 mph or greater. They shall include existing or planned restrictive medians, but some sections may have alternating painted left-turn lanes or be undivided. This Access Category provides the greatest separation between connections and traffic signals. It applies to controlled access SIS roadways, and designated arterials in rural, less developed or suburban areas (e.g., FDOT context classification C1, C2, C3R, C3C). The street network along these roadways shall be planned to support access to development and signal locations will be carefully managed to maintain efficient traffic progression. Category B: These roadways support mobility within and across urban areas and typically have somewhat less continuity and/or operate at lower speeds than Access Category A roadways. They should include existing or planned restrictive medians, but some sections may have alternating painted left-turn lanes or be undivided. Separation between connections is less than that required for Category A, but is still sufficiently controlled to create a safe environment for vehicular and non-vehicular travel modes. This Category generally applies to both arterial and collector roadways that lie outside the urban core (e.g., FDOT context classification C5, C4, C3R, C3C, C2T) or similarly developed neighborhoods. Category C: These roadways support mobility in dense urban contexts and operate at lower speeds. Driveway connections may be discouraged in favor of block patterns. Control of access is the least restrictive due to lower speeds and to accommodate compact development. Access Category C generally applies to segments of the thoroughfare system within denser urban areas that often have higher levels of non-auto traffic and community activity (e.g., FDOT context classification C2T, C4, C5, C6), including segments designated as pedestrian or transit priority streets. Table 4: Example Access Classification of Roadways Jurisdiction Segment Access Category State Roads: (Name of road) xx to xx A (FDOT Class 2) (Name of road) xx to xx B (FDOT Class 3, 4) (Name of road) xx to xx C (FDOT Class 5, 6) City/County Roads: (Name of road) xx to xx A (Name of road) xx to xx B (Name of road) xx to xx C 42

52 Commentary: Access categories are assigned to roadway segments based upon planned roadway function, a process known as access classification. Each category has a written description and associated spacing standards and design criteria. FDOT access categories for the State Highway System presently run from the most restrictive (FDOT Access Class 1, limited access highways) to the least restrictive (FDOT Access Class 7, suburban commercial strip). FDOT policy is to designate controlled access roadways that are part of the Florida Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) as FDOT Access Class 2 or 3. FDOT Access Classes 4-7 are generally applied to roadways that have or are planned to have moderate to extensive development. Access classes also vary according to posted speed and whether the roadway has or is planned to have a non-traversable median. Local governments may choose to apply the FDOT access classification system and standards to locally maintained thoroughfares by adopting them by reference into their code and then assigning them to locally maintained arterials and collectors as FDOT has done with the state highway system. This model proposes a category system that parallels that of FDOT, but is simpler and relates more to the type of roadways typically found within a city or county. They may be assigned to specific roadway segments through the thoroughfare planning process. The three categories (A, B and C) apply standards that generally align with those of FDOT, except for Access Class 7, which should be avoided by local governments. Access Class 7 was conceived as a way to address the prevalence of suburban strips in Florida, but it does little to discourage the strip development with frequent driveways associated with higher crash rates for all travel modes. Local governments are encouraged to adopt a complete streets thoroughfare plan or mobility plan that guides access management of state and locally maintained roadways in relationship to thoroughfare type and context zone (see Thoroughfare Plans and Complete Streets in Part 1). The category descriptions shown here may then be adapted to correspond with the local thoroughfare or complete streets plan. Local governments should also coordinate with FDOT on the assignment of a complete streets classification to state maintained roadways during project planning and roadway resurfacing or rehabilitation (RRR projects). The resulting context classifications can help guide access management determinations. FDOT plans to update its access classification system to address the FDOT complete streets implementation plan. Local governments should continue to check with their FDOT District on potential future updates as they refine their access management requirements. 43

53 2) Access spacing for all roadway segments with an assigned access category shall conform with the spacing requirements of that category as specified in Table 5, or FDOT Rule 14-97, F.A.C., for state maintained roadways, unless otherwise amended by adoption of a corridor access management plan. Table 5: Example Access Category System Access Category Connection Spacing (feet) Median Opening Spacing (1) (feet) >45 mph 45mph Full Movement A (2) /2640 B (3) 1320 (2) /2640 C NA 245 (3) 660 (3) (1) Applies to full movement median openings where a "restrictive" (nontraversable) median is present that physically prevents vehicle crossing. Full openings could potentially be signalized in the future and spacing should be maintained for progression and signal coordination. Greater distances may be required to provide for sufficient turn lane storage. Directional median openings may be allowed at any location on the roadway where the (city/county) engineer determines that U-turns or left-turn movements can be safely accommodated. (2) For roads with posted speed limits 45mph. (3) Or per existing block spacing or block spacing as identified in the local comprehensive plan or an approved development plan. Densely developed areas with a block pattern that accommodates community activities, bicyclists, and pedestrians should not have posted speeds higher than 35 mph. Commentary: These standards are modelled after those of the Florida Department of Transportation, Rule 14-97, F.A.C., for consistency. If FDOT rules are amended at a future date, then these standards should be amended accordingly. Access spacing standards limit the number of driveways and median openings on a roadway by mandating a minimum separation distance. This reduces traffic conflicts and the potential for crashes between vehicular and non-vehicular traffic, and encourages supporting street network development or the sharing of access. Connection spacing at street intersections is known as corner clearance and must consider sight distance and traffic queues, as addressed in Section 7. Connection spacing standards are not provided for >45 mph on Category C it is not intended for high-speed roadways. Although connection spacing standards are often viewed as applicable only to driveways, they also apply to street connections. In urban contexts, connection spacing can support development of a grid or modified grid network to accommodate development access and traffic circulation off the major thoroughfare system and enhance the accessibility of developed areas. In suburban contexts, street connections and high-volume or joint use driveway connections are preferable to frequent minor driveways on major roadways. NOTE: In regulation, should indicates guidance based on recommended practice and allows a degree of discretion based on local conditions, as opposed to shall, which indicates a regulatory mandate. Use of the term connection rather than driveway encompasses both driveways and street connections. The term access spacing encompasses both connections and median openings. 44

54 (Alternative approach without Access Categories) Access spacing on all locally maintained collectors and arterials shall be based upon posted speed in accordance with Table 6, or as provided in FDOT Rule 14-97, F.A.C., for state maintained roadways, unless otherwise amended through adoption of a corridor access management plan. Table 6: Example Access Spacing by Posted Speed Posted Speed Limit (MPH) Connection Spacing (Feet) < (3) (3) 1320 Median Opening Spacing (1) (feet) Full Movement (2) /2640 (1) Applies to full movement median openings where a "restrictive" (nontraversable) median is present that physically prevents vehicle crossing. Full openings could potentially be signalized in the future and spacing should be maintained for progression and signal coordination. Greater distances may be required to provide for sufficient turn lane storage. Directional median openings may be allowed at any location on the roadway where the (city/county) engineer determines that U-turns or left-turn movements can be safely accommodated. (2) For roads with posted speed limits of 45mph. (3) Or per existing block spacing or block spacing identified in the local comprehensive plan or an approved development plan. Densely developed areas with a block pattern that accommodates community activities, bicyclists, and pedestrians should not have posted speeds higher than 35 mph. Commentary: The method used to regulate access spacing can vary widely across local governments depending upon the complexity of their thoroughfare system. Most large jurisdictions assign access categories or tie driveway spacing to roadway functional classification, whereas smaller local governments may regulate access spacing only on a single major roadway or tie the spacing criteria to posted speed limit as shown here. Posted speed limit is a proxy for level of urbanization; spacing is lower where posted speeds are low (presumably low speeds are posted in more densely developed areas) and vice versa. The standards above fall within the recommended range and are compatible with the access spacing standards of FDOT. 3) Connection spacing shall be measured from the closest edge of the pavement to the next closest edge of the pavement (see Figure 20). The projected future edge of the pavement of the intersecting road shall be used in measuring corner clearance, where widening, relocation, or other improvement is indicated in an adopted local capital improvement plan or five-year transportation improvement program of the metropolitan planning organization. 4) Wherever an access connection is permitted in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance, access rights along the remaining thoroughfare frontage shall be dedicated to the (city/county), and all other pre-existing driveways shall be closed and eliminated. In the case of a joint-use driveway, the property owner shall enter 45

55 into a written agreement with the (city/county), recorded in the records of the County and running with the land, that pre-existing driveways on the building site will be closed and eliminated at the property owner s expense after the construction of both sides. 5) If the access is proposed to have a traffic signal, or will necessitate modifications to a traffic signal, a progression analysis shall be required in addition to the warrant analysis. Considerations for approval shall include the through movement functions of the impacted roadway, the functional area of nearby signalized intersections, ability to maintain adequate pedestrian crossing times on cross streets, and the ability to coordinate signals for efficient progression. Section 6 Deviations and Waivers 1) If the access spacing standards cannot be achieved, or the standards can be achieved but the applicant wishes to propose an alternative, then the following shall apply: a) Requests for deviation from access spacing standards under ten percent of the allowable spacing standard or 100 feet, whichever is less, may be authorized by the (city/county) Engineer and must be supported by an engineering study that shows the deviation would not create a safety or operational problem on the public road. b) Requests for deviation of 10% or more of the allowable standard shall require an access management plan supported by a traffic impact study signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, that demonstrates how the public is better served, and not just the applicant or clients or customers, and how the plan ensures safe access and circulation for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. The plan shall require approval by the (Development Review Committee or other appropriate body), as well as the FDOT District Access Management Review Committee where access is requested to a state maintained roadway. The acceptance of any alternative access plans developed in accordance with this section shall be based upon maximum achievement of the purpose and intent of this ordinance and other applicable (city/county) requirements. 2) Where the existing configuration of properties and driveways in the vicinity of the subject site precludes spacing of an access connection in accordance with this ordinance, the (city/county engineer) shall be authorized to waive the spacing requirement if all of the following conditions have been met: a) A joint use driveway will be established to serve two or more abutting building sites with cross access easements, as provided in Section 10; b) The building site is designed to provide cross access and unified circulation with abutting sites; and c) The property owner agrees to close any pre-existing driveways that do not meet the requirements of this ordinance after the construction of both sides of the joint use driveway. The property owner shall enter a written agreement with the (city/county), to be recorded with the deed, indicating any pre-existing driveways on the site to be closed and dedicating access rights along the remaining thoroughfare frontage to the (city/county). 3) Development sites that cannot be permitted access under this section and that have no reasonable alternative means of access to the public road system will be issued 46

