(a)

Concurrency is a finding that the public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are available, or will be made available, concurrent with the impacts of the development. The provisions of this chapter are designed to provide a systematic process for the review and evaluation of all proposed development for its impact on basic public facilities and services, as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, F.S. ch. 163, part II, and F.A.C. 9J-5.0055, and the city comprehensive plan.

(b)

No final development order shall be granted for a proposed development until there is a determination by the city that all public facilities and services included in this chapter have sufficient capacity at or above their adopted level of service (LOS) to accommodate the impacts of the development, or that improvements necessary to bring facilities up to their adopted LOS will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development.

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.02)

(a)

Public facilities and services for which concurrency is required. The provisions and requirements of this chapter shall apply only to those public facilities and services listed as follows:

(1)

Roads/traffic circulation.

(2)

Sanitary sewer.

(3)

Solid waste.

(4)

Stormwater drainage.

(5)

Potable water.

(6)

Recreation facilities.

(7)

Public school facilities.

(b)

Development subject to concurrency review. Unless specifically exempted in this subsection (b), all applications for site development plan or subdivision improvement plan approval, where the individual lots within the subdivision do not require site development plan approval, shall be subject to concurrency review.

(1)

Vested projects. Projects which have valid development orders or permits prior to the adoption date of the ordinance from which this land development code is derived are considered vested and shall be exempt from concurrency assessment within the time frames outlined in this subsection (b)(1). This shall include all vacant single-family, duplex, and single-family attached dwelling lots in subdivisions which were platted and recorded prior to the adoption date of this land development code. Residential lots of record shall also be considered vested for the purpose of this chapter.

(2)

New development. Projects which are developed on or after the adoption date of the ordinance from which this land development code is derived are subject to concurrency assessment. These projects must initiate development within the established time frames outlined as follows:

(3)

Minimum threshold. The following development shall be exempt from all components of concurrency review:

a.

Residential projects which would result in the creation of one additional single-family homesite.

b.

Commercial, institutional or industrial expansion of up to ten percent of the existing gross floor area, provided that such expansion is estimated to generate less than 100 vehicle trips per day.

c.

Construction of accessory buildings and structures which do not create additional public facility demand.

In no case, however, shall a development order be issued for a minimum threshold project which would impact a public facility (water, sewer, solid waste) for which a moratorium or deferral on development has been placed.

(c)

Minimum requirements for concurrency. To ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development, the following standards must be met:

(1)

The necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a development permit is issued, or a development permit is issued, subject to the condition that the necessary facilities and services will be in place by a specified date when the impacts of the development are anticipated to occur.

(2)

The necessary facilities are under construction at the time a development permit is issued.

(3)

The necessary facilities and services have been included in the capital improvements program and are programmed for construction prior to or concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development.

(4)

The necessary facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed contract for the construction of the facilities or the provision of services at the time the development permit issued.

(5)

The necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement. An enforceable development agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to F.S. § 163.3220, or as amended, or an agreement of development order issued pursuant to F.S. ch. 380, or as amended, or any other development agreement entered into between the city and a developer. The agreement must guarantee that the necessary facilities and services will be in place prior to or concurrent with the impacts of development.

(6)

In the case of recreation facilities, the facilities will be deemed concurrent if the facilities will be in place within one year of the issuance of the development order and are included in a binding executed contract pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of this section or an enforceable development agreement pursuant to the subsection (c)(5) of this section. In the case of roadway facilities, the facilities will be deemed concurrent if the necessary improvements are committed to be made in the first three years of the applicable adopted state department of transportation five-year work program, the county five-year road capital improvement program, or the city five-year capital improvement program.

(d)

Concurrency administration. The city shall be responsible for the following four primary tasks associated with the administration of this chapter:

(1)

Creating and maintaining an inventory of existing public facilities capacities or deficiencies.

(2)

Determining concurrency of minor development applications.

(3)

Providing advisory concurrency assessments and recommending conditions of approval to the city council for major development applications.

(4)

Annually reporting the status of all public facilities capacities covered under this chapter to the city council and the public.

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.03; Ord. No. 2009-06, § 2, 4-7-2009)

The adopted level of service standards for those public facilities for which concurrency is required shall be as established in the city's comprehensive plan and as follows:

(1)

Roads/traffic circulation:

(2)

Sanitary sewer: 111 gallons per day, per resident.

(3)

Solid waste: four pounds daily per resident.

(4)

Stormwater drainage: compliance with F.A.C. chs. 40C-42, 40C-4, and 17-25.

(5)

Potable water (city municipal system): 90 gallons per capita per day for residential land uses and 1,500 gallons per commercial acre for commercial land uses.

(6)

Recreation facilities: five percent of the gross area of land.

