The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/30/1985SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, October 30, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 30, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Public Works Director Jim Davis introduced.the following three representatives from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., who were instrumental in developing a long-range, county -wide trans- portation program and preparing an impact fee ordinance. He explained that each of the men would cover one segment of the report. Mike Brown, ... transportation impact study Senior Planner barrier island and county -wide, long-range transportation plan Dr. James Nicholas, ... methodology of road impact fees Financial Consultant Craig Richardson, ... proposed transportation impact Attorney fee ordinance 0 1985 BOOK R20 , P,�cr 569 DOT 3 d 1985 Boa 62 wH 570 BARRIER ISLAND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY Mike Brown, Senior Planner, reviewed the following Executive Summary dated September, 1985: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BARRIER ISLAND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY ENECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Introduction - The study analyzes the existing year, 2005, and "Built - out" development conditions of the Orchid Island to determine trans- portation roadway needs. II. Existing Conditions and Trends - Key points that the study identifies include: a. Population growth on the island is projected as follows: 1980 2005 Built Out 6753 17,943 51,186 b. Economy - Relative low level of employment, especially in North and south sections, can be attributed to the lack of major commercial and retail facilities or. the island. This condition creates a situation in which most residents travel to the main- land for retail shopping needs. C. Land Use - 4,266 acres developed 6,873 acres vacant In the past, development has occurred in the proximity of the bridges. d. Neighboring Counties - St. Lucie and Brevard County are presently Producing and attracting 3200 and 2700 trips per day across the County line, respectively. A percentage of these intercounty trips need to be considered on the County's three bridges. III. Future Growth and Developnent Population Growth Projected growth in each sub -area for the Year 2005 and Built -Out Conditions show that the North Beach, Indian River Shores, and South Beach areas have the greatest potential for growth. Impact frM Adjacent Counties Brevard County to the North has taken a conservative growth approach and as a result of that philosophy,.the two way daily traffic at the Brevard and Indian River County line will grow from the existing 2,700 cars a day to 7,500 by the year 2000. Growth in St. Lucie County, however, will create a significant impact on Indian River County's Transportation network. Two way traffic at the St. Lucie and Indian River County line will grow from the existing 3,200 vehicles per day to 23,200 vehicles per day. The St. Lucie County Transportation Plan shows A -1-A being expanded to five lanes and the north bridge being expanded to four lanes. No new bridges are shown between the Indian River/St. Lucie Count' line and the existing North Bridge in St. Lucie County. 2 IV. Projected Travel Demand Trip Productions and Attractions A trip generation study was conducted on the barrier island and mainland. Results of that study are shown on Page 16 and 17 of the arrier Island Transportation Study. Generally, the study showed that trip generation rates in Indian River County are lower than the national averages except for Hotel/Motel land use types. From the trip generation study data and using the Socio Economic Conditions and CLUP densities as the driving force, trips were es- timated for the five sub -areas of the island. Table 7, Page 20 summarizes the Barrier Island Trip Productions and Attractions for the existing, 2005, and Built -Out Conditions. Capacity and Level of Service The Indian River County CLUP has adopted Level of Service "C" for Year-round traffic volumes and LOS "D" for peak sea volumes. Table 8, Page 22 shows the General Highway Capacities for various facil- ities. A detailed study of the three bridges linking the barrier island to the Indian River County mainland revealed hi her ca for these facilities than the Generalized HighwaygC.a patable provides. pacify table Projected Traffic Volumes A computer modeling technique known