Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-441 ~/. b \O~D - . . INDEXED MICROFiLMED -0;;'- ~\I. ....it, ''''~''C;' ~.;;:.........<~.~, '? ......( -...,"....-... "~1'" """:Of..'..oJ _, -, .....-'. ?; t "'. V"'~'t1..J~' /' - .-< .~\./\"..0. ,e'_':r; ~. 0...-..1\ \C. ' --,."",-~-oi ({t!R G ~"i~'^ '- .~~/ 9~i056788 BK 2b41 PG 316 OFFICIAL RECORDS O. MOHAVE COUNTY, AZ JOliN tIC: Ci:LL, MOHAVE COUNTY RECORDER 10/30/95 03:5~P PAGE 1 OF 10 MOHAV~ CDUHTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REORDING FEE 0.00 BOS RESOLUTION NO. 95-441 A RESOLUTION OF THE MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A REPORT ST ATING MORAVE COUNTY'S IMPLEMENTATION OF FOUR SUPREME COURT CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. 11-811 (H.B. 2229) WHEREAS, the State of Arizona recently enacted A.R.S. 11-811, effective July 13, 1995, mandating the submission of a report stating the steps Mohave County has taken to implement four U.S. Supreme Court decisions; and WHEREAS, the four U.S. Supreme Court decisions deal with regulatory takings on two levels: denial of any use for private property and unjustified dedication and exactions; and WHEREAS, development decisions by the County rarely result in the denial of any use of private property as addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions from First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles and Lucas v. the South Carolina Coastal Council; and WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions from Nollan v California Coastal Commission and Dolan v City of Tigard, dedications and exactions required by the County must have a reasonable connection and a rough proportionality to the development being proposed; and WHEREAS, the processes developed by Mohave County as a result of these U.S. Supreme Court decisions are based on the concepts of reasonable connection and rough proportionality. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Mohave County, Arizona, that the attached report be submitted to the Joint Committee of the Arizona State Legislature as required by A.R.S. 11-811 (H.B. 2229) no later than October 23, 1995. MORAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~/ ~. Wahl, Joan d, Vice Chairman . . PAGE 2 OF 10 BK 26~1 PG 317 FEE~95056788' REPORT TO nlE GOVERNOR., SPEAKER Of' THE HOUSE, PRESIDENT Of' THE SENATE, STATE OF ARIZONA RE: REPORT OF MOHA VE COUNTY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES OF DOLAN V CITY OF TlGARD. NOLLAN V CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. LUCAS V SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, AND FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELlCAL LUTHERAN CHURCH V COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NOVEMBER I, 1995. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE This report is to affirm Mohave County's compliance with A.R.S. 11-810 and 11-811 by way of the process described herein. The Board of Supervisors of Mohave County have approved this process to ensure the appropriate determination of 'essential nexus' (connectivity) and 'rough proportionality' for any dedication or exaction required as a condition of approval and permit issuance for any use, development or improvement regulated by Mohave County. BACKGROUND r \ The Planning and Zoning Department (including Building Inspection), the Public Works Depart- ment, the Environmental Health Department and others review applications for use, develop- ment or improvement based on current permitting ordinances authorized by various Arizona Revised Statutes. Each County department is responsible for its area of permitting. Up to now, each department has determined proportionality by ensuring that the value to the developer of the off-site exactions is roughly equal to the costs or burdens the development would place on the public, as determined by administrative analysis in each individual case. The previous informal method of determining proportionality has not been consistent due to the way each department reviews an application for use, development or improvement based on its own distinct administrative criteria. The public has not been ~pecifically made aware of their entitlement to a determination of proportionality, and no documentation has been made available to applicants concerning the necessity for the County to show compliance with Court decisions requiring the exaction to bear sufficient nexus to a legitimate governmental purpose and be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development. Therefore, applicants for County permits may not have been aware of their right to involvement in the proportionality determination process. PHILOSOPHY ( '- It is the intent of Mohave County to implement and adhere to A.R.S. 11-810 and 11-811 by reviewing and updating as necessary all ordinances to ensure consistent determinations of connectivity and proportionality for all permitting systems at the time of development application, and at the same time to implement a clearly coherent, timely and predictable devclopment approval process for communication to the public. . . PAGE 3 OF 10 BK 26~1 PG 318 FEE~9505678g PROCESS The formcr process of determining connectivity and proportion:Jlity has relied on e:Jch departmen:'s staJTapplying its administrative interpretations without benefit ofa consistent and written policy. Then, depending on the applicant's knowledge of his legal rights, an inform:Jl meeting betwcen staffand the applicant might be held to discuss the project, but often WitllOut the other interested departments in attendance. If the applicant disagreed with the exaction as determined by st:Jff, he discussed it with staff and usually came to an