06/02/2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC ENGINEER OPINION: Capacity Issue As is customary, we retained an independent Traffic Engineering firm early in the process to analyze, assess and develop a traffic plan. We engaged Traffic Impact Group, LLC - a national firm with 30+ years of experience, licensed engineers in fifteen states, offices in 5 states (including Florida) and considerable traffic related work. The Independent Traffic Engineer, who met in—person and by telephone with County personnel in June of 2019 to discuss the traffic and access issues, opined that the existing conditions met FDOT and no modifications were required. Despite these meetings and the formal submittal of the full Site Plan in September of 2019, the County Traffic Engineer indicated for the first time on a February 14, 2020 conference call that she would not support the plan as shown. After much debate but facing the reality that; (a) we were already significantly behind schedule, and (b) we were not obtaining a site permit without conceding, we did exactly that and agreed to her requested modifications. The disagreement on what was specifically required is no longer relevant since we conceded and are actively proceeding in the direction mandated by the County. Notwithstanding, I attach a letter from the independent Traffic Engineer provided to me this week confirming his stance. More importantly, his letter opines that the modifications required by the County approach can be considered "capacity" improvements (attached hereto as Exhibit D). We are not attempting to revisit the site plan design nor asking for any aspect to be revisited. We agreed to the work and we will proceed accordingly. The point of the original Traffic Impact Credit Fee Application and this Appeal is simply to obtain some relief for costs that were not only unexpected but that we also firmly believe represent costs for which Traffic Impact Fees are collected and earmarked. In other words, if we are being required to pay for and implement traffic/roadway modifications related to increased capacity, it does not seem equitable or appropriate for us to pay full Traffic Impact Fees absent a credit or set-off for that work. COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER OPINION: Capacity Issue The County Traffic Engineer was adamant in her position that the new traffic improvements were required. She repeatedly used the rational that she anticipated a higher traffic count than was presented by our Independent Traffic Engineer and his methodology. Both she and the Public Works Director cited, in multiple instanced and in multiple communications to you, me and others that these improvements were directly attributable to the increased capacity and "trips counts". In fact your own email to me dated Wednesday, February 19th and the Public Works Director's email of the same date states the "projected project volumes (92 vehicles exiting during the peak hour)" as the basis for requiring these additional improvements. Concern over higher projected volumes is a capacity concern and improvements addressing said concerns should be considered capacity -driven improvements. These frequent references to capacity, traffic counts and vehicle trips support IRCCD's own description of what "Impact Fees" are intended to cover. During our extended debates, the County Traffic Engineer made several references to a new signal light being installed at Indian River Boulevard and Grand Harbor Boulevard. While we appreciate the need for new signals as increased traffic from development (i.e. increased capacity needs) requires modifications that address the increased capacity. The real question is whether this signal is being paid for by the County from previously collected traffic impact fees as intended or, instead, is a single property owner at that 163