(7)

Public school facilities:

(i)

To ensure the capacity of schools is sufficient to support student growth at the adopted level of service for each year of the five-year planning period and through the long-term planning period, after June 1, 2008, the following level of service standard shall be established for all schools of each type within each CSA and each individual school:

a.

Elementary: 100 percent of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125 percent of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

b.

Middle: 100 percent of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125 percent of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

c.

High: 100 percent of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125 percent of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

1.

For purposes of (1), (2), and (3) above, nonconversion charter schools shall be counted as FISH capacity if an agreement has been entered between the charter school and the School Board which requires the school facility to be constructed in accordance with Florida Department of Education standards for public schools; which provides that the school facility will be provided to the School Board for its use if the charter school fails to operate satisfactorily; and, which provides that if there are financing arrangements for the school, the School Board will be able to operate the school without having to be responsible for such financing costs or that the School Board is willing and able to accept responsibility for such costs.

2.

For purposes of (1), (2) and (3) above, a developer-financed public school shall be counted as FISH capacity if an agreement has been entered between the developer and the school board which requires the school facility to be constructed in accordance with Florida Department of Education standards for public schools; which requires that the developer transfer the school facility to the school board upon its completion; and, which provides that if there are financing arrangements for the school, the school board will be able to operate the school without having to be responsible for such financing costs or that the school board is willing and able to accept responsibility for such costs.

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.04; Ord. No. 2009-06, § 2, 4-7-2009)

(a)

Roads/traffic circulation.

(1)

Traffic analysis required. All new development which is anticipated to generate 12 or more trips during the peak hour of the use shall be required to submit a traffic analysis which identifies the development's impact on the city's transportation system. If county roads are affected, the city shall request a traffic analysis from the county. The city may also require the submission of a traffic analysis for developments whose site location, anticipated total trip generation, circulation patterns or other such factors warrant a more extensive review of traffic impacts. Such an analysis shall include the following:

a.

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

b.

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

c.

Design capacity of the accessed roads.

d.

Analysis of traffic distribution on the road network including all links impacted by more than ten percent of project traffic or 250 trips per day, whichever is greater.**

e.

Projected percentage of truck and automobile traffic.

f.

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

g.

Other related information as required by the city.

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

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

(2)

Variable radii approach for traffic analysis.

a.

Traffic impact study area radii:

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

b.

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

c.

Where a specific land use is not listed, the most similar land use as determined by the city mayor or designee shall apply.

(b)

Recreation facilities; commercial/institutional/industrial developments. Commercial, institutional and industrial developments shall not be assessed as having an impact on recreational facilities. The city may, however, require the provision of recreational facilities as part of planned unit developments.

(1)

Purpose and intent. The purpose of Ordinance No. 2006-35 is to establish a method whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors, to be known as the proportionate fair share program, as required by and in a manner consistent with F.S. § 163.3180(16). This ordinance also provides methods and procedures for Lake County and the City of Minneola ("city") to coordinate the proportionate fair share program.

(2)

Applicability. The proportionate fair share program shall apply to all proposed developments in the city that have been notified by the city manager or his designee of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency on a transportation facility in the county concurrency management system (CMS) or the CMS of the city, including transportation facilities maintained by FDOT, Lake County, city, or another jurisdiction, that are relied upon for concurrency determinations, pursuant to the requirements of subsection (b)(4). The proportionate fair share program does not apply to developments exempted from concurrency as may be provided herein or by state law.

(3)

Definitions.

Concurrency. "Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 2 years after the local government approves a building permit or its functional equivalent that results in traffic generation." (F.S. § 163.3180(2)(c))

De minimis. An impact that would not affect more than one percent of the maximum service volume at the adopted level of service of the affected transportation facility as determined by the local government.

County. Lake County.

Municipality Any affected municipality within Lake County.

SIS. A strategic intermodal system as defined in F.S. § 339.64.

(4)

General requirements.

1.

An applicant may choose to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the county or city or both by making a proportionate fair share contribution, pursuant to the following requirements:

(a)

The five-year schedule of capital improvements in the capital improvements element (CIE) or the longterm schedule of capital improvements for the longterm CMS includes a transportation improvement(s) that, upon completion, will satisfy the then-existing requirements of the applicable CMS. The provisions of subsection (b)(4)2. may apply if a project or projects needed to satisfy concurrency are not presently contained within the applicable CIE(s) or the adopted longterm schedule of capital improvements.

(b)

A proportionate share contribution may involve the addition of transportation capacity through several means including, but not limited to: the physical widening and/or reconstruction of a roadway to add capacity; or where the primary roadway is constrained or widening is no longer desired, the addition of transportation capacity could involve creating new reliever roadways; new network additions; contributing to new transit capital facilities (e.g., bus rapid transit corridor); contributing to the expansion of bus fleets to increase service frequency; or any other means determined by city to add transportation capacity sufficient to mitigate impacts.

