HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0400.092 2002-2004 ~'`V
Harry Kim Dixie Kaetsu
Mayor ' • Managing Director
e+.y`
»';;•H.+' Peter L. Hendricks
Deputy Managing Director
~ouutp of ~atuai`i
25 Aupuni Street, Room 2l5 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-821 I Fax (808) 961-6553
KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740
(808)329-5226 Fax (808)326-5663
August 3, 2004
O
The Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman, and
Members of the Hawaii County Council -
County of Hawaii `-O
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
ca
Re: Bill 178 -Relating to Clifto's
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members of the Council:
"Thank you for deferring final action on Bill 178 so work could be completed on a policy
recommendation regarding infrastructure concurrency.
First, I do need to acknowledge the generosity of the developer in offering a public
recreational easement along the shoreline as well as up to $750,000 to fund the plans for the
second phase of the widening of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway from Kealakehe Parkway to
the Keahole Airport. This offer is greatly appreciated.
Also, thank you to Council Planning Committee Chairman Elarianoff for initiating the
discussion and presenting a proposal for ways to mitigate the concerns and impacts of this
development and make this somehow beneficial to the community.
Concurrency Report
Attached for your review and consideration is a report from the Planning Department that
defines and discusses concurrency as a planning tool. This document contains the
recommendation that the County of Hawaii adopt a concurrency management ordinance that
will be part of the zoning code, and that the County develop the technical basis to implement a
concunency management system.
It is also recommended that until a concurrency ordinance is adopted, special conditions be
included in rezoning ordinances to address inadequacies of critical infrastructure facilities in
specified areas. This recommendation is relevant to the rezoning of the Clifto's project
proposed in Bill 178.
Comm. No. ~ 2
Ref. To,Presa~hd
Rzf. Date
Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
August 3, 2004
The Honorable James Y. Arakaki and Council Members
Page 2
Identified Critical Area
Developments along Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway between Kealekehe Parkway and the
Keahole Airport that require access to and from the highway aze considered part of a critical
area because traffic on the highway already exceeds its planned capacity and a number of
pending projects have already received approvals.
The State Department of Transportation plans to widen Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to four
lanes with a median at a total cost of $30 million. Design is to begin in FY2005, with
construction completed in FY2009.
Proposed condition for Bill 178
It is proposed that for this project and other future rezonings in this critical area, occupancy be
conditioned on the completion of the widening of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway.
Specific language recommended to amend Condition J in Bill 178 is:
A Certificate of Occupancy for any portion of the development other than the residential
component shall not be issued until Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Phase II, from Kealakehe
Parkway to Keahole Airport, has been widened to a minlmum of
four traffic lanes (i. e.,
construction completed).
As recommended in the attached report, if private contributions pay for the design of Phase II
to fast-track the project, then it is acceptable to add a fixed period for government to uphold
its commitment to expedite construction by adding at the end of the condition, or within
three years from the effective date of this ordinance, whichever occurs first." Since Clifto's
developer has agreed to pay $750,000 for the design of the road improvements, this provision
should be included above.
In addition, to ensure the timeliness of the completion of the design, a requirement should be
added that, "Plan approval for any part of the project shall not be issued unless the
applicant's design of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Phase II, has been submitted to the
State Department of Transportation for review and approval."
Conclusion
The administration would like to sincerely thank the County Council and Chairman Arakaki
for working with the administration and the developer in trying to address the infrastructure
concerns of Kona regarding this development. We again thank the County Council for the
$40 million bond issue that will provide the funds to assist in addressing our County's
highway needs.
A a,
any Ki r`"~
Mayor
Definition and Objectives of Concurrency
"Concurrency" is a planning tool that controls the timing of land use development in
relation to the adequacy of infrastructure. Existing land use controls such as zoning and
subdivision regulate the location, density, and bulk of development. While these existing
controls are effective in directing growth away from environmentally sensitive areas and
towards more compact urban areas, the shortcomings of these existing land use controls
are evidenced by the continued approvals of rezonings and subdivisions in the face of
growing traffic congestion. Concurrency adds the dimension of regulating the timing of
development. Traditional infrastructure planning reacts to and attempts to catch up with
land development; Concurrency flips the process and forces the private sector to react to
public facility investments.