56 approval for a nonconforming connection and shall be subject to the requirements of Section 9(2). Conditions shall be included in the permit that may limit access to a specific use, limit the intensity of development on the site, and/or require joint use driveways and cross access easements. Commentary: This section provides flexibility in the application of access management standards through criteria and procedures for deviations, access management plans, joint use driveways and interparcel cross access. It is essential that these standards and criteria be consistently applied and enforced and that data and other information supporting these decisions be well documented, or the community could be open to legal challenges regarding due process considerations. Access to the State Highway System (SHS) must comply with Rule of Florida s Administrative Code and related FDOT policies and procedures. Deviations from FDOT standards on the SHS not resolved at the staff level may require approval of the District Access Management Review Committee (AMRC). Permitting procedures of the FDOT are detailed in Rule of Florida s Administrative Code and procedures and criteria for decisions related to deviations from FDOT standards that are not resolved at the staff level are available in the document Median Openings and Access Management, Topic No h, February 20, Section 7 Corner Clearance and Side Street Access 1) Corner clearance for connections within the functional area of an intersection shall meet or exceed the minimum connection spacing requirements for the subject roadways. New connections shall not be permitted within this functional area, unless: a) No other reasonable access to the property is available, and b) The (permitting authority) determines that the connection does not create a safety or operational problem upon review of a site-specific study of the proposed connection prepared by a registered engineer and submitted by the applicant. 2) Where no other alternatives exist, the (permitting department) may allow construction of an access connection along the property line farthest from the intersection. In such cases, directional controls (i.e. right-in/out, right-in only, or right-out only) may be required. 3) In addition to the required minimum lot size, all corner lots created on arterial or collector roadways shall have adequate street frontage to comply with corner clearance requirements, unless access is internalized or shared with abutting properties. 4) Side street access shall be provided to non-residential properties fronting on arterial and major collector roadways to allow access via the secondary street system. Side street connections shall be separated from the intersection to the maximum extent practical, as shown in Figure 23: Examples of cross access corridor design. Commentary: Some local governments restrict side street access to commercial properties that abut residential areas. This type of regulation is typically adopted due to concerns that the side street access is too close to residences and will cause through traffic into the neighborhood. Experience and practice has shown that those benefitting most from the side street access tend to be the very residential neighborhoods that oppose it, as they can enter the business without circulating onto a major road. 47

57 Section 8 Driveway Location and Design 1) The following factors shall be considered by the (city/county) Engineer when assessing the suitability of a proposed connection: a) On undivided roadways, new access connections shall be aligned with those across the roadway if possible or offset an adequate distance to minimize overlapping left turns, jog maneuvers, and other maneuvers that may result in safety or operational problems. Minimum offset distance guidelines are provided in Table 7. Longer offsets may be required by the (city/county) Engineer depending on expected inbound left-turn volumes of the connections. b) Access connections shall be located so as to provide adequate intersection sight distance. Commentary: Sight distance guidelines and additional guidance are provided in the FDOT Driveway Handbook (current edition). c) Connections across from median openings shall be consolidated wherever feasible to coordinate access at the median opening. Table 7: Minimum Offset Distance between Connections on Opposite Sides of Undivided Roadways Roadway Classification Minimum Offset (ft) (1) Major Arterial 600 (2), 300 (3) Minor Arterial 220 Major Collector 200 Minor Collector 150 (1) Measured centerline-to-centerline of opposing driveways on intersections (2) Posted speed 45 mph or greater (3) Posted speed 40 mph or less Source: V. Stover, Access Connections on Opposite Sides of a Roadway, Center for Urban Transportation Research, As adopted by Martin County (FL) Code, Article 4, Division 19: Roadway Design, Sec Access management, Table , prepared by Vergil Stover, ) The (city/county) Engineer may require auxiliary lanes (e.g., left- or right-turn lanes, bypass lane) where deemed necessary due to traffic volumes or where a safety or operational problem is expected without such a lane. Commentary: Guidelines on when to require an exclusive right turn lane at an unsignalized driveway are provided in the FDOT Driveway Handbook (current edition). 3) Driveway width and return radius shall be adequate to serve traffic volumes and provide for efficient movement of vehicles onto and off of major thoroughfares. The width of driveways shall not be so excessive as to pose safety hazards for pedestrians and bicycles. In addition, driveways shall be designed with adequate onsite storage for entering and exiting vehicles to reduce unsafe conflicts with through traffic or on-site traffic and to avoid congestion at the entrance. Guidelines for driveway design for passenger cars appear in Table 8 and Table 9. Where large volumes of trucks are expected, especially tractor trailer vehicles, the driveway design should be specific to the type and volume of vehicle. 48

58 4) Driveways with more than one entry and one exit lane shall incorporate channelization features (median dividers) to separate the entry and exit sides of the driveway. Where space is not available for trucks, a double yellow line may be considered. 5) Access connections shall not be approved within any turn lane, bypass lane or acceleration/deceleration lane, including taper sections, except where no other reasonable or suitable access is available. 6) The (city/county engineer) shall be authorized to allow a pair of one-way driveways in lieu of a two-way driveway, where traffic flow on the impacted roadway will be improved as a result. Table 8: Design Guidelines for Signalized or Divided Driveways No of Lanes Entry Exit Entry Exit Divider 1 2 Not landscaped (3) Minimum Throat Length (ft) Radius (1) (feet) Width (2) (feet) Radius (feet Width (2) (feet) 1 2 Landscaped (4) (5) Landscaped (4) (5) Landscaped (4) (1) Where the radius is tangent to the edge of the roadway a 2ft offset should be used, especially with Portland Cement Concrete, to avoid structural failure. (2) Width face-to-face of curbs, or face of divider to edge of driveway pavement. (3) Driveway medians (dividers) that are not landscaped shall have a surface color that contrasts with the driveway pavement surface; the surface of the divider shall not be more than 3 inches above the driveway pavement surface. The divider shall be outlined with a 4" wide solid yellow line. (4) Landscaped medians shall be at least 10 ft. wide, face-to-face of curb. The length shall be equal to the throat length. A mountable type curb shall be used, preferably 4 inches in height but not to exceed 6 inches. A more liberal design is needed with a landscaped divider because an entering vehicle cannot encroach on the exit side of the drive. (5) Includes a separate right-turn lane. Source: Martin County (FL) Code, Article 4, Division 19: Roadway Design, Sec Access management, Table , prepared by Vergil Stover,

59 Table 9: Design Guidelines for Undivided Driveways Roadway Class Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Street Number of Lanes (2) Entry Side Exit Side Entry Exit Radius (1) Width Radius (1) Width Total Throat Width (ft) Minimum Total Throat Length (ft) (1) Where the radius is tangent to the edge of the roadway a 2ft offset should be used, especially with Portland Cement Concrete, to avoid structural failure. (2) Entry and exit sides of the driveway shall be separated by a four-inch solid yellow line; exit lanes shall be separated by a four-inch solid white line. Paint lines shall extend the full length of the driveway throat. Source: Martin County (FL) Code, Article 4, Division 19: Roadway Design, Sec Access management, Table , prepared by Vergil Stover, ) To provide a clear view of intersecting streets and traffic to vehicles and pedestrians, a triangular area of clear visibility shall be maintained, as formed by two (2) intersecting streets or the intersection of a driveway and a street. The following standards shall be met: a) Nothing shall be erected, placed, parked, planted, or allowed to grow in such a manner so as to materially impede vision between the height of two (2) feet and ten (10) feet above the grade, measured at the centerline of the intersection. Existing protected trees and plants shall remain if trimmed and maintained to comply with the visibility standards above. b) The clear vehicle and pedestrian visibility triangle shall be shown on the plans. 8) Driveway grades shall conform to the requirements of FDOT Standard Index, Roadways and Traffic Design Standard Indices, latest edition. Commentary: The Florida Department of Transportation requires local governments to adhere to certain minimum design standards in the design and location of access connections or other traffic control features. These standards are contained in three separate but related technical documents: the Standard Index (Roadway and Traffic Design Standards); the "Florida Green Book" (Manual of Uniform Minimum Standard for Design, Construction, and Maintenance); and the MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The standards shown here are further refined to demonstrate the relationship between driveway throat width and radius. 50

60 Section 9 Nonconforming Access Commentary: This section recognizes the existence of access connections that were lawful when established, but which do not meet newly adopted standards. It provides requirements to encourage the elimination of nonconforming access connections or reduce their adverse impacts on the roadway system as the opportunity arises. 1) Permitted access connections in place at the time of adoption of this ordinance and that do not meet the standards herein shall be designated as nonconforming and allowed to remain. 2) Nonconforming access features shall be brought into compliance with applicable standards under the following conditions: a) When new connection permits are needed; b) When the existing use of the property changes to a land use with greater density or intensity on the site; c) When substantial enlargements or improvements are proposed; or d) As reconstruction of the abutting roadway allows. Commentary: In many developed areas, full achievement of access management standards may not be feasible. In these cases, the goal is simply to improve upon the existing access and circulation system and advance the intent of access management to the maximum extent feasible. The provisions of Section 6 and Section 26 would apply. 3) If the principal activity on a property with nonconforming access is discontinued for a consecutive period of (180 or 365) days, or discontinued for any period of time without a present intention of resuming that activity, then that property must thereafter be brought into conformity with all applicable connection spacing and design requirements, unless otherwise exempted by the permitting authority. For uses that are vacant or discontinued upon the effective date of this code, the (180 or 365) day period begins on the effective date of this code. Commentary: Florida law ( (3)(b) F.S.) establishes that any property that expands its trip-making potential by 25% and at least 100 trips per day needs to be evaluated as a possible new permit (e.g., significant change in trip generation). However, this definition does not provide guidance on when a property that has been out of service for a long period of time should be required to undergo reevaluation and obtain a new permit. The Florida Department of Transportation currently considers property discontinued when there has been a cessation of trips to the property, other than trips to maintain or market the property associated with that use. The use of the property is also considered discontinued where the business located on the property has been out of service for a period of one year or more. If the use of a business has been discontinued for the period of one year or more, any use proposed by an applicant shall constitute a significant change for the purposes of access permitting. Local governments may choose to do the same for consistency or be more restrictive and provide only a 180 day grace period. 51

61 Section 10 Joint and Cross Access 1) The (planning official), in coordination with the (city/county engineer) shall be authorized to require interparcel cross access between adjacent developments or to designate cross-access corridors on properties adjacent to arterial and major collector roadways. Such requirement or designation may be made in connection with the approval of any subdivision or site plan within the affected area, or as part of an overall planning program. 2) Wherever a cross-access corridor has been designated in accordance with Section 10(1), the business sites within the affected area shall be designed to provide for mutually coordinated or joint parking, access and circulation systems providing adequate access for customers as well as service and loading vehicles to each business site. The cross access corridor should be designed to include the following: a) A continuous service drive or cross access corridor extending the entire length of each block served or at least 1000 feet of linear frontage along the abutting roadway; b) A design speed of 10 mph and sufficient width for two-way travel aisles designed to accommodate automobiles, service vehicles, and loading vehicles; c) Stub-outs and other design features to make it visually obvious that the abutting properties may be tied in to provide cross-access via a service drive; d) Continuous and unobstructed pedestrian pathways for safe pedestrian circulation within and between sites, and e) Linkage to other cross-access corridors in the area. 3) Pursuant to this section, each applicant for subdivision or site plan approval shall provide such easements, agreements and stipulations as may be necessary to be recorded in the public records of (applicable County) so as to constitute a covenant running with the land, including: a) An easement allowing cross access to and from other properties served by the joint use driveways and cross access or service drive; b) An agreement that remaining access rights along the major roadway will be dedicated to the (city/county) and that any pre-existing driveways will be closed and eliminated after construction of the joint-use driveway; c) A joint maintenance agreement defining maintenance responsibilities of property owners that share the unified access and circulation system. Commentary: See Appendix D for an example cross access agreement from Citrus County, Florida. These agreements must be prepared with the assistance of an attorney. The provisions of this section were modeled from those of the City of Orlando Code of Ordinances, Land Development Code, Chapter 61, Roadway Design and Access Management. The above illustration shows that sufficient separation is needed between side street access to the property and the major roadway. 52

