5.1.1. Purpose and Intent

A.

The primary purpose and intent of these regulations is to provide the City of Venice with the tools to meet statutory concurrency requirements. The implementation of these concurrency standards will be the principal mechanism for ensuring that growth is managed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. This section will serve as a key monitoring device for measuring the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan and the programming of capital improvements.

Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Infrastructure Element, the approval of development orders shall be contingent upon a finding that adequate public facilities have been determined to be available for appropriate facility types, consistent with their adopted levels of service and concurrent with the impact of the proposed development. It is not the intent of this section to grant a certificate of concurrency for land use applications not directly approving the development of land, although a certificate of concurrency may be granted as part of a rezoning to a Planned District as identified in Section 1.7.3: Planned District Zoning Amendments. Once a certificate of concurrency is issued, developers are responsible for ensuring development does not exceed the approved capacity for each facility.

5.1.2. Applicability

A.

The provisions of this section shall apply to the following land use petitions:

1.

Rezoning to a Planned District;

2.

Conditional Use for the Attainable Housing Density Bonus; and

3.

Preliminary Plat and Site and Development Plans.

5.1.3. Concurrency Management Officer

A.

The Planning and Zoning Director or designee shall be designated as the Concurrency Management Officer responsible for the implementation of this section and for coordinating the review of applications for land use petitions. The Concurrency Management Officer shall have the authority to ensure the lead agencies for each public facility provide their concurrency evaluations consistent with this section so that approval of development permits will not result in the reduction of the levels of service below the minimum standards adopted within the City Comprehensive Plan.

5.1.4. Certificate of Concurrency Exceptions

A.

Single-family Construction. Building permits for single-family residential construction that have a certificate of concurrency for prior approvals for preliminary plat and/or Planned District zoning are exempt. Building permits for single-family construction that are not covered under a prior certificate of concurrency are exempt from a certificate of concurrency but are subject to concurrency for potable water and sanitary sewer.

B.

Prior Certificate of Concurrency. Recognizing a certificate of concurrency may be issued in early phases of development, where subsequent land use petitions and permits may be required, a new certificate of concurrency shall not be required where the following conditions have been met:

1.

The previously approved development order or ordinance remains in effect per the terms of the written order or in the absence thereof, as determined by the expiration date imposed by the applicable subsection of Section 1: Administration. For instance where the development order or ordinance for which the certificate of concurrency was issued will expire prior to the approval of subsequent land use petitions or permits, application for a new certificate of concurrency shall be required to ensure a valid certificate of concurrency for the duration/completion of the development;

2.

The impact of the proposed development under consideration was fully taken into account during the concurrency review and in the finding of concurrency associated with the previously approved development order or ordinance;

3.

The conditions related to land uses and facility availability upon which the previous finding was based have not changed; and

4.

All conditions or stipulations regarding the timing or phasing of the development or the provision of facility improvements by either the developer or the City imposed in the previously approved development order or ordinance have been satisfied.

5.1.5. Certificate of Concurrency Required

A.

Determination of Concurrency, Generally.

1.

Rezoning to a Planned District. The rezoning of land to a Planned District (PUD, PCD, or PID) could result in a range of potential impacts and shall be reviewed as if the highest impact were being proposed, or the ordinance shall be conditioned so as to restrict the use of the subject parcel to a level of impact consistent with a positive finding of concurrency. A finding of concurrency resulting from the review of a rezoning petition for a Planned District shall not be construed to guarantee the availability of adequate facilities, unless otherwise provided for within a Development Agreement pursuant to F.S. § 163.3220 et seq.

2.

Conditional Use. Concurrency applications for conditional use petitions shall be reviewed based on conditions consistent with the requirements for determining available facility capacity for the proposed use.

3.

Preliminary Plat, and Site and Development Plans. Concurrency applications for these petitions shall be reviewed consistent with the requirements for determining available capacity for the proposed development.

B.

Application. Applications for development orders or permits, as defined in Section 9: General Definitions shall first be submitted to the Concurrency Management Officer for processing. An applicant for a certificate of concurrency shall provide all information required by the City, including all of the information required in the methodology for calculating projected demand for certificates of concurrency.