2.

City may choose to allow an applicant to satisfy transportation concurrency through the proportionate fair share program by approving the applicant's contribution to an improvement or improvements that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of the applicable CMS, but is not contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the CIE(s) or a longterm schedule of capital improvements for an adopted longterm CMS, where the following apply:

(a)

City adopts, by ordinance, a commitment to add the improvement to the schedule of capital improvements in the CIE or longterm schedule of capital improvements for an adopted longterm CMS no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To qualify for consideration under this section, the proposed improvement must be reviewed by the appropriate jurisdictions and agencies and must be determined to be financially feasible pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(b)1 consistent with the comprehensive plan, and in compliance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2006-35.

Financial feasibility for this section means that additional contributions, payments or funding sources are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed ten years to fully mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities. If a transportation facility proposed for the proportionate [fair] share program is under the jurisdiction of another entity, such as the county or FDOT, the proposed capacity improvement shall be included in the five-year work program of that jurisdiction or, in the case of the county and when the improvement is not in the work program, through resolution or ordinance, there shall be an adoption of a commitment to add the improvement to the schedule of capital improvements in the CIE or longterm schedule of capital improvements for an adopted longterm CMS no later than the next regularly scheduled update.

(b)

If the funds allocated for the schedule of capital improvements in the CIE are insufficient to fully fund construction of a transportation improvement required by the CMS, the city may still enter into a binding proportionate fair share agreement with the applicant. The agreement may authorize construction of that amount of development if the proportionate fair share amount in such agreement is determined to be sufficient to pay for one or more improvements that will, in the opinion of the governmental entity or entities maintaining the transportation facilities, significantly benefit the impacted transportation system. The improvement or improvements funded by the proportionate fair share component must, for each affected local jurisdiction, be adopted into the capital improvements schedule of the comprehensive plan or the longterm schedule of capital improvements for an adopted longterm concurrency management system at the next annual capital improvements element update.

3.

Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer's fair share obligation must meet design standards of the county for locally maintained roadways and those of the FDOT for the state and federal highway system.

4.

Pursuant to F.S. chapter [§] 163.3177, the CIE must include transportation improvements included in the Lake Sumter MPO Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) to the extent that such improvements are relied upon to ensure concurrency and financial feasibility. If city relies upon scheduled improvements to a county facility to ensure concurrency and financial feasibility, the scheduled improvements from the county's work program must be included in the city's CIE. All CIEs must also be coordinated with the adopted Lake Sumter MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for planning purposes.

(5)

Intergovernmental coordination.

1.

In the interest of intergovernmental coordination and to reflect the shared responsibilities for managing development and concurrency, city may enter into an agreement with one or more adjacent local governments to address cross-jurisdictional impacts of development on regional transportation facilities. Such agreement shall provide for application of the methodology in this section to address the cross-jurisdictional transportation impacts of development.

2.

A development application shall be subject to this section when a transportation concurrency determination is made by city that indicates the development will have an adverse impact on the adopted level of service standard on one or more facilities in a neighboring jurisdiction.

3.

Upon identification of an impacted regional facility, city shall notify the applicant and the other affected jurisdictions in writing of the potential proportionate fair share agreement, based on the projected impacts of the proposed development on the impacted adjacent facility.

4.

Pursuant to policies in the intergovernmental coordination element of the county and municipality's comprehensive plan(s) and applicable policies in the Lake Sumter MPO 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, city, upon receipt of an application for proportionate fair share mitigation, shall coordinate with affected jurisdictions, including FDOT, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities not under the jurisdiction of City. Proportionate fair share contributions should be applied toward the impacted facility. However, impacted facilities within city may be maintained by an agency other than the local government executing the proportionate fair share agreement (e.g., a county or state road within the city limits). Therefore, the city should work with other affected agencies to establish a procedure for coordinating mitigation to impacted facilities that are maintained by another agency. An interlocal agreement may be established with other affected jurisdictions for this purpose.

(6)

Application process.

1.

Upon notification by the city manager or designee of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency, the applicant shall also be notified in writing by city of the opportunity to satisfy transportation concurrency through the proportionate fair share program pursuant to the requirements of subsection (4).

2.

Prior to processing an application for a proportionate fair share agreement, city shall conduct a preapplication meeting with all affected jurisdictions to discuss eligibility, application submittal requirements, potential mitigation options, and related issues. If the impacted facility is a state facility, then city shall invite FDOT to participate in the preapplication meeting. City shall include, for purposes of such preapplication meeting, the jurisdiction maintaining the transportation facility that is subject to the agreement, if other than city.

