Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Discussion ensued regarding the County having the assurance, either by a letter of credit or <br />bond, that they would get the required impact fees for a development, if they allowed them to <br />be paid in phases. <br /> <br />Tim Zork <br />, a local homebuilder, wanted to see comparison to areas that have had <br />success rates. He called the five counties we were compared to as “traffic concurrency <br />failures.” Paying impact fees earlier did not solve any of the listed Counties’ problems. <br />Commissioner Wheeler interpreted Mr. Zork’s comment to mean studying a county <br />smaller than IRC. <br /> <br />Mr. Kim <br /> felt there was no correlation to paying impact fees earlier than by <br />counting the trips before the impact fees are paid. <br /> <br />rd <br />Adrienne Cuffe <br />, 695 43 Avenue, questioned why the Board was trying to be fair <br />to everyone. <br /> <br />Commissioner Davis explained to her that the purpose of hiring the Consultant was <br />to learn how to solve the problem of not enough concurrency. <br /> <br />Mr. McMahon <br /> advised if IRC approves the development order for those projects <br />being built in phases, they have to look at the trips for each phase, find out when they will <br />affect the system, and then determine whether it is going to work. They need to look at all <br />project trips proactively. <br /> <br />Director Keating was adamant that the scenario laid out by Mr. Kim could not <br />happen. If they had four shopping centers in each quadrant of an intersection and all applicants <br />had site plan approval, then each one needs to pay his impact fee when they do the concurrency <br />test. They all could not build, because they could not over impact the road. <br />MAY 23, 2006 <br />10 <br />JOINT WORKSHOP P&Z/BCC <br /> <br />