C.

Review Procedure. Upon the payment of the fee to process the application and the determination that the information submitted is sufficient to allow a complete evaluation of the application for a certificate of concurrency, the Concurrency Management Officer shall submit the application to each lead agency for review of the facility or service for which that agency is responsible. For the purpose of this Code, the following agencies are deemed lead agencies:

Table 5.1.5. Concurrency Review Procedure Table

D.

Concurrency Evaluation. Each lead agency shall review the application for a certificate of concurrency and shall submit to the Concurrency Management Officer an evaluation report based on its findings using the following criteria and methodology:

1.

The conditions related to land uses and public facility availability upon which the reviews were based;

2.

The specific facilities impacted by the proposed development;

3.

The extent of the impact generated on those facilities by the proposed development;

4.

Conditions or stipulations regarding the timing and phasing of the development or provision of facility improvements necessary to ensure that adequate facilities will be available concurrent with the impact of the development; and

5.

Conditions or stipulations regarding proportionate share mitigation for non-transportation facilities.

E.

Evaluation Procedures. For the purpose of evaluating concurrency, the available capacity of a facility shall be determined by:

1.

Adding together:

a.

The total capacity of existing facilities operating at the adopted level of service; and

b.

The total capacity of new facilities, if any, that will become available concurrent with impacts of the development. The capacity of new facilities may be counted if one or more of the following is demonstrated:

i.

Construction of the new facilities is underway at the time the application is being evaluated;

ii.

The new facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract for the construction of the facilities or the provision of services at the time the application is being evaluated;

iii.

The new facilities have been included in the adopted City capital budget for the fiscal year in effect at the time the application is being evaluated;

iv.

The new facilities are guaranteed in a Development Agreement for the development under consideration. A Development Agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to F.S. § 163.3220 et seq., or an agreement or development order pursuant to F.S. Ch. 380. Such facilities shall be consistent with the Capital Improvements chapter of the City Comprehensive Plan, as it may be amended from time to time; or

v.

The new facilities are guaranteed in a Development Agreement for a development different than the one under consideration, provided that the new facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract for the construction of the facilities with a construction start date during the fiscal year in effect at the time the application is being evaluated.

2.

Subtracting from the total capacity the sum of:

a.

The demand for the services or facilities created by existing development;

b.

The demand for the services or facilities created by the anticipated completion of other approved developments; and

c.

The demand for the services or facilities created by the anticipated completion of the proposed development under consideration for concurrency determination.

F.

Data Requirements.

1.

Development Submissions. All applications for land development shall provide sufficient information to determine the impact of such development consistent with these concurrency evaluation procedures. Such information shall include, but not be limited to:

a.

Total number and type of dwelling units for residential development applications;

b.

Identification of type and intensity of nonresidential use, where appropriate, at a level of detail consistent with the type of development application;

c.

Location of the proposed development and identification of facilities impacted by the development pursuant to the provisions of these regulations; and

d.

Identification of project phasing, where applicable.

G.

Potable Water, Wastewater, Drainage, Solid Waste and Recreation/Open Space. The concurrency evaluation shall compare the available capacity to the demand of the proposed development. The available capacity shall be determined by adding together:

1.

The total of the existing uncommitted excess capacity, if any; and

2.

The total future capacity of any proposed construction or expansion that meets the requirements of Section 5.1.6: Minimum Requirements for Concurrency.

H.

Public Schools. The Sarasota County School District shall provide a school concurrency recommendation which will serve as the basis for the availability of public school facilities for the issuance of a certificate of concurrency. The school district, in coordination with the City, will be responsible for developing and maintaining the concurrency database.

5.1.6. Minimum Requirements for Concurrency

A.

Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater and Potable Water Facilities. In order to obtain a certificate of concurrency it must be established that level of service standards can be met according to this section. The City is required to regulate development to direct it towards conservation of the potable water supply. If non-potable alternative sources of irrigation water are available, potable water supplies shall not be used to meet irrigation needs. All new development shall be required to use water-saving plumbing fixtures. Further, development plans shall be required to comply with the following potable water supply performance criteria:

1.