Concurrency regulation is not a moratorium. While a moratorium halts growth during the
period when the moratorium is in effect, it is not a permanent system. Concurrency sets
forth the conditions upon which development can proceed, and if deferred or denied on
the basis of inadequacy, sets forth what mitigation measures may substitute if the
developer wants to proceed or the expected time period the developer must wait in order
to be accommodated by planned improvements.
The desired outcomes of a Concurrency policy are as follows:
• A rational basis to identify what types of development and geographical areas to
apply the Concurrency requirements;
• A clear definition of adequacy; and
• Integration of land use controls and capital facilities planning that is coordinated
intergovernrnentally (i.e., State and County).
Determination of Public Facility Timing and Capacity
In order to regulate the timing of a development project in relation to the anticipated
future capacity of a public facility, it is helpful to understand the development stages of
the respective projects.
Years Prior to Public Facility Project Private Development
Occupancy of First Project
Unit
10+ years Lead time for plans for major
highways and wastewater
treatment plants because of
scale of ro'ect
5-10 ears Preliminar Tanning Master Tannin
3-6 years Commitment in CIP (total Rezoning
estimated cost programmed;
design funds a ro riated)
3-5 years Engineering design; right-of- Survey, design, construction
way ac uisition plans
1-4 years CIP construction funds Subdivision approval, plan
appropriated; construction approval, building permit
contract let
1-3 years Facilities under construction Development under
construction
0 Service connection approved Occupancy permit
In calculating the capacity of public facilities, the following factors are taken into
account:
Capacity provided by existing facilities at the adopted LOS
+ Capacity of planned facilities
-Demand created by existing development
- Demand created by proposed project under consideration
- Demand created by entitled but unbuilt developments
-Demand created by deferred or exempt developments with capacity reservations
= Available Capacity to Serve New Development
The cornerstone of a concurrency management system is the adoption of Level of Service
(LOS) standards. The LOS standard will determine the extent to which planned
infrastructure capacity is attributable to new growth or existing demand. For example, if
existing roadways are operating at LOS D, and the county adopts an LOS standard C for
concurrency, the county cannot require the developer to upgrade the road network from D
to C because the inadequacy is due to existing conditions. However, if the county adopts
a LOS standard of D, a significant proportion of new capacity will be attributable to new
development. For roads, a LOS standard that tolerates more congestion induces people to
use alternative transportation modes. In short, setting the LOS standard is a policy
decision that entails more than engineering parameters.
Concurrency Issues
Several questions arise when considering the enactment of a concurrency management
system:
Does the County have authority to adopt concurrency regulations?
Because local governments are creatures of the state, the authority to adopt land use
regulations must be granted by the state. The state delegates its police powers in one or
both of two ways: the state legislature enacts enabling legislation or the state constitution
empowers local governments with home rule:
• Enabling legislation. Hawaii's enabling zoning legislation is general.
Explicit enabling legislation for adequate public facility ordinances is rare.
Hawaii Revised Statutes §46-4: "...The zoning power granted herein shall be exercised by ordinance
which may relate to:... (12) Other such regulations as may be deemed by the boards or city council as
necessary and proper to permit and encourage orderly development of land resources within their
jurisdictions... The powers granted herein shall be liberally construed in favor of [he county exercising
them, and in such a manner as to propte the orderly development of each county or city and county in
accord with a long range, comprehensive, general plan, and to insure the greatest benefit for the S[a[e as a
whole... .
2
More commonly, courts often interpret authority as implied under these more
general zoning enabling legislation.2
• Home rule. Hawaii's constitution empowered the counties with home rule,
which allows the counties to adopt a wide range of legislation so long as the
legislation is not specifically preempted by state legislation.3
If development approval is deferred, is there a temporary "taking" of
private rights?
An applicant may challenge the concurrency regulation as an economic taking where
development is deferred pending the availability of public facilities needed to meet the
level of service standards. Because the economic hardship is not permanent, the
applicant could argue that it is a "temporary taking" recognized by the U.S. Supreme
Court.4 Cases decided since that U.S. Supreme Court case indicate that a denial of all use
for a reasonable, temporary period of time does not result in a taking based on the
reasoning that the deprivation was "qualified by its defined duration."5 concurrency
regulations address the taking issue in the following ways: 1) when applied only to
rezonings, viable alternative uses of the property may proceed under existing zoning
designations; 2) the level of timing restrictions are scaled to the extent the public facilities
relate to public health and safety (e.g., parks are related more to general welfare rather
than public health and safety and therefore the timing for concurrency is more lenient); 3)
the regulations provide options for the applicant to mitigate the impact in exchange for
development approval.