as the Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) was used for projecting traffic volumes for both the year 2005 and Built -out conditions. Table 9, page 25 shows projected traffic volumes. These volumes indicate that the following improvements are recommended as follows: Year 2005 Projected Conditions A -1 -A .5 miles north of CR 510 5 lanes to 1 mile south of CR 510 A -1 -A 1} miles north of Beachland 5 lanes Blvd. to 2 miles so. of 17th St Bridge Bridge Capacity - 2 additional lanes between the Merrill Barber Bridge and the Wabasso Bridge Built out Conditions A -1 -A north of CR 510 7 lanes south of CR 510 5 lanes north of SR 60 7 lanes South of SR 60 7 lanes south of 17th St. Causeway Wabasso Bridge Corridor 5 lanes Merrill Barber Bridge Corridor 4 lanes 17th St. Bridge Corridor 4 4 lanes lanes 3 BOOK 62 m .571 OCT 3 0 1985 Boa 62 Facf 572 Chairman Lyons believed it will be necessary to have the full cooperation of all the municipalities to make the road impact fee ordinance successful. Commissioner Scurlock wanted it made absolutely clear that not just the barrier island was affected by°the moratorium on densities higher than 3 units per acre. He felt that if we don't have a vehicle soon for road improvements on both the mainland and the barrier island, development will have to come to a stop, period! Chairman Lyons felt that since we all have the problem, we should all get together to solve it. Commissioner Bird inquired as to how the consultants figured the total build -out. Mike Brown explained that they figured total build -out on the island by assuming every piece of property would develop at maximum densities. Commissioner Bird pointed out that the southern end of the island is developing at densities lower than three units per acre, and he felt they would continue at those densities. Mr. Brown recommended that possibly every year or every two years the County review this plan and consider making some changes. Commissioner Wodtke asked about the projected traffic figures for St. Lucie County traffic coming into Indian River County, and Mr. Brown explained that they took those figures straight off the St. Lucie County transportation charts and plugged all that information into a computer program and actually created a model. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that in an evacuation due to a hurricane or nuclear threat, AIA is barricaded off at the south county line, but Mr. Brown stated that their figures were for normal times, not evacuations. He noted that bridges would be covered under capital improvements only if the improvements were made to expand the capacity and not for maintenance. 4 RECOMMENDED LONG-RANGE MAJOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PROGRAM Mr. Brown reviewed the following Executive Summary dated 10/14/85: Recmuended Long -Range Major Street and Highway Program Indian River County, Florida Executive Summary 1. Need for Program October 14, 1985 Growth trends in Indian River County indicate that by the year 2005, population will nearly triple from 60,677 to 163,000 and employment will more than double fran 23,620 to 47,630. To accanodate this ,_a transportation plan and appropriate funding program needs to be implen-ented. 2. Current Conditions Based. upon Traffic Level of Service "C" during annual average con_ ditions and IAS "D" during Peak season, the county's transportation system has few deficiences. Those roads currently being stressed or near capacity include: SR 60 at Merrill Barber Bridge A -1-A at Jaycee Park 6th Avenue at 14th Street U.S. 1 at 15th Street Old Dixie Highway at 10th Street 12th Street at FEC Roadway Existing catmitted projects funded by gas tax revenue will alleviate sane of these deficiencies. - 3. Long -Ranges Major Street and Highway Plan The most recent socio/econamic and land use projections for the year 2005 were used to identify future traffic demands. This future demand was evaluated with regard to existing transportation network to identify deficiencies for the year 2005. Future traffic demands indicate that the following major projects are needed: 1) New interchange at Oslo Road and I-95 to divert traffic frau the SR 60 corridor. Even if the Twin Pairs Project is implemented, the SR 60 corridor will be over LOS "E" by the year 2005. Major widening improvements to. Oslo Road will be necessary. 