agreement but without clearly written guidelines for comparison to other similar projects. As a result, each project was subject to a different interpretation of proportionality. The revised process will eliminate these flaws in the former process and comply with the requirements of A.R.S. 11-810 and 11-811. This process will ensure rough proportionality through a matrix of requirements based on minimum standards, health and safety factors, development impacts, and exactions that can be supported by individualized analyses. The essential nexus to the governmental purpose shall be substantial, demonstrably clear, and sufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny. J MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS FOR CONNECTIVITY AND PROPORTIONALITY c Mohave County has a current General Plan describing urban, suburban and rural land use designations. Development within each designation must conform to a basic standard whereby every proposed development site shall be adjacent to a dedicated public street (paved or unpaved according to a standardized matrix), shaU be served by water and sewage disposal (based upon specific criteria applicable to all developments and as required by state law), and shall have sufficient drainage without danger of being flooded or creating a flood hazard to adjacent properties. 1. If any proposed development site does not satisJ): the above minimum requirements, the applicant shall be required to construct the missing improvement(s) or make a payment in lieu which is equal to the estimated cost of constructing those improvements. 2. If the proposed development creates a health or safety hazard in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall be responsible for abating the hazard through appropriate requirements. These requirements shall be specific and directly related to the hazard and shall be determined on a case by case basis through the application of published guidelines and criteria. 3. An exaction for right-of-way dedications and improvements shall be determined by trip generation tables developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These tables relate expected trips to end use and various occupancy types. \_,~ 4. Water and sewer exactions shall bc bascd on an individualized determination and analysis for each development using operational performance data, state computer models, land uses, dcvelopment density, soils reports, land-use designation, available infrastructure connection, water district requirements, state requirements, and other resources. PAGE" 4 OF 10 BK 2641 PG 319 FEE~95056788 . . 5. Each cxaction or dedication shall be analyzed for conncctivity and proportionality based on the foregoing critcria and publishcd guidelines and matrices. Exactions or dedications not described elsewhere which arc dcsirable due to uniquc characteristics of the dcvelopment, potcntial aesthetic value or functionality but which mayor may not be able to meet the tests of conncctivity and proportionality, shall first be requested from the applicant on a voluntary basis. Applicant shall be notified he is not required to comply with the request in order for the pennit to be issued unlcss the request can be supported by an individualized detennination, subject to review by the County Hearing Officer, Board of Adjustment or Superior Court. IMPLEMENTATION ~ Department staff will analyze the minimum requirements through the use of connectivity and proportionality matrices (Attachment A) which show various exaction categories and potential uses. These matrices will promote consistency among staff of the various departments involved in project review, and their publication will educate the public to County processes. Staff will also document and make available to the public County procedures and interpretations concerning connectivity and proportionality and how they are applied to any given application/project in determining exactions and dedications. .,~{ > ( The matrices in Attachment A show whether or not exactions are likely to be required in a specific situation. This narrows the staffs focus to appropriate potential exaction requirements and provides the applicant and public with clear notice of the exactions which may be required for a particular type of project. Exactions which Cannot clearly be required based on connectivity and proportionality but still seem desirable from the standpoint of aesthetics or functionality may be requested from the applicant on a voluntary basis, perhaps due to their potential beneficial use, increased value to the project, or the availability of a tax deduction for their inclusion, or as a trade- off for another requirement that will satisfy applicant and any required regulation. Note that the applicant will be notified of any exations required as part of administrative decision and the appeal process available. "f" APPEALS ( Staffs final determination of connectivity or proportionality on any exaction or dedication upon which staff exercised administrative discretion shall be communicated to the applicant in writing by the director of the department. At any time prior to receipt of the notice from the director of the department, the applicant may informally appeal the proposed exaction or dedication, either orally or in ""Titing, to the next highest level of administration in the department or to the department director. Any such informal appeal shall be heard within five days after the applicant's request. Rcceipt of the notice of final determination from the director of the department shall trigger the 30- day period for the applicant to appeal to the Hearing Officer appointed by the Supervisors for that purpose pursuant to procedures