4/18/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

According to DeBartolo, the SR 60 improvements alone (including SR 60 project driveway improvements and signalizing the SR 60/66th Avenue intersection) will cost $2.6 million, exceeding the traffic impact fee. Staff notes that, according to DeBartolo's DRY traffic analysis, the SR 60 widening will actually add less capacity to the 66th Avenue - 58th Avenue link than the amount of capacity that will be consumed by the project (880 peak hour trips vs. 935 peak hour trips). In addition, public works staff have stated that the $2.6 million estimate contains some discrepancies and is not yet supported by submitted engineering plans. In regards to the 26th Street paving issue, staff notes that the road paving will add value to the project site, as well as other property owned by DeBartolo that fronts 26th Street. The petition paving process applied to collector roads, such as 26th Street, includes an assessment of all benefitting property owners and a large contribution from the county (50% of paving project costs, including right-of-way acquisition). Developers of other large development projects have performed off- site improvements in addition to paying traffic impact fees. For example, in addition to paying traffic impact fees, the Wal- Mart/Sam's developer paid for turn lane improvements and modifications for the project's 58th Avenue and SR. 60 driveways. Disney paid its traffic impact fees and paid for turn lane improvements for its CR 510 and SR A -1-A ,project driveways, and paid for its SR A -1-A pedestrian tunnel. Likewise, the Horizon Outlet Mall developer paid traffic impact fees and made SR 60 improvements for the project's SR 60 driveway and is now designing and will fund a signal at its SR 60 driveway. Thus, developers of other large projects have paid traffic impact fees and have paid for "project -related" turn lanes and traffic signals. Also, developers of other projects have participated in and contributed funds via the petition paving process, in addition to paying traffic impact fees, to provide road improvements necessary to serve their projects. Staff's consensus is that the county already is substantially participating in funding road improvements required by the project, that the developer is not being required to provide "oversized" traffic improvements, and that the developer will receive the appropriate traffic impact fee credit for improvements. It is staff's consensus that the county.should not contribute money to the developer to provide additional funds for the developer's required improvements. Furthermore, it is staff's consensus that staff can and will continue to work with the developer and other agencies to minimize actual off-site construction costs. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Deny DeBartolo's request that the county charge project tenants impact fee money that will be reimbursed to DeBartolo. However, if the Board of County Commissioners decides to agree to the request, then staff recommends that the collection arrangement be structured as outlined in the County Attorney's memo (see attachment #2). 2. Deny DeBartolo's request for the county to contribute up to $1.1 million for the difference between the project's traffic impact fee assessment and estimated off-site road improvement costs. 37 BOOK 9 4 FACF �� APRIL 18, 1995