A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the necessary facilities and services are in place and available to serve the new development; or

2.

At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in a development agreement, pursuant to F.S. § 163.3220, or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to F.S. Ch. 380, to be in place and available to serve the new development at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.

B.

Functional Open Space Facilities. In order to obtain a certificate of concurrency it must be established that level of service standards can be met according to the following conditions:

1.

At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are in place or under actual construction; or

2.

A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development will be dedicated to or acquired by the appropriate local governmental entity, or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed.

C.

Public School Facilities. Per Section 5.1.5.H: Public Schools, the Sarasota County School District shall provide a school concurrency recommendation for the issuance of a certificate of concurrency. The school district, in coordination with the City, will be responsible for developing and maintaining the concurrency data base.

D.

Concurrency Determination. Upon receipt of all concurrency evaluation reports, the Concurrency Management Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance or extension of certificates of concurrency prior to the issuance of any development orders based upon concurrency capacity and concurrency determination.

E.

Expiration. A certificate of concurrency shall automatically expire with the expiration of the development permit to which it applies. Where expiration terms are established by the City Council in a pre-annexation agreement, those terms shall apply. If a time extension to the expiration date of a development permit is applied for at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, the certificate of concurrency may also be renewed for the length of any time extension provided that:

1.

A showing is made establishing that efforts to commence work under the development permit have been pursued continuously and in good faith; and

2.

Conditions have not materially changed since the certificate of concurrency was originally issued.

F.

Appeals.

1.

A denial of a certificate of concurrency may be appealed by the applicant to City Council, within 15 days from the date of written denial of the certificate of concurrency, by filing with the City Clerk a notice of appeal specifying each fact or circumstance in support of granting the certificate of concurrency. The City Clerk shall schedule the appeal to be heard at a public hearing by City Council at a regular meeting, within 30 days following the filing of a proper appeal. The Concurrency Management Officer shall transmit to the City Clerk all documents constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. The City Clerk shall notify the applicant in writing of the date, time and location of the City Council meeting at which the appeal shall be heard. During the appeal proceeding, the applicant may appear in person or be represented by an agent or attorney. If deemed necessary by City Council, in order to supplement the record, City Council may receive additional testimony and make inquiry of the applicant and administrative staff. Applicants may be required to assume such reasonable costs as City Council may determine by resolution in setting fees to be charged for appeals.

2.

The applicant shall have the burden of proof to establish by the presentation of substantial competent evidence to City Council that:

a.

There was a material error in the technical determination to deny the certificate of concurrency; or

b.

One or more of the conditions in this section are satisfied such that the necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the impacts of development.

3.

The City Council, upon reviewing the record and findings regarding the denial of the certificate of concurrency, may affirm, reverse or modify the decision denying the issuance of the certificate of concurrency. Before directing issuance of a certificate of concurrency, the City Council shall make specific findings that the issuance of a certificate of concurrency complies with this section. The decision of the City Council shall be transmitted in writing to the applicant.

(Ord. No. 2022-15, § 3(Exh. B), 7-12-22; Ord. No. 2023-05, § 2(Exh. A), 2-28-23)

5.2.1. Introduction

A.

In 2011, the state eliminated mandatory transportation concurrency and significantly limited the ability of local governments to implement traditional concurrency and proportionate fair-share. The City, through an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County, utilizes the County's system of mobility fees for the purpose of transportation improvements.

5.2.2. Applicability

A.

Transportation Impact Analysis Required. The City shall review land development applications, including applications for rezones to planned districts, conditional uses for the attainable housing density bonus, site and development plans, and preliminary plats, for transportation impact, as provided in the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, City Code of Ordinances, and this LDR.

1.

Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Applications for comprehensive plan amendments shall evaluate the potential for impact to the surrounding transportation roadway segments based upon the maximum development potential provided under the existing future land use designation as compared to the maximum development potential of the proposed future land use designation. Where available, as an additional consideration, the analysis may also include a review of the proposed development if known at the time of the Plan amendment.