described in Appendix B. The decision of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to the Supcrior Court for a trial de novo as provided in ARS J ] -81 O. All applicants will be informed of the right of appeal and shall reccive a copy of the procedure set forth in Appendix B. PAGE 5 OF 10 BK 2641 PG 320 FEE~95056788 . . ( APPLICANT EFFECTS .;:;.0 '~;' Det~rmination of appropriate exactions and dedications depends on having complete data furnished by the applieant coneerning the use, development or improvement. Often, the necessary information is not available at any preliminary meeting between applicant and County staff because the project is at a conceptual stage. Any determination of conncctivity or proportionality at this stage is premature. The level of information needed from the applicant to make a proper determination generally is not available until the preliminary plan stage, when development plans are more or less completely formulated. This means applicant cannot receive definitive exaction requirements from staff at sketch plan, pre-application or hearing stage, but will receive a variety of alternatives and potential range of exactions for each alternative which will be finalized when the project goals and objectives have been formalized at the preliminary plan stage, or application stage for a rezone, parcel plat, subdivision, zoning use permit or site plan submitta1. To attempt to determine the exactions for a project before finalization of the applicant's intent would place hardships on the applicant and make it impossible for staff to make an accurate individualized determination. The preliminary determination would ultimately have to be changed, creating delays. (Applicant could be required to forgo the concept phase and submit completed plans with cornplete descriptive intent and purposes before County staff would accept the project for review, but this likewise would create a hardship on the applicant.) c The development approval process for large projects may become more extensive and the exaction analysis may require more in-house review time. Depending on the type of project, each department involved will determine its own area of jurisdiction regarding connectivity and proportionality for any particular exaction or dedication, necessitating longer review times. For example, once individual analyses are completed for rights-of-way, a determination that the County Cannot exact a full width and/or length right-of-way may necessitate having to calculate a partial right-of-way dedication or its cash equivalent based on formulae in the Attachment A matrix. :";' Individualized analyses will be performed by staff and signed off by department directors. Budget limitations for Mohave County precludes the assignment of new personnel to handle individual analyses for all new submittals to County for land use, improvement or develop-ment approva1. As a result, compliance with A.R.S. I] -81 0 and 11-811 may require longer review and _turn-around time to the customer. Mohave County may need to recover costs for performing individualized analyses through a revised fee system rather than charging applicants directly for the cost (which would have to be calculated on a per hour basis, resulting in a different amount for each application). COMMl !NlTY EFFECTS There may be projects submitted to Mohave County with impacts that carmot be resolved through exactions or dedications meeting the standards of connectivity and proportionality. Since the County must adhere to the requirements for connectivity and proportionality, impacts exceeding the limits ofpermissibJe exaction will not be approved in the proposed design. The applicant will be asked to redesign or otherwise change the application to eliminate the adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated within the limits of connectivity and proportionality. P~GE 6 OF 10 BK 2641 PG 321 FEE~95056788 . . The public in gcner~l will feci the effects of ARS 11-810 and 11-811, and the rcsultant loss of improvcments such as finished roads, rights-of-way, infrastructure. lack of paving, sidewalks, street lighting and other elements to the extent these cannot be obtained by exactions or dedications meeting thc standards for connectivity and proportionality. The County will have to make up the difference through budget revision and/or the implementation of impact fecs to ensure adequate public services for the health and safety of the public. The other option would be the reduction in the level of scrvice provided by the County. The County will review othcr resources to apply toward projects which could include bonds, or capital improvement programs in annual budgets. FINANCIAL IMPACT ,,---.- \, The amount of right-of-way dedications and improvements obtained from permitting processes will decline due to the requirements of ARS 11-810 and 11-811. Exactions and dedications will be restricted to the impacts of a particular project. Future road alignments and widths not exacted may be accomplished with County resources or a partnership between developer and County. For continuity, County may augment improvement projects with the use of various financing alternatives, fees or some other fiscal device apportioned over the entire system. To allow completion of an applicant's project while protecting the public welfare and ensuring infrastructure continuity, the County may reduce service priority time frames in order to pay for the improvements that are necessary for the public welfare but cannot be exacted from the applicant. It is conceivable that various programs may be initiated by the County to augment the loss of revenues and dedications, which could include improvement