62 Figure 24: Examples of cross access corridor design Source: City of Orlando 4) Driveway connections shall not be located within 3 feet of the extended side property line of the property to be serviced unless a notarized written agreement signed by all the owners of the adjoining property using the common driveway is filed with the (appropriate city/county official) stating that a joint-use driveway for the two adjoining properties shall be located on the common property line. 5) Where the abutting properties are in different ownership, cooperation between the various owners is encouraged but not required. Only the building site(s) under consideration for development approval shall be subject to required easements, agreements and stipulations, which shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. If shared access/cross access attempts are unsuccessful, then access roads and parking shall still be oriented so as to facilitate future cross access connections by adjacent parcels. Abutting properties developed or redeveloped at a later date shall at that time be required to provide unified access and circulation, together with all necessary easements, agreements and stipulations. 6) The (planning official) in coordination with the (city/county engineer) may modify the requirements of this section where the characteristics or layout of abutting properties would make development of a unified or shared access and circulation system impractical. 7) Designated cross-access corridors shall be indicated on the Official Zoning Map and the map shall distinguish those portions of the designated corridor for which easements have been granted. Commentary: Adjacent commercial uses are often not connected by a cross access drive and pedestrian pathway. As a result, customers who wish to patronize more than one location may need to exit the parking lot and travel a short distance on a major roadway, to access the adjacent or nearby site. A cross access drive and sidewalk reduces traffic on the major thoroughfare and reduces safety hazards for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. Businesses can benefit from improved accessibility. 53

63 Section 11 Outparcels and Phased Development Plans 1) In the interest of promoting unified access and circulation systems, development sites under the same ownership or sites consolidated for the purposes of development or part of phased development plans and comprised of more than one building site shall not be considered separate properties in relation to access management standards. The following requirements shall apply: a) The number of connections permitted shall be the minimum number necessary to provide reasonable access to these properties, not the maximum available for that frontage. b) All access to outparcels must be internalized using the shared circulation system of the principle development or retail center and designed to avoid excessive movement across parking aisles and queuing across surrounding parking and driving aisles. All necessary easements, agreements, and stipulations required under Section 10 shall be met. c) The owner and all lessees within the affected area are responsible for compliance with the requirements of this code and both shall be cited for any violation. 2) The number of outparcels shall not exceed one per ten acres of site area, with a minimum lineal frontage of 300 feet per outparcel or greater where access spacing standards for that roadway require. This frontage requirement may be waived where access is internalized using the shared circulation system of the principle development or retail center. In such cases, the right of direct access to the roadway shall be dedicated to the (city/county) and recorded with the deed. Commentary: The Florida Department of Transportation administrative rule on Access Management Standards ( (3)(e)) seeks to manage the proliferation of individual access connection requests by separate properties under the same ownership. This section states that adjacent properties under single ownership will be treated as one property unless the applicant can show the Department that the two properties should have separate access due to safety and operational hazards. Marketing of the two properties is not a valid reason to have them treated as separate properties. Section 12 Street Network and Connectivity Commentary: The purpose of this section is to ensure that the street system of all proposed subdivisions or development plans is designed to coordinate with surrounding existing, proposed, and planned streets. 1) All subdivision and development plans shall contribute to developing and/or enhancing a street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as well as access to all existing and future development within a ¼ mile radius of the proposed development, via at least three arterial or major collector streets upon development of the remaining parcels within the ¼ mile radius. Commentary: Consider also the street spacing and connectivity requirements of Fort Collins, Colorado. The requirements are implemented through the development review process and applicants are required to submit an access management plan that advances the standards. The code ties street spacing with access spacing criteria, as follows: 54

64 Spacing of Full Movement Collector and Local Street Intersection With Arterial Streets. Potentially signalized, full-movement intersections of collector or local streets with arterial streets shall be provided at least every one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet or one-quarter (¼) mile along arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, or a natural area or feature [Section (C)]. Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street Intersections with Arterial Streets. Additional non-signalized, potentially limited movement, collector or local street intersections with arterial streets shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred and sixty (660) feet between full movement collector or local street intersections, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, or a natural area or feature [Section (D)]. 2) Wherever a proposed subdivision or development abuts unplatted land or a future development phase of the same development, street stubs shall be provided as deemed necessary by the (city/county) to provide access to abutting properties or to logically extend the street system into the surrounding area. All street stubs shall end with a temporary turn-around or cul-de-sac unless specifically exempted by the Public Works Director, and the restoration and extension of the street shall be the responsibility of any future developer of the abutting land. 3) All subdivision or development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development. Developers required to extend collector roads may be eligible for impact fee credits where such extension is not reasonably related to the impacts of the development. The requirements of this subsection do not apply if it is demonstrated that a connection cannot be made because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a) Physical conditions preclude development of the connecting street; b) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment. 4) All subdivision and development plans in areas designated by the (city/county) as requiring a block pattern for walkability shall include block lengths that conform with that pattern, unless the block length must be greater due to the existence of one or more of the following conditions: a) Physical conditions (e.g. topography), buildings, or other existing development on adjacent lands physically preclude the appropriate block length; or b) An existing public street terminating at the boundary of the development site, has a longer block length, or is situated such that the extension of the street(s) into the development site would create a longer block length. In such cases, every effort shall be made to accomplish reasonable block lengths to maintain walkability. 5) Modified grids, T-intersections, roadway jogs or traffic calming measures should be used to discourage the use of local residential streets for cut-through traffic. Commentary: Local governments must maintain a tenuous balance between enhancing accessibility and limiting excessive through traffic in residential areas. These standards strive to address both considerations. 55

65 Figure 25. Street network connectivity and access Source: Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Districts, Section 13 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 1) Subdivision and development plans shall employ site design strategies and bicycle/pedestrian access ways that seek to shorten walking distances and increase accessibility between residential areas and surrounding destinations, such as community facilities, transportation options, and employment centers. The following shall also apply: a) Sidewalks connecting residential developments to the sidewalk system of surrounding roadways shall be designed to meet the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. b) New developments shall provide a direct pedestrian connection to existing or proposed transit stops within and at the edge of the development site. c) A 20-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian easement may be required in residential subdivisions where needed to connect cul-de-sacs, to pass through gated or walled areas or blocks in excess of 660 feet, or where needed for purposes of traffic safety or access to nearby schools, recreational areas, trails, transit stops, shopping, employment centers, or other community facilities and services. Commentary: As used in (c) above, nearby means uses within ¼ mile that can be reasonably expected to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists. 56

66 Figure 26: Schematic illustration of easement providing access to transit stop. Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second ed., 2014, Exhibit Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board. 2) New development and any alteration or change in use that results in the creation of new building entrance(s) shall be designed to support pedestrian and bicyclist mobility in accordance with the following: a) Safe and convenient pedestrian and bicyclist ways shall be provided between parking areas and from the building entrance to surrounding streets, external sidewalks, transit stops and development outparcels. b) Convenient access to bicycle parking facilities shall be provided and shall minimize travel distances from adjoining sidewalks and pathways to the bicycle parking facilities. c) Where access is via a sidewalk or pathway, curb ramps shall be installed as appropriate. 3) All on-site pedestrian walkways located in vehicle use areas shall be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, low maintenance smooth surface materials to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as well as the attractiveness of the walkways. 4) Commercial uses set back (e.g., 100) feet or more from the public right-of-way shall provide for direct pedestrian circulation from the building to buildings on adjacent lots. Pedestrian facilities may be incorporated into the required landscape buffer Commentary: This code language was adapted from Wilmapco Mobility Friendly Design Standards November 1997, Wilmington Area Planning Council where they recommended 100 feet as the standard. To promote improved pedestrian accessibility to businesses, the City of Gainesville encourages orientation of gas station convenience stores toward the street frontage with pumps to the rear, as shown in Figure

67 Figure 27: Building placement for ease of pedestrian access. Source: Photos courtesy of the City of Gainesville, FL. 5) Within multi-family residential development with three (3) or more freestanding building units, on-site pedestrian and bicyclist facilities shall be constructed in the following locations: a) From every unit to all other units within the residential development. b) From every unit to all laundry, recreational and other community facilities in the residential development. c) From every building located within forty (40) feet of a public or private street to the street right-of-way line. Section 14 Location and Placement of Transit Access Commentary: See also Section 13 for provisions related to pedestrian access to transit. The (city/county) shall coordinate with local transit agencies on the location and placement of bus and transit stops to ensure conformance with the best practice criteria of this Section. 1) Bus and transit stops shall be placed on the far-side of signalized intersections under the following circumstances: a) In areas where the right of way allows cars to pass the bus or transit vehicle, and especially where a near-side stop will impede other motorists; b) Where a route alignment requires the bus or transit vehicle to turn left before stopping; and c) At complicated intersections with multiphase signals. 58

68 2) Near-side bus and transit stops shall be avoided at intersection with dedicated righthand turn lanes where right-on-red turning is permitted. Where far-side stops cannot be provided, near-side stops should be located at least 100 feet in advance of the signalized intersection. 3) Near-side stops are appropriate under the following conditions: a) At prioritized signalized intersections; b) When the bus or transit vehicle must stop in the travel lane for the front door of the bus to access an intersection and crosswalk because of curb-side parking; c) In combination with curb extensions or bus bulbs to provide direct access from the bus or transit vehicle to the sidewalk; and d) In a right turn lane, if a queue jump signal is provided to allow the bus or transit vehicle to merge back into the travel lane and if accompanied by a sign on the road. 4) Mid-block stops are generally to be avoided, but are appropriate when: a) Route alignments require a right turn and the curb radius is short; b) The distances between intersections is unusually long and major transit generators are located mid-block and cannot be served at the nearest intersection; and c) The pedestrian crossing is accompanied by pavement marking and road lighting 5) Near primary schools, bus stops shall be placed in an area where they can be visually monitored by school personnel and/or crossing guards. Midblock stops shall be avoided. 59

69 Table 10: Recommended Intersection Bus Stop Location Criteria Bus Stop Variables Dimension (A) (Near-Side Major Intersection No Turn lanes in direction of transit Not recommended* unless 2-lane roadway Right turn lane on near side in direction of transit Not recommended unless 2-lane roadway Right turn lane on near side and auxiliary lane on far side in direction of transit ** Not recommended unless 2-lane roadway Auxiliary lane on far side in direction of transit *** Not recommended unless 2-lay roadway* 10 before entry taper for turn bay Dimension (B) (Far-Side Major Intersection Dimension (C) (Near-Side Minor Intersection) Dimension (D) (Far-Side Minor Intersection 40 for a standard bus (60 for an articulated bus) 100 if drop lane 40 for a standard bus (60 for an articulated bus) 12 min As close to entry taper as possible 40 for a standard bus (60 for an articulated bus) 40 for a standard bus (60 for an articulated bus) 110 * 45 for a standard bus (65 for an articulated bus) *** * If necessary, 12 minimum dimension is required. ** This combination of bus bays is referred to as a queue bus bay. *** This arrangement is referred to as an open bus bay. Note: These bus stop location guidelines are for major roads with no on-street parking. Source: Florida Department of Transportation District 4. (2007) Transit Facilities Guidelines N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 11: Recommended Far-side Bus Stop Placement Design Speed (mph) Minimum distance between point of bus traffic re-entry and any upstream turning movement Source: FDOT District 4. (2007) Transit Facilities Guidelines 60