5.2.3. Mobility Requirements

A.

Mobility Requirements. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be completed prior to any public hearings or the final approval of the project where no public hearings are required. A TIA shall take into consideration the City's Schedule of Capital Improvements and the list of Capital Projects and Sarasota County's list of Capital Projects, and it shall follow the traffic modeling guidelines as established in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Traffic Analysis Handbook (as amended), subject to input provided by City staff and Sarasota County staff (if applicable). The following requirements for the TIA build upon the FDOT Traffic Analysis Handbook and are intended to provide more detail in defining the study area, the analysis scenarios (Section 5.2.3.A.2: Intersection Analysis), and turn lane warrants required in the analysis:

1.

TIA Process:

a.

Draft TIA methodology submitted to the City.

b.

Methodology meeting held with applicant.

c.

Final Methodology submitted for approval.

d.

TIA prepared.

e.

TIA submitted for review and approval.

f.

Final approved TIA produced for inclusion into development application materials.

2.

TIA Requirements.

a.

Location. The analysis shall provide a property address, parcel identification numbers within the development and a map of the project location (including a north arrow) that also shows surrounding properties as well as a current aerial image of the site.

b.

Proposed Development and Access Connections. The analysis shall provide an overview of the proposed development, including applicable square footages and/or other project variables including, but not limited to, the number and type of residential units or rooms for hotels. A proposed development plan shall also be provided. The location of all driveways and access connections shall be identified and their proximity to existing intersections and adjacent accesses shall be documented. Access connections on the opposite side of the road shall be depicted.

c.

Multimodal Facilities and Transit.

i.

The analysis shall include an inventory of all existing and proposed multi-modal facilities along the boundary of the development, including transit stops.

ii.

The analysis shall identify if bicycle racks will be proposed by the development and where the bicycle racks are proposed to be located. The analysis shall provide an inventory of the routes providing transit service and the frequency of transit service based upon the most recently published data from Sarasota County Area Transit.

iii.

The analysis shall identify all existing and proposed sidewalks, trails, paths and bicycle lanes along thoroughfare roadways within a one-fourth-mile of the development boundary along an external road.

iv.

The analysis shall identify all adjacent public parks, schools, shopping centers and employments uses directly adjacent to the boundaries of the development or across the street from project access connections.

d.

Trip Generation. Daily and AM and/or PM peak-hour trip generation and directional split for project traffic shall be estimated using the rates and equations contained in the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual.

i.

Internal/community capture, mode share and pass-by trips may be proposed subject to staff approval based upon proposed land uses and support documentation.

ii.

Specific capture rates, mode share, pass-by and their application shall be established during development of the detailed methodology and documentation and/or technical analysis provided supporting the use of capture rates, mode share and pass-by trips.

iii.

Other sources of trip generation data may be used, as approved by staff during development of the formal methodology.

e.

Collected Traffic Counts. Collected daily traffic counts and turning movement counts shall be documented and referenced. The need for collecting traffic counts shall be determined during the methodology meeting.

i.

Segment counts shall typically be limited to roadways directly accessed by the development.

ii.

Additional segment counts may be required for development with 100 or more Peak-Hour trips where an intersection analysis is required.

iii.

An applicant may request to utilize existing segment or older traffic count data, as determined by the Director or transportation professional designee, and turning movement counts that are less than a year old where, for instance, there has been no significant development since the counts were collected or where significant events such as natural disasters or other events may have a significant impact on data collection.

iv.

Segment counts shall generally be collected over a three-day period on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, excluding holidays and special events unless approved by the Director or transportation professional designee.

v.

The peak-hours of turning movement counts shall be determined by the Director or transportation professional designee. Count times and locations shall be established at the methodology meeting.

f.

Trip Distribution. Trip Distribution may be based on existing or collected traffic counts, the latest FDOT Travel Demand Model, or other methods of distributing project traffic as approved by the Director or transportation professional designee during development of the formal methodology.

i.