Is concurrency just a means to extort greater than proportionate contributions from
developers?
Exactions must be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the proposed development;
any excess is a taking where the applicant should be compensated.b concurrency
regulations address this concern in the following ways: I) reimbursement programs by
govetnment or subsequent applicants repay the applicant's advances for the costs in
excess of the applicant's proportionate contribution; 2) other financing mechanisms such
as improvement districts or applicant's proportionate repayment of county general
obligation bonds for the public facility project are available; 3) distinguish voluntary
contributions from the applicant which are not subject to constitutional challenge; 4)
level of service standards distinguish deficiencies due to existing development from
deficiencies caused by the proposed development.
See for example, Golden v. Ptanning Board of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, 334 N.Y.2d
138, appeal diss'd, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972), which found the requisite authority under the broad Standard
Zoning Enabling Act.
' State of Hawaii Constitution, Article VIII, §2: "Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame
and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be
provided by general law...."
In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), the U.S.
Supreme Court decided for the first time that a regulation that fails the takings analysis is subject to h'
Amendment's compensation requirement even if it is in effect for only a temporary period of time.
s Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N. W.2d 258 (Minn.App. 1992), cert. denied, 113
S.Ct. 2929 (1993) (city adopted a 2-year moratorium following an access improvement study along a
highway interchange).
~ Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1 l4 S.Ct. 2309 (1994).
~ See for example, Leroy Land v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 939 F.2d 696 (9'" Cir. 1991).
3
Is it discriminatory if certain types of
projects, such as affordable housing, are exempt
from the concurrency regulations, or to apply the concurrency requirements only to
certain geographic areas ("equal protection "concern)?
As long as distinctions or classifications are rationally related to legitimate public
purposes, the discriminations are constitutional. The rationale for concurrency
regulations to exempt residential uses are twofold: 1) a major cause of congestion is the
peak hour commuting, therefore housing within the urban core nearer to the jobs would
reduce commuting; 2) incentives are necessary to promote affordable housing within the
urban core. The determination of deficient service areas will be supported by
infrastructure capacity studies. Courts apply a very deferential standard when reviewing
land use legislative acts, unless a suspect class (e.g., race) or a fundamental interest (e.g.,
the right to vote) is involved.
How does the developer's contributions to meet concurrency requirements relate to
impact fees?
Whatever the applicant contributes to meet concurrency requirements is credited to
impact fees (or fair share contributions). Usually, impact fees aze collected in the later
stages of the development project such as plan approval or final subdivision approval. To
reserve capacity for public facilities once rezoning is approved, concurrency regulations
could require the upfront payment of impact fees. This upfront payment could
distinguish the speculative rezoned project that would tie up capacity from the serious
project that will actually need the capacity. Nevertheless, the collection of impact fees
from many developers augmented by bond financing are usually necessazy to design and
build public facility improvements. Hence, even with an applicant's payment of impact
fees, the applicant's project may still need to be deferred until full financing is available
to construct the necessary facilities.
Recommendations
The following action steps recognize that an overall concunrency management system
will need time to evolve, but immediate measures need to be applied to rezoning
applications in specified critical areas.
1. Until a concurrency ordinance is adopted, include special conditions to
rezoning ordinances to address inadequacies of critical infrastructure facilities
in specified areas. The Planning Department has proposed a critical
geographic area and associated concurrency conditions in Exhibit A.
2. Adopt a concurrency management ordinance to be codified as part of the
zoning code that establishes the framework for a concurrency management
system to be put into place. Exhibit B is a rough drafr of a proposed
ordinance. The drafr ordinance provides for the following:
a. Applies only to rezoning, and not to subdivisions or building permits,
thereby not changing the rules mid-stream for existing landowners;
b. Public facilities required to be concurrent are identified and classified as
critical, essential, and desirable, and timing requirements for a project
varied accordingly to correspond to the degree the facility relates to public
health and safety;
c. Exempts residential projects to foster affordable housing in the urban core;
4
d. Includes State facilities (i.e., major roads, schools) assuming that the State
will enact legislation authorizing the counties to collect impact fees on
behalf of the State;
e. Establishes a tiered system of growth management proposed to consist of
rural-agricultural areas (where concurrency would not apply since rural-
agricultural preservation measures would limit growth), central
city/village core (where concurrency measures would be flexed to
encourage infill, and CIP priorities would be high), and the urbanizing
active growth area (where concurrency would focus);
f Relies on a GIS database and annual reports to account for approved
projects and monitor public facility capacities;
g. Requires the environmental report already required for rezoning
applications to include public facility impact analyses;
h. Requires the planning director to include a recommendation of
concurrency in the staff report for a rezoning application;
i. Identifies the General Plan as the appropriate policy document to include
the Level of Service standards;
j. Includes mitigation alternatives and reimbursement provisions for excess
contributions.