70 Section 15 Interchange Area Access Management Commentary: The purpose of this section is to maximize the development potential of interchange areas, while ensuring that property access in the vicinity of the interchange is located and designed to preserve safe and efficient operation of the interchange and its cross roads. 1) New interchanges or significant modification of an existing interchange are subject to special access management requirements to protect the safety and operational efficiency of the limited access facility and interchange area crossroads. These requirements shall apply to the area extending ½ mile along the crossroad measured from the end of the taper of the ramp furthest from the interchange or up to the first intersection with an arterial road, whichever is less. The following access requirements shall apply: a) The distance to the first access connection shall be at least 660 feet where the posted speed limit is greater than 45 mph or 440 feet where the posted speed limit is 45 mph or less, and these connections should be right-in/right-out only. This distance shall be measured from the end of the taper for that quadrant of the interchange. Greater distances may be required depending upon the access classification of the crossroad. b) The minimum distance to the first full median opening or signalized intersection shall be at least 2640 feet as measured from the end of the taper of the egress ramp. Where the (city/county engineer) determines that this spacing is not feasible due to existing conditions and constraints, the minimum distance shall be no less than 1320 feet. c) Local access roads shall be used for direct access to property within the interchange area. These roads shall be designed to connect to more than one other roadway for improved accessibility. Where properties are under the same ownership or consolidated for the purposes of development, the road shall be constructed by the developer. Where the road will serve properties under separate ownership, a method will be established to apportion the costs of initiating and constructing the road. 2) The minimum lot frontage for all properties with frontage on a crossroad within the ½-mile area of a new interchange shall be 660 feet, and the minimum lot depth shall be at least twice the width but no greater than four times the width. The frontage requirement shall not apply to properties that obtain access from an interior road. Commentary: The purpose of this requirement is to avoid small lot frontages with access constraints and preserve opportunities for access roads and internal circulation. 3) All new development within the interchange area shall employ site design strategies that seek to shorten walking distances and shall provide sidewalks or other improved pedestrian access ways that support safe and convenient pedestrian circulation between hotels, restaurants and other interchange area land uses and businesses. Pedestrian ways that traverse parking areas should be clearly demarcated. Commentary: New highway interchanges can have substantial impacts on land development patterns around the interchange area. If land development is not properly planned, it can create safety hazards and interfere with the flow of traffic onto and off of the interchange. The above requirements promote street networks and service roads to serve new interchange development (see Figure 28 for example). Local governments could also identify other appropriate access management standards around the 61

71 interchange area, in accordance with a desired land development plan. Pedestrian circulation is a critical element that should be addressed to allow those staying in interchange area hotels to patronize nearby restaurants and services without the need for an automobile. The above standards are provided for incorporation into the local code. These requirements could alternatively be applied through development and adoption of an interchange area access management plan. Another concept is to establish an interchange activity center overlay district to address land use intensity and network development for high growth interchanges. Figure 28: Interchange area with street network for circulation and access. Section 16 Medians Source: Photo by Philip Demosthenes. 1) All multilane arterials shall be designed with a raised or restrictive median. Four-lane roadway sections with design speeds of 40 mph or less may be designed without a raised or restrictive median if projected traffic volumes are less than 20,000 ADT, but sections of raised or restrictive median may still be incorporated for enhancing vehicular and pedestrian safety, improving traffic efficiency, and attainment of access management standards. 2) Full movement median openings should only be granted where: a) An intersection is signalized or expected to be signalized; b) The opening conforms with adopted median opening spacing standards, or is separated from neighboring median openings so as to avoid any interference with deceleration, queuing or sight distance in the area; c) Traffic volumes on the roadway provide sufficient opportunity for left turns and crossing maneuvers from intersecting access connections; and d) Decision sight distance is sufficient for drivers on the roadway to monitor activity at the median opening and proceed without decelerating or to turn left into the roadway without interference. 62

72 3) All median designs and provisions shall be consistent with standards provided by the FDOT Manual of Minimum Standards for Design and Maintenance for Streets and Highways. Commentary: The provisions above are modelled after FDOT policy and procedures. The FDOT Median Handbook (2014 or latest edition) provides extensive guidance on median and median opening location and design. Section 17 Corridor Access Management Plans and Overlays 1) The (city/county) may designate segments of roadway corridor for the purpose of developing corridor access management plans and overlay zones that apply special access management requirements to the designated corridors. The purpose of this designation is to develop a specific plan to reduce access problems on major thoroughfares and achieve the desired character of the area in conformance with the (local government) Comprehensive Plan. Elements of the plan shall include but are not limited to median openings, signal locations or roundabouts, access connections, supporting roadway networks, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, location of transit stops where applicable, and interparcel cross access and joint access requirements for adjacent developments. Corridor access management plans for state maintained highways shall be developed in coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation as provided in Rule (3)g, FAC. 2) Example Corridor Access Management Overlay Option: No new or additional access rights will be permitted for properties created as the result of parcel or lot splits subsequent to the enactment of this Ordinance. All land in a parcel having a single tax code number, as of (date of adoption), fronting on (define segment of affected thoroughfare or refer to a Table defining affected segments this option is especially applicable Category A Roadways, FDOT AC 2 or 3), shall be entitled one (1) access connection on said public thoroughfare(s). When subsequently subdivided, either as metes and bounds parcels or as a recorded plat, the designated parcels herein shall provide access to all newly created lots via the permitted access connection. This may be achieved through subdivision roads, joint and cross access, service roads, and other reasonable means of ingress and egress in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance. The following standards shall also apply: a) As a condition of development approval, all development plans must provide for the construction of the section of service road that provides access to the (designated thoroughfares). This shall be accomplished as practical and may necessitate an escrow of funds and/or development agreement for future construction. b) Parcels adjacent to or in close proximity to service roads provided through development or depicted in an adopted Access Management Plan, shall obtain access via the service road. c) Each development plan shall provide for appropriate stub-outs to support cross access between adjacent parcels. d) Parcels with large frontages may be permitted more than one access connection at the time of adoption of these requirements provided they are consistent with the applicable connection spacing standards. e) Existing parcels with frontage less than the minimum connection spacing may not be permitted a direct connection to the thoroughfare under this section where the 63

73 (appropriate reviewing authority) determines alternative reasonable access is available to the site. f) Additional access connections may be allowed where the property owner demonstrates that safety and efficiency of travel on the thoroughfare will be improved by providing more than one access to the site. g) Permitted connections shall be identified on a map that shall be adopted by reference and that portion of designated thoroughfare affected by these overlay requirements shall be delineated on the (city/county) zoning map. Figure 29: Corridor access management overlay. Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second ed., 2014, Exhibit Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board. Commentary: Overlay zoning adds special requirements onto those of existing zoning districts. The above overlay regulations are intended for corridors that are planned for more intensive development and have not already been extensively subdivided into small lot frontages. Such corridors may or may not be currently zoned for commercial or mixed use development, but may already be experiencing development pressure. This overlay "freezes" allowable access to one connection by right per existing lot or parcel at the time of adoption. Lots or parcels may be extensively subdivided, but all future lots must obtain access via the connections permitted at the time of overlay adoption. This stimulates development of access roads, joint use access, interparcel cross access, and other alternatives to direct thoroughfare access (see Figure 29). Additional access connections may be permitted for large parcels that meet or exceed the minimum access spacing standards for that thoroughfare, or where safety would be increased as a result. Parcels with small frontages at the time of adoption are not permitted a driveway on the thoroughfare where this would create a safety hazard or where alternative reasonable access is available. In such cases, a temporary driveway could be permitted using the procedures in Section 10 or Section 6(2). Local governments are also encouraged to apply design guidelines that enhance community character and support active transportation modes, including standards for pedestrian and bicycle circulation and landscaping. 64

74 Section 18 Reverse Frontage 1) Access to double frontage lots shall be required on the street with the lower functional classification. 2) When a residential subdivision is proposed that would abut an arterial, it shall be designed to provide through lots along the arterial with access from a frontage road or interior local road. Access rights of these lots to the arterial shall be dedicated to the (city/county) and recorded with the deed. A berm or buffer yard may be required at the rear of through lots to buffer residences from traffic on the arterial. The berm or buffer yard shall not be located within the public right-of-way. Commentary: These reverse frontage standards are typically applied to suburban arterials to reduce safety hazards caused by direct residential access to high-speed roadways and to buffer homes from the adverse impacts of vehicular traffic. See Figure 19 for an illustration of reverse frontage. In a low speed urban context, homes could face the major roadway with driveway access via an alley or local street at the rear of the property. Alternatively, regular side streets could provide access with homes facing the side street. Section 19 Flag Lot Standards 1) Flag lots shall not be permitted when their effect would be to increase the number of building sites taking driveway access to a collector or arterial roadway. 2) Flag lots may be permitted for residential development when deemed necessary to achieve planning objectives, such as reducing direct access to thoroughfares, providing internal platted lots with access to a residential street, or preserving natural or historic resources, under the following conditions: a) Flag lot driveways shall be separated by at least twice the minimum frontage requirement of that zoning district. b) The flag driveway shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and maximum width of 50 feet. c) In no instance shall flag lots constitute more than 10% of the total number of building sites in a recorded or unrecorded plat, or three lots or more, whichever is greater. d) The lot area occupied by the flag driveway shall not be counted as part of the required minimum lot area of that zoning district. e) No more than one flag lot shall be permitted per private right-of-way or access easement. Commentary: Local plat maps often reveal lots shaped like flags with long narrow access "poles". Flag lots are especially prevalent along lakes, rivers, cul-de-sacs, and rural highways. Although they can be useful where natural features or land division patterns create access problems, they are subject to abuse. Flag lots may proliferate in rural areas where property owners use the technique to avoid plat review while subdividing land. The result is a subdivision that lacks adequate access and creates long-term problems for the community and those who purchase the lots. Under these standards, existing flag lots would be nonconforming and allowed to continue. In areas where flag lots are stacked to obtain access to a state or county thoroughfare, property owners should be contacted and advised to consolidate access and enact joint maintenance agreements with adjacent properties. 65

