Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutV (A) First Reading of Ordinance No. 96-01, relating to Road Impact Fees. Second Reading and Public Hearing scheduled for February 20, 1996 AGENDA 2-6-96 Item V A "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" C ,77:,;0ee �.U1 t vr�lvur►ct�lciri :0....a. • COMMISSIONERS RUSTY JOHNSON CITY OF OCOEESCOTT ANDERSON v 150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVESCOTT A.GLASS �'� • 3OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258JIM GLEASON 'j'J '` (407)656 2322% CITY MANAGER Of GOOD ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Montye E. Beamer, Director Administrative Services SUBJECT: Road Impact Fee Update Ordinance 96-01 The Road Impact Fees have been updated utilizing the following assumptions: 1) that, while the road network encompasses the City as well as the unincorporated land within the Joint Planning Area and has established nexus of benefit to the entire Joint Planning Area, no State or County Roads have been included in the improvements lists save where responsibility has been assumed by the City as with Clarke Road and Maguire Road. 2) that the socioeconomic data were compiled from the Orlando Urban Area Transportation System information and modified within the City limits to be comparable to the currently adopted future land use and the existing structures/plans. This allows consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the most recent Consumptive Use Permit and the Master Water Plan update. It also reflects the Regional review and resulting engineering peer review accomplished during the Development of Regional Impact for the West Oaks Mall and Lake Lotta Center. 3) that the trip counts for the study are based on the 94/95 counts utilized to validate the model and do not agree with those presented in the October, 1995 concurrency report. Current trip counts exceed those utilized; however, the assumption is that any increase is based upon growth. Pursuant to the various impact fee court cases, no road deficiencies are to be corrected with these funds. 4) that the most equitable way to calculate new developments' fair share of costs is to continue the use of an improvements-driven system in establishing the per-trip cost with 100% of the road improvement costs and without discounts. 5) that alternative calculations should be consistent with actual road improvement costs and the improvement-driven methodology. 6) that additional land use types were necessary to be responsive to the City's growing commercial environment. 7) that the Maguire Road improvement terminate at Roberson since Ocoee has no control over the density or intensity of the development on the west side nor on the requirements of the Developer's Agreement. The increase in a single-family residential unit is $263.41 or 23.3% over the current charge. These fees have not been amended since January, 1990 and do, as indicated previously, represent 100% of growth's fair share. No discount was applied in 1990. The information contained in this package includes: 1) The Final Study on which the update is based; 2) Ordinance 96-01; 3) Procedural clarifications for the implementation of the Ordinance. The City Attorney, the City Engineer, the Planning Director, the Plans Examiner, and the Concurrency Analyst have all reviewed the study. Changes, where applicable and consistent with the assumptions, were incorporated. Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Commission (1) accept the Road Impact Fee Final Study, as submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc., (2) approve Ordinance 96-01, and (3) authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. MEB/jbw Attachments 4 AGENDA 2--h-96 Item V A Ocoee "CENTER OF GOOD:LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST()RANG ' J. 1I VNIVUCKIIKII'I COMAIISSIONERS CITY OF OCOEE 5RUSTY COTTAOHNSO N 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE SCOTT A.GLASS OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 JIM GLEASON (407)656 2322CITY MANAGER ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Montye E. Beamer, Director Administrative Services Q l SUBJECT: Road Impact Fee Update Ordinance 96-01 The Road Impact Fees have been updated utilizing the following assumptions: 1) that, while the road network encompasses the City as well as the unincorporated land within the Joint Planning Area and has established nexus of benefit to the entire Joint Planning Area, no State or County Roads have been included in the improvements lists save where responsibility has been assumed by the City as with Clarke Road and Maguire Road. 2) that the socioeconomic data were compiled from the Orlando Urban Area Transportation System information and modified within the City limits to be comparable to the currently adopted future land use and the existing structures/plans. This allows consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the most recent Consumptive Use Permit and the Master Water Plan update. It also reflects the Regional review and resulting engineering peer review accomplished during the Development of Regional Impact for the West Oaks Mall and Lake Lotta Center. 3) that the trip counts for the study are based on the 94/95 counts utilized to validate the model and do not agree with those presented in the October, 1995 concurrency report. Current trip counts exceed those utilized; however, the assumption is that any increase is based upon growth. Pursuant to the various impact fee court cases, no road deficiencies are to be corrected with these funds. 4) that the most equitable way to calculate new developments' fair share of costs is to continue the use of an improvements-driven system in establishing the per-trip cost with 100% of the road improvement costs and without discounts. 5) that alternative calculations should be consistent with actual road improvement costs and the improvement-driven methodology. 6) that additional land use types were necessary to be responsive to the City's growing commercial environment. 7) that the Maguire Road improvement terminate at Roberson since Ocoee has no control over the density or intensity of the development on the west side nor on the requirements of the Developer's Agreement. The increase in a single-family residential unit is $263.41 or 23.3% over the current charge. These fees have not been amended since January, 1990 and do, as indicated previously, represent 100% of growth's fair share. No discount was applied in 1990. The information contained in this package includes: 1) The Final Study on which the update is based; 2) Ordinance 96-01; 3) Procedural clarifications for the implementation of the Ordinance. The City Attorney, the City Engineer, the Planning Director, the Plans Examiner, and the Concurrency Analyst have all reviewed the study. Changes, where applicable and consistent with the assumptions, were incorporated. Staff recommends that the Mayor and City Commission (1) accept the Road Impact Fee Final Study, as submitted by Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc., (2) approve Ordinance 96-01, and (3) authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. MEB/jbw Attachments err F' xem rwr >rmc.: d git winee . . r- , ,.... 4,, , s Fr. ,..„ ..,„,..„....:: „4„, •,,,,,, w ,t.,t...,.. ... ,.„..,,,:„..... .. .. ,:: .„...„....,.. 4 'i dW - x `, am5 City of„,,r,:::"."17,,,-.:'•?.. u E ' F t+? „..,,. „,,, , ;x . Ocoee Florida00, #. ,_ . EMERGENCY PARKING a • ONLY add , .. .3 • TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE , , I "1` FINAL STUDY t,1çD JANUARY 1996 IR a )11,,„ ' v$1 he ,, -:-::-:;: .... , pE,t,:i..- : .,.. 'd - ,.,-„„: i- 101, ": dial” ..-4 tel - f ttio . r } 9 , .., . .: .,, . - - ,#,-,--- -- -1---" -. ' r i,e,--- ,, , Aiiiii# „›.:: , . - wt mok . ,..,.. . z- :. V__ I. ,,,.-_ ,. il ..„,,..,. ...,•,, „.. ,..,,, ,, , % .ii.,,,i....,...,„4--.., d ,,..,..,..,,, ,,,: . ' :, ',,,, .', , . ' ig} os 11 iiiii...401! . t. I g[ . ORDINANCE NO. 96- 01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTIONS 87-1 THROUGH 87-13, INCLUSIVE, OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE OCOEE CITY CODE; DELETING SECTION 87-14 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE OCOEE CITY CODE; ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 87-14 OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 87 OF THE OCOEE CITY CODE; DELETING THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEES; CLARIFYING THAT ROAD IMPACT FEES MAY BE USED FOR THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN DEBT SERVICES; INCREASING THE ROAD IMPACT FEES BASED ON THE ROAD IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY DATED 1995; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Ocoee received and reviewed the Road Impact Fee Update Study dated 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has conducted an advertised public hearing regarding the proposed amendments to the Road Impact Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to amend the Road Impact Fee Ordinance based upon the Road Impact Fee Update Study dated 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authority. The City Commission of the City of Ocoee has the authority to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes. SECTION 2. Revisions to Sections 87-1 through 87-13. Sections 87-1 through 87-13, inclusive, of Article I of Chapter 87 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE I Road Impact Fees 87-1. Title; authority. A. This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Road Impact Fee Ordinance." B. The City Commission of the City of Ocoee has the authority to adopt this Article pursuant to Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapters 163 and 166 of the Florida Statutes. 87-2. Intent; purpose; basis. A. This Article is intended to implement and be consistent with the City of Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. B. The purpose of this Article is to ensure that new development pays a fair share of the anticipated costs of needed City road system improvements necessary to serve new development. C. This Article is based on an inventory of the existing road system, and analysis of existing road system deficiencies and an analysis of projected road system needs contained in a report entitled " . - . . •. - e-, - Gemprehensiixe-Plan " "Road Impact Fee Update Study dated 1995." D. The intent of the City Commission is to periodically revise this Article to adjust the fee schedule to reflect changes in growth patterns in the City of Ocoee and changes in cost of constructing new roadway facilities. 87-3. Payment required. Any person who applies for the issuance of a building permit for a new building shall be required to pay a road impact fee in the manner and amount set forth herein. Except as provided herein, no building permit for a new building shall be issued unless and until the road impact fee hereby required has been paid. For the purposes of this Article, all references to "building permit" shall refer to a building permit for a new building and shall not apply to such building permits as may be issued by the City for site clearing and other activities which precede the issuance for a new building. 87-4 Schedule; alternative fees. A. The road impact fee shall be determined in accordance with the Road Impact Fee Schedule set forth in 87-14. In addition, an applicant may propose an alternative impact fee as set forth in 87-5 herein or may propose to enter into a development agreement with the City as set forth in 87-6 herein. 2 B. In the event that an applicant for a building permit contends that the new building for which the building permit is requested is not within the categories set forth in Subsection A above or is within a different category, then the Development Review Committee shall make a determination as to the appropriate category. Such determination may be appealed to the City Commission, whose decision shall be final and binding on the applicant. 87-5. Alternative fee calculation. A. In the event that an applicant believes the impact of the new building will be less than that established in 87-14 above, the applicant may submit an alternative road impact fee calculation to the Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee shall review the data, information and assumptions used by the applicant in the alternative road impact fee calculation to determine whether the requirements of this section are satisfied. If the Development Review Committee finds that the requirements of this section are satisfied, it shall recommend an alternative road impact fee for the applicant to the City Commission. If the Development Review-Committee finds the requirements of this section are not satisfied, it shall recommend to the City Commission the Road Impact Fee Schedule set forth in 87-14 for the applicant. The decision of the City Commission as to an alternative road impact fee, or the Road Impact Fee Schedule shall be final and binding on the applicant. B. The proposed alternative road impact fee shall be calculated by use of the fell Alternate ADT X DF X TL X COST Impact Fee — CAP X 2 CREDIT Where ADT — The number of average daily trips generated DF — The diversion/capture factor TL — The trip length for each proposed use. CAP — The typical new eapacity per lane mile in vehicles per day e. — Y. • , - •.• • . .• • • • . , • ., . . a ass SF CREDIT — The allowance for gas tax payments and motor vehicle B. - The alternative road impact fee calculations shall be based on data, information or assumptions contained in the Road Impact Fee Update Study dated 1995 and shall be compatible with assumptions used for development of an "improvements- drive" impact fee calculation -- . : •, . . . • . -_ , provided that: 3 (1) The independent source is an accepted standard source of transportation engineering or planning data; ; (2) The independent source is a local study carried out by a qualified traffic planner possessing membership in the American Institute of Certified Planners or a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to an accepted methodology of transportation planning or engineering; or (3) If a prior applicant submitted during a prior approval process a traffic impact study consistent with the criteria required by this section and if that study is determined by the Development Review Committee to still be valid, the traffic impacts of the new building shall be presumed to be as described in such prior study. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a traffic impact study conducted more than two (2) years prior to the effective date of this Article' is invalid. C. D= The diversion and capture factor used in the alternative road impact fee calculation shall be based on actual surveys conducted in the City of Ocoee or Orange County or based on professional studies, including commonly used references. For the purposes of the alternative road impact fee calculation, the diversion and capture factor shall be the percentage of average daily trips that a proposed use will generate that constitute new or additional trips added to the City's major road network system. Those trips that do not represent additional trip ends shall not be counted as new or additional trips. D E— The new building shall be presumed to generate the maximum number of average daily trips to be generated by the most intensive use permitted under the applicable land development regulations, such as the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations, or under applicable deed or plat restrictions. E. F= The cost of the City review of the alternative road impact fee calculation shall be paid by the applicant. Upon submittal of the alternative road impact fee calculation by the applicant, the City Clerk shall collect a review deposit of five hundred dollars ($500.) from the applicant. • e - e . . . - • Section 1-12 of Article I of Chapter 180 of the Code of Ordinances of the City. as it may from time to time be amended shall be followed when collecting review fees and deposits under this section. 87-6 Development agreements. A. An applicant may enter into a development agreement with the City to establish road impact fees or to provide equivalent road improvements necessary to serve new buildiligsT development. Equivalent road improvements must be demonstrated to enhance roads on the "improvement driven" listing. A development agreement may include, but shall not be limited to, provisions which: 4 (1) Permit the construction of specific road system improvements in lieu of or with a credit against the interim road impact fee otherwise assessable under 87-4 or 87-5 above. (2) Provide for a transfer of credits as provided for in 87-7 to any successor in interest in the land. (3) Allow a schedule and method of payment of impact fees in a manner different than provided in 87-11. B. Any agreement proposed by an applicant pursuant to this section shall be presented to and approved by the City Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any such agreement shall provide for execution by any mortgagees, lienholders or contract purchasers in addition to the landowner and shall require the applicant to record such agreement in the public records of Orange County. The City Commission shall approve such an agreement only if it finds that the agreement will apportion the burden of expenditure for new facilities in a just and equitable manner, consistent with applicable Florida Statutes and case law and this Article. 87-7. Credits. A. An applicant shall be entitled to a credit against the road impact fee assessed pursuant to this Article in an amount equal to the cost of off-site improvements and the cost of improvements to on-site roads which create excess capacity for general public traffic or contributions of land, money or services contributed or previously contributed by the applicant or his predecessor in interest as a condition of any development agreement entered into with the City. Any improvements must be demonstrated to create excess transportation capacity to the City's "improvement driven" listing of road improvements. Such credit shall be based on the following criteria: (1) The actual cost, - - -- • - - , . - . • . ' - - - ! - • • • , of off-site related improvements by the applicant. te-the-read-sy tem. Off-site improvements eligible for a credit are those improvements proposed for a building site which are required by the City to serve the buildings' external trips and general public traffic. Improvements not eligible for a credit are those necessary to serve internal trips or to provide safe and adequate ingress and egress, such as acceleration and deceleration lanes, turn lanes, traffic signals, paving of existing rights-of-way or perimeter roads. (2) The actual cost or estimated cost of improvements based on recent bid sheet information of the City of Ocoee or Orange County with respect to that portion of on-site roads which creates excess capacity for general public traffic. 5 (3) The contribution of land, money or services by the applicant for off-site improvements to the road system and for improvements to on-site roads which create excess capacity for general public traffic. The credit for land contributed will be based on a pro rata share of the appraised land value of the parent parcel as determined by an MM appraiser selected and paid for by the applicant and approved by the Development Review Committee or based on such other method as may be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the Development Review Committee. In the event that the Development Review Committee disagrees with the appraised value, the City may select and pay for another appraiser and the credit shall be an amount equal to the average of the two (2) appraisals. (4) Unless otherwise provided in a development agreement between the City and the applicant or his predecessors in title, no credit for contributions or donations made prior to March 21, 1989 the effective date of this Article shall be granted unless the cost of the improvements were paid for or the contributions were made within the two (2) years prior to March 21, 1989. . - - . - . . - . , , -. (5) No credit shall exceed the amount of the road impact fee assessed under 87-4, 87-5 or 87-6 above. B. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the Development Review Committee; provided, however, that the determination may be appealed to the City Commission, whose decision shall be final and binding on the applicant. C. Any credit issued pursuant to this section may be transferred by the applicant to any successor in interest of the property. Credits may not be transferred to any other property without approval of the Ocoee City Commission. D. Previous development agreements wherein voluntary road impact fees were specified and paid shall be binding as to any building permit already issued, on or before March 21, 1989 on land subject to the development agreement. E. Notwithstanding the criteria specified in 87-7A(1), (2) and (3) above, if any of the development agreements listed in 87-8C of this Article provide that credits against future road impact fees enacted by the City will be granted for specified contributions of land, money or services for improvements to the road system, such credits against the impact fee shall be granted on the basis provided for in such agreements. F. The City may, at its sole discretion, provide a cash reimbursement in lieu of the credit provided by this section. The cash reimbursement shall be based upon the criteria established by this section. The amount of the cash reimbursement shall be determined by the Development Review Committee; provided, however, that the determination may be appealed to the City Commission, whose decisions shall be final and binding on the applicant. 6 87-8 Vested rights. A. It is not the intent of this Article to abrogate, diminish or modify the rights of any persons that have vested rights pursuant to a valid governmental act of the City. An applicant may petition the City Commission for a vested rights determination which would exempt the applicant from the provisions of the this Article. Such petition shall be evaluated by the City Attorney and a recommendation thereon submitted to the City Commission based on the following criteria. (1) There exists a valid, unexpired governmental act of the City authorizing the building for which a certificate of occupancy is sought. (2) Expenditures or obligations made or incurred in reliance upon the authorizing act are reasonably equivalent to the fee required by 87-4 of this Article. (3) That it would be inequitable to deny the applicant the opportunity to occupy a previously approved building under the conditions of the previous approval by requiring the applicant to comply with the requirements of the Article. B. E The City specifically acknowledges the existence and validity of the following development agreements. 87-9. Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from payment of the road impact fee: A. Those buildings which have been issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the cffcctivc datc of this Article. March 21, 1989. B. Publicly owned and operated buildings used for general governmental purposes, including public schools. C. Buildings owned by a fraternal, benevolent, charitable, eleemosynary, philanthropic, altruistic, civic, community, veteran, educational or other nonprofit organization. D. Additions to or expansions of single-family residential buildings. 7 87-10. Separate account to be kept. The road impact fee collected by the City pursuant to this Article shall be kept separate from other revenue of the City. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used solely in accordance with the provisions of this Article. The disbursal of such funds shall require the approval of the City Commission. 87-11. When fee due. Except as provided for in 87-6 above and 87-12 below, the road impact fee shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of the building permit for a new building. 87-12. Use of funds. A. The funds collected by reason of establishment of the road impact fee in accordance with this Article shall be used solely for the purpose of planning, acquisition, expansion and development of off-site improvements to the road system determined to be needed to offset the impacts of new development with the City of Ocoee, including but not limited to: (1) Corridor studies and environmental assessments. (2) Design and construction plan preparation. (3) Right-of-way acquisition, including legal fees. (4) The construction of new through lanes. (5) The construction of new turn lanes. (6) The construction of new bridges. (7) The construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new road construction. (8) The purchase and installation of traffic signalization. (9) The construction of new curbs, medians and shoulders. (10) Relocating utilities to accommodate new road construction. (11) The payment of debt services incurred for completion of the above listed use of funds. B. All funds shall be used exclusively within the area from which they were collected and in a manner consistent with the principles set forth in the Florida Statutes and case law and otherwise consistent with all requirements of the 8 Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida. Said funds shall not be used to maintain or repair any roads. C. Any funds on deposit not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested in interest-bearing accounts. All income derived shall be deposited in the Road Impact Fee Account. Applicants shall not receive a credit for or be entitled to interest from the investment of funds, except as provided in Subsection D. D. Ordinance No. 88 213 .. . • • - .. . .. - - - , ., . •• • , - . .• , - , . . Y. . . No. 88 214: . - - . . - - • . - • . - .• D. E7 Any funds not expended or encumbered six (6) years from the date road impact fee was paid shall, upon application of the fee payer and proof of payment, be returned with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. 87-13. Penalties for offenses. Violations of this Article shall constitute a misdemeanor enforceable in accordance with 1-12 of the City Code or by an injunction or other legal or equitable relief in the Circuit Court against any person violating this Article, or by both civil injunctive and criminal relief. WORDS UNDERLINED ARE ADDITIONS; WORDS IN TYPE ARE DELETIONS. SECTION 3. Repeal of Section 87-14 and Adoption of New Section 87-14. Section 87-14 of Article I of Chapter 87 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Ocoee, Florida, is hereby repealed in its entirety, and a new Section 87-14 is hereby adopted, which reads as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence,clause,phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of 9 competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto. SECTION 5. Codification. It is the intention of the City Commission of the City that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Ordinances of the City; and that sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "chapter", "section", "article", or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intentions; and regardless of whether such inclusion in the code is accomplished, sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the correction of typographical errors which do not affect the intent may be authorized by the City Manager, without need of public hearing, by filing a corrected or recodified copy of same with the City Clerk. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption. 10 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996. APPROVED: ATTEST: CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA Jean Grafton, City Clerk S. Scott Vandergrift, Mayor (SEAL) ADVERTISED , 1996 READ FIRST TIME , 1996 READ SECOND TIME AND ADOPTED , 1996, UNDER AGENDA ITEM NO. . FOR USE AND RELIANCE ONLY BY THE CITY OF OCOEE, FLORIDA APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY this day of , 1996. FOLEY & LARDNER By: City Attorney C:\WP51\DOCS\OCOEE\RDIMPACT.ORD 1 1130/96118W015 I DPB:dp 11 4 EXHIBIT "A" §87-14. Schedule of Fees. The road impact fees shall be as follows: ITE % Primary Net Imact Land Use Type Rates Trips' Costffrip Fee' Single Family/Unit 9.55 100 $146.08 $1,395.06 Apartment/Unit 6.47 100 $146.08 $945.14 Condominium/Townhouse/Unit 5.86 100 $146.08 $856.03 Mobile Home/Unit 4.81 100 $146.08 $702.64 Office` <100,000 SF 16.58 100 $146.08 $2,422.01 100,000- 200,000 SF 12.71 100 $146.08 $1,856.68 >200,000 SF 10.77 100 $146.08 $1,573.28 Retail` <50,000 SF 91.65 43 $146.08 $5,756.94 50,000- 99,999 SF 78.72 50 $146.08 $5,749.71 100,000 199,999 SF 60.70 61 $146.08 $5,408.90 200,000- 299,999 SF 50.12 67 $146.08 $4,905.42 300,000 399,999 SF 44.18 71 $146.08 $4,582.21 400,000- 499,999 SF 40.21 73 $146.08 $4,287.93 500,000 999,999 SF 34.42 77 $146.08 $3,871.62 31.18 80 $146.08 $3,643.82 1,000,000- 1,250,000 SF >1,250,000SF 30.39 81 $146.08 $3,595.89 Hospital` 16.78 100 $146.08 $2,451.22 Industrial` 6.97 100 $146.08 $1,018.18 Manufacturing` 3.85 100 $146.08 $562.41 Warehousing` 4.88 100 $146.08 $712.87 Mini-Warehouse 2.61 100 $146.08 $381.27 Hotel Motel (Per Room) 9.45 100 $146.08 $1,380.46 Walk In Bank` 140.60 30 $146.08 $6,161.65 Drive In Bank` 265.21 30 $146.08 $11,622.56 Restaurant Quality` 95.99 52 $146.08 $7,291.55 Restaurant High Turnover-Sit Down` 177.87 28 $146.08 $7,275.31 Restaurant Fast Food` 710.68 29 $146.08 $30,106.68 Convenience Store w/ Gasoline Pumps° 542.60 16 $146.08 $12,682.08 Gasoline/Service Station° 174.71 13 $146.08 $3,317.81 Day Care Center` 79.26 49 $146.08 $5,673.37 12 Nursing Home/Bed` 2.60 100 $146.08 $379.81 NOTES: a. Percent new trips derived from Orange County office of Capital Facilities Planning, 1983 and ITE data. b. Trip figures reflect land use within study area with 244,246 trip ends. c. Cost per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. d. Cost per vehicle fueling position. C:\WP51\DOCS\OCOEE\RDIMPACT.ORD 1/30/96 18W015 I DPB:dp 13 PEC PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. January 25, 1996 OE-239-1.0 Ms. Montye Beamer Director of Administrative Services City of Ocoee 150 North Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 RE: Road Impact Fees Dear Montye: This letter is in response to Mr. Jim Washington's memorandum dated December 12, 1995 containing the road impact fee schedule draft comments. I have addressed these comments in the order they appeared in the memorandum to reduce confusion. Many of these responses, definitions and explanations are referenced from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition and the February 1995 Update to the 5th Edition. 1. I believe that the February 1,1994 memorandum mentioned by Mr. Washington regarding a single category for shopping centers/malls affects only the water and sewer impact fees and would not be applied to road impact fees. Trip generation characteristics vary considerably with the size of the shopping center/mall as reflected in the impact fee schedule. 2. The second comment or question raised by Mr. Washington was the difference between the industrial and manufacturing categories. Typical industrial activities include printing plants, material testing laboratories, assemblers of data processing equipment, and power stations. Manufacturing facilities, on the other hand, are sites where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products. In addition to actual production of goods, manufacturing facilities generally have office, warehouse, research, and associated functions. We realize that the distinction between these two activities is somewhat vague and should be addressed on an individual basis. We will be available for assistance if the need should arise. 3. The third comment was pertaining to the difference between drive-in banks and walk-in banks and which category applies to banks with both drive-in and walk-in facilities. Walk-in banks do not have drive-in windows. On the other hand, drive-in banks provide banking facilities for motorists while in a vehicle. Drive-in banks may also serve customers who walk into the building. angineers planners surveyors 200 East Robinson Street • Suite 1560 • Orlando, Florida 32801 • 4071422-8062 • FAX 407/849-9401 Ms. Montye Beamer 0E-239-1.0 City of Ocoee January 25, 1996 Page 2 4. The fourth comment pertained to the differences between the different categories of restaurants listed in the road impact fee schedule. Following is a brief discussion that should clarify this issue. First, a quality restaurant generally has a turnover rate of one hour or more, is not a part of a bigger chain of restaurants and reservations are normally required. Second, a high turnover sit-down restaurant typically has a turnover rate of less than one hour, is moderately priced and frequently belongs to a restaurant chain. Reservation are not normally required for this category of restaurants. Examples of this category of restaurants are Bennigan's, Chili's, Pizza Hut, etc. Third, a fast food restaurant is characterized by a large carry out clientele, long hours of service and high turnover rates. Examples of fast food restaurants are McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. We note that these three categories cover most types of restaurants, but not all. Decisions will have to be made on an individual basis for restaurants outside these three categories. 5. The fifth comment in Mr. Washington's memorandum discussed the possibility of listing the road impact fees according to the occupancy classifications in the Standard Building Code to insure that the building would be utilized according to the Certificate of Occupancy. I'm not sure if this means to revise the order in which the categories are listed in the road impact fee schedule or to revise the categories (land uses)to be consistent with Standard Building Code categories. Revising the order of the categories in the road impact fee schedule is simple. On the other hand, revising the categories (land uses) to match the Standard Building Code is not as simple. Currently, the road impact fee categories follow the ITE's land use structure. We note that if these categories were revised to conform to the Standard Building Code categories, general or average trip generation rates would have to be developed for each general category such as "business" which would cover banks, restaurants and service stations with all these uses having only one impact fee rate. The second part of this comment suggested revising the road impact fee categories to insure the proper use of the buildings, i.e. according to Certificate of Occupancy. We feel that regardless of the categories used in the road impact fee schedule, when a building use is proposed to being changed, the owner must comply with all applicable rules including concurrency and all impact fees be calculated or recalculated to reflect this change. Ms. Montye Beamer 0E-239-1.0 City of Ocoee January 25, 1996 Page 3 6. The sixth comment pertained to the term "service station". As part of our response, we will define both categories: gasoline\service station and convenience market with gasoline pumps. First, gasoline\service station's primary function is fueling. It may or may not include facilities for service and repair of motor vehicles. Examples of this are Exxon and Amoco. Second, convenience markets with gasoline pumps primary business is the selling of convenience items not the fueling of motor vehicles. Examples of this are 7-Eleven and Circle K. It is also important to understand the independent variable in calculating the road impact fee for these uses which is "vehicle fueling position". Vehicle fueling position is the number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously. 7. We recommend that all road impact fees be calculated by the same people who have been determining these fees in the past and reviewed and approved by Ms. Montye Beamer prior to issuing a building permit. This would have a significant role in keeping the system consistent across the board and will eliminate any misinterpretation of the road impact fee land uses, independent variables and fees. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can be of any more assistance. Sincerely, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC Fursan S. Munjed, Associate C:I WP6ODOC\OE2391 IPACTF4.wpd cc: Ken Hooper, PEC P°T") IY MEMORANDUM TO: Montye Beamer, Director of Administration Services FROM: Jim Washington, Plans Examiner DATE: December 12 , 1995 J `� SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Fee Draft Comments I do not pretend to understand the projection methods for traffic studies contained in this draft and have not commented on them. My observations begin with Table 15 . Attached is my memor-andum dated February 1 , 1994 t.:'-_ ch till i stands as I feel there can be a dingle category for shopping centers/malls to prevent unnecessary bookkeeping . What difference between " Industrial" and "Manufacturin... Does "Walk-In Bank" just mean a bank without drive-in tellers? Does "DDrive- Tn 9an-:" mean a bank without walk-in facilities? If a banks has both walk-in and drive-in `ac�___ a.- I charge according to the square footage each uses? How would the commonly :ced areas be charged? What are the definitions of "Restaurant Quality" , "Restaurant High Turnover-Sit Down" and "Restaurant Fast Food"?," _ would assume that a "Restaurant Quality" would utilize dishes, utensils and serving ware that are non-deposahle a^._' useable (ex. Pizza ',:t ) . "Restaurant High Turnover-Sit Down" would use disposable serving containers and may or may not have a drive-thru (ex. Taco Bell, McDonalds ) . "Restaurant Fast Food" Would not have sit-down capabilities (ex. Checker ' s ) . Would a delivery only type of restaurant , like Domino' s Pizza, be a "Restaurant Fast Food" ? As we discussed over a year ago, has there been any thought towards listing the road impact fees according to the occupancy ^la^ 4f5r-ations listed in the Standard Building Code? This would insure the building would be utilized according to the occupancy it received the Certificate of Occupancy for . These classifications and their descriptions are attached . Table 15 would reference as follows : Assembly: All Restaurants with occupant load of one hundred, ( 100 ) persons or more. Business : Office. Walk-In Bank . Drive-In Bank. All Restaurants with an occupant load of less than one hundred ( 100 ) persons . Gasoline/Service Station. Educational: Day Care Center which accommodate six (6) or more children . Factory-Industrial: Manufacturing . Industrial. Hazardous : Institutional: Hospital (unrestrained ) . Nursing Home/Bed (unrestrained) . Mercantile: Retail . Convenience Store w/ Gasoline Pumps . Residential: Single Family/Unit . Apartment/Unit . Condominium\Townhouse/Unit . Mobile Home/Unit . Hotel- Mot e l (per room) . storage : Warehousing . Mini-Warehousing . - The term "Service Station" indicated the services of a mechanic are available and repairs to ve� 2 _ 'es are conducted. The ordinance does not specify w`: 1_ responsible for determining the "Land Use Type" and the " _,r_ss Leasable Area" . Nor does this ordinance specify the party responsible for calculating the fees . Who does an applicant apply to have his impact fee reviewed by the Develc�-:r-.e :y_ Review Committee (Ellen?? ) ? I point this out to prevent r r y -lis-understandings in the future. Note that §87-11 states fee is due for a building permit for a new building . As written, a developer/builder could permit a building as a warehouse and at a later date change it to a retail store without paying road impact fees for a retail use. If you have any questions or comments , please contact me . Ocoee "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE' hu rort.opQo vER O\ 1.4.P4)%a SCOTT'VANDERCRIFT I CITY OF OCOEE Rusl` o�v COMMISSIONERS v ej. p150 N.LAKESHORE DRIVE PAUL W.POSTER OCOEE FLORIDA 34761-2258 VERN COMBS (407)6562322 E4 �J JIM GLEASON OF 0000 arnkusuaER MEMORANDUM ELI.IS SHAPIRO 4.]: TO: MONTYE BEAMER, DIRECTOR OF ADM �. �'• TIVE SERVICES FROM: JIM WASHINGTON, PLANS EXAMINEp4 DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1994 SUBJECT: RE-EVALUATION OF METHOD FO•W! ULATING FOR SHOPPING CENTERS TNG I would like to request a re-evaluation of the method for calculating water and sewer impact fees when dealing with shopping centers. As an example, each time there„ i.s a tenant change on the Trycon Property, I will have to re-work^'the impact fees as per the new use. This will create a need for additional method of filing to track these changes. The actual tracking of these fees and E.R.U. 's should be a Finance/Water department responsibility similar to the ERU tracking being done for single family residences. I am still of the opinion that shopping centers should be charged by One E.R.U. Factor (which is "Shopping Center and Retail Shopping" 0.5 per 1000 gross square feet) regardless of the distribution of uses, i.e. , retail, restaurant, office, etc. . for example, the Albertson's Center is 66,873 square feet. 66873/1000 x .5 = 33 .4 E.R.U. 's The difference between the actual ERU's which was 25.3 and this method is 8 . 1 ERU's. Is this enough for future occupational changes? An additional example is Good Homes Plaza. The capacity as established by fixture unit count 115 ERU's of water and 110 ERU's of sewer were pre-purchased. If a single factor has been used, it would have been based on 163,440 square feet. 163400/1000 x .5 = 81 . 7 ERU As of this date, Good Homes Plaza has used 84 .4 ERU's of water and 82 . 9 ERU's of sewer. I am confident a survey of shopping center capacity comparing actual or separate occupancy against a single factor method will show the single factor method to be "close enough for government work" . Perhaps it could be applied to Road Impact fees as well though I must admit that I do not understand how these fees are based. Page 2 Montye Beamer February 1, 1994 In closing, there are arguments for both methods; however, unless capacity is a& exact science, the single one-time factor would save man-hours .:-41filing. 16 JW/s. • B30-1 ASSDIBLY OCCUPANCY - GROUP A P301 . 1 SCOPE B304 . 1 . 1 Group A occupancy is the use of a building or structure , or any poit- ion thereof , for the gathering together of persons for purposes such as civic , social or religious functions or for recreation , or for food or drink consumption or awaiting transportation . B301 . 1 . 2 Group A occupancy shall include , among others , the following : Amusement Park Buildings Passenger Depots Auditoriums Public Asserbb Halls Churches Recreation Hal ; Dance Halls Restaurants G;. mnasiurns Stadiums and Grandstands pi : t. _iie Theaters Tents for Asseni.i 'P. se nms. Theaters for Product ion B305 BUSINESS OCCUPANCY - PRC;; '3V; . : SCOPE vccupancis the use of a tial tcil : . . structure , or any ,; tion 11he : Fof , for office , professional , or ser * c type transactions C• 7 ilal accessor and the� storage ,:%'ei _- iitt75 and accounts . . _ Group B occupancy shall include , among _ the following : ` ;S inla i hospi La , s , kennels , pounds aid other motor vehicle showrooms or::c.hl ie or other vehicle service stations Beauty shops i,c, i ing alleys • , i i;a s h e s Yi \ ic administration areas : :sic. : - outpatient La ic. aning ; pick-up and delivery stat. ions and -.elf-service Educational occupancies above the 12th grade Electronic data processing areas nurseries acnc ;. al post offices iatories ; testing and research ( nonhazardous ; i c pickup and delivery stations and self-service 1;. ( other than school ) Office buildings Police stations Print shops Prof •ssianal services ; attorney , dentists , physician , engineer , etc . i(adio and television stations 12- 1 -phone exchanges Assembly occupancies with an occupant i oa less than 100 persons i classified as Group B . B306 EDUCATIONAL OCCUPANCY - GROUP E h30(3 . 1 SCOPE i306 . 1 . 1 Group E occupancy is the use of a building or structure , or any portion thereof , by six or more per,.c1.:., al, any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade . I'7U( . 1 . 2 Child care facilities which accommodate six or more children, of cuage who stay less than 24 hours per day shall be classified as Group E . P306 . 1 . 3 Parts of buildings used for the congregating or gathering of 100 c: i more persons in one room shall L, L : assified as Group A occupancy , regardless of whether or not such gathering is of an educational or instructional nature . 0G . I . I Schools for bus in1c. ss or _ :al training shall be classified tE:c same occupancies and conform to thy(, same requirements as the trade , . al ion or business taught , pro-, id( d the concentration of person c'.ceed that listed in B1003 for the :cupancy classification used . B307 FACTORY-INDUSTRI:L OCCUPANCY - GROUP F } SCOPE Group F occupancy is use of n building or structure , or c1n . portion thereof , for assembling , dissembling , repairing , fabricating , nishing , manufacturing , packaging .1 processing operations that 1:' not herwise classified in this code . Group F occupancy 1 _ 1,. , among others , the oc:cupauc i e. : , steel in this section , but does Jo; i1:,_ lude buildings used prirtcipaliy fel purpose involving high; .iL _%,: 1 i_: , , flammable , or e\p ios i. ( products or materials . See B308 . :Assembly- Plant Factory Manufacturing Plant Mill Processing Plant B308 HAZARDOUS OCCUPANCY - GROUP H 308 . 1 SCOPE Group I1 occupancy is the principal use of a building or structure , or any , ortion thereof , that involves the manufacturing , processing , generation , Drage , or other use of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt tua,itities listed in this section . B309 INSTITUTIONAL OCCUPANCY - GROUP I 1,309 . 1 GROUP I UNRESTRAINED OCCUPANCY Group I Unrestrained includes buildings or portions thereof used for medical , - u: gical , psychiatric , nursing , or custodial care on a 24 hour basis of six ,r more persons who are not capable of self-preservation and shall include among others : Detoxification facilities Hospitals Mental hospitals Nursing homes ( both intermediaie care facilities and skilled nursing facilities ) Facilities such as the above with five or less persons not ancillary to other s shall be classified as a residential occupancy . {O9 . 2 GROUP I RESTRAINED OCCUPANCY �.. I Restrained includes buildings or portions thereof which provide . eeping accommodations for six or more persons under some degree of estraint or security who are generally incapabl of self-preservation due to . a; ity- measures not under the pa s control and shall include among ':urrcctional Institutions Detention Centers Jails t;eforn atories : CEPTION : Group 1 Restrained ;uitlifying for Use Condition i may be classified as a Group R occupancy . B310 MERCANTILE OCCUPANCY - GROUP M C . 1 SCOPE oup 'i occupancy is the use of .L building or structure or any portion e ecf , for the display and sale of merchandise including stocks of goods , - , ;-es or merchandise incidcn; all Io such purposes and accessible to the public :nd shall include , among others , the following : Department stores Shopping centers Drug stores Sales rooms Markets Wholesale stores ( other than warehouses ) Retail stores j B311 RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY - GROUP R B311 . 1 SCOPE Group R occupancy is the use of a building or structure , or arra portion thereof, for sleeping accommodations not classed as a Group I occupancy. B311 . 2 SUBCLASSIFICATIONS Group R occupancies shall include , among others , the following : R1 : Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily transient in nature including : Boarding housir, ( Li ansieiit ) Hotels Motels R2 : Multiple .1t•.r l : n.gs where the occupants are prima ; i i permanent in nature , i.,c i nd Apartment house. Convents Dor•mitor:, fug i ; : ies which accommodate six or more persons of more than 2 1/2 ;ears of agt :.1,o stay more than 24 Lour •, i'raternit ie and sororities Monasteries Rectories Rooming houses ( not transient ) R3 : Residential npan,_ ies including the follo:. ir,b : Child care facilities which accommodate five or i _ _.ilildren of any age for any L i me p , i od . One and two family dwellings where the Feu .,. ,_..,, ; . .::::idly permanent in nature and not classified as R1 , R2 , or Rooming ho,tses ( l.r ;,s leaf ) • B312 STORAGE OCCUPANCY - GROCi' B,312 . 1 SCOPE Group S occupancy is the principal use of a building or structure , or any portion thereof , for storage that is not classed as a Group H occupancy or used for the purpose of sheltering animals . L INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide an annual review of the Cityof Ocoee's Road Impact Fee. The report provides a review of the conditions, assumptions, and projections used in the modeling analysis and assures that the resulting road impact fees are current, reasonable and technically defensible. Specifically, this report addresses an update of the City of Ocoee's transportation model, an assessment of the existing traffic conditions, the development of future (year 2010) socio- economic data, a projection of future roadway conditions, a review of key assumptions (such as trip generation and highway construction costs), and the recalculation of the road impact fee table. The socio-economic data contained in this report has been utilized by the City in amending the Comprehensive Plan concerning the Lake Lotta Mall DRI and the Lake Lotta Center DRI. The socio-economic data has also been utilized by the City in its recent update of its Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Application and the City's Master Water Plan update. Due to the detailed review and analysis of the transportation element of the aforementioned DRI's and subsequent approval of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the traffic analysis is deemed accurate and reliable for the purpose of updating the City's Road Impact Fees. The following sections of this report document the technical analysis utilized to determine the revised road impact fee schedule. TRANSPORTATION MODEL UPDATE In order to provide an accurate assessment of existing and future transportation network conditions, the City of Ocoee requested that the City's existing transportation model, originally developed in 1989, be validated to assure accuracy in modeling future conditions. The following paragraphs outline the major tasks required to perform this effort. Review Existing 1993 Socio-Economic Data Socio-economic data for the City of Ocoee's area of influence, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, was initially reviewed to identify any potential errors in the zonal data. A total of two data sets were reviewed as part of this procedure. The first data set contained the Orlando Metropolitan Regional 1993 socio-economic(S/E)data, which was interpolated from the regionally approved year 1985 and year 2010 Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (OUATS) data sets. These data sets reflect the approved data provided by the Orlando Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). - The second data set contained the 1993 City of Ocoee S/E data, which was interpolated from the City of Ocoee 1990 and 1997 S/E data sets. Based on our review of the assumptions only one adjustment was necessary. The retail employment in the City of Ocoee data was adjusted from 0.96 retail employees per 1,000 square feet to 2.5 retail employees per 1,000 square feet to be consistent with the OUATS standard assumptions. F:kler\env\oe\oe-239\TRflMF E(12/07/95) L 1 Existing OUATS and Ocoee zonal equivalents were established to compare the data for merging. This data must be merged in order to accurately validate the model, which must not only accurately reflect conditions within Ocoee, but reflect the impact of regional growth on Ocoee. The merging of zonal structures and the relationship to the network is shown in Table 1. As an added measure of accuracy, the zonal data was "proofed" against the current REDI maps. Any inconsistencies or inaccuracies were discussed with the City Staff. Table 2 details the discrepancies found in the data sets as a result of this review. Changes were made based on City Staff and Consultants review. The final Ocoee area zonal data is summarized in Table 3. The changes made to the data set have improved significantly the accuracy of the Ocoee Transportation Model. 1995 Base Year Network The existing 1995 roadway network was developed from the 2010 OUATS "Existing plus Committed" (E + C) network. This E + C network was scaled down to the 1995 existing conditions. The past Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) were reviewed to add any major improvements which have been implemented within the region since the previous update of model development. The 1995 existing conditions network was expanded by 100 zones to incorporate the detailed Ocoee zonal structure in lieu of the more general OUATS zonal structure. Model Validation The iterative process of validation of the FSUTMS model was performed to produce a transportation model which replicates existing traffic counts and travel patterns within reasonable and acceptable tolerances. These acceptable tolerances were evaluated by comparing the deviation of model volumes to ground counts on a "link by link" basis. The deviation was measured by calculating volume-to-count rations and the root mean square of error (RMSE) between model generated and ground count volumes. Table 4 presents a summary comparison of model forecast volumes to actual traffic counts. Additional adjustments to the S/E data and roadway network were made under the review of City Staff to achieve the final validated Ocoee Transportation Model. The changes made to the socio-economic data and network significantly improved the accuracy of the model for the City of Ocoee study area. A RMSE of 17% was reached. An overall ratio of-3.94% of ground counts to model generated volumes was also achieved in the model validation. Both of these statistics are well within the acceptable transportation engineering/planning ranges for model development. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS In order to ensure that the future roadway improvements are not required because of existing deficit traffic conditions, it is necessary to assess existing traffic conditions. Table 5 presents an existing daily Level of Service analysis for the roadway network. I F:\der\env\oe\oe-239\TRflMPFE(12/07/95) 2 Table 1 -T- City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update Zonal Structure Conversion I New New Original Ocoee/ TCG Original Ocoee/ - TCG OUATS OUATS Network OUATS OUATS Network 221 199 820 266 819 863 221 221 * 816 861 266 266 222 201 822 200 821 267 817 864 222 222 * 267 267 250 202 823 268 818 862 250 250 ** 268 268 251 251 251 269 767 846 269 269 I 254 254 254 270 758 837 255 203 824 270 270 255 255 * 271 759 838 256 204 825 271 271 I 205 826 206 827 272 766 845 207 828 760 839 I 209 830 272 272 208 829 256 256 273 762 841 I 761 840 257 638 834 273 273 257 257 * II 274 763 842 258 679 835 274 274 258 258 ** 261 261 261 301 764 843 301 301 I262 262 262 302 765 844 302 302 263 812 858 813 857 654 774 847 814 859 775 848 263 263 776 849 778 870 3 I Table 1 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update Zonal Structure Conversion New New Original Ocoee/ TCG Original Ocoee/ TCG OUATS OUATS Network OUATS OUATS Network 264 793 855 777 850 792 854 654 654 264 264 655 779 851 265 815 860 781 853 757 836 780 852 265 265 655 655 * Denotes zones where a portion of the OUATS zone is not completely within the Occ Boundaries. In this case the appropriate Ocoee S/E data is subtracted from the origii OUATS data and the remainder is included in this zone. ** Remainder calculated as negative and replaced with zero. I I I I I 4 1 Table 2 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update S/E Data Discrepancies and Solutions Zone Problem Change 251 School enrollment not included. Inserted 331 enrollment. 263 Under—estimated land use. None. 264 Over—estimated land use. Changed Single—Family Dwelling l 267 Insufficient land use. Changed Service Employment to 3; 762 School enrollment not included. Inserted 576 enrollment. • Over—estimated land use. Changed Single—Family Dwelling l Insufficient Retail Employment. Replaced with 40 retail employees. 765 School enrollment not included. Inserted 923 enrollment and 77 sen 779 School enrollment not included. Inserted 2963 enrollment. 815 School enrollment not included. Inserted 2304 enrollment. 813 Over—estimated land use. Removed all land use from zone. 812 Over—estimated land use. Removed all land use from zone. 814 Insufficient Retail Employment. Replaced with 435 retail employees 111 I I 5 Table 3 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update Social—Economic Data by Zone Network Single Family Multi—Family Indust. Comm. Service Total School Zone DU's Pop. DU's Pop. Emp. Emp. Emp. Emp. Enroll. 221 1,199 3,488 175 464 214 4 80 298 0 222 499 1,423 51 123 204 40 191 435 70 II 250 26 35 4 10 144 0 77 141 0 251 372 1,179 151 382 2,047 0 13 2,060 331 254 16 57 0 0 0 987 0 987 0 II 255 129 325 248 547 78 297 327 702 57 256 151 372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 928 2,170 119 235 17 0 183 200 426 I 258 421 1,054 757 1,879 11 0 4 0 111 261 420 1,273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 262 492 1,289 66 196 0 112 0 112 0 I 263 401 1,176 0 0 0 0 66 66 0 264 314 870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 29 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 264 788 0 0 379 0 0 379 0 267 12 23 0 0 0 0 373 373 0 268 18 51 0 0 951 0 0 951 0 I 269 321 948 0 0 168 716 0 884 0 270 533 1,617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 626 1,980 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 I 272 307 766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 498 1,414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 274 56 141 0 0 0 74 150 224 22 I 301 747 2,345 0 0 7 100 100 207 234 302 625 1,925 89 172 14 13 0 0 0 654 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 145 I 655 0 0 0 0 527 10 181 718 0 820 51 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 821 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 822 29 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 823 396 1,110 0 0 0 130 0 130 0 824 63 180 0 0 0 104 12 116 0 I825 3 4 0 0 0 156 68 224 0 826 12 32 0 0 93 648 35 776 0 827 1 2 0 0 0 101 216 317 0 I828 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 0 829 151 320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 830 72 161 261 691 0 0 0 0 0 I834 478 1,111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 6 Table 3 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update Social—Economic Data by Zone IINetwork Single Family Multi—Family Indust. Comm. Service Total School Zone DU's Pop. DU's Pop. Emp. Emp. Emp. Emp. Enroll. 835 226 642 0 0 0 137 0 137 0 836 107 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 837 618 1,720 0 0 10 36 27 73 0 838 603 1,723 180 549 0 0 0 0 0 839 449 1,182 0 0 0 135 0 135 0 840 677 1,888 57 149 0 0 0 0 0 841 250 547 54 139 0 40 189 229 576 842 172 492 0 0 0 26 0 26 0 843 125 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 844 11 32 0 0 0 0 77 77 923 845 156 404 0 0 0 135 0 135 0 I 846 222 638 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 847 157 413 0 0 0 118 0 118 0 848 72 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 849 29 65 0 0 0 0 148 148 0 850 80 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 851 28 57 0 0 50 0 92 142 2,963 I 852 35 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 853 438 1,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 854 440 1,242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 855 81 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 859 0 0 0 0 0 435 0 435 0 860 319 846 0 0 0 0 425 425 2,304 861 116 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 862 158 423 0 0 120 88 0 208 0 863 1 3 0 0 0 57 114 171 0 864 1 3 0 0 0 409 30 439 0 870 301 890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I C I C7 Table 4 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update ET: .: Validation Summary Number Existing Model Volume/ Roadway From To of Lanes Source Count Volume Count(%) IA.D.Mims Road Wurst Rd Clarke Rd 2 OCOEE 7,343 5,051 —31.21% Clarke Rd Apopka—Vineland 2 OCOEE 5,950 5,421 —8.89% Adair Street Wurst Rd Clarcona—Ocoee Rd 2 OCOEE 1,500 1,541 2.73% Apopka—Vineland Road Silver Star Rd A.D.Mims Rd 2 OCOEE 12,031 9,951 —17.29% A.D.Mims Rd Clarcona—Ocoee Rd 2 COUNTY 9,236 9,126 —1.19% Clarcona—Ocoee Rd McCormick Rd 2 OCOEE 12,765 14,628 14.59% Bluford Avenue S.R.50 Geneva St 2 OCOEE 9,100 8,500 —6.59% Geneva St White Rd 2 OCOEE 11,110 9,412 —15.28% White Rd McKey St 2 OCOEE 9,800 6,778 —30.84% McKey St Silver Star Rd 2 OCOEE 11,557 8,285 —28.31% Bowness Road Kissimmee Ave Silver Star Rd 2 COUNTY 13,000 16,920 30.15% EClarcona—Ocoee Road Silver Star Rd Wurst Rd 2 OCOEE 7,965 8,385 5.27% Wurst Rd Ingram Rd 2 OCOEE 4,380 4,600 5.02% Ingram Rd Apopka—Vineland Rd 2 COUNTY 4,270 4,537 6.25% l , Clarke Road S.R.50 White Rd 4 GJKALR 8,788 7,944 —9.60% White Rd Silver Star Rd 4 GJKALR 9,533 10,445 9.57% Silver Star Rd A.D.Mims Rd 4 GJKALR 5,988 5,512 —7.95% Flewelling Street Ocoee Hills Rd Russell Dr 2 OCOEE 2,800 2,730 —2.50% Fullers Cross Road Ocoee—Apopka Rd Clarcona—Ocoee Rd 2 OCOEE 7,499 3,627 —51.63% I Geneva Street Kissimmee Rd Bluford Rd 2 OCOEE 6,799 8,392 23.43% Good Homes Road S.R.50 White Rd 2 GJKALR 9,044 8,377 —7.38% White Rd Silver Star Rd 2 COUNTY 6,963 5,458 —21.61% [ Johio Shores Road Silver Star Rd A.D.Mims Rd 2 OCOEE 449 573 27.62% Kissimmee Avenue Maguire Rd Bowness Rd 2 OCOEE 13,703 11,906 —13.11% Maguire Road Gotha Rd Robertson Rd 2 OCOEE 8,338 5,273 —36.76% Robertson Rd Tomyn Rd 2 OCOEE 8,560 8,018 —6.33% Tomyn Rd Professional Pkwy 2 OCOEE 9,155 10,155 10.92% I Professional Pkwy S.R 50 2 OCOEE 12,013 11,813 —1.66% S.R.50 Story Rd 2 OCOEE 14,439 12,753 —11.68% Marshall Farms Rd SR 50 Maguire Rd 2 OCOEE 3,884 6,683 72.06% McKey Street Kissimmee Ave Bluford Ave 2 OCOEE 4,200 3,584 —14.67% Ocoee—Apopka Rd Silver Star Rd West Road 2 OCOEE 6,818 7,140 4.72% II West Road McCormick Rd 2 COUNTY 11,082 11,715 5.71% Ocoee Hills Road Silver Star Rd Flewelling St 2 OCOEE 2,800 2,730 —2.50% IIOld Winter Garden Road S.R.50 Blackwood Ave 2 OCOEE 7,878 7,779 —1.26% I , _ 8 I Table 4 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update Validation Summary Number Existing Model Volume/ Roadway From To of Lanes Source Count Volume Count(%) Blackwood Ave Hempel Ave 2 OCOEE 13,768 10,414 —24.36% Professional Parkway Maguire Rd Old Winter Garden Rd 2 OCOEE 3,423 3,728 8.91% Russell Drive Flewelling St Willow Creek Rd 2 OCOEE 3,200 2,164 —32.38% S.R.50(West Colonial Dr.) 9Th St Wofford Rd 4 OCOEE 32,441 33,387 2.92% Wofford Rd Maguire Rd 4 OCOEE 35,300 35,472 0.49% I Maguire Rd Old Winter Garden Rd 4 COUNTY 35,000 29,177 —16.64% Old Winter Garden Rd Clarke Rd 4 OCOEE 29,300 28,749 —1.88% Clarke Rd Good Homes Rd 4 COUNTY 29,097 29,006 —0.31% S.R 438(Silver Star Rd.) East Crown Point Bowness Rd 4 OCOEE 10,400 8,668 —16.65% Bowness Rd Bluford Ave 4 OCOEE 8,500 8,910 4.82% Bluford Ave Clarke Rd 2 OCOEE 10,500 9,817 —6.50% I Clarke Rd Good Homes Rd 2 OCOEE 13,906 12,718 —8.54% Story Road 9Th St Wofford Rd 2 OCOEE 6,430 6,595 2.57% Wofford Rd Kissimmee Ave 2 COUNTY 7,279 7,042 —3.26% I White Road Bluford Ave Clarke Rd 2 GJKALR 4,590 4,614 0.52% Clarke Rd Good Homes Rd 2 OCOEE 5,168 6,314 22.17% Willow Creek Rd Russell Dr Wurst Rd 2 OCOEE 2,700 2,340 —13.33% Wurst Rd Clarcona—Ocoee Rd A.D.Mims Rd 2 OCOEE 6,237 5,178 —16.98% Percent Root—Mean—Square Error: 17.00% Acceptable Level of Accuracy: <100% Average Volume/Count Ratio: —3.94% I I I I I I 9 I The traffic count data presented in these tables was collected from a number of different sources. These sources include the City of Ocoee, Florida Department of Transportation, Orange County, and recent development (DRI) related traffic studies in the Ocoee area. The service volumes utilized for this existing conditions analysis were derived from service volumes contained in the previous Ocoee Road Impact Fee Study, Ocoee Comprehensive Plan, Orange County Traffic Circulation Element and the Florida Department of Transportation service volumes. As can be seen in Tables 5 and 6 the existing roadway network in the City of Ocoee currently operates at acceptable Levels of Service with the exception of a segment of State Route(SR) 50, which currently operates at Level of Service "F". This segment, from Wofford Road to Maguire Road, due to its existing deficiency, is not eligible for impact fee funding. Road impact fees cannot be spent on facilities that currently operate at unacceptable Levels of Service. That portion of the existing deficiency as part of the improved roadway capacity must be funded from other sources. This is not currently an issue, as the City of Ocoee does not fund State facilities as part of its their impact fee ordinance. The City may elect to fund the improvement of County roads that effect development within the City or the Joint Planning Area. It should be noted from the Lake Lotta Center and Lake Lotta Mall DRI transportation modeling that when analyzed under a travel time and delay measurement, the SR 50 segment in question operates at acceptable Levels of Service as defined by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Based upon the analysis contained in this technical report, all roadway facilities within the City of Ocoee study area that are potential impact fee facilities currently operate at acceptable Levels of Service. FUTURE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA For the purposes of this road impact fee update, the socio-economic study area was defined to encompass the entire Ocoee planning area as described in the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan and the Joint Planning Areas Agreement (JPA) with Orange County. Tables 1 and 3 (previously presented) contain the base socio-economic data utilized to validate the Ocoee Transportation Model. In order to accurately predict future traffic conditions, it was necessary to project future socio-economic variables such as dwelling units, industrial employment, commercial employment, service employment, total employment and school enrollment. Tables 7 and 8 present the adjustments made to the socio-economic base data for the two target 1 years, 1997 and 2010. The 1997 and 2010 target years were developed based on the completion date of the Lake Lotta Mall (1997) and the twenty year planning period contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Table 7, which contains the 1997 data adjustments, was developed for three purposes. 1997 was the target year for the previous road impact fee update, thus it was deemed a reasonable target year to gauge future projections. Phase 1 of the planned Lake Lotta/Homart regional mall project is anticipated for the year 1997. It was necessary to develop the transportation model for that year to determine if any immediate roadway improvements were required due to the anticipated regional mall project traffic. The 1997 model run also I F:W erlenv\oeloe-239\TRFIMPFE(12/07/95) 10 IW Y g f ♦ ♦ N N 4 4 g g g g g 8 8 8 8 § § § § § § 1i & § & & o d d 0 of d d d a e a o 0 0 0 g g g o d o ci ei o R d d of It '' 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 . . . • 0 0 0 0 g M U) o 10 0 0 1) d o d 8 88 § 3 3 25 25 k ', ci a 0 J g cc 2 I b 2 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a 2 I r g O J O U U U O U O 0 m m m O U U U 0 0 0 U U O U U U U O U U r! 1§ g1 ) gFIRR11611111111 " 114 I g W > 1 2 ggyy § 0 O W W W W O O 0 O W W W W O O O W W W W W W O O O 0 I 1 f<8S N N N N N N N N N d N N N N f • WO/ N N N N N 01010101 10 I to U O A1 a ttt3��� r 1 v '¢ cc pec Q Y ¢ Q 2 amt cc o Q ¢ Q o 2 i55 b F U U 1 C3 t i c Fo i 2t t/) 1 a U m S 1 2 ! a 0 o cc s O < R oto: ce a X Q cc cc cc Z 9 I' Q v g 1 a� v ai 1 .7 2 S v g S , 1 v 9 Q 2 e iiCI 2 Q M Q II N�g 2 Q pggl $$ a$ a Q _ 1 ami y Li a�—i 6 6 52 u�i a�-i I tiiCC I- LcIcc 1cc cc a • i cc I 1 t;' A 1 I I I l 1 i cc 11 V o o y o 0 0 • • • • 0 in o 0 R y o o .n 0 0 0 0 0 a El r isa 0 - 00000w 0 0 m m m 0 0 0 m m m 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL W 111 1 4151 :1 IPAIaPoiliiin1g11 ; ! 111 o 2 0 0 W w w w 0 0 0 0 W w w w 000w W w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 a m m m m m CO CO m CO CO CO CO CO • O N N N N N N N 01 2 d y I 1a l a 6 6 z z z z e 5 Td i i i 6 6 1. � zzii • 1 oI Is s 1 15 N 01 01 01 N 01 01 01 N 01 N N 01 N f f .14 01 01 N N N 01 N N N 01 01 2 � 4 O H ; 1 ¢ 1 ¢ 1 ¢00 ¢ > ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ v ¢cc Q V cc 1 v I a_ ccV V t v v ¢ 1¢ v o v v 9 g I0y v g v Q v 9 = I v ¢ v v pp ¢ ill e ¢¢ ¢ ¢ y ¢ y ¢ E y c -igN18QtlQNg5O1t 8 Q fN t 2 a cc cc cc 1 cc i• 2 11 12 0 0 0 § 0 O§O 0 O1 C1 0 0 0 1 ♦0 0 § § §. g g § § 0 00.: 0 W r N r N 7 /7 el rze g g W g g $ $ N N ? Oo of? i § O lel. W 0 § § ♦N N N N N § � OC O( O O 6 6 ? & !1 & O ^ N O 17 AO N N F. O' N g g g g f i fV N O O W PJ O fr § W § F g g § O § g IIU o 0 o c o 0 0 t ui vi vi r g g 0 0 d o o o vi c § § § iS g v31 3 g Nd 3 § g g a 00 m I I O O N I `O I I I N N N d g N d- d 7: 7: I I I 1 § N at § § 2S 25 § §9 r d 0 Cj < I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I II a O I A g ¢ 9 s -9 0 i Is I o e Z 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z Z y°1� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 QZ O O O N > Z 2 2 2 Z Z 2 2 2 2 2 Z t ill E cc 9 0 O O 0 U < n O U m U U o o w o 0 U << < m o < < U o n U I N N 7 WI' Iii 8 g y�Q g .- el � ♦ N N Y W 1 =i i § 000w00W W W W WOO O O O O O O O W O O O W O I • N N N N N N N N N N N f r r f r ♦ f N N N N N N N N 10 s 1 1 9 $$ i 15I U 1 j Ti 15 I H 22 I cc Q cc • cl Q S cc cr i < c-2 1 ' 1 1 I ,*2 g . Q 11 < v v CC < °• a. t cc l 1 a 01 al3 01 al m 1 LL i i 1 O 1 wal 1 1 Si i 3 1 a cc cccc cc q Ix : I a.a !! 1 Y ° f a I i U v vaacsi ccgg 13 § § § 8 p§p 8 p§p p§p 8 R § § § § § § § §_ k fi k k P R§ W .t 7 d 7. N .- W l7 l9 g g g g oYf g N N d f f O & § § N § § § § N ♦N♦ O N § § � N§ pp § § § § Y § 0 N W o H N F.W W O Od g g W g tg 4 �f N O /D of t9 O Pf 1 3 O O 6 N N ? 7 N N O 3 § § O W § ? ? O O N § U O O to: O O N b o b N W 0 W W tl O d 'c o 0 0 o vi o m I Itri i I '6 I 1 I i8 dg 'g Si c°$ c'$ a s . I I I I E a 8 § § § g. V < I I ai I N I O o I I I I I I I vi c o I I I I i a 1p LL U < U O U m 0 0 U 0 LL 0 U U < < m 0 < < 0 U U U L .1i '4g - 0411 / P, § l. 1a 1i110IiiI o ul I 0I st Et 0 0 W 0 0 W W W W W o O 0000000W 0 0 0 W 0 a a 0 0000W ! ! ! < W N N < < l7 l0 a 1 • z § 11412 V1 co z 2 2 I 2 2 2 2 .i 9 2 f 2 f 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 f 11 I$o -5 5 - 6 6 6 6 , 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 ti f f 2 2 2 2 2 P 2 £ 2 £ f £ 2 2 2 f 2 4 I 0 115 01 01 01 01 Cl 01 01 N N Cl Cl Cl 01 Al Cl 01 01 01 I co cc c cc Q 1 I Y a 8 < `e ! ¢ ¢ a vcc 1 3 cc ¢ v I Q ho u.i cc 1 < 9 I LC Li Li i m m = L p¢ s ¢ Cr < ¢ ¢ < s¢ 0 co f/1 .l 41 o LL U W : . 4 T ¢ 1 O O O cc jJ . cc • 1 14 I Table 7 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update 1997 S/E Data Discrepancies and Solutions Ocoee Zone Problem Change 206 Incorrect land use. Changed Retail Employees to 84. Changed Service Employment to 503. 251 School Enrollment not included. Inserted 350 enrollment. 264 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 314 DU's. 757 Over—estimated land use. Changed Single Family to 196 DU's. 758 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 709 DU's. 760 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 686 DU's. 762 School Enrollment not included. Inserted 607 enrollment. Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 737 DU's. 765 School Enrollment not included. Inserted 923 enrollment and 77 service em 766 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 354 DU's. 774 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 432 DU's. Changed Retail Employees to 106. 779 School Enrollment not included. Inserted 3837 enrollment. 781 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 310 DU's. 792 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 620 DU's. 793 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 170 DU's. 812 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 328 DU's. Changed Multi—Family to 460 DU's. (Replaced later with Lake Lotta DRI) -8t3' tricorrect land use. Changed-Single-Familyt6172-Dtrs Changed Multi—Family to 617 DU's. (Replaced later with Lake Lotta DRI) I I 15 Table 7 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update 1997 S/E Data Discrepancies and Solutions Ocoee Zone Problem Change 814 Incorrect land use. Removed Single Family DU's from zone. Changed Retail Employment to 435. 815 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 380 DU's. School Enrollment not included. Inserted 3312 enrollment. 816 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 219 DU's. I I I I 16 C assisted in identifying the critical future roadway improvements required in the Ocoee area for programming purposes. Table 8 contains the adjustments made to the base socio-economic data to reflect the year 2010. This data, in conjunction with the base socio-economic data, was used to project future 2010 traffic conditions. YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS In order to complete a year 2010 traffic projection, a transportation network was developed which includes the roadway facilities indicated as required in the City of Ocoee Traffic Circulation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, all facilities listed in the OUATS "Financially Feasible Network" were added to the Ocoee transportation network. Table 9 (previously presented) presents a summary of these network adjustments. Based upon the future year (2010) socio-economic data projections, the validated transportation model and the year 2010 transportation network modifications, the FSUTMS model was run. Traffic was loaded on to the roadway network, and a volume to capacity analysis was conducted for all segments in the impact fee network. Table 10 presents the year 2010 daily traffic projections. In addition, a p.m. peak hour analysis was completed for the year 2010. Table 11 presents the 2010 p.m. peak hour roadway analysis. The analysis contained in these tables indicates the following improvements are required due to projected traffic volumes: 0 Bowness Road - Kissimmee Avenue to Silver Star Road, 4 lane divided. O Clarke Road - Silver Star Road to White Road, 6 lane divided. Ic Maguire Road - Roberson Road to Professional Parkway, 6 lane divided. O Professional Parkway - Maguire Road to Old Winter Garden Road, 4 lane divided. 0 Tomyn Road - Windermere Road to Maguire Road, 2 lane O Roberson Road - Windermere Road to Maguire Road, 2 lane These facilities were reviewed by City Staff and a final list of impact fee improvements were determined. These improvements are presented in the next section of the report, along with the respective facility improvement cost. REVIEW OF KEY ASSUMPTIONS The existing Ocoee Road Impact Fees are based upon a program of roadway and intersection capital improvement needs due to future growth, the cost of these capital improvement projects, the number of additional trips generated by the future land use (year 2010), and the trip generation characteristics of the specific types of land development. In order to adequately update the Ocoee Road Impact Fee Schedule, a review of several key assumptions was completed. The following paragraphs outline a review of trip generation characteristics, new F:kler\envloebo-239V7RFIMPFE(12/07/95) 17 C Table 8 City of Ocoee Transportation Model Update IV. 2010 S/E Data Discrepancies and Solutions Zone Problem Change 206 Incorrect land use. Change Retail Employment to 84. 264 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 314 DU's. 757 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 200 DU's. 758 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 724 DU's. 760 Incorrect land use. Changed Retail Employees to 121. 762 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 950 DU's I 765 School enrollment not included. Inserted 923 enrollment and 77 service employees. 766 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 354 DU's. 774 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 1632. 779 School enrollment not included. Inserted 2963 enrollment and 293 service employment. I781 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family 440 DU's. 792 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 620 DU's. 812 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 328 DU's. 813 Incorrect land use. Changed Multi—Family to 617 DU's. 814 Insufficient Retail Employment. Replaced with 435 retail employees. 816 Incorrect land use. Changed Single Family to 239 DU's. I I I I I 18 I Table 9 City of Ocoee List of Improvements I-s-- Year 2010 Roadway Segment Improvement Source I Clarke Road - SR 50 to Clarcona—Ocoee Road 4 LD Ocoee I Maguire Road Gotha Road to Kissimmee Avenue 4 LD Ocoee I White Road Extension Kissimmee Avenue to Bluford Avenue 2 L Ocoee Tomyn Road Windermere Road to Maguire Road 2 L Ocoee Bowness Road Kissimmee Avenue to SR 438 4 LD Ocoee I Kissimmee Avenue Maguire Road to Bowness Road 4 LD Ocoee Roberson Road Windermere Road to Maguire Road 2 L Ocoee I Johio Shores Road Silver Star Road to A.D. Mims Road 2 L Ocoee IClarcona—Ocoee Road Wurst Road to Apopka—Vineland Road 4 LD OUATS IOld Winter Garden Road SR 50 to Hempel Ave 4 LD OUATS •Star Road Bluford Avenue to Good Homes Road 4 LD OUATS I I I I 1 19 I W V • l7 l7 l7 l9 Pl g l7 7 7 .- l7 t7 Cl g of of o of d of ri ri e d of of gi Fig g g g o g o of of o g g g g O O O N O O O ♦ f ♦ ♦ O O R g g g g g N l9 N N O O g g g g O O O O O O O § fV O § O O will I i i - I i I I i g g Y3 i i i i i i g Xi g g A W a O II I $ a Le, I L t 9 9 9 9 2 2 r g O OO W 00 0 0 LL 0 my (m�f 0 LL O 0 0 0 LL m mm 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 000 0 m LL LL 2 O O N c� I Q f tl 1 E N F. V �1 § fV b Q O N O 0 N V I O I _ .= O C! O O N f )D Cl d O Q A N • N N A C ^ o of O O O O F fV Cl CJ I O O R • 7 y 00W W W W O O O O W W W W O O O O W W W W W W O O O O R IA 01 01 N N N 01 N N N N N N N ♦ N N N N f ♦ ♦ f 1 a I r m a cc cc 1 cc 1 Q , i g . e a 3 3 o Q . . A E I O` ¢2 -0 3 1 6 Q fI ? c� < i /bi . e a r g d a l i d 8E ¢ ¢ u. ¢ ¢ < 2 amt arc °C.D1 13 Crmi act m ¢ y y ¢ E 8 ¢ of -i $ $� ¢ ui z ¢ a s o s I a 0 N A g 1 2 s 2 f V m < 8 8 s '' 5 1 1 iCCI- I CC I I c l Y g < 1 20 I It W X X : rzR S S e : X X X X X $ S S $ • RR i § i § § § a § § R F I R Fig 1 § § § 3 3 i i i § i O X X Pl d d 4O f 12: d X X X X X •4 0 0 0 1D d el !/ P/ O Ol P 6 O § 6 N N F F N N O 6 O O O F F R R i ? P 6 O N 6 U Q7 Qr, o QQ2 2 §0 W. Qg } w n Qs Qco Qcs ppel Q62 Qg ppg ppg QQg o d o 0 o io 0 2F § R § § § § § 3 § 8 § § 8 R 0 °0 K: Ki ' ' . 1 S g 1 1 Ki K: Ki K1 Ki R g R S X 1 1 i 1 1 y 8 d o I a < I I I 3 IIIIIo • gg IC i 9 2222 z2 2 2 2 2 2 $ 2 2 ; 2 ; '' `0 ; 222222222222 B k I 9 9 2 2 9 aO O 8 0 C.) 0 < 00 0 0 CO 0 u. 0� uu U. u U. 0 o 0 m 0 < CO 0 0 O 0 0 • of S g i7 1A Np 5 O 1,1 ♦ P A A o N N A N F. O i O N m A Ol7 • g i� h O d A aO ei (q ri p y� p g N ^ g d O O O P! P II- O O R s 1 -2 § O O O W O O W W W W W O O O O O O O O O W O O O O W O 8 4 I / a 4 .6 ♦ f N N N N N f f N N N N N N N N N • it .1 1 U a FCC gcc v } 1jjIiii 31iiiiIjiijjji1 g < E ¢ v I P LL < d < 1 ; I 1i1 t � Q � ¢ < ¢ p < ¢ O ' I S S w $ ri a 31 _ ill vi � I i acol i 1 � o 1 3 i 6 i i Ya a ccr • il _ l cr U. .b I 21 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 § lig ilg o a of o of oi e a e e a g e id id g g g 2 o g 2 2 2 o g d! g g 0000000000000000000000000000 U o d us o 0 0 • • • • z.-; o R g g m a g a o d a e; g vi ae 00000 0000 0000 m I I I I i i g I I I 14 g 4. i I i ' i I I 4. a g g 8 r i e 0 O W 000 0 0 u {my m 0 m 80 U 0 0 LL co gLL U U 0 0 0 o00 Q0 m LL LL 1 a r RI 0 O N § 1 ♦ ♦ g l i N ! ♦ �§ ♦g N R i O i O l N & i O �g 4 o : O : f O ' N d O 0 8 l9 fV a n O N O l7 g C g 8 04. '- 1 C Ia fp § cOW) Law W 0 0 0 0 W W W W 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 I a CO CO m m m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m m N Cl N N — Cl Cl 01 01 2 N R I 1 I 5 5 s I i s s s s g g s s s s s s 1 $ I I 1 1 6 6 6 2 4 1 $ 1 ; 1 4 4 1 I 1 4 g4 4 4 4 (5 88 888 -e -e -eli888iii 8 88 iii 2 2 2 2 2 1- z m g 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 f 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I a I ~ 6 6 6 6 S 6 6 6 S 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 �' 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U I 7 7 7 7 7 7 MD 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 IV S Cl 01 Cl N Cl 01 Cl Cl N Cl Al N 01 f 01 01 Cl 01 .1. f f O A Ia. Q ¢9 v a o F Q cc- Q Q Q R U 2 s 2 Q a � � � I . .. 1,-, I3271126,- ; i2,� ani � � � 1 � ¢ S ¢ Iv v I ¢ v E ¢ IC-T a < U ai a . a 4 O 4 m ¢ I- III 1 g ¢ d j* � 1 15 t I < ¢ L a y 03 El 1 llii ilt 22 W tg f7 o 7fR g g . g g g i x g g g s d d ♦ • ♦ f N NY 7 O ? O § O § § § N N N N N O �O( § O 6 O & & i § ? O WjW W d fll7 d 4 I O d g ♦ Y ♦/7 ♦ I 'f l i d d /7 eiVl d d O O O O O N N F A N N O O § O O A F F A & ? O O P N O O g g o 4 .4 o h g g b ui a g g g g d o d O o d 3y� c'Q Q § A A A 3 3 A AA Ap a A APR R 01 N I 4 1 .5 1 g g 1 1 g iQ d g i� fV g r N 7f I I I I I g < 1 I I N I N 1 .z . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .z d o 1 1 1 1 1 O O O 0 < 0 0 0 01 0 LL 0 LL LL LL LL O 10 m 01 U < O U< 000 2 i l3 N mi d O N N l9 ei O tr ♦ l9 W N N N ^ d d d d l9 14 r O I 0 AAAA 8000W 00W IMUJUJIL 00000000 O0000W O I ; 00 01 m m m m < < < < 0 < < I 0 - .- 0 N N CO O N O cc 11 3 O O O O F 3 14 6 ] 1 4 ; z z 4 4 4 1 : 4 1 1 1 1 i I I L L i S f i ] L L I A L L L L L L L 3 3 f f 3 3 3 ii I i0 _ i - 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 II 6 6 DD 7 7 7 a 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 DM 7 7 7 ..cO N N N N N V' 0. N N VVVVVVVVV N N N N N N N Q V$I 4 115 00 ft g s 0 c cc c ; ft -0 cc 8 cc 3 cc FL. i : " 12 v 1 1 13i u) as 2 1 1 1 g i i I 3 1 I I 2 1 I I 3 2 d I I :1 cc 13 te u.EEl < . Q < � � $ EE �n °C m $ tcc" cr.8 6 tF d M N I i i i N 1 1 O ' 3 W I a 1 P ; 3 i 1 I g i . i, 0 S I O: f0O Q g $ o a . Y 0 $ 11S. 126 2' O a a w ¢ i am 23 I W O 1 U m E 4. 1 i 1 e ; 0 q o t O Or t A I a 1 1 C7 E a v 0 6 : r N T. - ; 4 G w r a LL 2 i a i r 5 dig l 6 r I g E � a LL o`aII ! a §LL �P- 1 I01 CI N N 24 I trips generated by anticipated development, and the list of impact fee network facility capital improvements with updated costs. Trip Generation Characteristics The two (2) key components of trip generation characteristics used in impact fee development are 1) trip generation, and 2) percent primary trips. As in the previous update, the Institute of Transportation Engineers OM) Trip Generation Manual (5th edition) was utilized to determine appropriate trip generation rates. The data provided in updates to the ITE report were used to adjust the trip generation rates used in the impact fee schedule. The second key component is the percent primary trip factor exhibited by the respective land use. For every land use a percentage of primary trips and a percentage of trips which are diverted or attracted from the existing traffic stream can be calculated. The most applicable to the City and current best available data for this factor of new trip generation is data developed by the Orange County Office of Capital Facilities, as well as the current ITE reports. As consistent with the City's existing impact fee analysis and concurrency system, these documents were used in this impact fee update. Number of Primary Trips The City of Ocoee Road Impact Fee system is an "improvements driven" system, based upon future network improvements and generation of future trips. Thus, the number of primary trips is critical to the calculation of the impact fees. The cost of the network capital improvements is divided by the number of primary trips to arrive at a "cost per new trip". The existing trips generated by the City of Ocoee transportation model currently totals 202,230 trips. Table 12 contains the number of trips generated per traffic zone by the year 2010 modeling of the future socio-economic data totaling 446,476 trips. The number of primary trips is calculated by subtracting the existing trips from the future trips. This results in the number of trips to be generated by future growth. The number utilized in this update is 244,246 new trips. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS Three (3) basic roadway cost items are used to develop the cost of capital improvements on the impact fee transportation network. These include the cost of construction, engineering, and right-of-way. The unit costs used for developing the estimated cost of facility improvements are shown in Table 13. These unit costs are based upon the physical characteristics of the roadway facilities' cross section and the length of the respective improvement. Each capital improvement project has been estimated based on unit costs, ROW requirements, known drainage constraints and a 10% contingency. I F:\eler\env\oe\oe-239\TRFIMP E(12/07/95) 25 ITable 12 City of Ocoee 2010 Model Trips by Type Ocoee Network Intra- External Total I Zone Zone Trips Trips Trips 199 820 2 532 534 200 821 944 10,400 11,344 201 822 112 6,086 6,198 202 823 54 3,426 3,480 203 824 246 12,740 12,986 I 204 825 66 7,626 7,692 205 826 60 7,750 7,810 206 827 30 5,182 5,212 207 828 490 22,304 22,794 208 829 2 1,090 1,092 209 830 16 3,214 3,230 1 221 221 568 14,072 14,640 222 222 8 1,556 1,564 250 250 254 5,242 5,496 I251 251 274 7,542 7,816 254 254 156 10,518 10,674 255 255 236 9,126 9,362 256 256 36 2,140 2,176 257 257 1,224 22,034 23,258 258 258 136 14,030 14,166 I261 261 8 2,406 2,414 262 262 74 5,598 5,672 263 263 12 2,810 2,822 1 264 264 4 1,916 1,920 265 265 0 428 428 266 266 12 2,592 2,604 I267 267 104 8,414 8,518 268 268 26 1,866 1,892 I 269 269 260 9,544 9,804 270 270 18 2,988 3,006 271 271 4 1,220 1,224 I 272 272 48 2,716 2,764 273 273 12 1,788 1,800 274 274 2 482 484 I 301 301 456 12,500 12,956 302 302 300 11,684 11,984 638 834 12 2,736 2,748 I 654 654 2 814 816 655 655 18 1,944 1,962 679 679 835 124 6,032 6,156 I 757 836 2 1,174 1,176 758 837 44 4,380 4,424 I 1 26 Table 12 I City of Ocoee 2010 Model Trips by Type Ocoee Network Intra- External Total I Zone Zone Trips Trips Trips 759 838 32 4,328 4,360 760 839 118 7,350 7,468 761 840 58 6,482 6,540 762 841 610 11,076 11,686 763 842 14 1,332 1,346 764 843 2 746 748 765 844 2 1,578 1,580 766 845 264 12,650 12,914 767 846 2 1,448 1,450 774 847 992 20,794 21,786 775 848 10 2,460 2,470 I 776 849 12 1,538 1,550 777 850 0 474 474 778 870 8 1,810 1,818 I 779 851 68 4,294 4,362 780 852 70 5,092 5,162 781 853 148 7,372 7,520 792 854 222 10,268 10,490 793 855 4 1,718 1,722 812 858 0 0 0 I813 857 0 0 0 814 859 26 4,948 4,974 815 860 242 6,394 6,636 I816 861 2 1,374 1,376 817 864 22 4,760 4,782 818 862 22 3,456 3,478 I819 863 30 3,720 3,750 901 901 0 710 710* 902 902 56 6,104 6,160* 1 903 903 22 4,632 4,654* , 904 904 1,924 43,488 45,412 4. *These zones contain land use for the Lake Lotta DRI and replace Ocoee zones 812 and 813. I I I I 27 I Table 14 contains the road impact fee improvements along with the cost calculation. As can be seen in this table, the cost of the year 2010 transportation improvements to be utilized in the Ocoee Road Impact Fee Update is $35,680,000. 04".74.44.73 Based upon the impact fee transportation network, the cost of that network and the number of t/'`' T total "primary" trips generated, the updated cost per primary trip is calculated at $146.08. P REVISED ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Table 15 contains the revised Ocoee Road Impact Fee Schedule. This table contains the land use type, the ITE trip generation rate per land use type, the percent primary trips, the cost per primary trip, and the net impact fee. The net impact fee is calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate, the percent primary trips, and the cost per trip. I I I I I I I I I F:\eler\env\oe\oe-239\TREIMPFE(12/07/95) 28 TABLE 13 CITY OF OCOEE AVERAGE ROADWAY COST PER LANE MILE DESIGN 70,000 RIGHT OF WAY 250,000 CONSTRUCTION 500,000 INSPECTION 35,000 TOTAL COST / LANE MILE 855,000 I I I I I I I I I F:W er\env\oe\oo-Zl9\TRFIM PFE(12/07/95) 29 I TABLE 14 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IROAD TERMINI LENGTH IMPROVEMENT COST ( ) I CLARKE ROAD SR 50/AD MIMS ROAD 2.6 4 LANE URBAN - 6,930,000 DIVIDED CLARKE ROAD AD MIMS RD/ 1.5 4 LANE URBAN 5,800,000 I CLARCONA OCOEE DIVIDED ROAD CLARKE ROAD SILVER STAR RD/ .75 6 LANE URBAN 3,100,000 IWHITE RD DIVIDED STORY ROAD KISSIMMEE AVE & N/A INTERSECTION 1,850,000 I MARSHALL FARMS INTERSECTION MAGUIRE ROBERSON RD / 1.0 6 LANE URBAN 5,500,000 ROAD TURNPIKE DIVIDED MAGUIRE SR 50/KISSIMMEE .56 4 LANE URBAN 2,100,000 ROAD AVE DIVIDED IBOWNESS KISSIMMEE AVE /SR .75 4 LANE URBAN 3,100,000 ROAD 438. DIVIDED KISSIMMEE MAGUIRE RD/ .375 4 LANE URBAN 1,700,000 AVENUE BOWNESS RD DIVIDED PROFESSIONAL MAGUIRE RD TO OLD .53 4 LANE URBAN 2,200,000 I PARKWAY WINTER GARDEN DIVIDED ROAD I TOMYN ROAD WINDERMERE ROAD 1.0 2 LANE 1,700,000 TO MAGUIRE RD ROBERSON WINDERMERE ROAD 1.0 2 LANE 1,700,000 ROAD TO MAGUIRE RD TOTAL 35,680,000 I I I I F:kkr\env\odoe-2'39\TRFIDPFE(12/07/95) 1 30 TABLE 15 Ocoee Transportation Impact Fees I._ . . $35.68 .... ....: .: ::n.......................:. .:::: . . $35.6 8 Million Dollar P• :rog•:.ram vr: :vfvwv: y : , :: . .. .: .Fr.: : .x;p•}. Fw ::xv l....:. x..... }.}}.:..:•}.: f .:•}.} xv:::v..v.,:.:?. : }f•:••}vvwf : : : : v . . ] l� t}?} . fp? : f:vf ? f '; : . v ; vR1 ? A4 .v 4 f } . . :vvMSS* i % C %? / • .r Single Family/Unit 9.55 100 $146.08 $1,395.06 Apartment/Unit 6.47 100 $146.08 $945.14 ICondominium\Townhouse/Unit 5.86 100 $146.08 $856.03 Mobile Home/Unit 4.81 100 $146.08 $702.64 Office` <100,000 SF 16.58 100 $146.08 $2,422.01 100,000-200,000 SF 12.71 100 $146.08 $1,856.68 I >200,000 SF 10.77 100 $146.08 $1,573.28 Retail' <50,000 SF 91.65 43 $146.08 $5,756.94 1 50,000-99,999 SF 78.72 50 $146.08 $5,749.71 100,000-199,999 SF 60.70 61 $146.08 $5,408.90 200,000-299,999 SF 50.12 67 $146.08 $4,905.42 1 300,000-399,999 SF 44.18 71 $146.08 $4,582.21 400,000-499,999 SF 40.21 73 $146.08 $4,287.93 500,000-999,999 SF 34.42 77 $146.08 $3,871.62 1,000,000-1,250,000 SF 31.18 80 $146.08 $3,643.82 >1,250,000 SF 30.39 81 $146.08 $3,595.89 IHospital` 16.78 100 $146.08 $2,451.22 Industrial' 6.97 100 $146.08 $1,018.18 I Manufacturing' 3.85 100 $146.08 $562.41 Warehousing` 4.88 100 $146.08 $712.87 Mini-Warehouse` 2.61 100 $146.08 $381.27 Hotel-Motel (Per Room) 9.45 100 $146.08 $1,380.46 Walk-In Bank` 140.60 30 $146.08 $6,161.65 I Drive-In Bank` 265.21 30 $146.08 $11,622.56 Restaurant Quality' 95.99 52 $146.08 $7,291.55 Restaurant High Turnover-Sit Dowd 177.87 28 $146.08 $7,275.31 IRestaurant Fast Food` 710.68 29 $146.08 $30,106.68 Convenience Store w/Gasoline Pumpsd 542.60 16 $146.08 $12,682.08 I Gasoline/Service Stations 174.71 13 $146.08 $3,317.81 Day Care Centers 79.26 49 $146.08 $5,673.37 Nursing Home/Bedc 2.60 100 $146.08 $379.81 INotes: a. Percent new trips derived from Orange County office of Capital Facilities Planning, 1983 and ITE data. b. Trip figures reflect land use within study area with 244,246 trip ends. Ic. Cost per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. d. Cost per vehicle fueling position. I 31 OCOEE CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT TRAFFIC INFLUENCE BY DEVELOPMENT SIZE IL.-:1; FOR ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS(*) I :::::: .:::::::;:.;:.:.;;;:.;.;_::...::::::. .. ::::::.:::tea .;;;;::.:::::.::::. . :: .: `':giq :::::::::... .......................... Dwelling Units 1 to 50 0.5 Miles 100 51 to 500 1 Mile 100 501 to 1,000 2 Miles 100 I1,001 to 1,500 3 Miles 100 1,501 to 2,000 4 Miles 100 I More Than 2,000 (b) 100 Retail 1 to 49,999 GLSF 1 Mile 43 50,000 to 99,999 GLSF 2 Miles 50 100,000 to 199,999 GLSF 2 Miles 61 200,000 to 299,999 GLSF 3 Miles 67 I 300,000 to 399,999 GLSF 3 Miles 71 400,000 to 499,999 GLSF (b) 73 500,000 to 999,999 GLSF (b) 77 I1,000,000 to 1,250,000 GLSF (b) 80 More Than 1,250,000 GLSF (b) 81 1 Office 1 to 200,000 SF 1 Mile 100 200,001 to 300,000 SF 2 Miles 100 More Than 300,000 SF (b) 100 I Industrial, 1 to 100,000 SF 1 Mile 100 Manufacturing& 100,001 to 200,000 SF 2 Miles 100 Warehousing 200,001 to 500,000 SF 3 Miles 100 IIMore Than 500,000 SF (b) 100 Bank 1 to 50,000 SF 1 Mile 30 I Restaurant-Fast Food 1 to 50,000 SF 1 Mile 29 Restaurant-High 1 to 50,000 SF 1 Mile 28 Turnover-Sit Down IRestaurant-Quality 1 to 50,000 SF 1 Mile 52 Convenience Store w/ 1 to 50,000 SF 1 Mile 16 IGasoline Pumps Gasoline/Service Station 1 to 50,000 SF 1 Mile 13 Note: (a). For land uses not listed, the city will determine the analysis area and the percent new trips which shall be consistent with the road impact fee structure. (b). For larger developments, the analysis area will be subject to the decision of the I DRC. I 32 T „‘ , yr, r„ ' ' -- ',. Lb '' ., ,1.:,L, ::..„,' : .:. i 4,,.,,,,,,,lig.‘ ,.,,,.”' .1: ,I IV a wtr, ill . AIre tt - illik-,' ' ..t '_ L'ti 1 , :, , ,, , .-, . ,k :. .. .... . ._ 4 , ,% ,, .„.. k - 01' ,,, .. fi ii -'ell 1/4" , ' -. . ;law,1i t i� .., ' - -.,. ': ' . - * N I: - ,„ '.,",, ,.., , 7 ligt , a 1iii 4 4 it, 4 3 as i eA 14 .*4 /#11 ilk 8 g $ ., NA 8 i R' 4: 4 ` i� 4;a......:- jr i # 6 a - d i ,Y i • i / . 44,„ . ,4, „ L .• k. 44� 4 i 4 fi. i 4 - R4 - < - € .4. °' ' W it3 ill i Al tail' '' : 4 ,,,N 6,..' '"-1 ti .N 4 A . ,,, d 01* er 4 ,.VW / $ ..., . 44(1 ofI audi'03,1041111-, ii 4/4111114 '- ;4 t.'tilikill , / Iii fr lit . SA 4 R 1/ / , ri eit ,0 "if, fti * , �� W m P ' -.. .:' 1 4.111 /— 01i1,1"0. 11,1 i r. i` t' � WW i 3 gag 41114' i ; i ;MIN .. IN i $.. .°firx .lig Rt