3. Develop the technical basis to implement the concurrency management
system:
a. Conduct studies to define Level of Service Standards. This study could
double-function to serve as the basis for impact fees;
b. Incorporate the LOS for the various infrastructure facilities into the
General Plan;
c. Develop GIS database and modeling systems to account for approved
projects (debits to capacity) and completion of planned infrastructure
improvements (credits to capacity);
d. Develop impact analysis methodology for applicants that complements
GIS database and modeling systems;
e. Develop an Official Map system to identify CIP projects and preserve
acquisition opportunities;
f Refine the CIP system to include an annual reporting of capacity as the
basis for selecting and prioritizing projects.
5
Exhibit A
Proposed Rezoning Conditions for Critical Infrastructure Areas
Identified Critical Area
Development requiring access to/from Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Kealakehe
Parkway to Keahole Airport.
Rationale
Existing level of service:
Based on DOT data for the year 2000, the Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation
Plan (Townscape, Inc., 2003) reported LOS E for the Queen Kaahumanu Highway
(Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Road), Hawaii Belt Road (Queen Kaahumanu/Kuakini)
(Nani Kailua to Kuakini), and Palani Road (mauka of Henry Street). The County has
construction funds to do limited improvements to Palani within the constrained right-of-
way. The State DOT has budgeted funds to start the planning for the Hawaii Belt Road
widening from Henry Street to Kamehameha III. The State DOT will soon start
construction of the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Phase I, from Kealakehe
Parkway to Palani Road. The only major segment without committed funds is Queen
Kaahumanu Highway, Phase II, from Keahole Airport to Kealakehe Parkway. In the year
2000, this segment had a LOS of D, which has since degraded to LOS E. Because of the
rate of increased congestion, the expected increase in traffic volume from the extensive
proposed projects along this Queen Kaahumanu corridor, and the uncertain timing of the
Phase II widening, concurrency principles need to be applied to proposed projects along
this corridor.
Proposed major developments:
Approved projects:
Kohanaiki
Kaloko Industrial Park, Ph III & IV
Y.O.
Under consideration for LUC or rezoning:
Cliftds
Lanihau's commercial/industrial project
Hiluhilu
Proposed:
University of Hawaii West Hawaii Campus
Proposed, but exempt from zoning:
Honokohau (DHHL)
Honokohau (State)
Estimated Cost and Schedule of Improvements to Queen Kaahumanu Highway (source:
State Department of Transportation):
Project: Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widening, Phase II, Kealakehe Parkway to
Keahole Airport, widen from 2 to 4 lanes with a median
Construction Cost: $30 million
Schedule: Begin design in FY 2005; complete construction in FY 2009
6
Objectives
• Exempt residential uses from concurrency requirement to enable affordable
housing within the urban core to reduce commuting
• Time the project so that Queen Kaahumanu Highway Phase II widening is
completed at the time the project impacts will occur (i.e., first certificate of
occupancy)
Proposed Conditions:
A Certif Cate of Occupancy for any portion of the development other than the
residential component shall not be issued until Queen Kaahumanu Highway,
Phase II, from Kealakehe Parkway to Keahole Airport, has been widened to a
minimum of
four traffic lanes (i. e., constructed completed).