For projects with 500 or more peak-hour trips, as determined by the Director or transportation professional designee, the City may require using the latest FDOT Travel Demand Model.

ii.

The applicant may request, or the Director or transportation professional designee may require, changes to the network. Socio-economic data may require modification prior to being found acceptable for a specific project for projects with 500 or more peak-hour trips.

iii.

The applicant shall submit for Director or transportation professional designee review any proposed or required modifications to modeling data.

iv.

The applicant shall not proceed to portions of the analysis that rely on the trip distribution prior to receiving Director or transportation professional designee approval of the modeling data and the project trip distribution.

g.

Study Area of Impact. The study area shall be based upon 5% of the Level of Service of impacted thoroughfare facilities and shall also include significant local, collector and arterial roads to which the project has direct access or that the project accesses via a private or local road network. The study area shall include the thoroughfare facility, and thoroughfare segment intersection endpoints as defined by the Director or transportation professional designee.

h.

Trip Assignment. Trips shall be assigned to the surrounding roadway network and project access connections per the approved traffic distribution. Assignment shall address Daily, AM and PM Peak-hours. Pass-by trips shall be accounted for at project access connections.

i.

Existing Traffic Conditions. An analysis of an existing year peak-hour, peak-season traffic conditions scenario for all thoroughfare roadway segments and all intersections within the study area shall be provided. The analysis time period to evaluate (the Peak-Hour) will be determined by the Director or transportation professional designee at the time of the methodology meeting. This evaluation shall include any traffic counts conducted and any seasonal adjustments to these counts.

i.

All counts collected shall be no greater than 12 months old at the time of application submittal unless otherwise allowed by the Director or transportation professional designee.

ii.

Peak-season adjustment factors shall be based upon Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) guiding documentation or other sources. If traffic counts are not collected along roadway segments, data provided from Sarasota County sources or FDOT sources may be used to develop "existing" conditions. However, growth rates may need to be developed to reflect current year conditions if traffic counts are older than 12 months old.

iii.

All proposed growth rates must be accepted by the Director or transportation professional designee prior to use in the analysis. As part of the applicant's analysis, adopted LOS standards and associated service volumes (for roadways) will need to be provided.

iv.

The source and type of software to be used in the traffic analysis shall be identified.

v.

The analysis for roadway segments may be a multi-tier approach where the most recent and published generalized service volumes, as developed by FDOT, should initially be used.

vi.

If necessary, the secondary tier approach can be used by the applicant which could include the most recent and approved version of FDOT's ART-PLAN or HIGH-PLAN programs or the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) programs, or any similar software as approved by the Director or transportation professional designee.

vii.

For intersections, the use of the HCS programs, Synchro, or any similar software as approved by the Director or transportation professional designee, will be appropriate.

viii.

Information regarding traffic signal phasing/timing for use in the above software programs shall be obtained from the Director or transportation professional designee. The results of the roadway and intersection analyses shall be in tabular form and illustrated in figures.

j.

Background (Non-Project) Traffic. Future background (non-project) traffic will be determined by a variety of methods including the application of a growth rate to existing traffic volumes and/or the direct use of reserved trips as provided by the Director or transportation professional designee. The specific approach will be determined at the time of the methodology meeting.

k.

Future Traffic Conditions. An analysis of a future year (build-out year) peak-hour, peak-season traffic conditions scenario for all roadways and intersections within the study area at project buildout shall be provided.

i.

The specific time period to evaluate should be identical to the existing conditions scenario unless City staff deems other time periods appropriate for analysis in this scenario.

ii.

This evaluation shall include both project traffic and background traffic estimates as previously discussed.

iii.

The future scenario may include any scheduled and fully funded transportation improvements programmed for construction within the first two years (current year plus one future year) of the currently adopted City of Venice Schedule of Capital Improvements and Venice Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Sarasota County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and/or FDOT's 5-Year Work Program.

iv.

The inclusion of any improvement planned by a third party (i.e., private entity) is at the risk of the applicant and could result in that improvement being stipulated as a required improvement for the project under review.

v.