2) Five Lane Widening improvements to 41st Street (S. Gifford Road) fran 82nd Avenue to Indian River Boulevard is necessary to pro- vide accessibility to the Hospital area from the wrest as well as improve access to Indian River Blvd. This link will divert northbound traffic around the Vero Beach Central Business District. 0 CT 3.0 1985 - 60QK 62 ml-JE573 ` _ QCT 30 19 5 771 Boa 6� ur.574 3) Major improvements to North-South Arterials such as U.S. 1 by- pass (Indian River Blvd.), A -1-A, Kings Highway, 82nd Ave and 27th Avenue. 4) Major improvements to east -rest routes such as SR 60 Twin Pairs from 20th Avenue to Indian River Blvd., 45th Street, and 53rd Street. 5) Major road widening in the Sebastian area such as 5 lane widening of CR 512, the Sebastian Highlands Subdivision Imp Connector and widening of CR 510. 6). Numerous intersection improvements, secondary road mprovements and marginal access provisions along arterial routes. 7) Additional 2 lane bridge capacity to serve the North Barrier s Island. A detailed Enviromnental Impact Statement & Engineering study should be initiated to determine the exact location and cost of the new bridge. The most critical traffic congestion problem projected for Indian River County over the next 20 years is U.S. 1. The Florida D.O.T., which has primary responsibility for U.S. 1, should under- take a detailed evaluation of the future needs within the U.S. 1 corridor. 4. Recaumnded projects A following is a breakdown of the 95 projects recamiended: Miles of Road- Estimated Capital way Lmrovements Costs TOTAL NEW ROADWAY PROJECTS 24.0 $46,151 TOTAL FOR WIDENING PROJECTS 30.5 37,893 NEW INTERSECTIONS 10,770 TOTAL FOR SECONDARY IMPROVEMENTS 105.1. 36,378 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 159.6 $131,192 To implement these projects, a 20 year capital improvement Program needs to be adopted with construction programmed in 4 five year stages. 5. Implementation Implementation of the 20 year plan will be under the guidance of the Transportation Planning Ca mittee as it now exists. Raiding' mechanisms such as gas tax revenues, import fees, user fees and general taxes would apply. The Florida D.O.T. District 4 office would be an important implementing agency and carmmication on the long range goals should begin immediately after adoption. Close conmmication with St. Lucie County needs to be ongoing so that future growth in that County, as we71 as Brevard County, does not detract fran plan objectives. 6 r � � Mr. Brown advised that Barton-Aschman will be turning over a micro -computer program to the County, which could be used to analyze projects under Development of Regional Impact such as Grand Harbor. Commissioner Scurlock believed that its main benefit would be in determining priorities. Discussion took place on switching priorities if ground patterns change from what was expected or estimated in this study. Director Davis noted that some people in attendance today were instrumental in helping us look over many of the road projects and determining right-of-ways, paving costs, etc. He explained that the wild stab that was originally estimated was for a $265 -million capital improvement program compared to the refined version before the Board today of $131 -million. Much of the difference is in right-of-way cost. The consultants were not that familiar with land values in the grove areas and estimated right-of-way costs at $2 per sq. ft., when, in fact, the County has been buying land for $9,000 per sq. acre. Director Davis emphasized that the impact fees are not going to generate the entire $131 -million. The impact fees and the gas taxes will raise $81 -million, leaving a balance of $50 -million to be funded by other sources of revenue. Existing road users will contribute to the road program each time they purchase gas locally. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we still could use our petition paving program, and Director Davis confirmed that we still would have that option if people wanted to have a road paved sooner than the timeframe provided within the improvement program. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY REPORT Dr. James Nicholas emphasized that the County is growing too fast for the fiscal resources available and the Board of County Commissioners must decide whether to increase taxes, suffer 7 T BOOK �2 PAGE 575 improvements to new development. Dr. Nicholas reviewed the following gas tax chart and stressed that the role of the impact fee is to complete the financial package for the road improvements which they have estimated will cost $131 -million: 1. The state motor fuels tax is 5% at $1.14 -per gallon, or $.057 per gallon. Thirty-five per cent of this total, or $.01995 per gallon, is allocated to capital. This includes federal participation. 2. The local motor fuels tax is $.04 per gallon; a. The 5th, 6th and_7th cents go to the county. The 5th and 6th cents are allocated to capital. All of the 7th cent is allocated to maintenance. b. The 8th cent goes to the cities through the revenue sharing trust fund. 3. The average gas mileage is 17.16 miles per gallon 4. The total available capital revenues per gallon equals 3.995 cents per gallon. Commissioner Bird felt an adjustment would be needed because Barton-Aschman figured the local gas tax option at 4 cents a gallon when the County opted for only a 2 -cent tax. Director Davis felt that illustrates the need to evaluate the program every year, and Dr. Nicholas noted that the Commission has authority to review the fee structure at any time, but the ordinance says that it must be evaluated every year. Dr. Nicholas continued that the impact fees must be spent on new road improvements, not on a backlog of planned improvements; fortunately, since the county's road system is operating sufficiently, that won't be an issue that has to be addressed. L 1 y 0 co S. O TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES rA m CD CD -DISTRICT-DISTRICT-DISTRICT-' _________________________________________________________ DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT --- _________________-_ DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT tt LAND USE TYPE(UNIT) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -------------- _______________________________________________________....__-____-_________-------____________-__.____ � RESIDENTIAL: SINGLE FAMILY 1095 1444 793 526 704 330 148 435 161 MULTI FAMILY 3 STORIES+ 540 712 391 260 347 162 73 t,214 80 1 a MOBILE I...IOME S -ALL 760 1003 550 366 489 229 103 3o2 112 1 m rt, 1-40TEL/MOTEL 1552 2046 815 541 723 339 152 44.7 166 1 ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL 1095 1444 793 526 704 3.:0 148 435 161 1 p- ' 1 cit m OFFICE AND FINANCIAL: MEDICAL OFFICE (/1000 SG FT) 2281 3008 1651 1097 1466 687 309 905 336-1 m OTHER OFFICE (/1000 SO FT) 937 1235 678 450 602 282 127 372 138 1 �, INDUSTRIAL: WAREHOUSE (/1000 SO FT) 312 412 226 150 201 94 42 124 46 1 1-, H GEN. INDUSTRIAL (/1000 SO FT) 346 456 250 166 222 104 47 .137 51 1 1 0 1 g N RETAIL:•• UNDER 50,000 FT (/1000 SO FT) 2031 2679 1470 977 1305 611 275 806 299 1 k 5o,000-99,999 (/1000 SO FT) 2090 2757 1513 1005 1343 629 283 830 08 1 100,000-249,999 (/1000 SO FT) 2393 3156 1733 1151 1538 720 324 950 353 1 200,000 AND OVER (/1000 SO FT) 2472 3260 1790 1189 1588 744 335 981 364 ______________________________________________,__-_______-__ _-__________-_-_---- 1 ____________________________ C 0 �/ 1�1f1'/o1GT FSE DISTHIVTS 101.11 SECONDARY PROJECT WIDENING `` �•••••� NEW ROADWAY OINTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ' I cp 1 3 ni O <� u 7th ST. s C m op ._ �i T W 1• es < %0000 w c ••• 879th ST.< A y 85th ST.c 4 N W m 81st BT. ■1 57th ST. 1 83rd ST. 1 1 • 0-0 49th ST.~ a �y 4 8 t h ST.- '� let S •%A% 41st ST. \ 8 7 2 6 t hmr S .-- ` L----S lmmTml> S.R.=80 S.R. 80 > c' 16th � _ 17th. .. 8 T . '\ T '-�-1 - T1- __ i ST. y\ i • = LL_A 44 �• �- a t a « N = _ N let ST. S. W. W 1®1�� « 1w1 loin M110 C 7 c ® a m ao m t A 10 Iq 5th ST. S. W. .MMMIM a MEN HWHE OSLO ROAD % LO R ss 13th ST. W. 1 �1 ■ ► 1$ i win ST. S.W. siwU116 &in wt��siiiiid�iitit®i W W NEW STREET AND HIGHWAYS N r C Figure 6 N � r � M ® r Chairman Lyons asked how people can be assured that the impact fees collected will be used in their districts and whether nine districts were enough. Dr. Nicholas believed nine districts were more than sufficient and explained in depth how the districts were designed. Impact fees will be spent within the same district in which they are collected, with the exception that each district will pay a certain percentage of the cost of a new or expanded bridge. He reviewed the following example of assessment for a single family category: An example would bd'the single-family category. The total miles driven equals 46.44 miles per day. For 365 days this -is 16,951 miles. At 17.16 MPG this is 968 gallons of motor fuel per year. At 9.7 cents per gallon, total (state and local) motor fuels revenues would be $95.82 per year, one-half of which ($47.91) would be attributable to the origin (the single-family unit). The total motor fuel receipts must be divided into maintenance and capital portions. The capital portion is 3.995 cents per gallon. Thus annual capital revenues from a single family home would be $19.73. Dr. Nicholas stressed that the impact fee is due and payable at the time the building permit is obtained. Considerable discussion took place re the 6% interest rate that would be refunded to individuals or developers if monies from the impact fees were not spent or encumbered. Dr. Nicholas explained that the State uses 6% in these cases, but if the Board wished to pay a higher interest rate, it could be adjusted. County Attorney Charles Vitunac noted that the State has been using 12% since 1981. Dr. Nicholas concluded this portion of the study by stating that if the Board is satisfied with the preliminary project as presented, Barton-Aschman will go ahead and refine the figures. 9 [ �j Bou 6 �r,UC.5 J T 3 0 1995 OCT Q 19 BOOK 62. PAGE 5. So FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE Attorney Craig Richardson stressed the fairness factor in the "Fair Share Ordinance". He explained that the ordinance would be a county -wide ordinance and while the cities have the option to exempt themselves out of the ordinance, the ordinance is designed for their cooperation and participation. Attorney Richardson explained that the case of the City of Dunedin was the landmark decision used for designing the original transportation ordinance, which eventually went to the Florida Supreme Court in 1976 and has been used by the Appellate Courts for utility fees, transportation fees, etc. Basically the principles that were established in that case are: 1) New growth must demand that road facilities be increased; 2) Assessment can be only as much as is needed and at a cost not to exceed local government's actual cost of providing the improvements; 3) It must benefit the people paying the fees, and the new monies must be specifically earmarked for capital road improvements. Dr. Nicholas advised that these are the principles all governments must use in evaluating an impact fee ordinance. Recent changes under the State's Planning Act require local governments to adopt a capital improvement plan as part of their comprehensive planning effort. In conjunction with that requirement, an amendment in Chapter 380 of the DRI provisions under the Florida Environmental Land & Management Act requires that local, governments have some type of financing mechanism in place by July, 1986, if they are going to continue exacting development conditions for public facilities. Basically, this means that Indian River County must adopt something like an impact fee ordinance to ensure that the small developer is paying 10 � ® r his fair share, so to speak. What Barton-Aschman is bringing to the Board today is not only the capital improvement plan for the transportation facilities but also the legislation that will allow the implementation of the plan. Attorney Richardson outlined in depth how the ordinance is structured. 1) How the individual assessment is made Z) Time of payment 3) Credit provision 4) Administration of impact fees 5) Assignment of funds 6) Individual circumstances 7) Refunds of unspent or unencumbered monies 8) Annual evaluation Commissioner Bird asked what the procedure would be for adopting the ordinance, and Commissioner Scurlock advised that Ken Roth of the Sebastian City Council is in attendance today and has asked for copies of the consultant's reports and proposed ordinance to take back to Sebastian for the Council's review prior to a public hearing. Administrator Wright reported that we have been dealing extensively with Sebastian and Indian River Shores and suggested we make the consultants available to all the cities prior to any public hearings being scheduled. Commissioner Bird suggested that the cities hold their public hearings at the same time the consultants are there, and Commissioner Wodtke felt the planning staff should attend also, especially if the full Board of County Commissioners is not going to attend. Commissioner Scurlock suggested scheduling the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on December 11, and asked Councilman Roth of Sebastian if that time schedule would be satisfactory, and Councilman Roth believed that the Mayor of Sebastian would call a special meeting before their next regularly scheduled meet.i:ng of December 6th. Dr. Nicholas advised that Barton-Aschman had a scheduling problem for December 11th and requested that .the public hearing 11 OCT 3 0 19r15 Boa 62 F,aGF 581 OCT 3 0,1985, BOOK 62 MUE 582 be scheduled for December 4th, which would allow five weeks to receive in -put from the -municipalities.. The Commissioners agreed that five weeks is a sufficient time period. Director Davis reported that they have met with Indian River Shores, Sebastian, and the City of Vero Beach, and they all question how the funds will be allocated in the districts and how will we come up with a priority list for each district. At present the Transportation Planning Committee hears all of the project recommendations and develops the capital improvement before coming to this Board for final approval and authorization for implementation. Now that we are dealing in a zonal concept, staff feels that perhaps after the TPC reviews the capital improvement program for each district, it should go to those city councils specifically affected in that particular impact fee district. This would provide another layer between the TPC and this Board and give the municipalities more of an input into the system. The Commissioners indicated their agreement to the suggested procedure. Commissioner Bird asked how we would advertise the public hearing for the adoption of the ordinance, and Director Davis advised that they plan to publish the Executive Summary. Commissioner Scurlock stated that it had to be made clear in the advertisement that the existing residents will not be paying impact fees for new development. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously scheduled a public hearing on the adoption of the proposed impact fee ordinance for December 4, 1985 and authorized staff to prepare proper advertising. 12 M M Director Davis noted that our contract with Barton-Aschman spells out a certain amount of meetings and we need to figure out where we are at this point. If we are going to request them to meet with each municipality, he felt we ought to compensate them for what the contract calls for and requested permission to work with them in that regard. He advised that he would keep the Board posted if there are any changes in compensation. Commissioner Scurlock felt there wasn't any question that we do want the consultants involved in the city hearings. Commissioner Bird stressed that was the reason he suggested the cities hold their public hearings at the same time the consultants visit so that everybody gets the information at once. Commissioner Scurlock realized that while he was familiar with the road impact fee issue because he chairs the Transportation Planning Committee, undoubtedly the other Commissioners have a lot of questions they want to ask. Commissioner Wodtke asked several questions about financing bridges, and Dr. Nicholas explained that bridges are not allocated to any particular district. Each district would pay a certain percentage -- it just depends on the new trips generated from that district. Commissioner Wodtke questioned the number of trips projected for medical visits and why it is assumed that medical trips would be incoming when many doctors are relocating further west and north. He felt that many doctors will wonder why that particular land use category is charged with such a high number of trips. Dr. Nicholas explained that those trips are figured both ways -- coming and going. 13 OCT 3 0 1985 BOOK 62 FA,E 583 OCT 3 0 1995 BOOK 62 584 Attorney Richardson believed that the ordinance is fairly flexible because when some developments do not impact the road system as projected, developers can request individual assessments of the impact of their particular projects. Commissioner Wodtke asked if government buildings are exempt from impact fees, and Dr. Nicholas said that no one was exempted. The County would have to pay impact fees for any new buildings. There is some question, however, whether or not buildings belonging to the School Board would be exempt. Commissioner Bird inquired if post offices were included in a separate land use category due to the extensive number of trips they generate. Mr. Brown explained that the Urban Transportation Planning System includes post office trips in all categories of land uses and Barton-Aschman plugged those figures into the computer model. George Gross, 275 Date Palm Drive, asked how the consultants arrived at the different numbers for each zone on a single family 14 TABLE III -1 TRAVEL AND ROAD NEEDS BY LAND USE TYPE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND USE TYPE (UNIT) TRIP AVE TRIP PER CENT. MILES ATTRIB. NEW LANE RATE LENGTH NEW TRIPS PER DAY TO SOURCE MILES RESIDENTIAL: MULTI -FAMILY 3 STORIES AND OVER -ISLAND -4.00 6.45 100 25.80 12.90 .0016125 MOBILE HOMES -ALL 5.00 6.45 100 32.25 16.13 .0020156 HOTEL/MOTEL-MAINLAND 11.30 5.30 100 59.89 29.95 .0037431 HOTEL/MOTEL-ISLAND 8.20 5.30 100 43.46 21.73 .0027163 ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL 7.20 6.45 100 46.44 23.22 .0029025 OFFICE AND FINANCIAL: MEDICAL OFFICE (1000 FT2) 30.20 6.28 85 161.21 80.60 .0100755 OTHER OFFICE (1000 FT2) 12.40 6.28 85 66.19 33.10 .0041370 INDUSTRIAL: WAREHOUSE (1000 FT2) 4.88 6.45 100 31.48 15.74 .0019673 GEN INDUSTRIAL (1000 FT2) 5.40 6.45 100 34.83 17.42 .0021769 RETAIL: UNDER 50,000 FT2 (1000 FT2) 117.90 5.30 35 218.70 109.35 .0136690 50,000-99,999 (1000 FT2) 82.00 5.30 50 217.30 108.65 .0135813 100,000-249,939 (1000 FT2) 66.70 5-.30 60 212.11 .106.05 .0132566 2001000 AND OVER (1000 FT2) 49.70 5.30 85 223.90 111.95 .0139937 Attorney Richardson believed that the ordinance is fairly flexible because when some developments do not impact the road system as projected, developers can request individual assessments of the impact of their particular projects. Commissioner Wodtke asked if government buildings are exempt from impact fees, and Dr. Nicholas said that no one was exempted. The County would have to pay impact fees for any new buildings. There is some question, however, whether or not buildings belonging to the School Board would be exempt. Commissioner Bird inquired if post offices were included in a separate land use category due to the extensive number of trips they generate. Mr. Brown explained that the Urban Transportation Planning System includes post office trips in all categories of land uses and Barton-Aschman plugged those figures into the computer model. George Gross, 275 Date Palm Drive, asked how the consultants arrived at the different numbers for each zone on a single family 14 dwelling, and Chairman Lyons felt that question was answered earlier -- it depends on what capital improvements are going to have to be made in those zones. Mr. Gross also asked what the correlation is between these numbers and the study made by -Dr. Nicholas on the $337,000 per lane mile less credits, and Dr. Nicholas explained that is the average cost per lane mile county -wide. It is the total cost of the capital improvement program, which is $131 -million, divided by the total number of lane miles of improvement. Chairman Lyons noted that again we are operating on averages, and Director Davis explained that the capital improvement program was costed out using the DOT's cost estimate in the State's recommended long-range street and highway program document. The only exception to that is in the rural areas of the county where it has been found that the County could build a road under contract at a lesser specification than the DOT would necessarily use, and, therefore, at a lesser cost. Actually, the capital improvement program is using both DOT estimates and local cost estimates, based on the type of the road. Mr. Gross asked for clarification on how many additional bridge lanes will be needed to carry future growth in the county, and Dr. Nicholas explained that another two lanes would be needed either at the Barber Bridge or somewhere to the north. Director Davis felt that it is important for people to understand that the 20 -year scenario projects the need for two additional lanes of bridge capacity, while the built -out condition of the barrier island demands at least 4 additional lanes of bridge capacity. That is not included in this capital improvement program, however. Mr. Gross asked that if we do build a new bridge somewhere in the county, would that make the capacity of the Merrill -Barber Bridge satisfactory for the anticipated travel for the next 20 -year period, and Mr. Brown stated it would based on today's population projections. 15 OCT3019-8.5 HoK 62 Frk �E 585 ou 3 ® 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE586 Commissioner Wodtke asked about the County carrying some, of the burden for future DOT projects, and Director Davis admitted that it will be difficult to determine which projects to fund if the DOT does not go-ahead with certain projects such as widening s AIA. J There being no further business, on Motion duly made and Seconded, the Board adjourned at 12:00 noon. ATTEST: Clerk 16