75 Section 20 Lot Width-to-Depth Ratios 1) To provide for proper site design and prevent the creation of irregularly shaped parcels, the depth of any lot or parcel shall not exceed (2.5 to 3 times its width in urban areas or 4 times its width in rural areas). The permitted depth may be higher in coastal areas subject to erosion or where necessary to preserve future right-ofway for planned thoroughfares identified on the future right-of-way needs identification map. Commentary: Minimum lot frontage and maximum lot width-to-depth ratios prevent the creation of long and narrow or irregularly shaped lots that can lead to access and circulation problems. This standard is especially useful in rural areas, to govern the dimensions of newly created lots and parcels. Note: Rural areas may adopt a maximum width-to-depth ratio of 1:4, meaning that parcels with 100 feet of frontage may not be deeper than 400 feet. Urban or suburban areas may use maximum ratios of 1:2.5 or 1:3. Width-to-depth ratios could be set as high as 1:7 in coastal areas that have a high risk of erosion and somewhat deeper lots may be permitted along arterials to provide for right-of-way needs or berms or buffer yards in reverse frontage situations. Section 21 Small Subdivisions and Rural Residential Access 1) Subdivisions with frontage on the state highway system shall be designed into shared access points to and from the highway. Normally a maximum of two accesses shall be allowed regardless of the number of lots or businesses served. Figure 30: Subdivision access on major roadways. Source: Cheryl S. Doble and George M. McCulloch. Community Design Guidelines Manual. New York State Tug Hill Commission, January Reprinted with permission from the Tug Hill Commission. Commentary: This provision helps to reduce strip lots with individual driveways in semi-rural and rural areas, and promotes land development patterns that are more compatible with the character of rural landscapes. It appears in the guide Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley, and can be used together with conservation easements and clustering provisions to preserve natural resources (see Yaro, Arendt, et al., Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for 66

76 Conservation and Development. Amherst: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1988, p. 140.) One of the principal authors, Randall Arendt, is a leader on the topic of conservation subdivisions. 2) When a residential development is proposed that would abut an arterial or major collector roadway, it shall be designed to provide lots abutting the roadway with access from an interior local road. Direct driveway access to individual one and two family dwellings from arterial and major collector roadways shall be avoided. All other reasonable access alternatives shall be investigated and judged unacceptable by the (city/county) Engineer before direct residential driveway access to any arterial or major collector roadway is permitted. Commentary: This provision is essentially the same as (1) above for rural areas, but is more oriented to urban or suburban areas. 3) Subdivisions served by a single residential access street ending in a cul-de-sac shall not exceed 25 lots or dwelling units. The access street shall be no longer than 1000 feet in length, and the cul-de-sac shall have a minimum cartway radius of 30 feet. Commentary: Subdivisions served by a single access street ending in a cul-de-sac may inhibit emergency access and increase traffic congestion during peak hours by providing only one point of ingress and egress. Single access problems may also result in phased subdivisions where additional access is proposed for future phases. If future phases are not built, the remaining subdivision may have insufficient access. Although this is not a problem where only a few dwelling units are served, how many lots is too many? Average daily trips for residential streets provide a baseline for access and culde-sac standards. Listokin and Walker (1989) recommend that when a subdivision on a single access residential access street exceeds 25 lots (or 25 dwelling units), it should have at least two access points. A minimum turning radius that accommodates emergency vehicles should be required for cul-de-sacs. 4) Unpaved gravel residential drives serving fewer than 8 homes are permitted in rural areas to promote shared access to small rural subdivisions and provide an alternative to residential strips. Minimum driveway width shall be 12 feet for 1-4 homes, and 16 feet for 5 to 7 homes. Shared residential drives shall be built to standards appropriate for the amount of traffic to be accommodated. Commentary: Figure 30 (cluster with shared drive) shows a shared residential drive for seven lots and a driveway designed to serve two homes via a permanent right-ofway as an alternative to the conventional flag lot. Use of cluster zoning and allowing less costly alternatives to paved subdivision streets encourages property owners in rural areas to accommodate residential development in a more creative nonstrip fashion, as discussed in Rural by Design. Officials can reach out to property owners and promote these alternatives through simple graphics and sketch planning techniques. Section 23 (2) further provides regulatory language for private roads in rural and semi-rural areas. 67

77 Figure 31: Shared residential access on rural thoroughfares. Source: R. Arendt, Rural by Design, 2015, p Section 22 Review of Minor Subdivisions and Lot Splits 1) The (approving Department) may approve a Minor Subdivision that conforms to the following standards: a) Each proposed lot must be buildable in conformance with the requirements of this Code and all other applicable regulations. b) Each lot shall abut a public or private street for the required minimum lot frontage for the zoning district where the lots are located. c) If any lot abuts a street right-of-way that does not conform to the design specifications of this Code, the owner may be required to dedicate one-half the right-of-way width necessary to meet minimum design requirements. 2) Further subdivision of the property shall be prohibited unless applicants submit a plat or development plan in accordance with requirements for major subdivisions in this Code. Commentary: This standard prohibits property owners from incrementally subdividing land to avoid review. 3) The (approving Department) shall consider a proposed Minor Subdivision upon the submittal of the following materials: a) An application form provided by the (city/county); b) (xx) copies of the proposed Minor Subdivision plat; [Note: The number of copies required should be based on number of entities that will review the plan under adopted procedures.] c) A statement indicating whether water and/or sanitary sewer service is available to the property; and 68

78 d) Land descriptions and acreage or square footage of the original and proposed lots and a scaled drawing showing the intended divisions shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the State of Florida. In the event a lot contains any principal or accessory structures, a survey showing the structures on the lot shall accompany the application. 4) Review Procedure a) The (approving official) shall transmit a copy of the proposed Minor Subdivision to the appropriate (departments or officials) for review and comment. b) If the proposed Minor Subdivision meets the conditions of this section and otherwise complies with all applicable laws and ordinances, the (approving official) shall approve the Minor Subdivision by signing the application form. c) Upon approval of the Minor Subdivision, the (approving official) shall record the plat on the appropriate maps and documents, and shall, at the applicant's expense, record the plat in the official county records. Commentary: These requirements for minor subdivisions are adapted from Florida's Model Land Development Code and provided here to emphasize the importance of adequate land division controls in access management. They provide for local review of divisions of land or "lot splits" that would otherwise be exempted from subdivision review and platting requirements. A review process for lot splits prevents creation of lots that are not in conformance with land development regulations and thus could be rendered unbuildable. It further prevents creation of lots with inadequate or inappropriate access to a public road. This allows local governments to prevent access problems attributable to flag lots, through lots, and corner lots. This review process is streamlined and platting requirements are less costly than those of a major subdivision, so as not to create a hardship for property owners engaged in only minor subdivision activity. Local governments are strongly advised not to provide exemptions from public review of land division activity based on lot size or number of lots, because this creates long-term problems that can seriously undermine the local planning and regulatory program. Section 23 Private Roads 1) Private roads may be permitted in accordance with the requirements of this Section and the following general standards shall apply: a) All (city/county) roads shall be constructed to public specifications and have an easement of a minimum of sixty-six feet in width, except as otherwise provided in Section 23(2). b) Private roads that by their existence invite the public in shall have all traffic control features, such as striping or markers, in conformance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. c) The minimum distance between private road outlets on a single side of a public road shall be 660 feet, or less where provided by access classification and standards for state roads and local thoroughfares. d) All properties served by the private road shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and shall conform to the approved local street numbering system. 69

79 e) All private roads shall be designated as such and will be required to have adequate signage indicating the road is a private road and not publicly maintained. f) All private roads shall have a posted speed limit not to exceed twenty miles an hour. g) All private roads shall have adequate provisions for drainage and stormwater runoff as provided in Section (refer to appropriate section of the local subdivision regulations). h) A second access connection to a public road shall be required for private roads greater than 2000 feet in length. 2) Private roads in rural and semi-rural areas may be permitted reductions in easement and roadway width and pavement standards to provide for adequate access while retaining the rural character of the landscape and design flexibility. At a minimum, the private road shall meet the (city/county) specifications for gravel roadway construction. Other standards shall apply in accordance with the following schedule: a) A private road serving up to two lots shall have a minimum right-of-way easement of 30 feet and a roadbed of at least 12 feet. b) A private road intended to serve no more than three to six lots shall have a minimum right-of-way easement of 30 feet and a roadbed of at least 16 feet. c) A private road intended to serve no more than seven to twelve lots shall have a minimum right-of-way easement of 66 feet and a roadbed of at least 20 feet. Paving shall be required for all areas with grades of greater than three (3%) percent. Such pavement shall be a minimum of 18 feet in width. d) A private road intended to serve no more than 13 to 24 lots shall have a minimum right-of-way easement of 66 feet, a roadbed of at least 24 feet and shall be paved. e) A private road intended to serve 25 or more lots or parcels shall provide at least two access connections to a public road and shall meet the minimum design requirements for public roads. Commentary: This section provides a sliding scale approach, allowing gravel roads of about 12 feet to 18 feet wide for 2-4 parcels and requiring higher design specifications for larger developments. The standards are intended to provide flexibility and to preserve the character of rural areas. Communities considering a sliding scale approach to private roads should also adopt a site plan review process aimed at encouraging creative site design and landscape preservation. 3) Applications for subdivision approval that include private roads shall include a drainage plan and road construction plan, prepared by a registered engineer. The (city/county) Public Works Official shall review private road plans for conformance with this Code. 4) Construction permits are required for connection to public roads. Application for road construction shall be made concurrent with the creation of a lot that does not have frontage on a public road. A road construction permit shall be issued after approval of the private road plan and the entire length of the road shall be inspected during construction and upon completion. If found in conformance, a final use permit shall be issued. 70

80 5) No building permit shall be issued for any lot served by a private road until the private road has been constructed and approved, so that all lots to be served by the private road have access to a public road. 6) A road maintenance agreement, prepared by the (city/county) attorney shall be recorded with the deed of each property to be served by a common private road. The agreement shall provide for: a) A method to initiate and finance a private road and maintain that road in good condition; b) A method of apportioning maintenance costs to current and future users; c) A provision that the (city/county) may inspect, and if necessary, require that repairs be made to the private road to ensure that safe access is maintained for emergency vehicles. If required repairs are not made within six months of date of notice, the (city/county) may make the necessary repairs and assess owners of parcels on the road for the cost of all improvements plus an administrative fee, not to exceed 25% of total costs; d) A provision that the majority vote of all property owners on the road shall determine how the road is maintained except in the case of emergency repairs as outlined above; e) A statement that no public funds shall be used to construct repair or maintain the road; f) A provision requiring mandatory upgrading of the roadway if additional parcels are added to reach the specified thresholds; and g) A provision that property owners along that road are prohibited from restricting or in any manner interfering with normal ingress and egress by any other owners or persons needing to access properties with frontage on that road. 7) No private road shall be incorporated into the public road system unless it is built to public road specifications of the (city/county). The property owners shall be responsible for bringing the road into conformance. 8) All private roads shall have a sign and name meeting (city/county) standards and shall include the following notice: "Private Road" "Not maintained by the (city/county)". 9) An application fee will be established by the Director of Public Works to cover administrative, processing, and inspection costs. 10) All purchasers of property served by a private road shall, prior to final sale, be notified that the property receives access from a private road that shall be maintained collectively by all property owners along that road; that the (city/county) shall not be held responsible for maintaining or improving the private road; and that a right-of way easement to provide the only access to that property has been recorded in the deed for that property. 11) The United States postal service and the local school (board/district) is not required to use the private road for access to the parcels abutting the private road and may require that service be provided only at the closest public access point. Commentary: These private road standards were adapted from the Grand Traverse Bay Region Sample Regulations (Wyckoff, 1992). Some communities prohibit private roads altogether or require all private roads serving more than one dwelling unit to be 71