As part of this analysis, adopted LOS standards and associated service volumes (for roadways) shall be provided. In addition, the source and type of analysis software to be used in this scenario shall be identified. Similar guidelines for the type of analysis to use for roadway segments and intersections, as identified in the Existing Traffic Conditions section, will also be applied for this scenario. The results of this analysis shall be in tabular form and illustrated in figures.

l.

Identified Improvements. This analysis will also identify and provide a list (in tabular form) of transportation-related improvements at roadway segments and intersections (both on-site/site-related at project driveways and off-site locations). If off-site improvements are necessary, the applicant shall provide a project trip threshold to determine when, in terms of number of trips, an improvement will be required and responsibility for the improvements. The identified improvements shall include costs estimates.

m.

Intersection Analysis. All access connections to external roadways shall be evaluated for the AM and/or PM peak-hours or, for developments without peak-hour impacts (such as places of worship without schools), the peak-hour of the proposed development.

i.

For developments that do not have direct access to an existing thoroughfare roadway, the intersection of the roadway connecting the development and an existing thoroughfare shall be considered an access connection.

ii.

Projects that generate 100 or more Peak-Hour trips shall be required to establish a study area during the formal methodology meeting and evaluate (at the minimum) the two signalized and/or stop controlled intersection endpoints of the first adjacent thoroughfare facility along with that segment.

iii.

The Director or transportation professional designee may reduce the number of external intersections evaluated where the intersections are located within the area of influence that will not be impacted by traffic from the development.

iv.

The Director or transportation professional designee shall not be required to allow or approve an access connection that the Director or transportation professional designee finds will cause an operational or safety issue either at the access connection or at an existing adjacent intersection.

v.

The Director or transportation professional designee may limit access connections to a right-in or right-out only where necessary site related improvements or adequate improvements to the adjacent intersection cannot be made.

vi.

The Director or transportation professional designee may require striping, a raised separator/barrier feature or other treatment be constructed by the developer to limit the access connection to a right-in and/or right-out only.

vii.

The Director or transportation professional designee, may also require that an existing access connection(s) be removed or relocated if that access creates an operational or safety issue.

viii.

An acceptable software simulation (approved at the time of formal methodology approval) will be used to evaluate each intersection based upon the type of intersection (i.e., roundabout, signalized, two-way stop control, etc.).

ix.

The Director or transportation professional designee shall provide background traffic or growth rates to be used in the intersection analysis. The need for appropriate growth factors is sensitive to geographical location and therefore shall be established during development of the detailed methodology. The analysis shall be conducted for the peak-hour of traffic. This approximates the average AM and/or PM peak-hour during the peak-season of traffic in Sarasota County. The following scenarios shall be analyzed for the development under consideration: Existing conditions; Existing plus vested/background conditions, if applicable; Existing plus vested/background conditions plus project traffic; and Existing plus vested/background conditions plus project traffic plus improvements to movements directly utilized by project traffic. The Director or transportation professional designee may require a signal or roundabout warrant analysis. If warranted and approved by the Director or transportation professional designee, the project shall design and construct the traffic signal or roundabout per the timing established by the Director or transportation professional designee

n.

Turn Lane Warrant Analysis. Project related turn lane warrant analysis requirements will be established at the methodology meeting.

o.

Internal Roadway Projections. The analysis will describe all internal roadways proposed in conjunction with the proposed development if internal roadways are proposed. In absence of proposed internal roadways, internal circulation will be described.

3.

Technical Report Compiling All Relevant Data with a Conclusion. The TIA shall be documented in a technical report, signed and sealed by a licensed Florida Professional Engineer with expertise in conducting transportation analyses. The methodology shall specify the number of copies to be provided. The final section of the report shall provide a clear and concise description of study findings, including whether or not the impacted roadway facilities will operate at or above the adopted LOS standards and whether all intersection lane groups will operate below V/C ratio of 1.0 when reviewed under total traffic conditions. The final section shall also provide a summary of the improvements for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motorists identified by type.

(Ord. No. 2022-15, § 3(Exh. B), 7-12-22; Ord. No. 2023-05, § 2(Exh. A), 2-28-23)