9/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the traffic impact ordinance, and the adopted administrative guidelines and procedures for implementing the traffic impact fee ordinance. Basically, the attached documentation establishes that all new development even public entities will have to pay road impact fees for any increased traffic that necessitates road mprove- ments (p. 7 January 22, 1986 minutes). The documentation also clearly defines the responsible entity for determination of the traffic impact fee whether the determination is based upon the fee schedule, administrative determination, or independent calculation, this entity being the Planning & Development Division (p. 1 Administrative Guidelines for implementation of the traffic impact fee program). Contrary to a July 31, 1986 memo alleging improper action by the Planning Department by making an administrative determination without consulting the Acting County Administrator or the Board of County Commissioners, the attached documentation clearly supports staff action (Ordinance p. 15 & 16; Administrative guidelines p. 1 and 5). ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The four issues referenced in the August 22, 1986 memo are addressed as follows: - 1) The procedures followed in establishing the golf course impact fee are outlined in the July 14, 1986 planning staff memo to Tommy Thomas and more specifi- cally detailed in the attached August 26, 1986 memo from Richard Shearer to Robert Keating. Basically, the staff followed the procedure outlined in the, impact fee ordinance Sections VII. B. and V.C.(a)_-_ (c). In so doing, the staff had to use ITE --trip generation rates and make interpretations of trip rates applicable to -this project. From the range of rates presented in ITE research, the staff chose the most appropriate rate and applied it.- After further analysis, the staff reassessed its initial deter- mination, used a lower rate, -and' reduced its fee determination. 2) When the impact fee ordinance was being drafted, it was recognized that not all land development activi- ties were listed in the fee schedule. This recognition is reflected in p. 5_ of the January 8, 1986 minutes of the BCC public hearing on traffic impact fees; in Section VII. B. (1) of the impact fee ordinance; and on pages 1, 2, and 5 of the admini- strative procedures for implementing the impact fee ordinance. During the development of the traffic impact fee ordinance, it was decided by the consultant and the staff to limit the number of land use categories in the fee schedule. Consequently, no specific rate was set for golf course uses, other recreational uses, mining operations, used car lots, drive-in theaters, and probably a number =of other uses. Recognizing that all uses could not be incorporated into the fee schedule, the ordinance made provisions for an administrative determination for those uses not specified on the fee schedule. 3) Consultants agreed that golf courses were not listed on the fee schedule for the reasons listed above. Other counties address golf course impact fees in a variety of ways. Some are as follows: °Orange County - golf courses not listed in fee schedule; individual assessment required. 43 Sp ^986 BOOK 65 FADE 581 10