81 built to public specifications and paved. This is because of problems associated with private roads, such as pressure to adopt the private road into the public road system in the future. Yet if properly regulated, private roads can offer an effective means of access to small subdivisions in rural areas. In the absence of private road regulations, common practice is the creation of multiple lots served by a common lot, easement, or multiple easements as in the example of stacked flag lots. The easement then becomes a private unpaved road serving several properties. Unregulated private roads raise several problems. They may be inaccessible to emergency vehicles or large delivery trucks, placing public safety and private property at risk. Substandard roads deteriorate quickly and without a maintenance agreement, the local government may be called upon to maintain it. Buyers may not be aware of the maintenance issues associated with the road until after purchasing the property. Narrow rights-of-way may impede placement of utilities, and private roads can exacerbate inefficient land development patterns. These problems can be avoided through private road regulations that address design, construction, joint maintenance agreements, signage, and review. Private roads should be permitted for residential uses only and standards should be tied to lot split (minor replat) or subdivision regulations. Limitations should be placed upon the number of residences that may be served by a single access to a public road. As in other land development regulations, private road provisions must be made for grandfathering existing nonconforming situations. Some ordinances address the situation by providing a different set of standards for nonconforming private access or by providing for expansion of existing substandard private roads or easements pursuant to the special use permit process. Section 24 Emergency Access 1) In addition to minimum side, front, and rear yard setback and building spacing requirements specified in this code, all buildings and other development activities such as landscaping, shall be arranged on site to provide safe and convenient access for emergency vehicles. Section 25 Site Plan Review Procedures 1) Applicants shall submit a preliminary site plan for review by (name of department responsible for conducting review). At a minimum, the site plan shall show: a) A complete site plan showing all proposed buildings and parking layouts, including north arrow and date; b) Location of access point(s) on both sides of the road where applicable; c) Distances to neighboring constructed access points, median openings, traffic signals, intersections, and other transportation features on both sides of the property; d) Driveway geometry, throat length, number and direction of lanes to be constructed on the driveway, plus striping plans; e) All planned transportation features (such as auxiliary lanes, signals, etc.); f) Trip generation data or appropriate traffic studies; g) Parking and internal circulation plans, including circulation for private vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and delivery vehicles; 72

82 h) Plat map showing property lines, right-of-way, and ownership of abutting properties; and i) A detailed description of any requested deviation from standards or variance and the reason the deviation or variance is requested. 2) Subdivision and site plan review shall address the following access considerations: a) Is the road system designed to meet the projected traffic demand and does the road network consist of hierarchy of roads designed according to function? b) Is access properly placed in relation to sight distance, driveway spacing, and other related considerations, including opportunities for joint and cross access? Are entry roads clearly visible from the major roadway? c) Do units front on and obtain access from residential access streets, rather than major roadways? d) Does the site layout allow on-site vehicular circulation, without having to use the peripheral road network? e) Does the road system provide adequate access to buildings for residents, visitors, deliveries, emergency vehicles, and garbage collection? f) Have the edges of the roadways been landscaped? If sidewalks are provided alongside the road, have they been set back sufficiently from the road, and has a landscaped planting strip between the road and the sidewalk been provided? g) Does the pedestrian and bicycle path system link buildings with parking areas, entrances to the development, open space, and recreational and other community facilities? h) Other issues as identified in the (city/county) site plan review checklist (see Appendix B). Commentary: The subdivision and site plan review process provides local governments with the most effective opportunity for addressing access considerations and preventing access problems before they occur. This should be done as early as possible in the process. Applicants will be much less amenable to revising the access plan later in the process or after the site plan or plat has been approved. The above checklist of access review considerations was adapted from The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook (Listokin and Walker, 1989). A more detailed checklist from the TRB Access Management Manual (2014) is provided in Appendix B. 3) All developments will be reviewed for their potential multimodal impacts to the transportation system in accordance with (city/county) transportation impact study requirements and procedures. The (city/county) also reserves the right to require a traffic and safety analysis where safety is an issue or where significant problems already exist. Commentary: Local governments should have a transportation impact study (TIS) requirement and procedure in place as it is an essential part of development review. The studies are not only appropriate during access permitting, but also during requests for subdivision, rezoning, and other development activities that may have a substantial adverse impact on the transportation system. A well-prepared transportation impact study helps the developer and permitting agency accomplish the following: Forecast the transportation impacts created by proposed development based on accepted practices, not perception, 73

83 Determine improvements needed to accommodate the proposed development, More efficiently allocate limited funds, Relate land use decisions with transportation conditions, Evaluate the number, location, and design of access points, Update traffic data, Identify needed roadway improvements, Identify needed improvements for non-auto modes, and Provide a basis for determining the developer s responsibility for specific off-site improvements. The type, scope and detail needed for the TIS usually depends on the size, anticipated impact, and/or complexity of the development. The larger the development, as measured by the number of trips generated, the larger the area that may experience measurable traffic impact due to the development and the more extensive the TIS requirements. Very small developments (typically fewer than 100 trips per hour), generally require only a site access location and design review to ensure that access connections are safely located. Principal elements of this review include sight distance, driveway geometry, driveway throat length, site circulation and provisions for bicycles and pedestrians. Larger developments require more extensive review. For additional guidance, see the FDOT Transportation Site Impact Handbook (April 2014 or latest edition) the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Impact Analysis for Site Development: An ITE Recommended Practice. Washington, D.C., 2010; and the CUTR/FDCA 2007 Transportation Concurrency Best Practices Guide Another resource that also includes analysis for non-auto modes is the Montgomery County, MD Local Area Transportation Review and Transportation Policy Area Review Guidelines (January 2013), TPARGuidelinesFINAL.pdf. 4) Applicants shall be notified by the (permitting department) if any additional information is needed to complete the application within 30 days of filing the application. 5) Applications for development that involve access to the State Highway System, or subdivision that may involve future access to a state maintained highway, will also be reviewed by the Florida Department of Transportation for conformance with state access management standards. The (city/county) shall coordinate with FDOT regarding this determination prior to completing its review. In addition, any access request to the State Highway System involving major deviation from FDOT access management standards may require review by the FDOT District Access Management Review Committee (AMRC). 6) Upon review of the access application, the (permitting department) may approve the access application, approve with conditions, or deny the application. This determination will be issued within 90 days of receiving the complete application. 7) If the application is approved with conditions, the applicant shall resubmit the plan with the conditional changes made. The plan, with submitted changes, will be reviewed within 10 working days and approved or rejected. Second applications may only be rejected if conditional changes are not made. 8) If the access permit is denied, the (city/county) shall provide an itemized letter detailing why the application has been rejected and the process for appeals. 74

84 9) All applicants whose application is approved, or approved with conditions, have thirty days to accept the permit. Applicants whose permits are rejected or approved with conditions have 60 days to appeal. Commentary: Effective coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation and internal coordination among local engineering/public works and planning/development services personnel is essential to ensure conformance with access management requirements. One method of improving coordination is to withhold the building permit or certificate of occupancy until the applicant submits the necessary permits or certificates of approval from other regulatory agencies involved in development review. This should include a notice of intent to permit the proposed access connection from the Florida Department of Transportation where the state highway system is involved to ensure conformance with FDOT access management requirements. A pre-application process and conceptual review, before submission of the preliminary site plan or plat, is highly recommended. Section 26 Variance Standards 1) The granting of any variance from access management standards shall be in harmony with the purpose and intent of these regulations and shall not be considered until every feasible option for meeting access standards is explored. 2) Applicants for a variance from these standards must provide proof of unique or special conditions that make strict application of the provisions impractical. This shall include proof that: a) indirect or restricted access cannot be obtained; b) no engineering or construction solutions can be applied to mitigate the condition; and c) no alternative access is available from a street with a lower functional classification than the primary roadway. 3) Under no circumstances shall a variance be granted, unless not granting the variance would deny all reasonable access, endanger public health, welfare or safety, or cause an exceptional and undue hardship on the applicant. No variance shall be granted where such hardship is self-created. Commentary: Each local government has its own process for handling appeals and variances. The standards above are unique to access management and should be incorporated into this process. The handling of any variance should also be consistent with the provisions in Section 6: Deviations and Waivers. Providing for variances and other remedial measures is crucial to avoiding a takings claim by providing due process to the property owner and avoiding unreasonable hardship that may arise in relation to the regulatory framework. Federal case law has established that property owners should first exhaust available administrative remedies, including appeals to the local board of adjustment, before the case may be heard in a court of law. If local appeal procedures exist and the property owner sues before first pursuing a variance or other remedial action, the case may be invalidated on this basis (aka ripeness rules ). 75

85 References Arendt, R., E. Brabec, H. Dodson, C. Reid, and R. Yaro. Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character, American Planning Association, APA Planners Press: Chicago, Illinois (1994). Calthorpe Associates. Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines, City of San Diego Land Guidance System. San Diego, California, (1992). Center for Urban Transportation Research/Florida Department of Transportation. Model Land Development & Subdivision Regulations that Support Access Management for Florida Cities and Counties (1994). Citrus County, Florida. Land Development Code Chapter 1 (2012). City of Altamonte Springs, Florida. Land Development Code, City Code Chapter 28 Article XI (2016). City of Cape Coral (undated). Pine Island Road Corridor Master Plan. Accessed online: and City of Orlando, Florida. Draft Chapter 61: Access Management Code. Orlando, Florida, (2017, as amended). City of Orlando, Florida. Roadway Design and Access Management, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 61 (2010). Ewing, R. Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time, prepared for the Florida Department of Community Affairs, (1996). Florida Planning and Development Lab, Florida State University. Accessing Transit: Design Handbook for Florida Bus Passenger Facilities. Retrieved from Teach America: (2008). Listokin, D. and C. Walker. The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook. New Jersey: The State University of New Jersey, (1989). Mandelker, D. and B. Kolis. "Interim Development Controls in Highway Programs: The Taking Issue." Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law. Winter 1989: Marshall and Williams, Intergovernmental Coordination in Access Management, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Martin County, Florida. Code of Ordinances Article 4, Section 4.19, Roadway Design (2000). McPherson, J.K., D. Coffey, and G. Easley. Model Land Development Code for Florida Cities and Counties. Prepared for the Department of Community Affairs (1989). Moskowitz, H. and C. Lindbloom. The New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, (1993). Sarasota County, Florida. Land Development Regulations, County Code Chapter 74 (2017). Seggerman, K. and K. Williams. Effective Strategies for Comprehensive Corridor Management, Center for Urban Transportation Research, (2004). State of Florida. State Highway System Access Control Classification System and Access Management Standards, Chapter (2009). 76

86 State of Florida. State Highway System Connection Permits, Chapter 14-96, F.A.C. (2015). V. Stover, Access Connections on Opposite Sides of a Roadway, Center for Urban Transportation Research, (2008). Stover, V. and F. Koepke. Transportation and Land Development, 2nd edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, (2002). Victoria (Australia) Department of Planning and Housing. Victorian Code for Residential Development, (1992). Williams, K. and R. Frey. Corridor Preservation: Best Practices for Local Government. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1895: (2004). Williams, K. and J. R. Forester. NCHRP Synthesis 233: Land Development Regulations that Promote Access Management, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, (1996). Williams, K. and C. Hopes. Analysis of Corridor Management Practices on Selected Critical SIS Facilities, Center for Urban Transportation Research, (2007). Williams, K., T. McCauley, M. Wyckoff. Land Division and Access Controls. Planning and Zoning Center Inc., Michigan Society of Planning Officials, (1990). Williams, K. and K. Seggerman. Effective Strategies for Comprehensive Corridor Management, Center for Urban Transportation Research, (2004). Williams, K. and K. Seggerman. Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts, National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research, (2004). Williams, K., V.G. Stover, K. Dixon, and P. Demosthenes, F. Broen, L. Brown, D. Huntington, R. Layton, and K. Seggerman. Access Management Manual, 2 nd Edition. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C. (2014). Wyckoff, M. Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook and Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Sample Regulations, Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., (1992). Yaro, R., R. Arendt, H. Dodson, and E. Brabec. Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Conservation and Development. Amherst: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Environmental Law Foundation, (1988). 77