If private contributions pay for the Phase II design to fast-track the project, then it is
acceptable to add a fixed period for government to uphold their commitment to expedite
construction by adding at the end of the condition, or within three years from the
effective date of this ordinance, whichever occurs first. " To ensure the timeliness of the
completion of the design, add a requirement that, "Plan Approval for any part of the
project shall not be issued unless the applicant's design of the Queen Kaahumanu
Highway, Phase II, has been submitted to the State Department of Transportation for
review and approval. "
Design: 1 year (January 2005 to January 2006) + 3 months to finalize (January to March
2006)
Bid/Award/Notice to Proceed: 3 months (March 2006 to June 2006)
Construct: 1.5 years (June 2006 to December 2007)
Other Acceptable Mitigation Measures to Condition Approval:
• Contribute construction funding for Phase II;
• Construct network connectors to relieve Queen Kaahumanu of local circulation
traffic;
• Commit to transportation demand measures (e.g., employer-sponsored ride
sharing, transit subsidies, staggered work hours)
• Provide greater than required amount of affordable housing.
7
Exhibit B
Proposed Concurrency Management Ordinance
New article to be added to Hawaii County Code Chapter 25, Zoning.
Article Concurrency Management
1. Purpose and Intent
1.1. Establish Acceptable Levels of Service. To ensure that public facilities needed to
support new development meet or exceed the adopted level of service standards
established by the General Plan.
1.2. Avoid Reduction in Level of Service. To ensure that no rezonings are approved
which would cause a reduction in the levels of service for any public facilities
with an adopted level of service established by the General Plan.
1.3. Control Timing of Development. To ensure that adequate public facilities
needed to support new development are available concurrent with the impacts of
such development.
1.4. Establish Uniform Criteria and Procedures. To establish uniform procedures for
the review of rezoning applications subject to the Concurrency management
standards and requirements.
2. Applicability
2.1. Permit Types. This article shall apply only to applications for rezoning.
2.2. Development Types. This article shall apply to all developments except
residential projects. Residential projects are subject to the affordable housing
requirements in chapter 11 of the County Code to provide affordable housing
onsite or provide in-lieu contributions for offsite construction. The General Plan
promotes affordable housing within the urban core to reduce commuting and
associated congestion, as well as to improve the quality of life of island residents.
2.3. Tiered Geographic Areas. The General Plan or Community Development Plans
shall classify areas into one of three tiers: rural-agricultural (where Concurrency
would not apply), central city/village (where infill development is encouraged
and special exceptions for Concurrency would be considered), and urbanizing
growth areas (where Concurrency would apply).
2.4. Effective Date. Nothing in this article shall limit or modify the rights to
complete any development authorized by a rezoning or development agreement
approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
3. Monitoring System
3.1. Concurrency Information Database. The Planning Department shall develop,
maintain, and update a Concurrency information database which shall provide
support to county officials and departments responsible for planning public
facilities. At a minimum, the database shall contain the following information:
3.1.1. inventory of existing residential and nonresidential development;
3.1.2. inventory of approved development;
3.1.3. capacity of existing public facilities based on adopted level of service; and
3.1.4. anticipated capacity created by the completion of public facilities which
are included in the capital improvements program.
3.2. Annual Review
8
3.2.1. the director shall, not less frequently than annually, prepare and submit to
the county council an annual report. The report shall include:
3.2.1.1. growth trends and projections;
3.2.1.2. proposed changes to the boundaries of the tiered geographic areas
that determine where concurrency requirements apply;
3.2.1.3. proposed changes to existing level of service standards;
3.2.1.4. proposed changes in concurrency analysis methodologies or
amendments to this article;
3.2.1.5. other data, analysis, or recommendations as the director may deem
appropriate, or as may be requested by the county council.
4. Procedures for concurrency Review
4.1. Submittal Requirements. All rezoning applications shall include in its
environmental report sufficient information to determine the impact of the
proposed development on public facilities. The information required shall
include, but shall not be limited to:
4.1.1. identification of the tiered geographic area in which the project is located;
4.1.2. the proposed timing and phasing of the development;
4.1.3. the existing level of service for the various public facilities impacted by
the development;
4.1.4. the incremental change in the level of service resulting from the project;
4.1.5. proposed mitigation measures, as appropriate.
4.2. Department Review and Recommendation. Upon review of the information, the
department's staff report shall include at a minimum the following findings and
recommendations on concurrency:
4.2.1. description of the proposed development, including the timing and
phasing;
4.2.2. identification of the specific public facilities impacted by the proposed
development;
4.2.3. capacity of the affected public facilities based on the adopted level of
service relative to existing and approved development; and
4.2.4. availability of existing capacity to accommodate the proposed
development; or if existing capacity is not available, planned capacity and
the year in which such planned capacity is projected to be available to serve
the proposed development.