3.

The city manager or designee shall review the application and certify that the application is sufficient and complete within ten business days. If an application is determined to be insufficient, incomplete or inconsistent with the general requirements of the proportionate fair share program as indicated in subsection (4), then city shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for such deficiencies within ten business days of submittal of the application. If such deficiencies are not remedied by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the written notification, then the application will be deemed abandoned. The city manager or designee may, in his discretion, grant an extension of time not to exceed 60 days to cure such deficiencies, provided that the applicant has shown good cause for the extension and has taken reasonable steps to effect a cure.

4.

Pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(e), proposed proportionate fair share mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the SIS requires the approval of FDOT. Accordingly, city shall require the applicant to submit evidence of an agreement between the applicant and the FDOT for inclusion in the proportionate fair share agreement.

5.

When an application is deemed sufficient, complete, and eligible by city manager or his designee, the applicant shall be advised in writing and a proposed proportionate fair share obligation and binding agreement will be prepared by the city and delivered to the appropriate parties for review, including a copy to the FDOT for any proposed proportionate fair share mitigation on a SIS facility, no later than 60 days from the date at which the applicant received the notification of a sufficient application and no fewer than 14 days prior to city's city council meeting at which the agreement is to be considered.

6.

City shall notify the applicant of the date of city's city council meeting at which the agreement will be considered for final approval. No proportionate fair share agreement will be effective until approved by the city council of city.

(7)

Determining proportionate fair share obligation.

1.

Proportionate fair share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include, without limitation, separately or collectively: private funds, contributions of land, and construction of and contribution of facilities directly related to roadways.

2.

A development shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate fair share. The fair market value of the proportionate fair share mitigation for the impacted facilities shall not differ regardless of the method of mitigation.

3.

The methodology used to calculate an applicant's proportionate fair share obligation shall be as provided for in F.S. § 163.3180(12) as follows:

Proportionate Fair share = [(Development Trips;sub\sub;)/(SV Increase;sub\sub;)] × Cost;sub\sub;]

Where:

Development Trips;sub\sub; = Those trips from the stage or phase of development under review that are assigned to roadway segment "i" and have triggered a deficiency per the CMS; only those trips that trigger a concurrency deficiency will be included in the proportionate fair share calculation. Such trips shall be as determined by city.

SV Increase;sub\sub; = Service volume increase contributed by the eligible improvement to roadway segment "i."

Cost;sub\sub; = Adjusted cost of the improvement to segment "i". Cost shall include all improvements and associated costs, such as design, right-of-way acquisition, planning, engineering, inspection, and physical development costs directly associated with construction at the anticipated cost in the year it will be incurred.

(a)

For the purposes of determining proportionate fair share obligations, the city shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual cost of the improvement as obtained from cost estimates contained in the CIE, the Lake County Transportation Construction Program or the FDOT Work Program, as deemed applicable by city. Where such information is not available, improvement cost shall be determined by the following method: an analysis conducted by the jurisdiction maintaining the facility of costs by cross section type that incorporates data from recent projects and is updated annually and approved by such maintaining jurisdiction. In order to accommodate increases in construction material costs, project costs shall be adjusted through time by such inflationary index as is determined by city.

4.

If city has accepted an improvement project proposed by the applicant, then the value of the improvement shall be determined using one of the methods provided in this section.

5.

If city has accepted right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair share payment, credit for the dedication of the nonsite-related right-of-way shall be valued on the date of the dedication at 100 percent of the most recent assessed value by the Lake County Property Appraiser or, at the option of the applicant, by fair market value established by an independent appraisal approved by city and at no expense to city. The applicant shall supply a survey and legal description of the land and a certificate of title or title search of the land to city at no expense to city. If the estimated value of the right-of-way dedication proposed by the applicant is less than city's calculation of the total proportionate fair share obligation for that development, then the applicant shall pay the difference. Prior to purchase or acquisition of any real estate or acceptance of donations of real estate intended to be used for the proportionate fair share, public or private partners should contact the FDOT for essential information about compliance with federal law and regulations.

(8)

Impact fee credit for proportionate fair share mitigation.

1.

Proportionate fair share contributions shall be applied as a credit against impact fees to the extent that all or a portion of the proportionate fair share mitigation is used to address the same capital infrastructure improvements contemplated by any transportation impact fee ordinance.

2.