87 Appendix A: Example Access Management Policies The following access management policy examples may be adapted for use in the local government comprehensive plan. 1. Direct access to major roadways shall be limited to preserve the safety, efficiency, and character of regionally important transportation routes. Individual property access shall not be provided to arterial roadways where alternative access is available. 2. Site and building design for new developments within a transit service area and for Developments of Regional Impact shall be coordinated with public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems. Requirements may include, but are not limited to, pedestrian access to transit vehicles, transit vehicle and pedestrian access to buildings, bus pull-offs, transfer centers, shelters, and bicycle facilities. 3. Existing roadway connections shall be preserved and previously severed connections restored, where appropriate. 4. Accessibility of land development along major arterial roadways shall be preserved through the use of parallel roads, side streets, internal streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and cross access easements connecting adjacent developments. 5. Properties under the same ownership, consolidated for development, or part of phased development plans shall be considered one property for the purposes of access control. Access points to such developments shall be the minimum necessary to provide reasonable access and not the maximum available for that property frontage. 6. Access to commercial development in the area surrounding new freeway interchanges shall be internalized onto a street network or service road. In addition: a) Street connections shall be separated from interchange ramps at a distance that conforms with the applicable signal spacing standards, in order to preserve safe and efficient traffic operations in the interchange area. b) Circulation systems for interchange area development shall be continuous and designed to support both vehicular and pedestrian mobility. 7. Signalized access points on arterial and major collector roadways shall not be approved where they substantially disrupt the ability to synchronize signals and maintain continuous traffic progression. 8. A nontraversable, landscaped median shall be provided on all new multilane major arterials. Undivided roadways and roadways with a continuous two-way, left-turn lane will be considered for reconstruction when the volume meets or exceeds 24,000 vehicles per day. 9. Commercial activity centers with internal grid street networks or unified access and circulation systems shall be strongly encouraged as an alternative to strip development with individual driveways. 10. Existing and new residential and multi-use developments shall be connected by roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian systems that encourage travel between 78

88 neighborhoods and access to transit without requiring use of the major thoroughfare system. 11. Safe and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facility connections shall be provided between new residential developments and adjacent or nearby schools, neighborhood community centers, transit stops, parks, bikeways, commercial and office developments, and other compatible land uses and developable land. New developments shall further be designed to maximize bicycle, pedestrian and transit connections, internally and to adjacent or nearby compatible developments, by allowing movement in any direction to minimize travel distance. 12. New public and private schools shall provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to adjacent or nearby residential developments, as well as unified internal bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Existing public and private schools may be required to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to adjacent or nearby residential developments as needs are identified. 13. Residential developments that include dedication of public streets shall offer a connectivity index of 1.4 or greater to provide for adequate internal and external connections, as well as to improve the overall roadway network. The connectivity index equals the number of street links divided by the number of nodes or link ends (all intersections including cul-de-sac heads). A connectivity index of 1.4 to 1.8 represents optimum connectivity for a residential development. 14. New development shall be designed to support pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation. Requirements may include but are not limited to: a. Orienting pedestrian access to transit centers and existing and planned transit routes or stops; b. Locating parking to the side or behind the development to provide pedestrian accessibility of building entrances and walkways to the street, rather than separation of the building from the street by parking; and c. Providing clearly delineated routes through parking lots to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 15. No new lot or parcel shall be platted or created along arterial or collector roadways that would result in connection spacing that does not comply with the applicable connection spacing standard. 16. The design and planning of multi-modal facilities shall promote and provide adequate ingress and egress to existing and future aviation facilities. City of Raleigh, NC Policy T 2.3 Eliminating Gaps: Eliminate gaps in the roadway system and provide a higher roadway grid density that will increase mobility options and promote the accessibility of nearby land uses. Policy T 2.5 Multi-modal Grids: All new residential, commercial, or mixed use developments that construct or extend roadways should include a multi-modal network (including non-motorized modes) that provides for a well-connected, walkable community, preferably as a grid or modified grid. 79

89 Policy T 2.6 Preserving the Grid: Existing street grid networks should be preserved and extended where feasible and appropriate to increase overall connectivity. Policy T 2.8 Access Management Strategies: Appropriate access management strategies (i.e. location and spacing of permitted driveways) should be applied based on a roadway s functional characteristics, surrounding land uses, and the roadway s users. Policy T 2.9 Curb Cuts: The development of curb cuts along public streets particularly on major streets should be minimized to reduce vehicular conflicts, increase pedestrian safety, and improve roadway capacity. Policy T 2.11 Lane Additions: Consider adding lanes to increase roadway capacity only after the roadway exceeds 20 percent of full capacity and all other alternative approaches have been considered. This includes enhancing other transportation modes and roadway modifications such as restricting driveway access and adding turn lanes. Improvements to the roadway network should increase vehicle dispersion and circulation. Policy T 3.1 Complete Street Standards: Promote Complete Street design standards that provide mobility for all types of transportation modes (pedestrian, bicycle, auto, transit) and support mutually-reinforcing land use and transportation decisions. Work with NCDOT to implement these design standards for state maintained roads within the City s jurisdiction. Complete Streets Hierarchy and Design Action strategies Action T 3.1 Designation of Complete Streets: Develop a framework for designating roadways under a Complete Streets classification. Create a hierarchy that accommodates multiple modes of travel serving pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles and users, and motorists of all ages and abilities. Action T 3.2 Redefining Road Classification Develop a comprehensive roadway network that categorizes streets according to function and type while considering all of the potential users and the surrounding land use context. Action T 2.2 Access Management Plan: Establish a flexible Access Management Plan that identifies and helps preserve priority corridors. 80

90 Appendix B: Site Plan Review Checklist for Access Site plan review should address a variety of topics. This checklist addresses those items that relate to site access. Source: TRB Access Management Manual, Second ed., 2014, Exhibit Reproduced here with permission from the Transportation Research Board. Vehicular Access Are all buildings and improvements (including billboards) located outside of planned easements and right of way areas? Is there an opportunity to provide alternative access to the site from a service road or existing local road? Are the number of proposed driveways the minimum necessary to serve the site and proposed use? Is there an opportunity to reduce the number of driveways serving the site? Can the proposed site provide a cross access connection and/or easement to an abutting parcel? Do adjacent sites have cross access easements that should be connected to the site under review? Should the site be redesigned to better accommodate cross access? Can the proposed site accommodate joint or shared access with an adjacent parcel? Can the site be designed to provide an opportunity to allow joint access in the future? Can you achieve access from this parcel to an adjacent traffic signal? Is the site driveway located outside of the functional area of an adjacent intersection as defined by adopted spacing standards and/or engineering analysis? If access is within the intersection functional area, has the site access been moved to the outside edge of the property line or can access be shared with adjacent properties? Does the location of the site access points provide adequate sight distance? Do proposed signs, landscaping or other improvements potentially obstruct the sight distance of drivers exiting the proposed access? Are driveways adequately offset from opposing driveways or streets across the roadway if no median is present? Is there adequate uninterrupted throat length for any driveways and frontage roads that serve the site? Are turning or access restrictions desirable for a proposed driveway located within the influence zone of an adjacent intersection? Is the site driveway located directly across from an existing driveway or at a location allowing for future shared use? Does the site plan show the property lines for properties to the rear, both sides, and across the street? Does the parking lot design facilitate safe movements? Does the proposed project connect with the surrounding street system? 81

91 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Access Does the site plan include a sidewalk connecting to adjacent properties, the adjacent roadway network, and ending at a logical terminus? Do sidewalks extend across the driveway opening? Is the sidewalk crossing designed in accordance with ADA requirements? Are there sidewalk connections between the building entrance and public sidewalk system? Is there an internal pedestrian connection to connect the building with the parking area? If there are multiple buildings on the parcel, is there an adequate pedestrian connection between the buildings? Do access locations and parking layout minimize potential conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists? Is bicycle parking provided? Is there an adequate pedestrian connection to a transit stop on both sides of the roadway? Are measures needed to direct pedestrians to safe crossing points and pedestrian access ways? Are pedestrian travel zones clearly delineated from other modes of traffic through the use of striping, colored and/or textured pavement, signing, and other methods? Are building entrances located and designed to be obvious and easily accessible to pedestrians? Does the site include pedestrian lighting where appropriate? Will snow storage disrupt pedestrian access or visibility? Is the path clear from both temporary and permanent obstructions? Intergovernmental Coordination Has the state department of transportation (DOT) been identified as an interested or involved agency? If so, has the DOT been contacted? Has the county been identified as an interested or involved agency? If so, has the county been contacted? Has the access permit application process of other affected agencies been started? Have all necessary comments been received from other affected agencies relative to the proposed access? 82

92 Appendix C: Citrus County US 19 Access Management Plan Ordinance ORDINANCE NO A21 AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE AND AMEND ORDINANCE 90-14, THE CITRUS COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RELATING TO ACCESS MANAGEMENT PERTAINING TO STATE HIGHWAYS; PROVIDING FOR ACCESS SPACING RELATIVE TO DRIVEWAY, MEDIANS, MEDIAN OPENINGS, AND OTHER MATTERS; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE US-19 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND THE INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS; PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, sound planning and land use practices mandate that the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County provide for reasonable access management standards pertaining to the highways and roads located within the jurisdictional limits of the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County desires to coordinate its actions with those of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the benefit of the citizens of Citrus County and the traveling public; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Florida law provide for the authority to regulate access to State roads within the jurisdictional limits of Citrus County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County has determined that the provisions of this Ordinance protect the public health, safety and welfare and are in the best interests of the citizens of Citrus County and the general traveling public; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County has adopted Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the US-19 Access Management Plan via Ordinance 2003-A19 on September 23, 2003; and WHEREAS, the provisions of this Ordinance are consistent with the provisions of State law to include, but not be limited to, Chapters 125, 163, 187, and 335, Florida Statutes, Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law; and WHEREAS, the provisions of this Ordinance are consistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County, Florida, as follows: 83