4.2.5. recommendation:
4.2.5.1. Positive concurrency determination. If the director concludes that
each public facility will be available concurrent with the impacts of the
proposed development at the adopted levels of service, the department
shall make a positive recommendation in its staff report.
4.2.5.2. Negative concurrency determination. If the director determines
that any public facility will not be available concurrent with the impacts
of the proposed development at the adopted levels of service, the
director shall make a negative concurrency recommendation.
4.2.5.3. Conditional positive determination. If modification of the project
scope or timing or public facility capacity improvements are feasible,
the director may make a positive determination of concurrency subject
to one or more of the following conditions:
9
4.2.5.3.1. Deferral of occupancy of the proposed development until
all public facilities are available and adequate consistent with the
criteria in section 5;
4.2.5.3.2. Reduction of the density or intensity of the proposed
development, including phasing of development, to a level
consistent with the available capacity of public facilities;
4.2.5.3.3. Provision by the applicant of the public facilities necessary
to provide capacity to accommodate the proposed development at
the adopted levels of service and at the time that the impact of the
proposed development will occur. Additional findings shall be
included to determine that the planned capital improvements are
included in the capital improvements program, the cost
participation in relation to the estimated total funding needed to
construct the planned capital improvement, schedule for
commencement and completion of construction of the planned
capital improvement, and at the option of the county, and only if
the planned capital improvement will provide capacity exceeding
the demand generated by the proposed development,
reimbursement to the applicant for the pro rata cost of the excess
capacity.
5. Methodology and Criteria for Determining Availability and Adequacy of Public
Facilities
5.1. Level of Service Standards. Compliance with level of service standards shall be
measured in accordance with the standards set forth in the General Plan.
5.2. Availability of Public Facilities. Public facilities shall be deemed to be available
within the applicable impact area if they meet the following standards:
5.2.1. Critical infrastructure: roads providing direct access to the development,
water, sewer or other acceptable wastewater treatment, fire protection, and
drainage
5.2.1.1. Adequate public facilities are in place;
5.2.1.2. provision of the public facilities are a condition of the rezoning
approval and are guaranteed to be completed at or before the approval
of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed
development; or
5.2.1.3. construction funds for the public facilities are allotted and the
improvements are scheduled for completion at or before the approval of
a final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed
development; or
5.2.1.4. the public facilities are guaranteed by a development agreement
which ensures that the public facilities will be in place at or before the
approval of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
proposed development.
5.2.2. Essential infrastructure: regional roads, police, civil defense sirens, solid
waste
5.2.2.1. any of the criteria set forth above for critical infrastructure;
5.2.2.2. provision of the public facilities are a condition of the rezoning
approval and are guaranteed to be completed within two years after the
]0
approval of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
proposed development; or
5.2.2.3. construction funds for the public facilities have been appropriated
and the improvements are scheduled for completion within two years
after the approval of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the proposed development; or
5.2.2.4. the public facilities are guaranteed by a development agreement
which ensures that the public facilities will be in place within two years
after the approval of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the proposed development.
5.2.3. Desirable infrastructure: schools, community/district/regional parks
5.2.3.1. any of the criteria set forth above for critical or essential
infrastructure;
5.2.3.2. provision of the public facilities are a condition of the rezoning
approval and are guaranteed to be completed within five years after the
approval of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
proposed development; or
5.2.3.3. construction funds for the public facilities have been programmed
in the capital improvements program and the improvements are
scheduled for completion within five years after the approval of a final
plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed
development; or
5.2.3.4. the public facilities are guaranteed by a development agreement
which ensures that the public facilities will be in place within five years
after the approval of a final plat or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the proposed development.
5.3. Adequacy of Public Facilities. Public facilities shall be deemed to be adequate if
it is demonstrated that they have available capacity to accommodate the demand
generated by the proposed development in accordance with the following
calculation methodology, unless otherwise indicate herein:
5.3.1. Calculate capacity for each critical, essential and desirable public facility
within an impact area consistent with section 5.2;
5.3.2. Calculate available capacity by subtracting from the capacity the sum of:
5.3.2.1. the existing demand for each public facility; and
5.3.2.2. the demand for each public facility created by the anticipated
completion of approved development; and
5.3.2.3. the demand for each public facility created by the anticipated
completion of the proposed development under consideration.
11