Impact fee credits for the proportionate fair share contribution shall be determined by the local government assessing the impact fees when the transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for the proposed development. Impact fees owed by the applicant will be reduced per the proportionate fair share agreement per the impact fee ordinance of the jurisdiction within which the affected roadway facility lies, and if the facility lies within more than one jurisdiction, the impact fee credits shall be prorated accordingly. If the applicant's proportionate fair share obligation is less than the development's anticipated road impact fee for the specific stage or phase of development under review, then the applicant or its successor shall pay the remaining impact fee amount to the local government assessing the impact fees pursuant to the requirements of the applicable impact fee ordinance(s).

3.

The proportionate fair share obligation is intended to mitigate the transportation impacts of a proposed development at a specific location. As a result, any road impact fee credit based upon proportionate fair share contributions for a proposed development cannot be transferred to any other location unless provided for within the local impact fee ordinance.

(9)

Proportionate fair share agreements.

1.

Upon execution of a proportionate fair share agreement city shall provide the applicant with a certificate of concurrency. Should the applicant fail to apply for a development order within 12 months of the execution of the agreement, then such certificate of concurrency shall be considered null and void, and the applicant shall be required to reapply for a concurrency determination. In addition, if the proposed development's impacts were the only impacts causing the potential deficient operation of the facility, the specific project may be removed from the CIE.

2.

Payment of the proportionate fair share contribution is due in full prior to issuance of the final development order which for the purposes of this section shall be recording of the final plat if the property to be developed is being subdivided, approval of the final site plan for a development which entails multiple residential or commercial units but is not being subdivided, and issuance of a building permit if the development consists of a single use structure on land not being subdivided. Once paid, contributions shall be non-refundable. If the payment is submitted more than six (6) months from the date of execution of the agreement, then the proportionate fair share cost shall be recalculated at the time of payment based on the best estimate of the construction cost of the required improvement at the time of payment, pursuant to Section 7 of this Ordinance and adjusted accordingly.

3.

All transportation improvements undertaken by the developer authorized under this ordinance must be completed prior to issuance of a final development order, or as otherwise established in a binding agreement that is accompanied by a security instrument sufficient to ensure the completion of all required improvements.

4.

Dedication of necessary right-of-way for facility improvements pursuant to a proportionate fair share agreement must be completed prior to city's issuance of the certificate of concurrency.

5.

Any requested change to a development project subsequent to a development order may be subject to additional proportionate fair share contributions to the extent that the proposed change would generate additional traffic that would require mitigation.

6.

Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair share agreement at any time prior to the execution of the agreement. The application fee and any associated advertising costs to the county or city will be non refundable.

7.

City may enter into proportionate fair share agreements for selected corridor improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on improvements to a shared transportation facility.

(10)

Appropriation of fair share revenues.

1.

Proportionate fair share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate project account for funding of scheduled improvements in city's CIE, or as otherwise established in the terms of the proportionate fair share agreement. At the discretion of the city, proportionate fair share revenues may be used for operational improvements prior to construction of the capacity project from which the proportionate fair share revenues were derived. Proportionate fair share revenues may also be used as the 50 percent local match for funding under the FDOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP).

2.

In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the CIE, then the revenues collected for its construction may be applied toward the construction of another improvement within that same corridor or sector that would mitigate the impacts of development pursuant to the requirements of subsection (b)(2).

3.

Where an impacted regional facility has been designated as a regionally significant transportation facility on the Lake-Sumter MPO Regionally Significant Corridors Map, then the city may coordinate with other impacted jurisdictions and agencies to apply proportionate fair share contributions and public contributions to seek funding for improving the impacted regional facility under the FDOT TRIP. Such coordination shall be ratified by the city through an interlocal agreement that establishes a procedure for earmarking of the developer contributions for this purpose.

4.

Where an applicant constructs a transportation facility that exceeds the applicant's proportionate fair share obligation calculated under subsection (7), the city, at city's option, shall reimburse the applicant for the excess contribution using one or more of the following methods:

(a)

An impact fee credit account may be established for the applicant in the amount of the excess contribution, a portion or all of which may be assigned and reassigned under the terms and conditions acceptable to city; or

(b)

An account may be established for the applicant for the purpose of reimbursing the applicant for the excess contribution with proportionate fair share payments from future applicants on the facility.

(c)

The city may compensate the applicant for the excess contribution through payment or some combination of means acceptable to both city and applicant.

(c)

School concurrency.

(1)

It is the intent of this subsection to implement the goals, objectives, policies and standards of the city comprehensive plan, as amended, and particularly, the public school facilities element.

(2)

Unless otherwise provided herein, this subsection shall apply to all development orders with any residential component and any amendment to an existing development order to the extent that the student generation is increased above what was previously approved, or any other official action of the city having the effect of permitting residential development of land. The following residential uses shall be considered exempt from the requirements of school concurrency (unless the development approval for such use required it to meet school concurrency).

a.

Single-family lots having received final plat approval prior to the effective date of the city's school concurrency ordinance or other residential properties or lots which the city has determined are vested based on statutory or common law vesting.

b.

Multifamily residential development having received final site plan approval prior to the effective date of the city's school concurrency ordinance or other multi-family residential development which the city has determined is vested based on statutory or common law vesting.

c.

Amendments to residential development approvals issued prior to the effective date of the city's school concurrency ordinance, which do not increase the number of residential units or change the type of residential units proposed.

d.

Age-restricted communities (as defined in the school concurrency ordinance) that are subject to deed restrictions prohibiting the permanent occupancy of residents under the age of 18. Such deed restrictions must be recorded and must be irrevocable for a period of at least 50 years.

e.

Plats or residential site plans which include four or less units. For purposes of this section, a property owner may not divide his property in to several developments in order to claim exemption as allowed by this [sub]section. In making a determination as to whether a property is exempt under this [sub]section, the city shall consider in addition to the ownership at the time of the application the ownership as of the date of the adoption of this agreement.

(3)

The following procedures will be utilized to obtain a school concurrency determination from the Lake County School Board and to allow for mitigation if a development proposal is determined not to be in compliance.

(4)

A completed application provided by and delivered to the Lake County School Board must be submitted concurrent with a final development order by an applicant proposing residential development. The application at a minimum shall include the following information:

a.

Proposed development name;

b.

Application type;

c.

Intake date;

d.

Signature of agent;

e.

Number of residential units broken down by unit type;

f.

Property deed;

g.

Consent form;

h.

Phasing plan (if applicable);

i.

Site plan;

j.

Survey;

k.

Justification statement;

l.

Location map.

(5)

Within three days of submitting to the school board, the applicant must present a copy of the application to the city. The City shall provide a determination of authenticity to the school board within three days of receiving the application.

(6)

The school board shall review the application in accordance with the provisions of section 5.5.2 of the agreement and base the concurrency determination on standards outlined in section 5.5.3 of the agreement.

(7)

No development order shall be approved unless a letter of determination of concurrency has been issued by the school board finding the development in compliance.

(8)

Once the school board has reviewed the application it shall issue a letter of determination of concurrency within 30 days if the impact of the proposed developments student growth does not cause the adopted level of service to be exceeded.

(9)

If the development is not in compliance, the letter of determination of concurrency shall detail why the development is not in compliance and shall offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into a 90-day negotiation period in accordance with the provisions of section 5.6 of the agreement.

(10)

During the 90-day negotiation period the applicant shall meet with the school board in an effort to mitigate the impact from the development.

a.

Mitigation shall be limited to those options which the school board recognizes and assumes the responsibility to operate and which will maintain the adopted level of service standards for the first five years from receipt of the school boards letter of determination of concurrency.

b.

The city shall have the opportunity to review the mitigation options.

c.

The city council shall approve all proportionate share agreements.

(11)

If mitigation is not agreed to, the letter of determination of concurrency shall detail why mitigation proposals were rejected and detail why the development is not in compliance. In this case, no development order shall be issued.

(12)

If the school board and the applicant agree to mitigation, the letter of determination of concurrency shall be issued based on the agreed mitigation measures and an agreement between the school board, the city and the applicant.

(13)

A letter of determination for school concurrency, finding the development in compliance, issued by the school board shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance unless extended by the school board. Once the development order is issued, the concurrency determination shall run with the development order.

(14)

If the letter of determination of concurrency requires conditions or mitigation to be placed on the development, the development order issued by the city shall incorporate conditions as set forth by the school board.

(15)

If the letter of determination of concurrency requires the development to be phased to school construction or other mitigation, the conditions of approval of the development order or limited development order shall reflect phasing requirements

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.05; Ord. No. 2006-35, §§ 1—10, 11-28-2006; Ord. No. 2009-06, § 3, 4-7-2009)

(a)

Generally. City shall conduct all concurrency reviews as required by this chapter. Concurrency review shall be initiated upon receipt of a completed concurrency review form as provided by the city, accompanied by the appropriate fee. The city shall complete the concurrency review within 30 days of the receipt of each completed concurrency review form. However, the concurrency review procedures applicable to transportation and road concurrency shall be as provided in subsection 90-4(b) and concurrency review procedures applicable to public school facilities shall be as provided in subsection 90-4(c), herein.

(b)

Application procedures.

(1)

Levels of review. The applicant for development approval may request a concurrency review at various stages of the development review process. These levels include conceptual, preliminary and final approval.

a.

Conceptual concurrency review. A conceptual concurrency review can be requested at the time of application for rezoning. If it is found that public facility capacities are available at adopted levels of service at the time of the application, a letter of concurrency will be issued. Letters of concurrency are intended to be used for an early assessment of available public facility capacities which will be available at the time of the project's final development order application. The letter of concurrency will be valid only for the date of the letter.

b.

Preliminary concurrency review. A preliminary concurrency review can be requested at the time of application for a site plan or preliminary subdivision approval. If it is found that facility capacities are available at adopted levels of service at the time of the application, a letter of concurrency will be issued which is valid only for the date of the letter.

c.

Final concurrency review. A final concurrency review is required at the time of application for final development order approval. A final development order may include land development plan approval, development of regional impacts (D.R.I.) and Florida Quality Developments (F.Q.D.). If public facilities capacities are found to be available at adopted level of service at the time of final development approval, a certificate of concurrency will be issued. No final development order will be issued until a certificate of concurrency is issued by the city.

d.

Capacity reservation. The reservation of capacities may be done only after the development order is issued. Capacity reservation requests are the option of the developer on a first-come, first-served basis, based on the date of project approval by the city mayor or designee or city council. Capacity reservation shall be valid only for the specific land uses, densities, intensities and construction and improvement schedules contained in the development order and any applicable development agreements for the property and shall reserve public facility capacity for the project for the duration of the development order. Capacity reservations for concurrency shall expire if the underlying development order or development agreement expires or is revoked. Payment of impact fees in full by the developer for specific public facilities shall constitute reservation of such capacities and shall vest the project for concurrency for those specific categories. A three-year payment plan addressing full payment may be allowed by the city.

(2)

Postponement of review and approval. Review and approval of a proposed development may be postponed for a reasonable period in order for required information to be assembled. Failure of the applicant to provide adequate information on the anticipated project impacts within six months of notification of the need for additional information, however, shall constitute sufficient grounds to deny concurrency to the project.

(3)

Application requirements. All development applications subject to concurrency review as required by this chapter shall include a completed concurrency review form, the appropriate fee and contain the following information:

a.

Traffic impact study, when required, or information required to estimate trip generation.

b.

Description and estimate of water use needs.

c.

Description and estimate of wastewater generation.

d.

Description and estimate of solid waste generation.

e.

Stormwater drainage calculations:

1.

Final or preliminary review: a copy of the SJRWMD submittal package.

2.

Conceptual review: a description of the drainage requirements which will be met.

f.

Other information required by the city to conduct a complete and accurate review, including:

1.

Number and type of proposed dwelling units.

2.

Size and type of nonresidential land uses proposed.

3.

Any other data that may be pertinent to the review process.

(c)

Project impact assessment.

(1)

Existing conditions. To conduct its assessment of the anticipated impacts of a proposed development on public facilities, the city shall use its inventory of public facilities capacities as a base for the establishment of existing conditions.

(2)

Impact assessment. Using its own information and that supplied by the applicant, the city shall calculate the anticipated impacts of a proposed development for all applicable public facilities. The impacts of the proposed development shall then be assessed against the existing conditions established in subsection (b)(1) of this section.

(d)

Concurrency findings. Upon the conclusion of the final concurrency review, the city shall prepare a written set of findings concerning the proposed development. These findings shall include:

(1)

The anticipated public facility impacts of the proposed development.

(2)

The ability of existing facilities to accommodate the proposed development at the adopted level of service standards.

(3)

Any existing facility deficiencies that will need to be corrected prior to the completion of the proposed development.

(4)

The facility's improvements or additions necessary to accommodate the impact of the proposed development at the adopted level of service standard and the entities responsible for the design and installation of all required facility improvements or additions.

(5)

The date such facility's improvement or additions will need to be completed to be concurrent with the impacts on such facilities created by the proposed development.

(e)

Development agreements. It is the city's policy to ensure that the infrastructure necessary to meet minimum LOS standards is provided. If the minimum requirements for concurrency as outlined in this chapter cannot be met, concurrency may be achieved by guaranteeing necessary facility improvements in an enforceable development agreement, as permitted in the above sections. Such development agreement may include guarantees to construct required facility improvements, or to provide funds equivalent to the cost of providing such facility improvements.

(f)

Project phasing/timing of improvements. Public facility improvements associated with a phased development may likewise be phased; however, a schedule shall be established for the construction of all public improvements as necessary to accommodate the entire development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The schedule of facility improvements shall ensure that all facility improvements necessary to accommodate the impacts of the development, or portion thereof, for which a certificate of occupancy has been applied shall be in place prior to the issuance of the certificate. Under no circumstances shall the final certificate of occupancy be issued for a project unless all facility improvements required by the development order or development agreement have been completed.

(g)

Project deferrals/development moratoriums. If, at any time, the city's inventory of public facilities capacities determines that a public facility has dropped below its adopted level of service, then the city shall cease to issue development orders for projects which would impact the deficient facilities or area of facility operations. Such a suspension or moratorium, on the issuance of development orders, as allowed by law, shall continue until such time as the adopted LOS standard is reestablished or the comprehensive plan is amended to reflect a lower, acceptable community standard for the facility in question.

(h)

Concurrency denials. If the city's concurrency review reveals that the proposed development would generate public facility impacts beyond that which can be absorbed by available capacity, the city shall ensure that there is a financial or other legally binding commitment to ensure that public facilities necessary to correct the anticipated deficiency will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. Should the city and/or a developer be unable to provide such assurances, the project shall be denied. Projects denied due to failure to meet requirements, but for which all other land development requirements have been met, shall be placed on a prioritized list for approval of development orders once facility improvements have been made.

(i)

Capacity reservation for public purpose. The city may reserve capacity for a particular land area or specific land use, providing such reservation is in accordance with a specific development or redevelopment strategy identified in the comprehensive plan which serves an overriding public purpose. This would include such community development objectives as diversification of the tax base. Any such capacity reservations shall be noted in the annual report on public facilities and capacities made available to the city council and the public each March, as required by section 90-6.

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.06; Ord. No. 2006-35, § 11, 11-28-2006; Ord. No. 2009-06, § 4, 4-7-2009)

The city shall regularly monitor the cumulative effect of all approved development orders on the capacity of public facilities. Commencing upon adoption of this land development code, and on each March thereafter, the city mayor or designee shall prepare and present to the city council and the public a report on the public facilities capacities and level of service inventory for concurrency management. This report shall include the degree of any facility deficiencies and a summary of the impacts the deficiencies will have on the approval of future development orders. The city mayor or designee shall then recommend a schedule of improvements necessary to prevent a deferral or moratorium on the issuance of development orders.

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.07)

(a)

Intergovernmental communication. The city mayor or designee shall regularly transmit to the county notice of all pending development applications for which concurrency assessments are being conducted.

(b)

Developments of multijurisdictional impact. Developments which would impact a public facility in one or more adjacent municipalities shall be subject to an intergovernmental review for concurrency. This review shall be conducted by designated officials from the affected municipalities, the county and/or East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.

(c)

Joint planning area agreements. Provisions consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter shall be included, when applicable, in all interlocal agreements executed after November 27, 2001, to which the city is a party.

(LDC 1997, ch. 8, § 1.08)

(1)

Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to prevent further overcrowding of school facilities during the time in which the county-wide interlocal agreement for school concurrency is adopted by all municipalities, the Lake County School Board (LCSB), and Lake County and the city's related public school facilities elements of the city's comprehensive plan are adopted. In order to ensure this purpose, residential plats, site plans, and lot splits that create five or more lots or dwelling units shall not be approved unless the LCSB provides the city with certification that sufficient school capacity exists or will exist to provide educational services for the students who will live in homes constructed on such lots.

(2)

Determining concurrency. The applicant shall submit a school concurrency application to the LCSB. The LCSB shall review the applications and either issue or deny the school concurrency certification in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in the interlocal agreement between Lake County and Lake County School Board and municipalities for school facilities planning and siting, dated August 24, 2006 and attached to Ordinance No. 2007-04 as exhibit "A."

(3)

Applicability.

(a)

Except as provided in subsections (b) or (c) below, the above school concurrency requirements apply only to residential uses.

(b)

The following residential uses shall be considered exempt from the requirements of school concurrency, unless the development approval or any applicable development agreement for such use requires it to meet school concurrency.

i.

Single family lots having received final plat approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

ii.

Multifamily residential development having received final site plan approval prior to the effective date of this section [January 24, 2007].

iii.

Amendments to residential development approvals issued prior to the effective date of this section [January 24, 2007] that do not increase the number of residential units or change the type of residential units proposed.

iv.

Age-restricted communities that are subject to deed restrictions prohibiting the permanent occupancy of residents under the age of 18. Such deed restrictions must be recorded and must be irrevocable for a period of at least 50 years.

v.

Plats or residential site plans which include four or less units.

(c)

The above school concurrency requirements shall not apply to the following:

i.

Property for which preliminary subdivision plats, site plans, or lot splits have been approved on or before January 1, 2007.

ii.

The exceptions provided in this subsection (3)(c)(i) apply unless any development order which approved such development required the proposed development to meet school concurrency.

(4)

Notwithstanding the above, the city acknowledges that, pursuant to legislative mandate and Senate Bill 360, county-wide school concurrency shall be implemented in Lake County by December 1, 2008. Accordingly, this section shall be effective until the applicable elements in the city's comprehensive plan are amended to reflect county-wide school concurrency.

(Ord. No. 2007-04, §§ 1—4, 1-24-2007)