93 SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS/EXHIBITS/CONSTRUCTION. (a) The recitals set forth above in the whereas clauses to this Ordinance are hereby adopted as legislative findings relating to the enactment of this Ordinance. (b) The exhibits attached to this Ordinance (Numbers 14 through 20 ) depict the US-19 corridor, Phase 3, defined as that section of the US-19 corridor from Ashburn Lane north to the Levy County line, the locations for planned median openings, auxiliary turn lanes and planned frontage/reverse frontage roads along the US-19 corridor and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference and made a material part of this Ordinance. (c) The exhibits Numbered 14 through 20 shall be amended to the previously adopted exhibits Numbers 1 through 13, representing Phases 1 and 2 of the US-19 Access Management Plan. (d) The provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish the objectives set forth herein for the benefit of the citizens of Citrus County and the traveling public. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4224.STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT, of the Citrus County Land Development Code (LDC), is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Standards for minimum spacing of access points for all arterial highways shall be by posted speed, in accordance with Chapter 14-97, F.A.C., FDOT Access Management Standards. The access spacing shall be as follows: FDOT ACCESS MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS STATE HIGHWAY FROM TO CLASS US-41 US-19 and 98 Hernando County Line CR 48 4 CR 48 SR-44 and Highland Blvd. 5 SR-44 and Highland Blvd. Montgomery Ave. 6 Montgomery Ave. Marion County Line 3 Hernando County Line CR-44/W. Fort Island Trail 3 CR-44/W. Fort Island Trail SR-44/NE 5 th St. 6 SR-44/NE 5 th St. NW 7 th St. 4 NW 7 th St. Levy County Line 3 SR-200 US-41 Marion County Line 3 SR-44 US-19 and 98 Joyner Rd. 6 Joyner Rd. 680 feet West of CR feet West of CR-581 US-41/N. Florida Ave. 6 US-41/N. Florida Ave. US-41/S. Florida Ave. 6 US-41/S. Florida Ave. Sumter County Line 3 US-98 Hernando County Line US

94 ACCESS DESIGN CLASS FEATURES OPENING SPACING ACCESS DIRECTIONAL MEDIAN SPACING MINIMUM FULL MEDIAN SPACING (In Miles) MINIMUM SIGNAL SPACING (In Miles) 2 Restrictive with service roads 1320 /660 * Restrictive 660 /440 * Nonrestrictive 660 /440 * N/A N/A Restrictive 440 /245 * /0.5* 0.5/0.5* 6 Nonrestrictive 440 /245 * N/A N/A Both * Note: Greater than 45MPH/Less than or =45MPH B. US-19 Access Management Plan Standards The following access management standards for development activities are hereby established as the US-19 Access Management Plan standards for all development abutting the US-19 corridor commencing at the Hernando County Line and terminating at the Levy County line. This ordinance also includes those properties abutting US-19 that were within the County s jurisdiction prior to the annexation adopted on April 26, 2004 by the City of Crystal River. 1. Access Plan Intent and Purpose: The intent and purpose of the US-19 Access Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as the Access Plan) is to, consistent with State law, guide the specific placement of driveways, medians, median openings, auxiliary turn lanes, and frontage and/or reverse frontage roadways along the US-19 corridor. This Access Plan, in concert with the goals, objectives and policies of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and sound and generally accepted growth management and transportation engineering practices and principles, is designed as a peremptory planning instrument to mitigate future traffic congestion and vehicular safety concerns resulting from future development and background traffic growth along the US-19 corridor by, among other things, limiting and minimizing the number of traffic conflict points and locations. The Access Plan is intended to shorten queues of traffic, reduce vehicular congestion and balance the need to access property with the need of adequate traffic circulation and mobility on transportation facilities. Additionally, the intent of the Access Plan is to minimize access to environmentally sensitive lands. The planning of access management and adoption of access standards pertaining to the US-19 corridor will provide guidance relative to the location of driveways, medians, median opening locations, turn lane configurations, and driveway spacing, thereby improving the predictability of the development review process and otherwise enhance the process of reviewing development proposals. 2. Plan Runs with the US-19 Corridor: The Access Plan shall apply, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to the US-19 corridor commencing at the Hernando County Line and terminating at the Levy County line. The Access Plan shall be applicable, to the maximum extent permitted by State law, regardless of the local governmental jurisdiction of the properties located in the US-19 corridor. Annexation by a municipality of any property shall not affect the applicability of the Access Plan. 85

95 3. Access Classification: The FDOT has classified the roadway section specifically included in the Plan as an Access Class 3 facility. A Class 3 facility has restrictive (raised) medians, directional median opening minimal spacing of 1,320 feet, and full median opening minimal spacing of 2,640 feet. The Access Plan utilizes these standards as guidelines for the placement of median openings. 4. Frontage or Reverse Frontage Roads: Parcels that are adjacent to or in close proximity to frontage or reverse frontage roads as depicted in the Access Plan shall provide a connection to this roadway. As a condition of development approval, a development plan must provide for the construction of the section of frontage road or reverse frontage road that provides access to US-19 as identified in the Access Plan. This shall be accomplished as practical and may necessitate an escrow of funds and/or development agreement for future construction. 5. Joint and Cross Access: Each development plan shall provide for appropriate stub-outs to support cross access between adjacent parcels. 6. Driveway Spacing Standards: The minimum separation distance between adjacent driveways shall conform to the FDOT Access Management standards according to the assigned access design classification. The County shall require a minimum driveway spacing of 660 feet where feasible and practicable consistent with sound and generally accepted engineering practices and principles. 7. Driveway Throat Distances: The minimum length of driveways, or throat distance, shall vary based upon the proposed land use for the particular parcel of land and the projected daily and peak hour traffic volumes for the proposed development on the property. To minimize potential vehicle stacking that would present a traffic operational or safety concern on US-19, the minimum throat distance for any driveway subject to the Access Plan shall be the following: a. Sites generating up to 50 peak hour trips and with a right-turn lane - 40 feet; b. Sites generating up to 50 peak hour trips and no right-turn lane - 60 feet; c. Sites generating from 51 to 99 peak hour trips and with a right-turn lane - 75 feet; d. Sites generating from 51 to 99 peak hour trips and no right-turn lane feet; e. Sites generating 100 or more peak hour trips with a right-turn lane feet; f. Sites generating 100 or more peak hour trips and no right-turn lane feet. 8. Isolated Corner Properties: Properties located at the intersection of a roadway and US- 19 are considered isolated corner properties and development on such properties may be permitted to have only right-in and right-out driveway access on US-19 with all driveways located as far as and feasible, consistent with sound and generally accepted engineering practices and principles, away from the roadway intersection. 9. Continuous Right Turn Lanes: Development plans shall avoid the use of continuous right-turn lanes that access several contiguous properties. The use of shared, joint or cross access and interconnected parking lots and frontage roads shall be maximized in each development plan to accomplish property access along the US-19 corridor. Appropriate easements and other rights shall be deeded to the County, when appropriate, to implement this requirement. 86

96 10. Commercial Nodes: The Access Plan has been developed to be consistent with and compatible to the provisions of the Citrus County LDC, Sections 4922, 4923, and 4924 for Community, General, and Regional Commercial Nodes, respectively. Full median openings depicted on the Access Plan within these nodes have been located to meet, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable consistent with sound and generally accepted engineering practices and principles, the spacing requirement of 2,640 feet as specified in the aforementioned Sections. 11. Wetland/Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Environmentally sensitive areas have been tentatively identified in the Access Plan and access to these areas has been reasonably limited. Consistent with the objective of preserving environmentally sensitive lands, access over properties identified as such lands is prohibited; provided, however, that the owner or developer may apply for a variance pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance and as otherwise provided in the Citrus County LDC. The specific limits of the environmentally sensitive areas shall be verified and depicted in each development plan prior to the review and approval of the development plan. The intent of the Access Plan is to minimize any disturbance of all environmentally sensitive lands while providing for the reasonable use of developable property and reasonable access to property. 12. Minimum Lot Widths: The depth of any lot shall not exceed three times its width. In addition, the minimum lot width for purposes of this plan shall be 100 feet for residential lots and 150 feet for nonresidential lots. Lot aggregation for purposes of proposed development plans shall be encouraged for any parcels of record that do not meet this requirement and cause adverse impacts to traffic circulation. 13. Lot Splits: No new or additional access rights will be permitted for properties that are created as the result of parcel or lot splits subsequent to the enactment of this Ordinance. 14. Deviations/Variances from Standards: The applicant for any development plan shall have the burden of providing substantial competent evidence including, but not limited to, evidence from a licensed Florida professional engineer or other expert in the field of transportation/land use planning, demonstrating hardship and unique conditions that prohibit a development plan from conforming with the requirements of the Access Plan. The applicant must provide compelling data and analysis to the County that a requested variance would improve traffic circulation and efficiency of and the general safety of the citizens of Citrus County and the traveling public on US-19; that no alternative access exists from a street with a lower functional classification than US-19; and that there is no possible access from a joint and cross access agreement, shared driveway, frontage road or reverse frontage road. The deviations from standards process shall be consistent with the County s Level 2 review process, and shall include a public notification process approved by appropriate County staff. Decisions from the County s Level 2 review process shall be forwarded to the FDOT, District 7, Access Management Review Committee, for review and consideration. 15. Interim Access: Any access point or median opening that does not comply with one (1) or more provisions of this Subsection may be designated as Interim Access upon approval by the Planning and Development Review Board (PDRB) or Community Development Director based upon the requisite and competent evidence being submitted by the applicant and accepted by the County. In all cases where the access is designated as Interim Access, such access shall be specifically noted on the site plan or subdivision plan submitted for approval. The requirement to provide subsequent alternative access shall run with the 87

97 property and be a condition of development approval. The future planned alternative access shall be specifically identified. When the property is capable of being served by an alternate means of access, the Community Development Director or PDRB shall require that the Interim Access be eliminated or altered, at the cost of the applicant, and that the property utilize the new access location that is consistent with the provisions of this Subsection. 16. Interchange Management Area: At the time of adoption of this ordinance, Florida s Turnpike Enterprise is evaluating the feasibility of the extension of the Suncoast Parkway, which currently terminates at US-98 in south Citrus County. The feasibility evaluation includes the termination of the proposed Suncoast Parkway extension at US-19 north of County Road 488 near Basswood Avenue. If this proposed termination is determined to be feasible, and subsequent planning and design activities are funded by Florida s Turnpike Enterprise, Citrus County will implement sound and generally accepted growth management and transportation engineering practices to this interchange area to mitigate potential traffic congestion and vehicular safety concerns resulting from the interchange and potential development within the interchange area. The specific provisions to be utilized within the generally defined boundary of the Suncoast Parkway and US-19 Interchange Management Area will be consistent with the provisions stated in this ordinance for the US-19 corridor. For purposes of access management planning, the limits of the Interchange Management Area shall be a minimum of 2,640 feet north and south of end of the interchange ramp tapers at US-19. SECTION 3. CONFLICTS. (a) The provisions of Section , Florida Statutes, and the rules of the Florida Department of Transportation as set forth in Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code, are applicable in the jurisdictional limits of Citrus County, Florida, and supersede this Ordinance in the event of any irreconcilable conflict. (b) All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder shall nevertheless be given full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared severable. SECTION 5. CODIFICATION. This Ordinance shall be codified in the Land Development Code of Citrus County. The Code codifier is granted authority to change the words Ordinance and other words to reflect the Part, Section, Article, etc., assigned in the Code, except that Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall not be codified. The recitals, except for the last recital, to this Ordinance shall be codified as the legislative intent for the enactment of this Ordinance. The Exhibits to this Ordinance shall be codified. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective in accordance with the provisions of Section 125., Florida Statutes. 88

98 Appendix D: Example Cross Access Agreement Citrus County, FL 89