districts and annual capital improvement programs. FORMAL ACTION In order to implement the foregoing several actions will occur, including the appointment of a Hearing Officer, review of current legislation and eventual formal action to revise codes and ordinances for conformity to the exaction process which ",-ill be approved by the Board of Supervisors within a reasonable period of time after identification of errors, and will reflect the elimination of all requirements that cannot be justitled under essential nexus and rough proportionality. Code changes will include the zoning ordinance, zoning designations, off-street parking requirements, signs; subdivision ordinance, off-site improvements, sketch and preliminary plan requirements; site plan off-site improvements; parcel plat review for access and right-of-way widths and lengths. CONCLUSION i '-. Moha\'e County is committed to the principles of essential nexus and rough proportionality by way of: I. Written procedures delineating connectivity and proportionality in the assessment and review of proposcd land usc, development and improvement; 2. The elimination of inconsistent "ad hoc" exactions; 3. The implementation of individualized project exaction analysis and a timely appeal process using a Hearing Officcr who reviews exaction cases only. ( PAGE 7 OF 10 BK 26~1 PG 322 FEE~950567g8 . . Implementation ofthc process will use currcnt review staff with the aid of any neccssary expcrtise from othcr sourccs as needed for individual project analysis. and the use of the appellate systcm through the Hearing Officer. The various fee schedules for the different types of applications may have to be revised to recovcr increased costs associated with the review of projects under the conncctivity and rough proportionality review process. Th~ object is to spread costs in such a way that no one developer is required to pay substantially more than the actual costs associated with his project. Development processes will be more precise but some review turn-around time may increase, and the amount of right of way dedications and other exactions from permitting may decline due to compliance with Supreme Court and State Court decisions concerning the exation process. Some alleviation of these consequences could come from the "benevolence" of developers who are amenable to volunteering dedications and improvements for the betterment of their projects and the possible resulting increased benefit to their project. RECOMMENDA TION -;., r \ The Planning and Zoning Department (including Building Inspection), the Public Works Department, and the Environmental Health Department, with the concurrence of the County Attorney and the Planning and Zoning Commission, recommend that the Board of Supervisors of Mohave County approve this report and the procedures outlined herein for applying the requirements of connectivity and proportionality in the formulation of development exactions as required by the Supreme Court decisions and ARS 11-810 and 11-811, and the submission of same to the State for compliance and approval. ---- -------- . - . MATRIX OF plpORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT REOl . - PROBABLE REQUIREMENT/NOT BASED ON iNDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION 01 - URBA: ( ON.SITE MINIMUM REQUIREMEWS CR REQUESTS INDUSTRIAL COMMEr, TRIP GENERATION LG M,) 8M LG MEO 1. ROW WIDTH/LENGTH 2. ROW, LOCAL 3. ROW FOR SAFETYrruRNING 4. ROW, MAJOR STREET 5. ROW. COLLECTOR 6. PAVING. FULL, HALF.STREET 7. PAVING. ONE LANE 8. STREET LIGHTS. SIGNS 9. CURVE RADII AT INTERSECTS ,. DEDICATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS 1. EASEMENTS DRAINAGEWAYS _. . P.U.E. i VNAE ! RETENTION/DETENTION FLOODPLAIN 2. WATER LINE SYSTEM 3. SEWER LINE SYSTEM 4. FIRE HYDRANTS 5. SEPTIC/LEACHING FIELD 6. PAVING TO NEAREST PAVED STREET " 7. SIGNALS, SIGNS, POLES ( 8. CURBS, GUTTERS " 9. SIDEWALKS 10. BUFFERS. WALLS, LANDSCAPING, SCREENING 11. INFRASTRUCTURE, BOOSTER 1~. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT , 13. OPEN SPACE, PARKS, TRAILS, ETC. 14. SETBACKS 15. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS i6. DENSITY RESTRICTIONS OFF-S!TE IMPROVEMENTS IMINIMUM'! 1. DRAINA.GEWAY IMPROVEMENT 2. FLOODPLAIN IMPROVEMENTS 3. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION "" ", 4. ROAD PAVING AND IMPROVEMENTS ;><". 5. INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSIONS "" "'", 6. LOOPED SYSTEMS, BOOSTERS 0- .... 00 7. CURBS, GUTTERS - ." 8. SIDEWALKS '" 0 9. EASEMENTS. P.U.E. i w-., ,.,) 10. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, PAVEMENT MARKINGS. SIGNS I ""- '" 11. ACCEUDECEL LANES, TURN,AROUNDS. LEFT-TURN -., 12. FIRE HYDRANTS ", !T1 13. BUFFERS. LANDSCAPING. WALLS .. .." 14. OFF-SITE TRIP GENERATION U1 0 15. ROAD WIDTH/LENGTH IMPROVEMENTS ( '-" 0- ..., 16. CASH CONTRIBUTION FOR ABOVE 00 00 17. ACCESS 18. PAYMENT IN LIEU/IMPACT FEES i . PAGE 9 NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF IMAGING Number of Units: Single Family: Multi-Family: -' . . P~GF 10 OF 10 BK 2641 PG 325 FEE~95056788 f , WORKSHEET FOR DETERMINATION OF ITE DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICATION TYPE: REZONE ZONING USE PERMIT SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN SKETCH PARCEL PLAT FILE NUMBER: PROJECTIDEVELOPMENT: APPLICANT NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE #: APN: PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL: Expected Trips per unit: Total Expected Trips: COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAUNON-RESIDENTIAL: Occupancy Type: Square Feet: Expected Trips per Square Feet: Total Expected Trips: IMPROVEMENTS: Total Expected Trips: ImprovementsJDed ications: